Ta 152H-1 vs P-51H

[davparlr]

Ta 152H-1 vs P-51H



Ta 152H-1 Statistics:

Empty weight: 4,031 kg
Fully loaded weight: Escort Mission = 5,220 kg - Fighter Mission = 4,750 kg
Maximum loaded weight: 5,220 kg

Internal fuel capacity: 594 L B4 and 85 L GM-1 in the fuselage, 400 + 115 L B4 and 70 L MW-50 in the wings - Total = 1,109 L B4 + 85 L GM-1 + 70 L MW-50

Ta 152H-1 Dimensions:

Wing span: 14.44 m
Wing area: 23.3 m2
Lenght: 10.71 m
Height: 4 m

Ta 152H-1 Aerodynamics:

Wing loading: 224 - 203 kg/sq.m
Span loading: 361 - 328 kg/m
Wing aspect ratio: 8.94
Wing profile: Root = NACA FW 23015.3 or xxx20.6 - Tip = NACA FW 23009
Wing thickness ratio: Root 15.3% - 20.6% - Tip = 9%

Power loading: 2.54 - 2.31 kg/hp

I don't agree with this calculation. Fighter weight and escort weight is poorly defined. You are punishing the P-51 for its greater load lifting capability (Max weight minus empty weight is 838 kg more). Lets start at empty and add what we need to make equivalent. Assuming both aircraft have similar specific fuel consumption, fuel loads should be roughly equivalent. Ammo and pilot etc also should be equivalent. So, lets add about 1100 kgs (pulling this out of the air) for all added combat weight. That makes the P-51 4293 kg and the Ta-152 5131 kg, which makes wing loading 199 and 220 kg/sqm respectively and power loading (at SL) 1.94 and 2.5 kg/hp. I think this is more accurate for equivalently configured aircraft.

Ta 152H-1 Performance:

Max speeds:

- 598 km/h at sea level using MW-50
- 749 km/h at 9,500 m using MW-50
- 760 km/h at 12,500 m using GM-1 (MAX)

Note: These speeds were superceded in combat as engine performance apparently was better with the Ta152H's in service compared to the test-bed(s).

Can't argue with this, Eric is promising great things.

Climb rates and time:

- 20m/s at Start u. Notlesitung = 1,730 HP @ 3,250 RPM
- ~26m/s at Sonder Notleistung = 2,050 HP @ 3,250 RPM


- 10.1 min to climb 10,000 m using MW-50

Service ceiling: 14,800 - 15,100m

Jumo 213E performance:

- 1,580 HP @ 3,000 RPM = Steig u. Kampfleistung
- 1,730 HP @ 3,250 RPM = Start u. Notleistung
- 2,050 HP @ 3,250 RPM = Sonder Notleistung


Ta 152H-1 Armament:

1x 30mm MK108 cannon and 2x 20mm MG151/20 cannons

Ta 152H-1 Service record::

Service entering date: 27th January 1945
Losses to aerial combat: 0
Losses to accidents: 3 (two of them occured in combat)
Confirmed kills in aerial combat: 11


[

P-51H Statistics:

Empty weight: 3,193 kg
Loaded weight: Escort Mission = 5,216 kg - Fighter Mission = 4,310 kg
Maximum loaded weight: 5,216 kg

Internal fuel capacity: 965 L of 100/150 grade fuel.

P-51H Dimension:

Wing span: 11.27 m
Wing area: 21.64 m2
Length: 10.15 m
Height: 4.16 m

P-51H Aerodynamics:

Wing loading: 241 - 199.1 kg/sq.m
Span loading: 462 - 382.4 kg/m
Wing aspect ratio: 5.86
Wing profile: Root = NACA 66-(1.8 )15.5 – Tip = NACA 66-(1.8 )12 "Laminar"
Wing thickness ratio: Root = 15.5% - Tip = 12%

Power-loading: 2.35 – 1.94 kg/hp

P-51H Performance:

Max speeds:

- 714 km/h at 1,524 m using (W)WEP
- 745 km/h at 4,570 m using (W)WEP
- 783 km/h at 7,620 m using (W)WEP (MAX)

Climb rates and time:

- ~24-25 m/s at sea level using (W)WEP

- 1.5 min to climb 1,524 m using (W)WEP
- 5 min to climb 4,570 m using (W)WEP

Initial climb rate is about 5100 ft/min according to the chart above.

Service ceiling: 12,679 m

Packard V-1650-9 performance:

- 1,380 HP @ 3,000 RPM = Take Off Power
- 1,720 HP @ 3,000 RPM = War Emergency Power
- 2,218 HP @ 3,000 RPM = Wet War Emergency Power


P-51H Armament:

6x 12.7mm machine-guns.

P-51H Service record:

Non WWII aircraft.

both the P-51H and the Ta152H were contempories that were designed for the same event, B-29s flying over Berlin, one attacking and one defending. The Ta152 were thrown into the war prematurely due to desparation. The P-51H was never needed.

_________________________________________________

Aerodynamic Facts:

Airfoil Thickness Ratio - Higher is better.
Wing Aspect Ratio - Higher is better.
Span-loading - Lower is better.
Power-loading - Lower is better.



Laminar wing info:
Laminar flow wings lowered the drag, but this came at the cost of lower lift, especially under high G loads. A Laminar flow wing will stall earlier and more violently than a conventional wing.

Wing aspect ratio info:
There is a component of the drag of an aircraft called induced drag which depends inversely on the aspect ratio. A higher aspect ratio wing has a lower drag and a higher lift than a lower aspect ratio wing.

Span loading info:
The turning drag/lift factor is proportional to the span loading (W/b^2) at a given G loading and indicated airspeed (IAS). It is related to induced drag and is familiar to aerodynamicists. It is the dominant parameter in calculating sustained G. In air-combat turns, the induced drag at a given G level is directly proportional to the span loading.

I don't agree with all your rationale. Thick Airfoils and high aspect ratios are beneficial at high altitudes but in high q (low altitude, high speed), you pay a price. I suspect that no high performance fighter aircraft after WWII had these attributes and you certainly would not find them on an unlimited racer. Also big wing span affect roll rate. I read somewhere in my searches that the Ta152 had half the roll rate of a Fw-190. Don't know much about span loading. The Ta-152 still has better span loading than the P-51 even after making equivalent.

 

[Soren]

Nah I'll just eat it raw thank you

Sal, about your "smoking" theory, I hope you are aware that in a dogfight the P-51H is a turkey compared to the Ta 152H-1, its flimsy construction severely limiting maneuvers and even had it denied service in the Korean war. With any significant amount of fuel onboard I'm not even sure the P-51H's airframe could take 6 G without breaking up...

The Ta 152H is much better designed for dogfighting, capable of much tighter turns with very little loss in speed, so although the P-51H might be faster at low alt as soon as it starts maneuvering that advantage passes quickly. And don't forget that the Ta 152H also has a much higher ceiling - and remember Ta 152H's in service could reach speeds near 500 mph at alt, so its faster than the P-51H as-well...

 

[Sal Monella]

edit

 

[Soren]

I don't agree with this calculation. Fighter weight and escort weight is poorly defined. You are punishing the P-51 for its greater load lifting capability (Max weight minus empty weight is 838 kg more). Lets start at empty and add what we need to make equivalent. Assuming both aircraft have similar specific fuel consumption, fuel loads should be roughly equivalent. Ammo and pilot etc also should be equivalent. So, lets add about 1100 kgs (pulling this out of the air) for all added combat weight. That makes the P-51 4293 kg and the Ta-152 5131 kg, which makes wing loading 199 and 220 kg/sqm respectively and power loading (at SL) 1.94 and 2.5 kg/hp. I think this is more accurate for equivalently configured aircraft.

Now how the heck did you arrive at those conclusions ???

davparlr, the Ta 152H-1 had space for so much fuel internally that it didn't need more than half for intercepting missions, only as an escort where long ranges had to be covered did it need its full internal fuel load - but as we know the Ta 152 was never used in the escort role.

And I think that its pretty obvious that we are to compare the Ta 152H and P-51H with their fighter configuration load - Which is why I added it.

Initial climb rate is about 5100 ft/min according to the chart above.

Davparlr that chart arrived 'later', and I already agreed that I might be off regarding the P-51H's climb rate 'earlier'.

both the P-51H and the Ta152H were contempories that were designed for the same event, B-29s flying over Berlin, one attacking and one defending. The Ta152 were thrown into the war prematurely due to desparation. The P-51H was never needed.

I'm afraid we drastically disagree on that point as the Ta 152 wasn't rushed into service at all, it was infact held back if anything by the continues stream of restrictions pouring out from the RLM.

I don't agree with all your rationale. Thick Airfoils and high aspect ratios are beneficial at high altitudes but in high q (low altitude, high speed), you pay a price.

Thickness ratio, not pure thickness davparlr, there's a difference. And while a thicker wing might cut speed at low alt, it also creates more lift.

And about AR, davparlr, the higher the AR the lower the induced drag, at ANY alt.

I suspect that no high performance fighter aircraft after WWII had these attributes and you certainly would not find them on an unlimited racer.

And why do you think ? Because of better than 1 to 1 power to weight ratio.

Also big wing span affect roll rate.

Not necessarily, as you can make up for it in aileron design.

I read somewhere in my searches that the Ta152 had half the roll rate of a Fw-190. Don't know much about span loading. The Ta-152 still has better span loading than the P-51 even after making equivalent.

Huh ??

First of all the Ta 152H was remarked by its pilots as having an excellent roll rate.

And secondly I don't at all get what it is you're talking about in that last sentence of yours...

 

[Soren]

The data is what it is.

Great comeback Sal ! Very informative !

Now lets see the evidence that it isn't calculated, cause nearly every performance chart I have like that one is.

You obviously started this thread to lecture us all on how the TA-152 was superior to the uber Mustang. I think you're a little surprised at the P-51H data but unwilling to accept the clear inference.

Sal when you stop being stupid you'll realize I was only off with the P-51H's climb rate, and slightly at that, so you can throw those conspiracy theories down into the trashcan again where they belong.

 

[DerAdlerIstGelandet]

The data is what it is. You obviously started this thread to lecture us all on how the TA-152 was superior to the uber Mustang. I think you're a little surprised at the P-51H data but unwilling to accept the clear inference.

Exactly that is what it is, nothing more. Therefore unless you know the real characteristics of an aircraft and how it handles in the "AIR" and not on "PAPER"....

 

[loomaluftwaffe]

yeah
I've heard that those with cowlings painted like the one on Soren's siggy
have undergone engine change cause of problems with engine fires... is it true or just another myth?

Sal probably got that from this

I read somewhere in my searches that the Ta152 had half the roll rate of a Fw-190. Don't know much about span loading. The Ta-152 still has better span loading than the P-51 even after making equivalent.

from a website talking about an epansion pack for a game

 

[davparlr]

Nah I'll just eat it raw thank you

Sal, about your "smoking" theory, I hope you are aware that in a dogfight the P-51H is a turkey compared to the Ta 152H-1, its flimsy construction severely limiting maneuvers and even had it denied service in the Korean war. With any significant amount of fuel onboard I'm not even sure the P-51H's airframe could take 6 G without breaking up...

...

The P-51H was built to the same load factors as the Spitfire. So if you say that the P-51H was of flimsy construction, with severely limiting maneuvers you would have to say the same thing about the spitfire. I suspect you cannot justify that comment!

and remember Ta 152H's in service could reach speeds near 500 mph at alt, so its faster than the P-51H as-well...

So far we have only heard talk. I really wouldn't doubt that the Ta 152H could be faster than the P-51H top speed but I would have to see the HP vs. alt performance of the Jumo engine to believe it.

Now how the heck did you arrive at those conclusions ???

Let me speak slower. You chose a max loaded weight for comparison of power loading and wing loading even though the P-51 is carrying 838 kg (1847 lbs) more fuel/ammo than the Ta-152. Same is true with the comparison of fighter mission with the P-51 carrying 319 kg (703 lbs) more fuel/ammo than the Ta-152. This is the handicap you add to show the Ta-152 has better numbers. I am saying lets load them up equaly and then compare the performance numbers. This is not logical to you? Do you disagree with the data?

had space for so much fuel internally that it didn't need more than half for intercepting missions, only as an escort where long ranges had to be covered did it need its full internal fuel load - but as we know the Ta 152 was never used in the escort role.

Okay, lets give them both an equal amount of fuel. Sound fair?

And I think that its pretty obvious that we are to compare the Ta 152H and P-51H with their fighter configuration load - Which is why I added it.

Not so obvious when you look at the extra weight the P-51H is carrying.

I'm afraid we drastically disagree on that point as the Ta 152 wasn't rushed into service at all, it was infact held back if anything by the continues stream of restrictions pouring out from the RLM.

My information says that there was only a few months between production start of the Ta-152H and the P-51H (my data is not really detailed however). Also, most resources indicate that the Ta-152 had considerable problems and in fact, was grounded when war ended. My argument is based on the resources available.

Thickness ratio, not pure thickness davparlr, there's a difference. And while a thicker wing might cut speed at low alt, it also creates more lift.

And about AR, davparlr, the higher the AR the lower the induced drag, at ANY alt.

No argument here as I didn't have chord length on either plane.

And why do you think ? Because of better than 1 to 1 power to weight ratio.

Let's see between WWII and the F-15, there were, like, a gazillion fighter planes, all without 1 to 1 thrust to weight. Not to mention the unlimited racers, who tend to chop wings.

Not necessarily, as you can make up for it in aileron design.

Correct, although it would surprise me if the roll did not suffer relative to the Fw-190 and probably other fighters.

Quote:
I read somewhere in my searches that the Ta152 had half the roll rate of a Fw-190. Don't know much about span loading. The Ta-152 still has better span loading than the P-51 even after making equivalent.


Huh ??

First of all the Ta 152H was remarked by its pilots as having an excellent roll rate.

Statement did look fishy. My biggest nightmare is to see some kid timing the performance of a game generated aircraft and putting the data on line as actual performance figures of the plane. Sometimes its tough to tell the difference. This didn't pass the smell test. Sorry.

The last sentence just said that the span loading of the Ta-152 was better than the P-51H even when both have equal fuel/ammo loads.

My overall comment still stands. When you load the P-51H with the same fuel/ammo with the Ta-152, the performance numbers dominate on the side of the P-51, certainly at low altitude. With data I know, this advantage for the P-51H will hold to 30K at which time the Ta-152 catches up and above 35K surpasses the P-51H. If Eric provides good supportable data on increase speed performance, my opinion will change. Hopefully, this will include Jumo engine performance numbers.

 

[davparlr]

had it denied service in the Korean war. ...

Air Force did perfer the P-51D in the Korean war partly due to ligther construction. The AF did not need an interceptor because it had jets to do that. The P-51D roll was mainly air to ground, thus sturdier is better. Also, the P-51H did play a part in Korea in the form of the P-82, where two were welded together to make a two engine fighter.

 

[davparlr]

Great comeback Sal ! Very informative !

Now lets see the evidence that it isn't calculated, cause nearly every performance chart I have like that one is.

This is a good statement. The max charts available on the P-51H could indeed be calculated. We do have flight test data but unfortunatly without water injection. However, someone with enthusiasm and knowledge, could probably correlate the max charts with the flight test charts to reasonably validate the results. Overall, this data makes a much better data base than what we have for most of our aircraft of interest.

Soren, your comment could be made about the Ta-152H also. It seems we have very little analytical data to work with on that airplane, at least so far.

 

[Sal Monella]

edit

 

[Soren]

Sal, read the thread "P51D/K vs Me109K-14" in the Poll forum, then you'll understand why this thread was made.

The P-51H had a lightened construction compared to the P-51B/C/D, which already is a relatively weak design (Look below) - the wings litterally coming off some a/c. It has nothing to do with taking sides, but everything to do with reality.

Note: "To obtain new limit load factor for greater gross weight, divide 64,000 by the new weight" - Try with just 9,500 lbs and you'll be very surprised ! And now factor in that the P-51H has a lighter construction.

The P-51H was built purely for speed, not dogfighting, which is why it wasn't "needed".

Oh and about where I got my Ta 152H data: "Focke Wulf Ta 152 - The Story of the Luftwaffe's Late-War, High-Altitude Fighter" by Dietmar Harmann ISBN: 0-7643-0860-2, as-well as from several original "Leistung" charts.

The P-51H was built to the same load factors as the Spitfire. So if you say that the P-51H was of flimsy construction, with severely limiting maneuvers you would have to say the same thing about the spitfire. I suspect you cannot justify that comment!

Look at the chart above davparlr, the Spitfire definitely didn't have that low a limit load factor cause then it would be loosing its wings in combat - And the 109's wings by comparison could take 12 G !

My information says that there was only a few months between production start of the Ta-152H and the P-51H (my data is not really detailed however). Also, most resources indicate that the Ta-152 had considerable problems and in fact, was grounded when war ended. My argument is based on the resources available.

davparlr, the Ta 152H entered quantity production just two months after the Dora-9 in November 1944. It was the difficult production conditions and problems with deliveries of components which prevented the Ta 152 from entering large scale production at an early stage.

Let's see between WWII and the F-15, there were, like, a gazillion fighter planes, all without 1 to 1 thrust to weight. Not to mention the unlimited racers, who tend to chop wings.

The only reasons fighters today don't use high aspect ratio wings are:

A)1 to 1 or better power to weight ratio. (The primary reason wings on modern fighters are so small)
B)The primary flight-regime is at high speed.
C)New computer controlled leading edge devices make up for the lower aspect ratio and thickness ratio of the wing at slow speeds. (They actually increase both aspect ratio and thickness ratio in turns)
D)Thrust vectoring has made wing spans grow ever smaller in size to allow for higher AoA.
E)The deflection along a high aspect-ratio wing tends to be much higher than for one of low aspect ratio, thus the stresses and consequent risk of fatigue failures are higher - particularly with swept-wing designs. And because of the high speed and G forces fighters today experience it is thus unsuitable for modern fighters.

And about the unlimited racers, well there is actually only one reason why these have thin low AR wings - Speed speed speed, and nothing else ! Cause you see low AR wings are at their most efficient state at low AoA, also the lower the wing area, the lower the drag - which is a design philosophy when building an unlimited racer.

 

[Sal Monella]

edit

 

[davparlr]

The P-51H had a lightened construction compared to the P-51B/C/D, which already is a relatively weak design (Look below) - the wings litterally coming off some a/c. It has nothing to do with taking sides, but everything to do with reality.

Note: "To obtain new limit load factor for greater gross weight, divide 64,000 by the new weight" - Try with just 9,500 lbs and you'll be very surprised ! And now factor in that the P-51H has a lighter construction.

I see nothing surprising in this chart. The P-51D has proven history of ruggedness and dogfighting ability. The g levels are quite high, especially considering no g suits.

And I will repeat myself. The P-51H was built to the same load factors as the spitfire, a plane not noted for being flimsy. And I do not believe the P-51D or H were noted for losing wings and I believe the P-51D did not have much problems dealing with the "12" g Me-109

The P-51H was built purely for speed, not dogfighting, which is why it wasn't "needed".

This is a ludicrous statement. The Air Force ordered 2000 of these planes because they were fast? I do not believe you can justify this comment.


Look at the chart above davparlr, the Spitfire definitely didn't have that low a limit load factor cause then it would be loosing its wings in combat - And the 109's wings by comparison could take 12 G ![/QUOTE]
This getting tiring. The g limits shown are operational g limits not design-to (and tested) g limits. I suspect the 12 g number you are identifying with the Me-109 is design-to number, not operational. I do not know for sure, but I would not doubt that the design-to level is 1.5 operational limits. If that were the case, you could take the 8 gs on the P-51D and multiply by 1.5 and voila, the P-51D wing had been tested to 12 gs. Maybe someone out there knows for sure what the margin is.

davparlr, the Ta 152H entered quantity production just two months after the Dora-9 in November 1944. It was the difficult production conditions and problems with deliveries of components which prevented the Ta 152 from entering large scale production at an early stage.

My references indicate that the P-51H started production in early Feb. 1945 with 221 delivered by July 30.

The only reasons fighters today don't use high aspect ratio wings are:

A)1 to 1 or better power to weight ratio. (The primary reason wings on modern fighters are so small)
B)The primary flight-regime is at high speed.
C)New computer controlled leading edge devices make up for the lower aspect ratio and thickness ratio of the wing at slow speeds. (They actually increase both aspect ratio and thickness ratio in turns)
D)Thrust vectoring has made wing spans grow ever smaller in size to allow for higher AoA.
E)The deflection along a high aspect-ratio wing tends to be much higher than for one of low aspect ratio, thus the stresses and consequent risk of fatigue failures are higher - particularly with swept-wing designs. And because of the high speed and G forces fighters today experience it is thus unsuitable for modern fighters.

And about the unlimited racers, well there is actually only one reason why these have thin low AR wings - Speed speed speed, and nothing else ! Cause you see low AR wings are at their most efficient state at low AoA, also the lower the wing area, the lower the drag - which is a design philosophy when building an unlimited racer.

A. Already addressed
B. Dogfighting speeds are not a lot above what we are talking about here.
C. I doubt if computerized versions of these existed prior to the 60s.
D. Now we're talking late development
E. 8 gs as mentioned above is close to today jet (F-16 I believe is limited to 9) and the rest of you comment is correct.

Your last comment on unlimiteds is correct. Have you noticed that the later high performance versions of spitfire had clipped wings? Interesting.
The Ta-152H was built expressly for attacking the high altitude B-29. It was optimized for fighting above 30K and would have been limited below against new fighters coming out like the P-51H. It is surprising that, if the Ta-152H was so good in overall airspace, that the Ta-152C was continued into production. Maybe they knew what was coming.

 

[Erich]

the TA 152H and the B-29 have nothing to do with each other, you are quoting from misinformed authors. the Tank was to be the ultimate prop fighter vs fighter in the Luftwaffe arsenal at high altitude

 

[loomaluftwaffe]

Sal... learn to use the Quote tags, it is alot easier to read ur posts that way... ty

 

[DerAdlerIstGelandet]

yeah
I've heard that those with cowlings painted like the one on Soren's siggy
have undergone engine change cause of problems with engine fires... is it true or just another myth?

What do you mean painted like the one in his siggy. How is it painted. That is standard paint scheme. I really dont get this question you are asking....

 

[davparlr]

the TA 152H and the B-29 have nothing to do with each other, you are quoting from misinformed authors. the Tank was to be the ultimate prop fighter vs fighter in the Luftwaffe arsenal at high altitude

Thanks for informing me, thats one of the problems with history. I will say that if the B-29 did made it to Germany in WWII, they would have been in for a rude awaking when they met the Ta-152H even with P-51Hs flying escort. With their altitude advantage and high altitude performace, they would always have the energy advantage and could engage and disengage at will.

This has been an interesting and stimulating discussion. I have learned a lot on both sides of the argument and I suspect others have too. I was excited to find the data on the P-51H, which I think is good data. I wish we had similar data on the Ta-152s and all other aircraft. Maybe this new book on the Ta-152 will fill in some of the blanks.

 

[DerAdlerIstGelandet]

Agreed davparlr.

 

[Erich]

I'm hopeful that the book will be worth it's weight in monies and that Will R. writes me back by next months end, he is due at a freinds home in Czech republic in Septmber so maybe I need to send another note to refresh his memory as he is a busy man

if you do a google search and type in Ta 152 versus B-29 nearly every link will have the so-called myth that the Tanks was created to take on the Superfortress............ it's all nonsense. I do wonder whom may have started this, and it had to have been years ago.

Say any of you guys have the Fw 190 by Robert Grinsell, it is a large hardcover book with only 48 pages within but has a nice sketch paintings of the Dora 9 and the Ta 152H side by side to show the fuselage and wingspan difference. Wonder if any if you have the book can post that up for everyone to note ? sorry to say no scanner here at my little hut

E