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

[Jabberwocky]

Originally Posted by 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.

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]

Originally Posted by 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

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.

[FLYBOYJ]

Originally Posted by Erich

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

Yes - Well aware of the R4Ms on 262s, didn't realize that Doras had them as well?!? - as stated it would of been quite a battle and not a cake walk although the radar controlled turrets would of given a hell of a lot better protection for the bombers provided they weren't first shredded by the rockets.....

I think the X-4 would of been devastating provided the launch plane could get off a good shot. I know I'm talking decades later, but I knew helicopter pilots who fired wire guided weapons. If no one was shooting at you, the aircraft was stable and you had a clear view of the target, they could be deadly. I doubt you could get that scenario while attacking a stream of B-29s with a bunch of escorts buzzing around.

[syscom3]

Originally Posted by 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.

Actually, by Sept 1944, the Luftwaffe pretty muched ceased to exist as an effective force. When you look at the stats, after that date, few B17's and B24's were getting shot down by fighters.

Having the rockets gives the Ta152 a leg up on shooting down a bomber..... but I would guess the B29's would counter with 30mm, maybe 37mm cannons in the tail position.

Note - Wire guided air-to-air missles require a stable platform that isnt maneauvering. If a fighter does that, its going to be shot down quickly. Remote control missles have always been prone to jamming.

[Erich]

sorry but the Luftwaffe ceased to exist in May of 45 or should we say by March of 45 when Me 262's were about the only things that faced the RAF and US, the Reich defence depleted since 9/10ths of the gruppen went to the Ost front for the last battles for Berlin.

no matter the R4M's were outside the range of 30mm and 37mm. this is all getting to what ifs with a/c comparisons that never actually took place with the Ta and the thread has run it's course............downward

[wmaxt]

Originally Posted by Udet

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.

One thing, the overal loss for the AAF heavy bombers in the ETO was 5,548 of which 2,452 were from German Aircraft. Anti Aircraft fire got 5,439.

The average percentage before the escorts were 5% to 6% of the whole bomber stream. Yes there were missions that were significantly higher, but those numbers are included. Starting with the P-38 escorts the percentage dropped to 1% to 2% of the sorties flown.

The B-29 at altitude would be even less vunerable esp to the AA fire.

I'm not convinced the Ta-152 and the B-29 are totaly unrelated, the performance envelope is too close, though it is possible it's coincidence.

wmaxt

[Erich]

one thing friend your losses cannot be summarized using AA. It is too incomplete. One thing is that during the summer of 44 with the quick SturmFw 190 tactics many US bomber crews thought they had been hit by Flak but they were not. Same goes for many RAF crews flying heavies over the Reich, they were downed by Schräge Musik, 15th AF B-24 crews flying over Austria/Hungary at night came up with the same response if they made it back to base luckily....it had to be Flak.

The losses due to German a/c cannot be counted as complete as many claims/kills records have been lost and during the fall of 44 the processing and officially awarding claims was discontinued. In other words there are no official counts whether German or US/RAF

[wmaxt]

Originally Posted by Erich

one thing friend your losses cannot be summarized using AA. It is too incomplete. One thing is that during the summer of 44 with the quick SturmFw 190 tactics many US bomber crews thought they had been hit by Flak but they were not. Same goes for many RAF crews flying heavies over the Reich, they were downed by Schräge Musik, 15th AF B-24 crews flying over Austria/Hungary at night came up with the same response if they made it back to base luckily....it had to be Flak.

The losses due to German a/c cannot be counted as complete as many claims/kills records have been lost and during the fall of 44 the processing and officially awarding claims was discontinued. In other words there are no official counts whether German or US/RAF

You may be right. The numbers I showed above are AAF Statistical Records and they may be off a little in the AA/Aircraft kills ratio but considering the majority of the time the German aircraft did not go into AA zones it's most likely very close. As to the overall nomber (which includes 657 losses to other causes) are the actual numbers the AAF lost.

I have read that aircraft that made it home but were not repairable may not be included in that number.

wmaxt

[Erich]

it is up to discernment unfortunately........

for night time losses are as follows. total for the Night gruppen : 7,308 confirmed day and night victories.

Day time activities as I previously mentioned. Göring in his own assinine way ordered the single enigine fighter units to intercept bomber pulks even during the bombers prescence in Flak barrage segments.
Imagine thinking that your own AA would blast you as well as .50's

[FLYBOYJ]

Scary thought! I bet Goring would still call them cowards!

[Erich]

The fat Ass actually did on several occassions to the SturmFw pilots telling the Gruppen Kommandeurs/pilots that they were not closing in with the bombers and taking more of them down. also in 44 it was ordered for single engine day fighters in the Reich to keep the drop tank in place when engaging enemy a/c as fuel was to precious to waste............another lame brain idea from the big boy

[plan_D]

I have one thing for you Udet -


Fact of the matter is, concerning the Spitfire, it's already been proven that the Spitfire didn't lose handling as it went up through the marks.

I don't need to bring my knowledge into a discussion with you because you just show yourself up.

I was wrong before, you're not an ass. You're a *****. And I'm a dick, and we **** pussies.

Carry on with your real discussion the rest of you lads. It's great.