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

Ad: This forum contains affiliate links to products on Amazon and eBay. More information in Terms and rules

Soren said:
However the point is that the Ta-152H was perfectly carrier capable
Click to expand...

How so? Is this an assumption?

I dont ever recall hearing of any tests done that would prove it was carrier capable? It might very well have been so, but without proper proof it is nothing more than an assumption.
 

Yes I do. I appreciate where we are right now.

And let me amplify that my work experience focused on the practical, hand crank, traditional methods dating back to WWII, before I moved into finite element computational methods for both aerdynamics and structures.
 
DerAdlerIstGelandet said:
How so? Is this an assumption?

I dont ever recall hearing of any tests done that would prove it was carrier capable? It might very well have been so, but without proper proof it is nothing more than an assumption.
Click to expand...

I can only imagine the performance results if the F4U and the F8F had started out as land based ships from a preliminary design POV. No arresting gear carry through structure, no folding wings.. maybe 600-1000 pounds of unnecessary weight.

Conversely add that to the P-51, the Me 109 and the Ta 152/Fw 190 series.
 
Soren, you are a smart guy and I respect your intellect. Please don't ruin my opinion of you by tellin me the TA could be a carrier fighter without serious modification that would substantially degrade that marvelous performance you are so proud of. Even then, there is no guarantee it could have the slow speed handling characteristics needed for carrier landings. I stick by Dean's numbers. You should try to get a copy. You would enjoy it and it is quite technical.
 
Renrich,

Please look no further than the Spitfire, it was easily modified and with no weight increase really. And like we both know the 190's Ta-152's airframe was sturdier than the Spitfire's.

An arresting hook would obviously be needed, which would require alterations. Furthermore the wing would need to be foldable, again nothing major as demonstrated with the Spitfire (Seafire). Now that having been said if the Ta-152 had come that far it would be featuring the Jumo 213 EB engine, which was a good deal better than the Jumo 213E F, further shortning take off distances.

All in all, from a design standpoint the Ta-152H is no doubt the most carrier capable out of all the land based fighters mentioned here. (All demand alterations to become carrier capable)
 
You may want to check your facts about no real increase in weight, it was a lot more than you think. Compare the empty weight of the Seafire and the Spit V.

The rest of the posting is a mass of assumptions, just the view on the approach would have been very difficult, probably almost impossible.
 

Lednicer says his Cdwet is from thoroughly researched sources for the Fw 190A-8, Fw 190D-9, P51B and D (same) and Spit IX. They are all obtained for Reynolds numbers in 16million range at ~ .5 Mach and all referenced to total wetted area of the respective airframes- not the wing.

You have referenced them in the past. Because Lednicer is referencing the entire wetted area of the aircraft rather than just the wing, his 'flat' plate drag figures for the tables seem correct.

The 'Theory' for Profile Drag Coefficient = Sum(Ki*Cfi*Sweti/Sref) for i to l number of major components like horizontal stabilizer(i), vertical stabilizer(j), wing(k) and fuselage(l)..plus CDcontrol gap + CDnacelles +CDmisc(wheel well, scoop, carp intakes, etc)

where Ki is constant for the "i" component, Cfi is coefficient of friction for the 'i" component, and Sweti is the Area of the "i" component, and Sref is the Reference Area like the total wetted surface of the aircraft. You sum up the first series and add to each of the other CD's.

That is the combined Parasite/Flat Plate drag Coefficient taking into all effects OTHER than Induced Drag. Rather than try to screw with the 'formula' I think Lednicer's values make sense.

Therefore use Spit = .0065, Mustang = .0053, Fw 190A-8 = .0071 , Fw 190D = .0063. I don't know what the 109 Flat plate/Parasite Drag Coefficient is, but suspect as high or higher than Spit IX..but do NOT know this. You'll have to find the equivalent..

If you can find a Flate Plate reference and know the surface area of the 109 just divide the two values.

This is just another one of those compromises that make these calculations a 'guesstimate'

From the tables, Rho (density) ratios for a Standard ICAO day is non linear but by inspection

Ratio = 1.0 for SL, about .825 at 5000, .675 at 10000, .525 at 15000, .430 at 20000 and .35 at 25000.
 

I suspect 600-1000 pounds extra in wing fold and tail beef up structure - which would also fool around with CG figures by putting the extra weight 'way back' and even the wing structure you can presume is 75% behind the cg of the airplane. That would have a dramatic effect on any fuel aft of Cg.

Then reflect on the difference in performance between the P51B on one side, the P-51H on the other side of the 51D which was 700-900 pound heaviier than both?
 
I just gooled the Ta 152H vs P-51H thread. I would have had some fun in that one - Dave - you had a lot of good points as you did Soren but it never is a clear cut decision between the two aircraft as the pilot skill and the fuel loading and the altitude of engagement will always be a factor etween these two very fine aircraft.

This is one example in which i wish a flight simulator couuld be built to explore the 35,000 to SL combat performance of both ships. And BTW put the in the Griffon as the first step in countering the Ta 152H-2. The XP51G was mocked up for that enfine in summer of 1944 - same airframe as P-51H.

We do need to do a Spit 21 vs Ta 152 H and P-51H in fighter -fighter simulation
 
On the recognition issue, I agree that at (or near) a profile view iw would be very difficult to discern a 190D, from a Ta-152 H in combat.

When even partial plan view is seen the difference is obvious.

However I also think mistaking a Thunderbolt for a 190A is a pretty big one, comparable to the mistaking a Spitfire for a P-51 comparison soren mentioned. They are torally different in wing and fusalage shape (and size), and the only significant similarity would be the radial engine. (but even then the 190 has the huge spinner as an obvious difference)
IMO it would be easier to mistake a P-51 for a 190A. (in plan or profile the Corsar would be pretty similer to the 190 too)


And what about the Ta 152 C?
 
F/O Short, Mitchells wingman in the combat vs the Ta152s on April 14/45 misidentified the Ta152s as 109s. He saw them diving from 2000 ft, engaged one in a climbing turn battle, got a few rounds into it then disengaged when he saw other planes behind him which he again 'identified' as 109s, they were probably the other flight of Tempests. He said his last view of Mitchell was from 6000 ft and that Mitchell was on the deck in a turning fight with '109s'.
 
The most famous misidentification I can think of is Saburo Sakai who mistook a flight of TBFs for Wildcats. He attacked the "F4Fs" from the most favourable position, below and from behind, only to be confronted with the combined weight of 8 x 50 cals in the ball turrets of these aircraft, which hitherto he had not see.

It would not be hard to mistake the identity of a Ta 152 for any German aircraft, since it was not an outline that anyone would be familiar with
 
Weren't those SBD's? That was at Guadalcanal, after the encounter with James "Pug" southerland. The gunner hit Sakai in the forhead, the .30 went straight through his skull and out the back of his head, and he managed to still ge home and land. (after contemplating a suiside attack, also the bullet probably would have killed him if it hadn't meen slowed by the windscreen)

Saburo Sakai - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

the PBS show on it SECRETS OF THE DEAD . Dogfight Over Guadalcanal | PBS

(with animation very similer to Dogfights, and one of the historians from Dogfights was on it too)
 

I agree. You just dont add arresting gear and call an aircraft carrier capable. It requires strengthening of the structure, extra equipment, etc. We had this discussion with syscom one time.

Soren said:
All in all, from a design standpoint the Ta-152H is no doubt the most carrier capable out of all the land based fighters mentioned here. (All demand alterations to become carrier capable)
Click to expand...

Again this is based off of fact, or is it just your assumption. Do you see what I am getting at?

Come on now?
 
KK ive read accounts hat say either. i must admit that until i came onto this forum i believed his mistake was that he assumed them to be SBDs as well
 
Yes, I have a lot of respect for Sakai. From all that I read of him, he seems a real warrior, but not someone who has lost his sense of humanity either
 
Bill,

The Bf-109's Clmax figure is for the entire wing, the slats being responsible for about a 12.5% increase in Clmax, the original Clmax without the slats being around 1.51 - 1.55. This is taking into account that V24, a Bf-109F with no slats and a shortened wing span and lower wing area, was proven to have a Clmax of 1.48 in windtunnel tests at Charlais Meudon.

As for drag, all we have on the Bf-109 Spitfire from acual tests are the Cd0 figures:

Bf-109F G: 0.023
Spitfire: 0.0229
Bf-109K: ~0.021

Now knowing this perhaps you could establish what the CDwet would be for the 109 compared to the figures Lednicer has gathered ? It's no doubt lower than the Spitfire for the Bf-109K, while similar for the G series.

Anyway I did the calculations on L/D ratio for you (Added the Ta-152H for comparison):

Ta-152 H-1:

(1.62^2) / (pi * 8.94 * .83)

1.62 / 0.112580856
_______________
L/D ratio = 14.38


P-51D Mustang:

(1.35^2) / (pi * 5.8 * .83)

1.35 / 0.120506807
_______________
L/D ratio = 11.2


Spitfire Mk. II, V, IX XIV:

(1.36^2) / (pi * 5.61 * .85)

1.36 / 0.123465653
_______________
L/D ratio = 11.0


Fw-190 A D:

(1.58^2) / (pi * 6.03 * .84)

1.58 / 0.156880044
_______________
L/D ratio = 10.1


Bf-109F, G K:

(1.70^2) / (pi * 6.09 * .82)

1.70 / 0.184211537
_______________
L/D ratio = 9.22
 

For your a+b questions: see that FW document:



C: don't know if that even existed. I read somewhere,( but have to find it again, i think it was in the book: Kurt Tank airplane manufacturer and testpilot) that the 190A was build to be able to sustain a max continuous load of 14G on the wings and something like20 G on the fuselage, so far above any pilot physical capbility. It seems a little bit extreme to me , anyway, let say is true, the 152 should ahave some similarities with this numbers, even if the continuous load would be slightly lower. So i'll tend to say that there was no max load. But maybe you wanted to say the load, as weight of the airplane, in this case, i would say that the H-1 was very close to it's maximal load in a take-off configuration.

d:





fuel consumption:



Note: in this speedchart, you'll see a take off weigt of 4750 kg for the h-1, this weight is much lower than it should be, but there is a comment on this but i don't understand what it says,so if a german forum member could translate this.

e: actually, never asked myself that question, so can't answer immediately, but i think soren already done that

fM

i hope i could help.
 
Ta-152H-1 weights:
Fighter configuration: 4,760 kg (560 Liters of fuel)
Long range escort or recon configuration: 5,220 kg (1,094 Liters of fuel)

Another speed chart:
 

Attachments

  • Late190_Speeds2.jpg
    146.5 KB · Views: 253
You must log in or register to reply here.

Users who are viewing this thread

Total: 1 (members: 0, guests: 1)

Similar threads

S
Spitfire vs. Dora mass battle
2
Replies
30
Views
2K
PAT303
P
Spitfire vs Me-109
Replies
3
Views
1K
PAT303
P
J
Yak-9U Vs Bf-109
Replies
0
Views
775
Jerrybandit67
J
Vickers Wellington vs. Warwick
Replies
0
Views
139
Aeroweanie
S
Fw 190D-9 vs. Spitfire Mk. XIV, same engines
Replies
8
Views
2K
dedalos
D
Menu
Log in
Register