# If the Rare Bear became a ww2 fighter.



## breadbasketbomb (Oct 28, 2014)

The Rare Bear is a racing airplane made from an F8F Bearcat, modified with a Wright R-3350 Deuplex-Cyclone. Both of which, the aircrame and engine are made during the later days of the war and are used post war. but I have to ask, what if the Rare Bear was a standard aircraft design to be used in Berlin? The damn thing can go over 500 mph. Not as fast as the Me-262, but damn close!







The thing is very sleek in design, probably too ahead even for a Korean or Vietnam Era propeller aircraft.


----------



## gjs238 (Oct 29, 2014)

Check out the Goodyear F2G Corsair with a Pratt Whitney R-4360:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Goodyear_F2G_Corsair


----------



## Thorlifter (Oct 29, 2014)

Once you load it with ordinance and armor, the performance will suffer, making it closer to the Bearcat's actually performance numbers. Otherwise you just have a fast observation plane.


----------



## GrauGeist (Oct 29, 2014)

That's one reason these racing aircraft are so fast: weapons, armor, self-sealing tanks, munition hard-points have all been removed. The original radio and radar/IFF equipment have been removed. The engines (if even close to original issue) have been modified. All of these factors need to be considered.

An example of an extremely fast airframe, the He100 was setting air speed records when in it's testing configuration. When they started adding equipment to make it combat feasible, the performance took a real hit.

Another thing to consider, is that the aircraft in battlefield conditions suffer from projectile and/or schrapnel damage as well as dents, dings, dirt and corrosion. These are degrading to the aircraft's performance. These along with the engine suffering from rough conditions, many hours of service under extreme circumstances.


----------



## Clayton Magnet (Oct 29, 2014)

The engine as it is now is finely tuned and boosted, requiring a huge amount of maintenance to remain airworthy. Visabiliy took a big hit in the name of streamlining, as did wingspan. Its designed to go a million miles per hour on the deck, but i would suspect its altitude performance would suffer considerably. As previously stated, the He100 is a good analogy, looks crazy good on paper, but once fitted for operations, the advantages start to disappear. The Me209 and Bugatti model 100 are also examples of remarkable performance (hypothetical for the model 100) that probably would have been disasters as combat aircraft.


----------



## Clayton Magnet (Oct 29, 2014)

There were also aircraft almost ready for service that approached those speeds, AND would probably have been combat ready. Spitful, p-51H and XP-72 come to mind.


----------



## wuzak (Oct 29, 2014)

Not to mention that the service rating for the engine would be 2000-2500hp less and the cooling system wouldn't work as well or be as effective (ie the spray bars/total loss water cooling system).

Also, haven't the flaps been removed from the wings? Saves weight and tidies up the aero a bit.


----------



## GregP (Oct 29, 2014)

You guys hasd better go look at the He 100 again. The record plane went that fast with some very minor airframe teaking ... the real reason was the very special, very high horsepower engine. When they went back to normal horsepower levels, the speed fell to normal type speeds, but add another 1,000+ HP to a standard military engine of the day and you WILL get a good burst of speed.

As for Rare Bear, the engine is good for about 10 - 25 laps at around 500 mph, That wouldn't even fly one mission in WWII. It can cruise around at 400 mph for a long while, though, and that might be enough to make if a good one. If equipped with ... say ... 2 x 30 mm cannons, it would still have a bad range ... not much fuel, and the wings don't fold except manually.

Neat though it is, Rare Bear is NOT a fighter. You COULD get another 40 - 540 knots from a standard Bearcat, though, with tweaking and clean-up and use as a air-superiority fighter only. The question is whether or not that was needed at the time. In the end, it wasn't but the notion is an interesting one.

Reactions: Like Like:
2 | Like List reactions


----------



## GrauGeist (Oct 29, 2014)

Once the final versions of the He100 came about, it had war gear AND had the penalty of the external radiator, instead of the evaporative radiator system. This made a large difference in it's speed, which fell short of it's projected estimates.


----------



## RpR (Oct 30, 2014)

Clayton Magnet said:


> There were also aircraft almost ready for service that approached those speeds, AND would probably have been combat ready. Spitful, p-51H and XP-72 come to mind.


At what altitude?


----------



## breadbasketbomb (Oct 30, 2014)

I suppose it would only go so much faster if using just an advanced engine, and kept all the combat equipment. Well... it's quite a shame. I was always into the hypothetical stuff. I don't know much about airplanes, but wouldnt there have to be at least a good amount of performance increase if the engine was simply changed from the standard to the type it now uses?


----------



## wuzak (Oct 30, 2014)

GregP said:


> It can cruise around at 400 mph for a long while, though, and that might be enough to make if a good one.



The Spitfire PR.XIX could cruise at >370mph at 40,000ft for as long as the fuel kept flowing.


----------



## pbehn (Oct 30, 2014)

I believe the bearcat was comparable to the sea fury in service, better at somethings not so good at others with the differences pretty marginal. The Sea Fury was a development of the Fury/Tempest so a bearcat would be better than a Tempest. The Tempest was an opponent to be respected by the Me262 at low altitudes. As for putting rare bear into service, like driving across the alps in an F1 car.

Reactions: Like Like:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## dedalos (Oct 30, 2014)

pbehn said:


> I believe the bearcat was comparable to the sea fury in service, better at somethings not so good at others with the differences pretty marginal. The Sea Fury was a development of the Fury/Tempest so a bearcat would be better than a Tempest. The Tempest was an opponent to be respected by the Me262 at low altitudes. As for putting rare bear into service, like driving across the alps in an F1 car.



So the conlusion is that the F8F was better/faster than the me 262 at low altitude. Can you calculate how much faster the F8F was?
Also since the F8F was faster than the 262, the rear bear would fly rings around the 262. The f8f was really an amazing design

Reactions: Dislike Dislike:
2 | Like List reactions


----------



## Shortround6 (Oct 30, 2014)

pbehn said:


> As for putting rare bear into service, like driving across the alps in an F1 car.



Or worse, driving across the American southwest or Western Australia. How *far* to the next gas station?!?!?

Reactions: Like Like:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## gjs238 (Oct 30, 2014)

dedalos said:


> pbehn said:
> 
> 
> > I believe the bearcat was comparable to the sea fury in service, better at somethings not so good at others with the differences pretty marginal. The Sea Fury was a development of the Fury/Tempest so a bearcat would be better than a Tempest. The Tempest was an opponent to be respected by the Me262 at low altitudes. As for putting rare bear into service, like driving across the alps in an F1 car.
> ...



I didn't interpret pbehn's post that way at all.


----------



## GrauGeist (Oct 30, 2014)

dedalos said:


> So the conlusion is that the F8F was better/faster than the me 262 at low altitude. Can you calculate how much faster the F8F was?
> Also since the F8F was faster than the 262, the rear bear would fly rings around the 262. The f8f was really an amazing design


Let's take a look at pbehn's comment:



pbehn said:


> I believe the bearcat was comparable to the sea fury in service, better at somethings not so good at others with the differences pretty marginal. The Sea Fury was a development of the Fury/Tempest so a bearcat would be better than a Tempest. *The Tempest was an opponent to be respected by the Me262 at low altitudes.* As for putting rare bear into service, like driving across the alps in an F1 car.



"The Tempest was an opponent to be respected by the Me262 at low altitudes" is exactly correct. The Me262's forte was speed, not a turning fight. If the Tempest could catch the Me262 down low and draw it into a turning contest, it's "game over" for the Me262. Period.


----------



## dedalos (Oct 30, 2014)

GrauGeist said:


> Let's take a look at pbehn's comment:
> 
> 
> 
> "The Tempest was an opponent to be respected by the Me262 at low altitudes" is exactly correct. The Me262's forte was speed, not a turning fight. If the Tempest could catch the Me262 down low and draw it into a turning contest, it's "game over" for the Me262. Period.



Oh really? So if the 262 engage the tempest at low altitude in a series of sustained High speed turns and firing passes will lose?Interesting. 
Now it becomes clear to me why the allies did not bother to field their jets.Their amazing piston engine fighter designs could easily defeat the 262 on 1 vs 1 combat. Period.

Reactions: Dislike Dislike:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## FLYBOYJ (Oct 30, 2014)

dedalos said:


> Now it becomes clear to me why the allies did not bother to field their jets.Their amazing piston engine fighter designs could easily defeat the 262 on 1 vs 1 combat. Period.



Given the right circumstances and factoring in pilot skill - YES!


----------



## GrauGeist (Oct 30, 2014)

dedalos said:


> Oh really? So if the 262 engage the tempest at low altitude in a series of sustained High speed turns and firing passes will lose?Interesting.
> Now it becomes clear to me why the allies did not bother to field their jets.Their amazing piston engine fighter designs could easily defeat the 262 on 1 vs 1 combat. Period.


No one said "easily", you did.

Facts are, that the Me262 was built for speed and delivering a wicked punch to it's target...it was not intended to be a dog-fighter. There are several cases where the Me262, at the hands of a skilled pilot, was able to fight their way out of a group of P-51Ds or similar types, but this is the exception to the rule and a good number of Me262s caught in the same circumstances did not make it out alive.

Unlike a piston fighter, the Me262 could not quickly recover from bled-off speed by jumping the throttle and that left it in an exposed condition. Once it's speed was down, it was vulnerable. Add to that, it's inability to absorb damage to it's engine(s) unlike it's piston adversaries and the Allies knew that and more often than not, would aim for the engines just for this reason. Hits to the engine resulted in immediate and catastrophic results.

Reactions: Like Like:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## gjs238 (Oct 30, 2014)

Here some P-51's shoot down three Me262's:


_View: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=q8AcGJNkkuc_


----------



## pbehn (Oct 30, 2014)

Man alive what it is to be will fully miss represented. AN opponent to be respected doesn't mean it is superior it means you have to fight it on your terms not the tempest s. The phrase was quoting a lw 262 pilot. The two planes had different missions if they met at low altitude th e 262 was returning and low on fuel. I agree with Gray geist and flyboy but please if you want to fabricate argument don't use me.

Reactions: Bacon Bacon:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## fastmongrel (Oct 30, 2014)

A 262 below 100 ft altitude with the wheels down and full flaps could probably have been beaten by a Gloster Gladiator no one is saying that the Gladiator (F8f) is the Best. I think someone needs to reread some posts.

Reactions: Like Like:
2 | Like List reactions


----------



## pbehn (Oct 30, 2014)

Fast mongrel what I meant was that tempest s were used to intercept 262s returning to base in this situation they were vulnerable even if not exactly wheels down, they had slowed and were at low altitude. A 262 could not engage max power in an instant.. taking nothing from.the 262 it was a fine plane I was just answering the original post.....now I am off for a beer. Prost


----------



## gjs238 (Oct 30, 2014)

pbehn said:


> now I am off for a beer. Prost



A topic worthy of it's own thread


----------



## dedalos (Oct 30, 2014)

GrauGeist said:


> No one said "easily", you did.
> 
> Facts are, that the Me262 was built for speed and delivering a wicked punch to it's target...it was not intended to be a dog-fighter. There are several cases where the Me262, at the hands of a skilled pilot, was able to fight their way out of a group of P-51Ds or similar types, but this is the exception to the rule and a good number of Me262s caught in the same circumstances did not make it out alive.
> 
> Unlike a piston fighter, the Me262 could not quickly recover from bled-off speed by jumping the throttle and that left it in an exposed condition. Once it's speed was down, it was vulnerable. Add to that, it's inability to absorb damage to it's engine(s) unlike it's piston adversaries and the Allies knew that and more often than not, would aim for the engines just for this reason. Hits to the engine resulted in immediate and catastrophic results.



Unlike a piston engine fighter the me 262 could retain his Energy through High speed turns much much better. Why should a 262 let its speed fell down? He could impose its own terms of dogfight.A High speed dogfight is still a dogfight. And at High speed had excellent agility. While most piston engine fighters could turn inside the turning circle of 262, it could fly faster in the perimeter of the circle. So to correct thing to say is " the 262 had to respect the tempest IF its pilot was stupid or inexperienced or outnumbered 20-1 or taken by surprise"
About the vulnerability of its engines, what i can say. Hits on its engines had catastrophic results, while hits on the engines of P51, Spitfire, Tempest, La7, P38, had positive results in their performance.Besides, the damage resistance of these planes is legendary


----------



## gjs238 (Oct 30, 2014)

Gun Camera footage of a Me 262 being attacked and shot down shortly after take off.


_View: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=kf5i0D9yio4_


----------



## gjs238 (Oct 30, 2014)

Wikipedia article section on Me262 counter jet tactics:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Messerschmitt_Me_262#Counter-jet_tactics


----------



## GrauGeist (Oct 30, 2014)

dedalos said:


> Unlike a piston engine fighter the me 262 could retain his Energy through High speed turns much much better. Why should a 262 let its speed fell down? He could impose its own terms of dogfight.A High speed dogfight is still a dogfight. And at High speed had excellent agility. While most piston engine fighters could turn inside the turning circle of 262, it could fly faster in the perimeter of the circle. So to correct thing to say is " the 262 had to respect the tempest IF its pilot was stupid or inexperienced or outnumbered 20-1 or taken by surprise"
> About the vulnerability of its engines, what i can say. Hits on its engines had catastrophic results, while hits on the engines of P51, Spitfire, Tempest, La7, P38, had positive results in their performance.Besides, the damage resistance of these planes is legendary


Ok, now you're just being ridiculous.

If the Me262 was such a wunderwaffe, why didn't it win the war? Why then, if the Me262 was so freakin' awesome, how did it get shot down in the numbers that it did?

Wishful thinking does not change history...the Me262 was *not* a dog fighter. Holding high-speed in a turn means a wider arc and anything that can drop it's speed substantially can turn inside that arc. The Me262 could not drop it's speed to get inside the arc and hope to increase it's speed after pulling such a manouver without leaving it's ass dangling out there for an adversary to shoot full of holes.

Reactions: Like Like:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## GrauGeist (Oct 30, 2014)

And besides, what the heck does this Me262 conversation have to do with the topic of the thread?


----------



## pbehn (Oct 30, 2014)

dedalos said:


> Unlike a piston engine fighter the me 262 could retain his Energy through High speed turns much much better. Why should a 262 let its speed fell down? He could impose its own terms of dogfight.A High speed dogfight is still a dogfight. And at High speed had excellent agility. While most piston engine fighters could turn inside the turning circle of 262, it could fly faster in the perimeter of the circle. So to correct thing to say is " the 262 had to respect the tempest IF its pilot was stupid or inexperienced or outnumbered 20-1 or taken by surprise"
> About the vulnerability of its engines, what i can say. Hits on its engines had catastrophic results, while hits on the engines of P51, Spitfire, Tempest, La7, P38, had positive results in their performance.Besides, the damage resistance of these planes is legendary


If you cannot land because a tempest is there you get rid of him or run out of fuel. As you can read from links here the ow set up escorts of FW 190s and flak alleys to protect them.


----------



## dedalos (Oct 30, 2014)

GrauGeist said:


> Ok, now you're just being ridiculous.
> 
> If the Me262 was such a wunderwaffe, why didn't it win the war? Why then, if the Me262 was so freakin' awesome, how did it get shot down in the numbers that it did?
> 
> Wishful thinking does not change history...the Me262 was *not* a dog fighter. Holding high-speed in a turn means a wider arc and anything that can drop it's speed substantially can turn inside that arc. The Me262 could not drop it's speed to get inside the arc and hope to increase it's speed after pulling such a manouver without leaving it's ass dangling out there for an adversary to shoot full of holes.



You just dont get it. The me 262 had a wider arc but was flying much much faster on its arc. The piston engined fighters could initially turn inside that arc but flying in a much slower speed could not attack the me and soon would loose even more speed.All me had to do was to keep its speed and sooner or later would find a firing opportunity

Reactions: Dislike Dislike:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## gjs238 (Oct 30, 2014)

dedalos said:


> You just dont get it. The me 262 had a wider arc but was flying much much faster on its arc. The piston engined fighters could initially turn inside that arc but flying in a much slower speed could not attack the me and soon would loose even more speed.All me had to do was to keep its speed and sooner or later would find a firing opportunity



How do you accomplish that when taking off and landing?


----------



## pbehn (Oct 30, 2014)

Errr the 262 had to land, if it could land at 450mph then no problem. 
Respect v fear

In the BoB a spitfire pilot must respect a 109 @ vice versa. They had strengths and weaknesses but very similar overall.
A hurricane pilot should fear a 109 pilot because he has an advantage in speed and armament that his not easily overcome.
A 109 pilot should respect a hurricane pilot because unless you use your advantage he has 8 mgs and they can hurt you.


----------



## Shortround6 (Oct 30, 2014)

gjs238 said:


> How do you accomplish that when taking off and landing?




I am still trying to figure out how a plane flying a larger diameter circle _ever_ gets the plane flying the smaller diameter circle in it's sights, especially if the plane with the larger circle has a higher stalling speed.

Reactions: Like Like:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## pbehn (Oct 30, 2014)

Shortround6 said:


> I am still trying to figure out how a plane flying a larger diameter circle _ever_ gets the plane flying the smaller diameter circle in it's sights, especially if the plane with the larger circle has a higher stalling speed.



I am looking for references to circular aerodromes.


----------



## dedalos (Oct 30, 2014)

Shortround6 said:


> I am still trying to figure out how a plane flying a larger diameter circle _ever_ gets the plane flying the smaller diameter circle in it's sights, especially if the plane with the larger circle has a higher stalling speed.



You too Shortround6,you too?!?!?!

Reactions: Dislike Dislike:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## pbehn (Oct 30, 2014)

dedalos said:


> You too Shortround6,you too?!?!?!


The tempest was slower than the. 262 but at lower altitudes the 262 wasless manouverable and responsive .....it there for the tempest deserved respect........can we
Get back to crossing the alps with rare bare towing a caravan please

Reactions: Like Like:
2 | Like List reactions


----------



## GrauGeist (Oct 30, 2014)

dedalos said:


> You just dont get it. The me 262 had a wider arc but was flying much much faster on its arc. The piston engined fighters could initially turn inside that arc but flying in a much slower speed could not attack the me and soon would loose even more speed.All me had to do was to keep its speed and sooner or later would find a firing opportunity


I do get it, much better than you, aparently.

In reading a good number of first-hand Luftwaffe and Allied accounts of encounters, it becomes aparent that the Me262 did indeed have shortcomings in a turning fight, where the *very act of banking* bleeds off airspeed. Yes, we all agree that the Me262 was fast, but a fatal mistake for a Me262 pilot to make, was to dive away from certain Allied fighters, such as the P-51. Another fatal mistake, was to engage in a *turning fight* with certain types.

If you have ever flown an aircraft, you would understand that to bank your aircraft is to bleed off speed. Loss of speed brings about a couple of conditions, one being a stall and the other is loss of altitude. 

I don't care if you're flying a Fokker D.VII or a MiG-29, you will experience this fact of physical law. The Me262 was no exception. What the Me262 *could not do*, was drop the engine RPMs to tighten a turn to get a favorable firing solution and then increase the throttle again, to recover speed. This is where a piston powered fighter would have the instant advantage over the Me262.

Again, you *cannot* enter into a tight, turning fight, without paying a speed penalty.

Period.

Reactions: Like Like:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## gjs238 (Oct 30, 2014)

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Precious_Metal_(aircraft)

Enough of Rare Bear, let's discuss how Precious Metal can be used to chase down V2 rockets!

Reactions: Like Like:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## GregP (Oct 31, 2014)

We have been discussing the tactics of the Me 262, not Rare Bear. Where did you ever get THAT idea?


----------



## dedalos (Oct 31, 2014)

GrauGeist said:


> I do get it, much better than you, aparently.
> 
> In reading a good number of first-hand Luftwaffe and Allied accounts of encounters, it becomes aparent that the Me262 did indeed have shortcomings in a turning fight, where the *very act of banking* bleeds off airspeed. Yes, we all agree that the Me262 was fast, but a fatal mistake for a Me262 pilot to make, was to dive away from certain Allied fighters, such as the P-51. Another fatal mistake, was to engage in a *turning fight* with certain types.
> 
> ...



It was fatal mistake for the Me 262 to dive away from P51 ???????????????????? Where did you read that???? Me 262 had a diving speed of M 0.084-0.86
Because you dont believe me i reproduce from Eric Brown page 66 " I carried dives up to a maximum M0.84............and this capability had undoubtedly endowed Me262 with a marked advantage over every other operational aircraft of WW2"
Also " a very respontive and docile aeroplane","harmony of control was pleasant" , "First class combat aircraft for both fighter and ground attack roles"

Fatal mistake for the Me was not to engage in a turning fight ( though because of the numerical superiority of the allies it was not very good idea) Fatal mistake was to engage in a LOW SPEED turning fight. In High speed turns the jet would retain its Energy better than the piston engine fighters . It s arc would be wider but flying much much faster . I had a statement from a P51 flight leader that his 4 P51s were turning inside a Me 262 but the jet simply was fast enough to fly around them.Unfortunately i have lost that book

PS P51... The most amzing design of WW2. superior at every single flight parameter
Corsair was also less manouverable at low speeds than the zero but it did dominated it.


----------



## GrauGeist (Oct 31, 2014)

Dude...seriously...

This is the wrong effin' thread for your Me262 rants...go find a Me262 thread and fill it up.


----------



## GregP (Oct 31, 2014)

The Me 262 was a slash and kill plane, not dogfighter. In a dogfight it would DIE quickly.

It depended on a surprise attack with large caliber cannons and speed. ANYONE who saw it coming could evade but, if you didn't see it coming, you were in serious jeopardy.

Nothing ese is anywhre NEAR reality. The Me 262 was out-turned by any good piston fighter, even an IAR-80 or a Roc/Skua.

The trick was to attack without warning and ambush the prey. They were very GOOD at that and not much else. Short range, not much maneuverability or endurance ...

Anything they attacked could be shot down, but NOT with any repeatibility and NOT with impunity. Many 262's were killrd with efficiency.


----------



## Elmas (Oct 31, 2014)

Me 262, exactly as lesser planes, from time to time had to land and could not do that at M 0,84-0,86. To protect the Me 262 landings, more than 150 Flack vierlings were necessary at Rheine-Hopsten.

Reactions: Like Like:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## FLYBOYJ (Oct 31, 2014)

dedalos said:


> In High speed turns the jet would retain its Energy better than the piston engine fighters



Only if it had available "excessive thrust" and a lower wing loading. In the case of the Me 262, it was able to sustain high speed turns well depending on the bank angle (which also comes into play).

You can't paint this with a broad brush, these scenarios would depend on altitudes, aircraft speeds (early jets did not accelerate well) and lastly pilot skill. 

Let's get this thread back on track. If someone wants to open a tread about early jet turn performance, please do so.


----------



## pbehn (Oct 31, 2014)

gjs238 said:


> https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Precious_Metal_(aircraft)
> 
> Enough of Rare Bear, let's discuss how Precious Metal can be used to chase down V2 rockets!


In a turning fight my money is on precious metal, the V2 suffered from high wing loading and was never landed successfully.

Reactions: Like Like:
2 | Like List reactions


----------



## drgondog (Oct 31, 2014)

dedalos said:


> Unlike a piston engine fighter the me 262 could retain his Energy through High speed turns much much better. Why should a 262 let its speed fell down? He could impose its own terms of dogfight.
> 
> A High speed dogfight is still a dogfight. And at High speed had excellent agility. While most piston engine fighters could turn inside the turning circle of 262, it could fly faster in the perimeter of the circle. So to correct thing to say is " the 262 had to respect the tempest IF its pilot was stupid or inexperienced or outnumbered 20-1 or taken by surprise"
> About the vulnerability of its engines, what i can say. Hits on its engines had catastrophic results, while hits on the engines of P51, Spitfire, Tempest, La7, P38, had positive results in their performance.Besides, the damage resistance of these planes is legendary



You said
"_Unlike a piston engine fighter the me 262 could retain his Energy through High speed turns much much better. Why should a 262 let its speed fell down? He could impose its own terms of dogfight.

*ANY turn will bleed energy and speed unless excess Thrust is available over the increased drag of a turn. High Lift translates to high Drag. A bank translates to increased Lift loading. Increasing the bank angle while holding altitude increases drag due to the increasing AoA. Performing that maneuver against a high speed, better turning, better accelerating piston engine fighter was a solid reason for "Killed in Action for being Stupid".*


A High speed dogfight is still a dogfight. And at High speed had excellent agility. 

*Define agility. It had higher speed by 75-100mph in a straight line but bled off energy rapidly in a level or climbing turn. It could not roll with any of the top Allied fighters but could translate excess speed for altitude advantage. It had a slightly higher diving speed over the P-51/P-47 but about the same as the Tempest and Spit - but also lost elevator authority and forced into a 'nose down tuck' as CMac changed. By contrast the 51 did not have that issue and might be able to catch a 262 during pullout - but might not, also.

With approximately 59 pounds/Sq Ft wing loading, its ROC was slightly above P-51D, but about the same as P-51B w/150 octane and 72" Boost and slower than both the Spit XIV and Tempest, at all altitudes*

While most piston engine fighters could turn inside the turning circle of 262, it could fly faster in the perimeter of the circle. 

*See above - I would have to care enough to do the actual calcs for the Corner speed of the 262, as well as know what the max Q load and Limit Design G loading is (guess 8 at perhaps 10,000 pounds). Further one would wish to know the AoA for which compressor stalls are imminent - Do You know? Having said that the OMEGAmax rate of turn is inversely proportional to the SQRT of W/S and proportional to the SQRT of CLmax*Gmax. The Rmin turn Radius is proportional to W/L and inversely proportional to CLmax.

Simply stated the 262 will have an initially higher rate of turn as it bleeds speed due to drag, but the Allied fighter with have a rate of tune much faster (~SQRT 2 faster OMEGA) with about 80% the Radius. In other words be able to get and maintain deflection on the Me 262 as it dallies to play. *

So to correct thing to say is " the 262 had to respect the tempest IF its pilot was stupid or inexperienced or outnumbered 20-1 or taken by surprise"

*OR, if the 262 decided to not capitalize on its raw speed advantage by simply making one pass and continue out of dodge by making any attempt to engage the Allied fighter which could out turn, out roll, and have nearly the same ROC and dive speed - and usually more fuel. The Allied fighter, once engaged in a maneuvering fight with the stupid 262 pilot also usually had more 'friends' to come and play.*

About the vulnerability of its engines, what i can say. Hits on its engines had catastrophic results, while hits on the engines of P51, Spitfire, Tempest, La7, P38, had positive results in their performance.Besides, the damage resistance of these planes is legendary_

Many of the air victory credits of the Allied fighters (~160) over the Me 262 were result of damaging one engine which slowed the 262 to point of easy kill... in other words the second engine carried it to the scene of the crash.

Reactions: Like Like:
4 | Like List reactions


----------



## drgondog (Oct 31, 2014)

Back to the thread question. No.

The XF-8F has internal capacity of 160 gallons and the last variant was 183 gallons. Neither was satisfactory for more than 220-280 mile combat radius. It could get much more straight line range with external tanks but that all went out the window at first combat encounter when externals would be jettisoned.

In other words it had maybe half the range of a P-47C or D. In ETO or MTO is would have been a medium range interceptor (as designed for USN fleet CAP).


----------



## awack (Oct 31, 2014)

As far as the me 262 and agility, we have heard pilots say its more maneuverable at high speed rather than low speed...from combat reports, our pilots said that the me 262 had an exceptional roll rate, test show that at high speed (400mph) it could out roll the fw 190a, infact at that speed it had more than double the roll rate than some contemporary fighters such as the spit and meteor mk3, one of the watson wizard pilots said its reaction time in handling(no mush etc except at low speed) was better than any prop fighter he had flown(190, p51, spitfire, and p47) it not only held its speed better in turns compared to prop fighters, but also jets...better than the p80 for example(read that once)there are supposedly reports that state the 262 can out turn the p80, but thats not saying much, some stats of p80 a give it a wing loading of 53 plus its laminar flow design, which ive heard isnt the best for turning, plus the full leading edge slats of the 262 give an increase in lift of 25 to 35 %, , they also gave the jet a very docile and tame stall, basically a shutter, and would lose no more than 100 feet in altitude... its no wonder why watson him self said of the me 262(of that era, it was the best fighter, most combat worthy and that you could do any thing in it) have read lower though( the slats of the f86 gave it a better turn at low speed than the mig 15) the p80 has a higher peak roll due to its boosted ailerons. Thanks to the power of jets at speed when compared to piston engines and the cleanliness of the me 262( plus it was heavy at a max take off weight ,full fuel load, of 15700 pounds) it had unequaled energy retention...which is why it took all day to slow down, it held its speed in turns, it had unbelievable climb at high speed, prop jobs zoom climb after a dive of around 5000 too 7000, the 262 which some one read had a zoom climb of 15000 too 16000 feet.

The topic was about Rare Bear and how it would compare to the me 262 as well, as far as i know, the highest speed a me 262 in combat trim(almost combat trim) achieved, was 578 mph, thats 10 mph faster than a good example of the 262 could achieve, it was your standard jet with the exception of the racing hood, which isnt too dissimilar to what the Rare Bear has, the top speed of RB is 528 mph, and thats not combat trim, the 262, given special treatment like covering up, sealing, polishing etc, would most likely be pushing up against its mach limit of 598/624 mph... its still an interesting thought though, try to keep weight down( and drag) by giving it one mg213, ( i know, a german gun on a US fighter)this gun weighed 96 kg, fired over twice as fast as the british or US 20 mm, had a muzzle velocity of 1050m/s, and with the mine shell, had 3 times the explosive power..and keep the low drag canopy of course, an interceptor specializing in shooting down fast recon aircraft such as the ar 234( A and B models, these reached speeds of 461, 464, 466, 475 and for the A model 487 mph, i just dont know if the Rare Bear could reach these speeds at 20000 too 30000 ft like the Arado could.

By the way, good examples of the me 262 were 160 too 210 mph faster than contemporary prop fighters at sea level... imagine being in a spitfire XIV( arguably best prop fighter of war ) at max speed at sea level and something going 180 mph faster than you!!!

I have just read that the racing canopy v9 me 262 achieved 605 mph, i believe it also had more swept back horizontal stabilizers as well, but other than that, it seems to be your standard production me 262 with uncovered gun ports and all..pretty impressive!


----------



## fastmongrel (Oct 31, 2014)

pbehn said:


> Fast mongrel what I meant was that tempest s were used to intercept 262s returning to base in this situation they were vulnerable even if not exactly wheels down, they had slowed and were at low altitude. A 262 could not engage max power in an instant.. taking nothing from.the 262 it was a fine plane I was just answering the original post.....now I am off for a beer. Prost



pbehn my comment wasnt aimed at you I agree entirely with what your trying to say but someone else is deliberately not understanding


----------



## pbehn (Oct 31, 2014)

I think the sad truth is that the bear cat and sea fury were at the pinnacle of prop SE fighters, even doubling or tripling the horsepower would have made little difference, the power had to go through a prop. Rare bear itself is probably less "serviceable than a 262. The engines on a 262 would last 25 hrs, I doubt rare bear goes 25 hrs before something is looked at on the engine. Great plane though love the paint job.


----------



## drgondog (Oct 31, 2014)

awack said:


> As far as the me 262 and agility, we have heard pilots say its more maneuverable at high speed rather than low speed...from combat reports, our pilots said that the me 262 had an exceptional roll rate, test show that at high speed (400mph) it could out roll the fw 190a, infact at that speed it had more than double the roll rate than some contemporary fighters such as the spit and meteor mk3, one of the watson wizard pilots said its reaction time in handling(no mush etc except at low speed) was better than any prop fighter he had flown(190, p51, spitfire, and p47) it not only held its speed better in turns compared to prop fighters, but also jets...better than the p80 for example(read that once)there are supposedly reports that state the 262 can out turn the p80, but thats not saying much, some stats of p80 a give it a wing loading of 53 plus its laminar flow design, which ive heard isnt the best for turning, plus the full leading edge slats of the 262 give an increase in lift of 25 to 35 %, , they also gave the jet a very docile and tame stall, basically a shutter, and would lose no more than 100 feet in altitude... its no wonder why watson him self said of the me 262(of that era, it was the best fighter, most combat worthy and that you could do any thing in it) have read lower though( the slats of the f86 gave it a better turn at low speed than the mig 15) the p80 has a higher peak roll due to its boosted ailerons. Thanks to the power of jets at speed when compared to piston engines and the cleanliness of the me 262( plus it was heavy at a max take off weight ,full fuel load, of 15700 pounds) it had unequaled energy retention...which is why it took all day to slow down, it held its speed in turns, it had unbelievable climb at high speed, prop jobs zoom climb after a dive of around 5000 too 7000, the 262 which some one read had a zoom climb of 15000 too 16000 feet.
> 
> The topic was about Rare Bear and how it would compare to the me 262 as well, as far as i know, the highest speed a me 262 in combat trim(almost combat trim) achieved, was 578 mph, thats 10 mph faster than a good example of the 262 could achieve, it was your standard jet with the exception of the racing hood, which isnt too dissimilar to what the Rare Bear has, the top speed of RB is 528 mph, and thats not combat trim, the 262, given special treatment like covering up, sealing, polishing etc, would most likely be pushing up against its mach limit of 598/624 mph... its still an interesting thought though, try to keep weight down( and drag) by giving it one mg213, ( i know, a german gun on a US fighter)this gun weighed 96 kg, fired over twice as fast as the british or US 20 mm, had a muzzle velocity of 1050m/s, and with the mine shell, had 3 times the explosive power..and keep the low drag canopy of course, an interceptor specializing in shooting down fast recon aircraft such as the ar 234( A and B models, these reached speeds of 461, 464, 466, 475 and for the A model 487 mph, i just dont know if the Rare Bear could reach these speeds at 20000 too 30000 ft like the Arado could.
> 
> ...



A lot of scattergun claims - Sources?

FYI a Spit XIV, P-38L, P-51D/H all out roll the FW 190A above 400mph, although there is a delay in the roll response for the P-38L.

The CDo of the Me 262, P-51 and P-80 are all in the same range - and 15-25% lower than the Spit or FW 190D.

FYI - the leading edge slats deploy at HoA/near stall conditions - not just low speeds. When they do, the drag rise is steep and quick so you pay a penalty for the Delta CLmax.

Reactions: Like Like:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## FLYBOYJ (Oct 31, 2014)

awack said:


> it had unequaled energy retention...which is why it took all day to slow down


 As did any jet of the period that didn't have speed brakes, it also took all day to spool it up too.

Let's see - throttle back to engine idle, pitch up - you'll climb but slow down. Gravity can be your friend...

Reactions: Like Like:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## dedalos (Oct 31, 2014)

drgondog said:


> You said
> "_Unlike a piston engine fighter the me 262 could retain his Energy through High speed turns much much better. Why should a 262 let its speed fell down? He could impose its own terms of dogfight.
> 
> *ANY turn will bleed energy and speed unless excess Thrust is available over the increased drag of a turn. High Lift translates to high Drag. A bank translates to increased Lift loading. Increasing the bank angle while holding altitude increases drag due to the increasing AoA. Performing that maneuver against a high speed, better turning, better accelerating piston engine fighter was a solid reason for "Killed in Action for being Stupid".*
> ...



Drgondog
Truly and honestly respect you and i found your posts on many forums very educative. But this post of yours, i have to say, is full of inaccurancies. Even more depressing is the fact that several members liked it, even experienced fighter pilots.
Please, PLEASE read the Reports ,not of the german pilots , but the AMERICAN pilots who transfered them in America, and the AMERICAN pilots that test flew the 262 in America. They simply disagree with you . It rolled and turned very well at speed and was fully acrobatic. For more details read their Reports. I will ask you just one question. Two posts above yours, i copied Word by Word the experience of Brown with the 262. A pilot WHO flew every single aircraft that we talk about. His says the 262 had a desicive advantage in diving over any other combat aircraftof WW2.Brown one of the most experienced test pilots ever. And then , you write , NO it had nearly the same with the P51/P47 and the same with the Tempest /Spitfire. Either Br own or you is wrong. By the way he also states the me 262 as" the most formidable combat aircraft of ww2". 
Also i dont understand your comment on 262 engines. Should be able to outperform its opponents on 1 engine? Also the second engine could very well save the aircraft if not for the thousands enemy fighters that covered every corner of germany in 1945
It s pointless to continiue the discussion. We have to agree that we disagree at everything


----------



## awack (Oct 31, 2014)

> As did any jet of the period that didn't have speed brakes, it also took all day to spool it up too.
> 
> Let's see - throttle back to engine idle, pitch up - you'll climb but slow down. Gravity can be your friend..



Completely agree, plus its poor low speed acceleration, poor low speed handling, high wing loading(especially just after take off at 15700 pounds)poor climb rate at low speed...below 279 mph etc, these are the reasons you didnt want to get into a prolonged dog fight with a piston engine fighter, the 262 was no Zero.


----------



## GrauGeist (Oct 31, 2014)

Perhaps we should start a new Me262 thread so we can talk about a modified F8F?

Reactions: Bacon Bacon:
2 | Like Like:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## gjs238 (Oct 31, 2014)

breadbasketbomb said:


> The Rare Bear is a racing airplane made from an F8F Bearcat, modified with a Wright R-3350 Deuplex-Cyclone. Both of which, the aircrame and engine are made during the later days of the war and are used post war. but I have to ask, what if the Rare Bear was a standard aircraft design to be used in Berlin? The damn thing can go over 500 mph. Not as fast as the Me-262, but damn close!
> 
> The thing is very sleek in design, probably too ahead even for a Korean or Vietnam Era propeller aircraft.



I doubt Rare Bear would have ever seen combat due to the USS Nimitz intercepting and destroying Kidō Butai enroute to attack Pearl Harbor.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Final_Countdown_(film)


----------



## FLYBOYJ (Oct 31, 2014)

GrauGeist said:


> Perhaps we should start a new Me262 thread so we can talk about a modified F8F?




If we did that someone would start posting about Confederate tugboats of the Civil War.

Reactions: Like Like:
2 | Like List reactions


----------



## GrauGeist (Oct 31, 2014)

FLYBOYJ said:


> If we did that someone would start posting about Confederate tugboats of the Civil War.


How about the CSS Hunley?

Reactions: Like Like:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## drgondog (Oct 31, 2014)

dedalos said:


> Drgondog
> Truly and honestly respect you and i found your posts on many forums very educative. But this post of yours, i have to say, is full of inaccurancies. Even more depressing is the fact that several members liked it, even experienced fighter pilots.
> Please, PLEASE read the Reports ,not of the german pilots , but the AMERICAN pilots who transfered them in America, and the AMERICAN pilots that test flew the 262 in America. They simply disagree with you . It rolled and turned very well at speed and was fully acrobatic.
> 
> ...



OK - but I will direct YOU to the Encounter reports of Mustang and P-47 vs Me 262.. draw your own conclusions. These are 'practical' vs 'theoretical' discussions and may be enlightening

Reactions: Bacon Bacon:
1 | Like Like:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## pbehn (Oct 31, 2014)

I will never use the words "respected opponent" again.

No Combat aircraft flies at maximum speed all the time, they have a cruising speed. If a 262 is at cruising speed and encounters an AC then it must gain speed but spooling up its jets takes time, the faster the enemy AC the less time you have and the less speed differential. Additionally the Tempest had 4 canons which can make a mess of anything. I only mentioned the Tempest which did see action against the 262 because it was the fore runner of the Sea Fury which to all intents and purposes was on par with the bearcat both were carrier based however so maybe the original fury would have been the best bet. Enough 262s were lost to P51 and P 47 to show that the 262 was vulnerable in certain situations...all aircraft are. The kill to loss ration shows that the 262 was a great plane but only unbeatable at maximum speed and high altitude.

Reactions: Like Like:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## GregP (Oct 31, 2014)

The Merimac would have ruled the waves if not for the fact that they ran out of both tobacco and whiskey and had to turn back for some more. While they were restocking, an entirely new technology rendered the ship obsolete, and it wound up sailing over a large electromnagnet and being sucked under to the detriment of the tobacco and whiskey supply, not to mention the crew.

This explains everything about a 701+ year old race plane being turned into a combat fighter ...


----------



## cimmex (Nov 1, 2014)

Is this because of Halloween or is this the new quality standard at ww2airceaft.net?


----------



## Elmas (Nov 1, 2014)

Walter "Nowi" Nowotny was certainly an outstanding pilot, but even with all his skill he did not avoid to be nailed by P-51s, exactly 70 years ago, 8th November 1944.

Reactions: Like Like:
2 | Like List reactions


----------



## grampi (Nov 1, 2014)

I don't know how this discussion became Rare Bear vs the ME 262, but since it has, I would bet two weeks pay that Rare Bear would kick a 262's ass in a dead stop to 10K feet climb race...


----------



## drgondog (Nov 1, 2014)

I would think that just about every front line fighter in 1945 should be able to do so, but specifically the Spit XIX, Tempest, P-51D/H and P-38L plus La 7 and Yak 3. While the 262 had a lot of thrust - it also had 2x to 50% more W/L and was slow to accelerate. The fighters could run at WEP for the 2+ to 3 minutes it takes to get to 10K. I doubt the Jug for reasons shown below related to take off run.

During the climb, Induced Drag dominates for both the Jest and Piston types but particularly affects the 262 as acceleration is less initially. If you took off with minimum fuel it would be more interesting.

Dto=~ 1.44*W^^2/(g*RHO*S*CLmax*T) where Dto = take off distance, W=weight, Rho = density of air, S=wing area, CLmax= max CL, T=Thrust.

I would have to calculate thrust as a function of Velocity and Hp for the Piston engine and integrate it for take off time to get off the ground, but there is another factor working against the Me 262 - namely tricycle landing gear - which means that the CL during take off is much less than CLmax because of low angle of attack during the roll. The tail draggers are getting lift immediately even though they will reduce AoA as they accelerate.

The Net comparisons then are a.) the 262 is nearly 2x Gross weight over the Spit XIV and 40+% more than the 51 so the numerator is a huge factor for take off distance (i.e. P-47 vs P-51 or Spit), the CL for the 262 is much less for most of the take off run but the thrust is at least 2.5-3x in favor of the 262 when it finally spools up to max power. 

The net difference in time to get off the runway is a huge factor in the time to climb to 10K


----------



## swampyankee (Nov 1, 2014)

The thrust available for a jet engined aircraft is *roughly* constant with airspeed and that of propeller aircraft is roughly inversely proportional to airspeed. This means that a pilot flying a jet aircraft who gets into a turning flight with one flying a propeller aircraft is stupid, as the available excess thrust of a propeller aircraft increases as speed decreases. Add to that, swept wings tend to have lower maximum lift coefficients that straight wings, which will reduce maximum instantaneous turn rate at any given wing loading, and tend to have lower effective aspect ratios, which will reduce maximum sustained turn rates, and a dogfight between a jet and a prop aircraft is playing to the prop aircraft's strengths. Add that early jets had poor throttle* response and inlet design was in its infancy, so the combination of high AoA and rapid thrust change may not have gone well, and it's not looking good for the jet in a low-speed, turning flight.

Several MiG jet fighters have been shot down by AD pilots, and the MiG-15 and MiG-17 were much better aircraft than the Me262 (they should have been: they were at least a generation newer). 

As an addendum: all aircraft increase drag in turns, because the wings have to produce more lift, causing more induced drag. Unless the aircraft has enough thrust (either through a prop or through a jet) to overcome this drag, it will slow down. It doesn't matter if the aircraft is an Me262, a P-51, or an F-22.


-------

* Jet engines don't have throttles; they have power levers, but "throttle" seems to be the de facto, albeit incorrect, term for the loud lever for the engine.

Reactions: Like Like:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## gjs238 (Nov 1, 2014)

drgondog said:


> I would think that just about every front line fighter in 1945 should be able to do so, but specifically the Spit XIX, Tempest, P-51D/H and P-38L plus La 7 and Yak 3. While the 262 had a lot of thrust - it also had 2x to 50% more W/L and was slow to accelerate. The fighters could run at WEP for the 2+ to 3 minutes it takes to get to 10K. I doubt the Jug for reasons shown below related to take off run.
> 
> During the climb, Induced Drag dominates for both the Jest and Piston types but particularly affects the 262 as acceleration is less initially. If you took off with minimum fuel it would be more interesting.
> 
> ...



Would this also be true when comparing the P-39/P-400 vs F4F?
I'm thinking Guadalcanal here.


----------



## swampyankee (Nov 1, 2014)

On the other hand, a tail dragger has higher drag than a tricycle-geared aircraft until the tail rises. The tail dragger's lift may be beneficial during takeoff on surfaces with high-rolling resistance, in that they are generating lift before the elevator can be effective, but a tricycle-geared aircraft can usually lift the nose as soon as the elevator is effective, which will cause the same sort of reduction in rolling resistance.

Have fun in the world of takeoff performance analysis.

Reactions: Like Like:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## drgondog (Nov 1, 2014)

gjs238 said:


> Would this also be true when comparing the P-39/P-400 vs F4F?
> I'm thinking Guadalcanal here.



The wing loadings are close to the same, the Gross weights for P-39 and P-40 are within 2-3%, CLmax is the same but low AoA of the P-39 until rotation keeps it a t ~ 1.0 for P-39 so advantage P-40.

But the factors also include friction resistance of three wheels (P-39) vs two (P-40 about halfway down the runway..). On the flip side the ground effect of the level take off roll for both the 262 and the P-39/38 creates less induced drag..


----------



## drgondog (Nov 1, 2014)

Does anybody know the gear down stalling V for the 262 at 14,000 pounds?


----------



## wuzak (Nov 1, 2014)

drgondog said:


> I would think that just about every front line fighter in 1945 should be able to do so, but specifically the Spit XIX, Tempest, P-51D/H and P-38L plus La 7 and Yak 3. While the 262 had a lot of thrust - it also had 2x to 50% more W/L and was slow to accelerate. The fighters could run at WEP for the 2+ to 3 minutes it takes to get to 10K. I doubt the Jug for reasons shown below related to take off run.



I guess it also depends on the amount of power that can be applied for the take-off roll.

The Spitfire XIV was restricted to a lower boost (<= +12psi boost) during take-off because of the torque effect and the narrow undercarriage. Recommended take-off boost was +6psi. Once in the air they could go to +18psi WEP.


----------



## FLYBOYJ (Nov 1, 2014)



Reactions: Like Like:
3 | Like List reactions


----------



## GregP (Nov 1, 2014)

Good clip, Joe. Thanks.

Couldn't resist the Civil War dig ... but am back on subject. All I can say is I LOVE Skyraiders. They saved MY butt at least 3 times. And the cklip is right, they can loiter for about 1 1/2 hours if they have to and can shoot SOMETHING almost every pass during that time. Keeps the bad guys' heads down and locked.

Reactions: Like Like:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## drgondog (Nov 1, 2014)

wuzak said:


> I guess it also depends on the amount of power that can be applied for the take-off roll.
> 
> The Spitfire XIV was restricted to a lower boost (<= +12psi boost) during take-off because of the torque effect and the narrow undercarriage. Recommended take-off boost was +6psi. Once in the air they could go to +18psi WEP.


The Mustang could be launched with rapid run up to MP @61" and 1450Hp for Take off power and keep the right foot on da right rudder pedal with 6 degrees of trim.. The P-51H was more benign.


----------



## pbehn (Nov 1, 2014)

but surely it only shows that a head on conflict is roulette, an f35 head on against two hurricanes with cannons may come off worst?


----------



## gjs238 (Nov 1, 2014)

pbehn said:


> but surely it only shows that a head on conflict is roulette, an f35 head on against two hurricanes with cannons may come off worst?



Which cannon had the greater range?


----------



## pbehn (Nov 1, 2014)

gjs238 said:


> Which cannon had the greater range?



MINE.......and more accurate with more explosive power, but surely a head on pass is roulette?


----------



## GregP (Nov 2, 2014)

As I recall, when Lyle Shelton first put the R-3350 in, the CG shifted forward by an unacceptable amount and they had to come up with a shorter engine mount. So, YES, it COULD have been done. The thing is, the fuel was only what was required for a Navy mission, not an escort mission, and throwing on an R-3350 only makes it shorter-legged than a standard Bearcat ... which, though a hotrod, is not exactly a long legged fighter in the first palce. Also, Lyle said he pretty much had to 3-point it or clip a prop tip. Not a good thing for a fighter landing either on a carrier or in a farmer's field on the front lines.

Also, in WWII, the R-3350 wasn't exactly a paragon of reliability like it got to be in post-war airline service when they got it sorted out and flight engineers learned what the beast liked to do and what it didn't like to do. Keep it happy and it was reliable. Race it at Reno today and you can expect a large pile of scrap metal instead of an engine every 2 - 4 years or so, sometimes more often if you really don't KNOW the R-3350.

They didn't have the technology to run Merlins at current modern race power, either. Sure, they got some 2,500 HP, but with computers and electronics today, they can get 3,850 HP from a racing Merlin with Allison G-series rods, spray bar, ADI, 3600 rpm, at a VERY low conpression ratio, and with modern computer-designed pistons, and it STILL doesn't last very long at high power ... nor is it expected to do so. So it would not have been suitable for military service at the time, either.

Reactions: Like Like:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## gjs238 (Nov 2, 2014)

FLYBOYJ said:


>






pbehn said:


> but surely it only shows that a head on conflict is roulette, an f35 head on against two hurricanes with cannons may come off worst?





gjs238 said:


> Which cannon had the greater range?





pbehn said:


> MINE.......and more accurate with more explosive power, but surely a head on pass is roulette?



I was referring to the Skyraider vs Mig 17 post video and the range of the Skyraider's 20mm cannon vs. the Mig's 37 mm Nudelman N-37 cannon and 23 mm Nudelman-Rikhter NR-23 cannon.


----------



## Shortround6 (Nov 2, 2014)

Who out-ranges who in a head on pass with closing speeds of around 340 m/s (assuming the jet is only doing 450mph and the Skyraiders are doing 300mph) is a mighty slim margin. Plane that is hit first could already have shells in the air that will hit the enemy plane.

Reactions: Like Like:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## FLYBOYJ (Nov 3, 2014)

drgondog said:


> Does anybody know the gear down stalling V for the 262 at 14,000 pounds?



125 mph


----------



## GregP (Nov 3, 2014)

How the heck do you know that Joe?

Not disagreeing, just wondering where the information came from as I have never seen a stalling speed verssu weight chart for the Me 262, and it might be a good source!


----------



## FLYBOYJ (Nov 4, 2014)

GregP said:


> How the heck do you know that Joe?
> 
> Not disagreeing, just wondering where the information came from as I have never seen a stalling speed verssu weight chart for the Me 262, and it might be a good source!



From the flight handbook put together by Lt. Van Wart, Wright Patterson AFB, 1946. 125 MPH full fuel, full flaps, gear down. 

http://www.zenoswarbirdvideos.com/Images/Me262/262PilotHandbook.pdf


----------



## awack (Nov 4, 2014)

> FYI a Spit XIV, P-38L, P-51D/H all out roll the FW 190A above 400mph



At 400 mph i know that the p51 and p38 have a slight edge over the 190, p 51 and 190 are really close at that speed, what ive found for non boosted ailerons at 400 mph is the 262 is best 3.6 too 3.8 seconds followed by the p51 4.2 too 4.5 seconds then the 190a at about 5 seconds, after which it seems the p 51 roll starts to slow down more than the 190...
im suprised by the Spit XIV being as good as the above AC, ive only seen test for the spit IX and V (metal covered ailerons of course) and the rates 7.2 and 9 seconds to complete a full 360 roll at 400 mph. but there was a book i read in B&N years ago, a question was asked to XIV pilots, what where the worst qualities of the Spit, two things came up the most, its poor dive(acceleration in the dive, said to be poor compared to its contemporaries, but better than the spit IX) and its poor roll rate at speed.

Oh, another prop fighter with good roll at speed is the Tempest V, a fantastic energy fighter, im a 262 fanboy, but my fav piston engine fighter jump from the Spit XIV to the 190 D9/13 and the Tempest V. The TA 152 H1 has out of this world specs, but i just dont like those high aspect ratio glider wings when it comes to looks.

Reactions: Like Like:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## drgondog (Nov 4, 2014)

I did some calcs on the 262 to get a sense of one engine performance. First, I used the data from RAE flight test results for 510mph and 3580 pounds of Thrust (1790 pounds of thrust for each Jumo 004). Then I used Wright Pat post war results of 514mph and 1980 pounds of thrust at SL. 

The Wright Pat test results drove a higher CDo = .021 when compressibility was factored so I used the best case of RAE

My calc yield (Best case) CDo= .02099 BUT that is for .67M at SL so there is a compressibility factor of perhaps 5% of CDo so CDo= .0200.

At 510mph TAS with .000412 CDi at 14,000 pounds GW and CD0 of .0200 I proceeded to iterate to yield the new V for 0nly one engine..

If the Me 262 loses an engine and the 'good' engine functions flawlessly, with no allowance for trim drag for rudder displacement and NO Delta DRAG on the DEAD engine while in Yaw condition, the Max calculated TAS is approximately 375mph.

*That said, the noted single engine performance at Wright Pat (and they had three due to engine failures) was 280mph-310mph. The crash was caused by both engines failing during the test flight. This indicates that the combination of Trim Drag, Profile drag on the Yawed nacelle, plus flat plate drag on the dead jet engine with little airflow passing through the engine is Considerable.* 

Note: At Wright Pat, two of the best condition aircraft plus 10 brand new engines were available for the flight tests. In 22 total flights for the two Me 262s, nine combined engine changes, one crash, three single engine return flights over 15 total combined flight hours illustrates the probable challenges all the Me 262 units faced in the ETO.

Further note - the take off roll for 14,000 pounds, 3960 pounds of thrust is 4600 feet for concrete and 5500 for grass field. The further aggravate the comparison (4x+ further than Mustang and even more than Spitfire, the warm up on the Jumo 004 including getting exit temps in the green was longer than the P-51 and Spit. Throttle advance to take off power for the Merlin was within 30 seconds with take off in about 20 seconds or less. I still have to calculate the Me 262 take off time but it probably is closer to a minute or more to go from zero to 120 mph with nosewheel off at 100mph.

Reactions: Like Like:
3 | Dislike Dislike:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## FLYBOYJ (Nov 4, 2014)

Great info Bill. Was that based on data from that hand book?


----------



## drgondog (Nov 4, 2014)

FLYBOYJ said:


> Great info Bill. Was that based on data from that hand book?



Part of it Joe - but the part about the engine count, failures and crash were on page 4 "Factual Data" of the 1947 Report - revised from the Wright Patterson post war tests.

The pilots Handbook had the raw data regarding takeoff distance - which was a little longer than my calculated take off run - because I ignored rolling friction and reduced induced drag due to ground effect. 

As SwampYankee noted the Takeoff length calcs are a little speculative,- In one case because of the coefficient for rolling friction varying from .02 for smooth concrete and .10 for a grass field. 

Additionally 'phi' is a calculation for reduced induced drag and requires an iterative numerical approach to calculate the Delta to drag and look at the velocity profile from zero to 120mph.

I was off about 5% for the combined effects. 

Hoerner's Fluid Dynamic Drag has the CDo of the Me 262 at .021 which agrees with my calcs of Sea Level speed runs for two load and thrust conditions. 

Both the P-51 with 72" boost and the Spit XIV at 18 pounds climb better than the 262. The 262 at say 4G has a better velocity in the turn than both the Spit and the 51 but they both have a MUCH faster turn rate sustained so if a 262 tries to turn with either, they will both have a long deflection solution period to play with - as noted in the Encounter reports.

On the other hand, as experience tells us, the 262 when it keeps its speed up always has the advantage and can trade the speed for altitude all day long... Oops - for several minutes before it runs out of fuel.


----------



## dedalos (Nov 4, 2014)

[QUOTE=drgondog;1163712..

.[. 

Note: At Wright Pat, two of the best condition aircraft plus 10 brand new engines were available for the flight tests. In 22 total flights for the two Me 262s, nine combined engine changes, one crash, three single engine return flights over 15 total combined flight hours illustrates the probable challenges all the Me 262 units faced in the ETO.

.It s out of question that simply illustrates the propable challenges that the US GROUND CREW faced having to deal with Foreign equipment? Or the fact that the us ground crews had 0 experience with jet aircraft? You suggest that because us crews were unable to maintain correctly the german aircraft that represents also the service history of the aircraft in luftwaffe service. It s unacceptable to you that the german mechanics knew the me 262 a bit better than the American mechanics?
It s well known that even captured Fw190 s were not correctly serviced while in us captivity


----------



## fastmongrel (Nov 4, 2014)

dedalos if you hang around this forum a bit longer you will find that drgondog is extremely knowledgeable and even handed when talking about aircraft. You seem to think he has a bias against Luftwaffe aircraft which is not the case. You possibly dont have english as a first language which might explain something but some of your posts have come across as rude and aggressive.


----------



## dedalos (Nov 4, 2014)

Not my intention to insult anyone. just my thoughts


----------



## FLYBOYJ (Nov 4, 2014)

dedalos said:


> .It s out of question that simply illustrates the propable challenges that the US GROUND CREW faced having to deal with Foreign equipment? Or the fact that the us ground crews had 0 experience with jet aircraft? You suggest that because us crews were unable to maintain correctly the german aircraft that represents also the service history of the aircraft in luftwaffe service. It s unacceptable to you that the german mechanics knew the me 262 a bit better than the American mechanics?
> It s well known that even captured Fw190 s were not correctly serviced while in us captivity



Please spare us the rhetoric. Read about "Watson's Whizzers" and Operation Lusty that involved the first Me 262s falling into US hands. Pilots AND ground crews received great training from the Germans who totally cooperated with US forces. It's pretty obvious you know nothing about maintaining a jet engine because there is really little to maintain during normal operations if the plane is flown correctly and not damaged in combat. One would inspect the general condition of the engine for any obvious leaks or cracks around the compressor casing, one would check the compressor and turbine blades for cracks and distortion and lastly fluid levels and filters when they are required to be serviced or changed, so to imply that those documented failures had anything to do with the maintainers is just plain ignorant.

What Dragondog posted was factual history - early jet engines had short lifespans. The first American maintainers who worked on these aircraft knew exactly what they were doing, especially by 1946.

Please consider that some of us actually work on aircraft for a living and assessments may be based on professional views, rather from guessing or reading a book.

Now you know my thoughts...

Reactions: Like Like:
3 | Like List reactions


----------



## drgondog (Nov 4, 2014)

dedalos said:


> QUOTE=drgondog;1163712..
> 
> .[.
> 
> ...



Are we having a problem with facts Dedalos? The US 'ground crews' at Wright Pat were fooling with YP-59 in 1943 and YP-80 in 1944. This sequences of tests was performed in 1946 and included the P-80.

I hear a little bit of a whine in your post. So, do your own calcs and show us what ya got?

PS - you think that the Jumo 004 was so airworthy that US mechanics couldn't learn from the German mechanics? or that German trained mechanics weren't used?

You have any data regarding Mean Time Between Servie/Overhaul in 1944 and 1944 for this marvelous engine?

Reactions: Like Like:
2 | Like List reactions


----------



## dedalos (Nov 5, 2014)

I am not aircraft mechanic. But i am of Technical profession. What i mean is that no manual, no training time can replace experience. Often even two engines of the same type appear different behavior. There are tips and tricks that noone can teach. You learn them only by long time experience. So working a few weeks on the 262 made the us ground crew equals to the germans? No way. Technical duties required experience , and the experience requires A LOT of time.
Additionaly , very naturally, American technicians were familiar with American procedures, tools, ways of design,metrical units and the General philosophy of aircraft Construction. So its not insult to claim that they could not provided the same quality levelof maintance as the german crews
You will agree with me that often there were unexpected problems even when a perfectly reliable on American soil us plane was flying in england. So why is unreasonable my thesis that me 262 in us captivity had poorer reliability than in german service? Which of course was not perfect


----------



## FLYBOYJ (Nov 5, 2014)

dedalos said:


> I am not aircraft mechanic. But i am of Technical profession. What i mean is that no manual, no training time can replace experience. Often even two engines of the same type appear different behavior. There are tips and tricks that noone can teach. You learn them only by long time experience.



There's a saying in aircraft maintenance;

"A plane, is a plane, is a plane."

They may vary in size and be constructed a little different but after working on them awile they all become similar.

The American techs had ample time and training to get this elusive experience you speak about - again there is little to do when maintaining a turbine engine at the squadron level. When it makes inspection intervals, you inspect it, when it reaches overhaul intervals it's usually sent to a back shop and overhauled. The Jumos being run on the 262 (like many engines of the day to include US and British) many times never made it to overhaul. Trouble shooting is easier on a turbine engine than on a recip and many of the times when an early turbine started showing issues (hot starts, not reaching full rpm, unusual vibrations) they usually just removed it from the aircraft.



dedalos said:


> So working a few weeks on the 262 made the us ground crew equals to the germans? No way. Technical duties required experience , and the experience requires A LOT of time.


 Again, based on your experience on jet engines??? I've been in this business for 35 years and that's utter nonsense. By the time some of the 262s were being operated at Wright Patterson some of the US techs actually had MORE time around the 262 then some of the German techs who worked on them later in the war. (I believe 262s were operated at Wright Patterson untill the end of 1946)


dedalos said:


> Additionaly , very naturally, American technicians were familiar with American procedures, tools, ways of design,metrical units and the General philosophy of aircraft Construction. So its not insult to claim that they could not provided the same quality levelof maintance as the german crews


Again, total hogwash - maintaining these aircraft had nothing to do with "General philosophy of aircraft Construction," unless you're going to tell me there's some special way to install a metric screw!!!


dedalos said:


> You will agree with me that often there were unexpected problems even when a perfectly reliable on American soil us plane was flying in england. So why is unreasonable my thesis that me 262 in us captivity had poorer reliability than in german service? Which of course was not perfect



No early jet was perfect and many if not all of the failures of the Me 262 engines, to include those that were flown in captivity and especially those flown at Wright Patterson AFB were well documented. It had NOTHING to do with ground maintenance or "experience" so unless you have some turbine engine experience yourself or have documented evidence that these aircraft were mis-maintained, I suggest you show us!

Reactions: Bacon Bacon:
1 | Like Like:
2 | Like List reactions


----------



## drgondog (Nov 5, 2014)

dedalos said:


> Not my intention to insult anyone. just my thoughts



Independent of your 'intention', you are quite accomplished at insults. Insulting thoughts transcribed on paper or written in a forum become public expressions rather than private thoughts?

If you wish to differ in opinion, you will find many folks here that will debate facts to support their position - and do so Very well. If you see a comment you don't like, find facts from reliable sources to use for your thesis. Opinions are less valuable unless supported by a foundation of referencable fact.


----------



## stona (Nov 5, 2014)

Why did the last piece of the film about P-51s shooting down Me 262s include some gun camera footage of the destruction of a V-1? TV documentary producers forever show film out of time or context like this and it really grinds my gears 

Considering how few Me 262s saw active service a lot were indeed shot down by their allied, piston engine, adversaries. They were far from invincible. 

Cheers

Steve

Reactions: Like Like:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## awack (Nov 5, 2014)

Oh, about the 262 climb rate, obviously once at speed no prop fighter comes close to the jet, one way to look at it, is that any climb at high speed, say max speed..531 too 570 mph, is a zoom climb, a vertical or near vertical climb in a 262 from dive at sea level, will get you to medium altitudes (15000/16000)(most prop jobs are between 4500 and 6500 feet after dive) feet in the blink of an eye...but you will be low on energy at top of climb, or if you want to get to 20000 to 30000 ft(at or above bomber altitude, you can start your high speed climb from a much more shallow angle, the 262 will bleed energy/speed off very, very slowly, like an actual P80a pilot told me...and as ive shown actual combat reports to demonstrate, piston engine fighters are of course poor at this, this is pretty much common knowledge, once at max speed, jets out climb there piston engine counter parts by a huuuuuuuge margin.

I dont know allot about the detail of this stuff, so correct me if im wrong, every where ive read in the past says 4000 pnds of thrust to 6000 plus HP, even 7000 Hp...aprox at 568 mph, 1 pound of thrust equals 1.8 HP or actually 2.6/2.7 HP since prop efficiency has dropped from 80% to roughly 60% at that speed. Basically piston engine fighters average just over 5 to 1 power to weight ratio, in comparison the 262 has a 2-1 power to weight ratio..now add to that a speed advantage of 160 to 210 mph at sea level and you will start to see why climbing ability of the 262 was seen as almost super natural combat reports from allied pilots, stating that the 262 could accelerate while in a vertical climb.

Another aspect of the 262 climb is to remember that the best short range interceptors (and the p 51D, about 1100 or so pounds of fuel as tested at 3410 fpm at sea level) had about 700 or 800 pounds of fuel,spitfire and 109 and had a range of 390/410 miles..(some spits had of corse extra internal tanks installed and could fly had a range of 450 or so miles) the GD 262 carried 4700 pounds of fuel, and had a range of 652 miles, so take off at 12700/13200 pnds instead of 15700 pnds, you end up with an fighter with an out standing ROC from take off too a breath tacking ROC at high speed, but having said all this prop fighters still hold the edge from brake release to lift off due the poor thrust of early jets when compared to prop fighters, especially fighters like the 109 K4 and 25 boost spitfire IX.



> Considering how few Me 262s saw active service a lot were indeed shot down by their allied, piston engine, adversaries. They were far from invincible.



More than any thing, it gave the pilot the impression of being invincible as Heinrich Bär felt he was invincible while flying the 262, of course he if i remember correctly was an me 262 test pilot, so he had a huge advantage over other luftwaffe pilots .. again, if im not mistaken, he was shot down 18 times while flying on the eastern and western fronts, but was never shot down while piloting the 262 and at that point in the war the jets were heavily out numbered and i dont think there was any thing more difficult than trying to shoot down 4 engine bombers with all their def arm and amazing US pilots trying to shoot you down from take off to landing, pretty amazing.


----------



## BiffF15 (Nov 5, 2014)

drgondog said:


> You said
> "_Unlike a piston engine fighter the me 262 could retain his Energy through High speed turns much much better. Why should a 262 let its speed fell down? He could impose its own terms of dogfight.
> 
> *ANY turn will bleed energy and speed unless excess Thrust is available over the increased drag of a turn. High Lift translates to high Drag. A bank translates to increased Lift loading. Increasing the bank angle while holding altitude increases drag due to the increasing AoA. Performing that maneuver against a high speed, better turning, better accelerating piston engine fighter was a solid reason for "Killed in Action for being Stupid".*
> ...



Okay gents I wanted to take a stab at the Me-262 VS Piston fighters topic.

Me-262:
Pros - Great Top speed, high speed roll rate, armament (air to air)
Cons - slow acceleration, jet engine detriments (throttle movement very limited, MTBF, thirsty, short legged / low sortie time), immature technology, larger turn circle than top piston fighters

P-51:
Pros - Good top speed (for a piston A/C), reliable weapons (+ long trigger time), great legs, mature technology, smaller turn circle than a 262
Cons - Not great top speed

I know there are more pro's and con's, however for the purpose of this conversation these are the ones I will touch on.

Assumptions: Me-262 has a higher "rate" of turn with a larger "turn circle" than a Mustang. 

There are two types of turns (for the most part) when talking dogfighting (Basic Fighter Maneuvers or BFM in todays speak). They are energy sustaining or depleting (max performance usually up against airframe / pilot limits). The depleting is what you do to give an offender / attacker the most problem you can or get into a position to employ, and the sustained turn is when you are using patience over time to defeat your opponent.

The way to visualize this is from the God's eye view of two circles, one 20% bigger than the other. The Me-262 would be on the larger, the Mustang on the smaller. When sustaining you are holding a fairly constant airspeed while descending (most likely). If the Me262 is at it's optimum sustained airspeed would go around it's larger circle faster than the Mustang at it's optimum sustained speed. 

There are both plus's and minus's to this. We use both to this day. The way it's used from the Me-262 perspective would be to go to lag on a Mustang while holding at optimum airspeed and wait until the Mustang had depleted it's hard turn portion, transitioned to it's sustained airspeed, then misalign turn circles (make the God's eye view look like two circles from the Olympics icon) which allows you to come back inside the smaller turn circle and employ. The downside to this is when the defender (Mustang in this case) watches your nose, and before you can go nose in lead he turns the fight sideways (does some sort of a split S) which moves the Me262 outside his turn circle and forces him to follow or leave. Should he follow he plays into the Mustangs strengths (lower speed maneuver advantage) and Me262s weakness (ability to accelerate or generate energy).

If I were to be employing a Me262, after having flown Me-109s or Fw-190s I would do hit and run, exactly as stated above. That would be only if I had the perfect bounce (tap in todays speak), and then would move on. As for bouncing bombers I would find the speed which allowed me to shoot effectively AND minimized my time in .50 cal hell zone. My motors wouldn't allow me to do big throttle swings due to fear of flameout or engine damage.

Another advantage the Me-262 would have is the ability to leave (as long as he didn't anchor or start the fight too slow). While it's dive Mach is similar to the previously mentioned piston fighters, it also could be attained at a much shallower angle than the piston guys. You just have to make the decision to leave BEFORE it's too late.

It is my opinion that if you were in a Me262 and anchored with a piston fighter you would much more often than not lose.

I flew F15s for many years, and fought F16s many, many times. They turn better than I did/do which required me to adjust the way I fought in order to be successful. Its a matter of knowing his and your strengths weakness's and bringing your strengths to bear on his weakness, all the while staying away from his strengths. Also realize that the Eagle and Viper don't have AOA restrictions for airflow into the engines which I suspect that the Me262 did. The Eagle has a vari ramp which controls the airflow and also provide lift.

Cheers,
Biff

Reactions: Like Like:
7 | Like List reactions


----------



## BiffF15 (Nov 5, 2014)

drgondog said:


> Independent of your 'intention', you are quite accomplished at insults. Insulting thoughts transcribed on paper or written in a forum become public expressions rather than private thoughts?
> 
> If you wish to differ in opinion, you will find many folks here that will debate facts to support their position - and do so Very well. If you see a comment you don't like, find facts from reliable sources to use for your thesis. Opinions are less valuable unless supported by a foundation of referencable fact.



Dedalos,

This is a great place to "vet" what you know or think. I came in here and thought I was fairly knowledgeable about quite a bit of things from WW2 fighter aviation. Now after having been on here for a few years I have gained quite a bit more insight, and sharpened things I suspected or "sort of" knew. 

Whether it was your intention or not to insult that is the way it comes across in your postings. I have done it unknowlingly, and found I was better off to apologize and try to clarify what I was typing. The folks on here are a fabulous data base and are outstanding for vetting what you know or think. The vast majority will debate with your opinions and supply reference, and do it in a chipper manner. Just give them a chance.

Cheers,
Biff

Reactions: Like Like:
2 | Like List reactions


----------



## stona (Nov 5, 2014)

dedalos said:


> .It s out of question that simply illustrates the propable challenges that the US GROUND CREW faced having to deal with Foreign equipment? Or the fact that the us ground crews had 0 experience with jet aircraft? You suggest that because us crews were unable to maintain correctly the german aircraft that represents also the service history of the aircraft in luftwaffe service. It s unacceptable to you that the german mechanics knew the me 262 a bit better than the American mechanics?
> It s well known that even captured Fw190 s were not correctly serviced while in us captivity



After the war the Germans cooperated closely with the Allies involved in all the various programmes. For example Dornier technicians completed a Do335 (M17, a B-6 prototype) with their French colleagues over a 25 month period post war. After all that it only flew for a total of 6 hours and 30 minutes.

The Germans also cooperated with British testing programmes. The well known pilot Eric Brown had the advantage of speaking fluent technical German which he had learnt before the war, at the behest of Ernst Udet who happened to be a family friend. 

The idea that US, British or French technicians were in some way less able to look after the captured materiel than the Germans, with whom they were working, is as ridiculous as some of the other nonsense in this thread.

During the war the biggest problem for the RAF testing captured aircraft (what became the Enemy Aircraft Flight) was a lack of spares, not knowledge or ability. Aircraft captured by individual units and sometimes used as hacks were a different thing. They were often abused until they broke, if they were made flyable at all.

Cheers

Steve

Reactions: Like Like:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## GrauGeist (Nov 5, 2014)

stona said:


> Why did the last piece of the film about P-51s shooting down Me 262s include some gun camera footage of the destruction of a V-1? TV documentary producers forever show film out of time or context like this and it really grinds my gears
> 
> Considering how few Me 262s saw active service a lot were indeed shot down by their allied, piston engine, adversaries. They were far from invincible.
> 
> ...


Also notice about 3/4 into the film, the Me262 in a flat spin, taking hits?

As far as Me262's dogfighting abilities, let's hear from the pilots who flew them:
Johannes Steinhoff:


> "What I had to learn, was that unlike in the Me 109, I could not easily reduce power or flaps to tighten a turn, getting in behind an enemy fighter. It would not work; you could flame out the engines, or go into an unrecoverable stall, usually a flat spin. Bleeding off airspeed by pulling up into the enemy was also not as effective due to the higher speeds, but it would work. The great danger was in diving into the attack.You could rapidly build up so much airspeed the control surfaces would freeze, and bailing out would not be possible due to the external forces.
> We also learned that dogfighting against these fighters sheer suicide; hit and run, close in fast, fire and get away, and the return for another pass is possible was the only feasible way to successfully engage, especially if the enemy fighters were in large numbers.
> By late 1944 through the following year, it was pretty much all we had; swarms of American fighters hitting every corner of Europe. I would say that the best attack method was the ambush, but if you could dive in, close fast, sight in and fire a one to two second burst accurately, your target went down, often brilliantly."

Reactions: Like Like:
4 | Like List reactions


----------



## FLYBOYJ (Nov 5, 2014)

Also consider that you could only fly the Me 262 at 100% for 5 minutes at takeoff (8,700 +/- 200 RPM) and then for 10 minutes for "war emergency." After that the high power setting was 90% (8,400 RPM).


----------



## cimmex (Nov 5, 2014)

FLYBOYJ said:


> Also consider that you could only fly the Me 262 at 100% for 5 minutes at takeoff (8,700 +/- 200 RPM) and then for 10 minutes for "war emergency." After that the high power setting was 90% (8,400 RPM).



Is there any fighter which can go with max power continuous?
cimmex


----------



## FLYBOYJ (Nov 5, 2014)

cimmex said:


> Is there any fighter which can go with max power continuous?
> cimmex



Not that I'm aware of... 

You and I know that, I think there's many who don't...

Reactions: Like Like:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## dedalos (Nov 5, 2014)

It was not that easy. Not all germans co operated. Eric Brown also says that several of the german mechanics were not that happy to work with him. To the point that one of them sabotaged the engine of a Ar234. It exploded while Brown was ready for take off .The guilty mechanic was sent to a prisoner camp.
He also Reports lack of manuals, documents, engines history booklets. Several of his flights were conducted without having the Official german manual 
He Reports that had severe maintance problems with the 335.
Finally he confess that did not test the latest german aircraft to their full capabilities since they had not MW50 or gm1 in england.
Finally ,very often the captured german aircraft showed lower performance in us, British and soviet captivity than in german tests . Doesn t it means somethink?

PS By the way Flyboy J, is not that easy to install PROPERLY a metric screw using an anglosaxon tool...


----------



## cimmex (Nov 5, 2014)

In case of the Me262 I think it was not easy for American mechanics. They had never worked at an axial jet engine before.
cimmex


----------



## FLYBOYJ (Nov 5, 2014)

dedalos said:


> It was not that easy. Not all germans co operated. Eric Brown also says that several of the german mechanics were not that happy to work with him. To the point that one of them sabotaged the engine of a Ar234. It exploded while Brown was ready for take off .The guilty mechanic was sent to a prisoner camp.


Not the case with Col. Watson.

Operation Lusty - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Read Arrow to the Future by Walter Boyne. He documented Operation Lusty in detail in this book



dedalos said:


> He also Reports lack of manuals, documents, engines history booklets. Several of his flights were conducted without having the Official german manual
> He Reports that had severe maintance problems with the 335.
> Finally he confess that did not test the latest german aircraft to their full capabilities since they had not MW50 or gm1 in england.
> Finally ,very often the captured german aircraft showed lower performance in us, British and soviet captivity than in german tests . Doesn t it means somethink?


Again, that was Brown the the British experience with these aircraft. the biggest issue was spare parts as was previously mentioned.


dedalos said:


> PS By the way Flyboy J, is not that easy to install PROPERLY a metric screw using an anglosaxon tool...



Only if you use a left handed wrench!


----------



## FLYBOYJ (Nov 5, 2014)

cimmex said:


> In case of the Me262 I think it was not easy for American mechanics. They had never worked at an axial jet engine before.
> cimmex



Nonsense - Basically it's the same, that's like saying a trained recip mechanic who worked on in-line engines couldn't work on radials.


----------



## FLYBOYJ (Nov 5, 2014)

cimmex said:


> In case of the Me262 I think it was not easy for American mechanics. They had never worked at an axial jet engine before.
> cimmex


Tell me - what part of performing maintenance you think would be harder?

Reactions: Like Like:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## GrauGeist (Nov 5, 2014)

dedalos said:


> Finally ,very often the captured german aircraft showed lower performance in us, British and soviet captivity than in german tests . Doesn t it means somethink?


Very few captured Axis aircraft were "factory fresh" and in some cases, war weary. It will be difficult to get exacting results from such aircraft.
The Allied test pilots also had to famiarize themselves with the idiocyncracies of the Axis aircraft just as much as Axis pilots had to take some time to learn the nuances of captured Allied aircraft.



dedalos said:


> PS By the way Flyboy J, is not that easy to install PROPERLY a metric screw using an anglosaxon tool...


I had to laugh a little at this comment...

This may come as a total surprise, but mechanics know the difference between a 13mm bolthead and a 1/2" bolthead. Metric tools weren't that difficult to obtain or use back then.

I had no difficulties working on my 1966 VW bug with a Type I 1.3L engine or my 1979 BMW 320i (E21) with a 2.0L M10 engine.

Reactions: Like Like:
2 | Like List reactions


----------



## GrauGeist (Nov 5, 2014)

cimmex said:


> In case of the Me262 I think it was not easy for American mechanics. They had never worked at an axial jet engine before.
> cimmex


The Americans had been working on domestic turbojet engines: General Electric J31 and the Allison J33

So there wasn't any mystery or earth shaking revelations causing mass panic when the Me262's engine cowls were raised for the first time

Reactions: Like Like:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## drgondog (Nov 5, 2014)

BiffF15 said:


> Assumptions: Me-262 has a higher "rate" of turn with a larger "turn circle" than a Mustang.
> 
> *Biff - this assumption isn't true. The Me 262 has a higher Velocity than the Mustang in a sustained turn, say at 4G, but the slower Mustang has so much smaller turn Radius that it will complete a 360 turn much faster, and therefore keep the 262 in the pipper at will. Also the 51 pilots were 100% using Berger type G suits.*
> 
> ...



Good perspective Biff. Thanks for taking the time.

Reactions: Like Like:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## Shortround6 (Nov 5, 2014)

GrauGeist said:


> Very few captured Axis aircraft were "factory fresh" and in some cases, war weary. It will be difficult to get exacting results from such aircraft.
> The Allied test pilots also had to famiarize themselves with the idiocyncracies of the Axis aircraft just as much as Axis pilots had to take some time to learn the nuances of captured Allied aircraft.
> 
> 
> ...



A few of them actually do interchange, 7/16 and 11mm works pretty good. And for those with Whitworth tools there are a few more happy coincidences. 

You are much more likely to get into problems with thread diameters and pitches than the size of the bolt heads. 6 point sockets can solve a few points too. 

I mean it's not like metric threads are left hand or something else really weird.

Reactions: Like Like:
2 | Like List reactions


----------



## GrauGeist (Nov 5, 2014)

Shortround6 said:


> A few of them actually do interchange, 7/16 and 11mm works pretty good. And for those with Whitworth tools there are a few more happy coincidences.
> 
> You are much more likely to get into problems with thread diameters and pitches than the size of the bolt heads. 6 point sockets can solve a few points too.
> 
> I mean it's not like metric threads are left hand or something else really weird.


lol...yep, classic one is the M8-1.0 versus 5/16-18 bolt...which a 1/2" or 13mm wrench will fit the M8 nicely. Other SAE wrenches that fit metric boltheads are 3/8" (10mm), 9/16" (14mm) and so on...

What it boils down to, is that American mechanics aren't stupid and if they learned how to build and maintain the warplanes in their charge, then it wouldn't be all that difficult to learn the ins and outs of the Luftwaffe aircraft.

I also suspect that when the Allies overtook a Luftwaffe airbase or maintainance facility, they had access to the tools, manuals, supplies and R&R equipment as well.

Or they could have waited for any Thursday and the Snap-On tool truck would stop by


----------



## GregP (Nov 5, 2014)

We work on SAE, metric, and Whitworth at the Planes of Fame, and try to stick with SAE when possible. But the Merlins are British standard (Whitworth) and the German and Japanese planes have metric fasteners that have not been changed out for SAE items as yet. Eventually, they will be all SAE ... except for the engines. You're pretty much stuck with what the original design used in engines as there is not sufficient material to bore holes bigger in most cases.

But with airframes, conversion is simple with the possible exception of fitted, tapered wings mount bolts. These are specific to a particular hole and are NOT interchangeable. As long as you KNOW this, it is simple, If you donlt a puzzle is created and a lot of the possible combinations must be tried to attain reassembly. The moral is to investigate any aircraft not produced here in the USA before throwing the hardware into a box during disassembly. After you make the mistake once, you won't again, I guarantee it! That assume YOU have to figure it out when you screw up.

Maybe it's easy for me since I competed on Japanese, Spanish, and Italian motorcycles for 20 years. They were ALL metric and I rapidly got used to metric fasteners. so moving to other standards isn't daunting in the least ... go get a new set of wrechs and sockets and you're most of the way there.

Reactions: Like Like:
2 | Like List reactions


----------



## cimmex (Nov 6, 2014)

FLYBOYJ said:


> Tell me - what part of performing maintenance you think would be harder?



variable nozzle, Riedel- Starter, to name only two things the J31 J33 did not have…


----------



## GrauGeist (Nov 6, 2014)

The Allies (British, French, Russian and American) all were able to operate and maintain captured German jets by using the German texts, personnel and pilots for orientation. It's not that hard to figure out.

Conversely, the Germans were able to repair, operate and evaluate captured Allied aircraft without benefit of manuals or advisers.

Reactions: Like Like:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## Shortround6 (Nov 6, 2014)

cimmex said:


> variable nozzle, Riedel- Starter, to name only two things the J31 J33 did not have…









Yep, that would totally baffle any and all US aircraft engine mechanics.


----------



## FLYBOYJ (Nov 6, 2014)

cimmex said:


> variable nozzle, Riedel- Starter, to name only two things the J31 J33 did not have…



OK, you're joking right?!?!? A 2 stroke pull starter similar to a lawn mower engine?!?!?

EDIT: OK - I read that shortly after I woke up, you are joking, you have to be, right???

Reactions: Like Like:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## gjs238 (Nov 6, 2014)

GrauGeist said:


> Conversely, the Germans were able to repair, operate and evaluate captured Allied aircraft without benefit of manuals or advisers.



That part doesn't count


----------



## BiffF15 (Nov 6, 2014)

drgondog said:


> Good perspective Biff. Thanks for taking the time.



Drgondog,
No sweat! I "take" (learn) so much more than I "give" (contribute). I just try to bridge between what is written either in history or in here and "translate" it from the perspective of someone who has touched/lived this world rather intimately, although from a different time.
Cheers,
Biff

Reactions: Like Like:
2 | Like List reactions


----------



## awack (Nov 6, 2014)

> Is there any fighter which can go with max power continuous?
> cimmex



The only operational fighter that i know of that could do that , was the me 262..the 262 training film states max throttle was 5 minutes while climbing and 15 minutes while in combat, Hans Fey flew at full throttle up to 20 minutes so from this, its over 20 minutes which gives it a huge tactical advantage over its enemies, correct me if im wrong, fighters like the P 51 were 5 minutes max, from what i know now, is that if kept above 280 too 310 mph, the 262 can fly at full throttle continuously, this is of course an indescribable tactical advantage...its not hard to undersatnd the 15 min limit set by high command, flying at full throttle all day would shorten life of an engine that had a life span of aprox 25 hours.


----------



## GrauGeist (Nov 6, 2014)

awack said:


> The only operational fighter that i know of that could do that , was the me 262..the 262 training film states max throttle was 5 minutes while climbing and 15 minutes while in combat, Hans Fey flew at full throttle up to 20 minutes so from this, its over 20 minutes which gives it a huge tactical advantage over its enemies, correct me if im wrong, fighters like the P 51 were 5 minutes max, from what i know now, is that if kept above 280 too 310 mph, the 262 can fly at full throttle continuously, this is of course an indescribable tactical advantage...its not hard to undersatnd the 15 min limit set by high command, flying at full throttle all day would shorten life of an engine that had a life span of aprox 25 hours.


Problem being, that the Me262 had 80 minutes (+/-) worth of fuel at regular T/O and cruise and only 30 minutes of fuel under T/O and combat conditions.

Reactions: Like Like:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## awack (Nov 6, 2014)

> Problem being, that the Me262 had 80 minutes (+/-) worth of fuel at regular T/O and cruise and only 30 minutes of fuel under T/O and combat conditions.



Agree.




> Agreed - and it did have perhaps .02-.04M advantage over the 51/47 but perhaps zero edge vs Spit.



Yep, British testing after the war showed that the 262 had the highest mach# followed by the Spitfire XIV then by the Tempest.. non of the other jets were even close to the 262...Meteor MK III mach 0.78 Vampire 1 mach 0.76 He 280 mach 0.78 Ar 234 mach 0.80 or 0.82 P80a mach 0.80 or 0.82 F 84 mach 0.82 the later Meteors with lengthen engine nacelles did better than mach 0.78 but not as good as 262, but the Mig 15 and F 86 both had higher mach numbers of course.


----------



## fastmongrel (Nov 6, 2014)

As a mechanic of nearly 40 years I reckon I have seen every single bolt and thread size on the planet. From my experience if your stuck with an odd size fastener you need one of these







Its never failed me yet

Reactions: Like Like:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## GrauGeist (Nov 6, 2014)

Wouldn't a Bosch work better on Luftwaffe aircraft?

Reactions: Like Like:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## GregP (Nov 6, 2014)

You'd have to use a grinder with a metric grit wheel since SAE grit wheels won't grind up anything metric.


----------



## grampi (Nov 6, 2014)

You guys' jocularity must be in metric cuz I don't get it! JK!


----------



## GrauGeist (Nov 6, 2014)

grampi said:


> You guys' jocularity must be in metric cuz I don't get it! JK!


Actually, not Metric, but Whitworth!


----------



## Ivan1GFP (Nov 6, 2014)

Regarding continuous operation at emergency power, the use of C3 injection on the FW 190 is pretty close.
I don't remember the exact times, but I believe that emergency power could be used for 20 minutes at a time with a 10 minute pause between uses. If this is the case, then it sounds like other than the 10 minute pause, two uses of emergency power would pretty much use up the fuel supply.

- Ivan.

P.S. GregP, The "Merrimac" was a burnt hulk and only served as the powerplant for the CSS Virginia. The CSS Virginia was intended to meet up with Captain Nemo and the Nautilus to convert to Fusion power but just could not get out to open water to do it. One of the other ironclads did make it out to open water, but without radio communication, also did not meet Captain Nemo and instead wound up in the middle east.


----------



## GregP (Nov 6, 2014)

History generally records calls a ship with the first christened name, so I used Merrimac, but am very aware of the CSS Virginia name.

Both the Merimac and Monitor were were interesting to me and although it was a joke, it is a neat subject in itself ... for another forum.

Interesting though it may be to me, it sure doesn't fly! Maybe all it needs a flux capacitor from "Back to the Future," along with a fusion garbage fuel port.


----------



## Ivan1GFP (Nov 7, 2014)

GregP said:


> History generally records calls a ship with the first christened name, so I used Merrimac, but am very aware of the CSS Virginia name.



I'm not so sure I agree with you about how history records things. 

No one ever talks about how the British sank the USS Phoenix in the Falklands War with Argentina. Ever seen anything about Almirante Lattore fighting at the Battle of Jutland in 1916? If the original name is the one to use, then did the Rio de Janeiro or Sultan Osman or was it the HMS Agincourt that fought also at Jutland? Are the Chinese now operating the Riga or Varyag in their navy? 

Heck, the Soviet Navy had a great tendency to average about two or three names per ship depending on who was in favour at the time.

- Ivan.


----------



## GrauGeist (Nov 7, 2014)

The USS Bonhomme Richard under command of John Paul Jones when he defeated and prized the HMS Serapis was actually a French ship named "Duc de Duras".


----------



## gjs238 (Nov 7, 2014)

Ivan1GFP said:


> I'm not so sure I agree with you about how history records things.
> 
> No one ever talks about how the British sank the USS Phoenix in the Falklands War with Argentina. Ever seen anything about Almirante Lattore fighting at the Battle of Jutland in 1916? If the original name is the one to use, then did the Rio de Janeiro or Sultan Osman or was it the HMS Agincourt that fought also at Jutland? Are the Chinese now operating the Riga or Varyag in their navy?
> 
> ...



Ivan, you're terrible

Reactions: Like Like:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## GregP (Nov 7, 2014)

Call it what you want, gjs238, and I'll do the same. I am FROM the US South and will always call it the Merrimac. But since it has nothing to do with Rare Bear, WWII, or flying, maybe we should move on and recognize a joke when we see one. If we meet on a maritime forum or a civil war forum, I'll debate it, but not in here.

Cheers to you.

Reactions: Like Like:
2 | Like List reactions


----------



## GrauGeist (Nov 7, 2014)

http://www.ww2aircraft.net/forum/1800-1914-a/


----------



## tyrodtom (Nov 8, 2014)

GregP said:


> Call it what you want, gjs238, and I'll do the same. I am FROM the US South and will always call it the Merrimac. But since it has nothing to do with Rare Bear, WWII, or flying, maybe we should move on and recognize a joke when we see one. If we meet on a maritime forum or a civil war forum, I'll debate it, but not in here.
> 
> Cheers to you.


 I'm from the south also, I have no idea why you would call it by it's Yankee name.


----------



## GregP (Nov 8, 2014)

Because that's the way it was listed in all my history books in high school and college. I know it was the CSS Virginia in Condederate service, but I have read maybe 20 books that listed it as the Merrimac. Naturally, these books are all older ... I graduated from high school in 1968 and you probably have never read the same books.

In the end, I recognize either name and don't really give a hoot which one it is called ... I recognize them both ... the events are the same either way, as are the dispositions of said ships. And I lived in Phoenix during the Falklands war and it was reported as the USS Phoenix there in the papers AND the news, though the name General Belgrano waws also stated at the end of the telecast. So I remember BOTH names equally well.

Again, this isn't related to flying, so let's drop it, OK?

If not, I decline to continue in here per forum protocol. The location of the Monitor is: Coordinates: 35°0′6″N 75°24′23″W. The CSS Virginia resides on the bottom of the James River.


----------



## tyrodtom (Nov 8, 2014)

GregP said:


> Because that's the way it was listed in all my history books in high school and college. I know it was the CSS Virginia in Condederate service, but I have read maybe 20 books that listed it as the Merrimac. Naturally, these books are all older ... I graduated from high school in 1968 and you probably have never read the same books.
> 
> In the end, I recognize either name and don't really give a hoot which one it is called ... I recognize them both ... the events are the same either way, as are the dispositions of said ships. And I lived in Phoenix during the Falklands war and it was reported as the USS Phoenix there in the papers AND the news, though the name General Belgrano waws also stated at the end of the telecast. So I remember BOTH names equally well.
> 
> ...



I graduated in 1965. My daughter lives just a few miles from where the battle took place, and the CSS Virginia's resting place.

Reactions: Like Like:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## swampyankee (Nov 8, 2014)

cimmex said:


> variable nozzle, Riedel- Starter, to name only two things the J31 J33 did not have…



Variable nozzle? Oh, that's right: low-performance engine. You'll note that modern, non-afterburning turbine engines don't have variable nozzles. It's because the engine operates with the high pressure turbine choked, so a variable nozzle is pointless.

Starters are just a way of making the compressor spin. The differences between starters are pretty superficial: on the same engine, we've used air turbine, hydraulic, and electric starters. Other engines have used cartridge starters, compressed air, and even hand cranks.

Reactions: Like Like:
2 | Like List reactions


----------



## fastmongrel (Nov 8, 2014)

swampyankee said:


> and even hand cranks.



Hand cranking a turbine must take some effort or some very high gearing.


----------



## GrauGeist (Nov 8, 2014)

fastmongrel said:


> Hand cranking a turbine must take some effort or some very high gearing.


Gotta love the "old school meets high tech" theme, though!


----------



## stona (Nov 9, 2014)

Here's a real Me 262 killer.

Accepted by USAAF December 14th 1944. Serial number 44-63864. Served with 8th AF 78th F.G. 83rd F.S. as "Twilight Tear". Pilot 2nd Lt. Hubert Davis, Duxford, England with 3 confirmed kills: 2 x Me262, 1 x Me109.

Davis' combat report from his Bf 109 claim is on Mike Williams' site. 


P-51 Mustang Plane With Working Arsenal

Check out the recoil!

Cheers

Steve


----------



## Elmas (Nov 9, 2014)

http://www.spitfireperformance.com/mustang/combat-reports/55-penn-25feb45.jpg


----------



## swampyankee (Nov 9, 2014)

fastmongrel said:


> Hand cranking a turbine must take some effort or some very high gearing.



Probably both. This was, clearly, a task given to the guy who had most recently annoyed an NCO. The engines were, if I recall, itty-bitty turbines, in the small APU category. Only 50 kW or so  

I do know the APU in (at least some variants of) the Chinook was hand-started by pumping up a hydraulic accumulator. The APU was then used to start the engines (T-55! great engine for the day!).

Reactions: Like Like:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## BiffF15 (Nov 10, 2014)

drgondog said:


> Quote Originally Posted by BiffF15 View Post
> 
> Assumptions: Me-262 has a higher "rate" of turn with a larger "turn circle" than a Mustang.
> 
> ...



Cheers,
Biff


----------



## breadbasketbomb (Nov 20, 2014)

Can someone tell me why the Super Corsair didn't go much faster? Despite having a 3,000 horsepower engine?


----------



## wuzak (Nov 20, 2014)

breadbasketbomb said:


> Can someone tell me why the Super Corsair didn't go much faster? Despite having a 3,000 horsepower engine?



It had a low altitude rated single stage R-4360, compared to the F4U's 2 stage R-2800. The R-4360 was also quite a bit heavier.

Reactions: Like Like:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## grampi (Nov 21, 2014)

breadbasketbomb said:


> Can someone tell me why the Super Corsair didn't go much faster? Despite having a 3,000 horsepower engine?



It surprisingly didn't climb much better either...


----------



## pbehn (Nov 21, 2014)

breadbasketbomb said:


> Can someone tell me why the Super Corsair didn't go much faster? Despite having a 3,000 horsepower engine?



To go much faster you need a huge increase in horsepower unless you have really low drag, I think the Super Corsairs advantage would be high speed cruising, producing 2000 for long periods rather than a short burst at maximum rating


----------



## GregP (Nov 21, 2014)

The Super Corsair has a fantastic climb rate ... but not a particularly high service ceiling. It was intended for low-altitude operations mostly anyway. Fast at 1,000 feet is NOT the same as fast at 25,000 feet. The numbers are wildly different.

At sea level 360 mph is respectable., 380 mph is quick, and anything over 395 is very fast ... for a piston plane OR an early jet. The real speed is groundspeed while flying high at lower indicated speeds. If the fighter will make 360 mph down low, it will make 360 mph indicated up high ... assuming it can GET high ... but the groundspeed is a lot faster.

Even a U-2 that can do 500 mph at 60,000+ feet still indicates about 99 knots ... much the same as it does at sea level.


----------



## Shortround6 (Nov 21, 2014)

P W started work on the R-4360 engine in 1940, they also started work on the "C" series R-2800 about the same time. The R-4360 was more troublesome and took longer to sort out. The "C" series R-2800s were pushing 2400hp In the F4U-4 at WEP by the time the Super Corsairs were flying.


----------



## GregP (Nov 22, 2014)

What most people don't know is the super Corsair was not particularly heavy. It had a relatively normal weight with the extra HP.

It was intended to fight Kamakazes.


----------



## wuzak (Nov 22, 2014)

GregP said:


> What most people don't know is the super Corsair was not particularly heavy. It had a relatively normal weight with the extra HP.
> 
> It was intended to fight Kamakazes.



It seems to have been ~1300lb heavier empty and ~1900lb heavier loaded than an F4U-1, and ~1000lb heavier empty and 900lb heavier loaded than an F4U-4 - according to Wiki.


----------



## Elmas (Nov 22, 2014)

Probably Rare Bear could have had something to do in WWII....


----------



## vinnye (Nov 22, 2014)

Found this on the Super Corsair ;
Warbird Depot - Fighters > Race 57 LLC's F2G-1D Super Corsair
Says that the engine development was always on the cards and not a response to Kamikaze?


----------



## wuzak (Nov 22, 2014)

http://www.alternatewars.com/SAC/F2G-2_Super_Corsair_ACP_-_1_December_1944_(Tommy).pdf


----------



## GregP (Nov 22, 2014)

It pure and simple a response to Kamakaze attacks according to the three of four pilots we have heard talk who flew a few of the 10 or so made at the time. It was just that the war was ending and piston development was no longer in vogue since the jet was the bew daring of the world.

I'm talking about guys who flew these things back in the day at the time, not a Wiki article.

Sure, the R-4360 WAS in development, but mating it to a Corsair was a response to a perceived need that never went past the planning and prototype stage. What can you DO with 10 of ANY plane? They delivered about 43 Ta-152's and they never did anything in the war either. What could we expect from only 10? Maybe a war bond tour and a few airshows?

Not sure, but we DO know that at LEAST 3 - 4 survive to this day and at least 2 or so are flying at this time.

In the end, you might be right and the F2G might be unconnected to Kamamazes. But several former pilots think otherwise. Personally I love the PLANES and don't really care why they were developed, I just wasnt to keep them flying! And the F2G is one of my favorite propeller fighters along with a few other of particular note to me. It certainly doesn't lack power!


----------



## dedalos (Nov 23, 2014)

GregP said:


> It pure and simple a response to Kamakaze attacks according to the three of four pilots we have heard talk who flew a few of the 10 or so made at the time. It was just that the war was ending and piston development was no longer in vogue since the jet was the bew daring of the world.
> 
> I'm talking about guys who flew these things back in the day at the time, not a Wiki article.
> 
> ...



Here we go again... Ta 152 did nothing in the war....
You may have your own opinions , but you can not manipulate history nor insult hte pilots and mechanics that operated the Ta152, and suffered to operate it. They flew training missions, combat missions, scored kills suffered casualties in accidents. And you come and say "NO, NO, NO. They did nothing". Stop lying about facts for which there are hard evidences.
F2G did nothing in the war despite the plenty of resources to produce it, also P51h did nothing in any war. Ta 152 did despite the extremely dificult conditions.


----------



## tomo pauk (Nov 23, 2014)

Despite the US resources, the R-4360 was a not enough developed engine to see the service in ww2.



GregP said:


> It pure and simple a response to Kamakaze attacks according to the three of four pilots we have heard talk who flew a few of the 10 or so made at the time. It was just that the war was ending and piston development was no longer in vogue since the jet was the bew daring of the world.
> 
> I'm talking about guys who flew these things back in the day at the time, not a Wiki article.
> 
> ...



The hangar talk is just that - the hangar talk. No offense to the pilots, they were not the ones that signed contracts with manufacturers. From 'America's hudred thousand', pg. 519:



> Mar '44 - Goodyear was awarded with contract for 418 fixed wing F2G-1 aircraft and ten folding wing versions with the R-4360 engine.



That is good 7 months earlier than the 1st Kamikaze attack was made.
The similar myth is that the P-47M was developed to thwart the V-1 threat.

Reactions: Like Like:
2 | Like List reactions


----------



## drgondog (Nov 23, 2014)

GregP said:


> It pure and simple a response to Kamakaze attacks according to the three of four pilots we have heard talk who flew a few of the 10 or so made at the time. It was just that the war was ending and piston development was no longer in vogue since the jet was the bew daring of the world.
> 
> *Greg - unless they were in contract and specification discussions they would not be in position to have a clue regarding 'the design purpose'. If, on the other hand Vought or Goodyear published that as the foundation for the design proposal, funding and development then it has more credibility.*
> 
> ...



It sounds like the familiar lore that the F6F was designed to defeat the A6M after it was captured and test flown.. good story, but bovine fecal matter. The reason for maxing the power for 15K and below could simply be based on the study of 90% of USN combat envelope and asking the question "so why does the 4360 for this airplane have to wait on a two speed two stage version?"

Reactions: Like Like:
2 | Like List reactions


----------



## FLYBOYJ (Nov 23, 2014)

drgondog said:


> *It sounds like the familiar lore that the F6F was designed to defeat the A6M after it was captured and test flown.. good story, but bovine fecal matter.* The reason for maxing the power for 15K and below could simply be based on the study of 90% of USN combat envelope and asking the question "so why does the 4360 for this airplane have to wait on a two speed two stage version?"


LOL Bill!

Just to put the time line and other events into perspective...

This is what Wiki says about the Navy's influence in developing the F6F to defeat the Zero.

_"The contract for the prototype XF6F-1 was signed on *30 June 1941*. Throughout *early 1942 *Roy Grumman, along with his chief designers Jake Swirbul and Bill Schwendler, worked closely with the U.S. Navy's Bureau of Aeronautics (BuAer) and experienced F4F pilots, to develop the new fighter in such a way that it could counter the Zero's strengths and help gain air command in the Pacific Theater of Operations.* On 22 April 1942*, Lieutenant Commander Butch O'Hare toured the Grumman Aircraft company and spoke with Grumman engineers, analyzing the performance of the F4F Wildcat against the Mitsubishi A6M Zero in aerial combat. BuAer's LT CDR A. M. Jackson directed Grumman's designers to mount the cockpit higher in the fuselage. In addition, the forward fuselage sloped down slightly to the engine cowling, affording the Hellcat's pilot good visibility.

Based on combat accounts of encounters between the F4F Wildcat and A6M Zero, on *26 April 1942*, BuAer directed Grumman to install the more powerful 18-cylinder Pratt Whitney R-2800 Double Wasp radial engine in the second XF6F-1 prototype. Grumman complied by redesigning and strengthening the F6F airframe to incorporate the 2,000 hp (1,500 kW) R-2800-10, driving a three-bladed Hamilton Standard propeller. With this combination Grumman estimated the XF6F-3s performance would increase by 25% over that of the XF6F-1. The Cyclone-powered XF6F-1 (02981) first flew on *26 June 1942*, followed by the first Double Wasp-equipped aircraft, the XF6F-3 (02982), which first flew on *30 July 1942*. The first production F6F-3, powered by an R-2800-10, flew on *3 October 1942*, with the type reaching operational readiness with VF-9 on USS Essex in *February 1943*"_

The contract for the prototype XF6F-1 was signed on *30 June 1941*. During Pearl Harbor 9 Zeros were shot down and from the remains of these aircraft it was learned that learned that the Zero lacked armor and self-sealing fuel tanks. The first in tack Zero was secured on *July 11, 1942*. That aircraft was first flown on *September 20, 1942.*


----------



## GregP (Nov 23, 2014)

Hi Dedalos,

I have nothing against the Ta 152 and really like the aircraft, what is known of it anyway.

But you can't change history.

They delivered 43 verified aircraft that scored a total of 7 - 10 victories against 2 - 4 losses in combat. There were never more than about 25 in service at any one time and they operated right at the end of the war, excatly when the Allies were sending over massive numbers of attackers against a Luftwaffe that was short of fuel and talented pilots. Yes, they chased away a few Allied pilots who were stalking the Me 262 guys during landing patterns, but that is hardly a game-chaning mission. Dangerous? Yes! Change the direction of the war? No.

That is no disrespect to Germany or German pilots, it's just the truth.

It would be a very good thing to get a Ta-152 flying again, but the only real intact unit is in the Smithsonian ... plus the "almost Ta 152" in the form of the Fw 190D in Paul Allen's collection. Not sure if he'd allow it to be flown or not but, if so, it needs a few parts. Right now it can be made to start, but cannot reeally run or fly due to issues with the carburetor. There are no spares.

So I may have sounded a little harsh by saying it did nothing in WWII, but I'm not far off either. Compared with any other "great" fighter it had good performance, but was a study in unfufilled potential as far as meaningful combat results go.


----------



## GregP (Nov 23, 2014)

You could be right Bill. We may know the small details and facts today, 70+ years later, better than the guys who were there during development and fought in the war.

As I said above, that's what several who were talking at different times, unconnected with one another, on different days, were saying during public talks at the museum. Perhaps they are just misinformed. Bob Odegaard was a semi-frequent visitore and he never said one way or the other in my hearing, he loved the Super Corsair and was frequently asked about its performance and flight characteristics, but I never heard him mention its development.

As I also said, I want to see them fly, not look good in a static display, so that's where I concentrate my efforts on WWII warbirds.

I tend to believe the guys who were there rather than some book based on somebody else's book. We're not so far away from a time when there won't BE anyone around who was there, so I try to talk with them about their memories while they are still around. Unless they are all living in the same fantasy world, they have remarkably similar stories about this aircraft as well as almost any other aircraft you'd care to talk about.

There is the odd guy who has memories so far different from anyone else's that you wonder if he is a fraud but, in general, their memories are quite similar.

Another tack to think about is the fact that the REAL story behind war is very little known. Over in Viet Nam we guys did not and will likely NEVER know WHY things happened the way they happened, but we mostly remember things quite smiliarly. The decisions were made behind closed doors in Washington and we'll likely never know why we were not allowed to win. Maybe there was a similar thing in WWII, too. Since we'll never likely really know about the things that happened in the Johnson administration, it is not inconceivable that we'll never really know why things in the Roosevelt administration happened either. The people who DO know are almost all gone and are in that generation I'm still trying to talk with as I get the chance, like the former Super Corsair pilots.


----------



## tomo pauk (Nov 23, 2014)

While not without a mistake or two, maybe one per each 100 pages, the 'AHT' proved times and again more accurate than hangar talk.


----------



## GregP (Nov 23, 2014)

Hi Tomo,

What is the "AHT?"


----------



## tomo pauk (Nov 23, 2014)

'America's hundred thousand', book by Francis H. Dean. Basically, a treasure trove, that deals with US production fighter of ww2.

America's Hundred Thousand: U.S. Production Fighters of World War II (Schiffer Military/Aviation History): Francis H. Dean: 9780764300721: Amazon.com: Books

Reactions: Like Like:
2 | Like List reactions


----------



## GregP (Nov 23, 2014)

Thanks Tomo, I own it.

And you maybe have a misconception. I'm wasn't talking about "hanger talk," I was talking about announced public speeches, mostly by authors who were there, giving talks about the aircraft in our collection when we put on our monthly events and fly the plane for the crowd, weather permitting. Naturally, since we operate the world's oldest F4U Corsair, we have a really GOOD cross section of former COrsair pilots as our guest speakers. We operate mostly fighters and have regular events where they are flown, including some that are operated by people friendly to the museum when we don't happen to own that type in flyable condition. An example is the Tigercat, we have one in unrestored, static condtion, but we have NO PROBLEM borrowing one from time to time for our events. In fact, Steve Hinton regularly flies an aerobatic show in one as well as an airshow act in many otherns airecraft including the F-86 and the F1U.

Here is a recent Corsair airshow clip: 
_View: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=C1itjRkNLaA_


----------



## tomo pauk (Nov 24, 2014)

I'm sure that you have great fun there, Greg. But it still stands - the pilots were not the ones that knew how far the development of the Wasp Major is or it is not close to the end, so it can be installed in an airframe. They were not the ones that made preliminary calculations. They were not sitting in the executive committees of, say, United Aircraft corp. 
They were not the ones signing contracts, and this particular one (for the F2G) was signed in March 1944 (per AHT), good 7 months before the 1st Kamikaze attack.

Reactions: Like Like:
2 | Like List reactions


----------



## GregP (Nov 24, 2014)

True, Tomo.

And all those people who did those things you say above didn't make one single decision about where they were assigned and how the planes were employed once they reached forward bases / front-line commanders. No matter WHAT they did, the missions the planes flew are what is important in their war record and how they are remembered by the vast najority of veterans and military people.

Still, the real developmental reasons are interesting, and I'm not saying the development didn't start one way and wind up another. I just don't think it matters much, though it would be interesting if we had the REAL information.

Probably the only real palce to GET that is from the design team or the people who gave the design team instructions.

and the Wasp Major, though impressive, did not get developed much. The late R-2800's and late R-3350's made about the same HP and, coupled with lower weight, were every BIT as effective. One prime example is the R-3350-powered Douglas Skyraider. The stuff it could haul was just amazing. It could attack a target every orbit for more than an hour and drop something or shoot something on each and every pass.

The Wasp major was projected for big HP but never made it. It made GOOD HP, but nothing exceptional. Probably made the best torque, though.


----------



## pattern14 (Dec 8, 2014)

I'm just chiming in on the end of this thread, after wading through the Me 262 diversion etc. I'm not sure what all the fuss was about, as factually, the Me 262 was the fastest, heavily armed fighter of WW2; just about everything else about it is a matter of opinion. Looking at the performance figures for these advanced piston engined fighters appear impressive, although claimed top speed has a LOT of variables to contend with. Bearcats, Sea fury's etc were not operational as far as I know, and even if they were, the added weight of combat readiness, wear and tear, and armament/ordinance would have taken a toll on all aspects of performance.
The One aircraft that did combine performance with combat ability at the top end of piston powered zenith, was the Focke Wulf Ta 152 H. While this aircraft has been covered pretty well in other threads, it did represent the pinnacle of operational piston powered fighters of WW2. Had it been manufactured under ideal conditions, instead of desperate last ditch times, it would have probably offered better performance than it actually did. The Rarebear would be better judged by comparison to this aircraft in my opinion.


----------



## drgondog (Dec 8, 2014)

pattern14 said:


> The One aircraft that did combine performance with combat ability at the top end of piston powered zenith, was the Focke Wulf Ta 152 H. While this aircraft has been covered pretty well in other threads, it did represent the pinnacle of operational piston powered fighters of WW2. Had it been manufactured under ideal conditions, instead of desperate last ditch times, it would have probably offered better performance than it actually did. The Rarebear would be better judged by comparison to this aircraft in my opinion.



Where do you believe better performance would have been achieved and how do you compare the added performance opportunities over say, the P-51H or Spit XXI?


----------



## pattern14 (Dec 8, 2014)

drgondog said:


> Where do you believe better performance would have been achieved and how do you compare the added performance opportunities over say, the P-51H or Spit XXI?


Initially in quality control. Any aircraft built of quality materials by skilled workers with adequate resources and back up will always perform better than one built under adverse condtions. It is very difficult to produce top quality machining and fabrication when survival is the primary goal. The Ta 152 was pushed into service basically as a prototype, with no spare parts and very little infrastructure support. It still gave a very good account of itself regardless, despite total allied air superiority. First hand accounts from Luftwaffe pilots who flew the Ta 152 gave very positive feedback on the performance and aerobatic prowess compared to the Tempest and Mustang, plus Soviet fighters. I understand that a huge amount can be attributed to pilot skill, tactics, etc, but according to actual pilot reports, ( Dittmar) the Ta 152 was capable of turning inside a Tempest, as well as being faster, with a higher service ceiling. I'm not aware of them engaging the Spitfire or P51-H as mentioned. There appears to be very little post war comparisons made either, which is a shame. Either way, it was the most advanced piston engined Luft fighter to see combat, and probably ( the H-1 version at least) the fastest conventional operational fighter of WW2. It was also a work in progress that had not yet reached the lmits of its design potential.


----------



## swampyankee (Dec 8, 2014)

When they entered squadron service, they were combat-equipped, at least for the type of combat that existed in WW2. 

The Bearcat entered squadron service in May 1945; the Sea Fury in 1947. Obviously, neither had a chance to defeat Luftwaffe aircraft, as it had surrendered before either entered service. The Bearcat didn't see combat in the Pacific, as the Japanese surrendered before they could be deployed.

As for the Ta152, and any quality issues, Germany would _never_ have sorted them out until it stopped using slave labor, but enslaving non-Germans was part of the nazi philosophy, so that wouldn't stop, and those annoying Allies kept dropping bombs on the German cities and forcing the German armies to retreat, so they'd probably not get a chance to sort out their q/c. One thing a lot of people looking at the Germans fighting on past their historical date of surrender is that the atomic bomb was developed to drop on Germany. Germany keeps on fighting, and they get to see mushroom clouds.


----------



## GregP (Dec 8, 2014)

I never have understood the Ta-152 "pincale of performance" claim. It had good performance, but not the highest top speed, definitely not the highest roll rate, almost no history of performance testing, didn't shoot down any more than 7 to 10 Allied planes and had 2 to 4 losses.

There is nothing exceptional at all about that record though, on paper, it SHOULD have been a good one if developed. But it was never developed and had virtually zero impact on the war to speak of. It also arrived just as Allied jets were flying in operational service so, if the war had continued, its performance would have been eclipsed almost immediately by the Allied jets, just the same as the the other top piston fighters of the day were eclipsed by jets.

Despite some people think I don't like the Ta-152, that is not the case. I do like the Ta-152. But it saw service in almost incosequential numbers and has no war record to speak of, so any claims of "super plane" will be met by me with a war-winning record for the Spirfire and P-51. The figher that shot down more enemy aircraft in history than any other one is no doubt the Bf 109 and a question about the same for the Ta-152 ... to which I already know the answer. The Bf 109 very certainly has a much better claim to "the best of all times" than the Ta-152 will ever have, if war record means anything. And if it doesn't, then "best fighter" means nothing militarily an so becomes a meaningless title. 

Great military machines are distinguished by their record in combat, not by simulated encounters or paper performance.


----------



## GrauGeist (Dec 8, 2014)

swampyankee said:


> One thing a lot of people looking at the Germans fighting on past their historical date of surrender is that the atomic bomb was developed to drop on Germany. Germany keeps on fighting, and they get to see mushroom clouds.


One of the reasons for the frantic development of the Allied atomic program was due to the fact that the Allies believed that the German's atomic program was much further along than it actually was.


----------



## dedalos (Dec 9, 2014)

drgondog said:


> Where do you believe better performance would have been achieved and how do you compare the added performance opportunities over say, the P-51H or Spit XXI?


Under Ideal conditions Ta would have better performance than historicaly because a) C3 fuel availability and even 150 octane fuel availability b)it would have been built in its original all NEW design ta 153 form and not based on Fw 190 A8 fuselage with bolted extentions c) availability of raw Materials would have allowed turbo supercharged engines (DB603N) d) it would have recieved various improvements that were in development historicaly but late because of the war conditions( integrated nose cowling, lower drug annular radiator, better quality skin surface, High pressure MW50 , better guns, improved gm1 system etc)

Actually ,considering the limitations that the germans faced ( as well as their bad choises), the Ta 152H had surprising good performance
For comparison reasons the fully developed P51H with far superior fuels and raw Materials for its engine, was just 20-30 kmh/h faster than the barely developed Ta 152 H1 and even this with inferior armor and armament and without having pressurized cocpit. And its owners never dared to use it in actual combat
From joe Bauer page
"Pilots generally found the P-51H to be even more delightful to fly than the D model. However, some pilots were distrustful of the H's lighter structure, preferring the greater sturdiness of the D. Consequently, it was not considered as being suitable for combat operations in Korea. "


----------



## tomo pauk (Dec 9, 2014)

A nitpick - the DB 603N was outfitted with a 2-stage supercharger, not a turbo-supercharger. It was to have RPM increased from 2700 to 3000, as well as the bigger impeller on the 1st stage of its supercharger.
The 'motorfesten verkleidung' (roughly - the cowling attached to the engine), regularly used on German aircraft, was eventually recognised as a draggier thing than 'zellenfesten verkleidung' (roughly - cowling attached to the fuselage), regularly used on Anglo-American aircraft - the speed penalty was judged to be 20-30 km/h (!).


----------



## wuzak (Dec 9, 2014)

The reason for the Ta 152H's performance, particularly at altitude, was the NO2 system. Without that, how well did it go?


----------



## tomo pauk (Dec 9, 2014)

The reason for the Ta-152 H's performance was that it was powered by an engine of decent displacement, high RPM, with two stage supercharger (3-speed gearing, for a good measure) with inter-cooler and ADI system (MW 50). 
Without NO2 system it was supposed to clock 730-750 km/h at 9-9,5 km (454-466 mph at 29530-31170 ft), depending what graph one reads. At SL, it was to be 540 km/h, or up to 580-600 km/h with MW-50 used.


----------



## GregP (Dec 9, 2014)

The performance was never used for anything, so it is all supposition. It has almost no record in combat and all this "great" stuff is but a paper comparison of the "Best" numbers from hand-made prototypes. How many threads have I read where the real production planes had less performance than the hand-made prototypes? 

The true test is the crucuble of combat and the performance achieved by combat-ready production aircraft, which the Ta-152 barely faced at all, and came up quite short when it did. There was never a true "production" representative aircraft in service at any time.

I'm underwhelmed.


----------



## GrauGeist (Dec 9, 2014)

How did the Ta152 "come up short"?

For the few that were fielded, it proved to be manouverable, had nessecary firepower to down their adversary and had a far better record percentage-wise than the He162 or even the Me163.

Let's talk numbers and not opinion...


----------



## dedalos (Dec 10, 2014)

GregP said:


> The performance was never used for anything, so it is all supposition. It has almost no record in combat and all this "great" stuff is but a paper comparison of the "Best" numbers from hand-made prototypes. How many threads have I read where the real production planes had less performance than the hand-made prototypes?
> 
> The true test is the crucuble of combat and the performance achieved by combat-ready production aircraft, which the Ta-152 barely faced at all, and came up quite short when it did. There was never a true "production" representative aircraft in service at any time.
> 
> ...


----------



## tomo pauk (Dec 10, 2014)

The high performance of the Ta 152 have some caveats, though. The 730-750 km/h figures were to be for the aircraft with half of fuel aboard (only fuselage fuel tanks filled? 525L?), ie. at 4750 kg light 152H instead of 5220 kg, no ETC rack, and with use of MW 50. 
We know that weight does slow aircraft - how much the Ta 152? 
The ETC will cost a bit - close to 10 km/h? 
According to the only power chart of the Jumo 213E that I'm aware, the use of MW 50 system was limited to the lower 2 supercharger gears, meaning that max speed will be attained without MW 50. That would be, still with half of fuel and ETC, 720 km/h at 10,7 km ( 447 mph at 35100 ft); still impressive for that altitude, but how much with full fuel and ETC? 

The heavy brute P-47N with 2100 L of fuel aboard (16700 lbs test weight) was doing ~460 mph at 32-33000 ft, the P-47M was still a bit faster.

Reactions: Like Like:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## Shortround6 (Dec 10, 2014)

Something to consider when comparing fighters (or other planes) used in "combat" in WWII was that the Germans and Japanese in late 1944 and 1945 had the front lines within a few hundred miles of the factory doors. The situation was desperate and new models of aircraft could be delivered and _used_ by combat units in a very short period of time, many units using a mix of aircraft and spare parts were only a day or two away by truck (even on bombed roads). 
The Americans had to ship their "new" fighters thousands of miles by ship _with_ spare parts, and policy was to re-equip entire units with substantially different models/types, if they were changing types. This delayed by several months the "combat" introduction of the latest versions.


----------



## GregP (Dec 10, 2014)

All right. How did it come up short?

1. They delivered 43 Ta-152's.
2. The Ta-152's were assigned to known "Experts."
3.The skies were filled with Allied targets, sometimes 1,000 -plane raids.
4. The "Experts" accumulated 7 - 10 victories in approximately 3 months of "combat" operations against 2 - 4 losses.

My conclusion is the experts either weren't so expert, the plane wasn't so great, there were teething issues, or a combination of the three. There was very certainly no lack of opportunity as the skies around the Ta-152's were literally littered with Allied warplanes attacking Germany.

Maybe we're talking about two different airplanes? The one I'm talking about is shown below.







Didn't do much for the German war effort in my view. Me 262 pilots claimned 542 Allied kills.

I'd tend to lean rather heavily toward the Me 262 if I had to choose one or the other. Your opinion mya vary, and that's OK. Neither of us is likely to get a chance to exercise the option and prove anything one way or the other. So if you like the Ta-152 (as I do) and think it was among the best (I really don't) then, by all means, toast it in good health. I wish we had one to restore, but could never imagine calling it a great combat aircraft. It had one chance to prove that and blew it as thoroughly as a chance can be blown.

There are some comparative numbers and my opinion stands up quite well when you look at combat accomplishments. I'd bet any Me 262 pilot would choose that aircraft over a Ta-152 any day of the week, but I suppose we'll have to let one or more of them chime in here if they happen to see the post.

I'm not optimistic, myself.


----------



## DerAdlerIstGelandet (Dec 10, 2014)

The Ta 152 was a victim of its circumstance. Had it been produced earlier, and been afforded the time to develop I believe you would be singing a different tune...


----------



## GregP (Dec 10, 2014)

I agree with you entirely, Adler, and think so, too, in spades. It very certainly COULD have been one of the greats.

It just wasn't and isn't by the achieved combat record. But the potential if developed and fielded effectively was certainly there.

I would not kick at being assigned one at all as my primary mount... assuming I had a trained crew chief and some spare parts available.

There was and IS no intent to disparage the Ta-152 as a potential great plane ... it just never actually achieved that status in any way, shape, or form. The results did NOT demonstrate the potential.

The same can be said of the P-63, the XP-72, and a host of other planes, including German, Janapese, and ALL sides.

My personal favorite of the unrealized potential is the Regginae Re.2005. BEAUTIFUL, but unfilfilled as a combat wizard, which it really COULD have been, much like the Ta-152, which is also beautiful in my eyes and had unfulfilled combat potential. 

It is like a beautiful woman with no brains. Not much upstairs but, man, what a staircase!


----------



## GrauGeist (Dec 10, 2014)

Condemning the Ta512 based simply on the fact that it was a late-comer and didn't have the time to mature on the battlefield is looking over it's potential.

Compare it to other late-comers like the He162 which was introduced in the field by January 1945. The He162 had approximately 300 units produced and of those that saw action, very few managed to score a victory even though a large portion of pilots who flew it gave it great reviews.

On the otherhand, the Ta152 trickled into service about the same time, with less than 50 produced. Of those, very few made it into combat but the ones that did, proved themselves beyond a shadow of a doubt. Some of the victories the Ta152 achieved have been questioned, but the general consensus is 7 in exchange for the four Ta152s that were shot down: which only two were in combat, the other two were jumped during a ferry flight. This was all primarily in about 6 weeks of service.

So compare the 7 wins and 4 losses for the Ta152 against the He162, which lost 9 pilots killed, 5 wounded during operations plus one He162 shot down (by a Tempest) for one "confirmed" victory shrouded in confusion: (May, 1945: Rudolf Schmitt shot down and claimed a British Tempest over Rostock, the Tempest being flown by F/O M. Austin of No.486 Squadron. Austin successfully bailed out and was taken prisoner. British records confirm the victory but German records claim it was downed by flak) and a couple "possibles". This was also within 6 weeks of operations.

By taking a look at this comparison, it would seem to me that the He162 should be getting the sharp eye of scrutiny as being "underwhelming" and "coming up short", not the Ta152.


----------



## gumbyk (Dec 10, 2014)

Potential doesn't make an aircraft 'one of the greats'.

Coulda, Woulda, Shoulda... 

It takes time. Would we be talking about how great the P-51 was if we are restricted to talking about the first 50 produced? How about the Spitfire?

The 152 could have been a great aircraft, had it had time to develop and mature as a design. (That's the Ta152, not the C-152, the Cessna product has had plenty of time to mature )


----------



## GregP (Dec 10, 2014)

Hi Graugeist,

I did NOT overlook the potential. I even STATED it has potential. It just never lived up to the potential.

Did you even READ my post all the way through? If so, exactly WHAT do you disagree with?

The plane has performance and shows enormous potential. 

It just never DID anything with it in real life during a real world war.

That doesn't make it a great plane. It makes it one of the "might have been's." I wholeheartedly agree it COULD have been a great plane. But a standout WWII fighter? No way, not even a slight nod. The Dewoitine 520 did better as did almost every other operational fighter in the war, even a few Brewster Buffalos in Finnish hands. They had about the same number of Buffalos and shot down over 400 aircraft with them. Hhhmmmmm ... 400+ to 7? No contest.

That doesn't make the Buffalo a better fighter, it means it DID better when it counted.


----------



## GrauGeist (Dec 11, 2014)

gumbyk said:


> Potential doesn't make an aircraft 'one of the greats'.
> 
> Coulda, Woulda, Shoulda...
> 
> It takes time. Would we be talking about how great the P-51 was if we are restricted to talking about the first 50 produced? How about the Spitfire?


That's a valid point, how well would have any of the long established "greats" done in 6 weeks under the same conditions as the Ta152?

Personally, I am amazed that any Luftwaffe aircraft were able to get off the ground from March 1945 onward, let alone fly anywhere and survive to tell about it.



gumbyk said:


> The 152 could have been a great aircraft, had it had time to develop and mature as a design. (That's the Ta152, not the C-152, the Cessna product has had plenty of time to mature )


----------



## GregP (Dec 11, 2014)

Hi Dedalos,

The Ta-152's were hand made, never had any logistics chain, never had a proper test period due to wartime expediency, and when one broke down, another one was used for spare parts. Most were not built the same as the last and were modified as they discovered issues.

That is almost the textbook definition of a production prototype.

What planet are you living on?

Let's see. 43 planes built near the end of the war, of which exactly 2 were left flying when hostilities ended, never more than 25 at one time, when the Allies were flying 1,000 plane raids. They made absolutely NO difference to the German war effort, ate up enormous resources, and contributed nothing, despite having very good potential ... Yeah, prototypes of which no two were exactly alike.

The Bf 109 was into 20,000 plus when they decided they needed to "standardize" all the modifications. The Ta-152 never GOT to where they even had any spare parts. If you call that anything other than a production prototype, you are living in a different world of logic than I am. If so, that's OK and it doesn't mean your viewpoint is wrong ... it means I don't accept it and that's OK.

I don't really want to argue the point ... it's simply my viewpopint and won't change as I have researched it for 40+ years and have a solid basis for my opinion, confirmed from talks with several former Luftwaffe pilots, including Herr Rall, whom I met twice and spoke with once in the mid-1980's for about 6 minutes of undivided attention. He was friendly, humorous, and did not consider the Ta-152 other than prototypes with unfulfilled potential before the war was lost. I pointedly asked about it as I was really into the plane at the time, not so much these days. Since there were MANY such planes on all sides, I lump the Ta-152 in with the potentially-great might-have-beens. ANd that offers no disrespect for the designer, the design, or the prototypes that went to war.

Had the war lasted even 6 months longer in Europe, the Ta-152 might have had a larger impact ... but it didn't. Get over it, the war record won't change and is already recorded for posterity.

Similarly, the Ta 183 might have been a revolutionary jet, but wasn't, even in the guise of the FMA Pulqui II after the war in Argentina. If it couldn't be made to work AFTER the war in a non-wartime, non-emergency climate, what were the chances DURING the war?

Easy ... zero.

It was another might-have-been with potentially great status ... that never made it in real life. That does not denigrate the achievement of making and flying it later in Argentina, albeit with changes from the original design ... it just states the fact that the planes never DID anything for the war effort with the resources alotted.

You can't say the same about the US B-2 as it has been in combat and amassed a VERY good combat record. Yes, I consider THEM production prototypes, too, all 21 of them. Just long-serving, reliable prototypes with spare parts and 20+ years of operational flying and agreat combat record when needed. Had they made, say, 100, I don't think the last one would have been the same aircraft, systems-wise or stealth-wise. Maybe not even engine-wise. But they HAVE amassed a great record so far and are still in service.

We had one X-plane that lasted 16+ years before being damaged beyond repair, and that was ONE airframe. A great test mule but hardly a game-changer by itself.

So, when all is said and done, the B-2's have done well for production prototypes I think. You may well feel othersise and that's OK. We don't have to see eye-to-eye and, if so, I respect your opinion without agreeing with it. Anyone who considers the B-2's other than prototypes doesn't really understand the meaning of the word.

Cheers.


----------



## GrauGeist (Dec 11, 2014)

I thought the facts I put out up there were pretty straight foreward, but it appears that personal opinion wins over facts and logic. I simply stated that for 6 weeks, the Ta152 was impressive as opposed to the He162...but aparently no one read that part, they just got their panties in a wad and rushed to reply...

So then I suppose we will no longer discuss the P-51H and the F8F, since they didn't see combat in WWII. It also looks like we cannot discuss any aircraft that were not popular, did not have at least 18 months of service prior to the end of the war or had at least minimum of production total of 1,000 units.

So it looks like Horse will now have to change the name of the forum to:
*Only Certain Aircraft of WWII*

Reactions: Bacon Bacon:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## BiffF15 (Dec 11, 2014)

Grau,

While I have read Ditmars book on the Ta-152 I don't have it handy for reference. If only 43 were delivered, and were flown only by experten, and achieved only 10 kills in a sky that would have been full of adversaries, and lost 3-4 of their own it does open a quandary. 

How much is enough to be relevant? Neither the F8F, P51H or the P80 saw combat in WW2 and as such aren't counted at all. The Ta did see combat but in such small numbers as to be irrelevant. Don't get me wrong, it's my favorite German fighter of WW2 and has been since childhood, however it's impact by the wars end was negligible. 

As for it's title as the pinnacle of piston engine fighters, should in my opinion, read pinnacle of German piston engine fighters. The Mustang, Bearcat and P80 all enjoyed further refinement and use post 1945, while the Ta-152 died in it's infancy due to the end of the war. Could it have gone further, oh YEAH. Did it, nope.

Read this post as the first paragraph which is generally accepted as fact, and the remaining is my OPINE.

Cheers,
Biff


----------



## stona (Dec 11, 2014)

BiffF15 said:


> As for it's title as the pinnacle of piston engine fighters, should in my opinion, read pinnacle of German piston engine fighters. The Mustang, Bearcat and P80 all enjoyed further refinement and use post 1945, while the Ta-152 died in it's infancy due to the end of the war. Could it have gone further, oh YEAH. Did it, nope.



I agree, but you did forget the Sea Fury, certainly the pinnacle of British piston engine fighters and right up there with the others you did mention.

Cheers

Steve

Reactions: Like Like:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## BiffF15 (Dec 11, 2014)

stona said:


> I agree, but you did forget the Sea Fury, certainly the pinnacle of British piston engine fighters and right up there with the others you did mention.
> 
> Cheers
> 
> Steve



Steve,

Sorry about that! In my eyes it's one of the better looking piston fighters ever!

Cheers,
Biff

Reactions: Like Like:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## stona (Dec 11, 2014)

One from the family album 






801 Squadron over Norway.

Cheers

Steve

Reactions: Like Like:
2 | Like List reactions


----------



## Shortround6 (Dec 11, 2014)

Prototypes of many of the 'post' war Allied piston engined fighters were flying in 1944 or very early 1945. Because the battle was *not* being fought a few hundred miles (if not over) the factory doors these aircraft didn't see combat action. 
There are no RAF '46 or USAAF '46 web sites promoting these end of war designs. They might not have been as far behind the spring of 1945 German planes as some people seem to think in terms of development. 24 P-47Ns had been delivered by Jan 1st 1945 with dozens more every month. They just weren't sent to Europe. The F8F, " The first production aircraft was delivered in February 1945 and the first squadron, Fighter Squadron 19 (VF-19), was operational by 21 May 1945" but operational in the US is not operational off the coast of Japan, it is 7600 miles by great circle air route from Grumman factory to Okinawa and thousands more miles by ship.

Reactions: Like Like:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## dedalos (Dec 11, 2014)

Greq p
There are opinions and there are facts. Our opinions will never agree on this subject but we both have to aacept the facts for which there are historical evidences
You claimed
1) "The Ta 152H s were flown by experten". WRONG. The names of most of the pilots are known and available in the bibliography. NONE of them could be considered especially experienced let alone experte. JG 301 ,in 1945, had the typical pilot roster of the rest of the Jagdwaffe. Most succesful of the ta 152 pilots was propably Willi rescke with 27 kills in 70 combat missios(And if we accept drgondog thesis that lw was overclaiming 3-1 against American bombers, he had less than 10).And Walter Loos with 38 (8 soviet) These numbers are redecilous low for a luftwaffe experte of WW2
2)" No two of them were built intedical" Wrong. In bibliography there are available the history of most wreck numbers and a small Technical description of each. Your statement is simply untrue 
3)"Had a record of 7-10 kills vs 4 combat losses". From the german point of view no ta 152 was lost in a combat Mission. The 2 aircrafts going to JG11 , were on ferry flight, flown by untrained on the type pilots , propably unarmed and bounced by higher flying enemy aircafts. The other 2, according to german sources, were combat accidents.But really, regadless of its combat record, the design of the aircraft can be judged by what it accoblished in the combat conditions of 1945? 

It s a fact that
1) The Ta 152H-o ,with no MW 50 and B4 fuel, proved competitive in low level combat(regadless the exact score) against specialised fighters like Tempest (at least 130 octane fuel by 1945) and Yaks
2) The Ta 152 H-1 , in engish captivity ,with B4 fuel, WITHOUT MW 50 and GM1, almost certainly with the problems in the third supercgarger speed not solved,and full armament was judged slightly inferior to the RECCE Spitfire XIX below 10000m and slightly superior above that altitude
3) It had armament , armor and avionics superior to most of its opponents

all the above does place the Ta 152H among the best propeller driven . If you consider it a mediocre fighter because it failed to win ww2 for germany , what can i say? you may have your opinion


----------



## dedalos (Dec 11, 2014)

tomo pauk said:


> The high performance of the Ta 152 have some caveats, though. The 730-750 km/h figures were to be for the aircraft with half of fuel aboard (only fuselage fuel tanks filled? 525L?), ie. at 4750 kg light 152H instead of 5220 kg, no ETC rack, and with use of MW 50.
> We know that weight does slow aircraft - how much the Ta 152?
> The ETC will cost a bit - close to 10 km/h?
> According to the only power chart of the Jumo 213E that I'm aware, the use of MW 50 system was limited to the lower 2 supercharger gears, meaning that max speed will be attained without MW 50. That would be, still with half of fuel and ETC, 720 km/h at 10,7 km ( 447 mph at 35100 ft); still impressive for that altitude, but how much with full fuel and ETC?
> ...


. 
The Serial produced Jumo 213E-1 would have solved ( at least that was the intention) the problems with the 3rd supercharger gear
Brown Reports a speed of 684km/h at 10670m , no GM1, propably not third gear in, power setting unknown
Do you know any aircraft that its maximum speed was calculated at maximum take off weight? 
At 4750kgr ,"light" as you mention, the Ta 152H still had 595ltr lt of fuel, 70 ltr more than the entire Internal fuel capacity of the Fw 190A8 ! And the Ta had the option to use its wing tanks for another 400ltr if needed. Do you believe that with such Internal fuel capacity, would be nessecary to have the ETC rack?
The P47M/N had absolutely superb performance at 33000 ft . But i believe the ta with Jumo 213EB and GM1, or at least 213E-1 ,C3 fuel and GM1 could reach such speeds. And it had the advantages of the pressurized cocpit , automatic engine controls and lower wing loading


----------



## BiffF15 (Dec 11, 2014)

Dedalos,

I didn't read Greg's posts as being as negative as you did. 

Also realize that there are at least two versions of Willi's story of how his wingman went down. We discussed this in a previous thread at length. Here is a link to the thread: http://www.ww2aircraft.net/forum/av...e-vs-fw-190-vs-51-a-13369-62.html#post1072052.

I would suggest you read post 926 on page 62, 956 and page 64, and 961 on page 65. There is what I would call strong circumstantial evidence (high quality for the time) that his wingman was shot down and didn't just "crash".

I also think Germany did well producing anything, let alone aircraft especially during the final year of the war. Yes, they did make what I would call a very good airplane in the Ta152 however it's true combat credentials are questionable due to the few (43) that actually showed up. How many it would take to be credible is a number that probably won't ever be identified, however I think Greg's point is 43 isn't enough. I agree. Going past the a/c numbers into it's combat record one person deciding that two of the four shot down don't count, and that the other two were combat accidents could be to another 4 that were shot down or lost due to combat. Or, combat losses. To re-type an oft quoted line among fighter pilots, "A kill is a kill". Also if the two losses from the ferry flight had scored kills, would you count them? If you venture into the arena you are part of the game, whether you want to be or not.

The reason the F8F, P51H, and P80 have no combat record is they were not built under another nations or forces air superiority. When you live under another military's umbrella, you have to deal with that, and the result is an un-vetted or un-sorted aircraft might end up in combat before the bugs are worked out.

Be aware that a person who is very pro one nationality, or type of aircraft, might cast a shadow on their credibility or ability to sort the truth from the fiction.

Cheers,
Biff


----------



## tomo pauk (Dec 11, 2014)

dedalos said:


> .
> The Serial produced Jumo 213E-1 would have solved ( at least that was the intention) the problems with the 3rd supercharger gear



Probably it would.



> Brown Reports a speed of 684km/h at 10670m , no GM1, propably not third gear in, power setting unknown



Goes without saying that I'd gladly take a peek in the original Brown's report.



> Do you know any aircraft that its maximum speed was calculated at maximum take off weight?



Not at the maximum take off weight - that would mean, for the fighters, the drop tanks are also carried. But there is plenty of data for the fighters in clean condition, but with maximum fuel aboard, like the example I've gave for the P-47N.



> At 4750kgr ,"light" as you mention, the Ta 152H still had 595ltr lt of fuel, 70 ltr more than the entire Internal fuel capacity of the Fw 190A8 ! And the Ta had the option to use its wing tanks for another 400ltr if needed. Do you believe that with such Internal fuel capacity, would be nessecary to have the ETC rack?



The Fw-901A-8 carried, in most of the cases, 640 L of fuel, due to the installation of the rear fuselage 'drum' tank.
As for whether is necessary to carry the full fuel and ETC in the same time - we need a level play field, if a fair comparison is to be drawn. We can easily find the data for the Allied fighters with full internal fuel and rack(s), but not for the late war Fw fighters.



> The P47M/N had absolutely superb performance at 33000 ft . But i believe the ta with Jumo 213EB and GM1, or at least 213E-1 ,C3 fuel and GM1 could reach such speeds. And it had the advantages of the pressurized cocpit , automatic engine controls and lower wing loading



While the C series of the R-2800 have had it's share of teething troubles, it was in volume production before 1945 started, and was even powering, though in experimental form, a late 1943 XP-47J to 500 mph. By that time (late 1944), the Jumo 213EB was still on test benches? Granted, it would provide the Ta-152 with extra performance, at least by looking at the charts. BTW, the speed figures for the P-47N and M are for the 130 grade fuel, how much faster with 150 grade? And again, how fast the Ta-152 would be with full fuel load and ETC?
The P-47M/N were about as capable as the Ta-152, but the Ta-152 was unable to do what the P-47N was able, namely to provide the combat radius (not range) in excess of 1000 miles. table


----------



## dedalos (Dec 11, 2014)

BiffF15 said:


> Dedalos,
> 
> I didn't read Greg's posts as being as negative as you did.
> 
> ...


Biff 15
I have read several discutions about the combat of 14/4/45. It is possible that Sattler was shot down . But even if he was shot down ,it was by surprise attack , not because he was out flown. What is important ,in my opinion, is that at that combat ta 152 , a specialized High altitude fighter, demonstrated it s ability to engange ,on more or less equal terms ,the best low level alleid fighter of the war AT LOW LEVEL. And it did it using far inferior fuel,and no MW50. People dont realize that at that fight the tempest had a power advantage of AT LEAST 430 hp, if flown at 9 lb boost and much more if flown at 11 or 13lb boost which its the most propable by that stage of the war
I will judge aircraft designs by Technical datas. I will use combat history only if the combat terms are reasonables. 
I love the hornet,i love the T-33, i admire the Tigercat and F4U-5, i find the P47N very very useful, but i am sorry but from what i have read both the F8F and P51H were structuraly suspect. They were very good at their very specific missions but not good for all around work. The americans, knew very well that and kept them away from combat


----------



## FLYBOYJ (Dec 11, 2014)

dedalos said:


> but i am sorry but from what i have read both the F8F and P51H were* structuraly suspect*. They were very good at their very specific missions but not good for all around work. The americans, knew very well that and kept them away from combat



Please tell us your source for this?!? The only reason why the F8F wasn't used in combat (Korea) by US forces was because there were other recips readily avilable to be deployed overseas that were more capable, especially in an air to ground mission. By the time the F8F could have been used in a shooting war, it was already eclipsed by jets, let alone assigned to reserve units.

The French operated 200 F8Fs in Vietnam before they left, never heard any reports by them staing the aircraft was "structually suspect." I'll let other chime in on the P-51H...


----------



## dedalos (Dec 11, 2014)

tomo pauk said:


> Probably it would.
> 
> 
> 
> ...



*I disagree that P47 M/N were as capable as Ta 152H.It had better range and dive. If the ta had c3 fuel and GM1 had similar level speeds at over 10000m
The ta was much more manouverable.Lowere wing loading. It had pressurised cocpit so could enter combat at higher altitude. Lower pilot work load. If the combat last and height is lost the Ta eventually gets power loading edge as well. In medium / low level ta is clearly superior.
Was possible to use 150 octane fuel on c series 2800s? They were already hard pushed. And P47N was a big plane. It needed important additional power to see notable speed gain. Finally if you want to compare apples to apples and oranges to oranges if you allow 150 octane fuel for the P47 you should allow 213EB for the ta. Besides what you are meaning c series was in production before 1945? P47M s in england were grounded until march 45 due to engine problems. And had huge fuel consuption that limited their endurance. By that time DB603L (2400 ps) also was ready for production *


----------



## dedalos (Dec 11, 2014)

FLYBOYJ said:


> Please tell us your source for this?!? The only reason why the F8F wasn't used in combat (Korea) by US forces was because there were other recips readily avilable to be deployed overseas that were more capable, especially in an air to ground mission. By the time the F8F could have been used in a shooting war, it was already eclipsed by jets, let alone assigned to reserve units.
> 
> The French operated 200 F8Fs in Vietnam before they left, never heard any reports by them staing the aircraft was "structually suspect." I'll let other chime in on the P-51H...



F8F in action. Squadron/signal publications. Page 14. The F8f had the unique design charachteristic of broken wingtips. There were several occasions that f8f lost their wingtips. Especially during strafing and bombing exercises. Unfortunately there was at least one fatality. In 1947 the American navy was forced to rebuilt the wings.

For the P51H sveral sources. Now, immediately joe bauer page comes to my mind


----------



## snowmobileman (Dec 11, 2014)

If the Ta-152H was at low altitude, I suspect the P-47Ms could deal with them sufficiently. P-47Ms appear to be slightly faster, and had an advantage in climb rate as well. At least a 500fpm advantage at sea level, and probably more up to about 30,000'. Above that, I think the Ta-152 would have the advantage in speed and climb. To illustrate its climb, the P-51H climbed to 25K in 6.7 minutes, and the P-47M climbed to 25K in about 7.1 minutes. Information taken from wwIIaircraftperformance SAC charts.


----------



## dedalos (Dec 11, 2014)

snowmobileman said:


> If the Ta-152H was at low altitude, I suspect the P-47Ms could deal with them sufficiently. P-47Ms appear to be slightly faster, and had an advantage in climb rate as well. At least a 500fpm advantage at sea level, and probably more up to about 30,000'. Above that, I think the Ta-152 would have the advantage in speed and climb. To illustrate its climb, the P-51H climbed to 25K in 6.7 minutes, and the P-47M climbed to 25K in about 7.1 minutes. Information taken from wwIIaircraftperformance SAC charts.



I have a Fw performance table that says for the Ta 152H-0 ,at 4730 kgr, NO MW50, B4 fuel, initial climb rate 20 m/sec, 8 minutes to 7000 m 
Unknown power setting


----------



## tomo pauk (Dec 11, 2014)

dedalos said:


> If it carried the 115 ltr fuselage tank could not Carry MW50 which was preffered in 1945 from c3 injection. But even using c3 injection, meant much more fuel consuption and the additional 115 ltr help little in range.



I'll politely ask you to provide credible sources on the BMW 801 ever using the MW 50 system. The 190A-8 never used the C3 injection, but the 'simple' overboost (with about the same increase of manifold pressure and, hence, power). 



> I disagree that P47 M/N were as capable as Ta 152H.It had better range and dive. If the ta had c3 fuel and GM1 had similar level speeds at over 10000m



For the P-47M/N, we don't have any 'ifs', apart from possible use of 150 grade fuel. The 'ifs' for the Ta-152 are numerous - GM1, clearance for MW 50 usage in 3rd supercharger speed, experimental engines, 'zellenfeste werkleidung' etc.
The P-47N have had the rear-warning radar and anti-G suits available before the ww2 ended, not the case for the Ta-152.
As for the capabilities - I've posted a number of performance figures for the P-47M/N with full internal load, so I expect the same for the Ta-152. Not to be impolite, just that I cannot locate any.



> The ta was much more manouverable.Lowere wing loading. It had pressurised cocpit so could enter combat at higher altitude. Lower pilot work load. If the combat last and height is lost the Ta eventually gets power loading edge as well. In medium / low level ta is clearly superior.



The Ta-152 will be killed from attacks in rear hemisphere, since we know that 3/4 of fighters were disposed that way, unknowingly to their pilots - it carries no tail-warning radar. Failing that, it will not be able to roll as good as the P-47. It will not do well in sustained high-G turns, since the pilot will black out. Unlike the P-47, it will succumb to any late-war gun burst that hits.



> Was possible to use 150 octane fuel on c series 2800s? They were already hard pushed. And P47N was a big plane. It needed important additional power to see notable speed gain.



Don't know whether the 150 grade was used on the R 2800 C. The high power was put in a good use with P-47s.



> Finally if you want to compare apples to apples and oranges to oranges if you allow 150 octane fuel for the P47 you should allow 213EB for the ta. Besides what you are meaning c series was in production before 1945? P47M s in england were grounded until march 45 due to engine problems. And had huge fuel consuption that limited their endurance. By that time DB603L (2400 ps) also was ready for production



I mean exactly as I've wrote - the R 2800 C were in series production prior 1945, and yes, I've noted they have had issues. That is still far bigger asset than the 213EB, that never flew in an operative aircraft.
The combat radius of the P-47M was 400 miles, with 370 gals of internal fuel and only one, 110 gal tank under centreline. How much with 2 x 165 gal tanks instead of that drop tank? 
The P-47N was the only single engine fighter to have 1000+ miles (or 1310, by the table in the above post, probably on relaxed cruise settings) combat radius. That is because the R 2800 was on board, not despite.


----------



## tomo pauk (Dec 11, 2014)

snowmobileman said:


> If the Ta-152H was at low altitude, I suspect the P-47Ms could deal with them sufficiently. P-47Ms appear to be slightly faster, and had an advantage in climb rate as well. At least a 500fpm advantage at sea level, and probably more up to about 30,000'. Above that, I think the Ta-152 would have the advantage in speed and climb. To illustrate its climb, the P-51H climbed to 25K in 6.7 minutes, and the P-47M climbed to 25K in about 7.1 minutes. Information taken from wwIIaircraftperformance SAC charts.





dedalos said:


> I have a Fw performance table that says for the Ta 152H-0 ,at 4730 kgr, NO MW50, B4 fuel, initial climb rate 20 m/sec, 8 minutes to 7000 m
> Unknown power setting



Ta 152H-0, 4760 kg, to 10 km of altitude it took 13,8 min on 'Notleistung', and 10,1 min on 'Sondernotleistung' (ie. MW 50 is used). here (Steigzeit auf 10km (min))

Reactions: Like Like:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## GrauGeist (Dec 11, 2014)

BiffF15 said:


> Grau,
> 
> While I have read Ditmars book on the Ta-152 I don't have it handy for reference. If only 43 were delivered, and were flown only by experten, and achieved only 10 kills in a sky that would have been full of adversaries, and lost 3-4 of their own it does open a quandary...


I can certainly agree about the skies of Europe being a target rich environment!

We can also say that the skies over Pearl Harbor, the morning of 7 December 1941 were a target rich envirnoment for the P-40, too!

However, in both cases, you can say it should have been like shooting fish in a barrel: or more like being up to your neck in that barrel...that's full of pirahna...


----------



## tomo pauk (Dec 11, 2014)

Re. use of the 150 grade fuel on the R 2800 C series: that was, roughly, the 'European fuel', as much as I can gather. Ie. shipped and used in Europe during 1944-45, plus post-war. The USAF and USN seem to move to 115/145 grade fuel (weak/rich rating) quickly after the war? 
The R 2800 C was, in variants without the turbos, rated for that fuel. The difference was, for example on the R-2800-34, some 200 HP for take off, 2300 HP vs. 2100.


----------



## snowmobileman (Dec 11, 2014)

Regarding climb rates, I have only ever seen Ta-152H initial climb rates of 3445 feet per minute. If it is 3960, then it does match the P-47M.


----------



## Shortround6 (Dec 11, 2014)

dedalos said:


> Was possible to use 150 octane fuel on c series 2800s? They were already hard pushed. And P47N was a big plane. It needed important additional power to see notable speed gain. Finally if you want to compare apples to apples and oranges to oranges if you allow 150 octane fuel for the P47 you should allow 213EB for the ta. Besides what you are meaning c series was in production before 1945? P47M s in england were grounded until march 45 due to engine problems. And had huge fuel consuption that limited their endurance. By that time DB603L (2400 ps) also was ready for production [/B]



The C series R-2800 engines used in the P-47M/N were rated at 2800hp with whatever fuel and and water injection was needed. That power rating is in numerous charts and pilots books. I would note that post war commercial engines (airliners) were good for 2400hp for take-off using water injection and 100/130 fuel. 2100hp dry. on 115/145 fuel the wet rating (water injection ) doesn't change but the dry rating does, 2300hp for take off with 58in MAP. These are with single stage superchargers and the supercharger may be the limiting factor, 

as for the "C" series being in "production" P &W built 347 two stage "C"s in the Connecticut plant for F4U-4s in 1944, the Kansas city plant built 2744 single stage "C" engines in 1944 (in fact the Kansas City plant ONLY built R-2800 "C" series engines) , Chevrolet built 327 single stage "C" series R-2800s in 1944. The turbo charger used in the P-47 was an "add-on". If over 3400 engines in 1944 aren't enough for you what is? The "C" series engines had *no* interchangeable parts with the "B" series engines. 

The Engines in the P-47Ms did have troubles, so did a lot of other engines, which is why many of us tend to doubt how trouble free the late war German engines might have been in long term service.

Reactions: Like Like:
2 | Like List reactions


----------



## dedalos (Dec 11, 2014)

tomo pauk said:


> I'll politely ask you to provide credible sources on the BMW 801 ever using the MW 50 system. The 190A-8 never used the C3 injection, but the 'simple' overboost (with about the same increase of manifold pressure and, hence, power).
> 
> 
> 
> ...


[
Did i ever said that P47N was not Top class fighter? It had its strong points and its weaknesses. Better escort fighter than the Ta 152 worse ,as General Air superiority fighter[/B]


----------



## tomo pauk (Dec 11, 2014)

dedalos said:


> GM1 operation, mw 50operation , were not ifs, were just minot teething problems that took longer to be solved because it was raining bombs. Several of the "experimental engines" were ready, were not produced due to the unavailability of C3 fuel. Tell me how the r2800c would perform with 92 octane fuel?



For the Ta-152H-0, the MW 50 and GM1 were not even 'ifs', those fighters carried no tanks for those extras, while comprising almost half of Ta-152Hs produced, at least going by this web page that lavishly copies from D. Herman book(s):
_In the event, after all this delayed development work and lack of prop¬er testing, production was carried out at Focke-Wulf's Cottbus facilities of only 43 known Ta 152H. This meagre total apparently comprised 20 Ta 152H-0 pre-production models and 23 H-1 production examples._

The 152H-0 was also without wing tanks.

The unavailability of the C3 fuel does not have anything with hi-perf engines not being mass produced. Certainly nothing to do with, say DB 603 achieving extra RPM for the 'N' sub-variant, not for the Jumo 213J having 4 valve head instead of 3 valve head and a bit greater bore (-> achieving high RPM).
The 92 oct fuel was history for the air warfare as far was Allies were concerned, long before the R 2800 C appeared.



> The Ta would patrol at 12-13000 m with its pressurized cocpit. Could P 47 pilots Cruise at that altitude?How will surprise the Ta? . Also they would be no sustained turns. The ta would quiqly out turn/outmanouver the P47. What about wing loading and power loading? Accelaration? Responce of the engine to power changes? Wing profile? Support with data your thesis that the p47 will outroll the ta152



I've tried to show that there is more than one way to skin a cat. No aircraft possessed all the right cards, nor all the cards were equally usable in all situations, especially if the combat loading is equal on both adversaries.
The Bf 109Gs possessed the more favorable wing- and power-loading than the P-47Ds, we all now that P-47s were not shot in droves by the 109s.



> The Ta 152 with its 150kgr of armor and the proven strong fuselage of the a8 will succumb to the 12,7mm guns while the P47 would withstand 2x20mm,installed Near the central axis of the aircraft, firing the best ammo of the war PLUS the 30mm Mk 108 cannon which alone was bringing down B 17s??????. You seriously believe this??????



The P-47 show in many instances it can shrug off the 20mm hits. The 4 BMGs (in P-47B/C)were proven to be able to kill the sturdy Fw 190s. Eight BMGs were more than able to kill any fighter of ww2, and then some. 
Granted, using a MK 108 to kill a 450+ mph fighter does indeed take a Top Gun expert.



> The ta has 15 mm armor around its radiator. Tell any other fighter with in Line engine which protects its radiator better. 20mm head armor
> The fw family had iclined Seat. A design future of the aircraft. The g suit was not design future of any aircraft. And an idea very easily to be copied
> Would the P47 pilot be able to keep the engine at optimum tuning during sustained combat? The ta 152 pilot had not such problems



The G suit was the feature of the aircraft that carried it, as much as the computing sight, guns or a radio. The inclined seat, while it added some 'cushion' vs. blackout was certainly not as effective as the anti-G suit, and it was surely easier to copy.



> Yes , P&W and junkers had the same working conditions



Never said so 



> Did i ever said that P47N was not Top class fighter? It had its strong points and its weaknesses. Better escort fighter than the Ta 152 worse ,as General Air superiority fighter



Yeah, sometimes we do quarrel about nothing. Way of the discussion, so to speak 
Anyway - the P-47N could be used as a general air superiority fighter without problems - just don't fill up the wing tanks and you're fine.


----------



## FLYBOYJ (Dec 11, 2014)

dedalos said:


> F8F in action. Squadron/signal publications. Page 14. The F8f had the unique design charachteristic of broken wingtips. There were several occasions that f8f lost their wingtips. Especially during strafing and bombing exercises. Unfortunately there was at least one fatality. In 1947 the American navy was forced to rebuilt the wings.
> 
> For the P51H sveral sources. Now, immediately joe bauer page comes to my mind



The F8F had wingtips were actually designed to shed. 

The Grumman F8F Bearcat

_"The Bearcat had one unusual design feature to save weight, that was eventually abandoned. It incorporated provisions for Safety Wing Tips, that would break off, if the aircraft exceeded 9 Gs. This feature allowed for a lighter wing structure saving 230 lb. Based on experience with other aircraft, it was felt that a weak-point in the wing, would prevent the entire wing from being overstressed or failing. In addition, provisions for explosive charges were installed in the wing tips. If only one wing tip separated, the charges would be activated, to maintain flight symmetry. However, this feature did not always work and in two cases, a wing tip broke off during a low-altitude, high-speed pullout, and both aircraft rolled over and crashed into the sea, before either pilot could recover. Also, on at least one occasion, a malfunction occurred with the explosive charges during maintenance, and a US Navy technician was killed."_

I know people who flew the F8F and they said the aircraft was built like a tank, so please spare us from comments like "The americans, knew very well that and kept them away from combat" when you have no accurate information to back up a statement like that!

Reactions: Like Like:
4 | Like List reactions


----------



## parsifal (Dec 11, 2014)

I have to agree. I met one or two US vets that spoke of the Bearcat. They all said it was built like a brick sh*thouse. Never have I heard anyone claim that it was flimsy

Reactions: Like Like:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## GregP (Dec 11, 2014)

The F8F is a lot of things, but weak isn't one of them.

Something was mentioned about the R-2800 using 92 Octance fuel above. We were flying better fuel than that most all of the war, so I'm not sure where that one was headed. By 1943, no US planes were flying other than MUCH better fuels.


My original thought was that the author of this thread wanted to know if an R-3350-powered F8F would have been a good fighter. My thought was that the R-3350 didn't turn into a reliable, long-lasting powerplant until well after jets were the new darlings of the fighter world, and an EARLY R-3350-powered F8F would not be a good bet, nor would it have been practical.

Reactions: Like Like:
2 | Like List reactions


----------



## BiffF15 (Dec 12, 2014)

Dedalos,



dedalos said:


> Biff 15
> I have read several discutions about the combat of 14/4/45. It is possible that Sattler was shot down . But even if he was shot down ,it was by surprise attack , not because he was out flown.
> 
> *Yes it's possible, or more likely probable that he was shot down.
> ...



Others have chimed in about your P-51H / F8F comments so I will refrain. 

I have "bested" many F16s F18s at low altitude in a fight, but both are better at low altitude than the Eagle. The reason is I had more experience than they did, or started the fight at enough of advantage, or I turned the tables on them. 

There is a LOT of knowledge in here (the Forum), mind boggling almost, all available to be tapped in to. I came in here thinking I knew more than the average guy, and I did. The only thing is the guys in here are not average. Look at this forum as place you get your knowledge vetted, but expect it will be tested and quite handily so don't get disgruntled if someone doesn't agree. With an open mind you might have your opine changed, I know I have.

Cheers,
Biff

Reactions: Like Like:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## BiffF15 (Dec 12, 2014)

GrauGeist said:


> I can certainly agree about the skies of Europe being a target rich environment!
> 
> We can also say that the skies over Pearl Harbor, the morning of 7 December 1941 were a target rich envirnoment for the P-40, too!
> 
> ...



Cheers,
Biff


----------



## tomo pauk (Dec 12, 2014)

Biff - why do you think the P-40 was not better than Zero? 
(sure enough, the P-40 sucked as the CV fighter)


----------



## BiffF15 (Dec 12, 2014)

Tomo,

I wish I had the money I spent on P40 models as a kid! I built a LOT of them. My point was I wouldn't argue how well it would or wouldn't do in the future based on one battle, or the accounts of the few that got airborne during the attack on Pearl Harbor. 

Cheers,
Biff


----------



## GrauGeist (Dec 12, 2014)

Everyone does realize that I used the P-40 versus IJN at Pearl Harbor as an example, right?

The example being: *that the conditions on Oahu that Sunday morning, for a few hours, were pretty much what the Luftwaffe had to operate under daily (weather permitting) during the last months of the war...
*
I simply used the P-40 because it was the most advanced fighter the U.S. had in it's inventory on the island of Oahu at the time. I could have said P-36A or P-40B in respect to the aircraft that actually got airborne and challenged the Japanese (the P-40C types were destroyed on the ground) but left it as a generic statement.

Reactions: Like Like:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## dedalos (Dec 12, 2014)

BiffF15 said:


> Dedalos,
> Quote Originally Posted by dedalos View Post
> 
> .Yes, in the ONE combat account by ONE Ta-152 pilot, who had 30 plus kills at the time. Yes, he killed a great low altitude performer. What does that mean, that the Ta-152 aircraft is better at low altitude than the Tempest? The answer is a resounding NO. Not because of charts, not because Willi said so, but because ONE fight (or data point) does not a trend make. Read Willi's recount of the fight, he states he caught the Tempest climbing after straffing, and the target was at his 10 o'clock. If you were attacking a plane that could shoot back, would you start the fight nose to nose, or would you be a hunter and fly your intercept to start the engagement at a position of advantage? Do you think straffing is done at dogfighting speed or something less, do you think if you are looking at the ground you are checking six at the same time? No, which is why Willi started his attack from behind. If you are in a fight you don't give the other guy ANYTHING that will make it fair. You want the fight as unfair in your favor as you can get it, and I'm sure after 30 plus kills Willi had figured that out.
> ...


 *I respect your expertise A LOT, and i read very carefully your posts. I realise that often i have the role of the "bad guy" with the strange opinions.Yet such discussions are the most productive. If we all agreed on everything , there would be no interest in the forum!!!*


----------



## dedalos (Dec 12, 2014)

FLYBOYJ said:


> The F8F had wingtips were actually designed to shed.
> 
> The Grumman F8F Bearcat
> 
> ...



I dont understand. Where did i say inaccurany? I gave my source. F8F did lose wingtips even in Peace conditions.. Fatalities occured. US Navy was forced in 1947 to rebuilt the wings of the entire f8f fleet. If Ta 152s or a Me 262 s were losing wigtips with fatal result would you say that they had structural issues?


----------



## stona (Dec 12, 2014)

dedalos said:


> If Ta 152s or a Me 262 s were losing wigtips with fatal result would you say that they had structural issues?



Me 262 is a very bad example as more were lost to accidents than any other cause. The largest _known_ cause of these accidents was the engines. No allied aircraft would have found itself in service with such an appalling reliability and safety record, but then the Allies weren't losing the war 

I have to say that I don't believe it is possible to draw any practical conclusions about the Ta 152 in combat given the limited number operational and even more limited number of combats. Given just the limited data about the Defiant in the very early stages of the war, say from 29th May 1940 when the Defiants of No. 264 Squadron claimed 37 enemy aircraft, might lead to the conclusion that it was a capable fighter, which it certainly was not.

Extrapolating from paper data is a method fraught with many pit falls.

Cheers
Steve

Reactions: Like Like:
3 | Like List reactions


----------



## FLYBOYJ (Dec 12, 2014)

dedalos said:


> I dont understand. Where did i say inaccurany? I gave my source. F8F did lose wingtips even in Peace conditions.. Fatalities occured. US Navy was forced in 1947 to rebuilt the wings of the entire f8f fleet. If Ta 152s or a Me 262 s were losing wigtips with fatal result would you say that they had structural issues?


They were DESIGNED to come off when you pulled 9Gs and had an explosive charge to jettison the wing tip. Do you realize what it takes to bring an aircraft to 9Gs?!? This was a DESIGN issue, not a structural issue and when the concept didn't work they just did away with the jettisonable wing tip. BTW, the Me 262 was limited to +7 -5 Gs between 410 and 440 mph, and I believe this was mentioned in the original flight manual. Here's a link to Ta 152 pilot notes - maybe someone who reads German better than I could find mention of the G limits, I'd bet they are less then 9Gs...

http://www.ww2aircraft.net/forum/other-mechanical-systems-tech-/ta-152h-pilots-notes-4892.html


----------



## tomo pauk (Dec 12, 2014)

The G limits for the Ta-152H decreased (due to increased wingspan wings?) from what the Ta-152C had. It was down to +5 and -2.5 G at 4500 kg (here, scroll a bit); the 152C was at 6.3 G for 5000 kg weight. 
The normal take off weight of the Ta-152H-0 was 4730 kg, per same source, and the 152H-1 at 5220 kg. Or, 5 and 4.33 G, respectively for those weights?

The P-47N was rated, post war, for 8 G at 'design weight' of 13823 lbs (6270 kg, basically no fuel on-board, but with full ammo and pilot). The 'combat weight' was at 16700 (wartime) - 17228 lbs (post war). Or, 7575 - 7815 kg, that is with 2100 L of internal fuel. Meaning 6.62 - 6.42 G for those 'combat weights'?

Reactions: Like Like:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## FLYBOYJ (Dec 12, 2014)

The US Navy had 3 (THREE) reported issues with the detachable wingtips. I'll post again so certain folks understand...

*"However, this feature did not always work and in two cases, a wing tip broke off during a low-altitude, high-speed pullout, and both aircraft rolled over and crashed into the sea, before either pilot could recover. Also, on at least one occasion, a malfunction occurred with the explosive charges during maintenance, and a US Navy technician was killed."*


----------



## GregP (Dec 12, 2014)

When they disabled the explosive wingtips, everyone was happier and the planes did NOT have maintenance issue related to the wingtips.

I know people who OWN Bearcats, people who fly them, people who flew them in the Navy, and people who worked at Grumman. Nobody has ever mentioned rebuilding the wings for the fleet. They deactivated the explosive wingtips by removing the charges and that was the extent of it.


----------



## parsifal (Dec 12, 2014)

tomo pauk said:


> Biff - why do you think the P-40 was not better than Zero?
> (sure enough, the P-40 sucked as the CV fighter)



In some areas the P-40 was better, but in others, not so good. I think the proof is in the pudding here. Joe B posted a long while ago the actual combat victories in the air for allied aircraft against the Zeke. Turns out for 1942, about 150 or so were lost in air combat, whilst shooting down well over a thousand (not sure of that number but it was hopelessly big) allied fighters, of which the P-40 was a major loser. Say, 300 P-40s to 50 Zekes in air combat encounters in 1942. Japanese losses were much higher for non combat related reasons, and losses sustained whilst on the ground. The biggest killer of the Zeke until 1944 was probably the B-24......

After October, new tactics, new types and better pilots came into the equation that minimised the Zeke advantages, but a Zeke was never a pushover

Reactions: Like Like:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## BiffF15 (Dec 15, 2014)

Dedalos,

"I never said that this combat proved the ta superior to tempest at low level. I chose my words carefully. I said that "proved competitive" and " engaged the tempest more or less on even terms". And considering that ta was a specialized High altitude fighter while tempest a low altitude fighter it s something positive for the capabilities of the TA 152"

*I would take a starting a fight on someone's 6 o'clock in an inferior plane over starting out front in a superior plane any day of the week. If I started a wrestling match with my opposition face down on the matt, my knee on his neck, who do you think would be favored to win? There is a tremendous advantage to starting a fight behind the other guy. Gives you lots of breathing room, and he has to deal with getting shot at (avoiding bullets) and in this case, avoiding the ground (best you can do there is break even and he lost). And you call this more or less even? Also I think you missed the point about strafing speeds. You don't do that at high speed unless it's a hit and run. If you are working a target area your speed will be down as there are not surface to air threats. I would think a guy with Willi's experience would enter the fight at a higher speed than his opponent given that he ran his intercept to start the fight behind his target.*

"Rescke had 27 kills. If we accept the rule of thumb that is trendy in our days , that LW over-claimed 3-1 against USAAF, then he had less than ten. Anyway he was a product of late war LW training system. If we compare his total flying hours with these of the unlucky Mitchell I doubt we will find significant difference."

*The significant difference is two fold. Total flight hours are not a factor, but trigger time. Regardless of how many kills Willi had, he had pulled the trigger on at LEAST 27 A/C. That means experience that F/O Mitchell didn't have.*

"When I compare the technical design of two aircraft ,in my opinion, I give some identical parameters as a base Line to start. If ta 152 MUST be compared without MW 50 &GM1 and with b4 fuel I am the First to call it inferior to the late Western fighter. (Although Brown considered it close in capabilities with the spit XIX even without MW50 and GM1)"

*I was using the fuel compare to negate the Willi kill, not a technical flyoff, but a real one. You are crossing fact streams.*

"True , but it was a fight that lasted several turns until the tempest stalled . At low speed turning fight the drag of the tempest 2 wing racks is not that important. With its massive power advantage should be able to outfly its pursuer even if initially tempest was at Energy level disadvantage. Yet ta with just 1750 ps managed to stay behind it."

*The reason the Tempest stalled was it didn't have enough power to stay above stall speed for what the pilot was asking it to do. External wing racks, or drag devices are a bigger detriment the harder you pull (or more g forces you pulling). As I said before, I have attacked aircraft at lower altitudes, that had more power, and better handling, and been victorious. Was that because my plane was better? Nope. What you are staking credibility on, or building your case upon, with this one fight between Willi and F/O Mitchell is not a good example. Not at all.*

"That's why I just said "Ta proved competitive with the tempest". Not a pristine fight? Why ? It was 1vs1 ,by pilots with similar total flying experience, Rescke had initial tactical advantage, Mitchell had massive, huge power advantage. But generally I agree that fighter comparison should be First of all by Technical data's because operational results are configured by many irrelevant factors."

*All of the late model WW2 piston fighters were fairly competitive. No it wasn't a pristine fight, which is why it's not a good example. If you could back it up with many more examples then maybe, but with only ONE data point you don't have enough to make a case either way. Also, as I stated previously, starting with a much higher experience level, a speed advantage, surprise, and a positional advantage you SHOULD win. The outcome is no surprise and AGAIN is not an example of superiority of one type over another in the short or long term.*

"There is a LOT of knowledge in here (the Forum), mind boggling almost, all available to be tapped in to. I came in here thinking I knew more than the average guy, and I did. The only thing is the guys in here are not average. Look at this forum as place you get your knowledge vetted, but expect it will be tested and quite handily so don't get disgruntled if someone doesn't agree. With an open mind you might have your opine changed, I know I have."


Cheers,
Biff

Reactions: Like Like:
3 | Like List reactions


----------



## dedalos (Dec 16, 2014)

Tai52H-0 1750PS at om
Tempest V in 1945. 2420 Hp or ~38% more than Ta 152
In emergencies, overboost, 3000 Hp or ~ 72% more than Ta 152
Speed at 0m 
Ta 152H-o 540mph no MW50
Tempest V 404 mph on 2420 hp
Source: WW2aircraft performance


----------



## tomo pauk (Dec 16, 2014)

It is 540 *km/h* at SL for the Ta-152H-0, ie. 335.5 mph.

No ww2 service Tempest V went over 2400 HP, 3000 HP was a wet dream until the Sabre VII arrived (RPM raised to 4000*, use of water injection). 
Chart for the Sabre IIB, for 150 grade fuel

*edit - 3850 RPM, per Lumsden

Reactions: Like Like:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## dedalos (Dec 16, 2014)

tomo pauk said:


> It is 540 *km/h* at SL for the Ta-152H-0, ie. 335.5 mph.
> 
> No ww2 service Tempest V went over 2400 HP, 3000 HP was a wet dream until the Sabre VII arrived (RPM raised to 4000*, use of water injection).
> Chart for the Sabre IIB, for 150 grade fuel
> ...


Thanks Tomo Pauk 

Obviously i wrote by mistake mph instead of km/h. Howeve its obvious the massive power and performance advantage of Tempest....................on Paper....
Theres pilot(clausterman) report on this EXCELLENT site ,ww2aircraftperformance, a very reliable site , that in emergencies they could overboost the engine to 3000hp. I suppose Mitchell would have used anything its airplane could give. Stil the Ta 152 with 38-70% less power ,and after several turns in which spend any initial Energy advantage, somehow stayed behind the Tempest.
It s also interesting that on British Reports the Tempest could out-everything all german fighters.Still it was the Tempest that stalled.


----------



## tomo pauk (Dec 16, 2014)

Pierre Clostermann was/is known for his exaggerations. In a book, 3000 HP sounds much better than 2350 HP, or whatever. 
There is enough of primary data on the Williams' site to deduce what level of horsepower was available to many different engines, in what time frame.

We know that Me 262 was having many performance advantages vs. prop fighters, yet some pilots decided to pick a turning fight vs. those and sometimes lost the duel. Or, the MiG 17 sometimes coming atop of the US supersonics. Zero beating US 400-mph fighters on St. Valentine's day 1943, and some bombers for a good measure.
Surprise, height and speed advantage, and pilots capable to take advantage of that should overcome any if not all paper advantages a fighter aircraft has above another.

Reactions: Like Like:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## stona (Dec 17, 2014)

It is utterly pointless to assess the fighting capabilities of any type using data (limited and incomplete to boot) from one combat.....period.

It is also pointless to apply criteria established on paper or by service and prototype testing to aircraft in front line service, configured in ways that are unknown or subject of supposition.

Cheers

Steve

Reactions: Bacon Bacon:
1 | Like Like:
2 | Like List reactions


----------



## parsifal (Dec 19, 2014)

The Ta 152 was a great design I think, but was not a wonder weapon

Reactions: Bacon Bacon:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## GregP (Dec 19, 2014)

Spot on Parsifal. The real-world performance just did NOT match the hype.

Given the state of the German forces in early 1945 versus the state of Allied forces at the time, it is not all that surprising. The Ta 152 doubtless had great potential and deserves an honorable mention, but with so few in service accomplishing so little, and going out of service when ANYTHING went wrong due to no spare parts, it is not the fearsome weapon portrtayed by the Ta 152 applauders.

I'd say it was not to be feared almost at all since it was hard to find one and, more than likely if you saw one, you had them outnumbered very many to one and they were probably instantly on the defensive.

I would NOT be surprised if a gaggle of Ta 152's might even be bypassed by Allied fighters as just not worth it, depending on what their mission was. It would not be a case of overconfidence. More one of practical considerations. If they had to attack a target, it could well be the case that they would do that first and maybe hit the Ta 152's on the way back if theywere still around. 

Now if they were attacking Me 262 bases and the Ta 152's were guarding the jets, then the combat would be part of the mission and I assume they would not be ignored at all. I've heard tales of people saying Allied fighters ignored the Me 262's in the pattern becasue of the Ta 152 guards, but have never been able to confirm that in talking to or hearing talk over 400 WWII fighter pilots who were there. The question was asked of most of the 15 -20 guys who said they saw the Ta 152's in the air on at least one occasion.

I never asked a German pilot that because I've never spoken with or heard speak a WWII German Ta 152 pilot except one that said he delivered some of them from the factory to the front lines. There was no question of combat as he said the delivery guys many times didn't even have ammunition ... just barely enough fuel to get to the destination base plus a little extra in case of traffic in the pattern.

Reactions: Dislike Dislike:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## DerAdlerIstGelandet (Dec 19, 2014)

parsifal said:


> The Ta 152 was a great design I think, but was not a wonder weapon



Other than the atomic bomb, what was in 1945?


----------



## GrauGeist (Dec 19, 2014)

DerAdlerIstGelandet said:


> Other than the atomic bomb, what was in 1945?


The Nazi UFOs

Reactions: Like Like:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## GregP (Dec 19, 2014)

The B-29 would have been one and I daresay the Me 262, in sufficient numbers, might well have made the list. The American version of the V-1 could have been produced in extreme numbers. Had that happened, it might have made the list ... but didn't. I think the 10,000 and 20,000 pound bombs qualified, too. At least they would have had it come much closer tham 1/2 mile to any of us.

Another "almost made it to wonder weapon status" was the German very late war submarines, the Types XXI XXIII. I am VERY glad these were late in coming to fruition.

Perhaps the biggest "wonder weapon" of WWII was the Russian Winter weather. It swallowed a LOT of raw materail in the guise of both men and equipment.

Reactions: Like Like:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## stona (Dec 20, 2014)

GregP said:


> The question was asked of most of the 15 -20 guys who said they saw the Ta 152's in the air on at least one occasion.



I don't for a second doubt what they said, but I would be amazed if aircraft recognition skills, particularly in a potential or actual combat situation, were good enough to distinguish a Ta 152 from what allied pilots called 'a long nosed Fw 190' meaning Fw 190 D.

There were so few Ta 152s delivered to the Luftwaffe and even fewer serviceable at any time, so that inevitably the vast majority of allied pilots _definitely_ never saw one. Even 15-20 out of several hundred seems a lot. Most Luftwaffe pilots never saw one either!

Cheers

Steve

Reactions: Like Like:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## parsifal (Dec 20, 2014)

DerAdlerIstGelandet said:


> Other than the atomic bomb, what was in 1945?




oh boy what a can of worms this will be. 

Some suggestions

Me 262, AR 234 ....more potential wonder weapons than real ones
US Fast Carrier forces....There had been nothing comparable before it and it changed the nature of naval awarfare and force projection
US trucks....tough, reliable unstoppable
P-51....a real game changer that Germany was unable to answer in the finish
Soviet massed artillery....unstoppable once it got cranked.
STG 44 rifles. probably did more to shape the nature of small units capability than any other personal side arm
The liberty ship.....was probably the single most important ship type of the war.


----------



## GrauGeist (Dec 20, 2014)

parsifal said:


> oh boy what a can of worms this will be.
> 
> Some suggestions
> 
> ...


I don't see how any of those can be classified as a "Wonder Weapon"

They are a natural progression of existing technology. When aircraft first appeared over the battlefield during WWI, it was exclaimed as a new wonder of modern warfare...anything afterword is just evolution.

The same can be said for the modern nuclear subs, as being the descendant of a "wonder weapon"; the CSS Hunley.

So the Atom Bomb = yes

The Me262, Ta152, P-51D, etc. etc. = no

Reactions: Bacon Bacon:
 1 | Like Like:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## drgondog (Dec 20, 2014)

GregP said:


> I would NOT be surprised if a gaggle of Ta 152's might even be bypassed by Allied fighters as just not worth it, depending on what their mission was. It would not be a case of overconfidence. More one of practical considerations. If they had to attack a target, it could well be the case that they would do that first and maybe hit the Ta 152's on the way back if theywere still around.
> 
> *"Gaggles" of ANY LW type would be bounced on sight. Maybe only a section or even a squadron - out of a Group would attack them *
> 
> ...



It would be far easier to see from a logbook or report by a Ta 152 pilot where they engaged Allied fighters than to gain some differentiation from an Allied report on Fw 190D vs 109 vs Ta 152 based on a lot of fighter pilot ID skills. A good friend, Bill Lyons, shot down a 109D-9 based on location and time but thought it was a 109 because of the inline nose.. the final giveaway later is his clear recollection of wing root guns shooting at him.


----------



## fastmongrel (Dec 20, 2014)

DerAdlerIstGelandet said:


> Other than the atomic bomb, what was in 1945?



Penicillin

Reactions: Like Like:
3 | Like List reactions


----------



## tomo pauk (Dec 20, 2014)

Agreed with what people said above that there was about zero chance that Allied pilots will tell the Ta-152 vs. the Fw-190D while in combat. 
The noses of the 1st P-47s in ETO were painted with bright colors and patterns, so they don't get shot because thy got mistaken for the Fw-190s. The Hampdens were several times mistaken for the Do-17s, even the Hurricanes did get shot some times, being mistaken for LW aircraft in 1939/40. 
It is possible that maybe 90% of the Allied pilots, that fought in 1945 never knew the Ta-152 existed.

Reactions: Like Like:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## DerAdlerIstGelandet (Dec 20, 2014)

parsifal said:


> oh boy what a can of worms this will be.
> 
> Some suggestions
> 
> ...



None are wonder weapons. Some are evolutionary and some are revolutionary, but they are not "Wonder Weapons".

The term wonder weapon is used too loosely, and usually in a derogitory way to downplay something.


----------



## DerAdlerIstGelandet (Dec 20, 2014)

GregP said:


> The B-29 would have been one and I daresay the Me 262, in sufficient numbers, might well have made the list. The American version of the V-1 could have been produced in extreme numbers. Had that happened, it might have made the list ... but didn't. I think the 10,000 and 20,000 pound bombs qualified, too. At least they would have had it come much closer tham 1/2 mile to any of us.
> 
> Another "almost made it to wonder weapon status" was the German very late war submarines, the Types XXI XXIII. I am VERY glad these were late in coming to fruition.
> 
> Perhaps the biggest "wonder weapon" of WWII was the Russian Winter weather. It swallowed a LOT of raw materail in the guise of both men and equipment.



None of them "wonder weapons". Evolutionary designs with revolutionary features...


----------



## DerAdlerIstGelandet (Dec 20, 2014)

GrauGeist said:


> I don't see how any of those can be classified as a "Wonder Weapon"
> 
> They are a natural progression of existing technology. When aircraft first appeared over the battlefield during WWI, it was exclaimed as a new wonder of modern warfare...anything afterword is just evolution.
> 
> ...



Ding, ding, ding....

Tell him what he won!

The only one so far who grasps it.


----------



## stona (Dec 20, 2014)

tomo pauk said:


> It is possible that maybe 90% of the Allied pilots, that fought in 1945 never knew the Ta-152 existed.



Yes, but closer to 100%. Why would they know of a new aircraft introduced in_ completely insignificant _numbers? There were never more than a handful flying at any one time. It is_ completely irrelevant in the context of WW2 _and because the Germans lost, it became almost totally irrelevant in terms of the history of piston engine fighters. It was certainly no wonder weapon. It was yet another development of the Fw 190.

The Hawker Typhoon was painted with recognition markings somewhat like the distinctive markings for the Normandy invasion because it was easily confused with the Fw 190, on more than one occasion with fatal consequences.
I sit in my living room and look at models of a Fw 190 and a Typhoon side by side and they look nothing like one another. The cockpit of a WW2 fighter, in a potentially lethal situation, is a very different place.

Cheers

Steve

Reactions: Like Like:
3 | Like List reactions


----------



## fastmongrel (Dec 20, 2014)

stona said:


> Y
> I sit in my living room and look at models of a Fw 190 and a Typhoon side by side and they look nothing like one another. The cockpit of a WW2 fighter, in a potentially lethal situation, is a very different place.
> 
> Cheers
> ...



I have been to airshows and without the showguide or being able to hear the commentary its difficult to say whats coming next and they are only doing about 150 knots. Also no ones firing at you and the only distraction is trying not to drop your ice cream.


----------



## GregP (Dec 20, 2014)

I suppose it depends on whose definition of "wonder deapon" we are using. I have my own and everyone else doubtless has theirs. I think of the proverbial wonder weapon as a "game changer," and there most certaily WERE a few of those.

Hi Bill. Merry Christmas. You may have a point about looking at Ta 152 logbooks ... if we can find any ... I can't read German anyway. As for gaggles of Luftwaffe fighters not being bypassed, we'll just have to agree to disagree. I've heard too many former WWII pilots state that very thing to buy into the "attack at any cost" theory. Still, it makes no difference now. The real truths are probably lost as these guys pass on anyway, and that's happening at an accelerated rate as we read this, just due to age.

Again, Happy Holidays to everyone.


----------



## DerAdlerIstGelandet (Dec 20, 2014)

GregP said:


> I suppose it depends on whose definition of "wonder deapon" we are using. I have my own and everyone else doubtless has theirs.* I think o the proverbial wonder weapon as a "game changer," and tehre most certaily WERE a few of those.*
> 
> Hi Bill. Merry Christmas. You may have a point about looking at Ta 152 logbooks ... if we can find any ... I can't read German anyway. As for gaggles of Luftwaffe fighters not being bypassed, we'll just have to agree to disagree. I've heard too many former WWII pilots state that very thing to buy into the "attack at any cost" theory. Still, it makes no difference now. The real truths are probably lost as these guys pass on anyway, and that's happening at an accelerated rate as we read this, just due to age.
> 
> Again, Happy Holidays to everyone.



Thats a flawed theory. The Bf 109 was a game changer at one point. The Spitfire as well. The T-34 was a game changer.


----------



## GregP (Dec 20, 2014)

Yes, I agree, they were, at one point. My definition is only flawed if I agree to go with yours instead, which you so far have not stated or, if you have, I missed it. 

My definition isn't flawed as far as I'm concerned.

If you state yours, maybe we can go with that one. I won't agree or disagree with it until I know what it is ...

However, to the average German pilot, seeing several hundred P-51's and 1,000 B-17's fly over your home airfield must have been wondrous ... in reverse. It must have been the stuff of nightmares.


----------



## GrauGeist (Dec 20, 2014)

GregP said:


> I suppose it depends on whose definition of "wonder deapon" we are using. I have my own and everyone else doubtless has theirs. I think o the proverbial wonder weapon as a "game changer," and tehre most certaily WERE a few of those.


A "wonder weapon" would certainly be a "game changer"...but if we put WW2 into your context, every other day saw a "wonder weapon" when they issued the next mark of the Spitfire, or upgunned a B-25 or issued semi-automatic carbines instead of bolt-action rifles.

There is a considerable difference between a person's opinion and actual circumstances.

On the battle field, the introduction of the bow arrow was a "wonder weapon" because it all of a sudden allowed an army the ability to stand off and engage the enemy, however, as fearsome as it was, the longbow was only a technological leap foreward in the bow arrow's evolution. Just because the longbow gave the archers a tremendous advantage over the standard archers does not make it a "wonder weapon", it makes it a new threat to be countered. And the countermeasure for the longbow was...black powder, which was a "wonder weapon".


----------



## GregP (Dec 20, 2014)

We all have our own opinions and today's "wonder weapon" is tomorrow's old technology.

Same thing happens today. The ICBM was only a "wonder weapon" until more than one country had them. Then they became something else ...


----------



## Shortround6 (Dec 20, 2014)

I don't believe that the Bf 109, Spitfire or T-34 were really game changers. Not in the sense that they really caused a break in the development of their type of weapon or a major change in tactics.

There weren't enough type XXI subs in action (if the war cruises of the German type XXI subs can even be called action) to change the "game" during WW II but they (or their level of performance) were certainly a "game changer" as they rendered not only hundreds of anti-sub vessels (some fairly new) obsolete but required new or different tactics and weapons to counter. Fortunately the west and Russia never came to direct blows in the late 40s or 50s but the threat of Soviet submarines of similar performance to the type XXI had NATO naval commanders going near crazy for quite a while. Subs that can go as fast or faster underwater than the AS ships that are supposed to 'catch' them certainly changed the game. Please remember that subs under water didn't have to slow down for sea conditions. Granted they could not do it for long but how long was needed to avoid a depth charge attack or even a hedgehog attack or to break contact with the sonar of the day? Much longer under water endurance and even the ability to 'cruise' at double the speed while snorkeling compared to earlier subs significantly altered the detection problem. 

One can say that most all weapons are _evolutionary_ but when you can take a line of weapons and break it into pre-XXX models and post-XXX models you can make a case for a game changing model. The Bf 109 and Spitfire didn't do that, many other countries were working on similar aircraft at the same time. There is no pre-109/Spit and post-109/Spit break in the development of fighter planes. A case might be made for the T-34 but it is on thin ice.


----------



## GrauGeist (Dec 20, 2014)

I'm sorry, I don't recall where I stated an opinion. I simply laid down a few facts.

Just because you paint a sharkmouth on a Bf110, doesn't make it a wonder weapon because it's different or unusual.

To qualify as a "wonder weapon", it needs to be a technology that has not been employed before. At least this is the impression I have gathered over the years, reading about the subject.

But don't worry, Greg...when I do come up with an opinion on this subject, you'll be the first to know.


----------



## Shortround6 (Dec 20, 2014)

GrauGeist said:


> A "wonder weapon" would certainly be a "game changer"...but if we put WW2 into your context, every other day saw a "wonder weapon" when they issued the next mark of the Spitfire, or upgunned a B-25 or issued semi-automatic carbines instead of bolt-action rifles.
> 
> There is a considerable difference between a person's opinion and actual circumstances.
> 
> On the battle field, the introduction of the bow arrow was a "wonder weapon" because it all of a sudden allowed an army the ability to stand off and engage the enemy, however, as fearsome as it was, the longbow was only a technological leap foreward in the bow arrow's evolution. Just because the longbow gave the archers a tremendous advantage over the standard archers does not make it a "wonder weapon", it makes it a new threat to be countered. And the countermeasure for the longbow was...black powder, which was a "wonder weapon".



Actually the Long Bow was a 'game changer' even if not quite a "wonder weapon" in that it gave a 'peasant' army the _chance_ to stand up in battle to 'traditional' forces ( the warrior class/nobility). It certainly did not guarantee success but it shifted the power (at least somewhat) away from the armored men at arms. It was replaced by black powder muskets because it took much less time to train a man to use a musket (a few weeks?) than to use a long bow ( a few, or not so few, years).

Reactions: Like Like:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## GregP (Dec 20, 2014)

If it's new technology that hasn't been employed before, then the Me 262 qualifies, as do the XXI and XIII U-Boats. The Panzer was new technology. The B-29 was by virtue of being so much faster while carrying a LOT of load. The V-1 and V-2 qualify, too.

But this isn't something I want to drag on about. I can accept a definition and Graugeist's definition is OK. And he is right, a sharkmouth doesn't change a Bf 110 by much except to make it more easily seen in daylight.

Happy Holidays, Graugeist.


----------



## DerAdlerIstGelandet (Dec 21, 2014)

Shortround6 said:


> I don't believe that the Bf 109, Spitfire or T-34 were really game changers. Not in the sense that they really caused a break in the development of their type of weapon or a major change in tactics.
> 
> There weren't enough type XXI subs in action (if the war cruises of the German type XXI subs can even be called action) to change the "game" during WW II but they (or their level of performance) were certainly a "game changer" as they rendered not only hundreds of anti-sub vessels (some fairly new) obsolete but required new or different tactics and weapons to counter. Fortunately the west and Russia never came to direct blows in the late 40s or 50s but the threat of Soviet submarines of similar performance to the type XXI had NATO naval commanders going near crazy for quite a while. Subs that can go as fast or faster underwater than the AS ships that are supposed to 'catch' them certainly changed the game. Please remember that subs under water didn't have to slow down for sea conditions. Granted they could not do it for long but how long was needed to avoid a depth charge attack or even a hedgehog attack or to break contact with the sonar of the day? Much longer under water endurance and even the ability to 'cruise' at double the speed while snorkeling compared to earlier subs significantly altered the detection problem.
> 
> One can say that most all weapons are _evolutionary_ but when you can take a line of weapons and break it into pre-XXX models and post-XXX models you can make a case for a game changing model. The Bf 109 and Spitfire didn't do that, many other countries were working on similar aircraft at the same time. There is no pre-109/Spit and post-109/Spit break in the development of fighter planes. A case might be made for the T-34 but it is on thin ice.



Sure they where when the first came out, the other side had to react to "best it". That would be a definition of a game changer.

Point being, nothing was really a "wonder weapon" minus the A-Bomb.


----------



## DerAdlerIstGelandet (Dec 21, 2014)

GregP said:


> If it's new technology that hasn't been employed before, then the Me 262 qualifies, as do the XXI and XIII U-Boats. The Panzer was new technology. The B-29 was by virtue of being so much faster while carrying a LOT of load. The V-1 and V-2 qualify, too.
> 
> *But this isn't something I want to drag on about.* I can accept a definition and Graugeist's definition is OK. And he is right, a sharkmouth doesn't change a Bf 110 by much except to make it more easily seen in daylight.
> 
> Happy Holidays, Graugeist.



Then why bring it up, let alone decide what is valid or not?


----------



## GrauGeist (Dec 21, 2014)

DerAdlerIstGelandet said:


> Point being, nothing was really a "wonder weapon" minus the A-Bomb.


There were honestly several innovations that appeared in WWII that were "wonder weapons", the A-Bomb being one, of course.

Another would have been the Aggregat rocket series. This was not a rocket in the sense of the Katyusha or Nebelwerfer on the battlefield. Instead, this was the grandfather of the ICBM and was the first to reach space (shortly after WWII, during testing) and was the herald of a whole new type of warfare. As it happens, the Aggregat's descendants would one day carry the descendants of the A-bomb as a payload...


----------



## GregP (Dec 21, 2014)

Hey Adler, I didn't bring it up. The thread wound around to it without my intervention at all. 

I added my thoughts. Isn't that what we are supposed to do in here?

If there is something specific you didn't like about my reply, what was it? Seemed very friendly to me. If it seems otherwise to anyone, that wasn't my intent. I was just participating in the discussion. Really.



Agreed, Adler. Once someone disagreed with what is and isn't a wonder weapon, it did get kind of dumb. I shan't wonder any longer ...


----------



## pattern14 (Dec 21, 2014)

As it stands, the Ta 152 was the final development of the Fw 190 due to the war ending. The potential of this aircraft had not been reached, but it was by no means revolutionary. I still maintain that the luftwaffe would have done better by concentrating on this aircraft ( and the Me 262) than wasting resources on the He 162 jet which was operationally useless. On the flip side, fuel for piston engines was even more rare than J2 jet fuel. Performance wise, the Ta 152 could hold its own against anything the allies could field, and given equal piloting skill, given the Sea fury or Rarebear a run for their money. All hypothetical of course......


----------



## tomo pauk (Dec 21, 2014)

The He 162 and Ta 152 were equally 'operationally useless'; that not being the 'guilt' of those A/C. 

Could you please elaborate a bit on the bolded part:



> As it stands, the Ta 152 was the final development of the Fw 190 due to the war ending. *The potential of this aircraft had not been reached*, but it was by no means revolutionary.


----------



## fastmongrel (Dec 21, 2014)

Shortround6 said:


> Actually the Long Bow was a 'game changer' even if not quite a "wonder weapon" in that it gave a 'peasant' army the _chance_ to stand up in battle to 'traditional' forces ( the warrior class/nobility). It certainly did not guarantee success but it shifted the power (at least somewhat) away from the armored men at arms. It was replaced by black powder muskets because it took much less time to train a man to use a musket (a few weeks?) than to use a long bow ( a few, or not so few, years).



If we are talking about the English/Welsh armies of the 100 Years War just to be picky they werent a peasant army but were the sons of Land Owning farmers Artisan craftsmen and the Literate classes like Scribes, Lawyers and Businessmen. What today would be called the aspirational Middle class. Peasants had neither the time nor the money to go and spend time at the shooting butts to become a proficent Bowman they were too busy working. The Bowmen were volunteers mostly young in there late teens early twenties and went to war not particulary for any dynastic nationalistic reasons but for the pay and the chance of plunder. 

Anyway your right the Welsh Longbow was a game changer but was no more than an evolution of a hunting bow. A Spitfire compared to a Sopwith Camel.

Reactions: Like Like:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## stona (Dec 21, 2014)

The longbow was no more a revolutionary weapon than the cross bow. It was not a wonder weapon in any sense.
Bows had been around for a very long time and whilst an English longbow was a very powerful bow it wasn't an order of magnitude more powerful than other contemporary weapons (unlike an atomic bomb and a conventional bomb). 
What changed the game was the tactics the English used to maximise the potential of the weapon. It's most important advantage was a very high rate of shooting (you don't fire a bow), any archer worth his salt could launch six arrows a minute, far more than a cross bowman. Deploy several thousand archers and that weight of arrows could be decisive.

English bowmen were not trained they were made. Every able bodied male was obliged by law to practice archery at the butts on holy days and other sports were banned. The bows from the Mary Rose mostly had draw weights in the 100-130lb range and a draw length of 30". The arrows were all well made, mostly of Poplar but also of Birch and Alder, with a few more exotic (Willow, Hornbeam, Elder, Hawthorne, Walnut and Ash all being represented). Most were bob tailed but others were parallel, barrelled and even breasted. They were almost all fletched with goose feathers. This is all ancient technology, even at the time.

These weapons were not made for hunting or sport, they were made for war. Earlier Henry V had 3,000,000 arrows made for his expedition to France. That's more than an arrow for every man woman and child in England at the time, and making them was a skilled trade, there was a limited number of Fletchers and Bowyers, but many bows already existed. English blacksmiths would have been very busy making the arrowheads for all these arrows, particularly the mail piercing (or parting) bodkins. This was required to equip an army whose composition included more than 70% archers. The slaughter of the French nobility at Agincourt, in which the longbow was one of the most important factors, is well known. 

Cheers

Steve

Reactions: Like Like:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## pbehn (Dec 21, 2014)

fastmongrel said:


> If we are talking about the English/Welsh armies of the 100 Years War just to be picky they werent a peasant army but were the sons of Land Owning farmers Artisan craftsmen and the Literate classes like Scribes, Lawyers and Businessmen. What today would be called the aspirational Middle class. Peasants had neither the time nor the money to go and spend time at the shooting butts to become a proficent Bowman they were too busy working. The Bowmen were volunteers mostly young in there late teens early twenties and went to war not particulary for any dynastic nationalistic reasons but for the pay and the chance of plunder.
> 
> Anyway your right the Welsh Longbow was a game changer but was no more than an evolution of a hunting bow. A Spitfire compared to a Sopwith Camel.



The advantage of a longbow was its range and rate of fire, the disadvantage was its inaccuracy and most of all the time taken to train. Longbow men took years to get the strength needed, archeologists can tell a longbowman because their skeletons are deformed.


----------



## pbehn (Dec 21, 2014)

my game changer would be proximity fused weapons against the V1 and also infantry who moved away from tanks rather than staying close for protection.

Obviously the A Bomb wins though


----------



## stona (Dec 21, 2014)

pbehn said:


> The advantage of a longbow was its range and rate of fire, the disadvantage was its inaccuracy and most of all the time taken to train. Longbow men took years to get the strength needed, archeologists can tell a longbowman because their skeletons are deformed.



Some of the bowmen's skeletons found on the Mary Rose did show evidence of considerable strength, not really deformation. This was in the latter days of archery and these skeletons belonged to the men of the King's (Henry VIII) personal body guard. They were professional archers, not the men of the yeomanry militias (most definitely NOT peasants) of earlier times.

Many regular people today use bows of considerable draw weight, comparable to that of a medieval longbow. It requires strength and practice, particularly to sustain a rapid rate of shooting as required in a battle. This is why it was a legal requirement to practice for the men who might be required to fight for the King on behalf of their overlord. If you accidently killed someone whilst practicing you wouldn't be charged with the offence, which must have opened up a legal loop hole for murder. This law superseded Common Law, it was and still is contrary to Common Law to murder someone 
They didn't require any extraordinary or superhuman ability. This is a bit of a myth, a bit like the supposed immobility of men at arms, even when you consider that their armour was specifically designed to allow them the movement to fight! 

There are many reasons floated for the increasing use of archers in English armies, it started to become evident in the late 14th and early 15th centuries. The overriding reason will be familiar to all of us in this cash strapped time for defence budgets. Archers were cheap, very cheap, compared to men at arms.

Cheers

Steve


----------



## GregP (Dec 21, 2014)

There is no WWII fighter that could give a Rare Bear a run for the money, certainly not a Ta 152 with the high-aspect, high-altitude wings. All the front-running Reno racers are 100+ mph faster than the fastest WWII fighters. Any stock WWII fighter participating at Reno would be lapped in 2 - 3 laps out of 8. The stock guys run in the Bronze class and are 100+ mph slower than the gold class is.

On the flip side, the racers would never make much of a fighter. They have no fuel to speak of and are not armed. If you added fuel and armament, they would slow down marginaly in a straight line, but all have been so tweaked as to preclude being useful to the military, and it was all in the pure interests of speed alone at the expense of all other functions. I doubt the surface finish required to reach Reno speeds could be maintained out in the open in any case. The engines are boosted to the point of being not reliable enough for a 1-hour mission, much less several / many of them, and unless the Ta 152 could be tweaked up to around 3,800 HP and given a race finish and race modifocations, it would be a very poor second to any of the Gold class racers. The P-47N would fare no better.

Nobody can approach Reno speeds without a dedicated effort of several years to do exactly that.

To put Reno speeds into perspective, Reno is at about 5,000 feet MSL. Steven Hinton Jr. flew one lap at 512 mph flying about 100 feet above ground level while flying a pear-shaped course that measured 8.1 miles long. In places he was pulling 4 - 5 g's and rarely was in momentary level flight. I watched a video of him flying the entire race and he gained or lost less than 30 feet the entire race!

So we have an exceptional pilot flying what is one of the two fastest piston aircraft the world has ever seen. No stock or even "hopped up" military fighters will ever come even close at the altitudes being flown around the course being flown. We have no idea what the critical altitude of a Reno engine is since none of them even FLY unless it is race time at Reno, and they don't go anywhere except around the course. Only the race teams themselves even know the drag coefficient of the racers.

Rare Bear doesn't even have a multi-use landing gear retraction and extension system. When it takes off the gear will come up once and go down once ... and then he is out of pressurized Nitrogen until the tank is re-filled!

If ever there was an "apples to oranges" comparison, this is one of them

Reactions: Like Like:
5 | Like List reactions


----------



## parsifal (Dec 21, 2014)

what about a comparison of production Bearcat to Ta152?


----------



## GregP (Dec 21, 2014)

I think a production Bearcat would eat a Ta 152 alive under about 18,000 feet, particularly if the external fuel tansk were gone. Above 22,000 feet the Ta 152 would be almost a sure winner, with the outcome in some doubt in between. The Bearcat would out-accelerate, out-climb (almost double), probably roll a small bit slower (not much) and, at least the Bearcat with the four 20 mm cannons, would have about an even shot when it comes to armament.

The Bearcat was never designed for high-altitude combat and would be at a disadvantage way up there. Down low, the tables are completely turned.

One major advantage for the Bearcat is visibility. I have sat in the Fw 190D at the Champlin Fighter Museum back in the 1980's and the cockpit is very small with almost no room to turn your head sideways ... and rearward visibilty was almost nil. So the view out the windscreen would be about the same, but the Bearcat would have visibility all over the Ta 152 from 90° sideways around to the rear.

At altitude the Ta 152 is very fast (and rolls better, probably noticeably so) , but the Beracat is probably as fast or faster at low altitudes where it was designed to operate, especially the F8F-2, and can roll with the Ta 152 down low where the Ta's long wings are a disadvantage. The Bearcat also has very benign stall characteristics, as do most US Navy fighters by design. The Fw 190 series is known for having almost no stall warning. That mkes it hard to reef into a hard turn near the angle of attack limit, comparatively. The Bearcat will always give a good stall warning before departing.

I really like the "one lever" power setup in the Fw (assuming the Ta 152 had it, too) for dogfighting, but the standard throttle, mixture, and rpm are much better for cruising in formation, even if loose formation. 

There were a lot more Bearcats delivered and they had spare parts available once deployed, so serviceability is a check for the Bearcat.

Much of my seeming dismissal of the Ta 152 comes from it's relative absence from German war plans due to almost none being available for regular deployment in meaningful numbers. Had the Ta 152 been deployed in some numbers, it would have proven a major pain in the Allied fighter battle, at least until our jets got into the fray. It was a very good one, but almost nonexistent in real life.

A very similar fate was dealt to another favorite of mine, the Italian Reggiane Re.2005 Sagittario. It was superb, too, but they only made 48 as opposed to 43 Ta 152's delivered. Ergo almost no impact to the real war. But both are good-looking, well-designed late-war piston fighters that could have been members of the "great fighter club" if deployed earlier in some numbers.

I really like the Ta 152 and the Re.2005 ... they just weren't very effective in the real-life main event, through no real fault of their own, and are very deserving of high praise for combat potential that was never realized.


----------



## DerAdlerIstGelandet (Dec 22, 2014)

GregP said:


> Hey Adler, I didn't bring it up. The thread wound around to it without my intervention at all.
> 
> I added my thoughts. Isn't that what we are supposed to do in here?
> 
> ...



Sorry, I did not mean to edit your post. I meant to quote it.

So here was my response.

No there was nothing that I disliked. I just find the whole "Wonder Weapon" discussion dumb, especially when people try and validate what is and is not a valid opinion.

Just my two cents and my opinion.

Reactions: Like Like:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## GregP (Dec 22, 2014)

That's OK. I was worried I was somehow seen to be violating some rule of behavior, and I certainly didn't mean to do that. 

I guess there's no rule about participating in dumb discussions, huh?


----------



## DerAdlerIstGelandet (Dec 22, 2014)

GregP said:


> That's OK. I was worried I was somehow seen to be violating some rule of behavior, and I certainly didn't mean to do that.
> 
> I guess there's no rule about participating in dumb discussions, huh?



Nope there is no rule against it. Carry on...


----------



## wuzak (Dec 22, 2014)

GregP said:


> I think a production Bearcat would eat a Ta 152 alive under about 18,000 feet, particularly if the external fuel tansk were gone. Above 22,000 feet the Ta 152 would be almost a sure winner, with the outcome in some doubt in between. The Bearcat would out-accelerate, out-climb (almost double), probably roll a small bit slower (not much) and, at least the Bearcat with the four 20 mm cannons, would have about an even shot when it comes to armament.
> 
> The Bearcat was never designed for high-altitude combat and would be at a disadvantage way up there. Down low, the tables are completely turned.
> 
> ...



The Ta 152H should definitely outperform the F8F at altitude. It was, after all, the high altitude version.

The F8F will have an initial climb rate advantage, but that should diminish with altitude - depending on supercharger gear change points for the Ta 152.

The F8F-2 shouldn't be in the discussion, since it was a 1947 aircraft.


----------



## tomo pauk (Dec 22, 2014)

parsifal said:


> what about a comparison of production Bearcat to Ta152?



Under 10000 ft, the F8F-1 will probably have the advantage, between 10-20 K it would be an more equal match, above 20 K it should be the TA-152 with advantage. This comparison comes with a caveat - the F8F-1 with full internal fuel (183 US gals), the Ta-152 with only half (~500 L = 133 US gals). The F8F-1 has the 'design load limit' of 7.5G, the Ta 152H is at 5G, the 152C is at 6.5G or something (due to smaller wings). We (I, at least) don't know the roll rates yet, nor there are any performance figures available for the Ta-152 with full tankage and ETC attached. The Ta-152 has a more potent weapon set-up, until four cannons are introduced with F8F-1B.
Than there is another set of qualifiers: the Ta-152H-0 carried no MW 50 mixture (that gives the F8F-1 the advantage also between 10-20 K), nor, GM-1 (the much drummed 750 km/h at 12 km is not possible for the 152H-0), nor the wing tanks. 
The Ta-152H-1 and 152C with wing tanks full will have some disadvantages - the loading factor is further compromised, ditto for the RoC. The speed is probably decreased just a little. The main disadvantage is that wing tanks were not protected (!), contrary to the Allied practice. 
Due to that, and the small permissible loading factor, it is very much likely that, in the mid-40s, neither USN, nor USAF, nor RAF would've considered the Ta-152 as a combat-capable aircraft.


----------



## stona (Dec 22, 2014)

Here's a discussion about a horse, as written by Shakespeare in Henry V.

You can substitute 'Ta 152' for 'horse' for fun. Take note of the Constable's final comment 

DAUPHIN 
What a long night is this! I will not change my
horse with any that treads but on four pasterns.
Ca, ha! he bounds from the earth, as if his
entrails were hairs; le cheval volant, the Pegasus,
chez les narines de feu! When I bestride him, I
soar, I am a hawk: he trots the air; the earth
sings when he touches it; the basest horn of his
hoof is more musical than the pipe of Hermes.

ORLEANS 
He's of the colour of the nutmeg.

DAUPHIN 
And of the heat of the ginger. It is a beast for
Perseus: he is pure air and fire; and the dull
elements of earth and water never appear in him, but
only in Patient stillness while his rider mounts
him: he is indeed a horse; and all other jades you
may call beasts.

CONSTABLE 
Indeed, my lord, it is a most absolute and excellent horse.


Cheers

Steve


----------



## pbehn (Dec 22, 2014)

stona said:


> Some of the bowmen's skeletons found on the Mary Rose did show evidence of considerable strength, not really deformation. This was in the latter days of archery and these skeletons belonged to the men of the King's (Henry VIII) personal body guard. They were professional archers, not the men of the yeomanry militias (most definitely NOT peasants) of earlier times.
> 
> Many regular people today use bows of considerable draw weight, comparable to that of a medieval longbow. It requires strength and practice, particularly to sustain a rapid rate of shooting as required in a battle. This is why it was a legal requirement to practice for the men who might be required to fight for the King on behalf of their overlord. If you accidently killed someone whilst practicing you wouldn't be charged with the offence, which must have opened up a legal loop hole for murder. This law superseded Common Law, it was and still is contrary to Common Law to murder someone
> They didn't require any extraordinary or superhuman ability. This is a bit of a myth, a bit like the supposed immobility of men at arms, even when you consider that their armour was specifically designed to allow them the movement to fight!
> ...



The evidence of considerable strength is asymmetrical because different muscle groups are used on the left and right side i e deformed.
Longbows had a draw weight higher than most used today, the strength to fire a longbow isnt extraordinary, but the strength to fire 6 a minute for sustained periods requires a lot of training.
I saw a programme debunking the myth that men at arms were immobile. The armour was the same weight as a soldiers pack it said. Great, so all you have to do is walk across a churned mud field with the weight of a soldiers pack and a helmet on for at least 400 yards under fire from archers, then fight a row of men stood behind stakes and holding spears. It wasnt a myth, de horsed knights and men at arms were vulnerable, not because the armour stopped them moving but because they quickly became exhausted, if they fell over they got up as quickly as a tired soldier with a pack on his back in mud does.
Archers were not only cheap but light 5000 soldiers with 50Lbs of armour each takes a lot of transporting.

Which leads me to the question ...how would Rare Bear have done at Agincourt?


----------



## Elmas (Dec 22, 2014)

pbehn said:


> ....................
> Which leads me to the question ...how would Rare Bear have done at Agincourt?


----------



## stona (Dec 22, 2014)

This is a perfect illustration of what a man could and could not do in fifteenth century armour. Unlike the archers, who were not professional soldiers, the men who wore and could afford this sort of equipment belonged to a class who were effectively professional soldiers. They trained to fight with this equipment. A good and fully trained war horse at Agincourt might cost as much as £50, a fantastic sum of money at the time. They were the Ferraris and Lamborghinis of the age.


_View: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5hlIUrd7d1Q_

Coming back to the archers, the professionals of Henry VIII's bodyguard did indeed show asymmetrical muscle attachments indicating a heavily and asymmetrically developed musculature. This would not necessarily be the case for the average yeoman archer of Henry IV or V's army. These were not professional soldiers, they worked for a living and were compelled by law to practice on Holy Days, Sundays and many Saint's Days which incidentally comprised together several months each year. 

Most medieval longbows are estimated to have had draw weights in the 100-130lb range, many on the Mary Rose are estimated to have beeen sub 100lb bows. When you read that a modern bow has a draw weight of 60lbs this ignores the complex system of cams and cables that reduce the force required to hold the bow at full draw by 50% or more. That bow may well be equivalent to a 120lb longbow. The significant difference is that a medieval archer had to pull the full 120lbs to draw the bow and that is why practice was required and professional archers developed musculature like modern day rugby players!

I don't think that Rare Bear would have done any more to scare the already terrified horses of the French army than the thousands of arrows descending on them did  At least the arrows were sharp, Rare Bear is unarmed 

Cheers

Steve

Reactions: Like Like:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## pbehn (Dec 22, 2014)

Steve have you tried doing anything in a full face helmet, it is exhausting. A display on dry concrete with actors is one thing, the fact is accounts say that for example the French at Agincourt were exhausted when the reached the English lines.

The rest appears to agree with me where you disagreed before, time for me to take some time out.


----------



## dedalos (Dec 22, 2014)

tomo pauk said:


> Under 10000 ft, the F8F-1 will probably have the advantage, between 10-20 K it would be an more equal match, above 20 K it should be the TA-152 with advantage. This comparison comes with a caveat - the F8F-1 with full internal fuel (183 US gals), the Ta-152 with only half (~500 L = 133 US gals).
> *According to what source?*
> 
> The F8F-1 has the 'design load limit' of 7.5G, the Ta 152H is at 5G, the 152C is at 6.5G or something (due to smaller wings). We (I, at least) don't know the roll rates yet, nor there are any performance figures available for the Ta-152 with full tankage and ETC attached.
> ...


 *What is historicaly certain is that it was the F8f and P51h that USN and usaaf decided not to employ in combat despite the fact that these were their newest and best performing piston engined fighters. Also you forgot to mention that the Ta had presurized cocpit, IFF, Auto pilot, 30 mm cannon and a wing PROFILE designed to retain control at High aoa*


Personally i believe F8F1 clearly superior at low altitudes ,Ta 152H1 superior at High altitudes, and somewhere in between to be evenly matched
I dont know the 0m speed of F8f. With 2100hp it was something like 615 km/h. I read somewhere that f8f could use up to 2800hp at sea level .If true then it had a BIG adnantage. Hoewever , i believe speed wise , the ta 152H1 was superior above 5000-5500m.
Once again fuel is extremely important . If Ta 152H1 could at least have c3 fuel (plus mw 50and GM1) then i consider it more all around Air superiority fighter than F8F1.


----------



## stona (Dec 22, 2014)

pbehn said:


> Steve have you tried doing anything in a full face helmet, it is exhausting. A display on dry concrete with actors is one thing, the fact is accounts say that for example the French at Agincourt were exhausted when the reached the English lines.
> 
> The rest appears to agree with me where you disagreed before, time for me to take some time out.



I do agree with you. It took considerable effort to shoot a long bow, even for the few minutes of volleying that the English archers undertook at Agincourt and similar battles, home and abroad. I don't agree that archaeologists can identify _every_ English archer from skeletal remains. In Tudor times there was a body of professional archers, some of whose remains have been recovered and studied, displaying exactly the kind of development you describe.
The archers from earlier times were not necessarily so endowed, simply because most were regular men who practised archery as required by the law, when they couldn't avoid it. Then as now it is reasonable to assume that some took this practice rather more seriously than others 

At Agincourt in particular it is well known that the French men at arms attempted to advance across very rough and sodden ground. I have visited the battlefield and the lay of the land also acted as a funnel compressing the massed ranks even further. It was fortuitous that the English army had upped stakes and made an advance to precipitate the French attack as this probably enhanced the compression of the French forces.

It is of course exhausting to fight in full armour, but the actors are also a poor example because unlike their medieval counterparts they have not trained to do it since the age of twelve. 

Far more Frenchmen died at Agincourt as a result of a hideous Hillsborough type crush (I'm sure all English members will remember that awful day only too well) than anything the English did, though we did execute many prisoners, something some Frenchmen remind me of 599 years later 

Cheers

Steve


----------



## tomo pauk (Dec 22, 2014)

Sorry that you feel that I have the agenda vs. the Ta-152. 



> According to what source?



According to the comparison of the performance charts of the F8F-1 (here, pdf) and what is available for the Ta-152.



> I suppose F8F1 performance was unaffected by such factors



The figures for the F8F-1 are for full internal load.



> True, but very conviniently for your agenda, you forgot to mention that the Ta 150HO could still achieve (no Mw50,no gm1) 720 km/h at 10700m



I've noted that above 20000 ft the Ta-152 has the advantage.



> The ta 152 family had 150 kgr of armor . What armor had the F8f1?



Back pilot armor, BP glass. 



> What is historicaly certain is that it was the F8f and P51h that USN and usaaf decided not to employ in combat despite the fact that these were their newest and best performing piston engined fighters. Also you forgot to mention that the Ta had presurized cocpit, IFF, Auto pilot, 30 mm cannon and a wing PROFILE designed to retain control at High aoa




For Korea, the USN have had the F4U as a far better bomb-truck (plus the AD-1 and AU-1); the F4U-4 and U-5 were better performers than F8F-1 and F-2, respectively. How much the lighter structure, and how much the lack of spare parts for the P-51H is the reason they never went to Korea I don't know.
I've stated that Ta-152 has the advantage in armament, at least until the 4 cannon armament is introduced with F8F-1B. The IFF was used on Allied aircraft from the BoB days, the P-47 was outfitted with one (SCR 535, per 'America's hundred thousand'), so let's not discount the F8F-1 as being without it. If someone has better data, please share.
Indeed, the Ta-152H was outfitted with pressure cockpit. The wing profile, aspect ratio and other wing-related intricacies are trade off, if it was deemed as being far better than the 'classic' wing of the Fw-190 line, we'd see the 152C also with it.



> Personally i believe F8F1 clearly superior at low altitudes ,Ta 152H1 superior at High altitudes, and somewhere in between to be evenly matched



+1 on that.



> I dont know the 0m speed of F8f. With 2100hp it was something like 615 km/h. I read somewhere that f8f could use up to 2800hp at sea level .If true then it had a BIG adnantage. Hoewever , i believe speed wise , the ta 152H1 was superior above 5000-5500m.



At SL, the F8F-1 have had 2750 HP with water injection, at 9600 ft it was 2450 HP; all figures are without ram. 678 km/h (336 kt) at SL on that power setting.



> Once again fuel is extremely important . If Ta 152H1 could at least have c3 fuel (plus mw 50and GM1) then i consider it more all around Air superiority fighter than F8F1.



The high-oct fuel should give more power and hence performance. Figures for the F8F-1 are also for not the best Allied fuel (100/130 grade), would be interesting what kind of performance would've been attained with 100/150 grade, or 115/145.


----------



## drgondog (Dec 22, 2014)

GregP said:


> Hi Bill. Merry Christmas. You may have a point about looking at Ta 152 logbooks ... if we can find any ... I can't read German anyway. As for gaggles of Luftwaffe fighters not being bypassed, we'll just have to agree to disagree. I've heard too many former WWII pilots state that very thing to buy into the "attack at any cost" theory. Still, it makes no difference now. The real truths are probably lost as these guys pass on anyway, and that's happening at an accelerated rate as we read this, just due to age.
> 
> Again, Happy Holidays to everyone.



Merry Christmas to all. 

I am REALLY curious which US ETO fighter pilots said they passed up gaggles of LW fighters.. those gaggles could inflict real harm if left 'unmolested' and any squadron or Group CO that avoided a fight would hear about it sooner than later... not to mention having his manhood questioned during de-briefing. Having said that, during Eaker's tenure the fighters were closely tethered - but that all changed with Doolittle.

The Intelligences summaries from Squadron went to Group, were consolidated and went to Fighter Command. A note that 'we spotted a large force of enemy fighters but continued on our way' would really hit the fan when matched with a Bomb Group that was 'attacked by a large force' at the same time.


----------



## drgondog (Dec 22, 2014)

dedalos said:


> *What is historicaly certain is that it was the F8f and P51h that USN and usaaf decided not to employ in combat despite the fact that these were their newest and best performing piston engined fighters. Also you forgot to mention that the Ta had presurized cocpit, IFF, Auto pilot, 30 mm cannon and a wing PROFILE designed to retain control at High aoa*
> 
> _Er, No, The airfoil for the Ta 152 was Exactly the same airfoil as the P-38. It was the NACA 23016 at the root and 23012 at the tip. High lift, fat wing, Mcr ~.7 meaning that it would experience compressibility effects much faster than a P-51 and while the AoA for Stall was slightly higher along with slightly higher CL it is intangible._


Look them up


----------



## BiffF15 (Dec 22, 2014)

Dedalos,

You said / typed:


dedalos said:


> What is historicaly certain is that it was the F8f and P51h that USN and usaaf decided not to employ in combat despite the fact that these were their newest and best performing piston engined fighters. Also you forgot to mention that the Ta had presurized cocpit, IFF, Auto pilot, 30 mm cannon and a wing PROFILE designed to retain control at High aoa.



*You are correct that the F8F and P51H were not used in combat in WW2. The reasons is what you have ignored. THEY WEREN'T NEEDED TO WIN IN EITHER THEATER, as history has proven. You have to think about this from a 4 star generals level. You have enough assets in theater to accomplish the job, why bring in more materials that you will only have to bring home a short time later. Plus the introduction of another logistics train, plus you are winning and the end is definitely in sight. IIRC the F8F was actually onboard a CV enroute to Japan when the war ended. Neither A/C had some mechanical failing preventing it from combat, as has been pointed out many times. Also it was previously mentioned that neither saw combat due to lack of enemy A/C over the US. Just because the first 45 didn't go into combat immediately is a sign they didn't need to. The Allies were no longer under the crush to take a guy with zero hours in type and send him into combat with only a familiarization flight under his belt, or introduce a new type prior to being completely ready. Axis A/C got into the fight much earlier due to their being bandits overhead almost daily, and from fighting an eroding defensive / losing war. Another way to look at it is the logistics train from factory to battle field was VERY short. 

Q: If Germany was winning and had over run the UK, and pushed deep into Russia do you think brand new types would be in combat immediately? 

A: No*

Personally i believe F8F1 clearly superior at low altitudes ,Ta 152H1 superior at High altitudes, and somewhere in between to be evenly matched
I dont know the 0m speed of F8f. With 2100hp it was something like 615 km/h. I read somewhere that f8f could use up to 2800hp at sea level .If true then it had a BIG adnantage. Hoewever , i believe speed wise , the ta 152H1 was superior above 5000-5500m.[/QUOTE]

*Also realize you are comparing apples and oranges here. The F8F was designed as an interceptor that could operate from the smallest carriers (big carriers cost big dollars) with an emphasis on climb, while the Ta-152 was designed similar to a Mustang as a long range air superiority fighter. The long wing of the Ta was for high altitude, so of course it would fight better at those altitudes than the F8F. And don't forget the F8F was a carrier A/C, which means it's carrying a weight/performance penalty in the form of folding wings, strengthened landing gear, and arresting mechanism.*

[/QUOTE]Once again fuel is extremely important . If Ta 152H1 could at least have c3 fuel (plus mw 50and GM1) then i consider it more all around Air superiority fighter than F8F1.[/QUOTE]

*Yes, the fuel has been mentioned. How do you want to discuss these aircraft, historically / reality, or academically? Historically the Axis powers didn't have the C3 in quantity, or fuel period. Also there were something in the neighborhood of 43 Ta-152H-0 and H-1's produced, with maybe 15 operational at any one time. "Operational" and in combat are not the same thing. I would think that 99% of operational Allied fighter pilots never saw one in the air. Except for one noted guy who had 6 weeks of combat, was jumped from behind, and surprisingly enough was shot down. *

*Pretend, or academically, IF the Ta-152H1 had both quantity and quality fuel, IF the GM-1 and MW-50 were both loaded, and IF they were operational, and IF it met a late model Allied fighter under equal conditions it would be a fairly equal fight. Remember there are book numbers and there is reality. Just because the book numbers are greater in one category doesn't mean they are in every category, nor does it mean it's an auto win for one A/C over the other.* 

*You tend to cherry pick your points, and then not counter what people comment on if it goes against what you typed. Be careful, that type of behavior can very easily be observed as biased and will hurt the credibility of a persons argument or counter point.

Cheers,
Biff*

Reactions: Like Like:
2 | Like List reactions


----------



## tomo pauk (Dec 22, 2014)

Just have checked, the AN/APX-1 IFF is listed under 'electronics' section of the SAC of the F8F-1.


----------



## nuuumannn (Dec 22, 2014)

> Which leads me to the question ...how would Rare Bear have done at Agincourt?



Pretty well, unless the Ta 152 was present  Sorry, I just _had_ to.


----------



## GrauGeist (Dec 22, 2014)

If I'm not mistaken, wasn't the Bearcat put into service just a bit late to have affected the outcome of Agincourt?


----------



## DerAdlerIstGelandet (Dec 22, 2014)

GrauGeist said:


> If I'm not mistaken, wasn't the Bearcat put into service just a bit late to have affected the outcome of Agincourt?



It never obtained its full potential at Agincourt. It simply was not good enough. It was not a wonder weapon.


----------



## Elmas (Dec 23, 2014)

Something said by the enemies: Group Captain W.G.G. Duncan Smth, D.S.O., D.F.C., in “Spitfire into battle”, John Murray (Publishers), Paperback edition 2002, pag. 173-4:

_“I returned to Lecce, as this airfield was only slightly damaged and I tought it would do very well as a second string, in case Grottaglie became overcrowded. After a pleasant meal of spaghetti with the Italian pilots, I took the opportunity of inspecting the Macchi 205s and a couple of Re 2001/5s (sic) I found parked near the flight offices. The Re 2001/5 s were fairly new to the Italian Air Force, and only a handful had been built. They had a wing shape very similar to the Spitfire, a powerful engine and were armed with four cannons (sic). Having had a dog-fight with one of them, I am convinced we would have been hard pressed to cope in our Spitfires operationally, if the Italians or Germans had had a few Squadrons equipped with these aircraft at the beginning of the Sicily campaign ot in operations from Malta. Fast, and with an excellent manoeuvrability, the Re 2001/5 was althogeter a superb aeroplane. Tough I didn’t get a chance to fly one, I did manage to fly the Macchi 205 and the Me 109G. Neither of these aircraft measured up to the capabilities of the Re 2001/5 series in manoeuvrability or rate of climb. (omissis) It is a pity, however, that no Re 2001/5 survive to this day, because they were fine examples of the Italian engineering craftmanship.”_

At least Re 2005 was seen by a few Allied Pilots. But did the 36 Re 2005 built ( more or less as the TA 152, if my sources are right) have any impact on the war? Absolutely none. The only impact they had was to attract a huge attack on the Reggiane factory that was completely destroyed, and the same was made, aftre a couple of months, on the factories of G 55......

Reactions: Like Like:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## GregP (Dec 23, 2014)

Hi Wuzak,

Since there were two Ta 152's left operational at the end of the war, both Ta 152C's if the blurb I read was accurate, I'd say if we were to compare the Ta 152 against the F8F, we'd SURELY be into 1946 - 1947, so the F8F-2 belongs there. The F8F was not deployed to the ETO in 1945 and, again, we would be looking at a later date.

I am of the opinion that the main reason so few Ta 152's were left operating was simple lack of spare parts combined with 1) no real maintenance crew training from the factory due to the deteriorating war situation and 2) attention from hordes of marauding Allied fighters around its operational area, meaning a Ta 152 on the ground wasn't all that safe unless VERY well hidden. High attrition very probably had little to do with the basic design of the Ta 152, which was no doubt robust and good. Tank started with his excellent Fw 190 and I have no thought that he suddenly became a bad designer. Quite the contrary, I assume he improved the Fw 190D series or he would not have made changes.


----------



## GregP (Dec 23, 2014)

Perhaps the Re.2005 deserves its own thread. I am traveling for the holidays and will do this when I return home. It is one of the more attractive designs I have ever seen. Of course that G.55 / MC.202/205 were all good-looking aircraft. The Italians have a flare for aesthetic design and have produced some real beauties and a few very much the other way.

One man's beauty is another man's lack thereof.

Reactions: Like Like:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## pbehn (Dec 23, 2014)

DerAdlerIstGelandet said:


> It never obtained its full potential at Agincourt. It simply was not good enough. It was not a wonder weapon.



It could have been a game changer but was never optimised for an altitude of 4 feet, also there was a shortage of fuel at the time I believe, with all sides favouring a "more horse power from more horses" strategy.

Reactions: Like Like:
2 | Like List reactions


----------

