# XP72 "superthunderbolt" vs TA152 How would they stack up?



## pinsog (Feb 15, 2012)

Is there enough info on them to compare them?


----------



## Siegfried (Feb 15, 2012)

The Ta 152H with a Jumo 213E1 engine, running of B4 (87 octane fuel) with seperate tanks for supplies of MW-50 (water methanol) and Nitrous Oxide existed as a 472mph fighter and saw service.

The Ta 152C, with a lessor span wing but a DB605LA engine with 87 octane, MW50 but no nitrous oxide allso existed (3 delivered). This engine had better high altitude performance.

The XP-72 was still an experimental 480mph aircraft and it seems had about the same speed. Advanced versions with a turbo-compounded engine were supposedly expected to be capable of well over 500 mph. Someone with more knowledge of American aircraft can expand.

In a fair comparison one would compare advanced versions of the Ta 152. These would used the Jumo 213J (of about 2700hp) or DB603N of abour 2800hp. This is a boost of power from about 2100 to 2800 hp ie about 30% and might produced a 8% increase in speed so up to about 500 mph.

I think the aircraft would be fairly evenly matched. The promised Superbolt perhaps being faster but the Ta 152 having a higher ceiling when using GM-1. Advanced versions of the Ta 152 with the Jumo 222E engine, potentially of around 4000hp were proposed, this engin being on the production schedule.


----------



## Erich (Feb 15, 2012)

the figure of 472 mph for the Ta is only one pilots impression the crate could travel faster than that,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,, and gents that will be included in my book

and no there is not enough data to compare.


----------



## jim (Feb 15, 2012)

Erich said:


> the figure of 472 mph for the Ta is only one pilots impression the crate could travel faster than that,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,, and gents that will be included in my book
> 
> and no there is not enough data to compare.


 Mr Erich
According to Mr Harmann s book it was maximum 760 km/h (~472 mph) at 12500 m with Gm1 and 750 km/h at 9500m with MW50. No operational aircraft used Mw50 or Gm1 and additionaly Jumo 213E s third speed was problematic. Unfortunately is unlikely that even these numbers were achieved operationaly .Do you have new evidence?
The title and subject of your book? Release date?


----------



## Kryten (Feb 15, 2012)

the Ta152 would probably fall to pieces as it was built by slave labour!


----------



## Erich (Feb 15, 2012)

Jim yes I do...........

it might be a multi-volume history on JG 301, have been working on this for some time especially in regards to the night fighter situations with the unit. please do not ask me for publication times, as I have made mention of this work on numerous threads for several years in relationship to late war 44-45 engagements


----------



## wuzak (Feb 15, 2012)

Siegfried said:


> The XP-72 was still an experimental 480mph aircraft and it seems had about the same speed. Advanced versions with a turbo-compounded engine were supposedly expected to be capable of well over 500 mph. Someone with more knowledge of American aircraft can expand.



A turbo-compound R-4360 was some way into the future at the end of WW2.


----------



## Shortround6 (Feb 15, 2012)

Both planes are a constant pile of "what ifs" in regards to intended engines, equipment and actual performance. there is far too little reliable data to really pick a winner of service versions that were months if not over a year (or 2?) from actual service use.


----------



## Siegfried (Feb 16, 2012)

wuzak said:


> A turbo-compound R-4360 was some way into the future at the end of WW2.



The Ta 152 was running well ahead of the XP-72 in terms of timeline. I suspect the XP-72 would have made a faster aircraft than the Ta 152 aircraft albeit with a lower service ceiliing simply because I can't see the Luftwaffe pushing it to the point of the Jumo 222E/F engine. They would call it quits at the Jumo 213J which would leave the Ta 152 flying considerably faster than the 472mph of the 2050 hp Jumo 213E engine.

Given the timelines, assuming no Normandy invasion, I can see the Luftwaffe preceding with development of the Ta 152H as a high altitude fighter and interceptor
to deal with the possible appearance of the B-29, any Mosquitos in service etc untill their Jet aircraft's high altitude performance improved; something which was only a matter of time.

The USAAF wouldn't bother with the XP-72 as the P-80A could likely be in service within the same time scale and offered more potential. The R-4360 engine would
best be used in the B-29D/B-50 bomber which had serious speed with these engines.


----------



## Arossihman (Feb 16, 2012)

In my opinion forget what the superbolt could have done and just look at what the p-47M was capable of. I still believe there was room for even more improvement on that airframe. Just my .02!


----------



## GregP (Feb 17, 2012)

The XP-72 had a wing loading of 48.1 pounds per square foot versus 40.3 for the Ta-152H, so the XP-72 had a few % heavier wing loading. Slightly better turning for the Ta-152H, but not decisive.

The XP-72 had a span loading of 352.8 versus 215.8 for the Ta-152H. High altitude maneuverability advantage to the Ta-152.

The XP-72 had a power loading of 4.8 pounds per horsepower versus 5.0 for the Ta-152H. Advantage XP-72 by a large margin in climb (5280 feet per minute versus 3445 FPM). I wonder about the climb delta in the reported performance.

The XP-72 went 503 mph versus 472 for the Ta-152H. Advantage XP-72. The XP-72 could cruise at 490 mph versus 311 for the Ta-152H. Large advantage for the XP-72, which could cruise faster than the Ta-152H's top speed, but which probably usually wouldn't.

Their ranges were almost equal, so no advantage either way.

The XP-72 had a ceiling of 43,275 feet versus 50,036 for the Ta-152H. Advantage Ta-152H ... assuming it had time to climb higher when the enemy was sighted.

As I see it, the XP-72 could engage or disengage in combat at will and climbed a LOT better ... at least until the XP-72 reached its service ceiling, but the Ta-152H was more maneuverable, particularly at very high altitude. The ability to engage or disengage in combat is the deciding factor in my book, so I'd give the real-world combat advantage to the XP-72. Not in a dogfight, mind you, but in real combat. NOBODY dogfights at 40,000+ feet in a WWII fighter. They make one pass and then almost HAVE to break off because the turn performance is almost nil at that altitude. If they even MET in combat, the fight would be "one pass, haul a**," and they well might never FIND one another if they chose to turn around and engage.

I'd say the better combat mount was easily the XP-72, but the REAL deciding factor would most probably be the pilots. Both the Germans and the Americans had good pilots, so the outcome would probably be a toss up in any single encounter. The thing is, if the XP-72 had been built, it would have been built by the Americans in much larger numbers tha the Ta-152H's were built. The Germans DID build the Ta-152, but never had more than about 25 in service at any single moment in time.

So all the Americans would have had to do to win decisively was to field 250+ XP-72's and any encounter would have been a one-sided American win, with maybe a few losses, but the Ta-152H's would have been eliminated quickly by quantity of opposition with similar quality pilots. Since that didn't happen, we are left with fictional conjecture.

My conjecture is that, one on one, the pilot would determine the victor, not the aircraft.

I like both aircraft a lot, but the Ta-152H is, by far, the better-looking aircraft. As is often the case, looks are only skin deep and the XP-72 is a VERY worthy challenger to the mighty Ta-152H.

Then again, so is the CAC-15.


----------



## spicmart (Feb 17, 2012)

Siegfried said:


> The Ta 152 was running well ahead of the XP-72 in terms of timeline. I suspect the XP-72 would have made a faster aircraft than the Ta 152 aircraft albeit with a lower service ceiliing simply because I can't see the Luftwaffe pushing it to the point of the Jumo 222E/F engine. They would call it quits at the Jumo 213J which would leave the Ta 152 flying considerably faster than the 472mph of the 2050 hp Jumo 213E engine.



So any Ta 152/Fw190D with DB 603N or Jumo 213J/S (the S version being specialized for low altitude performance) offering about 2700/2800 PS would be on par with the F8F-2 with its 2800PS engine (Bill Gunston).


----------



## jim (Feb 17, 2012)

GregP said:


> The XP-72 had a wing loading of 58.3 pounds per square foot versus 45.9 for the Ta-152H, so the XP-72 had about 20% heavier wing loading. Slightly better turning for the Ta-152H, but not decisive.
> 
> The XP-72 had a span loading of 427.7 versus 243.5 for the ta-152H. High altitude maneuverability advantage to the Ta-152H.
> 
> ...


 
Mr GregP
1) Its an extraordinary claim that a piston engine airplane with maximum speed 503mph could cruise at 490mph. In my opinion is totaly unacceptable
2) Ta 152 wing profile provided extra edge in agility
3) In a quiq search in Internet found max speed pf 480-490mph. In "P47 in action" indeed says 503mph
4) XP 72 would be in action the earliest spring 45. Jumo 213 EB or DB603LA would be the current choises for the TA of around 2300hp
5)Ta 152H-1 normal take off weight 4625 Wing area 23,5 m2 2050 hp = 196 kg/m2 2,25,kgr/'hp
XP72 normal take off weight 6560kgr wing area 27,9 m2 3000 hp = 235 kgr/m2 2.18 kgr/hp
Ta 152 also has smaller frontal area and is generaly smaller. These evidences do not indicate a big diference in rate of climb
5) Ta 152 s mechanicaly driven supercharger was faster reacting during dogfights than turbos . ( without Mw 50 or Gm1 in use)
Performance wise these aircrafts appear quite similar and more powrful engines (3500hp for XP 72 and 2400/2600/2800 for the Ta) would not change the balance alot. Ta always would be more agile and cheaper .Xp72 more numerus
I used wikipedia for xp72 data


----------



## davparlr (Feb 17, 2012)

Siegfried said:


> The Ta 152H with a Jumo 213E1 engine, running of B4 (87 octane fuel) with seperate tanks for supplies of MW-50 (water methanol) and Nitrous Oxide existed as a 472mph fighter and saw service.



Mmmm, yes, saw service, but basically prematurely thrown in to slow down the dam break. 



> The XP-72 was still an experimental 480mph aircraft and it seems had about the same speed. Advanced versions with a turbo-compounded engine were supposedly expected to be capable of well over 500 mph. Someone with more knowledge of American aircraft can expand.


Actually the P-72 was in production and was probably better developed than the Ta-152. Whereas the XP-72 is reported to have a very smooth flight test program except for the failure of a turbocharger on number two, the Ta-152 had a troubled flight test program with several crashes and had very few flight test hours before being produced. Operationally there were also problems with the Ta-152H and I believe it ended the war grounded.

I am not sure the -19 engine was a turbo-compound engine. It did apparently have a shaft driven supercharger behind the pilot and maybe a turbo supercharger, but no indication that a turbo was mechanically connected to the engine. If you have better info, please provide.



> In a fair comparison one would compare advanced versions of the Ta 152. These would used the Jumo 213J (of about 2700hp) or DB603N of abour 2800hp. This is a boost of power from about 2100 to 2800 hp ie about 30% and might produced a 8% increase in speed so up to about 500 mph.



In fair comparison? The XP-72 first flight was Feb 2, 1944, nearly a year before the Ta and had lots of flight tests under its belt. There is a lot of difference between an engine performing in an airframe and a prototype on a test stand. 



> I think the aircraft would be fairly evenly matched. The promised Superbolt perhaps being faster but the Ta 152 having a higher ceiling when using GM-1.



No argument here.




> Advanced versions of the Ta 152 with the Jumo 222E engine, potentially of around 4000hp were proposed, this engin being on the production schedule.


They could hardly get it working much less doubling the hp.



> The Ta 152 was running well ahead of the XP-72 in terms of timeline.


Given the amount of development time and the apparently easy flight test program, I would say the P-72 was a more mature design at it cancellation at VE day than was the Ta-152.



> They would call it quits at the Jumo 213J which would leave the Ta 152 flying considerably faster than the 472mph of the 2050 hp Jumo 213E engine.


Another test stand engine.

Actually, I agree with Shortround6



> Both planes are a constant pile of "what ifs" in regards to intended engines, equipment and actual performance. there is far too little reliable data to really pick a winner of service versions that were months if not over a year (or 2?) from actual service use.



In reality the Ta-152 would already be harassed from SL to 35k by the P-51H and P-47M tag team, both aircraft in production and either fielded are ready to be. In fact, the 1943 fielded P-51B was faster from SL to 20k than the Ta-152H with the EB engine, and, probably out climbed it (don’t have good climb data on the Ta). The only area where the Ta had a clear advantage over contemporary allied aircraft was above 40k ft. 



> The USAAF wouldn't bother with the XP-72 as the P-80A could likely be in service within the same time scale and offered more potential. The R-4360 engine would
> best be used in the B-29D/B-50 bomber which had serious speed with these engines.



True. Too bad Germany spent so much time and money developing planes like the Ta-152 and Do-335 when they had the superb Me-262, which would really make a difference.


----------



## Erich (Feb 17, 2012)

actually the Ta 152H was superior at mid-alt as it never flew combat ops at the alt. it was required to play ............... this is another misnomer you guys are putting forth from the past documentaion you have all read. superior performance at 40K and beyond was with tests of former JG 301 pilots at least a dozen.


----------



## davparlr (Feb 17, 2012)

jim said:


> Mr GregP
> 1) Its an extraordinary claim that a piston engine airplane with maximum speed 503mph could cruise at 490mph. In my opinion is totaly unacceptable


My source says the XP-72 cruised at 300 mph



> 5) Ta 152 s mechanicaly driven supercharger was faster reacting during dogfights than turbos .


I do not think this is an issue.


----------



## Dcazz7606 (Feb 17, 2012)

Is the P-72 we are talking about the single prop or the counter rotating version. I've read that the projected speed of the Double Twister version was up to 540mph (variables understood). It has also been suggested that the 72 would have also been built with the N wing with the thirsty Wasp Major up front. N wing gave the Thunderbolt an improved roll rate, it probably would help with 72's manouverability.


----------



## riacrato (Feb 17, 2012)

davparlr said:


> Mmmm, yes, saw service, but basically prematurely thrown in to slow down the dam break.


A number of fighters from either side were "thrown in" before they had all their bugs ironed out. 




> Actually the P-72 was in production and was probably better developed than the Ta-152.


A bold statement impossible to verify. I know little more than what google has to offer about the XP-72, but from that I get no more than two prototypes ever took to the air. The 3 Fw 190 C prototypes with mechanical supercharger likewise showed no vices I know of yet still the Ta 152 had its share of teething issues. Some problems simply only come up over time. In the Ta-152 case the Jumo supercharger gear was the main source of the problems. The XP-72 existed in the form of two prototypes of which one crashed, how many flight hours were accumulated befor the program got cancelled? Did they represent the configuration that was to be produced (e. g. contra-rotating propeller and/or dash 19 engine)?



> True. Too bad Germany spent so much time and money developing planes like the Ta-152 and Do-335 when they had the superb Me-262, which would really make a difference.


With all due respect, could we please stop acting like the world is so simple you can just magically pour money and resources into any development or production you want and, by that, speed it up indefinetly?

Too bad the US spent so much time developing the XP-72, XP-60, XP-67 when they had the P-51 with the P-80 to follow.


----------



## DonL (Feb 17, 2012)

> In fair comparison? The XP-72 first flight was Feb 2, 1944, nearly a year before the Ta and had lots of flight tests under its belt. There is a lot of difference between an engine performing in an airframe and a prototype on a test stand.



The first testlight of a TA 152 prototype was the flight of FW190 V19, Werksnummer 0041, at 7 July 1943! 

The first testflight of a TA152 *H* prototype was the flight of FW190 V33/U1, 13 July 1944.

THe main differences was the other wing design and pressurization cockpit.

Edit:



> Actually the P-72 was in production and was probably better developed than the Ta-152. Whereas the XP-72 is reported to have a very smooth flight test program except for the failure of a turbocharger on number two, the Ta-152 had a troubled flight test program with several crashes and had very few flight test hours before being produced. Operationally there were also problems with the Ta-152H and I believe it ended the war grounded.



Do you have any source or book about the TA 152, that would back up your claim?



> In reality the Ta-152 would already be harassed from SL to 35k by the P-51H and P-47M tag team, both aircraft in production and either fielded are ready to be. In fact, the 1943 fielded P-51B was faster from SL to 20k than the Ta-152H with the EB engine, and, probably out climbed it (don’t have good climb data on the Ta). The only area where the Ta had a clear advantage over contemporary allied aircraft was above 40k ft.



The TA 152H hat a climb rate of 20m/s at Sea Level and a climb time of 8 min to 7000m without MW 50 better then a P51D from the B I don't want to talk!

And an average climb rate of 14,58ms

Source: Dietmar Hermann TA 152


----------



## Gixxerman (Feb 17, 2012)

Erich said:


> Jim yes I do...........
> 
> it might be a multi-volume history on JG 301, have been working on this for some time especially in regards to the night fighter situations with the unit. please do not ask me for publication times, as I have made mention of this work on numerous threads for several years in relationship to late war 44-45 engagements



Very interested to see the new book Erich. 
The Ta152 is one of my fav warbirds.
Very impressive it looks as mean as they come.


----------



## tomo pauk (Feb 17, 2012)

Hi, jim,



> 5) Ta 152 s mechanicaly driven supercharger was faster reacting during dogfights than turbos .



XP-72 did not have a turbo.
The speed of reaction of turbo was not an issue in P-47, nor in P-38, the main fighters using turbo. The speed of the propeller's reaction is what reduces abrupt RPM changes anyway, since the prop acts like a flywheel (see SR6s posts).


----------



## Siegfried (Feb 17, 2012)

wuzak said:


> A turbo-compound R-4360 was some way into the future at the end of WW2.



Test pilot Tom Bellinger stated flatly that the no flights ever exceeded 500 mph. The dash 13 engine was not supercharged. With the planned but never installed dash 19 engine (with a remote supercharger) rated at 3,650 HP at 25,000 ft. (3,000 HP at sea level) a top speed of 504 mph at approximately 25,000 feet was expected. Planned further development of the dash 19 engine was expected to yield approx 4,000 hp and a speed of 540 mph at 25,000 ft.

Hence we are comparing a XP-72, which achieved 480mph in level flight during its test program with a Ta 152 which achieved 472 mph also in test but also achieved production and service. The key difference is service ceiling with the Ta 152 likely higher due to its high aspect ratio wings.

It is possible to project advanced production versions of the P-72 which are faster (490, 500 or 540) but wouldn't one expect that the Ta 152H would also have been improved considerably in that time frame?


----------



## wuzak (Feb 17, 2012)

Siegfried said:


> Test pilot Tom Bellinger stated flatly that the no flights ever exceeded 500 mph. The dash 13 engine was not supercharged. With the planned but never installed dash 19 engine (with a remote supercharger) rated at 3,650 HP at 25,000 ft. (3,000 HP at sea level) a top speed of 504 mph at approximately 25,000 feet was expected. Planned further development of the dash 19 engine was expected to yield approx 4,000 hp and a speed of 540 mph at 25,000 ft.
> 
> Hence we are comparing a XP-72, which achieved 480mph in level flight during its test program with a Ta 152 which achieved 472 mph also in test but also achieved production and service. The key difference is service ceiling with the Ta 152 likely higher due to its high aspect ratio wings.
> 
> It is possible to project advanced production versions of the P-72 which are faster (490, 500 or 540) but wouldn't one expect that the Ta 152H would also have been improved considerably in that time frame?



The R-4360 was supercharged regardless of whether or not the remote auxiliary supercharger was fitted. If the remote supercharger was not fitted to the prototype (I do not know either way) the R-4360 was simply a single stage supercharged engine, with an integral supercharger.

The only R-4360s, to my knowledge, that weren't fitted with superchargers were the VDT versions - which ran on the test stand and flew in a B-50 (post war) but required the constant attention of the flight engineer to prevent the turbos from overspeeding. Some VDT schemes were turbocompounded, others not.


----------



## GregP (Feb 17, 2012)

Hi Jim,

I do all my performance calculations (wing loading, sp[an loading, pwoer loading) at Normal Takeoff Weight, not Max Weight. You are free to do whatever you want, though you SHOULD do it the same for both aircraft. In reality, the combat weight are less than normal takeoff weight becasue the fighters burned fuel getting into position for combat, drop any extra tanks, and usually drop underwing bombs, too, if engaging in aerial combat. So, my numbers are conservative, as best practice dictates.

My database shows the XP-72 with a normal takeoff weight of 7,940 kg and a rated power of 2,573 kW, for a weight to power ratio of 3.1 kg / kW. I show the Ta-152H at normal takeoff weight of 5,219 kg and a rated power of 1,305 kW, for a weight to power ratio of 3.4 kg / kW. Advantage XP-72. Not by a lot, but an advantage nevertheless. The Ta-152H wing was optimized for high altitude, not for dogfighting. A high-altitude wing is not necessarily a great climbing wing. What it does best is maintain lift over a wide range of air pressure values better than less specialized wings.

The XP-72 had a Pratt Whitney R-4360. I don't know the XP-72 airfoil, but the P-47N was pretty good at high altitude ... one of the best of the war in real life. The main reason the radial-powered aircraft cruised rather slowly in most cases was range. They have no problem cruising faster, but eat fuel doing it. Almost ALL fighter warbirds today cruise at 225 - 240 knots, not due to book or to fuel consumption, but due to the speed limit below 10,000 feet in most coutries.

I dispute your claim number 2 above. Prove it. The Ta-152 wing is probably better at high altitude, above 40,000 feet, at producing lift. There is no evidence it was better at dogfighting. If the Ta-152 pilot "yanked and banked" and lost speed, he was out of the best envelope for his specialized high-altitude wing and probably stalled.

As for top speed, my quick search says 503 mph for the XP-72, as do several of my references, so it stands with me as OK.

The title of this thread says Superthunderbolt vs. Ta-152; it never mentions timeline. In my opinion, the Ta-152's used were service prototypes (the Ta-152H first flew in 1945, later than the XP-72) and made NO difference in the war. They were ALMOST in service, but not really, with never more than 25 in operational units, the mechanics didn't even get enough training. The entire fleet accumulated only about 50 flying hours befire being thrown into combat. By war's end, only 2 were flyable (Ta-152C's). The XP-72 first flew in 1944, before the Ta-152 and, if selected for production, could have been in Europe in quantity in 1945. The issue is moot; it is a "what if," and you think differently than I do. No big deal. And you could be as right as I could be, who knows?

We already KNOW how many Ta-152's were flyable at the end of the war. The 2 left were very interesting curiosities, nothing more. They made no difference in the war at all, but were creative aircraft built too late to affect the outcome of the war. The Germans did their best to produce them, but production when being bombed daily is a tough proposition. The U.S.A. was never bombed and could easily have produced the XP-72 in quantity, like we did with other aircraft.

The rate of climb has almost nothing to do with drag. The efficiency of the propeller at climb power and climb speed, coupled with the wing profile and weight to power ratio are the deciding factors. The rates of climb are as published, not by me, but by the people reporting on the aircraft. Surely you don't think we should re-write the published figures, especially with no Ta-152's to fly for confirmation trials? The R-43660 used in the XP-72 made the rated power. Heck, even the R-3350 made 3,500 HP. Today, at Reno, they make 4500+ HP on a regular basis. I have seen one run at 5,000 HP personally.

Your point number 5 shows a lack of knowledge of WWII aero engine operation. NO WWII fighter engines were or are happy with torque changes. They run best at constant RPM, with gradual changes in RPM and manifold pressure. Faster-reacting superchargers mean nothing in service. Suddenly opening the throttle could easily make you a POW when the engine failed. The best action was to cruise at a speed near "best corner speed," which most WWII fighters DID, and it is WAY below maximum speed, even in jets. The best corner speed in an F-16 is near 460 knots. That way, if jumped, they were already at their best corner speed and could quickly react while taking care of the powerplant and gradually increasing power.

The Ta-152 was a pinacle aircraft for the FW-190 series, but don't tell us you have new information that the aircraft was really much better than published. C'mon, it flew as published and as tested.

I have regular contact with Steve Hinton and have asked him on several occasions about the Paul Allen FW-190. It performs to the book; no better, and certainly no worse. It has the BMW-801 radial (restored by Mike Nixon) and makes book numbers when flown to book settings. I have no doubt the Ta-152's exhibit the same German accuracy in flight test as the FW-190 does.

I only represent myself, but the Ta-152's numbers are what they are. So are the numbers for the XP-72, which was not selected for production because everyone already knew the war was winding down in Europe by mid-1944 and the end was only a question of time. Even the Third Reich knew it.

So my opinion is as written above. If someone has facts supporting other numbers, then show them with publically-availble references, not one of those "I have this book and it is the only copy" stuff. None of this "my grandfather knew someone who knew a pilot who said ..." heresay stuff. Good, solid references. I ignore people who publish a scanned text page or pages with no report number, no ID of any kind, and expect everyone to accept it. Any report will have an identification and, if you (or any poster) can get it, then so can anyone else.

Your opinion is, obviously, differrent. That's OK and you could be correct ... but the publically published numbers don't support it.

The Ta-152 wound up with 7 victories against 4 losses. Hardly the "best piston fighter ever." Even the F4F Wildcat was better in combat, if you count the kill-to-loss ratio, and the Ta-152 was flown by Luftwaffe "Experts," mostly.


----------



## Dcazz7606 (Feb 17, 2012)

I found some photos of both XP-72's in Warren Bodies Thund










rbolt.


----------



## GregP (Feb 17, 2012)

Thanks for the pics! Neat views.


----------



## Gixxerman (Feb 17, 2012)

That XP 72 is some big brutal looking beasty alright.


----------



## DonL (Feb 18, 2012)

> If someone has facts supporting other numbers, then show them with publically-availble references, not one of those "I have this book and it is the only copy" stuff.



Source: Dietmar Hermann; Focke-Wulf Ta 152: The Story of the Luftwaffe's Late-War, High-Altitude Fighter 
http://www.amazon.com/dp/0764308602/?tag=dcglabs-20



> In my opinion, the Ta-152's used were service prototypes (the Ta-152H first flew in 1945, later than the XP-72)


The first testlight of a Ta 152 prototype was the flight of FW190 V19, Werksnummer 0041, at 7 July 1943!

The first testflight of a Ta152 H prototype was the flight of FW190 V33/U1, 13 July 1944.



> I show the Ta-152H at normal takeoff weight of 5,219 kg



The Ta 152 H-0, which was in combat had a normal takeoff weight of 4730kg.



> The Ta-152 wound up with 7 victories against 4 losses. Hardly the "best piston fighter ever."



10 victories against 2 losses. One was shot down, one was lost of unknown reasons and all combat missions were flown totaly outnumbered!


----------



## Dcazz7606 (Feb 18, 2012)

Here's another of the 2nd, counter rotating prop version!


----------



## jim (Feb 18, 2012)

Mr GregP
I really do not understand your post. The main references i used was Harmann s book on Ta 152, Reschke s book on JG 301/302 history with extensive reports on Ta 152. I imagine i am not the only person i posses these books.I dont have new info on Ta , i am just an amateur On Xp 72 all internet sites i visited report 480-490mph and 3000 hp for the -13 engine. The 540 mph calculations for a militarily equiped piston engine fighter ,regerdless its nationality, sounds to me very ambitious
1) Even if 503mph was correct i insist was impossible for practical use to cruise at 490mph
2) I used normal take off weights for both aircraft . Why we end with diferent results i dont know
3)Ta 152 flown only by experts? I have readen this also elsewhere. Name one pilot of Ta 152 who could be called experte. One. Or experienced formation leader . Actually a Ta was lost when its inexperirnced pilot stalled it on landing procedures . And even if some of them had decent general flying ability , all had very little type experience and no tactics developed.
4)Ta 152 wing was optimized for high altitude but out turned easily late Fw 190A8 and turned with the best alleid low level fighters ( Tempest (3000hp aircraft),Yak9) at low level without Mw50 ,. In fact the specialized low level Tempest stalled and crashed and not the Ta during turning combat.
5) I am not ww2 engine expert, but at least german pilots memories indicate often change of power during combat.And sudden apllications of full throttle. Engine response was important . Jumos 004Bs were badly critisized for their slow response.
6) It is interesting the claim that XP 72 was not produced because everyone knew that war was ending. Then what about F8F, F7F ,P51H, XBT2D-1 , B32 ? No such considerations in their cases?
7)German late war wide blade propellers were optimized for climbing and not speed . My calculations , if correct, show in theory close RoC. Obviusly we use diferent data. 
8)The combat history of an aircraft can not bu use the way you do. MIg 29 should be judged by the casualties that suffered in 1991? And there no solid proof that a TA was shot down in combat , and even if did happen was caused by surprise attack
But even if i am totaly wrong why your response was so agressive?


----------



## Hoju2k (Feb 18, 2012)

One thing that wasn't mentioned in the comparison: the Ta-152 clearly had the best armament of the two.


----------



## davparlr (Feb 18, 2012)

Erich said:


> actually the Ta 152H was superior at mid-alt as it never flew combat ops at the alt. it was required to play ............... this is another misnomer you guys are putting forth from the past documentaion you have all read. superior performance at 40K and beyond was with tests of former JG 301 pilots at least a dozen.



Okay, you seem to have us since you have data we don’t. I don’t know what you consider mid altitudes, but this is what I have. You will have to tell me where it is wrong. Airspeed data on the Ta is from an Fw chart for EB engine. I am sure you are aware of this chart. Climb for the Ta is questionable.

SL (airspeed-mph, climb-ft.min)
Ta-152 374, 3937+ (without MW50?)
P-51B 386, 4430
P-51H 413, 5120
P47M 365, 4000

15k
Ta 422, 2760+ (without MW50?)
P-51B 428, 3820
P-51H 440. 3650
P-47M 418, 3560

20k
Ta 441, ukn
P-51B 442, 3200
P-51H 463, 3100
P47M 437, 3300

25k
Ta 449, ukn
P-51B 440, 2400
P-51H 466, 2350
P-47M 453, 3000

30k
Ta 467, 2600 (est)
P-51B 430, 1700
P-51H 448, 1700
P-47M 467, 2200

35k
Ta 451, ukn
P-51B 417, 900
P-51H 434, 900
P-47M 475, 900

You will have to let me know if any of my Ta-152H data is wrong. And , if you have climb data, that would be appreciated.



riacrato said:


> A bold statement impossible to verify. I know little more than what google has to offer about the XP-72, but from that I get no more than two prototypes ever took to the air. The 3 Fw 190 C prototypes with mechanical supercharger likewise showed no vices I know of yet still the Ta 152 had its share of teething issues. Some problems simply only come up over time. In the Ta-152 case the Jumo supercharger gear was the main source of the problems. The XP-72 existed in the form of two prototypes of which one crashed, how many flight hours were accumulated befor the program got cancelled? Did they represent the configuration that was to be produced (e. g. contra-rotating propeller and/or dash 19 engine)?



I agree it is pretty bold. We do not seem to have a lot of data on the XP-72 including test flight hours. However, it is reported that the program was enthusiastically supported, that flight test program went very smooth for a new aircraft, and that the pilots thought highly of it. It is hard to imagine that the aircraft was not thoroughly tested given it was in a production effort. As for the Ta-152, it is reported by Wikipedia that only 31 flt hours had been accomplished by production go-ahead and on 50hrs completed on 20 preproduction units by January, 1945 (some had crashed). I am sure that a lot of problems were uncovered in combat, issues the XP-72 would not have uncovered, but I suspect not many corrections had been made. My statement that the XP-72 was more mature is strictly supposition, but I don’t think it is unrealistic.



> With all due respect, could we please stop acting like the world is so simple you can just magically pour money and resources into any development or production you want and, by that, speed it up indefinetly?



You do have a point here in that, while production facilities being set up to make the Ta and the Do could be used to set up manufacturing for proven aircraft like the Me-262 and point defense fighters, the limiting factor seems to be resources, most notable fuel and experienced pilots.



> Too bad the US spent so much time developing the XP-72, XP-60, XP-67 when they had the P-51 with the P-80 to follow.



The US had the time and money to afford this luxury and Germany did not. 



DonL said:


> The first testlight of a TA 152 prototype was the flight of FW190 V19, Werksnummer 0041, at 7 July 1943!



I am not buying this. This aircraft appears to be a test bed aircraft that was more akin to the Fw-190D-9 than to the longer, bigger wingspaned, and heavier Ta-152 and certainly not near a production version of the Ta as the XP-72 was.



> The first testflight of a TA152 H prototype was the flight of FW190 V33/U1, 13 July 1944.



This I’ll buy, however there is a footnote in that it crashed the next day and there was a months delay until the next prototype flew.



> THe main differences was the other wing design and pressurization cockpit.


.
Neither minor changes.



> Do you have any source or book about the TA 152, that would back up your claim?


Wikipedia references lack of time to iron out the various problems associated with new aircraft and both Wikipedia and Wagners “German Combat Planes” references the prototype crashes.



> The TA 152H hat a climb rate of 20m/s at Sea Level and a climb time of 8 min to 7000m without MW 50 better then a P51D from the B I don't want to talk!



Wow, you make this sound impressive. However, the P-51B, as shown in the referenced test, at Mil power (67” Hg), which should be equivalent to non-MW-50 Ta, has a climb rate of about 3750 ft/min (19 m/sec) at SL slightly less than the Ta-152H. However, in time to climb, note that the P-51B will reach 7km (22,965 ft) in about 7 minutes, much better than the Ta. Significantly, the P-51B with Normal power (61” Hg) reaches 7 km in about 7.5 minutes, still better than the Ta! This test was run at two hundred pounds over the fighter weight of the P-51B, 9335 lbs. The fighter weight of the P-51B is about 9160 lbs. 100 ft/min ROC would have to be added to the SL ROC to get the P-51B Mil number. Time to climb for the B would be slightly faster than noted above. About a 100 ft/min has to be subtracted for the P-51D SL ROC. Time to climb would be slightly longer than noted above.

Now, looking at airspeed comparing the Ta with MW-50 with the P-51B at 75” Hg. (approved May, 1944 by AAF) also tells an interesting story. The P-51B (without racks) is faster up to 20k and only slightly slower at 25k.

So, in summary, the June, 1944, P-51B/D was going to out climb the 1945 German best Ta-152 to 23k, and be competitive in airspeed all the way up. Only at 25k and above was the Ta clearly superior to the P-51B/D whether you don’t want to talk, or not!

Above 25k? Well there was the P-51H and P-47M. And P-72? A little note here, at 30k, the P-47M was producing over twice the hp of the Ta-152.

This is all true if the data on the Ta-152H is accurate!

http://www.wwiiaircraftperformance.org/mustang/P-51B_24777_Climb.jpg



Siegfried said:


> Test pilot Tom Bellinger stated flatly that the no flights ever exceeded 500 mph. The dash 13 engine was not supercharged. With the planned but never installed dash 19 engine (with a remote supercharger) rated at 3,650 HP at 25,000 ft. (3,000 HP at sea level) a top speed of 504 mph at approximately 25,000 feet was expected. Planned further development of the dash 19 engine was expected to yield approx 4,000 hp and a speed of 540 mph at 25,000 ft.



I am confused as to the exact supercharger configuration of the XP-72. I suspect that the shaft driven supercharger was installed on the XP-72. I find it hard to believe a non supercharged engine could power a plane to 480 mph at 25k ft without one, even if it is producing 3000 hp at SL. I think a proposed turbo-supercharger was not installed. I think the dash 19 engine was only the production version of the -13.



> Hence we are comparing a XP-72, which achieved 480mph in level flight during its test program with a Ta 152 which achieved 472 mph also in test but also achieved production and service. The key difference is service ceiling with the Ta 152 likely higher due to its high aspect ratio wings.



A turbo-supercharger could easily move this number towards 500 mph, but I would never bet on much above that from any prop plane from WWII.


----------



## davparlr (Feb 18, 2012)

jim said:


> Mr GregP
> I really do not understand your post. The main references i used was Harmann s book on Ta 152, Reschke s book on JG 301/302 history with extensive reports on Ta 152. I imagine i am not the only person i posses these books.I dont have new info on Ta , i am just an amateur On Xp 72 all internet sites i visited report 480-490mph and 3000 hp for the -13 engine. The 540 mph calculations for a militarily equiped piston engine fighter ,regerdless its nationality, sounds to me very ambitious



I agree



> 1) Even if 503mph was correct i insist was impossible for practical use to cruise at 490mph



300 mph is the cruise speed for the XP-72



> 5) I am not ww2 engine expert, but at least german pilots memories indicate often change of power during combat.And sudden apllications of full throttle. Engine response was important . Jumos 004Bs were badly critisized for their slow response.


Early turbojets were notorious on throttle sensitivity. However, this did not apply to turbochargers. I am not sure but I suspect turbocharger rpm remain high whether it was loaded or not. Others know more.



> 6) It is interesting the claim that XP 72 was not produced because everyone knew that war was ending. Then what about F8F, F7F ,P51H, XBT2D-1 , B32 ? No such considerations in their cases?


F8F, F7F, and XBT2D-1 were Navy planes and jet operations off carriers was uncertain. P-51H was much cheaper and further along. B-32 was already developed but problematic. It fell victim just like the XP-72 only it was further developed before the end of the war was known.



> 8)The combat history of an aircraft can not bu use the way you do. MIg 29 should be judged by the casualties that suffered in 1991? And there no solid proof that a TA was shot down in combat , and even if did happen was caused by surprise attack



How many of the Ta-152 kills were surprise attacks?


----------



## pinsog (Feb 18, 2012)

Hoju2k said:


> One thing that wasn't mentioned in the comparison: the Ta-152 clearly had the best armament of the two.



They were supposedly entertaining 4 37mm cannon as alternative armament for the P-72. What exactly they planned to shoot at with that kind of armament, I don't know.


----------



## Hoju2k (Feb 18, 2012)

pinsog said:


> They were supposedly entertaining 4 37mm cannon as alternative armament for the P-72. What exactly they planned to shoot at with that kind of armament, I don't know.



Yeah well, you can't expect the same perfomance with that armament. Also, for the Ta 152C, different combinations were planned, such as 4xMG151 + 1Mk103, or 3x Mk103, all with the great advantage of being mounted in the fuselage and then don't have to deal with the convergence issues. But I think we should stick with what they actually had.


----------



## wuzak (Feb 18, 2012)

davparlr said:


> I am confused as to the exact supercharger configuration of the XP-72. I suspect that the shaft driven supercharger was installed on the XP-72. I find it hard to believe a non supercharged engine could power a plane to 480 mph at 25k ft without one, even if it is producing 3000 hp at SL. I think a proposed turbo-supercharger was not installed. I think the dash 19 engine was only the production version of the -13.
> 
> A turbo-supercharger could easily move this number towards 500 mph, but I would never bet on much above that from any prop plane from WWII.



I don't believe that the XP-72 was ever intended to carry a turbocharger.

The compressor driven by the extension shaft was the first stage of a two stage system - the engine retaining its integral supercharger. 

If the XP-72 ran without the first stage supercharger then it is possible that the engine supercharger was rated for the XP-72's maximum speed altitude.

The XP-72 was heavily based on the P-47 with its rear fuselage mounted CH-series turbocharger. The reasoning behind the auxiliary (or first stage) supercharger being mounted in the rear fuselage and driven by an extension shaft was to maintain weight balance. I suspect, therefore, taht the auxliary supercharger was fitted, even if it wasn't operational.


----------



## wuzak (Feb 18, 2012)

GregP said:


> Heck, even the R-3350 made 3,500 HP. Today, at Reno, they make 4500+ HP on a regular basis. I have seen one run at 5,000 HP personally.



The R-3350 only made 3500hp with turbo-compounding. The best a non-turbo-compound production engine managed was about 2800hp - but a few years after WW2. As far as I know the R-3350 was only ever rated for 2200hp during the war.

At the end of the war both the V-1710 and Merlin were being, or about to be, rated at 2200hp. The V-1710-127 (the turbocompound prototype) was rated at 2900hp - but the turbine used couldn't cope with the exhaust temperature.

As for one offs the Merlin RM.17SM managed 2600hp in 1944 - for a 15 minute run. For Reno Merlins are tuned to over 3500hp. But how long can a Reno Merlin run at that power, or a Reno R-3350 run at 4500hp?


----------



## Shortround6 (Feb 18, 2012)

It is not just a question of how long they could run but how long running at such levels shortened the scheduled time to overhaul. American engines WEP power level had to achieved by a test engine running 7 1/2 hours at those levels although it could be done 5 minutes at a time. There are stories of Lockheed test pilots at the end of the war (or in the week or two after) taking off at WEP and dog fighting (chasing each other) without ever backing off the throttle until low on fuel and having to land. The acceptance flights had to flown for contract reasons but the planes were going straight to a maintenance/scrap yard. 

Some aircraft engines show a rather amazing (and alarming) ability to withstand some extreme abuse in one flight only to fail catastrophically 1 to 2 hours into the next flight when being flown normally. I rather doubt that Reno race engines, after being flown in one race are expected to provide another 300-400 service before their next overhaul/tear down.

There may be a reason that by the end of the war a Merlin for transport service was rated as having a life 150-200 hours longer than a fighter Merlin.


----------



## GregP (Feb 19, 2012)

You know guys, I can add several comments.

1) My databse is the result of about 15 years of research by me. The source I used about 10 years ago gave only two weights for the Ta-152H-1, and one was the weight I quoted. After reading the replies above I went to several other sources and found three weights, empty, normal takeoff and max takeoff. So, I stand corrected there, and also corrected my database. Unless I have a reason to suspect inaccuracy, I usually don't revisit my database entries. In this case, the entries were not inaccurate; the middle weight was missing.

2) All my sources list the max speed as 472 mph @ 41,010 feet for the Ta-152H-1.

3) All my sources list the initial climb rate as 3,445 feet per minute for the Ta-152H-1.

4) I have 5 sources that say 503 mph for the XP-72, one source that says 480 mph, and two source that say 490 mph. We have also had a former Republic test pilot give a talk at the Planes of Fame Museum and he stated the XP-72 was a real wonder and DID have a climb rate of more than 5,000 feet per minute and a top speed slightly over 500 mph. As for cruise speed, I can find no mention of it aside from a reported 490 mph in one source and a reported 300 mph at teh National Museum of the Air Force. I confess I am skeptical about a 490 mph cruise too, but I cannot find any reliable reference to cruise speed. It was, after all, only a prototype.

If you believe the National Museum of the Air Force for the 300 mph cruise, then you also believe the 3500 HP engine rating. You can't choose one number and say it is OK, but another number isn't. Your choice yes or no.

I only found one single reference with a reason listed for not producing the XP-72, and it stated that there was a greater need for long-range excorts in Europe than for the XP-72. The person who said it was not produced because the war was winding down was the former Republic test pilot mentioned above. We have had talks by a LOT of former test pilots, most American, some German, some British, one Japanese, and one Dutch.

I have 6 sources for the Ta-152. Four of them mention the operational results. Three say 7 victories and 4 losses. One says 7 to 10 victories, depending on who you believe, and 4 losses. Persoanlly I don't think it makes any difference if the victores are 7 or 10 ... or even if the real losses are 2 or 4. Either way, the combat record is not impressive, at least to me. You may well think differently, and that is just fine.

As to Davepark's question about the other aircraft being produced, I was not there and do not know. I have been told one reason by a former test pilot of the XP-72 and have no contact with anyone else who has knowledge of why some aircraft were produced and some weren't. To me, it is VERY likely that politics had more to do with the decision than aircraft performance, just like it did when Canada cancelled the CF-105 Arrow and the famous British White Paper and the General Dynamics F-111. In each case, politics decided, not the evaluation report of the aircraft performance. Test pilots had and have no say in production awards. These are the exclusive property of the US Senate and House of Representatives. If the congress votes to produce an aircraft, it gets built. If they don't so choose, it doesn't.

I like the XP-72 and choose to believe it was a better aircraft than the Ta-152. I could be right or wrong. History won't say becasue the XP-72 was not selected for production. So, I am left with my own opinion and reasoning. Since I usually detest "what ifs," I usually don't get involved with them. This time I stumbled over that and chimed in on the side of the XP-72. Since it is a big "what if," I'll back out of the thread going forward and state that the XP-72 would have been an interesting addition to the combatants in WWII ... but wasn't since it wasn't produced. Both Ta-152's operating at the end of the war were interesting, too, but that is about all they collectively achieved.

Germany claimed 43,765 enemy aircraft shot down in WWII. The contribution of either 7 or 10 is insignificant in the extreme. But I still like the Ta-152 a lot, just based on looks and innovation.

The XP-72 made zero difference in WWII because it never saw action. But I still like the aircraft based on projected performance potential.


----------



## Shortround6 (Feb 19, 2012)

GregP said:


> 3) All my sources list the initial climb rate as 3,445 feet per minute for the Ta-152H-1.
> 
> 4) I have 5 sources that say 503 mph for the XP-72, one source that says 480 mph, and two source that say 490 mph. We have also had a former Republic test pilot give a talk at the Planes of Fame Museum and he stated the XP-72 was a real wonder and DID have a climb rate of more than 5,000 feet per minute and a top speed slightly over 500 mph. As for cruise speed, I can find no mention of it aside from a reported 490 mph in one source and a reported 300 mph at teh National Museum of the Air Force. I confess I am skeptical about a 490 mph cruise too, but I cannot find any reliable reference to cruise speed. It was, after all, only a prototype.
> 
> If you believe the National Museum of the Air Force for the 300 mph cruise, then you also believe the 3500 HP engine rating. You can't choose one number and say it is OK, but another number isn't. Your choice yes or no.



3. A big problem I am finding when researching the climb rates of various planes is that very often no power rating is given for a particular climb rate. It also seems that different countries used different standards which wind up being rather confusing. I don't know how the Germans reached this figure. But as an example of differences I would note that the British "usually" measured climb rate using a 30 minute "climb rating " for the engine. The Americans would often use "military power" for the first 5 minutes and then use "max continuous" (which for american engines was a 1 hour or until the fuel ran out, so it is a lower rating than the British would use) for the rest of the climb and the higher altitude climb figures. Obviously the use of WEP ratings would change things considerably. Getting back to the Ta-152 , is that climb rate using a 30 min climb rating (a power level used by the Germans?) or a "full throttle climb" or climb using MW-50? (if the plane was so equipped).
Sometimes you can find tests that were done at WEP or emergency power but if you are comparing one plane's numbers using WEP to another that is not using using WEP (assuming it had such a rating) things are going to be somewhat off even though BOTH numbers are true. 

4). Cruise speeds are even worse. Cruise speed at Maximum continuous power? At maximum lean power? Most economical? greatest endurance? and at what altitude? A P-47B could be cruised at 12,000ft using 65gph for economy or at 160gph at max continuous power ( at which setting it was doing 300mph at 12,000ft.) At 25,000ft the P-47B could "cruise" at 360mph true using 190gph. 
I can certainly believe the P-72 could cruise at 390mph ( a simple typo from 490mph?) and even a P-47B could cruise at 25,000ft at 300mph using just 95gph. 

Engine ratings for the R-4360 as used in the XP-72 are a bit iffy. Sources do differ but with few engines of that model made getting good information is hard. most sources say 3000hp but that is military power. these sources will also give 2000hp or 2100hp for P-47 engines depending on model and not give the WEP power ratings. Did the R-4360 AS USED in the P-72 get a WEP rating? if so was it 3500hp or was it expected to get 3500hp? I would note that the plane with the 4 bladed prop and the plane with the counter rotating prop used different dash number engines even if not noted in accounts of the plane.


----------



## Dcazz7606 (Feb 19, 2012)

According to warren Bodies, Thunderbolt, test pilot carl bellinger hit 480 mph at sea level in the 1st XP with the single prop. Both #1 and #2 were equiped with the -13 engine and a 2 stage, variable speed, mechanicle supercharger. This was acheive with military power with no WEP at the time of the tests.
The 2nd with the counter rotating props was being flown by Republic test pilot Ken Jernstedt (AVG) at 32,000 fett when a fire broke out! As he was about to bail the fire went out and he flew it to either bridgeport or Windsor Lockes. He did a dead stick landing and bellied it in. The plane wasn't repaired and was given to The Boy Scouts for training.
In his book Bodie humorously states that 5 minutes after Jernstedts crash a Navy F4U came in for a crash landing as well. The Duty Officer was seen maddly going through the reg. books trying to figure out what to do when an Army and a Navy plane crashed at this feild, both flown by civilian pilots!
Based on the sea level speed of 480 mph and the pre- production versions of both the engine and the supercharging I would like to think that the combat versions of this plane would have been up over 500 mph. In an interview Carl Bellinger stated than No 72 ever went faster than 480 mph so that leaves the XP-47 J the high speed champ at 503 MPH>


----------



## Shortround6 (Feb 19, 2012)

A lot of that just does not make sense. the XP-72 went 480mph at sea level? and it never went any faster at any other altitude, unlike any other airplane that ever flew? even at 5,000ft the drag is 9-10% less. 

While it is quite possible the prototypes did not have turbos it is highly unlikely that both planes used the -13 engine as it would be the ONLY case of an air force engine using the same dash number while using different gearboxes for the propeller drive. The air force would change dash numbers for using a different carburetor or magneto let alone going from a single prop shaft to two prop shafts with the associated gearing.


----------



## Shortround6 (Feb 19, 2012)

As a check on some of the performance figures for the XP-72 we can look at the P-47M. The P-47M was supposed to do 367mph at sea level using 2800hp. using the cube law to figure the power needed for 480 mph it comes out to just over 6100hp. even with 3500hp the XP-72 is going to need a _LOT_ of drag reduction to get to 480mph at sea level. 
The P-47M was supposed to do 473mph at 32,000ft using 2800hp and have an "operating speed" of 360mph on 1270hp (75% of 'rated power'="max continuous")at 32,000ft.


----------



## davparlr (Feb 19, 2012)

wuzak said:


> I don't believe that the XP-72 was ever intended to carry a turbocharger.
> 
> The compressor driven by the extension shaft was the first stage of a two stage system - the engine retaining its integral supercharger.
> 
> ...



This makes sense although it goes counter to the P-47 trend with its turbo. 



Shortround6 said:


> As a check on some of the performance figures for the XP-72 we can look at the P-47M. The P-47M was supposed to do 367mph at sea level using 2800hp. using the cube law to figure the power needed for 480 mph it comes out to just over 6100hp. even with 3500hp the XP-72 is going to need a _LOT_ of drag reduction to get to 480mph at sea level.
> The P-47M was supposed to do 473mph at 32,000ft using 2800hp and have an "operating speed" of 360mph on 1270hp (75% of 'rated power'="max continuous")at 32,000ft.



I agree with all you say. I don’t think it would be possible for the XP-72 to go 480 mph at SL. Wikipedia states the engine produced 3000 hp at SL. If so, it would be closer to he P-47M although I suspect the XP-72 was aerodynamically cleaner.


----------



## Dcazz7606 (Feb 19, 2012)

I checked Wikapedia and they stated 387 mph at sea level and 480 at critical alt. Could be a typo in Bodies book. I rechecked the engine specs and it said both planes had the -13 engines. The 2nd counter rotating XP could have been produced to try and perfect the counter rotating gearing. It's possible that Republic never did speed trials on the 2nd 72 as it was unstable during turns and crash landed shortly thereafter Republic tried this earlier in 1942 on a P-47B and the origional "double twister" was very unstable and unreliable. When full rudder was applied the control surfaces got locked into full deflection position. This happened on both planes.


----------



## Erich (Feb 19, 2012)

GregP and all there is new materials on the TA 152H THAT HAVE NOT BEEN RELEASED YET. been doing this stuff for nearly 50 years personally and have new info found collectively with 4 other researchers in England and Germany. it was found at operative levels during the short but brief career that it was a very suitable A/C flown at medium altitudes in which /Soviet aircraft flew and were engaged quite successfully. information will be given personally through interviews and the pilots Flugbuchs for the work still in progress.

think you all have spent up your gas monies the thread is running low ........


----------



## wuzak (Feb 19, 2012)

davparlr said:


> This makes sense although it goes counter to the P-47 trend with its turbo.



Possibly because the R-4360 would require two turbos - possibly B-series (like the P-38, B-17 used).


----------



## GregP (Feb 19, 2012)

Been doing this stuff myself since about 1955, and I haven't uncovered any new Ta-152 info. Been working on warbirds for more than 15 years and never heard any new Ta-152 info.

I'll wait to hear it, but will be very skeptical without some good proof corroborated by a reputable company or reputable test pilot who is known to the world. We have had former Ta-152 pilots give talks about the aircraft at the Planes of Fame and THEY never mentioned performance better than book. Steve Hinton says the authentic FW-190 he flew gave book numbers at book power settings.

So, I'll wait to hear what you have to say before doubting it publically.

It is funny, but the entire forum says that adding armament detracts from prototype performance considerably. They all seem to forget that when it comes to the Ta-152, one of the best-armed fighters in WWII. I well might belive slightly better performance from an unarned prototype, but the sheer number of guns on the Ta-152 would seem to negate any incredible gains ... we'll see. Nobody seems to have trouble believing that the lesser number of guns in the XP-72 would detract from its performance, but they completely overlook that in the case of the Ta-152.

Seems like selective aerodynamics from the back seat to me.

Do you happen to have some timerframe when you will release these new data and their sources? Next month? Yet this year? Next year? 5 Years? Not asking for a date, just a relative timeframe for informational purposes.

I know informatuion not generally know to the public, but it is mostly about the maintenance and general restoration of warbirds ... not new performance data. It comes from restoring them, not from battle. The systems are incredibly simple while simultaneously being complex mechanically. If the mechanicals work, the systems are simple. If they don't, it is tough to fix them without tech orders! ... oh, and spare parts, too.


----------



## Siegfried (Feb 21, 2012)

spicmart said:


> So any Ta 152/Fw190D with DB 603N or Jumo 213J/S (the S version being specialized for low altitude performance) offering about 2700/2800 PS would be on par with the F8F-2 with its 2800PS engine (Bill Gunston).



I would think so, likewise the FW-190A-10 with the 2600hp BMW 801F engine and (I think) a larger wing.


----------



## GregP (Feb 21, 2012)

The Jumo 213A made 1,750 PS (2100 PS with MW50) and was used in the early D’s. The Fw-190D-9 started out with no MW50, but Fw increased the manifold pressure to allow 1,900 PS, effective to 16,400 feet, which is about the useful ceiling of the P-39, so the extra 150 PS was not useful to the D-9 at all. MW50 power for the retrofitted units was still 2,100 PS.

The early D’s lacked the high turn rate and high roll rate of the radial-powered cousins. Many D-9’s were not equipped with MW50 and their acceleration and top speed fell short of Allied fighters at low altitude. The D-9 was an effective medium-altitude, high=speed fighter but its performance fell off above 20,000 feet.

17 Fw-190D-11’s were known to be manufactured, 3 can be accounted for. The D-11 didn’t have a 2800 PS engine.

There were 3 Fw-190D-12’s built as prototypes. It is thought 17 Fw-190D-13’s were built in total (including prototypes), but not certain. One survives in the U.S.A. It does not have a 2800 PS engine and I have heard it run (sounds great!).

No Fw-190D model is known to have had a 2800 PS engine installed.

So the Bearcat's performance edge seems quite safe from the Fw 190D series.

None of the Ta-152's I can identify had a 2800 PS engine either.


----------



## johnbr (Feb 22, 2012)

How would the Ju-213 do with 130 fuel.


----------



## GregP (Feb 22, 2012)

Doesn't matter. What matters is what if DID.

Offhand, I'd say it would increase the power, but by an unknown amount. Certainly not to 2800 PS.

So the Bearcat is ... safe ...


----------



## DonL (Feb 22, 2012)

> The Jumo 213A made 1,750 PS (2100 PS with MW50) and was used in the early D’s. The Fw-190D-9 started out with no MW50, but Fw increased the manifold pressure to allow 1,900 PS, effective to 16,400 feet, which is about the useful ceiling of the P-39, so the extra 150 PS was not useful to the D-9 at all. MW50 power for the retrofitted units was still 2,100 PS.



Your datas are not correct GregP.
The manifold pressure to allow 1,900 PS was effective to 5700m (restricted to 5700m; the best high altitude performance of the two speed supercharger was 6600m).
5700m are 18700 feet.
MW50 Power could be used till 6600m, that's are 21653 feet (best high altitude outputperformance of the 2 speed supercharger-Volldruckhöhe).

FW190 D9: High Speed at Sea Level with manifold pressure and MW50 612km/h without manifold pressure 576km/h
FW190 D9: High Speed at 5700m with manifold pressure and MW50 702km/h, without manifold pressure but MW50 686km/h at 6600m.



> The early D’s lacked the high turn rate and high roll rate of the radial-powered cousins. Many D-9’s were not equipped with MW50 and their acceleration and top speed fell short of Allied fighters at low altitude. The D-9 was an effective medium-altitude, high=speed fighter but its performance fell off above 20,000 feet.



This is rubbish! The FW 190D had the same wingspan (10,50m) and wingarea (18,30m²)as the FW 190 A8 and had 100kg less weight!
How on earth could the D's lacked the high roll rate of the radial-powered cousins?
Besides no FW 190 A or D except the Ta 152H had a good turn rate. The FW 190 lived always from it's high roll rate!



> How would the Ju-213 do with 130 fuel.



There was the Jumo 213B-0 (1944) with C3 fuel, 2000PS without MW50 and manifold pressure.
Ready for production was the Jumo 213J (4 Valve) B4 fuel with 2240PS without MW50 and manifold pressure.


----------



## riacrato (Feb 22, 2012)

Which Bearcat flew at 2800 hp?


----------



## Shortround6 (Feb 22, 2012)

johnbr said:


> How would the Ju-213 do with 130 fuel.



Some did but they were built by the French in early 1950's and powered a flying boat, no shortage of certain metals but then they were also interested in a longer service life at that time so didn't press quite as hard?

at any rate they good for 2300hp for take-off at 3250rpm using 11lb of boost (1.68-1.7ATA?) wet (water injection) or 2100hp for take-off at 3250rpm using 11lb of boost (1.68-1.7ATA?)dry.


----------



## spicmart (Feb 22, 2012)

GregP said:


> The early D’s lacked the high turn rate and high roll rate of the radial-powered cousins. Many D-9’s were not equipped with MW50 and their acceleration and top speed fell short of Allied fighters at low altitude. The D-9 was an effective medium-altitude, high=speed fighter but its performance fell off above 20,000 feet.



Actually it is quoted by pilots that the Dora could outturn the Anton if handled correctly IIRC. It had much better aerodynamics and more power than the Anton so it should keep a better sustained turn rate I suppose, shouldn't it? This had been discussed in length before I suppose.


----------



## spicmart (Feb 22, 2012)

riacrato said:


> Which Bearcat flew at 2800 hp?



Bill Gunston gave this number in one of his books iirc. On wikipedia (I know it's not the best of sources) there are performance numbers of the -1 and -2 versions of the Bearcat, from "Jane's fighting aircraft" and "F8F Bearcat in Action" respectively . The -1 had 2100 hp and the -2 had 2250 hp yet the climb performance went from 4570 fpm to 6300 fpm, max speed rose from 421 mph to 455 mph. With a power increase of just 150 hp and a heavier aircraft these figures seem pretty unrealistic.


----------



## GregP (Feb 22, 2012)

I don't know of a Bearcat that came wioth 2800 HP. I was quoting Spicmart from post 49 and wondering when someone would ask that. The engine was an R-2800. In service use they had, generally, about 2,000 - 2,250 HP (not PS). Today there is a Bearcat flying with an R-3350 that put out 4,500 HP at Reno, but the militarys of the world never flew them, nor would they want to do so. It is a dedicated racing aircraft, not a useful military service type.

However, the stock F8F-2 Bearcat was a real performer as a fighter and held the time to climb record for about 10 years into the jet age. In 1950 one went from a standstill on the ground to 10,000 feet AGL in 94 seconds, and it was in stock military trim. That's a good climb rate, and superior to any Focke-Wulf piston aircraft ever made.

Yes, the Bearcat was a medium altitude fighter, with performance falling off about about 24,000 feet.

Oh, about the Fw 190D-9's falling off above 20,000 feet, that's true. The early models didn't have MW50 or GM1 and did fall off about there. Later, they were improved and flew well up into the mid 30's. They also didn't turn (read picth) as well as their BMW 801 radial-powered cousins. It is a matter of moment of inertia with the liquid-cooled V-12 sticking out much farther from the firewall than the BMW radial. Once the liquid cooled versions of the Fw 190 / Ta 152 acquired more wingspan, they didn't roll nearly as well as the A/F series either.

One might think from my posts that I don't like the Fw 190. Not true. It was and is a great plane, and I love to watch them fly (we have a Flugwerk unit at Chino that flies occasionally ... not a real Fw, but wonderful to see anyway). But I don't credit it with perfromance beyond it's capability. It was a solid fighter, one any service would have been glad to have, but had weaknesses, like ANY fighter. Nobody can build a fighter that is the best at all missions, and almost anybody can surprise you with good performance in some corner of the aerodynamic envelope.


----------



## DonL (Feb 22, 2012)

> Oh, about the Fw 190D-9's falling off above 20,000 feet, that's true. The early models didn't have MW50 or GM1 and did fall off about there. Later, they were improved and flew well up into the mid 30's. They also didn't turn (read picth) as well as their BMW 801 radial-powered cousins. It is a matter of moment of inertia with the liquid-cooled V-12 sticking out much farther from the firewall than the BMW radial. Once the liquid cooled versions of the Fw 190 / Ta 152 acquired more wingspan, they didn't roll nearly as well as the A/F series either.



Your explainations are not correct!
No FW 190D-9 had ever GM1, only Bf109G10/14, Bf109K4 and the Tank 152H1 from the late fighters and only GM1 has the ability to push power performance above the best output performance of the supercharger. MW50 could be only used till the high altitude performance of the supercharger. The high altitude performance of the Jumo 213AG (engine of the D-9)with the one stage two speed supercharger was 6600m . And *all* FW 190D-9 were built with this engine, only the D12, D13 get the high altitude engines Jumo 213E or F. So *all * D-9 could perform till 6600m!
Also no single FW 190D (9-12-13) get ever more wingspan! That's absolutely incorrect! Only the Ta 152*H* gets more wingspan!
So all FW 190 *D*'s rolled as good as the FW 190A and the Tank 152*H* turned much better then D's and the A's.
Even the Ta 152*C* had only a wingspan of 11,00 meter (only 0,5meter more then the FW 190 D and A).



> But I don't credit it with perfromance beyond it's capability.



But your datas and claims are wrong about the FW 190 D!


----------



## Shortround6 (Feb 22, 2012)

Part of the confusion on the F8F Bearcats is that they were basically a post war airplane. The power given for them is often "Military Power" and _NOT_ WEP although some of the performance figures quoted may have been achieved with WEP. If you look up P&W records of various model R-2800 engines you will hard pressed to find the WEP ratings. Like here:

http://www.enginehistory.org/P&W/R-2800/DoubleWaspIndex.pdf

You will not find the WEP ratings for the Thunderbolt or F4U engines. or mention of what the ratings were with water injection even the engine was fitted for it. The engine in the later F8F-2 was good for 2250hp at take off WITHOUT water injection and good for 1720hp "normal"/max continuous compared to the 2100hp take off rating and 1700hp "normal"/max continuous rating of the -59 engine used in the P47M&Ns. What do you tink is going to happen when they use water injection at low altitude, which they were fitted for?


----------



## tomo pauk (Feb 22, 2012)

From SL to 5000 ft, the difference in F4U-4s WEP vs. MIL power was 15% increase. Since the F8F was a mech supercharged engine, perhaps the analogy would be better with that R-2800? A 15 % increase makes 2590 HP from 2250.


----------



## wuzak (Feb 22, 2012)

tomo pauk said:


> From SL to 5000 ft, the difference in F4U-4s WEP vs. MIL power was 15% increase. Since the F8F was a mech supercharged engine, perhaps the analogy would be better with that R-2800? A 15 % increase makes 2590 HP from 2250.



The F4U-4 was also mechanically supercharged - with the "sidewinder" -32W.

There was one F4U that was turbocharged (F4U-3?) but it did not go into production.

IIRC the F8F-2 was turbocharged, but that was well and truly a post war aircraft.


----------



## tomo pauk (Feb 22, 2012)

The R-2800-30W (from the F8F-2) was mechanically supercharged, hence my proposal to comapre it with F4U.
The attacher 'power chart' shows that power falls off right from 1000 ft, from 2200+ HP to some 1670 HP at 20000 ft and so on (all for military rating). IIRC the supercharger (internal or auxiliary?) was of variable type (akin to DB, or two-stage V-1710s).


----------



## Milosh (Feb 22, 2012)

The Pilot's Flight Manual for the F8F can be found here, Grumman F8F-2 Bearcat Fighter Aircraft Pilot's Flight Manual - United States Navy - Google Books

Wuzak, never heard of a turbocharger on the 'Bear.


----------



## wuzak (Feb 22, 2012)

Sorry, my mistake.


----------



## GregP (Feb 22, 2012)

Here is the URL of WWIIaircraft performance.org: FW 190 D-9 Flight Trials

According to test reports of an Fw 190D-9:
With special emergency power, MW50, 3250 RPM, gaps and engine sealed: Max speed was 412 mph @ 20,000 feet and performance fell off after that. Started out at about 378 mph @ sea level, went to 402 mph @ 6,000 feet, fell off to 392 mph @ 11,700 feet. 

When prepared normally, without gap seals, using takeoff and emergency power: Max speed was 342 mph @ sea level, 383 mph @ 10000 feet, falling to 378 mph @ 12000 feet, 413 mph @ 20000 feet, falling to 392 mph @ 26000 feet.

The performance clearly falls off at 20,000 feet from the graphs.

You can easily find the P-51B test on the same site. It shows:
Test of a P-541B with V-1650-7 engine @ 8500 pounds:
392 mph @ sea level, 428 mph @ 9800 feet, falling to 420 mph @ 17400 feet, increasing to 454 mph @ 25600 feet, falling to 441 mph @ 35000 feet.

These aren't MY tests, they were run in the 1944 - 1945 timefame by service pilots and are simply reports of results. So, I make no claims about the test conditions, though the conditions are stated in most cases. The Fw 190D-9's tested had a bad reliability record in test, most damging their superchargers during high-speed testing.

From only these two reports, one would not choose an Fw 190D-9. Of course, these are absolute maximum speeds and are only useful to factory test pilots. Real combat pilots hardly ever see these speeds unless they are in a a steep dive. Combat speed for most WWII fighters, regardless of maximum speed capability, was in the 300 mph to 360 mph range ... and almost all front-line fighters could DO these speeds. The important thing was to see the other guy first and get into a favorable position from which to attack. Most combat kills were pilots who never saw their attacker. The classic "dogfight" was VERY rare.

I also have several books (currently in storage) dedicated to the FW 190 series, and they don't make outlandish claims for the Fw 190D-9, either. From the books, it looks like a good, solid airplane, but not "the best" of WWII.

Sorry about the GM-1, I was thinking of MW50 (water methanol injection).


----------



## spicmart (Feb 23, 2012)

GregP said:


> Here is the URL of WWIIaircraft performance.org: FW 190 D-9 Flight Trials



According to some quite knowledgeable (ex-)members of this forum this site you mentioned seems to be very biased and selective regarding the performance figures of german aircraft in favor of allied aircraft.


----------



## GregP (Feb 23, 2012)

The site isn't one with members. It is a collection of reports published in the WWII timeframe. The people collecting the reports have no interest in changing the reports, they simply collect and post them.

I can think of another site clearly biased toward German aircraft, and I don't use it because I have confirmed the webmaster takes the maximum numbers from large numbers of reports and collects them as the typical perfromance. I believe the real way to be unbiased is to take the reports, read them all, and then assume the truth lies in between the best and worst of the numbers.

But, that's just my take on it.

Last, I don't say that site is authoritative. I said it shows reports compiled by combat pilots in the WWII timeframe. They clearly show the Fw 190D-9 as a good fighter, but not the best. There well may be other site claiming the Fw's as the best, but bias works both ways.


----------



## riacrato (Feb 23, 2012)

... and the site you posted is on the other side of the spectrum. I have far too few original documents myself to make a thorough assessment, but when I see readily available test reports "left out" and quotes taken out of context or selected very one-sidedly (others simply ignored), I know what to take with a grain of salt.


----------



## Milosh (Feb 23, 2012)

riacrato said:


> ... and the site you posted is on the other side of the spectrum. I have far too few original documents myself to make a thorough assessment, but when I see readily available test reports "left out" and quotes taken out of context or selected very one-sidedly (others simply ignored), I know what to take with a grain of salt.



What would those readily available test reports be?


----------



## davparlr (Feb 23, 2012)

GregP said:


> You can easily find the P-51B test on the same site. It shows:
> Test of a P-541B with V-1650-7 engine @ 8500 pounds:
> 392 mph @ sea level, 428 mph @ 9800 feet, falling to 420 mph @ 17400 feet, increasing to 454 mph @ 25600 feet, falling to 441 mph @ 35000 feet.


 
Could you provide the specific site. I could not find any reference showing these values for SL and max. They are in conflict with several other test. 8500 lbs is light for a P-51B.


----------



## GregP (Feb 23, 2012)

Sure. http://www.wwiiaircraftperformance.org/mustang/p-51b-engdiv-na-flighttestdata.jpg

This graph shows the P-51B going a bit faster at 27,400 feet than I have ever seen anywhere else.

That's why I usually take all the numbers and average them for a first-order estimate.

I see reports on the Fw 190D's and Ta-152's that vary as much as 60 mph or more. What that tells me is there is a wide variety of test conditions, pilots, and test configurations. Might also be some bias there somewhere.

I get most of my estimates these days from the Planes of Fame library in Chino, and they have a LOT of volumes.


----------



## davparlr (Feb 24, 2012)

GregP said:


> Sure. http://www.wwiiaircraftperformance.org/mustang/p-51b-engdiv-na-flighttestdata.jpg
> 
> This graph shows the P-51B going a bit faster at 27,400 feet than I have ever seen anywhere else.
> 
> ...


 
I believe this is a North American engineering estimate which is probably based on perfect performance parameters. It does not have a date, tail number, configuration parameters, or identified test points. I usually log this in as interesting but usually not realistic performance in application.


----------



## GregP (Feb 24, 2012)

Yeah, I agree. Most of the performance charts I see for the P-51D list the max speed as 437 mph at best altitude, with the B model going 441 mph at best altitude. Those numbers are from reports from the US Military, with aircraft ID, tail numbers, dates, times, and test conditions, too. Today, a P-51D cruises about 235 knots (270 mph) in the U.S.A. due to the speed limit below 10,000 feet in US airspace of 250 knots.

As I said earlier, absolute maximum speed is for factory test pilots. The Combat speed of the P-51D was in the 300 - 360 mph range, with typical cruise at 250 -280 mph, which is very similar to most good WWII fighters. They see faster in a dive from altitude, but that didn't happen often as it tended to separate you from your unit quickly and make you an obvious single straggler unless your wingman came with you.


----------



## Shortround6 (Feb 24, 2012)

Max level speed is just what it says. The maximum speed the plane could achieve while flying straight and level at that altitude. 

"Combat speed" is going to lower but there is no real way to measure "combat speed". Any deviation from straight and level flight is going to slow the plane down, even a bank of 5-10 degrees is going to try to cause a gentile turn, the combination of the loss of lift and the drag will slow the plane down. AND that is assuming the plane was at max speed to begin with. It also takes time to accelerate to max speed and just like a car, the last few mph take a disproportionate amount of time to get. A 450mph plane doing 300 mph will take more seconds to accelerate from 350mph to 400 mph than it did from 300mph to 350 mph and the last 50 mph, from 400 to 450 will take an even longer time period. 

A 440mph plane will, on average, have a higher combat speed than a 400mph plane because at the lower speeds (320-360mph) the 440mph plane will have better acceleration coming out of a gentile maneuver or cruise setting.


----------



## jim (Feb 24, 2012)

Shortround6 said:


> Max level speed is just what it says. The maximum speed the plane could achieve while flying straight and level at that altitude.
> 
> "Combat speed" is going to lower but there is no real way to measure "combat speed". Any deviation from straight and level flight is going to slow the plane down, even a bank of 5-10 degrees is going to try to cause a gentile turn, the combination of the loss of lift and the drag will slow the plane down. AND that is assuming the plane was at max speed to begin with. It also takes time to accelerate to max speed and just like a car, the last few mph take a disproportionate amount of time to get. A 450mph plane doing 300 mph will take more seconds to accelerate from 350mph to 400 mph than it did from 300mph to 350 mph and the last 50 mph, from 400 to 450 will take an even longer time period.
> 
> A 440mph plane will, on average, have a higher combat speed than a 400mph plane because at the lower speeds (320-360mph) the 440mph plane will have better acceleration coming out of a gentile maneuver or cruise setting.



Mr Shortround 6
I believe your last statement is usually but not always true. A fighter with top max speed because of exceptional aerodynamics may have poorer accelaration in middle speeds in comparison with a fighter with better power loading but lower max speed because of worse drug characteristics. As the speeds increase , and drug becomes more important than power loading and aproaching the top spectrum of speeds the cleaner airframe is fastest. 
Also some aircrafts may be fast on level flight but loosing more speed during manouvers than other aircraft.
If i am wrong please correct


----------



## Shortround6 (Feb 24, 2012)

You are not wrong which is why I wrote "on average" 

A P-51 Allison Mustang being an example of a fast airplane with poor acceleration. At least at the higher altitudes it was capable of. Depending on engines fitted a Merlin Mustang could have double the power available at 25-26,000ft than an Allison powered one which is not reflected in their max level speeds but that tends toward being one of the more extreme samples.


----------



## GregP (Feb 24, 2012)

Shortround, there is an EASY way to measure combat speed ... read combat reports. The speeds (in IAS) are reported.

I won't get into a research project for someone else at this time (I have one myself that has been running for more than 15 years), but there are plenty of combat reports available to the person who looks for them. Reading about 10 - 15 combat reports for any single type will give the reader a good feel for the combat speed of a particular mount.


----------



## Siegfried (Feb 25, 2012)

GregP said:


> Here is the URL of WWIIaircraft performance.org: FW 190 D-9 Flight Trials
> 
> According to test reports of an Fw 190D-9:
> With special emergency power, MW50, 3250 RPM, gaps and engine sealed: Max speed was 412 mph @ 20,000 feet and performance fell off after that. Started out at about 378 mph @ sea level, went to 402 mph @ 6,000 feet, fell off to 392 mph @ 11,700 feet. QUOTE]
> ...


----------



## GregP (Feb 25, 2012)

Siegfried, I don't belive the Jumo 213 achieved 1900 HP; it achieved 1900 PS (or cv, whichever you like), which is 1874 horsepower (550 ft-lbs. sec type HP).

The site may SAY 437 mph, but the chart quoted above SHOWS 450 mph.

I never said that no Fw 190D or Ta 152 was fitted with MW50, I said the early ones were not. Considering that only about 43 Ta-152's were ever delivered .... how many were early?

As for the Fw 190D, I have never seen a calculation of "early" or "late" models. They built about 1,805 D-9's but have no number delivered and no number of "early" or "late"; built 17 Fw 190D-11's with no known number delivered (guess that qualifies as "a few"); built 3 Fw 190D-12's; and built 17 Fw 190D-13's with 2 known delivered. There is ample evidence that many D-9's were "early," but no definitive definition of what "early" means.

So guys, unless you know the numbers (and I doubt they exist), then we collectively don't know how many were delivered with early or late engines. If someone DOES know, then the proof will have to be GOOD, considering the records were lost. We can say some were early and some were late. 

None of the D-9's had the top speed of the P-51D, though the difference was minor, and top speed was not really useful in combat unless you were running. If a Focke-Wuld Fw-190D was running from a P-51, he would likely not gain or be caught, assuming the P-51 pilot or pilots had the fuel and desire to chase and kill. In general, the Fw 190D seies was a very good fighter and was not an opponent to be taken lightly by ANY Allied figher, so if one were to run, he was likely allowed to do so by Allied fighters in the area unless he was damaged. I'd say the P-51 would be accorded the same respect by the Luftwaffe, considering how many P-51's were likely to be around as friends and lack of ability to catch the P-51 without a height advantage to trade for speed.


----------



## Kryten (Feb 26, 2012)

one thing that always has me frowning when reading aircraft performance stats is there is no mention of how long it takes to reach these max speeds, an aircraft with a lower max may reach its limit faster than an aircraft with a higher max, in fact the only quote of acceleration I have seen is for the Mossie, which stated the mkVI went from a fast cruise to its max in 90 seconds, unfortunatly it did not define "fast cruise" or give any weight reference?
prop efficiency, weight and drag must be critical in this manner, but logically speaking would'nt a twin engined aircraft have ing two props to trasmit the thrust be more efficient than a single prop?
rambling a bit there but you get my drift, top speed figures dont really tell the whole story?


----------



## Siegfried (Feb 26, 2012)

Kryten said:


> one thing that always has me frowning when reading aircraft performance stats is there is no mention of how long it takes to reach these max speeds, an aircraft with a lower max may reach its limit faster than an aircraft with a higher max, in fact the only quote of acceleration I have seen is for the Mossie, which stated the mkVI went from a fast cruise to its max in 90 seconds, unfortunatly it did not define "fast cruise" or give any weight reference?
> prop efficiency, weight and drag must be critical in this manner, but logically speaking would'nt a twin engined aircraft have ing two props to trasmit the thrust be more efficient than a single prop?
> rambling a bit there but you get my drift, top speed figures dont really tell the whole story?



I'll answer you and GregP response to my post in one respone. The FW 190D-9 was fully opperational in November 1944 though some were in use with squadrons around Spetember by november all should have with erhoete leistung ( increased power) obtained by injecting fuel into the eye of the supercharger. These variants also should all have had their supercharger improved for another 100hp at altitude. At the same time by the time they were entering service MW-50 systems were being retrofitted in the field; there was no time to factory fit them. We may not know the numbers but they were virtually all equiped with one of the two systems by start of december and certainly by Han 1945. This means a FW 190D-9 was a 428mph to 432mph aircraft when encountered in combat. It just wouldn't be worh bothering with a D-9 if it were no better than an A-8.

The FW 190D-9 speed at sea level with B4 + MW50 seems equal to that of the P-51 on 100/130 though it lagged slightly against the P-51 on 100/150. A FW 190D-9 with C3 +MW50 seems almost equal. At high altitude the FW 190D9 couldn't compete with the two stage supercharger of the Merlin.

However at between 10000 to 20000ft its seems highly competitive.

Noteworthy is the power to weight ratio, all data wiki.
P-51D 100/130 Empty weight: 7,635 lb (3,465 kg) over 1720hp ie* 4.438 lbs per hp.*

FW-190D9 B4 + MW50 Empty weight: 3,490 kg (7,694 lb) over 2100hp ie *3.664 lbs per hp*

Even the use of 100/150 (which provides 1850 hp?) won't close this weight to power ratio gap.

I am assuming that by the time they meet fuel burn off, ammunition and radio equipment would keep these relative ratios equal.

The FW 190D9 thus would have had a very potent acceleration and climb, especially around 360mph and 10,000-20,000ft.


----------



## Shortround6 (Feb 26, 2012)

GregP said:


> Shortround, there is an EASY way to measure combat speed ... read combat reports. The speeds (in IAS) are reported.
> 
> I won't get into a research project for someone else at this time (I have one myself that has been running for more than 15 years), but there are plenty of combat reports available to the person who looks for them. Reading about 10 - 15 combat reports for any single type will give the reader a good feel for the combat speed of a particular mount.



I have read the first 2` combat reports for the P-51 at Spitfire performance. Only three reported the speed with a numerical value. This could very well change in the next 20 reports however. 

You still are not "measuring" anything. you are collecting reports of speeds used, but it only gives a partial picture of the capabilities of the aircraft as does just quoting a "single" top speed of an aircraft or a single climb speed. 
If I read that a pilot was flying at 360mph (indicated) that does not tell me much unless I know the altitude at which he was flying. And I still don't know if he was in a gentile descent or a gentile ascent or banked or both. 
Flight test reports are often corrected for pitot head location correction, and further adjusted to reflect standard atmospheric conditions (59 degrees Fahrenheit/15 degrees Celsius and standard pressure) while combat reports are not. 

We also don't have a good definition of what "combat speed" even is. Granted it is the speed used in combat but on various aircraft if could depend on power settings ( many pilots did not go to WEP or emergency settings on sighting the enemy, depending on position (height difference-distance) and enemy aircraft type ). It could depend on control response, flying 30-60mph below max level speed could give better aileron response or need less rudder trim? 

Please note that I am not trying to say that pilots engaged at max level speeds most of the time. I would be surprised if they did (especially those on the receiving end of a bounce). many aircraft types could vary around 3% from aircraft to aircraft even in the same production run so absolute top speed differences of just a few mph don't mean much but a difference of 10% or more does mean something even if the speed in "combat" is 15-20% lower than max level speed. 

out of the extremely small sample that I read the pilot that used 350mph indicated was chasing a 109 up a shallow valley. Actual altitude unknown but probably under 2000ft. 350mph indicated isn't that far off the max speed of of P-51 at that altitude is it? 

one of the other reports simply says that it took 10 minutes of "balls out flying" to catch the enemy targets after which he throttle back to a small closing speed. Which is his combat speed? the " balls out flying" it took to get into firing position or the slower speed he used to get better accuracy and not over run the target as he fired? 

Another report gives a 5 minute pursuit of the enemy before getting into firing range as the enemy tried to get away by out running them. I may be wrong but I would think that in a 5 minute stern chase (even throwing in a few gentile curves) the P-51s worked up to whatever their max level speed was at that altitude or darn close to it. 

One report gives 450mph+ at 2700ft in a downward spiral or just leveling out from the downward spiral. this could very well be an exception. But it does point to the difficulty of using combat reports to "measure" speed. There are too many unknowns or variables. 

The max level speed does give a good indication (even if it is not a guarantee) of planes ability to engage or disengage in the horizontal plane or to get into or out of firing position even if it does not accurately describe the speed the plane is doing while in a deflection situation.


----------



## GregP (Feb 26, 2012)

Siegfried,

The Fw 190D-9 could make 428 to 432 mph at one and only one altitude, if factory fresh and clean witn internal ammunition, just like a P-51D could make 437 mph if factory fresh and clean with internal ammunition. These numbers are, of course, ±4 - 5 mph since no two aircraft were exactly identical. In combat, neither one was likely to get the chance to accelerate from whatever speed they aere flying to maximum and the chances of being at just the correct altitude were almost nil.

You seem to be counting on the maximum specs for combat performance and that almost never happened. If they entered the fight at cruise speed, then the fight happened at about cruise speed ±30-45 mph depending on whether the fight went up, went down, or stayed about level. There weren't many fights where the two protagonists (or more) stayed straight and level and allowed each other to accelerate to max speed before engaging.

You are perfectly free to believe whatever you want, but most combat reports I have read happened well below maximum speeds for the mounts involved.

Putting it another way, say YOU were the fighter pilot and you were over enemy territory. After an aerial encounter with an enemy formation, you find yourself alone and half a mile behind the enemy. Would you go to war emergency pwoer (or whatever the German equivalent was) and give chase while the enemy is descending toward his home airfield that is ringed with flak batteries ... or would you perchance take care of the engine, realize the fight is mostly over, and start looking for your friends to fly home with?

Shortround, some combat reports show a tail chase that goes on for some time ... not many. I'd say the these tail chases I have read happened at low altitude about 50% of the time because WWII aircraft combat was generally a deascending affiar ... until they got to ground level. After that, there's nowhere to go except at ground level. The first one who climbs will likely get shot down when he slows down in the climb. Sure, these things happened, but that type of combat was, by far, the exception rather than the norm.

Most aerial combat reports I have read were over in 30 seconds or less, and once the ambush was over, they broke off or got maybe one more victim before everyone was scattered. That wasn't true all the time, but was a large percentage of the time.

If you look at the top speed curves, all single-stage, single-speed fighters got faster up to the critical altitude and got slower if they went any higher. If the aircraft had a two-speed supercharger or a 2-stage supercharger, therre were two altitudes at which there was a relative maximum speed. The speed went up until the first critical altitude, then dropped until they shifted speeds or went to the next blower stage, and then the speed went up until reaching critical altitude, after which it drops off if going higher. 

My point is that there is only one or two altitudes at which any WWII piston fighter went at top speed, and it was un;ikely that a fight would happen exactly there.

My databse shows the P-51D at 437 mph at 25,000 feet. That's one entry. So it was slower at 30,000 feet and definitely slower on the deck. From an actual test flight chart, at sea level, the P-51D was about a 340 - 350 mph. The chart I looked at said 344 mph. The first supercharger stage was maxed out at about 16,400 feet where it could hit about 425 mph. The speed dropped of to about 410 mph at 22,500 feet and built back up to about 437 mph at about 30,000 feet.

Let's say the bomber stream was at 28,000 feet. The P-51D could make about 430 mph at that altitude, but the B-17's were cruising at about 180 - 200 mph and the P-51D escort was cruising at about 250 mph. If they encountered climbing Germans, the fight would be at about 250 - 300 mph. If they encountered German already at the same altitude, the fight would be at 280 - 330 mph. If they encountered Germans who had climbed abd were attacking from an altitude advantage, the fight would be at anywhere from 230 - 420 mph depending on the tactics employed by the attacking Germans.

If the Germans used a dive and zoom tactic, the Mustangs would be trying to climb and would be slow. Usually the Germans would ignore the escort and attack the bombers. That's why some portion of the escorts weer flown 4,000 - 6,000 feet above the bomber stream ... to take on the boom-and-zoom attackers. If the Germans used a dive and continue diving tactic to take a shot and get home, then the Mustangs would go tio high power and dive after the Germans, turning into a high-speed fight, at least on the way down. If the combat got down to ground level, the fight would be back to 300 - 330 mph after the extra energy gained from the dive was used up. I think that because no WWII aircraft could susting maximum speed while pulling 2 - 4 g's in a turn. ALL of them would slow down while maneuvering. There were very few German fighter units who would elect to stay at the Mustang's best altitude and fight in a more or less level planem, expecially if the Mustang escort was more numerous than the German attackers.

My fictional account above comes from listening to WWII fighter pilots ho give talks at the Planes of Fame Museum on a regular basis. Earlier this month we had a talk from two German pilots who flew the Me-262 and the He162. Our featured aircraft was the Heinkel He-162 Volksjagger. We repainted ours and it was looking quite spiffy in its new paint. They described their experiences, the tactics used, and the performance of their aircraft, and were very nice people to talk with.

So while not every encounter would be as described above, I believe a lot of then would be that way becasue the guys who were there and did it back in WWII say it was usually that way. Almost all have respect for their opponents and, in some cases, are friends with them today. Occasionally we get a guy who still hates the enemy, whether it be German or Japanese. We don't usually get any Germans or Japanese who still hate Americans or they would not agree to come give a talk at an American Museum.


----------



## davparlr (Feb 26, 2012)

Siegfried said:


> Noteworthy is the power to weight ratio, all data wiki.
> P-51D 100/130 Empty weight: 7,635 lb (3,465 kg) over 1720hp ie* 4.438 lbs per hp.*
> 
> FW-190D9 B4 + MW50 Empty weight: 3,490 kg (7,694 lb) over 2100hp ie *3.664 lbs per hp*
> ...


Although I have used this type of comparison, this is misleading. Aircraft are not like automobiles accelerating from 0-60 mph. They are typically accelerating from a relatively high speed, which in itself absorbs a significant amount of engine hp. The absolute power is not what drives acceleration, rather it is the excess power available. If we take the data you provide, and a sample we can see the difference. Both the P-51D and the Fw-190D-9 is at SL and max equal speed of, say 380 mph. Both planes use all available power to maintain this airspeed, the Mustang using 1720 hp and the D-9 using 2100 hp. There is no excess power available and neither aircraft is capable of accelerating in level flight. Now lets lower the airspeed to 350 mph, now there is excess airspeed. With some calculations, which I hope are close, the Mustang is going to use 1343 hp to maintain airspeed, the D-9 will require 1640 mph. Subtracting this from the power available and comparing the two, the D-9 has 83 hp excess at 350 mph. At 300 mph, this excess increases to 193 hp. accelerating an 8000 lb vehicle with 193 hp is not providing what I would call potent acceleration. Performance of the D-9 does improve with slower airspeed.

I think it can be comfortably said of two aircraft, at the same weight and engine power but with one aerodynamically cleaner than the other, that the cleaner one will use less hp at any given speed and therefore have more excess power and thus faster acceleration. Other variations such as engine performance, weight, and descent rate obviously affect this value.


----------



## davparlr (Feb 26, 2012)

Shortround6 said:


> "Combat speed" is going to lower but there is no real way to measure "combat speed". Any deviation from straight and level flight is going to slow the plane down, even a bank of 5-10 degrees is going to try to cause a gentile turn, the combination of the loss of lift and the drag will slow the plane down.



This comment is not for you Shortround6, but for young future pilots and aerodynamicist gamers and other participants. Lift does not change with angle of bank. It operates perpendicular to the wing. When a pilot banks, the vertical component of lift, the part that fights gravity, decreases. In order to maintain altitude, the pilot must raise the nose, increasing the angle of the wing to the wind. This is called angle of attack or alpha. Increasing angle of attack increases lift which also increases the vertical component and level flight is maintained. This increase of lift produces more drag, called induced drag.


----------



## GregP (Feb 27, 2012)

Lift does not change with angle of attack?

All my aerodynamics professors go it wrong? Damn ...


----------



## Siegfried (Feb 27, 2012)

davparlr said:


> Although I have used this type of comparison, this is misleading. Aircraft are not like automobiles accelerating from 0-60 mph. They are typically accelerating from a relatively high speed, which in itself absorbs a significant amount of engine hp. The absolute power is not what drives acceleration, rather it is the excess power available. If we take the data you provide, and a sample we can see the difference. Both the P-51D and the Fw-190D-9 is at SL and max equal speed of, say 380 mph. Both planes use all available power to maintain this airspeed, the Mustang using 1720 hp and the D-9 using 2100 hp. There is no excess power available and neither aircraft is capable of accelerating in level flight. Now lets lower the airspeed to 350 mph, now there is excess airspeed. With some calculations, which I hope are close, the Mustang is going to use 1343 hp to maintain airspeed, the D-9 will require 1640 mph. Subtracting this from the power available and comparing the two, the D-9 has 83 hp excess at 350 mph. At 300 mph, this excess increases to 193 hp. accelerating an 8000 lb vehicle with 193 hp is not providing what I would call potent acceleration. Performance of the D-9 does improve with slower airspeed.
> 
> I think it can be comfortably said of two aircraft, at the same weight and engine power but with one aerodynamically cleaner than the other, that the cleaner one will use less hp at any given speed and therefore have more excess power and thus faster acceleration. Other variations such as engine performance, weight, and descent rate obviously affect this value.



While I agree with your arguments over the relative effects, the point I wanted to get to was that at speeds lower than maxium the aerodynamic advantage of the P-51 in having lower parasitic drag *rapidly* reduces, with the *cube* of velocity, if you look at it in terms of excess power. This excess pwer then becomes available for acceleration or sustained high g turning flight.

Furthermore, in turning flight as the aircraft might be pulling as much as a sustained 6g, induced drag rapidly becomes the dominant form of drag. I doubt the P-51 had much advantage if any in having lower induced drag.

Ultimatly if an aircraft has more power it simply overcomes its disadvantage in terms of parasitic drag.

Having said that: it would seem MW-50 systems didn't become all that common till the end of Jan 1945 so most encounters with 100/150 Mustangs wouldn't have gone to the FW 190's advantage in terms of power to weight ratio. It's worth noting that C3 fuel alone (likely rarely if ever used opperationally, though there is the possibillity of it being used on the eastern front) produced the highest speed of 437mph in the FW 190D-9, somewhat more than B4 + MW50.

The limits on overall availabillity of high octane fuels certainly hampered German engine power. A series of alkylation plants to substantialy increase the quality and quantity of C3 fuel had started to come on line in 1943 (the plants design or construction had started in 1940) however the oil bombing campaign of early 1944 disrupted this. It made the Germans change tack and re-engineer their engines to opperate on the lower grade B4 (87 octane) fuel after plans had been made to convert to C3 (96/130). It foced them to reschedule production.


----------



## Siegfried (Feb 27, 2012)

davparlr said:


> Increasing angle of attack increases lift which also increases the vertical component and level flight is maintained. This increase of lift produces more drag, called induced drag.



It's worth noting a little appreciated fact. While lift increases approximatly* linearly *with increase angle of attack drag tends to increase with the square of angle of attack. Hence while a bigger wing has a disadvantage in terms of parasitic drag it will tend to gain in turning flight as induced drag become significant.

Afficianados of the Me 109 often point out that its slats would have added 40% extra lift under turning flight and this would have allowed it to out turn a Spitfire.

When slats open *they do not increase the lift or coefficient of lift* (hence no snatching when they deploy ) however they do allow an substantially increased angle of attack before stall occurs and it is this where the higher lift comes from. However the lift comes at a disproportionate (square) increase in drag which at some point will overwhelm the drag advantage in weight and parasitic drag of the smaller wing. The aircraft will slow down, loose lift and height etc.

The use of high aspect ratio wings (eg Ta 152H) or possibly elliptical planforms (Spitfire) also increases L/D ratio under high lift conditions. This is the reason the 'high altitude' Ta 152H actually did quite well at low altitude turning flight.

Heinrich Beauvais, a Rechlin test pilot (I believe a Cheif there), claimed that the Me 109 could turn inside a Spitifre, he wanted to meet Eric Brown to argue his point but Brown apparently didn't want to. I suspect Beauvais's technique was to turn in an elliptical path. This to me it would seem would convert the Me 109's kinetic energy into lift thus tempoarily overcomming the the higher induced drag. So long as there was power available to accelerate or climb the aircraft could recover its lost speed. So to me, it believable that an expert pilot might have managed to turn inside a spitfire for a single turn at least though not in a sustained turn.

Erwin Leykauf, LW fighter pilot, 33 victories:
_"It was a matter of feel. When one noticed the speed becoming critical - the aircraft vibrated - one had to ease up a bit, then pull back again, so that in plan the best turn would have looked like an egg or a horizontal ellipse rather than a circle. In this way one could out-turn the Spitfire - and I shot down six of them doing it." _


----------



## GregP (Feb 27, 2012)

I wish I had BOTH planes today so I could compare them! Now THAT would be fun, whichever one wins, the other one isn't far behind and is just as big a kick to fly.


----------



## davparlr (Feb 28, 2012)

GregP said:


> Lift does not change with angle of attack?
> 
> All my aerodynamics professors go it wrong? Damn ...



I said lift does not change with angle of *bank*.


----------



## davparlr (Feb 28, 2012)

Siegfried said:


> While I agree with your arguments over the relative effects, the point I wanted to get to was that at speeds lower than maxium the aerodynamic advantage of the P-51 in having lower parasitic drag *rapidly* reduces, with the *cube* of velocity, if you look at it in terms of excess power. This excess pwer then becomes available for acceleration or sustained high g turning flight.
> 
> Furthermore, in turning flight as the aircraft might be pulling as much as a sustained 6g, induced drag rapidly becomes the dominant form of drag. I doubt the P-51 had much advantage if any in having lower induced



I have no disagreement with what you have said. However, when aircraft pull three to six "g"s, the induced drag becomes so great that deceleration is fast and engine power, for ww2 aircraft, becomes comparatively small along with their differences. Wing efficiencies are indeed magnified and it would be best if the P-51 avoid this type of combat with high lift aircraft. The Fw-190D-9 and P-51D were voracious opponents and at low to med alt neither type offered significant advantage to the other and engagement circumstance and pilot proficiency were the important factor in victory, as usual.



> Ultimatly if an aircraft has more power it simply overcomes its disadvantage in terms of parasitic drag.


Yes

One advantage both the P-51 and P-47 had that is often overlooked is the command of combat energy, certainly in initial engagement. Both aircraft had great speed and high altitude performance, both factors of energy, which allowed the pilot to engage with superior energy. When expertly used, this controls the combat. The P-47 probably exceeds here but had the initial problem of mediocre low altitude performance the P-51 did not have. The only German aircraft I have seen that seemed to have advantage in speed and climb over the P-51 at all altitudes is the Bf-109G-10, I think, and certainly the Bf-109K. These, I believe, were pretty limited hot-rods.


----------



## davparlr (Feb 28, 2012)

Siegfried said:


> Erwin Leykauf, LW fighter pilot, 33 victories:
> _"It was a matter of feel. When one noticed the speed becoming critical - the aircraft vibrated - one had to ease up a bit, then pull back again, so that in plan the best turn would have looked like an egg or a horizontal ellipse rather than a circle. In this way one could out-turn the Spitfire - and I shot down six of them doing it." _



This one of the many things combat simulators lack. Aircraft communicates to the pilot in many ways including feel and sound. Vibrations, stick forces, g forces, response speeds, sounds, etc. all tell the pilot how things are going and the pilot becomes part of the aircraft, something I have never felt in a simulator.


----------



## davparlr (Feb 28, 2012)

duplicate post


----------



## GregP (Feb 28, 2012)

Sorry davparlr. I made an assumption of "anlge of attack" instead of READING the post. I stand corrected.

I hope to not DO that in the future. When I read it I thought, "Where did THAT come from?" and probably read what I was thinking you wrote instead of what you actually wrote.

Mea Culpa.


----------



## davparlr (Feb 29, 2012)

GregP said:


> Sorry davparlr. I made an assumption of "anlge of attack" instead of READING the post. I stand corrected.
> 
> I hope to not DO that in the future. When I read it I thought, "Where did THAT come from?" and probably read what I was thinking you wrote instead of what you actually wrote.
> 
> Mea Culpa.



no sweat. I often bang on my keyboard before my mind is engaged!


----------



## GregP (Feb 29, 2012)

By the way davparlr, your location says "Southern California." Where are you located? I'm in Rancho Cucamonga.

Any chance of you making out to Chino some Saturday to see the Planes of Fame Museum? Like to meet you.


----------



## Siegfried (Feb 29, 2012)

GregP said:


> I wish I had BOTH planes today so I could compare them! Now THAT would be fun, whichever one wins, the other one isn't far behind and is just as big a kick to fly.



Despite my high respect for the Me 109 I am inclined to accept that the Spitfire was the bette raircraft. It seems from mid 1942 to early 1945 the Me 109 lagged in power. If the Me 109 had of had the same power as the Spitfire I might have been the better aircraft. However, if you are going to be short of power it is more easily accomodated by an aircraft such as the Spitfire.


----------



## jim (Feb 29, 2012)

Siegfried said:


> Despite my high respect for the Me 109 I am inclined to accept that the Spitfire was the bette raircraft. It seems from mid 1942 to early 1945 the Me 109 lagged in power. If the Me 109 had of had the same power as the Spitfire I might have been the better aircraft. However, if you are going to be short of power it is more easily accomodated by an aircraft such as the Spitfire.


 
Mid war 109s suffered from aerodynamic point of view as well. Simply from middle 42 to early 44, 109 received not one significant improvement in any way, engine or airframe or controls. 
In WW1 germany also lacked competitive high power engines but still ,by excellent work in airframes and wings , created aircrafts fully equal (if not superior ) to the alleid fighters and pilot friendly (Fokker DVII , DVIII, Siemens DIV) .But in DVII case, it was MvR who had the final word how should be build. In WW2 aircraft programs was a chaos between Udet, Milch, RLM , Goring, aircraft companies, Hitler, political friends etc...Somewhre among them was the General der Jagdflieger but without any important impact.
I dont know if the Spitfire was overall better but certainly had a more orthodox and logical evolution


----------



## riacrato (Mar 1, 2012)

Siegfried said:


> However, if you are going to be short of power it is more easily accomodated by an aircraft such as the Spitfire.


I don't know how you came to that conclusion: The Spitfire is a larger and (on average) heavier aircraft that, from what I gather, overall produces more drag (mainly lift-induced). With the same power, the Me 109 should always have a higher top speed and better acceleration. Climb can be debated. So unless you change your whole air combat doctrine from what it was historically to a "Japanese" one (probably not a good idea) you end up with an aircraft performing worse under most circumstances.

The reason the Me 109 suffered form late '42 on are many:
- problems of the DB605 not being solved early enough (though I think that point is much overstated) 
- an ever increasing focus on production simplification in lieu of performance improvement
- the need to make a high performance "race horse" fighter capable of operating on the rough fields of the eastern front
- the need to combat heavy bombers, thus a task the airframe simply wasn't very suited for

So imo besides the engine problems the airframe simply had no margin for getting heavier or bulkier equipment.


----------



## Siegfried (Mar 1, 2012)

jim said:


> Mid war 109s suffered from aerodynamic point of view as well. Simply from middle 42 to early 44, 109 received not one significant improvement in any way, engine or airframe or controls.
> In WW1 germany also lacked competitive high power engines but still ,by excellent work in airframes and wings , created aircrafts fully equal (if not superior ) to the alleid fighters and pilot friendly (Fokker DVII , DVIII, Siemens DIV) .But in DVII case, it was MvR who had the final word how should be build. In WW2 aircraft programs was a chaos between Udet, Milch, RLM , Goring, aircraft companies, Hitler, political friends etc...Somewhre among them was the General der Jagdflieger but without any important impact.
> I dont know if the Spitfire was overall better but certainly had a more orthodox and logical evolution




The Me 109G1 and G2 weren't too bad from an aerodynamic point of view, they didn't have the gun bulges yet and retained the retractable tail wheel and such refined aerodynamic features which came across from the Me 109F however with the DB605A engine restricted to 1.3 ata (about 1350 metric hp) the Me 109 was significantly behined the Merlin 61, Merlin 66 and Merlin 70 that equiped contemporary Spitfire IX's and VIII and offered up 1500-1720hp at a higher altitude.

From the Me 109G2 onwards all sorts of aerodynamic degradations progressively appeared in the G3, G4m G5, G6: cowling bulges when the 13.2mm guns replaced the 7.62's, wing bulges when the main wheels were enlarged, loss of the retractable tail wheel when it was enlarged, larger more draggy aerials.

The result is that the speed from 400.5mph for and Me 109G1 to 387mph for an Me 109G6. Speed of the Me 109G-6 went back up to 397mph in the second half of 1943 when the engine was rated to 1.42ata boost after faltering attempts.

Had The Me 109G6 retained a retractable tail wheel and had the gun bulges been engineered to be smooth (as was possible and even flight evaluated) the Me 109G6 probably would have made 397mph at 1.3 ata and 410 at 1.42 ata or thereabouts.

Had the engine produced 1.42ata from the begining it also clearly would have been much better.

It's hard to blame German engine manufacturers given the fuel they had to use and if the DB601A1a vs DB601N is a worthwhile comparison then about 10% more power could be extracted from the early 96/115 grade C3 fuel as opposed the 87 grade B4. The BMW 801 did rather well so its not quite right to say they had no good engines.

To me it seems compromising the the airframe (gun bulges, loss of retractable tail wheel) as opposed to actually improving let alone maintaining aerodynamic qualities was a mistake. It would have been worth waiting a few months longer for a proper solution.

By accepting compromised solutions tooling and parts promulgated throughout the manufacturing system and became even harder to achieve a proper modification.

Contemporary Spitfires had 10-20mph more speed and 10%-15% more power being able to sustain 408mph , this even after the DB605A1a had been released to 1.42 ata.

Engine power didn't improved till the DB605AM of March 1944 which offered around 1700hp, aerodynamic improvements came at the same time, but only on the versions with the enlarged supercharger of the DB605ASM which offered the same power but at higher altitudes. This is when the Me 109 restored its competiveness but it still wasn't enough as the new engines still went into airframes with the same drag issues and much potential was wasted.

I think this came at a considerable cost in pilot attrition.


----------



## davparlr (Mar 1, 2012)

GregP said:


> By the way davparlr, your location says "Southern California." Where are you located? I'm in Rancho Cucamonga.
> 
> Any chance of you making out to Chino some Saturday to see the Planes of Fame Museum? Like to meet you.


 
I live in Carson about three mile south of the Goodyear blimp.

I've been to Chino several times even went to the May airshow a couple of years back. I was absolutely amazed. I never thouht I would see some of those planes much less see them fly. I am planning on taking my son some Saturday. I would be delighted to meet you. You work there, right?


----------



## GregP (Mar 1, 2012)

Actually no. I am a volunteer at the Planes of Fame and do aircraft restoration work on Saturdays. I work for Joe Yancey building Allison 1710 V-12 engines.

If you want a neat trip, come any Saturday and ask where the restoration hangar is. Once there, ask for Greg Pascal. I'm there every Saturday working on the Bell YP-59A Airacomet. I'd be happy to show you around. Lately I have been helping out the guys on a North American O-47 and T-6 cowling repair (just worn out ... so new cowling formers are needed and almost completed).

If you want a neat second trip, we can take a 25-minute ride to Rialto and I'll show you Joe Yancey's Allison shop. We have about 100 Allison engine ready for restoration and you can see them whole, in pieces, and in various states of assembly, including a complete, ready-to-run left turning engine from Lefty Garnder's White Lightning P-38 on a run stand. It is Joe's airshow engine.

The Museum opens at 9:00 am. We have an event on the first Saturday of every month. The featured aircraft on the first Saturday of April is our P-38 Lightning.

Best regards, - Greg


----------



## davparlr (Mar 2, 2012)

GregP said:


> Actually no. I am a volunteer at the Planes of Fame and do aircraft restoration work on Saturdays. I work for Joe Yancey building Allison 1710 V-12 engines.
> 
> If you want a neat trip, come any Saturday and ask where the restoration hangar is. Once there, ask for Greg Pascal. I'm there every Saturday working on the Bell YP-59A Airacomet. I'd be happy to show you around. Lately I have been helping out the guys on a North American O-47 and T-6 cowling repair (just worn out ... so new cowling formers are needed and almost completed).
> 
> ...


Thanks. I sent you a private message with my email address. I would love to see those places.


----------



## oldcrowcv63 (Mar 2, 2012)

davparlr said:


> I live in Carson about three mile south of the Goodyear blimp.



Get a lot of shade by goodyear overcast do you?


----------



## oldcrowcv63 (Mar 2, 2012)

GregP said:


> ...If you want a neat trip, come any Saturday and ask where the restoration hangar is. Once there, ask for Greg Pascal. I'm there every Saturday working on the Bell YP-59A Airacomet.



Greg, 

At the risk of a reprimand for departing from the thread's theme... What engine are you using in the retored Airacomet? Surely not the original GE I-16?


----------



## GregP (Mar 2, 2012)

Hi oldcorw,

We are using two overhauled General Elexctric I-16 engines that have been fitted with mnodern bearings. I thought all the lines around the I-16 were either fuel or oil, but there is one line that has a mixture of compressed air and oil mist, and it is played right onto the bearings to keep them lubricated. We resotred the engines in the 1990's and have had them pickled since then. When we were done, they started and ran just fine and made rated thrust.

We have one "spare," and it will likely go into our Ryan FR-1 Fireball when we get through with the YP-59A. We recently (well, twp yeara go anyway) obtained a copy of the Ryan Fireball airframe maintenance and repair manual, and it is a real candidate for reatoration to flight status in the future ... with an I-16 (later called a J-31).

OK, end of departure from thread. If we want to discuss this further, let's start a new thread, OK?


----------



## mikeyz99 (Jan 7, 2013)

jim said:


> Mr GregP
> 1) Its an extraordinary claim that a piston engine airplane with maximum speed 503mph could cruise at 490mph. In my opinion is totaly unacceptable
> 2) Ta 152 wing profile provided extra edge in agility
> 3) In a quiq search in Internet found max speed pf 480-490mph. In "P47 in action" indeed says 503mph
> ...


 
Try looking at: Republic XP-72 Super Thunderbolt High-Altitude Fighter - History, Specs and Pictures - Military Aircraft

Author there reports the 480mph speed was in flight testing WITHOUT the turbos engaged! Keep in mind we're talking about a 3500hp aircraft. The XP-47J flew 504 in level flight.

They estimated top speed with the contra-rotating props at 550mph. Though neither prototype broke 500mph in the flight testing that was done.


----------



## Jabberwocky (Jan 7, 2013)

mikeyz99 said:


> Author there reports the 480mph speed was in flight testing WITHOUT the turbos engaged!



Given that the R-4360-13 engine the XP-72 was powered by was fitted with a supercharger (a single stage one at that), instead of a turbocharger, that's entirely possible...

There are a lot of conflicting reports about the top speed of the XP-72. Three general speed brackets are usually given: 480 or 483 mph with "broken" supercharger at sea level or 3200 ft. 490/493/494 mph at 25,000/33,000/33,500 ft with a two stage, fluid coupled supercharger. 502/504/505/507 mph at 33,000/34,500 ft with a turbosupercharger. 

The higher two figures are probably projections, for various iterations to be fitted with R-4360-19s. Bodie's 'Thunderbolt' has a test pilot quote that states the aircraft never broke 500 mph in level flight.



mikeyz99 said:


> They estimated top speed with the contra-rotating props at 550mph. Though neither prototype broke 500mph in the flight testing that was done.


 
Top speed with contra-rotating props is usually *lower* not higher. Look at the various late-war Spitfire/Spiteful prototypes for examples. 

The Republic estimate of 550 mph was the estimate of the upper limit that they could take the airframe. 505 mph was projected for a 4000 hp version, powered with a R-4360-19 with an infinitely variable 'fluid coupled' supercharger. 540-550 mph was also bullied about for a turbocompounded version of the P-72.


----------



## wuzak (Jan 7, 2013)

Jabberwocky said:


> Given that the R-4360-13 the XP-72 was powered by was fitted with a supercharger (a single stage one at that), instead of a turbocharger, that's entirely possible...



The XP-72 was fitted with an auxiliary supercharger - mounted in the rear, where the turbo was on the P-47 and driven by an extension shaft. It may, or may not, have been connected.

The R-4360 would require two of the turbo systems that the P-47 carried - two C-series turbos plus the associated intercoolers and plumbing.


----------



## Aozora (Jan 8, 2013)

This is what Bodie's book on the P-47 says about the XP-72 series:
















Bodie says Carl Bellinger got to 480 mph at sea-level without using War Emergency Power, and the engine fitted was not the definitive -19 series with the "remote blower" unit. There has to be some doubt about this claim; nevertheless the XP-72 was capable of flying faster than the production Ta-152. Both were probably close to the limits of piston-engined fighter performance without the development of radically different propeller technology. Gross weight of the XP-72 was 14,760 lbs; production aircraft would probably have been heavier. 

(The XP-47J flew at 505 mph, according to Bodie, "at a density altitude of 34,450 feet with 2,730 hp." During official trials it reached 484 mph @ 25,350 feet and 2,770 hp; weight = 12,400 lbs).



Siegfried said:


> The Ta 152 was running well ahead of the XP-72 in terms of timeline.



While Siegfried stated that the "timeline" of the Ta-152 was well ahead of that of the XP-72, he's wrong on that score: the proper Ta-152H prototype, the Fw 190 V-33/U1, didn't fly until July 1944, while the C series prototype, Fw 190 V-21/U1 first flew in November 1944. The first XP-72 flew in February 1944 and the second in June.


----------



## wuzak (Jan 8, 2013)

Aozora said:


> Bodie says Carl Bellinger got to 480 mph at sea-level without using War Emergency Power, and the engine fitted was not the definitive -19 series with the "remote blower" unit. There has to be some doubt about this claim;



480mph at sea level....very unlikely.

The whole point of the remote supercharger was to maintain the CoG as per P-47 (which had the rear mounted turbocharger). If it wasn't fitted there must have been quite a bit of ballast.


----------



## wuzak (Jan 8, 2013)

This report has the maximum speed at sea level of a P-47D as 333mph with 2210hp.

For an XP-72 to do 480mph at sea level would require over 6600hp assuming the same drag as a P-47D, or a 55% reduction in drag with the early version R-4360, rated at 3000hp.


----------



## pattern14 (Jul 14, 2013)

Comparisons are entertaining, and you always end up learning something previously unknown. Rgeardless of conflicting data from biased sources, can it be categorically stated that the Ta 152 was the fastest operational piston driven fighter of WW2? There will always be examples of aircraft that achieved higher top speeds, but to the best of my knowledge, none of these saw combat. The developmental potential of the Ta 152 had not been achieved by 1945, but the advent of the Jet age made any more progress in piston driven fighter aircraft academic. From all accounts, considering the the chaos that was Germany at the time, it was a remarkable achievement.


----------



## GregP (Jul 14, 2013)

Good point, Pattern14.

The arrival of viable turbojets made the horendously-complex large piston engines obsolete, especially in light of the difference in maintenance requirements. I'd put up with engine changes in jets before i'd ask to change 56 spark plugs.

The Ta-152H might have been the fastest combat aircaft of WWII, though the P-47N wasn't behind by enough to matter in an encounter. 467 mph versus 472 isn't enough to hang your life on, even if your name is Harry Houdini. In point of fact it was obsolete with the arrival of the jets, but this fact ahd not caught up to reality by mid-1945, and the piston fighters were still a force to be respected, especially in operations with any significant range requirement where the new jets were simply not a factor yet.

In the war the Ta-152 had a below-average success with 7 victories versus 4 losses in one month of combat, but the potential was clearly there had the war gone on. The P-47N DID make the war and did make combat, but not in Europe. It's a what if and the 43 or so Ta-152's that made combat could never have hoped to comtend with the 1,816 P-47N's produced.

But one on one it would have been very interesting for both pilots. It would have been great to do that in mock combat, but it would not be worth anyopne's life to find out for real, at least to me. We know what happened and Ta-152 development was aborted before any significant progress was made in debugging the first models. I'm sure it could have been developed since the planes that were fielded were the first production variants and were really just a rather large number of prototypes with no spare parts.

Conversely, the XP-72 could also have been developed into a first-rate combat piston fighter ... but, by then, the P-80 could have been in squadron service. Of course, it would NOT have made ot up to 50,000 feet, but the Ta-152 would be the generally lower-performing mount of the two. 

Since I brought in the P-80, the Germans would probably have fielded the Me 262 instead of the Ta-152 themselves, and we'd have had a jet war, with the pistons fighting each other, and the P-72 vs. Ta-152 could have happened if the war had gone on for some time. Thank heavens it didn't. 

I don't believe this comparison could ever really be addressed with any degree of what might be called accuracy. If the data avilable for the Ta-152 isn't exactly great, think of how little real information is out there for the XP-72! As I stated about 8 pages ago, I think the two would have been a good matchup, but the pilots would make the difference.


----------



## Procrastintor (Jul 14, 2013)

I think with even pilots the XP-72 would win a dogfight, but it would be close for sure. And if the 152 pilot is even marginally more skilled, or vice versa, that would be the decider. Outside of a dogfight, the 72 would be better suited for ground attack obviously (4x 37mm would tear all but the mighty Tiger II to shreds), but the 152 would be a better bomber interceptor due to its speed and altitude, and thats what both sides needed respectively, the USAF needed multirole, the LW needed bomber interceptors.


----------



## tyrodtom (Jul 14, 2013)

The 37mm M4 cannon had a MAXIMUM armor penetration of 1 inch at 500 yards.
The Tiger 2 had a MINIMUM armor thickness of 25MM ( that real close to 1 inch) and maximum armor thickness of about 7 inches in forward areas and the turret.
That doesn't sound like a formulae for shredding the Tiger IMO.


----------



## GregP (Jul 14, 2013)

All the 37 mm cannon would really have to do is disable one tread and it would then be a sitting target waitning to be dispatched. Certainly a still-sangerous target, but a target nevertheless. 

A tank was NOT a good place to be when aircraft with big guns were about and snoopping around for someplkace to expend unsued ammunition.

In American Combat Planes by Ray Wagner (1980) the XP-72 is shown with a top speed of 490 mph, 300 mph cruise, 20,000 feet in 5 minutes. These data are much more in line with what I expected from a prototype with the high altitude systems not figured out yet.


----------



## Shortround6 (Jul 14, 2013)

The _need_ for the P-72 tended to fade as the R-2800 was brought even higher power levels. 

"Two XP-72 prototypes were ordered on June 18, 1943"

P-47ds with water injection were pulling 2300+hp in Oct. 1943. Later Versions went over 2500hp and the M and N versions could hit 2800hp with WEP which is getting close to the 3000hp offered by the R-4360. Granted the R-4360 is at military power and not WEP but BOTH the 2800hp R-2800s and the early R-4360s were a bit lacking in reliability. The R-4360 may have been running behind schedule also.


----------



## pattern14 (Jul 23, 2013)

Just ordered a book from amazon on the Ta 152, by Dietmar Harmann. Going by the reviews, it is THE book to get on this plane, in terms of factual content. Then again, maybe his mates reviewed it favourably for a case of fine German beer' so I guess I'll have to read it for myself. Because I usually spend time in the R/C modelling forums, it never fails to amaze me on the amount of misinformation and urban myths about advanced German aircraft. A lot of the stuff is often just outright fabrication. " virtually unstoppable Me 262's", Arado Ar234 immune to allied fighters, He 162's with combat kills etc etc. The vast majority of us were not there when it happened, so we have to rely on historical evidence and recorded statements and military records. As a kid in the 1960's and 70's, all I had was library books and monthly magazines from the local newsagent, with stories and tales of WW2 air combat and such. Now we have an information overload on the net, where Wikipaedia will provide information on just about anything, enabling anyone to become an armchair expert. Such is progress.


----------



## GregP (Jul 23, 2013)

Wiki is not a very reliable source ... anyone can write almost anything and get it into Wiki.

But a review on the Ta-152 book would be nice.

The thing is, hoiw do you know if anything in it is true? There are people who claim to have unearthed completely new and unpublished information about the Ta-152, but they're mum on the data AND the source.

The Ta-152 seems to show rather ordinary speed at military power but is fast when running at WER with WM-50 or GM-1, but that power level was very short lived and it was mostly right in the same ballpark as most late-war aircraft. The Bf 109K might have been as fast or faster if the Ta-152 wasn't at WER power.

I'll give the Ta-152 very highmarks for a high-altitude fighter, but it really didn't get to fulfill that role in the war and, in fact, didn't fulfill much of any role, being in combat for only about a month without spare parts. But as a technical achievement, it was impressive and had undoubted development potential ... if anyone had been interested. 

If the Allies had stayed with piston fighters for any length of time after WWII, they probably should have looked long and hard at it ... but we were all agog over jets and really let the pistons in development when the war ended become the last piston fighter generation except for the Hispano Ha.112, the Doflug 3802/3, and the really impressive FMA I.Ae.30 Namcu. We even let the formibable Boeing F8B die and only kept piston attack planes like the Douglas Skyraider, whose roots were firmly in WWII.

All the front-line fighters turned into jets. More than anything else, the fascination with jets is what spelled the doom of the great piston fighters. It took them awhile to discover that high speeds weren't friendly to ground attack munition accuracy. 

Wonder how the turboprop attack planes of the last 50 years would have fared in WWII?


----------



## Milosh (Jul 24, 2013)

pattern, there is also a book, iirc, by Eagle Publications on the Ta152. Good reviews.


----------



## Jabberwocky (Jul 24, 2013)

It would be a really interesting exercise to try and design (or re-design) a WW2 style attack aircraft with modern aircraft materials technology. 

You could probably use existing aerospace alloys (aluminium-lithium, titanium-aluminium, scandium-aluminium) along with carbon-fibre and glass-fibre composites to cut strucutral weight by about a third. Not to mention using modern construction/fastening/welding techniques to elminate rivets and improve surface finish.

Engine weight would go down too. A modern 3000-3500 hp class turboprop typically weighs less than 1200 lb, less than half of the weight of WW2 high displacement/high power radials.


----------



## GregP (Jul 24, 2013)

Good stuff Jabberwockey.

I have thought that a modern turboprop Skyraider, similar to the Douglas A2D Skyshark ... but with a modern, reliable turboprop, would be a really great addition to the inventory, especially with a modern rotary cannon or two, smart ordnance, and modern avionics. 

The turboprops they used at the time had terminal gearbox issues, but today the solution is much easier and I think it would be a real asset. There's also nothing stopping them from installing even MORE power in the same airframe. There is no such thign as too much power, is there? You can always throttle back ...


----------



## cimmex (Jul 24, 2013)

IMO, this is no good idea. The fascination of WWII planes lies in the performance they could reach with the material and technology of the time. If the design would be directed by the current material and technology the result would be a Eurofighter, F-22 or similar.
cimmex


----------



## GregP (Jul 24, 2013)

Try dropping bombs in a jungle with your Eurofighter.

One or two losses would be an enormous cost relative to a limited warfare turboprop attack plane. And the Turboprop would probably do as good a job of it, being designed for it and maybe having substantially the same attack avionics for far less cost.

It wouldn't have ALL the same avionics or software but, for the purposes of putting ordnance on target, probably would do just fine.


----------



## Jabberwocky (Jul 24, 2013)

Drifting way of topic now (we've gone from actual WW2 high-alt, high performance aircraft to a theoretical, modern low altitude bomb truck) but its an interesting topic.

There are a couple of modern-ish military turboprops designed for ground attack. The Embraer Super Tucano probably fits the bill best - a two-seat turboprop, with a 1600 shaft hp turboprop, modern avionics, a pair of wing mounted .50s and the ability to carry 1500 kg (thats 3300 lb to those of you still stuck in the Imperial system) across five hardpoints. If Beechcraft ever gets out the way, the USAF might even buy 20 of them.

Its probably not fully representative of how a completely modern turboprop would perform though. The Super Tucano is a development of a development of a trainer aircraft designed in the mid 1970s. Even then, Embraer took a pretty low-risk approach with the technology.

The US Aircraft A-67 Dragon might be a bit more representative, but it seems like the project is dead.


----------



## GregP (Jul 24, 2013)

I tried to start a thread about turboprop attack planes some time back. People didn't buy into it, but I do.

Back to WWII Superbolt and Ta-152. Wish they had built the Superbolt, but it was not to be.

They didn't deliver many more Ta-152's either, with about 43 that can be accounted for. Tough to compare things with so little data.

Had they both been developed, it is a shoe-in that there would have been more Superbolts. One on one, it would probably have depended on who saw the other one first or which one had the advantageous starting position ... I think they would have both been quite good had they been developed and the bugs worked out sufficiently to be service aircraft. The bugs were not worked out of the Ta-152 by any means and the Superbolt was built in a total quantity of 2, making it very interesting to me, but hardly something I can get a lot of data on for a good comparison with something. It's hard enough to get good data on the Ta-152 and it actually saw combat, even if not much.

Given the choice, I might have preferred the Boeing F8B but, again, there is so little data that it is hard to say.

Had jets not gotten to be the darling of the military, the R-4360 might have developed into a real powerhouse, but the arrival of the jet engine curtailed the continued development of big, complex pistons and the R-4360 never got developed into what it might have been. Beither did the R-3350 or the R-2800. All might have seen further develpment had jets not come along. It was not to be.

I'm sure the Jumos, DB's, and German radials also had development potential ... had the war been taken into a truce. But, by then, the Germans were on the jet bandwagon, too. Even had the war ended gracefully (wars seldom do that, though) the Ta-152 would have been one of the last gasps of the German piston fighter lineage ... everyone would have been developing jets ... Messerschmitt, Heinkel, BV, Arado, etc. Wonder what a jet-powered Bf 109 would look like? Surely the fin and rudder would finally change and maybe get a trim tab!


----------



## Aozora (Jul 24, 2013)

GregP said:


> I'm sure the Jumos, DB's, and German radials also had development potential ... had the war been taken into a truce. But, by then, the Germans were on the jet bandwagon, too. Even had the war ended gracefully (wars seldom do that, though) the Ta-152 would have been one of the last gasps of the German piston fighter lineage ... everyone would have been developing jets ... Messerschmitt, Heinkel, BV, Arado, etc. Wonder what a jet-powered Bf 109 would look like? Surely the fin and rudder would finally change and maybe get a trim tab!


 
This was what a projected jet powered 109 might have looked like, complete with changed fin and rudder with a trim tab (unfortunately parts of this scan are slightly faded, but the general idea is clear enough):






(from Walter Shick Ingolf Meyer _Luftwaffe Secret Projects: Fighters 1939-1945_ LUFTWAFFE SECRET PROJECTS FIGHTERS 1939-1945 (v. 1): Walter Schick, Ingolf Meyer, Elke Weal, John Weal: 9781857800524: Amazon.com: Books)


----------



## DonL (Jul 24, 2013)

Aozora said:


> This was what a projected jet powered 109 might have looked like, complete with changed fin and rudder with a trim tab (unfortunately parts of this scan are slightly faded, but the general idea is clear enough):
> 
> 
> 
> ...



I don't think that there would be any chance for such a project.
The Me 262 was in production and "in" development to further steps.
Also the Horton Ho 229 was ordered from the RLM and the first prototype was functioning in several testflights, so I have no clue if she would have later the same problems as all pure flying wings without a computer. 
Also the Ta 183 was on a good way from it's development and was waiting for the big Heinkel Hs011 jet engine.

I think that's were the most promising developments for fighter and fighter bomber aircrafts, I don't think the RLM would bet on an old aerodynamik design.


----------



## drgondog (Jul 24, 2013)

The 109 airframe was not near as clean as the 262. Why start a new program with a step backwards?


----------



## riacrato (Jul 24, 2013)

IIRC it was just a fall-back proposal by Messerschmitt in case they encountered unsolvable problems with the 262's airframe. Never pursued seriously because there was no need.


----------



## pattern14 (Jul 26, 2013)

There were plans to mod the He 280 with a single rudder as well, but this was yet another German jet that appeared to lead the way, then vanished into obscurity. There was also a FW 190 that was considered for single jet conversion, but this was still born as well. Somebody on the Wattflyer modelling forum built a scale version using EDf power that appeared to fly well, but its all academic really. Desperation seems to be the mother of invention more than necessity when it comes to the Luftwaffe.


----------



## GregP (Jul 26, 2013)

Yeah, they designed a LOT but waited until it was too late to MAKE most of them.

Of course, the war may have had a little something to do with that, too ...


----------



## riacrato (Jul 27, 2013)

If you are referring to Projekt II it has the same background. Problems were anticipated with the new jet airframes and these were the fallback solutions. Projekt II was cancelled in 1943. Desperation had nothing to do with any of it. They simply had outlived their purpose, when the Me 262 airframe proved to work pretty well.


----------



## swampyankee (Jul 27, 2013)

You mean something like the XA2D? Considering that AD drivers shot down MiG-15s and MiG-17s, I'd give the Skyshark very good odds against any aircraft that served in WW2, except that the crappy engine would probably fail, turning the A2D into a very poor sailplane. Heck, I'd give the AD pretty good odds, especially at low altitudes, against any WW2 fighter.


----------



## FLYBOYJ (Jul 27, 2013)

swampyankee said:


> You mean something like the XA2D? Considering that AD drivers shot down MiG-15s and MiG-17s, I'd give the Skyshark very good odds against any aircraft that served in WW2, except that the crappy engine would probably fail, turning the A2D into a very poor sailplane. Heck, I'd give the AD pretty good odds, especially at low altitudes, against any WW2 fighter.



AFAIK Skyraiders never shot down MiG-15s. Korean War AD kills were against recips. The very famous Vietnam kills against 2 MiG-17s (Johnson/ Harman share, Patton) were more because of the MiG driver's incompetency than anything else.


----------



## swampyankee (Jul 27, 2013)

FLYBOYJ said:


> AFAIK Skyraiders never shot down MiG-15s. Korean War AD kills were against recips. The very famous Vietnam kills against 2 MiG-17s (Johnson/ Harman share, Patton) were more because of the MiG driver's incompetency than anything else.



Yeah, the MiG drivers got into a turning flight with a straight-winged, strictly subsonic attack aircraft. This is, as you say, the result of incompetency. The point I was trying to make was that the AD was not a totally unmaneuverable bomb truck; with no external load, I suspect it would be a very nasty opponent for a piston-engined fighter, especially at low altitude.


----------



## FLYBOYJ (Jul 27, 2013)

swampyankee said:


> Yeah, the MiG drivers got into a turning flight with a straight-winged, strictly subsonic attack aircraft. This is, as you say, the result of incompetency. The point I was trying to make was that the AD was not a totally unmaneuverable bomb truck; with no external load, I suspect it would be a very nasty opponent for a piston-engined fighter, especially at low altitude.


I know (knew, one is deceased) two people who flew them. At lower speed they maneuvered well for their size. Against WW2 aircraft? No way! I think a P-47 had a higher wing loading, aside from that, it was a brick compared to say a P-51. Besides the AD was designed as ground pounder, it's gun sight was bored for ground targets and it was a bit difficult to shoot an aerial target (although as we see some were successful). I believe during the Vietnam shoot downs of MiG-17s, one of the pilots ignored his gunsight and sighted his target with his eyeballs.


----------



## MACHIA (Jul 27, 2013)

To my knowledge the XP-72 used a 3,500 hp Pratt Whitney radial engine and attained a speed of 504mph.


----------



## pattern14 (Jul 27, 2013)

By 1944 and early '45 desperation was the order of the day. The Emergency Fighter programme that saw numerous submissions trying to stem the tide of massed bomber formations was not called "Emergency" for lack of a suitable title. In the earlier years, up to 1943, jet aircraft had low priority, as Luftwaffe fighter aircraft could hold their own against anything they came up against. And according to all the information I have managed to find, the TA 152 was superior to all allied types above 30,000ft, regardless of how few were produced. They also did better for themselves than their jet contemporary, the He 162 Spatz. which really was a desperate measure. They achieved no kills whatsoever, and were a complete operational failure. I know which aircraft I would have preferred in those last dark days.


----------



## GregP (Jul 28, 2013)

I seriously doubt the Ta-152 was ever the best. I do NOT doubt the potential, but they fought for a month and two were left flyable when the war ended. There were no spare parts to be had and the bugs had yet to be worked out. Once they WERE worked out, I have no doubt that a well-made, debugged Ta-152 would be excellent at any altitude, particularly at high altitude. Unfortunately, such and animal never existed.

The planes that got to the combat units were built largely by forced labor and were subject to the ills that befall ALL brand new aircraft, and probably more due to sabotage by the forced labor crews. I'm sure several of the active Ta-152's, if not maybe half, had at LEAST one good mission if not several, but they were down if a starter or generator went out due to no parts, never mind if a Ta-152-specific part broke, like a control linkage or something equally mundane.

So athough I am a big fan of the Ta-152 (and have a very nice CAD drawing of my own complete with rivets and hinge lines), I am a serious doubter of combat performance claims. WWII, from the European side, started 1 Sep 1939 and lasted until 9 May 1945. A plane that fought in numbers never exceeding a combined total of 25 for one month will never be the best at anything in my book. Might LOOK like it on paper, but was a flash in the pan that disappeared almost as soon as it ignited. A promise unfulfilled. 7 victories and 4 losses (some claim 10 victories but the last 3 are outside the dates that confirmed Ta-152 kills can be verified plus the pilot (Loos) stated he never shot down a plane while flying the Ta-152).

We have only sketchy test data and very little in the way of operational data. Most of the flight reports I have seen translated only gave general impressions (better than my opponent ... but was it better? or was the pilot better? it was a combat report, not specific things like time for a level horizontal turn, roll rate, top speed without GM-1 / MW-51, and top speed with boost. It was definitely not a flight test report with comparison to the latest British or American fighters side-by-side. The Ta-152 climb rate I have seen quoted is mediocre at about 3,700 feet per minute or so. Lots of late-war fighters were better ... even the late A6M Zeros. I've never SEEN a quoted Ta-152 cruise speed, but have seen that at full thropttle, without GM-1 or MW-50 boost, it was about 435 mph or so at medium altitudes, give or take a few mph, and the Ta-152H had greatly reduced roll authority at low to medium altitudes. I'd expect it to be quite good at 35,000 feet, especially in roll and turning, given the aspect ratio and span loading. The armament was never a question, superb.

So the potential was undoubtedly there but never really realized in the war, making the claim seem like wishful thinking from 68 years on. A really neat thing to do would be to get one flying. The only one I know of is in the Smithsonian Museum and isnt' going anywhere anytime soon ... so there we are ... and IT probably still has all the early bugs in it since it was one of the ones built by forced labor at the time, and the supply of spares is definitely no better than it was inApril 1945. Considerably worse in fact since the tooling is long gone.

I'd happily participate in building one, but we'd need a good engine and prop and some fancy metal casting or forging capabilities to proceed. Sounds like an expensive 20 year project to me, probably only from plans ... IF they are available. Anybody have a spare $10M and want to start on it?


----------



## pattern14 (Jul 29, 2013)

All I have to go on are the advanced Luft projects books that are available. No-one seems to doubt the information on the He 162, which flew in the same time frame, but there is great scepticism regarding the Ta 152. To all intents and purposes, it officially remains the fastest operational single engine piston driven fighter of WW2. I actually have $10 M in a Swiss account, but am having no end of trouble with- drawing it. Now let me see about those plans......


----------



## GregP (Jul 29, 2013)

Good one pattern! 

I'm still skeptical but also would welcome data confirming it was as fast as reported. As I said, it certainly had potential and I do not have a "if it wasn't made in USA, it was no good" attitude at all. I like most WWII aircraft regardless of national origin, including the Ta 152.

But I have seen so many ridiculous claims made for it bordering on Ta 152 worship that I sometimes respond a little harder than intended.

The Fw 190 didn't even need the Ta 152 family to be ranked up near the top of the fighter heap ... it was pretty good on its own. I'm just not all that sure the Ta 152 was all that much better than the Fw 190D series. The Ta 152H obviously was tailored to high altitudes, but the Ta 152C seems like an Fw 190D with minor tweaks that was renamed. The actual aircraft systems might be very different; I am talking about external appearances.

Things are different in war. Here we have maybe 43 Ta 152's that operated for about a month during late WWII and had a lot of issues. Then we (Planes of Fame Museum) have experience with a Flugwerk Fw 190 powered by a US-built R-2800 and it has operated for a couple of years (but not that many flights) and has had only minor problems, mostly concerned with landing gear once the engine overheating was corrected.

Makes me wonder if the basic plane was OK and maybe the forced labor conspired so as to sabotage the supporting parts like an oil pump, for instance. I don't know for sure, but the basic system SHOULD have been pretty solid. The regular Fw 190 was pretty solid so why wouldn't the follow-on be so? 

The only evidence I have is the very high rate of being taken out of service, which is typical for a new type when maintenance peorsonnel aren't quite as familiar with the new mount as they should be and with few spare parts in the logistics chain. Given the war situation in April 1945, the rate of going unserviceable is probably commensurate with the times, and the war ended before things could be improved.

Had the Ta 152 been introduced a year earlier, it probably would have cemented a solid reputation as a fighter.


----------



## swampyankee (Jul 29, 2013)

If somebody is making claims that the Ta152's wing profile provides an agility advantage, they're going to have to cough up some polars. eta: never mind; it used a NACA 230xx airfoil, with a taper in thickness. eta (again) the XP-72 used the same airfoil as the P-47, the Seversky S-3


----------



## GregP (Jul 29, 2013)

In another forum I came across some data that the Ta 152H-0 (without MW-50) could hit 446 mph at best altitude. That from a cited book which I am looking for on Amazon.

The most frrequently seen numbers are 1,750 PS (1,726 HP) and 2,050 PS on MW-50 (2,026 HP). If I crunch 1,726 HP and 446 mph and assume no increase in drag but 2,026 HP, I get an estimate of 470 mph from the applicable equations.

Therefore, since the combat planes that were delivered were Ta 152H-0's, I surmise Vmax at about 446 mph since the H-0 did not have MW-50. I also have seen it in print that no H-1's were delivered to combat units, though I have no confirmation of that. If that is the case, then the Ta 152H-1 never saw combat and wasn't the fastest combat aircraft of WWII since it didn't get into combat. If one or more H-1's DID get delivered to a combat unit, and if they ever engaged in combat, than perhaps it WAS the fastest combat aircraft on WWII, even if just as a technicality.

So if the Ta 152H-1 never saw combat, then it qualifies as a prototype and would be ranked among the myriad prototypes of the war, not being the fastest ... the fastest being in the P-47 family or the XP-72 depnding on what figures you believe. If it DID see combat, it likely never saw 472 mph in level flight since the war was lost and survival in the air was more important than setting records in straight and level flight. But for completeness, if it DID see combat, it was probably the fastest plane in the air being driven by a propeller at the time.

Today that honor belongs to a Grumman F8F Bearcat that races at Reno named Rare Bear. The record is 528.33 mph set 21 Aug 1989. It also set the world time to climb records of 3,000 meters in 91.9 seconds from a standstill in 1972. That is standstill on the runway to 9,842.5 feet in 91.9 seconds. The average is 6,426 feet per minute from a standstill! The actual rate of climb would be considerably higher when you account for takeoff and acceleration time. But ... it wasn't exactly in fighter trim when it set the records ... WHo knows? It might win Reno again in about 5 weeks.


----------



## drgondog (Jul 29, 2013)

swampyankee said:


> If somebody is making claims that the Ta152's wing profile provides an agility advantage, they're going to have to cough up some polars. eta: never mind; it used a NACA 230xx airfoil, with a taper in thickness. eta (again) the XP-72 used the same airfoil as the P-47, the Seversky S-3



The agility advantage resides (wing) in low drag/high CLmax, combined with high excess thrust and low wing loading. 230xx fairly common airfoil.. need more than that.

@pattern14 - when everything working on the Ta 152 and everything working on the P-51H, the P-51H was faster than the Ta 152.. and it was operational during WWII.


----------



## Shortround6 (Jul 29, 2013)

As far as the XP-72 goes it was a much bigger unknown that the TA-152, only two were built and they had different engines and propellers. the second one with the contra rotating props crashed after just a few flights so top performance may have been untested. There is also a discrepancy between most accounts claiming 3500hp for the engine and USAAF and P&W records that show 3000 hp for take-off and Military rating down low and 2400hp at 25,000ft. The USAAF and P&W records seem to show _NO_ turbo but a remote auxiliary supercharger behind the cockpit driven by a long drive shaft. The 1st prototype may NOT have had this supercharger hooked up for many (all?) of it's flights. 
Perhaps 3500hp was achievable with WER. P W records never seem to list WER ratings. 
All in all, the XP-72 has too many unknowns to compare it's performance to much of anything one way or another.


----------



## swampyankee (Jul 29, 2013)

drgondog said:


> The agility advantage resides (wing) in low drag/high CLmax, combined with high excess thrust and low wing loading. 230xx fairly common airfoil.. need more than that.
> 
> @pattern14 - when everything working on the Ta 152 and everything working on the P-51H, the P-51H was faster than the Ta 152.. and it was operational during WWII.



NACA 230xx airfoils are what is reported; you'd have to ask Dr Tank why he chose that particular one (interestingly, numerous German front-line aircraft used NACA airfoils).


----------



## wuzak (Jul 29, 2013)

Shortround6 said:


> As far as the XP-72 goes it was a much bigger unknown that the TA-152, only two were built and they had different engines and propellers. the second one with the contra rotating props crashed after just a few flights so top performance may have been untested. There is also a discrepancy between most accounts claiming 3500hp for the engine and USAAF and P&W records that show 3000 hp for take-off and Military rating down low and 2400hp at 25,000ft. The USAAF and P&W records seem to show _NO_ turbo but a remote auxiliary supercharger behind the cockpit driven by a long drive shaft. The 1st prototype may NOT have had this supercharger hooked up for many (all?) of it's flights.
> Perhaps 3500hp was achievable with WER. P W records never seem to list WER ratings.
> All in all, the XP-72 has too many unknowns to compare it's performance to much of anything one way or another.



If there was a turbo in the back of the XP-72 it would have been a unique type. As far as I am aware, aircraft with turbo R-4360s all used a pair of C-series turbos. XF-11, XF-12, B-50.


----------



## GregP (Jul 30, 2013)

Yah, the data are not exactly crystal cear, but we KNOW the P-47J was faster than any Ta 152 or Fw 190 derivative. It is well documented.

But it was a prototype and not a combat plane. I'm just wondering if the Ta 152H-1 ever made combat. The 472 mph often quoted slightly exceeds the formulas for exact numbers, but engines vary as much as 2 - 3 % or slightly more and it MIGHT have made 472 mph at some time in level flight at optimum height and rpm. I couldn't say. 

The main question for me is did it ever verifiably see combat? I can't answer that at this time, but will try to look into it as I can. Meanwhile, someone out there may already KNOW with source.

I still want to get the Smithsonian Ta 152H restored and flyable ... but it will most likely never happpen. Too bad. It SHOULD. It is a Ta 152H-0, as I'm sure we all know ... without MW-50. So it is of the 446 mph or so variety anyway.


----------



## awack (Aug 1, 2013)

I tend to agree that there isn't enough testing or data when it comes to the TA 152 H, the only direct comparison that im aware of is against a late war spitfire, recon variant I believe, similar stats to the spit14...no boost was provided for the TA 152, even so, it was faster at some altitudes yet slower at others, it could turn with or out turn the spitfire at medium and high altitudes, the spit could turn sharper at low altitudes.


----------



## GregP (Aug 2, 2013)

No clear winner here, huh?

Put Erich Hartmann on the XP-72 and I'd pick the XP-72. Put Erich Hartmann in the Ta 152 and I'd pick the Ta 152. You can substitute Barkhorn or Rall and the result would be the same. There are quite a few on this list and it runs down for quite awhile before we get to an Allied pilot, but the meaning is clear.

The PILOT is what mattered between the two planes.


----------



## pattern14 (Aug 3, 2013)

My book arrived at the post office, so I'll read what it says about the Ta152. So far, everything out there says it was the fastest operational prop fighter of ww2, at 472 mph. My motorcycle has a high top end speed as well, but I NEVER go that fast.......I also picked up another book at a second hand dealers about Luftwaffe aircraft, which stated that nearly 200 ta 152's were made, but most were destroyed on the ground before they were even delivered. looks like 43 was the magical number of Ta 152 H1's getting airborne, but there is still non agreement on victory versus losses ( not that it made a difference to anything except the pilots). Wonder how it would have fared against the Gloster Meteor, just to open a whole new side the equation?


----------



## Civettone (Aug 3, 2013)

Of course, it says TA152, which means it could also be the Ta 152C 



Kris


----------



## GregP (Aug 4, 2013)

I believe the 43 is the number of Ta 152's ... not H-1's. That would include Ta 152C's of any dash as well as Ta 152H-0 and Ta 152H-1.

We KNOW there were Ta 152C's and H-0's delivered to account for most of the 43. The questions would be how many Ta 152H-1's were delivered? And did they ever see combat?


----------



## Milosh (Aug 4, 2013)

The 43 is the number for the Ta152H (Harmann's book) and the Eagle book (don't have) adds a few more.

The first 10 were Ta152H-0s, so there was at least 33 Ta152H-1s.

According to Harmann, there was only 3 Ta152Cs. They were the V6, 7 and 8 and were the prototypes for the Ta152C-0.


----------



## Aozora (Aug 4, 2013)

Just as an aside it is interesting to note that the fastest piston engine fighters built were, with one or two exceptions, conventional tractor engined monoplanes. Prototypes such as the Curtiss XP-55, Northrop XP-56, McDonnell XP-67 etc never lived up to what was expected; looking at the many experimental and unconventional types projected by German designers, I wonder how many of them would have lived up to their designer's expectations?


----------



## Milosh (Aug 4, 2013)

GregP said:


> Yah, the data are not exactly crystal cear, but we KNOW the P-47J was faster than any Ta 152 or Fw 190 derivative. It is well documented.



You can post those documents?


----------



## GregP (Aug 4, 2013)

About as well as you can. Ray Wagoner's American Combat Planes would be only one source. Among references was Republic Aircraft data.

You can post some reference your assertion that the 43 is the number for Ta 152H's delivered? Most of what I've read says the 43 was the total number of Ta 152 delivered to field units, without any sort of breakout. A few other sources say 67 total. Many sources say never more than 25 - 30 in operation at any one time, including interviews with Adoph Galland on the subject. A couple maintain there were only two left operational when the war ended, both being Ta 152C's ... but I have no corroboration for that statement other than single sentenaces in a couple of places, one possibly quoting from the other, without primary source.

According to Nowarra, the Ta 152H-1 prototypes met with little success. The first was the Fw 190V-33/U1, a rebuilt Fw 190A-0, works no. 0058, registration GH + KW. It was identical to the TA 152H0, carried no armament, flew July 24 1944 and crashed the following day. It was to have been replaced with Ta 152V-25, but that aircraft gave its wings to the Fw 190V-31/U1 and the rest of that aircraft was transferred to Menibum. Seems very unlikely this aircraft was ever completed before the surrender.

The Ta 152H-1 had the same dimensions as the Ta 152H-0 but carried a pressure cabin, more fuel, an 18.5 gallon GM-1 tank, a 15 gallon tank of MW 50, and was 1,080 lbs heavier at 11,508 lbs. He makes no count but says the "small number" of Ta 152H-1’s completed were all-weather equipped as the Ta 152H-0/R-11. The rest of the Ta 152H dash numbers remained projects. So there is no count of the Ta 152H-1's from Norarra.

So far, the jury is still out as far as a primary source goes. We know some Ta 152C's were delivered and some Ta 152H-0's. It is fallacy to assume the balance was Ta 152H-1's with any proof of same. They could well be more Ta 152H-0's or even more Ta 152C's.

According to Heinz Nowarra, there were about 70 Ta-152H-0's built, about half of which went into service. Assume 35 for the moment. We also know there was limited production of the Ta 152B-5, but not how many. We know some Ta 152C's were delivered, but not how many.

Focke-Wulf Ta 152*High-Altitude Interceptor - History, Specs and Pictures - Military Aircraft says 43 delivered total. So does Luftwaffe Resource Center - Fighters/Destroyers - A Warbirds Resource Group Site. And Asisbiz Focke-Wulf Ta 152H. Seems like they may all be quoting one another.

The Great Book of WWII Fighters by Green and Swanborough says only 2 Ta 152C-1 prototypes, the V16 and V17 were completed. They further state that 1 pre-production batch of 26 Ta 152H-0’s were completed at Sorau and with a further 20 pre-series Ta 152H-0’s at Cottbus. They state the Ta 152H-1 was continued at Cottbus … but without a number built. They say only a “small number” of the 150 planes completed at Cottbus saw any operation before being overrun by Soviet forces. 

Again … no numbers and no specific mention of the Ta 152H-1.

Whatever the number, the question still remains, did the Ta 152H-1 ever verifiably see combat? So far, the answer, to me anyway, is "we don't know for sure."


----------

