Ta-152C equivalent to Tempest?

delcyros · Dec 17, 2013

The relevant source is "Leistungsvergleich Fw-190 -Ta-152", issued january 1945. Altough it is indeed labelled with "Horizontalgeschwindigkeit über der Flughöhe mit Sondernotleistung", suggesting all-out max speed, there is a note referring to Ta-152H -C stating:
"Gewicht mit halber Kraftstoffmenge; Lüfterrad 039; Start- und Notleistung (emphasized in original); Luftschraubenuntersetzunge (...)".
Thus, The graphs for Fw-190A8 and -A9 are for MW-50 injection (Sondernotleistung) while no MW-50 injection (Start- und Notleistung) is given in both Ta-152 graphs.
But the key point is the 1.75 ata rating. The note just explains why no Sondernotleistung is there for Ta-152. However, the Ta-152H has also GM-1 injection which is given, so it has a graph for Sondernotleistung, making the Ta-152C beeing the only on without any form of injection power.

There is another graph, labelled the same and also from january 1945. In this graph, however, You will note that the Ta-152C1 is listed running on C3 fuel and somehow faster, too (595km/h at SL). Unfortunately, no ata-rating is given.

In my view, the Ta-152 was pretty much a waste of resources, but understandable.

wiking85 · Dec 18, 2013

delcyros said:
The relevant source is "Leistungsvergleich Fw-190 -Ta-152", issued january 1945. Altough it is indeed labelled with "Horizontalgeschwindigkeit über der Flughöhe mit Sondernotleistung", suggesting all-out max speed, there is a note referring to Ta-152H -C stating:
"Gewicht mit halber Kraftstoffmenge; Lüfterrad 039; Start- und Notleistung (emphasized in original); Luftschraubenuntersetzunge (...)".
Thus, The graphs for Fw-190A8 and -A9 are for MW-50 injection (Sondernotleistung) while no MW-50 injection (Start- und Notleistung) is given in both Ta-152 graphs.
But the key point is the 1.75 ata rating. The note just explains why no Sondernotleistung is there for Ta-152. However, the Ta-152H has also GM-1 injection which is given, so it has a graph for Sondernotleistung, making the Ta-152C beeing the only on without any form of injection power.

There is another graph, labelled the same and also from january 1945. In this graph, however, You will note that the Ta-152C1 is listed running on C3 fuel and somehow faster, too (595km/h at SL). Unfortunately, no ata-rating is given.

In my view, the Ta-152 was pretty much a waste of resources, but understandable.

What was the better option then? Jets?

tomo pauk · Dec 18, 2013

delcyros said:
The relevant source is "Leistungsvergleich Fw-190 -Ta-152", issued january 1945. Altough it is indeed labelled with "Horizontalgeschwindigkeit über der Flughöhe mit Sondernotleistung", suggesting all-out max speed, there is a note referring to Ta-152H -C stating:
"Gewicht mit halber Kraftstoffmenge; Lüfterrad 039; Start- und Notleistung (emphasized in original); Luftschraubenuntersetzunge (...)".
Thus, The graphs for Fw-190A8 and -A9 are for MW-50 injection (Sondernotleistung) while no MW-50 injection (Start- und Notleistung) is given in both Ta-152 graphs.
But the key point is the 1.75 ata rating. The note just explains why no Sondernotleistung is there for Ta-152. However, the Ta-152H has also GM-1 injection which is given, so it has a graph for Sondernotleistung, making the Ta-152C beeing the only on without any form of injection power.

There is another graph, labelled the same and also from january 1945. In this graph, however, You will note that the Ta-152C1 is listed running on C3 fuel and somehow faster, too (595km/h at SL). Unfortunately, no ata-rating is given.

In my view, the Ta-152 was pretty much a waste of resources, but understandable.

Thanks for clearing the 'state' of the Ta-152s in the graphs.
One clarification more, however: for the Fw-190A-8 and A-9, instead of "Sondernotleistung" (= power setting that includes use of the MW system; US term would be "WER wet"), a correct term for them should be "Erhohte Notleistung" (= power setting involving only the increase of manifold pressure (vs. the manifold pressure used in Notleistung), but without MW system; US term would be "WER dry")? In other words, A-8 and A-9 were seldom using MW system?
Care to talk a bit about differences about the 603L and 603LA?

davparlr · Dec 18, 2013

I am a bit surprised that the Germans emphasized the high altitude H over the C in that they already had a great interceptor in the Me 262 and what they really needed was a superior airfield protection aircraft which the C could have been, although I think the Bf 109K would also have been effective.

stona · Dec 18, 2013

davparlr said:
I am a bit surprised that the Germans emphasized the high altitude H over the C in that they already had a great interceptor in the Me 262

There are many reasons why the Me 262 was not a 'great interceptor' and numerous threads already devoted to it.

Cheers

Steve

delcyros · Dec 18, 2013

tomo pauk said:
Thanks for clearing the 'state' of the Ta-152s in the graphs.
One clarification more, however: for the Fw-190A-8 and A-9, instead of "Sondernotleistung" (= power setting that includes use of the MW system; US term would be "WER wet"), a correct term for them should be "Erhohte Notleistung" (= power setting involving only the increase of manifold pressure (vs. the manifold pressure used in Notleistung), but without MW system; US term would be "WER dry")? In other words, A-8 and A-9 were seldom using MW system?

It´s my understanding that the Fw-190A8 and -A9 could carry MW-50 in the rear tank, providing the necessary injection for increased manifold pressure. Thus, I guess the term "Sondernotleistung" is indeed correct here. Have to admit that I am not a Fw-190A expert, so only took it from secondary sources.

Care to talk a bit about differences about the 603L and 603LA?

The Db-603L was designed to run on C3 fuel, witht he Db-603LA having slight changes to various aspects of the engine to accept either B4 fuel or C3 fuel. There is some evidence in the chaos of the closing weeks to suggest that Ta-152C airframes would have accepted either Db-603L or Db-603LA in crazy quilt patterns depnding on their respective engine aviability.

One has to keep in mind that the number of test flights for the Ta-152C was limited and the speed curves are not based upon a sufficiently large sample of testflights to extract more than indicative informations on the performance. no informations about variance to be reckoned with from A/C to A/C can be gleaned from them, to name just one example.

delcyros · Dec 18, 2013

Wiking has asked

What was the better option then? Jets?

That´s my point. The Ta-152C is just another high altitude fighter in the Luftwaffe fighter park. Remember, You already have the Bf-109K4 with ~450´ish mph performance, the Fw-190D12 with 450´ish mph, the Ta-152H1 with a performance of 460´ish mph and scheduled for later production the Fw-190D12 with the uprated Jumo-213 EB with ~480´ish mph predicted performance. All in the same high altitude optimum performance range. Why add with the Ta-152C just another, similarely performing A/C there at all?
Remember, it´s not superior to late war allied projected fighter A/C, it´s just competetive. That´s not bad but doesn´t hand in to any advantage in conducting aerial combat. Thus, advantage lies much more with the better skilled pilots, and I guess we all agree that this -in average- means not with the Luftwaffe. And then these high performance engines take a lot of ressources compared with jet engines and develop best power only with scarce high grade fuels.

From mid march 1945 on, most Luftwaffe high altitude interceptions were made by jets, not by Fw-190D or Bf-109K (both of which were aviable in larger numbers than -262A´s). The jet propelled A/C offered a sufficiently large performane gain over all piston prop A/C to justify the ressources spent into it. it also was cheap to produce and run on any low grade fuel aviable. Not to say that it was troubleless but it was both, effective and efficient compared with the period alternatives on the table.
In my point of view, and guessing from ressources, a less obstructed procurement policy would call for one low to mid level optimised piston prop type (aka Fw-190D9 with uprated engines) and a high altitude jet interceptor in addition to a high altitude jet fighter and a jet bomber.

How it turned out with that many high altitude piston prop fighter projects running in parallel (Bf-109G10, Bf-109K4, Bf-109K14; Fw-190D11; Fw-190D12; Ta-152C; Ta-152H; Do-335) is a bit weird in light of the limits the Luftwaffe was labouring with in connection to R&D, production and deployment. Just my opinion, of course, and Yours may differ...

wiking85 · Dec 18, 2013

delcyros said:
Wiking has asked

That´s my point. The Ta-152C is just another high altitude fighter in the Luftwaffe fighter park. Remember, You already have the Bf-109K4 with ~450´ish mph performance, the Fw-190D12 with 450´ish mph, the Ta-152H1 with a performance of 460´ish mph and scheduled for later production the Fw-190D12 with the uprated Jumo-213 EB with ~480´ish mph predicted performance. All in the same high altitude optimum performance range. Why add with the Ta-152C just another, similarely performing A/C there at all?
Remember, it´s not superior to late war allied projected fighter A/C, it´s just competetive. That´s not bad but doesn´t hand in to any advantage in conducting aerial combat. Thus, advantage lies much more with the better skilled pilots, and I guess we all agree that this -in average- means not with the Luftwaffe. And then these high performance engines take a lot of ressources compared with jet engines and develop best power only with scarce high grade fuels.

From mid march 1945 on, most Luftwaffe high altitude interceptions were made by jets, not by Fw-190D or Bf-109K (both of which were aviable in larger numbers than -262A´s). The jet propelled A/C offered a sufficiently large performane gain over all piston prop A/C to justify the ressources spent into it. it also was cheap to produce and run on any low grade fuel aviable. Not to say that it was troubleless but it was both, effective and efficient compared with the period alternatives on the table.
In my point of view, and guessing from ressources, a less obstructed procurement policy would call for one low to mid level optimised piston prop type (aka Fw-190D9 with uprated engines) and a high altitude jet interceptor in addition to a high altitude jet fighter and a jet bomber.

How it turned out with that many high altitude piston prop fighter projects running in parallel (Bf-109G10, Bf-109K4, Bf-109K14; Fw-190D11; Fw-190D12; Ta-152C; Ta-152H; Do-335) is a bit weird in light of the limits the Luftwaffe was labouring with in connection to R&D, production and deployment. Just my opinion, of course, and Yours may differ...

The Ta-152C was a medium/low altitude fighter, not a high altitude one. From what I understand it was meant to supplement everything below 20,000 feet until it could be phased out, while the Ta-152H was to take over high altitude interception; everything else was a stop gap until the Ta-152 took over at all levels. Even then it was a stop gap until the Me262 and other jets could become more reliable. In reality it was just about getting anything in the air that offered better performance in a desperate attempt to survive.

tomo pauk · Dec 18, 2013

delcyros said:
It´s my understanding that the Fw-190A8 and -A9 could carry MW-50 in the rear tank, providing the necessary injection for increased manifold pressure. Thus, I guess the term "Sondernotleistung" is indeed correct here. Have to admit that I am not a Fw-190A expert, so only took it from secondary sources.

I've looked again at the chart (here). The remark "x) mit Lufterrad 039: Start-u.Notleistung" is applicable only for the Fw-190A-9, whose engine (BMW 801TS) is remarked with "x)". Neither of the Fw-190As do not carry any MW-50 mixture, and it's noted so in the table.
The BMW 801D is running at 'Erhohte Notleistung' (1,58 ata in low gear, 1,65 ata in high gear); the 801TS can make 1,65 ata in 'normal' Notleistung, and 1,82 ata in 'Erhohte Notleistung' (here, shaded area). The Ta-152s are indeed remarked as having only half of fuel on board here ("Gew. mit halber Kraftstoffmenge!").
So I'd venture to say that Ta-152C-1 was indeed operating with MW-50. Excerpt form the chart:

The Db-603L was designed to run on C3 fuel, witht he Db-603LA having slight changes to various aspects of the engine to accept either B4 fuel or C3 fuel. There is some evidence in the chaos of the closing weeks to suggest that Ta-152C airframes would have accepted either Db-603L or Db-603LA in crazy quilt patterns depnding on their respective engine aviability.

Thanks

One has to keep in mind that the number of test flights for the Ta-152C was limited and the speed curves are not based upon a sufficiently large sample of testflights to extract more than indicative informations on the performance. no informations about variance to be reckoned with from A/C to A/C can be gleaned from them, to name just one example.

Not hard to agree with that.

stona · Dec 18, 2013

wiking85 said:
In reality it was just about getting anything in the air that offered better performance in a desperate attempt to survive.

I think that's true.
One of the reasons that so many seemingly competing programs were running is precisely because the RLM/Luftwaffe were grasping at straws. The record of the German aviation industry in producing competitive and reliable aircraft was not outstanding. There was no way that all the eggs were going to be put in one basket. Just about anything on the list above (with the exception of the upgraded Bf 109s) could have been another Me 210.
Cheers
Steve

delcyros · Dec 18, 2013

wiking85 said:
The Ta-152C was a medium/low altitude fighter, not a high altitude one. From what I understand it was meant to supplement everything below 20,000 feet until it could be phased out, while the Ta-152H was to take over high altitude interception; everything else was a stop gap until the Ta-152 took over at all levels. Even then it was a stop gap until the Me262 and other jets could become more reliable. In reality it was just about getting anything in the air that offered better performance in a desperate attempt to survive.

But You know what makes me sceptical about this interpretation? Look, Ta-152H and Ta-152C performance:

SL: 570 km/h (-C1) 580 km/h (H1)
6500m : 700km/h (both)
crit altitude Ta-152H:
9500m 730 km/h (compare: Ta-152C1: 725 km/h at this altitude)

crit altitude Ta-152C:
10500m 730km/h (compare Ta-152H1: 715 km/h at this altitude)

So why then, if the Ta-152C is indeed the low alt performer and the -H is the dedicated high altitude performer is the Ta-152H faster than he Ta-152C at the deck, has a lower critical altitude than the Ta-152C (and faster there) and performs worse at up to altitude of 11500m when GM-1 kicks in and restores advantage for the Ta-152H?

Performancewise there are no differences between both A/C at any reasonable alitude to justify the claim that one is low alt and the other is >20,000ft dedicated. The difference is pressurized cockpit and GM-1 injection, at high altitude the Ta-152C has the advantage, at low altitude the Ta-152H is in possession of it (in contrast to our expectation), albeit in both cases the differences are to subtile to justify development of highly specialised types.

Both planes are optimised for high altitude work. The Ta-152H thanks to the enlarged wings, GM-1 injection and pressurized cockpit is able to work at unrealistically extreme altitudes (maybe Mosquito PR panic anyone?)

wiking85 · Dec 18, 2013

My understanding is that the C was only fitted with MW boost, not GM and MW as the H was. It also had short wings for lower altitudes, compared to the long wings of the H, while the C lacked the H's pressurized cockpit. They sported different engines and AFAIK the C did not possess a multistage supercharger.

tomo pauk · Dec 18, 2013

The Ta-152C was outfitted with engine featuring the 2-stage supercharger, as was the Ta-152H.

silence · Dec 18, 2013

Maybe it had something to do with the incredibly heavy armament of the 152C?? I dunno, but it seems compared to the D-12/R25 with the 213EB (and maybe wing bag tanks) it really was a waste of effort.

Milosh · Dec 18, 2013

Were not the Doras temporary a/c until the 152s came on line?

stona · Dec 19, 2013

Milosh said:
Were not the Doras temporary a/c until the 152s came on line?

Yes. They were officially a stop gap.
Cheers
Steve

war eagle · Dec 20, 2013

I always considered the tempest to be the most underrated fighter in the war the Luftwaffe high command were so alarmed at their fighter losses at the hands of the tempest squadrons that they issued a directive to their pilots to avoid dogfights with them knowing they would nearly always lose.It's always been a fact that lack of development time,shortage of materials and pilot loss were the most important factors in the Luftwaffe's loss of the skies in the latter stages of the conflict,their insistance on almost constant deployment of pilots meant the bulk of their experten were dead and the force was made up mainly of green barely trained recruits in the final months.All the remaining top aces were given ME262's a brilliant aircraft conceptually but hamstrung by lack of development,poor engine reliability and durability as a result most squadrons were only able to muster 30-40% of their aircraft at any one time.To sum up my main point is that there were many additional factors involved apart from just out and out technical comparable performance between the tempest and the TA 152.

drgondog · Dec 20, 2013

Any published source of LW order to avoid Tempest? In 1945, the LW wasn't doing well against Yak's, Mustangs, Spitfires, etc.

pattern14 · Dec 28, 2013

wiking85 said:
Of course this ignores the Me262 and a matured Jumo 004's potential.

It is not a question of ignoring the 262 and its potential, engines, airframe, or otherwise. The Ta 152 was the last and probably the best single engined piston driven fighter the luftwaffe had, and was built for a specific purpose in mind. It never saw use in its intended role, but performed very well regardless of the situations it found itself in. The point I was making was that it was simply a better fighter plane than the Jet powered He 162. I'd go as far as to say that the Meteor would have had its work cut out for it if they had ever met in combat.

delcyros · Dec 28, 2013

I am not sure that I can agree. The He-162 was a way better fighter than any version of the Ta-152, proposed or buildt. It also offered a more efficient fighter platform in terms of ressources and manhour investment. Performancewise, the future was in the jet age. The only aspect where I can see operational advantages for the Ta-152 /late Fw-190D is in (a) the low altitude range due to their better endurance and (b) their operational reliability due to the quircks which had yet to be worked out completely. Otherwise the jet own the prop driven fighter in every aspect, most notably survivability.

Ta-152C equivalent to Tempest?

Tech Sergeant

Staff Sergeant

Creator of Interesting Threads

Senior Master Sergeant

Major

Tech Sergeant

Tech Sergeant

Staff Sergeant

Creator of Interesting Threads

Major

Tech Sergeant

Staff Sergeant

Creator of Interesting Threads

Senior Airman

Senior Master Sergeant

Major

Airman

Major

Airman 1st Class

Tech Sergeant

Users who are viewing this thread

Similar threads