Best Piston Engined Fighter Ever...

Discussion in 'Polls' started by lesofprimus, Mar 20, 2007.

?

Best Piston Engined Fighter Ever...

  1. Ta 152H-1

    18.4%
  2. Ta 152C-1

    2.6%
  3. Fw 190D-12

    2.6%
  4. Fw 190D-13

    4.9%
  5. Ki-84 Ib Hayate {Frank}

    1.6%
  6. Ki-100 Ib Otsu {Tony}

    0.3%
  7. N1K2-J Shiden-Kai {George}

    0 vote(s)
    0.0%
  8. F4U-4 Corsair

    4.5%
  9. F4U-5 Corsair

    6.8%
  10. F8F-2 Bearcat

    6.1%
  11. P-51H Mustang

    16.2%
  12. P-47N Thunderbolt

    6.1%
  13. DH Hornet

    2.3%
  14. Hawker Tempest II

    3.6%
  15. Hawker Sea Fury

    10.7%
  16. Spitfire Mk XXI {21}

    2.9%
  17. Spitfire Mk XXIV {24}

    6.5%
  18. Bf 109K-14

    2.3%
  19. Bf 109K-4

    1.6%
  1. lesofprimus

    lesofprimus Active Member

    Joined:
    Jul 27, 2004
    Messages:
    19,162
    Likes Received:
    5
    Trophy Points:
    38
    Occupation:
    Communications
    Location:
    Long Island Native in Mississippi
    Home Page:
    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....
     
  2. Udet

    Udet Banned

    Joined:
    Nov 22, 2004
    Messages:
    1,258
    Likes Received:
    1
    Trophy Points:
    0
    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.
     
  3. Civettone

    Civettone Active Member

    Joined:
    Oct 7, 2005
    Messages:
    1,821
    Likes Received:
    2
    Trophy Points:
    38
    Occupation:
    Student
    Location:
    London, UK
    Home Page:
    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
     
  4. Gnomey

    Gnomey World Travelling Doctor
    Staff Member Moderator

    Joined:
    Nov 28, 2004
    Messages:
    41,720
    Likes Received:
    517
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Gender:
    Male
    Occupation:
    Doctor
    Location:
    Portsmouth / Royal Deeside, UK
    Home Page:
    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.
     
  5. Soren

    Soren Banned

    Joined:
    Feb 6, 2005
    Messages:
    6,624
    Likes Received:
    3
    Trophy Points:
    0
    Ta-152 H-1, as its highly maneuverable and fast at ALL altitudes, which can't said about most other fighters on the list.
     
  6. DerAdlerIstGelandet

    DerAdlerIstGelandet Der Crew Chief
    Staff Member Moderator

    Joined:
    Nov 8, 2004
    Messages:
    41,767
    Likes Received:
    684
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Occupation:
    A&P - Aircraft Technician
    Location:
    USA/Germany
    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.
     
  7. Soren

    Soren Banned

    Joined:
    Feb 6, 2005
    Messages:
    6,624
    Likes Received:
    3
    Trophy Points:
    0
    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.
     
  8. davparlr

    davparlr Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Mar 23, 2006
    Messages:
    2,934
    Likes Received:
    105
    Trophy Points:
    63
    Occupation:
    retired avionics engineer
    Location:
    Southern California
    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
     
  9. Soren

    Soren Banned

    Joined:
    Feb 6, 2005
    Messages:
    6,624
    Likes Received:
    3
    Trophy Points:
    0
    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.
     
  10. Civettone

    Civettone Active Member

    Joined:
    Oct 7, 2005
    Messages:
    1,821
    Likes Received:
    2
    Trophy Points:
    38
    Occupation:
    Student
    Location:
    London, UK
    Home Page:
    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
     
  11. Soren

    Soren Banned

    Joined:
    Feb 6, 2005
    Messages:
    6,624
    Likes Received:
    3
    Trophy Points:
    0
    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.
     
  12. davparlr

    davparlr Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Mar 23, 2006
    Messages:
    2,934
    Likes Received:
    105
    Trophy Points:
    63
    Occupation:
    retired avionics engineer
    Location:
    Southern California
    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:) .
     
  13. renrich

    renrich Active Member

    Joined:
    Jan 19, 2007
    Messages:
    4,542
    Likes Received:
    5
    Trophy Points:
    38
    Occupation:
    real estate
    Location:
    Montrose, Colorado
    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
     
  14. Soren

    Soren Banned

    Joined:
    Feb 6, 2005
    Messages:
    6,624
    Likes Received:
    3
    Trophy Points:
    0
    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 :)
     
  15. davparlr

    davparlr Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Mar 23, 2006
    Messages:
    2,934
    Likes Received:
    105
    Trophy Points:
    63
    Occupation:
    retired avionics engineer
    Location:
    Southern California
    This is certainly where the Ta-152H shines.
     
  16. davparlr

    davparlr Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Mar 23, 2006
    Messages:
    2,934
    Likes Received:
    105
    Trophy Points:
    63
    Occupation:
    retired avionics engineer
    Location:
    Southern California
    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.
     
  17. lesofprimus

    lesofprimus Active Member

    Joined:
    Jul 27, 2004
    Messages:
    19,162
    Likes Received:
    5
    Trophy Points:
    38
    Occupation:
    Communications
    Location:
    Long Island Native in Mississippi
    Home Page:
    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...
     
  18. bigZ

    bigZ Member

    Joined:
    Jan 18, 2007
    Messages:
    571
    Likes Received:
    0
    Trophy Points:
    16
    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.
     
  19. davparlr

    davparlr Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Mar 23, 2006
    Messages:
    2,934
    Likes Received:
    105
    Trophy Points:
    63
    Occupation:
    retired avionics engineer
    Location:
    Southern California
    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.
     
  20. Parmigiano

    Parmigiano Member

    Joined:
    Aug 2, 2005
    Messages:
    714
    Likes Received:
    0
    Trophy Points:
    16
    Location:
    Campospinoso (PV), Italy
    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
     
Loading...

Share This Page