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!"
. I screwed up on the flow, the last line should read 
That's how they learn. Keep it comin' Des.
