# Late war fighter competition



## MikeGazdik (Sep 22, 2009)

Okay, lets have a fighter competition of the late war PISTON engine fighters that either didn't quite make it in time, ( but were in production ) or saw VERY limited use. It should have been used or in production in 1945, we the Jury can decide if it should be included. The list that comes to my mind: Grumman F7F Tigercat and F8F Bearcat, F-82 Twin Mustang. Dornier Do 335, Hawker Seafury. Maybe the Supermarine Spiteful, but they were in very small numbers, not sure. Which makes me ask how many Do 335's were made or were they ever used in combat? Any others?


----------



## Soren (Sep 22, 2009)

The Ta-152H powered by the Jumo 213EB takes the prize IMHO. With 2500 hp and a top speed of over 500 mph there was no other piston engined fighter which could rival it.

The F8F would be the best navy plane, although the Seafury is close to it IMO.


----------



## red admiral (Sep 22, 2009)

Hawker Fury/SeaFury below 20,000ft

Supermarine Spiteful between 20,000ft and 30,000ft

Ta 152H above 30,000ft


----------



## drgondog (Sep 22, 2009)

MikeGazdik said:


> Okay, lets have a fighter competition of the late war PISTON engine fighters that either didn't quite make it in time, ( but were in production ) or saw VERY limited use. It should have been used or in production in 1945, we the Jury can decide if it should be included. The list that comes to my mind: Grumman F7F Tigercat and F8F Bearcat, F-82 Twin Mustang. Dornier Do 335, Hawker Seafury. Maybe the Supermarine Spiteful, but they were in very small numbers, not sure. Which makes me ask how many Do 335's were made or were they ever used in combat? Any others?



As Soren noted the upengined Ta152H with the Jumo 213EB would be a top candididate. The P-51H upengined with the 1650-11 (P-51M/cancelled) would have been a top candidate (~2200+hp) as either an interceptor or escort.

The MB-5 needs to be considered.

The Do 335 was an interesting airplane but fits more as a bomber destroyer or even ground attack but air to air against any of the other aircraft mentioned would not be a good place.

As always it depends on the mission you contemplate.


----------



## red admiral (Sep 22, 2009)

The Martin-Baker MB.5 has stability and handling problems until 1946. Even then, it doesn't have great performance compared to contemporary aircraft. The low aspect ratio limits the high altitude performance somewhat. Fitting a 100 series Griffon would give a very nice fighter for low/medium altitudes, but I would expect the Fury to still be better.

P-51H with an RM.17SM (the high altitude 100 series Merlin) would be very fast, giving around 1500hp at 30,000ft instead of the 1600hp at 23000ft of the 1650-9. Probably between 2300 and 2400hp at low altitude depending on what it gets type rated at.


----------



## renrich (Sep 22, 2009)

The F4U5 was close to production in 1945. Depending on source, 470 mph at critical altitude. Very good service ceiling. Not as fast a climber as F8F, but what plane was? Much better at high altitudes and better load carrier. Did not have the range of Mustang, but what plane did? Night fighter version was good. IMO could hold it's own with all fighters mentioned.


----------



## MikeGazdik (Sep 22, 2009)

I know I have not listed several planes because I was tired. (still am actually) I could have included the P-47N. I think this may stack up well, or better than most others, against the Ta-152H. But the N model of the Thunderbolt saw plenty of action, I am not sure I should include it in this debate. 

I know the F7f Tigercat could not operate efficiently at the Focke Wulf altitudes, but I think down below 25k it may be a serious force to be dealt with. I am not sure how it would stack up against a F8f Bearcat or Hawker at those altitudes though. If the Tigercat got a burst into anything it was likely over!!

What about Russian aircraft? A late mark of the Yak-9, maybe we can throw that into the mix, but again they saw plenty of use so maybe not.


----------



## davebender (Sep 22, 2009)

This is good but let's take it a step further.
Luftwaffe: the allied intelligence files - Google Books


> Kurt Tank, the designer of the Ta-152, when interviewed, claimed to have evaded siz Mustangs while flying the Ta-152, by virtue of its superior speed. He revealed that a planned version of the aircraft featuring a Jumo 222 engine would reach 500 mph.


The Ta-152 was in production during 1945 and the Jumo 222 engine was production ready with all the development work completed. Without the jet engine programs which have been ommited by this scenerio the Jumo 222 engine would probably have powered the Ta-152 from the beginning.


----------



## Lucky13 (Sep 22, 2009)

How about the Japanese and Italians? What was going on there?


----------



## DerAdlerIstGelandet (Sep 22, 2009)

Well the Italians were out of it by then...


----------



## Erich (Sep 22, 2009)

c'mon not again another what-if supported by nonsense.


----------



## PJay (Sep 22, 2009)

On the subject of Do-335 production, the 'Wings' database says production totalled 23.


----------



## Erich (Sep 22, 2009)

non operational protos, 3 flew flight patterns, one famous french ace claims he shot one down which is bogus

worthless junk in preparation for the inevitable. It is all conceivable the LW techs should of further inhanced the Me 262 with longer, larger fuel cells and redirected for aerodynamics the fuselage and canopy shape

oh what joyous fun


----------



## B-17engineer (Sep 22, 2009)

PJay said:


> On the subject of Do-335 production, the 'Wings' database says production totalled *23*.



23 more than I thought.


----------



## davebender (Sep 22, 2009)

Personally I doubt the Do-335 would see mass production. Aircraft already in service are better and less expensive to produce.

The Ta-152 was already in production and arguably more effective as an air superiority fighter. It is also considerably less expensive, using one Jumo 213 (or possibly 222) engine rather then two required to power the Do-335. 

Newer versions of the proven Ju-88 powered by the latest 2,500 hp Jumo 213 engines will have a max speed over 400mph. Plenty fast even for intercepting B-29s at night.


----------



## MikeGazdik (Sep 23, 2009)

Right. I don't want this to be an "X" plane competition. THIS HAS BEEN EDITED. Lets keep all of these plane in the mix.

As I see it right now; Ta 152 
F7f
F8f
P-51h
P-47N
Yak 9U
Spiteful
Sea Fury
Do 335

That is some serious hardware! Any would be a fine aircraft. I think the sleeper may well be the Yak, it was a real performer.


----------



## Glider (Sep 23, 2009)

The Hornet was in production at the end of the war but didn't enter operational service until March 1946, how does that fit in?


----------



## MikeGazdik (Sep 24, 2009)

From what I remember reading, it sounded like a sweet plane. But I know very very little really.

Hey, no more silly rules. Hawker in, Ta 152 witht he high horsepower motor in. And the Do 335's in. 

It is more fun to argue the more aircraft involved!

I think I will take the Grumman F8F Bearcat and whip everyones' tail feathers! It can; climb, roll, turn. And it has a radial for durability. Maybe not very long ranged, but fighter vs fighter I think it can take on any other and have more going for it than any other mentioned so far.


----------



## Soren (Sep 24, 2009)

MikeGazdik said:


> I think I will take the Grumman F8F Bearcat and whip everyones' tail feathers! It can; climb, roll, turn. And it has a radial for durability. Maybe not very long ranged, but fighter vs fighter I think it can take on any other and have more going for it than any other mentioned so far.



I'm sure the Ta-152 would give the F8F a run for its' money in any type of dogfight imagineable, and on top of this it has the range of the P-51. The Seafury is also a good match for it IMO.


----------



## red admiral (Sep 24, 2009)

I'm not so sure about the F8F myself. The official performance figures don't seem very impressive;

From the SAC for the F8F-2 (with 4x20mm but with uprated engine over F8F-1)

386mph at sl, 447mph at 28,000ft max speed, 4465fpm climb at sl, 5.5min to 20,000ft

Hawker Seafury X

410mph at sl, 460mph at 18,000ft, 450mph at 28,000ft, 5640fpm at sl, 4.5min to 20,000ft

Maneuverability is more difficult to quantitfy but both were rated as being pretty good.


----------



## davebender (Sep 24, 2009)

> Grumman F8F Bearcat and whip everyones' tail feathers!


The F8F will be deployed on USN aircraft carriers. Unless the USN enters the Baltic I don't see much scope for it to engage the Luftwaffe.


----------



## tomo pauk (Sep 24, 2009)

North Sea, or Norwegian waters perhaps? Or Northern Adriatic deployment for Bearcat vs. Luftwaffe?


Sea Fury is my bird again, or P-47N if one wants great performance durability combined with great range (but no carrier landings obviously).


----------



## MikeGazdik (Sep 24, 2009)

Lets not worry "how" the naval fighters get there. Lets just put them in the fight, maybe land based naval units. 

Maybe Soren or someone with similar talent, can come up with some performance tables of some of the main players we have spoke about.

I know on paper the Bearcat doesn't have all of the best statistics, but I think it would be an overall exceptional fighter, in Fighter vs Fighter confrontation. I would be interested in finding out how well it was able to turn.

The Hawker is very good too. I think though its slightly heavier weight would make it tough to out fight the F8F. Same as the P-47N, which is even heavier.

I still wonder how the twin engines planes such as the F7F and the Hornet would compete against some of these great single engine fighters?


----------



## davebender (Sep 24, 2009)

It appears to me the Bearcat is a dogfighter. Which makes sense since CV aircraft typically operate at medium and low altitude. It might not fare too well at 30,000 feet against 500 mph aircraft using boom zoom tactics.


----------



## Soren (Sep 24, 2009)

The Ta-152 was probably the best dogfighter of the lot, it featured a very high lift wing design very well suited for turn fighting. And with 2500 hp performance at all alts would've been extreme.


----------



## davebender (Sep 24, 2009)

Perhaps so. However if I have a speed advantage of 25 to 50 mph I would probably boom zoom. It's inheritly safer then entering an aerial furball. Erich Hartmann scored 352 kills this way and lived to write a book about it. 8)


----------



## Guns'n'Props (Sep 24, 2009)

davebender said:


> Perhaps so. However if I have a speed advantage of 25 to 50 mph I would probably boom zoom. It's inheritly safer then entering an aerial furball. Erich Hartmann scored 352 kills this way and lived to write a book about it. 8)



I daresay most WW2 kills were done this way - very unsporting. Does anyone have any statistics on boom zoom vs other successful tactics please ?


----------



## Erich (Sep 24, 2009)

remove the Do 335, the comparisons as a what if cannot be used, no operational experience, but maybe that is ok with the members ........ ?


----------



## lesofprimus (Sep 24, 2009)

I agree Erich, the 335 in my mind wasnt a fighter, but a destroyer....

Take it off the list and Im still in the 152's corner....


----------



## davparlr (Sep 24, 2009)

Soren said:


> The Ta-152H powered by the Jumo 213EB takes the prize IMHO. With 2500 hp and a top speed of over 500 mph there was no other piston engined fighter which could rival it.



The P-47M/N with a flat rated 2800 hp from 10k to 33,000 ft easily out-powers the Ta-152 even with the EB, up to the P-47 ceiling and at 35k this power difference is probably about 1500 hp providing a substantial power to weight advantage (over 100% more power)! For 1945 Europe, the P-47 could easily be lightened (less fuel carried since no long range escorts and reduced armament) and, if required, I am sure Republic could re-wing the P-47 (already done for the N) as easily as the Focke-Wulf did for the 190/152. According to your chart, the EB performance is still considerably below the P-51H and the Tempest II in speed below 25k ft and at a disadvantage in climb below 20-25k. Of course I am not even looking at the -11 engine in the P-51, which has higher altitude performance. Above 20-25k the Ta would dominate these planes, but then there is that doggone P-47. The P-47J already had achieved 500 mph. Your chart appears never to show the EB generating more than about 172 mph and it looks like nitrous is not used. Am I misreading the chart, I have done that before? Unfortunately I cannot even mention the P-72 which already had a year in development and was in production before being cancelled in favor of jets.



davebender said:


> Kurt Tank, the designer of the Ta-152, when interviewed, claimed to have evaded siz Mustangs while flying the Ta-152, by virtue of its superior speed. He revealed that a planned version of the aircraft featuring a Jumo 222 engine would reach 500 mph.



Since the Ta-152 has a clean top speed of about 370 mph at SL and a 1945 fighter-weight P-51D has a clean top speed of about 380 mph at SL, it is unlikely Kurt could evade the P-51s using superior speed. Now if the Ta had no racks and the P-51Ds did, then the Ta probably could slowly ease away. Most likely, the P-51s never saw the Ta. Did the 222 engine ever work?


----------



## Erich (Sep 24, 2009)

as Tank did not fly an H model it is not known 100 % if he had MW-50 installed in his C-0 variant he was flying,, if so yes he would of sped away. but to confirm that he had 6 P-51's on his butt is a bit much. there is of course the possibility that this story is nothing but myth to help promote the qualities of the little know to be fighter


----------



## lesofprimus (Sep 24, 2009)

I would go with the myth part rather than reality, Tank was a salesman as much as he was a designer...

Phenominal mind in both aspects..


----------



## NZTyphoon (Sep 24, 2009)

Heh, as a member of the Commonwealth, I've gotta stick my oar in for the Commonwealth CA-15 "Kangaroo"
Commonwealth CA-15



> CAC also built an advanced piston fighter named the "CA-15", powered by the Rolls-Royce Griffon engine, that clearly had Mustang influence though it could hardly be confused as a variant of the type. It looked something like a mutant Mustang on steroids.
> 
> The CA-15 began life in 1942 with studies for a follow-on to the Commonwealth Boomerang, a fighter that the Australians had put together hastily at the beginning of the war, using the North American T-6 Texan trainer as a starting point. The Boomerang was a much better machine than could have possibly been suggested by its humble origins and provided excellent service in the South Pacific theater, but there was no way to make much more of it than it was.
> 
> ...



There were drawbacks; light armament and 448 mph was not a great deal better than the P-51D. Still, worth throwing in as something different to the usual run of Bearcats etc.


----------



## MikeGazdik (Sep 24, 2009)

Ok, so your fighter command has the task of performing fighter sweeps and escorting medium bombers into North East Germany around the North Sea. Allied positions are flying south from Sweden. You know the Luftwaffe is operating several groups of Ta 152's in the area. The allied advance has slowed and not yet gone into Germany proper, so the fighter sweeps are intended to soften the Luftwaffe, along with medium bomber escorts that are tactical in nature, attacking the German ground forces that are preventing continued invasion. The Me262 factories have been hit hard by 8th AF bombers so they have a minimal affect, and when deployed are going after the heavies from England. So they are not a factor in this area.

You are the commanding officer of the theatre, and you have the choice of several new allied fighters to deploy in the area.

Which of these aircraft do you chose. I put this scenario in place because it does seem that the Focke Wulf appears to be favored by many, and respected by all as at least 1 of the best.


----------



## davparlr (Sep 24, 2009)

Erich said:


> as Tank did not fly an H model it is not known 100 % if he had MW-50 installed in his C-0 variant he was flying,, if so yes he would of sped away. but to confirm that he had 6 P-51's on his butt is a bit much. there is of course the possibility that this story is nothing but myth to help promote the qualities of the little know to be fighter



Okay, I'll buy that. Soren's chart shows a C-1 (I'm assuming the C-0 is similar) with SL speed of 388 mph while the P-51D's speed is 383 mph and the P-51B is 386 mph. All, I'm sure, is within the error of testing. I wouldn't say he "sped" away.

All in all, not a bad showing for a plane that had been flying and fighting since '43 against the best of the enemy could field in '45 (not including jets).


----------



## VG-33 (Sep 25, 2009)

MikeGazdik said:


> Right. I don't want this to be an "X" plane competition. THIS HAS BEEN EDITED. Lets keep all of these plane in the mix.
> 
> As I see it right now; Ta 152
> F7f
> ...



Hello 
Your Ta 152 seems to be overquoted. It's power was about 2050 hp with MW-50 and Jumo 213 from various sources, not 2500. Moroever it's not proven that is was a better fignter than the usual D-9 at low and middle heights.

In that sense i think La-7 was more impressive than the Yak at low heights (635 km/h at SL and about 665 at 2600m with 1850 hp only). With an american/british 100 LL instead of its standard soviet benzine a simple Yak-9D was gaining about 20km/h IAS. Probably more for a La-5FN /La-7 family, by extrapolation.

Regards


----------



## davebender (Sep 25, 2009)

How long are you expecting the European war to last? After another year of fighting the entire continent will be rubble and no longer worth fighting over.


----------



## DerAdlerIstGelandet (Sep 25, 2009)

Guns'n'Props said:


> I daresay most WW2 kills were done this way - very unsporting.



There was nothing unsporting about it. The job of a fighter pilot is to shoot down the enemy and fly home to fight another day. If that means hitting your enemy before he knows you are there, then so be it. That is smart flying...


----------



## MikeGazdik (Sep 25, 2009)

davebender said:


> How long are you expecting the European war to last? After another year of fighting the entire continent will be rubble and no longer worth fighting over.



Long enough for us to argue about it!! LOL

I am glad a defender of the Russian aircraft has joined the debate. I really like the Lavochkin La-7 too, maybe we can stretch and figure the La-9 would have been hurried into production.

My little mock layout of where the battle is fought works out for the Russian aircraft, coming from Poland.

With my scenario, it would be real easy to put the P-51H into the theater. The plane was already proven with the 8th AF. But that would be the logical choice, I rather prefer illogical.


----------



## renrich (Sep 25, 2009)

In an earlier post I stated that F4U5 was nearly in production in 1945. I was wrong as the prototype F4U5 did not fly until 1946.


----------



## Erich (Sep 25, 2009)

curious Mike I do not see any P-51H in any of the 8th AF fighter arsenals during the war.

proven fact on the Tank it flew at medium to low altitudes in it's combat record, there are no records of operational flights at the extreme for what it was made for during combat ops agasint Soviet or US/Raf fighters. it held it's own quite properly and the lower levels and of course along with the D-9 which tore the Soviets to shreads


----------



## drgondog (Sep 25, 2009)

If the sweep ranges are inside a 300mile radius I like the P-51H in the interceptor config - no external stores, all internal fuel and full load of ammo.

SL climb after T/O according to the SAC manual is ~ 5K fpm with excellent performance throughout it's flight profile with 407kts/~474mph loaded at 25K. 

I'm still mentally debating F8F and Spiteful in that same range spectrum... as the 51H performance gets better as it burns off fuel.

I really would like to see the equivalent of a pilot's handbook like the SAC 1949 P-51H document on all the rest to see what the operational expectations for an average bird looks like for the choices above... particularly for the Ta 152


----------



## Erich (Sep 25, 2009)

am not 100 % Bill but the new forthcoming Monogram/Eagle-editions book on the TA 152 may have the information. I know Jerry has a ton on the bird but of course so do I 8)


----------



## DerAdlerIstGelandet (Sep 25, 2009)

MikeGazdik said:


> With my scenario, it would be real easy to put the P-51H into the theater. The plane was already proven with the 8th AF. But that would be the logical choice, I rather prefer illogical.



When was the P-51H proven? It never saw combat in WW2...


----------



## MikeGazdik (Sep 25, 2009)

Erich said:


> curious Mike I do not see any P-51H in any of the 8th AF fighter arsenals during the war.



Easy guys, I was refering to the P-51 design, as in the B,C,D models. The H was an improvement of the breed. With that, it would be the easy and logical choice to put the H model of the Mustang into this fight. That is what I was trying to say. 

I was not trying to say the H saw combat with the 8th AF.


----------



## Vincenzo (Sep 25, 2009)

P-51H it's near a new fighter


----------



## drgondog (Sep 25, 2009)

Vincenzo is basically correct.

The P-51H was both 'new' and 'established'. The 1650-9 engine was essentially a 1650-7 with -3 gearing and improved WI methods to bring it to 90"hg.

The commonality of parts (to P-51D) was very low due to a near complete redesign to take out the added weight that the D model added (~1000 pounds in a four gun to four gun comparison - but added some back to get to six gun equivalncey to 51D) over the B - but it was a low risk airframe due to the engine/coolant/instrument and control systems. It introduced no real development risk and its introduction into US inventories was very smooth.

Its performance boost was due to a.) improved cg due to 13" increase in fuse lenght plue reducing the size of aft fuel tank. I never flew the 51H but my father had about 300 hours in it - he liked it better than both the B/D models for vastly improved climb and acceleration and ease of take off runs with MP.

The Ta 152H exemplified the same degree of airframe evolution over the Fw 190D series but did have an entirely new wing and engine. The engine was the wildcard in the Ta 152 as it was not a well tested operationally experienced engine, but a poweful one nevertheless.

I suspect without proof that the 51H was still slightly improved aerodynamically - which is still a wildcard at highspeed and energy manueverability/energy loss engagements... The top speed comparisons with reduced Hp capability suggests slightly better drag for the 51 and definite WL advantage for the Ta 152 - most contained in the wing comparisons.

These fighters would have been very well matched in SL to 30,000 feet but I would give edge to Ta 152 in performance and edge in pilot skills and numbers of pilots with those skills to 51 drivers simply because of the bleed out of the LW. For the same reason 51D and Spit IV and P-47N and Yak 9 drivers would not have been at the mercy of Ta 152's.

There was nowhere near the difference in late model piston engine fighters that Meteors, Me 262s and P-80s brought to combat. 1945 was truly the edge of the envelope in recip engine aircraft.

Ta 152 and P-51H in 1943 would have been very competitive with slight edge to 152 as the pilot skills and numbers would have favored the LW (over Germany)


----------



## NZTyphoon (Sep 25, 2009)

davebender said:


> How long are you expecting the European war to last? After another year of fighting the entire continent will be rubble and no longer worth fighting over.



Ahh, hmmm 
In which case I'd push for the P-51H. Still the best all rounder IMHO.

The Ta 152H proved it was capable of outturning a Hawker Tempest at low altitude on 12 April 1945 when Uffz. Willi Reschke forced a Tempest of 486(NZ) Sqn, flown by W/O Owen Mitchell, to crash into a forest. (The wild winds : the history of Number 486 RNZAF Fighter Squadron with the RAF / Paul Sortehaug | National Library of Australia pages 245-247) Note that Reschke had gun trouble during this combat.


----------



## davebender (Sep 25, 2009)

What happens if the Ta-152 that bounces you is flown by Erich Hartmann who by spring 1946 has 450 aerial kills?


----------



## lesofprimus (Sep 25, 2009)

U'd be dead before u knew he was even there....


----------



## Erich (Sep 25, 2009)

as E. H only flew the 109 variants I would say he may have had extreme probs with the Ta 152H and not having combat ops while defending the Reich, 450 kills sounds sensational since he did not even have 350 as claimed through present research, I would say he would of been shot down and killed in 44-45. his luck held out since he was on the Ost front


----------



## Soren (Sep 26, 2009)

davparlr said:


> The P-47M/N with a flat rated 2800 hp from 10k to 33,000 ft easily out-powers the Ta-152 even with the EB, up to the P-47 ceiling and at 35k this power difference is probably about 1500 hp providing a substantial power to weight advantage (over 100% more power)! For 1945 Europe, the P-47 could easily be lightened (less fuel carried since no long range escorts and reduced armament) and, if required, I am sure Republic could re-wing the P-47 (already done for the N) as easily as the Focke-Wulf did for the 190/152. According to your chart, the EB performance is still considerably below the P-51H and the Tempest II in speed below 25k ft and at a disadvantage in climb below 20-25k. Of course I am not even looking at the -11 engine in the P-51, which has higher altitude performance. Above 20-25k the Ta would dominate these planes, but then there is that doggone P-47. The P-47J already had achieved 500 mph. Your chart appears never to show the EB generating more than about 172 mph and it looks like nitrous is not used. Am I misreading the chart, I have done that before? Unfortunately I cannot even mention the P-72 which already had a year in development and was in production before being cancelled in favor of jets.



Davparlr, there is no chart listing the top speeds with the 2,500 hp EB engine, only the 2,050 hp E engine. And top speeds with the E engine were 595 km/h at SL and 760+ km/h at altitude using GM1.

The EB engine would added another 450 hp at SL, raising the top SL speed to atleast 625+ km/h and high alt speed to around 780 km/h. I see no Allied fighter matching this at all.


----------



## red admiral (Sep 26, 2009)

Soren said:


> The EB engine would added another 450 hp at SL, raising the top SL speed to atleast 625+ km/h and high alt speed to around 780 km/h. I see no Allied fighter matching this at all.



The Hawker Fury/SeaFury will still be quite a bit faster up to 20,000ft, even with the 2430hp Centaurus which had plenty more stretch in the design (up to 3500hp postwar). It'd be interesting to find some proper performance figures for LA610 testbed which mounted Griffon and Sabre engines as well. It's never going to have the high altitude performance though.

The Spiteful with Griffon 101 is quite likely is faster up to 30,000ft or so, but I only have max speed figures.

The P-51H is again faster up to around 30,000ft with similar performance to the Fury (a bit down on climb but a bit faster over 20,000ft). 

With the EB engine the Ta 152H comes closer to the speed of contemporary allied fighters, but it's only at very high altitude where there is any advantage.


----------



## MikeGazdik (Sep 26, 2009)

Speed is obviously important, at any altitude. However once these foes get into a mix, maximum speed really wont be the issue. We need exceleration, climb, dive, turning and rolling ability.

It is there that I would think the Bearcat begins to shine. 

How is the Seafury in this realm? How does it handle?

I know this is only one mans view, but nice read anyways. Grumman F8F Bearcat Pilot Report


----------



## VG-33 (Sep 26, 2009)

Erich said:


> curious Mike I do not see any P-51H in any of the 8th AF fighter arsenals during the war.
> 
> proven*** fact on the Tank it flew at medium to low altitudes in it's combat record, there are no records of operational flights at the extreme for what it was made for during combat ops agasint Soviet or US/Raf fighters. it held it's own quite properly and the lower levels and of course along with the D-9 which tore the Soviets to shreads****



-Where the fact that Tank escaped from Mustang at _medium or low_ altitude is proven?

-Where did you see episodes when D-9 and Ta-152_ D-9 which tore the Soviets to shreads_? Especially Yak 9U or La-7?

Regards


----------



## davparlr (Sep 26, 2009)

Soren said:


> Davparlr, there is no chart listing the top speeds with the 2,500 hp EB engine, only the 2,050 hp E engine. And top speeds with the E engine were 595 km/h at SL and 760+ km/h at altitude using GM1.



I am confused again. The Fw190-Ta152 chart, while not specifically calling out the Jumo 213EB, does show a dotted line that calls out both the Jumo213EB above the line and the Ta 152 H-1-Jumo213EB below the line.



> The EB engine would added another 450 hp at SL, raising the top SL speed to atleast 625+ km/h and high alt speed to around 780 km/h. I see no Allied fighter matching this at all.



Even if the chart does not reflect the EB, the added power would only make the Ta-152 more competitive to the P-51H and Tempest II at lower altitudes, and I have a hard time believing the Ta-152 with the EB could overcome the 1000 to 1500 hp disadvantage it would have to the P-47M/N above 25k ft. especially if the P-47 was lightened with less fuel and reduced armament. Also, the P-72, after a relative uneventful testing was in production when cancelled due to lack of interest. With 3000+ hp and great performance, would have easily met the Ta EB performance up to 40k+ ft had the allies ever perceived a threat. Had jets not appeared, I am sure both the Brits and Americans could have fielded prop planes that performed well up to the aerodynamic limits of propellers.


----------



## Erich (Sep 26, 2009)

Kurt Tank did not fly with P-51's at medium to low altitude, the Ta 152 is referred to the Tank constantly

Doras shot the hell out of the Soviets in 45 hen in action. IV./JG 3 war diary ......... is a credible evidence

holy S *** you guys really play the what if scenarios like they are reality and you have no facts whatsoever to back this all up, re: a waste of time pretending.

why don't you guys just cut to the chase and forget threads like this, go do some serious research then come on here with viable plausibilities, otherwise this is a nonsensical game full of arguments nonproven in the long run.

v/r E ~


----------



## proton45 (Sep 26, 2009)

All things being equal...

If one where to forget about manufacture quality and fuel quality, all the participating country's fielded competent fighters by wars end. 

I'm not really sure their was an over-all best...


----------



## VG-33 (Sep 26, 2009)

> =Erich;563016]Kurt Tank did not fly with P-51's at medium to low altitude, the Ta 152 is referred to the Tank constantly


So except Tank publicity campain for himslef , you have no proof that Ta 152 escaped from Mustangs, except maybe from higher altitudes.



> Doras shot the hell out of the Soviets in 45 hen in action. IV./JG 3 war diary ......... is a credible evidence


The fact that JG 3 claimed a lot of confirmed or not victories makes no evidence that there were high soviet losses from that unity





> holy S *** you guys really play the what if scenarios like they are reality and you have no facts whatsoever to back this all up, re: a waste of time pretending.


Since russian archives are open from 1993 it could be stated that Luftwaffe overclaimed statistically by 5 in main air battles from 43 to 44 and even more in 45. From serious Bykov, Medvediev, Hazanov, Kuznetsov researchers***...



> why don't you guys just cut to the chase and _forget threads like this_, go do some serious research then come on here _with viable plausibilities_, otherwise this is a nonsensical game full of arguments nonproven in the long run.



First i fully agree there is no need for theads like this, 
Secund i don't trust your viable plausibilities:

The facts are that tested D-9 at LII-VVS were at best able to dogfight the Il 10, in the horizontal plan. Since they had the same turn rate (22s). Common La-7 (19s) was reaching D-9 tail after 3-4 turning circles or only 1-2 vertical loops from 1000 m height. 

So, there is not place for language excess like _tore to shread_, especially if you have no evidence for that.

Third, there is enough published WW2 episodes from russian side (Crimea, Kouban, North sea, Moscow, Kharkov...) since 17 years to appreciate what seems to be _with viable plausibilities_ and what not.

At the end, i don't have the right nationality to access to some russian archives (operational). But i can confirm that they are still open.

Regards


----------



## lesofprimus (Sep 26, 2009)

And u think the Russian archives are the God's honest truth on Soviet air to air losses in 1945???

LMFAO................

I would believe the overrated German claims moreso than the admitted Soviet losses...


----------



## VG-33 (Sep 26, 2009)

lesofprimus said:


> And u think the Russian archives are the God's honest truth on Soviet air to air losses in 1945???
> 
> LMFAO................
> 
> I would believe the overrated German claims moreso than the admitted Soviet losses...



Compared to german certainly. At least they are complete since the account balance tends to zero.
But as you say only God knows the truth.
For instance the famous north fleet ace Piotr Sgibnev wanting to show off for girls visiting it's airfield killed himself during aeobatics. In official records he was quoted as lost in combat mission two days later, in order: 

- to avoid scandal and official enquest
- to allow his family to recieve war pension.

How many of theese cases were, j don't know...But making up banal accidents in war losses was increadibly commonplace in red"s army us and customs in front line units.

Regards


----------



## MikeGazdik (Sep 26, 2009)

Erich said:


> Is this in reference to this entire thread? If so I don't understand.


----------



## lesofprimus (Sep 26, 2009)

Mike, we've seen these same type of what if discussions here 30-40-80 times over the years, and its all silly mish mash coulda woulda shoulda...

Hypotheticals are just tiresome man.... Most of the data thats presented here u could find 5 different refrences for speed/climb/roll rate etc etc....

Its all conjecture...


----------



## DerAdlerIstGelandet (Sep 26, 2009)

VG-33 said:


> Compared to german certainly. At least they are complete since the account balance tends to zero.





Nothing more to say...


----------



## Soren (Sep 26, 2009)

red admiral said:


> With the EB engine the Ta 152H comes closer to the speed of contemporary allied fighters, but it's only at very high altitude where there is any advantage.



No it's quite the contrary infact. With the EB engine the Ta-152H leaves all contemporary Allied fighters in the dust, simple as that. There was quite simply no Allied piston engined fighter in or about to enter service which would do 625+ km/h at SL and 780 km/h at altitude during WW2. 

Even with the Jumo 213E the Ta-152H was climbing faster than any Allied fighter, reaching 10 km in just 10.1 min, some 2 min faster than the Seafury for example and around 0.5 min faster than the P-51H. With the EB engine this performance would only increase a lot.


----------



## davparlr (Sep 27, 2009)

Soren said:


> No it's quite the contrary infact. With the EB engine the Ta-152H leaves all contemporary Allied fighters in the dust, simple as that. There was quite simply no Allied piston engined fighter in or about to enter service which would do 625+ km/h at SL



This is incorrect. Both the P-51H and the Tempest II could easily pass 644 km/h at SL.


> and 780 km/h at altitude during WW2.


This actually may be true although this airspeed is strictly an analysis and not flight test. But, this is only true because allies had abandoned development of propeller driven aircraft in this category, such as the 500 mph + P-47J and P-72, because it was correctly perceived that this capability in propeller driven aircraft was not required to win the war.



> Even with the Jumo 213E the Ta-152H was climbing faster than any Allied fighter, reaching 10 km in just 10.1 min, some 2 min faster than the Seafury for example and around 0.5 min faster than the P-51H.


This is also not true. The Air Force tested a P-51H, *pulling only 67” Hg*, to 33k ft (10 km) and clocked 11.2 minutes (only 1.1 minutes more than the Ta). Now the P-51H could pull 90” Hg. so you can imagine the performance at 90” Hg. Indeed, at this level, released documents indicated a time climb to 33k ft of less than 10 min and close to 9 min. At fighter weight, the P-51H had between 1000 to 1500 ft/min advantage in SL climb over the Ta-152H.



> With the EB engine this performance would only increase a lot.


Yes, but only make it more competitive with the P-51H and Tempest II at lower altitudes.


----------



## Timppa (Sep 27, 2009)

The only speed curve I have seen of Ta-152H-1 with 213EB -engine is in Hermann's book (curves dated January 1945).
It shows 603km/h (375mph) at SL, peaking to 760km/h (472mph) at 9,500m (31,200ft).
Those are estimated values with Sondernotleistung ("Special emergency power"), without ETC (drop tank rack) surface primed and polished, all gaps at the engine and the transitions carefully sealed with rubber.

10.1 min climb time to 10,000m is also with Special emergency power setting with half internal fuel.
With usual "Climb and combat" -rating the time was 13.8 min (again with only half fuel).


----------



## red admiral (Sep 27, 2009)

> With the EB engine the Ta-152H leaves all contemporary Allied fighters in the dust, simple as that. There was quite simply no Allied piston engined fighter in or about to enter service which would do 625+ km/h at SL and 780 km/h at altitude during WW2.



As I've been saying all along, the Ta 152H is faster at high altitude and climbs faster at high altitude. Below 20,000ft it has no advantage over Allied low altitude types even with the EB engine. It's really only over 30,000ft with GM-1 boost that the Ta 152H is noticeably faster and better climbing.

Regards to Sea Fury Performance; Although a low altitude fighter, it's still doing fairly well in the 20,000-30,000ft range. Time to 30,000ft is about 8minutes or so.









> Had jets not appeared, I am sure both the Brits and Americans could have fielded prop planes that performed well up to the aerodynamic limits of propellers.



Hawker P.1027, a development of the Tempest with a RR Eagle engine and ventral radiator. Projected performance was 512mph.


----------



## VG-33 (Sep 27, 2009)

Timppa said:


> The only speed curve I have seen of Ta-152H-1 with 213EB -engine is in Hermann's book (curves dated January 1945).
> It shows 603km/h (375mph) at SL, peaking to 760km/h (472mph) at 9,500m (31,200ft).
> Those are estimated values with Sondernotleistung ("Special emergency power"), without ETC (drop tank rack) surface primed and polished, all gaps at the engine and the transitions carefully sealed with rubber.
> 
> ...



 Thanks for information, it sounds fair.

Considering compressibility phenomenas, near 0.85/ 09 Mach you can't gain 5% speed gain for only 15% power increase; bernouill lows are turning to cube order x^3 rather than x². With great propeller output loss.



> _No it's quite the contrary infact. With the EB engine the Ta-152H leaves all contemporary Allied fighters in the dust, simple as that. There was quite simply no Allied piston engined fighter in or about to enter service which would do 625+ km/h at SL and 780 km/h at altitude during WW2_.



Anyway. Due to the delivery delays the 49 used Ta-152 from 150-160 produced were certainly from the early types, without any kind of Jumo 213EB.

Regards


----------



## Juha (Sep 27, 2009)

And RAF could have used also Hawker Fury, from which Sea Fury was developed. IIRC the Sabre V?, or whatever was the the Sabre mark used in Tempest VI, engined Fury proto achieved 485mph max speed.

Juha


----------



## davparlr (Sep 27, 2009)

Juha said:


> And RAF could have used also Hawker Fury, from which Sea Fury was developed. IIRC the Sabre V?, or whatever was the the Sabre mark used in Tempest VI, engined Fury proto achieved 485mph max speed.
> 
> Juha



I saw a Sea Fury fly at Chino air show. What a magnificent aircraft.


----------



## DerAdlerIstGelandet (Sep 27, 2009)

davparlr said:


> I saw a Sea Fury fly at Chino air show. What a magnificent aircraft.



I saw one a few weeks ago at an airshow in Stuttgart. Flew a nice formation flight with a Spitfire, Fw 190A, and a Skyraider.


----------



## lesofprimus (Sep 27, 2009)

And the pics are where Chris???


----------



## Hop (Sep 27, 2009)

> Even with the Jumo 213E the Ta-152H was climbing faster than any Allied fighter, reaching 10 km in just 10.1 min, some 2 min faster than the Seafury for example and around 0.5 min faster than the P-51H.



The Spitfire XIV, at 18 lbs boost, could reach 33,000 ft in about 9.3 minutes.

BS 551, a Spitfire HF IX, reached 32,000 ft in 8.6 minutes and 34,000 ft in 9.6. Again at 18 lbs boost.


----------



## DerAdlerIstGelandet (Sep 28, 2009)

lesofprimus said:


> And the pics are where Chris???



Posted in the thread I made a few weeks ago about the airshow...



Got pics and vids of a flying Bf 109G, B-17G, B-25, Spitfire, Ju-52s, Fw 190, Sea Fury, etc...

My pics though are not that great. I don't have the talent or the equipment to get the really good shots like Eric does. Most of the time I would snap a pic and all I would get is sky, because the 109 or the 190 would have already roared past!


----------



## lesofprimus (Sep 28, 2009)

I think I missed the thread, will go look for it...


----------



## DerAdlerIstGelandet (Sep 28, 2009)

lesofprimus said:


> I think I missed the thread, will go look for it...



Here is the thread.

http://www.ww2aircraft.net/forum/pe...d-timer-airshow-2009-sept-5-2009-a-20551.html


----------



## MikeGazdik (Sep 28, 2009)

DerAdlerIstGelandet said:


> Here is the thread.
> 
> http://www.ww2aircraft.net/forum/pe...d-timer-airshow-2009-sept-5-2009-a-20551.html



Those are some nice pictures! I love the grass strip. Seems to be a nice way to see a show. Looks much more "informal" than here in the U.S. 


Back to the discussion. I have been doing some reading on the Sea Fury. I have not been able to find anything on its handling characteristics, but man what an airplane!


----------



## NeilStirling (Sep 28, 2009)

Hawker Fury 1 Sabre VII powered

miles | bell aircraft | 1946 | 2181 | Flight Archive fury 1

Napier Sabre VII http://www.flightglobal.com/pdfarchive/view/1945/1945 - 2283.html?search=Naipier Sabre VII

Thank you Flight!

Neil.


----------



## Soren (Sep 29, 2009)

Found a chart with the Ta-152H-1's performance with the EB engine, and it was calculated to be 626 km/h at SL and 762 km/h at 9.5 km. (The chart has been posted by me here before) There was no calculation for performance with GM-1 engaged, but the speed at 9.5km is 15 km/h faster than with the E series so I'm guessing it will be about the same with GM-1 engaged, suggesting a calculated high alt speed of ~775 km/h.

So the improvement introduced with the EB engine would atleast be +31 km/h at SL and +15 km/h at altitude. 

It should be noted however that the top speed of 760 km/h for the Jumo 213E powered Ta-152H-1 was calculated as-well, and like with all FW performance charts it was a very conservative figure. The Ta-152H-1's top speed with GM-1 engaged at high alt was never officially tested, and according to operational pilots it was considerably faster than the calculated figures, a top speed of over 500 mph having been observed. 

Davparlr,

Didn't they test the P-51H at 90" Hg and find it took more than 10 min to reach 30,000 ft ?


----------



## drgondog (Sep 29, 2009)

here is the SAC pilot handbook data for all versions of the 51H - published in 1949.

Looks like the interceptor version (full internal fuel, no tanks) got to 25K in 6.7 minutes with 3200 fpm climb rate left. 8-8.5+ minutes to 30K might be about right. Top speed = 411kts at 25K ~ 473mph.

Notice the climb rate loaded at 9845 (all internal fuel) at SL/25K = 4990/3200 fpm but when flying 'light' the maximum climb rate is 5850/3450fpm for SL/25K respectively. (Note: column "II" with GW = 8283 looks like it should be under column "III")

So, the climb rate for light configuration (8283 lbs) should get it to 30K in less than 8 minutes.


----------



## Soren (Sep 29, 2009)

All the performance figures for the Ta-152H are with a fuel load of 594 Liters of B4 fuel (Fighter configuration). With a full fuel load of 1109 Liters as used for long range reconnaissance or escort duties the weight was 5,220 kg.

Time to climb to 32,800 ft was 10.1 min for the Jumo 213E powered Ta-152H. The take off run was a mere 295 meters. With an extra 450 hp I suspect a time of 7.5 min to 10 km and a 245 m take off run. 

According to this chart (http://www.wwiiaircraftperformance.org/mustang/p-51h-booklet-pg15.jpg) it took the P-51H ~9.5 min to reach 32,500 ft at 90" Hg. Question is then, when was the P-51H ready to be run at that power? 1947 ?


----------



## vanir (Sep 29, 2009)

Soren, I hope I do not offend by mentioning my impressions taken from recent publication (that feller on the LEMB forum occasionally that published the Ta152 book everybody raves about), are quite the opposite according to the quoted pilots and various primary references therein. According to memory (I've the excerpts on my hdd somewhere):

Firstly it was most likely the Ta152H was to be re-engined with the Daimler motor, and this was the recommendation following service trials. There are several reasons for this.

Firstly Kurt Tank was the only pilot who managed to exceed 12.5km altitude with the Jumo, the other pilots said it wasn't possible and brought into question his claims of ca.760km/h at the 14km absolute ceiling. The actual service ceiling is cited as 10.5km primarily due to unreliable operation of the cockpit pressurisation system and extreme intake temperatures (causing unbearable cockpit temperatures).

The few flights made to 12km and higher nearly killed the pilot, one passed out and didn't regain consciousness until below 5000 metres, though he was amazed the a/c was still flying controllably and remarked on its totally amazing stability in a power on dive. The critical altitude of the Jumo engine is actually around 9.2km and there were problems with the third gear of the supercharger when in the second stage, the supercharger system of the 213E-series was essentially regarded completely unreliable. Junkers themselves and field mechanics couldn't even agree on the idle setting for this motor. It's serviceability was horrendous. From around 8-9.5km altitude the output and operation of the motor was unreliable, whilst following the shallow dip and climb to make 11.5km to engage the GM-1 system, once this oxidant kicked in the supercharger couldn't decide which gear to be in and all performance above this height was unreliable.

During service the Ta152H typically engaged at 7km altitude, although pilots remarked its performance at this height was extremely strong and whilst none apparently took it up to find out, all cited that _they believed_ it would perform equally well to 12km and beyond (which was the reputation of the a/c rather than individual experience). Their reports however concentrate on the diving strength of the Ta152H in the boom and zoom manoeuvre from 7km to ca.3km and then back up to 8km in the zoom, claiming fantastic speeds in the dive (800km/h and thereabouts, which is unlikely but there is no doubt it was pretty damn good). They claim nothing else came close to its performance in this type of tactic.

The excerpts continue to cite the further developments of the Jumo motor became stillborn largely due to the vast difference between calculated and actual performance, the 213 was a tremendous disappointment whilst the DB603 was looking like the ducks guts Tank always said it would be, with its ca.10km critical altitude, better specific power output and similar weight (with anciliaries, ie. as a power egg).

The thing to keep in mind about the Jumo 213E-series is that even where it is functioning as calculated performance indicated, ie. with a bit of wishful thinking, performance dropped off markedly at 10.8-11.3km, then again at 12km and again at 13km, requiring shallow dip and climb manoeuvres to pass these height-barriers until the next gear could lock up under GM-1 injection.

My mental picture of the explanations provided are this, think of a car with an automatic transmission and a turbocharger, at 100km/h when the turbo kicks in for high gear acceleration, instead of propelling the car faster the auto transmission decides to kick back to a lower gear instead, and the lower gear has already run out of puff at 110km/h. So you get a lot of noise and rpm but actually go absolutely nowhere. This is what the Jumo supercharger gears did when you hit the GM-1 at high altitude, it suddenly reacted like you were at a lower altitude and needed a lower gear, but got confused as to which gear precisely is best between intake and ambient pressures, so it might use the intermediate gear at 11.5km and the low alt gear at 12.5km, one puts out like 650PS under heavy loading at full throttle and opens all the supercharger pressure release valves and the other revs its ring off for 800PS and blows the motor. That highly complicated supercharger didn't know what the hell it was doing and poor thing didn't have an ECU to tell it (it was all hydraulic shift mapping back then which is very pressure sensitive and prone to confusion in any unusual condiitions).

Even functioning as it should, taking the Ta152H any higher than 10.5km is a matter of just barely making the next altitude stage (ca.1km intervals) under GM-1 with a very high alpha by the skin of your teeth under stall conditions in thin air with a totally unreliable cockpit pressurisation system that barely manages to keep the exhaust fumes out of the cockpit, let alone makes for a comfortable ride.

Ta152H was best 7-9km. Ta152C even with its smaller wing was better at 10km. 603EC (1.95atm) motor was also superb at low alt (617km/h at sea level tested in 152V6), the two variations of this motor (603LA and 603EB/C) were earmarked by the end of hostiliites to take over where the Jumo213E-series had clearly proven a disappointment.
The real strength of the Ta152H with the Jumo213E was breaking 700km/h reliably by 7km on up but its performance at very high altitude exceeding 10.5km was questionable at best and required specialised piloting techniques to attempt. By the same token the 603 motor could break 700km/h a thousand metres lower and maintain a reliable service ceiling a thousand metres higher if performance altitudes without GM-1 are to be considered, whilst its supercharger type was much more reliable for use with GM-1 at extreme altitude (it didn't have gears to mess things up with when you tossed the switch).

Anyways this is what I've gathered from my readings, as I was quite interested in these motors for a bit. Is there any demonstrable reason I should reconsider?


----------



## davebender (Sep 30, 2009)

How much WWII aerial combat took place above 10,000 meters? I suspect not very much. Performance from ground level (to catch CAS aircraft) up to about 9,000 meter (to catch heavy bombers) is what counts.


----------



## drgondog (Sep 30, 2009)

Soren said:


> All the performance figures for the Ta-152H are with a fuel load of 594 Liters of B4 fuel (Fighter configuration). With a full fuel load of 1109 Liters as used for long range reconnaissance or escort duties the weight was 5,220 kg.
> 
> Time to climb to 32,800 ft was 10.1 min for the Jumo 213E powered Ta-152H. The take off run was a mere 295 meters. With an extra 450 hp I suspect a time of 7.5 min to 10 km and a 245 m take off run.
> 
> According to this chart (http://www.wwiiaircraftperformance.org/mustang/p-51h-booklet-pg15.jpg) it took the P-51H ~9.5 min to reach 32,500 ft at 90" Hg. Question is then, when was the P-51H ready to be run at that power? 1947 ?



Not sure what you are referring to in the chart. It was 'ready' in February 1945 - certainly as ready as any Ta 152 relative to predictable versus actual production performance with the 213E at max boost.

at 90" and 8,000 GW it takes 10min to reach 40,000 feet, at 9000 GW (~ 400 pounds less than interceptor GW TO ) it takes 10 min to reach 37,000 feet.

For 9.5 min it looks like 38,000 and 35,000 feet respectively for 8000 GW and 9000 GW at 90"/3000rpm

Extrapolating for 32,500 feet it looks like ~6min for 8000 GW and 8min at 9000 GW for 90" boost.

These charts are for production fighters - all the data contained in the manual is used for flight planning for the respective roles.

What do you have that is comparable for the Ta152 that configures the fighter by weight, fuel, stores, climb to cruise, proceed to range limit with reserve of fuel and return to base with a reserve?


----------



## davparlr (Sep 30, 2009)

Soren said:


> Found a chart with the Ta-152H-1's performance with the EB engine, and it was calculated to be 626 km/h at SL and 762 km/h at 9.5 km. (The chart has been posted by me here before) There was no calculation for performance with GM-1 engaged, but the speed at 9.5km is 15 km/h faster than with the E series so I'm guessing it will be about the same with GM-1 engaged, suggesting a calculated high alt speed of ~775 km/h.
> 
> So the improvement introduced with the EB engine would atleast be +31 km/h at SL and +15 km/h at altitude.



I have no capability to affirm or deny your numbers, but they seem logical to me.



> It should be noted however that the top speed of 760 km/h for the Jumo 213E powered Ta-152H-1 was calculated as-well, and like with all FW performance charts it was a very conservative figure. The Ta-152H-1's top speed with GM-1 engaged at high alt was never officially tested, and according to operational pilots it was considerably faster than the calculated figures, a top speed of over 500 mph having been observed.



However, the logic of operational pilot’s observations regarding their steeds leaves a lot to be desired. Now, maybe the Ta has a TAS indicator and the estimates may be better, but I would have questions on how accurate is the indicator. 



> Davparlr,
> 
> Didn't they test the P-51H at 90" Hg and find it took more than 10 min to reach 30,000 ft ?



The only test I found where the time to reach 30k ft. was 10 minutes was a flight test of a/c 44-64161 dtd 1 May, 1945. However, in that test, aircraft boost was limited to 67” Hg due to water injection problems. It noted that 90” Hg could not be tested.

Another test, where the time was close to 10 minutes was a test of a/c 44-64182 dtd 14 Oct., 1946, where the time to 30k ft. was 9.5 minutes. However, this test appeared flawed. First, the hp output of the tested engine was significantly below specified performance over envelope. Second, data showed almost negligible performance improvement over the 67” boost engine in the 1 May, ’45 test, e.g., time to climb to 33k ft was 11 minutes for the 90” boost, compared to the 11.2 minutes for the 67” boost. This is difficult to believe with 400 + more hp increase. Third, performance was significantly different from the calculated performance (NAA), which had been calibrated by wind tunnel and flight test.

I have access to five sources for the P-51H. Three at Spitfireperformance of data including an NAA report, flt test of 44-64161 tested at 67” hg, flt test of 44-64182 at 90” Hg, the F-51H Standard Aircraft Characteristics from drgondog, and one from a pamphlet from wwiiaircraftperfomance. This is how they panned out in time to climb to 33k (10 km) at a gross weight of about 9500 lbs:

NAA, 25 Sep, 1945 - approx 9.0 min (calculated at 90”Hg)
A/C 161 – 11.2 min (Max power at 67”Hg)
A/C 182 – 11 min (90”Hg)
F-51H – No direct comparison but climb rate is similar to Sep, 45 NAA document.
Pamplet – 7-7.5 min at 9000 lbs

The NAA document looks good in that it was a revision of a previous document and that it had been correlated to wind tunnel and flight test. It probably represents the best nominal performance of the P-51H and appears to have been accepted as such by the AF. A P-51H, with all parts and manufacture meeting specs, should obtain this performance.

Except where noted, the data for the P-51H is taken with full internal fuel, approximately 255 gallons, for a takeoff weight of about 9500 lbs . If the fuel load was the same as that tested in the Ta-152H (594 liters or 157 gallons), the takeoff weight of the P-51H would be about 8800 lbs, or 600 lbs lighter. With that correction made to the NAA numbers, I come up with about 7-7.5 minutes to 33k ft. (10 km), or about what the pamphlet shows.




Soren said:


> All the performance figures for the Ta-152H are with a fuel load of 594 Liters of B4 fuel (Fighter configuration). With a full fuel load of 1109 Liters as used for long range reconnaissance or escort duties the weight was 5,220 kg.
> 
> Time to climb to 32,800 ft was 10.1 min for the Jumo 213E powered Ta-152H. The take off run was a mere 295 meters. With an extra 450 hp I suspect a time of 7.5 min to 10 km and a 245 m take off run.



At 9485 lbs, the no-wind takeoff roll of the P-51H is 1030 ft (314 m). Factoring in 8800 lbs for a takeoff weight, and throwing some chicken bones on the floor, I read that takeoff roll would be just about the same as the Ta-152H with the EB engine. With a better power to weight (.26 hp/lb to .23 hp/lb) and better wing loading (37.8 lbs/sqft to 42.6 lbs/sqft), this shouldn’t come as a surprise.



> According to this chart (http://www.wwiiaircraftperformance.o...oklet-pg15.jpg) it took the P-51H ~9.5 min to reach 32,500 ft at 90" Hg. Question is then, when was the P-51H ready to be run at that power? 1947 ?



The number you quote is, of course, using 80” Hg. There is no indication that 80” or 90” Hg was or was not available at the end of WWII. There was an attempt to verify 90” Hg spec performance 1 May, 1945, but water injection malfunctions prevented this test. The record for the stated follow-up is not available to me.


----------



## drewwizard (Mar 31, 2018)

I did a bit of reading on the Hornet. Essentially a single pilot version of the Mosquito. More aerodynamic, smaller wings, same power plants. 4 - 20mm cannon in the nose. It was used in several wars/skirmishes in south east asia, so saw combat and was successful. Just short lived in the age of jets. If I remember right, it was available at the end of WWII, but like the all the late war aircraft, they were not sent into combat as the war was essentially won with the current inventory.
You can also throw in the super corsair into that mix.


----------



## drewwizard (Mar 31, 2018)

The Ta-152 was slated for the 3,000HP jumo 222, which simply didn't materialize supposedly due to politics as much as teething issues. 1,930 HP at 29,000 feet. Probably the limit for piston engined aircraft, just too late in the war for even a prototype. I watched a rerun of the reno air races today. Modified griffon engines in p-51 mustangs were in this same HP class. Speeds of 534+ MPH claimed on the side of one racer.

The hornet was equipped with two derated merlin engines in the 2,000HP range. During at least one air race the hornet averaged 436 MPH, not particularly slow. The big advantage was clime (4,000 feet per minute) and range (1,480) miles. If you take *Saburō Sakai'*s key requirements for a fighter, then the Hornet has both.


----------



## pbehn (Mar 31, 2018)

drewwizard said:


> The Ta-152 was slated for the 3,000HP jumo 222, which simply didn't materialize supposedly due to politics as much as teething issues. 1,930 HP at 29,000 feet. Probably the limit for piston engined aircraft, just too late in the war for even a prototype. I watched a rerun of the reno air races today. Modified griffon engines in p-51 mustangs were in this same HP class. Speeds of 534+ MPH claimed on the side of one racer.
> 
> The hornet was equipped with two *derated* merlin engines in the 2,000HP range. During at least one air race the hornet averaged 436 MPH, not particularly slow. The big advantage was clime (4,000 feet per minute) and range (1,480) miles. If you take *Saburō Sakai'*s key requirements for a fighter, then the Hornet has both.


De rated to 2000HP? Wow imagine how fast it could have gone,


----------



## Elmas (Mar 31, 2018)

Fiat G-56.

Reactions: Like Like:
2 | Like List reactions


----------



## tomo pauk (Mar 31, 2018)

drewwizard said:


> The Ta-152 was slated for the 3,000HP jumo 222, which simply didn't materialize supposedly due to politics as much as teething issues. 1,930 HP at 29,000 feet. Probably the limit for piston engined aircraft, just too late in the war for even a prototype. I watched a rerun of the reno air races today. Modified griffon engines in p-51 mustangs were in this same HP class. Speeds of 534+ MPH claimed on the side of one racer.



The P-47M and N were powered by 2800 HP up to 32000 ft, I'm sure that it represents a level of altitude power that no-one bested in a production 1-engined fighter of ww2 vintage.



> The hornet was equipped with two derated merlin engines in the 2,000HP range. During at least one air race the hornet averaged 436 MPH, not particularly slow. The big advantage was clime (4,000 feet per minute) and range (1,480) miles. If you take *Saburō Sakai'*s key requirements for a fighter, then the Hornet has both.



Hornet was not equipped with two de-rated Merlins, but the latest from UK production, that just missed the ww2 use. 475 mph.


----------



## drewwizard (Apr 6, 2018)

The merlins were derated in the hornet. Boost was significantly limited. You have to remember at this time, jets were going to be the future fighters. If piston engine fighters were the only choice, then the hornet would have had two griffon engines and 90 inches of Hg boost. The same with the Jumo-222. Jet engines were the future of bombers and fighters. Why drop a ton of cash into a new piston engine. Better to make it a research project (Jumo 222) just in case. Now for attack aircraft, fast and agile piston engined aircraft were still ideal. (turbo props were still a dream). If you assume no jets, then a whole different aircraft development timeline for piston engines becomes reality. R-4860 super corsairs become desirable and are pushed forward.


----------



## pbehn (Apr 6, 2018)

drewwizard said:


> The merlins were derated in the hornet. Boost was significantly limited. You have to remember at this time, jets were going to be the future fighters. If piston engine fighters were the only choice, then the hornet would have had two griffon engines and 90 inches of Hg boost. The same with the Jumo-222. Jet engines were the future of bombers and fighters. Why drop a ton of cash into a new piston engine. Better to make it a research project (Jumo 222) just in case. Now for attack aircraft, fast and agile piston engined aircraft were still ideal. (turbo props were still a dream). If you assume no jets, then a whole different aircraft development timeline for piston engines becomes reality. R-4860 super corsairs become desirable and are pushed forward.


The Hornet briefly filled a niche, immediately post war, jets had no range, using Griffons not only makes a bigger heavier aircraft it does nothing for its range or carrier capability. The De Havilland Hornet and Vampire jet entered squadron service at about the same time in 1946.


----------



## tomo pauk (Apr 7, 2018)

drewwizard said:


> The merlins were derated in the hornet. Boost was significantly limited.



Since you didn't posted any meaningful numbers to back up your claim, nor provided any source, this is just your opinion that I don't agree with. In other words - do you have a proof that Hornet was powered by derated Merlins?

[/QUOTE]You have to remember at this time, jets were going to be the future fighters. If piston engine fighters were the only choice, then the hornet would have had two griffon engines and 90 inches of Hg boost. The same with the Jumo-222. Jet engines were the future of bombers and fighters. Why drop a ton of cash into a new piston engine. Better to make it a research project (Jumo 222) just in case. Now for attack aircraft, fast and agile piston engined aircraft were still ideal. (turbo props were still a dream). If you assume no jets, then a whole different aircraft development timeline for piston engines becomes reality. R-4860 super corsairs become desirable and are pushed forward. [/QUOTE]

I have to remember what there was, not what other people order me. 
Hornet with two Griffons would've been a beast size of F7F, much more expensive and unsuitable (once converted) for carrier-vessel work just like the F7F. Decision to go with Merlins 130 series was a good one, albeit too late for ww2.
The Jumo 222 was relegated to a merely research project not beacuse brass decided so, but because the reliability problems and lack of clear goals (power, relibility, timetable) made a trainwreck from the whole program.


----------



## J.A.W. (Apr 12, 2018)

In 1945 both the RAF & USAAF were seriously jet-bent, & only begrudgingly accepted the Hornet/P-82,
- for roles the thirsty/inefficient turbojets - could not realistically undertake.

Navies were forced by turbine shortcomings to delay their uptake of early jets,
so the final-gen piston jobs lasted longer with them.

'One that got away' from the RAF - is featured by fellow member Bill Pearce on his blog, & she's a real beaut..

Hawker Fury I (Sabre-Powered) Fighter

Reactions: Like Like:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## pbehn (Apr 12, 2018)

J.A.W. said:


> In 1945 both the RAF & USAAF were seriously jet-bent, & only begrudgingly accepted the Hornet/P-82,
> - for roles the thirsty/inefficient turbojets - could not realistically undertake.


On the British side that was probably because the first jet to take to the air was substantially faster than the RAFs front line fighter, it did 350MPH on its first proper flight tests in 1941 and a fastest of 505MPH in 1943. Other nations made exactly the same judgement, the era of props was over, they would fill in niches and still do.


----------



## J.A.W. (Apr 12, 2018)

Actually, if you read the RAF's appraisal of the early Meteor's combat capability,
'damned by faint praise' - just about sums it up (while carefully phrased in 'must please the boss' terms)..

& so the Brits then began the 'grandads axe' development routine of improvements,
extra-tankage, reinforced structure, clipped wings, tail graft, & new turbines, with much more thrust..

Meanwhile, the MiG 15 & F-86 showed up clearly what Britain really ought to have been doing..


----------



## pbehn (Apr 12, 2018)

J.A.W. said:


> Actually, if you read the RAF's appraisal of the early Meteor's combat capability,
> 'damned by faint praise' - just about sums it up (while carefully phrased in 'must please the boss' terms)..
> 
> & so the Brits then began the 'grandads axe' development routine of improvements,
> ...


Quite possibly but the Mig 15 and F-86 were also jets as was the De Havilland Vampire.


----------



## J.A.W. (Apr 12, 2018)

Sure, but the purpose designed swept-wing 2nd gen jets - were not flying in WW 2.

In one of his his 'Test Pilot' books, Roland Beamont describes besting a Vampire flown by Geoff de Havilland,
- in a mock combat - 'mix-up' - during wartime testing of the Tempest, for Hawker..

& in testing the Meteor also proved unable to intercept the Spitfire PR. 19 during its
routine high-fast recce-sorties..


----------



## drewwizard (Apr 12, 2018)

The Hornet engines were derated to a maximum boost of 25LB/sq.in. It was a special version of the merlin with a slimmer profile to have reduced frontal area. (Range was more important than raw performance for this design) The hornet was an incredible aircraft, and one I followed for a while. I just saw where one is being rebuilt to flying standards. I didn't think any were left. Apparently they found enough to rebuild in New Zealand. It would be very nice to see one of these fly.


----------



## J.A.W. (Apr 12, 2018)

Seriously? You think +25lbs boost sans ADI is "derated"?
That boost level was as good as it got, & those late mark Merlins were significantly 'uprated' mechanically to hack it..

Are you sure you are not thinking of post-war service, where engines usually had to make do with 100/130 juice
(& really needed the 150 grade - to pump that hard), were 'derated' accordingly?


----------



## J.A.W. (Apr 12, 2018)

D-w, is it possible you are confusing R-R test cell outputs - with the actual service clearance - 'rating'?

See here: http://www.flightglobal.com/pdfarchive/view/1946/1946 - 0165.html


----------



## wuzak (Apr 13, 2018)

J.A.W. said:


> Seriously? You think +25lbs boost sans ADI is "derated"?
> That boost level was as good as it got, & those late mark Merlins were significantly 'uprated' mechanically to hack it..
> 
> Are you sure you are not thinking of post-war service, where engines usually had to make do with 100/130 juice
> (& really needed the 150 grade - to pump that hard), were 'derated' accordingly?



Did they operate at +25psi post war, or did they use +18psi?


----------



## J.A.W. (Apr 13, 2018)

wuzak said:


> Did they operate at +25psi post war, or did they use +18psi?



Exactly..


----------



## wuzak (Apr 13, 2018)

J.A.W. said:


> Exactly..



I assumed that they used +18psi post war because the need for the extra power was limited. 

Maybe in the Malayan Emergency.


----------



## wuzak (Apr 13, 2018)

pbehn said:


> On the British side that was probably because the first jet to take to the air was substantially faster than the RAFs front line fighter, it did 350MPH on its first proper flight tests in 1941 and a fastest of 505MPH in 1943. Other nations made exactly the same judgement, the era of props was over, they would fill in niches and still do.





J.A.W. said:


> Actually, if you read the RAF's appraisal of the early Meteor's combat capability,
> 'damned by faint praise' - just about sums it up (while carefully phrased in 'must please the boss' terms)..



I believe pbehn may have been talking about the Gloster E28/39. The Meteor didn't fly until 1943.

Reactions: Winner Winner:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## J.A.W. (Apr 13, 2018)

Well ok, but that Gloster was only a research aircraft, not a service fighter,
& the AFDU had tested one of the latter, in Sept/Oct `41, to over 400mph, - the Typhoon..


----------



## pbehn (Apr 13, 2018)

wuzak said:


> I believe pbehn may have been talking about the Gloster E28/39. The Meteor didn't fly until 1943.


I was, it flew with a variety of engines, since it was the first it was the equivalent of the Wright flyer, but still did 505 MHP.


----------



## J.A.W. (Apr 13, 2018)

Was that "505mph" the wee Gloster's 'Flying Limitation Speed' - by any chance, pbehn?

AFAIR, wartime Meteors had a similar 'Pilot's Notes' advisement, whereas Gloster
also built thousands of Typhoons - which were good for '525mph' - by the book..


----------



## pbehn (Apr 13, 2018)

J.A.W. said:


> Was that "505mph" the wee Gloster's 'Flying Limitation Speed' - by any chance, pbehn?
> 
> AFAIR, wartime Meteors had a similar 'Pilot's Notes' advisement, whereas Gloster
> also built thousands of Typhoons - which were good for '525mph' - by the book..


I think you are deliberately missing the point, the fact that it achieved a speed and height that was beyond the best piston engine planes in its first version meant piston engines were obsolete as soon as they could be sorted and put in service.


----------



## J.A.W. (Apr 13, 2018)

pbehn said:


> I think you are deliberately missing the point, the fact that it achieved a speed and height that was beyond the best piston engine planes in its first version meant piston engines were obsolete as soon as they could be sorted and put in service.



Actually IMO, its you who is "missing the point"..
Sure, turbine-power was the future for fighters..
but none of the operational wartime jets made fully practicable warplanes..
& 2nd TAF Tempests hacked down every type of LW turbojet flying, something no Gloster jet did..


----------



## pbehn (Apr 13, 2018)

J.A.W. said:


> Actually IMO, its you who is "missing the point"..
> Sure, turbine-power was the future for fighters..
> but none of the operational wartime jets made fully practicable warplanes..
> & 2nd TAF Tempests hacked down every type of LW turbojet flying, something no Gloster jet did..


In 1944, that is 3 years after the first UK jet flew. The Tempest was developed from the Typhoon, the design of the Typhoon started in 1937 the same year that the Sabre first ran, and decades after the first internal combustion engine.


----------



## J.A.W. (Apr 13, 2018)

& going by the thread topic..

None of the "late war fighter" jets were practicable warplanes - by comparison to the top piston-jobs.

The RAF & USAAF would not have sanctioned operational use of the 162/234/262 either, frankly.


----------



## drewwizard (Apr 16, 2018)

But the me-262 was the inspiration which created the F-86 swept wing. First flight of the F-86 was 1947. P-80 acceptance was the end of 1945. Everyone knew jets of this caliber were already on the drawing board before the end of WWII. No piston fighter would compete in a fighter role. The only advantage was the ability to carry a small bomb load and staffing capability for a long distance. Fighter bomber. That's why the hornet and similar piston machines survived for a few years more. Plus like the P-51 and others they had life as an attack plane.


----------



## J.A.W. (Apr 16, 2018)

No it wasn't.. The FJ Fury straight-wing was the 1st jet fighter from North American Aviation,
& the Me 262 was only a defacto swept-wing design - due to CoG issues, not as a high-Mach measure..

Swept-wing studies had been in the aviation science literature for a good period..
before the F-86 & MiG 15, proved it to be effective in combat, even versus much higher thrust Meteors..

Reactions: Like Like:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## drewwizard (Apr 17, 2018)

I looked up the merlin info. A 2,640HP version of the merlin was available, but the 130/131 was more aerodynamic (lower frontal area) and the higher power was not needed. lower boost and more reliability. The griffin 2,00 hp to 2400 hp (I was surprised that the Griffin was even close in HP to the later versions of the Merlin which is considerably smaller)
*Production engines*
The Merlin II and III series were the first main production versions of the engine. The Merlin III was the first version to incorporate a "universal" propeller shaft, allowing either de Havilland or Rotol manufactured propellers to be used.[22]

The first major version to incorporate changes brought about through experience in operational service was the XX, which was designed to run on 100 octane fuel.[nb 2] This fuel allowed higher manifold pressures, which were achieved by increasing the boost from the centrifugal supercharger. The Merlin XX also utilised the two-speed superchargers designed by Rolls-Royce, resulting in increased power at higher altitudes than previous versions. Another improvement, introduced with the Merlin X, was the use of a 70%–30% water-glycol coolant mix rather than the 100% glycol of the earlier versions. This substantially improved engine life and reliability, removed the fire hazard of the flammable ethylene glycol, and reduced the oil leaks that had been a problem with the early Merlin I, II and III series.[24]

The process of improvement continued, with later versions running on higher octane ratings, delivering more power. Fundamental design changes were also made to all key components, again increasing the engine's life and reliability. By the end of the war the "little" engine was delivering over 1,600 horsepower (1,200 kW) in common versions, and as much as 2,030 horsepower (1,540 kW) in the Merlin 130/131 versions specifically designed for the de Havilland Hornet.[25] Ultimately, during tests conducted by Rolls-Royce at Derby, an RM.17.SM (the high altitude version of the Merlin 100-Series) achieved 2,640 horsepower (1,969 kW) at 36 lb boost (103"Hg) on 150 octane fuel with water injection.[26]

With the end of the war, work on improving Merlin power output was halted and the development effort was concentrated on civil derivatives of the Merlin.[27] Development of what became the "Transport Merlin" (TML)[28] commenced with the Merlin 102 (the first Merlin to complete the new civil type-test requirements) and was aimed at improving reliability and service overhaul periods for airline operators using airliner and transport aircraft such as the Avro Lancastrian, Avro York (Merlin 500-series), Avro Tudor II & IV (Merlin 621), Tudor IVB & V (Merlin 623), TCA Canadair North Star (Merlin 724) and BOAC Argonaut (Merlin 724-IC).[29] By 1951 time between overhaul (TBO) was typically 650–800 hours depending on use.[30][31] By then single-stage engines had accumulated 2,615,000 engine hours in civil operation, and two-stage engines 1,169,000.[32]

In addition, an exhaust system to reduce noise levels to below those from ejector exhausts was devised for the North Star/Argonaut. This "cross-over" system took the exhaust flow from the inboard bank of cylinders up-and-over the engine before discharging the exhaust stream on the outboard side of the UPP nacelle. As a result, sound levels were reduced by between 5 and 8 decibels. The modified exhaust also conferred an increase in horsepower over the unmodified system of 38 hp (28 kW), resulting in a 5 knot improvement in true air speed. Still-air range of the aircraft was also improved by around 4 per cent.[28] The modified engine was designated the "TMO" and the modified exhaust system was supplied as kit that could be installed on existing engines either by the operator or by Rolls-Royce.[28]

Power ratings for the civil Merlin 600, 620, and 621-series was 1,160 hp (870 kW) continuous cruising at 23,500 feet (7,200 m), and 1,725 hp (1,286 kW) for take-off. Merlins 622–626 were rated at 1,420 hp (1,060 kW) continuous cruising at 18,700 feet (5,700 m), and 1,760 hp (1,310 kW) for take-off. Engines were available with single-stage, two-speed supercharging (500-series), two-stage, two-speed supercharging (600-series), and with full intercooling, or with half intercooling/charge heating, charge heating being employed for cold area use such as in Canada.[29] Civil Merlin engines in airline service flew 7,818,000 air miles in 1946, 17,455,000 in 1947, and 24,850,000 miles in 1948.[33]


----------



## drewwizard (Apr 17, 2018)

Yes the swept wing of the ME-262 was a very fortunate accident, but the results were obvious in speed improvement. The designers of the F-86 made a straight wing prototype and realized they were never going to get the speed they required and turned to the ME-262 swept wings. Yes there were a lot of research available on swept wings, and real test data on the ME 163 to prove out the swept wing to both the Americans and the Russians.


----------



## J.A.W. (Apr 17, 2018)

Ah, no.. the "2,640hp version of the Merlin" was a test unit, & was not "available" for service use..

The +25lb boost power-setting was - as has been noted - dependant on the use of 150 grade av-gas..


----------



## wuzak (Apr 17, 2018)

J.A.W. said:


> Ah, no.. the "2,640hp version of the Merlin" was a test unit, & was not "available" for service use..
> 
> The +25lb boost power-setting was - as has been noted - dependant on the use of 150 grade av-gas..



+25psi boost may have been available had Rolls-Royce decided to use ADI.

The 2,640hp RM.17SM Merlin ran +36psi boost, PN150 fuel (maybe with extra TEL) and ADI. The RM.17SM also recorded 2,380hp (@ 3,300rpm, +30psi boost, IIRC) for at least 15 minutes continuously during other tests. This was in 1944.

The RM.17SM was to be rated at 2,200hp in MS gear (not sure of altitude) and 2,100hp in FS gear (~15,000ft).

The RM.17SM had larger supercharger impellers. 1st stage was 12.7" vs 12.0" of regular Merlin, 2nd stage was 10.7" vs 10.25".


----------



## J.A.W. (Apr 17, 2018)

R-R did add ADI to its Griffon, for Shackleton patrol bomber - max take-off boost, but AFAIR,
Packard with the P-51H,(& P-82?) - was the only R-R V12 powered fighter to use it..

Griffon-Spits being somewhat 'over-powered' weren't cleared to use max-boost for take off anyhow, unlike Tempests..


----------



## wuzak (Apr 17, 2018)

J.A.W. said:


> R-R did add ADI to its Griffon, for Shackleton patrol bomber - max take-off boost, but AFAIR,
> Packard with the P-51H,(& P-82?) - was the only R-R V12 powered fighter to use it..
> 
> Griffon-Spits being somewhat 'over-powered' weren't cleared to use max-boost for take off anyhow, unlike Tempests..



Was that not all about the landing gear?

Yes, the Griffon did get ADI for the Shackleton, very much post war. And the Packard V-1650-9 also got ADI.


----------



## J.A.W. (Apr 17, 2018)

wuzak said:


> Was that not all about the landing gear?
> 
> Yes, the Griffon did get ADI for the Shackleton, very much post war. And the Packard V-1650-9 also got ADI.



Quite likely due to the Spit's 'legacy design' limitations, & AFAIR, it stll applied to the revised 20 series..

Maybe someone knows about the Spiteful, or MB 5 with inward retracting undercart,
or has access to a set of Seafire contra-prop - 'Pilot's Notes'?


----------



## J.A.W. (Apr 18, 2018)

Although the RAF - like the USAAF, was jet-bent by 1945, the final gen prop-fighters still
had their uses, & the 1st gen jets - really couldn't do some of those jobs so well..

See here: http://www.flightglobal.com/pdfarchive/view/1946/1946 - 2032.html


----------



## Dan Fahey (Jun 13, 2018)

drewwizard said:


> Yes the swept wing of the ME-262 was a very fortunate accident, but the results were obvious in speed improvement. The designers of the F-86 made a straight wing prototype and realized they were never going to get the speed they required and turned to the ME-262 swept wings. Yes there were a lot of research available on swept wings, and real test data on the ME 163 to prove out the swept wing to both the Americans and the Russians.



Like the Bell research in the swept wing P63H


----------



## Dan Fahey (Jun 13, 2018)

All the late model Planes were either going to a new improved platform. Like the H Model P51 and Bear Cat. Fury frame was fairly new and expandable. All of them had higher Mach limits, far more maneuverable, decent range except for short range interceptor like the Bear Cat. The next generation of frames and engines were already developed in concert with the new jets had WW2 continued. Propeller planes were already approaching/exceeding 500 mph approaching 6000ft/min climb rates, better aerodynamics for diving. Well within the performance envelop of jets of the day.

WW2 stopped and limited resources went for jet development. Now what we see are Reno Racers with 1945 technology doing what would have happened back in 1945.


----------

