How good was Ta152H

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

These are the only charts I have ever seen and apply to the Spitfire I and Bf 109E
http://www.spitfireperformance.com/spit109turn.gif

If I am using the 109 chart correctly and following the directions/example the 109, in order to maintain 250mph (true?) and 3 G turn needs to loose 2000fpm in order to keep it's speed at the 250mph mark. Higher G turns (or higher speed) require even more altitude loss.

I assume that all aircraft will follow the same General "rule" even if they have their own chart/s. Pilots could pull 5-6 "G"s, they just couldn't do it very long. They could actually, depending on aircraft, exceed that by quite a margin for short periods of time, like fractions of a second, which is just long enough to break the airplane.

And please remember that even a 180 degree turn that averages 2 "G"s can have momentary (fractions of a second) "g" loading's that considerably exceed the average. Especially in the first few seconds.
 
Greyman said:
I was just gettin' at what Biff said after; using a spiral dive to keep the speed up while you pull/trim upwards and sustain the G levels. Thousands of feet certainly required.
Click to expand...

Greyman,

Modern fighters still do to this day. When you are fighting a similar aircraft and you in a turning fight it's one of several things you can do.

As the defender you are handing problems to the offender that he has to solve for. Those problems that you pass are dependent on the bandits range, both of your speeds, altitude and relative positions.

A 20-30 year old in good shape would probably easily be able to sustain 5 G's no problem. My resting tolerance at 23 was 5.5 (meaning no straining at all).

Cheers,
Biff
 
According to JG301 pilots the Ta 152H-0 (no MW50,no wing fuel tanks) could defeat their Fw190A8s even at very low level.Above 5000m there was not comparison. And they fought almost all their combats in the Ta 152 at medium/low altitudes with decent results. They were generally happy with the aircraft.
Personally i believe the entire Ta152 program was not required. The best option would be to use the Dora fuselage with the Ta152C wings and tail ,Ta152 propeller and whatever 2 stage supercharged engine was available. No pressurized cockpit, just 3 Mg151 s cannons for armament,
integrated engine cooling, fully retractable tail wheel, possibly boosted ailerons. Also i would reduce the armor, just around the pilot. Such an aircraft would be lighter, better rolling,slightly faster than the 152H on the same engine, with better load factor, able to fight on all german fronts. and all altitudes
 
Eric Brown in Wings of the Luftwaffe said thatthe Ta 152H was superior to the Spitfire XIX above 35,000ft, about equal between 30,000ft and 35,000ft but inferior below 30,000ft.

The Spitfire XIX was a PR aircraft but similar in power and weight of the Spitfire XIV.

I imagine that the performance difference between the two below 30,000ft would widen and narrow according to the engine performance curves.
 
They didn't fight the Ta 152 with all that decent results. They had anywhere from 1 to 4 losses, depending on who you believe, and had 6 - 10 victories, also depending on who you believe. That is a kill ratio that runs from 10:1 to 1.5:1, which is about mediocre for the war.

As I believe the Ta 152 to have been a very good fighter aircraft, I attribute much of that to the war situation and to flying what were essentially a squadron of prototypes. That is, they were not "debugged," and there were no spare parts. So, not bad considering that when the Ta 152 was becoming semi-operational, the war was in the last 2 months and the Germans were being attacked every day with massive numbers of aircraft. The Allies shot up more than 10 times the usual number of aircraft on the ground in April, when the Ta 152 was becoming operational.

ALl that said, the Ta 152, particularly the H model, would have been among the best had it made it into large-scale combat. Since it didn't make large-scale combat, it did not generate a great war record, though it rather obviously was a thoroughbred in the piston-propeller world of fighters.
 
There were 43 Ta 152 produced and put into service in 1945. I doubt that Germany fielding forty three F15 fighter bombers in 1945 would have had any effect on the outcome of the war. It was a great aeroplane but it was propeller driven in an age where jets were already known to be the future and its side in the war had lost
 
DH Tiger Moths are rated to 7.5G sustained. - and it has nowhere near the grunt of a Ta. I've grey'd in the Tiger during a Horizontal Sustained turn, doing about 6-6.5G

Those G's HURT unless you're properly used to them, and blackout is not far away at those G's, unless your really current with you AGSM.


D
 
Under some combinations of load and altitude, yes. Load factors are set by instantaneous loads and the era's lack of computers ( digital vs human) and knowledge of fracture mechanics.

One other thing to be careful of: German, British, and US technical terminology are not identical. Indeed, within the US, today, technical terminology is not consistent across science and engineering disciplines. ( a true story: in 2011, I knew a teacher who had AP Physics classes. Their book, a popular college text, used the opposite sign convention for work as did the AP exam. This has been a culture war in the physics & and engineering communities for decades)
 
Some of the plans for the TA-152 included the Jumo 222. A lot more power in a compact size. The 222 became a non-starter due to late war politics, but it was an impressive engine. A lot of speculation on ta-152 performance with this engine, but we will never know.
 
I wish we knew the true story of the JU 222 engine. There is sure a lot of myths and/or misinformation about it.

The total number built could probably have powered 3 times the number of Ta 152s built and yet it powered fewer than a dozen airframes over 3-4 years. Politics or engines that weren't really airworthy?
 

The two aren't incompatible, and I expect there were both: variants were built with three different bores 135, 140, and 145 mm), and this sort of configuration seems to have had vibration issues every time it was tried. So, I suspect Jumo couldn't get the engine production-ready on their original schedule, so specs were changed, Jumo couldn't keep that schedule, specs were changed, and then the armies in the East started losing, slave labor supplies started drying up, metal supplies started to get scarce, and US and Commonwealth bombers started messing up infrastructure.
 
The two are not incompatible but so far, in english, there is no accounting of how many of each type were built, or when.

With about 280 total built, that was an awful lot of effort for very little results. Politics may have played a role in putting it into production before it was ready rather than stifling it's use.

The "fan boys" want to think it was a vundar weapon that didn't get used because of politics.

on the other hand, if used, it may have made the Vulture in the Manchester look like a paragon of virtue.

We just don't know enough.

I would note that P & W got the R-2800 into shape for production at 1850hp using 8 engines total., and used 40 (?) for the R-4360 28 cylinder engine.
 
dedalos said:
Personally i believe the entire Ta152 program was not required. The best option would be to use the Dora fuselage with the Ta152C wings and tail ,Ta152 propeller and whatever 2 stage supercharged engine was available.
Click to expand...

Yes, but the best option would have been the much earlier Fw-190C. Quoting myself:
 
Too bad we have only his comments.

I have heard VERY similar comments from some American WWII pilots about the P-51. When I asked them how many different fighters they had flown, they said, "only the P-51!" That means they have no basis for their comparative statements. I don't know the resume of Reschke, so I can't begin to know if his words mean anything at all beyond it was the best HE had flown to date. Neither would I dismiss his comments; I simply cannot make anything of them due to lack of knowledge about his flying resume.

Logically, the Fw 190C SHOULD have been a good one when working correctly, if the experiences with the Fw 190D and Ta 152 are any indication. How good? We'll never know for sure, and they only made about 5 or so of them, possibly 1 or 2 more. I've never seen a good dissertation on the Fw 190C anywhere, but that doesn't mean it doesn't exist.

And a blanket statement like that about a prototype is meaningless to combat effectiveness. It has to GET into combat for the statement to mean anything, and has to succeed beyond expectations.

I'd say the F-15 has DONE that, in spades. The Fw 190C, not even close. Perhaps it DID have the performance when all was in running order. I'd love to see a flight test report for some confirmation. Perhaps one exists yet.
 
incidentally III./JG 301 had 35 Ta's on hand in January 45, primarily for testing these new mounts, several going over to the Geschwaderstab. Reschke is incorrect about a 3 stage supercharger, it was two // there was at least 1 C varinat in the stab as well possibly 2 on hand to fly operations against the Soviets.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Users who are viewing this thread

Total: 1 (members: 0, guests: 1)

Similar threads

F
Just how good was the Mitsubishi F1M 'Pete'
Replies
12
Views
3K
cammerjeff
How good was the soviet air force?
32 33 34
Replies
664
Views
55K
Dimlee
How good a plane was the P-40, really?
23 24 25
Replies
493
Views
45K
Think Tanker
Why was it?
2
Replies
27
Views
2K
nuuumannn
P-51D vs F/G vs H: how good was good enough/how good was actually great?
Replies
18
Views
2K
BarnOwlLover
Menu
Log in
Register