PDA

View Full Version : Ta-152c porked?



josephs1959
12-26-2006, 12:47 PM
I saw a thread here that stated that "the ta-152c is definately porked." Which leads me to two questions; 1)How does a player arrive at such a conlcusion if one never flew the plane? I mean I have the data or some of the data of the Ta-152c in a book,"Focke-Wulf Ta-152 by Dietmar Harmann" Now how would I go about comparing what I may find in the book with what I may find in flying the plane in the game? 2)How are the 'actual' performance values of each plane converted to the games 'virtual' performance by the designers? If the plane does exist to this day(P-38 for example)I can understand how one could have the turn rates,accelceration under certain fuel payloads, climb rates, recorded with a labtop and then transfered into values which are used in the game.(Like a car that they are testing out on a track).Then using some estimating tables or formulae for drag coefficients and such for bomb loads and gun and ammunition loads.But the ta-152c doesn't exist today, so no actual data exists.

VW-IceFire
12-26-2006, 12:59 PM
http://www.acompletewasteofspace.com/modules.php?name=F...s&file=viewforum&f=8 (http://www.acompletewasteofspace.com/modules.php?name=Forums&file=viewforum&f=8)

A fair quantity of data does exist on the Ta-152C which was fairly extensively tested post-war along with many other German types. The Allies were basically looking for anything useful and testing everything was very important. So between that and German do***ents we have quite a bit of information on many planes including the Ta-152C.

How they get put into the game is anyones guess really but I'm sure they convert actual data (including weight, airfoil, power, etc.) and come up with a series of variables that the flight engine understands. This is all voodoo magic from the outside.

I think its a fair and valid statement to claim an aircraft is not performing to specifications if it doesn't match closely its real life counterpart. Or failing that, does not match the data we do have on the model plus comparison to an earlier predecessor. In the Ta-152 case we have the Ta-152H, FW190D-9, and the rest of the Focke Wulf series to compare to.

From what I've read apparently the Ta-152C's performance in the turn is undermodeled and its speed at sea level is overmodeled. Somewhere in the voodoo magic place of the flight model there may be a bad value or a misrepresented weight variable or goodness knows what. But seeing as there are graphs and charts for speed and seeing as we know the weight, wingloading, powerloading, and have comparison numbers for the other like models its fair to say that we have enough data to say, at least on relative terms, that something is not performing as expected.

As for some of the theoretical types...its much harder. An aeronautical engineer plus a computer can make projections which is probably good enough for a flight sim and having some fun if nothing else.<div class="ev_tpc_signature">

http://home.cogeco.ca/~cczerneda/sigs/icefire-tempestv.jpg
Find my missions at Flying Legends (http://www.flying-legends.net/php/downloads/downloads.php?cat_id=19) and Mission4Today.com (http://www.mission4today.com).

WOLFMondo
12-26-2006, 02:20 PM
Its definately as fast as it should be. Turn is something else.<div class="ev_tpc_signature">

Cheers!!

josephs1959
12-26-2006, 07:30 PM
O.K. speed is simple enough I fly at a certain altitude make sure of my throttle settings and engine flaps, look at my speedometer and compare with the data. Fine, But turn radius? Where's the ruler that measures the radius and how do I put it onto the game? Or do I just try to turn with another plane then figure in a round about way that this plane turns too tight or not tight enough from the data compared to the other planes turn radius? Even if that plane's values are correct or incorrect to what degree would be acceptable? .01?.001?.0001? I don't want to fly a UFO either. I've found that if I throttle down to say 80% from 110% and have combat flaps I can tighten my turn. Also,climbing slightly in a turn then diving slightly before the stall turning all the while can affect the radius. My point is there are many ways to change the turn radius of a plane by changing the settings, speed, climb, dive, flaps ect. Of course there variables and I guess the data on paper is set to a certain condition.(I also have that chart comparing the FW-190 with the Ta-152 H and C). And what a pilot may do in combat can alter the variables, bring the plane closer to the edge. Now in the game the Spitfire has no combat flaps it's all or nothing. Try that with a FW at certain speeds and you'll get flaps jammed. One plane is different form another, fine. I just wonder how players can be so sure of their results and come to these conclusions that this plane is porked without ever have flown it? And even if so to what degree measured in what, inches? centimeters, milimeters? Speaking for myself I've never flown the Ta-152/C so I'm not going to profess on the virtual flight characteristics of the planes in the game. What I do know is that everytime there's a new patch it alters other planes performanceas well as the planes that are supposed to be improved or corrected.In any case I would be interested in charts that show performance values of planes Allied and Axis so that I can take a look see and judge for myself. If anybody knows of where I can find such a site or book it would be greatly appreciated.

Akronnick
12-26-2006, 07:48 PM
To determine turn radius:

1) determine true airspeed. (v)
2) determine time required for a full cicle. (t)
3) determine cir***ference of circle by multiplying airspeed by time. (c = v*t)
4) determine radius by dividing cir***ference by twice Pi. (r ~= c/6.28)


Therefore, Turnradius = (True Airspeed * Turn Time)/2 Pi<div class="ev_tpc_signature">

---Loose nut removed from cockpit, ship OK

Akronnick
12-26-2006, 07:49 PM
cir c u m ference, damned stupid assed profanity filter.<div class="ev_tpc_signature">

---Loose nut removed from cockpit, ship OK

josephs1959
12-26-2006, 08:20 PM
LOL ! thanks

LStarosta
12-26-2006, 08:29 PM
I think you're comparing cu***bers to ***quats...<div class="ev_tpc_signature">

_____________________________

http://img109.imageshack.us/img109/1872/fe4ae1e074f2ea8e1878fa1kn2.gif (http://irwinnotguaranteed.ytmnd.com/)

VW-IceFire
12-26-2006, 09:31 PM
Originally posted by josephs1959:
O.K. speed is simple enough I fly at a certain altitude make sure of my throttle settings and engine flaps, look at my speedometer and compare with the data. Fine, But turn radius? Where's the ruler that measures the radius and how do I put it onto the game? Or do I just try to turn with another plane then figure in a round about way that this plane turns too tight or not tight enough from the data compared to the other planes turn radius? Even if that plane's values are correct or incorrect to what degree would be acceptable? .01?.001?.0001? I don't want to fly a UFO either. I've found that if I throttle down to say 80% from 110% and have combat flaps I can tighten my turn. Also,climbing slightly in a turn then diving slightly before the stall turning all the while can affect the radius. My point is there are many ways to change the turn radius of a plane by changing the settings, speed, climb, dive, flaps ect. Of course there variables and I guess the data on paper is set to a certain condition.(I also have that chart comparing the FW-190 with the Ta-152 H and C). And what a pilot may do in combat can alter the variables, bring the plane closer to the edge. Now in the game the Spitfire has no combat flaps it's all or nothing. Try that with a FW at certain speeds and you'll get flaps jammed. One plane is different form another, fine. I just wonder how players can be so sure of their results and come to these conclusions that this plane is porked without ever have flown it? And even if so to what degree measured in what, inches? centimeters, milimeters? Speaking for myself I've never flown the Ta-152/C so I'm not going to profess on the virtual flight characteristics of the planes in the game. What I do know is that everytime there's a new patch it alters other planes performanceas well as the planes that are supposed to be improved or corrected.In any case I would be interested in charts that show performance values of planes Allied and Axis so that I can take a look see and judge for myself. If anybody knows of where I can find such a site or book it would be greatly appreciated.
Paragraphs next time please http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_smile.gif

I do agree with you on many of these points. Some players are far too sure of what is and isn't without having been there and experienced it or at least this is what comes across this limited medium for communications. But on the other side of the coin there are quite a few bits and pieces we can put together that ultimately can tell us in some mathematical terms what should be going on.

Like I said, what happens inside of the game engine is voodoo magic as far as I'm concerned. There are a number of variables that Oleg boils things down to that determine how a plane behaves. Based on real world data but pared down (or up in some cases) to fit the game world physics. Most of what we argue for game flight models is not about how the real plane behaved but how we can try and make the info we have on the real plane match that of the simulation version. The closer together these two are the more real the simulation and the greater the accuracy.

Of course its all very difficult because no two planes are completely identical in performance and there are tons of factors that you may or may not want to simulate including some that are really hard to implement (equipment failures, sealant leaks that lead to the pilot being poisoned by monoxide, etc.). I applaud many efforts to make the game more historically correct but I think some people are a bit more of the zealot type and take the thing so far as to expect 100% accuracy when thats an impossible and lofty goal.

At the end of the day...this should be fun!<div class="ev_tpc_signature">

http://home.cogeco.ca/~cczerneda/sigs/icefire-tempestv.jpg
Find my missions at Flying Legends (http://www.flying-legends.net/php/downloads/downloads.php?cat_id=19) and Mission4Today.com (http://www.mission4today.com).

josephs1959
12-27-2006, 11:14 AM
Roger that. Enjoyment is what keeps us comming back. (For me 4 years and it's still the first game I play and want to improve upon.)I just wondered how this aspect of the game was arrived to. Still, if anyone has any info; books or sites of plane data. I can come to my own conclusions, open minded of course.

JSG72
12-28-2006, 01:06 PM
Originally posted by josephs1959:
Roger that. Enjoyment is what keeps us comming back. (For me 4 years and it's still the first game I play and want to improve upon.)I just wondered how this aspect of the game was arrived to. Still, if anyone has any info; books or sites of plane data. I can come to my own conclusions, open minded of course.

First off. The FW152c. To my knowledge http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/blink.gif

There were No allied tests done on the 152c as none were brought over or indeed found complete
None mentioned in "War Prizes" by Phil Butcher(All 152H-0s or H-1s)

or Focke Wulf 190-Ta 152 by Heinz Norrawa.

Nor within "Focke-Wulf Ta 152" The story of the Luftwaffes late-war, High-altitude fighter by Dieter Harrmann.
There are samples of the factory test sheets within this publication though!

I myself am not a zealot but someone who has a great interest in the Luftwaffe of WW11 and in the course of my years have collected many publications on the subject.
I do not hanker after exacting performance Data. More after experiences with these craft.
Something that appears erm.. somewhat lacking with the TA 152C.
As this plane was forseen within the design as the next "All rounder" with various combinations of powerplant and armament.
Just wondered what the IL2 FB'46 version they're FM is based on?

This SIM is an absolute dream come true to myself. and

Am reading about the Junkers 388 at the moment
Exteme detail. Am also pretty Anal about Luft Camo. http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_redface.gif<div class="ev_tpc_signature">

Is it just me? or can, anyone sook the truth.

jjtasker
12-28-2006, 01:19 PM
Originally posted by josephs1959:
O.K. speed is simple enough I fly at a certain altitude make sure of my throttle settings and engine flaps, look at my speedometer and compare with the data.

Simple? That speedometer you are looking at DOES NOT EXIST... its a graphical representation of a speedometer dial..there is no physics behind it.. Nothing you see in game can be used reliably to test anything.. its NOT REAL http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_smile.gif

VW-IceFire
12-28-2006, 01:51 PM
Originally posted by jjtasker:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by josephs1959:
O.K. speed is simple enough I fly at a certain altitude make sure of my throttle settings and engine flaps, look at my speedometer and compare with the data.

Simple? That speedometer you are looking at DOES NOT EXIST... its a graphical representation of a speedometer dial..there is no physics behind it.. Nothing you see in game can be used reliably to test anything.. its NOT REAL http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_smile.gif </div></BLOCKQUOTE>
Ok...don't get all Baudrillard on us. Its complex enough to discuss virtual versus real airplane specs without going into concepts such as simulacra and definitions of real.

I would like to know how testing is going along for the Ta-152C with the new beta patch. I hear the sea level speed is down to reported specs...not sure if the turn got any better or not...nobody has commented thus far.<div class="ev_tpc_signature">

http://home.cogeco.ca/~cczerneda/sigs/icefire-tempestv.jpg
Find my missions at Flying Legends (http://www.flying-legends.net/php/downloads/downloads.php?cat_id=19) and Mission4Today.com (http://www.mission4today.com).

Kwiatos
12-28-2006, 04:52 PM
TA152C still is too fast at sea level. In beta 07 reach 608 km/h instead 570 km/h.

Ta 152 H-1 still have too good climb rate at low alt - the best climb rate IRL with Mw50 was 17,5 m/s - in game has 24,5 m/s!!!

Ta 152 C IRL have even worse initial climb rate with MW50 - 15 m/s - in game we have 20 m/s !!!

So now we have Ta152 something like german "La7" with it uber speed and climb rate at low alt.

Of course Ta152s should shines at high alt where its speed and climb rate was the best comparing to other planes.

carguy_
12-28-2006, 05:08 PM
Ok you`re up for the challenge.Me La7 you Ta152H1 coalt 5000m.<div class="ev_tpc_signature">

http://carguy.w.interia.pl/tracki/sigjzg23upgraded.jpg
Self-proclaimed dedicated Willywhiner since July 2002
: Badsight.:"increased manouverability for bf-109s was satire" :
Please bring back 3.01 dots!

robban75
12-29-2006, 01:38 AM
Originally posted by Kwiatos:
TA152C still is too fast at sea level. In beta 07 reach 608 km/h instead 570 km/h.

One of the Ta 152C prototypes(V6) managed 617km/h at sea level at 1.95 ata. Info avaliable in Dietmar Hermann's book on the Ta 152 page 49.


Ta 152 H-1 still have too good climb rate at low alt - the best climb rate IRL with Mw50 was 17,5 m/s - in game has 24,5 m/s!!!

The Ta 152H-0 had a 20m/sec climb rate. The H-0 wasn't equipped with MW50 or GM-1. The Ta 152H-1 was heavier, so it's climbrate was lower. Perhaps 17.5m/sec,, without MW50 that is. The in-game Ta 152H runs at 2.02 ata btw.


Ta 152 C IRL have even worse initial climb rate with MW50 - 15 m/s - in game we have 20 m/s !!!

From what I can see that 15m/sec climb rate is without MW50, if you are refering to the chart on page 61 in Dietmar Hermann's Ta 152 book. The chart doesn't say at which ata though.<div class="ev_tpc_signature">

http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v486/robban75/JG26-4.jpg

"The Dora 9 was one of the finest piston-engine fighters I have ever flown; it ranks among my top five with the Spitfire XIV, the Grumman Bearcat, the Hawker Sea Fury and the North American P-51D Mustang IV." Captain Eric Brown, WW2 FAA fighter pilot and test pilot.

http://www.bellum.nu/

Abbuzze
12-29-2006, 01:55 AM
Originally posted by Akronnick:
cir c u m ference, damned stupid assed profanity filter.

LOL I just wondered whats so evil in this word, thanks now I know... http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_biggrin.gif<div class="ev_tpc_signature">

I./JG53 PikAs Abbuzze
http://www.jg53-pikas.de/

http://mitglied.lycos.de/p1234/bilder/Ani_pikasbanner_langsam%20neu.gif

Kwiatos
12-29-2006, 03:18 AM
Originally posted by robban75:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by Kwiatos:
TA152C still is too fast at sea level. In beta 07 reach 608 km/h instead 570 km/h.

One of the Ta 152C prototypes(V6) managed 617km/h at sea level at 1.95 ata. Info avaliable in Dietmar Hermann's book on the Ta 152 page 49.


Ta 152 H-1 still have too good climb rate at low alt - the best climb rate IRL with Mw50 was 17,5 m/s - in game has 24,5 m/s!!!

The Ta 152H-0 had a 20m/sec climb rate. The H-0 wasn't equipped with MW50 or GM-1. The Ta 152H-1 was heavier, so it's climbrate was lower. Perhaps 17.5m/sec,, without MW50 that is. The in-game Ta 152H runs at 2.02 ata btw.


Ta 152 C IRL have even worse initial climb rate with MW50 - 15 m/s - in game we have 20 m/s !!!

From what I can see that 15m/sec climb rate is without MW50, if you are refering to the chart on page 61 in Dietmar Hermann's Ta 152 book. The chart doesn't say at which ata though. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

Sry to say but in all data i have ever seen for Ta152H show initial climb rate - 17,5m/s with MW50!!! The same with Ta152C. Without MW50 initial climb rate is even worse. But it is for low alt climb rate.

Ta152C V6 (DB603E) prototype had engine designet for low alt - see at which alt it reach maximum speed. V6 reach maximum speed (With MW50) - 687 km/h at 5250m, had service celing only 10400m.

So remember that most Ta152 series was designet for high alt fight and wasn't so brilant at low alt like many think. Most people think that Ta152 should be even better then Fw 109 D-9 at low alt which is untrue.

Here are very good info about TA152 with performance data (these is not source but is reliable with these which i have seen):

http://www.csd.uwo.ca/~pettypi/elevon/baugher_other/ta152.html (http://www.csd.uwo.ca/%7Epettypi/elevon/baugher_other/ta152.html)

robban75
12-29-2006, 05:21 AM
Originally posted by Kwiatos:
Sry to say but in all data i have ever seen for Ta152H show initial climb rate - 17,5m/s with MW50!!! The same with Ta152C. Without MW50 initial climb rate is even worse. But it is for low alt climb rate.

If the Ta 152H-0 managed(without MW50) 20m/sec weighing 4727kg, why then should the H-1 weighing 5217kg manage only 17.5m/sec WITH MW50? And remember, the Ta 152H-1 in-game runs at 2.02 ata.


Ta152C V6 (DB603E) prototype had engine designet for low alt - see at which alt it reach maximum speed. V6 reach maximum speed (With MW50) - 687 km/h at 5250m, had service celing only 10400m.

The V6 had the DB603E which lacked the high alt performance of the DB603L, the L had the same low/mid alt performance of the E.


So remember that most Ta152 series was designet for high alt fight and wasn't so brilant at low alt like many think. Most people think that Ta152 should be even better then Fw 109 D-9 at low alt which is untrue.

I believe it's the other way around. Contrary to what most people seem to think, the Ta 152 was an excellent low alt performer. I'm certain Willie Reschke would agree with this.<div class="ev_tpc_signature">

http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v486/robban75/JG26-4.jpg

"The Dora 9 was one of the finest piston-engine fighters I have ever flown; it ranks among my top five with the Spitfire XIV, the Grumman Bearcat, the Hawker Sea Fury and the North American P-51D Mustang IV." Captain Eric Brown, WW2 FAA fighter pilot and test pilot.

http://www.bellum.nu/

badatflyski
12-29-2006, 06:42 AM
for the "dontcountanymore" time:

http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v228/badatflyski/il2/page154chartcopy2.jpg <div class="ev_tpc_signature">

"Once I saw a smoking hurricane over the French making it's way back towards England and gave it an escort over the channel. Three weeks later I was escorted by three spitfires towards France.
This would never happen in Russia...never."(Me109 pilot)

"I noticed, that you were doing high Gs for 6 minutes now, and in real life it was no more than 3 Gs for most turns, and in 2 minutes you were not able to see what gauges showed!?
Viktor Alexeevich Tikhomirov

Slap (addicted il2 player) on SimHq Forums:
I built up enough courage to go out to the local shop this morning and on my way I saw a squadron of FW 190's flying low and fast; my immediate reaction was to rugby tackle an old lady who was close by as I shouted "BANDITS! INCOMING! 1 O'CLOCK LOW!"...How was I to know they were pigeons?! They had the sun to there backs!

Support WhiteOneFoundation!:
http://www.white1foundation.org/