Best Piston Engined Fighter Ever...

[lesofprimus]

If the ailerons were out of rig they would of affected other things as well.

Yea, I was thinking the same thing Joe... I think Soren has referred to this test before as it rings a bell.... Good post and info Soren... I like the chart...

[Udet]

Mr. Davparl, hello!

No problem, i just thought i had to made the clarification there.

I also want you to notice i have no doubt the F4U4 and U5 made excellent craft. Top of the class.

Also thanks for the explanation regarding the speed issues of these planes.

Cheers!

[Erich]

ah to have Willi R. or other members of JG 301 give their 2 ¢ about the Ta 152H on here ..........

[Soundbreaker Welch?]

Yet the Ta-152H holds a 11:0 kill ratio at low - medium altitude. Not a single Ta-152H was ever shot down.

But think combat situations it was involved in. Limited contact with the enemy. It never made much of an impact.

There were very few Ta-152's that participated in the war. If they had been used in large numbers, you would have seen more losses on acount of more rookie pilots flying it and also more air battles to be involved in. The Ta-152 was superior to the Russian planes, and also to the P-51D.

The Brewster Buffalo, which could easily one the title of the worst fighter of WWII, had a better kill ratio with the Finnish Air Force than the Ta-152. The Buff was not superior to the Russian planes, yet it still beat them. The Brewster Buffalo should really in this poll by it's kill ratio and combat status. It could be called one the greatest fighters of all time based on that evidence. So Ratio's can be misleading in a limited combat field.

The P-51D had a 11:1 "kill ratio" which is pretty considering how many rookie pilots flew it and the large numbers of it flew, and not far behind the Ta-152. The P-51D did have the advantage of Air Superiority when it flew so that ratio can also be misleading.

Sure the Ta-152 was certainly the better plane than the Buffalo and P-51D but as someone else pointed out it's limited combat use can make it's victories misleading, just like any other plane with large combat staus like the Mustang.

I suppose the Ta-152 could have beat the Mustang H and the Bearcat but it certainly wouldn't in speed. The P-51H could go 487 which is equal or more than the Ta-152, and the Bearcat still holds the record of Fastest Piston Engined fighter on record. (528.33 mph)

Maybe the Ta-152 could have beat that record, seeing that it's combat speed was higher than Bearcat anyway.

What left is the Corsair F4U-5, combat proven in more battles than the Ta-152 and a great all around fighter. Soren still hasn't been able to prove it was less manuverable. They were probably a match in terms of manuverability. They both could outturn the FW-190A and that's all we know, not that one could do it better than the other.

I guess in terms of speeds at high altitude, I'm forced to give the Ta-152 the vote over. But I can give the Corsair the vote for having better speeds than the Ta-152 at low altitude, which also gives it a better turn ratio. But I still haven't decided yet.

[DerAdlerIstGelandet]

Originally Posted by Erich

ah to have Willi R. or other members of JG 301 give their 2 ¢ about the Ta 152H on here ..........

Hopefully soon my friend, hopefully soon. I actually considered calling him tomorrow and see how he is doing after his accident.

[Soundbreaker Welch?]

11:1 was the overall kill ratio for the Corsair F4U-4, not as good as the Ta-152.

Sorry Ta fans, I decided to give my vote to the Corsair F4U-5. It didn't fight on as many fronts as the FAU-4 but it was superior to it, and have would done just as well. If the Corsair had fought in th European Theater as an Army Fighter we would have known even how it would have fared agains't the german planes. But the same statement could go for the Ta-152.


So do you think I made a dumb choice?

[Hunter368]

Both were great planes.


I do have a question for the "gun experts". Can someone tell us the following information about the TA-152 and F4U-5.

-Rate of fire for both

-Range of their guns

-Ammo load

-How reliable were the guns

-Muzzle velocity

-Special ammo loads/types if any used

-Anything else that you feel important about their guns I have not asked.

[Erich]

good luck Chris hope you can catch him

TA 15H should have Tony Williams answer this. but for the 3cm fitted through the spinner a mix of Minengeschoss ammo HE and HE-I. As the Stab and III./JG 301 was suppose to have been destined to take on B-17's but never did just fighters, although it is reported one Stab./JG 301 pilot did shoot down 1 Fortress. I will suppose the 2cm twin's were fitted with similar ammo types .........

[renrich]

You are welcome Udet. davparlr, I agree with you that comparison tests should be done as objectively as possible but I believe there is a "hometowner" effect which creeps in almost invariably. Let me give this example which admittedly is not official. The "great" British test pilot who also flew combat, Captain Eric Brown, in his book "Duels in the Sky" says the F4U1 had a Vmax of 394 mph TAS at 24000 ft. He also says that in a contest between a Corsair II and the FW190A4 "The FW could not be bested by a Corsair. The FW is a clear winner in combat with the Corsair." In the next paragraph, in a contest between the F6F3 and the FW, " This was a contest so finely balanced that the skill of the pilot would be the balancing factor." Go figure but I believe that here is a pure case of bias overruling objectivity. The Corsair for all models had a kill ratio of 11 to 1. The Hellcats was even better. Vought took on the task of designing a ship board fighter in 1938, I believe, that would have a quantum jump in performance over not only carrier a/c but land based as well. This was accomplished with a new, untried engine as well as a new prop. Rex Beisel, the chief designer accomplished his task so well that, in 1940, the XF4U exceeded 400 mph in a timed level flight, the first American single engine fighter to do so. The design had so much stretch in it that it was still being manufactured more than 12 years later. Almost certainly the finest recip. engined fighter bomber in all of history, the F4U7 served with the French Navy until 1964. My data shows that the F4U5 would have a performance edge over TA152 up to 30000 ft, had more range, could carry a larger ordnance load and carried more ammunition for guns that would be more suitable for ACM. In addition the Corsair would be more survivable and I have to believe more reliable. All of that and carrier suitable. Seems like a clear choice for the finest piston engined fighter ever.

[renrich]

If the 20 mms used in the Corsair had the same performance as those in WW2, my source shows this: Rate of fire, 600 rpm, MV-2920 fps, explosive or tracer rounds, weight of Proj.-.29 lbs, max effective range-1200 yds, max effective theoretical range-2400 yds

[Parmigiano]

Originally Posted by Soundbreaker Welch?

The P-51D had a 11:1 "kill ratio" which is pretty considering how many rookie pilots flew it and the large numbers of it flew, and not far behind the Ta-152. The P-51D did have the advantage of Air Superiority when it flew so that ratio can also be misleading.

Maybe a bit off-topic, but this is something that I would like to sort for my personal culture...

There are different info about the kill ratio of the P51, ranging from 19:1 to 2:1

Here is a link to a History Channel forum where a guy (Robert, see 3-4 posts down in the row) is making some apparently well documented comments.

History Channel: P-51 Mustang. The "Best"? ...

The strongest statement is:

"The figures I use for the P-51 are the official USAAF figures for the ETO/MTO. The P-51 is credited with (1):

Sorties: 213,873 Bomb tonnage: 5,668 Lost in combat (includes losses from all combat causes): 2,520 E/A kills: 4,950 Ground kills: 4,131

This gives the P-51 a 1.96 to 1 kill ratio, far and away the best of any USAAF fighter in the theater."

Then, by reasoning on probable % etc. he concludes that excluding losses to ground fire a likely ratio was around 5:1 for ETO/PTO combined (that means tha likely in ETO this air to air KR was lower)


I don't know the guy, but he seems competent and his post has references to sources (something very rare in forums..); I had no time to verify the quoted sources.

Anyone can confirm/confute this data?

[davparlr]

Originally Posted by Parmigiano

"The figures I use for the P-51 are the official USAAF figures for the ETO/MTO. The P-51 is credited with (1):

Sorties: 213,873 Bomb tonnage: 5,668 Lost in combat (includes losses from all combat causes): 2,520 E/A kills: 4,950 Ground kills: 4,131

This gives the P-51 a 1.96 to 1 kill ratio, far and away the best of any USAAF fighter in the theater."

I think someone has some numbers crossed. My reference shows 2,520 P-51s lost in combat, 4,950 enemy aircraft shot down, and 4.131 aircraft destroyed on the ground.

[Parmigiano]

??? where crossed? this is exactly what 'Mr Robert' says, and brings a kill ratio of 1,96:1 for the P51

Maybe the text formatting was confusing, the clear reading is:

Sorties: 213,873
Bomb tonnage: 5,668
Lost in combat (includes losses from all combat causes): 2,520
E/A kills: 4,950
Ground kills: 4,131

4950/2520=1,96

[Thorlifter]

Originally Posted by Soundbreaker Welch?

Yet the Ta-152H holds a 11:0 kill ratio at low - medium altitude. Not a single Ta-152H was ever shot down.

So are you telling me the Ta-152H only shot down 11 planes? hmmm. While impressive, that's not much of a stat to go on. What is the kill ratio for all Ta-152's?

Yes, I think the Ta-152, if not THE best piston fighter, is in the top 3. Personally, I went with the Corsair F4U-5, but on reflection, I'd like to change my vote to the Ta-152 to be the best pure fighter. Best plane, hands down it's the Corsair (IMO).

Ta-152h kill ratio is 11-0 = impressive but not overwhelming
Corsairs kill ratio is 2140-189 = IMPRESSIVE!!!!!!!
F6F Hellcat kill ratio is 5163-270 = WOW!!!!
P-51 kill ratio ETO/MTO is 1.96-1 = uhhhhhh Sorry buddy, not even in my top 10.

[davparlr]

Originally Posted by Soren

Davparlr,

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

This seems strange. As said elseware, this would probably be indicated in the vehicle performance in other places. There is no indication in the report of this ill adjustment and the plane was said to be easy to fly. You would think something would indicate a problem like yaw correction. Do you have some supporting data?

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.

Wing loading is thumbrule and there are other variables, but it does support the flight test claims. It cannot be dismissed either, especially if you have loads of power to drive it through the air, as the F4U-5 does.

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.

So it could be as good a dogfighter as the F4U-1?

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:

The F4U-4 in mil power has a climb rate of about 12.2 m/s at 8.8 km. Add a couple of hundred hp for WEP and a couple of hundred for the F4U-5 and I would suspect very similar or better performance at 8.8 km.