Unrecoverable stall/spin in ta152

[Krusty]

No I'm not. I'm simply telling how it is. MG/FF was originally developed by Oerlikon and then later manufactured under licence by Ikaria. MK108 on the other hand was developed by Rheinmetall-Borsig. Two different firms and two different cannons.

Where exactly did you read that MG FF was the origin of MK108-design? A source please?

My first point stands. You are being far too literal. I didn't say it was from the same manufacturer. I didn't say it was scaled up. They took the basic design of the MG/FF and in 1940 built a larger, heavier, weapon based upon those mechanisms and action. Since English isn't your first language I'll put it simply in this way: That's the idea they started with. The end result doesn't look like an MG/FF, but that's what started the idea.

I've read this in some publication a long time back, and run across it on the Internet a couple of days ago which also had the same comment.

Don't mix up the point I was making... I was NOT saying the Mk108 was a bad anti-bomber weapon. I'm NOT saying that it wasn't used to hunt bombers. I am saying it was developed and designed BEFORE any bombers were even a hint on the global map.

Do you deny that the Mk108 began development in 1940? That its development was independently funded in the hopes of a possible contract? That while in development already, it just happened to meet a later RLM order for weapons to use against bombers? And that the requirement it met was NOT in destructive power, but in being able to fire from outside the bombers' range? These are the facts. These points and many others (which I've already mentioned in my previous post) point to the fact that heavier weapons were needed or wanted, but not just for the wikipedia copy-and-paste answer given here by some others.

This gun was in the pipeline LONG before the Luftwaffe ever encountered US heavy bombers. It had a prolonged development and was full of delays, and when it came out finally in late 1943 it was indeed used against bombers. The changing tide of war required its use against bombers. But it wasn't developed for them.

[nrshida]

They took the basic design of the MG/FF and in 1940 built a larger, heavier, weapon based upon those mechanisms and action.

No they didn't. The designs are fundamentally different, you could say they adopted the same mode of operation but nothing further. An operating principal is a feature of a design not the design itself.

Wmaker's English is excellent by the way. Implying he doesn't understand is a bit weak and disrespectful as well in my opinion.

[grizz441]

I used to take off on the 20k cliffs in the training arena and immediately heave the ta152 in an unrecoverable stall. At first it seemed impossible to get out of it. After some practice I could recover from every single ta152 stall in less than 5k of real estate. It had to do with a combination of rocking the nose and cutting throttle. Realistic I don't know but the aces high ta152 stall takes practice to recover from.  Icepac you might have tried every stick throttle and flap combination you could think of but your order and timing was wrong.

Try 40k

[Wmaker]

I didn't say it was scaled up.

Actually, that is exactly what you said right here:

The Mk108 met this requirement, but it was already being developed anyways. It was a scaled-up version of the MG/FF cannon.

...otherwise there wouldn't have been any reason to correct you to begin with.

They took the basic design of the MG/FF and in 1940 built a larger, heavier, weapon based upon those mechanisms and action. Since English isn't your first language I'll put it simply in this way: That's the idea they started with. The end result doesn't look like an MG/FF, but that's what started the idea.

The only thing similar is the API Blowback principle they both use and the fact that they are both aircraft cannons.

I've read this in some publication a long time back, and run across it on the Internet a couple of days ago which also had the same comment.

...In other words you don't have any source? Well, no surprise there.

They took the basic design of the MG/FF and in 1940 built a larger, heavier, weapon based upon those mechanisms and action. Since English isn't your first language I'll put it simply in this way: That's the idea they started with. The end result doesn't look like an MG/FF, but that's what started the idea.

The only thing similar is the API Blowback principle they both use and the fact that they are both aircraft cannons.

Don't mix up the point I was making... I was NOT saying the Mk108 was a bad anti-bomber weapon. I'm NOT saying that it wasn't used to hunt bombers. I am saying it was developed and designed BEFORE any bombers were even a hint on the global map.

Do you deny that the Mk108 began development in 1940? That its development was independently funded in the hopes of a possible contract? That while in development already, it just happened to meet a later RLM order for weapons to use against bombers? And that the requirement it met was NOT in destructive power, but in being able to fire from outside the bombers' range? These are the facts. These points and many others (which I've already mentioned in my previous post) point to the fact that heavier weapons were needed or wanted, but not just for the wikipedia copy-and-paste answer given here by some others.

This gun was in the pipeline LONG before the Luftwaffe ever encountered US heavy bombers. It had a prolonged development and was full of delays, and when it came out finally in late 1943 it was indeed used against bombers. The changing tide of war required its use against bombers. But it wasn't developed for them.

I'm not mixing up anything. I didn't comment on anything in the quote above so why are you preaching to me about it?


To others:

As already posted, here's a good short article on API Blowback cannons: http://www.quarry.nildram.co.uk/apib.html. Anyone with any reading comprehension can see how MK108 is handled separately from Oerlikon family of 20mm cannons. For example, Hispano Mk.II has a heckuva lot more to do with MG/FF than MK108.

[greens]

and................. id still pwn own demoralize 99.9% of yall            OWNT!!

[greens]

ina ta152 duel. but ah ah ah.... no intardnet n no comp so..... haha i got ownt too

[Scotch]

I'll slap you so hard the bears will come out of hibernation before we see you again.

[Chalenge]

Actually. . .

Krusty is wrong either way. The weapon was developed in 1940 independently of any war request, but not submitted until 1943 (as per an RLM request of late 1942) for weapons to destroy Allied (not originally American) heavy bombers. This information is also available at the National Museum of the United States Air Force in Dayton, Ohio.

[ntrudr]

I only read the first 7 or so pages of this thread.  I fly the 152 exclusivley.  A few things I have learned is never trim all the way up on approach, be gentle with rudder when slow.
It seems that throttle off is the only way to recover.  With enough time in the plane you can "feel" when it is about to tail slide and relaxe the controls and get the stick forward.  By "feel" I mean you are moving the stick and the results are not what you expect to see, you only have a couple seconds to react.  Pay attention to your airspeed.  With default fuel tank selection the aft tank burns first, forward tank last.  Should it fly this way?  Probably not, most planes recover quickly from a true tail slide with either up or down elevator.  Radiator leaks and wing tip departures from near collisions are far more common than stalls for me.

[JunkyII]

and................. id still pwn own demoralize 99.9% of yall            OWNT!!

I remember you being a very "ok" pilot in anything not a 1 percentile for sure

[JOACH1M]

You both just took that bait?