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

[renrich]

Dav, I don't believe that RB was at sea level though. I don't believe the Tempest could manage 416 mph at SL. My book shows the fastest US WW2 fighter at SL was the F4U4 at 380 mph. I know there are numbers floating about which show various other AC as faster than that but I don't believe those numbers are accurate or they are not for standard production airplanes. Same book shows P47M at about 370 mph at SL.

 

[Glider]

Tempest V's were measured at around 393 at Sea Level if thats any help.

 

[KrazyKraut]

Many prototype aircraft crashed including the P-38, and I don't think that is significant, however, if you look at the Ta-152 development, we see the first prototype, Fw-190V-33/U1 flew on July 12, '44, crashed July 13, '44. The second prototype, Fw-190V-30/U1 flew August 9, '44, crashed August 13, '44 (13 seems to be a bad number). A third prototype, V-18/U2, crashed October 8, '44. Two prototypes made it through.

... yet you keep mentioning crashes like it matters

Now remember the XP-72 flew February 2, '44. I would bet that the XP-72 had more flying hours than all of the prototype Ta-152s when preproduction started on the Ta-152, and possibly before the Ta-152 went operational (wikipedia (??) states only 50 flying hours were complete by end of January, '45). If this is true, then it is not unreasonable to assume that the P-72 had more bugs worked out of it than the Ta-152H-1, and was therefore more "ready". Now, all of this info was taken from a couple of sources and may be in error. If so, I'm sure it will be pointed out.

It is pretty unreasonable considering a) the XP-72 had just received a completely new propeller and b) the 2nd prototype crashed pretty early in the test program without any further prototypes buil. So I don't see evidence that would indicate the XP-72 had more bugs worked out, not to even mention that it had the potential to have much more bugs to begin with considering it had a new and very extreme engine that will put any fighter airframe to its limits.

I will have to defer to your statement about performance, however, my opinion that the aircraft was seriously flawed for its initial design goal, e.g. that poorly trained pilots could fly it, has not changed.

No no, what you said was "the P-80 being much superior" and now you fail to back that up with facts.

The limited endurance was a game loser for early German jets. The most dangerous time for a German jet was taking off and landing.

Uh yeah let's overdramatize that. Much more reasonable to build an interceptor with 2000 miles range I guess, so when in doubt it can circle over airfields for hours to wait for that window for safe landing.

If the He-163 had a 30 minute endurance, that means it would be exposed to the most dangerous part of the mission twice as long as an aircraft with an hour endurance, i.e. for every hour mission time the He-163 would have to be exposed to take/off landing four times, whereas an aircraft with one hour endurance would be exposed twice. Adding the additional fuel to increase endurance of this thrust limited aircraft would have significantly affected aircraft performance.

Like said before, several sources state different ranges. In any case you're not going to drop "another lack of performance"-bomb again are you?

I threw that comment because I knew it stir up comment. Tank was an outstanding aircraft designer/engineer and I am sure he had less monetary support than Mikoyan, but he and his design team did have far more experience and understanding of that particular design which should have mitigated this disadvantage. Mikoyan, no second rate design/engineer himself, was able to build an aircraft very similar to Tank's and to get in operational in a very short time, an impressive feat. Tank and his team struggled with his design getting it ready for operations.

Tank didn't design the Ta-183 though and his involvement in the project and the knowledge he may or may not have gained are subject to pure speculation. The Pulqui II at least differed substantially from the Ta-183. No less so than the Mig-15. Any assumption how long it would've taken to get the plane operational based on post war design copies are thus pretty useless.

You are right. One of them became one of the worlds great aircraft, the other struggled to work.

... and both were based on the ingenious design of a German. Even if you don't like it.

 

[davparlr]

davparlr,

i find it highly doubtful, that the xp72 can manage 480mph at SL too.
I also think it is questionable that the Tempest II runs 416mph at SL. May I ask where you get this from?

In comparison, the Fw190A-9, a smaller and lighter fighter than the Tempest II, is capable of ca. 370 mph with 2250 hp at SL (if my memory is right), so i dont think that the Tempest with 300 hp more can go so fast, especially if you consider that the jump from 2000 hp to 2250 hp results in an speed increase of only 15 mph at the A9.

My sources say that the Fw-190A-9 was never built. Anyway, my source for the Tempest II is this

http://www.wwiiaircraftperformance.org/tempest/tempestii-cfe-appd.jpg

It may be of interest that the P-51H with 2200 hp was capable of over 410 mph at SL

I think your calc is maybe wrong. Drag is square of speed and so is the required Thrust. Power is Thrust*speed, so Power must increase cubic with speed.

greetings

thrawn

Ouch! I think you are right. Thanks. Flight test data I compared supported your statement. Recalculating the P-72 performance using the cube would show a speed at 3200 ft as about 450-460 mph. Still quite impressive.

 

[drgondog]

All of Northrop's, who had much more experience in flying wing aircraft than the Horton's, had vertical stabilizers.



Actually, I am not sure this is correct. A small amount of drag on a wing tip should input a good amout of yaw rather quickly.

A pure flying wing aircraft can be built with some stability (except in the lateral axis without veritcal stabilizers). Roll stability is normal, however pitch stability is very low and yaw stability goes from okay to close to zero depending on the size of a vertical stabilizer.

None of the aircraft you mentioned went through the intensive flight test required of a fighter. Normal stalls, high g stalls, cross controlling, high roll rates, abrupt pitch inputs, high angle of attack flight, high speed dive recovery, negative g operation, weapons operation, more.

I believe these test would have revealled certain characteristics of a flying wing that would require extensive patchwork redesign, for certain a vertical stabilizer on the the Ho 229. Making a flying wing into a fighter is a whole different problem than making one for a bomber or glider for for just flying around in lazy circles.

One of the huge problems with most flying wing design is that the elevators and airerons (elevons) are the same control surface.

The introduction of winglets, slightly aft (mean aerodynamic chord of winglet, further aft than main m.a.c.) is showing promising results for yaw stability - as least static stability.

In a bank, the high wing with the most lift has the most drag - by definition "dragging' the high a little and casues a yaw to the high wing. In it's own way every a/c has this issue even something like a 109 with slats.. the upwing slat would typically deploy before the down wing and 'grab' the wing a tad...

 

[Soren]

The Fw-190 A-9 was certainly built, and several were delivered to operational squadrons. Erich again probably has all the details.

 

[Soren]

... and both were based on the ingenious design of a German. Even if you don't like it.

Trust me, he doesn't!

 

[Soren]

480 mph at SL with a 3000 HP engine in a 6+ ton aircraft?

Wikipedia nonsense. The purpose-built, tiny Heinkel and Messerschmitt racers did something like 465 mph near SL with a 2900 HP engine...

Much more realistic specs are for the XP-47 were 490 mph at 25,000 feet, with a 3450 HP engine. Its good, but aint that hot allowing for production tolerances, operational equipment, and it certainly would take some time to clear 3450 HP for operational use for the R 2800.

Republic XP-72

Probably similiar as the P-51H case, the intial company calculations were rather impressive, the actual performance of the aircraft with operational equipment, from flight tests was rather closer to the P-51D than the projected specs.

Fully agreed Kurfürst.

 

[davparlr]

... yet you keep mentioning crashes like it matters

It does when 3 out of the 5 prototypes crash. When this happens, programs are typically cancelled.

It is pretty unreasonable considering a) the XP-72 had just received a completely new propeller and b) the 2nd prototype crashed pretty early in the test program without any further prototypes buil.

I understand it was a turbocharger explosion on take off. Certainly not enough to prevent contract go ahead.

So I don't see evidence that would indicate the XP-72 had more bugs worked out, not to even mention that it had the potential to have much more bugs to begin with considering it had a new and very extreme engine that will put any fighter airframe to its limits.

So, you think that an aircraft that has been flying for almost a year cannot have provided the identification of bugs and test solutions? This is not reasonable. In addition, I understand that the flight test program was quite trouble free.

no no, what you said was "the P-80 being much superior" and now you fail to back that up with facts.

? I said that I would defer to data on performance.

Uh yeah let's overdramatize that. Much more reasonable to build an interceptor with 2000 miles range I guess, so when in doubt it can circle over airfields for hours to wait for that window for safe landing.

Over dramatize? You're kidding, right? The sky was full of P-51s, P-47s, Spitfires, and Tempests, just waiting for a jet to slow down. I am sure every German jet pilot wished he didn't have to land and take off so often. It was a killer.

Like said before, several sources state different ranges. In any case you're not going to drop "another lack of performance"-bomb again are you?

See above.

Any assumption how long it would've taken to get the plane operational based on post war design copies are thus pretty useless.

I don't think so.

Okay, how about this. It took Focke-Wulf two and a half years to take the Fw-190, a conventional aircraft with a conventional engine, from first flight to first combat. To assume that they could take the Ta-183, a non-conventional aircraft with a non-conventional engine from a paper design to combat in less time, with bombs falling all around them, is just not being realistic.

... and both were based on the ingenious design of a German. Even if you don't like it.

I have no problem recognizing and appreciating German ingenuity. The Me-262, Ta-152H, Ta-183, Ho 229 and many other designs were amazing. However, applying super human engineering to German technology is ludicrous. The Allies always maintained technological equivalence for six years, where necessary, sometime exceeding the Germans. It is unreasonable to think this would have changed in '45, '46, etc.

I do not think the sun rises and sets in Allied technology. I have no problem saying that the Ta-152H was unmatched above 25k feet, or saying that had the Me-262 been used as an interceptor earlier, the war would have been extended, or that I was wrong on the He-162 performance.

I do think that there are some people who feel that the sun rises and sets in German technology and I enjoy challenging.

 

[bada]

I have shown data, post 231, that shows the P-51H clearly superior to Ta-152H below 25,000 ft. It was said that if the P-72 did come it would outclassed by an upgraded Ta-152. So, if you want me to present data on the P-72, provide the data for the upgraded Ta-152 and the other "V" planes.



Okay, I will say that the Ta-152 fuselage was not modified much more than the P-72. It was longer than the D-9 and considerably heavier..

The tail was wooden build the part beeing added to the D9 (the same as the TA152) was something like 20kg, the only part beeing add than added some weight was the pressurized cockpit.

and we don't care of the p72 or the p51H, it doesn't flew operationnaly(p72), it wasn't build (p72)and it never saw combat(both of them), and about the other V-planes, you can easily check the he 280(from 1942!) or the "kangoroo" version of the 190 if you want. It won't change the fact, nothing could beat the ta 152 at high alt (above 8000m till 13500m ) or maybe if you want to talk about prototypes, we can start about the Do-335, that needed to shut down an engine to be able to sustain the cruise speed of the p51d whan it was brought back to england
funny for a 10tons plane to have the same cruise speed on one engine as the half weight mono-engine fighter, don't you think?

Even a "clean" new wing is significant.

don't get it

Not the 213E with GM50 and nitro..

aah, you're absolutly right, it wasn't on the ju88, it was on the ju-188!

the 213E-0 was used on this plane!

So, your saying that Tank wasn't that good, huh. Didn't the Ta-183 have a Ta in the front and not Mu?..

at the end of 44 Tank wasn't a desinger anymore, it was the General director of the Fw company!
he wasn't envolved in the engeenering of the new edged projects. and the Ta prefix was simply given by the RLM as gift to Tank for it's work for the LW. Nothing else, multhropp was a young engineer, with modern ideas.(he worked for the us after the war )
If you invent something for the company you're working for, will the final product or the prototype of this product have your name or the name of your company?

Actually, I think it is your turn, provide me with the charts on the Ta-152H with the 213J engine.

the ta 152 never has this engine , so where could i find those charts?
Just like the p72 never flew operationnaly and was never tested as it, so why bother?

I'm sure Soren and dragndog will do a nice chart with the extrapolation of the possible engines for the 152...

i hope so! it seems that they know what they are talking about!

Please, stop the pissing contest and let's focus on the 3 planes we can obtain real data for: p51D22/25,109G/K and the 190 (any version) and let's forget about the small series or the x-planes.ok?

and about the A9:
check this:

The Focke-Wulf 190 A-9 Listing

your sources are SOOOOOOOOOOOOOO wrong!

Mine are:
Production:
serial

202360-202450 +/-90 from 9/44-9/44
205001-205100 +/100 from 9/44-9/44
205180-205300 +/120 from 9/44-10/44
205901-205999 +/-100 from 10/44-11/44
206031-206200 +/-170 from 11/44-12/44
207160-207240 +/-80 from 12/44-01/45
490020-490050 +/-30 from 12/44-01/45
750070-750160 +/-90 from 8/44-9/44
980150-980230 +/-50 from 12/44-01/45
980360-980380 +/-20 from 01/45-01/45
980540-980590 +/-50 from 01/45-02/45
490020-490050 +/-30 from 12/44-01/45

exact data can't be obtained, beeing destroyed due of the advance of the red army. The biggest FW fatories were on the east, the biggest one beeing in MALBORK-(actual)poland.

Edit: by the way, forget about the ww2.biasedaircraftperformancespitfire uberalles.com site, for a site that argue to be so detailled, and where the RAF official repport on the trials of the 190A3 vs 5 other allied planes is missing...it's simply a pure joke, taking the worst of the german and the best of the RAF, like the test of the the spits with lightenned airframes or engine working on unusual admission pressions with prototypes proppellers...a big joke, nothing else.
If you refear to this site, then you should ask yourself the question why supermarine build the Mk9 and other versions of the spit, cause if you look at those charts the spit5b could achieve higher performance than any other german plane, exept the 262...biased? noooooooot at all....

 

[pbfoot]

or maybe if you want to talk about prototypes, we can start about the Do-335, that needed to shut down an engine to be able to sustain the cruise speed of the p51d whan it was brought back to england
funny for a 10tons plane to have the same cruise speed on one engine as the half weight mono-engine fighter, don't you think?




.

What I think is that is crap..... prove it

 

[davparlr]

Trust me, he doesn't!

Soren, this is disingenuous. We have had many discussions. You've corrected me on info and I have gladly accepted it and accepted your expertise on German aircraft. All of my arguments with you were based on the best data I could find and if it was suspect I always pointed that out. If at times my conclusions are incorrect, I gladly correct them, as I have done in this thread. At times I have defended German aircraft performance against Allied aircraft performance because the data is the data. So, obviously, contrary to my previous opinion, you cannot be "trusted".

 

[davparlr]

The Fw-190 A-9 was certainly built, and several were delivered to operational squadrons. Erich again probably has all the details.

My reference was incorrect.

 

[davparlr]

Fully agreed Kurfürst.

Thrawn in post 300 pointed out my calculation error in a very civilized manor. It was refreshing.

 

[Soren]

I have no problem recognizing and appreciating German ingenuity. The Me-262, Ta-152H, Ta-183, Ho 229 and many other designs were amazing. However, applying super human engineering to German technology is ludicrous. The Allies always maintained technological equivalence for six years, where necessary, sometime exceeding the Germans. It is unreasonable to think this would have changed in '45, '46, etc.

I do not think the sun rises and sets in Allied technology. I have no problem saying that the Ta-152H was unmatched above 25k feet, or saying that had the Me-262 been used as an interceptor earlier, the war would have been extended, or that I was wrong on the He-162 performance.

I do think that there are some people who feel that the sun rises and sets in German technology and I enjoy challenging.

Davparlr,

Throughout WW2 the Germans were ahead in every field within aerodynamics fluiddynamics, and in some of them considerably so. They were also ahead in metallurgy, chemistry physics. Why ? Well in part because of the huge German government spending on science since the beginning of the 19th century and then ofcourse the all to well known extreme thuroughness perfectionism of the German people.

But this isn't a new thing, the Germans have always been known as extreme perfectionists obsessed with quality precision, and they are to a hurtfull degree as illustrated in WW2 and right up till today, always choosing quality over quantity - far from always a smart thing in war. They used machined brass safety pins in their land mines during WW2 instead of cheap cotter pins for christ sake!

Now that being said I admire the Germans for their prowess within high quality precision engineering craftsmanship, but I also know that this has nothing to do with them being super human in any way, it is simply a cultural thing, and the Swiss Austrians share it.

In short we are all humans and we all share the same abilities nomatter what country we were born, lived or live in and nomatter our skin color. It is culture upbringing which makes us different in some ways.

 

[Soren]

Soren, this is disingenuous. We have had many discussions. You've corrected me on info and I have gladly accepted it and accepted your expertise on German aircraft. All of my arguments with you were based on the best data I could find and if it was suspect I always pointed that out. If at times my conclusions are incorrect, I gladly correct them, as I have done in this thread. At times I have defended German aircraft performance against Allied aircraft performance because the data is the data. So, obviously, contrary to my previous opinion, you cannot be "trusted".

Relax davparlr, it was a joke, I know you pretty well from all our debates and I know you are not a liar or a truly biased person, and I have defended you before on this. I respect you man!

However your posts in this thread seem very biased towards the Allies, something which surprised me abit since I really don't see you as a biased individual.

 

[Kurfürst]

Kfurst the XP-72 used the massive 28 cylinder, 4 row, 71.49L "corn cob" R-4360 "Wasp Major" radial engine of 3450 hp. Late models produced 4,300 hp.
It weighed a good 1500 lbs heavier than the R-2800. (although less than 3 in larger in diameter)

It was basicly a further development of the XP-47J concept, up-engined and strengthened airframe.

The XP-47J itsself used the same 2,800 hp R-2800-57C engine as the P-47M/N, and actually acheived 507 mph in testing at 32,000 ft. With 470 mph at 2,100 hp millitary power, and 435 mph at 1,700 hp max continuous.

I agree that the 480 mph SL figure seems wrong.

Yup, thanks, I had got mixed up those two.

 

[KrazyKraut]

It does when 3 out of the 5 prototypes crash. When this happens, programs are typically cancelled.

What, now we're making stuff up, too?
Programs are cancelled when unsolvable problems are found, not when a predefined number of crashes occur. But hey, you know that, you just try to make the Ta-152 look bad to push your agenda. Fact is a lot of the features that seperate the Ta-152 from the Dora 9 were already tested in late Fw-190 Ds: Wing tanks, engine cannon, enlarged tail and last but not least the Jumo 213E. That some prototypes crashed was unfortunate but since there was nothing indicating a inherent design failure there was no problem ordering the type into production. The 2nd XP-72 also crashed and was still ordered, eventhough the only prototype left was very different from the final design. And eventhough the hours completed on the type that was actually meant to be produced, was very limited. But hey, let's wriggle around that again shall we?

And afterall: 3 out of 5 is SO much worse than 1 out of 2, right? That's a whole 17%.

I understand it was a turbocharger explosion on take off. Certainly not enough to prevent contract go ahead.

Funny you think that, because the supercharger failure was the main problem on the Ta-152 protoype, which according to you should've been cancelled

So, you think that an aircraft that has been flying for almost a year cannot have provided the identification of bugs and test solutions? This is not reasonable. In addition, I understand that the flight test program was quite trouble free.

Read above, the second prototype wasn't flying for very long before it crashed.

Over dramatize? You're kidding, right? The sky was full of P-51s, P-47s, Spitfires, and Tempests, just waiting for a jet to slow down. I am sure every German jet pilot wished he didn't have to land and take off so often. It was a killer.

A range of 600 to 970 km (depending on the source) was easily sufficient for the time being. That the tactical situation was all against Germany is well known, but not the aircrafts fault and nothing the designers could've influenced. But you just keep bringing this up since it's the one (albeit unconfirmed) shortcoming you could quickly find about the He-162 and your first wild guess about inferior performance didn't quite cut it.

Okay, how about this. It took Focke-Wulf two and a half years to take the Fw-190, a conventional aircraft with a conventional engine, from first flight to first combat. To assume that they could take the Ta-183, a non-conventional aircraft with a non-conventional engine from a paper design to combat in less time, with bombs falling all around them, is just not being realistic.

The Fw-190 was developed with low pressure, with limited RLM support and not in "total war" times. It was even against a direct Goering order to stop any new developments that would not be finished within 1 year after the war had begun. So considering that, I'm pretty confident a Ta-183 prototype could've made a maiden flight sometime in mid to late 1945. The He-162 made it from design to maiden flight in 90 days. The XP-80's initial progress was equally fast. The Ta-183 as well as the new Messerschmitt were obviously not close to seeing frontline service, but they would've ensured a considerably lead in jet aircraft design was maintained by Germany in case large of a scale introduction of P-80 or Meteor.

 

[kool kitty89]

davparlr, here's the "superior" statement on the P-80 that was being contended:

Me-262-outstanding aircraft and would have been competitive for several years.
He-162-marginal performance for a jet. Not much advantage except for producibility. Not much faster than the Meteor, P-80 being much superior. It probably would have killed more inexperienced German pilots than allied pilots.

However it seems you were going by the original competition specs or (466 mph iirc), and you may have corrected yourself. (those statements would have been true of the Blohm Voss submission though, which was ironically deemed "the best" of the competition)


KrazyKraut,

What gave you the idea that the secon prototype of the XP-72 was the template for the production version?
Anyway the only difference was the 6 blade contra-rotating prop, and this had proven troublesome in several prototype designs anyway. (and would problably have lead to maintenence problems as well) That part at least probably needed some more maturing time.

But afik the extensively tested first prototype was to be the production standard.

 

[KrazyKraut]

Because wherever the XP-72 is discussed, it is said that the Aeroproducts propeller was the intended one since torque was too extreme with the standard 4-blade. Since the crash did not seem directly related to the propeller (rather the pilot being seemingly a bit over ambitious) I see no reason not to order the safer design into production, since as mentioned that was the major (only?) difference.

For a kind of similar case the YP-80A was called into production before the respective prototype even flew.