Ta 152H-1 vs P-51H

[Soren]

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.

So you don't think that a 6.7 G limit load factor at just 9,500 lbs is rather low ??

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.

Do you have any proof to back up this claim davparlr ?

And I do not believe the P-51D or H were noted for losing wings

Dig deeper davparlr...

and I believe the P-51D did not have much problems dealing with the "12" g Me-109

Well who wouldn't have with a 12 to 1 superiority in numbers ?

In any case 12 G was never reached by any fighter in WW2...

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.

I can easily justify it - Speed is life. Just ask Spitfire pilots who served over the channel in 42.

Also just take look at the plane, its quite obvious that its design is purely and entirely speed orientated - the wing and horizontal stabilizer amongst other things having undergone major alterations compared to the B/C/D.

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.

The chart above is the "Absolute" limit of the a/c at that specific setting, just like any other performance and endurance specification in the manual.

And yes, it is becoming tiring.

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

Yeah and hadn't it been for all the delays caused by the RLM, the Ta-152 would've probably been in service with frontline units as early as June 1944.

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.

A) Addressed ? How ? We're talking WW2 fighters here davparlr, not Jet fighters.
C) Perhaps not computer controlled but even soon after WW2, when jets appeared, different kinds of slats and various other high lift devices were being used on low AR a/c in order to reduce the huge drag penalty such a/c suffer from in maneuvers. Also worthy of note is the obsession with speed which occured in fighter design just after WW2, with wings on aircraft growing ever smaller, just for sake of extra speed - The MIG-21 and F-104 are clear examples of this, in an era where maneuverability took a back seat to pure speed.
D) Indeed, but it is infact a huge reason to why the F-22 has such a low AR wing.
E) 8 G's mentioned where ?? If you're talking about the P-51H it could most likely only take around 6 G before its wing starts dismantling itself from the fuselage. - not at all a pleasant thing.

Your last comment on unlimiteds is correct. Have you noticed that the later high performance versions of spitfire had clipped wings? Interesting.

Later high performance Spitfire's actually featured longer wings, either that or same span wings with different planforms and airfoils.

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.

Now thats just ludicrous davparlr, absolutely ludicrous !

It takes both great wing and engine efficiency to reach the altitudes the Ta 152H did. And the Ta 152H-1 need not have feared the P-51H at any altitude..

 

[Soundbreaker Welch?]

Except when it came in hordes.

 

[Sal Monella]

edit

 

[Erich]

that is the main problem then. Performance stats may say otherwise but it is craft versus craft and in this case it never happened, with the inclusion of pilot against pilot skilled or no. we are not going to know either ....

more realistically would of been Ta 152H-0 and H-1 against the P-51D and K but that didn't even happen. more and more I wish i had the new Monogram book in my hot hands

 

[davparlr]

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.

E

My main reference is a book dated 1971. In it the Ta-152H and C are discussed with limited performance data. It does not make any mention of the Ta-152H being built to attack the B-29. I must have got that from the internet. Typically, some opinionated hair-brained person, like me, will say "the Ta-152H was probably designed to combat the B-29". Other inquirers will get this and say "The Ta-152H was designed to combat the B-29". Enough people pick this up, especially on the internet, that it becomes the "truth". And then, there are the gamesters. One of the challenges we face is weeding out the real truth. Which tends to get more and more difficult. That is why I like these discussions. There are some great experts in diverse aircraft, some are opinionated, most are emotional, but very knowledgable. It makes for creative debate, just identifying the opinions (which are important) and weeding through emotion.

 

[Erich]

and that is how you learn. go back and spend a week mulling over the older threads and archiv's some good info to be had and some interesting tidbits on some of us as well. I got invoved with the Ta 152 and it's missions besides the JG 301 Geschwader once I found out I had a relative serve in 5./JG 301 in the fall of 44. that was many years ago, and you can easily see my keen interest in the subject matter ........ 8)

E ~

 

[davparlr]

more realistically would of been Ta 152H-0 and H-1 against the P-51D and K but that didn't even happen.

The P-51D appears equivalent in speed to the Ta-152H at sealevel (however, this doesn't correspond to the 400 or so hp advantage the Ta-152 has-maybe its due to the long wings). Of, course the Ta-152 a/s data may be incorrect. In any event, I suspect the Ta-152H would quickly gain the advantage with altitude. I don't really have any performance info on the Ta-152H at intermediate altitudes (10-25K). And then there is that famous comment from Tank regarding pulling away from the Mustangs, which, considering the hp advantage, does not seem out of order. Since the Fw-190D is considered to be an overall better performer than the P-51D (I have not done this comparison yet) I suspect the biggest advantage the P-51D would have over the Ta-152 was vast numerical superority.

Coming out of left field, I gotta tell you guys that I am a big fan of the Fw-190. I think it is one of the best looking WWII aircraft. Not the D. I think it looks gangly.

Bad news for me. I have to have an angiogram. Seems I barely failed a treadmill test. Too much arguing about airplanes I guess.

 

[Universal]

Its only obvious that the ta-152H was superior

 

[loomaluftwaffe]

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....

this one, it says in my book:
Comment: The All RLM 82 green engine cowlingof this aircraft denotes an engine change during its poperational career. Many operational Ta-152s had problems with engine fires and changes were common.

 

[DerAdlerIstGelandet]

Its only obvious that the ta-152H was superior

While I agree with you, you need to give reasons why and proof for your claim. Just coming in here saying that its obvious that it was superior give you no credit at all.

 

[DerAdlerIstGelandet]

this one, it says in my book:
Comment: The All RLM 82 green engine cowlingof this aircraft denotes an engine change during its poperational career. Many operational Ta-152s had problems with engine fires and changes were common.

Aha I understand now, you need to be more specific in your posts, because you leave so much open that is not understandable.

 

[Sal Monella]

edit

 

[DerAdlerIstGelandet]

I still think the Ta-152 was superior, but I will never be able to tell without a proper comparison and that will not come unless we can actually put them them through evals together.

I put it this way. The scenerio is a what if, could have been, should have been and would have been pretty damn awesome to see, with the likely outcome of both aircraft being about equal to one another.

 

[lesofprimus]

As the Tank was tried and tested in combat, and the -51H wasnt, as well as several US pilots who flew the Tank who contested it was the best prop job of the War, I also have to go with the Ta-152H...

And for the record, there are many instances where P-51D pilots ripped the wings off their planes, and Aces Bud Fortier and Chuck Yeager saw it happen while in combat... That being said, a plane with even flimsier wings would have the same problem...

 

[Sal Monella]

it's over

 

[plan_D]

Hubert Zemke of 56th FG went down when his P-51s wing came off. I cannot remember why though, but I know it wasn't combat related.

 

[Soren]

Sal, the time to climb figure of 10.1min to 10km I posted is for a test-bed which engines didn't live up to their promised power ratings, and I only posted it because it was the only Steigzeit figure I could find at that time.

Another, and more recent Leistung sheet(Based on flight testing), lists a time to climb figure of 8min to 7,000m at Start u. Notleistung - 1,730 HP @ 3,250 RPM. (Same sheet which shows 20m/s at SL, I had just missed the Steigzeit figures) This suggests that an altitude 10km could be reached in ~10min at Start u. Notleistung. - Hence why pilots report speeds and climbing ability much higher with the Ta 152's in service than what some test-bed spec's might lead you to believe.

And if you ask me reaching 10km in ~10 min at just 1,730 HP is very impressive - Esp. considering it takes the 800 kg lighter P-51H 8.6min to reach the same alt. with 2,218 HP at its disposal !

Also remember that, although very important, speed and climb rate isn't everything (esp. not when its that close), maneuverability plays a big part as-well, and the Ta 152H-1 is far superior in this department.

 

[Sal Monella]

no more

 

[Sal Monella]

edit

 

[Soren]

What weight was used for the Ta-152 tests? Was it full internal fuel as with the P-51H plus full ammunition load?

The results were achieved by the Ta 152H-0 with full combat load, which corresponds to the Ta 152H-1's Fighter configuration load of 4,760 kg, which is with full ammunition and 554.5 L B4 fuel + 85 L GM-1 and 70 L MW-50. (The Escort configuration load was never used operationally)