FW-190 D-9-13 vs. Ta-152 C

[Bronc]

I'm having a difficult time getting a grasp on the differences, and the reason for the differences, between the FW-190 D-9-13 and the Ta-152C.

Here is what I know:

1) The FW "Long Nose" was powered by Jumo 213 series engines and the Ta-152 C's were to be DB 603A powered machines. However - Kurt Tank and his team tested and wanted the DB-603 in the FW-190-D series airframe AND tested the Jumo 213 series engine in the Ta-152C airframe.

2) The Ta-152 had an 11.0 m wingspan - 19.5 m2 wing area - 10.80 m maximum length.
The FW-190 D-9-13 had a 10.506 m wingspan - 18.3 m2 wing area - 10.192 m maximum length.

(The max length difference were due to the length and weight of the DB-603.)

3) The two types had some minor armament differences.

4) The Ta-152 would have been pressurized, the FW-190 D not so much.

Why was the FW-190 D "an interim type" when the Jumo powered D-13 turned out to be the fastest of them all?

If a nine (9) inch "extended outer wing panel" on each wing was the only difference between the Ta-152 C and FW-190 D wings, was it worth the delay in getting the D-9 into production?

Why pressurize the Ta-152C anyway, when the Ta-152H was the plane that needed it?

Why didn't the RLM order both the FW-190 D's and Ta-152 C's into production? Everyone was saying
the Luftwaffe needed more fighters...

Bronc

 

[Bronc]

Looking at the nominal loaded weight comparison between the FW-190 D-9 and Ta-152 C we have:

FW-190 D-9 = 4,350 kg
Ta-153 C = 5,320 kg

The Ta-153 C was a full TON heavier! (Hell, over a ton...)

Something really crazy was going on here. This is Alice in Wonderland stuff.

Bronc

 

[riacrato]

Hello Bronc, consider the following facts:

- heavier armament (2 MG151 + 2 MG131 vs. 4 MG151 + 1 MK108)
- additional fuel tanks inside the wings
- bad weather fighter equipment

and here's my own speculation (hard to say, since actual first hand sources on the type are rare):
- additional armor since the type was intended primarily as a destroyer

In any case the Fw 190 D-13 or the original Fw 190 C would be somewhat better fighters than the Ta 152 C. The C and the D would be very similar but the C would have slightly better performance and the advantage of a motorkanone.

 

[davebender]

A gallon of gasoline weighs approximately 6 lbs.

How much fuel did the Fw-190D9 carry internally?
How much fuel did the Ta-152 carry internally?

 

[Milosh]

A gallon of gasoline weighs approximately 6 lbs.

How much fuel did the Fw-190D9 carry internally?
How much fuel did the Ta-152 carry internally?

D-9 - 525 l. or ~115 Imp gal

152C-1

182kg + 283kg in fuselage tanks
368kg in 6 wing tanks

 

[vanir]

Also the Jumo 213E and DB603LA power eggs are the same dimensions and weigh roughly the same. They are interchangeable in the Fw190 airframe modified to take either.
Dietmar Hermann's book on the Ta152 is a good read and has a lot of information on the historical development and testing of the Ta152C, it was an excellent fighter which really left the Fw190D short.

The Ta152C was never pressurised. Much of the extra weight came from the armament, extra armour and additional fuel tankage. It had two fuselage tanks like the Dora but additional wing tanks. There was extra radio equipment (the R11 kit was standardised for all production Ta152 variants), so apparently best handling and climb was achieved by leaving one fuselage tank empty if possible (superior to Dora in this case).

The D-13 top speed rating of 740km/h was equivalent to the Ta152C but I believe both figures are calculated. One tremendous difference however would be that whilst flight testing of the Jumo 213E proved less than calculated performance in reality, the flight tests of the DB603LA proved better than calculated performance. So in service the Ta152C should've performed better out of the box than the D-11/12/13 which all used 213F-1 motors (as 213E but no intercoolers, which actually reduced performance slightly but also reduced weight and complexity), or the 213EB (I am unsure about the specifics of this engine variant).

Going over detailed documentation the empty equipped weight of the production series Ta152C-1 was about 4000kg whilst the take off weight was about 5040kg including ammunition and a partridge in a pear tree.
Loaded take off weight of a D-12 is given by Monogram Closeup as 4400kg.
In particular the benefit of the Ta152C is being structurally stressed for a loaded weight of 5500kg (being always conceived to be optioned as a fighter-bomber variant). All Ta152C are renowned as both extremely sturdy (exceptional dive) and very good climbers.

Yet indeed the story of Ta152 development does involve the Dora. Originally the Ta152C/H were to be variants of the Ta153 which was an all new design with a four blade prop. The Dora was always considered by Kurt Tank at least to be an interim for these models due to enter production by 1945. But the war climate and industrial situation meant the RLM demanded the Fw190 existing production facilities be modified to incorporate all the improvements of the Ta153 to expediate and uncomplicate its service entry. So the Ta152 really reflected Ta153 design features applied to the Fw190 airframe, heavily modified for the job, in the same way it was already modified to produce the Dora. So in this sense the Ta152 were a little bit like descendants of the Dora, although their development was completely independent (but did use common prototype testing for components).

Still, once you start putting these engine, armament, armour and equipment upgrades in a Dora without dramatic rebuilding of the airframe, you wind up with most of the weight of a Ta152 without the improved structural rigidity, without the purpose built airframe redesign to handle them, you wind up with a half arsed Ta152C that doesn't do the job as well, but may look similar on paper and may have much of the same equipment installed.

 

[vanir]

A gallon of gasoline weighs approximately 6 lbs.

How much fuel did the Fw-190D9 carry internally?
How much fuel did the Ta-152 carry internally?

Doras have the same fuselage tankage as a Ta152 (182kg front fuselage tank, 283kg rear fuselage tank, ~467kg total). The Ta152 added the wing tanks.
Either model mounts a 127kg MW50 installation (150 litres or 30min total operation). This was moved around between the rear fuselage and the inner wing whilst sorting CoG issues with the Ta152C preproduction prototypes, if mounted in the rear fuselage the rear tank was only to be half filled (preferrably not at all) I believe removing the rear tank completely was the R-I can't remember, 32 I think modification. But then it replaced the inner port wing fuel cell, so you'd have two on the port wing and three on the starboard wing, both fuselage tanks full and could carry a 500kg bomb or a 300l external fuel tank. Prior to this a bomb could not be carried due to CoG issues. Something like that, Dietmar Hermann covers it.

 

[davebender]

Still, once you start putting these engine, armament, armour and equipment upgrades in a Dora without dramatic rebuilding of the airframe, you wind up with most of the weight of a Ta152 without the improved structural rigidity, without the purpose built airframe redesign to handle them, you wind up with a half arsed Ta152C that doesn't do the job as well, but may look similar on paper and may have much of the same equipment installed.

Sometimes retrofitting new technology into an existing aircraft works well. Ju-188 features were incorporated into the late model Ju-88G (night fighter) and Ju-88S (light bomber). From what I can see these late model Ju-88s are superb aircraft, competative with other late WWII night fighters and light bombers.

 

[vanir]

Dunno mate, you could be right. I'm no expert to say, but my instinct tells me it's a problem in this case.

 

[Bronc]

Vanir wrote: "Still, once you start putting these engine, armament, armour and equipment upgrades in a Dora without dramatic rebuilding of the airframe, you wind up with most of the weight of a Ta152 without the improved structural rigidity, without the purpose built airframe redesign to handle them, you wind up with a half arsed Ta152C that doesn't do the job as well, but may look similar on paper and may have much of the same equipment installed."

Between the Ta-152 C wing tanks that I didn't know about and Vanir's post, I'm finally getting some perspective on this issue.

However, at about the same time all of this was going on in Germany, the Americans were doing everything they could to get the extra weight off their fighter aircraft. The P-51 H and F8F Bearcat developments come immediately to mind. By this time EVERYONE knew that weight was a critical issue in fighter performance. The P-47 N gets heavier only because of the wing tanks and extra fuel cells.

In my mind, the Ta-152 C is about the most beautiful airplane the world has ever seen. It's like the late Mark Spitfires and P-51 D, I can't find an angle on it that isn't beautiful. The FW-190 D series and Ta-152 series aircraft are my all time favorites--if you haven't guessed already!!

Bronc

 

[davebender]

Americans were doing everything they could to get the extra weight off their fighter aircraft.

WWII American fighter aircraft were relatively heavy compared to those of other nations. They had no choice but to go on a diet.

 

[drgondog]

WWII American fighter aircraft were relatively heavy compared to those of other nations. They had no choice but to go on a diet.

All true.

Having said that, the US didn't invest in point interceptors designed to climb very high very fast - the P-38 was the only exception I can think of and it didn't reach its prime until the engine Hp caught up with the weight.

The airpower doctrine for both the USAAF and USN looked at fighters more in the tactical role - with both the P-47 and P-38 being aberations with late 1930's philosophy and available engines.

 

[vanir]

One militaria editor Jim Winchester, who's been making commerical military aviation publications since the mid-80's Cold War era (occasionally I've noticed he gets a technical spec here and there wrong), he seems to have a pretty good general insight on to the sentiments of Wright-Patterson celebration and things like that if you follow me, his rating is the Ta152C in particular, in terms of postwar piston aircraft, in terms of the ideas presented in production, the standard equipment installed, the overall performance in conjunction with this (ie. a 22m/s initial climb and 740km/h top speed with full all weather gear installed and seriously heavy armament/armour, good range, external stores, autopilot standard, automated hydromechanical and electrical flight systems standard, great radio equipment, etc.), was only really matched by the jet age production well into the Korean War era.
He says you could use things like the Ta152C in the 1950's in the Middle East for example, and be perfectly contemporary. Which is an amazing effort for wartime Germany for one, but also speaks as to the advanced nature of the Ta152C as a postwar fighter type.

I personally feel it was a truly great fighter, every bit as good as early postwar US and British piston a/c. Not because it's performance on paper was superior or anything, damn sure it wasn't, but overall, and the flight equipment installed, as a total package I think, it was contemporary and viable, refined and advanced. I would **** bricks flying for the Israelis in 1948 and hearing a large force of Ta152C were on their way.

 

[spicmart]

How does the Ta 152C compare to the other late/post war fighters as a dogfighter being so much heavier than a Dora?
I know the Doras are considered to be at least the equal to its contemporaries in dogfighting terms, so..?
Vanir, where did you get the 22m/s initial climb rate for Ta 152C?
Never saw that spec before, just for the Fw 190D. I always thought the Ta 152C climb rate is lower IIRC.
Doras and 152C are my absolute favorites along with 109K. Also in terms of looks, nothing beats them for me.

 

[vanir]

Monogram Closeup lists initial climb for the Ta152C as 16m/s steig-kampfleistung citing Focke Wulf records, Dietmar Hermann gave me the figure of 15.7m/s steig-kampfleistung and specified that where it really left the Dora for dead was from 5000m and higher altitude. Focke Wulf test figures 24/3/45 for a D-9 at steig-kampfleistung are 14.8m/s.
My estimate of maximum initial climb at sondernotleistung is based on the sondernotleistung rating for the D-9 mit MW50 being variously 21-22.5m/s. I consider it a conservative estimate.

I believe part of the reason lay with the paddle blade VDM-VP prop fitted to Ta152C where the VS-9 is normally fitted to the Jumo213A/E motor (the Fw190F-9 and some A-9 got the VS-9 too I think). The VS-9 is a thick chord wood prop, for some reason the Ta152C were specifically fitted with a metal version, the VDM-VP which lends me to think about the very high off idle torque of the DB603 and initial climb rates. Certainly one of the design features of the Ta152C is to use a rough forward airfield in any weather conditions to take 5500kg into the air with the shortest runway space possible, climb effortlessly, cruise very fast with good range, sortie, rtb. But...loaded combat weight for production was more like 5040kg and the preproduction C-0/R-31 (no rear fuselage fuel tank) had a loaded combat weight of 4540kg (two of these delivered and listed on the serviceable a/c roster for stab/JG301 but actual combat sorties are unconfirmed).

One of the great difficulties about the Dora and moreso the Ta152 is the amount of calculated charts Focke Wulf made for them, sometimes to promote or discourage RLM policy about their developmental directions, and the sketchy and very circumstantial test figures charted for them. Charted figures for the Ta152C in Focke Wulf records include calculated figures for the DB603G motor, test figures for the DB603EC motor, calculated figures for the DB603L motor, the LA motor, the list goes on. The Dora itself isn't so cut and dried in terms of technical specification and performance figures either, no less than three very different versions entered service with different outputs and characteristics, about five were tested and the configuration of any D-9 in service could be any one of them when it really boils down to it, or it might be a D-12.
Late 1944-45 was a very weird time for German administrative bureacracy.

So all in all I think there has to be a little latitude when describing the performance of the late model Luftwaffe a/c like the Ta152, Dora and 109K/G-10 or G-14. An Erla G-10 is better than a Augsberg K-4 which is better than a Regensberg G-10 which are all better than an Augsberg G-14 but not a Sköda G-14 or a Regensberg G-6. It's like that.

*on top of that I might've got the bergs mixed up there because Germany has way too many bergs not to fry my memory-recall

 

[drgondog]

not to mention the 'burgs'..

 

[vanir]

I never know when to call it berg or burg. Some one, others the other. My rule of thumb is if I sound like a Swedish yodeller when talking German, I'm saying it wrong. Germans sound like machinery, industrial, purposeful. Rain falling on a tin roof is German. A bouncing ball falling down the stairs is only German if it does so with with remarkably repititious precision.

 

[Wulf]

If a nine (9) inch "extended outer wing panel" on each wing was the only difference between the Ta-152 C and FW-190 D wings, was it worth the delay in getting the D-9 into production?

Bronc

The outer wingpanel was not extended. They made a 500mm insert in the centersection and moved the wing 410mm forward to balance the long nose. The new wing was also in two halves, joined with large flanges.
Because of the insert, the UC also was 500mm wider.
The complete nose with engine and panels was connected to the original firewall from the A model.

 

[tory1966]

Hi vanir, your mods from a ta 152c still somewhere possible to download? thx man

 

[Mosshorn]

Did a prototype (or a development or weapons test example) of either aircraft (Fw-190D-13 or Ta-152C) ever fly a combat mission?

Second question: If the RLM/Luftwaffe had committed 110% of their resources to the FW-190 series and its watercooled engine development in January of 1942, WHEN would the Ta-152 series, specifically the C and H version have entered combat? (Now: change the date to January of 1943. Same question.)

Moss