Best Piston Engined Fighter Ever...

[Milos Sijacki]

These are all really great fighters especially Mustangs and Messerschmit, but what about Russian fighters like Lavochkins La-5,7 and Yak fighters??? These were also great fighters of the war outperforming all fighters in the skies, both Allied and German.

 

[Soren]

Davparlr,

Power is good as it allows to withhold RPM's in maneuvers betters, but actual thrust is determined by the Engine + Prop. The Dora features another prop than the Anton, the Ta-152H features another prop than the Dora - the Ta-152's prop does infact produce approx. 70 kg more thrust than the Dora's.

As to the effect of wing AR, well it goes for low as-well as high altitude. The reason you want a high AR wing for high alt a/c is that you need as efficient a wing as possible in terms of lift produced pr. amount of drag - this is in order to be able to maneuver well at very high altitudes.

And about wing-loading, well it doesn't matter unless your comparing two identical a/c at different weights, what matters is lift-loading and that is CL dependant.

And as to why the Ta-152C featured a smaller wing, well that was for purely one reason - Speed. The engine was different as-well (DB-603), giving different performance at altitude. Two different designs.


You see the logic appears when you look abit closer.

Best regards

 

[Civettone]

So was the Ta 152C better at low and medium altitudes than the Ta 152H? I know it was faster. Was it also better?

Kris

 

[mkloby]

Power is good as it allows to withhold RPM's in maneuvers betters, but actual thrust is determined by the Engine + Prop. The Dora features another prop than the Anton, the Ta-152H features another prop than the Dora - the Ta-152's prop does infact produce approx. 70 kg more thrust than the Dora's.

Sure, thrust is output of engine and propeller efficiency... Power is good for much more than holding RPM during maneuvers.

Generally speaking, for props:
Vy is going to be at utilization of max excess power. At L/D max
Vx is goingg to be at max thrust excess. AoA greater than L/D max


Obviously, the two are both contributors to the thrust generated by prop A/C. But there are so many factors going into the A/C design and performance, that single measurements never tell the whole story.

 

[davparlr]

Davparlr,

Power is good as it allows to withhold RPM's in maneuvers betters, but actual thrust is determined by the Engine + Prop. The Dora features another prop than the Anton, the Ta-152H features another prop than the Dora - the Ta-152's prop does infact produce approx. 70 kg more thrust than the Dora's.

There is no doubt prop efficiency is important to convert hp into thrust much as tire design converts auto engine hp into thrust. I don't have much argument here except hp is important. You can never generate a lot of thrust will little hp, no matter how good your prop is.

And about wing-loading, well it doesn't matter unless your comparing two identical a/c at different weights, what matters is lift-loading and that is CL dependant.

I have trouble with this. CL is not the purpose of a wing. The purpose of a wing is to generate lift. Lift is inversely proportional to CL but proportional to wing area. The absolute lift advantages in CL in one wing can be offset by increases in wing area of another.

If you keep hammering me on the aerodynamic stuff, I will have to go dig up my old aero and aerothermopropulsion books. Then, watch out, I will be a expert in how many and what gage of bracing wires are required to pull 3 "gs" without losing the upper wing or how much castor oil you have to wipe off your goggles if you run a 80hp gnome rotary engine for 45 minutes.

And as to why the Ta-152C featured a smaller wing, well that was for purely one reason - Speed. The engine was different as-well (DB-603), giving different performance at altitude. Two different designs.

Yes. The Ta-152 suffers from speed at lower altitude when compared to the planes such as P-51H, F4U-5, Tempest II, and even slower than the P-51D below 15k. If you were driving on the freeway (autobahn) at 70 mph (113 km/hr), then a car zipped by at 103 mph (165 km/hr), that would be an F4U-5 passing your Ta-152 at SL, then a car zoomed by at 110 mph (177 km/hr),that was P-51H, and finally one flashed by at 116 mph (187 km/hr), that was a Tempest II. Of course the engine is a big factor.

You see the logic appears when you look abit closer.

Best regards

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)

Oops, You caught me on another error . I screwed up on the flow, the last line should read

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

So lets see. Say, A=5, B=3, C=7, and D=2

we have:

5>3 So far so good
7>2 Looking good
3>2 We're on a roll
Therefore:
5>7 Uh Oh. Logic doesn't hold.

 

[Soren]

Davparlr,

This doesn't happen often with you but I'm going to have to ask you what exactly you're talking about ?

Wing area is no more important than CL. A large wing with a low CL can easily be matched by a smaller wing with a higher CL. And as it is a higher AR increases CL while Cd0 is lowered, this is good for instantanous maneurvers but since it also gives a higher L/D ratio it proves important in sustained maneuvers as-well.

As to Horsepower, well more is always good, however the engine has also got to be efficient for its volume - and nomatter the engine if the design of your a/c isn't clean to begin with.

As to the Ta-152H vs F4U-5, well considering the Ta-152H is more maneuverable and most likely climbs faster plus is only slower on the deck, I see it as quite superior to the F4U-5 - esp. considering the fights in the ETO weren't as often carried out on the deck.

PS:

Ta-152H-1 SL speed = 597 km/h (374 mph)
Ta-152C-1 SL speed = 617 km/h (386 mph)

This isn't slow compared to the F4U-4 or -5..

 

[Hop]

A large wing with a low CL can easily be matched by a smaller wing with a higher CL.

It can match the lift, but at the expense of a lot more drag.

The coefficient of induced drag:

Cdi = (Cl^2) / (pi * AR * e)

The higher the wingloading, the higher the CL you have to pull to maintain the same turn. The higher the CL, the higher the drag (note how CL is squared in the equation)

The reason you want a high AR wing for high alt a/c is that you need as efficient a wing as possible in terms of lift produced pr. amount of drag - this is in order to be able to maneuver well at very high altitudes.

Which is also why you want as low a wingloading as possible.

 

[davparlr]

Davparlr,

This doesn't happen often with you but I'm going to have to ask you what exactly you're talking about ?

Actually, I keep asking myself that quite often. After pondering my thought process a bit, I think I figured it out. We were discussing wing loading verses CL and I think my mind started jumping around. Now, let me try this and see if it makes any better sense. Wing loading determines how much force each square foot of wing must provide. If a plane is twice as heavy as another with the same wing area, each square foot must generate twice the lift at a given load, like flying level or at a given turn rate. Now the F4U-5 has 25% more wing area than the Ta-152H (314 sqft vs. 251). If the wing loading was the same, then the efficiency of the Ta-152H wing would be superior (each square foot lifting the same load with a more efficient wing). However, this is not the case. Each square foot of wing area on the F4U-5 does not have to generate the lift that each square foot of the Ta-152H has to generate for a given load. The Ta-152H wing must be more efficient in order to provide the equivalent lift (lift is a function of wing area). This should be true given the AR of the two aircraft (we don't know both CLs). What we don't know is whether the efficiency of the Ta-152H wing is enough, not only to balance the wing area advantage of the F4U-5, but to exceed it in performance.

We do know that both the F4U and F6F, like the Fw-190, were noted for their maneuverability. Both Navy aircraft successfully fought an enemy whose aircraft were also noted for their maneuverability.

Wing area is no more important than CL. A large wing with a low CL can easily be matched by a smaller wing with a higher CL. And as it is a higher AR increases CL while Cd0 is lowered, this is good for instantanous maneurvers but since it also gives a higher L/D ratio it proves important in sustained maneuvers as-well.

There is no doubt that high AR provides more lift at lower drag, hence its use in applications like the B-24 and B-29. However, even a lower AR wing can produce an equivalent lift if you are willing to accept the drag increase. You can accept a drag increase if you have the thrust to overcome the additional drag. I contend that the F4U-5 (and -4) had more than enough thrust, as compared to the Ta-154H, to overcome the additional drag generated by its lower AR.

As to Horsepower, well more is always good, however the engine has also got to be efficient for its volume - and nomatter the engine if the design of your a/c isn't clean to begin with.

Hmmm, the radial used in the F4U was a pretty efficient engine, for a radial, and certainly was known for its power to weight ratio, which, with a sufficiency of fuel supplies, is more important. And, it is also known for its brute power. As for being clean, I'd say that the Ta-152H is cleaner as it goes about the same speed as the F4U-4 at SL but uses less power (neither compares well with the P-51B or D). Again, brute power can trump a lot of faults (e.g. F-4 Phantom). Remember, the fastest piston powered aircraft in the world is a radial powered aircraft.

As to the Ta-152H vs F4U-5, well considering the Ta-152H is more maneuverable

This cannot be stated as fact. It is quite possible that the F4U-5 is equal to or better than the Ta-154H in maneuverability below 30k

and most likely climbs faster plus is only slower on the deck

since I don't have the climb data for the F4U-5, I cannot agree or disagree. Also, the F4U-4 is faster, or equal to, the Ta-152H up to 25k. It is reasonable the assume the F4U-5, which is 30 mph faster at SL and 20mph faster at 30k than the F4U-4, is faster over this entire range from SL-25k, significantly, over both the F4U-4 and Ta-152H

, I see it as quite superior to the F4U-5 - esp. considering the fights in the ETO weren't as often carried out on the deck.

This is thread is for the greatest fighter ever. Since I am sure that, by far, most combat in WWII occurred below 25k feet, this area must be weighed heavily.

PS:

Ta-152H-1 SL speed = 597 km/h (374 mph)
Ta-152C-1 SL speed = 617 km/h (386 mph)

This isn't slow compared to the F4U-4 or -5..

The 30 mph advantage the F4U-5 has over the Ta-152H at SL and probably up through 30k is significant. Remember the 70 mph cruise down the freeway and being passed by someone going 100. You would probably say, "that guy's going fast!"

 

[Soren]

It can match the lift, but at the expense of a lot more drag.

The coefficient of induced drag:

Cdi = (Cl^2) / (pi * AR * e)

The higher the wingloading, the higher the CL you have to pull to maintain the same turn. The higher the CL, the higher the drag (note how CL is squared in the equation)

Which is also why you want as low a wingloading as possible.

Sorry Hop, but thats flawed thinking in a massive scale.

Just like CL Cdi is a coefficient, which means it needs to be multiplied by A (Area), and since the smaller wing is, well.. smaller, the slightly higher Cdi doesn't mean anything - esp. not if the AR is higher.

So no Hop, its not a lower wing-loading you want, its a low lift-loading and a high L/D ratio.

 

[Soren]

Actually, I keep asking myself that quite often. After pondering my thought process a bit, I think I figured it out. We were discussing wing loading verses CL and I think my mind started jumping around. Now, let me try this and see if it makes any better sense. Wing loading determines how much force each square foot of wing must provide. If a plane is twice as heavy as another with the same wing area, each square foot must generate twice the lift at a given load, like flying level or at a given turn rate. Now the F4U-5 has 25% more wing area than the Ta-152H (314 sqft vs. 251). If the wing loading was the same, then the efficiency of the Ta-152H wing would be superior (each square foot lifting the same load with a more efficient wing). However, this is not the case. Each square foot of wing area on the F4U-5 does not have to generate the lift that each square foot of the Ta-152H has to generate for a given load. The Ta-152H wing must be more efficient in order to provide the equivalent lift (lift is a function of wing area). This should be true given the AR of the two aircraft (we don't know both CLs). What we don't know is whether the efficiency of the Ta-152H wing is enough, not only to balance the wing area advantage of the F4U-5, but to exceed it in performance.

Considering the climb rate advantage at all alts and the much shorter take-off run I'd say that its quite clear that the Ta-152H's wing more than made up for the smaller wing area.

We do know that both the F4U and F6F, like the Fw-190, were noted for their maneuverability. Both Navy aircraft successfully fought an enemy whose aircraft were also noted for their maneuverability.

Tactics tactics tactics.

There is no doubt that high AR provides more lift at lower drag, hence its use in applications like the B-24 and B-29. However, even a lower AR wing can produce an equivalent lift if you are willing to accept the drag increase. You can accept a drag increase if you have the thrust to overcome the additional drag. I contend that the F4U-5 (and -4) had more than enough thrust, as compared to the Ta-154H, to overcome the additional drag generated by its lower AR.

I'm not talking in a straight line Davparlr, I'm talking in a turn where drag increases violently for the a/c with lowest wing efficiency.

Hmmm, the radial used in the F4U was a pretty efficient engine, for a radial, and certainly was known for its power to weight ratio, which, with a sufficiency of fuel supplies, is more important. And, it is also known for its brute power.

But in terms of power vs volume ?

As for being clean, I'd say that the Ta-152H is cleaner as it goes about the same speed as the F4U-4 at SL but uses less power (neither compares well with the P-51B or D). Again, brute power can trump a lot of faults (e.g. F-4 Phantom). Remember, the fastest piston powered aircraft in the world is a radial powered aircraft.

Don't be fooled by different speed figures at different power levels, the P-51 for example benefitted from an extra 300 HP worth of thrust generated by its radiator - which means its top speed is in effect a product of ~2,100 HP.

This cannot be stated as fact. It is quite possible that the F4U-5 is equal to or better than the Ta-154H in maneuverability below 30k

No it is not, and there are plenty of clear indications of this.

since I don't have the climb data for the F4U-5, I cannot agree or disagree.

Would you reckon the F4U-5 climbed better than the F4U-4 ?

Also, the F4U-4 is faster, or equal to, the Ta-152H up to 25k.
It is reasonable the assume the F4U-5, which is 30 mph faster at SL and 20mph faster at 30k than the F4U-4, is faster over this entire range from SL-25k, significantly, over both the F4U-4 and Ta-152H This is thread is for the greatest fighter ever. Since I am sure that, by far, most combat in WWII occurred below 25k feet, this area must be weighed heavily.

The 30 mph advantage the F4U-5 has over the Ta-152H at SL and probably up through 30k is significant. Remember the 70 mph cruise down the freeway and being passed by someone going 100. You would probably say, "that guy's going fast!"

If the F4U-5 is 30 mph faster at SL than the F4U-4 then yes that is pretty significant.

 

[davparlr]

Considering the climb rate advantage at all alts and the much shorter take-off run I'd say that its quite clear that the Ta-152H's wing more than made up for the smaller wing area.



Tactics tactics tactics.



I'm not talking in a straight line Davparlr, I'm talking in a turn where drag increases violently for the a/c with lowest wing efficiency.




But in terms of power vs volume ?



Don't be fooled by different speed figures at different power levels, the P-51 for example benefitted from an extra 300 HP worth of thrust generated by its radiator - which means its top speed is in effect a product of ~2,100 HP.



No it is not, and there are plenty of clear indications of this.



Would you reckon the F4U-5 climbed better than the F4U-4 ?




If the F4U-5 is 30 mph faster at SL than the F4U-4 then yes that is pretty significant.

Some good points, I'll have to get back to you in week. We are off to Ohio to visit my daughter and son-in-law. It will be in the 70s here (L.A.) but in the 40s there!

 

[des]

I recken tha the spitfire is the best because it has the most guns, excuse me if i am wrong.

 

[Soundbreaker Welch?]

Yeah, the Spit could of held it's own with the Ta 152 at low altitudes at least.

 

[lesofprimus]

I recken tha the spitfire is the best because it has the most guns, excuse me if i am wrong.

Oh Jesus, not another P-38 or Ohka...

 

[Matt308]

That's how they learn. Keep it comin' Des.

 

[mkloby]

That's how they learn. Keep it comin' Des.

 

[bigZ]

What was the performance differnence with the Jumo EB installed on the 152H?

 

[renrich]

In the comparison of the F6F3 and F4U1 against the FW190A4 it was found that the FW could not turn as well as either Navy fighter. The TA152c can't have as good a roll rate as the FW190."The Great Book of WW2 Airplanes" shows an initial rate of climb of 3445 ft/min of the TA and a Vmax of 465 mph at 29860 with MW 50. Same book shows the F4U5 initial rate of climb as 4230 ft/min and a Vmax of 462 mph at 31400 ft. The wing loading of each a/c is about the same-41 lb/sf.

 

[Civettone]

The Fw 190 was never much of a turn fighter. It's however likely that the Ta 152 would have had a very good (sustained) turn rate. However, as you said, at the cost of the roll rate. Nothing rolled like a Fw 190 but this was no longer the case with the 152H.

When I would have to chose between roll rate or turn rate, I would chose the former. If I want turn rate, I'll get me a Zero.
Kris

 

[FLYBOYJ]

When I would have to chose between roll rate or turn rate, I would chose the former. If I want turn rate, I'll get me a Zero.
Kris

Just as long as you're keeping it under 300 mph.