Hello, it's been a while I've been here tho I'm going back to my luft 46 models (currently well on my way with a hobby boss D12/R14 and Ta 152 C), I wonder why was the wing Mg crossed on one drawing.
Actually they considered moving the MG 151 from each outer wing (crossed out) to each wing root (added in the drawing rather sketchy) next to each MG 17.
It's the Fw-190D-12. They also tried it with the Ta-152C, but it was to hard to regain stability upon release. So they reverted back to the D-12
Hi
That's nice. I disagree.
This makes sense. Though, I am a bit surprised that the lower fuselage got cut off that much by light, even with WWII camera quality.
"TL" does not stand for Turbolader (turbocharger) but for Turbinenluftstrahltriebwerk (turbojet).
Miranda, Do you have any graphs or documents about the Ta 152C's cornering performance? I saw an interview with ace Willi Reschke, where he was asked if the Ta 152H was superior to the Fw 190D9, he said that the Ta 152 easily outperformed the D9, and I wanted to know how far behind the H in terms of maneuverability the C version is, since it has 4² less wing area, but has a more powerful engine, and similar weight too.
Like Coanda jet.
Sorry, I've been reviewing everything I have on Ta 152 and I've only found classic performances and speed/altitude graphics, but at least I've learned something.
not even testimonials from test pilots? I've found speed and climb rate graphs for the C version of the Ta 152, but I've never found anything about its maneuverability, it's frustrating
Characteristics | Max Speed (km/h at 10,400 m) | Max altitude (metres) | Turn time (seconds) | Rate of climb (metres/second) | Take-off run (metres) | |||
AB | RB | AB | RB | AB | RB | |||
Stock | 703 | 681 | 13500 | 28.2 | 29.2 | 9.7 | 9.7 | 500 |
Upgraded | 759 | 730 | 25.8 | 27.0 | 17.1 | 13.1 |
War Thunder is not a good source, since it is more of an arcade game, where the performances of the planes are modified, not reflecting their real performance in the real world, the Ta 152C3 is one of them, which is portrayed in the game as being much heavier than the H1, even though its weight is similar, but thanks for your answers
Can confirm. Video games prefer balancing over historical accuracy, and most vehicles have inaccurate specifications.
I'm not really interested in Ta 152, nor do I like Wikipedia, among other things because they never cite any of my 45 books and forty monographs as a bibliography, a form of infantile segregation. I don't like video game pages either, but if you are really interested you should ask for explanations about their sources of War Thunder and if they don't answer you publish here that they are not a reliable source.
Might one say that a reduction of 5% of sustained turn rate ain't too bad?
I would recommend viewing this older thread from WW2aircraft.net.
I believe the TA 152C would be better than Dora, since H1 has surpassed the Dora easily, according to Ace Willi Reschke, I believe the TA 152C is not so behind the H1, since it has more powerful engine than the two, I read other forums, a user that made the mods of TA 152C-3 for IL2 1946, and he received a lot of documentation from the Dietmar Harmman, where he found that the production version was Romever the rear tank of the fuselage, that one of the wing tanks would be replaced by a minor of MW-50 and that hears a change in wing area, and I saw in a page with D9, C3 and H1 specifications, where he reported that the c3 wing area was 20.7² to the envious of 19.5², I thought it was a mistake of the writer, since in the book of Harmann the version C has 19.5² of wing area, but Harmann sent these documents to him years after his book has released, suggesting that Harmann, or another member of forum LEMB discovered more documents about version C, with these changes the weight decreased, but the autonomy also, being according to this user, similar to that of the D9 , he also talked about that he had two C-0 unit delivered to JG/301, where the takeoff weight was 4.545kg, the C-0 did not have the wing tanks, nor the MW-50 tank, but the rear tank of the fuselage was not supposed to be filled, because it generated problems with the center of gravity, and that's why in the production versions it was going to be removed. The version C would use the DB 603LA, right?
In December 1944, the "Widerstandsdaten von Flugzeugen" overview from Focke-Wulf still listed the Ta 152C-1 with a 19.5 m^2 wing, and the take-off power with the DB 603L as 2100 HP, compared to the Jumo 213A's 2050 HP the same overview lists for the Fw 190D-9.Do you consider your works as definitive on a given subject?
No, I am only interested in advancing a little more than what has been published on little-known topics that other authors tend to avoid due to lack of sufficient evidence. Topics that are much discussed and published do not interest me.
Perhaps a look from the Wikipedia editors point-of-view is a good thing to try? A book that talks about a topic despite the 'lack of sufficient evidence' might not be a good source.
Miranda, do you know Dietmar Hamann or any member of the now defunct LEMB forum?
I am sorry that I cannot help you with this, I never entered as an active member of the LEMB forum because the content was not useful for my research.
If you had experience as an author, you would know that you should never admit the views of editors.
