PDA

View Full Version : Ta-152H-1 FM in need of improvement.



Bellator_1
03-17-2007, 09:42 AM
The Ta-152H-1 is in desperate need of an FM improvement, its turning capability in particular needs a huge boost. In-game it won't even out-turn the Tempest, in reality an aircraft over which the Ta-152H-1 held a great advantage in turn-performance.

In reality the Ta-152H was one of the most agile fighters of WW2, possessing huge acceleration and incredible turning performance, so great was its advantage in turn fighting that this was the no.1 adviced tactic to use against enemy fighters - And according to the pilots who flew the Ta-152H it held a great advantage over notably the Tempest and Mustang in this area. The very high Aspect Ratio of the Ta-152H's wing is the secret behind this amazing turn-performance, it made sure that not only did the wing produce an unusually high amount of lift pr. area but the wing in turn also produced very little drag for any given amount of lift - giving the Ta-152H a very high L/D ratio.

The advantage of having a high L/D ratio is you lose very little energy in turns which means a higher sustained turn- performance.

Another great advantage held by the Ta-152H-1 was the incredibly short take off and landing distance the a/c needed, this meant it could operate from small airfields which usually for other fighters were too small. Pilots who came straight from flying the FW-190 also noted that the much lower landing speed came as a big surprise in the beginning considdering it was such a heavy aircraft.

A comparison of the Ta-152H-1 with various WW2 fighter's take off distances:

Ta-152H-1
Take-off distance: 295m
Take-off distance to clear 20m high object: 495m

Spitfire Mk.XIV
Take-off distance: -unknown-
Take-off distance to clear 15m (50ft) high object: 540m

FW-190 Dora-9
Take-off distance: 365m
Take-off distance to clear 20m high object: 570m

P-51D Mustang
Take-off distance: 487m
Take-off distance to clear 15m (50ft) high object: 731m

AKA_TAGERT
03-17-2007, 10:11 AM
Got Track?

FritzGryphon
03-17-2007, 10:46 AM
295m takeoff? I did it in 275m. Crimea, noon, yadda yadda.

http://members.shaw.ca/evilgryphon3/shorttakeoff.zip

MB80
03-17-2007, 11:24 AM
The Ta152H is a slow goose at the moment, I don't care about the turning performance, but the engine sucks bad.
What type of UFO is the I-185?

AKA_TAGERT
03-17-2007, 11:26 AM
Got Track?

Waldo.Pepper
03-17-2007, 12:46 PM
Originally posted by FritzGryphon:
295m takeoff? I did it in 275m. Crimea, noon, yadda yadda.

http://members.shaw.ca/evilgryphon3/shorttakeoff.zip

Nicely done!

But I think you may have cooked your engine by forgetting WEP before exceeding 100% throttle.

Bellator_1
03-17-2007, 01:58 PM
Gryphon I can do the same with the FW-190, so you're making a moot point there.

Also note the real life take-off distance of 295 wasn't the minimum, just the average under full weight at Start u. Notleistung (1,750 PS), the throttle wasn't pushed beyond.

Also you left out what amount of fuel you had aboard, which is rather crucial.


TAGERT,

I'm not trying to pick a fight, so lets take this seriously. Please try out the Tempest and Ta-152H, then you'll see I'm right. The Ta-152H needs a huge boost in turn-performance in order to match reality, and climb rate and speed could use an increase as-well.

You don't need a track, just try it out.

AKA_TAGERT
03-17-2007, 02:05 PM
Originally posted by Bellator_1:
I'm not trying to pick a fight, so lets take this seriously.
Nor am I with you (in this case! http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_wink.gif)


Originally posted by Bellator_1:
Please try out the Tempest and Ta-152H, then you'll see I'm right. The Ta-152H needs a huge boost in turn-performance in order to match reality, and climb rate and speed could use an increase as-well.
Thanks but no thanks..

Ill offer to analyze your track file..

But..

I am not going to do all the leg work!

If you FEEL there is something wrong..

Make a track of it and present your case with the data.


Originally posted by Bellator_1:
You don't need a track, just try it out.
Disagree 100%

Bellator_1
03-17-2007, 02:37 PM
Leg work ?? Are you really that lazy a person ?

The thing is if I make a track then people can just come up with excuses like "you didn't pull hard enough" or "You pulled to hard and stalled, thats the only way he out-turned you" etc etc.. its much better for people to try for themselves, that'll allow them to feel the difference.

So get off that sofa and try it out, and don't worry you won't lose you breath trying.

AKA_TAGERT
03-17-2007, 02:44 PM
Originally posted by Bellator_1:
Leg work ?? Are you really that lazy a person ?
Leg Work is more than flying a plane once online and getting your A handed to you and than comming here and blaiming the FM for your lack of flying skill!

Leg Work means doing the research to not only find the real world data to compare to, but the test method used. Followed by you recreating that test in the game and recording a track file of it. So others can review it for errors.


Originally posted by Bellator_1:
The thing is if I make a track then people can just come up with excuses like "you didn't pull hard enough" or "You pulled to hard and stalled, thats the only way he out-turned you" etc etc..
At which point you simply tell them to prove you wrong and provide a track file of them doing it.

Also know that a track file recoreds your stick inputs.


Originally posted by Bellator_1:
its much better for people to try for themselves, that'll allow them to feel the difference.
Disagree 100%


Originally posted by Bellator_1:
So get off that sofa and try it out, and don't worry you won't lose you breath trying.
So what part of "Thanks but no thanks" did you not understand?

Von_Rat
03-17-2007, 02:49 PM
if you just wanna have a bull session about how good or bad a plane does anything, then you can say "try it yourself".



i used to get in errrrr,,,discussions,,, with tagert about this. he can somtimes be a little blunt about it, but he's right.

if you expect anything at all to be accomplished you need tracks and data.

Viper2005_
03-17-2007, 03:07 PM
So your test data currently consists entirely of takeoff distances.

That's pretty meaningless until you can provide (at the very least) information regarding the power settings used and the weight of the aircraft under test.

FritzGryphon
03-17-2007, 03:22 PM
100% fuel, no WEP. It merely shows that the takeoff distance is in the right ball park. With such vague information provided, one cannot replicate exact conditions.

Besides, the ones making the claims should be the ones with the test data, not me.

Don't think Ta turns good? Do turn test with accompanying chart. Don't think the Ta accelerates good? Do acceleration test with accompanying chart.

'Doesn't feel right', or 'can't beat Y plane so must be wrong' can only earn scorn; what else?

The Ta-152 feels like a dog to me too. What does that mean? Nothing. I will take MG flight model over my feeling any day of the week, unless I find data that shows otherwise.

AKA_TAGERT
03-17-2007, 03:43 PM
Exactally

FritzGryphon
03-17-2007, 03:51 PM
I was curious, so I tried Ta-152H sustained turn. I found the sustained turn time at 1000m, 100% fuel, 110%/MW50, flaps up, auto pitch to be 22.5 seconds at 320km/h IAS.

It's a notable improvement over other FW-190 versions, although the excessive pitching moment makes it hard not to wobble into a stall.

I'd post a track but I think it'd be better if people try it for themselves.

Bellator_1
03-17-2007, 04:07 PM
TAGERT,

I didn't start this thread because I was shot down online, this is something I very thuroughly tested with another person, both pushing the a/c to the absolute limit without stalling.

I'll gladly do a track though, but I'll need someone to help me out cause first of all this needs to be a controlled test (Unlike during online dogfighting), and secondly we need the opinion of the pilot of each a/c.

I'd have my friend help me out but he's currently on vacation running down slopes.


Originally posted by Viper2005_:
So your test data currently consists entirely of takeoff distances.

That's pretty meaningless until you can provide (at the very least) information regarding the power settings used and the weight of the aircraft under test.

No, the take off distances were presented in order to illustrate one of the effects a high AR wing has on the aerodynamics of an a/c. I'll get back to turn performance in my next post.

Bellator_1
03-17-2007, 04:12 PM
Originally posted by FritzGryphon:
I was curious, so I tried Ta-152H sustained turn. I found the sustained turn time at 1000m, 100% fuel, 110%/MW50, flaps up, auto pitch to be 22.5 seconds at 320km/h IAS.

Which is weak compared to reality where the Ta-152H could hang with a Spitfire.


It's a notable improvement over other FW-190 versions, although the excessive pitching moment makes it hard not to wobble into a stall.

Try the Tempest now, the a/c the Ta-152H easily out-turns in reality.


I'd post a track but I think it'd be better if people try it for themselves.

Both would be great, posting tracks and people trying for themselves.

JG14_Josf
03-17-2007, 04:22 PM
Ta-152H-1
Take-off distance: 295m
Take-off distance to clear 20m high object: 495m

Spitfire Mk.XIV
Take-off distance: -unknown-
Take-off distance to clear 15m (50ft) high object: 540m

FW-190 Dora-9
Take-off distance: 365m
Take-off distance to clear 20m high object: 570m

P-51D Mustang
Take-off distance: 487m
Take-off distance to clear 15m (50ft) high object: 731m

British wartime evaluation report June 1942:
[Fw 190A-3 (Fighter version de-rated running rough on the wrong gas)

Flying Characteristics:
For take-off, 15 deg of flap is required, and it is necessary to keep the control column back to avoid swinging during the initial stage of the take-off run. The run is approximately the same as that of the Spitfire IX.
Once airborne, the pilot immediately feels at home in the aircraft. The retraction of the flaps and undercarriage is barely noticeable although the aircraft will sink if the retraction of the flaps is made before a reasonably high airspeed has been obtained.
The stalling speed of the aircraft is high, being approximately 110 m.p.h. [177 k.m/h.] wiht the undercarriage and flaps retracted, and 105 m.p.h. [169 k.m./h.] with the undercarriage and flaps fully down.

Source Fw 190 in combat - Alfred Price (British evaluation reports copied verbatim)


Fw 190A-4/U8 PE882 Fighter Bomber (worn out) February 4 1944:

I soon felt completely at home in the cockpit. After lining up for take-off, I moved the stick to an aft position in order to lock the tailwheel, applied 10 degrees of flap, set the elevator trimmer to neutral and the propeller pitch to AUTO and gently opened up the engine. I encountered some tendency to swing to port but easily held this on the rudder, and using 2,700 rpm and 23-5 lb (1-6 atas) boost, found the run to be much the same as that of the Spitfire MK IX. Unstick speed was 112 mph (180 km/h) and after retracting the undercarriage by depressing the appropriate button. I reduced boost to 21-3 lb (1-45 atas) and at 1`43 mph (230 km/h) activated the pushbutton which raised the flaps. I then set up a climbing speed of 161 mph (260 km/h) using 2,500 rpm and this gave a climb rate of 3,150 ft min (16 m sec).
Source: Wings of the Luftwaffe – Capt. Eric Brown


Test procedure in game:

Assemble enough players to pilot a drag race to take off from the same field at the same time in the game and record the test with track files.
TA-152
Spitfire IX
Mustang P-51D
Fw190A-4
Fw190A-5 (not de-rated)
Fw190D-9

See if the Fw190s are suffering from landing gear wheel bearings lacking grease.

No need to check any charts - just look to see which planes are superior.

AKA_TAGERT
03-17-2007, 05:20 PM
Originally posted by Bellator_1:
TAGERT,

I didn't start this thread because I was shot down online,
If you say so


Originally posted by Bellator_1:
this is something I very thuroughly tested with another person, both pushing the a/c to the absolute limit without stalling.
Yet not one track between the two of you?


Originally posted by Bellator_1:
I'll gladly do a track though, but I'll need someone to help me out cause first of all this needs to be a controlled test (Unlike during online dogfighting),
Now your getting it!

As to why you need someone else..

I have no idea..

Nor do I care to know! (Falls under TMI)

The track file is the 'control'!

It records your every move!

Thus no buddy assist needed!


Originally posted by Bellator_1:
and secondly we need the opinion of the pilot of each a/c.
Not really!

What you need is some real world data and the test conditions used to collect it. Than recreate the test as best as you can and record a track file of that test. Than we can extract the data from the track file and compare it to the real world test data. It is that easy!


Originally posted by Bellator_1:
I'd have my friend help me out but he's currently on vacation running down slopes.
Again TMI!

There is an old saying..

Don't ask Don't tell!

Nobody here is asking 'why' you need a 'buddy' to help you fly..

So don't tell! http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_wink.gif

JG14_Josf
03-17-2007, 05:59 PM
I'll gladly do a track though, but I'll need someone to help me out cause first of all this needs to be a controlled test (Unlike during online dogfighting), and secondly we need the opinion of the pilot of each a/c.

Bellator_1,

If you set up the server I'll help.

I am pacific coast U.S.A which is -8 GMT.

Anyway a time can be worked out somehow.

What do you propose to test exactly?

ploughman
03-17-2007, 06:06 PM
Take-off distance to clear 20m high object: 495m


That's a new one on me. http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/88.gif How'd the Me-262 do by that measure?

And where's your data on actual performance?

(I see Tgrts already asked for that)

AKA_TAGERT
03-17-2007, 06:08 PM
Just to be clear..

Doing a comparsion between two planes online proves nothing most of the time.. In that it says more about the pilots than the planes.. I recomend you find some real world test data with numbers to compare to and test each plane seperatly.

That and DONT do multiple test in one track file. Do one test per track. If you want to do it all in one flight, simply use the quick record to turn it on and off just before and after each test.

smaller files are easier to work with and if you make one mistake out of the 10 tests you do you only have to redo the one instead of all 10.

Bellator_1
03-18-2007, 11:34 AM
Ploughman,

The Me-262 has a much longer take-off distance than any of the piston engined fighters, jet engines lack acceleration at slow speeds.

As to actual performance data, well what do mean ? Speed or take-off distance ?

Take-off distance figures were taken from the POH of each a/c or from official performance and specification charts.

The true speed of the Ta-152H-1 is 580 - 597 km/h at SL (depending on supercharger setting) and 760 + km/h at alt.

Josf,

Thank you for your offer, I appreciate the help. But since it wasn't on any of my own computers I ran the test I'll need to get the latest version of the game back to my place first (4.07), I'm currently running 4.04 on my own computer. However if everything goes as planned I'll get this problem fixed within two days when my buddy comes home, and then we'll do the test. Ok ?

Anyway this is how I figure we will carry out the test Josf;

1st test: Ta-152H-1 vs Tempest
2nd test: Ta-152H-1 vs Mustang III

The situational parameters:
Both a/c at 100% fuel, weather clear, starting first at 150m height then proceeding to 3000m, 6000m and finally 10000m.

The way we carry out the actual testing is with one trailing the other, trying to achieve approx. a sustainable 250-300m distance between both a/c - when this is achieved both a/c apply full power and the one in front starts a level turn while the other must attempt to follow - no usage of flaps is allowed. Each a/c gets to be the hunter and the hunted before testing ends.

How does this sound ? Any critique is welcome !

PS: If you're up to it Josf we can do climb and speed tests as-well ?

Bellator_1
03-18-2007, 11:35 AM
Originally posted by AKA_TAGERT:
DONT do multiple test in one track file. Do one test per track. If you want to do it all in one flight, simply use the quick record to turn it on and off just before and after each test.

smaller files are easier to work with and if you make one mistake out of the 10 tests you do you only have to redo the one instead of all 10.

Will keep that in mind.

Waldo.Pepper
03-18-2007, 02:51 PM
Both a/c at 100% fuel

I think that you would be better off realizing that this parameter is stupid. (http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_smile.gif Sorry to be blunt about it).

100% fuel does not produce a level playing field.

I think you would be better off if you had both aircraft carry enough fuel for an equal amount of FLIGHT TIME.

The P-51 can fly for hours with a full set of tanks. FW cannot.

Furthermore if you are trying to test the performance of the PLANES to compare it to the historical record (as it seems you are doing with your frequent references to historical 'facts') then no way (well extremely rarely then) did a P-51 ever run into a scrap (unless it was just taking off from an airfield. Bodenplate scrambles spring to mind.

If you are comparing the game to a "typical action" 100% fuel is not going to match the actuality of the combats you are interested in simulating/comparing the game to.

Food for thought.

Waldo.Pepper
03-18-2007, 02:54 PM
How does this sound ? Any critique is welcome !

I think you would also be better if both aircraft flew directly at each other. PASSED each other and then the opposing pilots immediately did whatever they could to get on the others tail.

I repeat WHATEVER THEY COULD - flaps - anything.

I am remind of a contest between a P-61 and P-47 where this was the rule for a friendly contest. Worked well enough for them.

Bellator_1
03-18-2007, 03:08 PM
Pepper,

Thanks for the critique, I agree with some of it but with the fuel argument I don't. Why ? Because the Ta-152 has a 1,000 + liter internal fuel capacity, thats more than the 900 liters carried by the P-51.

And about the pilot using flaps, no thats not good as we need to compare turn performance with no flaps - besides flaps only rob you of precious speed.

JG14_Josf
03-18-2007, 04:10 PM
How does this sound ? Any critique is welcome !

PS: If you're up to it Josf we can do climb and speed tests as-well ?

Bellator_1,

You are being uncommonly reasonable.

Perhaps we can agree to arrive at a compromise.

In my view there are two best ways to test.

If the intention is to test for an absolute highest performance number, then, anyone submitting a track file for the highest performance number can submit such a test result and the ONE player able to make the game perform to the absolute highest performance number wins.

Example:

Top speed for plane x

Player A = 700 km/h
Player B = 701 km/h
Player C = 702 km/h

Player C wins and 702 km/h is the top speed for that plane under whatever conditions Player C runs his test at.

If player D submits 712 km/h under different conditions, then, 712 is the new TOP SPEED for plane x without question – subject to verification by anyone using those conditions recorded on the new winner's machine by the new player with the new winning track file.

Call that method the race to Top Speed competition test procedure.

Let the fastest plane win.

If the idea is to test relative performance, then, two players compete in an online session to be TOP DOG.

Perhaps someone challenges the TOP DOG.

If Top Speed is the performance variable to test, then, the winner of the two player competition wins and TOP DOG FOR TOP SPEED is the track file where ONE player wins and that is the TOP SPEED for that plane under those conditions until such time as a new TOP DOG FOR TOP SPEED records a higher top speed.

I prefer the second option because that option allows the two competitors to do exactly the same thing at the same time and any hardware or network error will show up during the test recorded for all to see without any need for complicated testing hardware, software, or human interpretation other than viewing the track file that records the highest top speed.

One track file TOP SPEED TOP DOG can be validated by one track file TOP SPEED TOP DOG. One track file can be validated by another track file with two plane as very nearly the same TOP SPEED where two planes are virtually side by side at the same TOP SPEED.

Call that the cutting the human out of the loop test procedure.

The winner will always be the player recording the highest top speed and anyone can download the winning track file to see if his hardware, software, and human skill can measure up to the games proven TOP SPEED.

Anyone not measuring up can call the TOP DOG a cheater.

Anyone measuring up to TOP DOG TOP SPEED can call the person calling the TOP DOG a cheater – a whiner.

No need for charts. No need for arguments. The TOP DOG TOP SPEED will be the end of the argument until someone reaches a higher TOP DOG TOP SPEED.

Call that the put up or shut up testing procedure.

The same applies to sustained turn performance.

The same applies to corner speed turn performance.

The same applies to climb performance at best climb rate.

The same applies to climb performance at the best climb angle.

The same applies to quickest acceleration during take-off.

The same applies to quickest declaration in level flight from top speed.

The same applies to TOP DOG VERTICAL DIVE ACCELERATION.

The same applies to TOP DOG VERITICAL ZOOM CLIMB DECELERATION.

The same applies to Angles tactics.

The same applies to Energy tactics.

What is missing is competition. People are comfortable with letting their mouths prove the pointed-ness of their heads – in my opinion.

In my opinion the most important performance variable is corner speed. I think corner speed is worth testing to see which plane has the best corner speed.

That would be the plane that can generate the highest g at the slowest speed.

That would also be the plane that can turn the smallest radius at the fastest turn rate.

That is not the same thing as the best turn rate or radius in a level turn while maintaining altitude.

I can help test what you want to test if needed.

If we compromise and test what I want to test, then, we test for corner speed or vertical dive acceleration or vertical zoom deceleration or ˜pull-out' at vertical maneuvering speed deceleration or a combination of those tests.

Like this:

http://mysite.verizon.net/res0l0yx/IL2Flugbuch/DiveZoomTest1.jpg
http://mysite.verizon.net/res0l0yx/IL2Flugbuch/DiveZoomTest1b.jpg

The idea with the test above is to spawn one behind the other at an altitude allowing a vertical dive to vertical maneuvering speed (500 km/h or so).

Both pilots race to the water.

Both pilots turn a maximum performance turn and pull out just above the water.

Both pilots race to the highest altitude possible.

Both pilots alternate and fly both planes.

Eventually both pilots record the highest possible altitude gain within a tolerable tolerance.

Eventually both pilots learn how to unload the aircraft in the dive to maximize dive acceleration.

Eventually both pilots learn how to maximize turn rate at the bottom.

Eventually both pilots learn how to minimize drag during the test.

Eventually both pilots learn how to maximize unloaded flight going straight up into a stall.

Eventually the variations in altitude gained decrease and for those two pilots and those two planes there will eventually be a clear winner to challenge any other two test pilots on any other two test machines to challenge any other hardware, software copy, and network connection.

Those tests above attempt to test these historical test results:


Dive
Comparative dives between the two aircraft have shown that the Fw 190 can leave the Spitfire with ease, particularly during the initial stages.



With both aircraft flying at high cruising speed and then pulling up into a climb, the superior climb of the Fw 190 is even more marked. When both aircraft are pulled up into a climb from a dive, the Fw 190 draws away very rapidly and the pilot of the Spitfire has no hope of catching it.

The tests test vertical maneuvering performance.

Corner speed tests may be more useful.

Testing the Ta-152H-1 for the game performance relative to other planes in the game is one thing. Testing the Ta-152H-1 for historical performance requires historical data to test the test results in the game for accuracy.

mynameisroland
03-18-2007, 06:44 PM
Originally posted by Bellator_1:
The Ta-152H-1 is in desperate need of an FM improvement, its turning capability in particular needs a huge boost. In-game it won't even out-turn the Tempest, in reality an aircraft over which the Ta-152H-1 held a great advantage in turn-performance.

How many pilots quotes did you find stating this Belator?

PS Rate of Roll also helps in a turn fight, having glider like wings has its draw backs in this area.

CMHQ_Rikimaru
03-19-2007, 12:48 AM
We can prove that some AC's FM is wrong, but what for? None from 1C gives a f**k about it anyway...

badatflyski
03-19-2007, 07:00 AM
indeed, the ta152h sucks especially at high alt but is not alone:look at the p51 above 9000, it's not a dog but a turtle!anyway some data to compare:

take off run:600m /285m(MW50)
MaxSpeed 0m:536km/h
MaxSpeed general=752km/h/12400m
MAxSpeed Combat =737km/h/13800m
Cruise Speed=500/7000m
Landing Speed=155km/h
Initial RoC=14.2/17.5(MW50)
Climb time to=13.3/10000m ; 11.7/10000m (MW50)
Max Alt=13500/14800(GM1)
Operationnal range585/1140max

Now, here the data from ilcompare VS Tempest
(i know, it's not a scientific way http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_biggrin.gif )
http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v228/badatflyski/ta152tas.jpg

http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v228/badatflyski/ta152roc.jpg

http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v228/badatflyski/ta152roc-alt.jpg

http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v228/badatflyski/ta152turn.jpg

http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v228/badatflyski/ta152plot.jpg

what bothers me is the plot graph and the turn table.
The plot table shows that the tempest seems to have a better angle and can absorb more G's (or i read it wrong http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/53.gif ), something absolotuley impossible cause of the pilot position in ANY 190! The turn table shows a better and faster turn for the tempest , what is contradictory to the Reschke stories, but those come not with speed, altitude and turn diagrams http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/16x16_smiley-happy.gif

here a speedchart from the 12/01/45 (NOTE: the ta152 is not marked with the use of mw51 or GM1)

...desesperately looking for original FW graphs for the turn rates.

mynameisroland
03-19-2007, 09:10 AM
The plot table shows that the tempest seems to have a better angle and can absorb more G's (or i read it wrong Googly ), something absolotuley impossible cause of the pilot position in ANY 190! The turn table shows a better and faster turn for the tempest , what is contradictory to the Reschke stories, but those come not with speed, altitude and turn diagrams Happy

Anychance of anyone posting their sources before they write off the Tempest V as an also ran to the Ta 152 H ? I have Oberfeldwebel Reschke's comments to hand. His is the <span class="ev_code_YELLOW">only</span> Ta 152 pilot account I have read which compares the two aircraft.

Simple performance figures would suggest that the Tempest V has a small powerloading and wing loading advantage.

So two things need to be proven for me, 1st off I want to see more than one pilots opinion on the matter and 2ndly it would be nice to see some proper performance figures for the two aircraft.

Hardball indicates the following

Tempest V 9lb vs Ta 152 H:
Full Power - <span class="ev_code_YELLOW">2180Hp</span> vs 2050Hp
Take Off weight - 5102kg vs <span class="ev_code_RED">5053kg</span>
Wing area - <span class="ev_code_YELLOW">28.06 Sq m</span> vs 23.5 Sq m
Power/Weight ratio Hp/kg - <span class="ev_code_YELLOW">0.43</span> vs 0.40
Weight/wing area kg/sq m - <span class="ev_code_YELLOW">181.8</span> vs 215.0

Given that the Tempest holds these performance advantages over the Ta 152 H at low level the closeness of their performance in IL2 seems to be generous infavour of the Ta 152 H at low altitudes dont you think?

In reality when the Ta 152 H actually entered service the Tempest held around a 400 Hp advantage over it at low altitudes added to a lower wing loading. The HP/Kgs figure would be closer to this:

Power/Weight ratio Hp/kg - <span class="ev_code_YELLOW">0.47</span> vs 0.40

badatflyski
03-19-2007, 11:25 AM
hey boemher http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/inlove.gif

there are several wrong input in your data:
1st: engine power: you give the "Emergency Power" allowed for about 3 min in both planes;that is not the power we should use.
i do NOT have any detailed data about the tempest cause i'm a 190 fanatic http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_biggrin.gif but i can give you the Jumo213E data
Take off power:1376Kw-1870HP-3250Tm
Combat power+climb:1251Kw-1700HP-3000Tm
Combat power at alt with MW50:1509Kw-2050HP(no rpm)at 9600m(max alt without power lose)

Now about the weight:
fuselage:412kg
undercarriage:245
vertical stabilisator(buid in metal):136
moving surfaces:33
wing:654
Engine (in front of firewall):1822
Engine(componants in fuselage):248
Usual equipement:247
operational(mission) equipement:233
Balast:1!
that makes for the dry-weight:4031kg

Now:
Pilot :100
Fuel front tank:172
Fuel Rear tank:268
Fuel Wing:296
GM1 :104
MW50:64
Oil:55
Ammo Mg151:77
Ammo Mk108:50
Makes a total of 1186 kg

that makes the plane having an operationnal-full loaded- weight of 5217kg

The data i found in my books for the tempest "seems" to be :dry: 4196kg
Operationnal:6187Kg(clean or with bombs/rockets???they gave no information about that)

Anyway, "aerodynamicly" spoken, the 152 seems to be much more less draggy than the tempest http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_biggrin.gif

But Boehmer, if you have detailed data about the tempest, please, feel free to pm me or send it to my mail.More knowledge = more fun.Thanks

AKA_TAGERT
03-19-2007, 12:14 PM
Originally posted by Bellator_1:
How does this sound ? Any critique is welcome !
Bad idea IMHO!

Why?

In that it says more about the pilots than the planes!

Thus you can never be sure what caused what.. Was it the plane difference or the pilot difference?

Don't get me wrong.. real time relative testing is neat and interesting!

But..

If you GOAL is to try and convince Oleg there is a problem with the simulation of 'a' plane you need real world data to support your theory.

Real world data is the minimum requirement!

If you want to take it one step further you can research the test method and conditions used to collect the real world data.

For example

The US started the timing of time-to-climb testing from a dead start on the runway. The timer started the second the plane started rolling down the runway. Where as other countries started the timer after the plane was airborne and in level flight. Little things like that will help you present your case!

Therefore

DATA first and foremost, than find out as much as you can about the test method and conditions, than try and recreate the test in the game and compare the game data to the real world data.

But..

If your GOAL is simply to call yourself the TOP DOG than do the real time relative testing.

But..

Don't expect Oleg or all the members here to consider that kind of testing as proof. In that you can not tell if ˜it' was RELITIVE pilot differences or RELITIVE plane differences.

For example

Say you think the Fw190 is too slow..

Ok so you fly it RELITIVE to a P51D..

Now lets say that in real life the Fw190 was suppose to be faster than the P51D at 5kft..

So you do the test and wala the Fw190 beats the P51D.

Does that mean that both plans are simulated correctly?

NO!

For all you know the Fw190 and the P51D are both slower than they should be! But relative to each other they appear to be simulated correctly.

A perfect example of this is the ROLL RATE testing I did a few years ago. The in-game Fw190 RELITIVE to other planes had the highest roll rate.. As one would expect knowing what we know about the Fw190.

But..

All of the planes roll rates I tested were TOO FAST and all happened at TOO LOW of a speed.

That is to say the in-game Fw190s roll rate was HIGHER than it should be, and that peak roll rate happened at a much SLOWER speed than in real life.

The result is a very twitching rolling Fw190 at slow speeds.. At the faster speed where it should have had it's max roll rate it was actually rolling slower than it should!

So RELITIVE to the other planes the Fw190 appeared to be simulated correctly in that it was the fastest rolling plane..

But..

It was no where near the real thing.

Which makes it hard to apply real world tactics in the game! That is to say the real life Fw190 was a good BnZ plane that could made use of it's HIGH roll rate at HIGH speeds, where as in the game it could only make use of it's high roll rate at slow speeds, and they were so high that it actully makes the Fw190 twitchy in that your over stear/roll it because the roll rate is too high.

Long story short (too late?) the in-game Fw190's peak roll rate it too high and happens at too low of a speed.. Thus you can NOT apply the real world tactics used by the real Fw190 pilots at high speeds.

SAVVY?

Brain32
03-19-2007, 12:25 PM
If you GOAL is to try and convince Oleg there is a problem with the simulation of 'a' plane you need real world data to support your theory.

Real world data is the minimum requirement!

Agree 100% http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_smile.gif

Bellator_1
03-19-2007, 01:05 PM
The US started the timing of time-to-climb testing from a dead start on the runway. The timer started the second the plane started rolling down the runway. Where as other countries started the timer after the plane was airborne and in level flight. Little things like that will help you present your case!

TAGERT,

The USAAF, RAF and LW all measured time to climb in exactly the same manner, so I fail to see your point here.

As to real life figures, well thats easy:

Ta-152H-1 RL top speed at SL: 580 - 597 km/h (Depending on supercharger setting)
Ta-152H-1 RL top speed at alt: 760 km/h

Ta-152H-1 RL rate of climb at Steig u. Kampfleistung (1,590 PS): 17.5 m/s (3,444 ft/min)
Ta-152H-1 RL time to climb 10km (32,808 ft): 10.1 min

Ta-152H performance 2.3.1945 (http://aycu27.webshots.com/image/12946/2005488039815659769_rs.jpg)

Ta-152 & FW-190 "Leistungsdaten" 1.10.1944 (http://aycu12.webshots.com/image/13331/2006147778551046319_rs.jpg) - Note this chart optains results achieved at a different surpercharger setting, hence the different speed figures.

mynameisroland
03-19-2007, 01:07 PM
Originally posted by badatflyski:
hey boemher http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/inlove.gif

there are several wrong input in your data:
1st: engine power: you give the "Emergency Power" allowed for about 3 min in both planes;that is not the power we should use.
i do NOT have any detailed data about the tempest cause i'm a 190 fanatic http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_biggrin.gif but i can give you the Jumo213E data

Hi, the data I posted is from IL2 - Hardballs Aircraft viewer.

I can post some real Tempest data if you like, I'll post it in this thread in the next 30 min ok http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_smile.gif.

Hawker Tempest Mk V:
Engine Napier Sabre IIA
Maximum Power 2,180Hp at Sea level 9lb boost or 2420 at 11lb boost

Dimensions-
Wing span 41ft
Wing area 302 sq ft
Length 33 ft 8in
Height 16ft 1 in taildown

Weights-
Empty 9,150lb
Loaded 11,400lb <span class="ev_code_YELLOW"> Loaded weight is 5171.0295 Kg</span>
Overload 13,640lb

Loadings-
Wing 44.8sq ft
Power 6.25lb/bhp

Performance-
Maximum speed 435mph at 17,000ft
Service ceiling 36,500 ft
Climb 5min to 15000 ft
Range (clean) 740miles
Range (D tanks) 1530 miles 2x 90 gal

Climb

Normal climb rating Combat rating
Max rate of climb in M.S. gear 3815 ft/min @ 3500 ft FTH 4380 ft/min @ sea level
Max. rate of climb in F.S. gear 2680 ft/min @ 15800 ft FTH 3000 ft/min @ 13500 ft. FTH
S/c gear changed when boost in M.S. gear was +2.9 lb/sq. in. +4 lb/sq.in.
Time to 10,000 ft. 2.9 mins. 2.8 mins.
Time to 20,000 ft. 6.85 mins. 6.55 mins.
Time to 30,000 ft. 14.3 14.0
Service ceiling 34,000 ft
Estimated absolute ceiling 35,600 ft.

Level speed

Speed at sea level M.S. gear* 376 mph true airspeed
Max. speed in M.S. gear* 411 mph true airspeed @ 6,600 ft. FTH
Max. speed in F.S. gear* 432 mph true airspeed @ 18,400 ft. FTH
Speed at 28,000 ft. 405 mph true airspeed

* The full boost at +9 lb/sq.in. was not obtained during the test. (See para.5)

The Tempest is a low to medium altitude air superiority fighter, the Ta 152 H a high altitide fighter. The Tempest is actually a very clean aircraft, just take a look at its finish, the number of portrusions are very small. The obvious draggy elements are its large propellor and radiator but aside from these it is actually a very clean design. It has a very aerodynamic wing and was regarded as the best fighter in WW2 for handling and manuverability at transonic speeds.

Bellator_1
03-19-2007, 01:16 PM
Originally posted by JG14_Josf:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">How does this sound ? Any critique is welcome !

PS: If you're up to it Josf we can do climb and speed tests as-well ?

Bellator_1,

You are being uncommonly reasonable.

Perhaps we can agree to arrive at a compromise.

In my view there are two best ways to test.

If the intention is to test for an absolute highest performance number, then, anyone submitting a track file for the highest performance number can submit such a test result and the ONE player able to make the game perform to the absolute highest performance number wins.

Example:

Top speed for plane x

Player A = 700 km/h
Player B = 701 km/h
Player C = 702 km/h

Player C wins and 702 km/h is the top speed for that plane under whatever conditions Player C runs his test at.

If player D submits 712 km/h under different conditions, then, 712 is the new TOP SPEED for plane x without question – subject to verification by anyone using those conditions recorded on the new winner's machine by the new player with the new winning track file.

Call that method the race to Top Speed competition test procedure.

Let the fastest plane win.

If the idea is to test relative performance, then, two players compete in an online session to be TOP DOG.

Perhaps someone challenges the TOP DOG.

If Top Speed is the performance variable to test, then, the winner of the two player competition wins and TOP DOG FOR TOP SPEED is the track file where ONE player wins and that is the TOP SPEED for that plane under those conditions until such time as a new TOP DOG FOR TOP SPEED records a higher top speed.

I prefer the second option because that option allows the two competitors to do exactly the same thing at the same time and any hardware or network error will show up during the test recorded for all to see without any need for complicated testing hardware, software, or human interpretation other than viewing the track file that records the highest top speed.

One track file TOP SPEED TOP DOG can be validated by one track file TOP SPEED TOP DOG. One track file can be validated by another track file with two plane as very nearly the same TOP SPEED where two planes are virtually side by side at the same TOP SPEED.

Call that the cutting the human out of the loop test procedure.

The winner will always be the player recording the highest top speed and anyone can download the winning track file to see if his hardware, software, and human skill can measure up to the games proven TOP SPEED.

Anyone not measuring up can call the TOP DOG a cheater.

Anyone measuring up to TOP DOG TOP SPEED can call the person calling the TOP DOG a cheater – a whiner.

No need for charts. No need for arguments. The TOP DOG TOP SPEED will be the end of the argument until someone reaches a higher TOP DOG TOP SPEED.

Call that the put up or shut up testing procedure.

The same applies to sustained turn performance.

The same applies to corner speed turn performance.

The same applies to climb performance at best climb rate.

The same applies to climb performance at the best climb angle.

The same applies to quickest acceleration during take-off.

The same applies to quickest declaration in level flight from top speed.

The same applies to TOP DOG VERTICAL DIVE ACCELERATION.

The same applies to TOP DOG VERITICAL ZOOM CLIMB DECELERATION.

The same applies to Angles tactics.

The same applies to Energy tactics.

What is missing is competition. People are comfortable with letting their mouths prove the pointed-ness of their heads – in my opinion.

In my opinion the most important performance variable is corner speed. I think corner speed is worth testing to see which plane has the best corner speed.

That would be the plane that can generate the highest g at the slowest speed.

That would also be the plane that can turn the smallest radius at the fastest turn rate.

That is not the same thing as the best turn rate or radius in a level turn while maintaining altitude.

I can help test what you want to test if needed.

If we compromise and test what I want to test, then, we test for corner speed or vertical dive acceleration or vertical zoom deceleration or ˜pull-out' at vertical maneuvering speed deceleration or a combination of those tests.

Like this:

http://mysite.verizon.net/res0l0yx/IL2Flugbuch/DiveZoomTest1.jpg
http://mysite.verizon.net/res0l0yx/IL2Flugbuch/DiveZoomTest1b.jpg

The idea with the test above is to spawn one behind the other at an altitude allowing a vertical dive to vertical maneuvering speed (500 km/h or so).

Both pilots race to the water.

Both pilots turn a maximum performance turn and pull out just above the water.

Both pilots race to the highest altitude possible.

Both pilots alternate and fly both planes.

Eventually both pilots record the highest possible altitude gain within a tolerable tolerance.

Eventually both pilots learn how to unload the aircraft in the dive to maximize dive acceleration.

Eventually both pilots learn how to maximize turn rate at the bottom.

Eventually both pilots learn how to minimize drag during the test.

Eventually both pilots learn how to maximize unloaded flight going straight up into a stall.

Eventually the variations in altitude gained decrease and for those two pilots and those two planes there will eventually be a clear winner to challenge any other two test pilots on any other two test machines to challenge any other hardware, software copy, and network connection.

Those tests above attempt to test these historical test results:


Dive
Comparative dives between the two aircraft have shown that the Fw 190 can leave the Spitfire with ease, particularly during the initial stages.



With both aircraft flying at high cruising speed and then pulling up into a climb, the superior climb of the Fw 190 is even more marked. When both aircraft are pulled up into a climb from a dive, the Fw 190 draws away very rapidly and the pilot of the Spitfire has no hope of catching it.

The tests test vertical maneuvering performance.

Corner speed tests may be more useful.

Testing the Ta-152H-1 for the game performance relative to other planes in the game is one thing. Testing the Ta-152H-1 for historical performance requires historical data to test the test results in the game for accuracy. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

Sounds good to me Josf, I'd be happy to help you out with any form of testing you'd like to carry out.

Its going to be very interesting http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_smile.gif

AKA_TAGERT
03-19-2007, 01:30 PM
Originally posted by Bellator_1:
The USAAF, RAF and LW all measured time to climb in exactly the same manner, so I fail to see your point here.
You failed in that your bias is blinding you.. Note I never said the RAF or LW did NOT do it that way, I said 'other countries'.


Originally posted by Bellator_1:
As to real life figures, well thats easy:

Ta-152H-1 RL top speed at SL: 580 - 597 km/h (Depending on supercharger setting)
Ta-152H-1 RL top speed at alt: 760 km/h

Ta-152H-1 RL rate of climb at Steig u. Kampfleistung (1,590 PS): 17.5 m/s (3,444 ft/min)
Ta-152H-1 RL time to climb 10km (32,808 ft): 10.1 min

Ta-152H performance 2.3.1945 (http://aycu27.webshots.com/image/12946/2005488039815659769_rs.jpg)

Ta-152 & FW-190 "Leistungsdaten" 1.10.1944 (http://aycu12.webshots.com/image/13331/2006147778551046319_rs.jpg) - Note this chart optains results achieved at a different surpercharger setting, hence the different speed figures.
Ill have to take your word for it, in that you links are currently not working for me.

Bellator_1
03-19-2007, 01:37 PM
TAGERT,

It has nothing to do with bias, however I assumed you meant there was a difference between the USAAF, LW and RAF in this area as these are the countries from which the a/c we're about to test originate. Does that sound biased to you ??

As to the links, you're right strangely they don't work at the moment.. I'll try to get that fixed.

Bellator_1
03-19-2007, 01:40 PM
EDIT:

Ok tried uploading the doc's at Imageshack:

Doc #1 http://img133.imageshack.us/img133/2540/fw190ta152performancetl0.jpg

Doc #2
http://img164.imageshack.us/img164/5416/11258827fwdatanl3.jpg

AKA_TAGERT
03-19-2007, 01:40 PM
Originally posted by Bellator_1:
TAGERT,

It has nothing to do with bias, however I assumed you meant there was a difference between the USAAF, LW and RAF in this area as these are the countries from which the a/c we're about to test originate. Does that sound biased to you ?? Well your correct about one thing.. you assumed. You jumping to the conclusion that I was impling the RAF and Lw is where I precived your bias.


Originally posted by Bellator_1:
As to the links, you're right strangely they don't work at the moment.. I'll try to get that fixed. Cool

Bellator_1
03-19-2007, 01:50 PM
Fixed the link problem.

mynameisroland
03-19-2007, 01:52 PM
Originally posted by AKA_TAGERT:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by Bellator_1:
The USAAF, RAF and LW all measured time to climb in exactly the same manner, so I fail to see your point here.
You failed in that your bias is blinding you.. Note I never said the RAF or LW did NOT do it that way, I said 'other countries'.


Originally posted by Bellator_1:
As to real life figures, well thats easy:

Ta-152H-1 RL top speed at SL: 580 - 597 km/h (Depending on supercharger setting)
Ta-152H-1 RL top speed at alt: 760 km/h

Ta-152H-1 RL rate of climb at Steig u. Kampfleistung (1,590 PS): 17.5 m/s (3,444 ft/min)
Ta-152H-1 RL time to climb 10km (32,808 ft): 10.1 min

Ta-152H performance 2.3.1945 (http://aycu27.webshots.com/image/12946/2005488039815659769_rs.jpg)

Ta-152 & FW-190 "Leistungsdaten" 1.10.1944 (http://aycu12.webshots.com/image/13331/2006147778551046319_rs.jpg) - Note this chart optains results achieved at a different surpercharger setting, hence the different speed figures.
Ill have to take your word for it, in that you links are currently not working for me. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

What Bellator has completely ignored Tagert is that his hunch is based on <span class="ev_code_YELLOW">ONE</span> pilots opinion in <span class="ev_code_YELLOW">ONE</span> documented engagement.

Here is a climb chart for the 9lb Tempest, ie not as capable as the Tempest V 11lb boost the Ta 152 H would actually face in combat. Note Bellator that the Tempest V 9lbs boost's rate of climb is 22 m at sea level.

http://i7.photobucket.com/albums/y294/mynameisroland/jn731climb-1.jpg

Bellator_1
03-19-2007, 01:58 PM
What Bellator has completely ignored Tagert is that his hunch is based on ONE pilots opinion in ONE documented engagement.


Thats untrue, I suggest you buy the book "Ta-152: High altitude fighter" by Dietmar Hermann.


Also note that the Ta-152H-1's climb rate is 17.5 m/s at Steig u. Kampfleistung (1,590 PS), at SonderNotleistung (2,050 PS) that figure is going to be ALOT higher - some sources say around 5,000 + ft/min.

Remember the Ta-152H-1 featured a new and larger propeller compared to the Dora-9.

ELKASKONE
03-19-2007, 02:09 PM
and dont forgot that the Ta-152H-1 can use Sondernotleistung 2,050 PS for 30 minutes!

mynameisroland
03-19-2007, 02:12 PM
Originally posted by Bellator_1:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">What Bellator has completely ignored Tagert is that his hunch is based on ONE pilots opinion in ONE documented engagement.


Thats untrue, I suggest you buy the book "Ta-152: High altitude fighter" by Dietmar Hermann.


Also note that the Ta-152H-1's climb rate is 17.5 m/s at Steig u. Kampfleistung (1,590 PS), at SonderNotleistung (2,050 PS) that figure is going to be ALOT higher - some sources say around 5,000 + ft/min.

Remember the Ta-152H-1 featured a new and larger propeller compared to the Dora-9. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

Rather than me buy the book and wait for it to be delivered why dont you post your sources! I am dying to read them. How can you argue for increased performance RELATIVE to the Tempest V when you havnt posted a single relevant piece of information !!!!!

http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/53.gif http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/53.gif http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/53.gif

5000ft/min at sea level ?!! Maybe if you read the charts with Swastika tinted glasses on. Ta 152 H has higher wingloading and less powerloading so how would its initial climb exceed that of the Tempests?

http://i7.photobucket.com/albums/y294/mynameisroland/Bellator.jpg

mynameisroland
03-19-2007, 02:18 PM
Oh and Bellator how many of the <span class="ev_code_YELLOW"> 24</span> Tempests shot down in air to air combat were brought down by Ta 152 Hs ?

Really, please take some time out of your intricate tests to establish your argument 1st.

http://i7.photobucket.com/albums/y294/mynameisroland/Bellator.jpg

Bellator_1
03-19-2007, 02:23 PM
Originally posted by mynameisroland:
Rather than me buy the book and wait for it to be delivered why dont you post your sources! I am dying to read them. How can you argue for increased performance RELATIVE to the Tempest V when you havnt posted a single relevant piece of information !!!!!

http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/53.gif http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/53.gif http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/53.gif



Again completely untrue.


5000ft/min at sea level ?!! Maybe if you read the charts with Swastika tinted glasses on. Ta 152 H has higher wingloading and less powerloading so how would its initial climb exceed that of the Tempests?

You need to learn abit more about aerodynamics my friend, cause actual lift-loading is MUCH lower for the Ta-152H-1 and the T/D ratio is as-well.

Take a look at hogh AR effects the lift vs drag produced by a wing:

L/D ratio at an AR of 4:
http://selair.selkirk.bc.ca/aerodynamics1/Performance/Graphics/LD1.GIF

L/D ratio at an AR of 9
http://selair.selkirk.bc.ca/aerodynamics1/Performance/Graphics/LD2.GIF

Thats an increase of around 120% !

mynameisroland
03-19-2007, 02:27 PM
Originally posted by Bellator_1:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by mynameisroland:
Rather than me buy the book and wait for it to be delivered why dont you post your sources! I am dying to read them. How can you argue for increased performance RELATIVE to the Tempest V when you havnt posted a single relevant piece of information !!!!!

http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/53.gif http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/53.gif http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/53.gif



Again completely untrue.


5000ft/min at sea level ?!! Maybe if you read the charts with Swastika tinted glasses on. Ta 152 H has higher wingloading and less powerloading so how would its initial climb exceed that of the Tempests?

You need to learn abit more about aerodynamics my friend, cause actual lift-loading is MUCH lower for the Ta-152H-1 and the T/D ratio is as-well.

Take a look at hogh AR effects the lift vs drag produced by <span class="ev_code_RED">A</span> wing: <span class="ev_code_RED">(Why just 'a' wing why not the TA 152s or Tempests wing?> or better yet a comparison of the two )</span>

L/D ratio at an AR of 4:
http://selair.selkirk.bc.ca/aerodynamics1/Performance/Graphics/LD1.GIF

L/D ratio at an AR of 9
http://selair.selkirk.bc.ca/aerodynamics1/Performance/Graphics/LD2.GIF

Thats an increase of around 120% ! </div></BLOCKQUOTE>


POST QUOTES FROM YOUR SOURCES!


POST QUOTES FROM YOUR SOURCES!


POST QUOTES FROM YOUR SOURCES!


POST QUOTES FROM YOUR SOURCES!


Until you do so you have no argument.

http://i7.photobucket.com/albums/y294/mynameisroland/Bellator.jpg

mynameisroland
03-19-2007, 02:29 PM
How many dogfights between the Ta 152 H and the Tempest took place ?

Please tell us.

EDIT

new information, Ta 152 H shot down a total of 11 enemy aircraft! How many of the were Tempests Bellator!

http://i7.photobucket.com/albums/y294/mynameisroland/Bellator.jpg

Bellator_1
03-19-2007, 02:32 PM
My source is NASA.

And here's a quote from NASA for you:
"There is a component of the drag of an aircraft called induced drag which depends inversely on the aspect ratio. A higher aspect ratio wing has a lower drag and a higher lift than a lower aspect ratio wing."

Bellator_1
03-19-2007, 02:38 PM
Since you asked:

The Tempest uses a laminar type airfoil, which means its going to suffer from low AoA stalls in turns. So bad is this tendency that even a Jabo FW-190 will follow the Tempest in a turn:

From AFDU tactical trials, Tempest vs FW-190G:
Turning Circles
41.
There is very little difference in turning circles between the two aircraft. If anything a very slight advantage lies with the Tempest.

mynameisroland
03-19-2007, 03:08 PM
http://i7.photobucket.com/albums/y294/mynameisroland/Bellator.jpg

mynameisroland
03-19-2007, 03:13 PM
Originally posted by Bellator_1:
My source is NASA.

And here's a quote from NASA for you:
"There is a component of the drag of an aircraft called induced drag which depends inversely on the aspect ratio. A higher aspect ratio wing has a lower drag and a higher lift than a lower aspect ratio wing."

There is also 'wetted area' to consider, ask NASA about how the Ta 152s wings affected its drag at low altitudes.

More data on the Tempests turn performance.

The test 109 used versus the Tempest was a 109G2 Trop, Werk. No. 10639, captured in North Africa.

Turning Circle: It was found that in this aspect of maneuverability the Tempest was slightly superior to the Me 109.
Rate of Role: At speeds below 350 IAS [mph indicated , 564 km/h] there is practically nothing to choose between the two aircraft, but when this speed is exceeded the Tempest can out-maneuver the Me 109 by making a quick change of bank and direction.

http://i7.photobucket.com/albums/y294/mynameisroland/Bellator.jpg

Bellator_1
03-19-2007, 03:18 PM
Run short of words are we Boemher ? http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/16x16_smiley-wink.gif

As to your little picture, well are you imlpying that you don't believe NASA and the performance docs I provided ? If so then thats your own problem..

Bellator_1
03-19-2007, 03:25 PM
Originally posted by mynameisroland:
There is also 'wetted area' to consider, ask NASA about how the Ta 152s wings affected its drag at low altitudes.

What exactly are you babbling about ? The L/D ratio stays the same, hence why the Ta-152H-1 could do 597 km/h at SL with 2,050 PS.


More data on the Tempests turn performance.

The test 109 used versus the Tempest was a 109G2 Trop, Werk. No. 10639, captured in North Africa.

Turning Circle: It was found that in this aspect of maneuverability the Tempest was slightly superior to the Me 109.
Rate of Role: At speeds below 350 IAS [mph indicated , 564 km/h] there is practically nothing to choose between the two aircraft, but when this speed is exceeded the Tempest can out-maneuver the Me 109 by making a quick change of bank and direction.

LOL, from the pilots who ****ted themselves everytime the slats came out, sure thats going to give an accurate impression ! http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/16x16_smiley-very-happy.gif

You forgot this Boemher, from the AFDU tatcical trials: "Turning Circle
47. The Tempest is slightly better, the Me.109G being embarrassed by its slots opening near the stall.
"
Those RAF test pilots sure knew what they were doing huh ? LOL ! http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/16x16_smiley-very-happy.gif

But hey, atleast now we've established you're one of the people who believe the FW-190 turned better than the Bf-109 ! http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/16x16_smiley-very-happy.gif

mynameisroland
03-19-2007, 03:39 PM
HELLO!

GOT THOSE PILOTS QUOTES YET?

Guess your the one who has run out of ahem 'words'

http://i7.photobucket.com/albums/y294/mynameisroland/Bellator.jpg

mynameisroland
03-19-2007, 03:43 PM
Originally posted by Bellator_1:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by mynameisroland:
There is also 'wetted area' to consider, ask NASA about how the Ta 152s wings affected its drag at low altitudes.

What exactly are you babbling about ? The L/D ratio stays the same, hence why the Ta-152H-1 could do 597 km/h at SL with 2,050 PS.


More data on the Tempests turn performance.

The test 109 used versus the Tempest was a 109G2 Trop, Werk. No. 10639, captured in North Africa.

Turning Circle: It was found that in this aspect of maneuverability the Tempest was slightly superior to the Me 109.
Rate of Role: At speeds below 350 IAS [mph indicated , 564 km/h] there is practically nothing to choose between the two aircraft, but when this speed is exceeded the Tempest can out-maneuver the Me 109 by making a quick change of bank and direction.

LOL, from the pilots who ****ted themselves everytime the slats came out, sure thats going to give an accurate impression ! http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/16x16_smiley-very-happy.gif

You forgot this Boemher, from the AFDU tatcical trials: "Turning Circle
47. The Tempest is slightly better, the Me.109G being embarrassed by its slots opening near the stall.
"
Those RAF test pilots sure knew what they were doing huh ? LOL ! http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/16x16_smiley-very-happy.gif

But hey, atleast now we've established you're one of the people who believe the FW-190 turned better than the Bf-109 ! http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/16x16_smiley-very-happy.gif </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

Well I think you will find that the Fw 190, the Tempest, the P38, the Spitfire, the P47 and pretty much every other late war fighter out turned the Bf 109 <span class="ev_code_YELLOW">At Speed</span>

http://i7.photobucket.com/albums/y294/mynameisroland/Bellator.jpg

Bellator_1
03-19-2007, 03:48 PM
Nope, you didn't get it right this time either. Good luck next time ! http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/16x16_smiley-wink.gif

BBB_Hyperion
03-19-2007, 04:25 PM
Btw anyone knows where this reschke df tempest vs ta152h was ? Wasn't the ta152h0 =without mw50 system at least 150 kg lighter ?

The ta fuel level i would describe nearly full close to airbase. For tempest depends on base location i would estimate 50 % here . Base location for tempest ?

Anyone considered this for power /weight turn radius ?

HellToupee
03-19-2007, 04:32 PM
there were 2 tempests in that fight as the story goes, the other one shot down one of the ta152s :P

JG14_Josf
03-19-2007, 04:40 PM
But hey, atleast now we've established you're one of the people who believe the FW-190 turned better than the Bf-109 !

Hey; I resemble that remark.

Sustained level turn performance is over rated.

Bellator_1,

We need a time and perhaps a day or two a week to combine efforts from Hyperlobby?

I am GMT – 8.

My regular flying time is weekdays at 8 pm eastern.

I don't see any reason why we can't make a regular thing out of making track files proving this or that relative performance capability for any two planes in the game.

I like to compare the Spitfire VB (1941) versus the Fw190A-4 because that match-up in the game is the closest match-up to the very extensive tests done by the British with their captured Fighter Fw190A-3.

If we get good at my dive and zoom test (I can eventually remake the mission file), then, we can prove which planes dive and zoom to the higher altitude and anyone challenging the results can join the server and prove the error as it actually exits.

Your TA-152 documents are in German (copies of originals I presume) and unreadable to me (too small too). Is there something that you would like to test on those charts against the game performance for the TA-152 or do you want to test relative performance against the Tempest?

I didn't see any turn time data for either plane from recorded history.

Note: Sustained level flight turn performance is not even close to maximum turn performance. I think that you will find, as I have already found, that the game error involves corner speed error where planes like the Fw190 have shallow accelerated stall lines (meaning their turn performance falls off fast as speed increases) compared to planes like the Spitfire where turn performance increases as speed increases.

In other words the slow speed performance superiority of the Spitfire increases with speed over the Fw190 which is, if anything, backwards according to actual evidence.

Testing for level flight sustained turn performance error compared to history only scratches the surface of the game error.

If we begin to record corner speed numbers, then, I think you will begin to see what is happening.

A possible test procedure for relative corner speed performance can be a side by side spawn at 5,000 meters for the two planes being tested.

Both pilots accelerate to 450 km/h side by side.

450 km/h is higher than any corner speed I've tested so far.

The left hand pilot initiates a maximum performance turn at corner speed going left and the right hand pilot follows as close as possible.

The leading pilot turns at corner speed in a downward spiral.

If the leading pilot is unfamiliar with corner speed and if the trailing pilot is familiar with corner speed, then, the trailing pilot will have no trouble staying right behind the leading pilot.

Are you familiar with corner speed?

If not then the following may help (if so then I'm practicing my typing):

Maximum turn rate and minimum turn radius is generated at corner speed and in this test the leading pilot will turn nose low and pull back on the stick until the pilot begins to black out or the plane begins to stall.

If the plane is stalling, then, the pilot drops the nose lower on the horizon to gain more speed and eliminate the stall boundary.

If the pilot is blacking out, then, the pilot raises the nose on the horizon to slow down and eliminate the black out.

Corner speed is fast enough to eliminate the stall boundary and slow enough to eliminate the black out.

Corner speed will be just the right amount of angle down relative to the horizon where the stick is all the way back, the pilot is in grey out and the airplane is shaking a little from buffet.

The lead pilot will record the corner speed for the plane being tested and the trailing pilot will simply know if his corner speed is slower (better) because the trailing pilot will have no trouble maintaining a turn inside the lead pilot's plane without stalling and without blacking out the pilot because:

The fastest turn rate and the smallest turn rate are generated at the highest g possible at the slowest speed possible. G force is limited by the game at 6 g for all pilots (as far as I've been able to find out so far). Therefore the only thing determining corner speed for the different planes in the game is the 6 g stall speed.

The 6 g stall speed for any plane should be close to the square root of 6 times the 1 g stall speed. We can test for 1 g stall speeds to confirm this too.

If the 1 g and the 6 g stall speeds are off, then, the plane is suffering from some handicap. Either the wing design is poor or the plane is suffering from compressibility effect more so than the other plane being compared.

In other words; if one plane has a higher corner speed than the square root times the 1 g stall speed, then, the accelerated stall line for that plane is shallow and off a mathematically predictable estimate based upon the fact that lift force increases square with velocity up to .3 Mach, 220 mph, and 355 km/h when compressibility effect begins to take effect measurably.

It may be a coincidence to note how the game models corner speeds for the planes I've tested so far at around 350 km/h. The Spitfire VB can still black out the pilot at 325 km/h (indicated) while the Mustang is stalling at 400 km/h. That is a huge difference in corner velocity a huge difference in turn rate and a huge difference in turn radius.

If we get good at our corner speed tests, then, the competition will have a hard time following us down in a spiral turn in a smaller radius and at a higher rate of turn.

If we get good at our dive and zoom tests, then, the competition will have a hard time reaching a higher altitude no matter which plane is piloted.

To avoid having to take-off and form up side by side at 3,000 meters for the dive and zoom tests or 5,000 meters for the corner speed tests it helps to have a mission file to spawn each new test at the right altitude side by side.

I'm pretty sure that a dog fight server can accomplish this task and avoid the problem of loading a new mission between each test no?

Before anyone assumes that I think I know which plane will have or even should have the slowest corner speed and by how much that corner speed should be ˜better', well, think again. There are very few recordings of corner speed for WWII fighter planes. The closest thing to a method of recording corner speed I've found so far are the British tests for zoom climb where two planes are side by side at high cruise speed and both planes are pitched up into a high speed vertical turn and the same British tests where the two planes are side by side in a dive and a ˜pull-out' into a zoom climb.

The plane with the lower and ˜better' corner speed will leave the other plane behind in such a test. The inferior plane will have no hope of catching the superior plane.
My guess is that some planes suffer from low rates of pitch acceleration at higher speeds due to design limitations protecting over-stress on the wings where the stick forces are made to be higher at higher speeds as the elevators were designed to require more leverage to move them fast and thereby reduce the chances of pulling too much g force at high speeds. Those planes may not perform as well in ˜pull out' tests and those planes may still have low corner speeds. It may just take more time to get to corner speed due to the stick force limitation.

My guess is that the real corner speeds for most WWII fighter planes were all close with a variation of 5 degrees per second from best corner speed to worst; at the most. A possible extreme example would be the P-47C and the Spitfire IX where the Spitfire IX has 5 degrees per second on the P-47C at corner speed. The time to arrive at corner speed from a high speed dive is going to be difficult to confirm from historical evidence exactly.

We can find the games corner speed for each plane for anyone to find a more accurate one. The most accurate one will be the one that is slowest, highest g, fastest turn rate, and smallest turn rate. The winner will be the most accurate one.

VW-IceFire
03-19-2007, 04:50 PM
The Tempest story goes that one of the Tempest pilots panicked and miscordinated the turn badly which ended in the trees quickly as the fight was at extreme low altitude. As we know from the Tempest in game...if you do stall a Tempest the recovery takes a fair bit of room. I also believe there was only one Ta-152 in the fight...the others were D-9s and I think a D-11 or another more unusual Dora version.

I can't remember the rest of the story...someone posted it on this forum many years ago.

Boemher: I think you'll find that Bellator never will ever post any sources...will make varied and vague statements about all sorts of things and generally keep the same pattern going forever. Its unfortunate because this could have been a good discussion but won't be.

I predict 10 pages or more http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_biggrin.gif

Bellator_1
03-19-2007, 06:25 PM
Don't lie IceFire, it doesnt suit you.

My sources are "Wilde Sau" by Willi Reschke himself and "Ta-152: High altitude fighter" by Dietmarr Hermann. I hope that was specific enough.

As to the famous encounter between the Ta-152 and Tempest, well the Ta-152H flight started out as three but was quickly reduced to two as one crashed early in the flight for unknown reasons. Later in the flight Reschke and his wingman spotted two Tempests making ground passes, guns blazing, and went after them. This resulted in a wild dogfight at tree top level. The Tempest pilot realizing his turns weren't hard enough (infact Rescke described it as he wasn't even approaching the boundary in the Ta-152), pulled abit too hard causing the a/c to flick slightly to the left - Reschke knew he had him at this point, out-turned the Tempest and put it ablaze.

Bellator_1
03-19-2007, 06:39 PM
Originally posted by JG14_Josf:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">But hey, atleast now we've established you're one of the people who believe the FW-190 turned better than the Bf-109 !

Hey; I resemble that remark.
</div></BLOCKQUOTE>

No you don't, cause you unlike many others know its only in instantanous turns at high speed the Fw-190 is superior. The same applies against the Spitfire.

And to address the rest of your post;

I'll gladly help perfect the FW-190A-4 vs Spitfire VB scenario with you Josf, and I as-well don't see why we can't make a regular thing out of making track files proving the already known bugs which need be fixed as-well as other potential ones lurking out there.

I am GMT + 01:00. = 9 hours apart http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/sleepzzz.gif

So I'm afraid I think its a matter of you getting up early http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_biggrin.gif

AKA_TAGERT
03-19-2007, 07:54 PM
Originally posted by Bellator_1:
EDIT:

Ok tried uploading the doc's at Imageshack:

Doc #1 http://img133.imageshack.us/img133/2540/fw190ta152performancetl0.jpg

Doc #2
http://img164.imageshack.us/img164/5416/11258827fwdatanl3.jpg
Hey Bellator..

I don't read Jerry very well..

For those ROC tests.. Can you tell what fuel load they used and if WEP was used? Basically if 'I' wanted to do a ROC test what fuel load should I use and what power setting? Oh.. and which in-game 190 should be used? I see 'mit GM' listed in one column.. If that is to be used.. at what point do you engage it? Are you supose to turn it on before you start the engine? I really don't know cuz I don't fly Jerry stuff much either.

VW-IceFire
03-19-2007, 08:13 PM
Originally posted by Bellator_1:
Don't lie IceFire, it doesnt suit you.

My sources are "Wilde Sau" by Willi Reschke himself and "Ta-152: High altitude fighter" by Dietmarr Hermann. I hope that was specific enough.

As to the famous encounter between the Ta-152 and Tempest, well the Ta-152H flight started out as three but was quickly reduced to two as one crashed early in the flight for unknown reasons. Later in the flight Reschke and his wingman spotted two Tempests making ground passes, guns blazing, and went after them. This resulted in a wild dogfight at tree top level. The Tempest pilot realizing his turns weren't hard enough (infact Rescke described it as he wasn't even approaching the boundary in the Ta-152), pulled abit too hard causing the a/c to flick slightly to the left - Reschke knew he had him at this point, out-turned the Tempest and put it ablaze.
About bloody time you started posting sources.

I have no need to lie...past events speak for themselves.

That does sound much like the story I read. The other Tempest crashed during the fight as well but without the help of German guns. Depending on the date...its likely that the pilots were quite green as losses for Tempest pilots were extremely high into late April...mostly due to flak, attrition, and occasionally to a more wild sortie such as this one. Any mention of the other pilots involved on either side?

mynameisroland
03-19-2007, 08:39 PM
As I said Bellator is basing his whole argument on one engagment.

Ys thats right until he posts his sources there is only this one documented engagement between Ta 152 and Tempest. The Tempest pilots were green flying against two experienced Luftwaffer fighters. The Luftwaffe fighters appear to begin the fight with positional advantage, one of the Tempests drops a wing in a turn and is effectively dead meat.

Switch the tactical situation around and the boot would be on the other foot.

What Bellator is also trying to wriggle out of is the fact that the <span class="ev_code_YELLOW">TA 152 H only shot down 11 recorded kills</span>. How many of those 11 were Tempests? As he declines to post any evidence I bet there has only been this one documented event and he got owned online turnfighting at 100m in hios Ta 152 by a Spitfire 25lb that he mis ID'd as a Tempest lol

Until you post <span class="ev_code_RED"> evidence</span> noone least of all Oleg will believe you.

As for your <span class="ev_code_RED">one</span> comparison it is completely bgus anyway. We do not have the Tempest variant that was involved in this dogfight so what are you exactly trying to prove? Basically you are trying to summarise that probably the best High altitude fighter that, the Ta 152H which was slower, had a higher wing loading and a significantly lower power to weight ratio at low level could outclimb and out turn the premier low altitude piston engined fighter of WW2 in its prime environment.

And you are trying to prove this with absolutely no evidence - not even the Reshke quote itself - Do you even have that ?

mynameisroland
03-19-2007, 08:41 PM
Originally posted by VW-IceFire:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by Bellator_1:
Don't lie IceFire, it doesnt suit you.

My sources are "Wilde Sau" by Willi Reschke himself and "Ta-152: High altitude fighter" by Dietmarr Hermann. I hope that was specific enough.

As to the famous encounter between the Ta-152 and Tempest, well the Ta-152H flight started out as three but was quickly reduced to two as one crashed early in the flight for unknown reasons. Later in the flight Reschke and his wingman spotted two Tempests making ground passes, guns blazing, and went after them. This resulted in a wild dogfight at tree top level. The Tempest pilot realizing his turns weren't hard enough (infact Rescke described it as he wasn't even approaching the boundary in the Ta-152), pulled abit too hard causing the a/c to flick slightly to the left - Reschke knew he had him at this point, out-turned the Tempest and put it ablaze.
About bloody time you started posting sources.

I have no need to lie...past events speak for themselves.

That does sound much like the story I read. The other Tempest crashed during the fight as well but without the help of German guns. Depending on the date...its likely that the pilots were quite green as losses for Tempest pilots were extremely high into late April...mostly due to flak, attrition, and occasionally to a more wild sortie such as this one. Any mention of the other pilots involved on either side? </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

Ice you forgot to mention that of all the Tempest losses only 24 were attributed to enemy fighters. This give the Tempest an incredible K/D ratio for a late war prop fighter mixing it down low and dirty and often facing massive odds.

AKA_TAGERT
03-19-2007, 10:46 PM
Well it is late.. And I had to kind of rush this one.. See my tool is all set up for non Si units, so I had to do a quick conversion to get it to display Si units

So.. take this one with a grain of salt until I can validate the changes I made.

Here is the ROC I got with..

FUEL: 100%
WEP: ON for the whole time
THROTTLE: 105 to 110% (I would cut back to 105 when over heating)
AMMO: Default
RAD: Closed/Auto for most of the flight, opened when 1st overheat msg appeard and than adj back to Closed/Auto

http://www.geocities.com/grantsenn/NACA_TESTING/ANALYSIS/TEST_TYPE/ROC/408/TA_152H_1/ME_00/BETA_ROC.JPG

As you can see it has a pretty impressive ROC!

I don't read Jerry very well, but from this link that Bellator provided it says a ROC of ~12m/s

But it does not specifiy an altitude..

Well maybe it does? But like I said I don't read Jerry!


Orginally posted by Bellator_1:
Also note that the Ta-152H-1's climb rate is 17.5 m/s at Steig u. Kampfleistung (1,590 PS), at SonderNotleistung (2,050 PS) that figure is going to be ALOT higher - some sources say around 5,000 + ft/min.
As you can see far exceeds the 12m/s and 17m/s at low alts!

So I hope that real world data is talking about at altitude above 6000m?

That or I was not supose to use WEP? Anyone?

M_Gunz
03-19-2007, 11:21 PM
Originally posted by badatflyski:
what bothers me is the plot graph and the turn table.
The plot table shows that the tempest seems to have a better angle and can absorb more G's (or i read it wrong http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/53.gif ), something absolotuley impossible cause of the pilot position in ANY 190! The turn table shows a better and faster turn for the tempest , what is contradictory to the Reschke stories, but those come not with speed, altitude and turn diagrams http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/16x16_smiley-happy.gif

The plot table shows sustained flat turn performance with speed at some altitude not shown on
the chart but very likely can be found out. The turns were made the same way for both but do
not represent the absolute best attainable. Lastly, read the disclaimers that come with IL2C.
It is good enough relative performance within limits.

Note that neither planes sustains even 3.5 G's in flat turn so do you really think that how
the pilot seat is tilted is going to be the critical factor? Numbers are right there. What
I would like to have would be Ps + and - curves as well as Ps0 but hey maybe some other day.

So we have Tempest V and Ta-152H-1 models... does that mean that any Ta-152 data counts?

M_Gunz
03-19-2007, 11:54 PM
Originally posted by Bellator_1:
Sounds good to me Josf, I'd be happy to help you out with any form of testing you'd like to carry out.

Its going to be very interesting http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_smile.gif

You've got to be kidding. LOOK at the montage.

11 secs -- are those two views of the same thing? Left side is smooth curves, right side is
like Jokf 'logic', jerky. But imagine they are then you see the FW in lead is pulling harder
on the left (tighter curve path, more bleed) and on the right in detail the smoke shows the FW
being horsed compared to the Spit. But... he is trying to prove something.

Next set of shots and again the FW flys the harder and jerkier path.

32 secs shows FW gained lead and Spitfire flying outside his trail.

49 secs and the FW has massive lead but note slowing down towards peak where already POWER TO
WEIGHT has been making a difference, the Spit is recovering AS IT SHOULD BY SIMPLE PHYSICS.

52 secs and oh-no!

Where are the ICONS to give range? No chance as those are not as sensational as perspective
tricks with a 3D view system.

================================================== =======

You think any test run like that will prove anything about the planes?
Ahhh WTH, you are used to being laughed at already and when Oleg does not answer then you can
join ranks with the most chronic whiners as company.

BTW, I don't see Ta-152H-1 on any of your charts. You want to be taken seriously then just
abandon the use of materials that do not apply directly and 'tests' that only test how much
some fool wants to rig the results.

M_Gunz
03-20-2007, 12:11 AM
Originally posted by Bellator_1:
Don't lie IceFire, it doesnt suit you.

My sources are "Wilde Sau" by Willi Reschke himself and "Ta-152: High altitude fighter" by Dietmarr Hermann. I hope that was specific enough.

As to the famous encounter between the Ta-152 and Tempest, well the Ta-152H flight started out as three but was quickly reduced to two as one crashed early in the flight for unknown reasons. Later in the flight Reschke and his wingman spotted two Tempests making ground passes, guns blazing, and went after them. This resulted in a wild dogfight at tree top level. The Tempest pilot realizing his turns weren't hard enough (infact Rescke described it as he wasn't even approaching the boundary in the Ta-152), pulled abit too hard causing the a/c to flick slightly to the left - Reschke knew he had him at this point, out-turned the Tempest and put it ablaze.

Relative speeds were? Beginning alt differences? How many other unstated conditions apply?

Do you really expect Oleg to take this circus seriously enough to put people BACK to work on
what they had already done more carefully than you?

BBB_Hyperion
03-20-2007, 02:15 AM
Tagert you cant compare these data for following reason .

Check the weight difference for H0 and H1.

http://img174.imagevenue.com/loc582/th_77648_Ta152H0_1_122_582lo.JPG (http://img174.imagevenue.com/img.php?image=77648_Ta152H0_1_122_582lo.JPG)

Your filter function needs a rework reduce stepping range .)

Climbrates were done at Climb and Combat Power not at full power and this plane had no mw50 system for boost installed check list above.

The quoted chart gives 13,5 m/s or 14,5 m/s

RPM for Climb and Combat in Ta152 h0 = 3000 rpm (that is without mw50)

mynameisroland
03-20-2007, 05:12 AM
Originally posted by BBB_Hyperion:
Btw anyone knows where this reschke df tempest vs ta152h was ? Wasn't the ta152h0 =without mw50 system at least 150 kg lighter ?

The ta fuel level i would describe nearly full close to airbase. For tempest depends on base location i would estimate 50 % here . Base location for tempest ?

Anyone considered this for power /weight turn radius ?

Good point Hyperion, Lets say that the Tempest V had flown a mission with drop tanks ( zero drag once dropped ) and had around 100 gallons of internal tankage left (max internal tankage 162 gallons) so it would be over 50% fuel remaining to allow for combat and rtb.

The minimum HP figures for the Tempest would be 2420 HP at sea level which represents a Sabre II B at 11lb boost. This would be the lowest estimate as we do not know whether the Tempest in question was boosted to 13lbs or had the Rotol propellor. So we shall be conservative and use the lowest 1945 performance figures for the RAF planes. If it was a 13lb Rotol equiped Sabre then the Tempest would be in a different league all together
<span class="ev_code_YELLOW"> * 2,850 hp (2,065 kW) at 3,800 rpm and 13 psi (0.9 bar) intake boost,
and 3,040 hp (2,200 kW) at 4,000 rpm war emergency power</span>

If the Tempests stated normal take off weight doesnt include drop tanks then we could subtract 61 gallons imp. of fuel from the aircraft weight.

Take off weight - 5171.029 Kg
weight of 61 gallons of fuel - 179.85 kg ( used weight of 6.5 lbs per gallon for fuel weight, used - weight is conservative as stayed with US gallons which are lighter than imp gallons? )

Therefore conservative estimate for the Tempest V Sabre IIB 11lb boost having burned 61 gallons of internal fuel would be:

Combat weight - 4991.179 kg
Sea level max HP - 2420 HP
Power Loading - 0.485 HP/kg
Wing Area 302sqft - 177.8847 kg/m2
(in sq m 28.0585)

Anyone want to do it for the Ta 152 H ?

Oh and Hyperion is the Hp for the Ta 152 H0 still 2050 HP even though the MW 50 is dispensed with ?

stathem
03-20-2007, 05:22 AM
Would this be a bad time to post this comment from Major Hans-Ekkehard Bob, from an interview conducted by JG3_Thijs, posted at SimHq (http://www.simhq.com/forum/ubbthreads.php?ubb=showflat&Number=2011920&page=0&fpart=1)? :-



Q.
You said that you found the ˜Dora Neun' the best propeller driven aircraft of the war. How
about the Focke-Wulf Ta-152?

H-E Bob.
"The Ta-152 wasn't as good as the Dora. It's engine was excellent but the frame just wasn't good
enough. It was developed in a too short time. It wasn't the material which was bad, it was just the
whole design. I've always considered the Ta-152 a "dead-born child""

Bellator_1
03-20-2007, 06:47 AM
Hyperion,

You need to learn to read those charts properly.


TAGERT,

Here's what the chart says TAGERT,

Climb rate at 8.8km (29,000 ft) is 14.5 m/s and time to climb 10km (32,808 ft) is 10.1 min, this is with MW-50 engaged. However boost pressure is lower than used on the H-1, which caused a speed difference of 17 km/h, so climb rate would've been affected as-well.

By comparison the Dora-9 has a climb rate of 7 m/s at 8.8km (29,000 ft), thats not even half that of the Ta-152H.

GM-1 first engages above 11km (36,000 ft), you can see that on the other chart I provided. Service ceiling with GM-1 is 15.1km (49,540 ft).

mynameisroland
03-20-2007, 06:53 AM
Got those quotes yet Bellator ?

Or are you now basing your argument that the Tempest V often fought the Ta 152 H at 29,000ft ?

Bellator_1
03-20-2007, 07:01 AM
Stathem,

How about you quote a pilot who actually flew the Ta-152 ? http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/16x16_smiley-wink.gif

I promise you what is said is the exact opposite of what Ekkehard says.

Read "Wilde Sau" By Willi Reschke and "Ta-152: High altitude fighter" by Dietmarr Hermann.

mynameisroland
03-20-2007, 07:02 AM
Originally posted by Bellator_1:
Stathem,

How about you quote a pilot who actually flew the Ta-152 ? http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/16x16_smiley-wink.gif

I promise you what is said is the exact opposite of what Ehhehard says.

Read "Wilde Sau" By Willi Reschke and "Ta-152: High altitude fighter" by Dietmarr Hermann.

How about YOU

<span class="ev_code_YELLOW">post relevant pilots quotes</span>

Just a thought.

http://i7.photobucket.com/albums/y294/mynameisroland/Bellator.jpg

mynameisroland
03-20-2007, 07:08 AM
Originally posted by Bellator_1:
The Ta-152H-1 is in desperate need of an FM improvement, its turning capability in particular needs a huge boost. In-game it won't even out-turn the Tempest, in reality an aircraft over which the Ta-152H-1 held a great advantage in turn-performance.


Based on ONE pilots quote which Bellator cannot even post.

Not bad page 5 already and ZERO comparitive data posted by Bellator!

So far all we have is a performance data thread based on a loon Luftwhiners hunch. Why not start one on the Ta 183 while you are at it and how it was superior to the F-86?

http://i7.photobucket.com/albums/y294/mynameisroland/Bellator.jpg

AKA_TAGERT
03-20-2007, 07:17 AM
Originally posted by BBB_Hyperion:
Tagert you cant compare these data for following reason .

Check the weight difference for H0 and H1.

http://img174.imagevenue.com/loc582/th_77648_Ta152H0_1_122_582lo.JPG (http://img174.imagevenue.com/img.php?image=77648_Ta152H0_1_122_582lo.JPG)
Well that is the data that Bell provided me.. That and I also noted I don't read Jerry very well so I am sure this test will need to be re-run a few times. I did it mostly to get my analysis tool set up to disply Si unit stuff.


Originally posted by BBB_Hyperion:
Your filter function needs a rework reduce stepping range .)
I know, it was late and I was just playing around.


Originally posted by BBB_Hyperion:
Climbrates were done at Climb and Combat Power not at full power and this plane had no mw50 system for boost installed check list above. Which is why asked if I should be using WEP


Originally posted by BBB_Hyperion:
The quoted chart gives 13,5 m/s or 14,5 m/s

RPM for Climb and Combat in Ta152 h0 = 3000 rpm (that is without mw50)
Ok I can do that.. but I don't read Jerry very well.. What weight is the plane in the real world data and what weight is the plane in the game? If the real world data plane is less weight I can adj the fuel load to account for that.

Bellator_1
03-20-2007, 07:23 AM
TAGERT,

Hyperion is incorrect in his assessment. Check my response please.

AKA_TAGERT
03-20-2007, 07:29 AM
Originally posted by Bellator_1:
TAGERT,

Hyperion is incorrect in his assessment. Check my response please. Roger thanks for translating that data.. Ill take a look at it again tonight when I get off work.

On that note does it mention the weight?

Bellator_1
03-20-2007, 07:33 AM
Weight is 4760 kg - Not sure wether this applies with the MW-50 system installed though, so the climb rate figures with MW-50 engaged might be at 5,200 kg.

Bellator_1
03-20-2007, 07:50 AM
This may be of interest;

The P-51H which has excellent high alt and low alt performance, at 90" Hg has a max rate of climb at 29,000ft of 2,000 ft/min (10.16 m/s), thats a good deal lower than the Ta-152H-1.

Interesting to note is the fact that the P-51H has a climb rate of ~5,100 ft/min at SL, thats in the same area as some sources claim for the Ta-152H-1.

This supports the already mentioned fact that those high AR high efficient wings have a dramatic effect on climb and turn performance. This explains the extremely short take-off run as-well.

mynameisroland
03-20-2007, 08:42 AM
For those who are interested in actual aircraft designations ect

Fw 190 Butcher Bird : Edward Schacklady
"Ta 152 H-0. Batch of twenty pre-production aircraft built during 1944. Jumo 213 EB engines."

Here is data from the focke-wulf190.com site
"ls nächster Schritt der Entwicklung folgte der 213 E-0 und E-B für C3 Kraftstoff und mit einem 2-Stufen 3-Gang Lader. Die Startleistung betrug 1375 kW (1870 PS) beziehungsweise 1470 kW (2000 PS) bei dem E-B. Wegen der Schwierigkeiten der Versorgung mit C3 Kraftstoff in den letzten beiden Kriegsjahren, wurden diese 2 Motoren in der Serienfertigung bald schon durch den E-1 abgelöst."

So it seems the Ta 152 H-0 was actually the best performing Ta 152, its engine accepted C3 fuel and therefore produced enough power without resorting to MW50. 2000 PS is not quite 2050 HP but it does weigh less too.

Now we have the Ta 152 H-1 in game which in laymans terms is the Fw 190 D9 45 compared to the Ta 152 H-0 being the Fw 190 D9 44.

We have the heavier variant using lower quality B4 fuel - as far as I can see.

Hyperion states that Reschke flew the lighter = more manuverable Ta 152 H-0 against the Tempest so we do not have either of the relevant aircraft in IL2 to do any comparitive tests based on the one recorded encounter between the Ta 152 H and the Tempest.

We dont have the Ta 152 H-0 in game
We dont have the Tempest V SabreIIB in game

Bellator_1
03-20-2007, 09:18 AM
The Ta-152H's in service were equipped with the Jumo 213E engine, which performance is 1,760 PS at Start u. Notleistung and 2,050 PS at SonderNotleistung.

1 PS = 0.98 HP

1,760 PS = 1,735 HP
2,050 PS = 2,021 HP

mynameisroland
03-20-2007, 10:02 AM
Originally posted by Bellator_1:
The Ta-152H's in service were equipped with the Jumo 213E engine, which performance is 1,760 PS at Start u. Notleistung and 2,050 PS at SonderNotleistung.

1 PS = 0.98 HP

1,760 PS = 1,735 HP
2,050 PS = 2,021 HP

If that is the case then Reschkes Ta 152 weighed 5217 kg at normal flying weight according to your own source.

2021 HP/ 5217 KG for the Ta 152 H
2420 HP/ 4991.179 KG (Tempest with 100 gal internal fuel) for the Tempest V Sabre IIB

Therefore the Tempest's superiority in power to weight ratio is further increased.

Tempest:
Power Loading - 0.485 HP/kg
Wing Loading 302sqft - 177.8847 kg/m2
(in sq m 28.0585)

Ta 152 H1:
Power Loading - 0.387 HP/kg
Wing Loading - 202kg/m2

Bellator_1
03-20-2007, 10:16 AM
Forget about power-loading and wing-loading, its lift-loading and thrust to drag + weight which counts - and like I said, the Ta-152 had a completely new and larger propeller.

Without venturing into the thrust to weight & drag issue I can tell you for sure that even at 5,200 kg the Ta-152H has a much lower lift loading. And as I've said the Tempest uses a laminar type airfoil which means its going to suffer from low AoA stalls in turns, hence why the FW-190G Jabo could follow it.

mynameisroland
03-20-2007, 10:23 AM
Why should we forget two areas where the Tempest has a very large advantage? Both of these performance attributes directly effect the performance of any WW2 aircraft. Why dont you post some evidence comparing the drag coefficients of the Tempest and the Ta 152 and also the Tempest wings lift loading?

You are neglecting to do this because you are happier to just state they are worse with out checking 1st.

Bellator_1
03-20-2007, 11:37 AM
Checking ?

Boemher, did you somehow miss the fact that the Ta-152H-1 has about double the L/D ratio of the Tempest ?? And aren't you aware that a laminar flow airfoil has a low CLmax ??

This about says it all...

BBB_Hyperion
03-20-2007, 11:54 AM
Here is the drag table for ta152h1. Should be very similar to h0 changes were in wing tanks and some other small issues. http://img11.imagevenue.com/loc440/th_12137_Fw190DragTable_122_440lo.jpg (http://img11.imagevenue.com/img.php?image=12137_Fw190DragTable_122_440lo.jpg)

Can we get this for tempest ?

Sry Belator just did overfly the table was little late to quote right place. But that does not mean the planes are similar considered weight . So far it seems as the h1 was the worse
plane . Similar to 190d9 44 c3 and 190d9 45 b4+mw50 difference. More weight less available power with mw50.

What we can see on the table that the plane h0 there was fitted with a gm1 injection system. That is additional 104 kg of n2o + the system itself weight about 30 kg ?.

badatflyski
03-20-2007, 12:06 PM
Edit: posted twice http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/compsmash.gif

badatflyski
03-20-2007, 12:09 PM
To get back for a short moment of reschke story and a little clarification for Helltoupee:
http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v228/badatflyski/reschkestory.jpg

Actually,none-zero-nada-quedalle-schnolldenbol 152have been destroyed in combat. http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/clap.gif
This plane was the best high alt fighter of the WW2, it flew higher and faster(at alt) than ANY other plane, turbine-engined planes included!Sadly, it was not always used like it should be:above 10000M/30000Ft

The H-0 model was used for testing and flightschools, the Combat-units received the H-1 model.

About he testing of aircrafts in LW: fully loaded and armed or ballast to simulate the operationnal weight.

Ballator: please refere you to the data i posted in Pg2, your data seems to change from answer to answer

Here the front page and a piece of pg1 of the Ta152H-0 Manual. the H-0 and the H-1 using the same engine (working with C3 fuel-none of the jumos213 used B4fuel)the use of the engine stays the same for the 2 planes which difference was only the weight! It also gave the fuel consumption for those who 'd like to calculate the weight after x minutes of flight http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_biggrin.gif

http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v228/badatflyski/ta152manualintro.jpg

http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v228/badatflyski/ta152manual1.jpg

Boehmer http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_biggrin.gif please---please don't use the maximum-emergency-do not touch!-power, as we know, the sabre could anly sustain this power for about 4/5min before melting down.(like many others engines too http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/16x16_smiley-wink.gif ) Use the combat power instead.thanks. http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_biggrin.gif

M-Gunz: thanks for the plot-graph explenation.
Just a stupid question: what do you mean by flat turn? (sorry, my english isn't good as i'd like it to be http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/disagree.gif )

Just wanted to add this about the seat position:
http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v228/badatflyski/pilotposition.jpg
I do not say that they made turns more than 3.5G's ,it's just for info (ps: the 190pilot position is the 3rd from above)http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/halo.gif

BBB_Hyperion
03-20-2007, 12:20 PM
That is the same manual i used for rpm .)

I used it as well to make cooling tests for the engine which didn't fit at all with the manual.

From same source Best Climb

http://img175.imagevenue.com/loc475/th_14612_Ta152BestClimb_122_475lo.JPG (http://img175.imagevenue.com/img.php?image=14612_Ta152BestClimb_122_475lo.JPG)

Engine Limits

http://img165.imagevenue.com/loc393/th_14613_Ta152PowerLimits_122_393lo.JPG (http://img165.imagevenue.com/img.php?image=14613_Ta152PowerLimits_122_393lo.JPG )

JG14_Josf
03-20-2007, 01:00 PM
I am GMT + 01:00. = 9 hours apart

Bellator_1,

How early?

I usually wake up around 4 am Pacific time or 7 am Eastern time.

The sun is 9 hours late on my end?

You are at 7 pm when I wake up?

Hyperlobby?

I can look for you and we can fly around some anywhere to get introduced at 8 pm your time and 5 am my time? TS?

What day?

I can tell you that the TA 152 was neat to fly on Warclouds awhile back. I do have a track file of a Spitfire IX climbing up to my wingman and I as we were dragging a P-47 using a thatch weave type tactic. The Spitfire IX climbed up from behind (after it was turning down low) passed the P-47 and forced us to dive out where my wingman's wings came off (it is on the track file) without any other hits or damage or high speed buffeting (just after starting his dive) and the Spitfire peeled off from my six while he dove on us, then, the Spitfire came back down while I maintained a running away flight and the Spitfire caught me forcing me to force an overshoot. It's all on track file.

I ended up bailing out without controls and the chute opened into the tail section causing that fall to earth death scenario.

It was an educational track file.

That was during a time when someone somewhere was using a modified version of the game I think; it had something to do with a test version of the Spitfire. It was strange.

Anyway – turning on the MW50 was neat in the game. If I remember it was an automatic switch that the game calculated where the player couldn't make the mistake of using the wrong boost at the wrong altitude unless the player flew through the altitude level on the wrong boost.

It's been awhile since the TA was allowed on Warclouds.

As to the confusion between ˜sustained' and ˜instantaneous' turn performance:

Corner speed at 6 g can be ˜sustained' at the expense of altitude and therefore maintain maximum turn rate and minimum turn rate for as long as the pilot can handle the g load.

Example (http://www.acepilots.com/korea_blesse2.html):


The MiG pilot fired several rounds, and my wingman broke without telling me. I couldn't believe what I was seeing. Now the first two MiGs are coming around to cut off my wingman. I checked my fuel gauge and said to myself, "Oh man, this is one thing I don't need." I came back down, sandwiching the two MiGs between my wingman and myself. I could see the number three and four MiGs trying to cut me off, trying to come in behind me. This fight had started about 23,000 feet; we still had lots of altitude. I told him, "Put your nose down and keep four "G's" on that thing and we'll be okay. So he did, he was pulling it around and going down, the MiGs were trying to get on him, and finally I got in position on the number two man, and I hit him. Sparks flew and pieces of his tail came off. He broke off right away, then the leader broke off, and the two of them left. I called my wingman and said, "Okay, you're clear, roll it out, heading such and such and keep going. Climb to 32,000 feet and you'll be okay." He did that and got home fine.

But I still had two MiGs behind me. Two had gone home, but I still had two behind me. We went a couple more turns, I got down to 7,000 feet, gobbling fuel like mad, keeping the MiGs to the outside. They were not turning quite as tight as I was. I rolled over the top, went around, and got behind them. They took off, and the minute they did I was so glad. I didn't have enough fuel to chase them. I was just trying to get away from them. They went back across the Yalu River, and I went off the other direction to go home.

Now I was about 6,000 feet; my fuel gauge showed about 700 pounds of fuel. I thought, "Boy, is this going to be close." I climbed out to about 9,000 feet, when over to the left I saw a MiG letting down in front of me. I thought, "Oh my God, school's out." I didn't have enough fuel to fight this guy. He was out in front of me, I was just waiting for him to turn into me. But he never saw me. He just kept letting down and going across, heading for the Yalu River. I looked at my fuel gauge, and at that MiG in front of me, and said, "What the hell, why not?" I pulled in underneath, slid in behind him, and shot him down. He burst into flames and went off. I started back home again with maybe 500 pounds of fuel.



When we get good at corner speed, dive, and zoom documentation we may be able to invite Max to show us how to do it better no?

Bellator_1
03-20-2007, 01:24 PM
Guys,

My figures haven't changed at all, I'm just posting performance at different supercharger settings.

Ta-152H-1 RL Performance
Top speed at SL: 597 km/h
Top speed at alt: 760 km/h
Climb rate at Steig u. Kampfleistung (1,590 PS): 17.5 m/s
Climb rate at Start u. Notleistung (1,760 PS): 20 m/s

Climb rate at SonderNotleistung at 8.8km: 14.5 m/s
Time to climb 10km: 10.1 min


Hyperion,

Using MW-50 + B4 on the Jumo 213A (The Dora-9's engine) increased performance to 2,100 PS, the highest out-put used in the field. C-3 alone increased power to 1,900 PS at Start u. Notleistung.

http://img75.imageshack.us/img75/4606/213apowergraphkq3.jpg

Vike
03-20-2007, 01:29 PM
Originally posted by badatflyski:

Actually,none-zero-nada-quedalle-schnolldenbol 152have been destroyed in combat. http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/clap.gif

http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/16x16_smiley-very-happy.gif

Bellator_1
03-20-2007, 01:43 PM
Josf,

Yes, I'm 9 hours ahead of you. So if you're up at 4:00 AM in the morning it'll be 1:00 PM at my place.

As to which day, well how about thursday the 22nd March ? On this day I'm available the whole day.

As to Hyperlobby, well what is it ? http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_biggrin.gif

M_Gunz
03-20-2007, 01:48 PM
Originally posted by badatflyski:
M-Gunz: thanks for the plot-graph explenation.
Just a stupid question: what do you mean by flat turn?

Turn without change of altitude.

It is not the best way to combat but relative flat turns at combat speed ranges tell something
about ease of turn between airframe and power both --- only under strict test conditions will
this amount to a clean test though.

Example of Reshke not reaching limit of his turn, we have nothing on the Tempest pilot was he
able to reach limit of his plane. It is unknown, the account is one sided. Good account yes
but missing necessary data to make a compare. Also not stated but not hard to guess is entry
conditions, who had positions, etc. Two Tempest pilots out hunting trains at low level are
not going to be running anywhere near full speed as you can't get shots at all that way and
to lift and come around you will have to scrub so much and make yourself an AA target. So
there they are going maybe 300 kph looking for trains and then pull up while increasing the
power and they get jumped from above and faster? They have to turn and keep turning from
there until escape while Reshke may have followed exactly or more likely he much used the
vertical to keep his speed higher than the target, as any really good pilot will do. With
the target slow and wallowing while he is faster but not beyond best turn speed it is only
natural for him to have and hold the advantage. But I cannot say that is just how it did
happen since Reshke only gives the overview. I can say that his words leave enormous room
for reader interpretation and do not provide anything like plane to plane test, only pilot
and plane to pilot and plane under uncontrolled conditions.

People bringing such tales up as proof of comparative performance of planes only show their
own lack of understanding and attention to the tales themselves. Too often they show how
what they think becomes integral to their argument and insist "it happened this way" when
"that way" is not stated at all in the tale. I only say maybe/probably on my ideas based
on practices and realities and a guess that Reshke was a very good combat pilot -but- I do
not say certainly this or that except that certainly all is not given to know!

BBB_Hyperion
03-20-2007, 01:59 PM
Belator the Problem is MW50 is not always on while engaged this is true but when not the additional weight of the boost system and lower grade fuel makes less hp at climb and combat compared to c3 fueled planes. Climb and Combat is in general without WEP. So when we get figures WEP and Climb and Combat there can be a huge gap of performance between these types. Manuals in most cases list climb and combat power figures.

JG14_Josf
03-20-2007, 02:24 PM
Yes, I'm 9 hours ahead of you. So if you're up at 4:00 AM in the morning it'll be 1:00 PM at my place.

As to which day, well how about thursday the 22nd March ? On this day I'm available the whole day.

As to Hyperlobby, well what is it ?

Hyperlobby (http://hyperfighter.sk/) is a free download for a program that gathers people up and launches them into WWII combat simulation or test flight sessions.

TS is a voice communciations program.

I also have Skype and Ventrillo for voice.

Do you know what is really odd?

People paying for long distance phone calls.

This thursday morning sounds good to me.

Where will I find you?

How will I communcate with you?

Hyperlobby?

TS?

I.P address?

e-mail?

josf.kelley(at)verizon.net

Bellator_1
03-20-2007, 02:51 PM
I have an MSN address, (Haven't tried all those other fancy programs before, except Skype ofcourse) so if you've got this program as-well then you'll just have to be up at 4:00 AM your time and I'll be there http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_smile.gif

Can also get a hold of Skype if you want, just figured it would be easier to use MSN as I've already got this program, either way its fine by me though http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_smile.gif

AKA_TAGERT
03-20-2007, 03:22 PM
ubi forums..

your source for a..

http://purehost.realityconfusion.com/love-connection-logo.jpg

who knew! http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/16x16_smiley-very-happy.gif

TheBandit_76
03-20-2007, 03:32 PM
Bellator may have to shed a few to fit in the Ta...http://www.near-death.com/images/graphics/nde/heaven/sunset/children_holding_hands_sunset.jpg

Bellator_1
03-20-2007, 03:56 PM
You guys are really really bored aren't you ? I sure can't find another excuse ! http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/16x16_smiley-very-happy.gif

VW-IceFire
03-20-2007, 04:03 PM
Originally posted by mynameisroland:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by VW-IceFire:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by Bellator_1:
Don't lie IceFire, it doesnt suit you.

My sources are "Wilde Sau" by Willi Reschke himself and "Ta-152: High altitude fighter" by Dietmarr Hermann. I hope that was specific enough.

As to the famous encounter between the Ta-152 and Tempest, well the Ta-152H flight started out as three but was quickly reduced to two as one crashed early in the flight for unknown reasons. Later in the flight Reschke and his wingman spotted two Tempests making ground passes, guns blazing, and went after them. This resulted in a wild dogfight at tree top level. The Tempest pilot realizing his turns weren't hard enough (infact Rescke described it as he wasn't even approaching the boundary in the Ta-152), pulled abit too hard causing the a/c to flick slightly to the left - Reschke knew he had him at this point, out-turned the Tempest and put it ablaze.
About bloody time you started posting sources.

I have no need to lie...past events speak for themselves.

That does sound much like the story I read. The other Tempest crashed during the fight as well but without the help of German guns. Depending on the date...its likely that the pilots were quite green as losses for Tempest pilots were extremely high into late April...mostly due to flak, attrition, and occasionally to a more wild sortie such as this one. Any mention of the other pilots involved on either side? </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

Ice you forgot to mention that of all the Tempest losses only 24 were attributed to enemy fighters. This give the Tempest an incredible K/D ratio for a late war prop fighter mixing it down low and dirty and often facing massive odds. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>
I don't want to make them feel jealous that an active frontline fighter has a ratio that is so low http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_smile.gif

JG14_Josf
03-20-2007, 07:44 PM
Bellator_1,

Can you detect a hint of jealousy http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_smile.gif

Poor poor lonely hom - e - o - wners (phobes (http://www.phobialist.com/#H-)).

What?

Perhaps they are renting.

Back to the topic:

Do you understand the nature of a Wind up Turn?

If, as you point out, the TA does not lose much energy in dragging around non-lift producing protrusions and if the TA does have a relatively low 1 g stall speed, then, the corner speed on that plane should rival as a top contender in the category.

I'm becoming anxious to get some in game numbers documented.

I'm also curious to see which one of us will generate the slowest corner for any plane.

We can also do the superfluous sustained turn tests if you wish.

P.S. My wife won't let me have an affair with anyone - belay your fears or dreams.

AKA_TAGERT
03-20-2007, 10:23 PM
Ok had some time to sit down and look at the real world data..

There seems to be a conflict going on here.. So please be patient with my questions.. In that I don't read Jerry so I don't know for sure one way or another.


Originally posted by BBB_Hyperion:
Tagert you cant compare these data for following reason .

Check the weight difference for H0 and H1.

http://img174.imagevenue.com/loc582/th_77648_Ta152H0_1_122_582lo.JPG (http://img174.imagevenue.com/img.php?image=77648_Ta152H0_1_122_582lo.JPG)
Ok so if I understand you correctly, your point is the Ta 152 in IL2 is a Ta-152H-1 not a Ta-152H-0? And that the H-1 is a lot heavier than an H-0 due to some missing equipment

Zuladung (Additional load)
H-0 807 kg
H-1 1186 kg

Normal - Flugxxxxx (Normal Flight Something)
H-0 4727 kg
H-1 5217 kg

5217kg - 4727kg = 490kg

Thus your point is the performance values of a H-0 are going to be better at the same power settings.

Ok.. that sounds reasonable.

Now lets take a look at Bellator's take on your information


Originally posted by Bellator_1:
Hyperion,

You need to learn to read those charts properly.
Well.. to be honest Bellator.. There isn't really much to read there.. It is number comparison between the H-0 and H-1. Thus what part do you think he miss-read?


Originally posted by Bellator_1:
TAGERT,

Here's what the chart says TAGERT,
Ok in the following I assume your talking about the column labeled Ta-152H-0 in that there is no Ta-152H-1 column.


Originally posted by Bellator_1:
Climb rate at 8.8km (29,000 ft) is 14.5 m/s
Ok 1st problem.. There are a few rows that have the units m/s. So I am not sure which row your referring to, so bare with me here as I try to work through this. Now my 'guess' here in all of the rows with m/s is the first number is the altitude and the second, in parens, is the climb rate? With a special case in some rows that lists two climb rates. One with GM1 and one without GM1. Where the legend defines * = mit GM1

With those assumptions in place here is what I am seeing.

ROW Steigleistungen m. Kampfleistung (Climbing achievements mit combat performance?) Dienstgipfelhohe (service-summit-high?)
In that row in the H-0 column I see 13,5(15,1*)(13,9)

In my words..

The ROC is 13.9m/s @ 13.5km no GM1
The ROC is 15.1m/s @ 13.5km with GM1

ROW Steigleistungen m. Kampfleistung (Climbing achievements mit combat performance?) Arbeilshohe (Work-expresshigh?)
In that row in the H-0 column I see 12,9(14,4*)(13,3)

In my words..

The ROC is 13.3m/s @ 12.9km no GM1
The ROC is 14.4m/s @ 12.9km with GM1

ROW "Steiggeschwindigkeit" (Rise gesch windy keit?)
In this row in the H-0 column I see 9,7 (14,5)

In my words
The ROC is 14.5m/s @ 9.7km

ROW "SteiggeschwindAbheben" (Rise something taking off?) "Flg.imStartzustand" (Sequence in the starting condition)
In that row in the H-0 column I only see one number, 12,0.

But..

From the title it sounds like they are referring to the climb rate at take off (sea level?) thus the altitude is assumed to be '0' and that number must be the climb rate.

In my words..
The ROC is 12.0m/s @ SEA LEVEL

Now the problem is.. You said 8.8km is 14.5 m/s but there is no such combination like that. There is a 14.5m/s at 9.7km but not 8.8km so I will 'assume' you just made a type-o there.

So, the numbers I have above is what I will use unless you see a problem with any of them? If so please explain.


Originally posted by Bellator_1:
and time to climb 10km (32,808 ft) is 10.1 min, this is with MW-50 engaged.

Ok I think I see that row called Steigzeit auf 10km (min) (Climbing time up 10km)

The problem with that row in the H-0 column is it has two numbers listed, i.e. 13,8 (10,1)

Which is the same format as the ROC rows.. So it is kind of confusing? That and I don't see where you get the impression that it is with GM1? In that there is no astrick here?

We can figure this one out later.. For the ROC we only need the m/s info, but the TTC numbers are a good cross check! So I would like to get this figured out.


Originally posted by Bellator_1:
However boost pressure is lower than used on the H-1, which caused a speed difference of 17 km/h, so climb rate would've been affected as-well.
Not sure what it is your referring to here?


Originally posted by Bellator_1:
By comparison the Dora-9 has a climb rate of 7 m/s at 8.8km (29,000 ft), thats not even half that of the Ta-152H.
Ok


Originally posted by Bellator_1:
GM-1 first engages above 11km (36,000 ft), you can see that on the other chart I provided. Service ceiling with GM-1 is 15.1km (49,540 ft).
Ok, so if we do a ROC with GM1 than we do not engage the GM1 until we are past 11km and have to turn it off above 15.1km?

Ok.. it is late.. So I won't be able to do any real testing tonight, so chalk this one up to getting some feedback on these numbers.

That and a little more detail as to why you think BBB_Hyperion pointing out the weight difference is a non-issue? In that it looks pretty straight forward to me. The H-0 is lighter, thus it should climb better at the same power settings. Right? Or am I missing some secret Jerry secret here? http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_wink.gif

BBB_Hyperion
03-20-2007, 11:39 PM
Translated chart
http://img24.imagevenue.com/loc409/th_54087_5179575.translatedfwchart_122_409lo.jpg (http://img24.imagevenue.com/img.php?image=54087_5179575.translatedfwchart_122_ 409lo.jpg)
in Volldruckhöhe = full pressure high.

http://img101.imagevenue.com/loc346/th_55160_Fw190A8_A9vsTa_152speed_122_346lo.jpg (http://img101.imagevenue.com/img.php?image=55160_Fw190A8_A9vsTa_152speed_122_34 6lo.jpg)
Check the fuel used on ta series on this chart! Who said it cant use b4 fuel ?


http://img34.imagevenue.com/loc454/th_55314_page154chart_122_454lo.jpg (http://img34.imagevenue.com/img.php?image=55314_page154chart_122_454lo.jpg)
Higher Quality Chart than posted before.



Hopefully readable repost from years.

There at least 2 points comparing H0 to H1 isn't valid.

1.
Check weights for both planes. Even when we add the gm1 system to the h0 we still have difference in weights and cant compare h0 performance to h1. Center of gravity moved duo additional wingtanks counterbalance weight inserted.

2.
The tablechart shows climb and combat power = mil power setting . That is important cause mil power does not use mw50 system. 3000 rpm on h0.

Bellator_1
03-21-2007, 05:45 AM
TAGERT,

I have made no typo, I just understand how to interpret the charts, thats all.

As explained below notice that the figures in parentheses (Eingeklammerte) are SonderNotleistung figures - Start u. Notleistung + MW-50 (Or for the FW-190 A-8 at Notleistung and increased boost pressure):
http://img120.imageshack.us/img120/2015/descriptionro0.jpg

The rest is at Steig u. Kampfleistung unless otherwise is noted like "Notleistung am Boden" or the like.

Here's what the chart says:

Steigleistungen m. Kampfleistung
Steig-geschwindigkeit m/sec: 9.7 m/s (14.5 m/s)
In Volldruckhöhe km: 9.9 km (8.8 km)
SteigZeit auf 10km min: 13.8 min (10.1 min)

Translated it means climb rate is 14.5 m/s at 8.8 km at SonderNotleistung, and 9.7 m/s at 9.9 km at Steig u. Kampfleistung. And Time to climb 10km is 10.1 min at SonderNotleistung and 13.8 min at Steig u. Kampfleistung.

The figures in parentheses and with an x are figures obtained with GM-1 engaged. The particular figure of 15.1 you pointed out being the Dienstgipfelhöhe (Service ceiling) in km with GM-1.

The figure of 12 m/s you mentioned is directly after take-off (Bei Abheben)at Steig u. Kampfleistung before best climb speed is reached.

Here's the climb rate figures for the Ta-152H at SL:

Climb rate at Steig u. Kampfleistung (1,590 PS): 17.5 m/s
Climb rate at Start u. Notleistung (1,760 PS): 20 m/s

Now lastly, like I told you in my last response for you, weight is 4,760 kg but the figures in parentheses might be results at 5,200 kg weight as the H-0 carried neither the MW-50 or GM-1 system.

These are the RL weights of the a/c:
Ta-152H-0 weight: 4,760 kg
Ta-152H-1 weight: 5,217 kg

The ingame Ta-152H-1 has a weight of 5,000 kg according to information inside the game.

Bellator_1
03-21-2007, 07:30 AM
Originally posted by JG14_Josf:
Bellator_1,

Can you detect a hint of jealousy

Poor poor lonely hom - e - o - wners (phobes).

What?


LOL http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/16x16_smiley-very-happy.gif


Originally posted by JG14_Josf:
Do you understand the nature of a Wind up Turn?

Absolutely, will be interesting to test this on the 109 as-well http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_smile.gif But then again we already know the game models a ridiclous 50 lbs max stick pressure.

Diablo310th
03-21-2007, 09:44 AM
Originally posted by AKA_TAGERT:
ubi forums..

your source for a..

http://purehost.realityconfusion.com/love-connection-logo.jpg

who knew! http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/16x16_smiley-very-happy.gif

http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/heart.gif http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/88.gif

Bellator_1
03-21-2007, 11:28 AM
Hmmm... why was this thread moved ?

JG14_Josf
03-21-2007, 11:49 AM
Bellator_1,

As we document performance data and post the raw data with comments, as that happens, the raw data can be moved around on this forum as people interested in that accurate data can.

Moderators can move data.

Trolls can help data movement along.

At some point the interest in moving data can include a removal of the poster from the data base.

That may or may not have anything to do with the published rules concerning forum behavior.

AKA_TAGERT
03-21-2007, 12:24 PM
Originally posted by Bellator_1:
Hmmm... why was this thread moved ?
Not sure, but it would have to be for one of these reasons

Purpose of Oleg`s Ready Room (http://forums.ubi.com/eve/forums/a/tpc/f/63110913/m/5011022763)

My guess is you didn't meet the requirements of section 2b.

PS thanks for clearing up some of those Jerry notes for me! Ill take another look at that tonight..

Still would like to get a little more insight and explanation from you as to how/why the weight difference will not affect the results, and why you FEEL/THINK it ok to compare the H-0 real world data to the ingame H-1.

In that I still see that as a potential show stopper to me?

Something like.. The Ta-152H-0 can be used as a comparsion to the ingame Ta-152H-1 because XXXX

Where XXXX explanes why the weight difference (H-0 lighter than the H-1) is not an issue.

Bellator_1
03-21-2007, 12:25 PM
Thats unfortunate, cause we're trying to correct a big bug in the game here.

So I'm going to kindly ask the moderator(s) out there to please move this thread back to its original section. There's no basis for why this thread should be moved.

AKA_TAGERT
03-21-2007, 01:15 PM
Originally posted by Bellator_1:
Thats unfortunate, cause we're trying to correct a big bug in the game here.
Maybe.. maybe not. That is to say that is left to be seen, in that no hard proof has been presented here to say one way or another.

On that note, basing things off of combat pilot accounts a dogfight has always been met with allot of resistance.. In that there are so many unknown factors at play. Same goes for relative user testing in mock dogfights. Where as real world test data is more controlled.


Originally posted by Bellator_1:
So I'm going to kindly ask the moderator(s) out there to please move this thread back to its original section. There's no basis for why this thread should be moved. Good Luck!

Been there done that!

I finally gave up trying and when I originate a bug report type of post I upload it at AIWARFARE.

EURO Snoopy is allot more receptive to testing than the ubi forum.

faustnik
03-21-2007, 01:27 PM
Originally posted by AKA_TAGERT:
basing things off of combat pilot accounts a dogfight has always been met with allot of resistance.. <span class="ev_code_YELLOW">In that there are so many unknown factors at play.</span>

http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/25.gif

faustnik
03-21-2007, 01:30 PM
Originally posted by Bellator_1:
And aren't you aware that a laminar flow airfoil has a low CLmax ??

This about says it all...

What is the relationship between wing-loading, lift loading and angle of attack???

Does a larger realitive wing surface with the same relative CLmax turn better as angle of attack increases?

Bellator_1
03-21-2007, 01:41 PM
Originally posted by faustnik:
What is the relationship between wing-loading, lift loading and angle of attack???

Does a larger realitive wing surface with the same relative CLmax turn better as angle of attack increases?

As I've already explained a high AR wing produces a higher amount of lift pr.area pr. AoA than a low AR wing.

Now all else being equal a lower AR wing has a higher critical AoA, but in the Tempest's case this is rather offset by the fact that the Tempest uses a laminar type airfoil which has a rather low critical AoA along with a low Clmax.

JG14_Josf
03-21-2007, 02:22 PM
Bellator_1,

As unusual as it appears to be; this finding of a reasonable person – there may be an inversely proportionate opportunity to learn.

How much do you know?

Example:

An ideal wing produces the most g force at the slowest speed possible.

Yes or no?

The ideal wing is attached to the ideal airplane where the ideal airplane produces no additional drag upon the wing and the ideal airplane adds vectored thrust to increase turn rate without increasing turn radius i.e. the ideal airplane accelerates the airplane around the ideal turn.

The ideal airplane (fighter plane) with the ideal wing produces the most g force at the slowest speed possible (and this plane goes fast too).

Yes or no?

Will the ideal airplane with the ideal wing be limited in turn rate and turn radius and if so what limits that turn rate maximum and the turn radius minimum?

My observation is that a reasonable person will answer the questions asked or respond with "I don't know." A reasonable person might say: "Do you know?" or "What do you think?" or "That sounds like a reasonable question to ask and my response is this or that while I ask for your answer so as to compare our two answers for validity against the current evidence available." A reasonable person may ignore something or anything having no or not enough interest in that or anything. – "That may be interesting to you; but – what about this?"

My observation is that an unreasonable person (Troll) will misrepresent the question and attack the person who asks the question out of habit, spite, or whatever inspires trolls to act as trolls.

A reasonable person may simply ignore the question for lack of interest.

I've ignored the TA for lack of data. The TA, according to the data I've seen so far, is a very interesting design that appears to move the focus of performance back toward ˜sustained' turn performance compared to the earlier FW190 designs which focused upon agility.

A need exists, from my view, to begin documenting some information concerning specific airplanes.

Example:
--------------------------------lift loading---------1 g stall speed (configuration at the 1 g stall)
TA-152 (werk # x)--------------x---------------------------y

The ideal Fighter Plane will have the lowest 1 g stall speed and the slowest corner speed at the highest possible g.

The ideal accelerated stall line will be the steepest line on an EM chart that is farthest to the left on the chart. The steepness of the line will be limited by the fact that ˜q' or dynamic pressure can only increase square with velocity and no more than square with velocity unless the airplane employs some form of vectored thrust.

Yes or no?

Please consider finding a 1 g stall speed number for the TA and perhaps another plane to be used as a relative comparison such as the Spitfire IX, P-47D, P-51D, Dora-9, or Fw190A-8.

We can test the game for accurate 1 g stall speeds and corner speeds and then calculate to see how well the game's airplanes generate accelerated stall lines on EM charts. I have blank charts and I can plot the stall lines based upon our data.

No hurry, no dynamic pressure, no trolling on my part. A reasonable person with a common interest in this stuff will participate or ignore this endeavor at will at your own pace one step at a time.

If the first step is to see which one of us can turn the game's TA-152 to meet a historically documented ˜sustained' turn rate, then, I'm for that first step – whenever.

We can try to compare apples to apples even if the simulated apple looks more like an orange?

Trolls can do as they see fit.

Bellator_1
03-21-2007, 02:51 PM
I suggest we look for corner speed as-well as test the sustained turn performance first.

Like you said, we have all the time we need, so one step at a time.

BBB_Hyperion
03-21-2007, 02:55 PM
Found out the airfield.
--------------------------

On April 14, 1945, two Hawker Tempests of 486 (New Zealand) Squadron took off from the Volkel airfield in Holland in order to attack the railway yards at Ludwigslust. As they initiated their low-level attack, three Ta 152s of Stab/JG 301 were scrambled against them from Neustadt-Glewe, five miles away. Within minutes, the German aircraft hurriedly fell upon the New Zealanders. Oberfeldwebel Sattler, flying in No. 3 position in the German formation, lost control over his new plane and crashed vertically into the ground. In the following dogfight at almost tree-top level, Sattler's comrade Oberfeldwebel Willi Reschke displayed the superior maneuverability of the Ta 152 by out-turning and shooting down the Tempest flown by Warrant Officer Mitchell, who had no chance to survive.

Reschke was an excellent pilot at the controls of the Ta 152. Ten days later he flew "Green 9", and destroyed two Yak-9s in the air over Berlin. Reschke had flown in JG 300, I./JG 302. and III./JG 301 before he was transferred to Stab/JG 301. He survived the war with a total score of 26 victories, eighteen of them 4-engine bombers.

His "Grün 9" was captured by the British at the Leck base at the end of the war. It was, together with other German aircraft, "exported" to England for public display at Farnborough.

Comments: The all RLM 83 green engine cowling of this aircraft denotes a engine change during its operational career. Many operational Ta 152s had problems with engine fires and changes were common.
----------------

Green 9 is a ta 152 H1.

More Info on Ta Situation
----------------
"On 23 January 1945 on orders from the OKL (Oberkommando der Luftwaffe) Jagdgruppe III./JG 301 was temporarily taken off operations and designated an Einsatzerprobungsverband, a combat test unit, re-equipping with the legendary Ta 152 – something we'd long given up hoping for..."

In the early hours of 27 January the Gruppe's pilots were taken by truck to the Neuhausen aircraft plant near Cottbus with orders to ferry the new Höhenjäger to Alteno......


" Arriving at the airfield at Neuhausen we were confronted with our first sight of the Ta 152 H-1, which with its enormous wingspan and lengthened engine cowl hardly looked like a fighter aircraft at all........ With feelings of unease we walked around the machines drawn up in three rows (twelve aircraft in total). Technicians were on hand to answer our queries..... After a talk on the technical aspects of the machines that lasted barely 30 minutes, we took the aircraft on charge.. I got airborne at 11:08.."

As Reschke opened up the throttle the enormous power developed by the Jumo 213 E forced the pilot back into the seat and after a roll of just a few hundred meters and at 210 kph the big fighter lifted off effortlessly..... Flap and gear retraction was smooth and with the 60cm wide blades paddling through the air the climb to 10,000 meters took just 12 minutes.... At this height the aircraft behaved impeccably..... That same afternoon the twelve aircraft were lined up on the field at Alteno..... The well known, indeed the only known photo of operational Ta 152s published was in all likelihood taken that same day.....

A report sent by Gruppenkommandeur Guth to the OKL relating to this test phase stated that the pilots of III./JG 301 were unanimous in their praise of the new fighter..... Pilots particularly enthused over the fighter's manoeuvrability and at heights of 6,000 to 8,000 considered it hugely superior.......

An unnamed pilot flying his second sortie in an H-0 completely outmanoeuvred a Fw 190 A-8 flown by an experienced pilot in mock combat at all heights....

Although III./JG 301 had been slated to fully re-equip with the new Ta 152 before resuming operations, there were never more than sixteen to twenty aircraft instead of the planned 35 available..... The dispersed production of the type suffered all sorts of bottlenecks against a background of impending collapse..... The Marienburg assembly plant in East Prussia was soon overrun by the Soviet's rapid advance, as was ultimately the Cottbus facility itself...... The Soviet advance also soon forced a move from Alteno, which had found itself a front line airfield harbouring a variety of Schlacht and Jabo-Gruppen...... III./JG 301 moved to Sachau, west of Gardelegen, with the Geschwaderstab and the Doras of II./JG 301 moving to Stendal...... These factors resulted in a decision to concentrate the new machines into an enlarged Geschwaderstab as and when they became available and to transfer experienced pilots from III. Gruppe to the Stab....... This took effect from 13 March 1945.....

The first combat sortie flown by a mixed force of Ta 152 Hs and Fw 190 As of III./JG 301 had taken place on 2 March 1945...... That day a powerful 8th Air Force formation of 1,232 bombers screened by 723 fighters was dispatched to Böhlen, Magdeburg and Ruhland....... Airborne from Sachau behind Verbandsführer (formation leader) Oberleutnant Stahl, some twelve Ta 152s climbed away southwards and prepared to do battle with the Mustang escort screening the bombers heading for the Bohlen chemical plant near Leuna.... The sortie ended in disaster when the Ta 152s were engaged......

Willi Reschke has described the events of that day in his history of Jagdgeschwader 301;

"We reached grid square ˜Heinrich-Caesar' now flying at an altitude of more than 8,000 meters and closed to formate with a Gruppe of Bf 109s that were wearing yellow and red fuselage bands....... We could barely believe our eyes when, moments later, the first tracers split the air around us as Uffz. 'Bubi' Blum's Ta 152 came under attack...... The 109s had opened up on us!!! We could hardly return fire on Kameraden from our own Jagdgeschwader and the sortie was a complete debacle".....

Such had been the secrecy surrounding the introduction of the new fighter and the unfamiliarity of its slender winged silhouette that even JG 301 pilots had mistaken it for enemy aircraft...... Although no losses were incurred and the agility and superior performance of the Ta 152 H allowed them to evade all of the "attackers", the chance to join combat with the P-51s was lost..... Meanwhile the 109s of the newly formed IV./JG 301, largely comprising hastily retrained former He 177 pilots from III./KG ˜Hindenburg' suffered heavily at the hands of the Mustangs west of Magdeburg......

In the event the 2 March 1945 sortie described previously was one of the last to see large numbers of German fighters in the air in defence of the Reich....... Thereafter most sorties flown were Jabo or Tiefangriffe on both Eastern and Western Fronts....... Although some writers have stated that Ta 152s flew "top-cover" for bases from which Messerschmitt Me 262 jet fighters operated, this seems unlikely..... The Ta 152s of the Stabsschwarm did fly airfield protection duties for the Doras of II./JG 301 given that the various Gruppen of JG 301 were housed on different fields..

Incidentally the only recorded encounter with P-51s is the incident noted by Kurt Tank himself, who had a narrow escape while flying one of his Ta 152 Hs towards the end of 1944.... He was flying from Langenhagen near Hannover to attend a meeting at the Focke-Wulf plant in Cottbus...... His plane carried armament, but no ammunition. Shortly after takeoff, he was jumped by four Mustangs..... Tank activated his MW 50 boost, opened the throttle wide, and so the story goes, quickly left the Mustangs far behind in a cloud of blue smoke.....

The final victims falling to the guns of the Ta 152 were Russian Yak-9s during the final days of battle around Berlin on April 30, 1945...... Approximately 150 Ta 152 H-1 fighters were manufactured between January 1, 1945 and the arrival of Soviet forces at the Cottbus assembly plant...... No Jagdgruppen ever completely converted to the type..... Most Ta 152 Hs, however, were destroyed on the ground by Allied air attacks while awaiting delivery...... A few Ta 152 Hs were allocated to the Mistel program...... There is little firm information on numbers produced. Harmann has listed Werknummern from 150-001 to 150-040 and 150-167 to 150-169 for a total of 43 aircraft...... There is no information on WNr. -041 to -166...... Some claim all 169 machines were constructed.

With its scintillating performance, numbers of high performance Allied fighters fell to its guns in the final weeks of the war...... Despite the fact that the Ta 152 H was intended to combat high-altitude Allied bombers, very few missions of this type were ultimately ever flown..... Despite this no Ta 152s were lost to enemy fire....

---------------

So which plane did he flew on April 14th . 45 ? Plane designation ?
So we have Black 13 H0 and Green 9 H1 or Yellow 1 H-1 from 7./JG301.

-
http://www.ww2.dk/air/jagd/jg301.htm

AKA_TAGERT
03-21-2007, 07:01 PM
Hey Hyperion and Bellator

Hyperion, I took that translated chart you made and plugged it into EXCEL.

http://www.geocities.com/grantsenn/NACA_TESTING/ANALYSIS/TEST_TYPE/ROC/408/TA_152H_1/Einmotorige_Jager_Leistungsdaten.JPG

Can you and Bellator take a look at Jerry stuff to see if I got it transfered over into the right slots? And can you fill in the ??? blanks?

Thanks!

faustnik
03-21-2007, 08:37 PM
Nice chart Tagert! http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_cool.gif

Please post it in the Fw190 Consortium over at CWOS.

AKA_TAGERT
03-21-2007, 09:44 PM
Originally posted by faustnik:
Nice chart Tagert! http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_cool.gif

Please post it in the Fw190 Consortium over at CWOS. Ill do you one better and send you the EXCEL file!

But.. let's wait till I get some feedback from the guys who read German better than I do.. Im sure there are some errors still! http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_wink.gif

BBB_Hyperion
03-22-2007, 12:52 AM
On quick overview

?? = Full pressure alt in km

Max Speed with mil power
?? = Full pressure alt in km

?? = Full pressure alt in km

Power with different armament = Powerloss with changed armament.

The-Pizza-Man
03-22-2007, 03:33 AM
I'm seeing a distinct trend here, first someone makes a claim without evidence, followed by bits and pieces of information from various sources, which interesting as they might be, are in no way conclusive, this is finally followed by some voodoo mathematics that results in a conclusion that the ME 109 turns inside a sopwith camel. hmmmmm...

Ratsack
03-22-2007, 03:51 AM
Originally posted by The-Pizza-Man:
... the ME 109 turns inside a sopwith camel. hmmmmm...

It did!!

Ratsack

AKA_TAGERT
03-22-2007, 07:46 AM
@Bellator_1

Still would like to get a little more insight and explanation from you as to how/why the weight difference will not affect TURN or ROC results. And thus why it ok to compare the H-0 real world data to the ingame H-1 IYHO.

In that I still see that as a potential testing show stopper to me?

Something like.. The Ta-152H-0 can be used as a comparsion to the ingame Ta-152H-1 because XXXX

Where XXXX explanes why the weight difference (H-0 lighter than the H-1) is not an issue

AKA_TAGERT
03-22-2007, 07:46 AM
Originally posted by BBB_Hyperion:
On quick overview

?? = Full pressure alt in km

Max Speed with mil power
?? = Full pressure alt in km

?? = Full pressure alt in km

Power with different armament = Powerloss with changed armament. Cool thanks!

I fix it up tonight.

Blutarski2004
03-22-2007, 07:50 AM
Originally posted by Ratsack:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by The-Pizza-Man:
... the ME 109 turns inside a sopwith camel. hmmmmm...

It did!!

Ratsack </div></BLOCKQUOTE>


..... Indeed. The Camel had a cambered airfoil with a limited maximum AoA, two wings plus struts and wires which greatly increased drag, a low aspect ratio, an inefficient wing planform, and most importantly did not have automatic slats.

All the above is, of course, true. It demonstrates how it is possible to talk oneself into something completely untrue by assembling facts without proper context.

Bellator_1
03-22-2007, 09:05 AM
TAGERT,

Please re-read my last post, and you'll find the answers to your questions.

As to the translation you asked for, here's a complete tranlation of the left hand collumn starting from Abfluggewicht (Take-off weight) and down:

Höchstgeschwindigkeit = top speed
Mit Notleistung am boden = with take-off power at SL
In Volldruckhöhe = at full pressure alt

Steigleistung m. Kampfleistung = Climb performance at Steig u. Kampfleistung (1,590 PS)
Dienstgipfelhöhe = Service ceiling
Arbeitshöhe = working height
Steiggeschwindigkeit = Climb rate
In Volldruckhöhe = at full pressure alt
Steigzeit auf 10km = Time to climb 10km

Rollstrecke auf beton = Take-off distance on concrete
Startstrecke bis 20m = Take-off distance to clear 20m object
Steiggeschwindigkeit bei abheben (Flg. im startzustand) = Climb rate at take-off (Full starting weight)

Hope this helps..


Originally posted by Blutarski2004:
..... Indeed. The Camel had a cambered airfoil with a limited maximum AoA, two wings plus struts and wires which greatly increased drag, a low aspect ratio, an inefficient wing planform, and most importantly did not have automatic slats.

All the above is, of course, true. It demonstrates how it is possible to talk oneself into something completely untrue by assembling facts without proper context.

Critical AoA isn't as important as Clmax and drag, and while the Camel certainly has a alot of drag to deal with its also got alot of lift compared to its weight.

As to the cambered airfoil, I'd really like you to explain to me how its critical AoA is low.

In short Blutarski, don't venture into something you only have limited knowledge on.

mynameisroland
03-22-2007, 09:26 AM
Originally posted by Bellator_1:
In short Blutarski, don't venture into something you only have limited knowledge on.

Take your own advice the next time you stick up a garbage thread in the ORR. Page 7 and you still havent backed up your claims with any evidence, not even pilots quotes you promised you had.

Blutarski2004
03-22-2007, 10:47 AM
Originally posted by Bellator_1:

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by Blutarski2004:
..... Indeed. The Camel had a cambered airfoil with a limited maximum AoA, two wings plus struts and wires which greatly increased drag, a low aspect ratio, an inefficient wing planform, and most importantly did not have automatic slats.

All the above is, of course, true. It demonstrates how it is possible to talk oneself into something completely untrue by assembling facts without proper context.

Critical AoA isn't as important as Clmax and drag, and while the Camel certainly has a alot of drag to deal with its also got alot of lift compared to its weight.

As to the cambered airfoil, I'd really like you to explain to me how its critical AoA is low.

In short Blutarski, don't venture into something you only have limited knowledge on. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>



..... I suggest that before putting yourself into pontification gear, you might like to do a bit of investigation into WW1 era cambered airfoil characteristics. Then come back to me and we can discuss the topic of limited knowledge.

Let's get you started on a good foot -

Camel airfoil = raf 14/15 (some conjecture)
Cl/max 0.52 @ 15 deg
L/Dmax 17.0 @ 3 deg

SPAD VII/XIII airfoil = SPAD
Cl/max 0.52 @ 13.5 deg
L/Dmax 16.5 @ 4 deg.

M_Gunz
03-22-2007, 11:58 AM
Originally posted by Bellator_1:
don't venture into something you only have limited knowledge on.

Dude. http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/51.gif

Bellator_1
03-22-2007, 02:47 PM
Originally posted by Blutarski2004:
..... I suggest that before putting yourself into pontification gear, you might like to do a bit of investigation into WW1 era cambered airfoil characteristics. Then come back to me and we can discuss the topic of limited knowledge.

Let's get you started on a good foot -

Camel airfoil = raf 14/15 (some conjecture)
Cl/max 0.52 @ 15 deg
L/Dmax 17.0 @ 3 deg

SPAD VII/XIII airfoil = SPAD
Cl/max 0.52 @ 13.5 deg
L/Dmax 16.5 @ 4 deg.

15 degree's is not a low critical AoA Blutarski, esp. not considering the thickness ratio of the airfoil.

As to the SPAD VII, check out the airfoil, its got minimum cambering and the cambering its got makes sure critical AoA is very low.

Blutarski2004
03-22-2007, 02:56 PM
Tag,

Perhaps this might be helpful. I pulled the following data out of an old Kookabura Technical Publications copy of "Focke-Wulf Fw190 & Ta152 Described - Part 2", Shennan & Pentland (1970):


Ta 152H-1 -

Span : 47 ft 6.25 in.

Length : 35 ft 5.5 in.

Wing Area : 252.9 sq ft.

Engine : Junkers Jumo 213 E or B rated at 1880 hp for take-off and 2250 hp with MW50 injection.

Armament : 2 x 20mm MG151 cannon in wing roots; 2 x 13mm MG131 in troughs above the cowling. (*)

(*) "Surviving Focke-Wulf documentation lists an armament of one 30mm MK108 cannon firing through the spinner and two 20mm MG151 in the wing roots for the Ta 152H-0 model. However, this armament would appear to have been revised for the Ta 152H-1 model as described."

Weight : Empty 8260 lbs; Loaded 10472 lbs

Performance : Maximum speed 465 mph @ 30,000 ft with MW50 injection; 472 mph @ 41,000 ft with MW50 injection and GM1 power boost.

Service Ceiling : 48,560 ft.

Range : 745 miles at 372 mph @ 32,800 ft.

Blutarski2004
03-22-2007, 03:11 PM
Originally posted by Bellator_1:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by Blutarski2004:
..... I suggest that before putting yourself into pontification gear, you might like to do a bit of investigation into WW1 era cambered airfoil characteristics. Then come back to me and we can discuss the topic of limited knowledge.

Let's get you started on a good foot -

Camel airfoil = raf 14/15 (some conjecture)
Cl/max 0.52 @ 15 deg
L/Dmax 17.0 @ 3 deg

SPAD VII/XIII airfoil = SPAD
Cl/max 0.52 @ 13.5 deg
L/Dmax 16.5 @ 4 deg.

15 degree's is not a low critical AoA Blutarski, esp. not considering the thickness ratio of the airfoil.

As to the SPAD VII, check out the airfoil, its got minimum cambering and the cambering its got makes sure critical AoA is very low. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>



..... 15 degrees critical AoA is not low, but 13.5 degrees is ??

The Goettingen 398 (D.VII) airfoil has a critical AoA of about 19 degrees. NACA 22XX, 23XX, 22XXX, and 23XXX series airfoils have critical AoA's of about 22 degrees.

But let's not digress from the topic at hand.

Bellator_1
03-22-2007, 03:18 PM
Check out the difference in thickness ratio Blutarski.

As to the 22 degree critical AoA you were talking about, again you left our both AR and thickness ratio. The typical critical AoA of a NACA 23000 airfoil is around 16 - 17 degree's.

AKA_TAGERT
03-22-2007, 04:14 PM
Originally posted by Bellator_1:
TAGERT,

Please re-read my last post, and you'll find the answers to your questions.
Well that is what worries me Bellator..

Which is why I asked you if you have anything else to go on..

In that if I understand what you said before.. ie.


Originally posted by Bellator_1:
like I told you in my last response for you, weight is 4,760 kg but the figures in parentheses might be results at 5,200 kg weight as the H-0 carried neither the MW-50 or GM-1 system.

Might be..

As in you would have us believe that the Germans were smart enough to get everything right on that data sheet except the weight values?

Again, maybe that is not what you were referring to when you said.. i.e.


Originally posted by Bellator_1:
Please re-read my last post, and you'll find the answers to your questions.

Or maybe I am misunderstanding your point? Eitherway, it would be helpful if you explain in more detail why you think it is ok to use the real world H-0 data to pass judgement on the in game H-1

Because the way I see it.. Asking us to buy that is asking a lot of us and ultimately Oleg to believe they could get all the hard calculations right but that they missed the simple weight part?

So please, explain where I am messed up here because I hope that is not what you are asking of us!?

On that note.. Correct me if I am wrong, and I sure I am! But..

GM-1 is a nitrous type of boost?
MW-50 is a water injection type of boost?

And it is one or the other in that not both would be mounted? If so, again, correct me if I am wrong, but the GM-1 system would be a lighter system, in that nitrous boost would consists of a compressed gas tank and the MW-50 would need a tank full of water, and water is going to be heavier than a gas.

Again, just thinking out loud here in that I don't know for sure either way!


Originally posted by Bellator_1:
As to the translation you asked for, here's a complete tranlation of the left hand collumn starting from Abfluggewicht (Take-off weight) and down:
Höchstgeschwindigkeit = top speed
Mit Notleistung am boden = with take-off power at SL
In Volldruckhöhe = at full pressure alt

Steigleistung m. Kampfleistung = Climb performance at Steig u. Kampfleistung (1,590 PS)
Dienstgipfelhöhe = Service ceiling
Arbeitshöhe = working height
Steiggeschwindigkeit = Climb rate
In Volldruckhöhe = at full pressure alt
Steigzeit auf 10km = Time to climb 10km

Rollstrecke auf beton = Take-off distance on concrete
Startstrecke bis 20m = Take-off distance to clear 20m object
Steiggeschwindigkeit bei abheben (Flg. im startzustand) = Climb rate at take-off (Full starting weight)

Hope this helps..
Yes very much! Thank you! I will update the chart tonight when I get home!

VW-IceFire
03-22-2007, 04:23 PM
Some great information in here now. Good to see.

I'm really curious about the armament listing up above. The Ta-152H-1 is supposed to have MG131 in the cowling and MG151 in the wings and its the H-0 with the MK108? That threw me for a bit of a loop.

Blutarski2004
03-22-2007, 04:24 PM
Originally posted by Bellator_1:
Check out the difference in thickness ratio Blutarski.


..... You've missed my original point.




As to the 22 degree critical AoA you were talking about, again you left our both AR and thickness ratio. The typical critical AoA of a NACA 23000 airfoil is around 16 - 17 degree's.

..... It's possible to move numbers all over the place if you want to play games with aspect and thickness ratios. I'm quoting Cl/max for the airfoils themselves under standardized NACA evaluation conditions -

NACA 23009 - Cl/max 20.5 degrees.

NACA 23012 - Cl/max 20 degrees.

NACA 23015 - Cl/max 21 degrees.

NACA 23018 - Cl/max 20.5 degrees

Gibbage1
03-22-2007, 05:09 PM
I find it interesting that in a thread about the P-38 turn, he only used wing loading as a factor for turn performance. He would not accept any other factors like wing lift, flaps, and other aerodynamic attributes. Now, in 2 threads (109 and 190 turn) that wing loading is NOT favorable to his point of view, he said that wing loading is NOT a big factor in turn. Hummmmmmm.

Flip flop flip flop. Talk about cherry picking.

Xiolablu3
03-22-2007, 07:49 PM
Its always the same Gib, and why I lost faith in Bellators posts a long time ago...

SPitfire Vs Bf109 - WIng loading doesnt matter.

Bf109 vs P38 - Wing loading matters most.

http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/53.gif

AKA_TAGERT
03-22-2007, 10:12 PM
It is late..

I have done two tests

1) 110% no WEP
2) 110% with WEP

I only have the graphs for the 110% with WEP done, ill upload the others and file a report at Airware on friday, but here is a glimps of the ROC

http://www.geocities.com/grantsenn/NACA_TESTING/ANALYSIS/TEST_TYPE/ROC/408/TA_152H_1/ME_00/ROC_EYEBALL.JPG

Here is a glimps of the ROC vs Throttle

http://www.geocities.com/grantsenn/NACA_TESTING/ANALYSIS/TEST_TYPE/ROC/408/TA_152H_1/ME_00/ROC_VS_PWR.JPG

NOTE I had to reduce power to 105% twice during the climb to let the engine cool off a bit.

Here is the full 110% with WEP report
Ta-152H-1 (http://www.geocities.com/grantsenn/NACA_TESTING/ANALYSIS/TEST_TYPE/ROC/408/TA_152H_1/ME_00/408_ROC_BCS_180_FUEL_100_PWR_110WEP_ARM_DEFAULT_Ta-152H-1.pdf)

AKA_TAGERT
03-23-2007, 07:25 AM
Here is another interesting picture of the ROC vs MP

http://www.geocities.com/grantsenn/NACA_TESTING/ANALYSIS/TEST_TYPE/ROC/408/TA_152H_1/ME_00/ROC_VS_MP.JPG

You can really see how the shift in the supercharger/blower causes a spike in the ROC at that moment, and how the ROC follows the MP which causes the stairstep look in the ROC

JG14_Josf
03-23-2007, 09:50 AM
Speed values without consideration of the drag increase due to compressibility...

To Whom It May Concern:

The above quote is taken from the Focke-Wulf Performance document translation.

Einmortorige Jager: Leistungsdaten
1.10.1944

Questions:

1. Does the report document only flight tests?
2. Does the report document only calculated performance?
3. Does the report document a combination of flight tests and calculated performance?

If the answer is 3, then, top speeds would be less than calculated if the top speed calculation did not include the compressibility effect which begins to take effect as a loss of energy used up in the process of compressing air mass at speeds above .3 Mach, 220 mph, or 355 km/h.

If the answer is 1, then, why add the note concerning compressibility effect and what was used to measure the top speed in the plane to arrive at the top speed number?

Example:

The air-speed indicator was used to measure the top speed of the plane.

More questions:

1. Even if the take-off distance measurements were based upon flight tests, then, why are there no numbers for the time required to take-off?
2. Are any of the planes on that document modeled in the game and therefore can that document serve as a measure by which to test the game for historical accuracy?

As to the take-off roll distance:

Without the time measurement it is possible to have a plane modeled that will roll the exact same distance and clear the exact same height at the exact same distance and yet the simulation takes more or less time to accomplish that take-off roll.

Example:

Both planes take off 295 meters.
One plane takes 5 minutes to take-off during the roll.

One plane takes 1 minute to take-off during the roll.

The plane taking 5 minutes would not be the same performing plane as the plane taking 1 minute.

Some possible measurements that matter:


The Fw 190 has better acceleration under all conditions of flight and this must obviously be useful in combat.


When the Spitfire IX was cruising at low speed its inferiority in acceleration gave the Fw 190 a reasonable chance of catching it up and the same applied if the position was reversed and the Fw 190 was ˜bounced' by the Spitfire IX, except that overtaking took a little longer.


The acceleration of the Fw 190 under all conditions of flight is slightly better than that of the Mustang and this becomes more marked when both aircraft are cruising at low speed.


The Fw 190 is superior to that of the P-38F, particularly in the rolling plane. Although at high speed the Fw 190 is superior in turning circles, it can be out-turned if the P-38F reduces its speed to about 140 m.p.h. [225 k.m./h.], at which speed it can carry out a very tight turn which the Fw 190 cannot follow.
The acceleration of the two aircraft was compared and the Fw 190 was found to be better in all respects.



The initial acceleration of the Typhoon, particularly from slow speed, is much slower although the difference in acceleration at high speed is not so great.


FW 190 VERSUS GRIFFON SPITFIRE
The acceleration of the Spitfire proved superior to that of the Fw 190 and its speed appreciably faster.



For take-off, 15 degree of flap is required, and it is necessary to keep the control column back to avoid swinging during the initial stage of the take-off run. The run is approximately the same as that of the Spitfire IX.
Once airborne, the pilot immediately feels at home in the aircraft. The retraction of the flaps and the undercarriage is barely noticeable although the aircraft will sink if the retraction of the flaps is made before a reasonably high airspeed has been obtained. The stalling speed of the aircraft is high, being approximately 110 m.p.h. [177 k.m./h.] with the undercarriage and flaps retracted, and 105 m.p.h. with the undercarriage and flaps fully down. One excellent feature of this aircraft is that it is seldom necessary to retrim under all conditions of flight.


Above are British Documents recording the results of side by side test flights conducted with a captured Fw190A-3 (de-rated and running on the wrong gas with fouled spark plugs). The date was July 1942.

Below is a test flight by Eric Brown while flying a worn out Fw 190A-4/U8 Jabo version also running on the wrong gas.


After lining up for take-off, I moved the stick to an aft position in order to lock the tailwheel, applied 10 degrees of flap, set the elevator trimmer to neutral and the propeller pitch to AUTO and gently opened up the engine. I encountered some tendency to swing to port but easily held this on the rudder, and using 2,700 rpm and 23.5 lb (1.6 atas) boost, found the run to be much the same as that of the Spitfire IX. Unstick speed was 112 mph (180 km/h) and after retracting the undercarriage by depressing the appropriate button. I reduced boost to 21.3 lb (1.45 atas) and at 145 mph (230 km/h) activated the pushbutton which raised the flaps. I then set up a climbing speed of 161 mph (230 km/h) using 2,500 rpm and this gave a climb rate of 3,150 ft min (16 m sec).

That account records what happened on February 4 1944.

Test procedure:

Line up multiple players on-line ready to take off and record which plane accelerates fastest during the take-off roll and which plane takes off first.

Having a record of which plane accelerates better on the take-off roll and which plane takes off first, in the game, can begin to show how well the game simulates the historical record.

If there is a substantial difference in the Fw190A-4 and the Spitfire IX take-off roll, then, the Eric Brown account is wrong or the game is wrong. Being more specific as to what is wrong is problematic.

The take off distance is recorded on one chart for a more powerful Fw190A-8 that may also be higher for the T/W ratio than the worn out Fw190A-4/U8 flown by Eric Brown (on the wrong gas). What is missing is the time duration between start and take-off.

If anything the time duration between the Fw190A-8 (fighter version running on the right high octane synthetic gas) and the Spitfire IX (February 4 1944) should be similar since the Fw190A series plane was documented by many sources as being quick in acceleration particularly during the initial stages – quicker than most planes at slow speed - quicker at accelerating at slow speeds until the arrival of planes that were quicker at accelerating such as the Griffon powered Spitfire.

The game may be modeling the Fw190A series planes with landing wheels having no wheel bearings and no lubrication. Without lubrication the plane may be screwed for the slow speed acceleration rate.

Xiolablu3
03-23-2007, 10:18 AM
AH - we are back to Spitfire vs FW190 with Josf, what a surprise http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_biggrin.gif

And this guy says he has no Agenda http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_wink.gif

JG14_Josf
03-23-2007, 10:36 AM
To whom it may concern:

Back to Wings of the Luftwaffe by Eric Brown (http://www.amazon.co.uk/Wings-Luftwaffe-Eric-Brown/dp/1853104132):

http://ec1.images-amazon.com/images/P/1853104132.01._AA240_SCLZZZZZZZ_.jpg



High performance at all altitudes was ensured by its 18.7 Imp gal (85 1) of nitrous oxide (GM 1) and 15.4 Imp gal (70 1) of methanol-water (MW 50), which, injected into the Jumo 213E engine according to the altitude at which the fighter was flying, boosted output mightily. Perhaps this was the clue as to why the TAa 152H-1 was never really put through its paces in the UK – we had no GM 1 or MW %0 at Farnborough! Nevertheless, lack of nitrous oxide and methanol-water notwithstanding, my adrenalin began to flow that summer morning as I eased myself into the cockpit of the TA 152H-1 Werk-Nr 150168 and peered along that immense nose which stretched out so far ahead of the windscreen – the only aircraft that I was ever to fly offering a comparable stretch of nose was the Blackburn Firebrand. The German fighter was, of course, equipped with a pressure cabin and since I had done quite a lot of high altitude flying in the pressurized Spitfire XIX on clear air turbulence investigation, the opportunity given by the flight to Brize Norton to make a comparison between the German and British fighters was irresistible.
The take-off of the Ta 152H-1 was shorter than that of the Spitfire XIX and the climb was steeper albeit somewhat slower than that of the British fighter, but once the 30,000 ft (9 145 m) mark had slipped at the altimeter, the Tank fighter gave the impression of holding its rate of climb better than its British counterpart. In so far as manoeuvrability was concerned, the story was very much the same; the Spitfire was certainly the better of the two below 30,000 ft (9 145 m), there being little to choose between British and German fighters between that altitude and 35,000 ft (10 670 m), but above the later altitude the Ta 152H-1 enjoyed a decided edge. I gave the German fighter its head on the way to Brize Norton and did a full throttle run at 35,000 ft (10 670 m), which, by my rough reckoning, worked out to around 425 mph (684 km/h), or about 35 mph (56 km/h) less than the Spitfire XIX was capable of, but, of course, the availability of GM 1 boost would have more than redressed the balance and the Ta 152H-1 was certainly the superior aeroplane on the score of range. In essence, however, these two potential opponents were remarkably close from many aspects, illustrating how closely parallel Britain and Germany were running in piston-engined fighter technology.

JG14_Josf
03-23-2007, 10:38 AM
And this guy says he has no Agenda

X3,

Please continue misrepresenting what I write – you make me feel OHHHHH so special.

Thanks

AKA_TAGERT
03-23-2007, 10:51 AM
Originally posted by JG14_Josf:
Test procedure:

Line up multiple players on-line ready to take off and record which plane accelerates fastest during the take-off roll and which plane takes off first.
As long as you record a track file from each plane you don't need multiple planes/players to do this test.

You can do each one seperatly and just compare the results.

As a mater of fact trying to sync a multi start with multi players would only muddy the waters and tell you more about the pilots reaction time to the "GO" command than the planes performance.

Where as making two seperate track files, one from each plane, you simply have to look at how long it took each plane to get off the ground once it started rolling.

To do this you only need to look at three varialbes..

time
speed (IAS)
altitude

STEPS
<LI>Note the TIME once the speed goes from 0 to something greater than zero (start rolling)
<LI>Note the TIME when the ALT increases by say 1 foot above your starting ALT
<LI>Take the difference between the two TIMES

WA-LA you got the TIME it took to get airborn!

Now do that for both plans and compare the TIMES.

SIMPLE!

And doing it that way removes any ERRORS due to one pilot getting a early/late start relitive to the other pilot(s)

PS you can also look at the azimuth (heading) value to see if one pilot was skidding all over the runway instead of flying nice and straight. In that would impact the TIME.

Xiolablu3
03-23-2007, 11:04 AM
Originally posted by JG14_Josf:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">And this guy says he has no Agenda

X3,

Please continue misrepresenting what I write – you make me feel OHHHHH so special.

Thanks </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

Glad to hear it http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_smile.gif

But it seems that you are just going from thread to thread spouting the same old same old.

After which someone tells you where you are going wrong in your 'theories' and eventually shows you the 'proper' theory, you insult them a bit, then you let that thread die, and move on to a new thread, saying the same stuff again...


I am starting to sigh when I see your posts as I know exactly whats coming....FW190/Ta152/anything German is undermodelled, Spitfire is overmodelled, game is wrong....mixed with bad physics which real Physicians cannot understand and veiled insults to the other posters....

AT least your posts are vaguely understandable now tho...

JG14_Josf
03-23-2007, 12:52 PM
As long as you record a track file from each plane you don't need multiple planes/players to do this test.

To whom it may concern,

My agenda is to learn. That agenda can include learning how well the game stacks up to the historical record. My agenda does not include sending information to anyone so as to gain their approval concerning what I learn and what I do not learn.

If the historical record records a repetition of one plane having a slow speed acceleration advantage over every plane tested against it except one, then, the game can be tested in a similar manner to see if that historical record matches the game and visa versa.

The method I prefer in the effort to arrive at my agenda is as stated i.e. Load a mission with many players flying the best match of planes to test against the historical record and have everyone participating in conducting a side by side take-off run - fest.

I can do this test easily – at my leisure. I can post this test method easily – at my leisure.

If anyone does not want to participate in this test, at their leisure, then they can perform their own tests and post their own posts about their agenda at will for whatever reason they deem relevant.

Example:


After lining up for take-off, I moved the stick to an aft position in order to lock the tailwheel, applied 10 degrees of flap, set the elevator trimmer to neutral and the propeller pitch to AUTO and gently opened up the engine. I encountered some tendency to swing to port but easily held this on the rudder, and using 2,700 rpm and 23.5 lb (1.6 atas) boost, found the run to be much the same as that of the Spitfire IX. Unstick speed was 112 mph (180 km/h) and after retracting the undercarriage by depressing the appropriate button. I reduced boost to 21.3 lb (1.45 atas) and at 145 mph (230 km/h) activated the pushbutton which raised the flaps. I then set up a climbing speed of 161 mph (230 km/h) using 2,500 rpm and this gave a climb rate of 3,150 ft min (16 m sec).

The historical record appears to be clearly a case whereby the player involved in the test who is currently piloting the game's Fw190A-4 (which is supposedly modeled not quite up to actual historical fighter performance standards) will have the opportunity to match both the performance capabilities in the historical record above and he can look out of the cockpit during the test to see how his simulated plane matches up to the simulated Spitfire IX and that player can form an opinion like Eric Brown formed an opinion in 1944. Eric Brown is the guy who flew a lot of WWII planes during WWII. He is also a Fighter Pilot.


...found the run to be much the same as that of the Spitfire IX.

Another player may spawn in on the next test run to fly the High Altitude version of the TA-152H (not the C version that may not have even flown in combat) and see if his simulated plane matches up to the Historical record:


FW 190 VERSUS GRIFFON SPITFIRE
The acceleration of the Spitfire proved superior to that of the Fw 190 and its speed appreciably faster.

The participating player can look out the cockpit and see if an Fw190A-4 (or 5 perhaps) is out accelerating a Spitfire VB (1941) or Spitfire IX or TA-152 H - once the flag drops or someone on TS says - Go.


The take-off of the Ta 152H-1 was shorter than that of the Spitfire XIX and the climb was steeper albeit somewhat slower than that of the British fighter, but once the 30,000 ft (9 145 m) mark had slipped at the altimeter, the Tank fighter gave the impression of holding its rate of climb better than its British counterpart.

Since the game doesn't model the Spitfires that couldn't accelerate as fast as the Fw 190A-3 in July 1942, then, the TA-152 player will have to judge the relevance based upon what is available during the test. The TA-152H player can look out the window and see how his TA-152H compares to the Spitfires flown in the game.

The tester can review his track file later to see if the distance required for take-off matches anything close to the historical record.

The group can find a clear winner and a clear loser in the take-off test procedure.

They can do so as a group in a friendly kind of competition type scenario – if they please.

I really don't need to perform these tests with the guys I fly with on-line. We know what happens in the game. We are well versed in relative game performance. I may arrange such tests – just for fun. We can all have a good laugh.

What is the point of having a game?

What is the point of following me around from thread to thread repeating the same criticism?

What kind of agenda is that agenda?

I won't hold my breath for the honest answer.

JG14_Josf
03-23-2007, 01:00 PM
I am starting to sigh when I see your posts as I know exactly whats coming....FW190/Ta152/anything German is undermodelled, Spitfire is overmodelled, game is wrong....mixed with bad physics which real Physicians cannot understand and veiled insults to the other posters....

X3,

A specific accusation would cause you to have to be truthful rather than being what you are; therefore - I expect that you will continue being what you are no matter what anyone points out truthfully and specifically.

The game is the game. The Historical record is the historical record. Those two realities exist even when you or I fail to see them.

What is the point of your continued misrepresentations of me on a public forum?

Can I guess?

stathem
03-23-2007, 01:14 PM
Originally posted by JG14_Josf:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">I am starting to sigh when I see your posts as I know exactly whats coming....FW190/Ta152/anything German is undermodelled, Spitfire is overmodelled, game is wrong....mixed with bad physics which real Physicians cannot understand and veiled insults to the other posters....

X3,

A specific accusation would cause you to have to be truthful rather than being what you are; therefore - I expect that you will continue being what you are no matter what anyone points out truthfully and specifically.

The game is the game. The Historical record is the historical record. Those two realities exist even when you or I fail to see them.

What is the point of your continued misrepresentations of me on a public forum?

Can I guess? </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

They aren't misrepresentations.

Xiola sums up your posts very accurately.

AKA_TAGERT
03-23-2007, 01:17 PM
Originally posted by JG14_Josf:
My agenda is to learn.
As with many


Originally posted by JG14_Josf:
That agenda can include learning how well the game stacks up to the historical record. Maybe that is the case in some of your other endeavors, but as for this one you can NOT. In that your method of testing the take off time relative to another pilot online in real time will include the reaction time of the pilots which in some cases can be lager than the difference in the planes.


Originally posted by JG14_Josf:
My agenda does not include sending information to anyone so as to gain their approval concerning what I learn and what I do not learn.
That is good! In that you wont be disappointed than when Oleg disregards your testing as proof. Your testing may identify who is the TOP DOG but it will not necessarily identify if there is a BUG in the simulation of the plane.


Originally posted by JG14_Josf:
If the historical record records a repetition of one plane having a slow speed acceleration advantage over every plane tested against it except one, then, the game can be tested in a similar manner to see if that historical record matches the game and visa versa.
Yes, but you don't have to do a real time comparison to do that. It is actually better that you don't! In that you can never be sure if the difference your seeing are due to the planes or the pilots.


Originally posted by JG14_Josf:
The method I prefer in the effort to arrive at my agenda is as stated i.e. Load a mission with many players flying the best match of planes to test against the historical record and have everyone participating in conducting a side by side take-off run - fest.
Where your stated agenda is to learn.. Learn how to become the TOP DOG. Not if a plane is correctly simulated.


Originally posted by JG14_Josf:
I can do this test easily – at my leisure. I can post this test method easily – at my leisure.
You get out of if what you put into it.


Originally posted by JG14_Josf:
If anyone does not want to participate in this test, at their leisure, then they can perform their own tests and post their own posts about their agenda at will for whatever reason they deem relevant.
Thanks for your permission! To be honest, I didn't realize I needed your permission, but thanks just the same!


Originally posted by JG14_Josf:
Example:

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">After lining up for take-off, I moved the stick to an aft position in order to lock the tailwheel, applied 10 degrees of flap, set the elevator trimmer to neutral and the propeller pitch to AUTO and gently opened up the engine. I encountered some tendency to swing to port but easily held this on the rudder, and using 2,700 rpm and 23.5 lb (1.6 atas) boost, found the run to be much the same as that of the Spitfire IX. Unstick speed was 112 mph (180 km/h) and after retracting the undercarriage by depressing the appropriate button. I reduced boost to 21.3 lb (1.45 atas) and at 145 mph (230 km/h) activated the pushbutton which raised the flaps. I then set up a climbing speed of 161 mph (230 km/h) using 2,500 rpm and this gave a climb rate of 3,150 ft min (16 m sec).

The historical record appears to be clearly a case whereby the player involved in the test who is currently piloting the game's Fw190A-4 (which is supposedly modeled not quite up to actual historical fighter performance standards) will have the opportunity to match both the performance capabilities in the historical record above and he can look out of the cockpit during the test to see how his simulated plane matches up to the simulated Spitfire IX and that player can form an opinion like Eric Brown formed an opinion in 1944. Eric Brown is the guy who flew a lot of WWII planes during WWII. He is also a Fighter Pilot. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>
So let me see if I understand you correctly.. Your saying you and your other want to be TOP DOG buddies are as good a Eric Brown? I know Oleg will enjoy that as much as the rest of us will! But I digress.. the FACT remains that you do not have to do this test in real time, and it is better that you don't. Especially for two very similar planes.


Originally posted by JG14_Josf:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">...found the run to be much the same as that of the Spitfire IX.

Another player may spawn in on the next test run to fly the High Altitude version of the TA-152H (not the C version that may not have even flown in combat) and see if his simulated plane matches up to the Historical record):


FW 190 VERSUS GRIFFON SPITFIRE
The acceleration of the Spitfire proved superior to that of the Fw 190 and its speed appreciably faster.

The participating player can look out the cockpit and see if an Fw190A-4 (or 5 perhaps) is out accelerating a Spitfire VB (1941) or Spitfire IX or TA-152 H - once the flag drops or someone on TS says - Go.


The take-off of the Ta 152H-1 was shorter than that of the Spitfire XIX and the climb was steeper albeit somewhat slower than that of the British fighter, but once the 30,000 ft (9 145 m) mark had slipped at the altimeter, the Tank fighter gave the impression of holding its rate of climb better than its British counterpart.

Since the game doesn't model the Spitfires that couldn't accelerate as fast as the Fw 190A-3 in July 1942, then, the TA-152 player will have to judge the relevance based upon what is available during the test. The TA-152H player can look out the window and see how his TA-152H compares to the Spitfires flown in the game.

The tester can review his track file later to see if the distance required for take-off matches anything close to the historical record.

The group can find a clear winner and a clear loser in the take-off test procedure.

They can do so as a group in a friendly kind of competition type scenario – if they please. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>
The TOP DOG squad! How cute!


Originally posted by JG14_Josf:
I really don't need to perform these tests with the guys I fly with on-line. We know what happens in the game. We are well versed in relative game performance. I may arrange such tests – just for fun. We can all have a good laugh.

What is the point of having a game?

What is the point of following me around from thread to thread repeating the same criticism?

What kind of agenda is that agenda?

I won't hold my breath for the honest answer.
Actually it is the honest part that your having problems with! Honestly your testing will not prove anything. But as you said you goal is not to prove if a plane is simulated correctly! Your agenda is to learn who to be the TOP DOG of your group. Thus you wont be disappointed when someone like Oleg and alot of us here do NOT take your tests seriously.

tomtheyak
03-23-2007, 01:33 PM
Well, shock horror, I got to say, that Josf has hit a point I agree on... the Fw190A8 does take MUCH longer to get into the air than the Spitfire IX in game, and this does contradict Browns statement.

Mind you I nearly dropped into a coma reading thru the piles of verbiose, then nearly had a heart attack thinking "my GOD! I agree with Josf on something!"

In fact its been a helluva night. I need to lie down...

AKA_TAGERT
03-23-2007, 02:19 PM
Originally posted by tomtheyak:
Well, shock horror, I got to say, that Josf has hit a point I agree on... the Fw190A8 does take MUCH longer to get into the air than the Spitfire IX in game, and this does contradict Browns statement.

Mind you I nearly dropped into a coma reading thru the piles of verbiose, then nearly had a heart attack thinking "my GOD! I agree with Josf on something!"

In fact its been a helluva night. I need to lie down... Well than you may enjoy this thread too..

O.T. - WWII Foo Fighters (http://forums.ubi.com/eve/forums/a/tpc/f/23110283/m/1961012345)

In that there are people over there that agree with people who say they have seen a UFO..

To which I would say..

Got Track?

In both cases before I belive! http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_wink.gif

JG14_Josf
03-23-2007, 03:40 PM
They aren't misrepresentations.

Xiola sums up your posts very accurately.

To Whom It May Concern (specifically not to whom it does not concern):

Generalizations can be accurate and they can be inaccurate on purpose. How can the accuracy of a generalization be proven? The reasons why the accusations remain generalized are obvious – they can't be proven with out being specific.

If you have a specific criticism other than a feeling, then, the accuracy of your criticism can be proven one way or the other.

Example 1:

The prop does not exert a force upon the aircraft.

If someone actually writes that specific statement above, then, that specific statement above can be proven as true or false.

Example 2:

In a vertical zoom climb the plane does not accelerate upward.

If someone actually says that specific statement above, then, that specific statement above can be proven as true or false.

Example 3:

So and so said something false because I said they said something false and anything that you say bounces off of me and sticks onto you.

If someone actually says that specific statement above, then, that specific statement above can be proven as true or false.

On to the inevitable:

Maybe that is the case in some of your other endeavors, but as for this one you can NOT. In that your method of testing the take off time relative to another pilot online in real time will include the reaction time of the pilots which in some cases can be lager than the difference in the planes.


I can.
According to me the test I conduct will teach me what I want to know because I conduct the test to find out exactly what I want to know.

Example:


...found the run to be much the same as that of the Spitfire IX.

If I want to know how the game simulates the conditions leading to the opinion above, then, I can conduct an experiment that simulates the conditions leading to the opinion stated above. The simulation will not be exact – of course. I can do exactly as stated. I can then form my own opinion to my own satisfaction and no amount of idle talk by anyone else is going to change my opinion. If someone offers evidence that better simulates the conditions leading to the opinion above, then, the evidence can improve my opinion. Specific data can prove something – idle banter can prove that someone is capable of idle banter.

Eric Brown expressed his opinion. My opinion is that Eric Brown's expressed opinion is worth something. Someone can take my opinion and distort my opinion to mean something that it is not such as a claim suggesting that my opinion is that Eric Brown's opinion is LAW or ABSOLUTE TRUTH. That is an example of idle banter.


That is good! In that you wont be disappointed than when Oleg disregards your testing as proof. Your testing may identify who is the TOP DOG but it will not necessarily identify if there is a BUG in the simulation of the plane.

That above is an example of misrepresentation; no matter how many times I state that I have no desire to do the impossible, or the unwanted, the accusation by innuendo can continue to be publicized to the contrary or the accusation can stop at the moment I refute the accusation as being false.

"That" is neither good nor bad.

Oleg has no additional business with me beyond my usage of the game he produced and the game that I purchased. If Oleg or anyone associated with the forum does not appreciate my process of learning on this forum, then, they can end it. My game testing, as I often do my testing, involves each person on-line conducting the tests to switch planes to see if the TOP DOG is the person or the machine. Often the testing participants learn (see how that learning process stuff occurs now and then even while having fun) how one testing person is managing a higher performance ability and then both can try that new technique in the effort to maximize the learning involved in maximizing performance. If one person in the test performs better in both planes, then, the machine that is better may be the better computer or the better hardware since both players learn to use the same technique.

A BUG in the game, to me, is something that crashes the game to desk top. Anyone else is welcome to define BUG in any way they deem appropriate. Saying that I think a BUG is something defined by them or saying that I think a BUG is something other than what I do think is a BUG is less efficient than asking what I think is a BUG before jumping to assumptions - no?


Yes, but you don't have to do a real time comparison to do that. It is actually better that you don't! In that you can never be sure if the difference your seeing are due to the planes or the pilots.

Before continuing with this method of learning it may be a good time to restate that there is a button in the upper right hand corner of each post that says "Hide Post". If anyone has a desire to avoid reading words that does not concern them or reading something that they do not like, then, someone can use the button provided to avoid doing the things that they don't like doing.

On-line testing with friends offers so much more than solitary manipulation. If you or anyone has a preference, then, you or anyone has a preference. I have mine. Switching planes and pilots can offer a scientific control on who has the better piloting technique as well as who has the better machine.


Where your stated agenda is to learn.. Learn how to become the TOP DOG. Not if a plane is correctly simulated.

Confusion concerning how I conduct my tests and the data that is extracted from my tests will lead to confusion – generally speaking.

If I want to test to see if the TA-152 can take-off in a shorter distance than a Spitfire XIX, then, I can substitute a Spitfire IX and see what happens. That is worth something to me. Anyone wanting to petition Oleg to do something that they want to do may inspire them to do some other form of testing. I may comment on your efforts if that is OK. If not, then, there is the Hide Post button option and other options – of course.


You get out of if what you put into it.

And YOU do the same. Is that obvious?


Thanks for your permission! To be honest, I didn't realize I needed your permission, but thanks just the same!

It may not be obvious that I don't need anyone's permission to conduct tests in the way I wish so I wrote the obvious obviously intending to state the obvious. I don't need anyone's permission to conduct tests as I see fit even if someone doesn't understand the reason for conducting the tests and even if someone is vocal about their misrepresentations of my tests. Why be so vocal about my tests when there is an obvious misunderstanding concerning the purpose of my tests – let alone a misunderstanding concerning the data collected from the test?

What is the (not so obvious) point of being so critical concerning how I conduct my tests for the reasons I conduct my tests?


So let me see if I understand you correctly.. <SNIP>

So far you have not understood me correctly. So far you have quite definitely misunderstood me.


So let me see if I understand you correctly.. Your saying you and your other want to be TOP DOG buddies are as good a Eric Brown? <SNIP>

Allow me to nip this misrepresentation in the bud.

At no time do I think I am as good as ˜a' Eric Brown. Can I be any clearer on this point?

Is there any hope at all in defeating this type of character assassination?

My guess is that the answer is no. To assume that an unreasonable person will become reasonable is to go beyond reason.


<SNIP> I know Oleg will enjoy that as much as the rest of us will! But I digress.. <SNIP>

Do you flatter yourself often? If Oleg enjoys one of his customers misrepresenting another one of his customers, then, Oleg has problems – poor thing. I don't share your stated perception of Oleg. In my view Oleg is a genius. I think he wouldn't waste a minute wallowing in this mire. I on the other hand can still learn for this type of exchange. But you digress...


But I digress.. the FACT remains that you do not have to do this test in real time, and it is better that you don't. Especially for two very similar planes.

Thanks for your take on my testing procedure, again, and since you obviously can't refrain from misrepresenting other people publicly it is beyond reason to expect you to learn anything from my words here and now. You know it all already no? I'm asking.

If you don't know it all already but you already knew my purpose of testing and my agenda as I know it to be, then, your misrepresentations are, in fact, mean spirited and cruel. If you are now being educated, then, perhaps you might like to join in one of my test sessions. You can flatter yourself with the notion that your cruelty causes me pain. Boooohooooo I'm crying now – are you happy?


The TOP DOG squad! How cute!

Can I guess why you wrote that statement? We are not cute. I'm particularly not cute since I really don't care how I look. Hertt is sort of cute – I guess. He is Brazilian. There is no such thing as the TOP DOG squad that I am aware of beyond the one you just created. That is a cuteness made up by you! How cute!


Actually it is the honest part that your having problems with! <SNIP>

I'd like to be more honest. I do lie. If a specific lie can be exposed, then, I can avoid repeating that specific lie. If the accusation is nothing more than vague innuendo, then, I think there is a reason for the accusation being nothing more than vague innuendo. Can I guess the true reason for the vague innuendo?


Honestly your testing will not prove anything.

You may be honest but you cannot know what my tests prove to me unless you ask and the people who are involved in conducting my tests can also be asked if my tests prove something to them. Generalized absolutes are far from accurate – honestly. My tests may or may not prove something – your opinion notwithstanding.

Did I use that word correctly? I'm trying to learn here.


Your agenda is to learn who to be the TOP DOG of your group.

That is false. That is a misrepresentation of the facts. That is an opinion expressing knowledge concerning my agenda. I happen to be in a position to know what my agenda is and what my agenda is not despite your opinion. I don't need your opinion. I don't want your opinion. Your opinion concerning my agenda as stated by you constitutes a measure of character assassination that is curious and superficial. I'm learning who is superficial. A part of my agenda is to learn who is superficial. See how that works? When my agenda is a desire to know who the TOP DOG of our group is, then, the procedure changes.


Thus you wont be disappointed when someone like Oleg and alot of us here do NOT take your tests seriously.

Thus I won't be disappointed with something that does not interest me. Your opinion of Oleg and your opinion of what ˜us here' do is a superficial expression of opinion having an obvious intent to cause trouble just like any other Troll. The thing about trolls that can be proven over time is that trolls cannot be trusted to admit that their agenda is to cause trouble. They blame their behavior on other people.

I can take full responsibility for any trouble I cause here and now. When someone misrepresents what I write, as if they can interpret the intent of my writing better than I, then my efforts are aimed at improving my writing to be more accurate and less able to be misinterpreted.

Example:

The tests described by me intend to test the ability of the game to simulate the historical record, and, have fun with others in the process.

Is that confusing? Do I really need an interpreter for these last three sentences?

ploughman
03-23-2007, 03:49 PM
I read the above. I always wondered how 'that' thread made it to 70 pages. Now I know.

Blutarski2004
03-23-2007, 03:59 PM
Originally posted by Ploughman:
I read the above. I always wondered how 'that' thread made it to 70 pages. Now I know.


..... It's a bit like watching a car wreck. You don't believe what you're seeing on some level, but nevertheless there it is.

JG14_Josf
03-23-2007, 04:19 PM
..... It's a bit like watching a car wreck. You don't believe what you're seeing on some level, but nevertheless there it is.

An obsessive observer of sordid or sensational subjects. (http://dictionary.reference.com/search?r=2&q=voyeurism)

How about that TA-152 take-off distance?

AKA_TAGERT
03-23-2007, 04:51 PM
Originally posted by JG14_Josf:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">They aren't misrepresentations.

Xiola sums up your posts very accurately.

To Whom It May Concern (specifically not to whom it does not concern):

Generalizations can be accurate and they can be inaccurate on purpose. How can the accuracy of a generalization be proven? The reasons why the accusations remain generalized are obvious – they can't be proven with out being specific.

If you have a specific criticism other than a feeling, then, the accuracy of your criticism can be proven one way or the other.

Example 1:

The prop does not exert a force upon the aircraft.

If someone actually writes that specific statement above, then, that specific statement above can be proven as true or false.

Example 2:

In a vertical zoom climb the plane does not accelerate upward.

If someone actually says that specific statement above, then, that specific statement above can be proven as true or false.

Example 3:

So and so said something false because I said they said something false and anything that you say bounces off of me and sticks onto you.

If someone actually says that specific statement above, then, that specific statement above can be proven as true or false.

On to the inevitable:

Maybe that is the case in some of your other endeavors, but as for this one you can NOT. In that your method of testing the take off time relative to another pilot online in real time will include the reaction time of the pilots which in some cases can be lager than the difference in the planes.


I can.
According to me the test I conduct will teach me what I want to know because I conduct the test to find out exactly what I want to know.

Example:


...found the run to be much the same as that of the Spitfire IX.

If I want to know how the game simulates the conditions leading to the opinion above, then, I can conduct an experiment that simulates the conditions leading to the opinion stated above. The simulation will not be exact – of course. I can do exactly as stated. I can then form my own opinion to my own satisfaction and no amount of idle talk by anyone else is going to change my opinion. If someone offers evidence that better simulates the conditions leading to the opinion above, then, the evidence can improve my opinion. Specific data can prove something – idle banter can prove that someone is capable of idle banter.

Eric Brown expressed his opinion. My opinion is that Eric Brown's expressed opinion is worth something. Someone can take my opinion and distort my opinion to mean something that it is not such as a claim suggesting that my opinion is that Eric Brown's opinion is LAW or ABSOLUTE TRUTH. That is an example of idle banter.


That is good! In that you wont be disappointed than when Oleg disregards your testing as proof. Your testing may identify who is the TOP DOG but it will not necessarily identify if there is a BUG in the simulation of the plane.

That above is an example of misrepresentation; no matter how many times I state that I have no desire to do the impossible, or the unwanted, the accusation by innuendo can continue to be publicized to the contrary or the accusation can stop at the moment I refute the accusation as being false.

"That" is neither good nor bad.

Oleg has no additional business with me beyond my usage of the game he produced and the game that I purchased. If Oleg or anyone associated with the forum does not appreciate my process of learning on this forum, then, they can end it. My game testing, as I often do my testing, involves each person on-line conducting the tests to switch planes to see if the TOP DOG is the person or the machine. Often the testing participants learn (see how that learning process stuff occurs now and then even while having fun) how one testing person is managing a higher performance ability and then both can try that new technique in the effort to maximize the learning involved in maximizing performance. If one person in the test performs better in both planes, then, the machine that is better may be the better computer or the better hardware since both players learn to use the same technique.

A BUG in the game, to me, is something that crashes the game to desk top. Anyone else is welcome to define BUG in any way they deem appropriate. Saying that I think a BUG is something defined by them or saying that I think a BUG is something other than what I do think is a BUG is less efficient than asking what I think is a BUG before jumping to assumptions - no?


Yes, but you don't have to do a real time comparison to do that. It is actually better that you don't! In that you can never be sure if the difference your seeing are due to the planes or the pilots.

Before continuing with this method of learning it may be a good time to restate that there is a button in the upper right hand corner of each post that says "Hide Post". If anyone has a desire to avoid reading words that does not concern them or reading something that they do not like, then, someone can use the button provided to avoid doing the things that they don't like doing.

On-line testing with friends offers so much more than solitary manipulation. If you or anyone has a preference, then, you or anyone has a preference. I have mine. Switching planes and pilots can offer a scientific control on who has the better piloting technique as well as who has the better machine.


Where your stated agenda is to learn.. Learn how to become the TOP DOG. Not if a plane is correctly simulated.

Confusion concerning how I conduct my tests and the data that is extracted from my tests will lead to confusion – generally speaking.

If I want to test to see if the TA-152 can take-off in a shorter distance than a Spitfire XIX, then, I can substitute a Spitfire IX and see what happens. That is worth something to me. Anyone wanting to petition Oleg to do something that they want to do may inspire them to do some other form of testing. I may comment on your efforts if that is OK. If not, then, there is the Hide Post button option and other options – of course.


You get out of if what you put into it.

And YOU do the same. Is that obvious?


Thanks for your permission! To be honest, I didn't realize I needed your permission, but thanks just the same!

It may not be obvious that I don't need anyone's permission to conduct tests in the way I wish so I wrote the obvious obviously intending to state the obvious. I don't need anyone's permission to conduct tests as I see fit even if someone doesn't understand the reason for conducting the tests and even if someone is vocal about their misrepresentations of my tests. Why be so vocal about my tests when there is an obvious misunderstanding concerning the purpose of my tests – let alone a misunderstanding concerning the data collected from the test?

What is the (not so obvious) point of being so critical concerning how I conduct my tests for the reasons I conduct my tests?


So let me see if I understand you correctly.. <SNIP>

So far you have not understood me correctly. So far you have quite definitely misunderstood me.


So let me see if I understand you correctly.. Your saying you and your other want to be TOP DOG buddies are as good a Eric Brown? <SNIP>

Allow me to nip this misrepresentation in the bud.

At no time do I think I am as good as ˜a' Eric Brown. Can I be any clearer on this point?

Is there any hope at all in defeating this type of character assassination?

My guess is that the answer is no. To assume that an unreasonable person will become reasonable is to go beyond reason.


<SNIP> I know Oleg will enjoy that as much as the rest of us will! But I digress.. <SNIP>

Do you flatter yourself often? If Oleg enjoys one of his customers misrepresenting another one of his customers, then, Oleg has problems – poor thing. I don't share your stated perception of Oleg. In my view Oleg is a genius. I think he wouldn't waste a minute wallowing in this mire. I on the other hand can still learn for this type of exchange. But you digress...


But I digress.. the FACT remains that you do not have to do this test in real time, and it is better that you don't. Especially for two very similar planes.

Thanks for your take on my testing procedure, again, and since you obviously can't refrain from misrepresenting other people publicly it is beyond reason to expect you to learn anything from my words here and now. You know it all already no? I'm asking.

If you don't know it all already but you already knew my purpose of testing and my agenda as I know it to be, then, your misrepresentations are, in fact, mean spirited and cruel. If you are now being educated, then, perhaps you might like to join in one of my test sessions. You can flatter yourself with the notion that your cruelty causes me pain. Boooohooooo I'm crying now – are you happy?


The TOP DOG squad! How cute!

Can I guess why you wrote that statement? We are not cute. I'm particularly not cute since I really don't care how I look. Hertt is sort of cute – I guess. He is Brazilian. There is no such thing as the TOP DOG squad that I am aware of beyond the one you just created. That is a cuteness made up by you! How cute!


Actually it is the honest part that your having problems with! <SNIP>

I'd like to be more honest. I do lie. If a specific lie can be exposed, then, I can avoid repeating that specific lie. If the accusation is nothing more than vague innuendo, then, I think there is a reason for the accusation being nothing more than vague innuendo. Can I guess the true reason for the vague innuendo?


Honestly your testing will not prove anything.

You may be honest but you cannot know what my tests prove to me unless you ask and the people who are involved in conducting my tests can also be asked if my tests prove something to them. Generalized absolutes are far from accurate – honestly. My tests may or may not prove something – your opinion notwithstanding.

Did I use that word correctly? I'm trying to learn here.


Your agenda is to learn who to be the TOP DOG of your group.

That is false. That is a misrepresentation of the facts. That is an opinion expressing knowledge concerning my agenda. I happen to be in a position to know what my agenda is and what my agenda is not despite your opinion. I don't need your opinion. I don't want your opinion. Your opinion concerning my agenda as stated by you constitutes a measure of character assassination that is curious and superficial. I'm learning who is superficial. A part of my agenda is to learn who is superficial. See how that works? When my agenda is a desire to know who the TOP DOG of our group is, then, the procedure changes.


Thus you wont be disappointed when someone like Oleg and alot of us here do NOT take your tests seriously.

Thus I won't be disappointed with something that does not interest me. Your opinion of Oleg and your opinion of what ˜us here' do is a superficial expression of opinion having an obvious intent to cause trouble just like any other Troll. The thing about trolls that can be proven over time is that trolls cannot be trusted to admit that their agenda is to cause trouble. They blame their behavior on other people.

I can take full responsibility for any trouble I cause here and now. When someone misrepresents what I write, as if they can interpret the intent of my writing better than I, then my efforts are aimed at improving my writing to be more accurate and less able to be misinterpreted.

Example:

The tests described by me intend to test the ability of the game to simulate the historical record, and, have fun with others in the process.

Is that confusing? Do I really need an interpreter for these last three sentences? </div></BLOCKQUOTE>Disagree 100% TOP DOG

Blutarski2004
03-23-2007, 05:34 PM
Originally posted by JG14_Josf:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">..... It's a bit like watching a car wreck. You don't believe what you're seeing on some level, but nevertheless there it is.

An obsessive observer of sordid or sensational subjects. (http://dictionary.reference.com/search?r=2&q=voyeurism)

How about that TA-152 take-off distance? </div></BLOCKQUOTE>



..... Sorry, Josf. You're neither sordid nor sensational enough to merit any sort of obsessive fascination.

Repetititious, rambling, circumlocutory, obtuse, ..... now we're talking.

JG14_Josf
03-23-2007, 05:55 PM
Disagree 100% TOP DOG

Tag,

Do you now call me TOP DOG or are you referring to someone else? I'm guessing based upon your republishing my words before your comment.

Blutarski,

What is it that you find to be sorry about? Your words match up well with a definition in the dictionary – are you sorry about that?

How about that TA-152 climb angle and maneuverability at high altitude eh?

What is the topic?

AKA_TAGERT
03-23-2007, 06:05 PM
Sure Nancy, what ever blows you skirt up

LStarosta
03-23-2007, 06:19 PM
If by "Ta-152H-1 in need of improvement" you mean "the Hellcat is porked" then I agree.

BBB_Hyperion
03-23-2007, 07:53 PM
For the acceleration issues on 190a series and d series both below 100 % power. It is there (why later) but there are no data about propeller pitch nor kdo device pp transition speeds on takeoff and nor excatly used propeller type (there were a few). Wodden A9 big paddles is a high alt iirc. It is most likely a metal one for a5 to a8 reduces acceleration but increases topspeed. There is a quote from oleg somewhere that the below 100 % power values fall off partly that is a general note for all planes.
3rd porpeller pitch mode for fw series inst even modeled (as for many other planes missing as well special us planes) we just have 2 modi . Auto or Constant speed. No manual pitch mode. The pitch could be controlled by the push of a button on the fw this extra might have brought in some extra acceleration.

But this might be in the next version SoW. From SoW i would exspect that shortcommings of this sim would be reduced for example.Selectable beltings per gun convergence point setting and propeller type selection and all available plane functions, no delayed trim on motor operated trimm systems.(still delayed action for handcrank 109 but effect should be instant as well). Acceleration limits on csp operated proppeler types should damage the engine overrev etc.

Ratsack
03-24-2007, 08:15 AM
I was enjoying reading this thread until it suddenly took a lot more scrolling to get to the interesting posts.

Why is that?


Ratsack

JG14_Josf
03-24-2007, 10:01 AM
How does Tagert put it - Poor Nancy?

AKA_TAGERT
03-24-2007, 10:15 AM
or in your case smacktard

JG14_Josf
03-24-2007, 10:20 AM
Who is a smacktard and what is the definition Nancy?

The moderators must love us no?

ploughman
03-24-2007, 10:25 AM
Nancy is a town in France.

Smacktard. (http://www.urbandictionary.com/define.php?term=smacktard)

JG14_Josf
03-24-2007, 10:51 AM
n. Someone who says something so stupid, that you want to smack them. Esp. when interjected into an exchange as an intrusive third party.


Ploughman,

Thanks but I was asking Nancy

ploughman
03-24-2007, 10:53 AM
That must be why you PM'd it rather than posting it on an internet forum.

JG14_Josf
03-24-2007, 12:19 PM
That must be why you PM'd it rather than posting it on an internet forum.

Ploughman,

Like I said: The moderators must love us - no?

Are you Nancy?

Did you mean to send your last 'on-topic' message to me or to the entire readership?

How about this:

Ta152 (http://www.amazon.com/Focke-Wulf-Fw-190-Ta-152/dp/0854298819/ref=cm_lmf_tit_24/104-0306079-9459177)


A former fighter pilot, H.D. Frizsche, told the author about his experiences with the Ta 152H. Even after the war he was very enthusiastic about the machine in which two or three days after the Armistice in 1945 he had made low-level attacks against British formations, and he commented that the aircraft was faster than any Allied aircraft at altitude above 33,000ft and yet at lower levels handled as well as a glider.

Everyone has an opinion and some people have this idea that their opinion smells like a rose. I'm not that type. I'd rather quote the opinions of people who actually flew these planes to form my opinion of how the game can or cannot simulate history.

When I post my opinion it is odd from my view that so many vocal participants on this forum find reason to repeat how much they don't like my opinion. That is odd.

Anyway there was an interesting exchange concerning L/D developing in this thread before things settled down into the routine of childish banter.

That part of this discussion interests me as it leads to a perspective that remains confusing to me.

Example (http://forums.ubi.com/eve/forums/a/tpc/f/23110283/m/1061081725/p/18):


..... This comes straight from "Basic Aeronautics for Naval Aviators".

Dynamic pressure is related to the Bernoulli equation for incompressible flow -

H = P + 1/2*p*Vsq

where -
H = total pressure in psf
P = static pressure in psf
p = density in slugs per cu ft
V = velocity in fps

The term "1/2*p*Vsq" is referred to as dynamic pressure, and is usually expressed by the shorthand notation "q" in other aerodynamics formulae.

- - -

Lift Pressure / Dynamic Pressure = Cl (Lift Co-efficient), as expressed by the formula -

Cl = L/qS

where -
L = Lift in pounds
q = Dynamic Pressure
S = Wing surface area in sq ft

As I understand it, this is the basic lift equation

- - -

Co-efficient of Lift is a ratio of the lift pressure and the dynamic pressure for a given airfoil shape at a given AoA.

- - -

I have assumed that you are already familar with all this, Josf. So I'm not sure why you are asking me. Is this a quiz?

Assuming can lead to misunderstanding that can lead to misrepresentation and the snow ball just keeps on rolling.


Blu,

It remains a puzzle.

q = Dynamic Pressure

Lift pressure = ?

I get lost here:

So that exchange deteriorated and this exchange deteriorated and there remains an interest on my part to learn more about how one aircraft will out perform another aircraft.

Obviously the wing is going to effect performance.

A very efficient wing may be a wing that looks like a glider wing.

Add weight to that wing and the stall speed goes up. The wing does not become less efficient.

http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v402/RocketDog/polar24c.jpg

Add weight and the stall speed goes up.

If the TA-152 (like the Spitfire) has a slow stall speed due to an efficient wing (not simply wing-loading), then, the TA-152 has a slow stall speed like the Spitfire.

There are a few sources of historical documentation that documents the stall speed of the Spitfire and it is certainly slow compared to the early Fw190s.

What was the TA-152 stall speed?

In this thread a document has been posted that quantifies that slow speed stall for the TA-152.

The data is not exactly reporting the slow speed stall – exactly. The data reports the take-off run distance for the TA.

The TA generates enough lift to lift the entire weight of the plane is a short distance after starting the take-off run compared to the Fw190A-8.

-----------------Roll distance on concrete
Fw190A-8--------------430 meters
TA152H-0-------------295 meters

The Spitfire I was a very light plane with a very slow stall speed.

The Spitfire XIX was not as light and the stall speed was, perhaps, higher that the Spitfire I.

The Fw190A-1 was not a very light plane and it had a high stall speed.

The TA152H-0 (according to the document produced in this thread) was not a very light plane with slow stall speed, perhaps, or a very fast rate of acceleration to arrive at the short take-off distance.

These observations interest me. The mindless banter is merely the price of admission.

The Spitfire wing was capable of generating enough lift to lift the weight of the plane at slow speeds compared to the Fw190 wing's ability to lift the weight of the plane at slow speeds. That does not automatically determine the wings efficiency concerning the ability to generate lift. The Spitfire wing compares favorably because it is big and thin not because it is elliptical in shape. The Fw190A and D series wing compares favorably because it is what? The Fw190A and D series wing compares unfavorably because it is what?

The TA-152 compares favorably (slow speed stall) because?


..... This comes straight from "Basic Aeronautics for Naval Aviators".

Dynamic pressure is related to the Bernoulli equation for incompressible flow -

H = P + 1/2*p*Vsq

where -
H = total pressure in psf
P = static pressure in psf
p = density in slugs per cu ft
V = velocity in fps

The term "1/2*p*Vsq" is referred to as dynamic pressure, and is usually expressed by the shorthand notation "q" in other aerodynamics formulae.

- - -

Lift Pressure / Dynamic Pressure = Cl (Lift Co-efficient), as expressed by the formula -

Cl = L/qS

where -
L = Lift in pounds
q = Dynamic Pressure
S = Wing surface area in sq ft

As I understand it, this is the basic lift equation

- - -

Co-efficient of Lift is a ratio of the lift pressure and the dynamic pressure for a given airfoil shape at a given AoA.

- - -

I have assumed that you are already familar with all this, Josf. So I'm not sure why you are asking me. Is this a quiz?

Setting aside compressibility:

Speed values without consideration of the drag due to compressibility...


The term "1/2*p*Vsq" is referred to as dynamic pressure, and is usually expressed by the shorthand notation "q" in other aerodynamics formulae.

"q" is air density?

"q" is a relationship between air density and the velocity at which the wing contacts air mass?

"q" is, in effect, D as in L/D?

Lift pressure is what?


Co-efficient of Lift is a ratio of the lift pressure and the dynamic pressure for a given airfoil shape at a given AoA.

The TA-152 wing is a high aspect ratio wing. The Lift over Drag ratio of the TA152 wing is not the same as the Spitfire wing or the FW190A wing. The TA152 wing generated enough lift, according to the document, to lift the entire weight of the plane after a short distance on the take-off roll compared to the FW190A-8.

If the people reading this thread have an interest in the topic (rather than an interest in spreading their opinions concerning other people who have an interest in this topic), then, those people will make comments on the topic.

What is the topic?

ploughman
03-24-2007, 01:07 PM
Well, I'll have another go at helping you Josef with some of your questions and let's see if you get snotty again.


If you have questions about aerodynamics then here (http://www.grc.nasa.gov/WWW/K-12/airplane/) is a very good place to start.

Here are some links to some of the questions you've posed.

Dynamic pressure (http://www.grc.nasa.gov/WWW/K-12/airplane/dynpress.html)


Lift coefficient (http://www.grc.nasa.gov/WWW/K-12/airplane/liftco.html)

JG14_Josf
03-24-2007, 02:31 PM
Ploughman,

Is there a childish need to go back and see who started being snotty or is it simply a given that you are innocent and I am guilty?

Your links lead me to the same questions tabled multiple times leading to no specific answer unless I missed something in the past; how about now – this is a forum and this is a discussion no?

Dynamic pressure is or is not a vector specific force like this:


Although pressure itself is a scalar quantity, we can define a pressure force to be equal to the pressure (force/area) times the surface area in a direction perpendicular to the surface.

A ratio is or is not a vector quantity relationship?


To better understand our world, engineers often compare scalar quantities by using the ratio of the magnitude of the scalars. Comparing two vectors is more complex because you have to consider both magnitude and direction. The ratio of a scalar quantity a to a scalar quantity b is equal to a divided by b.

ratio = a / b


Dynamic pressure is or is not part of a ratio and the other part of the ratio is Lift pressure, then, does it stand to reason that the ratio is the same as the L/D ratio where D is Dynamic Pressure and L is Lift pressure – except that the L/D ratio is the whole plane tested as a maximum ability to ˜lift' the entire weight of the plane perpendicular to the forward vector ratio and the Lift pressure to Dynamic pressure ratio is only the wings ability (specifically not taking into account any other part of the airplane except the wing) to minimize the decelerating force of Dynamic pressure and maximize the accelerating force of Lift pressure?

What is lift pressure?

Note: Any of these equations do not account for compressibility effect when energy is lost in the compression of air mass and that effect begins to be measurable above .3 Mach, 200 mph, 220 mph, and 335 km/h depending upon the source reporting the measurable effect of compressibility.


Aerodynamic forces also depend in a complex way on the compressibility of the gas. As an object moves through the gas, the gas molecules move around the object. If the object passes at a low speed (typically less than 200 mph) the density of the fluid remains constant.


The lift coefficient then expresses the ratio of the lift force to the force produced by the dynamic pressure times the area.

Is lift force the same thing as lift pressure?

Is this a discussion or just another flame fest (one of many)?

Are you directing me to a place where I have not already been according to you and is your contribution able to cause more learning for me according to you?

I did return to the link to find yet another, and different, threshold for compressibility effect.

What is Lift pressure according to anyone other than the text already written? What is the ratio of Lift pressure/Dynamic pressure to anyone other than me with my wild guess?

What is the 1 g stall speed for the TA-152 taking off on the take-off run that requires 295 meters of concrete runway?

Either that is a very fast rate of acceleration or the 1 g stall speed is very low.

No?

Is this a discussion or something pretending to be a discussion?

Ratsack
03-24-2007, 04:48 PM
Originally posted by JG14_Josf:
...Is lift force the same thing as lift pressure?


No. Re-read the definition you re-posted above. Pressure is a scalar with magnitude only. Force is a vector, with magnitude and direction. The magnitude of the lift force may be equal to the pressure, but the pressure figure says nothing about direction.

The distinction between scalars and vectors is one of the very first topics taught to school students of physics. Your unwillingness to learn the basics of the topic is one of the main sources of your many errors. Try reading Halliday & Resnick, Fundamentals of Physics. You won't though (you didn't last time I suggested it). You'd rather remain ignorant so you post meaningless drivel without the irritation of knowning you're doing it.



Originally posted by JG14_Josf:
Is this a discussion or just another flame fest (one of many)?
...


Or is it just another string of rhetorical questions to which you don't really want the answers, troll.

Ratsack

JG14_Josf
03-24-2007, 05:08 PM
You'd rather remain ignorant so you post meaningless drivel without the irritation of knowning you're doing it.

Ratsack,

Your contribution is ever so much better than anything I could possibly ever imagine.

What a GOD!

Is it true that Lift Pressure divided by Dynamic Pressure is a measure of a ratio between the accelerating force vectored in opposition of the velocity vector and an accelerating force parallel to the lift vector or is it true that Lift force divided by Dynamic Pressure is a measure of a ratio between the accelerating force vectored in opposition of the velocity vector (slowing the plane down) and an accelerating force accelerating the plane on the lift vector resulting in a net force that causes a curving trajectory?

I know my questions are meaningless drivel to you because you are a GOD and yet you continue to lower yourself to my level. Is it charity?

How amazing you are with your superior intelligence, selfless charity, and unimaginable wisdom. I am simply aghast.

At some point someone will contribute to the topic.

Perhaps the TA-152 was both very fast at accelerating in the take-off run and it also sported a very slow 1 g stall speed.

The ability of the wing to lift all that weight being a combination of forces that, according to the link, is proven with flight tests.

Imagine proving things with flight tests. I mean actually proving something rather than simply discrediting someone.

Imagine that!

I mean – imagine that if you are inclined to imagine that – of course.

I'm not the one suggesting that I know better than anyone else. Proof is much more, ahhhh, objective.

Like a flight test for example. Does the Fw190A-4 have a take off roll similar to the Spitfire IX? Certainly the air speed required to generate enough lift to lift the weight of the plane for the Fw190A is greater and so the time it takes to accelerate to that necessary velocity could be similar because one plane accelerates faster than the other plane.

That TA-152 certainly did have a short take-off distance. It also had very efficient wings no?

Ratsack
03-24-2007, 05:42 PM
Originally posted by JG14_Josf:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">You'd rather remain ignorant so you post meaningless drivel without the irritation of knowning you're doing it.

Ratsack,

Your contribution is ever so much better than anything I could possibly ever imagine. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

I know. Unfortunately that's not hard. I wish it were otherwise, given the number and length of your posts.



Originally posted by JG14_Josf:
Imagine proving things with flight tests. I mean actually proving something rather than simply discrediting someone.

I have done my share of tests, and posted results many times. What's more, I ensure my test methods are designed to minimise error, and ensure repeatability. Unlike your p1ssing contests.

You discredit yourself.



Originally posted by JG14_Josf:
I'm not the one suggesting that I know better than anyone else. ..

Actually, you are. You're an arrogant little troll.

Ratsack

JG14_Josf
03-24-2007, 07:24 PM
Actually, you are. You're an arrogant little troll.


Ratsack,

So...after all the facts have been proven as to who the intelligent and superior person is and who is not - is there anything on-topic that you wish to say?

How about that TA-152H take-off roll distance?

That plane must be fast in acceleration and have a low 1 g stall speed to manage such a short take-off no?

The plane obviously has a very efficient wing that can minimize the cost of Dynamic Pressure and maximize acceleration by Lift force no?

M_Gunz
03-24-2007, 07:59 PM
Originally posted by JG14_Josf:
Dynamic pressure is or is not part of a ratio and the other part of the ratio is Lift pressure, then, does it stand to reason that the ratio is the same as the L/D ratio where D is Dynamic Pressure and L is Lift pressure – except that the L/D ratio is the whole plane tested as a maximum ability to ˜lift' the entire weight of the plane perpendicular to the forward vector ratio and the Lift pressure to Dynamic pressure ratio is only the wings ability (specifically not taking into account any other part of the airplane except the wing) to minimize the decelerating force of Dynamic pressure and maximize the accelerating force of Lift pressure?

Except that L/D is LIFT TO DRAG and has nothing to do with the weight of the plane, other than
that you still manage to screw up whatever bits of other people's websites you paste in to give
your BS the usual camoflage to pass off as knowledge.

Given how screwed up your understanding is, I guess you HAVE to conclude that the FM is way
off. In a way your effed-up manifestos show how wrong someone has to be to arrive at the BS
conclusions you get.

It's obvious that you don't understand the things you paste in much at all, just how parts
of them appear to you. It's not enough to read here and there and memorize the endings,
physics is not like fairy tales and poetry. If you don't do the experiments and you don't
do the homework then you're still lost with your head up your butt, telling everyone else
they can't see cause it's so dark. Uh-uh. It's YOU.

JG14_Josf
03-24-2007, 09:01 PM
If you don't do the experiments and you don't
do the homework then you're still lost with your head up your butt, telling everyone else
they can't see cause it's so dark. Uh-uh. It's YOU.

"My views are solely my own and do not reflect the views of my Squad or
its members"

Neal,

So...now that "we" have established who is a complete idiot and who, on the other hand, is the superior being: is it possible to get a comment from anyone concerning that fast accelerating, low 1 g stall speed, in the short take-off run made possible by those efficient wings on the TA-152H?

How can those wings possible support a rate of acceleration that can be up to 10 times the total weight of the plane?

Isn't that phenomenal?

Ratsack
03-24-2007, 10:29 PM
Originally posted by AKA_TAGERT:
...

GM-1 is a nitrous type of boost?
MW-50 is a water injection type of boost?

And it is one or the other in that not both would be mounted? If so, again, correct me if I am wrong, but the GM-1 system would be a lighter system, in that nitrous boost would consists of a compressed gas tank and the MW-50 would need a tank full of water, and water is going to be heavier than a gas.

Again, just thinking out loud here in that I don't know for sure either way!
...


Regarding the boost systems, you're right about the types: MW50 is a water methanol system, and GM1 was nitrous oxide. As such, MW50 was good up to the rated altitude of the supercharger, and GM1 was good above that altitude.

The Ta 152 H-1 we have in the game is modeled with both systems installed.

Regarding relative weights, I don't have any data for the Ta, but based on what I've seen for the Bf 109 G – which also used both boost systems in various versions – I think the MW50 is likely to be the lighter installation. Reasoning and some data as follows.

1. MW50 in the Bf 109 required an extra fuel tank and some plumbing. It also required the weight of the 50 / 50 water / methanol mixture you referred to in your post. It didn't require anything else, however. The MW50 mixture forced from the tank under pressure, and fed to the inlet manifold. The tank was pressurized by the supercharger impeller. This arrangement meant that no extra pump or pressure vessel was required to get the MW50 to the engine. So we're only dealing with the weight of the tank and what's in it.

2. GM1 was nitrous, stored under pressure in a proper pressure vessel, as opposed to a jury-rigged fuel tank. This pressure vessel would have design specs similar to those for the oxygen bottles. It would therefore be a heavy little sucker. In addition, while the nitrous is a gas once it expands (with the expansion causing the initial cooling effect when nitrous is kicked in), it was a liquid under pressure. I don't know the relative densities of MW50 and N2O, but the GM1 installation in the Bf 109 G-2 weighed in at more than 400 lbs.

So, as I said before, I don't have any data for the weight of the boost systems on the Jumo 213 engine in the Ta 152 H-1, but from what we know of these arrangements in the 109, I think it's likely the nitrous installation was heavier.

Like you, I'd like to see a reasoned exposition of why – and how - the real world data for the Ta 152 H-0 can be applied to the Ta 152 H-1 we've got in the game. I'm not saying it can't be done, but it's got to be explained. For example, it might be possible by paying particular attention to fuel loads and by judicious use of the boost controls to get the H-1 version to the same weight and power as the H-0. It might be done. We just need the guys with the data to make the argument.


cheers,
Ratsack

Blutarski2004
03-24-2007, 11:04 PM
Josf = Professor Irwin Corey, but lacks his humor.

One13
03-25-2007, 04:15 AM
Acorrding to "Fighter Aircraft" by Alfred Price the MW-50 installation in the Bf 109 G-14 weighed about 300 lb complete with 26 gallons of water-methanol.
The GM-1 installation fitted to some versions of the Bf 109 G weighed about 670 lb with 16 gallons of Nitrous Oxide.

Kettenhunde
03-25-2007, 04:46 AM
This pressure vessel would have design specs similar to those for the oxygen bottles.


This is not correct.

Ratsack
03-25-2007, 05:13 AM
Originally posted by Kettenhunde:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">This pressure vessel would have design specs similar to those for the oxygen bottles.


This is not correct. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

As I said above, I have no specific data on the GM1 system in the Ta, but going on what I do know of nitrous systems in other applications, the fluid is stored under high pressure. This requires a pressure vessel of considerably more strength than a normal pressurized fuel tank. Can you elaborate, please?

cheers,
Ratsack

Kurfurst__
03-25-2007, 07:49 AM
Originally posted by Ratsack:
Regarding the boost systems, you're right about the types: MW50 is a water methanol system, and GM1 was nitrous oxide. As such, MW50 was good up to the rated altitude of the supercharger, and GM1 was good above that altitude.

The Ta 152 H-1 we have in the game is modeled with both systems installed.

Regarding relative weights, I don't have any data for the Ta, but based on what I've seen for the Bf 109 G – which also used both boost systems in various versions – I think the MW50 is likely to be the lighter installation. Reasoning and some data as follows.

1. MW50 in the Bf 109 required an extra fuel tank and some plumbing. It also required the weight of the 50 / 50 water / methanol mixture you referred to in your post. It didn't require anything else, however. The MW50 mixture forced from the tank under pressure, and fed to the inlet manifold. The tank was pressurized by the supercharger impeller. This arrangement meant that no extra pump or pressure vessel was required to get the MW50 to the engine. So we're only dealing with the weight of the tank and what's in it.

Quite correct. In practice however the additional weight was only constituted by the weight of the MW50 fluid (ca 70-85 liter ~= 65-80 kg). The 115 liter light alloy tank itself (which somewhere I've seen on FW 190, using the same tank I believe) was weighting ca 30 kg itself. However, in order to have place to install the tank the secondary fuel tank armor, made of layers of light alloy well behind the cocpit, was removed. This 'leichtmetallpanzerung' itself weighted 32 kg, so it evened out the tanks weight (and made CoG less an issue). There was some plumbing, but it's so minimal in weight it can be simply forgotten about (what, two NW 5 pipes going back and forth - half a kilo maybe?)


2. GM1 was nitrous, stored under pressure in a proper pressure vessel, as opposed to a jury-rigged fuel tank. This pressure vessel would have design specs similar to those for the oxygen bottles. It would therefore be a heavy little sucker. In addition, while the nitrous is a gas once it expands (with the expansion causing the initial cooling effect when nitrous is kicked in), it was a liquid under pressure. I don't know the relative densities of MW50 and N2O, but the GM1 installation in the Bf 109 G-2 weighed in at more than 400 lbs.

So, as I said before, I don't have any data for the weight of the boost systems on the Jumo 213 engine in the Ta 152 H-1, but from what we know of these arrangements in the 109, I think it's likely the nitrous installation was heavier.


Hmmm, you sure of this 400 lbs on the G-2, can you give a source? It sounds awfully lot to me, though I can't recall seeing figures for the G-2 (G-2s by standard did not have GM-1. Those which had were also lightened having armor and stuff removed). There were also many variations of the GM-1 system used. The F-4/Z employed two methods, the whole, filled equipment weighting about 100-150 kg in total iirc. The pressurized G-1 and G-3 (which were really meant to be spec high alt fighters) had a number of small, sphereic, oxynen-like built-in pressurized bottles in the wings. I believe this installation was very light in it's nature, as their takeoff weight as given as very similiar to the non-pressurized, non-GM-1 variants, and perf sheets showing performance with GM-1 (c'est brutale..) show 3070 kg vs. 3037 kg or so w/o GM-1.

The subsequent G-5/U2 and G-6/U2 had a different one. These used a single big, insulted tank right behind the cocpit, the same or very similiar tank actually to the one used in the FW 190A and methanol-equipped Bf 109G/Ks. As a matter of fact the first MW-50 Bf 109s were converted from G-6/U2s, since the tank and plumbing was right there, they only changed the inject nozzles in the supercharger for an MW-50 type. The GM-1 filling weight alone in the G6/U2 is listed as 80 kg, same as the MW-50 filling weight.

AKA_TAGERT
03-25-2007, 12:36 PM
Ok here is the summary of the two tests I did

http://airwarfare.com (http://airwarfare.com/phpBB2/viewtopic.php?p=7974#7974)

AKA_TAGERT
03-25-2007, 05:52 PM
Originally posted by Ratsack:
Like you, I'd like to see a reasoned exposition of why – and how - the real world data for the Ta 152 H-0 can be applied to the Ta 152 H-1 we've got in the game. I'm not saying it can't be done, but it's got to be explained.
Agreed 100%!


Originally posted by Ratsack:
For example, it might be possible by paying particular attention to fuel loads and by judicious use of the boost controls to get the H-1 version to the same weight and power as the H-0. It might be done. We just need the guys with the data to make the argument.
Sounds reasonable.. As long as everyone knows there will be some error in it due to making those kinds of adjustments. On the note of fuel loads, in the game you only hvae the 25,50,75,100% choices.. but in a mission you can adj it to what ever % you want! So if someone determined that the way to equate a H-1 to a H-0 was to run 68% fuel than you could do that in a mission.

PS thanks for all the other info! Very informative!

M_Gunz
03-25-2007, 09:02 PM
Originally posted by JG14_Josf:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">If you don't do the experiments and you don't
do the homework then you're still lost with your head up your butt, telling everyone else
they can't see cause it's so dark. Uh-uh. It's YOU.

"My views are solely my own and do not reflect the views of my Squad or
its members"

Neal,

So...now that "we" have established who is a complete idiot and who, on the other hand, is the superior being: is it possible to get a comment from anyone concerning that fast accelerating, low 1 g stall speed, in the short take-off run made possible by those efficient wings on the TA-152H?

How can those wings possible support a rate of acceleration that can be up to 10 times the total weight of the plane?

Isn't that phenomenal? </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

It's phenomenal that you still don't get that you are the idiot while OTOH most everyone
else is average while some folks like Crumpp, Viper, NonWonderDog, Ugly Kid and Oleg are
trained well beyond the average. The fact that average members can see how screwed up
your ... word arrangements is the best I can call it ... are should be enough for you to
take some advice and go actually learn the basics instead of wasting time posting manifestos.

It is not phenomenal that the Ta-152 could stand 10 G's but you'd need to spend years in
advanced school to understand that and you never got far enough to start at that.

What is the clean power off 1G stall of the Ta-152H-1 anyway? Not the H-0, the H-1?
How much of the weight of the plane is in those large wings that support themselves anyway?

I don't pretend to know all about that plane, and while I do know some things I don't have
some master plan to say it's right or wrong. But I can still tell when someone is trying
to talk some screwy BS from out the orifice they've got their head firmly planted in!

JG14_Josf
03-25-2007, 10:00 PM
It's phenomenal that you

<SNIP>

I cut that off Neal.

I read the other stuff that was informative and on-topic. Your stuff is, ahhhh, personal.

You do not know me.

You can read or not read as your command dictates.

P.S. Nice job on the charts Tagert!

M_Gunz
03-26-2007, 06:29 AM
Originally posted by Ratsack:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by Kettenhunde:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">This pressure vessel would have design specs similar to those for the oxygen bottles.


This is not correct. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

As I said above, I have no specific data on the GM1 system in the Ta, but going on what I do know of nitrous systems in other applications, the fluid is stored under high pressure. This requires a pressure vessel of considerably more strength than a normal pressurized fuel tank. Can you elaborate, please?

cheers,
Ratsack </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

Probably a lighter tank. High pressure oxygen is extremely corrosive while in the tank the
nitrous is not even though it has more oxygen, thanks to the bonding with nitrogen.

I've just found that they make NO2 kits for freaking MOPEDS. Are these clowns also riceboys?

luftluuver
03-26-2007, 06:50 AM
Originally posted by M_Gunz:
It's phenomenal that you still don't get that you are the idiot while OTOH most everyone
else is average while some folks like Crumpp, Viper, NonWonderDog, Ugly Kid and Oleg are
trained well beyond the average. The fact that average members can see how screwed up
your ... word arrangements is the best I can call it ... are should be enough for you to
take some advice and go actually learn the basics instead of wasting time posting manifestos. He did say in another thread that he had a 'metal disease'. http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_wink.gif

On the H-1, it was unstable with a full load of MW50, GM1 and fuel. There was plans to increase the stab width by 50cm. Also, the first 20 Hs produced were H-0s which leaves 20-25 H-1s produced.

From the Harmann book, the weight difference (normal flight weight) between the H-0 and H-1 was 490kg (5217kg - 4717kg). From the same document, 70 l. of MW50 > 64kg and 85 l. of GM-1 > 104kg.

Blutarski2004
03-26-2007, 08:25 AM
Originally posted by M_Gunz:
I've just found that they make NO2 kits for freaking MOPEDS. Are these clowns also riceboys?



..... Gunz, the NO2 is for moped passengers, to keep them calm when the driver is weaving through heavy traffic on the freeway.

;-]

arrowtalon
03-26-2007, 02:57 PM
Hi bellator, it sounds like you have a pretty good case there. My guess is that you're probably partially right, and that the turning performance is probably okay. My nderstanding is that the 152 was not particularly nimble but had very good overall handling (smooth ride, etc).

What I have noticed is that many aircraft that I thought were undermodelled are actually about right, and that the problem is in a handful of other aircraft that are way too good.

Specifically, I think that national pride made it into many of the Russian late war fighters' flight models. Likely, you are flying against these a lot.

So it may be that the 152 is accurate on at least some things, but that its opponents are not.

AKA_TAGERT
03-26-2007, 03:03 PM
Funny..

The EXCUSES always seem to be limited to TWO cases

1) My plane is not as good as it should be..
2) Their planes are better than they should be..

What ever happen to the following TWO cases, i.e. The more likely cases IMHO

1) I am not as good as they are..
2) They are better than I am..

Not surprising in this modern day where no one takes responsibility for anything anymore http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_frown.gif

faustnik
03-26-2007, 03:06 PM
Hmmm...I wonder if this thread is going to produce more pages than the number of Ta152s produced?

AKA_TAGERT
03-26-2007, 04:20 PM
Originally posted by faustnik:
Hmmm...I wonder if this thread is going to produce more pages than the number of Ta152s produced? ROTFL

Gibbage1
03-26-2007, 05:21 PM
Anyone else notice a lack of a prominent participent? Bellator has not posted in 3 pages.

luftluuver
03-26-2007, 05:32 PM
Originally posted by Gibbage1:
Anyone else notice a lack of a prominent participent? Bellator has not posted in 3 pages. And no more 3/4 page posts about sfa either from you all know by whom. http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_wink.gif

Bellator_1
03-27-2007, 06:52 AM
I'm back after a rather hectic weekend..

Gibbage1,

I have things to do besieds reading on this forum - so for future reference, don't expect me to read or write on this forum in the weekends.




Originally posted by Blutarski2004:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by Bellator_1:
Check out the difference in thickness ratio Blutarski.


..... You've missed my original point.




As to the 22 degree critical AoA you were talking about, again you left our both AR and thickness ratio. The typical critical AoA of a NACA 23000 airfoil is around 16 - 17 degree's.

..... It's possible to move numbers all over the place if you want to play games with aspect and thickness ratios. I'm quoting Cl/max for the airfoils themselves under standardized NACA evaluation conditions -

NACA 23009 - Cl/max 20.5 degrees.

NACA 23012 - Cl/max 20 degrees.

NACA 23015 - Cl/max 21 degrees.

NACA 23018 - Cl/max 20.5 degrees </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

Nope, wrong again Blutarski. Why do you insist on making a fool out of yourself ?

Directly from NACA:

http://img217.imageshack.us/img217/7172/naca230airfoilclmaxfiguqr4.jpg

Like I said the critical AoA is 16-17 degree's.

Now do we need to discuss this any further ?

Viper2005_
03-27-2007, 07:07 AM
Your data is for wings of aspect ratio 6 with round tips at Reynolds numbers between 8 and 9 million.

Last time I checked the Ta-152 had an aspect ratio rather higher than 6, and tips which were square, not round. I haven't bothered to calculate the Reynolds number range over which it operated. No information is given as to the twist distribution of the models tested. The Ta-152 almost certainly had washout - I know that the Fw-190 did. And I also know that the Fw-190's harsh stall was caused by aero-elastic effects. Generic wind-tunnel data is useful up to a point, but in this context I'm afraid it doesn't mean a lot.

Anyway, if you want to play with these factors you can change the stalling angle over quite a wide range for many aerofoils. If you also play about with surface roughness (which I note isn't specified in your data) then even larger variations are possible for some aerofoils.

Here is a rather nice online CFD package capable of modelling some of these factors for you to play with:

http://www.mh-aerotools.de/airfoils/javafoil.htm

Ratsack
03-27-2007, 07:08 AM
Now do we need to discuss this any further ?



No.

Just get to the bit where the H-0 is comparable to the H-1, and why. The object being to provide enough information to set the boost and fuel levels of the H-1 we have in-game to achieve similar power and weight to the H-0 for which you have data. Then we can make some meaningful comparisons.

Until then...

cheers,
Ratsack

Bellator_1
03-27-2007, 07:21 AM
Originally posted by Viper2005_:
Your data is for wings of aspect ratio 6 with round tips at Reynolds numbers between 8 and 9 million.

Last time I checked the Ta-152 had an aspect ratio rather higher than 6, and tips which were square, not round. I haven't bothered to calculate the Reynolds number range over which it operated. No information is given as to the twist distribution of the models tested. The Ta-152 almost certainly had washout - I know that the Fw-190 did. And I also know that the Fw-190's harsh stall was caused by aero-elastic effects. Generic wind-tunnel data is useful up to a point, but in this context I'm afraid it doesn't mean a lot.

Anyway, if you want to play with these factors you can change the stalling angle over quite a wide range for many aerofoils. If you also play about with surface roughness (which I note isn't specified in your data) then even larger variations are possible for some aerofoils.

Here is a rather nice online CFD package capable of modelling some of these factors for you to play with:

http://www.mh-aerotools.de/airfoils/javafoil.htm

Viper,

A Critical AoA of 16 - 17 degree's is the normal value for a wing with or without rounded tips. And the AR of 6 is the standard within NACA.

As to Aspect ratio and its effects, well besides increasing the L/D ratio it also lowers the critical AoA.

Blutarski2004
03-27-2007, 08:01 AM
Originally posted by Bellator_1:
Nope, wrong again Blutarski. Why do you insist on making a fool out of yourself ?

Like I said the critical AoA is 16-17 degree's.

Now do we need to discuss this any further ?


..... Oddly enough, the data I provided is from NACA as well. So actually it does appear that we need to discuss this further. According to the NACA graphs in my possession ...


NACA 23009 - Cl/max =
20.5 degrees @ RN value 8,260,000.
18.5 degrees @ RN value 3,130,000.

NACA 23012 - Cl/max =
22.0 degrees at RN value 8,370,000.
20.5 degrees at RN value 3,880,000.

NACA 23015 - Cl/max =
22.5 degrees @ RN value 8,370,000.
21.0 degrees @ RN value 3,880,000.

NACA 23018 - Cl/max =
21.0 degrees @ RN value 8,370,000.
20.5 degrees @ RN value 3,800,000.



Best regards from your "foolish" friend,

Ratsack
03-29-2007, 07:13 AM
Originally posted by Ratsack:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">
Now do we need to discuss this any further ?



No.

Just get to the bit where the H-0 is comparable to the H-1, and why. The object being to provide enough information to set the boost and fuel levels of the H-1 we have in-game to achieve similar power and weight to the H-0 for which you have data. Then we can make some meaningful comparisons.

Until then...

cheers,
Ratsack </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

Given there's been nothing since Tuesday, I assume we won't be hearing this argument then. Pity.

cheers,
Ratsack

mynameisroland
03-29-2007, 07:25 AM
Originally posted by Bellator_1:
The Ta-152H-1 is in desperate need of an FM improvement, its turning capability in particular needs a huge boost. In-game it won't even out-turn the Tempest, in reality an aircraft over which the Ta-152H-1 held a great advantage in turn-performance.

Well it got to page 11 and without one piece of comparitive data posted by the main protagonist. This discussion was over after the 2nd page.

Bellator_1
03-30-2007, 07:39 PM
Dream on roland, heaps of data is on the way.

M_Gunz
03-31-2007, 05:06 AM
Originally posted by mynameisroland:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by Bellator_1:
The Ta-152H-1 is in desperate need of an FM improvement, its turning capability in particular needs a huge boost. In-game it won't even out-turn the Tempest, in reality an aircraft over which the Ta-152H-1 held a great advantage in turn-performance.

Well it got to page 11 and without one piece of comparitive data posted by the main protagonist. This discussion was over after the 2nd page. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

Page 11 as you say and on this page the data is as you say.

Dream on? Just another UBI ZOO low grade nightmare.

Ratsack
04-03-2007, 04:20 AM
I have a dream...

Ratsack

mynameisroland
04-03-2007, 04:31 AM
Originally posted by Bellator_1:
Dream on roland, heaps of data is on the way.

Heaps of data directly comparing the Ta 152 H to the Tempest V.

Great! wake me up when it gets here http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/88.gif

Ratsack
04-03-2007, 08:08 PM
Originally posted by mynameisroland:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by Bellator_1:
Dream on roland, heaps of data is on the way.

Heaps of data directly comparing the Ta 152 H to the Tempest V.

Great! wake me up when it gets here http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/88.gif </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

I'm actually more concerned with and argument, supported with appropriate data, that convincingly links the performance of the in-game Ta-152 H-1 with the real data for the H-0. That would make it worthwhile designing and conducting a test.

I can wait for the comparative stuff.

cheers,
Ratsack

AKA_TAGERT
04-03-2007, 08:47 PM
I fear connecting those dots will take more man power than we have! http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_wink.gif

mynameisroland
04-04-2007, 04:01 AM
Originally posted by Ratsack:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by mynameisroland:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by Bellator_1:
Dream on roland, heaps of data is on the way.

Heaps of data directly comparing the Ta 152 H to the Tempest V.

Great! wake me up when it gets here http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/88.gif </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

I'm actually more concerned with and argument, supported with appropriate data, that convincingly links the performance of the in-game Ta-152 H-1 with the real data for the H-0. That would make it worthwhile designing and conducting a test.

I can wait for the comparative stuff.

cheers,
Ratsack </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

Bellators first sentence of this 'discussion' makes the claim that the Ta 152 H is out turned by the Tempest where in WW2 it easily out manuvered it.

This is a comparison. Ever since he posted this claim I have asked him to produce evidence to support this feeling. He hasnt even posted Reschkes account ( the only pilot account I know off relating to the two planes ) It seems that he is all hot air.

Even if he can figure out how the Ta 152 H1 relates to the Ta 152 H0 then he must provide comparitive data to support his claim. If he doesnt then his argument is a waste of space.

I and anothers involved in this discussion have made tracks which show the turn performance of the two types yet Bellator has failed to even make this effort. I think the reason is that he is afraid to find out just which plane out turns the other in IL2.

Bellator_1
04-08-2007, 04:43 AM
Originally posted by mynameisroland:
Bellators first sentence of this 'discussion' makes the claim that the Ta 152 H is out turned by the Tempest where in WW2 it easily out manuvered it.

This is a comparison. Ever since he posted this claim I have asked him to produce evidence to support this feeling. He hasnt even posted Reschkes account ( the only pilot account I know off relating to the two planes ) It seems that he is all hot air.

Even if he can figure out how the Ta 152 H1 relates to the Ta 152 H0 then he must provide comparitive data to support his claim. If he doesnt then his argument is a waste of space.

I and anothers involved in this discussion have made tracks which show the turn performance of the two types yet Bellator has failed to even make this effort. I think the reason is that he is afraid to find out just which plane out turns the other in IL2.

Like I said, dream on roland..

Me and Josf have already unearthed some rather disturbing characteristics about the FM's in IL-2.

And about the Ta-152H-0 and H-1, they are the exact same a/c except one isn't fitted with MW-50 & GM-1 and carries half the fuel load - thats it.

As to accounts, you'll get them as-well, it will all be filled into one post.

luftluuver
04-08-2007, 04:52 AM
Originally posted by Bellator_1:
As to accounts, you'll get them as-well, it will all be filled into one post. While reading old threads there was a person called Huck who who would say he would post stuff but never did.

Ratsack
04-08-2007, 07:12 AM
Originally posted by Bellator_1:
...

And about the Ta-152H-0 and H-1, they are the exact same a/c except one isn't fitted with MW-50 & GM-1 and carries half the fuel load - thats it.
....

Yes, yes, we got that. The point is, what are the relative weights and power outputs?

Ratsack

mynameisroland
04-08-2007, 07:14 AM
Originally posted by Bellator_1:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by mynameisroland:
Bellators first sentence of this 'discussion' makes the claim that the Ta 152 H is out turned by the Tempest where in WW2 it easily out manuvered it.

This is a comparison. Ever since he posted this claim I have asked him to produce evidence to support this feeling. He hasnt even posted Reschkes account ( the only pilot account I know off relating to the two planes ) It seems that he is all hot air.

Even if he can figure out how the Ta 152 H1 relates to the Ta 152 H0 then he must provide comparitive data to support his claim. If he doesnt then his argument is a waste of space.

I and anothers involved in this discussion have made tracks which show the turn performance of the two types yet Bellator has failed to even make this effort. I think the reason is that he is afraid to find out just which plane out turns the other in IL2.

Like I said, dream on roland..

Me and Josf have already unearthed some rather disturbing characteristics about the FM's in IL-2.

And about the Ta-152H-0 and H-1, they are the exact same a/c except one isn't fitted with MW-50 & GM-1 and carries half the fuel load - thats it.

As to accounts, you'll get them as-well, it will all be filled into one post. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

You'd better hurry , Storm of War will be out by the time your book arrives (you know the one you ae claiming to have read already) 3 weeks and counting. Either that or you must be a really slow typer.

M_Gunz
04-08-2007, 10:29 AM
Originally posted by Bellator_1:
Me and Josf have already unearthed some rather disturbing characteristics about the FM's in IL-2.


Credibility < 0

Gibbage1
04-08-2007, 09:56 PM
Originally posted by Bellator_1:
Dream on roland, heaps of data is on the way.

9 days and counting. Whats your definition of "on the way"? I dont think it means what you think it means.

M_Gunz
04-09-2007, 12:30 AM
It means quit bumping this thread and see how far he has to dig to find it.

luftluuver
04-20-2007, 06:04 AM
Sun April 08 2007

Originally posted by Bellator_1:
As to accounts, you'll get them as-well, it will all be filled into one post. Bellator, where are you? (think Car 54)

It has now been 12 days and nary an account can be seen. Must just be more of your blustering. http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/sadeyes.gif

Do I see another crash and burn?

http://www.cs.kent.ac.uk/people/staff/djb/92squadron/me109-crashed-2.jpg

luftluuver
05-29-2007, 06:43 AM
As to accounts, you'll get them as-well, it will all be filled into one post.
You said that on April 8 Bellator. It is now May 29 and we are still waiting for these accounts.

Daiichidoku
05-29-2007, 07:12 AM
i read some of the first page...my first thought was "tempests out-turn his TA ingame http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/354.gif

i skipped right to this page after that

seeing as how there is no real data presented as of yet, i feel safe to say that my "feeling" is that i have never seen any TA haivng difficelty out turning a tempest

guess ive never seen the calibur of tempest pilots Bellator encountered

mynameisroland
05-29-2007, 07:36 AM
Originally posted by Daiichidoku:
i read some of the first page...my first thought was "tempests out-turn his TA ingame http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/354.gif

i skipped right to this page after that

seeing as how there is no real data presented as of yet, i feel safe to say that my "feeling" is that i have never seen any TA haivng difficelty out turning a tempest

guess ive never seen the calibur of tempest pilots Bellator encountered

I reckon im an accomplished Tempest pilot and I have flown mock tests vs a good Ta 152 H pilot until we ran out of gas and guess what! The difference between the two in turn is negligible with the Ta 152 H having an edge at sustained turns. If the Tempest pilot wants an angle he has to burn energy to increase turn rate. I guess Bellator couldnt be bothered to get up off his lazy Luftwhiner *** to do any tests himself and just hoped some other German planes rules fans would come and help him out.

AKA_TAGERT
05-29-2007, 07:50 AM
I thought Josf and Bell had a date to do some tests? And to look into the Ta-152H-1 performance! http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_wink.gif

mynameisroland
08-08-2007, 03:25 AM
bump*

Why keep spamming us with the same sh1te BEllator.

Put up or shut up.