If the Rare Bear became a ww2 fighter.

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

Prototypes of many of the 'post' war Allied piston engined fighters were flying in 1944 or very early 1945. Because the battle was not being fought a few hundred miles (if not over) the factory doors these aircraft didn't see combat action.
There are no RAF '46 or USAAF '46 web sites promoting these end of war designs. They might not have been as far behind the spring of 1945 German planes as some people seem to think in terms of development. 24 P-47Ns had been delivered by Jan 1st 1945 with dozens more every month. They just weren't sent to Europe. The F8F, " The first production aircraft was delivered in February 1945 and the first squadron, Fighter Squadron 19 (VF-19), was operational by 21 May 1945" but operational in the US is not operational off the coast of Japan, it is 7600 miles by great circle air route from Grumman factory to Okinawa and thousands more miles by ship.
 
Greq p
There are opinions and there are facts. Our opinions will never agree on this subject but we both have to aacept the facts for which there are historical evidences
You claimed
1) "The Ta 152H s were flown by experten". WRONG. The names of most of the pilots are known and available in the bibliography. NONE of them could be considered especially experienced let alone experte. JG 301 ,in 1945, had the typical pilot roster of the rest of the Jagdwaffe. Most succesful of the ta 152 pilots was propably Willi rescke with 27 kills in 70 combat missios(And if we accept drgondog thesis that lw was overclaiming 3-1 against American bombers, he had less than 10).And Walter Loos with 38 (8 soviet) These numbers are redecilous low for a luftwaffe experte of WW2
2)" No two of them were built intedical" Wrong. In bibliography there are available the history of most wreck numbers and a small Technical description of each. Your statement is simply untrue
3)"Had a record of 7-10 kills vs 4 combat losses". From the german point of view no ta 152 was lost in a combat Mission. The 2 aircrafts going to JG11 , were on ferry flight, flown by untrained on the type pilots , propably unarmed and bounced by higher flying enemy aircafts. The other 2, according to german sources, were combat accidents.But really, regadless of its combat record, the design of the aircraft can be judged by what it accoblished in the combat conditions of 1945?

It s a fact that
1) The Ta 152H-o ,with no MW 50 and B4 fuel, proved competitive in low level combat(regadless the exact score) against specialised fighters like Tempest (at least 130 octane fuel by 1945) and Yaks
2) The Ta 152 H-1 , in engish captivity ,with B4 fuel, WITHOUT MW 50 and GM1, almost certainly with the problems in the third supercgarger speed not solved,and full armament was judged slightly inferior to the RECCE Spitfire XIX below 10000m and slightly superior above that altitude
3) It had armament , armor and avionics superior to most of its opponents

all the above does place the Ta 152H among the best propeller driven . If you consider it a mediocre fighter because it failed to win ww2 for germany , what can i say? you may have your opinion
 
.
The Serial produced Jumo 213E-1 would have solved ( at least that was the intention) the problems with the 3rd supercharger gear
Brown Reports a speed of 684km/h at 10670m , no GM1, propably not third gear in, power setting unknown
Do you know any aircraft that its maximum speed was calculated at maximum take off weight?
At 4750kgr ,"light" as you mention, the Ta 152H still had 595ltr lt of fuel, 70 ltr more than the entire Internal fuel capacity of the Fw 190A8 ! And the Ta had the option to use its wing tanks for another 400ltr if needed. Do you believe that with such Internal fuel capacity, would be nessecary to have the ETC rack?
The P47M/N had absolutely superb performance at 33000 ft . But i believe the ta with Jumo 213EB and GM1, or at least 213E-1 ,C3 fuel and GM1 could reach such speeds. And it had the advantages of the pressurized cocpit , automatic engine controls and lower wing loading
 
Dedalos,

I didn't read Greg's posts as being as negative as you did.

Also realize that there are at least two versions of Willi's story of how his wingman went down. We discussed this in a previous thread at length. Here is a link to the thread: http://www.ww2aircraft.net/forum/av...e-vs-fw-190-vs-51-a-13369-62.html#post1072052.

I would suggest you read post 926 on page 62, 956 and page 64, and 961 on page 65. There is what I would call strong circumstantial evidence (high quality for the time) that his wingman was shot down and didn't just "crash".

I also think Germany did well producing anything, let alone aircraft especially during the final year of the war. Yes, they did make what I would call a very good airplane in the Ta152 however it's true combat credentials are questionable due to the few (43) that actually showed up. How many it would take to be credible is a number that probably won't ever be identified, however I think Greg's point is 43 isn't enough. I agree. Going past the a/c numbers into it's combat record one person deciding that two of the four shot down don't count, and that the other two were combat accidents could be to another 4 that were shot down or lost due to combat. Or, combat losses. To re-type an oft quoted line among fighter pilots, "A kill is a kill". Also if the two losses from the ferry flight had scored kills, would you count them? If you venture into the arena you are part of the game, whether you want to be or not.

The reason the F8F, P51H, and P80 have no combat record is they were not built under another nations or forces air superiority. When you live under another military's umbrella, you have to deal with that, and the result is an un-vetted or un-sorted aircraft might end up in combat before the bugs are worked out.

Be aware that a person who is very pro one nationality, or type of aircraft, might cast a shadow on their credibility or ability to sort the truth from the fiction.

Cheers,
Biff
 
Last edited:
dedalos said:
.
The Serial produced Jumo 213E-1 would have solved ( at least that was the intention) the problems with the 3rd supercharger gear
Click to expand...

Probably it would.

Brown Reports a speed of 684km/h at 10670m , no GM1, propably not third gear in, power setting unknown
Click to expand...

Goes without saying that I'd gladly take a peek in the original Brown's report.

Do you know any aircraft that its maximum speed was calculated at maximum take off weight?
Click to expand...

Not at the maximum take off weight - that would mean, for the fighters, the drop tanks are also carried. But there is plenty of data for the fighters in clean condition, but with maximum fuel aboard, like the example I've gave for the P-47N.


The Fw-901A-8 carried, in most of the cases, 640 L of fuel, due to the installation of the rear fuselage 'drum' tank.
As for whether is necessary to carry the full fuel and ETC in the same time - we need a level play field, if a fair comparison is to be drawn. We can easily find the data for the Allied fighters with full internal fuel and rack(s), but not for the late war Fw fighters.


While the C series of the R-2800 have had it's share of teething troubles, it was in volume production before 1945 started, and was even powering, though in experimental form, a late 1943 XP-47J to 500 mph. By that time (late 1944), the Jumo 213EB was still on test benches? Granted, it would provide the Ta-152 with extra performance, at least by looking at the charts. BTW, the speed figures for the P-47N and M are for the 130 grade fuel, how much faster with 150 grade? And again, how fast the Ta-152 would be with full fuel load and ETC?
The P-47M/N were about as capable as the Ta-152, but the Ta-152 was unable to do what the P-47N was able, namely to provide the combat radius (not range) in excess of 1000 miles. table
 
Biff 15
I have read several discutions about the combat of 14/4/45. It is possible that Sattler was shot down . But even if he was shot down ,it was by surprise attack , not because he was out flown. What is important ,in my opinion, is that at that combat ta 152 , a specialized High altitude fighter, demonstrated it s ability to engange ,on more or less equal terms ,the best low level alleid fighter of the war AT LOW LEVEL. And it did it using far inferior fuel,and no MW50. People dont realize that at that fight the tempest had a power advantage of AT LEAST 430 hp, if flown at 9 lb boost and much more if flown at 11 or 13lb boost which its the most propable by that stage of the war
I will judge aircraft designs by Technical datas. I will use combat history only if the combat terms are reasonables.
I love the hornet,i love the T-33, i admire the Tigercat and F4U-5, i find the P47N very very useful, but i am sorry but from what i have read both the F8F and P51H were structuraly suspect. They were very good at their very specific missions but not good for all around work. The americans, knew very well that and kept them away from combat
 
dedalos said:
but i am sorry but from what i have read both the F8F and P51H were structuraly suspect. They were very good at their very specific missions but not good for all around work. The americans, knew very well that and kept them away from combat
Click to expand...

Please tell us your source for this?!? The only reason why the F8F wasn't used in combat (Korea) by US forces was because there were other recips readily avilable to be deployed overseas that were more capable, especially in an air to ground mission. By the time the F8F could have been used in a shooting war, it was already eclipsed by jets, let alone assigned to reserve units.

The French operated 200 F8Fs in Vietnam before they left, never heard any reports by them staing the aircraft was "structually suspect." I'll let other chime in on the P-51H...
 

I disagree that P47 M/N were as capable as Ta 152H.It had better range and dive. If the ta had c3 fuel and GM1 had similar level speeds at over 10000m
The ta was much more manouverable.Lowere wing loading. It had pressurised cocpit so could enter combat at higher altitude. Lower pilot work load. If the combat last and height is lost the Ta eventually gets power loading edge as well. In medium / low level ta is clearly superior.
Was possible to use 150 octane fuel on c series 2800s? They were already hard pushed. And P47N was a big plane. It needed important additional power to see notable speed gain. Finally if you want to compare apples to apples and oranges to oranges if you allow 150 octane fuel for the P47 you should allow 213EB for the ta. Besides what you are meaning c series was in production before 1945? P47M s in england were grounded until march 45 due to engine problems. And had huge fuel consuption that limited their endurance. By that time DB603L (2400 ps) also was ready for production
 

F8F in action. Squadron/signal publications. Page 14. The F8f had the unique design charachteristic of broken wingtips. There were several occasions that f8f lost their wingtips. Especially during strafing and bombing exercises. Unfortunately there was at least one fatality. In 1947 the American navy was forced to rebuilt the wings.

For the P51H sveral sources. Now, immediately joe bauer page comes to my mind
 
If the Ta-152H was at low altitude, I suspect the P-47Ms could deal with them sufficiently. P-47Ms appear to be slightly faster, and had an advantage in climb rate as well. At least a 500fpm advantage at sea level, and probably more up to about 30,000'. Above that, I think the Ta-152 would have the advantage in speed and climb. To illustrate its climb, the P-51H climbed to 25K in 6.7 minutes, and the P-47M climbed to 25K in about 7.1 minutes. Information taken from wwIIaircraftperformance SAC charts.
 

I have a Fw performance table that says for the Ta 152H-0 ,at 4730 kgr, NO MW50, B4 fuel, initial climb rate 20 m/sec, 8 minutes to 7000 m
Unknown power setting
 
dedalos said:
If it carried the 115 ltr fuselage tank could not Carry MW50 which was preffered in 1945 from c3 injection. But even using c3 injection, meant much more fuel consuption and the additional 115 ltr help little in range.
Click to expand...

I'll politely ask you to provide credible sources on the BMW 801 ever using the MW 50 system. The 190A-8 never used the C3 injection, but the 'simple' overboost (with about the same increase of manifold pressure and, hence, power).

I disagree that P47 M/N were as capable as Ta 152H.It had better range and dive. If the ta had c3 fuel and GM1 had similar level speeds at over 10000m
Click to expand...

For the P-47M/N, we don't have any 'ifs', apart from possible use of 150 grade fuel. The 'ifs' for the Ta-152 are numerous - GM1, clearance for MW 50 usage in 3rd supercharger speed, experimental engines, 'zellenfeste werkleidung' etc.
The P-47N have had the rear-warning radar and anti-G suits available before the ww2 ended, not the case for the Ta-152.
As for the capabilities - I've posted a number of performance figures for the P-47M/N with full internal load, so I expect the same for the Ta-152. Not to be impolite, just that I cannot locate any.


The Ta-152 will be killed from attacks in rear hemisphere, since we know that 3/4 of fighters were disposed that way, unknowingly to their pilots - it carries no tail-warning radar. Failing that, it will not be able to roll as good as the P-47. It will not do well in sustained high-G turns, since the pilot will black out. Unlike the P-47, it will succumb to any late-war gun burst that hits.

Was possible to use 150 octane fuel on c series 2800s? They were already hard pushed. And P47N was a big plane. It needed important additional power to see notable speed gain.
Click to expand...

Don't know whether the 150 grade was used on the R 2800 C. The high power was put in a good use with P-47s.


I mean exactly as I've wrote - the R 2800 C were in series production prior 1945, and yes, I've noted they have had issues. That is still far bigger asset than the 213EB, that never flew in an operative aircraft.
The combat radius of the P-47M was 400 miles, with 370 gals of internal fuel and only one, 110 gal tank under centreline. How much with 2 x 165 gal tanks instead of that drop tank?
The P-47N was the only single engine fighter to have 1000+ miles (or 1310, by the table in the above post, probably on relaxed cruise settings) combat radius. That is because the R 2800 was on board, not despite.
 

dedalos said:
I have a Fw performance table that says for the Ta 152H-0 ,at 4730 kgr, NO MW50, B4 fuel, initial climb rate 20 m/sec, 8 minutes to 7000 m
Unknown power setting
Click to expand...

Ta 152H-0, 4760 kg, to 10 km of altitude it took 13,8 min on 'Notleistung', and 10,1 min on 'Sondernotleistung' (ie. MW 50 is used). here (Steigzeit auf 10km (min))
 
I can certainly agree about the skies of Europe being a target rich environment!

We can also say that the skies over Pearl Harbor, the morning of 7 December 1941 were a target rich envirnoment for the P-40, too!

However, in both cases, you can say it should have been like shooting fish in a barrel: or more like being up to your neck in that barrel...that's full of pirahna...
 
Re. use of the 150 grade fuel on the R 2800 C series: that was, roughly, the 'European fuel', as much as I can gather. Ie. shipped and used in Europe during 1944-45, plus post-war. The USAF and USN seem to move to 115/145 grade fuel (weak/rich rating) quickly after the war?
The R 2800 C was, in variants without the turbos, rated for that fuel. The difference was, for example on the R-2800-34, some 200 HP for take off, 2300 HP vs. 2100.
 

The C series R-2800 engines used in the P-47M/N were rated at 2800hp with whatever fuel and and water injection was needed. That power rating is in numerous charts and pilots books. I would note that post war commercial engines (airliners) were good for 2400hp for take-off using water injection and 100/130 fuel. 2100hp dry. on 115/145 fuel the wet rating (water injection ) doesn't change but the dry rating does, 2300hp for take off with 58in MAP. These are with single stage superchargers and the supercharger may be the limiting factor,

as for the "C" series being in "production" P &W built 347 two stage "C"s in the Connecticut plant for F4U-4s in 1944, the Kansas city plant built 2744 single stage "C" engines in 1944 (in fact the Kansas City plant ONLY built R-2800 "C" series engines) , Chevrolet built 327 single stage "C" series R-2800s in 1944. The turbo charger used in the P-47 was an "add-on". If over 3400 engines in 1944 aren't enough for you what is? The "C" series engines had no interchangeable parts with the "B" series engines.

The Engines in the P-47Ms did have troubles, so did a lot of other engines, which is why many of us tend to doubt how trouble free the late war German engines might have been in long term service.
 
[
Did i ever said that P47N was not Top class fighter? It had its strong points and its weaknesses. Better escort fighter than the Ta 152 worse ,as General Air superiority fighter[/B]
 
Last edited:

For the Ta-152H-0, the MW 50 and GM1 were not even 'ifs', those fighters carried no tanks for those extras, while comprising almost half of Ta-152Hs produced, at least going by this web page that lavishly copies from D. Herman book(s):
In the event, after all this delayed development work and lack of prop¬er testing, production was carried out at Focke-Wulf's Cottbus facilities of only 43 known Ta 152H. This meagre total apparently comprised 20 Ta 152H-0 pre-production models and 23 H-1 production examples.

The 152H-0 was also without wing tanks.

The unavailability of the C3 fuel does not have anything with hi-perf engines not being mass produced. Certainly nothing to do with, say DB 603 achieving extra RPM for the 'N' sub-variant, not for the Jumo 213J having 4 valve head instead of 3 valve head and a bit greater bore (-> achieving high RPM).
The 92 oct fuel was history for the air warfare as far was Allies were concerned, long before the R 2800 C appeared.


I've tried to show that there is more than one way to skin a cat. No aircraft possessed all the right cards, nor all the cards were equally usable in all situations, especially if the combat loading is equal on both adversaries.
The Bf 109Gs possessed the more favorable wing- and power-loading than the P-47Ds, we all now that P-47s were not shot in droves by the 109s.


The P-47 show in many instances it can shrug off the 20mm hits. The 4 BMGs (in P-47B/C)were proven to be able to kill the sturdy Fw 190s. Eight BMGs were more than able to kill any fighter of ww2, and then some.
Granted, using a MK 108 to kill a 450+ mph fighter does indeed take a Top Gun expert.


The G suit was the feature of the aircraft that carried it, as much as the computing sight, guns or a radio. The inclined seat, while it added some 'cushion' vs. blackout was certainly not as effective as the anti-G suit, and it was surely easier to copy.

Yes , P&W and junkers had the same working conditions
Click to expand...

Never said so

Did i ever said that P47N was not Top class fighter? It had its strong points and its weaknesses. Better escort fighter than the Ta 152 worse ,as General Air superiority fighter
Click to expand...

Yeah, sometimes we do quarrel about nothing. Way of the discussion, so to speak
Anyway - the P-47N could be used as a general air superiority fighter without problems - just don't fill up the wing tanks and you're fine.
 

The F8F had wingtips were actually designed to shed.

The Grumman F8F Bearcat

"The Bearcat had one unusual design feature to save weight, that was eventually abandoned. It incorporated provisions for Safety Wing Tips, that would break off, if the aircraft exceeded 9 Gs. This feature allowed for a lighter wing structure saving 230 lb. Based on experience with other aircraft, it was felt that a weak-point in the wing, would prevent the entire wing from being overstressed or failing. In addition, provisions for explosive charges were installed in the wing tips. If only one wing tip separated, the charges would be activated, to maintain flight symmetry. However, this feature did not always work and in two cases, a wing tip broke off during a low-altitude, high-speed pullout, and both aircraft rolled over and crashed into the sea, before either pilot could recover. Also, on at least one occasion, a malfunction occurred with the explosive charges during maintenance, and a US Navy technician was killed."

I know people who flew the F8F and they said the aircraft was built like a tank, so please spare us from comments like "The americans, knew very well that and kept them away from combat" when you have no accurate information to back up a statement like that!
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Users who are viewing this thread

Total: 1 (members: 0, guests: 1)

Similar threads

S
"Generations" of fighter aircraft
2
Replies
31
Views
1K
SaparotRob
A
Perun: Building the Worst WW2 Air Force
Replies
13
Views
1K
pinehilljoe
WW2 Fantasy Aircraft
2 3 4
Replies
64
Views
2K
SaparotRob
W
The scarcity of fighter to fighter FW-190A pilot combat accounts...
2 3
Replies
52
Views
4K
GrauGeist
Rare (mostly unseen) footage of Power Jets, the Miles M.52, and other projects
Replies
3
Views
812
Dronescapes
Menu
Log in
Register