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

[Erich]

GregP and all there is new materials on the TA 152H THAT HAVE NOT BEEN RELEASED YET. been doing this stuff for nearly 50 years personally and have new info found collectively with 4 other researchers in England and Germany. it was found at operative levels during the short but brief career that it was a very suitable A/C flown at medium altitudes in which /Soviet aircraft flew and were engaged quite successfully. information will be given personally through interviews and the pilots Flugbuchs for the work still in progress.



think you all have spent up your gas monies the thread is running low ........

[wuzak]

This makes sense although it goes counter to the P-47 trend with its turbo.

Possibly because the R-4360 would require two turbos - possibly B-series (like the P-38, B-17 used).

[GregP]

Been doing this stuff myself since about 1955, and I haven't uncovered any new Ta-152 info. Been working on warbirds for more than 15 years and never heard any new Ta-152 info.

I'll wait to hear it, but will be very skeptical without some good proof corroborated by a reputable company or reputable test pilot whis known to the world. We have had former Ta-152 pilots give talks about the aircraft at the Planes of Fame and THEY never mentioned performance better than book. Steve Hinton says the authentic FW-190 he flew gave book numbers at book power settings.

So, I'll wait to hear what you have to say before doubting it publically.

It is funny, but the entire forum says that adding armament detracts from prototype performance considerably. They all seem to forget that when it comes to the Ta-152, one of the best-armed fighters in WWII. I well might belive slightly better performance from an unarned prototype, but the sheer number of guns on the Ta-152 would seem to negate any incredible gains ... we'll see. Nobody seems to have trouble believing that the lesser number of guns in the XP-72 would detract from its performance, but they completely overlook that in the case of the Ta-152.

Seems like selective aerodynamics from the back seat to me.

Do you happen to have some timerframe when you will release these new data and their sources? Next month? Yet this year? Next year? 5 Years? Not asking for a date, just a relative timeframe for informational purposes.

I know informatuion not generally know to the public, but it is mostly about the maintenance and general restoration of warbirds ... not new performance data. It comes from restoring them, not from battle. The systems are incredibly simple while simultaneously being complex mechanically. If the mechanicals work, the systems are simple. If they don't, it is tough to fix them without tech orders! ... oh, and spare parts, too.

[Siegfried]

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).

I would think so, likewise the FW-190A-10 with the 2600hp BMW 801F engine and (I think) a larger wing.

[GregP]

The Jumo 213A made 1,750 PS (2100 PS with MW50) and was used in the early D’s. The Fw-190D-9 started out with no MW50, but Fw increased the manifold pressure to allow 1,900 PS, effective to 16,400 feet, which is about the useful ceiling of the P-39, so the extra 150 PS was not useful to the D-9 at all. MW50 power for the retrofitted units was still 2,100 PS.

The early D’s lacked the high turn rate and high roll rate of the radial-powered cousins. Many D-9’s were not equipped with MW50 and their acceleration and top speed fell short of Allied fighters at low altitude. The D-9 was an effective medium-altitude, high=speed fighter but its performance fell off above 20,000 feet.

17 Fw-190D-11’s were known to be manufactured, 3 can be accounted for. The D-11 didn’t have a 2800 PS engine.

There were 3 Fw-190D-12’s built as prototypes. It is thought 17 Fw-190D-13’s were built in total (including prototypes), but not certain. One survives in the U.S.A. It does not have a 2800 PS engine and I have heard it run (sounds great!).

No Fw-190D model is known to have had a 2800 PS engine installed.

So the Bearcat's performance edge seems quite safe from the Fw 190D series.

None of the Ta-152's I can identify had a 2800 PS engine either.

[johnbr]

How would the Ju-213 do with 130 fuel.

[GregP]

Doesn't matter. What matters is what if DID.

Offhand, I'd say it would increase the power, but by an unknown amount. Certainly not to 2800 PS.

So the Bearcat is ... safe ...

[DonL]

The Jumo 213A made 1,750 PS (2100 PS with MW50) and was used in the early D’s. The Fw-190D-9 started out with no MW50, but Fw increased the manifold pressure to allow 1,900 PS, effective to 16,400 feet, which is about the useful ceiling of the P-39, so the extra 150 PS was not useful to the D-9 at all. MW50 power for the retrofitted units was still 2,100 PS.

Your datas are not correct GregP.
The manifold pressure to allow 1,900 PS was effective to 5700m (restricted to 5700m; the best high altitude performance of the two speed supercharger was 6600m).
5700m are 18700 feet.
MW50 Power could be used till 6600m, that's are 21653 feet (best high altitude outputperformance of the 2 speed supercharger-Volldruckhöhe).

FW190 D9: High Speed at Sea Level with manifold pressure and MW50 612km/h without manifold pressure 576km/h
FW190 D9: High Speed at 5700m with manifold pressure and MW50 702km/h, without manifold pressure but MW50 686km/h at 6600m.

The early D’s lacked the high turn rate and high roll rate of the radial-powered cousins. Many D-9’s were not equipped with MW50 and their acceleration and top speed fell short of Allied fighters at low altitude. The D-9 was an effective medium-altitude, high=speed fighter but its performance fell off above 20,000 feet.

This is rubbish! The FW 190D had the same wingspan (10,50m) and wingarea (18,30m²)as the FW 190 A8 and had 100kg less weight!
How on earth could the D's lacked the high roll rate of the radial-powered cousins?
Besides no FW 190 A or D except the Ta 152H had a good turn rate. The FW 190 lived always from it's high roll rate!

How would the Ju-213 do with 130 fuel.

There was the Jumo 213B-0 (1944) with C3 fuel, 2000PS without MW50 and manifold pressure.
Ready for production was the Jumo 213J (4 Valve) B4 fuel with 2240PS without MW50 and manifold pressure.

[riacrato]

Which Bearcat flew at 2800 hp?

[Shortround6]

How would the Ju-213 do with 130 fuel.

Some did but they were built by the French in early 1950's and powered a flying boat, no shortage of certain metals but then they were also interested in a longer service life at that time so didn't press quite as hard?

at any rate they good for 2300hp for take-off at 3250rpm using 11lb of boost (1.68-1.7ATA?) wet (water injection) or 2100hp for take-off at 3250rpm using 11lb of boost (1.68-1.7ATA?)dry.

[spicmart]

The early D’s lacked the high turn rate and high roll rate of the radial-powered cousins. Many D-9’s were not equipped with MW50 and their acceleration and top speed fell short of Allied fighters at low altitude. The D-9 was an effective medium-altitude, high=speed fighter but its performance fell off above 20,000 feet.

Actually it is quoted by pilots that the Dora could outturn the Anton if handled correctly IIRC. It had much better aerodynamics and more power than the Anton so it should keep a better sustained turn rate I suppose, shouldn't it? This had been discussed in length before I suppose.

[spicmart]

Which Bearcat flew at 2800 hp?

Bill Gunston gave this number in one of his books iirc. On wikipedia (I know it's not the best of sources) there are performance numbers of the -1 and -2 versions of the Bearcat, from "Jane's fighting aircraft" and "F8F Bearcat in Action" respectively . The -1 had 2100 hp and the -2 had 2250 hp yet the climb performance went from 4570 fpm to 6300 fpm, max speed rose from 421 mph to 455 mph. With a power increase of just 150 hp and a heavier aircraft these figures seem pretty unrealistic.

[GregP]

I don't know of a Bearcat that came wioth 2800 HP. I was quoting Spicmart from post 49 and wondering when someone would ask that. The engine was an R-2800. In service use they had, generally, about 2,000 - 2,250 HP (not PS). Today there is a Bearcat flying with an R-3350 that put out 4,500 HP at Reno, but the militarys of the world never flew them, nor would they want to do so. It is a dedicated racing aircraft, not a useful military service type.

However, the stock F8F-2 Bearcat was a real performer as a fighter and held the time to climb record for about 10 years into the jet age. In 1950 one went from a standstill on the ground to 10,000 feet AGL in 91 seconds, and it was in stock military trim. That's a good climb rate, and superior to any Focke-Wulf piston aircraft ever made.

Yes, the Bearcat was a medium altitude fighter, with performance falling off about about 24,000 feet.

Oh, about the Fw 190D-9's falling off above 20,000 feet, that's true. The early models didn't have MW50 or GM1 and did fall off about there. Later, they were improved and flew well up into the mid 30's. They also didn't turn (read picth) as well as their BMW 801 radial-powered cousins. It is a matter of moment of inertia with the liquid-cooled V-12 sticking out much farther from the firewall than the BMW radial. Once the liquid cooled versions of the Fw 190 / Ta 152 acquired more wingspan, they didn't roll nearly as well as the A/F series either.

One might think from my posts that I don't like the Fw 190. Not true. It was and is a great plane, and I love to watch them fly (we have a Flugwerk unit at Chino that flies occasionally ... not a real Fw, but wonderful to see anyway). But I don't credit it with perfromance beyond it's capability. It was a solid fighter, one any service would have been glad to have, but had weaknesses, like ANY fighter. Nobody can build a fighter that is the best at all missions, and almost anybody can surprise you with good performance in some corner of the aerodynamic envelope.

[DonL]

Oh, about the Fw 190D-9's falling off above 20,000 feet, that's true. The early models didn't have MW50 or GM1 and did fall off about there. Later, they were improved and flew well up into the mid 30's. They also didn't turn (read picth) as well as their BMW 801 radial-powered cousins. It is a matter of moment of inertia with the liquid-cooled V-12 sticking out much farther from the firewall than the BMW radial. Once the liquid cooled versions of the Fw 190 / Ta 152 acquired more wingspan, they didn't roll nearly as well as the A/F series either.

Your explainations are not correct!
No FW 190D-9 had ever GM1, only Bf109G10/14, Bf109K4 and the Tank 152H1 from the late fighters and only GM1 has the ability to push power performance above the best output performance of the supercharger. MW50 could be only used till the high altitude performance of the supercharger. The high altitude performance of the Jumo 213AG (engine of the D-9)with the one stage two speed supercharger was 6600m . And all FW 190D-9 were built with this engine, only the D12, D13 get the high altitude engines Jumo 213E or F. So all D-9 could perform till 6600m!
Also no single FW 190D (9-12-13) get ever more wingspan! That's absolutely incorrect! Only the Ta 152H gets more wingspan!
So all FW 190 D's rolled as good as the FW 190A and the Tank 152H turned much better then D's and the A's.
Even the Ta 152C had only a wingspan of 11,00 meter (only 0,5meter more then the FW 190 D and A).

But I don't credit it with perfromance beyond it's capability.

But your datas and claims are wrong about the FW 190 D!

[Shortround6]

Part of the confusion on the F8F Bearcats is that they were basically a post war airplane. The power given for them is often "Military Power" and NOT WEP although some of the performance figures quoted may have been achieved with WEP. If you look up P&W records of various model R-2800 engines you will hard pressed to find the WEP ratings. Like here:

http://www.enginehistory.org/P&W/R-2...eWaspIndex.pdf

You will not find the WEP ratings for the Thunderbolt or F4U engines. or mention of what the ratings were with water injection even the engine was fitted for it. The engine in the later F8F-2 was good for 2250hp at take off WITHOUT water injection and good for 1720hp "normal"/max continuous compared to the 2100hp take off rating and 1700hp "normal"/max continuous rating of the -59 engine used in the P47M&Ns. What do you tink is going to happen when they use water injection at low altitude, which they were fitted for?