Best Fighter

Ad: This forum contains affiliate links to products on Amazon and eBay. More information in Terms and rules

Status
Not open for further replies.
Besides that, there were pleanty of established planes needing the Merlin, and of course the Lancaster too.

The decision to switch to the Merlin on the P-51, rather than the Continental Hyper-Engine, was largely due to the desire to produce the Packard Merlin for export to the British. Packard Merlins were used in the Spit XVI (otherwise nearly identical to the Spit IX) and the Lancaster as well as a few other planes.

=S=

Lunatic
 
For performance I prefer the radial engines. However for looks I like the inline engines. I think it kept the aircraft more streamlined and better looking like the Spitfire, P-51, and Me-109's.
 
Yeah it is just personal taste. I do like radials though for there performance. Can you imagine what a Zero or Fw-190 would look like with an inline engine. Definatly would change things.
 
I will admit the Dora with the inline looks better than the Fw-190A (this is purely my opionion) but I dont think the Fw-190A would be the Fw-190A if it had an inline. I would just not think of it like I do today. And yes the Ta-152 design was based off of the Fw-190 and had an inline engine infact the same engine that was in the Fw-190D.

POWERPLANT:
Model: Junkers Jumo 213E-1 Number: One
Type: 12-cylinder inverted Vee,liquid cooled with
MW-50 injection and GM-1 boosting
Horsepower:
Take-Off: 1,750 hp at 3,250 RPM (2,050 hp w. MW 50)
Climb And Combat: 1,580 hp at 3,000 RPM
Maximum: 1,320 hp at 32,810 ft. (1,740 hp with GM 1 boost)

Propeller Unit: Junkers wooden three blade unit
Diameter: 3.6 m (11 ft. 9.75 in.)
http://www.warbirdsresourcegroup.org/LRG/ta152h.html
 

Attachments

  • ta152-1_115.jpg
    ta152-1_115.jpg
    31.2 KB · Views: 392
It was still quite powerful. You have to take into account weight, wing load ratio, and stuff like that. An aircraft with the same engine could be slower or faster, climb higher or climb less and so forth depending on its other characteristics. You also have to remember that it was designed to perform the best at High Altitudes. At lower altitudes it was less effective and at higher it was more efficient.

PERFORMANCE:
Maximum speed:
695km/h (431mph) at 10,500m (34,451 ft.)
750km/h (466mph) at 9,000m (29,529 ft.) with MW-50
760km/h (472mph) at 12,500m (41,012 ft.) with MW-50 and GM-1
Climb rate: 1000m/minute
Ceiling: 14,800m (48,560 ft.)
Range (Internal fuel): 1200km (745 Miles)
 
I like it. I like to fly it on FB as well...just because it looks "OUT THERE" with stupidly long wings... 8)
 
Yeah it does look like that. It seems more slender and longer. And I guess you can say they did.

Fw-190A
Dimensions:
Wing span: 10.5m (34 ft. 5½ in.)
Wing Surface Area: 18.3 sq. m (197 sq. ft.)
Length: 9.00m (29 ft. 6 in.)
Height: 3.96m (13ft.)
Stabilizer Span: 3,650mm (11 ft. 11¾ in.)
Wheel Track: 3,500mm (11 ft. 5¾ in.)
Weights:
Empty: 3,060kg (6,750 lbs.)
Gross: 4,865kg (10,725 lbs.)

Ta-152
DIMENSIONS:
Wing Span: 14.5m (47 ft. 6¾ in.)
Wing Area: 23.5m² (252.95 Sq. Ft.)
Length: 10.8m (35ft 5¼ in.)
Height: 4m (13 ft. 1.5 in.)
Wheel Track: 3.95m (12 ft. 11 in.)
Stabilizer Span: N/A
WEIGHTS:
Empty: 3,600kg (7,940 lbs.)
Loaded: 5,500kg (12,125 lbs.)
 
Nice impression there, evan. That is probably the exact words of Kurt Tank. :lol:
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Users who are viewing this thread

Back