Which one is overall better between Ta-152H and P-47M/N?

Which is better fighter between P-47M/N and Ta-152H

  • P-47M/N is far better

    Votes: 4 66.7%
  • Ta-152H is far better

    Votes: 2 33.3%

  • Total voters
    6

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

mig-31bm

Airman 1st Class
133
31
Mar 28, 2014
Many would say that in term of pure performance P-47 was the best piston fighter that were created during WW II period, P-47M was the fastest plane in level flight at high altitude and also in a dive (even normal P-47 is faster than super prop like P-51H)
8FB9034A-8EA5-4717-897C-D5D369811130.jpeg


Ta-152H is another fighter that is well known for its performace at high altitude. The high aspect ratio wing allegedly give it good turn rate at high altitude with the trade off is that it is slow in a dive and can't roll fast. On the otherhand, the armament it carry can probably 1 shot anything on the air.
57722620-1B8E-4832-8732-379AB633F128.jpeg


So between the two, which is the better fighter?. And why?
 
I would give the edge to the P-47N

The P-47Ns that reached the Pacific used the 2,800-horsepower, 18-cylinder radial Pratt & Whitney R-2800-77 Double Wasp engine driving a larger CH-5 turbo supercharger and 13-foot diameter Curtiss Electric propeller with narrow style paddle blades.
 
I would give the edge to the P-47N

The P-47Ns that reached the Pacific used the 2,800-horsepower, 18-cylinder radial Pratt & Whitney R-2800-77 Double Wasp engine driving a larger CH-5 turbo supercharger and 13-foot diameter Curtiss Electric propeller with narrow style paddle blades.
So as I understand it, P-47 has better power to weight ratio than Ta-152 right?, could it be because P-47 has access to better fuel than the german one?
 
I found these chart from greg video, unfortunately no P-47M or Ta-152H to compare
53F10CD9-D565-4562-9F62-D5971C63EF95.jpeg

01558277-2895-4628-A246-AD66FE37DE9B.jpeg
 
Many would say that in term of pure performance P-47 was the best piston fighter that were created during WW II period, P-47M was the fastest plane in level flight at high altitude and also in a dive (even normal P-47 is faster than super prop like P-51H)

*SNIP*
It is?

Sources?

Who is the "Many" that say the P-47 is the best piston fighter of the war?
 
Greg is irredeemably biased towards the P-47.
Would you mind let me know some of his comment regarding the P-47 that is incorrect/wrong?. I honestly don't know much about WW II fighter
 
I hnderstand your point, but Greg seem to give a lot of source for his claims, so i assumed he is correct
Manipulation is not that hard to do.

In his case:
ridicule the other view,
Ignore period documents because it is not your view
debate while turning off reply,
ban the ones that are not waving your flag,
Collect all the clicks and pennies from your channel
Do not answer e-mail about subject
It is the bomber maffia.

Etc.

Do not under estimate the power of making money or making a channel valid. Need clicks for that so....

It's like taking a stand for bigfoot. I show you pictures so it must be real, followers say amen to that and attack anything that think different.

I call them the choir boys. No nuts but voices.

So no not an historian.

Mind you, he could give classes on click bait.

Get you credit card out.
 
Last edited:
Isn't P-47 the fastest at high altitude (except for jet) and also much faster than anything else at diving?
See post #11. You started with "the best". Now you say altitude and diving....

Thats a bit a greg thinking. Catoonish. The best..
There is no fighter the best.
There is the best overall. Plusses and minus. Not the best ground attack but look at the range it has etc.
One can hope for an envelope that suit its optimum. Tactics are build around it.
There are better airframes at other altitudes.
There were many versions of the p-47.
It was used well. Not the best.
 
Yikes on that Ad Hominem. (And bigotry.)

There is such a high horse nature in history and I hate it. There are ways to express disapproval while being kind.
Every airplane design is a series of trade-offs and any single design never does everything better than some others. That being said, parsing the decimal points is a rather futile exercise as individual aircraft and engines almost never perform exactly as others of the same design and manufacture. As a pilot who flew for over 50 years, I will personally attest to that fact. When it comes to fighters, the skill and tactics of the pilots probably are more important than the relative merits of the aircraft. The measure of a successful design for me in a combat aircraft is how well it can perform the assigned tasks. My personal opinion, is that if I had been a WWII fighter pilot over Europe, I would rather have flown the P-47. It might have not been the very best in a close dogfight, but my chances of returning to base after combat were probably higher than that of almost any other WWII fighter combat (the other fighter in that category was probably the F6F Hellcat). Both of these were powered by R-2800 engines. On the test stand, a standard R-2800 with 100/130 PN fuel and water injection (no alchohol) achieved 3800 HP ( at close to sea level and with a supercharger capable of more boost than standard). The test stand engineer who told me this also felt he could have pushed to 4000HP, but already the engine had demonstrated an output that was far beyond the limits of a practical supercharger airframe installation. The engine rating tests had been run for 100 hrs. All the high power R-2800 test stand runs had been done using the same engine. The R-2800s were powerful, reliable, and could continue to run with significant combat damage. Of course, I'm no expert, just my opinions.
ArtieBob
 
Yikes on that Ad Hominem. (And bigotry.)

There is such a high horse nature in history and I hate it. There are ways to express disapproval while being kind.
Homo sum, humani nihil. Or better Beati pauperes spiritu
And qouting a latin proverb and then something about high horse. Dear boy you must be gesting.
i do not disaprove of anything one can write on a private channel.
However i will not call it history nor history writing if anyone will qoute from that.
It is click bait. Down to earth muddy clickbait.

I have no kindness for people who turn of respons, ignore arguments and redicule the ones that have done research. Raiding other websites for data.
About that bigotry; i belong to no group, nor do i care if others are. I wont hold it against them.

See thats the difference. For me its about what is true. Or correct.
Not clicks.
 

Users who are viewing this thread

Back