PDA

View Full Version : Accuracy of the TA 152



3.JG51_BigBear
02-06-2006, 07:30 AM
Just curious if anyone has done any testing on the TA 152. I flew it last night after having ignored it since the release of AEP and I was thoroughly impressed. Granted I was only tangling with the AI but it still performed well beyond my expectations at all altitudes (I was particularly surprised at its solid low altitude performance for such a specialty high altitude fighter). With all the testing done on the other Focke Wulfs I was sure someone had to have tested this one and I was wondering how close reality it is. Any info would be appreciated, thanks.

3.JG51_BigBear
02-06-2006, 07:30 AM
Just curious if anyone has done any testing on the TA 152. I flew it last night after having ignored it since the release of AEP and I was thoroughly impressed. Granted I was only tangling with the AI but it still performed well beyond my expectations at all altitudes (I was particularly surprised at its solid low altitude performance for such a specialty high altitude fighter). With all the testing done on the other Focke Wulfs I was sure someone had to have tested this one and I was wondering how close reality it is. Any info would be appreciated, thanks.

blackpulpit1970
02-06-2006, 07:45 AM
I have not done much testing on the TA152, but, i do fly it regularly online and it has become my favorite ride. It handles very well at all altitudes and the firepower you cant beat. The trick is never open up your wingspan to enemies when they are behind you due to the size of the wingspan, and always stay fast and high if possible. I use %65 prop pitch and closed/auto rads for great speed and climbing and open rads when cruising. She is a great turner and climber and can chase down any allied plane quite easily. I set my MG to 500m for a straight shot thru the reticle as well as my cannon and she is deadly in the right hands. Take care 1)Anyone know were to find TA 152 skins.

3.JG51_BigBear
02-06-2006, 08:08 AM
CanonUK has made some excellent ones.

http://www.canons-skins.com/ta_152.htm

Lazy312
02-06-2006, 08:12 AM
Well the last time I tried (4.02, Crimea, full power, closed rad, no wind, not full tank however) Ta achieved 599 kph at sea level which is way faster than she shoud go.

WOLFMondo
02-06-2006, 08:45 AM
Can't say as a fan of the 190's it replaces the Dora at low and medium altitudes, the Dora is still superior in anything else apart horizontal turning combat, which the Ta isn't bad at. Not sure which is the best climber though. Has nice level acceleration though, which pilots commented on.

It also needs allot of attention on the prop pitch at higher altitudes to stop if over heating and boy, does it like to overheat.

Brain32
02-06-2006, 10:01 AM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content"> Well the last time I tried (4.02, Crimea, full power, closed rad, no wind, not full tank however) Ta achieved 599 kph at sea level which is way faster than she shoud go. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>
580kph was RL speed, 19kph is not way faster, it's too fast and it should be corrected though...

Viper2005_
02-06-2006, 10:26 AM
The Ta is hobbled at altitude by the overheat bug, which is a shame, as otherwise it would be great fun flying it against the P-47...

Kuna15
02-06-2006, 10:35 AM
The best in Kurt Tank series. Be sure http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_wink.gif.

Kocur_
02-06-2006, 10:44 AM
19kmh between 580kmh and 599kmh IMO is considerable enough to call for correcting it. I sure could use 19kmh more on deck in my A9 http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_wink.gif

Brain32
02-06-2006, 10:53 AM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content"> 19kmh between 580kmh and 599kmh IMO is considerable enough to call for correcting it. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>
Heh, if you ask me I would like to see every plane within +/- 1km/h I just said it's not way too fast http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/16x16_smiley-wink.gif

robban75
02-06-2006, 11:15 AM
Here's a speed chart that I've made with speeds taken from two different charts.

The version we have in-game is the one boosted to 2.03 ata.

http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v486/robban75/chart3.jpg

Brain32
02-06-2006, 11:40 AM
Then it's completely accurate, THX Robban.

Lazy312
02-07-2006, 05:38 AM
Thx Robban. However I found no reference that planes with Jumo213@2.03ata were operational. Could you provide more information?
(I found some charts but the lines on them were computed, not taken from a tests..)

dadada1
02-07-2006, 06:24 AM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by Brain32:
Then it's completely accurate, THX Robban. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

Apart from the suspect overheat yes.

robban75
02-07-2006, 06:34 AM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by Lazy312:
Thx Robban. However I found no reference that planes with Jumo213@2.03ata were operational. Could you provide more information?
(I found some charts but the lines on them were computed, not taken from a tests..) </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

AFAIK, most of the Ta 152's that reached the frontline units were H-0's that didn't have MW50 or GM-1. Whereas the one we have in-game is a MW50/GM-1 equipped H-1.
I really don't know how many(if any) were run at 2.03 ata. It's all speculation. And the germans usually computed the speeds for the their fighters. But the computed speeds seem to match up rather well with speeds actually achieved by the pilots.

WOLFMondo
02-07-2006, 06:45 AM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by dadada1:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by Brain32:
Then it's completely accurate, THX Robban. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

Apart from the suspect overheat yes. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

Use a little prop pitch and you can loose a small bit of performance but you'll keep the engine cool at higher altitudes.

dadada1
02-07-2006, 08:07 AM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by WOLFMondo:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by dadada1:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by Brain32:
Then it's completely accurate, THX Robban. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

Apart from the suspect overheat yes. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

Use a little prop pitch and you can loose a small bit of performance but you'll keep the engine cool at higher altitudes. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

Thanks for the tip WOLFMondo, but I've been almost exclusively with the Ta from the moment it was introduced though. I've felt overheat to be an issue for a long time but I doubt it will ever be looked into properly because of lack of data or will. Always seemed strange that a fighter optimised for High altitude has such problems. Others such as Lagg/Spit dont have such rapid overheat. This cant be just down to poor high altitude modelling of the game if others (lower altitude fighters) are okay up there. This is not a complaint by the way, merely an observation of one of the games inconsistancies, of which there are many. I'm still very happy with this aircrafts inclusion, and find it a fine performer in most areas. I would happily trade some of it's low to medium performance for some high alt stuff though, even if most fly it lower.

cawimmer430
02-07-2006, 08:23 AM
In the aircraft description, they said it had "less than stellar low altitude performance". But when I flew it at low altitude, I was surprised at how maneuvrable and responsive it was. Might be a programming error, but I like it. http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_razz.gif

Unknown-Pilot
02-07-2006, 10:33 AM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by cawimmer430:
In the aircraft description, they said it had "less than stellar low altitude performance". But when I flew it at low altitude, I was surprised at how maneuvrable and responsive it was. Might be a programming error, but I like it. http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_razz.gif </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

Fly it down low against an Ace Yak9U.

Then fly the D9 '44 against the same opponent.

The D9 is better. The handling difference is small. Noticible, but small. However, the D9 is faster. The 152 simply can't hope to catch the Yak unless it has a severe altitude advantage. The D9 isn't exactly able to "walk" the Yak9, but stands a much better chance.

On that basis, I'd prefer the D9 and would say the description you referenced is applicable.

jimDG
02-08-2006, 11:11 AM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by Unknown-Pilot:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by cawimmer430:
In the aircraft description, they said it had "less than stellar low altitude performance". But when I flew it at low altitude, I was surprised at how maneuvrable and responsive it was. Might be a programming error, but I like it. http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_razz.gif </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

Fly it down low against an Ace Yak9U.

Then fly the D9 '44 against the same opponent.

The D9 is better. The handling difference is small. Noticible, but small. However, the D9 is faster. The 152 simply can't hope to catch the Yak unless it has a severe altitude advantage. The D9 isn't exactly able to "walk" the Yak9, but stands a much better chance.

On that basis, I'd prefer the D9 and would say the description you referenced is applicable. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

ta152 can outturn a yak9u, and in RL outclimb it (havent tried it in Il2)

NonWonderDog
02-08-2006, 11:54 AM
If you pull the MP back to 1.92 ATA, does it still overheat?
http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/35.gif

Unknown-Pilot
02-08-2006, 11:55 AM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by jimDG:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by Unknown-Pilot:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by cawimmer430:
In the aircraft description, they said it had "less than stellar low altitude performance". But when I flew it at low altitude, I was surprised at how maneuvrable and responsive it was. Might be a programming error, but I like it. http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_razz.gif </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

Fly it down low against an Ace Yak9U.

Then fly the D9 '44 against the same opponent.

The D9 is better. The handling difference is small. Noticible, but small. However, the D9 is faster. The 152 simply can't hope to catch the Yak unless it has a severe altitude advantage. The D9 isn't exactly able to "walk" the Yak9, but stands a much better chance.

On that basis, I'd prefer the D9 and would say the description you referenced is applicable. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

ta152 can outturn a yak9u, and in RL outclimb it (havent tried it in Il2) </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

You won't be able to try it if you only have IL2. You'll need at least Forgotten Battles with the Aces Expansion Pack.

http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_wink.gif

I don't know about the 152 outturning the Yak9U in game, but I do know that it's irrelevant, when the 152 bleeds E much more quickly (particularly when doing things like tight turns), and accelerates more slowly.

And thanks to the way the Kurt Tank series is set up, and with the way the TnB planes are advantaged overall, I'm pretty sure the in-game 152 will never catch the Yak9U in a climb (in a combat situation), or would be a free standing target for the Yak if it was trying to escape.