Does HTC calculate CoG or use NASM documents for the Ta152?

[Krusty]

Does HTC use calculations and weights to get a proper CoG or does it base the position of this off of historic documents and then fill in appropriate weights as it can?

I ask because I have always felt our Ta152 has been horribly unbalanced since the release of AH2 when several planes felt the effects of the code change. The Ta152 was far more capable in AH1 overall and had some major tail heaviness and instability after AH2 came around.

It's a very tail heavy design and this can throw it into unrecoverable tail slides and hurts its overall maneuverability. None of which was much of an issue in the real plane during WW2.

However, there is the NASM article where they were delving into the history of their captured airframe -- the only captured one, upon which all tests were run -- that showed the tail had been badly reconstructed and the H-stabs moved forward making it fly more tail heavily than it should have.

So my question is: Is HTC using the original NASM test material that was based on a rebuilt and non-factory-spec airframe? Is that why ours is so tail heavy when (from everything I have read) it shouldn't be? What did they use? There are a few things I could think of: HTC making an combination model based off how the weights are applied to the flight model, HTC using NASM test material, or HTC basing it off some Luftwaffe reports about where the CoG should be. I'm not sure which it is but it seems that the NASM tail heavy specimen might match our in-game version.

[Zimme83]

All 190:s seems to bit tail heavy and the P-40 as well. I try to burn the aft tank first to move the CoG forward and it seems to work.

[Zimme83]

Google found this:;
 

The National Air and Space Museum's Ta 152 is the only extant example of this fighter in the world today. NASM is also the only museum in the world that has preserved examples of the three major Fw 190 variants: the Fw 190F-8, the Fw 190D-9, and the Ta 152H-0...

In 1998 Museum restoration staff were treating deteriorated sections of the wooden aft fuselage, fin, rudder, and right elevator when they discovered several interesting items that offered tantalizing glimpses into the airplane's shadowy past ...

Extensive wood rot was found in where the horizontal stabilizer joins the vertical fin. The restoration staff speculated that during testing at Wright Field, pilots and engineers became concerned that the wooden tail may have been weakened by defective glues or sabotage. They strengthened the entire area with steel plate. However, this work may have compromised flight safety because it required moving the horizontal stabilizer forward several inches, exacerbating a tail-heavy condition already known to the Germans. The restoration specialist removed the steel plate and rebuilt the tail to the original German configuration.

It is hard to find any hard fact on the topic but it seems like the 152 indeed was a little too tail heavy and that the Germans tried to fix it it various ways.

[Krusty]

The initial designs were, and they corrected this a number of ways like adding weight (armor) to the engine area, moving the MW50 tank from behind the cockpit to the wing*, and some other things like shifting the wing further forward than on the Dora.

All of that basically kept the CoG comparable to other Fw190s (Doras, etc). Much like shifting the ETC rack forward on the A-8s helped counter out the slightly aft CoG. We don't see A-8s tail sliding all over the place in Aces High.

I don't think the P-40s are terribly tail heavy. They're still able to pull off a lot of moves without tail sliding. They did by practice drain their rear most tank first and when you do the same you rarely have problems. Much like our P-51s aux aft fuse tanks. The Ta152, even with almost no fuel in any of the tanks, is still really tail heavy.



* = more to it than that, but the end result benefited the CoG.

[FLS]

You may be noticing the relatively high adverse yaw of the Ta-152, due to the high aspect ratio wing.

[bustr]

How does the wing construction cause the yaw??

[Krusty]

It's not just adverse yaw, though I have heard that comment before. The wings aren't THAT much bigger than the 190D. It was closer to a 190D with a slower roll rate than what we have, I'd say. The tail heaviness shows itself in many instances including loops, immelmans, tight but stable turns where you're not rolling. It's a major detriment. I remember the "good old days" of AH1 where it was much more of a fighter than it is now. I'm not saying AH1's model was correct -- it may have been a place holder or something -- but I don't believe what we have now is accurate.

[Zimme83]

I agree that its a bit too tail heavy, that tail sliding stall is no joke. But i think it will be hard to find any accurate data on the topic. Having it "rebalanced" so that it is similar to the Dora would not be a bad idea though.

[Zoney]

I'm going to have to try that there TA152.  How are the guns?

[FLS]

How does the wing construction cause the yaw??

Adverse yaw when rolling is normal. A longer narrower wing yaws more. Yaw creates a difference in angle of attack between the wings so the higher AOA wing will stall first.  If you can keep the ball centered the aircraft won't stall as much.

[Zimme83]

I think they are fine, one had a cold but he is better now.

I'm going to have to try that there TA152.  How are the guns?

[Dawger]

Does HTC use calculations and weights to get a proper CoG or does it base the position of this off of historic documents and then fill in appropriate weights as it can?

I ask because I have always felt our Ta152 has been horribly unbalanced since the release of AH2 when several planes felt the effects of the code change. The Ta152 was far more capable in AH1 overall and had some major tail heaviness and instability after AH2 came around.

It's a very tail heavy design and this can throw it into unrecoverable tail slides and hurts its overall maneuverability. None of which was much of an issue in the real plane during WW2.

However, there is the NASM article where they were delving into the history of their captured airframe -- the only captured one, upon which all tests were run -- that showed the tail had been badly reconstructed and the H-stabs moved forward making it fly more tail heavily than it should have.

So my question is: Is HTC using the original NASM test material that was based on a rebuilt and non-factory-spec airframe? Is that why ours is so tail heavy when (from everything I have read) it shouldn't be? What did they use? There are a few things I could think of: HTC making an combination model based off how the weights are applied to the flight model, HTC using NASM test material, or HTC basing it off some Luftwaffe reports about where the CoG should be. I'm not sure which it is but it seems that the NASM tail heavy specimen might match our in-game version.

How do you determine "Tail heaviness"? This is a serious question. Folks in game use terms in a manner that does not match their use in the real world.

Aircraft loaded with an aft center of gravity do some pretty strange things as I well know but tail heavy is not how I would describe it.

A film or more precise description of what you are trying to convey would help me understand.

I seriously doubt the AH FM actually applies weight of various components/fuel/ammo at their appropriate fuselage station for center of gravity purposes.

[colmbo]

How does the wing construction cause the yaw??

It's the issue of how far from the CG the aileron is, the farther out the aileron the more yaw force it will have all other things being equal.

[Zimme83]

If you for ex rolls to the right, the left aileron is creating more lift than the right and thus more drag. This means that the drag will be asymmetric and creates a yaw motion. Normally this is countered by applying a bit of rudder. But to me it seems like this is not modeled in the game.

 

[Krusty]

I seriously doubt the AH FM actually applies weight of various components/fuel/ammo at their appropriate fuselage station for center of gravity purposes.

It does. The question is how that plays into the CoG. Are they tailoring those weights to the CoG, or are they putting them in and seeing where the CoG computes out to?