Ta 152H-1 vs P-51H

Erich · 07-20-2006, 06:18 PM

and that is how you learn. go back and spend a week mulling over the older threads and archiv's some good info to be had and some interesting tidbits on some of us as well. I got invoved with the Ta 152 and it's missions besides the JG 301 Geschwader once I found out I had a relative serve in 5./JG 301 in the fall of 44. that was many years ago, and you can easily see my keen interest in the subject matter ........

E ~

davparlr · 07-20-2006, 06:41 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Erich

more realistically would of been Ta 152H-0 and H-1 against the P-51D and K but that didn't even happen.

The P-51D appears equivalent in speed to the Ta-152H at sealevel (however, this doesn't correspond to the 400 or so hp advantage the Ta-152 has-maybe its due to the long wings). Of, course the Ta-152 a/s data may be incorrect. In any event, I suspect the Ta-152H would quickly gain the advantage with altitude. I don't really have any performance info on the Ta-152H at intermediate altitudes (10-25K). And then there is that famous comment from Tank regarding pulling away from the Mustangs, which, considering the hp advantage, does not seem out of order. Since the Fw-190D is considered to be an overall better performer than the P-51D (I have not done this comparison yet) I suspect the biggest advantage the P-51D would have over the Ta-152 was vast numerical superority.

Coming out of left field, I gotta tell you guys that I am a big fan of the Fw-190. I think it is one of the best looking WWII aircraft. Not the D. I think it looks gangly.

Bad news for me. I have to have an angiogram. Seems I barely failed a treadmill test. Too much arguing about airplanes I guess.

Universal · 07-20-2006, 07:16 PM

Its only obvious that the ta-152H was superior

loomaluftwaffe · 07-21-2006, 04:36 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by DerAdlerIstGelandet

What do you mean painted like the one in his siggy. How is it painted. That is standard paint scheme. I really dont get this question you are asking....

this one, it says in my book:
Comment: The All RLM 82 green engine cowlingof this aircraft denotes an engine change during its poperational career. Many operational Ta-152s had problems with engine fires and changes were common.

DerAdlerIstGelandet · 07-21-2006, 05:39 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Universal

Its only obvious that the ta-152H was superior

While I agree with you, you need to give reasons why and proof for your claim. Just coming in here saying that its obvious that it was superior give you no credit at all.

DerAdlerIstGelandet · 07-21-2006, 05:40 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by loomaluftwaffe

this one, it says in my book:
Comment: The All RLM 82 green engine cowlingof this aircraft denotes an engine change during its poperational career. Many operational Ta-152s had problems with engine fires and changes were common.

Aha I understand now, you need to be more specific in your posts, because you leave so much open that is not understandable.

Sal Monella · 07-23-2006, 11:55 AM

DerAdlerIstGelandet · 07-23-2006, 01:48 PM

I still think the Ta-152 was superior, but I will never be able to tell without a proper comparison and that will not come unless we can actually put them them through evals together.

I put it this way. The scenerio is a what if, could have been, should have been and would have been pretty damn awesome to see, with the likely outcome of both aircraft being about equal to one another.

lesofprimus · 07-23-2006, 03:01 PM

As the Tank was tried and tested in combat, and the -51H wasnt, as well as several US pilots who flew the Tank who contested it was the best prop job of the War, I also have to go with the Ta-152H...

And for the record, there are many instances where P-51D pilots ripped the wings off their planes, and Aces Bud Fortier and Chuck Yeager saw it happen while in combat... That being said, a plane with even flimsier wings would have the same problem...

Sal Monella · 07-23-2006, 03:16 PM

it's over

plan_D · 07-23-2006, 07:08 PM

Hubert Zemke of 56th FG went down when his P-51s wing came off. I cannot remember why though, but I know it wasn't combat related.

Soren · 07-24-2006, 07:16 AM

Sal, the time to climb figure of 10.1min to 10km I posted is for a test-bed which engines didn't live up to their promised power ratings, and I only posted it because it was the only Steigzeit figure I could find at that time.

Another, and more recent Leistung sheet(Based on flight testing), lists a time to climb figure of 8min to 7,000m at Start u. Notleistung - 1,730 HP @ 3,250 RPM. (Same sheet which shows 20m/s at SL, I had just missed the Steigzeit figures) This suggests that an altitude 10km could be reached in ~10min at Start u. Notleistung. - Hence why pilots report speeds and climbing ability much higher with the Ta 152's in service than what some test-bed spec's might lead you to believe.

And if you ask me reaching 10km in ~10 min at just 1,730 HP is very impressive - Esp. considering it takes the 800 kg lighter P-51H 8.6min to reach the same alt. with 2,218 HP at its disposal !

Also remember that, although very important, speed and climb rate isn't everything (esp. not when its that close), maneuverability plays a big part as-well, and the Ta 152H-1 is far superior in this department.

Sal Monella · 07-24-2006, 08:42 AM

no more

Sal Monella · 07-24-2006, 09:32 AM

Soren · 07-24-2006, 10:26 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Sal Monella

What weight was used for the Ta-152 tests? Was it full internal fuel as with the P-51H plus full ammunition load?

The results were achieved by the Ta 152H-0 with full combat load, which corresponds to the Ta 152H-1's Fighter configuration load of 4,760 kg, which is with full ammunition and 554.5 L B4 fuel + 85 L GM-1 and 70 L MW-50. (The Escort configuration load was never used operationally)