Most Overrated aircraft of WWII.....? (3 Viewers)

[Jackson]

Obviously the Ta-152..

They were gounded mostly and the only kills anyone talks about are at low altitude. I am not even sure even one got anywhere near a P38L, because the internal mechanics were just not there.


High altitude? Maybe, one day uh huh...but never any documented altitude fights..So one shot down Yak 9 down on the deck or maybe jumped a Tempest/ Typhoon. Tank ran away in one once from a few Mustangs- wow-weee

70 of them delivered and almost none of them flying on VE day.


Overall fewer kills than a P-40.. or a Brewster Buffalo, heck fewer A2A kills than some B-17 tailgunners.

waaay overated IMHO


Not even a contender, actually

 

[Jackson]

The Ta-152


It was not even on the list to vote for..

 

[renrich]

" In just about all cases and in all versions the P47 was noted for eating up large chunks of real estate on takeoff." a pilot checking out a P47B related,"On takeoff I wondered if we were ever going to leave the runway, the roll being so much longer than other fighters."

 

[Soren]

drgondog,

I am only right on this matter.

A weight of 9,100 lbs is not the normal gross weight of the P-51B, that is 9,202 lbs (4,173 kg), and the normal gross weight of the P-51C is ~9,350 lbs (4,241 kg), 9,760 lbs (4,427 kg) for the P-51D and 9,530 lbs (4,322 kg) for the P-51H - which equals the wing loadings below:

P-51B = 192 kg/m^2
P-51C = 196 kg/m^2
P-51D = 204.4 kg/m^2
P-51H = 200 kg/m^2

The F4U-1 has a gross weight of 12,039 lbs (5,460 kg), and the F4U-4 a gross weight of 12,405 lbs (5,626 kg) - which equals the wing-loadings below:

F4U-1 = 187 kg/m^2
F4U-4 = 192.8 kg/m^2

Now on top of this advantage in wing-loading the F4U Corsair also has the advantage of the NACA 23000 type airfoil providing a higher CLmax and critical AoA, giving it an even better lift-loading. While the laminar type airfoil of the P-51 suffers from a low CLmax and critical AoA and is known for its early, sudden and violent departures in turns.

And here's first the facts and then the doc's to prove it:

Fact no.1: The FW-190 G-2 turns with the Mustang III.
Fact no.2: The F4U-1 is superior in every aspect of maneuverability compared to the P-51B.

From Birtish AFDU trials between FW-190 G-2 and Mustang Mk.III:
"Turning circle
42. Again there is not much to choose."
- And this is against a FW-190 G-2 running at lower power than usual.

From US Naval evaluations and comparison trials of F4U-1 and P-51B, Patuxant River, Maryland:

 

[Soren]

Obviously the Ta-152..

They were gounded mostly and the only kills anyone talks about are at low altitude. I am not even sure even one got anywhere near a P38L, because the internal mechanics were just not there.


High altitude? Maybe, one day uh huh...but never any documented altitude fights..So one shot down Yak 9 down on the deck or maybe jumped a Tempest/ Typhoon. Tank ran away in one once from a few Mustangs- wow-weee

70 of them delivered and almost none of them flying on VE day.


Overall fewer kills than a P-40.. or a Brewster Buffalo, heck fewer A2A kills than some B-17 tailgunners.

waaay overated IMHO


Not even a contender, actually

Know the facts before you make stupid comments like those.

The Ta-152H acquired itself a 11 to 1 kill ratio in the short time it was in service, which is a very admirable feat.

The Ta-152H is not only a contender, its the the best of all contenders.

 

[drgondog]

Soren - I'm on a business trip and wont' be back until weekend.

My references for all weights and performance on all the p51 series is Mustang by Robert Gruenhagen and the figures that I used in the discussions, particularly th 51H is sourced there and significantly differnt from your post.

First question is what is your reference point?

The second point I made in reference to the report I posted and the report you extracted is that zero data was given in that report other than to simply state the the "F4U-1 was superior in all respects in maneuver"

Not one data point for acceleration, roll, initial climb from say 300, 350 and 400mph at different altitudes, characteristics in turn with 15 and 20 degrees of flap in such turns, dive acceleration, dive stability, etc

We are reading the same report - where did I miss the data points you use to 'close out the argument' by simple decree?

I cited specifically the wing loading from that report, which aside from the Speed and HP charts as function of altitude and boost is all I could find. I also noted that the test loaded up the same Mustang from 9100 to 9453 which gave it a higher wing loading -

In jest and seriousness I noted that not much was said about that series of tests because the extra loading was equivalent (or actual) to the fuel of the 85 gal tank - which would have given that Mustang much longer range than the F4U-1 - one of the key reasons the Navy looked at the Mustang - which is more than the Gross weight you cited for the 51B.

I'm not even sure that 437150 had a fuse tank as that series had them installed by field mod. 43-7153 for example came
into the 355th FG in early March 1944 and had tank installed at the Service Group the same month.

In seriousness I commented that the tests were all conducted by Navy pilots, not factory test pilots incented to wring the most out of each ship in the trials and suggested that the Navy might just NOT want the P-51. Who knows what kind of experience the Mustang pilot had.

Is that the Engineering experience you use to postulate a conclusuion?

Next, help me out with what you consider the definitive document for the F4U series. I must confess I have had a hard time and the sources seem to have different loads than you presented - especilly the F4U-4 which has a Max Gross of 14,000+

Last, cite your references for the 'dreaded' left breaking stall? I am VERY aware of this nastiness with 20 degrees of flaps at low speed but I just finished talking to several 355th FG pilots to help refresh my own experience and they seemed to not have encountered that at medium to high speeds.

The 'net is rife with Encounter reports in which flaps were used to easily out turn Fw 190 and me 109s at high and low altitudes - the same source for the Navy Report also has them under 'Encounter Reports'.

So, ???

Regards,

Bill

 

[DerAdlerIstGelandet]

Just off what is on the list:

US - P-51D
Germany - Bf 110
Japan - Zero

 

[Soren]

Its all assumptions on your part Bill.

The laminar type wing is known for its low CLmax and Critical AoA, esp. without flaps deployed. The sharp leading edge of this type of airfoil causes the sudden and violent departure in turns - however this doesn't mean there isn't some warning that you're approaching the limit, just that go slightly further and you'll regret it. In combat it took the P-51 an awful lot of altitude to recover from a spin - unlike the Bf-109, Spitfire FW-190. This unfortunate characteristic of the P-51 still gets pilots to this day.

As to the P-51 using flaps to easily out-turn FW-190's and Bf-109's in combat, well first of all combat reports are about the most unreliable way of determining an a/c's maneuverability as all the circumstances are unknown - its all guesswork when using combat reports as evidence. Secondly about 80% of all engaged -190's and 109's were most likely bomber-interceptors carrying gun-pods, large fuselage racks etc etc... the Germans had few dedicated fighters to protect the bomber- interceptors but the few they had certainly caused some serious problems for the Allied fighters. Even so a Bf-109G equipped with gun-pods was infact a better turn-fighter than the P-51, a Finnish pilot shooting down two Mustangs in a single engagement in his Bf-109G equipped with gun-pods.

The Germans also evaluated a light P-51C against their own Dora-9 and found them to be equal in every aspect of maneuverability except roll rate and climb where the -190 was considerably better - the captured P-51C was flown with low fuel as the Germans expected some missions to be carried out this way by the allies, owing the long range of the a/c.

As to the Corsair and its weights, well I quoted the highest fighter configuration weight I could find, many are as low as ~ 11,000 lbs. The only way the F4U-4 was ever going to weight ~14,500 lbs was if it carried bombs ! Std. configuration fighter load was 12,405 lbs.

You can read the POH's for the a/c if you're in doubt Bill.

 

[Juha]

Even so a Bf-109G equipped with gun-pods was infact a better turn-fighter than the P-51, a Finnish pilot shooting down two Mustangs in a single engagement in his Bf-109G equipped with gun-pods.

Soren, it seems that all Finnish claims against P-51s were in reality against Yak-7s, so they have no relevance here.

Juha

 

[Soren]

If that is so then the achievement is pretty remarkable - the Yak-7 was no big and heavy a/c like the P-51.

 

[Jackson]

short time in service is right, they were 'hanger queens' I have read no 'H''s were in service at the of the war, as they were all grounded for good reason

Get your facts straight, not even 70 were delivered and they flew relatively very little combat as they were poorly made and were full of dangerous design errors

as for being a contender for 'most overrated', I figured they were left off the list as they were more or less irrelevant..

Focke-Wulf Ta152H

But since I am a nice guy, next time I go see the last remaining example, tell me if you need any photos of the cockpit etc, one of my tight buddies is a museum docent


Even P40's could shoot down a bomber

 

[drgondog]

Soren I cited my source on weights and models, you did not

I cited personal observations of the Naval F4U team and cited personal references in the Mustang Encounter report. You cited the Luftwaffe tests

You chose to discount the ones you didn't like.

I asked you to cite specific comparative data from the F4U-1 vs P51B test and you come back to me with another personal recount of belief (not facts) from Luftwaffe test claim, again unsubstantiated by specific flight test data on rolll, climb, turn, acceleration by weight b y altitude and throttle settings.

Where is the meat upon which to base and engineering based flight test conclusion.

You profile doesn't give me much to work on but I suspect you might be an Aero Engineer as I am. I suspect w/o proof that I have more 51 time but happy to acknowledge that mine does not qualify me to make any judgements from personal experience other than stall and spin and dive characteristics - do you at least have that?

I'm happy to debate wing-loadins maybe we can find a common doument... but so for you have shown zero facts on maneuver perfromance?

Regards,

Bill

 

[Soren]

Oh no you don't Bill ! I provided ample evidence of the facts, but I guess you just don't have documents.

When it is clearly said that the F4U-1 is superior in maneuverability in every way compared to the P-51B then there's no mistaken what that means Bill, you can circle around it all day if you wish but thats just how it is, your doubt is brought forth only by your bias toward the P-51 alone.

Now from what you have said am I to understand that you fly the P-51 and know all its flight characteristics ? Based on what you've claimed so far I'd be very surprised.

 

[Soren]

short time in service is right, they were 'hanger queens' I have read no 'H''s were in service at the of the war, as they were all grounded for good reason

Get your facts straight, not even 70 were delivered and they flew relatively very little combat as they were poorly made and were full of dangerous design errors

as for being a contender for 'most overrated', I figured they were left off the list as they were more or less irrelevant..

Focke-Wulf Ta152H

But since I am a nice guy, next time I go see the last remaining example, tell me if you need any photos of the cockpit etc, one of my tight buddies is a museum docent


Even P40's could shoot down a bomber

LoL long time since I've seen as ignorant a poster as you !

You get your facts straight boy, cause at the moment you're hopelessly lost !

 

[Sgt. Pappy]

Bah, F4U and Ta-152H beat the P-51 anyday

 

[drgondog]

Soren - "When it is clearly said that the F4U-1 is superior in maneuverability in every way compared to the P-51B then there's no mistaken what that means Bill, you can circle around it all day if you wish but thats just how it is, your doubt is brought forth only by your bias toward the P-51 alone."

Soren - this is an amusing debate. I'll try to re-position on this subject. First I like the F4U and candidly think that it is the Best All Around fighter of WWII.

Does this sound like Bias toward the P51? Check my other posts.

Second, my time in a 51 does not qualify me as an expert. Now having said that, most pilots that have high time today in a Mustang never had to turn high G's in a fight for his life and certainly not against the F4U? Are we clear on that concept. I am not dismissing your comparisons between the two ships by either my experience or your lack of experience.


Third, you have clearly SAID that the F4U-1 is clearly superior to the P-51B in every aspect of maneuver. I heard you. Understood that you stated it clearly.

What I so want from you is proof points of skilled pilot engineers that tested these two ships, collected the data, published the data and published opinions based on the data.

You have at best presented only conclusions based on opinions for both the Fw190 tests and the F4U tests.

So far I led you to the same report,with the fact deficiencies, that you presented back to me as facts on the F4U-1 vs the P51B - You didn't find anything unique and tried to throw it back to me - do you feel silly about this?

As near as I can tell you a.) aren't the engineer with the data, b.) you don't have in possession the documents with such data, and c.) you continue to tell others that disagree with you that they are silly because they don't quite understand your fact base you claim to have in possession.

That report didn't have any facts as discussed before except weights and Speed and Climb Performance Charts - yet made blanket statements about superiority? Kind of like you?

We (I) will accept your proof, just difficult to accept your words just because you accept them.

I am un-biased, I try to be fact based - supply the facts please - I promise I will acknowledge your brilliance and knowledge - just don't TELL me you are brilliant and knowledgeable - Show me the facts.

So I will help you out once more.

Show me the Turn radius at any comparable weights you choose at 5K, 20K and 30K with and w/o flaps.

Show me the Climb Performance at SL, 5K, 20K, 30K

Show me the Acceleration for the same conditions.

Show me the Roll performance at 300, 350mph at SL, 300, 350 and 400mph at 20K , at 300, 350 and 400mph at 30K

Or Soren show me ANY of the data you have for ANY of those comparisons - either Fw190G or F4U-1 as you quoted both ships as Superior to the 51B

Regards,

Bill

 

[drgondog]

I think there might be too much emotion and not enough facts on this subject.

 

[davparlr]

Oh no you don't Bill ! I provided ample evidence of the facts, but I guess you just don't have documents.

When it is clearly said that the F4U-1 is superior in maneuverability in every way compared to the P-51B then there's no mistaken what that means Bill, you can circle around it all day if you wish but thats just how it is, your doubt is brought forth only by your bias toward the P-51 alone.

Now from what you have said am I to understand that you fly the P-51 and know all its flight characteristics ? Based on what you've claimed so far I'd be very surprised.

Remember that the "Report of Joint Fighter Conference", selected the P-51D as better than the F4U-1C above 25k feet by a large margin (39-7, only the P-47D scored higher with 45) AND better than the F4U-1C below 25k feet by a slim margin (29-27, only the F8F scored higher with 30). And also remember that the P-51B was a better performer than the P-51D in airspeed, rate of climb, and time to climb over the entire envelope. It is a subjective review but it was also heavily weighed with Navy personnel, and indicates that the P-51 performance compared very well against other respected American aircraft. Its advantage was not just speed and range.

 

[Jackson]

LoL long time since I've seen as ignorant a poster as you !

You get your facts straight boy, cause at the moment you're hopelessly lost !

pretty rude..

I guess you must resort to being a "#!%@" when ever you cannot muster any facts.

My source is the worlds premier aircraft history center..

They own a TA-152H..the only one in the world...

 

[evangilder]

Guys, having a debate is one thing, but if the insults and mud-slinging continue, infractions will be delivered and this thread will be locked. Keep it civil, this is your only warning.