Aces High Bulletin Board
General Forums => Aircraft and Vehicles => Topic started by: Krusty on December 19, 2007, 03:10:21 PM
-
It's no surprise the Ta152 isn't the best plane in the game. However, despite somewhat sluggish responses in AH1, it was a very powerful engine on a heavily armed airframe. It could E fight with the best in the vertical.
In AH2 it became less capable. It was much less smooth in dogfighting. However, it was still flyable if you were mashochistic (:D) and/or very careful.
Then AH2 had the 2.06 (?) airflow recoding. Many planes with problems before (190, 109, some others) were fixed, and others flew more realistically (p51, p47), but the Ta152 became so unstable it's worse than the old mosquito was.
Versus bombers this isn't as much of an issue, because they rarely are flying like spitfires in the middle of a fight. When you get into mixing it up the problems with the plane modeling become clearer.
Fishtailing. You can fly it in level flight, and at a couple hundred mph pull back gently on the stick (I mean like you want to nose up 10 degrees, not hard at all) and it will fishtail. You pull hard Gs to evade and it's okay, but it spirals as you pull hard Gs and you can't track another plane very easily WHILE pulling back, because you have to add rudder and roll to keep it on target, and that just messes your aim up.
Nose bounce. You roll even the smallest amount and the nose jumps or settles. Even the slightest of input from a perfectly-trimmed feet-off level flight, and the slip ball slides so hard in both directions you cannot compensate for it, even if you try. The nose either comes up or goes down and ruins any aiming picture you have in your gunsight if you so much as roll 1 degree from where you are, drastically reducing effective range of this plane (against other fighters) down to 50 yards.
COG issues. Also, last I tried, the Ta152 is the ONLY plane in the game that has the center of gravity behind the main wing. It will tail-slide straight down if you try to air spawn it, no other plane has that problem.
Landing. Nearly impossible. I haven't been able to since 2.06 (?). Just last night I came in for a perfect landing. Perfectly lined up, slowed down, full flaps, gear, perfectly trimmed, no slip on ball indicator. I settled down with throttle at zero, no bounce, all gear touched, tail down, pulled back on the stick, hit the brakes key and I just skidded sideways out of control, slammed one wing, then when it came off slammed the other, and it came off, slammed the tail, and I sat there shaking like I was about to explode (note: 190 missing-tail-ditch-bug might be on the Ta152 also!).
It was about as nice a landing as you could ask for, and those were the results.
I know there have been a couple of other threads over time about the problems with this airframe, but I'd like to get all the issues together in one place. I'd like to start a serious effort to get this thing looked at. It's got so many problems, and I used to love flying it so much. I remember winging up with TrueKill a time or two and before that I used to fly it as my favorite when I could. I would very much like to fly it again, but it's taken the reverse route of the Mossie (getting worse over time, not better).
-
No kidding. The 152 is the plane with the worst handling right now.
The pitch instability is worse than that of a Corsair, it turns like a B-26 and the tail slide is preposterous. :mad:
I don't want to crush any hopes of getting a better Ta, however, the nose dancing issue might actually be like the real deal - the wartime acceptance test i've seen seem less than enthusiastic about the stability.
The 152 used to be a competent dogfighter with insane zoom capability, these days i only bring it out on nuisance raids on the enemy HQ to annoy the inevitable 163s. :lol
-
In WW2 this thing took on multiple yaks and won. It was a major monster of a plane and was able to dogfight tempests with ease. I don't think this type of instability is what you read about in the acceptance trials.
Think about it this way: NO nation in the WORLD would have accepted the plane as-modeled. Eh?
-
I think you guys are rather correct with the instability issues that you raise, although I have been successful in landings, and although the roll rate is rather slow (even for such a "large winged" aircraft), much slower than in reality i feel; it is still a competent 'dogfighter'. For those who don't use HOTAS though, it may be hard to manage. I would also assume that rookies should shy from the challenge.
Any way, my main point is , if you like to boom and zoom, fly fat high altitudes, and make nicely trimmed turns ( with almost the radius of a jet, in most cases.) then I think it is a fine plane to choose./ however if you are wanting to be in the "middle of it all..", then I suggest that you look else where.
-
I'll sound like a broken record saying it, but I used to out reverse N1Ks for 2 reverses, on the deck.
I dueled Frenchy in a spit14 with it in a knife fight, and I was just barely losing the fight.
I'd also run into Stang in a P38 and him being a little lax was the small difference needed to beat him, whereas I'd lose 1:1s vs. AKAK (all of these in the MA) by small margins, about the same as vs. Frenchy's Spit14.
A night and day difference with today's 152.
-
Krusty,
Ive found a formula to landing the 152. I had been having trouble with it too.
When your on approach, come in very slow. Get flaps and gear out and maintain about 120 IAS. Pretty obvious. BUT, as your about to land, cut the engine. At this point, Im about 100 IAS when I touch down, and theres no torque from the engine to mess up my (short) deceleration.
<>
-
That's what I do. If you're really, really gentle with it, lock the tail wheel asap and get that engine to idle ASAP it is possible to not only land but re-arm and re-up successfully.
That said, it is more of a challenge than it should be, given the wide wheel-track even if the wings are wide.
FREE THE 152!
-
(http://i74.photobucket.com/albums/i253/plague_06/TA_152_scale_model-2copy.jpg)
-
My throttle was at zero, and my stick was full back (locked tail wheel) and I still pranged it.
-
Great avatar Xasthur!
-
Originally posted by Xasthur
(http://i74.photobucket.com/albums/i253/plague_06/TA_152_scale_model-2copy.jpg)
Where did you get that picture?
-
From google's picture search:
http://mcmodels.free.fr/TA_152_model.html
-
Ok, pictures of a model.
I didn't think there were any color pictures, of that quality, of a flying 152.
-
Originally posted by Xasthur
(http://i74.photobucket.com/albums/i253/plague_06/TA_152_scale_model-2copy.jpg)
:rofl
I had the same idea! Oh well, its better than I could do anyway.
-
I think that given that the aircraft was a "last ditch" very limited production aircraft, and that the aircraft also changed several times in production, that it is impossible to say how it really is / was.
Given that it had noted longitudinal stability issues, I think it flies fairly accurately to those reports.
-
It would be no more unstable longitudinally than the 190D would be. Our 190D is sluggish, not a great turner, but it is nowhere near as horrifically unstable as the 152 was.
Many 152 pilots made comments (I can think of a couple, one by Reshke) saying it was the best plane they'd ever flown.
Far cry from what's modeled in-game.
-
Ok, here is a player (customer) who only fly the FW190D in the fighter role, with some very few exceptions. My general feeling is that the 190D handling is somewhat shy of what it really was. The Ta152, well it was so much better than the 190D in many ways, yet I won't touch it in AH. Why? HAH!!! Just up one yourself and see! :rofl
YES IT NEEDS TO BE FIXED! :furious
-
Originally posted by Bodhi
Given that it had noted longitudinal stability issues, I think it flies fairly accurately to those reports.
Bodhi,
What are these reports that you mention as sources? I sure haven't seen a single report mentioning any longitudinal stability issues.
Personally, I have heard just the opposite. Eric Brown in his book "Wings of the Luftwaffe" mentions that stability had improved compared to the earlier 190-variants he had flown. He didn't specifically mention longitudinal stability but was talking about the stability overall. Sure he would have mentioned if there were such problems.
-
Originally posted by TUXC
Great avatar Xasthur!
\
Thank you.
Feel free to use it, everyone.
We can make a petition out of it! :aok
-
Originally posted by Wmaker
Bodhi,
What are these reports that you mention as sources? I sure haven't seen a single report mentioning any longitudinal stability issues.
Personally, I have heard just the opposite. Eric Brown in his book "Wings of the Luftwaffe" mentions that stability had improved compared to the earlier 190-variants he had flown. He didn't specifically mention longitudinal stability but was talking about the stability overall. Sure he would have mentioned if there were such problems.
I will have to dig up where I found that. Getting ready to go on vacation and just leaving work, so not sure if I can get to it tonight. If I can not, it will have to wait until I return.
BTW, I am not cutting on the aircraft, just recalling some stuff that I read.
-
Originally posted by Krusty
It would be no more unstable longitudinally than the 190D would be.
Why not? From an aerodynamic standpoint, why would it share the same longitudinal stability as the D9? It had a longer fuselage and differently sized control surfaces. They moved the cockpit further aft for CG issues. I would think that overall, it would have much different trim characteristics than a D9. But, I'm not as knowledgeable about it as some of you, so I could be wrong.
-
III/JG301's report on the type during their conversion in Feb 1945 noted no instabilities or handling issues, but they were flying the 152H-0 without the wing tanks fitted. I'm not sure if the addition of the wing tanks in the H-1 would have changed anything.
-
:huh
WTF...
-
Originally posted by Bodhi
I think that given that the aircraft was a "last ditch" very limited production aircraft, and that the aircraft also changed several times in production, that it is impossible to say how it really is / was.
Given that it had noted longitudinal stability issues, I think it flies fairly accurately to those reports.
Why then would the AH1 Ta152 fly like it did? Did HTC get new info in the mean time?
All things being equal (e.g. analogous cases like the Mossie) it is more likely that the 152 got the bad end of a quick conversion to AH2 FM standards (the 2.06 airflow update maybe) and never was considered a priority. Maybe they don't want to get into fixing it till everything they want to do to it (e.g. 3D model too) can be done entirely.
And there's the anecdotal reports, qualitative enough that they're nearly quantitative.. I don't mean the Kurt Tank blue-smoke magic carpet anecdote, I mean all the reports that it was better than the 190D9, that it was the best plane they flew... The same 190D9 that someone with lots of experience (Brown?) called one of (the?) best wartime prop.
My gut feeling is that the AH1 Ta152 is what's closest to what HTC meant it to be like. The slow as molasses behavior that showed up with the new FM is as odd as the mossie's instability used to be. It's the opposite of what you'd expect from a plane that reportedly on the good end of the spectrum.
III/JG301's report on the type during their conversion in Feb 1945 noted no instabilities or handling issues, but they were flying the 152H-0 without the wing tanks fitted. I'm not sure if the addition of the wing tanks in the H-1 would have changed anything.
About the wing tanks, draining them or the FWD tank after the AFT tank was a tie in terms of dogfighting performance benefits, in AH1. Leaving the fwd tank for last gave a slightly better roll rate, but leaving the wing tanks for last gave slightly more stability in sustained turning, negligible difference in minimum turning radius (neither I nor the other 152 addicts (AGJV44 and others) could tell if it really was a little better, like it felt), but a sort of wagging roll when you reached the limit AoA in said sustained turns.
The tail heaviness was already there. Airspawns already resulted in flat or nose up spins, but it was nowhere like the heavy wobbliness we have now. It was a tie with the A5, for dogfighting.. that's how stable it was. You really had to push it for the tail heavy instability to take over.
-
Moot,
I do not think that the performance / flight model in AH2 was in any way better than now. Maybe there is a residual issue with the FM, but i do not think that is the predominant issue. I am looking through a few books, but can not find where I found the issues of stabilty.
Here nor there, we all have opinions.
-
Originally posted by Krusty
It's no surprise the Ta152 isn't the best plane in the game. However, despite somewhat sluggish responses in AH1, it was a very powerful engine on a heavily armed airframe. It could E fight with the best in the vertical.
In AH2 it became less capable. It was much less smooth in dogfighting. However, it was still flyable if you were mashochistic (:D) and/or very careful.
Then AH2 had the 2.06 (?) airflow recoding. Many planes with problems before (190, 109, some others) were fixed, and others flew more realistically (p51, p47), but the Ta152 became so unstable it's worse than the old mosquito was.
Versus bombers this isn't as much of an issue, because they rarely are flying like spitfires in the middle of a fight. When you get into mixing it up the problems with the plane modeling become clearer.
Fishtailing. You can fly it in level flight, and at a couple hundred mph pull back gently on the stick (I mean like you want to nose up 10 degrees, not hard at all) and it will fishtail. You pull hard Gs to evade and it's okay, but it spirals as you pull hard Gs and you can't track another plane very easily WHILE pulling back, because you have to add rudder and roll to keep it on target, and that just messes your aim up.
Nose bounce. You roll even the smallest amount and the nose jumps or settles. Even the slightest of input from a perfectly-trimmed feet-off level flight, and the slip ball slides so hard in both directions you cannot compensate for it, even if you try. The nose either comes up or goes down and ruins any aiming picture you have in your gunsight if you so much as roll 1 degree from where you are, drastically reducing effective range of this plane (against other fighters) down to 50 yards.
COG issues. Also, last I tried, the Ta152 is the ONLY plane in the game that has the center of gravity behind the main wing. It will tail-slide straight down if you try to air spawn it, no other plane has that problem.
Landing. Nearly impossible. I haven't been able to since 2.06 (?). Just last night I came in for a perfect landing. Perfectly lined up, slowed down, full flaps, gear, perfectly trimmed, no slip on ball indicator. I settled down with throttle at zero, no bounce, all gear touched, tail down, pulled back on the stick, hit the brakes key and I just skidded sideways out of control, slammed one wing, then when it came off slammed the other, and it came off, slammed the tail, and I sat there shaking like I was about to explode (note: 190 missing-tail-ditch-bug might be on the Ta152 also!).
Ok, I decided to check out the Ta 152 for myself. First, I flew two sorties in the MA. Landed 11 kills. Two P-47s, three F6Fs, two F4Us, a TBM, a Zero, P-51D and one other that I can't recall. Each one was clobbered at a range of 200 yards or less. Speed was good, if not outstanding. Not as fast as the 190D-9 at low to medium altitudes, but considerably better than the 190A-5.
I did some air spawns at 30K on the TA map. First with 25% fuel, then 50% fuel and finally 100% fuel. I had no issues with flat spins or tail slides. The aircraft stalled, and fell off on the left wing. It didn't spin and recovery was very easy.
Landings were uneventful, but the 152 does tend to hunt around a bit if you touch down with too much speed. No ground loops or off-runway excursions.
I did some flight tests, including max speed at sea level and turn radius.
I observed 363 mph at sea level.
I measured a turn radius of 601 feet using full flaps with 25% fuel. This is about equal to the 190A-5 and much better than the Dora.
Basic flight maneuvers were easy, with no adverse behavior.
In short, I did not see any of the problems you listed in your post.
I find the Ta 152 to be a fun ride, being a great alternative to the Dora, where it trades some speed for superior handling and far more lethal guns.
I'll fly it again as I found it to be a very capable fighter.
My regards,
Widewing
I found the stability of the 152 to be good, if not as stable as a P-38 or P-47. Nonetheless, I found it a stable gun platform. I had no nose bounce.
-
I spent about an hour flying the 152 in the DA 2 days ago, and my experiences were about the same as Widewings.
I found the AC stable and forgiving. with predictable stall characteristics that were easy to recover from. I did notice that if you hang on your prop to long you will go into a flat spin, and need about 5K to recover.
Krusty,
what fuel load were you using? for your flights?
Wide,
How do you measure turn radius in the game?
-
Went to the MA tonight. 2 sorties, 5 kills. 75% w/drop.
I will agree with Krusty I did notice quite a bit of nose bounce upon rolling for a snap shot. Much more than I recall on other AC. I did notice that at speed (~300mph) the nose bounce seemed much less with fuel only in the front tank. (go figure)
I didn't feel the plane was unbalanced, and it seemed to handle fairly well. I will say it has it's quirks like all AC.
And I will agree you have to take the utmost care in landing, it will ground loop if you are not landing slow.
Keep in mind I have less time in the 152 than just about any AC in AH.
-
Bodhi -
Moot,
I do not think that the performance / flight model in AH2 was in any way better than now.
That's a typo for " in AH1 ", right?
SLED, what comparison are you making with the pre AH2 ta-152? That's the real context here.. You're saying you've never flown the 152 before (don't have any basis for comparison with the pre-bugged FM), nor have much stick time in it yet. You can't make conclusions from so little.
Originally posted by Widewing
Ok, I decided to check out the Ta 152 for myself. [...]Basic flight maneuvers were easy, with no adverse behavior.
In short, I did not see any of the problems you listed in your post. [...]
My regards,
Widewing
I found the stability of the 152 to be good, if not as stable as a P-38 or P-47. Nonetheless, I found it a stable gun platform. I had no nose bounce.
Widewing, please compare with the pre 2.06 (or AH1 to be sure) Ta152. You won't even have to do a whole battery of tests to see the differences.
They'll be most obvious in tight and twisty ACM.
edit- I just re-read your post and you're basicaly saying there is nothing unstable about the 152 anywhere in landing, lowspeed dogfight ACM, sustained flat turns, and airspawns.... WW, with all due respect, you're doing something wrong and/or very different with what just about everyone else who's flown the 152 has reported.
I'll post movies if needed...
-
Originally posted by moot
SLED, what comparison are you making with the pre AH2 ta-152? That's the real context here....
None, I don't have any.
I was just noting what I notice in flying the plane. Take it for what you want. which may be nothing.
-
Widewing, did you use Combat Trim in your tests? Surprising to see so many different opinions about the same plane (and a perfect digital copy at that!) . No wonder wartime test report discussions get heated at times :lol
-
SLED - No offense, but the 152 is one of the very worse planes in the game, in terms of agility. To quote one of the all time AH top sticks... "I couldn't wait to get out of it and get back in the A8", or "It's awful compared to the D9".
Leit - I can and will back up what I'm asserting... I'm just waiting to be sure I'm interpreting Bodhi and Widewing's posts correctly.
The 152 is nothing like it was in AH1. It used to be tied with the A5, now it's down to the A8's degree of flying brick FM.
-
I'm with Moot on this...
No offense intended WW (tongue in cheek), but did you fly the same plane we were?!?!?
I find it VERY hard to believe you didn't enter a permanent tail spin on air spawn. And that you didn't experience any instability at all, to the point of saying (implicitly) the plane has nothing wrong with it...
:eek: :confused: :huh
SLED: 50% - 75% usually. I like 30-45 minute sorties on average, and with the heavy ammo load you get lots of opportunity to loiter.
-
I'd like to see a movie of WW not getting any tail funk from an airspawn, with subtitles substituting for input telemetry if possible...
-
Originally posted by moot
Widewing, please compare with the pre 2.06 (or AH1 to be sure) Ta152. You won't even have to do a whole battery of tests to see the differences.
They'll be most obvious in tight and twisty ACM.
edit- I just re-read your post and you're basicaly saying there is nothing unstable about the 152 anywhere in landing, lowspeed dogfight ACM, sustained flat turns, and airspawns.... WW, with all due respect, you're doing something wrong and/or very different with what just about everyone else who's flown the 152 has reported.
I'll post movies if needed...
Well, I don't think I'm doing anything wrong, inasmuch as I don't encounter the same problems.
I loaded AH1 and took off in the Ta 152 with 25% fuel. I then performed a turn radius test. Speed taken from film.
At 500 feet I sustained 124 mph for three consecutive circles, which took 63.16 seconds. Thus, 124/60= 2.067. 2.067x5820=10911.999. 10911.999/60=181.867. 181.667x63.16=11486.70. 11486.70/3=3828.90 3828.90/3.14=1219.39 (average turn diameter). 1219.39/2=609.7 (average turn radius).
I then loaded AH2 and took off in another 152 with 25% fuel. I performed the same test. Speed taken from film.
At 500 feet I sustained 127 mph for three consecutive circles, which took 62.06 seconds. Thus, 127/60=2.117. 2.117x5280=11176.00. 11176.00/60=186.27. 186.27x62.06=11559.71. 11559.71/3=3853.24. 3853.24/3.14=1227.14 (average turn diameter). 1227.14/2=613.57 (average turn radius).
So, the difference between the turn radii between AH1 and AH2 is less than 4 feet. Well within the average deviation expected (which I classify as +/- 3%). In short, they are virtually identical in this aspect of performance. One can reduce this 10 to 15 feet by pushing a bit harder, but the result is usually a substantial reduction is turn rate. This trade-off isn't usually desirable.
Another advantage of AH2 is the superior stall warning. There's no cockpit shake in AH1, so all you have for warning is the stall horn. AH2 gives plenty of advanced warning with the stall horn and increasing cockpit shake. In short, it's easier to avoid a stall in AH2. Especially for newer pilots.
Krusty is apparently shocked that I don't get flat spins on air spawns. That's probably because I use a better technique upon spawning. As soon as I spawn, the stick goes full forward and I raise the gear and start the engine (all in about 2 seconds). The plane rolls to the left and I center the stick and now counter torque with right rudder. Rotation stops with the nose down and I feed in power and level off... No sweat, no hassle, no spin, no tail slide, no drama. I'll post a film.
Now, it's certainly possible to induce a tail slide by over-flying the 152. Sudden and large elevator inputs while flying near pure vertical will induce these (and do so in many aircraft). However, it is very easy to recover from. Simply press E to shut off the motor. The nose pitches down instantly and you restart. There's very little loss of altitude. Again, I'll post a film.
I'm not having the troubles you gents are.. So, the question begs; what are you doing to induce this behavior? Post some films if you can, it may help to figure out where the problem is.
As to landing... The AH1 Ta 152 is less darty on the runway. The AH-2 152 tends to hunt from left to right. But, lots of AH2 fighters do that, such as the P-51D and F6F-5. The secret to avoiding this is to 3 point your landings. This is something I do in all tail-draggers. That's why I never suffer a ground loop. My point is, if you can land an F4U without undue drama, the Ta 152 is no sweat.
My regards,
Widewing
-
As promised, here's two films.
The first film shows air spawns at 30k. The first one shows me using my standard practice of stick forward, rudder to counter torque. Each subsequent spawn shows me trying different methods, including full back stick, full left rudder and so on. I could not induce a tail slide no matter what I did.
Air Spawn (http://home.att.net/~ww2aviation/152-AirSpawn.ahf)
In the second film, I induce a tail slide by climbing vertically and pulling back power to idle. Once into the tail slide, I shut off the motor and recover. The second example was begun at low altitude (ground level was about 1.0k above sea level), zooming up until a tail slide is entered. Recovery was swift and without anxiety. Just kill the motor, get the nose down, restart and carry on as if nothing happened.
Tail Slide (http://home.att.net/~ww2aviation/152tailslide.ahf)
My regards,
Widewing
-
I'm at work now (can't review anything or put anything up) but I'll look at them later. I'll try filming some 152 stuff, but a LOT of us are seeing a very messy, sloppy, and just ugly, instability in the 152. EDIT: Maybe moot can post something?
P.S. I can land a corsair easily. I still get problems with the 152, but no other plane does what it does when I'm flying it. The closest example was the mossie, but that's been (mostly) fixed so it no longer is similar.
-
Originally posted by Krusty
I'm at work now (can't review anything or put anything up) but I'll look at them later. I'll try filming some 152 stuff, but a LOT of us are seeing a very messy, sloppy, and just ugly, instability in the 152. EDIT: Maybe moot can post something?
P.S. I can land a corsair easily. I still get problems with the 152, but no other plane does what it does when I'm flying it. The closest example was the mossie, but that's been (mostly) fixed so it no longer is similar.
After about 20 tries, I was finally able to induce a flat spin on air spawn. To do it, I had to push the stick all the way forward and left, while applying full left rudder. I was able to recover within seconds by killing the engine and centering the controls.
My regards,
Widewing
-
Hey Widewing, did you have combat trim turned on for all of your tests? The 152 only does strange things at speeds low enough so that combat trim sets the elevator trim to full up (such as on takeoff/landing, and at the top of vertical maneuvers).
I will agree with you and say that the vast majority of times I've flown the plane it has handled well and flown more or less as to be expected. The have been 3 or 4 occasions where strange things have happened though, and two of those occasions were on fairly normal approach to landing with combat trim on. The plane became very unstable in the yaw axis, resulting in a flat spin one of those times. The second time I was expecting it and managed to keep it from happening. Another time I followed an enemy a/c in a vertical zoom, blasted him with the cannon, but then ended up sliding tail-first 4000ft or so straight into the ground. It was as if the tail was made of concrete. No combination of control and throttle inputs would budge the plane from it's tail-first death plunge. I've never had this happen in any other plane. Since these events occurred I've been disabling combat trim in many instances with the 152 and had better results.
I used to have issues with air spawns depending on fuel loadout, but not so much lately as I've gotten more experience flying AH and become used to how the 152 behaves.
-
It's not just combat trim, because I was using manual trim most of the time (but I was toggling it on to see if it helped any).
-
Widewing please give the 152 a try in tight dogfighting.. And then once you've calibrated your brain to that, give the old 152 a try. There's nowhere near as much inertia, and you can transition between maneuvers a lot more briskly, e.g. in scissors. Just wagging your wings the difference is obvious. The yaw from torque (or whatever is causing it, I don't know) is huge.
I'll go film some fights if I can find some now.
-
I did some brief tests as well. Here is my response:
[list=1]- AH1 to AH2 FM. One of the major changes made to the FM from AH1 to AH2 was the increase in the number of lift vectors along the wing. This allows HTC greater fidelity in modeling lift. This resulted in higher fidelity from things like stall progression, prop slipstream effects on lift and drag, to higher fidelity span-wise induced drag variance. You’ll see how this greater fidelity in span-wise induced drag variance comes into play especially for the Ta-152.
- Fishtailing of the Ta-152 with roll (aileron input). It does, especially at lower airspeeds. The Ta-152 nose wants to go the opposite direction of your roll – roll to the left, the nose will yaw right. Furthermore as soon as you stop aileron input the nose yaw’s back toward it’s orginal orientation. Is this wrong? Nope, infact it’s to be expected. What we’re experiencing is ADVERSE YAW. Aileron deflection produces adverse yaw. Induced drag increases on the downward deflected aileron while it decreases on the upward deflected aileron. This creates a yawing motion in the opposite direction of the roll. It's a known fact that planes with high aspect ratios experience much more adverse yaw because of the additional length of the wingspan. They tend to have longer ailerons as well as longer moment arms which increases the impact of the variation of induced drag between opposite wings. Stop rolling and the differential in induced drag disappears. The nose yaws back the other direction as the airplane seeks stability.
- Landing. Was trickier to me than planes I fly. It tends to float near the ground. Again this is expected because of the magnification of ground effect with the longer wingspan. It also fish-tailed easily on the ground on touch down. Not sure about the cause of this but I’m guessing it has to do again with adverse yaw as well since there is a coupling between roll and yaw with rudder deflection.
- CG and other stability issues. No pitch stability issues out of the ordinary were experienced. Air launches weren’t a problem as well. In maneuver no other stability issues were encountered out of the ordinary.
Tango, XO
412th FS Braunco Mustangs
-
Originally posted by TUXC
Hey Widewing, did you have combat trim turned on for all of your tests? The 152 only does strange things at speeds low enough so that combat trim sets the elevator trim to full up (such as on takeoff/landing, and at the top of vertical maneuvers).
I had Combat Trim on.
Also, I tried air spawns with 100% fuel and even added the belly tank. No significant difference was noted.
Indeed, the Dora was more troublesome during air spawns, albeit not much more.
Guys, if you want examples of wild air spawns, try the Spitfires and P-38s. These are more of a handful than the 190s or Ta 152.
Air spawns have zero forward velocity. Thus, the aircraft is dropping flat. In the Spits and P-38s, don't start the engine(s) until after you have gotten the nose down.
My regards,
Widewing
-
I don't think the aileron drag is causing the nose to bounce around, like you say. The wingspan isn't 100 feet here. Heck you can get a B24 and use aleraons and NOT have your nose bounce aroudn nearly as bad as the 152. The B25s with their much longer wingspans are far far more stable, but they have not only larger ailerons, but a larger moment arm to cause yawing.
I don't buy that at all, or EVERY plane in the game would act like this. So far, only this one does.
When you roll, the nose shifts, and STAYS shifted. It does not recenter exactly where it originally was the second you stop rolling, definitely not when I fly it.
And, if you're on the ground going so slow you can't stay in the air (landing) whatever adverse yaw there might be isn't going to cause the plane to fishtail all over hades and back. It would be MORE noticable at higher speeds, not slower speeds. To a small degree the opposite seems true (higher speeds seem a little more stable, but only to a degree).
-
I'd be pretty disgusted if the FM is more accurate now than it was in AH1. As it is, it's nothing like everything it was reported to be. It's a step backwards in what 190s were supposed to evolve into.
The AH1 152 felt compared to the preceding 190s as the tempest feels like to the typhoon.
Krusty I don't think bombers are comparable to the 152 here..
-
The FM in general was enhanced to be much better. However, that's only if it's properly mapped to the hundreds of spots on the wing. If, however, the FM gets updated, but one plane does not, then it's got only a fraction of the sampling points on the new airflow, and it could cause very funky results (hypothetically). Even though the FM in general is updated, the way the FM acts on this plane has not.
-
Originally posted by moot
Widewing please give the 152 a try in tight dogfighting.. And then once you've calibrated your brain to that, give the old 152 a try. There's nowhere near as much inertia, and you can transition between maneuvers a lot more briskly, e.g. in scissors. Just wagging your wings the difference is obvious. The yaw from torque (or whatever is causing it, I don't know) is huge.
I'll go film some fights if I can find some now.
I sometimes fly it during clinics in the TA, so it gets pushed hard at low speeds. Honestly, I don't see any big differences between AH1 and AH2.
Since I'm off from work for the next 12 days, I'll take it into the TA and do some furballing with the other trainers. I'll run some film too.
My regards,
Widewing
-
Thanks Widewing :)
-
Originally posted by Krusty
I don't think the aileron drag is causing the nose to bounce around, like you say. The wingspan isn't 100 feet here. Heck you can get a B24 and use aleraons and NOT have your nose bounce aroudn nearly as bad as the 152. The B25s with their much longer wingspans are far far more stable, but they have not only larger ailerons, but a larger moment arm to cause yawing.
Apples and oranges. Those are multi-engine aircraft which means you have to factor in the elements thrust offset from CG and propwash on yaw stability.
As far as other single engine fighters go, I don't know of another one that has an aspect ratio near that of the Ta-152 (8.91). It's more noticeable for the Ta-152 because of this. I also just took up a Mustang to check as well. It experiences adverse yaw as well, but the effect is not nearly as pronounced.
Try looking up adverse yaw. I'm not making this stuff up. :)
Tango, XO
412th FS Braunco Mustangs
-
I have no adverse yaw at all when flying a mustang, just as an aside. I roll it, and the pipper stays on the target.
-
And I'm not making up that the 152 has worsened... I remember what I thought when I first tried it the day it came out ("not so uber, borderline average for all it's supposed to be"), when I figured it out (killing TnB planes like N1Ks and Spit9s left and right in the first two reverses, and able to outdo 109G10s, spit14s and others flat out), and when the new FM showed up... It was totaly different and I was really disappointed. It just killed the plane's ability to furball competitively like it used to.
I used to fly it for hours in H2H (maybe 2-3 hours every other night on average), where there were airstarts and endless furballs on the deck... for 1.5 to 2 years or so, maybe more. So I'm not making any of this up.
I know it as surely as I knew the mossie had something going on till the recent fix.
Here's one particular departure that just didn't happen in AH1. The tail starts to whip out and it just won't get back in the right direction like it used to in AH1. In AH1 I could use the rudder to really airbrake the 152 (if Stang's reading this he might remember an occurance of this on ndisles, P38L vs 152: "As soon as I saw your tail waggin all over I knew I was in trouble" or something like that), and could do the same top of the barrel roll snap roll, that I do in just about every other plane to force overshoots, that the 152 just can't manage now.
http://rapidshare.com/files/78155008/film19.rar
I'll go film some more.
-
I don't remember all the details of the Mosquito flight model bug, but why did everyone instantly agree it was a modelling issue, whereas everyone seems to think that the 152 doesn't have any issues that should be looked in to?
In addition to the 152 having larger wings and a longer nose, the rudder was also enlarged on the and the tail was lengthened. How would the last 2 changes have affected control and stability? I'm assuming a larger vertical stabilizer would help to counteract adverse yaw effects.
Also, why didn't JG301 report any issues with slow speed flight in during their conversion to the 152 when their flight testing included mock dogfights and combat maneuvers at slower speeds? They were very pleased with the performance and handling characteristics of the 152 and any complaints were about things like landing gear.
Edit: moot, I've definitely experienced the tail "whiping out" as well. Never gotten that in any other plane.
-
TUXC, they did. The phrase "longitudinal stability" appears not just once during the development of the 152H.
Also, most of the Ta152s JG301 got were H-0s which lacked both boost systems (MW50 and GM1) and didnt have fuel tanks in the wings which may have helped with handling.
-
That wouldn't affect it the way it's acting in this game. A little extra weight in the wings isn't going to throw it around like this.
Especially since they had a fuel tank in the opposite wing to balance out the MW tank. In AH you'll note one wing's gas tank holds more than the opposite wing, as well.
-
All i'm saying is that the AH152 has stability issues - like the real 152 had.
They may not be identical, they might be worse in AH - who knows.
-
Leit, I wouldn't say I'm an expert on it, and I'm probably not as well read on the 152 as some, but I HAVE done some reading, and some internet searching, and have read quite a bit about it in the past. Nowhere, ever, have I heard mentioned any instabilities of any kind, nor any flaws.
Where exactly does it say this, and in what context is it said?
-
Originally posted by Krusty
I have no adverse yaw at all when flying a mustang, just as an aside. I roll it, and the pipper stays on the target.
Watch the slip ball. The nose wagging effect is there though much harder to detect. You'll only notice it more if you're flying slow because induced drag is much more pronounced at slower airspeeds. Try the Spit VIII as well. You'll see adverse yaw though again not nearly as pronounced as is on the Ta-152. Adverse yaw is not equal from plane to plane. As I said earlier high aspect ratio aircraft will tend to have more pronounced yawing forces due to aileron input.
I'm not saying that the Ta-152 shouldn't have as much adverse yaw as it does. However since the AH FM is based on physics then you have to make a case BASED ON THE PHYSICS that it differs from the physics of a real Ta-152.
Tango, XO
412th FS Braunco Mustangs
-
The 152 was originaly released as HTC meant it to be like, in other words it wasn't released flying differently than they expected the real 152 to fly... It flew as they meant it to fly, so the physics were right.
Now it doesn't fly like it used to (it went from equal or better than the A5 to about as bad or worse than the A8), ergo the physics are wrong.
-
Originally posted by leitwolf
TUXC, they did. The phrase "longitudinal stability" appears not just once during the development of the 152H.
Also, most of the Ta152s JG301 got were H-0s which lacked both boost systems (MW50 and GM1) and didnt have fuel tanks in the wings which may have helped with handling.
In my very virtual opinion, having less power and only a pair of wing tanks' and boost plumbing's worth of weight removed would a worsening power/weight ratio.. The 152 engine doesn't make much power at all without the boost. I would guess the airframe is pretty cumbersome even without the boost systems.
-
Originally posted by leitwolf
All i'm saying is that the AH152 has stability issues - like the real 152 had.
They may not be identical, they might be worse in AH - who knows.
Mustang with a full fusalage tank also was notoriously unstable, but it's not a problem to fly in the game. They had to modify the controls and give orders to pilots to burn off the fusalage tank before engaging in combat.
All that's being asked, just like with the Mosquito, is that HTC take a look at the model. If they think it's fine as is then fair enough, but is this really too much to ask? It wasn't in the Mosquito's case, it shouldn't be in the case of the Ta 152H.
-
I know you guys are dieing to hear what I have to say. ;)
I am starting to feel that the current 152 may be more in line with the real thing than the older versions.
It is a totally unique AC, nothing like it in AH. It is basically a short winged, short tailed, very heavy glider with a high HP engine. Obviously it is not going to fly like any AC in AH. It is going to have issues that other AC don't have, those have been mentioned, and it is going to have advantages that no other AC in AH has.
I did some flying last night in the DA and found some of it's advantages. Flying at 36K 450mph tgs, 50% N/Drop. What a dream! Handles like most AC in AH handle at 18k. fairly easy to hold ALT in a turn, still can climb at 2K FPM. Spiral climbs? no problem, you can't turn as tight as lower ALT, but you can preform most of the maneuvers that are required in ACM, without stalling. Try to do anything with other AC in AH (above 30K)and you will have trouble remaining stable, forget about preforming the maneuver.
Take most any plane to 30K+ (spit 14 might hang with it for a while) and fight a 152, you are going to be dead meat fast.
Now you take her down low and try to turn fight, at 6K against a F4U, 150- IAS, flaps out, pulling hard in a vertical scissors...... BAM, tail end departure.
Does the current AH 152 fly like the old one? from what I am reading, no. But I don't have a hard time believing the real 152 would have some of the same problems that this current AH 152 does.
But hey, I'm just a Power Lineman, who likes to pretend I'm a WWII fighter pilot in the evenings. :)
-
Originally posted by moot
I'll sound like a broken record saying it, but I used to out reverse N1Ks for 2 reverses, on the deck.
I dueled Frenchy in a spit14 with it in a knife fight, and I was just barely losing the fight.
I'd also run into Stang in a P38 and him being a little lax was the small difference needed to beat him, whereas I'd lose 1:1s vs. AKAK (all of these in the MA) by small margins, about the same as vs. Frenchy's Spit14.
A night and day difference with today's 152.
Hehe, I remember those fights. They were some good hi alt duels, and yeah I remeber getting nailed, then seeing "moot shot you down" and being like wtf I flew that like a noob thinking he'd run haha.
-
Grabbed from various places and added without comment except for this:
Does this sound like the 152 we've got?
In the words of Ofw. Reschke:
"Two enemy fighters were spotted some eight kilometres to the south-west of the field, making low-level passes over Ludwigslust railway yards. Three Ta 152 took off at once, piloted by the Oblt. Aufhammer, the Ofw. Sattler and myself. We were immediately in contact with the enemy fighters, which turned out to be Tempests. Flying in n°3 position, I witnessed the Ofw. Sattler ahead of me dive into the ground seconds before we reached them. It was hardly possible for his crash to have been the result of enemy action, as the Tempest pilots had clearly only just registered our presence. Now began a fight at two against two at the ground-level, which was never to climb above 50 metres. At this altitude neither could afford to make the slightest mistake. And for the first time since flying the Ta 152 I began fully to appreciate exactly what this aircraft could do.
"Pulling ever tighter turns, I got closer and closer to one of the Tempests, never once feeling I was even approaching the limit of the Ta’s capabilities. When he flicked over onto the opposite wing I knew his last attempt to turn inside me had failed. My first burst of fire caught the Tempest in the tail and rear fuselage; its pilot immediately engaged its aircraft in a starboard turn, giving me an even greater advantage. I pressed my gun buttons a second time, but after a few rounds my weapons fell silent and refused to fire another shot. However, the Tempest, which had already taken hits continued desperately to twist and turn, and I positioned myself so that I was always just within his field of vision. Eventually, inevitably, it stalled. The Tempest’s left wing dropped and he crashed into the woods immediately below us, about one kilometre of the site from Sattler’s crash. The Tempest pilot, the W/O O.J. Mitchell was buried side by side with the Ofw. Sattler next day in Neustadt-Glewe cemetery with full military honours".
-
Continued:
The only way to get an accurate portrayal of this fine aircraft is to look at the opinions of the men who flew them, cause their combat role was so very limited.....
Despite the fact that the Ta 152 H was intended to combat high-altitude Allied bombers, very few missions of this type were ultimately ever flown.... Despite this no Ta 152s were lost to enemy fire....
III Gruppe pilots of note who transferred to the Stab JG 301 were Fw. Willi Reschke, Uffz. Christoph Blum, Ritterkreuzträger Ofw. Heinz Gossow and Staffelkapitän Oblt. Hermann Stahl all of 9. Staffel, along with Sepp Sattler and Josef Keil of 10. Staffel......
Keil was to achieve ‘acedom’ on the type.... Former Sturmjäger Walter Loos, who had previously flown alongside Walther Dahl in the Stab JG 300 during the summer of 1944 and had achieved some thirty victories also transferred in.... In the last weeks of the war both he and Reschke were awarded the Ritterkreuz..... Given the number of Knights Cross holders flying Ta 152s at the end of the war some writers have considered the Geschwaderstab of JG 301 to be something of a crack unit..
Willi Reschke relates in ‘JG 301/302 Wilde Sau’ ;
“On 23 January 1945 on orders from the OKL (Oberkommando der Luftwaffe) Jagdgruppe III./JG 301 was temporarily taken off operations and designated an Einsatzerprobungsverband, a combat test unit, re-equipping with the legendary Ta 152 – something we’d long given up hoping for…”
In the early hours of 27 January the Gruppe’s pilots were taken by truck to the Neuhausen aircraft plant near Cottbus with orders to ferry the new Höhenjäger to Alteno......
“ Arriving at the airfield at Neuhausen we were confronted with our first sight of the Ta 152 H-1, which with its enormous wingspan and lengthened engine cowl hardly looked like a fighter aircraft at all........ With feelings of unease we walked around the machines drawn up in three rows (twelve aircraft in total). Technicians were on hand to answer our queries..... After a talk on the technical aspects of the machines that lasted barely 30 minutes, we took the aircraft on charge.. I got airborne at 11:08..”
As Reschke opened up the throttle the enormous power developed by the Jumo 213 E forced the pilot back into the seat and after a roll of just a few hundred meters and at 210 kph the big fighter lifted off effortlessly..... Flap and gear retraction was smooth and with the 60cm wide blades paddling through the air the climb to 10,000 meters took just 12 minutes.... At this height the aircraft behaved impeccably..... That same afternoon the twelve aircraft were lined up on the field at Alteno..... The well known, indeed the only known photo of operational Ta 152s published was in all likelihood taken that same day.....
A report sent by Gruppenkommandeur Guth to the OKL relating to this test phase stated that the pilots of III./JG 301 were unanimous in their praise of the new fighter..... Pilots particularly enthused over the fighter’s manoeuvrability and at heights of 6,000 to 8,000 considered it hugely superior.......
An unnamed pilot flying his second sortie in an H-0 completely outmanoeuvred a Fw 190 A-8 flown by an experienced pilot in mock combat at all heights....
Although III./JG 301 had been slated to fully re-equip with the new Ta 152 before resuming operations, there were never more than sixteen to twenty aircraft instead of the planned 35 available..... The dispersed production of the type suffered all sorts of bottlenecks against a background of impending collapse..... The Marienburg assembly plant in East Prussia was soon overrun by the Soviet’s rapid advance, as was ultimately the Cottbus facility itself...... The Soviet advance also soon forced a move from Alteno, which had found itself a front line airfield harbouring a variety of Schlacht and Jabo-Gruppen...... III./JG 301 moved to Sachau, west of Gardelegen, with the Geschwaderstab and the Doras of II./JG 301 moving to Stendal...... These factors resulted in a decision to concentrate the new machines into an enlarged Geschwaderstab as and when they became available and to transfer experienced pilots from III. Gruppe to the Stab....... This took effect from 13 March 1945.....
The first combat sortie flown by a mixed force of Ta 152 Hs and Fw 190 As of III./JG 301 had taken place on 2 March 1945...... That day a powerful 8th Air Force formation of 1,232 bombers screened by 723 fighters was dispatched to Böhlen, Magdeburg and Ruhland....... Airborne from Sachau behind Verbandsführer (formation leader) Oberleutnant Stahl, some twelve Ta 152s climbed away southwards and prepared to do battle with the Mustang escort screening the bombers heading for the Bohlen chemical plant near Leuna.... The sortie ended in disaster when the Ta 152s were engaged......
Willi Reschke has described the events of that day in his history of Jagdgeschwader 301;
“We reached grid square ‘Heinrich-Caesar’ now flying at an altitude of more than 8,000 meters and closed to formate with a Gruppe of Bf 109s that were wearing yellow and red fuselage bands....... We could barely believe our eyes when, moments later, the first tracers split the air around us as Uffz. ’Bubi’ Blum’s Ta 152 came under attack...... The 109s had opened up on us!!! We could hardly return fire on Kameraden from our own Jagdgeschwader and the sortie was a complete debacle”.....
Such had been the secrecy surrounding the introduction of the new fighter and the unfamiliarity of its slender winged silhouette that even JG 301 pilots had mistaken it for enemy aircraft...... Although no losses were incurred and the agility and superior performance of the Ta 152 H allowed them to evade all of the "attackers", the chance to join combat with the P-51s was lost..... Meanwhile the 109s of the newly formed IV./JG 301, largely comprising hastily retrained former He 177 pilots from III./KG ‘Hindenburg’ suffered heavily at the hands of the Mustangs west of Magdeburg......
In the event the 2 March 1945 sortie described previously was one of the last to see large numbers of German fighters in the air in defence of the Reich....... Thereafter most sorties flown were Jabo or Tiefangriffe on both Eastern and Western Fronts....... Although some writers have stated that Ta 152s flew "top-cover" for bases from which Messerschmitt Me 262 jet fighters operated, this seems unlikely..... The Ta 152s of the Stabsschwarm did fly airfield protection duties for the Doras of II./JG 301 given that the various Gruppen of JG 301 were housed on different fields..
Incidentally the only recorded encounter with P-51s is the incident noted by Kurt Tank himself, who had a narrow escape while flying one of his Ta 152 Hs towards the end of 1944.... He was flying from Langenhagen near Hannover to attend a meeting at the Focke-Wulf plant in Cottbus...... His plane carried armament, but no ammunition. Shortly after takeoff, he was jumped by four Mustangs..... Tank activated his MW 50 boost, opened the throttle wide, and so the story goes, quickly left the Mustangs far behind in a cloud of blue smoke.....
The final victims falling to the guns of the Ta 152 were Russian Yak-9s during the final days of battle around Berlin on April 30, 1945...... Approximately 150 Ta 152 H-1 fighters were manufactured between January 1, 1945 and the arrival of Soviet forces at the Cottbus assembly plant...... No Jagdgruppen ever completely converted to the type..... Most Ta 152 Hs, however, were destroyed on the ground by Allied air attacks while awaiting delivery...... A few Ta 152 Hs were allocated to the Mistel program...... There is little firm information on numbers produced. Harmann has listed Werknummern from 150-001 to 150-040 and 150-167 to 150-169 for a total of 43 aircraft...... There is no information on WNr. -041 to -166...... Some claim all 169 machines were constructed.
With its scintillating performance, numbers of high performance Allied fighters fell to its guns in the final weeks of the war...... Despite the fact that the Ta 152 H was intended to combat high-altitude Allied bombers, very few missions of this type were ultimately ever flown..... Despite this no Ta 152s were lost to enemy fire....
-
Originally posted by moot
It flew as they meant it to fly, so the physics were right.
Now it doesn't fly like it used to (it went from equal or better than the A5 to about as bad or worse than the A8), ergo the physics are wrong.
Of course, unless their AH1 physics model was (a) incomplete, (b) lacking in fidelity, or (c) wrong to begin with. But they wouldn't want to change their FM from AH1 to AH2 for any of those reasons right? Nah, of course not. Silly me! ;)
Seriously guys, I'm not saying there isn't a problem. Try making your case with some aerodynamics substance behind it. Show us why you think the sum of the forces acting on our virtual Ta-152 is invalid. HTC is very open to reason when you lay out your logic using aerodynamics to clearly explain.
Tango, XO
412th FS Braunco Mustangs
-
Originally posted by leitwolf
TUXC, they did. The phrase "longitudinal stability" appears not just once during the development of the 152H.
Also, most of the Ta152s JG301 got were H-0s which lacked both boost systems (MW50 and GM1) and didnt have fuel tanks in the wings which may have helped with handling.
Did a quick search on longitudinal stability to make sure I was thinking of the right axis and found this:
http://selair.selkirk.bc.ca/aerodynamics1/Stability/Page6.html
Apparently longitudinal stability is referring to the pitch axis, and directional stability refers to the yaw axis. So we've seen mention of longitudinal instability in tests (though never from the pilots who flew the plane in combat), but never any mention of directional instability. So back to the original question of why does the tail decide to "whip out" on occasion at slow speed when no other plane does this?
-
Originally posted by TUXC
So we've seen mention of longitudinal instability in tests (though never from the pilots who flew the plane in combat), but never any mention of directional instability. So back to the original question of why does the tail decide to "whip out" on occasion at slow speed when no other plane does this?
Aircraft are subject to all sorts of destabilizing forces. Stability refers to how the aircraft reacts to these destabilizing forces. By definition instability in aerodynamics terms means that instead of opposing a destabilizing force, an unstable aircraft actually cooperates with the destabilizing force instead of opposing it.
Even our AH Ta-152 isn't directionally unstable adverse yaw withstanding. If our Ta-152 was directionally unstable then instead of the nose wanting to yaw back to it's original position it would continue yawing in it's adverse direction. Instead the aircraft yaws back into the direction of forward airflow after you stop aileron input. This means the aircraft is directionally stable, not unstable.
I don't know how else to make it anymore clearer. Aircraft with high aspect ratios (long wing spans) create more adverse yaw compared to others so why would you expect other AH single engine fighters to have the same amount of adverse yaw as the Ta-152?
Tango, XO
412th FS Braunco Mustangs
-
Originally posted by dtango
Of course, unless their AH1 physics model was (a) incomplete, (b) lacking in fidelity, or (c) wrong to begin with. But they wouldn't want to change their FM from AH1 to AH2 for any of those reasons right? Nah, of course not. Silly me! ;)
Why would the 152 be an exception?.. Every other plane so far has been updated according to the same rule: they only get done entirely, one at a time.
You're just trying to relativize things here... And seem to be thinking I'm luftwhining this. I don't know any fancy aerodynamics. What I do know is what endless hours of stick time in the Ta have taught me. The 152 flies nothing like it used to.
The new FM just doesn't seem like the improvement in accuracy that every other plane (a few exceptions aside, e.g. mossie) did. I actualy remember testing out the planes in AH2 and I could tell the new FM had much more data flowing through it, and I remember specificaly thinking that it needed improvement like the 2.06 updates brought. And that the 152 just didn't profit from them like it should have. The sort of sluggish yaw it has in transitions like scissors, or like you can see in the film I posted is something that would have stood out like a sore thumb in any and all but the most biased WWII propaganda. It's a behavior that I don't remember at all in the AH1 FM..
If someone would give me a copy of the old AH1 game, I'd do some side by side tests. I'm not here to make things up.. This is a win-win thing for me - either the 152 has a problem and it'll be fixed back to what it was, or it really isn't so bad and I'll just adapt and move on. :)
-
Originally posted by moot
Why would the 152 be an exception?.. Every other plane so far has been updated according to the same rule: they only get done entirely, one at a time.
When has this been the rule for the FM? For the graphics yes but not for the flight model, especially in the case of a wholesale change from AH1 to AH2. I've seen their vector model in AH1. I've seen their vector model in AH2. They model the forces differently which means they had to make changes for all their aircraft to operate under the AH2 model.
Tango, XO
412th FS Braunco Mustangs
-
I was told so and have seen things done that way.. "It'll be adressed when we get to that plane", anytime I manage to get an answer about FM updates.
I was describing the beta AH2 FM, the very first time everyone got to try it out, not the 2.06 update. The 2.06 update is what got the Mossie bugged, wasn't it?
Do you have any of the AH1 installers around?
-
Yes of course they make updates to airplanes as needed which are applicable to a given physics engine. Switching from AH1 to AH2 they wholesale revamped their physics engine which means they had to revamp all their planes to work within that new engine.
Did they intend the Ta-152 to behave differently than it did in AH1? They'll have to answer that question. Having seen their vector models in AH1 and AH2 in visits to Grapevine, there is no way that the aircraft were not going to behave differently. Infact their FM has increased in fidelity where you notice things like stall progression and adverse yaw which is a real testament to the fidelity of their improved physics engine.
And for the record I haven't called or implied anyone a luftwhiner :) .
Tango, XO
412th FS Braunco Mustangs
-
Originally posted by moot
If someone would give me a copy of the old AH1 game......
Hmmm, lets see. Ya, I got one of those. AAMOF, just got done flying the AH1 TA-152 with it. How much you give me for it? :D
I wonder what I could get on E-bay for it?
Na, I'm not the only one with a copy of AH1.
Anyway, just messin around. let me know what you need from me and I will see what I can do. I have the game installed on one of my HD's.
Flying the 152 in AH1...... yes there is a difference. the current 152 is more forgiving in stalls (IMO). The Point of stall departure in the old 152 seems about the same as the new. The AH1 152 does not have the yaw when rolling like the new one does. It will yaw some, but only when rolling sharply from left to right over and over. quick rolls with a pause, not much yaw. Turn rate seems much better in the old, at all speeds. Old 152 feels more snappy, and nimble.
New 152, you can't break the wings off. Old? Oh yes very much so, with ease.
Flat spins about the same, (in AH1) when hanging on prop, but much harder to recover from (IMO).
Tail does seem to stay in line much better in the AH1 version.
Just some quick notes, only flew for about 20min.
AH1, was like a real blast from the past. ;) couldn't remember how to change countries :lol.
-
DTango, my point is - why didn't the mossie "convert" well to the latest FM? Probably for the same reason the 152 wouldn't have - if the current FM is flawed like I suspect it is.
Like I said, I recognized the improved FM in AH2, but at some point the 152 got the short end of the conversion to it. Either at 2.06 or somewhere else... At some point it just stopped flying like it did in AH1, and it was nothing like the change for the better that just about every other plane went through. Everyone said so.. Everyone in Wotan's III./JG2, everyone I fly with today.. everyone who mentionned it over the years since then. SLED says so in the above post. Widewing, Bodhi, and you are the first ones to actualy argue that there's nothing wrong with it, or even that it flies better than the AH1 Ta152.
For my part I don't have a problem with the flat spin like you get on airstarts, or the landing behavior. That's nothing, and it was already characteristic back then. The only thing I think is wrong is the departure you can see in the film I posted.
SLED - Thanks, let me know when you've got the link ready :)
-
Originally posted by moot
The only thing I think is wrong is the departure you can see in the film I posted.
SLED - Thanks, let me know when you've got the link ready :)
Looked like operator error to me.
Ehem..... Hey I got your Christmas present ready. need an E-mail for you.
And remember I like Beer, Porter is my favorite :D
;)
-
Last evening after a brief foray in LWA Orange (flew one sortie in an A-20), I headed to the TA to find a dancing partner for the Ta 152. Cowboy45 was obliging and I played tag with his F4U-1A. Overall, the Ta 152 accounted for itself very well. Certainly unable to compete in terms of turning, the 152 worked very well at keeping the fight going up and down. Once establishing a solid E advantage by being able to convert better vertically, the 152 dominated in the E fight, which prompted Cowboy45 to comment, "I've never seen a 152 flown that way." Cowboy45 is a typical MA vet and a member of Daddog's squad. He's also a very pleasant gent.
I did encounter that "fishtailing" phenomena, which while a bit disconcerting, but was quickly overcome by easing a bit on AoA. It felt like the fuselage was blanking the rudder, inducing a yaw oscillation. This is similar but more violent than the yaw oscillation experienced when landing nose high. My first thought was, "this thing needs a taller rudder".
During the fight, I slowed to about 66 mph coming over the top of a vertical reverse several times. I had to work the rudder vigorously to prevent the fighter from yawing out of the desired path. Nonetheless, I was able to keep it gathered up and this behavior is largely an annoyance rather than a serious handicap. If you know it's coming, countering it is not difficult. However, I wouldn't want to be on the ragged edge with a bad guy on my six and have to ease off to stop the tail wag.
Well anyway, I have about 19 minutes of film to be edited and I'll post the more useful portions in short segments.
Later, I took the 190A-5 up and repeated the exercise. Almost immediately, I realized that the A-5 is no match for the 152. The 152 is far less twitchy and more forgiving of high AoA maneuvering. Where the A-5 would snaproll, the 152 merely wags its tail a bit. Where the A-5 bucks and shakes in a hard turn, the 152 is stable and graceful, carving the turn with far greater precision. There's no doubt in my mind that the 152 is the best dogfighter of the 190 series.
The more I fly the 152, the more I like it. Yeah, it has some odd handling quirks, but I think I can work around them. The other night, I used the 152 to hammer a CV raid. I killed seven before a lack of fuel required me to RTB with 109 20mm cannon rounds remaining (our base was too hot to attempt a landing). This total included killing a pair of F6Fs down in the weeds. I guess they never expected the 152 to maneuver with them because each one did no more than turn 180 degrees, which was countered by a high yo-yo and then a 30mm enema.
My regards,
Widewing
-
Originally posted by Krusty
[..]Nowhere, ever, have I heard mentioned any instabilities of any kind, nor any flaws.
Where exactly does it say this, and in what context is it said?
I lost all the scanned stuff I had on the 152. But if you don't mind grabbing a book there's a fairly recent one by Dietmar Harmann ("Focke-Wulf Ta 152", ISBN 0-7643-0860-2) and it's in there. You might even find the Book in the evil parts of the Internet for a brief glimpse. :)
-
Originally posted by moot
DTango, my point is - why didn't the mossie "convert" well to the latest FM? Probably for the same reason the 152 wouldn't have - if the current FM is flawed like I suspect it is.
I have no problem with that being a theory. My issue is that people are treating the theory as fact with no aerodynamic proof. Flying different than what it did in AH1 is not proving that the FM is flawed. It only proves that AH1 and AH2 are different. Show me the theory is indeed true by proving it with aerodynamic fact. Until then, the FM flaw is just opinion to me and not fact.
That's just my perspective. But hey, I'm just another schmoe here so take it for what it's worth - $.02, maybe less :).
Either at 2.06 or somewhere else... At some point it just stopped flying like it did in AH1, and it was nothing like the change for the better that just about every other plane went through.
Some planes improved in certain performance parameters, others got worse. It's an inaccurate presumption to say that all planes changed for the better because they didn't.
Tango, XO
412th FS Braunco Mustangs
-
Originally posted by Widewing
I did encounter that "fishtailing" phenomena, which while a bit disconcerting, but was quickly overcome by easing a bit on AoA. It felt like the fuselage was blanking the rudder, inducing a yaw oscillation.
That's exactly what it feels like. It's exactly like I pictured it, but since I was just guessing with no proper aerodynamics knowledge I couldn't use it as any sort of argument. The updated flow model certainly would have made that part of the model more accurate... But somehow it doesn't feel right as is.
I flew the 152 a bunch today and yesterday, managed to get used to it again and landed a bunch of streaks, last one 20 kills.. So it still works really well, I have most of the good examples of its shortcomings in stall fights on film, but I don't have the patience to sort through it all right away.
I found the same thing, reducing the AOA and working the rudder and throttle will put the plane back on its tracks, but it costs a lot of degrees and time when you're in a tight fight, e.g. early rolling scissors when both fighters are trying to out brake each other.
DTango, I don't have any aerodynamic proof, you know that.. I'm suspicious of the FM because it just doesn't behave like the old 152 did. I mean that after flying a lot of planes, you start getting a feeling for what each design and each of its iterations was meant to do, and the present FM doesn't match what the 152 used to be like in AH1. That's all I've got, but it's a genuine gut feeling. It just doesn't make sense that it'd go from what it was in AH1 to what it is now, for better or worse.
The ball's in your court as far as concise aerodynamics are concerned.. If you're a schmoe, I'm just a pixel pilot who doesn't even look at the instruments when he flies.. e.g. when the sideslip ball is mentionned, I can't relate to that. It and the rest of the instruments don't mean much to me, I fly completely by feeling.
I can't think of any other plane that changed so much for the worse.. which ones are you thinking of? They all felt a lot more defined at very low speeds, with the updates, whether they performed better or worse, they stayed true to the character they had in the previous FM.
The 152 doesn't.. that's my gut feeling and it's all I have to offer as argument. Give the AH1 152 a try and you'll see for yourself.
I just want HTC to give it a look. I'll be content with whatever they figure is best.
-
Widewing, SLED, and moot,
Thanks for taking the 152 for a spin and reporting back on it here. The thing is definitely a fearsome machine (even with the tail trying to run away on you!) and is an especially rude shock to opponents who underestimate its capabilities or are flying the other 190 versions. It can't run away like the Dora can, so many times you're forced to stay and fight and manage your E better. I've never fought an A-5 in one, but it seems like the 152 would have the upper hand it as it does with the Dora. Some of the best fights I've had the last few tours have been in a 152 on the deck and low on gas. Flying like that you begin to see the plane that Reschke described. Still haven't gotten to fight a Tempest yet in one (probably for the better!).
The yaw issue is one that you learn to compensate for the more you fly the plane, but like Widewing said It's not fun to have to worry about it when you have a bandit on your six. It may be that it's simply a bug like the Mosquito had, or it perhaps that's the way it's supposed to be due to the combination of the high aspect wing and the CG shift from the GM-1 equipment. Either way, the point of this thread is simply that I and some others who play this game would be very grateful if it was looked into and revised if necessary. A visual makeover would be great as well, but that's a whole different topic!
-
Originally posted by moot
I can't think of any other plane that changed so much for the worse.. which ones are you thinking of? They all felt a lot more defined at very low speeds, with the updates, whether they performed better or worse, they stayed true to the character they had in the previous FM.
For starters the P-51 and the Ki-61 turn performance has suffered, not improved. Also another example according to an old squaddie of mine (who happens to be an actual aero engr) you could no longer use the snap roll in the Mustang in particular ways. I'm sure if you examined it and checked with guys like Widewing you'll find other examples.
Tango, XO
412th FS Braunco Mustangs
-
Originally posted by TUXC
Widewing, SLED, and moot,
Thanks for taking the 152 for a spin and reporting back on it here. The thing is definitely a fearsome machine (even with the tail trying to run away on you!) and is an especially rude shock to opponents who underestimate its capabilities or are flying the other 190 versions. It can't run away like the Dora can, so many times you're forced to stay and fight and manage your E better. I've never fought an A-5 in one, but it seems like the 152 would have the upper hand it as it does with the Dora. Some of the best fights I've had the last few tours have been in a 152 on the deck and low on gas. Flying like that you begin to see the plane that Reschke described. Still haven't gotten to fight a Tempest yet in one (probably for the better!).
The yaw issue is one that you learn to compensate for the more you fly the plane, but like Widewing said It's not fun to have to worry about it when you have a bandit on your six. It may be that it's simply a bug like the Mosquito had, or it perhaps that's the way it's supposed to be due to the combination of the high aspect wing and the CG shift from the GM-1 equipment. Either way, the point of this thread is simply that I and some others who play this game would be very grateful if it was looked into and revised if necessary. A visual makeover would be great as well, but that's a whole different topic!
Well said! Couldn't have said it better myself! :aok
-
I am going to do this because it is Christmas, and I am a nice guy. ;)
Here is my copy of AH1 for anyone who would like it.
Sleds AH1 copy (http://www.megaupload.com/?d=S2RX4K98)
NOTE: 155MB!
I am hoping this isn't a problem with HTC. I don't see why it would be.
One of the files is an installer for the game. If you have problems using it, don't ask me, that is way beyond my expertise.
Enjoy the blast from the past.
Merry Christmas
:)
-
I have AH1.14 installed, and the entire HTC folder is only 40.1MB. What else is in there?
-
Ya, I was in a hurry, just compressed and uploaded it while I was gone. That one has all the terrains and sounds in it, which most don't need.
This one is much smaller.
Sleds AH1 (just the basics) (http://www.megaupload.com/?d=IOCIXCAC)
35MB
-
I've been reading up, and at least two books mention significant yaw instability, as well as pitch to a lesser degree.
The development issues with these and engine problems sound like a real nightmare.
I think the AH 152 matches the books' descriptions qualitatively, but I hope its FM still gets a look the way the 190s did a while back.
-
I'm glad to know I'm not the only one who can't control the yaw on the Ta-152.
-
the Ta152 is the pigs tit.
-
Question: in the AH planeset, which other 1945 aircraft do you see less than the Ta-152?
Answer: none.
Provided the aircraft was well-designed and AH models it well, an aircraft that sports 2x20mm and a 30mm cannon, i.e. great firepower, should be a popular aircraft in the arenas, especially if it handles better than a D9 but is almost as fast at lower altitudes (and faster up high).
Who will disagree with the above proposition?
By reductio ad absurdum, then, the Ta-152 is either poorly modeled by AH or was a poorly designed aircraft. I don't have the expertise to say which one sticks, but one of them has to. As a new player to AH, my fresh perspective has its disadvantages and its advantages, too. In this case, I am new to all of the aircraft as AH models them, and the Ta-152 really sticks out to me as a sloshy, awkward to handle aircraft (FYI, I'm not a furballer). Nothing else comes close.
-
Originally posted by moot
I've been reading up, and at least two books mention significant yaw instability, as well as pitch to a lesser degree.
Please name the books you found these claims in. Are they backed up by any primary source (documents, pilot interview) or is it just found inside the text ?
Are these problems from early prototypes or are they said to still exist in the production versions ?
Are those problems specified for the long-winf Ta 152H or for the short-wing Ta 152C or another variant?
-
Anaxogoras you are new and not done cooking yet ;)
Denniss, it's a bit odd. On the one hand everyone needing the plane or having flown it themselves made no doubts about it, saying they needed the thing asap, that it was superb, and so it went into production with barely 20 or 40 hours in the development models, etc.
On the other hand there are some significant sacrifices made to fix the instabilities, and the criticisms about this are very clear cut.
These and more gremlins are detailed in Dietmar Harmann's "Focke-Wulf Ta 152 The story of the Luftwaffe's late-war, high altitude fighter", and probably "Monogram Close-up 24: Ta 152". I didn't earmark the exact pages, but I'm sure it was mentionned in Harmann's book, and mirrored in Monogram 24.
The stability problems were almost certainly about the 152H, as I mostly skimmed and skipped the other models' sections. edit- I just skimmed thru Monogram24, and it mentions the C had much the same yaw problems as the H1.
The problems persisted into production, which is probably not surprising considering how quick the transition between the two was.
Now that I think about it, the sharpest criticism came from the Reichlin chief of testing, or whoever wrote the report found in one of those two books. His report is quoted almost verbatim.
There were definitely plans for a larger rudder, larger tail-end horizontal control surfaces and stabs, and many combinations of fuel and cooling liquids tanks moved around, reduced and/or just deleted.
So yes, yaw was definitely an issue, and pitch was too, although to a lesser degree.
-
I for one would love the Ta152C to be put in the game. I'm having wet dreams about that a/c, I mean... 1 x 30 mm + 4 x 20 mm... :t
(http://hem.bredband.net/turnik/icons/icon_drool.gif)
But yeah, the 152H fm needs a fix! Its current state is redicilous, shame on HTC!
-
Originally posted by 33Vortex
But yeah, the 152H fm needs a fix! Its current state is redicilous, shame on HTC!
Well that presents an interesting question.
Do we want the AC in AH to fly like they did in real life? (for better or worse.)
Or do we want them to fly like we want them to fly?
If I was HTC I would want my AC to fly like the real planes, as best as I can present it. If the real 152 had the yaw issues it has in AH, then it is flying correctly. Right?
-
Yes, if. The question is whether the 152's FM is as it's supposed to be, or just a stop-gap implementation like the Mossie was.
Vortex, I think a late 190D would be better. There wouldn't be any cog issues, and we'd get a better engine. Fielded numbers are relatively the same between the two variants.
-
Originally posted by moot
Yes, if. The question is whether the 152's FM is as it's supposed to be, or just a stop-gap implementation like the Mossie was.
Vortex, I think a late 190D would be better. There wouldn't be any cog issues, and we'd get a better engine. Fielded numbers are relatively the same between the two variants.
A D-11 would be nice
-
Originally posted by moot
Vortex, I think a late 190D would be better. There wouldn't be any cog issues, and we'd get a better engine. Fielded numbers are relatively the same between the two variants.
Check out the Ta152C, it would do nicely. It's pretty much a beefed up Dora but with the much improved Ta152 tail section. The stopgap a/c here is the D-9 using butchered A-7 fuselages but it was the one that got into service in any scale.
And to the people saying the Ta152 is fine like it is:
I'm sorry guys but you are just being stupid and I don't want to make any further comments on the subject. Just put your leg or arm out at 500 mph and you'll learn something about physics. You won't notice any yaw effects but your chosen bodypart will break or simply be torn off. Air moving at 500 mph is HARD. It has something to do with kinetic energy and basic physical principles. If you can't grasp it, stay out of it.
-
Vortex I don't doubt there's something wrong with the present 152 FM, if the AH1 FM was representative of the plane's characteristics. That said, the F4Us have the same sort of tailslide that seems like the fuselage blanking some or all of the tail section control surfaces, so assuming the F4Us are fine, and considering that behavior (in the 152) already existed (to a lesser degree) on the AH1 FM, it's probably not that inaccurate.
I've been learning to adapt to this quirk, and the closer I ride the edge of it, the wilder the spins I get.. I had one that was nearly as bad as the mossie used to be, meaning I had red-out from the spin and couldn't even tell where the plane was going for a moment.
I got at least one of that type of spins on film, although it's less pronounced. I also have one where I catch the tailslide very near the point of no return. I don't know how it'll look on .ahf, with its slow sample rate, but I'll post it here for illustration.
I'm pretty sure the 190D11-13 (I forgot which ones exactly) were better than the 152C. The engine was more powerful and the plane was lighter. The 152C had cog issues like the 152H's, but how they compared to the 190D11-13s' in terms of overall agility, I don't know.
Unless one of these birds had a MK103 in the nose, I don't know if any of them would be the best one by any significant margin, for us in AH.
-
Here's the film. (http://www.megaupload.com/?d=5PQV0R0Z) The tail slides out of the way at 0:20. It's likely this sort of slide wouldn't show up if I looked out for it, but even then I couldn't really keep it perfectly under control without rudder pedals.
I've never had a spin at 500mph, Vortex. The really bad behavior in the 152 only happens around 200mph. I don't think I could ever get it to get out of line enough for the cog to spind out the plane above 300mph or so.
I can't find film of the really violent spinout yet... It doesn't just lose lift and spin flat, but really wipes out and then flies backwards for a while, before settling into the slow spin.
-
Originally posted by 33Vortex
And to the people saying the Ta152 is fine like it is:
I'm sorry guys but you are just being stupid and I don't want to make any further comments on the subject. Just put your leg or arm out at 500 mph and you'll learn something about physics. You won't notice any yaw effects but your chosen bodypart will break or simply be torn off. Air moving at 500 mph is HARD. It has something to do with kinetic energy and basic physical principles. If you can't grasp it, stay out of it.
Well I don't necessarily think the 152 is "fine like it is". So I guess I have vortex's permission to continue posting in this thread.
BUT, those of you that disagree with vortex can't post in this thread. He has decided that he doesn't want to hear you being "stupid" anymore.
So........ move along please.
-
That's right! But if you must, bring cookies! :D
-
The only D-13 I'm aware of was of the Stab/JG26 flown by Geschwaderkommodore Franz Götz. Indeed it had a further developed (engine using triple boosters!) than the Ta152C and perhaps a more well balanced armament of 3 MG151 20 mm cannons, one firing through the hub.
This plane is actually modeled in AH already, as a D-9 skin! I've meant to make a post about that but never gotten around to it. It's a great paint, I love it, but it's a D-13 not a D-9. I think that HTC should either remove the skin (because it's not a D-9) or consequently add the D-13 to the lineup. The D-13 would, no doubt, be a monster on a whole different level than the D-9. The engine is decisively more powerful at high altitudes, how much more I do not know since I don't have access to any performance charts. Perhaps someone could dig it out.
-
Originally posted by moot
I've never had a spin at 500mph, Vortex. The really bad behavior in the 152 only happens around 200mph. I don't think I could ever get it to get out of line enough for the cog to spind out the plane above 300mph or so.
True, but at those speeds the controls should be rock solid unless perhaps under influence of the added weight of partially filled or full wing tanks. The Ta152H may have a large wing span, but the mass is concentrated to its fuselage. Reports seem to suggest there were some stability issues, but those were regarded as minor and not interfering with the a/c overall performance. I mean, these were pilots used to the nimble and exact aileron response of the FW190, of course the larger wing span of the Ta152H had consequenses. I'm just saying that the Ta152 ingame currently feel more like a Bergfalke than a high performance piston engined fighter. I don't have the exact figures and raw data, but I've flown enough powered and non-powered a/c to know that the handling doesn't make sense.
-
Well, I think if we get a later 190D, it should be a low altitude variant. The 152H is made for high altitude, and so far none of the 190s, 152 included, are low-altitude oriented. A low alt 190D with a MK103 in the hub would be perfect :)
The reports on instabilities in the 152 were a bit contradictory.. Some of them, though, flat out said they were unacceptable. I'll have to find the exact text to be sure.
-
The D-12 had a 30 mm hub cannon, instead of the dual MG131 setup, together with the standard wingroot mounted MG151s. A small number were produced if I'm not mistaken, on the scale of 10-15 a/c, and saw action with front line units. One could argue though that all of Germany was at the front line in the air war at that point.
-
(http://[IMG]http://i74.photobucket.com/albums/i253/plague_06/Rot4-junk2.jpg)[/IMG]
The D-11 carried the formidable armament of 2 x 20mm and 2 x 30mm cannons. The D-11 was equipped with the more powerful Jumo J213F engine with Methanol/Water injection (the MW50 filler can be seen above the radio access). This was the same power plant used on the TA 152. The D-11 was a Versuch (test) aircraft. There were 7 - 13 D-11s built, most likely all from existing A-8 airframes (sources vary on exact number with 7 being most common). The D-11 never went into regular production.
-
Where's that from? I remember reading one of the books about the 190/152s in which its author suggested that the 190Ds would have been a more practical alternative, given their airframe being proven (e.g. no cog problems) and the engine being more powerful.
I don't remember the specifics, but it was something not negligible like 200HP, maybe more. I think it was optimised for low altitude. I'll have to look it up.
-
It's from a website dedicated to JV 44.
-link to website- (http://home.att.net/~jv44/realjv44_1.htm)
I was quoting it more for the armament than the powerplant. I wouldn't hold the powerplant part as gospel, I've done no research on the matter so I'm definitely not standing behind that.
I posted the photo as it shows the MK 108 cannon in the usual MG 151/20 position which suggests it had no hub mounted cannon.
I can't be sure if the the 2 x 151/20s were in the wings where the Mk 108 would have been in an A8 wing or if they were in the cowling.
The images I've seen suggest that the D11 had a flush cowling... so that points to wing-mounted.
-
It looks like from D-10 there was no engine cowling armament anymore (weight saving?).
The MK 108 would have always been installed in the outer wing position as the wing root cannon has the be synchronized with the prop. MK 108 in the outer wing position does not rule out a MK 108 as engine cannon.
-
Originally posted by Denniss
It looks like from D-10 there was no engine cowling armament anymore (weight saving?).
The MK 108 would have always been installed in the outer wing position as the wing root cannon has the be synchronized with the prop. MK 108 in the outer wing position does not rule out a MK 108 as engine cannon.
I expect it had more to do with the size of the power-plant and the ability to fit guns in there without big buldges.
-
It's likely it had more to do with space than weight saving yes. Additional engine components made space precious.
-
Hey Moot, sorry for the delay, but here is the page from Crandall's book "The Focke-Wulfe FW 190 Dora". It is page 155.
(http://i168.photobucket.com/albums/u191/bodhi83/ta152.jpg)
-
An orange Ta152? I'd fly it!
Thanks Bodhi.
-
Well well well ... Awesome! :D Thanks a bunch Bodhi, I owe ya.