PDA

View Full Version : Ta 152C performance comments



paradoxguy
06-06-2009, 11:27 PM
When I got IL-2 1946, I was elated to see the Focke-Wulf Ta 152C (as opposed to Ta 152H) as one of the flyable planes, as historically it combined a very high performance with a monster cannon armament that all were grouped close to centerline. I was especially eager to see the effect of a 30mm cannon and four 20mm cannon on formations of B-29's and B-17's.

After flying a few brief missions with the Ta 152C, its ultra-heavy armament has performed as expected, but I have to say I am generally disappointed with its performance. It seems to be very sluggish at 7500 meters or above, with low rate of climb and acceleration, and mediocre maneuverability. By comparison, the Fw 190D-9 seems to performs much better than the Ta 152C, such that I prefer it even when attacking heavy bomber formations; with the Ta 152C, I seem to have difficulty regaining firing position against heavy bombers after the initial pass. Possibly I may not have optimized the flying parameters of the Ta 152C properly, but other fighter aircraft in IL-2--P-51, Yak-3, La-7, Bf 109G-series and K-series, Ki-84--seem to be consistent with their historical counterparts performance-wise.

I'd appreciate hearing experiences and thoughts of others who have flown the Ta-152C in IL-2.

Thanks,
PG

paradoxguy
06-06-2009, 11:27 PM
When I got IL-2 1946, I was elated to see the Focke-Wulf Ta 152C (as opposed to Ta 152H) as one of the flyable planes, as historically it combined a very high performance with a monster cannon armament that all were grouped close to centerline. I was especially eager to see the effect of a 30mm cannon and four 20mm cannon on formations of B-29's and B-17's.

After flying a few brief missions with the Ta 152C, its ultra-heavy armament has performed as expected, but I have to say I am generally disappointed with its performance. It seems to be very sluggish at 7500 meters or above, with low rate of climb and acceleration, and mediocre maneuverability. By comparison, the Fw 190D-9 seems to performs much better than the Ta 152C, such that I prefer it even when attacking heavy bomber formations; with the Ta 152C, I seem to have difficulty regaining firing position against heavy bombers after the initial pass. Possibly I may not have optimized the flying parameters of the Ta 152C properly, but other fighter aircraft in IL-2--P-51, Yak-3, La-7, Bf 109G-series and K-series, Ki-84--seem to be consistent with their historical counterparts performance-wise.

I'd appreciate hearing experiences and thoughts of others who have flown the Ta-152C in IL-2.

Thanks,
PG

X32Wright
06-07-2009, 12:08 AM
YOu have to know how to trim and trim well and go very smooth wide turns and use only roll movement to convert your speed. You must be very adept at energy management before you can use this plane well. She likes to be above 6k meters and BNZ those below and maintain that speed. Once she slows down she is VERY vulnerable because it takes time for her speed to catch up. This goes the same for the Dora-9 so you have to master the FW-190 A-9 and D-9 before you can handle the heavy but powerful Ta-152C.

paradoxguy
06-07-2009, 12:52 AM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by X32Wright:
YOu have to know how to trim and trim well and go very smooth wide turns and use only roll movement to convert your speed. You must be very adept at energy management before you can use this plane well. She likes to be above 6k meters and BNZ those below and maintain that speed. Once she slows down she is VERY vulnerable because it takes time for her speed to catch up. This goes the same for the Dora-9 so you have to master the FW-190 A-9 and D-9 before you can handle the heavy but powerful Ta-152C. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

Thanks for your insights on the Ta 152C. Obviously I have some homework to complete before I can fly the Ta 152C well. FWIW, I don't seem to have the same problems with the Fw 190D-9, which seems fast and maneuverable by comparison. In fact, I find the Dora much fun to fly and I dare say I have a decent aptitude with it. Your comments about the Fw 190A-9 are interesting to me, as I do seem to have some of the same issues with it as the Ta 152C, but to a notably lesser degree.

I'll practice more with the Fw 190A-9 and eventually the Ta 152C with your advice in mind and see if I can maximize their strengths.

Thanks,
PG

X32Wright
06-07-2009, 01:38 AM
Good and always stay high and when you do BNZ and maintain your speed nothing can touch you in the Ta-152C even those pesky Spit25lbs.

JtD
06-07-2009, 01:50 AM
The Ta 152C is a dog. It very much is a plane for hit and run style tactics. And only for that. You make a pass, and off you go. In real life, this is what Luftwaffe pilots mostly did against the bombers late in the war. The Ta-152C has enough fuel to patiently set up for another attack run in a remote spot, but I never found it wise to make repeated attacks against the same bomber formation at one time. With each pass you end up slower, and at a certain point you're so slow that you're not much more than an easy target for the gunners.

Eventually, I don't think your problems are your fault.

Xiolablu3
06-07-2009, 06:57 AM
The Mk103 added a LOT of weight to what is essentially a much heavier Ta152.

BillSwagger
06-07-2009, 07:19 AM
The ta-152 is a high altitude fighter, so 7500M is still too low to notice any performance advantage. The Dora is right at home at 7500M, so its not a proper comparison.

If you fly both planes up to 12000M you might notice a huge change in performance of both aircraft. The air really begins to thin out above 30,000 ft, so it becomes more of a challenge to climb in any aircraft, however the engine performance is what should be more noticeable.

I'm not sure the Ta-152 series even got into the air before the end of the war, much like the P-51H which isn't featured in the game. If the war had continued, these two planes might have fought at some point, above 35000 ft.
Interestingly, the P-51H was used in Korea.

Another allied plane not featured, is the P-72 or F-72, which was designed to be an interceptor. There was a variant in the works to allow for flight at 50,000ft, but by that time, Germany's bomber force was no longer a threat, so the plane was never flown. The P-72 would've boasted 4 37mm cannons. If this plane were in the game, it would ruin it. =)

Brain32
06-07-2009, 07:23 AM
Mk103 - 146Kg
Mk108 - 64Kg
Diff. - 82Kg

Not that much, however that is irrelevant as Ta152 has mk108, Do-335 has mk103..

DKoor
06-07-2009, 07:55 AM
I'd say from my game experience that I wouldn't consider TA-152C as a (versatile) fighter, but as interceptor primarily.
It doesn't carry some anti-ground armament to speak off (that wasn't seen on previous FW variants), nor its overall performance gives the ground for optimism in aerial superiority actions.

However, in spite of having not the best climb rate but still good, it has to be premium Luftwaffe piston interceptor that probably would never enter any serious production considering the fact that the better performing plane (for the same role) was available at the time - Me-262.

Never the less, it's interesting to speculate just how good the TA-152C would be perform when faced with the stream of heavy armored bombers escorted with fast fighters.
My prediction would be, unless it's covered by 'light' fighters from above it would probably be stopped in great degree by escorting fighters, and once pinned down on lower altitudes they practically don't stand any chance.
On the other hand if they manage to penetrate the escorting fighters screen they have great chances to inflict severe damage to the bombers.

VW-IceFire
06-07-2009, 08:19 AM
The 152C is a weird beast...the engine isn't really any more powerful than the D-9s or the 152H...the power bands are different so altitude performance is different. But the 152C is so much heavier than the other models that it really suffers in other attributes. Its a interceptor/destroyer rather than a true fighter.

Viper2005_
06-07-2009, 08:26 AM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by BillSwagger:
The ta-152 is a high altitude fighter, so 7500M is still too low to notice any performance advantage. The Dora is right at home at 7500M, so its not a proper comparison.

If you fly both planes up to 12000M you might notice a huge change in performance of both aircraft. The air really begins to thin out above 30,000 ft, so it becomes more of a challenge to climb in any aircraft, however the engine performance is what should be more noticeable. </div></BLOCKQUOTE> The Ta-152C is faster than the D9 below about 3.5 km, and above about 7.5km; between those altitudes the D9 has an advantage.

There has been some previous debate about the Ta-152C's model, and IIRC it has been suggested that it is modelled in the game with D9 wings, which are too small - hence its poor turn performance. I don't personally have a position on either side of this argument as I don't have sufficient data to form one.

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">I'm not sure the Ta-152 series even got into the air before the end of the war, much like the P-51H which isn't featured in the game. If the war had continued, these two planes might have fought at some point, above 35000 ft. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>The Ta-152H certainly flew. Whether it reached true operational status in the last few weeks of the war is debatable. There are some pictures of it on operational flight lines, Eric Brown flew one after the war, and the Smithsonian has an example (it's an H0, not the H1 that we have in the game).

There seems to be less evidence of the C model.

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Interestingly, the P-51H was used in Korea. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>AFAIK they actually took P-51Ds to Korea because there were more of them, and they are better able to handle operations from semi-prepared strips - part of the H model's superior performance comes from the fact that it's lighter than the D, and part of that mass saving came from giving it a lighter landing gear.

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Another allied plane not featured, is the P-72 or F-72, which was designed to be an interceptor. There was a variant in the works to allow for flight at 50,000ft, but by that time, Germany's bomber force was no longer a threat, so the plane was never flown. The P-72 would've boasted 4 37mm cannons. If this plane were in the game, it would ruin it. =) </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

I doubt it. 37 mm cannon are not well optimised for shooting fighters, so the P-72 would be something of a one-trick pony. It was discontinued because it was fairly obvious that the next war would be fought with jets, and that WWII was effectively already won. I suspect that there was also considerable scepticism about the cannon given the dismal record of American attempts to produce the 20 mm Hispano.

The biggest problem suffered by the P-72 is the existence of the YP-80. Had there been a really significant bomber threat then the best interceptor would have been a P-80 based machine, probably along the lines of the F-94 which indeed found its way to Korea. Of course, if you put some other Allied jets like the Meteor and Vampire into the game, life would be somewhat harder for Me-262 pilots in a 1945 scenario.

If you go down the Luft46 route then the obvious Allied aircraft to add would be the YP-86.

However, jets (and even fast, high altitude prop fighters) in IL2 rapidly descend into farce because of the lack of Mach number effects, which allows people to throw their aeroplanes around with totally unrealistic abandon.

dadada1
06-07-2009, 09:19 AM
When it was first included in the Il2 series lot of people were expecting it be an uber plane and better than the H in a lot of respects, personally I don't think this realistic. It was intended as a heavy fighter/fighter bomber, not a pure fighter and thats how it performs. Having said this work is afoot to give it a slightly correctd flight model at AAA to the 152C, there were some parameters that were not well done by Oleg. It does seem to accelerate and climb too slowly and I do believe viper is correct about the in game 152C using D9 wing physics (hence the poor turning). The changes will be subtle though and I don't think it will ever be a competitve dogfighter like the H and looking at the numbers it shouldn't be.

ACE-OF-ACES
06-07-2009, 09:23 AM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by dadada1:
Having said this work is afoot to give it a slightly correctd flight model at AAA to the 152C, there were some parameters that were not well done by Oleg. It does seem to accelerate and climb too slowly and I do believe viper is correct about the in game 152C using D9 wing physics (hence the poor turning). The changes will be subtle though and I don't think it will ever be a competitve dogfighter like the H and looking at the numbers it shouldn't be. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>
Strange, in that goes aginst everything AAA says at thier web sight. That being in essance they will never tweak the FM on any of the orginal planes, but they will add new planes, so unless they said they are adding an differnt version of the 152C I would hold my breath waiting for a tweaked version of the existing one

dadada1
06-07-2009, 09:36 AM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by ACE-OF-ACES:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by dadada1:
Having said this work is afoot to give it a slightly correctd flight model at AAA to the 152C, there were some parameters that were not well done by Oleg. It does seem to accelerate and climb too slowly and I do believe viper is correct about the in game 152C using D9 wing physics (hence the poor turning). The changes will be subtle though and I don't think it will ever be a competitve dogfighter like the H and looking at the numbers it shouldn't be. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>
Strange, in that goes aginst everything AAA says at thier web sight. That being in essance they will never tweak the FM on any of the orginal planes, but they will add new planes, so unless they said they are adding an differnt version of the 152C I would hold my breath waiting for a tweaked version of the existing one </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

Sorry I can't link you to the thread but it is there (just checked) Yes I found it strange too, but I think they are creating a new slot Ta 152C1/R11 so the orignal will not change. They are taking this opportunity to have a go at tweaking performance a little.

BillSwagger
06-07-2009, 09:46 AM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by Viper2005_:
... because of the lack of Mach number effects, which allows people to throw their aeroplanes around with totally unrealistic abandon. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

What mach number effects???
Compressibility??


The P-80 program suffered many problems before the end of the war, where the p-72 was ready for production by 1944. Since bombers were no longer a threat they didn't need a fast interceptor, they needed long range escorts. The dawn of the jet area did cause them to permanently shelve the idea.

The fact the game has the Do-335, should cause someone to question why they wouldn't also include the H model Mustang, the P-72 ( or another late variant of the P-47N or M, which were actually used in combat)
Either way, 37mm or 6 .50 cal, the P-72 would be hard to contend with in any other prop fighter in the game. Compressibility or not.


As for jets, the Sabre (F-86 or P-86) is in the game isnt it. I'll have to look. I might have this confused with another game.

CarlingWood
06-07-2009, 09:49 AM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by BillSwagger:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by Viper2005_:
... because of the lack of Mach number effects, which allows people to throw their aeroplanes around with totally unrealistic abandon. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

What mach number effects???
Compressibility?? </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

Maybe he meant like playing Il2 on a roller coaster

BillSwagger
06-07-2009, 10:06 AM
I hear what he's getting at. Most aircraft would be more difficult to fly at higher speeds, especially the higher you get in altitude.

I still think some planes should lose a wing or receive damage if they snap roll above a certain airspeed.

Maybe in future sims they will model bent airframes.

DKoor
06-07-2009, 12:02 PM
Who cares about the planes.
Most people would have their head explode in some of those online maneuvers.
Let alone speaking of some structural integrity... of the rest of the pilot's body (and plane).
Over and over again.
Rollercoaster?
Yeah, a killer one.

Blackout full elevator trimming up at 900kph vertical dive... anyone? http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/59.gif

TinyTim
06-07-2009, 02:35 PM
Outclimbed by 1941 fighters, outturned by 1941 bombers (A-20,...), no need to say more I guess.

Xiolablu3
06-07-2009, 03:05 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by Brain32:
Mk103 - 146Kg
Mk108 - 64Kg
Diff. - 82Kg

Not that much, however that is irrelevant as Ta152 has mk108, Do-335 has mk103.. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

I thought the Ta152C had the Mk103 firing through the spinner?


82kg is the weight of a heavy man. 13 stone. Thats quite a lot of extra weight for a fighter to carry.

The weight of an extra man in the fuesalage totally unbalanced the Bf109 Steinhoff commented in his bio.

BTW I am not sticking up for the dog of a flight model. I cannot see why there should be so much difference between the FW190D9 and the Ta152C either.

dadada1
06-07-2009, 04:27 PM
According to all the literature I've ever read it (the C-0) had an Mk 108 firing through the spinner same as the H, dont know where all this Mk103 is coming from (wiki perhaps). I don't have my Dietmar Harrmann reference to hand though but perhaps people are refering to the Ta152C-3 (not the one we have). The real killer for the Ta152C surely has to be the MG 151 20mm cannons in the upper nose cowl plus the weight ammo for these guns, or are people thinking it just had MG 131's there?

DKoor
06-07-2009, 06:17 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by Xiolablu3:
BTW I am not sticking up for the dog of a flight model. I cannot see why there should be so much difference between the FW190D9 and the Ta152C either. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>It would be interesting to see just how much their performance really is alike in game... fully loaded with fuel TA-152C can travel some 260km more than FW-190D9... 837 vs 1100km (according to Hardball's Viewer).
Can be checked in game easily, some planes have this range thing way off in comparison with their RL counterparts. So I think it is fair to compare TA-152C performance with 75% fuel and FW-190D with 100% fuel.

Anyhow... since TA-152C shares a lot with FW-190D considering airframe, it is logical thing to compare it.
Engines are different tho.

dadada1
06-07-2009, 06:24 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by DKoor:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by Xiolablu3:
BTW I am not sticking up for the dog of a flight model. I cannot see why there should be so much difference between the FW190D9 and the Ta152C either. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>It would be interesting to see just how much their performance really is alike in game... fully loaded with fuel TA-152C can travel some 260km more than FW-190D9... 837 vs 1100km (according to Hardball's Viewer).
Can be checked in game easily, some planes have this range thing way off in comparison with their RL counterparts. So I think it is fair to compare TA-152C performance with 75% fuel and FW-190D with 100% fuel.

Anyhow... since TA-152C shares a lot with FW-190D considering airframe, it is logical thing to compare it.
Engines are different tho. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

As are the wings and most of the fuselage.

M_Gunz
06-07-2009, 07:19 PM
The Dora and the Ta have equal fuel capacity?

dadada1
06-08-2009, 01:12 PM
Here's the Spec's I'm familiar with.

http://s205.photobucket.com/al...current=ta_152_3.jpg (http://s205.photobucket.com/albums/bb107/ZorinW/?action=view&current=ta_152_3.jpg)

BillSwagger
06-08-2009, 06:17 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by DKoor:
Who cares about the planes.
Most people would have their head explode in some of those online maneuvers.
Let alone speaking of some structural integrity... of the rest of the pilot's body (and plane).
Over and over again.
Rollercoaster?
Yeah, a killer one.

Blackout full elevator trimming up at 900kph vertical dive... anyone? http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/59.gif </div></BLOCKQUOTE>


The average human body is still able to handle quite a bit of lateral G force depending on the angle.
Front to back (being pushed back into your seat), its 15 Gs sustained, and being pulled forward out of your seat, its 12 Gs sustained.
As you know, these numbers change significantly as the angle becomes more vertical and puts more vertical G force on the body and effects blood flow to the brain.

mortoma
06-08-2009, 07:35 PM
The handling of the TA-152 in game is porked big time. It was in real life basically the same thing as a late Dora except it had a different and heavier engine. It also had more and heavier guns and ammo. The cockpit was moved back a tiny bit to re-balance the plane due to the extra weight up front. Though heavier with full fuel and bigger/more guns plus ammo, a TA-152C with a quarter full tank would have weighed less than a Dora with full fuel tanks. Also it had a longer ( from front to back ) vertical stabilizer but some Doras had that very same stab fitted. But with the same aspect ratio wings, the same basic shape it should handle like a Dora if it had a small amount of fuel in the tanks. But the TA-152 in the game handles like a brick with wings even if almost empty of fuel. While the Dora handles like Ferarri no matter how much the fuel load is. This is proof of porkedness. I doubt the wing loading was very different between Doras and TAs. They should handle very close to each other. Either Oleg made the Dora handle too well or the TA-C not well enough. Methinks in reality the handling of both should be somewhere between the two extremes. As the FMs are now, the extremes between the two planes are marked.

DKoor
06-09-2009, 01:12 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by mortoma:
The handling of the TA-152 in game is porked big time. It was in real life basically the same thing as a late Dora except it had a different and heavier engine. It also had more and heavier guns and ammo. The cockpit was moved back a tiny bit to re-balance the plane due to the extra weight up front. Though heavier with full fuel and bigger/more guns plus ammo, a TA-152C with a quarter full tank would have weighed less than a Dora with full fuel tanks. Also it had a longer ( from front to back ) vertical stabilizer but some Doras had that very same stab fitted. But with the same aspect ratio wings, the same basic shape it should handle like a Dora if it had a small amount of fuel in the tanks. But the TA-152 in the game handles like a brick with wings even if almost empty of fuel. While the Dora handles like Ferarri no matter how much the fuel load is. This is proof of porkedness. I doubt the wing loading was very different between Doras and TAs. They should handle very close to each other. Either Oleg made the Dora handle too well or the TA-C not well enough. Methinks in reality the handling of both should be somewhere between the two extremes. As the FMs are now, the extremes between the two planes are marked. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>I agree with all said except the part "...performance somewhere in between..." because that would probably need a lot more aircraft fixed as well.
FW-190A9 for example is very good performing plane, and FW-190D when tuned down would probably end up having similar perf qualities as A9 (regarding maneuverability).
TA-152C may have some diff in size than FW-190D, but yes they are very similar in appearance.

mortoma
06-09-2009, 05:51 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by DKoor:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by mortoma:
The handling of the TA-152 in game is porked big time. It was in real life basically the same thing as a late Dora except it had a different and heavier engine. It also had more and heavier guns and ammo. The cockpit was moved back a tiny bit to re-balance the plane due to the extra weight up front. Though heavier with full fuel and bigger/more guns plus ammo, a TA-152C with a quarter full tank would have weighed less than a Dora with full fuel tanks. Also it had a longer ( from front to back ) vertical stabilizer but some Doras had that very same stab fitted. But with the same aspect ratio wings, the same basic shape it should handle like a Dora if it had a small amount of fuel in the tanks. But the TA-152 in the game handles like a brick with wings even if almost empty of fuel. While the Dora handles like Ferarri no matter how much the fuel load is. This is proof of porkedness. I doubt the wing loading was very different between Doras and TAs. They should handle very close to each other. Either Oleg made the Dora handle too well or the TA-C not well enough. Methinks in reality the handling of both should be somewhere between the two extremes. As the FMs are now, the extremes between the two planes are marked. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>I agree with all said except the part "...performance somewhere in between..." because that would probably need a lot more aircraft fixed as well.
FW-190A9 for example is very good performing plane, and FW-190D when tuned down would probably end up having similar perf qualities as A9 (regarding maneuverability).
TA-152C may have some diff in size than FW-190D, but yes they are very similar in appearance. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>Actually I don't think the TA was different in size than a Dora. If it was I'd be surprised. Perhaps a shade longer? I'll have to check it out. I only know about them moving the cockpit backwards a hair to balance the weight distibution.

DKoor
06-09-2009, 06:25 PM
Diff in size exists, but isn't large.
Judging solely from appearance one could expect similar maneuverability performance.

JuHa-
06-10-2009, 08:35 AM
IIRC, the TA152C prototype was equipped with steel wings (production models were planned with aluminium ones), which added considerably to the weight. My guess is that the ingame 152C is based on the prototype.
And as my feeling about the general FM of the IL2 is that the wingloading is very important for the handling (turning) characteristics, the Ta152C being a brick didn't suprise me one iota.

dadada1
06-10-2009, 10:18 AM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by JuHa-:
IIRC, the TA152C prototype was equipped with steel wings (production models were planned with aluminium ones), which added considerably to the weight. My guess is that the ingame 152C is based on the prototype.
And as my feeling about the general FM of the IL2 is that the wingloading is very important for the handling (turning) characteristics, the Ta152C being a brick didn't suprise me one iota. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>


Me neither and I'm a firm fan of the Ta piston fighters, been flying them almost exclusively since they were first introduced.

Gibbage1
06-10-2009, 05:00 PM
According to a quick internet search, the Ta-152C is 1000KG heavier then the FW-190D9. That could account for its lacking performance VS the D9.

DuckyFluff
06-10-2009, 05:08 PM
Where did you read such thing?? http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_rolleyes.gif

1000kg = 2000lbs

Close this site forever and never read again. http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/88.gif http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/53.gif

Gibbage1
06-10-2009, 05:34 PM
First, the C-1 weight. 5300kg.

http://s205.photobucket.com/al...current=ta_152_3.jpg (http://s205.photobucket.com/albums/bb107/ZorinW/?action=view&current=ta_152_3.jpg)

Them the 190D9 loaded weight. 4350kg.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/FW-190

Again, I said "quick internet search". If you have any more accurate data, please post it. If not, why did you even post before looking it up yourself?