PDA

View Full Version : Cant be so bad: Ta152C



MOH_Hirth
06-18-2007, 11:26 PM
Sir Oleg, was this plane really so bad? Were is the powerfull engine? Do you forgeth the Turbo? Is too heavy.

Klemm.co
06-19-2007, 02:53 AM
To me it seems like an A with better armament and cooler looks. And yes, it is porked. http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/16x16_smiley-tongue.gif

mynameisroland
06-19-2007, 03:33 AM
Try and fly it at 25% fuel - apparantly it weighs so much because it had as much gas as a P51 or something like that ...

WOLFMondo
06-19-2007, 06:53 AM
It does straight lines nicely. Still prefer the Dora 44 though.

DKoor
06-19-2007, 07:39 AM
Originally posted by Klemm.co:
To me it seems like an A with better armament and cooler looks. And yes, it is porked. http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/16x16_smiley-tongue.gif But hey.... no bar!

Also it play a big deal selecting less fuel... this ac apparently carries a l0t of fuel. Or so I was told.

Just saw what Roland said.

With all that armament it has plus 2xX4 it makes a premium bomber interceptor.

luftluuver
06-19-2007, 12:21 PM
The 152C-1 had 182kg and 183kg of fuel in the fuselage tanks and 368kg of fuel in the wings. MW was 127kg.

from Baubeschreibung Nr. 280

3.JG51_BigBear
06-19-2007, 03:02 PM
Another reason for the overall "heaviness" of the Ta 152s is the addition of steel longerons in the fueselage. They were added to strengthen the fueselage and all the airframe to withstand higher G loads.

Definitely drain the fuel out though, its a totally different animal without it.

VW-IceFire
06-19-2007, 03:16 PM
Ta-152C is the heaviest FW190 model available and after looking at the weights and power it seems me that the poor turn performance is probably real. On the flipside the absolutely devastating firepower and high top speed are big bonuses.

In a 1946 scenario I see them more as very well armed fighter-bombers with the 250kg bombs.

FE_pilot
06-19-2007, 04:22 PM
The P51 carries tons of fuel and it can still turn on a dime at high altitude.

Its also weird that the Ta-152H turns better than the C model even with 100% fuel.

I just ran a test online at 9000m to see how fast they would turn, the TA-152H made a turn at around 60 angle while the C model at 60 degree angle stalled on me and i never recovered.

Both planes were using 100% fuel. It was also on Crimea map at 18:00 hours.

The C model seemed to accelerate faster than the H model. While the C model lost speed faster in a 50 Degree turn at 500m.


Someone can run their own tests to see.

3.JG51_BigBear
06-19-2007, 05:06 PM
Originally posted by FE_pilot:
The P51 carries tons of fuel and it can still turn on a dime at high altitude.

Its also weird that the Ta-152H turns better than the C model even with 100% fuel.

I just ran a test online at 9000m to see how fast they would turn, the TA-152H made a turn at around 60 angle while the C model at 60 degree angle stalled on me and i never recovered.

Both planes were using 100% fuel. It was also on Crimea map at 18:00 hours.

The C model seemed to accelerate faster than the H model. While the C model lost speed faster in a 50 Degree turn at 500m.

Someone can run their own tests to see.

The C carries significantly more fuel than the H model and when fully loaded ways almost 200 lbs more. Also the high altitude wing design of the H model gives it excellent high altitude turning performance.

FE_pilot
06-19-2007, 07:58 PM
Hey bigbear,


Who are you?


You seem to have the same squadron insignia as the squad i fly with.

Are you a member of 3./JG51?

3.JG51_BigBear
06-19-2007, 09:33 PM
Originally posted by FE_pilot:
Hey bigbear,


Who are you?


You seem to have the same squadron insignia as the squad i fly with.

Are you a member of 3./JG51?

I used to fly with 3./JG51 but real life started making it harder and harder to show up for squad meetings. At one point I was on the inactive list but that was probably a year-year and a half ago.

josephs1959
06-20-2007, 01:43 PM
I'm glad to see that I'm not the only one who sees the (defenciencies) of the Ta-152C. Also, as I stated in my thread above. The fuel indicator is faulty. When I choose 50% fuel, my indicator reads full.

FE_pilot
06-20-2007, 06:56 PM
I already knew of the busted fuel gauge, i think it has something to do with the amount of fuel it carries and the gauge not being to measure it all.


If you fly the TA-152C then carry only 25% fuel, saves you tons of weight and you get better aerodynamics.

Von_Rat
06-21-2007, 02:51 AM
Originally posted by josephs1959:
The fuel indicator is faulty. When I choose 50% fuel, my indicator reads full.

irl the gauge only read the fuel in the fulsage tank, not the wing tanks. the wing tanks would empty 1st, then the fulsage tank.

tigertalon
06-21-2007, 05:47 AM
On a full real server, a pack of 4 Ta152C can be absolutely dominating, more so than any other plane, due to excelllent high alt performance, devastating firepower and lightning straight run. The ultimate drag'n'bager.

Problem is, that when flying it there is a chance red side has a P80 in their stable...


Originally posted by VW-IceFire:
In a 1946 scenario I see them more as very well armed fighter-bombers with the 250kg bombs.

Indeed but unfortunately already anton JABOs should have 1x500kg + 2x250kg (under wings) as one of their available loadouts...

Bremspropeller
06-21-2007, 06:08 AM
The P51 carries tons of fuel and it can still turn on a dime at high altitude.


http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/shady.gif

It turns well at high speeds, but only with it's rearward fuel cell flown down to about 50% of fuel qty.
Anything above has the CoG shifted back so far that your "turn on a dime" is gonna be a wild, tumbling rollercoaster-experience.

mynameisroland
06-21-2007, 08:17 AM
Originally posted by tigertalon:
On a full real server, a pack of 4 Ta152C can be absolutely dominating, more so than any other plane, due to excelllent high alt performance, devastating firepower and lightning straight run. The ultimate drag'n'bager.

Problem is, that when flying it there is a chance red side has a P80 in their stable...

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by VW-IceFire:
In a 1946 scenario I see them more as very well armed fighter-bombers with the 250kg bombs.

Indeed but unfortunately already anton JABOs should have 1x500kg + 2x250kg (under wings) as one of their available loadouts... </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

Or how about a speculative load out of 3 x 500 kg. Ive seen photos of that and also a photo where it carries a 2000kg (I think) with one of its fins removed - this was just to test it not an operational load out but still!

X32Wright
06-25-2007, 08:14 AM
Hi Hirth!

it is a hevay plane and the acceleration is slower compared to the Antons specially compared to the A9.

Having said that HOWEVER, once you gain enough speed and try to not give much of it SHE is very FAST and quite devastating. Just dont turn drastically but do wide circle turns and always employ E-fighting technqiues. you will dominate the sky.

You will need a Spit25lb just to catch up to it if you fly the Ta-152C well!!!

ELKASKONE
06-25-2007, 09:16 AM
The Ta152C TAS at 0m Krim map is 610km/h, il2 compare shows 624km/h, whats wrong?

Vike
06-25-2007, 10:15 AM
Originally posted by ELKASKONE:
The Ta152C TAS at 0m Krim map is 610km/h, il2 compare shows 624km/h, whats wrong?

I reach ~620km/h in TAS (Think about using the wonder woman view! http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_wink.gif)

@+

ELKASKONE
06-25-2007, 10:19 AM
It is not possible to hold more than 608-610km/h TAS on Krim map! I think you now that!

DKoor
06-25-2007, 11:17 AM
TA-152C does 612km/h at Crimea map 100% fuel rad closed.
And that's it. Top speed.
IL-2 Compare is incorrect in this regard.

Vike
06-25-2007, 11:18 AM
Originally posted by ELKASKONE:
It is not possible to hold more than 608-610km/h TAS on Krim map! I think you now that!

Don't panic http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/16x16_smiley-very-happy.gif

I've just done a speed test:
-Crimea map,noon
-Fuel 25% unlimited,no ammo
-Ta152-C,rads closed and ball centered.
-Alt between 0 and 10meters.
-All other parameters set to realism,except for the cokpit,to get the the wonder woman view.

Max stable speed reached: 614km/h TAS

For the speed you saw in IL2Compare,i think this is due to the fact that the last IL2Compare update is based on the old version "4.071m" of the sim.
Indeed,when the sim was at the 4.071m version,the Ta152C was able to reach ~635km/h TAS.
Then,its speed has been corrected in the last 4.08m patch,but IL2Compare is still not updated.

BTW,for a curious reason,10km/h are missing for every max TAS speed for every plane in IL2Compare.

By example for the Me109K4/C3,we read 588km/h TAS max at sea level in IL2Compare,while we can reach 598km/h TAS ingame,etc... http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/16x16_smiley-wink.gif

So,when you read 624km/h TAS for the Ta152C at sea level in IL2Compare,it is in fact 634Km/h,speed it was able to reach in the patches pre-4.08m! http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_wink.gif

@+

ELKASKONE
06-25-2007, 12:24 PM
With closed radiator, 100% Fuel, MW50, Auto Pitch and between 2-10m on Krim map i can reach and hold 608-610km/h, that it for me!!

@Vike,in 4.07 + 4.071 i have make the same test, and it was the same or nearly the speed, no change!

@Dkoor do you have see a german document for sealevel speed for this plane (I mean with MW50) or why you are so sure?
The question is also, what version of DB603 we have in this plane?

I now the problematic about IL2compare maybe it it is a wrong number

Vike
06-25-2007, 12:44 PM
Originally posted by ELKASKONE:

@Vike,in 4.07 + 4.071 i have make the same test, and it was the same or nearly the speed, no change!

December 2006,IL2-1946 was just released (ver 4.07m),and here is what i got at this time (http://www.simhq.com/forum/ubbthreads.php?ubb=showflat&Board=86&Number=2026576&Searchpage=1&Main=219996&Words=ta152c+Vike&topic=0&Search=true#Post2026576),before the correction in the 4.071m patch.

Think about centering the ball to get some extra km/h and break this damned 610km/h TAS barrier ! http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/16x16_smiley-very-happy.gif http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/16x16_smiley-wink.gif

@+

DKoor
06-25-2007, 01:29 PM
Originally posted by ELKASKONE:
@Dkoor do you have see a german document for sealevel speed for this plane (I mean with MW50) or why you are so sure? I'm sure of that speed in game only.... it's exactly 612km/h (http://www.speedyshare.com/452908575.html) on deck (10m alt).

ELKASKONE
06-25-2007, 02:26 PM
@Vike Its true in 4.07 it was possible to reach ~625km/h at sealevel for a few seconds,
but after that speed drops back to 610km/h becouse you can only select auto or open Radiator! http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_biggrin.gif

@DKoor maybe in a English-Language installation of IL2 the Ta152C is 2km/h faster than in my German! http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/blink.gif
or i must test again, i was in 4-6m and reach 610km/h, you in 10m why not 612km/h! http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_biggrin.gif

@Vike + QDKoor
Thx for response!

ELKASKONE
06-25-2007, 03:13 PM
In this Document a Ta152C1 with DB603LA reach 625km/h at sealevel with 50% fuel (4900kg)!

http://img168.imagevenue.com/loc371/th_06085_Fw190-vergleich-3_122_371lo.jpg (http://img168.imagevenue.com/img.php?image=06085_Fw190-vergleich-3_122_371lo.jpg)

FE_pilot
06-25-2007, 06:46 PM
Well another test later on Crimea with the Ta-152C with 100% fuel at 10k and i got a max top speed of only 615km at about 2 hours into the flight.

This was with boost open and prop itch set to 100%.

mbfRoy
06-25-2007, 07:06 PM
Originally posted by ELKASKONE:
The Ta152C TAS at 0m Krim map is 610km/h, il2 compare shows 624km/h, whats wrong? il2 compare

ElAurens
06-28-2007, 08:30 PM
IL2 compare is a third party utility, and frankly should only be used for making troll posts on this forum.

VW-IceFire
06-28-2007, 09:23 PM
Originally posted by ElAurens:
IL2 compare is a third party utility, and frankly should only be used for making troll posts on this forum.
Or in a more useful fashion it can be used to asses relative performances between aircraft. I often, when putting together multiplayer maps or even single player campaigns have a look at IL2 compare to see if planes are matched relatively close (when I want them to be). But don't take it as gospel...it has its uses but don't use it to go too far.