Ta152C new slot/FM (WIP) - Printable Version

+- All-Aircraft-Simulations (https://allaircraftsimulations.com)
+-- Forum: IL2 Work In Progress MODS Download & Discussion (https://allaircraftsimulations.com/forumdisplay.php?fid=268)
+--- Forum: WIP-BETA-MODS Discussion Section (https://allaircraftsimulations.com/forumdisplay.php?fid=311)
+--- Thread: Ta152C new slot/FM (WIP) (/showthread.php?tid=60622)

---

- vanir - 14.04.2009

Looking for some alpha testers who have Soundmod 93 installed. Need some feedback for the FM changes.

Keep in mind this is the very heavy production Ta152C-1 version with nearly a ton of fuel and full armour weight, flight and combat equipment, etc. All up it's about half a ton heavier than Oleg's model and is not exactly a fairy on the runway. Unless using a bomber base, you won't even make it off the ground with a full fuel load unless you use MW50 and it's real sluggish under 300m at low speed, just within acceptable limits of inherent stability as was historical. Once you get going however that large prop and powerful large bore motor can really get up and boogie.
I spent special emphasis getting the supercharger pressures and performance curves right for the various engine operational conditions.

The main goal here is to capture the correct 'feel' of this heavy fighter, whilst maintaining totally accurate performance specifications under the given conditions. Do not expect any kind of hotrod as it was never our intention. We are definitely not "fantasy-waffers" and we're really just changing the feel of this model for the sim pilot, using correctly expanded model variants with historical and historically planned equipment changes.

Also the cockpit bugs of a non-working fuel guage and tank lamps hasn't been fixed, nor the WM. This alpha version is just for a few select individuals to give us some feedback on FM changes.

NOTHING RELEASED OR PASSED ON BY US WILL ALTER ANY EXISTING AIRCRAFT. Even this alpha test version will add a new slot marked "Ta-152C-1/R11, 1945" with its own FM and will not otherwise affect any il2 installation aircraft slots. That is the disclaimer as per site policy.


Interested parties with Soundmod 93 installed can PM me with their email details.
YOU MUST BE TOTALLY EXPERIENCED WITH MANUALLY INSTALLING NEW SLOT A/C MODS. You must be completely comfortable about the possibility of messing up your install due to bugs or incompatability. We will accept no responsibility for any effects totalled by this raw alpha test version to your il2 installation or your computer system. This is NOT a general public release but a private, very limited release FOR EXPERIENCED MODDERS for the purposes of initial flight testing FM changes.
We won't be helping you with the install or any issues with the install. Simply getting feedback about the changes made thus far.
That is the disclaimer for our team.

Cheers.

edit. extra info for flight testers. Standard engine settings are as follows:
economy cruise 1.0-1.05ata and 2000-2100u/min
maximum continuous 1.15ata and 2300u/min
climb and combat 1.28ata and 2500u/min (30min)
take off and emergency 1.35ata and 2700u/min (10min)
WEP/MW50 1.75ata and 2750u/min (5-10min)

---

- Arsenal53 - 17.04.2009

I have now some practice on your TA 152 C1 R11
Take off is longer than the stock TA 152. the feeling of an heavier aircraft is pr

---

- vanir - 17.04.2009

Excellent. This gives me a few pointers. There will be a lot of fine tuning I expect :oops:

Some of the difficulties with published performance figures is that some of them are calculated figures released by Focke Wulf based on test prototypes using the 603G or EC motor. One has a two-step supercharger and the other uses C3 fuel (which the L-motor was initially thought to use). They did not receive the LA motor until 1945 and as far as I've been told there are no test data for this engine actually fitted.

Also the generally accepted (calculated) figures appear to relate to a take off weight of around 4900kg, that is without the autopilot and some other production equipment fitted.
The preproduction series actually had no additional flight equipment aside from 4 guns and canopy glass heating. The take off weight for Ta152V6 for example is 4370kg, roughly a ton lighter than my figures for the C-1 full production series (fitted with additional armour, 6 wing tanks, motorkanone, full all weather equipment and an autopilot, calculated including full ammo and fuel stores).

Considering if the calculated figures for the Ta-152C-1 are ~570km/h at sea level, then I should estimate a realistic ~550km/h sea level for the fully loaded Ta-152C-1/R11 actually produced.

But where I am indeed having trouble is the speeds at around 2500m, which ought to be exceeding 600km/h easily enough but I'm finding it difficult to get anywhere near 600km/h at 2500m.

I am fine tuning as we speak, trying to adjust the performance curve as altitudes increase correctly. It is very tricky because I am unwilling to alter documented technical specifications, so I can only work with distribution of accurate specifications through the il2 game-engine.

It should have better low altitude performance than what we are getting.

---

- gunkan - 18.04.2009

Thanks for the hard work!

---

- vanir - 19.04.2009

No worries mate :wink:


*flight testers should check their emails.
I've distributed some revised modelling. It seems the RLM issued a directive in Apr45 that production Ta152C must delete the rear fuselage tank for CoG issues when carrying external stores. This lightens the C by around 280kg (and also reduces fuel tankage to below that of the Ta152H).
Plus I've revised engine performance curves trying to get those right using the data.

At 2500m maximum level speed should be around 575km/h true at kampfleistung (2500u/min) and 620km/h at sondernotleistung (WEP/MW50), this is what we're aiming for. Initial climb ought to be mid 13m/s and mid 15m/s respectively but this might not be sustainable due to increased weight over the preproduction series calculated test data.

I hope you're all enjoying the alpha Ta152C-0, that one's a real hotrod
According to the best sources, inferred by a Feb45 Focke Wulf document describing the incident it seems Kurt Tank may have been in fact flying Ta152V-6 (Ta152C-01) during his encounter with six Mustangs. With the 2400PS 603EC motor and only some 4370kg take off weight no wonder he left them for dead!

==============================================

I also have a request for any Frankenplane experts (Ranwers...)

I'd really love a Ta152H fitted with Ta152C wings to make a Ta152B-5 assault fighter which was to replace the Ta152C-5 that was planned. Basically it's a C-5 (ie. 3x Mk103 guns, no weapons in the cowling, external stores under fuselage and wings) but using the Jumo 213EB engine.

This way we can have the entire Ta152 series that was to enter production for a 1946 campaign. Give something for all these postwar Allied fighter mods to shoot down

---

- Arsenal53 - 19.04.2009

Hi!

with the new fm the Ta 152C1 has better performance especially the climb rate. he is more stable and less degrade energy. this give the possibility of dogfighting, even at low altitude. But fighters such Tempest remain superior.At medium alt it can match Mustang. Not yet tested high altitude. i have better feelings with this new fm!

Climb test gave those results:
start climb 100m
with 2500 rpm combat flaps and radiator open(full armament and 50% fuel):
-time to 5000m: 7.59mn
-time to 8000m: 14.32mn
I think i have to redo this test because i can refine the speed and angle of climb (and i forgot to report the initial rate of climb! What a fool! :roll: )

with full power and wep:
-time to 5000m:4.04mn!
-time to 8000m:7,27mn

speed test now: (with full armament and 50%fuel)

alt 2500m: max TAS was 623Km/h

I do not break!

---

- vanir - 19.04.2009

Excellent mate. I'm doing another round of tests myself but was expecting this, I adjusted altitude performance curves just before finding out about the deleted fuselage tank and reducing fuel weight (revised historical maximum range for the production Ta152C is now around 725km instead of around 1100km).

Climb and performance at medium-high altitude is now very slightly overmodelled. I'll tone it down a bit. Low altitude performance should be relatively unaffected. Engine and airframe technical specifications remain the same historical figures throughout (in most cases only slightly changed from Oleg's original figures as it turns out, or otherwise unchanged), I'm just playing around with how the Il2 game-engine works with them.

====================================

For general information, since I very much wish to avoid extended arguments as to the accuracy of modelling and am willing to share certain specific data with those interested, some of the major changes include:

weights and measures (production series, preproduction versions are completely different)
+ empty-equipped weight changed from 3650kg to 4014kg (includes radioes, all weather gear, revi-this should be an EZ42, guns, armour)
+ take off weight changed from 4900kg to 5039kg (includes autopilot, ammo, fuel, MW50 tank, pilot)
+ fuel weight changed from 680kg to 550kg (includes 200 litre front-fuselage tank and 400 litres wing tanks)
+ MW50 weight changed from 100kg to 127kg (for the 140 litre rear fuselage tank)
+ wingspan changed from Fw190 wing 10.383m to 11m Ta152C wing using Ta153 aerofoil (I am still researching specifics as to the technical nature of this aerofoil and so have not changed its performance from the stock Fw190 figures and will not without strict documentation describing precise changes to be made in the FM)
+ wing area changed from 18.3m^2 to 19.5m^2
+ maximum level airframe speed w/DB603LA motor at critical altitude changed from 9400m to 10400m (still 730km/h)

DB603LA motor using B4/MW50 (production series, 1944 preproduction series C-01 to C-03 modelled with DB603EC using C3/MW50).
+ outputs at kampfleistung, start und notleistung and sondernotleistung changed to reflect celebrated figures for the LA motor using B4 fuel (this took a LOT of research and applied aeromechanical expertise)

I'm loath to release these figures as I believe they can spark no end of arguments, but to be totally open about the flight modelling...
Published figures are often 2100PS start und notleistung and 2300PS sondernotleistung both at 0m. Based on research this appears to be a combination between the maximum figure for the earlier L motor experimentally fitted to C-01 in January 45 (C3 fuel, no MW50), and the LA motor which was later fitted to C-02 (B4 fuel, using MW50), whilst according to Focke Wulf the figures for the L motor using MW50 (ie. Focke Wulf also states LA is the designation for the L motor when fitted with MW50/B4 instead of C3) are around 1875PS start und notleistung and 2250PS sondernotleistung both at 0m. Other data sheets give 2100PS start und notleistung for the L motor using C3 fuel, but no MW50 is present with this motor/fuel combination so this is the outright maximum for that motor.

Therefore...output figures changed from 1825PS @ 1.45ata to 1875PS @ 1.35ata start und notleistung and 1945PS @ 1.8ata to 2250PS @ 1.75ata sondernotleistung (new supercharger pressures are historical and documented)
+ propeller diameter changed from 3.22m to 3.6m, prop mass slightly increased (this is a performance modelling figure and not a visual change)
+ maximum normal engine speed changed from 2600u/min to 2700u/min


One particular modelling difficulty is the game-engine restriction regarding full throttle height and level speed critical altitude, in real life typically about 1000m apart but it is beginning to appear il2 atmospheric and engine/aircraft modelling cannot cope with a difference greater than about half this.
Trying to get the performance right at the upper envelope is difficult, but I'll keep banging away at it for a while and see what I can come up with.
Since I'm cutting my teeth with this project, I'm learning some things by trial and error.

---

- luther01 - 20.04.2009

vanir just something im not sure of, your tester Arsenal53 said that he was using combat flaps for the climb tests, is this correct?

---

- vanir - 21.04.2009

Quite correct. I encouraged all flight testers to use any and all available means to the pilot. Technically combat flaps and open radiators should lower sustained climb times, but then half fuel load raises it again.
Actual adjustments are based on my own flight tests using standard operating procedures and strict historical documentation, but the valuable information from flight testers is a guide on where to concentrate, saving me several hours.
Generally the best way for testers to judge the comparative performance of aircraft is to fly in the style they are used to, I can read between the lines.

---

- luther01 - 21.04.2009

ok thanks for clearing that up. i supposeif the pilot uses the same settings to test alll aircraft then there will be consistancy

---

- vanir - 22.04.2009

Well it does bring up another good point luther

*note for flight testers
Please use the FMB for flight testing (some of you already do this) and fly with full immersion/full realism in the manner that the IRL test pilots did. This is due to the modelling inherent to complex flight sims.

When using the QMB for speed tests, spawning at say 6000m and diving to 5000m and then performing a speed test you will gain completely unrealistic results which are not reflective of the detailed flight modelling.
Think of it in these terms, what you are doing by using the QMB to spawn for a flight test, in simulator terms is being dropped by a B-29 at altitude and then going hell for leather. If the Focke Wulf test pilots could do that, they'd get much higher data returns too.

What needs to be done is a FMB mission with a runway start, using emergency power up to 300m, cutting back to one magneto and embarking a standard climb regime to altitude. Once at the altitude for the speed test (2000, 3000, 6000m or whatever), reduce to cruise for a 5min cooldown (econocruise is often best) and then trim for high speed and do your speed test with as neutral controls as possible. Radiator flaps should be set to "auto" as should prop pitch or any other automatic controls. Flaps should be fully retracted unless making specific flap related performance tests (ie. turn time at altitude increments, minimum speed test, etc.).
Make sure your elevator trim is very neutral so you maintain a level altitude at all times during the speed test. If you vary by a 100m or more you should note it and do another test as this can vary maximum level speed figures by 10-20km/h or more.

This will provide realistic, mission capable speed and other test data, relying 100% on the flight modelling itself.

Cheers and thanks for all the help.

---

- Paulo Hirth - 13.05.2009

Hi Sir!

What test do you need now?

---

Congratulations to the team!! - Aymar_Mauri - 13.05.2009

I wasn't aware of this thread, and posted about one of my favorite planes here:

http://allaircraftsimulations.com/forum/viewtopic.php?t=15585

Fortunatelly md_wild_weasel kindly pointed me to this thread.

I was totally oblivious to the exceptional work being done here my Vanir and team. Congratulations to the team and my profound respect.

Anxious to try the beasts...

---

- I/JG27_Waggel - 18.05.2009

Was the climb test flown with Kampf- und Steigleistung?. This whould be intresting because in Il-2 the Fw190 has the historical performance from the Kampf- and Steigleistung just with Notleistung. This means if you want to fly the optimal climb of a historical Fw-190 your motor will overheat very quick. With kampf- und Steigleistung you did not have any overheating problems in climb.

We found out that the Kampf- and Steigleistung in game is somewhere between 90% and 95% throttel. The optimal climb from the data page has to be put into this region.

---

- Paulo Hirth - 23.05.2009

I have tested (BETA-TESTER) the new TAs-152 and can say Vanir has done a great work, the plane dont drag so bad, is more than your brother D9, still heavy like really is, you fell like in a heavy D9 exactly what Ta152 is, but with prortional engine, at 9000m i hit 665km/h in stock ta, 588km/h in ta C-0 and 665 in ta C3 R-11 (same velocity stock plane0) but climb better.
Still a problem: when hit the land change in a rubber ball :lol:
But D9 this problem was fixed? Hope Vanir came back soon for send to AAA conrades do the final fixes and OK to introduce in a new Botton file.

---