Unfassbar ja genau

the most elegant air conditioner

Danke !

The Russian innovation was variable inlet guide vanes to the supercharger which gave an extra 100hp or more at low altitude. The Germans learned of it from crashed Soviet aircraft the allies learned of it from the Germans!

...danke-

Reschke while flying a Ta 152H0 had a Mosquito in his sights and was getting ready to fire but his supercharger collapsed and the aircraft dropped out. The first 300 Jumo 213E and F engines had a weak supercharger spline. This forced the 3rd gear to be blocked out and clearly impacted second gear. Every Aircraft has its day, the Mosquito was capable of a little more development (Merlin 100). Let's be glad that both Reschke and the Mosquito crew lived.

It was definitely D9. The TA 152 had a reduced roll rate due to the elongated wings . I have both the D9 and the 152 in 1/6 scale flying models and the difference between the 2 is very noticeable.

@@alfred.g7521roll rate has nothing to do with turning ( something to be fair, but more important for turning is the pitch not the roll )

@@kyusha9323 Well, one has to bank to enter a turn (unless one is doing a flat turn using only the rudder - something which felt out of favour during WWI). If your enemy reverses than you also have to roll to reverse your turn, which lowers your effective turn rate (something the Fw-190A used to evade enemies who had lower roll rates but smaller turn circles)!

Danke !

He said it was the best fighter yet admitted he never had a dog fight with a Spitfire! then the original statement is incorrect by omission .

@@AAAUTOSLONDON he experienced the fighters of this era. Did you? No, I suppose not. His statement as an ultimate expert is funded, your sources are probably from the internet or maybe from a book.

haha garantiert nicht

The Messerschmidt 262 climb rate was 10 m/s , the Ta 152 climbed at 15 m/s.

@@olesuhr727 Thanks, but Messerschmitt

in den usa stehen noch paar solcher dinger in museen rum aber weltweit leider keine flugfähige

Es gibt leider nur noch eine einzige und die steht in sehr schlechtem Zustand in der USA (eingelagert)

Willi Rescke hatte ein brillantes Gedächtnis und war absolut glaubwürdig..

Digg them out. They are of considerable value nowadays.

Unwahrscheinlich. Es fehlte an Treibstoff, Schmierstoffen, hochwertigen Werkstoffen und vor allem an gut ausgebildeten Piloten. Die materielle Überlegenheit der Alliierten, also der USA, überstieg die Möglichkeiten der Achsenmächte in jeder Hinsicht um ein Vielfaches. Selbst erstklassige Jäger wie der Ta 152 hätten Anfang 1944 einer Übermacht von mindestens 6 zu 1 gegenüber gestanden. Da war nix mehr zu holen - glücklicherweise. Hätte der Krieg in Europa länger gedauert, wäre auch hier eine Atombombe gefallen.

Mal dir mal aus wenn die Bomber Ströme nicht mehr gekommen wären für ein halbes Jahr. Was sich erneut aufgebaut hätte, zB den Treibstoff für die Me-262 etc. Noch Fragen?

@@udobreuer1061 Es hätte sich kaum etwas geändert. Zu der Zeit, also Mitte 43, begann man bereits, Jugendliche an die Front zu schicken, die NS-Organisationen sammelten in der Bevölkerung Kleidung und Lumpen für die Produktion von Stoffen und bis auf Rumänien waren schon Mitte 43 keine Ölvorkommen mehr in greifbarer Nähe. Die Ausbildung von Piloten braucht viele, viele Monate. Und ohne Zwangsarbeiter lief in der Industrie nichts mehr. Die waren nicht auf Qualitätsarbeit erpicht. Hochleistungsmotoren und Triebwerke benötigen hochwertige Metalle, die gab es so gut wie nicht mehr. Glaub mir, ich hätte mich sehr gefreut, wenn Deutschlands architektonisches Erbe weniger zerbombt worden wäre. Das sog. "Moral Bombing" halte ich für ein Kriegsverbrechen. Aber selbst bei einem halben Jahr Pause hätte sich da nichts großartiges an Ressourcen ansammeln können. Mitte 43 war der Drops gelutscht und die Alliierten hatten in Casablanca ihre Ziele für Deutschland formuliert.

@@udobreuer1061 Weils ja soviele Ölquellen in Deutschland gab ...

Hat mich nicht weiter gestört lol Dass es solche Interviews überhaupt gibt ist klasse

@@jg54sayaka11 Ja dass dich als Deutschen das nicht stört ist mir klar. Aber vieles war halt einfach nicht richtig im Englischen

Hallo, Neon Leon, ... auch bei der Übersetzung der ' Untertitel ' sollte man möglichst präzise sein. DS -History ( Tom Muller ) arbeitet an einem weitern Interview, das für 2021 geplant ist. Da wir momentan keinen Übersetzer haben, möchte ich mal fragen, ob Du/Sie das neue Interview ins Englische übersetzten könntest ? VG, Team DS History.

I am listening to him and indeed, you are right.

@@tommuller5205 Falls es noch möglich ist, gerne. Hab die Antwort jetzt erst gesehen, das tut mir leid. ^^

And where does that figure come from?

@@paulbantick8266 Reschke said so. 2:27 Also look at this: kzfaq.info/get/bejne/nrmUjNd3l9u2Y4k.html

@@thkempe I refer you back to your link and my post within it! I still ask: 'Where is the in-service data (Not pre-service data) and evidence? There are none.' It's all hearsay, conjecture and myth, which happens a lot where the Luftwaffe are concerned. The only real combat information is the Ludwigslust encounter on April 14, 1945, between 2 Hawker Tempests of 486 Sq and Ta152Hs of JG301 where the Ta152s bounced two Tempest that were strafing ground targets. One Tempest flown by a rookie pilot was shot down ((It may well have already been damaged by ground fire)) and a Ta' shot down by a Tempest flown by a more experienced pilot who succeded in out-flying the other Ta152s. The plane was so operationally terrible that 30 of the 60-odd in-service had major issues that either grounded them, failed in the air ( as what had 'supposedly happened in Willi Reschke's own words) or caused crash landings. It had only 7 aerial victories too. Considering that Luftwaffe claims were 30% too high, it could be accurate to say that it shot down about 5 enemy aircraft but lost 5 in combat, which would mean that it shot down 4 Russian and 1 western allied fighter for a loss of 2 on the Russian front and 3 on the western front You do notice (if the stats shown are accurate) at low level it was no big deal and at 25-27,000ft was on a par with the P51D Mustang and slower than the Spitfire XIV and P47M

Der Übersetzer hat wohl Landmeilen mit Seemeilen verwechselt? Oder sich einfach Verrechnet.

...ja, danke -

Leider Anfang dieses Jahres verstorben. Schade das Diese Helden von uns gehen müssen, und mit Ihnen, ein Stück Geschichte. Mögen Sie niemals vergessen werden!

Wenn man diesen Krieg als Jagdflieger überlebt hatte, dann durfte man auch mal etwas "dicker Auftragen". Wie sollte man sonst das Erlebte verarbeiten?

Die Horten 229 ein Jahr früher und es wäre in der luft und am Boden anders ausgegangen..

Hallo, das kann man natürlich annehmen - für Sommer 1946 war ein Angriff mit 1000 Me 262 auf US- Bomberpulks geplant... aber dann wäre die erste Atombombe auch in Deutschland abgeworfen worden...

@@tommuller5205 I think this is the best response you could've given to these comments above. I have much respect for the people who had to fight this war, on both sides, but these "if only" comments are short sighted.

@@tommuller5205 das glaube ich nicht,zu dicht besiedelt. mit japan war das anders.-

Schnell ist sie nur hoch oben. Wendig ist sie Oben auch, zumindest wendiger als fast alle Anderen. Schnell ist sie Unten nicht, die Dora und 109 sind schneller. Wendig ist sie wie cirka eine Spitfire Mk9 auf Bodennähe. Leistung verringern vor der Kurve hilft, der Drehmoment mit 2100 PS mit MW50 ist eben übel.

well said

So where is the evidence for what you have posted? Anyway! The TA152 was crap. Its serviceability was dire and as I have stated before, there is absolutely no evidence that its in-service performance matched that of what it achieved in development. Britain had a piston-engined fighter in development that could do 490mph + (Spiteful) and a twin-engined fighter (DH Hornet) that belted along at 475mph. Oh! The de Havilland Vampire jet-fighter was entering service and the 'almost' 600mph Meteor was in production at the end of the war. So no need for a fighter with very poor service history (only about 30 of the 60odd saw any type of operation with hardly any seeing combat at all) and no real combat history either. Oh! Let's not forget the Hawker Fury/Sea Fury.

@@paulbantick8266 kzfaq.info/get/bejne/nrmUjNd3l9u2Y4k.html This video does a great job explaining

@@bullshitlatinname1243 Re your link: I suggest you read my posts on that said link.

@@paulbantick8266 no body agrees with the shit that's coming out of your mouth

750 km/h is 466 mph

Hubert Lange, a Me 262 pilot, said: "the Messerschmitt Me 262's most dangerous opponent was the British Hawker Tempest - extremely fast at low altitudes, highly manoeuvrable and heavily armed."[65] and reschke shot down a tempest easy in low altitude ,how good was the ta 152? what winkle said is bullshit.

Was bist du denn für ein Spinner ?

calm down mike. you brits never shut the fuck up about spitfires

@@OldSkoolWax Methinks someone can't stand the fact that the Spitfire was the best fighter of the war.

@@paulbantick8266 One of the most agile maybe, though the Zero outturned it with ease. In terms of Climb Rate and Speed it was outclassed pretty soon. And the later Spitfires where turning worse and worse but climbed better and better. No question, the Spitfire was a marvellous Design and earns it's reputation. But to call it the best Fighter of the War is quite idiotic. I'd say the P-51D was the better one because it had more speed, longer duration and better all around visibility (except the late bubble cockpit spits). The Spit won almost all Turnfights, but it was weak when flying against Zoom and Boomers. The Tempest was a better airplane for that kind of fighting.

@@WanderfalkeAT The Zero was good against the Spitfire for two reasons. 1. The Spitfire pilots were not aware of the Zero's strengths. 2 Their Mk V's were war-worn too. Once the strengths of the Spitfire were used (a couple of months), the Zero's had no chance, especially when later marks of Spitfires arrived. And at sea, the Seafire did excellent work at intercepting Japanese raids on the Fleet. You really should do some research because throughout the war, as the aircraft of the Allies and Axis became more powerful with bigger engines, bigger armament strengthened airframes, they all suffered in manoeuvrability compared to the lighter airframes of the first years of the war. The Mk XIV was better in all aspects (including manoeuvrability) compared to the P51D apart from range. Even the late production MkIX, though slower than the latest marks of German and Allied fighters, nonetheless was still as good a fighter and was equal in combat to the Fw109s and 109s. I'll say to you too! Do some in-depth research. Because what you and others have posted here isn't. As Paul Adam quoted: Yes, and once the initial “don’t slow down to their preferred fight” lesson was learned, Fleet Air Arm Seafires (modified Spitfire Vs) were scoring something like 16:1 against Japanese A6Ms; indeed, as long as you kept your speed above about 200 knots, the Spitfire/Seafire was one of the very few aircraft that could “turn with a Zero”. And as I posted on another site: "The US doctrine was to bomb by day so they needed a capable long-range fighter escort. If they didn’t have the Rolls-Royce Merlin engine, then they would have been forced to bomb the more distant German targets by night. The P51 was an excellent and very capable escort-fighter though and obviously the best of its type." I'll be a bit light-hearted and say that: 'As with the Deontay Wilder (P51D) vs Tyson Fury (MkXIV) triple type of clash? The same result in a one-on-one...