Re: Ta-183

[Pursuivant]

Originally Posted by Pugo3

First up, the Ta 183. My understanding was that the original Ubisoft developers found engineering flaws with the tail assembly, so factored in 'correctives' of strengthening this area, with corresponding significant weight increases to the aircraft, with corresponding diminished aircraft performance. Also, it is my recollection that the developers incorporated the Jumo 004 rather than the anticipated more powerful HeS 011, thereby substantially under powering the designers original specifications with again, a serious degradation of performance.

Of all the "fantasy-waffe" aircraft in IL2:1946, I found the Ta-183 to be the most reasonable in terms of engineering assumptions and performance. Given that in, many ways, it was the precursor to the the FMA IAe 33 Pulqui II design, I'd suggest that it have performance no better than that plane.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/FMA_IAe_33_Pulqui_II

The problem with the engineering assumptions about the tail assembly is that there weren't any huge advancements in airframe materials at the time, even by nations with lavish R&D budgets and massive and undamaged industrial infrastructure, like the U.S.

At best, you could use magnesium to lighten the airframe, but there's not any really good strong material available - you'd need to use steel and that's heavy.

The engine upgrade is a more reasonable assumption.

Not to be discouraging, but it seems like alterations of a "what-if" aircraft that literally never made it off the drawing board before the war ended are best left as mods.

Originally Posted by Pugo3

Given the extraordinary capabilities of the German designers/engineers, especially under the pressures and demands of the late war years, it seems to me that a solution for any structural strengthening of the tail section would have been found that would have overcome any such problem without such drastic weight penalties as have been used by the Ubisoft team, but I understand this will be a debated topic.

There are two basic scenarios where "Luftwaffe Jets Win WWII". First, and most reasonable, is that in 1940 the Luftwaffe realizes that there will be a "long war" and goes all in on producing the new jet designs. Simultaneously, Hitler has a rare flash of good sense and stops ordering that every plane the Luftwaffe makes have dive bombing capacity.

The second scenario, which is a bit less likely, is that Germany gets a respite in 1943 or 1944 and then restarts the war after it has a chance to recover some of its industrial base.

IL2:1946 assumes the latter option, where Germany and the USSR make a separate peace in 1944 (presumably German doesn't lose at Stalingrad and the 1944 Summer Offensives are smashing German victories). Simultaneously, the Normandy Landings end in failure for the Western Allies.

That puts the Western Allies mostly out of the picture, and allows both the USSR and Germany time to field improved equipment when the war resumes in 1946.

[Furio]

Originally Posted by Pursuivant

Of all the "fantasy-waffe" aircraft in IL2:1946, I found the Ta-183 to be the most reasonable in terms of engineering assumptions and performance. Given that in, many ways, it was the precursor to the the FMA IAe 33 Pulqui II design, I'd suggest that it have performance no better than that plane.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/FMA_IAe_33_Pulqui_II

The problem with the engineering assumptions about the tail assembly is that there weren't any huge advancements in airframe materials at the time, even by nations with lavish R&D budgets and massive and undamaged industrial infrastructure, like the U.S.

At best, you could use magnesium to lighten the airframe, but there's not any really good strong material available - you'd need to use steel and that's heavy.

The engine upgrade is a more reasonable assumption.

Not to be discouraging, but it seems like alterations of a "what-if" aircraft that literally never made it off the drawing board before the war ended are best left as mods.

I completely agree on that.
We had enough debates – I believe – about real aircraft performances.

About the fancy capabilities of German engineers and the chances for Germany to win the war, a simple fact should be considered: Hitler was not an accident. He was the logical product of a Nazi regime, complete of all insanities. I don’t believe there could have been a “rational Nazism”, or a “Friendly Stalinism”.

[sniperton]

Originally Posted by Furio

I completely agree on that.
We had enough debates – I believe – about real aircraft performances.

About the fancy capabilities of German engineers and the chances for Germany to win the war, a simple fact should be considered: Hitler was not an accident. He was the logical product of a Nazi regime, complete of all insanities. I don’t believe there could have been a “rational Nazism”, or a “Friendly Stalinism”.

+1

[Treetop64]

Originally Posted by Furio

I completely agree on that.
We had enough debates – I believe – about real aircraft performances.

About the fancy capabilities of German engineers and the chances for Germany to win the war, a simple fact should be considered: Hitler was not an accident. He was the logical product of a Nazi regime, complete of all insanities. I don’t believe there could have been a “rational Nazism”, or a “Friendly Stalinism”.

** Drinks **

[Pugo3]

There are a host of aircraft on Il-2 that were not realized, the later version He-162 and Me 262, which no metal was cut and were projections. And all respondents thus far have side stepped the Mig 300 engine that was provided by the Ubisoft team according to the designers specs, but that I understand from others posts in previous forum threads was not in fact a successfully accomplished jet engine - yet participants in Il-2 can see what the projected aircraft might have been, all in good fun, let's not take ourselves too seriously.

Some have invoked Hitlers influence, etc., but my inquiry is strictly on a presentation of the aircraft according to the manufacturers projected performance with the correct powerplant - this point has thus far been entirely sidestepped.

Be that as it may, I respectfully leave it with the current developers, or perhaps Mod developers who might see merit in my inquiry regardless of naysayers and detractors of various persuasions and prejudices.

p3

[ElAurens]

The "paper napkin" planes, no matter from what country, were a waste of time and resources that could have been better spent on aircraft that had a real impact on the war, that to this day we still do not have in the sim.

Kind of a moot point now though, isn't it?

[Furio]

Originally Posted by Pugo3

And all respondents thus far have side stepped the Mig 300 engine that was provided by the Ubisoft team according to the designers specs, but that I understand from others posts in previous forum threads was not in fact a successfully accomplished jet engine - yet participants in Il-2 can see what the projected aircraft might have been, all in good fun, let's not take ourselves too seriously.

p3

On that I agree completely, with all my persuasion and prejudices.
Staying strictly on topic, estimated performances were rarely met by prototypes, with production machines falling further behind. In my opinion, downgrading estimated performances is a measure of realism, if the word “realism” can be used for a paper airplane. Upping performances to suit designers hopes, usually related to more powerful engines, goes in the opposite directions. Not a bad thing per se, but away from what I personally like in Il2. Perhaps I should add that, after an immediate enthusiasm, I got disenchanted with the whole 1946 add-on.

In the end, I agree with El. I would have preferred more operational types. A flyable Helldiver instead of Lerche, a late model Ju88, or Ju188, instead of Mig 300, and so on.

This preference makes mi comments here surely biased, and I apologize for that.

[Pugo3]

I would add that a distinction should be made between conceptual aircraft put forth by designers and those designs that had reached an advanced level of completion, especially having accomplished detailed manufacturing drawings; I understand that the Ta 183 was one of this category, so remarks by respondents regarding 'fantasy' and 'napkin' are highly misleading and do not give proper respect or regard for the high level of skill and actual work achieved by the designers. It is all too easy and common to be dismissive and contemptuous of such men, but that is just life as it is, nothing more can be said nor remedy found for this.

Certainly many conceptual designs were put forth; this is a typical design stage of any nation or age, and to be sure, they are quickly studied and often as quickly dismissed, but the creativity and freedom and scope of design are admirable, and sometimes where pursued by modern designers in great earnestness [was it the X-29, can't recall, that incorporated the swept forward wing of a German design?] And another later concern I believe built a variable position wing of extremely exotic configuration wherein a single wing, not 2, could be rotated foe different fat great expense, again, one of the 'fantasy' quick studies of the time

However, the Ta 183 was a serious design that was planned for manufacture; I believe that a alternate design was in hand for a more conventional tail unit, so they seemed to be aware of the potential problem.

As this aircraft is already in the game, no aircraft would be lost, and as the design might well have dramatically impacted the latter war period, the point is hardly moot.

I would respectfully ask the TD team to at least consider upgrading the engine the the HeS 011 so as to allow the aircraft to be flown as per design spec, again, as the present Mig 300 in game has been rendered.

p3

[Pursuivant]

Originally Posted by Pugo3

I would add that a distinction should be made between conceptual aircraft put forth by designers and those designs that had reached an advanced level of completion, especially having accomplished detailed manufacturing drawings

The problem is that the Ta-183 only made it to wind tunnel models. The level of design capability at the time was such that calculations or wind tunnel models were insufficient to determine a plane's real capabilities. Without at least a static, or better yet, a flying, prototype, we can never be sure what the Ta-183's performance actually would have been.

My opinion is swapping engines to get improved performance isn't unreasonable, but assuming some miracle in materials engineering to fix the tail problem is. So, +1 on uprated engine, -1 on lighter airframe.

Beyond that, what's the Ta-183's role in the game? The various "1946" swept wing Luftwaffe fighters are objectively better than any other fighters in the game. The Ta-183 has vastly superior diving speed, and holds its own in terms of maneuverability, straight line speed and firepower compared to any allied jet.

Making a plane that's already very impressive into one that utterly dominates its opposition makes for a boring game. Offline, it's fun to fly such planes when you "just want to kill something," but it gets old after a while. Online, you'll either have everyone flying the Ta-183 or else it will be banned in order to preserve balance.

As a mod, where an uprated Ta-183 can fly against the MiG-15 and the F-86, it would be a competitive design.

[badatflyski]

Originally Posted by Pursuivant

Of all the "fantasy-waffe" aircraft in IL2:1946, I found the Ta-183 to be the most reasonable in terms of engineering assumptions and performance. Given that in, many ways, it was the precursor to the the FMA IAe 33 Pulqui II design, I'd suggest that it have performance no better than that plane.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/FMA_IAe_33_Pulqui_II

.

yeah right, the 183 has to the pulqui what the mig 15 has to the 183....

ta183 was drawn and devlopped by Mulhtrop, Kurt wasn't involved, the pulqui by Tank himself (without Multhrop's knowledge), as the mig15 we don't know but he russians took a lot of Fw projects files in Malbork. Just as saab received some files on the p1101 from Messeschmitt ..the list is long here...
The only think those planes have in common it's their look.