Best Long Range Fighter of WWII

Soundbreaker Welch? · 05-06-2007, 04:53 PM

Well if the Ta-152 did start their attack at 50,000 feet would a P-51H be any help? They were designed for higher altitudes than the P-51D.

Anyway, just because the attacking fighters have a high top cover doesn't mean they will win, even though there is a disadvantage to the rising from the ground defending fighters. In the BOB, the Spifires and the Hurricanes had to rise to attack the higher german bombers, and the 109's had high top cover of them, and the british planes still shot down the bombers and fighters will little loss to themselves.

And anyway, it wasn't impossible for a P-51D Mustang to fly at 50,000 feet either. Seems that many websites and WWII boards suggest that the comfortable ceiling for the Ta-152 was 40,000 feet or even as low as 14,000 feet. There were some that said 49,000 feet, but did the Ta-152 ever fly that high in the evaluation tests of the Germans, or was it just paper statistics? Did the German test pilots roll it, turn it, dive it, climb it at 50,000 feet, and did it even do well? I mean, was it ever proven that it was the only fighter of it's day to have a range of 50,000 superiority?

My guess is, If both the Ta-152H and the P-51H were fighting at 50,000 feet, they would probably both be puffing for air.

Lucky13 · 05-06-2007, 06:00 PM

Same source for the above on Mustang....

plan_D · 05-06-2007, 06:11 PM

The P-51D was the best because it just was, admit it ... no real argument ... proved itself, loved by thousands ... won the war, all that jazz-fantastic ... I can't be arsed , but it's the best. The H wasn't used ... so slash on that.

Lucky13 · 05-06-2007, 06:30 PM

The Ta 152H-1 was designed to take on the B-29's that the they thought would show up over Germany in late 1944 first hand, and not to dogfight with other fighters right?
Doesn't that make it more or less an interceptor rather than a fighter?
Or do I remember wrong.....

Soren · 05-06-2007, 07:07 PM

Soundbreaker,

You can't compare BoB with this, the 109's in the BoB hardly had time to fight.

Renrich,

Read Dietmar Hermann's book on the Ta-152.

Lucky,

The Ta-152 was not designed to combat the B-29, that is a myth. The Ta-152 was designed as a high altitude fighter vs fighter a/c.

FLYBOYJ · 05-06-2007, 07:36 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Soren

The Ta-152 was designed as a high altitude fighter vs fighter a/c.

And in it's short life it was superb. A real long range fighter, no way.

Lucky13 · 05-07-2007, 05:07 AM

Ok Soren, cheers....

Lucky13 · 05-07-2007, 05:38 AM

The Mustangs internal fuel capacity was 224 Imp Gallons or 1018 litres with provision for external drop tanks of 75 US Gals (284 litres) & 110 US Gals (416 litres) respectively.

Fuel capacity for the Ta 152H-1 was 595 liters with additional 470 liters of fuel in six unprotected bag tanks in the wings, but typically one of these tanks was used to hold the MW 50 methanol-water mixture. So if we say that of these 1065 liters 70 liters was the MW50 mixture, that gives the -D Mustang only 23 more liters of internal fuel. Can't be that much more in range above the 152H-1 can it?
This damn interesting fellas, I learn alot on this forum. Thanks!

renrich · 05-07-2007, 09:47 AM

One useful item to remember as far as external fuel is concerned. The Corsair most economical cruise burned 42 gph. So a 150 gal belly tank added about 3.5 hrs cruise time, right, no wrong. The rule of thumb was 50% of the fuel in the external tank would be used by additional drag and the other 50% added to range so that 150 gal extended the range a little over 1.5 hours. A yardstick range for an F4U4 would be with 230 gal internal and two 150 gal drop tanks would be roughly 6 hrs on internal and 3 hrs on external at 200 mph gives 1800 miles. For a combat radius you would take about 70% of 1800 or 1260 mil and divide by 2 giving a CR of 630 miles. The 70% figure allows for, on an escort mission, warmup, takeoff, climb out to say 25000 feet, cruise to target, 10 minutes of combat, return with a little reserve. Climbout to a higher altitude would take more fuel. Another factor is that (I think) US gallons are larger then Imp. gallons. I don't know the ratio.

Soundbreaker Welch? · 05-07-2007, 03:44 PM

I'm making a guess: The P-38 wins the prize for the longest range of all? It's only at 3.51% at the moment, overlooked indeed.

And a question: If the P-47D had been added to the poll, which had a ferrying range of 1,800 miles and a combat range of 800 miles, would anybody have voted for it's experience? The P-47N didn't have that chance.

pbfoot · 05-07-2007, 03:48 PM

3.83 litres in an american gallon and 4.55 litres in an imperial gallon

renrich · 05-07-2007, 04:03 PM

Thank you, I stand corrected.

bigZ · 05-07-2007, 08:20 PM

If its night I will go for the P-61 and beats everything on the list. Suprisingly good turning plane for such a large size. How would it have fared during dayloght hours?

Soundbreaker Welch? · 05-07-2007, 10:05 PM

I suppose it was still too big to fight in daylight but the P-38 did manage it.

Quote:

This damn interesting fellas, I learn alot on this forum.

Me too.

bigZ · 05-08-2007, 12:14 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Soundbreaker Welch?

I suppose it was still too big to fight in daylight but the P-38 did manage it.

Me too.

Did a bit of reading. the P-61 shot down at least 3 FW190's during daylight in 44. Designed to be faster than the P-38 and more manoverable than any single engin fighter. One engine performance was breathtaking.

I think the reason it wasnt used more often in daylight was because of its specific nature and their was only 485 night fighter crews.