Bf-109 vs Spitfire vs Fw-190 vs P-51 (1 Viewer)

davparlr · May 30, 2008

Soren said:
They had maximum development effort throughout the war Darvparlr, even more so infact, just take a look at the multitude of a/c to arrive in 44.

I think most of the significant aircraft arrivals came prior to D-Day. After that development slowed down and the Allied effectively were happy to finish the job with what they had. I think there was natural desire to get these planes into action just to see how they would perform against the enemy, like the P-80, but I don't think there was a general effort to accelerate these planes to front line duty but I think there was in Germany. It only makes sense.

Fact is Darvparlr, every nation was putting new a/c on scene as quickly as they could, only a few exceptions such as the Me-262 Ta-152 being delayed for preference reasons of the high command (Hitler).

I do not believe this is a fact from mid '44 on.

Soren · May 30, 2008

I think most of the significant aircraft arrivals came prior to D-Day. After that development slowed down and the Allied effectively were happy to finish the job with what they had. I think there was natural desire to get these planes into action just to see how they would perform against the enemy, like the P-80, but I don't think there was a general effort to accelerate these planes to front line duty but I think there was in Germany. It only makes sense.

No Davparlr, it doesn't make any sense at all.

Just compare the number of new a/c to see service with the Allies Axis and you'll see your theory just doesn't hold water.

kool kitty89 · May 30, 2008

The only real difference between the P-47M and the P-47J is that the J had a slightly lighter structure and had the tight cowling and cooling fan. (similar to that used with the BMW 801)

The M was expected to be available sooner (due to the need for retooling foor the J model) but seeing the delays and problems in operational service of the M model due mainlt to mechenical problems with the engine (something that didn't seem to be nearly as prevelant on the P-47N in the PTO for whatever reason) it may have been just as well to continue with the P-47J program.

It would also have been interesting if that cowling had been used on the P-47N, performance should have increased significantly and with the rduced drag (and fuel consumption) further extended the already long range of the N model.

kool kitty89 · May 30, 2008

Soren, is thais a more accurate overview: the RLM kind of ignored the Ta 152 early on so it langushed, and later (too late as was with a lot of the advanced projects started earlier on; or focus on the wrong projects particularly Hitler's wasteful offensive vengence weapons) they pushed for the project, and rushed it and the problems were due to both.

Had there been interest earlier on and development gone at a fast, but not rushed pace (like many of the contemporary allied projects) it should have been available much earlier.

One other thing though, on the Tempest II, it wasn't that it wasn't ready 'till '45, but more of problems with starting production. The production decision shifted several times through different manufactures and delayed it a good deal. It should have been in service not too long after the Tempest V.

Just for a quick overview, from Wikipedia:

The Centaurus was generally regarded as superior to the Sabre, particularly in terms of reliability, and the engine and Tempest airframe proved an excellent match. The combination looked so promising that a contract for 500 of the type was placed as far back as September 1942, but Gloster was overloaded with production of the Typhoon and development of the Gloster Meteor, and there was no way the company could handle the additional load.

Tempest Mark II production was allocated to Bristol, and the switch delayed production even more. The first Tempest II was rolled off the line on 4 October 1944. With the end of the Second World War in sight, orders for the Tempest II were trimmed or cancelled; after 50 Tempest IIs had been built at Bristol's Banwell facility, production was stopped and shifted back to Hawker.

A total of 452 Tempest IIs were built, including 136 basic Mark IIs and 316 "Fighter Bomber Mark IIs" (FB II). They were built mostly by Hawker and generally with Centaurus V engines, and of that number 300 were completed after the war. The Tempest II, despite its slightly improved performance and better reliability, never saw combat. Tempest IIs produced during the war were intended for combat against the Japanese, and would have formed part of "Tiger Force" but the Pacific War ended before they could be deployed. The RAF passed 89 Tempest FB IIs to the Indian Air Force in 1947, while another 24 were passed on to the Pakistani Air Force.

kool kitty89 · May 30, 2008

KrazyKraut said:
I didn't say a dream. It was a prototype and I am not sure it ever flew in a plane. The other engines at least were flying.

Click to expand...

Not in any WW2 fighter aircraft.

The 2,800 hp R-2800-57 was included in that list, and that most certainly did see service on fighter aircraft during the war.

By fall of 1944, it was apparent that Germany was not going to be able to prevent complete collapse. I am sure the pressure on the Hawker engineers working on the Tempest II was much less than that of the Focke-Wulf's engineers working on the Ta-152.

Click to expand...

Moot point, as by that time the Ta-152 was already entering service. You can try to dodge it as much as you want: The Mk.II was ordered in '42, made it's maiden flight with the centaurus in '43 but didn't enter service until mid '45 because it simply wasn't ready any earlier. It was even planned to be used against the already beaten Japanese airforce, at a time where Mk.Vs would have easily sufficed.

Having delays due to switching manufactures multiple times hardly equates to "simply wasn't ready any earlier."

And, while there was a performance increase in the Mk. II, a major advantage was the engine's much better reliability compared to the Sabre. (and the greater ability to withstand battle damage)

davparlr · May 30, 2008

Soren said:
No, that was but a quick educated guess based on climb rate achieved at Steig u. Kampflesitung Start u. Notlesitung (1,590 PS 1,750 PS) at 5,220 kg, and then the time to climb to 10km at Sonder Notleistung (2,050 PS) at 4,760 kg, which was 10.1 min. I'm pretty sure you'll arrive at a similar figure

Please provide what was left off the Ta for test. I thought it was primarily an interceptor so I am not sure what could be removed except maybe GM-1 fluid.

kool kitty89 · May 31, 2008

I beleive it was designed as a high altitude miltirole fighter. As soren mentioned before there is interceptor configuration, and long range/escort configuration. (with full internal fuel, and possibly drop tank(s))

The Ta 152 had a fairly large internal fuel capacity compared to the Fw 190 iirc.

KrazyKraut · May 31, 2008

The 2,800 hp R-2800-57 was included in that list, and that most certainly did see service on fighter aircraft during the war.

I already dropped that one and was only referring to the more uber Wasp Superior and the Centaurus. The -57 and the Centaurus V have a very high power output, but they are rather heavy and bulky. The resulting fighters' performance was not on a higher level than what contemporary German or other Allied fighters with less impressive hp were capable of (as was indicated). But Kurfürst already mentioned that.

kool kitty89 said:
Having delays due to switching manufactures multiple times hardly equates to "simply wasn't ready any earlier."

And, while there was a performance increase in the Mk. II, a major advantage was the engine's much better reliability compared to the Sabre. (and the greater ability to withstand battle damage)

Yes, which was more the reason to get it into service. "Ready any earlier" means "not combat ready", production started in late '44 but went slowly, so yeah, it wasn't ready for squadron service before the war ended. Or are we going to argue about semantics now

Soren said:
Just compare the number of new a/c to see service with the Allies Axis and you'll see your theory just doesn't hold water.

Exactly, numerous new aircraft were sent to the theatres just months before the war ended, even though the Allies were already winning. F8F, P-47N, P-51H, the latter two particularly designed to be the major fighters for the invasion of Japan... at a time where ordinary P-51Ds and P-47Ds would have easily sufficed since the Japanese airforces were already beaten. The Mk.II was basically complete by late '43 , its engine was seen as more reliable and it was potentially less vulnerable to AAA (which was probably the bigger concern from late '44 on)... so there was all the reason to get it to the troops. That it didn't (for the 3rd time now) was a result of faulty planning.

kool kitty89 · May 31, 2008

Actually the P-47N's range was a pretty big advantage in the Pacific, even in this stage of the war.

Agree on the Tempest II.

Soren · May 31, 2008

davparlr said:
Please provide what was left off the Ta for test. I thought it was primarily an interceptor so I am not sure what could be removed except maybe GM-1 fluid.

Davparlr, with full internal fuel (1,094 Liters) the weight of the Ta-152H is 5,220 kg, with half fuel (560 Liters) in fighter interceptor configuration weight is 4,760 kg.

davparlr · May 31, 2008

Comparison of P-51H performance to Ta-152H-1. SL - 10 km.

Comparison point: Fighter configuration, fuel 148 gal (560 L)

Comparison Weight:
P-51H 8808 lbs (3995 kg)
Ta-152H-1 10494 lbs (4760 kg)

Primary data source:

P-51H - Corrected North American performance data validated with flight test dated 11-1-45 (probably equivalent to Focke-Wulf Ta-152H performance data). Note: Top speed is noted as 471 mph at 9450 lbs., which is what I had previously calculated for clean configuration, vs. original est. of 487 mph.

Ta-152H - Focke-Wulf performance data and Soren

All data is based upon Comparison Weight noted. Where referenced data weight is different, data is estimated at Comparison Weight

HP=PS for this comparison

SL
A/S: (mph)
P-51 413
Ta-152 371

Climb (ft/min)
P-51 5600 *
Ta-152 5100+

Power-hp/PS
P-51 2220
Ta-152 2050

Power Loading (lb/hp)
P-51 3.4
Ta-152 5.1

10k

A/S
P-51 450
Ta-152 416

Climb
P-51 4800
Ta-152 N/A

Power
P-51 2200
Ta-152 1900

Power Loading
P-51 4.0
Ta-152 5.5

20k
A/S
P-51 451
Ta-152 436

Climb
P-51 4200
Ta-152 NA

Power
P-51 1820
Ta-152 1880

Power Loading
P-51 4.8
Ta-152 5.6

30k

A/S
P-51 453
Ta-152 463

Climb
P-51 2100
Ta-152 2854 at 29k (unknown power setting)

Power
P-51 1400
Ta-152 1340

Power Loading
P-51 6.3
Ta-152 7.8

33k

A/S
P-51 449
Ta-152 458

Climb
P-51 1300
Ta-152 NA

Power
P-51 1240
Ta-152 1300

Power Loading
P-51 7.1
Ta-152 8.1

Time to Climb
P-51 9.8 min. (+ .2)*
Ta-152 10.1 min.

*Cross checked against P-51B performance at 9680 lbs, and 75" Hg, corrected for weight and power, and data appears reasonable.

Below about 25k ft, the P-51H has a significant advantage in airspeed and power loading, probably equal to or better climb performance, and probably better dive performance. The Ta-152 has better maneuvering capability. If the P-51 pilot keeps his speed up and doesn't get into turning fight with the Ta-152, he should have no problem maintaining energy superiority, have more options for attack, and control of engagement and egress from combat. Above 25k ft., the Ta-152 quickly starts to gain all of the advantages and will control the "high ground".

DerAdlerIstGelandet · May 31, 2008

davparlr said:
Below about 25k ft, the P-51H has a significant advantage in airspeed and power loading, probably equal to or better climb performance, and probably better dive performance. The Ta-152 has better maneuvering capability. If the P-51 pilot keeps his speed up and doesn't get into turning fight with the Ta-152, he should have no problem maintaining energy superiority, have more options for attack, and control of engagement and egress from combat. Above 25k ft., the Ta-152 quickly starts to gain all of the advantages and will control the "high ground".

I happen to prefer the Ta 152H but I think your post pretty must shows that the two aircraft were very equal aircraft. One having the advantage at low alltitude and the other at high altitude.

Overall though very equal aircraft.

I think some people fail to realize that pretty much all the "top" aircraft at any given time during WW2 were very equal aircraft. Each having advantages and disadvantages.

Vincenzo · Jun 1, 2008

davparlr said:
Comparison of P-51H performance to Ta-152H-1. SL - 10 km.

Comparison point: Fighter configuration, fuel 148 gal (560 L)

strange comparison, afaik the comparison came on
1) at actually configuaration of fight (not applicable here, maybe a what if configuration in fall 45 with p-51h escorting bomber on germany and ta 152 intercepting)
2) at fuel need for same range (this is i think the best for a true comparison not related with a actually use)
3) at full fuel or a proportional (like half fuel) each

davparlr · Jun 1, 2008

DerAdlerIstGelandet said:
I happen to prefer the Ta 152H but I think your post pretty must shows that the two aircraft were very equal aircraft. One having the advantage at low alltitude and the other at high altitude.

Overall though very equal aircraft.

I think some people fail to realize that pretty much all the "top" aircraft at any given time during WW2 were very equal aircraft. Each having advantages and disadvantages.

A reasonable assessment in my opinion.

davparlr · Jun 1, 2008

Vincenzo said:
strange comparison, afaik the comparison came on
1) at actually configuaration of fight (not applicable here, maybe a what if configuration in fall 45 with p-51h escorting bomber on germany and ta 152 intercepting)
2) at fuel need for same range (this is i think the best for a true comparison not related with a actually use)
3) at full fuel or a proportional (like half fuel) each

The appropiate configuration of opposing aircraft is always a issue.

1) This is probably not an unlikely configuration if the P-51H is flying out of France, as it could in 45.

2) These two aircraft have similar aerodynamics and engines and, in this case, range performance could be similar although the Ta-152 is a bit heavier.

3) I don't know what the total internal fuel of the P-51H, but if it is the same as the P-51D, there would not be a significant change to the fuel load.

Vincenzo · Jun 1, 2008

for 3 afaik p-51h have 255 US gallons North American P-51H Mustang

drgondog · Jun 1, 2008

Vincenzo said:
for 3 afaik p-51h have 255 US gallons North American P-51H Mustang

That is correct for a maximum internal fuel load for maximum range..

the 51H had an unusual internal fuel configuration with one wing tank at 105 gallon, the other at 100 and the fuselage tank at 60. It was 13" longer and did not have the aft cg problem of the B and D with full fuselage tank.

It also had a slightly different airfoil from the B/C/D.

I also agree with Chris that All the aircraft in this discussion had performance envelopes that were superior to another in some comparison, with the Ta 152H and P-51H having more advantages than disadvantages over the others (IMO)

Of all the ones under the discussions only the Mustangs were more likely to have nearly a full load (i.e full wing tanks, empty fuselage tank) of fuel at the point of engagement as its role was Long Range Fighter - so that is realistic.

Having said that, I agree with Dave that for a discussion like this you would set up two different comparison profiles - one at a likely take off condition and cruise to point of fight... (say 30% (??) consumed for all) and one with full combat load guns and ammo and pilot but no fuel - which would be best possible comparison between each.

The point that I would make is that if we can normalize Max Hp to Thrust, we get the free body force equations at all altitudes that we have recorded maximum speeds, and we can vary the weights to make those comparisons

The Mustangs would be the ones handicapped the most because it's 70% remaining is all wing fuel of 184 gallons after the fuse tank burned off, and working with wing tanks all the way to say, Berlin. That is probably double or triple the weights of fuel of its adversaries

Soren · Jun 1, 2008

Davparlr,

Your comparison is good but remember you're comparing the Ta-152H with the Jumo 213E engine. At the time the P-51H would've arrived the Ta-152H would've been equipped with the superior Jumo 213EB engine which featured much better high alt performance.

On top of that the Jumo 213J was in development and would've followed shortly. This engine had four valves pr. cylinder, making it the most advanced and efficient piston engine out there.

Soren · Jun 1, 2008

Also keep in mind that the Germans had by late 44 available the FW-190 Dora-12 -13, both of which boasted a 780 km/h (487.5 mph) top speed and 13.4 km (44 kft) service ceiling.

Now lets get back on topic, we can make a thread for comparing the Über fighters later.

pbfoot · Jun 1, 2008

Soren said:
Davparlr,

On top of that the Jumo 213J was in development and would've followed shortly. This engine had four valves pr. cylinder, making it the most advanced and efficient piston engine out there.

the merlin also had 4 valves a cylnder

Bf-109 vs Spitfire vs Fw-190 vs P-51 (1 Viewer)

Senior Master Sergeant

1st Lieutenant

Senior Master Sergeant

Senior Master Sergeant

Senior Master Sergeant

Senior Master Sergeant

Senior Master Sergeant

Banned

Senior Master Sergeant

1st Lieutenant

Senior Master Sergeant

Private Chemtrail Disperser

Senior Master Sergeant

Senior Master Sergeant

Senior Master Sergeant

Senior Master Sergeant

Major

1st Lieutenant

1st Lieutenant

1st Lieutenant

Users who are viewing this thread

Similar threads