Test pilots and recorded numbers - differing data

[Krusty]

Bronk, we can disagree, that's the beauty of free speech.

However, the Temp pilot was a flight instructor with 700+ hours under his belt, and despite being transitioned to temps several months prior I bet he had more experience than Reschke EDIT: Reschke, with 27 kills, had only flown 40 sorties total, most in 190As.


Off topic: Didn't Pyro once say he wanted to totally redo the 152 flight model? Or was that just the 190s (not counting the Ta)?

[Bronk]

Keep qualifying your evidence.
Like you do with almost all your arguments.
There are to many variables.

Like Bruno said back it up with numbers.

'till then I'm out.

Bronk

[Krusty]

Which numbers, though?

The ones that would have you believe it was a mediocre flop of a plane (the most commonly printed ones) or the ones that aren't recorded, or are overlooked, where the pilots say it turns very tightly, is a joy to fly, and all that.

You can't say "Give me numbers or shut up" (paraphrase) and I'll tell you exactly why:

The 109s and 190s in AH. They have the EXACT same numbers: speed, climb, turn radius, turn rate, but literally the entire history of AH up til 2.06/2.07 they were the worst turning planes in the game due to constant instability at any moment. The "flop" problem. HTC finally said to themselves "okay we can't fix this without rewriting the entire air flow code" -- so they rewrite the entire air flow code and now thes planes are dominating monsters. The speed is the same. The turn the same. The climb the same. What changed? The handling. The stall.

The parts not defined by the numbers.

Numbers do not a solid case make.

Having said that, if I had any other test reports I'd post 'em. I'm still waiting for somebody in the know to answer why the most common test results are so sub-par compared to actual combat reports, pilot reports, and test pilot reports. Once somebody answers that maybe I can help you.

[Krusty]

previous discussion

Wilbus claims they tested it possibly with a bad engine, and (as I mentioned) without any kind of boost. I wish he'd pop in and give us the numbers he has.

[Bronk]

Already got sucked back in.


Urchin's post




 I'm going to try to quantify this perk plane known as the Ta-152. The strong points are good rolling, good firepower, great range, and great turning (once the wing tanks are empty). In my opinion that is why it is perked.

It *will* out turn a Tempest on the deck, in a flat-turn. Ok, I've never actually tested them, but I've tested the Ta152 vs the La7 and the Tempest vs the La7. With a light fue load (50% or so), the Ta-152 out turns the La7 easily. At any fuel load, the La7 out turns the Tempest.

It isn't one of the super fastest planes in the game (at least not on the deck, where it counts), but it can out-run what it can't out-turn. The exception to this may be the Spit 14, that might be able to run one down at low altitude, I'm not sure.

The P-51 doesn't out turn OR out accelerate the Ta-152, as far as I know. The -152s acceleration isn't as good as the other German planes, but I don't believe it is as slow as the P-51 either.

Anyway, thats my 2 cents on the Ta-152.


__________________
Rawr

Urchin01 ... and counting

--------------------------------------------------------------------------
Keep on tilting krusty.



Bronk

[Krusty]

Check the Date. That might be true of the Ta152 of AH1, but most folks agree it took a big hit in AH2. [EDIT: Then again in 2.06/07, which version WAS it that they redid the air code in?]

This is interesting, quoted from poster Psyco

After testing, the Army stored the aircraft and then turned it over to the National Air Museum in 1960.
In 1998 Museum restoration staff were treating deteriorated sections of the wooden aft fuselage, fin, rudder, and right elevator when they discovered several interesting items that offered tantalizing glimpses into the airplane's shadowy past
Extensive wood rot was found in where the horizontal stabilizer joins the vertical fin. The restoration staff speculated that during testing at Wright Field, pilots and engineers became concerned that the wooden tail may have been weakened by defective glues or sabotage. They strengthened the entire area with steel plate. However, this work may have compromised flight safety because it required moving the horizontal stabilizer forward several inches, exacerbating a tail-heavy condition already known to the Germans. The restoration specialist removed the steel plate and rebuilt the tail to the original German configuration.

That alone suggests [EDIT: changed from "proves"] that any post war tests would have been inaccurate to say the least. I have no clue, does anybody know if there were official RLM tests or anything, before the war's end?

[Bronk]

I see now ... my anecdotal evidence is not as good as yours.

Unless HT or Pyro come in here and say diff..it's the same model for the Ta.
I await your qualifying response.



Bronk

[Krusty]

See my post about the air code.

109s and 190s with the same hard-coded numbers, but night and day difference because the air flow code was buggy, after the bugs were fixed they were true contenders.

Ta before was much stronger as a fighter (several on these forums have commented thus, saying "in Ah1 it could really fight in a furball/hang on its prop/mix it up")

I'm not bitter or anything, It is how it is. I still want to know WHY it is like it is.

[Bronk]

However, this work may have compromised flight safety

There is that pesky word that ads to the speculation.

Let me point it out cuz you probably gloss it over.



[SIZE=8]MAY[/SIZE]


They cant say proof positive.

Tilt away my boy.



Bronk

[Bronk]

Originally posted by Krusty


Ta before was much stronger as a fighter (several on these forums have commented thus, saying "in Ah1 it could really fight in a furball/hang on its prop/mix it up")

 

Prove it . Like i said until HT or pyro say diff it's the same FM.

Ohh and the 109 /190 thing got better after blahh blahh blahh patch.

Every plane in the plane set got better IMHO.
There that makes it fact.

Bronk

Edit: OHH and 2003 was AH1?

[Krusty]

It was a direct quote from a book on the Smithsonian, not my words.

Well you take a tail heavy plane, remove the stabs, and move them a few inches closer forward, tack on steel plates and reattach the stabs.

The reason the Ta has the extra length on the tail is because it needed the stabs further back to fly properly. I'm guessing this is going to hurt the stability and (*speculation*) possibly the turn if it affects how much down force the stabs create <-- me confused.

Well it's been fun looking this up, gotta log off the BBS for the day. I hope some other folks with new info on the matter show up. It was enlightening doing a forum search for past threads on the matter. Thanks for joining in the conversation Bronk. A pleasure, as always.

[Krusty]

A side note. Bronk, you're an intelligent guy, I know this. For years HTC said nothing was wrong with the 109 and 190. For years, repeat, multiples of 12 months. After AH2 came out there was a noticable change. Many times after a big update folks familiar with the planes remarked on the differences in handling. These were often felt by all the pilots that flew the same plane (thus ruling out perceptions on the part of a couple people, we're talking dozens or hundreds).

Yes HTC still said nothing changed. Why? Because they didn't change any of the hard-coded tables for these planes, but the code that processed said tables did change. There were changes. The entire 109/190 community acknowledges this. Yet the table values are the same. When HTC says nothing has changed they mean the tables are still the same. That doesn't mean the planes are the same.

For you to say "HT says nothing changed, prove otherwise" smacks of trolling, I'm sorry to say. I can't tell if you're kidding or not!

[Bronk]

Krusty I'm not sure but i think you just call me an intelligent troll.



Nice don't like that a guy disagrees so lets call him names. Albeit pretty sounding words.

I still find it hard to believe all planes got better EXCEPT the Ta.

Bronk

[hitech]

Krusty: You might as well first start with the correct  numbers.

Ta152

[Krusty]

*pops in quickly while waiting for ride home*

I knew it was something where climb rate was almost doubled with WEP. 2400fpm without, 3600fpm with. Thanks [<-- edited, missing a word]

EDIT: HT, you used some info when you created the Ta152. Could you please let me know what the info was titled? I.e. if it was some flight test, what the name of the report was, or what have you? I'm curious to look it up somewhere if I can.