parsifal
Colonel
I have to agree. I met one or two US vets that spoke of the Bearcat. They all said it was built like a brick sh*thouse. Never have I heard anyone claim that it was flimsy
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
GregP
Major
The F8F is a lot of things, but weak isn't one of them.
Something was mentioned about the R-2800 using 92 Octance fuel above. We were flying better fuel than that most all of the war, so I'm not sure where that one was headed. By 1943, no US planes were flying other than MUCH better fuels.
My original thought was that the author of this thread wanted to know if an R-3350-powered F8F would have been a good fighter. My thought was that the R-3350 didn't turn into a reliable, long-lasting powerplant until well after jets were the new darlings of the fighter world, and an EARLY R-3350-powered F8F would not be a good bet, nor would it have been practical.
Something was mentioned about the R-2800 using 92 Octance fuel above. We were flying better fuel than that most all of the war, so I'm not sure where that one was headed. By 1943, no US planes were flying other than MUCH better fuels.
My original thought was that the author of this thread wanted to know if an R-3350-powered F8F would have been a good fighter. My thought was that the R-3350 didn't turn into a reliable, long-lasting powerplant until well after jets were the new darlings of the fighter world, and an EARLY R-3350-powered F8F would not be a good bet, nor would it have been practical.
Last edited:
Dedalos,
Others have chimed in about your P-51H / F8F comments so I will refrain.
I have "bested" many F16s F18s at low altitude in a fight, but both are better at low altitude than the Eagle. The reason is I had more experience than they did, or started the fight at enough of advantage, or I turned the tables on them.
There is a LOT of knowledge in here (the Forum), mind boggling almost, all available to be tapped in to. I came in here thinking I knew more than the average guy, and I did. The only thing is the guys in here are not average. Look at this forum as place you get your knowledge vetted, but expect it will be tested and quite handily so don't get disgruntled if someone doesn't agree. With an open mind you might have your opine changed, I know I have.
Cheers,
Biff
Others have chimed in about your P-51H / F8F comments so I will refrain.
I have "bested" many F16s F18s at low altitude in a fight, but both are better at low altitude than the Eagle. The reason is I had more experience than they did, or started the fight at enough of advantage, or I turned the tables on them.
There is a LOT of knowledge in here (the Forum), mind boggling almost, all available to be tapped in to. I came in here thinking I knew more than the average guy, and I did. The only thing is the guys in here are not average. Look at this forum as place you get your knowledge vetted, but expect it will be tested and quite handily so don't get disgruntled if someone doesn't agree. With an open mind you might have your opine changed, I know I have.
Cheers,
Biff
Last edited:
Tomo,
I wish I had the money I spent on P40 models as a kid! I built a LOT of them. My point was I wouldn't argue how well it would or wouldn't do in the future based on one battle, or the accounts of the few that got airborne during the attack on Pearl Harbor.
Cheers,
Biff
I wish I had the money I spent on P40 models as a kid! I built a LOT of them. My point was I wouldn't argue how well it would or wouldn't do in the future based on one battle, or the accounts of the few that got airborne during the attack on Pearl Harbor.
Cheers,
Biff
GrauGeist
Generalfeldmarschall zur Luftschiff Abteilung
Everyone does realize that I used the P-40 versus IJN at Pearl Harbor as an example, right?
The example being: that the conditions on Oahu that Sunday morning, for a few hours, were pretty much what the Luftwaffe had to operate under daily (weather permitting) during the last months of the war...
I simply used the P-40 because it was the most advanced fighter the U.S. had in it's inventory on the island of Oahu at the time. I could have said P-36A or P-40B in respect to the aircraft that actually got airborne and challenged the Japanese (the P-40C types were destroyed on the ground) but left it as a generic statement.
The example being: that the conditions on Oahu that Sunday morning, for a few hours, were pretty much what the Luftwaffe had to operate under daily (weather permitting) during the last months of the war...
I simply used the P-40 because it was the most advanced fighter the U.S. had in it's inventory on the island of Oahu at the time. I could have said P-36A or P-40B in respect to the aircraft that actually got airborne and challenged the Japanese (the P-40C types were destroyed on the ground) but left it as a generic statement.
I respect your expertise A LOT, and i read very carefully your posts. I realise that often i have the role of the "bad guy" with the strange opinions.Yet such discussions are the most productive. If we all agreed on everything , there would be no interest in the forum!!!
I dont understand. Where did i say inaccurany? I gave my source. F8F did lose wingtips even in Peace conditions.. Fatalities occured. US Navy was forced in 1947 to rebuilt the wings of the entire f8f fleet. If Ta 152s or a Me 262 s were losing wigtips with fatal result would you say that they had structural issues?
Me 262 is a very bad example as more were lost to accidents than any other cause. The largest known cause of these accidents was the engines. No allied aircraft would have found itself in service with such an appalling reliability and safety record, but then the Allies weren't losing the war
I have to say that I don't believe it is possible to draw any practical conclusions about the Ta 152 in combat given the limited number operational and even more limited number of combats. Given just the limited data about the Defiant in the very early stages of the war, say from 29th May 1940 when the Defiants of No. 264 Squadron claimed 37 enemy aircraft, might lead to the conclusion that it was a capable fighter, which it certainly was not.
Extrapolating from paper data is a method fraught with many pit falls.
Cheers
Steve
Last edited:
FLYBOYJ
"THE GREAT GAZOO"
They were DESIGNED to come off when you pulled 9Gs and had an explosive charge to jettison the wing tip. Do you realize what it takes to bring an aircraft to 9Gs?!? This was a DESIGN issue, not a structural issue and when the concept didn't work they just did away with the jettisonable wing tip. BTW, the Me 262 was limited to +7 -5 Gs between 410 and 440 mph, and I believe this was mentioned in the original flight manual. Here's a link to Ta 152 pilot notes - maybe someone who reads German better than I could find mention of the G limits, I'd bet they are less then 9Gs...
http://www.ww2aircraft.net/forum/other-mechanical-systems-tech-/ta-152h-pilots-notes-4892.html
Last edited:
The G limits for the Ta-152H decreased (due to increased wingspan wings?) from what the Ta-152C had. It was down to +5 and -2.5 G at 4500 kg (here, scroll a bit); the 152C was at 6.3 G for 5000 kg weight.
The normal take off weight of the Ta-152H-0 was 4730 kg, per same source, and the 152H-1 at 5220 kg. Or, 5 and 4.33 G, respectively for those weights?
The P-47N was rated, post war, for 8 G at 'design weight' of 13823 lbs (6270 kg, basically no fuel on-board, but with full ammo and pilot). The 'combat weight' was at 16700 (wartime) - 17228 lbs (post war). Or, 7575 - 7815 kg, that is with 2100 L of internal fuel. Meaning 6.62 - 6.42 G for those 'combat weights'?
The normal take off weight of the Ta-152H-0 was 4730 kg, per same source, and the 152H-1 at 5220 kg. Or, 5 and 4.33 G, respectively for those weights?
The P-47N was rated, post war, for 8 G at 'design weight' of 13823 lbs (6270 kg, basically no fuel on-board, but with full ammo and pilot). The 'combat weight' was at 16700 (wartime) - 17228 lbs (post war). Or, 7575 - 7815 kg, that is with 2100 L of internal fuel. Meaning 6.62 - 6.42 G for those 'combat weights'?
FLYBOYJ
"THE GREAT GAZOO"
The US Navy had 3 (THREE) reported issues with the detachable wingtips. I'll post again so certain folks understand...
"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."
"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."
GregP
Major
When they disabled the explosive wingtips, everyone was happier and the planes did NOT have maintenance issue related to the wingtips.
I know people who OWN Bearcats, people who fly them, people who flew them in the Navy, and people who worked at Grumman. Nobody has ever mentioned rebuilding the wings for the fleet. They deactivated the explosive wingtips by removing the charges and that was the extent of it.
I know people who OWN Bearcats, people who fly them, people who flew them in the Navy, and people who worked at Grumman. Nobody has ever mentioned rebuilding the wings for the fleet. They deactivated the explosive wingtips by removing the charges and that was the extent of it.
parsifal
Colonel
In some areas the P-40 was better, but in others, not so good. I think the proof is in the pudding here. Joe B posted a long while ago the actual combat victories in the air for allied aircraft against the Zeke. Turns out for 1942, about 150 or so were lost in air combat, whilst shooting down well over a thousand (not sure of that number but it was hopelessly big) allied fighters, of which the P-40 was a major loser. Say, 300 P-40s to 50 Zekes in air combat encounters in 1942. Japanese losses were much higher for non combat related reasons, and losses sustained whilst on the ground. The biggest killer of the Zeke until 1944 was probably the B-24......
After October, new tactics, new types and better pilots came into the equation that minimised the Zeke advantages, but a Zeke was never a pushover
Dedalos,
"I never said that this combat proved the ta superior to tempest at low level. I chose my words carefully. I said that "proved competitive" and " engaged the tempest more or less on even terms". And considering that ta was a specialized High altitude fighter while tempest a low altitude fighter it s something positive for the capabilities of the TA 152"
I would take a starting a fight on someone's 6 o'clock in an inferior plane over starting out front in a superior plane any day of the week. If I started a wrestling match with my opposition face down on the matt, my knee on his neck, who do you think would be favored to win? There is a tremendous advantage to starting a fight behind the other guy. Gives you lots of breathing room, and he has to deal with getting shot at (avoiding bullets) and in this case, avoiding the ground (best you can do there is break even and he lost). And you call this more or less even? Also I think you missed the point about strafing speeds. You don't do that at high speed unless it's a hit and run. If you are working a target area your speed will be down as there are not surface to air threats. I would think a guy with Willi's experience would enter the fight at a higher speed than his opponent given that he ran his intercept to start the fight behind his target.
"Rescke had 27 kills. If we accept the rule of thumb that is trendy in our days , that LW over-claimed 3-1 against USAAF, then he had less than ten. Anyway he was a product of late war LW training system. If we compare his total flying hours with these of the unlucky Mitchell I doubt we will find significant difference."
The significant difference is two fold. Total flight hours are not a factor, but trigger time. Regardless of how many kills Willi had, he had pulled the trigger on at LEAST 27 A/C. That means experience that F/O Mitchell didn't have.
"When I compare the technical design of two aircraft ,in my opinion, I give some identical parameters as a base Line to start. If ta 152 MUST be compared without MW 50 &GM1 and with b4 fuel I am the First to call it inferior to the late Western fighter. (Although Brown considered it close in capabilities with the spit XIX even without MW50 and GM1)"
I was using the fuel compare to negate the Willi kill, not a technical flyoff, but a real one. You are crossing fact streams.
"True , but it was a fight that lasted several turns until the tempest stalled . At low speed turning fight the drag of the tempest 2 wing racks is not that important. With its massive power advantage should be able to outfly its pursuer even if initially tempest was at Energy level disadvantage. Yet ta with just 1750 ps managed to stay behind it."
The reason the Tempest stalled was it didn't have enough power to stay above stall speed for what the pilot was asking it to do. External wing racks, or drag devices are a bigger detriment the harder you pull (or more g forces you pulling). As I said before, I have attacked aircraft at lower altitudes, that had more power, and better handling, and been victorious. Was that because my plane was better? Nope. What you are staking credibility on, or building your case upon, with this one fight between Willi and F/O Mitchell is not a good example. Not at all.
"That's why I just said "Ta proved competitive with the tempest". Not a pristine fight? Why ? It was 1vs1 ,by pilots with similar total flying experience, Rescke had initial tactical advantage, Mitchell had massive, huge power advantage. But generally I agree that fighter comparison should be First of all by Technical data's because operational results are configured by many irrelevant factors."
All of the late model WW2 piston fighters were fairly competitive. No it wasn't a pristine fight, which is why it's not a good example. If you could back it up with many more examples then maybe, but with only ONE data point you don't have enough to make a case either way. Also, as I stated previously, starting with a much higher experience level, a speed advantage, surprise, and a positional advantage you SHOULD win. The outcome is no surprise and AGAIN is not an example of superiority of one type over another in the short or long term.
"There is a LOT of knowledge in here (the Forum), mind boggling almost, all available to be tapped in to. I came in here thinking I knew more than the average guy, and I did. The only thing is the guys in here are not average. Look at this forum as place you get your knowledge vetted, but expect it will be tested and quite handily so don't get disgruntled if someone doesn't agree. With an open mind you might have your opine changed, I know I have."
Cheers,
Biff
"I never said that this combat proved the ta superior to tempest at low level. I chose my words carefully. I said that "proved competitive" and " engaged the tempest more or less on even terms". And considering that ta was a specialized High altitude fighter while tempest a low altitude fighter it s something positive for the capabilities of the TA 152"
I would take a starting a fight on someone's 6 o'clock in an inferior plane over starting out front in a superior plane any day of the week. If I started a wrestling match with my opposition face down on the matt, my knee on his neck, who do you think would be favored to win? There is a tremendous advantage to starting a fight behind the other guy. Gives you lots of breathing room, and he has to deal with getting shot at (avoiding bullets) and in this case, avoiding the ground (best you can do there is break even and he lost). And you call this more or less even? Also I think you missed the point about strafing speeds. You don't do that at high speed unless it's a hit and run. If you are working a target area your speed will be down as there are not surface to air threats. I would think a guy with Willi's experience would enter the fight at a higher speed than his opponent given that he ran his intercept to start the fight behind his target.
"Rescke had 27 kills. If we accept the rule of thumb that is trendy in our days , that LW over-claimed 3-1 against USAAF, then he had less than ten. Anyway he was a product of late war LW training system. If we compare his total flying hours with these of the unlucky Mitchell I doubt we will find significant difference."
The significant difference is two fold. Total flight hours are not a factor, but trigger time. Regardless of how many kills Willi had, he had pulled the trigger on at LEAST 27 A/C. That means experience that F/O Mitchell didn't have.
"When I compare the technical design of two aircraft ,in my opinion, I give some identical parameters as a base Line to start. If ta 152 MUST be compared without MW 50 &GM1 and with b4 fuel I am the First to call it inferior to the late Western fighter. (Although Brown considered it close in capabilities with the spit XIX even without MW50 and GM1)"
I was using the fuel compare to negate the Willi kill, not a technical flyoff, but a real one. You are crossing fact streams.
"True , but it was a fight that lasted several turns until the tempest stalled . At low speed turning fight the drag of the tempest 2 wing racks is not that important. With its massive power advantage should be able to outfly its pursuer even if initially tempest was at Energy level disadvantage. Yet ta with just 1750 ps managed to stay behind it."
The reason the Tempest stalled was it didn't have enough power to stay above stall speed for what the pilot was asking it to do. External wing racks, or drag devices are a bigger detriment the harder you pull (or more g forces you pulling). As I said before, I have attacked aircraft at lower altitudes, that had more power, and better handling, and been victorious. Was that because my plane was better? Nope. What you are staking credibility on, or building your case upon, with this one fight between Willi and F/O Mitchell is not a good example. Not at all.
"That's why I just said "Ta proved competitive with the tempest". Not a pristine fight? Why ? It was 1vs1 ,by pilots with similar total flying experience, Rescke had initial tactical advantage, Mitchell had massive, huge power advantage. But generally I agree that fighter comparison should be First of all by Technical data's because operational results are configured by many irrelevant factors."
All of the late model WW2 piston fighters were fairly competitive. No it wasn't a pristine fight, which is why it's not a good example. If you could back it up with many more examples then maybe, but with only ONE data point you don't have enough to make a case either way. Also, as I stated previously, starting with a much higher experience level, a speed advantage, surprise, and a positional advantage you SHOULD win. The outcome is no surprise and AGAIN is not an example of superiority of one type over another in the short or long term.
"There is a LOT of knowledge in here (the Forum), mind boggling almost, all available to be tapped in to. I came in here thinking I knew more than the average guy, and I did. The only thing is the guys in here are not average. Look at this forum as place you get your knowledge vetted, but expect it will be tested and quite handily so don't get disgruntled if someone doesn't agree. With an open mind you might have your opine changed, I know I have."
Cheers,
Biff
It is 540 km/h at SL for the Ta-152H-0, ie. 335.5 mph.
No ww2 service Tempest V went over 2400 HP, 3000 HP was a wet dream until the Sabre VII arrived (RPM raised to 4000*, use of water injection).
Chart for the Sabre IIB, for 150 grade fuel
*edit - 3850 RPM, per Lumsden
No ww2 service Tempest V went over 2400 HP, 3000 HP was a wet dream until the Sabre VII arrived (RPM raised to 4000*, use of water injection).
Chart for the Sabre IIB, for 150 grade fuel
*edit - 3850 RPM, per Lumsden
Last edited:
Thanks Tomo Pauk
Obviously i wrote by mistake mph instead of km/h. Howeve its obvious the massive power and performance advantage of Tempest....................on Paper....
Theres pilot(clausterman) report on this EXCELLENT site ,ww2aircraftperformance, a very reliable site , that in emergencies they could overboost the engine to 3000hp. I suppose Mitchell would have used anything its airplane could give. Stil the Ta 152 with 38-70% less power ,and after several turns in which spend any initial Energy advantage, somehow stayed behind the Tempest.
It s also interesting that on British Reports the Tempest could out-everything all german fighters.Still it was the Tempest that stalled.
Last edited:
Pierre Clostermann was/is known for his exaggerations. In a book, 3000 HP sounds much better than 2350 HP, or whatever.
There is enough of primary data on the Williams' site to deduce what level of horsepower was available to many different engines, in what time frame.
We know that Me 262 was having many performance advantages vs. prop fighters, yet some pilots decided to pick a turning fight vs. those and sometimes lost the duel. Or, the MiG 17 sometimes coming atop of the US supersonics. Zero beating US 400-mph fighters on St. Valentine's day 1943, and some bombers for a good measure.
Surprise, height and speed advantage, and pilots capable to take advantage of that should overcome any if not all paper advantages a fighter aircraft has above another.
There is enough of primary data on the Williams' site to deduce what level of horsepower was available to many different engines, in what time frame.
We know that Me 262 was having many performance advantages vs. prop fighters, yet some pilots decided to pick a turning fight vs. those and sometimes lost the duel. Or, the MiG 17 sometimes coming atop of the US supersonics. Zero beating US 400-mph fighters on St. Valentine's day 1943, and some bombers for a good measure.
Surprise, height and speed advantage, and pilots capable to take advantage of that should overcome any if not all paper advantages a fighter aircraft has above another.
Users who are viewing this thread
Similar threads
