Late war fighter competition

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

lesofprimus said:
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...
Click to expand...

Compared to german certainly. At least they are complete since the account balance tends to zero.
But as you say only God knows the truth.
For instance the famous north fleet ace Piotr Sgibnev wanting to show off for girls visiting it's airfield killed himself during aeobatics. In official records he was quoted as lost in combat mission two days later, in order:

- to avoid scandal and official enquest
- to allow his family to recieve war pension.

How many of theese cases were, j don't know...But making up banal accidents in war losses was increadibly commonplace in red"s army us and customs in front line units.

Regards
 
Last edited:
Mike, we've seen these same type of what if discussions here 30-40-80 times over the years, and its all silly mish mash coulda woulda shoulda...

Hypotheticals are just tiresome man.... Most of the data thats presented here u could find 5 different refrences for speed/climb/roll rate etc etc....

Its all conjecture...
 
red admiral said:
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.
Click to expand...

No it's quite the contrary infact. With the EB engine the Ta-152H leaves all contemporary Allied fighters in the dust, simple as that. There was quite simply no Allied piston engined fighter in or about to enter service which would do 625+ km/h at SL and 780 km/h at altitude during WW2.

Even with the Jumo 213E the Ta-152H was climbing faster than any Allied fighter, reaching 10 km in just 10.1 min, some 2 min faster than the Seafury for example and around 0.5 min faster than the P-51H. With the EB engine this performance would only increase a lot.
 
Last edited:
Soren said:
No it's quite the contrary infact. With the EB engine the Ta-152H leaves all contemporary Allied fighters in the dust, simple as that. There was quite simply no Allied piston engined fighter in or about to enter service which would do 625+ km/h at SL
Click to expand...

This is incorrect. Both the P-51H and the Tempest II could easily pass 644 km/h at SL.
and 780 km/h at altitude during WW2.
Click to expand...
This actually may be true although this airspeed is strictly an analysis and not flight test. But, this is only true because allies had abandoned development of propeller driven aircraft in this category, such as the 500 mph + P-47J and P-72, because it was correctly perceived that this capability in propeller driven aircraft was not required to win the war.

Even with the Jumo 213E the Ta-152H was climbing faster than any Allied fighter, reaching 10 km in just 10.1 min, some 2 min faster than the Seafury for example and around 0.5 min faster than the P-51H.
Click to expand...
This is also not true. The Air Force tested a P-51H, pulling only 67" Hg, to 33k ft (10 km) and clocked 11.2 minutes (only 1.1 minutes more than the Ta). Now the P-51H could pull 90" Hg. so you can imagine the performance at 90" Hg. Indeed, at this level, released documents indicated a time climb to 33k ft of less than 10 min and close to 9 min. At fighter weight, the P-51H had between 1000 to 1500 ft/min advantage in SL climb over the Ta-152H.

With the EB engine this performance would only increase a lot.
Click to expand...
Yes, but only make it more competitive with the P-51H and Tempest II at lower altitudes.
 
The only speed curve I have seen of Ta-152H-1 with 213EB -engine is in Hermann's book (curves dated January 1945).
It shows 603km/h (375mph) at SL, peaking to 760km/h (472mph) at 9,500m (31,200ft).
Those are estimated values with Sondernotleistung ("Special emergency power"), without ETC (drop tank rack) surface primed and polished, all gaps at the engine and the transitions carefully sealed with rubber.

10.1 min climb time to 10,000m is also with Special emergency power setting with half internal fuel.
With usual "Climb and combat" -rating the time was 13.8 min (again with only half fuel).
 
Last edited:

As I've been saying all along, the Ta 152H is faster at high altitude and climbs faster at high altitude. Below 20,000ft it has no advantage over Allied low altitude types even with the EB engine. It's really only over 30,000ft with GM-1 boost that the Ta 152H is noticeably faster and better climbing.

Regards to Sea Fury Performance; Although a low altitude fighter, it's still doing fairly well in the 20,000-30,000ft range. Time to 30,000ft is about 8minutes or so.



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.
Click to expand...

Hawker P.1027, a development of the Tempest with a RR Eagle engine and ventral radiator. Projected performance was 512mph.

 

Thanks for information, it sounds fair.

Considering compressibility phenomenas, near 0.85/ 09 Mach you can't gain 5% speed gain for only 15% power increase; bernouill lows are turning to cube order x^3 rather than x². With great propeller output loss.


Anyway. Due to the delivery delays the 49 used Ta-152 from 150-160 produced were certainly from the early types, without any kind of Jumo 213EB.

Regards
 
Last edited:
And RAF could have used also Hawker Fury, from which Sea Fury was developed. IIRC the Sabre V?, or whatever was the the Sabre mark used in Tempest VI, engined Fury proto achieved 485mph max speed.

Juha
 
Juha said:
And RAF could have used also Hawker Fury, from which Sea Fury was developed. IIRC the Sabre V?, or whatever was the the Sabre mark used in Tempest VI, engined Fury proto achieved 485mph max speed.

Juha
Click to expand...

I saw a Sea Fury fly at Chino air show. What a magnificent aircraft.
 
Even with the Jumo 213E the Ta-152H was climbing faster than any Allied fighter, reaching 10 km in just 10.1 min, some 2 min faster than the Seafury for example and around 0.5 min faster than the P-51H.
Click to expand...

The Spitfire XIV, at 18 lbs boost, could reach 33,000 ft in about 9.3 minutes.

BS 551, a Spitfire HF IX, reached 32,000 ft in 8.6 minutes and 34,000 ft in 9.6. Again at 18 lbs boost.
 
lesofprimus said:
And the pics are where Chris???
Click to expand...

Posted in the thread I made a few weeks ago about the airshow...



Got pics and vids of a flying Bf 109G, B-17G, B-25, Spitfire, Ju-52s, Fw 190, Sea Fury, etc...

My pics though are not that great. I don't have the talent or the equipment to get the really good shots like Eric does. Most of the time I would snap a pic and all I would get is sky, because the 109 or the 190 would have already roared past!
 
Found a chart with the Ta-152H-1's performance with the EB engine, and it was calculated to be 626 km/h at SL and 762 km/h at 9.5 km. (The chart has been posted by me here before) There was no calculation for performance with GM-1 engaged, but the speed at 9.5km is 15 km/h faster than with the E series so I'm guessing it will be about the same with GM-1 engaged, suggesting a calculated high alt speed of ~775 km/h.

So the improvement introduced with the EB engine would atleast be +31 km/h at SL and +15 km/h at altitude.

It should be noted however that the top speed of 760 km/h for the Jumo 213E powered Ta-152H-1 was calculated as-well, and like with all FW performance charts it was a very conservative figure. The Ta-152H-1's top speed with GM-1 engaged at high alt was never officially tested, and according to operational pilots it was considerably faster than the calculated figures, a top speed of over 500 mph having been observed.

Davparlr,

Didn't they test the P-51H at 90" Hg and find it took more than 10 min to reach 30,000 ft ?
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Users who are viewing this thread

Total: 1 (members: 0, guests: 1)

Similar threads

Make-A-Plane Palooza: Late war / post war superprop fighters!
Replies
13
Views
918
Howard Gibson
American fighter ops, 1944 and beyond
Replies
5
Views
2K
Barrett
B
C
Tricycle Training(?) for Fighter Directors
Replies
5
Views
2K
EAIAnalog
S
Allied Bombers and Fighter Bombers in 1942:, North Africa, China, Burma, Pacific, Aleutians
2 3 4
Replies
60
Views
4K
MikeMeech
M
S
"Generations" of fighter aircraft
2
Replies
32
Views
6K
Barrett
B
Menu
Log in
Register