[Aymar_Mauri]

please read my posting correctly.. I said Vanir was doing the FM

here is the post you missed..~~~~> viewtopic.php?t=14162&highlight=ta152

i would also like to state this: Im sure that not many people here can actually say that they flew any given plane type during a combat scenario. So maybe just because it handles like a pig or doesnt fly like a spitfire then maybe just maybe you could be flying it incorrectly or it did handle like a pig. After all Fm is based on technical data and im sure Oleg and his team did the best they could.

Thanks for the link. I was oblivious to any work being done on the Ta-152C. Nice to know about this.

BTW, about the flying, I'm not that bad of a virtual pilot and I'm pretty experienced with B&Z planes and specially Antons. Oleg's Ta-152C feels wrong when going against Spit IX (regular not 25lbs) AI Ace even when going 25% fuel. It feels slugish and unresponsive.

[Aymar_Mauri]

I have the two corrected versions, much more realistic, BIG thank you to Vanir!

Good for you. Nice to know they seem more realistic. I hope that means they perform and/or fly better.

[Aymar_Mauri]

please read my posting correctly.. I said Vanir was doing the FM

here is the post you missed..~~~~> viewtopic.php?t=14162&highlight=ta152

i would also like to state this: Im sure that not many people here can actually say that they flew any given plane type during a combat scenario. So maybe just because it handles like a pig or doesnt fly like a spitfire then maybe just maybe you could be flying it incorrectly or it did handle like a pig. After all Fm is based on technical data and im sure Oleg and his team did the best they could.

That is why we say "lay" opinion. For me, a plane should generally fly the way it looks. The Ta-152 is a late war high performance plane that feels like something is lacking. It might be pilot error.

Correct. And it might be that the IL-2 engine benefits T&B planes over B&Z ones...

[Aymar_Mauri]

Quick question. What does "ata" mean? is it the german equivalent of PSI or "inches of mercury"?

1 ata = 1 kp/cm2 absolute pressure

1 bar = 1 N/m2 = 1.0197 kp/cm2

1 kp = 1kg-force

[quote]please do not confuse standard atmospheric pressure and [at] "Technische Atmosph

[Aymar_Mauri]

I have the two corrected versions, much more realistic, BIG thank you to Vanir!

where did you get the mod? its not available for download :roll:

...there are three 152C's,C-0 hotrod preproduction model (DB603EC engine,4xMG151/20),C-1/R11 (Mk108 & 4xMG151/20,DB603LA engine) and C-3/R11 (Mk103 & 4xMG151/15 plus bomb and rocket loadout)...

Can't wait to try them...

[md_wild_weasel]

BTW, about the flying, I'm not that bad of a virtual pilot and I'm pretty experienced with B&Z planes and specially Antons. Oleg's Ta-152C feels wrong when going against Spit IX (regular not 25lbs) AI Ace even when going 25% fuel. It feels slugish and unresponsive.

sorry mate i didnt mean to offend anyone here, i just get wound up by people wanting to change FM on exsiting planes all the time when there are much more needy planes i.e Avenger.
As for the spitfire I am a little bias on this one as im english and love the spitfire but remember the spitfire was an absolutley awsome plane. Pilots who flew her loved her for a good reason.(basically she was so easey to fly!).

[Guest]

Pilots who flew her loved her for a good reason.(basically she was so easey to fly!).

Werner Moelders said that Hurricane and Spitfire are childishly easy to take off and land.

[Aymar_Mauri]

BTW, about the flying, I'm not that bad of a virtual pilot and I'm pretty experienced with B&Z planes and specially Antons. Oleg's Ta-152C feels wrong when going against Spit IX (regular not 25lbs) AI Ace even when going 25% fuel. It feels slugish and unresponsive.

sorry mate i didnt mean to offend anyone here, i just get wound up by people wanting to change FM on exsiting planes all the time when there are much more needy planes i.e Avenger.
As for the spitfire I am a little bias on this one as im english and love the spitfire but remember the spitfire was an absolutley awsome plane. Pilots who flew her loved her for a good reason.(basically she was so easey to fly!).

No offense taken. Just explaining my impressions.

BTW, I also love the Spit but there is something wrong with the behaviour of the MkV (climbs too fast for a 1941 model and is too slow for a 1942 model). All in all, most Spits climb a little too fast and turn a little too good. Not having an exact behaviour for Spits makes me sad.

In general all T&B are too good and all B&Z are too bad in IL-2's engine.

[rossmum]

The Spit V is off because they modelled the Russian ones, running on 87-octane fuel. The British Spit V ran on 100.

[Aymar_Mauri]

The Spit V is off because they modelled the Russian ones, running on 87-octane fuel. The British Spit V ran on 100.

As with most planes' engines during the war, the MkV benefited from a power upgrade in 1942. Therefore, both climb and speed would be affected. The same would happen in case of a Russian (87 octane fuel) vs a British (100 octane fuel) model. Higher octane > higher compression ratio > higher power.

If what you mentioned is correct, the in-game model would have the 87 octane fuel MkV speed and climb rate. This does not happen.

If they wanted to model the 100 octane fuel MkV it would have the speed and climb rate of an 100 octane MkV model. This does not happen either.

What we have in-game is a MkV with the climb rate of the 1942 model (comparable to the 100 octane fuel British model) and the speed of the 1941 model (comparable to the 87 octane fuel Russian model). In no way is this accurate.

It is almost has if the in-game MkV is a 1941 version (or a Russian 87 octane fuel model) but with less weight than in RL, therefore the incorrect optmistic climb rate.

To have any historical accuracy, we would need two new slots for a 1941 (or Russian 87 octane fuel) and 1942 (British 100 octane fuel) Spit MkV.

[md_wild_weasel]

The Spit V is off because they modelled the Russian ones, running on 87-octane fuel. The British Spit V ran on 100.

As with most planes' engines during the war, the MkV benefited from a power upgrade in 1942. Therefore, both climb and speed would be affected. The same would happen in case of a Russian (87 octane fuel) vs a British (100 octane fuel) model. Higher octane > higher compression ratio > higher power.

If what you mentioned is correct, the in-game model would have the 87 octane fuel MkV speed and climb rate. This does not happen.

If they wanted to model the 100 octane fuel MkV it would have the speed and climb rate of an 100 octane MkV model. This does not happen either.

What we have in-game is a MkV with the climb rate of the 1942 model (comparable to the 100 octane fuel British model) and the speed of the 1941 model (comparable to the 87 octane fuel Russian model). In no way is this accurate.

It is almost has if the in-game MkV is a 1941 version (or a Russian 87 octane fuel model) but with less weight than in RL, therefore the incorrect optmistic climb rate.

To have any historical accuracy, we would need two new slots for a 1941 (or Russian 87 octane fuel) and 1942 (British 100 octane fuel) Spit MkV.

oh come on, do you know how many engines the spitfire had? Im counting 20 vairiants(excluding MerlinII special 2,160hp and 27lb boost) BEFORE the introduction of the Merlin 61. (production period 1942-43) so how can you base any kind of comment on th climbing rate on a mk5 whether it had 85 or 150 octane? As far as im aware a typical octane for a spitfire was 100 anyway, so why the russions would want to put in lower grade fuel is beyond me, so as for oleg modelling it on russion version which were the British cast offs, in my opinion is poppycock. Speed for best climbing rate in spitfire is 170mph, try that for starters if your struggling. Infact gaining best climbing rate was not just a question of banging on full throttle you had to take into consideration certyain factors including delaying supercharger gear change
As for turning circles how can you come up with that conclusion? It mistifies me how anyone can say anything remotly judgemental on the characteristics of a warbird? can you back this up with hard evidence? I personnally know quite a lot about spitfires/variants etc etc but i could not say the turning circle was out by 1/2second on a specific variant so how could you say "it turns a little too good" ? please if you dont mind i would like to see your evidence..One known fact was that the newer versions of the spitfire carried more fuel and ammo etc and were generally heavier therefore were unable to turn as good.

Leave the spit alone. she is fine as she is

[Aymar_Mauri]

The Spit V is off because they modelled the Russian ones, running on 87-octane fuel. The British Spit V ran on 100.

As with most planes' engines during the war, the MkV benefited from a power upgrade in 1942. Therefore, both climb and speed would be affected. The same would happen in case of a Russian (87 octane fuel) vs a British (100 octane fuel) model. Higher octane > higher compression ratio > higher power.

If what you mentioned is correct, the in-game model would have the 87 octane fuel MkV speed and climb rate. This does not happen.

If they wanted to model the 100 octane fuel MkV it would have the speed and climb rate of an 100 octane MkV model. This does not happen either.

What we have in-game is a MkV with the climb rate of the 1942 model (comparable to the 100 octane fuel British model) and the speed of the 1941 model (comparable to the 87 octane fuel Russian model). In no way is this accurate.

It is almost has if the in-game MkV is a 1941 version (or a Russian 87 octane fuel model) but with less weight than in RL, therefore the incorrect optmistic climb rate.

To have any historical accuracy, we would need two new slots for a 1941 (or Russian 87 octane fuel) and 1942 (British 100 octane fuel) Spit MkV.

oh come on, do you know how many engines the spitfire had? Im counting 20 vairiants(excluding MerlinII special 2,160hp and 27lb boost) BEFORE the introduction of the Merlin 61. (production period 1942-43) so how can you base any kind of comment on th climbing rate on a mk5 whether it had 85 or 150 octane? As far as im aware a typical octane for a spitfire was 100 anyway, so why the russions would want to put in lower grade fuel is beyond me, so as for oleg modelling it on russion version which were the British cast offs, in my opinion is poppycock. Speed for best climbing rate in spitfire is 170mph, try that for starters if your struggling. Infact gaining best climbing rate was not just a question of banging on full throttle you had to take into consideration certyain factors including delaying supercharger gear change
As for turning circles how can you come up with that conclusion? It mistifies me how anyone can say anything remotly judgemental on the characteristics of a warbird? can you back this up with hard evidence? I personnally know quite a lot about spitfires/variants etc etc but i could not say the turning circle was out by 1/2second on a specific variant so how could you say "it turns a little too good" ? please if you dont mind i would like to see your evidence..One known fact was that the newer versions of the spitfire carried more fuel and ammo etc and were generally heavier therefore were unable to turn as good.

Leave the spit alone. she is fine as she is

Ok. I think you're misleading your anger. Let's reply in detail...

• 1) I wasn't the one that said Oleg used the Russian specs for the Spit. rossmum did.
  
  2) I wasn't the one that claimed the Spit used 87 or 100 octanes fuel. rossmum did.
  
  I just used his reply to make an example of the performance influence of more powerful engines in similar airplane chassis. I do admit that I made generalizations to get my point across.
  
  3) Yes, I'm aware of the many, many versions of Merlin and Griffon that powered the Spits. I have books and warbird magazines detailing such info.
  
  4) The comments about the performance of the in-game MkV Spit are based on several years of tests and discussions with Crump (Kettenhunde), Tagert, Kurfurst, FatCat 99, Faustnik and alike in forums like the The Focke-Wulf Consortium, UBI, SimHQ, etc...
  
  Charts for climb rates and speeds for all altitudes for the several versions of the Spit, FW190, Mustang, Bf109, P-47, P-38, etc... were produced and compared. It became a general consensus that the MkV Spit had incongruent performance figures and that the game engine benefited T&B orientated planes, in regard to energy retention, much more than B&Z orientated ones.

[md_wild_weasel]

did you examine these tables?
http://www.spitfireperformance.com/x4922.html

[md_wild_weasel]

i wasnt misleading any kind of anger in any direction, i was purely acting on "It is almost has if the in-game MkV is a 1941 version (or a Russian 87 octane fuel model) but with less weight than in RL, therefore the incorrect optmistic climb rate. "and
"To have any historical accuracy, we would need two new slots for a 1941 (or Russian 87 octane fuel) and 1942 (British 100 octane fuel) Spit MkV."

no bad feelings mate, just conflicting opinions on whether we should mess around with FM or create Fm that is suitable to peoples personnal pallette(can you imagine it?" Oh i cant beat that la7 so its Fm must be wrong") Thankfully not many people are able to mess with this, otherwise we`ll end up with Foo-fighter Doras and spitfires that handle`s like a garage door.

[Aymar_Mauri]

did you examine these tables?
http://www.spitfireperformance.com/x4922.html

And?