Ta183 vs Vampire

[Colin1]

30.18ft (9.20m) :Length: 30.74ft (9.37m)
32.81ft (10.00m) :Width: 40.03ft (12.02m)
12.66ft (3.86m) :Height: 8.83ft (2.69m)
5,247lbs (2,380kg) :Empty Weight: 6,380lbs (2,894Kgs)
9,480lbs (4,300kg) :Max Take-off Weight: 10,494lbs (4,760Kgs)
1 x Heinkel HeS 011 turbojet engine, 3,500lbs thrust :Engine: 1 x deHavilland Goblin turbojet 3,100lbs thrust
1 :Crew: 1
593mph (955km/h) :Max Speed: 539mph (867km/h)
432 miles (695 kms) :Max Range: 730 miles (1,174 kms)
6,100ft/min (1,859m/min) :Rate of Climb: 4,300ft/min (1,311m/min)
45,932ft (14,000m) :Service Ceiling: 41,000ft (12,500m)
4 x 30mm Mk 108 cannons, max 1,000lbs (450Kgs) external ordnance :Armament: 4 x 20mm cannons, max 2,000lbs (907Kgs) external ordnance
5 :Hardpoints: 2

[DerAdlerIstGelandet]

I do not think we can compare these two aircraft. The Vampire saw service while the Ta 183 never even actually flew. We will never know how the Ta 183. Personally I think the Ta 183 was a better design. It was a more modern design and I think it would have been a better aircraft, but again we will never know. Therefore they can not be compared.

[Maximowitz]

If the Ta183 was as unstable as Tank's later Pulqui II design, the only thing it would have killed was its pilots.

[Colin1]

Well, no
not operationally anyway but the Pucara never flew against the Whirlwind either

[michaelmaltby]

Colin - I'm sure you will know the answer to this - wasn't plywood used in the fuselege portion of the Vampire - same technique as the Mosquito ..?

MM

[DerAdlerIstGelandet]

Originally Posted by Colin1

Well, no
not operationally anyway but the Pucara never flew against the Whirlwind either

Yes but the Pucara was not the Ta 183, it was only based off of the design. So again, how can we compare an aircraft that was never built with an aircraft that was operational?

[Butters]

"Dream no small dreams for they have no power to move the hearts of men." Or to shoot down the Vampire, either...

With apologies to Galileo Galilei

JL

[lingo]

The Ta 183 fuselage looks abnormally short. Combined with the oversized fin and the sharply swept wings I suspect the design would have experienced severe stability ptoblems.
I trained on the Vampire T11 and managed a few trips in the single seat Mk 5/9s but as far as I know ALL the first generation jets had problems and limitations.

[FLYBOYJ]

Folks, a few thoughts...

Never judge a book by its cover. Remember fighters are SUPPOSED to be a bit unstable, its a matter of mitigating any problems that would cause the aircraft undue danger to the pilot and the mission and many times this could be carried out by simple airframe modifications and training. When you say "unstable" you need to be specific. Unstable while doing adverse maneuvers? Unstable during normal flight? Unstable during landing? I know may aircraft that fly great straight and level and during 20 and 30 degree banks, but exceed that or start loading the aircraft up and you have a handful. The design was very promising and think it would have worked out.

Mike, the Vampire did have a portion of its nose made from plywood

[Colin1]

Originally Posted by DerAdlerIstGelandet

Yes but the Pucara was not the Ta 183, it was only based off of the design. So again, how can we compare an aircraft that was never built with an aircraft that was operational?

Thing is Adler
if the two flew in combat with each other, we'd have lots of hard data on which was best at what and overall, who was likely to come out on top - so no need for a poll. For a poll to be fun, surely a sprinkling of what-if can do no harm?

Originally Posted by FLYBOYJ

Mike, the Vampire did have a portion of its nose made from plywood

Thanks Joe and sorry Mike
just got in from town - umm, and I didn't actually know that

...and this just in

the majority of the Ta183's wings were covered in plywood too

[delcyros]

The higher crit Mach figure is in great advantage for the Ta-183. Both planes probably have a somehow nasty low speed behavior. Crit Mach is enough of an advantage to be tactically important in this kind of comparison.

[lingo]

[QUOTE=FLYBOYJ;517462]Folks, a few thoughts...

Never judge a book by its cover. Remember fighters are SUPPOSED to be a bit unstable,


To a degree they are, but there are aerodynamic forces lurking to crush any high speed deviation. The Vampire had fairly carefree handling characteristics, and buffet prevented it from much exceeding Mach 0.8 but it was a good gun platform at normal combat speeds. We simply do not know how the Ta 183 would have behaved. People can speculate all they like about what it may theoretically have been capable of, but with the tried and tested Vampire we actually know. My personal view is that the German design was an act of desperation and it is fortunate that nobody was called upon to test it.
As for the Vampire, the only foibles as far as I was concerned was a jerky spin with a delayed reaction exit and the need to trim rapidly when flaps were selected. Otherwise I thoroughly enjoyed my time on them.

[Colin1]

Originally Posted by lingo

My personal view is that the German design was an act of desperation and it is fortunate that nobody was called upon to test it

I'd say that your opinion was a little wide of the mark
why couldn't it be construed as an act of pioneering aeronautical engineering? If the war had stopped sooner and the Allies had found workshops full of half-finished Me262s, would they have been construed as an act of desperation too?

As for it being fortunate that nobody was called upon to test it - what, not even a test pilot? Surely, when an aeronautical engineer pushes the envelope, someone with the right stuff has got to get up there and see if he's done it right?

[Soren]

Just a small correction:

The expected climb rate of the Ta-183 was 6,100 ft/min, not 4,100 ft/min, also seems reasonable considering the higher P/W ratio

And Adler is absolutely right, the Pulqui II & Ta-183 cannot at all be compared, they are two very different a/c. On the Ta-183 the fuselage is short & narrow and the wing is mid mounted, futhermore pitch was controlled with elevons. The Pulqui II featured a high mounted wing, long & wide fuselage (different engine nessicated a completely new design) with pitch being controlled with normal elevators on a high mounted horizontal stabilizer, and this caused deep stall problems which is what plagued the Pulqui II. The Ta-183 wouldn't have experienced this however and the design looks sound.

As for how the Ta-183 & Vampire would've done against each other, I can't really say, but the Ta-183's performance would've been higher, which is awlays a plus.

[FLYBOYJ]

[QUOTE=lingo;517599]

Originally Posted by FLYBOYJ

Folks, a few thoughts...

Never judge a book by its cover. Remember fighters are SUPPOSED to be a bit unstable,


To a degree they are, but there are aerodynamic forces lurking to crush any high speed deviation. The Vampire had fairly carefree handling characteristics, and buffet prevented it from much exceeding Mach 0.8 but it was a good gun platform at normal combat speeds. We simply do not know how the Ta 183 would have behaved. People can speculate all they like about what it may theoretically have been capable of, but with the tried and tested Vampire we actually know. My personal view is that the German design was an act of desperation and it is fortunate that nobody was called upon to test it.
As for the Vampire, the only foibles as far as I was concerned was a jerky spin with a delayed reaction exit and the need to trim rapidly when flaps were selected. Otherwise I thoroughly enjoyed my time on them.

You proved my point - unless there is some concrete evidence to say the aircraft was "unstable" (again when stating that, let's be specific), I roll back to my original statement, don't judge a book by its cover.