[vanir]

True enough, my apolegies for the gutter talk. I'll edit.

I tried again using the Monogram listed climb regime of 2500u/min and a self imposed limitation of 10-12m/s in order to maintain 300 IAS, as I feel all round performance improves from this figure. 50% fuel load this time, lightening normal take off weight by something like 400kg (release data typifies full fuel load).

Take off was full military power with no boost up to 600m (gradually applied and only after an engine run up to operational oil temp according to guage markings). I wanted to look after the engine this time, but still stick as close as possible to actual operational procedure.
It still took an inordinate amount of time to make 5000 metres, not much shy of ten minutes but a bit quicker than before. I levelled off and kept climb power until 450 IAS which took a few minutes longer before trimming for 2300u/min cruise and kept that for a 5min cooldown. Then I gave full military with MW-50 for a few long minutes, climbed a couple of hundred metres and shallow dived back to level 5000 leaving me with 550-580 IAS (up to 630km/h @ 5200m) over a shallow climb and dive around 5000 metres, in any reasonable fashion without destroying the engine this time.

Focke Wulf document 12-1-45 graphs 675km/h for the Ta-152C at 5000m at 4900kg normal loaded weight (guns, full fuel, full MW-50 tank, etc.).

Now I can play around more with shallow dives, longer cooling runs, earlier established altitude, less fuel (air starts)...
But what did Focke Wulf test pilots have fitted to their machines? Go faster paint?


edit: regarding aircraft normal loaded weight. Document Focke Wulf Flugzeugbau G.m.b.H Abt. Flugmechanik L dated 12-1-45 already posted in this thread lists the Ta-152H-1 at 4750kg normal loaded weight and the Ta-152C-1 at 4900kg, extrapolating full weaponry fitted and full MW-50 tanks respectively 50 litres and 140 litres, does not specify ammunition and this alone may constitute the discrepency of full loaded, fully fueled take off weight in the Monogram document (which cites the former document in support) if you add the tabled weights to the empty weight rather than the incorrect weight totalling underneath in the table.
By this reckoning the test conditions were full laden with all combat equipment (R11 standard, cockpit pressurisation for Ta-152H and larger MW-50 tanks and more guns on the Ta-152C), but without ammunition.
This would be typical for Focke Wulf flight testing. During flight tests of TA types pilots have noted they did not have ammunition for their guns (noted because Allied a/c were sometimes buzzing around during flights).

The Ta-152H preproduction models (H-0) did not have internal wing fuel tanks fitted, I assume the same goes for C-0 prototypes although I have not read this. Prototypes of either rebuilt from A-8 or D-9 airframes (V types) did not necessarily have the Ta-153 wing section aerofoils at all (better structure, lower drag), which were fitted to all TA new build prototypes, preproduction models and for full production regime.
But specifying C-1 and H-1 in the document appears to suggest the test subjects the data is based on had both these compliments, as well as all other standard production combat gear fitted.

There are a wealth of Ta-152 prototypes however, some were C series but still with Jumo engines fitted, some tested this piece of equipment, others that. Some new build, others rebuilt from D-9 or A-8 airframes. Add this to the fact it takes a dedicated investigator to even find documentation on the type, leads to all the confusion, argumentation, and perfectly reasonable and fair misconceptions and inaccuracies by even qualified individuals and experts regarding them.

I think we simply want the best possible rendering with the latest modern information and documentation available. What we don't understand is how a NACA test pilot climbs out of a TA with goosebumps and we climb out of our simmed one with a frown, for a start. And some of us are competent pilots in the real (civvy) article so it's not wonton and unbridled ignorance on very simplified sims...just working with what we do have...it's still very disappointing on the modelling aspect (too much "it's temperamental" and nowhere near enough "but it rocks").

[Test Pilot]

Sry i cant agree because D-11&D-13 performance in game is not exacly historical and accuracy.
See sea level speed ~650km/h. The same is with Tempest 11lbs&13lbs at high alt unhistorical speed 790km/h instead 703 km/h which was never corrected.

Strange, I just tested the D-13 armed with 3x MG-151, full fuel and ammunition, flying clean on the Crimea map with a good long level run on MW-50 for 596km/h at 230m over water. This matches test figures for the historical D-9 clean and loaded at sea level.

In fact what I find is you have to dive to get listed historical speed figures for vanilla D-9s and late war Messerschmitts, or the Ta-152 and then they will sustain those speeds, but trying to achieve them following a climb regime at the 30min power setting is impossible, even after a cool down before using military power.

In fact the 30min climb setting (2600u/min DB motor) is modelled as the 5min normal military setting (which should be 2700-2800u/min), whilst any sustained climb regime needs to be done on the cruise setting (2300u/min) and best cruise is at the economy cruise setting (2000-2100u/min). To achieve normal military settings MW-50 must be used and has a 1min limit (historical is 5min for Daimlers and 10min for Jumo and BMW engines).
This instantly removes all the upper envelope performance capabilities during mid-range performance, in other words sustained combat performance of these types and it is a common theme among K-4, G-10, D-9, 152 and all German late war piston fighters modelled in vanilla il2. It is completely inaccurate according to documentation provided by engine or aircraft manufacturers of these types. It ridiculously disadvantages late war Luftwaffe piston engine pilots in game compared to contemporary Allied aircraft which not only do not suffer any of these mid range performance disadvantages but in some like the P-47 you can set full military power from take off until the tanks run dry with no ill effect or overheating, the exact opposite extreme in favouritism and highly questionable modelling accuracy.

For this test I made a shallow dive on minimum power to 200m to keep my speed below 500km/h, levelled and maintained the cruise setting for a while and then accelerated using military power and MW-50, then just stayed there for a few minutes topping out at around 595km/h fairly quickly but not accelerating further at the maximum power/boost setting.

One of the things I immediately noticed of course was that the military setting using MW-50 seemed to adhere to the 10 minute Focke Wulf limit for combat use before cool down rather than overheating the engine in about 1 minute for the vanilla D-9, which runs way too hot to begin with and has very poor mid-range and cruise/climb performance. So the D-13 certainly feels far and away more powerful than the D-9 modelling, it is a totally more powerful aircraft to fly because of this, yet what we are talking here is mid-range flight characteristics and not absolute speed capabilities which still remain very similar at this height.

So firstly it is not the speed capabilities which are the cause of the issue here, it is the mid-range combat performance in vanilla FMs for these types. They do not match any independent and well researched or primary source celebration, whilst making selective and highly arguable assertions about genuine wartime performance throughout the flight envelope.

Sry Vanir but you must doing something wrong with your test.

I can easly achive 657 km/h at 10m both in Fw 190 D-11 and D-13 without any overheat and with good aceleration from straight level flight without any dive.

Test was done at Crimea Map, 100% fuel, default ammo, radiator closed, Mw50 enabled, 110% power.

IAS - 630 km/h
TAS- 657 km/h

I know that FM maker have good intention and put correct data but game engine as awlays make it in his own way overspeeding these Fw190s. These is possbile of course to fix it but it need some work.
I dont event try how fast they are at altitudes.

According to TA152 C. Here are data i got:

[zulu64]

FW190D11 The best I can get Sea level 50% Fuel Crimea RAD closed, MW50, 1G flight start at 400Kmh then accelerate is 640Kmh TAS (Ps=0)

Interesting table there test pilot shows trhe TA152C1 to have the same wing section as the D9 i.e. NACA230. Takeoff weights seem to agree with the Monogram data at 5300Kg for the C1 is some charts, though thr top charts is at variance.

As to climb times using book RPMS its not really valid in IL2 as the Displayed RPM/ATA versus power relationship is not accurate but rather approximate.

The only "accurate" indication of in game power is the %read out. To put it in modern terms Mil power is 100% in IL2, Max Power is 110%/WEP. Normal climb schedule would be 100% power.

[Test Pilot]

FW190D11 The best I can get Sea level 50% Fuel Crimea RAD closed, MW50, 1G flight start at 400Kmh then accelerate is 640Kmh TAS (Ps=0)

Interesting table there test pilot shows trhe TA152C1 to have the same wing section as the D9 i.e. NACA230. Takeoff weights seem to agree with the Monogram data at 5300Kg for the C1 is some charts, though thr top charts is at variance.

As to climb times using book RPMS its not really valid in IL2 as the Displayed RPM/ATA versus power relationship is not accurate but rather approximate.

The only "accurate" indication of in game power is the %read out. To put it in modern terms Mil power is 100% in IL2, Max Power is 110%/WEP. Normal climb schedule would be 100% power.

I think if you get 640 km/h at deck in D-11 you could get also the same value as me ~ 657 km/h.

I made my test with 100% fuel. Just trimm your plane, keep 10m height and give it some time. I'm sure you will get the same result.

I see that many people here have problem to achive maximum speed of testing planes ( not only Dora but i saw than in 109 and others also have problems). I dont know what sort of diffcult they meet. I have no problem to test and achive maxium speed of planes not only at sea level also at height. It need a little patience and some carefully in handling but it is not so difficult. Remeber that is much easier when you trimm plane to straight flight. Always must be remember to close radiators (some planes have auto) and set maximum power ( WEP, MW50 etc).

And the most important - Speed Bar and Speedometr show only Indicated Air Speed which in these game is different also at the sea level. If you want to check True Air Speed you must set cocpit off to see True AIR Speed . I think most people dont know about it. IN game difference between IAS and TAS at sea level is ab. 20 km/h.