If the Rare Bear became a ww2 fighter.

DerAdlerIstGelandet · Dec 22, 2014

GregP said:
Hey Adler, I didn't bring it up. The thread wound around to it without my intervention at all.

I added my thoughts. Isn't that what we are supposed to do in here?

If there is something specific you didn't like about my reply, what was it? Seemed very friendly to me. If it seems otherwise to anyone, that wasn't my intent. I was just participating in the discussion. Really.

Agreed, Adler. Once someone disagreed with what is and isn't a wonder weapon, it did get kind of dumb. I shan't wonder any longer ...

Sorry, I did not mean to edit your post. I meant to quote it.

So here was my response.

No there was nothing that I disliked. I just find the whole "Wonder Weapon" discussion dumb, especially when people try and validate what is and is not a valid opinion.

Just my two cents and my opinion.

GregP · Dec 22, 2014

That's OK. I was worried I was somehow seen to be violating some rule of behavior, and I certainly didn't mean to do that.

I guess there's no rule about participating in dumb discussions, huh?

DerAdlerIstGelandet · Dec 22, 2014

GregP said:
That's OK. I was worried I was somehow seen to be violating some rule of behavior, and I certainly didn't mean to do that.

I guess there's no rule about participating in dumb discussions, huh?

Nope there is no rule against it. Carry on...

wuzak · Dec 22, 2014

GregP said:
I think a production Bearcat would eat a Ta 152 alive under about 18,000 feet, particularly if the external fuel tansk were gone. Above 22,000 feet the Ta 152 would be almost a sure winner, with the outcome in some doubt in between. The Bearcat would out-accelerate, out-climb (almost double), probably roll a small bit slower (not much) and, at least the Bearcat with the four 20 mm cannons, would have about an even shot when it comes to armament.

The Bearcat was never designed for high-altitude combat and would be at a disadvantage way up there. Down low, the tables are completely turned.

One major advantage for the Bearcat is visibility. I have sat in the Fw 190D at the Champlin Fighter Museum back in the 1980's and the cockpit is very small with almost no room to turn your head sideways ... and rearward visibilty was almost nil. So the view out the windscreen would be about the same, but the Bearcat would have visibility all over the Ta 152 from 90° sideways around to the rear.

At altitude the Ta 152 is very fast (and rolls better, probably noticeably so) , but the Beracat is probably as fast or faster at low altitudes where it was designed to operate, especially the F8F-2, and can roll with the Ta 152 down low where the Ta's long wings are a disadvantage. The Bearcat also has very benign stall characteristics, as do most US Navy fighters by design. The Fw 190 series is known for having almost no stall warning. That mkes it hard to reef into a hard turn near the angle of attack limit, comparatively. The Bearcat will always give a good stall warning before departing.

I really like the "one lever" power setup in the Fw (assuming the Ta 152 had it, too) for dogfighting, but the standard throttle, mixture, and rpm are much better for cruising in formation, even if loose formation.

There were a lot more Bearcats delivered and they had spare parts available once deployed, so serviceability is a check for the Bearcat.

Much of my seeming dismissal of the Ta 152 comes from it's relative absence from German war plans due to almost none being available for regular deployment in meaningful numbers. Had the Ta 152 been deployed in some numbers, it would have proven a major pain in the Allied fighter battle, at least until our jets got into the fray. It was a very good one, but almost nonexistent in real life.

A very similar fate was dealt to another favorite of mine, the Italian Reggiane Re.2005 Sagittario. It was superb, too, but they only made 48 as opposed to 43 Ta 152's delivered. Ergo almost no impact to the real war. But both are good-looking, well-designed late-war piston fighters that could have been members of the "great fighter club" if deployed earlier in some numbers.

I really like the Ta 152 and the Re.2005 ... they just weren't very effective in the real-life main event, through no real fault of their own, and are very deserving of high praise for combat potential that was never realized.

The Ta 152H should definitely outperform the F8F at altitude. It was, after all, the high altitude version.

The F8F will have an initial climb rate advantage, but that should diminish with altitude - depending on supercharger gear change points for the Ta 152.

The F8F-2 shouldn't be in the discussion, since it was a 1947 aircraft.

tomo pauk · Dec 22, 2014

parsifal said:
what about a comparison of production Bearcat to Ta152?

Under 10000 ft, the F8F-1 will probably have the advantage, between 10-20 K it would be an more equal match, above 20 K it should be the TA-152 with advantage. This comparison comes with a caveat - the F8F-1 with full internal fuel (183 US gals), the Ta-152 with only half (~500 L = 133 US gals). The F8F-1 has the 'design load limit' of 7.5G, the Ta 152H is at 5G, the 152C is at 6.5G or something (due to smaller wings). We (I, at least) don't know the roll rates yet, nor there are any performance figures available for the Ta-152 with full tankage and ETC attached. The Ta-152 has a more potent weapon set-up, until four cannons are introduced with F8F-1B.
Than there is another set of qualifiers: the Ta-152H-0 carried no MW 50 mixture (that gives the F8F-1 the advantage also between 10-20 K), nor, GM-1 (the much drummed 750 km/h at 12 km is not possible for the 152H-0), nor the wing tanks.
The Ta-152H-1 and 152C with wing tanks full will have some disadvantages - the loading factor is further compromised, ditto for the RoC. The speed is probably decreased just a little. The main disadvantage is that wing tanks were not protected (!), contrary to the Allied practice.
Due to that, and the small permissible loading factor, it is very much likely that, in the mid-40s, neither USN, nor USAF, nor RAF would've considered the Ta-152 as a combat-capable aircraft.

stona · Dec 22, 2014

Here's a discussion about a horse, as written by Shakespeare in Henry V.

You can substitute 'Ta 152' for 'horse' for fun. Take note of the Constable's final comment

DAUPHIN
What a long night is this! I will not change my
horse with any that treads but on four pasterns.
Ca, ha! he bounds from the earth, as if his
entrails were hairs; le cheval volant, the Pegasus,
chez les narines de feu! When I bestride him, I
soar, I am a hawk: he trots the air; the earth
sings when he touches it; the basest horn of his
hoof is more musical than the pipe of Hermes.

ORLEANS
He's of the colour of the nutmeg.

DAUPHIN
And of the heat of the ginger. It is a beast for
Perseus: he is pure air and fire; and the dull
elements of earth and water never appear in him, but
only in Patient stillness while his rider mounts
him: he is indeed a horse; and all other jades you
may call beasts.

CONSTABLE
Indeed, my lord, it is a most absolute and excellent horse.

Cheers

Steve

pbehn · Dec 22, 2014

stona said:
Some of the bowmen's skeletons found on the Mary Rose did show evidence of considerable strength, not really deformation. This was in the latter days of archery and these skeletons belonged to the men of the King's (Henry VIII) personal body guard. They were professional archers, not the men of the yeomanry militias (most definitely NOT peasants) of earlier times.

Many regular people today use bows of considerable draw weight, comparable to that of a medieval longbow. It requires strength and practice, particularly to sustain a rapid rate of shooting as required in a battle. This is why it was a legal requirement to practice for the men who might be required to fight for the King on behalf of their overlord. If you accidently killed someone whilst practicing you wouldn't be charged with the offence, which must have opened up a legal loop hole for murder. This law superseded Common Law, it was and still is contrary to Common Law to murder someone
They didn't require any extraordinary or superhuman ability. This is a bit of a myth, a bit like the supposed immobility of men at arms, even when you consider that their armour was specifically designed to allow them the movement to fight!

There are many reasons floated for the increasing use of archers in English armies, it started to become evident in the late 14th and early 15th centuries. The overriding reason will be familiar to all of us in this cash strapped time for defence budgets. Archers were cheap, very cheap, compared to men at arms.

Cheers

Steve

The evidence of considerable strength is asymmetrical because different muscle groups are used on the left and right side i e deformed.
Longbows had a draw weight higher than most used today, the strength to fire a longbow isnt extraordinary, but the strength to fire 6 a minute for sustained periods requires a lot of training.
I saw a programme debunking the myth that men at arms were immobile. The armour was the same weight as a soldiers pack it said. Great, so all you have to do is walk across a churned mud field with the weight of a soldiers pack and a helmet on for at least 400 yards under fire from archers, then fight a row of men stood behind stakes and holding spears. It wasnt a myth, de horsed knights and men at arms were vulnerable, not because the armour stopped them moving but because they quickly became exhausted, if they fell over they got up as quickly as a tired soldier with a pack on his back in mud does.
Archers were not only cheap but light 5000 soldiers with 50Lbs of armour each takes a lot of transporting.

Which leads me to the question ...how would Rare Bear have done at Agincourt?

Elmas · Dec 22, 2014

pbehn said:
....................
Which leads me to the question ...how would Rare Bear have done at Agincourt?

stona · Dec 22, 2014

This is a perfect illustration of what a man could and could not do in fifteenth century armour. Unlike the archers, who were not professional soldiers, the men who wore and could afford this sort of equipment belonged to a class who were effectively professional soldiers. They trained to fight with this equipment. A good and fully trained war horse at Agincourt might cost as much as £50, a fantastic sum of money at the time. They were the Ferraris and Lamborghinis of the age.

View: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5hlIUrd7d1Q

Coming back to the archers, the professionals of Henry VIII's bodyguard did indeed show asymmetrical muscle attachments indicating a heavily and asymmetrically developed musculature. This would not necessarily be the case for the average yeoman archer of Henry IV or V's army. These were not professional soldiers, they worked for a living and were compelled by law to practice on Holy Days, Sundays and many Saint's Days which incidentally comprised together several months each year.

Most medieval longbows are estimated to have had draw weights in the 100-130lb range, many on the Mary Rose are estimated to have beeen sub 100lb bows. When you read that a modern bow has a draw weight of 60lbs this ignores the complex system of cams and cables that reduce the force required to hold the bow at full draw by 50% or more. That bow may well be equivalent to a 120lb longbow. The significant difference is that a medieval archer had to pull the full 120lbs to draw the bow and that is why practice was required and professional archers developed musculature like modern day rugby players!

I don't think that Rare Bear would have done any more to scare the already terrified horses of the French army than the thousands of arrows descending on them did At least the arrows were sharp, Rare Bear is unarmed

Cheers

Steve

pbehn · Dec 22, 2014

Steve have you tried doing anything in a full face helmet, it is exhausting. A display on dry concrete with actors is one thing, the fact is accounts say that for example the French at Agincourt were exhausted when the reached the English lines.

The rest appears to agree with me where you disagreed before, time for me to take some time out.

dedalos · Dec 22, 2014

tomo pauk said:
Under 10000 ft, the F8F-1 will probably have the advantage, between 10-20 K it would be an more equal match, above 20 K it should be the TA-152 with advantage. This comparison comes with a caveat - the F8F-1 with full internal fuel (183 US gals), the Ta-152 with only half (~500 L = 133 US gals).
According to what source?

The F8F-1 has the 'design load limit' of 7.5G, the Ta 152H is at 5G, the 152C is at 6.5G or something (due to smaller wings). We (I, at least) don't know the roll rates yet, nor there are any performance figures available for the Ta-152 with full tankage and ETC attached.
I suppose F8F1 performance was unaffected by such factors

The Ta-152 hasa a more potent weapon set-up, until four cannons are introduced with F8F-1B
i also suppose, according to you, the 20 mm guns did not cause weight penalty.
Than there is another set of qualifiers: the Ta-152H-0 carried no MW 50 mixture (that gives the F8F-1 the advantage also between 10-20 K), nor, GM-1 (the much drummed 750 km/h at 12 km is not possible for the 152H-0), nor the wing tanks.
True, but very conviniently for your agenda, you forgot to mention that the Ta 150HO could still achieve (no Mw50,no gm1) 720 km/h at 10700m
The Ta-152H-1 and 152C with wing tanks full will have some disadvantages - the loading factor is further compromised, ditto for the RoC. The speed is probably decreased just a little. The main disadvantage is that wing tanks were not protected (!), contrary to the Allied practice.
The ta 152 family had 150 kgr of armor . What armor had the F8f1?
Due to that, and the small permissible loading factor, it is very much likely that, in the mid-40s, neither USN, nor USAF, nor RAF would've considered the Ta-152 as a combat-capable aircraft.

What is historicaly certain is that it was the F8f and P51h that USN and usaaf decided not to employ in combat despite the fact that these were their newest and best performing piston engined fighters. Also you forgot to mention that the Ta had presurized cocpit, IFF, Auto pilot, 30 mm cannon and a wing PROFILE designed to retain control at High aoa

Personally i believe F8F1 clearly superior at low altitudes ,Ta 152H1 superior at High altitudes, and somewhere in between to be evenly matched
I dont know the 0m speed of F8f. With 2100hp it was something like 615 km/h. I read somewhere that f8f could use up to 2800hp at sea level .If true then it had a BIG adnantage. Hoewever , i believe speed wise , the ta 152H1 was superior above 5000-5500m.
Once again fuel is extremely important . If Ta 152H1 could at least have c3 fuel (plus mw 50and GM1) then i consider it more all around Air superiority fighter than F8F1.

stona · Dec 22, 2014

pbehn said:
Steve have you tried doing anything in a full face helmet, it is exhausting. A display on dry concrete with actors is one thing, the fact is accounts say that for example the French at Agincourt were exhausted when the reached the English lines.

The rest appears to agree with me where you disagreed before, time for me to take some time out.

I do agree with you. It took considerable effort to shoot a long bow, even for the few minutes of volleying that the English archers undertook at Agincourt and similar battles, home and abroad. I don't agree that archaeologists can identify every English archer from skeletal remains. In Tudor times there was a body of professional archers, some of whose remains have been recovered and studied, displaying exactly the kind of development you describe.
The archers from earlier times were not necessarily so endowed, simply because most were regular men who practised archery as required by the law, when they couldn't avoid it. Then as now it is reasonable to assume that some took this practice rather more seriously than others

At Agincourt in particular it is well known that the French men at arms attempted to advance across very rough and sodden ground. I have visited the battlefield and the lay of the land also acted as a funnel compressing the massed ranks even further. It was fortuitous that the English army had upped stakes and made an advance to precipitate the French attack as this probably enhanced the compression of the French forces.

It is of course exhausting to fight in full armour, but the actors are also a poor example because unlike their medieval counterparts they have not trained to do it since the age of twelve.

Far more Frenchmen died at Agincourt as a result of a hideous Hillsborough type crush (I'm sure all English members will remember that awful day only too well) than anything the English did, though we did execute many prisoners, something some Frenchmen remind me of 599 years later

Cheers

Steve

tomo pauk · Dec 22, 2014

Sorry that you feel that I have the agenda vs. the Ta-152.

According to what source?

According to the comparison of the performance charts of the F8F-1 (here, pdf) and what is available for the Ta-152.

I suppose F8F1 performance was unaffected by such factors

The figures for the F8F-1 are for full internal load.

True, but very conviniently for your agenda, you forgot to mention that the Ta 150HO could still achieve (no Mw50,no gm1) 720 km/h at 10700m

I've noted that above 20000 ft the Ta-152 has the advantage.

The ta 152 family had 150 kgr of armor . What armor had the F8f1?

Back pilot armor, BP glass.

What is historicaly certain is that it was the F8f and P51h that USN and usaaf decided not to employ in combat despite the fact that these were their newest and best performing piston engined fighters. Also you forgot to mention that the Ta had presurized cocpit, IFF, Auto pilot, 30 mm cannon and a wing PROFILE designed to retain control at High aoa

For Korea, the USN have had the F4U as a far better bomb-truck (plus the AD-1 and AU-1); the F4U-4 and U-5 were better performers than F8F-1 and F-2, respectively. How much the lighter structure, and how much the lack of spare parts for the P-51H is the reason they never went to Korea I don't know.
I've stated that Ta-152 has the advantage in armament, at least until the 4 cannon armament is introduced with F8F-1B. The IFF was used on Allied aircraft from the BoB days, the P-47 was outfitted with one (SCR 535, per 'America's hundred thousand'), so let's not discount the F8F-1 as being without it. If someone has better data, please share.
Indeed, the Ta-152H was outfitted with pressure cockpit. The wing profile, aspect ratio and other wing-related intricacies are trade off, if it was deemed as being far better than the 'classic' wing of the Fw-190 line, we'd see the 152C also with it.

Personally i believe F8F1 clearly superior at low altitudes ,Ta 152H1 superior at High altitudes, and somewhere in between to be evenly matched

+1 on that.

I dont know the 0m speed of F8f. With 2100hp it was something like 615 km/h. I read somewhere that f8f could use up to 2800hp at sea level .If true then it had a BIG adnantage. Hoewever , i believe speed wise , the ta 152H1 was superior above 5000-5500m.

At SL, the F8F-1 have had 2750 HP with water injection, at 9600 ft it was 2450 HP; all figures are without ram. 678 km/h (336 kt) at SL on that power setting.

Once again fuel is extremely important . If Ta 152H1 could at least have c3 fuel (plus mw 50and GM1) then i consider it more all around Air superiority fighter than F8F1.

The high-oct fuel should give more power and hence performance. Figures for the F8F-1 are also for not the best Allied fuel (100/130 grade), would be interesting what kind of performance would've been attained with 100/150 grade, or 115/145.

drgondog · Dec 22, 2014

GregP said:
Hi Bill. Merry Christmas. You may have a point about looking at Ta 152 logbooks ... if we can find any ... I can't read German anyway. As for gaggles of Luftwaffe fighters not being bypassed, we'll just have to agree to disagree. I've heard too many former WWII pilots state that very thing to buy into the "attack at any cost" theory. Still, it makes no difference now. The real truths are probably lost as these guys pass on anyway, and that's happening at an accelerated rate as we read this, just due to age.

Again, Happy Holidays to everyone.

Merry Christmas to all.

I am REALLY curious which US ETO fighter pilots said they passed up gaggles of LW fighters.. those gaggles could inflict real harm if left 'unmolested' and any squadron or Group CO that avoided a fight would hear about it sooner than later... not to mention having his manhood questioned during de-briefing. Having said that, during Eaker's tenure the fighters were closely tethered - but that all changed with Doolittle.

The Intelligences summaries from Squadron went to Group, were consolidated and went to Fighter Command. A note that 'we spotted a large force of enemy fighters but continued on our way' would really hit the fan when matched with a Bomb Group that was 'attacked by a large force' at the same time.

drgondog · Dec 22, 2014

dedalos said:
What is historicaly certain is that it was the F8f and P51h that USN and usaaf decided not to employ in combat despite the fact that these were their newest and best performing piston engined fighters. Also you forgot to mention that the Ta had presurized cocpit, IFF, Auto pilot, 30 mm cannon and a wing PROFILE designed to retain control at High aoa

Er, No, The airfoil for the Ta 152 was Exactly the same airfoil as the P-38. It was the NACA 23016 at the root and 23012 at the tip. High lift, fat wing, Mcr ~.7 meaning that it would experience compressibility effects much faster than a P-51 and while the AoA for Stall was slightly higher along with slightly higher CL it is intangible.

Look them up

BiffF15 · Dec 22, 2014

Dedalos,

You said / typed:

dedalos said:
What is historicaly certain is that it was the F8f and P51h that USN and usaaf decided not to employ in combat despite the fact that these were their newest and best performing piston engined fighters. Also you forgot to mention that the Ta had presurized cocpit, IFF, Auto pilot, 30 mm cannon and a wing PROFILE designed to retain control at High aoa.

You are correct that the F8F and P51H were not used in combat in WW2. The reasons is what you have ignored. THEY WEREN'T NEEDED TO WIN IN EITHER THEATER, as history has proven. You have to think about this from a 4 star generals level. You have enough assets in theater to accomplish the job, why bring in more materials that you will only have to bring home a short time later. Plus the introduction of another logistics train, plus you are winning and the end is definitely in sight. IIRC the F8F was actually onboard a CV enroute to Japan when the war ended. Neither A/C had some mechanical failing preventing it from combat, as has been pointed out many times. Also it was previously mentioned that neither saw combat due to lack of enemy A/C over the US. Just because the first 45 didn't go into combat immediately is a sign they didn't need to. The Allies were no longer under the crush to take a guy with zero hours in type and send him into combat with only a familiarization flight under his belt, or introduce a new type prior to being completely ready. Axis A/C got into the fight much earlier due to their being bandits overhead almost daily, and from fighting an eroding defensive / losing war. Another way to look at it is the logistics train from factory to battle field was VERY short.

Q: If Germany was winning and had over run the UK, and pushed deep into Russia do you think brand new types would be in combat immediately?

A: No

Personally i believe F8F1 clearly superior at low altitudes ,Ta 152H1 superior at High altitudes, and somewhere in between to be evenly matched
I dont know the 0m speed of F8f. With 2100hp it was something like 615 km/h. I read somewhere that f8f could use up to 2800hp at sea level .If true then it had a BIG adnantage. Hoewever , i believe speed wise , the ta 152H1 was superior above 5000-5500m.[/QUOTE]

Also realize you are comparing apples and oranges here. The F8F was designed as an interceptor that could operate from the smallest carriers (big carriers cost big dollars) with an emphasis on climb, while the Ta-152 was designed similar to a Mustang as a long range air superiority fighter. The long wing of the Ta was for high altitude, so of course it would fight better at those altitudes than the F8F. And don't forget the F8F was a carrier A/C, which means it's carrying a weight/performance penalty in the form of folding wings, strengthened landing gear, and arresting mechanism.

[/QUOTE]Once again fuel is extremely important . If Ta 152H1 could at least have c3 fuel (plus mw 50and GM1) then i consider it more all around Air superiority fighter than F8F1.[/QUOTE]

Yes, the fuel has been mentioned. How do you want to discuss these aircraft, historically / reality, or academically? Historically the Axis powers didn't have the C3 in quantity, or fuel period. Also there were something in the neighborhood of 43 Ta-152H-0 and H-1's produced, with maybe 15 operational at any one time. "Operational" and in combat are not the same thing. I would think that 99% of operational Allied fighter pilots never saw one in the air. Except for one noted guy who had 6 weeks of combat, was jumped from behind, and surprisingly enough was shot down.

Pretend, or academically, IF the Ta-152H1 had both quantity and quality fuel, IF the GM-1 and MW-50 were both loaded, and IF they were operational, and IF it met a late model Allied fighter under equal conditions it would be a fairly equal fight. Remember there are book numbers and there is reality. Just because the book numbers are greater in one category doesn't mean they are in every category, nor does it mean it's an auto win for one A/C over the other.

You tend to cherry pick your points, and then not counter what people comment on if it goes against what you typed. Be careful, that type of behavior can very easily be observed as biased and will hurt the credibility of a persons argument or counter point.

Cheers,
Biff

tomo pauk · Dec 22, 2014

Just have checked, the AN/APX-1 IFF is listed under 'electronics' section of the SAC of the F8F-1.

nuuumannn · Dec 22, 2014

Which leads me to the question ...how would Rare Bear have done at Agincourt?

Pretty well, unless the Ta 152 was present Sorry, I just had to.

GrauGeist · Dec 22, 2014

If I'm not mistaken, wasn't the Bearcat put into service just a bit late to have affected the outcome of Agincourt?

DerAdlerIstGelandet · Dec 22, 2014

GrauGeist said:
If I'm not mistaken, wasn't the Bearcat put into service just a bit late to have affected the outcome of Agincourt?

It never obtained its full potential at Agincourt. It simply was not good enough. It was not a wonder weapon.

If the Rare Bear became a ww2 fighter.

Private Chemtrail Disperser

Major

Private Chemtrail Disperser

Captain

Creator of Interesting Threads

Major

Colonel

Staff Sergeant

Major

Colonel

Senior Airman

Major

Creator of Interesting Threads

Major

Major

Tech Sergeant

Creator of Interesting Threads

Major

Generalfeldmarschall zur Luftschiff Abteilung

Private Chemtrail Disperser

Users who are viewing this thread

Similar threads