Bf-109 vs Spitfire vs Fw-190 vs P-51

[Soren]

Originally Posted by drgondog

A. I defy you to explain why a Ta 152 is immediately discernable from a 190D in a side elevation 90 degree deflection shot at the profile plus or minus 30 degrees? You would not see a 'distinction in wing span' at 100 to 200 yards. NFW

Easy. The Ta-152 is longer, both the front and rear fuselage is longer. The tail fin is a different design and larger. Wings are MUCH longer. Sorry but there's no way you'd see this and call it a FW-190:

B. I would draw to your attention pilots mistaking Me 110's from 210's and 210's from 410's from Ju 88's, and 190D's from 109s, as well as 51Bs from 109s and P-47s from 190s'. It happened all the time. So many pilot's had 'eyes' that weren't as discerning as you believe?

LoL and ofcourse all of these fighter looked relatively alike from afar, with similar AR wings. Now of you could find examples of someone mistaking a Spitfire with a P-51 or something like that then we could talk.

[marshall]

Originally Posted by Soren

You mean in Wikipedia's discription! Exactly why you should take what you read on there with a grain of salt.

You've got what he really said from his own book.

I do but I was wondering why there are two different versions of Reschke's description of the combat?

[Soren]

Anyhow it's ridiculous to keep arguing about it as Sattler wasn't shot down as Reschke explains. And if it was a mechanical malfunction which caused him to crash then it wouldn't be the first as a number of other Ta-152 crashed because of this.

[Soren]

Originally Posted by marshall

I do but I was wondering why there are two different versions of Reschke's description of the combat?

Ever heard of the feather which became 10 Chickens ?

From mouth to mouth stories tend to change

[claidemore]

Wrong Soren. (I just had to say that since it's been said to me after nearly every post I've made on this or similar subjects!)

It's completely easy to mistake a Ta152 for a FW190D, particularly if you have never seen a Ta152, which probably no allied pilots ever had, not sure if the allies even knew they existed! Newbs looking at photographs can't tell any of the 190s apart, let alone a guy in a fighter doing 350mph spotting a plane on the deck below him.

One account has Reshke stating that Sattler was hit, one account says he crashed for no apparent reason. (the two downed planes were 500m apart btw) One account says he saw strikes, one account does not. The fact that he makes particular mention in the one account that they could see shell holes in the downed aircraft is of interest. (kinda reminds me of the Red Baron shootdown) The conflicting stories definately bring into question the reliability of the account. In a court of law, a lawyer would have a field day with it.

Believe which ever one you want, but since we do know that a Tempest from the same squadron, in the same area, at the exact same time, shot down a plane that he says was an FW190, it ain't hard to figure out what really happened. It's not like there were droves of FWs flying all over the place. 442 Squadron RCAF for example flew ops for the entire month of April and saw enemy fighters exactly one time.

AFAIC, score one Tempest for Reshke, one Ta152 for Shaw.

[Soren]

Nah, But as Erich and I BOTH noted about Willi's claims of Mustangs destroyed on the Nov 26, 1944 mission discussions on JG301's Black Day around Misburg, he (Willi) greatly overstated the Mustang losses.. so, why do we know for sure that he was 'dead on here?

Errr, and exactly what does that have to do with the a/c he HIMSELF shot down ??

It's no wonder if he possibly got the number of Mustang losses wrong sa he looked through his squadrons claims. But that's entirely different from fabricating stuff Bill, which you seem to think he does, which is bloody disrespectful IMO! Why the heck would he lie ???!

[KrazyKraut]

RAF pilots thought Fw-190s were actually captured Hawks on first encounters, so I can definetly see them mistaking a Ta-152 for a Dora. I'm pretty sure Allied pilots were largely unaware of the 152.

Not like this one kill / not kill really matters though

[Soren]

Originally Posted by claidemore

Wrong Soren. (I just had to say that since it's been said to me after nearly every post I've made on this or similar subjects!)

It's completely easy to mistake a Ta152 for a FW190D, particularly if you have never seen a Ta152, which probably no allied pilots ever had, not sure if the allies even knew they existed! Newbs looking at photographs can't tell any of the 190s apart, let alone a guy in a fighter doing 350mph spotting a plane on the deck below him.

One account has Reshke stating that Sattler was hit, one account says he crashed for no apparent reason. (the two downed planes were 500m apart btw) One account says he saw strikes, one account does not. The fact that he makes particular mention in the one account that they could see shell holes in the downed aircraft is of interest. (kinda reminds me of the Red Baron shootdown) The conflicting stories definately bring into question the reliability of the account. In a court of law, a lawyer would have a field day with it.

Believe which ever one you want, but since we do know that a Tempest from the same squadron, in the same area, at the exact same time, shot down a plane that he says was an FW190, it ain't hard to figure out what really happened. It's not like there were droves of FWs flying all over the place. 442 Squadron RCAF for example flew ops for the entire month of April and saw enemy fighters exactly one time.

AFAIC, score one Tempest for Reshke, one Ta152 for Shaw.

Sorry but again you're completely wrong. As Reschke explained Sattler crashed before the dogfight, and for no apparent reason.

Or are you trying to suggest that Reschke somehow managed to miss his wingman being chased by Tempest, shot at, doing aerobatics, and then finally crash ?? Come on Claidemore, get real!

Shaw shot down an ordinary Fw-190, not a Ta-152, and certainly not Sattler who crashed while Reschke was watching. IIRC Reschke even radioed him at the beginning of his dive, but got no response.

[drgondog]

Originally Posted by Soren

Where did he say meter by meter ??? That's something Marshall claimed he said, but he didn't, you have it in black and white Bill.

What he said was: "I was continually closing on the Tempest"

I'm Ok with Your description although I admit to looking at Wiki also. Still it begs the question?

Well let us see Bill, did you forget this part: "I was continually closing on the Tempest, but for not one second did I feel that my aircraft was reaching its performance limit"

Or later this:
"Throughout the entire combat, the Ta 152 did not reach the peak of its performance even once, responding to every move of the control stick, even just above the ground"

Also do I need to remind yo that the Ta-152H turned allot better than the Fw-190 A-8 in all tests (Read Wilde Sau & Dietmar Hermanns book on the Ta152), and that a heavy Jabo turned just as well as the Tempest in British trials ???

Didn't forget any of it Soren. I am reminded of some of Willi's past indiscretions with some facts or observations. Don't know if anecdotal results of a 'lot better in tests' means anything. We both know the 190D and A had a bit of a problem with the High G turn and don't know much about similar challenges with the Ta 152 wing.

I would expect THAT wing to be a better manuever wing than the 190A and D because it had better W/L but I don't know about any possible elastic deformation issues with the long slender wing. You don't either.

You are supposed to be lecturing with great authority on aerodynamic proof points of manuever calculations - but I noticed a considerable body of 'silence' on the theory since I challenged you on the subject. You were also supposed to make great contributions to help me with my limited understanding of aeroelasticity but you vanished from that post also.

This post was supposed to be about analytical aero approach to turn manuever characteristics of the Spit, the 190, the Mustang and the Fw 190 - and it is getting sidetracked even by you.

I also noticed a great deal of silence on your part when I gently reminded you to use Thrust - not Hp.

Today, I decided to help nudge you along and show you how to get there.

I am waiting to see where you go with 'proof points'.

BTW - I am agnostic on the proof results as you work through the 'physics' but I want to stay on your assumptions.

[Soren]

We both know the 190D and A had a bit of a problem with the High G turn

What problems Bill ? Enlighten me!

Fw-190 vets certainly describe no problems in high G turns, noting that the a/c "kurved" (turned) very well. And the 190 also gave plenty of warning of the stall if the ailerons were properly adjusted, which a number of captured examples weren't. Difference is the Germans knew how to properly adjust them, the Allies didn't.

Warning of an approaching stall in the 190 was characterized as slight buffeting and notching of the stick, which most pilots easily noticed.

So I trust the Rechlin trials which were conducted with highly experienced test pilots.

I would expect THAT wing to be a better manuever wing than the 190A and D because it had better W/L but I don't know about any possible elastic deformation issues with the long slender wing.

No issues according to anyone who flew it.

I also noticed a great deal of silence on your part when I gently reminded you to use Thrust - not Hp

Why do you find it necessary to lie Bill ??

I addressed that issue, even offering the thrust figures for the entire Fw-190 & Ta-152 family.

[drgondog]

Originally Posted by Soren

Errr, and exactly what does that have to do with the a/c he HIMSELF shot down ??

It's no wonder if he possibly got the number of Mustang losses wrong sa he looked through his squadrons claims. But that's entirely different from fabricating stuff Bill, which you seem to think he does, which is bloody disrespectful IMO! Why the heck would he lie ???!

Ah Soren, I did not say Willi lied. I said his power of recollection of either facts, or direct observations varied with actual results.

As to the claim, who was the witness? if no witness, I'm still prepared to accept his observation of the fight and the result. Clear?

Last, the observation of steadily gaining and never feeling like he was on the 'edge' would to me say that a.) he was flying the turn well, b.) that he was not approaching stall to point of losing control (by virtue of responding to stick movements).

It says nothing to his opponents skills, or the combined skill and capability of the pilot Tempest combination - other than Willi out turned him. Other fact substantiated data that I missed in his quoted recount of the fight?

Is this the type of evidence that constitutes Proof for you? Might you see this as a challenge when people ask you for third party facts?

[claidemore]

Sorry Soren, but it is you who is completely wrong. (hey I could get used to saying that! )

Shaw bounced Sattler (#3 in the flight) while Reschke was concentrating on Mitchell. #3 guys is always a sitting duck, as you well know. Reschke never even mentions his other wingman, (#2).

Can you show us a German loss report for the area and time that shows any other plane lost? Use a little Sherlock Holmes logic here, eleminate the improbable and impossible and what remains is the truth.

So what if it changes the perfect Ta152 record from 11-0, to 11-1, big deal. Still an outstanding fighter.

[Soren]

Sorry Soren, but it is you who is completely wrong. (hey I could get used to saying that! )

Nope, you're the one who is wrong, and horrorfyingly so.

And before making claims as to what happened why don't you actualy read Reschke's book ???

If you do you'll realize that Sattler was NOT shot down, he just suddenly started diving and crashed for unknown reasons. Reschke saw it, so obviously he wasn't concentrating on any bogey. Remember Sattler crashed BEFORE the flight even spotted any enemies!! That's the prime clue which yo continue to miss.

[drgondog]

Originally Posted by Soren

What problems Bill ? Enlighten me!

Fw-190 vets certainly describe no problems in high G turns, noting that the a/c "kurved" (turned) very well. And the 190 also gave plenty of warning of the stall if the ailerons were properly adjusted, which a number of captured examples weren't. Difference is the Germans knew how to properly adjust them, the Allies didn't.

Warning of an approaching stall in the 190 was characterized as slight buffeting and notching of the stick, which most pilots easily noticed.

So I trust the Rechlin trials which were conducted with highly experienced test pilots.



No issues according to anyone who flew it.



Why do you find it necessary to lie Bill ??

I addressed that issue, even offering the thrust figures for the entire Fw-190 & Ta-152 family.

Soren - have you dismissed from your mind the issues discussed and documented about 190 issue with losing tip control due to elastic deformations in High G turns?

Are you saying that I lie about that, or Gene lies about that or Lednicer lied about that?

As to 'thrust' documentation? This may be interesting.

Are you referring to Horsepower and Horsepower to weight ratios as 'Thrust'??

Is that what you are saying?

[drgondog]

Originally Posted by Soren

Easy. The Ta-152 is longer, both the front and rear fuselage is longer. The tail fin is a different design and larger. Wings are MUCH longer. Sorry but there's no way you'd see this and call it a FW-190:





LoL and ofcourse all of these fighter looked relatively alike from afar, with similar AR wings. Now of you could find examples of someone mistaking a Spitfire with a P-51 or something like that then we could talk.

If you say so Soren, it must be so... and if one can NOT see a difference in Aspect Ratio because the Ta 152 is seen only from the side or relatively small angle, then it is clear that because the AR is different between the 190D and Ta 152 it should be discernable at that angle - the one in which you can't see the wing?

Right?