Ta-152c

[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...

[*Buzzsaw*]

Originally Posted by Kurfürst

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.

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.



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.



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...

[Brain32]

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...

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.

...isn't that amazing,

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

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

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

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

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

[mondo]

Originally Posted by Kurfürst

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

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.

[Al Schlageter]

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

"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!"

(your bold text Brain)

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

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:

I would like to see they even used +13lbs at all

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.

[Kurfürst]

Originally Posted by mondo

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.

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...?