Ta 152?

[butcherbird88]

no news from the FW 190 TA 152? y'know, I'm going to wait☺️

[354thFG_Drewm3i-VR]

We have enough German super planes but no allied ones. I would like to see a Gloester Meteor before we see any more German jets/super props.

[CountZero]

23 hours ago, butcherbird88 said:

no news from the FW 190 TA 152? y'know, I'm going to wait☺️

 

Dont worry youll get it in few months when they anounce East front 1945 DLC, Ta-152H or some bomber, wonder what they gona pick as 5th axis airplane. 

 

Gota have something to intercept thouse big bombers

Edited August 21, 2021 by CountZero

[Denum]

It's performance was over hyped by propaganda and warthunder. 

 

It was a technical nightmare with extremely low deployment numbers. 

[CountZero]

Just now, Denum said:

It's performance was over hyped by propaganda and warthunder. 

 

It was a technical nightmare with extremely low deployment numbers. 

non of that mathers in video games, airplanes are in perfect shape all the time (exept thouse engine timers that are on last few min ? )

[Denum]

I'd sooner not see "what if" planes added that have their engine performance based off something that they never achieved reliably (coughK4) in wartime while allied aircraft get the bare minimum (P40, P39) and in some cases don't even have access to the fuel they had. (150 P38) 

Edited August 21, 2021 by Denum

[Q_Walker]

It would be a nice collector if we get a Battle of Berlin at some point. 

Edited August 21, 2021 by Q_Walker

[II/JG17_HerrMurf]

As long as I get my C series Ta 152, to fend off the Tempest hordes, I will be a happy camper. No need for an H series with no bombers and online fights almost exclusively below 15,000'

[354thFG_Drewm3i-VR]

2 minutes ago, II/JG17_HerrMurf said:

As long as I get my C series Ta 152, to fend off the Tempest hordes, I will be a happy camper. No need for an H series with no bombers and online fights almost exclusively below 15,000'

Or they could just fix the tempest...lol ?. I would be happy of online servers disallowed the me262 and tempest. Both are basically spam planes.

1 hour ago, Denum said:

I'd sooner not see "what if" planes added that have their engine performance based off something that they never achieved reliably (coughK4) in wartime while allied aircraft get the bare minimum (P40, P39) and in some cases don't even have access to the fuel they had. (150 P38) 

This. Give us a p40/p39 that actually works first please lol (since they use the same engine). I find its flight model (p-40) to be believable but it only wakes up if you run the engine all out which we can't do where as pilots in real life did. Their "combat mode" was boost over 60" and the rpm lever pushed full forward. At current in game engine settings the p-40 is just a dog. Some reportedly even overrode the rpm governor a bit. This is all in official allison documents.

Edited August 21, 2021 by drewm3i-VR

[II/JG17_HerrMurf]

I'm an almost exclusive Axis pilot and I hate the 262. I can live with Tempests as long as I have a wingman and altitude.

[CountZero]

From what i see online C model didnt show up in ww2, so when they make it its gona probably be H model, i remenber in old il-2 even H model was good down low.

[II/JG17_HerrMurf]

A few prototypes. One or two may have made it to front line trials but definitely no combat deployments. There is some conflicting documentation. Late war records caveats apply.

[sevenless]

27 minutes ago, II/JG17_HerrMurf said:

A few prototypes. One or two may have made it to front line trials but definitely no combat deployments. There is some conflicting documentation. Late war records caveats apply.

 

Maybe more than you think. Ta 152 H0 and H1 that is.

 

FalkeEins - the Luftwaffe blog: Attack on Nordhausen, 16 January 1945 - fourteen Ta 152 fighters destroyed on the ground

 

And Rodeike, page 416

[II/JG17_HerrMurf]

6 minutes ago, sevenless said:

 

Maybe more than you think. Ta 152 H0 and H1 that is.

 

FalkeEins - the Luftwaffe blog: Attack on Nordhausen, 16 January 1945 - fourteen Ta 152 fighters destroyed on the ground

 

And Rodeike, page 416

I was speaking to the C models. H's got a few more in the air.

[sevenless]

29 minutes ago, II/JG17_HerrMurf said:

I was speaking to the C models. H's got a few more in the air.

 

There is only evidence of 6 prototypes and photographic evidence of Ta 152 C (pre-) production planes at Erfurt-North (2 planes), ATG at Leipzig, Siebel at Halle-Schkeuditz (3 planes). Production was planned for march/april but delayed by testing DB 603 LA.

 

Source: Harmann page 48 ff

 

[Eisenfaustus]

I’d absolutely love to have a Ta 152-H!

 

The gliderlike appearance just appeals to me. And while performance wise in IL-2 altitudes the Dora probably exceeds the 152 the latter should be a good turner. I’d love to fly it modelled to GB standards. 
 

But I absolutely understand everyone who thinks it’s inclusion makes no sense historically. You’re probably right. Still I’d like to have it. ^^ 

[II/JG17_HerrMurf]

16 hours ago, sevenless said:

 

There is only evidence of 6 prototypes and photographic evidence of Ta 152 C (pre-) production planes at Erfurt-North (2 planes), ATG at Leipzig, Siebel at Halle-Schkeuditz (3 planes). Production was planned for march/april but delayed by testing DB 603 LA.

 

Source: Harmann page 48 ff

 

We are in agreement. If they ever make the 152, I hope we get both.

[Flyhighzz]

In War Thunder it's an amazing plane. Was it even good in real life though?

[ITAF_Rani]

On 8/21/2021 at 9:46 PM, CountZero said:

Dont worry youll get it in few months when they anounce East front 1945 DLC

60% late war East and 40% Italy 44-44

Edited September 5, 2021 by ITAF_Rani

[PatrickAWlson]

On 9/3/2021 at 11:34 AM, Flyhighzz said:

In War Thunder it's an amazing plane. Was it even good in real life though?

 

With the caveat of a very limited sample set  - yes.  Very fast.  Very good high altitude performance.  Good armament.  Not sure about all of the different forms of maneuverability but I think it was pretty decent in that regard too.  Only used a little bit so very hard to say how it compares to late war Allied planes.  It's biggest issue would probably be lack of pilots, lack of fuel, and lack of numbers, but the aircraft design seems to have been pretty good.

[oc2209]

On 8/21/2021 at 12:48 PM, Denum said:

It's performance was over hyped by propaganda and warthunder. 

 

It was a technical nightmare with extremely low deployment numbers. 

 

Whose propaganda?

 

I don't think it was ever hyped up as a wonder weapon by the Germans. It was the logical continuation of the Fw-190; which itself, objectively, was the best operational fighter plane in the world at the time of its debut. It's safe to assume Kurt Tank didn't suddenly turn into an imbecile when it came time to upgrade the basic 190.

 

Whatever technical problems it had weren't a result of bad design, but of Germany's manufacturing weaknesses. The design was sound, and when the plane worked, it worked pretty well evidently.

 

Which is no different, in essence, than if/when we get the Yak-9U. That plane also had horrible engine issues, many of which were never fully resolved (certainly not by the end of WWII). But sometimes it worked as intended, and that's enough justification to include it in the sim.

 

On 8/21/2021 at 12:02 PM, drewm3i-VR said:

We have enough German super planes but no allied ones. I would like to see a Gloester Meteor before we see any more German jets/super props.

 

If we're going to get jingoistic about aircraft engineering, rather than being objective, this is worth noting:

 

"A total of 890 Meteors were lost in RAF service (145 of these crashes occurring in 1953 alone), resulting in the deaths of 450 pilots. Contributory factors in the number of crashes were the poor brakes, failure of the landing gear, the high fuel consumption and consequent short flight endurance (less than one hour) causing pilots to run out of fuel, and difficult handling with one engine out due to the widely set engines. The casualty rate was exacerbated by the lack of ejection seats in early series Meteors;the much higher speed that the aircraft was capable of meant that to bail out pilots might have to overcome high g forces and fast-moving airflow past the cockpit; there was also a greater likelihood of the pilot striking the horizontal tailplane.Ejection seats were fitted in the later F.8, FR.9, PR.10 and some experimental Meteors. The difficulty of baling out of the Meteor had been noted by pilots during development, reporting several contributing design factors such as the limited size and relative position of the cockpit to the rest of the aircraft, and difficulty in using the two-lever jettisonable hood mechanism."

 

At least the Germans had the excuse of rushing all their wonder weapons into service because of imminent defeat, while also being bombed by the largest combined air forces the world had ever seen.

 

I don't see much wondrous about the Meteor, nor do I see any valid excuses for its design flaws.

 

If the Meteor's ever put in the sim (I'm not opposed to the idea), then I hope we get a version of it that has functioning brakes, working landing gear, and that we're not killed half the time we bail out.

 

Just like I'd hope and assume we'd get a working version of a Ta-152, and a Yak-9U.

[Denum]

We atleast have real world performance numbers on the Meteor that we can verify.

 

The Ta-152 requires a pretty substantial amount of guessing because they had so many issues with the engines. 

 

What was stable boost? How much RPM before it grenaded? Engine mode recommendations?

 

67 rolled off the assembly line, 43 made it to operational status, by April 1945 two C1s remained in operation. They grounded all H models. 

 

Vs the 4000 Glosters produced, it has an operations history similar to the Typhoon (It really loved killing its pilots) 

 

But atleast there's enough data that they aren't producing a paper plane. 

 

If we are going to start using one off performance ratings just about every single aircraft in the game will be drastically under performing.

 

 

 

 

Edited September 10, 2021 by Denum

[ZachariasX]

5 hours ago, Denum said:

What was stable boost? How much RPM before it grenaded? Engine mode recommendations?

The specs of the Jumo 213J are known. It is also known that there were basically no engines of that type mass produced. They had it ready when the war was over. Hand assembled engines for test runs at the shop usually have a considerably better performance and can do what mass produced engines on average don‘t do. The „grenading“ part would depend largely on the respective worker slave‘s efforts, especially at that point in war.

[Denum]

6 hours ago, ZachariasX said:

The specs of the Jumo 213J are known. It is also known that there were basically no engines of that type mass produced. They had it ready when the war was over. Hand assembled engines for test runs at the shop usually have a considerably better performance and can do what mass produced engines on average don‘t do. The „grenading“ part would depend largely on the respective worker slave‘s efforts, especially at that point in war.

 

 

Absolutely! 

 

You even see in with bench testing the R2800s, Merlin's and Griffons.

 

Some of these were capable of run WEP for hours in those tests but we can't really suggest that it's a reliable real world number. 

 

That's where the "paper" comment comes in. They'd be required to guess on what the engine is capable of. 

 

 

 

[ZachariasX]

7 minutes ago, Denum said:

That's where the "paper" comment comes in. They'd be required to guess on what the engine is capable of. 

It should in principle perform according to specs. That is what it is capable of if it was actually made. The design was about completed. They just didn't peroduce it in the sweatshops.

[Denum]

Personally I've seen numbers from 2200HP up to 3200hp for that engine.

 

Most sources indicate that engine as a prototype. 

 

The 213 was definitely used, as the D series 190s had them. 

 

But I think where it gets muddy is the Ta152H.

 

I'm certain it could be done as it's a game afterall. But it would likely have lower performance then what people would like to think it had. 

 

 

[ZachariasX]

2 hours ago, Denum said:

The 213 was definitely used, as the D series 190s had them. 

The lat 190D had AFAIK the 213E. In the Ta-152H you had the 213E with GM-1 injection that was only good above critical altitude of the blower. The Ta-152C was supposed to be fitted with the 213J with two stage, three speed supercharger and intercooler. The hottest sh*t on the benches at the time.

 

Junkers own estimates for the 213J for sea level performance were:

 

2'900 hp at 3'700 rpm and a truckload of assumptions

2'700 hp at 3'700 rpm, special-WEP

2'250 hp at 3'700 rpm, T/O emergecy power

2'050 hp  at 3'400 rpm, climb and combat power

1'750 hp at 3'000 rpm, continuous power

 

That is hands down the best performing engine, especially due to its superior altitude performance.

[Bremspropeller]

3 hours ago, ZachariasX said:

The lat 190D had AFAIK the 213E. In the Ta-152H you had the 213E with GM-1 injection that was only good above critical altitude of the blower. The Ta-152C was supposed to be fitted with the 213J with two stage, three speed supercharger and intercooler.

 

The 213E also had a two-stage/ three-speed blower with an intercooler.

The third gear was a bit of a bottleneck due to some design-issues that were later solved. The Ta 152H-1 had it all: The intercooler, MW50 for below and GM-1 for above critical altitude.

 

The 213E wouldn't fit into the Doras (the intercooler was in the way, hence the 213F in the D-12/D-13).

The Jumo 213EB was supposed to fit the intercooler into the Dora-cowl, offering MW50 for more boost, instead of just for cooling.

It also had a better (lower drag) cooler-design. It would have offered roughly 40km/h on top of the already fast D-13.

[oc2209]

21 hours ago, Denum said:

Vs the 4000 Glosters produced, it has an operations history similar to the Typhoon (It really loved killing its pilots) 

 

But atleast there's enough data that they aren't producing a paper plane.

 

The only pertinent number of Meteors produced is prior to May '45.

 

That seems like a pretty small number.

 

From Wikipedia:

 

"Originally 300 F.1s were ordered, but the total produced was reduced to 20 aircraft as the follow-on orders had been converted to the more advanced models."

 

"When the F.2 was cancelled, the Meteor F.3 became the immediate successor to the F.1 and alleviated some of the shortcomings of the F.1.In August 1944, the first F.3 prototype flew; early F.3 production aircraft were still fitted with the Welland engine as the Derwent engine's production was just starting at this point. A total of 210 F.3 aircraft were produced before they were in turn superseded by production of the Meteor F.4 in 1945."

 

"The original nacelles had been discovered by the RAE to suffer from compressibility buffeting at higher speeds, causing increased drag; the re-designed longer nacelles eliminated this and provided an increase in the Meteor's maximum speed. The lengthened nacelles were introduced on the final fifteen Meteor IIIs. EE215 was the first Meteor to be fitted with guns; EE215 was also used in engine reheat trials, the addition of reheat increasing top speed from 420 mph to 460 mph."

 

Since the early Meteors were abjectly inferior in performance, we'd have to get the later models if we want it to be remotely competitive for late war scenarios.

 

Which means we'd probably be getting an F.3 Meteor made in late '44 or early '45. A production run that was barely over 200 planes. 

 

I fail to see substantial differences between that and the Ta-152, in terms of what's 'fair' to include in the sim. If we ever get an Italy '44 module, that will, by necessity, involve several Italian planes that had equally tiny production numbers. I doubt anyone would vociferously protest their inclusion.

 

If there are already too many German super planes in the sim, that's really not the devs' fault or an indication of preferential treatment. The pertinent facts are that the Me-262 was the best operational jet fighter (that also saw extensive combat) in WWII; the Ar-234 was the best/first/only jet bomber to serve in WWII. The Ta-152 was one of the fastest piston engine fighters to see combat in Europe (not that I'm saying the devs are itching to make the Ta-152).

 

If the P-47M or P-51H could reasonably be included in the sim, they would be. I'd like to fly an F8F Bearcat, but that can't work even if a Pacific module is made someday, because it just didn't enter service in time to see any combat.

 

If the Germans happened to make more unicorns--that, crucially for the purposes of this sim, also saw any legitimate combat; which eliminates planes like the Do-335 and rarer prototypes--if the Germans made more of these than all other nations in WWII, that's a testament to both their ingenuity and desperation. And if these unicorns also happen to be interesting sim fodder that pique a lot of people's curiosity (while also opening their wallets, let's be honest), that's also no one's fault. It's the way history played out.

 

Long story short: paper planes can't shoot down other planes. I don't care if it's only one enemy plane that gets shot down. For a German plane to be able to take off and land without being obliterated in '44 and '45 was a feat in itself. The Ta-152 is not a paper plane.

[CountZero]

 In game you have no problems taking off or landing in late 1945 even, game dont think its important to sim overwhelming air dominance of allieds, so you have benefit of prototypes that were rushed out of desperation, and you dont have sim reason why they were rushed only on one side.

If in real ww2 allieds had to face axis in same numbers in 44-45 in air, you would have all thier prototypes flying over europe in no time.

So you wont axis late war ufos, then you should be facing allied overwhelming numbers also ? but axis dont wont to play then. Its like having battle betwen spartans and persians, but each side can have 42 wariors and call that good sim of that war, and wonder why spartans can win in sim like that.

 

But regarding Ta-152H its 100% gona be in game in next Poland 45 DLC, you have Bf-109G10, Fw-190A9, Ta-152H and pair of bombers, or if they are desperate for funds maybe even He-162 or Do-335 even it cant fit any map posible to be made, Ar-234B for BoN already set that presedan, only thing that then need to be done is include atleast allied unicorns that saw combat also, Meteor III, Yak-9UT, Yak-3 Vk-107, Il-10, P-47M and so on...

 

In MP it dosent mather what they add, its not historical anyway, thats why WT mp is mutch better balanced as you have all stuff (both side special airplanes no mather what combat they saw) and you can balance things out if sides need to be unhistoricly eaqual like they are here, but for SP you only need data that 1 airplane of type that saw any combat in ww2 at any day before end and you can have it for player to use it.

 

Edited September 12, 2021 by CountZero

[ZachariasX]

18 hours ago, oc2209 said:

The Ta-152 is not a paper plane.

An order of magitude less of them than the Meteors. Also it is unlikely that they ever used GM-1 in actual combat. It was never used for its intended role either.

 

As for the sim, in the end I shoukd like having all of them. But I‘d prefer having operational planes first. Some may hate the Meteor, but just because their airframes were not really great performers doesn‘t mean they didn‘t see actual service.

Edited September 12, 2021 by ZachariasX

[oc2209]

7 hours ago, CountZero said:

But regarding Ta-152H its 100% gona be in game in next Poland 45 DLC, you have Bf-109G10, Fw-190A9, Ta-152H and pair of bombers, or if they are desperate for funds maybe even He-162 or Do-335 even it cant fit any map posible to be made, Ar-234B for BoN already set that presedan, only thing that then need to be done is include atleast allied unicorns that saw combat also, Meteor III, Yak-9UT, Yak-3 Vk-107, Il-10, P-47M and so on...

 

I consider the minimum threshold for whether a plane 'deserves' to be in the sim, is if it can work in career mode. That means not only does it have to see some combat or otherwise operational status, but it also has to be in service for a duration of at least a couple of months before the career ends.

 

I think that's the only really fair criteria to go by. So it completely eliminates the Do-335; the He-162 is really borderline, and in my opinion not suitable. I'd like the IL-10 very much, but again, it would have such a short career duration that it also probably fails to meet my criteria (it's not just my standard, but what the game has done so far). To my knowledge, the P-47M didn't enter combat. The Yaks might be doable.

 

The Ar-234 hasn't set a precedent of lower standards of entry into the sim. It entered service before the end of '44, which is more than enough time to make a career out of it. 

 

A German plane that probably few people want, but one that very safely qualifies as a valid sim candidate, is the Me-163. Hundreds built, relatively long potential career length. Yeah yeah, there are no heavy bombers to intercept. Well, I think it'd still be pretty fun to attack formations of B-25s with it. Obviously the Me-163 could only be a collector plane. I, at least, would be willing to pay more than the usual cost to compensate for its limited appeal.

 

While something like the He-162 would undoubtedly be more popular, I think the Me-163 is far more 'deserving' given the duration of its (wholly unimpressive) service life.

 

2 hours ago, ZachariasX said:

An order of magitude less of them than the Meteors. Also it is unlikely that they ever used GM-1 in actual combat. It was never used for its intended role either.

 

As for the sim, in the end I shoukd like having all of them. But I‘d prefer having operational planes first. Some may hat the Meteor, but just because their airframes were not really great performers doesn‘t mean they didn‘t see actual service.

 

I'm not at all opposed to the Meteor. I mentioned its poor early performance in part to highlight the point that we would only want to fly a later Meteor iteration that barely entered service in time for the war's end. By that same criteria, the Ta-152 is equally qualified to be in the sim.

 

As for intended roles, I don't think the Meteor qualified as being used with any special purpose in WWII. It seemed like it was being field tested in light combat conditions more than entering full service as a conventional plane would have.

 

By contrast, when the Germans threw their half-baked planes into the air, there was a good chance they'd be swarmed and cut to pieces. So if a handful of functional examples of rare German planes survived that crucible, those few examples are quite indicative of that type's capabilities.

 

A true paper plane is, for example, the Horten/Gotha 229. I'm not arguing for these types to be included in the sim, ever.

[Pict]

27 minutes ago, oc2209 said:

I'm not at all opposed to the Meteor. I mentioned its poor early performance in part to highlight the point that we would only want to fly a later Meteor iteration that barely entered service in time for the war's end.

 

I not opposed to having a Meteor either, but I think you should speak for yourself rather than "we" when you say you would only want to fly the later version of the Meteor because it was a hotter ship.

 

I really like the idea of V1 hunting in a Meteor MK.I and the idea that it wasn't as good as the Meteor MK.III takes nothing from that whatsoever. It was there and it was shooting down V1's, which is both historically significant and challenging.

 

I'm sure many others feel the same, but I'm not going to talk for them. 

 

I would also like to see the Meteor MK.III, but not as a hot rod fighter, but in the role it actually played on the map we actually have.

 

==================================

 

All of this of course assumes that there is sufficiant data and the unpressured desire/will/intention of the developer to make them.

Edited September 12, 2021 by Pict

[CountZero]

1 hour ago, oc2209 said:

 

I consider the minimum threshold for whether a plane 'deserves' to be in the sim, is if it can work in career mode. That means not only does it have to see some combat or otherwise operational status, but it also has to be in service for a duration of at least a couple of months before the career ends.

 

I think that's the only really fair criteria to go by. So it completely eliminates the Do-335; the He-162 is really borderline, and in my opinion not suitable. I'd like the IL-10 very much, but again, it would have such a short career duration that it also probably fails to meet my criteria (it's not just my standard, but what the game has done so far). To my knowledge, the P-47M didn't enter combat. The Yaks might be doable.

 

The Ar-234 hasn't set a precedent of lower standards of entry into the sim. It entered service before the end of '44, which is more than enough time to make a career out of it. 

 

A German plane that probably few people want, but one that very safely qualifies as a valid sim candidate, is the Me-163. Hundreds built, relatively long potential career length. Yeah yeah, there are no heavy bombers to intercept. Well, I think it'd still be pretty fun to attack formations of B-25s with it. Obviously the Me-163 could only be a collector plane. I, at least, would be willing to pay more than the usual cost to compensate for its limited appeal.

 

While something like the He-162 would undoubtedly be more popular, I think the Me-163 is far more 'deserving' given the duration of its (wholly unimpressive) service life.

 

 

I'm not at all opposed to the Meteor. I mentioned its poor early performance in part to highlight the point that we would only want to fly a later Meteor iteration that barely entered service in time for the war's end. By that same criteria, the Ta-152 is equally qualified to be in the sim.

 

As for intended roles, I don't think the Meteor qualified as being used with any special purpose in WWII. It seemed like it was being field tested in light combat conditions more than entering full service as a conventional plane would have.

 

By contrast, when the Germans threw their half-baked planes into the air, there was a good chance they'd be swarmed and cut to pieces. So if a handful of functional examples of rare German planes survived that crucible, those few examples are quite indicative of that type's capabilities.

 

A true paper plane is, for example, the Horten/Gotha 229. I'm not arguing for these types to be included in the sim, ever.

 

IL-10 had 2 squadrons operating late in war, they can easy fit them in SP if they do late war map up to Berlin, also 47M was flying with 56th squad from england over europe late in war, so they can add them also...

 

1 hour ago, Pict said:

 

I not opposed to having a Meteor either, but I think you should speak for yourself rather than "we" when you say you would only want to fly the later version of the Meteor because it was a hotter ship.

 

I really like the idea of V1 hunting in a Meteor MK.I and the idea that it wasn't as good as the Meteor MK.III takes nothing from that whatsoever. It was there and it was shooting down V1's, which is both historically significant and challenging.

 

I'm sure many others feel the same, but I'm not going to talk for them. 

 

I would also like to see the Meteor MK.III, but not as a hot rod fighter, but in the role it actually played on the map we actually have.

 

==================================

 

All of this of course assumes that there is sufficiant data and the unpressured desire/will/intention of the developer to make them.

 

Performance it didnt do any better then props we have, so reason for it is not that, its more to give allied side jet also, when you have reasons to give it as you can use it in SP.

 

If in allieds mineds war was not over by 1944 with airplanes they had in good numbers, we would see them going for P-72, P-80 or Tempest MkII and Spiteful for example, any of thuse if made by axis in same timeline would be send to combat, but for allieds why bather even if they give better performance, when axis were done in air no mather what kined of prototype they send in air. In game you dont have this numbers advantages, so when you add 262 you end up with allieds not be able to take of or land ?  or you add Ta-152H and you aint gona see it being used for defence of bases at low alt vs overwhelming numbers, it will be flying at 10k+ bnz anything that manages to take of from far bases that are not constantly vulched by 262s or 234s, facing eaqual or smaller numbers of airplanes then they have.

Edited September 12, 2021 by CountZero

[JV69badatflyski]

15 hours ago, oc2209 said:

 

Since the early Meteors were abjectly inferior in performance, we'd have to get the later models if we want it to be remotely competitive for late war scenarios.

 

 

Sadly, even the "late" meteors missingbolts mkIII were crappy in performance as they couldn't even i 46 reach the manufacturer specs.
The airframe sucked and it had an inpact on the engines.
No MKII flew operationaly with corrected nacelles in45, so the nice specs from the manufacturer marketing flyer were just that, empty numbers on paper...hmmm, i see a similitude with some actual modern airplane here 

Allowed myself to put the very import part in yellow....


 

 

Edited September 12, 2021 by JV69badatflyski

[Denum]

Which would likely make it not worth adding to the game. 

 

Just like the Ta152. 

?

 

[Bremspropeller]

In '46, I'd rather fly a Vampire jet-moped, than the Meteor-deathtrap.

 

Meteor isn't quite the best name for an aircraft ?

[Pict]

1 hour ago, Bremspropeller said:

I'd rather fly a Vampire jet-moped...

 

Henry Tizard , the guy who kickstarted that moped seems to have been an interesting fellow.

[ZachariasX]

8 hours ago, oc2209 said:

I mentioned its poor early performance in part to highlight the point that we would only want to fly a later Meteor iteration that barely entered service in time for the war's end.

We could have that too. But I want the early one as well. Primarily that one actually.

 

2 hours ago, Bremspropeller said:

In '46, I'd rather fly a Vampire jet-moped, than the Meteor-deathtrap.

You write "Spider Crab" a hundred times now!

 

3 hours ago, JV69badatflyski said:

Allowed myself to put the very import part in yellow....

We only fly below 5000 ft. here. All is well. ^^

Edited September 12, 2021 by ZachariasX

[JV69badatflyski]

4 hours ago, Denum said:

Which would likely make it not worth adding to the game. 

 

Just like the Ta152. 

?

 

don't see why....
i'd like to have both.

 

 

4 hours ago, Bremspropeller said:

In '46, I'd rather fly a Vampire jet-moped, than the Meteor-deathtrap.

 

Meteor isn't quite the best name for an aircraft ?

Totaly agree.

 

 

2 hours ago, ZachariasX said:

We only fly below 5000 ft. here. All is well. ^^

Lol For once, the quake-arena's would be similar to historical missions, as the 616 flew like most of their "PersonnalRelations sorties" missions at low alt. (See Orbs air27-2127series)
Anyway, be carefull to not hit 500ias (M0.68)(only in the dive) or s*it will hit the fan(s) and the rest of the aircraft also.