Dora-13 or 152C?

bada · Apr 25, 2012

Siegfried said:
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.

i dont think that i ever saw a german fighter with a mk103 or 108 firing through the prop arc, to my knowledge, it was impossible to do because no reliable syncro mechanisme was made for those guns.

as for the 152B, using the 213EG, the gun config were:

fuselage: 2 mg151/20E
propshaft 1xmk108 or 1mk103
wing roots: 2mg151/20E
wings outboard 2mg151/20 or 2mk108 build-in or 2 mk103 in pods.

desription can be found on this board:

Google Image Result for http://img521.imageshack.us/img521/6323/ta152totalxg4.jpg

davebender · Apr 25, 2012

Ta-152 had a wing loading similiar to the Skyraider so that might work. However I still think wing hardpoints are more likely to hold a pod of R4M FF rockets.

Erich · Apr 25, 2012

what ta B series was scheduled and to whom in 45.... ? if you are talking fighters of the present JG's in 45 this is not true according to LW records, the Mk 103 was rejected due to weight issues but perfect for low level air to ground encounters. the 2cm weapon was preferred even over the Mk 108 and would of replaced this prop weapon on later Ta H series and yes as Dave said reconditioning of the rocket rack and rocket weapons system would of been on the increase of useage for future anti-bomber flights if the JG's could so mount them later in the war which is rather doubtful.

davebender · Apr 25, 2012

the 2cm weapon was preferred even over the Mk 108 and would of replaced this prop weapon on later Ta H series

There were operational MG213 revolver cannon prototypes during April 1945. Production couldn't be too far away. IMO that's the ideal hub cannon for for the Ta-152. With a revolver cannon plus FF rockets you don't need anything else.

Shortround6 · Apr 25, 2012

There are photos of some sort of Fw 190/TA 152 with a MK 103 in each wing root. Mock-up, test rig or? There seems to have been a problem synchronizing the big 30mm guns. In order for the sychro to work you not only need the cap ignited at the right time but you need a predictable powder burn. This is harder in a big case than in a small case. It is not a question of consistent muzzle velocity but a question of timing from when the firing pin hits the cap to when the shell exits the muzzle. A failure in timing on a 7.9mm or even 13mm gun may be annoying. A 20mm could get Nasty depending on projectile land what part the blade is hit. A 30 mm hit on the prop is much more likely to be fatal to the aircraft and possible the pilot.

Mr. Bender has never answered how the Germans were going to go into production of revolver cannon in months if not weeks in the spring of 1945 when it took the US, Britain and France 8 years to get them in production and service, with the help of some of the German workers/engineers. Granted the Allies slacked off for a few years but from 1948 on or so you had the threat of the cold war, nuclear bombs ( the bomber MUST NOT get through) and the demands of the Korean war.

johnbr · Apr 25, 2012

The designer of the MG 213c said to the USA that they had started to make 100 of them.

Erich · Apr 25, 2012

without seeing full on schematics I wonder if the revolver cannon would of been a good fit. I do have other archival documentation from England clearing showing the variants to be supplanted to the Ta 152H-1 if the war would of dragged out longer

davebender · Apr 25, 2012

designer of the MG 213c said to the USA that they had started to make 100 of them

15 prototypes were captured along with the Mauser factory.

20mm x 135mm. Mauser cartridge for 20mm version of MG213.
.....20mm version of MG213 was supposed to replace the MG151/20 cannon.
.....Also used by MG301 cannon, which lost the competition.

30mm x 85mmB. Mauser cartridge for 30mm version of MG213.
.....Low velocity but powerful. Supposed to replace the 30mm Mk108 cannon for attacking heavy bombers.

30mm x 113mm. ADEN cannon cartridge.
British and French copies of the MG213 were delayed because they opted to develop their own cartridge rather then use the ready for production Mauser designed cartridges.

Siegfried · Apr 25, 2012

@Shortround6,

There is a photograph of a Ta 152 (probably the V58 which was simply the modified V53, to test this). The photograph is taken from the left side as if the photographer was standing at the tip of the tailplane. It shows the ammunition tray hatch opened over the wing root (it is very big) with the rather large MK 103 rounds. It is in the Thomas Hitchcock book.

@Erich, production of the Ta 152B (essentially a Ta 152C designed for ground attack) was scheduled for May 1945, earlier production was not possible due to loss of wings due to bombing.

the Hitchcock book says that both the MK213A 20mm gun and the MK213C 30mm revolver guns were scheduled for various Ta 152 variants. These guns could be synchronised.

An air combat version of the Ta 152C was to receive 1 x Mk 103 as a motor canon and 4 x MG151/15 (the high velocity 15mm version of the MG 151/20 gun). It seems this was an attempt to produce a fighter that could engage targets at very long ranges.

I know the Tony Williams site mentions that achieving conistant cartridge burn in a large cartridge that was suitable for synchronisation was supposedly a difficulty in 30mm guns.

However it was either a non problem or a problem that was solved. The Ta 152H wing was simply large enough to take this gun.

German synchronisation technology worked via electrically ignited primers, it was reliable.

The MG213 revolver canon development started in 1940 as the result of a 1000 rpm by 1000m/s specification for a 20mm gun. Only a revolver could meet both the cadence and velocity requirements simultaneously. The need to prevent jamming under high g also compelled a rotary mechanism.

Shortround6 · Apr 26, 2012

davebender said:
15 prototypes were captured along with the Mauser factory.

Prototypes are a far cry from a combat ready gun. The US had lots of prototype .50 cal and .60cal MGs that never made in into service.

davebender said:
30mm x 113mm. ADEN cannon cartridge.
British and French copies of the MG213 were delayed because they opted to develop their own cartridge rather then use the ready for production Mauser designed cartridges.

British and French both had lower powered rounds in early models. The British had 30 X 86B round and the French a 30 X 97B round so it wasn't just a case of using much more powerful ammunition.
The American M39 gun used a shorter, smaller diameter that fired a slightly lighter projectile at about the same speed as the German round. That shouldn't have been a problem gun wise and yet again it took until 1953-54 to get into service.

you, of course, have proof that the cartridges delayed the programs?

drgondog · Apr 26, 2012

Siegfried said:
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)

I haven't seen the Ta 152 wing and can't comment regarding approach to solve high G/High AoA issues with FW 190A and D. Having said that the D and A wings were the same with respect to washout - namely zero from 80% span to wing tip, coulpled with large ailerons, were the root cause of the unwanted torsional deflections into a stall condition.

So, how did Tank change the Ta 152 wing design to eliminate this issue?

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.

One potential problem that comes to mind for Ta 152 vs FW 190 series wing, is that increased wing span by necessity implies shifting the lift distribution outboard from wing root (all other variables such as LE Washout being equal) - which usually suggests a deeper spar or increased spar cap and web to absorb the bending loads - without regard for torque box considerations to reduce the elastic deformations imposed by the ailerons.

What did Tank do?

davebender · Apr 26, 2012

That's exactly what the 20mm version of the MG213 was designed for. It had a longer effective range then the MG151/15mm, a higher rate of fire and more punch then the MG151/20 mine shell. What's not to like?

The 20mm version of the MG213 was designed first and may have been production ready by the end of 1944. I suspect the Luftwaffe elected to forego production and wait for the 30mm version which was considered crucial for destroying heavy bombers. Just one of many production choices forced on Germany at the end of the war. In this case they chose wrong as the 30mm version didn't arrive in time. Just as the Jumo 004B jet engine and Type XXI submarine didn't arrive in time.

Denniss · Apr 26, 2012

It was impossible to synchronize MK 103/108 due to their firing mechanism, exact timing was not possible.

davebender · Apr 26, 2012

MG213 fired 1,200 rpm (30mm version) or 1,400 rpm (20mm version). If it's firing through the hub you only need one vs WWII era aircraft.

Shortround6 · Apr 26, 2012

You only need one if it works. If it doesn't then putting 5 in the plane won't help.

Siegfried · Apr 27, 2012

drgondog said:
One potential problem that comes to mind for Ta 152 vs FW 190 series wing, is that increased wing span by necessity implies shifting the lift distribution outboard from wing root (all other variables such as LE Washout being equal) - which usually suggests a deeper spar or increased spar cap and web to absorb the bending loads - without regard for torque box considerations to reduce the elastic deformations imposed by the ailerons.

What did Tank do?

An article written by David Ledicener (who maintains the incomplete guide to airfoil usage) quotes a Focke-Wulf document that puts the sudden spin stall of the Fw 190 down to this aeroeleastic issue. Stall under normal (non high g) conditions was mild. After the high g induced spin stall recovery was quick as the wing was back in shape. Some pilots seem to have been good enough to utilise this inconvience as a tactical escape manouver. (Norbert Hanig)

The Ta 152H used the same NACA 5 digit aerfoil series of greater span achieved by adding primarily at the wing root; apart from the section and reuse of some components I think it was really and all new wing (with a very large fuel capacity). However wheras Fw 190 washout was 2 degrees from the root to the 87.5% point (the final 12.5% had no washout) the Ta 152H had 3 degrees of washout (I read in one of those combat simulation program specs so not sure yet). The change in handling was dramatic; pilots talked of being able to turn on their own tail, one pilot spoke of no longer being leary of the Spitfire (Eric Brown put the manouverabillity as equal to the Mk 19 Spitfire (which was only a light recon variant) below 25000 but superior above) another spoke of its abillity to out turn the P-51 in all but the initial turn.

The Ta 152C with its shorter span wing was running behined the Ta 152H so I have seen no reports from combat pilots as to the handling but I immagine the shorter span wing was desired so as to improve low altitude speed, roll rate, dive rate. The Ta 152H had restriction on its dive rate but the pilots seemed complacent about exceding it only reporting a wing flutter that did not interfere with controllabillity. Given the number of Luftwaffe 'rookie' pilots and the likelihood that in the Ta 152H they may have had the tightest turning fighter of the late war ETO and that it had easy handling it may have been better for the Luftwaffe to concentrate on this type even for low altitude air combat and ground support.

Siegfried · Apr 27, 2012

Denniss said:
It was impossible to synchronize MK 103/108 due to their firing mechanism, exact timing was not possible.

See below

Juha · Apr 27, 2012

Siegfried said:
...pilots talked of being able to turn on their own tail, one pilot spoke of no longer being leary of the Spitfire (Eric Brown put the manouverabillity as equal to the Mk 19 Spitfire (which was only a light recon variant) below 25000 but superior above).. .

How many times 152Hs fought with Spitfires? Did Ta 152 pilots ever claim a Spitfire? Now we know that JG 11 lost 2 Ta 152Hs to Spitfires and third made wheels-up landing to Lech a/f for whatever reason, so only one of the 4 152s in that Schwarm arrived intakt.

And what Brown writes (in Air Enthusiast Quarterly 1) "In so far as manoeuvrability was concerned, the story was very much the same; the Spitfire was certainly the better of the two below 30,000 ft (9 145m), there being little to choose between the British and German fighters between that altitude and 35,000 ft (10 670 m), but above the latter altitude the Ta 152H-1 enjoyed a decisive edge..." And I'd not call Spit PR 19 as "light" It weighted 9000lb with full internal fuel and its max permissible was 10,450lb, it was unarmed but not light Spitfire.

Juha

davebender · Apr 27, 2012

Germany built 102 Fw-190A1s before introducing an improved model. That's pretty typical for WWII era aircraft. The first 100 aircraft aren't necessarily a good indication how the perfected design will perform.

Looks to me like fewer then fifty Ta-152H were produced. So I wouldn't place much weight on performance of the handful that made it into combat. We don't know what improvements would be made after the first 100 or so enter service.

jim · Apr 27, 2012

Juha said:
How many times 152Hs fought with Spitfires? Did Ta 152 pilots ever claim a Spitfire? Now we know that JG 11 lost 2 Ta 152Hs to Spitfires and third made wheels-up landing to Lech a/f for whatever reason, so only one of the 4 152s in that Schwarm arrived intakt.

And what Brown writes (in Air Enthusiast Quarterly 1) "In so far as manoeuvrability was concerned, the story was very much the same; the Spitfire was certainly the better of the two below 30,000 ft (9 145m), there being little to choose between the British and German fighters between that altitude and 35,000 ft (10 670 m), but above the latter altitude the Ta 152H-1 enjoyed a decisive edge..." And I'd not call Spit PR 19 as "light" It weighted 9000lb with full internal fuel and its max permissible was 10,450lb, it was unarmed but not light Spitfire.

Juha

Mr Juha
1) We also knowthat these were not operational Jg11 machines.They were the first of the type to be assigned to the unit and were on their transfer flight, by pilots of unknown type experience, and who knows the tactical situation of the engagement. Even Me262 was vulnerable under certain conditions

2) Brown also writes ,in the same article ,that they had not neither Mw50 nor GM1 in England , so Ta 152 never showed its full capabilities. Its final conclusion was that the two aircrafts , as flown at those test, were very close. But it is really nery strange that it compares the Ta to a recce version of the Spitfire.

My personal opinion is that Ta 152H with boosted ailerons would be better at all altitudes than C version and with C3 fuel a formidable opponent for any fighter of its time.

Dora-13 or 152C?

Airman 1st Class

1st Lieutenant

the old Sage

1st Lieutenant

Major General

2nd Lieutenant

the old Sage

1st Lieutenant

Banned

Major General

Major

1st Lieutenant

Tech Sergeant

1st Lieutenant

Major General

Banned

Banned

Attachments

Senior Master Sergeant

1st Lieutenant

Airman 1st Class

Users who are viewing this thread

Similar threads