Ta 152H-1...what it is and what it is not ?

[Hristo]

With poll results the plane seems closer than ever (IMO).

IMO, taking this plane against Zekes, early Spits or any other mid war plane is the dweebiest thing imaginable. However, taking it against late 1944/45 Allied planes sounds like great fun.

So, compare one to the Dora.

How did it handle on the deck ?

Did it have lower wingloading than Dora ?

How much power could that Jumo put out on the deck ?

How fast was it on the deck?

What was standard gun package, what were the options ?

How was roll rate affected, compared to the Dora ?

Was it heavier than the Dora ?

What was the benefit of all the supercharger systems, MW 50 and GM 1, if it had those ?

How did it accelerate ?

How did it climb ?

Please, let's start meaniungful discussion, no hijacking.

Thanks

[RAM]

I will answer the ones I know:


 

Originally posted by Hristo:

How did it handle on the deck ?

Slower and worse accelerator.

Did it have lower wingloading than Dora ?

yes, had way bigger wings for very high level actuations.


How fast was it on the deck?

332mph with no MW50. With it, I dont know

What was standard gun package, what were the options ?

2xMG151/20
1xMK108

How was roll rate affected, compared to the Dora ?

Significantly worse, but still good. extended wings made rollrate get worse.

What was the benefit of all the supercharger systems, MW 50 and GM 1, if it had those ?

Ta152H1 had provision for both,IIRC, and was fitted with MW50. Benefit?. power increases under and over 25K respectively-


Over 30K this plane will shine brightly. over 20K will be quite average.
at low levels it will have bad performance.

I voted it to kill 35K altdweeb buffs and to bring down uberdweebish sputnikfires  . But it is not a good MA plane. Ta152C would be better choice IMO (it shines at 20K-30K alts)    

[This message has been edited by RAM (edited 10-24-2000).]

[flakbait]

First, the specs from Luftwaffe Resource Group and Joe Baugher's page:

   

Type: Single-seat high altitude fighter

Engine: Jumo 213E-1 12-cylinder inverted Vee,liquid cooled with MW-50 injection and GM-1 boosting

Horsepower: Take-Off: 1,750 hp at 3,250 RPM (2,050 hp with MW 50)

Climb And Combat: 1,580 hp at 3,000 RPM

Maximum: 1,320 hp at 32,810 ft. (1,740 hp with GM 1 boost)

Propeller Unit: Junkers wooden three blade unit Diameter: 3.6 m (11 ft. 9.75 in.)

Fluids:
FUEL:Capacity: 364 Imperial Gallons (1618 liters) Type: B4 (87 Octane)

OIL: Capacity: 72 liters
GM-1 (Nitrous Oxide): Capacity: 85 liters
MW-50 (Methanol-Water) Capacity: 140 liters

Dimensions: Wing Span: 14.5m (47 ft. 6.75 in.)
Wing Area: 23.5 Sq. M (252.95 Sq. Ft.)
Length: 10.8m (35ft 5.25 in.)
Height: 4m (13 ft. 1.5 in.)
Wheel Track: 3.95m (12 ft. 11 in.)
Stabilizer Span: N/A
                                             Weights: Empty: 3,600kg (8,642 lbs.)
Loaded: 5,500kg (10,472 lbs.)

Performance:
Maximum speed:
534.62km/h (332mph) at sea level; 563.6km/h (350mph) with MW-50
695km/h (431mph) at 10,500m (34,451 ft.);
750km/h (466mph) at 9,000m (29,529 ft.) with MW-50
760km/h (472mph) at 12,500m (41,012 ft.) with MW-50 and GM-1
                                             Climb rate: 3,440 ft/min
                                             Ceiling: 14,800m (48,560 ft.)
                                             Range (Internal fuel): 1200km (745 Miles)

Armament:
One 30mm MK 108 mounted between the cylinder heads, firing through the propeller hub
Ammunition: 90 Rounds

Two inboard wing mounted 20mm MG151/20
Ammunition: 175 Rounds Each
(Occasionally outboard MG 151/20s as well, depending on model, some reconaissance models were unarmed)

Bomb load: None

Avionics:
Revi 16B Gunsight
FuG 125 Navigation equipment (H-1/R-11 Only)
LGW-Siemens K 23 Autopilot
FuG 16ZY Radio Transmitter/reciever
BSK 16 Gun Camera

Since the basic design is an Fw-190 D9, the two should roll fairly closely at low altitudes. Some D9s were fitted with the tail sections from the Ta-152. If we got that D9, elevator response would be a bit sharper.

What is it? High altitude fighter-interceptor. It's no deck fighter, but it can get you away from those pesky N1K2s in a hurry.

Wing loading is 41.39lbs/sq ft
Power loading is 5.98lbs/hp normally, 5.10lbs/hp with MW-50 at takeoff. Power loading at 32,810 ft is 7.93lbs/hp normally, with GM-1 it drops to 6.01lbs/hp.

It won't turn nearly as well as the D9, since it weighs more (10,472lbs vs. 9840 lbs). It will roll about the same as the D9, since it has larger ailerons and a slightly longer wingspan.


I'd need wells here for some of the more complicated stuff, but that's what I've got on it.


------------------
Flakbait
Delta 6's Flight School
"My art is the wings of an aircraft through the skies, my music the deep hum of a prop as it slices the air, my thrill the thunder of guns tearing asunder an enemy plane."
Flakbait
19 September 2000

[This message has been edited by flakbait (edited 10-24-2000).]

[Hristo]

Would those long wings mean less drag/more E retention ?

I believe it has something to do with aspect ratio, huh ?

Also, I believe not the weight, but wingloading is the main factor in turn performance.

By this data it seems wingloading is close to D-9, but powerloading on the deck is worse. Then again, how does aspect ratio affect the turn ability ? Hmmmm.

Why is Ta 152 so much slower than the Dora on the deck ?

[flakbait]

Hristo, I edited my post above because I forgot 2 things, plus I had to correct the weight and loadings. LRG gave the wrong weights, so I fixed it. You're right about one thing, the D9 is faster by 7mph on the deck. The D9 peaked at 426mph at 21,650 feet, where the Ta-152 is 40mph faster at that alt. It was designed to be a high-altitude interceptor, not a deck fighter. That's why I still agree with RAM; we should see a Ta-152 C-3 not an H-1. It was better suited to lower altitudes, and really shined around 15,000 feet.

Wing loading for the D9 is 48lbs/sq ft, and 4.93lbs/hp. If you're going after strato-buffs grab a Ta-152, if not I'll give you the keys to a D9.

As a reference, the Fw-190 A8-F8 power loading is 4.43 lbs/hp with a wing loading of
38.98 lbs/sq ft.


------------------
Flakbait
Delta 6's Flight School
"My art is the wings of an aircraft through the skies, my music the deep hum of a prop as it slices the air, my thrill the thunder of guns tearing asunder an enemy plane."
Flakbait
19 September 2000

[This message has been edited by flakbait (edited 10-24-2000).]

[RAM]

Flakbait I have to correct you on one thing. All references I have read about Ta152 talk about a significant loss of rollrate compared with D9. Extended wings make roll WORSE, not better, no matter that the ailerons are in the extremes.

The reason for fw190A having the awesome rollrate it had were the electric assisted ailerons and the little wing it had. The first 190Vs had a wing still more little. But the wingloading was quite high and they enlarged the wing to the known standard.

The more little the wing, the better rollrate. Ta152H1 had a much bigger wing, and so had a worse rollrate.

[RAM]

 

Originally posted by flakbait:


Wing loading for the D9 is 48lbs/sq ft, and 4.93lbs/hp. If you're going after strato-buffs grab a Ta-152, if not I'll give you the keys to a D9.

As a reference, the Fw-190 A8-F8 power loading is 4.43 lbs/hp with a wing loading of
38.98 lbs/sq ft.

Two things, first the powerloading of the D9 you give is with no MW50 boost.

Second, how in the earth can a D9 have a worse wingloading than an A8?? D9 was a couple hundred lbs lighter than A8 and had the same wing.

Look those numbers again, there is something wrong there.

[juzz]

Juzz' evaluation of Ta 152H-1 vs Fw 190D-9    

Wingloading: 41.7lbs/ft^2 vs 49.9lb/ft^2 (Wingspan: 47ft 4.5in vs 34ft 5.5in)
Power at S/L: 2050HP vs 2240HP with MW 50
1750HP vs 1776HP without
Speed at S/L: 350mph vs 380mph with MW 50
332mph vs 357mph without
Guns and ammo: 1xMK 108(90rnds) + 2xMG 151/20(350rnds) vs 2xMG 131(950rnds) + 2xMG 151/20(400rnds). No gun options for either plane.
Roll rate: Capt. Eric Brown, RAE(Ta 152H-1) - "I found a noticeable reduction in roll rate and an increase in the stick force per G by comparison to its BMW 801-powered predecessors, some of the more attractive qualities of the original fighter having being sacrificed in order to achieve the best possible performance at extreme altitudes." D-9 had equal rollrate to A series I believe, so Ta 152H-1 is worse with higher stick forces.
Loaded weight: 10,472lb vs 9,840lb
MW 50 and GM-1: For Ta 152H-1, MW 50 increases top speed by 15-20mph up to about 30,000ft. GM-1 raises top speed to 472mph at 41,010ft and service ceiling to 48,550ft.
MW 50 raises top speed by 20mph up to about 18,000ft for D-9.
Acceleration: Powerloading at S/L: 5.1lbs/HP vs 4.4lbs/HP with MW 50
5.9lbs/HP vs 5.5lbs/HP without
Climb: 3445fpm initial with MW 50, 13.8min to 32,800ft vs 3,300fpm initial without MW 50, 16.8min to 32,800ft.

Sources: Ta 152H-1: Wings of the Luftwaffe by Captain Eric Brown CBE, DSC, AFC, RN
Fw 190D-9: Joe Baugher's Focke-Wulf Fw 190D page, and Vermillion's Fw 190/Ta 152 charts.

[This message has been edited by juzz (edited 10-24-2000).]

[RAM]

Those are very good numbers, juzz. Can I ask you where did you got them (and the book's number so I can buy it?  )

Thanks  

[flakbait]

Juzz fixed it for me  

I used LRG and Joe Baugher's page as references, and neither one gave consistant info. At least I didn't screw up the Ta-152 specs that bad! Besides, I'm new at this stuff.




------------------
Flakbait
Delta 6's Flight School
"My art is the wings of an aircraft through the skies, my music the deep hum of a prop as it slices the air, my thrill the thunder of guns tearing asunder an enemy plane."
Flakbait
19 September 2000

[juzz]

Sources added for RAM.  

Hristo, I hope this answers your second batch of questions:

Generally, high aspect ratio(AR) wings add more profile drag(greater frontal area), but lessen induced drag(drag from lift). Wells, funked or someone could supply an equation that shows this AR difference mathematically(I can't remember it  ).

The Ta 152H had those 47ft wings(AR=8.9) to reduce drag at high altitude - where induced drag is a bigger factor, and profile drag is less important. Eg: The P-38L had 52ft wings with an AR=8.2.

I think with it's lower wingloading, the Ta 152 would certainly out-turn the Fw 190D-9, and probably the Fw 190A-5 as well(wingloading: 43lbs/ft^2).

The reason the Ta 152H-1 is 30mph slower than the Fw 190D-9 at S/L would be because of those huge wings, and the 200HP less engine power.

[funked]

Yes aspect ratio helps.  I forgot the formula.  Where's Wells?  

RAM there ain't no electric ailerons on no 190, dagnabbit.

In general I think the Ta 152 will be not much better than an A-5 or A-8 if you are below 20,000 feet.  Above that altitude it will be a great plane as long as the boost lasts.  I think it will definitely be a better turnfighter than the 190 at all altitudes.

[brady]

  Gentleman nice posts' could not of said it better my self and I own Capt. Eric Browns book excellent read!, Cant wait to fly whatever model of Ta-152 they put in it is my all time favorite plane

    Brady

[RAM]

 

Originally posted by funked:

RAM there ain't no electric ailerons on no 190, dagnabbit.

Fw190 was an electric fighter. All controls were electric.

[funked]

Ram, propellor pitch, landing gear, flaps, and pitch trim were electrically actuated.  

Primary flight controls were not powered.  The only thing unusual was that they had a linkage using rods instead of cables.

Trust me please.    


[This message has been edited by funked (edited 10-24-2000).]