Ad: This forum contains affiliate links to products on Amazon and eBay. More information in Terms and rules
... yet you keep mentioning crashes like it mattersMany 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.
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.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.
No no, what you said was "the P-80 being much superior" and now you fail to back that up with facts.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.
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.The limited endurance was a game loser for early German jets. The most dangerous time for a German jet was taking off and landing.
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?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.
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.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.
... and both were based on the ingenious design of a German. Even if you don't like it.You are right. One of them became one of the worlds great aircraft, the other struggled to work.
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.
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
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.
KrazyKraut said:... and both were based on the ingenious design of a German. Even if you don't like it.
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.
It does when 3 out of the 5 prototypes crash. When this happens, programs are typically cancelled.... yet you keep mentioning crashes like it matters
I understand it was a turbocharger explosion on take off. Certainly not enough to prevent contract go ahead.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, 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.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.
no no, what you said was "the P-80 being much superior" and now you fail to back that up with facts.
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.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.
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?
Any assumption how long it would've taken to get the plane operational based on post war design copies are thus pretty useless.
... and both were based on the ingenious design of a German. Even if you don't like it.
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..
Even a "clean" new wing is significant.
Not the 213E with GM50 and nitro..
So, your saying that Tank wasn't that good, huh. Didn't the Ta-183 have a Ta in the front and not Mu?..
Actually, I think it is your turn, provide me with the charts on the Ta-152H with the 213J engine.
What I think is that is crap..... prove itor 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?
.
Trust me, he doesn't!
The Fw-190 A-9 was certainly built, and several were delivered to operational squadrons. Erich again probably has all the details.
Fully agreed Kurfürst.
davparlr said: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.
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".
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.
What, now we're making stuff up, too?It does when 3 out of the 5 prototypes crash. When this happens, programs are typically cancelled.
Funny you think that, because the supercharger failure was the main problem on the Ta-152 protoype, which according to you should've been cancelledI understand it was a turbocharger explosion on take off. Certainly not enough to prevent contract go ahead.
Read above, the second prototype wasn't flying for very long before it crashed.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.
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.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.
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.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.
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.