Best Piston Engined Fighter Ever...

[renrich]

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]

Excellent post, renrich.

 

[davparlr]

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.

ClimbIn 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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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

 

[renrich]

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]

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]

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



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.



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.



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.



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.



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

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.