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

By 1944 and early '45 desperation was the order of the day. The Emergency Fighter programme that saw numerous submissions trying to stem the tide of massed bomber formations was not called "Emergency" for lack of a suitable title. In the earlier years, up to 1943, jet aircraft had low priority, as Luftwaffe fighter aircraft could hold their own against anything they came up against. And according to all the information I have managed to find, the TA 152 was superior to all allied types above 30,000ft, regardless of how few were produced. They also did better for themselves than their jet contemporary, the He 162 Spatz. which really was a desperate measure. They achieved no kills whatsoever, and were a complete operational failure. I know which aircraft I would have preferred in those last dark days.

I seriously doubt the Ta-152 was ever the best. I do NOT doubt the potential, but they fought for a month and two were left flyable when the war ended. There were no spare parts to be had and the bugs had yet to be worked out. Once they WERE worked out, I have no doubt that a well-made, debugged Ta-152 would be excellent at any altitude, particularly at high altitude. Unfortunately, such and animal never existed.

The planes that got to the combat units were built largely by forced labor and were subject to the ills that befall ALL brand new aircraft, and probably more due to sabotage by the forced labor crews. I'm sure several of the active Ta-152's, if not maybe half, had at LEAST one good mission if not several, but they were down if a starter or generator went out due to no parts, never mind if a Ta-152-specific part broke, like a control linkage or something equally mundane.

So athough I am a big fan of the Ta-152 (and have a very nice CAD drawing of my own complete with rivets and hinge lines), I am a serious doubter of combat performance claims. WWII, from the European side, started 1 Sep 1939 and lasted until 9 May 1945. A plane that fought in numbers never exceeding a combined total of 25 for one month will never be the best at anything in my book. Might LOOK like it on paper, but was a flash in the pan that disappeared almost as soon as it ignited. A promise unfulfilled. 7 victories and 4 losses (some claim 10 victories but the last 3 are outside the dates that confirmed Ta-152 kills can be verified plus the pilot (Loos) stated he never shot down a plane while flying the Ta-152).

We have only sketchy test data and very little in the way of operational data. Most of the flight reports I have seen translated only gave general impressions (better than my opponent ... but was it better? or was the pilot better? it was a combat report, not specific things like time for a level horizontal turn, roll rate, top speed without GM-1 / MW-51, and top speed with boost. It was definitely not a flight test report with comparison to the latest British or American fighters side-by-side. The Ta-152 climb rate I have seen quoted is mediocre at about 3,700 feet per minute or so. Lots of late-war fighters were better ... even the late A6M Zeros. I've never SEEN a quoted Ta-152 cruise speed, but have seen that at full thropttle, without GM-1 or MW-50 boost, it was about 435 mph or so at medium altitudes, give or take a few mph, and the Ta-152H had greatly reduced roll authority at low to medium altitudes. I'd expect it to be quite good at 35,000 feet, especially in roll and turning, given the aspect ratio and span loading. The armament was never a question, superb.

So the potential was undoubtedly there but never really realized in the war, making the claim seem like wishful thinking from 68 years on. A really neat thing to do would be to get one flying. The only one I know of is in the Smithsonian Museum and isnt' going anywhere anytime soon ... so there we are ... and IT probably still has all the early bugs in it since it was one of the ones built by forced labor at the time, and the supply of spares is definitely no better than it was inApril 1945. Considerably worse in fact since the tooling is long gone.

I'd happily participate in building one, but we'd need a good engine and prop and some fancy metal casting or forging capabilities to proceed. Sounds like an expensive 20 year project to me, probably only from plans ... IF they are available. Anybody have a spare $10M and want to start on it?

All I have to go on are the advanced Luft projects books that are available. No-one seems to doubt the information on the He 162, which flew in the same time frame, but there is great scepticism regarding the Ta 152. To all intents and purposes, it officially remains the fastest operational single engine piston driven fighter of WW2. I actually have $10 M in a Swiss account, but am having no end of trouble with- drawing it. Now let me see about those plans......

Good one pattern!

I'm still skeptical but also would welcome data confirming it was as fast as reported. As I said, it certainly had potential and I do not have a "if it wasn't made in USA, it was no good" attitude at all. I like most WWII aircraft regardless of national origin, including the Ta 152.

But I have seen so many ridiculous claims made for it bordering on Ta 152 worship that I sometimes respond a little harder than intended.

The Fw 190 didn't even need the Ta 152 family to be ranked up near the top of the fighter heap ... it was pretty good on its own. I'm just not all that sure the Ta 152 was all that much better than the Fw 190D series. The Ta 152H obviously was tailored to high altitudes, but the Ta 152C seems like an Fw 190D with minor tweaks that was renamed. The actual aircraft systems might be very different; I am talking about external appearances.

Things are different in war. Here we have maybe 43 Ta 152's that operated for about a month during late WWII and had a lot of issues. Then we (Planes of Fame Museum) have experience with a Flugwerk Fw 190 powered by a US-built R-2800 and it has operated for a couple of years (but not that many flights) and has had only minor problems, mostly concerned with landing gear once the engine overheating was corrected.

Makes me wonder if the basic plane was OK and maybe the forced labor conspired so as to sabotage the supporting parts like an oil pump, for instance. I don't know for sure, but the basic system SHOULD have been pretty solid. The regular Fw 190 was pretty solid so why wouldn't the follow-on be so?

The only evidence I have is the very high rate of being taken out of service, which is typical for a new type when maintenance peorsonnel aren't quite as familiar with the new mount as they should be and with few spare parts in the logistics chain. Given the war situation in April 1945, the rate of going unserviceable is probably commensurate with the times, and the war ended before things could be improved.

Had the Ta 152 been introduced a year earlier, it probably would have cemented a solid reputation as a fighter.

If somebody is making claims that the Ta152's wing profile provides an agility advantage, they're going to have to cough up some polars. eta: never mind; it used a NACA 230xx airfoil, with a taper in thickness. eta (again) the XP-72 used the same airfoil as the P-47, the Seversky S-3

In another forum I came across some data that the Ta 152H-0 (without MW-50) could hit 446 mph at best altitude. That from a cited book which I am looking for on Amazon.

The most frrequently seen numbers are 1,750 PS (1,726 HP) and 2,050 PS on MW-50 (2,026 HP). If I crunch 1,726 HP and 446 mph and assume no increase in drag but 2,026 HP, I get an estimate of 470 mph from the applicable equations.

Therefore, since the combat planes that were delivered were Ta 152H-0's, I surmise Vmax at about 446 mph since the H-0 did not have MW-50. I also have seen it in print that no H-1's were delivered to combat units, though I have no confirmation of that. If that is the case, then the Ta 152H-1 never saw combat and wasn't the fastest combat aircraft of WWII since it didn't get into combat. If one or more H-1's DID get delivered to a combat unit, and if they ever engaged in combat, than perhaps it WAS the fastest combat aircraft on WWII, even if just as a technicality.

So if the Ta 152H-1 never saw combat, then it qualifies as a prototype and would be ranked among the myriad prototypes of the war, not being the fastest ... the fastest being in the P-47 family or the XP-72 depnding on what figures you believe. If it DID see combat, it likely never saw 472 mph in level flight since the war was lost and survival in the air was more important than setting records in straight and level flight. But for completeness, if it DID see combat, it was probably the fastest plane in the air being driven by a propeller at the time.

Today that honor belongs to a Grumman F8F Bearcat that races at Reno named Rare Bear. The record is 528.33 mph set 21 Aug 1989. It also set the world time to climb records of 3,000 meters in 91.9 seconds from a standstill in 1972. That is standstill on the runway to 9,842.5 feet in 91.9 seconds. The average is 6,426 feet per minute from a standstill! The actual rate of climb would be considerably higher when you account for takeoff and acceleration time. But ... it wasn't exactly in fighter trim when it set the records ... WHo knows? It might win Reno again in about 5 weeks.

swampyankee said:

If somebody is making claims that the Ta152's wing profile provides an agility advantage, they're going to have to cough up some polars. eta: never mind; it used a NACA 230xx airfoil, with a taper in thickness. eta (again) the XP-72 used the same airfoil as the P-47, the Seversky S-3

Click to expand...

The agility advantage resides (wing) in low drag/high CLmax, combined with high excess thrust and low wing loading. 230xx fairly common airfoil.. need more than that.

@pattern14 - when everything working on the Ta 152 and everything working on the P-51H, the P-51H was faster than the Ta 152.. and it was operational during WWII.

As far as the XP-72 goes it was a much bigger unknown that the TA-152, only two were built and they had different engines and propellers. the second one with the contra rotating props crashed after just a few flights so top performance may have been untested. There is also a discrepancy between most accounts claiming 3500hp for the engine and USAAF and P&W records that show 3000 hp for take-off and Military rating down low and 2400hp at 25,000ft. The USAAF and P&W records seem to show NO turbo but a remote auxiliary supercharger behind the cockpit driven by a long drive shaft. The 1st prototype may NOT have had this supercharger hooked up for many (all?) of it's flights.
Perhaps 3500hp was achievable with WER. P W records never seem to list WER ratings.
All in all, the XP-72 has too many unknowns to compare it's performance to much of anything one way or another.

drgondog said:

The agility advantage resides (wing) in low drag/high CLmax, combined with high excess thrust and low wing loading. 230xx fairly common airfoil.. need more than that.

@pattern14 - when everything working on the Ta 152 and everything working on the P-51H, the P-51H was faster than the Ta 152.. and it was operational during WWII.

Click to expand...

NACA 230xx airfoils are what is reported; you'd have to ask Dr Tank why he chose that particular one (interestingly, numerous German front-line aircraft used NACA airfoils).

Shortround6 said:

As far as the XP-72 goes it was a much bigger unknown that the TA-152, only two were built and they had different engines and propellers. the second one with the contra rotating props crashed after just a few flights so top performance may have been untested. There is also a discrepancy between most accounts claiming 3500hp for the engine and USAAF and P&W records that show 3000 hp for take-off and Military rating down low and 2400hp at 25,000ft. The USAAF and P&W records seem to show NO turbo but a remote auxiliary supercharger behind the cockpit driven by a long drive shaft. The 1st prototype may NOT have had this supercharger hooked up for many (all?) of it's flights.
Perhaps 3500hp was achievable with WER. P W records never seem to list WER ratings.
All in all, the XP-72 has too many unknowns to compare it's performance to much of anything one way or another.

Click to expand...

If there was a turbo in the back of the XP-72 it would have been a unique type. As far as I am aware, aircraft with turbo R-4360s all used a pair of C-series turbos. XF-11, XF-12, B-50.

Yah, the data are not exactly crystal cear, but we KNOW the P-47J was faster than any Ta 152 or Fw 190 derivative. It is well documented.

But it was a prototype and not a combat plane. I'm just wondering if the Ta 152H-1 ever made combat. The 472 mph often quoted slightly exceeds the formulas for exact numbers, but engines vary as much as 2 - 3 % or slightly more and it MIGHT have made 472 mph at some time in level flight at optimum height and rpm. I couldn't say.

The main question for me is did it ever verifiably see combat? I can't answer that at this time, but will try to look into it as I can. Meanwhile, someone out there may already KNOW with source.

I still want to get the Smithsonian Ta 152H restored and flyable ... but it will most likely never happpen. Too bad. It SHOULD. It is a Ta 152H-0, as I'm sure we all know ... without MW-50. So it is of the 446 mph or so variety anyway.

I tend to agree that there isn't enough testing or data when it comes to the TA 152 H, the only direct comparison that im aware of is against a late war spitfire, recon variant I believe, similar stats to the spit14...no boost was provided for the TA 152, even so, it was faster at some altitudes yet slower at others, it could turn with or out turn the spitfire at medium and high altitudes, the spit could turn sharper at low altitudes.

No clear winner here, huh?

Put Erich Hartmann on the XP-72 and I'd pick the XP-72. Put Erich Hartmann in the Ta 152 and I'd pick the Ta 152. You can substitute Barkhorn or Rall and the result would be the same. There are quite a few on this list and it runs down for quite awhile before we get to an Allied pilot, but the meaning is clear.

The PILOT is what mattered between the two planes.

My book arrived at the post office, so I'll read what it says about the Ta152. So far, everything out there says it was the fastest operational prop fighter of ww2, at 472 mph. My motorcycle has a high top end speed as well, but I NEVER go that fast.......I also picked up another book at a second hand dealers about Luftwaffe aircraft, which stated that nearly 200 ta 152's were made, but most were destroyed on the ground before they were even delivered. looks like 43 was the magical number of Ta 152 H1's getting airborne, but there is still non agreement on victory versus losses ( not that it made a difference to anything except the pilots). Wonder how it would have fared against the Gloster Meteor, just to open a whole new side the equation?

Of course, it says TA152, which means it could also be the Ta 152C



Kris

I believe the 43 is the number of Ta 152's ... not H-1's. That would include Ta 152C's of any dash as well as Ta 152H-0 and Ta 152H-1.

We KNOW there were Ta 152C's and H-0's delivered to account for most of the 43. The questions would be how many Ta 152H-1's were delivered? And did they ever see combat?

The 43 is the number for the Ta152H (Harmann's book) and the Eagle book (don't have) adds a few more.

The first 10 were Ta152H-0s, so there was at least 33 Ta152H-1s.

According to Harmann, there was only 3 Ta152Cs. They were the V6, 7 and 8 and were the prototypes for the Ta152C-0.

Just as an aside it is interesting to note that the fastest piston engine fighters built were, with one or two exceptions, conventional tractor engined monoplanes. Prototypes such as the Curtiss XP-55, Northrop XP-56, McDonnell XP-67 etc never lived up to what was expected; looking at the many experimental and unconventional types projected by German designers, I wonder how many of them would have lived up to their designer's expectations?

GregP said:

Yah, the data are not exactly crystal cear, but we KNOW the P-47J was faster than any Ta 152 or Fw 190 derivative. It is well documented.

Click to expand...

You can post those documents?

About as well as you can. Ray Wagoner's American Combat Planes would be only one source. Among references was Republic Aircraft data.

You can post some reference your assertion that the 43 is the number for Ta 152H's delivered? Most of what I've read says the 43 was the total number of Ta 152 delivered to field units, without any sort of breakout. A few other sources say 67 total. Many sources say never more than 25 - 30 in operation at any one time, including interviews with Adoph Galland on the subject. A couple maintain there were only two left operational when the war ended, both being Ta 152C's ... but I have no corroboration for that statement other than single sentenaces in a couple of places, one possibly quoting from the other, without primary source.

According to Nowarra, the Ta 152H-1 prototypes met with little success. The first was the Fw 190V-33/U1, a rebuilt Fw 190A-0, works no. 0058, registration GH + KW. It was identical to the TA 152H0, carried no armament, flew July 24 1944 and crashed the following day. It was to have been replaced with Ta 152V-25, but that aircraft gave its wings to the Fw 190V-31/U1 and the rest of that aircraft was transferred to Menibum. Seems very unlikely this aircraft was ever completed before the surrender.

The Ta 152H-1 had the same dimensions as the Ta 152H-0 but carried a pressure cabin, more fuel, an 18.5 gallon GM-1 tank, a 15 gallon tank of MW 50, and was 1,080 lbs heavier at 11,508 lbs. He makes no count but says the "small number" of Ta 152H-1's completed were all-weather equipped as the Ta 152H-0/R-11. The rest of the Ta 152H dash numbers remained projects. So there is no count of the Ta 152H-1's from Norarra.

So far, the jury is still out as far as a primary source goes. We know some Ta 152C's were delivered and some Ta 152H-0's. It is fallacy to assume the balance was Ta 152H-1's with any proof of same. They could well be more Ta 152H-0's or even more Ta 152C's.

According to Heinz Nowarra, there were about 70 Ta-152H-0's built, about half of which went into service. Assume 35 for the moment. We also know there was limited production of the Ta 152B-5, but not how many. We know some Ta 152C's were delivered, but not how many.

Focke-Wulf Ta 152*High-Altitude Interceptor - History, Specs and Pictures - Military Aircraft says 43 delivered total. So does Luftwaffe Resource Center - Fighters/Destroyers - A Warbirds Resource Group Site. And Asisbiz Focke-Wulf Ta 152H. Seems like they may all be quoting one another.

The Great Book of WWII Fighters by Green and Swanborough says only 2 Ta 152C-1 prototypes, the V16 and V17 were completed. They further state that 1 pre-production batch of 26 Ta 152H-0's were completed at Sorau and with a further 20 pre-series Ta 152H-0's at Cottbus. They state the Ta 152H-1 was continued at Cottbus … but without a number built. They say only a "small number" of the 150 planes completed at Cottbus saw any operation before being overrun by Soviet forces.

Again … no numbers and no specific mention of the Ta 152H-1.

Whatever the number, the question still remains, did the Ta 152H-1 ever verifiably see combat? So far, the answer, to me anyway, is "we don't know for sure."