Jump to content
Sauerkraut-

Ta-152 Collector Plane

Recommended Posts

The Me 163 is - at least superficially - very similar in configuration to the DH 108, and Eric Brown thought is had good handling-characteristics.

That is if you're forgetting about the powered portion of the flight, which is pretty much playing Russian Roulette.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I was going to type that Brem. Good that I checked to see what the 'new post' was. TG306 was lost to structural failure at high speed.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The Hortens stated out making gliders from the flying wing configuration. And that they all were, including the Me-163, nice gliders that were lacking an airbake. In powered flight, as you say, it was more like russian roulette with one to five rounds loaded, depending on your means of propulsion.

 

The Ta-152H on the other hand is a viable solution to a problem we don‘t have in the game yet, the B-29. The main strenght of the C model (beside some impressive armament that is mainly useful against planes we also don‘t have in the game) is the use of second rate materials to produce it. It doesn‘t make it a better plane, it just makes it available in the first place.

 

I‘d much rather have the He-162 than the „heavy 190D“.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The Go-229 was supposed to carry the the 30mm Mk103s AFAIK, and I'd hardly refer to these as less potent than 20mm Hispanos, quite the opposite. 

 

As for the projected performance of 977 kmh, I see it as possible depending on a few things, at least I haven't seen any study that seriously questioned it. The biggest issue I see with the Go-229 is directional stability, which I agree would make it a dangerous aircraft to fly for inexperienced pilots. As for cockpit visibility, I haven't sat in one so I can't say. 

 

On the He-162, Brown loved it for its maneuverability in the air, hence he would often take it up for joy rides to perform aerobatics. By all accounts the design was sound, however some of the building materials certainly weren't. The armament the two 20mm MG151's were perfectly adequate guns with which to engage enemy fighters. Thus with an extra year of developement to solve some of the quirks, esp. the glue issue, l dont see why this aircraft couldn't become a tough customer for the Vampire, if not superior in a 1 on 1 engagement, the performance was already quite noticably better. 

  

Edited by Panthera

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
5 hours ago, Panthera said:

The Go-229 was supposed to carry the the 30mm Mk103s AFAIK, and I'd hardly refer to these as less potent than 20mm Hispanos, quite the opposite. 

You have to hit to make it potent. The firing rate of the Mk103 is not adequate. Firing rate is everything for a gun in air combat. Guess why Americans use a Gattling gun today for that.

 

The He-162 onthe other hand would be fun to fly vs the Vampire, oh yes! That would really be something.

 

 

Share this post


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

Guess why Americans use a Gattling gun today for that.

 

Everybody else doesn't. :P

 

The problem with the He 162 was that there was minimal conversion training onto an aircraft that needed all the training one could possible throw at it.

Most pilots that were killed, died in operational crashes that mirror most post-war jet accidents by the Allies. Did Imention that fling a jet in the pst-war years was a good way to die young?

 

People often make a fuss about the supposedly high german Starfighter accident rate (we lost 292 to all kinds of reasons in about 25 years of service). Sounds like much?

Well, in 1952 alone, the RAF lost ~800 airplanes, among a whopping ~250 were Gloster Meteors. Flying jets was a very dangerous business back then.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Talked to a 104 pilot once and asked about bailing out/ejecting. He said if you had to think about it you died. The Germans flew low level which didn't much room for safety.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The 104 pilots i have talked to clearly talked differently about their ride as your average Hawker Hunter pilot. While the latter would pick up the Hunter like a Cessna for an afternoon flight to get some flght hours, the 104 flying was usually in some more context. But we did trash a lot of Hunters.

 

Pure casualty numbers I think are not really the main factor that earn a plane the nickname "widow maker". I mean, a lot of people killed themselves in Piper Cubs and there is hardly a more benign aircraft than the Cub. It is more about how easy it is to become passenger toward a lesser fate in your own aircraft. And the 104 surely tolerated less foolishness than most planes. Also one should be aware that during the time the 104 was operational, there was some tectonic shift in public peception, deeming dead pilots unacceptable rather than a testament of how manly flight supposedly is. Same as in Formula 1. Niki Lauda getting medium-rare on the Nürburgring in '76 was a spectacle. Almost every day on a race weekend someone died. Just 20 years later, Senna dying on the track was a catasrophe. Perceptions change.

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The bad name came from the grudges Der Spiegel (a popular german leftish weekly news-magazine) had against Franz Josef Strauß*. The F-104 was one of the most critically-seen defense projects. Not only had it been the most expensive deal for the Bundeswehr at the point; it was also a thorne in the side of those opposing not onling Wiederbewaffnung (re-armament), but also a nuclear option which the F-104 brought to the Bundeswehr. The first aircraft capable of delivering the US-controlled nukes were actually the F-84Fs, but the F-104 had a lot more public exposure during that role.

 

The F-104 killed less pilots in 25 years than the airplanes it replaced (F-84F, RF-84F, Sabre Mk5, Sabre Mk 6, Sea Hawk) within 10-15 years. The whole topic is very deep - it exposes critical mamagement deficiencies in the Bundeswehr and defense-ministery at the time. It's a topic worthy of several dissertations (in fact, I actually have one dissertation about the topic in my bookshelf).

 

Milo, there's a book by David Bashow on the RCAF CF-104s (which mostly frew in Germany and the Canucks flew them hard - a loss ratio of roughly 50% speaks for itself). It's probably the best book on the F-104 there is. It sheds a lot of perspective on the early days on all-weather round-the-clock nuclear readyness in an airplane that will gladly cruise in at 540kias (that's 9 nautical miles a minute) paired with an INS that is "good" when it's only 8nm off after an hour of flight. You'll cover a lot of real estate in a short time at low altitude. Do that at night on radar and INS only and there's a lot of potential to task-saturate the pilot. Mix in the typical mid-european wether (it sucks, to put it mildly) and you'll lose a lot of airplanes.

 

The USAF lost roughly 800 F-100s (that's without the losses suffered in the SEA theater of action) during it's period of service.

The mission was very similar to the F-104 fighter-bombers.

 

Zach, I haven't run the numbers yet, but I have the impression that the swiss Mirages did very good in terms of accidents. The Armée de l'Air lost a very similar percentage of Mrage III/5 to the german F-104s. The survival rate of the pilots was better, as they had Martin Baker seats from the beginning - the Germans switched to the MB Mk7 in 1968.

 

The death of Senna was the second death within the racing-weekend, as Roland Ratzenberger had just previously been killed.

I think Senna's death was such a big deal because he clearly was the best driver at the time and some might argue the best driver of all times.

 

____

*FJS had been secretary of defense when the F-104-deal was made and had to face bribery-accusations afterwards. Bribery could never be proven and all allegations against FJS were lifted. It is important to know that FJS had been instrumental in raising treason-charges against Der Spiegel for unveiling critical deficiencies in the equipment and personnel of the Bundeswehr during the very early sixties.

Edited by Bremspropeller

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Knew I had read a thread about the F-104G recently,  http://simhq.com/forum/ubbthreads.php/ubb/showflat/Number/4443424/Searchpage/1/Main/417253/Words/%2BStarfighter/Search/true/re-f-104-in-germany-myths-about-the-widowmaker#Post4443424

 

From the thread,

32 pilots died in total from 83 ejections. 65 different variants of MiG-21s were lost.
HUN MiG-21s
32/61 = 50%

In German service, 292 of 916 Starfighters crashed, claiming the lives of 115 pilots.
GER F-104s
115/292 = 39

  • Upvote 1

Share this post


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


In German service, 292 of 916 Starfighters crashed, claiming the lives of 115 pilots.
GER F-104s
115/292 = 39

 

In Germany this plane wasn´t called "The widow maker" - "Witwenmacher" for nothing.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
16 hours ago, Bremspropeller said:

Zach, I haven't run the numbers yet, but I have the impression that the swiss Mirages did very good in terms of accidents.

 

Of our "Ta-152" (getting a good plane, trying to make it more suitable to specific needs and change some manufacturing) we got 1 Mirage III (French one, to be copied), 4 Mirage IIIBS, 2 Mirage IIIDS, 18 Mirage IIIRS, 36 Mirage IIIS, anoperational total of 60 aircraft. Funny enough, the original idea about why buying the Mirage was that it supposedly could "carry a nuke to Moscow". No one was ever very clear on how the Mirage could fly back after the fact. But hey, Zeitgeist! Luckily, it was never a real issue, as Switzerland had a little meltdown in its first nuclear reactor, making Plutonium production impossible as well as politically not viable.

 

Looking through the files (there is also an official, less detailed list online), I find 12 accidents leading to write-off's in 39 years of opeartional service. Those 12 accidents produced 3 fatalities.

 

12/60 = 20% accident ; it did so in 125% of operational time, resulting in ~16% accident rate over the same time as the F-104G.

 

It is of note that in all of these accidents, there was only ONE case due to aircraft problems (one fatality) killing a pilot, the first one, a Mirage IIIBS. Engine quitting during pattern and the student pilot took the time in asking "Really? Now?" when his instructor gave "ordine eject" before actually doing it and came out too low to survive the impact. There was another isntance, but then an emergency landing was possible.

 

The other two fatalities (one IIIS and one IIIRS) occurred when the pilots flew their aircraft into the ground. One ran into a hillcrest in bad weather, the other was flying very low in foggy weather over fresh snow and he noticed way too late that the (white) ground was coming up at him and, while pulling the stick firmly back, he perished while distributing his aircraft over almost a mile distance.

 

The whole rest was happy trashing of aircraft, as they would do in any other flying club. Midair collisions are always popular occasions for such, be it during dogfight practise (minus a IIIS and minus an F-5) or "photographer and model getting too close" (very common, but unpractical with aircraft), in that latter case minus an IIIS and minus an IIIBS. That case proved that trashing Mirages was by no means detrimental to your military career. The 2nd pilot became commander of the Swiss Air Force. Birdstrike were common and in only one instance led to a wite off of a Mirage. I've been told that when that happened in one instance, it produced a terrible stench in the cockpit, as the shredded bird would enter the compressor where the air for the cockpit ventilation comes from.

 

I have not met many F-104 pilots, but the ones I could talk to in a more relaxed athmosphere remained generally very serious about how the plane had to be handled and when probing for yarn, it ended at "No, I've never flown full aileron rolls with the Starfighter." Not so with the Mirage. There are some aircraft that air a tremendous sense of confidence to the pilot. The Mirage III is one of those. There were even a bunch of weekend warriors flying that plane and for all ofthem, flying the Mirage was about the best thing in their life, ever. Hungover or not, they would sit in that little cockpit and go zooming around with the broadest smile on their faces. It is just an aircraft that absolutely flys as it should. And it's bloody fast. They would do silly things with it and not be ashamed. Of one I know that he stunted his Mirage over his airfield such that he induced a compressor stall, making his engine quit. Not good at low level in high high G maneuvering. And very audible to all the folks looking skyward. But he could restart the engine in time to come away clean. He spent three days in the can for that stunt and he even today doesn't feel bad about it.

 

Given the abuse those aircraft took, I find the accident rate spectacularly low, even though the numbers given do not reflect the near misses. In this light I would never buy a Starfighter if there's the Mirage III at hand. The Starfighter has very marginal upsides to the Mirage while having significat downsides.

 

  • Thanks 1
  • Upvote 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The F-104 in fact was the best airplane for the mission at that time* - and that was first and foremost delivering instant sunshine to the western part of the Soviet Union. The airplane had the range, the speed and a very low radar cross-section. It also premiered INS in aircraft - a technology which previously had been available to nuclear subs. Like all new tech (and the 104 incorporated a lot of that - like variable stator vanes on the all-new J79 engine), there was teething-trouble. And that stuff got people killed. Like assigning an 19 year-old crew chief to a 21 year old Lieutenent and run the whole show during freezing rain and blowing snow.

The other missions (conventional attack, fighter stuff, reconnaissance, naval stuff) was just a "one size fits all"-deal that german defense-procurement often follows. The Marineflieger did in fact prefer the Banana Jet (which was a lot better for their mission) and only got to appreciate the F-104's strengths (mainly high speed and a low RCS) in their mission later.

 

There's a great book about the swiss Mirage (Mirage - Das fliegende Dreieck), where the whole procurement and cost-escalation spiral is shown. The initial number of aircraft (~100 airframes IIRC) could never be bought as the wholly new swiss avionics suite (mainly removing all french stuff and installing the american Hughes TARAN instead - including missiles) induced a cost-runaway. It also has a couple of interesting stories to tell about swiss-israeli coorperation. That was mostly focussed on showing the swiss how the israelis fought with the airplane (basicly: "forget the POH-limitations") and the technology-transfer around the canard, which was introduced later to increse the hi-alpha handling potential.

 

The RAAF called their Mirage IIIO "Miracles". They lost a lot (percentage) due to engine issues, though.

http://www.adf-gallery.com.au/3a3 losses.htm

 

The original concept of the IIIO would have been a cracker - they had replaced the ATAR 9B with an AVON 67 and that thing was going like mad.

But that combination only made it to flight-testing.

 

___

* Of the aircraft that were considered. The flight-testing team consisted of non-test pilots only. There just were none at the time. That got fixed only after the deal was made.

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I worked for Sperry that did R&O on the 104s INS. It was a 2 gyro (1 single axis gyro, the other a 2 axis gyro) system. About every 3-4 months we would see the unit returned for another R&O.

 

For thread drift, this thread surely has.l😲

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
35 minutes ago, MiloMorai said:

For thread drift, this thread surely has.l😲

..drift into the future, where '46 scenarios supposedly had taken place.

 

Besides that, there must be a Ta-152H for IL-2 eventually (hopefully as collectors plane) for the simple reason that it should be easy money for Jason & his crew. And this can only be good news for us.

Share this post


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

..drift into the future, where '46 scenarios supposedly had taken place.

 

Besides that, there must be a Ta-152H for IL-2 eventually (hopefully as collectors plane) for the simple reason that it should be easy money for Jason & his crew. And this can only be good news for us.

 

I still would disagree with some people in this thread who have said it should come before other more long serving/important aircraft like the spitfire xiv or maybe even 190 a9. As for 'must', I think it depends how long the team want to stay with this scenario, I foresee it being a late addition if at all. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The A-9 would in fact be least work as it's an A-8 with a different engine. Basically no 3D work, just a change in the FM. It could in fact be included as an engine mod, not as a new plane.

  • Upvote 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

There are some slight differences in the A-9. One is the different cooling-fan, which has 14 blades on the A-9 engine.

Also the A-9 should come standard with the bulged canopy/ Furchenzieher. Then there is the Schwartz borad-chord prop.*

 

The general 3D-work required should be relatively simple, though.

 

____

*Note: In fact, any A-9 could have had gotten a replacement-801D engine, a replacement canopy and a standard VDM propeller.

But the configuration given above should be relatively standard for a factory-fresh A-9 of the depicted timeframe.

The propeller-issue seems to be the hardest nut to crack, as I can remember reading that the Schwartz prop was discontinued early in the program.

Not sure if that is actually the truth.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

because facts are always great

 

 

 

Edited by SCRYABIN

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The Ta152 H0/H1 surely was a very attractive bird, however we have to keep in mind that it scored 5-7 kills max in WW2 and was designed to kill high altitude B17s and B24s or escorts. To be honest, I´m not sure about that point. So in conclusion, I think we have more relevant planes to ask for in BoBP which actually saw service in significant numbers between 9/44 and 3/45.

 

- Spit XiV

- Typhoon

- Mosquito

- Ju 88 S

- Arado 234

 

to name a few. Notwithstanding those, that could easily? be integrated by adaption of existing plane concepts like:

 

- Fw 190 A9

- Me 109 G10

- Me 109 G14/AS

Edited by sevenless
  • Upvote 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 11/15/2018 at 8:59 PM, 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.

 


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.

 

JV69badatflyski,

 

Just for my own clarification, are you saying that because the sortie was not planned as an offensive engagement then the engagement in your eyes can't be considered an aerial combat mission?  I'm sure that is not what you are implying as if we take that thinking further, it would assume that the majority of engagements during the Battle Of Britain conducted by the RAF were defensive and how would you put it "just lucky" to be vectored in with CH system.  In addition, in what context are you using the word Intruder?  For me intruder operations are ones where you are on the offensive into enemy air space or are you using the word intruder meaning that you are denying an enemy "intruder" access into your OOA/air-space?

 

That aside, to me whether you believe it to be an offensive or defensive mission, the fact remains that it resulted in an aerial combat engagement and thus it is recorded as a combat mission, therefore, I'm unsure as to what your point is or what your disagreement is regarding Talisman's comment(s)/statement.

 

Regards

 

PS  I read it as 3 and not 2 x FW190s!

 

 

 

@SCRYABIN

 

 

Spoiler

 

 

because facts are always correct:

 

Apparently not to JaRa

 

Ask enough veterans and you'll always find someone who confirms your wet dreams about your favourite plane. And then, without being respectless, ask yourself how many details a WW2 veteran with the relatively low combat times possible in WW2 could possibly remember more than 70 years later."

 

 

However, I could listen to these old guys all day talking about their experiences, although there are fewer of them about these days!  One last thing and just for clarification, thankfully I've had no wet dreams, yet!!

 

 

Edited by Haza

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 11/19/2018 at 5:50 AM, Haza said:

 

JV69badatflyski,

 

Just for my own clarification, are you saying that because the sortie was not planned as an offensive engagement then the engagement in your eyes can't be considered an aerial combat mission?  I'm sure that is not what you are implying as if we take that thinking further, it would assume that the majority of engagements during the Battle Of Britain conducted by the RAF were defensive and how would you put it "just lucky" to be vectored in with CH system.  In addition, in what context are you using the word Intruder?  For me intruder operations are ones where you are on the offensive into enemy air space or are you using the word intruder meaning that you are denying an enemy "intruder" access into your OOA/air-space?

 

That aside, to me whether you believe it to be an offensive or defensive mission, the fact remains that it resulted in an aerial combat engagement and thus it is recorded as a combat mission, therefore, I'm unsure as to what your point is or what your disagreement is regarding Talisman's comment(s)/statement.

 

Regards

 

PS  I read it as 3 and not 2 x FW190s!

 

  Hide contents

 

 

 

Damn i love the WWII forums, you start with a specific plane and end with a 1946(at best) plane (vampire) 🤣

Anyway: yes, the mission was a Patrol and ended with lucky kills. Why lucky kills? because LW combat activity on England in44 was rather..rare.
Your comparaison with BoB is irrelevant here as you compare 2 airplanes making some sightseeing 60km from their base that happen to meet some Antons.We're not talking about 450 airplanes VS 2000 airplanes like in BoB. It's a one shot action (until contrary proven by having all the flight logs from the 610sq ).
My disagreement with Talisman's comment is that 610 wasn't there for continous combat, they were there to learn and test the plane in operationnal conditions, just like the JG26 did with the wurger, they were also flying patrols above france, air combat also took place, but it wasn't the goal. It was war, so there is still a probability of meeting an enemy plane even if you're not on the front line. Lucky shot. that's all. RAF has the luxury to test new models without sending them ito combat on day1. the 14 wouldn't change anything as there was enough spits 5 and 9's for the job that has to be done above the continent.

Intruder missions: your first definition is the right one: enemy harrassement above his territory.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Glossary_of_RAF_code_names

I hope i made me understand here, english being my fourth language, it's not always easy to express the whole meaning of thoughts.

"Bodem gewint immer"
 

  • Thanks 1

Share this post


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

Damn i love the WWII forums, you start with a specific plane and end with a 1946(at best) plane (vampire) 🤣

Anyway: yes, the mission was a Patrol and ended with lucky kills. Why lucky kills? because LW combat activity on England in44 was rather..rare.
Your comparaison with BoB is irrelevant here as you compare 2 airplanes making some sightseeing 60km from their base that happen to meet some Antons.We're not talking about 450 airplanes VS 2000 airplanes like in BoB. It's a one shot action (until contrary proven by having all the flight logs from the 610sq ).
My disagreement with Talisman's comment is that 610 wasn't there for continous combat, they were there to learn and test the plane in operationnal conditions, just like the JG26 did with the wurger, they were also flying patrols above france, air combat also took place, but it wasn't the goal. It was war, so there is still a probability of meeting an enemy plane even if you're not on the front line. Lucky shot. that's all. RAF has the luxury to test new models without sending them ito combat on day1. the 14 wouldn't change anything as there was enough spits 5 and 9's for the job that has to be done above the continent.

Intruder missions: your first definition is the right one: enemy harrassement above his territory.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Glossary_of_RAF_code_names

I hope i made me understand here, english being my fourth language, it's not always easy to express the whole meaning of thoughts.

"Bodem gewint immer"
 

610 Squadron was a fully operational squadron flying fully operational Spitfire Mk XIV aircraft on a fully operational combat mission to hunt for low level intruder FW 190.  If you research the history you will find that FW 190 were carrying out low level intruder missions at the time of the combat report I posted.  The RAF was countering the low level FW 190 intruder operations by intercepting them with Spitfire XIV under guidance from mission ground control and radar.  610 Squadron was not being rested from combat, they were in combat as the record shows and it was not by luck as you claim, it was by intentional design.  The patrol was for an operational reason, it was not a test or training.  The operational intention was to counter low level intruder operations by FW 190.  In this instance it was a successful mission because they achieved their goal.  The operational intent was to counter the enemies hostile actions with force.

 

Happy landings,

 

Talisman 

  • Upvote 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
3 hours ago, II/JG17_HerrMurf said:

 But were they operational is what I’m wondering ;)

Yes, it is a great word, LOL:

 

https://en.oxforddictionaries.com/definition/operational

 

😁

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I'd like to see the following:

 

 

  • Ju-88C-6
  • Bf-109G-4
  • A-20G-25-DO
  • A-26B
  • B-25H

 

and

 

The R8/Nachtjager mod for the current Fw-190A-8

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...