Best Piston Engined Fighter Ever...

[davparlr]

Originally Posted by renrich

I think what Udet is saying is that it doesn't seem reasonable that a F4U5 could touch 400 mph at sea level and only do 450 mph at altitude.

My source, American Combat Planes by Ray Wagner, which has been a very good reference, shows the F4U-5 with a max speed of 462 mph at 31,400 ft.

My figures on the F4U4 show a sea level Vmax of 380 mph(the fastest at sea level of all WW2 US fighters)

The P-51H was tested (I believe) at 410 mph at SL. The P-51B with 44-1 fuel was tested at 370 with wing racks and estimated at 384 without racks.

and a Vmax of 446 MPH at best altitude( I think around 26000 ft), a difference of 66 mph. If the F4U5 could touch 400 mph at sea level and had a Vmax of 465-470 mph at best altitude( around 31000 ft) then the difference is roughly the same.

Which is what my data shows.

[davparlr]

Originally Posted by renrich

My figures on the F4U4 show a sea level Vmax of 380 mph(the fastest at sea level of all WW2 US fighters)

Also, the Tempest II was capable of about 416 mph at SL.

http://www.wwiiaircraftperformance.o...i-cfe-appd.jpg

[renrich]

You will notice that I said all WW2 US fighters. The Tempest was UK and the P51H did not serve in WW2. My figures from "America's One Hundred Thousand" an outstanding reference on the approx. 100000 fighters produced and that served in WW2. Also as I said in earlier post, there are all kind of performance figures out there online and in books. I guarantee that if the US Navy tested and compared Navy a/c versus AAF a/c, the Navy planes will score high and if the AAF did the testing the opposite happened. If the British test and compare say a Corsair versus a Spitfire the Spitfire shines and the Corsair is dogmeat. Our Navy compared the Corsair and Hellcat versus a FW 190 and the FW190 had no chance against either Navy plane. care to bet what would have been the result if the LW was doing the testing. I think one needs to take all these performance #s, mix a handful of salt along with some common sense, look at the A/cs records, close your eyes and pick. It is fun to speculate.

[bigZ]

Wasn't the P51D prefered rather than the H in Korea. Chuck Yeager wasn't very keen on it either although I can't recall why?

The introductuction of the 20mm canons for F4U limited the the operational ceiling to 12,000ft until gun heaters where eventually installed. Also the RN found that after clipping the wings to ease storage on carriers it went some way in solving the planes tendancy to float on landing allowing immediate use for carrier operations long before the USN.

Their are some very convincing arguments for making the F4U-5 the best fighter. I will have to do some more reading on this fascinatinating bird as its one am not overly familar with.

[davparlr]

Originally Posted by renrich

You will notice that I said all WW2 US fighters. The Tempest was UK and the P51H did not serve in WW2.

555 P-51H were built by VJ and were in operational units. They did not participate in any combat, however they did serve. Also, the P-51B apparently was capable of 386 mph at SL according to test.

http://www.wwiiaircraftperformance.o...44-1-level.jpg

My figures from "America's One Hundred Thousand" an outstanding reference on the approx. 100000 fighters produced and that served in WW2. Also as I said in earlier post, there are all kind of performance figures out there online and in books. I guarantee that if the US Navy tested and compared Navy a/c versus AAF a/c, the Navy planes will score high and if the AAF did the testing the opposite happened. If the British test and compare say a Corsair versus a Spitfire the Spitfire shines and the Corsair is dogmeat. Our Navy compared the Corsair and Hellcat versus a FW 190 and the FW190 had no chance against either Navy plane. care to bet what would have been the result if the LW was doing the testing. I think one needs to take all these performance #s, mix a handful of salt along with some common sense, look at the A/cs records, close your eyes and pick. It is fun to speculate.

I agree with you and disagree. Certainly there are service bias in aircraft evaluation. Especially when it is performed after the war and one must take that into account. Also, it is always the case when the evaluation in with other services like Navy testing AF aircraft. However, when a service tests an enemies aircraft in wartime for the purpose of advising pilot strategy against that particular aircraft, I would doubt very seriously that the testing organization would do anything other than objectively report on that test. Especally on measurable variables. To tell an F4U pilot he could outturn an Fw-190 and he could not really do that, there could be many dead American pilots. That would be grounds for court marshal. These types of comparisons are probably very accurate, except where aircraft performance has been compromised by things like poor engine performance.
Wouldn't you agree?

[davparlr]

Originally Posted by bigZ

The introductuction of the 20mm canons for F4U limited the the operational ceiling to 12,000ft until gun heaters where eventually installed. Also the RN found that after clipping the wings to ease storage on carriers it went some way in solving the planes tendancy to float on landing allowing immediate use for carrier operations long before the USN.

That may be true for the F4U-4C, but not the F4U-5. The F4U-5 had the 20mm as standard armament. I knew the RN used the F4U on a carrier before the USN, but I am not sure it was due to clipping the wings but rather using a circling approach so they could watch the landing officer. I don't think the USN clipped the wings.

[mkloby]

All planes like to float when they're in ground effect just prior to landing. That's what they do.

[renrich]

The first F4U1C with 4-20mm cannon was produced in Aug, 1943. I am sure any cannon problems were worked out by the time the F4U5 was produced. The 8 inches clipped off of the wingtips was to allow British carriers to store the a/c on the hangar decks. It slightly enhanced the roll rate but also had a deleterious effect on the stall speed. The Corsair had no more of a "float" problem than any other a/c but rather a "bounce" caused by the oleos in the main gear being too stiff. This was one of the main reasons that the Navy decided the Corsair was unfit for carrier operations. There were some interesting reports posted on this website a while back dealing with the Corsair. A high speed test done by Vought showed an F4U1 capable of 431 mph tas with WEP while a Navy test of an F4U1 showed the same with WEP and a Vmax of 417 TAS in military power. The same post showed a Vmax test of a Corsair Mark II( the same as a F4U1) done at Boscombe Down by the British with a top speed of 382 TAS. Sounds like a big difference to me. Maybe the Corsair Mark II was built by Brewster and was flying sideways. Incidently, that figure of 431 TAS with WEP is by far the fastest I have ever seen posted for an F4U1.

[davparlr]

Originally Posted by renrich

A high speed test done by Vought showed an F4U1 capable of 431 mph tas with WEP while a Navy test of an F4U1 showed the same with WEP and a Vmax of 417 TAS in military power. The same post showed a Vmax test of a Corsair Mark II( the same as a F4U1) done at Boscombe Down by the British with a top speed of 382 TAS. Sounds like a big difference to me. Maybe the Corsair Mark II was built by Brewster and was flying sideways. Incidently, that figure of 431 TAS with WEP is by far the fastest I have ever seen posted for an F4U1.

spitfireperformance.com show a Pax River test with WEP. The second altitude and speed is military power.

U.S. Naval Air Station
Patuxent River, Maryland
April 28, 1944
Model F4U-1 Airplane - Flight Test of Water
Injection Equipment - TED No. PTR 2105
F4U-1 No. 17930


SUMMARY

Power War
Emergency Military
High blower airplane critical alt. - ft. 20,300 22,800
Maximum speed at high blower airplane
critical altitude - MPH 431 417
Low blower airplane critical altitude-ft. 14,600 17,600
Maximum speed at low blower airplane

[Udet]

Originally Posted by davparlr

Actually, the first production aircraft came on line in 1946. I am not sure why you asked this question on this particular poll.



The F4U-4 could do 374 mph at SL and the F4U-5 had 250 more horses to pull it. 403 mph doesn't seem unreasonable to me. Top speed was 462 mph at 31,400 ft.



I am not sure of what you are asking. If you think it is unreasonable to go from 400 mph at SL to 462 mph, then it is really unreasonable for the Ta-152H to go from 370 mph at SL to 465 mph at altitude. Remember, drag decreases as altitude increases. If you can keep hp up, airspeed will increase. These planes were designed to maintain a good amount of power at high altitude and so this type of performance is not unreasonable.



With a more powerful engine and all aluminum skin, it seemed to perform quite a bit better. Also, the F4U-4 is pretty formidable itself. Also, I believe the F4U-5 was designed for higher altitude performance.



Well, typically, it all depends on the gearing of the superchargers. Being able to go from 400 mph at SL to 462 mph at 31,400 ft. would not be considered miserable performance in any stretch of the imagination.



If the SL zone is considered from SL to 30k ft., I would agree.

Mr. Davprl: please relax. Why did i ask? Possibly because we are here discussing ww2 aviation issues? I did not know making questions was prohibited.

I read and write, so i can tell i know what the environment of the thread is... covered within its scope are all piston engined fighters made, ever.

I can be more specific though: if you take a more careful read you might notice what the title of the book renrich quoted is: "The Great Book of World War II Airplanes". The book is his source for his F4U5 data...so when reading that, i thought the plane in question did not see service during ww2. So in the end, i do think my question was more than valid and well made.

And after all my point was correct: 462 mph for the F4U5 vs. 448 mph for the F4U4, not what you´d call a critical or significant difference in maximum speed.

renrich: your interpretation of the idea on my previous posting is correct. I could not put it better than that. Thanks.

[davparlr]

Originally Posted by Udet

Mr. Davprl: please relax. Why did i ask? Possibly because we are here discussing ww2 aviation issues? I did not know making questions was prohibited.

I read and write, so i can tell i know what the environment of the thread is... covered within its scope are all piston engined fighters made, ever.

I can be more specific though: if you take a more careful read you might notice what the title of the book renrich quoted is: "The Great Book of World War II Airplanes". The book is his source for his F4U5 data...so when reading that, i thought the plane in question did not see service during ww2. So in the end, i do think my question was more than valid and well made.

And after all my point was correct: 462 mph for the F4U5 vs. 448 mph for the F4U4, not what you´d call a critical or significant difference in maximum speed.

renrich: your interpretation of the idea on my previous posting is correct. I could not put it better than that. Thanks.

Gosh, I hope I didn't imply that I thought you didn't have a right to ask questions. I think I was just a bit confused.

[Soren]

Originally Posted by davparlr

Argument for the F4U-5 superiority over the Ta-152H.

At altitudes below 30k feet the F4U-5 has a clear performance and armament superiority.

Maneuverability. Test run by the Navy in 1944 showed that the F4U-1 could roll at the same rate, outturn, and fly a tighter loop than a Fw-190A-4 and, in general, the F4U-1 was found to be “much more maneuverable”.

(http://www.wwiiaircraftperformance.o...0/ptr-1107.pdf)

Since there is no data to say that he Ta-152H maneuvers better than the Fw-190, and that he F4U-5 maneuvers similar to the F4U-1, it can be assumed that the F4U-5 would be more maneuverable than the Ta-152H. Wing loading and power loading supports this assumption. In empty wing loading, the F4U-5 has 30.5 lb/sq ft, and the Ta-152 H has 34.4 lbs /sq ft. For empty power loading, SL, at WEP for both, the F4U-5 has 3.47 lbs/hp, whereas the Ta-152H has 4.21 lbs/hp.

Speed As far a speed goes, it is hard to fully ascertain. I have very little data on the F4U-5. I cannot determine which aircraft is cleaner since I cannot relate one to one. At SL, the F4U-5 is faster, 403, than the Ta-152H, 370, but has more hp available. I do know that the F4U-5 is faster at SL and is about equal at 30k ft. I suspect that the speed I have for the F4U-5 is military and not WEP. If this is true, then the airspeed advantage would be significantly greater (WEP adds about 400 hp to the PW). I believe the power for the Ta-152H is at WEP. Maybe not, Soren, if I am wrong please correct me. One thing that is obvious, is great availability of hp to the F4U-5. At SL, the F4U-5 has 2760 hp at WEP, the Ta-152H has 2050, about 700 hp difference. At 25k ft.the F4U-5 has about 2350 hp available, the Ta-152H has 1400 hp, almost 1000 hp more! I suspect that the F4U-5 number is not WEP, so this difference could be greater. This massive amount of power cannot but help the F4U-5 in acceleration and maintain speed in a turn.

ClimbIn climb, if Soren is correct that the Ta-152H has about a 5000 ft/min climb, then the climb rates would be similar.

Armament. The F4U-5 had four Hispano-Suiza 20 mm canons. The Ta-152H had two M151/20 20mms, and one MK 108 30mm canon. I am not a gun person, but I suspect that the F4U-5 armament is superior for dog fighting.

Argument about the victories of the Ta-152H. I suspect that all of the Ta-152H kills were against previous generation aircraft, P-51D, Tempest V, etc. It never flew against its contemporaries, the P-51H, F4U-4, P-47N, and probably not the Tempest II (if it did indeed shoot down a Tempest II at low altitude, it was foolish pilot as the Tempest has much great speed a low altitude). This would be like the Mig-17 fighting a P-80 or F9F (assuming both pilots are equal).

In summary, I think the F4U-5 is significantly better than the Ta-152H below 30k ft. It is more maneuverable, faster, climbs the same, and has better armament. That doesn’t leave much for the Ta-152H. If what I think is true about the performance not being based on WEP, the F4U-5 advantage would be greater and would extend to 35k feet.

That is a large amount of airspace to cede to your opponent.

Throw in air-to-ground and carrier landing capablilty and you would be foolish not to pick the F4U-5 if you could only choose one single engine fighter to a fight war.

I chose the F4U-4, but, since I have found out more of the F4U-5, it would be my choice now.

Davparlr,

First of all the US test involved an A-5/U4 which suffered from i'll-adjusted ailerons, causing premature stalling in turns.

Secondly wing-loading is very mis-leading as it doesn't take into account various factors which hugely affects the amount of lift produced pr. area. Things like the higher the AR the higher the lift and the lower the drag pr. area, something the Ta-152H esp. benefits from. I can assure you that the Ta-152H is most likely by far the best dogfighter of the two, possessing a very high L/D ratio by virtue of its high AR wing.

As to testing, well in German tests between the Ta-152H-1 and FW-190A-8 the Ta-152H-1 proved to be a greatly superior dogfighter, easily out-turning the A-8 in both directions at low to mid altitudes.

Here's a chart showing the 14.5 m/s climb rate at 8.8km height, thats 4.5 m/s faster than the P-51H at 90" Hg, and 10km is reached in approx. the same time. And notice the incredibly short take off run of the Ta-152H as-well:

[FLYBOYJ]

Originally Posted by Soren

First of all the US test involved an A-5/U4 which suffered from i'll-adjusted ailerons, causing premature stalling in turns.

Good info Soren, but I'd like to know more about this? If the ailerons were out of rig they would of affected other things as well.

[Soren]

FLYBOYJ, I'll acquire the Navy document discussing the matter.

[FLYBOYJ]

Originally Posted by Soren

FLYBOYJ, I'll acquire the Navy document discussing the matter.

Cool, Thanks!