PDA

View Full Version : Zen-Ta 152C info!:)



robban75
03-12-2004, 04:11 PM
I remembered you asked for the possible climbrate of the Ta 152C, but I lost the thread so I'm starting an all new one! http://ubbxforums.ubi.com/images/smiley/16x16_smiley-happy.gif

Now, the DB 603L engine had an output of 2100hp with MW50, some 50hp more than that of the Jumo 213E-0. I don't know which engine the Ta 152H-1 has in-game. If it is the 213E-1, power output was similar.

Comparing the empty weights the Ta 152C is 300kg heavier than the Ta 152H-1. 3495kg vs 3799kg.

The C carries 40kg more fuel 836kg vs 876kg, and 10kg more oil. 55kg vs 65kg.

With the extra pair of MG 151's and more ammo load it adds another 300kg over the Ta 152H-1.
498kg vs 811kg.

Max permissible load is some 350kg more than that of the H-1. 1469kg vs 1832kg.

Getting the takeoff weight we add another 80kg = the pilot!

Ta 152H-1 4964kg

Ta 152C-1 5631kg

With these weights the Ta 152H-1 climbed to 10,000m in 11.7. Using MW50 and GM-1. Giving an 14.2 m/sec rate of climb to 10,000m

The Ta 152C-1 climbed to 10,000m using MW50(the C didn't have GM-1) in 13.3 minutes giving an average rate of climb of 12.5m/sec.


Climbrates for the C-1 and H-1 are very similar. But overall the H-1 is the superior machine in terms of climbrate.

The C-1 on the other hand is superior in speed at low and medium altitude. Although, 753km/h at 10.5k is really nothing to be ashamed of! 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!

robban75
03-12-2004, 04:11 PM
I remembered you asked for the possible climbrate of the Ta 152C, but I lost the thread so I'm starting an all new one! http://ubbxforums.ubi.com/images/smiley/16x16_smiley-happy.gif

Now, the DB 603L engine had an output of 2100hp with MW50, some 50hp more than that of the Jumo 213E-0. I don't know which engine the Ta 152H-1 has in-game. If it is the 213E-1, power output was similar.

Comparing the empty weights the Ta 152C is 300kg heavier than the Ta 152H-1. 3495kg vs 3799kg.

The C carries 40kg more fuel 836kg vs 876kg, and 10kg more oil. 55kg vs 65kg.

With the extra pair of MG 151's and more ammo load it adds another 300kg over the Ta 152H-1.
498kg vs 811kg.

Max permissible load is some 350kg more than that of the H-1. 1469kg vs 1832kg.

Getting the takeoff weight we add another 80kg = the pilot!

Ta 152H-1 4964kg

Ta 152C-1 5631kg

With these weights the Ta 152H-1 climbed to 10,000m in 11.7. Using MW50 and GM-1. Giving an 14.2 m/sec rate of climb to 10,000m

The Ta 152C-1 climbed to 10,000m using MW50(the C didn't have GM-1) in 13.3 minutes giving an average rate of climb of 12.5m/sec.


Climbrates for the C-1 and H-1 are very similar. But overall the H-1 is the superior machine in terms of climbrate.

The C-1 on the other hand is superior in speed at low and medium altitude. Although, 753km/h at 10.5k is really nothing to be ashamed of! 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!

robban75
03-12-2004, 05:00 PM
A little "bump" before I go to bed! 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!

Zen--
03-12-2004, 05:11 PM
Wow, nice info Robban. TY very much, this is what I was looking for. I really appreciate you taking the time to post this, I don't have nearly as much information on the 190 series as you do and it's very cool that you don't mind sharing http://ubbxforums.ubi.com/infopop/emoticons/icon_smile.gif

The Ta152 we have has the supercharger on the right, therefore it should be the Jumo engine if I'm not mistaken. I always thought the DB603L was more powerful though and better optimized for higher altitude flying. Interesting to see that the two are actually very similar.

Thanks for this, I just wanted to get an idea of what to expect from the C when it finally arrives, now that we have the H-1 to fly and evaluate.

I would guess then that the H-1 has better acceleration than the C, but what is the difference in topspeeds, specifically at SL? The OV shows the H-1 with 562kph, but 550kph is more practical in game. What confuses me is that I've seen sources that state 598kph at SL for the H-1 IIRC, though I am not really sure if that is accurate or not.

Any figures on the SL topspeeds for both models?



<S!>

(and sleep well)

-Zen-

crazyivan1970
03-12-2004, 05:14 PM
Zen, you`v got mail. MSN is down..so i couldn`t add you to messanger http://ubbxforums.ubi.com/infopop/emoticons/icon_frown.gif

V!
Regards,

http://blitzpigs.com/forum/images/smiles/smokin.gif

VFC*Crazyivan aka VFC*HOST

http://www.rmutt.netfirms.com/coop-ivan.jpg

http://www.rmutt.netfirms.com/vfc/home.htm

Kozhedub: In combat potential, the Yak-3, La-7 and La-9 fighters were indisputably superior to the Bf-109s and Fw-190s. But, as they say, no matter how good the violin may be, much depends on the violinist. I always felt respect for an enemy pilot whose plane I failed to down.

robban75
03-13-2004, 02:59 AM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Zen--:
Thanks for this, I just wanted to get an idea of what to expect from the C when it finally arrives, now that we have the H-1 to fly and evaluate.

I would guess then that the H-1 has better acceleration than the C, but what is the difference in topspeeds, specifically at SL? The OV shows the H-1 with 562kph, but 550kph is more practical in game. What confuses me is that I've seen sources that state 598kph at SL for the H-1 IIRC, though I am not really sure if that is accurate or not.

Any figures on the SL topspeeds for both models?
<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Glad you liked the info Zen!

Here comes some more!

From what I understand, the DB 603 equipped Fw 190D's and the Ta 152C had significantly less problems during testing then their Jumo equipped stablemates. Appearantly the DB was a more reliable engine. I guess that is one of the reasons why Tank prefered it to the Jumo.
The Jumo was good engine nontheless.
What is funny is that the DB wasn't fitted to the Fw 190 earlier because they thought it was alot heavier than the Jumo. This was a simple human error as the DB only weighed some 20kg more. But once they found that out it was too late anyways.

Looking at the weight and power avaliable the Ta 152H looks like a clear winner to me in terms of acceleration! But I would guess that the diving acceleration of the C would be really really fast instead!
Topspeed @ sealevel for the DB 603E equipped Ta 152C V6 prototype was 617km/h. I guess that the DB 603 L equipped V7 would be just as fast. The DB 603 L was very much superior at alt though.
On the Ta 152H sealevel topspeed issue, I'm still working on that. The Ta in-game has a max speed of 565km/h at sealevel. This is at 3250 rpm and 1.75 ata. On the chart printed in Dietmar Hermanns book, the topspeed is 598km/h at 3250 rpm and 2.03 ata. The Ta 152H-0 managed 580km/h at sealevel, without(!) MW50. It was fitted with a rustsatz which increased output from 1750hp to 1900hp.
This is all very confusing, much because I don't speak German, but I'm working on it!

If you want I can e-mail the chart to you. 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!

Wilbus
03-13-2004, 03:14 AM
Here you go.

The reason the DB wasn't put in the 190's/Ta152's earlier was that they were being used for the 109's and 110's, pretty much the same reason that made the RLM chose the 190 in the first place, it used a Radial engine instead of the Inline DB engine. The Jumo was originally designed as a high altitude bomber engine.

http://www.onpoi.net/ah/pics/users/267_1079172621_speedchart.jpg

Rasmus "Wilbus" Mattsson

robban75
03-13-2004, 03:32 AM
Great chart Wilbus, thanks! It compares very well with the Ta we have in FB/AEP, only that we have MW50.http://ubbxforums.ubi.com/images/smiley/16x16_smiley-happy.gif

Do you have this book?

http://books.stonebooks.com/reading/hermann_fw190.jpg

If you do, look a the chart on page 154 and let me know what you think! It shows the topspeed for the Ta 152H-1 being 598km/h at sealevel. It's dated 03/01-45, it is somewhat newer.

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

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

Magister__Ludi
03-13-2004, 03:38 AM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by robban75:
Great chart Wilbus, thanks! It compares very well with the Ta we have in FB/AEP, only that we have MW50.http://ubbxforums.ubi.com/images/smiley/16x16_smiley-happy.gif

Do you have this book?

http://books.stonebooks.com/reading/hermann_fw190.jpg

If you do, look a the chart on page 154 and let me know what you think! It shows the topspeed for the Ta 152H-1 being 598km/h at sealevel. It's dated 03/01-45, it is somewhat newer.

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

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


The chart posted above contains only calculated speeds. I have one (posted before here) with the actual speed for Ta-152H-0 preseries, giving a sea level max speed of 580km/h.

Robban, if you have one from '45, would you mind scanning it? 560km/h is definitely an incorrect max speed at sea level for Ta-152. It has to be fixed.

robban75
03-13-2004, 04:06 AM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Magister__Ludi:
The chart posted above contains only calculated speeds. I have one (posted before here) with the actual speed for Ta-152H-0 preseries, giving a sea level max speed of 580km/h.

Robban, if you have one from '45, would you mind scanning it? 560km/h is definitely an incorrect max speed at sea level for Ta-152. It has to be fixed.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Hi M_L!

Unfortunatelly I don't have a scanner, but I used my digital camera and got a nice enough image. I'm unable to put it on the web, so if you have an e-mail adress I could send it to you! 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!

Wilbus
03-13-2004, 05:19 AM
Hey Robban, I'm sorry to say I don't have that book yet, I was about to order it (together with the Radial Series one). This chart I got from the Ta152 book by the same author as the above mentioned books (extremely good book). The reason I didn't order them was the price, the guy in the store said the price would be about 250 (!!!!!!) US Dollars. It will have to wait but I'll get sooner or later.

Could you please mail that chart you mentioned to me? Mail address is "rasmus@avita.se", would be much appriciated!

The chart I posted gives a pretty good and failry accurate picture of the speed, but it is, I believe calculated and it is from September 1943 so the chart you have from 1945 would be VERY interesting to see!

Rasmus "Wilbus" Mattsson

Atzebrueck
03-13-2004, 05:49 AM
It would be great if you find a solution to post it in this thread http://ubbxforums.ubi.com/infopop/emoticons/icon_smile.gif.

http://c.f.hahne.bei.t-online.de/signatur.jpg (http://www.vow-hq.com)

robban75
03-13-2004, 08:03 AM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Wilbus:
Could you please mail that chart you mentioned to me? Mail address is "rasmus@avita.se", would be much appriciated!
<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Done! 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
03-13-2004, 08:20 AM
i could host stuff if u want
send it to email in sig or me msn etc

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

robban75
03-13-2004, 11:31 AM
Did you get the e-mail Pingu? http://ubbxforums.ubi.com/images/smiley/16x16_smiley-indifferent.gif

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

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

BuzzU
03-13-2004, 11:56 AM
Let me just throw something in the pot here. Make sure when you post speeds a plane will do that it's not a prototype. They are usually hand built with much more care. Tighter fit etc. Production planes never live up to the prototype planes.

Ok, carry on.

----------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Buzz
http://www.elknet.pl/acestory/foto/anderson9.jpg

03-13-2004, 12:10 PM
BuzzU is right.

With that in mind, though, we can identify several aircraft already in this sim that are at essentially "prototype" level: The YP-80, the MiG-3U, and even the Ta-152H.

It's OK to base the flight model on "ideal" factory data, as long as that data was true. Just about every plane in this sim has its FM based on "ideal" data, and thus they're all STILL on a level playing field.

You could make a sim where all the airplanes suffered mechanical failures, wore out, broke down, etc. Make a sim where the FM is based on an "average" aircraft in the middle of the bell curve, complete with all the dents and dings and uneven panels. As long as you made sure the performace for all the planes in that theoretical sim were equally "average", *that* sim would be OK too. http://ubbxforums.ubi.com/infopop/emoticons/icon_smile.gif

But see, the thing is, nobody publishes specs for war-torn aircraft in the field. All we have to go on is factory specs, for the most part. It only follows that Oleg's data follows the published factory numbers. Can you imagine how much *more* complaining there'd be if the FM's were based on realistic performance in-the-field ?

faustnik
03-13-2004, 12:19 PM
Great info Robban!

For some reason, I'm having trouble finding that book. http://ubbxforums.ubi.com/images/smiley/16x16_smiley-indifferent.gif

http://pages.sbcglobal.net/mdegnan/_images/FaustSig
www.7Jg77.com (http://www.7jg77.com)
CWoS FB forum. More Cheese, Less Whine. (http://www.acompletewasteofspace.com/forum/viewforum.php?f=25)

BuzzU
03-13-2004, 12:20 PM
I was only talking about prototypes, and production. I have a book on the Yaks, and it's amazing the difference between protos and production. Maybe the russians had poor quality control, and it doesn't apply as much with the Germans.

Of course once the planes are in combat they all lose performance from use, but we can't figure that in. We have planes that are brand new all the time. Not very realistic, but at least it's fair for all sides. (sort of)

----------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Buzz
http://www.elknet.pl/acestory/foto/anderson9.jpg

faustnik
03-13-2004, 12:23 PM
Buzz,

I would imagine that late war German production quality was very poor. The German industry was under so much pressure from allied bombing and lack of resources.

http://pages.sbcglobal.net/mdegnan/_images/FaustSig
www.7Jg77.com (http://www.7jg77.com)
CWoS FB forum. More Cheese, Less Whine. (http://www.acompletewasteofspace.com/forum/viewforum.php?f=25)

Wilbus
03-13-2004, 12:52 PM
Rgr BuzzU, that's true, however, it still gives a good view on performance on engines if nothing else.

Russian quality of production planes was, compared to Germany, Great Brittain, US and most other countries very very poor, this was specially notciable on Wooden planes from what I read where some factories applied a HUGE amount of glue while some applied less (sometimes too little). Weight differences could be a couple of hundred pounds at worst.

"With that in mind, though, we can identify several aircraft already in this sim that are at essentially "prototype" level: The YP-80, the MiG-3U, and even the Ta-152H."

YP-80 yes, Mig-3U I'm not sure, will have to look it up, but the Ta152 H was NO prototype, this is an evil rumor that must be brought down, just as the stupid rumor that the TA152's were used to cover 262's on take off and landing. It was no prototype, it was fully ready for production (as was the B version a year earlier although the RLM stopped it).

It was in NO WAY a prototype.

Rasmus "Wilbus" Mattsson

robban75
03-13-2004, 01:04 PM
The Ta 152H was rushed into production very late in the war. The prototypes had gathered only 36 hours of flight time between them when production began, and the Ta 152H-0 series was actually far from finished. The H-0 lacked MW50 but room was avaliable for GM-1, although it was never carried. The H-0 was rather unstable and because of this aiming was rather difficult.(something we can see in FB aswell) The pilots however loved their new mounts and Obfw. Willi Reschke thought of the Ta as being his life insurance. Contrary to what we have in FB, the Ta 152H-0 and H-1 were fast airplanes even at low altitudes. Surely not as fast as the D-9 and the Tempest, but fast enough.

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

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

p1ngu666
03-13-2004, 01:27 PM
i got the email, my outlook being ENTIRLY crappy atm, trying to fix

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

p1ngu666
03-13-2004, 02:06 PM
installed thunderbird, and sorted http://ubbxforums.ubi.com/infopop/emoticons/icon_biggrin.gif
http://homepages.nildram.co.uk/~menard/ta152/Speedcharts%20005.JPG
http://homepages.nildram.co.uk/~menard/ta152/Speedcharts%20005.JPG

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

faustnik
03-13-2004, 03:47 PM
Uuggghh,

I just ordered the 190D and 190A Hermann books from Schiffer. It's all your fault Robban! http://ubbxforums.ubi.com/images/smiley/16x16_smiley-mad.gif

http://pages.sbcglobal.net/mdegnan/_images/FaustSig
www.7Jg77.com (http://www.7jg77.com)
CWoS FB forum. More Cheese, Less Whine. (http://www.acompletewasteofspace.com/forum/viewforum.php?f=25)

robban75
03-13-2004, 04:09 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by faustnik:
Uuggghh,

I just ordered the 190D and 190A Hermann books from Schiffer. It's all your fault Robban! http://ubbxforums.ubi.com/images/smiley/16x16_smiley-mad.gif

<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Muahahaha! http://ubbxforums.ubi.com/images/smiley/16x16_smiley-wink.gif http://ubbxforums.ubi.com/images/smiley/16x16_smiley-very-happy.gif

Yeah, they are quite pricy! I haven't bought Dietmar Hermanns Fw 190A yet, but I will! 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!

faustnik
03-13-2004, 04:21 PM
I'll try the "I could be spending the money on drugs, alcohol and strippers" line on my wife. That sometimes works.

http://pages.sbcglobal.net/mdegnan/_images/FaustSig
www.7Jg77.com (http://www.7jg77.com)
CWoS FB forum. More Cheese, Less Whine. (http://www.acompletewasteofspace.com/forum/viewforum.php?f=25)

Zen--
03-13-2004, 04:38 PM
I'm curious, if this chart is dated 3-1-45 (assuming I'm reading it correctly) and shows the D9 at approximately 625kph at SL and the H-1 at approximately 596kph, why is the in game performance so different? Both planes seem to be using values shown in the first chart dated from 43.

This 1945 graph is an actual German chart is it not? What makes a chart dated from 43 more accurate than one dated from 45, which appears to be the case in AEP?

-Zen-

Wilbus
03-14-2004, 01:03 AM
That got me beat too Zen, no idea why a 1943 chart is more accurate, same thing in that "other" game.

Rasmus "Wilbus" Mattsson

robban75
03-14-2004, 02:06 AM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Zen--:
I'm curious, if this chart is dated 3-1-45 (assuming I'm reading it correctly) and shows the D9 at approximately 625kph at SL and the H-1 at approximately 596kph, why is the in game performance so different? Both planes seem to be using values shown in the first chart dated from 43.

This 1945 graph is an actual German chart is it not? What makes a chart dated from 43 more accurate than one dated from 45, which appears to be the case in AEP?

-Zen-
<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

This speed test is made without the ETC rack. The D-9 on the chart appears to be MW50 boosted. It matches up well with the IL2 compare at high altitude. What beats me also is the 622-625km/h at low altitude. In FB planes ar generally 5-10km/h faster than what is written in IL2compare though.

This link shows different speeds compared to what we get in FB. Except for the MW50 boosted D-9, it is strikingly similar to what we have in game.

http://jagdhund.homestead.com/files/DoraData/horizontalgeschwindigkeiten.htm

Either way, I'm very much satisfied with the D-9 we have in FB, in every way and not just in topspeed. http://ubbxforums.ubi.com/images/smiley/16x16_smiley-happy.gif

About the sealevel topspeed for the Ta 152H. (At 9500m it is correct if we go buy the chart, GM-1 appears to be working http://ubbxforums.ubi.com/images/smiley/16x16_smiley-wink.gif.)

There is a big difference between the Ta 152H-0 and the H-1.

One of the differences is that the H-0 didn't have MW50. But as was the case with the D-9, a rustsatz was quickly installed. This increased the engine output from 1750hp to 1900hp. The H-0 had a GM-1 tank but officially it was never used by the units..

Reports states that the Ta 152H-0 with the Jumo 213E-0 was capable of reaching 580km/h at sealevel. This is some 15 km/h faster than what we get in FB.

The Ta 152H-1 had a Jumo 213E-1 with either a low pressure MW50 system or a high pressure MW50 system. I'm not sure about the differences between these but the high pressure system offered a more reliable use of MW50.

Output with the Jumo 213E-1 was 2050/2100hp. Some 250/300hp more than what the Jumo 213E-0 was capable of.

This leads me to believe that 598km/h at sealevel for the Ta 152H-1 is very much possible. This is almost 35(!)km/h faster than the Ta 152H we have in FB.

The report states 2.03 ata. In FB I can't get it above 1.75 ata.

So what do you guys think? http://ubbxforums.ubi.com/images/smiley/16x16_smiley-indifferent.gif

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 March 14 2004 at 01:14 AM.]

DynamicBass
03-14-2004, 03:47 AM
[QUOTE]Originally posted by faustnik:
Buzz,

I would imagine that late war German production quality was very poor. The German industry was under so much pressure from allied bombing and lack of resources.


Faustnik, just out of interest, I had the opportunity (2 hours)to walk around and carefully inspect (Hands on/touch) a Me 262 B-1a/U1 - 2 seater nightfighter recently. Only 15 of which were completed before the end of the war.

I paid carefull attention to the joins, rivets, seems and general finish of the body as well as one of the engines. I remarked in a previous post as to how very perfect it all seemed, with the quality of finish being to the highest of standards!

Although, these were adapted from 2 seater trainers, that might have been produced a little earlier in the war.

Check 2 photos I took at www.jagdgeschwader4.de (http://www.jagdgeschwader4.de) - see pics for FW 190 - a6 at South African War museum, Me 262 in background.

Koohullin
03-14-2004, 04:00 AM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>I paid careful attention to the joins, rivets, seems and general finish of the body as well as one of the engines. I remarked in a previous post as to how very perfect it all seemed, with the quality of finish being to the highest of standards!<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Have you seen an un-painted 262? Notice all the body putty used on all the joints.

The 262 flown in the American trials with the XP-80 was so finished. There is numerous other references to the addition of body putty to the joints in the Me262 series.

Koohullin
03-14-2004, 04:36 AM
Robban, your weights seem a bit off.

From the Ta152 book(pg.55, pg90)

Ta152C-1 - 5322kg
Ta152H-0 - 4727kg
Ta152H-1 - 5217kg

These are normal TO weights.

Dated: 5.1.45(C), 15.1.45(H)

Engine weights, is that dry or wet and did it include all the ancillary equipement? The DB603E weighed 910kg while the DB603F weighed 990kg. I have seen the Jumo 213 as 820kg. On this sheet it says 920kg though. http://jagdhund.homestead.com/files/DoraData/junkers_jumo_213a.htm

Some info on the Jumo 213, http://www.geocities.com/hjunkers/ju_jumo213_a1.htm

DynamicBass
03-14-2004, 05:22 AM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Koohullin:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>I paid careful attention to the joins, rivets, seems and general finish of the body as well as one of the engines. I remarked in a previous post as to how very perfect it all seemed, with the quality of finish being to the highest of standards!<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Have you seen an un-painted 262? Notice all the body putty used on all the joints.

The 262 flown in the American trials with the XP-80 was so finished. There is numerous other references to the addition of body putty to the joints in the _Me262_ series.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>


Koohullin, yes of course the plane was painted, however I realy, realy got a CLOSE as you can ever get look. Due to all the talk about poor workmanship/hasty finishes (Germany) at the end of the war, I specifically looked at this. I was able, as mentioned to run my hands over any part of the aircraft that I wanted (for over 2 hours) and never noted any, even very, very slight disturbances to the surface of the plane.

I am a modeller and know about airbrushing a puty filled and sanded joint, to be sensitive to any of even the very slightest of disturbances.

I also clearly remember running my fingers over the end joins/seems fo the various flaps and as said the joins were absolutley perfect! If I had not seen this myself I would not have believed anyone else!

However, as stated they could have been built a little earlier in the war, as they were originally 2 seater trainers.

If you realy want I have a 5mb camera (Sony DSC-F717) and can take some very close macro shots for you of any angle, position or place on the Me 262 and E-mail it to you for your perusal.

Just post your E-mail address and give me some time to get to the South African museum to photograph it.

I may still be mistaken and maybe missed something, perhaps looking again and specifically for the filled in joints, I might find it.

I hope this helps.

Regards,
Dynamicbass

Gwalker70
03-15-2004, 12:04 AM
HAHAHA Oleg is 0\|/|\|&[} ...nice chart, will he change the Dora to 625 and the TA top 600 sealevel with this proof? HAHAHAHA dont hold your breath