davparlr
Senior Master Sergeant
Gosh, I hope I didn't imply that I thought you didn't have a right to ask questions. I think I was just a bit confused.
Ad: This forum contains affiliate links to products on Amazon and eBay. More information in Terms and rules
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.
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.
First of all the US test involved an A-5/U4 which suffered from i'll-adjusted ailerons, causing premature stalling in turns.
FLYBOYJ, I'll acquire the Navy document discussing the matter.
Yea, I was thinking the same thing Joe... I think Soren has referred to this test before as it rings a bell.... Good post and info Soren... I like the chart...If the ailerons were out of rig they would of affected other things as well.
ah to have Willi R. or other members of JG 301 give their 2 ¢ about the Ta 152H on here ..........
The P-51D had a 11:1 "kill ratio" which is pretty considering how many rookie pilots flew it and the large numbers of it flew, and not far behind the Ta-152. The P-51D did have the advantage of Air Superiority when it flew so that ratio can also be misleading.
"The figures I use for the P-51 are the official USAAF figures for the ETO/MTO. The P-51 is credited with (1):
Sorties: 213,873 Bomb tonnage: 5,668 Lost in combat (includes losses from all combat causes): 2,520 E/A kills: 4,950 Ground kills: 4,131
This gives the P-51 a 1.96 to 1 kill ratio, far and away the best of any USAAF fighter in the theater."
Yet the Ta-152H holds a 11:0 kill ratio at low - medium altitude. Not a single Ta-152H was ever shot down.
Davparlr,
First of all the US test involved an A-5/U4 which suffered from i'll-adjusted ailerons, causing premature stalling in turns.
Secondly wing-loading is very mis-leading as it doesn't take into account various factors which hugely affects the amount of lift produced pr. area. Things like the higher the AR the higher the lift and the lower the drag pr. area, something the Ta-152H esp. benefits from. I can assure you that the Ta-152H is most likely by far the best dogfighter of the two, possessing a very high L/D ratio by virtue of its high AR wing.
As to testing, well in German tests between the Ta-152H-1 and FW-190A-8 the Ta-152H-1 proved to be a greatly superior dogfighter, easily out-turning the A-8 in both directions at low to mid altitudes.
Here's a chart showing the 14.5 m/s climb rate at 8.8km height, thats 4.5 m/s faster than the P-51H at 90" Hg, and 10km is reached in approx. the same time. And notice the incredibly short take off run of the Ta-152H as-well: