it has extremely unstable flight characteristics and possibley something miss modeled with it's CoG and fuel/weight distributions that are also in place hand-in-hand with extremely over-stable characteristics (damned if I can explain almost half the stalls I get into in a 152, but damned if I don't get out of them almost every single time, tail-heavy or not, also.).
Ok, you're regressing here. Just because it goes into a stall/spin easily does not mean its unstable. Stability is a separate issue. The yaw stability issues Krusty was talking about earlier are not part of the stall/spin issue. For example, the Ta-152 is extremely roll-stable. There's no such aerodynamic terms as "over-stable". It would be more proper to say excess stability perhaps. And the "something miss-modeled with its CoG" is again an illogical statement. Consider what I posted that you quoted, especially on that last part. Overall, I don't think you have full command of the aerodynamic concepts you are purporting the in-game Ta-152 exhibits. What Tango is trying to say is that perhaps you need to read up more on the aerodynamic stuff we've mentioned here before continuing to argue these points.
Thank you Stoney! So then, as I had assumed, an aircraft's CoG stays about constant, given no weight distribution or fuel distribution changes (you mention it shifting) during flight? And when the CoG is too far aft, "the aircraft should experience worsened stall recoverys", is that in reference to the lack of pitch authority (I agree, pitch authority is useless until you get it pointed in the right direction with some air traveling around it) or that there is more to it working against us recovering than a lack of pitch authority and the heavy tail leading the way for us to the ground (overall I disagree that the stalls are hard to recover from, and perhaps that is realted, but they are repeatabley easy to recover from, although not as easy as other stalls in other AC)?
Two questions here:
1.
Is an aircraft's CG constant, given no weight changes during flight? Generally speaking, yes. To see how much the CG can change in flight, you focus on the consumables. Oxygen tanks, fuel, the ADI mix (water, etc.), ammo, ordnance--all of these things are consumed during flight or the mission, so that's where your changes to the CG can come from. The closer these things are, positioned on the airplane, to the CG, the less effect they have on the CG as they are consumed. A P-47 is a very good example of how to arrange things to reduce the fore/aft shift of the CG in flight. Its fuel, water tank, oil tank, and ammo are all positioned very close to the CG of the plane, so that during the course of a mission, the fore/aft CG is very stable throughout.
2.
Is it "tail heavy" or "lack of pitch authority" that makes an aft CG dangerous? Lack of pitch authority. Consider that every part of the empenage (tail section) of the plane contributes to the stability of the aircraft. Look at a picture of a C-17 and look at how enormous, relative to the wings and fuselage, the vertical and horizontal stabs are. The reason why is to allow the aircraft to have a wide spectrum of operating weights, and more importantly, loadings. The empenage control surfaces have to be capable of enough pitch and yaw force when the plane is very light, and when the plane is very heavy. So, the tail could theoretically be as heavy as you could possibly want, if the H and V Stabs have enough authority, everything is ok, and you would have a very broad CG envelope. Really, if the CG on the Ta-152 was simply too far aft, the aircraft would exhibit pitching problems in just about all regimes of flight. In Krusty's video, we really only see the problem once the aircraft has departed, from high alpha, lower speed maneuvering. Which leads me to believe that the issue there is really one of the tail being stalled, and not from a CG problem. Tango has posted a few times about this occurring in other previous threads about other aircraft.
