If this is your first visit, be sure to check out the FAQ by clicking the link above. You may have to register before you can post: click the register link above to proceed. To start viewing messages, select the forum that you want to visit from the selection below. |
|
|
|
Thread Tools | Display Modes |
#1
|
|||
|
|||
Ta-152H at low altitudes
For the experts:
As made obvious by its wings, the Ta-152H was designed as a high-altitude interceptor. But I am interested in how the Ta-152H handled at low-to-medium altitudes. How did the Ta-152H compare with the Fw-190D at such alts? I suppose the ultra-long wings of the Ta considerably reduced rollrate? Did the Ta have increased manuverability/tighter turning circle at low alts? (Was wing-loading increased or decreased?) What about low-speed & stall characteristics? |
#2
|
|||
|
|||
|
#3
|
|||
|
|||
TA152s were used to protect Me262 on takeoff and landing becuase the underdeveloped Jumo 004B Jet engines had very restricted acceleration and could easily be bounced by allied aircraft. The 004 were outstanding engines and few suffered failures in the test programme. Unfortunately, or fortunately, wartime shortages meant that the production 004B would have subtle differences to the hand-built 004s in use previously, with the end result that they sucked. Still, they didn't suck as bad as history makes us believe - air starts WERE possible, and if pilots minded their pre-flight instructions, problems were rare. Of greater importance, the landing gear rate of failure and production defects (caused by using slave labor) were appalling. It is said that when TA152s were in the air no Me262s were ever lost. The airfield protection Staffeln used VERY few Ta 152s - instead, most were the later marks of FW 190 D-series. Ta 152 high-altitude interceptors don't help much when you are trying to protect low and slow "Turbos" in the traffic pattern from Mustangs. The specialized, low alt Ta 152 might have done better, but there were few to be had. The aircarft could opperate at 470mph and at altitudes of nearly 45,000 ft and had a pressursied cabin. It was designed to take on B29s. Hard to believe. The RLM didn't field aircraft for non-existant threats; quite the opposite, they rarely reacted in a timely fashion to actual, present threats. The Ta 152 series was not intended specifically to counter the B-29 - the great speed of the Tank fighter was intended to be used against Mustangs and Mosquitos, and other fast targets that could not adequately be countered by more conventional fighters, such as the tired old "Me". The Ta would have made a fine bomber destroyer, but its not likely it was designed and fielded with the B-29 in mind. With an Armament of 4 x 20mm and 1 x 30mm cannon it had the power to do so. Few carried that armament, and the Ta 152 program was cancelled before the war ended, while the Do 335 remained on the construction orders right to the end. I believe if the B-29 ever arrived over Europe during the war, it would have been met by the Dornier and the Me 262, which were the fighters that were still intended to be built as of late April 45. v/r Gordon ====(A+C==== USN SAR Aircrew "Got anything on your radar, SENSO?" "Nothing but my forehead, sir." |
#4
|
|||
|
|||
Contrary to legend, the Ta 152H did not have a laminar flow wing. I have Focke Wulf documents showing that the wing used the same NACA 5-digit airfoils as the Fw 190. My "Incomplete Guide to Airfoil Usage" gives the airfoil designations. |
#5
|
|||
|
|||
Fw 190 aces of the western front - Osprey - reads : "the marked increase in
span (over the D9) gave the aircraft a very tight turning circle and a fantastic climb capability - 15m/s and a ceiling of 14000m". This being the testimony of a german pilot. Oberfeldwebel Josef Keil was the sole Ta-152 ace in the war (he flew Ta152 with the JG 301 till the end of the war). As made obvious by its wings, the Ta-152H was designed as a high-altitude interceptor. But I am interested in how the Ta-152H handled at low-to-medium altitudes. How did the Ta-152H compare with the Fw-190D at such alts? I suppose the ultra-long wings of the Ta considerably reduced rollrate? Did the Ta have increased manuverability/tighter turning circle at low alts? (Was wing-loading increased or decreased?) What about low-speed & stall characteristics? |
#6
|
|||
|
|||
I recall reading something about another development, the Ta153. Where,
if anywhere, would this version fit into the discussion? Was it intended to fill a lower-altitude role? |
#7
|
|||
|
|||
I recall reading something about another development, the Ta153. Where, if anywhere, would this version fit into the discussion? Was it intended to fill a lower-altitude role? The 8-153 projekt roughly approximates what would eventually turn into the Ta 152 H, a high alt interceptor. |
#8
|
|||
|
|||
David Lednicer wrote in message ...
Contrary to legend, the Ta 152H did not have a laminar flow wing. I have Focke Wulf documents showing that the wing used the same NACA 5-digit airfoils as the Fw 190. My "Incomplete Guide to Airfoil Usage" gives the airfoil designations. ADD: I have read somewhere the Globe Swift used the same NACA airfoil as the 190 (or vice versa) - is that so? Also - from all I have read laminar flow is delightful in theory and essentially unobtainable/maintainable in practice. Dirt, bugs and hangar rash all mitigate against it. Walt BJ |
#9
|
|||
|
|||
|
#10
|
|||
|
|||
TA152s were used to protect Me262 on takeoff and landing becuase the underdeveloped Jumo 004B Jet engines had very restricted acceleration and could easily be bounced by allied aircraft. It is said that when TA152s were in the air no Me262s were ever lost. Not all Ta 152s were used in that role. JV 44s Fockes were 4 190D-9s and a single 190D-11. As far as performance was concerned the Ta 152 in 1945 was inferior to the latest Mark of Spitfire under 30,000 ft. Between 30,000-35,000 ft the aircraft were equal. Above 35,000 ft the Ta 152 was superior all the way up to 50,000 ft! Rob p.s. The Ta 152 was also fitted with a LGW-Siemens K23 autopilot to reduce pilot fatigue. |
|
Thread Tools | |
Display Modes | |
|
|
Similar Threads | ||||
Thread | Thread Starter | Forum | Replies | Last Post |
Picking Optimal Altitudes | O. Sami Saydjari | Instrument Flight Rules | 20 | January 8th 04 02:59 PM |
Center vs. Approach Altitudes | Joseph D. Farrell | Instrument Flight Rules | 8 | October 21st 03 08:34 PM |