PDA

View Full Version : Difference between Ta154 and Fw187



Fornixx
01-31-2004, 05:35 AM
Here's one for you Luftwaffe experts out there. Please explain to me the difference between the two planes/projects.

S!

Fornixx
01-31-2004, 05:35 AM
Here's one for you Luftwaffe experts out there. Please explain to me the difference between the two planes/projects.

S!

ELEM
01-31-2004, 06:14 AM
http://www.cropp.demon.co.uk/FW/FW187.HTM
http://members.aol.com/pelzig/ta152.htm

You are joking right? You cannot see the difference between these two?

I wouldn't join any club that would have ME as member!

Fornixx
01-31-2004, 06:24 AM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by ELEM:
http://www.cropp.demon.co.uk/FW/FW187.HTM
http://members.aol.com/pelzig/ta152.htm

You are joking right? You cannot see the difference between these two?

I wouldn't join any club that would have ME as member!<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>


Ta 154! http://ubbxforums.ubi.com/infopop/emoticons/icon_biggrin.gif

http://www.warbirdsresourcegroup.org/LRG/ta154.html

Vladimir_No2
01-31-2004, 07:46 AM
http://www.luftwaffepics.com/LCBW4/TA154-V3-10.jpg
http://www.luftwaffepics.com/LCBW/FW187-A0-1s.jpg
No explaination needed.

http://www.doyle.com.au/images/scharnhorst2.JPG
"Engage the enemy more closely" -Rear Admiral Cradock

Fornixx
01-31-2004, 03:40 PM
Well sorry for posting a stupid question then but is it that obvious?

I see two twin engine, heavyfighter/fighterbombers, slim fuselage, centrally placed barrel armament made by the same manufacturer that obviously both were good designs but never really made it into serial production.

Well anyone?

S!

DeBaer.534
01-31-2004, 03:46 PM
if you dont see a difference between the planes quickly, then, sorry, i wouldnt like to have you as my wingman. how can you identify the planes youre shooting at in FB.
dont get my wrong, im not saying youre a bad pilot or anything that is meant offensive.

Baltar
01-31-2004, 03:47 PM
Um...man. That Fw187 looks really keen. I don't care if there were only nine built! I want to see this puppy in action!

jagdmailer
01-31-2004, 03:52 PM
Doorgunner/Snorri had a Fw187 external with textures and skin on Snorri's site early 2003......has been abandonned since.....we picked up their He 100D-1 in the meantime.

http://www.flugzeugwerk.net/Projects.htm

JagdMailer
Omega Squad Luftwaffe Historical Research Coordinator

tenmmike
01-31-2004, 03:53 PM
fornixx just look hard at the engines ..it should then hit you

http://images.ar15.com/forums/smiles/anim_50cal.gif U.S INFANTRY 1984-1991

Fornixx
01-31-2004, 04:01 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by DeBaer.534:
if you dont see a difference between the planes quickly, then, sorry, i wouldnt like to have you as my wingman. how can you identify the planes youre shooting at in FB.
dont get my wrong, im not saying youre a bad pilot or anything that is meant offensive.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Ok deep breath.... Let me rephrase myself.

Of course I can see physical differences as well as I can see differences between a Spit V and a Spit IX.

If I was to ask you what's the difference between the 2 spits, would a good answer be "Can't you see stupid, they have different paintjobs" ? Or "The rudder is somewhat different shaped"

No maybee not. An answer more like. "Basically the same plane but different engine and wingshape due to high alt requirements" or "Different designteams so from the base completely different competing designs" or "All the blueprints for the 187 were lost in a pokergame so they had to design it all over again resulting in theTa 154". http://ubbxforums.ubi.com/images/smiley/16x16_smiley-wink.gif

And not that I take offence for your comment about me being a lousy pilot in a computergame (which I am by the way) but I'm more interested in the historic facts here.

S!

Fornixx
01-31-2004, 04:08 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by tenmmike:
fornixx just look hard at the engines ..it should then hit you

http://images.ar15.com/forums/smiles/anim_50cal.gif U.S INFANTRY 1984-1991<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Now were talking. Radials vs inlines. Thats an obvious optical difference. Now if I may ask, was there a reason to put the radials on a new platform instead of scrapping the inlines on the 187? Or was it precisely that they did? Could one say that the 154 was the direct development of the 187? Could one see the 187 as the testbed for the 154 in some sense?

S!

tenmmike
01-31-2004, 04:18 PM
ta 154=2 seet night and bad weather fighter max speed 404 mph @23000 ft weight 19687 lbs loaded.... max(21050) wing span 53ft 6 in length 41ft2 3/4 in 2 mg151 and 2 mk108 wing area 348.75 sq ft....great potential...............fw 187 tandem 2 seat heavy fighter max speed329 mph@13780 f tweight 11023 lbs loaded.. span 50ft2 1/3 in..wa 327.22 sq ft...me 110 already doing its job

http://images.ar15.com/forums/smiles/anim_50cal.gif U.S INFANTRY 1984-1991

tenmmike
01-31-2004, 04:22 PM
2 completly difernt plane about 2yrs seperate them both planes have liquid cooled enines the ta had jumo213 E @1320 and 1750 for take off and the 187 had jumo 210Ga 700 hp and 730 for take off

http://images.ar15.com/forums/smiles/anim_50cal.gif U.S INFANTRY 1984-1991

[This message was edited by tenmmike on Sat January 31 2004 at 03:30 PM.]

[This message was edited by tenmmike on Sat January 31 2004 at 03:33 PM.]

jagdmailer
01-31-2004, 04:30 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Fornixx:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by tenmmike:
fornixx just look hard at the engines ..it should then hit you

http://images.ar15.com/forums/smiles/anim_50cal.gif U.S INFANTRY 1984-1991<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Now were talking. Radials vs inlines. Thats an obvious optical difference. Now if I may ask, was there a reason to put the radials on a new platform instead of scrapping the inlines on the 187? Or was it precisely that they did? Could one say that the 154 was the direct development of the 187? Could one see the 187 as the testbed for the 154 in some sense?

S!<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>


Fornixx, both had inline engines. The Ta 154 has Jumo inverted V-12 engines with annular radiator placed behind the propeller.....just like the Ju 88A.

No radials here....

JagdMailer

Oblt.Emann
01-31-2004, 04:32 PM
The Ta154 "Moskito" looks pretty sexy! http://ubbxforums.ubi.com/infopop/emoticons/icon_biggrin.gif

Der Oberleutnant

Fornixx
01-31-2004, 04:47 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by tenmmike:
ta 154=2 seet night and bad weather fighter max speed 404 mph @23000 ft weight 19687 lbs loaded.... max(21050) wing span 53ft 6 in length 41ft2 3/4 in 2 mg151 and 2 mk108 wing area 348.75 sq ft....great potential...............fw 187 tandem 2 seat heavy fighter max speed329 mph@13780 f tweight 11023 lbs loaded.. span 50ft2 1/3 in..wa 327.22 sq ft...me 110 already doing its job

http://images.ar15.com/forums/smiles/anim_50cal.gif U.S INFANTRY 1984-1991<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Thx, just what I was looking for. Not radically different purposes but different enough. The 154 almost double the weight of the 187 and most of all as it seems, several years apart. The 187 being projected in the mid 30:s acording to warbirdsresourcegroup vs. 1942 for the 154.

Good enough for me. Would be two nice planes to have flyable in FB by the way. Is anything stopping someone modelling them other than time? Is there cockpit data available or is this another Pe8 in that sense? http://ubbxforums.ubi.com/images/smiley/16x16_smiley-wink.gif

S!

Fornixx
01-31-2004, 04:57 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by jagdmailer:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Fornixx:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by tenmmike:
fornixx just look hard at the engines ..it should then hit you

http://images.ar15.com/forums/smiles/anim_50cal.gif U.S INFANTRY 1984-1991<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Now were talking. Radials vs inlines. Thats an obvious optical difference. Now if I may ask, was there a reason to put the radials on a new platform instead of scrapping the inlines on the 187? Or was it precisely that they did? Could one say that the 154 was the direct development of the 187? Could one see the 187 as the testbed for the 154 in some sense?

S!<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>


Fornixx, both had inline engines. The Ta 154 has Jumo inverted V-12 engines with annular radiator placed behind the propeller.....just like the Ju 88A.

No radials here....

JagdMailer<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Ok NOW I feel like an ***! http://ubbxforums.ubi.com/images/smiley/blink.gif

I simply fell for the old "Inline that looks like a radial because of the radiator" - trick.

I'm not illitterate if you wonder http://ubbxforums.ubi.com/images/smiley/16x16_smiley-wink.gif but throwing out a question in these forums is often a quicker way of getting info than a couple of hours browsing, and we get this nice discussion too. http://ubbxforums.ubi.com/infopop/emoticons/icon_smile.gif

S!

DeBaer.534
01-31-2004, 05:14 PM
hey fornixx, you got it right the way i didnt want you to get it. my mistake if i got your question wrong...
but well, the both planes are quite different all over, not only optical. maybe experiences with the fw187 have influenced into the ta154, but the ta154 isnt based on the fw187. the construction is very different. (ta154 is full wooden, the wings are placed almost on the upside of the fuselage
as for the spitfire versions, youre right i guess. and the radiator thing is tricky yes, it was a surpise when i had to build inliners for my ta154 model.
(btw im a crappy pilot, too)

Fornixx
01-31-2004, 05:19 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by DeBaer.534:
hey fornixx, you got it right the way i didnt want you to get it. my mistake if i got your question wrong...
but well, the both planes are quite different all over, not only optical. maybe experiences with the fw187 have influenced into the ta154, but the ta154 isnt based on the fw187. the construction is very different. (ta154 is full wooden, the wings are placed almost on the upside of the fuselage
as for the spitfire versions, youre right i guess. and the radiator thing is tricky yes, it was a surpise when i had to build inliners for my ta154 model.
(btw im a crappy pilot, too)<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

No problem, didn't mean to sound angry or anything. Thx for the info!

You know I was just kidding about those radials right http://ubbxforums.ubi.com/infopop/emoticons/icon_smile.gif (damn those radiators, they get me every time)

nicolas10
01-31-2004, 05:36 PM
I've been had on the radiator thing once, while I perfectly knew it was no radial (on the Ta 152 tho). Shame shame http://ubbxforums.ubi.com/infopop/emoticons/icon_razz.gif

Nic

The first official D12 whiner!

Fornixx
01-31-2004, 05:39 PM
Feels good I'm not the only one Nic! I'll do my time for this in the Luftwaffe punishment school of aircraft engines.

S!

DeBaer.534
01-31-2004, 05:43 PM
ok next lesson then. this is a nice one, too:
how many engines?
http://luftarchiv.de/flugzeuge/heinkel/he_177.jpg
http://ubbxforums.ubi.com/infopop/emoticons/icon_wink.gif
(sorry a bit OT)

Fornixx
01-31-2004, 05:48 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by DeBaer.534:
ok next lesson then. this is a nice one, too:
how many engines?
http://luftarchiv.de/flugzeuge/heinkel/he_177.jpg
http://ubbxforums.ubi.com/infopop/emoticons/icon_wink.gif
(sorry a bit OT)<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

http://ubbxforums.ubi.com/images/smiley/16x16_smiley-very-happy.gif

I see 2 propellers so that must mean 2 engines total. I mean, no one in their right mind would couple 2 engines to the same propellershaft and disguise it as one engine right?

That IS the plane that never cought fire right? http://ubbxforums.ubi.com/infopop/emoticons/icon_smile.gif

Fornixx
01-31-2004, 05:51 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by tenmmike:
4

http://images.ar15.com/forums/smiles/anim_50cal.gif U.S INFANTRY 1984-1991<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

No two! 2 propellers = 2 engines. Easy! I've learnt something from this discussion. http://ubbxforums.ubi.com/images/smiley/16x16_smiley-wink.gif

tenmmike
01-31-2004, 05:54 PM
damn i hope i deleated befor cought ...2 db606 basicly 4 db 601 coupled ....... http://ubbxforums.ubi.com/infopop/emoticons/icon_redface.gif

http://images.ar15.com/forums/smiles/anim_50cal.gif U.S INFANTRY 1984-1991

DeBaer.534
01-31-2004, 05:58 PM
hehe, good, you knew this one, i see.
and yes, its the one who never caught fire and was therefore called "reichsfeuerzeug".
and linking 2 engines...lol
you must be insane... where do you get such ideas. no engineer would ever do this.

no serious now, its the 2 engines 1 prop thingy. do the allied planes have any comparable weird constructions, do you know?

Fornixx
01-31-2004, 06:11 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by DeBaer.534:
hehe, good, you knew this one, i see.
and yes, its the one who never caught fire and was therefore called "reichsfeuerzeug".
and linking 2 engines...lol
you must be insane... where do you get such ideas. no engineer would ever do this.

no serious now, its the 2 engines 1 prop thingy. do the allied planes have any comparable weird constructions, do you know?<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

The one that springs to mind is the Whirlwind but I don't think that was cr@ppy because of some half drunk engineer trying to play a practical joke on the design team (as obviously must have been tha case with the He177) but more a case of simply bad engines.

I can see it clearly before me. Sacked designer G√ľnther walks into the Fw office. "So you wanted to fire me right, well fire THIS" 'erase erase' 'redraw' 'redraw' http://ubbxforums.ubi.com/images/smiley/16x16_smiley-very-happy.gif

DeBaer.534
01-31-2004, 06:15 PM
hehe, thats a good one http://ubbxforums.ubi.com/images/smiley/16x16_smiley-very-happy.gif
well the whirlwind is nothing against those products of german engineer's genuine. http://ubbxforums.ubi.com/infopop/emoticons/icon_wink.gif
anyway, i got to sleep now, good night there.

tenmmike
01-31-2004, 06:21 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Fornixx:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by tenmmike:
4

http://images.ar15.com/forums/smiles/anim_50cal.gif U.S INFANTRY 1984-1991<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

No two! 2 propellers = 2 engines. Easy! I've learnt something from this discussion. http://ubbxforums.ubi.com/images/smiley/16x16_smiley-wink.gif<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>...well that was true then but i worked on a project where we combined 2 pt-6 turbine engines with a combining gearbox to turn a 5 blades hartzel prop..if either engine failed the othe could still turn the prop...iv got the pics

http://images.ar15.com/forums/smiles/anim_50cal.gif U.S INFANTRY 1984-1991

Vladimir_No2
01-31-2004, 07:00 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Fornixx:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by tenmmike:
fornixx just look hard at the engines ..it should then hit you

http://images.ar15.com/forums/smiles/anim_50cal.gif U.S INFANTRY 1984-1991<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Now were talking. Radials vs inlines. Thats an obvious optical difference. Now if I may ask, was there a reason to put the radials on a new platform instead of scrapping the inlines on the 187? Or was it precisely that they did? Could one say that the 154 was the direct development of the 187? Could one see the 187 as the testbed for the 154 in some sense?

S!<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>
A few 187s were converted into test aircraft for the development of the 154.

http://www.doyle.com.au/images/scharnhorst2.JPG
"Engage the enemy more closely" -Rear Admiral Cradock

HarryVoyager
01-31-2004, 07:15 PM
From what I understnad the Greif used coupled engines because the aircraft was supposed to be stressed for divebombing, and it turned out that having four nacelles greated unacceptable stress points allong the wing's leading edge.

The Americans also tried a coupled engine, in the form of the Allison V-3420, an engine that was to have numerous problems during its short developmental career, and was fitted in such memorable aircraft as the B-19 and P-75 Eagle.

The British also tried their hand at coupled engines, with the beloved Rolls-Royce Vulture part mulcher. This engine went on to serve an illustrious carrer, powering such greats as the Avro Manchester, and Hawker Tornado.

Then there was the much beloved Ranger V-770, otherwise known as the one engine that could bring a four engined plane due to egine failure. I forget the aircraft that it powered, but there were numerous occations where that plane would come in on only one of its four engines.

Coupled engines just never seemed to work well.

Harry Voyager

[This message was edited by HarryVoyager on Sat January 31 2004 at 06:29 PM.]