Well, complaining about the 152s instability, thats ok.
But complaining about its hi-alt performance?
LOL
Go back and read the thread before putting words into my mouth.
My complaint is about stability and not about the 152 being able to fly high and fast.
Wmaker is arguing this plane yet he has only flown 2 sorties in it in the last 5 tours (134 to 138).
I took Zeagle's information because he actually flies the plane he is talking about.
When comparing the 190d, I clearly stated 30,000 feet yet many here have turned that into 40,000 feet which is a world of difference...........and not at all what I said.
The 190d is much more stable and able to intercept bombers at 30,000 feet than the 152.
Yes, the 190d will make 40,000 feet........but not well.....however it is more stable than the 152 even way beyond it's maximum altitude.
I flew the 190d and spit IX, XVI, and XIV over 40,000 feet today.......ask the 163 drivers who felt the need to dive out of icon range/dive in or be rescued by another fighter as they absorbed bullets this afternoon.
That said, the spit XIV (yes the 16 and not the 14) has better stability than either 190/152 at 40,000 feet even though it is not known for it's high altitude performance like the spit 14.
The whole crux of my observations is that the 152 is more unstable that it should be at high altitude while planes that shouldn't fly well at high altitude turn better and are more stable than the ta152......of course, they don't reach the same speeds.....but they have better utility than the 152 even outside of thier known flight envelope than the 152 does well within it's envelope.
At low altitude, the 152 seems fine.