Bf-109 vs Spitfire vs Fw-190 vs P-51

Ad: This forum contains affiliate links to products on Amazon and eBay. More information in Terms and rules


The 5100 ft/min number seems highly suspect. As you stated, at 1590 PS, the Ta climbs at 3444 ft/min, at 1750 PS, a power increase of 10%, the rate of climb is 3779 ft/min, a rate of climb increase of 10%. You quote 5100 ft/min climb at SL (I think) using MW50. The most power I have found for the Jumo 213E (Jumo 213E1) engine is 2050 PS. That means, when compared with the Start u. Notlesistung performance, that with only a 17% increase in power (300 PS), the Ta -152H improved its climb rate by 35% (1321 ft/min). This does not correspond to the increase previously shown (i.e. a 17% increase in power should result in a 17% increase in climb). Neither does this correspond with other aircraft performance by a wide margin The P-51B, generating 1500 HP has a climb rate of 3500 ft/min (similar to the Ta-152 at Start u. Notleistung), however, at 1860 HP,a 24% increase in power, climb rate was 4380 ft/min, a 25% increase. The F4U-4 shows an increase of 24% power provides a 28% increase in climb. The 5100 ft/min R/C seems incredulous. Using the above numbers, I would calculate the climb rate of the Ta-152H-1 at SL at 2050 PS as being 4421 ft/sec. To reach 5100 ft/sec, power would have to be 2362 PS, all assuming impacts are linear. Can you provide the engineering analysis results or flight test data that support your stated value?
 

This was obviously not a Tempest II. Had it been one, Reschke would have seen puffs of smoke from the exhaust and using a much better power to weight ratio, it would have quickly pulled away from the Ta-152, and with a SL top speed of FORTY-SIX mph faster, would have either easily escaped the much slower Ta, or manuevered to counter attack. Remember, the F6F was only 44 mph faster than the much more maneuverable Zero and easily handle it. And the Tempest II probably had a faster climb rate, if my calculations are correct for the Ta.
 
Who said anything about the Tempest II?

It never saw combat in WWII... It would have been a Tempest V.


The F6F v. Zero comment is far oversimplified. For a start the dive acceleration and max dive speed of the Zero was way lower (than the F4F's too) and above 250 mph maneuvering was difficult due to the almost frozen ailerons. Plus the Hellcat could take a hit form a Zero, the Zero could not usually do the same for the Hellcat. Plus the top speed for the Hellcat was reached ~20,000 ft, opposed to 12-15,000 ft for the Zero. (with an A6M-5, the top level speed up to 15,000 ft would be fairly close)
Not to mention the quality of late war IJN pilots and the numerical and tactical superiorety the US often had by this time in such engagements.

That comparison just doesn't make sense for this context, the circumstances were completele different.



And on the power output, the emergency power for the Jumo 213A was 2,200 hp iirc, I believe the 213E of the 152 was a bit higher.
 
KK,
The max permitted output of the Jumo 213A engines in service was 2,100 PS @ 3,250 rpm, while the Jumoe 213E was limited to 2,050 PS @ 3,250 rpm. However the Dore-12, -13 Ta-152 featured a new and larger prop creating more thrust despite the lower horse power available.

Thrust in Kilograms
D-9 (2,100 PS) : 2,227 kg
D-12 13 (2,050 PS): 2,273 kg
Ta-152H (2,050 PS): 2,273 kg

Davparlr,

Where did you get the Tempest II from ?? Where was it ever mentioned ??

As for climb rate, 5,100 + ft/min is my estimation of performance in fighter configuration = 4,760 kg. The official 17.5 m/s at Steig u. kampfleisting (1,590 PS) was achieved at a weight of 5,220 kg, as was the 19.2 m/s figure at Start u. Notleistung (1,750 PS).

Hope that rids you of your confusion.
 
kool kitty89 said:
Who said anything about the Tempest II?

It never saw combat in WWII... It would have been a Tempest V.
Click to expand...

True, but the point was that one of the claims that the Ta-152 was the greatest prop fighter was that it had an undefeated in battle when in reality, I would suspect all of it conquest were against earlier generation aircraft such as the P-51D, P-47D, and Tempest V (which was specifically pointed out as why it was so great). Its allied contemporaries were never rushed into combat because they were not needed. Had the Ta-152 been a real threat, it would have seen the Tempest II, P-51H (the XP-51F first flew in Feb., 1943) , P-47M, and possibly the F4U-4. I doubt that the undefeated title would have lasted very long.



And on the power output, the emergency power for the Jumo 213A was 2,200 hp iirc, I believe the 213E of the 152 was a bit higher.
Click to expand...

Not according to the power charts provided by Soren. Even at that PS, climb rate would reasonalbly be 4750 ft/min, not 5100+ ft/min.
 
For climb rate read my last post Davparlr,

The Ta-152H wasn't rushed into service Davparlr, if anything it was halted by Hitler for some time. Furthermore when the Tempest II P-51H would've arrived the Ta-152H would've been equipped with the far superior Jumo 213 EB engine, so the difference would've been the same. Also the Me-262 would've been equipped with the Jumo 004D C engines, giving a great increase in power for no increase in weight.

Now if you want ot go even further the P.1101 was already in the prototype stage by wars end, and the Ta-183's design and workplan was ready as-well.
 

sorry now i'm sure that wagner never talking of p-51h delivered at squadrons, it's ok the production started in february 1945 (first flew february 3rd) but delivery at air force is not a delivery at a squadron, the factory don't delivery to squadrons (o maybe can happened in crisis period like for germans in 45 but surely not for us in 45)
 

It will if you provide me with the itemized weight reductions from the tested aircraft.
 
Soren said:
The Ta-152H wasn't rushed into service Davparlr, if anything it was halted by Hitler for some time.
Click to expand...
I never said it was. However, apparently it did experience understandable reliability problems until the end of the war.

Furthermore when the Tempest II P-51H would've arrived the Ta-152H would've been equipped with the far superior Jumo 213 EB engine, so the difference would've been the same.
Click to expand...
If German aircraft had been considered a threat at the end of '44, the skies would have been filled with these planes by April, 45.

As for as advanced engines, the Germans had no engines equivalent to the R-2800-57 (2800hp at 33k), R-4360 (3450 hp), or Centaurus (2650 hp).

Also the Me-262 would've been equipped with the Jumo 004D C engines, giving a great increase in power for no increase in weight.
Click to expand...
I'm not sure what this has to do with the price of tea in China, but the Me-262 was formidable as it was.

Now if you want ot go even further the P.1101 was already in the prototype stage by wars end, and the Ta-183's design and workplan was ready as-well.
Click to expand...

Prototypes, paper airplanes, sigh. An amazing number fail. And if they hadn't, they would have, historically, been answered very quickly.
 
Soren - not sure how you did your climb calculations but there are similarities between a climb calculation and what we will do with turning performance in this way.

The vertical velocity vector from the horizontal vector varies with climb angle and thrust and all the other Drag stuff we fool with. The New Resultant Velocity vector for that new AoA will be less than the Horizontal (initial) Velocity vector - magnitude and direction.

The initial high velocity climb is a big change in momentum from level to some angle that gives that airplane its best short term climb rate..

On the other hand the best climb angle and velocity to get to 30,000 feet in shortest time is almost certain to be a shallower angle than the Max initial climb rate which will 'zoom' much faster and stall out if maintained.

The rate of change of that velocity vector is what supplies the 'delta G' to overcome Weight. Simply this is the rate of change of the Momentum from MVinitial to d/Dt(MVi) = Mxa

The climb angle at one point, combines with the new relative AoA, the CL at that new AoA, the local Velocity vector relative to that new AoA (Different and less that the level flight Velocity and AoA from which it started the climb), and the Thrust and the Drag. As long as the 'new' Force vectors remain in balance the aircraft will continue the climb at that velocity (forward and vertical) until something changes in the equation.

The difference between the very fast 'zoom climb' from level flight versus steady climb at different angles and speed as density changes for best time to altitude are different paths (as you know). The first one is integrated to solve for initial climb angle and greatest rate of change in initial vertical velocity

The second one is a vector integrated over time to solve for a different climb angle and speed to achieve minimum time to altitude.

In a similar way, (back to turn) for a racing Mustang turning around a pylon, we are looking at the rate of change in the velocity Vector as it makes its high G turn around the pylon.

That Max G turn which still enables the a/c to maintain altitude while rolling and staying at that bank angle is where we are headed for the turn calc.

When we get our thrust and start this 'foolishness' we will screw around a litlle, iteratively, to find the Force Balance and Bank angle and assume we get to it 'instantly'. Once we get there we can calculate the radius and Velocity around the circle without having to integrate from level flight to fully banked level flight in a circle with respect to time and the change in velocity over that time.

I think I am right about this but I am still 'pondering'

Is that what you did for the Ta 152 calcs?
 
davparlr said:
If German aircraft had been considered a threat at the end of '44, the skies would have been filled with these planes by April, 45.
Click to expand...
The reason the Mk.II never entered service in time were numerous production delays in part due to the manufaturer switching several times, not because there was no need to do so. I also don't see the how the Mk.II is vastly superior, both have their strengths elsewhere but none clearly outclasses the other.
As for as advanced engines, the Germans had no engines equivalent to the R-2800-57 (2800hp at 33k), R-4360 (3450 hp), or Centaurus (2650 hp).
Click to expand...
DB 603N - 2750 hp at 11km

The Luftwaffe was clearly aiming towards jet fighters anyways, so any long term speculations about what piston fighters would have fought against eachother in late 1945 seems kind of useless.
 
KrazyKraut said:
I also don't see the how the Mk.II is vastly superior, both have their strengths elsewhere but none clearly outclasses the other.
Click to expand...
Yep.

DB 603N - 2750 hp at 11km
Click to expand...

Like many German dreams, a prototype. At least the engines I mentioned were in flying aircraft, although the 4360 was more immature.

The Luftwaffe was clearly aiming towards jet fighters anyways, so any long term speculations about what piston fighters would have fought against eachother in late 1945 seems kind of useless.
Click to expand...

The allies were clearly aiming towards ending the war and the weapons they had were more than sufficient.
 
The DB 603 N a dream, yeah sure. Just as much as it is a dream that any fighter aircraft powered by either the Wasp Superior or the Centaurus would ever participate in the war. And the only aircraft that actually was fitted with the Centaurus, while certainly a good aircraft, wasn't superior to other contemporary designs despite the advantage in horsepower.
The allies were clearly aiming towards ending the war and the weapons they had were more than sufficient.
Click to expand...
Your point? We were discussing technological designs and their potential improvements here not which nation won the war. You keep saying the reason behind the Mk.II not entering service was the fact that there was no need. That is not the case, orders for the Mk.II were placed as early as 1942, the prototype flew in 1943. Like mentioned above numerous problems delayed production and thus the plane came to late. It wasn't put on hold because the war was almost won.
 
davparlr said:
If German aircraft had been considered a threat at the end of '44, the skies would have been filled with these planes by April, 45.
Click to expand...

I guess then German aircraft weren`t considered a threat in 1940, when obsolate Hurricanes formed the mainstay, they weren`t considered a threat in 1943, when obsolate Spitfire Mk Vs formed the mainstay.

davparlr said:
As for as advanced engines, the Germans had no engines equivalent to the R-2800-57 (2800hp at 33k), R-4360 (3450 hp), or Centaurus (2650 hp).
Click to expand...

So what is so 'advanced' about these engines? They are all very large powerplants, requiring a very large airframe, consuming the gains in power output.

Take the R-2800 for example - an engine weighting a ton plus a turbocharger adding another half a ton, plus twice the amount of fuel that is needed for one hour endurance at similiar cruise as a plane with half the horsepower, half the size and weight. Where`s the net gain...? Its just a typical example of 'monster truck' building attitude..

The Germans were certainly capable of building similiar monstrosities - DB 610 boo-hoo, 3100 HP in 1942 too bad its twice the size and bulk of a DB 605, well its actually two coupled DB 605s, but who cares when we can wave around 'advanced' figures - but usually opted for high effiency engines.

Its the net gain in power what matters, after all.
 
Kurfürst said:
I guess then German aircraft weren`t considered a threat in 1940, when obsolate Hurricanes formed the mainstay, they weren`t considered a threat in 1943, when obsolate Spitfire Mk Vs formed the mainstay.
Click to expand...
Both times, the allies came up with an a/c better or at least equal to the german ones, so your point?

Hmmm, the centaurus proved to be an efficient a/c engine after the war, so what did the DB610 do?
 
Davparlr said:
If German aircraft had been considered a threat at the end of '44, the skies would have been filled with these planes by April, 45.
Click to expand...

That's one of the most ridiculous thinks I ever heard!

Davparlr had the Allies been able to field the P-51H, Tempest II or YP-80 any earlier they would've done so, nothing was holding them back. And it certainly wasn't because German a/c weren't considered any threat that these new design weren't fielded earlier, no fact is they simply weren't ready for service because of design quirks which still needed be addressed.
 

Exactly Kurfürst.
 
the allies had time to fix the quirks I really don't think the LW had that much time. Probably every one with a T square and french curve where drawing up fantasy weapons
 

Soren, the H was deployed to the 343rd and the 53rd FG in Shemeya, Alaska starting in March 1945. Even given the deployment cycle of the P-51D which started rolling off production lines in march, 1944 for deliveries to Italy and ETO in mid may 1944, the same deplyment to the PTO could have been late April to early May, 1945.

The P-80 and P-51H were the top fighters in the USAAF and the Air Force KNEW budgets would be hammered. Why throw any of the best into combat when second best was doing fine as the war wound down? Germany had no such view.

- earlier possibly if to operational groups with a sense of urgency. Whether it could have engaged with Ta 152s or D-9s is pure speculation but it easily could have seen escort duties in the last four months of PTO. Ditto the F7F and it did serve with USMC in the last couple of months.
 
Don't forget the XP-47J, more practical and available earlier than the XP-72, and seeing the other issues with the P-47M's operation, if put in place of it the P-47J would have probably been operational around the same time. And the lower drag and weight reduced fuel consumption and increased range substancially, in addition to the much better performance and increased maneuverability. Though armament was decreased to 6x .50's, capacity was still 425 rpg.


And it may have actually suffered fewer problems than the P-47M, due to the fan cooling and depending on maintenence conditions similer to the P-47N's better reliability. (possibly due to operating in the pacific though, similar to the P-38's improvements in maintenence and reliability differences there compared to the ETO)

And I say the P-47J rather than jets, because the jets lacked the range for escort or pennetration missions, and it still had performance to give it some ability to take on the jets. (and had advantages of other prop fighter over jets of low speed acceleration and sustained turning ability) Even the P-80, the longest ranged of the allied jets, would have been pushing it, particularly as only the 165 gal tip tanks would have been available at that time. (inless it was modified to carry the larger 300 US gal Lockheed tanks, which may have required strengthening the wings as the largest tanks fitted in combat were 260 US gal)
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Users who are viewing this thread

Total: 1 (members: 0, guests: 1)

Similar threads

S
Spitfire vs. Dora mass battle
2
Replies
30
Views
2K
PAT303
P
Spitfire vs Me-109
Replies
3
Views
1K
PAT303
P
J
Yak-9U Vs Bf-109
Replies
0
Views
775
Jerrybandit67
J
Vickers Wellington vs. Warwick
Replies
1
Views
175
nuuumannn
S
Fw 190D-9 vs. Spitfire Mk. XIV, same engines
Replies
8
Views
2K
dedalos
D
Menu
Log in
Register