Best Piston Engined Fighter Ever

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

Status
Not open for further replies.
flojo said:
Besides - what's about the Ta152C as contender for best piston engine fighter ever?
Click to expand...

As far as I know only 2 Ta-152Cs were operational before the war ended and they did not see much if any combat to compare them to anything. The Ta-152H saw combat with JG 301 and is better to compare with.
 
well we do know that Ta 152C's from the factory were used by JG 301 pilots in combat. There is one confirmed kill of a P-51D in combat with the Ta 152H in 1945. not sure of the altitude but nearly every combat of the TA was at mid-low alt. and the craft seemed to perform beyond expectations
 

As the Ta-152 comes down in altitude, it airspeed starts to drop off. Below 25k, it is significantly slower than the P-51H (from 20 to 40 mph slower), somewhat slower than the F4U-4, but basically very close, I don't know much about the Sea Fury, if it like the Tempest, it would be a tremendous performer at low altitude. The Tempest in the Quote must have been a Tempest V. The Tempest II had a 48 mph airspeed advantage at SL. I have to admit that I have very little info on the Ta-152H, except airspeed. Soren would have the most data, I suspect. So I don't know much at all about climb except Soren stated it was around 5000 ft/min which would put it in the realm of the F4U-4 and P-51H.

Lesofprimus said:
More combats happened at higher alts than lower ones...
Click to expand...

This is true when high altitude bombing involved but I think it was not on the tactical level. I suspect that you would find that there were very few high altitude combats on the Russian front and that, if you include it in the total combats, low-medium fights would be in the majority.

Soren said:
Still thisisn't to say that the Ta-152H is overall vastly superior or superior at all, but unlike the above (Except F4U-4) it actually saw service in WWII - hence Les' comment.
Click to expand...

And, this isn't to say the Ta-152H wasn't a fomidable fighter. It most assuredly was, and was certainly the best high altitude fighter in the war. Soren, do you have much more data on the climbing ability of the Ta-152H?


The Ta-152H was superior to the P-51D over the entire operational envelope of the P-51D. But then, so was the F4U-4.
 
My words have gotten skewed some here.... What I was referring to was the fact that with the Tank involved in Ops it was designed for, high altitude was where it would have taken place, going up against US Heavies and escorts...

I am aware that most combats in Russia were at med to low alts, but during the discussion above, I was talking about high alt...
 

Sorry I misinterpreted what you were talking about.
 
Personal listing:

DH Hornet
F8F Bearcat
Hawker Fury/SeaFury
Ta-152H
Hawker Tempest II
Spitfire Mk 24 w/ contra props
F7F Tigercat
P-47N Tunderbolt
P-51H Mustang
190D-13
La-9
Ta-152C
Seafire Mk 48
F4U-4
 
Okay, I have a realignment of my choices. They are based on aerodynamic performance and combat experience and performance. The justification for the latter is that performance may be misleading, but combat performance is the ultimate test.

First Place. F4U-4. Performance was excellent from SL to Service ceiling, in both airspeed and climb, and had a great reputation for maneuver in all combat situations. Good Ceiling (41.6k ft.). Combat experience: WWII, Korean War, and Soccer War (El Salvador vs. Honduras)

Second Place. Three qualifiers. They have various strengths and weakness, I could not decide an order between them. So here they are in no particular order.

Sea Fury. Performance, including airspeed, climb, and maneuver, was excellent at lower altitudes (I have limited data to support this performance assessment). Mediocre Service Ceiling (35.8k ft.). Combat experience: Korean War. Low Service Ceiling and limited combat reduces selection level.

Ta-142H. Performance, including airspeed, climb? (no data), and maneuver, was excellent from SL to Service Ceiling. . Excellent Service Ceiling (48.5k ft.). Combat experience: WWII. Very competitive to F4U-4, lower performance at lower altitudes is offset by high altitude performance. Very limited combat experience and lack of data reduces selection level.

P-47N. Performance, including airspeed and maneuver is excellent from SL to Service Ceiling. Climb is good. Very good Service Ceiling (43k ft.). Combat experience: WWII. Performance similar to F4U-4 with emphasis on higher altitude performance. Lower combat experience to F4U-4 reduces selection level.

Honorable Mention:

P-51H. Faster than the F4U-4 at all altitudes, good climb performance (slightly less than F4U-4), good maneuver performance. Good ceiling (41.6k ft.). Combat experience: None. No combat experience negates rating.

F8F. Excellent climb and maneuver performance. Airspeed is limited. Good Service Ceiling (40.7k ft.). Combat experience. French Indo-China. Lower airspeed values and small combat experience reduces selection levels.

Others, probably.
 
The P-47N was a hot ship but hauling all that fuel, about 570 gallons, is a drag ... so to speak. With the fuel of a "D" model, she was closer in performance to an "M" than a "D" but I wouldn't want to go up against the other contenders you mentioned unless it was at over 30,000ft.
 
Davparlr,

Just a very small correction, the Ta-152H's service ceiling is 15.1 km (49.5k ft) with GM-1
 
I think the +770 km/h Dora-12 needs to be mentioned as-well, it is after-all the fastest of them all..
 
I can only go on WW2 aircraft, as many superprops never saw action and could not be evaluated under combat conditions. The P51H was faster than the F4U-4, on the other hand, the F4U-4 could out turn it and out climb it as well. I think the dash 4 was a tougher customer to down as well. The Ta-152 was outstanding at high alts- probably the best of the bunch in this regard. The later Spit variants were also excellent, having outstanding climb qualities.
 
I'd go with the Grumman Bearcat as first with the Sea Fury as second, Spitfire 21 third, probably Tempest as fourth, FW 19D-9 as fifth.

To me, the Ta 152 is MUCH too specialized for high altitude. It would be meat on the table for any of the above at 3000m, but would certainly be in the hunt at 10000m.
 
The F8F would be hard to handle in a dogfight at low altitudes by any other piston engined fighters and some of the early jets. However, the best performing Bearcat at low altitude, the F8F-1 was somewhat of a dog at high altitudes and the better high altitude performer F8F-2 had somewhat lower overall performance than the 1. Also the Bearcat couldn't carry much of a load ( that is the reason they weren't used in Korea) and they were not as robust as as the typical Grumman aircraft. The brakes were so weak that you did not know if you could get full power until you actually started to take off. Its limit load was 8Gs. The early Bearcats had breakaway wing tips which was supposed to make it a 12G aircraft but that feature was removed. I would stick with the F4U-5 as the all around best piston engined fighter.
 
We all know the Ta-152 was better suited for high alltitudes but the same can be said for other aircraft.

The aircraft that would have the advantage over the Ta-152 at lower alltitudes would be at the disadvantage at higher alltitudes.

All aircraft have there optimum performance at certian environmental areas.
 
ya might want to hold onto your britches as the TA was also a hot ticket at mid-altitude. Hoping Adler can get in touch with Willi but from the accts of other JG 301 pilots that flew the bird at mid range, well let's just say ........ watch out !
 
Agreed Erich.

According to the pilots who flew it the Ta-152H was a hot ticket at any altitude, its climb rate and turn rate being especially amazing at low alt, however speed was perhaps lacking just abit at SL (Not that the pilots complained) - but 595 km/h aint bad.
 
Yeap we will see. That is one of the questions in the letter was how the aircraft handled at mid and low alltitudes and how they compared to allied aircraft at those alltitudes based off of his real life experiences.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Users who are viewing this thread

Total: 1 (members: 0, guests: 1)

Similar threads

L
  • Locked
What Criteria should be used for determining the best land based piston fighter
9 10 11
Replies
218
Views
25K
Lighthunmust
L
N
Best Aircrafts
Replies
4
Views
2K
TheMustangRider
R
Question of Piston Engine concerning Cooling
Replies
0
Views
2K
rousseau
R
O
Poor Aircraft, Best Pilot
Replies
4
Views
2K
net_sailor
MERRY FRICKIN XMAS EVERYONE!!!
2 3 4
Replies
60
Views
6K
Njaco
Menu
Log in
Register