30.03.2009, 01:40
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").
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").