Discussion in 'Weapons & Technology in WWII' started by dasreich, Jul 17, 2002.
Rationally discuss the issue at hand and leave the name calling out.
Oh really couldn't manuver with the TA-152? It surely would outroll the TA-152 and by a healthy margin. Rolling by some accounts is more important then actual turning ability. If I'm not wrong the P-47M certainly was a good climber while all P-47's were excellent zoom climbers.
Where there any comparative tests done between the two aircraft prewar?
the Ta was never actually put to it's ultimate paces, not with P-51's or Spits, or P-47's, nothing at high altitude so roll rate, zoom and whatever cannot be accurately compared, there are still many gaps in coping with the what-ifs of this piston engine A/C
No opinions Cat. Just the data & here's a link. Stolle was a real person.
Erprobungskommando Ta 152
Gardners stuff is typed. Why don't you ask the same of he? He'd vote Budweiser over Lowerbrau with his enormous anti German bias. 31 operational planes still disproves his theory that all 152's were experimental.
I have read your comments about it's exceptional turn rate before though Erich. & 47's were always heavy, good roll rate yes. But Kurt Buhligen said there were certain maneuvers it just couldn't do cause it was too heavy.
Now out of curiosity, if the 1the 1st 152's arrived Nov 44, 1st combat March, do you
suppose they spent those 3 & 1/2 months sipping Schapps waiting for the war to end, or??? were they perhaps working these machines up to combat readiness? Engineers, ground crews & pilots working out the kinks maybe? Nah, just Schnapps & Brautwurst, had to be.
Well you can probably extrapolate alot of info though. Eric Brown in his book "Wings of The Luftwaffe" said the design sacraficed alot of '190's rolling ability you then could probably look at tests done at Boscombe Downs comparing '109's & 190's to Allied fighters to get some ideas.. Just MY Humble Opinion though. Now Eric Brown credits the fighter with a speed of 332 MPH at SL but 350 MPH on MW50. At 29,530' it hit 465 MPH with MW50 but also hit 472MPH at around 41,000' on MW50. It's initial climb rate was 3445 FPM.
As far as the TA152's roll rate look at it this away it had something like a 45+ foot wingspan compared to the '190's 34-35" It's only natural that it would roll much slower .
By going by every members posts on there opinions on what plane is the best fighter during ww2,it seems that there could be no best one but every single fighter having there own specialities and advantages could mean more than just one or two best fighter during ww2.
The Mosquito is one of them.
How right you are!!!!!!
I would say the ones I like would be the p-51 thunderbolt and the brit spit fire in the fact that the mosquitos were basically the lightest weakest plane there was cause I heard of an engagement between mosquitos and a german battle ship those planes could not do a thing to that battle ship other than damage the propellor with the torpedos but other than that the ship had to be finished off by I think another battle ship plus the mosquitos were a lighter plane being made of wood as the first spitfires were and I think they were slower so they could easily be knocked down by anti aircraft fire but the first brit spit fires that were made of medal were made from donated pots and pans because britain was cut off from supplies because they were so close to germany so like I said before wood is lighter and makes the planes slower.
T.A Gardner as well as the majority of the main members on this forum generally always support there posts with references. Gardner for an example is a highly rated member and as I said gives references, so I don't need him to do it for he has gained respect for his posts within this forum with his informative posts, you however are still yet to post references to your 'facts' and therefore lack the respect for us to merely take your word on this subject. Everyone is waiting for these references.
I never doubted that Stolle was not a real person, merely the all the events you described him to do. That site you have listed proves nothing about what you are posting, do you read through these sites, or even look at them?