Aces High Bulletin Board
General Forums => Aces High General Discussion => Topic started by: Wilbus on September 15, 2002, 03:20:32 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 (short winged version, not H but good to show engine performance) 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
-
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.
-
Didnt Kurt Tank invent the Tank? :D
-
Every time you post a new thread about the Ta-152, HTC moves the date that they will look into it back another six months. Expect HTC to examine the Ta-152 model sometime in the mid-23nd century.
-
Thats uncalled for Montezuma!!!!!!!
HTC usually responds well to their customers IMO.
Insulting them wont help the Ta152's case so please dont do it.
I hope HTC fixes the Ta152.
-
For Pyro
-
YEAH PUNT LOL
:D
-
Originally posted by Wilbus
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.
1000 pounds!!! Holy smoke! Anyone remember what 800 pounds did to the F4U-1C? Remember when Pyro discovered the chog was too light?
I want the Ta-152 right - at least as right as possible without porking anything. Maybe if you removed the 1000 poounds or added the injection systems (and left the weight in) we would get an accurate picture of its performance.
Thanks, Wilbuz.
Please Pyro? :)
curly
-
-
I think the thing is already uber.
-
Originally posted by -ammo-
I think the thing is already uber.
Isn't it supposed to be? :)
-
Not Uber in any way ammo, not fast enough to outrun most planes, all l planes keep up with it in the acceleration. Sure in the long run it outruns P47's and F4u's and slower but that's about it. Climb speed is almost 1k per minute under.
Can't outturn anything. It's undermodelled, very undermodelled.
-
up again.
-
VV
-
If its undermodeled, then it certainly be on the list to get fixed.
Yes turbot:) It is supposed to be.
I was fighting glasses the other night, we were at around 22K, well I was. He was around 26K making diving attacks at my d25. I would slip out of his guns and and convert to his 6. There was no catching that thing. It just rocketed away. All I am saying is that the P-47 is no slouch at that altitude, and that TA152 made me look like hurricane:)
-
The spit XIV should be unperked.
-
Yup ammo, it's good up high, not as it should be though, a spitfire Mk 9 still outperforms it (Mk 9 actually outclimbs and outturns it at 37k).
-
Originally posted by Wilbus
Yup ammo, it's good up high, not as it should be though, a spitfire Mk 9 still outperforms it (Mk 9 actually outclimbs and outturns it at 37k).
well maybe the spit9 will outclimb it at that altitude, but if that is true, likely a Jug will as well. But, that TA will still outpace all of them up there. As for turning at that altitude...Why?? Its an energy game up there.
-
OK, Can I get 422mph Ki-84? :)
-
Yup, but either add MW50 and GM1 or remove the 1000-1200 pounds that is too much and niether the spit 9 nor the P47 are likely to outclimb it up there.
just saying it's porked, pretty bad too.
-
Originally posted by -ammo-
well maybe the spit9 will outclimb it at that altitude, but if that is true, likely a Jug will as well. But, that TA will still outpace all of them up there.
Don't forget ammo, the Ta152 is perked. Furthermore, it appears to be porked. :) The Ta152 is supposed to outperform the jug at 30k. Heh, I doubt the Ta152 would hold a light to "lucky" at 30k tho. :)
curly
-
Originally posted by AKcurly
The Ta152 is supposed to outperform the jug at 30k.
curly
Is that the jug with or without the 4 bladed paddle prop? ;)
BTW finished Thunderbolt by Robert Johnson, great read!
-
Ta152 H-1 would outperform about every fighter in the world at the time above 30k and many bellow.
The performance of the Ta152 above 30k, was on the limit of what is possible using piston engines. There were faster planes but non with better high altitude performance.
-
Please fix this. I think it would reinstate a worthy cause in the long run. Maybe I am speaking my mind here.... actually I am, hold on getting in fight with left brain. (Poke) ok now where was I. Might instill some confidence in the Axis crowd if the 152 was looked at or maybe even recognized by Pyro that it is porked. I know my faith would be restored to a more pleasing level.
-
Isnt this in the wrong forum?
-
Originally posted by sling322
Isnt this in the wrong forum?
No, Sling. You're drunk again. Check with Urchin - I think he has your underwear.
Although I am flying the jug exclusively this tour (I've never flown one plane exclusively,) I really like the LW iron. There's nothing meaner looking than an A5 bearing down on a feller. :)
Somebody plz fix the Ta152 and I'll buy Pyro two free tickets to Miz Gracie's "Honk and Hollar Bordello."
curly
-
Will be interesting to try ta152 with "unporked" fm. Shall be really nice plane to fly. Both faster and with good climb, better turner also.
Should be a 80 perks plane, if it as good as you describe it :) So, wilbuz, think twice, do you really want it unporked? :)
-
Yes Fariz, I sure want it unporked!
If made to an H-0, it will turn alot better, weight difference is almost 1200 lbs. Climb better too, if made to an H-1, will climb better (should) and be faster at all alts thanks to MW50 and GM1 (should).
Both would accelerate better I think thanks to either MW50/GM1 or to lower weight.
Wouldn't beat Tempest down low I am pretty sure, not in speed atleast.
-
up!
-
I seem to recall the Ta-152H had higher wing loading than the Fw190D-9, but out turned the Dora due to diffrences in power/weight ratio... is this true?
If it is true, what's it like in AH? Us sucky pilots don't get a lot of chance to really use those perk planes in combat.. :D
-
Will outturn the Dora as it is now.
Add the MW50 and GM1 injections or remove the extra 1200 lbs the H-1 had and it will turn very well.
-
what are you doing down here?
Up!!!
-
-
Originally posted by AKcurly
No, Sling. You're drunk again. Check with Urchin - I think he has your underwear.
curly
Oh GROSS... I thougt that was my tanktop. I was wondering why it had that brown streak running down the back....
-
up!
-
punt for the Luftwhin.....errr.....luftwee nies.:D
-
:D
-
:D :D
-
"When Kurt Tank was attacked in a Ta 152H prototype over Rechlin by P51D he escaped by accerlating - the P51 couldn´t follow. The Ta 152 was produced in 26 prototypes and 67 pre-series aircraft - one of the prototypes already tested the new Mg213 revolver-cannons, which were the base for todays ADEN and DEFA-cannons.. The I/JG 301 should be equipped with the new fighter, but never got enough planes. So the Ta152 were sent to group staff and used as fighter cover. They proofed to be excellent fighters, but still had "child´s decieses". The most popular Ta152H ace - Oberfeldwebel Willi Reschke - scored several kills flying the Ta152H. Among them there was a Tempest, which he downed by stallfighting in low altitude near Berlin. He was able to outturn the Tempest and the allied pilot tried to circle too hard leading into a stall and into crash.
Sources
"Fighters of World War 2" Orbis Publishing Ltd 1998
german reprint by Weltbild and Bechtermünz Verlag 1998
"The big aerial battles of WW2 - planes, victories, defeats" by Aerospace Publishing Ltd.
german reprint by Neuer Kaiser Verlag GmbH Klagenfurt "
cut & pasted by me from http://www.fortunecity.de/kunterbunt/ostsee/122/190_4.htm
adding another one:
"Near the end of 1944, Kurt Tank himself had a narrow escape while flying one of his Ta 152Hs. He was flying from Langenhagen near Hannover to attend a meeting at the Focke-Wulf plant in Cottbus. His plane carried armament, but no ammunition. Shortly after takeoff, he was jumped by four Mustangs. Tank pressed the button which activated his MW 50 boost, opened the throttle wide, and quickly left the Mustangs far behind in a cloud of blue smoke.
Sources:
Warplanes of the Third Reich, William Green, Doubleday, 1971.
Famous Fighters of the Second World War, William Green, Doubleday 1967.
The Focke-Wulf 190--A Famous German Fighter, Heinz Nowarra, Harleyford, 1965.
"
Cut/pasted from http://www.csd.uwo.ca/~pettypi/elevon/baugher_other/ta152.html
-
If perking planes is to limit numbers in arena - current perk for Ta-152 is about right as it seems about as many 152's die in a tour as were built in WW2. But clearly the Ace High 152 isn't turning in stories like you see above.
-
editted then
-
Turbot, I'll give you Kurt Tank's exact words about the story where he was attacked by the P51's later, will post it in this forum.
To add a thing, nothing to do with this story though. Ta152's was, despite what has been said, never used to cover 262's during take off and landing nor did they cover any other planes during take off and landing.
And no, Ta152 in AH come nowhere near any of those combat reports.
Fariz, that was totally uncalled for.
-
Nope 152's were never used to cover the jets. The D series was used to cover them. I ave read books on JV44 Platzschutzstaffel and the D-9's they had pus one nice lil D-11 were souped up and would make the la-7 cringe in fear if those doras were added. I thin it was Fabers D-9 that comes to mind he had to pick it up from a barn or something, but the guy that had it in his possesion stated it was a special bird.
Also accounts of stories of the other pilots who would scream in on the deck with lil fear in their new birds. They never flew above 1500 feet and that just shows you that it wasn't the average D-9 either :)
-
The Ta 152 in Aces High is with MW-50. You can see it in the AH performance charts with the large difference between military and emergency settings. The Jumo 213E produced a lot of power with the MW-50, but it wasn't especially powerful at its military rating. There's an engine chart in the book you're pulling your other charts from. The comparison chart you scanned is just an unreferenced table in the book, so the numbers don't necessarily fit together. In fact, just looking at it now, I can see problems with it. Look at the weight and power. The way the chart reads, you'd think a 12000+ lb P-51(max internal fuel + 2 1000lb bombs) would be able to climb at 3500+ fpm while only using military power(no wep). As you can see, numbers can't automatically be related together. An author can put together a table of specs and individually, they may all be correct enough, but that doesn't mean they're all in the same context.
-
Hi Pyro
No mention of GM1, this green 9 model didn't have it?
-
Rgr Pyro, thanks for answering.
What about the GM1 though? The speed is quite much off acording to the speeds the H-1 did reach using GM1 above 35,000 feet.
Both that and it reaches it's max speed at the same alt as the real life H-0 did (bout 33-35k), right below the maximum boost altitude.
Is the GM1 modelled?
-
Originally posted by Wilbus
To add a thing, nothing to do with this story though. Ta152's was, despite what has been said, never used to cover 262's during take off and landing nor did they cover any other planes during take off and landing.
I happen to have documentation that says the TA152 was used to cover me262s during takeoff and landing, "Warplanes of the Luftwaffe" by David Donald. Not trying to start an argument just letting you know it is printed.
-
The book is wrong PvtPylys, I have it too. It's a myth, much like the one with Mk 103 30mm gun in 109 K etc.
Overall the book is very good though.
-
(http://www.geocities.com/rasmusm2000/Speedchart.jpg)
(http://www.geocities.com/rasmusm2000/Finalproductionspeed.jpg)
-
From table if I understand it right:
10700 meters alt is 35104.56 feet
732 kph = 454.94 MPH w/ MW50
9500 meters alt is 31167.59 feet
755 kph = 469.23 MPH w/ GM1
From chart I determine sea level speed (I don't understand what boost is on in the chart where I am reading this but here is number:
554.5 kph or 344.62 mph
This number is closest to the w/o boost number on Aces High chart which near as I can make out:
AH Ta 152 at 330 mph
(or so no graduations on chart for precise measure). This documentation (assuming this is official german document?)would seem to indeed show the AH 152 H-1 is slow by a significant measure or some 15 mph even at sea level?
(I don' t understand at all even to guess the other words)
In any case where I am most curious is how do you determine acceleration? This is where I feel our 152 doesn't live up to what I read about.
-
Originally posted by Turbot
From table if I understand it right:
10700 meters alt is 35104.56 feet
732 kph = 454.94 MPH w/ MW50
9500 meters alt is 31167.59 feet
755 kph = 469.23 MPH w/ GM1
From chart I determine sea level speed (I don't understand what boost is on in the chart where I am reading this but here is number:
554.5 kph or 344.62 mph
This number is closest to the w/o boost number on Aces High chart which near as I can make out:
Looking at the AH Chart (that Wilbus still had that goes to 35K) I got these speeds :
Alt Military Power/ Wep
AH Chart 35K 451/456
You just posted:
35104.56 feet 455 MPH w/ MW50
That seems pretty close to me.
AH Chart 31K 436 / 456
you just posted:
31167.59 feet 469.23 MPH w/ GM1
Possibly 13 mph off or ~3% from your charted speed. That seems reasonably close (but obviously off a bit) to me as well.
0K 333 / 366
You posted 344 but you don't know if it is WEP or non-WEP?
(I don't understand what boost is on in the chart
So the AH aircraft is either 11 mph too slow (~3% again) or it is 22 mph too fast (~6%)?
Which are you saying?
Do all of these numbers check with what you are trying to tell Pyro?
-
Probably one of the longest threads in the usenet flite-sim group was about P-51 and how its top speed was totally porked at altitude in WB. The difference was %5 too slow. Probably reached 500+ posts.
Back to the topic...
// fats
-
Originally posted by Toad
So the AH aircraft is either 11 mph too slow (~3% again) or it is 22 mph too fast (~6%)?
Which are you saying?
Do all of these numbers check with what you are trying to tell Pyro?
Maybe due to programming restrictions this is as close as they can model the actual speeds. However, you left off the last part of my original message - it's the acceleration that I have the most questions about.
-
Well then, do you have any documents that show acceleration from one speed to another at a particular altitude?
Have you compared these to the acceleraton of the AH Ta-152? Not tweaking you, it's just that if you have concerns, there's going to have to be some place to start, some place on can point to and then go from there.
Sorry for my mistake. Seems about 95% of your post dealt with speed at various altitudes.
-
Toad, don't think I have said the plane reached 469 mph at 31k, specially not with GM1.
GM1 injection was only used above the maximum boost altitude, which in the case of the Jumo 213 E engine, was 35k (10,700 meters to be exact).
The new red line I've put in on the old 30k+ chart shows the real Ta152 H-1 speed using GM1 injection at the best altitude (41k).
-
Originally posted by Turbot
From table if I understand it right:
10700 meters alt is 35104.56 feet
732 kph = 454.94 MPH w/ MW50
9500 meters alt is 31167.59 feet
755 kph = 469.23 MPH w/ GM1
From chart I determine sea level speed (I don't understand what boost is on in the chart where I am reading this but here is number:
554.5 kph or 344.62 mph
This number is closest to the w/o boost number on Aces High chart which near as I can make out:
AH Ta 152 at 330 mph
(or so no graduations on chart for precise measure). This documentation (assuming this is official german document?)would seem to indeed show the AH 152 H-1 is slow by a significant measure or some 15 mph even at sea level?
(I don' t understand at all even to guess the other words)
In any case where I am most curious is how do you determine acceleration? This is where I feel our 152 doesn't live up to what I read about.
-
Determining acceleration on a prop plane is very very complex. This (http://www.grc.nasa.gov/WWW/K-12/airplane/propth.html) link might help some, best I found at the moment, I know I have a better one that explains acceleration somewhere.
Determening acceleration on a prop planes isn't as easy as doing it for normal cars or jet planes as the prop it self servers as a rotating wing, it pulls the plane forward but it also slows it down, This is the reason gliders and jet accelerate very well (thinking about Gliders in dives) while prop planes takes longer time. Of course a WW2 fighter will outaccelerate a glider with eas though.
The prop is also the reason no Prop plane can ever go supersonic.
-
Originally posted by Wilbus
Toad, don't think I have said the plane reached 469 mph at 31k, specially not with GM1.
Didn't say you did.
Turbot said it:
Turbot:
9500 meters alt is 31167.59 feet
755 kph = 469.23 MPH w/ GM1
I merely pointed out that the old 35K AH chart you saved and you posted in another thread shows about 456 at that altitude. Not exact but not totally out of the ball park either.
-
Turbot, you made a post in which 95% of the comments relate to speeds that you have found on some chart.
Here's what you concluded after the major part of your post:
Turbo:
This documentation (assuming this is official german document?)would seem to indeed show the AH 152 H-1 is slow by a significant measure or some 15 mph even at sea level
I pointed out that your number makes the AH Ta-152 either too FAST or too SLOW... depending on which power rating your chart uses... which apparently you can't determine.
Further, you apparently don't know if it's an official source document or not.
So what would you have Pyro change based on this information you just provided?
It's too fast or too slow IF we can figure out which power setting is being used in the possibly official or possibly unofficial document.
This is what I've been saying in the other thread. Figure out WHAT it is you object to, QUANTIFY it over the altitude range and tell him where you got the information you are using.
Your post doesn't seem to do that.
So now it's not speed but acceleration, correct?
Well, as Wilbus pointed out that's a complex equation. Got any source documentation for those numbers? If not, what do you expect Pyro to do?
-
Hey I want those 13mph :D . Up again!
-
Here's the problem. You can "fudge" FM so that it will hit that particular point. But you don't really want an artificial "bump" in the graph do you?
Wouldn't you rather have the entire equation reworked so that EVERY point on the graph is good?
That's why I suggest you folks get the numbers at the cardinal altitudes on the AH chart. So Pyro can get the "big picture" on how the curves differ.
BTW, that number keeps coming up. Just what chart is it from and what is the "authenticity" (if you will) of the chart? Some charts are "official" projections of what the engineer think it will do before the first rivet is driven. Some charts are prototype tests. Some charts are production model tests.
Which one is that? I don't read German, so I'll have to take your word for it. ;)
-
up!
-
-
Wilbus,
I have this kicking around thought I would share with you. I like this chart because it shows the various engine setups.
And please no more Kurk Tank invented comments.. .
:D
-
Yes I have that chart too, I've posted it in this thread already. But why do you post it? Very hard to read your green text.
-
Sorry, must have missed it. It's hard to read because I had to reduce the size.
-
Scot :)