Talk:Focke-Wulf Ta 152
|This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the Focke-Wulf Ta 152 article.|
|This article is of interest to the following WikiProjects:|
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))
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)
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)
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 Wikipedia: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 188.8.131.52 (talk) 21:57, 6 August 2009 (UTC)
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). 
- 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 184.108.40.206 (talk) 12:54, 2 May 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.
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!
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 220.127.116.11 (talk) 09:16, 27 April 2012 (UTC)
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.