Best Fighter

Anonymous · Jan 13, 2005

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

DerAdlerIstGelandet · Jan 13, 2005

The Merlin was a great engine that is why it was used in so many aircraft.

evangilder · Jan 13, 2005

I personally prefer the radial engines, but the Merlin was an awesome, proven engine. It was the best inline the allies had, IMO.

DerAdlerIstGelandet · Jan 13, 2005

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.

evangilder · Jan 13, 2005

Definitely a matter of personal taste. But I agree that the above names planes would not look as good with a big radial in the front.

DerAdlerIstGelandet · Jan 13, 2005

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.

evangilder · Jan 13, 2005

Isn't the TA-152 basically an FW-190 with an inline? It is hard to imagine a Zero like that though.

Nonskimmer · Jan 13, 2005

The Dora series of the FW-190 was inline, too. The type of radiator arrangement is what gave it that radial look.

cheddar cheese · Jan 13, 2005

Personally I prefer the radial look, but I think the Allison inlines had a certain style to em 8)

DerAdlerIstGelandet · Jan 13, 2005

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

cheddar cheese · Jan 13, 2005

I thought the -152 was much more powerful than that?

DerAdlerIstGelandet · Jan 13, 2005

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)

evangilder · Jan 13, 2005

I always thought the TA-152 looked like they had taken a 190 and pulled it from each end to stretch it long and thin.

plan_D · Jan 13, 2005

I like it. I like to fly it on FB as well...just because it looks "OUT THERE" with stupidly long wings... 8)

DerAdlerIstGelandet · Jan 13, 2005

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.)

evangilder · Jan 13, 2005

Put eet on ze rack, ve vill stretch zees fighter until eet performs...Ve haf vays!

DerAdlerIstGelandet · Jan 13, 2005

plan_D said:
I like it. I like to fly it on FB as well...just because it looks "OUT THERE" with stupidly long wings... 8)

I agree and I think it was a pretty nice looking aircaft also.

cheddar cheese · Jan 13, 2005

I think the D looked then best, followed by the A and then the Ta-152. Im not a fan of its looks.

plan_D · Jan 13, 2005

Nice impression there, evan. That is probably the exact words of Kurt Tank.

DerAdlerIstGelandet · Jan 13, 2005

Oh I think the Dora was the sweetest. She was marvelous as you British chaps would say.

Best Fighter

Anonymous

Guest

Private Chemtrail Disperser

"Shooter"

Private Chemtrail Disperser

"Shooter"

Private Chemtrail Disperser

"Shooter"

Captain

Major General

Private Chemtrail Disperser

Attachments

Major General

Private Chemtrail Disperser

"Shooter"

Lieutenant Colonel

Private Chemtrail Disperser

"Shooter"

Private Chemtrail Disperser

Major General

Lieutenant Colonel

Private Chemtrail Disperser

Users who are viewing this thread

Similar threads