If you had an airforce...
- Thread starter Catch22
- Start date
Ad: This forum contains affiliate links to products on Amazon and eBay. More information in Terms and rules
Hello
I even bothered to check the old Green's The Warplanes of the Third Reich.
On page 360 "Only eight production He 277s were completed of which two or three were flown before all completed aircraft and those still on assembly line were scrapped."
On page 361 "The sole He 277B-7 was destroyed shortly before the arrival of Soviet troops."
So even according to Green there were in max. 3 protos, 8 He 277 B-5s and one B-7, of which 5-6 were ever flown. And as I have wrote I have much more faith in Griehl's and Dressel's book, according to which the series production was to begin in autumn 44 but as we know the program was axed in July 44.
Juha
I even bothered to check the old Green's The Warplanes of the Third Reich.
On page 360 "Only eight production He 277s were completed of which two or three were flown before all completed aircraft and those still on assembly line were scrapped."
On page 361 "The sole He 277B-7 was destroyed shortly before the arrival of Soviet troops."
So even according to Green there were in max. 3 protos, 8 He 277 B-5s and one B-7, of which 5-6 were ever flown. And as I have wrote I have much more faith in Griehl's and Dressel's book, according to which the series production was to begin in autumn 44 but as we know the program was axed in July 44.
Juha
Lancaster630
Airman 1st Class
- 282
- Feb 26, 2007
Thats where my strategy comes in take each place a bit at a time I hope it works
Thats where my strategy comes in take each place a bit at a time I hope it works
Didn't work for Hitler...
kool kitty89
Senior Master Sergeant
I think the 519 mi figure for the 190D-9 was on internal fuel and at maximum cruise (~350-360 mph), at economical cruise and max internal fuel pluss a 300L drop tank range was ~1,100-1,200 mi iirc.
Though for long range escort that still isn't too great.
Though for long range escort that still isn't too great.
davparlr
Senior Master Sergeant
Internal fuel is important since, as soon as you enter combat, tanks are dropped. At 400 miles deep, very little combat time is left at combat power before having to head home.
kool kitty89
Senior Master Sergeant
Well there's 138.4 US gallons normal, 30.4 gal more auxiliary fuel in rear fuselage tank, and 79.25 US gal in the drop tank, that's 68% fuel internal.
With some rough calculations I get ~80 gal for combat with no reserve. That gives ~25 min in combat.
With some rough calculations I get ~80 gal for combat with no reserve. That gives ~25 min in combat.
drgondog
Major
KK - IIRC - in the 51, the 1650-3 and -7 burned 240-260gph at full throttle, and 60-70gph at cruise.. what are the nominal comparisons for the D-9?
The 51, for example would burn at least 60 gallons in the internal tank forming up and getting to altitude and crossing the channel - then switch to external tanks.. often by the time they were at the 500 mile radius point they were still 100% for internal wing tanks plus some in fuse tank (dependent on pilot).. leaving approximately 200 gallons at the target to fight and return home. If they got ino a fight early, say around Frankfurt to Hannover, those that engaged would be turning back perhaps in the Bruswick area, because they would drop their externals and be burning up the remaining 200-220 gallons at a high rate during the fight.
If the Dora had the same basic fuel consumption during escort for the same mission (progressing as fast as the bombers they are escorting), it seems they close to only having 160+ gallons early in the outbound leg, in comparison with a Mustang having ~ 210 gallons several hundred miles deeper in penetration.
Saying another way, the Mustang, with 108 gallon tanks has twice the fuel as the Dora 9.
Unless the Dora had much better specific fuel consumption in escort cruise, it seems they were at 300-350 for practical escort. Great for BoB but less than even the P-47-25 and above in mid 1944.
davparlr
Senior Master Sergeant
Another problem with the Dora is that, at higher altitude, performance drops off rather quickly. As you can see, it is pretty well outclassed by Spitfire XIV.
Better escorts would be the Ta-152H, P-51H, P-47N, or modified F4U-4, with the P-51H best at B-17 altitudes and the P-47N at B-29 altitudes. Higher would be the Ta-154H.
20k
Fw-190D-9
a/s 428 mph
climb 3054 f/m
Spitfire XIV
a/s 423 mph
climb 3600 f/m
25k
Fw-190D-9
a/s 422
climb 2208 f/m
Spitfire XIV
a/s 446 mph
climb 3100 mph
30k
Fw-190D-9
a/s 406 mph
climb 1476 f/m
Spitfire XIV
a/s 443
climb 2390
Better escorts would be the Ta-152H, P-51H, P-47N, or modified F4U-4, with the P-51H best at B-17 altitudes and the P-47N at B-29 altitudes. Higher would be the Ta-154H.
20k
Fw-190D-9
a/s 428 mph
climb 3054 f/m
Spitfire XIV
a/s 423 mph
climb 3600 f/m
25k
Fw-190D-9
a/s 422
climb 2208 f/m
Spitfire XIV
a/s 446 mph
climb 3100 mph
30k
Fw-190D-9
a/s 406 mph
climb 1476 f/m
Spitfire XIV
a/s 443
climb 2390
ok here mine again
carrier fighter f4u
dive bomber sbd
torpedo plane tbm or tbf
escort/ air mastery fighter p-51
ground attack p-47
pacific ground based fighter p-38
transport c-47
medium bomber b-26
heavy bomber ju 390
recon plane f-5 lightning or p-51A
float plane the hell with it pby
carrier fighter f4u
dive bomber sbd
torpedo plane tbm or tbf
escort/ air mastery fighter p-51
ground attack p-47
pacific ground based fighter p-38
transport c-47
medium bomber b-26
heavy bomber ju 390
recon plane f-5 lightning or p-51A
float plane the hell with it pby
Why didn't you just edit it then?
davparlr
Senior Master Sergeant
Soren, I disagree with your assessment of the comparison to the P-51H, but I cannot argue your point on the P-47N.
Climb and acceleration is calculated on equivalent fuel weight (148 gal).
As compared to the Ta-152H, the P-51H, was faster at altitudes from SL up to 25k feet, from considerable, 43 mph at SL, to substantial, 17mph at 25k, with a 34 mph average. Speed is life.
Power loading (lbs/hp) of the P-51H is better than the Ta-152H at all altitudes up to 35k, approximately 25% less weight per hp. Power loading is acceleration. The P-51H could considerably out accelerate the Ta-152H.
The wing loading of the P-51H is approximately 10% better at all altitudes. This would provide better lift force surplus at higher speeds and, therefore, higher initial turn rate over the Ta-152H at altitudes below 25K.
The P-51H has a climb rate higher than the Ta-152H at SL, 5400-5600 ft/m to 5100 ft/min. I have very little data on climb for the Ta-152H. I have 2760 ft/m at 15k, but I have no idea at what power setting or weight, that data was taken. The P-51H will climb at 4600 at that altitude, a value the Ta-152H probably does not obtain at any power setting. It is reasonable to assume that the Ta-152H and the P-51H achieve climb parity at 25k. After that the Ta-152H has a considerable climb advantage.
Compared to the P-51H at these altitudes, the Ta-154H is substantially slower, has weaker acceleration, less climbing ability, and slower in the dive (due to less acceleration). The only advantage for the Ta-152 at these altitudes is a sustained turn rate. Something that historically has not been a strong suit to play. It cannot initiate the attack, unless undetected, it has no tools to disengage from an attack, and it cannot control the energy management. The P-51H, on the other hand, only needs to maintain airspeed to maintain higher energy levels.
With impressive advantage in airspeed and power loading, and with high speed agility and better climb ability, it is clear that the P-51H has superior performance over the Ta-152H from SL to 25k ft, which covers mid-level and lower high level bombers.
The biggest advantage the P-47N has over the Ta-152H from 25k to 35k is a slight airspeed advantage, 13mph at 35k, and massive power loading, approximately 60% of the weight of the Ta-152H per horsepower. The P-47N has twice the hp than the Ta-152H from 25k to 35k. Acceleration is no contest.
The P-47N has a higher top speed, much better acceleration, probably much better dive (due to acceleration). The Ta-152H, has a much better climb and a much better sustained turn rate (excess P-47 hp helps it here, but I suspect, not enough offset that Ta-152H wing). In this case, the airspeed advantage of the P-47N is not enough to offset the advantage in climb and turn of the Ta-152H. In spite of the fact the P-47N could probably easily disengage an attack at will by diving away; I would give the advantage from 25k up, to the Ta-152H.
Of course, if you have data that contridicts my assessment, I will be glad to examine it, except proposed engine performance. I really have very little climb data on the Ta-152H.
B-17engineer
Colonel
all of fly boys are american ecccept the Ju-390 lol
kool kitty89
Senior Master Sergeant
All of mine were American. (though I was trying to go with a simplified selection for the US's needs, and with only 2 engine manufacturers -Wright and Pratt Whitney)
Hi Davparlr, sorry for the late reply, haven't been around the forum for roughly two weeks, was on a two week work course.
What data is it you have Davparlr ?
The climb rate of the Ta-152H-1 was in the area of 5,500 ft/min at SL, and time to climb to 10km took about the same time as the P-51H.
But climb rate isn't everything, maneuverability is an important factor for a fighter as-well (Esp. when speed climb rate is close) and here the Ta-152H-1 has it all over the P-51H.
And then there's service ceiling, which is very important as it allows you to always start from an advantagous point, and again here the Ta-152H has it all over the P-51H.
As for powerloading, well as it's just a rough estimate, what one ought to be looking at is thrust, and the new advanced prop on the Ta-152H allowed it to produce 100 kgf or more thrust at the same power setting than previous FW190 fighters. So the acceleration of the two will be very close.
But in the end if you really want to compare the Ta-152H to the P-51H (Which didn't see service until well after Germany's surrender) then atleast be realistic and let it be the Jumo 213EB equipped one as this would the one the P-51H would be facing, and the performance with the EB engine greatly surpassed that with the E engine.
What data is it you have Davparlr ?
The climb rate of the Ta-152H-1 was in the area of 5,500 ft/min at SL, and time to climb to 10km took about the same time as the P-51H.
But climb rate isn't everything, maneuverability is an important factor for a fighter as-well (Esp. when speed climb rate is close) and here the Ta-152H-1 has it all over the P-51H.
And then there's service ceiling, which is very important as it allows you to always start from an advantagous point, and again here the Ta-152H has it all over the P-51H.
As for powerloading, well as it's just a rough estimate, what one ought to be looking at is thrust, and the new advanced prop on the Ta-152H allowed it to produce 100 kgf or more thrust at the same power setting than previous FW190 fighters. So the acceleration of the two will be very close.
But in the end if you really want to compare the Ta-152H to the P-51H (Which didn't see service until well after Germany's surrender) then atleast be realistic and let it be the Jumo 213EB equipped one as this would the one the P-51H would be facing, and the performance with the EB engine greatly surpassed that with the E engine.
davparlr
Senior Master Sergeant
I've been busy myself. Did you enjoy your work course?
P-51H - Corrected North American performance data validated with flight test dated 11-1-45 (probably equivalent to Focke-Wulf Ta-152H performance data). Data corrected for equivalent fuel weight. Ta-152H data, what I have, is from your posts.
I think stretching the climb rate to 5500 ft/min would require more weight reduction.
Maneuverability is a factor, but design effort has always been for higher speed. Energy management is most important, and the P-51H has all the advantages here with better speed, better climb rate and better dive speed. In addition, at higher speeds, the P-51H should have an advantage in initial turn rate due to its better load factor. Again, all the P-51H pilot has to do to maintain a great advantage is to keep the airspeed up.
This is true and effective for boom and zoom but it must stay high to maintain the edge. The Mig-17 had an altitude advantage with the F-86, but was not a better fighter. Also, Ta-152H must get up there and that would be no problem with the P-51D, but a severe problem with swarming P-51Hs (certainly below 15k, where it is easily outclassed).
You said before that it was 70 kgf. Did that prop ever fly? A magical prop for a magical wing, you seem to have a infinite number of rabbits to pull out of your hat. This would make the P-51H pulling only about 80% of the weight per horsepower of the Ta-152H, a bit better but the Ta is still underpowered (at low and medium altitudes) compared to its comtemporary competition.
Some comparisons of lbs/hp at SL
P-51H 3.9
Tempest II 4.3*
Spitfire MkXIV 4.7 *
P-47M 4.6
F4U-4 4.8
Ta-152H 5.1
* Not corrected for equivalent fuel weight
Production versions of the P-51H was available before VE day, only about three months after the production version (barely production version) of the Ta-152H. And if you want to include non-production possibilities, the P-72 was well into production at VE day, a plane much more powerful and faster than the Ta in any configuration.
pbfoot
1st Lieutenant
Do the numbers for the P51 come from the pilots notes or are they factory numbers . if they are from the pilot note they might differ I recently found out that the german Aircraft did not have pilot notes like the Allies so all the numbers have to be factory numbers . All the LW pilot notes I've been told by 2 reputable sources were written post war
Users who are viewing this thread
Similar threads
