wuzak
Captain
The reason for the Ta 152H's performance, particularly at altitude, was the NO2 system. Without that, how well did it go?
If the Rare Bear became a ww2 fighter.
- Thread starter breadbasketbomb
- Start date
Ad: This forum contains affiliate links to products on Amazon and eBay. More information in Terms and rules
The reason for the Ta-152 H's performance was that it was powered by an engine of decent displacement, high RPM, with two stage supercharger (3-speed gearing, for a good measure) with inter-cooler and ADI system (MW 50).
Without NO2 system it was supposed to clock 730-750 km/h at 9-9,5 km (454-466 mph at 29530-31170 ft), depending what graph one reads. At SL, it was to be 540 km/h, or up to 580-600 km/h with MW-50 used.
Without NO2 system it was supposed to clock 730-750 km/h at 9-9,5 km (454-466 mph at 29530-31170 ft), depending what graph one reads. At SL, it was to be 540 km/h, or up to 580-600 km/h with MW-50 used.
GregP
Major
The performance was never used for anything, so it is all supposition. It has almost no record in combat and all this "great" stuff is but a paper comparison of the "Best" numbers from hand-made prototypes. How many threads have I read where the real production planes had less performance than the hand-made prototypes?
The true test is the crucuble of combat and the performance achieved by combat-ready production aircraft, which the Ta-152 barely faced at all, and came up quite short when it did. There was never a true "production" representative aircraft in service at any time.
I'm underwhelmed.
The true test is the crucuble of combat and the performance achieved by combat-ready production aircraft, which the Ta-152 barely faced at all, and came up quite short when it did. There was never a true "production" representative aircraft in service at any time.
I'm underwhelmed.
GrauGeist
Generalfeldmarschall zur Luftschiff Abteilung
How did the Ta152 "come up short"?
For the few that were fielded, it proved to be manouverable, had nessecary firepower to down their adversary and had a far better record percentage-wise than the He162 or even the Me163.
Let's talk numbers and not opinion...
For the few that were fielded, it proved to be manouverable, had nessecary firepower to down their adversary and had a far better record percentage-wise than the He162 or even the Me163.
Let's talk numbers and not opinion...
The high performance of the Ta 152 have some caveats, though. The 730-750 km/h figures were to be for the aircraft with half of fuel aboard (only fuselage fuel tanks filled? 525L?), ie. at 4750 kg light 152H instead of 5220 kg, no ETC rack, and with use of MW 50.
We know that weight does slow aircraft - how much the Ta 152?
The ETC will cost a bit - close to 10 km/h?
According to the only power chart of the Jumo 213E that I'm aware, the use of MW 50 system was limited to the lower 2 supercharger gears, meaning that max speed will be attained without MW 50. That would be, still with half of fuel and ETC, 720 km/h at 10,7 km ( 447 mph at 35100 ft); still impressive for that altitude, but how much with full fuel and ETC?
The heavy brute P-47N with 2100 L of fuel aboard (16700 lbs test weight) was doing ~460 mph at 32-33000 ft, the P-47M was still a bit faster.
We know that weight does slow aircraft - how much the Ta 152?
The ETC will cost a bit - close to 10 km/h?
According to the only power chart of the Jumo 213E that I'm aware, the use of MW 50 system was limited to the lower 2 supercharger gears, meaning that max speed will be attained without MW 50. That would be, still with half of fuel and ETC, 720 km/h at 10,7 km ( 447 mph at 35100 ft); still impressive for that altitude, but how much with full fuel and ETC?
The heavy brute P-47N with 2100 L of fuel aboard (16700 lbs test weight) was doing ~460 mph at 32-33000 ft, the P-47M was still a bit faster.
Shortround6
Major General
Something to consider when comparing fighters (or other planes) used in "combat" in WWII was that the Germans and Japanese in late 1944 and 1945 had the front lines within a few hundred miles of the factory doors. The situation was desperate and new models of aircraft could be delivered and used by combat units in a very short period of time, many units using a mix of aircraft and spare parts were only a day or two away by truck (even on bombed roads).
The Americans had to ship their "new" fighters thousands of miles by ship with spare parts, and policy was to re-equip entire units with substantially different models/types, if they were changing types. This delayed by several months the "combat" introduction of the latest versions.
The Americans had to ship their "new" fighters thousands of miles by ship with spare parts, and policy was to re-equip entire units with substantially different models/types, if they were changing types. This delayed by several months the "combat" introduction of the latest versions.
Last edited:
GregP
Major
All right. How did it come up short?
1. They delivered 43 Ta-152's.
2. The Ta-152's were assigned to known "Experts."
3.The skies were filled with Allied targets, sometimes 1,000 -plane raids.
4. The "Experts" accumulated 7 - 10 victories in approximately 3 months of "combat" operations against 2 - 4 losses.
My conclusion is the experts either weren't so expert, the plane wasn't so great, there were teething issues, or a combination of the three. There was very certainly no lack of opportunity as the skies around the Ta-152's were literally littered with Allied warplanes attacking Germany.
Maybe we're talking about two different airplanes? The one I'm talking about is shown below.
Didn't do much for the German war effort in my view. Me 262 pilots claimned 542 Allied kills.
I'd tend to lean rather heavily toward the Me 262 if I had to choose one or the other. Your opinion mya vary, and that's OK. Neither of us is likely to get a chance to exercise the option and prove anything one way or the other. So if you like the Ta-152 (as I do) and think it was among the best (I really don't) then, by all means, toast it in good health. I wish we had one to restore, but could never imagine calling it a great combat aircraft. It had one chance to prove that and blew it as thoroughly as a chance can be blown.
There are some comparative numbers and my opinion stands up quite well when you look at combat accomplishments. I'd bet any Me 262 pilot would choose that aircraft over a Ta-152 any day of the week, but I suppose we'll have to let one or more of them chime in here if they happen to see the post.
I'm not optimistic, myself.
1. They delivered 43 Ta-152's.
2. The Ta-152's were assigned to known "Experts."
3.The skies were filled with Allied targets, sometimes 1,000 -plane raids.
4. The "Experts" accumulated 7 - 10 victories in approximately 3 months of "combat" operations against 2 - 4 losses.
My conclusion is the experts either weren't so expert, the plane wasn't so great, there were teething issues, or a combination of the three. There was very certainly no lack of opportunity as the skies around the Ta-152's were literally littered with Allied warplanes attacking Germany.
Maybe we're talking about two different airplanes? The one I'm talking about is shown below.
Didn't do much for the German war effort in my view. Me 262 pilots claimned 542 Allied kills.
I'd tend to lean rather heavily toward the Me 262 if I had to choose one or the other. Your opinion mya vary, and that's OK. Neither of us is likely to get a chance to exercise the option and prove anything one way or the other. So if you like the Ta-152 (as I do) and think it was among the best (I really don't) then, by all means, toast it in good health. I wish we had one to restore, but could never imagine calling it a great combat aircraft. It had one chance to prove that and blew it as thoroughly as a chance can be blown.
There are some comparative numbers and my opinion stands up quite well when you look at combat accomplishments. I'd bet any Me 262 pilot would choose that aircraft over a Ta-152 any day of the week, but I suppose we'll have to let one or more of them chime in here if they happen to see the post.
I'm not optimistic, myself.
Last edited:
The Ta 152 was a victim of its circumstance. Had it been produced earlier, and been afforded the time to develop I believe you would be singing a different tune...
GregP
Major
I agree with you entirely, Adler, and think so, too, in spades. It very certainly COULD have been one of the greats.
It just wasn't and isn't by the achieved combat record. But the potential if developed and fielded effectively was certainly there.
I would not kick at being assigned one at all as my primary mount... assuming I had a trained crew chief and some spare parts available.
There was and IS no intent to disparage the Ta-152 as a potential great plane ... it just never actually achieved that status in any way, shape, or form. The results did NOT demonstrate the potential.
The same can be said of the P-63, the XP-72, and a host of other planes, including German, Janapese, and ALL sides.
My personal favorite of the unrealized potential is the Regginae Re.2005. BEAUTIFUL, but unfilfilled as a combat wizard, which it really COULD have been, much like the Ta-152, which is also beautiful in my eyes and had unfulfilled combat potential.
It is like a beautiful woman with no brains. Not much upstairs but, man, what a staircase!
It just wasn't and isn't by the achieved combat record. But the potential if developed and fielded effectively was certainly there.
I would not kick at being assigned one at all as my primary mount... assuming I had a trained crew chief and some spare parts available.
There was and IS no intent to disparage the Ta-152 as a potential great plane ... it just never actually achieved that status in any way, shape, or form. The results did NOT demonstrate the potential.
The same can be said of the P-63, the XP-72, and a host of other planes, including German, Janapese, and ALL sides.
My personal favorite of the unrealized potential is the Regginae Re.2005. BEAUTIFUL, but unfilfilled as a combat wizard, which it really COULD have been, much like the Ta-152, which is also beautiful in my eyes and had unfulfilled combat potential.
It is like a beautiful woman with no brains. Not much upstairs but, man, what a staircase!
Last edited:
GrauGeist
Generalfeldmarschall zur Luftschiff Abteilung
Condemning the Ta512 based simply on the fact that it was a late-comer and didn't have the time to mature on the battlefield is looking over it's potential.
Compare it to other late-comers like the He162 which was introduced in the field by January 1945. The He162 had approximately 300 units produced and of those that saw action, very few managed to score a victory even though a large portion of pilots who flew it gave it great reviews.
On the otherhand, the Ta152 trickled into service about the same time, with less than 50 produced. Of those, very few made it into combat but the ones that did, proved themselves beyond a shadow of a doubt. Some of the victories the Ta152 achieved have been questioned, but the general consensus is 7 in exchange for the four Ta152s that were shot down: which only two were in combat, the other two were jumped during a ferry flight. This was all primarily in about 6 weeks of service.
So compare the 7 wins and 4 losses for the Ta152 against the He162, which lost 9 pilots killed, 5 wounded during operations plus one He162 shot down (by a Tempest) for one "confirmed" victory shrouded in confusion: (May, 1945: Rudolf Schmitt shot down and claimed a British Tempest over Rostock, the Tempest being flown by F/O M. Austin of No.486 Squadron. Austin successfully bailed out and was taken prisoner. British records confirm the victory but German records claim it was downed by flak) and a couple "possibles". This was also within 6 weeks of operations.
By taking a look at this comparison, it would seem to me that the He162 should be getting the sharp eye of scrutiny as being "underwhelming" and "coming up short", not the Ta152.
Compare it to other late-comers like the He162 which was introduced in the field by January 1945. The He162 had approximately 300 units produced and of those that saw action, very few managed to score a victory even though a large portion of pilots who flew it gave it great reviews.
On the otherhand, the Ta152 trickled into service about the same time, with less than 50 produced. Of those, very few made it into combat but the ones that did, proved themselves beyond a shadow of a doubt. Some of the victories the Ta152 achieved have been questioned, but the general consensus is 7 in exchange for the four Ta152s that were shot down: which only two were in combat, the other two were jumped during a ferry flight. This was all primarily in about 6 weeks of service.
So compare the 7 wins and 4 losses for the Ta152 against the He162, which lost 9 pilots killed, 5 wounded during operations plus one He162 shot down (by a Tempest) for one "confirmed" victory shrouded in confusion: (May, 1945: Rudolf Schmitt shot down and claimed a British Tempest over Rostock, the Tempest being flown by F/O M. Austin of No.486 Squadron. Austin successfully bailed out and was taken prisoner. British records confirm the victory but German records claim it was downed by flak) and a couple "possibles". This was also within 6 weeks of operations.
By taking a look at this comparison, it would seem to me that the He162 should be getting the sharp eye of scrutiny as being "underwhelming" and "coming up short", not the Ta152.
Potential doesn't make an aircraft 'one of the greats'.
Coulda, Woulda, Shoulda...
It takes time. Would we be talking about how great the P-51 was if we are restricted to talking about the first 50 produced? How about the Spitfire?
The 152 could have been a great aircraft, had it had time to develop and mature as a design. (That's the Ta152, not the C-152, the Cessna product has had plenty of time to mature
)
Coulda, Woulda, Shoulda...
It takes time. Would we be talking about how great the P-51 was if we are restricted to talking about the first 50 produced? How about the Spitfire?
The 152 could have been a great aircraft, had it had time to develop and mature as a design. (That's the Ta152, not the C-152, the Cessna product has had plenty of time to mature
)
GregP
Major
Hi Graugeist,
I did NOT overlook the potential. I even STATED it has potential. It just never lived up to the potential.
Did you even READ my post all the way through? If so, exactly WHAT do you disagree with?
The plane has performance and shows enormous potential.
It just never DID anything with it in real life during a real world war.
That doesn't make it a great plane. It makes it one of the "might have been's." I wholeheartedly agree it COULD have been a great plane. But a standout WWII fighter? No way, not even a slight nod. The Dewoitine 520 did better as did almost every other operational fighter in the war, even a few Brewster Buffalos in Finnish hands. They had about the same number of Buffalos and shot down over 400 aircraft with them. Hhhmmmmm ... 400+ to 7? No contest.
That doesn't make the Buffalo a better fighter, it means it DID better when it counted.
I did NOT overlook the potential. I even STATED it has potential. It just never lived up to the potential.
Did you even READ my post all the way through? If so, exactly WHAT do you disagree with?
The plane has performance and shows enormous potential.
It just never DID anything with it in real life during a real world war.
That doesn't make it a great plane. It makes it one of the "might have been's." I wholeheartedly agree it COULD have been a great plane. But a standout WWII fighter? No way, not even a slight nod. The Dewoitine 520 did better as did almost every other operational fighter in the war, even a few Brewster Buffalos in Finnish hands. They had about the same number of Buffalos and shot down over 400 aircraft with them. Hhhmmmmm ... 400+ to 7? No contest.
That doesn't make the Buffalo a better fighter, it means it DID better when it counted.
Last edited:
GrauGeist
Generalfeldmarschall zur Luftschiff Abteilung
That's a valid point, how well would have any of the long established "greats" done in 6 weeks under the same conditions as the Ta152?
Personally, I am amazed that any Luftwaffe aircraft were able to get off the ground from March 1945 onward, let alone fly anywhere and survive to tell about it.
The 152 could have been a great aircraft, had it had time to develop and mature as a design. (That's the Ta152, not the C-152, the Cessna product has had plenty of time to mature
GregP
Major
Hi Dedalos,
The Ta-152's were hand made, never had any logistics chain, never had a proper test period due to wartime expediency, and when one broke down, another one was used for spare parts. Most were not built the same as the last and were modified as they discovered issues.
That is almost the textbook definition of a production prototype.
What planet are you living on?
Let's see. 43 planes built near the end of the war, of which exactly 2 were left flying when hostilities ended, never more than 25 at one time, when the Allies were flying 1,000 plane raids. They made absolutely NO difference to the German war effort, ate up enormous resources, and contributed nothing, despite having very good potential ... Yeah, prototypes of which no two were exactly alike.
The Bf 109 was into 20,000 plus when they decided they needed to "standardize" all the modifications. The Ta-152 never GOT to where they even had any spare parts. If you call that anything other than a production prototype, you are living in a different world of logic than I am. If so, that's OK and it doesn't mean your viewpoint is wrong ... it means I don't accept it and that's OK.
I don't really want to argue the point ... it's simply my viewpopint and won't change as I have researched it for 40+ years and have a solid basis for my opinion, confirmed from talks with several former Luftwaffe pilots, including Herr Rall, whom I met twice and spoke with once in the mid-1980's for about 6 minutes of undivided attention. He was friendly, humorous, and did not consider the Ta-152 other than prototypes with unfulfilled potential before the war was lost. I pointedly asked about it as I was really into the plane at the time, not so much these days. Since there were MANY such planes on all sides, I lump the Ta-152 in with the potentially-great might-have-beens. ANd that offers no disrespect for the designer, the design, or the prototypes that went to war.
Had the war lasted even 6 months longer in Europe, the Ta-152 might have had a larger impact ... but it didn't. Get over it, the war record won't change and is already recorded for posterity.
Similarly, the Ta 183 might have been a revolutionary jet, but wasn't, even in the guise of the FMA Pulqui II after the war in Argentina. If it couldn't be made to work AFTER the war in a non-wartime, non-emergency climate, what were the chances DURING the war?
Easy ... zero.
It was another might-have-been with potentially great status ... that never made it in real life. That does not denigrate the achievement of making and flying it later in Argentina, albeit with changes from the original design ... it just states the fact that the planes never DID anything for the war effort with the resources alotted.
You can't say the same about the US B-2 as it has been in combat and amassed a VERY good combat record. Yes, I consider THEM production prototypes, too, all 21 of them. Just long-serving, reliable prototypes with spare parts and 20+ years of operational flying and agreat combat record when needed. Had they made, say, 100, I don't think the last one would have been the same aircraft, systems-wise or stealth-wise. Maybe not even engine-wise. But they HAVE amassed a great record so far and are still in service.
We had one X-plane that lasted 16+ years before being damaged beyond repair, and that was ONE airframe. A great test mule but hardly a game-changer by itself.
So, when all is said and done, the B-2's have done well for production prototypes I think. You may well feel othersise and that's OK. We don't have to see eye-to-eye and, if so, I respect your opinion without agreeing with it. Anyone who considers the B-2's other than prototypes doesn't really understand the meaning of the word.
Cheers.
The Ta-152's were hand made, never had any logistics chain, never had a proper test period due to wartime expediency, and when one broke down, another one was used for spare parts. Most were not built the same as the last and were modified as they discovered issues.
That is almost the textbook definition of a production prototype.
What planet are you living on?
Let's see. 43 planes built near the end of the war, of which exactly 2 were left flying when hostilities ended, never more than 25 at one time, when the Allies were flying 1,000 plane raids. They made absolutely NO difference to the German war effort, ate up enormous resources, and contributed nothing, despite having very good potential ... Yeah, prototypes of which no two were exactly alike.
The Bf 109 was into 20,000 plus when they decided they needed to "standardize" all the modifications. The Ta-152 never GOT to where they even had any spare parts. If you call that anything other than a production prototype, you are living in a different world of logic than I am. If so, that's OK and it doesn't mean your viewpoint is wrong ... it means I don't accept it and that's OK.
I don't really want to argue the point ... it's simply my viewpopint and won't change as I have researched it for 40+ years and have a solid basis for my opinion, confirmed from talks with several former Luftwaffe pilots, including Herr Rall, whom I met twice and spoke with once in the mid-1980's for about 6 minutes of undivided attention. He was friendly, humorous, and did not consider the Ta-152 other than prototypes with unfulfilled potential before the war was lost. I pointedly asked about it as I was really into the plane at the time, not so much these days. Since there were MANY such planes on all sides, I lump the Ta-152 in with the potentially-great might-have-beens. ANd that offers no disrespect for the designer, the design, or the prototypes that went to war.
Had the war lasted even 6 months longer in Europe, the Ta-152 might have had a larger impact ... but it didn't. Get over it, the war record won't change and is already recorded for posterity.
Similarly, the Ta 183 might have been a revolutionary jet, but wasn't, even in the guise of the FMA Pulqui II after the war in Argentina. If it couldn't be made to work AFTER the war in a non-wartime, non-emergency climate, what were the chances DURING the war?
Easy ... zero.
It was another might-have-been with potentially great status ... that never made it in real life. That does not denigrate the achievement of making and flying it later in Argentina, albeit with changes from the original design ... it just states the fact that the planes never DID anything for the war effort with the resources alotted.
You can't say the same about the US B-2 as it has been in combat and amassed a VERY good combat record. Yes, I consider THEM production prototypes, too, all 21 of them. Just long-serving, reliable prototypes with spare parts and 20+ years of operational flying and agreat combat record when needed. Had they made, say, 100, I don't think the last one would have been the same aircraft, systems-wise or stealth-wise. Maybe not even engine-wise. But they HAVE amassed a great record so far and are still in service.
We had one X-plane that lasted 16+ years before being damaged beyond repair, and that was ONE airframe. A great test mule but hardly a game-changer by itself.
So, when all is said and done, the B-2's have done well for production prototypes I think. You may well feel othersise and that's OK. We don't have to see eye-to-eye and, if so, I respect your opinion without agreeing with it. Anyone who considers the B-2's other than prototypes doesn't really understand the meaning of the word.
Cheers.
Last edited:
GrauGeist
Generalfeldmarschall zur Luftschiff Abteilung
I thought the facts I put out up there were pretty straight foreward, but it appears that personal opinion wins over facts and logic. I simply stated that for 6 weeks, the Ta152 was impressive as opposed to the He162...but aparently no one read that part, they just got their panties in a wad and rushed to reply...
So then I suppose we will no longer discuss the P-51H and the F8F, since they didn't see combat in WWII. It also looks like we cannot discuss any aircraft that were not popular, did not have at least 18 months of service prior to the end of the war or had at least minimum of production total of 1,000 units.
So it looks like Horse will now have to change the name of the forum to:
Only Certain Aircraft of WWII
So then I suppose we will no longer discuss the P-51H and the F8F, since they didn't see combat in WWII. It also looks like we cannot discuss any aircraft that were not popular, did not have at least 18 months of service prior to the end of the war or had at least minimum of production total of 1,000 units.
So it looks like Horse will now have to change the name of the forum to:
Only Certain Aircraft of WWII
Grau,
While I have read Ditmars book on the Ta-152 I don't have it handy for reference. If only 43 were delivered, and were flown only by experten, and achieved only 10 kills in a sky that would have been full of adversaries, and lost 3-4 of their own it does open a quandary.
How much is enough to be relevant? Neither the F8F, P51H or the P80 saw combat in WW2 and as such aren't counted at all. The Ta did see combat but in such small numbers as to be irrelevant. Don't get me wrong, it's my favorite German fighter of WW2 and has been since childhood, however it's impact by the wars end was negligible.
As for it's title as the pinnacle of piston engine fighters, should in my opinion, read pinnacle of German piston engine fighters. The Mustang, Bearcat and P80 all enjoyed further refinement and use post 1945, while the Ta-152 died in it's infancy due to the end of the war. Could it have gone further, oh YEAH. Did it, nope.
Read this post as the first paragraph which is generally accepted as fact, and the remaining is my OPINE.
Cheers,
Biff
While I have read Ditmars book on the Ta-152 I don't have it handy for reference. If only 43 were delivered, and were flown only by experten, and achieved only 10 kills in a sky that would have been full of adversaries, and lost 3-4 of their own it does open a quandary.
How much is enough to be relevant? Neither the F8F, P51H or the P80 saw combat in WW2 and as such aren't counted at all. The Ta did see combat but in such small numbers as to be irrelevant. Don't get me wrong, it's my favorite German fighter of WW2 and has been since childhood, however it's impact by the wars end was negligible.
As for it's title as the pinnacle of piston engine fighters, should in my opinion, read pinnacle of German piston engine fighters. The Mustang, Bearcat and P80 all enjoyed further refinement and use post 1945, while the Ta-152 died in it's infancy due to the end of the war. Could it have gone further, oh YEAH. Did it, nope.
Read this post as the first paragraph which is generally accepted as fact, and the remaining is my OPINE.
Cheers,
Biff
Last edited:
I agree, but you did forget the Sea Fury, certainly the pinnacle of British piston engine fighters and right up there with the others you did mention.
Cheers
Steve
Steve,
Sorry about that! In my eyes it's one of the better looking piston fighters ever!
Cheers,
Biff
Users who are viewing this thread
Similar threads
