PDA

View Full Version : TA 152C FM



XyZspineZyX
01-21-2007, 03:13 PM
Are there any plans to improve this aircrafts FM. I have no tracks or technical info on how this plane should perform, however if it was designed to replace the FW190D then shouldnt it perform better than the Dora, currently it does not (in my opinion). You have better survivability in the dora currently, again my opinion

Kwiatos
01-21-2007, 03:34 PM
I think rather Fw190 D-9 should be degrated to Ta152C level in general handling. BTW Ta152C was havier then D-9 (had higher wingloading) and had worse powerloading at low alt. So at low alt D-9 should be better. Ta152C should be better at high alts and it is due to its better speed.

XyZspineZyX
01-21-2007, 04:36 PM
Derating the D9s performance???!!!!

Sacrelidge!!! LOL

I was under the impression that the Doras & the P51s had the most historically accurate FMs in the sim.

What I am wondering is why include a version of the TA when its performance at the altitudes it was designed to be used is poor.

Or was I expecting to much? I suppose I dont understand the logic behind it. I thought the TA152c was meant to be a high performance prop plane.

Marcel_Albert
01-21-2007, 04:56 PM
What is strange is that in beta patch 4.071 , Ta-152C feels heavier than Ta-152H which is strange since H version should be heavier (well i'm not sure to be honest , maybe C was heavier despite shorter wings ? someone can enlight me pls ) , but perhaps i had a wrong impression last time i tried it .

Other thing i found strange is that GM1 is supposed to be activated above 6500-7000m approx. but in-game , when you activate GM1 with Ta-152C at high altitude (9000/10000 meters ) , the engine just gets dead after 3 seconds . Perhaps i'm ignorant , but i would like to know ; if someone if kind enough to inform me ; if it's normal or a bug , thx http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_wink.gif .

Dasriech, IMHO , i think that the most accurate FM in the sim are Bf109 and P-39 http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_smile.gif

Brain32
01-21-2007, 05:32 PM
First, remember that both TA152H and Ta152C carry a LOT more fuel than the Dora. Try TA152C at let's say 50% fuel, at higher speeds it will be not much different, however at low speeds it will be a dog, but hey it is heavier. BTW, although Ta152 was indeed heavier than the Dora, don't forget that it had larger wings http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/winky.gif Also while we talk about TA152C, they(developers) never told us which exactly Ta152C they modelled, with that in mind I find all discussions about Ta152C useless...

Viper2005_
01-21-2007, 06:22 PM
The GM1 thing is very strange; I hope they fix it!

As for the FM, I agree with brain - we don't have sufficient information to complain. But I'm not as disappointed with it as many seem to be - it's pretty quick, it rolls nicely and it has excellent firepower. Just pretend it's an A9 and enjoy!

AKA_TAGERT
01-21-2007, 06:28 PM
Originally posted by dasriech:
Are there any plans to improve this aircrafts FM. I have no tracks or technical info on how this plane should perform, however if it was designed to replace the FW190D then shouldnt it perform better than the Dora, currently it does not (in my opinion). You have better survivability in the dora currently, again my opinion An opinion and a dollar will get you a cup of joe

XyZspineZyX
01-21-2007, 06:45 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 dasriech:
Are there any plans to improve this aircrafts FM. I have no tracks or technical info on how this plane should perform, however if it was designed to replace the FW190D then shouldnt it perform better than the Dora, currently it does not (in my opinion). You have better survivability in the dora currently, again my opinion An opinion and a dollar will get you a cup of joe </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

I am not with Tagert, what do you mean?
& I am not trying to start an argument. The FM for the FW190 series has been improved with the 4.071 Patch & I am wondering if the fm of the TA152C has issues or is it me & I am not using it as it is meant to be used.

FritzGryphon
01-21-2007, 09:37 PM
I have no tracks or technical info on how this plane should perform

If I were a mod, anyone who starts their whine thread like this would be banned. Followed by banning everyone who made a serious response to the thread. Except 1 line mocking replies.

I'd go on, but I've just been banned. Ciao!

XyZspineZyX
01-21-2007, 10:41 PM
Mods please delete this thread I thought it was a simple enough question. Its stiring up to much rubbish all ready

AKA_TAGERT
01-21-2007, 10:41 PM
Originally posted by dasriech:
I am not with Tagert, what do you mean?
It means that opinions are worthless. Everybody has one and no one is more real or less real than another. They are all per YOUR perception so they seem real to you. But your perception differs from others, thus so does your opinion.

Even in WWII for ever Spitfire pilot that said he could out turn a 109 there is a 109 pilot that will say he could out turn a spit.

Most of the so called bugs I have look at over the past few years say more about the pilot than the simulation of the plane. That is the sim was fine, it was the pilot that was in error! Which is why you will see so many people say

GOT TRACK?

In that most of the time just looking at the TRACK will show the error the pilot is making.. if not that via devicelink you can see the mistake the pilot is making.


Originally posted by dasriech:
& I am not trying to start an argument.
Nor am I


Originally posted by dasriech:
The FM for the FW190 series has been improved with the 4.071 Patch
Says Who?
Based On What?


Originally posted by dasriech:
& I am wondering if the fm of the TA152C has issues or is it me
Without some REAL WORLD data to compare to and a TRACK file showing the comparison it is impossible to say


Originally posted by dasriech:
& I am not using it as it is meant to be used.
Without some REAL WORLD data to compare to and a TRACK file showing the comparison it is impossible to say

HellToupee
01-22-2007, 12:13 AM
Originally posted by dasriech:
Derating the D9s performance???!!!!

Sacrelidge!!! LOL

I was under the impression that the Doras & the P51s had the most historically accurate FMs in the sim.


wtih dora 44 exceeding performance figures for a mw50 equipped dora ofcourse its considered accurate :P, hell top speed tops out over 450mph.

Klemm.co
01-22-2007, 12:23 AM
Maybe Oleg felt that the Germans needed an equivalent to ze La-7. http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/icon_twisted.gif

WOLFMondo
01-22-2007, 01:51 AM
Originally posted by dasriech:
Are there any plans to improve this aircrafts FM. I have no tracks or technical info on how this plane should perform, however if it was designed to replace the FW190D then shouldnt it perform better than the Dora, currently it does not (in my opinion). You have better survivability in the dora currently, again my opinion

The TA152C is vastly heavier than the Dora, has only slightly larger wings which are made of steel (adding 500KG to the weight of the plane) and a heavier armament. Its just allot heavier without much extra power. Its not to far off its real world figures.

Kurt Tank did design the 152 to replace the Dora but it was never refined and steel can't have been his desired material to build the wings from.

Either way, without presenting any facts your argument will get ripped apart...ah, too latehttp://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_wink.gif

mynameisroland
01-22-2007, 04:08 AM
Originally posted by HellToupee:
wtih dora 44 exceeding performance figures for a mw50 equipped dora ofcourse its considered accurate :P, hell top speed tops out over 450mph.

The Dora 9 using C3 fuel was faster at height than the MW50 model - higher octane fuel and lighter aircraft go figure. The Mw50 was dead weight unless the boost was engaged - it is also faster at low heights.

HellToupee
01-22-2007, 05:40 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 HellToupee:
wtih dora 44 exceeding performance figures for a mw50 equipped dora ofcourse its considered accurate :P, hell top speed tops out over 450mph.

The Dora 9 using C3 fuel was faster at height than the MW50 model - higher octane fuel and lighter aircraft go figure. The Mw50 was dead weight unless the boost was engaged - it is also faster at low heights. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

using mw50 still gave it over 240ps more than c3 fuel engine, that only had 2000ps.

Where is all this data anyway only variant that could do over 450 was a d11

Kwiatos
01-22-2007, 05:50 AM
In FB D-9 with C3 fuel have better range of maximum speeds then version with B4+MW50. Version with MW50 is only slighlty faster at the deck then version with C3 have adventage. I wondet how it is corensponded to RL data and performance.
According to IL2 COmpare D9 with C3 reach at 5,5km about 725 km/h which is even better then Bf 109 K-4 with C3! D9 with MW50 reach near 710 km/h.

BTW Ta152C didnt have GM1 only MW50.

Kwiatos
01-22-2007, 06:07 AM
I found in my RL german charts:

D-9 with C3:
Sea level - 612 km/h
5,5 km - 705 km/h

D-9 with B4 and MW50
Sea level - 620 km/h
4,5 km - 695 km/h

Kwiatos
01-22-2007, 12:17 PM
I tested speed of D-9 with C3 (44) in version 4.071.

Crimea map alt 5,5 km, radiator close, maximum boost and i reach exacly what IL2 Compare show - 725km/h!!!

These is 20 km too fast according to RL data.

Other hand Tempest even don't reach its RL speed - 700 km/h. Maximum Tempest speed in game is 690 km/h.

Klemm.co
01-22-2007, 02:27 PM
Hey, you've got to remember that we already have 1946 here- wouldn't one expect for things to be refined after one year more development?
Yak-15 engine doesn't burn- whereas the exact same german engines on GERMAN planes do. So why can't the Ta-152 have a small speed boost of some 20 km/h?

Klemm.co
01-22-2007, 02:29 PM
Oh- i forgot: Of course the engine of the Yak-15 burns, too... but it behaves the same as the 2nd generation jet engines like that of the Ta-183, i.e. it doesn't do any nasty things when moving the throttle fast and so on.

Scharnhorst1943
01-22-2007, 02:56 PM
Originally posted by Klemm.co:
Hey, you've got to remember that we already have 1946 here- wouldn't one expect for things to be refined after one year more development?
Yak-15 engine doesn't burn- whereas the exact same german engines on GERMAN planes do. So why can't the Ta-152 have a small speed boost of some 20 km/h?

If you had bothered to READ the readme that came with 1946 you would know that they used "Soviet Coppies" of these engines that correct for the weak materials the Germans had to use. Therefore the Russian version of that jet engine lasts longer than the German one. http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_rolleyes.gif

Marcel_Albert
01-22-2007, 03:12 PM
i have read a few things about Ta-152 this afternoon , and that is normal that the C model feels heavier than the H model , because the C model was heavier despite having shorter wings .

The fact that Gm1 kills the engine at 10000m or slghtly below is strange though . And what i read didn't mention Gm1 for the C model .

BlitzPig_DDT
01-22-2007, 03:38 PM
Originally posted by Scharnhorst1943:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by Klemm.co:
Hey, you've got to remember that we already have 1946 here- wouldn't one expect for things to be refined after one year more development?
Yak-15 engine doesn't burn- whereas the exact same german engines on GERMAN planes do. So why can't the Ta-152 have a small speed boost of some 20 km/h?

If you had bothered to READ the readme that came with 1946 you would know that they used "Soviet Coppies" of these engines that correct for the weak materials the Germans had to use. Therefore the Russian version of that jet engine lasts longer than the German one. http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_rolleyes.gif </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

Yes, should LAST longer, not behave differently. The problem of going up in flames from throttling up quickly wasn't due to poor materials, it was due to dumping fuel in manually too quickly. Computers would solve that problem (and have), but just making it out of better metal wouldn't.

Also - after a yeah of peace and having Sir Winston interested in peace with the new Germany, you'd think they could score some more resources or something..... http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_rolleyes.gif

JSG72
01-22-2007, 03:50 PM
This subject was covered by a fairly long "Lost Thread".

It would appear that the TA 152C was never going to be the "Uber" plane. Niether "In Game". Nor in real life.

Many factory performance figures were indeed speculated before any prototypes were flown. (Such as comparison charts).

When the 152c-1 was flown, it proved to have a performance that was no better than what could be achievable with upgrades of the 190d.

However it could be developed as an allrounder. being of a stronger platform. So it was therefore mooted for further development with many versions to be realised.

However I do think we have a Boost bug "Ingame"(Dead engine when introducing NO2 injection) at ultimate altitude).

The 152H and 152c versions have the same profile AFAICS. in IL2 profiles?

Barring from cockpit back. They were two different aircraft?

'Tis a nice looking plane. But Too heavy for the power available.

Brain32
01-22-2007, 05:10 PM
Originally posted by Kwiatos:
I tested speed of D-9 with C3 (44) in version 4.071.

Crimea map alt 5,5 km, radiator close, maximum boost and i reach exacly what IL2 Compare show - 725km/h!!!

These is 20 km too fast according to RL data.

Other hand Tempest even don't reach its RL speed - 700 km/h. Maximum Tempest speed in game is 690 km/h.
Dora is also up to 20kmh too SLOW between 2000 and 3000m http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_smile.gif

AKA_TAGERT
01-22-2007, 06:02 PM
Got Track?

HellToupee
01-22-2007, 06:11 PM
Originally posted by Brain32:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by Kwiatos:
I tested speed of D-9 with C3 (44) in version 4.071.

Crimea map alt 5,5 km, radiator close, maximum boost and i reach exacly what IL2 Compare show - 725km/h!!!

These is 20 km too fast according to RL data.

Other hand Tempest even don't reach its RL speed - 700 km/h. Maximum Tempest speed in game is 690 km/h.
Dora is also up to 20kmh too SLOW between 2000 and 3000m http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_smile.gif </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

and too fast at many other alts.

Bremspropeller
01-22-2007, 06:12 PM
Got track? http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/59.gif

Brain32
01-22-2007, 06:16 PM
http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/16x16_smiley-very-happy.gif http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/11.gif

wayno7777
01-22-2007, 08:46 PM
Are you dropping the throttle below 100% before engaging GM-1???

HayateAce
01-22-2007, 09:02 PM
Another Germ plane over-rated in Oleg's sim?

Hoodathunkit!


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

WWMaxGunz
01-22-2007, 09:51 PM
Originally posted by AKA_TAGERT:
In that most of the time just looking at the TRACK will show the error the pilot is making.. if not that via devicelink you can see the mistake the pilot is making.


I think you have a reputation. It scares the ones that talk-don't-walk.
Lookit already, he's gone from claim to please delete the thread!

WWMaxGunz
01-22-2007, 10:03 PM
Steel wings, 500 kg more weight... I wonder dive rate and dive max welocity?
But what that might do to the roll rate! Ouch!

Scharnhorst1943
01-23-2007, 12:23 AM
Sorry, I did not mean to throw stones ... OK maybe I did. I take my cheap shots when I gets em. I agree with you, however I was just giving the reason the develepers gave in the readme file. Take my srcasm for what it is worth. http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/353.gif

robban75
01-23-2007, 08:22 AM
The Ta 152C V6 managed 617km/h at sealevel. So it should be slightly faster than the Fw 190D-9 '45. At altitude the Ta 152C was much faster ~750km/h.

The Ta 152C is heavier when compared to the D-9. Much because of the more powerful armament(4X MG151 + 1X Mk 108), and it's ability to carry twice the fuel load of a D-9. The Ta 152C has a larger wing area, so with 25% fuel it should probably handle like a D-9.

I'm still flying the 3.04 version, so I can't do any accurate tests. The D-9 is in the 3.04, and in several earlier patches much too slow between 1000m and 3000m.

Here are the speed numbers I have from 3.04. I have no idea if they have been changed. But I doubt they have.

Speeds shows in this order. D-9 '45 in-game, D-9 2:nd gen Jumo, D-9 1:st gen Jumo and <span class="ev_code_YELLOW">D-9 C3</span> which is supposed to be the '44 version we have in-game).

SL - 621 - 621 - 612 - <span class="ev_code_YELLOW">622</span>
1k - 632 - 640 - 631 - <span class="ev_code_YELLOW">639</span>
2k - 628 - 655 - 650 - <span class="ev_code_YELLOW">656</span>
3k - 656 - 667 - 659 - <span class="ev_code_YELLOW">667</span>
4k - 684 - 685 - 675 - <span class="ev_code_YELLOW">685</span>
5k - 706 - 695 - 691 - <span class="ev_code_YELLOW">702</span>

dadada1
01-23-2007, 08:35 AM
I would say that a lot of people were expecting the TA 152C to be a Panacea for all Ills and to out perform (in manouverability the H version. This has always puzzled me as the H was designed as a high altitude air superiority fighter and the C as a destroyer. I would say given the weight of the C it performs in game to my expectations.