Ta 152

[Wmaker]

You know what I have never reported anyone ever but that changed today. I will own up to the fact I reported you here and put a face on it.

I'm oh so honored, *sniff*. 

Loved the PM, btw.

[kilo2]

I'm oh so honored, *sniff*. 

Loved the PM, btw.

Glad you did.

[Tupac]

Whenever the Brewster comes up you act like a tool.

+1

[Babalonian]

 


So!...  how 'bout them 190s and 152s? 

[Babalonian]

Seems to of worked for everything else, so maybe I'm not coming at this from the right angle/pitch/irrationally-frantic-emotionly-fueled-tyraid.

Not like it matters, because it's not American/British/Finnish and nor do we have those type of irrationally overpatriotic fanatics inherit to those aircraft to religiously push and rally for it in this game (closest thing we got to it is Krusty, Krustymeter and all (in jest Krusty, me luv you long time for your 190/152 luv), but for the 5 of us in the community that actually care....


More weight contradictions to the AH 190 models is available to leave those of us wanting a review (and likely implementation of changes) wondering where that extra weight is coming from on the A-8, and how on the world is the 152 so ridiculously unstable and tail-heavy while repeatedly easily recoverable, even with a completely empty aft tank and fuel weight distributions in the wings and front being sufficient enough to fuel the travel of the aircraft from Berlin to New York.  ->  http://bbs.hitechcreations.com/smf/index.php/topic,315582.msg4098199.html#msg4098199


OK, seriously, I had a half-decent thought cross my mind about the 152 in-game but am frustrated in anticipating that surely it will likely get ignored and dismissed, but with some hope: Is it possible 152C data got mixed into the 152H data?  Would the smaller wings lead to a more unstable and tail-heavy 152 (different COG) than say the H-models with the long wing span?

[Stoney]

Seems to of worked for everything else, so maybe I'm not coming at this from the right angle/pitch/irrationally-frantic-emotionly-fueled-tyraid.

I guarantee you that HTC wants these aircraft modeled correctly, more than you do.

OK, seriously, I had a half-decent thought cross my mind about the 152 in-game but am frustrated in anticipating that surely it will likely get ignored and dismissed, but with some hope: Is it possible 152C data got mixed into the 152H data?  Would the smaller wings lead to a more unstable and tail-heavy 152 (different COG) than say the H-models with the long wing span?

What's the difference in empty weight between the 152C and the 152H?  And, are all other components of the aircraft the same except for the wing?

[kilo2]

I guarantee you that HTC wants these aircraft modeled correctly, more than you do.

What's the difference in empty weight between the 152C and the 152H?  And, are all other components of the aircraft the same except for the wing?

The 152s weight is right as far as my sources say. There is a bunch of differences with the 152c different motor different wing different tail.

[Debrody]

More weight contradictions to the AH 190 models is available to leave those of us wanting a review (and likely implementation of changes) wondering where that extra weight is coming from on the A-8, and how on the world is the 152 so ridiculously unstable and tail-heavy while repeatedly easily recoverable, even with a completely empty aft tank and fuel weight distributions in the wings and front being sufficient enough to fuel the travel of the aircraft from Berlin to New York.  ->  http://bbs.hitechcreations.com/smf/index.php/topic,315582.msg4098199.html#msg4098199

Excellent, finally a step forward.
If we can get a drawing about those parts exact location, its relative easy to calculate the COG even tho there will be problems with the big structures like the fuselage or the engine.

[Krusty]

Bab, I don't think that would be the reason. While HTC might use weights, power, balance, etc... the main difference (the wings) is something where HTC models airflow over all parts of the wings in great detail. They don't just plug and play wing values. So theoretically even if they got the C mixed with the H, it would be C stats with H wings properly modeled. I don't think that's the case, as the engines were different and you would notice it more readily.


One thing I did note, and I had to double check... The link posted above to the previous post on 152H weights is interesting. I read it, stopped, re-read it, and had to check the accuracy of those weights. Empty it's the same as an A8? This got me looking and I noticed something else.

According to this:
http://bbs.hitechcreations.com/wiki/index.php/Ta_152H
Our Ta152 is 11500 lbs (see charts halfway down the page). That's 5227kg. About 1000lbs more than common values for the Ta152H based on a half-dozen other sites I checked on google to be sure.

There are 2 different weights that keep popping up:
Loaded weight: 4,625 kg (10,470 lb)
Max takeoff weight: 5,227 kg (11,501 lbs)

To me max takeoff includes external stores, such as a drop tank. Separating "loaded" from "maximum" to me means clean vs loaded.

I'll need to check offline with the E6B to compare. Does anybody recall off the top of their head anything about these 2 different weights? The plane should have 277 gallons internal, of which 157 is normal fuselage stores and 120 is in the wings. That's 1662 lbs (per AH modeling 6 lbs per gallon). To shave off 1000 lbs you would have to remove 2/3 of all the fuel, so that doesn't make sense. I can see not loading the wings, but not loading the wings AND not loading half the fuselage? That's a random/arbitrary decision. I wouldn't expect that this 1000lbs is simply flying with less fuel onboard...

This is a tangent to the handling issues, I admit. It does relate, however, to the generally odd modeling of the FW series in this game.

[Stoney]

This is a tangent to the handling issues, I admit. It does relate, however, to the generally odd modeling of the FW series in this game.

First make sure the empty weight is correct.  Using Wells's numbers, I got 9420 lbs for takeoff weight with 25% fuel in-game.  Once thing I noticed in Wells' post was that there were two entries for GM-1.  One in the Fuel column and one in the "load" item.  I kept the "fuel" number and discarded the "load" number.  In game, a Ta-152 with 25% weighs in at 10711.  So, either Wells' numbers are not correct, or something else is amiss.

[Krusty]

I don't know about the empty weights because they are somewhat open to debate. What is included/excluded in the empty weight? Sometimes they vary on different reports, I've noticed (not specific to 152, though). The loaded weight, however, seems to be a common figure on the Internet. I don't think it's all on Wells' head in that case.

[Stoney]

I don't know about the empty weights because they are somewhat open to debate. What is included/excluded in the empty weight? Sometimes they vary on different reports, I've noticed (not specific to 152, though). The loaded weight, however, seems to be a common figure on the Internet. I don't think it's all on Wells' head in that case.

Wells was just posting the numbers in his book.  Empty weight would the be just the aircraft, without any consumables (oil, fuel, etc.), weapons, pilot, etc, but including radios, avionics, etc.  Then, all you have to do is add the guns, ammo, fuel, GM-1, MW-50, pilot, etc. to come up with the takeoff weight of the aircraft.  So, my question is whether or not Wells' number for empty weight is accurate?  Because if its not, nothing else will matter.

[kilo2]

hitchcock book has empty weight listed as 8,887 pounds.

takeoff 11,501

[Krusty]

Doing the calculator thing, 

Added up all the listed values from Wells' post, and comes to 10920 lbs with full internal fuel and ammo. I don't know if his empty weights add up.

Some other info:

Comment by one of the IL2 modders saying that the 152H-1 at half fuel per the German test documents would be 4750kg at takeoff (that's 10450 lbs)
http://ultrapack.il2war.com/index.php/topic,3123.msg29594.html?PHPSESSID=gl4nes2foa5b1vppvre4sivk80#msg29594
I'm not going to comment on his modding or his work, but his comment is specific regarding the weight and it seems he's read the German test reports.

Here we have a discussion pitting P-51H vs Ta-152H-1. I could care less about the P-51H in this instance, and the guy starting the thread went back (in a hissy fit?) and deleted all his posts, but the info you can find still has some interesting gems.
http://www.ww2aircraft.net/forum/aviation/ta-152h-1-vs-p-51h-4570-4.html

Notes that: " Originally Posted by Sal Monella
What weight was used for the Ta-152 tests? Was it full internal fuel as with the P-51H plus full ammunition load?
The results were achieved by the Ta 152H-0 with full combat load, which corresponds to the Ta 152H-1's Fighter configuration load of 4,760 kg, which is with full ammunition and 554.5 L B4 fuel + 85 L GM-1 and 70 L MW-50. (The Escort configuration load was never used operationally)"

Which goes back to the half-fuel from the previous reference as well. Removing half the fuel would take off about 800lbs in AH terms. I guess that would indicate our "100% clean" is pretty close then, at 5220 that's 11484 lbs.


That suggests Wells' weights breakdown left out some 800lbs of weight to be loaded, since he accounts for the fuel tankage but still comes out half-fuel-weighted. Either that or he mixed his references.


I think that solves the weight issue for me. Wells had it wrong.

[Stoney]

Wells had it wrong.

Wells' resource had it wrong... 

Ok, so if we're all in agreement that the H Model weight in-game is correct, we can proceed?