Ta-152c
 

I have a question, is TA152 was more fast than FW D9, FW A9 and Mustang MK-III? More than 500km/h in fly stable at 6000? More than 350 at 10000? It Was the last FW, with 2100hp engine, were can i find data about?

Try this link:
http://www.google.com/search?q=Ta-15...ient=firefox-a

IN GAME velocity 4.09bm:

I did a litle test:
TA-152C,at 6000m, stable fly, no dive, no climb, with MW50, 50%fuel, rad open, full aceleration:

FW A9 480km/h ?
Mustang MK-III 490
109K C3 485
P47D 485

Ta152-C 475

Oleg only you can save this poor plane, at least +10km/h, my last ask, be shure!

can i just check. what is the fastest aircraft at low level in this game? the tempest? surely on paper it should be?

1. Mustang MK.III
2. FW190-D9 (Late)
3. Tempest MK.V

P.S., this is exluding all jets, rocket assisted and rare models.

Given the Ta-152C's powerband it should be faster than most prop fighters only at medium and higher altitudes. Despite its billing as a "low altitude" fighter...the term is used relatively...so really its a medium fighter and the 152H is a high fighter.

Numbers I get with 4.08 TA152C, Crimea, 50% Fuel, Rad Auto, MW50 110%, Default arm

Max Tas altitude 9000M
420Kmh IAS / 704Kmh TAS
440Kmh IAS / 735Kmh TAS (Rad closed)

6000m
470Kmh IAS / 670Kmh TAS

Sea Level
560Kmh IAS / 580Kmh TAS

the only real world numbers I could find for the TA152C-1with DB603LA engine are:

Sea level 560Kmh TAS

10,4000m 730Kmh TAS

12,300m 663Kmh TAS

Climb to 8000m 10minutes 12 seconds

* These values supposedly from Documents titled: "Weights and performance statistics recorded by Focke-Wulf Flugzeugbau GmBh January 1945" and tabulated in monogram Close up No 24 TA152"

They never bothered to give the Ta-152C it's historical wing, so is modeled with the smaller FW-190A wing, robing it of 1.3 square meters wing area.
This means the aircraft will be faster at low altitude, slower at higher altitude and worse in turn and climb.

This explains why the Ta-152C is flying the way it is in game. That's why is such a dog up high and every time you pull on that stick.
Remember the "too much speed" at low altitude when it came out? I don't think they bothered finding the reasom behind it.:roll:

The Tempest should be the fastest aircraft by far at low altitude, but the game does not model the +11 and +13 boost models, only the lesser produced early model.

As far as the TA-152C is concerned, only a TINY number flew, (compared to the thousands of Tempests) so any complaints about it should be taken with a LARGE grain of salt.

i agree that tempest should be fastest. i've been trying to outrun D9s at low altitude in spits v 109s thinking the tempest would be able to get away. won't do that again

In July 1944, Beaumont had his Wing using 150 fuel. At 500ft his a/c was doing 415mph.

Just keep it in the 1000 meter range and you'll be closer to the maximum speed in the stage 1 supercharger setting and be able to outrun almost everything. At sea level the FW190D-9 with MW50 (the 1945 model) is faster than pretty much everything...even the super fast La-7 is left in the dust at sea level.

First TA-152C is not more rare than Tempest +13, actually atleast for the TA-152C you can find some real data instead of anegdotal data for the Tempest+13, talking about grains of salt lol.
Also please do not make me laugh with "thousands of Tempests" statement, all Tempests together ever produced don't even reach 1500 and that's throughout the poduction including all models MkV and MkII and MkVI as later variants. Not to mention that if my memory serves me correctly there was about 800 MkV's produced ever, note - EVER, not just during the war. For comparision there was 1805 FW190D9's produced before the war ended.

You mean that calculated data for the DB603LA powered Ta152C?

Four prototypes of the Ta152C is a lot of a/c, be sure.

Where did I say that's a lot?

Actually there were over 1700 Tempests built, including the Tempest II's. Of course, only the Tempest V flew in combat, (801 built) but then, the TA-152C never saw combat either. 452 Tempest II's were finished prior to the end of WWII, compared to 4 TA-152C. They could have been rushed into combat, but the Allies were already well in control of the war in the air, so these aircraft were kept back for more comprehensive testing.

And who mentioned 190D9's? Certainly not me. Although by the way, many of those 1800+ D9's ended up stuck on factory floors and never made it to the Staffel, because of lack of transportation and fuel to get them to the airfields.

As far as real data for the higher boosted Tempest, does this look like 'anecdotal' data?:

http://www.wwiiaircraftperformance.o...wker-12lbs.jpg

394 mph at sea level. And that is a Sabre IIA engine at 3700 rpm. The game's Tempest barely does 376 mph.

The Sabre IIB with only +11 boost reved to 3850 rpm and produced more hp.

http://www.wwiiaircraftperformance.o...-sabre-IIb.jpg

410 mph at 4500 ft. The game's Tempest does 381 mph, 29 mph (46kph) slower.

Even the +11 boost Tempest would wipe the floor at low and medium alts with the TA's, or D9's.

Charts courtesy of Mike William's site.

Not according to Thomas and Shores in their book 'The Typhoon and Tempest Story'. They have 1399 Tempests built.

Contract B12148/39 - 300 built - Tempest Mk V
Contract ACTF/1640/C.23(a) - 2 built - prototypes
Contract ACTF/1876/C.23(a) - 100 built - Tempest Mk V
Contract ACTF/1986/C.23(a) - 2 built - prototypes
Contract ACTF/2439/C.23(a) - 50 built - Tempest I, built as Tempest II
Contract ACTF/2438/C.23(a) - 100 built - Tempest II
Contract ACTF/1876/C.23(a) - 200 built - Tempest Mk V
Contract ACTF/1876/C.23(a) - 142 built - Tempest Mk VI
Contract ACTF/2438/C.23(a) - 302 built - Tempest Mk II
Contract ACTF/1876/C.23(a) - 201 built - Tempest Mk V

http://i15.photobucket.com/albums/a3...Ta152Data1.jpg


http://i15.photobucket.com/albums/a3...Ta152Data2.jpg

Still, not even calculated data for 13lbs, probably because both Sabre engines couldn't handle 150 grade fuel as it's well documented in every book dealing with Tempests.
Sure they did tests with it, but engines couldn't deal with it, that's why full 11lbs came for SabreIIb which did not need 150 grade fuel for 11lbs.

Oh Brain, W/Cdr Roland Beamont had his Wing (3, 56, 486 Sqns) using 150 grade fuel and 11lb boost in July 1944.

Codex, nice chart but no Ta152 flew with the DB603L engine. The V 6, 7 and 8 used DB603E engines. Calculated numbers, they are.

If that is from the same book I think it is, you will also notice that was only emergency period during V1 threat and that after that due to numerous problems they reverted back to 9lbs until ofcourse they got IIb engine upgrades which allowed 11lbs without use of 150 grade fuel...

Nices posts here, i hope Oleg give the priority to revision on FM in 4.09, is a work were Oleg is the best, and this is the more important detail for the game.
What you think about the velocity Ta152-C in game?

Which source are you quoting? Here is my reference (apologies for the shots, I don't have a scanner) :razz:

http://i15.photobucket.com/albums/a3...n/DSC00095.jpg

http://i15.photobucket.com/albums/a3...n/DSC00096.jpg

http://i15.photobucket.com/albums/a3...n/DSC00097.jpg

http://i15.photobucket.com/albums/a3...n/DSC00098.jpg

http://i15.photobucket.com/albums/a3...n/DSC00099.jpg

http://i15.photobucket.com/albums/a3...n/DSC00100.jpg

http://i15.photobucket.com/albums/a3...n/DSC00101.jpg

http://i15.photobucket.com/albums/a3...n/DSC00102.jpg

http://i15.photobucket.com/albums/a3...n/DSC00103.jpg

http://i15.photobucket.com/albums/a3...n/DSC00104.jpg

Dieter Hermann's Ta 152 book, pg 127.

The Do 335 was also to get DB603L engines but never did.

Completely false.

If you look at this .pdf of a RAF report on the use of 150 grade fuel:

http://www.spitfireperformance.com/1.../appendixa.pdf

...you will see that the performance of the Tempests using 150 grade fuel and +11 boost was deemed:

"...very successful" No sign of the "...numerous problems..." Brain claims.

Oh geeez, and people wonder why Oleg stopped posting ROFL. So you picked one document that is pretty funny if you read it carefully.
First of all they announce no problems but immidiately in the first paragraph they mention spark fouling so OK not a big problem they say and then the document continues with a brief summary:
SpitIX/Merlin 66 - backfires!!! if that is not a problem then what is, Osama flying airshow program over BigBen? Ok so they believe this can be solved by retarding the ignition, believing in something will work and it actually workings is a bit different I would say...
If things were so great why reverting back immidiately after V1 threat stopped?

SpitXIV - no failures that could be associated by use of higher grade fuel hmm interesting, again: If things were so great why reverting back immidiately after V1 threat stopped? Just for reminders +21lbs never saw combat in the war(which ended about a year after that), while +25lbs never showed up. Why?

MustangIII - just read, even during the operations they had to lower the boost.

Tempest/SabreIIa - allegedly no problems, not what I've heard but OK even like this, why reverting back to 9lbs immidiately after V1 threat stopped? Also since I generally want to talk about 13lbs for which I claim was a rarity no lesser than TA-152C oe 109K4C3 this is what R. Dennis said about it:
"All our machines were fitted with Rotol airscrews when the maximum rpm were increased to 3,850 from 3,700 and boost to +13 from +11, as the DeHaviland airscrew could not absorb the added power and more than once shed a blade, with somewhat detrimental effects on the engine!"

Wow sounds really reliable, squadron service imminent - in Japan as Kamikaze lol

Also one note from most favourite site for certain types of people:
"The writers have not yet found any flight trials with engine limitations set at +13 lbs./sq.in. & 3,850rpm. We would be grateful if anyone having such material could contact us."
Yeah I really wonder why there is no such stuff lol

As of December 1944, I see 84 Tempest with the 2nd Tactical Air Force, and 20 in Britain, 64/16 were servicable at the time, this including Squadron reserves (ie. RAF Sqns were issued 20 aircraft, but of these 12 flew missions, the rest were reserves).

http://www.wwiiaircraftperformance.o...ov44-may45.jpg

Regarding +11 lbs boost on the Tempest, the transcript of an August 1944 RAF report has to say the following:

This documentation mentioned above

http://www.spitfireperformance.com/1.../appendixa.pdf

notes that at the end of the V-1 manace (September 1944) Tempest Squadrons reverted back to +9 lbs boost and 130 grade fuel.

Read again Kurfurst for it does not say that.

"..... it is their intention ......" That is planned.

Just have to love the selective reading of Brain and Kurfurst. So :(.

Brain, the Shackelton, powered by Griffons, used 25lb boost. So, 610 Sqn never saw combat, LOL. Can you tell me of any other a/c that lost a prop blade that wouldn't cause an engine to destruct? Oh wait, German a/c never would.

And where exactly did you read that? They were testing +21lbs, no mention of actual combat use let alone +25lbs boost either testing or even less so operational use.

What does this have to do with anything, it's exactly the silly comments like this that contribute NOTHING! Why don't you read what I wrote again and see just WHY was the blade shed...

The one with silly comments that contribute nothing is you Brain.

R. Dennis:
"All our machines were fitted with Rotol airscrews when the maximum rpm were increased to 3,850 from 3,700 and boost to +13 from +11, as the DeHaviland airscrew could not absorb the added power and more than once shed a blade, with somewhat detrimental effects on the engine!"

Meaning, they changed to the "Rotol" (brand name) airscrews when the "DeHaviland" (brand name) airscrews proved to be a problem. They ditched the airscrews, they don't say in that passage that they reverted from the boost.

There may be documents somewhere that say they did, but so far I haven't seen any quoted text in this thread that says they did.:)

Reverted? I would like to see they even used +13lbs at all before we start talking about reverting LOL

Can't be said in any plainer English > boost increased to +13lb.

So Brain, what other engines would not suffer detrimental damaged from loosing a prop blade.

LOL, even your LW increased the prop blade size on their a/c when extra power was developed from the engines.

Once again, Kurfurst tries to have the exception prove the rule, and once again, he strives to remake history according to his 'interpretations'.

He presents an August 1944 test.

The test notes the poor quality of the submitted aircraft, ie. non-representative of the typical Tempest which were being re-equipped with the Sabre IIB, an engine which could use +11 boost even without 150 octane, as noted in this clearance issued by the RAF in Jan. '45.

http://www.wwiiaircraftperformance.o...-for-150-1.jpg

Subsequently, boost of +11 became standardized, as well as the increased RPM limit of 3850, as noted in the Aircraft chart issued to pilots and mechanics.

Although it has already been seen this thread, I will post the chart again, for those who have trouble reading.

http://www.wwiiaircraftperformance.o...-sabre-IIb.jpg

Note the date on the chart: 2/2/45

Ie. many months after Kurfurst claims the Tempests reverted back to +9 boost we find the Tempest official aircraft card, which as noted: "...cancels and supercedes all previous cards issued on this aircraft.", allowing +11 boost... isn't that amazing, but of course in certain imaginary worlds we should defer to the opinion of someone who wasn't even there, instead of the technical supervisors who actually maintained the aircraft... ;)

And he is right, on the document you posted it clearly says it's a SabreIIb engine which did not need 150 grade fuel to run +11lbs.

Not at all, I knew that for a very long time :)

And that's like a proof? LOL I saw German document that said boost was increased to 2.02ATA for 109K4 too

And where excatly did I EVER say that?Why are you making things up? Do you want to discuss or just prowoke a verbal fight with me and possibly Kurfurst?

If you continue with this kind of provocation and trolling, I will have no other options but to report you and your pitfull actions to the moderator. I'm sick and tired of this stuff

You have to take into account the state of the aircraft in the production runs. Series I aircraft from the first batch were all (apart from 2 aircraft) Sabre IIA powered, had the older tail structure and Hispano MkII's. The 2nd production run had Sabre IIA's, Hispano MkV's and some structural changes but some at the end of the run had IIB's. The 3rd and 4th runs all were uniform in there engine but the 3rd run had the Dehav prop and the 4th had the Rotol prop but both had IIB's. Remember also, all Sabre IIA's were upgraded (this was some small parts changes to the engine and supercharger) around this time to be in line with the current production run. Whats not ever clear is if Rotol props were retrofitted to older aircraft.

So in Sept 1944 to the end of the year, you were seeing both types flying, using both engine types and both boost levels, with the first 2 production batches being upgraded to meet the newer specification. The only aircraft at the point that wasn't in front line service was the Rotol prop equipped Series II with a Sabre IIB @ 13lbs. That didn't appear until the following year with the 4th production batch (AFAIK).

Either way, I'd love to see the Ta152C get some love but I doubt it ever will.

Making things up? Lets see, Brain's quotes:

(your bold text Brain)

You seem like an intelligent lad, so why do you have so much trouble understanding that it wasn't the increase in boost but the loss of the prop blade that hurt the engine. The airscrew became unbalanced after loosing a blade and caused vibrations that shook the engine apart.

Brain quote:

Why did you even post the words of NZ pilot F/O Ronald Dennis of 56 Sqn then? Also note the use of the word 'all', that is more than one a/c using 13lb boost. There was 3 squadrons in 150 Wing.

Produce the document that the K-4 used 2.02 ata operationally.

Yes but it lost the blade because the airscrew could not absorb the added power, it may go over to the engine via blade damage but the source of damage is the boost...

Because they showed that SabreIIb couldn't bear the burden of higher boost, so the did change to Rotol airscrew, but he mentions not if that was a succsess or another failure, we don't know.

Why should I? I don't believe that myself anyway, same way I don't believe in +13lbs Tempest used operationally

Just love your logic Brain. :rolleyes: Did the extra boost directly cause rod, bearing or other engine component failures? NO!

Your quote of F/O Ronald Dennis of 56 Sqn says 13lb boost was used operationally.

Really? It says that the components of the prop were changed because the old ones could not absorb the added power, but does not say if this change was successful.

It's like to say "I installed 2 new video cards into my PC but the 300W APU was too weak and system failed: so I replaced it with a 450W APU".

How can you know if the system was stable after the change?

I understand that Sabre IIAs were cleared for +9 and Sabre IIBs (appearing in the automn 1944 IIRC) for +11.

I have also seen it claimed that IIAs were converted to IIBs, but I don't think I have ever seen evidence of that. Have you seen any...?

What is the source of the pilot quote and what period this quote is referring to?
Was it during the war or the comment was made in the post-war period?

I'll have to try to dig something out. There are a few documents kicking about on the internet that make mention of this, as well as noting the Series I machines (first 94 - 2 already being series II spec) being upgraded to series II (2nd batch).

That all said, for the purpose of IL2, the Sabre IIB 11lbs and 13lbs varients have been made available else where. Maybe they can do some similar justice to the 152C....

Ask Brain.

Do you really believe in what you wrote? :shock:

Tempests had a lot of engine problems in 1944, especially about valves and backfires. It's a thing everyone interested in that plane knows very well.
At the same time, everyone interested in that plane knows that engine troubles decreased months after months (according to "Typhoon and Tempest Aces of WWII" by C.Thomas, the Sabre was already "accettably reliable" during the V-1 battle in summer 1944).

But there is NO news about troubles caused by Rotol propellers!

Just like, BTW, there is no news of troubles caused by +11lbs boost during the final months of the war nor any news of Tempests reverting to +9lbs.

The only question to ask is "how many Tempest used +13lbs boost and Rotol prop?", not "was it successful?".

BTW, on the same wwiiaircraftperformance page that reports Dennis quote you can find this too:

"On the 30th March, six days later, I came back to Volkel in time to go to Warmwell in the duty Anson to choose a beautiful brand-new Tempest with the new Rotol airscrew. Two days later I was posted O.C. "A" Flight, No. 3 Squadron in 122 Wing (at B.122 Rheine)." (Pierre Clostermann)

Its probable that "beautiful brand-new Tempest" belonged to the fourth production batch, delivered from 1/45 to 6/45, that consisted of 201 planes built ("Hawker Tempest", +4 Publications, pag. 3).

It seems likely to me that there were much more than a handful of +13lbs in 1945, although it's not easy to guess how many.

A seemingly well informed guy wrote this some days ago, on another forum, talking about Sabre IIc engine (which I believe, being the most powerful of the II series, was usually coupled with the Rotol prop):

"[...]
The IIC was fitted to Typhoon Is, IBs and Tempest Vs.
[...]
As to how many IICs were fitted to the above, I don't think we'll ever know, as Sabres were the subject of continual modification programmes and aircraft were frequently re-engined at unit level with the latest approved version. However, Typhoon and Tempest V Srs 2 production did not extend beyond WW2 so some were definitely fitted with Sabre IICs (if the book ['British Piston Aero Engines' by Alec Lumsden] says IICs were fitted to Typhoons and Tempest Vs you may be sure that it's correct - its information is taken from company records)".

So, it's likely the same uncertainty about numbers of IIc regards Rotol props too.
But I think their number could be higher than, for example, the numbers of Ta152H that reached service (whereas, AFAIK, Ta152C never was operative!).

Also Closterman state in his book he was using the tempest at 13lbs and giving power figures that match quite well those of the Sabre IIC at 13lbs.