Ta-152c

[Brain32]

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...

[MOH_Hirth]

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?

[Codex]

Originally Posted by Al Schlageter

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

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

[Al Schlageter]

Dieter Hermann's Ta 152 book, pg 127.

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

[Codex]

Well I don't have that one, however, another reference I have (Ta-152 Monogram Close Up #24) has a number of pages referring to V6 (VH+EY), V7 (CI+XM) & V8 (?). V6 initially was fitted with a DB603E but later joined V8 and was fitted with the DB603L. V7 was fitted with DB603EM. V7 was faster at sea level but at higher altitudes the DB603L had the better performance. Both the DB603EM and the DB603L required 96 octane C3 fuel, which was becoming harder to get, so it was decided that the production aircraft (Ta-152 C-1) would be powered by the DB603LA (An L engine without the supercharger but with MW50) This way it could use both 87 octane B4 or 96 octane C3.

Flight tests were done from Dec 44' to Feb 45'. V6 logged 18 test flights alone totalling 7hrs 41min.

[*Buzzsaw*]

Originally Posted by Brain32

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...

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.

[Brain32]

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

[Kurfürst]

Originally Posted by *Buzzsaw*

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.

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:

http://www.wwiiaircraftperformance.o...g/rae1501.html

4. Description of Aircraft and Modifications

4.1 Tempest V (Sabre II.)

Considerable difficulty was experienced on this type of aircraft due to unserviceability. Three aircraft were received from Squadron.

The effect of improving the condition of the paintwork was measured on Tempest JN.783. This was a standard series I fighter aircraft (four 20 m.m. cannon projecting from the leading edge of the wing). The gun muzzles were sealed. There were blisters on top of the wings over each gun. A debris guard was fitted in the air intake.

The paintwork was in fairly poor condition. It was badly chipped along the leading edge of the wing. The wing surface was stripped for a distance of about 2 ft. back from the leading edge and repainted. The rest of the wing and aircraft surfaces were rubbed down only. The aircraft could have been maintained in this final condition without any great difficulty under squadron conditions.

During the test, the engine in this aircraft was giving only +7 ˝ lb./sq.in. boost and as a defect was subsequently found, J.N.738 was rejected for further tests at higher boost.

This aircraft was replaced by Tempest J.N.735 but, during the first flight, the engine caught fire and the aircraft had to be abandoned.

The effect of increasing the boost pressure was measured on Tempest J.N.763. This aircraft was a standard series I fighter aircraft, similar in quality of finish and in external equipment to J.N.738, described above, except that it did not possess a debris guard.

A new boost cam and capsule were fitted allowing an increase in boost pressure to +11 lb./sq.in. The 150 octane fuel was used.

Flights were made at +9, +10 and +10 ˝ lb./sq.in. boost respectively (3,700 r.p.m.) One flight at +11 lb./sq.in. boost was made but engine trouble was experienced and in the subsequent inspection, parts of the pistons and piston rings were found in the oil filters.

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.

[Al Schlageter]

notes that at the end of the V-1 menace (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.

[Brain32]

Brain, the Shackelton, powered by Griffons, used 25lb boost. So, 610 Sqn never saw combat

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.

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.

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...