Print

Please login or register.
1 Hour 1 Day 1 Week 1 Month Forever
Login with username, password and session length

[OberstDanjeje]

As far as I know the Ta152H-0 was a light version with less fuel and without MW50-GM1.
Ta152H-0 Normal-Fluggewicht 4727kg (no fuel in the wing (400l) but, some planes only, another tank in the fuselage (115l))
Ta152H-1 Normal-Fluggewicht 5217kg

[Vampire_pilot]

H-1 had additional fuel tanks in the wings which the H-0 had not.

some H-0 where upgraded to H-1 later.

[Knochenlutscher]

Yes, sth. like that, was a year or so I've read on this topic, sorry.
H-0 light stripped off (no MW-50+GM-1) version, is definitely needed.
If someone would try to make plus a H-1 Field Mod. (no GM-1) we should have them all.

H-1 as per project (stock IL-2)
H-0 (no MW-50+GM-1)
H-1 field. mod. (no GM-1)

The question is, if we get them lighter, do we get a less stall prone Ta or not?
Or is this behavior coded from scratch in the stock Ta H-1, than it's obvious we should think about a
solution like CirX started.
What about a decreasing weight if we actually use GM-1/MW-50, like in reallity, when it's empty we should be lighter too, at least this is how I understand pilots records of using it. Same like with Fuel i.e. The ingame just overheat issue is annoying, I barely read about that, maybe because RL pilots not often overheated. I'm talking about the stock performance loss when using these systems, I can also not remember, if RL pilots used these in the given specs (rpm, duration etc.) the engine got weaker.
But this question goes to all our MW-50/GM-1 applied aircrafts.

I have read a couple of Threads over this topic, (Ta 152 H-1) at AAA, M4T, Ultrapack, ... found them needed to discuss and develop it further. But sadly all ending in nowhere, people clashing each other with powercharts or tables and still we have the same ol lousy Ta. That someone attaches new Guns, Droptanks or is even working on it in a bigger project is highly needed, I respect every tiny effort. C'mon Modders, I know you can or is it some invisible power that stops you from touching the Ta 152 H-1?
I simply don't want this thread to be gone like the rest, hope you understand, I didn't want to flame or stuff like that

[Karaya]

Hey Cirx, have you gotten around testing my FW190/Ta152 FMs yet?

[Borsch]

Hm, this sounds serious now:)

FW190 is mega deadly plane with real character, its hard to learn, its hard to fly, but that is the whole point!

Stall behaviour is probably what it should be as its not just the wing length, but the wing's thickness that determines stall performance at various speeds. At high speeds FW thin wings make it agile as hell and controls do not stiffen up in dives. At low speeds its a dog- again due to thin wings. Try Spad13 in RoF - FW190 WW1 reincarnation, it has the same logic and modelling.

People who dismiss FW as "BnZ" "cant do anything but run away" aircraft need to watch these:








Please make new FW FM optional, its very cool as is

[CWMV]

Thats all well and good Borsch, but instead of using videos from the game we are analyizing to justify what is more than likely an off FM, why not take the words of the pilots themselvs?

I am a diehard 109 fan, but have always thought the 190 got the shaft when it came to FM.
According to its pilots the 190 was superior to the 109 in every percievable area except speed over 6000m and climb.
Walter Kruppinski on the D9

"Very good in dogfighting, as well as in speed...much better than any other German fighter we had before...much easier to fly than the A8 and much MUCH easier than the 109."

Ive never read or seen anywhere the 190 described as inferior to the 109 in maneuverability, except in IL2.
Anyone have any soldi figures for performance on this aircraft? Reports on captured 190's?

[Borsch]

190 is not inferior to 109 ! That is a blanket statment, and is incorrect - even if applied to status quo in IL2. IL2 190 has higher roll rate always, and better turning at high speeds (not so at low speeds). Who would say that it is NOT good in dogfighting in Il2 after watching vids above?

Where it sucks is at low alt/low speed - it needs energy. One reason why 109 was prefered on the eastern front where air war was connected to ground war - 109 had faster (as russian pilots put it) combat speed than 190, ie 109 was better with starting low E - more able to produce eneregy for itself without relying on alt (not alt advantage, just alt). And this is exactly what we see in vids above: if 190 has alt to manoeuvre- beware all.

Krupinski kind of statements show exactly why pilot descriptions are not reliable and why one needs hard data. Descriptions never provide exact details on context to which they apply - what does better dofighter mean? Easier - Germans were always talking about take offs/landings on 109s, so may that "easier" relate to that? Or was it "easier" to handle at high speeds? Same with his "better". Mustang IS better than Sopwith Camel, but not in everything.

One needs numbers: turning radius, angular speed, time to complete manoeuvre, etc etc... Then one needs to compare and adjust.
One question that is interesting- what is the difference in thickness between 190 wing and 109's?
Russins had loads of captured FWs and some their squadrans flew them after the war...

[Wildchild]

I play online often, but I have my own offline copy too. The 152, 190 and mosquito defiantly have bugs in there FM's. I mean I can't even keep up with online players and how there able to get soo much out of that plane while I can't. And I'm not a bad pilot I have shot down these same pilots before in almost all planes. But of course everytime I'm online I get a tounge lashing from the 357th a d my squad about just non being able to handle those aircraft. I actually hope that if you do work on these 3, include them in UP3

[CWMV]

190 is not inferior to 109 ! That is a blanket statment, and is incorrect - even if applied to status quo in IL2. IL2 190 has higher roll rate always, and better turning at high speeds (not so at low speeds). Who would say that it is NOT good in dogfighting in Il2 after watching vids above?

Where it sucks is at low alt/low speed - it needs energy. One reason why 109 was prefered on the eastern front where air war was connected to ground war - 109 had faster (as russian pilots put it) combat speed than 190, ie 109 was better with starting low E - more able to produce eneregy for itself without relying on alt (not alt advantage, just alt). And this is exactly what we see in vids above: if 190 has alt to manoeuvre- beware all.

Krupinski kind of statements show exactly why pilot descriptions are not reliable and why one needs hard data. Descriptions never provide exact details on context to which they apply - what does better dofighter mean? Easier - Germans were always talking about take offs/landings on 109s, so may that "easier" relate to that? Or was it "easier" to handle at high speeds? Same with his "better". Mustang IS better than Sopwith Camel, but not in everything.

One needs numbers: turning radius, angular speed, time to complete manoeuvre, etc etc... Then one needs to compare and adjust.
One question that is interesting- what is the difference in thickness between 190 wing and 109's?
Russins had loads of captured FWs and some their squadrans flew them after the war...

In game the 190 is inferior to the 109 in all but speed.

You can post all the videos of the game you like, but that doesn't mean anything when your considering the historical accuracy of the FM. The very videos you posted are whats in question.
There was very little dog fighting going on in those videos,it was the same thing over and over; merge-extend-high deflection shot. Closer to BnZ than really dogfighting.
Where it sucks at low alt/airspeed is in the game-we have yet to see any evidence that this was true in reality. I understand that there was a desire to stay away from such number slinging but all we have right now is an aircraft that cannot perform as its pilots said it could with no numbers to justify the current FM.
The reason the 190 was relegated to the Western front early in its career was its temperamental/unreliable motor. A pilot whose motor went out over France had the whole of Europe to land in safely, not so much on the eastern front.
And saying that it sucked at low altitude is silly, below 4000 meters it was superior to the 109 in all characteristics excluding climb. But then again what do the guys that flew it know?
I have to ask you this though-if you can out of hand dismiss the statements of the men that flew it what hope is there of producing numbers that will convince you? Opinions just that, not fact, but if you cant take the statements of the pilots as a general indicator of the performance of an aircraft and use that as a starting point for further research what will you accept? The numbers in and of themselves mean little without a person to put them in context.
I think you have fallen in love with the aircraft we have now and will not see anything change it regardless of the truth or lack there of in the flight model. That's fine-play stock IL2. No one will force you to use mods, nor will they force you to install a new buttons file with a more correct FM. That's the great thing about this place the plethora of choices we have thanks to the mod community.
So all that being said why not post up numbers justifying your barely-flying stall machine FM?
I will say this though, stall characteristic seem to be correct according to allied test pilots.

[andqui]

If we're on the topic of FM's, I always considered it odd that one hears so much about the 109's extreme torque during take-off and tough handling at this stage of flight, yet I can simply slam the throttle forward in the Il-2 109, use a bit of gentle right rudder, and I'm up no problem. Come to think of it, nearly every plane seems to feel "tamer" than I would think it would. Of course this is my subjective opinion- I could very well be wrong. And I have been killed more times than I can count by the Corsair's left wing stall when I try to abort a carrier landing at low speed, but it seems there's only a few situations where that applies, and take-offs (considered one of the hardest parts of flying high-performance propeller aircraft) seem fairly easy.

[Borsch]

@CWMV

In game the 190 is inferior to the 109 in all but speed.

- Roll rate? Turning at speed? Both are better on IL2 190.

"

The very videos you posted are whats in question

."
- the video show that in IL2, 190 is a deadly dogfighter, not a "can only run away" plane.  Here's what Jumoschwanz (auther of 3 IL2 vids
 above said below his "190A vs 4ace AI" video :
 

With the FW190s excellent rearward visibility and high speed controls authority, in the right hands it is almost impossible to shoot down unless it is bounced by complete surprise.
There is almost nothing you can not do in the FW190 if you have the practice under your belt, only the very best with the best of luck will put holes in your bird.

Eastern front- I quoted actual russian pilot's opinion on 190vs109. He said what he said.

And saying that it sucked at low altitude is silly, below 4000 meters it was superior to the 109 in all characteristics excluding climb

- he said that 190 sucked at
low E=low alt+low speed. Unlike 109, that still had a better chance in that situation.

if you can out of hand dismiss the statements of the men that flew it what hope is there of producing numbers that will convince you?

- I am not doubting that
Krupisnki thought that 190 was an awesome plane, in fact it completely matches with opinion of IL2 190 ace like Jumoschwanz. What I do not agree with is changing plane numbers for
 slow speed turning etc based not on numbers of plane studies in controlled environment, but on adjectives used by pilots. I'm not the only one who doesnt
 like that approach;) :

The numbers in and of themselves mean little without a person to put them in context.

-Not in this case. We need numbers for turn diameter, numbers for speed of the sustained turn, numbers for time taken to complete the turn. Repeat at various speeds- eg 200,
250,300,350 etc km/h. Repeat for planes that we are comparing. This will provide the context and the actual measured variable values. Such data must be available too.

with DBW we may indeed consider optional FMs via jgsme

- that's the right approach imho in this case.

[Wildchild]

I'm tending too see alot on this thread stating that the pilots of the FW-190's only know the current information...

Why not ask one???

http://www.white1foundation.org/ - FW 190-F8

http://www.airventure.de/index.html - This is German so....


Also i believe that "White One" is flying now but not sure...