Unrecoverable stall/spin in ta152

[Krusty]

That should never be the case. Even when flying it with aft tank drained totally, low weight conditions, it still behaves terribly. It's not a matter of adverse yaw, either. We've had discussions in the past about it. The long wings could (and do,if you notice) have adverse yaw when rolling but the BS departures found in AH's 152 happen regardless of your ball status. I've been on the ball and recorded sorties where my tail literally slips out underneath me and I'm tail sliding backwards into the ground with NO damage from a backward pull of the stick. Often to pull up on a target, trying to get a shot.

This isn't the problem with AH's 152, as you describe it. It's more akin to the totally wrong CoG the old mossie had. HTC had to redo the entire flight model of the mossie to get rid of that. I think they need to do the same for the 152.

Also keep in mind throughout all of AH1 up to the 2.05 (?) airflow recode, this was NEVER an attribute of the Ta152 in this game. The 152 was a much more powerful 190D with some quirks brought on by the longer wing span (adverse yaw, as mentioned previously, has always been modeled). It never had this totally unstable departure until the airflow recode. It doesn't match any historic records or any anecdotal records, and IMO is a flight code problem.

Just like the old mossie.

Just like the HTC-admitted inverted pancake the Spit1 gets into. They admitted the model doesn't know what to do in that case, so I'd describe it as a loophole in the flight model.

Just like the Ta152. Which, by the way, wasn't tail heavy like in this game. The 190A8 was more destabilized and tail heavy than the ta152 was. It still doesn't portray this tail slide manuever. Even when in freefall stalls and power off conditions The A8 will nose down.

[FLS]

Stalling when you pull for a shot sounds like a normal accellerated stall. IIRC high aspect wings have a less forgiving lift profile so departure could come sooner than you expect. If you have film it should be easy enough to compare your speed and load factor to see if the stalls are reasonable or not.

Neil Williams once fell tail first a long distance in a Tiger Moth which surprised me when I read it and surprised him when it happened. It's not something I associate with Tiger Moths but apparently we can't say it never happened.

[Wmaker]

Neil Williams once fell tail first a long disrance in a Tiger Moth which surprised me when I read it and surprised him when it happened. It's not something I associate with Tiger Moths but apparently we can't say it never happened.

Tiger Moths are known for their tendency to flat spin. Many Tiger Moths have extra "surface area" added to the rear fuselage just in front of the stabilizers for getting the nose down to prevent flat spins and the like. They are of course especially useful when more heavier built pilot is at the controls (aft CoG). Not all have them...

Here's one that has them:

[Babalonian]

In my fall from 30,000 feet, I had time to try every single possible control combination and still simply fell tail first.

Ok.

Pretty much.

What was your fuel loadout at the time?  This bit of information is the most crucial.  Even almost empty it has a tail-heavy tendancy, stall it bad enough with even more weight in the back, you're SOL unless you can do the teeter-totter dance (and even then, a PITA).

I think I recal it was Moot who claimed to try to refuse making _any_ adverse maneuvers in a 152 with more than X% internal fuel.

[Kweassa]

Just as a reminder, people have been bringing up this same problem since day 1 of the introduction of the Ta-152 in AH.

It is typically often witnessed when the airframe is pushed into a vertical stall -- usually during an extreme hammerhead attempt that pushes the airspeed to near 0 IAS while maintaining almost perfect vertical. When the stall hits, the nose refuses to droop down, and the plane will start falling downwards in that state. No spinning at all, the plane is almost still, visibly the nose makes light, steady "8" shape oscillations, and it just goes straight down.  Happens in all altitudes, all fuel configurations.

Some people, including myself, affectionately dubbed it the "falling cross."    

Quite a few years since I've flown -- seems this particular problem (if it is a problem) still isn't fixed. Heh.

[Chalenge]

Krusty stated that it was never reported, which I think is because it was well known the problem could happen if the airplane was/is mishandled. My library on Luftwaffe aircraft is quite small.

"Focke-Wulf Ta 152 V19, Werke Nummer 110019, prototype for the Ta 152B-5/R11 (Ta 152C-3/R11) with 1,750 hp (1,300 kW) Jumo 213A engine, is written off this date in a crash during test flight out of Langenhagen. Airframe had been damaged in 1943 wheels-up landing during testing but was repaired."

Anyone know the cause?

[MrRiplEy[H]]

Krusty stated that it was never reported, which I think is because it was well known the problem could happen if the airplane was/is mishandled. My library on Luftwaffe aircraft is quite small.

"Focke-Wulf Ta 152 V19, Werke Nummer 110019, prototype for the Ta 152B-5/R11 (Ta 152C-3/R11) with 1,750 hp (1,300 kW) Jumo 213A engine, is written off this date in a crash during test flight out of Langenhagen. Airframe had been damaged in 1943 wheels-up landing during testing but was repaired."

Anyone know the cause?

I don't think that the aircraft could have been repaired if it landed wheels up after a tailspin. Most likely the pilot hit a bump on the runway or over applied the brake to make the plane nose over.

[Chalenge]

Reading skills, Ripley. It was previously damaged in a wheels up landing, repaired, and then crashed in another incident.

[icepac]

Pretty much.

What was your fuel loadout at the time?  This bit of information is the most crucial.  Even almost empty it has a tail-heavy tendancy, stall it bad enough with even more weight in the back, you're SOL unless you can do the teeter-totter dance (and even then, a PITA).

I think I recal it was Moot who claimed to try to refuse making _any_ adverse maneuvers in a 152 with more than X% internal fuel.

I checked e6b and it said about 12 minutes fuel left as I fell through 10k feet.

I had drained the aft tank probably 2 hours earlier and ammo was around 25% remaining.

[nrshida]

Just like the HTC-admitted inverted pancake the Spit1 gets into. They admitted the model doesn't know what to do in that case, so I'd describe it as a loophole in the flight model.

Where was this said please?

[colmbo]

Was playing around with this 152 stall thing.....

Fuel load doesn't seem to have any effect on entry or recovery.  I started with full tanks and burned off the Forward, then Left and Right.  Even with fuel only in the aft tank I detected no difference in how the 152 handled.

The trick for recovery is to get the nose below the horizon.  Dropping gear and flaps seemed to help get the nose down some.  I was using forward stick and then full rudder on whichever side the airplane was banked toward to kind of "slice" the nose below the horizon.  Once nose low standard spin recovery worked, the most altitude lost after starting the recovery was 6000' with the least being 2600'.  Using idle power seemed to make for a quicker recovery than full power----and idle power seemed to make for a more reliable entry to the stall as well.

The 152 seems to have some issues with yaw/yaw stability/yaw control.  Several times the ball would be full deflection, rudder to correct had no effect.  This seemed to happen more with a steep deck angle.

[Krusty]

Where was this said please?

A long time ago, in response to questions about the spit1 and it's upside-down straight vertical fall.

[Krusty]

Just as a reminder, people have been bringing up this same problem since day 1 of the introduction of the Ta-152 in AH.

That's not really true... since it didn't start happening until well into AH2. It was never an issue "since day 1" so it wouldn't have been reported.

Krusty stated that it was never reported, which I think is because it was well known the problem could happen if the airplane was/is mishandled.

Not so. If there were handling issues they were noted. Especially in flight tests. They don't preclude it from still serving in combat (look at the condemning handling for the F7F -- didn't mean it wasn't on the road to becoming the next USN fighter!).

As to the Ta152 with the repaired tail, when the Smithsonian tore it down for restoration they found the entire tail was atrociously botched. Not only was the whole thing broken off and reattached, it was done so poorly, and the plates/joints where the horizontal stabs were attached and anchored were done all wrong, producing the wrong angle (as compared to blueprint specs). Further, the entire job looked like it was botched to begin with and if I recall there was some shock this airframe ever flew at all in this condition.

It was not a minor bump.

[kilo2]

That's not really true... since it didn't start happening until well into AH2. It was never an issue "since day 1" so it wouldn't have been reported.

Not so. If there were handling issues they were noted. Especially in flight tests. They don't preclude it from still serving in combat (look at the condemning handling for the F7F -- didn't mean it wasn't on the road to becoming the next USN fighter!).

As to the Ta152 with the repaired tail, when the Smithsonian tore it down for restoration they found the entire tail was atrociously botched. Not only was the whole thing broken off and reattached, it was done so poorly, and the plates/joints where the horizontal stabs were attached and anchored were done all wrong, producing the wrong angle (as compared to blueprint specs). Further, the entire job looked like it was botched to begin with and if I recall there was some shock this airframe ever flew at all in this condition.

It was not a minor bump.

I don't think that is true. The tail was changed as early 152 H-0s had problems with the early metal tail assembly falling off. The whole thing didn't "break off" it was changed to the wooden tail assembly which production H-0s/1s began to use. As for it being a "botched" job I have not read that anywhere else. By the way the 152 chalenge mentioned is not the NASM 152.

[Chalenge]

I think you misunderstood what I am trying to say Krusty, but then you got wrong what NASM found.

As kilo2 said I am talking about a prototype that crashed during the war. A Ta152 historian would know the answer.