Aces High Bulletin Board
General Forums => Aircraft and Vehicles => Topic started by: Wilbus on September 15, 2002, 02:52:59 PM
-
All pictures messed up, posting link instead.
Ok, some more info about it, some tests that were made during the war in germany.
First out a speedchart with the Ta152 using 3 different engines.
The one using the Jumo 213 E is the one interesting for us. It's a Ta152 H-0, lacks the MW50 and (not sure about this on this particulair airplane) the GM1. Somebody better at german might wanna translate that.
http://www.geocities.com/rasmusm2000/Speedchart.jpg
Second out is a chart with some of the different Ta152's.
http://www.geocities.com/rasmusm2000/Finalproductionspeed.jpg
-
All pictures messed up, will post the link instead.
http://www.geocities.com/rasmusm2000/Comparioson.jpg
Last out, and maybe the most interesting as it shows the same thing as the other two charts but adds the climb speed at the deck.
The Ta152 being used is a Ta152 H-0, it doesn't have MW50 nor GM1 injection making it a bit lighter then the H-1 but takes away a couple of hundred horse powers.
This chart is a comparion between the Spitfire Mk XIV, P51 D and Ta152 H-0.
As you can see both the P51 and Spitfire XIV are pretty much spot on, both acording to other data available and AH.
Spitfire Mk XIV speed at the deck as shown on this German test, is 574 km/h, that is 358 Mph. That is right on the chart on HTC's webpage.
The P51 D is shown as 600 Km/h at the deck, that makes 375 mph, AH's does 370 mph. (Unpork the P51 D! :D )
Still, that's pretty close.
P51 D shows as 18 m/s climb rate at the deck, our P51 D does 17.17 m/s. This could be that the P51 D in the test is a non bubble canopy P51 (one of the earlier D modells).
Spitfire in AH climbs better then the 23 m/s, AH does about 24,7 m/s.
Karnak, can you confirm this? I am having trouble finding the climb speed for our Spit XIV in the Spitfire bible.
Ok, enough of the ranting, you can see for your selves.
Conclusion
The Ta152 modelled in AH, is infact the Ta152 H-0, lacking the so important MW50 and GM1 injections that the H-1 had.
However, it has been modelled with the Weight of the H-1, inlcuding the wing fuel tanks which is atleast one of the reason that it climbs like a rock and accelerates really bad. Think about it, add 1000 lbs to a plane without giving it some kind of extra power boosting of bigger engine, both the climb rate and acceleration will suffer.
All speeds of the charts I've shown have about the same speed as the one in AH, all the charts I've shown show the H-0, some the H-1 aswell.
-
Let's hope you can find all the pictures there, should be three, don't know how reliable that homepage provider is.
-
Nope, images refuse to be posted here for me. Will have to watch them normal, paste the URL in the browser.
-
Wilbuz, interesting info, but i think your are wrong with two things.
The original speedchart is for a TA152C or E, cause it hast only a wing area of 19,5m² but the TA152H had 23,3m².
The DB powered is the TA152C and the JUMO powered is the TA152E.
So those speeds are NOT for a TA152H.
And the comparison table is not a german test, it looks like a table published in a book, that compares the acutal plane data know to the author from official sources. Thats also the reason why the speed of the Spit XIV matches exatly HTC charts, cause i am sure they both relate to the same source.
-
Speed difference between the C and the H weren't very great, depended on engine only almost.
-
what were the differences in the numbers between the C and the H? Did they use different engines?
-
http://www.fourthfightergroup.com/eagles/spittest.html
Bible of Spit performance
-
H used Jumo 213 E and Jumo 213 E-1 (H-0 used E-0 and H-1 used E-1).
C used DB603 LA engines. Giving them a max speed of 385mph at the deck.
The C was the destroyer version, ment to replace all twin engined destroyers. The plane had armament which consisted of all the way from 2xMg151's to 4xMg151's and 2x30mm.
It also had a shorter wing as Naudet said, basicly the same 190 wing but slightly lenghtened.
Only 2 C's ever saw action.
Thanks funked :)
-
Punt for Wil!!!
-
Funked posted the same link I would have.
Spit14 climbs on the numbers.
-
I found a picture of a ta 152 helmet original design
Right now the helmet is way undermodelled.
Actualy it sux way IMHO !!
:mad:
Pyro Superfly hiTech fix it now
;)
-
Originally posted by Karnak
Funked posted the same link I would have.
Spit14 climbs on the numbers.
yep, right on the numbers for a 2000-2200PS Spitfire at ground, but keeping this performance up to 10-12k where the "Boscomb Spit" would already lose power at 2k.... yeah, right on the numbers...
niklas
-
Looks pretty close to me. Maybe you can point out errors.
Max. rate of climb in MS supercharger gear 5,110 ft/min. at 1,700 ft.
Max. rate of climb in FS supercharger gear 3,600 ft/min. at 21,800 ft.
Time to 10,000 ft. 2.3 mins.
Time to 20,000 ft. 5.1 mins.
Time to 30,000 ft. 8.35 mins.
Time to 40,000 ft. 15.05 mins.
Rate of climb is 1,000 ft/min. at 38,900 ft.
(http://www.hitechcreations.com/models/charts/spit14climb.gif)
Looks like the Spitfire Mk XIV in AH climbs at about 5,100fpm at 2,000ft and about 3,600fpm at 22,000.
In MS supercharger gear 391 mph at 5,050 ft.
In FS supercharger gear 446 mph at 25,400 ft
(http://www.hitechcreations.com/models/charts/spit14speed.gif)
It doesn't look like it hits 391mph at 5,000ft though.
Overall the performance of the AH Spitfire Mk XIV matches this very well.
-
Yes it does Karnak and it matches the test report I posted very well aswell except for climb speed being a bit lower, which makes me wounder even more why both the spit 14 and P51 D are pretty close, while the Ta152 is way off in many ways.
It's a Ta152 H-0 for sure, with about 1000-1200 pounds too much weight. Add the MW50 and GM1 (they gave around 300-450 HP more) or remove the weight and the wing tanks.
-
Naudet, the speed of the Ta152 in that test report or book report is suported by actual test reports, the reason I chose that one is that it's far easier to read and understand.
-
Well Karnak, where is in the Spitfire Test Link the peak for the 1st gear, and where is it in AH?
But ok, after the farce with the 109E/Spit I rollrate i´m not surprised anymore. Sad sad, i had a good feeling about AH fairness so far.
And again, they reduced the gear ratio of the charger for the boscomb spit, what means there was more power available.
And they prepared the spit a bit, muzzle sealing and so on, no antenna?? Strange, with 2000-2200 PS and very fine finish just 362mph. Well, doesn´t sound exaggerated at least. But of course the spit was the aircraft with the highest Mach number in dives LOL.
niklas
-
up for Mr Pyro
-
wilbus, on chart it states spit 14 climbing to 6km ( about 18k ) in 7 minutes. That's way off. Even spit 5 made it to 20k in 7 minutes.
Spit 14 should be above 25k after 7 minutes. Most figures i've seen put it at 20k in close to 4.5 minutes.
And No, mustang has no right to climb anywhere near the spitfire :)
-
CC Fdski, climb on that test for the spit seams off, don't know why, speed is more or less right on though. P51 is pretty much right on, Ta152 is way off.
-
And they prepared the spit a bit, muzzle sealing and so on, no antenna??
Muzzle sealing was standard for every Spitfire on every flight. It consisted of red tape over the gun ports on the leading edge, and a rubber sleve (condoms could be used in an emergency) over the cannon barrels.
The purpose was to stop debris blocking the barrel on takeoff. When the pilot fired, the muzzle tape/sleeve was torn away.
If this was an attempt at creating better figures than the production Spit, the mirror would have been the first thing to go.
Strange, with 2000-2200 PS and very fine finish just 362mph
Are you back to claiming reducing FTH increased power to 2200 bhp? I thought you'd agreed that was wrong?
But of course the spit was the aircraft with the highest Mach number in dives LOL.
The Spit had substantially thinner wings than almost every other fighter. It SHOULD have had a higher critical mach than most other planes. Why are you so suprised it did?
-
oh cool, does this mean the spit pilot in AH should have either the current speed WITHOUT fireing or 5mph less AND the possibillity to shoot? But i already wrote topspeed is ok, i just wanted to point out that this spit was prepared.
2000-2200hp, definitly. I never said something different, though the power increase surprised me too. But the doc of the russian am-38 test convinced me that supercharger take indeed a lot of power.
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.
Spit had in 2nd gear of the supercharger in the middle 1700PS (see atachment, oh and compare critical altitude of 1st gear to the boscomb spit again...)
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
But wait, we didn´t take prop efficiency into account. In this case we have to divide it, because 385PS refer to the power of the propeller. But we are interested in the engine power. Let´s assume an excellent(!) efficiency for climbs: 0.85
385/0.85 = 450PS
So the boscomb spit-14 had at least 1700+450 = 2150PS.
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.
PERIOD
Next problem, the mach number. Looks like the unique "the elliptical wing explains all" argument there comes another one, "the thinner wing explains everything". Unfortunatly not true. Mach effects show already up at Mach0.4- 0.5 in certain areas. 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.
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.
You know how that "the spit is the fasted aircraf in the world" hype began? The Aeroplane, Nr. 1495, 19.1.40. A spit pilot claimed that he exceeded 600mph in a dive. How? He became unconscious, when recovering he was in a vertical climb at 400mph. Someone assumed that he must have been faster than 600mph in the dive....
This is how the story of the "fastest fighter in the world" began. Even the english author raises doubts, aerodynamically, and physically, because a pilot who recovers from a blackout can´t read exact speeds and altitudes.
But what happened? The newspapers picked up this story and made a big propaganda story out of it, speaking from the "fastest fighter of the world". Based on such a unscientific proof. 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.
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....
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.
Substantial lower critical mach number? Sorry, 12 to 14-15% isn´t substantial.
You want a comparison of critical mach numbers? Check http://naca.larc.nasa.gov/reports/1945/naca-report-824/index.cgi?page114.gif
As you can see in the following pages for the 24xx series or 230 series ( the closest airfoils to common ww2 airfoils), the difference is very very small between 15 and 12%. Having the biggest point already at 20%, the spit airfoil is probably a bit worse than the 24xx. And actually at zero lift the 15% 230 airfoil is better (cl = 0) .... (2R1 is basically an early 230xx)
And again, the wing is only a part of an aircraft. Cooler, engine-wing mounting, nose shape etc - this is all very important. And the spit showed already at normal speeds that it wasn´t the best design for really high speeds. And it didn´t had a high wingloading. 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 !!!! LOL. What a joke.
niklas
-
Jesus Christ niklas.
What the got up your ass?
You're reacting as though we said that the Spit XIV was fine, but you're precious Ta152 was overmodeled. Look, I agree that the Ta152H-1 is seriously undermodeled and have said so many times. Now if you want to start a "Pork the Spitfire Mk XIV" campaign, well, I'll just have to start pointing out ways in which IT is undermodeled (yes, there are errors that reduce the Spit XIV's usefullness, though not as badly as the Ta152H-1).
Show me one shred of evidence that having the guns unsealed knocked 5mph off the Spit's speed? That's absolutely ludicrious.
Effing fanatics.
-
Niklas don't Hi-jack mate :-)
-
lol!:)
-
I've been reading these threads and I'm sorry but I'm not certain what you have found in error.
Yeah, I'm just not very smart. So humor me please.
Just in case Pyro were to check in here to see what the problem is can you spell it out plain and simple?
For example if you think the deck speed is off, can you post what the AH No Wep Deck Speed is, what the AH WEP deck speed is, what you think the No WEP RL Deck Speed is and what the RL WEP deck speed is? And could you say what you're using to substantiate your claim? Links if you have them?
If you could list the major gripes that way then Pyro could just glance in here and see where your beefs are.
I'll tell you this... it's hard for me to see exactly what you want.. I see generalities "too slow", "not enough climb rate" but I don't see specifics.
I'm guessing Pyro doesn't have the time to read 5 threads full of generalities looking for what bothers you folks.
Just a suggestion. I personally think it would really help your cause.
-
oh cool, does this mean the spit pilot in AH should have either the current speed WITHOUT fireing or 5mph less AND the possibillity to shoot? But i already wrote topspeed is ok, i just wanted to point out that this spit was prepared.
You don't seem to understand. Every Spitfire was prepared in this way for every flight.
It's tape over the muzzles, not armour plate. You fire, the bullets pass through the tape with no problem.
-
Toad, there are quite a few things that are way off and very porked. One, all the speeds, and speeds at altitude, more or less matches the Ta152 H-0.
(http://www.geocities.com/rasmusm2000/ta152hspeed2.gif)
If that immage doesn't work then here is the address
http://www.geocities.com/rasmusm2000/ta152hspeed2.gif
That is the old 30k+ AH chart for the Ta152, why Pyro has removed the 30k+ charts from the webpage is something I really don't understand, requested by HT to talk to Pyro and get them back but since we haven't I guess Pyro has his reason.
New black line = TA152 in AH max speed aswell as R/L Ta152 H-0 Max speed.
New Red line indicates TA152 H-1 max speed iun real life using GM1 injection.
ALL Ta152 H-1's used both MW50 (for alts bellow 10,700 meters, 35,000 feet MW50 was used, above that GM1).
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).
Ta152 H-0 climb speed at the deck was 20 m/s (4000 feet per minute).
Our Ta152 do 17.6 m/s (3500 feet per minute) so nomatter it's a Ta152 H-1 or H-0 the climb is porked. Don't have the exact climb speed for the H-1.
Rest of it, look a my pictures posted before. The speed chart (the one with lines) shows the engine perofrmance, planes are short winged Ta152's (A,B and C series) but shows the general performance of the engine and speeds are pretty close to that of the H.
So what's wrong in short? Max speed way off at WAY wrong altitude. No GM1 injection modelled.
Climb speed way off, reason: No MW50 modelled.
Ta152 H-0 has been modelled instead of the H-1 (MW50 and GM1 didn't exists on the H-0) all speeds at all alts confirm this. Reason Climb speed is bad. The extra weight of nearly 1200 lbs without any extra horse powers brings down the climb speed a great deal.
Fix: Remove 1200 lbs in weight and wing tanks and make it an H-0, climb speed would be increased and so would acceleration (acceleration is at the moment non existant in the Ta152 in AH).
OR (better) add the MW50 and GM1 thus make it a true Ta152 H-1.
-
The new black line of in my picture is actually about 1000 feet too high but no biggie.
-
My vote, if HTC should care to know, would be to add MW50 and GM-1 for a true Ta152H-1. That's be a nice little (OK, not so little) kite.
-
Same here Karnak.
-
"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,.............
-
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.
-
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.
-
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.
-
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 (http://www.geocities.com/rasmusm2000/190ta152etc.jpg)
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.
-
Second Chart (http://www.geocities.com/rasmusm2000/Finalproductionspeed.jpg)
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?
-
Wilbus.
Those charts are not accessable. Your links just bring up some Yahoo subscribtion dealy.
-
why dont we just have the name changed of our TA152 to the H0 model? It matches those stats pretty close, right?
-
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.
-
well, you gotta point for sure.
-
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 (http://mitglied.lycos.de/luftwaffe1/flugmechanik/fm_flughoehe.html)
and
here (http://www.jg53-pikas.de/Kurzbeschreibung.htm)
-
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.
-
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.
-
Nash and Niklas don't hijackmates :D
-
Let's try it this way:
(http://www.hitechcreations.com/models/charts/ta152hspeed.gif)
(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.
(http://www.hitechcreations.com/models/charts/ta152hclimb.gif)
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?
-
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.
-
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.
-
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.
-
But Naudet the Ta152H-0 never had MW50.
-
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.
-
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).
-
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)
-
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.
-
Thanks Wil ;)
-
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.
-
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.
-
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.
-
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!
-
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.
-
Both statements come straight from the book Wilbus, but I don't have the time to dig thru the book right now to quote a page or section.
-
That's why you need to chart your speeds into a curve; so it can easily be compared.
;)
-
I know what page it is Verm, doesn't say outright that's the reason the H-0 was the most numerous though.
It's in the engine section.
-
Btw Verm, nice to see you got the book :)
Do you like it?
-
up!
-
Wilbus, I've had the book for a long time :)
In fact, I was one of the first in the community to buy it (and definitely was the first one to start posting information from it) including all those nice charts :) After I started telling everyone about it, and showing all the neat diagrams and charts that it had, many people here bought it.
-
Never knew you had it verm, last time I asked you didn't...
It's the Ta152 book right? Not the one about Kurt Tank?
-
Yes the Ta152 book by Dietmar Harmann. It wasn't me that said I didn't have it, your mixing me up with someone else this time. Like I said, I believe I was the first to own it.
-
Possibly...
-
-
-
-
http://www.hitechcreations.com/forums/showthread.php?s=&postid=599797#post599797
-
I'd like to see the Ta152H-1 get it's GM-1 boost system working. Right now it seems the GM-1 system is just dead weight. Please look into this HTC.
Thanks.