Author Topic: 152 ?  (Read 5514 times)

Offline Dead Man Flying

  • Platinum Member
  • ******
  • Posts: 6301
152 ?
« Reply #90 on: January 03, 2003, 01:50:23 PM »
Quote
Originally posted by Wilbus
You can try it your self if you don't belive me. Nothing hard to try, nor do I still have the film as I have a new HD.
[/B]

Why should I have to try it?  You're the one stating the case... prove it!  Simply making statements about performance without proof, expecting us to prove it for ourselves, isn't going to win much support for your position.

Quote
But whatever, you don't believe me, that's your problem, you might wanna open your eyes for what it can and can not do.


It's not that I do or don't believe you, Wilbus.  It's that you haven't shown me anything beyond anecdotal evidence in your earlier statement.  I can't help but create in my mind any number of possible scenarios that could explain what happened beyond just the 152's flight model.  You haven't systematically proven anything.

Plus you're still ignoring the fact that the 152 is an excellent plane regardless of whether or not it performs as you expect.

-- Todd/Leviathn

Offline Rude

  • Platinum Member
  • ******
  • Posts: 4609
152 ?
« Reply #91 on: January 03, 2003, 03:37:22 PM »
Wilbus....

Is it important that the 152 performs under it's potential at 35k and above? I mean, who fights at 35k, even 25k for that matter?

Offline Heinkel

  • Silver Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 1256
      • http://www.3-jg2.com
152 ?
« Reply #92 on: January 03, 2003, 03:53:44 PM »
Still waiting on an answer from HTC about this:
http://www.hitechcreations.com/forums/showthread.php?s=&threadid=67504

(good post BTW Wil)

Offline hitech

  • Administrator
  • Administrator
  • *****
  • Posts: 12425
      • http://www.hitechcreations.com
152 ?
« Reply #93 on: January 03, 2003, 04:33:19 PM »
Wilbus: One more clasicc case of the super LW:

Per our data the spit 9 should climb better at 35k so what should we do lower the service selling of the spit 9 from 42K? The whine continues, not because you point that out, but you just blatently make the assumption in your post that it shouldn't, because of course we know the great ta152 should do everything better than spit 9 at 35k.

HiTech

Offline hitech

  • Administrator
  • Administrator
  • *****
  • Posts: 12425
      • http://www.hitechcreations.com
152 ?
« Reply #94 on: January 03, 2003, 04:34:33 PM »
And Rude ill answere your question. It is inportant to HTC that they perform correctly, if you going to attack at least attack with facts.


HiTech

Offline TheFatz

  • Zinc Member
  • *
  • Posts: 86
      • http://www.linuxhaven.com
152 ?
« Reply #95 on: January 10, 2003, 03:28:25 PM »
Stinger!

Offline Psyco

  • Zinc Member
  • *
  • Posts: 89
152 ?
« Reply #96 on: January 28, 2003, 09:31:29 AM »
From the Smithsonian, note the statistic on the operating altitude:

"Focke-Wulf Ta152H
   Wingspan   14.5 m (47 ft. 6.75 in.)
   Length   10.8 m (35 ft. 5.5 in.)
   Height   4 m (13 ft.)
   Weight   4,750 kg (10,472 lb.) gross
In 1944, the Reichluftfahrtministerium (German Air Ministry or RLM) decreed that all new fighter aircraft designations must include the chief designer's name. Thus was born the Ta 152, named for Kurt Tank, chief of design at the Focke-Wulf Flugzeugbau G. m. b. H. Except for designation, the Ta 152 series is directly related to, and a natural development of, the Fw 190. It was probably the fastest and most capable production, propeller-driven, fighter fielded by Germany during World War II.
In May, 1942, the RLM convened a meeting with representatives of Focke-Wulf and Messerschmitt to discuss the requirements for a Spezial Höhenjäger, a special, high-altitude fighter. Later, the RLM identified an offshoot concept known as the Extremer Höhenjäger, or extreme high-altitude fighter. To meet this need, the Messerschmitt designed the Me 155B and after a clumsy, protracted development period, this project evolved into the Blohm & Voss BV 155 (also in the NASM collection). Meanwhile, Tank hewed to the earlier Spezial Höhenjäger requirement a design called the Ta 152 began taking shape in 1943.
There were many technical challenges to overcome to field an airplane that could fight effectively at altitudes about one-third higher than either the Bf 109 or Fw 190 types already in production. By summer, the need for the new airplane was becoming acute. American heavy bomber raids were increasing and the bomber's fighter escort was operating at higher altitudes. The RLM pressed Focke-Wulf to modify existing designs to operate comfortably at about 12,500 m (40,000 ft). Relatively simple structural modifications were made to existing wings and fuselages to produce the Ta 152. Getting reliable performance from the various subsystems including the engine and supercharger, pressurization equipment, and even the landing flaps, proved much more difficult.
Kurt Tank chose the same workhorse Jumo 213 powerplant used in the Fw 190D. For the Ta 152H, he selected an uprated version, the Jumo 213E, equipped with a 2-stage, 3-speed mechanical supercharger and MW 50 engine boost. The MW 50 system used methanol-water mixture to boost engine output from 1,312 kw (1,750 hp) to 1,537 kw (2,050 hp) for short periods. Because of aluminum shortages, Focke-Wulf made the wing spars from steel and built the rear fuselage and empennage. The wing contained two steel spars. The front spar extended slightly beyond the landing gear attachment points but the rear spar spanned the entire wing. The wing twisted 3° from the root to the flap-aileron junction. This 'washout' prevented the ailerons from stalling before the center section. This allowed the pilot to maintain roll control during a stall. Armament consisted of one 30mm MK 108 cannon firing 90 rounds through the propeller hub and one 20mm MG 151 cannon firing 150-175 rounds from each wing root.
During the fall of 1944, Tank converted an existing Fw 190 prototype airframe (Werk-Nummer or serial number 0040) into the Ta 152H prototype. This aircraft and several other Ta 152 prototypes crashed early in the test program, due largely to intense pressure from the RLM to field production airplanes. Critical components suffered quality-control problems. Superchargers failed, pressurized cockpits leaked, the engine cooling system gave trouble, the landing gear failed to properly retract, and oil temperature gauges gave false readings. These problems, combined with Allied bombing attacks, which disrupted transportation and caused severe fuel shortages, slowed the whole program. Test pilots conducted just 31 hours of flight tests before full production started in November. By the end of January 1945 this figure had not climbed above 50 hours. This was not nearly enough time to refine subsystems and debug major components but production forged ahead.
Premature though it was, the Ta 152 had tremendous potential. Unlike the BV 155, a highly experimental, flying test-bed, Tank's design simply joined a powerful engine, already proven in the Fw 190D, to an existing airframe tweaked to perform at higher altitudes. The result was an airplane faster and more maneuverable than the P-51 Mustang and the P-47 Thunderbolt. Chief designer Kurt Tank was flight-testing a Ta 152H when he encountered a flight of roving Mustangs. He simply turned toward home, applied the MW 50 system to boost his engine, and gave his pursuers the slip.
Between October 1944 and February 1945 when production ended, Focke-Wulf managed to roll 67 completed Ta 152 aircraft (H-0, H-1, and C-1 models) off the line but these fighters put on a disappointing show. Some aircraft were lost to engine fires while a variety of other engine problems and spares shortages grounded most of the fleet. By April 30, 1945, only two Ta 152C-1s remained operational. The Luftwaffe had grounded all H-models--an ignominious end for combat aircraft with great potential.
The National Air and Space Museum's Ta 152 is the only extant example of this fighter in the world today. NASM is also the only museum in the world that has preserved examples of the three major Fw 190 variants: the Fw 190F-8, the Fw 190D-9, and the Ta 152H-0. Each aircraft was built by the same manufacturer, but at different stages of the war and for different missions. Together, the trio offers a unique insight into German fighter development during World War II. Definitive information about the NASM Ta 152 has always been lacking but research conducted late in 1998 may have revealed the airplane's true identity as Werk-Nummer (serial number) 150020, not 150003 or '010 as has been widely reported. This places the airframe toward the end of the range of pre-production H-0 models, a variant marking the transition from the Ta 152 prototypes to full production Ta 152H-1 airplanes. It was probably built at Focke-Wulf's production facility at Cottbus, Germany, in December 1944, and delivered to Erprobungskommando Ta 152 at Rechlin, Germany, for service testing. As with most Ta 152s produced, '020 was apparently transferred to Jagdgeswader (fighter squadron) JG 301 in early 1945. A green '4' was painted on the fuselage and this may have been the squadron identification and radio call sign "Green 4" but much remains unknown about this aircraft.
As the Soviets rolled over eastern Germany, many Luftwaffe pilots took off and steered their mounts west. They preferred to be captured by the West. The British recovered "Green 4" in Aalborg, Denmark, at the end of hostilities. They turned the airplane over to "Watson's Whizzer's, the U. S. unit charged with collecting German aircraft for further study. Lt Harold McIntosh flew '020 to Melun, France, where it was loaded aboard the British aircraft carrier HMS Reaper and shipped Newark Army Airfield, New Jersey. From Newark, McIntosh flew this Ta 152 to Freeman Field, Indiana. The airplane was later transferred to Wright Field, Ohio, to undergo extensive flight testing as Foreign Equipment number FE-112 (later changed to T2-112). After testing, the Army stored the aircraft and then turned it over to the National Air Museum in 1960.
In 1998 Museum restoration staff were treating deteriorated sections of the wooden aft fuselage, fin, rudder, and right elevator when they discovered several interesting items that offered tantalizing glimpses into the airplane's shadowy past
Extensive wood rot was found in where the horizontal stabilizer joins the vertical fin. The restoration staff speculated that during testing at Wright Field, pilots and engineers became concerned that the wooden tail may have been weakened by defective glues or sabotage. They strengthened the entire area with steel plate. However, this work may have compromised flight safety because it required moving the horizontal stabilizer forward several inches, exacerbating a tail-heavy condition already known to the Germans. The restoration specialist removed the steel plate and rebuilt the tail to the original German configuration.
After comparing photographs with the aircraft, the staff determined the British painted over some of the original German markings. The U. S. Army Air Force then stripped and repainted part of the airplane but NASM technicians carefully sanded through the layers of Allied paint to reveal previous markings and much of the original German paint. They found the old Foreign Equipment number, RAF markings, the Reich Defense tail bands of JG 301 (fighter wing 301), and the original Nazi swastika.
The staff also found 20mm MG 151 gun mounts and fittings in the upper cowling. However, these were not normally found in H-0 models, suggesting this airframe may have been destined to become a C-1 variant."


Psyco (German Iron lover)

Offline maxtor

  • Nickel Member
  • ***
  • Posts: 369
152 ?
« Reply #97 on: January 28, 2003, 09:55:17 AM »
hitech already explained that this is derived by formula - but it just seems that some of our AH planes don't accellerate very well.  The p38, f4u, and the 152 come to mind  (just ones I have flown a bit)  and I don't have any data to back this and I don't know how to go about gettin it.

In the case at hand, from all those charts and graphs though AH does indeed have the 152 top speed right.  But from stories you read about (for example the famous one of the 152 taking off and out accelerating some P51-d's) acceleration just doesn't seem to be spot on.  

Anyway, that is my take on it - and the F4U is another one - it gives me the impression of being very slow to get to speed (some even call it a "slow" plane when it clearly is not).  Again top speed is great, but sure takes a while to get there?

Maybe they never tested and came up with "time to speed" data in the war?  You would think a pilot would find that useful data in combat - certainly you would in AH.  I have looked and I have never seen such figures.  If the data doesn't exist, what is HTC to do?
« Last Edit: January 28, 2003, 10:00:43 AM by maxtor »

Offline Urchin

  • Platinum Member
  • ******
  • Posts: 5517
152 ?
« Reply #98 on: January 28, 2003, 11:30:06 AM »
I've always been under the impression that climb rate directly related to acceleration, so if the climb rate is right the acceleration is right too.

Offline maxtor

  • Nickel Member
  • ***
  • Posts: 369
152 ?
« Reply #99 on: January 28, 2003, 12:30:59 PM »
How do you know what speed to set your climb for at the different altitudes?  Maybe people are using different speeds/methods?


edit:  I found this - I guess this is how NASA does it.

http://www.dfrc.nasa.gov/Education/OnlineEd/Intro2Flight/nassawt.html
« Last Edit: January 28, 2003, 12:35:33 PM by maxtor »

Offline Esme

  • Copper Member
  • **
  • Posts: 318
152 ?
« Reply #100 on: January 28, 2003, 12:45:23 PM »
Quote
Originally posted by Montezuma
Because someone's LW book said so.

Its not surprising that there are different numbers floating around for such a rare aricraft that was desperately put together with varying components and levels of build quality.

Of course, none of these luftwhiners has bothered to track down a copy of the tests performed at Wright Field by the USAAF.


Would you care to explain the Ju88s that history record as having raided Scapa flow in the first days of the war, without having to be fitted with any special extra fuel tanks, whereas the AH Ju88 is completely incapable of making the same trip (from Denmark or Norway to the Orkney islands)?

Perhaps it'd be easier for you and others to apologise for being discourteous enough to take the easy route into attempted ridicule by using the term "luftwhiners" so freely and inappropriately.  There are plenty of "whiners" that prefer US planes, and I've seen damned few that are seriously interested in historicity and have the evidence to back their claims. (I'd certainly agree that the Corsair Fm is amis, btw. bedamned if I'm going to call people "whiners" for pointing that out, though).

I'd point out that just because tests were done at Wright Field by the USAAF doesn't necessarily make them typical of what was achieved in combat.  As you've sensibly pointed out above, build quality can affect things; so can wear and tear, and so can pilot and maintenance crew skill.   Also, I doubt whether someone testpiloting a captured plane away from the fighting is likely to push a plane to the limits they might if they were fighting for their lives.

Now, then;  the fact that at least one aircraft has nothing like its proper endurance when the data on that is readily available suggests to me that on occasion HTC slips up, or doesn't do its homework as well as we might like it to, or in the case of bombers, makes the  mistake of thinking that so long as it has enough to stay airborne for a coupel of hours that that is OK (in other words, thinks "gameplay" rather than "historicity").  To err is human, after all, and we all get it wrong sometimes.   But we are paying to play a game that promotes itself as being a pretty realistic simulation of WW2 air combat.  So it's natural that folk interested in getting things right will complain about things that are wrong.

It's equally natural that sometimes HTC will have to prioritise other things than fixing something or other of particular interest to ourselves.  If a new build of the game causes the servers to fall over every half hour, then I hope to heck HTC work on a fix to stop the servers going down before they fix the fuel load in the Ju88!  But I WOULD like that fuel load fixed (yes, I have emailed the data to HTC.  Took me, what, a couple of months to get my act together on it, but I got there in the end :-} PS, HTC: be nice to get the missing nose gun fitted too, and the beam guns that were usually fieldfitted... :-)) . I would also like to see the FMs of the other planes that arent right fixed, too.

 Doubtless at some point they'll get to the top of the priority list and I for one, will be that bit happier :-)  Just seems damned odd how long some of them have been amiss, is all. Still and all, I'll wait and see how things go.  HTC have certainly been a damned sight more responsive in terms of releasing new things to make things interesting than Brand X was...

What I'd LOVE to see, and this is in the hands of the community, not HTC, is for the term "Luftwhiner" to be seen as an obvious mark of an ignorant geek. I like antique aircraft, especially those of WW2.  I happen to prefer simulated  flying of LW bombers, but that doesn't mean that I'm not interested in the accuracy of other aircraft modelled, including Allied ones.

A little more courtesy, everyone, please.

Esme

Offline maxtor

  • Nickel Member
  • ***
  • Posts: 369
152 ?
« Reply #101 on: January 28, 2003, 02:17:37 PM »
Quote
Originally posted by maxtor
How do you know what speed to set your climb for at the different altitudes?  Maybe people are using different speeds/methods?


edit:  I found this - I guess this is how NASA does it.

http://www.dfrc.nasa.gov/Education/OnlineEd/Intro2Flight/nassawt.html


Having said that, two questions:

(1) How did people do testing around 1945?  (Or more specifically, how did the maker of the performance chart do it?)

(2) Again as to what the german supplied historical charts are showing from a German perspective- this quotation troubles me greatly:  

"A. S. Nikolay Gerasimovich, sometime relatively long ago I was speaking with a pilot—a frontline veteran. Right after the war they flew in captured aircraft. And no matter how hard they tried, they were unable to attain the speeds the Germans had written in their specifications. The shortfall in speed was significant. In the end, they prevailed upon a German, a high-level specialist, and asked him, “Why this shortfall in speed? Are we using the engine’s capability incorrectly?” His response was that they would never achieve the target speed, because the German specifications showed the theoretical speed, and they were attempting to attain that speed on their instruments."

http://airforce.users.ru/lend-lease/english/articles/golodnikov/index.htm

(3) Once you have a source of data, how is this data interpreted into context of AH?  Are there technical limitations to the level of precision a sim (any sim) can apply this data?  

Interesting stuff, if nothing else I am learning something about the science side of aviation.

Offline Montezuma

  • Silver Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 959
152 ?
« Reply #102 on: January 28, 2003, 03:03:40 PM »
Quote
Originally posted by Esme
Perhaps it'd be easier for you and others to apologise for being discourteous enough to take the easy route into attempted ridicule by using the term "luftwhiners" so freely and inappropriately.  


Why are you dragging this up from two months ago?  I'll play though.

Quote
There are plenty of "whiners" that prefer US planes, and I've seen damned few that are seriously interested in historicity and have the evidence to back their claims. (I'd certainly agree that the Corsair Fm is amis, btw. bedamned if I'm going to call people "whiners" for pointing that out, though).



F4UDOA has posted lots of data, and that is fine.  But when he crossed the line he got slapped also.


Quote
I'd point out that just because tests were done at Wright Field by the USAAF doesn't necessarily make them typical of what was achieved in combat.  As you've sensibly pointed out above, build quality can affect things; so can wear and tear, and so can pilot and maintenance crew skill.   Also, I doubt whether someone testpiloting a captured plane away from the fighting is likely to push a plane to the limits they might if they were fighting for their lives.



The USAAF tests were probably BETTER than what the thing normally achieved in combat.   'Combat' for most of them consisted of sitting on the ground for whatever reason and then being blown up.  Germany wasn't in very good shape in 1945.

And why, in this endless litany of woe about the Ta152, have none of these folks secured a copy of this test?  Wouldn't it make sense to assemble all relevant data?


Quote
Now, then;  the fact that at least one aircraft has nothing like its proper endurance when the data on that is readily available suggests to me that on occasion HTC slips up, or doesn't do its homework as well as we might like it to, or in the case of bombers, makes the  mistake of thinking that so long as it has enough to stay airborne for a coupel of hours that that is OK (in other words, thinks "gameplay" rather than "historicity").
 

If it is wrong, then it should be fixed.  But you make a good point, if the range is off, how is that going to affect game play?  Even in events, has anyone ever run out of fuel in Ju-88?   I don’t know, just asking.

Quote
It's equally natural that sometimes HTC will have to prioritise other things than fixing something or other of particular interest to ourselves.  If a new build of the game causes the servers to fall over every half hour, then I hope to heck HTC work on a fix to stop the servers going down before they fix the fuel load in the Ju88!  But I WOULD like that fuel load fixed (yes, I have emailed the data to HTC.  Took me, what, a couple of months to get my act together on it, but I got there in the end :-} PS, HTC: be nice to get the missing nose gun fitted too, and the beam guns that were usually fieldfitted... :-)) . I would also like to see the FMs of the other planes that arent right fixed, too.


Maybe they will change it.  But if they don't change it, don't blame it on the conspiracy.

Quote
Doubtless at some point they'll get to the top of the priority list and I for one, will be that bit happier :-)  Just seems damned odd how long some of them have been amiss, is all. Still and all, I'll wait and see how things go.  HTC have certainly been a damned sight more responsive in terms of releasing new things to make things interesting than Brand X was...


Which is why attacking them for having a 'bias', claiming that they refuse to fix known errors, or alleging that they make deliberate errors on German aircraft is dumb.

Quote
What I'd LOVE to see, and this is in the hands of the community, not HTC, is for the term "Luftwhiner" to be seen as an obvious mark of an ignorant geek. I like antique aircraft, especially those of WW2.  I happen to prefer simulated  flying of LW bombers, but that doesn't mean that I'm not interested in the accuracy of other aircraft modelled, including Allied ones.


No one would call you a luftwhiner for just posting your Ju88 stuff.   It is all in the presentation.   If you come back a week later and say, “Why hasn’t this been fixed?  Nothing every gets fixed!  HTC is biased against the LW!”  Then, yes, you probably will get hit with that label.   Of course, you would never do such a thing. But the people that do say that kind of stuff, who respond to questions about data with flames and trolls, are actually the worst enemies German plane fans.

Another problem is that German aircraft whiners are in EVERY WW2 GAME.  Right now, someone is furiously typing a message on some IL2, WW2OL, FA, or AGW board about why 'x' German aircraft does not perform as well as it should.  Why is this?  Yes, we have whiners about all aircraft in these games, but the vast majority of these complaints revolve around German aircraft.  I don't know why this is, there was a multipage thread about it recently.

I, like you, am interested in all of the aircraft of WW2.  I think the FW190 is a fascinating and beautiful plane.  But HTC has more experience doing computer flight models for FW190s than anyone else in the world, so in the absence of compelling evidence I give them the benefit of the doubt as to their modeling of its performance.

And if I do have a complaint about something, like I did with the old hellcat death stall, I'll make it in a calm manner and simply present the evidence that I have.  And I'll try not to take it personally if someone says something derogatory about my favorite plane.

Offline Hortlund

  • Platinum Member
  • ******
  • Posts: 4690
152 ?
« Reply #103 on: January 29, 2003, 04:17:27 AM »
Quote
Originally posted by Montezuma
If it is wrong, then it should be fixed.  But you make a good point, if the range is off, how is that going to affect game play?  Even in events, has anyone ever run out of fuel in Ju-88?   I don’t know, just asking.


Yeah, in the Sicily scenario my flight of Ju88s all ran out of fuel. Pretty frustrating since we were all undamaged and were rtb for more ammo and another bombing mission, instead we all had to ditch.
« Last Edit: January 29, 2003, 04:33:37 AM by Hortlund »

Offline Imp

  • Copper Member
  • **
  • Posts: 269
152 ?
« Reply #104 on: January 29, 2003, 06:05:28 AM »
The mossie also as fuel problems. It as shorter endurance than the spit :eek:

If its wrong then it should be fixed. When HTC as the time of course :D .