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

[wuzak]

Wuzak,

I've been trying to think through how much of a speed advantage would be usable or noticable. In a scenario where you are doing a hit and run, having the advantage of dive speed combined with a higher top speed, you can hit and leave with almost immunity. In a turning fight that starts co-speed, the "higher top speed" will rarely come into play (only scenario I can imagine is where the higher top speed aircraft wants to leave, and is at or beyond the weapons range of "other" aircraft when he makes his out move). This latter event can be difficult as you are going "ass to the fight" and banking on your eyeball range finder being accurate. If you are able to go tail to the fight and see him shooting at you, the decision can be made then to either keep going (I think he is shooting beyond his max range), or turn back and defend (I didn't judge it right the first time so have to turn back and defend).

I flew F-15's in turning engagements against a variety of A/C, almost all of which were faster (top speed) down low than me, and slower up high. It was almost a moot point in reality. However the ability to accelerate or climb better was a much more useful asset. Often fights would end up in "trees" (high low stack where the high guy wants to keep climbing to get enough turning room to dive down and employ on the low guy, and where the low guy wants to fly slowly enough that the high guy gets out in "front" allowing him to then accel and zoom up to employ) or in a rolling scissors (two aircraft continiously turning towards each other, which can have offensive / defensive role swaps occuring, where each aircraft is manuevering to bring it's nose to bear / employ). Either one of those fights in a WW2 fighter the advantage would go to the aircraft which could climb better and at a slower airspeed (all other factors being equal).

It is my opinion that a higher top speed was not as important as climb capability (higher rate slower speed) in turning fights.

In retrospect, the number one ace of aces preferred the hit and run tactic which is part of the reason he both had the highest score AND lived to the end of the war. Turning fights are more fun than hit and run, however they have a much greater risk of failure (too many variables can come into play whcih could turn the outcome against you even in a better performing aircraft).

All food for thought.

Cheers,
Biff

Biff, I wasn't saying that top speed was important. Just pointing out that the difference wasn't as great as Brown suggested.

As to the other facets:
Spitfire is lighter and more powerful (at least below 30,000ft). Thus it should accelerate better than the Ta 152.
Spitfire is known to have a significant advantage in climb - at least until 30,000ft.
Spitfire has a 25% lower wing loading than the Ta 152 - it should handily out-turn the Ta 152 (as it did all other Fw 190 derivatives).
The one main advantage the Fw 190 series had over the Spitfire XIV was the roll rate. But that advantage was less in the Ta 152 - how much is open to speculation.

 

[BiffF15]

Wuzak,

No problem! I was just using your speed points to open the conversation regarding "uses" of a higher top speed. I've been reading this morning on the Griffon powered Spit's and it is more of a "hotrod" than I previously thought (however to me the Griffon powered bubble canopied versions are the best looking).

What I don't know is where the majority of engagements occured altitude wise. I would think they occured below 20k, and regardless of the alitude they started at, all would work down (still true to this day).

Cheers,
Biff

 

[Kryten]

Biff, I wasn't saying that top speed was important. Just pointing out that the difference wasn't as great as Brown suggested.

As to the other facets:
Spitfire is lighter and more powerful (at least below 30,000ft). Thus it should accelerate better than the Ta 152.
Spitfire is known to have a significant advantage in climb - at least until 30,000ft.
Spitfire has a 25% lower wing loading than the Ta 152 - it should handily out-turn the Ta 152 (as it did all other Fw 190 derivatives).
The one main advantage the Fw 190 series had over the Spitfire XIV was the roll rate. But that advantage was less in the Ta 152 - how much is open to speculation.

I'm dubious the H model could outroll the Spit with such a long wingspan, bear in mind the Doras had a reduced roll rate compared to the Antons, so it stands to reason an even longer span will limit roll even more?

 

[Kryten]

Wuzak,

No problem! I was just using your speed points to open the conversation regarding "uses" of a higher top speed. I've been reading this morning on the Griffon powered Spit's and it is more of a "hotrod" than I previously thought (however to me the Griffon powered bubble canopied versions are the best looking).

What I don't know is where the majority of engagements occured altitude wise. I would think they occured below 20k, and regardless of the alitude they started at, all would work down (still true to this day).

Cheers,

Biff

That depended on the timescale, mid war altitude performance was everything but by wars end the RAF spent most of their time at low alt strafing ground targets, the Tempest being an example of an aircraft optimised below 25k ft

 

[CORSNING]

And nothing came close the Fw190s roll rate. So the question is, how much did the long wing decrease the roll rate?

This is the question that needs answering. I have read on this forum that the wing on the Ta-152 had a design that allowed it to turn very tightly even at higher speeds.

From Dietmar's "Ta 152". "Compared to the Fw 190A-8, the Ta 152 H-0 is capable of tighter turns with less tendency to fall off into a spin, and this only happens at lower airspeeds (approximately 250 kph). Spin can easily be recovered after about 500-600 meters by pushing the nose down. " "Naturally the larger wing has reduced maneuverability somewhat, but this is in no way seen as a disadvantage."

I would have to do some researching to find out for sure, but I would put the Ta 152 more in the aera of the Spitfire 21.

I agree with awack34's statement that the Ta 152H is in the next generation of fighters compared to the Spit 14. BUT, performance wise only "IF" it is equiped with MW-50 and GM-1 boosting.

Jeff

<grabbing some popcorn and sitting down to watch with tomo>

 

[drgondog]

The relative ability to turn is inversely proportional to both CLmax and Wing loading (W/S). look at the Ta-152 and Spit wings relative to max CL as well as the gross weights for each you want to compare them with..

Another factor you want to consider is the thrust/drag ratio at the altitudes of interest as that relates to the ability to sustain the turn rate.

 

[drgondog]

The Ta 152 at operational load out was 10,470 pounds, wing area =253 sq ft, 2050Hp with MW50/GM1 boost

The Spit XIV at operational load out was 7,923 pounds, wing area =242 sq ft, 2050Hp at 18" boost

Spit wing loading was 20% Lower so it should have a.) turned much better, b.) climbed better

Don't have the drag numbers or the CLmax to see if the Ta 152 had a higher CLmax to offset the Wing Loading (but doubt it), nor do I have the Drag data to figure out Thrust/Drag ratio for relative accelerations.

But will dig a little

 

[drgondog]

Overview

The Clmax of the 2213 is about 1.6, the CLmax of the 23016 is about 1.7 so the Ta 152 claws back 6% of the 20% advantage to Spitfire W/L - but still way below the Spit until the Spit starts losing Hp faster than Ta 152 at the Griffon critical altitude.

The Ta 152 IIRC has about the same parasite drag coefficient as the 190D, both of which are higher than Mustang but lower than the Spitfire. Having said that the wetted drag area of the Ta 152 is more than the Spit so at top speeds it may be a toss up as the induced drag advantage of the Ta 152 high aspect ratio wing doesn't matter at top speed. Additional consideration - the wing area of the Ta 152 is greater (11 sq ft - 252 to 243) and the drag coefficient of the 23015 is slightly higher than the 2213 of the Spit.

Thumbnail summary
So, I speculate that below the critical altitude of the Griffon, the Thrust to Drag ratio will favor the Spit which means that it will accelerate slightly faster and maintain energy in an energy bleeding turn slower than the Ta 152. The wild card for both comparisons in a turn is that when it gets close, the relative prop efficiencies at high RPM/low speed and the contribution of High AoA form drag to the total drag of each system could alter the balance.

Net the Spit should always out turn and out climb the Ta 152 up to the critical altitude of the Griffon.. because the wing loading is far lower while the Thrust from both engines is very close

BTW the high aspect ratio of the Ta 152 certainly improves Oswald efficiency and reduces Induced Drag - but that isn't what separates the Ta 152 from the Spit - it is the relative Hp balance between the Ta 152 and the Spit above the Griffon's critical altitude. Both have same max rated HP but the Ta 152 engine is performing better (IIRC) at 35-45000 feet than the Spit so that it is faster, generates more lift and has a higher Thrust to Drag than the Spit at high altitudes.

BTW - I don't KNOW what the critical altitude of the Ta 152 with MW-50/GM-1 boost IS.

Take what you want and leave the rest..

 

[tomo pauk]

The MW-50 seem to be allowed for use only for 1st two supercharger gears, not for third. 1320-1340 PS at 9600 m was available at full throttle height for 3rd gear. Fuel used seem to be always B4 (corrections are welcomed).

 

[Aozora]

AFAIK the Spitfire XIV and Ta 152H never met in combat but, for a certainty the Tempest V and Ta 152 had at least one encounter: 14 April 1945 Tempest Vs of 486(NZ) Sqn were out on an armed recce mission...

Score = 1 - 1 with the Ta 152 apparently out-turning the Tempest V at low altitude HOWEVER Mitchell's inexperience in combat may well have been an important factor.

From: 1998 pages 245-248

<looks for popcorn only to find Tomo and CORSNING have scoffed the lot, the p***s...>

 

[wuzak]

Considering that the Ta 152 took "several turns" to get on the Tempest's tail, I would doubt that it could compete in a turning battle with a Spitfire XIV.

http://www.wwiiaircraftperformance.org/wade-turning.jpg

Interestingly the Spitfire 21 is not rated as having as tight a turning circle as the Spitfire XIV - or the Mustang - but still ahead of the Tempest.

Roll rate

http://www.wwiiaircraftperformance.org/wade-roll.jpg

Climb and speed

http://www.wwiiaircraftperformance.org/wade-comp-perf-chart1.jpg

Comparitive Performance of Fighter Aircraft

 

[Milosh]

The Ta 152 at operational load out was 10,470 pounds, wing area =253 sq ft, 2050Hp with MW50/GM1 boost

The Spit XIV at operational load out was 7,923 pounds, wing area =242 sq ft, 2050Hp at 18" boost

Ta152H-1
Loaded weight: 4,625 kg (10,470 lb)

Spitfire F XIVe
take-off weight: 8475lb (Spitfire: The History)

Shouldn't like with like be used for comparison?

 

[wuzak]

Ta152H-1
Loaded weight: 4,625 kg (10,470 lb)

Spitfire F XIVe
take-off weight: 8475lb (Spitfire: The History)

Shouldn't like with like be used for comparison?

That weight for the Spitfire is Maximum Take-off Weight. The equivalent weight for the Ta 152 is ~11,500lb (5217kg).

 

[parsifal]

you guys...you are alover this stuff like white icing on a wedding cake....

 

[CORSNING]

Hey guys, I got to thinking (never a good thing), what if the heading had been titled "Bf-109 vs Spitfire vs Fw-190 vs P-51 in late January 1944"?

<running out the front door heading for town to buy more popcorn in case Aozora shows up again>

 

[BiffF15]

Considering that the Ta 152 took "several turns" to get on the Tempest's tail, I would doubt that it could compete in a turning battle with a Spitfire XIV.

Wuzak,

Take that information about taking "several turns" to get on the tail of the Tempest with a grain of salt. What it doesn't say is what the relative postions were of the aircraft at the start of the engagement. Did they start the engagement nose to nose, or did the Ta-152 have the positional advantage, and if so by how much. Had they started positionally equal, nose to nose, the Tempest was doing strafe and most likely would not have been at optimum fighter on fighter airspeed (equal postion, airspeed detriment). There are lots of variables to this event that aren't covered.

cheers,

Biff

 

[Juha]

From here Ludwigslust aerial combat

one can find one interpretation of the Ta-152H vs tempest fight

 

[Aozora]

From here Ludwigslust aerial combat

one can find one interpretation of the Ta-152H vs tempest fight

Thanks for that; I'd forgotten about that article. The account I posted from 'The Wild Winds' also quoted Reschke's account where he stated that he couldn't fire because of faulty weapons. Unfortunately, in this and many such combat actions, the victim doesn't have a voice.

<attempts to buy world stocks of popcorn but discovers $2.50 isn't enough: buys bacon strips for consolation>

 

[BiffF15]

Juha,

Would you copy and paste that article please, unable to open it on my end.

Cheers,
Biff

 

[BiffF15]

Juha,

Disregard my previous request. I just finished reading that article and will reply later this afternoon!
cheers,

Biff