Best Piston Engined Fighter Ever...

Best Piston Engined Fighter Ever...

  • Total voters
    311

Ad: This forum contains affiliate links to products on Amazon and eBay. More information in Terms and rules

How about under 275 mph for the A6M. The comparison of the FW190A4 and the Navy planes showed the FW and F4U had about the same roll rate, both better than the F6F. The Corsair was noted for it's high roll rate and it got better with each model. Vought spent more than 700 flight test hours on perfecting the ailerons on the Corsair.
 

The F4U in the Navy test was fitted with boost ailerons.
 
The following are admittedly subjective observations by a US Navy pilot after WW2 on flying a F4U4. This was after training in an F6F and serving in an F8F squadron. The pilot has an aeronautical engineering degree. When first flying it, "Considering what it had to offer a pilot would have to either be dead inside or in the wrong business not to appreciate that the airplane was a special kind of flying machine." "Acceleration(on takeoff) was somewhere between the Hellcat and the Bearcat-closer to the Bearcat but without the excitement and agility of that airplane. That may be an unfair comparison. The Corsair in the air was a jewel." " The Corsair was a stable airplane with reasonable not objectionable control forces. It had a comforting solid feel in cruise configuration, yet maneuver response was quick and relatively easy. It was not as quick as the Bearcat but in some ways it was more controllable. My subjective impression is of better "control harmony" in the Corsair than in either of the Grummans. That expression refers to a desirable state in which stability and control responses are similar about all three axes." He goes on to say that for the first time he became a consistently respectable gunner in the Corsair because of that control harmonization. All of this and during the attempt by the air force to say that carriers were no longer needed because the early jets were not capable of intercepting the intercontinental B36 at 40000 ft the Navy according to a story intercepted a B36 at 40000 feet with an F4U5.
 
Running along side the Corsair is certainly not the most comfortable pace for the Jets - its rather uncomfortable as I've heard.
 
Soren, Have Friend who flew the A6 when they evaluated it against the MIG21 during Viet Nam. The word was that the MIG would stall in a hard turn at anything less than 275 kts. When the Mig came up on the A6s six my friend went into a hard turn at 275 kts and slowing. They looked back and there was the MIG and over the radio they heard" tracking Atoll, Tracking Atoll, Tracking Guns , Tracking Guns." He said there was no maneuver they tried where they could shake the MIG and the only hope they had was to get down right on the deck, head for the carrier, scream for help, and hope the MIG ran out of fuel.
 
Soren said:
Considering the climb rate advantage at all alts
Click to expand...
Do you have data to support this. The F4U-4 has a SL climb of 4800 ft/min. Since you have stated that the Ta-152H can make 5000 ft/min (I don't have charts that show this), I would say this is within the measuring error (or graph reading error). Also, some data I have found shows the F4U-4, with max power, climbing to 20,000 ft in 4.9 seconds, faster than the Dora at 5.8. The Dora beats the Ta-152H to 25k, 7.6 minutes to 8 for the Ta.

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.
Click to expand...

You don't want to challenge a Navy plane to a take-off run contest. The data I have for a Ta-152H take-off roll is 968 ft., while the F4U-4 has a take-off roll of 790 ft. at Mil power. So, it appears that the Ta-152H wing does not make up for the smaller wing area.


Tactics tactics tactics.
Click to expand...

Quite true, but not entirely. Like the Fw-190, these aircraft were noted for their maneuverability.



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.
Click to expand...

Mmmm, I am not convinced that there is that much difference given that the F4U-5 wing is at a lower work load (lower alpha?) for a given maneuver. And there is that great excess power available to the F4U-5. It would take a one hellacious prop efficiency to make up for the up to a 1000 hp advantage (like about 60% more efficient?).


But in terms of power vs volume ?
Click to expand...

Do you mean power vs. frontal area? I am pretty sure the PW has a better power to volume over the Jumo if you include the cooling system, also better power to weight. I may be wrong, but I would be surprised. Frontal area is an issue, but the circular frontal radiator of the Jumo is certainly similar.


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.
Click to expand...

Good point, I didn't think about that. There are two ways I can address this. First, I could say that the P-51B is the most aerodynamically efficient fighter of the war, with a higher speed per engine horsepower generated. Or I could say that, considering the tested P-51B generated 1600 hp while making 386 mph at SL, add the extra 300 HP and you have 1900 hp and 386 mph, which is still about 10-15 mph faster than the Ta-152 with less hp, it is still the cleanest, just not as much.


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

I don't think anything is pretty clear here.


Would you reckon the F4U-5 climbed better than the F4U-4 ?
Click to expand...

At first I did. But now I think they are pretty equal. The F4U-5 has more power, about 200-300hp more, but weighs about 300 lbs more, so I think they are similar in climb. I have no supporting data on climb for the F4U-5.


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

The F4U-5 will do 403 mph at SL, vs. the F4U-4's speed of 374 mph. At 30k, the F4U-5 is 20 mph faster, 462 to 442. I have no other speed data points for the F4U-5.
 
Davparlr, your take-off data for F4U-4 are not valid in this discussing as they are 'on deck' figures - not paved or concrete runway figures.

The take-off distance for the F4U-1 at 2,000 HP (Mil power) on a hard surface runway is 910 ft (277m) at 13,100 lbs and 1,870 ft (569m) to clear a 50 ft (15m) object. (Taken from the POH)

The Ta-152H's take-off distance of 295m (967 ft) and distance to clear a 20m (65.6 ft) object of 495m (1,624 ft) is at Start u. Notleistung (1,760 PS) from a concrete runway in Zero wind conditions.

As you can see the wing of the Ta-152H more than made up for its smaller size.

And as to the climb rate of the Ta-152H-1, well consider this; The 4,400 ft/min Dora-9 reaches 10km 2.5 min later than the Ta-152H-1 at full boost - and on top of this the Ta-152H has a much shorter take-off and landing roll.
 
Soren said:
Davparlr, your take-off data for F4U-4 are not valid in this discussing as they are 'on deck' figures - not paved or concrete runway figures.
Click to expand...

This is confusing. It does state on-deck numbers with calm wind. I don't know what that means. Does it mean no over-the-deck wind, or is there some nominal aircraft carrier speed that is used, like 25 kts. As such, I will yield to your F4U-1 numbers.


Oh, no, no. I am not going to bite on this. You have noted that the takeoff weight of the F4U-1 as 13,100 lbs, or 4118 lbs above empty weight, but you failed to note the tested takeoff weight of the Ta-152H-0. According to the chart, the Ta-152H-0 had a takeoff weight of 4760 kg, or 10,494 lbs., or a paltry 1850 lbs over empty weight. In fact, the F4U-1 wings were lifting 2606 more lbs than the wings of the Ta-152H-0. As such, it still took off in a shorter distance than the Ta-152H, per you numbers, 910 ft. vs. 967 ft. And can you really argue that if you added 2606 lbs to the loaded weight of the Ta-152H wings, that they would still be able to beat the F4U-1 to 50 ft. Probably not since the Ta-152H would be over grossed by 2700 lbs! Or, could you say that if you knocked off 2606 lbs from the F4U-1, that it would beat the Ta-152H to 20 m.? There is a good chance that it could.

It is true that the F4U-1 has 240 more hp, but it is doing a heck of a lot more lifting.

As you can see the wing of the Ta-152H more than made up for its smaller size.
Click to expand...

No, I can't. I think that if you loaded up those small wings with the same weight that was being lifted by the F4U-1, even with an additional 240 horses, they would be struggling. Or, if you knocked 2606 lbs off the F4U wings (which is equavalent to more than half the bomb load of a B-17), it would be spry indeed.

I would say that pound for pound, the F4U-1 wings could generate much better lift than the Ta-152H wings, at least at takeoff conditions. This is also indicated by the more twice the load carrying capability of the F4U-1 with only 240 more hp. This load carrying capability is also an indication of how much stronger the airframe of the F4U-1 was over the Ta-152H. Now throw on an additional 100 horses for the -4 (mil) or 350 for the -5 (mil), and you can see what kind of aircraft the F4U series is capable of.

And as to the climb rate of the Ta-152H-1, well consider this; The 4,400 ft/min Dora-9 reaches 10km 2.5 min later than the Ta-152H-1 at full boost - and on top of this the Ta-152H has a much shorter take-off and landing roll.
Click to expand...

My data on the Dora-9 climb is confusing. I do have the numbers you show here. I have very little data on the Ta-152H climb.
 
Soren said:
Davparlr, your take-off data for F4U-4 are not valid in this discussing as they are 'on deck' figures - not paved or concrete runway figures.
Click to expand...

This is confusing. It does state on-deck numbers with calm wind. I don't know what that means. Does it mean no over-the-deck wind, or is there some nominal aircraft carrier speed that is used, like 25 kts. As such, I will yield to your F4U-1 numbers.


Oh, no, no. I am not going to bite on this. You have noted that the takeoff weight of the F4U-1 as 13,100 lbs, or 4118 lbs above empty weight, but you failed to note the tested takeoff weight of the Ta-152H-0. According to the chart, the Ta-152H-0 had a takeoff weight of 4760 kg, or 10,494 lbs., or a paltry 1850 lbs over empty weight. In fact, the F4U-1 wings were lifting 2606 more lbs than the wings of the Ta-152H-0. As such, it still took off in a shorter distance than the Ta-152H, per you numbers, 910 ft. vs. 967 ft. And can you really argue that if you added 2606 lbs to the loaded weight of the Ta-152H wings, that they would still be able to beat the F4U-1 to 50 ft. Probably not, since the Ta-152H would be over grossed by 2700 lbs! Or, could you say that if you knocked off 2606 lbs from the F4U-1 (equivalent to dropping over half the bomb load of a B-17), that it would beat the Ta-152H to 20 m.? There is a good chance that it could.

It is true that the F4U-1 has 240 more hp, but it is doing a heck of a lot more lifting.

As you can see the wing of the Ta-152H more than made up for its smaller size.
Click to expand...

No, I can't. I think that if you loaded up those small wings with the same weight that was being lifted by the F4U-1, even with an additional 240 horses, they would be struggling.

I would say that pound for pound, the F4U-1 wings could generate much better lift than the Ta-152H wings, at least at takeoff conditions. This is also indicated by the more twice the load carrying capability of the F4U-1 with only 240 more hp. This load carrying capability is also an indication of how much stronger the airframe of the F4U-1 was over the Ta-152H. Now throw on an additional 100 horses for the -4 (mil) or 350 for the -5 (mil), and you can see what kind of aircraft performance the F4U series is capable of.

And as to the climb rate of the Ta-152H-1, well consider this; The 4,400 ft/min Dora-9 reaches 10km 2.5 min later than the Ta-152H-1 at full boost - and on top of this the Ta-152H has a much shorter take-off and landing roll.
Click to expand...

My data on the Dora-9 climb is confusing. I do have the numbers you show here. I have very little data on the Ta-152H climb.
 
Davparlr, the majority of Ta-152H-1's in service didn't carry the extra fuel tanks designed for this model, and those who did carried the same fuel load as the H-0 - so the take-off distance stands, which btw would've been considerably shorter for the H-1 as it was cleared for 1,900 PS.

HP makes alot of difference on the take-off roll, the wing having greater influence on the distance to clear a object whilst airborne. And clearing a 20m high object 74m before the F4U-1 clears a 15m high object with ~270 extra HP and lower wing-loading clearly indicates the superiority of the Ta-152H's wing - And a 2.5min better time to climb 10km than the clean 4,400 ft/min Dora-9 clearly demonstrates this fact.
 
Soren, I do not buy your argument. You said:


Now, just add 2600 lbs to Ta-152H-1 and see what it does.

HP makes alot of difference on the take-off roll, the wing having greater influence on the distance to clear a object whilst airborne.
Click to expand...
As an old cargo jockey I can tell you that weight makes a lot of difference on an aircraft clearing an object on takeoff. You are totally disregarding the fact that the F4U-1 has a much greater load than the Ta-152H, and still has shorter takeoff distance and is not much behind the much lighter Ta-152H on clearing an obstacle. The F4U-1 has a 25% weight increase, but only a 16% power advantage.
And clearing a 20m high object 74m before the F4U-1 clears a 15m high object with ~270 extra HP and lower wing-loading clearly indicates the superiority of the Ta-152H's wing
Click to expand...
No. This is not true. The wing loading in this comparison was almost identical, 41.7 lbs/sqft for the F4U-1, and 41.8 for the Ta-15H. I do not believe the 16% hp advantage is enough to make up the 25% weight difference. The Ta wing is not performing that great.

If loaded to the same weight factor, I think the F4U-1 would "clearly" outperform the Ta-152H on takeoff and clearing either one of the noted objects.

- And a 2.5min better time to climb 10km than the clean 4,400 ft/min Dora-9 clearly demonstrates this fact.
Click to expand...
or, it could "clearly" demonstrate that the Ta-154H has a better wing loading than the Dora-9, 34.4 lb/sqft to 39.1 lb/sqft. empty.

Your concept of "clearly" is mysterious to me.

I don't think any of your argument here is effective in showing that the Ta wing is much more efficient at lower level than other aircraft, and I suspect, has other drawbacks. And that is why Tank did not use it on the Ta-152C.
 
For christ sake Davparlr, have you completely forgotten about wing area to weight and power ?! Wing area to weight is important as-well, and the F4U has a lot of it ! So much so that its wing-loading is lower than the Ta-152H's ! Hence why the Ta-152H's wing is more efficient, it allows the Ta-152H to take off and clear a 20m high object 74m before the F4U-1 can do it with ~270 more HP and a lower wing loading.

Is that so mysterious to you ??

or, it could "clearly" demonstrate that the Ta-154H has a better wing loading than the Dora-9, 34.4 lb/sqft to 39.1 lb/sqft. empty.
Click to expand...

So now power suddenly doesn't matter anymore ? I must admit you're hanging the ropes at this point davparlr...

Dora-9: 4,270 kg/2,100 PS = 2.03 kg/hp
Ta-152H: 4,760 kg/2,100 PS (Some docs say 2,050 PS) = 2.26 - 2.32 kg/hp

PS: Why use empty weights all the time ??
 
Come on Soren, I just addressed the wing loading issue. According to the test parameters, the Ta-152H weight was 4760 kg or 10494 lbs. The wing area is 251 sqft. giving a test wing loading of 41.8 lbs/sqft. Again according to your post, the F4U-1 weight was 13,100 lbs with a wing area of 314 sqft giving a test wingloading of 41.7 lb/sqft. So with a difference of .1 lbs/sqft I don't think you can reasonably say the difference made any impact for this particular test

You still continue to ignore the fact that the F4U-1 was much more heavily laden, which substantially impact object-clearance performance (ask any of your pilot buddies), than the Ta-152H, therefore, this comparison is flawed.

If I was going to perform a comparative test between these two aircraft, I would want to normalize the variables. Since you can't load the Ta to the level of the F4U, you would take an empty Ta-152H at 8626 lbs and load it up to the test weight of 10494 lbs. That would be a load weight of 1868 lbs. Now you would normalize the F4U. Its empty weight would be 8982 lbs, or 356 lbs more than the Ta. Add to that, the same load weight as the Ta, 1868 lbs, and the test weight F4U-1 should be 10850 lbs. Note that the should-be-test weight of F4U-1 is 2250 lbs less than the actual tested aircraft. This is now almost apples to apples, but not quite since the F4U-1 has more power. In my flight test, obviously the F4U-1 would take off quicker than the Ta-152 (it was able to do that with the added weight), and, since load weight is a major factor in clearing an obstacle, I would expect this to show significant improvement over the original test since it is now 21% lighter. Would it beat the Ta? Neither one of us knows that. However, I think it probably would, given it has more power.

Also, if you added that 2250 lbs extra weight the real test F4U-1 carried to the Ta-152H (say, put on a 1000 kg bomb), I doubt very seriously that the Ta-152 could out climb the F4U-1 at takeoff nor do a better job of clearing obstacles.

Is that so mysterious to you ??
Click to expand...
It is mysterious to me that you can say this,

when, one, the object-clearance comparison was to the F4U-1 which had 2250 extra unessential pounds on board and is therefore handicapped in object-clearance trials, and two, the Dora-9 has a higher wing loading. If you took a Dora-9 and replaced its wing with an identical wing, only larger, such that the wing loading now was equivalent to the Ta-152H, I am sure you would say that the climb performance would improve significantly. Who knows, it might have done as good as the Ta to 10km. If the Ta had the same wing loading as the Dora-9 and performed better, you could then "clearly" state that it was because of the efficiency of the Ta-152 wing efficiency. But you can't when the wing loading is different and favors the Ta. You can't state "clearly" with an uncontrolled variable.

It is amazing that you see things so clearly where no data exist. The Ta-152H never saw an F4U-4 or 5 in combat. We have very little data on climb rates on both and little data on the airspeed of the F4U-5 and no data available on maneuverability on either. What data we do know indicates that the F4U-5 is much more powerful and has as lower wing loading, that it also was 30 mph faster at sea level and probably even faster up to 25k ft since it has nearly 1000 hp advantage at that altitude. Yet you are able to see that the Ta-152H is "clearly" superior to the F4U-5 below 25k feet.

So now power suddenly doesn't matter anymore ? I must admit you're hanging the ropes at this point davparlr...
Click to expand...

This is a Strange statement since I am the one providing data and you are the one waving your arms.

Dora-9: 4,270 kg/2,100 PS = 2.03 kg/hp
Ta-152H: 4,760 kg/2,100 PS (Some docs say 2,050 PS) = 2.26 - 2.32 kg/hp
Click to expand...
I see this point. The Ta has higher power loading (weight/hp) and is able to climb to 10 km faster than the Dora. However, the Dora is hindered by a higher wing loading. Now the question is; is the faster climb with less power due to the more efficient Ta wing, or because the Ta has a lower wing loading. We both know that it is a combination of the two. Neither one of us can tell how much each contributes, so the wing efficiency of the Ta-152 is not clearly demonstrated by this example.
PS: Why use empty weights all the time ??
Click to expand...

Typically only two or three weight variables are known for these aircraft, empty weight, gross weight and/or max weight. In my opinion, the most accurate weight for comparing performance and calculating load factors, such and wing loading and power loading, should be calculated using one of two methods. One method is equivalent performance weight, e.g. empty weight plus equivalent fuel weight, like fuel required operating at mil power for x minutes, and equivalent ammunition load. The second method is typical combat weight, e.g. empty weight plus probable fuel quantity at combat entry which consist of fuel for combat at equivalent times, fuel required to recovery, and equivalent ammunition. For example, a P-51D would use empty weight plus combat fuel required, fuel required for four hours return home, recovery, and ammunition. This would be compared to a Bf-109G, which would have combat fuel required, and fuel for 10 minute return to base, 10 min recovery, and ammunition. This would reflect a more realistic comparison of what happen in WWII.

The use of Gross or Max weights does not meet the criteria of either method. In fact, it punishes the aircraft that have good load lifting ability. This could cause a large error. An aircraft in fighter combat configuration could easily have better load factors over an opponent, yet calculate to a poorer load factors if gross/max weight is used. Since American aircraft typically have a much better load lifting ability than other allied or axis aircraft, this is a sore point with me!

Since I don't know most aircraft fuel capacities, or fuel consumption, and have no desire to do so (also, no one would agree), I wouldn't use method two. But, since it can be assumed that fuel consumption is pretty comparable for WWII aircraft (e.g. fuel consumption for a P-51D in Mil power is probably comparable to that of the Bf-109G in Mil power) and ammunition weight is probably similar, empty weight is a quick, reasonable approximation of method one. If you add the same quantity of fuel to each aircraft and the same amount of ammunition to each aircraft, the ratio of weight of one aircraft to the other would not change in direction. For example, aircraft A has an empty weight of 6000 lbs, and a wing area of 250 sq ft, which would have a wing loading of 24 lb/sq ft. Aircraft B has a empty weight of 7000 lbs and a wing area of 250 sq ft, which gives a wing loading of 28 lbs/sqft. Aircraft B has a 17% greater wing loading than Aircraft A. If we add 1000 lbs of fuel and ammunition to each, then aircraft A weighs 7000 lbs and aircraft B weights 8000 lbs, then the wing loading of A is 28 lbs/sqft and of B is 32. Aircraft B has a 14% greater wing loading. While there is some error, both show aircraft A with a significant wing load advantage. Some aircraft, such as the P-38, which has two engines and would require additional fuel, would have to have an adjusted method. I could use a standard load weight and get better accuracy, but some would always disagree with my weight assumptions. Sorry for the novel. You shouldn't ask how my weird mind works.

Power IS important. So is wing loading. So is wing efficiency. But a magic wing does not automatically negate the other two. The F4U-5 is an aircraft with large lift-producing wings and a powerful engine to use those large wings to full advantage. I do not believe that the Ta-152 has a efficient enough wing, especially since it has to operate at a higher AOA due to is higher wing loading, to overcome that advantage until the altitude gets high enough for the engine hp and efficient wings to come into there own, that is, certainly above 25kft, and probably 30kft. Above that, it reigns supreme.

I believe we have arrived at our usual impasse.
 
The reason I say the Ta-152H's wing is more efficient is not because it is my opinion that it is so, its because it is a fact that it is so - a higher AR increases the efficiency of a wing - hence why gliders use long slender wings.

Here's a scale that shows the difference in L/D ratio (Lift drag ratio) between an AR of 4 to an AR of 9:
AR 4

AR 9


And the funny thing is that this scale is actually valid for use in this comparison as the Ta-152H and F4U both use the same airfoil - the NACA 23000.

And as to the other effects of aspect ratio, well it just so happens that a lower AR wing needs a higher AoA in order to produce the same amount of lift as a higher AR wing - the high AR wing producing more lift pr. AoA.

And seeing that the Ta-152H at the same wing-loading is particularly faster to clear 50ft than the F4U-1 clearly demonstrates this difference in efficiency.
 


Actually, I agree with all you say. I have never argued the point that the low AR was not more efficient and I think you are right on the clearance of the obstacle. In fact, this is a good example of how a low AR wing performs better than a high AR. The two planes had similar wing loading but the Ta was able to climb quicker with less hp. That is what efficiencies are all about.

You are right that a low AR needs a lower AOA to generate equal lift, but I suspect that this is lift per square area (I'll have to research this a bit). The lower wingloading of the F4U-1 would help negate the AOA advantage of the lower AR.

We were not arguing wing efficiencies, but aircraft performance. My position was that the wingloading on the F4U-1 should not have been equal with the Ta and that it was overloaded for this comparison. Loaded to equavilent weights, the F4U-1, with much better wingloading (now with 34.6 lbs/sqft to 41.8 lbs/sqft) and more power would probably exceed the performance of the Ta-152H in these take-off runs. Maybe, if I get inspired, I could calculate some L/D numbers for these two aircraft at take off with these weights.

Futhermore, I think that the F4U-5, with much greater power than the -1, or Ta, at altitudes up to 25k+ ft, would outperform the Ta-152H in this arena.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Users who are viewing this thread

Total: 1 (members: 0, guests: 1)

Similar threads

A
Best British single engined radial aircraft in WW2?
2
Replies
27
Views
3K
Shortround6
S
Second best fighter of World War II
Replies
15
Views
2K
SaparotRob
  • Poll
Best Biplane fighter ww2
Replies
1
Views
4K
wlewisiii
  • Poll
German multiengine jet bomber best immune to Allied interception
Replies
0
Views
943
Vahe Demirjian
  • Poll
Best US escort fighter in ETO during 1943?
3 4 5
Replies
90
Views
13K
DarrenW
Menu
Log in
Register