PDA

View Full Version : dogfight Ta152vsP51



adriaan_v
02-29-2004, 10:23 AM
Seen this link on German forum?

http://ubbxforums-de.ubi.com/6/ubb.x?a=tpc&s=59
010161&f=388104122&m=297107942

adriaan_v
02-29-2004, 10:23 AM
Seen this link on German forum?

http://ubbxforums-de.ubi.com/6/ubb.x?a=tpc&s=59
010161&f=388104122&m=297107942

Gershy
02-29-2004, 10:30 AM
if you mean the video...just go to the main page...development update....it's there as well http://ubbxforums.ubi.com/infopop/emoticons/icon_wink.gif

BuzzU
02-29-2004, 10:34 AM
Not much of a dogfight. More like someone picking off AI rookies.

Buzz
---------------------------------------------------------------------
http://img25.photobucket.com/albums/v76/Jamnut/clark19.jpg

DONB3397
02-29-2004, 10:42 AM
I guess we'll know in a couple of weeks.

Winning isn't everything;
It's the only thing!
http://us.f2.yahoofs.com/bc/3fe77b7e_1812a/bc/Images/Sig---1.jpg?BCWF8PAB24YqLZQo

FW190fan
02-29-2004, 10:46 AM
Actually, the Mustangs were just serving to help calibrate the MK108.

http://people.aero.und.edu/~choma/lrg0645.jpg

Zen--
02-29-2004, 11:16 AM
Great video, very entertaining just to watch the TA in flight, but I wouldn't even remotely call it the 'gospel' on the TA's performance.

Like Han Solo once said 'Good against remotes is one thing, good against the living is something else'

Any track can be tilted toward whatever outcome the creater wants to show, it's pretty clear the video is for entertainment purposes and not an announcement that the TA will own everything in the sky.

-Zen-

horseback
02-29-2004, 12:41 PM
Actually, at the higher altitudes, the P-47M or N might be a more realistic matchup anyway; all the P-47 combat models performed better at higher alts than the Mustang, it was their range that limited their acces to the fun zone in the ETO.

cheers

horseback

"Here's your new Mustangs, boys. You can learn to fly'em on the way to the target. Cheers!" -LTCOL Don Blakeslee, 4th FG CO, February 27th, 1944

Slickun
02-29-2004, 12:46 PM
The N never saw combat in the ETO. The M was not available in any kind of numbers until very very late in the European war.

My Dad, who flew both the Jug and Pony, sees it like this:

At anything up to 25,000 feet the Mustang was just a better fighter than the D versions. From 25 K on up the Jug gained on it, until at 30K one had to feel the Jug was the better airplane.

I think some of us don't realize how important range turned out to be in the defeat of the LW.

Abbuzze
02-29-2004, 12:57 PM
With the large and long wings, with the low wingload (similar to a Spit XIV) and with the high speed, It will fly circles around the Jug and the pony... vs the Jug the situation will be similar to the 190A vs the Jug it can do the same things.. but better!

JG53 PikAs Abbuzze
I./Gruppe

http://www.jg53-pikas.de/

http://mitglied.lycos.de/p123/Ani_pikasbanner_langsam.gif

CaptainGelo
02-29-2004, 01:00 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Abbuzze:
With the large and long wings, with the low wingload (similar to a Spit XIV) and with the high speed, It will fly circles around the Jug and the pony... vs the Jug the situation will be similar to the 190A vs the Jug it can do the same things.. but better!

JG53 PikAs Abbuzze
I./Gruppe

http://www.jg53-pikas.de/

http://mitglied.lycos.de/p123/Ani_pikasbanner_langsam.gif
<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

try taking A9 and jug to 11000m and see who's better http://ubbxforums.ubi.com/images/smiley/16x16_smiley-wink.gif JUG! http://ubbxforums.ubi.com/images/smiley/16x16_smiley-happy.gif

http://img23.photobucket.com/albums/v68/wolf4ever/p38abig.jpg

Abbuzze
02-29-2004, 01:08 PM
try taking A9 and jug to 11000m and see who's better http://ubbxforums.ubi.com/images/smiley/16x16_smiley-wink.gif JUG! http://ubbxforums.ubi.com/images/smiley/16x16_smiley-happy.gif

http://ubbxforums.ubi.com/infopop/emoticons/icon_wink.gif maybe my english is not good enough and maybe in FB the A9 is better than the Jug at this alt, but, in real live abouve 6000m the Jug should be the better plane vs A5/A8 at least... that is what I want to say http://ubbxforums.ubi.com/infopop/emoticons/icon_wink.gif

JG53 PikAs Abbuzze
I./Gruppe

http://www.jg53-pikas.de/

http://mitglied.lycos.de/p123/Ani_pikasbanner_langsam.gif

BuzzU
02-29-2004, 01:08 PM
Lots of Ta152's will be shot down. Count on it.

Buzz
---------------------------------------------------------------------
http://img25.photobucket.com/albums/v76/Jamnut/clark19.jpg

Abbuzze
02-29-2004, 01:15 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by BuzzU:
Lots of Ta152's will be shot down. Count on it.

Buzz
---------------------------------------------------------------------
http://img25.photobucket.com/albums/v76/Jamnut/clark19.jpg
<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

100% correct!!! just like a lot of P51 and P47 was shoot down by 109s...

You just have to be in the wrong position at the wrong time... and you are history.. http://ubbxforums.ubi.com/infopop/emoticons/icon_frown.gif

JG53 PikAs Abbuzze
I./Gruppe

http://www.jg53-pikas.de/

http://mitglied.lycos.de/p123/Ani_pikasbanner_langsam.gif

DONB3397
02-29-2004, 01:17 PM
As I recall, the Ta-152H1 was a specialty a/c, built for the sole purpose of intercepting allied bombers. To get it's altitude and efficiency, it gave up armament. The final mix was one Mk108 and two inboard machine guns.

With that armament, I guess it had better be calibrated before taking on a late variant P-47.

Winning isn't everything;
It's the only thing!
http://us.f2.yahoofs.com/bc/3fe77b7e_1812a/bc/Images/Sig---1.jpg?BCWF8PAB24YqLZQo

VMF-214_HaVoK
02-29-2004, 01:19 PM
Looked more like AI friendly too me. The Mustangs never fired or took evasive action. Probably just set it up with QMB. Altleast thats how it looked to me.

http://www.aviation-history.com/vought/98027.jpg

horseback
02-29-2004, 01:20 PM
While I suggested the M and N versions of the P-47, it was not out of concern for historical accuracy; it was a response to the apparent rejoicing and likelihood that the Ta would take over the DF servers in far greater numbers than Goerring ever dreamed of fielding in RL.

If we're going to go to a "Luft '46" scenario, then we also have to assume a "USAAF '46" scenario which would, perforce, include the P-47N, which would be a MUCH better match for the Ta-152H at high altitudes than a D model Mustang, which was optimized for combat at 18,000-25,000 ft.

cheers

horseback

"Here's your new Mustangs, boys. You can learn to fly'em on the way to the target. Cheers!" -LTCOL Don Blakeslee, 4th FG CO, February 27th, 1944

robban75
02-29-2004, 01:28 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by DONB3397:
As I recall, the Ta-152H1 was a specialty a/c, built for the sole purpose of intercepting allied bombers. To get it's altitude and efficiency, it gave up armament. The final mix was one Mk108 and two inboard machine guns.

With that armament, I guess it had better be calibrated before taking on a late variant P-47.
<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

2 x MG 151's and 1 x Mk 108 will do the job I'm sure. Considering that 2 x MG1 151 alone can rip most planes apart. http://ubbxforums.ubi.com/images/smiley/16x16_smiley-wink.gif

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

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

KIMURA
02-29-2004, 01:29 PM
BTW some P-47N were delivered to the 56th FG, pre-VE, but their assembly took too much time, so they were packed again and sent back to the US, and from there to PTO.

To high alt behaviour of Ta152H and P-47N/M. Compare after WWII wing-designs for high alts, like the U-2, and then tell me then which wing design will perform better at those alts. A stretched one like the Ta-wing ort a pancake-wing like that of a P-47N/M.http://ubbxforums.ubi.com/infopop/emoticons/icon_wink.gif

RAF74_Buzzsaw
02-29-2004, 01:32 PM
Salute

An objective look at the facts will show that the TA-152H would only have an advantage at very high altitudes. And since by Oleg's admission, the high altitude modelling of aircraft in FB is not correct, then we should wonder how this aircraft will perform.

The ground level speed of this aircraft was nothing to write home about, being approximately 362 mph, slower than the later model P-51D's which did 367mph.

Additionally, the very long wingspan of the TA-152H resulted in a very noticeable degrading of the rollrate when compared to the 190's. As NACA tests showed, one of the most important factors in lateral response is the width of the wings. And the TA-152 had the longest wingspan of any aircraft in the war. These 'sailplane' type wings were excellent at higher altitudes, where the thin atmosphere offered very little lift, but low down they were a handicap.

That was the reason that the TA-152C, low level fighter, was built with much smaller wings. The C model did not see combat.

Neither did the TA-152H have a very good climbrate, not being much over 3500 ft/min.

ACES HIGH has the TA-152H and it is modelled very accurately:

http://www.hitechcreations.com/ahhelp/models/ta152h.html

robban75
02-29-2004, 01:38 PM
I'm sorry Buzzsaw, but apart from a too fast rollrate at high speed, you'll have tell me where the Fw 190 is overmodelled.

And remember, the Ta 152H carried almost twice the fuel load of a Fw 190D. I'm guessing at 50% fuel it will almost climb like a D-9. Topspeed at low alt should be 598km/h

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

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

RAF74_Buzzsaw
02-29-2004, 01:40 PM
Salute

In regards to overmodelling of the 190: You already answered your question:

"...apart from rollrate."

Additionally, the high speed elevator response is clearly overmodelled as has been shown many times by testers. We all remember the 800kph pullout 100 meters off the ground.

And your top speed at sea level is from the TA-152C.

robban75
02-29-2004, 01:46 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by RAF74BuzzsawXO:
Salute

You just partially answered your question:

"...apart from rollrate."

Additionally, the high speed elevator response is clearly overmodelled as has been shown many times by testers. We all remember the 800kph pullout 100 meters off the ground.

And your top speed at sea level is from the TA-152C.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Most planes in FB roll too fast anyways, but I do hope it gets fixed.

The elevator authority has been greatly reduced in the last patches and is now close to the Mustangs.

The 598kmh is for the Ta 152H, The C managed 617km/h with the Db 603E engine. You can find this info in the book about the Longnosed Fw 190 by Dietmar Hermann.

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

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

[This message was edited by robban75 on Sun February 29 2004 at 01:04 PM.]

oFZo
02-29-2004, 02:03 PM
Nice planes, but a crap movie! (not even talking about the res.)

-oFZo

Eurotroll

"I have given you all the seed bearing plants and herbs to use." - The Bible

Abbuzze
02-29-2004, 02:04 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by RAF74BuzzsawXO:
Salute

An objective look at the facts will show that the TA-152H would only have an advantage at very high altitudes. And since by Oleg's admission, the high altitude modelling of aircraft in FB is not correct, then we should wonder how this aircraft will perform.

The ground level speed of this aircraft was nothing to write home about, being approximately 362 mph, slower than the later model P-51D's which did 367mph.

Additionally, the very long wingspan of the TA-152H resulted in a very noticeable degrading of the rollrate when compared to the 190's. As NACA tests showed, one of the most important factors in lateral response is the width of the wings. And the TA-152 had the longest wingspan of any aircraft in the war. These 'sailplane' type wings were excellent at higher altitudes, where the thin atmosphere offered very little lift, but low down they were a handicap.

That was the reason that the TA-152C, low level fighter, was built with much smaller wings. The C model did not see combat.

Neither did the TA-152H have a very good climbrate, not being much over 3500 ft/min.

ACES HIGH has the TA-152H and it is modelled very accurately:

http://www.hitechcreations.com/ahhelp/models/ta152h.html<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Reminds me to the story of a Ta152 flown by Tank himself... unarmed plane- he was attacked by some P51... he pulled the throttle foreward with engaged MW50... and simply outaccelareted the Mustangs. And you are correct the Ta didn´t have a real impresive climbrate just like P51 and P47 if you want a plane with an impressive climbrate take a K4!!
And the rollrate suffered from the wide wingspan compared to a 190, but the FW had one of the best rollrates of all warbired in WWII!!! http://ubbxforums.ubi.com/infopop/emoticons/icon_smile.gif It was still a good rollrate...
For low alt the Ta would simply outturn a Pony or Jug. Keep this in mind.

JG53 PikAs Abbuzze
I./Gruppe

http://www.jg53-pikas.de/

http://mitglied.lycos.de/p123/Ani_pikasbanner_langsam.gif

Slickun
02-29-2004, 02:13 PM
[QUOTE]Originally posted by horseback:
While I suggested the M and N versions of the P-47, it was not out of concern for historical accuracy; it was a response to the apparent rejoicing and likelihood that the Ta would take over the DF servers in far greater numbers than Goerring ever dreamed of fielding in RL.

If we're going to go to a "Luft '46" scenario, then we also have to assume a "USAAF '46" scenario which would, perforce, include the P-47N, which would be a MUCH better match for the Ta-152H at high altitudes than a D model Mustang, which was optimized for combat at 18,000-25,000 ft.

cheers

horseback

Fair enough.
1946 would also require the P-51H to be present.

DONB3397
02-29-2004, 02:14 PM
It looks like the servers will be loaded with Ta's. It's certainly graceful, rapid high altitude transportation (speed: 755 kph at altitude, ceiling: 15,000m).

But there were 67 (excluding development a/c) that reached service... and only for a short time.

Can the population of Ta's on a server be controlled?

Winning isn't everything;
It's the only thing!
http://us.f2.yahoofs.com/bc/3fe77b7e_1812a/bc/Images/Sig---1.jpg?BCWF8PAB24YqLZQo

AFJ_Skyghost
02-29-2004, 02:17 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Slickun:
[QUOTE]Originally posted by horseback:
While I suggested the M and N versions of the P-47, it was not out of concern for historical accuracy; it was a response to the apparent rejoicing and likelihood that the Ta would take over the DF servers in far greater numbers than Goerring ever dreamed of fielding in RL.

If we're going to go to a "Luft '46" scenario, then we also have to assume a "USAAF '46" scenario which would, perforce, include the P-47N, which would be a MUCH better match for the Ta-152H at high altitudes than a D model Mustang, which was optimized for combat at 18,000-25,000 ft.

cheers

horseback

Fair enough.
1946 would also require the P-51H to be present.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

What about the latest models of Spits, the F22 and 24 I think?

http://skyghost.home.sapo.pt/imagens/newsigfinal.jpg

KGr.HH-Sunburst
02-29-2004, 02:20 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by DONB3397:
It looks like the servers will be loaded with Ta's. It's certainly graceful, rapid high altitude transportation (speed: 755 kph at altitude, ceiling: 15,000m).

But there were 67 (excluding development a/c) that reached service... and only for a short time.

Can the population of Ta's on a server be controlled? <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>


same goes for the la7 3xb20 but we dont hear anyone complaining about that now do we ?

http://www.warhawks.tk/
http://www.digital-d.nl/fotos/sunburstsig.jpg

RAF74_Buzzsaw
02-29-2004, 02:28 PM
Salute

People love to quote the Kurt Tank account.

Of course, as mentioned, this plane was unarmed, no guns or ammunition, thus weight was much less. Was on short test flight, so not much fuel.

And the type of TA-152 is unclear. It is likely that it was a TA-152C, since the H models were already being produced at this time.

Finally, anything Tank says has to be taken with a grain of salt. He made many exaggerated claims after the war in regards to his aircraft designs and his own brilliance.

As far as the suggestion that the TA-152 should have a good rollrate since the 190 did, wrong.

Rollrate is dependent on wing and aileron design. The TA-152H's wings and ailerons bore ZERO resemblance to the 190A or D wings. They were a completely different design.

On the ACES HIGH server, the TA-152H is rarely flown. It has no real advantages unless the combat is over 25,000 ft.

[This message was edited by RAF74BuzzsawXO on Sun February 29 2004 at 01:36 PM.]

Abbuzze
02-29-2004, 02:35 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by RAF74BuzzsawXO:
Salute

People love to quote the Kurt Tank account.

Of course, as mentioned, this plane was unarmed, no guns or ammunition, thus weight was much less. Was on short test flight, so not much fuel.

And the type of TA-152 is unclear. It is likely that it was a TA-152C, since the H models were already being produced at this time.

Finally, anything Tank says has to be taken with a grain of salt. He made many exaggerated claims after the war in regards to his aircraft designs and his own brilliance.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Then this would be the first time that I would read the the C version ever flown http://ubbxforums.ubi.com/infopop/emoticons/icon_biggrin.gif
The menioned plane just had no ammo as far as i known.. and was a 152H.
Hmm allready produced- nearly all german planes at this time where a kind of prototyps, just like He162 for example, and if you mention Kurt Tanks own reports to his brillance, just read Yakolevs books, and what he is writing over the bad La desings http://ubbxforums.ubi.com/infopop/emoticons/icon_wink.gif- that just human behavior ...

JG53 PikAs Abbuzze
I./Gruppe

http://www.jg53-pikas.de/

http://mitglied.lycos.de/p123/Ani_pikasbanner_langsam.gif

Zen--
02-29-2004, 02:36 PM
It seems people are placing too much hype on the TA152 and either praising it as the savior of the Luftwaffe or slamming it's performance as though it were a dog.

It is neither, it is a plane just like any other and everything will depend on pilot skill. A poorly flown La7 is not too difficult to beat, a P47 flown by an 'ace' is a tough plane to take down indeed.

The plane will do what it does, it's up to the pilot to become familiar with it to get the most out of it. It should be accorded the same kind of respect that any well flown Luft bird should get and should be just as easy to shoot down as any poorly flown one.

I don't see where there is any reason for overrating or condemning it by either side. It's a plane, nothing more. It's almost like there is a battle of ideology between the two sides and the TA152 is being put in the center to 'settle the score' once and for all. This doesn't make any sense to me.



There is no score to settle.

-Zen-

RAF74_Buzzsaw
02-29-2004, 02:53 PM
Salute

Of course there is no 'score to settle'.

There is only the issue of accuracy.

Planes should be modelled to do what they did historically, not what some Luftwaffe Beta tester team decides to have them do.

Zen--
02-29-2004, 03:06 PM
I agree Buzzsaw, wouldn't want the TA152 to be an uber plane anyway, unless it really was.

Thats a debatable topic for sure and most people are doing just that, but some others seem to have a bias against it and take every opportunity to slam the plane (though I do not count you in this minority) but as I said, that makes no sense, it has no relevance imho.


For what it's worth, I think the TA152 will be extremely competitive at low altitude in this game though I will be the first to admit it's all conjecture. My opinion is based on the current performance of the D9 and other FW variants which if handled properly can not only survive in the low altitude arena of the Yak and La's but excel there. The TA152 promises to have to be better than the current FW series because of more power and bigger guns though the truth naturally remains to be seen.

It's just a hunch on my part, but I think that if one is a good FW pilot right now, the TA152 will be a deadly weapon indeed at low altitude. Thats about the only opinion I have really and have no personal stake in the matter, so if it's a dog then it's a dog but I'll still fly it with a smile. Dora and TA152 are my favorites of all time, so I make do with whatever the sim gives me and don't b*tch about it because success can be found with all of them at any altitude.

I don't really expect for there to be a lot of high altitude fighting with the plane because 90% of the online community rarely flies avbove 3k anyway and only a fool would willing fly to an altitude where this plane has every advantage, so down low is where I expect to see it and thats where you'll find me just like always.

I hope the community is not expecting this to be an uber plane capable of out turning and out climbing everyone in sight. Lots of other planes will do better, just as lots of other planes do better than the D9 currently. I think after the first few weeks, the novelty will wear off and only the 'diehards' will be flying it and probably rightly so. I doubt it's going to be an easy plane to fly, just like the 190's aren't so easy to fly now.

-Zen-

chris455
02-29-2004, 03:36 PM
Since we won't have a P-47M to counter it, it will be interesting to see what this plane will do vs the current stable of allied A/C.

The video was impressive, not definitive.

I remember (many will also) the predictions that were buzzing around before the advent of the Dora in FB- "it's all over, VVS won't have a chance, I'll "own" you all in my Dora" etc.

Not many of those predictions came true. The Dora was, and is, a deadly bird in the hands of a skilled pilot. Uberplane it is not. I'm sure it will prove true also with the Ta-152.

But I'm not going to look around for anything to replace my Jug just yet http://ubbxforums.ubi.com/images/smiley/16x16_smiley-wink.gif

S! to all

http://members.cox.net/miataman1/P47.jpg

DONB3397
02-29-2004, 04:03 PM
Zen has it right, I think; the pilot is more than 50% of the equation.

Still, the Ta flew higher and went faster than anything the allies had at the time. In the war, the quantities were small and conditions were difficult for the LW (every base was in range of allied fighters, fuel was short) and only a few surviving pilots were up to capitalizing on its strengths.

Offline, campaigns should reflect these limits. Online, well, we'll be hearing from a few jug and mustang pilots next month. http://ubbxforums.ubi.com/infopop/emoticons/icon_biggrin.gif

Winning isn't everything;
It's the only thing!
http://us.f2.yahoofs.com/bc/3fe77b7e_1812a/bc/Images/Sig---1.jpg?BCWF8PAB24YqLZQo

MandMs
02-29-2004, 04:34 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by RAF74BuzzsawXO:

People love to quote the Kurt Tank account.

Of course, as mentioned, this plane was unarmed, no guns or ammunition, thus weight was much less. Was on short test flight, so not much fuel.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

It was not a test flight but a 'commuter' flight since Dipl. Ing. Tank was going from Langenhagen to Cottbus for a meeting with Dipl. Ing. Gieschen in late 1944, a distance of ~330km.

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>
And the type of TA-152 is unclear. It is likely that it was a TA-152C, since the H models were already being produced at this time.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

It was a Ta152H-0 and it carried weapons but carried no ammo. Tank had been warned not to fly without ammo by Milch previously. The first Ta152C-0(WNr 260006) flight was on 12/12/44. The second flight of a C-0 was by WNr 260007 on 8/1/45. Now why would Tank take the only Ta152C?

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>
Finally, anything Tank says has to be taken with a grain of salt. He made many exaggerated claims after the war in regards to his aircraft designs and his own brilliance.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

There was many witnesses to his escape from the Mustangs, so are you calling all those that witnessed the escape liars?

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>
As far as the suggestion that the TA-152 should have a good rollrate since the 190 did, wrong.

Rollrate is dependent on wing and aileron design. The TA-152H's wings and ailerons bore ZERO resemblance to the 190A or D wings. They were a completely different design.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Even if the roll rate decreased by 50% from the A and D, this still would be in the roll rate range of the Mustang. The inner portion of the wing was the same as earlier Fws.(l/g pivot point inwards)

A Tempest could not escape, nor could 5 Yak 9s from the H.



I eat the red ones last.

EPP-Gibbs
02-29-2004, 05:21 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by AFJ_Skyghost:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Slickun:
[QUOTE]Originally posted by horseback:
While I suggested the M and N versions of the P-47, it was not out of concern for historical accuracy; it was a response to the apparent rejoicing and likelihood that the Ta would take over the DF servers in far greater numbers than Goerring ever dreamed of fielding in RL.

If we're going to go to a "Luft '46" scenario, then we also have to assume a "USAAF '46" scenario which would, perforce, include the P-47N, which would be a MUCH better match for the Ta-152H at high altitudes than a D model Mustang, which was optimized for combat at 18,000-25,000 ft.

cheers

horseback

Fair enough.
1946 would also require the P-51H to be present.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

What about the latest models of Spits, the F22 and 24 I think?

http://skyghost.home.sapo.pt/imagens/newsigfinal.jpg <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Good point. The Mk22 and Mk24 Spits were even faster than a MkXIV, plus four Hispano cannon armament, and clearview bubble canopies. Vicious fighters indeed.

If I had all the money I'd spent on drink..I'd spend it on drink!

LuftLuver
02-29-2004, 05:36 PM
Those of us who have paid attention to this game for the past 2 years already know the Ta will be fishfood for the Yaks and La's. The easy to hit large wings of this bird will crumble under the lasergun 20mm & 50cal x 2.

It's just the nature of this game. Don't worry VVS guys, you will down us in healthy numbers.

JG26Red
02-29-2004, 06:10 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by MandMs:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by RAF74BuzzsawXO:

People love to quote the Kurt Tank account.

Of course, as mentioned, this plane was unarmed, no guns or ammunition, thus weight was much less. Was on short test flight, so not much fuel.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

It was not a test flight but a 'commuter' flight since Dipl. Ing. Tank was going from Langenhagen to Cottbus for a meeting with Dipl. Ing. Gieschen in late 1944, a distance of ~330km.

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>
And the type of TA-152 is unclear. It is likely that it was a TA-152C, since the H models were already being produced at this time.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

It was a Ta152H-0 and it carried weapons but carried no ammo. Tank had been warned not to fly without ammo by Milch previously. The first Ta152C-0(WNr 260006) flight was on 12/12/44. The second flight of a C-0 was by WNr 260007 on 8/1/45. Now why would Tank take the only Ta152C?

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>
Finally, anything Tank says has to be taken with a grain of salt. He made many exaggerated claims after the war in regards to his aircraft designs and his own brilliance.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

There was many witnesses to his escape from the Mustangs, so are you calling all those that witnessed the escape liars?

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>
As far as the suggestion that the TA-152 should have a good rollrate since the 190 did, wrong.

Rollrate is dependent on wing and aileron design. The TA-152H's wings and ailerons bore ZERO resemblance to the 190A or D wings. They were a completely different design.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Even if the roll rate decreased by 50% from the A and D, this still would be in the roll rate range of the Mustang. The inner portion of the wing was the same as earlier Fws.(l/g pivot point inwards)

A Tempest could not escape, nor could 5 Yak 9s from the H.



I eat the red ones last.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

i was going to make same comments, but its been done already, full fuel, full armament.. H, just no ammo... at low alt too...

the TA never had any fights at high alt, all its battles where rather low alt, and it performed rather well easily keeping up with tempests and taking down Yak9s... i would be interested in the actual number of TAs shot down thou, i know i have read that during the fight with Yaks, 1-2 where taken out there too...?

MandMs
02-29-2004, 07:24 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by LuftLuver:
Those of us who have paid attention to this game for the past 2 years already know the Ta will be fishfood for the Yaks and La's. The easy to hit large wings of this bird will crumble under the lasergun 20mm & 50cal x 2.
<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>


The Ta152H might have longer span wings but the P-47's wings were of greater area. 250.81sqft to 300sqft.



I eat the red ones last.

faustnik
02-29-2004, 09:25 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by RAF74BuzzsawXO:
Salute

In regards to overmodelling of the 190: You already answered your question:

"...apart from rollrate."

Additionally, the high speed elevator response is clearly overmodelled as has been shown many times by testers. We all remember the 800kph pullout 100 meters off the ground.

And your top speed at sea level is from the TA-152C.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>


Gee Buzzsaw, can you be anymore biased with rediculous statements like that? Such a bitter boy, obviously you've been shot down by Fw190s one too many times. http://ubbxforums.ubi.com/images/smiley/16x16_smiley-wink.gif

But, cheer up! http://ubbxforums.ubi.com/images/smiley/16x16_smiley-very-happy.gif Maybe the SpitV will be overmodeled and you can defend it like you did the Hurri in FB 1.0 and the P-39 in 1.2. Here's hoping!


S!

faust

http://pages.sbcglobal.net/mdegnan/_images/FaustSig
www.7Jg77.com (http://www.7jg77.com)

faustnik
02-29-2004, 09:30 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by LuftLuver:
Those of us who have paid attention to this game for the past 2 years already know the Ta will be fishfood for the Yaks and La's. The easy to hit large wings of this bird will crumble under the lasergun 20mm & 50cal x 2.

It's just the nature of this game. Don't worry VVS guys, you will down us in healthy numbers.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Luftlover,

You're no better than Buzzsaw with statements like this. The Soviets designed and built excellent aircraft specifically for the altitude and situations we regularly fight at in FB/IL-2. Learn to deal with it, the real LW pilots had to.

Don't get mad, get even! http://ubbxforums.ubi.com/images/smiley/icon_twisted.gif

http://pages.sbcglobal.net/mdegnan/_images/FaustSig
www.7Jg77.com (http://www.7jg77.com)

RAF74_Buzzsaw
02-29-2004, 10:44 PM
Salute Faustnik

No, actually I have not been shot down many times by 190's.

And maybe you'd like to deal with the actual issue I raised?

Or are you suggesting the 190's high speed rollrate is correct?

And that the ability of the 190 to pull 180 degree turns at 800kph in incredibily short distances is correct?

This is an issue which was dealt with on this board, with records presented showing the pullouts and rolls.

Luftwaffe flyers keeps saying that this probably should be changed, but last patch, when there were specially selected German beta testers on the team, nothing was done.

So maybe you'd like to explain how it is I am biased? http://ubbxforums.ubi.com/infopop/emoticons/icon_wink.gif

faustnik
02-29-2004, 11:51 PM
I claim you are biased because you tried to dismiss this E-bleed issues with the Hurricane and P-39, while trying to exagerate issues with German a/c. Pretty biased by any measure, wouldn't you say? This type of garbage is no better than Huck's line of bull proclaiming the superiority of all LW a/c. Many of your posts tend to have as much merit as his.

All aircraft roll too quickly as many have shown on this board. All the 190 pilots here would gladly see tham all corrected. The 190 would retain its CORRECT relative roll rate advantage over its adversaries and be a much more stable gun platform. As for the elevator issues, these were corrected in the latest patches. Why do you bring up old, already corrected issues?

The E-bleed problem with the P-39 was corrected in the latest patch. A couple biased LW fans continue to act as if it has not been fixed. You are attempting the same thing with the 190 elevator. Why would you put yourself down at their level?

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

http://pages.sbcglobal.net/mdegnan/_images/FaustSig
www.7Jg77.com (http://www.7jg77.com)

LEXX_Luthor
03-01-2004, 01:31 AM
A few barrage balloons spread around the map, and those wings will be clipped.

Gwalker70
03-01-2004, 01:32 AM
I doubt the TA will be even 80% of what it is realistic to be. dont hold your breath.. and I doubt the super duper LA7 will be fixed. so there you go no change n00bs flying LA7 and A9 and REAL historical die hard pilots flying the "what should have been" in FB planes that cant rack up more then 300 points in HL server dying off until the sim is dead. makes me want to tie up and shoot up bye

p1ngu666
03-01-2004, 07:47 AM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by LEXX_Luthor:
A few barrage balloons spread around the map, and those wings will be clipped.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

http://ubbxforums.ubi.com/images/smiley/16x16_smiley-very-happy.gif
zen would love that, a dora 11 to 13 http://ubbxforums.ubi.com/images/smiley/16x16_smiley-very-happy.gif

http://www.pingu666.modded.me.uk/mysig3.jpg

Zen--
03-01-2004, 08:32 AM
If the wing gets clipped by balloons, I'll swerve into another on the good wing, clip em both.

And then be flying a TA152C http://ubbxforums.ubi.com/infopop/emoticons/icon_wink.gif

You see, a good FW driver always has a plan.

-Zen-

Cardinal25
03-01-2004, 08:57 AM
Good point Faust.

People tend to get attached to their AC, they take performance personally.

Just deal with the fact that "your" planes have weaknesses.

There are many things that need to be corrected in FB. That is fine, complain about the real issues but try not to take your ride so seriously. Deal with the issues that real pilots had to contend with and be happy that you can fly.

-----------------------------
CWoS. (http://www.acompletewasteofspace.com/forum/index.php)

92nd Fighter Group (http://www.92ndfg.com)

7./JG77 (http://www.7jg77.com)