Ta 152

[Debrody]

Heck every source i could find mentions excellent maneuverability, stability, amazing acceleration climb and speed, let it be english or german pilots "impression" translated to hungarian. Our 152 totally lacks in stability, accelerates like a truck, yet can climb with wep and fast at every altitude. Can turn better than the dora or the A-5, but that nasty tail-overtaking-the-nose habit makes it a real poor dogfighter while the pilots were impressed about its handling characteristics. To compare, the Brewster was known to be horribly unstabile while its fairly good in the game (ehm one of the bests), but it can be the finnish modifications effect.

[Wmaker]

Heck every source i could find mentions excellent maneuverability, stability, amazing acceleration climb and speed, let it be english or german pilots "impression" translated to hungarian. Our 152 totally lacks in stability, accelerates like a truck, yet can climb with wep and fast at every altitude. Can turn better than the dora or the A-5, but that nasty tail-overtaking-the-nose habit makes it a real poor dogfighter while the pilots were impressed about its handling characteristics. To compare, the Brewster was known to be horribly unstabile while its fairly good in the game (ehm one of the bests), but it can be the finnish modifications effect.

There's no point in commenting on any of this until you post actual quotes with sources.

[ACE]

There's no point in commenting on any of this until you post actual quotes with sources.

Not being rude or anything but in other threads I see maker post a lot of quotes and facts. With that being said can you do so here?  I'm interested in this conversation.

[Wmaker]

Not being rude or anything but in other threads I see maker post a lot of quotes and facts. With that being said can you do so here?  I'm interested in this conversation.

I can but it is not my place to post those facts as I'm not the one claiming things about Ta 152's handling. Burden of proof lies with those who are making claims.

[ACE]

I understand.   

[icepac]

Willi Reschke has a detailed account of a dogfight vs a tempest in his ta152.

I think the 152 here flies as it should but that the "lack of handling" issue vs other planes is because many other planes in the planeset turn far better than they should.

[hitech]

Willi Reschke has a detailed account of a dogfight vs a tempest in his ta152.

I think the 152 here flies as it should but that the "lack of handling" issue vs other planes is because many other planes in the planeset turn far better than they should.

I understand now, the 152 should not be better , but everything else should just be worse 

Maybe 1 or 2 facts to back up your accusation?

HiTech

[Stoney]

Heck every source i could find mentions excellent maneuverability, stability, amazing acceleration climb and speed, let it be english or german pilots "impression" translated to hungarian. Our 152 totally lacks in stability, accelerates like a truck, yet can climb with wep and fast at every altitude. Can turn better than the dora or the A-5, but that nasty tail-overtaking-the-nose habit makes it a real poor dogfighter while the pilots were impressed about its handling characteristics. To compare, the Brewster was known to be horribly unstabile while its fairly good in the game (ehm one of the bests), but it can be the finnish modifications effect.

All, and I mean everything, you said in this paragraph is nothing more than annecdotal nothingness...  What does "excellent maneuverability" mean when a test pilot says that?  Does he attribute some sort of quantitative data to that?  If a flight test report says a plane possesses "amazing acceleration", what does that equate to in ft/sec^2?  The answer to both questions is "we don't know".  Without quantitative data, we have nothing to compare in-game performance with.  Now, I can provide some stability equations for Krusty and anyone else to plug numbers into, and see if the resulting answers are close or not, but that's about the best we can do.  Bottom line is that if  you doubt the way an aircraft performs in this game, you doubt the information/data that HTC has.  By that I mean, the weights, dimensions, engine power curves, etc., but all of things get plugged into the same flight model for every aircraft. 

And, I agree with Wmaker, the burden of proof is on the accuser.  You think the Ta-152 doesn't perform properly?  Start providing some data instead of simple conjecture based purely on nothing more than annecdotal reports.

[icepac]

I understand now, the 152 should not be better , but everything else should just be worse  

Maybe 1 or 2 facts to back up your accusation?

HiTech

That is exactly what I am saying except replace "everything" with "many".

Plenty of the fastest planes turn nearly as well at slow speeds as thier early war variants regardless of the fact that they have substantially higher wing loading and other things that were sacrificed to net the substantially higher speed.

[BnZs]

Plenty of the fastest planes turn nearly as well at slow speeds as thier early war variants regardless of the fact that they have substantially higher wing loading and other things that were sacrificed to net the substantially higher speed.

One, back this statement up. Concrete examples.

Two, define turn performance. There is turn rate and turn radius.

Higher power loading can often give a plane equal or superior sustained turn rate, than a lower wing-loaded but less powerful aircraft.

[grizz441]

http://www.speedyshare.com/files/28807147/grizz_batturn_edited_down_.ahf

[Karnak]

Willi Reschke has a detailed account of a dogfight vs a tempest in his ta152.

I think the 152 here flies as it should but that the "lack of handling" issue vs other planes is because many other planes in the planeset turn far better than they should.

We do not have the Tempest's data.  We don't know what the Tempest pilot's decisions were, we do not know how hard he was pushing the Tempest's capabilities.

You have no where near enough information to solidly make the conclusion you are making.

[mtnman]

From what I've seen (and I'm really pretty convinced after seeing Grizz's bat-turn) the 152 flies VERY similarly to some of my high aspect-ratio RC sailplanes.

With those planes, if you don't know what you're looking for, and how to work with it (or correct for it) "very wonky" is a pretty good description of their flight characteristics...

What Grizz did in his film is what I've done with my RC sailplanes.  Sometimes on purpose, often by accident.  That high aspect-ratio wing will do some very weird things.

That said, I've learned to correct for it with my flying, and have put some mechanical fixes in place as well.  Flying-wise, coordinated rudder is hugely important with that wing.  That alone will fix most of the problems associated with it.

Another big one though, is the ailerons.  Did the RL 152 have differential built into its ailerons?  If it did, that alone would make a huge difference, especially if the AH version does not have differential built in.  We'd probably have to ask HTC about that, although I guess it would be easy enough to see from outside your plane on the runway.

Differential and coordinated rudder would tame the plane down significantly, based on what I've seen with my own planes.  Without it, my planes can be extremely difficult to fly, especially at slower speeds.  With it, they're docile, and easy to control.

[icepac]

One, back this statement up. Concrete examples.

Two, define turn performance. There is turn rate and turn radius.

Higher power loading can often give a plane equal or superior sustained turn rate, than a lower wing-loaded but less powerful aircraft.

96% if your missions are very late war variants so I understand your stance.

[Karnak]

96% if your missions are very late war variants so I understand your stance.

That was an ad homme attack and not a valid method of debate.

Show us your data or shut your mouth.