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

Ofcourse they don't, cause the authors of those books know jack sh*t about the a/c. If you want to know the real story about the Ta152 you should read Dietmar Hermann's book which is specifically about the Ta152 and holds many original documents. Previous authors had no access to these documents and thus had to guess their way around this a/c. And if you don't believe me then just go ask Erich, who btw has information that suggests that the Ta-152 reached 500 mph in level flight at high alt.

But since you're so confident in your own books Renrich, let me ask which of your books mention the Ta-152H, who are the authors, what year is the book from, what figures and information do they present, and crucially do they provide any references, such as orig. documents, infact do they provide any at all ??? My guess is they don't.

Dietmar's book not only provides lots of references but it provides most of them in scans of the original documents!

Also Renrich, seeing you have read a good number of books on the subject then how come you find it laughable that mostly the Allied bombers were flying at above 25,000 ft ????

kool kitty89 said:

I.6 is close, but will admitedly have a small but significant error. (~0.6%, so converting kph to mph will result in speeds ~.6% higher than actual)

I use .621 mph/kph (rounded from ~.62137)

Click to expand...

I can pretty well assure you that this is insignificant in regards to all the other errors associated with measuring the airspeed of an aircraft; indicator error, clock error, temperature error, pressure error, etc.

I have a conversion program that provides conversion of a lot of different values if anyone would like to have it. I might be able to paste it on this site if it possible and allowed.

Hello
one real transit flight of 109G-2s can be find here Me-109s to Finland
distances You must check from a map but flight times can be found from the map of the article, t=h ie hour.

109G-6s, usually flown with droptank, used c. 1220l fuel and 30-36kg oil during transit from Germany to Helsinki.

According to combat reports, FAF 109G combat missions usually were 45-50min in duration, flown without droptanks.

Juha

Soren said:

The only way the LW could've turned the tide was if Hitler hadn't delayed the Me-262's entering the service in late 43 to early 44. Had the Me-262 entered service at that point the P-51 wouldn't have had the speed advantage which made it so successful. The Me-262's could intercept and strike the bombers and then choose wether they wanted to fight the escorts or head for home depending on the fuel state, with both choices giving the Germans by far the best odds. The Me-262 enjoyed such a large advantage in climb rate, speed high speed maneuverability that it could with relative immunity combat any Allied fighter in service.

Click to expand...

I agree with this except that I am not sure the tide would have completely turned, Germany was already reeling in the East. If the Me-262 had been available in early '44, and their airfield could be protected, the dynamics of the war would certainly have changed. Daylight bombing could have been terminated ala B-29 raids in Korea. This would certainly have impacted productivity and supply for Germany and could easily have threaten D Day. However, there would have been some negative reactions. The Americans would have to switch to night bombing with it inherent inaccuracies, which would have caused even more civilian casualties.

With the Me-262 realized as a real threat to victory, American aviation would have shifted gears to accerlerate jet development and production. Lockheed might have shut down or significantly reduce P-38 production in order to support production for P-80s. Other manufacturers would find their jet efforts put on the highest priority. All of these however would not be available until probably fall of '44. The Allies would also have to rethink D Day, possibly emphasizing the Italian campaign. The level of support for Russia may also have accelerated.

So, had the Me-262 came as early as it could in the interceptor role, the nature of the war would have changed and undoubtably would have been extended as a minimum.

drgondog said:

Kurfurst - any documentation on any of the 109s regarding optimal cruise settings (rpm, boost, mixture) and altitude. Optimal = greatest range

Click to expand...

Yes, here is for example Bf 109F-4. Unfortunately, I do not have more detailed original German range tables for the later variants.

As usual, the engine settings are usually very simply due to the automated auto controls (supercharger, mixture is automatically controlled, RPM and Boost is governed by the same throttle lever). One can see the the propellor pitch position settings, expressed in hours and minutes (ie. 12' 40''). This is interesting for economic flight as the CSP automatics could be diseangaged and propellor pitch angle could be directly set with the thumb switch on the throttle lever.

Its also interesting to compare the overall range given (400 liter coloumn), which is a complex range figure including glide and descent etc; whereas the 250, 150, 50 liter figures give you EXACTLY the amount of range in level flight only (from these three coloumns, the 'pure' milage can be worked out).

Finally, the 3rd page will give you the conditions, reserves and allowanced the range table is valid for. Unfortunately, the range figures with droptank (+300 l) are not given in this table, but another datasheet gives it as appx. 1600 km at max eco, ie. 410 kmh TAS.

According to Finns the problem with cruising at speeds of 450km/h or slower was fouling of the plugs and carbon monoxcide sweepage into the cockpit. Or strict translation "flooding of carbon monoxcide into the cockpit."

Juha

Soren, I will be glad to furnish you the information about the books I have on the subject of the TA152. In fact I already have furnished the name of the author and the references of the section in the "Great Book of WW2 Airplanes" on the FW190. There is quite a bit of that section devoted to the TA152 and I furnished you that info in another thread. I also have a book by Kenneth Munson entitled "Aircraft of WW2" which barely mentions the TA stating that it had a service ceiling of over 40000 feet and could make 463 mph at 34000 feet. This book was published in 1968. Interestingly those figures agree almost exactly with the much more complete numbers of "The Great Book" which was published in 1984. I never said that I owned a lot of books about either the TA or altitudes of bombing missions in the ETO. I remember mostly reading "On a Wing and a Prayer", written by a navigator. He was in the "Bloody 100th" and flew his missions relatively early and talked often of the difficulty they had when they tried to get high because of turbocharger problems, frostbite, ineffective electric suits, fuel considerations and oxygen problems. It is my recollection that many missions were flown at around 20000 feet and seldom exceeded 24000 feet. HOWEVER, before any more remarks by me, I want to say that I am from Texas and if one speaks in an uncivil manner to another, one runs the risk of making an enemy with possible attendent difficulties. I have tried to address you in a civil manner and believe that I have maintained a civil manner. I never said that I found it laughable that most missions were flown above 25000 feet(I don't believe that MOST missions were flown above 25000 feet, especially by B24s). You don't need to say that the authors I have read don't know JS about the TA. Don't disparage my books or my library. I don't disparage yours. You don't know anything about either my books or how many I have read. I am a great deal older than you. I was alive during and have memories of WW2. I had six uncles who served. I have been reading and studying about warfare most of my life and that is 73 years. I also served in the US Military. Get a civil tongue in your head and we can continue to have a dialogue. Otherwise, forget it. A piece of advice, if you ever visit Texas, lose your "attitude" or don't go. You might not enjoy it.

Just as I thought your books contain no references. Which is no surprise cause even books specifically about Kurt Tank the Fw-190 contained very limited information on the Ta-152 back then. I have a lot of those books myself Renrich, so it has nothing to do with disparaging your library.

Furthermore I have been civil throughout Renrich, I haven't called you names, been rude towards you or anything. You started the uncomfortable tone with this:

Hmmmm, the TA152 was designed to be superior to all fighters from ground level to well above 30000 feet? Did the the germans have the moxie to repeal all the laws of physics and aerodynamics?

Click to expand...

Now what does that imply to you Renrich ?? Why resort to ridicule ?

Where exactly is it you believe the laws of physics were thrown out the window ??

Juha said:

Hello
one real transit flight of 109G-2s can be find here Me-109s to Finland
distances You must check from a map but flight times can be found from the map of the article, t=h ie hour.

109G-6s, usually flown with droptank, used c. 1220l fuel and 30-36kg oil during transit from Germany to Helsinki.

According to combat reports, FAF 109G combat missions usually were 45-50min in duration, flown without droptanks.

Juha

Click to expand...

How could they use 1,220L of fuel? They carried 400L internal (515 with rear tank) and 300L in drop tank. The max possible is 815L.

See Kurfurst's figures:

Kurfürst said:

The above datasheet gives it as 585 km at 8.4 km with this 645 km/h max. cont. cruise setting (see Errech. Flugstrecke 585 - 8.4).This is to be understood on internal fuel (400 l) without an external droptank (300 l); also the 109K`s 115 liter MW-50 tank could be alternatively used as an aux. fuel tank.

Basically that is similiar the 109E`s economic range on internal, but achieved at nearly hundred kph faster speed than the 109E would be capable at full throttle at that altitude..

I don`t have range datasheets figures for the 109K, but I do have for the 109F and G; the economic range should be around 1600 - 2000 km with a droptank, and 1900 - 2300 km if the rear tank is used for fuel as well, at ca. 450 to 500 km/h. (109F-4 was credited with 1600 km with droptank at 410 km/h)

See: Kurfrst - Bf 109G/trop Middle East trials: Dimesnions, Weights and Performance
http://kurfurst.allaboutwarfare.com/Tactical_trials/109G2_britg2trop/MET_109G_rangetable.jpg

Click to expand...

Soren, I gave the references from the "Great Book" once before but will do it once more although laborious since I am a hunt and peck typist. If you are not familiar with the book, it is 12 books that were written from 1980 through 1983 all combined into one huge volume. The book on the FW was written by Robert Grinsell and he acknowledges the following sources: Herbert Kaiser, Oskar Romm, Guenther Schack, Werner Schroer, Dipl. Ing. Kurt Tank, Gerhard Thyben, Bundesarchiv, West Germany, Fokker G.m.b.H, Gemeinschaft der Jagdflieger, Messerschmitt-Boelkow-Blohm. U S Air Force. The reason I said that the laws of physics must have been repealed, etc. is that all AC designs are compromises. I have never heard of a design that combined superior performance at all flight levels, superior maneuverability at all flight levels, superior or more than adequate range, superior load carrying, superior armament all combined with reliablity from an operational point of view. Aircraft are usually optimised for performance in certain flight regimes. The P47 was a spendid performer at altitudes well above 25000 feet. Because of drag and weight it wasn't too good at lower altitudes where the air was thick and it's range was not great until late models.. The P51 was optimised for performance at low to medium altitudes and for long range but perhaps lost a little in maneuverability. The US Navy fighters were optimised for low level performance and ruggedness for carrier landings. They gave up high altitude performance and some range and maneuverability. How can an AC with a wing which gives it control and lift at very high altitudes not give up some roll rate and drag at lower altitudes. To improve roll rate and maneuverability some AC had clipped wings. The performance figures on the TA152H-1 in my reference indicate that the AC gave up low altitude performance in favor of outstanding high level performnace and so so range. It was not a dog at sea level but not up to P51B or D or F4U4 and it did not have the range of either AC. As far as maneuverability is concerned, I am sure it was superior to either US plane mentioned at very high altitudes but probably not at levels below 25000 feet. As mentioned once before, no FW had sufficient visibility over the nose for full deflection shooting. I just don't believe that there is any free lunch in AC design.

Renrich,

The Ta-152H is faster than the F4U-4 at SL and all the way up, and it's more maneuverable than both the F4U-4 P-51 at all altitudes, esp. in terms of turn performance where the Ta-152H is far superior. And the roll rate of the Ta-152H was good, as noted by the pilots who flew the bird.

The Ta-152H's top speed at SL was 597 km/h (371 mph), and top speed at alt was 760 km/h (472 mph). Climb rate at SL was 5,100+ ft/min.

And btw, the Ta-152H achieved its 11 to 0 kill/loss ratio exclusively in low altitude engagements.

As for the P-51 being optimized for low alt performance, that again isn't true Renrich, the P-51 was optimized to have good performance at esp. medium to high alts, and featured better high alt performance than most other fighters. It was the P-51's good high alt performance which in great part made it so successful.

Hello kool Kitty
Simply by stopping for refuel!! And there was no rear tank in FAF 109Gs only rthe normal 400l fuselage tank.
Longest stretch in the flight in the article (109G-2s without drop tank) was 1h 20min.

Juha

Not in my book! Eleven or twelve kills (?) don't any more prove superiority of the TA than the F9F's record of 5-1 prove that it was superior to the Mig15 in ACM. Mustang TC and Vmax was very good at SL all the way to 25000 feet where it began to drop off, just as I said.

Soren said:

So that's 580 km/h at SL and 680 km/h at altitude. Now exactly what Allied fighter except the P-51 could match that ? None.

Click to expand...

Correct

The Fw-190 A-5 also boasted a higher climb rate than any Allied fighter at the time at 21 m/s.

Click to expand...

True for January through April, '44. In May, when 44-1 fuel became available, this climb is exceeded by both the P-51B with a SL climb of 22 m/s, the P-51D with a SL climb of 21.9 m/s.

Against the P-51 the Fw-190A-5's strengths were its superior turn rate, roll rate climb rate at low to medium alts, while the P-51 was faster and featured better high alt performance.

Click to expand...

Again, before May, '44. Also, the P-51 had a better dive rate (which may not be an advantage at SL ). They were both pretty close in performance with both having a slight advantage in certain areas.

In May, the P-51 picked up a significant airspeed advantage and a slight climb advantage, so I would say the Mustang pilot had some more tools to work with.

The Ta-152H is faster than the F4U-4 at SL and all the way up, and it's more maneuverable than both the F4U-4 P-51 at all altitudes

Click to expand...

My data shows that the F4U-4 is faster than the Ta-152H-1 up to 25k. This is with the E engine in the Ta. With the EB engine, your statement is probably correct, but I am unsure that the EB actually flew in the Ta.

The Ta-152H's top speed at SL was 597 km/h (371 mph), and top speed at alt was 760 km/h (472 mph).

Click to expand...

Again, this is with the EB engine, right?

Climb rate at SL was 5,100+ ft/min.

Click to expand...

I would suspect that if you put the same fuel load on the F4U-4 as was on the Ta-152 for that rate, the rate of climb for the F4U-4 would be quite impressive.

And btw, the Ta-152H achieved its 11 to 0 kill/loss ratio exclusively in low altitude engagements.

Click to expand...

How many were bounces, which puts the attacker at an immediate advantage? I also wonder what the kill ratio of the P-47N and F4U-4 were.

As for the P-51 being optimized for low alt performance, that again isn't true Renrich, the P-51 was optimized to have good performance at esp. medium to high alts, and featured better high alt performance than most other fighters. It was the P-51's good high alt performance which in great part made it so successful.

Click to expand...

Correct, also range.

Davparlr,

The 5,100 ft/min climb rate, 597 km/h speed at SL and 760 km/h at alt was achieved with the E engine, not the EB engine. With the EB engine performance would've been much greater.

So the Ta-152H is faster than the F4U-4 from SL and up, plus the Ta-152H-1 climbs turns much better at all alts.

Renrich,

Like I've said many times by now, your books are wrong on this subject. I've got the original performance documents, and I've posted them here before. Also I told ou if you don't believe me just go ask Erich.

True for January through April, '44. In May, when 44-1 fuel became available, this climb is exceeded by both the P-51B with a SL climb of 22 m/s, the P-51D with a SL climb of 21.9 m/s.

Click to expand...

The P-51D never climbed that fast Davparlr. The lighter P-51B achieved 4,380 ft/min with 104/150 octane fuel at 75" HG.

Drgondog
Finnish oppinion was for Bf 109 G-2 and G-6.
Typical cruising flight at 2500m at 0.9-1.0 ata, 420-440km/h IAS, 470-490 km/h TAS, consumption 250l/h, max flight time c. 1½h. Max distance c. 750km without any reserves.

Juha

Soren said:

Davparlr,

The 5,100 ft/min climb rate, 597 km/h speed at SL and 760 km/h at alt was achieved with the E engine, not the EB engine. With the EB engine performance would've been much greater.

Click to expand...

No problem with this, except the 760 km/h at alt. It appears that this is with the EB engine. The speed with the E engine is 747 km/h. I don't think I am reading the chart wrong.

So the Ta-152H is faster than the F4U-4 from SL and up

Click to expand...

This appears to be true only with the projected unflown EB engine and not with the installed E engine.

SL
Ta-152H-1 (E) 371 mph (597 km/h)
Ta-152 (EB) 374 mph (602 km/h)
F4U-4 374 mph (602 km/h)
P-51H 413 mph (665 km/h)

10k
Ta-152H-1 (E) 398 mph (641 km/h)
Ta-152 (EB) 412 mph (663 km/h)
F4U-4 417 mph (671 km/h) see note
P-51H 439 mph (707 km/h)

20k
Ta-152H-1 (E) 436 mph (702 km/h)
Ta-152 (EB) 441 mph (710 km/h)
F4U-4 451 mph (726 km/h) see note
P-51H 463 mph (745 km/h)

note: There is some discreptancy between sources for F4U-4 data. However, this data is reasonably compatable with F4U-1 performace. The speed at 20k may be lower by some six mph.

I don't doubt that the EB engine is a low risk installation and a reasonable assumption, but many aircraft never obtained projected performance. I would draw the line on comparisons of projected data of projected upgrades. This would raise an whole new discussions which would not lead to any understanding, only confusion.

plus the Ta-152H-1 climbs turns much better at all alts.

Click to expand...

No Problem here

renrich said:

Soren, I gave the references from the "Great Book" once before but will do it once more although laborious since I am a hunt and peck typist.

Click to expand...

I tend to accept Soren and others on their knowledge of German aircraft and they usually have good supporting documentation. Of course, I like to verify when I can. He has always been willing to provide support data when requested.

Davparlr,

You're not reading the chart correctly. The Ta-152H-1 reaches 760 km/h at 12.5 km with the E engine (Note GM-1 kicks in at 11.5 km). However this is at Steig u. Kampfleistung, explaining why some Ta-152 pilots reached 500 mph in the a/c at Start u. Notleistung or Sonder Notleistung as Erich has noted before.

Here's the chart enlarged in the area of importance:



As for the F4U-4's top SL speed, it is 368 mph (320 knots [592 km/h]) which is slower than the Ta-152H-1 with the E engine (597 km/h). However at 20kft the F4U-4 is slightly faster, and soon peaks out just above 20kft at 729 km/h. After that the Ta-152H-1 quickly catches up and takes over at 22.9kft where both are at ~725 km/h

As for speeds with the EB engine, 770 km/h was the minimum expected top speed WITHOUT GM-1, with GM-1 speeds well above 800 km/h were expected.