Ta 152C
- Thread starter Hecked
- Start date
Ad: This forum contains affiliate links to products on Amazon and eBay. More information in Terms and rules
GregP
Major
Considering there were only 6 Ta 152Cs built, it is unlikely solid test data exists other that that already puclished and in the fund of general knowledge. I'd like to know myself, but hold little hope of finding more original data. Good luck.
Last edited:
I'd be interested in such testimonials, too, but up until now none have surfaced.
But given its loaded weight was about a full ton heavier than a Fw 190D's (5300 kg to 4300 kg) and it being overall bigger I reckon it to be less capable a dogfighter than its smaller brethren.
Even less so as there were (projected) Dora versions with the same propulsion as the Ta 152 variants.
So the formers had a better power-to-weight ratio.
I would have preferred these "hotrod" Doras to go up against the Allied super-props.
With its exceptionally heavy armament, the Ta 152C was more of a single-engined destroyer and, with its very high wingload, was not a good turner.
The Ta 152H however was equal in a turn/fight with Spitfires. Roll rate was lower though due to the long wingspan.
Unlike, say, the Russian air force, the Luftwaffe did not conduct specific turn rate tests as that was never an all too important factor in German fighter combat doctrine.
But given its loaded weight was about a full ton heavier than a Fw 190D's (5300 kg to 4300 kg) and it being overall bigger I reckon it to be less capable a dogfighter than its smaller brethren.
Even less so as there were (projected) Dora versions with the same propulsion as the Ta 152 variants.
So the formers had a better power-to-weight ratio.
I would have preferred these "hotrod" Doras to go up against the Allied super-props.
With its exceptionally heavy armament, the Ta 152C was more of a single-engined destroyer and, with its very high wingload, was not a good turner.
The Ta 152H however was equal in a turn/fight with Spitfires. Roll rate was lower though due to the long wingspan.
Unlike, say, the Russian air force, the Luftwaffe did not conduct specific turn rate tests as that was never an all too important factor in German fighter combat doctrine.
Last edited:
- Thread starter
- #4
I don't believe it, since the H version has a weight similar to the C, and the H1 easily surpassed the Dora, according to the ace Willi Rescke, even being heavier and having a weaker engine than the Dora, the C would not be far behind the H, since even having a smaller wing area than the H, it is still larger than the Dora, and it has the strongest engine of both.
The Jumo 213E boasted superior high altitude performance compared to the A which powered the D-9 and was not too much worse down low.
The Jumo 213F of the D-11 was an E-engine albeit without intercooler as that one could not be installed into the Dora fuselage.
This issue was solved later though.
There were Doras tested/projected with DB 603 engines.
I think it was possible to equip them with L/LA versions (Ta 152C had these) as well.
If you installed these (or even more) advanced versions of those engines mentioned into Dora airframes it is logical that those would outperform their respective Ta 152 counterparts due to better power-to-weight ratio and being smaller and less draggy.
The only real advantage would be on part of the Ta 152H in flight regimes involving turning and stall behavior which were the result of the glider-like wings.
According to German documentation both the Ta 152C and H had inflight stability issues which arguably were at times quite serious.
As combat pilot accounts seemed not all too bothered, this seems to have been at least partially remedied.
Nick Beale
Airman
There's a German data sheet for the C and H models here: Department of National Defence, Directorate of ... - Héritage
- Thread starter
- #7
Thanks for sharing this link, but as I wrote, I'm looking for data on the maneuverability of the Ta 152C, I saw some pages presented in this link, but I only found the speed data
- Thread starter
- #9
Well, it's the same plane, just with different configurations, the Ta 152C would have a greater roll, the Ta 152H would have a better instantaneous turn rate, now sustained turn, difficult to say, because the C version has a more powerful engine, which helps to maintain energy, and it would have a lower maximum takeoff weight too, due to the removal of the rear fuselage tank and the MW-50 tank, but vanos for both with a common weight of 4,800 kg, a weight that both could reach. in a sustained 360° turn, it's hard to know who's in the lead, C has the advantage of the more powerful engine, H the advantage of the larger wing area, but assuming that both are making the turn more restrained, seeking to retain more energy, C would have the advantage, due to the more powerful engine and the smaller wing area, creating less friction with the air, now if both are making the turn at the maximum angle, H1 would have the advantage, as it would lose lift after C
GrauGeist
Generalfeldmarschall zur Luftschiff Abteilung
Considering the Ta152's lineage, I would suspect that the Ta152C's handling would have been comparable to the Fw190A, as the 190A's wingspan was just two feet shorter than the 152C's 36ft.
