The Greatest Fighter Pilot in WW II???

plan_D · 12-23-2004, 01:17 PM

Turbo-prop...did they have any turbo-prop Spitfires?

the lancaster kicks ass · 12-23-2004, 01:19 PM

doubt it................

plan_D · 12-23-2004, 01:20 PM

They did it with the Mustang.

DerAdlerIstGelandet · 12-23-2004, 01:22 PM

Many aircraft served post war the P-51 also. I am not saying the P-51 was any better then the Spitfire. The Spitfire was a marvelous aircraft dont take me wrong. However the airframe of the aircraft can only be strenghened so much and take so much before you can not upgrade it anymore. I highly doubt there were any turboprop Spitfires postwar. I really dont think the airframe could have taken a turboprop without being shaken apart.

DerAdlerIstGelandet · 12-23-2004, 01:29 PM

Yes but to put the turboprob in the P-51 it had to basically be rebuilt and this was not until 1967. The P-51 proved to be so useful that in 1967 the Mustang was put into production once again, this time by Cavalier and Piper. The Cavalier Turbo-Mustang III and Piper Enforcer were developed as Counter-Insurgency (COIN) aircraft with duties including light attack, Forward Air Control and interdiction roles.

plan_D · 12-23-2004, 01:42 PM

Yeah, I know about the Mustang turbos. Mean looking bugger, ain't it? The Spitfire was still a better dogfighter than any of the war Mustangs, and as most people argue was the best dogfighter of the war.

The Mk. VIII Spits in Burma (1943) were obliterating Zeros like they were nothing special.

DerAdlerIstGelandet · 12-23-2004, 01:45 PM

I am not denying that the Spitfire was not a great dogfighter but I personally just dont think it was the best. As for the zeros they never had a chance against a Spitfire or any of the advanced fighters of the European Air War I would think atleast. The Zero was a good aircraft also but against a Spitfire, P-51, Fw-190 or the later Me-109's I dont think it really would have had a chance.

the lancaster kicks ass · 12-23-2004, 01:53 PM

so what do you think was the best dogfighter??

DerAdlerIstGelandet · 12-23-2004, 01:56 PM

Um lets see I would go with the the Ta-152 or the P-51. Sorry I like P-51 better then the Spitfire.

the lancaster kicks ass · 12-23-2004, 02:01 PM

don't see why you'd go for the P-51, the spit was the better dogfighter..............

cheddar cheese · 12-23-2004, 02:04 PM

The TA-152 never really got the chance to prove itself as a dogfighter...

DerAdlerIstGelandet · 12-23-2004, 02:04 PM

I disagree. The Spitfire was deffinatly better than the earlier then P-51's however the P-51D was no less then equal to the Spitfire. It could turn just as well, its performance was just as good. The P-51D was an all around great fighter aircraft. So was the Spitfire dont take me wrong.

DerAdlerIstGelandet · 12-23-2004, 02:08 PM

The Ta-152 would have made an outstanding dogfighter. It had great performance. Its only weakness was at low alltitudes.

Strengths:

Firepower - Armed with one 30mm and two 20mm cannons close to the centerline, the Ta-152 has enough punch and ammo to down several heavy bombers in a single flight.

High Altitude Performance - With a top speed of 472 mph at 41,010 feet only the jet and rocket fighters are capable of going higher and faster.

Weaknesses:

Low Altitude Performance - Utilizing an engine optimized for high-altitudes, the Ta-152 can only manage 332 mph at sea level and thus can be caught by even early-war planes.

Roll Rate - The extended wings help handling at high-altitude, but at the cost of low-to-medium altitude roll rates.

Ground Attack - Without the ability to carry ordnance of any kind, the Ta-152 has only its guns to help with the ground war.

With it becoming increasingly obvious that high-altitudes were the domain of air combat in Europe, the Focke-Wulf and Messerschmitt companies were asked in late 1942 to submit proposals for a Hochleistungsjäger, of High-Performance Fighter. The plan was for a two-stage development with the first fighter being based on an existing model, using many common parts, and the second being built from the ground up.

Kurt Tank submitted two proposals (Ra-2 and Ra-3) for the first stage based on the Jumo-213 powered FW-190D and third (Ra-4D), which although it was based broadly on the 190, was to incorporate numerous structural and aerodynamic improvements. Although Messerschmitt submitted a design, the Me-155B, officials thought that Messerschmitt had too many projects in work already to devote sufficient time to the task.

The Ra-2 and Ra-3 prototypes were essentially the same as the FW-190D-9s, except that they used the Jumo-213E with a three-speed, two-stage turbo-supercharger and induction cooler for improved high-altitude performance. MW50 methanol injection was installed and hydraulics replaced electric components for the flaps and landing gear. The fuselage was lengthened to improve internal capacity and, to compensate for the change in cg, the fuselage was moved aft 16 inches. Each plane was armed with a single 30mm Mk 108 engine-mounted cannon and a pair of 20mm MG 151 cannon in the wing roots. In addition, the Ra-2 prototype was fitted with another pair of MG 151s in the cowl.

By this time in the war Kurt Tank’s reputation in the Luftwaffe was riding high and in his honor, and at his request, the plane was designated the Ta-152 instead of being included in the FW-190 lineage. Ra-2 was dubbed Ta-152B and Ra-3 became Ta-152H. Meanwhile, the Ra-4D model, or Ta-153 as it was now known, had begun development out of the FW-190C project. Of particular note was it’s wing, which although it offered only marginal aerodynamic improvements, was much simpler and easier to build and had a much greater internal capacity for fuel tanks. Because of these advantages it was decided that this wing would be transferred over to the Ta-152 project, with the H version having extended wing panels.

A Ta-152H production line was setup at Cottbus and the first two production prototypes were produced in June and July 1944. Joining them on the production line were the five remaining FW-190C prototypes, which were slated for conversion to the Ta-152H. Conversion and testing of these prototypes continued through November while twenty pre-production Ta-152H-0s were also built and delivered, these differing from the production H-1s only in having their wing tanks deleted.

The Ta-152H was armed with a single engine-mounted Mk 108 with 90 rounds and a pair of 20mm MG 151s with 175 rpg in the wing roots. Internal fuel capacity could be increased by mounting an ETC-503 rack on the fuselage, which could hold a 300 liter tank. The H-0 weighed in at 10,420 lbs. loaded while the H-1 with its internal tanks weighed 11,502 lbs.

More than 150 Ta-152H-1 fighters were produced at Cottbus between January 1945 and the facility being overrun by the Soviet army. While no Jagdgruppen had converted fully to the machine, several Jagdstaffeln operated the plane alongside their D-9s and the Stabsschwarm of JG 301 was known to use the plane to provide top cover for Me-262 bases. However, the majority were likely destroyed on the ground by strafing Allied fighters while waiting to be accepted by the Luftwaffe.

cheddar cheese · 12-23-2004, 02:09 PM

The P-51 was designed to attack from a higher altitude than the enemy aircraft, meaning it has the initail advantage. I hear that when attacking at the same level or lower than the enemy aircraft though, it was nothing special.

DerAdlerIstGelandet · 12-23-2004, 02:13 PM

Many of the aircraft were designed to operate the most efficiently at higher altitudes. Bombers flew at around 36,000ft in WW2 so the fighters would climb up there to have a go at the bombers so the escort fighters had to be that high or higher, so naturally you would want fighters to operate well at high altitudes. Most aircraft operate less efficiently at lower altitudes and that goes for all aircraft including the P-51 and the Spitfire.