![]() |
|
|
|
#1
|
|||
|
|||
|
But the Ta-152 Won teh war!
|
|
#2
|
|||
|
|||
|
Quote:
True, german fighters arent threat to 1943+ soviet ones (esp. the significantly overmodeled La5/7, ), but they are quite comparable to allied planes. They definitely have chance against P-51s, P47s or earlier Spitfires. P-40 is no match for them. |
|
#3
|
|||
|
|||
|
Quote:
As for the Ta152C... it's not a true monster until you get up at very high altitudes. A quick look on IL-2 Compare and you can see how awesomely fast it is but the advantage only begins when you get up to 7000 meters. Below that the FW190D-9 1945 model is faster but above the Ta152C can top out at maximum speed of 720kph at 9800 meters. The D-9 with MW50 gets 692kph at 5500 meters. As a fighter the FW190D-9 is significantly lighter and has lower wing loading making it by far the more agile choice. As a bomber destroyer and high altitude interceptor the Ta152C is probably unparalleled except for the Me262. My suggestion is focus on building speed slowly and try and find that maximum climb speed/angle where speed is actually more important. Point the nose too high and the climb speed falls off. This is important in all fighters but in a highly wing loaded fighter it's much more important.
__________________
Find my missions and much more at Mission4Today.com |
|
#4
|
|||
|
|||
|
Looks like it. To biased, ignorant folks historical accuracy doesn't matter. If their plane of choice doesn't do everything better than all others, something is wrong.
The TA 152H-1 carries a lot more fuel than the TA 152H-0. It's nearly 500kg heavier, with predictable effects on climb - doesn't matter. And while overall I consider the performance of the Ta 152H-1 worse in 4.11 than it previously was, the high altitude performance is considerably better, since GM1 is finally working - doesn't matter. |
![]() |
| Thread Tools | |
| Display Modes | |
|
|