PDA

View Full Version : Oleg, a question about Ta 152 low alt speed.



robban75
03-04-2004, 11:17 AM
Hi Oleg!

I was just qurious about the true max speed of the Ta 152. It seems to vary in many books.
However, I have the book "Focke-Wulf, Fw 190 Longnose, An Illistrated History of the Fw 190D series" by Dietmar Hermann.
In this book on page 154 there is a speedchart dated 03/01/45. It shows the Ta 152H topspeed at sealevel to be as high as 598km/h. If this speed is correct, than it could very much explanis how Tank managed to escape the persuing Mustangs.
What do you think?

Thanks for any answer!

Robert

robban75
03-04-2004, 11:17 AM
Hi Oleg!

I was just qurious about the true max speed of the Ta 152. It seems to vary in many books.
However, I have the book "Focke-Wulf, Fw 190 Longnose, An Illistrated History of the Fw 190D series" by Dietmar Hermann.
In this book on page 154 there is a speedchart dated 03/01/45. It shows the Ta 152H topspeed at sealevel to be as high as 598km/h. If this speed is correct, than it could very much explanis how Tank managed to escape the persuing Mustangs.
What do you think?

Thanks for any answer!

Robert

JG26Red
03-04-2004, 11:26 AM
Originally posted by robban75:
Hi Oleg!

I was just qurious about the true max speed of the Ta 152. It seems to vary in many books.
However, I have the book "Focke-Wulf, Fw 190 Longnose, An Illistrated History of the Fw 190D series" by Dietmar Hermann.
In this book on page 154 there is a speedchart dated 03/01/45. It shows the Ta 152H topspeed at sealevel to be as high as 598km/h. If this speed is correct, than it could very much explanis how Tank managed to escape the persuing Mustangs.
What do you think?

Thanks for any answer!

Robert

thats the highest i have ever seen it... but on everything else i have notice 350mph(550560kph) area, which the plane does reach the 550-560 on deck..

robban75
03-04-2004, 11:29 AM
Yes, those are the most common speeds for the Ta 152. But the 598km/h is from a real speedchart. So it can't be all that unvalid.:)


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

Oleg_Maddox
03-04-2004, 11:50 AM
Originally posted by robban75:
Yes, those are the most common speeds for the Ta 152. But the 598km/h is from a real speedchart. So it can't be all that unvalid.:)


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

On Low altitude it was relatively slow. We use german chart for the H-1.

03-04-2004, 11:56 AM
Oleg, this document gives Sea level speed as

540 km/h w/o MW 50
580 km/h w. MW 50 boost
for Ta 152 H-0. Not H-1, but same engine, same power..

I believe the chart you used to model 152H-1 includes only the petrol injection boost, but not MW 50 boost. (1750 HP vs. 2050 HP).

http://www.pbase.com/image/11258827
and here
http://www.pbase.com/image/11260818/original

Also see speed curve here : it gives Ta 152H at 4700 kg at 572 km/h at SL with Jumo 213E engine.

http://www.pbase.com/image/11258874

robban75
03-04-2004, 12:16 PM
Originally posted by Oleg_Maddox:
On Low altitude it was relatively slow. We use german chart for the H-1.

Thanks for you reply Oleg!:)

This is chart is German aswell.

Here's more on what it says.

Ta 152H-1
Fluggewicht 4750kg
Motor Jumo 213E
Kraftstaff varrat 994
Drehzahl 3250
Ladedruck 2.03
Kraftstaff B4
Bewaffnung 1 x Mk108 2x MG151

I'm sorry I don't have a scanner so that I could show you the entire chart.

Could it be of some use perhaps?:)

Thanks!



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

Gwalker70
03-04-2004, 12:54 PM
I Am really not Oleg bashing here.. I thank him everyday for the great sim.. but sometimes his facts and historical values make me shake my head on to where the hell he is getting them...I to have proof that the H will go VERY close to 600 on the deck and acceleration is VERY high. I can point to a LOT of documentation of this. even if its deck speed can be argued, I know that the ACCELERATION is way off. I can email whatever you would like

lrrp22
03-04-2004, 01:09 PM
Hi Robban,

I think you may be placing a little too much importance on the Tank quote. Without knowing the specific circumstances of the situation we can't draw any useful conclusions.

Also, as i have posted many times (and I'll keep posting 'til someone listens!;)), 598 kph at SL would probably not be enough to outrun an ETO P-51 at that stage of the war. FB's low-altitude Mustang speeds represent a WEP boost level (67") that had long been exceeded by the late '44.

BTW, where is my 635+ kph SL Mustang III? LOL!


Originally posted by robban75:
Hi Oleg!

I was just qurious about the true max speed of the Ta 152. It seems to vary in many books.
However, I have the book "Focke-Wulf, Fw 190 Longnose, An Illistrated History of the Fw 190D series" by Dietmar Hermann.
In this book on page 154 there is a speedchart dated 03/01/45. It shows the Ta 152H topspeed at sealevel to be as high as 598km/h. If this speed is correct, than it could very much explanis how Tank managed to escape the persuing Mustangs.
What do you think?

Thanks for any answer!

Robert

robban75
03-04-2004, 01:22 PM
Originally posted by lrrp22:
Hi Robban,

I think you may be placing a little too much importance on the Tank quote. Without knowing the specific circumstances of the situation we can't draw any useful conclusions.

Also, as i have posted many times (and I'll keep posting 'til someone listens!;)), 598 kph at SL would probably not be enough to outrun an ETO P-51 at that stage of the war. FB's low-altitude Mustang speeds represent a WEP boost level (67") that had long been exceeded by the late '44.

BTW, where is my 635+ kph SL Mustang III? LOL!


Hi lrrp!

I believe there were several witnesses to that incident, including the pilots flying the Mustangs. 598km/h is still very fast I'd say. But it's from a valid WW2 speedchart I think.
If I could have my way, you could get the 635+km/h Mustang III, if I can have my specially boosted 646km/h D-9! Muahahaha!;)

BTW, wasn't the higher octane fuel for the Mustang very damagable for the engine? I'm just wondering! You know alot more than me about the Mustang!

Thanks!

Oleg_Maddox
03-04-2004, 01:33 PM
Originally posted by VO101_Kurfurst:
Oleg, this document gives Sea level speed as

540 km/h w/o MW 50
580 km/h w. MW 50 boost
for Ta 152 H-0. Not H-1, but same engine, same power..

I believe the chart you used to model 152H-1 includes only the petrol injection boost, but not MW 50 boost. (1750 HP vs. 2050 HP).

http://www.pbase.com/image/11258827
and here
http://www.pbase.com/image/11260818/original

Also see speed curve here : it gives Ta 152H at 4700 kg at 572 km/h at SL with Jumo 213E engine.

http://www.pbase.com/image/11258874

We use these charts and this table as well.

Relativetely slow I mean comparing to some other fighters of the end of the war.

And we model both systems on this plane MW-50 and GM-1.

lrrp22
03-04-2004, 02:12 PM
Hey Robban,

There are so many factors that could have affected that chase that it is impossible draw any concrete conclusions.

As far as the 150 octane fuel- it could foul spark plugs but that was about it. Certain types of spark plugs and running the engine at high RPM for short periods during cruise settings sloved the problem. The 81"/+25 lb setting was used universally by 2nd TAF by early 1945.

Further, I recently discovered that Iwo Jima-based 7th Fighter Command P-51D's were running the same 80" HG power settings on 115/145 grade fuel starting in APR 45. 7th FC pilots related that their Mustangs were 40 mph faster than the Ki-84's they faced over Japan.

You can have one (just one) of your *theoretical* (wink, wink-nudge, nudge) 'Base Compressor' D-9's as long as I get the 22 squadrons worth of Mustang III's (and 30+ squadrons of Spit IX's, XIV's, and XVI's ;)) that ran at +25 lb boost!

Oh yeah, I was just being conservative with the 635 KPH: s/n FB377 (a Mustang III pulled from operational service with 316 Sqn) *actually* did 405 mph/651 kph@SL. ;) To be fair, that was without wing racks and a bracket at the base of the aerial (the aerial itself was left in place) which accounted for 8 mph.

This was a test of the capabilities of operational Mustang III's, Spit XIV's, and Tempest V's. No one can claim that these results represented 'special' airframes or circumstances. These speeds might not be so suprising if you realize that the V-1650-7/Merlin 66 was developing over 2,000 HP at 81" HG.



Originally posted by robban75:

Originally posted by lrrp22:
Hi Robban,

I think you may be placing a little too much importance on the Tank quote. Without knowing the specific circumstances of the situation we can't draw any useful conclusions.

Also, as i have posted many times (and I'll keep posting 'til someone listens!;)), 598 kph at SL would probably not be enough to outrun an ETO P-51 at that stage of the war. FB's low-altitude Mustang speeds represent a WEP boost level (67") that had long been exceeded by the late '44.

BTW, where is my 635+ kph SL Mustang III? LOL!


Hi lrrp!

I believe there were several witnesses to that incident, including the pilots flying the Mustangs. 598km/h is still very fast I'd say. But it's from a valid WW2 speedchart I think.
If I could have my way, you could get the 635+km/h Mustang III, if I can have my specially boosted 646km/h D-9! Muahahaha!;)

BTW, wasn't the higher octane fuel for the Mustang very damagable for the engine? I'm just wondering! You know alot more than me about the Mustang!

Thanks!

PzKpfw
03-04-2004, 02:37 PM
115/145 Grade fuel Couldn't have been that damageing as, it was brought up at the Joint Fighter Confrence held NAS Patuxent that AAF & Navy fighters were switching to 115/145 grade fuel as suplly became available.

Regards, John Waters

---------
Notice: Spelling mistakes left in for people who need to correct others to make their life fulfilled.

------
"We've got the finest tanks in the world. We just love to see the German Royal Tiger come up on the field".

Lt.Gen. George S. Patton, Jr. Febuary 1945.

Gwalker70
03-04-2004, 04:27 PM
when kurt outran those mustangs it was due to accleration in combination with good flat speed... the Jumo 213 E had great acceleration .. which I dont see that well in FB 2.0 I am less worried about deck speed at this point than accleration H model doenst belong on the deck in the first place maybe Oleg can dig up some research on accerlation on the Jumo in H model if I not I can email hehe :)

LEXX_Luthor
03-04-2004, 04:30 PM
At what altitude did the Kurt Tank Story happen.

Gwalker70
03-04-2004, 04:36 PM
he had just taken off from Hannover-Langenhagen... some P51's where at the time going to attack the airfield but noticed his TA instead... then Kurt went wide open throttle heheh and dusted them it was sub-1000 meters there were 4 mustangs clearly had velocity advantage The Jumo was able to pull on them ..in my opinion only I think it was the Jumo's acceleration that saved him not flat deck speed

ZG77_Nagual
03-04-2004, 05:03 PM
Hey, maybe I'm crazy, but wasn't that a ta152c he was running away in?

Gwalker70
03-04-2004, 06:13 PM
no it was H model he was on his way to Cottbus

JG26Red
03-04-2004, 06:42 PM
and the C is faster on the deck

WhiskeyRiver
03-04-2004, 06:50 PM
I thought Tank was flying an unarmed prototype?

To kill me you've got to hit the heart Ramon--Clint F*cking Eastwood

MandMs
03-04-2004, 06:57 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by ZG77_Nagual:
Hey, maybe I'm crazy, but wasn't that a ta152c he was running away in?<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Not likely to be a Ta152C since the first flight of the C (VH+EY WNr 110006) was 12-12-44. Now why would Tank take the only prototype on a 330km flight to Cottbas? The C was also built at Sorau(Silesia).

The second C was flown was CI+XM, WNr 111007, on 8-1-45.

Anyone have the Dec date to go with this P-51 encounter.

The only issue I have is that MW50 was not installed until the 20th H, WNr 150020, the H-1. The H-0 did not have it.

On top low level speed, the Tempests of 150 Wing was using 150 fuel and 11lb boost from July 3 1944. This gave the a/c a speed of 415mph IAS at 500ft.(as per Roland Beamant)

@ Whiskey. The Ta was armed but carried no ammo. Milch ahd warned Tank about doing this earlier.

I eat the red ones last.

r0xtilux
03-04-2004, 07:24 PM
Um. My $0.02:

Kurt is of course second only to Oleg in godliness, but I think that whole "Tank vs. Mustangs" incident happened on another planet or something.

There. I've said it.

Hristo_
03-04-2004, 11:43 PM
Speaking from memory, I've read that the Kurt Tank Ta 152 vs P-51 incident happened at very high alt, something of about 30,000 ft.

Again, I may be wrong.

http://easyweb.globalnet.hr/easyweb/users/ntomlino/uploads/sig.jpg

robban75
03-05-2004, 03:30 AM
Exerpt from "Kurt Tank, Focke-Wulf's Designer and Test Pilot, by Wolfgang Wagner"

In late 1944 Tank took off from Hannover-Langehagen in one of the first Ta 152H-0's (equipped with an MW50 system) for a conference with his fellow workers in Cottbus. Shortly after leaving the runway the tower called out the warning: "Vier Indianer am Gartenzaun" - four Indians at the garden fence, meaning that enemy planes were approaching the airfield perimeter.
Soon he spotted four Mustangs closing rapidly. Tank accordingly pushed the throttle to emergeny power and activated the MW50 system. Soon the Mustangs became smaller and smaller and eventually disappeared in the haze. The system had proven itself impeccably. This event was later reported in an American magazine, with the Americans at a loss to explain what German aircraft could have such reserves of power to be able to simply walk away from Mustangs as though they'd been standing still.

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

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

Ankanor
03-05-2004, 04:53 AM
He was at 2000m, I think. I would think that the Ta152H-1 without boost should be slower than the D-9 because of greater weight, and more drag from the wider wings.

I am thinking now, that Ta, that Tank was flying, it was not armed(no ammo), but was it filled with fuel? The Ta has additional 4*84 l. fuel tanks, not counting the ones in the fuselage. I really do not think he had his bird with 100% fuel. What do you think?

O, how I want to hold you,
To feel your breath
And hear your laughter in my ears.
To look into your eyes
And see myself in there.
Caress you with my lips.
To hold your hands in mine
And find the hidden smile in your dimple
That makes you irresistible
And stops the breathing in my chest.
To be with you when you are weeping,
To wipe away the tears and take away the sorrow.
To watch you while you are sleeping
Like there is no tomorrow.

And with a tender kiss to wake you up.

Essen,23.02.2004 20:53

robban75
03-05-2004, 05:35 AM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Ankanor:
He was at 2000m, I think. I would think that the Ta152H-1 without boost should be slower than the D-9 because of greater weight, and more drag from the wider wings.

I am thinking now, that Ta, that Tank was flying, it was not armed(no ammo), but was it filled with fuel? The Ta has additional 4*84 l. fuel tanks, not counting the ones in the fuselage. I really do not think he had his bird with 100% fuel. What do you think?

<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

The Ta 152 elongated wing had remarkably low drag, and its speed degradation wasn't that much at all. If, we are to believe that chart printed in Dietmar Hermann's book that is. And it seem genuine.

The wings gave the Ta 152 a lower wingloading, but no lower than that of a Fw 190A-3. According to Willi Reschke, the Ta 152's power on take off pushed him into the seat in a way he had never experience before. Take off run was just 260m.
I hope that those who fly the Ta 152 online only take 25% fuel. That equals to 50% fuel on the Dora. 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!

PzKpfw
03-05-2004, 05:59 AM
Interesting Tank had an "H-0" with MW 50, as everything I have read states all H-0s were produced w/o MW 50 or GM1 systems.

Regards, John Waters

---------
Notice: Spelling mistakes left in for people who need to correct others to make their life fulfilled.

------
"We've got the finest tanks in the world. We just love to see the German Royal Tiger come up on the field".

Lt.Gen. George S. Patton, Jr. Febuary 1945.

Bremspropeller
03-05-2004, 06:20 AM
Maybe it was retrofitted, just for Waldemar Tank.

Might be possible.

http://www.brooksart.com/Ontheprowl.jpg
"Once upon the time..there was an aircraft that ruled the skies of Europe..."
http://www.virtual-jabog32.de
http://www.jg68.de.vu

Oleg_Maddox
03-05-2004, 06:38 AM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Hristo_:
Speaking from memory, I've read that the Kurt Tank Ta 152 vs P-51 incident happened at very high alt, something of about 30,000 ft.

Again, I may be wrong.

http://easyweb.globalnet.hr/easyweb/users/ntomlino/uploads/sig.jpg <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

You are right. It was at close to this altitude. And Ta there will eat say all aircraft... Even P-47N will be "kicked" due to better maneuverability there. Howvere depends of pilot inside.

Oleg_Maddox
03-05-2004, 06:42 AM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by PzKpfw:
Interesting Tank had an "H-0" with MW 50, as everything I have read states all H-0s were produced w/o MW 50 or GM1 systems.

Regards, John Waters

---------
Notice: Spelling mistakes left in for people who need to correct others to make their life fulfilled.

------
"We've got the finest tanks in the world. We just love to see the German Royal Tiger come up on the field".

Lt.Gen. George S. Patton, Jr. Febuary 1945.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

H-1 had both MW50 and GM-1. We model it. read readme.

ZG77_Nagual
03-05-2004, 09:16 AM
AH! At high alt! This explains it perfectly.

&lt;for some reason I had this incident pictured on the deck - which did not make sense&gt;

lrrp22
03-05-2004, 09:27 AM
Hi Robban,

I hate to say it but that account just does not ring true. The Ta 152H would have had to have an enormous power advantage over the Mustangs to accomplish this feat. Even the most generous Ta 152H-1 low altitude numbers don't support anywhere near this kind of advantage.

Either this account is somewhat 'Tank-ized' or there are other factors that are not accounted for. Did the Mustangs have to make a hard turn to engage the pursuit? Were they "closing rapidly" in a parallel, but opposite, direction? Was airfield flak a concern (I can't imagine that it wasn't)?

BTW, what was the title of that "American Magazine"? http://ubbxforums.ubi.com/images/smiley/16x16_smiley-wink.gif http://ubbxforums.ubi.com/images/smiley/16x16_smiley-wink.gif


<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by robban75:
Exerpt from "Kurt Tank, Focke-Wulf's Designer and Test Pilot, by Wolfgang Wagner"

In late 1944 Tank took off from Hannover-Langehagen in one of the first Ta 152H-0's (equipped with an MW50 system) for a conference with his fellow workers in Cottbus. Shortly after leaving the runway the tower called out the warning: "Vier Indianer am Gartenzaun" - four Indians at the garden fence, meaning that enemy planes were approaching the airfield perimeter.
Soon he spotted four Mustangs closing rapidly. Tank accordingly pushed the throttle to emergeny power and activated the MW50 system. Soon the Mustangs became smaller and smaller and eventually disappeared in the haze. The system had proven itself impeccably. This event was later reported in an American magazine, with the Americans at a loss to explain what German aircraft could have such reserves of power to be able to simply walk away from Mustangs as though they'd been standing still.

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

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

robban75
03-05-2004, 09:32 AM
Just quoting books and pilot stories lrrp, like everyone else. 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!

JG26Red
03-05-2004, 09:38 AM
ohboy, not this stuff again, how can a german plane outrun my mustang.. never ever.. psst.. when i was stationed in germany, visited some german airforce bases on a good will trip with the airforce.. this story was REAL, and from what the old aged german airforce col or gen said, it was just after takeoff...

but at 550-560 kph in the game i dont see the TA outrunning much down low! lol...

JG26Red
03-05-2004, 09:39 AM
see, what we really need here is the Do-335.. reached 470mph at 20,000ft... and over 400mph on deck...

lrrp22
03-05-2004, 09:44 AM
Okay, I'm going to have the name, home address, and service number of all the witnesses as well as the name and unit of each Mustang pilot and the tail number and time since last major servicing of each Mustang. *Then* we can discuss the veracity of Kurt's account! :veryhappy http://ubbxforums.ubi.com/images/smiley/mockface.gif :

Actually, I can't wait to get in the 152 and take her for a spin- that thing is simply sublime in appearance. I still haven't found a copy of AEP up here in the Pacific Northwest (the 'other' Washington) and it's driving me CRAZY!

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by robban75:
Just quoting books and pilot stories lrrp, like everyone else. 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!<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

robban75
03-05-2004, 10:06 AM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by lrrp22:
Okay, I'm going to have the name, home address, and service number of all the witnesses as well as the name and unit of each Mustang pilot and the tail number and time since last major servicing of each Mustang. *Then* we can discuss the veracity of Kurt's account! :veryhappy http://ubbxforums.ubi.com/images/smiley/mockface.gif :

Actually, I can't wait to get in the 152 and take her for a spin- that thing is simply sublime in appearance. I still haven't found a copy of AEP up here in the Pacific Northwest (the 'other' Washington) and it's driving me CRAZY!
<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Man, I really wish I could do that! http://ubbxforums.ubi.com/images/smiley/16x16_smiley-very-happy.gif

I can't wait to take the Ta 152 for a spin either, but I have no choice. Still 2 more weeks till it reaches Sweden! http://ubbxforums.ubi.com/images/smiley/16x16_smiley-sad.gif
I hope you can find a copy before that time lrrp! Good luck to ya! 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--
03-05-2004, 10:26 AM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by robban75:



I can't wait to take the Ta 152 for a spin either, but I have no choice. Still 2 more weeks till it reaches Sweden! !<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>


She's a monster Robban, a very nice plane to fly. Got some flaws, but on the whole she's a tough plane to fight against.

-Zen-

robban75
03-05-2004, 10:28 AM
It sounds great Zen! I wonder, will the Ta 152 be good enough to leave my precious Dora? 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--
03-05-2004, 10:32 AM
Honestly?

No


Different fighting style. With the rapid overheat and anemic climb rate, you're still much safer in the D9 than the Ta.


But to Turn, to Turn like the whirlwind! Ahhh, the Ta152 is a beautiful plane http://ubbxforums.ubi.com/infopop/emoticons/icon_smile.gifhttp://ubbxforums.ubi.com/infopop/emoticons/icon_smile.gif

-Zen-

JG26Red
03-05-2004, 10:45 AM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by robban75:
It sounds great Zen! I wonder, will the Ta 152 be good enough to leave my precious Dora? 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!<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

i dunno robban... its not good enough for me to abandon the A9, especially since it climbs alot better now and actually feels less twitchy for some reason.. p.s., i did get in a fight with my A9 and a TA152 at 1000m... it turned rather well, i couldnt keep up in turn, but each time i was able to just climb away from him extend and come back at him... its alot slower than a A9 at 1000m too.. and those wings... they are sooooo LONG... lol...

its still a nice plane, just overheats fast and seems rather slow in accel and top speed.. when i flew it around 4m i was barely gettin to 500kph in a straight line, this was at 99per power with raid open... i dunno...

with that said, i suppose i would prefer the C or maybe one of them more heavily armed later Ds... just for the GUNS!! i like to blow stuff up...

[This message was edited by JG26Red on Fri March 05 2004 at 09:59 AM.]

lrrp22
03-05-2004, 10:45 AM
So just how fast do you think the 152 would have to be to make up a probable 200+ mph deficit and *then* leave the Mustangs in the dust? A Ta 152 at takeoff speed dusting four Mustangs at combat speed? Not likely.

A Ta 152H-0 (or Mustang, or Tempest, or Dora, or 109K, etc.) would be meat on the table for ANY fighter under these circumstances.

I'm not saying that a Ta 152H *couldn't* outrun a Mustang at low atltitude, just that it couldn't under these circumstances. If it could, which is debatable, the speed difference would have been marginal and would in no way allow for the kind of feat that Tank apparently described.

Either this story is an exageration or there are other circumstances that aren't being accounted for.

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by JG26Red:
ohboy, not this stuff again, how can a german plane outrun my mustang.. never ever.. psst.. when i was stationed in germany, visited some german airforce bases on a good will trip with the airforce.. this story was REAL, and from what the old aged german airforce col or gen said, it was just after takeoff...

but at 550-560 kph in the game i dont see the TA outrunning much down low! lol...<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

JG26Red
03-05-2004, 10:58 AM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by lrrp22:
So just how fast do you think the 152 would have to be to make up a probable 200+ mph deficit and *then* leave the Mustangs in the dust? A Ta 152 at takeoff speed dusting four Mustangs at combat speed? Not likely.

A Ta 152H-0 (or Mustang, or Tempest, or Dora, or 109K, etc.) would be meat on the table for ANY fighter under these circumstances.

I'm not saying that a Ta 152H *couldn't* outrun a Mustang at low atltitude, just that it couldn't under these circumstances. If it could, which is debatable, the speed difference would have been marginal and would in no way allow for the kind of feat that Tank apparently described.

Either this story is an exageration or there are other circumstances that aren't being accounted for.

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by JG26Red:
ohboy, not this stuff again, how can a german plane outrun my mustang.. never ever.. psst.. when i was stationed in germany, visited some german airforce bases on a good will trip with the airforce.. this story was REAL, and from what the old aged german airforce col or gen said, it was just after takeoff...

but at 550-560 kph in the game i dont see the TA outrunning much down low! lol...<HR></BLOCKQUOTE><HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

ok

Panelboy
03-05-2004, 12:32 PM
A simple explanation may be that the Mustangs didn't see the Ta152, and were not pursuing it. The "American reaction" to this story appears to be a reaction to Tank's story, not that of any pursuing American pilots.

Gwalker70
03-05-2004, 01:11 PM
its the acceleration I am worried about Oleg can have his version of deck speed.. I would rather have the historic acceleration which is VERY fast with that version of Jumo and well documented the plane seems to hit a brick wall at around 400 kph or so in FB 2.0

PzKpfw
03-05-2004, 02:10 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Oleg_Maddox:

H-1 had both MW50 and GM-1. We model it. read readme. <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Oleg we were museing on Tank's alleged low level evasion of P-51s in his "MW 50" equipped the "Ta 152H-0".

which is contrary to everything I have read about the Ta 152H-0 pre production etc, Ie, none were built with MW 50 or GM-1 tanks etc.

Oleg I dont have my copy of Aces yet(comes today) question, though since LW testing was reportedly never completed on the Ta 152H pressurization, layout, etc, what was the high altitude model performance based on?.


Regards, John Waters

---------
Notice: Spelling mistakes left in for people who need to correct others to make their life fulfilled.

------
"We've got the finest tanks in the world. We just love to see the German Royal Tiger come up on the field".

Lt.Gen. George S. Patton, Jr. Febuary 1945.

[This message was edited by PzKpfw on Fri March 05 2004 at 01:26 PM.]

JG26Red
03-05-2004, 02:19 PM
i know the H actually flew in combat, but since most of the fights are below 5000m a C would have been a better choice

JG53Frankyboy
03-05-2004, 07:31 PM
twh thoughts about to manual the Ta152:
1. the Radiator should have an Automatic system (actually you read automatic , but its cloesd , you can even read that on the cockpit panel http://ubbxforums.ubi.com/infopop/emoticons/icon_wink.gif.
fortunatly i swa that you know that and its mentioned http://ubbxforums.ubi.com/infopop/emoticons/icon_smile.gif

2. if you fire the trigger for machineguns, the MK108 is firing , the trigger for cannons fires the wingroot MG151 - i dodnt know if this is real - but its very annoying http://ubbxforums.ubi.com/infopop/emoticons/icon_frown.gif

03-06-2004, 12:57 AM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>I would rather have the historic acceleration which is VERY fast with that version of Jumo and well documented<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

..

Documented where?

The Ta 152H-1 carried 904 kg of fuel/MW50/GM-1 internally (plus 55 kg of lubricants). With 25% fuel, it would weigh in at 4313 kg, compared to the 3950 kg of the Fw 190D-9.

The Jumo213E had a power output of 2050HP with MW50 injection according to FW documents. Without MW50 injection, the Jumo 213E was good for 1730 HP (varying with source), compared to the 2100 HP of the Jumo 213A with MW50, so the Ta 152H-1 would have a clearly inferior power loading of 0.40 HP/kg compared to 0.53 HP/kg for the Fw 190D-9.

The Ta152H-1 has the VS9 airscrew which is slighly better than the VS111 on the D9. The airscrew thrust is a little bit larger which would be a plus side for the acceleration.

However, the D12, which has same airscrew, same power as TA152H, fell behind the D9 in acceleration at low altittudes. This was due to weight increase of being 120kg heavier than the Fw190D-9.

The TA152H adds even more weight compared to D9, and fell behind both the D9 and D12 at low altitude acceleration.

LEXX_Luthor
03-06-2004, 01:38 AM
I wonder if that long Ta wing hurt low level top speed. If not, why the Ta152C have short wing?

__________________
"You will still have FB , you will lose nothing" ~WUAF_Badsight
"I had actually pre ordered CFS3 and I couldnt wait..." ~Bearcat99
"Gladiator and Falco, elegant weapons of a more civilized age" ~ElAurens
"I don't have the V2 or B25s, so I'm going to reinstall" ~Bearcat99
:
"Damn.....Where you did read about Spitfire made from a wood?" ~Oleg_Maddox http://ubbxforums.ubi.com/images/smiley/16x16_smiley-surprised.gif

robban75
03-06-2004, 02:41 AM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Kweassa1:
The TA152H adds even more weight compared to D9, and fell behind both the D9 and D12 at low altitude acceleration.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

I agree fully Kweassa, but for such a power to weight ratio + an efficient prop, shouldn't the D-9 accelerate better in game that it does? It's only marginally faster than the Fw 190A-5. Willi Reschke was very impressed with the Ta 152 acceleration, having never felt anything like it. I believe he flew the A-9 previously.

The D-9 acceleration in game is not a statement, I'm only interested in peoples opinion on the matter!

Thanks! 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!

CHDT
03-06-2004, 02:52 AM
"I believe he flew the A-9 previously."


The A-9, with its 2270PS and its improved propeller, should also have near the ground an awsome acceleration. And dont forget there were also "light" A-9's without outter wing cannons!

Cheers,

Skalgrim
03-06-2004, 05:40 AM
better compare dora

dora 100% fuel
ta-152h 25% fuel

then have both similar powerloading and the ta-152 and dora should similar accelerate



<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Kweassa1:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>_I would rather have the historic acceleration which is VERY fast with that version of Jumo and well documented_<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

..

Documented where?

The Ta 152H-1 carried 904 kg of fuel/MW50/GM-1 internally (plus 55 kg of lubricants). With 25% fuel, it would weigh in at 4313 kg, compared to the 3950 kg of the Fw 190D-9.

The Jumo213E had a power output of 2050HP with MW50 injection according to FW documents. Without MW50 injection, the Jumo 213E was good for 1730 HP (varying with source), compared to the 2100 HP of the Jumo 213A with MW50, so the Ta 152H-1 would have a clearly inferior power loading of 0.40 HP/kg compared to 0.53 HP/kg for the Fw 190D-9.

The Ta152H-1 has the VS9 airscrew which is slighly better than the VS111 on the D9. The airscrew thrust is a little bit larger which would be a plus side for the acceleration.

However, the D12, which has same airscrew, same power as TA152H, fell behind the D9 in acceleration at low altittudes. This was due to weight increase of being 120kg heavier than the Fw190D-9.

The TA152H adds even more weight compared to D9, and fell behind both the D9 and D12 at low altitude acceleration.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

[This message was edited by Skalgrim on Sat March 06 2004 at 05:02 AM.]

[This message was edited by Skalgrim on Sat March 06 2004 at 05:04 AM.]