Ta152 charts, tests and comparison tests

[Wilbus]

Same here Karnak.

[eddiek]

"No Ta152's flew in action with GM1 or MW50 due to the Jumo 213 E engine couldn't handle the high gears very well (Ta152 H-1 used Jumo 213 E-1)."


I am lost as to why that statement was included at all.
If the engine could not handle it, and it was not used in action, as stated above, why model it in AH then?
To me, reducing the weight to reflect a 152 H-0 would be far more realistic and representative than adding the GM-1 and MW 50 if they were not used in RL action, don't you think?
Just my thoughts after reading that statement,.............

[Wilbus]

Eddiek, misstype.

was suposed to say:

"No Ta152 H-0's flew in action with GM1 or MW50 due to the Jumo 213 E engine couldn't handle the high gears very well (Ta152 H-1 used Jumo 213 E-1)."

Both H-0 and H-1 saw action, H-0 didn't use MW50 or GM1, misstype.
H-1 used MW50 and GM1.

[Toad]

A few questions:

How do the AH non-WEP speeds compare to the RL H-1 non-"boost" speeds? Do you have a specific chart you are using for the H-1 here? How slow (in mph or kph) are they at 0K, 10K, 20K & 30K? Can you link to a source document or give the name/date of the chart you are using?

How do the AH WEP speeds compare to the RL H-1 Boosted speeds (MW & GM)? How slow (in mph or kph) are they at 0K, 10K, 20K, 30K & 35K? Can you link to a source document or give the name/date of the chart you are using?


For rate of climb you have no data for the H-1, only the H-0? But you know the H-1's heavier right? In one post you say 1000 pounds heavier and in another 1200 pounds heavier. How much heavier is it? Can you link to a source document or give the name/date of the chart you are using?


How much more horsepower did the H-1 have than the H-0 in "military power", MW power and GM power? Is there a chart that compares the Horsepower/weight ration of the H-0 and the H-1 in these three engine conditions? Can you link to a source document or give the name/date of the chart you are using?


Lastly is there a chart the compares drag on the H-0 and the H-1? If not, were there any changes on the H-1 that could significantly affect drag? Was there a prop change?

Before anyone gets upset here, I'm just trying to help you guys frame your case. Like I said, I don't think Pyro has two weeks to read all the 152 threads, track down all the various charts and decipher just exactly what the complaints are.

With the Wings ad out, I suspect they're all real busy right now, not to mention the CTD bug apparently still lives and a few other things that may be more important than a plane that is or is not right on the numbers.

So, it needs to be a simple case to understand and it needs to have clear links to the documentation for the complaints. After seeing Pyro's library when I was at the con, I'll wager he's got some if not all of the charts you are referring to right in his office.

Anyway, I am trying to help your case here.

[Wilbus]

The source I am using is the Book called "Focke Wulf Ta152 The story of the Luftwaffe's late war, high altitude fighter" by "Dietmar Harmann"

Can start with the weight and I'll see if I can fix the other things you say, in a good way that is...

Weight of H-1 is exactly 490 kg (1080,2651 lbs) more then the H-0 when both are combat loaded.

H-0 weights 4727 kg and the H-1 weights 5217 kg. HTC has got the weight of our TA152 H-1 exactly as the real weight.

Reason I said both 1000 and 1200 is that I didn't bother to convert exactly, just took an "about" weight and put it in here for the purpose of showing the weight, exact difference is as above though.

[Wilbus]

As for speeds, climb rate and such, I'll post two "charts". One is actual WW2 luftwaffe made (date 1.10.44) and the other one is a chart that shows several different Ta152 versions together with a 190 test version, they've all been collected in one place for easy reading and thus eliminates the need for 10 different charts.

First the one from WW2.

As my pictures won't post in here I'll post the link, can watch it your self just copy and paste.  

Name of chart "Single engine fighters: Perofrmance Data"


HERE


I suck at explaining things but will try anyway.

Höchstgeschwindigkeit mit Notleistung om boden: Max speed at the deck in kilometers per hour. Numbers are Combat power and the ones within () are with Emergency power (something that all planes have, NOT MW50).

In Volldrückhöhe:
Maximum Boost altitude (I think, not 100% sure of the translation.)

Next: Höchstegeschwindigkeit mit kompleistung in volldrückhöhe:

Max speed on Combat power at maximum boost altitude.

Steigleistungen m. kompfleistung: Basicly Climb rate at combat power.

Dienstgipfelhöhe: Service Cealing

Arbeitshöhe: Work Height

Steiggeschwindigkeit in Volldrückhöhe: Rate of Climb at maximum boost altitude

Steigzeit auf 10km: Time of climb to 10km (33,000 feet)

The rest is roll distance before take off etc.

As you can see tests were made on the H-0 with GM1 for the climb rate at the service cealing aswell as the work altitude. GM1 was not used during these test for anything else. Normal emergency power was used however.

[Wilbus]

Second Chart

I don't have speed for MW50 at the deck, could be that there was no difference but that sound highly unlikely.

Toad, easy enough to understand fast or something more needed?

[Karnak]

Wilbus.

Those charts are not accessable. Your links just bring up some Yahoo subscribtion dealy.

[-ammo-]

why dont we just have the name changed of our TA152 to the H0 model? It matches those stats pretty close, right?

[Glasses]

ammo not only that but the 1000 pounds needs to be removed and the wing tanks too. the H-0 didn't have. I think that'd be a not so wise choice mainly because the H-0 had a lo production run and the H-1 was the only one to enter full production that is of course before the factory was captured ,but the H-1 was the most numerous.

[-ammo-]

well, you gotta point for sure.

[Duedel]

For Wilbuz:

Volldruckhöhe = Höhe, bei der der Lader nicht mehr den zur vollen Leistung benötigten Druck bereitstellen kann.

Means: Alt at which the charger can't provide the pressure for full power.
At higher alts the charger (loader) couldnt hold up the full pressure and thus the power of the engine would decrease.

To prevent this GM1 was introduced.

Take a look here

and

here

[Wilbus]

Thanks Duedel, what I thought, same as "maximum boost altitude"

Thank you SO MUCH! Finally we've got it cleared up, damn anoying word!

Karnak, linkes are messed up, take the address and paste it in the browser instead

Ammo, what Glasess said, 1080 lbs needs to be taken away aswell as wing tanks to make it an H-0, that would increase climb rate and acceleration.

[Nashwan]

Weight of the spit14: 3800kg.
Climbrate in 2nd gear: 3600ft/min = 18.4 m/s
Climbrate in 1st gear: 5100ft/min = 26m/s
DIFFERENCE: 7.6m/s

To lift 3800kg with 7.6m/s you need: 3800*9.81*7.6 = 283kW
or 283/0.735 = 385PS

This is no niklas trick, this is basic, essential physics. The spit must have had in 1st gear 385PS more than in 2nd gear for the gain in climbrate. So 1700+385 = 2085PS

Take a look at the climb rate between 10 and 22,000 ft. It remains constant, yet power is gradually increasing. In other words, 3600 ft/min requires higher power at higher altitude than it does at lower altitude.

And this with an excellent efficiency, which on the other hand compensates for the little gain in climb angle. 2000-2200PS, definitly, tendency toward 2100-2200PS.

As I pointed out last time, that's more power than the Griffon put out at 21lbs boost with 150 octane fuel. Yet the performance figures with 21lbs boost were much better than the test results you refer to.

What pulls you down in a dive? Weight. Does the spit has a high wingloading? NO. Does it have, looking at the topspeed/power ratio, an excellent aerodynamics? NO. Alone the "bags" (cooler), the standing engine, and so on.

Are you suggesting that in a steep dive the Spit wouldn't keep accelerating until it broke up? Almost all WW2 fighters would do that.

We don´t talk about slight differences. We talk about Mach 0.89-0.91 claims compared to Mach 0.8 of aircraft like P39 or P51, 109, or even Metors.

The Mustang was dive tested to about 0.84 iirc. Even the P-47 made it to 0.83. The Meteor made 0.81 in level flight at sea level.

Later they tried to backup those fastest fighter story with a pityful test, you just have to watch the initial acceleration (what is higher than a spit near ground at best level acceleration, substracting the 1G away for gravity) to know that the whole test is a farce. Heck according to the instruments they´d broken through the barrier of sound lol. But ok, i´m really not surprised that it was an army test. I doubt that a scientific research institute like the naca would have come to the same result....

Can't say I've heard of that test. Have you got a link?

The main tests that established the reputation of the Spit for high speed dives were carried out by the Royal Aircraft Establishment, which was a civilian research institue, and hardly part of the "army". They got the very high dive speeds whilst researching high speed flight, not testing the Spitfire. IIRC, they had several different aircraft, but preffered the Spits because they could dive at higher speeds than the others.

Substantial lower critical mach number? Sorry, 12 to 14-15% isn´t substantial

But of course, it outclassed all other high speed design by 0.01 Mach - oh no, 0.02? nono 0.05? nonononon 0.08-0.10 Mach !!!!

"Outclassed" by 8%?

But it´s useless, you ll write in 2 weeks again that this spit used a serial engine in several BB, nevertheless i try again to explain it.

But well, propaganda is made to give people a good feeling, especially for those who don´t have enough brain to judge whether somehting makes sense or not.

Again, believe what you want. Those stories are made to be believed (...). Feel happy, if it suits your dreams and fits to your numerous colourful posters and pictures you probably have of the spit.

Try to keep it polite.

[Glasses]

Nash and Niklas don't hijackmates