Late war fighter competition

curious Mike I do not see any P-51H in any of the 8th AF fighter arsenals during the war.

proven fact on the Tank it flew at medium to low altitudes in it's combat record, there are no records of operational flights at the extreme for what it was made for during combat ops agasint Soviet or US/Raf fighters. it held it's own quite properly and the lower levels and of course along with the D-9 which tore the Soviets to shreads

If the sweep ranges are inside a 300mile radius I like the P-51H in the interceptor config - no external stores, all internal fuel and full load of ammo.

SL climb after T/O according to the SAC manual is ~ 5K fpm with excellent performance throughout it's flight profile with 407kts/~474mph loaded at 25K.

I'm still mentally debating F8F and Spiteful in that same range spectrum... as the 51H performance gets better as it burns off fuel.

I really would like to see the equivalent of a pilot's handbook like the SAC 1949 P-51H document on all the rest to see what the operational expectations for an average bird looks like for the choices above... particularly for the Ta 152

am not 100 % Bill but the new forthcoming Monogram/Eagle-editions book on the TA 152 may have the information. I know Jerry has a ton on the bird but of course so do I 8)

MikeGazdik said:

With my scenario, it would be real easy to put the P-51H into the theater. The plane was already proven with the 8th AF. But that would be the logical choice, I rather prefer illogical.

Click to expand...

When was the P-51H proven? It never saw combat in WW2...

Erich said:

curious Mike I do not see any P-51H in any of the 8th AF fighter arsenals during the war.

Click to expand...

Easy guys, I was refering to the P-51 design, as in the B,C,D models. The H was an improvement of the breed. With that, it would be the easy and logical choice to put the H model of the Mustang into this fight. That is what I was trying to say.

I was not trying to say the H saw combat with the 8th AF.

P-51H it's near a new fighter

Vincenzo is basically correct.

The P-51H was both 'new' and 'established'. The 1650-9 engine was essentially a 1650-7 with -3 gearing and improved WI methods to bring it to 90"hg.

The commonality of parts (to P-51D) was very low due to a near complete redesign to take out the added weight that the D model added (~1000 pounds in a four gun to four gun comparison - but added some back to get to six gun equivalncey to 51D) over the B - but it was a low risk airframe due to the engine/coolant/instrument and control systems. It introduced no real development risk and its introduction into US inventories was very smooth.

Its performance boost was due to a.) improved cg due to 13" increase in fuse lenght plue reducing the size of aft fuel tank. I never flew the 51H but my father had about 300 hours in it - he liked it better than both the B/D models for vastly improved climb and acceleration and ease of take off runs with MP.

The Ta 152H exemplified the same degree of airframe evolution over the Fw 190D series but did have an entirely new wing and engine. The engine was the wildcard in the Ta 152 as it was not a well tested operationally experienced engine, but a poweful one nevertheless.

I suspect without proof that the 51H was still slightly improved aerodynamically - which is still a wildcard at highspeed and energy manueverability/energy loss engagements... The top speed comparisons with reduced Hp capability suggests slightly better drag for the 51 and definite WL advantage for the Ta 152 - most contained in the wing comparisons.

These fighters would have been very well matched in SL to 30,000 feet but I would give edge to Ta 152 in performance and edge in pilot skills and numbers of pilots with those skills to 51 drivers simply because of the bleed out of the LW. For the same reason 51D and Spit IV and P-47N and Yak 9 drivers would not have been at the mercy of Ta 152's.

There was nowhere near the difference in late model piston engine fighters that Meteors, Me 262s and P-80s brought to combat. 1945 was truly the edge of the envelope in recip engine aircraft.

Ta 152 and P-51H in 1943 would have been very competitive with slight edge to 152 as the pilot skills and numbers would have favored the LW (over Germany)

davebender said:

How long are you expecting the European war to last? After another year of fighting the entire continent will be rubble and no longer worth fighting over.

Click to expand...

Ahh, hmmm
In which case I'd push for the P-51H. Still the best all rounder IMHO.

The Ta 152H proved it was capable of outturning a Hawker Tempest at low altitude on 12 April 1945 when Uffz. Willi Reschke forced a Tempest of 486(NZ) Sqn, flown by W/O Owen Mitchell, to crash into a forest. (The wild winds : the history of Number 486 RNZAF Fighter Squadron with the RAF / Paul Sortehaug | National Library of Australia pages 245-247) Note that Reschke had gun trouble during this combat.

What happens if the Ta-152 that bounces you is flown by Erich Hartmann who by spring 1946 has 450 aerial kills?

U'd be dead before u knew he was even there....

as E. H only flew the 109 variants I would say he may have had extreme probs with the Ta 152H and not having combat ops while defending the Reich, 450 kills sounds sensational since he did not even have 350 as claimed through present research, I would say he would of been shot down and killed in 44-45. his luck held out since he was on the Ost front

davparlr said:

The P-47M/N with a flat rated 2800 hp from 10k to 33,000 ft easily out-powers the Ta-152 even with the EB, up to the P-47 ceiling and at 35k this power difference is probably about 1500 hp providing a substantial power to weight advantage (over 100% more power)! For 1945 Europe, the P-47 could easily be lightened (less fuel carried since no long range escorts and reduced armament) and, if required, I am sure Republic could re-wing the P-47 (already done for the N) as easily as the Focke-Wulf did for the 190/152. According to your chart, the EB performance is still considerably below the P-51H and the Tempest II in speed below 25k ft and at a disadvantage in climb below 20-25k. Of course I am not even looking at the -11 engine in the P-51, which has higher altitude performance. Above 20-25k the Ta would dominate these planes, but then there is that doggone P-47. The P-47J already had achieved 500 mph. Your chart appears never to show the EB generating more than about 172 mph and it looks like nitrous is not used. Am I misreading the chart, I have done that before? Unfortunately I cannot even mention the P-72 which already had a year in development and was in production before being cancelled in favor of jets.

Click to expand...

Davparlr, there is no chart listing the top speeds with the 2,500 hp EB engine, only the 2,050 hp E engine. And top speeds with the E engine were 595 km/h at SL and 760+ km/h at altitude using GM1.

The EB engine would added another 450 hp at SL, raising the top SL speed to atleast 625+ km/h and high alt speed to around 780 km/h. I see no Allied fighter matching this at all.

Soren said:

The EB engine would added another 450 hp at SL, raising the top SL speed to atleast 625+ km/h and high alt speed to around 780 km/h. I see no Allied fighter matching this at all.

Click to expand...

The Hawker Fury/SeaFury will still be quite a bit faster up to 20,000ft, even with the 2430hp Centaurus which had plenty more stretch in the design (up to 3500hp postwar). It'd be interesting to find some proper performance figures for LA610 testbed which mounted Griffon and Sabre engines as well. It's never going to have the high altitude performance though.

The Spiteful with Griffon 101 is quite likely is faster up to 30,000ft or so, but I only have max speed figures.

The P-51H is again faster up to around 30,000ft with similar performance to the Fury (a bit down on climb but a bit faster over 20,000ft).

With the EB engine the Ta 152H comes closer to the speed of contemporary allied fighters, but it's only at very high altitude where there is any advantage.

Speed is obviously important, at any altitude. However once these foes get into a mix, maximum speed really wont be the issue. We need exceleration, climb, dive, turning and rolling ability.

It is there that I would think the Bearcat begins to shine.

How is the Seafury in this realm? How does it handle?

I know this is only one mans view, but nice read anyways. Grumman F8F Bearcat Pilot Report

Erich said:

curious Mike I do not see any P-51H in any of the 8th AF fighter arsenals during the war.

proven* fact on the Tank it flew at medium to low altitudes in it's combat record, there are no records of operational flights at the extreme for what it was made for during combat ops agasint Soviet or US/Raf fighters. it held it's own quite properly and the lower levels and of course along with the D-9 which tore the Soviets to shreads**

Click to expand...

-Where the fact that Tank escaped from Mustang at medium or low altitude is proven?

-Where did you see episodes when D-9 and Ta-152 D-9 which tore the Soviets to shreads? Especially Yak 9U or La-7?

Regards

Soren said:

Davparlr, there is no chart listing the top speeds with the 2,500 hp EB engine, only the 2,050 hp E engine. And top speeds with the E engine were 595 km/h at SL and 760+ km/h at altitude using GM1.

Click to expand...

I am confused again. The Fw190-Ta152 chart, while not specifically calling out the Jumo 213EB, does show a dotted line that calls out both the Jumo213EB above the line and the Ta 152 H-1-Jumo213EB below the line.

The EB engine would added another 450 hp at SL, raising the top SL speed to atleast 625+ km/h and high alt speed to around 780 km/h. I see no Allied fighter matching this at all.

Click to expand...

Even if the chart does not reflect the EB, the added power would only make the Ta-152 more competitive to the P-51H and Tempest II at lower altitudes, and I have a hard time believing the Ta-152 with the EB could overcome the 1000 to 1500 hp disadvantage it would have to the P-47M/N above 25k ft. especially if the P-47 was lightened with less fuel and reduced armament. Also, the P-72, after a relative uneventful testing was in production when cancelled due to lack of interest. With 3000+ hp and great performance, would have easily met the Ta EB performance up to 40k+ ft had the allies ever perceived a threat. Had jets not appeared, I am sure both the Brits and Americans could have fielded prop planes that performed well up to the aerodynamic limits of propellers.

Kurt Tank did not fly with P-51's at medium to low altitude, the Ta 152 is referred to the Tank constantly

Doras shot the hell out of the Soviets in 45 hen in action. IV./JG 3 war diary ......... is a credible evidence

holy S *** you guys really play the what if scenarios like they are reality and you have no facts whatsoever to back this all up, re: a waste of time pretending.

why don't you guys just cut to the chase and forget threads like this, go do some serious research then come on here with viable plausibilities, otherwise this is a nonsensical game full of arguments nonproven in the long run.

v/r E ~

All things being equal...

If one where to forget about manufacture quality and fuel quality, all the participating country's fielded competent fighters by wars end.

I'm not really sure their was an over-all best...

=Erich;563016]Kurt Tank did not fly with P-51's at medium to low altitude, the Ta 152 is referred to the Tank constantly

Click to expand...

So except Tank publicity campain for himslef , you have no proof that Ta 152 escaped from Mustangs, except maybe from higher altitudes.

Doras shot the hell out of the Soviets in 45 hen in action. IV./JG 3 war diary ......... is a credible evidence

Click to expand...

The fact that JG 3 claimed a lot of confirmed or not victories makes no evidence that there were high soviet losses from that unity

holy S *** you guys really play the what if scenarios like they are reality and you have no facts whatsoever to back this all up, re: a waste of time pretending.

Click to expand...

Since russian archives are open from 1993 it could be stated that Luftwaffe overclaimed statistically by 5 in main air battles from 43 to 44 and even more in 45. From serious Bykov, Medvediev, Hazanov, Kuznetsov researchers***...

why don't you guys just cut to the chase and forget threads like this, go do some serious research then come on here with viable plausibilities, otherwise this is a nonsensical game full of arguments nonproven in the long run.

Click to expand...

First i fully agree there is no need for theads like this,
Secund i don't trust your viable plausibilities:

The facts are that tested D-9 at LII-VVS were at best able to dogfight the Il 10, in the horizontal plan. Since they had the same turn rate (22s). Common La-7 (19s) was reaching D-9 tail after 3-4 turning circles or only 1-2 vertical loops from 1000 m height.

So, there is not place for language excess like tore to shread, especially if you have no evidence for that.

Third, there is enough published WW2 episodes from russian side (Crimea, Kouban, North sea, Moscow, Kharkov...) since 17 years to appreciate what seems to be with viable plausibilities and what not.

At the end, i don't have the right nationality to access to some russian archives (operational). But i can confirm that they are still open.

Regards

And u think the Russian archives are the God's honest truth on Soviet air to air losses in 1945???

LMFAO................

I would believe the overrated German claims moreso than the admitted Soviet losses...