Fw190D/Ta 152C vs. Latest Generation Allied Fighters
- Thread starter spicmart
- Start date
Ad: This forum contains affiliate links to products on Amazon and eBay. More information in Terms and rules
Er..so did the F8F-2 (the "E Series" R-2800-32W was the two-stage "Sidewinder" version used in the F4U-5
(White page 204)
Last edited:
Wasn't it a single stage? When one compares a single-stage engined fighter vs. 2 stage engined, the 2-stager wins at altitude, hence my comment about the 'appropriate' altitude.
Even the -8 was the two stage engine, does not mean it was 'plug play' with Bearcat's airframe. The 455 mph Bearcat is a non-ww2 airplane, even P-63E beats it in availability time, let alone P-51D/M/N, P-51-H, F4U-4, several British German planes etc.
As for German planes being good at altitude - we all know that Germans were pushing for 2 stage engines from 1944, that can suggest they did not consider current planes to be that good at altitude.
They were just as good as the typical Allied planes of the time - P-51 or Spitfire - at the time at altitude, which is not surprise, since their high alt single stage DB engines were practically identical to the two stage Merlin in altitude power...
Altitude performance is not a direct function of wheter the supercharger being single stage or two stage - its a function of supercharger capacity. Russian and German engines were single stage both, but the former absolutely sucked at altitude (with few notable exception - see Mikulin series).
Things like the two stage Jumo 213E or the DB 605L, 603L/N series were pretty much an overkill for altitude performance, driven by overhyped concerns of B-29s.
wuzak
Captain
I stand corrected.
btw, it is not necessary to post scans of pages of books. Just name the reference.
Au contraire, the book scans are mandatory 
Both the DB (AS/ASM) and Jumo 213 single stage engines were as good as 2 stage Merlin, one can expect so with engines of far greater swept voulme, being available 2 years after the 2 stage Merlin was in service, while the 213 was revving higher than Merlin. No matter how good those German engines were, the planes with them were still incapable to battle the P-51, P-47, Tempest and Spit XIV on anything more than even terms, let alone having a clear performance advantage. Hoping that Allied engines will remain at present state was not a good planing, Germans knew it, so they went for 2 stage versions of DB-603/605 and Jumo-213.
You know as good as I that every engine with 2-stage supercharger was providing more power than it's single-stage sibling. The two stage superchargers were produing better pressure ratios for power used, tables graphs are available on the 'net. Russian and German engine were of great swept volume, Mikulin and 603 going to almost 45 liters, so that count for something. As you said, the Soviet (ie. Klimov) engines sucked at altitude, kinda proves my point?
No overkill there.
LW fighters of second half of 1944 (with single stage engines) were struggling with, basically, 1943 vintage opposition, so they needed 2 stage engines to gain at least some performance edge. Hoping that Allies will not introduce even better fighters is not going to make things easier.
Both the DB (AS/ASM) and Jumo 213 single stage engines were as good as 2 stage Merlin, one can expect so with engines of far greater swept voulme, being available 2 years after the 2 stage Merlin was in service, while the 213 was revving higher than Merlin. No matter how good those German engines were, the planes with them were still incapable to battle the P-51, P-47, Tempest and Spit XIV on anything more than even terms, let alone having a clear performance advantage. Hoping that Allied engines will remain at present state was not a good planing, Germans knew it, so they went for 2 stage versions of DB-603/605 and Jumo-213.
You know as good as I that every engine with 2-stage supercharger was providing more power than it's single-stage sibling. The two stage superchargers were produing better pressure ratios for power used, tables graphs are available on the 'net. Russian and German engine were of great swept volume, Mikulin and 603 going to almost 45 liters, so that count for something. As you said, the Soviet (ie. Klimov) engines sucked at altitude, kinda proves my point?
No overkill there.
LW fighters of second half of 1944 (with single stage engines) were struggling with, basically, 1943 vintage opposition, so they needed 2 stage engines to gain at least some performance edge. Hoping that Allies will not introduce even better fighters is not going to make things easier.
Neil Stirling
Airman 1st Class
Something I put together last year.
Although the charts are headed 1946 fighters all the aircraft had flown by April 1945.
The F8F-1 was cleared (When?) for 70"hg, however, I cant find reliable performance figures and I am not confident estimating it.
During 1946 or 47 the -4 Corsair (Some not many) was fitted with the 42W engine and this produced around 2,780hp.
The Hornets performance is estimated from performance at +20lbs boost.
All aircraft clean no racks.
Fire Power from Flying Guns World War II by G.Williams and E. Gustin.
Neil.
Although the charts are headed 1946 fighters all the aircraft had flown by April 1945.
The F8F-1 was cleared (When?) for 70"hg, however, I cant find reliable performance figures and I am not confident estimating it.
During 1946 or 47 the -4 Corsair (Some not many) was fitted with the 42W engine and this produced around 2,780hp.
The Hornets performance is estimated from performance at +20lbs boost.
All aircraft clean no racks.
Fire Power from Flying Guns World War II by G.Williams and E. Gustin.
Neil.
Attachments
Last edited:
davparlr
Senior Master Sergeant
Excellent chart. There is one caveat here we must be aware of in comparing these test and that is fuel weight at test. Take for instance the P-51H compared to the Spitfire 22. Tested fuel quantity of the P-51H was 205 gallons. Max fuel of the Spitfire is 120 gallons or about 500 lbs less. Going into the charts, the P-51H with the same fuel weight as the Spitfire would climb at about 5600 ft/min compared to the Spitfires 5100 ft/min. Normalizing performance is often quite difficult. The two engined Hornet would require more fuel to do the same mission as the P-51 or Spitfire so tested fuel quantity would have to be adjusted to be equal. So true is the more powerful and thirsty radial engines of the P-47, F8F, F4U, and Tempest II.
Too bad you didn't have the data on the lighter and better performing P-47M.
Note: I am assuming a gallon of fuel are in the same reference system, English or US.
Last edited:
GregP
Major
Hi Wuzak,
In the first couple of posts, I believe the author was talking last-generation piston fighters versus the Fw 190 / Ta 152. All of the post-war piston fighters were firmly rooted in WWII development because shortly after the war, we all went to jets, except for the piston attack planes (think Skyraider), and the pistons died away.
So, if you're sticking to within-WWII, then you are right. If we're talking last-gen pistons, then they all are fair game.
No sense debating if you aren't both on the same subject, is it? I like the -10W or the-30/32W variants of the R-2800 and all their sophistication as opposed to early, mechanically-driven variants. If we're talking performance, why not go with the best variant you can? The latest variant of the Fw 190 line was the Ta 152, and that's what was being talkled about in the subject line ... and some of the others in the subject line are post-war.
So, perhaps this seem rather like maybe we need to get the subject straight.
The Bearcat was never the fastest WWII fighter ... until it became so (and still is) with Lyle Shelton at the controls. But it was a sterling climber, a very good dogfighter, had very good acceleration, and it had a very good ceiling in all variants. Had the war gone on, and I'm glad it didn;t, I think it would have made its mark quite handily. Thankfully, it didn't have to do so.
In the first couple of posts, I believe the author was talking last-generation piston fighters versus the Fw 190 / Ta 152. All of the post-war piston fighters were firmly rooted in WWII development because shortly after the war, we all went to jets, except for the piston attack planes (think Skyraider), and the pistons died away.
So, if you're sticking to within-WWII, then you are right. If we're talking last-gen pistons, then they all are fair game.
No sense debating if you aren't both on the same subject, is it? I like the -10W or the-30/32W variants of the R-2800 and all their sophistication as opposed to early, mechanically-driven variants. If we're talking performance, why not go with the best variant you can? The latest variant of the Fw 190 line was the Ta 152, and that's what was being talkled about in the subject line ... and some of the others in the subject line are post-war.
So, perhaps this seem rather like maybe we need to get the subject straight.
The Bearcat was never the fastest WWII fighter ... until it became so (and still is) with Lyle Shelton at the controls. But it was a sterling climber, a very good dogfighter, had very good acceleration, and it had a very good ceiling in all variants. Had the war gone on, and I'm glad it didn;t, I think it would have made its mark quite handily. Thankfully, it didn't have to do so.
wuzak
Captain
Greg,
It is a touch harsh comparing a 1947 development of an aircraft with one whose development was cut off in 1945.
Other aircraft, such as the Spitfire, had developments that weren't put into production (100 series Griffons with 3 speed superchargers and contra props).
It is a touch harsh comparing a 1947 development of an aircraft with one whose development was cut off in 1945.
Other aircraft, such as the Spitfire, had developments that weren't put into production (100 series Griffons with 3 speed superchargers and contra props).
All of the technology in the F8F-2 was essentially late-WW2; the E Series R-2800 was designed, built and had passed its 500 hour test by May 1945, while design of the two-stage -32W started in March 1945. (White, page 199-200) Okay, it's a fine line, but the three-stage Griffon was more of a post-WW2 development than the engine fitted in the F8F-2.
Shortround6
Major General
Post war research, development and production all slowed down. By how much (what percentage) compared to the last year of the war I have no idea but it did slow down some.
The "E" series engine was planned from the beginning but had development problems. First 20mm armed prototype flew in June of 1945, fist 100 production cannon armed planes were built intermingled withe machine gun armed planes. Last 126 F8F-1Bs were built in two continuous blocks.
The "E" series engine was planned from the beginning but had development problems. First 20mm armed prototype flew in June of 1945, fist 100 production cannon armed planes were built intermingled withe machine gun armed planes. Last 126 F8F-1Bs were built in two continuous blocks.
wuzak
Captain
I would say the R2800-30W and the Griffon 100 series were contemporary. If not, the Griffon was ahead.
rated altitude | gear | engine | 1946 | 0062 | Flight Archive
GregP
Major
Hi Wuzak,
I thought that was the whole purpose of the thread, to compere the late Fw 190 designes with the last-gen piston fighters that were flown just before jets took over. If not, then I missed the intent of the comparison.
You may very well be right.
I thought that was the whole purpose of the thread, to compere the late Fw 190 designes with the last-gen piston fighters that were flown just before jets took over. If not, then I missed the intent of the comparison.
You may very well be right.
wuzak
Captain
I thought it was to compare the late Fw 190 designs with their contemporaries. Not things that came 2 years later.
GregP
Major
OK, we thought differently. maybe the autor of the thread can elucidate ... meanwhile, we need a beer. A Spitfire Ale.
wuzak
Captain
The problem with comparing the Ta 152C with the F8F-2 is that there may have been more development to come in the two intervening years, especially with regards to engine performance.
In any case Germany had largely abandoned "Otto" engined aircraft development (as in new aircraft) before the end of the war, preferring to pursue jet aircraft.
So did Brits, therefore there was no Hawker Fury or MB 5 production. Only chance was FAA because of long pooling time of 45 jet engines
