Ta-152H at low altitudes

[N-6]

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?

[The Enlightenment]

(N-6) wrote in message >...
> 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?


From what I've gleaned form this newsgroup the TA152 had the following
characteristics.
1 The large laminar flow wings gave The TA152 good manoeverability
unlike the the FW190D had reduced manoeverability compared to the
radial engined FW190A becuase it has the same wings but a heavier
engine leading to high wing loading.
2 Because of their large span the roll rate was reduced compared to
the 190D which itself had less than the FW190A (regarded as one of
the fastest rollers of the war)
3 The laminar flow wing and the powerfull engine gave the TA152 a
high speed and a high rate of climb. The engine had both Water
Methanol MW50 boosting for low altitudes and GM1 Nitrous oxide
boosting for high altitudes.
4 The aircraft had a pretty good range.

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.


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. With an Armament of 4 x 20mm and 1 x 30mm cannon it had the
power to do so.

[Gordon]

>
>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."

[David Lednicer]

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.

[Yann D]

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?

[David Windhorst]

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?

[Gordon]

>
>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.

[WaltBJ]

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

[The Enlightenment]

(Gordon) wrote in message >...
> >
> >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.

The Jumo 004D had entered production but not service and by accounts
it was to be significantly more reliable and easier to opperate.


>
> > 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.

I suspect the TA152 pilots simply relied on their marginaly superior
speed and flak corridors. Probably these were some of the more
experienced pilots.

>
> >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.

The B29 wasn't a non existant threat since it was in use against
Japan. The B29 was almost impune against interception by most
japanese aircaft types but it would have fared less well against the
Luftwaffe, nevertheless it still would have been much more difficult
to intercept becuase of its speed.

There is a story that the Night Fighter version of the Ju 388 were
built to counter a spoof RAF plan to bomb from the stratosphere at
night thus wasting Luftwaffe resources. Certainly the Ju388 would
also have been capable of a night time interception of a B29 class
aircraft but it was never needed.

Most of the RLMs (I don't blame the Luftwaffe so much) bad procurment
options seem to have come out of a directives built around an
assumption of victory within 2 years. Understandable but risky
reasoning as a war extending beyond that would exhaust the resource
poorer and outnumbered Reich so they poured their energies into a
sucker punch with the technology that they had. It failed.

That combined with delays in the Jumo 004B and the Jumo 222 piston
engine meant that they were at a qualitative disadvantage. By 1943
the Me262 should have been in service and the Ju288 bomber with a
speed of 408mph, 8800lb internal bombload and powerfull remote
controlled armament should also have been in service. The Jumo 004B
was the main delay in Me262 availability and the Jumo 222 only entered
production right at the end of the war for whatever reason.


>
> > With an Armament of 4 x 20mm and 1 x 30mm cannon it had the
> > power to do so.
>
> Few carried that armament,

Some I beleive carried the higher velocity Mk 151/15 15mm cannon
instead of the Mk151/20mm cannon. The low velocity Mk108 30mm cannon
was carried but some version may have reached the front with the much
heavier Mk103 long barrelled 30mm cannon. I can only assumed some
versions carried the old FW190D armament.



> and the Ta 152 program was cancelled before the war
> ended,

I think a very large number of programs were cancelled in the last 2
months of the war.


> 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.

It certainly was a heavily armed aricraft wich could carry high
velocity weapons. (4 x Mk151/15 or 20/ and 1 x Mk103)

The problem this aircraft had was its nose prop which required a
pairing of two aircraft in a zwilling (double mustan arrangement) for
the radardome or antenna built into the leading edge of the wing. (By
this time the FuG 244 microwave radars were intended for
nightfighters)



>
> v/r
> Gordon
> <====(A+C====>
> USN SAR Aircrew
>
> "Got anything on your radar, SENSO?"
> "Nothing but my forehead, sir."

[robert arndt]

>
> 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.

[Gordon]

>> >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.
>
>The B29 wasn't a non existant threat since it was in use against
>Japan.

Well, then the RLM would have needed to send a Geschwader or two to Hokkaido in
order to face that threat. By the time reports of B-29s filtered back to
Germany, Tank had been working on improving the FW 190 for years. I've never
seen anything from a German wartime source that mentions a B-29, and nothing in
the Tank file that suggests he needed it to provide motivation for creating
additional improvements to his signature prop fighter.

>The B29 was almost impune against interception by most
>japanese aircaft types but it would have fared less well against the
>Luftwaffe, nevertheless it still would have been much more difficult
>to intercept becuase of its speed.

I've never met a LW pilot, or read a report by a wartime German source that
knew anything about the B-29 until long after the war. The "boogie man" to the
Germans, from the bordfunkers in the 110s, the train engineers, all the way up
to Göring, Goebbels, and DF all point to the Mosquito. I have minutes to
meetings of the Jägerstab from 1945 and the men present are grim, determined,
and not interested in addressing threats faced by the Asian friends - they want
to know what industry is doing to stop those verdammt Mosquitos. No mention,
anywhere, of a B-29 threat that needs to be addressed.

>There is a story that the Night Fighter version of the Ju 388 were
>built to counter a spoof RAF plan to bomb from the stratosphere at
>night thus wasting Luftwaffe resources. Certainly the Ju388 would
>also have been capable of a night time interception of a B29 class
>aircraft but it was never needed.

I have huge doubts that anyone in the RLM , the LW, or Junkers gave any
credence to the whimsical notion that a super-bomber from the USA was coming in
1945, to bomb the Reich *at night*.

By the time the 8-388 was coming off the drawing boards, Harris had announced
that "...the RAF was out of targets", and at about the same time, Bomber
Command began switching over to daylight bombing. I really have to wonder about
the source of your info as I haven't seen anything from BAMA that agrees with
it. B-29s at night? Really?? I know the RLM made some idiotic mistakes, but
I can't imagine they would entertain this notion, to the point that they
directed a version of the Ju 388 be prepared to counter it.

>Most of the RLMs (I don't blame the Luftwaffe so much) bad procurment
>options seem to have come out of a directives built around an
>assumption of victory within 2 years.
Plenty of blame to go around - with the exceptio of Udet, most of the RLM
strikes me as incompetent.

>Understandable but risky
>reasoning as a war extending beyond that would exhaust the resource
>poorer and outnumbered Reich so they poured their energies into a
>sucker punch with the technology that they had. It failed.

My wife constantly corrects me, when I insist on "putting it all on black".
She has taught me over the years that 'if you ain't got a backup plan, you
ain't got a plan', and it seems that Hitler and crew never even considered a
backup plan. Thankfully, they hadn't married my wife...

>That combined with delays in the Jumo 004B and the Jumo 222 piston
>engine meant that they were at a qualitative disadvantage. By 1943
>the Me262 should have been in service and the Ju288 bomber with a
>speed of 408mph, 8800lb internal bombload and powerfull remote
>controlled armament should also have been in service. The Jumo 004B
>was the main delay in Me262 availability and the Jumo 222 only entered
>production right at the end of the war for whatever reason.

Plus, too many projects were left waiting for these two, and the BMW 003. I
guess we should be thankfull.

>> > With an Armament of 4 x 20mm and 1 x 30mm cannon it had the
>> > power to do so.
>>
>> Few carried that armament,
>
>Some I beleive carried the higher velocity Mk 151/15 15mm cannon
>instead of the Mk151/20mm cannon. The low velocity Mk108 30mm cannon
>was carried but some version may have reached the front with the much
>heavier Mk103 long barrelled 30mm cannon. I can only assumed some
>versions carried the old FW190D armament.

From photos in my collection (and Nowarra's), it looks like there was little
standardization by this period - if they had cannons, they were fitted. Then
the pilots and warts removed what wasn't wanted. I interview JG 300 pilots
periodically and by that late in the war, pilots were opting for light armament
and stripped down a/c, whether they were nachtjäger or day fighters -- speed
was life and little else mattered. The day of loading armor and hanging extra
cannons on airframes was over and all that remained was a desire to get the
most performance out of each machine, to give the pilot a tiny momentary edge.
So, the lighter the better, including armament. Some of NJG 11 and JG 300, 301
and 302 birds carried as little as a single pair of 20mm cannons - one of my JG
301 photos shows exactly this setup with an FW 190 D; the cowl guns are removed
and there is only one gun per wing. My guess is that the pilot was not worried
about not having enough firepower, he just wanted the lightest ship he could
find.

>> and the Ta 152 program was cancelled before the war
>> ended,
>
>I think a very large number of programs were cancelled in the last 2
>months of the war.

That's obvious, but others, including the Dornier and a small assortment of
jets, were ordered to stay in production.

>> 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.
>
>It certainly was a heavily armed aricraft wich could carry high
>velocity weapons. (4 x Mk151/15 or 20/ and 1 x Mk103)
>
>The problem this aircraft had was its nose prop which required a
>pairing of two aircraft in a zwilling (double mustan arrangement) for
>the radardome or antenna built into the leading edge of the wing. (By
>this time the FuG 244 microwave radars were intended for
>nightfighters)

The Zwilling 335 never made it off paper - the NF 335 would have remained more
traditional (if that can be said of any 335), with a humped spine for the
bordfunker and a leading-edge radar array. German pilots were odd when it came
to radar: while RAF nightfighter crews considered it an indespensible tool,
most LW crews thought of it as an extra weapon, to enhance their primary night
detection device, their eyes. As strange as that may sound, its a common
comment among vets. Since they had watched every single innovation of theirs
used against them by the British and their hunter-killer Mosquitos, flying
around broadcasting a radar was not seen as a terribly bright idea by
1944-1945.

Unlike other projects that led no-where, the NF 335 had already had its
prototype built and test flown -- were the war to continue, there is no doubt
that within weeks, it would have been in full production, as the Jägerstab
ordered. At that point, the RAF had already started to shut down the night
raids, so it was all moot.

v/r
Gordon
<====(A+C====>
USN SAR Aircrew

"Got anything on your radar, SENSO?"
"Nothing but my forehead, sir."

[Gordon]

>> 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.

seems ridiculous to expect a mere handful of 190s to be able to protect
"Turbos", when every single "silberplatz" had been identified and targeted by
the Allies!

>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!

Which pilot logged a flight to 50k in a Ta 152? Curious to know is all.

>p.s. The Ta 152 was also fitted with a LGW-Siemens K23 autopilot to
>reduce pilot fatigue.

Hmmmm. Most flights by this point in the war were not that long and the K22
and K23 notations I have seen in conjunction with single engine fighters is to
enhance their foul weather performance, as I see this autopilot included in the
"Schlechtwetterjäger" variants of various late war fighters.

Gordon
<====(A+C====>
USN SAR Aircrew

"Got anything on your radar, SENSO?"
"Nothing but my forehead, sir."

[robert arndt]

(Gordon) wrote in message >...
> >> 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.
>
> seems ridiculous to expect a mere handful of 190s to be able to protect
> "Turbos", when every single "silberplatz" had been identified and targeted by
> the Allies!

Uh, haven't you heard of the famous "Galland Circus"? The aircraft
were all painted red underneath with white striping so that the field
flak gunners wouldn't shoot down the Doras in an engagement with
Allied fighters. The confirmed aircraft are three D-9s (Red 1, Red 3,
and Red 13) plus one D-11 (v58) Red 4. At least two other D-9s were
flown by two other pilots arriving right before the end. Of the 4
primary craft, two pilots were aces with 104 and 15 kills
respectively. Another D-9 pilot had 2 and the D-11 pilot none.
Apparently, none of the aircraft were lost during operations and no
record of a 262 lost when the "Platzschutzstaffel" was operating.
>
> >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!
>
> Which pilot logged a flight to 50k in a Ta 152? Curious to know is all.

Don't have that info as far as Luftwaffe pilots were concerned;
however, Russian NII VVS tested the Ta 152 up to that height. For
simplicity sake let's just say "above 35,000 ft"... as we know the
aircraft had the ability to climb easily up to and beyond 45,000 ft.
It was designed for this purpose as a bomber interceptor.
>
> >p.s. The Ta 152 was also fitted with a LGW-Siemens K23 autopilot to
> >reduce pilot fatigue.
>
> Hmmmm. Most flights by this point in the war were not that long and the K22
> and K23 notations I have seen in conjunction with single engine fighters is to
> enhance their foul weather performance, as I see this autopilot included in the
> "Schlechtwetterjäger" variants of various late war fighters.

Most WW2 aircraft reference manuals I have on the Ta 152 feature the
K23 with no special notations.

Rob
>
> Gordon
> <====(A+C====>
> USN SAR Aircrew
>
> "Got anything on your radar, SENSO?"
> "Nothing but my forehead, sir."

[Gordon]

>
>Uh, haven't you heard of the famous "Galland Circus"?

Gee, Rob, why don't you educate me about it?

>Of the 4
>primary craft, two pilots were aces with 104 and 15 kills
>respectively.

Yes, I know - I have their autographed photos and letters from Mr. 104.
Tracking down and interviewing these guys is what I do. Yesterday, it was four
pilots and a bombardier from the 461st (in town to visit the air museum and
check in on the massive scale B-24 model), but usually, I stick to LW and RAF
guys, including the airfield protection Papagai Staffel.

>Apparently, none of the aircraft were lost during operations and no
>record of a 262 lost when the "Platzschutzstaffel" was operating.

That had far more to do with Galland's procedures for approaching the field
than superiority of the defending prop fighters, again, only a handful. JG 7
and KG 51 lost literally dozens of aircraft attempting to land or just after
takeoff. Galland learned from their mistakes and did things differently -
resulting in far fewer losses per sortie than either of the earlier units. You
can thank D and the other pilots in the Doras; I think credit goes to Galland
and his combat leadership.

>Don't have that info as far as Luftwaffe pilots were concerned;
>however, Russian NII VVS tested the Ta 152 up to that height. For
>simplicity sake let's just say "above 35,000 ft"...

Don't know of any Abschusse reports claiming a victory at that height for the
Ta. It would be interesting to see one.

>> Hmmmm. Most flights by this point in the war were not that long and the
>K22
>> and K23 notations I have seen in conjunction with single engine fighters is
>to
>> enhance their foul weather performance, as I see this autopilot included in
>the
>> "Schlechtwetterjäger" variants of various late war fighters.
>
>Most WW2 aircraft reference manuals I have on the Ta 152 feature the
>K23 with no special notations.

The actual wartime documents state clearly that the inclusion of the autopilot
was one aspect of the change over to the "Schlectwetterjäger" standard.
Regular FW 190s and Bf 109s had the same upgraded electronics in a 'foul
weather' late war variant. The RLM recognized that they were facing an enemy
that could bomb through overcasts, so the LW couldn't sit on the ground in a
drizzle and wait for clear weather to respond. To make up for this, a
percentage of each "day fighter" production was to be augmented with a nominal
array of electronics and other navaids to allow for a crude all-weather fighter
to be fielded without requiring an all new version to be built.

Gordon

[robert arndt]

(Gordon) wrote in message >...
> >
> >Uh, haven't you heard of the famous "Galland Circus"?
>
> Gee, Rob, why don't you educate me about it?

No need, just puzzled why you found it so hard to believe a handful of
Doras couldn't fend away prowling Allied fighter/bombers???
>
> >Of the 4
> >primary craft, two pilots were aces with 104 and 15 kills
> >respectively.
>
> Yes, I know - I have their autographed photos and letters from Mr. 104.
> Tracking down and interviewing these guys is what I do. Yesterday, it was four
> pilots and a bombardier from the 461st (in town to visit the air museum and
> check in on the massive scale B-24 model), but usually, I stick to LW and RAF
> guys, including the airfield protection Papagai Staffel.

They were never officially called that except that it is believed
their callsign was "parrot".
>
> >Apparently, none of the aircraft were lost during operations and no
> >record of a 262 lost when the "Platzschutzstaffel" was operating.
>
> That had far more to do with Galland's procedures for approaching the field
> than superiority of the defending prop fighters, again, only a handful. JG 7
> and KG 51 lost literally dozens of aircraft attempting to land or just after
> takeoff. Galland learned from their mistakes and did things differently -
> resulting in far fewer losses per sortie than either of the earlier units. You
> can thank D and the other pilots in the Doras; I think credit goes to Galland
> and his combat leadership.
>
And the fact the aircraft were painted red underneath to alert the
flak gunners that these were indeed German aircraft. At many other
bases the German flak gunners shot at anything approaching the base
and downed scores of German aircraft!

> >Don't have that info as far as Luftwaffe pilots were concerned;
> >however, Russian NII VVS tested the Ta 152 up to that height. For
> >simplicity sake let's just say "above 35,000 ft"...
>
> Don't know of any Abschusse reports claiming a victory at that height for the
> Ta. It would be interesting to see one.

Agreed. The Ta 152 really came to life above 35,000 ft.
>
> >> Hmmmm. Most flights by this point in the war were not that long and the
> K22
> >> and K23 notations I have seen in conjunction with single engine fighters is
> to
> >> enhance their foul weather performance, as I see this autopilot included in
> the
> >> "Schlechtwetterjäger" variants of various late war fighters.
> >
> >Most WW2 aircraft reference manuals I have on the Ta 152 feature the
> >K23 with no special notations.
>
> The actual wartime documents state clearly that the inclusion of the autopilot
> was one aspect of the change over to the "Schlectwetterjäger" standard.
> Regular FW 190s and Bf 109s had the same upgraded electronics in a 'foul
> weather' late war variant. The RLM recognized that they were facing an enemy
> that could bomb through overcasts, so the LW couldn't sit on the ground in a
> drizzle and wait for clear weather to respond. To make up for this, a
> percentage of each "day fighter" production was to be augmented with a nominal
> array of electronics and other navaids to allow for a crude all-weather fighter
> to be fielded without requiring an all new version to be built.

The Germans had several autopilots in production in 1945 meaning that
this type of device was becoming a standard feature in late-war
aircraft.
>
> Gordon

Rob

[Emmanuel.Gustin]

Gordon > wrote:

: Plenty of blame to go around - with the exceptio of Udet, most of the RLM
: strikes me as incompetent.

Udet wasn't particularly competent either. A fine pilot,
but a poor industrialist, who did not plan sufficiently
ahead and really could not cope with the stress of his
office.

: The Zwilling 335 never made it off paper - the NF 335 would have remained more
: traditional (if that can be said of any 335), with a humped spine for the
: bordfunker and a leading-edge radar array.

No humped spine, actually: That was the trainer model, of which
some were modified as part of the prototype programme. But the
real nightfighter version would have a straight spine, which
meant that the radar operator had little outside view, but
apparently that wasn't much of a requirement.

: German pilots were odd when it came to radar: while RAF nightfighter
: crews considered it an indespensible tool, most LW crews thought of
: it as an extra weapon, to enhance their primary night
: detection device, their eyes.

German nightfighter radars failed to come even close to the
performance of the British centimetric radar sets. The yagi
aerials would always have broad, overlapping transmit/receive
lobes, and target location was by comparing the signal
differences. IN contrast, centimetric radar beams could be
steered by parabolic reflector dishes; giving much better
resolution and low-altitude performance.

At the very end of the war, the Germans had copied sets which
had fallen into their hands in the 'Berlin' radar sets, which
was fitted to a handful of Ju 88G nightfighters. However, it
would hardly have been possible to fit this to the Do 335;
except perhaps in a large underwing pod. So the Ju 388 was
actually the better basis for a future nightfighter.

Emmanuel Gustin

[The Enlightenment]

(robert arndt) wrote in message >...
> >
> > 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!

AFAIKS Kurt Tank (the Fw190/Ta152 chief designer) was preceding with
the Ta152B which had shortened and altered wings to improve its
agillity and performance as an 'escort fighter'. It like the Ta152H
had the 36 Liter Jumo 213 engine.

(In fact it was originaly a replacement of the FW190D wing, which had
retained for production reasons the radial engined FW190A wings. The
wing of the proposed 190D based Ra-4D/Ta 153 had a slightly greater
span and area than that of the Fw 190D which was not ideal. This wing
was seen to have certain advantages over the wing originally envisaged
for the Ta 152. In addition to having better aerodynamic
characteristics, the Ta 153 wing was deemed easier to manufacture and
was capable of carrying more fuel. The Luftwaffe consequently proposed
that that the new wing be adopted for the Ta 152B, with the outboard
panels and flaps being extended for the long-span Ta 152H. )

The TA152C was a DD603 43L engined short winged version of the Ta152H.
(Only 3 were built). Tank wanted it becuase he said with this engine
it the aircraft would have better performance at altitude oddly it
ended up in the short 36ft span TA152C. On the surface the aircraft
seems to have had better perfromace at low altitude but only managed
463mph instead of 470mph of the TA152H. Closer inspection shows what
the reason was: The TA152Cs bigger engine managed this without GM-1
nitrous oxide boost.

These was recognition that one fighter wing profile and engine type
could not handle all scenarios thr Luftwaffe had to face.

TA152H-1 Engine: Junkers Jumo 213E-1 twelve-cylinder liquid-cooled
engine rated at 1750 hp for takeoff (2050 hp with MW 50 boost) and
1320 hp at 32,800 feet (1740 feet with GM 1 boost). Maximum speed: 332
mph at sea level (350 mph with MW 50 boost), 465 mph at 29,530 feet
with MW 50 boost, 472 mph at 41,010 feet with GM 1 boost. Service
ceiling was 48,550 feet with GM 1 boost. Initial climb rate was 3445
feet/minute with MW 50 boost. Weights were 8642 pounds empty, 10,472
pounds normal loaded, 11,502 pounds maximum. Wingspan 47 feet 41/2
inches, length 35 feet 1 2/3 inches, height 11 feet 0 1/4 inches, wing
area 250.8 square feet.

Your claim of TA152H-1's opperating at 50,000 feet seems substantiated
by the 48,550 ft service ceiling.

The Ta 152C-1 was powered by a Daimler-Benz DB 603LA twelve-cylinder
liquid cooled engine rated at 2100 hp (2300 hp with MW 50) for takeoff
and 1750 hp at 29,530 feet (1900 hp at 27,560 feet with MW 50). Armed
with one engine-mounted 30-mm MK 108 cannon with 90 rounds, two
fuselage-mounted 20-mm MG 151 cannon with 250 rpg, and two
wing-mounted 20-mm MG252 cannon with 175 rpg. Maximum speed was 227
mph at sea level (356 mph with MW 50), 436 mph at 37,730 feet (460 mph
at 32,810 feet with MW 50). Initial climb rate was 3050 feet per
minute and service ceiling was 40,350 feet. Weights were 8849 lbs
empty, 10,658 lbs normal loaded, and 11,733 pounds maximum. Wingspan
was 36 feet 1 inch, length was 35 feet 6 1/2 inches, height was 11
feet 1 inch, and wing area was 290.89 square feet.


>
> Rob
>
> p.s. The Ta 152 was also fitted with a LGW-Siemens K23 autopilot to
> reduce pilot fatigue.

I believe a 2 (or 1 axis) autopilot was standard on even the earlier
FW190A. Its high roll rate made this essential to keep pilot fatique
down.