Aces High Bulletin Board
General Forums => Aces High General Discussion => Topic started by: mipoikel on November 12, 2008, 05:52:24 AM
-
I think most people dont know it is unperked. Seems that everyone is trying to kill you as greedy as before.
What u think? Do you feel the same? :)
-
It sucks so bad that it doesn't even deserve a thread drawing attention to it.
-
I go after them quick because once they get above me they're a real problem. It's a awesome aircraft and I'm surprized more guys don't fly them.
-
I only use it to hunt bombers.
-
Hits like an A8, turns like a A5 and is almost as fast as a D9. It's the all-rounder of the 190s.
Fuel range is superb, too. I only ever take 100% when I'm going on long distance prowls to get in the middle of a big fight between the two other countries. Targets galore.
Drop tank? Forget it.
The reason people don't fly it is because it's not easy to fly. It's a complete squeak, it's challenging and requires aggression and restraint at the same time.... a balance not easily maintained.
If you don't stroke it the right way the 152 will slap you right round and make you its b itch before you can say nein! scheisse!
Basically, it's too hard to fly as a fighter for the average AH. You have to WANT to like the 152.
The 152 is capable of magnificent things but it requires more dedication to get small amounts out of it.
-
Drop tank? Forget it.
Why? The Ta drop tank is a wonderful thing. Carrying one doesn't hurt your performance after dropping it. 50%+DT when hunting high-alt buffs, Vbase defense or deep strikes, 25%+DT for close furballs or field defense.
-
Plus the ability to engage and dis-engage, at will, above 20k is magnificent. It is a monster up there :aok
-
It's a awesome aircraft and I'm surprized more guys don't fly them.
Adverse Yaw.
-
I have a hard time believing that an aircraft with our Ta-152's handling characteristics would ever have been put into production.
-
Why? It definitely does not handle as sweetly in terms of straight-forward stability as its 190 cousins, but it is not too terribly difficult to take off, fly, or land. If it bites you occasionally in hard maneuvers...well, consider that LW fighters were meant more for BNZing than putting on aerobatic exhibitions.
I have a hard time believing that an aircraft with our Ta-152's handling characteristics would ever have been put into production.
-
You think it's easy to land the 152? Really? I know we make careless landings in this game, but even when I try my best I still ground-loop when landing that thing from time to time.
-
I have a hard time believing that an aircraft with our Ta-152's handling characteristics would ever have been put into production.
Why not? AH2 produces lots of them every day. And they're free!!!!
:rofl
-
Mipoikel, you pwned my boston formation last night. :cry
i did hit a 152 pretty good on an overshoot. I thought i got a pw on him. Was that you or another 152?
-
No, not "easy", but not beyond the pale for a fighter aircraft, where tricky handling is often tolerated if the airframe has good performance.
First time I tried to land one, I was slowing down by the means I always use, closed throttle and high-G barrel rolls until slow enough for flaps to come out. All of a sudden, I found myself simply *falling* flat as a pancake out of the sky. I pushed the throttle forward and it started flying again just barely in time to miss the foliage. No more crap like that when lading the 152.
You think it's easy to land the 152? Really? I know we make careless landings in this game, but even when I try my best I still ground-loop when landing that thing from time to time.
Well, there you go. Happened in WWII. That is the reason tricycle gear designs pretty much dominate the market today.
-
Mipoikel, you pwned my boston formation last night. :cry
i did hit a 152 pretty good on an overshoot. I thought i got a pw on him. Was that you or another 152?
It was me, I thought few 30mm hits would kill your boston but surprisingly you stayed alive and pinged me. I wounded but managed to land.
AH-Film: http://www.savanne.org/ah/ta152.zip
Pics:
(http://www.savanne.org/ah/ta152vsboston.jpg)
(http://www.savanne.org/ah/ta152kill.jpg)
-
I have a hard time believing that an aircraft with our Ta-152's handling characteristics would ever have been put into production.
Isn't the Ta-152 considered a 'high altitude' fighter though? It was designed to excell at high altitude. Historically many dogfights occured up high as opposed to what I've seen in AH which takes place mostly under 10k. What doesn't work so well for us may have worked well historically.
-
I only use it to hunt bombers.
Same here. She is absolutely brutal to any bomber in the AH inventory!
-
It was me, I thought few 30mm hits would kill your boston but surprisingly you stayed alive and pinged me. I wounded but managed to land.
AH-Film: http://www.savanne.org/ah/ta152.zip
Pics:
(http://www.savanne.org/ah/ta152vsboston.jpg)
(http://www.savanne.org/ah/ta152kill.jpg)
That was fun. :salute I wish the Boston had .50s instead - or that my aim didn't suck.
It was funny hearing Tripl5 crying. We have a few guys on the knights that do that.
-
Why? It definitely does not handle as sweetly in terms of straight-forward stability as its 190 cousins, but it is not too terribly difficult to take off, fly, or land. If it bites you occasionally in hard maneuvers...well, consider that LW fighters were meant more for BNZing than putting on aerobatic exhibitions.
In that I agree with this part of the statement, it is not handled the same from person to person. I can remember flying numberous sorties with JB42 and him having the most difficult time landing that thing w/o losing a gear or two. I am not taking anything away from him. As everyone knows, he is excellent in LW A/C. I am only stating that I had no problem handling one where another found it extremely difficult upon landing. We all have a different feel for different things.
:salute
-
Isn't the Ta-152 considered a 'high altitude' fighter though? It was designed to excell at high altitude. Historically many dogfights occured up high as opposed to what I've seen in AH which takes place mostly under 10k. What doesn't work so well for us may have worked well historically.
It has some characteristics that make it very dodgy. In reality, it was rushed through production, before some of the development prototypes were halfway done (or something of that degree) with their assigned trials. Many, probably nearly all of the pre-production models were put into service before the end of the dev cycle too. The development feedback from evaluation in active squadrons and official evaluation crews was between a mix of brilliance and some worrying flaws (and some overall praising comments such as one top pilot calling it his life insurance in the last days of the war), and really damning comments from the Rechlin evaluation officials. One of these actualy said something to the effect that one particular flaw could only be fixed, as far as he said, by modifications that were unacceptable (reducing fuel tank mass). This specificaly matches our plane.
There were also some issues of stability (again like ours), though they can't really be seen in-game as described in the literature because we have perfectly still air.
All in all, it was a very promising design that was nearly stillborn because of Germany's state of attrition. I can't recall where I saw it, but at some point it even says one development crew or other that worked on the plane had to get their drinking water from the firefighting supplies. A batch of planes waiting to be delivered were strafed on the factory (IIRC) airfield.
Landing it isn't difficult; only there's a pretty thin line of no return, since it's pretty heavy (lots of momentum) in unfavorable spots (the tail) and the gear is pretty flimsy.
-
It sucks so bad that it doesn't even deserve a thread drawing attention to it.
:rofl i think not
-
Why? The Ta drop tank is a wonderful thing. Carrying one doesn't hurt your performance after dropping it.
Well, the DT rack does hurt the performance a bit, it will reduce Vmax by about 4-5 mph, While that does not sound like a lot, it may be a problem when trying to get away from certain aircraft, where really every mph available matters.
Now about the landing issue. We all know it can be quite a handful when landing, but there is a remedy for that. Just before touchdown, reduce throttle and RPM to the minimum. This will make the landing no harder than in the other 190s, just dont come in too fast.
-
Why? The Ta drop tank is a wonderful thing. Carrying one doesn't hurt your performance after dropping it. 50%+DT when hunting high-alt buffs, Vbase defense or deep strikes, 25%+DT for close furballs or field defense.
That's what I've always done as well.
-
Guess we should eliminate the "Ensign Eliminator" then. Nix the the ground looping Corsair!
-
Well, the DT rack does hurt the performance a bit, it will reduce Vmax by about 4-5 mph,
The drop tank doesn't hurt Vmax after being dropped. Top speed is the same has if having taken up the Ta in clean configuration from the field.
The Ta 152H had a special permanent low-drag drop tank mounting:
(http://img139.imageshack.us/img139/8594/tadropmq5.jpg)
-
Will you quit giving away valuable info for free?
-
The drop tank doesn't hurt Vmax after being dropped. Top speed is the same has if having taken up the Ta in clean configuration from the field.
The Ta 152H had a special permanent low-drag drop tank mounting:
(http://img139.imageshack.us/img139/8594/tadropmq5.jpg)
Well, before the Ta152 facelift, this was indeed true, but not anymore. Vmax drops trom 363 to 358 on the deck with WEP, and from 333 to 328 without.
-
They are superb 262 killers
But easy landings. uh! Don't think I've ever re-armed one.
-
Amazing how people start arguing of quality of the plane and forget original question. :lol :D
-
Amazing how people start arguing of quality of the plane and forget original question. :lol :D
Not a very good question. I sure didn't understand it. However, thought I would point out the merits of the plane since the title is TA152.
-
Love it! Found a challenge in converting from the D-9 but once you get to know the Ta152 better and know how to treat her, she will take good care of you in return. :)
-
Amazing how people start arguing of quality of the plane and forget original question. :lol :D
Thing is that when people see or hear its a TA152 they think "easy kill" and they would be right most of the time. The only person Iv seen fly a 152 and be great in it without B&Zing everything to death was moot. He is the only person that I saw getting called a cheater almost once a week because of the way he moved that thing.
So to answer your question I dont think people still see it as a perk plane they see it like a free kill.
-
Well, before the Ta152 facelift, this was indeed true, but not anymore. Vmax drops trom 363 to 358 on the deck with WEP, and from 333 to 328 without.
oooops.. you are right.
Guess it didn't come to my mind that they could have changed something that was correctly modeled, especially when update notes didn't mention any performance changes.
I bow my head in shame :o
-
oooops.. you are right.
Guess it didn't come to my mind that they could have changed something that was correctly modeled, especially when update notes didn't mention any performance changes.
I bow my head in shame :o
Woah, the 152 takes a performance hit if you had a drop tank? News to me! :eek:
-
It shouldn't, if it does that's just wrong and needs to be fixed. Carrying a droptank is always a penalty though.
-
The 152 is a great plane in the right hands (Just like almost every plane in AH)
The 152 is not a plane for noobs. You need to really understand how to handle that beast. Its low speed handling characteristics are very challenging. I would say it is one of the most challenging planes to be consistently good in. Especially with all the Spit16s and Niks hoarding around.
The plane was a high altitude bomber interceptor. It shines at high alt. It would be a fabulous scenario plane. I could envision some really good fights between P47Ns and TA152s at 30k =)
-
The 152 is not a plane for noobs.
funny thing about that is that when i first started playing i loved flying the 152! i didn't do too badly in it as far as crashing due to pilot error. obviously got shot down alot due to lack of skill (yes yes before you say it i will "nothing has changed in that") but i could take off and land it without issue.
but shortly after starting i got hooked on the turners like the hurri II C KI-84 and the Zeek. (i blame that on jetsom, he is my squaddie and got me into the game)
once in awhile i still like to take out the 152, nothing with a prop hunts bombers better, but unfortunately i can never find anything up at the alts that it was designed to dominate at. if I'm gonna fly on the deck and turn then i preffer to be a plane that i don't have to fight with to get the maneuvers and performance I'm looking for out of it.
FLOTSOM
-
I think most people dont know it is unperked. Seems that everyone is trying to kill you as greedy as before.
What u think? Do you feel the same? :)
Mip, in my experience people have a few leading reasons for shooting it before everything else. It's rare, so they get a kick out of being the one who shot down the exotic plane in the n1k/spit/la7 mess, kinda like the old perk tag effect. They probably see it like a 190D9, "gotta shoot those before they run". They probably know it's not all that fast and not exactly nimble, and carries big guns.. So they figure it's a potential to ruin their sortie that's easy to take care of.
-
To me the 152 feels and performs almost like an F4U-D, it's not very fast, but it can sure turns like crazy compare to the rest of the 190 family.
-
The reason people don't fly it is because it's not easy to fly. It's a complete wench, it's challenging and requires aggression and restraint at the same time.... a balance not easily maintained.
If you don't stroke it the right way the 152 will slap you right round and make you its b itch before you can say nein! scheisse!
Basically, it's too hard to fly as a fighter for the average AH. You have to WANT to like the 152.
The 152 is capable of magnificent things but it requires more dedication to get small amounts out of it.
DAM STRAIGHT
My favorite bird to fly.... when i was flying that is...
-
why does everyone keep saying the 152 is slow?
take her up to 15 or 20,000 feet and level off and cruise. tell me how many other crates will stay with her up there. the 51, 163 and the 262, but other than that what else?
now take her into a dive from that level flight and see how long it takes to be doing almost 600 in that dive. then at 600ish ease the stick back and see how easily she comes out of that dive.
i wanna see your spixteen or la7 do those things as easily. you'd be waving good bye to your wings long before you reached 550.
the 152 is a fast and nimble ride as long as you use it where it belongs, use it for its intended purpose.
would you use a surgical scalpel to chop down a tree? then why try to use the 152 (an intended high alt interceptor and bomber killer) as a down in the mud dog fighter. do you dog fight with a 262 or a 163?
long thin elegant wings kinda give away the purpose of the plane.
FLOTSOM
-
do you dog fight with a 262 or a 163?
FLOTSOM
Erm the 163 is very nimble. Try it and see
-
Flot, have you ever timed the 152's acceleration from ideal (auto-x) climb speed, at 30k ? Back in AH1, I took a Spit9 in tow up to 33k. He all but ran me down both in the climb and dogfight. This was back when the 152 could keep up with WingZero's N1K in hard stall fights for about 2-3 turns, starting at 350mph, near the deck.
-
Flot, have you ever timed the 152's acceleration from ideal (auto-x) climb speed, at 30k ? Back in AH1, I took a Spit9 in tow up to 33k. He all but ran me down both in the climb and dogfight.
in climb yes the spit9 does have better performance. but at every alt in level flight with or without wep the 152 is faster than the spit9.
in a dogfight the spit turns better and stalls much better, so why let the spit control the engagement? diving speed and level speed far surpasses the spit, BOOM AND ZOOM HIS ARSE!!!!!!! don't turn with him, don't let him dictate the terms of the fight, fight your fight not his.
you wouldn't get into a low alt slow turning fight with a zeek if you were in a 262 would you?
now obviously MOOT i know you are an excellent pilot and that i am probably preaching to the choir here, but use the 152 like the 262 or 163. take off a sector or 2 back from the front lines and use the distance to gain the alt and the advantage. the 152 will fly forever with full fuel and and DT's so start as far back as required to gain the alt advantage on your intended victims.
every rule of thumb that anyone has ever posted in here rests on one basic principle, fly your plane to its strengths not against them. BOOM AND ZOOM is the philosophy behind the 152, fly it to your advantage and its a great ride.
FLOTSOM
-
I'm still yet to be convinced that the TA-152 is not a piece of crap.
WHY would the germans invent a late war aircraft that is SLOWER, LESS POWER, than the previous model 190. CLIMBS LIKE A P-40 or loaded up F4U1A... in 1945? It makes no sense to me at all.
SURELY hitech has screwed up the modelling of this plane.
Why would the germans in 1945 make a plane that can only climb at 2500 FPM slowly? Surely a sitting duck if its meant to fight at 35 000 feet, when the enemy is routinely patrolling above you.
Went for a sortie with Arch the other night, might show a quick clip of one merge encounter :-)
-
I used the Ta152 exclusively for about an hour today. I was furballing between 2 high altitude bases, which meant that the fight was above 12K a lot of the time. I had plenty of opportunities for kills, but my gunnery skills failed me. Ended up landing 4 kills after about a half hour sortie (would've had 6, but those other 2 planes managed to land their damaged planes).
I found that the landing gear is pretty fragile. However, I found a way to combat hard landings by trimming the elevator tab all the way up. Also, doing a 3 point landing improves landing gear stress.
-
why does everyone keep saying the 152 is slow?
FLOTSOM
Because it is slow.... compared to the Dora.
It's slower in level flight and in a climb on both military power and WEP.
The 152 does not come into its elemet until 25k minimum, where it starts to over take the Dora with speed and climb.
-
A fine aircraft. Only 67 of them saw service during the war however.
-
Use flaps, keep your decent as close to 0 FPS as you can before final touch down and lock the tailwheel as soon as it touches the ground.
The 152 has only rolled me on landing two or three times since it was updated and I was damaged or not paying attention when that happened.
-
Flotsom,
The point was, the 152 is no beast of acceleration in level flight. Personaly, if I want to be fast at a certain altitude, I climb afk 5-10kft above that altitude, and then dive to it. It's a lot like the 51D in this respect. The charts say it's a top tier plane, but in practice it's really nowhere near spectacular if you catch it when it just got done knife fighting. At that point it's dead in the water, especialy without wep or altitude to dive thru. It only leaps away with level speed like the chart seem to imply when you're past 300mph or so, the speed at which most "middle tier" planes top out.
Sum all the good and bad of both it and the spit9, and the spit9 comes out with an overall advantage. Where the 152 has advantages, they're pretty minor. The spit9 is no slouch at retaining E. It takes a lot of experience and leaves very little room for mistakes to really exploit the 152's full potential without falling back on extreme bnz. IOW there's only a few circumstances where the 152's performance (as opposed to the pilot's abilities) will really dwarf most planes, such as the spit9. That's what I meant with the spit9 anecdote. It's not such a high altitude monster as people might think from hearsay, unless it's kept very very fast. At those altitudes, that means some really very stretched out trajectories and a pretty slow rhythm of intersections between two planes in a 1:1. For that to quickly pay off with outright kills, as opposed to just stalemates or bandits simply running away tail-tucked, you need more numbers.. 2:2 or 3:3 at least.
All things considered, most of the time the 152 icon in an AH furball says "easy kill".
-
Ok, this thread became interesting.
So, is it modeled wrong?
Do we have any performance charts for real one and how is that compared to our plane?
Found at least this:
Powerplant: One Junkers Jumo 213E-1 12-cylinder liquid cooled engine rated at 1,750 hp (1305 kW) at takeoff and 2,050 hp (1529 kW) with MW 50 (water/methanol) boost and 1,320 hp (985 kW) at 32,800 feet.
Performance: Maximum speed 332 mph (534 km/h) at sea level and 350 mph (563 km/h) with MW-50 (water/methanol) boost. 472 mph (759 km/h) at 41,010 ft (12500 m) with both MW-50 (water/methanol) and GM-1 (nitrous oxide) boost. Service ceiling was 48,550 ft (14800 m) with GM 1 boost. Initial climb rate was 3445 ft per minute with MW-50 boost.
Range: 746 miles (1200 km) on internal fuel stores of 364 Imperial Gallons (1618 litres).
Weight: Empty equipped 8,643 lbs (3920 kg) with a normal take-off weight of 10,472 lbs (4750 kg). Maximum take-off weight was 11,502 lbs (5219 kg).
Source http://www.pilotfriend.com/photo_albums/timeline/ww2/Focke-Wulf%20Ta%20152.htm
-
I have not seen any performance charts of this plane. However the later H-3 was stripped of it's nitrous oxide boost to reduce weight (the Ta's in service never saw the high-altitude combat it was designed for). Allied performance figures from just after the war isn't very reliable imo as all testing was biased. For example the D-13 which was tested in mock-combat was flown by a former Luftwaffe pilot who was not informed of it being a D-13 so he thought it was, and he flew it like, a regular D-9. It was just the nature of things just after the war.
As we've seen it's taken decades for historians and researchers to produce non-biased and thoroughly researched material. Myths like the decisive tank battle at Kursk as well as the decisiveness of allied air power in Normandie has been busted, simply by looking at german archives. The allied claims of armored vehicles destroyed in Normandie was twice the number of tanks that the germans actually fielded, complete rubbish. It is true though that the allied air power seriously restricted and almost paralyzed german daylight troop movement.
The soviet tank army that clashed at Prochorovka was fully aware of the german panzer units presence, the image of a chaotic, decisive battle which the soviets won was very much created to smooth over the high losses in a post-war propaganda stunt to glorify the Soviet Union. A story the west swallowed completely up until today almost. The battle was chaotic alright but the soviet army commanders knew exactly what they were doing. The most decisive parts of the Kursk battle was how it ended with the landings in Sicily and the following soviet counter-offensive. Immediate post-war history is very biased and it wasn't until the late '90s it became more relaxed and truthfully honest when researchers and historians started to look at german archives in a scientific approach more than a politacally-correct one.
Just an observation from tons of reading on the subject. I know some of you probably have done much more reading than me about WW2. I guess what I'm saying is that information from just after the war ended is not always reliable, especially soviet archives remain notoriously unreliable, while german archives have in the past more often than not been completely ignored.
It is a interesting subject, the performance specifics of late-war german aircraft. Most of these planes will remain a mystery however, as there simply is not enough detailed information available. Is the Ta152H a exception?
-
double post :confused:
-
I have this chart:
(http://www.netcologne.de/~nc-vreckova/152.jpg)
This fits our 152 rather nicely. However, according to the document, these results were obtained with a boost 1,92 ata instead of 1,8 that the E6B gives us here. However, for some strange reason, the Ta consumes much more fuel than the Dora when in WEP, for, what I understand, the same HP. Or does the 152 acutally boost higher and its just not shown correctly on the gauges/E6B?
-
Nice! :aok
Good question. Interesting to see the impact of the GM1 boost above 11,500 m, the Ta152 really shine up there.
-
I think we did this already, with a lot of Naudet's help, and came to the conclusion that the 152 matched the charts pretty much flawlessly. I'm not making any argument about any figures in particular, just putting everyone on the same page.. Gonna go see if I find those old threads. I'd contribute with the charts in my books, but they're not with me.
One of those threads: http://bbs.hitechcreations.com/smf/index.php/topic,64443.0.html
Another: http://bbs.hitechcreations.com/smf/index.php/topic,62620.0.html
-
I'm still yet to be convinced that the TA-152 is not a piece of crap.
WHY would the germans invent a late war aircraft that is SLOWER, LESS POWER, than the previous model 190. CLIMBS LIKE A P-40 or loaded up F4U1A... in 1945? It makes no sense to me at all.
SURELY hitech has screwed up the modelling of this plane.
Why would the germans in 1945 make a plane that can only climb at 2500 FPM slowly? Surely a sitting duck if its meant to fight at 35 000 feet, when the enemy is routinely patrolling above you.
Went for a sortie with Arch the other night, might show a quick clip of one merge encounter :-)
The 152 is one of my favorite planes, and I fell for a similar misconception.
As far as I remember, when they set out to build the Ta it was intended as a high alt recon plane.
To work as a recon plane it had to reach very high altitudes, higher than the previous stuff of the Luftwaffe. And it did. In order for the pilot to function at 40k+ feet the cockpit was pressurized.. adding weight, something regular 190s didn't have. The plane didn't have less power than other 190s, in fact it had the latest version of the Jumo 213 in it, the same engine a 190D has but unlike early Doras the Ta had two additional engine boost systems: Methanol/Water and NO injection. It would climb with 3500 FPM (and does so in AH).
What this meant was the Ta wasn't very good at low altitude, it didn't have to. At the intended operational altitude, the Ta152 is very fast and that's pretty much the point of it.
Using it as a fighter was never really intended
-
Landing it really isn't that bad, you just can't be afraid to use a lot of rudder. I can't remember a time I ever broke the gear off, you guys must just suck at landing! :lol
And here is another thing I don't get, unless you are re-arming, why would you ever land with your gear down? If you set it down soft with the gear up its much more manageable, no more ground loops, and you can be in the tower in 1/3 the time. I always land gear up unless I'm re-arming or in a 262.
-
Landing it really isn't that bad, you just can't be afraid to use a lot of rudder. I can't remember a time I ever broke the gear off, you guys must just suck at landing! :lol
And here is another thing I don't get, unless you are re-arming, why would you ever land with your gear down? If you set it down soft with the gear up its much more manageable, no more ground loops, and you can be in the tower in 1/3 the time. I always land gear up unless I'm re-arming or in a 262.
Because we like to simulate flight?
-
Landing it really isn't that bad, you just can't be afraid to use a lot of rudder. I can't remember a time I ever broke the gear off, you guys must just suck at landing! :lol
And here is another thing I don't get, unless you are re-arming, why would you ever land with your gear down? If you set it down soft with the gear up its much more manageable, no more ground loops, and you can be in the tower in 1/3 the time. I always land gear up unless I'm re-arming or in a 262.
It just shows the difference between ones who challenge themselves and the others who are............well complacent. :aok
:salute 11
-
262's have landing gear?????!!!!!!!!!!!!
DAMN!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
why didnt anyone tell me this before??!!!!!
-
262's have landing gear?????!!!!!!!!!!!!
DAMN!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
why didnt anyone tell me this before??!!!!!
pfft i suck so bad in 262s ive only landed one sortie in one and i didnt have any kills. Most of the time i dont even get to the landing gear part. :cry they are perks wasted for me
-
Because we like to simulate flight?
You play aces high because you like to simulate landings? There are better flight simulators for that. AH is about ACM and WW2 era combat. In real life a Cessna 152, tricycle gear trainer, one of the easiest planes to land in existence, is many times harder to land than the most demanding planes in the game... which in real life were some of the most demanding planes to land in existence. Landing on gear in game is only burning time. If you think your simulating a real life landing you are selling yourself short.
I'm not dissing the game, just pointing out its not exactly a landing simulator. I'd rather spend the time fighting.
-
You play aces high because you like to simulate landings? There are better flight simulators for that. AH is about ACM and WW2 era combat. In real life a Cessna 152, tricycle gear trainer, one of the easiest planes to land in existence, is many times harder to land than the most demanding planes in the game...
Funny, my Dad has trouble flying with sims...if he had any trouble at all landing his 175, I wouldn't be riding with him. :D Could be his utter lack of interests in computers though.
which in real life were some of the most demanding planes to land in existence.
You know, few months back I read an article in the AOPA rag by a fellow who made his P-51 solo in an old preserved bird, "Cottonmouth". He reported there was less "dancing" involved keeping it tracking straight down the runway than with a T-6 or even a Cub. Several times I've read that same comment about the T-6 being trickier to take off and land than the P-51.
Landing on gear in game is only burning time. If you think your simulating a real life landing you are selling yourself short.
I'm not dissing the game, just pointing out its not exactly a landing simulator. I'd rather spend the time fighting.
We've all used the "belly brake" method when we wanted to get stopped and tower quick (likely to avoid the possibility of vulch) but I want claim it isn't gamey or inelegant. And the Ta-152 is one AH airplane that actually does constitute a challenge to put on the runway and stop without ground-looping.
-
When landing the Ta152, you just need to use flaps and put it down slow enough that it stays on the ground when you pull up to fixate the tailwheel. Voila, no ground looping. You could force it down by taking in the flaps a notch, or take them in as you set it down to make sure it stays down. Why so many people have problems landing it I have no idea, perhaps because they use autotrim or stall limiter?
-
Funny, my Dad has trouble flying with sims...if he had any trouble at all landing his 175, I wouldn't be riding with him. :D Could be his utter lack of interests in computers though.
Or it could be that he was taught to land a Cessna properly and the computer game is nothing like what he was taught in real life. Your comment is in general agreement with mine, that landing in rl is not at all like on the sim. I'll agree the sim isn't hands down easier than real life, its just that they are so different. Landing a sim requires video game skills. While your dad can't do it, I bet there are kids who grew up playing video games that could nail it with no real flight experience. Real life is a lot different, especially in a taildragger, where a big part of a good landing comes from the 'seat-of-the-pants' feeling of yaw.
I agree that landing on the belly is a little gamey, but that is not what this sim is about. Just like the unrealistic radar, autopilots, lack of wind or weather, auto takeoff, auto trim, the list goes on. The point is this sim is about ACM and WW2 era combat. If you want to practice approaches I suggest Microsoft flight simulator or something like that. If you want to practice actual landings, no sim really even comes close enough to qualify as practice.
-
When landing the Ta152, you just need to use flaps and put it down slow enough that it stays on the ground when you pull up to fixate the tailwheel. Voila, no ground looping. You could force it down by taking in the flaps a notch, or take them in as you set it down to make sure it stays down. Why so many people have problems landing it I have no idea, perhaps because they use autotrim or stall limiter?
I use auto-trim, it's not that.
It seems that people seem to have trouble getting the tail down and keeping it down.
Or perhaps they are impatient and try to land too fast. Fast landings in the 152 increase the possibility of a ground loop in the 152, I find. The slower you are when the gear touches the ground, the less aggressive it is if you let the tail go and find the nose starting to hunt across the runway.
Flaps, flaps, flaps, just above stall, nice and gentle. That's the key.
For those who struggle, get full flaps out, gear down and aim for the start of the runway. Get as low as you can without touching down and maintain level flight just above the runway. If you can manage that nicely just ease throttle off and increase you elevator input in accordance with throttle... like the clutch and accelerator just after a gear change in a car. If you get that right, you won't even bounce when you touch down and as you're already pulling back on the stick, the tail wheel should already be locked.
-
I've found that the Ta152 is actually pretty easy to land with differential brakes. Rudder never works for me, though.