PDA

View Full Version : Another Ta Question



Fehler
05-27-2004, 08:29 PM
Is the Spit 9 Supposed to outclimb a Ta-152 from 7000 to 9000 meters?

I was up high with a spit and was really surprised when it flat outclimbed me from 7-9K. He did not have energy on me, so it was not a zoom, he just flat outclimbed me. What was really amazing was that he went from outside of Icon range to gun range within 2500 meters of climb! I was going at my best climb speed (Around 300KPH IAS). Is this accurate?

I always thought the whole idea of the big paddle prop blades was to cut through the thin air, and the whole reason for the long narrow wings was the same thing. But even at 8K he was able to outturn, outrun, and outclimb me.

I am certainly not whining, I was just shocked. I really dont have a great deal of information on wither plane, so I dont know. Logically, I dont quite understand why the Ta-152 was designed the way it was if there was of no significant benefit to it.

So, what I am really asking is, is this accurate or not? If it is, then great. I learned a good lesson. If it is not, then perhaps something needs to be fixed.

Anyone with good numbers, please let me know. I dont really trust "Internet numbers" and I possess no books on either plane.

http://webpages.charter.net/cuda70/FehlerSig.gif
http://webpages.charter.net/cuda70/9JG54.html

Fehler
05-27-2004, 08:29 PM
Is the Spit 9 Supposed to outclimb a Ta-152 from 7000 to 9000 meters?

I was up high with a spit and was really surprised when it flat outclimbed me from 7-9K. He did not have energy on me, so it was not a zoom, he just flat outclimbed me. What was really amazing was that he went from outside of Icon range to gun range within 2500 meters of climb! I was going at my best climb speed (Around 300KPH IAS). Is this accurate?

I always thought the whole idea of the big paddle prop blades was to cut through the thin air, and the whole reason for the long narrow wings was the same thing. But even at 8K he was able to outturn, outrun, and outclimb me.

I am certainly not whining, I was just shocked. I really dont have a great deal of information on wither plane, so I dont know. Logically, I dont quite understand why the Ta-152 was designed the way it was if there was of no significant benefit to it.

So, what I am really asking is, is this accurate or not? If it is, then great. I learned a good lesson. If it is not, then perhaps something needs to be fixed.

Anyone with good numbers, please let me know. I dont really trust "Internet numbers" and I possess no books on either plane.

http://webpages.charter.net/cuda70/FehlerSig.gif
http://webpages.charter.net/cuda70/9JG54.html

Hunde_3.JG51
05-27-2004, 08:50 PM
Fehler, not trying to highjack the thread but Oleg himself once said that the FW-190A-9's larger prop was designed to improve climb at higher altitudes. But according to IL-2 compare the A-8 and A-9 climb almost the same and with the same exact curve (meaning no difference as altitude increases). I don't know how accurate IL-2 compare is but if it is correct then it certainly can't be right.

But I've grown very fond of the Dora now that cannons are effective http://ubbxforums.ubi.com/images/smiley/59.gif.

http://www.militaryartshop.com/prints/bailey/warwolf.jpg

Formerly Kyrule2
http://www.jg51.com/

Fillmore
05-27-2004, 09:38 PM
"I was going at my best climb speed (Around 300KPH IAS). "

too fast. Best speed for Dora and Anton is 280, Ta is even a bit lower. And this is at sea level, up at that altitude I think it should be even lower. Also note that difference in power between 110%+WEP and 100% is very great, though you didn't specify power setting.

Zen--
05-27-2004, 10:41 PM
So now you begin to see the magic of the Dora eh Hunde, I've been saying it for years hehe http://ubbxforums.ubi.com/infopop/emoticons/icon_smile.gif

Regardless of airspeed, best climb rate for the Ta152 is around 22m/s depending on altitude. Sometimes you can sustain almost 25m/s for short periods in a sort of mini-zoom climb. Airspeed for optimal climb tends to fluctuate from 230-280kph on the speedbar, but in real life the Dora climbed best at 280kph TAS so I would assume the Ta152 would be very similar.

In game if you can sustain 22m/s you should be climbing at maximum rate even if the speedbar shows as low as 230kph...in this case I feel that the vertical rate is a better indicator than horizontal airspeed is for determining the energy advantage.


As for the Spit outclimbing you from 7-9K, I doubt in real life that was possible precisely because of the Ta152's design, but then again in real life the Ta had only 12-15m/s climb rate at that altitude anyway, so maybe the Spit also has an artificially high climb rate at those altitudes as well, just as our Ta does right now. In my opinion one of the most difficult features to model in AEP appears to be climb rate...in every version of the game and in all the patches there are always a few planes that climb much too well and they are usually the newest releases to the game. It seems to take a few patches before energy retention and climb rates are tuned in for the plane in question to get a realistic feel. British planes seem to get the largest benefit of the doubt imho...for example the Hurricane from FB 1.0 and the Spit V from AEP 2.0, both having that little UFO engine in there chugging away. These engines are particularly useful at altitudes of say....7-9K http://ubbxforums.ubi.com/infopop/emoticons/icon_wink.gif

I don't think it's right, but it doesn't surprise me that a Spit outclimbed or outmanuevered the Ta up there...lots of planes perform far better than they should at altitude, while some of the more famous types with a good high alt reputation do not.


As for IL2 compare...I personally use it as a ballpark comparison but in game things can and often are quite different. Some of it is because of exploits, some because of gaming the game and some because of dubious energy modelling, but I don't use it as a reliable predictor of performance, only as a guideline. (No offense to the creator, it is a nifty little program actually)


Just my .02 rupees

-Zen-

Hunde_3.JG51
05-28-2004, 01:31 AM
LOL Zen http://ubbxforums.ubi.com/infopop/emoticons/icon_biggrin.gif.

I've always known the Dora was a better fighter but have always loved the versatility of the A-9. With AEP 2.0 and the nerf guns the A-9 was a better choice IMO. And before the A-9 was competitive with the P-51 and others, but with the recent changes and additional aircraft I feel the better performance of the Dora now outweighs the better firepower of the A-9. I've been flying the Dora alot since latest patch and it feels almost untouchable at times, its a good feeling http://ubbxforums.ubi.com/infopop/emoticons/icon_smile.gif.

The A-9 is still the most versatile plane in FB IMO, its an excellent fighter/bomber and attack plane/bomber interceptor, its just that this doesn't mean much in online world http://ubbxforums.ubi.com/images/smiley/51.gif.

Oh, and as usual I agree with everything you said in above post.

http://www.militaryartshop.com/prints/bailey/warwolf.jpg

Formerly Kyrule2
http://www.jg51.com/

dadada1
05-28-2004, 05:00 AM
Fehler, afraid I don't have any numbers for you, just an extract from the book Wings of the Luftwaffe by Captain Eric Brown. He tested Ta 152H-1 Werk No 150168 and these were his impressions. (I'm not a fan of internet information either)

"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 30,000ft (9145m) mark had slipped past on the altimeter, the Tank fighter gave the impression of holding it's rate of climb better than its British counterpart. In so far as manouverability was concerned, the story was very much the same; the Spitfire was certainly the better of the two below 30,000ft(9145m), there being little to chose between the British and German fighters between that altitude and 35,000ft (10 670m), but above that the latter enjoyed a decided edge. I gave the German fighter it's head on the way to Brize Norton and did a full throttle run at 35'000ft (10 670), which, by my rough reckoning worked out at around 425 mph(684 km/h, or about 35 mph (56km/h) less than the Spitfire XIX was capable of, but of course the availability of GM 1 would have more than redressed the balance and the Ta 152H-1 was certainly the superior aeroplane in terms 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".


Don't know how much this helps toward answering your query but I think it is useful to assess the Ta in relation to the Spitfire, even if it is comparing it to a Griffon engine reconaissance version. From this excerpt it would seem that the Spitfire 9 should be more manouverable below 35,000ft, looks like you'll have to exploit the Ta s speed advantage. What will be really interesting is when they introduce the Spitfire XIV in a future FB patch.

[This message was edited by dadada1 on Fri May 28 2004 at 05:16 AM.]

[This message was edited by dadada1 on Fri May 28 2004 at 05:17 AM.]

[This message was edited by dadada1 on Fri May 28 2004 at 05:18 AM.]

LeLv28_Masi
05-28-2004, 05:28 AM
Fehler, spit outclimbs everything up high since it never overheats on high altitudes.

robban75
05-28-2004, 06:17 AM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by dadada1:
Don't know how much this helps toward answering your query but I think it is useful to assess the Ta in relation to the Spitfire, even if it is comparing it to a Griffon engine reconaissance version. From this excerpt it would seem that the Spitfire 9 should be more manouverable below 35,000ft, looks like you'll have to exploit the Ta s speed advantage. What will be really interesting is when they introduce the Spitfire XIV in a future FB patch.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

From what I know the MkXIX was an even better performer than the MkXIV. And this test was with an unboosted Ta 152. MW50 and GM-1 had a dramatic effect on flight performance, and the Ta 152 was certainly the faster of the two if GM-1 had been used. I don't know how well the MkXIX compare to the MkIX at this extreeme altitude, but I'm under the impression that the XIX certainly was a better performer compared to the IX. Hopefully some of our Spitfire expert can shed some light on this! http://ubbxforums.ubi.com/images/smiley/16x16_smiley-happy.gif

http://members.chello.se/unni/D-9.JPG

When it comes to aircombat, I'd rather be lucky than good any day!

p1ngu666
05-28-2004, 06:53 AM
itll depend on the the engine and what its supercharger was set at mostly i guess
problem is theres more spit varients than u can shake a stick at http://ubbxforums.ubi.com/images/smiley/16x16_smiley-very-happy.gif http://ubbxforums.ubi.com/images/smiley/16x16_smiley-indifferent.gif
or ofcourse its just the angels pulling the spitfire up http://ubbxforums.ubi.com/images/smiley/16x16_smiley-happy.gif

http://www.pingu666.modded.me.uk/mysig3.jpg
&lt;123_GWood_JG123&gt; NO SPAM!

dadada1
05-29-2004, 09:37 AM
One thing I've tested over the last couple of days since the patch and I think Lexx was the first to discover this is that up at altitude the Ta's performance is slower post patch. I did some trials over the Crimea Map @ 10 500m with various radiator settings and prop pitch at 85% (Can't use 100% now unless you want to destroy the engine). With engine overheat the best speed I could attain was 694kmh TAS, at least 30 kmh slower than before the patch. Without overheat I managed 748 kmh, around 20kmh less than before the patch. I know most people are satisfied with the low altitude performance now, but it seems that this has come at the expense of it's high altitude speed. Okay so who flies at 10 000m metres anyway ? Well maybe when the Spit XIV arrives it will become more important, I don't know. I'm interested to hear if anyone else finds Ta slower no at altitude. Robban 75 as a FW tester, maybe you can confirm or dispell my testing.

robban75
05-29-2004, 12:19 PM
I did a quick test over Crimea. The altitude was 9800m. I had the rads closed the entire test. The overheat warning came on after 2 minutes. 4 minutes and 40 seconds later I reached 750km/h. Another 16 seconds later the engine started lost power and I could no longer sustain my airspeed. It is still fast, but the cool air at this altitude obviously has no effect on engine cooling, unfortunately.

http://members.chello.se/unni/D-9.JPG

When it comes to aircombat, I'd rather be lucky than good any day!

dadada1
05-29-2004, 12:58 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by robban75:
I did a quick test over Crimea. The altitude was 9800m. I had the rads closed the entire test. The overheat warning came on after 2 minutes. 4 minutes and 40 seconds later I reached 750km/h. Another 16 seconds later the engine started lost power and I could no longer sustain my airspeed. It is still fast, but the cool air at this altitude obviously has no effect on engine cooling, unfortunately.

http://members.chello.se/unni/D-9.JPG

When it comes to aircombat, I'd rather be lucky than good any day!<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

http://ubbxforums.ubi.com/images/smiley/16x16_smiley-happy.gif

Wow, thanks a lot Robban 75 for such a rapid test. Glad to see at least you managed to get something like the expected peformance. I shall be trying to duplicate your findings myself. Much appreciated.

p1ngu666
05-29-2004, 04:43 PM
i think it maybe modeled from some aircraft and not others
its on the p47 i think, but not a yak9k i think
needs some testing

http://www.pingu666.modded.me.uk/mysig3.jpg
&lt;123_GWood_JG123&gt; NO SPAM!

p1ngu666
05-29-2004, 04:44 PM
oh and closed on the ta152 really is closed, setting 2/4 will allow airflow thru the rad http://ubbxforums.ubi.com/infopop/emoticons/icon_smile.gif

http://www.pingu666.modded.me.uk/mysig3.jpg
&lt;123_GWood_JG123&gt; NO SPAM!

LEXX_Luthor
05-29-2004, 05:42 PM
I do all my tests with Overheat OFF as that isolates FM from Overheat. However, if most use Overheat then both kinds of tests are perhaps needed.

I personally have stopped using Overheat (offwhine) so I don't need to fly with Hud Text in my face and the cyclic radiator settings are the only reason I must turn Overheat OFF if I want no Hud Text in my face.

No Hud Text is more realism than no overheat.

If they can change the radiator settings to absolute key commands like prop pitch or throttle I can return to Overheat....or if they give some in-cockpit instrument where you can see the radiator setting. With the I~185 I really want to get back into overheat cos the 185 cowl flaps look like an interesting gunnery challenge to behold, and they look Awsum full open when seen from cockpit. http://ubbxforums.ubi.com/infopop/emoticons/icon_smile.gif


__________________
http://ubbxforums.ubi.com/images/smiley/10.gif Flyable Swedish "Gladiator" listed as J8A ...in Aces Expansion Pack


"You will still have FB , you will lose nothing" ~WUAF_Badsight
"I had actually pre ordered CFS3 and I couldnt wait..." ~Bearcat99
"Gladiator and Falco, elegant weapons of a more civilized age" ~ElAurens
:
"Damn.....Where you did read about Spitfire made from a wood?
Close this book forever and don't open anymore!" ~Oleg_Maddox http://ubbxforums.ubi.com/images/smiley/16x16_smiley-surprised.gif

CV8_Dudeness
05-29-2004, 07:36 PM
in the TA-152 .....

the second stage supercharger kicks into gear at low altitudes (under 3000 m)

thisis then powering the TA all the way to max ALT

the TA looses power & climb as it reaches altitudes it should be performing its best at

CV8_Dudeness
05-29-2004, 07:39 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by robban75:
I did a quick test over Crimea. The altitude was 9800m. I had the rads closed the entire test. The overheat warning came on after 2 minutes. 4 minutes and 40 seconds later I reached 750km/h. Another 16 seconds later the engine started lost power and I could no longer sustain my airspeed. It is still fast, but the cool air at this altitude obviously has no effect on engine cooling, unfortunately.
<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

thats not true

there are many planes in FB v2.1 that will not overheat AT ALL at high altitudes now

http://ubbxforums.ubi.com/images/smiley/16x16_smiley-indifferent.gif the TA-152 is not one of them http://ubbxforums.ubi.com/images/smiley/16x16_smiley-indifferent.gif