The Ta-152H could not achieve even 4,000 feet per minute at sea level. It might maintain a good climb rate at altitude, but would surely lose out to a plane with a lower altitude advantage of almost half and that is still a strong climber at 30,000 feet.
Hi Dupplin and welcome to the forum. I don;t agree with you here. The armament was chosen by the designer, not the field personnel. The ful carried was elective. No self-respecting fighter pilot would fly off into combat with less ammunition than he could carry, but would happily fly off with less fuel if he had enough for the mission and reserves. It is a matter of real-world missions.
However, if you want to make everything REALLY equal, you could take the empty aircraft, the fraction of ammunition weight for yiour baseline and apply it to the others, the fractiopn of fuel for the baseling and apply it to the others, etc. The peoblem becomes choosing the baslkeing aircraft. Once you do that, the REAL problem is getting the data for all the types you want to consider at that loading.
Most WWII aircraft have performance data for normal loadout and overload loadout and not much else ... so we're stuck with using data we HAVE but really don't want.
I have no good answer and climbing to 40,000 feet the fastest was never the mission of ANY of these planes.
If you see a resolution to this, please post it. I'll bite and be intersted.
Drgondog has a lot of data for the P-51 models (and others) and is good at aerodynamics, but he probably doesn't have data at arbitrary loadings that make things "equal," whatever THAT means. Maybe load them all until the increase in wing loading from empty weight due to crew, fuel, and ammunition is the same percentage? Good luck finding THAT data! You might find it for ONE aircraft, but what about all the other candidates.
I think we have to use the data and loadings for which we HAVE data ... but maybe not. There is a LOT of information floating about. The problem is finding it.