Author Topic: Ta152H-1 wing tanks = asymmetrical??? (Read 1217 times)

Krusty · « **Reply #15 on:** January 29, 2007, 01:49:44 AM »

30k is only its best speed. It still struggles up there. I took it to 40k, all it could do was make a 5-mile-wide gentle turn. If it ran into bombers that high they'd be dead, though.

However, you shouldn't HAVE to play with the fuel to get a stable and competitive performance. What if the P47N had 60lbs extra weight in one wing, and 150lbs in the tail? I'm making these numbers up but I bet it would flop around and fishtail as badly as the 152 does.

Considering it's a late late late model 190, it should FLY similar to one, instead of how it does now. Only heavier, with worse climb, and longer wings. At least, that's my opinion.

mussie · « **Reply #16 on:** January 29, 2007, 01:50:28 AM »

Quote

Originally posted by Serenity
Actually krusty, I drain fuel for level flight. At low speed the Typhoon will always drop its left wing, I lighten it to increase stability. But play with your fuel settings and see if you can increase stability. My biggest problem with the Ta-152 is that at low level it struggles, and no one flies at 30k, its best altitude.

Ahem..... BAH

Serenity · « **Reply #17 on:** January 29, 2007, 01:51:46 AM »

Hey, I love Luftwaffe rides, so trust me, im on your side. But looking at all of the other glitches, and how rare it is to actually see one of these, im guessing its not high on HTC's list of priorities.

mussie · « **Reply #18 on:** January 29, 2007, 01:54:32 AM »

Quote

Originally posted by Serenity
Hey, I love Luftwaffe rides, so trust me, im on your side. But looking at all of the other glitches, and how rare it is to actually see one of these, im guessing its not high on HTC's list of priorities.

hehe I am just messing around....

I love my 152 just as much as my FM2 and KI-67.....

But really the 152 can pull off some fantastic stuff if your smooth with her...

Serenity · « **Reply #19 on:** January 29, 2007, 01:59:26 AM »

Quote

Originally posted by mussie
hehe I am just messing around....

I was talking to Krusty. Didnt even notice your post until just now

But yeah... I am trying to fly as realisticly as possible. It was only a matter of time until I started manually draining fuel. It can be a b**** to forget to switch to the fuselage before ditching a Drop Tank in combat...

corpse · « **Reply #20 on:** February 01, 2007, 11:21:09 AM »

krusty would it not have a heavier tank in the left wing to compensate for prop torque?

Krusty · « **Reply #21 on:** February 01, 2007, 12:04:01 PM »

Your rudder and your ailerons compensate for torque, having a 100-lb(?) weight in one wing is just going to destabilize it. Remember that the real thing drained in 10 minutes or so, so it wouldn't ruin performance when it was empty. Ours is always full, even when all the wings have drained. Same for the GM1 in the tail.

corpse · « **Reply #22 on:** February 01, 2007, 12:07:19 PM »

well as ive seen in the past it is a game and modeled to hitech details not real life

Krusty · « **Reply #23 on:** February 01, 2007, 12:14:45 PM »

The problem is the way HTC modeled WEP. In this game WEP is endless (because we have a fuel multiplier, which would change how long it lasted, thus screwing you if you got into a fight and needed it) so WEP only lasts "X" minutes, or until your engine overheats. Once the engine cools down you can use it again as long as your engine is running.

So, if WEP never drains, you can't model MW50 or GM1 tanks that drain. So what do you do? You have to model the weight of these items, but they don't drain, so they're just dead weight.

It's really like this because they decided to do WEP the way they did.

I think a decent (or at least "more fair") compromise would be to make these tanks aux gas tanks. That way you could drain the gas in them and not be flopping around because your aircraft is unstable.

Bronk · « **Reply #24 on:** February 01, 2007, 12:42:17 PM »

Quote

Originally posted by Krusty
The problem is the way HTC modeled WEP. In this game WEP is endless (because we have a fuel multiplier, which would change how long it lasted, thus screwing you if you got into a fight and needed it) so WEP only lasts "X" minutes, or until your engine overheats. Once the engine cools down you can use it again as long as your engine is running.

So, if WEP never drains, you can't model MW50 or GM1 tanks that drain. So what do you do? You have to model the weight of these items, but they don't drain, so they're just dead weight.

It's really like this because they decided to do WEP the way they did.

I think a decent (or at least "more fair") compromise would be to make these tanks aux gas tanks. That way you could drain the gas in them and not be flopping around because your aircraft is unstable.

What about wet wep for allied AC?

Bronk

Krusty · « **Reply #25 on:** February 01, 2007, 12:51:04 PM »

Quote

Originally posted by Bronk
What about wet wep for allied AC?

Bronk

I'm guessing it's the same way. Only in US planes they don't tail slide all the time, flop about when at high alt or med alt, or hell even low alt, and they don't have a huge dead weight pulling one wing down all the time

I'm sure in allied planes there's also an issue, but the Ta152's case is much worse.

moot · « **Reply #26 on:** February 03, 2007, 08:04:08 AM »

Krusty, how many years has the 152 gone unchanged?... There are no surprise about it anymore.
IIRC, you just have to be patient and build speed at high alt, and the energy retention will do the rest.

I did have a spit9 or 13 follow me from pretty much ground level, all the way past 35k, and out perform me at everything but high speed ACM, which we never got to try.
The 152's just a heavy interceptor, with an anemic engine, which means your only advantage is the fuel range, high alt-biased design, clean aerodynamics, and the guns.

As for the 0mph stall, it is a *****, but there is a way to break out of it systematically. I don't remember the details, and it definitely cost you at minimum 5 seconds extra compared to other planes, but it does exist.

mussie · « **Reply #27 on:** February 05, 2007, 03:15:59 PM »

Quote

Originally posted by moot
Krusty, how many years has the 152 gone unchanged?... There are no surprise about it anymore.
IIRC, you just have to be patient and build speed at high alt, and the energy retention will do the rest.

I did have a spit9 or 13 follow me from pretty much ground level, all the way past 35k, and out perform me at everything but high speed ACM, which we never got to try.
The 152's just a heavy interceptor, with an anemic engine, which means your only advantage is the fuel range, high alt-biased design, clean aerodynamics, and the guns.

As for the 0mph stall, it is a *****, but there is a way to break out of it systematically. I don't remember the details, and it definitely cost you at minimum 5 seconds extra compared to other planes, but it does exist.

pffffffffffffffttttttttttt

I must be flying all the other planes Really Really Bad.....

Krusty · « **Reply #28 on:** February 05, 2007, 03:24:23 PM »

It's not about E-retention. It's not about flying an unfamiliar aircraft. Ta152 was may favorite perk plane for a LONG time before it was unperked.

Mussie, you remember that fight we had at 20k, right? I've got it on film somewhere. Anyways, our speeds rarely got below 150mph and we were flopping so bad. We couldn't do a loop without curling around into a curly-fry shape. We could only do half-hearted wiiiiide-as-hell turns, gentle as a baby, and then in the end it was a HO that ended the fight (I gave up, to be honest, wish I'd gone after your lanc pals instead).

Anyways, the plane flies terribly, even if you fly it smart. The wings bounce because of the asymmetrical weight. It's horribly floppy and unstable because there's a huge lump of dead weight in the tail.

I have a feeling it'll never get redone. Why? Because they would have redone it with the 190s if they cared about it. It's got too many problems, too many compromises to fit the early AH1 flight engine, for it to ever be fixed without a major re-coad (starting from scratch would be my best guess).

It's not about weak engine power, or poor climb, it's about floppage. Mucho floppo. Because it's got dead weights inside one wing and the tail, both which are bad for any type of flight other than "level".

mussie · « **Reply #29 on:** February 05, 2007, 05:19:05 PM »

Quote

Originally posted by Krusty
Mussie, you remember that fight we had at 20k, right? I've got it on film somewhere. Anyways, our speeds rarely got below 150mph and we were flopping so bad. We couldn't do a loop without curling around into a curly-fry shape. We could only do half-hearted wiiiiide-as-hell turns, gentle as a baby, and then in the end it was a HO that ended the fight (I gave up, to be honest, wish I'd gone after your lanc pals instead).

Hmmm I see your point on a technical basis, but the fact is I still get more kills in the 152 than any other plane.... except for the FM2.... and the fight I had with you would be the first 152 fight I have had that was higher than about 10K... So I get most of those 152 kills down low...

I know it could be better but It really aint that bad a plane...

EDIT: krusty... Do you really think the end of that fight was a HO... Yeah we were head on but it took us what 5 minutes to get there....

I think its only a HO if its on the inital merge... but thats my opinion