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


Here we go again... Ta 152 did nothing in the war....
You may have your own opinions , but you can not manipulate history nor insult hte pilots and mechanics that operated the Ta152, and suffered to operate it. They flew training missions, combat missions, scored kills suffered casualties in accidents. And you come and say "NO, NO, NO. They did nothing". Stop lying about facts for which there are hard evidences.
F2G did nothing in the war despite the plenty of resources to produce it, also P51h did nothing in any war. Ta 152 did despite the extremely dificult conditions.
 
Despite the US resources, the R-4360 was a not enough developed engine to see the service in ww2.


The hangar talk is just that - the hangar talk. No offense to the pilots, they were not the ones that signed contracts with manufacturers. From 'America's hudred thousand', pg. 519:

Mar '44 - Goodyear was awarded with contract for 418 fixed wing F2G-1 aircraft and ten folding wing versions with the R-4360 engine.
Click to expand...

That is good 7 months earlier than the 1st Kamikaze attack was made.
The similar myth is that the P-47M was developed to thwart the V-1 threat.
 

It sounds like the familiar lore that the F6F was designed to defeat the A6M after it was captured and test flown.. good story, but bovine fecal matter. The reason for maxing the power for 15K and below could simply be based on the study of 90% of USN combat envelope and asking the question "so why does the 4360 for this airplane have to wait on a two speed two stage version?"
 
LOL Bill!

Just to put the time line and other events into perspective...

This is what Wiki says about the Navy's influence in developing the F6F to defeat the Zero.

"The contract for the prototype XF6F-1 was signed on 30 June 1941. Throughout early 1942 Roy Grumman, along with his chief designers Jake Swirbul and Bill Schwendler, worked closely with the U.S. Navy's Bureau of Aeronautics (BuAer) and experienced F4F pilots, to develop the new fighter in such a way that it could counter the Zero's strengths and help gain air command in the Pacific Theater of Operations. On 22 April 1942, Lieutenant Commander Butch O'Hare toured the Grumman Aircraft company and spoke with Grumman engineers, analyzing the performance of the F4F Wildcat against the Mitsubishi A6M Zero in aerial combat. BuAer's LT CDR A. M. Jackson directed Grumman's designers to mount the cockpit higher in the fuselage. In addition, the forward fuselage sloped down slightly to the engine cowling, affording the Hellcat's pilot good visibility.

Based on combat accounts of encounters between the F4F Wildcat and A6M Zero, on 26 April 1942, BuAer directed Grumman to install the more powerful 18-cylinder Pratt Whitney R-2800 Double Wasp radial engine in the second XF6F-1 prototype. Grumman complied by redesigning and strengthening the F6F airframe to incorporate the 2,000 hp (1,500 kW) R-2800-10, driving a three-bladed Hamilton Standard propeller. With this combination Grumman estimated the XF6F-3s performance would increase by 25% over that of the XF6F-1. The Cyclone-powered XF6F-1 (02981) first flew on 26 June 1942, followed by the first Double Wasp-equipped aircraft, the XF6F-3 (02982), which first flew on 30 July 1942. The first production F6F-3, powered by an R-2800-10, flew on 3 October 1942, with the type reaching operational readiness with VF-9 on USS Essex in February 1943"

The contract for the prototype XF6F-1 was signed on 30 June 1941. During Pearl Harbor 9 Zeros were shot down and from the remains of these aircraft it was learned that learned that the Zero lacked armor and self-sealing fuel tanks. The first in tack Zero was secured on July 11, 1942. That aircraft was first flown on September 20, 1942.
 
Last edited:
Hi Dedalos,

I have nothing against the Ta 152 and really like the aircraft, what is known of it anyway.

But you can't change history.

They delivered 43 verified aircraft that scored a total of 7 - 10 victories against 2 - 4 losses in combat. There were never more than about 25 in service at any one time and they operated right at the end of the war, excatly when the Allies were sending over massive numbers of attackers against a Luftwaffe that was short of fuel and talented pilots. Yes, they chased away a few Allied pilots who were stalking the Me 262 guys during landing patterns, but that is hardly a game-chaning mission. Dangerous? Yes! Change the direction of the war? No.

That is no disrespect to Germany or German pilots, it's just the truth.

It would be a very good thing to get a Ta-152 flying again, but the only real intact unit is in the Smithsonian ... plus the "almost Ta 152" in the form of the Fw 190D in Paul Allen's collection. Not sure if he'd allow it to be flown or not but, if so, it needs a few parts. Right now it can be made to start, but cannot reeally run or fly due to issues with the carburetor. There are no spares.

So I may have sounded a little harsh by saying it did nothing in WWII, but I'm not far off either. Compared with any other "great" fighter it had good performance, but was a study in unfufilled potential as far as meaningful combat results go.
 
You could be right Bill. We may know the small details and facts today, 70+ years later, better than the guys who were there during development and fought in the war.

As I said above, that's what several who were talking at different times, unconnected with one another, on different days, were saying during public talks at the museum. Perhaps they are just misinformed. Bob Odegaard was a semi-frequent visitore and he never said one way or the other in my hearing, he loved the Super Corsair and was frequently asked about its performance and flight characteristics, but I never heard him mention its development.

As I also said, I want to see them fly, not look good in a static display, so that's where I concentrate my efforts on WWII warbirds.

I tend to believe the guys who were there rather than some book based on somebody else's book. We're not so far away from a time when there won't BE anyone around who was there, so I try to talk with them about their memories while they are still around. Unless they are all living in the same fantasy world, they have remarkably similar stories about this aircraft as well as almost any other aircraft you'd care to talk about.

There is the odd guy who has memories so far different from anyone else's that you wonder if he is a fraud but, in general, their memories are quite similar.

Another tack to think about is the fact that the REAL story behind war is very little known. Over in Viet Nam we guys did not and will likely NEVER know WHY things happened the way they happened, but we mostly remember things quite smiliarly. The decisions were made behind closed doors in Washington and we'll likely never know why we were not allowed to win. Maybe there was a similar thing in WWII, too. Since we'll never likely really know about the things that happened in the Johnson administration, it is not inconceivable that we'll never really know why things in the Roosevelt administration happened either. The people who DO know are almost all gone and are in that generation I'm still trying to talk with as I get the chance, like the former Super Corsair pilots.
 
While not without a mistake or two, maybe one per each 100 pages, the 'AHT' proved times and again more accurate than hangar talk.
 
Thanks Tomo, I own it.

And you maybe have a misconception. I'm wasn't talking about "hanger talk," I was talking about announced public speeches, mostly by authors who were there, giving talks about the aircraft in our collection when we put on our monthly events and fly the plane for the crowd, weather permitting. Naturally, since we operate the world's oldest F4U Corsair, we have a really GOOD cross section of former COrsair pilots as our guest speakers. We operate mostly fighters and have regular events where they are flown, including some that are operated by people friendly to the museum when we don't happen to own that type in flyable condition. An example is the Tigercat, we have one in unrestored, static condtion, but we have NO PROBLEM borrowing one from time to time for our events. In fact, Steve Hinton regularly flies an aerobatic show in one as well as an airshow act in many otherns airecraft including the F-86 and the F1U.

Here is a recent Corsair airshow clip: View: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=C1itjRkNLaA
 
I'm sure that you have great fun there, Greg. But it still stands - the pilots were not the ones that knew how far the development of the Wasp Major is or it is not close to the end, so it can be installed in an airframe. They were not the ones that made preliminary calculations. They were not sitting in the executive committees of, say, United Aircraft corp.
They were not the ones signing contracts, and this particular one (for the F2G) was signed in March 1944 (per AHT), good 7 months before the 1st Kamikaze attack.
 
True, Tomo.

And all those people who did those things you say above didn't make one single decision about where they were assigned and how the planes were employed once they reached forward bases / front-line commanders. No matter WHAT they did, the missions the planes flew are what is important in their war record and how they are remembered by the vast najority of veterans and military people.

Still, the real developmental reasons are interesting, and I'm not saying the development didn't start one way and wind up another. I just don't think it matters much, though it would be interesting if we had the REAL information.

Probably the only real palce to GET that is from the design team or the people who gave the design team instructions.

and the Wasp Major, though impressive, did not get developed much. The late R-2800's and late R-3350's made about the same HP and, coupled with lower weight, were every BIT as effective. One prime example is the R-3350-powered Douglas Skyraider. The stuff it could haul was just amazing. It could attack a target every orbit for more than an hour and drop something or shoot something on each and every pass.

The Wasp major was projected for big HP but never made it. It made GOOD HP, but nothing exceptional. Probably made the best torque, though.
 
Last edited:
I'm just chiming in on the end of this thread, after wading through the Me 262 diversion etc. I'm not sure what all the fuss was about, as factually, the Me 262 was the fastest, heavily armed fighter of WW2; just about everything else about it is a matter of opinion. Looking at the performance figures for these advanced piston engined fighters appear impressive, although claimed top speed has a LOT of variables to contend with. Bearcats, Sea fury's etc were not operational as far as I know, and even if they were, the added weight of combat readiness, wear and tear, and armament/ordinance would have taken a toll on all aspects of performance.
The One aircraft that did combine performance with combat ability at the top end of piston powered zenith, was the Focke Wulf Ta 152 H. While this aircraft has been covered pretty well in other threads, it did represent the pinnacle of operational piston powered fighters of WW2. Had it been manufactured under ideal conditions, instead of desperate last ditch times, it would have probably offered better performance than it actually did. The Rarebear would be better judged by comparison to this aircraft in my opinion.
 

Where do you believe better performance would have been achieved and how do you compare the added performance opportunities over say, the P-51H or Spit XXI?
 
drgondog said:
Where do you believe better performance would have been achieved and how do you compare the added performance opportunities over say, the P-51H or Spit XXI?
Click to expand...
Initially in quality control. Any aircraft built of quality materials by skilled workers with adequate resources and back up will always perform better than one built under adverse condtions. It is very difficult to produce top quality machining and fabrication when survival is the primary goal. The Ta 152 was pushed into service basically as a prototype, with no spare parts and very little infrastructure support. It still gave a very good account of itself regardless, despite total allied air superiority. First hand accounts from Luftwaffe pilots who flew the Ta 152 gave very positive feedback on the performance and aerobatic prowess compared to the Tempest and Mustang, plus Soviet fighters. I understand that a huge amount can be attributed to pilot skill, tactics, etc, but according to actual pilot reports, ( Dittmar) the Ta 152 was capable of turning inside a Tempest, as well as being faster, with a higher service ceiling. I'm not aware of them engaging the Spitfire or P51-H as mentioned. There appears to be very little post war comparisons made either, which is a shame. Either way, it was the most advanced piston engined Luft fighter to see combat, and probably ( the H-1 version at least) the fastest conventional operational fighter of WW2. It was also a work in progress that had not yet reached the lmits of its design potential.
 
When they entered squadron service, they were combat-equipped, at least for the type of combat that existed in WW2.

The Bearcat entered squadron service in May 1945; the Sea Fury in 1947. Obviously, neither had a chance to defeat Luftwaffe aircraft, as it had surrendered before either entered service. The Bearcat didn't see combat in the Pacific, as the Japanese surrendered before they could be deployed.

As for the Ta152, and any quality issues, Germany would never have sorted them out until it stopped using slave labor, but enslaving non-Germans was part of the nazi philosophy, so that wouldn't stop, and those annoying Allies kept dropping bombs on the German cities and forcing the German armies to retreat, so they'd probably not get a chance to sort out their q/c. One thing a lot of people looking at the Germans fighting on past their historical date of surrender is that the atomic bomb was developed to drop on Germany. Germany keeps on fighting, and they get to see mushroom clouds.
 
Last edited:
I never have understood the Ta-152 "pincale of performance" claim. It had good performance, but not the highest top speed, definitely not the highest roll rate, almost no history of performance testing, didn't shoot down any more than 7 to 10 Allied planes and had 2 to 4 losses.

There is nothing exceptional at all about that record though, on paper, it SHOULD have been a good one if developed. But it was never developed and had virtually zero impact on the war to speak of. It also arrived just as Allied jets were flying in operational service so, if the war had continued, its performance would have been eclipsed almost immediately by the Allied jets, just the same as the the other top piston fighters of the day were eclipsed by jets.

Despite some people think I don't like the Ta-152, that is not the case. I do like the Ta-152. But it saw service in almost incosequential numbers and has no war record to speak of, so any claims of "super plane" will be met by me with a war-winning record for the Spirfire and P-51. The figher that shot down more enemy aircraft in history than any other one is no doubt the Bf 109 and a question about the same for the Ta-152 ... to which I already know the answer. The Bf 109 very certainly has a much better claim to "the best of all times" than the Ta-152 will ever have, if war record means anything. And if it doesn't, then "best fighter" means nothing militarily an so becomes a meaningless title.

Great military machines are distinguished by their record in combat, not by simulated encounters or paper performance.
 
Last edited:
swampyankee said:
One thing a lot of people looking at the Germans fighting on past their historical date of surrender is that the atomic bomb was developed to drop on Germany. Germany keeps on fighting, and they get to see mushroom clouds.
Click to expand...
One of the reasons for the frantic development of the Allied atomic program was due to the fact that the Allies believed that the German's atomic program was much further along than it actually was.
 
drgondog said:
Where do you believe better performance would have been achieved and how do you compare the added performance opportunities over say, the P-51H or Spit XXI?
Click to expand...
Under Ideal conditions Ta would have better performance than historicaly because a) C3 fuel availability and even 150 octane fuel availability b)it would have been built in its original all NEW design ta 153 form and not based on Fw 190 A8 fuselage with bolted extentions c) availability of raw Materials would have allowed turbo supercharged engines (DB603N) d) it would have recieved various improvements that were in development historicaly but late because of the war conditions( integrated nose cowling, lower drug annular radiator, better quality skin surface, High pressure MW50 , better guns, improved gm1 system etc)

Actually ,considering the limitations that the germans faced ( as well as their bad choises), the Ta 152H had surprising good performance
For comparison reasons the fully developed P51H with far superior fuels and raw Materials for its engine, was just 20-30 kmh/h faster than the barely developed Ta 152 H1 and even this with inferior armor and armament and without having pressurized cocpit. And its owners never dared to use it in actual combat
From joe Bauer page
"Pilots generally found the P-51H to be even more delightful to fly than the D model. However, some pilots were distrustful of the H's lighter structure, preferring the greater sturdiness of the D. Consequently, it was not considered as being suitable for combat operations in Korea. "
 
Last edited:
A nitpick - the DB 603N was outfitted with a 2-stage supercharger, not a turbo-supercharger. It was to have RPM increased from 2700 to 3000, as well as the bigger impeller on the 1st stage of its supercharger.
The 'motorfesten verkleidung' (roughly - the cowling attached to the engine), regularly used on German aircraft, was eventually recognised as a draggier thing than 'zellenfesten verkleidung' (roughly - cowling attached to the fuselage), regularly used on Anglo-American aircraft - the speed penalty was judged to be 20-30 km/h (!).
 
Last edited:
You must log in or register to reply here.

Users who are viewing this thread

Total: 1 (members: 0, guests: 1)

Similar threads

W
The scarcity of fighter to fighter FW-190A pilot combat accounts...
Replies
17
Views
793
thrila
T
Rare (mostly unseen) footage of Power Jets, the Miles M.52, and other projects
Replies
3
Views
722
Dronescapes
S
Design and properties of the Spitfire Mk. 21+ wing
2 3 4
Replies
64
Views
5K
Jabberwocky
J
A
Was the Hispano-Suiza 12Y the worst ≥25L V-12 of WW2?
2 3
Replies
46
Views
2K
ThomasP
T
G
Ditching qualities of WW2 Aircraft
Replies
14
Views
2K
ThomasP
T
Menu
Log in
Register