Ta 152

[cactuskooler]

Just for fun - A different opinion on the Ta 152 vs Tempest fight.
http://clocloz.altervista.org/history/wwii/aviation/ludwigslust/Ludwigslust_aerial_combat_14-4-1945.html

[Karnak]

Ok....if I do the research, are you prepared to present your research?..... or is this just rhetoric from you to make someone work with zero intention of doing so yourself?

It will be substantial investment in time for me to revive my contacts from my days of restoring warbirds at National air and space museum and search thier hard copy archives.

As it stands now, we have Willi Reschke's account of a tempest pilot fighting for his life (and losing) so I'm pretty sure he didn't hold back on his maneuvers......but......I feel the account is Willi exploiting the 152's rudder and aileron still having good authority at slow speeds and the fact that the tempest pilot spent too much time turning left to the tempest's "weak side".

My tangental claim is that many late war planes in Aces High overachieve in the area of slow speed turn rather than the ta152 being undermodeled.

I do believe the tempest is an exception to my claim because it achieves it's speed through brute horsepower which is enough to shove that thick wing to high speeds yet still retain the ability turn at lower speeds.

Are you daft?

You are the one that is proposing the current research is wrong.  I have no research that needs to be done.

When I said the Mosquito was consuming fuel twice as fast as it should, I provided the hard evidence to support it.  It was changed.

When Scherf and I said the Mosquito should be faster we provided the hard evidence to support it.  It was changed.


You are saying that the late war aircraft turn too well.  It is incumbent upon you to provide the supporting evidence and not just stating what you think and feel, then expect us to do your work for you by disproving your unsupported claims.

[BnZs]

Okay, look, I'm not taking sides in this specific "Ta-152" debate because I just don't know, and frankly, the Ta-152 didn't fly and fight enough to HAVE a reputation, one way or the other.

But two points Karnak.

1. TURNING and handling is under discussion. Not weight, top speed, or other factors that are conveniently listed in the data sheets for these planes. Provide me sustained turn rate and radius data from WWII testing of these planes. Let me know how that goes. Tell me what evidence, if any, we actually DO have for relative turning performance for most WWII planes. Which leads me directly to point 2....

2. The extent to which we dismiss "anecdotal evidence" from pilots is frankly, asinine. I think a real pilot can recognize when they are winning or loosing a turning contest as easily as we can in this game. Pilots were able to CLEARLY recognize that the Japanese machines out-classed them in a turn fight, for instance. Their survival depended on it, and that survival factor makes highly doubtful of any notion that pilots were propagandizing, obfuscating, or "Whistling Dixie" in their combat reports.

No, you can't plug anecdotes in and come up with a flight model, but you SHOULD maybe examine that flight model for fallibility if, after CAREFUL examination of reports, its results conflict with enough information from those who actually flew the damn things.

[Karnak]

BnZs,

He hasn't even demonstrated that late war aircraft in AH turn as well as lighter, early war aircraft.  I don't think they do.

He is making completely unsupported claims and then getting upset with us when we point that out and demanding that we disprove his unsupported claims.


Read Cactuskooler's link.  It paints a very, very different picture than the one Willi Renschke's statements do.

[Lusche]

He is making completely unsupported claims

And not for the first time, both in game as well as here. See the recent Spit 14 thread.

[BnZs]

BnZs,

He hasn't even demonstrated that late war aircraft in AH turn as well as lighter, early war aircraft.  I don't think they do.

He is making completely unsupported claims and then getting upset with us when we point that out and demanding that we disprove his unsupported claims.

Yes, yes, this is true, but I'm just saying that for the most part there is *no* evidence for turning and handling qualities of WWII aircraft to present *except* pilot impressions.

[Charge]

"It paints a very, very different picture than the one Willi Renschke's statements do."

So what is in doubt? That Reschke, in his Ta152H, turned with a Tempest and won?

-C+

[Karnak]

"It paints a very, very different picture than the one Willi Renschke's statements do."

So what is in doubt? That Reschke, in his Ta152H, turned with a Tempest and won?

-C+

What is in doubt is that it is a valid comparison as you'd get between two experienced test pilots doing a comparison of two aircraft.  Instead we have a rookie pilot bounced by an ace and people using it to say that the Ta152 was clearly better than the Tempest.

[Stoney]

Yes, yes, this is true, but I'm just saying that for the most part there is *no* evidence for turning and handling qualities of WWII aircraft to present *except* pilot impressions.

That's not exactly true.  There are test flight reports that include data and not just descriptions.  However, what we always get tripped up on in this forum is from language like "out-turned" or "more maneuverable".  But, there are things that can be deduced from the aircraft information, like the area and moment of an aileron, or area of a rudder, that can be plugged into performance equations that result in a quantifiable performance metric in-game.

[cactuskooler]

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.

JG 301 pilot Uffz. Julius Berliner thought it felt similar to a sailplane as well.

"The Dora 9 was good natured, robust. I could really take allout flying with it, while the Ta 152 was much more sensitive; it let itself be flown, or so it seemed to me, almost like a sailplane."

[icepac]

And not for the first time, both in game as well as here. See the recent Spit 14 thread.

Nope....but it is my opinon that late war speedsters in aces high turn better than the sacrifices required to attain the much higher speeds suggest.

[Karnak]

Nope....but it is my opinon that late war speedsters in aces high turn better than the sacrifices required to attain the much higher speeds suggest.

What sacrifices?  There is nothing that inherently makes a faster plane unable to turn as well as a slower plane.

In terms of WWII fighters, the trend was to get heavier as the war went on and thus the Bf109E-4 will turn a tighter radius than the Bf109K-4, the Spitfire Mk Ia will turn a tighter radius than the Spitfire Mk XIVe, the A6M2 will turn a tighter radius than the A6M5.  It is possible, due to speed, that some of those late war fighters might have a higher turn rate than their earlier war counterparts.

I think you may have some misunderstandings about performance terms and/or why different aircraft produce the numbers that they do.

[EagleDNY]

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.

I wonder about this myself.  They say a lot about aileron boost in the 152, but don't note if they have a differential built into the system.  This might be interesting to find out and test. 

To me, the 152 is a somewhat unusual design, so I would expect some unusual flight characteristics.  I fly it only occasionally, and have never found it to be as "uber" as its reputation.  If someone can document something different with the RL 152 vs the AH model (like lack of aileron differential), let us know.  I can't really get excited about claims that a particular plane is this or that based on one fight vs another aircraft when there are so many unknown factors. 

[BnZs]

In terms of WWII fighters, the trend was to get heavier as the war went on and thus the Bf109E-4 will turn a tighter radius than the Bf109K-4, the Spitfire Mk Ia will turn a tighter radius than the Spitfire Mk XIVe, the A6M2 will turn a tighter radius than the A6M5.  It is possible, due to speed, that some of those late war fighters might have a higher turn rate than their earlier war counterparts.

Just to nitpick a bit, higher turn rates are not due to "speed". Higher turn rates are due to having more engine power to fight against induced drag.

[Karnak]

Just to nitpick a bit, higher turn rates are not due to "speed". Higher turn rates are due to having more engine power to fight against induced drag.

Which means the aircraft goes faster, hence, "speed".  It flies a larger circle, but due to a more powerful engine travels at a higher speed, allowing it to, potentially, have a higher turn rate than a slower aircraft that has a tighter turn radius.