 | 
04-03-2007, 08:40 AM
|
#91 | | Senior Member
Join Date: Mar 2006 Location: Southern California
Posts: 1,100
Country:  | Quote:
Originally Posted by Soren  Considering the climb rate advantage at all alts and the much shorter take-off run I'd say that its quite clear that the Ta-152H's wing more than made up for the smaller wing area.
Tactics tactics tactics.
I'm not talking in a straight line Davparlr, I'm talking in a turn where drag increases violently for the a/c with lowest wing efficiency.
But in terms of power vs volume ?
Don't be fooled by different speed figures at different power levels, the P-51 for example benefitted from an extra 300 HP worth of thrust generated by its radiator - which means its top speed is in effect a product of ~2,100 HP.
No it is not, and there are plenty of clear indications of this.
Would you reckon the F4U-5 climbed better than the F4U-4 ?
If the F4U-5 is 30 mph faster at SL than the F4U-4 then yes that is pretty significant. | Some good points, I'll have to get back to you in week. We are off to Ohio to visit my daughter and son-in-law. It will be in the 70s here (L.A.) but in the 40s there! | 
|  | |
04-03-2007, 08:21 PM
|
#92 | | Banned
Join Date: Apr 2007
Posts: 5
Country:  | I recken tha the spitfire is the best because it has the most guns, excuse me if i am wrong. | |
| | |
04-03-2007, 08:28 PM
|
#93 | | Senior Member
Join Date: Feb 2006 Location: Colorado, USA
Posts: 1,413
Country: | Yeah, the Spit could of held it's own with the Ta 152 at low altitudes at least.
__________________ 
"His motor's conked out!"
"What's the differance, they're all Nazis!"
"Luke, shut up!"
"Fear the hook!"
"Oh.....I wanna fly."
"You mean the kind that go under water and fly up the stairs?"
"What you doing? Oh Nooooo!" | |
| | |
04-03-2007, 09:23 PM
|
#94 | | Minister of Whoopass
Join Date: Jul 2004 Location: Long Island Native in Mississippi
Posts: 12,535
Country: | Quote: |
I recken tha the spitfire is the best because it has the most guns, excuse me if i am wrong.
| Oh Jesus, not another P-38 or Ohka...
__________________  "Boyington was a Drunk, but He was a Drunk We'd Follow Straight Into Hell..."
-- Lt. William Northrop Case | |
| | |
04-03-2007, 09:55 PM
|
#95 | | Senior Member
Join Date: Apr 2005 Location: Washington State
Posts: 8,952
Country: |  That's how they learn. Keep it comin' Des.
__________________ 
"Some people spend an entire lifetime wondering if
they made a difference in the world. But, the [U.S.]
Marines don't have that problem."
-- Ronald Reagan Master of Duplicate Posts | |
| | |
04-04-2007, 09:18 AM
|
#96 | | Senior Member
Join Date: Sep 2006 Location: Jacksonville, NC
Posts: 3,026
Country: | Quote:
Originally Posted by Matt308 That's how they learn. Keep it comin' Des. | 
__________________
If the Army and the Navy ever look on heaven's scenes, they will find the streets are guarded by United States Marines | |
| | |
04-04-2007, 03:56 PM
|
#97 | | Senior Member
Join Date: Jan 2007
Posts: 372
Country:  | What was the performance differnence with the Jumo EB installed on the 152H?
__________________
Lord Flasheart: [about planes] Always treat your kite like you treat your woman.
Lieutenant George: How do you mean, sir? Do you mean, take her home at the week-end to meet your mother?
Lord Flasheart: No! I mean get inside her five times a day and take her to heaven and back!
Captain Blackadder: I'm beginning to see why the suffragette movement are wanting the vote.
Lord Flasheart: Hey, hey! Any girl who wants to chain herself to my railings and suffer a jet movement gets my vote! | |
| | |
04-04-2007, 05:47 PM
|
#98 | | Senior Member
Join Date: Jan 2007 Location: Montrose, Colorado
Posts: 1,879
Country: | In the comparison of the F6F3 and F4U1 against the FW190A4 it was found that the FW could not turn as well as either Navy fighter. The TA152c can't have as good a roll rate as the FW190."The Great Book of WW2 Airplanes" shows an initial rate of climb of 3445 ft/min of the TA and a Vmax of 465 mph at 29860 with MW 50. Same book shows the F4U5 initial rate of climb as 4230 ft/min and a Vmax of 462 mph at 31400 ft. The wing loading of each a/c is about the same-41 lb/sf. | |
| | |
04-04-2007, 09:20 PM
|
#99 | | Senior Member
Join Date: Oct 2005 Location: Limburg
Posts: 871
Country:  | The Fw 190 was never much of a turn fighter. It's however likely that the Ta 152 would have had a very good (sustained) turn rate. However, as you said, at the cost of the roll rate. Nothing rolled like a Fw 190 but this was no longer the case with the 152H.
When I would have to chose between roll rate or turn rate, I would chose the former. If I want turn rate, I'll get me a Zero.
Kris
__________________   | |
| | |
04-04-2007, 09:53 PM
|
#100 | | IP/Mech THE GREAT GAZOO
Join Date: Apr 2005 Location: Colorado, USA
Posts: 12,516
Country: | Quote:
Originally Posted by Civettone When I would have to chose between roll rate or turn rate, I would chose the former. If I want turn rate, I'll get me a Zero.
Kris | Just as long as you're keeping it under 300 mph.
__________________ "IF ITS RED OR DUSTY, DON'T TOUCH IT"  | 
| | |
04-05-2007, 06:34 PM
|
#101 | | Senior Member
Join Date: Jan 2007 Location: Montrose, Colorado
Posts: 1,879
Country: | How about under 275 mph for the A6M. The comparison of the FW190A4 and the Navy planes showed the FW and F4U had about the same roll rate, both better than the F6F. The Corsair was noted for it's high roll rate and it got better with each model. Vought spent more than 700 flight test hours on perfecting the ailerons on the Corsair. | |
| | |
04-05-2007, 08:57 PM
|
#102 | | Senior Member
Join Date: Feb 2005
Posts: 4,281
| Quote:
Originally Posted by Civettone The Fw 190 was never much of a turn fighter. | Yet a Jabo hang on to a Mustang Mk.III...
__________________  We have built a total of about 1250 of this aircraft (Me-262), but only fifty were allowed to be used as fighters - as interceptors. And out of this fifty, there were never more than 25 operational. So we had only a very, very few.
- Adolf Galland | |
| | |
04-05-2007, 08:59 PM
|
#103 | | Senior Member
Join Date: Feb 2005
Posts: 4,281
| Quote:
Originally Posted by renrich How about under 275 mph for the A6M. The comparison of the FW190A4 and the Navy planes showed the FW and F4U had about the same roll rate, both better than the F6F. The Corsair was noted for it's high roll rate and it got better with each model. Vought spent more than 700 flight test hours on perfecting the ailerons on the Corsair. | The F4U in the Navy test was fitted with boost ailerons.
__________________ We have built a total of about 1250 of this aircraft (Me-262), but only fifty were allowed to be used as fighters - as interceptors. And out of this fifty, there were never more than 25 operational. So we had only a very, very few.
- Adolf Galland | |
| | |
04-06-2007, 04:36 PM
|
#104 | | Senior Member
Join Date: Jan 2007 Location: Montrose, Colorado
Posts: 1,879
Country: | The following are admittedly subjective observations by a US Navy pilot after WW2 on flying a F4U4. This was after training in an F6F and serving in an F8F squadron. The pilot has an aeronautical engineering degree. When first flying it, "Considering what it had to offer a pilot would have to either be dead inside or in the wrong business not to appreciate that the airplane was a special kind of flying machine." "Acceleration(on takeoff) was somewhere between the Hellcat and the Bearcat-closer to the Bearcat but without the excitement and agility of that airplane. That may be an unfair comparison. The Corsair in the air was a jewel." " The Corsair was a stable airplane with reasonable not objectionable control forces. It had a comforting solid feel in cruise configuration, yet maneuver response was quick and relatively easy. It was not as quick as the Bearcat but in some ways it was more controllable. My subjective impression is of better "control harmony" in the Corsair than in either of the Grummans. That expression refers to a desirable state in which stability and control responses are similar about all three axes." He goes on to say that for the first time he became a consistently respectable gunner in the Corsair because of that control harmonization. All of this and during the attempt by the air force to say that carriers were no longer needed because the early jets were not capable of intercepting the intercontinental B36 at 40000 ft the Navy according to a story intercepted a B36 at 40000 feet with an F4U5. | |
| | |
04-09-2007, 01:34 AM
|
#105 | | Senior Member
Join Date: Feb 2006 Location: Colorado, USA
Posts: 1,413
Country: | 
See? Those jets can hardly keep up with that baby!
__________________
"His motor's conked out!"
"What's the differance, they're all Nazis!"
"Luke, shut up!"
"Fear the hook!"
"Oh.....I wanna fly."
"You mean the kind that go under water and fly up the stairs?"
"What you doing? Oh Nooooo!" | |
| | | Thread Tools | Search this Thread | | | | | Display Modes |  Linear Mode | 
Posting Rules
| You may not post new threads You may not post replies You may not post attachments You may not edit your posts
HTML code is Off | | | All times are GMT -5. The time now is 05:21 PM. | | |
