Test pilots and recorded numbers - differing data

[Bruno]

Originally posted by Krusty
The auto climb at default speed is by HTCs definition the best constant climb rate. We're not talking zoom climbs, we're talking steady climbs.

HTC sets it at the best speed to produce lift and to pull the plane up by its prop. HT once said it was a mathematical function and they just set each plane's default to the best speed for it.

Climbing on anything other than default auto speed will not climb as fast. This is evident by setting the speed higher and lower and watching the climb rate drop above or below the default speed.

Nonsense, 'auto-climb' is based on SL not 'optimized climb speed' through out altitude range. Besides that even using HTC numbers and auto-climb the Ta-152 climbs better then what you claimed.

Read what Reschke says about climb rate in the quote below.

averaged 17.5 meters per second to 5000 meters

averaged 14.2 meters per second to 10000 meters

Now do the math and come back and tell us the average feet per minute climb rate to both altitudes.

EDIT: HT, you used some info when you created the Ta152. Could you please let me know what the info was titled? I.e. if it was some flight test, what the name of the report was, or what have you? I'm curious to look it up somewhere if I can.

HT doesn't give out this sources, neither does any other game developer. Oleg certainly won't and explained why on this forum some years ago.

[Nashwan]

Okay, but when they allies got ahold of one of these 152H-1s after the war they tested it. They didn't have any of the MW or other boost liquids. As one pilot put it they flew it "dry". Here it was reported to climb (without MW50 or any boost liquds) competitively with a spit 20*! A spit20 does about 5,000 FPM.

*It was a recon version. 21? 22? Once, when I remembered which it was I asked about it. It was a late ware monster spit, but a photo recon version.

Assuming this is the Eric Brown test, it was a Spitfire XIX he was comparing it with.

And what he actually said was:

"The climb was somewhat steeper albeit somewhat slower than that of the British fighter, but once the 30,000ft mark had slipped past on the altimeter, the  Tank fighter gave the impression of holding it's climb better than its British counterpart".

However, the Temp pilot was a flight instructor with 700+ hours under his belt, and despite being transitioned to temps several months prior I bet he had more experience than Reschke

Reschke had been flying operations for about a year, the Tempest pilot, Owen Mitchell, had started flying operations 1 month earlier.

There were two Tempests involved, the other flown by Sidney Short. They were carrying out straffing attacks on German railways when bounced by 3 Ta 152s.

Short fired a burst at one of the 152s, which crashed. Short then got involved in a fight with Reshke's wingman, which lasted some time but was eventually broken off with no result. Reschke fought Mitchell, who eventually crashed.

3 Ta 152s bouncing 2 Tempests, with a score of 1 all.

[Bruno]

Ofw. Sattler wasn't lost due to being fired at by Short. Reschke tells of several Ta-152s that crashed with out the cause being determined much like the case with Ofw. Sattler, which Reschke states as lost 'due to no apparent reason'.
 
However, who really cares about the Ta-152 in AH anyway. You could pull it from AH and none would hardly blink. That's regardless of its perceived performance.

[Squire]

...Has no bearing on the Ta 152 FM debate, but in "2nd TAF Volume 3" there are two 486 Sqn Tempest pilots who make claims that day against "190s" in the area around Ludwigslust, F/L Sheddan (1650 hrs) and W/O Shaw (1930 hrs). No other 2nd TAF fighters claimed fighters on that day (April 14th), although some bomber and recce a/c were engaged.

"states as lost 'due to no apparent reason'."

That doesn't preclude enemy action. They jusy didnt know what the cause was.

The author concludes "Accounts of the combat however, suggest the Ta 152 was lost before the Tempest".

Not that that "proves" anything either, I guess without seeing gun camera film we will never know 100 percent.

Actually, the more interesting thing is the almost total lack of any recorded action against Ta 152s, but I think thats because any combat with them (either USAAF or RAF/RCAF) would have been reported as "190 long nose" fighters. I don't think it was untill after the war that the fact the Ta 152 flew in action was really understood by the Allies, it just wasn't encountered enough times to get noticed in the closing months.

[Mustaine]

Originally posted by Krusty
HT, you used some info when you created the Ta152. Could you please let me know what the info was titled? I.e. if it was some flight test, what the name of the report was, or what have you? I'm curious to look it up somewhere if I can.

this has been asked many many times... IIRC the basic short version is HTC as a company has been collecting data for 15+ years in the business, and have personally bought on their own dime many many things. alot of this data is propritary, and copyrighted so they can't just duplicate the data.

also, why just give up to anyone (including a possible competitor) on this forum all those years of research for free?



to answer your first question in this thread.... there have been sooooooooooo many posts about the 152's FM, it is like beating on the ghost of a dead horse that has been killed, rotted, and disengrated into the dust. the data that HTC has chosen to use is what they believe is the most accurate. Dale and Doug have both said they do not average data IIRC, so that means a "comprimise" is out of the question.

hope that helps

[Angus]

I didn't look that deeply into the TA152 but from a quick glance the climb rate is nothing special especially for the time it's in operation.
(Would be outclimbed by 109's and Spitfires untill very high up)
But it's a specialized high-alt interceptor, so maybe no wonder? And as well maybe heavier than the 109A series & Dora?