PDA

View Full Version : A TA-183 that doesn't completely suck!



Waldo.Pepper
12-23-2006, 02:27 PM
Can be seen flying in this video.

http://www.hobby-lobby.com/media/ALF101-HuckeBein.wmv<div class="ev_tpc_signature">

http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v516/WaldoPepper/sig/p61rev.jpg

DuxCorvan
12-23-2006, 02:35 PM
That RC Ta-183 doesn't suck because it isn't fast. Problems with Ta-183 would happen at high speeds, had it been ever built -as Tank's Huckebein-inspired Pulqui II showed.

Because Tank finally built the Huckebein. He called it Pulqui II. And it sucked.

Curiously, the same concept was used in VVS MiG-15, with resounding success.

Things of life.

ElAurens
12-23-2006, 02:46 PM
I'm willing to bet that the RC model has a far lower wingloading than the real aircraft, and a far higher power to weight ratio as well.<div class="ev_tpc_signature">

_____________________________

http://img118.imageshack.us/img118/554/elskiubikb4.jpg

"To explain the lure of speed you would have to explain human nature" - T.E. Lawrence

Waldo.Pepper
12-23-2006, 02:53 PM
Sheesh guys I know! The rc model is a toy, I am not trying to prove anything.<div class="ev_tpc_signature">

http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v516/WaldoPepper/sig/p61rev.jpg

DuxCorvan
12-23-2006, 03:10 PM
Yeah, yeah, don't pretend now! http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_razz.gif

anarchy52
12-23-2006, 03:50 PM
Originally posted by DuxCorvan:
That RC Ta-183 doesn't suck because it isn't fast. Problems with Ta-183 would happen at high speeds, had it been ever built -as Tank's Huckebein-inspired Pulqui II showed.

Nope, Pulqui shared similar problems with MiG-15 - low speed, high AoA. The problems were eventually solved on both planes in a similar manner.


Because Tank finally built the Huckebein. He called it Pulqui II. And it sucked.

No, it was comparable in performance to Sabre and MiG-15. For a more realistic view on Pulqui, read this:
http://aircraftresourcecenter.com/Gal6/5301-5400/gal533...leaterra/gal5332.htm (http://aircraftresourcecenter.com/Gal6/5301-5400/gal5332_PulquiII_Caleaterra/gal5332.htm)

Nice looking plane also:
http://aircraftresourcecenter.com/Gal6/5301-5400/gal5332_PulquiII_Caleaterra/01.jpg
http://aircraftresourcecenter.com/Gal6/5301-5400/gal5332_PulquiII_Caleaterra/02.jpg

Sergio_101
12-23-2006, 06:41 PM
Answer to the Pulqui II question.
It was a refined Ta-183.
It had most of the bugs worked out of the design.
The engine was far more modern than any German engine of WWII.
It was several years after the F-86 and Mig-15 were
already obsolete......

By March the 4th, 1954 the F-104 had arleady flown.
Within a year it exceeded Mach 2.3

Pulqui II may have proved the basic idea of the Ta-183.
I never doubted that with major changes the basic idea was sound.
Those changes were pretty extensive!
To sum it up the Ta-183, as originaly designed had little
in common with the Pulqui II or a Mig-15.
But they are all airplanes.

Sergio<div class="ev_tpc_signature">

P-51s may not have won the war, but they did not loose it.
Loosing the war was left to the Bf-109s and Fw-190s. http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/winky.gif

Bellator_1
12-23-2006, 07:43 PM
Anarchy52 has got it right.

Sergio,

The engines used for the Pulqui II weren't as modern as you make them appear - they were fatter and more draggy than the German axial-flow design. Fact is German Jet engine design was far ahead of its time, needing metals which at the time weren't possible to manufacture.

To makea centrifugal-flow engine more powerful you have to make it wider, therefore more draggy, to make space for the extra combustion chambers and larger impeller. On the other hand to make the German axial-flow engines more powerful all you had to do was add more fan discs, keeping the engine slender and less draggy.<div class="ev_tpc_signature">

__________________________
"A wise man is superior to any insults which can be put upon him, and the best reply to unseemly behavior is patience and moderation. " - Moliere

http://aycu26.webshots.com/image/7665/2001783351240268893_rs.jpg

ElAurens
12-23-2006, 10:08 PM
The Pulqui was an abject failure. It killed it's test pilots, was never produced in numbers, and even Mr. Tank admitted he made an aircraft that killed it's pilots.

Obsolete before it left the drawing board.

Will you guys stop trying to rationalize the poor performance of the Ta-183 and just admit the truth? It was junk from the first stroke of the designer's pen.<div class="ev_tpc_signature">

_____________________________

http://img118.imageshack.us/img118/554/elskiubikb4.jpg

"To explain the lure of speed you would have to explain human nature" - T.E. Lawrence

Bellator_1
12-23-2006, 10:51 PM
Ignorance http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_rolleyes.gif<div class="ev_tpc_signature">

__________________________
"A wise man is superior to any insults which can be put upon him, and the best reply to unseemly behavior is patience and moderation. " - Moliere

http://aycu26.webshots.com/image/7665/2001783351240268893_rs.jpg

Badsight-
12-24-2006, 12:11 AM
Originally posted by Bellator_1:
Ignorance http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_rolleyes.gif
no , thats the reality of the Pulquii program<div class="ev_tpc_signature">

http://img296.imageshack.us/img296/1741/shindendrawflight66os.jpg

DarkWingDuck...
12-24-2006, 02:04 AM
The design was flawed ....yet it was also so very close to what became a standard design
In reality a little work on the Fin and the addition of wing fences was all it needed to become a standard, much copied layout

most of the early problems with this layout where just an ignorance of span-wise flow on highly swept wings..it all got ironed out

dont underestimate the 183's importance in fighter developement<div class="ev_tpc_signature">

QUACK

Akronnick
12-24-2006, 02:55 AM
Originally posted by DarkWingDuck...:
In reality a little work on the Fin and the addition of wing fences was all it needed to become a standard, much copied layout


That and another 1000 lbs of thrust.<div class="ev_tpc_signature">

---Loose nut removed from cockpit, ship OK

Bellator_1
12-24-2006, 03:51 AM
Originally posted by Badsight-:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by Bellator_1:
Ignorance http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_rolleyes.gif
no , thats the reality of the Pulquii program </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

No, the problems had been ironed out, the cut of the budget is what stopped the program.<div class="ev_tpc_signature">

__________________________
"A wise man is superior to any insults which can be put upon him, and the best reply to unseemly behavior is patience and moderation. " - Moliere

http://aycu26.webshots.com/image/7665/2001783351240268893_rs.jpg

Aaron_GT
12-24-2006, 04:49 AM
No, the problems had been ironed out, the cut of the budget is what stopped the program.

Unusually Bellator is actually correct here. The Pulqui II had some serious bugs but most were addressed by the time these had been worked out Argentina was having a severe economic crisis and the project was abandoned for this reason. In this sense it is similar to a number of promising aircraft through the years from a number of countries cancelled due to economic or political reasons. For example the UK could have advanced much further in terms of high speed flight much earlier, but post war a lot of projects were severely cut back due to the UK being broke, but it doesn't mean the designs were bad.

HuninMunin
12-24-2006, 05:10 AM
That is exactly what sucks big time in this forums.
You have all those reasonable people sharing their love for airplanes and a loud minority constantly making it an national agenda thing.
Waldo posted something I have enjoyed watching very much (thank you!) and it takes 2 seconds for the crowd to show up screaming: "You is wrong! You is wrong!" without any reason. http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/16x16_smiley-sad.gif<div class="ev_tpc_signature">

------------------------------------------------------------
....I understand that you understand almost nothing in computer technology(regarding how to get all features working well in one great code and how to get it fully optimized for all aspects of the game and where developers must go for compromisses), because you are speaking bla-bla-bla about things that you don't know. Sorry I don't like to offend you. But it looks like it looks. - Oleg Maddox
------------------------------------------------------------

http://img194.imageshack.us/img194/633/sigvp0.jpg

Simon "Hunin" Phoenix
Servant of Wotan and Tyr
True knight of the Endlich-Thread

anarchy52
12-24-2006, 06:52 AM
Originally posted by ElAurens:
The Pulqui was an abject failure. It killed it's test pilots, was never produced in numbers, and even Mr. Tank admitted he made an aircraft that killed it's pilots.

If you want to talk about killer planes, I think you should turn to Soviet designs. And if you really wan't a flying coffin - turn to F-104.

In Pulqui's case two (2) pilots were killed, one cause was exceeding structural limits coupled with manufacturing defect (faulty weld), the other was pilot error stall@800m is not something you should do in a jet fighter. Remarkably, although the plane entered inverted spin at 800m pilot managed to regain control, but not in time to pull up.


Obsolete before it left the drawing board.

This statement shows your ignorance. Had there been a contiguous development effort, uninterrupted by WWII end, Pulqui would be ready by 1949 the latest.

As it was, Pulqui was ready for production, with bugs ironed out in early 1953 and it was equal to or superior to top fighters of the time (Sabre and MiG-15).
Pulqui was killed by politics and economic reasons as well as inadequate industrial base.


Will you guys stop trying to rationalize the poor performance of the Ta-183 and just admit the truth? It was junk from the first stroke of the designer's pen.
If Pulqui is any indication of Ta-183's performance, and it certainly is - Ta-183 would have been a great fighter. Claiming it was "junk" or "obsolete" is completely baseless.
I think you have a problem admitting that it was not the grand ol' US of A that led the aviation into the jet age.

P.S. Unlike Ta-183 we have in game, Ta-183 1st concept didnt't have elevators on the tail, ailerons provided both the pitch and the roll control.

Sergio_101
12-24-2006, 07:21 AM
Pulqui II proves nothing of the original Ta-183 design.
It is so modified that it bears only a passing resemblance.

Mig-15 bears less resemblance, having only the
long exaggerated vertical fin of the Ta-183.

Axial flow turbojets were not a German monopoly.
Everyone into Jet tech was designing them.
Yes, even the US was working on jets
before they got the British engines and had axial
flow designs.
The German engines had a few basic flaws and VERY LITTLE
of their designs were used in US or British designs.
----It was NOT just about proper alloys----
centrifugal-flow was more efficient and more powerful
in the late 1940's. And as important, more reliable.

But there is little doubt that axial flow was and is the future.

Sergio<div class="ev_tpc_signature">

P-51s may not have won the war, but they did not loose it.
Loosing the war was left to the Bf-109s and Fw-190s. http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/winky.gif

anarchy52
12-24-2006, 07:43 AM
Originally posted by Sergio_101:
Pulqui II proves nothing of the original Ta-183 design.
It is so modified that it bears only a passing resemblance.

It is pretty similar conceptually and visually, there is no doubt that Pulqui is the evolution of Ta-183.
Pulqui was the completed Ta-183 design, Ta-183 is the starting point.


Mig-15 bears less resemblance, having only the
long exaggerated vertical fin of the Ta-183.

I'd say that MiG-15 is conceptually just as similar to Ta-183 as the Pulqui.


The German engines had a few basic flaws and VERY LITTLE
of their designs were used in US or British designs.
----It was NOT just about proper alloys----

Care to elaborate on those basic flaws?

For example BMW003 was extensively used by the French and the Soviets. Come to think of it, soviets probably wouldn't have a jet aircraft for a few years if it weren't for german engines (remember that MiG-9 prototype flew with ORIGINAL german engines).


centrifugal-flow was more efficient and more powerful
in the late 1940's. And as important, more reliable.

Radial jets were a more conservative design, and less efficient by design. As you said axial flow engines were the future.

ryankm
12-24-2006, 08:27 AM
The ta-183 is fine performance wise it is just underpowered

Klemm.co
12-24-2006, 04:09 PM
Originally posted by anarchy52:
P.S. Unlike Ta-183 we have in game, Ta-183 1st concept didnt't have elevators on the tail, ailerons provided both the pitch and the roll control.
This is a very strange point about the Ta-183 in the game. But i think its a game-engine limitation. Since no aircraft MG planned to model for the Il-2 series had its trim-tabs seperated from the elevator, it seems like they decided to combine the trim tabs and the elevator, which, of course, isn't correct.
But even if the elevons were used for both elevators and ailerons on the in-game Ta, i don't think it would change anything in performance. It really is just a cosmetic thing.

Greb
12-26-2006, 10:36 AM
I think it is a cool addition to the Sim. It will be fun to paint some up as F86's and some as MIG's and just go to town!

Would it have flown as the Germans thought it would, who knows, probably not? You can crunch numbers, talk design all you want. You can get a good idea but until it lifts off the ground it's a Ford/Chevy argument! The one thing that is a fact. Everyone was working on the "Jet". The Germans were in the lead design wise. Look at every countries version of their first swept wing. They all have a little of the TA-183 in them. IMHO!

Jaws2002
12-26-2006, 10:56 AM
The argument is kinda pointless. The version modeled in the game was rejected by Tank before the war's end so there's little chance it would have been flying the way it was even if the war dragged on.

In my oppinion they should have modeled the most likely accepted version not the most exotic one.

The design III was more likely to be built:
http://www.luft46.com/fw/3bft183j.jpg
http://www.luft46.com/fw/ta183cut.jpg

Also the fact that is modeled with the Jumo 004B, planed to equip the prototype only until HeS 011 jet engine was ready doesn't help.<div class="ev_tpc_signature">

http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v258/<FA>Jaws/Shot1.jpg

TIR 4 Pro -$25 Off- From Forgotten Assassins (http://trackir.naturalpoint.com/forgottenassassins/)


Hunter 82's Uber PC Component Shop (http://www.magnum-pc.com/)

Aaron_GT
12-26-2006, 02:57 PM
This statement shows your ignorance. Had there been a contiguous development effort, uninterrupted by WWII end, Pulqui would be ready by 1949 the latest.

This is very true, and had the Pulqui been ready for production in 1949 it would have been a very competitive aircraft. As it was it was 4 years later before it was at this point and by this time it was moving into obselesence (at least in terms of US-USSR rivalries, it would have still been competitive within South America, of course, where prop fighters were still the order of the day). In 1954, though, the prototypes of the F-104 and Lightning were flying, and the Pulqui was in no way competitive with these, although these took a few more years to actually come on stream.

To answer Sergio101, whilst little German technology was directly transferred to US production (apart from perhaps the Loon), there was considerable interest from a number of US manufacturers (e.g. Boeing) in the data on things such as swept wing technology and high speed wind tunnel technology. Even German mistakes in designs, if tested in a high speed wind tunnel and found inadequate, saved the USA much time in not needing to repeat the mistakes and made that data very useful.

Aaron_GT
12-26-2006, 03:03 PM
Everyone was working on the "Jet". The Germans were in the lead design wise.

Not always. Germany certainly seemed to have edged ahead in terms of high speed swept-wing research (e.g. Messerschmitt P.1101) and actual implementation of jets (e.g. Arado 234, although an almost identical British jet had been designed during WW2, but was abandoned in favour of the Canberra) but the UK and USA were ahead in terms of developing supersonic aircraft and things such as the all-flying tail and the afterburner (the last two part of the M.52 design).

DarkWingDuck...
12-27-2006, 02:36 AM
Originally posted by Aaron_GT:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Everyone was working on the "Jet". The Germans were in the lead design wise.

Not always. Germany certainly seemed to have edged ahead in terms of high speed swept-wing research (e.g. Messerschmitt P.1101) and actual implementation of jets (e.g. Arado 234, although an almost identical British jet had been designed during WW2, but was abandoned in favour of the Canberra) but the UK and USA were ahead in terms of developing supersonic aircraft and things such as the all-flying tail and the afterburner (the last two part of the M.52 design). </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

Last part there makes no sense........you are overlapping two time periods.<div class="ev_tpc_signature">

QUACK

HellToupee
12-27-2006, 03:10 AM
well u could argue british jet developement was more advanced with more powerful and reliable engine designs http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_smile.gif

HellToupee
12-27-2006, 03:13 AM
Originally posted by Jaws2002:


In my oppinion they should have modeled the most likely accepted version not the most exotic one.

The design III was more likely to be built:
http://www.luft46.com/fw/3bft183j.jpg
http://www.luft46.com/fw/ta183cut.jpg

Also the fact that is modeled with the Jumo 004B, planed to equip the prototype only until HeS 011 jet engine was ready doesn't help.

in the object viewer it states design II was chosen by rlm for developement.

Antoninus
12-27-2006, 03:45 AM
Chosen for development does not mean that development can't proof that a design isn't feasible. It was during development that the faults of the T-tail design were discovered.<div class="ev_tpc_signature">

_____________________________________
http://img136.imageshack.us/img136/3734/il2sig26hf.jpg

Actually everybody talks about aerial combat. I maintain that hitting ground targets, and especially ships is more dangerous than aerial combat. - Joe Foss

Aaron_GT
12-27-2006, 04:34 AM
Last part there makes no sense........you are overlapping two time periods.

No, I'm not.

The work for the Miles M.52 started in 1942, contemporaneous with German jet development. The M.52 was designed to be supersonic but used short thin wings (cf. Bell X1). The flight of the M.52 models and X1 was postwar, though.

The work for the British bomber that looked very much like the Ar. 234 was the Gloster jet bomber design from 1941. These are contemporaneous with German developments. In the end the Gloster design was not proceeded with but the Canberra design work started in 1944 under Petter (of Westland Whirlwind fame, who also designed the EE Lightning). The Canberra bore many similarities to the second Gloster jet bomber design, the P.109 (also 1941). In the end the Canberra didn't fly until 1949 as post-war the urgency to get it into the air receeded. So whilst the designs existed the Allies were behind in terms of implementation (i.e. getting them into service during WW2). This was partly because since the Allies were winning the war anyway there was less need to get experimental designs into the air even though research and development was ongoing.

In other words the allies had designed similar aircraft to the Ar. 234, for example, but there was less pressure on the Allies after 1942 to get such experimental aircraft into the air. The Allies lagged in high speed swept wing research and were then able to accomodate the lessons from German research in the second generation of jets. Despite the Canberra being a post war aircraft in terms of when it first flew it is actually a first generation design. The Allies were ahead in terms of supersonic aircraft design, though (M.52, X1) during WW2 even if they did not fly such aircraft during WW2.

anarchy52
12-27-2006, 08:50 AM
Allies were indeed looking into supersonic designs, but the theory of supersonic flight has not been available, nor the engines. All supersonic designs relied on rocket engines as only rocket engines could offer the needed thrust, however not even rocket engines with required power were available. I remember seeing an american design I think it was pre war, looked very esthetically pleasing, but it was just an idea far ahead of it's time.

Germans were ahead of the allies in aerodynamic research (especially high speed flight) but their main problem were engines. Instead of going with less radical radial turbojets they skipped that design and went for axials. Another problem that was troubling the german engine industry was the lack of certain raw materials needed for high temperature resistant alloys.

Looking at british '46 designs it's obvious that they went along a very conservative path. Their focus was on stronger piston engines, some with counter rotating blades to minimize the enormous torque generated by monster 3000HP engines.

USA also went with basically WWII designs but powered by jet engines. Sabre was the first true jet design benefiting from newly acquired knowledge. P-80 was the best that could be done by relying on existing technology.

Russians were far behind in all aspects. If it wasn't for german research and engines, russians wouldn't have flown their own jet fighter for a few more years and the famous MiG-15 wouldn't have flown till mid 1950s if it weren't for the RR Nene engines sold by the British.

zoomar
12-27-2006, 09:46 AM
Really, the Ta-183 in this game is not much different than the maligned Lerche: an incompletely thought-out concept aircraft which looks cool. Everything else (except the Bf109Z)at least flew in prototype form). There is also probably no way any proposed design variant of the Ta-183 would have been ready for service in 1946 anyway. The fact that the Pulqui was designed by Tank and the Mig 25 obviously benefitted from the same Focke-Wulf design concepts does not make either plane a fleshed-out "Ta-183". Since the Ta-183 is not a real plane anyway, I prefer the cool "T" tail job over the Model III squashed Pulqui.

3.JG51_BigBear
12-27-2006, 11:40 AM
Everyone should try flying this plane again with the new beta patch-its a completely different plane now.

heywooood
12-27-2006, 11:44 AM
man I loved it before the patch...now its just wickedfast and lethal with the X-4's<div class="ev_tpc_signature">

http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v250/heywooood/afewofTheFew-1.jpg

A few of The Few

PraetorHonoris
12-27-2006, 11:58 AM
Originally posted by 3.JG51_BigBear:
Everyone should try flying this plane again with the new beta patch-its a completely different plane now.

Well, it's 200km/h faster and thus matches the specs given by the Fw-team and Oleg/RRG. However, it is still far away from being über. It's very instable at 900+km/h and it still takes ages to reach top-speed. It's low-speed handling is bad and you still are in sever danger, if you decide to make a turn or even a turn fight.

I like it very much now. A touchy little bird, but fast enough to get away now. As a fighter it's competive, though inferior to the MiG9. As interceptor it's X4 make it unmatched.<div class="ev_tpc_signature">

http://img207.imageshack.us/img207/6061/untitled1copymd8.jpg

"Misconceptions about the Luftwaffe [...] are, in large part, simply caused by a lack of basic skills of many, who write about the Luftwaffe. For some inexplicable reason, many historians - especially Americans - believe they can write books about the German army or the German air force without knowing German"
Dr. J.S.Corum, LTC USAF, Strategic Studies Institute

Aaron_GT
12-27-2006, 02:19 PM
Allies were indeed looking into supersonic designs, but the theory of supersonic flight has not been available,

The designs flew successfully. The F-104 also used essentially the same wing design. Even the Germans looked at short stubby, thin wings for projected supersonic flight.


nor the engines. All supersonic designs relied on rocket engines

The Bell X1 relied on rocket engines. The M.52 was projected to be successful with a turbojet with reheat. So in other words the M.52 did not rely on a rocket engine. It never flew of course, as it was abandoned (debate rages over the reasons for this abandonment).


I remember seeing an american design I think it was pre war, looked very esthetically pleasing, but it was just an idea far ahead of it's time.

Lockheed?


Germans were ahead of the allies in aerodynamic research (especially high speed flight) but their main problem were engines.

The Germans were definitely more advanced in swept wing research for high speed aircraft. I'd agree on the problems with engine development, though.

[/quote]
Looking at british '46 designs it's obvious that they went along a very conservative path. Their focus was on stronger piston engines, some with counter rotating blades to minimize the enormous torque generated by monster 3000HP engines.[/quote]

British designs of the 1946 period were almost entirely jets, and development prior to this was concentrated on jets - e.g. Meteor, Vampire, Canberra, Ace, Rocket, Attacker, etc. All pre 1946 designs. Where the development lagged was in the use of the swept wing until the Hunter and Javelin in production aircraft. The piston engined aircraft were earlier (e.g. Spiteful, 1943 design, 1944 first flight, or versions of the Hawker Fury (design from 1942, flying in 1944).

WWMaxGunz
12-27-2006, 05:59 PM
Germans tried to break the barrier using 163's but failed. Not because of power but because
of the tail and missing design element. They lost a top test pilot in the film I saw.
Postwar saw other countries repeat the experience with different planes.
Somehow I don't believe the answer was exotic alloys.........

anarchy52
12-27-2006, 07:58 PM
Originally posted by WWMaxGunz:
Germans tried to break the barrier using 163's but failed. Not because of power but because
of the tail and missing design element. They lost a top test pilot in the film I saw.

Never heard of that.


Somehow I don't believe the answer was exotic alloys.........
No, "exotic" alloys don't have anything to do with supersonic flight, unless you want to go really fast. German engine designs were limited by the availability of certain metals (chrome, molibden).

HellToupee
12-27-2006, 09:28 PM
Originally posted by Antoninus:
Chosen for development does not mean that development can't proof that a design isn't feasible. It was during development that the faults of the T-tail design were discovered.

it was inresponse to this

"In my oppinion they should have modeled the most likely accepted version not the most exotic one."

T tails do have their faults but they also have pluses to.

3.JG51_BigBear
12-27-2006, 10:29 PM
After the beta patch this is one of the coolest planes in the 46 patch. Its like a jet version of a sturmbock. It seems to take more damage than other jet fighters and with its unbelievably destructive payload of four guided rockets and four 3cm cannon this thing is a real bomber killer. Its slow to accelerate and flys like a pig with those rockets strapped under its wings but I think it adds a bit of realism to this fantasty fighter by giving it some of the weight and heft you would expect of a heavy bomber intercepter.

Longpo
12-27-2006, 10:39 PM
The TA has gone from one end of the spectrum to the other.

It was to be blunt, ****e, now its bloody mental.

The speed just keeps going till the ship starts shuddering and it doesn't seem to overheat - to be honest I was on the Moscow map but still, I put it into near stall climbs with the throttle firewalled and it didn't overheat.<div class="ev_tpc_signature">

__________________________

- The Droop Snoot wasn't very effective in combat. Paul Habbe commented, "About the only thing it was good for was hauling whisky and girls." -

TX-Gunslinger
12-28-2006, 01:12 AM
After flying the new patch for the last four hours or so online, and after a few hours in the Mig-9FS , Yak-15 I can safely say the new Ta-183 is very competitive with Mig-9 and P-80.

Yak-15 doesn't stack up well against these three. It's a cool looking aircraft but very underpowered.

Biggest difference I noticed was E-retention. It feels more like the Mig-9 (which I love) to me now. Can't outdive the Mig-9, but close enough for me, sort of like P-47D-22 vs FW-190A5.

If you get altitude on P-80 or Mig-9 you'll be fine.

If you just have enough patience to get altitude, it's a marvelous ride. Does'nt turn well, but what Focke-Wulf really does anyway.

S~

Gunny<div class="ev_tpc_signature">

https://webspace.utexas.edu/joem/TexasGunslingerSIG-d.jpg
International Online Competition League - http://www.gozr.net/iocl/index.php
"My engagement with the P-51 made me realize that, although the pilots of these machines enjoyed a formidable reputation, they were only human too." Feldwebel Willi Reschke, I/JG 302, July 1944

WWMaxGunz
12-28-2006, 06:59 AM
Originally posted by anarchy52:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by WWMaxGunz:
Germans tried to break the barrier using 163's but failed. Not because of power but because
of the tail and missing design element. They lost a top test pilot in the film I saw.

Never heard of that.


Somehow I don't believe the answer was exotic alloys.........
No, "exotic" alloys don't have anything to do with supersonic flight, unless you want to go really fast. German engine designs were limited by the availability of certain metals (chrome, molibden). </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

I've started to look through my old tapes for the Me-163 docvmentary (censor that!) that
showed the 163 tuck under and break up. 2 tapes so far and no luck. It's one of those
hour long propaganda channel Wings shows but I need a LOT of convincing that they invented
WWII film footage. They may not have shown all the flights but then who does or can?

That was THE fastest plane of the war. Just over 1004 kph once in recorded level flight
by Heinie Dittmar, not your average pilot by any means as he was able to get control back
after his flight started to go wrong. Critical mach was .84 and then nose tuck and roll
soon follwed but it could do that without diving!

BTW I did run across Flight Journal pages with a full interview of Rudy Opitz on the 163.

robbiminator
12-28-2006, 01:55 PM
I was under the impression, that the Pulqui II had low speed handling problems due to Tank fiddling with Hans Multhopp's design: he placed the wings both higher and further aft on the fuselage giving the plane the tendency to "drop like a stone" during landing approach.