Developer blog #358: Ta 152 Development News

[Avimimus]

2 hours ago, Avimimus said:

Well, the Fw-189 has those...  same forward firing armament as the Ju-87 in fact (and twice the gunners)! I do get your point though, especially with regard to the Fi-156... although I think the extreme STOLL capability would still cause many people to purchase it.

 

That said - hear me out - what aircraft had the largest gun armament (both number of guns and calibre of guns) during WWII?

 

To answer my own question (for anyone who didn't get it)... a spotter for an Iowa had the firepower of nine 406mm guns... and an Fi-156 could easily have a twelve 105mm guns on call... which make the armament of the B-25G or the Hs-129 and Ju-88P look quite tame in comparison...

 

So I don't think that a lack of gun armament can really be used to argue against the inclusion of an artillery spotter for Germany.

[BraveSirRobin]

6 hours ago, Lusekofte said:

Not my thinking. But a lot of people here do want B 26 or 25. 
I do not think they bite, almost everything happened has not gone my way. So I have no illusion. 
But a complete combat flight sim is not complete if only fighters are present. And it got to be a consideration about playability 

It is only my opinion. 
If you mean only hotrods is fine, you probably among majority here , and I respect that. But I too have a right of a opinion

At no point did I say that you don’t have the right to an opinion.  Everyone has an opinion.  And most seem to think that what they want is what everyone wants and that the result of implementing their view will result in glorious financial success.  The devs have actual marketing data.  If they thought the B-26 would be better financially, I’m relatively certain that is what they would make.

 

 Look at DCS.  You love DCS.  They haven’t produced a single flyable WW2 bomber with more than 2 people on board.  No one crying about the lack of bombers in GB seems to care about that.  

[IckyATLAS]

Okay I understand that the devs wanted to build that plane since a long time so now we will have it. Why not, if it is free and not collector, but I would have put priorities elsewhere. To me this does not really seem what I see as requests from the community.

For sure one of the priorities for me would be to improve retroactively all maps by improving the graphic engine technology. Building maps is a tremendous amount of work and improving them could well be impossible, and the only choice is to go radically for a completely new engine. If so then we have reached the limits here then.

The only other way forward at this point is continuing to add content, but I would suggest listen to the community, and the only roar I hear is : GIVE US A B17 4 ENGINE BOMBER ! How much I don't care. Just do it. Thanks.

 

 

 

 

[Sobilak]

11 hours ago, Airborne2001 said:

I'd like to challenge the arguments being made that the Ta-152 doesn't fit in at low altitude. Many German pilots went on to prove this wrong.

 

Here is a historical tidbit of when a Ta-152 bested a Tempest, which was one of the top low altitude fighters of WWII:

https://www.instagram.com/p/CsYtHysukKk/?igsh=azluY3NqaGo5eWhy

 

(Courtesy of worldwar2jets on Instagram.)

 

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2vz2gB0FM6U

The author presents the most frequently described Ta152 fight at low altitude with Tempest. What was described as a domination, turned out to be a draw.

 The Tempest was being flown by a very new pilot facing an unfamiliar aircraft and that he ultimately stalled in a turn. They lost 1 each.

 

[Avimimus]

3 hours ago, IckyATLAS said:

Okay I understand that the devs wanted to build that plane since a long time so now we will have it. Why not, if it is free and not collector, but I would have put priorities elsewhere. To me this does not really seem what I see as requests from the community.

 

There is no indication that the Ta-152H-1 won't be for sale as a Collector Plane. The Spitfire Mk. IXc being released as part of Battle of Normandy was a surprise to me - but it is a relatively small set of changes from the Spitfire Mk.IXe. In comparison, the Ta-152H-1 is a completely new airframe, with a new engine, and new systems.

 

There have also been several threads over the years asking for the Ta-152H.

 

3 hours ago, IckyATLAS said:

The only other way forward at this point is continuing to add content, but I would suggest listen to the community, and the only roar I hear is : GIVE US A B17 4 ENGINE BOMBER ! How much I don't care. Just do it. Thanks.

 

If that is the only request you are hearing, you might not be paying attention... there are a lot of people, asking for a lot of things, many of which I gather aren't of that much interest to you - but it doesn't mean that they don't exist.

[Lusekofte]

10 hours ago, BraveSirRobin said:

Look at DCS.  You love DCS.  They haven’t produced a single flyable WW2 bomber with more than 2 people on board

Look. It is a language barrier going on here. 
I do see your point.  And it is not true I love DCS more than GB. 
I love flying choppers in DCS. And I love flying bombers in GB. Which is not possible. Rendering me to fly bombers in clod. 
I can see your point and do understand it. I merely express a wish for playability for bombers without getting sniper gunners onboard. I think you need to have that ambition in order to sell a cfs. 

[EAF19_Marsh]

Are we nearly there yet?

Edited March 4, 2024 by EAF19_Marsh

[Holtzauge]

A Ta-152H1 with MW50 boost should outturn a Tempest Mk V even at +11 boost at low level. It should not even be close. The Ta-152 should be significantly better.  Will be interesting to see how they model it in-game. 

 

 

 

Edited March 4, 2024 by Holtzauge

[Youtch]

The fact that the fights took place only at low altitude and that despite all the teething problems coming with a new design, there were 7 victories for only 4 losses (mostly due to technical issues), at a time when allies fighters outnumbered german fighters almost 30 or 50 to 1 in the sky, speaks a great deal about the capabilities of Ta-152 to dogfight Allies 1945 fighters, even if it was designed initially for high altitude interception.

[EAF19_Marsh]

15 minutes ago, Youtch said:

speaks a great deal about the capabilities of Ta-152 to dogfight Allies 1945 fighters,

Since most fighters tend to be downed by an opponent they did not see, rather than in a prolonged engagement, it rather suggests that there were so very few that almost no one saw them and they scored victories by bouncing and high-tailing it away.

[Avimimus]

17 hours ago, FliegerAD said:

Artillery spotters would be nice indeed. The Fw 189 in particular is such an underrated aircraft, but again I must admit the fun in game would be limited... Let's face it: we want frontal guns to shoot at stuff.

 

Also, for the record. My first flight with the Li-2 (after I got a working joystick again)... I shot down a Ju-52... and I did that after ordering my gunners to cease fire... (which as a lot of fun).

 

P.S. Alas, the devs care too much about systems modelling/realism and detailed references to give us the night fighter conversion of the Fw-189 from 1944 (yes, after being withdrawn from frontline service some of them ended their careers as night fighters instead of trainers).

[EAF19_Marsh]

4 hours ago, Holtzauge said:

A Ta-152H1 with MW50 boost should outturn a Tempest Mk V even at +11 boost at low level. It should not even be close. The Ta-152 should be significantly better.  Will be interesting to see how they model it in-game. 

Should be extremely close on power and wing-loading, based on general figures. But that does not take into account the wing, wider design, combat weights etc.

 

I am a little skeptical that a high-aspect ratio wing provides for such good turn at low / medium attitude. The series design itself was not intended that way and no one has ever seemed to have pursued a similar course. There is one account on this but that was an experienced pilot vs. a relative novice. And the other -152 was shot down before it even started, so there is a paucity of useful evidence.

 

Dunno. Maybe there is a rate vs. radius element, but I was always puzzled by this and viewed it more as a question of pilot rather than aircraft.

19 hours ago, FliegerAD said:

Artillery spotters would be nice indeed.

According to Hannig, 110s were used as spotters for Army Group North artillery, particularly in Volkov region.

[LukeFF]

Don't forget that the Ta 152s were also known to have combated Yak-9s over Berlin, so it wasn't all just dogfighting in the weeds with 2nd TAF. 

[EAF19_Marsh]

33 minutes ago, LukeFF said:

Don't forget that the Ta 152s were also known to have combated Yak-9s over Berlin, so it wasn't all just dogfighting in the weeds with 2nd TAF. 

That period of the war, what might or might not have happened over the ruins of Berlin between a skeleton German fighter force and the VVS is not a great base for factual analysis. Did the Soviets even notice?

 

I’ll likely buy the thing out of curiosity, but wunderwaffe it is not and documentation on how it actually performed and what it did is something of a fill-in-the-blanks. But an interesting one.

 

Luke, I suspect that you found this with your He-162 work?

[Avimimus]

There is also the question of airfoils (re: Tempest vs. Ta).

 

It'll definitely be interesting to have it at this level of fidelity. It was way down on my list of aircraft (below a lot of variants e.g. P-39Q), but I'll be excited to try it - and it might prove quite a lot of fun as something of a unique experience.

 

Sometimes it is fun to be a test pilot. I rather enjoyed the Mig I-250 in the old Il-2 for that reason.

[EAF19_Marsh]

1 minute ago, Avimimus said:

 

There is also the question of airfoils (re: Tempest vs. Ta).

 

 

That has always puzzled me. Form vs. induced drag should favour the Tempest at lower levels, as well as roll. But above 30k the -152 should be pretty damned good. So I am intrigued as to this low-alt ‘super-maneuverable beast’ line that gets sold.

 

The ‘C’ was supposed to be the low-medium king. Mr. Tank likely had his reasons for this. ‘H’ production is rather more serendipitous than planned. So….hmmm.

[LukeFF]

17 minutes ago, EAF19_Marsh said:

That period of the war, what might or might not have happened over the ruins of Berlin between a skeleton German fighter force and the VVS is not a great base for factual analysis. Did the Soviets even notice?

 

I’ll likely buy the thing out of curiosity, but wunderwaffe it is not and documentation on how it actually performed and what it did is something of a fill-in-the-blanks. But an interesting one.

 

Luke, I suspect that you found this with your He-162 work?

 

I am not sure if there are any records out there from the Soviets that mention 152s over Berlin, but given the team's ability to procure original source information it wouldn't surprise me if something pops up that we have seen before.

Surviving documentation on the He 162 is actually pretty good - I have a book full of original manuals and technical information on it. 

[NightFighter]

13 minutes ago, EAF19_Marsh said:

That has always puzzled me. Form vs. induced drag should favour the Tempest at lower levels, as well as roll. But above 30k the -152 should be pretty damned good. So I am intrigued as to this low-alt ‘super-maneuverable beast’ line that gets sold.

 

The ‘C’ was supposed to be the low-medium king. Mr. Tank likely had his reasons for this. ‘H’ production is rather more serendipitous than planned. So….hmmm.

Well when you look at the wing design for both, the Ta 152’s wing has a significantly higher aspect ratio than the Tempest. Higher AR decreases induced drag (less downwash), making the wing significantly more efficient in the low speed and high altitude range, the latter being why it was most likely designed that way. 
 

Just looking at Wikipedia data;

Ta 152 H-1: Wing Span = 14.44m, Wing Area = 23.5m^2

Tempest Mk. V: Wing Span = 12.5m, Wing Area = 28.1m^2

 

Aspect Ratio = (Span^2)/Wing Area 

 

Ta 152 AR = 8.87

Tempest AR = 5.56

 

Induced drag is higher when the AOA is higher, so at low speeds, and high altitudes, induced drag is significantly larger than in cruise or high speed flight. So at low altitudes and at turn fights in the low speed regime, for example a low altitude flat turn, the Ta 152’s wing will produce lower drag, helping it turn better. 
 

With roll however, you are correct; the longer wing of the Ta 152 has a larger moment of inertia, therefore rolling ability is reduced, as compared to the Tempest. 

[CountZero]

110% its gona be best turner on axis side in this game, but will it be better then Tempest , im not so sure the way tempest can turn in this game

[354thFG_Leifr]

7 minutes ago, CountZero said:

110% its gona be best turner on axis side in this game, but will it be better then Tempest , im not so sure the way tempest can turn in this game

 

Tempest needs a bit of revision and adjustment any way; it was a great aircraft, just not outer-space good. ?

[DD_Arthur]

7 hours ago, EAF19_Marsh said:

Are we nearly there yet?

Probably not….

[EAF19_Marsh]

9 minutes ago, NightFighter said:

Induced drag is higher when the AOA is higher, so at low speeds, and high altitudes, induced drag is significantly larger than in cruise or high speed flight. So at low altitudes and at turn fights in the low speed regime, for example a low altitude flat turn, the Ta 152’s wing will produce lower drag, helping it turn better. 

i get the basic theory, but the form drag of the wider wing does carry a penalty. I am simply puzzled that a supposedly excellent low-altitude solution was a) what Tank was not using for the ‘C’ model and b) what no one has ever since used. Unless he had stumbled across a flaw in fluid-dynamics, the maths seems strange to me.

 

The reduction in drag from span-wise movement is clear, but the would not the narrow chord count against it as the center of lift (is that the correct term - I now forget) has less room to travel fwd? The Tempest semi-laminar flow, broad-chord was intended for low drag at medium altitude, but it has a lot of area to move a similar weight and power airframe. Lower-aspect, IIRC, are also general better purpose maneuvering and carriage sesigns, but that is obvs. not the point here..

 

Again, maybe the numbers add up to speed vs. rate, but no one thought to do this before or since. Which puzzles me as to why it should be ‘so good’.

 

 

[NightFighter]

23 hours ago, EAF19_Marsh said:

The reduction in drag from span-wise movement is clear, but the would not the narrow chord count against it as the center of lift (is that the correct term - I now forget) has less room to travel fwd? The Tempest semi-laminar flow, broad-chord was intended for low drag at medium altitude, but it has a lot of area to move a similar weight and power airframe. Lower-aspect, IIRC, are also general better purpose maneuvering and carriage sesigns, but that is obvs. not the point here..

Technically yes, increasing chord length will increase lift production simply because  you are increasing wing area, but it is more of a linear value than a measure of a ratio. Increasing aspect ratio makes a wing more efficient, and so as drag increases, such as low speed turns, you see a larger “gain” in the “production” of lift. The wing is not necessarily producing more lift than the longer chord wing, it simply is lessening the drag penalties in that flight regime. Which is why longer chords, ie lesser aspect ratios make more generalized wings, as lift production is more consistent. 

The center of pressure does have more room to move forward on a larger wing, which is why high aspect ratio wing (Ta 152) stall at a lower angle of attack, but with regards to the Tempest, (and the P-51), like you said, is semi laminar, with its thickest section roughly 37.5% of chord. (Traditional wings are around 25% chord, while traditional laminar is around 50%). Problem with laminar wings is that drag increases exponentially at higher AOA’s, and the longer the chord, even though you can pull more AOA, the more instability you’ll have at those angles. 
 

So the Ta 152 will be more efficient in low speed turns, and it will be able to maximize turn rate, while the Tempest will be able to pull more AOA and maximize turn radius. Both can be beneficial, but generally turn rate is the “best” if you can get it into a deck turn fight. Pulling high AOA will bleed off too much speed, and at low altitudes the instability and AOA limit can leave you vulnerable to snap stalls where you’ll end up in the ground.

[Avimimus]

1 hour ago, LukeFF said:

Surviving documentation on the He 162 is actually pretty good - I have a book full of original manuals and technical information on it. 

 

Plus multiple surviving examples. It is definitely a candidate for 'could be done well' at this level of fidelity.

 

Btw. Something which surprised me - while there is a lack of systematic flight testing in WWI generally - most Italian and Austro-Hungarian aircraft either have surviving static examples or flying replicas built from original plans... so that part of the world is actually better preserved than a number of WWII aircraft! I found this quite surprising.

[EAF19_Marsh]

23 minutes ago, NightFighter said:

So the Ta 152 will be more efficient in low speed turns, and it will be able to maximize turn rate, while the Tempest will be able to pull more AOA and maximize turn radius. Both can be beneficial, but generally turn rate is the “best” if you can get it into a deck turn fight. Pulling high AOA will bleed off too much speed, and at low altitudes the instability and AOA limit can leave you vulnerable to snap stalls where you’ll end up in the ground.

Thank you for your extremely clear and cheerful explanation. I know these things from GA. and wider interest but you seem better qualified than I to provide useful details.

 

I quote here to show I had read / appreciated but also I was a little confused in your point that that low speed = maximise rate (I thought opposite, but maybe that is only a relative value) and Tempest AoA = maximise turn radius, which might have been a typo.

 

But what you said seems to be exactly what happened in the oft-quoted and only account of a combat in the Ta-152.

[IckyATLAS]

12 hours ago, Avimimus said:

If that is the only request you are hearing, you might not be paying attention... there are a lot of people, asking for a lot of things, many of which I gather aren't of that much interest to you - but it doesn't mean that they don't exist.

True. My ears are sensitive only to certain type of sounds that I like, as the absolutely captivating sound of the 36 pistons of the synced four Wright Cyclone R1820-97. The rest is filtered out. 

[R33GZ]

On 3/3/2024 at 10:43 PM, Sobilak said:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2vz2gB0FM6U

The author presents the most frequently described Ta152 fight at low altitude with Tempest. What was described as a domination, turned out to be a draw.

 The Tempest was being flown by a very new pilot facing an unfamiliar aircraft and that he ultimately stalled in a turn. They lost 1 each.

 

That was my great uncle, Owen Mitchell. He was not a new pilot, but was held back as a flight instructor. He was however a very green combat pilot. The tempests were a flight of 4, flying in pairs looking for ground targets I believe. From the sound of it, and there is only 1 persons account of it, Owen entered a high speed stall at low level and went in. He was buried near the crash site with the German pilot I think and later moves to a commonwealth site. My family visited the crash site a few years back.... before covid hit.

[1PL-Husar-1Esk]

13 hours ago, R33GZ said:

Owen entered a high speed stall at low level and went in

That's it, most GB plans do not behavior like that, they stall but regain lift and stability almost automatically when you let them. Only i16 behave realistic IMHO.

[EAF19_Marsh]

2 hours ago, 1PL-Husar-1Esk said:

That's it, most GB plans do not behavior like that, they stall but regain lift and stability almost automatically when you let them. Only i16 behave realistic IMHO.

190 does a bit. Mind you, have not tried it recently.

[1PL-Husar-1Esk]

20 minutes ago, EAF19_Marsh said:

190 does a bit. Mind you, have not tried it recently.

Use to drop a wing and stall violently buy that was pached up.

[EAF19_Marsh]

55 minutes ago, 1PL-Husar-1Esk said:

Use to drop a wing and stall violently buy that was pached up.

Is so? I’ll fire it up and give it a go. Actually, amateur stall testing sounds like a fun 30 mins ?

[1PL-Husar-1Esk]

21 minutes ago, EAF19_Marsh said:

Is so? I’ll fire it up and give it a go. Actually, amateur stall testing sounds like a fun 30 mins ?

That was years ago, but have fun anyway ?

[Sneaksie]

21 hours ago, R33GZ said:

My family visited the crash site a few years back.... before covid hit.

Perhaps you have a photo of his family from WWII time? If yes, we can add it as a default cockpit photo for Tempest.

[357th_KW]

On 3/4/2024 at 2:28 PM, R33GZ said:

That was my great uncle, Owen Mitchell. He was not a new pilot, but was held back as a flight instructor. He was however a very green combat pilot. The tempests were a flight of 4, flying in pairs looking for ground targets I believe. From the sound of it, and there is only 1 persons account of it, Owen entered a high speed stall at low level and went in. He was buried near the crash site with the German pilot I think and later moves to a commonwealth site. My family visited the crash site a few years back.... before covid hit.

 

I just stumbled onto this film that might be interesting to you ...

 

A quote from Chris Shores 2nd TAF Volume 3 regarding April 14th, 1945: "In the same area that evening Wg Cdr Brooker and three of the unit's pilots were again after rail targets, but were split up. At 1930 Wt OffW.T.Shaw, who was flying with Brooker, saw a lone fighter - apparently an Fw 190 again, and shot this down in flames after a brief combat.  Meanwhile the other pair had been caught by three more fighters whilst concentrating on strafing, and Wt Off O.T.Mitchell, a new pilot with the unit, was shot down and killed. It was reported that his opponent may have been a Bf 109E - an obsolete type. Fig Off S.T.Short fought with one of the others, which he also identified as a Messerschmitt, claimed to have inflicted some damage on this. Their opponents were certainly not flying Bf 109Es, but fighters of a much more 'exotic' nature. The New Zealanders had been engaged by three members of Stab/TG 301, a unit which had recently been equipped with the initial examples of the Focke-Wulf Ta 152, the ultimate development of the Focke-Wulf 190 line to see operational service. In one of these, Ofw Willi Reschke had shot down Mitchell's Tempest over Ludwigslust at 1920, for his 25th victory, but in another of these fighters, Ofw Sepp Sattler had been shot down and killed - almost certainly by Shaw."

 

11:17 in the video starts W/C Brooker's film from that day, followed by Short and Shaw.

[R33GZ]

3 hours ago, 357th_KW said:

 

I just stumbled onto this film that might be interesting to you ...

 

A quote from Chris Shores 2nd TAF Volume 3 regarding April 14th, 1945: "In the same area that evening Wg Cdr Brooker and three of the unit's pilots were again after rail targets, but were split up. At 1930 Wt OffW.T.Shaw, who was flying with Brooker, saw a lone fighter - apparently an Fw 190 again, and shot this down in flames after a brief combat.  Meanwhile the other pair had been caught by three more fighters whilst concentrating on strafing, and Wt Off O.T.Mitchell, a new pilot with the unit, was shot down and killed. It was reported that his opponent may have been a Bf 109E - an obsolete type. Fig Off S.T.Short fought with one of the others, which he also identified as a Messerschmitt, claimed to have inflicted some damage on this. Their opponents were certainly not flying Bf 109Es, but fighters of a much more 'exotic' nature. The New Zealanders had been engaged by three members of Stab/TG 301, a unit which had recently been equipped with the initial examples of the Focke-Wulf Ta 152, the ultimate development of the Focke-Wulf 190 line to see operational service. In one of these, Ofw Willi Reschke had shot down Mitchell's Tempest over Ludwigslust at 1920, for his 25th victory, but in another of these fighters, Ofw Sepp Sattler had been shot down and killed - almost certainly by Shaw."

 

11:17 in the video starts W/C Brooker's film from that day, followed by Short and Shaw.

From what I've read, Reschkes wing cannons jammed and only the 30mm was firing. He described the tempest as maneuvering erratically which leads me to believe Owen stalled in. Being green and having a Mk 108 spitting fiery golf balls at him, I think it's probable he freaked out and over controlled.

 

Owen was my grand mother's brother. There may possibly be family photos somewhere. No idea if there'd be any service photos though

[EAF19_Marsh]

So, it was basically it was 1 / 1 destroyed and perhaps another -152 damaged. Does not strike me as ‘overwhelming’. But since it is a microscopic example it is statistically meaningless.

 

@R33GZ, thank you for adding that information and and my respects to the memory of your Great Uncle.

[Sneaksie]

11 hours ago, R33GZ said:

Owen was my grand mother's brother. There may possibly be family photos somewhere. No idea if there'd be any service photos though

No need to have service photos - on the contrary, a family photo (wife or girlfriend or his child) taken at that time would be best. The idea is to have a cockpit photo Owen himself would have had with him.

[357th_KW]

Just to add a little more to the story, I was talking through this with @ACG_Dubsy and he found this better quality copy of that same film:  https://imgur.com/t/raf/GHNqBcp

 

While both film sources credit this to being Wing Commander Brooker’s, there’s no claim from him, while there is one from W/O Shaw.  Here’s his combat report from here: 

 

W/O W. J. Shaw of 486 Squadron recorded in his Combat Report for 14 April 1945:

      I was flying Pink 2 & whilst diving to attack Met on a road about 10 miles east of Ludwigslust I saw a single Fw.190 flying east at deck level. I reported this to Pink 1 who ordered me to follow him in to attack. The 190 broke when we were out of range & as I could see that my No.1 would be unable to attack I dropped my tanks & climbed for height. As the E/A straightened out east I dived on it – passing my No. 1. This time the 190 broke rather later & again to port & I was able to pull my bead through until he disappeared beneath my nose. It was a full deflection shot & I opened fire when I judged I had 2 radii deflection on him. I fired a long burst & then broke upwards to observe results. As the 190 came in sight again I saw the flash of a strike just forward of the cockpit. An instant later, flames appeared from the port side &, enveloped in flames, the 190 went down in a gradual straight dive to the deck. I saw it crash in a field & explode.
      Cine camera used
      I claim 1 Fw.190 destroyed. 118

 

 

It seems that is likely Shaw’s film of an Fw190A.

[chilimatt]

I'm new here Hello e1. I'm Il2 from the beginning. The TA in il2 1946 flew like a dream. Smooth like a glider and plenty of power when needed. I'm just starting up in GB and came across this. The TA was 1 of my favorites. I hope it's as good as the 1946 series game. WOO HOOO!!!

 

chili out.

[Stickshaker]

On 3/1/2024 at 9:38 PM, sevenless said:

 

LOL! As much as I would like to fly the He-162 in this flight sim you have to remember that it flew operationally only in the last 4 weeks of the war from airfields north of the Elbe river. So yes, if we enter 1946 territory then bring on the He-162 and the P-80 jet please. Oh, and dont miss the Meteor I and III, which actually saw service not only hunting down doodle-bugs (V1s) in 1944 but also on the continent in 1945 both near Brussels and in Northern Germany.

That is the advandtage of a simulation: you can play what-if scenarios. I would love to see a He-162 and other late-war aircraft. Some may crave for historical accuracy. I simply want to have the experience of virtually flying aircraft so as to get a feeling what they would have been like. I also like flying 'real' aircraft, and I even made two flights in a real P-51D, but flying what-if aircraft broadens my experience and understanding.