[006]
Salmon
Current Version
Changed line(s) 5 from:
n
The fact is that the Ta-152 was a mediocre aircraft that was rushed into production so Kurt Tank could get his initials on to something. It was inferior in performance to comparable 1945-era American and British fighters. It was slower than they were (the Ta-152H had a top speed of 472mph with GM-1 and MW-50 boost; the P-51H had a top speed of 487 mph without any form of chemical boost, the Martin Baker MB5 of 474mph and the P-47J of 504mph also without any form of chemical boost); the allied fighters had, on average, 1,000 feet per minute higher climb rates and could turn more tightly due to their non-extended wings. The weight and destructive effects of the engine boosting system are a matter of historical record (the allies also had engines designed for water-methanol and nitrous injectionl they didn\'t use them because the damage to such engines was considered too great). The armament of the Ta-152H was very poor due to slow rates of fire and the bad ballistic trajectory of the shells. The 20mm and 30mm cannons had different trajectories and were impossible to line up on the same target except at very close range (in fairness, the P-39 Airacobra had the same problem). It is possible to make a numerical rating of the aircraft\'s armament assuming a firing burst of standard length. The P-51 comes out at 30, the Tempest at 38 and the Ta-152H at 26. This rating does not, however, allow for the slow rate of fire and poor trajectory of the German guns which was a critical limitation on them. The Me-262 was armed with four 30mm guns and even this was considered grossly inadequate. Finally, the \
to:
The fact is that the Ta-152 was a mediocre aircraft that was rushed into production so Kurt Tank could get his initials on to something. It was inferior in performance to comparable 1945-era American and British fighters. It was slower than they were (the Ta-152H had a top speed of 472mph with GM-1 and MW-50 boost; the P-51H had a top speed of 487 mph without any form of chemical boost, the Martin Baker MB5 of 474mph and the P-47J of 504mph also without any form of chemical boost); the allied fighters had, on average, 1,000 feet per minute higher climb rates and could turn more tightly due to their non-extended wings. The weight and destructive effects of the engine boosting system are a matter of historical record (the allies also had engines designed for water-methanol and nitrous injectionl they didn\\\'t use them because the damage to such engines was considered too great). The armament of the Ta-152H was very poor due to slow rates of fire and the bad ballistic trajectory of the shells. The 20mm and 30mm cannons had different trajectories and were impossible to line up on the same target except at very close range (in fairness, the P-39 Airacobra had the same problem). It is possible to make a numerical rating of the aircraft\\\'s armament assuming a firing burst of standard length. The P-51 comes out at 30, the Tempest at 38 and the Ta-152H at 26. This rating does not, however, allow for the slow rate of fire and poor trajectory of the German guns which was a critical limitation on them. The Me-262 was armed with four 30mm guns and even this was considered grossly inadequate. Finally, the \\\"bomber destroyer excuse is invalid; it would only be a sensible argument if there was no possibility of the fighter facing anything else. This was not the case.
Your suggestions that an Me-262 could outperform an F-86 are absurd. I think you must be confusing them with post-war trials that showed the Me-262 and F-80A were evenly matched although the armament on the Me-262 was severely criticized, again due to slow rate of fire and poor trajectory making the guns hard to aim. This was, note, the P-80A. The P-80C and the later model Meteors outclassed the Me-262 completely. Your comment about a bid to supply the USAF with new-build Me-262s is false; there never was any such proposed bid. I think you must be confused by the production of two or three Me-262s for private buyers a few years back.
The story about escaping the Mustangs is false. No if, buts or maybes. There is not one shred of evidence to support it. Tank simply lied as the did all the time. His one real talent was as a salesman; one cannot help but be impressed by the way his fanboys worship the extremely mediocre Ta-152. Tank would have made a great second-hand car salesman or television shill.
And on the jets, if you take the time to do some studies of postwar jet engines, you will find that the next-generation German designs were systemically flawed and could not be made to work. Poor materials and lousy basic design were additional problems that were just icing on the cake. Without high-powered engines, none of the German designs were even remotely practical and the whole lot are just a waste of paper.
The X4 was utterly useless. There is not one single case of an allied aircraft being shot down by it. The only thing that came out of it that was any use at all was the wire-guided concept that was useful in designing anti-tank missiles.
Your suggestions that an Me-262 could outperform an F-86 are absurd. I think you must be confusing them with post-war trials that showed the Me-262 and F-80A were evenly matched although the armament on the Me-262 was severely criticized, again due to slow rate of fire and poor trajectory making the guns hard to aim. This was, note, the P-80A. The P-80C and the later model Meteors outclassed the Me-262 completely. Your comment about a bid to supply the USAF with new-build Me-262s is false; there never was any such proposed bid. I think you must be confused by the production of two or three Me-262s for private buyers a few years back.
The story about escaping the Mustangs is false. No if, buts or maybes. There is not one shred of evidence to support it. Tank simply lied as the did all the time. His one real talent was as a salesman; one cannot help but be impressed by the way his fanboys worship the extremely mediocre Ta-152. Tank would have made a great second-hand car salesman or television shill.
And on the jets, if you take the time to do some studies of postwar jet engines, you will find that the next-generation German designs were systemically flawed and could not be made to work. Poor materials and lousy basic design were additional problems that were just icing on the cake. Without high-powered engines, none of the German designs were even remotely practical and the whole lot are just a waste of paper.
The X4 was utterly useless. There is not one single case of an allied aircraft being shot down by it. The only thing that came out of it that was any use at all was the wire-guided concept that was useful in designing anti-tank missiles.
Changed line(s) 5 from:
n
The fact is that the Ta-152 was a mediocre aircraft that was rushed into production so Kurt Tank could get his initials on to something. It was inferior in performance to comparable 1945-era American and British fighters. It was slower than they were (the Ta-152H had a top speed of 472mph with GM-1 and MW-50 boost; the P-51H had a top speed of 487 mph without any form of chemical boost, the Martin Baker MB5 of 474mph and the P-47J of 504mph also without any form of chemical boost); the allied fighters had, on average, 1,000 feet per minute higher climb rates and could turn more tightly due to their non-extended wings. The weight and destructive effects of the engine boosting system are a matter of historical record (the allies also had engines designed for water-methanol and nitrous injectionl they didn\'t use them because the damage to such engines was considered too great). The armament of the Ta-152H was very poor due to slow rates of fire and the bad ballistic trajectory of the shells. The 20mm and 30mm cannons had different trajectories and were impossible to line up on the same target except at very close range (in fairness, the P-39 Airacobra had the same problem). It is possible to make a numerical rating of the aircraft\'s armament assuming a firing burst of standard length. The P-51 comes out at 30, the Tempest at 38 and the Ta-152H at 26. This rating does not, however, allow for the slow rate of fire and poor trajectory of the German guns which was a critical limitation on them. The Me-262 was armed with four 30mm guns and even this was considered grossly inadequate. Finally, the \
to:
The fact is that the Ta-152 was a mediocre aircraft that was rushed into production so Kurt Tank could get his initials on to something. It was inferior in performance to comparable 1945-era American and British fighters. It was slower than they were (the Ta-152H had a top speed of 472mph with GM-1 and MW-50 boost; the P-51H had a top speed of 487 mph without any form of chemical boost, the Martin Baker MB5 of 474mph and the P-47J of 504mph also without any form of chemical boost); the allied fighters had, on average, 1,000 feet per minute higher climb rates and could turn more tightly due to their non-extended wings. The weight and destructive effects of the engine boosting system are a matter of historical record (the allies also had engines designed for water-methanol and nitrous injectionl they didn\\\'t use them because the damage to such engines was considered too great). The armament of the Ta-152H was very poor due to slow rates of fire and the bad ballistic trajectory of the shells. The 20mm and 30mm cannons had different trajectories and were impossible to line up on the same target except at very close range (in fairness, the P-39 Airacobra had the same problem). It is possible to make a numerical rating of the aircraft\\\'s armament assuming a firing burst of standard length. The P-51 comes out at 30, the Tempest at 38 and the Ta-152H at 26. This rating does not, however, allow for the slow rate of fire and poor trajectory of the German guns which was a critical limitation on them. The Me-262 was armed with four 30mm guns and even this was considered grossly inadequate. Finally, the \\\"bomber destroyer excuse is invalid; it would only be a sensible argument if there was no possibility of the fighter facing anything else. This was not the case.
Your suggestions that an Me-262 could outperform an F-86 are absurd. I think you must be confusing them with post-war trials that showed the Me-262 and F-80A were evenly matched although the armament on the Me-262 was severely criticized, again due to slow rate of fire and poor trajectory making the guns hard to aim. This was, note, the P-80A. The P-80C and the later model Meteors outclassed the Me-262 completely.
The story about escaping the Mustangs is false. No if, buts or maybes. There is not one shred of evidence to support it. Tank simply lied as the did all the time. His one real talent was as a salesman; one cannot help but be impressed by the way his fanboys worship the extremely mediocre Ta-152. Tank would have made a great second-hand car salesman or television shill.
And on the jets, if you take the time to do some studies of postwar jet engines, you will find that the next-generation German designs were systemically flawed and could not be made to work. Poor materials and lousy basic design were additional problems that were just icing on the cake. Without high-powered engines, none of the German designs were even remotely practical and the whole lot are just a waste of paper.
The X4 was utterly useless. There is not one single case of an allied aircraft being shot down by it. The only thing that came out of it that was any use at all was the wire-guided concept that was useful in designing anti-tank missiles.
Your suggestions that an Me-262 could outperform an F-86 are absurd. I think you must be confusing them with post-war trials that showed the Me-262 and F-80A were evenly matched although the armament on the Me-262 was severely criticized, again due to slow rate of fire and poor trajectory making the guns hard to aim. This was, note, the P-80A. The P-80C and the later model Meteors outclassed the Me-262 completely.
The story about escaping the Mustangs is false. No if, buts or maybes. There is not one shred of evidence to support it. Tank simply lied as the did all the time. His one real talent was as a salesman; one cannot help but be impressed by the way his fanboys worship the extremely mediocre Ta-152. Tank would have made a great second-hand car salesman or television shill.
And on the jets, if you take the time to do some studies of postwar jet engines, you will find that the next-generation German designs were systemically flawed and could not be made to work. Poor materials and lousy basic design were additional problems that were just icing on the cake. Without high-powered engines, none of the German designs were even remotely practical and the whole lot are just a waste of paper.
The X4 was utterly useless. There is not one single case of an allied aircraft being shot down by it. The only thing that came out of it that was any use at all was the wire-guided concept that was useful in designing anti-tank missiles.
Changed line(s) 3 from:
n
I would suggest you look up the Ha-201 class (Type STS) submarines of the Imperial Japanese Navy and their larger cousins, the I-201 class (Type ST). These were the first operational guppy class boats in the world and pre-dated the much-vaunted but inferior Type 21s. If you do some basic research you will also find that the British remodelled two S class submarines as TypeXXI analogues for training purposes in 1943/44. These underwent trials in Bermuda which was the start of the AUTEC facility there. You will also find that the British designed a class of submarines (the R class) in 1917 that was essentially identical to the German Type XXI. The Guppy program was based on experience with the R class and the modified S class boats. There was no need for an early Guppy program because until the early 1950s there was no threat to the US Navy and resources were better placed elsewhere. If you look up the 1946 fleet submarine, it clearly shows the design route the US Navy was following and it was a much more practical and effective concept than the ridiculously over-engineered and poorly-designed German boats.
to:
I would suggest you look up the Ha-201 class (Type STS) submarines of the Imperial Japanese Navy and their larger cousins, the I-201 class (Type ST). These were the first operational guppy class boats in the world and pre-dated the much-vaunted but inferior Type 21s. If you do some basic research you will also find that the British remodelled two S class submarines as TypeXXI analogues for training purposes in 1943/44. These underwent trials in Bermuda which was the start of the AUTEC facility there. You will also find that the British designed a class of submarines (the R class) in 1917 that was essentially identical to the German Type XXI. The Guppy program was based on experience with the R class and the modified S class boats. There was no need for an early Guppy program because until the early 1950s there was no threat to the US Navy and resources were better placed elsewhere. If you look up the 1946 fleet submarine, it clearly shows the design route the US Navy was following and it was a much more practical and effective concept than the ridiculously over-engineered and poorly-designed German boats. Read the Navy reports on the Type XXIs the U.S. Navy ran. It is scathing about their short life, over-engineered complexity and general bad design. The fact that mildly updated Guppies could equal their performance without any of their drawbacks is very telling.
Changed line(s) 5 from:
n
The fact is that the Ta-152 was a mediocre aircraft that was rushed into production so Kurt Tank could get his initials on to something. It was inferior in performance to comparable 1945-era American and British fighters. It was slower than they were (the Ta-152H had a top speed of 472mph with GM-1 and MW-50 boost; the P-51H had a top speed of 487 mph without any form of chemical boost, the Martin Baker MB5 of 474mph and the P-47J of 504mph also without any form of chemical boost); the allied fighters had, on average, 1,000 feet per minute higher climb rates and could turn more tightly due to their non-extended wings. The weight and destructive effects of the engine boosting system are a matter of historical record (the allies also had engines designed for water-methanol and nitrous injectionl they didn\'t use them because the damage to such engines was considered too great). The armament of the Ta-152H was very poor due to slow rates of fire and the bad ballistic trajectory of the shells. The 20mm and 30mm cannons had different trajectories and were impossible to line up on the same target except at very close range (in fairness, the P-39 Airacobra had the same problem). It is possible to make a numerical rating of the aircraft\'s armament assuming a firing burst of standard length. The P-51 comes out at 30, the Tempest at 38 and the Ta-152H at 26. This rating does not, however, allow for the slow rate of fire and poor trajectory of the German guns which was a critical limitation on them. The Me-262 was armed with four 30mm guns and even this was considered grossly inadequate. Finally, the \
to:
The fact is that the Ta-152 was a mediocre aircraft that was rushed into production so Kurt Tank could get his initials on to something. It was inferior in performance to comparable 1945-era American and British fighters. It was slower than they were (the Ta-152H had a top speed of 472mph with GM-1 and MW-50 boost; the P-51H had a top speed of 487 mph without any form of chemical boost, the Martin Baker MB5 of 474mph and the P-47J of 504mph also without any form of chemical boost); the allied fighters had, on average, 1,000 feet per minute higher climb rates and could turn more tightly due to their non-extended wings. The weight and destructive effects of the engine boosting system are a matter of historical record (the allies also had engines designed for water-methanol and nitrous injectionl they didn\\\'t use them because the damage to such engines was considered too great). The armament of the Ta-152H was very poor due to slow rates of fire and the bad ballistic trajectory of the shells. The 20mm and 30mm cannons had different trajectories and were impossible to line up on the same target except at very close range (in fairness, the P-39 Airacobra had the same problem). It is possible to make a numerical rating of the aircraft\\\'s armament assuming a firing burst of standard length. The P-51 comes out at 30, the Tempest at 38 and the Ta-152H at 26. This rating does not, however, allow for the slow rate of fire and poor trajectory of the German guns which was a critical limitation on them. The Me-262 was armed with four 30mm guns and even this was considered grossly inadequate. Finally, the \\\"bomber destroyer excuse is invalid; it would only be a sensible argument if there was no possibility of the fighter facing anything else. This was not the case.
Your suggestion that an Me-262 could outperform an F-86 are absurd. I think you must be confusing them with post-war trials that showed the Me-262 and F-80A were evenly matched although the armament on the Me-262 was severely criticized, again due to slow rate of fire and poor trajectory making the guns hard to aim. This was, note, the P-80A. The P-80C and the later model Meteors outclassed the Me-262 completely.
The story about escaping the Mustangs is false. No if, buts or maybes. There is not one shred of evidence to support it. Tank simply lied as the did all the time. His one real talent was as a salesman; one cannot help but be impressed by the way his fanboys worship the extremely mediocre Ta-152. Tank would have made a great second-hand car salesman or television shill.
And on the jets, if you take the time to do some studies of postwar jet engines, you will find that the next-generation German designs were systemically flawed and could not be made to work. Poor materials and lousy basic design were additional problems that were just icing on the cake. Without high-powered engines, none of the German designs were even remotely practical and the whole lot are just a waste of paper.
The X4 was uterly useless. There is not one single case of an allied aircraft being shot down by it. The only thing that came out of it that was any use at all was the wire-guided concept that was useful in designing anti-tank missiles.
Your suggestion that an Me-262 could outperform an F-86 are absurd. I think you must be confusing them with post-war trials that showed the Me-262 and F-80A were evenly matched although the armament on the Me-262 was severely criticized, again due to slow rate of fire and poor trajectory making the guns hard to aim. This was, note, the P-80A. The P-80C and the later model Meteors outclassed the Me-262 completely.
The story about escaping the Mustangs is false. No if, buts or maybes. There is not one shred of evidence to support it. Tank simply lied as the did all the time. His one real talent was as a salesman; one cannot help but be impressed by the way his fanboys worship the extremely mediocre Ta-152. Tank would have made a great second-hand car salesman or television shill.
And on the jets, if you take the time to do some studies of postwar jet engines, you will find that the next-generation German designs were systemically flawed and could not be made to work. Poor materials and lousy basic design were additional problems that were just icing on the cake. Without high-powered engines, none of the German designs were even remotely practical and the whole lot are just a waste of paper.
The X4 was uterly useless. There is not one single case of an allied aircraft being shot down by it. The only thing that came out of it that was any use at all was the wire-guided concept that was useful in designing anti-tank missiles.
