Best Piston Engined Fighter Ever...

[Hunter368]

So are you telling me the Ta-152H only shot down 11 planes? hmmm. While impressive, that's not much of a stat to go on. What is the kill ratio for all Ta-152's?

Yes, I think the Ta-152, if not THE best piston fighter, is in the top 3. Personally, I went with the Corsair F4U-5, but on reflection, I'd like to change my vote to the Ta-152 to be the best pure fighter. Best plane, hands down it's the Corsair (IMO).

Ta-152h kill ratio is 11-0 = impressive but not overwhelming
Corsairs kill ratio is 2140-189 = IMPRESSIVE!!!!!!!
F6F Hellcat kill ratio is 5163-270 = WOW!!!!
P-51 kill ratio ETO/MTO is 1.96-1 = uhhhhhh Sorry buddy, not even in my top 10.

We can't just base this choice on kill totals and believe that. Corsairs and Hellcat while good planes forsure, they also had little quality foes (poor pilots flying mostly poor planes) = alot of easy kills.

The same can be said for German pilots flying vs Russia in 41, alot of kills there but vs poor pilots flying poor planes.

We have to look deeper than just their kill totals or ratios.

I still have seen no one post detailed gun information for both TA-152H and Corsair F4U-5. I would really like to see those numbers. Guns play a huge part in deciding if a plane is a good fighter or a great fighter.

 

[renrich]

The F4U5 as I said in earlier post carried 924 rds of 20mm ammunition. The TA152 carried 90 rds for the MK108 30 mm and for the MG151 20 mm, 150-175 rds ea. The only ballistics #s I have for the 30 mm is for the MK 103 and they may not be representative of the MK108, however the rate of fire data show 380-420 rpm depending on the ammunition used. Also, in the section on the BF109 in my reference it was said that the Allied bomber crew members called the MK108 the "pneumatic hammer" because of it's slow rate of fire and that because of it's low muzzle velocity the LW fighters had to get close to score hits with it.

 

[Thorlifter]

We can't just base this choice on kill totals and believe that. Corsairs and Hellcat while good planes forsure, they also had little quality foes (poor pilots flying mostly poor planes) = alot of easy kills.

The same can be said for German pilots flying vs Russia in 41, alot of kills there but vs poor pilots flying poor planes.

We have to look deeper than just their kill totals or ratios.

I still have seen no one post detailed gun information for both TA-152H and Corsair F4U-5. I would really like to see those numbers. Guns play a huge part in deciding if a plane is a good fighter or a great fighter.

I absolutely agree kill ratio's don't say that one plane is better than the other. But it is a valid statistic when showing survivability, which helps make a superb fighter. You just wouldn't get those type of numbers if you were in a flying gas can, which you just proved. We are not talking about the japanese planes or the russian planes because they didn't have good survivability. The planes were sub-par and the lack of skill in the pilots sure didn't help.

 

[Hunter368]

I absolutely agree kill ratio's don't say that one plane is better than the other. But it is a valid statistic when showing survivability, which helps make a superb fighter. You just wouldn't get those type of numbers if you were in a flying gas can, which you just proved. We are not talking about the japanese planes or the russian planes because they didn't have good survivability. The planes were sub-par and the lack of skill in the pilots sure didn't help.

But my point was you can't put "much" weight into the Hellcat or Corsairs kill ratio b/c their opponents were of such low calibre (poor planes, poor pilots, poor tatics = thousands of easy kills). They are good planes but not as good as their kill ratio would lead some people to believe.

 

[Hunter368]

The F4U5 as I said in earlier post carried 924 rds of 20mm ammunition. The TA152 carried 90 rds for the MK108 30 mm and for the MG151 20 mm, 150-175 rds ea. The only ballistics #s I have for the 30 mm is for the MK 103 and they may not be representative of the MK108, however the rate of fire data show 380-420 rpm depending on the ammunition used. Also, in the section on the BF109 in my reference it was said that the Allied bomber crew members called the MK108 the "pneumatic hammer" because of it's slow rate of fire and that because of it's low muzzle velocity the LW fighters had to get close to score hits with it.

Here is what I would want in a fighter's guns:

-Good rate of fire

-dependable

-Lots of ammo

-Range

-Good hitting power

TA-152H guns were "big" but slow rate of fire and low ammo load. But if they did hit you most times one 30mm round could take you down.

F4U-5 has a good rate of fire, good ammo load, decent gun size. But damn its nice to be riding behind that 30mm gun of the TA-152H.

Tough call

 

[Thorlifter]

After all is said and done, there is no correct answer. Reading through all this we can say this plane was probably the best giving these circumstances, and that plane was the best giving those circumstances. We know which ones were the better of the best, but a definitive BEST......the world may never know.

 

[Hunter368]

After all is said and done, there is no correct answer. Reading through all this we can say this plane was probably the best giving these circumstances, and that plane was the best giving those circumstances. We know which ones were the better of the best, but a definitive BEST......the world may never know.

100% agreed

 

[DerAdlerIstGelandet]

I concur and very well said, besides none of us have flown any of these two aircraft so basically we are just speculating.

 

[Hunter368]

Ok first let me say I am not claiming to be a gun expert, so if I am wrong with anything I say in this post just let me know. Ok lets start (sorry if this is overly simple like I said I am not a gun expert)

TA-152H guns

MK 108 cannon:

30mm

ROF 650 rds/min

Muzzle velocity 1770 feet/sec

Ammunition

The cannon used specially-developed 30x90RB mm ammunition—30 mm calibre, 90 mm case length, rebated/reduced rim. Unlike most other weapon rounds, which used traditional brass for the case, the MK 108's ammunition used steel cases. Several types of ammunition were developed, including practice, armour-piercing, high-explosive and incendiary. In operation, however, two major ammunition types were used: Minengeschoß ('mine-shell') high-explosive and incendiary. The Minengeschoß was made by drawn steel (the same way brass cartridges are made) instead of being cast as was the usual practice for cannon shells. This resulted in a shell with a thin but strong wall, which hence had a much larger cavity in which to pack a much larger explosive or incendiary charge than was otherwise possible. The incendiary rounds were also often fitted with a hydrostatic fuse, which detonated when it came in contact with liquid. This was to ensure that the round did not merely explode on the target aircraft's skin (which would cause little damage), but instead penetrated it and exploded when it came into contact with fuel or coolant inside the fuel tanks or radiators respectively.

Construction
MK 108 firing operation cutaway schematic
MK 108 firing operation cutaway schematic

The cannon proved to be very effective and reliable, yet comparatively light, compact and easy to manufacture. These characteristics stem from its simple construction—80% of the weapon was made from stamped parts, and the number of moving parts was kept to a bare minimum using a simple blowback operation. However, the simple blowback operation had its disadvantages.

Otherwise, it was simple to manufacture and maintain, and its compact size and weight as well as its electrical priming made it ideal for aircraft installation. The cannon's distinctive heavy pounding sound and high rate of fire gave it the nickname "pneumatic hammer" amongst Allied aircrews, amongst whom the cannon gained a fearsome reputation due to its destructive power.

[edit] Disadvantages

Normally, gas-operated or delayed-blowback mechanisms are used in automatic weapons of rifle-calibre and larger because the chamber pressure in such weapons would be very high. Therefore, if a simple blowback system (where there is no positive lock between the bolt and barrel) is used, the bolt may recoil and open the breech while the chamber pressure is still high, causing damage to the weapon and split cases (see blowback article for more information). In the MK108, this problem was eliminated by simply reducing the muzzle velocity and shortening the barrel of the weapon to the point that, by the time the expanding gases from the fired round overcame the inertia of the heavy bolt and blew back the breech, the round had already left the weapon. This therefore allowed most of the gases to escape via the barrel, dropping the chamber pressure to a safe level. The heavy bolt then continued to move backwards into large buffer springs, which then pushed the bolt back into battery after a fresh round had been fed.

The low muzzle velocity needed for this simple operation became the MK 108's main shortcoming, with the result that its projectile trajectory dropped considerably after a comparatively short range. This made effective firing ranges short and aiming a challenge.

Ammo types Komet weapons: MK 108 cannon

MG 151 cannon

20mm

ROF 750 RPM

Muzzle velocity 2560 feet / sec

MG 151/20 specifications

Two versions of the 20 mm MG 151 were built: one with a percussion priming system and a second E-model with electrical priming. Some rounds were available with a timer self destruct and/or tracer (or glowtracer). There were also different types of High Explosive shell fillings with either standard PETN, a mixture called HA41 (RDX and aluminium), and a compressed version where more explosives were compressed into same space using large pressures (XM).

* Rifling: 1 turn in 23
* Round types:
o AP - round weight of 117 g.
o HE - round weight of 115 g. HE filler: 3.6 g
o HE(M) - Minengeschoß ("mine shell") - round weight of 92 g. HE filler: 18 g
o HE(XM) - round weight of 104g. HE filler: 25 g
o Incendiary, with either phosphorus and thermite filling.
o API (Armor piercing incendiary).

 

[Hunter368]

F4U-5 guns

20mm cannons

ROF 600-800 rds/min

Muzzle Vel 2750-2900 feet/sec



Here is a good link for more information on comparing:

WORLD WAR 2 FIGHTER GUN EFFECTIVENESS

Check it out, he does a way better than I could ever do.

 

[Soren]

This seems strange. As said elseware, this would probably be indicated in the vehicle performance in other places. There is no indication in the report of this ill adjustment and the plane was said to be easy to fly. You would think something would indicate a problem like yaw correction. Do you have some supporting data?

Yes I have supporting data, I just need to find it on my hard-drive. There's a document discussin the problems with the ailerons and the effects it had during the tests. Premature stalling in turns was a real issue.

Wing loading is thumbrule

For an engineer, maybe, for an aerodynamicist, no.

and there are other variables, but it does support the flight test claims.

It supports nothing as its just simple calculated guesswork.

Check up on how much of an effect just wing AR has on the lift and drag produced by a wing.

It cannot be dismissed either, especially if you have loads of power to drive it through the air, as the F4U-5 does.

Power ? What about actual thrust ??

So it could be as good a dogfighter as the F4U-1?

Better.

The F4U-4 in mil power has a climb rate of about 12.2 m/s at 8.8 km. Add a couple of hundred hp for WEP and a couple of hundred for the F4U-5 and I would suspect very similar or better performance at 8.8 km.

Davparlr, the F4U-4 isn't going to climb faster than 12.2 m/s at 8.8km (29,000 ft), at WEP it climbs at ca. 12.19 (2400 ft/min) at 8.8km (29,000 ft).

 

[renrich]

I think there is a lot of common sense in the last three posts before this one. I don't think the 30 mm gun is a particularly big(or any at all) plus for ACM. As I recall our pilots in Korea and Viet Nam were not overly impressed with the 30 mms the Migs toted and I know the Japanese pilots were not much afraid of the 37 mm the P39 carried although it was impressive in the ground support role. There is an interesting table of performance on the MK 103 mounted in a gondola which apparently is a higher velocity version of the MK108 mounted in the TA. It showed how many rds from what distance with what certainty a 4 engined bomber could be brought down. For instance: from 500 meters, 40 rds would work 50% of the time, 76 rds, 95%. From 1000 m, 104 rds, 50%, 203rds, 95%.

 

[renrich]

Hunter 368, The F4U5 did not carry 50 cal mgs but rather 4-20 mm cannon.

 

[Hunter368]

Hunter 368, The F4U5 did not carry 50 cal mgs but rather 4-20 mm cannon.

Oh yeh oops my bad. I will fix.

Done, thanks

 

[renrich]

My reference shows the TA with an initial rate of climb of 3445 ft/min combat power. The F4U5 initial rate of climb is 4230 f/m. I have graph in another source which shows the F4U4 taking around 8 min to climb to 26000 ft. The 5 should do at least as well.

 

[renrich]

A note on the FW 190 although by the (famous or infamous) Eric Brown RN. Mind you, he called the FW the superb creation of Kurt Tank. "Stalling speed in clean configuration was 127 mph. The stall came suddenly and virtually without warning, the port wing dropping so violently that the airplane almost inverted itself. This proved to be the fighter's Achilles heel, for if it was pulled into a "g" stall in a tight turn, it would flick into the opposite bank and, unless the pilot had his wits about him, into an incipient spin." This was the A4 and sounds like what the Navy was reporting in the comparison between FW, Hellcat and Corsair.

 

[davparlr]

For an engineer, maybe, for an aerodynamicist, no.

It supports nothing as its just simple calculated guesswork.

Check up on how much of an effect just wing AR has on the lift and drag produced by a wing.

So, what you are saying here is that a Ta-152H fully loaded (high wing loading) will be just as agile as a Ta-152H with only a light load (low wing loading). I think an engineering equation for performance would include wing loading in some form. I am surprised that an aerodynamists equation would not. Aerodynamics is certainly amazing!

Don't you think that it is interesting to note that Tank did not use this magical wide wing on the Ta-152C. In fact, with some agreeably shaky measurements from pictures, it looks like the C has a similar aspect ratio as the Fw-190A. You don't suppose he thought that it would be more efficient at lower altitudes, do you.

Power ? What about actual thrust ??

Surely, you are not implying that thrust is not a function of power, are you? Maybe that is one of those arcane aerodynamic concepts. I suspect that if I had an engine that produced 2400 hp (mil?) and you had an engine that produced 1400 hp (Sondernotlesitung) at a given altitude, I could figure out how to generate a significant more thrust than you could. That, by the way, is the hp difference between the F4U-5 and the Ta-152H at 25,000 ft.

Better.

Let me follow your logic here. You have data that shows the Ta-152H is significantly more maneuverable than the Fw-190A (was it in trim?), and there is a report from the Navy saying the F4U-1 was "much more maneuverable" than the Fw-190A (and some significant out of tolerance condition not documented in the test report (which would probably be a court marshal offense)) and concluded the Ta-154H was more maneuverable than the F4U-5?

Let's see now:

A (Ta-152) > B (first Fw-190)
C (F4U-1) > D (second Fw-190)
B (first Fw-190) > D (second Fw-190)

Therefore

A (Ta-152) > B (F4U-5)

Must be some of that aerodynamic logic that is above engineering level.

I still have problem believing that an out of trim condition would not have been noticed and corrected by the flight test pilots. They reported the plane was very easy to fly and dogfight and speed recorded was similar to that officially given to the Fw-190A. For an experienced pilot the plane talks to him, an out of trim aircraft feels out of trim immediately, a test pilot would likely feel that like a professional voice coach picking up an out of tune note from a student.

Davparlr, the F4U-4 isn't going to climb faster than 12.2 m/s at 8.8km (29,000 ft), at WEP it climbs at ca. 12.19 (2400 ft/min) at 8.8km (29,000 ft).

Ouch! You got me on that one. I misunderstood the chart. However, I am not willing to cede the rate of climb to the Ta-152H over the F4U-5 at this altitude. At 25,000 ft. the F4U-5 is generating about 550 more hp, uh, I mean, a lot more thrust , than the F4U-4. So it is reasonable that the F4U-5 could easily exceed the F4U-4 performance at 29,000, especially since it is design to be a higher altitude fighter. Equaling the Ta-152H climbing ability at this altitude is certainly within reason.

 

[Civettone]

Don't you think that it is interesting to note that Tank did not use this magical wide wing on the Ta-152C. In fact, with some agreeably shaky measurements from pictures, it looks like the C has a similar aspect ratio as the Fw-190A. You don't suppose he thought that it would be more efficient at lower altitudes, do you.

Interesting thought!

Kris

 

[Scipio]

The question wasn't which piston engine performed better in combat, it was which is the best piston engine aircraft. For me its the F8F, P51H and the T-152 in that order

 

[lesofprimus]

Yea, but combat experience is a plus in considering the choices...