PDA

View Full Version : TA152



Reol86
04-15-2004, 01:21 AM
So i noticed it has a bad accerlation was this true in real life? It also stalls and overheats too fast doesnt it?

So what do you think? I can be wrong, but i thought TA152 had very good accerlation and didnt stall so easily.

[This message was edited by Reol86 on Thu April 15 2004 at 01:17 AM.]

Reol86
04-15-2004, 01:21 AM
So i noticed it has a bad accerlation was this true in real life? It also stalls and overheats too fast doesnt it?

So what do you think? I can be wrong, but i thought TA152 had very good accerlation and didnt stall so easily.

[This message was edited by Reol86 on Thu April 15 2004 at 01:17 AM.]

dadada1
04-15-2004, 04:33 AM
Unfortunately because the TA 152 came so late in the war, there is not a great amount of data concerning it's performance. We have mostly anecdotal reports from a very limited number of pilots that actually flew her. There is also Eric Browns test flight where he mentions that he felt it's climb at low to medium altitudes to be slightly inferior to the Spitfire XIV. I do have some charts that bear this out comparing the TA 152 to it's contempories such as Spitfire XIV and Mustang D and these indicate that it had a slightly inferior climb to both at low to medium altitudes, high altitude of course is a different matter. This is reflected in Game. As for it's stall behaviour( I think there are difficulties within the games code) I think its fine apart form the difficulty of stall/spin recovery which contradicts a report I have read. I have no complaints in game about it's turn performance and I've managed to outurn Laggs and Yaks, something no other German plane can do with as much confidence. So all things considered it's perhaps not too far off the mark. It's fast overheat is probably the most glaring error, but that is being addressed I believe in the up and coming patch

DangerForward
04-15-2004, 07:24 AM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by dadada1:
Unfortunately because the TA 152 came so late in the war, there is not a great amount of data concerning it's performance. We have mostly anecdotal reports from a very limited number of pilots that actually flew her. There is also Eric Browns test flight where he mentions that he felt it's climb at low to medium altitudes to be slightly inferior to the Spitfire XIV. I do have some charts that bear this out comparing the TA 152 to it's contempories such as Spitfire XIV and Mustang D and these indicate that it had a slightly inferior climb to both at low to medium altitudes, high altitude of course is a different matter. This is reflected in Game. As for it's stall behaviour( I think there are difficulties within the games code) I think its fine apart form the difficulty of stall/spin recovery which contradicts a report I have read. I have no complaints in game about it's turn performance and I've managed to outurn Laggs and Yaks, something no other German plane can do with as much confidence. So all things considered it's perhaps not too far off the mark. It's fast overheat is probably the most glaring error, but that is being addressed I believe in the up and coming patch<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

I think Eric Brown does say that in his test that he didn't use the MW-50 or GM-1. He mentions that there was a shortage of the needed chemicals.

DangerForward

p1ngu666
04-15-2004, 08:32 AM
i dont have overheat issues with it

http://www.pingu666.modded.me.uk/mysig3.jpg
&lt;123_GWood_JG123&gt; NO SPAM!

Reol86
04-15-2004, 09:49 AM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by p1ngu666:
i dont have overheat issues with it

http://www.pingu666.modded.me.uk/mysig3.jpg
&lt;123_GWood_JG123&gt; NO SPAM!<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

What do you mean it overheats very rapidly at 110 % & GM1 or MW50.

Reol86
04-15-2004, 09:55 AM
Oleg replied to me sometime ago that it should be better climber than 190D9 at all alts if i correctly remember and a fact is that if it didn´t have MW50 or GM1 then i believe that those results can be true, but if they would have used MW50 or GM1 i think it might have turned the table opposite because TA really needs boost.

gates123
04-15-2004, 10:53 AM
Just leave the rads open (throughout the sortie) and you'll get to 3000k before overheating with MW-50 on. Be sure to unlock auto-prop pitch too for better preformance

http://www.fortunecity.com/meltingpot/justin/1087/WWII/Images/Thumbs/TBf109AK.jpg
Did anyone see that or was it just me?

Zen--
04-15-2004, 11:01 AM
80% manual pitch is excellent for the TA152 and really boosts climb and acceleration.

Give it a try, you'll probably enjoy the improvement in performance.

-Zen-
Tracks (http://209.163.146.67/tracks)

FW190fan
04-15-2004, 12:11 PM
There are just so many a/c in FB now that I just haven't had the time to extensively test the Ta-152. My overall impression is that it is modelled as I would expect.

This plane rules high altitudes as far as I have seen.

http://people.aero.und.edu/~choma/lrg0645.jpg

p1ngu666
04-15-2004, 05:54 PM
yep i leave it on open unless i need speed.
cant say overheat is unreasonable. amusingly on the default skin it looks like it has a blank metal plate, no radiator. on the template i used todo jv44 style skins there was a proper rad http://ubbxforums.ubi.com/infopop/emoticons/icon_smile.gif
if u want unreasonable overheat, go fly a merlin
oh a quick 190question, is the only air outlet those lil gilly things on the side? seem really small to me thats all http://ubbxforums.ubi.com/infopop/emoticons/icon_smile.gif

http://www.pingu666.modded.me.uk/mysig3.jpg
&lt;123_GWood_JG123&gt; NO SPAM!

Reol86
04-15-2004, 11:03 PM
How should i use it against P63C? Or La7 is the only way to win them by B&Z.

Hunde_3.JG51
04-16-2004, 12:34 AM
p1ngu666, yes that is the only outlet on the 190. But the actual cooling was done with an "ingenious" series of internal baffles and routing. The gills were created mainly to cool the rear cylinder banks of the BMW-801. The overheating of the rear cylinder banks was not cured just by using the "gills", it was initially cured by a simple re-routing of the exhaust that could be done at the indiviual "gruppe's" workshops. Yet the 190 suffers as much radiator drag as any other plane, and there was a debate about this a long time ago but oh well.

Reol86, I'm not sure if the Ta-152 out-turns the P-63C, it may initially but after you lose your speed it may be trouble. Against the Kingcobra and the La-7 you must grab altitude and/or use your wingmen. And you are pretty much limited to B&Z tactics. Either way you must stay high as the Ta-152 is slow at low altitude and the other two shine.

http://www.brooksart.com/Icewarriors.jpg

Formerly Kyrule2
http://www.jg51.com/

Reol86
04-16-2004, 10:45 AM
Well i have been thinking about the energy bleed. Is that also correctly modelled ? because that is the reason why it is not able to battle in a turn fights. I read a story where it fought against a tempest in tree top level and was able to manouver with it easily and eventaly was able to shoot the tempest.

p1ngu666
04-16-2004, 11:43 AM
i vaguly remmber that thread http://ubbxforums.ubi.com/infopop/emoticons/icon_smile.gif
oleg said there was no external drag, but there was internal, which seems fair enough to me http://ubbxforums.ubi.com/infopop/emoticons/icon_smile.gif
dont surpose u have any pics of the system do u, sorry mild currositity http://ubbxforums.ubi.com/infopop/emoticons/icon_smile.gif
just remmbered pic of b29 engine i saw, i wondered how that was able to not melt http://ubbxforums.ubi.com/infopop/emoticons/icon_smile.gif. 4row radial, tightly packed with all the gubbings
also what is that biege coloured plate on default skin meant tobe ? (of ta152)

http://www.pingu666.modded.me.uk/mysig3.jpg
&lt;123_GWood_JG123&gt; NO SPAM!

Hunde_3.JG51
04-16-2004, 02:23 PM
No pics but here is pic/buyable blueprint with short description of cooling. I guess we will agree to disagree about drag, I don't think the internal cooling of the BMW should induce as much drag as having, in many cases, large external devices opening up into airflow. Either way I made no stink about it at all and I said I trusted Oleg and team and left it at that (for the record).

http://aviationshoppe.com/BMW_801.html

Here is the print:

"BMW based in Munich, were manufacturing Pratt and Whitney radials under license in the 1930's and used this experience to develop its own twin row engine. Despite this, it can be considered an original design incorporating fuel injection and other German features.

It is distinctly different from the American engines and incorporated MW50 fuel injection, initially methanol-water. Later engines also had a gear-driven two stage supercharger. The boost could, in emergency, push the engine output from 1,600 h.p. to around 2,100 h.p. Radial engines were uncommon in successful European fighter aircraft until the BMW 801 was used in the Focke-Wulf Fw 190, with armored oil tank and powerful cooler gear in the cowled nose section and multi-stack ejector exhaust.

The BMW 801D-2 was fed by methanol-water injection. Most revolutionary however, was the hydraulic-electric 'brain' unit, operated by a single control which was the pilot's throttle lever. It automatically adjusted fuel flow, mixture strength, propeller pitch setting and ignition timing. It also cut in a second stage of the supercharger at the correct altitude. The pilot could, if required, manually set the propeller pitch without altering any of the other settings.


A remarkably compact installation, adequate cylinder cooling was obtained using pressure baffling augmented by a magnesium alloy fan geared to turn at 1.72 times engine RPM (3 times propeller speed). An oil tank and cooler are positioned in the nose bowl and are armor plated. The engine mount ring is a sealed unit of square cross-section and also acts as a hydraulic fluid reservoir. Additional streamlining was achieved by the introduction of drag-inducing cowl flaps.

The Focke-Wulf Fw-190 ranks with the Supermarine Spitfire, Vought Corsair and North American Mustang as one of the best fighters of World War II. This would not have been possible without the powerful BMW 801 engine."

As far as the "drag-inducing" cowl flaps, I'll let others judge how much drag those (as you said small) flaps would induce. Especially considering they were an outlet not an intake (exhaust/air was ejected facing rearward, gills also faced rearward meaning no opening or scoop was opened facing forward) so I believe this statement is incorrect (and considering it says "additional streamlining was achieved" before mentioning flaps). One source I have even suggested that it provided a little bit of thrust, though I believe this statement is also incorrect. I don't think the flaps had much effect on drag at all. Just my opinion. As you can see the cooling was achieved by internal baffles and a fan spinning 3 times the speed of the propeller. I'm not sure how much drag that would induce. Also, in FB there is as much drag induced on FW-190 as any other plane when adjusting radiator (which in reality would mean adjusting cowl flaps/gills), I don't think there was any adjuting of the internal pressure baffling, or cooling fan as it was set with rpm. Just something to consider.


I'm not sure about the B-29's engines, though they had serious problems with them catching on fire early on. I don't know what the cause or the cure was, thats a good question and I would like to know the answer myself. Haven't looked at the Ta-152 part you are talking about, ill check if I get a chance though I know alot more about the FW-190A.

http://www.chesterfieldarmament.com/trudgian/icewarriors/icewarriors.jpg

Formerly Kyrule2
http://www.jg51.com/

[This message was edited by Hunde_3.JG51 on Fri April 16 2004 at 01:57 PM.]

dahdah
04-16-2004, 08:33 PM
Hunde, from Allied Aircraft Piston engines of WW2.

Cowl flaps were set to the highest cylinder head temp allowable(260*C TO, 232*C cruise, auto lean). This did not allow for discrepancies in thrmocouples or instruments or even if the hottest cylinder was being measured. Damaged intercylinder and head baffles caused over heating of the affected cylinder(s). A max of 20 min. of ground running could be tolerated prior to TO. during all ground operations, cowl flaps werre set at their wide open setting of 26*. For TO, the cowl flaps were closed doen to 8*.

The 3 top cylinders in the rear row (#1, 3, 5) were particularly susceptible to exhaust valve seat erosion with subsiquent erosion of the valve guide boss. It was found that this condition would occur after ~175hr. Some units were aware of the problem and made a practice of changing engines at 150hr. This was obviously very wasteful and time consumming practice. Therefore, a scheduled maintenance program was incorperated in which the port was inspwcted after 150hr and every 15hr thereafter and if any evidence of port erosion existed, the engine was changed.

Almost as serious as the exhaust port problem was the leaking ball joint for the front cylinders. A leak would allow white hot exhaust to be blown over the cylinder heads, contributating to over heating. Improved design of the exhaust ball joint alleviated thissituation.

Improved cooling on the ground was obtained by the incorperation of cuffs on the root of the prop blades. Cowl flaps were shortened, and additional cowl flaps on top of the nacelles were added, thus increasing the air flow through the cowling. Inter rocker box lubrication lines were introduced, thus flooding the the valve stem, upper guide and spring with oil to help carry away some of the excess heat.

These were only some of the mods done. By wars end, time between overhauls had increased to 400hrs.

Hunde_3.JG51
04-17-2004, 03:50 AM
Thanks dahdah, I assume this is in reference to the B-29 question? Anyway, good stuff.

http://www.chesterfieldarmament.com/trudgian/icewarriors/icewarriors.jpg

Formerly Kyrule2
http://www.jg51.com/

Reol86
04-18-2004, 12:01 PM
Will we get some improvements in the upcoming patch regarding the Ta152 else than the DM? I would like to see improved speed & performance @ 5000m

VW-IceFire
04-18-2004, 06:00 PM
Why is it too slow at that alt?

I'm not entirely surprised that a Ta152 was able to win in a tree top turning fight with a Tempest either. The Tempest is not exactly a top notch turning fighter...its slightly better than FW190A's by most accounts and perhaps even with the FW190D but if a Ta 152 pilot was able to sucker a Tempest pilot into a turning match the Ta's large wing will give it superior turning ability.

If you had said the same thing about a Spitfire, Yak, or La then it'd be different.

http://home.cogeco.ca/~cczerneda/sigs/tmv-sig1.jpg
RCAF 412 Falcon Squadron - "Swift to Avenge"

Reol86
04-19-2004, 02:58 AM
It should have a turnrate of 16-17 sec even better than La7 that howeever was discussed before ACE expansion so it should be able to turn almost with any plane in the game except some biplanes etc even at low alts so in game i see it cannot?

Zen--
04-19-2004, 06:48 AM
The Ta152 can initially turn very well with almost any plane in the game...it's the sustained turn that is problematic against true TnB aircraft.

The main factor is E bleed...Ta152 bleeds E like any 190, while other dedicated TnB have less E bleed, therefore the upper hand goes to the TnB fighters during a sustained turning engagement.

The most effective way to use the turning ability of the Ta is short, quick turns for gunnery solutions, then extend or climb away like a regular 190. The advantage of the Ta over the Anton or Dora is that it can pull a very nice turn to saddle up for the shot, but don't get greedy...staying in a turning fight will get you shot down pretty quickly.

I use that turn rate to let me take a few more shots than I would be able to in the Dora, but still fly the Ta152 in the same general manner...as an E fighter and with patience. I actually try and avoid turn fighting with the Ta even more than I do with the Dora, mostly because of it's very poor acceleration. E is a precious thing with the Ta, so don't waste it if you don't have to.

And keep that engine cool! The Ta152 does not do very well with sustained overheating, so whenever not directly engaged, keep the radiator fully open and the throttle down. I typically keep it around 60-80% with MW50 still activated (because the MW50 will engage when the throttle moves over 100% as usual).

-Zen-

p1ngu666
04-19-2004, 07:48 AM
hmm interesting http://ubbxforums.ubi.com/infopop/emoticons/icon_smile.gif
the baffles and routing would cause drag, but with heatiing up they would produce thrust also. but i think they would make more drag that thrust.
i dont know how much fw190 is effected by rad. on p47 it was about 10khp in a airrace i did (flat out on deck)

far as i can tell the exit air is only coming out of those gills tho? i cant see any other exit places.. i can belive the gills and other stuff are effecient tho http://ubbxforums.ubi.com/infopop/emoticons/icon_smile.gif

http://www.pingu666.modded.me.uk/mysig3.jpg
&lt;123_GWood_JG123&gt; NO SPAM!

Hunde_3.JG51
04-19-2004, 08:28 AM
p1ingu666. The baffles and routing may cause drag but like I said I don't believe it is adjustable so it would be there all the time. So when speed test numbers are given this is with baffles and routing, its not something you adjust or that becomes a factor because it was always there. When you adjust radiator in FW-190 in FB you are simply changing gill positions which would have very little effect IMO.

From my speed tests with 109G-2, La-5 ('42), and FW-190A-4 at sea level all planes lost approximately 17 km/h with radiator full open. When I initially brought this matter (FW-190 and radiator drag) to Oleg's attention is when Oleg tested it and found that radiator drag was too high for all planes. I am wondering if it is still where it should be, or did it change with AEP. I'm not sure how much full radiator open is supposed to slow down aircraft so who knows.

http://www.chesterfieldarmament.com/trudgian/icewarriors/icewarriors.jpg

Formerly Kyrule2
http://www.jg51.com/

FW190fan
04-19-2004, 09:50 AM
I brought the cooling thing up some time back with Oleg and he basically said I was just trying to "input my view" on things or something so I just said screw it.

Shortly thereafter the Kommandogerat was said not to be that great or unique a feature as well http://ubbxforums.ubi.com/infopop/emoticons/icon_rolleyes.gif

That's why I rarely bother anymore.

http://people.aero.und.edu/~choma/lrg0645.jpg

p1ngu666
04-19-2004, 10:34 AM
the Kommandogerat is pretty cool http://ubbxforums.ubi.com/infopop/emoticons/icon_smile.gif
but its funny that, most/some of the extreme/hot/good/elite use manual prop pitch and arent using its most useful feature http://ubbxforums.ubi.com/images/smiley/16x16_smiley-very-happy.gif

hunde, im guessing the lil flaps at the side close on "closed" hence cutting the thruflow, and therefore drag http://ubbxforums.ubi.com/infopop/emoticons/icon_smile.gif

http://www.pingu666.modded.me.uk/mysig3.jpg
&lt;123_GWood_JG123&gt; NO SPAM!

Hunde_3.JG51
04-19-2004, 01:59 PM
p1ngu666, of course I know the gills being closed would eliminate drag, but IMO when they are open they should not induce much drag especially considering it is a small part of the cooling system and for the reasons mentioned in my above post.

As far as the Kommandogerat it had problems very early on but was fixed relatively quickly. It was an extremely useful and efficient system and many Soviets complained that a similar system was not made available on their aircraft. "Not that great or unique"? That is discouraging http://ubbxforums.ubi.com/infopop/emoticons/icon_frown.gif.

And most of us 190 guys don't use the "auto" prop-pitch feature because it hinders performance rather than helping. It is interesting to note that the prop-pitch could be set manually while the remaining features of the Kommandogerat continued to function. In a sense we do use this system because it also controlled fuel mixture and supercharger switch-over in addition to others that may come into play in future sims. I have always said that the more realistic a sim gets, the more it will benefit the FW-190 http://ubbxforums.ubi.com/infopop/emoticons/icon_smile.gif.

Btw, it was said that it took Soviet pilots eight seperate movements to simulate what the Kommandogerat system performed automatically, "actions that were often difficult to perform during combat." From La-5/7 in Action.

http://www.chesterfieldarmament.com/trudgian/icewarriors/icewarriors.jpg

Formerly Kyrule2
http://www.jg51.com/

LEXX_Luthor
04-19-2004, 02:12 PM
Zen:: <BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>The main factor is E bleed...Ta152 bleeds E like any 190, while other dedicated TnB have less E bleed, therefore the upper hand goes to the TnB fighters during a sustained turning engagement.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>At what altitude does Ta152(H) bleed more energy in TnB than other TnB planes?

What altitudes are you talking about?



__________________
http://ubbxforums.ubi.com/images/smiley/10.gif Flyable Swedish "Gladiator" listed as J8A ...in Aces Expansion Pack


"You will still have FB , you will lose nothing" ~WUAF_Badsight
"I had actually pre ordered CFS3 and I couldnt wait..." ~Bearcat99
"Gladiator and Falco, elegant weapons of a more civilized age" ~ElAurens
:
"Damn.....Where you did read about Spitfire made from a wood?
Close this book forever and don't open anymore!" ~Oleg_Maddox http://ubbxforums.ubi.com/images/smiley/16x16_smiley-surprised.gif

Zen--
04-19-2004, 04:03 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by LEXX_Luthor:
At what altitude does Ta152(H) bleed more energy in TnB than other TnB planes?

What altitudes are you talking about?
<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

It's not an altitude related issue...it's a modelling issue of the 190. High wingloaded fighters burn more E during turns than low wingloaded fighters...the 190 is a high wingloaded fighter. Therefore 190's bleed more energy during turn fights than TnB aircraft...by TnB I mean low wingloaded fighters like La's and Yak's etc.

(Perhaps I should have clarified)

The Ta152 is very similar to a 190 in most regards, behaving in AEP as a high wingloaded fighter. While it does have great initial turn rate, continual turns cause it to lose energy faster than the TnB types and so the Ta will eventually lose in a stall fight. Even though it can match or exceed the turn rate of an La7 for brief moments, it does not have the E retention to keep the fight going for long and so the La still continues to be a better turn fighter.

I am not arguing that this is incorrect either, I am pointing out WHY the Ta152 is typically not going to beat a TnB fighter even though it has similar turn rate figures.

-Zen-

LEXX_Luthor
04-19-2004, 04:44 PM
You forgot engine power needed to combat energy bleed. You may wish to test your theory at high altitude. I think you will find the Ta is more competitive up there (as designed) and can easily retain energy better than the Yaks and La's that lose all their power up high. (Yaks more so possibly)

At low altitude the ~very~ long wings of Ta may hurt TnB dogfighting more than they help. Zero and Ki~43 *never* needed extreme wingspans, yet they are the best turners (A5M even better), but that does not help them manuever at high altitude (their engines lost extreme power with altitude). There is more going on here than just wing loading. Wing aerodyamics may play a role, and long slender wings are not usually associated with TnB even if long wings give low wing loading (Zero, Ki~43, A5M, etc...).


__________________
http://ubbxforums.ubi.com/images/smiley/10.gif Flyable Swedish "Gladiator" listed as J8A ...in Aces Expansion Pack


"You will still have FB , you will lose nothing" ~WUAF_Badsight
"I had actually pre ordered CFS3 and I couldnt wait..." ~Bearcat99
"Gladiator and Falco, elegant weapons of a more civilized age" ~ElAurens
:
"Damn.....Where you did read about Spitfire made from a wood?
Close this book forever and don't open anymore!" ~Oleg_Maddox http://ubbxforums.ubi.com/images/smiley/16x16_smiley-surprised.gif

p1ngu666
04-19-2004, 08:46 PM
am i right in thinking a ta152 style wing will skid more?, that would make sence, its intial turn is helped because of its thinness, lack of length for and aft as it where, but a stubbier wing like a zero will brace itself more/better keeping it more inline with the turn.
that probably makes NO sense.
and lexx_luther im most disapointed in u havent responded to my i16 thread in GD http://ubbxforums.ubi.com/infopop/emoticons/icon_frown.gif

hunde i cant really comment on the relative performance of radiator areodynamics http://ubbxforums.ubi.com/infopop/emoticons/icon_smile.gif. but depending on how much rerouting it will slow down the air more, hence drag.

and the la thing, mix,proppitch, are the ones that u set once and probably leave in combat http://ubbxforums.ubi.com/infopop/emoticons/icon_smile.gif

and i know manual is better, iirec u/some said a 190 of some type needed 100% to get max speed. but manual lets u overrev, wonder how often pilots did that http://ubbxforums.ubi.com/infopop/emoticons/icon_smile.gif

http://www.pingu666.modded.me.uk/mysig3.jpg
&lt;123_GWood_JG123&gt; NO SPAM!

JG52XRay
04-19-2004, 09:51 PM
hello all as i have said many times before the flight models in this sim are very very bios to someones likeing and need to be fixxed or change the name of it to LA UFO's and the ta152 is prefect example ....here is a bird that could out run a p51 out climb most anything at altitude ......think of it like this the germans built it to intercept B17's and fly cover for the ME262 the thing the is in this game is at best a A4 fw190 kurt tank is rolling in his grave and so am i the D9 dora oleg or whom ever has casterated it so much i cant stand to fly it and i will never fly the LA or Yak like all those other losers that do IF THEY DONT GET IT RIGHT THIS TIME ME AND MY WHOLE SQUADRON OF 50+ PILOTS WILL FIND SOME WHERE ELSE TO FLY
I KNOW THIS MEANS NOTHING TO ANYONE BUT THOSE WHO KNOW FAIR AND REAL MAY CHOOSE THE SAME PATH &lt;s&gt;

Aztek_Eagle
04-19-2004, 10:09 PM
that plane works very well over 3k, i have been flying it the last week, and it is a killa

http://www.angelfire.com/art2/robertosgallery/CORSAIR8.JPG

WUAF_Badsight
04-19-2004, 10:33 PM
its also wiked under 3K

out turns just about everything for 1 - 2 turns

just dont stall it http://ubbxforums.ubi.com/images/smiley/16x16_smiley-wink.gif

dadada1
04-20-2004, 03:36 AM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by JG52XRay:
hello all as i have said many times before the flight models in this sim are very very bios to someones likeing and need to be fixxed or change the name of it to LA UFO's and the ta152 is prefect example ....here is a bird that could out run a p51 out climb most anything at altitude ......think of it like this the germans built it to intercept B17's and fly cover for the ME262 the thing the is in this game is at best a A4 fw190 kurt tank is rolling in his grave and so am i the D9 dora oleg or whom ever has casterated it so much i cant stand to fly it and i will never fly the LA or Yak like all those other losers that do IF THEY DONT GET IT RIGHT THIS TIME ME AND MY WHOLE SQUADRON OF 50+ PILOTS WILL FIND SOME WHERE ELSE TO FLY
I KNOW THIS MEANS NOTHING TO ANYONE BUT THOSE WHO KNOW FAIR AND REAL MAY CHOOSE THE SAME PATH &lt;s&gt;<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Whilst I generally agree that in AEP that TA 152 generally underperforms especially at low altitudes.(or maybe others overperforms).I think you need to back it up with a little data. Please look at figures below and compare performance of its contempories.


Spitfire Mk XIV North American P 51 D Mustang Focke-Wulfe TA 152H-0

Motor Griffon 65 Packard merlin V1650-7 Junkers Jumo 213E
Power 1132KW (1540PS) 1096KW (1490PS) 1287KW (1750PS)
Speed (@Sea) 574kmh 600kmh 571kmh
Speed (Best) 707kmh @8000m 703kmh @6400m 718kmh @ 10 700m
Weight(Empty) 2994kg 3232kg 3920kg
Weight(Full) 4663kg 5489kg 4730kg
Range 845km 1529km 885km
Time to 6km 7 minutes 7 min 18 seconds 8 minutes
Ceiling 13 600m 12 500m 13 650m


These figures are taken from Dietmar Harmanns book "Ta 152. The story of the Lufwaffe's late war high altitude fighter" Bearing in mind that the TA s figures above are for the H-O without MW 50 or GM 1, its performance for such a large aircarft is pretty impressive. My general feeling is that with regards to it's low altitude performance, it needs tweaking rather than revision. I wonder if Oleg took into account the extra thrust given by the VS-9 propeller, no doubt he did.

Reol86
04-20-2004, 03:44 AM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by dadada1:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by JG52XRay:
hello all as i have said many times before the flight models in this sim are very very bios to someones likeing and need to be fixxed or change the name of it to LA UFO's and the ta152 is prefect example ....here is a bird that could out run a p51 out climb most anything at altitude ......think of it like this the germans built it to intercept B17's and fly cover for the ME262 the thing the is in this game is at best a A4 fw190 kurt tank is rolling in his grave and so am i the D9 dora oleg or whom ever has casterated it so much i cant stand to fly it and i will never fly the LA or Yak like all those other losers that do IF THEY DONT GET IT RIGHT THIS TIME ME AND MY WHOLE SQUADRON OF 50+ PILOTS WILL FIND SOME WHERE ELSE TO FLY
I KNOW THIS MEANS NOTHING TO ANYONE BUT THOSE WHO KNOW FAIR AND REAL MAY CHOOSE THE SAME PATH &lt;s&gt;<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Whilst I generally agree that in AEP that TA 152 generally underperforms especially at low altitudes.(or maybe others overperforms).I think you need to back it up with a little data. Please look at figures below and compare performance of its contempories.


Spitfire Mk XIV North American P 51 D Mustang Focke-Wulfe TA 152H-0

Motor Griffon 65 Packard merlin V1650-7 Junkers Jumo 213E
Power 1132KW (1540PS) 1096KW (1490PS) 1287KW (1750PS)
Speed (@Sea) 574kmh 600kmh 571kmh
Speed (Best) 707kmh @8000m 703kmh @6400m 718kmh @ 10 700m
Weight(Empty) 2994kg 3232kg 3920kg
Weight(Full) 4663kg 5489kg 4730kg
Range 845km 1529km 885km
Time to 6km 7 minutes 7 min 18 seconds 8 minutes
Ceiling 13 600m 12 500m 13 650m


These figures are taken from Dietmar Harmanns book "Ta 152. The story of the Lufwaffe's late war high altitude fighter" Bearing in mind that the TA s figures above are for the H-O without MW 50 or GM 1, its performance for such a large aircarft is pretty impressive. My general feeling is that with regards to it's low altitude performance, it needs tweaking rather than revision. I wonder if Oleg took into account the extra thrust given by the VS-9 propeller, no doubt he did.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

seems ok, look at the low alt speed and this is done without MW-50 so with mw50 shouldnt it be able to avhieve almost 600 Km/h @dec.

Reol86
04-20-2004, 03:46 AM
so now i´m just hopping in seeing TA:s low alt performance to be increased a bit. http://ubbxforums.ubi.com/infopop/emoticons/icon_smile.gif

robban75
04-20-2004, 03:55 AM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Reol86:
so now i´m just hopping in seeing TA:s low alt performance to be increased a bit. http://ubbxforums.ubi.com/infopop/emoticons/icon_smile.gif<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

It probably wont. Oleg rejected the speed chart showing the Ta's topspeed to be 598km/h at SL. What is strange is that the Ta 152H-0 could reach 580km/h at SL without MW50, but in FB the Ta can't exceed 570km/h with MW50.

http://members.chello.se/unni/D-9.JPG

When it comes to aircombat, I'd rather be lucky than good any day!

Reol86
04-20-2004, 04:14 AM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by robban75:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Reol86:
so now i´m just hopping in seeing TA:s low alt performance to be increased a bit. http://ubbxforums.ubi.com/infopop/emoticons/icon_smile.gif<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

It probably wont. Oleg rejected the speed chart showing the Ta's topspeed to be 598km/h at SL. What is strange is that the Ta 152H-0 could reach 580km/h at SL _without_ MW50, but in FB the Ta can't exceed 570km/h _with_ MW50.

http://members.chello.se/unni/D-9.JPG

When it comes to aircombat, I'd rather be lucky than good any day!<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>
well then i just have to say that TA152H-1 flight performance in game doesn´t mach the real life performance so this game is not realistic in this part. the reason why it won´t be increased is because the the Ta152H-1 would probaly be too good and people would start to whine about it. The problem is that everybody just want to see their favourit aircaft to be a killer.

Airborn_
04-20-2004, 04:54 AM
dadada1,

In addition to your post, here are some more figures for the Jumo 213E1 engine, found in the Ta152H1:

Takeoff power:
1750ps / 1.6 ata near ground

+MW50:
2050PS / 1.92 ata near ground

Steig+Kampfleistung:
1580PS / 1.5 ata

Continued Power:
1320PS / 1.39 ata

The MW50 really gave this machine it's great acceleration and it's edge in combat over many of it's contemporary enemies. But in FB you hardly notice it's there.

dadada1
04-20-2004, 05:23 AM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Airborn_:
dadada1,

In addition to your post, here are some more figures for the Jumo 213E1 engine, found in the Ta152H1:

Takeoff power:
1750ps / 1.6 ata near ground

+MW50:
2050PS / 1.92 ata near ground

Steig+Kampfleistung:
1580PS / 1.5 ata

Continued Power:
1320PS / 1.39 ata

The MW50 really gave this machine it's great acceleration and it's edge in combat over many of it's contemporary enemies. But in FB you hardly notice it's there.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Thanks for the additional data Airborn, just interested to know where your source of this information. It would be great if we could present something concrete that would perhaps mean performance at low altitudes were tweaked.

dadada1
04-20-2004, 05:42 AM
Another thing which I've just tested in game that appears inconsitant. I've just been testing the Mk 108 for it's Amo count and have consistantly come up with 65 rounds. All the sources I have indicate it should have 90 rounds. Why only 65 rounds ?

Airborn_
04-20-2004, 05:44 AM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by dadada1:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Airborn_:
dadada1,

In addition to your post, here are some more figures for the Jumo 213E1 engine, found in the Ta152H1:

Takeoff power:
1750ps / 1.6 ata near ground

+MW50:
2050PS / 1.92 ata near ground

Steig+Kampfleistung:
1580PS / 1.5 ata

Continued Power:
1320PS / 1.39 ata

The MW50 really gave this machine it's great acceleration and it's edge in combat over many of it's contemporary enemies. But in FB you hardly notice it's there.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Thanks for the additional data Airborn, just interested to know where your source of this information. It would be great if we could present something concrete that would perhaps mean performance at low altitudes were tweaked.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

dadada1,

These figures were posted by niklas at LEMB (Luftwaffe Experten Message Board), that's all I can tell you. But I have seen these figures posted by others as well. Maybe niklas or butch2K over there could give you a book reference on those. http://ubbxforums.ubi.com/infopop/emoticons/icon_smile.gif

Here is the link to that forum: http://b4.ezboard.com/bluftwaffeexperten71774

PzKpfw
04-20-2004, 06:16 AM
Wow i'll have to look at the Ta-152H again,
if your saying that you dont see any difrence with MW 50 activated.

The Ta was the one plane I flew in ACE, that when you hit the MW 50 button you knew it was on, from the surge of power.

Regards, John Waters

---------
Notice: Spelling mistakes left in for people who need to correct others to make their life fulfilled.

----
The one that gets you is the one that you'll never see.

-----
"The damn Jerries have stuck their heads in the meatgrinder, and I've got hold of the handle."

Lt.Gen. George S. Patton, Jr. December 26, 1944.

------
"We've got the finest tanks in the world. We just love to see the German Royal Tiger come up on the field".

Lt.Gen. George S. Patton, Jr. Febuary 1945.

Hunde_3.JG51
04-20-2004, 06:20 AM
p1ngu666, I think there is a miscommunication. You are repeating what I am saying but I think you are missing my point. I know the internal routing would cause drag (as I have said), but my point is that if the reported top speed of the FW-190A-5 is tested and found to be 670km/h then that would be with air going into internal routing and baffles because they are not adjustable. So in FB radiator drag that is induced on the FW-190A is strictly a result of cooling gills which I don't think would cause as much drag as other aircraft with much larger surfaces or opening extending out into the airflow. Much of the 190's cooling is already there before speed tests were done (in real life), and this is not the case with other planes AFAIK.

And as far as the overreving with 100% prop-pitch I will have to check the recommended rpm for 190A, but mainly I use about 85% prop-pitch which gives almost the same speed and keeps rpm's lower. Anyway, with "auto" setting on your performance drops significantly annd you cannot get near indicated speed numbers. Manual prop-pitch does not give the 190 a speed boost like the 109, it simply allows it to perform as it should. This must be understood, the auto setting is nothing but a hinderance to the 190 and will result in 10-20km/h slower speeds than indicated in object viewer http://ubbxforums.ubi.com/infopop/emoticons/icon_smile.gif.

"The list of complaints over the La-7 prototype was long. In addition to poor ventilation, excessive rudder forces, and the lack of an emergency canopy release, complaints were made about the lack of a single control to regulate engine speed and propeller pitch, an automatic supercharger switchover, and a new cowl flap control system. Such devices were already in use on Germany's FW-190 (in 1941) where a single lever controlled engine speed and propeller pitch (supercharger switchover, fuel mixture, boost pressure were also controlled automatically). In the La-7 the pilot had to make up to eight seperate movements to properly control engine speed, propeller pitch, and supercharger boost----actions often difficult to accomplish in comabt."

So unless you think the author was talking out of his rear-end... http://ubbxforums.ubi.com/infopop/emoticons/icon_wink.gif. The book was very complimentary of the Lavochkin fighters though the speed numbers there are less than what we have in FB. The speed numbers in that book for the La prototypes match almost exactly what we have in FB. Except for La-5 standard which is much less at sea-level.

http://www.chesterfieldarmament.com/trudgian/icewarriors/icewarriors.jpg

Formerly Kyrule2
http://www.jg51.com/

[This message was edited by Hunde_3.JG51 on Tue April 20 2004 at 05:28 AM.]

Airborn_
04-20-2004, 06:52 AM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by PzKpfw:
Wow i'll have to look at the Ta-152H again,
if your saying that you dont see any difrence with MW 50 activated. <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Of course you see a difference. But that's a difference which is brought on by the fact that the engine performance at normal max power stops way before it did in reality. And that is the point where the MW50 has to pick it up and bring it higher. That doesn't change the fact that the max engine performance with MW50 on still falls way short at it's peak. Plus: does the MW50 give you any better acceleration? Because if it does then I must be playing a different game, since it doesn't do it for me. There's no "being-pressed-back-in-my-seat", not even with the MW50 on. And the topspeed in FB with MW50 is the speed the Ta152H1 could do without MW50.

So what does the MW50 do for you that is *extra* compared to the normal topspeed of the Ta152H1 in real life? I personally don't see it.

PzKpfw
04-20-2004, 07:00 AM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Airborn_:

So what does the MW50 do for you that is *extra* compared to the normal topspeed of the Ta152H1 in real life? I personally don't see it.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Ahh ok, my acceleration went up I thought, have to look. But to be honest I have never had any "being-pressed-back-in-my-seat", feeling in ANY FS, so I wouldn't expect that in ACE etc. http://ubbxforums.ubi.com/infopop/emoticons/icon_wink.gif.

Regards, John Waters

---------
Notice: Spelling mistakes left in for people who need to correct others to make their life fulfilled.

----
The one that gets you is the one that you'll never see.

-----
"The damn Jerries have stuck their heads in the meatgrinder, and I've got hold of the handle."

Lt.Gen. George S. Patton, Jr. December 26, 1944.

------
"We've got the finest tanks in the world. We just love to see the German Royal Tiger come up on the field".

Lt.Gen. George S. Patton, Jr. Febuary 1945.

Airborn_
04-20-2004, 07:07 AM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by PzKpfw:

Ahh ok, my acceleration went up I thought, have to look. But to be honest I have never had any "being-pressed-back-in-my-seat", feeling in _ANY_ FS, so I wouldn't expect that in ACE etc. http://ubbxforums.ubi.com/infopop/emoticons/icon_wink.gif.

Regards, John Waters <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Well, keep me posted if you *do* find it, because in that case I would have to ask you kindly to let me in on the secret as to "how it's done". http://ubbxforums.ubi.com/infopop/emoticons/icon_wink.gif
But no, I honoustly can't get entousiastic about the acceleration in that bird, alas. But I think it's a great machine in practically every other aspect, apart from the topspeed and the acceleration and I have tons of fun flying it.

dadada1
04-20-2004, 07:23 AM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Airborn_:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by PzKpfw:

Ahh ok, my acceleration went up I thought, have to look. But to be honest I have never had any "being-pressed-back-in-my-seat", feeling in _ANY_ FS, so I wouldn't expect that in ACE etc. http://ubbxforums.ubi.com/infopop/emoticons/icon_wink.gif.
Regards, John Waters <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Well, keep me posted if you *do* find it, because in that case I would have to ask you kindly to let me in on the secret as to "how it's done". http://ubbxforums.ubi.com/infopop/emoticons/icon_wink.gif
But no, I honoustly can't get entousiastic about the acceleration in that bird, alas. But I think it's a great machine in practically every other aspect, apart from the topspeed and the acceleration and I have tons of fun flying it.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Agreed Airborn, the TA 152 is a great bird even in as it is in game. As for it's high altitude performance I don't have problems with that. I've had 731 kph TAS @ 10 500m from it over the Lenningrad Map. If you turn off the engine overheat you can get as much as 765 kph TAS @ 10 500m same map. I used 100% prop pitch for both these runs and of course it did take around 7 to 8 minutes to get there. Is there anyone out there who can confirm my findings regarding the MK 108 rounds ?

Airborn_
04-20-2004, 08:32 AM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by dadada1:
Is there anyone out there who can confirm my findings regarding the MK 108 rounds ?<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

dadada1,

I can confirm your findings in AEP that the Mk 108 in the Ta152 has 65 rounds after testing. And every other round is a tracer or so it seems, so you can't follow the trajectory of every round.

Plus: this source both confirms the 2050 hp with MW50 and the 90 rounds of the Mk 108 cannon:
http://www.csd.uwo.ca/~pettypi/elevon/baugher_other/ta152.html

[This message was edited by Airborn_ on Tue April 20 2004 at 07:43 AM.]

HayateKid
04-20-2004, 09:02 AM
Be careful what you wish for. You might get the Ta152 banned in DF servers.

"First learn stand, then learn fly. Nature rule, Daniel San, not mine." - Mr. Miyagi

Airborn_
04-20-2004, 09:16 AM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by HayateKid:
Be careful what you wish for. You might get the Ta152 banned in DF servers.

"First learn stand, then learn fly. Nature rule, Daniel San, not mine." - Mr. Miyagi<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Well I can only speak for myself, but I would settle for a somewhat better acceleration and I would be surprised if that alone would get it banned. And if the ammo number is too low.. well in that case it is too low, right? And should it be banned after that has been corrected as well?
I don't know but that sounds funny to me. We don't need a new axis ueberplane, we just want it to get a decent representation in the game. that's all. And it is by no means bad as it is now, so there are no drastic measures needed at all imo.

dadada1
04-20-2004, 09:40 AM
Agreed, although I feel that its acceleration will probably stay the same in the future and I'll have to live with it. The one thing that can surely not be desputed is the incorrect loadout. Having less MK108 rounds clearly reduces some of this planes combat effectiveness. If history records that the TA carried 90 rounds then that is what it should have.

kubanloewe
04-20-2004, 10:18 AM
there are 80-100km/h between 100% and 110%xMW50 at some LW Planes that´s strange, isnt it ?

http://home.arcor.de/kubanskiloewe/g14gutspruchsig.jpg
"Finde den Feind und schiesse ihn ab alles andere ist Unsinn"
Rittmeister Freiherrr Manfred von Richthofen

Zen--
04-20-2004, 10:59 AM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Airborn_:


Well, keep me posted if you *do* find it, because in that case I would have to ask you kindly to let me in on the secret as to "how it's done". http://ubbxforums.ubi.com/infopop/emoticons/icon_wink.gif
But no, I honoustly can't get entousiastic about the acceleration in that bird, alas. But I think it's a great machine in practically every other aspect, apart from the topspeed and the acceleration and I have tons of fun flying it.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>


Airborn, have you experimented with manual pitch? It does have a significant effect compared to auto pitch.

-Zen-

p1ngu666
04-20-2004, 11:46 AM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Hunde_3.JG51:
p1ingu666. The baffles and routing may cause drag but like I said I don't believe it is adjustable so it would be there all the time. So when speed test numbers are given this is with baffles and routing, its not something you adjust or that becomes a factor because it was always there. When you adjust radiator in FW-190 in FB you are simply changing gill positions which would have very little effect IMO.

From my speed tests with 109G-2, La-5 ('42), and FW-190A-4 at sea level all planes lost approximately 17 km/h with radiator full open. When I initially brought this matter (FW-190 and radiator drag) to Oleg's attention is when Oleg tested it and found that radiator drag was too high for all planes. I am wondering if it is still where it should be, or did it change with AEP. I'm not sure how much full radiator open is supposed to slow down aircraft so who knows.

http://www.chesterfieldarmament.com/trudgian/icewarriors/icewarriors.jpg

Formerly Kyrule2
http://www.jg51.com/<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

k if u mean the gills as the bits on the side of plane, then closing them, u create a solid nose sort off, the air cant flow thru so it goes around the plane, u would still have drag from baffles and whatnot till there is no thru flow. thats how i would see it http://ubbxforums.ubi.com/infopop/emoticons/icon_smile.gif shame u haveto goto manual to get its stated topspeed, hope it gets fixed http://ubbxforums.ubi.com/infopop/emoticons/icon_smile.gif

http://www.pingu666.modded.me.uk/mysig3.jpg
&lt;123_GWood_JG123&gt; NO SPAM!

PzKpfw
04-20-2004, 01:21 PM
Interesting on the 2050hp, everything I have seen on the H-1* gives:

Take-off: 1750hp @ 3250rpm (2000 hp with MW 50)

Climb & Combat: 1580hp @ 3000rpm
Maximum: 1320hp @ 10000m. (32,810ft)
(1740hp with GM-1)

Performance:

Max Speed: 534km/h (332mph) @ Sea level
563km/h (350mph) with MW 50.

748km/h (465mph) @ 9100m (29,860ft) with MW 50
760km/h (472mph) @ 12500m (41,010ft) with GM-1

Armament:
1 x 30mm MK 108 cannon engine mounted 90rpg
2 x 20mm MG 151 cannon 150 - 175rpg in wing roots.

See: Grinsell Robert. Focke-Wulf Fw190


Regards, John Waters

---------
Notice: Spelling mistakes left in for people who need to correct others to make their life fulfilled.

----
The one that gets you is the one that you'll never see.

-----
"The damn Jerries have stuck their heads in the meatgrinder, and I've got hold of the handle."

Lt.Gen. George S. Patton, Jr. December 26, 1944.

------
"We've got the finest tanks in the world. We just love to see the German Royal Tiger come up on the field".

Lt.Gen. George S. Patton, Jr. Febuary 1945.

Kurfurst__
04-20-2004, 01:29 PM
The Ta-152H-1s Junkers Jumo 213E indeed produced 2050 PS at full power, ie. with MW 50.

Nothing sort of fantastic, ie. the two speed Jumo 213A developed 2240 HP with MW50.

http://www.x-plane.org/users/isegrim/fat-furred%20tigerB.jpg

"We've got the finest tanks in the world. We just love to see the German Royal Tiger come up on the field".
- Lt. Gen. George S. Patton, Jr. Febuary 1945.

"One day a Tiger Royal got within 150 yards of my tanks and knocked me out. Five of our tanks opened up on him at ranges of 200 to 600 yards and got 5 or 6 hits on the front of the Tiger. They all just glanced off and the Tiger backed off and got away. If we had a tank like that Tiger, we would all be home today."
- Sgt. Clyde D. Brunson, US Army, Tank Commander, February 1945

lrrp22
04-20-2004, 03:04 PM
..and the Merlin 66/V-1650-7 produced 2020 HP at +25 lb boost while weighing 170 Kg less than the 213. Even more fantastic as I'm sure you'll agree! http://ubbxforums.ubi.com/images/smiley/16x16_smiley-wink.gif

BTW, that 2240 (and 2050?) is PS, not HP (2209 HP or so).


<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Kurfurst__:
The Ta-152H-1s Junkers Jumo 213E indeed produced 2050 PS at full power, ie. with MW 50.

Nothing sort of fantastic, ie. the two speed Jumo 213A developed 2240 HP with MW50.

http://www.x-plane.org/users/isegrim/fat-furred%20tigerB.jpg

"We've got the finest tanks in the world. We just love to see the German Royal Tiger come up on the field".
- Lt. Gen. George S. Patton, Jr. Febuary 1945.

"One day a Tiger Royal got within 150 yards of my tanks and knocked me out. Five of our tanks opened up on him at ranges of 200 to 600 yards and got 5 or 6 hits on the front of the Tiger. They all just glanced off and the Tiger backed off and got away. If we had a tank like that Tiger, we would all be home today."
- Sgt. Clyde D. Brunson, US Army, Tank Commander, February 1945<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

[This message was edited by lrrp22 on Tue April 20 2004 at 02:26 PM.]

Airborn_
04-20-2004, 04:15 PM
Hi Zen,

Yes I have experimented with that also and it certainly does help. http://ubbxforums.ubi.com/infopop/emoticons/icon_smile.gif
I also found 80% very useful and when you're trying to accelerate, let's say after a shallow dive, you can get some extra speed by clicking the pitch down with 10% steps at a time all the way down to 10% with a small 1-1.5 sec pause in between. How realistic that is remains to be seen of course, but it helps at first. I have found that you have to go back to 80% right after that to keep the extra speed, which is only logical. (this was all at 3k max and below btw I haven't flown it much up high yet)

p1ngu666
04-20-2004, 06:30 PM
hm, is the ta152 in aep derated?
can u check boost/whatever in the cockpit?

http://www.pingu666.modded.me.uk/mysig3.jpg
&lt;123_GWood_JG123&gt; NO SPAM!

Reol86
04-21-2004, 12:30 AM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by lrrp22:
..and the Merlin 66/V-1650-7 produced 2020 HP at +25 lb boost while weighing 170 Kg less than the 213. Even more fantastic as I'm sure you'll agree! http://ubbxforums.ubi.com/images/smiley/16x16_smiley-wink.gif

BTW, that 2240 (and 2050?) is PS, not HP (2209 HP or so).


<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Kurfurst__:
The Ta-152H-1s Junkers Jumo 213E indeed produced 2050 PS at full power, ie. with MW 50.

Nothing sort of fantastic, ie. the two speed Jumo 213A developed 2240 HP with MW50.

http://www.x-plane.org/users/isegrim/fat-furred%20tigerB.jpg

"We've got the finest tanks in the world. We just love to see the German Royal Tiger come up on the field".
- Lt. Gen. George S. Patton, Jr. Febuary 1945.

"One day a Tiger Royal got within 150 yards of my tanks and knocked me out. Five of our tanks opened up on him at ranges of 200 to 600 yards and got 5 or 6 hits on the front of the Tiger. They all just glanced off and the Tiger backed off and got away. If we had a tank like that Tiger, we would all be home today."
- Sgt. Clyde D. Brunson, US Army, Tank Commander, February 1945<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

[This message was edited by lrrp22 on Tue April 20 2004 at 02:26 PM.]<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

whats the big deal Merlin used 100 octane fuel and jumo 86 or worse.

lrrp22
04-21-2004, 08:43 AM
The Jumo also used methanol-water injection, the Merlin didn't.

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Reol86:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by lrrp22:
..and the Merlin 66/V-1650-7 produced 2020 HP at +25 lb boost while weighing 170 Kg less than the 213. Even more fantastic as I'm sure you'll agree! http://ubbxforums.ubi.com/images/smiley/16x16_smiley-wink.gif

BTW, that 2240 (and 2050?) is PS, not HP (2209 HP or so).


<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Kurfurst__:
The Ta-152H-1s Junkers Jumo 213E indeed produced 2050 PS at full power, ie. with MW 50.

Nothing sort of fantastic, ie. the two speed Jumo 213A developed 2240 HP with MW50.

http://www.x-plane.org/users/isegrim/fat-furred%20tigerB.jpg

"We've got the finest tanks in the world. We just love to see the German Royal Tiger come up on the field".
- Lt. Gen. George S. Patton, Jr. Febuary 1945.

"One day a Tiger Royal got within 150 yards of my tanks and knocked me out. Five of our tanks opened up on him at ranges of 200 to 600 yards and got 5 or 6 hits on the front of the Tiger. They all just glanced off and the Tiger backed off and got away. If we had a tank like that Tiger, we would all be home today."
- Sgt. Clyde D. Brunson, US Army, Tank Commander, February 1945<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

[This message was edited by lrrp22 on Tue April 20 2004 at 02:26 PM.]<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

whats the big deal Merlin used 100 octane fuel and jumo 86 or worse.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Skalgrim
04-21-2004, 10:35 AM
jumo213a from dora use therefore only bad b4 fuel 70-80 octan and get nevertheless 2250ps

not bad with b4, oleg has post b4 has only 70-80 octane,

would like to see spit with 70-80 octane

[This message was edited by Skalgrim on Wed April 21 2004 at 09:53 AM.]

lrrp22
04-21-2004, 10:59 AM
2209 HP with B4 *AND* MW-50. A Mustang or a Spit's Merlin running on B4 would have required water-methanol injection to achieve higher boost, just like the Jumo 213A did. What did the 213A produce on straight B4 w/o MW-50, 1700 HP?

The Merlin V-1650-9/11 of the P-51H reached 2270 HP (2302 PS) with water injection and was still 170 Kg lighter than the 213A.

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Skalgrim:
jumo213a use therefore only bad b4 fuel
70-80 octan and get nevertheless 2250ps

not bad with b4, oleg has post b4 has only 70-80 octane,

would like to see spit with 70-80 octane

[This message was edited by Skalgrim on Wed April 21 2004 at 09:51 AM.]<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

butch2k
04-21-2004, 11:08 AM
B4 was 92 MON but deteriorated quite fast due to its contents.

As far as the ammo is concerned....
There are several issues with the Ta-152, one being that the ammo load was changed quite a few times before it entered production.

If we check the sparepart listing :
Ammunitions for MK108 : 85 to 90
Ammunitions for MG151/20 : 175


Now if we check FW report 271 :
MK 108 : 60 to 90 rounds
MG151/20 : 150 to 175 rounds
and later on as example of loading :
MK 108 : 60 rounds
MG151/20 : 150 rounds

Yet the Ta 152H-1 manual which is the most recent (12/1944) of the three documents yeld the folowing values:
1 MK 108 Motorkanono mit 85 schuss
2 MG151/20E in der flügelwurzel, je 1 links un rechts, mit je 135 schuss.

Kurfurst__
04-21-2004, 11:44 AM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by lrrp22:
..and the Merlin 66/V-1650-7 produced 2020 HP at +25 lb boost while weighing 170 Kg less than the 213. Even more fantastic as I'm sure you'll agree! http://ubbxforums.ubi.com/images/smiley/16x16_smiley-wink.gif <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

The Merlin 66 was capable of deveoping 1960 HP max. at +25 lbs boost...

...On the whole range between 0m and 152m "altitude".... http://ubbxforums.ubi.com/images/smiley/34.gif

... and using up 50% more fuel for that than the Jumo213. http://ubbxforums.ubi.com/infopop/emoticons/icon_razz.gif http://ubbxforums.ubi.com/images/smiley/59.gif

http://www.x-plane.org/users/isegrim/fat-furred%20tigerB.jpg

"We've got the finest tanks in the world. We just love to see the German Royal Tiger come up on the field".
- Lt. Gen. George S. Patton, Jr. Febuary 1945.

"One day a Tiger Royal got within 150 yards of my tanks and knocked me out. Five of our tanks opened up on him at ranges of 200 to 600 yards and got 5 or 6 hits on the front of the Tiger. They all just glanced off and the Tiger backed off and got away. If we had a tank like that Tiger, we would all be home today."
- Sgt. Clyde D. Brunson, US Army, Tank Commander, February 1945

Skalgrim
04-21-2004, 12:08 PM
jumo has with b4

1900ps with Take off and emergency power

1750ps climb and combat

p51h, what octan fuel has she use?

[This message was edited by Skalgrim on Wed April 21 2004 at 11:40 AM.]

kubanloewe
04-21-2004, 12:16 PM
dont forget the Jumo and Daimlers had much more ccm than the merlins it depends on the model but I think 7-9litres !

http://home.arcor.de/kubanskiloewe/g14gutspruchsig.jpg
"Finde den Feind und schiesse ihn ab alles andere ist Unsinn"
Rittmeister Freiherrr Manfred von Richthofen

lrrp22
04-21-2004, 01:43 PM
Wrong Isegrim.

The Merlin 66/V-1650-7 gave 2020 horsepower at just under 4,000 ft at +25 lb. boost and just under 2200 at +28 lb.

http://www.fourthfightergroup.com/eagles/merlin66hpchart.jpg

The 66/-7 used 20% more fuel at 2020 HP than the 213A did at 1900 PS, where do you get 50%. Let's see your fuel consumption numbers for the 213A operating at 2209 HP.



<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Kurfurst__:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by lrrp22:
..and the Merlin 66/V-1650-7 produced 2020 HP at +25 lb boost while weighing 170 Kg less than the 213. Even more fantastic as I'm sure you'll agree! http://ubbxforums.ubi.com/images/smiley/16x16_smiley-wink.gif <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

The Merlin 66 was capable of deveoping 1960 HP max. at +25 lbs boost...

...On the whole range between 0m and 152m "altitude".... http://ubbxforums.ubi.com/images/smiley/34.gif

... and using up 50% more fuel for that than the Jumo213. http://ubbxforums.ubi.com/infopop/emoticons/icon_razz.gif http://ubbxforums.ubi.com/images/smiley/59.gif

http://www.x-plane.org/users/isegrim/fat-furred%20tigerB.jpg

"We've got the finest tanks in the world. We just love to see the German Royal Tiger come up on the field".
- Lt. Gen. George S. Patton, Jr. Febuary 1945.

"One day a Tiger Royal got within 150 yards of my tanks and knocked me out. Five of our tanks opened up on him at ranges of 200 to 600 yards and got 5 or 6 hits on the front of the Tiger. They all just glanced off and the Tiger backed off and got away. If we had a tank like that Tiger, we would all be home today."
- Sgt. Clyde D. Brunson, US Army, Tank Commander, February 1945<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

[This message was edited by lrrp22 on Wed April 21 2004 at 01:15 PM.]

Airborn_
04-21-2004, 01:59 PM
butch2k,

Thanks for that data on the Mk 108 ammo number and it's all right on target!

I guess one could say that 60 is the lowest numer known to us for the Mk 108 and it would not be out of the ordinary for a '44 Ta152H1 to carry 85 rounds instead. But I also get the impression that it is quite hard to determine anything definitive for this particular plane, beit concerning the ammo count or it's topspeed with MW50 at lower alts. Regarding the latter I have seen reports that range from 565 kph TAS to 598 even. The 598 figure was for a machine that ran on B4 and had an upped ATA of 2.03 instead of 1.92 btw so this was probably one of the very latest versions that arose near the end of the war.

Still the 550 kph that I can reach with a full fuel load and closed rads with MW50 at ground level, without doing anything fancy with the prop pitch and such.. well that's also a bit dire imo. Although it's probably not that far off.

PzKpfw
04-21-2004, 02:25 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Skalgrim:

p51h, what octan fuel has she use?
<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Probably 115/145 Skalgrim, at the JFC on fuel they talk about standardisation on 115/145.

Regards, John Waters

---------
Notice: Spelling mistakes left in for people who need to correct others to make their life fulfilled.

----
The one that gets you is the one that you'll never see.

-----
"The damn Jerries have stuck their heads in the meatgrinder, and I've got hold of the handle."

Lt.Gen. George S. Patton, Jr. December 26, 1944.

------
"We've got the finest tanks in the world. We just love to see the German Royal Tiger come up on the field".

Lt.Gen. George S. Patton, Jr. Febuary 1945.

p1ngu666
04-21-2004, 04:56 PM
how big is the jumo? probably pretty big...
merlin was 27litres wasnt it?
kinda mind blowing, each cylinder a larger area than a 2litre bottle of coke etc we get in europe (dunno about usa)

and wasnt late war aditives etc not healthy for engine either?. ive read they left black/blue/purple smoke aswell.
and most importantly, which sounds the best?
merlin http://ubbxforums.ubi.com/images/smiley/16x16_smiley-very-happy.gif

http://www.pingu666.modded.me.uk/mysig3.jpg
&lt;123_GWood_JG123&gt; NO SPAM!

Hunde_3.JG51
04-21-2004, 11:16 PM
Is that a Jumo in your pocket, or are you just happy to see me?


Sorry http://ubbxforums.ubi.com/infopop/emoticons/icon_frown.gif.

http://www.chesterfieldarmament.com/trudgian/ardennesoffensive/ardennes.jpg

Formerly Kyrule2
http://www.jg51.com/

Zen--
04-22-2004, 09:26 AM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Hunde_3.JG51:
Is that a Jumo in your pocket, or are you just happy to see me?

<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>


LMAO

-Zen-

kubanloewe
04-22-2004, 11:24 AM
jumo 211 and 213A (190D9) had 35 ltr. volume
BMW801 had 41,5 ltr.
all DB605´s had 35,7 ltr.

BMW801 had a 1 stage 2speed Kompressor

and no DB605´s engine had a 2stage Kompressor;they all had a hydr. Clutch which adjust the Blower depending on flight height to optimum setting and safe engine for overboost in lower heights.
I think only the DB603L,LA,E series had 2 stage Blower and were tested in the TA152´s .

Jumo 213A (190D9) had a 1 stage Kompressor with 3 speed (all automatic)
Jumo 213E (TA152H) had a 2 stage Kompressor with 3 speed (automatic)
and induction cooler; jumo 213 had 3 valves per cylinder and the later 213J had 4 valves per cylinder. the only projekted 213T with a Turbo supercharger.

all german fighter engines had direct fuel injection.

http://home.arcor.de/kubanskiloewe/g14gutspruchsig.jpg
"Finde den Feind und schiesse ihn ab alles andere ist Unsinn"
Rittmeister Freiherr Manfred von Richthofen

04-22-2004, 09:28 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by lrrp22:
..and the Merlin 66/V-1650-7 produced 2020 HP at +25 lb boost while weighing 170 Kg less than the 213. Even more fantastic as I'm sure you'll agree! http://ubbxforums.ubi.com/images/smiley/16x16_smiley-wink.gif
<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>


<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Reol86:
whats the big deal Merlin used 100 octane fuel and jumo 86 or worse.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

+25 boost was available only when P/N 100/150 fuel was used.
With 100/130 +18 was the limit

lrrp22
04-23-2004, 01:25 PM
100/150 grade fuel became standard for VIII/IXth FC's and ADGB during Summer '44. 2nd TAF followed near the end of 44.

+25 lb was the standard boost on 100/150 grade for the RAF but probably not the USAAF in the ETO. However the USAAF Mustangs did use +25 lb in the Pacific starting in April '45.

Also, I think the issue is in doubt as to whether or not 67" Hg/+18 lb was the limit on 100/130 grade. I have seen reference to the use of 72" WEP by a 15th AAF mustang pilot in June '44. The 15th never recieved 150 grade.

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by ubadger:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by lrrp22:
..and the Merlin 66/V-1650-7 produced 2020 HP at +25 lb boost while weighing 170 Kg less than the 213. Even more fantastic as I'm sure you'll agree! http://ubbxforums.ubi.com/images/smiley/16x16_smiley-wink.gif
<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>


<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Reol86:
whats the big deal Merlin used 100 octane fuel and jumo 86 or worse.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

+25 boost was available only when P/N 100/150 fuel was used.
With 100/130 +18 was the limit<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Reol86
04-27-2004, 03:17 AM
Are we going to get a C-variant? That should have better low-mid alt performance.

CaptainGelo
04-27-2004, 04:09 AM
who cares how many HP they made and how mutch they waigt.... http://ubbxforums.ubi.com/images/smiley/crazy.gif

http://img23.photobucket.com/albums/v68/wolf4ever/Animation3.gif
"Big Bills suck, small Bills don't"&lt;----WRONG!!!! all Bills suck http://ubbxforums.ubi.com/infopop/emoticons/icon_wink.gif

CaptainGelo
04-27-2004, 06:06 AM
cry me a river (http://www.hmp16.com/hotstuff/downloads/Justin%20Timberlake%20-%20Cry%20Me%20A%20River.mp3)

http://img23.photobucket.com/albums/v68/wolf4ever/Animation3.gif
"Big Bills suck, small Bills don't"&lt;----WRONG!!!! all Bills suck http://ubbxforums.ubi.com/infopop/emoticons/icon_wink.gif

VW-IceFire
04-27-2004, 08:24 AM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Reol86:
Are we going to get a C-variant? That should have better low-mid alt performance.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>
Not that this has stopped people before but the C variant was never flown to my knowledge. It was being prepped for deployment but never actually used.

Harti was making one...he had stopped for some other projects but he may pick it up again. Who knows...

It'd be a real killer...

http://home.cogeco.ca/~cczerneda/sigs/tmv-sig1.jpg
RCAF 412 Falcon Squadron - "Swift to Avenge"

ZG77_Nagual
04-27-2004, 08:30 AM
I believe there is an account of one of the last air battles of the war - Typhoons vs ta152C. It may have been the only action the C saw however.

ASM 1
04-27-2004, 09:44 AM
still, one battle is better than some of the planes we have in this game! http://ubbxforums.ubi.com/infopop/emoticons/icon_biggrin.gif - hey I like them....

A C variant would be well cool!

S!

Andrew
Would go with this: http://ubbxforums.ubi.com/images/smiley/784.gif

http://home.comcast.net/~nate.r/ta152Hns-2.jpg

Kurfurst__
04-27-2004, 12:54 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by kubanloewe:

and no DB605´s engine had a 2stage Kompressor;they all had a hydr. Clutch which adjust the Blower depending on flight height to optimum setting and safe engine for overboost in lower heights.
I think only the DB603L,LA,E series had 2 stage Blower and were tested in the TA152´s .
<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

There was a 2-stage DB 605, the 605L. It used two s/c moutned on the side, performance was most impressive, 1350 PS at 9500 m IIRC, outperforming even the Jumo 213E and the Griffon 65 series, at much lighter weight. This engine was developed for the Bf 109 K-14 series, but it0s development was abandoned in favour of the DB 605D engines with single stage compressors. However, there is strong indication that two staged DB 605Ds appeared in 1945, in place of the DB 605L, most likely with very similiar high altitude performance.

http://www.x-plane.org/users/isegrim/fat-furred%20tigerB.jpg

"We've got the finest tanks in the world. We just love to see the German Royal Tiger come up on the field".
- Lt. Gen. George S. Patton, Jr. Febuary 1945.

"One day a Tiger Royal got within 150 yards of my tanks and knocked me out. Five of our tanks opened up on him at ranges of 200 to 600 yards and got 5 or 6 hits on the front of the Tiger. They all just glanced off and the Tiger backed off and got away. If we had a tank like that Tiger, we would all be home today."
- Sgt. Clyde D. Brunson, US Army, Tank Commander, February 1945

Ugly_Kid
04-27-2004, 01:36 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by LEXX_Luthor:
At low altitude the ~very~ long wings of Ta may hurt TnB dogfighting more than they help. Zero and Ki~43 *never* needed extreme wingspans, yet they are the best turners (A5M even better), but that does not help them manuever at high altitude (their engines lost extreme power with altitude). There is more going on here than just wing loading. Wing aerodyamics may play a role, and long slender wings are not usually associated with TnB even if long wings give low wing loading (Zero, Ki~43, A5M, etc...).
<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

This is not true at all. Long slender wings (high aspect ratio) are very good against induced drag and this is exactly what you are dealing with in low speed turning fight. Ta does not have the best wingloading but leave some of that odd 1000 liters of fuel out and it has indeed quite good wingloading. However, Ta has significantly higher aspect ratio and this is much more effective than, for example ellipse wing from spitfire.

Just to give couple of figures Ta has for example 62% advantage in aspect ratio compared with La-7. It can afford approximately 10% higher lift factor in terms of absolute induced drag. Note that Ta has only 14 % higher wingloading with full load (~1000 l fuel stuff for MW-50 and GM-1) and when talking about drag in absolute terms Ta has way more thrust in absolute terms 2050 HP compared with 1850 HP...

So all in all Ta should have really good sustained turn and not just sudden short term performance as Zen claims. Particularly, in terms of "E-Bleed" or whatever the popular term for induced drag, drag from manouvering, drag from higher lift factor/load factor is called, Ta has little to do with other FWs and is in comparison with other WW II fighter quite from the top performers...

Ta-152 C is nothing particular. The way I understood is that they wanted to accommodate DB engine on Ta but since the take-off weight increased quite drastically they run into problems with strngth of the wing. They had only shorter wing with sufficient strength available for C. (If I read it correctly the wing was made mainly out of STEEL - lack of duraluminum or lack of strength?) So no thank you for Ta-152C whatever that was then in the end. And put the damn performance on the damn H.

VW-IceFire
04-27-2004, 01:47 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by ZG77_Nagual:
I believe there is an account of one of the last air battles of the war - Typhoons vs ta152C. It may have been the only action the C saw however.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>
Were those Typhoon or misidentified Tempests? Most claims made by German pilots for Typhoons in the very late portion of the war were actually Tempests...the two were hard to distinguish at high speeds.

Who won BTW? http://ubbxforums.ubi.com/infopop/emoticons/icon_biggrin.gif

http://home.cogeco.ca/~cczerneda/sigs/tmv-sig1.jpg
RCAF 412 Falcon Squadron - "Swift to Avenge"

Zen--
04-27-2004, 01:48 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Ugly_Kid:
So all in all Ta should have really good sustained turn and not just sudden short term performance as Zen claims. <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>


Keep in mind I was making an observation of ingame performance of E retention during turns, not making a statement about the real life aerodynamic properties of the wing.

E bleed in game is what prevents the Ta from being a really good stallfighter, despite the possibility that in real life it may have been quite good at it.

-Zen-

Ugly_Kid
04-27-2004, 01:56 PM
ok, no sweat, my mistake.

DangerForward
04-27-2004, 06:11 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by VW-IceFire:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by ZG77_Nagual:
I believe there is an account of one of the last air battles of the war - Typhoons vs ta152C. It may have been the only action the C saw however.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>
Were those Typhoon or misidentified Tempests? Most claims made by German pilots for Typhoons in the very late portion of the war were actually Tempests...the two were hard to distinguish at high speeds.

Who won BTW? http://ubbxforums.ubi.com/infopop/emoticons/icon_biggrin.gif

http://home.cogeco.ca/~cczerneda/sigs/tmv-sig1.jpg
RCAF 412 Falcon Squadron - "Swift to Avenge"<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

They were definitely Tempests, it was confirmed by both sides. I believe it was two Tempests against three TA152Hs. One Tempest was shot down. I've seen the battle described in several books. In short, after a dogfight a Tempest was hit and stalled into the ground.

DangerForward

[This message was edited by DangerForward on Wed April 28 2004 at 11:52 AM.]

Reol86
04-27-2004, 11:22 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Ugly_Kid:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by LEXX_Luthor:
At low altitude the ~very~ long wings of Ta may hurt TnB dogfighting more than they help. Zero and Ki~43 *never* needed extreme wingspans, yet they are the best turners (A5M even better), but that does not help them manuever at high altitude (their engines lost extreme power with altitude). There is more going on here than just wing loading. Wing aerodyamics may play a role, and long slender wings are not usually associated with TnB even if long wings give low wing loading (Zero, Ki~43, A5M, etc...).
<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

This is not true at all. Long slender wings (high aspect ratio) are very good against induced drag and this is exactly what you are dealing with in low speed turning fight. Ta does not have the best wingloading but leave some of that odd 1000 liters of fuel out and it has indeed quite good wingloading. However, Ta has significantly higher aspect ratio and this is much more effective than, for example ellipse wing from spitfire.

Just to give couple of figures Ta has for example 62% advantage in aspect ratio compared with La-7. It can afford approximately 10% higher lift factor in terms of absolute induced drag. Note that Ta has only 14 % higher wingloading with full load (~1000 l fuel stuff for MW-50 and GM-1) and when talking about drag in absolute terms Ta has way more thrust in absolute terms 2050 HP compared with 1850 HP...

So all in all Ta should have really good sustained turn and not just sudden short term performance as Zen claims. Particularly, in terms of "E-Bleed" or whatever the popular term for induced drag, drag from manouvering, drag from higher lift factor/load factor is called, Ta has little to do with other FWs and is in comparison with other WW II fighter quite from the top performers...

Ta-152 C is nothing particular. The way I understood is that they wanted to accommodate DB engine on Ta but since the take-off weight increased quite drastically they run into problems with strngth of the wing. They had only shorter wing with sufficient strength available for C. (If I read it correctly the wing was made mainly out of STEEL - lack of duraluminum or lack of strength?) So no thank you for Ta-152C whatever that was then in the end. And put the damn performance on the damn H.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

i agree with that last sentence, but i would be very suprised if they would increase the performance.

robban75
04-28-2004, 03:43 AM
Did the Ta's longer wings really cause so much drag that it effectively made it ~60km/h slower at low and medium alts compared to the Fw 190D? I find this very hard to believe. Any experts care to comment? http://ubbxforums.ubi.com/images/smiley/16x16_smiley-indifferent.gif

http://members.chello.se/unni/D-9.JPG

When it comes to aircombat, I'd rather be lucky than good any day!

DarthBane_
04-28-2004, 05:13 AM
I waited for that plane (and do335,Blitz,Grief,ju88,hs129) from the beggining, but dont fly it any more due to its misserable E retention and poor low alt performance (stalls too), i hope that we will get C version, than it could be used online (if he donnt come out crippled too).
Current TA is great for QMB to start from 5000 and above, online almost nothing happens there and it takes ages to get there from runway. I still hope that we will get other Dora versions, maybe because i saw hordes of yak versions comming in the patch.

Prof.Wizard
04-28-2004, 06:25 AM
Is fuel load simulated in the game? Does Ta-152 perform better if someone chooses 25% fuel load at the Arming screen of a multiplayer server?

I was dissappointed too by Ta-152's simulated performance. Let's hope they tweak its FM in the next patch.

-----------------------------
http://www.mihailidis.com/images/WizardSig.gif
Me-163's HWK 109-509 Rocket Engine
http://www.mihailidis.com/images/HWK109509.jpg

PzKpfw
04-28-2004, 06:36 AM
The Ta-152 in the Tempest clash, were 3 Ta 152H-1, from JG 301 flown by Obslt Aufhhammer, Oberfwbl Sattler, & Oberfwbl Reschke.

Regards, John Waters

---------
Notice: Spelling mistakes left in for people who need to correct others to make their life fulfilled.

----
The one that gets you is the one that you'll never see.
-----

"After 44 we called the new models the 'bumps', because every new model had another bump or hump on the fuselage, which naturally was particularly bad for the flight characteristics of the aircraft."

Walter Krupinski.
-----


"The damn Jerries have stuck their heads in the meatgrinder, and I've got hold of the handle."

Lt.Gen. George S. Patton, Jr. December 26, 1944.

------
"We've got the finest tanks in the world. We just love to see the German Royal Tiger come up on the field".

Lt.Gen. George S. Patton, Jr. Febuary 1945.

CaptainGelo
04-28-2004, 06:39 AM
TA is good, only problem is that its very hard to get out of the flatspin and if get your wing damaged u'll fall into it very easy and never get out of it...

'''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''' '''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''' '''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''' '''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''' '''
http://www.danasoft.com/vipersig.jpg

'''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''' '''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''' '''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''' '''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''' '''


plane is 2slow, guns are 2weak and DM suck?...Then click here (http://www.hmp16.com/hotstuff/downloads/Justin%20Timberlake%20-%20Cry%20Me%20A%20River.mp3)

Fear british army. (http://216.144.230.195/Videos/Medium_WMP8/British_Attack.wmv)



http://img23.photobucket.com/albums/v68/wolf4ever/Animation3.gif
"Big Bills suck, small Bills don't"&lt;----WRONG!!!! all Bills suck http://ubbxforums.ubi.com/infopop/emoticons/icon_wink.gif

04-28-2004, 12:45 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by lrrp22:
100/150 grade fuel became standard for VIII/IXth FC's and ADGB during Summer '44.
<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

So, how many planes is that?

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by lrrp22:
2nd TAF followed near the end of 44.
<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Wasn't it early 45?

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by lrrp22:
+25 lb was the standard boost on 100/150 grade for the RAF but probably not the USAAF in the ETO. However the USAAF Mustangs did use +25 lb in the Pacific starting in April '45.
<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

8th AF Mustangs used 100/150, beginning middle - 44.

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by lrrp22:
Also, I think the issue is in doubt as to whether or not 67" Hg/+18 lb was the limit on 100/130 grade. I have seen reference to the use of 72" WEP by a 15th AAF mustang pilot in June '44. The 15th never recieved 150 grade.
<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

I beleive +18 was absolute maximum for 100/130.
Should it be capable for +19 - they surely would use it, engine was capable of +25 as we know.

+21 on Tempest required 100/150 (early engines wasn't tough enough to bear +25).

However 72 in.hg. story could be true, because the pilot could run it for some time with slight detonation, besides detonation affected by charge temperature, which would be lower if only first stage of supercharger was used, while flying at low altitude.

The only question remains - automatic boost control shouldn't allow pilot to use boost above permitted, did V-1650-3/7 have boost cut-out?

lrrp22
04-28-2004, 01:30 PM
--So, how many planes is that?

From VIII/IXth Fighter Commands alone that's eleven Mustang Fighter Groups, plus at least three RAF Mustang III squadrons. That's around 800 Mustangs.

--Wasn't it early 45?

I believe the 2nd TAF order authorizing conversion was dated Nov '44.

--I beleive +18 was absolute maximum for 100/130.
Should it be capable for +19 - they surely would use it, engine was capable of +25 as we know.

I think they did use higher than +18/67" boost with 100/130. I think the 31st FG/15th AAF Mustang pilot's reference to 72" (+21 lb?) WEP indicates this. I'll have to dig around for the the exact quotes, but I have read two seperate references to 72" WEP by 357th FG/8th AAF pilots before 100/150 was implemented.

--The only question remains - automatic boost control shouldn't allow pilot to use boost above permitted, did V-1650-3/7 have boost cut-out?

Any use of increased boost would require adjustments on the ground.

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by ubadger:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by lrrp22:
100/150 grade fuel became standard for VIII/IXth FC's and ADGB during Summer '44.
<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

So, how many planes is that?

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by lrrp22:
2nd TAF followed near the end of 44.
<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Wasn't it early 45?

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by lrrp22:
+25 lb was the standard boost on 100/150 grade for the RAF but probably not the USAAF in the ETO. However the USAAF Mustangs did use +25 lb in the Pacific starting in April '45.
<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

8th AF Mustangs used 100/150, beginning middle - 44.

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by lrrp22:
Also, I think the issue is in doubt as to whether or not 67" Hg/+18 lb was the limit on 100/130 grade. I have seen reference to the use of 72" WEP by a 15th AAF mustang pilot in June '44. The 15th never recieved 150 grade.
<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

I beleive +18 was absolute maximum for 100/130.
Should it be capable for +19 - they surely would use it, engine was capable of +25 as we know.

+21 on Tempest required 100/150 (early engines wasn't tough enough to bear +25).

However 72 in.hg. story could be true, because the pilot could run it for some time with slight detonation, besides detonation affected by charge temperature, which would be lower if only first stage of supercharger was used, while flying at low altitude.

The only question remains - automatic boost control shouldn't allow pilot to use boost above permitted, did V-1650-3/7 have boost cut-out?<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

PzKpfw
04-28-2004, 03:49 PM
I have read the same to on hg. Not realy relavant to the spam can but, it was common practice to make illegal adjustments to the Thunderbucket's wastegate linkages to push boost and manifold pressure well beyond manufacturer specs. Robert S. Johnson's P-47D-5-RE, "Lucky" was field modified to 72" manifold pressure and ran arund 470mph TAS, @ 30000ft.

1 of the 3 P-47M service prototypes engines was flight tested @ 3600hp, which was 800hp over factory spec of 2800hp etc. P-47M pilots reported hitting almost 500mph TAS in level flight as well.

Regards, John Waters

---------
Notice: Spelling mistakes left in for people who need to correct others to make their life fulfilled.

----
The one that gets you is the one that you'll never see.
-----

----

"After 44 we called the new models the 'bumps', because every new model had another bump or hump on the fuselage, which naturally was particularly bad for the flight characteristics of the aircraft."

Walter Krupinski: on the Bf 109...
----

-----
"The damn Jerries have stuck their heads in the meatgrinder, and I've got hold of the handle."

Lt.Gen. George S. Patton, Jr. December 26, 1944.

------
"We've got the finest tanks in the world. We just love to see the German Royal Tiger come up on the field".

Lt.Gen. George S. Patton, Jr. Febuary 1945.

p1ngu666
04-28-2004, 04:18 PM
drag squares with speed doesnt it? atleast for f1 car i think
not sure on the long wing thing either :\
lookin at aircraft type and what wing they have and how they perform

http://www.pingu666.modded.me.uk/mysig3.jpg
&lt;123_GWood_JG123&gt; NO SPAM!

LEXX_Luthor
04-28-2004, 11:51 PM
Well why didn't everybody use uber long wings for their high speed fighters?

Extreme wingspan gives certain advantages, and I would guess certain disadvantages. In the case of Ta152H I think the advantage is high altitude manuevering. All I am questioning is--if the Ta152H long wings did not hurt low altitude performance in *some* way, then what was the shorter wing Ta152C designed for?


__________________
http://ubbxforums.ubi.com/images/smiley/10.gif Flyable Swedish "Gladiator" listed as J8A ...in Aces Expansion Pack


"You will still have FB , you will lose nothing" ~WUAF_Badsight
"I had actually pre ordered CFS3 and I couldnt wait..." ~Bearcat99
"Gladiator and Falco, elegant weapons of a more civilized age" ~ElAurens
:
"Damn.....Where you did read about Spitfire made from a wood?
Close this book forever and don't open anymore!" ~Oleg_Maddox http://ubbxforums.ubi.com/images/smiley/16x16_smiley-surprised.gif

04-29-2004, 02:05 AM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by lrrp22:
From VIII/IXth Fighter Commands alone that's eleven Mustang Fighter Groups, plus at least three RAF Mustang III squadrons.
<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

IXth Fighter Command didn't receive 100/150. VIII-th Fighter Command AFAIK had 13 Mustang Fighter Groups in the end.

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by lrrp22:
That's around 800 Mustangs.
<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Why you don't count Spitfires for Brits?

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by lrrp22:
I think the 31st FG/15th AAF Mustang pilot's reference to 72" (+21 lb?) WEP indicates this.
<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

72 in.hg. is about +20,5 lb/sq.in.

Reol86
04-29-2004, 02:16 AM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by LEXX_Luthor:
Well why didn't everybody use uber long wings for their high speed fighters?

Extreme wingspan gives certain advantages, and I would guess certain disadvantages. In the case of Ta152H I think the advantage is high altitude manuevering. All I am questioning is--if the Ta152H long wings did not hurt low altitude performance in *some* way, then what was the shorter wing Ta152C designed for?


__________________
http://ubbxforums.ubi.com/images/smiley/10.gif Flyable Swedish _"Gladiator"_ listed as _J8A_ _...in Aces Expansion Pack_


_"You will still have FB , you will lose _nothing"__ ~WUAF_Badsight
_"I had actually pre ordered CFS3 and I couldnt wait..."_ ~Bearcat99
_"Gladiator and Falco, elegant weapons of a more civilized age"_ ~ElAurens
:
_"Damn.....Where you did read about Spitfire made from a wood?
Close this book forever and don't open anymore_!_"_ ~Oleg_Maddox http://ubbxforums.ubi.com/images/smiley/16x16_smiley-surprised.gif<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>
It doesn´t affect speed so much, but roll rate is reduced drasticly.

lrrp22
04-29-2004, 10:47 AM
I believe that IX FC did receive 100/150, at least the 354th and 363rd FGs. The 363rd conducted anti-diver patrols during summer '44.

VIIIth FC had fourteen Mustang groups and one T'bolt group from Jan 45 to EOW. During July '44 VIIIth FC had nine Mustang groups, four Thunderbolt groups and one P-38 Group.

I'm not sure how many Spit IX/XIV squadrons converted to 150 that summer.

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by ubadger:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by lrrp22:
From VIII/IXth Fighter Commands alone that's eleven Mustang Fighter Groups, plus at least three RAF Mustang III squadrons.
<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

IXth Fighter Command didn't receive 100/150. VIII-th Fighter Command AFAIK had 13 Mustang Fighter Groups in the end.

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by lrrp22:
That's around 800 Mustangs.
<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Why you don't count Spitfires for Brits?

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by lrrp22:
I think the 31st FG/15th AAF Mustang pilot's reference to 72" (+21 lb?) WEP indicates this.
<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

72 in.hg. is about +20,5 lb/sq.in.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Reol86
04-29-2004, 03:33 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by lrrp22:
I believe that IX FC did receive 100/150, at least the 354th and 363rd FGs. The 363rd conducted anti-diver patrols during summer '44.

VIIIth FC had fourteen Mustang groups and one T'bolt group from Jan 45 to EOW. During July '44 VIIIth FC had nine Mustang groups, four Thunderbolt groups and one P-38 Group.

I'm not sure how many Spit IX/XIV squadrons converted to 150 that summer.

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by ubadger:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by lrrp22:
From VIII/IXth Fighter Commands alone that's eleven Mustang Fighter Groups, plus at least three RAF Mustang III squadrons.
<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

IXth Fighter Command didn't receive 100/150. VIII-th Fighter Command AFAIK had 13 Mustang Fighter Groups in the end.

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by lrrp22:
That's around 800 Mustangs.
<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Why you don't count Spitfires for Brits?

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by lrrp22:
I think the 31st FG/15th AAF Mustang pilot's reference to 72" (+21 lb?) WEP indicates this.
<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

72 in.hg. is about +20,5 lb/sq.in.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE><HR></BLOCKQUOTE>
Do we all then agree that Ta152H-1 ingame performance @low alt should be raised?

ASM 1
04-29-2004, 03:59 PM
Yes

Raise the low alt performance in game - for a plane supposedly with a 1850 hp engine (2240 emergency boost) according to my book - Illustrated Encyclopedia of Comnbat aircraft of WWII (yeah it aint great but the only one I've got that refers to the 152 H) - it seems a bit sluggish, particularly down low. Ok this could be down to my flying but surely something that can supposedly do 472MPH at alt (forget what this is in kms - too tired to convert, is it not around 765? http://ubbxforums.ubi.com/infopop/emoticons/icon_biggrin.gif), should be a weebit quicker than it is currently down low.

Just out of interest has anybody ever come near the max speed (level flight I mean) in this thing? if so, I'd like to know when where and how? http://ubbxforums.ubi.com/images/smiley/11.gif

I like the current TA very much, and am pleased that we hae it - at all! However, if they tweaked it just a little bit, and the right way.... http://ubbxforums.ubi.com/images/smiley/784.gif http://ubbxforums.ubi.com/images/smiley/784.gif http://ubbxforums.ubi.com/images/smiley/784.gif

I would be very happy indeed http://ubbxforums.ubi.com/infopop/emoticons/icon_biggrin.gif

S!

Andrew

http://home.comcast.net/~nate.r/ta152Hns-2.jpg

dadada1
04-30-2004, 03:20 AM
I've done some testing over various maps, engine and prop pitch settings and these were my findings. Don't use the rated altitude refered to in the object viewer of 9000m, you won't reach max speed there. I did my testing between 10 500m and 10 700m where the TA 152 is historically supposed to reach that speed. Use the Crimea map for best results. I ve had 735kmh, radiator flaps fully open over that map setting prop pitch manually to 100%. If you turn off the engine overheat you should see the claimed top speed of 765 kph ( of course using GM 1). I think I'm right in saying that the oveheat time is being looked at so for the future so it should be possible. Believe me it does take a bit of time (7 to 8 minutes)to reach that speed but it will get there.

Ugly_Kid
04-30-2004, 04:41 AM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by LEXX_Luthor:
I would guess certain disadvantages. In the case of Ta152H I think the advantage is high altitude manuevering. All I am questioning is--if the Ta152H long wings did not hurt low altitude performance in *some* way, then what was the shorter wing Ta152C designed for?
<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

You're mixing two things. (At least the way one can understand it from Wolfgang Wagner's book about Tank and Focke-Wulf). Ta-152H was more or less ready and used, past the the prototype stage. Ta-152C did not reach even a mature prototype stage. The wing was short because they did not have a long wing available with sufficient strength, the take-off weight of C was considerably higher than H. They even used a steel wing in C (lack of material or strength). C was designed in the first place to try to accommodate DB-603 and that's all there is to it.

There are at least two opinions for it, once Dietmar Hoffman according to whom C was for lower alt and then Wagner according to which C was just as much for hi-alt as H. Only in the latter case DB failed the expectations for hi-alt performance. The H-0 series had also 19.5 sq m wing (instead of 23.5 sq m wing of H-1). So you can't say whether C would have got it later as well. IMO latter version makes sense since at this stage it was more interesting to fight hi-flying bomber formations, they had already plenty of competitive low and medium alt fighters. Whatever the C was supposed to be it was far from being ready. With it's wingloading it would have been dogmeat at all alts.

The longer wing will certainly reduce top speed in a denser air and it will also reduce the roll rate, however, there is a lot to reduce in FW in the latter. It will improve turning performance and it will improve "energy bleed". It's also more difficult to build a long slender wing that will still have sufficient strength for a) high speed b) hard manouvers with higher g, both factors are significantly more pronounced in the lower altitude.

Reol86
05-03-2004, 01:36 AM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Ugly_Kid:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by LEXX_Luthor:
I would guess certain disadvantages. In the case of Ta152H I think the advantage is high altitude manuevering. All I am questioning is--if the Ta152H long wings did not hurt low altitude performance in *some* way, then what was the shorter wing Ta152C designed for?
<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>



You're mixing two things. (At least the way one can understand it from Wolfgang Wagner's book about Tank and Focke-Wulf). Ta-152H was more or less ready and used, past the the prototype stage. Ta-152C did not reach even a mature prototype stage. The wing was short because they did not have a long wing available with sufficient strength, the take-off weight of C was considerably higher than H. They even used a steel wing in C (lack of material or strength). C was designed in the first place to try to accommodate DB-603 and that's all there is to it.

There are at least two opinions for it, once Dietmar Hoffman according to whom C was for lower alt and then Wagner according to which C was just as much for hi-alt as H. Only in the latter case DB failed the expectations for hi-alt performance. The H-0 series had also 19.5 sq m wing (instead of 23.5 sq m wing of H-1). So you can't say whether C would have got it later as well. IMO latter version makes sense since at this stage it was more interesting to fight hi-flying bomber formations, they had already plenty of competitive low and medium alt fighters. Whatever the C was supposed to be it was far from being ready. With it's wingloading it would have been dogmeat at all alts.
The longer wing will certainly reduce top speed in a denser air and it will also reduce the roll rate, however, there is a lot to reduce in FW in the latter. It will improve turning performance and it will improve "energy bleed". It's also more difficult to build a long slender wing that will still have sufficient strength for a) high speed b) hard manouvers with higher g, both factors are significantly more pronounced in the lower altitude.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>


what do you think would be a correct topspeed for TA152H-1 @SL?

Ugly_Kid
05-03-2004, 10:35 AM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Reol86:
what do you think would be a correct topspeed for TA152H-1 @SL?<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Just an opinion? I have a chart with 570 km/h on it. I might just go along and believe it. This would be possible with 2050 HP and prop efficiency ~0.8. In this case drag coefficient would be about 0.021, D-9 is also in this area (only smaller wing area provides a smaller drag alltogether) - so it is possible. Just possible not necessarily what it was. 590-600 km/h would be probably stretching it...

Reol86
05-04-2004, 04:48 AM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Ugly_Kid:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Reol86:
what do you think would be a correct topspeed for TA152H-1 @SL?<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Just an opinion? I have a chart with 570 km/h on it. I might just go along and believe it. This would be possible with 2050 HP and prop efficiency ~0.8. In this case drag coefficient would be about 0.021, D-9 is also in this area (only smaller wing area provides a smaller drag alltogether) - so it is possible. Just possible not necessarily what it was. 590-600 km/h would be probably stretching it...<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>
hmm i would tend to believe that 570-580 to be a correct speed @sl. I hope they tweak the speed a bit up.

Reol86
05-11-2004, 04:19 AM
how should i use TA152H-1 against P51-D cause it is a good one @high alt too?

ASM 1
05-11-2004, 09:37 AM
Boom and Zoom - in short, dive, fire, extend and turn -&gt; repeat as many times as necessary. Above all, keep your speed up in order to gain height.
NEVER try turning with a P51, it will eat you!

Once you master this (and I'm nearly there) you will be able to kill P51's with almost divine impunity http://ubbxforums.ubi.com/images/smiley/784.gif

Remember - stay high and fast - the main strength of the TA152 http://ubbxforums.ubi.com/infopop/emoticons/icon_biggrin.gif

S!

Andrew

http://home.comcast.net/~nate.r/ta152Hns-2.jpg

ASM 1
05-11-2004, 11:51 AM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by dadada1:
I've done some testing over various maps, engine and prop pitch settings and these were my findings. Don't use the rated altitude refered to in the object viewer of 9000m, you won't reach max speed there. I did my testing between 10 500m and 10 700m where the TA 152 is historically supposed to reach that speed. Use the Crimea map for best results. I ve had 735kmh, radiator flaps fully open over that map setting prop pitch manually to 100%. If you turn off the engine overheat you should see the claimed top speed of 765 kph ( of course using GM 1). I think I'm right in saying that the oveheat time is being looked at so for the future so it should be possible. Believe me it does take a bit of time (7 to 8 minutes)to reach that speed but it will get there.
<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>


Did as you said (overheat off) and saw 765kmh at 10750m http://ubbxforums.ubi.com/images/smiley/784.gif as level as I could get it (not trimmed properly I dont think - hard to with a MSFFB stick, let go and the sensor drops the stick forward http://ubbxforums.ubi.com/images/smiley/16x16_smiley-very-happy.gif) Managed 780 kmh at 11000 and 820kmh http://ubbxforums.ubi.com/images/smiley/784.gif http://ubbxforums.ubi.com/images/smiley/784.gif at 11200 with 85% pitch (switched off vulnerability for the last two http://ubbxforums.ubi.com/infopop/emoticons/icon_biggrin.gifhttp://ubbxforums.ubi.com/infopop/emoticons/icon_biggrin.gif) also, noticed it seems to struggle around 690kmh but once you are past that it is fine (was stuck at 680/690 for a while)

cheers - am happy now - the TA does its magical 472MPH, http://ubbxforums.ubi.com/images/smiley/11.gif (and a bit more it would seem! http://ubbxforums.ubi.com/infopop/emoticons/icon_biggrin.gif) I have witnessed it! LOL!

S!

Andrew

http://home.comcast.net/~nate.r/ta152Hns-2.jpg

[This message was edited by ASM 1 on Tue May 11 2004 at 01:36 PM.]