XP72 "superthunderbolt" vs TA152 How would they stack up?
- Thread starter pinsog
- Start date
Ad: This forum contains affiliate links to products on Amazon and eBay. More information in Terms and rules
The Ta 152H with a Jumo 213E1 engine, running of B4 (87 octane fuel) with seperate tanks for supplies of MW-50 (water methanol) and Nitrous Oxide existed as a 472mph fighter and saw service.
The Ta 152C, with a lessor span wing but a DB605LA engine with 87 octane, MW50 but no nitrous oxide allso existed (3 delivered). This engine had better high altitude performance.
The XP-72 was still an experimental 480mph aircraft and it seems had about the same speed. Advanced versions with a turbo-compounded engine were supposedly expected to be capable of well over 500 mph. Someone with more knowledge of American aircraft can expand.
In a fair comparison one would compare advanced versions of the Ta 152. These would used the Jumo 213J (of about 2700hp) or DB603N of abour 2800hp. This is a boost of power from about 2100 to 2800 hp ie about 30% and might produced a 8% increase in speed so up to about 500 mph.
I think the aircraft would be fairly evenly matched. The promised Superbolt perhaps being faster but the Ta 152 having a higher ceiling when using GM-1. Advanced versions of the Ta 152 with the Jumo 222E engine, potentially of around 4000hp were proposed, this engin being on the production schedule.
The Ta 152C, with a lessor span wing but a DB605LA engine with 87 octane, MW50 but no nitrous oxide allso existed (3 delivered). This engine had better high altitude performance.
The XP-72 was still an experimental 480mph aircraft and it seems had about the same speed. Advanced versions with a turbo-compounded engine were supposedly expected to be capable of well over 500 mph. Someone with more knowledge of American aircraft can expand.
In a fair comparison one would compare advanced versions of the Ta 152. These would used the Jumo 213J (of about 2700hp) or DB603N of abour 2800hp. This is a boost of power from about 2100 to 2800 hp ie about 30% and might produced a 8% increase in speed so up to about 500 mph.
I think the aircraft would be fairly evenly matched. The promised Superbolt perhaps being faster but the Ta 152 having a higher ceiling when using GM-1. Advanced versions of the Ta 152 with the Jumo 222E engine, potentially of around 4000hp were proposed, this engin being on the production schedule.
Last edited:
Erich
the old Sage
the figure of 472 mph for the Ta is only one pilots impression the crate could travel faster than that,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,, and gents that will be included in my book
and no there is not enough data to compare.
and no there is not enough data to compare.
Mr Erich
According to Mr Harmann s book it was maximum 760 km/h (~472 mph) at 12500 m with Gm1 and 750 km/h at 9500m with MW50. No operational aircraft used Mw50 or Gm1 and additionaly Jumo 213E s third speed was problematic. Unfortunately is unlikely that even these numbers were achieved operationaly .Do you have new evidence?
The title and subject of your book? Release date?
Kryten
Senior Airman
the Ta152 would probably fall to pieces as it was built by slave labour!
Erich
the old Sage
Jim yes I do...........
it might be a multi-volume history on JG 301, have been working on this for some time especially in regards to the night fighter situations with the unit. please do not ask me for publication times, as I have made mention of this work on numerous threads for several years in relationship to late war 44-45 engagements
it might be a multi-volume history on JG 301, have been working on this for some time especially in regards to the night fighter situations with the unit. please do not ask me for publication times, as I have made mention of this work on numerous threads for several years in relationship to late war 44-45 engagements
wuzak
Captain
A turbo-compound R-4360 was some way into the future at the end of WW2.
Shortround6
Major General
Both planes are a constant pile of "what ifs" in regards to intended engines, equipment and actual performance. there is far too little reliable data to really pick a winner of service versions that were months if not over a year (or 2?) from actual service use.
The Ta 152 was running well ahead of the XP-72 in terms of timeline. I suspect the XP-72 would have made a faster aircraft than the Ta 152 aircraft albeit with a lower service ceiliing simply because I can't see the Luftwaffe pushing it to the point of the Jumo 222E/F engine. They would call it quits at the Jumo 213J which would leave the Ta 152 flying considerably faster than the 472mph of the 2050 hp Jumo 213E engine.
Given the timelines, assuming no Normandy invasion, I can see the Luftwaffe preceding with development of the Ta 152H as a high altitude fighter and interceptor
to deal with the possible appearance of the B-29, any Mosquitos in service etc untill their Jet aircraft's high altitude performance improved; something which was only a matter of time.
The USAAF wouldn't bother with the XP-72 as the P-80A could likely be in service within the same time scale and offered more potential. The R-4360 engine would
best be used in the B-29D/B-50 bomber which had serious speed with these engines.
Arossihman
Airman
In my opinion forget what the superbolt could have done and just look at what the p-47M was capable of. I still believe there was room for even more improvement on that airframe. Just my .02!
GregP
Major
The XP-72 had a wing loading of 48.1 pounds per square foot versus 40.3 for the Ta-152H, so the XP-72 had a few % heavier wing loading. Slightly better turning for the Ta-152H, but not decisive.
The XP-72 had a span loading of 352.8 versus 215.8 for the Ta-152H. High altitude maneuverability advantage to the Ta-152.
The XP-72 had a power loading of 4.8 pounds per horsepower versus 5.0 for the Ta-152H. Advantage XP-72 by a large margin in climb (5280 feet per minute versus 3445 FPM). I wonder about the climb delta in the reported performance.
The XP-72 went 503 mph versus 472 for the Ta-152H. Advantage XP-72. The XP-72 could cruise at 490 mph versus 311 for the Ta-152H. Large advantage for the XP-72, which could cruise faster than the Ta-152H's top speed, but which probably usually wouldn't.
Their ranges were almost equal, so no advantage either way.
The XP-72 had a ceiling of 43,275 feet versus 50,036 for the Ta-152H. Advantage Ta-152H ... assuming it had time to climb higher when the enemy was sighted.
As I see it, the XP-72 could engage or disengage in combat at will and climbed a LOT better ... at least until the XP-72 reached its service ceiling, but the Ta-152H was more maneuverable, particularly at very high altitude. The ability to engage or disengage in combat is the deciding factor in my book, so I'd give the real-world combat advantage to the XP-72. Not in a dogfight, mind you, but in real combat. NOBODY dogfights at 40,000+ feet in a WWII fighter. They make one pass and then almost HAVE to break off because the turn performance is almost nil at that altitude. If they even MET in combat, the fight would be "one pass, haul a**," and they well might never FIND one another if they chose to turn around and engage.
I'd say the better combat mount was easily the XP-72, but the REAL deciding factor would most probably be the pilots. Both the Germans and the Americans had good pilots, so the outcome would probably be a toss up in any single encounter. The thing is, if the XP-72 had been built, it would have been built by the Americans in much larger numbers tha the Ta-152H's were built. The Germans DID build the Ta-152, but never had more than about 25 in service at any single moment in time.
So all the Americans would have had to do to win decisively was to field 250+ XP-72's and any encounter would have been a one-sided American win, with maybe a few losses, but the Ta-152H's would have been eliminated quickly by quantity of opposition with similar quality pilots. Since that didn't happen, we are left with fictional conjecture.
My conjecture is that, one on one, the pilot would determine the victor, not the aircraft.
I like both aircraft a lot, but the Ta-152H is, by far, the better-looking aircraft. As is often the case, looks are only skin deep and the XP-72 is a VERY worthy challenger to the mighty Ta-152H.
Then again, so is the CAC-15.
The XP-72 had a span loading of 352.8 versus 215.8 for the Ta-152H. High altitude maneuverability advantage to the Ta-152.
The XP-72 had a power loading of 4.8 pounds per horsepower versus 5.0 for the Ta-152H. Advantage XP-72 by a large margin in climb (5280 feet per minute versus 3445 FPM). I wonder about the climb delta in the reported performance.
The XP-72 went 503 mph versus 472 for the Ta-152H. Advantage XP-72. The XP-72 could cruise at 490 mph versus 311 for the Ta-152H. Large advantage for the XP-72, which could cruise faster than the Ta-152H's top speed, but which probably usually wouldn't.
Their ranges were almost equal, so no advantage either way.
The XP-72 had a ceiling of 43,275 feet versus 50,036 for the Ta-152H. Advantage Ta-152H ... assuming it had time to climb higher when the enemy was sighted.
As I see it, the XP-72 could engage or disengage in combat at will and climbed a LOT better ... at least until the XP-72 reached its service ceiling, but the Ta-152H was more maneuverable, particularly at very high altitude. The ability to engage or disengage in combat is the deciding factor in my book, so I'd give the real-world combat advantage to the XP-72. Not in a dogfight, mind you, but in real combat. NOBODY dogfights at 40,000+ feet in a WWII fighter. They make one pass and then almost HAVE to break off because the turn performance is almost nil at that altitude. If they even MET in combat, the fight would be "one pass, haul a**," and they well might never FIND one another if they chose to turn around and engage.
I'd say the better combat mount was easily the XP-72, but the REAL deciding factor would most probably be the pilots. Both the Germans and the Americans had good pilots, so the outcome would probably be a toss up in any single encounter. The thing is, if the XP-72 had been built, it would have been built by the Americans in much larger numbers tha the Ta-152H's were built. The Germans DID build the Ta-152, but never had more than about 25 in service at any single moment in time.
So all the Americans would have had to do to win decisively was to field 250+ XP-72's and any encounter would have been a one-sided American win, with maybe a few losses, but the Ta-152H's would have been eliminated quickly by quantity of opposition with similar quality pilots. Since that didn't happen, we are left with fictional conjecture.
My conjecture is that, one on one, the pilot would determine the victor, not the aircraft.
I like both aircraft a lot, but the Ta-152H is, by far, the better-looking aircraft. As is often the case, looks are only skin deep and the XP-72 is a VERY worthy challenger to the mighty Ta-152H.
Then again, so is the CAC-15.
Last edited:
So any Ta 152/Fw190D with DB 603N or Jumo 213J/S (the S version being specialized for low altitude performance) offering about 2700/2800 PS would be on par with the F8F-2 with its 2800PS engine (Bill Gunston).
Mr GregP
1) Its an extraordinary claim that a piston engine airplane with maximum speed 503mph could cruise at 490mph. In my opinion is totaly unacceptable
2) Ta 152 wing profile provided extra edge in agility
3) In a quiq search in Internet found max speed pf 480-490mph. In "P47 in action" indeed says 503mph
4) XP 72 would be in action the earliest spring 45. Jumo 213 EB or DB603LA would be the current choises for the TA of around 2300hp
5)Ta 152H-1 normal take off weight 4625 Wing area 23,5 m2 2050 hp = 196 kg/m2 2,25,kgr/'hp
XP72 normal take off weight 6560kgr wing area 27,9 m2 3000 hp = 235 kgr/m2 2.18 kgr/hp
Ta 152 also has smaller frontal area and is generaly smaller. These evidences do not indicate a big diference in rate of climb
5) Ta 152 s mechanicaly driven supercharger was faster reacting during dogfights than turbos . ( without Mw 50 or Gm1 in use)
Performance wise these aircrafts appear quite similar and more powrful engines (3500hp for XP 72 and 2400/2600/2800 for the Ta) would not change the balance alot. Ta always would be more agile and cheaper .Xp72 more numerus
I used wikipedia for xp72 data
davparlr
Senior Master Sergeant
Mmmm, yes, saw service, but basically prematurely thrown in to slow down the dam break.
Actually the P-72 was in production and was probably better developed than the Ta-152. Whereas the XP-72 is reported to have a very smooth flight test program except for the failure of a turbocharger on number two, the Ta-152 had a troubled flight test program with several crashes and had very few flight test hours before being produced. Operationally there were also problems with the Ta-152H and I believe it ended the war grounded.
I am not sure the -19 engine was a turbo-compound engine. It did apparently have a shaft driven supercharger behind the pilot and maybe a turbo supercharger, but no indication that a turbo was mechanically connected to the engine. If you have better info, please provide.
In fair comparison? The XP-72 first flight was Feb 2, 1944, nearly a year before the Ta and had lots of flight tests under its belt. There is a lot of difference between an engine performing in an airframe and a prototype on a test stand.
No argument here.
They could hardly get it working much less doubling the hp.
Given the amount of development time and the apparently easy flight test program, I would say the P-72 was a more mature design at it cancellation at VE day than was the Ta-152.
Another test stand engine.
Actually, I agree with Shortround6
In reality the Ta-152 would already be harassed from SL to 35k by the P-51H and P-47M tag team, both aircraft in production and either fielded are ready to be. In fact, the 1943 fielded P-51B was faster from SL to 20k than the Ta-152H with the EB engine, and, probably out climbed it (don't have good climb data on the Ta). The only area where the Ta had a clear advantage over contemporary allied aircraft was above 40k ft.
True. Too bad Germany spent so much time and money developing planes like the Ta-152 and Do-335 when they had the superb Me-262, which would really make a difference.
Erich
the old Sage
actually the Ta 152H was superior at mid-alt as it never flew combat ops at the alt. it was required to play ............... this is another misnomer you guys are putting forth from the past documentaion you have all read. superior performance at 40K and beyond was with tests of former JG 301 pilots at least a dozen.
davparlr
Senior Master Sergeant
Dcazz7606
Airman
Is the P-72 we are talking about the single prop or the counter rotating version. I've read that the projected speed of the Double Twister version was up to 540mph (variables understood). It has also been suggested that the 72 would have also been built with the N wing with the thirsty Wasp Major up front. N wing gave the Thunderbolt an improved roll rate, it probably would help with 72's manouverability.
A number of fighters from either side were "thrown in" before they had all their bugs ironed out.
A bold statement impossible to verify. I know little more than what google has to offer about the XP-72, but from that I get no more than two prototypes ever took to the air. The 3 Fw 190 C prototypes with mechanical supercharger likewise showed no vices I know of yet still the Ta 152 had its share of teething issues. Some problems simply only come up over time. In the Ta-152 case the Jumo supercharger gear was the main source of the problems. The XP-72 existed in the form of two prototypes of which one crashed, how many flight hours were accumulated befor the program got cancelled? Did they represent the configuration that was to be produced (e. g. contra-rotating propeller and/or dash 19 engine)?
With all due respect, could we please stop acting like the world is so simple you can just magically pour money and resources into any development or production you want and, by that, speed it up indefinetly?
Too bad the US spent so much time developing the XP-72, XP-60, XP-67 when they had the P-51 with the P-80 to follow.
Last edited:
DonL
Banned
The first testlight of a TA 152 prototype was the flight of FW190 V19, Werksnummer 0041, at 7 July 1943!
The first testflight of a TA152 H prototype was the flight of FW190 V33/U1, 13 July 1944.
THe main differences was the other wing design and pressurization cockpit.
Edit:
Do you have any source or book about the TA 152, that would back up your claim?
The TA 152H hat a climb rate of 20m/s at Sea Level and a climb time of 8 min to 7000m without MW 50 better then a P51D from the B I don't want to talk!
And an average climb rate of 14,58ms
Source: Dietmar Hermann TA 152
Last edited:
Gixxerman
Senior Airman
Very interested to see the new book Erich.
The Ta152 is one of my fav warbirds.
Very impressive it looks as mean as they come.
