# Best Piston Engined Fighter Ever...



## lesofprimus (Mar 20, 2007)

This is a carry over from a discussion thread... Decided to make it a Poll.... Vote for The Best Piston Engined Fighter Ever.... Combat experience is a plus....


----------



## Udet (Mar 20, 2007)

The very first vote here was mine.

The Ta 152 H hands down. With the brief combat experience gained by the guys flying in stab./JG 301 the model proved its lethality, with confirmed kills even at tree top altitude...whereas the bulk of the fighters on the list in the poll saw no combat action or did not engage the enemy.


----------



## Civettone (Mar 21, 2007)

I'll go for the Bf 109K-14 and Spitfire 21 because they're the best bang for the buck. (I voted for the 109 to pick one.)

They were agile, efficient, fast, good at all altitudes unlike the Ta 152H (I know it "could hold its own" at low altitude, but that's not good enough IMO). 

Kris


----------



## Gnomey (Mar 21, 2007)

Overall I voted for the Ta-152H (Udet has said the main reasons), with for me the Sea Fury and Spitfire 24 not far behind.


----------



## Soren (Mar 21, 2007)

Ta-152 H-1, as its highly maneuverable and fast at ALL altitudes, which can't said about most other fighters on the list.


----------



## DerAdlerIstGelandet (Mar 21, 2007)

Hmm I have to think about this one. My initial thoughts go for the Ta-152H but there are quite a bit of unknowns about her. I thinks he certainly was the best flying when the war ended but I dont know if I can go with best ever.

I certainly can not go for the Bf 109K-14 even though the 109 is my favorite aircraft. The 109K-14 was delivered in to small of numbers and I am not even sure if it even saw combat. Does anyone know exactly how many K-14s were built and how many saw combat if any?

The Bearcat was nice, but I am not sure how it would have done in combat. Maybe someone can ask the French since they used it as a fighter bomber in Indo China but then again I dont think it saw air to air. Someone correct me if I am wrong.

Same goes for the P-51H. Not proven in combat.

So therefore my vote is going to either go for the Sea Fury or the Ta-152H. I have to brew over this a bit though. I do lean toward the Ta-152H though only because I love it so much.


----------



## Soren (Mar 21, 2007)

My initial thought was also the Sea Fury, however looking at overall performance at altitude it became clear that the Ta-152H would have the advantage most of the time.


----------



## davparlr (Mar 21, 2007)

Since this is the best *Fighter* ever, and not *Dog Fighter*, I debated with myself (always confusing) between the F4U-4 and the F4U-5. The F4U-4 was probably the best dog fighter below 20K ever (except for the F4U-5). It was faster than the Ta-152H and had a much greater climb capability in that area. The dogfighting capability would swap with the Ta-152H above 25K. I don't know much about the performance of the F-4U-5 except that it would probably out perform the Ta-152H up to 35K.

The F4U-4 fought in three wars, WWII, Korea, and Soccer.
The F4U-5 fought in two war, Korea, and Soccer.

Either F4Us would be the best air-to-ground fighter, except maybe a tie with the P-47N.

Either F4Us were carrier compatable.

All-in-all thats an impressive capability in one aircraft.

Without a doubt, the F4U-4 or 5 were the best all around *fighters*. I picked the F4U-4 due to its longevity and record and the fact I don't have a lot of performance data on the -5


----------



## Soren (Mar 21, 2007)

The Ta-152H was undoubtedly a better dogfighter at all altitudes, had a top SL speed of ~600 km/h, and at 5,000 + ft/min was certainly every bit as good a climber.

Don't get me wrong, the F4U-4 was a great fighter, in the same class as the Fw-190 D-9 and Spitfire Mk.XIV, but it wasn't in the same class as the Ta-152H.


----------



## Civettone (Mar 21, 2007)

I don't know if air-to-ground should play a role. 

At high altitude the Ta 152H was the best but I don't see ANY reason why it would be better at medium and low altitudes than the other fighters on that list. And lower altitudes are far more common than the altitude the Ta 152H was designed for. Hardly any fights took place over 10k. It's like having a F1 car for a rally race...

Kris


----------



## Soren (Mar 21, 2007)

Yet the Ta-152H holds a 11:0 kill ratio at low - medium altitude. Not a single Ta-152H was ever shot down.

Also how many of the fighters above exceed 600 km/h at SL ? Not that many. And almost none can boast with a 5,000 + ft/min climb rate. And above 8.5 km the Ta-152H climbs on average 1,000 + ft/min faster than the competition.


----------



## davparlr (Mar 21, 2007)

Soren said:


> Yet the Ta-152H holds a 11:0 kill ratio at low - medium altitude. Not a single Ta-152H was ever shot down.
> 
> Also how many of the fighters above exceed 600 km/h at SL ? Not that many. And almost none can boast with a 5,000 + ft/min climb rate. And above 8.5 km the Ta-152H climbs on average 1,000 + ft/min faster than the competition.



I suspect that all the kills were at low altitude against aircraft that had much poorer performance than the Ta-152H such as the P-51D and Tempest. I am sure the climb info is correct for WWII aircraft but probably not true for the F4U-5.

The F4U-4 was capable of 600 km/hr at SL and was 24 km/hr faster at 20k ft. I don't have any data that shows the Ta-152H capable of 5000 ft/min climb at SL. The only document I have shows a much lower rate of climb. If you have supporting data, I would like to correct my data base. It presently shows 3445 ft/min SL., much lower than the F4U-4 at 4800 ft/min.

The F4U-5 was way faster at SL than either the F4U-4 or Ta-152H at 648 km/hr. as was the P-51H with 660 km/hr at SL.

I have good speed data on the Ta-152H (which you provided) but lousy data on time to climb and climb rate. If you have some of this data, I would certainly appretiate it.

And, I don't think the Ta-152 was that great at air-to-ground and carrier landings .


----------



## renrich (Mar 21, 2007)

OK, TA152-1: [email protected] ft, service ceiling=48550 ft, range clean=755 mls, 1-30mm w/90 rds, 2-20mm w/170 rds, initial rate of climb=3445 fpm. F4U-5: [email protected] ft, service ceiling=41400ft, range clean=1036 mls, 4-20mm w/924 rds, initial rate of climb=4230fpm add that up plus Corsair much more robust, better armor, more reliable radial engine that is less susceptible to battle damage, can carry 4000 lb bomb load and operate off of carrier and good combat record in Korea, Indo-china and French used version of it in Algeria plus was used by various countries in Central and South America. Winner-F4U-5


----------



## Soren (Mar 21, 2007)

Davparlr, the 17.5 m/s climb rate is at Steig u. Kampfleistung.

Time to climb 10km was 10.1min at Sondernotlesitung for the Ta-152H.
Climb rate at 8.8km at Sondernotleistung was 14.5 m/s, 4.5 m/s faster than the P-51H at 90" Hg.

I'll provide the doc's tommorrow, have to get some sleep now


----------



## davparlr (Mar 22, 2007)

Soren said:


> Davparlr, the 17.5 m/s climb rate is at Steig u. Kampfleistung.
> 
> Time to climb 10km was 10.1min at Sondernotlesitung for the Ta-152H.
> 
> ...



This is certainly where the Ta-152H shines.


----------



## davparlr (Mar 22, 2007)

renrich said:


> OK, TA152-1: [email protected] ft, service ceiling=48550 ft, range clean=755 mls, 1-30mm w/90 rds, 2-20mm w/170 rds, initial rate of climb=3445 fpm. F4U-5: [email protected] ft, service ceiling=41400ft, range clean=1036 mls, 4-20mm w/924 rds, initial rate of climb=4230fpm add that up plus Corsair much more robust, better armor, more reliable radial engine that is less susceptible to battle damage, can carry 4000 lb bomb load and operate off of carrier and good combat record in Korea, Indo-china and French used version of it in Algeria plus was used by various countries in Central and South America. Winner-F4U-5



My source says that the F4U-5 ceiling is 44,100 ft. The F4U-5N has the ceiling of 41,400 ft. Do you have any more performance data on the F4U-5? I have very limited data.


----------



## lesofprimus (Mar 22, 2007)

I of course went with the Ta 152H-1... The plane performed excellently at high med and low altitudes, as proven by the Yak-9's they popped...


----------



## bigZ (Mar 22, 2007)

Went for the 152H for all the reasons already outlined. In Monogram's FW ta 152 book NO 24. Pilots comment on how the the 152 out turned the 190 at low altitude although roll rate was slower. Also prefer cannons to 50's.


----------



## davparlr (Mar 23, 2007)

bigZ said:


> Went for the 152H for all the reasons already outlined. In Monogram's FW ta 152 book NO 24. Pilots comment on how the the 152 out turned the 190 at low altitude although roll rate was slower. Also prefer cannons to 50's.



The F4U-5 had four 20s which, I am sure, is at least as good a fighter-to-fighter armament as the two 20s and one 30 on the Ta-152H. You would have to ask the gun pros on the site.


----------



## Parmigiano (Mar 23, 2007)

Ta 152 for me, for what she did and for her unexploited development potential : all the others had years to improve and refine, 152 development was stopped after 3 months. 
In summary, the 152 was thrown in combat almost as a prototype and was able to kick everything flying around her.


PS: I should have added the Mitsubishi A7M2 Reppu as contender among the others who did not saw service in WW2: mainly because I like the bird


----------



## renrich (Mar 23, 2007)

My source for the data on the F4U5 and the TA 152 is "The Great Book of World War II Airplanes" and the numbers on the F4U5 and F4U5N are a little confusing as they show the F4U5N to be slightly faster than the F4U5. I don't see how with the radar dome on the wing. Both are shown to have a service ceiling of 41400 ft. In this book, it is stated that the F4U5 could top 400mph at sea level whereas the same book says the TA 152 had a Vmax at sea level of 332 MPH. Big difference. Also says that the TA152 had a three blade constant speed WOODEN PROPELLOR. I have learned something since participating on this forum. There are a lot of raw performance figures floating around on the web as well as a lot of "eye witness accounts." Same goes for data and accounts from books. No self respecting pilot who had a lot of operational time in a certain aircraft had anything but a good opinion of that aircraft. Some such as the German pilots who had a lot of time in various a/c thought the "best" a/c was the one that suited their abilities or style the best. Most "experts" thought the FW190 series was the best German fighter but a number of the Experten swore by the BF109. There is a built in bias against naval fighters because the Pacific war was a "second class" war in the air. Popular opinion has it that the "best" ww2 fighter was the P51. Anybody knows that. Not necessarily so. A carrier plane can't compete with a land based plane. Too many compromises because of carrier landing requirements. Well a number of times Martlets contended well with 109s and several 190s were shot down by Hellcats. My own personal experience (to my sorrow) with German cars taught me that when all was well they were sweet machines. The question was that "all was well" usually did not last too long. I wonder whether that might have been true with their a/c. I know that reliability was a problem with the Panther although when all the bugs were out it may have been the best ww2 tank. More than half of the 109s were lost in operational accidents. Where I am going with this(I think) is that raw performance numbers are not a great way to decide which a/c is the "best". Whether a a/c can go 472 mph or 450 mph is probably not operationally significant. Most fighter combat took place below 35000 feet. Well below. I doubt that a ww2 pilot could even function well at 35000 feet unless in a pressurized cockpit and most of those type cockpits in fighters did not work very well. I wonder what the roll rate of a TA152 was with those long wings. The high altitude version of the Spitfire with the extended wings did not maneuver as well as the lower altitude Spitfires. The normal loaded weight of the TA152 was almost 1000 lbs greater than the 190D9 and it had no more normal takeoff horse power. I believe that the TA152 was designed to knock down high altitude bombers. Thus the single 30mm and twin 20mms. Doesn't seem like it would be well suited for one v one against other fighters unless at max altitude. Anyway, seems like Erich Hartmann in his favorite 109 or Tommy McGuire in his favorite P38 or Bob Johnston in his P47D or even David McCambell in a Hellcat or Joe Foss in an F4U would have been able to hold his own with anybody. There were more than 500 F4U5s built and they fought in many places and proved they could fight and survive in a lot of environments and operate off of carriers. Pretty good.


----------



## Bullockracing (Mar 24, 2007)

Excellent post, renrich.


----------



## davparlr (Mar 24, 2007)

Argument for the F4U-5 superiority over the Ta-152H.

At altitudes below 30k feet the F4U-5 has a clear performance and armament superiority.

*Maneuverability*. Test run by the Navy in 1944 showed that the F4U-1 could roll at the same rate, outturn, and fly a tighter loop than a Fw-190A-4 and, in general, the F4U-1 was found to be *“much more maneuverable”.*

(http://www.wwiiaircraftperformance.org/fw190/ptr-1107.pdf)

Since there is no data to say that he Ta-152H maneuvers better than the Fw-190, and that he F4U-5 maneuvers similar to the F4U-1, it can be assumed that the F4U-5 would be more maneuverable than the Ta-152H. Wing loading and power loading supports this assumption. In empty wing loading, the F4U-5 has *30.5 lb/sq ft*, and the Ta-152 H has *34.4 lbs /sq ft*. For empty power loading, SL, at WEP for both, the F4U-5 has *3.47 lbs/hp*, whereas the Ta-152H has *4.21 lbs/hp*.

*Speed* As far a speed goes, it is hard to fully ascertain. I have very little data on the F4U-5. I cannot determine which aircraft is cleaner since I cannot relate one to one. At SL, the F4U-5 is faster, *403*, than the Ta-152H, *370*, but has more hp available. I do know that the F4U-5 is faster at SL and is about equal at 30k ft. I suspect that the speed I have for the F4U-5 is military and not WEP. If this is true, then the airspeed advantage would be significantly greater (WEP adds about 400 hp to the PW). I believe the power for the Ta-152H is at WEP. Maybe not, Soren, if I am wrong please correct me. One thing that is obvious, is great availability of hp to the F4U-5. At SL, the F4U-5 has *2760 hp *at WEP, the Ta-152H has *2050*, about *700 hp difference*. At 25k ft.the F4U-5 has about *2350 hp *available, the Ta-152H has *1400 hp*, almost *1000 hp more!* I suspect that the F4U-5 number is not WEP, so this difference could be greater. This massive amount of power cannot but help the F4U-5 in acceleration and maintain speed in a turn.

*Climb*In climb, if Soren is correct that the Ta-152H has about a 5000 ft/min climb, then the climb rates would be similar.

*Armament*. The F4U-5 had four Hispano-Suiza 20 mm canons. The Ta-152H had two M151/20 20mms, and one MK 108 30mm canon. I am not a gun person, but I suspect that the F4U-5 armament is superior for dog fighting.

Argument about the victories of the Ta-152H. I suspect that all of the Ta-152H kills were against previous generation aircraft, P-51D, Tempest V, etc. It never flew against its contemporaries, the P-51H, F4U-4, P-47N, and probably not the Tempest II (if it did indeed shoot down a Tempest II at low altitude, it was foolish pilot as the Tempest has much great speed a low altitude). This would be like the Mig-17 fighting a P-80 or F9F (assuming both pilots are equal).

*In summary*, I think the F4U-5 is significantly better than the Ta-152H below 30k ft. It is more maneuverable, faster, climbs the same, and has better armament. That doesn’t leave much for the Ta-152H. If what I think is true about the performance not being based on WEP, the F4U-5 advantage would be greater and would extend to 35k feet.

That is a large amount of airspace to cede to your opponent.

Throw in air-to-ground and carrier landing capablilty and you would be foolish not to pick the F4U-5 if you could only choose one single engine fighter to a fight war.

I chose the F4U-4, but, since I have found out more of the F4U-5, it would be my choice now.


----------



## Civettone (Mar 24, 2007)

lesofprimus said:


> I of course went with the Ta 152H-1... The plane performed excellently at high med and low altitudes, as proven by the Yak-9's they popped...


 No, that's called an indication, not proof!
There were several fighters that were faster than the Ta 152 at low altitude: the P-51, La-7, Tempest, Spitfire, Bf 109K, Fw 190A-10, F-4U-4, P-51H, ...
The Ta 152 also had inferior roll rate and acceleration.

Kris


----------



## renrich (Mar 24, 2007)

Good post davparlr. One of the things that I believe is misleading about this poll is that you have the F4U4 and the F4U5 competing for votes and they are very similar a/c. Since the 5 is a later slightly more advanced a/c, the F4U4 should be dropped out or their votes combined. The performance figures I have for For the f4U5 are with WEP, 2760 hp at sea level. The TA152 shows takeoff power at 2050 with MW50 and a max hp of 1740 at 32010 ft with GM 1 boost. The empty weights of the two show that the Corsair weighs about 900 more pounds than the TA.


----------



## davparlr (Mar 24, 2007)

renrich said:


> Good post davparlr. One of the things that I believe is misleading about this poll is that you have the F4U4 and the F4U5 competing for votes and they are very similar a/c. Since the 5 is a later slightly more advanced a/c, the F4U4 should be dropped out or their votes combined. The performance figures I have for For the f4U5 are with WEP, 2760 hp at sea level. The TA152 shows takeoff power at 2050 with MW50 and a max hp of 1740 at 32010 ft with GM 1 boost. The empty weights of the two show that the Corsair weighs about 900 more pounds than the TA.



I agree on your position on the two F4Us. I had difficulties with that. I was showing lower numbers on the hp for the Ta at 32k but your numbers look better. I am sure Soren will straighten me out. He keeps me honest with the German planes. I just wish I had better data on the F4U-5, and the engine performance.


----------



## Udet (Mar 24, 2007)

renrich said:


> My source for the data on the F4U5 and the TA 152 is "The Great Book of World War II Airplanes" and the numbers on the F4U5 and F4U5N are a little confusing as they show the F4U5N to be slightly faster than the F4U5. I don't see how with the radar dome on the wing. Both are shown to have a service ceiling of 41400 ft. In this book, it is stated that the F4U5 could top 400mph at sea level whereas the same book says the TA 152 had a Vmax at sea level of 332 MPH. Big difference. Also says that the TA152 had a three blade constant speed WOODEN PROPELLOR. I have learned something since participating on this forum. There are a lot of raw performance figures floating around on the web as well as a lot of "eye witness accounts." Same goes for data and accounts from books. No self respecting pilot who had a lot of operational time in a certain aircraft had anything but a good opinion of that aircraft. Some such as the German pilots who had a lot of time in various a/c thought the "best" a/c was the one that suited their abilities or style the best. Most "experts" thought the FW190 series was the best German fighter but a number of the Experten swore by the BF109. There is a built in bias against naval fighters because the Pacific war was a "second class" war in the air. Popular opinion has it that the "best" ww2 fighter was the P51. Anybody knows that. Not necessarily so. A carrier plane can't compete with a land based plane. Too many compromises because of carrier landing requirements. Well a number of times Martlets contended well with 109s and several 190s were shot down by Hellcats. My own personal experience (to my sorrow) with German cars taught me that when all was well they were sweet machines. The question was that "all was well" usually did not last too long. I wonder whether that might have been true with their a/c. I know that reliability was a problem with the Panther although when all the bugs were out it may have been the best ww2 tank. More than half of the 109s were lost in operational accidents. Where I am going with this(I think) is that raw performance numbers are not a great way to decide which a/c is the "best". Whether a a/c can go 472 mph or 450 mph is probably not operationally significant. Most fighter combat took place below 35000 feet. Well below. I doubt that a ww2 pilot could even function well at 35000 feet unless in a pressurized cockpit and most of those type cockpits in fighters did not work very well. I wonder what the roll rate of a TA152 was with those long wings. The high altitude version of the Spitfire with the extended wings did not maneuver as well as the lower altitude Spitfires. The normal loaded weight of the TA152 was almost 1000 lbs greater than the 190D9 and it had no more normal takeoff horse power. I believe that the TA152 was designed to knock down high altitude bombers. Thus the single 30mm and twin 20mms. Doesn't seem like it would be well suited for one v one against other fighters unless at max altitude. Anyway, seems like Erich Hartmann in his favorite 109 or Tommy McGuire in his favorite P38 or Bob Johnston in his P47D or even David McCambell in a Hellcat or Joe Foss in an F4U would have been able to hold his own with anybody. There were more than 500 F4U5s built and they fought in many places and proved they could fight and survive in a lot of environments and operate off of carriers. Pretty good.



If i recall correctly the F4U5 did not enter service but until late 1945, correct?

Finally, the figure of 400mph SL speed for the F4U5 does not seem accurate at all. What was the maximum speed of the F4U5?

Assuming it attained 400 mph SL, how much could the model increase the speed as altitude was gained? The data showed in that book should be wrong, unless they were referring to some test bed or something to that effect.

I am not an expert on the F4U´s but what i recall is the difference in performance was not that critical between the latest versions...the F4U4 had a top speed of 448 mph at altitude...i do not think that F4U5 was what you´d call critically faster than the F4U4 was it?

So if the U5 marked 400 mph SL, you mean an extra ~50mph in speed could be all as it went higher? That should be a miserable gain for a plane reputed to have such a high ceiling.

Well, then if the U5 tangles with a Ta 152 H, it would seem that as soon as the SL zone is adandoned, the Ta 152 H will handle the situation.


----------



## davparlr (Mar 25, 2007)

Udet said:


> If i recall correctly the F4U5 did not enter service but until late 1945, correct?



Actually, the first production aircraft came on line in 1946. I am not sure why you asked this question on this particular poll.



> Finally, the figure of 400mph SL speed for the F4U5 does not seem accurate at all. What was the maximum speed of the F4U5?



The F4U-4 could do 374 mph at SL and the F4U-5 had 250 more horses to pull it. 403 mph doesn't seem unreasonable to me. Top speed was 462 mph at 31,400 ft.



> Assuming it attained 400 mph SL, how much could the model increase the speed as altitude was gained? The data showed in that book should be wrong, unless they were referring to some test bed or something to that effect.



I am not sure of what you are asking. If you think it is unreasonable to go from 400 mph at SL to 462 mph, then it is really unreasonable for the Ta-152H to go from 370 mph at SL to 465 mph at altitude. Remember, drag decreases as altitude increases. If you can keep hp up, airspeed will increase. These planes were designed to maintain a good amount of power at high altitude and so this type of performance is not unreasonable.



> I am not an expert on the F4U´s but what i recall is the difference in performance was not that critical between the latest versions...the F4U4 had a top speed of 448 mph at altitude...i do not think that F4U5 was what you´d call critically faster than the F4U4 was it?



With a more powerful engine and all aluminum skin, it seemed to perform quite a bit better. Also, the F4U-4 is pretty formidable itself. Also, I believe the F4U-5 was designed for higher altitude performance.



> So if the U5 marked 400 mph SL, you mean an extra ~50mph in speed could be all as it went higher? That should be a miserable gain for a plane reputed to have such a high ceiling.



Well, typically, it all depends on the gearing of the superchargers. Being able to go from 400 mph at SL to 462 mph at 31,400 ft. would not be considered miserable performance in any stretch of the imagination.



> Well, then if the U5 tangles with a Ta 152 H, it would seem that as soon as the SL zone is adandoned, the Ta 152 H will handle the situation.



If the SL zone is considered from SL to 30k ft., I would agree.


----------



## DerAdlerIstGelandet (Mar 25, 2007)

Udet said:


> If i recall correctly the F4U5 did not enter service but until late 1945, correct?



Not relevent the thread is about best ever not best of WW2.


----------



## renrich (Mar 25, 2007)

I think what Udet is saying is that it doesn't seem reasonable that a F4U5 could touch 400 mph at sea level and only do 450 mph at altitude. My figures on the F4U4 show a sea level Vmax of 380 mph(the fastest at sea level of all WW2 US fighters) and a Vmax of 446 MPH at best altitude( I think around 26000 ft), a difference of 66 mph. If the F4U5 could touch 400 mph at sea level and had a Vmax of 465-470 mph at best altitude( around 31000 ft) then the difference is roughly the same. The 5 was all metal and had a different supercharger and it was designed to get higher. I would not like to ignore the fact either that all Corsairs were practically unbreakable and had the very reliable and battle damage resistant radial engine unlike the TA which had a liquid cooled engine. I wonder too how many Gs those extended wings on the TA could take during ACM. The only airplane in the US inventory which the AAF admitted was more rugged than the P47 was the Corsair. There is a documented story that a US Navy pilot got into compressibility in an inverted dive in a Corsair in Korea. As the plane got lower he was able to exert every ounce of strength bracing himself with his legs and pulling on the pole and finally pulled out of the dive and landed on the boat. The a/c was flyable but the pilot had broken his pelvis pulling so hard.


----------



## davparlr (Mar 25, 2007)

renrich said:


> I think what Udet is saying is that it doesn't seem reasonable that a F4U5 could touch 400 mph at sea level and only do 450 mph at altitude.



My source, American Combat Planes by Ray Wagner, which has been a very good reference, shows the F4U-5 with a max speed of 462 mph at 31,400 ft.



> My figures on the F4U4 show a sea level Vmax of 380 mph(the fastest at sea level of all WW2 US fighters)



The P-51H was tested (I believe) at 410 mph at SL. The P-51B with 44-1 fuel was tested at 370 with wing racks and estimated at 384 without racks.



> and a Vmax of 446 MPH at best altitude( I think around 26000 ft), a difference of 66 mph. If the F4U5 could touch 400 mph at sea level and had a Vmax of 465-470 mph at best altitude( around 31000 ft) then the difference is roughly the same.



Which is what my data shows.


----------



## davparlr (Mar 25, 2007)

renrich said:


> My figures on the F4U4 show a sea level Vmax of 380 mph(the fastest at sea level of all WW2 US fighters)



Also, the Tempest II was capable of about 416 mph at SL.

http://www.wwiiaircraftperformance.org/tempest/tempestii-cfe-appd.jpg


----------



## renrich (Mar 25, 2007)

You will notice that I said all WW2 US fighters. The Tempest was UK and the P51H did not serve in WW2. My figures from "America's One Hundred Thousand" an outstanding reference on the approx. 100000 fighters produced and that served in WW2. Also as I said in earlier post, there are all kind of performance figures out there online and in books. I guarantee that if the US Navy tested and compared Navy a/c versus AAF a/c, the Navy planes will score high and if the AAF did the testing the opposite happened. If the British test and compare say a Corsair versus a Spitfire the Spitfire shines and the Corsair is dogmeat. Our Navy compared the Corsair and Hellcat versus a FW 190 and the FW190 had no chance against either Navy plane. care to bet what would have been the result if the LW was doing the testing. I think one needs to take all these performance #s, mix a handful of salt along with some common sense, look at the A/cs records, close your eyes and pick. It is fun to speculate.


----------



## bigZ (Mar 25, 2007)

Wasn't the P51D prefered rather than the H in Korea. Chuck Yeager wasn't very keen on it either although I can't recall why?

The introductuction of the 20mm canons for F4U limited the the operational ceiling to 12,000ft until gun heaters where eventually installed. Also the RN found that after clipping the wings to ease storage on carriers it went some way in solving the planes tendancy to float on landing allowing immediate use for carrier operations long before the USN.

Their are some very convincing arguments for making the F4U-5 the best fighter. I will have to do some more reading on this fascinatinating bird as its one am not overly familar with.


----------



## davparlr (Mar 25, 2007)

renrich said:


> You will notice that I said all WW2 US fighters. The Tempest was UK and the P51H did not serve in WW2.



555 P-51H were built by VJ and were in operational units. They did not participate in any combat, however they did serve. Also, the P-51B apparently was capable of 386 mph at SL according to test.

http://www.wwiiaircraftperformance.org/mustang/p51b-44-1-level.jpg



> My figures from "America's One Hundred Thousand" an outstanding reference on the approx. 100000 fighters produced and that served in WW2. Also as I said in earlier post, there are all kind of performance figures out there online and in books. I guarantee that if the US Navy tested and compared Navy a/c versus AAF a/c, the Navy planes will score high and if the AAF did the testing the opposite happened. If the British test and compare say a Corsair versus a Spitfire the Spitfire shines and the Corsair is dogmeat. Our Navy compared the Corsair and Hellcat versus a FW 190 and the FW190 had no chance against either Navy plane. care to bet what would have been the result if the LW was doing the testing. I think one needs to take all these performance #s, mix a handful of salt along with some common sense, look at the A/cs records, close your eyes and pick. It is fun to speculate.



I agree with you and disagree. Certainly there are service bias in aircraft evaluation. Especially when it is performed after the war and one must take that into account. Also, it is always the case when the evaluation in with other services like Navy testing AF aircraft. However, when a service tests an enemies aircraft in wartime for the purpose of advising pilot strategy against that particular aircraft, I would doubt very seriously that the testing organization would do anything other than objectively report on that test. Especally on measurable variables. To tell an F4U pilot he could outturn an Fw-190 and he could not really do that, there could be many dead American pilots. That would be grounds for court marshal. These types of comparisons are probably very accurate, except where aircraft performance has been compromised by things like poor engine performance.
Wouldn't you agree?


----------



## davparlr (Mar 25, 2007)

bigZ said:


> The introductuction of the 20mm canons for F4U limited the the operational ceiling to 12,000ft until gun heaters where eventually installed. Also the RN found that after clipping the wings to ease storage on carriers it went some way in solving the planes tendancy to float on landing allowing immediate use for carrier operations long before the USN.



That may be true for the F4U-4C, but not the F4U-5. The F4U-5 had the 20mm as standard armament. I knew the RN used the F4U on a carrier before the USN, but I am not sure it was due to clipping the wings but rather using a circling approach so they could watch the landing officer. I don't think the USN clipped the wings.


----------



## mkloby (Mar 25, 2007)

All planes like to float when they're in ground effect just prior to landing. That's what they do.


----------



## renrich (Mar 26, 2007)

The first F4U1C with 4-20mm cannon was produced in Aug, 1943. I am sure any cannon problems were worked out by the time the F4U5 was produced. The 8 inches clipped off of the wingtips was to allow British carriers to store the a/c on the hangar decks. It slightly enhanced the roll rate but also had a deleterious effect on the stall speed. The Corsair had no more of a "float" problem than any other a/c but rather a "bounce" caused by the oleos in the main gear being too stiff. This was one of the main reasons that the Navy decided the Corsair was unfit for carrier operations. There were some interesting reports posted on this website a while back dealing with the Corsair. A high speed test done by Vought showed an F4U1 capable of 431 mph tas with WEP while a Navy test of an F4U1 showed the same with WEP and a Vmax of 417 TAS in military power. The same post showed a Vmax test of a Corsair Mark II( the same as a F4U1) done at Boscombe Down by the British with a top speed of 382 TAS. Sounds like a big difference to me. Maybe the Corsair Mark II was built by Brewster and was flying sideways. Incidently, that figure of 431 TAS with WEP is by far the fastest I have ever seen posted for an F4U1.


----------



## davparlr (Mar 26, 2007)

renrich said:


> A high speed test done by Vought showed an F4U1 capable of 431 mph tas with WEP while a Navy test of an F4U1 showed the same with WEP and a Vmax of 417 TAS in military power. The same post showed a Vmax test of a Corsair Mark II( the same as a F4U1) done at Boscombe Down by the British with a top speed of 382 TAS. Sounds like a big difference to me. Maybe the Corsair Mark II was built by Brewster and was flying sideways. Incidently, that figure of 431 TAS with WEP is by far the fastest I have ever seen posted for an F4U1.



spitfireperformance.com show a Pax River test with WEP. The second altitude and speed is military power.

U.S. Naval Air Station 
Patuxent River, Maryland 
April 28, 1944 
Model F4U-1 Airplane - Flight Test of Water
Injection Equipment - TED No. PTR 2105 
F4U-1 No. 17930


SUMMARY

Power War
Emergency Military 
High blower airplane critical alt. - ft. 20,300 22,800 
Maximum speed at high blower airplane
critical altitude - MPH *431* 417 
Low blower airplane critical altitude-ft. 14,600 17,600 
Maximum speed at low blower airplane


----------



## Udet (Mar 26, 2007)

davparlr said:


> Actually, the first production aircraft came on line in 1946. I am not sure why you asked this question on this particular poll.
> 
> 
> 
> ...




Mr. Davprl: please relax. Why did i ask? Possibly because we are here discussing ww2 aviation issues? I did not know making questions was prohibited.

I read and write, so i can tell i know what the environment of the thread is... covered within its scope are all piston engined fighters made, ever.

I can be more specific though: if you take a more careful read you might notice what the title of the book renrich quoted is: "The Great Book of *World War II* Airplanes". The book is his source for his F4U5 data...so when reading that, i thought the plane in question did not see service during ww2. So in the end, i do think my question was more than valid and well made.

And after all my point was correct: 462 mph for the F4U5 vs. 448 mph for the F4U4, not what you´d call a critical or significant difference in maximum speed.

renrich: your interpretation of the idea on my previous posting is correct. I could not put it better than that. Thanks.


----------



## davparlr (Mar 27, 2007)

Udet said:


> Mr. Davprl: please relax. Why did i ask? Possibly because we are here discussing ww2 aviation issues? I did not know making questions was prohibited.
> 
> I read and write, so i can tell i know what the environment of the thread is... covered within its scope are all piston engined fighters made, ever.
> 
> ...



Gosh, I hope I didn't imply that I thought you didn't have a right to ask questions. I think I was just a bit confused.


----------



## Soren (Mar 27, 2007)

davparlr said:


> Argument for the F4U-5 superiority over the Ta-152H.
> 
> At altitudes below 30k feet the F4U-5 has a clear performance and armament superiority.
> 
> ...




Davparlr,

First of all the US test involved an A-5/U4 which suffered from i'll-adjusted ailerons, causing premature stalling in turns. 

Secondly wing-loading is very mis-leading as it doesn't take into account various factors which hugely affects the amount of lift produced pr. area. Things like the higher the AR the higher the lift and the lower the drag pr. area, something the Ta-152H esp. benefits from. I can assure you that the Ta-152H is most likely by far the best dogfighter of the two, possessing a very high L/D ratio by virtue of its high AR wing.

As to testing, well in German tests between the Ta-152H-1 and FW-190A-8 the Ta-152H-1 proved to be a greatly superior dogfighter, easily out-turning the A-8 in both directions at low to mid altitudes.

Here's a chart showing the 14.5 m/s climb rate at 8.8km height, thats 4.5 m/s faster than the P-51H at 90" Hg, and 10km is reached in approx. the same time. And notice the incredibly short take off run of the Ta-152H as-well:


----------



## FLYBOYJ (Mar 27, 2007)

Soren said:


> First of all the US test involved an A-5/U4 which suffered from i'll-adjusted ailerons, causing premature stalling in turns.



Good info Soren, but I'd like to know more about this? If the ailerons were out of rig they would of affected other things as well.


----------



## Soren (Mar 27, 2007)

FLYBOYJ, I'll acquire the Navy document discussing the matter.


----------



## FLYBOYJ (Mar 27, 2007)

Soren said:


> FLYBOYJ, I'll acquire the Navy document discussing the matter.



Cool, Thanks!


----------



## lesofprimus (Mar 27, 2007)

> If the ailerons were out of rig they would of affected other things as well.


Yea, I was thinking the same thing Joe... I think Soren has referred to this test before as it rings a bell.... Good post and info Soren... I like the chart...


----------



## Udet (Mar 27, 2007)

Mr. Davparl, hello!

No problem, i just thought i had to made the clarification there. 8) 

I also want you to notice i have no doubt the F4U4 and U5 made excellent craft. Top of the class. 

Also thanks for the explanation regarding the speed issues of these planes.

Cheers!


----------



## Erich (Mar 27, 2007)

ah to have Willi R. or other members of JG 301 give their 2 ¢ about the Ta 152H on here ..........


----------



## Soundbreaker Welch? (Mar 27, 2007)

Yet the Ta-152H holds a 11:0 kill ratio at low - medium altitude. Not a single Ta-152H was ever shot down.

But think combat situations it was involved in. Limited contact with the enemy. It never made much of an impact.

There were very few Ta-152's that participated in the war. If they had been used in large numbers, you would have seen more losses on acount of more rookie pilots flying it and also more air battles to be involved in. The Ta-152 was superior to the Russian planes, and also to the P-51D. 

The Brewster Buffalo, which could easily one the title of the worst fighter of WWII, had a better kill ratio with the Finnish Air Force than the Ta-152. * The Buff was not superior to the Russian planes, yet it still beat them. The Brewster Buffalo should really in this poll by it's kill ratio and combat status. It could be called one the greatest fighters of all time based on that evidence. * So Ratio's can be misleading in a limited combat field. 

The P-51D had a 11:1 "kill ratio" which is pretty considering how many rookie pilots flew it and the large numbers of it flew, and not far behind the Ta-152. The P-51D did have the advantage of Air Superiority when it flew so that ratio can also be misleading. 

Sure the Ta-152 was certainly the better plane than the Buffalo and P-51D but as someone else pointed out it's limited combat use can make it's victories misleading, just like any other plane with large combat staus like the Mustang. 

I suppose the Ta-152 could have beat the Mustang H and the Bearcat but it certainly wouldn't in speed. The P-51H could go 487 which is equal or more than the Ta-152, and the Bearcat still holds the record of Fastest Piston Engined fighter on record. (528.33 mph)

Maybe the Ta-152 could have beat that record, seeing that it's combat speed was higher than Bearcat anyway. 

What left is the Corsair F4U-5, combat proven in more battles than the Ta-152 and a great all around fighter. Soren still hasn't been able to prove it was *less* manuverable. They were probably a match in terms of manuverability. They both could outturn the FW-190A and that's all we know, not that one could do it better than the other.

I guess in terms of speeds at high altitude, I'm forced to give the Ta-152 the vote over. But I can give the Corsair the vote for having better speeds than the Ta-152 at low altitude, which also gives it a better turn ratio. But I still haven't decided yet.


----------



## DerAdlerIstGelandet (Mar 27, 2007)

Erich said:


> ah to have Willi R. or other members of JG 301 give their 2 ¢ about the Ta 152H on here ..........



Hopefully soon my friend, hopefully soon. I actually considered calling him tomorrow and see how he is doing after his accident.


----------



## Soundbreaker Welch? (Mar 27, 2007)

11:1 was the overall kill ratio for the Corsair F4U-4, not as good as the Ta-152.

Sorry Ta fans, I decided to give my vote to the Corsair F4U-5. It didn't fight on as many fronts as the FAU-4 but it was superior to it, and have would done just as well. If the Corsair had fought in th European Theater as an Army Fighter we would have known even how it would have fared agains't the german planes. But the same statement could go for the Ta-152. 


So do you think I made a dumb choice?


----------



## Hunter368 (Mar 27, 2007)

Both were great planes.


I do have a question for the "gun experts". Can someone tell us the following information about the TA-152 and F4U-5.

-Rate of fire for both

-Range of their guns

-Ammo load

-How reliable were the guns

-Muzzle velocity 

-Special ammo loads/types if any used

-Anything else that you feel important about their guns I have not asked.


----------



## Erich (Mar 27, 2007)

good luck Chris hope you can catch him

TA 15H should have Tony Williams answer this. but for the 3cm fitted through the spinner a mix of Minengeschoss ammo HE and HE-I. As the Stab and III./JG 301 was suppose to have been destined to take on B-17's but never did just fighters, although it is reported one Stab./JG 301 pilot did shoot down 1 Fortress. I will suppose the 2cm twin's were fitted with similar ammo types .........


----------



## renrich (Mar 27, 2007)

You are welcome Udet. davparlr, I agree with you that comparison tests should be done as objectively as possible but I believe there is a "hometowner" effect which creeps in almost invariably. Let me give this example which admittedly is not official. The "great" British test pilot who also flew combat, Captain Eric Brown, in his book "Duels in the Sky" says the F4U1 had a Vmax of 394 mph TAS at 24000 ft. He also says that in a contest between a Corsair II and the FW190A4 "The FW could not be bested by a Corsair. The FW is a clear winner in combat with the Corsair." In the next paragraph, in a contest between the F6F3 and the FW, " This was a contest so finely balanced that the skill of the pilot would be the balancing factor." Go figure but I believe that here is a pure case of bias overruling objectivity. The Corsair for all models had a kill ratio of 11 to 1. The Hellcats was even better. Vought took on the task of designing a ship board fighter in 1938, I believe, that would have a quantum jump in performance over not only carrier a/c but land based as well. This was accomplished with a new, untried engine as well as a new prop. Rex Beisel, the chief designer accomplished his task so well that, in 1940, the XF4U exceeded 400 mph in a timed level flight, the first American single engine fighter to do so. The design had so much stretch in it that it was still being manufactured more than 12 years later. Almost certainly the finest recip. engined fighter bomber in all of history, the F4U7 served with the French Navy until 1964. My data shows that the F4U5 would have a performance edge over TA152 up to 30000 ft, had more range, could carry a larger ordnance load and carried more ammunition for guns that would be more suitable for ACM. In addition the Corsair would be more survivable and I have to believe more reliable. All of that and carrier suitable. Seems like a clear choice for the finest piston engined fighter ever.


----------



## renrich (Mar 27, 2007)

If the 20 mms used in the Corsair had the same performance as those in WW2, my source shows this: Rate of fire, 600 rpm, MV-2920 fps, explosive or tracer rounds, weight of Proj.-.29 lbs, max effective range-1200 yds, max effective theoretical range-2400 yds


----------



## Parmigiano (Mar 28, 2007)

Soundbreaker Welch? said:


> The P-51D had a 11:1 "kill ratio" which is pretty considering how many rookie pilots flew it and the large numbers of it flew, and not far behind the Ta-152. The P-51D did have the advantage of Air Superiority when it flew so that ratio can also be misleading.



Maybe a bit off-topic, but this is something that I would like to sort for my personal culture...

There are different info about the kill ratio of the P51, ranging from 19:1 to 2:1

Here is a link to a History Channel forum where a guy (Robert, see 3-4 posts down in the row) is making some apparently well documented comments.

History Channel: P-51 Mustang. The "Best"? ...

The strongest statement is:

"The figures I use for the P-51 are the *official USAAF figures for the ETO/MTO.* The P-51 is credited with (1):

Sorties: 213,873 Bomb tonnage: 5,668 Lost in combat (includes losses from all combat causes): 2,520 E/A kills: 4,950 Ground kills: 4,131 

This gives the P-51 a 1.96 to 1 kill ratio, far and away the best of any USAAF fighter in the theater."

Then, by reasoning on probable % etc. he concludes that excluding losses to ground fire a likely ratio was around 5:1 for ETO/PTO combined (that means tha likely in ETO this air to air KR was lower)


I don't know the guy, but he seems competent and his post has references to sources (something very rare in forums..); I had no time to verify the quoted sources.

Anyone can confirm/confute this data?


----------



## davparlr (Mar 28, 2007)

Parmigiano said:


> "The figures I use for the P-51 are the *official USAAF figures for the ETO/MTO.* The P-51 is credited with (1):
> 
> Sorties: 213,873 Bomb tonnage: 5,668 Lost in combat (includes losses from all combat causes): 2,520 E/A kills: 4,950 Ground kills: 4,131
> 
> This gives the P-51 a 1.96 to 1 kill ratio, far and away the best of any USAAF fighter in the theater."



I think someone has some numbers crossed. My reference shows 2,520 P-51s lost in combat, 4,950 enemy aircraft shot down, and 4.131 aircraft destroyed on the ground.


----------



## Parmigiano (Mar 28, 2007)

??? where crossed? this is exactly what 'Mr Robert' says, and brings a kill ratio of 1,96:1 for the P51 

Maybe the text formatting was confusing, the clear reading is:

Sorties: 213,873 
Bomb tonnage: 5,668 
Lost in combat (includes losses from all combat causes): 2,520 
E/A kills: 4,950 
Ground kills: 4,131 

4950/2520=1,96


----------



## Thorlifter (Mar 28, 2007)

Soundbreaker Welch? said:


> Yet the Ta-152H holds a 11:0 kill ratio at low - medium altitude. Not a single Ta-152H was ever shot down.



So are you telling me the Ta-152H only shot down 11 planes? hmmm. While impressive, that's not much of a stat to go on. What is the kill ratio for all Ta-152's?

Yes, I think the Ta-152, if not THE best piston fighter, is in the top 3. Personally, I went with the Corsair F4U-5, but on reflection, I'd like to change my vote to the Ta-152 to be the best pure fighter. Best plane, hands down it's the Corsair (IMO).

Ta-152h kill ratio is 11-0 = impressive but not overwhelming
Corsairs kill ratio is 2140-189 = IMPRESSIVE!!!!!!!
F6F Hellcat kill ratio is 5163-270 = WOW!!!!
P-51 kill ratio ETO/MTO is 1.96-1 = uhhhhhh Sorry buddy, not even in my top 10.


----------



## davparlr (Mar 28, 2007)

Soren said:


> Davparlr,
> 
> First of all the US test involved an A-5/U4 which suffered from i'll-adjusted ailerons, causing premature stalling in turns.



This seems strange. As said elseware, this would probably be indicated in the vehicle performance in other places. There is no indication in the report of this ill adjustment and the plane was said to be easy to fly. You would think something would indicate a problem like yaw correction. Do you have some supporting data?


> Secondly wing-loading is very mis-leading as it doesn't take into account various factors which hugely affects the amount of lift produced pr. area. Things like the higher the AR the higher the lift and the lower the drag pr. area, something the Ta-152H esp. benefits from. I can assure you that the Ta-152H is most likely by far the best dogfighter of the two, possessing a very high L/D ratio by virtue of its high AR wing.



Wing loading is thumbrule and there are other variables, but it does support the flight test claims. It cannot be dismissed either, especially if you have loads of power to drive it through the air, as the F4U-5 does. 



> As to testing, well in German tests between the Ta-152H-1 and FW-190A-8 the Ta-152H-1 proved to be a greatly superior dogfighter, easily out-turning the A-8 in both directions at low to mid altitudes.



So it could be as good a dogfighter as the F4U-1?



> Here's a chart showing the 14.5 m/s climb rate at 8.8km height, thats 4.5 m/s faster than the P-51H at 90" Hg, and 10km is reached in approx. the same time. And notice the incredibly short take off run of the Ta-152H as-well:



The F4U-4 in mil power has a climb rate of about 12.2 m/s at 8.8 km. Add a couple of hundred hp for WEP and a couple of hundred for the F4U-5 and I would suspect very similar or better performance at 8.8 km.


----------



## Hunter368 (Mar 28, 2007)

Thorlifter said:


> So are you telling me the Ta-152H only shot down 11 planes? hmmm. While impressive, that's not much of a stat to go on. What is the kill ratio for all Ta-152's?
> 
> Yes, I think the Ta-152, if not THE best piston fighter, is in the top 3. Personally, I went with the Corsair F4U-5, but on reflection, I'd like to change my vote to the Ta-152 to be the best pure fighter. Best plane, hands down it's the Corsair (IMO).
> 
> ...



We can't just base this choice on kill totals and believe that. Corsairs and Hellcat while good planes forsure, they also had little quality foes (poor pilots flying mostly poor planes) = alot of easy kills.

The same can be said for German pilots flying vs Russia in 41, alot of kills there but vs poor pilots flying poor planes.

We have to look deeper than just their kill totals or ratios.

I still have seen no one post detailed gun information for both TA-152H and Corsair F4U-5. I would really like to see those numbers. Guns play a huge part in deciding if a plane is a good fighter or a great fighter.


----------



## renrich (Mar 28, 2007)

The F4U5 as I said in earlier post carried 924 rds of 20mm ammunition. The TA152 carried 90 rds for the MK108 30 mm and for the MG151 20 mm, 150-175 rds ea. The only ballistics #s I have for the 30 mm is for the MK 103 and they may not be representative of the MK108, however the rate of fire data show 380-420 rpm depending on the ammunition used. Also, in the section on the BF109 in my reference it was said that the Allied bomber crew members called the MK108 the "pneumatic hammer" because of it's slow rate of fire and that because of it's low muzzle velocity the LW fighters had to get close to score hits with it.


----------



## Thorlifter (Mar 28, 2007)

Hunter368 said:


> We can't just base this choice on kill totals and believe that. Corsairs and Hellcat while good planes forsure, they also had little quality foes (poor pilots flying mostly poor planes) = alot of easy kills.
> 
> The same can be said for German pilots flying vs Russia in 41, alot of kills there but vs poor pilots flying poor planes.
> 
> ...



I absolutely agree kill ratio's don't say that one plane is better than the other. But it is a valid statistic when showing survivability, which helps make a superb fighter. You just wouldn't get those type of numbers if you were in a flying gas can, which you just proved. We are not talking about the japanese planes or the russian planes because they didn't have good survivability. The planes were sub-par and the lack of skill in the pilots sure didn't help.


----------



## Hunter368 (Mar 28, 2007)

Thorlifter said:


> I absolutely agree kill ratio's don't say that one plane is better than the other. But it is a valid statistic when showing survivability, which helps make a superb fighter. You just wouldn't get those type of numbers if you were in a flying gas can, which you just proved. We are not talking about the japanese planes or the russian planes because they didn't have good survivability. The planes were sub-par and the lack of skill in the pilots sure didn't help.



But my point was you can't put "much" weight into the Hellcat or Corsairs kill ratio b/c their opponents were of such low calibre (poor planes, poor pilots, poor tatics = thousands of easy kills). They are good planes but not as good as their kill ratio would lead some people to believe.


----------



## Hunter368 (Mar 28, 2007)

renrich said:


> The F4U5 as I said in earlier post carried 924 rds of 20mm ammunition. The TA152 carried 90 rds for the MK108 30 mm and for the MG151 20 mm, 150-175 rds ea. The only ballistics #s I have for the 30 mm is for the MK 103 and they may not be representative of the MK108, however the rate of fire data show 380-420 rpm depending on the ammunition used. Also, in the section on the BF109 in my reference it was said that the Allied bomber crew members called the MK108 the "pneumatic hammer" because of it's slow rate of fire and that because of it's low muzzle velocity the LW fighters had to get close to score hits with it.



Here is what I would want in a fighter's guns:

-Good rate of fire

-dependable

-Lots of ammo

-Range

-Good hitting power

TA-152H guns were "big" but slow rate of fire and low ammo load. But if they did hit you most times one 30mm round could take you down.

F4U-5 has a good rate of fire, good ammo load, decent gun size. But damn its nice to be riding behind that 30mm gun of the TA-152H.

Tough call


----------



## Thorlifter (Mar 28, 2007)

After all is said and done, there is no correct answer. Reading through all this we can say this plane was probably the best giving these circumstances, and that plane was the best giving those circumstances. We know which ones were the better of the best, but a definitive BEST......the world may never know.


----------



## Hunter368 (Mar 28, 2007)

Thorlifter said:


> After all is said and done, there is no correct answer. Reading through all this we can say this plane was probably the best giving these circumstances, and that plane was the best giving those circumstances. We know which ones were the better of the best, but a definitive BEST......the world may never know.



100% agreed


----------



## DerAdlerIstGelandet (Mar 28, 2007)

I concur and very well said, besides none of us have flown any of these two aircraft so basically we are just speculating.


----------



## Hunter368 (Mar 28, 2007)

Ok first let me say I am not claiming to be a gun expert, so if I am wrong with anything I say in this post just let me know. Ok lets start (sorry if this is overly simple like I said I am not a gun expert)

TA-152H guns

MK 108 cannon:

30mm 

ROF 650 rds/min

Muzzle velocity 1770 feet/sec

Ammunition

The cannon used specially-developed 30x90RB mm ammunition—30 mm calibre, 90 mm case length, rebated/reduced rim. Unlike most other weapon rounds, which used traditional brass for the case, the MK 108's ammunition used steel cases. Several types of ammunition were developed, including practice, armour-piercing, high-explosive and incendiary. In operation, however, two major ammunition types were used: Minengeschoß ('mine-shell') high-explosive and incendiary. The Minengeschoß was made by drawn steel (the same way brass cartridges are made) instead of being cast as was the usual practice for cannon shells. This resulted in a shell with a thin but strong wall, which hence had a much larger cavity in which to pack a much larger explosive or incendiary charge than was otherwise possible. The incendiary rounds were also often fitted with a hydrostatic fuse, which detonated when it came in contact with liquid. This was to ensure that the round did not merely explode on the target aircraft's skin (which would cause little damage), but instead penetrated it and exploded when it came into contact with fuel or coolant inside the fuel tanks or radiators respectively.

Construction
MK 108 firing operation cutaway schematic
MK 108 firing operation cutaway schematic

The cannon proved to be very effective and reliable, yet comparatively light, compact and easy to manufacture. These characteristics stem from its simple construction—80% of the weapon was made from stamped parts, and the number of moving parts was kept to a bare minimum using a simple blowback operation. However, the simple blowback operation had its disadvantages.

Otherwise, it was simple to manufacture and maintain, and its compact size and weight as well as its electrical priming made it ideal for aircraft installation. The cannon's distinctive heavy pounding sound and high rate of fire gave it the nickname "pneumatic hammer" amongst Allied aircrews, amongst whom the cannon gained a fearsome reputation due to its destructive power.

[edit] Disadvantages

Normally, gas-operated or delayed-blowback mechanisms are used in automatic weapons of rifle-calibre and larger because the chamber pressure in such weapons would be very high. Therefore, if a simple blowback system (where there is no positive lock between the bolt and barrel) is used, the bolt may recoil and open the breech while the chamber pressure is still high, causing damage to the weapon and split cases (see blowback article for more information). In the MK108, this problem was eliminated by simply reducing the muzzle velocity and shortening the barrel of the weapon to the point that, by the time the expanding gases from the fired round overcame the inertia of the heavy bolt and blew back the breech, the round had already left the weapon. This therefore allowed most of the gases to escape via the barrel, dropping the chamber pressure to a safe level. The heavy bolt then continued to move backwards into large buffer springs, which then pushed the bolt back into battery after a fresh round had been fed.

The low muzzle velocity needed for this simple operation became the MK 108's main shortcoming, with the result that its projectile trajectory dropped considerably after a comparatively short range. This made effective firing ranges short and aiming a challenge.

Ammo types Komet weapons: MK 108 cannon

MG 151 cannon

20mm

ROF 750 RPM

Muzzle velocity 2560 feet / sec

MG 151/20 specifications

Two versions of the 20 mm MG 151 were built: one with a percussion priming system and a second E-model with electrical priming. Some rounds were available with a timer self destruct and/or tracer (or glowtracer). There were also different types of High Explosive shell fillings with either standard PETN, a mixture called HA41 (RDX and aluminium), and a compressed version where more explosives were compressed into same space using large pressures (XM).

* Rifling: 1 turn in 23
* Round types:
o AP - round weight of 117 g.
o HE - round weight of 115 g. HE filler: 3.6 g
o HE(M) - Minengeschoß ("mine shell") - round weight of 92 g. HE filler: 18 g
o HE(XM) - round weight of 104g. HE filler: 25 g
o Incendiary, with either phosphorus and thermite filling.
o API (Armor piercing incendiary).


----------



## Hunter368 (Mar 28, 2007)

F4U-5 guns

20mm cannons

ROF 600-800 rds/min

Muzzle Vel 2750-2900 feet/sec



Here is a good link for more information on comparing:

WORLD WAR 2 FIGHTER GUN EFFECTIVENESS

Check it out, he does a way better than I could ever do.


----------



## Soren (Mar 28, 2007)

davparlr said:


> This seems strange. As said elseware, this would probably be indicated in the vehicle performance in other places. There is no indication in the report of this ill adjustment and the plane was said to be easy to fly. You would think something would indicate a problem like yaw correction. Do you have some supporting data?



Yes I have supporting data, I just need to find it on my hard-drive. There's a document discussin the problems with the ailerons and the effects it had during the tests. Premature stalling in turns was a real issue.



> Wing loading is thumbrule



For an engineer, maybe, for an aerodynamicist, no.



> and there are other variables, but it does support the flight test claims.



It supports nothing as its just simple calculated guesswork.

Check up on how much of an effect just wing AR has on the lift and drag produced by a wing.



> It cannot be dismissed either, especially if you have loads of power to drive it through the air, as the F4U-5 does.



Power ? What about actual thrust ?? 



> So it could be as good a dogfighter as the F4U-1?



Better.



> The F4U-4 in mil power has a climb rate of about 12.2 m/s at 8.8 km. Add a couple of hundred hp for WEP and a couple of hundred for the F4U-5 and I would suspect very similar or better performance at 8.8 km.



Davparlr, the F4U-4 isn't going to climb faster than 12.2 m/s at 8.8km (29,000 ft), at WEP it climbs at ca. 12.19 (2400 ft/min) at 8.8km (29,000 ft).


----------



## renrich (Mar 28, 2007)

I think there is a lot of common sense in the last three posts before this one. I don't think the 30 mm gun is a particularly big(or any at all) plus for ACM. As I recall our pilots in Korea and Viet Nam were not overly impressed with the 30 mms the Migs toted and I know the Japanese pilots were not much afraid of the 37 mm the P39 carried although it was impressive in the ground support role. There is an interesting table of performance on the MK 103 mounted in a gondola which apparently is a higher velocity version of the MK108 mounted in the TA. It showed how many rds from what distance with what certainty a 4 engined bomber could be brought down. For instance: from 500 meters, 40 rds would work 50% of the time, 76 rds, 95%. From 1000 m, 104 rds, 50%, 203rds, 95%.


----------



## renrich (Mar 28, 2007)

Hunter 368, The F4U5 did not carry 50 cal mgs but rather 4-20 mm cannon.


----------



## Hunter368 (Mar 28, 2007)

renrich said:


> Hunter 368, The F4U5 did not carry 50 cal mgs but rather 4-20 mm cannon.



Oh yeh oops my bad. I will fix.

Done, thanks


----------



## renrich (Mar 28, 2007)

My reference shows the TA with an initial rate of climb of 3445 ft/min combat power. The F4U5 initial rate of climb is 4230 f/m. I have graph in another source which shows the F4U4 taking around 8 min to climb to 26000 ft. The 5 should do at least as well.


----------



## renrich (Mar 28, 2007)

A note on the FW 190 although by the (famous or infamous) Eric Brown RN. Mind you, he called the FW the superb creation of Kurt Tank. "Stalling speed in clean configuration was 127 mph. The stall came suddenly and virtually without warning, the port wing dropping so violently that the airplane almost inverted itself. This proved to be the fighter's Achilles heel, for if it was pulled into a "g" stall in a tight turn, it would flick into the opposite bank and, unless the pilot had his wits about him, into an incipient spin." This was the A4 and sounds like what the Navy was reporting in the comparison between FW, Hellcat and Corsair.


----------



## davparlr (Mar 29, 2007)

Soren said:


> For an engineer, maybe, for an aerodynamicist, no.
> 
> It supports nothing as its just simple calculated guesswork.
> 
> Check up on how much of an effect just wing AR has on the lift and drag produced by a wing.



So, what you are saying here is that a Ta-152H fully loaded (high wing loading) will be just as agile as a Ta-152H with only a light load (low wing loading). I think an engineering equation for performance would include wing loading in some form. I am surprised that an aerodynamists equation would not. Aerodynamics is certainly amazing! 

Don’t you think that it is interesting to note that Tank did not use this magical wide wing on the Ta-152C. In fact, with some agreeably shaky measurements from pictures, it looks like the C has a similar aspect ratio as the Fw-190A. You don’t suppose he thought that it would be more efficient at lower altitudes, do you.



> Power ? What about actual thrust ??



Surely, you are not implying that thrust is not a function of power, are you?  Maybe that is one of those arcane aerodynamic concepts. I suspect that if I had an engine that produced 2400 hp (mil?) and you had an engine that produced 1400 hp (Sondernotlesitung) at a given altitude, I could figure out how to generate a significant more thrust than you could. That, by the way, is the hp difference between the F4U-5 and the Ta-152H at 25,000 ft.




> Better.



Let me follow your logic here. You have data that shows the Ta-152H is significantly more maneuverable than the Fw-190A (was it in trim?), and there is a report from the Navy saying the F4U-1 was “much more maneuverable” than the Fw-190A (and some significant out of tolerance condition not documented in the test report (which would probably be a court marshal offense)) and concluded the Ta-154H was more maneuverable than the F4U-5? 

Let’s see now:

A (Ta-152) > B (first Fw-190)
C (F4U-1) > D (second Fw-190)
B (first Fw-190) > D (second Fw-190) 

Therefore

A (Ta-152) > B (F4U-5)  

Must be some of that aerodynamic logic that is above engineering level.

I still have problem believing that an out of trim condition would not have been noticed and corrected by the flight test pilots. They reported the plane was very easy to fly and dogfight and speed recorded was similar to that officially given to the Fw-190A. For an experienced pilot the plane talks to him, an out of trim aircraft feels out of trim immediately, a test pilot would likely feel that like a professional voice coach picking up an out of tune note from a student.




> Davparlr, the F4U-4 isn't going to climb faster than 12.2 m/s at 8.8km (29,000 ft), at WEP it climbs at ca. 12.19 (2400 ft/min) at 8.8km (29,000 ft).



Ouch! You got me on that one. I misunderstood the chart. However, I am not willing to cede the rate of climb to the Ta-152H over the F4U-5 at this altitude. At 25,000 ft. the F4U-5 is generating about 550 more hp, uh, I mean, a lot more thrust , than the F4U-4. So it is reasonable that the F4U-5 could easily exceed the F4U-4 performance at 29,000, especially since it is design to be a higher altitude fighter. Equaling the Ta-152H climbing ability at this altitude is certainly within reason.


----------



## Civettone (Mar 30, 2007)

> Don’t you think that it is interesting to note that Tank did not use this magical wide wing on the Ta-152C. In fact, with some agreeably shaky measurements from pictures, it looks like the C has a similar aspect ratio as the Fw-190A. You don’t suppose he thought that it would be more efficient at lower altitudes, do you.


Interesting thought!

Kris


----------



## Scipio (Mar 30, 2007)

The question wasn't which piston engine performed better in combat, it was which is the best piston engine aircraft. For me its the F8F, P51H and the T-152 in that order


----------



## lesofprimus (Mar 31, 2007)

Yea, but combat experience is a plus in considering the choices...


----------



## Milos Sijacki (Mar 31, 2007)

These are all really great fighters especially Mustangs and Messerschmit, but what about Russian fighters like Lavochkins La-5,7 and Yak fighters??? These were also great fighters of the war outperforming all fighters in the skies, both Allied and German.


----------



## Soren (Mar 31, 2007)

Davparlr,

Power is good as it allows to withhold RPM's in maneuvers betters, but actual thrust is determined by the Engine + Prop. The Dora features another prop than the Anton, the Ta-152H features another prop than the Dora - the Ta-152's prop does infact produce approx. 70 kg more thrust than the Dora's. 

As to the effect of wing AR, well it goes for low as-well as high altitude. The reason you want a high AR wing for high alt a/c is that you need as efficient a wing as possible in terms of lift produced pr. amount of drag - this is in order to be able to maneuver well at very high altitudes.

And about wing-loading, well it doesn't matter unless your comparing two identical a/c at different weights, what matters is lift-loading and that is CL dependant.

And as to why the Ta-152C featured a smaller wing, well that was for purely one reason - Speed. The engine was different as-well (DB-603), giving different performance at altitude. Two different designs. 


You see the logic appears when you look abit closer.

Best regards


----------



## Civettone (Mar 31, 2007)

So was the Ta 152C better at low and medium altitudes than the Ta 152H? I know it was faster. Was it also better?

Kris


----------



## mkloby (Mar 31, 2007)

Soren said:


> Power is good as it allows to withhold RPM's in maneuvers betters, but actual thrust is determined by the Engine + Prop. The Dora features another prop than the Anton, the Ta-152H features another prop than the Dora - the Ta-152's prop does infact produce approx. 70 kg more thrust than the Dora's.



Sure, thrust is output of engine and propeller efficiency... Power is good for much more than holding RPM during maneuvers.

Generally speaking, for props:
Vy is going to be at utilization of max excess power. At L/D max
Vx is goingg to be at max thrust excess. AoA greater than L/D max


Obviously, the two are both contributors to the thrust generated by prop A/C. But there are so many factors going into the A/C design and performance, that single measurements never tell the whole story.


----------



## davparlr (Mar 31, 2007)

Soren said:


> Davparlr,
> 
> Power is good as it allows to withhold RPM's in maneuvers betters, but actual thrust is determined by the Engine + Prop. The Dora features another prop than the Anton, the Ta-152H features another prop than the Dora - the Ta-152's prop does infact produce approx. 70 kg more thrust than the Dora's.



There is no doubt prop efficiency is important to convert hp into thrust much as tire design converts auto engine hp into thrust. I don't have much argument here except hp is important. You can never generate a lot of thrust will little hp, no matter how good your prop is.



> And about wing-loading, well it doesn't matter unless your comparing two identical a/c at different weights, what matters is lift-loading and that is CL dependant.



I have trouble with this. CL is not the purpose of a wing. The purpose of a wing is to generate lift. Lift is inversely proportional to CL but proportional to wing area. The absolute lift advantages in CL in one wing can be offset by increases in wing area of another.

If you keep hammering me on the aerodynamic stuff, I will have to go dig up my old aero and aerothermopropulsion books. Then, watch out, I will be a expert in how many and what gage of bracing wires are required to pull 3 "gs" without losing the upper wing or how much castor oil you have to wipe off your goggles if you run a 80hp gnome rotary engine for 45 minutes. 



> And as to why the Ta-152C featured a smaller wing, well that was for purely one reason - Speed. The engine was different as-well (DB-603), giving different performance at altitude. Two different designs.



Yes. The Ta-152 suffers from speed at lower altitude when compared to the planes such as P-51H, F4U-5, Tempest II, and even slower than the P-51D below 15k. If you were driving on the freeway (autobahn) at 70 mph (113 km/hr), then a car zipped by at 103 mph (165 km/hr), that would be an F4U-5 passing your Ta-152 at SL, then a car zoomed by at 110 mph (177 km/hr),that was P-51H, and finally one flashed by at 116 mph (187 km/hr), that was a Tempest II. Of course the engine is a big factor.




> You see the logic appears when you look abit closer.
> 
> Best regards






> A (Ta-152) > B (first Fw-190)
> C (F4U-1) > D (second Fw-190)
> B (first Fw-190) > D (second Fw-190)
> 
> ...



Oops, You caught me on another error . I screwed up on the flow, the last line should read 

A (Ta-152)> C (F4U-5)

So lets see. Say, A=5, B=3, C=7, and D=2

we have:

5>3 So far so good
7>2 Looking good
3>2 We're on a roll
Therefore:
5>7 Uh Oh. Logic doesn't hold.


----------



## Soren (Apr 2, 2007)

Davparlr,

This doesn't happen often with you but I'm going to have to ask you what exactly you're talking about ?

Wing area is no more important than CL. A large wing with a low CL can easily be matched by a smaller wing with a higher CL. And as it is a higher AR increases CL while Cd0 is lowered, this is good for instantanous maneurvers but since it also gives a higher L/D ratio it proves important in sustained maneuvers as-well. 

As to Horsepower, well more is always good, however the engine has also got to be efficient for its volume - and nomatter the engine if the design of your a/c isn't clean to begin with.

As to the Ta-152H vs F4U-5, well considering the Ta-152H is more maneuverable and most likely climbs faster plus is only slower on the deck, I see it as quite superior to the F4U-5 - esp. considering the fights in the ETO weren't as often carried out on the deck.

PS: 

Ta-152H-1 SL speed = 597 km/h (374 mph)
Ta-152C-1 SL speed = 617 km/h (386 mph)

This isn't slow compared to the F4U-4 or -5..


----------



## Hop (Apr 2, 2007)

> A large wing with a low CL can easily be matched by a smaller wing with a higher CL.



It can match the lift, but at the expense of a lot more drag. 

The coefficient of induced drag: 

Cdi = (Cl^2) / (pi * AR * e)

The higher the wingloading, the higher the CL you have to pull to maintain the same turn. The higher the CL, the higher the drag (note how CL is squared in the equation)



> The reason you want a high AR wing for high alt a/c is that you need as efficient a wing as possible in terms of lift produced pr. amount of drag - this is in order to be able to maneuver well at very high altitudes.



Which is also why you want as low a wingloading as possible.


----------



## davparlr (Apr 2, 2007)

Soren said:


> Davparlr,
> 
> This doesn't happen often with you but I'm going to have to ask you what exactly you're talking about ?


Actually, I keep asking myself that quite often. After pondering my thought process a bit, I think I figured it out. We were discussing wing loading verses CL and I think my mind started jumping around. Now, let me try this and see if it makes any better sense. Wing loading determines how much force each square foot of wing must provide. If a plane is twice as heavy as another with the same wing area, each square foot must generate twice the lift at a given load, like flying level or at a given turn rate. Now the F4U-5 has 25% more wing area than the Ta-152H (314 sqft vs. 251). If the wing loading was the same, then the efficiency of the Ta-152H wing would be superior (each square foot lifting the same load with a more efficient wing). However, this is not the case. Each square foot of wing area on the F4U-5 does not have to generate the lift that each square foot of the Ta-152H has to generate for a given load. The Ta-152H wing must be more efficient in order to provide the equivalent lift (lift is a function of wing area). This should be true given the AR of the two aircraft (we don’t know both CLs). What we don’t know is whether the efficiency of the Ta-152H wing is enough, not only to balance the wing area advantage of the F4U-5, but to exceed it in performance.

We do know that both the F4U and F6F, like the Fw-190, were noted for their maneuverability. Both Navy aircraft successfully fought an enemy whose aircraft were also noted for their maneuverability.




> Wing area is no more important than CL. A large wing with a low CL can easily be matched by a smaller wing with a higher CL. And as it is a higher AR increases CL while Cd0 is lowered, this is good for instantanous maneurvers but since it also gives a higher L/D ratio it proves important in sustained maneuvers as-well.



There is no doubt that high AR provides more lift at lower drag, hence its use in applications like the B-24 and B-29. However, even a lower AR wing can produce an equivalent lift if you are willing to accept the drag increase. You can accept a drag increase if you have the thrust to overcome the additional drag. I contend that the F4U-5 (and -4) had more than enough thrust, as compared to the Ta-154H, to overcome the additional drag generated by its lower AR.



> As to Horsepower, well more is always good, however the engine has also got to be efficient for its volume - and nomatter the engine if the design of your a/c isn't clean to begin with.



Hmmm, the radial used in the F4U was a pretty efficient engine, for a radial, and certainly was known for its power to weight ratio, which, with a sufficiency of fuel supplies, is more important. And, it is also known for its brute power. As for being clean, I’d say that the Ta-152H is cleaner as it goes about the same speed as the F4U-4 at SL but uses less power (neither compares well with the P-51B or D). Again, brute power can trump a lot of faults (e.g. F-4 Phantom). Remember, the fastest piston powered aircraft in the world is a radial powered aircraft.



> As to the Ta-152H vs F4U-5, well considering the Ta-152H is more maneuverable


 This cannot be stated as fact. It is quite possible that the F4U-5 is equal to or better than the Ta-154H in maneuverability below 30k


> and most likely climbs faster plus is only slower on the deck


since I don’t have the climb data for the F4U-5, I cannot agree or disagree. Also, the F4U-4 is faster, or equal to, the Ta-152H up to 25k. It is reasonable the assume the F4U-5, which is 30 mph faster at SL and 20mph faster at 30k than the F4U-4, is faster over this entire range from SL-25k, significantly, over both the F4U-4 and Ta-152H


> , I see it as quite superior to the F4U-5 - esp. considering the fights in the ETO weren't as often carried out on the deck.


 This is thread is for the greatest fighter ever. Since I am sure that, by far, most combat in WWII occurred below 25k feet, this area must be weighed heavily.


> PS:
> 
> Ta-152H-1 SL speed = 597 km/h (374 mph)
> Ta-152C-1 SL speed = 617 km/h (386 mph)
> ...



The 30 mph advantage the F4U-5 has over the Ta-152H at SL and probably up through 30k is significant. Remember the 70 mph cruise down the freeway and being passed by someone going 100. You would probably say, “that guy’s going fast!”


----------



## Soren (Apr 3, 2007)

Hop said:


> It can match the lift, but at the expense of a lot more drag.
> 
> The coefficient of induced drag:
> 
> ...



Sorry Hop, but thats flawed thinking in a massive scale. 

Just like CL Cdi is a coefficient, which means it needs to be multiplied by A (Area), and since the smaller wing is, well.. smaller, the slightly higher Cdi doesn't mean anything - esp. not if the AR is higher.

So no Hop, its not a lower wing-loading you want, its a low lift-loading and a high L/D ratio.


----------



## Soren (Apr 3, 2007)

davparlr said:


> Actually, I keep asking myself that quite often. After pondering my thought process a bit, I think I figured it out. We were discussing wing loading verses CL and I think my mind started jumping around. Now, let me try this and see if it makes any better sense. Wing loading determines how much force each square foot of wing must provide. If a plane is twice as heavy as another with the same wing area, each square foot must generate twice the lift at a given load, like flying level or at a given turn rate. Now the F4U-5 has 25% more wing area than the Ta-152H (314 sqft vs. 251). If the wing loading was the same, then the efficiency of the Ta-152H wing would be superior (each square foot lifting the same load with a more efficient wing). However, this is not the case. Each square foot of wing area on the F4U-5 does not have to generate the lift that each square foot of the Ta-152H has to generate for a given load. The Ta-152H wing must be more efficient in order to provide the equivalent lift (lift is a function of wing area). This should be true given the AR of the two aircraft (we don’t know both CLs). What we don’t know is whether the efficiency of the Ta-152H wing is enough, not only to balance the wing area advantage of the F4U-5, but to exceed it in performance.



Considering the climb rate advantage at all alts and the much shorter take-off run I'd say that its quite clear that the Ta-152H's wing more than made up for the smaller wing area. 



> We do know that both the F4U and F6F, like the Fw-190, were noted for their maneuverability. Both Navy aircraft successfully fought an enemy whose aircraft were also noted for their maneuverability.



Tactics tactics tactics. 



> There is no doubt that high AR provides more lift at lower drag, hence its use in applications like the B-24 and B-29. However, even a lower AR wing can produce an equivalent lift if you are willing to accept the drag increase. You can accept a drag increase if you have the thrust to overcome the additional drag. I contend that the F4U-5 (and -4) had more than enough thrust, as compared to the Ta-154H, to overcome the additional drag generated by its lower AR.



I'm not talking in a straight line Davparlr, I'm talking in a turn where drag increases violently for the a/c with lowest wing efficiency.




> Hmmm, the radial used in the F4U was a pretty efficient engine, for a radial, and certainly was known for its power to weight ratio, which, with a sufficiency of fuel supplies, is more important. And, it is also known for its brute power.



But in terms of power vs volume ? 



> As for being clean, I’d say that the Ta-152H is cleaner as it goes about the same speed as the F4U-4 at SL but uses less power (neither compares well with the P-51B or D). Again, brute power can trump a lot of faults (e.g. F-4 Phantom). Remember, the fastest piston powered aircraft in the world is a radial powered aircraft.



Don't be fooled by different speed figures at different power levels, the P-51 for example benefitted from an extra 300 HP worth of thrust generated by its radiator - which means its top speed is in effect a product of ~2,100 HP.



> This cannot be stated as fact. It is quite possible that the F4U-5 is equal to or better than the Ta-154H in maneuverability below 30k



No it is not, and there are plenty of clear indications of this. 



> since I don’t have the climb data for the F4U-5, I cannot agree or disagree.



Would you reckon the F4U-5 climbed better than the F4U-4 ?



> Also, the F4U-4 is faster, or equal to, the Ta-152H up to 25k.
> It is reasonable the assume the F4U-5, which is 30 mph faster at SL and 20mph faster at 30k than the F4U-4, is faster over this entire range from SL-25k, significantly, over both the F4U-4 and Ta-152H This is thread is for the greatest fighter ever. Since I am sure that, by far, most combat in WWII occurred below 25k feet, this area must be weighed heavily.
> 
> The 30 mph advantage the F4U-5 has over the Ta-152H at SL and probably up through 30k is significant. Remember the 70 mph cruise down the freeway and being passed by someone going 100. You would probably say, “that guy’s going fast!”




If the F4U-5 is 30 mph faster at SL than the F4U-4 then yes that is pretty significant.


----------



## davparlr (Apr 3, 2007)

Soren said:


> Considering the climb rate advantage at all alts and the much shorter take-off run I'd say that its quite clear that the Ta-152H's wing more than made up for the smaller wing area.
> 
> 
> 
> ...



Some good points, I'll have to get back to you in week. We are off to Ohio to visit my daughter and son-in-law. It will be in the 70s here (L.A.) but in the 40s there!


----------



## des (Apr 3, 2007)

I recken tha the spitfire is the best because it has the most guns, excuse me if i am wrong.


----------



## Soundbreaker Welch? (Apr 3, 2007)

Yeah, the Spit could of held it's own with the Ta 152 at low altitudes at least.


----------



## lesofprimus (Apr 3, 2007)

> I recken tha the spitfire is the best because it has the most guns, excuse me if i am wrong.


Oh Jesus, not another P-38 or Ohka...


----------



## Matt308 (Apr 3, 2007)

That's how they learn. Keep it comin' Des.


----------



## mkloby (Apr 4, 2007)

Matt308 said:


> That's how they learn. Keep it comin' Des.


----------



## bigZ (Apr 4, 2007)

What was the performance differnence with the Jumo EB installed on the 152H?


----------



## renrich (Apr 4, 2007)

In the comparison of the F6F3 and F4U1 against the FW190A4 it was found that the FW could not turn as well as either Navy fighter. The TA152c can't have as good a roll rate as the FW190."The Great Book of WW2 Airplanes" shows an initial rate of climb of 3445 ft/min of the TA and a Vmax of 465 mph at 29860 with MW 50. Same book shows the F4U5 initial rate of climb as 4230 ft/min and a Vmax of 462 mph at 31400 ft. The wing loading of each a/c is about the same-41 lb/sf.


----------



## Civettone (Apr 4, 2007)

The Fw 190 was never much of a turn fighter. It's however likely that the Ta 152 would have had a very good (sustained) turn rate. However, as you said, at the cost of the roll rate. Nothing rolled like a Fw 190 but this was no longer the case with the 152H.

When I would have to chose between roll rate or turn rate, I would chose the former. If I want turn rate, I'll get me a Zero.
Kris


----------



## FLYBOYJ (Apr 4, 2007)

Civettone said:


> When I would have to chose between roll rate or turn rate, I would chose the former. If I want turn rate, I'll get me a Zero.
> Kris


Just as long as you're keeping it under 300 mph.


----------



## renrich (Apr 5, 2007)

How about under 275 mph for the A6M. The comparison of the FW190A4 and the Navy planes showed the FW and F4U had about the same roll rate, both better than the F6F. The Corsair was noted for it's high roll rate and it got better with each model. Vought spent more than 700 flight test hours on perfecting the ailerons on the Corsair.


----------



## Soren (Apr 5, 2007)

Civettone said:


> The Fw 190 was never much of a turn fighter.



Yet a Jabo hang on to a Mustang Mk.III...


----------



## Soren (Apr 5, 2007)

renrich said:


> How about under 275 mph for the A6M. The comparison of the FW190A4 and the Navy planes showed the FW and F4U had about the same roll rate, both better than the F6F. The Corsair was noted for it's high roll rate and it got better with each model. Vought spent more than 700 flight test hours on perfecting the ailerons on the Corsair.



The F4U in the Navy test was fitted with boost ailerons.


----------



## renrich (Apr 6, 2007)

The following are admittedly subjective observations by a US Navy pilot after WW2 on flying a F4U4. This was after training in an F6F and serving in an F8F squadron. The pilot has an aeronautical engineering degree. When first flying it, "Considering what it had to offer a pilot would have to either be dead inside or in the wrong business not to appreciate that the airplane was a special kind of flying machine." "Acceleration(on takeoff) was somewhere between the Hellcat and the Bearcat-closer to the Bearcat but without the excitement and agility of that airplane. That may be an unfair comparison. The Corsair in the air was a jewel." " The Corsair was a stable airplane with reasonable not objectionable control forces. It had a comforting solid feel in cruise configuration, yet maneuver response was quick and relatively easy. It was not as quick as the Bearcat but in some ways it was more controllable. My subjective impression is of better "control harmony" in the Corsair than in either of the Grummans. That expression refers to a desirable state in which stability and control responses are similar about all three axes." He goes on to say that for the first time he became a consistently respectable gunner in the Corsair because of that control harmonization. All of this and during the attempt by the air force to say that carriers were no longer needed because the early jets were not capable of intercepting the intercontinental B36 at 40000 ft the Navy according to a story intercepted a B36 at 40000 feet with an F4U5.


----------



## Soundbreaker Welch? (Apr 9, 2007)

See? Those jets can hardly keep up with that baby!


----------



## Soren (Apr 9, 2007)

The jet pilots: _*Stalling !!!*_


----------



## renrich (Apr 9, 2007)

The jets are hardly stalling since they land at approx. 150 knots and besides which one is the handsomest.


----------



## lesofprimus (Apr 9, 2007)

The Corsair is...


----------



## Soren (Apr 10, 2007)

Running along side the Corsair is certainly not the most comfortable pace for the Jets - its rather uncomfortable as I've heard.


----------



## renrich (Apr 10, 2007)

Soren, Have Friend who flew the A6 when they evaluated it against the MIG21 during Viet Nam. The word was that the MIG would stall in a hard turn at anything less than 275 kts. When the Mig came up on the A6s six my friend went into a hard turn at 275 kts and slowing. They looked back and there was the MIG and over the radio they heard" tracking Atoll, Tracking Atoll, Tracking Guns , Tracking Guns." He said there was no maneuver they tried where they could shake the MIG and the only hope they had was to get down right on the deck, head for the carrier, scream for help, and hope the MIG ran out of fuel.


----------



## davparlr (Apr 11, 2007)

Soren said:


> Considering the climb rate advantage at all alts


Do you have data to support this. The F4U-4 has a SL climb of 4800 ft/min. Since you have stated that the Ta-152H can make 5000 ft/min (I don’t have charts that show this), I would say this is within the measuring error (or graph reading error). Also, some data I have found shows the F4U-4, with max power, climbing to 20,000 ft in 4.9 seconds, faster than the Dora at 5.8. The Dora beats the Ta-152H to 25k, 7.6 minutes to 8 for the Ta.



> and the much shorter take-off run I'd say that its quite clear that the Ta-152H's wing more than made up for the smaller wing area.



You don't want to challenge a Navy plane to a take-off run contest. The data I have for a Ta-152H take-off roll is 968 ft., while the F4U-4 has a take-off roll of 790 ft. at Mil power. So, it appears that the Ta-152H wing does not make up for the smaller wing area.




> Tactics tactics tactics.



Quite true, but not entirely. Like the Fw-190, these aircraft were noted for their maneuverability.





> I'm not talking in a straight line Davparlr, I'm talking in a turn where drag increases violently for the a/c with lowest wing efficiency.



Mmmm, I am not convinced that there is that much difference given that the F4U-5 wing is at a lower work load (lower alpha?) for a given maneuver. And there is that great excess power available to the F4U-5. It would take a one hellacious prop efficiency to make up for the up to a 1000 hp advantage (like about 60% more efficient?).




> But in terms of power vs volume ?



Do you mean power vs. frontal area? I am pretty sure the PW has a better power to volume over the Jumo if you include the cooling system, also better power to weight. I may be wrong, but I would be surprised. Frontal area is an issue, but the circular frontal radiator of the Jumo is certainly similar.




> Don't be fooled by different speed figures at different power levels, the P-51 for example benefitted from an extra 300 HP worth of thrust generated by its radiator - which means its top speed is in effect a product of ~2,100 HP.



Good point, I didn’t think about that. There are two ways I can address this. First, I could say that the P-51B is the most aerodynamically efficient fighter of the war, with a higher speed per engine horsepower generated. Or I could say that, considering the tested P-51B generated 1600 hp while making 386 mph at SL, add the extra 300 HP and you have 1900 hp and 386 mph, which is still about 10-15 mph faster than the Ta-152 with less hp, it is still the cleanest, just not as much.




> No it is not, and there are plenty of clear indications of this.



I don’t think anything is pretty clear here.




> Would you reckon the F4U-5 climbed better than the F4U-4 ?



At first I did. But now I think they are pretty equal. The F4U-5 has more power, about 200-300hp more, but weighs about 300 lbs more, so I think they are similar in climb. I have no supporting data on climb for the F4U-5.




> If the F4U-5 is 30 mph faster at SL than the F4U-4 then yes that is pretty significant.



The F4U-5 will do 403 mph at SL, vs. the F4U-4’s speed of 374 mph. At 30k, the F4U-5 is 20 mph faster, 462 to 442. I have no other speed data points for the F4U-5.


----------



## Soren (Apr 15, 2007)

Davparlr, your take-off data for F4U-4 are not valid in this discussing as they are 'on deck' figures - not paved or concrete runway figures. 

The take-off distance for the F4U-1 at 2,000 HP (Mil power) on a hard surface runway is 910 ft (277m) at 13,100 lbs and 1,870 ft (569m) to clear a 50 ft (15m) object. (Taken from the POH)

The Ta-152H's take-off distance of 295m (967 ft) and distance to clear a 20m (65.6 ft) object of 495m (1,624 ft) is at Start u. Notleistung (1,760 PS) from a concrete runway in Zero wind conditions.

As you can see the wing of the Ta-152H more than made up for its smaller size.

And as to the climb rate of the Ta-152H-1, well consider this; The 4,400 ft/min Dora-9 reaches 10km 2.5 min later than the Ta-152H-1 at full boost - and on top of this the Ta-152H has a much shorter take-off and landing roll.


----------



## davparlr (Apr 16, 2007)

Soren said:


> Davparlr, your take-off data for F4U-4 are not valid in this discussing as they are 'on deck' figures - not paved or concrete runway figures.



This is confusing. It does state on-deck numbers with calm wind. I don’t know what that means. Does it mean no over-the-deck wind, or is there some nominal aircraft carrier speed that is used, like 25 kts. As such, I will yield to your F4U-1 numbers.



> The take-off distance for the F4U-1 at 2,000 HP (Mil power) on a hard surface runway is 910 ft (277m) at 13,100 lbs and 1,870 ft (569m) to clear a 50 ft (15m) object. (Taken from the POH)
> 
> The Ta-152H's take-off distance of 295m (967 ft) and distance to clear a 20m (65.6 ft) object of 495m (1,624 ft) is at Start u. Notleistung (1,760 PS) from a concrete runway in Zero wind conditions.



Oh, no, no. I am not going to bite on this. You have noted that the takeoff weight of the F4U-1 as 13,100 lbs, or 4118 lbs above empty weight, but you failed to note the tested takeoff weight of the Ta-152H-0. According to the chart, the Ta-152H-0 had a takeoff weight of 4760 kg, or 10,494 lbs., or a paltry 1850 lbs over empty weight. In fact, the F4U-1 wings were lifting 2606 more lbs than the wings of the Ta-152H-0. As such, it still took off in a shorter distance than the Ta-152H, per you numbers, 910 ft. vs. 967 ft. And can you really argue that if you added 2606 lbs to the loaded weight of the Ta-152H wings, that they would still be able to beat the F4U-1 to 50 ft. Probably not since the Ta-152H would be over grossed by 2700 lbs! Or, could you say that if you knocked off 2606 lbs from the F4U-1, that it would beat the Ta-152H to 20 m.? There is a good chance that it could.

It is true that the F4U-1 has 240 more hp, but it is doing a heck of a lot more lifting. 



> As you can see the wing of the Ta-152H more than made up for its smaller size.



No, I can’t. I think that if you loaded up those small wings with the same weight that was being lifted by the F4U-1, even with an additional 240 horses, they would be struggling. Or, if you knocked 2606 lbs off the F4U wings (which is equavalent to more than half the bomb load of a B-17), it would be spry indeed.

I would say that pound for pound, the F4U-1 wings could generate much better lift than the Ta-152H wings, at least at takeoff conditions. This is also indicated by the more twice the load carrying capability of the F4U-1 with only 240 more hp. This load carrying capability is also an indication of how much stronger the airframe of the F4U-1 was over the Ta-152H. Now throw on an additional 100 horses for the -4 (mil) or 350 for the -5 (mil), and you can see what kind of aircraft the F4U series is capable of.



> And as to the climb rate of the Ta-152H-1, well consider this; The 4,400 ft/min Dora-9 reaches 10km 2.5 min later than the Ta-152H-1 at full boost - and on top of this the Ta-152H has a much shorter take-off and landing roll.



My data on the Dora-9 climb is confusing. I do have the numbers you show here. I have very little data on the Ta-152H climb.


----------



## davparlr (Apr 16, 2007)

Soren said:


> Davparlr, your take-off data for F4U-4 are not valid in this discussing as they are 'on deck' figures - not paved or concrete runway figures.



This is confusing. It does state on-deck numbers with calm wind. I don’t know what that means. Does it mean no over-the-deck wind, or is there some nominal aircraft carrier speed that is used, like 25 kts. As such, I will yield to your F4U-1 numbers.



> The take-off distance for the F4U-1 at 2,000 HP (Mil power) on a hard surface runway is 910 ft (277m) at 13,100 lbs and 1,870 ft (569m) to clear a 50 ft (15m) object. (Taken from the POH)
> 
> The Ta-152H's take-off distance of 295m (967 ft) and distance to clear a 20m (65.6 ft) object of 495m (1,624 ft) is at Start u. Notleistung (1,760 PS) from a concrete runway in Zero wind conditions.



Oh, no, no. I am not going to bite on this. You have noted that the takeoff weight of the F4U-1 as 13,100 lbs, or 4118 lbs above empty weight, but you failed to note the tested takeoff weight of the Ta-152H-0. According to the chart, the Ta-152H-0 had a takeoff weight of 4760 kg, or 10,494 lbs., or a paltry 1850 lbs over empty weight. In fact, the F4U-1 wings were lifting 2606 more lbs than the wings of the Ta-152H-0. As such, it still took off in a shorter distance than the Ta-152H, per you numbers, 910 ft. vs. 967 ft. And can you really argue that if you added 2606 lbs to the loaded weight of the Ta-152H wings, that they would still be able to beat the F4U-1 to 50 ft. Probably not, since the Ta-152H would be over grossed by 2700 lbs! Or, could you say that if you knocked off 2606 lbs from the F4U-1 (equivalent to dropping over half the bomb load of a B-17), that it would beat the Ta-152H to 20 m.? There is a good chance that it could.

It is true that the F4U-1 has 240 more hp, but it is doing a heck of a lot more lifting. 



> As you can see the wing of the Ta-152H more than made up for its smaller size.



No, I can’t. I think that if you loaded up those small wings with the same weight that was being lifted by the F4U-1, even with an additional 240 horses, they would be struggling.

I would say that pound for pound, the F4U-1 wings could generate much better lift than the Ta-152H wings, at least at takeoff conditions. This is also indicated by the more twice the load carrying capability of the F4U-1 with only 240 more hp. This load carrying capability is also an indication of how much stronger the airframe of the F4U-1 was over the Ta-152H. Now throw on an additional 100 horses for the -4 (mil) or 350 for the -5 (mil), and you can see what kind of aircraft performance the F4U series is capable of.



> And as to the climb rate of the Ta-152H-1, well consider this; The 4,400 ft/min Dora-9 reaches 10km 2.5 min later than the Ta-152H-1 at full boost - and on top of this the Ta-152H has a much shorter take-off and landing roll.



My data on the Dora-9 climb is confusing. I do have the numbers you show here. I have very little data on the Ta-152H climb.


----------



## Soren (Apr 16, 2007)

Davparlr, the majority of Ta-152H-1's in service didn't carry the extra fuel tanks designed for this model, and those who did carried the same fuel load as the H-0 - so the take-off distance stands, which btw would've been considerably shorter for the H-1 as it was cleared for 1,900 PS. 

HP makes alot of difference on the take-off roll, the wing having greater influence on the distance to clear a object whilst airborne. And clearing a 20m high object 74m before the F4U-1 clears a 15m high object with ~270 extra HP and lower wing-loading clearly indicates the superiority of the Ta-152H's wing - And a 2.5min better time to climb 10km than the clean 4,400 ft/min Dora-9 clearly demonstrates this fact.


----------



## davparlr (Apr 17, 2007)

Soren, I do not buy your argument. You said:



Soren said:


> Davparlr, the majority of Ta-152H-1's in service didn't carry the extra fuel tanks designed for this model, and those who did carried the same fuel load as the H-0 - so the take-off distance stands, which btw would've been considerably shorter for the H-1 as it was cleared for 1,900 PS. ]



Now, just add 2600 lbs to Ta-152H-1 and see what it does.



> HP makes alot of difference on the take-off roll, the wing having greater influence on the distance to clear a object whilst airborne.


As an old cargo jockey I can tell you that weight makes a lot of difference on an aircraft clearing an object on takeoff. You are totally disregarding the fact that the F4U-1 has a much greater load than the Ta-152H, and still has shorter takeoff distance and is not much behind the much lighter Ta-152H on clearing an obstacle. The F4U-1 has a 25% weight increase, but only a 16% power advantage.


> And clearing a 20m high object 74m before the F4U-1 clears a 15m high object with ~270 extra HP and lower wing-loading clearly indicates the superiority of the Ta-152H's wing


No. This is not true. The wing loading in this comparison was almost identical, 41.7 lbs/sqft for the F4U-1, and 41.8 for the Ta-15H. I do not believe the 16% hp advantage is enough to make up the 25% weight difference. The Ta wing is not performing that great.

If loaded to the same weight factor, I think the F4U-1 would "clearly" outperform the Ta-152H on takeoff and clearing either one of the noted objects.



> - And a 2.5min better time to climb 10km than the clean 4,400 ft/min Dora-9 clearly demonstrates this fact.


or, it could "clearly" demonstrate that the Ta-154H has a better wing loading than the Dora-9, 34.4 lb/sqft to 39.1 lb/sqft. empty.

Your concept of “clearly” is mysterious to me.

I don’t think any of your argument here is effective in showing that the Ta wing is much more efficient at lower level than other aircraft, and I suspect, has other drawbacks. And that is why Tank did not use it on the Ta-152C.


----------



## Soren (Apr 18, 2007)

For christ sake Davparlr, have you completely forgotten about wing area to weight and power ?! Wing area to weight is important as-well, and the F4U has a lot of it ! So much so that its wing-loading is lower than the Ta-152H's ! Hence why the Ta-152H's wing is more efficient, it allows the Ta-152H to take off and clear a 20m high object 74m before the F4U-1 can do it with ~270 more HP and a lower wing loading.

Is that so mysterious to you ??



> or, it could "clearly" demonstrate that the Ta-154H has a better wing loading than the Dora-9, 34.4 lb/sqft to 39.1 lb/sqft. empty.



So now power suddenly doesn't matter anymore ? I must admit you're hanging the ropes at this point davparlr...

Dora-9: 4,270 kg/2,100 PS = 2.03 kg/hp
Ta-152H: 4,760 kg/2,100 PS (Some docs say 2,050 PS) = 2.26 - 2.32 kg/hp

PS: Why use empty weights all the time ??


----------



## davparlr (Apr 20, 2007)

Soren said:


> For christ sake Davparlr, have you completely forgotten about wing area to weight and power ?! Wing area to weight is important as-well, and the F4U has a lot of it ! So much so that its wing-loading is lower than the Ta-152H's ! Hence why the Ta-152H's wing is more efficient, it allows the Ta-152H to take off and clear a 20m high object 74m before the F4U-1 can do it with ~270 more HP and a lower wing loading.


Come on Soren, I just addressed the wing loading issue. According to the test parameters, the Ta-152H weight was 4760 kg or 10494 lbs. The wing area is 251 sqft. giving a test wing loading of 41.8 lbs/sqft. Again according to your post, the F4U-1 weight was 13,100 lbs with a wing area of 314 sqft giving a test wingloading of 41.7 lb/sqft. So with a difference of .1 lbs/sqft I don’t think you can reasonably say the difference made any impact for this particular test

You still continue to ignore the fact that the F4U-1 was much more heavily laden, which substantially impact object-clearance performance (ask any of your pilot buddies), than the Ta-152H, therefore, this comparison is flawed.

If I was going to perform a comparative test between these two aircraft, I would want to normalize the variables. Since you can’t load the Ta to the level of the F4U, you would take an empty Ta-152H at 8626 lbs and load it up to the test weight of 10494 lbs. That would be a load weight of 1868 lbs. Now you would normalize the F4U. Its empty weight would be 8982 lbs, or 356 lbs more than the Ta. Add to that, the same load weight as the Ta, 1868 lbs, and the test weight F4U-1 should be 10850 lbs. Note that the should-be-test weight of F4U-1 is 2250 lbs less than the actual tested aircraft. This is now almost apples to apples, but not quite since the F4U-1 has more power. In my flight test, obviously the F4U-1 would take off quicker than the Ta-152 (it was able to do that with the added weight), and, since load weight is a major factor in clearing an obstacle, I would expect this to show significant improvement over the original test since it is now 21% lighter. Would it beat the Ta? Neither one of us knows that. However, I think it probably would, given it has more power. 

Also, if you added that 2250 lbs extra weight the real test F4U-1 carried to the Ta-152H (say, put on a 1000 kg bomb), I doubt very seriously that the Ta-152 could out climb the F4U-1 at takeoff nor do a better job of clearing obstacles.



> Is that so mysterious to you ??


It is mysterious to me that you can say this, 


> And clearing a 20m high object 74m before the F4U-1 clears a 15m high object with ~270 extra HP and lower wing-loading clearly indicates the superiority of the Ta-152H's wing -And a 2.5min better time to climb 10km than the clean 4,400 ft/min Dora-9 clearly demonstrates this fact.



when, one, the object-clearance comparison was to the F4U-1 which had 2250 extra unessential pounds on board and is therefore handicapped in object-clearance trials, and two, the Dora-9 has a higher wing loading. If you took a Dora-9 and replaced its wing with an identical wing, only larger, such that the wing loading now was equivalent to the Ta-152H, I am sure you would say that the climb performance would improve significantly. Who knows, it might have done as good as the Ta to 10km. If the Ta had the same wing loading as the Dora-9 and performed better, you could then *“clearly” *state that it was because of the efficiency of the Ta-152 wing efficiency. But you can’t when the wing loading is different and favors the Ta. You can’t state *“clearly”* with an uncontrolled variable.

It is amazing that you see things so clearly where no data exist. The Ta-152H never saw an F4U-4 or 5 in combat. We have very little data on climb rates on both and little data on the airspeed of the F4U-5 and no data available on maneuverability on either. What data we do know indicates that the F4U-5 is much more powerful and has as lower wing loading, that it also was 30 mph faster at sea level and probably even faster up to 25k ft since it has nearly 1000 hp advantage at that altitude. Yet you are able to see that the Ta-152H is “clearly” superior to the F4U-5 below 25k feet.



> So now power suddenly doesn't matter anymore ? I must admit you're hanging the ropes at this point davparlr...



This is a Strange statement since I am the one providing data and you are the one waving your arms.



> Dora-9: 4,270 kg/2,100 PS = 2.03 kg/hp
> Ta-152H: 4,760 kg/2,100 PS (Some docs say 2,050 PS) = 2.26 - 2.32 kg/hp


I see this point. The Ta has higher power loading (weight/hp) and is able to climb to 10 km faster than the Dora. However, the Dora is hindered by a higher wing loading. Now the question is; is the faster climb with less power due to the more efficient Ta wing, or because the Ta has a lower wing loading. We both know that it is a combination of the two. Neither one of us can tell how much each contributes, so the wing efficiency of the Ta-152 is not clearly demonstrated by this example.


> PS: Why use empty weights all the time ??



Typically only two or three weight variables are known for these aircraft, empty weight, gross weight and/or max weight. In my opinion, the most accurate weight for comparing performance and calculating load factors, such and wing loading and power loading, should be calculated using one of two methods. One method is equivalent performance weight, e.g. empty weight plus equivalent fuel weight, like fuel required operating at mil power for x minutes, and equivalent ammunition load. The second method is typical combat weight, e.g. empty weight plus probable fuel quantity at combat entry which consist of fuel for combat at equivalent times, fuel required to recovery, and equivalent ammunition. For example, a P-51D would use empty weight plus combat fuel required, fuel required for four hours return home, recovery, and ammunition. This would be compared to a Bf-109G, which would have combat fuel required, and fuel for 10 minute return to base, 10 min recovery, and ammunition. This would reflect a more realistic comparison of what happen in WWII.

The use of Gross or Max weights does not meet the criteria of either method. In fact, it punishes the aircraft that have good load lifting ability. This could cause a large error. An aircraft in fighter combat configuration could easily have better load factors over an opponent, yet calculate to a poorer load factors if gross/max weight is used. Since American aircraft typically have a much better load lifting ability than other allied or axis aircraft, this is a sore point with me! 

Since I don’t know most aircraft fuel capacities, or fuel consumption, and have no desire to do so (also, no one would agree), I wouldn’t use method two. But, since it can be assumed that fuel consumption is pretty comparable for WWII aircraft (e.g. fuel consumption for a P-51D in Mil power is probably comparable to that of the Bf-109G in Mil power) and ammunition weight is probably similar, empty weight is a quick, reasonable approximation of method one. If you add the same quantity of fuel to each aircraft and the same amount of ammunition to each aircraft, the ratio of weight of one aircraft to the other would not change in direction. For example, aircraft A has an empty weight of 6000 lbs, and a wing area of 250 sq ft, which would have a wing loading of 24 lb/sq ft. Aircraft B has a empty weight of 7000 lbs and a wing area of 250 sq ft, which gives a wing loading of 28 lbs/sqft. Aircraft B has a 17% greater wing loading than Aircraft A. If we add 1000 lbs of fuel and ammunition to each, then aircraft A weighs 7000 lbs and aircraft B weights 8000 lbs, then the wing loading of A is 28 lbs/sqft and of B is 32. Aircraft B has a 14% greater wing loading. While there is some error, both show aircraft A with a significant wing load advantage. Some aircraft, such as the P-38, which has two engines and would require additional fuel, would have to have an adjusted method. I could use a standard load weight and get better accuracy, but some would always disagree with my weight assumptions. Sorry for the novel. You shouldn't ask how my weird mind works.

Power IS important. So is wing loading. So is wing efficiency. But a magic wing does not automatically negate the other two. The F4U-5 is an aircraft with large lift-producing wings and a powerful engine to use those large wings to full advantage. I do not believe that the Ta-152 has a efficient enough wing, especially since it has to operate at a higher AOA due to is higher wing loading, to overcome that advantage until the altitude gets high enough for the engine hp and efficient wings to come into there own, that is, certainly above 25kft, and probably 30kft. Above that, it reigns supreme.

I believe we have arrived at our usual impasse.


----------



## Soren (Apr 21, 2007)

The reason I say the Ta-152H's wing is more efficient is not because it is my opinion that it is so, its because it is a fact that it is so - a higher AR increases the efficiency of a wing - hence why gliders use long slender wings.

Here's a scale that shows the difference in L/D ratio (Lift drag ratio) between an AR of 4 to an AR of 9:
*AR 4*




*AR 9*





And the funny thing is that this scale is actually valid for use in this comparison as the Ta-152H and F4U both use the same airfoil - the NACA 23000.

And as to the other effects of aspect ratio, well it just so happens that a lower AR wing needs a higher AoA in order to produce the same amount of lift as a higher AR wing - the high AR wing producing more lift pr. AoA.

And seeing that the Ta-152H at the same wing-loading is particularly faster to clear 50ft than the F4U-1 clearly demonstrates this difference in efficiency.


----------



## davparlr (Apr 21, 2007)

Soren said:


> The reason I say the Ta-152H's wing is more efficient is not because it is my opinion that it is so, its because it is a fact that it is so - a higher AR increases the efficiency of a wing - hence why gliders use long slender wings.
> 
> 
> And as to the other effects of aspect ratio, well it just so happens that a lower AR wing needs a higher AoA in order to produce the same amount of lift as a higher AR wing - the high AR wing producing more lift pr. AoA.
> ...




Actually, I agree with all you say. I have never argued the point that the low AR was not more efficient and I think you are right on the clearance of the obstacle. In fact, this is a good example of how a low AR wing performs better than a high AR. The two planes had similar wing loading but the Ta was able to climb quicker with less hp. That is what efficiencies are all about.

You are right that a low AR needs a lower AOA to generate equal lift, but I suspect that this is lift per square area (I'll have to research this a bit). The lower wingloading of the F4U-1 would help negate the AOA advantage of the lower AR.

We were not arguing wing efficiencies, but aircraft performance. My position was that the wingloading on the F4U-1 should not have been equal with the Ta and that it was overloaded for this comparison. Loaded to equavilent weights, the F4U-1, with much better wingloading (now with 34.6 lbs/sqft to 41.8 lbs/sqft) and more power would probably exceed the performance of the Ta-152H in these take-off runs. Maybe, if I get inspired, I could calculate some L/D numbers for these two aircraft at take off with these weights.

Futhermore, I think that the F4U-5, with much greater power than the -1, or Ta, at altitudes up to 25k+ ft, would outperform the Ta-152H in this arena.


----------



## Lucky13 (Apr 22, 2007)

What is the turning radius and roll rate for theTA 152H-1 at different altitudes? Compared to the P-51D and P-47M which I'm sureinto each other at a few occasions?


----------



## Soren (Apr 22, 2007)

Davparlr,

You got it wrong about the AoA needed for a low AR wing - a lower AR wing produces less lift pr. AoA than a high AR wing. Another effect of a higher AR is that the critical AoA is lowered - the increase in lift pr. AoA being much greater than that of a lower AR wing.


----------



## davparlr (Apr 22, 2007)

Soren said:


> Davparlr,
> 
> You got it wrong about the AoA needed for a low AR wing - a lower AR wing produces less lift pr. AoA than a high AR wing. Another effect of a higher AR is that the critical AoA is lowered - the increase in lift pr. AoA being much greater than that of a lower AR wing.




....processing....


----------



## davparlr (Apr 27, 2007)

Soren said:


> Davparlr,
> 
> You got it wrong about the AoA needed for a low AR wing - a lower AR wing produces less lift pr. AoA than a high AR wing. Another effect of a higher AR is that the critical AoA is lowered - the increase in lift pr. AoA being much greater than that of a lower AR wing.



Since I do not have any specific knowledge of how Cl curves react to various variables, I will defer to your expertise. However, I have been doing much (too much) research and calculating. Probably enough to get me into trouble. It is apparent from the formula and calculation that the lower induced drag advantage of the high aspect ratio wing quickly deteriorates with airspeed, specifically, the square of the equivalent airspeed. For instance, at sea level, with equivalent weights, empty weight plus equal loads (1854 lbs added, 10494 lbs total for the Ta-152, 10836 total for the F4U-1, and 11437 total for the F4U-5), I arrived at the following values for drag: 

Notes: 
1) Hp calculations may be inaccurate. Hp-to-thrust computations are arcane to me and give me a headache and available data provide several ways that had different philosophies and I picked one.
2) Elliptical wing efficiency factor (Oswald efficiency factor) is ignored. I could not get a good reference or calculation formula to generate a good number. This will favor the Ta-152H but I do not believe it will change much scope.
3) Calculation errors are possible, maybe probable. 
4) I cannot do a parasite drag comparison since all the data on the F4U-1,4, and 5, is at greater gross weight. I suspect the Ta-152H is cleaner since the SL speed is higher than the F4U-1 with less horsepower, but the F4U-1 is carrying more than equivalent weight. I could probably make some calculations, but I don’t want to right now. 
5) Airspeeds are TAS. Calculations were done with EAS. 

Case 1. Wings level, non-accelerating flight (W=L, T=D). All values are induced drag numbers. Parasitic drag is not included.

At 150 mph, induced drag on the Ta-152 = 269 lbs, on the F4U-1 = 383, or 114 lbs different. Not much different. However, at 300 mph, the drag of the Ta – 152 = 68 lbs, the F4U-1 = 96, or 28 lbs different. The advantage of the high aspect wing is significantly reduced.

Case 2. Now let’s go into a 60 degree level turn, pulling 2gs.

At 150 mph, Ta-152 = 1080 lbs, F4U-1 = 1532 lbs, or 452 lbs difference, a more significant difference due to the advantage of the high aspect wing (and greater gross weight of the F4U-1). Again, at 300 mph, Ta-152 = 271 lbs, F4U-1 = 385, or 114 lbs difference. Induced drag difference is again significantly reduced.

As can be seen here, far less additional thrust is required by the F4U-1 to maintain performance at high speed than at low speed. In addition, because of increased form area, parasitic drag could increase with a high aspect ratio wing. This would increase with the square of the airspeed.

Case 3. Now if we change the situation where the Ta-152H meets an F4U-5 at 25,000 ft and 449 mph TAS, which is a bit unfair since this is the top speed of the Ta-152H at this altitude, but it will show what is intended. 
At wings level, level flight, induced drag of the Ta-152H = 68 lbs, the F4U-5 = 107lbs, or 39 lbs. difference (its about 1000 lbs heavier).

At 60 degree bank (2gs), the induce drag of the Ta-152H = 271 lbs, the F4U-5 = 430 lbs. (the increased F4U-5 weight adds significant induced drag (by the square)), or 159 lbs difference. 

However, since the Ta-152H is at max speed, it will quickly lose airspeed and/or altitude. The F4U-5, with 950 shaft hp extra, which would be about 760 thrust hp with a .8 prop/gear efficiency, can easily make up the additional drag load. 760 thrust hp generates about 630 lbs thrust at 449 TAS. This excess energy advantage exists from sea level up to 30k ft. The F4U-5 can pull more gs while maintaining level flight and speed. Energy management is important in air combat and the having an aircraft with inherent energy advantage makes that management much easier. As with fighting the Zero, the F4U-5 pilots would be briefed to not engage the Ta-152H in a very low speed turning fight but to keep your speed up and engage below 30k ft. In those conditions the F4U-5 would be faster, have more energy surplus, pull higher gs without losing airspeed, and dive faster. The Ta-152H pilot would be briefed to try to engage a low airspeed and high altitude; otherwise it would be at a disadvantage across the board. 

The high aspect ratio wing is great for high altitude flight or at low indicated airspeeds where low equivalent airspeed operation is common, but at low altitudes and high airspeed (high q), its advantage of induced drag to lift is reduced by the square, and any parasite drag is increased by the square, probably more than offsetting any advantage from the airfoil. I believe that this is why you never see a high aspect wing on a fighter, except, of course, a high altitude fighter like the Ta-152H.


----------



## Lucky13 (Apr 27, 2007)

Don't you guys get a headache of all this yibbi yabba??


----------



## davparlr (Apr 27, 2007)

Lucky13 said:


> Don't you guys get a headache of all this yibbi yabba??




Yep! But it does help understand how these warbirds operate and what forces affect their performance. I have learned alot from my discussions with Soren and others. It inspires me to learn more, and that is what education is all about. I know how you feel when I read all of the ballistic info, but it is still informative and important.


----------



## Lucky13 (Apr 27, 2007)

Sure is my good man. Just getting back in modelling again and I have to say that doing the research is JUST as FUN as the building itself will be.... 
This is a great forum to learn at and great people to learn from.


----------



## davparlr (Apr 27, 2007)

Lucky13 said:


> Sure is my good man. Just getting back in modelling again and I have to say that doing the research is JUST as FUN as the building itself will be....
> This is a great forum to learn at and great people to learn from.



I continue to be amazed at the information these people have about everything associated with warbirds.


----------



## Lucky13 (Apr 27, 2007)

Or anything else.... I  them.....


----------



## Soren (Apr 27, 2007)

Davparlr,

Calculating lift and drag is done properly like this:

*Lift*
Coefficient of lift (CL): Cl = L / (A * .5 * r * V^2) or simply Cl = L / (q * A) 
Total Lift (L): L = Cl * A * .5 * r * V^2 

*Drag*
Coefficient of induced drag (Cdi): Cdi = (Cl^2) / (pi * AR * e) 
Coefficient of Drag (Cd): Cd = D / (A * .5 * r * V^2) or simply Cd = Cdo + Cdi 
Total Drag (D): D = Cd * A * .5 * r * V^2 

Using the above equations I can't see how you ever came up with your conclusions Davparlr.

Anyway I'll get back to you on this in detail later, so I'll just address a few things for now..

No, the reason high AR wings are not used on todays fighters isn't for the reasons you claim - its pretty much purely for structural integrity reasons.

As to weight, well weight has an absolute minimal effect on speed, so your explanation that the Ta-152H is faster because its lighter is absurd at best.


----------



## Lucky13 (Apr 27, 2007)

And the headache gets worse......


----------



## davparlr (Apr 29, 2007)

Soren said:


> Davparlr,
> 
> Calculating lift and drag is done properly like this:
> 
> ...


At level flight, L=W, so, using your equation, Cl=W/(A*.5*r* V^2)

Putting this into your induced drag equation and doing a bit of algebra, we get

Cdi = W^2/.25*r^2*V^4*A^2*pi*AR*e, so,

Di=W^2/(.5*R*V^2*A*pi*AR*e) since AR=b ^2/A

Which further gives us Di=(2*W^2)/(R*e*pi*V^2*b*b) 

All done properly, see also, 

Calculating and Plotting Induced Drag


Now let’s step through a couple of samples: 

Say Ta 152 at 150 mph (220 ft/sec), level flight, weight of 10494 lbs, wing span of 47.3 ft., R=.0023769,

Di=(2*10494*10494)/(.0023769*3.1417*220*220*47.3*47.3) gives 272 lbs (I showed 269 since I used 221 for airspeed.

Now if we go the 300 mph (440 ft/sec) we get 68 lbs, which is what I got before.

For a 60 bank level turn, just double the weight. 

I think that if you look at the rest of my data, it will be correct. Well, maybe not horsepower, I used Thrust HP = (Thrust (lbs) x TAS(kts))/325.658




> *Drag*
> Coefficient of induced drag (Cdi): Cdi = (Cl^2) / (pi * AR * e)
> Coefficient of Drag (Cd): Cd = D / (A * .5 * r * V^2) or simply Cd = Cdo + Cdi
> Total Drag (D): D = Cd * A * .5 * r * V^2
> ...



Remember we were talking about how good a high aspect wing is and since we are talking about wing efficiencies, Induced drag is the player. 

Just looking at the formula for induced drag, one can see that it will decrease with velocity. All wings behave this way such that, at high speeds the delta in drag between any two wings is reduced significantly. See attached plot.



> Anyway I'll get back to you on this in detail later, so I'll just address a few things for now..
> 
> No, the reason high AR wings are not used on todays fighters isn't for the reasons you claim - its pretty much purely for structural integrity reasons.



They didn’t use it in WWII either, except on bombers and other high altitude aircraft.



> As to weight, well weight has an absolute minimal effect on speed, so your explanation that the Ta-152H is faster because its lighter is absurd at best.



All I said was “I cannot do a parasite drag comparison since all the data on the F4U-1,4, and 5, is at greater gross weight. I suspect the Ta-152H is cleaner since the SL speed is higher than the F4U-1 with less horsepower, but the F4U-1 is carrying more than equivalent weight. I could probably make some calculations, but I don’t want to right now.”

I was saying was that I didn’t know.

I agree that at the speeds we are talking about, induced drag is insignificant compared to parasite drag and the impact on top speed is negligible also. However, at very high altitudes with low equivalent airspeeds, where induced drag is making up a large part of drag, airspeed impact can be significant.

My main point is that, at high airspeeds, the advantages of the high aspect wing is significantly reduced because of the reduced differences in induced drag, therefore L/Di curves of any two airfoils gets closer. Do you disagree with this statement?


----------



## Soren (Apr 29, 2007)

Lets do the calculations:´

Everything else being equal we'll assume a CLmax of around 1.4 for both a/c, however CLmax is going to increase slightly with AR. As to 'e' (Oswald efficiency factor, well the Ta-152H's should be higher for obvious reasons, the F4U featuring a gull wing.

*The basic figures*

Ta-152H CLmax: 1.45 (This is a low educated guess, it might be higher)
Ta-152H 'e': 0.8
F4U-4 CLmax: 1.40
F4U-4 'e': 0.77 

Cd0 is unknown for both a/c so therefore total drag will be represented by the Cdi.

Height: Sea Level
Temperature: 15 C
Pressure: 101325 Pascals
Atmosphere: 1.164 Kg/m^3
Speed of sound: 349 m/s

Speed is going to be a high 600 km/h, the absolute for both a/c at SL.

*Ta-152H-1 Aerodynamics at SL*

Lift: 

L = 1.45*23.3*.5*1.164*600^2 = 7078633.2

Drag:

Cdi = (1.45^2)/(pi*8.94*.80) = 0.0935747393
Cd0 = -Unknown-

D = 0.0935747393*23.3*.5*1.164*600^2 = 456 814.66

L/D ratio = 15.49

*F4U-4 Aerodynamics at SL:*

Lift

L = 1.4*29.17*.5*1.164*600^2 = 8556377.76

Drag:

Cdi = (1.4^2)/(pi*5.35*0.77) = 0.151447355
Cd0 = -Unknown-

D = 0.151447355*29.17*.5*1.164*600^2 = 925600.557

L/D ratio: 9.24

___________________________________________

Ta-152H L/D = 15.49
F4U-4 L/D = 9.24

Thats an extra 59% of lift for the Ta-152H for every unit of drag.

As to why high AR wings hasn't been used much on fighters in time, again its almost purely for structural integrity reasons.


----------



## Lucky13 (Apr 29, 2007)

....and he's off to the pharmacy to get a few boxes of painkillers....
How was the Mustangs wing load and power/mass compared to the Ta 152H-1?

Ta 152H-1
Wing loading: 202 kg/m² (41.4 lb/ft²) 
Power/mass: 0.276 kW/kg (0.167 hp/lb)

Found it....P-51D Mustang
Wing loading: 192 kg/m² (39 lb/ft²) 
Power/mass: 300 W/kg (0.18 hp/lb)

How do you figure out the turning and the roll rate of these machines?


----------



## Soren (Apr 29, 2007)

The weight of the P-51D is 4585 kg, and the wing area is 21.64 m^2 = a wing-loading of 211.8 kg/m^2. The P-51 also uses a laminar flow wing which is characterized by its low drag and low lift, and it also causes sudden, early and violent stalls in turns.


----------



## Lucky13 (May 1, 2007)

Gentlemen,

I take it that you have seen this website?
WWII Aircraft Performance
FW 190 D-9 Flight Trials


----------



## Soren (May 1, 2007)

That is a good site for Allied a/c performance, but most definitely not for German fighter performance - make your own conclusions from what you see on the site, don't base it on what is said on the site.


----------



## davparlr (May 1, 2007)

Soren said:


> Lets do the calculations:´
> 
> Everything else being equal we'll assume a CLmax of around 1.4 for both a/c, however CLmax is going to increase slightly with AR. As to 'e' (Oswald efficiency factor, well the Ta-152H's should be higher for obvious reasons, the F4U featuring a gull wing.
> 
> ...



Soren, I performed some spot calculations on the values you used, although converted to English units, and, sure enough, I found them to be in proper order. I also found them to be technically correct and interesting and, …… operationally worthless. The comparison you made between the Ta-152H and the F4U-4 was at SL, with an airspeed of 373 mph (600 km/hr), the aircraft were at Clmax, which I believe is between 15 and 18 degrees of angle of attack. At that speed and angle of attack, the lift, as you show, is very great. In fact, according to my calculations, the aircraft would be pulling between 12 and 14 gs! This is a situation that could not safely exist. Aircraft performance in an unrealistic environment is something pilots care little about.

Now, once we get beyond the theoretical aerodynamics, let’s look at the real world aerodynamics, first, all the arguments I have already made are still valid. Second, at SL, straight and level, at 373 mph, the Ta-152H is creating about 56 lbs of induced drag and the F4U-5 is creating about 92 lbs. If the Ta-152H rolls into a level 60 degree bank, the induced drag will increase by about 168 lbs. The F4U-5’s induce drag will increase by about 275 lbs. The Ta-152, which is at max airspeed at that altitude, has no excess thrust available. It will lose airspeed. However, the F4U-5 has about 469 lbs of thrust in excess of the Ta-152 (based on 710 shaft hp advantage the F4U-5 has). The F4U-5 will actually be able to either accelerate or it could maintain airspeed and pull more gs. This is the same energy advantage that will last up to the 25-30k I have discussed before. This is something a pilot does care about.

The formula I used is a contraction of the ones you have used. 

W=L in level flight 

Di=2*W^2/(pi*rho*e*V^2*b^2) where b is span.

I used your e values.




> As to why high AR wings hasn't been used much on fighters in time, again its almost purely for structural integrity reasons.



I am sure Tank took into consideration the reduction in induced drag as compared to the increase of parasitic drag of the high aspect wing when he considered the configuration of the Ta-152C.


----------



## Hunter368 (May 1, 2007)

Does anyone else feel dumb on this thread or is it just me?

I feel like I am back in high school math class again.


 


MATT!!!! Where the hell are you man? Can you tell what the hell these two are saying? I think its damn Chinese!


 


Where the hell are my Tylenol 3? My head hurts all these numbers and big words.


Is there any naked girlie pictures soon? I am bored.


----------



## davparlr (May 2, 2007)

Hunter368 said:


> Does anyone else feel dumb on this thread or is it just me?
> 
> I feel like I am back in high school math class again.
> 
> ...



Sorry for the techno-babble. Unfortunately when comparing aircraft that have long past its prime and with few remaining, many not flyable, all we have to compare is the performance numbers and that only gives a feel for what the aircraft is capable of. Only the real pilots in real combat can tell you what each plane is capable of and they tend to be prejudice for the aircraft that brought them through the war.

Both of these aircraft are powerful and capable aircraft and represent the final configuration of the piston powered warbirds. Both were generally similar in air-to-air performance over most of the air warfare envelope and were superior in other areas, with the Ta-152H being an outstanding high altitude fighter and the F4U being an outstanding air-to-ground fighter.

Anyway, this has given me a headache too. Too many old dusty brain cells had to be reactivated and they weren't happy about that.


----------



## Lucky13 (May 2, 2007)

Let's send them up in a P-51D and a Ta 152H-1 for some mock dogfights and solve it that way....


----------



## davparlr (May 2, 2007)

Lucky13 said:


> Let's send them up in a P-51D and a Ta 152H-1 for some mock dogfights and solve it that way....



Well, there are a few P-51Ds around, but you might have a problem finding a TA-152H-1. Besides, the P-51D would probably have difficulties.


----------



## Soren (May 2, 2007)

Davparlr,

The reason I made a Clmax comparison at 600 km/h was to show you that the difference in induced drag is still large at high speed. 

The difference between the Ta-152H-1 and the F4U-4 is that the Ta-152H-1 is a dedicated air-superiority fighter/interceptor while the F4U-4 is a multirole fighter-bomber. The Ta-152H has the advantage in speed, climb and maneuverability, however it can't be used in as many roles or carry anywhere near as much equipment as the F4U-4.

The F4U-4 is one of the best multi-role fighters of WW2, with only the FW-190 as a close rival - both are maneuverable, fast, good climbers and can carry an awesome array of weapons.

As to the Ta-152C-1, well this was designed and built for two things only - speed and endurance. However the shortcomings of the design were certainly not something Tank was unaware of, hence why the Ta-152H got absolute priority.


----------



## davparlr (May 2, 2007)

Soren said:


> Davparlr,
> 
> The reason I made a Clmax comparison at 600 km/h was to show you that the difference in induced drag is still large at high speed.
> 
> ...




I won't argue your conclusion about the F4U-4. I do think the F4U-5 is another story. Also, I understand your point in your example, but I think it misrepresents the performance of induced drag vs lift. I made an Excel chart showing induced drag vs. airspeed in ft/sec at level flight for the Ta-152, F4U-1, and F4U-5. Unfortunately I did not know how to import it into this site. It shows that, at low airspeeds, i.e. high alpha, there is a large difference in drag favoring the Ta-152, but as the airspeed increases, alpha lowers, all curves converge on zero and the differences of the drag becomes quite low. Since, due to g limitation of the pilot, all high speed maneuvering is done at relatively small alpha levels well below Clmax, the excess power of the F4U-5 pretty well negates the L/D advantage of the Ta-152H. My data indicates that, if the Ta-154H pulls more than 4 gs, it starts to equal the energy advantage of the F4U-5 at SL. More gs, and it gets an advantage, all the way up to the 12 or 14 gs that generate Clmax (although neither aircraft could do this). At high altitude, the Ta-152H has no WWII, or any piston powered fighter, equal. 

All in all, I doubt that experienced pilots in both planes would not hesitate to take his aircraft against the other, and it would be quite a tussle with the most proficient pilot being the winner, but, I think, at lower levels and higher speeds, the F4U-5 pilot would have a slight advantage in tools, e.g., energy management. At higher altitudes and slower airspeeds, the advantage would swap. It would have been a site to see.


----------



## Soren (May 3, 2007)

What its about at SL when the speed increases is structural integrity and pilot endurance, cause the Ta-152H can easily pull a tighter turn at any speed, however with an increase in speed an increase in G follows, and in this area and in this era the pilot is the weak point.


----------



## davparlr (May 3, 2007)

Soren said:


> What its about at SL when the speed increases is structural integrity and pilot endurance, cause the Ta-152H can easily pull a tighter turn at any speed, however with an increase in speed an increase in G follows, and in this area and in this era the pilot is the weak point.



I agree. If the Ta and F4U were stressed to 12 gs, not unreasonable, and they were remote controlled, the F4U could never generate the excess power needed to stay with the Ta, and would have trouble from 4 to 5gs. The pilot is the limiting factor. But that is the envelope they are forced to play in. As altitude goes up, alpha required per g also increases, which moves the Ta into more favorable environment by being closer to that Clmax number. It would pull 4 gs at a higher alpha, and as drag difference increases, it would start eating up the excess power of the F4U which would start bogging down.


----------



## Soren (May 4, 2007)

The excess power of the F4U-4 was minimal however, and wouldn't save it at SL, nomatter the speed. The energy lost in a turn by the F4U-4 is simply so much greater than that lost by the Ta-152H that anything but quick evasive maneuvers, as those used by the Fw-190A against the Spitfire, was a very deadly and onesided gamble to try against the Ta-152H.


----------



## davparlr (May 5, 2007)

Soren said:


> The excess power of the F4U-4 was minimal however, and wouldn't save it at SL, nomatter the speed. The energy lost in a turn by the F4U-4 is simply so much greater than that lost by the Ta-152H that anything but quick evasive maneuvers, as those used by the Fw-190A against the Spitfire, was a very deadly and onesided gamble to try against the Ta-152H.



At 25k and top speed, the difference in drag of the Ta-152H and F4U-4 is only 368 lbs in a 3 g turn. However, the title of this site is "Best Piston Fighter Ever", and we were comparing the Ta-152H with the F4U-5, which has significant thrust advantage at this altitude (760 thrust HP, 824 lbs thrust). In addition, it would have a likely higher top speed by 30 mph, and also, a most likely higher dive speed. It would maintain this advantage to SL.

From 25k ft down, and most likely 30k down, the F4U-5 would have more tools for pilot to use against the Ta-152H, than the Ta-152H pilot would have to use against the F4U-5. Also, because of circumstances, the Ta-152H was never able to proved itself as a reliable, dependable aircarft, whereas the F4U-5 was a war proven design of extended life.


----------



## jonsidneyb (May 6, 2007)

davparlr said:


> All in all, I doubt that experienced pilots in both planes would not hesitate to take his aircraft against the other, and it would be quite a tussle with the most proficient pilot being the winner, but, I think, at lower levels and higher speeds, the F4U-5 pilot would have a slight advantage in tools, e.g., energy management. At higher altitudes and slower airspeeds, the advantage would swap. It would have been a site to see.



Heck if they are equals I might want to hesitate. I don't like being = in a life and death fight. 

If they are equal I will be on the side with twice as many planes in the air and then I am going to cheat.

I am going to stay on the fringes of the fight waiting for some engaged aircraft that have lost velocity due to their manuvering and make a high speed pass to help out my buddy. I don't like fair fights.


----------



## lesofprimus (May 6, 2007)

> Heck if they are equals I might want to hesitate.


Then u aint a fighter pilot...


> If they are equal I will be on the side with twice as many planes in the air


U dont get to choose sides... This is realistic, not ur little fantasy world...


> and then I am going to cheat.


What, with a cheat code???


----------



## jonsidneyb (May 6, 2007)

Nah...just a realist.

I would go fight but would be nervous about it.

I wrestled in college and at least found the more afraid I was of losing the better I did. It was only when fear went away and I got confident that I lost.
When I realised this fact that I would make up things in my head to create fear.

No I don't play video games. 

Actually a little bit of nerves can be healthy.

10 years ago I was involved in a shooting and did win and it was the scariest thing that ever happened to me. After that alot of the false bravado was drained from me. 

While that was only one incedent I do appreciate the saying from many veterans that soldiers pray for peace and are prepared for war. I do know all do not feel that way.

Nope, I am not a fighter pilot. I do find reading the history of them interesting however.

Are you a fighter pilot?

Cheat...perhaps a poor choice of words but I have read in many stories that many successful figher pilots did not like to get caught up in fur balls and looked for targets of opportunity. In fact I think many kills were just that.


----------



## jonsidneyb (May 6, 2007)

Wanting to be hesitant and being hesitant are too different things.


----------



## DerAdlerIstGelandet (May 6, 2007)

lesofprimus said:


> What, with a cheat code???





Its the playstation generation man!


----------



## DerAdlerIstGelandet (May 6, 2007)

jonsidneyb said:


> While that was only one incedent I do appreciate the saying from many veterans that soldiers pray for peace and are prepared for war. I do know all do not feel that way.



Exactly. We never wanted to go, but when our number was called we did it without hesitation


----------



## lesofprimus (May 6, 2007)

> Are you a fighter pilot?


Close, Im a former Navy SEAL....


> I have read in many stories that many successful fighter pilots did not like to get caught up in fur balls and looked for targets of opportunity. In fact I think many kills were just that.


Duh, do u think??? Are u aware that in over 80% of all victories recorded in World War II, the pilot shot down was unaware of his impending doom???

As my Grandfather was a member of the Black Sheep, I can tell u with much certainty that if u hesitated in combat, u died....

Im not even quite sure why u made that original moronic post in the first place, as it made no sense to the converstaion... This conversation and discussion concern 2 compatible aircraft in ideal circumstances, not who was flying, and in what capacity YOU would make the rules???

Oh and another thing:


> 10 years ago I was involved in a shooting and did win


Wow.... U won huh??? Was it a fast draw competition??? A spot on the Olympic Team??? Gimmie a break with the false bravado bullsh!t pal... I can smell it 3 miles away...


----------



## jonsidneyb (May 6, 2007)

Hancock County Indiana. Circle K convience store. Detective Munden Investigating officer. Ask if it happend. 4 went to prison...not me. You will be able to recognize my name and elements from my handle match.

No false bravado. I would never want to do it again.

It is not much fun to tell the truth and no one believe it.

I thought this would be an interesting place but I find it actually a very rude place.


Please close my account.
This is no place for me.


----------



## lesofprimus (May 6, 2007)

Thin skin makes boy run home.... Awwww

Your wish is my command...


----------



## FLYBOYJ (May 6, 2007)

Amazing - more of the diminishing gene pool encountered right here at WW2aircraft.net!


----------



## lesofprimus (May 6, 2007)

Another meatball gets chalked up...


----------



## FLYBOYJ (May 6, 2007)

Yep - good riddance! He sounded like he had the brain capacity of a dead opossum.


----------



## mkloby (May 6, 2007)

I'm wondering - is ww2aircraft.net advertising at labotomy shops???


----------



## rogthedodge (May 9, 2007)

Maybe wrong on this but wasn't the Sea Fury the only one to down a Mig?

Plus it was the only Anglo-German aircraft design collaboration of WW2


----------



## FLYBOYJ (May 10, 2007)

rogthedodge said:


> Maybe wrong on this but wasn't the Sea Fury the only one to down a Mig?
> 
> Plus it was the only Anglo-German aircraft design collaboration of WW2


recip aircraft shooting down jets don't mean a whole lot unless you were on the receiving end. P-51, Yak-9, Corsairs, B-29s and Skyraiders all shot down jet aircraft....


----------



## rogthedodge (May 10, 2007)

Yeah but in the Korean War? - ie a proper Mig, rather than ME262?

According to wiki the Sea Fury could take on the Mig 15 with some confidence - surely that's a measure of greatness?

I'm genuinely asking, not challenging what you say.


----------



## DerAdlerIstGelandet (May 10, 2007)

And Wikipedia is also one of the worst sources to use because anyone can edit and post what is said in it.

Dont take me wrong, I use it as well for quick searches of things but you have to take some of it as a grain of salt and be absolute sure of the truth if you are going to use it as a source.


----------



## FLYBOYJ (May 10, 2007)

rogthedodge said:


> Yeah but in the Korean War? - ie a proper Mig, rather than ME262?
> 
> According to wiki the Sea Fury could take on the Mig 15 with some confidence - surely that's a measure of greatness?
> 
> I'm genuinely asking, not challenging what you say.



No problem...

Me 262s were brought down by recips during ww2 for several reasons. They were vulnerable during take off and landings due to the poor spool up times of early turbine engines and they were overwhelmed in numbers. Over Korea things didn't change much as far as 2nd generation jet engine performance except you had varying pilot skill levels on the Communist side.

I could assure you no matter how good the Sea Fury was, under normal conditions and 9 times out of 10, it was not going to better a Mig-15 assuming pilots of equal ability were flying each aircraft. BTW - the Chinese (flying Mig-15s) claimed 4 Sea Furies during the Korean War...you could check the dates yourself at two more reliable sites...

Korean Air War

Chinese Air-to-Air Victories during the Korean War, 1950-1953


----------



## rogthedodge (May 10, 2007)

Fully appreciate that - that's why I cited it. 

Also recognise this site is the home to many experts hence me asking rather than stating.

So is the Mig kill anything special or just one of many by a piston-engined aircraft?

Anyway the Fury - even the salty version - is still getting my vote


----------



## FLYBOYJ (May 10, 2007)

rogthedodge said:


> Fully appreciate that - that's why I cited it.
> 
> Also recognise this site is the home to many experts hence me asking rather than stating.
> 
> ...


Well remember my first statement - A jet kill in a recip is only significant if you were on the giving end. It's a David vs. Goliath as far as technology and tactics are involved. I sure those jet pilots who were downed by a recip aren't talking about it much (if they survived). Those who were the victors made it well known. Putting this into perspective, those recips that downed jets shouldn’t be measured on their greatness based on one or two missions where an aerial combat oddity occurred, but rather their whole operational history as well as performance. In Post WW2 we're looking at the Sea Fury, F-51, Yak-9, Corsair, Skyraider, and the B-29 as a few of those recips that took on jets and won...












VA-176 MiG Killers 9 Oct 66


----------



## DerAdlerIstGelandet (May 10, 2007)

rogthedodge said:


> Anyway the Fury - even the salty version - is still getting my vote



Either way the Fury is a good pick. There are plenty of aircraft that actually would be good and wise picks. This is one of them.


----------



## drgondog (Jun 3, 2007)

F4U-5 or Sea Fury. If it has the be best ever it also has to fly Carrier Ops?

Survivability at any altitude and threat environment? F4U-5

Load carrying/dirt punisher? F4U-5

Career? F4U-5

From a convicted Mustang lover

Bill


----------



## renrich (Jun 11, 2007)

Amen, brethren!


----------



## Bird-Nerd (Jun 16, 2007)

what? No Yak-3?


----------



## FLYBOYJ (Jun 16, 2007)

Bird-Nerd said:


> what? No Yak-3?


A good aircraft but not even close to a Ta 152, P-51H or F4U-4...


----------



## kool kitty89 (Jan 17, 2008)

Why isn't the P-47M up there? Not a whole lot were made, and rnge wasn't great but it was still better than the Spitfire and Me 109K. 

The cowl-mounted MG 151/15's in the K-4 is an awsome dogfight and interceptor armament and the MK 108 adds to the interceptor strenghts, and with ~450 mph at ~20,000 ft as well I wouldn't want to see P-51D's trying to defend B-17's aganst them.

The P-47N is the best escort fighter, wich other single-engined fighter could range over 2,300 miles and boast a top-speed of 460 mph.

I've always wondered though, how much faster would the P-47M and N have been with a XP-47J type nose, possibly another 10-20 mph each and with an increase in range as well. Or just produce the P-47J, as it would have come much sooner than the P-72. Now that would have been a menace to German Jets, even if faught on the Me 262's terms. (and the P-47J shouldn't have been too hard to develop into an escort fighter, particularly with a 200 gal belly tank available... besides the paper one)


----------



## kool kitty89 (Jan 18, 2008)

Though the new nose probably would have slowed initial production due to retooling needs, it took awhile for the teething problems to be solved with the R-2800-57C anyway and the P-47N had new wings to retool for as well.


----------



## kool kitty89 (Feb 29, 2008)

I read some more, and it seems the nose of the XP-47J, while successful (in function and adding 30 mph to the top speed and improving range due to lower drag along with a slight increase in climb for the same weight and engine) it was deemed to cost too much and add mechanical complexity (due to the cooling fan).


----------



## drgondog (Feb 29, 2008)

kool kitty89 said:


> I read some more, and it seems the nose of the XP-47J, while successful (in function and adding 30 mph to the top speed and improving range due to lower drag along with a slight increase in climb for the same weight and engine) it was deemed to cost too much and add mechanical complexity (due to the cooling fan).



I have read a lot of things but the one I believe is that we simply didn't need it (more speed, more complex logistics, more dollars consuming a future budget, etc) to achieve a small to medium, relatively speaking, increase in performance over the P-47N (or P-51H) - when the US was looking at the P-80 and Me 262 as the next 'generation'. 

The P-51H was due to evolve into the P-51M with the -11 Merlin and position for a smaller performance boost - but all recips were bumping into the .80 Mach limit for conceivable combat ops.

I wouldn't be suprised if someone told me that USAAF looked long and hard at Ta 152 - but at the end of the day even it was a very minor progression over the P-51H or Spit 21, etc.

Having said that the fly high/Fly fast was clearly going to the jet. 

The P-51H and P-82 was chosen to survive (over the P-38M and P-47N/M) because the Long Range escort role was deemed the prime mission in the nuclear age and the P-51 was both cheaper and deemed more capable overall in the escort role. 

The F-84G was next in line for ground support. and the P-80 became the air superiority fighter over medium ranges - we just didn't have enough nof all of them including the 86 (and F9F and AD's) for Korea and the 51 was chosen to fill the breachfor USAF rather than complicate logistics and cost.


----------



## drgondog (Feb 29, 2008)

kool kitty89 said:


> Why isn't the P-47M up there? Not a whole lot were made, and rnge wasn't great but it was still better than the Spitfire and Me 109K.
> 
> *All the late model derivatives possessed advantages and disadvantiges in contrast with the late model adversaries - the same applies for the 109K against the Spit XIV or P-47M*
> 
> ...



*KK- the key factor is that prop fighters had maxed out in performance at performance leveles below early generation jets. The USAAF planners didn't think it be a good idea to improve the 'dead end', so they put most of their eggs on the 'growth/scalable' system, and the P-51H as the Transition fighter until jets could be long range escorts*

Regards,


----------



## SoD Stitch (Feb 29, 2008)

Well, I wanted to vote for the Do 335, but it's not in the poll, so I voted for the next best aircraft, the Ta 152C.


----------



## Soren (Feb 29, 2008)

The Ta-152H is better than the Ta-512C though, esp. if it recieved the EB engine or the same DB-603 engine as the C variant, that would've significantly increased both speed climb performance. 

The best piston engined fighter of WW2 is without a doubt the Ta-152H-1, the Dora-12/13 getting honorable mentions. At 777 + km/h the Dora-13 was the fastest piston engined fighter of WW2.


----------



## kool kitty89 (Mar 1, 2008)

I agree, the only thing the 152C had was low-alt speed and roll rate, the H climbed better, turned better, had a higher lift:drag, and stalled at a higher AoA. (all thanks to the longer wings) Plus there were less engine problems among other things. Did the 152C even see action? (I know the H did)


When I said the P-47J's nose, I meant use it on the P-47N/M as it adds ~20-30 mph to the top speed and would increase range slightly due to decreased drag. I don't like the P-47J due to the lightened structure and thus lower durrabillity. (more likely to verstress airframe as well as more volnerable)

I'll also say that the P-72 wouldn't have been very usefull as it wouldn't have been ready for production before the P-80, and its only advantage was low-speed thrust (as with any prop a/c with high HP) and maximum range. (somthing the P-84 could match)

I'm not sure why the USAF (probably cost and greater inventory) prefered the P-51 over the P-47 in the post war period, but it was a mistake imo and the P-47D/N would have been much better suited to the Korean war than the P-51D, plus the P-51H was even worse it the milti-role fighter/Fighter-bomber role due to lighter structure. (hence why the H wasn't used) I'd say the P-38J/L would also be better as a multi-role fighter than the 51 (as was the P-63) but there weren't nearly as many as P-47s or P-51s left after WWII.

LIkewise the F4U-4/5 in Korea was better suited than the P-51, though the Jug was still less vulnerable due to the Corsairs oil coolers. (plus the turbo ducting acted as a crushable buffer in crash landings, reducing risk of injury to pilot or desintegration of airframe)

Who knows how many pilots' lives would have been saved if P-47D/N's had taken the place of the P-51D in Korea. 

And also, below 25,000 ft performance of the P-47N and late model P-47D were very similar, the D's R-2800-63 engine had been cleared for 70" Hg boost with 100/150 fuel which gave a power of 2,600 HP @ 2,700 RPM with water injection and some P-47Ds may have been tuned as high as 2,700 HP, but the D's turbo could only produce 70" up to just under 24,000 ft while the P-47M/N could produce 2,800 HP at 2,800 RPM up to 32,000 ft. (Note, the P-47D could reach 444 mph at critical altitude with 2,600 HP)
See: P-47 Performance Tests
http://www.wwiiaircraftperformance.org/p-47/24june44-progress-report.pdf
http://www.wwiiaircraftperformance.org/150grade/p-47-66inch.jpg

Also I'm not sure where I got the 2x 15mm MG-151/15 nose guns of the 109K, but the only time 2x 15mm were to be used was in the K-14's (not produced) wing guns iirc. (I know the early 109F had a 15mm engine gun)


----------



## Kurfürst (Mar 4, 2008)

The MG 151 was not used, or even planned as a cowling gun on any 109 variant. Its a simply misread from MG 131 from charts.. though several heavy fighter 109K variants were planned with either an alternate MK 108 (45 rpg) or MG 151/20 (100 rpg) as wing guns (inside the wings). Some 109K versions foresee an MK 103 in the engine cannon position (85 rounds); however, the furthest these went were only weapons trials (K-6).


----------



## Juha (Mar 15, 2008)

I could not vote, so I write a comment. Before 2004 I'd have to toss a coin between F8F and Seafury but in Dec 2004 I decided that Ray Hanna knew it better, so my choice is Lavochkin La-9. Ray's opinion and reasoning can be found in Aeroplane Dec 2004.

Juha


----------



## Flightcommander (Mar 21, 2008)

i voted for the p-47 because of its huge motor and heavy armament, it could carry a good load of bombs and rockets, not to mention it could out dive most aircraft. i don't see how almost noone voted on it....


----------



## The Basket (Mar 21, 2008)

I thought the La-11 would be the last of the Soviet props.

I would go for the Ta 152H of course. But the technology of prop fighters didn't go any further so I do believe that the ultimate prop fighter was never built.

Even the best prop wouldn't come close to MiG-15.

Nah...changed my mind...Hawker Sea Fury coz I'm feeling British today. Not many takers for the DH Hornet...that was something.


----------



## Juha (Mar 21, 2008)

Hello Basket
yes, la-11 was latter version, but according to Ray Hanna, La-9 was better being lighter.

Juha


----------



## B-17engineer (Mar 21, 2008)

I am torn between the F4U-4, the Sea Fury, and the P-47N all great aircraft. Hmmmmmmmmmm, I think I am going with the P-47, It was very durable (going back to the P-51 vs P-47) and on the offensive it had 8 .50 cals. The M models had a top speed of 470 mph. Then the B models could go 435 mph. This is from my book Greatest aircraft of WWII. 

The P-47 gets my vote


----------



## kool kitty89 (Mar 21, 2008)

Both the P-47C and early D models (w/out wing racks or bubble canopies) could do 435 mph. I believe the B's top speed was 429 mph.

The addition of wing racks and bubble canopies cut speed a bit but with 70" boost pressure with 100/150 Avgas the R-2800-59 was cleared for 2,600 hp (with some tuned as high as 2,700 hp). With this a late P-47D could pull 444 mph in level flight at ~24,000 ft (critical altitude for 70" boost).


----------



## renrich (Mar 21, 2008)

All around best-F4U7.


----------



## Wayne Little (Mar 22, 2008)

Love the Ta152!!


----------



## lesofprimus (Mar 22, 2008)

9 votes for the P-47...

36 for the Tank....

Sounds like some people need to think past Allied aircraft and educate themselves on what country was really pushing the envelope in piston engined aircraft...


----------



## B-17engineer (Mar 22, 2008)

I dont get it........this is an Opinion poll........Why am I getting told since I voted for the P-47 that I need to "Educate" myself????????


----------



## lesofprimus (Mar 22, 2008)

It aint about ur favorite, its about The Best.... U are being told because the 47 wasnt the Best Piston Fighter of WW2... U listed 3 Allied aircraft, no Axis...

Thats close minded....

U can educate urself on this site concerning the "Other" fighters that flew in the air that didnt have Stars or Roundels, but crosses....

My opinion in this poll is that ur opinion is uneducated...


----------



## B-17engineer (Mar 22, 2008)

Ok, and you are Intitled to your opinion that I am uneducated. 


I am still sticking with the P-47


----------



## renrich (Mar 22, 2008)

I thought the poll was about the best piston engined fighter ever, not the best of WW2. Educate me please.


----------



## B-17engineer (Mar 22, 2008)

Because I listed no axis aircraft I need to educate myself....I already voted so whatever.....


----------



## The Basket (Mar 22, 2008)

I think the Yugoslavs designed and built the last new post war prop fighter...but I can't think what the name was. I can't remember a new design coming through after the war. 

The Tu-95 shows that props could be fast but I doubt if anything could match a jet.

Dunno if the Tank fighters were the best but they certainly turned out to be the highest performing and so ultimate of the breed.

Martin Baker MB5 is a good example of a first rate fighter but with no use. Talk about all dressed up and no where to go.


----------



## Soundbreaker Welch? (Mar 23, 2008)

The P-47 probably gets the vote for sturdiest fighter of WWII. It was hard to down one.

But I have heard that the Corsair was almost as hard to shoot down.


----------



## kool kitty89 (Mar 23, 2008)

Who knows what the P-47J or P-72 could have developed into though...

The thing is the US didn't have the same need for interceptors and most intrest was turning tward jets for this too. The P-72 probably could have been developed into a capable escort fighter though.

If the US had had somthig much like the Ta 152 it too would likely have been abandoned in favor of more advanced jets. And in that same vein the LW needed the Me 262 more than the Ta 152 anyway.


----------



## joy17782 (Mar 23, 2008)

i picked the corsair , very good kill rate when stationed on land and the carrier groups, the german i would say is fw 190 dora, the jap the zero, the english, the spit, the russian, the yak 9, and too be honest there not my favorite planes, but its just hard too say what really was the best,


----------



## kool kitty89 (Mar 23, 2008)

I'd say it was the N1K-2J for the Japanese, not as fast or heavily armed as the Ki-84 (For Ki-84 with 30mm) but it was long legged and the only Japanese plane that vould compare with the toughness and pilot protection of US fighters. Plus it could climb almost as well and outmaneuver all allied fighter opposition. (it also had automatic combat flaps) It had a decent armament, though still not enough to really fight the B-29's and not enough high alt performance (common to all a/c with the engine) Plus performance was much limited by the low octane Japanese fuel, with US 100 octane fuel it aoutperformed the Hellcat in all performance categories and it had even better maneuverabillity than prior.

Like most Japanese a/c it also had good all-around visibility.


----------



## red admiral (Mar 25, 2008)

Does anyone have any information on the speed of the Ta 152 at lower altitudes? Comparing its maximum speed at 40,000ft doesn't realistically compare it to other's maximum speeds which occur at 20-30,000ft. At that extreme altitude, there most likely isn't anything better, but in the mid-altitude range I think things get a bit murkier.

Below 20,000ft the Hawker Fury, owns the skies. 5800fpm rate of climb, 460mph at 18000ft and 410mph at sea level, coupled together with outstanding maneuverability, firepower and excellent visibility.

As for the Dora-13 being the fastest in WWII, the d.H. Hornet and Fury I match it for speed, the Spiteful exceeds it by 9mph. There are also those dubious 500mph+ claims for the P-47.


----------



## kool kitty89 (Mar 26, 2008)

I doubt any production P-47 did 500 mph, maybe 480 w/out wing pylons for the P-47M, but that's pushing it.

The XP-47J did do 507 mph at 32,000 ft iirc. Though this was also in the razorback configuration which had less drag than the bubbletop. (hence why bubbletop P-47's and P-51's were generaly slower than their razorback counterparts)


----------



## drgondog (Mar 26, 2008)

kool kitty89 said:


> I doubt any production P-47 did 500 mph, maybe 480 w/out wing pylons for the P-47M, but that's pushing it.
> 
> The XP-47J did do 507 mph at 32,000 ft iirc. Though this was also in the razorback configuration which had less drag than the bubbletop. (hence why bubbletop P-47's and P-51's were generaly slower than their razorback counterparts)



KK- I suspect the added 600+ pounds of weight for the tear drop top P-51D had a lot more to do with the slight drop in airspeed and climb and turn... and how would you account for a 51H being 20-40mph faster than the P-51B/C at the same weight? (The 1650-9 was slightly more powerful at altitude than the -3 but other than that)?

Otherwise I don't have the drag figures for the H so I am NOT claiming aerodynamics is the sole factor.


----------



## Soren (Mar 26, 2008)

The P-51H featured a new prop an a MUCH more powerful engine than the P-51B/C, hence its superior speed. (To go from 1,790 HP to 2,280 HP is quite a jump!)

KK is right about the bubble canopy, it creates suction and thus drag, and that is why the razorbacks are slightly faster.


----------



## Hunter368 (Mar 26, 2008)

Good stuff guys


----------



## drgondog (Mar 26, 2008)

Soren said:


> The P-51H featured a new prop an a MUCH more powerful engine than the P-51B/C, hence its superior speed. (To go from 1,790 HP to 2,280 HP is quite a jump!)
> 
> KK is right about the bubble canopy, it creates suction and thus drag, and that is why the razorbacks are slightly faster.



You may have mis interpreted Lednicer's reports. 'Suction' is the opposite of 'Separation' in the model results. If you re-read them you may notice 1.) that the 'suction' area for the 51Wing and Fuselage has a far greater 'suction' area and by definition, less 'separation' in the model, and 2.) Lednicer's model correctly arrives at drag values for 'wetted area Drag Coefficient' with good approximation to wind tunnels'.

This whole exercise was to predict total drag in context of profile, friction and induced drag to compare against wind tunnel results.

Second point. May I draw your attention to Table 1 where the total Drag Coefficients for the B and D are the same despite greater wetted surface area. After reviewing the boundary conditions and the pressure distribution plots I conclude that the difference is the canopy, and specifically the canopy slope effect on delayed separation - how do you 'interpret' the results otherwise?

Third point. The engine profiles between a -3, a -7 and a -9 for the B, D and H respectively show 
B 1600BHP at 67" @11,800 Low Blower WE
D 1720BHP at 67" @ 6,200 Low Blower WE
H 1930BHP at 80"/water inj @ 10,100 Low Blower and the same as the -3 w/o water

B 1330BHP at 67" @23,000 High Blower
D 1505BHP at 67" @19,300 High Blower
H 1630BHP at 80" @ 23,500 High Blower WE (wet) same as the -3 w/o water

So, what references do you have in mind for the Mustang for your figures? or Conclusions..


----------



## Hunter368 (Mar 26, 2008)

Good stuff Bill.


----------



## kool kitty89 (Mar 26, 2008)

I think by "suction" Soren meant the lower preassure on the aft part of the bubble canopy (a slight vacuum), similar to the phenomon at the tail of a bullet.

And I think the 2,280 hp figure is for 90" Hg. Though that's down to 1,800 hp at altitude. (still a hell of alot more than earlier 'stangs had) http://www.wwiiaircraftperformance.org/mustang/p-51h-powercurve.jpg

http://www.wwiiaircraftperformance.org/mustang/p-51h-na-8284-pg12.jpg


----------



## kool kitty89 (Mar 26, 2008)

drgondog said:


> KK- I suspect the added 600+ pounds of weight for the tear drop top P-51D had a lot more to do with the slight drop in airspeed and climb and turn... and how would you account for a 51H being 20-40mph faster than the P-51B/C at the same weight? (The 1650-9 was slightly more powerful at altitude than the -3 but other than that)?
> 
> Otherwise I don't have the drag figures for the H so I am NOT claiming aerodynamics is the sole factor.




The phrasing seems a little confusing, but I assume the added 600 lbs from going to the B to D Mustang. (I don't think switching to the Bubble canopy changed weight much)

The bubble canopy was one of the reasons in drop in speed. Plus weight has a much larger effect on climb than speed. Streamining has the opposite effect. (speed much more than climb)

It was mostly the power that would have given the speed; as seen here: http://www.wwiiaircraftperformance.org/mustang/p-51h-altperf-91444.jpg going from 8,000 lbs to 10,000 lbs only changes max speed by less than 10 mph. (a bit more of a change above 30,000 ft, but almost no change in speed at all down low)


On the P-47 the bubble canopy lost it ~5 mph top speed. The wing pylons cut 10-15 mph off speed. (much more on early versions, though not on any standard production versions iirc)

The nose of the P-47J helped speed as well. (prabably added ~20 mph)


----------



## drgondog (Mar 26, 2008)

kool kitty89 said:


> I think by "suction" Soren meant the lower preassure on the aft part of the bubble canopy (a slight vacuum), similar to the phenomon at the tail of a bullet.



KK- possibly that is what he meant. However, in the case of the Lednicer model Gene Davidson was kind enough to give both of us it has the classic meaning for 'suction' - meaning 'lower pressure' relative to free stream dynamic pressure.

In the case of the models 'suction is another word for 'lift' and more importantly area where the flow has not separated and created wake (or Profile Drag). In the case of the model that is 'good' for the 51D and 'bad' for the Spitfire and fw 190D and the P51B.

The red area is alternatively 'suction' or 'lift'.. you may note the 'red area' on the wing/body model. The model show a very nice aerodynamic effect on the P-51D by virtue of both the lower angle slope on the front windscreen and the near 'high camber/thickness airfoil' curvature of the canopy. The very nice surface coverage represents OPTIMAL laminar flow region, never fully achieved but instructional nevertheless.

The wake behind a Spitzer bullet is 'bad' and represents the key parameter for Profile/wake drag. Ditto the Spitfire and fw 190 'bad' regions as the flow moves up over the windscreen.


----------



## drgondog (Mar 26, 2008)

kool kitty89 said:


> The phrasing seems a little confusing, but I assume the added 600 lbs from going to the B to D Mustang. (I don't think switching to the Bubble canopy changed weight much)
> 
> *No, the Bubble canopy effectively was offset by removing the extra top bulkhead/skin and stringer of the P-51B 'turtleback'. The bigger increases were beefed up spar for vertical stabilizer and adding two more 69 pound M-2's plus 700 rounds of .50 caliber ammo..
> 
> ...



Absent any actual wind tunnel comparisons I woul tend to disbelieve the razorback was any more aerodynamically sound with respect to drag and probably had the same effect for yaw stability as the 51B to 51D. 

I also suspect when the late model 47D's added the bubble canopy they also added the wing pylons as well as internal fuel capacity.. Weight in moving from one model of the same airframe to the next was usually a far more important factor, even with bigger engines, unless the wing area was increased. The pylons ALWAYS increased drag as did gun gondolas.

The radiator/cooling designs were the real plus of the Mustang over the Spitfire, when combined with the proprietary Mustang 'laminar flow' wing.. that's why the same engine in a heavier airplane was faster and travelled farther.. it also lost energy slower (usually) in similar manuevers with an a/c with similar thrust to weight ratio but more drag.


----------



## kool kitty89 (Mar 26, 2008)

And also why the P-51A (along with the overall streamlining) was much faster and fuel efficient than the P-40M/N with the same engine and similar weight. Climb was about the same (slightly better for the P-51A) and turn rate was a tad better on the P-40. (radius was more noticeable, as the P-40 had better lift loading nut the cleaner airframe of the P-51 gave it better energy retention)

IMO the P-40/P-51 comparison is alot closer than the Spit/P-51 comparison, though both are valid. (on a side note: the close location of the radiator and oil cooler to the engine mad the P-40 a good deal less volnerable than the P-51, Spitfire, or Me 109)




> No, the Bubble canopy effectively was offset by removing the extra top bulkhead/skin and stringer of the P-51B 'turtleback'. The bigger increases were beefed up spar for vertical stabilizer and adding two more 69 pound M-2's plus 700 rounds of .50 caliber ammo..



According to: The WWII Fighter Gun Debate: Gun Tables the M2 was only ~64 lbs, but close enough. And only the innermost guns on the P-51 carrier 350 rpg, the outboard 2/4 guns of the P-51B(C)/D carried only 280 RPG according to JoeB's site. (as well as others)


----------



## Burmese Bandit (Dec 5, 2008)

Bearcat!!!

The TA 152 was close - almost a tie - but with its phenomenal climb, excellent roll, and COMBAT DAMAGE RESISTANT AIR COOLED RADIAL, the bearcat wins by a propeller spinner!


----------



## lesofprimus (Dec 6, 2008)

The Bearcat didnt have the legs to support best Bandit... Short range drops it down to Top 5...

IMO of course...


----------



## kool kitty89 (Dec 6, 2008)

Like the Spitfire and Bf 109. (moreso for the late Spitfires)


----------



## Burmese Bandit (Dec 6, 2008)

Yep, short legs Did cramp the Bearcat's style. But if I wanted to go up against my twin brother, equal in every respect except for different planes, I'd choose the bearcat.


----------



## Soundbreaker Welch? (Feb 20, 2009)

If you pitted a Spitfire against a Bearcat, which would you rather be in?


----------



## lesofprimus (Feb 21, 2009)

Bearcat...


----------



## Soundbreaker Welch? (Apr 17, 2009)

It is kind of interesting why the Ta-152 is getting so many votes. As far as we know it shot down one Tempest at low altitude (the Tempest was not good at low altitude turning) and a couple of Yak's over Berlin. It never shot down a P-51, P-47,P-38, or a Spitfire.

One pilot did claim to have outrun several P-51's but for all we know they may not have even seen him. Granted, the stats do say it was faster than the P-51 at high altitudes, and low altitudes it's more unclear what it's top speed was.

At any rate it's hard to say how much it would have destroyed the P-51, or a Spitfire. 

I know Il Sturmovik is just a game, (and probaby very innaccurate) but the Ta-152 was not the hardest opponent for me to fight in the Mustang, for me it was the Macchi C.205, or perhaps the Hayate. It's partly because their top speed at low altitude is faster than the P-51, and because the Macchi 205 can fight on a dime. The Fw 190D is a tough opponent but it does have a weaknes in the game, because it seems like a few shots into the propeller stops it completely. 

Again, it's just a game and you can ignore the last paragraph.


----------



## vikingBerserker (Apr 17, 2009)

Gotta go with the Bearcat as well.


----------



## HoHun (Apr 18, 2009)

Hi Welch,

>It is kind of interesting why the Ta-152 is getting so many votes. As far as we know it shot down one Tempest at low altitude (the Tempest was not good at low altitude turning) and a couple of Yak's over Berlin. It never shot down a P-51, P-47,P-38, or a Spitfire.

Here is a speed comparison of the various late-war Focke-Wulfs versus the North American P-51D and P-51H.

Regards,

Henning (HoHun)


----------



## DerAdlerIstGelandet (Apr 18, 2009)

Soundbreaker Welch? said:


> It is kind of interesting why the Ta-152 is getting so many votes. As far as we know it shot down one Tempest at low altitude (the Tempest was not good at low altitude turning) and a couple of Yak's over Berlin. It never shot down a P-51, P-47,P-38, or a Spitfire.



And a lot of people vote for the Bearcat, and how many aircraft did it shoot down?


----------



## Lucky13 (Apr 18, 2009)

Eeerrmmmmmm.....none?


----------



## DerAdlerIstGelandet (Apr 18, 2009)

Lucky13 said:


> Eeerrmmmmmm.....none?



My point exactly. How many aircraft a specific aircraft has shot down should not be the deciding factor of what makes an aircraft the best or not.

If it were, then the Bf 109 would take the cake...


----------



## Soundbreaker Welch? (Apr 18, 2009)

> How many aircraft a specific aircraft has shot down should not be the deciding factor of what makes an aircraft the best or not.



Granted, the Bearcat or the Hawker Sea Fury have not seen much combat either, and likely never will now. 

Still it would be nice for the Smithsonian to restore the Ta-152 they have right now, and get it flying, then you could see some fine stuff I'm sure. At least for the Bearcat and Sea Fury we have more visual information on it.

The closest thing to the Ta 152 is the FW 190D, which we have a lot more information on, but they were quite different birds on the whole.

Is there any video footage of the Ta-152 from German tests?

Ho-hun, I'm suprised to see how fast the Fw 190D 12 is. It way outspeeds the FW 190D 9. I'm suprised by how slow the P-51H is, only 720 km/h? I thought the H could reach a top speed of 784 km/h?

Must be cruise speed I suppose.

Edit: Found this thread. Seems like the P-51H had a rather disappointing top speed after all, at least in combat mode. Wasn't much faster than the P-51D. 
http://www.ww2aircraft.net/forum/aviation/p-51h-flight-test-performance-5515.html

Still it brings up an interesting question. Is possible the Ta-152 is given a higher top speed of 759 km/h than it could actually reach in reality? It probably wasn't flown much in combat above 40,000 feet. It's possible an actual Luftwaffe pilot couldn't get it up to the speed the German graphs indicated. 

I'm sure the Ta-152 had a high top speed, but seeing how much slower the P-51H may have been in reality makes one wonder about engineering vs. combat figures. 

Maybe I'm wrong, perhaps Germans were better at being accurate than the Americans were.


----------



## Lucky13 (Apr 18, 2009)

DerAdlerIstGelandet said:


> My point exactly. How many aircraft a specific aircraft has shot down should not be the deciding factor of what makes an aircraft the best or not.
> 
> If it were, then the Bf 109 would take the cake...



Indeed, the '109 and '190 would be miles ahead of every other piston driven fighter....


----------



## tomo pauk (Apr 19, 2009)

Sea Fury is my bird. 
I could compete against any of those from the list, while able to land take off from a carrier.


----------



## Doughboy (Apr 23, 2009)

I chose the P-51H Mustang.


----------



## DerAdlerIstGelandet (Apr 23, 2009)

Doughboy said:


> I chose the P-51H Mustang.



Why? Not saying you are wrong, but explain why...


----------



## Doughboy (Apr 24, 2009)

It was fast,well-made, and durable.


----------



## DerAdlerIstGelandet (Apr 24, 2009)

Most of the aircraft up there will fit that description.


----------



## Yerger (Jun 12, 2009)

For pure peak of prop development (just an excuse as it's a favorite too) I voted Sea Fury. Happy to see it is among the Top 5 vote getters


----------



## wwii:)aircraft (Sep 16, 2009)

Guys, I don't understand why the Ta-152H was voted as the best piston engined fighter. Just because it was the best piston engine fighter that saw combat during WWII doesn't make the best piston engine fighter of the World War II era. Aircraft like the P-51h were far more superior than the Ta-152H. The P-51h was really a p-51 that used a light structure like the spitfire. This improved things like range, maneuverability, climb, and especially speed. So in my opinion, the P-51 probably the most _advance_ single piston engine fighter of WWII since it was faster, more maneuverable, and had a better rate of role than the 152.

But, I think the _best_ single engine piston fighter was the P-47N. The P-47N was an amazing advancement over the D. The P-47n had more range (since it fought in the pacific) and it had new features such as the installment of the 2,800hp Pratt Whitney R-2800-57C engine, clipped wings, and wings of slightly larger span and area. These features contributed to the 47n's speed (maximum speed of 397 mph at 10,000 feet, 448 mph at at 25,000 feet, and 460 mph at 30,000 feet), climb (Initial climb rate was 2770 feet per minute at 5000 feet and 2550 feet per minute at 20,000 feet), maneuverability, rate of role, range, and dive.

If in fact the P-47n fought in Europe against the 152h, it would have been an excellent aircraft having the advantages in dive rate of role and pretty much tied in speed (although the 152 had a higher top speed, the 47n was faster at 30,000 and below which was were most combat would occur). And dont forget the p47's amazing fire power of 8 x M3 .50cal machines guns (which equals to 12 x M2 .50cal machines guns), its durability, and its close support/fighter-bombers capabilities, something the Ta-152 could never have.


----------



## lesofprimus (Sep 17, 2009)

As it seems that 43 members voted for the Tank, and a measly 14 voted for the -47N, might I suggest u use our wonderful seach feature up above and look through our older threads and read some threads that might enlighten u to the finer points of the 152H....


----------



## DAVIDICUS (Sep 21, 2009)

"_And don't forget the p47's amazing fire power of 8 x M3 .50cal machines guns_"

I have heard speculation about the high cyclic rate M3 being fitted to the P-4N but have never actually read of a source for that claim.

Do you have a source?

I think the P-47N was a pretty impressive plane. With a "D" load of fuel (370 gallons) its performance would be closer to an "M".


----------



## parsifal (Sep 21, 2009)

Ther is one aircraft that was admittedly a prototype, but is often argued as the best piston engined aircraft of all time. The MB-5, Whilst i dont deny the sheer excellence of the Ta 152, and it deserving every inch being at the top, it was nevertheless essentially only a prototype. so if we have the Ta 152 as a proto type, why not the MB-5


----------



## lesofprimus (Sep 21, 2009)

The 152 was not a prototype but a plane that saw operational service AND combat...


----------



## DerAdlerIstGelandet (Sep 21, 2009)

lesofprimus said:


> The 152 was not a prototype but a plane that saw operational service AND combat...



Agreed, it was used operationally. If the MB-5 had been used operationally then it could be considered as well.


----------



## German Ace (Sep 21, 2009)

The best in my opinion is the F6F.8)


----------



## drgondog (Sep 21, 2009)

Soundbreaker Welch? said:


> Ho-hun, I'm suprised to see how fast the Fw 190D 12 is. It way outspeeds the FW 190D 9. I'm suprised by how slow the P-51H is, only 720 km/h? I thought the H could reach a top speed of 784 km/h?
> 
> *Here is the SAC circa 1949 on the P-51H-1. In the Intercepter mode its climb rate at SL was 4990fpm and climb to 25,000 was 6.7 - power loading 7.1 and WL=40 at take off weight..Interestingly it also gives the hogged out take off weight performances at rotation - what a difference a light 51 with only internal fuel makes vs a fighter bomber config..
> 
> ...



'back in the day' these figures were conservative because mission planners were to seek guidance within the handbook for profiling the missions on loads and range - before factoring in weather and wind.


----------



## mike526mp (Oct 3, 2009)

check out this web site, i think after reading including pilot's report (one p-51 pilot said the 51 was better at just about everything from combat experience), i think it should change a lot of minds about the FW-190.
WWII Aircraft Performance

while at the site, read the comparison of the P-51B and F-4U, I was surprised the F-4U is more manuverable.

also read an article somewhere that statistically the P-47 was the best fight, the said that the damage it could take and still get the pilot home was a lot of it, the P-51's cooling system the weak part of the 51's (my dad had to bail out over germany because of flak in the radiator)

read this, the TA-152H was nothing more than a prototype, with lots of work before you could consider it the best fighter of WWII.

Operational history
By fall 1944, the war was going badly for Germany, and the RLM pushed Focke-Wulf to quickly get the Ta 152 into production. As a result, several Ta 152 prototypes crashed early into the test program. It was found that critical systems were lacking sufficient quality control. Issues arose with superchargers, pressurized cockpits leaked, the engine cooling system was unreliable at best due in part to unreliable oil temperature monitoring, and in several instances the landing gear failed to properly retract. A total of up to 20 pre-production Ta 152 H-0s were delivered from November 1944 to Erprobungskommando Ta 152 to service test the airplane. It was reported that test pilots were able to conduct a mere 31 hours of flight tests before full production started. By the end of January 1945, only 50 hours or so had been completed. The Ta 152 was not afforded the time to work out all the little quirks and errors plaguing all new designs. These problems proved impossible to rectify given the situation in Germany towards the end of the war, and only two Ta 152C remained operational when Germany surrendered.[citation needed]

P-47 was a much better high altitude machine, and in full production


----------



## GrauGeist (Oct 3, 2009)

Glad you quoted wikipedia for those stats on the Ta152, Mike...but did you read the rest of the Operational section...especially about Willy Reschke's engagement with the Tempests YaKs? The Ta152 was designed for high-altitude yet Willy got down in the weeds and beat one of the Allies' newest and most dangerous fighters in it's own element.

The Ta152 was one of those machines that didn't have a chance to come to full maturity, but the machines that did make it to the front, performed beyond expectations and their statistics clearly speak for themselves.

The P-47 was a far better ground attack aircraft than the P-51D for a number of reasons, mostly because it could handle a tremendous amount of damage. It could also deliver a brutal payload of mixed ordinance and still defend itself aggressively if attacked by enemy fighters while conducting ground attack missions. The P-51D was better suited for long range escort and CAP missions, although it did deliver big hurt to enemy forces on the ground, but in doing so, placed itself at risk. Even though the P-51D is a remarkable machine, I think it's rather over-rated...but that's just my personal opinion, for what it's worth.

As far as the Fw190 is concerned, there's nothing to reconsider about it. It was a ground-breaking design for it's time, it had great speed, good firepower and plenty of manouverability. The A-8 with it's Rüstsätze was a sight that Allied bomber crews dreaded...


----------



## Civettone (Oct 3, 2009)

I've said it before ... the Ta 152H was the best high altitude fighter but except for that well document combat report with the Tempest, there's really no reason to consider it the best at all altitudes. 

Better to have the best at 1,400 m than at 14,000 m.

Kris


----------



## Erich (Oct 3, 2009)

the Ta was a last gasp, there is much new information that will come out shortly and yes there are combat reports available you just need to dig further, it was no prototype but an operational fighter used with success in the closing waning days it needed to be in sufficient numbers to the other JG's to make a difference and in a word it didn't.

as to op history it has not been written ..................... yet !


----------



## Soren (Oct 4, 2009)

I'd be very careful with using www.wwiiaircraftperformance.com as a reference on German aircraft performance if I were you Mike. I can tell you for a fact that A LOT of German documents are ignored and left out by the site's author Mike Williams, who btw seems to put his entire focus on documents showing poor performance and mechanical unreliability when it comes to German a/c.


----------



## lesofprimus (Oct 5, 2009)

Watch the slanderous tone Soren, the time for that sh!t is past man and u know it....

Thin ice........


----------



## renrich (Oct 5, 2009)

The only problem I have seen with Mike William's site is that the German reports are in German and I can't read German. Seriously though I have his site on my favorites list and have found it to be a gold mine of information. The interesting and educational thing to me about his site is that it shows, among other things, that AC are individuals, just like people and they don't all perform alike among identical models. Also, if one is just getting started in the business of comparing and debating performance of WW2 AC, the figures one sees about popular AC on line or in even well regarded books mostly show only the performance of a certain AC under the very best conditions such as altitude, load, etc. Also most of those peak performance figures are usually in Combat power which would only be available for a short time and if overused would possibly cripple the engine. One has to be careful when comparing performance numbers to make sure that the numbers are achieved with normal, military or combat power. It seems to me that the ability of a fighter to climb or achieve V max under military power might be more important than the comparable performance with combat power and the all important "what altitude does this take place at?" and" with what load?" are other variables. Anyway, IMO Williams' site is the mother lode for many of us enthusiasts.


----------



## Soren (Oct 5, 2009)

Not being slanderous Les, just telling it how it is. I really don't understand how Mike leaves out so many other performance documents which are readily available from many published works. Why is it left out ?

I like all the info on Allied aircraft, it seems as complete as can be. Sadly however the same can't be said about the information about the German a/c, it is as if he tries to inforce a negative view on them. It's completely unnecessary.

Just my two cents on the subject..


----------



## Micdrow (Oct 5, 2009)

Soren said:


> Not being slanderous Les, just telling it how it is. I really don't understand how Mike leaves out so many other performance documents which are readily available from many published works. Why is it left out ?
> 
> I like all the info on Allied aircraft, it seems as complete as can be. Sadly however the same can't be said about the information about the German a/c, it is as if he tries to inforce a negative view on them. It's completely unnecessary.
> 
> Just my two cents on the subject..



First off Soren I would heed Les's warning, second instead of blasting him why dont you ask him in a PM and not in the tone you used here. I agree with Les, you sound slanderous. 

You could ask me the same thing on this board in the technical section. Frankly I have an easy answer. I cant read German. Dont have the time and such. Its taken me over 2 years to build what we have here now. You want to add to it feel free. Thats what this area is for but dont nock others who have built a site.

Im not sure whats the case with Mike and the documents but your approach in this one is border line.


----------



## Civettone (Oct 5, 2009)

just my POV but I think Soren said his piece in a calm and modest way, not trying to be slanderous but just asking for some caution using this site. He is not the only one criticizing that site, so I too am taking those data with a grain of salt. 

Of course I am aware of the past problems with criticizing specific parts of that site ...

Kris


----------



## DerAdlerIstGelandet (Oct 6, 2009)

Alright lets not let this get out of hand. Something was said to a member of the forum, we don't need everyone in the peanut gallery to chime in now...


----------



## Micdrow (Oct 6, 2009)

Civettone said:


> just my POV but I think Soren said his piece in a calm and modest way, not trying to be slanderous but just asking for some caution using this site. He is not the only one criticizing that site, so I too am taking those data with a grain of salt.
> 
> Of course I am aware of the past problems with criticizing specific parts of that site ...
> 
> Kris



Kris I under stand what you are getting at. Problem is no one else take's the incentive to start there own site to counter act that one. Its easy to pick on some one else but to create your own is alot tougher. The technial area is just one I started. Frankly if Soren or you or a combination of any one want to add too it and make it alot better please feel free. Get creative and start posting your own reports. Some one starts to critizing your posts in every thread or it gets out of hand thats what we are here for. 

Ive had questions on why I dont have more of this and or that. Mainly on Soviet Aircraft. Its really a simple answer. I cant read russian. German Im very dangerious with. I can make out certain words and stuff but thats about it without a translator. 

Frankly I would love to see more civil pro's and cons on German aircraft. Any one and I do mean any one that needs help I will help them if they need it. 

Hope it helps
Paul


----------



## Soren (Oct 6, 2009)

If I knew how to make website I probably would, but I have no clue how to do so. I have a wealth of documents as-well, many of which I'm surprised aren't on Mike's website in the German a/c section, I only see the documents with the lowest published performance on his site, which is odd to me. 

I am a firm believer of the philosophy: credit where credit is due. And Williams does a wonderful job at documenting the performance of Allied aircraft, I just wish I could say the same about his effort concerning German aircraft. The way he carries on with his comparisons between Allied Axis aircraft just all seems very biased to me. 

Anyway if anyone wants to put up another aircraft performance website then I'd be more than willing to supply them with all the documents I've got, no problem.


----------



## DerAdlerIstGelandet (Oct 6, 2009)

Have you ever thought of donating documents that you might have for his website? 

Of course only if he would source them to you.

You could even post them up in our technical section here on the forum. Paul would be glad to help expand our technical section with them.


----------



## lesofprimus (Oct 6, 2009)

Great points Chris, especially about having Soren put them to use on our site here...

Sh!t, we could even open up a new Section just for him and the subject if need be.....


----------



## DerAdlerIstGelandet (Oct 6, 2009)

Agreed Dan, it certianly would not hurt the site.


----------



## Timppa (Oct 6, 2009)

Micdrowe said:


> ve had questions on why I dont have more of this and or that. Mainly on Soviet Aircraft. Its really a simple answer. I cant read russian. German Im very dangerious with. I can make out certain words and stuff but thats about it without a translator.l



Why don't you publish them all if you have them.
You may not know what they are all about, but somebody will. There are some German and Russian members in this board. They can sort it out. I can help with the German stuff.


----------



## Micdrow (Oct 6, 2009)

Timppa said:


> Why don't you publish them all if you have them.
> You may not know what they are all about, but somebody will. There are some German and Russian members in this board. They can sort it out. I can help with the German stuff.



Most of the time I do Timppa, As I search web for more info is usually when I run across some of the more unusual items. What I really would like to see is more and more people add to what Ive started to make a huge data base for all to use.


----------



## Soren (Oct 7, 2009)

DerAdlerIstGelandet said:


> Have you ever thought of donating documents that you might have for his website?
> 
> Of course only if he would source them to you.
> 
> You could even post them up in our technical section here on the forum. Paul would be glad to help expand our technical section with them.



I'd be happy to, I've already posted a lot of them here before. 

And no need sourcing them to me, they are mostly from already published works, which is why I'm surprised none are on Mike's website. The only thing I'm worried about is copyright laws, I don't want to violate any of them.


----------



## Juha (Oct 7, 2009)

Hello Soren
the simply explanation why those secondary source info aren’t show in Mike’s site is that the site rely on primary source material, that should be obvious to everyone who had visited there.

Juha


----------



## Soren (Oct 7, 2009)

Not true Juha, the are some documents from already published works on there, but oddly enough only the ones showing poor performance.


----------



## Micdrow (Oct 7, 2009)

Soren said:


> I'd be happy to, I've already posted a lot of them here before.
> 
> And no need sourcing them to me, they are mostly from already published works, which is why I'm surprised none are on Mike's website. The only thing I'm worried about is copyright laws, I don't want to violate any of them.



Im no expert on law but unless you can find a copy right on them then I see no problem with them. Maybe some one will have more. Feel free to post them in the flight test data area. Start your own thread if you want. We can always rename this area down the line on how this goes.


----------



## DerAdlerIstGelandet (Oct 7, 2009)

Soren said:


> I'd be happy to, I've already posted a lot of them here before.
> 
> And no need sourcing them to me, they are mostly from already published works, which is why I'm surprised none are on Mike's website. The only thing I'm worried about is copyright laws, I don't want to violate any of them.



Then contact Mike and see if he would be willing to work with you.

Also get with Paul, I am sure he would be willing to set up a Axis technical section and work with you on it.


----------



## lesofprimus (Oct 7, 2009)

Hell yea...


----------



## Timppa (Oct 7, 2009)

I made a Ta152 performance thread, putting there the data I had i my hard drive.
http://www.ww2aircraft.net/forum/flight-test-data/ta152-performance-21051.html


----------



## drgondog (Oct 7, 2009)

very nice stuff Timppa - and a good idea for both you and Soren to publish in the performance section


----------



## Soren (Oct 8, 2009)

I'll get straight on it this weekend. Incidentally the ones Timppa just posted are a few of those I've posted on this forum many times before.


----------



## lesofprimus (Oct 8, 2009)

Yea I noticed that as well Soren, but having it all in one thread or one section is what we need to boil this down some....


----------



## Timppa (Oct 8, 2009)

The graphs I posted have all been floating around for many years in various forums and sites in the web. Couple of them are in Mike's site WWII Aircraft Performance also, and couple of them can be found in Dietmar Hermann's books. If there are some copyright issues, I'll remove them.
This is basically all hard performance data I have seen for the Ta152, so any additions is welcome.


----------



## Juha (Oct 8, 2009)

Hello
I can back up Timppa in that that I saw most of the graphs already some 6 years ago in one excellent Fw 190 Dora site, Haven't check the site in past couple years, so I'm not sure is it still up.

Juha


----------



## lesofprimus (Oct 8, 2009)

Good time for our site to become that replacement then....


----------



## Lucky13 (Oct 9, 2009)

Get cracking people!


----------



## Timppa (Oct 11, 2009)

vanir said:


> A few corrections. As you can see by the second chart you've posted GM-1 cannot be engaged until at least 1km above the critical altitude of the engine in the high supercharger gear, in order to prevent overpressurisation. GM-1 is not used under 11km alt in the Jumo 213E (or 7km in a DB-605A or 6.5km in a DB-601N).
> 
> Sondernotleistung is for use of MW50 which is required for manifold pressures exceeding ~1.72atm in the Jumo and you must be under the engine critical altitude. For one kilometre under and one kilometre above the critical altitude the Start und notleistung setting is the maximum manifold pressure the motor can achieve.
> 
> ...



As I want to see in the "Flight test data" section only data, not opinions,I answer here:
There were 2 or 3 injection rates for GM-1: 60, 100, or 150 g/sec.(liquid nitrous oxide) according to Hermann, or
100/150 g/s per Jumo 213E performance chart.
Hence the sawtooth speed curve (above 11,500m). If you claim the "sawtooth" was because of different supercharger gear speeds, I would love to see the evidence, because your explanation makes no sense at all.

The DB603 was intended for Ta152C only (and as a backup engine for the rest of the variants).
The Ta152H was intended with Jumo213E-->Jumo212E-1-->Jumo213EB-->Jumo213I
The last one with 2,700hp takeoff power, Nov. 1945.

The H-0 variant was without MW-50 and GM-1 but with the base boost rating increased to 1,900hp.


----------



## IAR8081 (Nov 8, 2009)

It is a long list with so many best sky machines. But I believe tracking the performances and operational results during WW II, the best piston engine (propeller) aircraft is Me-109. With all the inconveniences and to be a little outdated at the end of the war, is no match to this great airplane. Small and fastest this was a terrible machine in the hands of skillful pilot. Everybody can check the list of aces from Germany, Finland, Hungary and Romania and that will weight a lot in selecting the great piston airplane.


----------



## Duke Soddy (Jan 18, 2010)

Phenomally fast aircraft, nimble as an I-16... at altitude. below 20000 though she was a pig. At low altitude the wings that make it so nimble at altitude make it hard to reach 350 down low. It had absolutely no ablility to carry ordinance, and that is half of most operational fighters duties. Great 'what if ' aircraft had the Germans not surrendered for another year or two. Greatest? Not by a long shot.

I chose the Corsair, its as fast if not faster at altitude, it performs admirably on the deck, its rugged and has a meriad of operational functions. The last piston engined fighter in production, even longer than the Spanish Merlin powered Me 109s. Not by much, though.


----------



## lesofprimus (Jan 18, 2010)

LMAO....

152 pilots dogfought and killed Tempests at low altitude.... 

Put that in ur pipe and smoke it...


----------



## dennis420b (Jun 26, 2010)

It comes down to what plane do you wanna be in against the others on the list? if my life depended on it, the TA-152-H.


----------

