# Ta 152H-1 vs P-51H



## Soren (Jul 18, 2006)

*Ta 152H-1 vs P-51H*

Focke Wulf Ta 152H-1






Ta 152H-1 Statistics:

Empty weight: 4,031 kg
Fully loaded weight: Escort Mission = 5,220 kg - Fighter Mission = 4,750 kg 
Maximum loaded weight: 5,220 kg

Internal fuel capacity: 594 L B4 and 85 L GM-1 in the fuselage, 400 + 115 L B4 and 70 L MW-50 in the wings - Total = 1,109 L B4 + 85 L GM-1 + 70 L MW-50

Ta 152H-1 Dimensions:

Wing span: 14.44 m
Wing area: 23.3 m2
Lenght: 10.71 m
Height: 4 m

Ta 152H-1 Aerodynamics:

Wing loading: 224 - 203 kg/sq.m
Span loading: 361 - 328 kg/m
Wing aspect ratio: 8.94
Wing profile: Root = NACA FW 23015.3 or xxx20.6 - Tip = NACA FW 23009 
Wing thickness ratio: Root 15.3% - 20.6% - Tip = 9%

Power loading: 2.54 - 2.31 kg/hp

Ta 152H-1 Performance:

*Max speeds:*

- 598 km/h at sea level using MW-50
- 749 km/h at 9,500 m using MW-50
- 760 km/h at 12,500 m using GM-1 (MAX)

Note: These speeds were superceded in combat as engine performance apparently was better with the Ta152H's in service compared to the test-bed(s). 

*Climb rates and time:*

- 20m/s at Start u. Notlesitung = 1,730 HP @ 3,250 RPM
- ~26m/s at Sonder Notleistung = 2,050 HP @ 3,250 RPM

- 10.1 min to climb 10,000 m using MW-50 

Service ceiling: 14,800 - 15,100m

*Jumo 213E performance:*

- 1,580 HP @ 3,000 RPM = Steig u. Kampfleistung
- 1,730 HP @ 3,250 RPM = Start u. Notleistung
- 2,050 HP @ 3,250 RPM = Sonder Notleistung


Ta 152H-1 Armament:

1x 30mm MK108 cannon and 2x 20mm MG151/20 cannons

Ta 152H-1 Service record:: 

Service entering date: 27th January 1945
Losses to aerial combat: 0
Losses to accidents: 3 (two of them occured in combat)
Confirmed kills in aerial combat: 11


North American P-51H Mustang





P-51H Statistics:

Empty weight: 3,193 kg
Loaded weight: Escort Mission = 5,216 kg - Fighter Mission = 4,310 kg
Maximum loaded weight: 5,216 kg

Internal fuel capacity: 965 L of 100/150 grade fuel.

P-51H Dimension:

Wing span: 11.27 m
Wing area: 21.64 m2
Length: 10.15 m
Height: 4.16 m

P-51H Aerodynamics:

Wing loading: 241 - 199.1 kg/sq.m
Span loading: 462 - 382.4 kg/m 
Wing aspect ratio: 5.86
Wing profile: Root = NACA 66-(1.8 )15.5 – Tip = NACA 66-(1.8 )12 “Laminar”
Wing thickness ratio: Root = 15.5% - Tip = 12%

Power-loading: 2.35 – 1.94 kg/hp

P-51H Performance:

*Max speeds:*

- 714 km/h at 1,524 m using (W)WEP
- 745 km/h at 4,570 m using (W)WEP
- 783 km/h at 7,620 m using (W)WEP (MAX)

*Climb rates and time:*

- ~24-25 m/s at sea level using (W)WEP

- 1.5 min to climb 1,524 m using (W)WEP
- 5 min to climb 4,570 m using (W)WEP

Service ceiling: 12,679 m

*Packard V-1650-9 performance:*

- 1,380 HP @ 3,000 RPM = Take Off Power
- 1,720 HP @ 3,000 RPM = War Emergency Power
- 2,218 HP @ 3,000 RPM = Wet War Emergency Power


P-51H Armament:

6x 12.7mm machine-guns.

P-51H Service record:

Non WWII aircraft.

_________________________________________________

Aerodynamic Facts: 

Airfoil Thickness Ratio - Higher is better.
Wing Aspect Ratio - Higher is better.
Span-loading - Lower is better.
Power-loading - Lower is better.

Laminar wing info:
Laminar flow wings lowered the drag, but this came at the cost of lower lift, especially under high G loads. A Laminar flow wing will stall earlier and more violently than a conventional wing.

Wing aspect ratio info:
There is a component of the drag of an aircraft called induced drag which depends inversely on the aspect ratio. A higher aspect ratio wing has a lower drag and a higher lift than a lower aspect ratio wing.

Span loading info:
The turning drag/lift factor is proportional to the span loading (W/b^2) at a given G loading and indicated airspeed (IAS). It is related to induced drag and is familiar to aerodynamicists. It is the dominant parameter in calculating sustained G. In air-combat turns, the induced drag at a given G level is directly proportional to the span loading.


----------



## Sal Monella (Jul 18, 2006)

it's all over


----------



## Soren (Jul 18, 2006)

Well its 5 min to 15,000 ft according to my sources. Have you got any other figures ?


----------



## Sal Monella (Jul 18, 2006)

all over


----------



## Sal Monella (Jul 18, 2006)

no more


----------



## Soren (Jul 18, 2006)

Yes, well what I've got is 5 min to 15,000 ft and 6.8 min to 20,000 ft. This might be at combat power however... I'll update the comparison as soon as I get the right figures.


----------



## Soren (Jul 18, 2006)

Just checked in some charts, and its most likely at "dry" WEP. I'll see if I can get the "Wet" WEP figures.


----------



## Sal Monella (Jul 18, 2006)

it's over


----------



## Soren (Jul 18, 2006)

Water methanol injection


----------



## Erich (Jul 18, 2006)

ice cube liquid-injection my friend ........a nice 10/15 minute burst of excitement, actually longer in the Ta 152H-1. Heres something to ponder if Monogram ever gets it published ....

FOCKE-WULF Ta 152
Monarch-4
By Thomas H. Hitchcock
ISBN: 987-0-914144-55-4
Size: 9 x 12 inch (229 x 305 mm)
200 printed pages
Binding: Case bound hardcover
American retail price: $55.95

Contents: Introduction, Foreword, Chapters 1 – 5, Epilogue, Appendices: 1) Camouflage, Insignia and Markings; 2) Production and Werknummem; 3) Technical Description, Specifiications, Performance Equipment; 4) Pilot Operating Instructions, Bibliography, Index

155 Photographs; 31 in full color.
79 Drawing plates (3-views, sectionals, charts, detail views, general arrangement dwgs, plus maps.)
26 full color illustrations


----------



## Soren (Jul 18, 2006)

If the P-51H ran at (W)WEP for any longer than 5-7 min its engine would be trashed.

I really hope it gets published Erich, currently I have Dietmar Harmann's book on the Ta 152, a great book.


----------



## Sal Monella (Jul 18, 2006)

edit


----------



## Soren (Jul 18, 2006)

What about it ?


----------



## Sal Monella (Jul 18, 2006)

it's over


----------



## Soren (Jul 18, 2006)

Well just so know its only running at WEP, what we need is info on its performance at (W)WEP which was quite abit higher.


----------



## Sal Monella (Jul 18, 2006)

it's over


----------



## Soren (Jul 18, 2006)

Sal Monella said:


> I can see why you have a hawk on your sig, nothing gets by you.





Btw, its 80" and 3,000 RPM.


----------



## Sal Monella (Jul 18, 2006)

edit


----------



## Soren (Jul 18, 2006)

Typo  

It is 1,940 HP at 75" Hg and 2,218 HP at 80" Hg, and I'll eat my hat if it isn't true


----------



## Sal Monella (Jul 18, 2006)

edit


----------



## davparlr (Jul 19, 2006)

Soren said:


> *Ta 152H-1 vs P-51H*
> 
> 
> 
> ...


I don't agree with this calculation. Fighter weight and escort weight is poorly defined. You are punishing the P-51 for its greater load lifting capability (Max weight minus empty weight is 838 kg more). Lets start at empty and add what we need to make equivalent. Assuming both aircraft have similar specific fuel consumption, fuel loads should be roughly equivalent. Ammo and pilot etc also should be equivalent. So, lets add about 1100 kgs (pulling this out of the air) for all added combat weight. That makes the P-51 4293 kg and the Ta-152 5131 kg, which makes wing loading 199 and 220 kg/sqm respectively and power loading (at SL) 1.94 and 2.5 kg/hp. I think this is more accurate for equivalently configured aircraft.


> Ta 152H-1 Performance:
> 
> *Max speeds:*
> 
> ...



Can't argue with this, Eric is promising great things.



> *Climb rates and time:*
> 
> - 20m/s at Start u. Notlesitung = 1,730 HP @ 3,250 RPM
> - ~26m/s at Sonder Notleistung = 2,050 HP @ 3,250 RPM
> ...



Initial climb rate is about 5100 ft/min according to the chart above.


> Service ceiling: 12,679 m
> 
> *Packard V-1650-9 performance:*
> 
> ...


both the P-51H and the Ta152H were contempories that were designed for the same event, B-29s flying over Berlin, one attacking and one defending. The Ta152 were thrown into the war prematurely due to desparation. The P-51H was never needed.


> _________________________________________________
> 
> Aerodynamic Facts:
> 
> ...



I don't agree with all your rationale. Thick Airfoils and high aspect ratios are beneficial at high altitudes but in high q (low altitude, high speed), you pay a price. I suspect that no high performance fighter aircraft after WWII had these attributes and you certainly would not find them on an unlimited racer. Also big wing span affect roll rate. I read somewhere in my searches that the Ta152 had half the roll rate of a Fw-190. Don't know much about span loading. The Ta-152 still has better span loading than the P-51 even after making equivalent.


----------



## Soren (Jul 19, 2006)

Nah I'll just eat it raw thank you 

Sal, about your "smoking" theory, I hope you are aware that in a dogfight the P-51H is a turkey compared to the Ta 152H-1, its flimsy construction severely limiting maneuvers and even had it denied service in the Korean war. With any significant amount of fuel onboard I'm not even sure the P-51H's airframe could take 6 G without breaking up...

The Ta 152H is much better designed for dogfighting, capable of much tighter turns with very little loss in speed, so although the P-51H might be faster at low alt as soon as it starts maneuvering that advantage passes quickly. And don't forget that the Ta 152H also has a much higher ceiling - and remember Ta 152H's in service could reach speeds near 500 mph at alt, so its faster than the P-51H as-well...


----------



## Sal Monella (Jul 19, 2006)

edit


----------



## Soren (Jul 19, 2006)

davparlr said:


> I don't agree with this calculation. Fighter weight and escort weight is poorly defined. You are punishing the P-51 for its greater load lifting capability (Max weight minus empty weight is 838 kg more). Lets start at empty and add what we need to make equivalent. Assuming both aircraft have similar specific fuel consumption, fuel loads should be roughly equivalent. Ammo and pilot etc also should be equivalent. So, lets add about 1100 kgs (pulling this out of the air) for all added combat weight. That makes the P-51 4293 kg and the Ta-152 5131 kg, which makes wing loading 199 and 220 kg/sqm respectively and power loading (at SL) 1.94 and 2.5 kg/hp. I think this is more accurate for equivalently configured aircraft.



Now how the heck did you arrive at those conclusions ???

davparlr, the Ta 152H-1 had space for so much fuel internally that it didn't need more than half for intercepting missions, only as an escort where long ranges had to be covered did it need its full internal fuel load - but as we know the Ta 152 was never used in the escort role.

And I think that its pretty obvious that we are to compare the Ta 152H and P-51H with their fighter configuration load - Which is why I added it.



> Initial climb rate is about 5100 ft/min according to the chart above.



Davparlr that chart arrived 'later', and I already agreed that I might be off regarding the P-51H's climb rate 'earlier'.



> both the P-51H and the Ta152H were contempories that were designed for the same event, B-29s flying over Berlin, one attacking and one defending. The Ta152 were thrown into the war prematurely due to desparation. The P-51H was never needed.



I'm afraid we drastically disagree on that point as the Ta 152 wasn't rushed into service at all, it was infact held back if anything by the continues stream of restrictions pouring out from the RLM.



> I don't agree with all your rationale. Thick Airfoils and high aspect ratios are beneficial at high altitudes but in high q (low altitude, high speed), you pay a price.



Thickness ratio, not pure thickness davparlr, there's a difference. And while a thicker wing might cut speed at low alt, it also creates more lift.

And about AR, davparlr, the higher the AR the lower the induced drag, at ANY alt.



> *I suspect that no high performance fighter aircraft after WWII had these attributes* and you certainly would not find them on an unlimited racer.



And why do you think ? Because of better than 1 to 1 power to weight ratio.



> Also big wing span affect roll rate.



Not necessarily, as you can make up for it in aileron design.



> I read somewhere in my searches that the Ta152 had half the roll rate of a Fw-190. Don't know much about span loading. The Ta-152 still has better span loading than the P-51 even after making equivalent.



Huh ?? 

First of all the Ta 152H was remarked by its pilots as having an excellent roll rate. 

And secondly I don't at all get what it is you're talking about in that last sentence of yours...


----------



## Soren (Jul 19, 2006)

Sal Monella said:


> The data is what it is.



Great comeback Sal ! Very informative ! 

Now lets see the evidence that it isn't calculated, cause nearly every performance chart I have like that one is. 



> You obviously started this thread to lecture us all on how the TA-152 was superior to the uber Mustang. I think you're a little surprised at the P-51H data but unwilling to accept the clear inference.



Sal when you stop being stupid you'll realize I was only off with the P-51H's climb rate, and slightly at that, so you can throw those conspiracy theories down into the trashcan again where they belong.


----------



## DerAdlerIstGelandet (Jul 19, 2006)

Sal Monella said:


> The data is what it is. You obviously started this thread to lecture us all on how the TA-152 was superior to the uber Mustang. I think you're a little surprised at the P-51H data but unwilling to accept the clear inference.



Exactly that is what it is, nothing more. Therefore unless you know the real characteristics of an aircraft and how it handles in the "AIR" and not on "PAPER"....


----------



## loomaluftwaffe (Jul 19, 2006)

yeah
I've heard that those with cowlings painted like the one on Soren's siggy
have undergone engine change cause of problems with engine fires... is it true or just another myth?

Sal probably got that from this


> I read somewhere in my searches that the Ta152 had half the roll rate of a Fw-190. Don't know much about span loading. The Ta-152 still has better span loading than the P-51 even after making equivalent.


from a website talking about an epansion pack for a game


----------



## davparlr (Jul 19, 2006)

Soren said:


> Nah I'll just eat it raw thank you
> 
> Sal, about your "smoking" theory, I hope you are aware that in a dogfight the P-51H is a turkey compared to the Ta 152H-1, its flimsy construction severely limiting maneuvers and even had it denied service in the Korean war. With any significant amount of fuel onboard I'm not even sure the P-51H's airframe could take 6 G without breaking up...
> 
> ...



The P-51H was built to the same load factors as the Spitfire. So if you say that the P-51H was of flimsy construction, with severely limiting maneuvers you would have to say the same thing about the spitfire. I suspect you cannot justify that comment!


> and remember Ta 152H's in service could reach speeds near 500 mph at alt, so its faster than the P-51H as-well...


So far we have only heard talk. I really wouldn't doubt that the Ta 152H could be faster than the P-51H top speed but I would have to see the HP vs. alt performance of the Jumo engine to believe it.



> Now how the heck did you arrive at those conclusions ???


Let me speak slower. You chose a max loaded weight for comparison of power loading and wing loading even though the P-51 is carrying 838 kg (1847 lbs) more fuel/ammo than the Ta-152. Same is true with the comparison of fighter mission with the P-51 carrying 319 kg (703 lbs) more fuel/ammo than the Ta-152. This is the handicap you add to show the Ta-152 has better numbers. I am saying lets load them up equaly and then compare the performance numbers. This is not logical to you? Do you disagree with the data?



> had space for so much fuel internally that it didn't need more than half for intercepting missions, only as an escort where long ranges had to be covered did it need its full internal fuel load - but as we know the Ta 152 was never used in the escort role.


Okay, lets give them both an equal amount of fuel. Sound fair?



> And I think that its pretty obvious that we are to compare the Ta 152H and P-51H with their fighter configuration load - Which is why I added it.


Not so obvious when you look at the extra weight the P-51H is carrying.


> I'm afraid we drastically disagree on that point as the Ta 152 wasn't rushed into service at all, it was infact held back if anything by the continues stream of restrictions pouring out from the RLM.


My information says that there was only a few months between production start of the Ta-152H and the P-51H (my data is not really detailed however). Also, most resources indicate that the Ta-152 had considerable problems and in fact, was grounded when war ended. My argument is based on the resources available.


> Thickness ratio, not pure thickness davparlr, there's a difference. And while a thicker wing might cut speed at low alt, it also creates more lift.
> 
> And about AR, davparlr, the higher the AR the lower the induced drag, at ANY alt.


No argument here as I didn't have chord length on either plane.


> And why do you think ? Because of better than 1 to 1 power to weight ratio.


Let's see between WWII and the F-15, there were, like, a gazillion fighter planes, all without 1 to 1 thrust to weight. Not to mention the unlimited racers, who tend to chop wings.


> Not necessarily, as you can make up for it in aileron design.


Correct, although it would surprise me if the roll did not suffer relative to the Fw-190 and probably other fighters.


> Quote:
> I read somewhere in my searches that the Ta152 had half the roll rate of a Fw-190. Don't know much about span loading. The Ta-152 still has better span loading than the P-51 even after making equivalent.
> 
> 
> ...


Statement did look fishy. My biggest nightmare is to see some kid timing the performance of a game generated aircraft and putting the data on line as actual performance figures of the plane. Sometimes its tough to tell the difference. This didn't pass the smell test. Sorry.

The last sentence just said that the span loading of the Ta-152 was better than the P-51H even when both have equal fuel/ammo loads.

My overall comment still stands. When you load the P-51H with the same fuel/ammo with the Ta-152, the performance numbers dominate on the side of the P-51, certainly at low altitude. With data I know, this advantage for the P-51H will hold to 30K at which time the Ta-152 catches up and above 35K surpasses the P-51H. If Eric provides good supportable data on increase speed performance, my opinion will change. Hopefully, this will include Jumo engine performance numbers.


----------



## davparlr (Jul 19, 2006)

Soren said:


> had it denied service in the Korean war. ...



Air Force did perfer the P-51D in the Korean war partly due to ligther construction. The AF did not need an interceptor because it had jets to do that. The P-51D roll was mainly air to ground, thus sturdier is better. Also, the P-51H did play a part in Korea in the form of the P-82, where two were welded together to make a two engine fighter.


----------



## davparlr (Jul 19, 2006)

Soren said:


> Great comeback Sal ! Very informative !
> 
> Now lets see the evidence that it isn't calculated, cause nearly every performance chart I have like that one is.


This is a good statement. The max charts available on the P-51H could indeed be calculated. We do have flight test data but unfortunatly without water injection. However, someone with enthusiasm and knowledge, could probably correlate the max charts with the flight test charts to reasonably validate the results. Overall, this data makes a much better data base than what we have for most of our aircraft of interest.

Soren, your comment could be made about the Ta-152H also. It seems we have very little analytical data to work with on that airplane, at least so far.


----------



## Sal Monella (Jul 19, 2006)

edit


----------



## Soren (Jul 19, 2006)

Sal, read the thread "P51D/K vs Me109K-14" in the Poll forum, then you'll understand why this thread was made.

The P-51H had a lightened construction compared to the P-51B/C/D, which already is a relatively weak design (Look below) - the wings litterally coming off some a/c. It has nothing to do with taking sides, but everything to do with reality.






Note: "To obtain new limit load factor for greater gross weight, divide 64,000 by the new weight" - Try with just 9,500 lbs and you'll be very surprised ! And now factor in that the P-51H has a lighter construction.

The P-51H was built purely for speed, not dogfighting, which is why it wasn't "needed".

Oh and about where I got my Ta 152H data: "Focke Wulf Ta 152 - The Story of the Luftwaffe's Late-War, High-Altitude Fighter" by Dietmar Harmann ISBN: 0-7643-0860-2, as-well as from several original "Leistung" charts.



davparlr said:


> The P-51H was built to the same load factors as the Spitfire. So if you say that the P-51H was of flimsy construction, with severely limiting maneuvers you would have to say the same thing about the spitfire. I suspect you cannot justify that comment!



Look at the chart above davparlr, the Spitfire definitely didn't have that low a limit load factor cause then it would be loosing its wings in combat - And the 109's wings by comparison could take 12 G !



davparlr said:


> My information says that there was only a few months between production start of the Ta-152H and the P-51H (my data is not really detailed however). Also, most resources indicate that the Ta-152 had considerable problems and in fact, was grounded when war ended. My argument is based on the resources available.



davparlr, the Ta 152H entered quantity production just two months after the Dora-9 in November 1944. It was the difficult production conditions and problems with deliveries of components which prevented the Ta 152 from entering large scale production at an early stage.



davparlr said:


> Let's see between WWII and the F-15, there were, like, a gazillion fighter planes, all without 1 to 1 thrust to weight. Not to mention the unlimited racers, who tend to chop wings.



The only reasons fighters today don’t use high aspect ratio wings are:

A)1 to 1 or better power to weight ratio. (The primary reason wings on modern fighters are so small)
B)The primary flight-regime is at high speed.
C)New computer controlled leading edge devices make up for the lower aspect ratio and thickness ratio of the wing at slow speeds. (They actually increase both aspect ratio and thickness ratio in turns)
D)Thrust vectoring has made wing spans grow ever smaller in size to allow for higher AoA.
E)The deflection along a high aspect-ratio wing tends to be much higher than for one of low aspect ratio, thus the stresses and consequent risk of fatigue failures are higher - particularly with swept-wing designs. And because of the high speed and G forces fighters today experience it is thus unsuitable for modern fighters.

And about the unlimited racers, well there is actually only one reason why these have thin low AR wings - Speed speed speed, and nothing else ! Cause you see low AR wings are at their most efficient state at low AoA, also the lower the wing area, the lower the drag - which is a design philosophy when building an unlimited racer.


----------



## Sal Monella (Jul 19, 2006)

edit


----------



## davparlr (Jul 19, 2006)

Soren said:


> The P-51H had a lightened construction compared to the P-51B/C/D, which already is a relatively weak design (Look below) - the wings litterally coming off some a/c. It has nothing to do with taking sides, but everything to do with reality.
> 
> Note: "To obtain new limit load factor for greater gross weight, divide 64,000 by the new weight" - Try with just 9,500 lbs and you'll be very surprised ! And now factor in that the P-51H has a lighter construction.



I see nothing surprising in this chart. The P-51D has proven history of ruggedness and dogfighting ability. The g levels are quite high, especially considering no g suits.

And I will repeat myself. The P-51H was built to the same load factors as the spitfire, a plane not noted for being flimsy. And I do not believe the P-51D or H were noted for losing wings and I believe the P-51D did not have much problems dealing with the "12" g Me-109



> The P-51H was built purely for speed, not dogfighting, which is why it wasn't "needed".


This is a ludicrous statement. The Air Force ordered 2000 of these planes because they were fast? I do not believe you can justify this comment.


Look at the chart above davparlr, the Spitfire definitely didn't have that low a limit load factor cause then it would be loosing its wings in combat - And the 109's wings by comparison could take 12 G ![/QUOTE]
This getting tiring. The g limits shown are operational g limits not design-to (and tested) g limits. I suspect the 12 g number you are identifying with the Me-109 is design-to number, not operational. I do not know for sure, but I would not doubt that the design-to level is 1.5 operational limits. If that were the case, you could take the 8 gs on the P-51D and multiply by 1.5 and voila, the P-51D wing had been tested to 12 gs. Maybe someone out there knows for sure what the margin is.





> davparlr, the Ta 152H entered quantity production just two months after the Dora-9 in November 1944. It was the difficult production conditions and problems with deliveries of components which prevented the Ta 152 from entering large scale production at an early stage.



My references indicate that the P-51H started production in early Feb. 1945 with 221 delivered by July 30.



> The only reasons fighters today don’t use high aspect ratio wings are:
> 
> A)1 to 1 or better power to weight ratio. (The primary reason wings on modern fighters are so small)
> B)The primary flight-regime is at high speed.
> ...


A. Already addressed
B. Dogfighting speeds are not a lot above what we are talking about here.
C. I doubt if computerized versions of these existed prior to the 60s.
D. Now we're talking late development
E. 8 gs as mentioned above is close to today jet (F-16 I believe is limited to 9) and the rest of you comment is correct.

Your last comment on unlimiteds is correct. Have you noticed that the later high performance versions of spitfire had clipped wings? Interesting.
The Ta-152H was built expressly for attacking the high altitude B-29. It was optimized for fighting above 30K and would have been limited below against new fighters coming out like the P-51H. It is surprising that, if the Ta-152H was so good in overall airspace, that the Ta-152C was continued into production. Maybe they knew what was coming.


----------



## Erich (Jul 19, 2006)

the TA 152H and the B-29 have nothing to do with each other, you are quoting from misinformed authors. the Tank was to be the ultimate prop fighter vs fighter in the Luftwaffe arsenal at high altitude


----------



## loomaluftwaffe (Jul 20, 2006)

Sal... learn to use the Quote tags, it is alot easier to read ur posts that way... ty


----------



## DerAdlerIstGelandet (Jul 20, 2006)

loomaluftwaffe said:


> yeah
> I've heard that those with cowlings painted like the one on Soren's siggy
> have undergone engine change cause of problems with engine fires... is it true or just another myth?



What do you mean painted like the one in his siggy. How is it painted. That is standard paint scheme. I really dont get this question you are asking....


----------



## davparlr (Jul 20, 2006)

Erich said:


> the TA 152H and the B-29 have nothing to do with each other, you are quoting from misinformed authors. the Tank was to be the ultimate prop fighter vs fighter in the Luftwaffe arsenal at high altitude


Thanks for informing me, thats one of the problems with history. I will say that if the B-29 did made it to Germany in WWII, they would have been in for a rude awaking when they met the Ta-152H even with P-51Hs flying escort. With their altitude advantage and high altitude performace, they would always have the energy advantage and could engage and disengage at will.

This has been an interesting and stimulating discussion. I have learned a lot on both sides of the argument and I suspect others have too. I was excited to find the data on the P-51H, which I think is good data. I wish we had similar data on the Ta-152s and all other aircraft. Maybe this new book on the Ta-152 will fill in some of the blanks.


----------



## DerAdlerIstGelandet (Jul 20, 2006)

Agreed davparlr.


----------



## Erich (Jul 20, 2006)

I'm hopeful that the book will be worth it's weight in monies and that Will R. writes me back by next months end, he is due at a freinds home in Czech republic in Septmber so maybe I need to send another note to refresh his memory as he is a busy man

if you do a google search and type in Ta 152 versus B-29 nearly every link will have the so-called myth that the Tanks was created to take on the Superfortress............ it's all nonsense. I do wonder whom may have started this, and it had to have been years ago.

Say any of you guys have the Fw 190 by Robert Grinsell, it is a large hardcover book with only 48 pages within but has a nice sketch paintings of the Dora 9 and the Ta 152H side by side to show the fuselage and wingspan difference. Wonder if any if you have the book can post that up for everyone to note ? sorry to say no scanner here at my little hut

E


----------



## Soren (Jul 20, 2006)

davparlr said:


> I see nothing surprising in this chart. The P-51D has proven history of ruggedness and dogfighting ability. The g levels are quite high, especially considering no g suits.



So you don't think that a 6.7 G limit load factor at just 9,500 lbs is rather low ?? 



> And I will repeat myself. The P-51H was built to the same load factors as the spitfire, a plane not noted for being flimsy.



Do you have any proof to back up this claim davparlr ?



> And I do not believe the P-51D or H were noted for losing wings



Dig deeper davparlr...



> and I believe the P-51D did not have much problems dealing with the "12" g Me-109



Well who wouldn't have with a 12 to 1 superiority in numbers ? 

In any case 12 G was never reached by any fighter in WW2...



> This is a ludicrous statement. The Air Force ordered 2000 of these planes because they were fast? I do not believe you can justify this comment.



I can easily justify it - Speed is life. Just ask Spitfire pilots who served over the channel in 42. 

Also just take look at the plane, its quite obvious that its design is purely and entirely speed orientated - the wing and horizontal stabilizer amongst other things having undergone major alterations compared to the B/C/D. 




> This getting tiring. The g limits shown are operational g limits not design-to (and tested) g limits. I suspect the 12 g number you are identifying with the Me-109 is design-to number, not operational. I do not know for sure, but I would not doubt that the design-to level is 1.5 operational limits. If that were the case, you could take the 8 gs on the P-51D and multiply by 1.5 and voila, the P-51D wing had been tested to 12 gs. Maybe someone out there knows for sure what the margin is.



The chart above is the "Absolute" limit of the a/c at that specific setting, just like any other performance and endurance specification in the manual.

And yes, it is becoming tiring.



> My references indicate that the P-51H started production in early Feb. 1945 with 221 delivered by July 30.



Yeah and hadn't it been for all the delays caused by the RLM, the Ta-152 would've probably been in service with frontline units as early as June 1944.



> A. Already addressed
> B. Dogfighting speeds are not a lot above what we are talking about here.
> C. I doubt if computerized versions of these existed prior to the 60s.
> D. Now we're talking late development
> E. 8 gs as mentioned above is close to today jet (F-16 I believe is limited to 9) and the rest of you comment is correct.



A) Addressed ? How ? We're talking WW2 fighters here davparlr, not Jet fighters.
C) Perhaps not computer controlled but even soon after WW2, when jets appeared, different kinds of slats and various other high lift devices were being used on low AR a/c in order to reduce the huge drag penalty such a/c suffer from in maneuvers. Also worthy of note is the obsession with speed which occured in fighter design just after WW2, with wings on aircraft growing ever smaller, just for sake of extra speed - The MIG-21 and F-104 are clear examples of this, in an era where maneuverability took a back seat to pure speed.
D) Indeed, but it is infact a huge reason to why the F-22 has such a low AR wing.
E) 8 G's mentioned where ?? If you're talking about the P-51H it could most likely only take around 6 G before its wing starts dismantling itself from the fuselage. - not at all a pleasant thing. 




> Your last comment on unlimiteds is correct. Have you noticed that the later high performance versions of spitfire had clipped wings? Interesting.



Later high performance Spitfire's actually featured longer wings, either that or same span wings with different planforms and airfoils.



> The Ta-152H was built expressly for attacking the high altitude B-29. It was optimized for fighting above 30K and would have been limited below against new fighters coming out like the P-51H. It is surprising that, if the Ta-152H was so good in overall airspace, that the Ta-152C was continued into production. Maybe they knew what was coming.



Now thats just ludicrous davparlr, absolutely ludicrous ! 

It takes both great wing and engine efficiency to reach the altitudes the Ta 152H did. And the Ta 152H-1 need not have feared the P-51H at any altitude..


----------



## Soundbreaker Welch? (Jul 20, 2006)

Except when it came in hordes.


----------



## Sal Monella (Jul 20, 2006)

edit


----------



## Erich (Jul 20, 2006)

that is the main problem then. Performance stats may say otherwise but it is craft versus craft and in this case it never happened, with the inclusion of pilot against pilot skilled or no. we are not going to know either ....

more realistically would of been Ta 152H-0 and H-1 against the P-51D and K but that didn't even happen. more and more I wish i had the new Monogram book in my hot hands


----------



## davparlr (Jul 20, 2006)

Erich said:


> if you do a google search and type in Ta 152 versus B-29 nearly every link will have the so-called myth that the Tanks was created to take on the Superfortress............ it's all nonsense. I do wonder whom may have started this, and it had to have been years ago.
> 
> E



My main reference is a book dated 1971. In it the Ta-152H and C are discussed with limited performance data. It does not make any mention of the Ta-152H being built to attack the B-29. I must have got that from the internet. Typically, some opinionated hair-brained person, like me, will say "the Ta-152H was probably designed to combat the B-29". Other inquirers will get this and say "The Ta-152H was designed to combat the B-29". Enough people pick this up, especially on the internet, that it becomes the "truth". And then, there are the gamesters. One of the challenges we face is weeding out the real truth. Which tends to get more and more difficult. That is why I like these discussions. There are some great experts in diverse aircraft, some are opinionated, most are emotional, but very knowledgable. It makes for creative debate, just identifying the opinions (which are important) and weeding through emotion.


----------



## Erich (Jul 20, 2006)

and that is how you learn. go back and spend a week mulling over the older threads and archiv's some good info to be had and some interesting tidbits on some of us as well. I got invoved with the Ta 152 and it's missions besides the JG 301 Geschwader once I found out I had a relative serve in 5./JG 301 in the fall of 44. that was many years ago, and you can easily see my keen interest in the subject matter ........ 8) 

E ~


----------



## davparlr (Jul 20, 2006)

Erich said:


> more realistically would of been Ta 152H-0 and H-1 against the P-51D and K but that didn't even happen.



The P-51D appears equivalent in speed to the Ta-152H at sealevel (however, this doesn't correspond to the 400 or so hp advantage the Ta-152 has-maybe its due to the long wings). Of, course the Ta-152 a/s data may be incorrect. In any event, I suspect the Ta-152H would quickly gain the advantage with altitude. I don't really have any performance info on the Ta-152H at intermediate altitudes (10-25K). And then there is that famous comment from Tank regarding pulling away from the Mustangs, which, considering the hp advantage, does not seem out of order. Since the Fw-190D is considered to be an overall better performer than the P-51D (I have not done this comparison yet) I suspect the biggest advantage the P-51D would have over the Ta-152 was vast numerical superority.

Coming out of left field, I gotta tell you guys that I am a big fan of the Fw-190. I think it is one of the best looking WWII aircraft. Not the D. I think it looks gangly.

Bad news for me. I have to have an angiogram. Seems I barely failed a treadmill test. Too much arguing about airplanes I guess.


----------



## Universal (Jul 20, 2006)

Its only obvious that the ta-152H was superior


----------



## loomaluftwaffe (Jul 21, 2006)

DerAdlerIstGelandet said:


> What do you mean painted like the one in his siggy. How is it painted. That is standard paint scheme. I really dont get this question you are asking....


this one, it says in my book:
Comment: The All RLM 82 green engine cowlingof this aircraft denotes an engine change during its poperational career. Many operational Ta-152s had problems with engine fires and changes were common.


----------



## DerAdlerIstGelandet (Jul 21, 2006)

Universal said:


> Its only obvious that the ta-152H was superior



While I agree with you, you need to give reasons why and proof for your claim. Just coming in here saying that its obvious that it was superior give you no credit at all.


----------



## DerAdlerIstGelandet (Jul 21, 2006)

loomaluftwaffe said:


> this one, it says in my book:
> Comment: The All RLM 82 green engine cowlingof this aircraft denotes an engine change during its poperational career. Many operational Ta-152s had problems with engine fires and changes were common.



Aha I understand now, you need to be more specific in your posts, because you leave so much open that is not understandable.


----------



## Sal Monella (Jul 23, 2006)

edit


----------



## DerAdlerIstGelandet (Jul 23, 2006)

I still think the Ta-152 was superior, but I will never be able to tell without a proper comparison and that will not come unless we can actually put them them through evals together. 

I put it this way. The scenerio is a what if, could have been, should have been and would have been pretty damn awesome to see, with the likely outcome of both aircraft being about equal to one another.


----------



## lesofprimus (Jul 23, 2006)

As the Tank was tried and tested in combat, and the -51H wasnt, as well as several US pilots who flew the Tank who contested it was the best prop job of the War, I also have to go with the Ta-152H...

And for the record, there are many instances where P-51D pilots ripped the wings off their planes, and Aces Bud Fortier and Chuck Yeager saw it happen while in combat... That being said, a plane with even flimsier wings would have the same problem...


----------



## Sal Monella (Jul 23, 2006)

it's over


----------



## plan_D (Jul 23, 2006)

Hubert Zemke of 56th FG went down when his P-51s wing came off. I cannot remember why though, but I know it wasn't combat related.


----------



## Soren (Jul 24, 2006)

Sal, the time to climb figure of 10.1min to 10km I posted is for a test-bed which engines didn't live up to their promised power ratings, and I only posted it because it was the only Steigzeit figure I could find at that time. 

Another, and more recent Leistung sheet(Based on flight testing), lists a time to climb figure of 8min to 7,000m at Start u. Notleistung - 1,730 HP @ 3,250 RPM. (Same sheet which shows 20m/s at SL, I had just missed the Steigzeit figures) This suggests that an altitude 10km could be reached in ~10min at Start u. Notleistung. - Hence why pilots report speeds and climbing ability much higher with the Ta 152's in service than what some test-bed spec's might lead you to believe. 

And if you ask me reaching 10km in ~10 min at just 1,730 HP is very impressive - Esp. considering it takes the 800 kg lighter P-51H 8.6min to reach the same alt. with 2,218 HP at its disposal !

Also remember that, although very important, speed and climb rate isn't everything (esp. not when its that close), maneuverability plays a big part as-well, and the Ta 152H-1 is far superior in this department.


----------



## Sal Monella (Jul 24, 2006)

no more


----------



## Sal Monella (Jul 24, 2006)

edit


----------



## Soren (Jul 24, 2006)

Sal Monella said:


> What weight was used for the Ta-152 tests? Was it full internal fuel as with the P-51H plus full ammunition load?



The results were achieved by the Ta 152H-0 with full combat load, which corresponds to the Ta 152H-1's Fighter configuration load of 4,760 kg, which is with full ammunition and 554.5 L B4 fuel + 85 L GM-1 and 70 L MW-50. (The Escort configuration load was never used operationally)


----------



## lesofprimus (Jul 24, 2006)

And realistically, the Tank would never carry as much fuel as an escort P-51H, so trying to compare the 2 with the same amount of fuel proves nothing...


----------



## Sal Monella (Jul 24, 2006)

edit


----------



## loomaluftwaffe (Jul 24, 2006)

> Well, in the interest of operational fairness, you could load them each up with a fuel load to give each the same range.


then if one plane is more fuel efficient than the other then one will have to be loaded up with more fuel thus one will be heavier... some "operational fairness"


----------



## Sal Monella (Jul 24, 2006)

no more


----------



## the lancaster kicks ass (Jul 25, 2006)

loomaluftwaffe said:


> then if one plane is more fuel efficient than the other then one will have to be loaded up with more fuel thus one will be heavier... some "operational fairness"



if one plane is more fuel efficient than annother then it's not just down to engines it's down to the aircraft's design too so it's fair to compare them, however this comparison's taking a bit too far......


----------



## GroundPilot (Jul 26, 2006)

Erich suggests, on 07-14-06, that I or some one go to or review a thread about SturmFw's having to do with the shooting down of Brig. Gen. Frederick Castle leading the 8th AF on 24 Dec. 1944. Being a little dense can a friendly fellow tell me how to do this.


----------



## loomaluftwaffe (Jul 27, 2006)

click on the search button below the forum logo at the top


----------



## davparlr (Jul 31, 2006)

Soren said:


> So you don't think that a 6.7 G limit load factor at just 9,500 lbs is rather low ??



No, it is apparently higher than the standard British requirement for aircraft (5.33 gs, see below). Also, note the following F-16 g limits between normal and loaded. I cannot verify these numbers but they are typical and the source seems knowledgable.

F-16 g limits
maximum ordnance 20,450 lb (9276 kg) for 5-g maneuver limit or 11,950 lb (5421 kg) for 9-g maneuver limit.

You may also note below that the gs specified on the P-51D was per AAF standards. I suspect you would find similar charts with similar numbers on the P-38, P-47, et. al.





> Do you have any proof to back up this claim davparlr ?





“A new, lightweight, NA-105 design was offered in January, 1943, and a July 20 contract was called for five prototypes. Using load factors reduced to British standards,…”. This was the criterion for the XP-51F. “The lessons learned from these machines were incorporated in the last production model, the P-51H, …”

American Combat Planes, Ray Wagner, 1968


P-51H
The original NA-73 had been built to the USAAF acceleration standard of 8.33 g (82 m/s²), which made it stronger but considerably heavier than if it had been designed for the British standard of 5.33 g (52 m/s²). Both the USAAF and the RAF was interested in lightening the plane to be more in line with the Spitfire, which was expected to boost its performance significantly.

P-51 Mustang - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

“The original NA-73 had been designed to higher load factors than the British Air Purchasing Commission had required. As a result, the structure of the Mustang was considerably heavier than that of the Spitfire, and it was felt that a considerable improvement in performance might be obtained if structural weight could be reduced. Edgar Schmued that traveled to England and had inspected the Supermarine factory, and he had also studied captured Messerchmitt and Focke-Wulf fighters. In January of 1943, North American Aviation suggested to the USAAF that they build a special lightweight version of the Mustang. It was agreed that a thorough redesign would be carried out, mainly to reduce weight but also to simplify systems, improve maintenance, and enhance performance without changing the engine. The new Mustang was to be designed to a combination of optimal British and American strength requirements, but mainly to those laid down in British Air Publication 970. 
The project was given the company designation NA-105. Two prototypes were ordered under the designation XP-51F…”
North American XP-51F, G, J Mustang




[QUOTE}Dig deeper davparlr...[/QUOTE]

I have not uncovered a significant problem with P-51 wings, but my knowledge is limited. However, pilot quickly identify aircraft that threaten their lives and react accordingly. I have never seen P-51 pilots complain about the safety of the planes, or scurry to get out of the P-51 to find another aircraft, or not want to be assigned to the P-51. The opposite is more the norm with pilots wanting to stay with, or be assigned to, the P-51.





> Well who wouldn't have with a 12 to 1 superiority in numbers ?
> 
> In any case 12 G was never reached by any fighter in WW2...



No disagreement here.





> I can easily justify it - Speed is life. Just ask Spitfire pilots who served over the channel in 42.
> 
> Also just take look at the plane, its quite obvious that its design is purely and entirely speed orientated - the wing and horizontal stabilizer amongst other things having undergone major alterations compared to the B/C/D.



While the design changes you mention are true, there is no evidence that the P-51H would be less capable in manuevering than the P-51D. It did possess a lower wing loading, higher power to weight ratio, and better climb capability than the P-51D. All which says it could be a formidable dogfigther. 






> The chart above is the "Absolute" limit of the a/c at that specific setting, just like any other performance and endurance specification in the manual.



This is not correct. The page you show is from a manual called T.O. No. 1F-51D-1, or the dash one, as called by pilots. It defines normal and emergency procedures for aircraft (an operators manual). The g levels noted are normal operating levels, not "absolute levels". The AF does not want pilots to operate the aircraft next to the "absolute" limit, which they would do if the absolute limits were provided to them. Typically, all limits in the manual have safety margins built in, be it gs or rpm or speed.






> Yeah and hadn't it been for all the delays caused by the RLM, the Ta-152 would've probably been in service with frontline units as early as June 1944.



The NA-105 which led to the XP-51F,G, and H, was contracted for prototype development in July, 1943, with the XP-51F flying Feb. 14, 1944. I am sure that if there had been a need, the H could have been out much earlier.





> A) Addressed ? How ? We're talking WW2 fighters here davparlr, not Jet fighters.


 I believe your comment was about 1 to 1 thrust to weight ratio preventing the need for a high aspect wing. My comment was that 1 to 1 thrust to weight did not occur intil the F-15 came out in the early 70s. There were many aircraft before that without 1 to 1 thrust to weight and did not use high aspect ration wings.


> C) Perhaps not computer controlled but even soon after WW2, when jets appeared, different kinds of slats and various other high lift devices were being used on low AR a/c in order to reduce the huge drag penalty such a/c suffer from in maneuvers. Also worthy of note is the obsession with speed which occured in fighter design just after WW2, with wings on aircraft growing ever smaller, just for sake of extra speed - The MIG-21 and F-104 are clear examples of this, in an era where maneuverability took a back seat to pure speed.


 I don't really know enough about slat usage, especially manuevering slats, to argue this point.


> D) Indeed, but it is infact a huge reason to why the F-22 has such a low AR wing.


 This I disagree with this. The YF-23, which the technical preference of the AF, was faster, more stealty and met all the manuevering requirements of the proposal without thrust vectoring and it also has a very low wing ratio. And of course we could talk about he F-15, F-14, etc.


> E) 8 G's mentioned where ?? If you're talking about the P-51H it could most likely only take around 6 G before its wing starts dismantling itself from the fuselage. - not at all a pleasant thing.


See comments on operational verses absolute gs and g levels of spitfire.






> Later high performance Spitfire's actually featured longer wings, either that or same span wings with different planforms and airfoils.



Didn't do further research on this but I suspect no model of the Spitfire had a high aspect ratio wing.






> It takes both great wing and engine efficiency to reach the altitudes the Ta 152H did.


Boy, the U-2 must be one hellacious dog fighter! Who needs the F-22. All you said is true about flying high but that doesn't translate into low altitude performance. There is always a trade-off between high and low altitude performance. Its really tough to made a airplane perform superlatively in both environments.



> And the Ta 152H-1 need not have feared the P-51H at any altitude..


I have not seen any data you have submitted that supports that conclusion. All you have done is try to degrade the P-51H with marginal information. I have posted arguments with data that the P-51H configured equivalently with the Ta-152H-1 has a clear airspeed advantage, wing loading advantage, and power to weight advantage over the Ta-152H below 30,000 ft. I do understand, from other commenters that I feel are more open minded, that data exist that would strengthen you argument. I do hope it becomes available. Good data is always good to have.


----------



## Sal Monella (Jul 31, 2006)

edit


----------



## Erich (Jul 31, 2006)

edit ~


----------



## Erich (Jul 31, 2006)

edit ~


----------



## davparlr (Jul 31, 2006)

Erich said:


> c'mon you guys this is all a what if. You chaps luv these performance data sheets don't you ?? hmmmmmmmm ?
> 
> would of been clear enough had the two been able to perform combat in the skies of the Reich at 45,000 feet now wouldn't it; then we could debate resonably
> 
> E ~


Erich, that is all we have. These planes did not meet nor were tested against each other which is the ultimate comparison. It is true that spec sheets tell a lot but does not reflect how the airplane and pilot become an effective weapons system. However, there is nothing unreasonable about comparing the data we have. Even pilot statements tend to be highly biased. Most pilots consider their craft superior (with them flying it, of course). I hope the information that is forthcoming is more than pilot testimony. I hope it includes things like power curves of the Ta-152 engine.


----------



## davparlr (Jul 31, 2006)

Erich said:


> would of been clear enough had the two been able to perform combat in the skies of the Reich at 45,000 feet now wouldn't it; then we could debate resonably
> 
> E ~



At 35-45000 feet their would be no competition to the Ta-152!


----------



## davparlr (Jul 31, 2006)

Erich said:


> just to let all know that are interested in this thread, W. Reschke has answered some questions I had for him and has sent his letter to me this past Monday, concerning his thoughts flying the Ta 152H in III./JG 301 and Geschwader Stab/JG 301
> 
> will translate and let everyone know here my questions/his replies
> 
> ...


It is always a trill to hear from the people who were actually involved in the history. I will be eagerly awaiting your translation.


----------



## Sal Monella (Jul 31, 2006)

edit


----------



## schwarzpanzer (Jul 31, 2006)

Pehaps this comparison would be easier if put in simple terms?

I don't think the P51-H saw service in the Western Front?

I would guess that the Ta would win at all altitudes.

I know the P51-D's wings could break off, was this rectified in the P51-H?

I think Soren knows what he is talking about.

What do power curves matter on planes?


----------



## Erich (Jul 31, 2006)

edit ~


----------



## davparlr (Jul 31, 2006)

Sal Monella said:


> davprlr said, *"At 35-45000 feet their would be no competition to the Ta-152!"*
> 
> I am not sure I would agree that at 35,000ft, the P-51H would be "no competition" for a Ta-152.



I was basing this estimate on the fact that the P-51H engine hp is dropping off significantly and at 35k is generating less than 1400 hp where the Ta-152 is generating close to 1700 hp. Also, the P-51H is about 7000 ft below service ceiling whereas the Ta-152 is 13000+ ft below service ceiling. And since the Ta-152 has the energy advantage of attacking from above, I would suspect the P-51H would have to have a significant advantage to neutralize this energy advantage and I do not believe it has that at 35k. The Ta-152 is really in its element in this area.


----------



## Sal Monella (Aug 1, 2006)

edit


----------



## V-1710 (Aug 1, 2006)

edit


----------



## Erich (Aug 1, 2006)

edit ~


----------



## lesofprimus (Aug 1, 2006)

Copyright © 1997 by Claes Sundin Christer Bergström


----------



## Erich (Aug 1, 2006)

yes the 4-6 Stab a/c received the white spiralschnauze later but first were the plain black-green 

thanks for posting this craft Les ! a beautiful a/c it was and still is


----------



## V-1710 (Aug 2, 2006)

O.K., back to the subject- If this discussion is intended to be a comparison between the ultimate expression of the Fw-190 design (which I believe it was) and the ultimate expression of the P-51 design, I question if the H was really the ultimate P-51. Yes, it had the lightweight airframe (which some say was more for range in the Pacific rather than maneuverability), improved wing airfoil (again less drag for greater range), and the larger tail (O.K., that was for maneuverability). But, there was a P-51 derivative that handily outperformed the H, and that was the XP-51J. The J had a higher ceiling (43,700' vs. 41,600'), better climb to 20,000' (5 min. vs. 7.5 min.) and a similar top speed (471 m.p.h. @ 27,000' vs. 487 m.p.h. @ 25,000'). Prof. Tank's claim of easily pulling away from a flight of P-51's that tried to jump him during a test flight could certainly have been true, noting that Tank's 152H-1 probably didn't have full combat equipment, and the P-51's that gave chase were almost certainly D models, which had none of the improvements of the H or J models. Now, before comment is made that the J was purely experimental, you could almost make the claim that the 152 was not really in production either (a total of 67 examples of all types). Further, the P-51J was really the basis for the sensational P-82 Twin Mustang. In any event, I feel that the 152 was already made quite obsolete by the Me-262 in the interceptor role, and the P-51 was on the verge of being eclipsed by the P-80.


----------



## Erich (Aug 2, 2006)

actually according to TA 152H vets the turn circle was quite good as Reschkes victory over a Tempest suggests, the Me 262 due to speed of the jet could not turn on a dime and in aerial combat 9 out of 10 times this is how the P-51D/K pilots were able to shoot this a/c down. Frankly the Ta 152 in my opinion would of been the high cover for Jets landing and taking off


----------



## Soren (Aug 2, 2006)

Judging from pilot accounts and aerodynamic data, the Ta 152H-1 could most likely outturn any Allied fighter it met - likely even the Spitfire. (Although only a late mark Spitfire, a +25 lbs/sq.in. boosted Mk.IX would probably prove abit of a mouthfull in a turnfight)


*Sal davparlr*,

I read your last few posts, and I advice you to read my second last post, then you'll understand why I wrote that the Ta 152H-1 didn't need to fear the P-51H at any altitude.

With a properly functioning engine you can expect the Ta 152H-1 to hit a top speed at sea level in the order of 615+ km/h, and a top speed of ~800+ km/h at altitude ! And climb rate would ofcourse increase quite vastly with this increase in engine power as-well.


----------



## Sal Monella (Aug 3, 2006)

edit


----------



## Erich (Aug 3, 2006)

in truth the JG 301 pilots "had nothing to fear from the Soviets", as this was the prime contender they were taking on with the Tank models. Again we continue to speculate about this fine a/c ..............


----------



## lesofprimus (Aug 3, 2006)

And all it will ever be is speculation... We came real close to finding out how the Tank would have handled the Mustangs, but alas, they got bounced by their own countrymen and broke off the engagement...


----------



## Sal Monella (Aug 3, 2006)

no more


----------



## johnbr (Aug 3, 2006)

I would have loved to have seen the Ta-152 a DB603Q or n.


----------



## Sal Monella (Aug 3, 2006)

edit


----------



## Erich (Aug 3, 2006)

edit ~


----------



## Sal Monella (Aug 3, 2006)

edit


----------



## Erich (Aug 3, 2006)

edit


----------



## davparlr (Aug 3, 2006)

Soren said:


> I read your last few posts, and I advice you to read my second last post, then you'll understand why I wrote that the Ta 152H-1 didn't need to fear the P-51H at any altitude.
> 
> With a properly functioning engine you can expect the Ta 152H-1 to hit a top speed at sea level in the order of 615+ km/h, and a top speed of ~800+ km/h at altitude ! And climb rate would ofcourse increase quite vastly with this increase in engine power as-well.



I am confused. The site you referenced seem to be the one discussing time to climb. I don't know what this has to do with combat superiority (especially since the time to climb to 7000 m of the P-51H is significantly better than the Ta-152H (5 min to 8 min). Also I agree with Sal. I have not seen those airspeed numbers anywhere. Maybe some pilot reports are coming. Even if the 615 km/hr at SL is correct, it is still more than 60 km/hr slower than the P-51H at SL. However, it would not surprise me if the Ta-152 could hit 800 km/hr at high altitude.



Lesofprimus said:


> And all it will ever be is speculation... We came real close to finding out how the Tank would have handled the Mustangs, but alas, they got bounced by their own countrymen and broke off the engagement...


Not really since the Mustangs were almost assuredly P-15Ds and would have been sorely pressed against the Ta-152H. The P-51D did not have the performance of the P-51H, they were significantly slower (395 mph vs. 443 mph at 5k ft), had higher wing loading, and lower power to weight ratio than the P-51H.


----------



## Sal Monella (Aug 3, 2006)

edit


----------



## Erich (Aug 4, 2006)

v/r E ♫


----------



## davparlr (Aug 4, 2006)

Erich said:


> think you are missing my point slightly and am going to have to post one of the JG 301 pilot transcripts. As mentioned earlier the Ta was heavily tested, and evaluated in many situation from pilot to ground control which including at least a dozen personell in many capacities. so importanat was the evaluation of this prop job that there were more than the standard regime' of interested parties including TAnk and his own test staff ........ remember one thing that in combat III./JG 301 pilots and the Stab/JG 301 pilots did not fly the same Ta 152H on every mission.
> 
> I am hoping that Monogram will give a full acct of the test values for the a/c, operations maybe difficualt since the full story of JG 301 in 1945 is covered in very small detail. Not even Reschkes own book covers it thourghly.
> 
> v/r E ♫


I certainly am hoping with you. It obviously was a great airplane and it would be loss to not have the data you have mentioned.


----------



## Jabberwocky (Aug 4, 2006)

Soren said:


> With a properly functioning engine you can expect the Ta 152H-1 to hit a top speed at sea level in the order of 615+ km/h, and a top speed of ~800+ km/h at altitude ! And climb rate would ofcourse increase quite vastly with this increase in engine power as-well.




I'm gonna call you on that 800+ kph speed at altitude and ask for a source.

I have quite a few copies of original FW data sheets and speed graphs, for both the H and C variants of the TA-152. The fastest speed I can find is 753 kph at 10.5 kilometers for a Ta-152 C-0 fitted with a DB 603 L. 

The fastest FW seems to have actually been the 190D-12, which has a graphed speed of about 775 kph with a Jumo 213 F at 3250 rpm and 1.84 ata using B3 fuel  

I don't believe the 615 kph at sea level either. Speeds for the H and C models vary from about 575-595 kph, but not any higher. I have two speed graphs for the Ta-152 H-1. The first shows 580 kph at sea level, the second shows 595 kph. I also have a FW data sheet from October 1944, with a H-0 (Jumo 213 E) speed of 580 kph on the deck and 742 kph at 9.5 kilometres altitude.


----------



## Sal Monella (Aug 5, 2006)

edit


----------



## Bullockracing (Aug 5, 2006)

V-1710 said:


> ... Prof. Tank's claim of easily pulling away from a flight of P-51's that tried to jump him during a test flight could certainly have been true, noting that Tank's 152H-1 probably didn't have full combat equipment, and the P-51's that gave chase were almost certainly D models, which had none of the improvements of the H or J models...



I have an American version of that story, which lends credence to Prof Tank's claim, but the P-51s never caught the "long-nose 190" so they couldn't confirm the exact type of 190D or 152 it was, much less if Prof Tank was at the controls...


----------



## Erich (Aug 5, 2006)

eddddddddddddddddit


----------



## Sal Monella (Aug 5, 2006)

edit


----------



## Erich (Aug 5, 2006)

ediiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiitttttttttt


----------



## Sal Monella (Aug 5, 2006)

edit


----------



## DerAdlerIstGelandet (Aug 5, 2006)

I am going to have to look through my books. I am not sure which one or where, but I have seen sources of the Ta-152 at speeds higher than 472mph clocked on test flights.


----------



## Erich (Aug 5, 2006)

whoa


----------



## Sal Monella (Aug 5, 2006)

yee haw


----------



## Erich (Aug 5, 2006)

Erich ~


----------



## Sal Monella (Aug 5, 2006)

it's all over


----------



## Erich (Aug 5, 2006)

edit


----------



## Sal Monella (Aug 5, 2006)

it's over


----------



## Sal Monella (Aug 5, 2006)

"edit"


----------



## Erich (Aug 5, 2006)

edit


----------



## Sal Monella (Aug 5, 2006)

edit


----------



## Erich (Aug 5, 2006)

edit


----------



## Erich (Aug 5, 2006)

I'll give my reasons much later as why I edited my comments and several of SM's. this is much in part to a phone call I just received from Germany.

life can be a bummer


----------



## davparlr (Aug 5, 2006)

Wow! This has been a great thread. Some great discussions (and some not so), much information presented (and, hopefully more to come), and finally, some intrigue!


----------



## Sal Monella (Aug 6, 2006)

it's over goodbye


----------

