Talk:Focke-Wulf Ta 152/Archive 1

Allied Test Pilots
I read a book by Eric Brown (pilot) who flew the TA 152 in tests after the war, he thought very highly of the aircraft and reviewed it in the book, it would be good to quote him, the book was 'Wings of the Luftwaffe'. Unfortunatly his views on the TA 152 are not on the wikipedia page and I don't have the book either. (Fdsdh1 (talk) 16:52, 14 October 2012 (UTC))

Untitled
Assesed this as a Start class article. References need to be added. Abel29a 05:08, 8 November 2006 (UTC)

The operational history is wrong insofar as the 152H did see service and was definitely not grounded. Stabstaffel JG 301 flew it operationally in April 1945 and at least two pilots (Willy Reschke and Walter Loos) scored victories with it. —Preceding unsigned comment added by JCRitter (talk • contribs) 15:26, 5 January 2008 (UTC)

No one is saying the Ta 152 H didn't see service, however it did not stay long in service due to various issues. --Evil.Merlin (talk) 20:56, 20 February 2008 (UTC)

GA Quick-Fail
Per the GA criteria, I am quick-failing this article because it contains almost no references. At minimum, every paragraph should have at least one reference. Please address this concern before renominating the article. Best wishes, GaryColemanFan (talk) 00:35, 30 April 2008 (UTC)
 * Although a full review is not required for quick-fails, I also want to mention that the article is very confusing, as it contains many unexplained abbreviations. I would strongly recommend placing the article for peer review in order to make sure it can be easily understood before nominating it again. GaryColemanFan (talk) 00:38, 30 April 2008 (UTC)
 * I agree about the problem with abbreviations - this is especially annoying in the final section, entitled, "The sole survivor." — Preceding unsigned comment added by 180.75.49.65 (talk) 04:26, 30 July 2013 (UTC)

Article updated
OK, be gentle, this is my first time... I added references for what I could find references for just now. I have more on the Ta152E, I just have to dig it out and will do so later. I also tried to apply commonality in desgnations. For example, the German standard was Ta152H-1 (no space or dash between Ta and 152, no space before the H model designator). I have also changed the description of the MG151/20 to "machine gun" from "cannon". The standard line between "cannon" and "gun" is whether the rounds are explosive or not. MK103 rounds were, MG151/20 rounds were not, hence the different MK and MG designations as applied by the Germans themselves. With this in mind, should footnote 11 also be removed now? All feedback welcomed.Genkimon (talk) 10:15, 18 October 2008 (UTC)


 * Welcome to Wikipedia. Good job on this article. You'll note that I've done some editing on the information you've just added to bring the references in particular in line with normal policy. I've added a welcome mat to your discussion page; there's a heap of reading, but you don't have to go through it all in one go! Re "cannon" vs "Machine-gun" - the MG151/20 was provided with explosive shells, referred to as Minengeschoß ("mine shell"), which is explained in MG 151 cannon and so it does fit the definition for a cannon; however, this is hardly worth quibbling over! Regards, enjoy your editing. Minorhistorian (talk) 23:47, 18 October 2008 (UTC)

I was shocked to see that the service entry given for the Ta 152 was October 1944, when none had been built at that time! A lot of the info on this page seems to come from old 1960's encyclopedias. My research, as published in 2008, is based on German documentation, interviews with pilots and Focke-Wulf employees. The photo is of 150168, which went to UK as AIR MIN 11 and was scrapped there (at Farnborough) in 1946. It is NOT the NASM aircraft! I interviewed the British pilot who flew it, Eric 'Winkle' Brown, who is a good friend of mine. The MG 151/20 was a cannon, not a machine gun, all German documentation calls it that. Only 43 Werk Nummern are known for Ta 152H built, not 150 as incorrectly said on this page (I think that 150 comes from the old William Green writings of the 1960s, which were not based on facts or German documents). Please do not quote from 'Warplanes of the Third Reich' or other sources from that vintage, they are now well out of date and much of what was in them is challenged by more recent research. Flying Facts, 16 February 2009. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Flyingfacts (talk • contribs) 19:54, 16 February 2009 (UTC)
 * Please note that additions to the article should comply with Verifiability. If you disagree with what's in the article then find a reliable source and then change the article.Nigel Ish (talk) 21:26, 16 February 2009 (UTC)

My additions ARE verified - they are based on my 15 years of research into this aircraft. What was on this page before was copied from old, unreliable sources from the 1960's and 1970's.. Do you have better information than me on this aircraft? - if you have I would love to see it because as far as I know I have seen every extant document about this aircraft. . Also, why was a "citation needed" for my changes, when the information that I replaced was totally incorrect and yet this incorrect information was not flagged as needing verification? And I did sign my name on my last posting on this page, like I am doing here - Flying Facts, 16 February 2009. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Flyingfacts (talk • contribs) 02:11, 17 February 2009 (UTC)
 * As it stands now, a large section of the article's "operational history" section is not only poorly written, it also contradicts the sources that it quotes (e.g. the number of claims made by Josef Keil). Furthermore forum posts don't qualify as sources, especially not if you don't have access to them without registering. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 85.181.42.175 (talk) 21:57, 6 August 2009 (UTC)

Performance
''The only Allied piston-engined aircraft type that could conceivably have matched the Ta 152H's performance, when both the MW 50 and GM-1 boosts were fully engaged and running on the German aircraft, would have been the XP-47M late war version of the famous P-47 Thunderbolt, whose Double Wasp engine, in the R-2800-57(C) version, came close to providing nearly 1,864 kW (2,500 hp). [4]''


 * Erm, no - several other aircraft could have 'matched' the TA 152's performance. For example, Supermarine Spiteful XVI (22 mph faster), de Havilland Hornet, and the only reason they did not become operational was because the war ended. I suspect the Sabre-powered Fury could have had well over 3,000 hp if it had been so-desired. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 213.40.250.175 (talk) 12:54, 2 May 2009 (UTC)
 * none of which came close to being operational in time so your point is moot. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 85.181.42.175 (talk) 21:47, 6 August 2009 (UTC)

/* The sole survivor */
In order to enhance the readability of the text and decrease the likelihood of confusion, I edited the above-referenced section, including quoting directly the NASM regarding their position on the history of the aircraft. In doing so, I also added a reference (while also correcting an external link). Feedback is welcome. Joep01 (talk) 16:16, 12 March 2011 (UTC)


 * There are several problems with the section entitled "The sole survivor", including but not limited to: 1) Unexplained abbreviations ("NASM" and "Md." being two); 2) failure to state the country in which the sole survivor is located.

Photos
I'm in the process of obtaining several digital images from the National Archives for use in this article. The files will be scans of the originals in the Archives' collection, of course, and they will be usable in the article in terms of "permission" by virtue of their status as gov't works, I believe (I have to look over the email correspondence to see exactly how the archivist explained it).

Anyway, will someone help me figure out how to upload the images to Wikipedia and cite the proper permission so they're not deleted and make sure they're available for use in the article and then integrated properly? This is really important to me personally and would be a major plus for the article itself and everyone who comes here seeking info on Kurt Tank's masterpiece! Eagerly awaiting your replies...Joep01 (talk) 00:45, 11 January 2012 (UTC)

Mistake in article
The article claims the Fw 190 D-9 had the Jumo 213 E. IIRC this is wrong. Only the very rare D-11 and D-13 had this version of the Jumo 213. The D-9 had the less powerful Jumo 213 A. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 80.156.42.129 (talk) 09:16, 27 April 2012 (UTC)

Drawings
Where in the world is a drawing of the Focke Wulf TA 152. The article would look better with it. if you agree with FockeWulf FW 190 (talk) 23:38, 5 August 2013 (UTC)FockeWulf FW 190FockeWulf FW 190 (talk) 23:38, 5 August 2013 (UTC) leave your comment here. Thank You.

Regarding Main Paragraph Changes
Hello,

I notice my evidence-supported edit to the introduction of this article has been reverted twice. This is because the previously uncited sentence which mine replaces paints an unnecessarily negative picture. It states that the Ta-152's particularly low production didn't make an impact, but what that fails to mention is, as is amended in my sentence, collectively more Ta-152s were produced than comparable planes. Such as the Spiteful and XP-72. Therefore, if my statistically correct sentence is going to be reverted back to one with more negative implications, then could we not come to a compromise?

If we're going to continuously revert, then let's refer to the known obsoleteness of the high-powered piston enging planes with the advent of jet-powered aircraft. That way it recognizes the small impact this aircraft, and all like it, had on the war effort, regardless of country. This is an unbiased compromise, that applies the very commonly known principle of the superiority of jet-powered planes, without unnecessarily singling out Germany as making little effort with its high-powered piston engine plane. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 101.176.132.155 (talk) 16:19, 14 March 2015 (UTC)

Which I have taken the liberty of doing just now. It is perfectly reasonable and presents a truthful, unbiased last sentence, as opposed to the implicitly, singularly negative one which was there originally. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 101.176.132.155 (talk) 16:28, 14 March 2015 (UTC)
 * There were likely many more issues than just the development of turbojet powered aircraft that resulted in the Ta 152 not being a significant weapon of war. Principally, the degrading of the German aircraft and armament industry along with the teeming development problems of rushing an unproven design into operation served to limit its use with the Luftwaffe. FWiW Bzuk (talk) 21:37, 14 March 2015 (UTC)

But that doesn't add up when taking into consideration the irrelevance of high-powered piston engine planes from other countries. The principle reason for all militaries not further pursuing piston engines was the jet engine. This goes for the Luftwaffe as well as all other countries.

Whereas singling out the Ta-152 could lead people to believe that other high-powered, single prop aircraft of the period did have a comparatively large impact; they didn't. So I still don't see sufficient reason to singling out the Ta-152's supposedly low impact when internationally this type of aircraft had little to no impact and was obsolete on release. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 101.176.132.155 (talk) 02:38, 15 March 2015 (UTC)
 * The Ta 152 was optimized for high altitude interception roles mainly against the USAAF bomber streams, and even at that early stage in jet technology, piston-engined fighters still had an advantage in range, endurance, reliance and durability, as well as often being more capable in close-in air-to-air dogfighting. The Ta-152 entering service in 1944–1945, was pitted against similar piston-engine types such as the Supermarine Spitfire Mk XIV, Hawker Typhoon, Republic P-47 Thunderbolt and North American P-51D Mustang. Late series P-51H Mustangs could outrun the Ta 152 and still had a reasonable operational history in postwar service, even in the same period that the Lockheed F-80 Shooting Star was being introduced in USAF squadrons. The other examples of piston-engined fighters soldiering on into the jet age include the Grumman F8F Bearcat, Hawker Sea Fury, late model Supermarine Spitfire/Seafire series and Vought F4U Corsairs. As emphasized, the Ta 152 was not able to realize its true potential for a number of reasons, but primarily due to technical problems, it never entered service in sufficient numbers to matter. The same could be argued for any of the early jet aircraft, they simply did not have widespread impact, as evidenced by their relatively low victory totals. Once the P-47s and P-51s had altered their strategy to engage Luftwaffe jet and rocket fighters during takeoff or landing when they were most vulnerable, they literally shredded the supposedly superior fighters. Airport patrols had Fw 190Ds employed to protect the Me 262 units. FWiW Bzuk (talk) 04:09, 15 March 2015 (UTC)

I think the point here is being missed really entirely. The Luftwaffe as a whole was at a deficiency in resources and basic ability to effectively saturate airspace compared to the allies. And it gets so broad as to entirely miss the point.

The point of the edit is that it is opinion to claim that the Ta-152's lack of production numbers was what limited its impact on the war, which is silly. You only specify that the technical problems were the reason, which even contradicts the article! You do realize that, don't you? That your argument is incongruent with the opinion that it was the lack of production numbers that limited its impact, and not ultimately technical failures?

I'm sorry to say that you have gotten me all wrong. Of course piston engine aircraft were still used post-war. I'm not sure what you're trying to prove by stating that, it's a given. The point is that significant pursuit of piston engine powered planes really stopped around the time of the Ta-152. The impact of the Supermarine Spiteful and Republic XP-72 was absolutely nothing, but that need not be pointed out, and isn't, as it should be for the Ta-152. Why? Because realistically a plane of an ultimately undesirable design is not going to be produced in enough numbers to make a significant impact.

The fact is that if it wasn't for the advent of the jet engine, then there would have been the time and resources to really refine planes like the 152, Spiteful, XP-72, etc. That is the basic principle that is being missed here. That the root of its lack of impact isn't that it was a bad plane in itself either due to technical problems or production numbers, but that this kind of plane wasn't even receiving the attention it needed to really be refined.

Significant refinement of piston engine aircraft, realistically, for most nations, ended at their most popular aircraft. 109s, 190s, LAs, Spitfires, etc. Now please, I'm not asking for a list of piston engine aircraft that came after the latest variants of those aircraft! What I'm saying is, that if anything seriously limited this plane and this kind of plane from meeting its full potential in the military, it would be the advent of the jet engine.

Another point which you've missed. I'm not claiming jet planes of the time were good. Never said that. My point is that airforces were pursuing jet engines. Props weren't worth pursuing, because of the potential of the jet engine.

Therefore, my point still entirely stands. The implications of the Ta-152s singular failing to make an impact of the war is a redundant opinion. It has absolutely no worth other than to sway other people's opinions who happen across the article. It's arguable, uncited garbage, and I'm not sure why people are reverting it so vehemently. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 101.176.132.155 (talk) 10:28, 15 March 2015 (UTC)
 * The Ta 152 was never going to make a significant impact in the air war due to the limited number of aircraft actually deployed. In 1944, Kurt Tank and his designer Hans Multhopp were already at work on a revolutionary design, the Focke-Wulf turbojet-powered Ta 183 design that emerged from the Emergency Fighter Competition. Despite the urgency of wartime, the design was never realized, and the company was committed to solving the many technical issues that was delaying the operational introduction of the Ta 152 and Ta 154 Moskito, both in production and operational testing and deployment. Author/historian Jeff Ethell states, "It is obvious the numerous attendant mechanical problems with the Ta 152H accounted for its nominal combat career. In addition, there were not enough flowing off the assembly lines to make up for possible attrition since by the end of February 1945, all Ta 152 production had ceased.  All the Focke-Wulf works factories by April 1945 had been captured by Allied troops. The only work still on the drawing boards was the still-born Ta 183 which only existed as a "paper study".  FWiW Bzuk (talk) 16:14, 15 March 2015 (UTC)


 * Most of the technical problems with the Ta 152 were due the the generally deteriorating state of German industry at the time, and the resulting poor quality of many components, such that after war's end the RAF banned its crews from flying captured Luftwaffe aircraft as the poor standard of construction made many of the later ones unsafe. The RAE lost at least two pilots due to this, one in a Dornier Do 335 (rear-engine fire), the other in a Heinkel He 162 (structural failure), both due to technical problems unsolved before capture. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 95.144.50.132 (talk) 09:52, 7 November 2017 (UTC)