Ta 152H-1 vs P-51H

[Sal Monella]

edit

[Soren]

Sal, read the thread "P51D/K vs Me109K-14" in the Poll forum, then you'll understand why this thread was made.

The P-51H had a lightened construction compared to the P-51B/C/D, which already is a relatively weak design (Look below) - the wings litterally coming off some a/c. It has nothing to do with taking sides, but everything to do with reality.


Note: "To obtain new limit load factor for greater gross weight, divide 64,000 by the new weight" - Try with just 9,500 lbs and you'll be very surprised ! And now factor in that the P-51H has a lighter construction.

The P-51H was built purely for speed, not dogfighting, which is why it wasn't "needed".

Oh and about where I got my Ta 152H data: "Focke Wulf Ta 152 - The Story of the Luftwaffe's Late-War, High-Altitude Fighter" by Dietmar Harmann ISBN: 0-7643-0860-2, as-well as from several original "Leistung" charts.

The P-51H was built to the same load factors as the Spitfire. So if you say that the P-51H was of flimsy construction, with severely limiting maneuvers you would have to say the same thing about the spitfire. I suspect you cannot justify that comment!

Look at the chart above davparlr, the Spitfire definitely didn't have that low a limit load factor cause then it would be loosing its wings in combat - And the 109's wings by comparison could take 12 G !

My information says that there was only a few months between production start of the Ta-152H and the P-51H (my data is not really detailed however). Also, most resources indicate that the Ta-152 had considerable problems and in fact, was grounded when war ended. My argument is based on the resources available.

davparlr, the Ta 152H entered quantity production just two months after the Dora-9 in November 1944. It was the difficult production conditions and problems with deliveries of components which prevented the Ta 152 from entering large scale production at an early stage.

Let's see between WWII and the F-15, there were, like, a gazillion fighter planes, all without 1 to 1 thrust to weight. Not to mention the unlimited racers, who tend to chop wings.

The only reasons fighters today don’t use high aspect ratio wings are:

A)1 to 1 or better power to weight ratio. (The primary reason wings on modern fighters are so small)
B)The primary flight-regime is at high speed.
C)New computer controlled leading edge devices make up for the lower aspect ratio and thickness ratio of the wing at slow speeds. (They actually increase both aspect ratio and thickness ratio in turns)
D)Thrust vectoring has made wing spans grow ever smaller in size to allow for higher AoA.
E)The deflection along a high aspect-ratio wing tends to be much higher than for one of low aspect ratio, thus the stresses and consequent risk of fatigue failures are higher - particularly with swept-wing designs. And because of the high speed and G forces fighters today experience it is thus unsuitable for modern fighters.

And about the unlimited racers, well there is actually only one reason why these have thin low AR wings - Speed speed speed, and nothing else ! Cause you see low AR wings are at their most efficient state at low AoA, also the lower the wing area, the lower the drag - which is a design philosophy when building an unlimited racer.

[Sal Monella]

edit

[davparlr]

The P-51H had a lightened construction compared to the P-51B/C/D, which already is a relatively weak design (Look below) - the wings litterally coming off some a/c. It has nothing to do with taking sides, but everything to do with reality.

Note: "To obtain new limit load factor for greater gross weight, divide 64,000 by the new weight" - Try with just 9,500 lbs and you'll be very surprised ! And now factor in that the P-51H has a lighter construction.

I see nothing surprising in this chart. The P-51D has proven history of ruggedness and dogfighting ability. The g levels are quite high, especially considering no g suits.

And I will repeat myself. The P-51H was built to the same load factors as the spitfire, a plane not noted for being flimsy. And I do not believe the P-51D or H were noted for losing wings and I believe the P-51D did not have much problems dealing with the "12" g Me-109

The P-51H was built purely for speed, not dogfighting, which is why it wasn't "needed".

This is a ludicrous statement. The Air Force ordered 2000 of these planes because they were fast? I do not believe you can justify this comment.


Look at the chart above davparlr, the Spitfire definitely didn't have that low a limit load factor cause then it would be loosing its wings in combat - And the 109's wings by comparison could take 12 G ![/QUOTE]
This getting tiring. The g limits shown are operational g limits not design-to (and tested) g limits. I suspect the 12 g number you are identifying with the Me-109 is design-to number, not operational. I do not know for sure, but I would not doubt that the design-to level is 1.5 operational limits. If that were the case, you could take the 8 gs on the P-51D and multiply by 1.5 and voila, the P-51D wing had been tested to 12 gs. Maybe someone out there knows for sure what the margin is.

davparlr, the Ta 152H entered quantity production just two months after the Dora-9 in November 1944. It was the difficult production conditions and problems with deliveries of components which prevented the Ta 152 from entering large scale production at an early stage.

My references indicate that the P-51H started production in early Feb. 1945 with 221 delivered by July 30.

The only reasons fighters today don’t use high aspect ratio wings are:

A)1 to 1 or better power to weight ratio. (The primary reason wings on modern fighters are so small)
B)The primary flight-regime is at high speed.
C)New computer controlled leading edge devices make up for the lower aspect ratio and thickness ratio of the wing at slow speeds. (They actually increase both aspect ratio and thickness ratio in turns)
D)Thrust vectoring has made wing spans grow ever smaller in size to allow for higher AoA.
E)The deflection along a high aspect-ratio wing tends to be much higher than for one of low aspect ratio, thus the stresses and consequent risk of fatigue failures are higher - particularly with swept-wing designs. And because of the high speed and G forces fighters today experience it is thus unsuitable for modern fighters.

And about the unlimited racers, well there is actually only one reason why these have thin low AR wings - Speed speed speed, and nothing else ! Cause you see low AR wings are at their most efficient state at low AoA, also the lower the wing area, the lower the drag - which is a design philosophy when building an unlimited racer.

A. Already addressed
B. Dogfighting speeds are not a lot above what we are talking about here.
C. I doubt if computerized versions of these existed prior to the 60s.
D. Now we're talking late development
E. 8 gs as mentioned above is close to today jet (F-16 I believe is limited to 9) and the rest of you comment is correct.

Your last comment on unlimiteds is correct. Have you noticed that the later high performance versions of spitfire had clipped wings? Interesting.
The Ta-152H was built expressly for attacking the high altitude B-29. It was optimized for fighting above 30K and would have been limited below against new fighters coming out like the P-51H. It is surprising that, if the Ta-152H was so good in overall airspace, that the Ta-152C was continued into production. Maybe they knew what was coming.

[Erich]

the TA 152H and the B-29 have nothing to do with each other, you are quoting from misinformed authors. the Tank was to be the ultimate prop fighter vs fighter in the Luftwaffe arsenal at high altitude

[loomaluftwaffe]

Sal... learn to use the Quote tags, it is alot easier to read ur posts that way... ty

[DerAdlerIstGelandet]

yeah
I've heard that those with cowlings painted like the one on Soren's siggy
have undergone engine change cause of problems with engine fires... is it true or just another myth?

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....

[davparlr]

the TA 152H and the B-29 have nothing to do with each other, you are quoting from misinformed authors. the Tank was to be the ultimate prop fighter vs fighter in the Luftwaffe arsenal at high altitude

Thanks for informing me, thats one of the problems with history. I will say that if the B-29 did made it to Germany in WWII, they would have been in for a rude awaking when they met the Ta-152H even with P-51Hs flying escort. With their altitude advantage and high altitude performace, they would always have the energy advantage and could engage and disengage at will.

This has been an interesting and stimulating discussion. I have learned a lot on both sides of the argument and I suspect others have too. I was excited to find the data on the P-51H, which I think is good data. I wish we had similar data on the Ta-152s and all other aircraft. Maybe this new book on the Ta-152 will fill in some of the blanks.

[DerAdlerIstGelandet]

Agreed davparlr.

[Erich]

I'm hopeful that the book will be worth it's weight in monies and that Will R. writes me back by next months end, he is due at a freinds home in Czech republic in Septmber so maybe I need to send another note to refresh his memory as he is a busy man

if you do a google search and type in Ta 152 versus B-29 nearly every link will have the so-called myth that the Tanks was created to take on the Superfortress............ it's all nonsense. I do wonder whom may have started this, and it had to have been years ago.

Say any of you guys have the Fw 190 by Robert Grinsell, it is a large hardcover book with only 48 pages within but has a nice sketch paintings of the Dora 9 and the Ta 152H side by side to show the fuselage and wingspan difference. Wonder if any if you have the book can post that up for everyone to note ? sorry to say no scanner here at my little hut

E

[Soren]

I see nothing surprising in this chart. The P-51D has proven history of ruggedness and dogfighting ability. The g levels are quite high, especially considering no g suits.

So you don't think that a 6.7 G limit load factor at just 9,500 lbs is rather low ??

And I will repeat myself. The P-51H was built to the same load factors as the spitfire, a plane not noted for being flimsy.

Do you have any proof to back up this claim davparlr ?

And I do not believe the P-51D or H were noted for losing wings

Dig deeper davparlr...

and I believe the P-51D did not have much problems dealing with the "12" g Me-109

Well who wouldn't have with a 12 to 1 superiority in numbers ?

In any case 12 G was never reached by any fighter in WW2...

This is a ludicrous statement. The Air Force ordered 2000 of these planes because they were fast? I do not believe you can justify this comment.

I can easily justify it - Speed is life. Just ask Spitfire pilots who served over the channel in 42.

Also just take look at the plane, its quite obvious that its design is purely and entirely speed orientated - the wing and horizontal stabilizer amongst other things having undergone major alterations compared to the B/C/D.

This getting tiring. The g limits shown are operational g limits not design-to (and tested) g limits. I suspect the 12 g number you are identifying with the Me-109 is design-to number, not operational. I do not know for sure, but I would not doubt that the design-to level is 1.5 operational limits. If that were the case, you could take the 8 gs on the P-51D and multiply by 1.5 and voila, the P-51D wing had been tested to 12 gs. Maybe someone out there knows for sure what the margin is.

The chart above is the "Absolute" limit of the a/c at that specific setting, just like any other performance and endurance specification in the manual.

And yes, it is becoming tiring.

My references indicate that the P-51H started production in early Feb. 1945 with 221 delivered by July 30.

Yeah and hadn't it been for all the delays caused by the RLM, the Ta-152 would've probably been in service with frontline units as early as June 1944.

A. Already addressed
B. Dogfighting speeds are not a lot above what we are talking about here.
C. I doubt if computerized versions of these existed prior to the 60s.
D. Now we're talking late development
E. 8 gs as mentioned above is close to today jet (F-16 I believe is limited to 9) and the rest of you comment is correct.

A) Addressed ? How ? We're talking WW2 fighters here davparlr, not Jet fighters.
C) Perhaps not computer controlled but even soon after WW2, when jets appeared, different kinds of slats and various other high lift devices were being used on low AR a/c in order to reduce the huge drag penalty such a/c suffer from in maneuvers. Also worthy of note is the obsession with speed which occured in fighter design just after WW2, with wings on aircraft growing ever smaller, just for sake of extra speed - The MIG-21 and F-104 are clear examples of this, in an era where maneuverability took a back seat to pure speed.
D) Indeed, but it is infact a huge reason to why the F-22 has such a low AR wing.
E) 8 G's mentioned where ?? If you're talking about the P-51H it could most likely only take around 6 G before its wing starts dismantling itself from the fuselage. - not at all a pleasant thing.

Your last comment on unlimiteds is correct. Have you noticed that the later high performance versions of spitfire had clipped wings? Interesting.

Later high performance Spitfire's actually featured longer wings, either that or same span wings with different planforms and airfoils.

The Ta-152H was built expressly for attacking the high altitude B-29. It was optimized for fighting above 30K and would have been limited below against new fighters coming out like the P-51H. It is surprising that, if the Ta-152H was so good in overall airspace, that the Ta-152C was continued into production. Maybe they knew what was coming.

Now thats just ludicrous davparlr, absolutely ludicrous !

It takes both great wing and engine efficiency to reach the altitudes the Ta 152H did. And the Ta 152H-1 need not have feared the P-51H at any altitude..

[Soundbreaker Welch?]

Except when it came in hordes.

[Sal Monella]

edit

[Erich]

that is the main problem then. Performance stats may say otherwise but it is craft versus craft and in this case it never happened, with the inclusion of pilot against pilot skilled or no. we are not going to know either ....

more realistically would of been Ta 152H-0 and H-1 against the P-51D and K but that didn't even happen. more and more I wish i had the new Monogram book in my hot hands

[davparlr]

if you do a google search and type in Ta 152 versus B-29 nearly every link will have the so-called myth that the Tanks was created to take on the Superfortress............ it's all nonsense. I do wonder whom may have started this, and it had to have been years ago.

E

My main reference is a book dated 1971. In it the Ta-152H and C are discussed with limited performance data. It does not make any mention of the Ta-152H being built to attack the B-29. I must have got that from the internet. Typically, some opinionated hair-brained person, like me, will say "the Ta-152H was probably designed to combat the B-29". Other inquirers will get this and say "The Ta-152H was designed to combat the B-29". Enough people pick this up, especially on the internet, that it becomes the "truth". And then, there are the gamesters. One of the challenges we face is weeding out the real truth. Which tends to get more and more difficult. That is why I like these discussions. There are some great experts in diverse aircraft, some are opinionated, most are emotional, but very knowledgable. It makes for creative debate, just identifying the opinions (which are important) and weeding through emotion.