XP72 "superthunderbolt" vs TA152 How would they stack up?

Ad: This forum contains affiliate links to products on Amazon and eBay. More information in Terms and rules

Wiki is not a very reliable source ... anyone can write almost anything and get it into Wiki.

But a review on the Ta-152 book would be nice.

The thing is, hoiw do you know if anything in it is true? There are people who claim to have unearthed completely new and unpublished information about the Ta-152, but they're mum on the data AND the source.

The Ta-152 seems to show rather ordinary speed at military power but is fast when running at WER with WM-50 or GM-1, but that power level was very short lived and it was mostly right in the same ballpark as most late-war aircraft. The Bf 109K might have been as fast or faster if the Ta-152 wasn't at WER power.

I'll give the Ta-152 very highmarks for a high-altitude fighter, but it really didn't get to fulfill that role in the war and, in fact, didn't fulfill much of any role, being in combat for only about a month without spare parts. But as a technical achievement, it was impressive and had undoubted development potential ... if anyone had been interested.

If the Allies had stayed with piston fighters for any length of time after WWII, they probably should have looked long and hard at it ... but we were all agog over jets and really let the pistons in development when the war ended become the last piston fighter generation except for the Hispano Ha.112, the Doflug 3802/3, and the really impressive FMA I.Ae.30 Namcu. We even let the formibable Boeing F8B die and only kept piston attack planes like the Douglas Skyraider, whose roots were firmly in WWII.

All the front-line fighters turned into jets. More than anything else, the fascination with jets is what spelled the doom of the great piston fighters. It took them awhile to discover that high speeds weren't friendly to ground attack munition accuracy.

Wonder how the turboprop attack planes of the last 50 years would have fared in WWII?
 
Last edited:
It would be a really interesting exercise to try and design (or re-design) a WW2 style attack aircraft with modern aircraft materials technology.

You could probably use existing aerospace alloys (aluminium-lithium, titanium-aluminium, scandium-aluminium) along with carbon-fibre and glass-fibre composites to cut strucutral weight by about a third. Not to mention using modern construction/fastening/welding techniques to elminate rivets and improve surface finish.

Engine weight would go down too. A modern 3000-3500 hp class turboprop typically weighs less than 1200 lb, less than half of the weight of WW2 high displacement/high power radials.
 
Good stuff Jabberwockey.

I have thought that a modern turboprop Skyraider, similar to the Douglas A2D Skyshark ... but with a modern, reliable turboprop, would be a really great addition to the inventory, especially with a modern rotary cannon or two, smart ordnance, and modern avionics.

The turboprops they used at the time had terminal gearbox issues, but today the solution is much easier and I think it would be a real asset. There's also nothing stopping them from installing even MORE power in the same airframe. There is no such thign as too much power, is there? You can always throttle back ...
 
IMO, this is no good idea. The fascination of WWII planes lies in the performance they could reach with the material and technology of the time. If the design would be directed by the current material and technology the result would be a Eurofighter, F-22 or similar.
cimmex
 
Try dropping bombs in a jungle with your Eurofighter.

One or two losses would be an enormous cost relative to a limited warfare turboprop attack plane. And the Turboprop would probably do as good a job of it, being designed for it and maybe having substantially the same attack avionics for far less cost.

It wouldn't have ALL the same avionics or software but, for the purposes of putting ordnance on target, probably would do just fine.
 
Drifting way of topic now (we've gone from actual WW2 high-alt, high performance aircraft to a theoretical, modern low altitude bomb truck) but its an interesting topic.

There are a couple of modern-ish military turboprops designed for ground attack. The Embraer Super Tucano probably fits the bill best - a two-seat turboprop, with a 1600 shaft hp turboprop, modern avionics, a pair of wing mounted .50s and the ability to carry 1500 kg (thats 3300 lb to those of you still stuck in the Imperial system) across five hardpoints. If Beechcraft ever gets out the way, the USAF might even buy 20 of them.

Its probably not fully representative of how a completely modern turboprop would perform though. The Super Tucano is a development of a development of a trainer aircraft designed in the mid 1970s. Even then, Embraer took a pretty low-risk approach with the technology.

The US Aircraft A-67 Dragon might be a bit more representative, but it seems like the project is dead.
 
I tried to start a thread about turboprop attack planes some time back. People didn't buy into it, but I do.

Back to WWII Superbolt and Ta-152. Wish they had built the Superbolt, but it was not to be.

They didn't deliver many more Ta-152's either, with about 43 that can be accounted for. Tough to compare things with so little data.

Had they both been developed, it is a shoe-in that there would have been more Superbolts. One on one, it would probably have depended on who saw the other one first or which one had the advantageous starting position ... I think they would have both been quite good had they been developed and the bugs worked out sufficiently to be service aircraft. The bugs were not worked out of the Ta-152 by any means and the Superbolt was built in a total quantity of 2, making it very interesting to me, but hardly something I can get a lot of data on for a good comparison with something. It's hard enough to get good data on the Ta-152 and it actually saw combat, even if not much.

Given the choice, I might have preferred the Boeing F8B but, again, there is so little data that it is hard to say.

Had jets not gotten to be the darling of the military, the R-4360 might have developed into a real powerhouse, but the arrival of the jet engine curtailed the continued development of big, complex pistons and the R-4360 never got developed into what it might have been. Beither did the R-3350 or the R-2800. All might have seen further develpment had jets not come along. It was not to be.

I'm sure the Jumos, DB's, and German radials also had development potential ... had the war been taken into a truce. But, by then, the Germans were on the jet bandwagon, too. Even had the war ended gracefully (wars seldom do that, though) the Ta-152 would have been one of the last gasps of the German piston fighter lineage ... everyone would have been developing jets ... Messerschmitt, Heinkel, BV, Arado, etc. Wonder what a jet-powered Bf 109 would look like? Surely the fin and rudder would finally change and maybe get a trim tab!
 
I'm sure the Jumos, DB's, and German radials also had development potential ... had the war been taken into a truce. But, by then, the Germans were on the jet bandwagon, too. Even had the war ended gracefully (wars seldom do that, though) the Ta-152 would have been one of the last gasps of the German piston fighter lineage ... everyone would have been developing jets ... Messerschmitt, Heinkel, BV, Arado, etc. Wonder what a jet-powered Bf 109 would look like? Surely the fin and rudder would finally change and maybe get a trim tab!

This was what a projected jet powered 109 might have looked like, complete with changed fin and rudder with a trim tab (unfortunately parts of this scan are slightly faded, but the general idea is clear enough):
109jet-001.gif


(from Walter Shick Ingolf Meyer Luftwaffe Secret Projects: Fighters 1939-1945 LUFTWAFFE SECRET PROJECTS FIGHTERS 1939-1945 (v. 1): Walter Schick, Ingolf Meyer, Elke Weal, John Weal: 9781857800524: Amazon.com: Books)
 
As an Amazon Associate we earn from qualifying purchases.
This was what a projected jet powered 109 might have looked like, complete with changed fin and rudder with a trim tab (unfortunately parts of this scan are slightly faded, but the general idea is clear enough):
109jet-001.gif


(from Walter Shick Ingolf Meyer Luftwaffe Secret Projects: Fighters 1939-1945 LUFTWAFFE SECRET PROJECTS FIGHTERS 1939-1945 (v. 1): Walter Schick, Ingolf Meyer, Elke Weal, John Weal: 9781857800524: Amazon.com: Books)

I don't think that there would be any chance for such a project.
The Me 262 was in production and "in" development to further steps.
Also the Horton Ho 229 was ordered from the RLM and the first prototype was functioning in several testflights, so I have no clue if she would have later the same problems as all pure flying wings without a computer.
Also the Ta 183 was on a good way from it's development and was waiting for the big Heinkel Hs011 jet engine.

I think that's were the most promising developments for fighter and fighter bomber aircrafts, I don't think the RLM would bet on an old aerodynamik design.
 
As an Amazon Associate we earn from qualifying purchases.
IIRC it was just a fall-back proposal by Messerschmitt in case they encountered unsolvable problems with the 262's airframe. Never pursued seriously because there was no need.
 
There were plans to mod the He 280 with a single rudder as well, but this was yet another German jet that appeared to lead the way, then vanished into obscurity. There was also a FW 190 that was considered for single jet conversion, but this was still born as well. Somebody on the Wattflyer modelling forum built a scale version using EDf power that appeared to fly well, but its all academic really. Desperation seems to be the mother of invention more than necessity when it comes to the Luftwaffe.
 
If you are referring to Projekt II it has the same background. Problems were anticipated with the new jet airframes and these were the fallback solutions. Projekt II was cancelled in 1943. Desperation had nothing to do with any of it. They simply had outlived their purpose, when the Me 262 airframe proved to work pretty well.
 
You mean something like the XA2D? Considering that AD drivers shot down MiG-15s and MiG-17s, I'd give the Skyshark very good odds against any aircraft that served in WW2, except that the crappy engine would probably fail, turning the A2D into a very poor sailplane. Heck, I'd give the AD pretty good odds, especially at low altitudes, against any WW2 fighter.
 
You mean something like the XA2D? Considering that AD drivers shot down MiG-15s and MiG-17s, I'd give the Skyshark very good odds against any aircraft that served in WW2, except that the crappy engine would probably fail, turning the A2D into a very poor sailplane. Heck, I'd give the AD pretty good odds, especially at low altitudes, against any WW2 fighter.

AFAIK Skyraiders never shot down MiG-15s. Korean War AD kills were against recips. The very famous Vietnam kills against 2 MiG-17s (Johnson/ Harman share, Patton) were more because of the MiG driver's incompetency than anything else.
 
AFAIK Skyraiders never shot down MiG-15s. Korean War AD kills were against recips. The very famous Vietnam kills against 2 MiG-17s (Johnson/ Harman share, Patton) were more because of the MiG driver's incompetency than anything else.

Yeah, the MiG drivers got into a turning flight with a straight-winged, strictly subsonic attack aircraft. This is, as you say, the result of incompetency. The point I was trying to make was that the AD was not a totally unmaneuverable bomb truck; with no external load, I suspect it would be a very nasty opponent for a piston-engined fighter, especially at low altitude.
 
Yeah, the MiG drivers got into a turning flight with a straight-winged, strictly subsonic attack aircraft. This is, as you say, the result of incompetency. The point I was trying to make was that the AD was not a totally unmaneuverable bomb truck; with no external load, I suspect it would be a very nasty opponent for a piston-engined fighter, especially at low altitude.
I know (knew, one is deceased) two people who flew them. At lower speed they maneuvered well for their size. Against WW2 aircraft? No way! I think a P-47 had a higher wing loading, aside from that, it was a brick compared to say a P-51. Besides the AD was designed as ground pounder, it's gun sight was bored for ground targets and it was a bit difficult to shoot an aerial target (although as we see some were successful). I believe during the Vietnam shoot downs of MiG-17s, one of the pilots ignored his gunsight and sighted his target with his eyeballs.
 
Last edited:
To my knowledge the XP-72 used a 3,500 hp Pratt Whitney radial engine and attained a speed of 504mph.
 

Users who are viewing this thread

Back