Aces High Bulletin Board
General Forums => Aircraft and Vehicles => Topic started by: NOD2000 on August 11, 2002, 11:44:50 PM
-
ok the other day i was in a ta152 at 20,000ft and i dive down on a temp at 15,000ft it turns tail and runs....strait down so of corse i follow it down...........i pull out of the dive before him and run wave top where my wings are creaking with WEP on to start the climb back up.............when i look back out of my cockpit to see this same dang temp at 1.1k then before i decide to pull up i look again its at 1.0k then it gets to 500yrd (note: my wings are stilll creaking bad) so i run through a convoy of mine and he gets blaseted to pices..........after i saw this i think nawwww that can't be right no way that was right i looked in 5 diffrent books each said that the ta152H-1 has a top speed 20mph faster then any of the temps..................ok so how was that catching up to me like that .............hmmmmmmm can u say WRONG!!!!!!!!! BIG TIME WRONG!!!!!!!!!! i think hitech needs to look at that one..........
-
1) How you managed your zoom sequence greatly effects your ability to climb away. Even a 109G-10 would be caught up by a A6M5b Zero if the pilot doesn't manage the zoom sequence right.
2) Tempest reaches its top speed at what altitude? What about the Ta-152H-1? Are you not disregarding this fact?
-
yah i did my books both list speed at 1,000ft and at 10,000ft....... and the thing is that i never pulled off wave top cuz i kept looking back and he was catching me at the same alt with my wings about to rip off................that still ain't right............
-
Nothing outruns the tempest at low altitudes, except the Me263 and the Arado234. Your books are wrong.
-
5 diffrent books are wrong........................ .yah right.........lol and top speeds only change mabey 1 or 2 mph form 1,000ft to 4ft off the ground in variables not no 20 mph........i think mabey ur info is wrong.......or ur just partial to that plane............and um.... y didn't u just say that in the fist place ;) :p ;P cuz those books havn't been wrong yet.......
-
Speak english NOD jesus....
-
Look, there are so many factors involved here that it can't be explained with 1 thing.
Of all those factors the highest one which would account for this matter, in my opinion, is the problems encontered in the pilot himself, not the plane. This is about 90% of how it is when "FM" or "Plane Data vs AH combat results" issues are brought up. A film, if you had one, would be a big help in clarifying this.
....
This assumption justfies itself all the more since I have reason to believe you have no idea on the speed performance comparison between the Ta152H-1 and the Tempest MkV.
In Aces High, the Tempest MkV does about 388mph at sea level with war emergency power engaged. On the other hand, the Ta152H-1 does only 363mph with MW50 engaged at sea level. Yes, it is roughly a 20mph difference, but the Tempest is 20mph faster. The Tempest MkV is faster than the Ta152H-1 in practically all altitudes under 17k, except for the small margin between 9k and 13k. It is only over 17~18k the Ta152H-1 is faster than the Tempest. If you want to dispute this fact, you'd have to be a lot more specific than saying 'my 5 books say so', since I doubt anyone else has ever seen data claiming Ta152H-1 is faster than the Tempest at low altitudes.
And also bear in mind this is the Ta152H-1 we are talking about, not the Ta152C which was even faster than the H model and much more fit for use in conventional altitudes between 10k and 20k. It is more than likely the Ta152C your '5 books' are referring to if they indeed do claim the Ta152 is faster than the Tempest in altitudes between sea level and 20k.
...
Now, in my opinion, this is what happened.
Analysis based on the event you have described shows that the Tempy driver was probably better than you. Either that, or just pure chance he lured you to an altitude where it was optimum for him, and disadvantageous for you. Despite you had altitude(=speed) advantage, the prolonged dive and chase effectively neutered the differences in E state. As you two both reached sea level the Tempest actually gained higher E state.
The moment you broke off, the Tempy driver, who probably was carefully watching your move probably did this: he more than likely also pulled off from extension and began to climb in a E-wise immelmann in to you. Since the Tempest is both faster and climbs WAY better than the Ta152H-1 at sea level(better, as in at least 1000 feet per minute) it is not surprising he would catch up with you.
I'd bet my last dollar that 1) you had wrong data, 2) you made a move you shouldn't have done, and 3) now blame the data for the mistakes you've done.
..
If there is any explanation better than this, or a film that could prove me wrong, or have specific data on the speed performance of the Ta and the Tempy, please state it.
-
maybe AH modeled in the reduced efficiency of your A/C after the skin in the wings wrinkled (that creaking sound you heard)
-
(http://www.hitechcreations.com/models/charts/tempestspeed.gif)(http://www.hitechcreations.com/models/charts/tempestclimb.gif)
(http://www.hitechcreations.com/models/charts/ta152hspeed.gif)(http://www.hitechcreations.com/models/charts/ta152hclimb.gif)
The dive to sealevel was well more than enough to neutralize the extra energy from the altitude advantage you started with. Once on the deck the advantage was all to the Tempest.
-
And also bear in mind this is the Ta152H-1 we are talking about, not the Ta152C which was even faster than the H model and much more fit for use in conventional altitudes between 10k and 20k. It is more than likely the Ta152C your '5 books' are referring to if they indeed do claim the Ta152 is faster than the Tempest in altitudes between sea level and 20k.
As far as i know this is not really true.
The TA152C was optimized for an altittude of 20k-30k, while the TA152H was designed for used above 30K.
If you just look at speed an climb below 20K, the plane of choice in the LW-arsenal would be the FW190D9 with the JUMO213A, even the later FW190D models (D11-13) would fall short in comparison to the D9 below 12-15k (with "fall short" i mean they would be only 2-3 miles behind the D9 curves), while they would be clearly superior to the D9 above 20k.
Most off this is due to the usage of the JUMO213E (in FW190D 11-13 and in TA152H1), which is designed mainly for high altittude performance.
TA152C uses the DB603L an engine also designed for high alts.
While the D9 uses the JUMO213A which is a better low alt engine than the above mentioned, equivilant to them at med alt and inferior to them at high alts.
The Temp is THE low altittude propeller plane in AH, i think below 15K you have a clear advantage in it against everything that uses an airscrew.
Only LA7 & D9 come close in speed, and LA7 & Spit XIV in climb.
But hey, than you still have the 4xhispanos together with this incrible E retention.
-
Naudet,
The Bf109G-10 will also climb with the Tempest.
-
I said propeller planes, not rockets camouflaged in a propplane 3D model. ;)
-
what 5 books are you reading with such obvious errors.?
post isbn so I know what to avoid.
-
I'd have to check, but the F2G is one wartime prop job that might run with a Tempest down low, and I pretty sure it will initially outclimb it.
Of course, there were about as many F2G's as there were total Ta152's that made it too combat units. And actually more than Ta152H1's. ;)
Now how many of you guys know what a F2G is without looking it up? :p
But sheesh..... Chase a Tempest down low with a Ta152, and then complain because you gave him your six and he ran you down ?!?!! LOL!
-
Are we talking top speed or speed before wings start creaking?
AKDejaVu
-
Originally posted by Kweassa
Nothing outruns the tempest at low altitudes, except the Me263 and the Arado234. Your books are wrong.
Wrong, I kept up with a Temp in a 190-D9 at about 375mph wavetop height
-
LOL kevin14!
Gonna have go to the "wep" card on that one. Dora's wep lasts longer.
I'd also have to go to the "Temp pilot was a moron" card for not turning and engaging a low alt 190. ;)
AKDejaVu
-
Kevin14 you cannot claim that as wrong.
With wep the tempest on the deck is fastest at 386, however if he's only at military power setting speed tops out at 372 and a 190-d9 on wep tops out at 375.
Its pretty obvious you had to be on wep and the tempest either did not know you were chasing or was already wepped out.
Then of course we need to consider relative speeds / E state at start of the chase, as usual there are so many variables and you will only know those relating to your aircraft.
-
Verm,
The F2G top speed at sea level was 400MPH.
Initial climb was 5,115FPM.
It's amazing because that was all at 60inches of MAP. Hardly a strain on a PW-R4360C.
The F4U-3 had a top speed of 487MPH at 27K at 72inches of MAP with the same Turbo Supercharger in the P-47.
Ahh if the Japanese could have lated just a few more months.
-
Originally posted by Kweassa
Now, in my opinion, this is what happened.
Analysis based on the event you have described shows that the Tempy driver was probably better than you.
lol.....made my Monday :D
cheers,
salem
-
Ta 152 vs Tempest at low alt needs healthy E advantage. It is my impression that Ta 152 has fantastic E retention in dives and zooms (it is the best diver of 190s at least) and can keep E very long. Still, Tempest is an E collecting monster and you need to be very careful. Keeping your Ta at 20k+ is a better option.
-
yes i do see what u are saying about e bleeding off............that very well could be the case.......i thought that when i dived down at top speed (wings were trying to snap off)........... and the temp had been down at wave top level for 5 - 10sec that his speed would have already started to bleed ( note: when he got to wave top i never saw him move up or down at all)............ while mine was still at its peak that i would have the speed advantige and would have pulled away for a little while......... but instantly he was catching me at the same alt when he had been there for 5 to 10 seconds........... well gueess there are just some variables that i am not puttin in there..................... cuz the only plane i have ever read about goin over 500 mph during WWII with a prop is the F4u (don't remember which model) but yet i can pull out of dives at 550 to 600 with the ta-152h-1 ....................oh and no he wasn't better then me :) this handsomehunk followed me right through a convoy of my own country where he got blasted all to hell.......he he:D :p but u are probably right about the e bleeding off
-
@Verm: F2G, isnt that this Goodyear build bubble Canopy kamikaze interceptor F4U-Version?
If yes, what i read about was to good, OK the numbers are impressive, but i read that the "little" birdy had a couple of unpleasant flight characteristics.
But i don't want to go to deep into this.
Btw a few month ago i asked for a good reference book on US planes. One was mentioned (containing factory performance charts) but i can't find the thread. Could someone please tell me again what it was?
-
Naudet,
They were probably refering to "America's Hundred Thousand: U.S. Production Fighters of World War II".
F.
-
i've read that the Corsair w/ the Wasp Major was somewhat of a failure (not as fast as expected) and the later F4Us w/ R2800s were faster than the R4360 Corsairs (& less fuel consumption, lighter, more manuverable, better range...)
-
Naudet,
Here is a good reference chart on American fighters including the F7F, F2G and F8F.
(http://mywebpages.comcast.net/markw4/alliedchrts2.jpg)
The F2G had some of the same lateral control problems the P-51 and P-47 had when it went to the bubble canopy. It was corrected in the production models with a larger rudders. The worst prolem the F2G had was carbon monoxide in the cockpit. That was never really fixed before they cancelled production.
WHgates3,
The F2G had a single stage supercharger so it did not put out rated power up high but still managed 425MPH at 14K. The F4U-3/4/5 were all faster above that alt.
-
F2G was very unsuccesul and was canceled because the Bearcat could do everything in the F2G mission better. :)
-
Hmm, any particular reason why they used 51-B and 38-J in with that group instead of -D and -L?
-
I guess it all comes down to your definition of "successful"
The F4U-3/4/5 were preferred after the war because of their altitude performance. Remember this was the start of the jet age, where high altitude speed and ceiling were king. Notice that the F2G has a critical altitude (ie altitude of peak performance) of only 14,000ft compared to F4U-4 with the critical altitude of 20,000ft. This however is also the reason the -4 Corsair is not a very good arena plane, compared to its perk cost, because its strengths are up high.
But down low in the situations for which the F2G was built, nothing with a prop that I know of can out perform it.
*edit* Ok, maybe a Hawker Sea Fury , I would have to check. *edit*
Not even your Bearcat Grunherz. :) Notice that the Bearcat prototype (production aircraft didn't even perform that well) is almost 20 mph slower on the deck. The only thing that comes close on that chart is the Tigercat, which was a magnificent aircraft, but would have the well known roll deficiencies that all twins have, and which would turn poorly compared to the much lighter Super Corsair.
But in the Aces High Arena, we don't fight a real war. We fight the FURBALL. Which is more indicative of conditions on the Eastern front. We fight down low and dirty.
Why does the La7 do so good in AH compared to the P-51 even though it is almost 25mph slower? Because where it counts in the Arena, down low, its faster.
And THAT is why the F2G Super Corsair would be the ultimate prop perk plane in AH if it was ever introduced :) Fastest on the Deck, 5000+ ft/min initial climb rate, and the famous Corsair nimble handling.
It would eat Tempies for breakfast, lunch, and dinner :D
-
Originally posted by Vermillion
and the famous Corsair nimble handling.
According to America's Hundred Thousand Corsair has the worst turning performance when compared to other American fighters (FM-2, P-63A-9, P-61B-1, F6F-5, P-51D-15, P-38L, P-47D-30, F4U-1D).
-
...even the Jug out-turns the Hog? i dont buy that for a second...
-
AHT is probably talking about a sustained 360 degree turn. Even then I think I would probably disagree, since it could sustained outturn the P-51, P-47, and maybe the P-61 (no real idea on this one). Maybe AHT isn't taking flaps into consideration, *shrugs*.
But the Corsair has incredible roll rate, excellent elevator response, excellent high speed handling, and one of the best instantaneous turn rates of the American fighters. You just don't want too turn it more than 90 to 180 degrees in a fight.
Again, it all comes down to definition.
-
Yep Verm it was fast, but don't discount the Bearcat as I heard that it was much faster than the common figures put it - something like 450mph at best alt. Plus it handily outclimbed your corsair, probably outrolled it, most certainly outacceled and outurned it. Maybe the porker F2G could dive better. :D
-
Hehe Grunherz,
You are the ultimate aggitator.
However by your definition of what is a successful A/C then the F4U would be a clear winner over the Bearcat. The Bearcat was out of American service by 1950 and the F4U remained until the early 60's. Also notice the F2G had nearly twice the combat range and a much larger payload.
However in a match between the F2G and Bearcat I would say the Bearcat handles much like a Spitfire. Perhaps the ultimate dogfighter of all Props. However even the Spitty can be defeated with the use of proper tactics and Docterine.
In fact the former curator of the National Air and Space Museum Donald Engin who is a former fighter pilot and Commander of the the Aircraft Carrier USS America in the 1960's describes in his book "Wings and Warriors"(Smithsonian press) a dogfight held between an F4U-1D and F8F-1 when the Bearcat pilots became to "overbearing". This was a duel from a standing start on the runway side bye side and the F4U-1D using 20 degrees flap defeated the F8F. After that they received F4U-4 the Bearcat pilots were less oppressive.
As a side note Marion Carl who flew both the F2G and Bearcat prefferred the Bearcat.
-
IRRC the F4U1 guy cheated on that runway fight :D , anyway since no fights ever start side by side on a runway thats a funny story but quite irrelevant.
Of course the F4U series was more succesful than F8F, thats a no brainer. With the coming of Navy jets the F8Fs obvious advantages in air combat became less relevant while the F4Us obvious advantages as a bomber came to the forefront so it was used more often.
Anyway say what you want but you can't change the fact that the F2G was canceled because Bearcat did the F2G mission better.
:)
-
Wmaker,
The AHT chart is the most missunderstood piece of data I have ever seen.
The data Mr.Dean used in AHT for 3G stall speeds came from the Fighter meet at Patuxant River 1944. Mr.Dean Also edited that book which Schiffer published.
In any case a large number of pilots (about 70 in total) flew the various A/C that were there. They had a range of stall speeds for all A/C for 1G and 3G's. However for these reasons you have to take the speeds with a grain of salt.
1. They were just testing the Aircraft for flying qualities. Not Qualitative results. In other words everone flew under different conditions fuel loads et cetera. Not for determining the exact flight characteristics.
2. The F4U-1D had an average 3G stall of approx. 150knots. The FG-1D also tested had an avergae 3G stall of 130Knots. This is not mentioned in AHT. They are the same exact A/C.
3. The F8F-1 was also tested at this conferance with an average stall of 200Knots!!. Does this sound correct?
4. Knots and MPH are used interchangably throughout the report. It seems as if some numbers are mistated. Especially since some of the Cl max numbers are way off based on the stall speeds provided.
If you want a more accurate account of 3G stall speeds there are other reports available. In fact the flight manuals are a great place to find stall charts. Also the Socioty of Experamental Aircraft did a test of these A/C in 1989. The numbers they got were much different using more modern test equipment.
-
Negative Grunherz,
You missed my point. The F2G and F8F didn't have the same role. Meaning one could not replace the other. The F4U-4 caused the cancellation of the F2G. Not the F8F. The F8F didn't have the ordinace or the range to do what the F4U did.
Note the ordinance capabilty of the F2G Bomb and Rocket racks.
(http://209.133.73.72/Fea/0001-1000/Fea_001-100/Fea_041-050/Fea048_F2G_Racer/images%20Part%204/044_.jpg)
-
I always read the F2G was designed as a fast climbing interceptor to counter Kamikaze attacks, is this incorrect?
-
Vermillion - the P-61 had, due to it's unique control surfaces, could turn with the best of 'em (quite a surprise for such a behemoth, no?...Black Widow was the heaviest fighter of the war), however i have heard it gave up E quickly when doing so. i think the odd control surfaces keeps the P-61 out of flight sims - too hard to model - otherwise i would expect i would be very popular: very heavy armament (4 x 20mm + 4 x 0.50 turret - 0.50s can cover its own tail in a dogfight or fire foward, or anywhere in the upper hemisphere), could carry up to 6,400 lbs of underwing ordinance (4 hardpoints for bombs & 10 rockets), resonably fast (369 mph at 20000 ft, although some sites [ USAF at http://www.wpafb.af.mil/museum/air_power/ap25.htm ] quote as high as 437) , a good turner and i'm assuming that w/ 2 x P&W R-2800s & a heavy all metal body it was quite tough to kill - although i'm not sure if it could fly on only 1 engine like the P-38 could & the P-61's 1200 mile range is not bad either, better than a Mustang's...(http://www.enter.net/~rocketeer/p-61.gif)
-
Negative Grunherz,
The Kamikazee killer is a myth. I believe it was flying before the first (designed) Kamikazee attack took place in fact.
Vought actually started the F2G program as the F4U-1WM. Here is the F4U-1 and F4U-1WM circa 1943 based on the paint. Goodyear took over the project in 1944 and added the bubble canopy.
(http://www.vought.com/photos/images/1065_18.jpg)
-
F4U, in G White's engine book, the same photo is captioned with P&W doing the installation of the R-4360 in the F4U-1, not Vought. Photo is
courtesy of the New England Air Museum and P&W Aircraft.
Not say who is correct , just an alternate claim.:cool:
-
Verm--
How did the P-47M compare to the F2G? I would imagine the the corsair was a bit faster at th lower alts. But the P-47M would outpace a F4U-4 at high alts, right?
I would love to see how the P-47M compared in the chart f4udoa
-
Tempest II performance, AIR 64/32.
-
Heya Neil,
What fuel was the Tempest using during that test??
Have you seen the doc someone posted on these boards showing overboosted Spit XIV and P-51D. The pony was at about 425MPH I think.
Any luck with those Procat Docs??
Ammo,
The only P-47M charts I have ever seen come from AHT. Based on those I would say the P-47 is definitly faster about 25K on up. It would certainly be interesting in AH however with the current perk Icons I think it would share the same fate as any low perk bird in AH with a giant Gang Me sign on it. I have seen some out ragous numbers for the P-47M but I think they really come from the P-47J. For some reason not all of the aircraft data is that easy to come by.
BTW I have always felt that the F4U-4 data is valid in AH but the worst possible data of all of the charts I have seen. They also come from AHT.
-
Here is the data I was speaking of.
-
And one more.
All of these A/C were extremely overboosted.
150 octane fuel.
-
Ammo, like F4UDOA said, the P-47M or N is most comparable to the F4U-4. A very outstanding plane, but its at its best at medium to high altitudes.
The F2G has altitude characteristics most like the La7. Down low, it has incredible power (something like 3,600 hp if I remember right) which gives it the 400 mph SL speed and the 5,000+ ft/min climb speed, and incredible acceleration in what is basically the same airframe as the F4U-1D we already have. Which I personally consider to easily be the most manueverable of the BnZ aircraft in AH. But just like the La7, get it above 14,000ft (its critical altitude) and performance is going to suffer drastically. I would have to look at some charts, but I would guess above 20,000ft that the F4U-1D would outperform it. But in our main arena, it would make this the deadliest of the perk planes.
Grunherz, what you have heard is the "urban myth" of the F2G. Actually it was designed to fight a Japanese opponent in the PTO where rarely did the fights go above 15k, and 20k was considered extreme high altitude. Very similar to the altitudes and tactics used on the Eastern Front. This is the situation that the F2G was designed to fight in, and which it would excel at.
Like I said in my first post. The F8F did not kill the F2G, which most people don't realize that it did actually go into a limited production. The F4U-4/5 did ! It was the start of the jet age where altitude and speed at altitude were the defining features of fighter aircraft, and admittedly the F2G was exceedingly poor at this role. Just a few years later fighter combat operations over the Yalu were routinely at 35k-40k and just under the sound barrier.
But conversely the Bearcat and Tigercat also suffered from the same performance at altitude deficiencies (look at their critical altitudes on F4UDOA's chart) since they were designed to fight the same opponent that the F2G was. So I think its a better arguement that the F4U-4/5 actually killed the Bearcat !! . Seriously :)
-
Hi F4UDOA,
the tempest was using 150 grade fuel.
I have been researching 150 grade fuel at the PRO. All of ADGB was put on this fuel July 44 followed by the 2nd Tactical Airforce Circa Jan 45. The US 8th started with this fuel June 44 and the 9th date ? British based Spit LF IX,s were using this fuel by May 44.
Those charts you posted come from AVIA 6 10618, this found within the PRO's records by Mike Williams (Spit site) and collected from the PRO by me.
Does any one have Bearcat/P51H charts showing performance with 115/145 or 100/150 octane fuel and water injection?
-
Neil, I've yet to see any P-51H performance charts to date.
However, I've recently found this site which sells electronic copies of old flight manuals, which supposedly has the 1946 P-51H manual, along with the full performance charts.
I've just haven't gotten around to paying $20 for an electronic copy.
http://www.eflightmanuals.com/
If you end up getting a copy, I would love to see the charts. :)
-
Wow, I knew the P-51H was a "hot" plane, but here are excerpts from the manual thats in the public area of that website.
Specs of the P-51H-5-NA:
One Packard Merlin V-1650-9 twelve-cylinder Vee liquid cooled engine rated at 1380 hp for takeoff and a a war emergency power of 2218 hp at 10,200 feet and 1900 hp at 20,000 feet with water injection.
Performance: Maximum speed was 444 mph at 5000 feet, 463 mph at 15,000 feet, and 487 mph at 25,000 feet.
Range in clean condition was 755 miles at 359 mph at 10,000 feet, 1975 miles at 239 mph at 10,000 feet. Range with two 62.5 Imp. gall. drop tanks was 1150 miles at 339 mph at 10,000 feet and 1530 miles at 243 mph at 10,000 feet.
An altitude of 5000 feet could be reached in 1.5 minutes, 15,000 feet in 5 minutes.
Service ceiling was 41,600 feet. Weights: 6585 pounds empty, 9500 pounds normal loaded, and 11,500 pounds maximum. Dimensions: Wing span was 37 feet 0 inches, length was 33 feet 4 inches, height was 8 feet 10 inches, and wing area was 235 square feet.
-
Thanks Vermillion, I have E-mailed them, lets see what happens.
BTW I have information that puts the maximum speed of the Bearcat and Tigercat at over 420mph at SL
-
I say strip my bearcat of all weapons just fuel. Then i can just go around and fly people into the ground.
-
Just took a quick look at the P-51D speed vs altitude chart, if the P-51H supercharger is setup for the same critical altitudes and the data from that site is correct (I realize this is a big "if") you can interpolate a rough H model speed vs altitude chart, which the data would seem to support with just the eyeball. I didn't graph it in a spreadsheet or anything.
But, it would give the H model a speed at SL of about 430-435 mph. Very impressive. :)
-
Originally posted by Kevin14
Wrong, I kept up with a Temp in a 190-D9 at about 375mph wavetop height
Kevin, You should have ride 190D-9 at 375 mph at the deck with Tempest if Tempest ran outta wep and you didn't.
According to my tests at 9.5.02 offline with 25% fuel @ deck, the results:
MIL:
Tempest 372 mph
190D-9: 346 mph
WEP:
Tempest: 386 mph
190D-9: 375 mph
Anyway, when talking about Tempest vs. 190D-9 @ deck, Tempest should eat Dora alive, no doubt.
Tempest is a monster, but rarely seen due the perk price, it's wonderful fighter!
As Hristo said, Tempest is an E collecting monster! :)
-Vector
-
Just got home after another week away, and what do I see? A TA152 THREAD!!
I can start by saying that the TA152 we have in AH is undermodelled and that has been proven by me in several threads before but noone cares so just forget about that for now.
However, the Tempest MkV was, and is suposed to be faster then the TA152H-0 and H-1 down low, that's a proven fact and I've got german reports aswell as brittish reports that say the tempest was faster so there's really no points discussing it anymore, whatever sources you have are wrong.
The TA152H-1 had it's top speed at 41,000 feet, speed was 472mph with WEP (GM1 power boosting).
At the deck it had a top speed of around 360mph, Tempest had around 380mph at the deck.
Another thing, the TA152 had a TERRIFIC climb rate as wasa often described by the pilots who flew it, they reported outclimbing "friendly" 109's (the 109's thought the TA152's were some new allied planes DUH!). They escaped by outmaneuvering and outclimbing. I can give you the climb figures again some time but not now, they were around 21 meters/second (109 K4 had about 23m/s) which means it is a bit undermodelled in climb rate aswell but it is NOT undermodelled in deck speed.
-
verm, that P-51H is a monster.
Here's a couple of stats to chew on as well. While, the M's speed stats dont compare with the p-51H, its still impressive.
(published numbers, not the test AC data which was even more impressive).
the P-47M climbed to 15K in 4.9 minutes.
the P-47M equiped with the -57 P&W engines regularly reached speeds of 480 MPH.