If you had an airforce...

Ad: This forum contains affiliate links to products on Amazon and eBay. More information in Terms and rules

Davparlr,

Check the FW AG drag chart, the Ta-152's prop generates from 70 to 200 kgf more thrust than previous FW190 props.

As for the Ta-152H-1's climb rate, well it must have been in area of atleast 5,500 ft/min as it took it the asme time to reach 10km as the P-51H which from what I can understand climb at 6,100 ft/min at SL.

Now as for the P-51H being "greatly" superior below 25kft, well that's just pure BS davparlr, the Ta-152H was nearly as fast as the P-51H and climbed at a similar rate at that alt, and on top of that the Ta-152H's energy retention in maneuvers at all alts was greatly superior.

And talking about rabbits hats, why is it you're always trying compare the Ta-152H-1 with the P-51H ? The Ta-152 saw service in the ETO, the P-51H didn't. Had the war been prolonged enough for the P-51H to enter service in the ETO then there would've been Ta-152H's powered by Jumo 213EB engines flying around, and the P-51H was no match in speed or climb rate for that at any altitude.

Anyway it's pointless debating cause the Me-262 rendered all prop fighters obsolete, and if Germany ever wanted a chance to win the airwar then this was the a/c they would've had to concentrate on. While the Ta-152H was considerably superior in speed, maneuverability climb rate to all it's adversaries it wasn't to the degree which was needed to win the airwar, it lacked the overwhelming speed and firepower of the Me-262.
 

German performance figures were either test flight figures from the said company and Rechlin, or very conservatively estimated figures.

As for pilot's notes I've not heard of Allied performance figures based on pilot's notes, only on test flight or estimated performance.
 

The data is from what appears to be an official North American Aircraft document that indicates in words that it is based on analysis and verified with flight test. It is probably as good as any data we have. Data was retrieved from Spitfireperformance site. All data, whether flight test or analysis, has an error associated to it such that most of the arguments we have fall in or near the error of the data.
 

First production P-51H came off the NAA lines in late February 1944... and deployment to operational units started in late March for mechanic/pilot orientation. They could have been deployed to ETO but why bother -

Soren, on your earlier question to me on Yak 9 vs Yak 3, that was what I meant as the question was early to mid 1943. Like the P-40 and P-39 it was competitive in turn - moreso than P-47C and P-38G/H - to the Me 109G.

We will always agree to disagree on Me 109 turn capability relative to terms like 'clear superiority', 'slightly better', 'competitive' , and 'slightly inferior' when referencing Me 109 versus its contemporaries.
 

Neil - the 487mph quote most often referenced is from the 1945 Flight Tests at NAA in February and March 1945. The airplane was referenced as clean, gun ports taped over and at 7500 pounds gross weight (which was slightly less than the P-51B/C/D/K) and ballast for ammo. The engine bHp in the Tests was rated at 2240BHp (Static test at SL) at 90" boost in the 1650-9.

In the High Speed Run, the engine was rated at 2160 BHp at Sea Level, Std Day.

At 9480 which was a full internal combat load of fuel and ammo the P-51H ran 475mph w/o racks in the NAA tests.

The 487mph often quoted was deemed at Interceptor Weight, the 9480 was 'combat weight after dropping tanks' but having all internal fuel and ammo... which of course means that this would be better represented with racks attached - which in turn would drop max speed another 10-12Kts.

The USAAF tests in 1946 had speed figures slightly lower but the ship they tested was in -operational configuration with no wing prep or surface treatment or gun ports taped over etc - so it represented a better picture of the 51H as it would have looked like in ETO had it been engaged.

I actually read that report when Al White was still Chief Test Pilot at NAA back in the early 60's but too stupid to get a copy - IIRC it was about 70-100pages.
 

Drgondog the Bf-109's superior turn performance was due to it's lower lift-loading and power-loading, we both know this. Now as to being clearly superior, well it's a relative term and perhaps we use it differently which is what triggers the disagreement.
 
Soren said:
Davparlr,

Check the FW AG drag chart, the Ta-152's prop generates from 70 to 200 kgf more thrust than previous FW190 props.
Click to expand...

Ta-152H engines that never flew, props that never turned, configurations that never came to be.

Don't forget, the P-51H is getting some pretty good punch from its heat exchanger.

As for the Ta-152H-1's climb rate, well it must have been in area of atleast 5,500 ft/min as it took it the asme time to reach 10km as the P-51H which from what I can understand climb at 6,100 ft/min at SL.
Click to expand...

To get 6100 ft/min, I calculated that the P-51H could carry only 100 gal of gas. Time to climb is interesting. I think that time to climb to 10km is approximately the same. However, the rate of climb for the P-51H starts to drop off significantly above 25k ft. At 25k the climb rate is 3400 ft/min. At 30k ft., the climb rate is only 2300 ft/min. At 33k, it is 1250. The Ta-152H climb rate is much more constant, thanks to those wings. At 29k ft, I have info, I do not know where from, that the climb rate of the Ta-12H is 2854 ft/min. I do not have good data on the Ta-152H climb rate, but I believe that it will climb increasingly, and significantly, better above 25k, than the P-51H. If so, then the P-51H must perform somewhat better below 25k ft in order to make the same time at 33k. This is consistent with the climb data I calculated on the P-51H.


These are my actual quotes on this site.

"it is clear that the P-51H has superior performance over the Ta-152H from SL to 25k ft,"

It is clear that the P-51H is faster, has a better climb rate, dive speed, initial turn rate, power loading, and wing loading from SL to 25k. The only advantage the Ta-152H has in this arena is sustained turn rate, a historically insufficient capability to outclass an opponent.

"(certainly below 15k, where it is easily outclassed)." (said about the Ta-152H)

Airspeed is significantly better from SL to 20k. This is the P-51H advantage in airspeed:
SL 33 mph
5k 44 mph
10k 33 mph
15k 24 mph
20k 27 mph

The Ta-152H is not "nearly as fast"

If you are going 70 mph (113 km/h) on a interstate (autobahn), and a car goes by you at 100 mph (161 mph), you would say, wow, that guys moving!

Again, the P-51H climbs better, dives better, initially turns better, has better power loading, and better wing loading. All overpowering advantages for the P-51H below 15k!

At 25k, the differences become close although the P-51H is still 17 mph faster. But it still has dive speed, power loading and wing loading advantage.



Again, if this is a valid argument, and the war was continuing, and jets were not a factor, the Ta-152H with upgraded engines and prop would have met the P-72, which had already been in production for quite a while, which was much more powerful and much faster.

Anyway it's pointless debating cause the Me-262 rendered all prop fighters obsolete, and if Germany ever wanted a chance to win the airwar then this was the a/c they would've had to concentrate on.
Click to expand...
ABSOLUTELY CORRECT

While the Ta-152H was considerably superior in speed, maneuverability climb rate to all it's adversaries
Click to expand...

Not below 25k, where it was not super performer. And even above, it was not exclusively superior. The P-47M was faster from 10k to 35k and could possibly out climb it up to 33k (not enough data is available or reliable to claim this)
 
davparlr said:
Ta-152H engines that never flew, props that never turned, configurations that never came to be.
Click to expand...

What's on that chart is what was used davparlr, the Ta-152H was fitted with the prop, engine, armament etc etc you see described.

And as for your assumptions on wing loading etc etc, you couldn't be more wrong.

The Ta-152H has a far lower lift-loading from SL and up than the P-51H, far far lower.

Ta-152H
Weight: 4,750 kg
Wing area: 23.3 m^2
Clmax: 1.62
__________________
Lift loading = 125.84 kg/m^2

P-51H
Weight: 4,300 kg
Wing area: 21.64 m^2
Clmax: 1.35
__________________
Lift loading = 147.18 kg/m^2


The only advantage the Ta-152H has in this arena is sustained turn rate, a historically insufficient capability to outclass an opponent.
Click to expand...

You're 100% wrong davparlr, the Ta-152H turns a lot better both instantanously and sustained, and because of it's much much better L/D ratio it retains its energy in turns far better.


Again no, P-51's wing loading is worse, and esp. worse in terms of lift loading.


What do you base that on ? Are you aware of the Ta-152H-1's performance with the EB engine ? It seems not. We're talking about 520 to 530 mph performance incase you're wondering.

Btw, the Ta-152H-1 is reported to have reached 500 mph in level flight, which is faster than the P-72.
 
Looking at the numbers the Fw-190 D-13 seems to have been Germany's go at an a/c like the P-51H.

Fw-190 D-13
Weight: 4,270 kg
Wing area: 18.3 m^2
Clmax: 1.58
___________________
Lift loading = 147.67 kg/m^2

Top speed: 770 + km/h
Service ceiling: 13.8 km
 
Soren said:
What's on that chart is what was used davparlr, the Ta-152H was fitted with the prop, engine, armament etc etc you see described.
Click to expand...

I am not sure of what you are saying here. Are you are saying that my data, taken from your charts, reflects the new prop, engine, armament, etc? Please explain further.


I am no sure what you did here generate your data, variables, etc. It would help to show your work.

This data is not applicable. First, the weight of the P-51H should be 3995 kg, correcting for equivalent fuel weight. Second, I said high speed performance. This calculation is based on Clmax, something that would be unachievable at 400+ mph (below 25k ft). To be accurate, calculations should be done at much lower alpha numbers.


Again no, P-51's wing loading is worse, and esp. worse in terms of lift loading.
Click to expand...

Even if the Ta-152H could initially outturn, and continuously outturn, the P-51H, the statement that turn rate by itself has historically been proven not sufficient to outclass an opponent is correct, and would be the only advantage the Ta-152H has.

What do you base that on ? Are you aware of the Ta-152H-1's performance with the EB engine ? It seems not. We're talking about 520 to 530 mph performance incase you're wondering.
Click to expand...

Give me the performance charts, FW analysis, something. That engine better have some substantially higher power ratings as it would have to provide an increase of 33 mph at SL just to catch the P-51H.

Btw, the Ta-152H-1 is reported to have reached 500 mph in level flight, which is faster than the P-72.
Click to expand...

Unless the aircraft is piloted by a test pilot and has calibrated flight test instruments, I consider "reports" near worthless. If we generated all the "reported" performances, we would have some really amazing performances. The P-72 was "reported" to have gone 480 mph without the turbosupercharger. Btw, the XP-47J flew an officially announced 504 mph, in August 1944. According to my source, the highest top speed of any propeller driven aircraft officially reported during the war.

Like the Bf-109K, the P-51H was a hot rod. They took unarguably one of the cleanest, arguably the cleanest, piston powered airframes, cleaned it up more, lightened it to British fighter standards, and added a larger engine.

I restate my position. Even with not having a better initial turn rate (which I haven't been convinced yet), The P-51H was superior to the Ta-152H below 25k ft and significantly superior below 15k based on higher speed, better climb, better dive, and better acceleration, thus many more tools to control energy management. Actually, the Bf-109K could probably handle Ta-152H, below 25k.
 

I don't have much data on this aircraft, but if it performs like the D-12, on first look, I have no arguments against this statement. Very impressive.
 
davparlr said:
am no sure what you did here generate your data, variables, etc. It would help to show your work.
Click to expand...

davparlr, have you been missing in all of our forum's previous discussions on this topic ??

The Clmax figures are from NACA FW AG davparlr, so they are the real deal. You're welcome to look for yourself, it's report nr. 828, the P-51's Clmax is 1.35. And from another report exclusively on airfoils here is the NACA 23000 series data:



The average from 15% to 9% TR is 1.58, the exact same figure as FW AG tested as the Clmax of the Fw-190.

The Ta-152H uses the high lift NACA 23000 series airfoil, while the P-51 uses the low drag but low lift laminar type airfoil. Furthermore the high wing AR slightly increases the Clmax, from 1.58 (FW190) to 1.62.

And as for the 500 mph performance of the Ta-152H, well Erich has available the details I would assume as he brought it up earlier on. But it makes sense as the performance figures with GM turned on are calculated, and conservatively at that.
 

And exactly what advantage does the P-51H have in a high speed turn ? The answer is none, and esp. when you consider that the Ta-152H has lighter controls at high speed.
 

? Soren, what is this rambling all about? I had no question on the Cl numbers, I only said that:

1. You calculated using the wrong P-51H weight. It should have been at 3995 kg., reflecting the same fuel weight at the Ta-152H.

2. You calculated at Clmax, representing an alpha number unable to be achieved at 350-400+ mph without removing the wings from the aircraft and compressing the pilot to a 3 foot midget. High speed lift loading should be calculated at a much lower alpha. Now it may not make any difference, but it could, depending on the Cl curves of the two airfoils (I see the Ta-152H airfoil curve, but have no data on the P-51H), but certainly Clmax is not correct for high speed maneuvering.

And again, it does not change my statements that:

The P-51H was superior to the Ta-152H below 25k ft and significantly superior below 15k based on higher speed (avg. about 30 mph faster), better climb, better dive, and better acceleration, thus many more tools to control energy management. Its performance advantage was similar to the F6F's advantage over the A6M, except the A6M could out climb the F6F.

Even if the Ta-152H could initially outturn, and continuously outturn the P-51H, turn rate by itself has historically been proven not sufficient to outclass an opponent and would be the only advantage the Ta-152H has. Indeed, the Ta-152 itself is outclassed.

Soren said:
And exactly what advantage does the P-51H have in a high speed turn ? The answer is none, and esp. when you consider that the Ta-152H has lighter controls at high speed.
Click to expand...

What is your source for this comparison? The 1944 Joint Fighter Conference comparing allied fighters addressed aileron control and their ratings of the P-51D ailerons were; force-1 high, 3 moderate, 16 light; Effectiveness-18 good, 10- fair, 0-poor. One comment was, "best ailerons in the show".
 

Davparlr,

The Ta-152H-1 turns better at all speeds as it has got a much higher Cl airfoil and a much much more efficient wing. Furthermore the P-51's laminar airfoil is not good for turn performance, not only because of the low Clmax, but because of the low critical AoA and nasty sudden stalling characteristics because of the sharp LE.


Speed is the only advantage the P-51H has, and had it been introduced then it would've been facing Jumo 213EB powered Ta-152's which were just as fast.


If ?? If ?? Now davparlr come on, there really should be no doubts.

Ofcourse the Ta-152H will turn better at all speeds as it's got both a much lower lift loading and a much higher L/D ratio.


Ailerons don't control pitch. Like many pilots have said, flying the P-51 at high speed was like driving a truck, the elevator controls got stiff as concrete. The Fw-190 and Ta-152 however feature almost dangerously light controls at high speed, and care had to be taken regarding moving the stick around in high speed dives as you could quickly cross the structural integrity barrier.
 
well I can tell you by early September (maybe) what the new Ta 152 book will have for specs at least a tad wee bit of info as it is suppose to be somewhat technical. even the German war read-outs were not always purely correct again that is test results not actual on flight off the field in the air. Since I last gathered info last year on the bird much new info has come to light with that aspect I have tried to keep still in the matter to hold all of you is suspense ............ ooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooh
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Users who are viewing this thread

Total: 1 (members: 0, guests: 1)

Similar threads

France airforce FAF Order of Battle
Replies
3
Views
641
Barrett
B
M
How Would You Like To Ride Here?
Replies
7
Views
291
Admiral Beez
A
A
What if the Germans had radar proximity fused AA shells?
3 4 5
Replies
92
Views
9K
Snautzer01
W
Here's a test for you all...
2
Replies
25
Views
2K
GrauGeist
M
Listen My Children and You Shall Hear.....
2
Replies
28
Views
3K
Peter Gunn
Menu
Log in
Register