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

[Lunatic]

Originally Posted by KraziKanuK

Still waiting for the complicated innovations requiring expert maintanence that the 152 had added that had not already had been seen of previous German a/c.

Why is it significant if they'd been seen on previous German AC? These technologies were all quite new in the 40's and they were all combine onto the TA152. They reduced the servicablity of earlier AC as well as the TA.

Fuel injection is harder to maintain than carberation - there are 12 injectors to be serviced rather than a carb and you have to get to the injectors which are often covered by other components. The location and design of the cooling system also made engine maintainence more difficult.

The point remains. Typcially only about half (or less) of the Dora's and TA's available were flyable on any given day.

And I agree it is hard to compare German vs. US cost of arms figures - mainly because of the large slave labor component of German production. But you can look at the relative resource draw and in this respect come up with a fair comparision. I've seen relative comparisons of the cost of a Tiger I vs. the cost of a Sherman done this way.

[Lunatic]

Originally Posted by DerAdlerIstGelandet

Thanks for the info on the carborators.

About the any given aircraft that could be used on any one day, at one point around Jan 1945 (will have to look up the dates in my "Diaries of the OKW) the Luftwaffe was only able to put about 75 aircraft in the air at any given time. This one not however due to maintenance practices or the aircraft being to complicated but rather due to the lack of fuel.

The figures I was refering to were number of aircraft that were flight worthy according to German records, not the number that were actually flown.

[FLYBOYJ]

Originally Posted by Lunatic

Fuel injection is harder to maintain than carberation - there are 12 injectors to be serviced rather than a carb and you have to get to the injectors which are often covered by other components. The location and design of the cooling system also made engine maintainence more difficult.

Once set up and adjusted, fuel injection systems can be easier to maintain than carburetor systems, but they are very temperamental; as a maintainer overall fuel injection isn't much more difficult.

If you consider pressure carburetors, I consider the system the same as Fuel injection as far as maintainability.....

[DerAdlerIstGelandet]

Originally Posted by Lunatic

The figures I was refering to were number of aircraft that were flight worthy according to German records, not the number that were actually flown.

And according to German records that I have (and mine are actual copies of the German records in several volumes of books printed here in Germany from the OKW) that most of the worthy aircraft were grounded because of Fuel Shortages. For instance a report here dated 26 Januar 1945 shows that only 9000 tons of fuel was available for the month of February. Speer had planned for 39,000 tons but due to the attacks on Dec. 31, 1944 on Harburg the Reichs fuel amount was reduced to 20%, and that this was even questionable because all other fuel supplies and production were at a halt.

[KraziKanuK]

Originally Posted by Lunatic

Again, look at the records of how many planes were in a units inventory vs. how many were ready to fly and I think my point is made. Even in 1943 German (and British) ratios are comparitively low.
Lunatic

Fw190A units in May 1943

Russian Front

Stab/JG 54 > 4(on hand) - 4 (operational)
I/JG 54 > 36 - 30
II/JG 54 Bf 109G 40 - 40

95% operational

Stab/SchG > 1 6 - 6
I/SchG 1 > 41 - 32

80% operational

I/JG 26 > 36 - 30

83% operational

Stab/JG 51 > 14 - 11
I/JG 51 > 39 - 20
III/JG 51 > 40 - 21
IV/JG 51 > 28 - 20

60% operational

Average 79.5% operational on the tough Russian front


Western Front

Stab/JG 2 > 4 - 4
I/JG 2 > 40 - 40
II/JG 2 > 24 - 18
III/JG 2 > 40 - 37

92% operational

Stab/JG 26 > 4 - 4
II/JG 26 > 40 - 40
III/JG 26 > 40 - 35

94% operational

11. (Jabo)/JG 54 > 16 - 9

56% operational

Stab/SKG 10 > 6 - 6
I/SKG 10 42 > - 42
II/SKG 10 > 40 - 38
IV/SKG 10 > 30 - 23

97% operational

85% operational average for 190 units in the West

An 82.5% for all 190 units using the complicated and maintainance intensive FI.

Yes, for sure a LOW operational status. Now what point was that?

[DerAdlerIstGelandet]

Good info there. I will see what it says in my OKW charts.

[KraziKanuK]

Originally Posted by Lunatic

The figures I was refering to were number of aircraft that were flight worthy according to German records, not the number that were actually flown.

Jan 10 1945

Courland Pocket

Bf 109G
Stab/JG 54 > 20 - 16

Fw 190A 1 - 1

Fw 190A
I/JG 54 > 35 - 32
II/JG 54 > 41 - 40

Fw 190F
III/SG 3 > 39 - 35

91% operational

Poland

Fw 190F

Stab/SG 1 > 5 - 5
II/SG 1 > 39 - 38
III/SG 1 > 38 - 36

Stab/SG 3 > 9 - 8
I/SG 3 > 47 - 43
II/SG 3 > 34 - 31

Stab/SG 77 > 6 - 6
I/SG 77 > 40 - 34
II/SG 77 > 38 - 31
III/SG 77 > 38 - 30

89% operational. Not bad for the complicated and maintainance intensive FI.

Austria, Hungary and the Balkans

Fw 190F
Stab/SG 2 > 32 - 23
II/SG 2 > 34 - 29

Stab/SG 10 > 3 - 1
I/SG 10 > 22 - 17
II/SG 10 > 23 - 19
III/SG 10 > 21 - 20

82.6% operational. Not bad for the complicated and maintainance intensive FI.

Western Germany

Fw 190

Stab/JG 1 > 5 - 4
I/JG 1 > 27 - 22
II/JG 1 > 40 - 30
III/JG 1 > 40 - 35

Stab/JG 2 > 4 - 3
I/JG 2 > 28 - 23
II/JG 2 > 3 - 2
III/JG 2 > 19 - 6

IV (Sturm)/JG 3 > 35 - 24
Stab/JG 4 > 2 - 1

II (Sturm)/JG 4 > 25 - 18

Stab/JG 11 > 7 - 6
I/JG 11 > 23 - 20

III/JG 11 > 42 - 26

Stab/JG 26 > 3 - 3
I/JG 26 > 60 - 36
II/JG 26 > 64 - 26
III/JG 26 > 56 - 28

Stab/JG 27 > 2 - 2

III/JG 54 > 47 - 31
IV/JG 54 > 50 - 39

Stab/SG 4 > 49 - 17
I/SG 4 > 29 - 24
II/SG 4 > 40 - 36
III/SG 4 > 34 - 24

66% operational dispite the complicated and maintainance intensive FI.


The question is still, how many were U/S due to combat damage and how many were U/S due to the complicated and maintainance intensive FI. ?

Alfred Price. Luftwaffe Data Book, 1997.

[DerAdlerIstGelandet]

Where can that Luftwaffe Data Book be found?

[KraziKanuK]

Originally Posted by DerAdlerIstGelandet

Where can that Luftwaffe Data Book be found?

http://books.stonebooks.com/cgi-bin/...edback?1006892

I took the data off the web. http://www.geocities.com/CapeCanaveral/2072/LW_OBs.html

[me262]

i have that book, :P

[KraziKanuK]

Originally Posted by Lunatic

Why is it significant if they'd been seen on previous German AC? These technologies were all quite new in the 40's and they were all combine onto the TA152. They reduced the servicablity of earlier AC as well as the TA.

Fuel injection is harder to maintain than carberation - there are 12 injectors to be serviced rather than a carb and you have to get to the injectors which are often covered by other components. The location and design of the cooling system also made engine maintainence more difficult.

The point remains. Typcially only about half (or less) of the Dora's and TA's available were flyable on any given day.

Yes the Germans were very stupid using technologies that were new dispite producing 50,000 fighter a/c plus untold number of bombers that used these so called complicated innovations. It is only your supposition that FI and/or 'boost juice' was the cause of U/S a/c. Battle damage, flat tires, faulty instruments, and so on could all make an a/c U/S, especially in 1945 when component supply was almost non existant. Me109s must have spent much time in the maintaince hangers since they also used 'boost juices' and FI.

For sure the radiator of the Dora/152 was in the way, although it was positioned in front of the gear reduction case at the front of the engine.

Well the injectors were not covered by other components on either the Jumo213 and the BMW801.

Access to German engines was very easy, unlike Allied engines which required the removal of numerous fastners to remove the panels.

MW50 was fed at a constant 150l/min.

Oh yes, it is Ta not TA.

[FLYBOYJ]

Originally Posted by KraziKanuK

Access to German engines was very easy, unlike Allied engines which required the removal of numerous fastners to remove the panels.

Now there you are wrong KK - US aircraft had a little invention used on most access panels on most US combat aircraft - it was called a DZUS fastener, it allowed easy access to engine compartments and any other frequently removed panel. The Brits still liked structural screws and from what I could remember on German aircraft, they liked big, course thread slotted fasteners.....


No , I blow out a little Yankee pride here - US aircraft were probably the best maintainable aircraft because of the Dzus fastener.....

[evangilder]

As an aside, most warbirds have dzus fasteners in them when they get restored. I know of at least one Zero that has Dzus fasteners.

[FLYBOYJ]

[KraziKanuK]

Originally Posted by FLYBOYJ

Now there you are wrong KK - US aircraft had a little invention used on most access panels on most US combat aircraft - it was called a DZUS fastener, it allowed easy access to engine compartments and any other frequently removed panel. The Brits still liked structural screws and from what I could remember on German aircraft, they liked big, course thread slotted fasteners.....

The Germans used DZUS fasteners, as well as latches. The access panels for the engine did not have to be removed completely since they were hinged unlike on American and British a/c. Hinge being the key word. Agree on the Brits.

The P-51 had over a 100 (lost count) 1/2 turn Dzus fasteners just for the engine cowlings. The Dora/152 had 1/2, maybe (will look later), a dozen latches for the engine cowling. The access panels to the fuel tanks on the 190/152 was by Dzus fasteners. Access to the P-51's ammo was by 12 Dzus on each wing. The Germans used latches.

I ask you, which gives quicker access?