Author Topic: Ta152 charts, tests and comparison tests (Read 3743 times)

Toad · « **Reply #45 on:** September 17, 2002, 09:17:09 PM »

Let's try it this way:

(and forgive my old eyes.. I did the best I could with the charts. The speeds should be within a few mph, though.)

TAS Military Power / WEP

0K 333 / 366

5K 352 / 383

10K 366 / 391

15K 383 / 409

20K 408 / 417

25K 416 / 432

30K 432 / 454

Question 1: FLYING IN THE GAME - Will the AH TA-152 make the CHARTED AH SPEEDS in the game (with the loadout they used for the AH chart)? Are they too high or too low flying in the game?

Which "in game" altitudes/speeds are in error according to the AH chart?

Question 2: How do these CHARTED speeds compare (high OR low) to the " REAL LIFE" TA-152-H1 charts that you are using? Given the SAME LOADOUT, what altitudes/speeds do not match up within a few mph?

If the speeds are in error, post a link to your chart and identify the chart. I'll wager Pyro has it or knows where to get it.

I think this would give Pyro an idea of where to look to analyze your concerns.

Climb Military Power / WEP

0K 2336 / 3556

5K 2224 / 3495

10K 2120 / 3125

15K 1980 / 2980

20K 1920 / 2800

25K 1660 / 2360

30K 1550 / 1920

Question 1: FLYING IN THE GAME - Will the AH TA-152 make the CHARTED AH CLIMB RATES in the game (with the loadout they used for the AH chart)? Are they too high or too low in the game?

If not, which altitudes/climb rates are incorrect?

Question 2: How do these AH CHARTED speeds compare (high OR low) to the " REAL LIFE" TA-152-H1 charts that you are using? Given the SAME LOADOUT, what altitudes/climb rates do not match up within a few mph, high OR low?

If the climb rates are in error, post a link to your chart and identify the chart. I'll wager Pyro has it or knows where to get it.

I think perhaps this would clarify WHERE you are seeing the problem, it would quantify the error and it would give Pyro a chance to look at your supporting data.

Sound OK to you?

Wilbus · « **Reply #46 on:** September 18, 2002, 04:47:21 AM »

Toad, the error is in climb rate at ALL altitudes and, if it was an H-1, it would be speed at ALL altitudes.

Might add, IF we had an H-0, the speed would match almost perfectly at all altitudes, climb rate and acceleration would not though.

Here looks a this: http://www.geocities.com/rasmusm2000/ta152hspeed2.gif

It's the old 35k+ chart, so happy I saved it

The new black line is the Real life Ta152 H-0 max speed using WEP (H-0 never used MW50 or GM1).

The new red line is the real life Ta152 H-1 using GM1. AS you can see, the GM1 has clearly not been modelled for AH (we have H-1, ALL H-1 used both MW50 and GM1 injection).

The max speed for our Ta152 H-1 is almost 10k lower then its real life counterpart, and it's about 15mph too slow.

So in short, and easy to say, and easy to understand, what needs fixing Toad is the adding of MW50 and GM1 system (the weight is already there, the power is not) and thus adding a few hundred HP. I'm sure Pyro knows how much HP to add by use of MW50 and GM1.

Second way to fix it, worse way but would be fixed. Is to actually change its name to H-0, then remove the wing tanks and the weight (1080 lbs) of the wing tanks and new injection systems etc.

The Ta152 in AH, will most lilkely make those speeds on the AH charts yes, atleast within a few MPH, it takes it about 10 minutes of wep to reach those max speeds though, again, acceleration is bad because plane lacks HP for it's weight.

Not much more to say, it lacks the GM1 and M50 injections.

Naudet · « **Reply #47 on:** September 18, 2002, 06:47:27 AM »

Wilbuz, you had a little translation error with the FW-Series chart, also you oversaw the footnote explaining the numbers in the ().

Höchstgeschwindigkeit mit Notleistung in Boden/Volldruckhöhe: this means War Emergency power output without any additional boosting NOT Combat power

the numbers in () are for Spezialemergency power, which means MW50 or on case of the FW190A8 increased boost pressure, that is stated by the center footnote at the bottom of the chart.

But chart doesn't contain any info about GM1 usage.

Naudet · « **Reply #48 on:** September 18, 2002, 06:53:47 AM »

And to me it seems HTC models MW50, as the 742km/h for TA152H-0 from the chart fits the AH TA152 chart pretty close.

TA152H-O from FW190-Serieschart gives 461mph@31K
AH TA152 gives around 460mph@31-32k.

but AHs TA152 misses the GM1 Boost above that alt, clearly shown by the old AH speedchart that goes up to 50k.

The difference in climbrate than has it's reason in the fact that we actually have a TA152H-1 that misses GM1 boost.

A H-0 would climb better due to the missing wing tanks.

So HTC should add the GM1 power boost for the TA152H-1 so that it can reach the 472mph@42k it was capable of.

GRUNHERZ · « **Reply #49 on:** September 18, 2002, 06:56:42 AM »

But Naudet the Ta152H-0 never had MW50.

Wilbus · « **Reply #50 on:** September 18, 2002, 07:07:26 AM »

Naudet, the H-0 was never flown with MW50 injection, MW50 injectioned required the engine to run in the highest gear, something the Jumo 213 E engine couldn't do. Not untill the Jumo 213 E-1 was put in the Ta152 H-1 could MW50 be used.

Vermillion · « **Reply #51 on:** September 18, 2002, 07:16:16 AM »

Quote

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.

Glasses, your incorrect there. If you read the exact same source that Wilbus is using as his basis that the planes performance is incorrect, it states quite clearly that the H0 was the most common by far.

In fact if you research the werk numbers in the book, it seems that of the 42 or 43 production Ta152's, only 2 or 3 aircraft were H1's , with the rest being H0's (ie 39 or 40).

Glasses · « **Reply #52 on:** September 18, 2002, 12:33:15 PM »

Verm it could have been a case of misinterpretation on my part.
The way I understood it atleast is that the H-1 was intended to be the production version of the Ta152 while the H-O was used as a test bed.

Naudet I think it has to do with both MW50 and Gm1 that are not being taken into account since the H-0 didn't use MW50 & GM1 systems (1080lb lighter) while the H-1 did indeed use them it has to be both so that's why it doesn't achieve the SL climb rate nor the top speeds of the H-1.(esp at 41k)

Wilbus · « **Reply #53 on:** September 18, 2002, 12:44:02 PM »

The most numerous was the H-0, it didn't serve as a test bed but was pre-production plane. The H-1 was the production model.

There were also a few (2 I think) C's that saw action.

Glasses · « **Reply #54 on:** September 18, 2002, 12:54:03 PM »

Thanks Wil

Vermillion · « **Reply #55 on:** September 18, 2002, 01:31:30 PM »

Right Wilbus, there were two unarmed C models picked up at the factory right before it was overrun, and then armed in the field as H models.

The reason that most 152's were H0's instead of the H1's was that the factory was having problems getting the engines to work correctly with the MW50 and GM1 installations.

Naudet · « **Reply #56 on:** September 18, 2002, 02:14:11 PM »

I know that H-0 was not build with MW50, but the chart states that all numbers in () are Special WEP with MW50.

So the number with the TA152H-0 in () is also with MW50, as we dont know if those numbers are from tests or if they are calculated.
Especially if they are calculated, there is no problem to get a speed for MW50 usage even for a H-0.

I have come across many different charts etc. in my research on the D9 and i know that the different power settings of LW birds are confusing, especially as LW birds have sometimes 3 settings that are "emergency power".
But i know for sure, as i own a copy of that FW190 Series chart, that the number in () are for Special Emergency power through MW50 injection.

Toad · « **Reply #57 on:** September 18, 2002, 02:38:14 PM »

Actually, what I'm asking you to do is make it real easy for Pyro to see what your concerns are.

Just copy the numbers I got off the AH charts for the AH Ta-152 and then put in the numbers you think it should be right next to those. I suggest you also explain where you got the numbers.

The idea that you can just post a chart and expect Pyro to take a few days to cross-reference everything and re-read 5 Ta-152 threads to determine what your complaint is is unrealistic, IMO.

He's REALLY busy. You've claimed the speed is off on a rarely used Perk Plane and you want him to drop everything and investigate multiple threads looking for the complaints and multiple charts looking for the documentation.

You want something done? Make it REAL easy for him to see what you want and where you're getting your info.

So, that said:

From your reply (or lack of same) I guess you find no problem with the AH Ta-152 FLYING IN THE GAME matching the AH charted speeds and climb? That is, the currently modeled AH Ta-152 performs just like the AH charts say it should?

Is this correct?

If so, then take the numbers I got off the chart, paste them into a new post and post the numbers YOU think would be correct at each altitude.

That's my suggestion to you. If you really want something done.

Toad · « **Reply #58 on:** September 18, 2002, 02:48:24 PM »

If I understand what you are saying with this chart, the new 90 degree black line shows ONE point for normal military power. The new 90 degree red line shows ONE point for a generic "WEP" power (because this FM does not, to my knowledge, have the ability to apply two different WEP equations; we'd have to ask Pyro about that).

You have two data points. What I'm asking is that you fill in the curves for Pyro using the marked altitudes. Let him see the curve you want and give him the source or reference for your claim.

That's all. One point isn't going to do it. I'm sure he can "tweak" the equation to make the FM hit a certain point but that isn't what you want. You want to give him a rough idea of the whole curve and IF it can be documented/substantiated, you want the whole equation reworked so the FM hits ALL the points on the curve. For both the speeds (Military & "WEP") and also Rate of Climb.

As I said, I'm trying to help you out here. It's going to take a little work on your part, however.

Good luck!

Wilbus · « **Reply #59 on:** September 18, 2002, 02:59:46 PM »

Toad, will try and do something like that, however, you missunderstood my new lines on the chart.

The new BLACK line, is the Ta152 H-0 MAXIMUM speed using WEP (overboost on engine). That alt and speed is where the Real life Ta152 H-0 gets its best speed. AH Ta152 is spot on it.

The new RED line is where the real life Ta152 H-1 had its best speed, using GM1 injeciton.

That's not the reason Verm, they were pre-production Ta152's, they didn't use MW50 and GM1 as the Jumo 213 E couldn't handle the third gear (highest gear) as those injections needed.

When the Jumo 213 E-1 arived it was put into the production series of the Ta152, H-1 that is together with wing tanks and injection systems.

So the reason that most were H-0's, was that they were pre-production, not because an engine didn't work with the MW50. The lack of MW50 wasn't considered a major problem as the performance was exelent anyway.

The thing about the C's being armed like H's, why would they be armed like H's, because they had the same armament? The C's used many different armaments, all the way from just 2x20's to 4x20's and 3x30's so ot really right, although they were armed on the field they are still C's and not prototypes.