Dora-13 or 152C?

[taranis]

Greetings and salutations!

I'm a long-time lurker first-time poster who's fascinated with WWII aviation, especially the LW.

After looking through the 200-odd pages of links on this forum, I am curious: how did the Dora-13 stack up against the oncoming (sorta maybe!!) Ta-152C overall (performance, maneuverability, etc. - the whole package)?

From what I can see in Herman's books there's not a lot to choose from (save firepower). I'm assuming initially they have the 213E and 603LA, respectively.

And for further speculation, with the 213EB and the 603L, and possibly even the 213S and 603N!

I realize that any answer will at least likely be a lot of speculation, but that's part of the fun in my eyes.

Oh, and is there somewhere I can get a large-scale cutaway drawing of the 152C? (I have the 152H.)

Now, hopefully some of you will bite!

Peace.

 

[davebender]

I agree with your conclusion.

Welcome to the forum!

 

[riacrato]

Too bad there is sol little information about the Ta 152 C available. I like it a lot, it was heavily armed and iirc had equipment for bad weather fighting etc. Consequently it was a lot heavier. Would the changes made to the airframe counter this so that it still showed the great handling of the Dora series? Hard to tell.

As a pure fighter I think the D-13 was likely more promising and maybe the best mid altitude piston fighter the LW would have to offer for 1945.

 

[davebender]

1946 or late 1945 before significant numbers make it into combat. The Ta-152 would be contemporary with the P-51H and Griffon powered Spitfires.

However they would also be contemporary with the He-162C. So I wouldn't expect a long service life for these cutting edge piston engine fighter aircraft.

 

[riacrato]

I was talking about the D-13 of which a few were operational when the war ended. He 162 C was still a drawing board (some say early prototype) project, unlikely to become operational in any numbers in 1945.

 

[jim]

Greetings and salutations!

I'm a long-time lurker first-time poster who's fascinated with WWII aviation, especially the LW.

After looking through the 200-odd pages of links on this forum, I am curious: how did the Dora-13 stack up against the oncoming (sorta maybe!!) Ta-152C overall (performance, maneuverability, etc. - the whole package)?

From what I can see in Herman's books there's not a lot to choose from (save firepower). I'm assuming initially they have the 213E and 603LA, respectively.

And for further speculation, with the 213EB and the 603L, and possibly even the 213S and 603N!

I realize that any answer will at least likely be a lot of speculation, but that's part of the fun in my eyes.

Oh, and is there somewhere I can get a large-scale cutaway drawing of the 152C? (I have the 152H.)

Now, hopefully some of you will bite!

Peace.

Mr Taranis
The answer to your question is simple. Using the sames engines Ta 152C was almost 1 ton heavier than Dora . Performance and manouverability of D13 should be much superior
The extra weight of Ta was the extra guns(4x20mm 1x30mm versus the 3x20mm of the dora), extra armor, pressurized cocpit,, and more fuel.Equipment and extra wing fuel were planned for future D13s as well. All these under other circumstances could be useful(except the guns, 5 big cannons are overkill)But without quality fuels,and lack of raw materials , such luxuries were ill afforded. The airframes should be getting lighter,and smaller in order to remain competitive with less powerful engines. I dont see how Ta 152 could be competitive in 1945 with the available engines. Check its power and wing loadings. They are really unimpressive for a 1945 fighter.
With all engines Dora should be superior .It would always have weight advantage. ( However i am not sure if Dora airframe could recieve Db603N)

 

[davebender]

When was the Jumo 213J projected to enter mass production?

 

[Siegfried]

When was the Jumo 213J projected to enter mass production?

The Thomas Hitchcock book on the Ta 152 mentions that there were 13 x Jumo 213J being test benched by wars end. Ofcourse the DB603 was no slouch either. The Ta 152C initially had the DB603LA (I think about 2450hp) but this was only an interim engine pending the full scale production of the DB603L which also added an intercooler. The Ta 152H and C had potentially 2800hp available from the DB603N engine: essentially a refined DB603L with better pistons, C3 fuel and a two speed gearbox on top of the infinetly variable supercharger drive. This engine had much better altitude performance than the Jumo 213.

Some of the advanced technology of the Jumo 213J (eg the pistons and/or crankshaft) would likely find their way into the Jumo 213E1 or the Jumo 213EB and allow increases in rpm and boost the latter Jumo 213EB lacked the 4valve head of the 213J but did come with enlarged valves. Furthermore the Jumo 213E1 only used B4 87 octane fuel and work was clearly preceding on upgrading to C3 96/130 octane witness the FW 190D9 runs using C3 for whch we have data.

Fw 190A and D had a aeroelastic issue in the wing, under high g the washout would untwist and lead to a spin stall, recovery was very easy however. The Ta 152H with its larger and structurally new wing eliminated this problem. The Ta 152C doesn't make sense unless its new but shorter than the H series wing also eliminates this issue. The FW 190A10 was supposed to get a new larger wing (presumably from the Ta 152C)

AFAIKT FW 190D13/R10 (I think R10), were to be built with the outer wing guns removed (leaving 3 x 20mm guns) but with extra fuel tanks fitted in the vacant space. These ground attack aircraft were to be equiped with a TSA 2D toss bombing computer sight. The MG213 revolver canon, unlike a gatling style gun, could be made to sychronise with a propellor and I suspect would have made themselves on this aircraft.

The Ta 152 could carry the MK103 30mm machine canon, my copy of "The great book of planes" has a detailed and lengthy article on the FW 190 series. It notes that the Mk 103 when mounted on the FW 190A in the outer gun positions had a penetration of 140mm (I'll check this when home from work) at 90 degrees. Note the forward speed of the aircraft adds enormously to the penetration of these canon. The FW 190A gunshp was not a success due to gun vibration in the outer position however the Ta 152 could carry the guns in the wing roots and motor/boss. This doesn't seem to have been possible on the FW 190D9.

I rather like the idea of he Ta 152C with the BMW 801R, a heavily intercooled engine with a two stage independantly controlled 4 speed supercharger; it would add the durabillity of an aircooled radial while offering excellent high altitude performance.

 

[spicmart]

According to Manfred Griehl's Fw 190 book the Jumo 213 had more exhaust thrust than the DB 603 thus mitigating possible advantages of the DB in terms of power output.

 

[davebender]

By April 1945 the R4M FF rocket was in service. IMO a rack or pod of FF rockets under each wing would likely replace aircraft use of the 3cm Mk103 cannnon.

 

[tyrodtom]

.

The Ta 152 could carry the MK103 30mm machine canon, my copy of "The great book of planes" has a detailed and lengthy article on the FW 190 series. It notes that the Mk 103 when mounted on the FW 190A in the outer gun positions had a penetration of 140mm (I'll check this when home from work) at 90 degrees. Note the forward speed of the aircraft adds enormously to the penetration of these canon. The FW 190A gunshp was not a success due to gun vibration in the outer position however the Ta 152 could carry the guns in the wing roots and motor/boss. This doesn't seem to have been possible on the FW 190D9.[ quote]

According to the book Rapid Fire by A.G. Williams, the Mk-103 firing APCR had 75-100mm at 90 degs at 300 meters penetration, or 40-60 at a more realistic 60 degrees.

Seeing as the muzzle velocity is 800-960mps( depending on shell) I don't see adding about 200mps of 400mph would add "enormously" to that penetration.

The figures you give for the Mk-103 are equal to the real figures for the 37mm BK3.7 mounted on the Ju 87G.

 

[davebender]

Are you planning to use this aircraft for CAS? Otherwise such armor penetration data has no bearing. HE filler weight is what counts when shooting at aircraft @ 300 meters.

 

[tyrodtom]

I would assume Siefried was quoting the incorrect 140mm penetration for use as a CAS. Because it would gross overkill for use against anything flying.

 

[Siegfried]

.

The Ta 152 could carry the MK103 30mm machine canon, my copy of "The great book of planes" has a detailed and lengthy article on the FW 190 series. It notes that the Mk 103 when mounted on the FW 190A in the outer gun positions had a penetration of 140mm (I'll check this when home from work) at 90 degrees. Note the forward speed of the aircraft adds enormously to the penetration of these canon. The FW 190A gunshp was not a success due to gun vibration in the outer position however the Ta 152 could carry the guns in the wing roots and motor/boss. This doesn't seem to have been possible on the FW 190D9.[ quote]

According to the book Rapid Fire by A.G. Williams, the Mk-103 firing APCR had 75-100mm at 90 degs at 300 meters penetration, or 40-60 at a more realistic 60 degrees.

Seeing as the muzzle velocity is 800-960mps( depending on shell) I don't see adding about 200mps of 400mph would add "enormously" to that penetration.

The figures you give for the Mk-103 are equal to the real figures for the 37mm BK3.7 mounted on the Ju 87G.

Kinetic energy is given by KE = 0.5 x m x v^2. Note that due to the square term the kinetic energy goes up with the square of the muzzle velocity and at least with tungsten or uranium the penetration more or less does as well since the projectile doesn't break up. One reason that the tank buster Hurricane IIDs worked with its low velocity vickers guns.

The BK 3.7cm gun hardly had any better penetraion than the Mk 103 30mm gun when firing hartkern (tungsten core) ammunition. I will provide a scan, just not at home at the momment.

Either way I'm claiming a penetraion of about 50mm at 45 degrees (which is consistant with your data of 40-60mm at 60 degrees. An aircraft attack from the sides or diving at an angle of 30-45 degrees is going to find weak spots and with the high firing rate possible with 2 or even 3 30mm guns several hits can reasonably be expected. Only 70 tons of Tiger-II ever really exceded 50mm on the sides and no heavy tank got anywhere near that for top armour.

I've heard it said that Albert Speer mentions in "Inside the 3rd Reich" that in late 1943 when he could see the German atomic program wasn't going to be ready in time he released Uranium stockpiles for use in ammunition. Igor Witkowski also mentions mild Uranium contamination in some ex-German (now in Poland) firing ranges. Uranium was also used as a tungsten substitute in machine tools as well it was starting to show up as a catalyst for direct production of gaoline via fischer-tropsch coal to oil technology.

I immagine an attack begining at about 1250m at 150m/s (330mph) with about 5 seconds of firing marching up to the target tank and breaking of at 500m. One can immagine about 10%-20% hits for the final 1.5 seconds i.e. about 3-6 hits

 

[tyrodtom]

A 20-25% boost in muzzle velocity doesn't result in a doubling or almost doubling of kinectic energy, the math doesn't support it.

Plus a 20-25% boost in velocity at the muzzle doesn't necessarily translate to a 20-25% increase at 300 meters or whatever range.

 

[Siegfried]

A 20-25% boost in muzzle velocity doesn't result in a doubling or almost doubling of kinectic energy, the math doesn't support it.

Plus a 20-25% boost in velocity at the muzzle doesn't necessarily translate to a 20-25% increase at 300 meters or whatever range.

A 41% boost in muzzle velocity does support a doubling.
A 10% boost in muzzle velocity suggests 21% extra penetration.
A 16% boost in muzzle velocity which would occur from a 140m/s aircraft (310mph) adding to the 860ms Mk103 projectile to produce a 1000m/s projectile whose velocity is 16.5% greater and whose kinetic energy is 35% greater.

"Great book of Planes" gives 110mm penetration at 300m with an AP/HE shot. I've got some extra details elsewhere.

Nikalas Zetterling in his analysis of the Combat Effectiveness Ratio of Allied v German troops "Normandy" gives some formulae and data tables for slope effects of armour. Around 45 degrees it is around 2.4 ie so we would have about 45mm penetration. However an aircraft diving onto a tank from the sides or top could find considerably less accute angles and thinner armour and certainly even heavy tanks would have some vulnerabillity. Medium and light tanks would be quite vulnerable; a sherman and T-34 from all but the front.

There is no doubt that a 30mm gun is a vast jump in penetration over 20mm however beyond 30mm the penetraion growth is nowhere as dramtic.

 

[tyrodtom]

So if the aircraft was doing about 700mph, you'd get your 140mm of penetration out of the Mk 103 30mm.
In other words, it ain't gonna happen.

 

[davebender]

Speer's claims have been confirmed by the USAF Armament Laboratory and documented in AFATRL-TR-84-03. However I still fail to see what this has to do with a Fw-190D or Ta-152.

German uranium ammunition was produced in small quantities and had stringent rules for use which are covered in the USAF publication. Among other things it could only be employed against Soviet armor.

 

[tyrodtom]

Siegfried evidendly thinks the Fw-190D or Ta-152 should have been employed against armor.

 

[Siegfried]

Siegfried evidendly thinks the Fw-190D or Ta-152 should have been employed against armor.

The Ta 152B5 was scheduled for production in may 1945. It was essentially an Ta 152C optimised for close support and carried the twin long barrel 30mm Mk 103 canon in the wing roots. Ta 152v56 was the prototype.