Ad: This forum contains affiliate links to products on Amazon and eBay. More information in Terms and rules
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.
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.
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.
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.
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?
Wing loading is thumbrule
and there are other variables, but it does support the flight test claims.
It cannot be dismissed either, especially if you have loads of power to drive it through the air, as the F4U-5 does.
So it could be as good a dogfighter as the F4U-1?
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.
Hunter 368, The F4U5 did not carry 50 cal mgs but rather 4-20 mm cannon.
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.
Power ? What about actual thrust ??
Better.
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).
Interesting thought!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.