Ta152-H1 uber-fighter?

01-04-2005, 06:57 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by DaveB.inVa

I believe some variants of the P-80 had water-methanol injection that would raise the thrust over 5000lbs. I'm pretty sure it wasn't available on the YP-80's used during WWII.

They were not "YP-80's", they were P-80A's. The 5400 lbs thrust engine was not available until about 1948, but it probably would have been available much sooner had the war continued. After the war, the aero-industry in the USA suffered greatly from post-war cutbacks which lead to labor strikes and other problems. Had the war continued into 1946, the -17 engine would probably have been ready by the end of that year.

Sorry for rounding Plan_D, I didn't want to look it up so I had to rely on memory.

=S=

Lunatic

DaveB.inVa · 01-04-2005, 07:42 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by RG_Lunatic

They were not "YP-80's", they were P-80A's.

=S=

Lunatic

I'm seeing YP-80A's in service during WWII.

There were thirteen YP-80A's built with serial #'s
44-83023
44-83024
44-83025
44-83026
44-83027
44-83028
44-83029
44-83030
44-83031
44-83032
44-83033
44-83034
44-83035

44-83026 and 44-83027 were shipped to England, 026 crashed on its second flight in England and 027 was modified by Rolls Royce to test the Nene engine.

44-83028 and 44-83029 were shipped to Italy for combat service tests.

All these were powered by the GE I-40 engine which became the GE/Allison J33 this engine (I-40) produced 4000lbs thrust.

Gemhorse · 01-04-2005, 07:58 PM

If you take the jets out of it for a moment, I feel the Ta-152 wouldn't have held that ascendancy for long.....
- Apart from the Mustang, there was significant piston-engined development going on that would've compromised the Ta-152 sooner or later....If this aircraft had started to become a problem, there was ongoing Tempest and Fury programmes, the fastest Fury was one with a Sabre VII, capable of 485 mph, and also De Havilland's Hornet which was about the same, and they had done alot of work on high-altitude engines, and not to mention the Spitfires, and plus other US piston-engined fighters still under development...It's rather a 'what-if' scenario, but I feel it should be mentioned.........

01-04-2005, 09:37 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by DaveB.inVa

Quote:

Originally Posted by RG_Lunatic

They were not "YP-80's", they were P-80A's.

=S=

Lunatic

I'm seeing YP-80A's in service during WWII.

There were thirteen YP-80A's built with serial #'s
44-83023
44-83024
44-83025
44-83026
44-83027
44-83028
44-83029
44-83030
44-83031
44-83032
44-83033
44-83034
44-83035

44-83026 and 44-83027 were shipped to England, 026 crashed on its second flight in England and 027 was modified by Rolls Royce to test the Nene engine.

44-83028 and 44-83029 were shipped to Italy for combat service tests.

All these were powered by the GE I-40 engine which became the GE/Allison J33 this engine (I-40) produced 4000lbs thrust.

The first 20 or so were designated YP-80, the next 25 were P-80A's, all delivered before VJ day. By the end if 1945 there were over 550 delivered P-80A's, plus the original 20 or so YP-80A's. The first 345 P-80A's used the General Electric J33-GE-11 or identical Allison J33-A-9 turbojet engine, developing 3850 lbs static thrust.

=S=

Lunatic

DaveB.inVa · 01-04-2005, 09:45 PM

Im going to have to side with my friend Joe Baugher on this one. Hes done a lot more research than I have... but he and I still agree

http://home.att.net/~jbaugher1/p80.html

01-04-2005, 10:23 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by DaveB.inVa

Im going to have to side with my friend Joe Baugher on this one. Hes done a lot more research than I have... but he and I still agree

http://home.att.net/~jbaugher1/p80.html

Seems to be in agreement with what I've said...

Quote:

The first 345 aircraft of this contract (serials 44-84992 to 44-85336) were designated P-80A-1-LO. Some of them were powered by the 3850 lb.s.t. General Electric J33-GE-11 turbojet, the production version of the I-40 which had powered the XP-80A and the YP-80A. Others were powered by the Allison J33-A-9, a version of the same engine built by the Allison Division of the General Motors Corporation.

The next 218 aircraft in the contract (44-85337 to 44-85941 and 45-8301 to 45-8262) were built as the P-80A-5-LO production block and differed by being equipped with the more powerful 4000 lb.s.t. Allison J33-A-17. The -5 also introduced a boundary layer control splitter plate inside the air intake. The landing light was relocated from the nose to the nosewheel landing gear strut. Later, the initial production P-80A-1-LOs were retrofitted with the uprated Allison engine during routine engine overhauls.
http://home.att.net/~jbaugher1/p80_4.html

Note also...

Quote:

44-83028 and 44-83029 were shipped to the Mediterranean. They actually flew some operational sorties, but they never encountered any enemy aircraft.
http://home.att.net/~jbaugher1/p80_3.html

=S=

Lunatic

DaveB.inVa · 01-05-2005, 01:49 AM

You said:

Quote:

They were not "YP-80's", they were P-80A's.

I said:

Quote:

I'm seeing YP-80A's in service during WWII.

There were thirteen YP-80A's built with serial #'s
44-83023
44-83024
44-83025
44-83026
44-83027
44-83028
44-83029
4 4-83030
44-83031
44-83032
44-83033
44-83034
44-83035

44 -83026 and 44-83027 were shipped to England, 026 crashed on its second flight in England and 027 was modified by Rolls Royce to test the Nene engine.

44-83028 and 44-83029 were shipped to Italy for combat service tests.

All these were powered by the GE I-40 engine which became the GE/Allison J33 this engine (I-40) produced 4000lbs thrust.

Then you said:

Quote:

The first 20 or so were designated YP-80, the next 25 were P-80A's, all delivered before VJ day. By the end if 1945 there were over 550 delivered P-80A's, plus the original 20 or so YP-80A's. The first 345 P-80A's used the General Electric J33-GE-11 or identical Allison J33-A-9 turbojet engine, developing 3850 lbs static thrust.

Note that this is as far as the conversation went. I never stated that you were wrong. However I did state that the operational aircraft were YP-80A's when you said they were not.

Then you quoted Joes site:

Quote:

44-83028 and 44-83029 were shipped to the Mediterranean. They actually flew some operational sorties, but they never encountered any enemy aircraft.
http://home.att.net/~jbaugher1/p80_3.html

Obviously without checking the serial numbers to find that they are:
1. In perfect agreement with my previous post
2. Contradict your arguement that:

Quote:

They were not "YP-80's", they were P-80A's.

3. in fact YP-80A's.

Also I said:

Quote:

I believe some variants of the P-80 had water-methanol injection that would raise the thrust over 5000lbs. I'm pretty sure it wasn't available on the YP-80's used during WWII.

Meaning that YP-80s werent available with water-methanol injection, but that later variants were equipped with it.

The water-methanol injection first appeared on the P-80B. Baugher references two thrust ratings in his text. One is 4000lb and the other is 5200lb, however he does not distinguish which one is wet and which is dry. It is extremely safe to assume though that the 4000lb rating is dry and the 5200lb rating is wet.[/quote]

01-05-2005, 02:00 AM

Hmmm... I don't seem to be making my point. Yes the first 20 or so were YP-80A's (actually, it appears to have been about 12 by VE day). But, by VJ day, the end of the war, there were P-80A's flying (45 P-80's in all). By the end of 1945 there were more P-80A's than operational Me262's during the whole last year of WWII.

The P-80A (and YP-80A) used the earlier GE/Allision engine with only 3850 lbs ST. The 4000 lbs ST engine came in early 1946. The "wet" engine didn't show up until 1947 or 1948, and I don't think it was installed in operational P-80C's until the early 50's (because of strikes and other non-technical hold ups).

The figures I presented (in the Me262 vs P-80 thread) all relate to the 3850 lbs ST engine.

=S=

Lunatic

DaveB.inVa · 01-05-2005, 02:31 AM

I agree with you completly. However I was contesting the statement that the operational aircraft in Italy were P-80's while they were YP's.

Really it doesn't matter! They flew and given a few more months or in the case of the Japanese a few more days, they're would have been many more P-80's fighting. Had the Luftwaffe been around to contest the P-80 Im sure they would have been given a rude awakening!

I really do wish the P-80s on the aircraft carrier heading for Florida Blanca had been shipped with wingtip tanks and their batteries so they could've at least got to tangle with the Japanese before the war was over. It would have been an interesting footnote in history not to mention interesting to see the results. But again Im glad it ended alltogether!

01-05-2005, 03:42 AM

What is a shame is that neither the F8F nor F7F saw action. Both were ready to go months before the end of the war (the Bearcat was delivered to VF-18 and VF-19 in May), but were held off from battle. I believe this was done because Truman was concerned we were going to have a showdown of sorts with the Russian's in East Asia. F7F's were stationed in Guam and China, and two class carriers (VF-19 was on the Langly) were loaded with Bearcats and steaming towards Japan when the war ended.

The F8F had an initial rate of climb of 4570 fpm without wep. With WEP it could climb at an astonishing 6300 fpm! An F8F set the world climb record for a prop plane at 91 seconds from brake release to 10000 feet!

You can even buy one if you have $1,850,000 sitting around

plan_D · 01-05-2005, 05:31 AM

What was this? A P-80 with a 'Nene' engine? How did that perform?

evangilder · 01-05-2005, 07:15 AM

I recognize that F8F!

The climb rate on that airplane is incredible! If you were going to buy one, I would recommend the later models with the larger tail surface. They get a little twisty at military power and can get directionally unstable. A great airplane, like an Arabian; can be a handful, but if you know what you are doing, it will serve you well.

The only drawback is the internal fuel load is good for 2 hours max, even with economic cruise! But it was originally designed to get off the deck of the carrier fast to counter any threat.

With it's climb rate, it outclimbed even early jets! Here she is in her stable.

the lancaster kicks ass · 01-05-2005, 01:23 PM

it's be interesting to see a dogfight between that and a sea fury...............

01-05-2005, 03:32 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by plan_D

What was this? A P-80 with a 'Nene' engine? How did that perform?

Actually not much better. The P-80C in combat configuration was heavier than the P-80A/B. In test configuration going for speed records, they hit speeds of something like 640 mph.

=S=

Lunatic

01-05-2005, 03:38 PM

My dad recalled the F8F as the most amazing prop he'd ever flown. It was pure power.

Range on internal fuel was limited, it was similar in range to the Ta152. It was an interceptor, it didn't need the huge fuel load necessary to provide escort. It's top speed was not great however, at 425 mph. It was more of a dogfighter than other US designs had been.

The F8F held the climb record from brake off to 10,000 feet for 30 years, until it was finally taken by the F-16. (Some other jets actually climbed faster than the F-16 but required longer takeoff times).