Hello Chevan,
You’re talking of two different classes of aircraft, in your question.
Ta-152H was a High altitude fighter, 32,000 to 45,000 feet, say 10,000 to 15,000 metres.
The Lavochkin7 was medium altitude fighter, basically 15,000 to 30,000 feet, 5,000 to 10,000 metres. The Fw190 A8 (typical for the radial-engine series) was close enough in altitude terms to the La7. Those two fighters are pretty much an even match.
In short, expecting the Ta152-H to fight the La7 at the La7’s altitude is a little unreasonable, though the Ta-152H would most likely win.
However, the Ta-152H has a cousin, the Ta-152C which is designed to fight at the same altitude as the La7 (and which, like the La7, was at times used in the air-to-ground attack role as well). Match the Ta-152C against an La7 (with pilots of equal ability and talent in each fighter) and you have one hell of a fine battle on your hands, because the merits of each aircraft make it an almost perfect match.
Which brings us to the P51. The P51 would put up a hell of a good fight (though in my view not as good as the La7) but would get shot down by the Ta-152H. Against the Ta-152C, the P51 would still lose the dogfight, but the Ta-152C pilot would have had to work a lot harder for the win than the Ta-152H pilot.
The Ta152C was a freakin tank (no pun intended - lol) the Germans themselves calling it a heavy fighter. it was at least 1100lbs heavier than the D9 without a corresponding power increase (an increase fully making up for the increase in weight). It had great speed and good climb so it could run from an La7 but that would be about it. It would have been good against bombers then in use. Against an La7 I would prefer a D9 or an H (the latter based on combat reports, I think it was Loos who said the H ruled the La’s).
As far as the H goes, it made for a pretty good fighter at medium/low alts (where most of its known combats occurred). The wing which was designed to provide a lot of lift very efficiently at hi alt did the same at low alt (actually providing too much lift). Though this hurt speed at low alt (hi power helped mitigate the too-big wing’s drag) the plane could turn EXTREMELY tight and could do it without a lot of speed loss. On the flip side, the long wing gave a very slow initial roll rate, although one pilot said it wasn’t as bad as the P-38. Established roll was apparently acceptable.
Oddly enough, you’ve ended up supporting my points, not disagreeing.
The question I was answering didn’t seek opinion regarding the D9.
Then again, if we’re bringing D-series aircraft into the discussion, there’s qualitatively damn all difference between a D11, D12, or D13 and a Ta152C, apart from the Jumo 213 A, E, E3a, or F series motors versus the DB 603L, L1, La1, La2, or La3 series motors.
(Side note: I do agree that while the Ta152C had been designed as a medium altitude “heavy” fighter it was also designed with the secondary role of Schlageter/Jagdbomber in mind, hence the armour on it, which accounts for at least 900lbs of the 1100 you mention.)
Now, if we’re going down that road, then I’m inclined to view the Jumo “family” as superior to the DB 603 “family” but equaled by the DB605 “family” which to all intents was by that time a distinct “family” of engines itself.
What scant information I have seen regarding the Ta152H agrees with what you’ve put here, but again, the context of the question I was responding to places the Ta152H in a high altitude scenario.
Wherefore, I addressed the question in the context it was asked, rather than distort it by giving an answer in a context that was not sought. If that seems overly pedantic of me, giving such impression certainly was not my intention. My intent had been to answer each section of the question in the context each had been asked.
“And what do you think about TA-152H. Could it be compare with P-51 or something else?
And what’s about duel FW-190 and La-7 (Lavochkin) in Eastern front?”
You are the one who introduced altitude, where is there an altitude “context” in the question? You are the one who introduced the Ta152C, I only tangentially introduced the D9 to counter your C. Secondary bombing role or not, the plane was still TOO heavy (wing loading) to take on an La7 in a classic dogfight. Gosh, where did the D11, D12 and D13 come from?
What the heck with the engine discussion? Where did this Jumo vs Daimler thing come from?
Regarding YOUR preference for the Jumo 213 over the DB603 (I like the 213E myself, I’ve touched two of them - I giggle at the variable inlet guide vanes :lol: ). . . The DB was Tank’s choice for the ENTIRE 152 line, he fought very hard for them and only got them for the Cs because the H was out before the 603 was available. The Jumos were the (somewhat troublesome) backup choice for the H when the 603s fell behind schedule and the 603s were being considered for further H production (along with a fin enlarged for yet a third time) when they finally became available when full scale production of the 603 got under way (as if - lol).
(And the A8 vs La7 dogfight: The A8 would want to keep the fight between 4000 and 5000 meters where there isn’t any appreciable difference in speed - both above and below that the La kicks speed butt and at all altitudes the La both out turns and out climbs the A8 handily. Both aircraft’s performance dropped off drastically over 6000 meters so I wouldn’t call them high altitude (8000 meters and up) fighters; and I wouldn’t call it an even fight, but that’s just me.)
From My reading and research on the topic: Yes.
While the 109 was an admirable aircraft, with many virtues, my personal opinion is that the 190 outclassed it in general terms.
To expand a little: the 109 “family” basically ended up a “dead-end” in developmental terms, whereas, the 190 “family” was almost open-ended by comparison, in as much as the developmental aspect was far extended beyond that which the 109 “family” was likely to achieve.
In support of the above contention is the data from the testing of the 209II V5. Contrast that data with the extant data for the 190D9 and the point is clear.
The DB 603 “family” had originally been Tank’s choice for the FW190 B series, equipped with variously the TK11, TK13, TK15, TKL11 or TKL13 series of superchargers and subsequently abandoned as a direct result of the superlative qualities of the D9 Ao series.
It is at that point the DB 603 series becomes the motor of choice for the 152 “family” of 190 variants. In that much, I agree.
The Ta 152C is effectively a 190B minus the TK supercharger. I don’t see much ground for dispute there. Yes, I do agree as to wing loading factors, however: personal opinions, as with hindsight, are subjective, no?
I Mentioned the D11, D12, D13 because I regard those as closer to the 152C than the D9. D10 is best regarded as an “oddity” imho, being that various versions were optimised for what in the 1960’s came to be termed the “all weather” role, and other uncommon duties, hence why I omitted it.
Granted, the Jumo 213 is a personal preference, but then we go down the road of where each respective motor series was notionally developmentally heading: DB 603 family, DB 605 family, compared to Jumo 213 though 222 and 225 families.
As to altitude matters, the Ta 152 H was, despite its’ abilities at medium and low altitude (and I don’t disagree with you there) designed and optimised as a High altitude Fighter. Hence, the mention of it makes High altitude logically implicit. QED.
A8 vs La7 : broadly inclined to agree, though I suspect an expert/Ace in the A8 would have put up one hell of a fight.
At the end of the day, any and all of this discussion comes down to personal opinion. That which I have formed is largely from those who flew the aircraft concerned and published their experiences.
I, as anyone else, can only form my views from such records as I have read and digested, which process is itself entirely dependent on surviving records.
(Personal and entirely subjective opinion: I regard the Ta 152 H as the finest single engined propeller aircraft produced in World War Two. I’d love to own one, and would in fact be willing to recreate one in modern materials. I believe it would be a formidable aircraft even today, on technical merits alone.)
We are, any of us here on this forum, in parallel case, barring those who saw combat or used the multitude of equipment during the conflict this forum refers.
As such, I can, and shall, respect the views of another, even where I may personally disagree therewith.
Essentially, failure to do so risks descending into academic debate instead of recording known events and data.
Personally, I’d rather preserve the record, than conduct academic debate.
And now, to confound matters:
I have never regarded the Ta 152 C as an “ideal” fighter.
Of the Ta 152 variants, it is in fact the one I like least.
However, I do recognise it’s qualities and merits, even while being aware of the detractions the aircraft had.
As said elsewhere in this thread: of the Ta 152 family, my overwhelming preference would be for the Ta 152 H.
Great thread! Uyreal, outstanding and insightful comments. I’m sure we agree more than not, and , of course, disagreements will remain just that.
On the 109 vs 190 comment: (I almost have to disqualify myself as impartial, I am a rare (freakin’) expert on the 109 . . . I own a gas cap! lol) Though the “dead end development” (of the 109) opinion is a common one, and, to a degree, valid, I think it overstates the case. The D9 appears to have been a better performer below about 15000 ft (while out-rolling all at all altitudes) and the K4, while having poor roll at high speed, appears to have been better overall between 20000 ft and 25000 ft, losing out in speed to the H as altitude increases from there. The 152H could fly higher than its pilots wanted to and could out-turn anything at any altitude (but had to dodge bullets waiting for the roll-in to start) and handily out-performed the K above, say, 33000 ft. Performance of the K relative to these two 190 developments makes me think that 109 development question is, basically, a moot point. The 209 was, frankly, flawed as a concept and the 309, 409, 509, et al (lol) were just weird concepts. (It appears Willi was bitten by the TRICK* bug.)
Soooo, as it seems to have worked out, a new or moderately experienced pilot would almost certainly prefer the D9 (just a great combination of good flying/ground characteristics with only one dangerous one), a combat vet with good situational awareness would prefer the H (gotta watch out for ambushes, either keep up speed or be able to turn into) and a combat expert with lots of experience in the 109 would prefer the K (knowing one airplanes performance and quirks like the back of one’s hand rather than learn a new plane to gain largely different rather than significantly better performance while one’s life is at stake).
Hey (LOL), if the re-engined 190s count, Willi’s guys had drawn up a twin jet powered aircraft using 109 parts, does that count? (The 152 was drawn up with jets AND a swept wing.)
But . . . yeah, going into late 1945 and 1946 the 190 had more developmental headroom than the 109 but even it (basically various 152s) would have had their hands full with the allied jets and the total lack of gas. (And I’ll only bring up The Bomb to say I won’t bring up The Bomb.)
Disclaimer: The above is not just the opinion of the author, it is his truth. :tank:
By the way . . . I made a pilgrimage to Silver Hill a few years back to pay my respects to the Ta152H there (WOW).
[The Smithsonian was told by the Air Force that it was 150003, then they figured it was 150010 CW+CJ (one of two development aircraft -150003 and 150010- with a wooden tail, which their example has) and now 150020. I’m not sure where the *20 comes from, I heard it was from a plate in the fuselage now missing but a friend of mine who works there (on the payroll, not a volunteer) says there never were any plates. Evidence (physical and photographic) is, to me anyway, overwhelming that it is *10.]
Awesome plane but crudely made. Workmanship varies between “OK” and “wasn’t anybody looking?”. The wood parts (tail with integrated plug, flaps and outboard gun bay doors (no guns) still have original layers of paint.
Randy, Like you I suspect we have more “in common” than not.
The 109 jet variant was the 109TL (allegedly “Turbo-Luft”): a backbench backup in case the Me262 didn’t pan out. {NB: There is a “Favourite 109 variant” thread here also.}
Though, slight aside for a moment: why bother with the 109TL when the He.280 was in existence, and in the C and D models eminently manufacturable, greatly capable of further development, and a damn good investment as replacing the Me.109.?
While I claim no great degree of 109 expertise, I was at one point asked to go an a nation-wide quiz-panel show in relation to it and other WW2 matters. I was 15 at the time, and told them to go to hell.
Not certain, off-hand, as to nomenclature of the 152 jet variant.
The Smithsonian Ta 152 H is, I think one of only 3 remaining, though it may by now be the only one (if memory serves adequately, there were 3 in My youth, one of which was thought to be in the then Soviet Union). I’d be keen to see the aircraft myself. You’re a lucky man.
Incidentally, in my youth there was talk of the “last” 209II fuselage and mainplane leaning up against a fence in a California backyard, having been sold-off as a surplus 109 at junk prices in 1948 or so. For years, there has remained debate in various fora as to its’ final fate.
I too have been enjoying this thread, and hope it long continues.
I’m in agreement on JG26 … but thinking on Galland’s comments in “The First and the Last”… I suggest this is “Signal” recording as an “operational” flight JG26 doing an early “combat test” operational flight of an FW190 A3.
Looking at the propellor, and the panelling on the engine cowling, the flaps at about 12 degrees lowered, and the Revi 16A gunsight… I’m thinking 190A3, early series.
I’d be interested in your thoughts on that, Librarian.
I am going to build this specific aircraft having bought Keith Ferris’s print.
Is the cowling in front of the cockpit black, or just in shadow as it is vastly different from the print?!!
Regards and thanks:p
There is a color profile of that particular aircraft in the book “FW-190 aces of the western Front” Osprey Aircraft of the aces series, not really sure how accurate the drawing is.
Thanks VERY much for information - will find book. I have Keith Ferris’s print of this 'plane, which is a stunner but has a few details wrong - luckily I’m not a anorak so had it framed anyway!!!
Regards,
weinace:p
Thanks for that.
If you could scan it in I’d appreciate it; all my books are in storage, my wife us to move ‘to the country’ and so she’s “getting us ready”!!!
Regards,
weinace:p
Thanks VERY much for link.
What a most excellent build!
Seems the 1/48th. decals are OOP - so I’m going to write to Eagle Editions to see if they plan to issue with red script!!
Warm regards,
weinace:p
Thanks for that.
If you could scan it in I’d appreciate it; all my books are in storage, my wife us to move ‘to the country’ and so she’s “getting us ready”!!!
No problemo.
forget the artwork in that book frankly …
check this page out on hyperscale
Nice model, I wont trown away the Osprey series so fast, perhaps they are basic in some aspects, I dont deny that, but they are succesful always in creating interes in a particular subject, of course, if you want to achieve a deeper research you may want to find another book, but for the guy who is not an “experten” in Luftwaffe I think generally speaking the Osprey publications are well worth for the money.
And having another profile to compare never hurts.:rolleyes:
