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.
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.
The Ta-152H is better than them all at all altitudes Davparlr.
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.
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.
Originally Posted by Soren
The Ta-152H's top speed at SL was 597 km/h (371 mph), and top speed at alt was 760 km/h (472 mph). Climb rate at SL was 5,100+ ft/min.
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 advantageous 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.