Planes depend on thrust for movement, and it was achieved (for piston engined ones) via prop, Meredith effect and exhaust/residual trust. P-47s were almost void of the last, since their exhaust was used up in turbos, making comparison of power/thrust-to-weight ratios complicated. IIRC residual thrust incremented with altitude true air speed.
Ta152H questions
- Thread starter Milosh
- Start date
Shortround6
Lieutenant General
Yeah, right.
P47N was could carry 190 gals more internal fuel than P-47D.
A P-47N got about 3 miles to gallon at 350mph at 32,0000ft.
Punch off the external tanks with full internal fuel and the P-47N could go 1700 miles at 350mph. Seems like plenty of margin for combat and the return flight from most anywhere in Europe.
IF the P-47Ns had been deployed to Europe they probably would not have carried full external fuel loads. It wasn't needed for the distances involved.
davparlr
Senior Master Sergeant
On your recommendation I purchased this book. I agree with all of your comments. I only have one book larger and that is "Civil War Album, Complete Photographic History of the Civil War". It weighs over 10 lbs!
davparlr
Senior Master Sergeant
This goes back to earlier discussions on how you compare aircraft. One way is to assume that you add equal weight for performance measuring, e.g. equal fuel, ammo, etc. Empty weight does represent this but is slightly in error. For example, if we added 1500 lbs of pilot, fuel, ammo, etc. to both the P-47M empty weight the Ta-152, power-to-weight numbers would still be significant but not be so advantageous for the P-47M. The other method would be to calculate the weight the fighters would have on initial contact. For example, on an escort mission, a P-51 would burn off a certain amount of fuel on transit before first engagement. An Fw-190 would also burn off some fuel due to climb to engage but much less. This is probably the best method, but tends to be more difficult to calculate.
Comparing loaded weight or max weight is the least fair since it punishes an aircraft for being able to carry more weight.
tomo pauk said:
This is correct. I should have made a comment about this. To be precise in power-to-weight, this thrust difference must be calculated. I knew better, I am just old.
davparlr
Senior Master Sergeant
It must be remembered that by the time the Ta-152 was operational, long range escorts were not required. By January, 1945, Allied airfields were getting closer to Germany and combat ops were basically local affairs. Extra fuel was only carried for combat endurance not range. I suspect that P-51 ops in this environment used drop tanks but not their internal extended range tanks.
An Fw 190's tanks might not be fully filled in the first place if it's on an interception mission.
bobbysocks
Chief Master Sergeant
dont assume that. there were bases in france and other parts of europe but the bulk of the fighter bases stayed in the uk or italy. they flew with he same gas loads at the end of the war as they did at the beginning. nothing changed for many of them in that respect until the war ended and they took over former LW bases.
Jabberwocky
Tech Sergeant
Depends what you mean by "loaded weight":
P-47D-30-RA/RE, a standard 'late' P-47D, weighed 14,500 lbs at standard combat weight.
MTOW was 17,500 lbs
A combat standard P-47N (full internal fuel/ammunition) was 16,400 lbs.
A 'light' P-47N, without wing ranks and full ammunition, was 15,800 lbs.
A P-47N with 2 x 165 gal wing tanks and 1 x 110 belly tank was 19,880 lbs.
P-47M weighed 13,300 at combat weight.
davparlr
Senior Master Sergeant
It doesn't mean that they could not be used, especially if lightly loaded fighters were required to combat advance aircraft such as the Ta-152. Operation Bodenplatte in January, 1945 targeted seventeen Allied airbases in western Europe. I think that is a lot of operational bases, most supporting Mustangs, Thunderbolts, Spitfires, Typhoons, and Tempests.
These would have been invaluable if the war had continued and jets were required to escort bombers.
renrich
Chief Master Sergeant
Dav, I am a little surprised that you found the book but I believe it is valuable if only because of the detailed drawings. Regarding discussion about performance and thrust, IMO we all tend to overlook the importance of the propellor in WW2 aircraft. Recently was watching online a film about the Corsair and there was the statement that the engine was only there to turn the prop which is what made the airplane move. There was a lot of film about the manufacture of the prop in the Corsair because along with the new engine, the PW R2800, there was a new Hamilton Standard prop. Incidently, Vought, Pratt Whitney and Hamilton Standard were all owned by United Aircraft. In Boone Guyton's book about the development of the Corsair there were a lot of teething problems associated with the engine and prop as well as the air frame which partially explain the long gestation period for the Corsair. Incidently the design of the Corsair by Rex Beisel began in 1936.
There is a lot that goes into the manufacture of one of those props, especially one to used with the big recip engines. The balance is critical. Amazing!
There is a lot that goes into the manufacture of one of those props, especially one to used with the big recip engines. The balance is critical. Amazing!
davparlr
Senior Master Sergeant
I have not had anything but a cursory overview of propeller aerodynamics but I suspect it is complex especially with its interaction with the airframe, something pushers and jets don't have to deal with. It is basically a wing design that has a varying airspeed over its width, which could be from around 200 mph to almost Mach 1, and maybe more. Elegant tapered English and German propellers where obviously designed for efficiency whereas late war US paddle bladed designs seem not to care so much for efficiency as just beating the air into submission. You can do that when you have a lot of power. But, what do I know.
Of course helicopter blades are just big, sophisticated propellers.
bobbysocks
Chief Master Sergeant
here is what i have and my info could be off. this has been put together from various articles, ect. so correct me if i am wrong. but of all the bases in europe during the time of bodenplatte only 7 were us. and the break down is like this:
Asch Y-29 USAAF P-47 Thunderbolt/P-51 Mustang
8th AF 352nd FG
9th AF 366th FG
Brussels—Evere B.56 USAAF / RAF p51/P-47
8th AF 361st FG
9th AF 358th FG ( formerly from the 8th AF)
Brussels—Grimbergen B.60 USAAF B-17 Flying Fortress/P-51 Mustang
in the process of being moved
8th AF only 6 aircraft all were destroyed
Metz—Frescaty A-90 USAAF / RAF P-51/P-47
8th AF 354th FG, 361 FG
9th AF 362nd FG, 406th FG, 367th FG, 368th FG
50th FG
Sint-Truiden A-92 USAAF P-47 Thunderbolt
9th AF 48th FG, ,404th FG
Ursel B.67 USAAF /RAFLancaster/B-17 (small numbers)[33]
8th AF 486th BG
Le Culot A-89 USAAF P-47
9th AF 36th FG, 373rd FG
so the 8th AF only had 5 of its FGs on the mainland with more than twice that many still based in the uk. with the front shrinking in around germany the missions were from the uk into the heart of the reich. a good 6 to 7 hour trip.
footnote: fighters based in the uk would still run out of fuel due to having to drop tanks early or being heavily engaged. they would land on those 9th AF allied bases if possible to refuel. a lot of the times they were told to belly in beside the airfield if the weather was bad as to not tie those runways up. more than a few boys had to hop back to england days later.
Last edited:
davebender
1st Lieutenant
By January 1945 not even Me-262s can turn the German situation around. You cannot operate effectively without aviation fuel and secure airfields.
That doesn't make the Ta152 a bad aircraft. If the military odds had been even during the spring / summer of 1945 I think the Ta-152 would have performed well vs contemporary piston engine fighter aircraft.
That doesn't make the Ta152 a bad aircraft. If the military odds had been even during the spring / summer of 1945 I think the Ta-152 would have performed well vs contemporary piston engine fighter aircraft.
davparlr
Senior Master Sergeant
I don't think anybody feels that it was a bad aircraft. It was very formidable, especially at high altitude where it was king above 35k ft. It was just my opinion that it was not an overpowering fighter at lower levels.
Germany needed this plane in January, 1944, not January, 1945.
renrich
Chief Master Sergeant
I think there is a misconception by many on this forum about performance of WW2 fighters. Many of us look at the Vmax figures for a fighter, also it's service ceiling and if those are high numbers we automatically assume that AC is a lethal fighter. An example of that might be the late model P47s. They were very fast, high up and could get really high. In fact they were voted at the 1944 fighter conference as the best fighter at the conference above 25000 feet. The fact is that if a fighter could maintain it's engine power at high altitude where the air is thin then it will bound to be fast.
But, how much combat actually took place at altitudes above 25000 feet in WW2. The fact is that most P47s were a bit of a dog at low altitudes. The P51 was much better below 25000 feet. P47s weren't that fast and did not climb that well and were not very maneuverable at low altitudes. If the bomber formation was at 25000 feet and some escorts were 5000 feet higher, it might be useful to have a fighter which has good performance at 35000 feet so that it could dive down on the escorts and bombers but once it gets down where the bombers are then it is in the regime where the P51 excelled and in ACM, most of the time, the fight is going to get lower, not higher. My bet is that the vast majority of fighter versus bomber or fighter versus fighter combat in WW2 in the ETO took place below 25000 feet. If that is true then good performance at 35 or 40000 feet was irrelevant unless it was matched by good performance at 25000 feet down to low levels. The P47 flew 423435 sorties in the ETO during WW2 while the P51 flew 213873. Yet the P51 was credited with 4239 kills while the P47 had 2686. Which was the more lethal fighter? The P47 was faster at very high altitudes and had a higher service ceiling. Part of the reason for the big disparity in kills had to be that the P47 was not that stellar a performer down below 25000 feet where most of the action took place.
My point in all of this,(if anyone is interested) is that just because a fighter can get really high and because it is high it can really pick em up and lay em down doesn't necessarily mean it is a winner.
But, how much combat actually took place at altitudes above 25000 feet in WW2. The fact is that most P47s were a bit of a dog at low altitudes. The P51 was much better below 25000 feet. P47s weren't that fast and did not climb that well and were not very maneuverable at low altitudes. If the bomber formation was at 25000 feet and some escorts were 5000 feet higher, it might be useful to have a fighter which has good performance at 35000 feet so that it could dive down on the escorts and bombers but once it gets down where the bombers are then it is in the regime where the P51 excelled and in ACM, most of the time, the fight is going to get lower, not higher. My bet is that the vast majority of fighter versus bomber or fighter versus fighter combat in WW2 in the ETO took place below 25000 feet. If that is true then good performance at 35 or 40000 feet was irrelevant unless it was matched by good performance at 25000 feet down to low levels. The P47 flew 423435 sorties in the ETO during WW2 while the P51 flew 213873. Yet the P51 was credited with 4239 kills while the P47 had 2686. Which was the more lethal fighter? The P47 was faster at very high altitudes and had a higher service ceiling. Part of the reason for the big disparity in kills had to be that the P47 was not that stellar a performer down below 25000 feet where most of the action took place.
My point in all of this,(if anyone is interested) is that just because a fighter can get really high and because it is high it can really pick em up and lay em down doesn't necessarily mean it is a winner.
Shortround6
Lieutenant General
What you say is true but the numbers have to be tempered by the missions.
A lot of the early P-47 missions escorted the bombers only part way and the German fighters could wait (in fact were not forward deployed near the P-47s flight paths) until the P-47s turned back before engaging.
I am not saying the P-47 was the better fighter but some numbers do need looking at twice.
The other part of this is that you don't want to give up control of part of the sky if you don't have to. IF, repeat, IF the Germans had been able to field larger numbers of aircraft capable of flying at 35,000-40,000ft and diving down on the bombers and climbing back up to those altitudes to attack again the allies might have been in trouble without the P-47s/P-38s to counter that.
Nobody KNEW what altitudes air combat would use in 1943-45 when planes were designed in 1941-43 but many nations assumed it would go to 35,000ft and higher. It turns out that it didn't but not for want of trying. American turbo chargers, German GM-1, High altitude Merlins (Wellington MK VI, Westland Welkin) French, German and Russian experiments with an engine in the fuselage supercharging the engines in the wings.
If the Germans had been able to field larger numbers of TA 152s or equivalent fighters to gain the height advantage the P-47s would have been there to counter them. Maybe the P-47s weren't quite as good but they weren't so far behind that the TA 152s would have had it all their own way.
It is a bit like P40s and Spitfires or P-38s in North Africa. The high flyers may not have got all the victories but the low fliers would have been in serious trouble without top cover.
A lot of the early P-47 missions escorted the bombers only part way and the German fighters could wait (in fact were not forward deployed near the P-47s flight paths) until the P-47s turned back before engaging.
I am not saying the P-47 was the better fighter but some numbers do need looking at twice.
The other part of this is that you don't want to give up control of part of the sky if you don't have to. IF, repeat, IF the Germans had been able to field larger numbers of aircraft capable of flying at 35,000-40,000ft and diving down on the bombers and climbing back up to those altitudes to attack again the allies might have been in trouble without the P-47s/P-38s to counter that.
Nobody KNEW what altitudes air combat would use in 1943-45 when planes were designed in 1941-43 but many nations assumed it would go to 35,000ft and higher. It turns out that it didn't but not for want of trying. American turbo chargers, German GM-1, High altitude Merlins (Wellington MK VI, Westland Welkin) French, German and Russian experiments with an engine in the fuselage supercharging the engines in the wings.
If the Germans had been able to field larger numbers of TA 152s or equivalent fighters to gain the height advantage the P-47s would have been there to counter them. Maybe the P-47s weren't quite as good but they weren't so far behind that the TA 152s would have had it all their own way.
It is a bit like P40s and Spitfires or P-38s in North Africa. The high flyers may not have got all the victories but the low fliers would have been in serious trouble without top cover.
davparlr
Senior Master Sergeant
renrich, I agree with both what you have stated, and also Shortround6. Altitude is one of the factors of energy and is advantageous in that regard. The Mig-15 had altitude advantages over the F-86 and used it in planning and executing attacks. This made the job of the F-86 more problematic, but not, obviously, insurmountable. Also, B-29s were being fielded and they were suppose to bomb above 30k. The fight never went up there, but could possibly have done so.
One more comment on the Ta-152. It was an outstanding aircraft at high altitude but it was also very formidable down to SL. That in itself is impressive.
One more comment on the Ta-152. It was an outstanding aircraft at high altitude but it was also very formidable down to SL. That in itself is impressive.
mike siggins
Airman
i know its not a ta152 but the milatary avation musem in va beach va has a beautiful d9 with an allison im not sure if its a original or a flugwerke version i will try to post pics if i can figure out how to get them off the phone
renrich
Chief Master Sergeant
An interesting (to me) anecdote about the P47 in WW2. I was working at Temco Aircraft in 1955 in a college co-op program for engineers(work 8 weeks and go to school 8 weeks) There was an engineer there who had flown P47s in the ETO. He told me this story about late in the war they were detailed to escort a flight of B26s and they met up with them at a relatively low altitude with the P47s a few thousand feet above. The P47s started their usual weaving pattern because they cruised faster than the Martin Marauder B26. Suddenly the P47s noticed the bombers were getting away from them so they had to quit the weave and when they could not keep up they had to go to fast cruise. Upon looking closely they discovered the bombers were not Marauders but the new B26 Invader.
davparlr
Senior Master Sergeant
Interesting. Certainly a different beast.
