Ta 152

[Krusty]

Ice: yer not helpin'!

Wmaker: You seem to get a bee in your bonnet any time somebody mentions the Brewster in passing. Very defensive about it. VERY defensive about it.

I simply mentioned the issue was brought up and fixed with lightning speed. I made no judgements about the NATURE of the fix, just that one tiny instability was fixed with astounding turnaround. If any other plane had such an issue it would have been fixed. Well the Ta152 has a small fan-base it seems, doesn't get as much press, and thus the complaints aren't addressed as promptly. Simply saying there's no issue is as silly as comparing flight handling between the brewster and the B29. Sometimes issues go overlooked (example: Fw190a8 weight issue, guns loadout weights, weight issue on P-38G went forever before it was fixed, etc)

Back to the proper discussion at hand (all other comments):

It's all well and good to use terms like "accuser" and say the burden is on them... Although you have to see these are loaded terms. But frankly that's how all other flight sims with questionable flight behavior work too. It doesn't solve anything because there's a point where people can tell something is wrong but lack the verbage or eloquence to explain how it's wrong. In the end the select few that can spell it out don't, and the problem remains. People accept it as status quo. I'm sure Ubisoft works the same way. Even the much mentioned Targetware works this way. Warbirds, anyone? Sometimes the burden is on the game coders to defend why they did something that way, as they are perhaps the best (with regards to the data they used and the physics behind it) to defend thier work.

Doesn't matter how much you try to pin it entirely on the folks bringing it up, at some point logic and common sense come in and you have to ask "Why is this so" and NOT "prove it"...

I admit I don't know all of the details and ramifications about high aspect ratios but I do know a few things I've picked up here and there. So while I know there is more to the story than I fully understand, I also know that there are a lot of other high aspect ratio wing designs that were quite successful and have never heard of any of this instant yaw malarky for them. I try to keep an open mind on the matter with all the info folks are posting here, but so far it still doesn't explain it.

Shall we consider the Bf109T? It had much longer wingtips than its predecessor. Very similar in comparison to the Ta152H when its wingtips grew. It had long slender wings and a similar body to say a Bf109E-7. For all accounts they presented themselves nicely even at lower alts. I've never read one disparraging remark about their handling nor the instability. These were meant to be carrier planes and squirrely handling would have been a bad thing, don't you agree? Something worthy of note (even if just an official objection based on the intended role?).

Shall we consider the A-10 warthog? By all accounts its gets its loiter time and low-speed takeoffs from its high aspect ratio wing. While it does certain things like limit top speed and change certain aspects of the handling, I have seem them execute some very nice manuvers like loops, rolls, high turns, yo-yos. Granted all video footage, and I have no first-hand flight experience or anything like that. However the reputation is there as a nice solid ground attack platform with above average manuverability. I've never read anything about a high aspect ratio wing causing it to side slip when rolling. By all accounts a nice stable platform.

What about the long-tipped spits? What about long-tipped Ju-188s? No reports of squirrely behavior on those. What about P-60 Black Widows? Loooooong wings (66ft) with relatively high aspect ratio. By all comments (from all the wishers for this plane to be added to the game) it's more manuverable and has a better stall-speed handling than most of its adversaries. How about the much-loved B-24? Its Davis wing gave it a very high aspect ratio. I admit it's not a fighter-type but it is in-game and it came to mind. It doesn't seem nearly as prone to skidding through a turn like a Ta152 would (assuming manual control of the bomber, not auto turn from turret)

So what I am trying to say is I feel like when people throw out "It's got a high aspect ratio" then expect that to end the discussion, I'm sitting there as if they just said "talk to the hand cause the ears ain't list'nin'!" in a very simplistic way.

Okay... It's got a high aspect ratio. And...?

That's not the answer. It's one small part that people harp about as if it's the end-all be-all of reasons why this plane is so unstable in this game. There's more to it but nobody ever looks further. I think if they did they would see that simply adding long wingtips wouldn't screw up a plane this badly. There's too many other instances of planes with high aspect ratios that DON'T have recorded handling problems.

Maybe it's a CoG issue. Maybe it's a torque setting issue. Maybe it's a lift issue. There is an issue. I don't think it's tied to aspect ratio. The issue is there. So: why is it doing this?

Stoney: P.S. The added weight of the engine was offset by a slightly longer nose, so the extended tail should be adequate and still well balanced. Most instances of massive instability in this game are with reduced fuel loads and any imbalance by the aft fuel tank should be minimized for us when compared to real world tests and pilots that flew with full fuel onboard. Yet we feel the issue worse than the pilots in real life did (who had the worse balance). Seems a little at odds, right?

[STEELE]

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.

here's 1 example:  Spit 14 weighs around 1,100 lb more than a Spit 9, yet it takes only .9 seconds longer to turn 360 degrees, the radius dosen't seem too different either for a 1,100 lb gain.

[kilo2]

With the change of the nose for the engine, the center of gravity changed more to the aft of the plane which is why they moved the cockpit further back on the plane. Plus again you ignore the totally different tail on the 152. Test pilots reported instability in the yaw axis(especially at low alts) and very unfavorable stall characteristics.

The problem is the 152 is a much more different plane than the D9 and comparing them is just ridiculous.

152 tests began before the D9 by the way.


I don't think that HTC has it perfect but as close as were going to get.

[Karnak]

here's 1 example:  Spit 14 weighs around 1,100 lb more than a Spit 9, yet it takes only .9 seconds longer to turn 360 degrees, the radius dosen't seem too different either for a 1,100 lb gain.

???

The Spit XIV's radius for a 360 is much larger than the Spit IX's.  The reason the rate is almost as fast is because the Spit XIV is much faster and covers that radius almost as fast as the Spit IX.  If the radius were the same, the Spit XIV's rate would be much faster as it is the faster aircraft.

[Krusty]

Kilo, there were only a couple of comments. They have been posted before. They did not describe what we have in-game.

For example, I start out here above 300mph, do a little rolling left, right, then my rear end literally skids out in front of me despite being nowhere near the stall speed and me not pulling too hard.

I literally try to roll out and make a turn, the slip indicator is PEGGED, and my rear end literally falls flat directly into the path of motion.

http://www.nakatomitower.com/ta152slide_clip.ahf

The other time we had a plane floating like a pancake straight toward the path of motion (though in this case it was straight down) was the Spit1, and Pyro or Hitech or somebody said it flies that way because the game doesn't know what to do.


For no reason I just start showing my belly directly along the path I'm flying, and it's VERY common for the Ta152 in Aces High 2.


You can't tell me that has ANYTHING to do with aspect ratio, can you?

[kilo2]

I don't know enough about plane flight characteristics to really comment effectively. Someone could probably explain it.

What more I was arguing about is a comparison to the D9 just doesn't work and using the "D9 flys so much better" excuse is not a valid argument.

You get to 117 mph which is not far from the stall speed.

[JunkyII]

For the OP, I have a youtube clip of my 152 flying in Aces high(type that in should pop up) where I do as you stated, pull straight up then roll over back on my enemy....

You dont always fall 10k when you set it in a stall.

[Krusty]

You get to 117 mph which is not far from the stall speed.

It's hard to describe because you don't see the inputs, but this was well after I lost all control. Before my belly was into the direction of flight, as it started shifting (almost immediately after I rolled out on that last vector) it started going, and by the time I was down to 130 I was totally butt-sliding and had no way to correct.

[kilo2]

For the OP, I have a youtube clip of my 152 flying in Aces high(type that in should pop up) where I do as you stated, pull straight up then roll over back on my enemy....

You dont always fall 10k when you set it in a stall.

Well yeah you can recover the stall quickly quickly enough to use it as an evasive.


To me flying the plane "feels" like balancing on a bubble you get to slow and the plane slides off the bubble and you stall out with the tail leading the way most the time.

[mtnman]

Kilo, there were only a couple of comments. They have been posted before. They did not describe what we have in-game.

For example, I start out here above 300mph, do a little rolling left, right, then my rear end literally skids out in front of me despite being nowhere near the stall speed and me not pulling too hard.

I literally try to roll out and make a turn, the slip indicator is PEGGED, and my rear end literally falls flat directly into the path of motion.

http://www.nakatomitower.com/ta152slide_clip.ahf

The other time we had a plane floating like a pancake straight toward the path of motion (though in this case it was straight down) was the Spit1, and Pyro or Hitech or somebody said it flies that way because the game doesn't know what to do.


For no reason I just start showing my belly directly along the path I'm flying, and it's VERY common for the Ta152 in Aces High 2.


You can't tell me that has ANYTHING to do with aspect ratio, can you?

The part AFTER you lost control (35 seconds and on) I'm not sure (it looks more mild than what I've seen).  

However, the part at 30/31 seconds to 34 seconds looks EXACTLY like the adverse yaw I see with my high aspect ratio gliders if I don't correct with coordinated rudder while flying (and mechanically correct for it with aileron differential before the flight).  I've NEVER seen anything like that with lower aspect ratio wings, but I COMMONLY see it with higher aspect ratio wings.  This is on a plane with a long tail moment and a huge vertical stab and rudder as well.  I actually had a camera mounted on my plane, and the view looked shockingly similar to what it looks like from your cockpit in the film.  I'll see if I can find that film (not sure if I kept it or not).

If I put in some aileron differential and use coordinated rudder, I don't notice this problem on the same plane that's dangerous to fly if I don't do those things.

I took the 152 up for a hop tonight, and honestly, it "felt" very similar to a few of my gliders.  I don't notice the adverse yaw much at higher speeds, but I sure do when I slow down (even well above stall speed).

[mtnman]

This isn't the film I was looking for, but you can see it in this one too.  Almost every time I try to bank quickly you can see the adverse yaw effect.  A  good example is right around 1;27.  That's just left aileron added, which gives the right yaw.  Compare that to Krusty's film at about 31 seconds.  I'm correcting by adding rudder, and I'm not too smooth yet (but if I don't correct with it I'd crash; it was much worse on the few flights before this one).  I stall it on the hi-start too, and almost hit a tree that you can't see.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=DNQDFIL7Cq8

In this one, I've added some aileron differential, and am doing better with coordinated rudder (not perfect yet though, and it gets pretty squirrely when i drop flaps to land).  Noticeably better though, with much less adverse yaw (definitely some at 1:42 though, and in other places).

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=MOAU3f-vcuE&feature=related

[icepac]

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

Show us your data or shut your mouth.

Sorry about the ad hominem attack and your ad hominem attack in response.

I say late war rides made sacrifices in turning for speed and should not turn at low speeds like the early war variants.

You say I have nowhere near the information required.

Where is your information?

Isn't the burden of proof on the person who states that something can be done rather than on the person who states it cannot?

[Karnak]

Sorry about the ad hominem attack and your ad hominem attack in response.

I say late war rides made sacrifices in turning for speed and should not turn at low speeds like the early war variants.

You say I have nowhere near the information required.

Where is your information?

Isn't the burden of proof on the person who states that something can be done rather than on the person who states it cannot?

The burden of proof is on the person making the claim, and that is you in this case.

1) Show that late war aircraft should turn worse at low speeds than early war aircraft.
2) Show that this is not the case in AH.

A) Show that the Tempest Pilot was turning as hard as the Tempest possibly could when he was fighting the Ta152.
B) Show that the E states allow for that combat to be considered a test flight comparison.

There you go, the very questions you need to answer.

[icepac]

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.

[Stoney]

Doesn't matter how much you try to pin it entirely on the folks bringing it up, at some point logic and common sense come in and you have to ask "Why is this so" and NOT "prove it"...

You know Krusty, if you actually went an tried to educate yourself about aerodynamics first, it would help your credibility whenever you bring these arguments up.  But you don't, and the result is that you have no idea about what you're even arguing for or against from an aerodynamic perspective.  And when we say the burden of proof lies with the "accuser"--I don't know, pick a word that represents that better.  Its just a figure of speech that means HTC should get the benefit of the doubt.

I admit I don't know all of the details and ramifications about high aspect ratios but I do know a few things I've picked up here and there.

  Just stop.  Stop, stop, stop, stop, stop, stop...  Caution:  Severe Aeroflymanics follows:

It had much longer wingtips than its predecessor...Shall we consider the A-10 warthog? By all accounts its gets its loiter time and low-speed takeoffs from its high aspect ratio wing...What about the long-tipped spits? What about long-tipped Ju-188s? No reports of squirrely behavior on those...What about P-60 Black Widows? Loooooong wings (66ft) with relatively high aspect ratio.How about the much-loved B-24? It doesn't seem nearly as prone to skidding through a turn like a Ta152 would.

1.  Repeat this with me:  "Wingspan isolated from wing area has nothing to do with Aspect Ratio".  You cannot have a conversation about aspect ratio that's based purely on wingspan.  The formula for aspect ratio is:

AR = B^2 / S

Where:

AR = Aspect Ratio
B = Wingspan
S = Wing Area

2.  So, using this formula, we find that the A-10 has an aspect ratio of 6.6 and the P-61 has an aspect ratio of 6.5, both of which get placed firmly in the "medium" category of aspect ratios.  Neither, despite Wikipedia articles to the contrary (vis a vis the A-10), would ever be classified by aeronautical engineers as having "high" aspect ratios.  The B-24 is the only aircraft you mentioned that would be classified as having a "high" aspect ration, coming in with an 11.5.

3.  Adverse yaw can be counteracted by a number of design characteristics.  On those bombers you mention, like the B-24, it has an immense amount of fuselage and vertical stabilizer area to counteract any adverse yaw created by its high aspect ratio wing.  Both the bubble-top P-47 and P-51 were introduced with higher adverse yaw characteristics compared to their earlier models because the fuselage behind the canopy was cut down, removing that stabilizing influence.  They were both fitted with dorsal fillets after the fact to combat this.  If the vertical stabilizer area and length of the moment arm were not increased enough to counteract the increased yaw forces, its easy to see a situation where adverse yaw could still exist, despite the fact that both made the tail bigger and longer.

So what I am trying to say is I feel like when people throw out "It's got a high aspect ratio" then expect that to end the discussion, I'm sitting there as if they just said "talk to the hand cause the ears ain't list'nin'!" in a very simplistic way....Okay... It's got a high aspect ratio. And...?...That's not the answer.

How do you know?  First, you haven't even educated yourself fully about what aspect ratio is.  Second, you haven't done any serious design analysis of the Ta-152 beyond squeaking about its performance in-game, compared to some ethereal expectation of what you think it should and should not be able to do.  Finally, I haven't done the analysis either, but I know enough to suspect that the increased aspect ratio is probably the culprit.  I can also state that I suspect that despite the increase in area and moment, the empenage probably wasn't increased sufficiently to handle the H model wing.  If I really wanted to know, I could spend 6-8 hours plugging in all the numbers to find out, but I choose not to.

It's one small part that people harp about as if it's the end-all be-all of reasons why this plane is so unstable in this game. There's more to it but nobody ever looks further.

Its not one small part.  Its a huge change to the aircraft--huge.  The reason why people say this, is that one, they're making a cursory opinion based purely on what they see from a casual analysis, and two, because they don't want to take the time to find out because they can push the "I believe" button that gives HTC the benefit of the doubt.

I think if they did they would see that simply adding long wingtips wouldn't screw up a plane this badly. There's too many other instances of planes with high aspect ratios that DON'T have recorded handling problems.

They didn't just add long wingtips.  They fundamentally changed the way the aircraft performed.  And, to compare the Ta-152 H to any other aircraft with high aspect ratios is foolish if you ignore all the other design characteristics of those aircraft.  Its comparing apples to oranges, period...

Stoney: P.S. The added weight of the engine was offset by a slightly longer nose, so the extended tail should be adequate and still well balanced.

How do you know?  Just because they moved some stuff around doesn't mean that the changes they made completely compensated for the changes to the airframe.  Its possible that the longer nose, longer tail, etc. merely helped to lessen those undesirable handling characteristics.  We don't know because we haven't done detailed design analysis.