Aces High Bulletin Board
General Forums => Aircraft and Vehicles => Topic started by: STEELE on June 01, 2011, 07:19:31 PM
-
I'm wondering if the CoG is correct on this plane, evrything I read about it goes something like this quote:
The thing that has to be remembered about the Ta152 is that it was designed to fight at very high altitudes. In particular, it was designed to stall fight. The Ta152 wing is not only uniquie in its huge span, but also in that it is twisted, the wing near the root has more angle of attack than the near the wing tip. The reason for doing this was so when stalling out in a climb, as the plane fell through the stall, part of the airfoil would still be effective (air flowing over the ailerons), allowing roll control through more of the stall manuver. This would allow a Ta152 pilot to climb hard and then flip over and effectively attack an enemy that was chasing it, presumably as it was also nearing stall and had little control. Combine with the ability to engage SEP to ensure it would not be caught in such a climb, this sorta makes sense. However this assumes the enemy is unaware of the capabilities of the Ta, which would only be true for a short while had this plane been used in significant numbers.
In AH, If we tried this maneuver, we would fall tail-down for 10-15k. Thoughts?
-
Yup, I have thoughts.
I doubt you'd like to see them.
-
I'm wondering if the CoG is correct on this plane, evrything I read about it goes something like this quote:
The thing that has to be remembered about the Ta152 is that it was designed to fight at very high altitudes. In particular, it was designed to stall fight. The Ta152 wing is not only uniquie in its huge span, but also in that it is twisted, the wing near the root has more angle of attack than the near the wing tip. The reason for doing this was so when stalling out in a climb, as the plane fell through the stall, part of the airfoil would still be effective (air flowing over the ailerons), allowing roll control through more of the stall manuver. This would allow a Ta152 pilot to climb hard and then flip over and effectively attack an enemy that was chasing it, presumably as it was also nearing stall and had little control. Combine with the ability to engage SEP to ensure it would not be caught in such a climb, this sorta makes sense. However this assumes the enemy is unaware of the capabilities of the Ta, which would only be true for a short while had this plane been used in significant numbers.
In AH, If we tried this maneuver, we would fall tail-down for 10-15k. Thoughts?
You can do it. Made many kills doing it.
-
This twist called "washout", it is a common design feature on airplane wings, it is there to make stalls less vicious (in particular, make one less likely to do an unintentional snaproll) not to allow any super secret special maneuver.
The downside of washout is that in straight-and-level flight there will always be somewhat more drag than with an untwisted wing.
-
This twist called "washout", it is a common design feature on airplane wings, it is there to make stalls less vicious (in particular, make one less likely to do an unintentional snaproll) not to allow any super secret special maneuver.
The downside of washout is that in straight-and-level flight there will always be somewhat more drag than with an untwisted wing.
++
Spitfires, back to the Mk I, also had this "unique" feature of the Ta152.
-
++
Spitfires, back to the Mk I, also had this "unique" feature of the Ta152.
Yeah. Leading edge slats are designed to do the same thing, when they are not asymmetrically deploying at any rate. :D
-
This twist called "washout", it is a common design feature on airplane wings, it is there to make stalls less vicious (in particular, make one less likely to do an unintentional snaproll) not to allow any super secret special maneuver.
The downside of washout is that in straight-and-level flight there will always be somewhat more drag than with an untwisted wing.
Yeah, that's fine and good, but does it cause a tail-down stall thats almost impossible to recover within 10k feet? I doubt it. (yes I drain the aft tank first, helps very little)
Yup, I have thoughts.
I doubt you'd like to see them.
Wrong, I'd love to see them :D One more thing about the 152, notice the A8 and D9 and 152 all have taller canopies, (more bubble towards the rear)yet the pilot's head dont seem to move any higher than the A5 (to me, I may be wrong tho)
-
Almost all aircraft in the game had washout, but its not part of the design to help the plane fight better--its there to better its stall characteristics. And no, it will not cause a tail stall. I don't understand your overall question though. You say you think the CG is wrong? Why? Because the aircraft tail stalls?
-
This twist called "washout", it is a common design feature on airplane wings, it is there to make stalls less vicious (in particular, make one less likely to do an unintentional snaproll) not to allow any super secret special maneuver.
The downside of washout is that in straight-and-level flight there will always be somewhat more drag than with an untwisted wing.
The other downside is that Max LCO is lowered I.E. stall speed is increased.
HiTech
-
So this is why its so hard to keep the flaps opened at low altitudes...
-
I don't think there's any reason for that other than you're going too fast. Huge powerful late-war monster engine coupled with high speed airframe, this ride can easily accelerate past max flaps speed before you know it.
-
I don't understand your overall question though. You say you think the CG is wrong? Why? Because the aircraft tail stalls?
Many have commented on the instability of the Ta152 since AH2 was released. In AH1 it was much more like a dora. Okay, not quite... But it was easier to fly. It turned as you could expect but when you just nosed it up it kept going. It was an interesting and unique plane to fly.
In AH2 as soon as we got it here, all of a sudden the tail skids out every direction with the smallest of inputs. You bank even a few degrees and you peg the slip indicator (forgive the exaggeration to drive a point home). It had a longer tail, it had a LARGER tail. It was a more effective stabilizer than on previos 190 models, and yet our in-game model is rather...
How shall I say it...
Terrible to fly.
-
I don't think there's any reason for that other than you're going too fast. Huge powerful late-war monster engine coupled with high speed airframe, this ride can easily accelerate past max flaps speed before you know it.
190s are the only planes what have difficulties with opening the flaps in a flat sustained using full engine power, and the 152 dont "feel" better for me even tho it has much larger wings.
-
Only thing I can say is they feel just like opening flaps on any other split-flap design not meant for anything other than landing. Feels like P-40, spit, and other types, IMO.
-
Adverse yaw is greater with a high aspect ratio wing. Not saying the Ta-152 is "right", just suggesting a possibility.
-
Adverse yaw is greater with a high aspect ratio wing. Not saying the Ta-152 is "right", just suggesting a possibility.
That's been mentioned before, but IMO doesn't fit. Note we didn't have that in AH1, and it was the same plane. (I know, I know, it's possible HTC did this on purpose based on new info available when AH2 came out but they haven't stepped forward on the matter yet to confirm/deny)
-
For comparison, a P-38 has a 52 foot wingspan, a Ta152H has a 48.5 foot wingspan, and a F4u corsair has a 41 foot wingspan.
Ki-61: 40 feet
bf110: 53 feet
me410: 53.6 feet
Mosquito: 54 feet
It's not as if this is the longest wing in the game. It's not as if the airframe has any odd configuration that might make it horribly unstable. It's a very conventional design, with longer wingtips than its predecessor.
The physics doesn't seem right, IMO.
-
Aspect Ratio
-
Aspect Ratio
Yes I got that but it's tied to wingspan. I'm not talking pulling Gs or stall speeds.. I'm talking about going totally wonky with even minor inputs. You bank your wings to roll and your butt skids out in front of you before you're halfway through the turn, etc. General behavior, etc.
-
Yes I got that but it's tied to wingspan. I'm not talking pulling Gs or stall speeds.. I'm talking about going totally wonky with even minor inputs. You bank your wings to roll and your butt skids out in front of you before you're halfway through the turn, etc. General behavior, etc.
Thats false. You have to be smooth.
-
Kilo, I'm no stranger to the 152... Before moot made his little public interest enhancement plan, I was flying this thing for a long time. I may not be as "good" as some others in it, but I am VERY familiar with how it handles.
In general while I might not be the best "fighter" I am by many other people's suggestion a good "pilot" (virtual one, that is, and talking about this game specifically).
It's very unstable longitudinally. We had even the slightest hint of instability in the Brew and it got fixed instantly. However whenever discussion of the 152 instability comes up the same old answer is thrown out as if to stop all further discussion. It's got long thin wings.
Well so do a number of other planes. Perhaps not this bad, but those other planes have rock-steady gun platforms. If any of them acted like this folks would cry bloody murder.
Only other comparable situation is the spit14 instability. This is worse than the spit14, but for all intents and purposes is just a modified 190D. The 190D doesn't share ANY of these problems. Not even in the slightest. It has a similar engine with regards to horsepower. It has a nearly identical fuselage (slightly shorter nose, less v-stab area). It simply has shorter wingtips.
Logically speaking if the 152 is a direct modification from the 190D would not the 190 series show SOME signs of these problems, even if just minor signs? The 190 series is rock steady. The 152 is terrible. It does not follow (as the saying goes).
-
Kilo, I'm no stranger to the 152... Before moot made his little public interest enhancement plan, I was flying this thing for a long time. I may not be as "good" as some others in it, but I am VERY familiar with how it handles.
In general while I might not be the best "fighter" I am by many other people's suggestion a good "pilot" (virtual one, that is, and talking about this game specifically).
It's very unstable longitudinally. We had even the slightest hint of instability in the Brew and it got fixed instantly. However whenever discussion of the 152 instability comes up the same old answer is thrown out as if to stop all further discussion. It's got long thin wings.
Well so do a number of other planes. Perhaps not this bad, but those other planes have rock-steady gun platforms. If any of them acted like this folks would cry bloody murder.
Only other comparable situation is the spit14 instability. This is worse than the spit14, but for all intents and purposes is just a modified 190D. The 190D doesn't share ANY of these problems. Not even in the slightest. It has a similar engine with regards to horsepower. It has a nearly identical fuselage (slightly shorter nose, less v-stab area). It simply has shorter wingtips.
Logically speaking if the 152 is a direct modification from the 190D would not the 190 series show SOME signs of these problems, even if just minor signs? The 190 series is rock steady. The 152 is terrible. It does not follow (as the saying goes).
The 152 as a gun platform is stable much more stable than a 190d. Will it turn? Yeah it can. Is it its strong suit? no but it can. There is differences from a 190d to a 152 that would make a big difference I assume in flight. One being the cockpit moved back further along the fuselage than a d9, the wing spars of the 152 being made from steel rather than aircraft aluminum, the tail assembly being totally different, engine being different with different cooling all that with the wings being longer and torqued and i am sure it wouldn't fly the same.
You may have experience flying it but you couldn't be more wrong in your assessment. The plane has quirks but flown to it strengths and you can be almost untouchable.
-
The wings are no more "torqued" than the other 190s. You're mixing up your terms here. They had washout, same as half the other planes in WW2. Doesn't make all the others wander like lost hebrews in the desert for 40 years if you bank your wings.
The 152 is NOT a steady guns platform. It certainly isn't more stable than the 190d.
-
Doesn't make all the others wander like lost hebrews in the desert for 40 years if you bank your wings.
(http://www.google.com/url?source=imgres&ct=img&q=http://files.sharenator.com/spit_coffee_RE_Wut-s576x416-126987.png&sa=X&ei=EsvpTfGMEuPl0QH95YW4AQ&ved=0CAQQ8wc&usg=AFQjCNGAj5O3ktyIsHmkMVn5dlyknfumRg)
-
The wings are no more "torqued" than the other 190s. You're mixing up your terms here. They had washout, same as half the other planes in WW2. Doesn't make all the others wander like lost hebrews in the desert for 40 years if you bank your wings.
The 152 is NOT a steady guns platform. It certainly isn't more stable than the 190d.
You understood what was meant by the word usage there. It was more pronounced than other planes if i understand correctly. Thats not the only thing that is different from the d9 though. Ha it is much more steady than a d9 much more. You must be doing it wrong because I never have had such a big problem as you make it seem.
The wing had a negative twist of 2.3-3 degrees along the leading edge. The planes center of gravity was aft. Test pilots reported the plane being unstable in the yaw axis. This is from hitchcock 152 book.
-
It's very unstable longitudinally. We had even the slightest hint of instability in the Brew and it got fixed instantly. However whenever discussion of the 152 instability comes up the same old answer is thrown out as if to stop all further discussion. It's got long thin wings.
You need to reflect on and appreciate how much of an aerodynamic impact that wing has on the performance of the 152. This isn't a small modification like on the P-47N. Its basically going to behave like a completely different aircraft. A couple of points. The Ta-152 aspect ratio is approximately 10--that puts it in a very select group of aircraft of the time--like almost by itself. Also, with respect to the empenage and the stability issues, how do we know that the increased size and moment arm of the tail is sufficient?
-
We had even the slightest hint of instability in the Brew and it got fixed instantly.
Complete nonsense.
I based my case regarding the Brewster on primary source material. Also, I suggest you look at the date of this thread: http://bbs.hitechcreations.com/smf/index.php/topic,270213.0.html (http://bbs.hitechcreations.com/smf/index.php/topic,270213.0.html) and compare it to the date the flight model was changed.
So far, I haven't seen anybody presenting any primary source material that support the fact that there's something wrong with the handling characteristics of the Ta152.
So it's utter nonsense to compare these issues.
-
Okay Krust, factually the Ta 152 has the highest aspect ration of any fighter in the game, I'm pretty sure. Your example of the Corsair especially doesn't make sense. The Corsair wing is long, but its also very broad in relation to all that length. We are clear on what "aspect ratio" means right?
Once again, I won't go so far as to say for certain that this is THE reason the Ta yaws so bad when you bank, but it is something different about the aircraft.
-
ehmm Maker, thats not fair.
There are much more sources about the brewster than the 152, therefor its easyer to find data about the Brew. The Ta is an almost experimental aircraft, served for a very short time in very low numbers.
-
ehmm Maker, thats not fair.
There are much more sources about the brewster than the 152, therefor its easyer to find data about the Brew. The Ta is an almost experimental aircraft, served for a very short time in very low numbers.
<sigh>
First of all, there are plenty of sources about Ta152. For example in the Dietmarr Harmann's book about the aircraft. Second, even if there weren't, one still can't compare a flight model issue that was fixed based on strong evidence to an "issue" which no one has presented any proof that it really *is* an issue to begin with!
Especially when it was done in the fashion Krusty did it...with hyperbole and exaggeration.
-
Heck every source i could find mentions excellent maneuverability, stability, amazing acceleration climb and speed, let it be english or german pilots "impression" translated to hungarian. Our 152 totally lacks in stability, accelerates like a truck, yet can climb with wep and fast at every altitude. Can turn better than the dora or the A-5, but that nasty tail-overtaking-the-nose habit makes it a real poor dogfighter while the pilots were impressed about its handling characteristics. To compare, the Brewster was known to be horribly unstabile while its fairly good in the game (ehm one of the bests), but it can be the finnish modifications effect.
-
Heck every source i could find mentions excellent maneuverability, stability, amazing acceleration climb and speed, let it be english or german pilots "impression" translated to hungarian. Our 152 totally lacks in stability, accelerates like a truck, yet can climb with wep and fast at every altitude. Can turn better than the dora or the A-5, but that nasty tail-overtaking-the-nose habit makes it a real poor dogfighter while the pilots were impressed about its handling characteristics. To compare, the Brewster was known to be horribly unstabile while its fairly good in the game (ehm one of the bests), but it can be the finnish modifications effect.
There's no point in commenting on any of this until you post actual quotes with sources.
-
There's no point in commenting on any of this until you post actual quotes with sources.
Not being rude or anything but in other threads I see maker post a lot of quotes and facts. With that being said can you do so here? I'm interested in this conversation.
-
Not being rude or anything but in other threads I see maker post a lot of quotes and facts. With that being said can you do so here? I'm interested in this conversation.
I can but it is not my place to post those facts as I'm not the one claiming things about Ta 152's handling. Burden of proof lies with those who are making claims.
-
I understand. :salute
-
Willi Reschke has a detailed account of a dogfight vs a tempest in his ta152.
I think the 152 here flies as it should but that the "lack of handling" issue vs other planes is because many other planes in the planeset turn far better than they should.
-
Willi Reschke has a detailed account of a dogfight vs a tempest in his ta152.
I think the 152 here flies as it should but that the "lack of handling" issue vs other planes is because many other planes in the planeset turn far better than they should.
I understand now, the 152 should not be better , but everything else should just be worse :rolleyes:
Maybe 1 or 2 facts to back up your accusation?
HiTech
-
Heck every source i could find mentions excellent maneuverability, stability, amazing acceleration climb and speed, let it be english or german pilots "impression" translated to hungarian. Our 152 totally lacks in stability, accelerates like a truck, yet can climb with wep and fast at every altitude. Can turn better than the dora or the A-5, but that nasty tail-overtaking-the-nose habit makes it a real poor dogfighter while the pilots were impressed about its handling characteristics. To compare, the Brewster was known to be horribly unstabile while its fairly good in the game (ehm one of the bests), but it can be the finnish modifications effect.
All, and I mean everything, you said in this paragraph is nothing more than annecdotal nothingness... What does "excellent maneuverability" mean when a test pilot says that? Does he attribute some sort of quantitative data to that? If a flight test report says a plane possesses "amazing acceleration", what does that equate to in ft/sec^2? The answer to both questions is "we don't know". Without quantitative data, we have nothing to compare in-game performance with. Now, I can provide some stability equations for Krusty and anyone else to plug numbers into, and see if the resulting answers are close or not, but that's about the best we can do. Bottom line is that if you doubt the way an aircraft performs in this game, you doubt the information/data that HTC has. By that I mean, the weights, dimensions, engine power curves, etc., but all of things get plugged into the same flight model for every aircraft.
And, I agree with Wmaker, the burden of proof is on the accuser. You think the Ta-152 doesn't perform properly? Start providing some data instead of simple conjecture based purely on nothing more than annecdotal reports.
-
I understand now, the 152 should not be better , but everything else should just be worse :rolleyes:
Maybe 1 or 2 facts to back up your accusation?
HiTech
That is exactly what I am saying except replace "everything" with "many".
Plenty of the fastest planes turn nearly as well at slow speeds as thier early war variants regardless of the fact that they have substantially higher wing loading and other things that were sacrificed to net the substantially higher speed.
-
Plenty of the fastest planes turn nearly as well at slow speeds as thier early war variants regardless of the fact that they have substantially higher wing loading and other things that were sacrificed to net the substantially higher speed.
One, back this statement up. Concrete examples.
Two, define turn performance. There is turn rate and turn radius.
Higher power loading can often give a plane equal or superior sustained turn rate, than a lower wing-loaded but less powerful aircraft.
-
http://www.speedyshare.com/files/28807147/grizz_batturn_edited_down_.ahf
-
Willi Reschke has a detailed account of a dogfight vs a tempest in his ta152.
I think the 152 here flies as it should but that the "lack of handling" issue vs other planes is because many other planes in the planeset turn far better than they should.
We do not have the Tempest's data. We don't know what the Tempest pilot's decisions were, we do not know how hard he was pushing the Tempest's capabilities.
You have no where near enough information to solidly make the conclusion you are making.
-
From what I've seen (and I'm really pretty convinced after seeing Grizz's bat-turn) the 152 flies VERY similarly to some of my high aspect-ratio RC sailplanes.
With those planes, if you don't know what you're looking for, and how to work with it (or correct for it) "very wonky" is a pretty good description of their flight characteristics...
What Grizz did in his film is what I've done with my RC sailplanes. Sometimes on purpose, often by accident. That high aspect-ratio wing will do some very weird things.
That said, I've learned to correct for it with my flying, and have put some mechanical fixes in place as well. Flying-wise, coordinated rudder is hugely important with that wing. That alone will fix most of the problems associated with it.
Another big one though, is the ailerons. Did the RL 152 have differential built into its ailerons? If it did, that alone would make a huge difference, especially if the AH version does not have differential built in. We'd probably have to ask HTC about that, although I guess it would be easy enough to see from outside your plane on the runway.
Differential and coordinated rudder would tame the plane down significantly, based on what I've seen with my own planes. Without it, my planes can be extremely difficult to fly, especially at slower speeds. With it, they're docile, and easy to control.
-
One, back this statement up. Concrete examples.
Two, define turn performance. There is turn rate and turn radius.
Higher power loading can often give a plane equal or superior sustained turn rate, than a lower wing-loaded but less powerful aircraft.
96% if your missions are very late war variants so I understand your stance.
-
96% if your missions are very late war variants so I understand your stance.
That was an ad homme attack and not a valid method of debate.
Show us your data or shut your mouth.
-
Ice: yer not helpin'!
Wmaker: You seem to get a bee in your bonnet any time somebody mentions the Brewster in passing. Very defensive about it. VERY defensive about it.
I simply mentioned the issue was brought up and fixed with lightning speed. I made no judgements about the NATURE of the fix, just that one tiny instability was fixed with astounding turnaround. If any other plane had such an issue it would have been fixed. Well the Ta152 has a small fan-base it seems, doesn't get as much press, and thus the complaints aren't addressed as promptly. Simply saying there's no issue is as silly as comparing flight handling between the brewster and the B29. Sometimes issues go overlooked (example: Fw190a8 weight issue, guns loadout weights, weight issue on P-38G went forever before it was fixed, etc)
Back to the proper discussion at hand (all other comments):
It's all well and good to use terms like "accuser" and say the burden is on them... Although you have to see these are loaded terms. But frankly that's how all other flight sims with questionable flight behavior work too. It doesn't solve anything because there's a point where people can tell something is wrong but lack the verbage or eloquence to explain how it's wrong. In the end the select few that can spell it out don't, and the problem remains. People accept it as status quo. I'm sure Ubisoft works the same way. Even the much mentioned Targetware works this way. Warbirds, anyone? Sometimes the burden is on the game coders to defend why they did something that way, as they are perhaps the best (with regards to the data they used and the physics behind it) to defend thier work.
Doesn't matter how much you try to pin it entirely on the folks bringing it up, at some point logic and common sense come in and you have to ask "Why is this so" and NOT "prove it"...
I admit I don't know all of the details and ramifications about high aspect ratios but I do know a few things I've picked up here and there. So while I know there is more to the story than I fully understand, I also know that there are a lot of other high aspect ratio wing designs that were quite successful and have never heard of any of this instant yaw malarky for them. I try to keep an open mind on the matter with all the info folks are posting here, but so far it still doesn't explain it.
Shall we consider the Bf109T? It had much longer wingtips than its predecessor. Very similar in comparison to the Ta152H when its wingtips grew. It had long slender wings and a similar body to say a Bf109E-7. For all accounts they presented themselves nicely even at lower alts. I've never read one disparraging remark about their handling nor the instability. These were meant to be carrier planes and squirrely handling would have been a bad thing, don't you agree? Something worthy of note (even if just an official objection based on the intended role?).
Shall we consider the A-10 warthog? By all accounts its gets its loiter time and low-speed takeoffs from its high aspect ratio wing. While it does certain things like limit top speed and change certain aspects of the handling, I have seem them execute some very nice manuvers like loops, rolls, high turns, yo-yos. Granted all video footage, and I have no first-hand flight experience or anything like that. However the reputation is there as a nice solid ground attack platform with above average manuverability. I've never read anything about a high aspect ratio wing causing it to side slip when rolling. By all accounts a nice stable platform.
What about the long-tipped spits? What about long-tipped Ju-188s? No reports of squirrely behavior on those. What about P-60 Black Widows? Loooooong wings (66ft) with relatively high aspect ratio. By all comments (from all the wishers for this plane to be added to the game) it's more manuverable and has a better stall-speed handling than most of its adversaries. How about the much-loved B-24? Its Davis wing gave it a very high aspect ratio. I admit it's not a fighter-type but it is in-game and it came to mind. It doesn't seem nearly as prone to skidding through a turn like a Ta152 would (assuming manual control of the bomber, not auto turn from turret)
So what I am trying to say is I feel like when people throw out "It's got a high aspect ratio" then expect that to end the discussion, I'm sitting there as if they just said "talk to the hand cause the ears ain't list'nin'!" in a very simplistic way.
Okay... It's got a high aspect ratio. And...?
That's not the answer. It's one small part that people harp about as if it's the end-all be-all of reasons why this plane is so unstable in this game. There's more to it but nobody ever looks further. I think if they did they would see that simply adding long wingtips wouldn't screw up a plane this badly. There's too many other instances of planes with high aspect ratios that DON'T have recorded handling problems.
Maybe it's a CoG issue. Maybe it's a torque setting issue. Maybe it's a lift issue. There is an issue. I don't think it's tied to aspect ratio. The issue is there. So: why is it doing this?
Stoney: P.S. The added weight of the engine was offset by a slightly longer nose, so the extended tail should be adequate and still well balanced. Most instances of massive instability in this game are with reduced fuel loads and any imbalance by the aft fuel tank should be minimized for us when compared to real world tests and pilots that flew with full fuel onboard. Yet we feel the issue worse than the pilots in real life did (who had the worse balance). Seems a little at odds, right?
-
That is exactly what I am saying except replace "everything" with "many".
Plenty of the fastest planes turn nearly as well at slow speeds as thier early war variants regardless of the fact that they have substantially higher wing loading and other things that were sacrificed to net the substantially higher speed.
here's 1 example: Spit 14 weighs around 1,100 lb more than a Spit 9, yet it takes only .9 seconds longer to turn 360 degrees, the radius dosen't seem too different either for a 1,100 lb gain.
-
With the change of the nose for the engine, the center of gravity changed more to the aft of the plane which is why they moved the cockpit further back on the plane. Plus again you ignore the totally different tail on the 152. Test pilots reported instability in the yaw axis(especially at low alts) and very unfavorable stall characteristics.
The problem is the 152 is a much more different plane than the D9 and comparing them is just ridiculous.
152 tests began before the D9 by the way.
I don't think that HTC has it perfect but as close as were going to get.
-
here's 1 example: Spit 14 weighs around 1,100 lb more than a Spit 9, yet it takes only .9 seconds longer to turn 360 degrees, the radius dosen't seem too different either for a 1,100 lb gain.
???
The Spit XIV's radius for a 360 is much larger than the Spit IX's. The reason the rate is almost as fast is because the Spit XIV is much faster and covers that radius almost as fast as the Spit IX. If the radius were the same, the Spit XIV's rate would be much faster as it is the faster aircraft.
-
Kilo, there were only a couple of comments. They have been posted before. They did not describe what we have in-game.
For example, I start out here above 300mph, do a little rolling left, right, then my rear end literally skids out in front of me despite being nowhere near the stall speed and me not pulling too hard.
I literally try to roll out and make a turn, the slip indicator is PEGGED, and my rear end literally falls flat directly into the path of motion.
http://www.nakatomitower.com/ta152slide_clip.ahf
The other time we had a plane floating like a pancake straight toward the path of motion (though in this case it was straight down) was the Spit1, and Pyro or Hitech or somebody said it flies that way because the game doesn't know what to do.
For no reason I just start showing my belly directly along the path I'm flying, and it's VERY common for the Ta152 in Aces High 2.
You can't tell me that has ANYTHING to do with aspect ratio, can you?
-
I don't know enough about plane flight characteristics to really comment effectively. Someone could probably explain it.
What more I was arguing about is a comparison to the D9 just doesn't work and using the "D9 flys so much better" excuse is not a valid argument.
You get to 117 mph which is not far from the stall speed.
-
For the OP, I have a youtube clip of my 152 flying in Aces high(type that in should pop up) where I do as you stated, pull straight up then roll over back on my enemy....
You dont always fall 10k when you set it in a stall.
-
You get to 117 mph which is not far from the stall speed.
It's hard to describe because you don't see the inputs, but this was well after I lost all control. Before my belly was into the direction of flight, as it started shifting (almost immediately after I rolled out on that last vector) it started going, and by the time I was down to 130 I was totally butt-sliding and had no way to correct.
-
For the OP, I have a youtube clip of my 152 flying in Aces high(type that in should pop up) where I do as you stated, pull straight up then roll over back on my enemy....
You dont always fall 10k when you set it in a stall.
Well yeah you can recover the stall quickly quickly enough to use it as an evasive.
To me flying the plane "feels" like balancing on a bubble you get to slow and the plane slides off the bubble and you stall out with the tail leading the way most the time.
-
Kilo, there were only a couple of comments. They have been posted before. They did not describe what we have in-game.
For example, I start out here above 300mph, do a little rolling left, right, then my rear end literally skids out in front of me despite being nowhere near the stall speed and me not pulling too hard.
I literally try to roll out and make a turn, the slip indicator is PEGGED, and my rear end literally falls flat directly into the path of motion.
http://www.nakatomitower.com/ta152slide_clip.ahf
The other time we had a plane floating like a pancake straight toward the path of motion (though in this case it was straight down) was the Spit1, and Pyro or Hitech or somebody said it flies that way because the game doesn't know what to do.
For no reason I just start showing my belly directly along the path I'm flying, and it's VERY common for the Ta152 in Aces High 2.
You can't tell me that has ANYTHING to do with aspect ratio, can you?
The part AFTER you lost control (35 seconds and on) I'm not sure (it looks more mild than what I've seen).
However, the part at 30/31 seconds to 34 seconds looks EXACTLY like the adverse yaw I see with my high aspect ratio gliders if I don't correct with coordinated rudder while flying (and mechanically correct for it with aileron differential before the flight). I've NEVER seen anything like that with lower aspect ratio wings, but I COMMONLY see it with higher aspect ratio wings. This is on a plane with a long tail moment and a huge vertical stab and rudder as well. I actually had a camera mounted on my plane, and the view looked shockingly similar to what it looks like from your cockpit in the film. I'll see if I can find that film (not sure if I kept it or not).
If I put in some aileron differential and use coordinated rudder, I don't notice this problem on the same plane that's dangerous to fly if I don't do those things.
I took the 152 up for a hop tonight, and honestly, it "felt" very similar to a few of my gliders. I don't notice the adverse yaw much at higher speeds, but I sure do when I slow down (even well above stall speed).
-
This isn't the film I was looking for, but you can see it in this one too. Almost every time I try to bank quickly you can see the adverse yaw effect. A good example is right around 1;27. That's just left aileron added, which gives the right yaw. Compare that to Krusty's film at about 31 seconds. I'm correcting by adding rudder, and I'm not too smooth yet (but if I don't correct with it I'd crash; it was much worse on the few flights before this one). I stall it on the hi-start too, and almost hit a tree that you can't see.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=DNQDFIL7Cq8
In this one, I've added some aileron differential, and am doing better with coordinated rudder (not perfect yet though, and it gets pretty squirrely when i drop flaps to land). Noticeably better though, with much less adverse yaw (definitely some at 1:42 though, and in other places).
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=MOAU3f-vcuE&feature=related
-
That was an ad homme attack and not a valid method of debate.
Show us your data or shut your mouth.
Sorry about the ad hominem attack and your ad hominem attack in response.
I say late war rides made sacrifices in turning for speed and should not turn at low speeds like the early war variants.
You say I have nowhere near the information required.
Where is your information?
Isn't the burden of proof on the person who states that something can be done rather than on the person who states it cannot?
-
Sorry about the ad hominem attack and your ad hominem attack in response.
I say late war rides made sacrifices in turning for speed and should not turn at low speeds like the early war variants.
You say I have nowhere near the information required.
Where is your information?
Isn't the burden of proof on the person who states that something can be done rather than on the person who states it cannot?
The burden of proof is on the person making the claim, and that is you in this case.
1) Show that late war aircraft should turn worse at low speeds than early war aircraft.
2) Show that this is not the case in AH.
A) Show that the Tempest Pilot was turning as hard as the Tempest possibly could when he was fighting the Ta152.
B) Show that the E states allow for that combat to be considered a test flight comparison.
There you go, the very questions you need to answer.
-
Ok....if I do the research, are you prepared to present your research?..... or is this just rhetoric from you to make someone work with zero intention of doing so yourself?
It will be substantial investment in time for me to revive my contacts from my days of restoring warbirds at National air and space museum and search thier hard copy archives.
As it stands now, we have Willi Reschke's account of a tempest pilot fighting for his life (and losing) so I'm pretty sure he didn't hold back on his maneuvers......but......I feel the account is Willi exploiting the 152's rudder and aileron still having good authority at slow speeds and the fact that the tempest pilot spent too much time turning left to the tempest's "weak side".
My tangental claim is that many late war planes in Aces High overachieve in the area of slow speed turn rather than the ta152 being undermodeled.
I do believe the tempest is an exception to my claim because it achieves it's speed through brute horsepower which is enough to shove that thick wing to high speeds yet still retain the ability turn at lower speeds.
-
Doesn't matter how much you try to pin it entirely on the folks bringing it up, at some point logic and common sense come in and you have to ask "Why is this so" and NOT "prove it"...
You know Krusty, if you actually went an tried to educate yourself about aerodynamics first, it would help your credibility whenever you bring these arguments up. But you don't, and the result is that you have no idea about what you're even arguing for or against from an aerodynamic perspective. And when we say the burden of proof lies with the "accuser"--I don't know, pick a word that represents that better. Its just a figure of speech that means HTC should get the benefit of the doubt.
I admit I don't know all of the details and ramifications about high aspect ratios but I do know a few things I've picked up here and there.
Just stop. Stop, stop, stop, stop, stop, stop... Caution: Severe Aeroflymanics follows:
It had much longer wingtips than its predecessor...Shall we consider the A-10 warthog? By all accounts its gets its loiter time and low-speed takeoffs from its high aspect ratio wing...What about the long-tipped spits? What about long-tipped Ju-188s? No reports of squirrely behavior on those...What about P-60 Black Widows? Loooooong wings (66ft) with relatively high aspect ratio.How about the much-loved B-24? It doesn't seem nearly as prone to skidding through a turn like a Ta152 would.
1. Repeat this with me: "Wingspan isolated from wing area has nothing to do with Aspect Ratio". You cannot have a conversation about aspect ratio that's based purely on wingspan. The formula for aspect ratio is:
AR = B^2 / S
Where:
AR = Aspect Ratio
B = Wingspan
S = Wing Area
2. So, using this formula, we find that the A-10 has an aspect ratio of 6.6 and the P-61 has an aspect ratio of 6.5, both of which get placed firmly in the "medium" category of aspect ratios. Neither, despite Wikipedia articles to the contrary (vis a vis the A-10), would ever be classified by aeronautical engineers as having "high" aspect ratios. The B-24 is the only aircraft you mentioned that would be classified as having a "high" aspect ration, coming in with an 11.5.
3. Adverse yaw can be counteracted by a number of design characteristics. On those bombers you mention, like the B-24, it has an immense amount of fuselage and vertical stabilizer area to counteract any adverse yaw created by its high aspect ratio wing. Both the bubble-top P-47 and P-51 were introduced with higher adverse yaw characteristics compared to their earlier models because the fuselage behind the canopy was cut down, removing that stabilizing influence. They were both fitted with dorsal fillets after the fact to combat this. If the vertical stabilizer area and length of the moment arm were not increased enough to counteract the increased yaw forces, its easy to see a situation where adverse yaw could still exist, despite the fact that both made the tail bigger and longer.
So what I am trying to say is I feel like when people throw out "It's got a high aspect ratio" then expect that to end the discussion, I'm sitting there as if they just said "talk to the hand cause the ears ain't list'nin'!" in a very simplistic way....Okay... It's got a high aspect ratio. And...?...That's not the answer.
How do you know? First, you haven't even educated yourself fully about what aspect ratio is. Second, you haven't done any serious design analysis of the Ta-152 beyond squeaking about its performance in-game, compared to some ethereal expectation of what you think it should and should not be able to do. Finally, I haven't done the analysis either, but I know enough to suspect that the increased aspect ratio is probably the culprit. I can also state that I suspect that despite the increase in area and moment, the empenage probably wasn't increased sufficiently to handle the H model wing. If I really wanted to know, I could spend 6-8 hours plugging in all the numbers to find out, but I choose not to.
It's one small part that people harp about as if it's the end-all be-all of reasons why this plane is so unstable in this game. There's more to it but nobody ever looks further.
Its not one small part. Its a huge change to the aircraft--huge. The reason why people say this, is that one, they're making a cursory opinion based purely on what they see from a casual analysis, and two, because they don't want to take the time to find out because they can push the "I believe" button that gives HTC the benefit of the doubt.
I think if they did they would see that simply adding long wingtips wouldn't screw up a plane this badly. There's too many other instances of planes with high aspect ratios that DON'T have recorded handling problems.
They didn't just add long wingtips. They fundamentally changed the way the aircraft performed. And, to compare the Ta-152 H to any other aircraft with high aspect ratios is foolish if you ignore all the other design characteristics of those aircraft. Its comparing apples to oranges, period...
Stoney: P.S. The added weight of the engine was offset by a slightly longer nose, so the extended tail should be adequate and still well balanced.
How do you know? Just because they moved some stuff around doesn't mean that the changes they made completely compensated for the changes to the airframe. Its possible that the longer nose, longer tail, etc. merely helped to lessen those undesirable handling characteristics. We don't know because we haven't done detailed design analysis.
-
Just for fun - A different opinion on the Ta 152 vs Tempest fight.
http://clocloz.altervista.org/history/wwii/aviation/ludwigslust/Ludwigslust_aerial_combat_14-4-1945.html (http://clocloz.altervista.org/history/wwii/aviation/ludwigslust/Ludwigslust_aerial_combat_14-4-1945.html)
-
Ok....if I do the research, are you prepared to present your research?..... or is this just rhetoric from you to make someone work with zero intention of doing so yourself?
It will be substantial investment in time for me to revive my contacts from my days of restoring warbirds at National air and space museum and search thier hard copy archives.
As it stands now, we have Willi Reschke's account of a tempest pilot fighting for his life (and losing) so I'm pretty sure he didn't hold back on his maneuvers......but......I feel the account is Willi exploiting the 152's rudder and aileron still having good authority at slow speeds and the fact that the tempest pilot spent too much time turning left to the tempest's "weak side".
My tangental claim is that many late war planes in Aces High overachieve in the area of slow speed turn rather than the ta152 being undermodeled.
I do believe the tempest is an exception to my claim because it achieves it's speed through brute horsepower which is enough to shove that thick wing to high speeds yet still retain the ability turn at lower speeds.
Are you daft?
You are the one that is proposing the current research is wrong. I have no research that needs to be done.
When I said the Mosquito was consuming fuel twice as fast as it should, I provided the hard evidence to support it. It was changed.
When Scherf and I said the Mosquito should be faster we provided the hard evidence to support it. It was changed.
You are saying that the late war aircraft turn too well. It is incumbent upon you to provide the supporting evidence and not just stating what you think and feel, then expect us to do your work for you by disproving your unsupported claims.
-
Okay, look, I'm not taking sides in this specific "Ta-152" debate because I just don't know, and frankly, the Ta-152 didn't fly and fight enough to HAVE a reputation, one way or the other.
But two points Karnak.
1. TURNING and handling is under discussion. Not weight, top speed, or other factors that are conveniently listed in the data sheets for these planes. Provide me sustained turn rate and radius data from WWII testing of these planes. Let me know how that goes. Tell me what evidence, if any, we actually DO have for relative turning performance for most WWII planes. Which leads me directly to point 2....
2. The extent to which we dismiss "anecdotal evidence" from pilots is frankly, asinine. I think a real pilot can recognize when they are winning or loosing a turning contest as easily as we can in this game. Pilots were able to CLEARLY recognize that the Japanese machines out-classed them in a turn fight, for instance. Their survival depended on it, and that survival factor makes highly doubtful of any notion that pilots were propagandizing, obfuscating, or "Whistling Dixie" in their combat reports.
No, you can't plug anecdotes in and come up with a flight model, but you SHOULD maybe examine that flight model for fallibility if, after CAREFUL examination of reports, its results conflict with enough information from those who actually flew the damn things.
-
BnZs,
He hasn't even demonstrated that late war aircraft in AH turn as well as lighter, early war aircraft. I don't think they do.
He is making completely unsupported claims and then getting upset with us when we point that out and demanding that we disprove his unsupported claims.
Read Cactuskooler's link. It paints a very, very different picture than the one Willi Renschke's statements do.
-
He is making completely unsupported claims
And not for the first time, both in game as well as here. See the recent Spit 14 thread.
-
BnZs,
He hasn't even demonstrated that late war aircraft in AH turn as well as lighter, early war aircraft. I don't think they do.
He is making completely unsupported claims and then getting upset with us when we point that out and demanding that we disprove his unsupported claims.
Yes, yes, this is true, but I'm just saying that for the most part there is *no* evidence for turning and handling qualities of WWII aircraft to present *except* pilot impressions.
-
"It paints a very, very different picture than the one Willi Renschke's statements do."
So what is in doubt? That Reschke, in his Ta152H, turned with a Tempest and won?
-C+
-
"It paints a very, very different picture than the one Willi Renschke's statements do."
So what is in doubt? That Reschke, in his Ta152H, turned with a Tempest and won?
-C+
What is in doubt is that it is a valid comparison as you'd get between two experienced test pilots doing a comparison of two aircraft. Instead we have a rookie pilot bounced by an ace and people using it to say that the Ta152 was clearly better than the Tempest.
-
Yes, yes, this is true, but I'm just saying that for the most part there is *no* evidence for turning and handling qualities of WWII aircraft to present *except* pilot impressions.
That's not exactly true. There are test flight reports that include data and not just descriptions. However, what we always get tripped up on in this forum is from language like "out-turned" or "more maneuverable". But, there are things that can be deduced from the aircraft information, like the area and moment of an aileron, or area of a rudder, that can be plugged into performance equations that result in a quantifiable performance metric in-game.
-
From what I've seen (and I'm really pretty convinced after seeing Grizz's bat-turn) the 152 flies VERY similarly to some of my high aspect-ratio RC sailplanes.
JG 301 pilot Uffz. Julius Berliner thought it felt similar to a sailplane as well.
"The Dora 9 was good natured, robust. I could really take allout flying with it, while the Ta 152 was much more sensitive; it let itself be flown, or so it seemed to me, almost like a sailplane."
-
And not for the first time, both in game as well as here. See the recent Spit 14 thread.
Nope....but it is my opinon that late war speedsters in aces high turn better than the sacrifices required to attain the much higher speeds suggest.
-
Nope....but it is my opinon that late war speedsters in aces high turn better than the sacrifices required to attain the much higher speeds suggest.
What sacrifices? There is nothing that inherently makes a faster plane unable to turn as well as a slower plane.
In terms of WWII fighters, the trend was to get heavier as the war went on and thus the Bf109E-4 will turn a tighter radius than the Bf109K-4, the Spitfire Mk Ia will turn a tighter radius than the Spitfire Mk XIVe, the A6M2 will turn a tighter radius than the A6M5. It is possible, due to speed, that some of those late war fighters might have a higher turn rate than their earlier war counterparts.
I think you may have some misunderstandings about performance terms and/or why different aircraft produce the numbers that they do.
-
Another big one though, is the ailerons. Did the RL 152 have differential built into its ailerons? If it did, that alone would make a huge difference, especially if the AH version does not have differential built in. We'd probably have to ask HTC about that, although I guess it would be easy enough to see from outside your plane on the runway.
Differential and coordinated rudder would tame the plane down significantly, based on what I've seen with my own planes. Without it, my planes can be extremely difficult to fly, especially at slower speeds. With it, they're docile, and easy to control.
I wonder about this myself. They say a lot about aileron boost in the 152, but don't note if they have a differential built into the system. This might be interesting to find out and test.
To me, the 152 is a somewhat unusual design, so I would expect some unusual flight characteristics. I fly it only occasionally, and have never found it to be as "uber" as its reputation. If someone can document something different with the RL 152 vs the AH model (like lack of aileron differential), let us know. I can't really get excited about claims that a particular plane is this or that based on one fight vs another aircraft when there are so many unknown factors.
-
In terms of WWII fighters, the trend was to get heavier as the war went on and thus the Bf109E-4 will turn a tighter radius than the Bf109K-4, the Spitfire Mk Ia will turn a tighter radius than the Spitfire Mk XIVe, the A6M2 will turn a tighter radius than the A6M5. It is possible, due to speed, that some of those late war fighters might have a higher turn rate than their earlier war counterparts.
Just to nitpick a bit, higher turn rates are not due to "speed". Higher turn rates are due to having more engine power to fight against induced drag.
-
Just to nitpick a bit, higher turn rates are not due to "speed". Higher turn rates are due to having more engine power to fight against induced drag.
Which means the aircraft goes faster, hence, "speed". It flies a larger circle, but due to a more powerful engine travels at a higher speed, allowing it to, potentially, have a higher turn rate than a slower aircraft that has a tighter turn radius.
-
See Rule #4
-
Icepac, it's the Typhoon that has the thick wing, they were shooting for a laminar flow when they designed the Tempest's wing, which is much thinner, the Typh will (well, should, but in AH I can't feel all that much difference) turn better at low speeds because a thick wing has more lift at slower speeds. The TA flies like a sailplane? I have to really pull/push hard stick to get the nose to point where I want it compared to the dora, (which completely contradicts Will Reshkes description of his 152 reacting nimbly to the slightest of elevator inputs)fly them both in succesion and see what I mean. The 152s outfought and downed several Yaks at wars end, (mostly at very low alts!). Try to outmaneuver a Yak in our AH 152 at treetop level and post your results :noid
-
The 152s outfought and downed several Yaks at wars end, (mostly at very low alts!). Try to outmaneuver a Yak in our AH 152 at treetop level and post your results :noid
Did they? What was the tactical situation? Energy state of the participants? What skill level had the Yak pilots? If merely the fact than plane A once shot down plane B does present any evidence about aerodynamic capabilities...
Well, in one knife fight I had successfully out turned a Ki-84 in my Ta 152. Does that now prove that in AH the Ta turns better than the Frank?
-
Did they? What was the tactical situation? Energy state of the participants? What skill level had the Yak pilots? If merely the fact than plane A once shot down plane B does present any evidence about aerodynamic capabilities...
Well, in one knife fight I had successfully out turned a Ki-84 in my Ta 152. Does that now prove that in AH the Ta turns better than the Frank?
We may never find out, as the Ki never had to fight any 152's in the war. I suppose if similar skill level pilots fought, and the 152 won every time, such is the case with the Ta vs Yak fights, we might be able to arrive at such a conclusion! :D
-
We may never find out, as the Ki never had to fight any 152's in the war.
I wasn't talking about Ki vs Ta during the war... I was using an analogy ;)
An isolated event during the war is being used as an argument for the actual performance and aerodynamic qualities of a plane. Well, I just did the same for Aces High to highlight the shortcomings of such reasonings.
-
Just wanted to add....Krusty, listen to Stoney, he actually knows what he's talkiing about.
-
I wasn't talking about Ki vs Ta during the war... I was using an analogy ;)
An isolated event during the war is being used as an argument for the actual performance and aerodynamic qualities of a plane. Well, I just did the same for Aces High to highlight the shortcomings of such reasonings.
I understand, but I believe it was about 7 different occasions the 152 bested the Yaks at treetop level, and never the other way around. Just one example of what makes me think the real Ta really did handle better than ours does.
-
I understand, but I believe it was about 7 different occasions the 152 bested the Yaks at treetop level, and never the other way around. Just one example of what makes me think the real Ta really did handle better than ours does.
a) seven isn't really much statistically wise.
b) are those fights / victories well documented? The amount of hearsay and myths concerning the Ta 152 is quite staggering.
c) the question still stands: What were the tactical situations and pilot quality? Where those Yak drivers typical Soviet fighter pilots? Could it be that it was simply the standard Eastern Front engagements between some German "Experten" and the usual Soviet rookies?
-
Soviet pilots of 1945 were of better quality than those in 1941.
-
Try to outmaneuver a Yak in our AH 152 at treetop level and post your results :noid
It can! Just dont overload with 40-50 mins of fuel. Under 25% the Ta can turn fairly well. Remember when i made that spit14 run to the ack, even after he roped me? He did the favour and pinged my rear tank :D
The main problem is the amazing instability, the tail wants to overtake the nose real bad + those jerky jaw motions makes the aiming real hard for me.
The plane behaves like as it had a very small vertical stabilizer, even though it was lenghtened, enlarged compared to the dora.
-
Stoney, take a look at the AH film link I posted. It is but one of many examples of our in-game Ta152 pulling BS moves and losing control.
The behavior IN-GAME does not in any way match real world descriptions during combat and test flights.
I think people harp on aspect ratio but they don't even stop to understand what is being contested. There are many types of "instability"...
Okay, fine, perhaps it does have more instability with those wings but that instability woudn't do what I recorded, now would it? So maybe YOU'RE getting stuck up on one thing and not looking any further. Maybe you're perfectly correct in what you say but it's totally unrelated from the problem at hand. I may simply not be describing it well. There is no other plane nearly as bad as the Ta152 in this game, and it doesn't seem to match any war-time tests or anecdotes. There are some comments about a few aspects but clearly the planes weren't falling out of the sky tail-first, nor butt-sliding in turns to present their belly to the wind. With the relatively few numbers in existence these events would have taken a large percentage of the total airframes out of play.
To get to the heart of the issue, I think you're saying "Aspect ratio" and I'm saying "not aspect ratio" and you're right with regards to what you think I'm talking about and I'm right with the actual problems I'm really talking about.
The plane falls out of the AH skies more than it lands. It's one of the few that couldn't be air-spawned in-game (before the level airspawns) because even when loaded lightly it was tail spin all the way into the ground from 15k, 20k, whatever. That happened many a time to me. When in these tail slides, tail spins, whatever you want to call them, you cannot recover. Not with 40,000 feet below you.
Something is not right.
So if you want to tell me I don't know anything, fine. Go ahead. I may not have read the same technical books as you have, but I know it when I see it. Something's wrong with the way it's modeled in-game. It ain't the aspect ratio.
What is it?
-
I will fly the ta152 tonight exclusively and try to check out the entire flight envelope.
As far as wing thickness of the tempest vs the tyhpoon, one would think the typhoon should have much better slow speed turn performance than the tempest..........at least until the E lost from drag catches up in an extended turn fight.
Willi Reschke's out turning the tempest was more a function of the tempest pilot spending an extended amount of time turning to the left which is the wrong direction to turn in a griffon equipped plane.
-
Willi Reschke's out turning the tempest was more a function of the tempest pilot spending an extended amount of time turning to the left which is the wrong direction to turn in a griffon equipped plane.
Napier Sabre in that case. Mitchell was in Mk. V
-
Napier Sabre in that case. Mitchell was in Mk. V
Props rotated in the same direction for the Sabre and Griffon.
-
Props rotated in the same direction for the Sabre and Griffon.
Did anybody claim otherwise?
-
The main problem is the amazing instability, the tail wants to overtake the nose real bad + those jerky jaw motions makes the aiming real hard for me.
The plane behaves like as it had a very small vertical stabilizer, even though it was lenghtened, enlarged compared to the dora.
Made gunnery hard for them in real life too! The vertical stabilizer was enlarged, twice. It still wasn't enough as yet another larger vertical stabilizer was under development. They also said a larger horizontal stabilizer would solve some of the pitch stability problems.
An excerpt from a letter from the General of Fighter Pilots Oberst Gordon Gollob to Focke Wulf,
"Dear Professor!
I have to point out in the strongest way possible that an aircraft with such negative flight characteristics is totally unacceptable for service duty. Yet the fighter service branch is greatly dependent on this aircraft!
I was informed that unexpected problems in pitch stability have arisen in the first production models as well as the test aircraft of type C. The chief of the TLR has proposed, as an emergency measure, a reduction in the amount of fuel stored in the fuselage by 75-80 liters and a loading of only 70 liters of MW 50 instead of the originally designated 140 liters. Also, a ballast of 58 kg should be installed in the compartment and the fuel capacity of the rear fuselage tanks must be reduced 380 to 280 liters...
Erpobungsstelle Rechlin stated that eight Ta 152 H aircraft exhibit barely acceptable stability around the yaw axis. Gunnery runs are impossible to initiate according to the gunnery school. Use of K23 auto pilot gives only slight performance improvement. Rechlin proposed to Folke-Wulf that the tail fin be enlarged.
Stability around the aircraft's roll axis is also poor in the 8-152 H models as well as the 'C' model. Both models do not fulfill the expected minimum stability requirement.
Basically, the stability around the pitch axis could be eliminated through the non-installation of autopilot, the GM 1 power boost tank, the 115 liter fuel tank, FuG125 radio and a reduction in fuel load of 135 liters. However, under no circumstances can the reduction of even the most minute amount of fuel be tolerated."
It can! Just dont overload with 40-50 mins of fuel. Under 25% the Ta can turn fairly well.
It sure can. If Yaks are giving you a heap of trouble, you've got bigger problems. :)
-
Cactus, i got it,
just cant understand, why. The tail-heavyness of the plane cause those problems, right? But even if you burn all your rear tank, use a lot from your boost (let it be gm-1 or mw-50), that bad habit remains the same.
What made that airframe that tail heavy, if not the fuel and the boost system? The engine mount was lenghtened compared to the fairly steady Dora, not the tail section. A huge engine was installe to the nose, not to the tail, yet the aircraft becomes extremely tail-heavy? Something isnt right.
It sure can. If Yaks are giving you a heap of trouble, you've got bigger problems.
Yaks dont give me trouble, but a me in a jak vs me in a 152 turnfight ends very soon...
-
Yaks dont give me trouble, but a me in a jak vs me in a 152 turnfight ends very soon...
Those 7 Yaks were shot down in turn fights?
-
The plane falls out of the AH skies more than it lands. It's one of the few that couldn't be air-spawned in-game (before the level airspawns) because even when loaded lightly it was tail spin all the way into the ground from 15k, 20k, whatever. That happened many a time to me. When in these tail slides, tail spins, whatever you want to call them, you cannot recover. Not with 40,000 feet below you.
There's two different things you're talking about now. That last post was about the adverse yaw characteristics. The aspect ratio/empenage size relates to the adverse yaw.
As far as the CG issues:
Ultimately when you question the performance of an aircraft without any factual basis for your belief--that's illogical. Do you even have a reference that tells you what the CG envelope is for the Ta-152? Do you have any information regarding whether or not pilots were cautioned against flying the aircraft into certain situations? Do you know what the static margin is for the Ta-152? Do you know where the neutral point is on the Ta-152? Do you even know how any of that stuff is determined? Without any evidence to the contrary, how do you KNOW that the CG on the Ta-152 is wrong? I used to own a plane that couldn't recover from a fully developed spin. It was due to two factors, lack of sufficient rudder authority, and a very low static margin. It also possessed very strong adverse yaw characteristics in certain maneuvers. It is possible for an aircraft designer to create an aircraft that focuses so heavily on other performance aspects that they design in some fairly serious flaws. That aircraft had an 10 year production run and is generally considered to be one of the highest performance two-seat GA aircraft in the fleet, despite those warts. I have no idea if that's the case here, but what I do know is that HTC's flight model has sufficient fidelity with all the other aircraft in-game that I figure it must be pretty close to capturing the performance and flight characteristics of the Ta-152, at least the one that HTC modeled for the game using the research and resources they had available. So, unless you can provide some sort of evidence to the contrary, HTC is going to have a tough time "fixing" a problem they don't know exists.
Look, you have as much or more enthusiasm for this game than anyone else on these boards. I really wish you'd pick up a copy of some aerodynamics primer and spend as much time teaching yourself that as you do reading history and combat reports.
[EDIT] Looking at Cactus's excerpt, its clear to see that stability issues were illuminated during development.
-
Cactus, i got it,
just cant understand, why. The tail-heavyness of the plane cause those problems, right? But even if you burn all your rear tank, use a lot from your boost (let it be gm-1 or mw-50), that bad habit remains the same.
What made that airframe that tail heavy, if not the fuel and the boost system? The engine mount was lenghtened compared to the fairly steady Dora, not the tail section. A huge engine was installe to the nose, not to the tail, yet the aircraft becomes extremely tail-heavy? Something isnt right.Yaks dont give me trouble, but a me in a jak vs me in a 152 turnfight ends very soon...
Well I don't know the specifics of why it's tail heavy. I'd imagine there's more to it than just draining the aft fuel tanks. After the first prototype was destroyed while landing after an in-flight emergency on its second flight, Oberst Edgar Peterson, commander of the Rechlin Test Center, filed a report saying the center of gravity was "dangerously" aft, among other issues.
We know there was major issues with stability and CG. Enough for the General of Fighter Pilots to say that, "with such negative flight characteristics [it] is totally unacceptable for service duty", and the commander of the test center to refer to the CG as "dangerous". I'm hesitant to talk aerodynamics as I know so little on the subject, but I don't see how there couldn't be some nasty stall lurking somewhere. Does that mean our 152's tail stall correct? I don't know; that's not my department.
-
Cactus: It's funny you cite a letter to the company, when JG301 stated they found no such flaws as stated in the Rechlin report. The guys actually flying it in combat refuted these claims. They said it was a stable platform. It's also funny that he's describing a Ta-152C prototype. It's trebly funny because Rechlin did not say it was impossible to perform tests, they did NOT perform gunnery tests. There is a difference. I think you're reading a bad translation. The Rechlin tests DID describe instability... But in PITCH, and only at high speeds (dive tests) over 600kph.
There are a lot of myths around the 152. They range far and wide. This one of instability seems to persist.
Re: balance:
While longer H-stabs were contemplated, they weren't necessary. Remember JG301 had no problems with stability. Another comment that keeps coming up is the GM-1 tanks in the tail, only those weren't GM-1 tanks. They were a few small compressed air canisters to power the Mk108 gun. That doesn't explain the tail weight. The GM-1 was in a tank directly behind the pilot's seat (just like a 190d, or a 109k). Further flying with less and less gas in AH should improve the condition or eliminate it entirely if it's "only" a heavy tail causing it. In fact in this game nobody in their right mind takes full fuel, most take 50% or less, with the entire AFT tank being empty instantly. There should be in fact a slightly heavy nose with all that gas gone, and we should never see these adverse tail problems because we are never loaded out with full weight, but this does not seem to be the case.
Eric Brown described it as more stable than the 190D. Interestingly enough, when NASM started working on their aircraft they found that the engineers at Wright field had feared that the wood was damaged either by sabotage or bad glue and reinforced it with heavy steel plates to keep the stabilizer on the tail. Further they also moved the H-stabs several inches forward. This compromised flight safety, creating a dangerous craft to fly. This would be AFTER Eric Brown said it was a stable platform. It makes me wonder if this impression in instability was a slip-shod reconstruction effort that ruined the lone working example (upon which American opinion was later formed?). I wonder if HTC is using Wright field commentary?
Stoney, if it were as you describe there'd be no reason the Mossie was ever fixed. Balance and handling are subjective, things that tests cannot fully describe. Somebody else once said on a past discussion, "It's funny how everybody accepts the same issue is a problem on the mossie but just because it's on the 152 they fight tooth and nail to claim it's correct the way it is" [paraphrase].
Analogy: I can drive a car. I can know how to drive other cars. I don't need to know all the physics involved with the force of the tires on the ground and vice versa, the engine on the frame, etc. I can move from car to car and despite different handlings quirks, maybe one jumps off the line an the other's a yugo, I can still say they'll handle along the expected physics ideals a car should. It won't suddenly drive sideways while I'm going down the highway, nor flip inverted 3 times do a bounce and resume its driving. There's a certain uncanny valley where realistic expectations on an object can be predicted. </Analogy>
I'm not saying it [the Ta152] was perfect. But is so obviously was not "this" that we have.
-
Cactus: It's funny you cite a letter to the company, when JG301 stated they found no such flaws as stated in the Rechlin report. The guys actually flying it in combat refuted these claims. They said it was a stable platform. It's also funny that he's describing a Ta-152C prototype. It's trebly funny because Rechlin did not say it was impossible to perform tests, they did NOT perform gunnery tests. There is a difference. I think you're reading a bad translation. The Rechlin tests DID describe instability... But in PITCH, and only at high speeds (dive tests) over 600kph.
There are a lot of myths around the 152. They range far and wide. This one of instability seems to persist.
Re: balance:
While longer H-stabs were contemplated, they weren't necessary. Remember JG301 had no problems with stability. Another comment that keeps coming up is the GM-1 tanks in the tail, only those weren't GM-1 tanks. They were a few small compressed air canisters to power the Mk108 gun. That doesn't explain the tail weight. The GM-1 was in a tank directly behind the pilot's seat (just like a 190d, or a 109k). Further flying with less and less gas in AH should improve the condition or eliminate it entirely if it's "only" a heavy tail causing it. In fact in this game nobody in their right mind takes full fuel, most take 50% or less, with the entire AFT tank being empty instantly. There should be in fact a slightly heavy nose with all that gas gone, and we should never see these adverse tail problems because we are never loaded out with full weight, but this does not seem to be the case.
Eric Brown described it as more stable than the 190D. Interestingly enough, when NASM started working on their aircraft they found that the engineers at Wright field had feared that the wood was damaged either by sabotage or bad glue and reinforced it with heavy steel plates to keep the stabilizer on the tail. Further they also moved the H-stabs several inches forward. This compromised flight safety, creating a dangerous craft to fly. This would be AFTER Eric Brown said it was a stable platform. It makes me wonder if this impression in instability was a slip-shod reconstruction effort that ruined the lone working example (upon which American opinion was later formed?). I wonder if HTC is using Wright field commentary?
Stoney, if it were as you describe there'd be no reason the Mossie was ever fixed. Balance and handling are subjective, things that tests cannot fully describe. Somebody else once said on a past discussion, "It's funny how everybody accepts the same issue is a problem on the mossie but just because it's on the 152 they fight tooth and nail to claim it's correct the way it is" [paraphrase].
Analogy: I can drive a car. I can know how to drive other cars. I don't need to know all the physics involved with the force of the tires on the ground and vice versa, the engine on the frame, etc. I can move from car to car and despite different handlings quirks, maybe one jumps off the line an the other's a yugo, I can still say they'll handle along the expected physics ideals a car should. It won't suddenly drive sideways while I'm going down the highway, nor flip inverted 3 times do a bounce and resume its driving. There's a certain uncanny valley where realistic expectations on an object can be predicted. </Analogy>
I'm not saying it [the Ta152] was perfect. But is so obviously was not "this" that we have.
Everything I have read is instability in the yaw axis. The only thing that I think may be off is the dive speed and I am working on testing that. One report has the plane diving to 0.96 mach.
-
Cactus: It's funny you cite a letter to the company, when JG301 stated they found no such flaws as stated in the Rechlin report. The guys actually flying it in combat refuted these claims.
I haven't looked through all my info lately, but I don't remember reading about JG 301 addressing that report nor could I find it just now. Do you mind telling me where to look?
It's also funny that he's describing a Ta-152C prototype.
No he's not. He's writing about the Ta 152H "as well as the test aircraft of type C".
It's trebly funny because Rechlin did not say it was impossible to perform tests, they did NOT perform gunnery tests. There is a difference. I think you're reading a bad translation.
I don't know whether or not gunnery tests happened or not. The point was "Rechlin stated that eight Ta 152 H aircraft exhibit barely acceptable stability around the yaw axis".
This translation is from Hitchcock's new book. If there's a better translation I'd be happy to read it.
The Rechlin tests DID describe instability... But in PITCH, and only at high speeds (dive tests) over 600kph.
I don't recall reading that. Here's the summary of Rechlin's assessment according to Hermann's book:
- Trim changes around the pitch axis as a result of lower landing flaps bearable.
- Stall behavior is not comfortable, but can be seen as acceptable.
- Stability about the vertical axis weak. Aircraft has a tendency to skid.
- The aircraft is stable about the pitch axis at the center of gravity positions (to 0.665) flown to date.
Eric Brown described it as more stable than the 190D.
That he did. I wonder why the difference in opinions.
I'm not saying it [the Ta152] was perfect. But is so obviously was not "this" that we have.
I'm certainly not going to say ours is perfect. I think it's the most beautiful plane the Luftwaffe made and I was disappointed ours didn't live up to its reputation. I started digging in hopes of finding proof it was wrong. The problem was the deeper I dug the more correct it seemed to me. I'd be more than happy to be as wrong as can be and to have a better 152 tomorrow.
-
I wonder if the CG can be tested in-game, in a similar test used to test RC airplane CG's?
1/2 throttle, trim for level, and then enter a 30 degree dive. Hold the dive while speed builds, then release the stick. A nose-heavy plane will nose up fairly sharply, a tail-heavy plane will nose down more (or "tuck"). A plane with a good CG will just continue the dive, or bring the nose up slightly. Essentially I guess it's just testing pitch stability.
In-game, I'd expect you'd need to have CT disabled to try the test, and since the airfoil isn't symmetrical, that might skew things a bit too. Might be interesting anyway.
I'd say that I'd expect a tail-heavy plane to need a bit of down-trim (which the 152 does) for level flight at cruise, but then, most planes in AH do IME, so that may not be a good test either. With the high-aspect wing I guess I'd expect the CG location to be more sensitive to change (or at least have less "range") than a lower-aspect wing?
I still think the films I've seen look like adverse yaw to me.
The only thing is that IME the wing with the down-aileron should eventually drop, and I haven't seen too much of that. Left aileron leads to right yaw, then right roll, which gets worse as you panic and give more left aileron. I flew it for a bit the other night in a fight against an F4U-1A, and didn't find it to be nearly as bad as I'd expected. I kept losing the "edge" in my turns, but didn't see anything out of the ordinary really (I wasn't using flaps). I don't have much experience in it though.
-
Stoney, if it were as you describe there'd be no reason the Mossie was ever fixed. Balance and handling are subjective, things that tests cannot fully describe. Somebody else once said on a past discussion, "It's funny how everybody accepts the same issue is a problem on the mossie but just because it's on the 152 they fight tooth and nail to claim it's correct the way it is" [paraphrase].
So in the end its just another luftwhine conspiracy? Nice! In the end, if we don't feel like doing any aerodynamic analysis, we can just default to discussing how the airplane is just porked because "we know it is". IIRC, Karnak and others presented a good deal of evidence supporting their position about the Mossie. You guys have not.
And this: I don't need to know all the physics involved
is one of the most ignorant things I've ever seen you post. Why not? Why not take some of your considerable energy for the aircraft and the game and focus it on learning some aerodynamics? You're obviously smart enough and have the discipline to read through numerous historical resources. It can't do anything but help your understanding of the period aircraft. Oh well, I can't force you to want to learn, but I guarantee that HTC is going to require more than a mere hunch before they take your opinion seriously.
-
See Rule #4
Sorry Skuzzy....alcohol talking.
-
Stoney, that's foolish. This is not some luftwhiner conspiracy and you know I'm not that type of person.
So, please enlighten me, exactly WHAT aerdynamic info was provided on the mossie to prove the stability was buggy, instead of intentional?
I recall a lot of anecdotes and pilots descriptions and ... frankly... SUBJECTIVE materials being thrown about at the time.
I don't recall any tests anywhere that indicated "Ah-HAH! Here! THIS proves the game is bugged!" because it hit all the markers for speed, climb, turn, etc. It simply didn't have the stability it should have.
So tell me what they provided that conclusively proved (in your technical documentation demanding demeanor here) the CoG was porked?
Cactus, sorry if I seemed a bit abrupt with you, was unintentional (but hopefully understandable from the way I'm being treated here).
-
I'm going to have to agree with Krusty here, that pilot reports ARE valid evidence, if you have enough of them consistently reporting the same phenomenon.
There would be no need for test pilots if all aspects of aircraft behavior, especially stability and stall/spin behavior, could be practically extrapolated.
-
I'm going to have to agree with Krusty here, that pilot reports ARE valid evidence, if you have enough of them consistently reporting the same phenomenon.
There would be no need for test pilots if all aspects of aircraft behavior, especially stability and stall/spin behavior, could be practically extrapolated.
Well, flight testing is absolutely required. All I caution is how we digest the information in those flight reports. If a pilot reports benign handling, but there's little description of the test regime, what have we really learned? Conversely, if the pilot says the aircraft is unstable, but the flight regime shows some very demanding maneuvers, you can qualify those statements. Heck, even the U.S. Navy's Flight Test manual discusses these problems when it talks about how to determine stall speeds of aircraft. First, there has to be an agreement on what constitutes a stall, given the myriad different ways you can classify it. If one report shows a stall speed of 90 mph, and another report on the same plane shows a stall speed of 95 mph, which one is correct? Was there a difference in weights? Was there calibration error on the IAS gauge? Were there two different definitions of "stall" used? We maneuver these planes in ways that were never tested back in the day. In Krusty's film, he's pulling a lot of alpha at slow speeds. Do we have data that shows the Ta-152's handling in that regime?
@Krusty: In regards to the Mossie, I made that statement with respect to all the various tweaks that Karnak and Mossie guys suggested were necessary. I don't remember everything that got discussed regarding the Mossie CG issue, but I do remember there being a lot of data with regards to the speeds, etc. on some of the other aspects for which they were arguing changes should be made. I don't even know that the Ta-152 as it is modeled in-game is correct. Just bring more to the argument than "the CG must be wrong", especially when you don't know much about the aerodynamics or physics of the situation. To claim a problem with the CG without understanding the physics is illogical. To blow someone off when they say that the "high aspect ratio wing" may have a part to play, when you don't understand how aspect ratio affects the aircraft is illogical. Finally, when someone answers with those types of arguments, and you challenge them to "prove it" to you, its exasperating. Because proof sometimes demands hours of work in a spreadsheet or in research, just to show you something that you didn't know in the first place.
-
Well, let's see, how did they fix the Mossie's almost un-recoverable stall (similar to the 152), they adjusted the CoG.
Cactus: It's funny you cite a letter to the company, when JG301 stated they found no such flaws as stated in the Rechlin report. The guys actually flying it in combat refuted these claims. They said it was a stable platform. It's also funny that he's describing a Ta-152C prototype. It's trebly funny because Rechlin did not say it was impossible to perform tests, they did NOT perform gunnery tests. There is a difference. I think you're reading a bad translation. The Rechlin tests DID describe instability... But in PITCH, and only at high speeds (dive tests) over 600kph.
There are a lot of myths around the 152. They range far and wide. This one of instability seems to persist.
Re: balance:
While longer H-stabs were contemplated, they weren't necessary. Remember JG301 had no problems with stability. Another comment that keeps coming up is the GM-1 tanks in the tail, only those weren't GM-1 tanks. They were a few small compressed air canisters to power the Mk108 gun. That doesn't explain the tail weight. The GM-1 was in a tank directly behind the pilot's seat (just like a 190d, or a 109k). Further flying with less and less gas in AH should improve the condition or eliminate it entirely if it's "only" a heavy tail causing it. In fact in this game nobody in their right mind takes full fuel, most take 50% or less, with the entire AFT tank being empty instantly. There should be in fact a slightly heavy nose with all that gas gone, and we should never see these adverse tail problems because we are never loaded out with full weight, but this does not seem to be the case.
Eric Brown described it as more stable than the 190D. Interestingly enough, when NASM started working on their aircraft they found that the engineers at Wright field had feared that the wood was damaged either by sabotage or bad glue and reinforced it with heavy steel plates to keep the stabilizer on the tail. Further they also moved the H-stabs several inches forward. This compromised flight safety, creating a dangerous craft to fly. This would be AFTER Eric Brown said it was a stable platform. It makes me wonder if this impression in instability was a slip-shod reconstruction effort that ruined the lone working example (upon which American opinion was later formed?). I wonder if HTC is using Wright field commentary?
Stoney, if it were as you describe there'd be no reason the Mossie was ever fixed. Balance and handling are subjective, things that tests cannot fully describe. Somebody else once said on a past discussion, "It's funny how everybody accepts the same issue is a problem on the mossie but just because it's on the 152 they fight tooth and nail to claim it's correct the way it is" [paraphrase].
I'm not saying it [the Ta152] was perfect. But is so obviously was not "this" that we have.
Also, another thing about that letter to the company, there's no mention of any Yaw instability or unrecoverable stalls. Only pitch instability . Pilot accounts of climbing hard to stall speeed then flipping over on top of enemy would not work with our 152, they would have fell tail-down to the earth.
-
RE: the Wright Field postwar flight testing of a captured Ta-152. Does anyone have a link to this report? I'd like to read it.
-
We maneuver these planes in ways that were never tested back in the day.
I believe you are wrong on this point. These were young, testosterone-charged men. They did everything imaginable while "hassling" and then some. Chuck Yeager deliberately *topped a tree* with the wing of his P-39 once.
-
The plane falls out of the AH skies more than it lands. It's one of the few that couldn't be air-spawned in-game (before the level airspawns) because even when loaded lightly it was tail spin all the way into the ground from 15k, 20k, whatever. That happened many a time to me
I used to be quite good at recovering from stalls in the ta152, that is, ANY stall. 40k is not needed, maybe 2-3k. I went to the TA tonight to brush up on stall recoveries from the 10k bases. The first sortie I realized I had completely forgotten how to recover and I fell bellybutton backwards 10k into the ground. After half an hour of practice I could recover EVERY single stall with as little as 2-3k altitude below me. All it took was a little practice and to "feel" the imbalance and get your nose thrown around and pushed towards the ground. Maybe you should try practicing before saying:
The plane falls out of the AH skies more than it lands. It's one of the few that couldn't be air-spawned in-game (before the level airspawns) because even when loaded lightly it was tail spin all the way into the ground from 15k, 20k, whatever. That happened many a time to me. When in these tail slides, tail spins, whatever you want to call them, you cannot recover. Not with 40,000 feet below you.
Film of 6 or 7 stall recoveries in a row before I got bored available upon request.
-
Request. :salute
-
http://www.speedyshare.com/files/28919276/stallfilmforkrusty_0000.ahf
I was using my gear but even that is not required I have since learned. I can't explain the rudder inputs it's kind of just natural, but the basic start to recovery is full flaps down, throttle at zero. Then rocking the throttle between 0 and 40. The plane will flip eventually (And you might need to use some elevator and aileron input at this point to "force" it to flip). Once it does that just feel the balance and get the nose down and steady for airspeed.
-
http://www.speedyshare.com/files/28919276/stallfilmforkrusty_0000.ahf
I was using my gear but even that is not required I have since learned. I can't explain the rudder inputs it's kind of just natural, but the basic start to recovery is full flaps down, throttle at zero. Then rocking the throttle between 0 and 40. The plane will flip eventually (And you might need to use some elevator and aileron input at this point to "force" it to flip). Once it does that just feel the balance and get the nose down and steady for airspeed.
Looked like a pretty straightforward recovery to me, but the film isn't showing me any external control surface movements except for the flaps.
-
I finally had time to review the film (sorry put it on my to do list never got to it).
Grizz, most of your stalls there aren't the nasty one I was referring to. A couple come close where you are starting to move tail down, but in these it's almost as if there is no rudder or elevators when it happens. Also in the ones I'm thinking of you are travelling straight down. That's the straight-as-an-arrow stall, pointed tail into the ground. You seem to have some aileron control but you just roll about to no effect. The other is like your pancake, and you got into an oscillating stall ever-so-briefly that was getting close to another of the stalls I was talking about.
I think your film is quite telling too, that there is a greater problem at work. Most of your arse-first slides begin over 130mph. This is MORE than enough airflow over the surfaces to retain control. It's as if your entire tail feathers stopped existing. You'll note as well that in your pancake floats you're actually flying quite fast along a vector that doesn't seem aerodynamically possible. It really seems to me like the forces at work on the tail are not registering like they should be.
You have to force this situation getting down to 80mph at times, but when you get into it you're almost instantly accelerating past 130+mph in most cases. Check the speeds. I don't thnk it's possible to butt-slide forward with your wings flat against the wind and yet still accelerate consistently.
The physics aren't holding up here. You're presenting a flat surface to the wind at a significant speed. That alone would cause the stabilizers to catch the wind, and like an arrow in flight correct your path into the wind.
To top it off, the tail slides should have quite a lot of rudder authority, with a full 2000 hp or prop wash whipping past it, but they have almost no effect. Same for the elevators. Then when you actually shift towards straight-down tail-first flight, they should be MOST effective, as they are biting directly into the wind at speeds over 110mph. It should whip you around so fast you risk ripping your plane to pieces.
Instead, nothing. Your film is most helpful in illustrating that things aren't working as they should, although those weren't quite the unrecoverable stalls I had in mind.
I really think HTC has to look into this again. It really is defying physics to fly flat into the wind at increasing speeds and not have any of the benefits tail surfaces bring to air frames.
-
I will climb to 20k and get myself in the nastiest tail slide ever and fall for 5k before I even attempt to recover. Then post the film. :cool:
-
I've been reading this thread for a while, play nice you guys, if my own suspicion is correct you'll hopefuly meet in the middle.
I think the Ta-152 is over-unstable in the game, as Krusty has been saying with no fuel in the rear and a heavy supply of it up front which is odd, and it's not because of how hard it is to recover from its nasty stall or how easy it is to induce one (this is rediculous to me, it's like complaining that tyeing your shoes is too hard, after the age of 6 and practicing it a thousand times, anyone can do it blindfolded). Should it be as stable or more-so than a 190D, I doubt it, but fly it regularly and agressively enough and you won't come up short with plenty of what I describe as highly odd instances of unstable flight behavior.
-
That's why I would love to read that postwar flight testing report and see if they had any similar issues.
-
Tryed out the 152 today in offline, with 25% fuel.
Thats still 9 minutes in the MA, the weight you wanna enter a last turnfight with and get one more kill on thyat pony. I was at low altituder, under 10K.
The aircraft could turn fairly well (by feeling), able to do some wicked reversals, hammerheads, even some minor tailslides. I had to provocate badly and do a line of mistakes to make her flat stall. It took 5k to recover, but im not familiar with this plane, i bet Sukov could solve it in 10 seconds.
What i have to say, it was better than what i expected, still not a 109, but fairly OK. Only thing this plane hates is the snaproll, but thats predictable seeing the long wings.
Then i tryed the same moves with 95% fuel. What a difference! Almost no warning before the unstoppable flat-stall, i wasnt able to do any complex move. That full rear tank did its job, i couldnt recover and hit the ground after a 8K fall upside down.
-
Step on the ball... :noid
-
I putzed around in it for a bit last night and had a typical evening flying it. Induced a few instabilities that I recovered from repeatedly (the first one always being the trickiest, hehe). But nothing terrible, all were recovered using flaps and throttle only and I had an empty aft tank each time.
Only had one real odd-ball instability I wish I had recorded just for reference here. In going with assuming pilot error above anything with the model or game, it was more of a slow wingover if I recall correctly than the intended aggressive and high-angled yo-yo that I was going for. What had me cursing and spitting at it though was that I still had forward momentum, and as I performed the wingover I got my nose down for maybe a good 2-3 full adrenaline filled seconds. I had the forward momentum still (I didn't try or had any intention to float a stall or intentionally induce a tail-first stall to the ground), and I had the nose pointed down with a full forward tank, dry aft, and a combined balance of ~75%-50% the fuel still in both my wing tanks (why I really wish I filmed, I wonder if my flubbed wing-over may of been heavily influenced by the fuel distribution in my wings during the slow speed maneuver), throttle firewalled and WEP cranking, 90-100% ammo loadout still in the guns... and then it starts to happen, nose down, wind consistently through the maneuver flowing over the surfaces, arguably predominantly nose-heavy, and that mother !@#$!@g tail that's up in the air behind me with my forward momentum now heading towards the ground teetered my tail down and my nose up like the dang thing was loaded with 50,000 pounds of bricks in the tail.
These are the odd-ball instances of instability in the 152's flight model that really get me upset because even if the conditions were right for it to possibly of happened (ie: I was actually 10-20mph slower than I actually thought and maybe tried to wingover with my heaviest wing of the two being forced to be held high), it's wacky model will overridingly defy the odds of physics (heavy-nose due to fuel distribution and ammo, nose-down, momentum already heading forward in that direction, massive blender grasping at the air in that same general direction...) and do it anyways sometimes...
The irony of it all being that the solution to this problem/stall, was dumping flaps, forcing through flaps and ginger/light applications of throttle and the harnessing of the teetering momentum of the stall, and getting my nose and even less momentum than before the stall was induced down towards the ground to recover. How should that stall be recoverable due to this means when more than twice those same factors used for preventing and recovering from the stall (forward momentum and thrust) were already present and in place before being overridden by the inducing of the stall?
To try and simplify, I'm gonna compare the tail stall of the 152 to getting your tire on your car stuck in a mud hole. When 100% throttle and 15mph of forward momentum get you sunk and stuck in the same mud hole every single time, how does it make sense that bouncing 20-40% throttle and utilizing the forward momentum of 2-3mph can and will get you out of that hole every single time? <- Makes sense (or not, I hope)?
Edit: spell checker is my friend.
-
I putzed around in it for a bit last night and had a typical evening flying it. Induced a few instabilities that I recovered from repeatedly (the first one always being the trickiest, hehe). But nothing terrible, all were recovered using flaps and throttle only and I had an empty aft tank each time.
Only had one real odd-ball instability I wish I had recorded just for reference here. In going with assuming pilot error above anything with the model or game, it was more of a slow wingover if I recall correctly than the intended aggressive and high-angled yo-yo that I was going for. What had me cursing and spitting at it though was that I still had forward momentum, and as I performed the wingover I got my nose down for maybe a good 2-3 full adrenaline filled seconds. I had the forward momentum still (I didn't try or had any intention to float a stall or intentionally induce a tail-first stall to the ground), and I had the nose pointed down with a full forward tank, dry aft, and a combined balance of ~75%-50% the fuel still in both my wing tanks (why I really wish I filmed, I wonder if my flubbed wing-over may of been heavily influenced by the fuel distribution in my wings during the slow speed maneuver), throttle firewalled and WEP cranking, 90-100% ammo loadout still in the guns... and then it starts to happen, nose down, wind consistently through the maneuver flowing over the surfaces, arguably predominantly nose-heavy, and that mother !@#$!@g tail that's up in the air behind me with my forward momentum now heading towards the ground teetered my tail down and my nose up like the dang thing was loaded with 50,000 pounds of bricks in the tail.
These are the odd-ball instances of instability in the 152's flight model that really get me upset because even if the conditions were right for it to possibly of happened (ie: I was actually 10-20mph slower than I actually thought and maybe tried to wingover with my heaviest wing of the two being forced to be held high), it's wacky model will overridingly defy the odds of physics (heavy-nose due to fuel distribution and ammo, nose-down, momentum already heading forward in that direction, massive blender grasping at the air in that same general direction...) and do it anyways sometimes...
The irony of it all being that the solution to this problem/stall, was dumping flaps, forcing through flaps and ginger/light applications of throttle and the harnessing of the teetering momentum of the stall, and getting my nose and even less momentum than before the stall was induced down towards the ground to recover. How should that stall be recoverable due to this means when more than twice those same factors used for preventing and recovering from the stall (forward momentum and thrust) were already present and in place before being overridden by the inducing of the stall?
To try and simplify, I'm gonna compare the tail stall of the 152 to getting your tire on your car stuck in a mud hole. When 100% throttle and 15mph of forward momentum get you sunk and stuck in the same mud hole every single time, how does it make sense that bouncing 20-40% throttle and utilizing the forward momentum of 2-3mph can and will get you out of that hole every single time? <- Makes sense (or not, I hope)?
Edit: spell checker is my friend.
I didn't realize until the thread a while back but the 152 will recover hands off most of the time just not very quickly. I know what your talking about with the nose down thing if you push negative G and pull the throttle back slowly you will continue in the dive. If you remain full throttle your tail will fall behind you.
-
It seems we had the same (or very similar) problem with the Mossie, tail down or spinning stall of death, brought on from the same basic AoA.
And what was done to correct it?
1st correct answer wins a prize! :x
(Hopefully the 152 gets a similar fix, but who knows since it's an 3v!L @xi$ ride)
:rolleyes:
-
but who knows since it's an 3v!L @xi$ ride)
:rolleyes:
This kind of comment is so tiring... I bet HTC loves seeing people allude that they purposefully malign axis aircraft.
-
This kind of comment is so tiring... I bet HTC loves seeing people allude that they purposefully malign axis aircraft.
We've got P-40s that are even slower than they originally were, a P-51 that can't turn inside of a Jug, Zekes that can dive with Corsairs and Hellcats, and a 109K that largely trounces the SpitXIV...but sure, HTC is biased against AXIS aircraft. :bhead
-
We've got P-40s that are even slower than they originally were, a P-51 that can't turn inside of a Jug, Zekes that can dive with Corsairs and Hellcats, and a 109K that largely trounces the SpitXIV...but sure, HTC is biased against AXIS aircraft. :bhead
:huh
If that is true for you, I would suggesting visiting the training arena more often :aok
:bolt:
-
This kind of comment is so tiring... I bet HTC loves seeing people allude that they purposefully malign axis aircraft.
Do all intellectual types have no sense of humor? :P (note the funny characters in @x!$ and the :rolleyes)
I'd love to see the P40's redone, and I've never been outdove by a Zeke in anything, at least not past 300mph. My only wishes are that the 190 A8 weight is looked into and to stop seeing 152's fall butt-first out of the skies-> :mad:
-
Do all intellectual types have no sense of humor? :P (note the funny characters in @x!$ and the :rolleyes)
I'd love to see the P40's redone, and I've never been outdove by a Zeke in anything, at least not past 300mph. My only wishes are that the 190 A8 weight is looked into and to stop seeing 152's fall butt-first out of the skies-> :mad:
In AHII, you still have some aileron roll and pitch control in a Zeke at speeds exceeding 350mph IAS.
And the 190A5 is 8-12mph too slow....
If there is any "pattern" to it at all, I kind of suspect that the plane modeling is inversely proportional to its popularity with Americans (the 190 is the most famous and "coolest" German plane here in popular lore, probably due to the 8th AF over Europe, its probably the 109 in the U.K., due to the BoB.)
-
We've got P-40s that are even slower than they originally were, a P-51 that can't turn inside of a Jug, Zekes that can dive with Corsairs and Hellcats, and a 109K that largely trounces the SpitXIV...but sure, HTC is biased against AXIS aircraft. :bhead
Sir,
-never seen a zeek doing 550mph...
-you have problems against jugs? Or bumped into Juggler or Lepape too often? : )
-109K vs spit14 is an even match... idk what you want to say with it.
Our point is: the mossie is tail heavy, just like the corsair, not to talk about the p39 (!!), but none of them will send its tail forward instantly if you have more than two drops in the rear tank.
ZELVA :rock
-
Sir,
-never seen a zeek doing 550mph...
-you have problems against jugs? Or bumped into Juggler or Lepape too often? : )
-109K vs spit14 is an even match... idk what you want to say with it.
Our point is: the mossie is tail heavy, just like the corsair, not to talk about the p39 (!!), but none of them will send its tail forward instantly if you have more than two drops in the rear tank.
ZELVA :rock
No I haven't seen a Zeke doing 550. I have, however, easily gone to to the 350mph IAS where a Zeke is supposed to loose control and be under threat of damage, without problems.
P-51 vs. Jug is an even match, in AHII. Does anyone seriously dispute this? Probable slight edge to Jug because of roll rate and firepower. This, despite the fact that both the Allies and Germans considered the 51 more formidable as a dogfigher.
Walter Wolfrum, a Luftwaffe ace with 137 victories, remembered of his encounters with American fighters that "the P-47 wasn't so bad because we could out turn and outclimb it, initially. The P-51 was something else.
http://www.mustang.gaetanmarie.com/articles/germany/germany.htm (http://www.mustang.gaetanmarie.com/articles/germany/germany.htm)
-
This kind of comment is so tiring... I bet HTC loves seeing people allude that they purposefully malign axis aircraft.
And don't forget my personal favorite: the customers pushing for HTC to purposefully model each axis aircraft to the maximum limits of their respective model's performance envelopes. :o ;) (*cough* :pray D-11/D-13 puwty pwease, me ankle hump you long long time)
-
In AHII, you still have some aileron roll and pitch control in a Zeke at speeds exceeding 350mph IAS.
And the 190A5 is 8-12mph too slow....
If there is any "pattern" to it at all, I kind of suspect that the plane modeling is inversely proportional to its popularity with Americans (the 190 is the most famous and "coolest" German plane here in popular lore, probably due to the 8th AF over Europe, its probably the 109 in the U.K., due to the BoB.)
Yes, official wartime charts put the 190A5 at 352 at sea level ( :O ) at 1.42 ata, our A5 in AH does, what, 329 at sea level?
-
Yes, official wartime charts put the 190A5 at 352 at sea level ( :O ) at 1.42 ata, our A5 in AH does, what, 329 at sea level?
...but also climbs significanly faster than what the climb chart from those same tests (352mph) shows.
-
curious :
How does the 190a8 run with official wartime charts, compared with Aces High implementation of it ?
-
Yes, official wartime charts put the 190A5 at 352 at sea level ( :O ) at 1.42 ata, our A5 in AH does, what, 329 at sea level?
335-ish...
-
curious :
How does the 190a8 run with official wartime charts, compared with Aces High implementation of it ?
You don't need your's to be any faster or better :devil
:salute
-
...but also climbs significanly faster than what the climb chart from those same tests (352mph) shows.
Weights?
-
...but also climbs significanly faster than what the climb chart from those same tests (352mph) shows.
I've never seen any serious post on the 190 models in AH talk of an across the board upgrade, but that they need a review and most-likely adjustment. So is your opinion in support or disagreement to the previous statements/wishes and intended purpose of this thread and the many others on the 190 in this forum?
-
No Steele, I don't have a sense of humor--ask anybody...
So, what happens when the case is made for the 190A8 to have a higher top speed, and HTC still doesn't change it?
-
No Steele, I don't have a sense of humor--ask anybody...
So, what happens when the case is made for the 190A8 to have a higher top speed, and HTC still doesn't change it?
Same thing that happens if they change it.
-
I wouldn't really call it a hypothesis, it's a reality (and a thorn in some of us 190 driver's paws). The case has been made for the A-8 many times. HTC simply chose and has modeled the heaviest version (+700 pounds that have been argued were never actually incorporated into the factory's proposed variant that HTC modeled from the factory specs), so that combined with the relative popularity of the aircraft in the arenas (what can we say, we're not as irrationally vocal about it as others and the majorities), and it's not really a critical fallacy in the game needing immediate action, as things go. We just keep the topic(s) alive and wait, patiently.
-
The airplane's performance in many flight sims are like a 48 band equalizer.
Over time........one get's adjusted up which causes an imbalance, others are adjusted up to compensate which causes another imbalance which causes others to be adjusted up.
Pretty soon all sliders are higher than they belong.
This happens in SCCA racing.
We call it "rules creep".
-
well, when 1 page of anecdotal story about how the brewster was supposed to be some super stable fighter was posted, BAM, it got fixed fairly quickly (not to mention the a6m3 speed at hi alt, just to help make my point) , http://bbs.hitechcreations.com/smf/index.php/topic,270213.0.html (the story also states that the rudder was basically toejam at lower speeds, which is not the case that I have seen in AH)we have been talking and providing proof about the A8 's weight prob and the A5's speed deficiency for months and months, at least tell us how much longer we will be waiting! :frown: Please help us, it won't take very long! I'm sick of my squaddies quitting their subscriptions because the luft planes (some) don't do what they did IRL (3 in the last month or so, and they have books and books on the planes in question) :pray
Also a certain member that has been dismissed has provided pages upon pages of proof about the 190's having combat flaps up to 300+ mph (his initials were C.R.U.M.P and search as I may, I cannot find all the many pages of proof he posted pertaining to the issue (among other issues pertaining to 190 series, they may have accidentally been erased, because when I go to click on his pages of info I get Error 404, page not found ) :noid :noid :noid, I wish that flap issue, A8 weight problem, A5 speed deficiency, 152 rediculous stall, ect. would be addressed, bitte! :uhoh
-
Steele you do an injustice to the topic at hand (152 issues) by introducing a luftwhiner conspiracy into the thread.
You and the others doing the same thing. This thread was (for all intents and purposes) killed by hijacking.
-
OK, I'll give it to ya. But, I bet there was a lot of pertinent 152 info in ol' whats-his-name's collection that may have helped us. :frown:
Unfortunately, I cant find any of it
-
Steele you do an injustice to the topic at hand (152 issues) by introducing a luftwhiner conspiracy into the thread.
You and the others doing the same thing. This thread was (for all intents and purposes) killed by hijacking.
Sad but true, and I wouldn't label Steele the scape goat. Point to me a serious 190/152 thread that goes on for its usual dozen pages of posts for months on end like a fine aging cheese that doesn't eventualy dwindle off in this BBS.
-
STEELE,
It was not a single, haphazardly reported anecdote that got the B.239's stability changed. It was submitted Finnish flight test documentation.
-
well, when 1 page of anecdotal story about how the brewster was supposed to be some super stable fighter was posted, BAM, it got fixed fairly quickly
It's best not to talk about something you cant wrap your feeble brain around....as there's a change you'll look fairly stooopid doing it.
-
It's best not to talk about something you cant wrap your feeble brain around....as there's a change you'll look fairly stooopid doing it.
Sirs, Shemp and Maker. Its not the right place to talk about the brewster, but IMO it OWNS every other early war ride (til late '40) left and right, makes the spit1s, 109Es, zeeks, hurricanes absolute chanceless. Why the RAF was using its poor spits when there were the uber brews that could outdive, outturn, outroll all the british planeset?
But one thing, we are luftwheenies with feeble brains. Show me one RAF-or USAAF-whiner, please.
-
Sirs, Shemp and Maker. Its not the right place to talk about the brewster, but IMO it OWNS every other early war ride (til late '40) left and right, makes the spit1s, 109Es, zeeks, hurricanes absolute chanceless. Why the RAF was using its poor spits when there were the uber brews that could outdive, outturn, outroll all the british planeset?
But one thing, we are luftwheenies with feeble brains. Show me one RAF-or USAAF-whiner, please.
When the RAF went into the hanger they found that the Finnish Brewster was not enabled at their fields.
-
But one thing, we are luftwheenies with feeble brains.
Yep, this is the problem. You don't have the faintest clue about the differences between AH arenas and the realities of the aircombat that took place during the real Battle of Britain for example. You for example are way too diletant to actually read the speed and climb charts of these fighters and then think about the fact that MA fights are near the deck here and BoB was fought in much higher altitudes.
The reason why you are squeling is that you just don't know what the hell you are talking about...and the same applies practically for every moron that cries that the Brewster is overmodelled.
(http://bbs.hitechcreations.com/scores/genchart.php?p1=101&p2=60&pw=2>ype=0)
-
Thanks for the kind words, it feels good and i appreciate it. Ok speed is yours but show me a spitfire 1 doing 520mph and still being alive, able to get kills at 80mph, fully nose-up and from 800yards.
End of hijack.
This thread is about the 152.
-
Yep, this is the problem. You don't have the faintest clue about the differences between AH arenas and the realities of the aircombat that took place during the real Battle of Britain for example. You for example are way too diletant to actually read the speed and climb charts of these fighters and then think about the fact that MA fights are near the deck here and BoB was fought in much higher altitudes.
The reason why you are squeling is that you just don't know what the hell you are talking about...and the same applies practically for every moron that cries that the Brewster is overmodelled.
(http://bbs.hitechcreations.com/scores/genchart.php?p1=101&p2=60&pw=2>ype=0)
You know what I have never reported anyone ever but that changed today. I will own up to the fact I reported you here and put a face on it. Whenever the Brewster comes up you act like a tool.
-
You know what I have never reported anyone ever but that changed today. I will own up to the fact I reported you here and put a face on it.
I'm oh so honored, *sniff*. :cry
Loved the PM, btw.
-
I'm oh so honored, *sniff*. :cry
Loved the PM, btw.
Glad you did.
-
Whenever the Brewster comes up you act like a tool.
+1
-
:bhead
So!... how 'bout them 190s and 152s? :aok
-
Seems to of worked for everything else, so maybe I'm not coming at this from the right angle/pitch/irrationally-frantic-emotionly-fueled-tyraid.
Not like it matters, because it's not American/British/Finnish and nor do we have those type of irrationally overpatriotic fanatics inherit to those aircraft to religiously push and rally for it in this game (closest thing we got to it is Krusty, Krustymeter and all (in jest Krusty, me luv you long time for your 190/152 luv), but for the 5 of us in the community that actually care....
More weight contradictions to the AH 190 models is available to leave those of us wanting a review (and likely implementation of changes) wondering where that extra weight is coming from on the A-8, and how on the world is the 152 so ridiculously unstable and tail-heavy while repeatedly easily recoverable, even with a completely empty aft tank and fuel weight distributions in the wings and front being sufficient enough to fuel the travel of the aircraft from Berlin to New York. -> http://bbs.hitechcreations.com/smf/index.php/topic,315582.msg4098199.html#msg4098199
OK, seriously, I had a half-decent thought cross my mind about the 152 in-game but am frustrated in anticipating that surely it will likely get ignored and dismissed, but with some hope: Is it possible 152C data got mixed into the 152H data? Would the smaller wings lead to a more unstable and tail-heavy 152 (different COG) than say the H-models with the long wing span?
-
Seems to of worked for everything else, so maybe I'm not coming at this from the right angle/pitch/irrationally-frantic-emotionly-fueled-tyraid.
I guarantee you that HTC wants these aircraft modeled correctly, more than you do.
OK, seriously, I had a half-decent thought cross my mind about the 152 in-game but am frustrated in anticipating that surely it will likely get ignored and dismissed, but with some hope: Is it possible 152C data got mixed into the 152H data? Would the smaller wings lead to a more unstable and tail-heavy 152 (different COG) than say the H-models with the long wing span?
What's the difference in empty weight between the 152C and the 152H? And, are all other components of the aircraft the same except for the wing?
-
I guarantee you that HTC wants these aircraft modeled correctly, more than you do.
What's the difference in empty weight between the 152C and the 152H? And, are all other components of the aircraft the same except for the wing?
The 152s weight is right as far as my sources say. There is a bunch of differences with the 152c different motor different wing different tail.
-
More weight contradictions to the AH 190 models is available to leave those of us wanting a review (and likely implementation of changes) wondering where that extra weight is coming from on the A-8, and how on the world is the 152 so ridiculously unstable and tail-heavy while repeatedly easily recoverable, even with a completely empty aft tank and fuel weight distributions in the wings and front being sufficient enough to fuel the travel of the aircraft from Berlin to New York. -> http://bbs.hitechcreations.com/smf/index.php/topic,315582.msg4098199.html#msg4098199
Excellent, finally a step forward.
If we can get a drawing about those parts exact location, its relative easy to calculate the COG even tho there will be problems with the big structures like the fuselage or the engine.
-
Bab, I don't think that would be the reason. While HTC might use weights, power, balance, etc... the main difference (the wings) is something where HTC models airflow over all parts of the wings in great detail. They don't just plug and play wing values. So theoretically even if they got the C mixed with the H, it would be C stats with H wings properly modeled. I don't think that's the case, as the engines were different and you would notice it more readily.
One thing I did note, and I had to double check... The link posted above to the previous post on 152H weights is interesting. I read it, stopped, re-read it, and had to check the accuracy of those weights. Empty it's the same as an A8? This got me looking and I noticed something else.
According to this:
http://bbs.hitechcreations.com/wiki/index.php/Ta_152H
Our Ta152 is 11500 lbs (see charts halfway down the page). That's 5227kg. About 1000lbs more than common values for the Ta152H based on a half-dozen other sites I checked on google to be sure.
There are 2 different weights that keep popping up:
Loaded weight: 4,625 kg (10,470 lb)
Max takeoff weight: 5,227 kg (11,501 lbs)
To me max takeoff includes external stores, such as a drop tank. Separating "loaded" from "maximum" to me means clean vs loaded.
I'll need to check offline with the E6B to compare. Does anybody recall off the top of their head anything about these 2 different weights? The plane should have 277 gallons internal, of which 157 is normal fuselage stores and 120 is in the wings. That's 1662 lbs (per AH modeling 6 lbs per gallon). To shave off 1000 lbs you would have to remove 2/3 of all the fuel, so that doesn't make sense. I can see not loading the wings, but not loading the wings AND not loading half the fuselage? That's a random/arbitrary decision. I wouldn't expect that this 1000lbs is simply flying with less fuel onboard...
This is a tangent to the handling issues, I admit. It does relate, however, to the generally odd modeling of the FW series in this game.
-
This is a tangent to the handling issues, I admit. It does relate, however, to the generally odd modeling of the FW series in this game.
First make sure the empty weight is correct. Using Wells's numbers, I got 9420 lbs for takeoff weight with 25% fuel in-game. Once thing I noticed in Wells' post was that there were two entries for GM-1. One in the Fuel column and one in the "load" item. I kept the "fuel" number and discarded the "load" number. In game, a Ta-152 with 25% weighs in at 10711. So, either Wells' numbers are not correct, or something else is amiss.
-
I don't know about the empty weights because they are somewhat open to debate. What is included/excluded in the empty weight? Sometimes they vary on different reports, I've noticed (not specific to 152, though). The loaded weight, however, seems to be a common figure on the Internet. I don't think it's all on Wells' head in that case.
-
I don't know about the empty weights because they are somewhat open to debate. What is included/excluded in the empty weight? Sometimes they vary on different reports, I've noticed (not specific to 152, though). The loaded weight, however, seems to be a common figure on the Internet. I don't think it's all on Wells' head in that case.
Wells was just posting the numbers in his book. Empty weight would the be just the aircraft, without any consumables (oil, fuel, etc.), weapons, pilot, etc, but including radios, avionics, etc. Then, all you have to do is add the guns, ammo, fuel, GM-1, MW-50, pilot, etc. to come up with the takeoff weight of the aircraft. So, my question is whether or not Wells' number for empty weight is accurate? Because if its not, nothing else will matter.
-
hitchcock book has empty weight listed as 8,887 pounds.
takeoff 11,501
-
Doing the calculator thing, :D
Added up all the listed values from Wells' post, and comes to 10920 lbs with full internal fuel and ammo. I don't know if his empty weights add up.
Some other info:
Comment by one of the IL2 modders saying that the 152H-1 at half fuel per the German test documents would be 4750kg at takeoff (that's 10450 lbs)
http://ultrapack.il2war.com/index.php/topic,3123.msg29594.html?PHPSESSID=gl4nes2foa5b1vppvre4sivk80#msg29594
I'm not going to comment on his modding or his work, but his comment is specific regarding the weight and it seems he's read the German test reports.
Here we have a discussion pitting P-51H vs Ta-152H-1. I could care less about the P-51H in this instance, and the guy starting the thread went back (in a hissy fit?) and deleted all his posts, but the info you can find still has some interesting gems.
http://www.ww2aircraft.net/forum/aviation/ta-152h-1-vs-p-51h-4570-4.html
Notes that: " Originally Posted by Sal Monella
What weight was used for the Ta-152 tests? Was it full internal fuel as with the P-51H plus full ammunition load?
The results were achieved by the Ta 152H-0 with full combat load, which corresponds to the Ta 152H-1's Fighter configuration load of 4,760 kg, which is with full ammunition and 554.5 L B4 fuel + 85 L GM-1 and 70 L MW-50. (The Escort configuration load was never used operationally)"
Which goes back to the half-fuel from the previous reference as well. Removing half the fuel would take off about 800lbs in AH terms. I guess that would indicate our "100% clean" is pretty close then, at 5220 that's 11484 lbs.
That suggests Wells' weights breakdown left out some 800lbs of weight to be loaded, since he accounts for the fuel tankage but still comes out half-fuel-weighted. Either that or he mixed his references.
I think that solves the weight issue for me. Wells had it wrong.
-
Wells had it wrong.
Wells' resource had it wrong... :)
Ok, so if we're all in agreement that the H Model weight in-game is correct, we can proceed?
-
Yes, it was merely a tangent. The main issue remains.
-
Mind I am not questioning the weight of the 152 so much, similar to the A-8 debate/issue (which is another story), but its handling characteristic of being so unstable at high speeds and consistent/stable at low to almost backwards speeds.
Yes, it was merely a tangent. The main issue remains.
Which is it's odd handling characteristics and stability issues, correct? If the weights are correct, and their distributions are correct (?), then is a CoG issue completely ruled out?
In regards to CoG, I am no physics professor, but I thought it was heavily dependent on weights and distribution. If it's not the weight, is it the distribution then? Or is it certain that with the correct weights and their distributions that we have the correct CoG?
The 152s weight is right as far as my sources say. There is a bunch of differences with the 152c different motor different wing different tail.
I know there are a bunch of differences between the Cs and Hs, thus why I'm speculating about an inadvertant mix up between the two somewhere in something (the CoG?). Either in regards to the aircraft's characteristic for so easily stalling at a high rate of speed while rolling, or in regards to its characteristic of being repeatedly recoverable starting at very low and backwards speeds as a stable aircraft should that also wouldn't so easily be induced into the stall in the first place (go back to my "repeatedly getting your tire stuck in the same mud hole traveling at 45mph, and repeatedly getting it unstuck bouncing it back and forth at 2-4 mph" analogy). How is it possible to be so unstable to go into a tail-first stall at over 400 mph and then at the same time so stable/reliable at recovering from the backwards tail-first stall at negative to low airspeeds?
-
stuff...
Do you understand how a problem with an aircraft's center of gravity is manifested in flight?
-
Mind I am not questioning the weight of the 152 so much, similar to the A-8 debate/issue (which is another story), but its handling characteristic of being so unstable at high speeds and consistent/stable at low to almost backwards speeds.
I can agree on the high-speed instability, there is a nasty yaw motion what makes aiming very difficult even at 400mph. Whatever amout of fuel you have, this will appear.
It only increases when you slow down, with 75% fuel at 250mph you can instantly fall into that signature flatspin if youre unwary.
At slow speeds i wouldnt say the plane is stable, does the same moves without any warning as at higher speeds. The only thing that helps a bit is to dry out all the tanks.
To me it looks like a simple CoG issue, from the aircraft design or the modelling, i dont know. For me the biggest problem is the none to medium warning before the tailslide. Its not what i expect from a plane what has a very big and heavy engine in the nose combined with an enlarged tail section/vertical stab compared to its predecessor, the Dora. The P-39 has itss engine behind the pilot and i never had the same experience with it.
It would be nice to have a review on this question.
Apologize for the grammatical mistakes.
-
I think the handling issue is likely from having a high aspect ratio 48 ft wingspan on a 33 ft fuselage. German pilots, who typically had Sailplane experience, wouldn't have as much trouble coordinating the increased adverse yaw as somebody encountering it for the first time.
-
The P-39 has itss engine behind the pilot and i never had the same experience with it.
The actual location of the engine doesn't have any bearing on CoG. What's important is where the sum of the moments occur. Besides, even though the engine on the P-39 was "behind" the pilot, it was also pretty much right above the wing (i.e. very close to aerodynamic center).
It doesn't matter where the engine was, and it doesn't matter if they made the horizontal and vertical stabs bigger. If the aircraft was still unstable despite this, or perpetually at the aft limit of the CG despite this, it could still potentially display this kind of behavior.
@Bablyon--my question remains. I'm still curious as to whether you know how a CG problem would manifest itself in flight. Because, in order to understand what you're suggesting, you have to understand how stable flight is maintained regardless of where the CG is.
-
I'm not so certain it is purely CoG related. It looks and feels more like the stabilizers lose all impact on actual flight.
2 other similar examples of this happen: When the Mossie had quirks/issues, and when the Spit1 would pancake flat down. Both of these were cited by HTC as being 1) a CoG bug and 2) an error where the flight engine simply didn't know what to do.
Here we have a Ta152 where at speeds well above stall and high enough to "catch" the stabilizers and re-point the nose back into the direction of flight, it simply acts as if the tail is gone (sometimes).
To me it is indicative of a larger bug than just CoG. EDIT: Maybe CoG explains it, or maybe it's tied to it (as with Mossie), but it seems a flaw in the model rather than just poor weight distribution. Unless 90% of the weight was in the tail it wouldn't behave this way. Also, while HTC remodeled the airflow and lift and all that, I would imagine they kept the same weights breakdown/layout as in AH1, and AH1 didn't have any of these issues. Therefore I think the problem lies in the airflow/lift/control properties rather than only in the weight.
FLS: See above, aspect ratio may explain some things like the wandering nose in roll-outs, but not the above.
-
Krusty I believe the instability is due to the model being correct. We don't usually have to worry much about adverse yaw but the TA-152 really requires coordination.
-
I'm not so certain it is purely CoG related. It looks and feels more like the stabilizers lose all impact on actual flight.
2 other similar examples of this happen: When the Mossie had quirks/issues, and when the Spit1 would pancake flat down. Both of these were cited by HTC as being 1) a CoG bug and 2) an error where the flight engine simply didn't know what to do.
Here we have a Ta152 where at speeds well above stall and high enough to "catch" the stabilizers and re-point the nose back into the direction of flight, it simply acts as if the tail is gone (sometimes).
To me it is indicative of a larger bug than just CoG. EDIT: Maybe CoG explains it, or maybe it's tied to it (as with Mossie), but it seems a flaw in the model rather than just poor weight distribution. Unless 90% of the weight was in the tail it wouldn't behave this way. Also, while HTC remodeled the airflow and lift and all that, I would imagine they kept the same weights breakdown/layout as in AH1, and AH1 didn't have any of these issues. Therefore I think the problem lies in the airflow/lift/control properties rather than only in the weight.
FLS: See above, aspect ratio may explain some things like the wandering nose in roll-outs, but not the above.
An aircraft can theoretically stall at any speed.
-
I recognize that for the record. However accelerated stalls manifest themselves in snaprolls or dipped wings in those cases. In the Ta152 the main wing seems to remain unstalled and the stabilizers swing out in front of you.
So perhaps "stall" was the wrong word, in that it doesn't behave like a stall, but it was the closest choice.
-
@Bablyon--my question remains. I'm still curious as to whether you know how a CG problem would manifest itself in flight. Because, in order to understand what you're suggesting, you have to understand how stable flight is maintained regardless of where the CG is.
More specifically he needs to demonstrate how he has deteremined from the flying qualities of the AH Ta-152 where CG is in relationship to the neutral point compared to where he expects it to be. After 12 pages in this thread I have yet to see evidence of this.
-
I'm not so certain it is purely CoG related. It looks and feels more like the stabilizers lose all impact on actual flight.
2 other similar examples of this happen: When the Mossie had quirks/issues, and when the Spit1 would pancake flat down. Both of these were cited by HTC as being 1) a CoG bug and 2) an error where the flight engine simply didn't know what to do.
The Spit1 and Mossie pancake issues are related to how AH handles deep stalls. It appears they changed the Mossie's pitching moment to address it. I guarantee you that at least the Spit1 (still), Spit5, P-51B/D, Hurri all still experience extreme stability in deep stalls still in AH ...unrecoverable (or nearly so) stalls that occur in situations like initiated from a tail slide, etc. I would not be surprised that the 152 behaves similarly.
Is this is a "physics wrongness" issue or is this simply a detail of modeling issue? Given that high alpha departed dynamics is fiendishly difficult to model even for aero geeks armed to the teeth with all flavors of CFD running on high end computers, I'll give HTC the benefit of the doubt to do the best they can to approximate what might occur in very high alpha situations ;).
-
Dtango it's both an issue of physics being wrong as illustrated with how this planes flies. You mention only in deep stalls, but this is not a deep stall. This is in the middle of the prime manuvering envelope. As you can see on the film posted a page back and in my film and in other examples, the behavior is abnormal.
It's not that this is only at 50mph where you really force the plane into a tail slide by stalling nose high, nor is it only at 600mph where you dove straight down from 45000 feet to get fast enough to experience it. It's happening at speeds and moments quite normal to almost every plane in the game.
I don't recall a good explanation of the criteria used to "fix" the mossie being brought up either. How, exactly, was this fixed other than a lot of people doing a lot of checking and finding "this shouldn't be this way" ?
What's the established precedent required in this matter? Because I don't recall a level of doubt for the mossie being as much as demonstrated here.
As an aside:
I, personally, am not as attached to the CoG issue as just to the notion there IS an issue. So many things are all put into a flight model I don't know them all but I put forth it could be one thing or several, that end up with abnormal behavior. The end result is "broken," be it caused by CoG or something else. I'm all for "close" and I'm all for "good enough given the work required," but with the 152 it's an issue needing fixing.
-
Krusty, honestly I haven't looked at your film. Nothing in this thread has given me any motivation to go through the trouble of resetting up my PC & associated equipment post-house-move for the latest ver of AH to analyze :D. That being said departure ending ultimately in high alpha situations could occur no matter where you are at in the flight envelope.
As to the "152 needs fixing" IMHO I haven't seen any real physics argument demonstrating that the "152 is broken". :)
-
"It appears they changed the Mossie's pitching moment to address it."
Why, who requested it and with what data to support the idea that it is not prone to pancake with that round fuselage and that tiny rudder?
Mind you they put a huge a55 rudder to Ta152H and ME410 to make it stable so what was so special in Mossie it does not need that? :eek:
-C+
-
I think the handling issue is likely from having a high aspect ratio 48 ft wingspan on a 33 ft fuselage. German pilots, who typically had Sailplane experience, wouldn't have as much trouble coordinating the increased adverse yaw as somebody encountering it for the first time.
And even with the 33ft fuselage, it really comes down to the tail moment to help counter adverse yaw. Looking at a schematic for the TA152H I'm also amazed at the itty-bitty looking rudder, and the not-overly-large vertical stabilizer... This is the enlarged version??? I'm not even sure that my sailplane would be flyable with a small rudder and fin like that. I'm using a significant amount of coordinated rudder in order to avoid adverse yaw.
Once adverse yaw is started, the mass forward of the CoG/pivot-point would tend to add to your troubles, wouldn't it?
Having played with it a little more, I'm still just seeing it as an adverse-yaw-prone airplane. I'm not seeing anything shockingly-wrong with it. Last time I flew online I even had a nice fight with an F4U, and I'm confident I'd have killed him if more red guys hadn't shown up.
I'm curious though- how much could stick-scaling play a part with a plane like this? Could it be measured? With scaling to reduce initial rudder-throw, you might almost need to give what feels like a ridiculous amount of rudder to counteract the yaw in certain situations. I'm not seeing much to surprise me, but then again I use no scaling at all so fly with small stick movements and get "linear" rudder response.
-
"It appears they changed the Mossie's pitching moment to address it."
Why, who requested it and with what data to support the idea that it is not prone to pancake with that round fuselage and that tiny rudder?
Mind you they put a huge a55 rudder to Ta152H and ME410 to make it stable so what was so special in Mossie it does not need that? :eek:
-C+
The Mossie's issue had to with longitudinal stability / lack of pitching moment occurring whenever it was suddenly deeply stalled. The rudder didn't play a part in this.
Widewing identified the issue in 2004 here: http://bbs.hitechcreations.com/smf/index.php/topic,122476.msg1286272.html#msg1286272 It appears HTC addressed it 3 years later in 2007 in ver 2.11 (release notes Pyro said "Made some weight balance and flight handling changes to the Mosquito."). What other analysis occurred between 2004 - 2007 and by whom I have no idea :).
I've never mentioned it before but I've done a battery of flight tests for myself on a variety of AH aircraft analyzing how they responded when deeply stalled out of sheer aero curiosity, particularly Cm. Practically no data exists for Cm curves for our WW2 aircraft at high angles of attack beyond stall. At the lack of Cm data my conclusion was that HTC's interpretation of what occurs in post-stall is as good as anyone else's.
Do I think there are different ways to derive Cm data? You bet, but it becomes a matter of which approaches one wants to take to modeling post stall dynamics. Since HTC has a physics engine that let's them sum up all the forces around CG, I think their approximation of what happens in non-linear aero lala land is up to whatever they're happy with :).
-
Mind you they put a huge a55 rudder to Ta152H and ME410 to make it stable so what was so special in Mossie it does not need that? :eek:
-C+
It is illogical to make that comparison because it would take a very involved and complicated analysis to answer that question in the first place. Two aircraft of the same relative size can have completely different stability characteristics. Typically for design early on, tail volume coefficients are used to size the tail. Later on during stability analysis, the tail size and location is modified up (to increase stability) or down (to decrease drag) to meet whatever stability characteristics are desired. These coefficients are a product of area and the arm, measured from the quarter-chord point of the wing, to the quarter-chord point of the vertical or horizontal tail.
So, the Cvt (vertical tail coefficient) is Lvt X Svt / bw X Sw
Where:
Lvt = Length of the arm from 1/4 mean chord of wing to 1/4 mean chord of vertical tail
Svt = Area of the vertical tail
bw = Wing Span
Sw = Wing Area
Now, for a single-engined WWII fighter aircraft, this coefficient usually would fall anywhere from .04 to .06. If anyone wants to do the math, we could at least see if the size of the vertical tail is in the right ballpark. Obviously, this is merely a guesstimate for the designers to use once the make the initial drawings of the design. Once the design process is more advanced, they would do a very detailed stability analysis on paper, to see whether or not the tail would be sufficient to control the aircraft in all regimes of flight. These stability equations are very ugly. I'll provide them if anyone is interested.
Again, I'm not saying that the Ta-152 doesn't have issues. I contend that in order to determine that it DOES have issues, one must do more than say "they made the tail bigger" or whatever other sort of superficial analysis (if we can even characterize it as such) is used, in order to even broach the issue. That the Ta-152 has some quirky handling issues is evident. What is causing them is not, unless a much more thorough investigation is pursued.
-
Wow this thread was more active this holiday weekend than I thought. Still catching up in it.
Do you understand how a problem with an aircraft's center of gravity is manifested in flight?
Completely and absolutley truely "understand" aircrafts' CoG, I'm pretty certain I'm not as I'm getting some confusion, thus why I'm asking for further information on it from those that certainley do - my understanding being that it is in part heavily dependent (if not purely) on weight distribution in the aircraft, and that a problem begins 'manifesting' itself when the aircraft's CoG and its physical trajectory depart from within the limits of the aircraft's controlled flight and intended trajectory via controlled flight... :headscratch:
-
More specifically he needs to demonstrate how he has deteremined from the flying qualities of the AH Ta-152 where CG is in relationship to the neutral point compared to where he expects it to be. After 12 pages in this thread I have yet to see evidence of this.
See above and my last post in this thread last week, admitting that I believe I have a shortcomming with completely and fully understanding CoG in flight as things are not making sence on this matter to me in one way or the other. It's the logical step in moving forward, before making any claim that there's a problem with something specific, it's best to fully understand the nature of it, be it the CoG in a flying toaster or the Ta-152.
I can say anything and everything I want to complain and make a point about this issue on the 152 in AH, if there is indeed an issue with it.
Nothing previously expressed on this issue seems to of mattered or made any notable difference; not having a repetitive problem with all fuel tanks full except for the aft, not having the same repetitive problem with all fuel tanks EXCEPT the aft empty, not having this same repetitive problem light and traveling 500+ mph, being heavy and having it during gentle maneuvers at ~300 mph, or the fact that for it being so teal-heavy unstable and susceptable to these "stalls" with full open throttle - how you can always get out of them with a couple thousand feet in altitude to spare and bobing the throttle witht he plane between 20-60% (mind you, this is after you stalled out doing 500+ mph and full throttle because that wasn't enough to keep it stable after imediatley inducing the "stall").
So if it is a failed understanding I have, one that makes me interpret all those issues raised above by me or by others to be true, then there should be no more issue or dispute on this matter once we've cleared up the obvious misunderstanding that others and I have with the Ta-152 and CoGs in flight, at all...
I got to go for now, still have to finish catching up on the thread completely, as I hope everyone else so closely following all the posts here in it are also doing, down to the very letter. ( :devil )
"Intelligence is a persuit of knowledge, not a conquest."
-
Many have commented on the instability of the Ta152 since AH2 was released. In AH1 it was much more like a dora. Okay, not quite... But it was easier to fly. It turned as you could expect but when you just nosed it up it kept going. It was an interesting and unique plane to fly.
In AH2 as soon as we got it here, all of a sudden the tail skids out every direction with the smallest of inputs. You bank even a few degrees and you peg the slip indicator (forgive the exaggeration to drive a point home). It had a longer tail, it had a LARGER tail. It was a more effective stabilizer than on previos 190 models, and yet our in-game model is rather...
How shall I say it...
Terrible to fly.
BS
Krusty, honestly I haven't looked at your film. Nothing in this thread has given me any motivation to go through the trouble of resetting up my PC & associated equipment post-house-move for the latest ver of AH to analyze :D. That being said departure ending ultimately in high alpha situations could occur no matter where you are at in the flight envelope.
As to the "152 needs fixing" IMHO I haven't seen any real physics argument demonstrating that the "152 is broken". :)
Don't even take Krusty's posts seriously unless you confirmed them in practice. The 152 doesn't (or is extremely hard to) stall irrecoverably from power-on departures. Next, the departures themselves aren't anything difficult to keep in check if you exercise basic maneuvering discipline - nothing more sophisticated than keeping the sideslip ball in line and not doing any off the wall improvised maneuvers - maneuvers you don't know what to expect from.
The 152 might be hazardous but those hazards are easily manageable, and what's more, they're exploitable and inarguably useful for dogfight maneuvering. Random E.G. : fishtail airbrake as linked in the 152 wiki article.
Bottom line: the 152 has one of the, and arguably THE, best rudders in the game. More than enough to keep the 152's yaw instability problems under control.
Nothing previously expressed on this issue seems to of mattered or made any notable difference; not having a repetitive problem with all fuel tanks full except for the aft, not having the same repetitive problem with all fuel tanks EXCEPT the aft empty,
Are you saying that AFT fuel's effect on COG is negligible?
And even with the 33ft fuselage, it really comes down to the tail moment to help counter adverse yaw. Looking at a schematic for the TA152H I'm also amazed at the itty-bitty looking rudder, and the not-overly-large vertical stabilizer... This is the enlarged version???
Pretty sure that's only an intermediate version of the biggest tail design they had planned for use.
Very very faint and very possibly wrong remembrance that the tail we have is not the latest planned wooden tail, either.
I putzed around in it for a bit last night and had a typical evening flying it. Induced a few instabilities that I recovered from repeatedly (the first one always being the trickiest, hehe). But nothing terrible, all were recovered using flaps and throttle only and I had an empty aft tank each time.
Only had one real odd-ball instability I wish I had recorded just for reference here. In going with assuming pilot error above anything with the model or game, it was more of a slow wingover if I recall correctly than the intended aggressive and high-angled yo-yo that I was going for. What had me cursing and spitting at it though was that I still had forward momentum, and as I performed the wingover I got my nose down for maybe a good 2-3 full adrenaline filled seconds. I had the forward momentum still (I didn't try or had any intention to float a stall or intentionally induce a tail-first stall to the ground), and I had the nose pointed down with a full forward tank, dry aft, and a combined balance of ~75%-50% the fuel still in both my wing tanks (why I really wish I filmed, I wonder if my flubbed wing-over may of been heavily influenced by the fuel distribution in my wings during the slow speed maneuver), throttle firewalled and WEP cranking, 90-100% ammo loadout still in the guns... and then it starts to happen, nose down, wind consistently through the maneuver flowing over the surfaces, arguably predominantly nose-heavy, and that mother !@#$!@g tail that's up in the air behind me with my forward momentum now heading towards the ground teetered my tail down and my nose up like the dang thing was loaded with 50,000 pounds of bricks in the tail.
These are the odd-ball instances of instability in the 152's flight model that really get me upset because even if the conditions were right for it to possibly of happened (ie: I was actually 10-20mph slower than I actually thought and maybe tried to wingover with my heaviest wing of the two being forced to be held high), it's wacky model will overridingly defy the odds of physics (heavy-nose due to fuel distribution and ammo, nose-down, momentum already heading forward in that direction, massive blender grasping at the air in that same general direction...) and do it anyways sometimes...
The irony of it all being that the solution to this problem/stall, was dumping flaps, forcing through flaps and ginger/light applications of throttle and the harnessing of the teetering momentum of the stall, and getting my nose and even less momentum than before the stall was induced down towards the ground to recover. How should that stall be recoverable due to this means when more than twice those same factors used for preventing and recovering from the stall (forward momentum and thrust) were already present and in place before being overridden by the inducing of the stall?
To try and simplify, I'm gonna compare the tail stall of the 152 to getting your tire on your car stuck in a mud hole. When 100% throttle and 15mph of forward momentum get you sunk and stuck in the same mud hole every single time, how does it make sense that bouncing 20-40% throttle and utilizing the forward momentum of 2-3mph can and will get you out of that hole every single time? <- Makes sense (or not, I hope)?
Edit: spell checker is my friend.
Film!!
-
I'm quite interested in how cg placement effects planes myself. I've never looked into it from a RL full size aircraft standpoint,but have some experience with adjusting it in RC aircraft.
In general,I've always kept it between 25 and 33% back from the leading edge,but played with a glider over the weekend that flew at a recommended 44% of the chord back. I ended up adding nose weight until I liked its performance better and it's now at 38%- further back than any of my planes.
The biggest difference I've seen is the sensitivity of the elevator. Too far forward, and it's unresponsive. Too far back and it gets hyper-sensitive. I don't see either with the 152 BTW. With the glider, the plane flies faster and penetrates the wind better with the forward cg. The glide ratio is better, while rate of descent seems very similar.
I also see less problems with speed changes if I can have my elevator trimmed to show no up or down trim, but suspect that has more to do with angle of incidence and airfoil than actual cg or trim?
Interestingly enough, moving the cg required zero change to elevator trim... That surprised me a lot.
-
See above and my last post in this thread last week, admitting that I believe I have a shortcomming with completely and fully understanding CoG in flight as things are not making sence on this matter to me in one way or the other. It's the logical step in moving forward, before making any claim that there's a problem with something specific, it's best to fully understand the nature of it, be it the CoG in a flying toaster or the Ta-152.
....
So if it is a failed understanding I have, one that makes me interpret all those issues raised above by me or by others to be true, then there should be no more issue or dispute on this matter once we've cleared up the obvious misunderstanding that others and I have with the Ta-152 and CoGs in flight, at all...
1) Because things don't make sense to you doesn't mean something is wrong :).
2) It's illogical to make a conclusion that something is wrong without valid supporting premises. More specifically the argument appears to be this:
A) the ta-152 has handling issues
B) the cg of the 152 is wrong
This is a non sequitur. B does not follow A. What's missing are valid premises that link A to B. To do so means explaining how the handling issues demonstrate cg is wrong. I haven't seen any VALID supporting premises which lead to conclusion B.
3) As to clearing up the "obvious misunderstanding", others like Stoney, FLS, & mtnman have tried to point folks in the right direction but the misunderstanding is obviously still not obvious to you and some others :). I even left a hint by mentioning the concept of the neutral point. Should we do more to clear up the misunderstanding? After 10 years of being on this board I now follow the philosophy espoused by Pascal...
"“People are generally better persuaded by the reasons which they have themselves discovered than by those which have come in to the mind of others.”
So where do you start with convincing yourself of the misunderstanding? I think Stoney has it right.
@Bablyon--my question remains. I'm still curious as to whether you know how a CG problem would manifest itself in flight. Because, in order to understand what you're suggesting, you have to understand how stable flight is maintained regardless of where the CG is.
You need to revisit the factors that impact the stability of an airplane.
-
To make a very generalized statement, if the CG moves so far aft, the elevator begins to run out of control authority, especially with respect to inducing nose-down pitch. When this happens, pitch trim does get very sensitive, but most importantly, if the aircraft gets into a spin, a beyond-the-aft-limit CG condition can make stall recovery almost impossible, as the elevator does not have the ability to lower the Angle of Attack on the wing. Similarly, with the CG beyond the forward limit, the elevator can run out of nose-up pitch authority. This can have less severe consequences, but can also result in very dangerous flight characteristics.
So, when we say that the CG is too far aft, we should see two symptoms: pitch instability and worsened stall/spin recovery characteristics. When it is too far forward, the plane becomes too stable--so much so that the elevator cannot make the nose pitch up.
Now, that being said, its obvious that the 152 exhibits some characteristics that suggest the aircraft has a bit of an aft-heavy CG. That's not to say that's its too far aft, just that the pitch instability and lack of effective stall/spin recovery characteristics are symptoms. It is possible for the aircraft to be safely operated in these conditions, just that the pilot needs to be mindful to stay inside the envelope. That's not to say that the 152 is correct--just that in order to actually make the contention that the CG is too far aft, more analysis should be done.
-
That's interesting. I'd have guessed there's no such thing as CG too far fwd. As far as the 152 goes in AH at least, the further forward the better.
-
Not to nitpick here, but how many of you have actually flown a Ta152 in real life?
I'm not saying I have, but you guys are arguing over a model represented on a semi-realistic game. With only a handful of basic controls, I consider AH2 a secondary source when it comes to information such as flight characteristics, etc.
-
That's interesting. I'd have guessed there's no such thing as CG too far fwd. As far as the 152 goes in AH at least, the further forward the better.
One of the interesting side-effects of aft CG placement is that an aircraft will typically pick up a little speed. The further aft the CG is, the less "trim" force the H-stab/Elev needs to create, thus reducing the overall trim drag. So, in some cases, an aft CG location can be desirable, as long as there is sufficient control authority remaining.
@Raptor. There is sufficient fidelity between the characteristics of the actual aircraft to their behavior in-game, that discussing the relative characteristics is a valid exercise. Plus, we can sprinkle in some decent aerodynamics discussion. Third, we can all get good and grumpy arguing with each other, which is a departure from the normal practice, away from the game, of staying fairly silent and merely mumbling an occasional "OK honey...".
-
Not to nitpick here, but how many of you have actually flown a Ta152 in real life?
All of us have, ofcourse, esp since most of us were born after WW2.
As for in game... Well, moot has never flown the TA-152 :) :D
-
Are you saying that AFT fuel's effect on COG is negligible?
To the best of my knowledge and experience in flying the 152 in-game is that the aft tank, empty or full, has barely any noticable impact on its handling, especially when compared to noticable results from draining any of the other three tanks (but those tanks are also signifigantly larger). In terms of inducing a tail-first stall or recovering from it, I'd err closer to the aft tank being full or empty having absolutley no effect in those two departments in AH (which aint right).
Film!!
I putzed around in it for a bit last night and had a typical evening flying it. Induced a few instabilities that I recovered from repeatedly (the first one always being the trickiest, hehe). But nothing terrible, all were recovered using flaps and throttle only and I had an empty aft tank each time.
Only had one real odd-ball instability I wish I had recorded just for reference here. In going with assuming pilot error above anything with the model or game, <snipped>
Riding along with the lynch mob that likes going after those who self-admit a fault or guilt without reading beyond the first sentences of their statement (kick 'em when they're already down) much? :D
1) Because things don't make sense to you doesn't mean something is wrong :).
2) It's illogical to make a conclusion that something is wrong without valid supporting premises. More specifically the argument appears to be this:
A) the ta-152 has handling issues
B) the cg of the 152 is wrong
This is a non sequitur. B does not follow A. What's missing are valid premises that link A to B. To do so means explaining how the handling issues demonstrate cg is wrong. I haven't seen any VALID supporting premises which lead to conclusion B.
3) As to clearing up the "obvious misunderstanding", others like Stoney, FLS, & mtnman have tried to point folks in the right direction but the misunderstanding is obviously still not obvious to you and some others :). I even left a hint by mentioning the concept of the neutral point. Should we do more to clear up the misunderstanding? After 10 years of being on this board I now follow the philosophy espoused by Pascal...
"“People are generally better persuaded by the reasons which they have themselves discovered than by those which have come in to the mind of others.”
So where do you start with convincing yourself of the misunderstanding? I think Stoney has it right.You need to revisit the factors that impact the stability of an airplane.
That was such a vague and unhelpful post, good sir. You're basicly saying everything I've already read and taught myself on the matter is what it is, thus my understanding is not flawed - something I'm not opposed to, especialy when I assume I'm surrounded by a community of people more capable at such things than myself, but that I will always be a bit naturally inclined to defend.
Only thing I got out of your post is that I now need to ask you, "why are you convinced, yourself, that those of us here in these threads raising this issue all have a vast and glaring missunderstanding?".
For a fact I have never myself defended that it has handling issues, perhaps speculated with it as others suggested it, but the 152 IMO is one of THE BEST handling aircraft in the game with its massive wingspan, rudder and engine/torque. But I do know I have said that it has extremely unstable flight characteristics and possibley something miss modeled with it's CoG and fuel/weight distributions that are also in place hand-in-hand with extremely over-stable characteristics (damned if I can explain almost half the stalls I get into in a 152, but damned if I don't get out of them almost every single time, tail-heavy or not, also.).
To make a very generalized statement, if the CG moves so far aft, the elevator begins to run out of control authority, especially with respect to inducing nose-down pitch. When this happens, pitch trim does get very sensitive, but most importantly, if the aircraft gets into a spin, a beyond-the-aft-limit CG condition can make stall recovery almost impossible, as the elevator does not have the ability to lower the Angle of Attack on the wing. Similarly, with the CG beyond the forward limit, the elevator can run out of nose-up pitch authority. This can have less severe consequences, but can also result in very dangerous flight characteristics.
So, when we say that the CG is too far aft, we should see two symptoms: pitch instability and worsened stall/spin recovery characteristics. When it is too far forward, the plane becomes too stable--so much so that the elevator cannot make the nose pitch up.
Now, that being said, its obvious that the 152 exhibits some characteristics that suggest the aircraft has a bit of an aft-heavy CG. That's not to say that's its too far aft, just that the pitch instability and lack of effective stall/spin recovery characteristics are symptoms. It is possible for the aircraft to be safely operated in these conditions, just that the pilot needs to be mindful to stay inside the envelope. That's not to say that the 152 is correct--just that in order to actually make the contention that the CG is too far aft, more analysis should be done.
Thank you Stoney! So then, as I had assumed, an aircraft's CoG stays about constant, given no weight distribution or fuel distribution changes (you mention it shifting) during flight? And when the CoG is too far aft, "the aircraft should experience worsened stall recoverys", is that in reference to the lack of pitch authority (I agree, pitch authority is useless until you get it pointed in the right direction with some air traveling around it) or that there is more to it working against us recovering than a lack of pitch authority and the heavy tail leading the way for us to the ground (overall I disagree that the stalls are hard to recover from, and perhaps that is realted, but they are repeatabley easy to recover from, although not as easy as other stalls in other AC)?
-
Only thing I got out of your post is that I now need to ask you, "why are you convinced, yourself, that those of us here in these threads raising this issue all have a vast and glaring missunderstanding?".
Lots of stuff that you've opened up for response but I'll focus on this one item which is central. There are various evidences that convince me including the fact that you don't understand the basic argument you & your brethren have been making is an aerodynamic non sequitir. For your sake I'll explain:
P1) the ta-152 has handling issues
C) therefore the cg is wrong
This is similar to this argument:
P1) the ground is wet
C) therefore it rained
Sounds really logical right? The problem is that there are many reasons for why the ground could be wet besides it raining thus it does not follow that it has rained because the ground is wet. Relating it to the Ta-152 there are many aerodynamic factors that influence the way the Ta-152 handles the way it does. To conclude the cg is wrong, the argument must be something like this:
P1) the Ta-152 has handling issues that look like x
P2) cg caused handling issues look like x
P3) based on real world physics the Ta-152 should not have handling issues that look like x
C) therefore the AH cg is wrong
I've only seen statements that at best pass as partially resembling P1, but nothing resembling P2 or P3 that are valid.
You'll have to forgive me. I've been around these parts the last 10 years. If I had a penny for every claim for something wrong with AH's FM I'd be a millionaire. 99.5% of them are badly argued claims like this one has been which turn out to be flawed. I used to be more willing to help folks work through where their logic might be flawed. I've changed my philosophy in dealing with AH FM skeptics. The burden is on the AH FM skeptic to develop valid FM arguments and support them with valid premises. It's not my responsibility nor is it remotely enjoyable to help FM skeptics repair their arguments especially vacuous ones. Good on Stoney that he hasn't been worn down yet ;).
-
it has extremely unstable flight characteristics and possibley something miss modeled with it's CoG and fuel/weight distributions that are also in place hand-in-hand with extremely over-stable characteristics (damned if I can explain almost half the stalls I get into in a 152, but damned if I don't get out of them almost every single time, tail-heavy or not, also.).
Ok, you're regressing here. Just because it goes into a stall/spin easily does not mean its unstable. Stability is a separate issue. The yaw stability issues Krusty was talking about earlier are not part of the stall/spin issue. For example, the Ta-152 is extremely roll-stable. There's no such aerodynamic terms as "over-stable". It would be more proper to say excess stability perhaps. And the "something miss-modeled with its CoG" is again an illogical statement. Consider what I posted that you quoted, especially on that last part. Overall, I don't think you have full command of the aerodynamic concepts you are purporting the in-game Ta-152 exhibits. What Tango is trying to say is that perhaps you need to read up more on the aerodynamic stuff we've mentioned here before continuing to argue these points.
Thank you Stoney! So then, as I had assumed, an aircraft's CoG stays about constant, given no weight distribution or fuel distribution changes (you mention it shifting) during flight? And when the CoG is too far aft, "the aircraft should experience worsened stall recoverys", is that in reference to the lack of pitch authority (I agree, pitch authority is useless until you get it pointed in the right direction with some air traveling around it) or that there is more to it working against us recovering than a lack of pitch authority and the heavy tail leading the way for us to the ground (overall I disagree that the stalls are hard to recover from, and perhaps that is realted, but they are repeatabley easy to recover from, although not as easy as other stalls in other AC)?
Two questions here:
1. Is an aircraft's CG constant, given no weight changes during flight? Generally speaking, yes. To see how much the CG can change in flight, you focus on the consumables. Oxygen tanks, fuel, the ADI mix (water, etc.), ammo, ordnance--all of these things are consumed during flight or the mission, so that's where your changes to the CG can come from. The closer these things are, positioned on the airplane, to the CG, the less effect they have on the CG as they are consumed. A P-47 is a very good example of how to arrange things to reduce the fore/aft shift of the CG in flight. Its fuel, water tank, oil tank, and ammo are all positioned very close to the CG of the plane, so that during the course of a mission, the fore/aft CG is very stable throughout.
2. Is it "tail heavy" or "lack of pitch authority" that makes an aft CG dangerous? Lack of pitch authority. Consider that every part of the empenage (tail section) of the plane contributes to the stability of the aircraft. Look at a picture of a C-17 and look at how enormous, relative to the wings and fuselage, the vertical and horizontal stabs are. The reason why is to allow the aircraft to have a wide spectrum of operating weights, and more importantly, loadings. The empenage control surfaces have to be capable of enough pitch and yaw force when the plane is very light, and when the plane is very heavy. So, the tail could theoretically be as heavy as you could possibly want, if the H and V Stabs have enough authority, everything is ok, and you would have a very broad CG envelope. Really, if the CG on the Ta-152 was simply too far aft, the aircraft would exhibit pitching problems in just about all regimes of flight. In Krusty's video, we really only see the problem once the aircraft has departed, from high alpha, lower speed maneuvering. Which leads me to believe that the issue there is really one of the tail being stalled, and not from a CG problem. Tango has posted a few times about this occurring in other previous threads about other aircraft.
-
Baba,
For all dogfighting intents and purposes in AH, the 152's agility inarguably is directly proportional to forward fuel CG.
That's in-game concerns in a nutshell. On real life aerodynamics I concede to Tango, Stoney, Mtnman & co.
The film bit was just to hammer it in... Anecdote can't sub for film... The more anecdote's piled on, the more pressing the need for film to corroborate.
-
The 152 doesn't (or is extremely hard to) stall irrecoverably from power-on departures.
Jeez..... That's supposed to say power-off.
-
Okay, so Moot comes in and says I'm fulla BS and there's nothing wrong. No surprise there... :rolleyes:
Dtango... you're saying "I've seen no evidence" then you say "I can't be bothered to look at the examples shown. Am I the only one seeing the problem with that? You can't dismiss the matter if you're not going to take a look. You can add to other comments but you can't say "there's nothing wrong -- but I can't verify this by checking on it either" as it's not an honest reply.
Moot: You may think you are the only one that ever knows anything about flying the 152 in this game, and it's a sentiment you've shown before on the forums as well in past 152 discussions, but you are not. I have never professed to be an expert, but I know what I see when I see it, and I see abnormal flight behavior of ta152H-1s in this game quite often. It has been this way since AH2 when the flight model starts showing serious problems for this plane. It's NOT just an issue of stepping on the ball. What happens when you don't step on the ball? You spin. This is not spinning. This is total lack of H-stab influence on forward flight and loss of any elevator authority up to and past 130mph (well above stall speeds). In the other squirrely planes in this game if you don't step on the ball you spin into a wing during a turn. That doesn't happen with the 152. It stays relatively straight but the tail swings around underneath you and points forward. That tail forward attitude then leads to other problems (crashing/spinning/etc). NOT an issue with just the pilot being sloppy. The more I think about it, the more it reminds me of floating to the ground after having my tail feathers shot off in other rides. I'm willing to go on the explanation that the nose wandering is based off the aspect ratio and I accept that some planes you just have to be very careful of in very tight turns, but again this was not a stall turn nor a slow speed high AoA or anything like that. It's a different matter.
Babs/Stoney: This happens even on the lightest fuel load of the ta152. There should be no CoG problems at all in this configuration, and in fact it should be quite an improvement, but it does not preclude the flight behaviors as mentioned. Historically the CoG problems were resolved by filling the GM1 tank immediately behind the cockpit only 2/3 the way with GM1 liquid. That was reported to be the fix to any CoG issues. Here we can reduce the weight by several times that amount and still suffer. I like longer sorties so I fly with more fuel sometimes. During the flight you can feel the responsiveness improving. It's like a P-47. When heavy you don't want to push too hard, but when light you can do a lot more without departing in some way. So even under the best ideal load it still behaves like this.
-
Dtango... you're saying "I've seen no evidence" then you say "I can't be bothered to look at the examples shown. Am I the only one seeing the problem with that? You can't dismiss the matter if you're not going to take a look. You can add to other comments but you can't say "there's nothing wrong -- but I can't verify this by checking on it either" as it's not an honest reply.
Krusty: here's how I understand your argument as it has developed through this thread:
A) the ta-152 tail skids + other handling issues as can be seen in my film
B) therefore, something is wrong.
Leaving the "other handling issues" aside, what's missing is explaining where the ta-152 skid = something wrong. Providing film only gives us evidence that a tail skid exists. There's no evidence you've provided yet that explains why the tail skid = something wrong.
-
Look, I should say that you've at least provided some film as to the handling issues you're concerned with which is better than what most others claiming a problem have done in this thread.
-
When heavy you don't want to push too hard, but when light you can do a lot more without departing in some way. So even under the best ideal load it still behaves like this.
If the tail stalls, the aircraft would exhibit pretty much the same behavior as being too tail heavy. Except if the aircraft was too tail heavy, you would have some strange behavior during regular flight and not just when it departs. This is why its illogical for you to say off-hand that its a CG issue without some other sort of analysis.
-
Just posting this to say I'm still here, and am working on a draft of my next reply, it's been a busy weekend and start to my week at work in the real world, thank you in advance for being understanding, and not least - thank you all for your continueing contributions to this thread!
I just wanted to make sure I take the time to address completely all the wonderfuly in-depth and inciteful responces without being insulting to the large amount of effort and thought they've put into them since my last responce.... I just hope it's closer to today than tomorrow or even the day after, as I've already put it off for a couple days now.
-
I've been reading this debate with some interest so I decided to take the 152 for a few flights.
One thing I noticed is that with combat trim on whenever the 152 goes into a tailslide/stall the CT gives full up elevator trim. This causes a lack of negative elevator,or down elevator,which makes getting the nose down to build airspeed rather difficult. With CT on the 152 tends to have quite abit of up elevator trim and this makes negative G manuvers rather difficult.
I turned off CT and trimmed it out to neutral around 250/275 IAS and found the plane behaved totally different,it was easy to get the nose down,I never had the tail slide out on the tightest turns I could make.With CT on it was rather easy to have the tail slide out on you in a turn. So I wont debate about the CoG and any issues with it but I think the biggest issue is how CT works and effects this A/C.
I'm open to hearing others thoughts and ideas on if it's possible the issue is with CT and not CoG.
:salute
-
I've been reading this debate with some interest so I decided to take the 152 for a few flights.
One thing I noticed is that with combat trim on whenever the 152 goes into a tailslide/stall the CT gives full up elevator trim. This causes a lack of negative elevator,or down elevator,which makes getting the nose down to build airspeed rather difficult. With CT on the 152 tends to have quite abit of up elevator trim and this makes negative G manuvers rather difficult.
I turned off CT and trimmed it out to neutral around 250/275 IAS and found the plane behaved totally different,it was easy to get the nose down,I never had the tail slide out on the tightest turns I could make.With CT on it was rather easy to have the tail slide out on you in a turn. So I wont debate about the CoG and any issues with it but I think the biggest issue is how CT works and effects this A/C.
I'm open to hearing others thoughts and ideas on if it's possible the issue is with CT and not CoG.
:salute
Combat trim, and HTC can correct me if I'm wrong, basically introduces the amount of pitch trim necessary to maintain your indicated speed. That means, as you slow down, even in a vertical attitude, you're getting a lot of nose-up trim, even if you don't need it for attitude control, merely because your speed is slowing so much. This is also why it encourages you to lawn dart in extended, very high-speed dives. I find that, regardless of aircraft, if you're doing a lot of high-alpha, low-speed maneuvering, combat trim is extremely destabilizing. Mostly, the only two aircraft I use combat trim on are the 109 series and the Spit series, and then its usually only after major changes in the configuration of the aircraft. I don't have enough time in the 152 to have an opinion on that aircraft, but my default would be to have CT off until convinced the airplane maneuvered better for me with it on.
-
I've been reading this debate with some interest so I decided to take the 152 for a few flights.
One thing I noticed is that with combat trim on whenever the 152 goes into a tailslide/stall the CT gives full up elevator trim. This causes a lack of negative elevator,or down elevator,which makes getting the nose down to build airspeed rather difficult. With CT on the 152 tends to have quite abit of up elevator trim and this makes negative G manuvers rather difficult.
I turned off CT and trimmed it out to neutral around 250/275 IAS and found the plane behaved totally different,it was easy to get the nose down,I never had the tail slide out on the tightest turns I could make.With CT on it was rather easy to have the tail slide out on you in a turn. So I wont debate about the CoG and any issues with it but I think the biggest issue is how CT works and effects this A/C.
I'm open to hearing others thoughts and ideas on if it's possible the issue is with CT and not CoG.
:salute
I agree with morfiend, I recommend flying without combat trim, its usually more of a hindrance at slow speeds than a help, esp when flaps are deployed. I suggest get used to watching the ball and trying to keep your moves smooth and coordinated without CT.
-
You may think you are the only one that ever knows anything about flying the 152 in this game
More petulant BS from Krusty's imagination. You say something wrong. What else do you expect from someone who knows better, regardless who or what he/she is, but to call it as he/she sees it? You're basically spinning anything said by anyone who's got more experience than you and happens to disagree with you as bragging. Get real.
Next, unless you do actual aerodynamic analysis... Your assertion that the 152 FM is wrong, is unfounded. Satisfying DTango & co's criteria for positive ID of an FM flaw is the only way you'll start to have credence.
Next, all your complaining about it is pretty moot gameplay-wise since you can keep the plane in check EASILY by keeping it pointing straight IE stepping on the ball. On top of that, the departures themselves are easy to feel coming. The rudder is always enough to keep the plane in check.
Next, if you're going to argue the FM, post film. Otherwise it's just anecdote.
with combat trim on whenever the 152 goes into a tailslide/stall the CT gives full up elevator trim.
I turned off CT and trimmed it out to neutral around 250/275 IAS and found the plane behaved totally different,it was easy to get the nose down
Yep. Was a reason why I tried a few times to push in wishlist for customizable CT.
I don't have enough time in the 152 to have an opinion on that aircraft, but my default would be to have CT off until convinced the airplane maneuvered better for me with it on.
Possibly the main obstacle to most players keeping CT off in the 152 is how much rudder trimming's required.
-
lets take a look at the 152's aerodynamics at sea level.
Lift:
L = 1.45*23.3*.5*1.164*600^2 = 7078633.2
Drag:
Cdi = (1.45^2)/(pi*8.94*.80) = 0.0935747393
Cd0 = -Unknown-
D = 0.0935747393*23.3*.5*1.164*600^2 = 456 814.66
L/D ratio = 15.49
and compare to the F4U-4 at sea level:
Lift
L = 1.4*29.17*.5*1.164*600^2 = 8556377.76
Drag:
Cdi = (1.4^2)/(pi*5.35*0.77) = 0.151447355
Cd0 = -Unknown-
D = 0.151447355*29.17*.5*1.164*600^2 = 925600.557
L/D ratio: 9.24
That's an extra 59% ( :O ) lift for every unit of drag for the 152! Does this mean the Ta has (or should have) a smaller turn radius at sea level than the F4U-4?
-
That's an extra 59% ( :O ) lift for every unit of drag for the 152! Does this mean the Ta has (or should have) a smaller turn radius at sea level than the F4U-4?
No, it means that the L/D you computed for the Ta-152 is higher than the L/D you computed for the F4U-4. As a standalone metric, it means nothing, especially considering how your comparison is terribly flawed.
-
.....stuff....
That's an extra 59% ( :O ) lift for every unit of drag for the 152! Does this mean the Ta has (or should have) a smaller turn radius at sea level than the F4U-4?
Yes, the Ta-152 has a 59% better L/D ratio when the Ta-152 is turning at 138 g's and the F4U-4 at 154 g's :aok (and that's being generous with aircraft weight).
But let's assume you really meant sea level & an airspeed of 600 kph (372 mph) and not 2160 kph (1341 mph), and that looking at l/d ratios only is even remotely a valid way for estimating sustained turn performance.
It sure would be awesome to watch the Ta-152 and F4U-4 sustain turns indefinitely at 11.2 and 12.6 g's respectively! HTC better fix their FM ASAP closer to this "reality"!
-
Yes, the Ta-152 has a 59% better L/D ratio when the Ta-152 is turning at 138 g's and the F4U-4 at 154 g's :aok (and that's being generous with aircraft weight).
But let's assume you really meant sea level & an airspeed of 600 kph (372 mph) and not 2160 kph (1341 mph), and that looking at l/d ratios only is even remotely a valid way for estimating sustained turn performance.
It sure would be awesome to watch the Ta-152 and F4U-4 sustain turns indefinitely at 11.2 and 12.6 g's respectively! HTC better fix their FM ASAP closer to this "reality"!
:uhoh 12g, you're right, I meant 600kph, supposed to be max speed at sea level for both planes, only I forgot our Ta will only do360 at SL anyway, a lower AR wing needs a higher AoA to produce the same amount of lift as a high AR wing
High aspect ratio wing is supposed to be great at low indicated airspeed OR high alts. Our 152 is not great at low speeds. fun fact: both planes use NACA 23000 airfoil
-
a lower AR wing needs a higher AoA to produce the same amount of lift as a high AR wing
You mean regardless of wing area? Compare a wing with 500 ft^2 of area, and an aspect ratio of 6 to a wing with 250 ft^2 of area, and an aspect ratio of 12 and see how your statement holds up on two aircraft of the same weight.
High aspect ratio wing is supposed to be great at low indicated airspeed OR high alts.
??? High aspect ratio wing is certainly used in both instances, but not just because its the only way to achieve performance in those regimes. Taken as a single figure of merit, high aspect ratio is just that--high aspect ratio. Without considering the rest of the aircraft's characteristics and without other performance analysis, its meaningless. Like Tango says, its aerodynamics not aerostatics.
-
anyway, a lower AR wing needs a higher AoA to produce the same amount of lift as a high AR wing
High aspect ratio wing is supposed to be great at low indicated airspeed OR high alts. Our 152 is not great at low speeds. fun fact: both planes use NACA 23000 airfoil
Mixing random aero concepts in a pseudo-physics blender still results in junk FM science. ;)
-
and I am STILL looking for someone that has a copy of that post-war flight testing report of an ACTUAL Ta-152 to see what they had to say about the flight characteristics....
-
I PWN ALL INA 152 duel except i cant beat moot :bhead oh n kappa :mad:
-
:uhoh 12g, you're right, I meant 600kph, supposed to be max speed at sea level for both planes, only I forgot our Ta will only do360 at SL anyway, a lower AR wing needs a higher AoA to produce the same amount of lift as a high AR wing
High aspect ratio wing is supposed to be great at low indicated airspeed OR high alts. Our 152 is not great at low speeds. fun fact: both planes use NACA 23000 airfoil
Formulas aren't any good if you don't have a single clue about what is happening.
-
and I am STILL looking for someone that has a copy of that post-war flight testing report of an ACTUAL Ta-152 to see what they had to say about the flight characteristics....
+1
Btw, 152 vs f4u4... Dont open the flaps on the hog, take a light fuel load on the 152 and they will produce almost the same sustained turn rate. Where the corsair wins is the turn radius, being able to scissor/overshoot better than some of the dedicated turnfighters.
Shemp, i lost the line somewhere, but if the 152 has a better Lift/Drag ratio, it means that the airframe was more effective/clean design than the f4u's. The hog can still produce more lift than the 152, but its drag will be much more. Its WAY more powerful engine could pull that more draggy airframe just as fast (or faster) than the aerodinamically more advanced 152.
-
I PWN ALL INA 152 duel except i cant beat moot :bhead oh n kappa :mad:
Pretty sure you beat me fair & square a few times.
STEELE - look up Stoney's posts... In.. some thread (sorry cant recall at all what thread this discussion happened, pretty sure it was in last 6mo-1yr) where he describes exactly what it takes to line up all the factors involved to make for a level comparison between two planes. The benchmark he'd made at the time included an F6F and another single prop fighter. Maybe he remembers what I'm talking about. When you find that discussion, you'll see exactly how they're right when they insist on "it being aerodynamics". It's no cop out or exaggeration.
-
I PWN ALL INA 152 duel except i cant beat moot :bhead oh n kappa :mad:
Oh and me. :devil
-
:rolleyes:
-
Pretty sure you beat me fair & square a few times.
STEELE - look up Stoney's posts... In.. some thread (sorry cant recall at all what thread this discussion happened, pretty sure it was in last 6mo-1yr) where he describes exactly what it takes to line up all the factors involved to make for a level comparison between two planes. The benchmark he'd made at the time included an F6F and another single prop fighter. Maybe he remembers what I'm talking about. When you find that discussion, you'll see exactly how they're right when they insist on "it being aerodynamics". It's no cop out or exaggeration.
My "Excess Power" thread...
-
Shemp, i lost the line somewhere, but if the 152 has a better Lift/Drag ratio, it means that the airframe was more effective/clean design than the f4u's.
Assuming L/D is fixed for an airplane couldn't be further from the truth. L/D varies greatly & non-linearly with Cl and airspeed, thus extrapolating L/D comparisons between airplanes for one Cl & airspeed for all other Cl's & airspeeds is folly.
The hog can still produce more lift than the 152, but its drag will be much more. Its WAY more powerful engine could pull that more draggy airframe just as fast (or faster) than the aerodinamically more advanced 152.
Projecting sustained turn performance requires solving a set of partial differential equations simultaneously. People making sustained turn performance statements from generalities are X-Men mutants able to run numerical solutions for simultaneous PDE's in their brains, or they are making wild assertions based on pseudo-physics and don't know it.
Constraining sustained turn analysis for a turn when thrust exactly balances out drag solves the PDE problem. This reduces it to specific cl, cd, weight, thrust, & velocity satisfying the condition for a turn where thrust=drag. Though more simplified, because of non-linearity's, making turn performance conclusions from generalities is simply fanciful speculation without knowing the cl, cd, weight, thrust, & velocity that satisfy thrust=drag in a turn.
Please repeat after me. Aero-DY-NAM-ICS. ;)
-
Assuming L/D is fixed for an airplane couldn't be further from the truth. L/D varies greatly & non-linearly with Cl and airspeed, thus extrapolating L/D comparisons between airplanes for one Cl & airspeed for all other Cl's & airspeeds is folly.
Projecting sustained turn performance requires solving a set of partial differential equations simultaneously. People making sustained turn performance statements from generalities are X-Men mutants able to run numerical solutions for simultaneous PDE's in their brains, or they are making wild assertions based on pseudo-physics and don't know it.
Constraining sustained turn analysis for a turn when thrust exactly balances out drag solves the PDE problem. This reduces it to specific cl, cd, weight, thrust, & velocity satisfying the condition for a turn where thrust=drag. Though more simplified, because of non-linearity's, making turn performance conclusions from generalities is simply fanciful speculation without knowing the cl, cd, weight, thrust, & velocity that satisfy thrust=drag in a turn.
Please repeat after me. Aero-DY-NAM-ICS. ;)
Sir,
i have no idea, how you got there from my statements. Maybe i wasnt using the correct words (forgive me plz), but read it again, i never said ANY exact statement, couse i dont know the aerodinamics as detailed. These are only ratios, nothing more. More drag + more power can still result the same speed as the less drag + less power. It may be true... idk where i stated anything more.
-
Debrody: My l/d assumption statements were really for steele/shemp. The turn performance statements were for both of you.
Sir,
...i never said ANY exact statement, couse i dont know the aerodinamics as detailed.
This is my point. General, unqualified aero statements missing proper context and key assumptions can be misleading because they lead the uninitiated to wrong conclusions. For instance we don't know what kind of sustained turn you're inferring in your statement. Even assuming the simpler thrust=drag sustained turn case, an airplane with a lower l/d and less engine power could have a smaller turn radius vs. one with a higher l/d and more engine power. So using your example even if we speculate a F4U had a lower l/d & engine power it's possible it could still out turn a Ta-152.
I can appreciate your response to steele/shemp. You were attempting to point out where he might be jumping to a conclusion without factoring other variables (e.g. engine power / thrust). That's commendable. :aok
However in your response to him I'm pointing out that you're relying on speculation built on generalities which doesn't improve things. IMHO it's like pouring ink into already muddy water which doesn't seem like a good way to make things clearer.
-
I just got into a nasty tail first stall. Aft tank was empty, and Combat Trim was off. I put elevator trim all the way down and attempted recovery. I lost 5,000 feet and never regained control.
-
I just got into a nasty tail first stall. Aft tank was empty, and Combat Trim was off. I put elevator trim all the way down and attempted recovery. I lost 5,000 feet and never regained control.
Other AH airplanes besides the Ta-152 suffer from nearly unrecoverable deep stalls.
-
Other AH airplanes besides the Ta-152 suffer from nearly unrecoverable deep stalls.
not with the frequency they occur in the 152.
-
not with the frequency they occur in the 152.
Why is this a problem and how?
-
I very much dislike answering people who claim something is wrong yet don't reasonably test the possibilities that it could be right. But hoping to reduce further agony and torment for all involved let's cut to the chase.
Why does the Ta-152 exhibit unforgiving handling qualities leading to departed flight? Already noted by others in this thread, the most likely answer hasn't changed from previous years (here (http://bbs.hitechcreations.com/smf/index.php/topic,222173.msg2681352.html#msg2681352) and here (http://bbs.hitechcreations.com/smf/index.php/topic,242874.msg2963533.html#msg2963533)): ADVERSE YAW.
Films & flight tests of the Ta-152's flying qualities reveal that under certain circumstances it will yaw and turn itself broadside into the wind and out of controlled flight. This can occur suddenly.
(http://thetongsweb.net/images/av-1.jpg)
The above is a 3-frame sequence of departure characteristic of all the films and flight tests I've seen. (Yes Krusty, this is from your recent film.) Why does the Ta-152 do this and under what conditions? Is this consistent with aerodynamics? We'll need to dig deeper than the topic has been discussed in the past for further understanding. I'll have to leave it at that for the moment to give me some time to organize the explanation.
-
The Ta152 definitely has LOTS of adverse yaw, but its not in keeping with a sudden departure of controlled flight, followed by an unrecoverable stall. I've never heard of a plane stall and crash because of adverse yaw.
I would compare what happens at the beginning of the stall to a ground loop, because its almost like the tail slides out from under you, and once it starts there is no stopping it.
-
its almost like the tail slides out from under you, and once it starts there is no stopping it.
There is, just keep it in check with the rudder.
-
The Ta152 definitely has LOTS of adverse yaw, but its not in keeping with a sudden departure of controlled flight, followed by an unrecoverable stall. I've never heard of a plane stall and crash because of adverse yaw.
The question to ask is if it's possible. The answer is yes.
(http://thetongsweb.net/images/fig148-1.jpg)
Directional divergence can happen in the real world. Our Ta-152 exhibits directional divergence characteristics under specific conditions. "Directional divergence can be 'triggered' or aggravated by lateral control inputs if these control inputs generate significant yawing moments" (USNTPS FTM 103) . This is what's happening with the Ta-152. Thus the yawing moments are key to understanding what could be happening.
Aircraft Yawing Moments
What causes an airplane to yaw? Summation of aerodynamic and inertial forces about the cg determines how an airplane pitches, yaws, & rolls. About the yaw axis the moments consists of a bunch of coefficients. Avoiding tequila shots and Tylenols the brain needs to absorb the gory math here's a nice (but not quite complete) diagram that mostly sums the main contributors to yaw.
(http://thetongsweb.net/images/yaw_moments.jpg)
What's of particular interest to us is what's labeled "adverse yaw". More completely we'll refer to it as yaw due to rolling. An airplane's roll and yaw are coupled for various reasons. If uncoordinated with rudder, when an airplane rolls it naturally yaws, usually in the opposite direction of the roll. This is known as adverse yaw. I'll leave it to the reader to read up on the intuition behind why this happens.
Dynamic Factors of Yaw Due to Rolling
What we want to do is unpack the variables behind it. Fortunately for us the propeller heads at NACA given us an equation to develop understanding. Here it is:
(http://thetongsweb.net/images/gilruth.jpg)
where Cl=lift coefficient, p=roll rate, b=wingspan, V=airspeed.
The first observation that's vital to make is yawing moment due to rolling like all things aerodynamic is not a STATIC value. It's DYNAMIC, meaning it increases or decreases as flight conditions change. With the Ta-152 for it to yaw out of flight means that the yawing moment increases to a point that it overcomes other yawing variables that could balance it out so we're interested in what increases yaw due to rolling.
The obvious variable for the Ta-152 is it's wingspan. Yaw due to rolling increases with an aircraft's wingspan. But this is a static value and we can't stop here. Adverse yaw also dynamically increases with increasing lift coefficient and roll rate, and with decreasing airspeed. Thus adverse yaw increases when an airplane performs maximum maneuvering (generating maximum lift and roll) at slower airspeeds, the more the maneuvering and the lower the airspeed, the greater the adverse yaw.
Max turning at high Cl, max rolling rates, slower speeds describe a broad range of maneuver fighting situations in AH. The Ta-152's longer wingspan exacerbates this. It's in exactly these situations a pilot needs to be more concerned to deal with the dangers.
This explains why Combat Trim increases adverse yaw as airspeed bleeds because elevator trim increases automatically which raises Cl to trim the plane for lower airspeeds. That's why flight tests with CT off the Ta-152 is not as adverse yaw twitchy compared to CT on because elevator stick input with CT on at slower airspeeds is at a higher initial Cl. Cross controlling also makes it worse. Opposite rudder input from roll in a barrel roll maneuver exacerbates the adverse yaw.
For our Ta-152 maximum maneuvering with rolling at slowing airspeeds without proper coordination appears to create enough yaw due to rolling to cause it to tail skid out of control. This is however easily avoided by either rudder coordination to offset and or pushing elevator down to reduce Cl while in a roll.
Real Life Ta-152 Flight Tests
From the aerodynamics it seems explainable why our Ta-152 can depart out of controlled flight from yaw due to rolling. But what about real life flight testing of the flying qualities of the Ta-152? According to Dietmar Harmann, he summarizes in English the findings from 1944 Rechlin flight tests of the 152-H as thus (thank you moot for the citation):
(http://thetongsweb.net/images/152ft.jpg)
Notice the statement "Stability about the vertical axis weak. Aircraft has a certain tendency to skid." This seems to describe the weak lateral stability that can lead to directional divergence I mentioned at the start of this post.
We could discuss further details but I'm plum out of time and energy :).
-
Wow.....that is pretty encompassing......I guess it is ok
-
Tupac, during your stalls what are you doing with your throttle during this time? Trim is of almost no use in the recovery. You will experience a "teetering" motion while stalling backwards, step 1 would be to try and get that teetering rythym and start pushing down and pulling up with it on the stick, step 2 is then to "bounce" your throttle between 20% and 60% along with this teetering action you're also now going along with on your stick. If that isn't enough or doing it, dump flaps and drop gear while keeping up step 1 and 2 (be careful with the gear though, once you nose down, imediatley gear up or you'll likely sheer them off).
Still working offline on my filming and "presentation" now as I'm starting to call it. Looks to be I'm concentrating on aileron induced adverce yaw effects in combination with prop torque, and it's so far been very interesting (I'm learning a bit more) and I'm inducing some of the stalls I've had some of my greatest concern with.
At this point, looking at the films I have so far, if you induce an adverce yaw with your ailerons while attempting a quick left roll with full throttle and even a nose-down angle at an extreme speed (~15-20 degrees, 450 mph +), you can not recover from it _just_ with your rudder if your first reaction to the sliding yaw is to fight it with your rudder, it continues to depart and eventualy lands you in a nasty stall. If you cut throttle and keep up the rudder work, you can recover from it, but not without loosing a bit of speed. In contrast, attempt this same settup but with a right roll (against the torque), and a little rudder slapping is all you need to recover, without loosing much in speed/E in comparison to the left roll.
Still trying to find the "goose" with my goose hunt though, with a nose down and full throttle and high speed, I feel like maybe the torque is being more overpowering that it should... it could be the rudder isn't comanding enoug hauthrotiy to counter the departure though, but that is contradictory to it being quite adequate in authority when countering a departure induced by a strong right aileron roll in the same situation. Then again the problem could be that there isn't one at all, "I feel like" a fast roll during a high-speed nose-down dive with full throttle shouldn't so easily induce a yaw instability of such heavy-handed proportions when you roll to the left, but that's just it, it's a hunch that is being rather difficult to disprove or prove by anything concrete I can find, so maybe someone else here has something on it that can help me out?
(http://thetongsweb.net/images/152ft.jpg)
^ is good but typical of any data and information out there that I can find. Not detailed _enough_, and I'm starting to conclude that it might just be the way things are gonna be with it being a 152 afterall.
-
I very much dislike answering people who claim something is wrong yet don't reasonably test the possibilities that it could be right. But hoping to reduce further agony and torment for all involved let's cut to the chase.
Why does the Ta-152 exhibit unforgiving handling qualities leading to departed flight? Already noted by others in this thread, the most likely answer hasn't changed from previous years (here (http://bbs.hitechcreations.com/smf/index.php/topic,222173.msg2681352.html#msg2681352) and here (http://bbs.hitechcreations.com/smf/index.php/topic,242874.msg2963533.html#msg2963533)): ADVERSE YAW.
Films & flight tests of the Ta-152's flying qualities reveal that under certain circumstances it will yaw and turn itself broadside into the wind and out of controlled flight. This can occur suddenly.
(http://thetongsweb.net/images/av-1.jpg)
The above is a 3-frame sequence of departure characteristic of all the films and flight tests I've seen. (Yes Krusty, this is from your recent film.) Why does the Ta-152 do this and under what conditions? Is this consistent with aerodynamics? We'll need to dig deeper than the topic has been discussed in the past for further understanding. I'll have to leave it at that for the moment to give me some time to organize the explanation.
Just noticed, and it may be that the resolution isn't good enough, but in that image it looks like the rudder is being worked to purposely induce the yaw/stall, not fight it. I hope it was intended for demonstartion purposes and not as an example of any potential problem/error.
-
Just noticed, and it may be that the resolution isn't good enough, but in that image it looks like the rudder is being worked to purposely induce the yaw/stall, not fight it. I hope it was intended for demonstartion purposes and not as an example of any potential problem/error.
Those pictures were from Krusty's original film. Tango said that.
Still trying to find the "goose" with my goose hunt though...I'm starting to conclude that it might just be the way things are gonna be with it being a 152 afterall.
:noid
-
Just noticed, and it may be that the resolution isn't good enough, but in that image it looks like the rudder is being worked to purposely induce the yaw/stall, not fight it. I hope it was intended for demonstartion purposes and not as an example of any potential problem/error.
The 3 frame pic is from Krusty?s film. Primary control inputs don't show up on film so there's no telling what his rudder input is. Sorry, I have no idea why this matters. As I stated above cross controlling makes adverse yaw worse.
I feel like maybe the torque is being more overpowering that it should... it could be the rudder isn't comanding enoug hauthrotiy to counter the departure though, but that is contradictory to it being quite adequate in authority when countering a departure induced by a strong right aileron roll in the same situation.
(http://thetongsweb.net/images/gilruth.jpg)
Let's see... The Ta-152's prop rotates clockwise thus torque rolls the 152 quicker left than right. In a left roll the torque produced by the engine (running at a frick'in 2100 HP spinning a nearly 12" metal propeller) increases left roll rate (p) which increases adverse yawing moment. In a right roll the engine torque decreases right roll rate (p) which decreases adverse yawing moment.
Please tell me, why would I expect adverse yawing moment to be the same in a left roll as in a right?
Still trying to find the "goose" with my goose hunt though...
Well, at least you stopped chasing the CG wild goose ;).
-
[...]
What's of particular interest to us is what's labeled "adverse yaw". More completely we'll refer to it as yaw due to rolling. An airplane's roll and yaw are coupled for various reasons. If uncoordinated with rudder, when an airplane rolls it naturally yaws, usually in the opposite direction of the roll. This is known as adverse yaw. I'll leave it to the reader to read up on the intuition behind why this happens.
[...]
As the plane rolls left, the right airleron goes down and provides more lift on the right wing tip than the left. This increases drag on an over sized wingspan thus making the plane yaw to the right profusely. If a left roll is executed at the same time as a tight turn, the "propeller gyroscopic" as like to to call the "prop gyro precession" will also provide right yaw due to the elevator pushing the nose upward. Chopping off the throttle will also increase the chances of an unrecoverable tail skid because the airflow generated by the prop over the tail to keep it stable at slow speeds becomes obsolete even if it causes the RPM to be quite slower.
EXCELLENT post by the way! This is a must read for many players here wishing to understand more about this mysterious and unknown part of aircraft dynamics. :salute
[...]
Please tell me, why would I expect adverse yawing moment to be the same in a left roll as in a right?
[...]
Its just because the adverse yawing moment is not dependent on prop generated forces but only on aerodynamic forces. Thus a CW or CCW prop will have the very same (almost) adverse yawing characteristics for the same airframe no matter if you roll left or right.
Very interesting topic!
-
Good addition of gyroscopic effects lepape :aok. Any pitch rates would effect yawing moments (as can be seen in the Cn diagram posted). I left it out of the discussion along with other things like inertial moments, p-factor etc. to keep it simpler.
Its just because the adverse yawing moment is not dependent on prop generated forces but only on aerodynamic forces. Thus a CW or CCW prop will have the very same (almost) adverse yawing characteristics for the same airframe no matter if you roll left or right.
Well actually as I was trying to help Babalonian understand engine torque does have an effect and the effect is aerodynamic, through Cn-p. How? If we look at yawing moments they can be broken into the following coefficients:
(http://thetongsweb.net/images/cneq2.jpg)
Cn-p (yaw due to rolling) and Cn-delta-a (yaw due to aileron deflection) are two components of adverse yaw.
Cn-delta-a is what you're referring to in your description of adverse yaw. Due to aileron deflection the upgoing wing produces more lift and induced drag which yaws the plane opposite roll. The following is a nice conceptual depiction of it.
(http://thetongsweb.net/images/rolldist.jpg)
However Cn-p is also a contributing factor as well - yaw due to roll rate. Roll rate changes the local section aoa which causes the lift vector to be tilted which induces yaw opposite roll. Here's a pic that demonstrates this:
(http://thetongsweb.net/images/yaw-due2-roll.jpg)
The greater the roll rate the greater the lift vector tilt and the greater the yaw. Engine torque creates a rolling moment opposite the direction of prop spin. For a CW prop this is a left rolling moment. In a left roll, the engine torque adds to the left rolling moment increasing the rolling rate. The increased left roll rate increases tilting of local lift and bingo, more adverse yaw.
BTW, thanks for the kind words.
-
Yes, I didn't really talk about the relative wind direction changing the AOA of each wing in a roll. As I remembered vaguely (thus unsure and not posted), I thought the descending wing would have had a higher Angle Of Attack and induce more drag but that didn't fit at all and was a mistake because it would yaw in opposite direction than reality (unless you suppress the effect of aileron deflection drag). The tilting of the lift vector backward on the right wing in a left roll better explains the 2nd phenomenon (Cn-p) you are talking about - in the TA152 case, enhanced by a superior roll rate induced by engine torque (better felt at slow speeds)).
-
What is the altitude of these tests?
I think the ta152 flys great down low but it's stability degrades with altitude faster than any other plane in aces high to being unusable above 30k feet.....which is where it was intended to thrive.
I have a hard time believing that the Ta152 flew so much worse than the 190d at high altitude than it does here.
-
What is the altitude of these tests?
I think the ta152 flys great down low but it's stability degrades with altitude faster than any other plane in aces high to being unusable above 30k feet.....which is where it was intended to thrive.
I have a hard time believing that the Ta152 flew so much worse than the 190d at high altitude than it does here.
I don't know but FM arguments based on aeropinionautics are hard to take seriously ;).
Maybe it's me but opinions masquerading as facts just doesn't seem like a good way to build an argument.
-
The 3 frame pic is from Krusty?s film. Primary control inputs don't show up on film so there's no telling what his rudder input is. Sorry, I have no idea why this matters. As I stated above cross controlling makes adverse yaw worse.
(http://thetongsweb.net/images/gilruth.jpg)
Let's see... The Ta-152's prop rotates clockwise thus torque rolls the 152 quicker left than right. In a left roll the torque produced by the engine (running at a frick'in 2100 HP spinning a nearly 12" metal propeller) increases left roll rate (p) which increases adverse yawing moment. In a right roll the engine torque decreases right roll rate (p) which decreases adverse yawing moment.
Please tell me, why would I expect adverse yawing moment to be the same in a left roll as in a right?
Well, at least you stopped chasing the CG wild goose ;).
Easy budy, again with such determination to prove me wrong and that the Ta-152 in AH is infallible it's almost insulting and blinding you (it almost comes across as you've taken my entire post out of context).
You seem to of glossed over the fact the formula you provided (and those I've been looking for) do not include or take into account prop/torque effect, only yawing induced by ailerons OR by prop/torque. I'm a little old and uncertain in my math to just mash two formulas I'm already just getting the grasp of at the moment, so I'm still looking there for one already given or trying ot understand it better first.
Second, these were in high-speed dives at an angle ~20 degrees, am I wrong in assuming that such conditions should not have any bearing on adverse yaw?
Lastly, the "goose" being that even with all those numbers crunched and the results based off the AH flight model, do you have a flyable Ta-152 in your garage we can borrow for an afternoon?
-
As the plane rolls left, the right airleron goes down and provides more lift on the right wing tip than the left. This increases drag on an over sized wingspan thus making the plane yaw to the right profusely. If a left roll is executed at the same time as a tight turn, the "propeller gyroscopic" as like to to call the "prop gyro precession" will also provide right yaw due to the elevator pushing the nose upward. Chopping off the throttle will also increase the chances of an unrecoverable tail skid because the airflow generated by the prop over the tail to keep it stable at slow speeds becomes obsolete even if it causes the RPM to be quite slower.
EXCELLENT post by the way! This is a must read for many players here wishing to understand more about this mysterious and unknown part of aircraft dynamics. :salute
Its just because the adverse yawing moment is not dependent on prop generated forces but only on aerodynamic forces. Thus a CW or CCW prop will have the very same (almost) adverse yawing characteristics for the same airframe no matter if you roll left or right.
Very interesting topic!
Good addition of gyroscopic effects lepape :aok. Any pitch rates would effect yawing moments (as can be seen in the Cn diagram posted). I left it out of the discussion along with other things like inertial moments, p-factor etc. to keep it simpler.
Well actually as I was trying to help Babalonian understand engine torque does have an effect and the effect is aerodynamic, through Cn-p. How? If we look at yawing moments they can be broken into the following coefficients:
(http://thetongsweb.net/images/cneq2.jpg)
Cn-p (yaw due to rolling) and Cn-delta-a (yaw due to aileron deflection) are two components of adverse yaw.
Cn-delta-a is what you're referring to in your description of adverse yaw. Due to aileron deflection the upgoing wing produces more lift and induced drag which yaws the plane opposite roll. The following is a nice conceptual depiction of it.
(http://thetongsweb.net/images/rolldist.jpg)
However Cn-p is also a contributing factor as well - yaw due to roll rate. Roll rate changes the local section aoa which causes the lift vector to be tilted which induces yaw opposite roll. Here's a pic that demonstrates this:
(http://thetongsweb.net/images/yaw-due2-roll.jpg)
The greater the roll rate the greater the lift vector tilt and the greater the yaw. Engine torque creates a rolling moment opposite the direction of prop spin. For a CW prop this is a left rolling moment. In a left roll, the engine torque adds to the left rolling moment increasing the rolling rate. The increased left roll rate increases tilting of local lift and bingo, more adverse yaw.
BTW, thanks for the kind words.
Woah, didn't even think about the gyroscopic effect (in addition to the other two) until now! Brain needs some oil/coffee now.
(http://thetongsweb.net/images/cneq2.jpg)
^ Yeah, that sums up very well what I mentioned in my last post, this is no casual algebra exercise... at least for me.
(http://thetongsweb.net/images/yaw-due2-roll.jpg)
^ Gold. Where did you pull this image from if you don't mind?
"The greater the roll rate the greater the lift vector tilt and the greater the yaw. Engine torque creates a rolling moment opposite the direction of prop spin. For a CW prop this is a left rolling moment. In a left roll, the engine torque adds to the left rolling moment increasing the rolling rate. The increased left roll rate increases tilting of local lift and bingo, more adverse yaw."
I've been going by this "gut feeling" for lack of anything better to call it atm that the forward momentum and weight at a high-speed shallow dive should be more powerful than what is offset in AH by what I strongly feel is the tilting of the lift vector during a fast roll.
Can you help me understand that concept more please. How much of an effect should both forces actualy have in enough of a high-speed down-angled dive? Or if this an adverse "side-effect" due to that the Ta-152s rather wide/large wings and fast roll rate at near any speed or forward energy state (and to make it more complicated, throwing in the relatively massive forward thrust from the 152's powerplant at full throttle ontop of its torque...)?
Lepape, thank you! (for the Eureka moment)
-
What is the altitude of these tests?
I think the ta152 flys great down low but it's stability degrades with altitude faster than any other plane in aces high to being unusable above 30k feet.....which is where it was intended to thrive.
I have a hard time believing that the Ta152 flew so much worse than the 190d at high altitude than it does here.
Typical routine for the shallow dive tests is I fly up to ~20k (mostly afk), then imediatley dive down ~2.5k for speed and cruise for a couple minutes to let speeds settle. First flight of the day I usualy do some warm-up maneuvers, make sure I get my feeling back for the plane, then re-settle the plane for a couple minutes at ~17.5k (unless I goofed it and stalled out in the warm-up and lost a few K in alt). I then nose-dive gradualy down to ~14.5k and begin a heavy roll (either wings rolled already to a 90-degree position, simulating tracking a con below me before making the decision to roll, or wings level in the dive before making my roll).
She needs speed at altitude, once she gets it she is the king. The Dora however also is this way behaviorly, and I get what you're saying about the odd similarities. The 152 is better without a doubt though, especialy above 30k, it retains its E and can recover alt/E signifigantly better from BnZ tactics at high alts. But I understand what you're saying, both at say 29k seem so similar (but really aren't) to the other that it's hard to believe the vast differences both aircraft have until you start using them in combat at that alt.
-
I flew the 152 again today and its always had bad stall caracteristics. I read what moot pointed out, he said always keep the rudder in check, I did and it never stalled.
-
Babalonian I can't speak for anyone but I personally have a hard time not taking it all from A to Z with a grain of salt when you say you can't tell that the AFT tank makes no difference for the 152's agility. It's true now and was true from day 1 in the old AH version to the AH2 physics rework.
The only thing that's changed is that way back then, in AH1, depending on whether you kept wings or FWD last, the plane would react peculiarly when you rode it real deep to the edge of stall - the wings would wag (roll) just preceding full departure. If either one (fwd/wings) was better, neither me nor AGJV44 found it from plain practical tests. And at the time we put so much time into the game that we could've won Eskimo's pasty skin award (not joking).
I flew the 152 again today and its always had bad stall caracteristics. I read what moot pointed out, he said always keep the rudder in check, I did and it never stalled.
Yep as much as it might seem like it's easier said than done, it really is a conveniently dead simple solution to the problem. The only complication is that depending on how familiar you are with the plane's FM, you might have to spend a lot of time (relatively, in terms of how much time you can afford looking into cockpit and basically handicapping your SA) looking back and forth at that sideslip ball.
But once you get a feel for it, it becomes second nature like everything else and you won't be flying sideways -- unless you mean to :)
-
What is the altitude of these tests?
I think the ta152 flys great down low but it's stability degrades with altitude faster than any other plane in aces high to being unusable above 30k feet.....which is where it was intended to thrive.
I have a hard time believing that the Ta152 flew so much worse than the 190d at high altitude than it does here.
All my testing was done at or below 10K with full fuel,I purposely choose full fuel and lower alts.
:salute
-
Whoever reccomended playing with the throttle and rocking the plane back and forth I thank you......That works very well
-
Easy budy, again with such determination to prove me wrong and that the Ta-152 in AH is infallible it's almost insulting and blinding you (it almost comes across as you've taken my entire post out of context).
Determination? :headscratch: What would you have me do, pretend like your rudder authority, left/right roll statement didn't defy physics? That seems patently non-helpful if I'm trying to help you in your search for truth & understanding. Infallibility of AH? I've never stated such a thing. If you think it's flawed, it's up to you, the skeptic to make a coherent argument & support your claims. However, how is it helpful if no one points out if an argument is badly mangled?
You seem to of glossed over the fact the formula you provided (and those I've been looking for) do not include or take into account prop/torque effect, only yawing induced by ailerons OR by prop/torque.
Deliberate simplification. All aircraft with a CW prop experience similar gyroscopic & torque effects (plus a bunch of other things I've left out). It's all interesting but secondary. Due to the 152's wingspan focusing mainly on adverse yaw illuminates how its different from other AH fighters to help explain its directional divergence tendencies.
Second, these were in high-speed dives at an angle ~20 degrees, am I wrong in assuming that such conditions should not have any bearing on adverse yaw?
In short, yes.
Lastly, the "goose" being that even with all those numbers crunched and the results based off the AH flight model, do you have a flyable Ta-152 in your garage we can borrow for an afternoon?
Why can't we trust the guy who developed the basis for the science of flight? Because he got hit in a head by an apple? I guess I can sort of understand that ;).
-
Babalonian I can't speak for anyone but I personally have a hard time not taking it all from A to Z with a grain of salt when you say you can't tell that the AFT tank makes no difference for the 152's agility. It's true now and was true from day 1 in the old AH version to the AH2 physics rework.
The only thing that's changed is that way back then, in AH1, depending on whether you kept wings or FWD last, the plane would react peculiarly when you rode it real deep to the edge of stall - the wings would wag (roll) just preceding full departure. If either one (fwd/wings) was better, neither me nor AGJV44 found it from plain practical tests. And at the time we put so much time into the game that we could've won Eskimo's pasty skin award (not joking).
Yep as much as it might seem like it's easier said than done, it really is a conveniently dead simple solution to the problem. The only complication is that depending on how familiar you are with the plane's FM, you might have to spend a lot of time (relatively, in terms of how much time you can afford looking into cockpit and basically handicapping your SA) looking back and forth at that sideslip ball.
But once you get a feel for it, it becomes second nature like everything else and you won't be flying sideways -- unless you mean to :)
Strange, I would swear that I've said otherwise, but please do provide the quote in its full context sir. Given the subject of this thread, you should very well take any thing not backed up by hard facts or data with a grain of salt (or the whoel shaker), but I jsut think you've interpreted it mistankenly.
The 152 is quite agile, especialy at some low n slow speed manuevers with those massive wings and powerplant. It has a fantastic roll rate like all 190s at most every speed (but not the best), and the rudder's authority is enough to slap an elephant unconscious (rediculously illogical, but it makes the point).
What you have quoted out of context though sounds awefuly familiar to my earlier complaint that the Aft tanks fuel level/weight bears no difference whatsover when an adverse yaw is induced (from what I've only recently started to realise/learn) from an overagressive roll, compiled by torque and the rapidly tilting lift vector. I originaly described this behaviour as extremely confusing to me in regards to believing the aft fuel weight was a signifigant contributing factor (weather it was empty or not/properly modeled or not), but would say I am begining to come to the understanding now of why it's had no effect on it in the past.
I will add this though, the rudder is enough for getting most adverse yaw departures back in check, but one induced in the manner I've been describing it is never enough by itself, you need to chop throttle too and even then it's already likely too late (I don't know if it's because such an unstable yaw departure has already been induced beyond any means of bringing it back within check, or if you contentrate on any other aspect first (such as wings level comming out of the roll) causing any delay in attempting to bring the yaw back into check just in the nick of time).
I also stated the aft fuel weight bears no difference in being able to repeatedly recover the aircraft from the following tail-first stall in most fuel weight distribution conditions except one, and that's when all fuel tanks are empty except for the aft (and yeah, that makes recovering from the stall a real horse)... this matter especialy still makes no sence to me, but recovering from a stall is a seperate matter, one thing at a time, etc..
Anyways, I feel like an enlightened idiot today already because of this topic, so it's not like I'm avoiding feeling the fool, but I intend to do more offline looking into this now with my refreshed understanding of some things. And I welcome any constructive criticism or valuable knowledge you've all been providing and I hope keep doing.
-
Whoever reccomended playing with the throttle and rocking the plane back and forth I thank you......That works very well
I forget who taught me it, I'll dig around and see who was in my unit in the BoG scenario and it'll probabley pop into mind. Grizz was the first to post/mention it in this thread though, and it is a reliable technique... almost too reliable... but that's another story.
Edit: I think it was either A8Moray, Irish0ne, or Sukov, honestly I can't recall any better than that since the forums have long shut down for that event, but that's at least the first I ever heard/learned of that recovery technique and have used it always since.
-
Why can't we trust the guy who developed the basis for the science of flight? Because he go hit in a head by an apple? I guess I can sort of understand that ;).
I still maintain I've always been confounded by this unstable behavior in the 152 because either I had a poor/lacking understanding OR there was something off in the game (or maybe I'd get lucky and it was both). Even after gaining a better understanding on it (I think), it still agitates me to a degree :D . Most will place blame for a flaw on everything before themselves in this community, but at least I don't feel like such an idiot admitting with this issue early on when I got involved that the flaw was just as likely within me as it was with everyone else sided with me on this matter. Either way, somewhere along the lines my problem was the same as quite a few others with this specific aircraft more than many/any other in the game, and I hope this thread sticks around for a while.
-
^ Gold. Where did you pull this image from if you don't mind?
One of my aero textbooks: Phillips, Mechanics of Flight.
I've been going by this "gut feeling" for lack of anything better to call it atm that the forward momentum and weight at a high-speed shallow dive should be more powerful than what is offset in AH by what I strongly feel is the tilting of the lift vector during a fast roll.
Generally, forward momentum doesn't effect rolling momentum so you'll hit a Newtonian brick wall trying to chase down that rabbit hole.
Can you help me understand that concept more please. How much of an effect should both forces actualy have in enough of a high-speed down-angled dive? Or if this an adverse "side-effect" due to that the Ta-152s rather wide/large wings and fast roll rate at near any speed or forward energy state (and to make it more complicated, throwing in the relatively massive forward thrust from the 152's powerplant at full throttle ontop of its torque...)?
The adverse yaw relationship applies no matter if you're in dive, climb, level, turning, etc. Though increasing airspeed reduces adverse yaw, roll rate increases with airspeed (limited by stick forces) which increases adverse yaw. So yes, because of the 152's long wings & fast roll rate it apparently has enough yawing moment to send it out of control at higher speeds.
-
Strange, I would swear that I've said otherwise, but please do provide the quote in its full context sir.
To the best of my knowledge and experience in flying the 152 in-game is that the aft tank, empty or full, has barely any noticable impact on its handling, especially when compared to noticable results from draining any of the other three tanks (but those tanks are also signifigantly larger). In terms of inducing a tail-first stall or recovering from it, I'd err closer to the aft tank being full or empty having absolutley no effect in those two departments in AH (which aint right).
What context did I miss? The above quote was reply to simple question by me - are you saying AFT makes no difference to agility?
Regardless what the physics are, the practical bottom line is that empty AFT is easily the best config for dogfighting agility. Including off the wall maneuvers like flying sideways and back again for shots you couldn't otherwise get. You can maneuver over departure limit much easier without aft fuel. Agility benefits just keep growing as total fuel drains, but aft is by far the biggest positive.
And I'm pretty sure AFT is the biggest tank. Unless you meant that the other three together add up to more than AFT.
-
What context did I miss? The above quote was reply to simple question by me - are you saying AFT makes no difference to agility?
Regardless what the physics are, the practical bottom line is that empty AFT is easily the best config for dogfighting agility. Including off the wall maneuvers like flying sideways and back again for shots you couldn't otherwise get. You can maneuver over departure limit much easier without aft fuel. Agility benefits just keep growing as total fuel drains, but aft is by far the biggest positive.
And I'm pretty sure AFT is the biggest tank. Unless you meant that the other three together add up to more than AFT.
A contradicted absolute.
I do strongly personaly feel in AH that (1) it makes _barely_ a noticable difference [it _is_ noticable, and a most notable hinderance in a situation I avoid at most costs and the most likely outcome to a fight starting with me being low, slow n heavy], (2) especialy in comparison to the much more signifigantly notable impacts to performance and handling obtained by draining either of the other three tanks it also has, (3) which I admit is in stark contrast to logic or historical accounts of how of all tanks it had the most notable impact on performance when full or empty.
I agree, the practicality behind draining it first is undisputable, and I am aware that the aft tank is by a signifigant margin the single largest internal tank in the aircraft. My honest opinion is it seems, in comparison to what was described by pilots that tested the aircraft, our aft tank is too light when full, and too heavy when empty, but this is another gut feeling that if anything has already been disproven with heavy research into the matter already on weights and the CoG in a 152 earlier in this thread.
-
My point is that the 152 flies far worse than the 190d at high altitude.
My understanding is that the 152 was the high altitude king of german propellor aircraft but here it flies very badly at high altitude regardless of speed.
I think it flies well down low.
-
Sorry Babs but.. For the first time I truly am in fact going to lean on my experience and say you somehow don't know what you're talking about. I listened to you give people guidelines during that big Germany scenario and I was almost going to speak up because overall it wasn't all that great (nor esp bad either) advice to 152 newbies, but I didn't because it was good enough overall and because it's no good to argue with command.
Empty AFT is like catnip for 152's agility. It's not arguable. If this were some other subject where there was a lot of complicated room for misunderstanding of some kind, I'd argue it but... This is a night and day, black and white thing.
For dogfight agility purposes AFT tank completely changes the 152's performance, for the better. This is 10 years of flying the thing speaking. I can't think off the top of my head of anyone else with experience in it that ever said otherwise.
What are the positives of draining the others first? The wings are slightly fwd of FWD tank. It's a toss up between very small extra fwd CG from leaving em last, to small roll rate bonus burning em first.
Icepac - what are the criteria exactly? The 190D is out of speed and lift by 30k.
-
My point is that the 152 flies far worse than the 190d at high altitude.
My understanding is that the 152 was the high altitude king of german propellor aircraft but here it flies very badly at high altitude regardless of speed.
Please answer me this: Would adverse yaw get better or worse with increasing altitude? I'll give you a hint. Air density makes a difference.
-
Bringing in basic aero 101 in some cheeky fashion does nothing at all to someone far beyond your understanding.
I'll bet you've never flown all the planes in game to thier ceiling.......which I did within a week of opening my account.
That is how I discovered the uber a6m3 first.
My point is that the TA152, which was engineered primarily for high altitude performance, performs far worse than a 190d or ever 190a8 at 30,000 feet.
Sure it's fast up there but it's nearly incapable of putting guns on a group of b17s in a dead six tail chase at 35,800 feet.
Forget yaw, it is bad in all axis.
-
Bringing in basic aero 101 in some cheeky fashion does nothing at all to someone far beyond your understanding.
The fact that you think you'd have the same stability down low vs. up high belies who has the understanding vs. not. I'll ask you again, why do you think stability would remain the same or improve with altitude? Prove to me you have the right understanding. All you've stated so far is YOUR OPINION of how the Ta-152 should perform at altitude.
-
Why choose dead six chase as the criteria ? It's academic comparison at best - you don't fly up bombers' dead six, especially not at 35k where you've got so much less lift to maneuver (evade) with.
The 152 owns the D9 at that altitude.
-
icepac - Look, I completely disagree with the manner you've flung your arguments out there willy-nilly. Be that as it may, I'll back off of my rhetoric a bit alright?
It's illogical to conclude that the Ta-152's stability (or any airplane for that matter) would remain the same or improve with increasing altitude. Increasing altitude decreases stability. Lower air density decreases airplane short period damping rate. This means it takes longer for aerodynamic damping moments to stabilize motion after aircraft controls are returned to neutral thus aircraft control is less precise. Whatever existing relative stability differences there are between airplanes only get's magnified with increasing altitude.
Peace, out.
-
Bringing in basic aero 101 in some cheeky fashion does nothing at all to someone far beyond your understanding.
My point is that the TA152, which was engineered primarily for high altitude performance, performs far worse than a 190d or ever 190a8 at 30,000 feet.
ouch... the 152 easily outmaneuvers the dora or the a8 at any alitude, without being forced to do agressive or risky moves. Simly turns much tighter and with a faster rate. Not to mention its faster and climbs better than almost everything at that altitude.
If you dont provocate this plane, it wont end up in a tailspin. Soft hand is your friend, Sir.
-
Bringing in basic aero 101 in some cheeky fashion does nothing at all to someone far beyond your understanding.
I'd be interested in the data that supports that statement. Please explain how your knowledge, which has so far not been evident here, surpasses anyone's understanding. It seems more likely that we are seeing an example of the opposite case, where your uninformed opinion is indefensible and you are unable to understand dtango's explanations.
-
Just take the 152 up to 30k feet and compare it to the other 190 models at that height.
I don't need data to tell me something is wrong in the plane that was designed to be better at that altitude ending up not being as good as the models it was to replace.
-
Just take the 152 up to 30k feet and compare it to the other 190 models at that height.
I don't need data to tell me something is wrong in the plane that was designed to be better at that altitude ending up not being as good as the models it was to replace.
What if I said that I just did that and in my opinion Ta152 is easily the best handling 190 at that altitude. So, whose opinion is more correct and more valuable, yours or mine?
-
Why choose dead six chase as the criteria ? It's academic comparison at best - you don't fly up bombers' dead six, especially not at 35k where you've got so much less lift to maneuver (evade) with.
The 152 owns the D9 at that altitude.
My point is that the 152 does not own the d9 at high altitude even though it was designed to be better at high altitude.
Do any of you guys even fly up there?
I fly all the planes at maximum altitude.
This is how I discovered THIS........when the plane was introduced.
(http://farm7.static.flickr.com/6137/5963652293_58d92ccee8_b.jpg)
I guess it's best I just fly something other than the TA152 for my high altitude action since other planes here are better suited for the job.
-
The high altitude performance "bug" on the A6M3 was fixed. It is a totally separate issue and has nothing to do with Ta152.
-
My mentioning it was to illustrate the fact that I fly all of the planes at super high altitudes.
I discovered that bug day 1 but it took others months to catch on.
Why?.....Because most at aces high (including people on this thread) rarely, if ever, fly anything but bombers above 30k feet.
Go fly the 152 on a bomber intercept mission at 35k and get back to me.
-
My mentioning it was to illustrate the fact that I fly all of the planes at super high altitudes.
You are free to fly the planes what ever altitudes you like, until you somehow quantify and isolate the percieved problem against hard data, you are just blowing hot air.
I'm not saying wheather the Ta152 modelling is right or wrong, I'm just saying that your logic is pathologically flawed.
-
I routinely fly 30+k on buff hunting trips with the TA-152. It's good up there. Honestly, once I get above like 25k I can't think of a plane it doesn't own. Not scientific, but my experience tells me that its a great performer.
Now some of the bombers' performance might be another question...for another thread
-
Are you even flying this plane wmaker?
Thanks zeagle, I have an easier time hearing it from someone who's actually flown the plane more than twice in the last 5 tours.
-
There isn't much you can compare the Ta152 to at 43k. Offhand I think it's only a couple of Jugs. The Ta152 is clearly superior to the 190D at 30k and of course the 190 can't even reach 40k.
-
Do any of you guys even fly up there?
To 40k+
Like FLS says I'm not sure the Dora can even get up there. What is going on in some people's computers/heads....
Go fly the 152 on a bomber intercept mission at 35k and get back to me.
LOL!
I can't remember how many times I've compressed DIVING to bombers at 35-35+. Of all the squads I've been in and friends I've flown with, I can easily count on one hand the number that had the patience to wing up on my 100+DT high alt sorties.
I've been flying it since the day it came out. I don't know how many hours total playing the game but it must be in the ten thousand+ range. Maybe half of it is flying the 152. Once looked up total kills in 152 across all accounts I've had and it was some similar ridiculous number like 10-15k. You tell me - how factual is my basis?
The D9 doesn't even compare with the 152 above 30k. Already at 25 it's peaked. Ask anyone from any of the events that had D9s and 152s side by side. Ask either the D9 sticks or the guys fighting them both on allied side.
(http://img109.imageshack.us/img109/2815/fw12jan45iiahd9.jpg)
Blue is AH 152, green AH D9.
9 km is 30,000 ft
The two curves cross at ~22,000 ft.
Just no comparison. You've got a better engine, better wings, better guns. Whatever you're doing wrong ... - that slightly better performance of the 152 over the D9 at low altitude is small compared to at high altitude.
I have an easier time hearing it from someone who's actually flown the plane more than twice in the last 5 tours.
:rofl
-
Well, complaining about the 152s instability, thats ok.
But complaining about its hi-alt performance?
LOL
-
Are you even flying this plane wmaker?
As long as your logic is as flawed as it is, wheather I fly it or not is actually irrelevant. :)
Basic rules of argumentation, I strongly suggest you look them up.
-
Thanks zeagle, I have an easier time hearing it from someone who's actually flown the plane more than twice in the last 5 tours.
Questioning moot's knowledge of the Ta-152 is like questioning a heart surgeon if he knows what the Aorta is.
-
Are you even flying this plane wmaker?
Thanks zeagle, I have an easier time hearing it from someone who's actually flown the plane more than twice in the last 5 tours.
Who are you?
-
I fly the Ta-152 a lot. I like it. I'd love to wing up with any other 152 flyer for some high alt hunting. I know it's tough to find anyone with patience for that kind of flying. But that's what I enjoy.. :salute
(And I lost my last one due to a compression....!@#$%)
-
I mean.. Icepac you've even got a trainer putting it straight up, categorically. And you don't buy that either, but you do accept a normal player's testimony merely on his word.
What's the thought process here??
-
:ahand
normal player..... :x
-
It sounds demeaning but what I'm saying is how Icepac figures a Trainer would say something so positively, without serious amount of empirical certainty.
-
Well, complaining about the 152s instability, thats ok.
But complaining about its hi-alt performance?
LOL
Go back and read the thread before putting words into my mouth.
My complaint is about stability and not about the 152 being able to fly high and fast.
Wmaker is arguing this plane yet he has only flown 2 sorties in it in the last 5 tours (134 to 138).
I took Zeagle's information because he actually flies the plane he is talking about.
When comparing the 190d, I clearly stated 30,000 feet yet many here have turned that into 40,000 feet which is a world of difference...........and not at all what I said.
The 190d is much more stable and able to intercept bombers at 30,000 feet than the 152.
Yes, the 190d will make 40,000 feet........but not well.....however it is more stable than the 152 even way beyond it's maximum altitude.
I flew the 190d and spit IX, XVI, and XIV over 40,000 feet today.......ask the 163 drivers who felt the need to dive out of icon range/dive in or be rescued by another fighter as they absorbed bullets this afternoon.
That said, the spit XIV (yes the 16 and not the 14) has better stability than either 190/152 at 40,000 feet even though it is not known for it's high altitude performance like the spit 14.
The whole crux of my observations is that the 152 is more unstable that it should be at high altitude while planes that shouldn't fly well at high altitude turn better and are more stable than the ta152......of course, they don't reach the same speeds.....but they have better utility than the 152 even outside of thier known flight envelope than the 152 does well within it's envelope.
At low altitude, the 152 seems fine.
-
You have it wrong on all counts except spits being more user friendly.
-
I just flew all the planes I mentioned today.
-
I have flown this plane for a year and half almost straight. You are flat wrong.
-
You are free to fly the planes what ever altitudes you like, until you somehow quantify and isolate the percieved problem against hard data, you are just blowing hot air.
QFT :aok
icepac_turnrate = illogic*sqrt of (opinion^2 - 1) / ridiculosity
icepac, you're going 'round in circles.
A key premise in your argument is "the best german high altitude fighter = more stable german high altitude fighter".
Please bring us objective evidence to show this is a fact. Otherwise it's just your opinion.
-
To 40k+
Like FLS says I'm not sure the Dora can even get up there.
The published figure I was going by is 39,370 but I was able to get the AH 190D to 42k running very light. It only took about an hour to go from 30k to 40k. :D I still think the Ta152 is clearly the better high alt fighter but I rarely fly either one.
-
I still think the Ta152 is clearly the better high alt fighter but I rarely fly either one.
It's getting very significant better than the D9 past 25K, and we don't even need to talk about the difference between them at altitudes above 30k ;)
After reading this thread... is it required to post my kill numbers in both to get at least a trace of credibility? :headscratch:
-
It's getting very significant better than the D9 past 25K, and we don't even need to talk about the difference between them at altitudes above 30k ;)
After reading this thread... is it required to post my kill numbers in both to get at least a trace of credibility? :headscratch:
I think the better question is....
Who and why do you have that much free time that you can wait to climb to 40k in a flight? What does that avg?, 2 flights a night?
-
Who and why do you have that much free time that you can wait to climb to 40k in a flight? What does that avg?, 2 flights a night?
It's the quality of your gaming experience and the fun you have isn't necessarily depending on sorties/hour. ;)
Speaking for myself, one single 45min sortie vs a very high altitude raid is often much more fun to me than doing 4 or 5 low alt furball sorties (with many more kills) :)
-
I have only been in a 152 one time and i can say you all have no clue what you are talking about :bolt:
-
I have only been in a 152 one time and i can say you all have no clue what you are talking about :bolt:
The most beautiful plane in AH! :rock
(http://bbs.hitechcreations.com/wiki/images/7/74/AHta152_1.jpg)
-
It only took about an hour to go from 30k to 40k. :D
snork
My complaint is about stability and not about the 152 being able to fly high and fast.
The gist of it is it's no different from low altitude: D9 might feel crisper but it also departs that much more abruptly, and sooner to boot. The 152's performance advantage in sustained turning and E-retention in instantaneous turn just keeps getting better the higher you go. The 152's rudder authority is much better. Overall it's as mushy as the Yaks in slow vert maneuver, but once you learn the plane you can keep it pointed where you want it at all times by constantly being on the rudder & stick. What you're really saying is that you're unable to do that - to permanently be guiding the plane instead of letting it self stabilize like the D9.
Wmaker is arguing this plane yet he has only flown 2 sorties in it in the last 5 tours (134 to 138).
So what? How much time does he have with the 152 in all other tours for each physics revision? How does e.g. flying 100 sorties a month in last 5 months trump 300 hours each month till 3 years ago?
I took Zeagle's information because he actually flies the plane he is talking about.
Are you really fairly selecting by experience volume, or whether someone agrees with/contradicts you?
When comparing the 190d, I clearly stated 30,000 feet yet many here have turned that into 40,000 feet which is a world of difference...........and not at all what I said.
So what? You don't get to 40 without passing thru 30. There's no practical reason in typical AH gameplay to expect someone who flies at 40 not to also fly at least as much at 30 where there's multiple times the combat density.
The 190d is much more stable and able to intercept bombers at 30,000 feet than the 152.
Where's the evidence? Bomber intercept qualities are energy retention, firepower (since that directly decides what kind of maneuvering's required - you don't need to do more than intersect bomber's trajectory with yours in a 262), speed, and adequate/minimum maneuverability. The 152 arguably only matches the D9 on one (ease of adjusting nose at target) and beats the D9 on the rest of em. It's no unfortunate coincidence that planning your pass ahead of time so that the shot timing seamlessly coincides with your maneuvering - whereas the D9 requires you to have the nose pointed at target much longer IOW fly into defensive fire longer, interfering even if only a little with your maneuvering at and around the bombers.
Yes, the 190d will make 40,000 feet........but not well.....however it is more stable than the 152 even way beyond it's maximum altitude.
No it doesn't. Show some evidence. In fact the D9 at 30k is skittering on the edge of departure like on ice whereas the 152 floats over it at any given speed the D9 can manage, and then is as stable as anything in the planeset at speeds the D9 can't reach.
I flew the 190d and spit IX, XVI, and XIV over 40,000 feet today.......ask the 163 drivers who felt the need to dive out of icon range/dive in or be rescued by another fighter as they absorbed bullets this afternoon.
If the 163 ran from you he was clueless. Just flying a plane doesn't amount to authority, or I could right now pay 10 players to fly around randomly and call that "more evidence".
That said, the spit XIV (yes the 16 and not the 14) has better stability than either 190/152 at 40,000 feet even though it is not known for it's high altitude performance like the spit 14.
yep only thing you're right on
The whole crux of my observations is that the 152 is more unstable that it should be at high altitude
Evidence for underlined part?
while planes that shouldn't fly well at high altitude turn better and are more stable than the ta152
Just plain wrong. Show evidence for this. The burden of proof is on you, one person who's only been here on the order of 1 year, versus dozen+ people who'd been here anywhere from 1 year to 10.
......of course, they don't reach the same speeds.....but they have better utility than the 152 even outside of thier known flight envelope than the 152 does well within it's envelope.
Also just wrong.. You're flying it wrong and just haven't seen it flown right. In a nutshell the 152's got a significantly larger combat maneuvering envelope than the D9.
-
The most beautiful plane in AH! :rock
(http://bbs.hitechcreations.com/wiki/images/7/74/AHta152_1.jpg)
yes, they are purdy when they fall out of the sky now arent they :aok
-
If you fly the 152 like a D9, you're doing it wrong.
-
Well, complaining about the 152s instability, thats ok.
But complaining about its hi-alt performance?
LOL
icepac is the guy that will spend 30 mins on country chat insisting that he put 40 rounds of 20mm into a Spitfires wing and it flew away
just smile and nod :)
-
Moot with that last post I think you win.
-
There's no practical reason in typical AH gameplay to expect someone who flies at 40 not to also fly at least as much at 30 where there's multiple times the combat density.
I think there is a certain member who believes that one can save fuel by flying that high in a p51. :D
-
I think moot's reply registered 1.0 on the Krusty scale :devil
-
I think moot's reply registered 1.0 on the Krusty scale :devil
You obviously don't know what hitech's Krusty meter measures. ;) I'll give you a hint. They're called cow-pies here in TX.
-
I'm flying the 152 alot this tour......60 kills for 14 deaths, and I'm getting better every sortie.
-
I'm flying the 152 alot this tour......60 kills for 14 deaths, and I'm getting better every sortie.
Not a bad plane huh? :D.
-
Not a bad plane huh? :D.
not one bit. I like it alot
-
Sorry Babs but.. For the first time I truly am in fact going to lean on my experience and say you somehow don't know what you're talking about. I listened to you give people guidelines during that big Germany scenario and I was almost going to speak up because overall it wasn't all that great (nor esp bad either) advice to 152 newbies, but I didn't because it was good enough overall and because it's no good to argue with command.
Empty AFT is like catnip for 152's agility. It's not arguable. If this were some other subject where there was a lot of complicated room for misunderstanding of some kind, I'd argue it but... This is a night and day, black and white thing.
For dogfight agility purposes AFT tank completely changes the 152's performance, for the better. This is 10 years of flying the thing speaking. I can't think off the top of my head of anyone else with experience in it that ever said otherwise.
What are the positives of draining the others first? The wings are slightly fwd of FWD tank. It's a toss up between very small extra fwd CG from leaving em last, to small roll rate bonus burning em first.
Icepac - what are the criteria exactly? The 190D is out of speed and lift by 30k.
:bhead
Well, as you've clearly stated and that I'm in agreement with, there is no room for a lot of complicated missunderstanding on this issue for there to be much of any argueing about it.
There is no point to further defending or clearifying my own personal opinion in regards to that specific matter (fuel wieght distribution impacts) on the 152's flight characteristics from within AH in comparison (and, I find, in contradiction) to historical pilot testimony or documentation and, for a lack fo better term, dogfighting 101 common-sence. Again, I am in agreement with most everything you say wholey, up to the point that you're defending that it is exactly and clearly the same way in theory and real-world practice as it is within AH currently or at anytime.
You, by adamantley disagreeing with my statement/opinion, are defending that within the game, in real-world documentation available to us, and theoretical practice, that it is a clear and distinct difference of Day and Night - Black and White. I am defending my opinion that within the game it is the difference between sunset and twilight - yes both have their different shades and colors but both have shades and colors, are only brief moments at the end of a day that are only a few minutes apart... in other words I see more similarities in an AH-Ta-152 with a full or empty aft tank than is simply black or white or any of the historical pilot documentation claiming that they felt like it made a Black and White difference... if we can't come to agreement on that, then we can't, but could you please demonstrate or elaborate, as I did, with your own examples or explanation of extreme distinctions and obvious differences with AH's Ta-152 in-game?
I really don't want to argue about this Moot, it feels truely pointless (not your opinion, just the argueing of the opinions), especily since I'm for the most part in agreement with you on most everything with the Ta-152. Not putting words into your mouth, but I'm skipping ahead and thinking you too would more acuratley describe it, within AH, as being shades of grey rather than black and white/there and gone. I think we both may see different shades of grey and I'll be content with that, but I can not agree with a black and white comparison as you defend.
-
just recently started flying 190s due to peer pressure.i was a little scared entering a dark alleyway but once i went in it wasnt to bad.im still learning em but im not doin to bad.ive had a few good sorties.mainly the D-9 and the 152.but i got into that god forsaken tail drop thing and barely got out about 1k off the water.lost my lovley 15k alt :(
-
I rarely recover from that tail slide (usually in the presence of a horde of zip codes in spit 16's...who are all pointing and laughing). But, I have learned not to get into it as well. You have to treat the TA like a lady. She'll get you home more often than not.
-
Babs when you've read the development and short operational history, you'll see for yourself. If you look up that couple of previous discussions you'll find me, then, saying that the 152 has to be wrong, because it's such an aberration compared to any other plane, to previous 152 FM versions, and to the 152's design reputation as the late war culmination of the Fw 190 line and supposed (historically) competitor to e.g. the Tempest. And then read the following posts made talking with Tango after I read the books.
In fact when you read the development history it's overly hurried sorta like the 410 was rushed thru and then the gremlins both in hardware and in flight behavior, you get a totally different picture of that supposed "flagship" or whatever. A specific example - when you read the gunnery trial debrief they describe something that's pretty much just like our 152's vague nose feel IE mediocre stability.
Why does a plane that was supposed to be the pinnacle of this impressive design family come out of the factory flying so unimpressively? If the design truly was what KT always intended when he drew up the Fw 190, why is it the opposite - instead of the design coming into its own, it's not even good enough to be used for gunnery trials. You might think that it was because it was rushed and that the basic underlying design, somewhere under those flaws, was sound and that the development crew just needed to sort out a few errors like you would some transcription errors in symphonic orchestra's music charts.. and then everything would click and symphony would sound. Except that's not what happened. Till the end the 152 was flawed.
http://search.barnesandnoble.com/Focke-Wulfe-Ta-152/Dietmar-Harmann/p/9780764308604
All things considered the AH 152 matches its historical character.
In practice, in AH, the only thing I argued (and I guess you only skimmed my posts cause its said pretty plainly) and contradicted from your posts is whether/how much the AH 152's AFT tank makes a difference in agility.
The 152's AFT is as black and white a factor to agility as I said. The only shade of grey is the way you get a gradual improvement as the AFT drains. Examples? I've never recorded any demonstration because it's so self evident. But if you look at the most extreme ACM demos I've put out, I can tell you none of them are nearly as easy if even possible with more rather than less AFT. I have no reason to doubt it, literally none: I can also tell roughly how much ammo the plane has left, and assuming fuel only in fwd tank I can also accurately guess how much FWD fuel is left just by feel (ie estimate to +-25%). Another e.g. the D9 has the same dynamic: it's at its best in agility with max fwd fuel CG.
I couldn't put a number on how many times I've died in the 152 because I committed to knife fights too early - when AFT wasn't empty yet.
Not putting words into your mouth, but I'm skipping ahead and thinking you too would more acuratley describe it, within AH, as being shades of grey rather than black and white/there and gone. I think we both may see different shades of grey and I'll be content with that, but I can not agree with a black and white comparison as you defend.
Why speak in analogies. AFT is nothing but ballast for dogfighting agility. The less the better. There is no redeeming quality about AFT fuel worth considering. The difference in performance does make it a life/death difference in committed dogfighting (not just bnz).
So it is black and white.
It is black and white and it's not just some academic debate. If you're learning the 152, this is almost inarguably the one tip to know. It's the sine qua non of 152 knife fighting competitiveness. Without it it's just a slower heavier armed high altitude 190 variant.
One of the things I commonly hoped for (dreamed of) when I played was that HTC went back to lower fuel multiplier. So the FWD tank would last longer.
-
Same thing occurs with the AFT tank in the A5, drain that and unload the bb's completely (relying on 2 x20mm) and she's a different beast.
-
It's the sine qua non of 152 knife fighting competitiveness. Without it it's just a slower heavier armed high altitude 190 variant.
One of the things I commonly hoped for (dreamed of) when I played was that HTC went back to lower fuel multiplier. So the FWD tank would last longer.
:aok
-
Babs when you've read the development and short operational history, you'll see for yourself. If you look up that couple of previous discussions you'll find me, then, saying that the 152 has to be wrong, because it's such an aberration compared to any other plane, to previous 152 FM versions, and to the 152's design reputation as the late war culmination of the Fw 190 line and supposed (historically) competitor to e.g. the Tempest. And then read the following posts made talking with Tango after I read the books.
In fact when you read the development history it's overly hurried sorta like the 410 was rushed thru and then the gremlins both in hardware and in flight behavior, you get a totally different picture of that supposed "flagship" or whatever. A specific example - when you read the gunnery trial debrief they describe something that's pretty much just like our 152's vague nose feel IE mediocre stability.
Why does a plane that was supposed to be the pinnacle of this impressive design family come out of the factory flying so unimpressively? If the design truly was what KT always intended when he drew up the Fw 190, why is it the opposite - instead of the design coming into its own, it's not even good enough to be used for gunnery trials. You might think that it was because it was rushed and that the basic underlying design, somewhere under those flaws, was sound and that the development crew just needed to sort out a few errors like you would some transcription errors in symphonic orchestra's music charts.. and then everything would click and symphony would sound. Except that's not what happened. Till the end the 152 was flawed.
http://search.barnesandnoble.com/Focke-Wulfe-Ta-152/Dietmar-Harmann/p/9780764308604
All things considered the AH 152 matches its historical character.
In practice, in AH, the only thing I argued (and I guess you only skimmed my posts cause its said pretty plainly) and contradicted from your posts is whether/how much the AH 152's AFT tank makes a difference in agility.
The 152's AFT is as black and white a factor to agility as I said. The only shade of grey is the way you get a gradual improvement as the AFT drains. Examples? I've never recorded any demonstration because it's so self evident. But if you look at the most extreme ACM demos I've put out, I can tell you none of them are nearly as easy if even possible with more rather than less AFT. I have no reason to doubt it, literally none: I can also tell roughly how much ammo the plane has left, and assuming fuel only in fwd tank I can also accurately guess how much FWD fuel is left just by feel (ie estimate to +-25%). Another e.g. the D9 has the same dynamic: it's at its best in agility with max fwd fuel CG.
I couldn't put a number on how many times I've died in the 152 because I committed to knife fights too early - when AFT wasn't empty yet. Why speak in analogies. AFT is nothing but ballast for dogfighting agility. The less the better. There is no redeeming quality about AFT fuel worth considering. The difference in performance does make it a life/death difference in committed dogfighting (not just bnz).
So it is black and white.
It is black and white and it's not just some academic debate. If you're learning the 152, this is almost inarguably the one tip to know. It's the sine qua non of 152 knife fighting competitiveness. Without it it's just a slower heavier armed high altitude 190 variant.
One of the things I commonly hoped for (dreamed of) when I played was that HTC went back to lower fuel multiplier. So the FWD tank would last longer.
Having read through those books now myself, I've got to agree with your interpretation moot. It was interesting seeing your past argument as well.
As far as the fuel tanks, both aft AND fwd tanks are actually behind the CG. So as fuel burns out of the fwd tank (after aft is empty) the CG should still be moving forward/less tail-heavy (which is the opposite of my beloved F4U). As the CG moves forward I'd expect the plane to become more stable, but have a less-authoritative elevator. Is that what you see? Is the plane more stable/forgiving? Or is it more responsive, etc? How does it feel "different", in your opinion. I'm just curious; I haven't flown it enough to know. The few fights I've had with it I felt my use of 3D "space" mattered more than the attributes of the plane (which is a norm for me, IMO), so again, I haven't formed an opinion on the 152.
-
Go back and read the thread before putting words into my mouth.
My complaint is about stability and not about the 152 being able to fly high and fast.
Wmaker is arguing this plane yet he has only flown 2 sorties in it in the last 5 tours (134 to 138).
I took Zeagle's information because he actually flies the plane he is talking about.
When comparing the 190d, I clearly stated 30,000 feet yet many here have turned that into 40,000 feet which is a world of difference...........and not at all what I said.
The 190d is much more stable and able to intercept bombers at 30,000 feet than the 152.
Yes, the 190d will make 40,000 feet........but not well.....however it is more stable than the 152 even way beyond it's maximum altitude.
I flew the 190d and spit IX, XVI, and XIV over 40,000 feet today.......ask the 163 drivers who felt the need to dive out of icon range/dive in or be rescued by another fighter as they absorbed bullets this afternoon.
That said, the spit XIV (yes the 16 and not the 14) has better stability than either 190/152 at 40,000 feet even though it is not known for it's high altitude performance like the spit 14.
The whole crux of my observations is that the 152 is more unstable that it should be at high altitude while planes that shouldn't fly well at high altitude turn better and are more stable than the ta152......of course, they don't reach the same speeds.....
Yes, the spit16 way out-maneuvers/out turns the 152 at 40k, can someone explain why , or how this is even possible?? :huh BUt the sp16 is not overmodled one bit. NOPE :lol
-
Yes, the spit16 way out-maneuvers/out turns the 152 at 40k, can someone explain why , or how this is even possible?? :huh BUt the sp16 is not overmodled one bit. NOPE :lol
Steele, either learn from what we're trying to tell you, or just stay away. Ultimately, the answer is : specific excess power.
-
The altitude record for a Spitfire is 51,550 ft.
-
Aspect Ratio
The B-24 has a higher aspect ratio than the B-17....the B-17 exhibits more adverse aileron yaw than the B-24....talking r/l experience here.
I don't see that apsect ration is going to be a determining factor in adverse yaw. Wingspan would make a difference, simple leverage. Aileron type is probably the biggest factor for adverse yaw -- simple vs frise, etc.
-
I don't know where the total CG is relative to fuel CG..
(http://bbs.hitechcreations.com/wiki/images/b/b8/152fueltanks.jpg)
I don't know if there's less authority from having more fuel fwd than aft (overall, regardless which specific tanks we're talking about), but what I have no doubts about is that the right side of the equation (ie the right side of the = sign) means getting rid of aft fuel first gives you a net improvement on agility.
Describing it.. The plane feels more docile and predictable.. You can more easily coax it into much better maneuvering performance (maybe fool proof enough way to measure part of it could be sustained turn trials - the character of what I'm talking about's immediately apparent in even most basic acm like flat scissors). The departures are softer, more forgiving, more usable. You can recover spins more easily, and spins feel less like they've totally broken away from controlled flight. You get less of that feeling from the tail where it's like you're towing a trailer and if you treat it wrong it just derails and then it's you that's being towed by it into departure. Exactly those departures that Krusty and others mean, where for seemingly no reason the plane decides to quickly go from slight sideslip to out-of-control yaw departure.
With nothing left but ~10-15min of FWD fuel (or wings, but personally I like FWD better because the forward fuel CG is indistinguishable to me, while the roll rate bonus is noticeable) the plane feels so much more like it's meant to be. Not just in terms of weight burden but aerodynamically.
The interference of that tail weirdness .. whatever it is exactly, in strict and accurate aerodynamics and physics, resolves itself when you lose the AFT fuel.
And.. You'd think that you can "cheat" by taking a DT because it's further forward than at least the AFT tank. I only got around to try it near the end of playing AH and all I can say is it's definitely better for maneuverability than AFT fuel. But you do feel slightly more roll inertia and aerodynamically it's a penalty - although IMHO if you're after max maneuverability, speed's probably dispensable - and also unless you know the plane well enough (ie ~ 6mo to a year's worth) it'll be hard to distinguish the CG benefits amidst the extra weight of the fuel. Because at this point (25 or 50 + DT) the CG benefit really is almost on par with fuel weight malus.
-----
So clearly this is all very subtle stuff. So what's the big deal? The big deal is that the further you get up the competitive ladder - in the pure performance sense, regardless whether you actually do any competitive events or do the score/rank thing - the smaller are the margins that people compete over. Another racing analogy: if you're 15 seconds off pace at a competitive race, it's easy to find the first 10 seconds, harder to find the next 2-3, and then it's orders of magnitude harder to get the next 1/2 seconds and yet another couple orders for the very last few tenths and hundredths of a second.
In Aces High that's no different. And just like in racing where a tenth or two per corner adds up to as much as a whole second in a whole lap, in AH every little fraction of a second and of a degree and every yard given or taken adds up real quick to winning/losing life/death difference.
The extra agility that the 152 gets from max fwd fuel CG, independently of how "realistic" it is or indeed of what the actual physics are, that subtle extra agility is easily as large as the margins for succeeding/failing to make the decisive shots that the 152s flight envelope allows (emphasized because the two go hand in hand - we're talking about the specific shots that the 152's specific ACM allow). For all its extra maneuverability and lesser roll rate, it's still by and large a Fw 190. You usually can't hang around for more than a couple of knife fight revolutions.
Its specialty is still (30mm) snapshots and the higher the relative speed they happen (esp if you're still >50% fuel) the bigger the multiplicative effect of any bonus/handicap to agility. The 152 is already as cumbersome as it is, so smoothing out those wrinkles in the envelope is a major factor in pilot comfort and confidence on top of plain machine performance.
Not very well written but I'm toast from a long week and didn't want to keep putting off reply
TLDR: the full range of effects of fuel CG is pretty subtle, but the least subtle effects are easily noticeable in most basic ACM. Not least of which, the type that tend to trigger those nasty spins.
-
Great posts, returning from my recent "vacation", sorry for the delay.
Moot, as I digest what you've gone into detail and put a lot of time into, check out this brief simple film I shot last week after my last reply and I decided to do a quick offline aft-heavy messing around. I admit I forgot to lower my arena setting's ammo multiplier from previous offline gunnery practice, but I dont think that should effect the outcomes, but wouldn't mind trying it again if anyone does.
http://www.mediafire.com/file/x621k3adlaby87z/Ta152AftHeavy04.ahf
I recall starting around 15k, had 1/4 or less in all tanks except aft (~90% or more full in the aft tank, ~50% total left). I'm glad I decided to roll film as one of the first things I do is go straight nose up after gaining some speed, other than rolling the plane 180 degrees during this climb to keep it nose up as it continued upward a ways further, I swear I touched nothing and no player input whatsover. I couldn't of recovered it quicker, retained more E, avoided any stalling and gotten it nose down and properly diving back down quicker if I tried (well maybe, but would be very close). I recall then doing a couple minutes of other unorchestrated maneuvers to play and feel it, then forced a very low alt nasty tail stall, and that's when I say I noticed it.
Was it "noticable", sure. Would it of performed better with that weight distributed elsewhere, I do believe so. Unsafe and fatal folly in the practice of fuel management, I really don't think so. Black and white.... shades of grey.... I stand by my opinion that in-game it only becomes a critical issue if you're fighting another equally piloted 152 with all things equal except fuel distributions, in which case one will be doing maneuvers with an advantage over the other, but the other will by no means have his death cert already signed because of their disadvantage.
-
^ Been waiting a week to get back on here and post that little clip, surprised nobody has come along by now to tell me how blatantly wrong and clearly confused I am on comprehending this matter...
So, chya, another "unusual instability characteristics" in-game because of some factor I'm not completely understanding or aware of as a whole yet, again, or?...
-
^ Been waiting a week to get back on here and post that little clip, surprised nobody has come along by now to tell me how blatantly wrong and clearly confused I am on comprehending this matter...
So, chya, another "unusual instability characteristics" in-game because of some factor I'm not completely understanding or aware of as a whole yet, again, or?...
I'm not sure what we should be looking at? Or what your question is?
Lots of adverse yaw in your film.
-
I don't get it either. What are you showing?
The basics of benchmarking includes consistent trends across multiple runs, at least 2 series (AFT vs FWD) to compare between, ideally more than one player to rule it out as a cause, and in this case certainly something more exact than random maneuvers that aren't combat maneuvers.
..
The only two things I see as possibly relevant are the rope and the stall at the end. The tail wagging elsehwere in the film.. What's the point? There is no context to those. The only way they mean something in terms of benchmarking is if you run those same sequences of tail wags with a FWD fueled plane for comparison. And then it's obvious why it's better to do conventional maneuvers like scissors: replicating random tail wags is way too dodgy.
Next AFT fuel agility disadvantage isn't going to show itself in a rope like that.
I don't think you understand what I'm talking about when I describe what the difference is between aft/fwd fuel cg. And I'm gonna get flak for this again but I get the impression you don't know how to fly near enough the plane's full potential for it to be apparent. The difference between aft/fwd fuel is subtle but it's not at all negligible.
E.G. every now and then I'll go to the DA with a group. And I'll try and fly the 152 anytime it's near enough manageable. E.G. Bighorn and some other squaddies in K4s. With (say) 33% fwd fuel it's doable. It's pretty damn hard, but doable. It's not doable with AFT at all. The difference in performance looks small on paper, but in practice it's the difference between contending and being left in the dust.