Best Fighter

Yes the P-51H certainly would have been better then the Ta-152 but at the same time Germans would have countered it with a better version of the Ta-152. The whole thing between the Luftwaffe and the Allies was a cat and mouse game each getting the edge over the other and it would go back and forth.

DerAdlerIstGelandet said:

Yes the P-51H certainly would have been better then the Ta-152 but at the same time Germans would have countered it with a better version of the Ta-152. The whole thing between the Luftwaffe and the Allies was a cat and mouse game each getting the edge over the other and it would go back and forth.

Click to expand...

I agree it was point-counter-point. But I don't agree the German's would simply have produced a better Ta152. That plane already had their technology streached to its limits. A hypothetical Griffon powered P-51 might have been even superior to the P-51H, but there was no better/bigger engine available for the Ta152.

However, after these prop fighters I really think there was little future for either country. Both were turning to the jet.

=S=

Lunatic

I will agree that both were turning to the jet but I dont think Ta-152 was stretched to its limits, they easily could have designed more powerful engines and made the aircraft better than it already was, but again there was no time for that.

RG is right, the question of Ta-152 vs. P-51H is nothing more the academic. The future of the airwar (had there been one) would have been decided by the match-up of the Me-262 vs. the Meteor or P-80.

And as far as the P-51H goes, I never really liked it. The raised cockpit seemed to spoil the lines of a classic fighter. Of course, my objection is purely asthetic.

DerAdlerIstGelandet said:

I will agree that both were turning to the jet but I dont think Ta-152 was stretched to its limits, they easily could have designed more powerful engines and made the aircraft better than it already was, but again there was no time for that.

Click to expand...

Actually I don't see they were going to develop better piston engines. They'd already gone as far as cast head technology could take them in radials, and they had tried for years and failed to produce a working turbo-supercharger. Every other aspect of engine design they'd alredy peaked in (mostly how to fuel inject an engine and NO2 boost). They were far from being able to make forged heads and having the machine tools to work them, so how were they going to produce more powerful engines?

=S=

Lunatic

Again the Germans were very capable of coming up with new designs and machine tools. Please dont misunderstand me you say that the Germans were not capable of making machine tools, they too could have they were not stupid people. But I do agree that they were going to the Jets and it would not have been decided by the P-51H and the Ta-152.

had the germans continued developing their jets i feel they would quickly out do us brits until the late 40's/early 50's.............

There designs were already years ahead of everyone else, but lets wait and see what RG_Lunatic will say about that I am sure he thinks us fools for believing that.

They wouldn't have out-done Britain on jet engines. We had the most powerful engine in the world, in the Nene. And we were making more and more powerful engines.

Der Adler:

You are right. It appears like some guys here render the Germans uncapable of producing cutting edge tools and equipment.

A very bizarre behavior, since Germany produced a good deal of toys which played an ultimate influence in weapon development in the post war era.

Gentlemen: German engineering is German engineering.

Lunatic: with all due respect, you appear to have issues with the Ta 152 and, globally speaking, with everything that is German. On what bloody grounds do you affirm the Germans could have not developed more powerful engines?


Why don´t you speak about the Long Nose Fw 190-D? Are you going to say it was "no match" for the P-51 or for any of the other toys fielded by the RAF and USAAF?

Unlike the Ta152, which did not see service in large numbers simply due to the overall circumstances of the war -the end was coming-, the Doras saw service in far bigger numbers and proved to be one of the very best fighters of the war, providing the Fw190 fighter with superb high altitude performance which the Butcher Bird certainly did not have.

Plan_D: "you" had the most powerful engine of the world? (what do you mean with "we"? were you there?)
I am sure your assertion demands a closer scrutiny and you might well be shocked to know you are not correct.

Being British I can take pride in the amazing engineering nation this once was, so we, yes. And you need to take your head from out of your ass, and look at the Rolls Royce Nene engine, October 1944 - 5000 lbs thrust. The most powerful engine in the War. The Germans were lucky to achieve 3000 lbs thrust, the Americans were in a close second with engines reaching 4600 lbs thrust.

And you need to take your head from out of your ass

Click to expand...

Easy dude..... Drop the knife and step back slowly.......

"Bad boys, bad boys. Whatcha gonna do..."

Udet said:

Lunatic: with all due respect, you appear to have issues with the Ta 152 and, globally speaking, with everything that is German. On what bloody grounds do you affirm the Germans could have not developed more powerful engines?

Click to expand...

DerAdlerIstGelandet said:

Again the Germans were very capable of coming up with new designs and machine tools. Please dont misunderstand me you say that the Germans were not capable of making machine tools, they too could have they were not stupid people. But I do agree that they were going to the Jets and it would not have been decided by the P-51H and the Ta-152.

Click to expand...

Ahh... but they didn't.

If you study the history of machine tool development you will find there was a diversion between those of Europe and those of America dating back to the end of the 18th century. After the Revolution, Britain maintained an embargo against the former Colonies, and this especially included machine tools.

Europe's machine tools dated back to the 14th century or even earlier, and had progressed in a steady evolution along the lines of what were known as "shaper" tools. Basically these were huge grinders involving very large moving parts, often a large spinning wheel or a table moving back and forth under water, and later steam, power. These tools were capable of creating very intricate designs, but relied heavily on the skill of the operator. The very nature of the European crafts guilds was such that they had a vested interest in this kind of labor/skill intensive machining, and this remained the way things were done right through WWI.

In America however, they had to improvise. There were very very few European machine tools in America, and even fewer skilled craftsmen able to really work them. As a result, new types machines were developed, especially in the 19th century, first to accomodate the railway boom and then the Civil War. The milling machine was invented in the USA, a much smaller tool than European shaping tools, and able to do complex machining using a series of jigs and patterns greatly reducing the skill required of the operators. This progressed into the automated industrial tools used by Ford and other American factories. Europe did not have this kind of industrial process, it was much more craftsmen than machine tool oriented. As a result, European craftsmenship of complex items such as automobiles was generally considerably better than most American craftsmenship of such items, but American quality of mass produced items was better than that of Europe. European items such as guns generally didn't enjoy the degree of parts interchangability that American guns did - ie: each gun had to be individually fitted, you could not take a part from another "identical" gun and exchange it without substantial work to fit it to the rest of the unit.

In the early 20th century, America enjoyed an instrial boom that Europe did not really share. Heavy industry made huge gains, especially the rail and ship-building industries. American automated machine tools of mass production, already ahead of those of Europe, advanced considerably during this time.

So when WWII came along, the Germans lacked the machine tool technology available in the USA (and by export to Britain). They were several generations behind in milling machines, and lacked a sophisticated automated large scale milling machine. They had no automated centerless grinders. They had no gang-of-saws machines. All these and many other machining tasks were undertaken by crews of skilled craftsmen.

But craftsmen simply cannot do some of the things that these tools could do. For instance, the Napier Sabre engine only became mass produceable when three Thompson automated centerless grinders capable of making oblong parts to better than 1/10,000th of an inch accuracy were provided by the USA (much to Pratt&Whitney's chigrin since they had funded their development, and the diversion of the first three grinders delayed the R-2800(c) by several months). As we know, Germany was never able to mass produce turbines of sufficient balance and quality to supply their jet engine program (which required 10,000 rpm turbines) or to make a workable turbo-supercharger at all (this required 25,000 rpm turbines). They were never able to make forged cylinder heads with 5" deep fins cut at 1/8th inch spacings as found on the R-2800(c) engines, work that is virtually impossible to accomplish in any quantity of production with power files, no matter how skilled the craftsmen, but which could be done on the production line in seconds by the new "gang-of-saws" machine tools.

The development of these kinds of tools was an evolutionary process and required decades to accomplish. Germany was not going to develop them over night to make a better engine for the Ta152. This is why the American (and British) aircraft industry was still focusing on increasing the basic power output of their engines, Germany had turned to tricks like MW50 and GM1 to achieve more power. The problem with that is that MW50 was quickly copied by the Allies, but the German's could not so easily steal the Allied innovations.

=S=

Lunatic

Udet said:

Why don´t you speak about the Long Nose Fw 190-D? Are you going to say it was "no match" for the P-51 or for any of the other toys fielded by the RAF and USAAF?

Click to expand...

No, it was a very good fighter. But really the Spit XIV was at least as good in almost every catagory of performance. The P-51D sacrificed a lot of outright fighter preformance for its much superior range, and still it was a match for the Dora9. For a fair interceptor comparision, you have to consider something like a P-51H but with a -7 engine in it, which would have out-performed the Dora9 substantially.

Also, the Dora9 was hard/expensive to produce, the P-51 was easy/cheap to produce. This is a huge factor when you are producing aircraft for war.

=S=

Lunatic

Also, the Dora9 was hard/expensive to produce, the P-51 was easy/cheap to produce. This is a huge factor when you are producing aircraft for war.

Click to expand...

Yea but it dont mean sh*t when ur talking performance..... If I was the German Finance Minister in 1945 I'd care.......

The P-51D sacrificed a lot of outright fighter preformance for its much superior range, and still it was a match for the Dora9.

Click to expand...

Dude, I cant believe u said that... I respect alot of what u say, but that was just plain dumb....... In no way shape or form was the -51D a "MATCH" for the -190D9...... Good competition maybe, but nowhere near equal...

Talk to some guys that fought against em.... I have.... Erich has.... Evan has.... Im sure theres others.....

lesofprimus said:

Also, the Dora9 was hard/expensive to produce, the P-51 was easy/cheap to produce. This is a huge factor when you are producing aircraft for war.

Click to expand...

Yea but it dont mean sh*t when ur talking performance..... If I was the German Finance Minister in 1945 I'd care.......

The P-51D sacrificed a lot of outright fighter preformance for its much superior range, and still it was a match for the Dora9.

Click to expand...

Dude, I cant believe u said that... I respect alot of what u say, but that was just plain dumb....... In no way shape or form was the -51D a "MATCH" for the -190D9...... Good competition maybe, but nowhere near equal...

Talk to some guys that fought against em.... I have.... Erich has.... Evan has.... Im sure theres others.....

Click to expand...

Numbers are important in real combat. A plane that requires a lot of resources to produce results in fewer of them being available for combat. A definite disadvantage.

As for the P-51D being a match for the Dora9, it depends on the circumstances of the fight. At high altitude in typical combat conditions, yes the P-51D was a match for the Dora9. It could sustain 400 mph class speeds for extended periods, the Dora9 could not. The Dora9 had a slight edge in sustained climb, the P-51 a slight edge in zoom climb. The Dora9 was better armored than the P-51, but in most respects this was not sufficient to matter much. P-51 pilot visability was better, the weapons package was better for dogfighting, it had a better gunsight, the pilot had a G-suit, and in most other catagories of performance they are roughly equal.

Just what makes you think the Dora9 was so much better?

=S=

Lunatic

Charts, graphics and statistics may show one thing, but reality is sometimes completely different. Did you know on paper, a C-130 can't fly? Well then, I don't know what the hell that was that flew my happy ass all over the world for almost 2 years, but it sure was durable, reliable, and ALWAYS got me home.

This is another fine example. Maybe stats charts and spec sheets may show a match (I don't know, I haven't compared spec sheets), but Les is right, talk to a P-51 pilot who faced them. If you can get them to talk about it. Sometimes the guys who talk will shudder and turn white at the mere mention of the 190D9.

evangilder said:

Charts, graphics and statistics may show one thing, but reality is sometimes completely different. Did you know on paper, a C-130 can't fly? Well then, I don't know what the hell that was that flew my happy ass all over the world for almost 2 years, but it sure was durable, reliable, and ALWAYS got me home.

This is another fine example. Maybe stats charts and spec sheets may show a match (I don't know, I haven't compared spec sheets), but Les is right, talk to a P-51 pilot who faced them. If you can get them to talk about it. Sometimes the guys who talk will shudder and turn white at the mere mention of the 190D9.

Click to expand...

Oh. Name one? I've spoken to lots of WWII aces (and non-aces) over the years, and what I remember them consistantly saying is that there was no German prop fighter that they did not feel the P-51 was better than.

=S=

Lunatic

Why do I have to name one, do you not believe me? Do you know every single pilot who ever flew a P-51 Mustang? Why should I care if you don't believe me? I don't know who you were talking to, but the guys that I have spoken to, and there have been several, (remember, I volunteer at a WWII aviation museum) have stated the the late model 190s were something they dreaded seeing.

Look, I am not going to let this debate drag on, I have heard what I have heard, and I really don't care what you wish to believe.