The Ta-152.... The Best High Altitude Fighter?????

[Erich]

sorry but I don't buy it as their is lack of German documentation on the B-29 theory and there is plenty of text written on this bird. As I said I do have connections, and some new information will be gleaned from the future release and I hope within the 5 year period I was told. The Bf 109, Dora and 262 could not handle the Mustang hordes and this is plainly obvious, what was needed and so the German techs thought was an overpowering effective H.A. craft that the Mustangs could not even touch

 

[FLYBOYJ]

Just a comment - The B-29 fire control system could handle a target up to 470 mph. Anything beyond that the firing "blip" that appeared on the target aperture would only illuminate for a split second. It was at this time you "pulled the trigger."

 

[Jabberwocky]

Mr. Jabber:

From where is it that you concluded some of those allied planes "out-run, out-dived, out-manouvered and out-turned" the Ta 152?

I do not have the time to conduct any in depth technical discussion here; however, I will bring up elements extracted from the combat records that can add strenght to the notion of how superb the Ta 152 was.

At very high altitude, the Bf 109, G-6 and G-10 (the versions which saw the most action against both RAF and USAAF in 1944) were formidable fighters against anything fielded by the enemy. The especially trimmed AS variants came to increase the value of the version.

The Butcher Bird, Fw 190 A´s, could easily chew anything sent out by the enemy at mid/low altitude. Emil Lang, for instance, shot down 4 P-51´s in less than 5 minutes...twice. Or the sturmböck pilots flying their Fw´s fitted with rough 250 kg of extra armor who managed to digest Mustangs during the fierce air battles of 1944.

Now, the "long nose" Fw 190 D, appeared to fill the high altitude gap of its predecessor. Appearing in modest numbers in battle also proved its worth against anything fielded by the enemy.

The Ta 152 came as the final evolution of Kurt Tank´s fighter. The tests showed it left both the Bf 109 and the previous Fw190s behind. We know it, too little and too late for the Ta 152 as well.

As for the combat record of the Ta 152 you can check the accounts of stab/JG 301 during the final weeks of the war. Being an extremely high altitude fighter, the Ta 152 proved lethal against the soviet Yaks at very low altitude during the very last days of the war.

I like your style, but the execturion just isn't there

Any late war fighter was capable of killing any other late war fighter. You just can't argue otherwise, simple common sense. There are planet of accounts from late 1944 onwards, on both sides, of pilots scoring multiple kills against late war opponents. There were several P-47 and P-51 pilots who had 5 kills in a single mission.

No one plane was superior in all respects.

To back up my claims just look at some of the Allied fighters;

P-51H; 487mph level speed at 25,000 feet, service ceiling of 42,000 feet
P-47M; 471mph at 32,000 feet, service ceiling 46,500 feet
P-47N; 465 mph at 30,000 feet, service ceiling 42,000 feet
Spitfire XIV; 447 mph at 26,000 feet, 420mph at 40,000 feet, service ceiling 44,000 feet.

The Spitfire XIV climbed better off the deck to 40,000 feet, the P-51H could outpaced it, the P-47s would be able to outdive it and the N model would at least match it in a turn. Even the Me-262 pilots feared the late model P-47s ability to gain speed in a dive. Unlike the Ta or Ma the P-47s had wing mounted dive breaks which allowed them to push their dives harder then their opponents.

The Allies had a wide variety of aircraft that were the counterparts of the Ta-152. They were equally at home above 40,000 feet.

The question is; what would they be doing at that height in the first place?

The Strategic Bombers of WW2 all had service ceilings about or below 35,000 feet and generally operated lower than this. Even the B-29 was only officially cleared for 33,600 feet. There would be very little for the Ta-152 to do at 48,000 feet. It has to come into Allied fighter territory in order to be an interceptor of any use.

As for low and medium levels, 190As, as good as they were at low level, were counterpunched by the combination of Spitifire IX L.F.s, Spitfire XIIs, Mustang IIIs at 25lbs boost, Typhoons and Tempests as well as +18bs Spitfire Vs with cropped impellers.

Would the Ta-152 have ruled the roost above 4,000 feet. Yes, of course. Nothing but a P-47M would go high enough to challenge it. High alt really begins around 30,000 feet though. At this height the Ta was just another one of the boys, and there were things that others could do better.

 

[syscom3]

Didnt the P47 have one of the fastest roll rates among all WW2 fighters at high altitudes?

And the late model P38L's with dive brakes were no slouches either at high and medium altitudes.

 

[wmaxt]

Didnt the P47 have one of the fastest roll rates among all WW2 fighters at high altitudes?

And the late model P38L's with dive brakes were no slouches either at high and medium altitudes.

True, and had it been required, the P-38K would have been produced to counter any threat above 40,000ft.

wmaxt

 

[Udet]

Jabber, hi!

Let me first proceed to cast the Spitfire XIV aside from the group of allied planes you cited here.

Why´s that? For the easy reason the XIV while in fact very fast, was already suffering a deteriorating handling.

Most of my British mates here dislike me very greatly for I constantly repeat the Spitfire is an overrated machine that suffered even more than the Bf 109 throughout its ever evolving life.

I wholeheartedly agree with you any late war fighter was capable of shooting down its enemies though, Spitfre XIV included.

Now that I´ve casted the Sptifire XIV aside, it is the Mustangs turn. Why? About as overrated as the glorious Spitfire.

If there is one plane I will not slam that is the Jug. Not a perfect plane either. It took a pounding the first year it operated, but it is, by far, the best fighter deployed by the allies. Great dive, roll, speed and damage absorbing abilities.



Now, the P-51 H? It did not even fly in Europe Jabber.

Now, let´s play a game and pretend the P-51 H has the chance of flying against the Luftwaffe. Also add the P-47 N, M (O,P,Q,R and Y reaching 12,900 hp) who hardly saw any action, if any, in Europe as well.

(Note nobody suggested the Ta-152 was a perfect machine. No plane made a perfect machine during the war)

Why is it that the allied boys -not you Jabber- only see the allies bringing on powerful might toys to the front against the Luftwaffe?

In our game, if the P-51 H and all the new Jugs fly in numbers against the Luftwaffe is due to the fundamental reason that the war got protracted.

A protracted war means the allies -even if they will win in the end- have not yet put Germany down on its knees; so any protraction of the war also plays in favor of Germany.

The war is protracted fundamentally due to German actions, and not for the actions (or omissions) of the allies who were hard pressed to finish the war.

So the Germans will certainly send very aggressive and lethal new toys to welcome the new allied hardware.

What about two staffeln of Dornier Do 335s? The plane was about as fast or faster than any allied design, and had a hell of a handling, acceleration and dive. Or what about improved and faster jets with more experienced pilots? And of course, the Ta-152 as well.

As Erich correctly once put it, it is silly to debate if the 152 was conceived to deal with the dreaded B-29. By the way, no matter how sophisticated the B-29 might have been, had it seen action in numbers over Europe its fate would have been no different to that suffered by the B-24s and B-17s.

The Ta-152 (quoting Erich) was designed to deal with anything that flew over the Reich, as simple as that. The yak is frequently depicted as the "best low altitude fighter" of the wat. Whatever. The Ta-152 proved the Yaks were no match against it, at very low altitudes, suffering no losses against the VVS.

You made several good points jabber.

Cheers!

 

[plan_D]

You're disliked 'cos you're an ass.

That aside, the Spitfire did not loss handling characteristics. You're making that up as you go along. The Spitfire XIV had the exact same turning circle as the Spitfire IX. The only reduction in performance from the Spitfire series was from the Spitfire XIV to the Spitfire 21 - the Spitfire XIV could climb faster.

But I really don't know why I bother, you're the same person that said the Spitfire 21 handled like a...what was it? "...a pig."

Don't mind me I'll just be rolling around with laughter.

 

[lesofprimus]

Yup, here it comes..............

You're disliked 'cos you're an ass.

BAM!!!

 

[cheddar cheese]

 

[FLYBOYJ]

 

[the lancaster kicks ass]

 

[Udet]

Plan_D:

This will be brief but substantial.

I happen to know "what" I am.

(Remark: Your intelligence lets a lot to be desired if you think your rubbish contains any offense, much less fun -regarding the emoticons posted by some here-.)

It should be you asking yourself what the hell are you.

Now mr. tough guy, I am beginning to ask myself "who the hell is this little person (plan_D) who speaks to me though as he was qualified on the subject?". I am reaching tolerance level with you.

Have all assurances you are directing your comments to someone who has made, and continues making his homework.

With this I mean: I´d be glad to teach and to prove you how is it that the Sptifire is in fact overrated, and that its fighting abilities were in fact affected throughout its developing.

But no. What the hell makes you think you and your advocators are the sole ones in a position to dislike others?

Be sure there are some who do not like you as well. Not my case though. I do find you irrelevant. There is no need to waste energies with you.

The issue, in fact, is quite a different one: you completely swallowed the pill prescribed by the propaganda of your country. I understand people like you very well; it is quite an annoying experience you must go through when knowing of someone challenging the laid-back comfort and may i say, "soundness", of the beliefs of a lifetime.

You are the typical Brit firmly convinced the Spitfire´s evolution was one of pure perfection. From the MkI to the 21, your preferred toy did nothing but becoming even more wonderful, perfect and lethal, version after version; every version of the Spit outdoing the previous one! Ouurrahhh!

So, I "make things up" eh? Very unlikely tough guy. To put this in rougher terms: it is perhaps you who has not made the homework and decided to rest your butt listening to the appealing prayers of the allied propaganda.

To get done with you, learn this very well: without the (thousands) Jugs, Mustangs and Lightnings of the 8th and 15th AFs, the flawless Spitfires deepest point of penetration in Europe would have been a mere dozens of miles behind the french beaches along the channel, and to put the cherry on top of the ice cream ball guess what?? The area of the map comprised by the channel (the bottom), french beaches and the few dozens of miles behind them, would be littered with Spitfires.

 

[syscom3]

As Erich correctly once put it, it is silly to debate if the 152 was conceived to deal with the dreaded B-29. By the way, no matter how sophisticated the B-29 might have been, had it seen action in numbers over Europe its fate would have been no different to that suffered by the B-24s and B-17s.

I have to disagree with you on that. Even though the B29 was deployed to the Pacific, it is quite conceivable that a B29/Ta152 matchup could have occured. The B29 was a magnitude or better improvement over the B17's and B24's. Imagine the intercept problems for the Ta152 pilot would have chasing a 300 mph bomber. Forget about head on pass's cause the closing rate would have been so fast to be absurd. The only way to get to them would be an old fashioned "tail chase" which incidently, burns a lot of fuel. Unless the intercept was perfectly timed, the -152 could only have fuel for 1 pass. Admittedly, the -152 was supurbly armed. But thats offset by the B29 being so big, and the B29 could fire back at the fighter with far more precision than the hand aimed guns on the B17/24. Id say a B29 formation would give the -152 pilots all they could handle. Invincible? No.... but not a bunch of sitting ducks either.

In addition, I'd say the Ta152's flying at 44,000 feet at 450 mph would be right on the bubble of compressability. Put the nose down for a dive, and it would quickly accelerate out of control, just like the early model P38's.

 

[FLYBOYJ]

As Erich correctly once put it, it is silly to debate if the 152 was conceived to deal with the dreaded B-29. By the way, no matter how sophisticated the B-29 might have been, had it seen action in numbers over Europe its fate would have been no different to that suffered by the B-24s and B-17s.

I have to disagree with you on that. Even though the B29 was deployed to the Pacific, it is quite conceivable that a B29/Ta152 matchup could have occured. The B29 was a magnitude or better improvement over the B17's and B24's. Imagine the intercept problems for the Ta152 pilot would have chasing a 300 mph bomber. Forget about head on pass's cause the closing rate would have been so fast to be absurd. The only way to get to them would be an old fashioned "tail chase" which incidently, burns a lot of fuel. Unless the intercept was perfectly timed, the -152 could only have fuel for 1 pass. Admittedly, the -152 was supurbly armed. But thats offset by the B29 being so big, and the B29 could fire back at the fighter with far more precision than the hand aimed guns on the B17/24. Id say a B29 formation would give the -152 pilots all they could handle. Invincible? No.... but not a bunch of sitting ducks either.

In addition, I'd say the Ta152's flying at 44,000 feet at 450 mph would be right on the bubble of compressability. Put the nose down for a dive, and it would quickly accelerate out of control, just like the early model P38's.

And with the B-29's fire control system, the Ta152 would not of been able to rip through formations as easily done with the butcher bird. 35,000' intercepts with an aircraft that will go no faster than 470 mph - this is exactly what the B-29s fire control system was designed for...

And again, the B-29 would not of been alone, the B-32 would of been there as well

Although escorts still would of been essential....

Now throw in the -262; that's another story....
What ifs........

 

[Erich]

ah you haven't thought of one thing that was being perfected the last 2 months of the war. Not that the TA had bad cannon because it had already proven quite effective...........what am I getting at you think ?

it flys quite quickly and cannot be shot down and bomber pulks would easily be decimated as already proven by JG 7's Me 262 attacks on 18 of March 45. man did I ever give you guys a hint. think radio ~ wire controlled and not the unwieldly racked devices which still would of been used as a stop gap

 

[Jabberwocky]

Jabber, hi!

Let me first proceed to cast the Spitfire XIV aside from the group of allied planes you cited here.

Why´s that? For the easy reason the XIV while in fact very fast, was already suffering a deteriorating handling.

Cheers!

Have you read the ADFU tactical trials of the Spitfire XIV?

Strangely enough, they performed a DIRECT comparison to the Spitfire IX.

Here is what they found;

**************************

ADFU Report. 117 16th June 1944

TACTICAL COMPARISON WITH SPITFIRE IX

13. The tactical differences are caused chiefly by the fact that the Spitfire XIV has an engine of greater capacity and is the heavier aircraft (weighing 8,400 lbs. against 7,480 lbs. of Spitfire IX).

Range Endurance
14. The Spitfire XIV, without a long-range tank, carries 110 gallons of fuel and 9 gallons of oil. When handled similarily, the Spitfire XIV uses fuel at about 1 1/4 times the rate of the Spitfire IX. Its endurance is therefore slightly less. Owing to its higher speed for corresponding engine settings, its range is about equal. For the same reasons, extra fuel carried in a long-range tank keeps its range about equal to that of the Spitfire IX, its endurance being slightly less.

Speeds
15. At all heights the Spitfire XIV is 30-35 mph faster in level flight. The best performance heights are similar, being just below 15,000 and between 25,000 and 32,000 ft.

Climb
16. The Spitfire XIV has a slightly better maximum climb than the Spitfire IX, having the best maximum rate of climb yet seen at this Unit. In the zoom climb the Spitfire XIV gains slightly all the way, especially if full throttle is used in the climb.

Dive
17. The Spitfire XIV will pull away from the Spitfire IX in a dive.

Turning Circle
18. The turning circles of both aircraft are identical. The Spitfire XIV appears to turn slightly better to port than it does to starbord. The warning of an approaching high speed stall is less pronounced in the case of the Spitfire Mk XIV.

Rate of Roll
19. Rate of roll is very much the same.

Search View and Rear View
20. The search view from the pilot's cockpit is good; the longer nose of the aircraft interferes with the all-round visibility, which remains the same as that of the Spitfire IX. Rear View is similar.

Sighting View and Fire Power
21. The sighting view is slightly better being 4 deg (140 m.p.h.) as against 3 1/3 deg. The two bulges at the side cause little restriction. The firepower is identical with the Spitfire IX.

Armour
22. As for the Spitfire IX

Conclusions
23. The all-round performance of the Spitfire XIV is better than the Spitfire IX at all heights. In level flight it is 25-35 m.p.h. faster and has a correspondingly greater rate of climb. Its manoeuvrability is as good as a Spitfire IX. It is easy to fly but should be handled with care when taxying and taking off.

END OF SECTION

*********************


The ADFU, who tested all RAF planes for combat during the war, concluded that the turning circles of the XIV and the XI were identical, the XIV turned to the left better than to the right and that the stall warning was less pronnounced than in the XI. I hardly think this qualifies the XIV as having "deteroiated handling"

Another section from the same report;

***********************

FLYING CHARACTERISTICS

5. In most respects this aircraft is similar to the Spitfire IX, except for some very marked changes in trim with alteration of throttle setting below 0 boost. This applies principally to the rudder, despite the incorporation of the servo-operated trimming tab. This is the one bad characteristic of this aircraft. The elevators also require more frequent trimming than in a Spitfire IX.

********************

 

[lesofprimus]

Nah ur wrong... U must have made up those statements... If Udet says it was junk, it must be, cause he knows SOOOOOOOOO mush more than all of us here....

I mean seriously, none of us here feel that the Spit was overrated and handled like a pig.... But since Udet thinks so, we better all get onboard with him before he slaps a Mazatlan VooDoo Curse on us and all our hair will fall out...

I have it on good infirmation that Udet was infact a test pilot back in the day, and personally flew every type of single engine fighter in WWII, which explains his expertise in this matter... Dont pay any heed to all the other test pilots and Aces and whatnot that flew many of the fighters of WWII..... They were all wrong....

Udet for Presidente!!!!!!!!!

 

[FLYBOYJ]

ah you haven't thought of one thing that was being perfected the last 2 months of the war. Not that the TA had bad cannon because it had already proven quite effective...........what am I getting at you think ?

it flys quite quickly and cannot be shot down and bomber pulks would easily be decimated as already proven by JG 7's Me 262 attacks on 18 of March 45. man did I ever give you guys a hint. think radio ~ wire controlled and not the unwieldly racked devices which still would of been used as a stop gap

I would guess the X-4?!? But wire-guided for air-to-air?

 

[Erich]

yes and more Fly. did you guys know that some Dora 9's had R4M racks installed in the spring of 45 ?

 

[evangilder]

Wow! If the war had continued, there is no telling how bad the bomber groups would have been bloodied. Not that they weren't already getting bloodied.