- Thread starter
- #41
Two Ta 152Hs were shot down by Spitfires when being transferred from Rechlin to JG 11 at the end of the war in Europe.
Ta152H questions
- Thread starter Milosh
- Start date
Ad: This forum contains affiliate links to products on Amazon and eBay. More information in Terms and rules
Two Ta 152Hs were shot down by Spitfires when being transferred from Rechlin to JG 11 at the end of the war in Europe.
davebender
1st Lieutenant
Were the Ta-152s armed while being transported?
drgondog
Major
They were being flown, not transported on the back of a truck. Would any German fighter not be armed in spring 1945?
If so, the pilots were the most optimistic folks ever known..
- Thread starter
- #45
Two Ta152Hs were picked up from Rewe 2 by Reschke and Blum and flown back to Erfurt with no ammo on April 7 1945.
A correction on my previous post.
The Spitfires shot down the 2 Ta 152Hs on a transfer flight from Neustadt-Glewe to Leck. These were a/c assigned to Stab JG 11 which were possibly originally from Rechlin (EK152).
...............................
How many Ta152Hs were delivered?
The number from research has the number as 38 H-0s and 17 H-1s for a total of 55.
renrich
Chief Master Sergeant
From " The Great Book of WW2 Airplanes" page 499, TA152H-1 data
Takeoff power 1759 HP at 3250 rpm or 2050 hp with MW50
max hp at 32810 feet-1320 hp or 1750 hp with GM 1 boost
Vmax 332 mph at SL, 350 mph with MW50
Vmax at 29860 feet-465 mph with MW50
Vmax at 41010 feet-472 mph with GM-1 boost
initial climb-3445 fpm with MW50
service ceiling-48550 feet with GM-1
range(clean) 755 miles
max range-with 300 ltr drop tank 1250 miles
Seems to me if all the bugs were worked out the airplane would be a formidable high altitude interceptor but at the altitude the bombers were operating, the premier fighters, P51, P47, P38 or F4U would not be at a significant disadvantage
Takeoff power 1759 HP at 3250 rpm or 2050 hp with MW50
max hp at 32810 feet-1320 hp or 1750 hp with GM 1 boost
Vmax 332 mph at SL, 350 mph with MW50
Vmax at 29860 feet-465 mph with MW50
Vmax at 41010 feet-472 mph with GM-1 boost
initial climb-3445 fpm with MW50
service ceiling-48550 feet with GM-1
range(clean) 755 miles
max range-with 300 ltr drop tank 1250 miles
Seems to me if all the bugs were worked out the airplane would be a formidable high altitude interceptor but at the altitude the bombers were operating, the premier fighters, P51, P47, P38 or F4U would not be at a significant disadvantage
davparlr
Senior Master Sergeant
This data appears suspect. The Fw charts I have show the Ta-152H with top speed of 374 mph at sea level and 467 mph at 30k ft. At 25k ft (B-17 alt), top speed is 449 mph, and at 20k ft (B-24 alt) a airspeed of 441 mph. I am not sure I have good data on climb except 2854 ft/min at 30k ft. With this performance, it would take the latest model allied aircraft the P-51H, P-47M, or F4U-4, to counter this aircraft.
drgondog
Major
The P-47M was in theatre before the Ta 152 and while the Ta 152 was slightly faster than a P-51D at WEP, the ability of the Ta 152 to consistently perform to spec is debatable..
At any rate, by that time the ratio of 51s to Ta152 in any given area was higher than the corresponding ratio of 51s to Me 262s and did well despite a 100mph speed difference.
I am not saying the Ta 152 wouldn't have an edge in the 20-30K range on the 51D but it didn't have an edge on the P47M. Further there were more operational 47M's in the 56th FG than there were ever operational 152s. P-47Ns were going to the PTO in Feb and the 51H could have been there in April so there was no lack of competition in airframes but a huge gap in pilots.
Mr drgondog
Nobody suggests that Ta152 could change the outcome of anything. i discuss the subject just because ... i am fan of aviation history.
Ta 152 had its teething troubles but also P47M was not exactly a legend as far as reliability and fuel consuption was conserned, nor the reliability of alleid aircrafts running at150 oct fuel
It s development was delayed by bombing
Jumo 213E -01 (1750-2050 with MW50)could not provide desicive -if any- edge performance against the later alleid fighters . but it was indented only for the initial baches (H-0,H-1) .The engines Jumo 213EB(2300hp), 213J (2400+), DB 603EM (2400), DB 603 L were ready or almost ready and DB603N (2700HP) well advanced .And aerodynamic evolution was still in progress But i beleive the Ta 152H-o 1 showed evidence of the airframes superior manouverability and handling enough to provide parity even against low level fighters low. Against american fighters i expect clear superiority in manouverability (except F8F -if its wings do not break) while providing lower pilot workload, heavier armament,150kg of armor, advanced avionics ,gyroscopic sight.
Books trying to cover many aircrafts often are suspect of inaccurancies.
P72 was rejected by american air force,i beleive with a cause
P51H never saw combat although there were many conflicts in late 40s , i beleive with a cause.
F4U45 appears to have been excellent aircrafts despite some undesired handling.
F8F made a far better carrear with Blue Angels and air racing than with combat units, i beleive with a cause
P47M &N too heavy for dogfighting Ta 152s ,still great performers .Accelaration is important too.
Sea Fury excellent, well balanced aircrfat ,and Hornet so beautiful . Spitful lost handling for extreme speed.
I feel Ta 152 more complete as weapon system and with great potential but competiton was close ,
icepac
Airman
Near the end of the war, many pilots were figuring out that instantaneous turn rate and speed could be used to beat a plane that had higher sustained turn rate.
This is what the ta152 pilots were after as well as the allies in late war planes in both theaters but one ta152 did cause a tempest to spin in during a prolonged turning engagement.
This is what the ta152 pilots were after as well as the allies in late war planes in both theaters but one ta152 did cause a tempest to spin in during a prolonged turning engagement.
davparlr
Senior Master Sergeant
I think that he P-51D at WEP and the Ta-152, with the EB engine, was equivalent in airspeed from SL to 15k ft. If the Ta-152 climbed as well as the Fw-190D-9 it would be superior to the P-51D in this altitude range.
By the time the Ta-152 showed up the Allies could have won the war with P-40s and Hurricanes.
Up to 25k the P-51D would not be so outclassed that it could not put up a good fight. From 25k to 35k, the P-47M had great performance in power, speed, and dive.
jim said:
It was certainly was as mature as the Ta-152. I think the trouble with the 150 fuel was maintenance, more frequent spark plug replacement, rather than reliability, probability of failure. There is a significant difference. Fuel consumption was high but so was horsepower output.
The airspeed numbers I reference for the Ta-152 is with the EB engine from apparent Fw documentation.
The production P-47M engine was already producing 800 hp more than the DB603N at 33k. The British Tempest II engine was flying and producing over 2500 hp. The XP-72 and the F2G-1 were both flying with 3000+ hp engines, soon to be upgraded to 3500hp. Except for failed coupled engines, Germans had no engines capable of this kind of performance.
Only limited information is available on the Ta-152 to support or deny this comment. From SL to 25k the P-51H was 40 to 15mph faster the Ta-152H (EB), and with a SL climb of over 5000 ft/min at SL, was not likely to be out climbed, however I only have limited data on the Ta climb capability.
Maybe, but this could be said about the Fw-190s and Bf-109s but it didn't seem to help.
The numbers I quote are from military flight test data sheets or contractor engineering estimates for the P-51D and H, P-47M, and Ta-152.
Yes, because the need was no longer there. It is interesting to note that the highly successful and performing XP-47J (research this) was cancelled because the better performing XP-72 was in the line. The AAF was very impressed by the XP-72 but jets made it obsolete.
Yes, there were probably two reasons. One, P-51Ds were in abundance, and two, the P-51H was stressed to be optimized for air combat and that role was being filled by jets, thus making the H obsolete, and the air to ground role would be better served by the higher stressed and more abundant P-51D.
I suspect for the same reason the F-4 Phantom replaced the F-8, it wasn't a better dogfighter, just a more versatile aircraft.
The empty weight of the P-47M is 10423 lbs and the Ta-152H is 8640 lbs, or a 1783 lbs difference. The empty weight of the P-51H is 6585 lb or 2055 lbs lighter than the Ta-152, so I guess your comment about the P-47M being too heavy relative to the Ta-152 would also mean the Ta-152 is too heavy relative to the P-51H.
The Sea Fury is also beautiful. I got the opportunity to see one fly.
I feel it had weaknesses that would prevent it from being a dominate aircraft, formidable, yes.
Last edited:
drgondog
Major
The P-47M primary issues were the wiring harness.. and not fully ironed out until March, 1945. Having said that the 56th FG had ~ 75 in their inventory which I believe was more than the total number of Ta 152s produced in all variants and despite its early operational issues and aborts was still at least as reliable as the Ta 152 in any stage of development and deployment.
The P-51H wasn't deployed simply because it wasn't needed but was the mainstay, along with the P-82, of Air Defense Command until 1948-1949 and wasn't needed to be 'deployed anywhere' for all the reasons Dave mentioned. It had no real airframe gestation issues as the lessons learned on the B/D had been well applied. It's biggest single issue was that the carburation system on the 1650-9 did not work flawlessly causing performance to be only slightly higher than the D in dash speed when it was not supporting 90" boost as it was designed to do.
The F8 winglet, designed to 'break' at high G was more about dive pullout than high G turns. Having said that it was never going to be in the ETO.
I am not belittling the Ta 152. Had it been developed in 1943 and in production in 1944 it would have been a game changer to many 8th and 15th AF crews to the extent that a lot more bombers and escort fighters would have been lost. Having said that, it was only a beautiful footnote in the 'might have been' lists.
The P-51H wasn't deployed simply because it wasn't needed but was the mainstay, along with the P-82, of Air Defense Command until 1948-1949 and wasn't needed to be 'deployed anywhere' for all the reasons Dave mentioned. It had no real airframe gestation issues as the lessons learned on the B/D had been well applied. It's biggest single issue was that the carburation system on the 1650-9 did not work flawlessly causing performance to be only slightly higher than the D in dash speed when it was not supporting 90" boost as it was designed to do.
The F8 winglet, designed to 'break' at high G was more about dive pullout than high G turns. Having said that it was never going to be in the ETO.
I am not belittling the Ta 152. Had it been developed in 1943 and in production in 1944 it would have been a game changer to many 8th and 15th AF crews to the extent that a lot more bombers and escort fighters would have been lost. Having said that, it was only a beautiful footnote in the 'might have been' lists.
davparlr
Senior Master Sergeant
The Germans developed several good planes to counter the intrusion of Allied bombers and the P-51 like the Fw-190D, Bf-109K, and the Ta-152, but they were unable to field them until late 1944, early '45, way too late. They needed to be in force in early '44. Once airfields were established in mainland Europe, all the great short range aircraft available were going to overwhelm Germany.
renrich
Chief Master Sergeant
Dav, the data I posted was from the section on the FW190 in the book. The sources quoted to back up the article seemed authoritative but the copyright on the FW190 section was in 1980 and possibly more accurate data has been discovered since that date. The book is a monster. I am worried about getting a hernia everytime I pick it up but it has a lot of info in it and the data for other AC seems to correlate well with sources like "America's Hundred Thousand."
To me it is somewhat amusing that many of us seem fascinated by what really are probably just experimental aircraft that were somewhat frantic attempts to take an existing design and modify it so as to gain an advantage in air warfare. The LW needed airplanes that could have the high altitude performance to get well above the bombers and their escorts and then drop down on them like birds of prey. The ME262 was a revolutionary design that was in production and could shoot down bombers while being relatively immune to the efforts of the escorts and the bomber's defensive fire. The ME262 had range and reliability drawbacks but obviously was operational and was essentially only limited by the numbers available and the pilots to fly them. The TA152 seems to me to have been a promising design that might have provided cutting edge prop plane performance but was never able to prove that performance in actual operations. The US had proven designs that were close to that cutting edge prop plane performance that were in volume production in 1944. The P51D, the late model P47s, the late P38s and the F4U4 all were reliable high performance AC and they had derivatives in the pipeline that were going to expand the performance envelope further.
To me it is somewhat amusing that many of us seem fascinated by what really are probably just experimental aircraft that were somewhat frantic attempts to take an existing design and modify it so as to gain an advantage in air warfare. The LW needed airplanes that could have the high altitude performance to get well above the bombers and their escorts and then drop down on them like birds of prey. The ME262 was a revolutionary design that was in production and could shoot down bombers while being relatively immune to the efforts of the escorts and the bomber's defensive fire. The ME262 had range and reliability drawbacks but obviously was operational and was essentially only limited by the numbers available and the pilots to fly them. The TA152 seems to me to have been a promising design that might have provided cutting edge prop plane performance but was never able to prove that performance in actual operations. The US had proven designs that were close to that cutting edge prop plane performance that were in volume production in 1944. The P51D, the late model P47s, the late P38s and the F4U4 all were reliable high performance AC and they had derivatives in the pipeline that were going to expand the performance envelope further.
davebender
1st Lieutenant
Ta-152 loaded weight was about 12,000lbs. Late war P-47 loaded weight was approaching 20,000lbs. About two thirds heavier then a Ta-152.
A P-47 engine must produce two thirds more HP then a Ta-152 engine to maintain a similiar power to weight ratio.
RayB
Recruit
The combat weight of the P-47M was 13,275lbs. See spitfireperformance.com.
Shortround6
Major General
Balderdash.
try comparing like to like. While the P-47N had a MAXIMUM gross weight of just over 20,000lbs that was with a full 556 US gallons of internal fuel and 680 US gallons of external fuel. Over 4,000lbs of external fuel plus the weight of the tanks. Weight in combat would be just over 16,000lbs or less depending on fuel and ammunition load. 1/3 heavier than the TA 152.
Or to be more accurate lets cut the drop tank from the TA 152. 11,500lbs using internal wing tanks for the TA 152 for take-off vs the P-47s 16,300lbs? That does improve things for the TA 152 but still not quite 2/3 heavier for the P-47N.
Without getting into the "IF ONLY" engines didn't the Jumo 213E-1 top out at about 2050hp with MW 50 down low and 1740hp with GM 1 at altitude?
I could be wrong but the TA 152 couldn't carry both at the same time?
It was one or the other depending on mission.
P-47N could get 2800hp at 32,000ft with WER (water alcohol =MW50)
Ta 152 was designed to carry both MW50 and GM1 on the same mission.
- Thread starter
- #59
davebender
1st Lieutenant
Get that P-47N to drop external fuel early and it's escort mission is over. No need to actually shoot it down. That should be an objective for the defending air force.
