Jump to content
Sauerkraut-

Ta-152 Collector Plane

Recommended Posts

10 minutes ago, JV69badatflyski said:

By raf Standards, operationnal use starts when the squad is fully equipped. you can't go on operation with 8 assigned airframes (example here), even with the best hypothetical availabilty ratio of 75% (best average) you do not have the capacity to send the squad in the air. Now, take also in account that we're speaking about a whole new airplane, with completely different characteristics than the mk9 and different engine. you need a transition period, pilots have to learn how to ride it and greasemonkeys have to learn how to maintain the beast.
I'm almost sure that if you get the airframes' logbooks in your hands, you'll see that at least one of those 8airframes made it's first flight 2or3 weeks after being delivered, cause it was send directly to the hangar on the arrival, then put apart and used as a learning tool.
Britisch were more conservative than germans on this (new airframe type), they gave more learning time (not a bad thing), germans when receiving a new type it was more like: aach gutt, grosser motor? viel ps? jaaa, gutt, das is immer noch eine wurger. vollgas!🤣

OK so judge the Germans and the brits by different standards. 

 

I don't want to detract from the topic any more. I find this plane intéresting, I don't particularly see its place in bodenplatte but my thoughts mean nothing, and I have one question that I would like to know. So what kind of flight data exists? I know both ED and 1C have both said that the p47 would require a lot of work in the background due to Republic burning their archives when they merged (or whatever happened to them). What I'm asking is, can they make this plane a decent representation with the data at hand? 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
3 minutes ago, Tarks91 said:

OK so judge the Germans and the brits by different standards. 

 

I don't want to detract from the topic any more. I find this plane intéresting, I don't particularly see its place in bodenplatte but my thoughts mean nothing, and I have one question that I would like to know. So what kind of flight data exists? I know both ED and 1C have both said that the p47 would require a lot of work in the background due to Republic burning their archives when they merged (or whatever happened to them). What I'm asking is, can they make this plane a decent representation with the data at hand? 


YEs, germans and allied had different operationnal standards.
You won't see much Raf squadrons with 2 or3 differents models together in the air (the only one i know was the PFT that flew about 2 weeks with a mix of MK-V's CCC and MK-IX, in the Lw, it was something "normal", especially in 44/45 as they put whatever they had in the air.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
9 minutes ago, Tarks91 said:

What I'm asking is, can they make this plane a decent representation with the data at hand? 

 

They can make reasonable guesses. Without full data or actual planes available that's it.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Trying to link the Ta-152 with the Spitfire Mk XIV would not be correct at all in terms of the technological time line.  For example:

 

The Spitfire XIV first production aircraft were delivered in October 1943 and first operational sorties took place on 8th January 1944.

 

We have records of Spitfire XIV sorties over Europe from at least 1st May 1944.  They supported the Normandy landings in June 1944 and were operational over Europe in August 1944 after a short spell of anti-diver operations.  They saw plenty of action with 2nd TAF.  In addition, from 1st September Spitfire XIV squadrons were escorting bombers over Germany.

 

Later production models entering service beginning in February 1945 featured a cut-back rear fuselage and teardrop bubble canopy.

 

http://www.spitfireperformance.com/spit14v109.html

 

Happy landings,

 

Talisman

Edited by 56RAF_Talisman

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 11/10/2018 at 5:33 PM, 56RAF_Talisman said:

Trying to link the Ta-152 with the Spitfire Mk XIV would not be correct at all in terms of the technological time line.  For example:

 

The Spitfire XIV first production aircraft were delivered in October 1943 and first operational sorties took place on 8th January 1944.

 

We have records of Spitfire XIV sorties over Europe from at least 1st May 1944.  They supported the Normandy landings in June 1944 and were operational over Europe in August 1944 after a short spell of anti-diver operations.  They saw plenty of action with 2nd TAF.  In addition, from 1st September Spitfire XIV squadrons were escorting bombers over Germany.

 

Later production models entering service beginning in February 1945 featured a cut-back rear fuselage and teardrop bubble canopy.

 

http://www.spitfireperformance.com/spit14v109.html

 

Happy landings,

 

Talisman


Wishfull thinking and history tweaking to accomodate own propaganda:

thers were 3 airframes BUILD in october if we refer to the First flying date. My stats are based on assignations what means there are only 2 on my record.
Now, the spitfire, when leaving the factory was just an airplane, NOT a combat airplane, Weapons and other equippement were fitted in "Maintenance Units" where the airplane became a COMBAT airplane.
Have a look at a visual time line between the airframe production and combat unit assignement:

1430315990_spit14-startproduction.JPG.be9ee9e57a913e3aff697c302f0bcc18.JPG

Lets have a look at the airframes history:

RB142    FF 14-10-43 39MU 28-10-43 616S 1-1-44 610S 2-1-44 CAC ops 21-5-44 ros 610S Flew through explosion of V-1 and crashed Newhaven Sussex CE 12-7-44 F/O G M McKinley killed
RB145    FF 10-11-43 39MU 16-11-43 610S 3-1-44 CAC ops 4-7-44 ros 350S Ran short of fuel in bad weather and forcelanded Maldegem FACE 8-12-44
RB148    FF 19-11-43 33MU 2-12-43 610S 1-1-44 DeH 7-6-44 610S Hit by RM740 after landing Evere CE 27-12-44
RB149    FF 25-11-43 39MU 29-11-43 616S 1-1-44 610S 2-1-44 DeH 30-5-44 610S Shot down by flak attacking train nr Dulmen 15-12-44 F/O E G Hill killed
RB150    FF 29-11-43 33MU 2-12-43 610S 1-1-44 FAAC 16-2-44 DeH 'Gem' mods 6-4-44 610S 'DW-A' Missing after entering cloud 15m SW of Boulogne 30-8-44 W/O J J D Bonfield killed
RB151    FF 30-11-43 33MU 4-12-43 610S 16-1-44 1CRU 'Gem' mods 19-5-44 610S CAC ops 19-9-44 ros 39MU 21-3-46 nea 26-2-51 to 6841M 2-7-51
RB153    FF 10-12-43 39MU 20-12-43 610S 6-1-44 AST 19-4-44 610S Engine cut while chasing V-1 abandoned off Dungeness 9-7-44 F/Sgt I F Hakanssen killed
RB154    FF 13-12-43 39MU 20-12-43 610S 6-1-44 DeH 'Gem' mods 12-5-44 610S eng fire in air 25-12-44 409RSU 350S 15-2-45 ASTH 28-9-45 to BAF as SG-13 24-7-47

I must thank you because of you i saw an error in my data and corrected it so you may remove the RB151 from the fist column of jan44.
SO , it leaves us 7 new planes freshly arrived in the squad, a totally new airplane type with new hanlding and maintenance needs and you tell (and the article you linked too) that the squad made it's first operational sortie on the 8Jan?
 

Now, let's have a look at the 610ORB posted before:
610-ORB-4jan44.jpg
 

You conclusion is that a squadron that have been just transferred, it's equippement having just arrived, pilots being there for 3 days pilots having to learn the plane and ground staff having to learn how to maintain the plane, made an official combat mission with 7 (not 8 like in the orb) airplanes on the 8jan?

Isn't that some nice history tweaking?🤣

 

 

Edited by JV69badatflyski
  • Haha 1
  • Upvote 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Fighter came from the factory with weapons installed.

 

05-05-7557859312_9ed770190c_k.jpg

Castle Bromwich Aeroplane Factory. Spitfires Mk. IX assembled at the Flight Shed. “D” Day.

  • Upvote 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
3 hours ago, JV69badatflyski said:

Wishfull thinking and history tweaking to accomodate own propaganda:

 

The Spit 14 was operation about 1 year before the Ta152H was, no matter how you want to tweak history.

  • Upvote 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

91_Form541_1May44.jpg610-Form541-13May44.jpg322-Form541-15May44.jpg402_Form541-25Aug44.jpg610-Form541-26aug44.jpg610-ORB-1sept44.jpg350-ORB-11Sept44.jpg

Above is historical evidence of just a few examples of the type of Spitfire XIV operations over mainland Europe from early May to September 1944 .  Also, note that in August/September they were over Europe using 150 Octane fuel as they were mixing anti-diver sorties along with sorties over mainland Europe.  Lots more action was seen with 2nd TAF also.  The Ta-52 is just not in the same league as the Spitfire XIV in terms of operational use and effectiveness. 

 

Happy landings,

 

Talisman

Edited by 56RAF_Talisman

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
21 hours ago, JV69badatflyski said:

 

21 hours ago, JV69badatflyski said:

Now, the spitfire, when leaving the factory was just an airplane, NOT a combat airplane, Weapons and other equippement were fitted in "Maintenance Units" where the airplane became a COMBAT airplane.

 

Got a source on that? 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 hours ago, Tarks91 said:

Got a source on that? 

There‘s a couple of Spitfire photos being assembled at Castle Bromwich (even posted in this forum) etc. that show the guns (cannons and machine guns) being installed at the factory. Would actually be silly to do any acceptance flights without them installed, as guns add considerable weight.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The mere concept of linking the Ta152 war relevance with the XIV is simply ludicrous. The XIV was in service since the beginning of the 44. And it was in proved, traceable numbers (even if small at the beginning). Well before any MW50 109 or Dora. Regarding the 152, As ZachariasX said, the allies made the Ta152 operative but in reality, it was in the same league as the F21, the Tempest II or the Bearcat for instance. The only difference was that the allies prototypes weren´t shot at when doing tests. Even the P47M had more consistency in its role in the war in the last months of the war (around 60 planes FG strength over 4 months on operation with various degrees of serviceability but with solid records).

The Ta152 is practically a "what if scenario" plane. No reason for including it at all unless wanting to create that type of scenario.

  • Upvote 5

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
6 hours ago, ZachariasX said:

There‘s a couple of Spitfire photos being assembled at Castle Bromwich (even posted in this forum) etc. that show the guns (cannons and machine guns) being installed at the factory. Would actually be silly to do any acceptance flights without them installed, as guns add considerable weight.

 

This Spit seems to have its guns installed.

 

Spitfire.jpg

Spitfire XIV.jpg

Edited by bzc3lk
  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
9 hours ago, JV69badatflyski said:


Wishfull thinking and history tweaking to accomodate own propaganda:

thers were 3 airframes BUILD in october if we refer to the First flying date. My stats are based on assignations what means there are only 2 on my record.
Now, the spitfire, when leaving the factory was just an airplane, NOT a combat airplane, Weapons and other equippement were fitted in "Maintenance Units" where the airplane became a COMBAT airplane.
Have a look at a visual time line between the airframe production and combat unit assignement:

1430315990_spit14-startproduction.JPG.be9ee9e57a913e3aff697c302f0bcc18.JPG

Lets have a look at the airframes history:

RB142    FF 14-10-43 39MU 28-10-43 616S 1-1-44 610S 2-1-44 CAC ops 21-5-44 ros 610S Flew through explosion of V-1 and crashed Newhaven Sussex CE 12-7-44 F/O G M McKinley killed
RB145    FF 10-11-43 39MU 16-11-43 610S 3-1-44 CAC ops 4-7-44 ros 350S Ran short of fuel in bad weather and forcelanded Maldegem FACE 8-12-44
RB148    FF 19-11-43 33MU 2-12-43 610S 1-1-44 DeH 7-6-44 610S Hit by RM740 after landing Evere CE 27-12-44
RB149    FF 25-11-43 39MU 29-11-43 616S 1-1-44 610S 2-1-44 DeH 30-5-44 610S Shot down by flak attacking train nr Dulmen 15-12-44 F/O E G Hill killed
RB150    FF 29-11-43 33MU 2-12-43 610S 1-1-44 FAAC 16-2-44 DeH 'Gem' mods 6-4-44 610S 'DW-A' Missing after entering cloud 15m SW of Boulogne 30-8-44 W/O J J D Bonfield killed
RB151    FF 30-11-43 33MU 4-12-43 610S 16-1-44 1CRU 'Gem' mods 19-5-44 610S CAC ops 19-9-44 ros 39MU 21-3-46 nea 26-2-51 to 6841M 2-7-51
RB153    FF 10-12-43 39MU 20-12-43 610S 6-1-44 AST 19-4-44 610S Engine cut while chasing V-1 abandoned off Dungeness 9-7-44 F/Sgt I F Hakanssen killed
RB154    FF 13-12-43 39MU 20-12-43 610S 6-1-44 DeH 'Gem' mods 12-5-44 610S eng fire in air 25-12-44 409RSU 350S 15-2-45 ASTH 28-9-45 to BAF as SG-13 24-7-47

I must thank you because of you i saw an error in my data and corrected it so you may remove the RB151 from the fist column of jan44.
SO , it leaves us 7 new planes freshly arrived in the squad, a totally new airplane type with new hanlding and maintenance needs and you tell (and the article you linked too) that the squad made it's first operational sortie on the 8Jan?
 

Now, let's have a look at the 610ORB posted before:
610-ORB-4jan44.jpg
 

You conclusion is that a squadron that have been just transferred, it's equippement having just arrived, pilots being there for 3 days pilots having to learn the plane and ground staff having to learn how to maintain the plane, made an official combat mission with 7 (not 8 like in the orb) airplanes on the 8jan?

Isn't that some nice history tweaking?🤣

 

 

 

@ Talisman/JV69Bad

 

I have just looked at the 610 Sqn webpage (although it is under construction) so I can't find much information there apart from:

 

"No. 610 made several moves during the next six months, being engaged chiefly on patrols and shipping reconnaissance. With the approach of D-day, the Squadron’s work increased in extent and variety. May 1944, saw its pilots on low-flying sweeps over Northern France, reconnaissance off the Normandy coast, cover for Typhoons attacking minesweepers, ‘Beat-ups’ of enemy camps, railway wagons and road convoys. It was the busiest month for a long time and the pilots logged no less than 562 flying hours"

 

 

In addition the other official source that I can find (National Archives Kew London) requires payment.  Now I'm happy to pay, however, before I do that or visit them later this month, to perhaps view the records in person, can you help?

 

Firstly:

 

Do you have the next page of the above, although I notice that is says "Page No. one     No of pages used one"?

The last sentence states "Ground staff are receiving instruction and lectures on the engine - the Griffon 65 -and for the time being flying is confined to all non-operational flips" (sic).  Therefore, it would be interesting to see how long they took to work-up.

 

Secondly:

 

Are either of you able to fill in that missing period from Jan '44 to May '44 with any Official Operational notes from the Sqn diaries or sorties, please?

 

 

 

 

Regards and Thank you

 

 

 

 

 

 

Edited by Haza
  • Upvote 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
6 hours ago, HR_Zunzun said:

The Ta152 is practically a "what if scenario" plane. No reason for including it at all unless wanting to create that type of scenario.

 

I wouldn't go so far to call it a what-if sort of plane. They were in action from the beginning of March '45 and fought to the very end against both the Western Allies and the Soviets - admittedly, yes, in small numbers. It's a plane I'd like to see modeled at some point, after some of the remaining more-important types are (hopefully) created.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 11/11/2018 at 1:17 AM, MiloMorai said:

Fighter came from the factory with weapons installed.

Castle Bromwich Aeroplane Factory. Spitfires Mk. IX assembled at the Flight Shed. “D” Day.


You're right Milo, i don't know from where this idea stayed in my head. Went through the 22000 records and couldn't confirm what i wrote. i Corrected the initial post.

 

On 11/11/2018 at 1:55 AM, MiloMorai said:

 

The Spit 14 was operation about 1 year before the Ta152H was, no matter how you want to tweak history.


I don't want to tweak history in this case, as you can read in previous post, i fully agree than the 152 is related  F21 on the time-line and not the 14.
I just can't stand anymore reading stuff like the MK14 was fully operationnal in Jan44...The airframes history tells another story.
This has actually nothing to do with the 152 😄

 

10 hours ago, MiloMorai said:

As of 26th April 1945 there were 667 Spitfire XIVs on strength with the RAF. 


again, at that time there were  around 140 airframes assigned to operational squadrons. the rest was in repair/maintenance or going export to India.
Don't know where this quote comes from but it's obviously wrong.
Will rework the MK14 Exel file and will put it available for download once done so anyone will be able to see this bird operational history/availability.

 

15 hours ago, 56RAF_Talisman said:

 

Above is historical evidence of just a few examples of the type of Spitfire XIV operations over mainland Europe from early May to September 1944 .  Also, note that in August/September they were over Europe using 150 Octane fuel as they were mixing anti-diver sorties along with sorties over mainland Europe.  Lots more action was seen with 2nd TAF also.  The Ta-52 is just not in the same league as the Spitfire XIV in terms of operational use and effectiveness. 

 

Happy landings,

 

Talisman


Never Said there were no combat missions, i wrote that begin 44 till half44, there were no combat missions and almost only V1 hunting.
 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
3 hours ago, LukeFF said:

 

I wouldn't go so far to call it a what-if sort of plane. They were in action from the beginning of March '45 and fought to the very end against both the Western Allies and the Soviets - admittedly, yes, in small numbers. It's a plane I'd like to see modeled at some point, after some of the remaining more-important types are (hopefully) created.

 

I am not denying that it fought. But it did in almost negligible numbers, very late in the conflict and only due to the fact that the whole of Germany (or what still wasn´t in allies hands) was a war zone so a test plane was de facto a combat one. Germany was desperate at that point while the allies were already negociating post-war areas of influence. Allies did not have any need to rush any of their very late designs into combat in Europe (P-47N, P51H, Spit F21, Tempest II, Bearcat, Tigercat....).

In essence for a sim (and obviously is just my opinion), that set of facts put the Ta152 into the realm of what-if scenarios.

 

Edited by HR_Zunzun

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 11/3/2018 at 7:02 AM, ZachariasX said:

If they made the Ta-152, then by all means you could make the Spit 21 as well. And the P-51H. Both existed even in higher numbers than any version of the Ta-152.

While it's outside the theme of this series, I would like to see a updated SWOTL style sim in this game engine. A P-51H would be great in my mind. It'll likely never happen though.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
4 hours ago, Rjel said:

While it's outside the theme of this series, I would like to see a updated SWOTL style sim in this game engine. A P-51H would be great in my mind. It'll likely never happen though.

I think the Ta-152H could be for this game, assuming that making it is facilitated by having the D9 already and code/modeling could be used in some way.

 

This for the simple reason that it existed (although in single digit numbers) in winter 1945 and that it would be a great sale. As long as it is a cash cow it helps everybody and it doesn‘t matter if it is a unicorn. You can spice up any campaign by putting one or two of those planes in it.

 

As for the other „props too late“ I‘m less enthusiastic about. Anything beyond the Spit XIV should be a jet if it is not supposed to plow mud. Also the SWOTL type scenario is not a great one for the Luftwaffe, as it means Meteors, Vampires/Spidercrabs and P-80 as well. While the Go-229 may be an impressive design, it is not something to fight a Vampire with. The Go-223 is a very experimental design and the Vampire is a very good and well liked jet. And if you need to plow mud, you would have +15 and +17 lbs boost Tempests, so the 109K4 at any boost would be really meh.

 

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 hours ago, ZachariasX said:

I think the Ta-152H could be for this game, assuming that making it is facilitated by having the D9 already and code/modeling could be used in some way.

 

This for the simple reason that it existed (although in single digit numbers) in winter 1945 and that it would be a great sale. As long as it is a cash cow it helps everybody and it doesn‘t matter if it is a unicorn. You can spice up any campaign by putting one or two of those planes in it.

 

The XP-72  existed as well even before the Ta-152. She was very close to serial production but the order was cancelled due the end of the war.

I'm not saying that the XP-72 should be included but where it will lead if we indulge in "unicorn" wishes. How many controversies we have about some earlier and mass produced airplanes, already? How bad it would get with stuff like XP-72?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
3 minutes ago, Ehret said:

 

The XP-72  existed as well even before the Ta-152. She was very close to serial production but the order was cancelled due the end of the war.

I'm not saying that the XP-72 should be included but where it will lead if we indulge in "unicorn" wishes. How many controversies we have about some earlier and mass produced airplanes, already? How bad it would get with stuff like XP-72?

 

True. Moreover, the handful of victories of the Ta152 and its service length put it on the same scale of relevance than the Spitfire Mk21 with its midget submarine. If we compare both with, for example, the spifire XIV.

Would it be wrong to add the Ta152 for the sim? No. But in a list of important planes to model, it would be way down that list. Well, at least in my list.

  • Upvote 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
7 minutes ago, Ehret said:

 

The XP-72  existed as well even before the Ta-152. She was very close to serial production but the order was cancelled due the end of the war.

I'm not saying that the XP-72 should be included but where it will lead if we indulge in "unicorn" wishes. How many controversies we have about some earlier and mass produced airplanes, already? How bad it would get with stuff like XP-72?

It's just that the Ta-152H did fly missions where it actually used its guns. But most importantly, people would buy it and MAYBE it would not be so hard making it, as there is the D9. So it would just be good money for the sim. But it would noch change anything in the game as the 190D9 is the more suitable aircraft for this game.

 

I'm just thinking in terms of revenue for the game. The ha-152H would IMHO definitely outsell the XP-72 while being cheaper in making it.

  • Upvote 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

If I had to choose, would personally prefer some other mid or late war Luftwaffe fighter. Ta 152 is cool and everything, but it was so rare plane plane that one would get to fly it mostly in single player... I guess the cockpit, sounds, engine and flight physics are somewhat close to D-9 which would make it less costly to develop, but it would be the same for say 109 G-10 or G-14/AS, 190 A-9 or heck a Ju 88S or a fighter/night fighter variant of it.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 11/5/2018 at 4:02 AM, JV69badatflyski said:

 

Sources please, never read it anywhere.
thanks

 

 

Really?  Even Wiki lists several of these issues.  Do you have Monogram Close-Up 24 Ta 152?  That lists all of the problems as listed in production and performance reports.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 11/12/2018 at 9:27 AM, JV69badatflyski said:


 


Never Said there were no combat missions, i wrote that begin 44 till half44, there were no combat missions and almost only V1 hunting.
 

Did you not read the web page information I posted above which included details of Spitfire XIV combat with FW 190's on 7th March 1944?

 

Happy landings,

 

Talisman

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 11/12/2018 at 6:44 AM, HR_Zunzun said:

 

I am not denying that it fought. But it did in almost negligible numbers, very late in the conflict and only due to the fact that the whole of Germany (or what still wasn´t in allies hands) was a war zone so a test plane was de facto a combat one. Germany was desperate at that point while the allies were already negociating post-war areas of influence. Allies did not have any need to rush any of their very late designs into combat in Europe (P-47N, P51H, Spit F21, Tempest II, Bearcat, Tigercat....).

In essence for a sim (and obviously is just my opinion), that set of facts put the Ta152 into the realm of what-if scenarios.

 

 

On 11/13/2018 at 1:37 AM, ZachariasX said:

I think the Ta-152H could be for this game, assuming that making it is facilitated by having the D9 already and code/modeling could be used in some way.

 

This for the simple reason that it existed (although in single digit numbers) in winter 1945 and that it would be a great sale. As long as it is a cash cow it helps everybody and it doesn‘t matter if it is a unicorn. You can spice up any campaign by putting one or two of those planes in it.

 

As for the other „props too late“ I‘m less enthusiastic about. Anything beyond the Spit XIV should be a jet if it is not supposed to plow mud. Also the SWOTL type scenario is not a great one for the Luftwaffe, as it means Meteors, Vampires/Spidercrabs and P-80 as well. While the Go-229 may be an impressive design, it is not something to fight a Vampire with. The Go-223 is a very experimental design and the Vampire is a very good and well liked jet. And if you need to plow mud, you would have +15 and +17 lbs boost Tempests, so the 109K4 at any boost would be really meh.

 

As I said, it will never come to be in this sim series but I do wonder what the very, very late war machines (those actually built, not just on paper) would have been able to do against each other. There are many interesting what might've beens to think over. Especially if the A-bomb hadn't come to be. We've always had the late war wonder weapons from the Luftwaffe to ponder and play with. I would really like a P-51H at 487mph just once. And the F7F Tigercat as a lightened stripped down Air Force machine without the need for folding wings and arrestor gear. What a amazing ground attack vehicle that could have been in Europe. There were some other interesting aircraft coming online just too late to the show to prove themselves.

 

But it's all just daydreaming. :( Something I bet we all do.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
48 minutes ago, Rjel said:

 

As I said, it will never come to be in this sim series but I do wonder what the very, very late war machines (those actually built, not just on paper) would have been able to do against each other. There are many interesting what might've beens to think over. Especially if the A-bomb hadn't come to be. We've always had the late war wonder weapons from the Luftwaffe to ponder and play with. I would really like a P-51H at 487mph just once. And the F7F Tigercat as a lightened stripped down Air Force machine without the need for folding wings and arrestor gear. What a amazing ground attack vehicle that could have been in Europe. There were some other interesting aircraft coming online just too late to the show to prove themselves.

 

But it's all just daydreaming. :( Something I bet we all do.

This one one would be another good option for a what-if scenario

tempestii-cfe-appd.jpg

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 11/14/2018 at 2:17 AM, chuter said:

 

 

Really?  Even Wiki lists several of these issues.  Do you have Monogram Close-Up 24 Ta 152?  That lists all of the problems as listed in production and performance reports.

 

YEs i have, i've reopened the pdf yesterday, it was a long time it wasn't open anymore, like 11years 😄 , and read that problems you mentioned were for the prototypes and the H0 ; and were solved in the H1 except for the pressurization that was kept off on all airframes except 1 where the seals and the compressor worked.

 

18 hours ago, 56RAF_Talisman said:

Did you not read the web page information I posted above which included details of Spitfire XIV combat with FW 190's on 7th March 1944?

 

Happy landings,

 

Talisman


what i see is a 2planes V1 patrol south of the coast waiting for a V1 contact, instead of this, Radar send them to 2 unknown contacts that seems to be 2 Wurgers and they engage.
It's still a V1 patrol and not a rhubarb, circus or intruder mission, like all the rest of the RAF was doing. It stays a GB defensive mission and not an offensive one.
They just got lucky to meet 2 Wurgers.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I hope not, this kind of planes or rather prototypes would change the game into War Thunder like prototype fiesta, alternative history, what if or 1946 scenario. IRL only ~20 planes were ever used. 

One such prototype and suddenly normal airplanes like D9 or K4 do not look so nice anymore.

Edited by kramer

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
4 hours ago, JV69badatflyski said:

 

what i see is a 2planes V1 patrol south of the coast waiting for a V1 contact, instead of this, Radar send them to 2 unknown contacts that seems to be 2 Wurgers and they engage.
It's still a V1 patrol and not a rhubarb, circus or intruder mission, like all the rest of the RAF was doing. It stays a GB defensive mission and not an offensive one.
They just got lucky to meet 2 Wurgers.

What makes you think this was an anti-diver (V1) patrol?

First V1 attacks were in the middle of June 44.

The Spitfire XIV patrol that was in combat with 3 x FW 190's was on 7th March and the combat report makes no mention of being on anti-diver patrol.  All the combat reports I have read that have been in relation to ant-diver patrols have stated clearly on the combat report that they were on an anti-diver patrol.

Further more, the combat report states that the altitude of the patrol was 500 ft above sea level.

As far as I have managed to find out, the operating altitude of the V1 was very much higher than that and was as follows:

"The intended operational altitude was originally set at 2,750 m (9,000 ft). However, repeated failures of a barometric fuel-pressure regulator led to it being changed in May 1944, halving the operational height,"

Edited by 56RAF_Talisman

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 11/13/2018 at 10:53 AM, ZachariasX said:

But it would noch change anything in the game as the 190D9 is the more suitable aircraft for this game.

 

Still hoping the D-9 comes with bells and whistles:

Up to 500kg on the fuselage, maybe 4x 50kg on the wings and maybe-maybe even Panzerblitz II/ R4M.

Overall a much more useful combo than the Ta 152H (without a map). Build a Berlin map and things change a bit.

 

21 hours ago, Rjel said:

And the F7F Tigercat as a lightened stripped down Air Force machine without the need for folding wings and arrestor gear. What a amazing ground attack vehicle that could have been in Europe. There were some other interesting aircraft coming online just too late to the show to prove themselves.

 

An F4U-4 would make more sense in that role IMHO.

 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, Bremspropeller said:

An F4U-4 would make more sense in that role IMHO.

 

 

But we're talking about interesting late war A/C that really didn't make it in time to show their prowess. The F4U-4 had its chance over Okinawa. It wouldn't bring much more to the table than did late model P-47s in my opinion. The Tigercat on the other hand would've been like a P-38 or even a Mosquito on steroids with the added advantage of having radial engines when doing ground attack.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
6 hours ago, JV69badatflyski said:

 

YEs i have, i've reopened the pdf yesterday, it was a long time it wasn't open anymore, like 11years 😄 , and read that problems you mentioned were for the prototypes and the H0 ; and were solved in the H1 except for the pressurization that was kept off on all airframes except 1 where the seals and the compressor worked.

 ...

 

Well, as I understand it, the tail wheel was fixed for sure only if it was disconnected from the right main gear but the inbd wheel well door deletion solved the main gear problem;  and the linkage for the (never adequate) aileron boost tabs kept rapidly wearing out, a material quality problem fixed only by continual replacement;  the wing twisting problem which could lead to Spitfire style reverse roll was never fully fixed although it was likely reduced in the H1, this resulted in and was exasperated by loose rivets at and forward of the forward spar in the wheel well area, rivet replacement would usually fix that unless the holes were too worn.  The engine fire problem was identified and fixed but there were a lot of unserviceable engines for awhile awaiting that fix.  The pitch instability was basically a permanent feature as was the yaw instability with cowl flaps open.  But the H1, being a from-the-ground-up H airframe, was a definite, simplified improvement over the converted 190 airframes of the H0, that's for sure.

 

One thing I find quite interesting in the Monogram book is Ethell's comment about Rechlin's complaint of insufficient elevator on landing (not fixed) in that he states that this was likely caused by the Ta having a fixed stabilizer and elevator trim tabs which certainly wasn't the case, all 152s had the same type electric trimmable stabilizer components and functionality all other 190's had and no flight adjustable elevator trim tabs.

 

*** The NASM 152 has a line of rivets that, moving inbd, runs off the left wing inbd leading edge skin upper aft edge (couldn't get a look at right side to compare).  The joint is a simple overlap with flush rivets whose heads are hand filed step fashion to match the two skin elevations across the rivet line.  😲  I've never seen anything like it on anything else.  That plane is SO COOL! ***

 

  • Upvote 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 11/2/2018 at 4:18 PM, Asgar said:

152 is cool but... BUT Me 410. 'nuff said

One of the reasons I keep playing Il2 1946, is the Me410

  • Like 1
  • Upvote 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 11/13/2018 at 7:37 AM, ZachariasX said:

I think the Ta-152H could be for this game, assuming that making it is facilitated by having the D9 already and code/modeling could be used in some way.

 

This for the simple reason that it existed (although in single digit numbers) in winter 1945 and that it would be a great sale. As long as it is a cash cow it helps everybody and it doesn‘t matter if it is a unicorn. You can spice up any campaign by putting one or two of those planes in it.

 

As for the other „props too late“ I‘m less enthusiastic about. Anything beyond the Spit XIV should be a jet if it is not supposed to plow mud. Also the SWOTL type scenario is not a great one for the Luftwaffe, as it means Meteors, Vampires/Spidercrabs and P-80 as well. While the Go-229 may be an impressive design, it is not something to fight a Vampire with. The Go-223 is a very experimental design and the Vampire is a very good and well liked jet. And if you need to plow mud, you would have +15 and +17 lbs boost Tempests, so the 109K4 at any boost would be really meh.

 

 

Why wouldn't it be something to fight a Vampire with though? I mean if the war had lasted until 46 (the year the Vampire entered service) I'd assume the Go-229 would've matured into a service ready design as well.

 

Also looking at the estimated performance figures the Go-229 would most likely have been noticably faster than a Vampire, and the 2x 30mm armament was impressive. So I don't understand why you say that it wouldn't be something to fight a Vampire with? 

 

Another aircraft that would've no doubt also been further developed was the He-162, an aircraft loved by the RAF's chief test pilot Eric Winkle Brown. Finally a 1946 scenario would also mean more powerful iterations of the German jet engines, like the Jumo 004D which reached produciton readiness just as the war ended.

Edited by Panthera

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
56 minutes ago, Panthera said:

Why wouldn't it be something to fight a Vampire with though?

because of several things. First of all, the Vampire by 1945 was vastly more mature as a design then the Horthen. It also had a turbine that lasted more than then times as long as the 229. In short, by 1945 the Vampire was a fighter aircraft. That it was introduced in 1946 was just due to not shifting running productons for an aircraft you don't really need at the moment.The Horthen on the other hand by 1945 was a still concept study. By no means it would habe been operational in numbers under normal conditions before 1947. Just letting the operational pilots doing the testing is not the way to do it, as this would result in consideable culling (as it did kill the pilot) amongst your operational personel.

 

Besides a roughly 2 year gap between becoming operational, the Gotha, the flying wing concept does have some advantages indeed. But all of them make it a bomber, not a fighter aircraft. The Vampire on the other hand didn't really differentiate in terms of handling from previous prop fighters besides some intrinsic differences due to the jet engine. Also, the Vampire has 4 Hispanos, a much better proposition to shoot moving targets than the Mk-108. The view from the cockpit is also far better in the Vampire.The true remarkable thing about the Horthen design is that it is in fact a flying wing "that actually flys"! It doesn't just kill the pilot. In this sense, it was a world beater. But nothing in comparsion to the handling of conventional designs. The A-20 probably makes a better fighter in 1943 than the Go-229 in 1946.

 

If there is one universal truth about flying wings, it is that they kill their pilots. They are not great fighters. They are killers and they kill the wrong guy. The B-2 bomber has a computer on the controls, so that might work finally.

 

1 hour ago, Panthera said:

Also looking at the estimated performance figures the Go-229 would most likely have been noticably faster than a Vampire, and the 2x 30mm armament was impressive. So I don't understand why you say that it wouldn't be something to fight a Vampire with?  

The stated max speed of the Go-229, an estimated 600 mph, sure, maybe in la-la-land. It is very doubtful that this wing design had better transsonic properties than either the Vampire or the Me-262. Speeds I would expect to be identical amongst those aircraft for practical purposes. the Horthens didn't use supercritical wing profiles.

 

It could fight bombers, but given it has no speed brakes and it is a considerably large target, it would be a very entertaining business to do so. You can't attack too fast unless you want to deal with compresibility in a flying wing or if you are slower, you're a large target from many angles despite its shape. Must be fun losing an aileron in a flying wing doing a pass through a bomber formation.

 

1 hour ago, Panthera said:

Another aircraft that would've no doubt also been further developed was the He-162, an aircraft loved by the RAF's chief test pilot Eric Winkle Brown. Finally a 1946 scenario would also mean more powerful iterations of the German jet engines, like the Jumo 004D which reached produciton readiness just as the war ended. 

The He-162 is actually a very interesting design. For a good pilot, it was a rather nice aircraft once you adjusted to some of the impossible operating procedures. Although Eric brown liked the Salamander, he was quiet clear that you need to know what you  are doing in order to fly it. Apart from being a small target, it doesn't bring much to the table when having fun with fighters of the other team. I would say it is a much better plane to intercept bombers, as it is a much, much smaller target than the flying wing but it can have the same weapons. As for having fun with other fighters, as long as your 30 mm is not an ADEN, the 20 mm Hispanos are definitely the better choice.

 

It is not so much the fighters that the Germans had the advantage. I see it more in the bombers. The Me-262 was *very* effective in that role (armed recce), even though people don't like to hear that as it goes against the "Hitler-delay" narrative. It was impressive in occasional intercepts of bomber formations, but then it was flown by obscenely competent personel that you couldn't plan on having. And besides the Me-262, they had the Arado. The ugly duckling. Less fast, less of a poster boy, the Arado was a very good and benign aircraft. The Ju-88 of the jets. The allies on the other hand had no jet bombers like thise in the pipeline. This is the only thing where I see the Germans having an advantage in a "46" scenaro. Fast bombers. The allies didn't need them anymore at that time, so it wa sno priority. Fighter jets they wanted. they made them and they had them.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The Horten would most probably have sucked really bad as a fighter. The problem is that flying-wing design, which is hard to get "right" - and when you do, the appealing part is gone.

If you want to have acceptable stability characteristics, you need to put a lot of effort into it's design and most of it serves to take away aerodynamic performance. If you want to reap the benefits, you'll need to go relaxed stability and tie a computer to the flight controls.

 

In order to get some conventional stability into the pitch-axis, you'll have to trade-off downwash (for all practical purposes: lift). That leads to high aspect-ratio wings (no high-lift devices possible, hence a large area is needed) which in turn leads to funny inertia-modes and all kinds of aeroelastic issues when maneuvering.

 

As Zach already pointed out, a flying wing possibly could have been knee-jerked into a jet-bomber, but that's about where it ends.

A conventional design would most probably have had performance as good or better than a flying-wing bomber.

 

 

  • Upvote 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Taking everything they could from the Hortens, de Havilland built the DH-108 Swallow. Even though it had a rudder and much more swept wings, it remained killer aircraft. Killer of its pilot. The idea that a less refined design would get the performances of the DH-108 is whishful thinking. It is about the last plane you want to experience compressibility with. Eric Brown was just lucky for surviving such, much in contrast to Geoffrey de Havilland.

 

 

Edited by ZachariasX

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now

×
×
  • Create New...