Aces High Bulletin Board
General Forums => Aces High General Discussion => Topic started by: Sturm on March 09, 2001, 09:39:00 AM
-
I mainly fly FA 2.5 but have finally given in and tried flying AH for a few hours last night "I did fly in the past but the fun was just not there flying for the rooks lol". After reading stats and charts on the D-9 and seeing the performance of this plane it is truly in my understanding that German planes will never compare to what they should have been like allied planes modeled in here. I have posted charts and data on this bird that is truly eye opening, what we read in books is a farce. We all know the D-9 has a reported top speed of 426 mph, but this is not the case try 440 and with extra manifold being used tack on a few more MPH. If you want me to repost the true data on the FW's let me know and I will do so willingly. Another note I loaded only 25% fuel and ROC was appalling with WEP. I am not sure if they have modeled MW-50 for low alt and GM-1 for high alt but seeing how they modeled a late war variant do to paint scheme. This plane handles like a freaking pig as well, only thing it has going is roll rate and that is still sluggish, "D-9 was marginally a little slower roller to the A- series" I also was not impressed with the Ta-152, another bird that cannot turn, on the deck the 152 was superior to the Tempest being able to out turn it as well. What gives? 152 is very fast on the deck after a dive and zoom climb is very respectable but what about climb? I knpw first thing you will do is flick your fingers thru the closest book on GE planes and note it around 3400 FPM, these test that they show in books, while many being way off are done at full combat weight, when I use 1/4 the fuel to test with WEP 3400 is max I can attain at 150 IAS. I am also curious as to why there are no weapon loadouts for the D-9 or F-8 and TA-152? One other mention if anyone in here reads history on these 2 birds was there ability to out accelerate allied planes, tell me at a max 1 mph per sec gain at 15K is what we are looking at? Now does this sound like a breath taking number to escape a 51 or a spit? I strictly tested these 2 planes and was not impressed, flying the Tempest well that is a different story, way overmodeled or the others just way undermodeled? You tell me, I won't spend the 30 bucks a month to fly a perk plane that shouldn't even be perked in the first place, the way it is modeled now at least. Nothing should touch the 152 at high alt, and others would have an extremely hard time on the deck with it as well. Just for sake fix it please the D-9 is a lovely plane that should not be given the piggish characteristics it has now.
Thanks Sturm AKA "AG"
-
FA 2.5 You say?
-SW
-
Troll alert! Do not feed!
------------------
jochen Gefechtsverband Kowalewski
Units: I. and II./KG 51, II. and III./KG 76, NSGr 1, NSGr 2, NSGr 20.
Planes: Do 17Z, Ju 87D, Ju 88A, He 111H, Ar 234A, Me 410A, Me 262A, Fw 190A, Fw 190F, Fw 190G.
Sieg oder bolsevismus!
-
Another 1 book expert? Puh_lease.
-Westy
-
Yes Fa 2.5, do I like it? Yes do the graphics suck yup, planes modeled right in there? Nope but the flyers are great which is the only reason I fly it. My first true mission in AH I had 3 kills in 1 run and that was a 3-1 disadvantage doesn't matter which game I know my planes and how to fly them. I will not get into a bickering war about which game is better, I like AH for its graphics and flight characteristics but seeing the D-9 I was appalled. I flame to get their attention to fix problems, glaring problems. So get off your high horse, oh all mighty AH flyers, its a game and not some back yard teenage scrap.
-
what you posted here is an opinion.
Post some numbers maybe then someone will take you seriously.
------------------
Bartlomiej Rajewski
aka. Wing Commander fd-ski
Northolt Wing
1st Polish Fighter Wing
303 (Polish) Squadron "Kosciuszko" RAF
308 (Polish) Squadron "City of Cracow" RAF
315 (Polish) Squadron "City of Deblin" RAF
Turning 109s and 190s into scrap metal since 1998
Northolt Wing Headquarters (http://www.raf303.org/northolt/)
-
You might no my friend Naudet, he posted the data on the FW's awhile back in which he recieved from me. I will repost the data tonight on plane specs. Again not an intent to flame you but the numbers don't lie. They are using specs from out dated sources that are put into books, mind you data is just now leaking out even after all these years on GE and JP planes.
-
Whats the maximum speed of Ta152?
I read from one source (I haven't looked at more yet) says H-1 maximum speed is 750km/h (a. 466mph), but I haven't even got near to that speed in couple quick tests.
It always ends up to somewhere 415-420mph, but I dont know anything about Ta-152s altitude/speed charts.
(its a big glider though (http://bbs.hitechcreations.com/smf/Smileys/default/biggrin.gif))
I got to find / look at more sources telling about Ta 152...
-
" I flame "
Cause you're an arse. And maybe that works in FA.
-Westy
-
Thats just it, they are not even close to specs, and I know not every plane would be a screamer depending on material used man hours and quality. But from my tests at 35K the numbers are way down were this plane really shined. And yes it does glide very nice as well as the 234, but gliding is only fun when no one is around (http://bbs.hitechcreations.com/smf/Smileys/default/smile.gif) One thing I did notice and this is a plus is the guns hit very hard on the D-9.
-
I love it, I post a flame on a plane and state that I also fly FA and now the "my game is better then yours responses come" If you haven't noticed a lot of the flyers in this game are from FA, I am an arse for posting the truth? You must be a very intelligent person then, or a idiot that doesn't know a FW from a Spit. Post something that is a worthy flame Dingles, otherwise keep going on looking like a lawn dart you so willingly love to be. The truth hurts sometimes and I won't sugar coat it unlike a lot of people that will kiss arse "as you say it".
-
Also noted your friend Naudet pulled the same whine and leg stomp in regard to the P-38 in the CORRECT fourm last week.
Perhaps when you realise that gross generalisations and empty accusations will get you no where unless you post book titles, actual scans and real quotes. Less will get you nothing but scorn and ridicule. Just like a kid who wines
Westy
-
Originally posted by Sturm:
Thats just it, they are not even close to specs, and I know not every plane would be a screamer depending on material used man hours and quality. But from my tests at 35K the numbers are way down were this plane really shined. And yes it does glide very nice as well as the 234, but gliding is only fun when no one is around (http://bbs.hitechcreations.com/smf/Smileys/default/smile.gif) One thing I did notice and this is a plus is the guns hit very hard on the D-9.
Yeah, tell me about it.. I were just testing durability of Ar234 in offline play and used acks to test it, I lost both engines and nose gear (before that, left engine got lit up on first hit)
I was flying low towards fairly tall hill with 280mph, then I pulled up and climbed over 4000fpm for few seconds and leveled out - bit over 200mph left and glided for loooong way with it.
I just got to do more testings on Ta152, after I get more sources to look at.
-
Originally posted by Sturm:
I am an arse for posting the truth?
No your an bellybutton because you came in with a trolling complaint with no facts to back it up. Sources, Charts and testing results Game vs Real life stats would be in order if you are interested in helping to advance a case.BTW you are correct that alot of people here came from FA, one reason they came is people like you are the norm for that community.
-
A person asking for support and does so through flame is in trouble before he starts. (http://bbs.hitechcreations.com/smf/Smileys/default/wink.gif)
-
Betsy thanks for proving your point about not knowing the difference in planes,do you know anything about WW2 planes? I am at work right now so I cannot post anything for a few hours. If you want some good reading check out books on Eric Brown test pilot for the british and his findings on the Dora's even those did not have MW-50 or Gm-1 you do know what these are and what altitude they start to become affective right? Of course you do I am so sorry for even thinking you didn't know anything. But you just had to say something to make someone else look bad, your so clever yet I distinctly sense a bit of puberty coming out of you, 14 right? Shove off Pesty, your in a no win situation with me, I am relating information to a plane and you well you are relating to a tree humping squirrel, least the family tree looks that way for ya. Have fun trying to flame me monkey boy.
-
Here's some numbers I got from a skinny little book titled Aircraft of WW2. ISBN # 1-875671-35-8
Ta-152 H1
Performance:
Max speed 350 mph sea level, 465 mph at 29,860 ft w/ MW-50. Cruising speed 311 mph; initial climb 3445 ft/min. Service ceiling 48,556 ft; normal range 755 miles; max range w/drop tanks 1250 miles.
I haven't even flown the Ta-152 yet; too busy working on new sounds. I'll check this out and see how it does against this info. Or one of your guys can do it; I've got 5 sounds open in various stages of editing right now.
-----------------------
Flakbait [Delta6]
Delta 6's Flight School (http://www.worldaccessnet.com/~delta6)
Put the P-61B in Aces High
"For yay did the sky darken, and split open and spew forth fire, and
through the smoke rode the Four Wurgers of the Apocalypse.
And on their canopies was tattooed the number of the Beast, and the
number was 190." Jedi, Verse Five, Capter Two, The Book of Dweeb
(http://www.worldaccessnet.com/~delta6/htbin/delta6.jpg)
-
Woo you guys are rough, first off I really do not care to spend hours testing a plane that should have been tested thoroughly before submitting it to the community, do I really want to go and pull out all my books and look up the data I have already stored in my noggen? And post it not knowing if it will be changed or not, or will the cryers come out and say it can't be that good, because then everyone will be flying it. Before stating such asinine thoughts, think about the facts people, you pay an insane 30 a month for a game that has you flying for chess pieces, not only that but country distinctive plane sets are not in use. I enjoy flying, I do not enjoy testing for I get nothing out of it, and the corp were spending money on gets free testing. Just think about it and the light bulb will come on. Many left FA for AH, no big deal I am still in contact with a vast majority of them. Did they leave because of flames? That is beyond a doubt the most retarded response you could have made. When you know more then me we can talk, is that a blunt statement? Yes it is....
-
<Turns the Chair's massage device On, grabs a Six pack and turns to Rip>
"Get 'um popcorn mate, looks like Westy's gettin Hot"
...
<Gulps>
...
<Waves at Westy>
"Go Westy, Go...!!!"
(http://bbs.hitechcreations.com/smf/Smileys/default/wink.gif)
Sturmp, please post Data BEFORE Whining... Danke !
------------------
MASS/SAW
(http://saintaw.tripod.com/fw190fp.gif) (http://eismeer.port5.com/)
click HERE (http://eismeer.port5.com/) for info on III./JG 5 Eismeer
When I was younger I hated going to weddings.
It seemed that all of my aunts and the grandmotherly types used to come up to me, poking me in the ribs and cackling, telling me, "You're next."
They stopped that stuff after I started doing the same thing to them at funerals.
[This message has been edited by Saintaw (edited 03-09-2001).]
-
Ta-152 H1
Performance:
Max speed 350 mph sea level, 465 mph at 29,860 ft w/ MW-50. Cruising speed 311 mph; initial climb 3445 ft/min. Service ceiling 48,556 ft; normal range 755 miles; max range w/drop tanks 1250 miles.
Flakbait just to let you know they did not use MW-50 at that altitude they would have used GM-1. As I started out this just shows the data is false. MW-50 was used for low to mid alt for extra power GM-1 or "Nitrous" was used at high alts. I will let you all post as much data as possible until I can get home to send some facts to you all. Until then keep it coming and I will show you how to discount it. Flakbait not a flame towards you but that is the most common data on the TA series posted in all the ww2 books. You just have to be able to spot the innacuracies and say to yourself huh?
-
Shove off Pesty, your in a no win situation with me, I am relating information to a plane and you well you are relating to a tree humping squirrel, least the family tree looks that way for ya. Have fun trying to flame me monkey boy.
lol. what an inbreed.
Just imagine what this place would be like if we WERE $10/mo?? We'd end up having a forumn in no time at all for kids like this one where they could trade thier extra Ritalin.
-Westy
[This message has been edited by Westy (edited 03-09-2001).]
-
I tested Ta-152H just and I didn't get close
to those speeds.
I used 50% main fuel and full ammo load.
Sea level / 355-360mph
41,000ft / 445-450mph
34,450ft / 450mph
29,529ft / 450mph
Speed was increasing *very* slowly and I quit testings after I didn't see movement of needle after couple of minutes.
I chose altitudes by charts that I saw in this address: http://www.warbirdsresourcegroup.org/LRG/ta152h.html (http://www.warbirdsresourcegroup.org/LRG/ta152h.html)
It says that Ta-152 H-1 would have following speeds:
34,451ft / 431mph (looks like without boosting or mixed up with 29kft?)
29,529ft / 466mph with MW-50
41,012ft / 472mph with MW-50 and GM-1
So, lack of speed ranged between 22-15mph above 29,500ft.
I say that is quite noticeable difference. (max 450mph isn't same at all with 472mph or 465mph)
[This message has been edited by Fishu (edited 03-09-2001).]
-
<Rip turns to MASS, digs in hit popcorn, both MASS and Rip turn to Sturm and simotaneously wave...> Cya Sturm!
-
From The Great Book of WW2 Airplanes.
Numbers for the Fw 190D-9. Article by Robert Grinsell.
Take-off Power: 1776hp
Max: 1600hp @ 18,045ft
Speed at 9,480lb loaded weight and clean w/ MW 50 boost
Sea Level: 357mph
10,830ft: 397mph
21,650ft: 426mph
32,810ft: 397mph
Numbers for the Ta 152H-1.
Take-off power: 1750hp@3250rpm or 2050hp w/ MW50
Climb & Combat Power: 1580hp @ 3000
Max Power: 1320hp@32810ft or 1740hp w/ GM 1 boost
Max Speed
Sea Level: 332mph or 350mph w/ MW 50
29,860ft: 465mph w/ MW50
41,010ft: 472 w/ GM 1
And just give counter-point for the numbers. The P-51D. Article also Robert Grinsell.
Power
Take-Off: 1490hp
8500 (Low Blower): 1590hp
21,400ft (High Blower): 1370hp
23,400ft (High Blower): 1065hp
Speed (clean)
5000ft: 395mph
15,000ft: 413mph
25,000ft: 437mph
30,000ft: 433mph
------------------
Col Dune
C.O. 352nd Fighter Group (http://www.352ndfightergroup.com)
"The Blue Nosed Bastards of Bodney"
"Credo quia absurdum est." (I believe it because it is unreasonable)
- The motto of the Republic of Baja Arizona
[This message has been edited by Dune (edited 03-09-2001).]
-
I recommend you start a readable topic in the Aircraft forumn Fishu.
If those figures from that web page were accurate and the source ID'd you know Pyro would change something in error. *IF* he agreed the info was good and it does not correspond to what he has.
-Westy
[This message has been edited by Westy (edited 03-09-2001).]
-
"Another note I loaded only 25% fuel and ROC was appalling with WEP."
Fw 190D-9 with 100% fuel in Aces High pretty much matches Naudets climb chart(curves 1 and 3).
"I knpw first thing you will do is flick your fingers thru the closest book on GE planes and note it around 3400 FPM, these test that they show in books, while many being way off are done at full combat weight, when I use 1/4 the fuel to test with WEP 3400 is max I can attain at 150 IAS"
Ta 152H-1 with 100% fuel in Aces High has an initial climbrate of over 3400fpm with WEP at a climbspeed of approx. 173mph IAS.
"I am also curious as to why there are no weapon loadouts for the D-9 or F-8 and TA-152?"
I assume you mean guns? It's because they could only have the guns that are featured in Aces High. F-8 and D-9: 2x13mm, 2x20mm. Ta 152H-1: 2x20mm, 1x30mm.
-
Westy, he isn't a "1 book wonder"...
He is a much different breed. He's a revisionist.
J_A_B
-
Yes but read the little quote "25%" fuel, not 100% that is a huge difference in weight saving some 660+ pounds just in fuel alone. As far as weapon loadouts or RS packs The D-9 was available in multiple layouts such as the FW 190 A series. Does this D-9 have MW-50 or GM-1 or both? First batches of FW-190 D-9's delivered to front units such as JG-26 did not have any extra boost added. WOuld like to know though, my main beef is the accleration. ROC I can deal with.
-
.ignore sturm
-
Originally posted by Kieran:
.ignore sturm
I think it would be easier for you to just stop reading the AH UBB (http://bbs.hitechcreations.com/smf/Smileys/default/biggrin.gif)
-
(http://bbs.hitechcreations.com/smf/Smileys/default/wink.gif) JAB
It's not about the figures or specs or what he percieves is wrong. It's his infantile way of coming out with it here and his not so endearing lack of personality.
-Westy
-
And you have some data for the correct climbrate for a D-9 loaded with 25% fuel?
-
Oh Sturm, you mean a performance chart like this?
http://www.vermin.net/ta152/ta152-1.jpg (http://www.vermin.net/ta152/ta152-1.jpg)
or like this
http://www.vermin.net/ta152/ta152-3.jpg (http://www.vermin.net/ta152/ta152-3.jpg)
Or a armament option loadout chart like this?
http://www.vermin.net/ta152/ta152-5.jpg (http://www.vermin.net/ta152/ta152-5.jpg)
Please notice they are all original Focke Wulf factory documents.
And if you think ANY Fw190 should turn good, please go back and examine the wing design, and wingloading of any of the Fw190 series. They are all heavily loaded and prone to accelerated stalls due to the airfoil used in the 190 Series.
And answer me this Sturm if your a Ta152 expert. How could you have very many field varients for the different guns packages for the Ta152-H1's, when there was only 3 Ta152-H1's ever made ?? Think about it for a few seconds before you answer.
Show us some solid data both historical and from within the game to compare, and then we'll talk. Otherwise your just flaming away, and showing your own ignorance in the process.
------------------
Vermillion
**MOL**, Men of Leisure
-
Pyro spends quite a bit of time on collecting info from very many sources. As this game is HTC's creation it's up to the developers to decide how to use all the data they have. If you want something to fly differently - write your own game.
And BTW there are a lot of different sets of data out there and not all of them show the same thing. Your personal opinion of which one of them is right is not going to change HTC's opinion.
You are being too emotional.
-
Verm did you get my email all right ? Were you able to see the attachment?
-
Originally posted by Wisk-=VF-101=-:
Pyro spends quite a bit of time on collecting info from very many sources. As this game is HTC's creation it's up to the developers to decide how to use all the data they have. If you want something to fly differently - write your own game.
And BTW there are a lot of different sets of data out there and not all of them show the same thing. Your personal opinion of which one of them is right is not going to change HTC's opinion.
You are being too emotional.
..and Pyro can also do mistakes.
That was done in the past with 109G10's top speed and corrected.
C.205 was also porked at one stage totally.
So, how about you, Wisk, also begin to think that it might be human error when converting diagrams to the game.
-
This is a classic case of a perfectly capable aircraft in the hands of an incapable pilot...that simple.
The D9 is very very dangerous...it also requires a high degree of skill and finesse for it to perform up to its capabilities. For anyone to come into this sim and make statements about the validity of aircraft performance without having walked the walk here for at least 60 days is kidding himself.
------------------
Ice
13thTAS
It's not the Big that kill the Small, but the Fast that kill the Slow!
-
Originally posted by Ice:
The D9 is very very dangerous...it also requires a high degree of skill and finesse for it to perform up to its capabilities.
I agree 100% with you here, Ice. Someone who thinks the D9 is undermodelled or incapable clearly hasn't seen it flown to its strengths. This is one dangerous plane, and it's a helluva fun ride.
-- Todd/DMF
-
In off-line tests, D9 has been pretty nice..
Though, I should do more testings.. (it did some things far better than wuergers)
-
vermillion the fw-190 uses the exact same airfoil as the corsair and hellcat afaik. see selig's uiuc airfoil database.
-
oh but i think wing twist is different mabye, which accounts for little stall warning (http://bbs.hitechcreations.com/smf/Smileys/default/smile.gif) and why it doesnt have high divergance, enabling the high roll rate. always tradeoffs in aerospace engineering (http://bbs.hitechcreations.com/smf/Smileys/default/wink.gif)
-
Originally posted by Ice:
it also requires a high degree of skill and finesse for it to perform up to its capabilities
Awwwwwwwww.... Crap.
I'm out.
-
Originally posted by Fishu:
I think it would be easier for you to just stop reading the AH UBB (http://bbs.hitechcreations.com/smf/Smileys/default/biggrin.gif)
I think you are right! (http://bbs.hitechcreations.com/smf/Smileys/default/biggrin.gif)
-
Just a quick additional point that came to my mind. Whenever we utilize statistics as posted below, we also need to remember that there is one additional variable that some are ignoring, temperature and other meteorological factors. Anyone who knows how to fly a real airplane will tell you that without that numbers are useless. On a hot humid day the airplane below is not going to get the quoted climb rate. It isn't specified but I would bet that the figures below are for what is referred to as a standard day of 59F at sea level. Instead of setting us up for these B.S. threads it would really be nice if HT would post the performance specifics which they have to hard code into their program for each altitude then we would at least have something concrete to either agree or disagree with. Also, I've got my own version of the book below except it's fat and called "Fighting Aircraft of WWII" I'm at work and don't know if my book agrees with flakbait's but what I would really like to see is a photocopy of the actual flight manual of this airplane in the original Deutsh. That and only that would be the most unimpeacheable evidence of how this airplane should perform.
Beeg
Originally posted by flakbait:
Here's some numbers I got from a skinny little book titled Aircraft of WW2. ISBN # 1-875671-35-8
Ta-152 H1
Performance:
Max speed 350 mph sea level, 465 mph at 29,860 ft w/ MW-50. Cruising speed 311 mph; initial climb 3445 ft/min. Service ceiling 48,556 ft; normal range 755 miles; max range w/drop tanks 1250 miles.
-
Originally posted by Beegerite:
Just a quick additional point that came to my mind. Whenever we utilize statistics as posted below, we also need to remember that there is one additional variable that some are ignoring, temperature and other meteorological factors. Anyone who knows how to fly a real airplane will tell you that without that numbers are useless. On a hot humid day the airplane below is not going to get the quoted climb rate. It isn't specified but I would bet that the figures below are for what is referred to as a standard day of 59F at sea level. Instead of setting us up for these B.S. threads it would really be nice if HT would post the performance specifics which they have to hard code into their program for each altitude then we would at least have something concrete to either agree or disagree with. Also, I've got my own version of the book below except it's fat and called "Fighting Aircraft of WWII" I'm at work and don't know if my book agrees with flakbait's but what I would really like to see is a photocopy of the actual flight manual of this airplane in the original Deutsh. That and only that would be the most unimpeacheable evidence of how this airplane should perform.
Beeg
You could give a chance for human error.
It has happend with C.202, C.205, 109G10... do I need to say more?
Maybe its just human error this time too?
-
Well, ultimately it's up to the developer to decide. of course everything is possible, but it doesn't take that much time for the developer to check whether he modeled the plane according to his opinion of its performance based on the various sets of data he saw.
So again, with so many different opinions on the performance it's not that easy for the developer to make a choice, but it does have to be made.
I'm sure there are a lot of people questioning niki's performance. There might be other examples when some players might not be satisfied with the model decisions. As Pyro said himself one - it's not possible to please everyone.
-
Instead of setting us up for these B.S. threads it would really be nice if HT would post the performance specifics which they have to hard code into their program for each altitude then we would at least have something concrete to either agree or disagree with
What, you mean like this?
(http://www.hitechcreations.com/images/charts/ta152hspeed.gif)
(http://www.hitechcreations.com/images/charts/ta152hclimb.gif)
-
Vermillion, can you translate the armament loadout on the Ta152 from that first chart of yours?
It almost looks as though the tested Ta had the following armament:
1 Mk 108 30mm cannon firing through the hub,
2 Mg151/20 20mm cannon mounted in the cowl
2 Mg 151/20 20mm cannon mounted in the inner wings
2 Mk 108 30mm cannon mounted in the outer wing
4 20mm cannon and 3 30mm cannon? Hmmm, can we say 'buff hunter' ? (http://bbs.hitechcreations.com/smf/Smileys/default/smile.gif)
------------------
When I was a child, I spake as a child, I understood as a child, I thought as a child: but when I became a man, I put away childish things.
Chapter 13, verse 11
-
Gee.. so we have a real flying tank 152 flying charasteristics modelled but just given the normal armament?
(Pst.. Can I have those guns or have those 15-22mph to top speed?)
-
So where out resident 190/152 expert ran off to ? To buy a second book ?
I would recommend "Revisionist History 101: Why Luftware never really lost a single plane"
------------------
Bartlomiej Rajewski
aka. Wing Commander fd-ski
Northolt Wing
1st Polish Fighter Wing
303 (Polish) Squadron "Kosciuszko" RAF
308 (Polish) Squadron "City of Cracow" RAF
315 (Polish) Squadron "City of Deblin" RAF
Turning 109s and 190s into scrap metal since 1998
Northolt Wing Headquarters (http://www.raf303.org/northolt/)
-
Hehehe.. was wondering that too Fd Ski. It seems he vacated the premises not long after the other thread he started.
AKDejaVu
-
IMO as the Ta152 as is now, the only good asset about it are its guns. I do notice too that the D9 in AH has much better alt performance than the 152 just amazes me that the Ta152 is a perk in its current model and those extra 15. 20 mph are necessary so too the extra climb rate. All we have now is an expensive glider.
------------------
Glasses---I may have 4 eyes ,but you only have one wing.
-----15 Spanische Staffel----
Tis not important how one goes,but who goes with you.
-
IMO as the Ta152 as is now, the only good asset about it are its guns. I do notice too that the D9 in AH has much better alt performance than the 152 just amazes me that the Ta152 is a perk in its current model and those extra 15. 20 mph are necessary so too the extra climb rate. All we have now is an expensive glider.
I don't think Dora will go up to 48 kft...
Ta 152H was designed to be a high altitude fighter to counter B-29.
I would think Ta 152 has much better fighting capability in high altitudes than Dora because of lower wingloading which really matters up there. Dora might be fast in high alts but it aint too maneuvereable!
------------------
jochen Gefechtsverband Kowalewski
Units: I. and II./KG 51, II. and III./KG 76, NSGr 1, NSGr 2, NSGr 20.
Planes: Do 17Z, Ju 87D, Ju 88A, He 111H, Ar 234A, Me 410A, Me 262A, Fw 190A, Fw 190F, Fw 190G.
Sieg oder bolsevismus!
-
Verm:
again HOW can you state that they were only 3 H1's build. I konw you're sources and read the charts you posted, besides the fact that I have different sources (http://bbs.hitechcreations.com/smf/Smileys/default/wink.gif). Even in your sources isn't said that they were build only 3 of them, as far as i remember.
You're only figuring that from the High "werknummern" they are shown there.
If I ask other people for proof please deliver some by yourself.
No offense menat here.
Maik
-
No Maik, actually most of the sources say that NO production H1's saw service, or that it was 'highly unlikely' they saw service, including the one I quote.
But its the physical evidence of the 152 that the British captured that actually was a H1, (the Eric Brown plane) and was one of those last three production numbers.
Thats my basis, conversely why don't you show me where there is evidence otherwise.
------------------
Vermillion
**MOL**, Men of Leisure
-
Originally posted by Jochen:
I don't think Dora will go up to 48 kft...
Ta 152H was designed to be a high altitude fighter to counter B-29.
I would think Ta 152 has much better fighting capability in high altitudes than Dora because of lower wingloading which really matters up there. Dora might be fast in high alts but it aint too maneuvereable!
But still Ta 152 is too slow, which is a bad thing when its loosing that much in speed...
Accerlation isn't any great either, so slow speed and slow accerlation = target drone.
-
http://bbs.hitechcreations.com/smf/Smileys/default/Forum9/HTML/000976.html (http://bbs.hitechcreations.com/smf/Smileys/default/Forum9/HTML/000976.html)