Ki-84 Hei vs TA-152H vs F8F-2 vs P-51H

[mig-31bm]

These fighters arrived too late to have any impact in WW II. However, assuming that they can arrive at the start of WW II.
Which one is the best as air superiority fighter? and why?
How do you rank them in order in boom and zoom capability? which is best?, which is worst?
How do you rank them in order in turn and burn capability? which is best?, which is worst?

Ki-84 Hei

F8F-2 Bear cat

Ta-152H

P-51H

 

[SaparotRob]

P-51H. How wrong can I be?

 

[mig-31bm]

P-51H. How wrong can I be?

Might I know why?, P-51H seem to have the weakest fire power among the 4 of them
P-51H is only equipped with six 0.5 caliber gun in wings
By contrast,
F8F-2 is equipped with four 20 mm cannons in the wings
TA-152H is equipped with one 30 mm cannon in the nose and two 20 mm cannons in wings
Ki-84-I Hei: is equipped with two 20 mm cannons and two 30 mm cannons in wings.

 

[SaparotRob]

'cause it looks like a P-51D.

 

[Ovod]

Might I know why?, P-51H seem to have the weakest fire power among the 4 of them
P-51H is only equipped with six 0.5 caliber gun in wings
By contrast,
F8F-2 is equipped with four 20 mm cannons in the wings
TA-152H is equipped with one 30 mm cannon in the nose and two 20 mm cannons in wings
Ki-84-I Hei: is equipped with two 20 mm cannons and two 30 mm cannons in wings.

P-51H had sufficient armament for the potential targets the USAAF had in mind: Ta-152, Ki-84 etc. The Ta and Ki also had the necessary fire power to tackle its main targets: B-29s and other 4-engined bombers.

 

[mig-31bm]

P-51H had sufficient armament for the potential targets the USAAF had in mind: Ta-152, Ki-84 etc. The Ta and Ki also had the necessary fire power to tackle its main targets: B-29s and other 4-engined bombers.

I know the armament is still enough to shotdown enemy fighters
However, 20 mm and 30 mm both have greater 1 hit kill probability and they also have longer range than 12.7 mm cannon
Furthermore, P-51H seem to be the most flimsy one

 

[Husky]

KI-84 Hei or the Bearcat.

Would prefer the Ki-84 but the missmatched guns (20mm vs 30mm velocity) creates a problem.

So, it'll be the Bearcat.

 

[tomo pauk]

P-51H for me. It is much faster than Ki-84, it does not have the unprotected fuel tanks that Ta-152 was supposed to get. Unlike the Ta 152, it's G limit is much closer to the 'regular' ww2 fighters.

F8F-2 is an ... awkward choice - it flew 3 years after ww2 ended.

 

[mig-31bm]

P-51H for me. It is much faster than Ki-84, it does not have the unprotected fuel tanks that Ta-152 was supposed to get. Unlike the Ta 152, it's G limit is much closer to the 'regular' ww2 fighters.

Isn't the Ta-152H significantly more armored compared to P-51H?

P-51 armor:

• 38 mm Bulletproof glass in front of the pilot.
• 19.05 mm Steel plate in front of the engine.
• 6.35 mm Steel plate between the engine and pilot.
• 15.87 mm Steel plate behind the pilot.

1. 15 mm Steel - Engine cowling and radiator shield
2. 8 mm Steel - Oil cooling system shield
3. 10 mm Steel - Angled ammunition and pilot armour
4. 6 mm Steel - Instrument panel and pilot armour
5. 70 mm Angled bulletproof glass - Armoured windscreen
6. 20 mm Steel - Pilot's headrest
7. 8 mm Steel + 5 mm Steel - Rear pilot shield
8. 5 mm Steel - Fuel tank shield

F8F-2 is an ... awkward choice - it flew 3 years after ww2 ended.

I know F8F-2 flew much later, however, wasn't its high altitude performance still inferior to P-51H and Ta-152H?

 

[tomo pauk]

Isn't the Ta-152H significantly more armored compared to P-51H?

Extra fuel tanks that Ta-152s were supposed to carry in the wings were not self-sealing, nor armored.

I know F8F-2 flew much later, however, wasn't its high altitude performance still inferior to P-51H and Ta-152H?

F8F-2's speed was on par with P-51 B to K, roughly, above 20000 ft.

 

[SaparotRob]

Might I know why?, P-51H seem to have the weakest fire power among the 4 of them
P-51H is only equipped with six 0.5 caliber gun in wings
By contrast,
F8F-2 is equipped with four 20 mm cannons in the wings
TA-152H is equipped with one 30 mm cannon in the nose and two 20 mm cannons in wings
Ki-84-I Hei: is equipped with two 20 mm cannons and two 30 mm cannons in wings.

Sorry about my flippant original answer. I went with the P-51H for a few reasons. I don't have the documentation or study to back up my choice. Mostly anecdotal. The Mustang's 6 .50 machine guns were quite capable of taking down a fighter, which was its mission. From reading posts here, the cannon had a slower rate rate of fire which is more of a problem against fighters than slower, less maneuverable bombers. Six fifties were able to bring down MiG-15s so I figure its's safe to ASSUME it is capable against your other choices. That weapon is essentially the same in the F-86 as in the Mustang (I think).
Build quality. North American Aviation. That settles that.
Yes, Grumman is quite competitive (Go Grumman!) but that brings up another factor. Range. Is it fair to put up a carrier based plane against land based? That many do is a testament to the Bearcat.
The Mustangs I'm "familiar" with are the NA-73X (The most beautiful of all single engine fighters of WW 2, not open to discussion) to the D model. The Mustangs were famous for their range. I believe the H had less fuel capacity than the D since it had some Spitfire inspired structural weight reduction. Source: reading some posts here. The H's range probably was similar though. Greater range is also more time at higher power settings (with less range). But the Mustang wasn't a one trick pony. It was fast. It was maneuverable. I'm sure we can cherry pick which performance bands one plane would beat the other.
I'll stick with my choice.
And it looks like a P-51D.

 

[mig-31bm]

Extra fuel tanks that Ta-152s were supposed to carry in the wings were not self-sealing, nor armored.

Didn't the P-51 all version also carried unarmored fuel tank in the wing? I have no idea whether the tank is self sealing or not though
How come Ta-152 has a fuel tank that in capable of self sealing though? I thought it is a very late war fighter?

F8F-2's speed was on par with P-51 B to K, roughly, above 20000 ft.

I found some charts:
F8F-2

F4U-5

Ta-152H

F-51H

I found different chart for P-51H as well

 

[tomo pauk]

Didn't the P-51 all version also carried unarmored fuel tank in the wing? I have no idea whether the tank is self sealing or not though
How come Ta-152 has a fuel tank that in capable of self sealing though? I thought it is a very late war fighter?

P-51's internal fuel tanks were self-sealing.
As for why the Ta-152 to have non self-sealing tanks - people that were making the calls are not amongs us anymore to explain My guess is that they went for 'ordinary' tanks is so the loss in capacity due to the thick-skinned s-s tanks does not happen, while hoping that fuel from those would've been used up before the fight against the enemy started?

 

[mig-31bm]

To sum up data from these charts I posted earlier
Regarding top speed:
At 35,000 ft:
P-51H reached 482.5 mph = 776 km/h
F4U-5 reached 395 knots = 731 km/h
Ta-152H reached 715 km/h
F8F-2 reached 360 knots = 666 km/h
At 25,000 ft:
P-51H reached 487.5 mph = 784 km/h
F4U-5 reached 407 knots = 753 km/h
Ta-152H reached 700 km/h
F8F-2 reached 383 knots = 709 km/h
At 15,000 ft:
P-51H reached 465 mph = 748 km/h
F4U-5 reached 390 knots = 722 km/h
Ta-152H reached 655 km/h
F8F-2 reached 373 knots = 690 km/h
At 5,000 ft:
P-51H reached 445 mph = 716 km/h
F4U-5 reached 364 knots = 674 km/h
Ta-152H reached 607 km/h
F8F-2 reached 353 knots = 653 km/h
so apparently, Ta-152H is nothing specially unless at extremely high altitude, and P-51H is so extremely fast, it even faster than F8F-2 and F4U-5 at low altitude? How come?, did i made some mistake?

 

[tomo pauk]

so apparently, Ta-152H is nothing specially unless at extremely high altitude, and P-51H is so extremely fast, it even faster than F8F-2 and F4U-5 at low altitude? How come?, did i made some mistake?

P-51, compared to the 3 other types, have had considerable advantage in aerodynamics. It will take a really big power advantage for those to beat it; we can recall that P-39 'Cobra' racers were beating the Super Corsairs despite the later having 1500-2000 HP more.
Both F4U-5 and F8F-2 have had another 500 HP more under 15000 ft vs. the Ta-152; not the case with war-time F4U-4.

 

[SaparotRob]

To sum up data from these charts I posted earlier
Regarding top speed:
At 35,000 ft:
P-51H reached 482.5 mph = 776 km/h
F4U-5 reached 395 knots = 731 km/h
Ta-152H reached 715 km/h
F8F-2 reached 360 knots = 666 km/h
At 25,000 ft:
P-51H reached 487.5 mph = 784 km/h
F4U-5 reached 407 knots = 753 km/h
Ta-152H reached 700 km/h
F8F-2 reached 383 knots = 709 km/h
At 15,000 ft:
P-51H reached 465 mph = 748 km/h
F4U-5 reached 390 knots = 722 km/h
Ta-152H reached 655 km/h
F8F-2 reached 373 knots = 690 km/h
At 5,000 ft:
P-51H reached 445 mph = 716 km/h
F4U-5 reached 364 knots = 674 km/h
Ta-152H reached 607 km/h
F8F-2 reached 353 knots = 653 km/h
so apparently, Ta-152H is nothing specially unless at extremely high altitude, and P-51H is so extremely fast, it even faster than F8F-2 and F4U-5 at low altitude? How come?, did i made some mistake?

Nope. The TA-152 is a really cool airplane.

 

[mig-31bm]

Nope. The TA-152 is a really cool airplane.

It is in term of armor and fire power, i was talking about speed though, it not insanely fast like P-51H

 

[mig-31bm]

P-51, compared to the 3 other types, have had considerable advantage in aerodynamics. It will take a really big power advantage for those to beat it; we can recall that P-39 'Cobra' racers were beating the Super Corsairs despite the later having 1500-2000 HP more.
Both F4U-5 and F8F-2 have had another 500 HP more under 15000 ft vs. the Ta-152; not the case with war-time F4U-4.

I have a question, for P-51H chart, what are 90 in Hg represent? Why that not in Ta-152, F4U-5 or F8F-2 chart

 

[FLYBOYJ]

P-51, compared to the 3 other types, have had considerable advantage in aerodynamics. It will take a really big power advantage for those to beat it; we can recall that P-39 'Cobra' racers were beating the Super Corsairs despite the later having 1500-2000 HP more.
Both F4U-5 and F8F-2 have had another 500 HP more under 15000 ft vs. the Ta-152; not the case with war-time F4U-4.

The P-39 racers were highly modified, did not have a stock propeller and had no military equipment. Their engines were also modified. Additionally, trying to compare speeds of these aircraft in a race environment is not accurate where you're following a line around a closed track and trying to maintain the fastest possible speed on that line in course turns without going too wide or too close a cutting a pylon. Being able to out accelerate the other aircraft is another factor.

 

[tomo pauk]

The P-39 racers were highly modified, did not have a stock propeller and had no military equipment. Their engines were also modified. Additionally, trying to compare speeds of these aircraft in a race environment is not accurate where you're following a line around a closed track and trying to maintain the fastest possible speed on that line in course turns without going too wide or too close a cutting a pylon. Being able to out accelerate the other aircraft is another factor.

Racing P-39s were faster than racing Super Corsairs. Both types have had souped-up engines, IIRC 2000+ HP for the Cobra I and II, ~4000 HP for the Super Corsairs.