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.
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 ??
It is mysterious to me that you can say this,
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.
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...
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
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 ??
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.
