Aces High Bulletin Board
General Forums => Aces High General Discussion => Topic started by: Wilbus on May 29, 2002, 05:06:10 PM
-
THANKS TO STAGA FOR PUTTING THE PICTURES ON HIS WEBSPACE!
I owe you one mate! (atleast one) :)
Ok, here are some facts, a chart and another nice speed comparison data between all different Ta152 types.
The first chart, speed diagram are from 1943, 2 years earlier then the Ta152 H-1 which entered service in January 1945.
The chart displays 3 curves, all Ta152's.
Remember, one, it's from 1943, 2, the Ta152's in here are TA152 A modells, the H modells had slightly better high performance.
The second diagram explains it self.
(http://www.kolumbus.fi/staga/wilbus/Speedchart.jpg)
Second one bellow. Be sure to check the GM 1 boost speeds especially since it's those, that I THINK are what's been either not modelled, or slightly undermodelled in AH. GM 1 was used at altitudes above the maximum boost altitude. Mw 50 could only be used up to where the Maximum boost ended but not above.
What differed the H-0 from the H-1 was a few things, first, the H-1 used Jumo 213E-1 engine, the H-1 thus had both MW50 and GM boosts. The H-1 also had wing tanks, giving it a greater range then the P51D on internal.
Thus the H-1 had higher wingloading and turned a bit worse, but was better at high alt aswell as low alt, greater range aswell.
Something else that I think might be wrong is the fact that the H-0 modell had climb rate of 20 meters/s at sea level, although the H-1 was heavier the boost would bring this up to about the same but I need to do some more research about it.
One more thing, the H-1 used a field kit which was suplied by Junkers to units with Ta152's. It increased the horse power of the engine with 150.
(http://www.kolumbus.fi/staga/wilbus/Finalproductionspeed.jpg)
All!
-
Wohooooow! Those were some big A** pictures :D
-
Ps. I just saw the exact date on the speed diagram is 4.9.43.
4:th of Septemper 43 so it's really just about 1 year and 4 months before the Ta152 went into service.
-
Guess I gotto bring it to top...
-
removed because adding bigger chart
-
Staga, can you make one of this too so we can see the high alt performance, between 30 and 50? :)
-
Montezuuuuma? Montezuuuuuuma? Where are you? Lost in the museum giftshop?
-
I did that in a hurry; better check if alt/speed conversions feet/km and mph/kmh are matching.
(http://www.kolumbus.fi/staga/wilbus/FW_AH_speedchart_uusi.jpg)
-
btw were those FWs having 4xMG151+3xMK108 armament or what does it read in upper right corner of the pic? Looks kind of heavy load?
-
Yup Staga, these planes have heavier armament, 3x30mm and 4x20mm, Ta152 A's with short wings. Ta152 H-1 still weights (with all boosts systems and wing tanks full etc) a bit more, now... do we have all boost systems?
I've got some more pictures if you wanna see how the armament is mounted.
What is interesting to see with the chart, is that every new speed increase (first you got a line 90 dgeree up then speed increase) is at lower alt in AH then on the Diagram.
I'm still leaning towards the fact that the Gm1 is undermodelled not modelled at all. Do you know how to read teh diagram at teh top? A bit messed up there.
Pyro, can you look at this and answer some questions I have?
-
Btw Staga, not sure if GM1 and Mw50 (low/medium alt boost) is modelled at all in AH, if it is, it will explain that the AH Ta152 is faster bellow 30k then on the chart. The Ta152 A didn't use MW 50, only GM1, the GM1 container was kept a bit behind the pilot seat.
-
What about acceleration? The 152 does that it seems worse then a c-47 above 300 mph.
-
Kurt Tank described teh acceleration of teh TA152 as "very rapidly", can't find any numbers but as it is now it hardly accelerates at all in level flight, specially not above 300.
-
Originally posted by GRUNHERZ
Montezuuuuma? Montezuuuuuuma? Where are you? Lost in the museum giftshop?
Just a prediction: Data from a prototype a year and a half before the plane entered service will get you nothing from HTC.
-
Originally posted by Montezuma
Just a prediction: Data from a prototype a year and a half before the plane entered service will get you nothing from HTC.
Overdoing yourself, are you ?
-
Congratulations Montezuma, you just made #1 on my list of the most stupid people I've had the displeasure of knowing.
-
have u forgotten my tip, wilbus? ;)
-
CRAP!
-
PS. The TA152 A was not a prototype, it was fully ready for production but the RLM decided not to build it for some unexplainable reason, thus a year was lost on getting a good high altitude fighter in to production.
-
Originally posted by Wilbus
Congratulations Montezuma, you just made #1 on my list of the most stupid people I've had the displeasure of knowing.
he's on my own private list since some months ago...
you have loads of patience, haven't you wilbus? ;)
-
I do RRAM, It's gotto end somewhere though :)
-
Thanks for sharing all this real data - now I don't feel so nuts. Will be interesting to see what sort of feedback we get.
-
At least we arent "faking" the info now..... It's progress for monezuma - remember he's pretty stupid this slow to catch on.
-
Same question as in the other Ta152 thread.
How many Ta152H-1s were produced? My source says 10.
That makes it a definate non factor in terms of introducing it to AH or any other flight sim other then for the novelty factor.
Too many other planes that actually had an impact on things to do first I'd suggest.
Even if you include every pre-production test aircraft and the A-0 A-1, B-0, B-1, C-0, C-1 R1 etc you only get 67 and how many of those made it to an operational combat squadron? Not test squadrons, combat squadrons.
Dan
BRING THE SPIT XII to AH! (at least they have a proven combat history, being operational from the Spring of 43 to September of 44 with 100 produced and two squadrons operating them....oh, btw, I'm kidding about the Spit XII in AH. As much as I love that kite, it would make no sense to put the time into modeling it for the game)
-
Originally posted by Guppy35
Same question as in the other Ta152 thread.
How many Ta152H-1s were produced? My source says 10.
That makes it a definate non factor in terms of introducing it to AH or any other flight sim other then for the novelty factor.
Too many other planes that actually had an impact on things to do first I'd suggest.
Even if you include every pre-production test aircraft and the A-0 A-1, B-0, B-1, C-0, C-1 R1 etc you only get 67 and how many of those made it to an operational combat squadron? Not test squadrons, combat squadrons.
Dan
BRING THE SPIT XII to AH! (at least they have a proven combat history, being operational from the Spring of 43 to September of 44 with 100 produced and two squadrons operating them....oh, btw, I'm kidding about the Spit XII in AH. As much as I love that kite, it would make no sense to put the time into modeling it for the game)
whispers quietly, "ummm Guppy, we already have the Ta152..."
-
Ahh well, so I didn't proofread it :)
The question still remains re: the TA152
Much ado about nothing don't ya think?
-
Originally posted by Guppy35
How many Ta152H-1s were produced? My source says 10.
Lets suppose the germans were able to build 30000 operational Me262 ... We should have a non perked 262 for AH then, right?
I'm gettin really tired about the production numbers nonsense factor.
-
I have posted this criteria before re a/c in AH and I like it:
*Must have seen combat at least once.
*3 months service during the war.
*Equipped at least an entire squadron (12+ ac flyable at once) during the 3 months of service.
Its just a good yardstick I would like to see used.
Ie, No P-80s, Seafurys, F8F Bearcats. Ever. Save em for a Korean War sim.
The 262 would be in, the TA152 would not, nor would the Do335, or the Me163.
Arado234, it would be in.
There are 100s of good a/c choices to make, of a/c that are really WW2 birds. Why does it matter? it matters because we cant have them all, so HTC needs to give the more important types (like the upcoming D3A Val and A-20 Havoc).
But thats me, I dont give a tinkers **** about the MA, I want them for the TODs and Scens.
Regards.
-
Thing is it's already modelled in AH but does it have performance like it should have?
So if you're against it your're a little late...
-
What Staga said, ya guys trying to get it deleted or what?:rolleyes:
Squire, if those or your criteries, then the TA152 should definatly be in the game since it it's OK on all those.
-
PERK IT !
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
oups ... ;)
-
ROFLMAO!!
-
I doubt the USA produced 1 million P51’s or another million F4U’s, so much I understand that the perk system isn’t hinged solid on actual percentages of aircraft produced, or more pertinent to this discussion, NOT produced.
It would be silly to have a unperked TA152, but what you need to look at is how often it is flown in actual gameplay, over time after introduction to the players.
The Ta152 is a ghost, and I’d like to fly it more often, and better yet, SEE IT and fight it. I find it hard to believe A LOT of the community would not agree.
Otherwise it’s a waste of resources HTC is adamant about protecting, so much to ban players from the BBS, which is outside of the game itself, right?
Do the math. I think that was the initial perk basis, some formula of sorts. Course, we aren't sure.
Leads to lots graphs, which are quite informative as much as I hate the HTC secrecy on gameplay.
-
I'd like to see it flown more often aswell, maybe even need to go as far as unperking it since MOST would stay in Dora or A5 anyway.
When it comes to all perk planes, except 262 and maybe tempest, they are being flown too little, TA152 specially, and F4u-4 pretty much too.
I don't think the idea was to totally remove them from gameplay but to limit them, they are a little too limited now IMO.
-
Took my 152 up the other day by a CV. I actually had to come down to the deck to fight. Anyway, that nice little tag on it atracted a nice crowd and was able to disrupt the combat for a base capture. Was good for the knights bad for me as everyone and their mother was gunning for my lil perk light I had on. Only was I was able to stay alive was to stay straight keep my E and run. If a La7 came in on me I was toast at 10k (ended sortie landed 4 kills :). IF you think flying the 262 is fun try surviving a low alt fight in a furball in a 152. I think the 152 is one of the worst at acceleration. If this was fixed I would have no problem with its current perk value then. Otherwise it needs to come down. Shouldn't MW-50 below 20k give it some sort of acceleration boost? GM-1 over 20k shouldn't that boost its acceleration as well? That is why I have a hard time believeing they are even modeled on the German fighters. Dora is same way above 300. 350-375 takes a along time to get to.
-
Right Sachs, I don't think either MW50 or GM1 are modelled, can see that GM1 clearly isn't when you look at AH TA152 chart, speed above 30k isn't as high as it should be, ALOT too slow at 41k where it had its max speed.
It's not one of the worst accelerating planes in the game, it's THE WORST, maybe, MAYBE the C47 beats it.
Kurt Tank described it as acceleration very rapidly, something that it sure doesn't do now.
-
Im just chewing the fat boys, nothing wrong with liking the TA152. Its a fascinating piece of machinery no doubt.
Just got me to thinking about late war rides and criteria. More than a few allied uber rides I would exclude too. Im more a "mid war fan" I guess.
And no, im not advocating its removal, its already in the sim. So keep it.
Personally, If I were big on all things LW, I would be polishing a 190D-9, that actually saw a lot of combat and is an excellent fighter. Many LW aces flew it, like Gunther Rall, but I know thats not news.
Later.
-
"Kurt Tank described it as acceleration very rapidly, something that it sure doesn't do now."
Wasn't the plane he was in, when he ran from two stangs and which lead to that description, basically an unarmed aircraft only fueled for the hop he was taking?
Westy
-
One thing I am not clear on, as I do not read German.
It would seem the German chart with the lines shows performance of 3 different engines. I am not noticing where "WEP" shows up on this chart.
In the speed chart, I am not noticing where it makes note of "WEP" being used or not. (edit: OK I see this now one)
Can someone who can read german clarify this? If these charts do not take WEP into account (as the AH line chart does) Then Our Ta152 is indeed QUITE a good bit slower, from the deck on up, yes?
-
Originally posted by Squire
Im just chewing the fat boys, nothing wrong with liking the TA152. Its a fascinating piece of machinery no doubt.
Just got me to thinking about late war rides and criteria. More than a few allied uber rides I would exclude too. Im more a "mid war fan" I guess.
And no, im not advocating its removal, its already in the sim. So keep it.
Personally, If I were big on all things LW, I would be polishing a 190D-9, that actually saw a lot of combat and is an excellent fighter. Many LW aces flew it, like Gunther Rall, but I know thats not news.
Later.
The 190 cockpit art isn't to the level of the newer planes either. But I am sure they will get around to it.
-
Originally posted by K West
"Kurt Tank described it as acceleration very rapidly, something that it sure doesn't do now."
Wasn't the plane he was in, when he ran from two stangs and which lead to that description, basically an unarmed aircraft only fueled for the hop he was taking?
Westy
Westy the plane Tank was in had guns just no ammo loaded. As he wanted to remain a "civilian". I have done a few tests and even when u unload hte ammo it still is slow as a turtle in acceleration. I wish Pyro would clarify this for us. Or maybe look into the 152 and its acceleration and speeds.
-
The chart says "Start- und Notleistung" (for all 3 engines) which means *with* WEP. The only thing amiss I see is that the 152 in Aces High lacks a bit of speed above 40k and is a bit faster than it should be at lower altitudes. Since the chart also claims these planes had 3x30mm and 4x20mm (I want! I want! :D ) and our 152 "only" has 1x30mm and 2x20mm it's perfectly reasonable to see a slightly higher speed. And the 'lack' of speed above 40k.. well... it's enough to run away from buffs which would slaughter you at that alt and your're still holding all the cards against every other fighter who cares to enter your domain. Instead of trying to convice HTC to give our 152 more (useless) speed at hi alt, let's try to get a C-series 152. Better perfomance at lower alt and thus far more usefull for the main ;)
-
Letwolf, it's not only that it's too slow at 35k+, it's that AH's max speed IS at 35k while the real one had it's max speed at about 41k.
35k was it's maximum boost altitude for the engine, only GM1 brought it up in speeds of 472 mph above 35k, GM1 definatly seems to be either badly modelled, or not modelled at all.
Lie Sachs said, Kurt Tank's Ta 152 was armed but not loaded, I posted the story with Kurt Tanks own words in another thread. The P51's came diving down from higher alt, Kurt Tank engaged the WEP and pulled away.
In AH the Ta152 can't pull away from a fat bumble bee without wings.
-
Originally posted by Wilbus
In AH the Ta152 can't pull away from a fat bumble bee without wings.
One of the funniest things I have read on here in sometime. Still chuckling. Wilbuz I will post that site as well. THought I had it written down and my favorites is cleared shouldn't take long. :D
-
Originally posted by Wilbus
Letwolf, it's not only that it's too slow at 35k+, it's that AH's max speed IS at 35k while the real one had it's max speed at about 41k.
35k was it's maximum boost altitude for the engine, only GM1 brought it up in speeds of 472 mph above 35k, GM1 definatly seems to be either badly modelled, or not modelled at all.
Lie Sachs said, Kurt Tank's Ta 152 was armed but not loaded, I posted the story with Kurt Tanks own words in another thread. The P51's came diving down from higher alt, Kurt Tank engaged the WEP and pulled away.
In AH the Ta152 can't pull away from a fat bumble bee without wings.
Don't get me wrong, i don't say you're wrong on this and I'm grateful for your effort of digging up this speed chart. I wouldn't mind having a top speed at higher alt if that's closer to its real life performance. The only thing i mean is that it doesn't change much in terms of the 152s usability and characteristics in the main or in scenarios and I'd rather have better performance at lower alts (thus a 152-C ;) ) than getting an even bigger advantage up high.
As for the story of Kurt Tanks 152 pulling away from 2 ponies: I've seen this been quoted many times but I've always had my doubts that he would've been able to escape if the ponies *really* wanted to catch him. I think it's an example of real world versus a simulator/game environment. The P-51 pilots see a plane, bounce it, but instead of listening to the moan of their plane in power dives like we do in the sim, throttling back not to overshoot and to keep diving speeds and stress to their airframe low and end up behind a 152 who desperately tries to escape at even speed. Now all three planes engange wep and what do the pony pilots see? the 152 is pulling away. They realize it's a long way home and decide to break off instead of exposing their engine which is supposed to bring them back to a huge stress in a long chase.
And in real life the only thing the 152 needs to "pull away" is exactly the same acceleration as the P-51. Why? It's the same effect as in motor racing: the higher the speed the bigger the distance between two cars even if the distance in time remains the same. I believe that's what the pony pilots have seen and thus decided to break off. This can be reproduced in AH too:
I've done a quick test with the P-51D and the 152: at lo alts both planes need approx. 36seconds to accelerate from 200mph to 300mph. Enough for Kurt Tank to escape in real life, not enough in Aces High for the 152 since the chasing pilot exactly knows his plane *is* faster in the end and it won't break if he's demanding 100% from his ride. Plus there's no scent of injury or even death if he screws up - a huge difference between the sim and real life.
my 0.02 € :D
-
Great info.....I guess. Would look even better in the correct forum.
-
Also,
From the same book on the Ta-152 series, the following figures were given for a Ta-152H-0, which is lighter than a Ta-152H-1. It doesn't clarify, but I am assuming the lower speed is without boost and the higher speed is with boost. Also, these speeds would 'obviously' be higher for the H-0 than the H-1 due to the
H-0's lower weight;
Alt (M) Speed (KPH)
2100 390-430
2400 450-470
2700 490-510
3100 550
I would trust that data as a reference more so than the Ta-152A data, as the Ta-152A had the short wing.
-
My Main concern with Ah's Ta152 is that from the get go the auxiliary non Self Ceiling wing tanks are filled with fuel.
I posted a thread a while back with the recommended fuel loadouts the ta152H-1 would have used in the Winter of '45,which would be similarly loade in the same fashion the P51's aux tank is filled this might give the TA152 some help in the performance department without tweaking the model itself,by re arranging the way the fuel is set up in this plane and it might aliviate some of the problems in ragards to wing weakness.
-
Roger Letwolf, however, they didn't brake off all that soon, but you may very well be right. There were some TA152's that were very at the deck though (Ta152H's NOT one of those).
Sundog, the Ta152H-0 didn't use any MW 50 or GM1 boost at all thus the speed down low of a TA152H-1 will be higher since the H1 used both MW50 and GM1.
The TA152H-0 used a Jumo 213E engine which wasn't ready for these kind of boost systems, The TA152H-1 used a Jumo 213E-1 which was fully ready for these boost systems.
Also, max speed in level flight doesn't quite change with weight, can test it with different fuel loadout, acceleration however in level flight is changed, the heavier it is the more power is needed to pull it. The H1 was quite much heavier but most of the new weight was the fuel.
-
Thanks Wilbus, all good points. I like flying the current Ta-152H-1 anyway, as many underestimate what it can do :) Not to mention it just looks good!
-
Rgr Sundog, love the plane aswell :)
But want it right ;)