Ta 152

[STEELE]

Yes, the Ta-152 has a 59% better L/D ratio when the Ta-152 is turning at 138 g's and the F4U-4 at 154 g's   (and that's being generous with aircraft weight).  

But let's assume you really meant sea level & an airspeed of 600 kph (372 mph) and not 2160 kph (1341 mph), and that looking at l/d ratios only is even remotely a valid way for estimating sustained turn performance.  

It sure would be awesome to watch the Ta-152 and F4U-4 sustain turns indefinitely at 11.2 and 12.6 g's respectively!  HTC better fix their FM ASAP closer to this "reality"!

  12g, you're right, I meant 600kph,  supposed to be max speed at sea level for both planes, only I forgot our Ta will only do360 at SL                                                                                                                       anyway, a lower AR wing needs a higher AoA to produce the same amount of lift as a high AR wing
 High aspect ratio wing is supposed to be great at low indicated airspeed OR high alts.  Our 152 is not great at low speeds.               fun fact:  both planes use NACA 23000 airfoil
              

[Stoney]

 a lower AR wing needs a higher AoA to produce the same amount of lift as a high AR wing

You mean regardless of wing area?  Compare a wing with 500 ft^2 of area, and an aspect ratio of 6 to a wing with 250 ft^2 of area, and an aspect ratio of 12 and see how your statement holds up on two aircraft of the same weight.

High aspect ratio wing is supposed to be great at low indicated airspeed OR high alts.

???  High aspect ratio wing is certainly used in both instances, but not just because its the only way to achieve performance in those regimes.  Taken as a single figure of merit, high aspect ratio is just that--high aspect ratio.  Without considering the rest of the aircraft's characteristics and without other performance analysis, its meaningless.  Like Tango says, its aerodynamics not aerostatics.

[dtango]

                                                                                                anyway, a lower AR wing needs a higher AoA to produce the same amount of lift as a high AR wing
 High aspect ratio wing is supposed to be great at low indicated airspeed OR high alts.  Our 152 is not great at low speeds.               fun fact:  both planes use NACA 23000 airfoil

Mixing random aero concepts in a pseudo-physics blender still results in junk FM science.

[EagleDNY]

and I am STILL looking for someone that has a copy of that post-war flight testing report of an ACTUAL Ta-152 to see what they had to say about the flight characteristics....

[greens]

I PWN ALL INA 152 duel except i cant beat moot    oh n kappa 

[Wmaker]

  12g, you're right, I meant 600kph,  supposed to be max speed at sea level for both planes, only I forgot our Ta will only do360 at SL                                                                                                                       anyway, a lower AR wing needs a higher AoA to produce the same amount of lift as a high AR wing
 High aspect ratio wing is supposed to be great at low indicated airspeed OR high alts.  Our 152 is not great at low speeds.               fun fact:  both planes use NACA 23000 airfoil
              

Formulas aren't any good if you don't have a single clue about what is happening.

[Debrody]

and I am STILL looking for someone that has a copy of that post-war flight testing report of an ACTUAL Ta-152 to see what they had to say about the flight characteristics....

+1
Btw, 152 vs f4u4... Dont open the flaps on the hog, take a light fuel load on the 152 and they will produce almost the same sustained turn rate. Where the corsair wins is the turn radius, being able to scissor/overshoot better than some of the dedicated turnfighters.
Shemp, i lost the line somewhere, but if the 152 has a better Lift/Drag ratio, it means that the airframe was more effective/clean design than the f4u's. The hog can still produce more lift than the 152, but its drag will be much more. Its WAY more powerful engine could pull that more draggy airframe just as fast (or faster) than the aerodinamically more advanced 152.

[moot]

I PWN ALL INA 152 duel except i cant beat moot    oh n kappa 

Pretty sure you beat me fair & square a few times.


STEELE - look up Stoney's posts... In.. some thread (sorry cant recall at all what thread this discussion happened, pretty sure it was in last 6mo-1yr) where he describes exactly what it takes to line up all the factors involved to make for a level comparison between two planes.  The benchmark he'd made at the time included an F6F and another single prop fighter.  Maybe he remembers what I'm talking about.  When you find that discussion, you'll see exactly how they're right when they insist on "it being aerodynamics".  It's no cop out or exaggeration.

[grizz441]

I PWN ALL INA 152 duel except i cant beat moot    oh n kappa 

Oh and me. 

[kilo2]

 

[Stoney]

Pretty sure you beat me fair & square a few times.


STEELE - look up Stoney's posts... In.. some thread (sorry cant recall at all what thread this discussion happened, pretty sure it was in last 6mo-1yr) where he describes exactly what it takes to line up all the factors involved to make for a level comparison between two planes.  The benchmark he'd made at the time included an F6F and another single prop fighter.  Maybe he remembers what I'm talking about.  When you find that discussion, you'll see exactly how they're right when they insist on "it being aerodynamics".  It's no cop out or exaggeration.

My "Excess Power" thread...

[dtango]

Shemp, i lost the line somewhere, but if the 152 has a better Lift/Drag ratio, it means that the airframe was more effective/clean design than the f4u's.

Assuming L/D is fixed for an airplane couldn't be further from the truth.   L/D varies greatly & non-linearly with Cl and airspeed, thus extrapolating L/D comparisons between airplanes for one Cl & airspeed for all other Cl's & airspeeds is folly.

The hog can still produce more lift than the 152, but its drag will be much more. Its WAY more powerful engine could pull that more draggy airframe just as fast (or faster) than the aerodinamically more advanced 152.

Projecting sustained turn performance requires solving a set of partial differential equations simultaneously.  People making sustained turn performance statements from generalities are X-Men mutants able to run numerical solutions for simultaneous PDE's in their brains, or they are making wild assertions based on pseudo-physics and don't know it.
 
Constraining sustained turn analysis for a turn when thrust exactly balances out drag solves the PDE problem.  This reduces it to specific cl, cd, weight, thrust, & velocity satisfying the condition for a turn where thrust=drag.  Though more simplified, because of non-linearity's, making turn performance conclusions from generalities is simply fanciful speculation without knowing the cl, cd, weight, thrust, & velocity that satisfy thrust=drag in a turn.

Please repeat after me.  Aero-DY-NAM-ICS.  

[Debrody]

Assuming L/D is fixed for an airplane couldn't be further from the truth.   L/D varies greatly & non-linearly with Cl and airspeed, thus extrapolating L/D comparisons between airplanes for one Cl & airspeed for all other Cl's & airspeeds is folly.
Projecting sustained turn performance requires solving a set of partial differential equations simultaneously.  People making sustained turn performance statements from generalities are X-Men mutants able to run numerical solutions for simultaneous PDE's in their brains, or they are making wild assertions based on pseudo-physics and don't know it.
 
Constraining sustained turn analysis for a turn when thrust exactly balances out drag solves the PDE problem.  This reduces it to specific cl, cd, weight, thrust, & velocity satisfying the condition for a turn where thrust=drag.  Though more simplified, because of non-linearity's, making turn performance conclusions from generalities is simply fanciful speculation without knowing the cl, cd, weight, thrust, & velocity that satisfy thrust=drag in a turn.

Please repeat after me.  Aero-DY-NAM-ICS.  

Sir,
i have no idea, how you got there from my statements. Maybe i wasnt using the correct words (forgive me plz), but read it again, i never said ANY exact statement, couse i dont know the aerodinamics as detailed. These are only ratios, nothing more. More drag + more power can still result the same speed as the less drag + less power. It may be true... idk where i stated anything more.

[dtango]

Debrody:  My l/d assumption statements were really for steele/shemp.  The turn performance statements were for both of you.

Sir,
...i never said ANY exact statement, couse i dont know the aerodinamics as detailed.

This is my point.  General, unqualified aero statements missing proper context and key assumptions can be misleading because they lead the uninitiated to wrong conclusions.  For instance we don't know what kind of sustained turn you're inferring in your statement.  Even assuming the simpler thrust=drag sustained turn case, an airplane with a lower l/d and less engine power could have a smaller turn radius vs. one with a higher l/d and more engine power.  So using your example even if we speculate a F4U had a lower l/d & engine power it's possible it could still out turn a Ta-152.

I can appreciate your response to steele/shemp.  You were attempting to point out where he might be jumping to a conclusion without factoring other variables (e.g. engine power / thrust).  That's commendable.    

However in your response to him I'm pointing out that you're relying on speculation built on generalities which doesn't improve things.  IMHO it's like pouring ink into already muddy water which doesn't seem like a good way to make things clearer.

[Tupac]

I just got into a nasty tail first stall. Aft tank was empty, and Combat Trim was off. I put elevator trim all the way down and attempted recovery. I lost 5,000 feet and never regained control.