Ta-152C equivalent to Tempest?

[nuuumannn]

The C-Stoff tank was behind the cockpit, but the T-Stoff tanks were either side of the pilot's seat. You can refer to my thread for photographic evidence here:

http://www.ww2aircraft.net/forum/wa...c-aircraft-walkarounds-nuuumannn-36981-2.html

 

[BiffF15]

That would not be my preferred ride in combat or otherwise!

 

[stona]

There are a lot of unpleasant characteristics of the fuels used in the Walther rocket engines which would make a dousing in aviation spirit seem like a spa bath. Me 163 pilots wore 'plastic' suits and even discarded the Luftwaffe arm band they were supposed to wear to conform with international law as it was made from an organic material which would combust when wet with T-Stoff.

The fuel tanks were fragile (relatively) because you can't store these fuels in tanks made from many typical materials. I'd have to check for production Me 163s but early tanks were ceramic. Mix the two fuels in an uncontrolled way and the results will be as above.

There is also the potential of serious failure and injury from the steam generator, which is a nice little bomb bolted to the bulkhead, visible when the rear fuselage is removed. It's the bit looking like a pressure cooker, usually polished with graphite oil (it was made from steel).

Add to that the unpowered flight characteristics mentioned by nuuumaan and you've got a death trap. Every landing was a dead stick landing.

It wasn't just Walter rocket motors that destroyed aircraft. After two years work BMW technicians were finally ready to run one of their combination jet/rocket motors (turbinenluftstrahltriebwerk mit raketenantrieb', TLR for short) on a Me 262. It promptly exploded and burst into flames!

Cheers

Steve

 

[delcyros]

Now, if Germany had fielded a 2000 lb thrust centrifugal jet engine in late '43 and put it in this plane (it would probably fit), then that would have been a game changer and I think they could have done it with different priorities. (an old soapbox of mine).

Dave,
I kind of agree in most points. We may have differences in valuing endurance but those are small enough to vannish in the usual margin of error.
However, I don´t think that a 2000lbs thrust centrifugal jet engine was feasable for Germany in 1943 (Heinkel tried and failed) due in most part because of the abandandonment of high Chromium and high Nickel content turbine wheels.
Otherwise You already had the axial JUMO-004A which run 1942 on 1000kp / 2,200lbs at 9000rpm -but had to be reconstructed and consequently derated to 8700rpm in the Jumo-004B due to the need to produce the engine without high quality alloys. This problem would be worse in a radial compressor (neither the HeS008 nor the HeS011 AV had been designed for spare free).
Production of the JUMO004 to apr. 3rd, 45 amounted to 7,420 units, BMW´s 003 was introduced in serial production in august 1944 and had been produced in ~700 units to apr. 45, roughly twice as much as He-162 and Ar-234C airframes in this period.
I am pretty sure that a targeted goal of >4,000 He-162 was to optimistic but probably not to excessively, considering that oct. 1944 production of fighter craft peaked out at 3,468 fighters, which were individually significantly more costly in ressources and manhours than was the He-162A (by a considerable margin).

 

[delcyros]

But they didn't do that did they?


How many post war jet engines are direct descendants of the various German projects, compared with, say, rocket motors?

A couple of important ones.
The french ATAR series, dominating the french 50´s and 60´s is the continuation of the BMW P3306, which was a scaled up BMW-003 and qualifies here.
The soviets copied BMW-003 and JUMO-004, and additionally realised the projected JUMO-012 turbojet and later the from it derived turboprop JUMO-022 (the JUMO-012B was not taken into production because of the licensed production of the RR Nene, which offered equal performance at less weight -albeit on a larger frontal diameter). The Jumo-022 went into service and production as TV-2 and was one mainstay in helicopter turbines of the soviet aeroindustry. It eventually wes redesigned into the much more powerful NK-12 turboprop, which powers the Tu-95 till today.

 

[stona]

A couple of important ones.
The french ATAR series, dominating the french 50´s and 60´s is the continuation of the BMW P3306, which was a scaled up BMW-003 and qualifies here.
The soviets copied BMW-003 and JUMO-004, and additionally realised the projected JUMO-012 turbojet and later the from it derived turboprop JUMO-022 (the JUMO-012B was not taken into production because of the licensed production of the RR Nene, which offered equal performance at less weight -albeit on a larger frontal diameter). The Jumo-022 went into service and production as TV-2 and was one mainstay in helicopter turbines of the soviet aeroindustry. It eventually wes redesigned into the much more powerful NK-12 turboprop, which powers the Tu-95 till today.

The French ATAR/SNECMA I agree with.

The Soviets never continued development of German jets for the reasons you give.

That makes a grand total of one post war jet that can be considered a direct descendant of the German war time programs. Considering Oestrich and several of his BMW colleagues had escaped to France the ATAR 101V wasn't even built until March 1948 and then effectively by SNECMA. It was far from a world beater. The 101A was slightly better but sold precisely zero units. The 101B was produced just before ATAR became formally a SNECMA property and is the first engine producing over 2,000Kg thrust. It wasn't until the 101C that an engine was actually produced commercially, eventually powering the Dassault Mystere IIC. It was already moving away from the original design and it was already 1951 and the type wouldn't enter service until 1954!

I don't think that's much of a legacy for the much vaunted German jet development programs of WWII.

Cheers

Steve

 

[davparlr]

I don't see the He162 having much of an endurance difference than late war Bf109s with the scenarios given.

Which was a problem. Germany needed as many aircraft in the air as it could get. Planes refueling and rearming are not fighting. Ground time to flight time is a critical design point for aircraft. Low endurance aircraft have a poorer ground time to flight time ratio than aircraft with more endurance. I think the Germans finally got the idea with the Ta 152 which had much more fuel on board. This is particularly true when the airspace above the airfield is contested. Aircraft landing and taking off are extremely vulnerable and the more you have to do it the more vulnerable you are, especially the jets with notoriously slow acceleration.

 

[stona]

Which was a problem. Germany needed as many aircraft in the air as it could get. Planes refueling and rearming are not fighting. Ground time to flight time is a critical design point for aircraft. Low endurance aircraft have a poorer ground time to flight time ratio than aircraft with more endurance. I think the Germans finally got the idea with the Ta 152 which had much more fuel on board. This is particularly true when the airspace above the airfield is contested. Aircraft landing and taking off are extremely vulnerable and the more you have to do it the more vulnerable you are, especially the jets with notoriously slow acceleration.

It was a huge problem. Standard procedure was for fighters only to carry a drop tank on the first interception of the day. Theoretically an entire Gruppe could be refuelled, rearmed and in the air again in less than thirty minutes, but now with even less endurance and looking at a long, fuel burning, overheating, climb to reach the bombers.
Cheers
Steve

 

[davparlr]

Dave,
I kind of agree in most points. We may have differences in valuing endurance but those are small enough to vannish in the usual margin of error.
However, I don´t think that a 2000lbs thrust centrifugal jet engine was feasable for Germany in 1943 (Heinkel tried and failed) due in most part because of the abandandonment of high Chromium and high Nickel content turbine wheels.
Otherwise You already had the axial JUMO-004A which run 1942 on 1000kp / 2,200lbs at 9000rpm -but had to be reconstructed and consequently derated to 8700rpm in the Jumo-004B due to the need to produce the engine without high quality alloys. This problem would be worse in a radial compressor (neither the HeS008 nor the HeS011 AV had been designed for spare free).
Production of the JUMO004 to apr. 3rd, 45 amounted to 7,420 units, BMW´s 003 was introduced in serial production in august 1944 and had been produced in ~700 units to apr. 45, roughly twice as much as He-162 and Ar-234C airframes in this period.
I am pretty sure that a targeted goal of >4,000 He-162 was to optimistic but probably not to excessively, considering that oct. 1944 production of fighter craft peaked out at 3,468 fighters, which were individually significantly more costly in ressources and manhours than was the He-162A (by a considerable margin).

Okay, I won't disagree with you here as I am sure you are more knowledgeable about raw material support than I am. But you still have to have engines which I think was in short supply at the end of the war and also trained pilots. I do think that in order to affect the war, really just delay the outcome, Germany needed to stop the Mustangs in the first half of '44. Without the daylight Bomber offensive and the Luftwaffe decimation during that period, D-Day would have been completely different. Any airborne weapons system available after D-day would not have had much an impact on the war. Germany could never outproduce the US or out man the Russians.

I do like the plane and it use of less refined fuel was important. It was, like so many other advanced German concepts, just too little too late.

 

[Erich]

am curious this page has nothing to do with the named title Ta vs Tempest, wonder why posts start running amuck since the beginning of this site was created. ??

 

[stona]

am curious this page has nothing to do with the named title Ta vs Tempest, wonder why posts start running amuck since the beginning of this site was created. ??

Because debates develop, sometimes in unexpected and interesting ways. It's human nature. It would be a shame if that was seen as a problem when everybody has behaved themselves and posted some fascinating information.

Cheers

Steve

 

[Erich]

why not start another thread, is it that hard to keep on topic ................ YES it appears. I can bring you all back on the original if interested with docs covering the Ta, for my book actually but am willing to toss a few out for bites if all my systems are a go.

 

[Erich]

alright then another doc

 

[tomo pauk]

Duly saved

 

[l'Omnivore Sobriquet]

@Stona post #151 :
Exactly what I've been thinking all along.
This is me talking really.

euh, risette ?

Yves

 

[nuuumannn]

Because debates develop, sometimes in unexpected and interesting ways. It's human nature. It would be a shame if that was seen as a problem when everybody has behaved themselves and posted some fascinating information.

Yep, I agree - being particularly guilty of straying way off topic in this particular thread. Some of the more lively debates arise as a result of side-tracking from the intended subject. As a shaggy, drug addled old hippie once said; "just go with the flow, maaan..."

 

[davparlr]

The Tempest and the Ta 152C represent the last few pages of the last chapter of single engine, propeller driven fighters. As such they join other such aircraft such as the P-51H, F4U-4, P-47M/N, F8F, etc. All of these planes were very powerful and were pushing propeller propulsion to its limits. All were very fast and climbed at a prodigious rate. These planes had over 2000 hp on hand, ranging from about 2200 for the Tempest and Mustang to 2800 hp for P-47M/N. However each was design for a specific performance envelope so comparing them is typically difficult without defining the envelope. For example, the lightweight P-51H performs superbly up to about 25k ft whereas the Ta-152H is untouchable above about 35k ft. The Tempest V and the Ta 152C appear to be similar with the Tempest a bit better in climb and airspeed up to about 20k ft. with the C better above that. Also, the Tempest II outperformed the Tempest V. An uncertainty here is quality of the data for the C. It may perform better than my figures show. All of these planes would be obsolete by the end of 1945 with only the F4U and F8F scheduled for updates due to the uncertainty of carrier borne jets.

 

[stona]

All of these planes would be obsolete by the end of 1945 with only the F4U and F8F scheduled for updates due to the uncertainty of carrier borne jets.

Though the Tempest is a direct ancestor of the Sea Fury, developed for the RN for the same reason. The Sea Fury is a very different beast to the Tempest under the skin, but the lineage is there.

Cheers

Steve

 

[davparlr]

Though the Tempest is a direct ancestor of the Sea Fury, developed for the RN for the same reason. The Sea Fury is a very different beast to the Tempest under the skin, but the lineage is there.

Cheers

Steve

Saw one at Chino. Beautiful!

 

[GregP]

Race 232 was at Chino for some time and is probably the one you saw there. It started life as a Sea Fury FB 11. but very little of the FB 11 remains. The only thing still working in the wing fold is the pins that hold the wing down. The rest is now manual. The airfoil is no longer FB 11, having been profiled for racing. The tails have been similarly re-airfoiled for racing. The engine is a Wright R-3350 and the canopy is from a Formula One racer. But it IS a beautiful aircraft to watch flying.

Just before he grenaded the engine last year at Reno, Hoot Gibson lapped at 472 mph around the now shorter and somewhat more rounded course.

Ellsworth Getchell has a stock Sea Fury FB 11 being returned to the air with the original Bristol Centaurus engine and prop. And the Sanders family got their Centaurus-powered Sea Fury flying again, too. So at least there are still some genuine Sea Furies around for us to see and hear.

Now if we only had a de Havilland Hornet flying ... I'd sure like to see THAT.