Author Topic: Ta152 is ... (Read 1940 times)

MANDOBLE · « **on:** December 12, 2001, 08:19:00 AM »

... still an expensive perk plane. Taking into consideration that our MA is not an WWII theater (like it should be our CT), I see no reason here to perk planes based on production numbers. IMO, having 10 Tas per 190A5 is, historically, as erroneous as dogfighting a Spit with another Spit.
IMO, the overal performance plus weapons are the correct factors to perk a plane (like 262).

Is the Ta152 a so terrible foe? Is Ta more dangerous than the much cheaper F4U1-C or our "beloved" and unperked La7/Yak9U? Is the Ta able to break the MA equilibrium? Would an unperked Ta see more action than our actual 109G10, for example? Is the Ta the ultimate buff killer? Are the Ta weapons more effective than the 4 hispanos of a tiffie? Is killing with a Ta a so easy task to justify its very low ENY value?

Ta should be a costly perk plane in our CT, but I cant find any reason to have it perked in our MA.

Kieran · « **Reply #1 on:** December 12, 2001, 08:23:00 AM »

Mandoble, this would be taken a lot more seriously by me if you had not just advocated perking the Spitfire IX. As it is, I find it difficult to resolve that seeming contradiction.

MANDOBLE · « **Reply #2 on:** December 12, 2001, 08:33:00 AM »

Kieran, sincerelly, perking the Spit is a must if we want to have something near an equilibrated arena (what about 2 perk points). Go anywhere on the map and there they are, dozens of spits, some Las and nikkies and then a pair of anything else. First this was ACESHOG, now it is SPITHIGH

IMO, in the other hand, unperking the Ta wont have any overabuse effect on MA.

Animal · « **Reply #3 on:** December 12, 2001, 08:54:00 AM »

The Ta152 is a monster, no matter what height. Its a Dora on steroids. It should stay perked, but at a lower price. Around 10 perks should be right for it.

Sundog · « **Reply #4 on:** December 12, 2001, 09:05:00 AM »

The Ta-152 is only 30 perks. Also, as good as it is, you shouldn't get shot down it, in which case, the cost is inconsequential.

MANDOBLE · « **Reply #5 on:** December 12, 2001, 09:18:00 AM »

At the common fighting altitudes of MA:
1 - D9 is faster than Ta.
2 - D9 climbs better than Ta.
3 - D9 rolls much better than Ta.
4 - D9 accelerates better than Ta.
5 - D9 has more ammo than Ta.
6 - Ta turns better than D9.
7 - Ta has much greater range than D9.
8 - Ta wings break over'n over.
9 - Ta engine gets cold slower than D9.
10 - Ta stalls are much more common and dangerous than D9.

I cant see the steroids except for the 30mm gun and the diving hability of the Ta (until breaking the wings).

Karnak · « **Reply #6 on:** December 12, 2001, 09:37:00 AM »

Yeah, 9.5% of the aircraft are Spit IXs, that sure sounds like going somewhere and seeing dozens of spits, some Las and nikkies and then a pair of anything else. 75% of the aircraft in the MA = "pair of anything else".

Oh no!!!! Its a slow assed, TnB aircraft!!! Whatever shall I do? Oh, they're just so powerful that they can go a whole 321mph!!!

MANDOBLE, you see that many Spits because you hate Spits and don't want to see any, thus you remember the Spits you see and not the other stuff. Then you come here and post outrageous exagerations as fact.

Am0n · « **Reply #7 on:** December 12, 2001, 09:53:00 AM »

IMO it should be perked, but not that much.

Maybe 8-10 perks. That thing can out dive just about anything. Its a great plane, for a luftweiner AC anyway

Wilbus · « **Reply #8 on:** December 12, 2001, 10:05:00 AM »

Well Said Mando, not a WW2 arena so why should the planes that were built in few numbers be perked just because of few numbers?

Allso, Animal

The TA is definatly not a Dora on steroids except when it comes to Turn rate and range. The D9 is baout 25Mph faster at the deck (Ta speed at deck is about 355mph).

Ta152 should probarly not be perked, or atleast cheaper then 30. Almost noone flies it and almost no one would fly it if it was unperked.

Hell, it is my plane and I like the planes that few people fly, PERK IT MORE!

MANDOBLE · « **Reply #9 on:** December 12, 2001, 10:21:00 AM »

Congrats Karnak, you are as good psychoanalizer as Woodie Allen. And looking to your result of 9.5% of "USAGE", you are as good mathematician as Shakespeare.
In the other hand, do you have any constructive/destructive opinion about the perk cost of Ta?

Kieran · « **Reply #10 on:** December 12, 2001, 10:25:00 AM »

I do. Until you desist with calls for Spit IX perking, there can be no validity given to your calls to de-perk the Ta.

1942 aircraft: PERK!
1945 aircraft: NO PERK!

Hey, if we see more Zeroes in the MA should those be perked too, seriously? It outperforms the Ta in every area you despise in the Spit, you know. Heck, it's even BETTER than the Spit.

Tac · « **Reply #11 on:** December 12, 2001, 10:34:00 AM »

Make the TA the same perk cost as the CHOG.

Besides, the Ta152 would make a great hi alt fighter for the germans, and at the cheap perk cost it would give the waffles a plane that can compete with the p51, p38 and p47 at 25k+ , not to mention intercepting the 32k bombers.

Am0n · « **Reply #12 on:** December 12, 2001, 10:47:00 AM »

Quote

Originally posted by Kieran:
I do. Until you desist with calls for Spit IX perking, there can be no validity given to your calls to de-perk the Ta.

1942 aircraft: PERK!
1945 aircraft: NO PERK!

Hey, if we see more Zeroes in the MA should those be perked too, seriously? It outperforms the Ta in every area you despise in the Spit, you know. Heck, it's even BETTER than the Spit.

You cant be serious?
ZERO better than a spit?? ROFL.. you are mistaken. the only thing it does better is turn, period. The spit has more control at speed and rolls 10times as fast. the only time the Zero wins is when the spit is a dweeb and tries to out turn fight you.

Pepe · « **Reply #13 on:** December 12, 2001, 10:49:00 AM »

Or, at least, give it a try with lower perk points. Now I can hardly see a single one.

(btw., nothing alone can intercept a 32k buff)

Cheers,

Pepe

Kieran · « **Reply #14 on:** December 12, 2001, 10:54:00 AM »

AmOn-

I was being sardonic. Of course the Zero is worse than the Spit. Of course the Spit is worse than the Ta. That is what makes the call for un-perking the Ta but perking the Spit so ludicrous.

But hey, un-perk the Ta- I think Urchin made a more eloquent argument (I didn't necessarily agree with it, but it had a better basis in logic) though. If you want to argue from a usage standpoint, that holds more water, but you still come down to the fact we have people who want the freedom to use ahistorically without penalty. Even THAT I don't have a problem with, but to in the next breath talk about limiting the only British fighter that is in any way competitive with this late war monster? Even the most ardent of LW fanatics must see this is a preposterous argument.