Aces High Bulletin Board
General Forums => Aces High General Discussion => Topic started by: icepac on January 15, 2013, 10:08:42 PM
-
In my fall from 30,000 feet, I had time to try every single possible control combination and still simply fell tail first.
-
Ok.
-
Chop throttle push forward on the stick. If there is a spin rudder the opposite direction. The plane will start to level and begin falling flat. When this happens gun the engine while pushing the stick as far forward as possible. It should nose down at that point.
You can dump flaps as well but you don't always need to.
-
Did you try hitting auto? :noid
This has been remarked upon over the years, including some recovery strategies. My favorite was "Alt-F4." :neener:
-
I had 30,000 feet.......tried every configuration
Just fell tail down for 30,000 feet.
Before you offer "pilot 101" tips, know I've been flying for over 29 years.
-
I had 30,000 feet.......tried every configuration
Just fell tail down for 30,000 feet.
Before you offer "pilot 101" tips, know I've been flying for over 29 years.
Ok. Just my advice as I fly that plane very often and had it in the tail stall many times. That is how I recover from it.
-
I had 30,000 feet.......tried every configuration
Just fell tail down for 30,000 feet.
Before you offer "pilot 101" tips, know I've been flying for over 29 years.
So the point of this thread was.....what?
-
So the point of this thread was.....what?
that he has no experience flying a ta-152? :neener:
-
Wish I was close coulda used the proxy for a 'chieve .
-
The way the Ta152 flies/falls defies physics and aerodynamics.
-
Nobody got a kill but another Ta152 made 3 or 4 passes on me as I fell so somebody saw it.
I fly the TA152 fine but the way it falls and wallows is unlike any airplane I've flown.....virtual or real.
It feels almost like a car that has the roll center really far from the center of gravity.
-
Did you turn the engine completely off, I'm asking for my own knowledge, not trying to be all "YER SHERDA DERN THERS"...
-
So the point of this thread was.....what?
To brag he flies at 30,000ft.
ack-ack
-
After years of dropping my gear down during stall fights and similar maneuvering, often to quite the benefit of the fight, I never could explain why it worked. I always figured it had something to do with adding in that extra stability from the gear, during times of flight when you're very unstable. The effect is most pronounced in fighters like the 110, 152, Mosquito, and P-39s.
I also frequently get beef for this "gamey" behaviour, a lot of comments like, "Nice gear, but you would never actually do that in real life." And, "No pilots ever did that in WWII planes."
You can imagine my great personal satisfaction (which is limitless by the way), that while reading Bob Hoover's autobiography Forever Flying, I came across this passage where he talked about getting to fly the P-39, which he was quite excited about...
"At ten thousand feet, I pulled the nose up steeply, cut the power, and presto, the plane started to tumble. A flat spin followed, and I panicked for an instant trying to get my bearings. I tried conventional recovery controls, but none of them worked.
Instinctively I dropped the landing gear and lowered the flaps to upset the gyroscopic effect. To my amazement, the P-39 went into a conventional nose-down spin. I recovered the airplane with plenty of room to spare. Satisfied with the effort, I couldn't wait to land and share my experience with the other pilots."
He goes on to explain the same maneuver also worked well with the P-40. And a Czech pilot named it the Lomcovak, Czech for Headache.
This also, was not something he only did because it was an emergency, he intentionally got the P-39 to stall and spin, after hearing how deadly it was to so many pilots.
Yay!!!!
And always, Fear The Gear!
-
Do anyone have any contemporary flight-report of the TA-152 ?
I find the TA-152 behaviour suspicions too.
-
In my fall from 30,000 feet
:lol :lol :lol
I have nothing more to add
:lol :lol :lol
-
Do anyone have any contemporary flight-report of the TA-152 ?
I find the TA-152 behaviour suspicions too.
seeing how it flies in aces high I wouldn't even go close to a real one!
So what was the point of this thread again? Be in awe before the OP?
-
I have a squaddie that this happens to all the time.
Turn the engine off.
Drop flaps (one notch is usually enough).
Take your feet off the pedals and rock the nose back and forth until it drops.
Dont change yaw inputs rapidly if you slip in for landing.
-
I had 30,000 feet.......tried every configuration
Just fell tail down for 30,000 feet.
Before you offer "pilot 101" tips, know I've been flying for over 29 years.
:rofl
-
If you do not have evidence that it fell nose first IRL you just have to accept the HTC interpretation of its behavior. :bolt:
-C+
-
Wherefore did you stall in a 152 @ 30k?
-
Kill engine then restart seems to be the best recover technique for the really ugly stalls. Sometimes it takes a few attempts but torque is your best bet in getting out of an unflyable attitude. (Note: you must be doing all standard stall recovery techniques as well, but it's the engine stop/start that finally breaks the stall)
-
The 152 will actually recover quicker if you pull back on the stick instead of pushing forward... try it.
-
Wherefore did you stall in a 152 @ 30k?
I don't know about at 30k, but I know I can get it to depart flight pretty much on command in a way no other aircraft in the game does. If I kick too much rudder in a gentle bank, it skids, then the nose bounces and most of my flight controls get really mushy. It goes into a skid about 10-15 degrees off the nose, and if I don't immediately rudder into it to get the nose pointed the direction it's going, it destabilizes and gets into the really nasty type of spin/stall described in the OP. I've only had it actually go tail down once or twice, but far more common is the falling flat, often with very little 'spin' involved.
If memory serves, ruddering full to either direction and a lot of aileron rocking and elevator down varying engine power level got me out of it eventually. By far the worst stalls I've ever seen in the game.
Usually the only time it bites me is if it happens on final and I don't notice it immediately.
Wiley.
-
I don't know about at 30k, but I know I can get it to depart flight pretty much on command in a way no other aircraft in the game does. If I kick too much rudder in a gentle bank, it skids, then the nose bounces and most of my flight controls get really mushy. It goes into a skid about 10-15 degrees off the nose, and if I don't immediately rudder into it to get the nose pointed the direction it's going, it destabilizes and gets into the really nasty type of spin/stall described in the OP. I've only had it actually go tail down once or twice, but far more common is the falling flat, often with very little 'spin' involved.
If memory serves, ruddering full to either direction and a lot of aileron rocking and elevator down varying engine power level got me out of it eventually. By far the worst stalls I've ever seen in the game.
Usually the only time it bites me is if it happens on final and I don't notice it immediately.
Wiley.
Wicked ground loop :devil
I'm sure some will argue the point, but this plane does it's best work @ 20K plus, killing bombers.
-
Before you offer "pilot 101" tips, know I've been flying for over 29 years.
Thanks, now I know not to do any aerobatics with you.
-
Haven't flown it too much, but I have encountered some nasty spins in it. Then again, at least one was while trying to stall fight Redbull... lol.
I'm not sure our 152 is the same plane that Kurt Tank outran two 51's in, either.
-
I'm not sure our 152 is the same plane that Kurt Tank outran two 51's in, either.
And I'm not sure it really happened that way it's been portrayed.
-
And I'm not sure it really happened that way it's been portrayed.
It was you, wasn't it? Kurt Tank was nowhere to be found... :devil
-
And I'm not sure it really happened that way it's been portrayed.
But dude... it's even on Wikipedia. It has to be true. :old:
-
Wicked ground loop :devil
I'm sure some will argue the point, but this plane does it's best work @ 20K plus, killing bombers.
Absolutely. I still prefer my jug at alt, but it's competent up there with the drawback of the glass jaw.
It can surprise people at low alt though if they're not expecting it. If you're at corner speed, it comes around surprisingly quick. To me it feels better than the D-9 to turn if you're at the right speeds. I unfortunately haven't put the time in to determine those speeds, I've just noticed it when it feels right.
Wiley.
-
In my fall from 30,000 feet, I had time to try every single possible control combination and still simply fell tail first.
:airplane: The TA-52 had 3 different wings, intended for 3 different applications. One was for ground support, with heavier pilot protection from ground ack, one was for medium altitude's, 10 to 20,000 feet and the last model was the "H", which had a 3rd different kind of wing. The "H" had 3 degrees of "washout" in the wing from the wing root out to where the ailerons and flaps joined and was intended to increase the pilots stall recovery. First question is, "which TA-52 did Hi Tech model after? It sounds from your post, that you were in a flat spin! If so, if you were rotating to the left, full right rudder, full back stick and full left aileron should slow the rotation enough to then push your stick all the way forward and with a short burst of full throttle, you should recover OK. Interesting post though and from the other comments, should give guys in here food for thought.
-
Happened to me also once or twice
Impossible to recover.
Well in a game like AH that the FM actually forbids most stall situations and stall itself is a rare event –compare to RL- Ta152 stall sure is something noticeable.
Btw where is m00t?
-
Another question: Did you have combat trim on? I've run across times where the CT will prevent the needed control surface deflection to counteract spins.
-
The Ta152 defies the laws of physics in this game. It flies like there's no stabililzers on it in many cases, when in fact it's an absurd stall code. Even in low-fuel (low weight) situations the stall is outrageous and unsubstantiated for how AH portrays it.
-
I have watched m00t fly that thing like a hurri.....
get to know the stall and use it..... :uhoh
-
The Ta-152 is an awkward plane. Its sometimes quirky in the way it handles. The tail to the ground fall is one of those times. Killing the engine and dumping flaps + full stick forward and opposite spin rudder tends to help. Once i'm level I turn the engine on and push it full throttle until I am able to regain control.
Also, send a PM to m00t, he can help you if you ever want to get to learn the Ta-152.
-
Burn AFT fuel first.
-
It is a real life effect known to occur to aircraft with vertical stabilizers that are on the small side. When you stall an aircraft nose high that suffers from spiral instability it acts just like the 152 in the game does. The same effect can bite you if you change yaw inputs during moments of cross control, like the slip I mentioned already. You might ask Lyric to ask Brown about it if he ever corresponds again. Not sure if he ever flew one or not, but if any allied pilot ever did it would have been him.
-
The same effect can bite you if you change yaw inputs during moments of cross control, like the slip I mentioned already.
I found this out the hard way when I was agressively sideslipping on approach. In 1 second the tail whipped to the direction of travel and I helicoptered down. After that I became very careful with the rudder on 152 :)
-
I found this out the hard way when I was agressively sideslipping on approach. In 1 second the tail whipped to the direction of travel and I helicoptered down. After that I became very careful with the rudder on 152 :)
To me, it usually looks like your nose just suddenly slips about 10 more degrees than it had been, and the nose immediately starts to wobble. I find if you're looking for it, you can really see it happen and as long as you immediately reverse your rudder you can catch it. You only have about a 2 or 3 second window before you're into 'spin down like a leaf' territory.
Wiley.
-
It is a real life effect known to occur to aircraft with vertical stabilizers that are on the small side. When you stall an aircraft nose high that suffers from spiral instability it acts just like the 152 in the game does. The same effect can bite you if you change yaw inputs during moments of cross control, like the slip I mentioned already. You might ask Lyric to ask Brown about it if he ever corresponds again. Not sure if he ever flew one or not, but if any allied pilot ever did it would have been him.
The absurd departures we find in-game with our 152 has never been reported by any 152 pilot nor encountered in any test flights or combat reports that I've read. Keep in mind the 152 stall fought at low level with success in WW2 without ever having the tail swing underneath it and start flying butt-first into the ground. In AH it does it almost every time you pull any kind of AoA.
-
The absurd departures we find in-game with our 152 has never been reported by any 152 pilot nor encountered in any test flights or combat reports that I've read. Keep in mind the 152 stall fought at low level with success in WW2 without ever having the tail swing underneath it and start flying butt-first into the ground. In AH it does it almost every time you pull any kind of AoA.
The adverse yaw would be felt and corrected by the pilots. In a sim where players ignore the "ball" it's more likely to cause problems.
-
The absurd departures we find in-game with our 152 has never been reported by any 152 pilot nor encountered in any test flights or combat reports that I've read. Keep in mind the 152 stall fought at low level with success in WW2 without ever having the tail swing underneath it and start flying butt-first into the ground. In AH it does it almost every time you pull any kind of AoA.
Any airplane will almost always end up falling nose low for the same reasons an arrow will not fall fletching down.
-
Any airplane will almost always end up falling nose low for the same reasons an arrow will not fall fletching down.
Once you take the wings off they will. :D
I'm guessing the center of lift moves above the CG when the tail goes down in the TA-152 and Spitfire 1.
-
That should never be the case. Even when flying it with aft tank drained totally, low weight conditions, it still behaves terribly. It's not a matter of adverse yaw, either. We've had discussions in the past about it. The long wings could (and do,if you notice) have adverse yaw when rolling but the BS departures found in AH's 152 happen regardless of your ball status. I've been on the ball and recorded sorties where my tail literally slips out underneath me and I'm tail sliding backwards into the ground with NO damage from a backward pull of the stick. Often to pull up on a target, trying to get a shot.
This isn't the problem with AH's 152, as you describe it. It's more akin to the totally wrong CoG the old mossie had. HTC had to redo the entire flight model of the mossie to get rid of that. I think they need to do the same for the 152.
Also keep in mind throughout all of AH1 up to the 2.05 (?) airflow recode, this was NEVER an attribute of the Ta152 in this game. The 152 was a much more powerful 190D with some quirks brought on by the longer wing span (adverse yaw, as mentioned previously, has always been modeled). It never had this totally unstable departure until the airflow recode. It doesn't match any historic records or any anecdotal records, and IMO is a flight code problem.
Just like the old mossie.
Just like the HTC-admitted inverted pancake the Spit1 gets into. They admitted the model doesn't know what to do in that case, so I'd describe it as a loophole in the flight model.
Just like the Ta152. Which, by the way, wasn't tail heavy like in this game. The 190A8 was more destabilized and tail heavy than the ta152 was. It still doesn't portray this tail slide manuever. Even when in freefall stalls and power off conditions The A8 will nose down.
-
Stalling when you pull for a shot sounds like a normal accellerated stall. IIRC high aspect wings have a less forgiving lift profile so departure could come sooner than you expect. If you have film it should be easy enough to compare your speed and load factor to see if the stalls are reasonable or not.
Neil Williams once fell tail first a long distance in a Tiger Moth which surprised me when I read it and surprised him when it happened. It's not something I associate with Tiger Moths but apparently we can't say it never happened.
-
Neil Williams once fell tail first a long disrance in a Tiger Moth which surprised me when I read it and surprised him when it happened. It's not something I associate with Tiger Moths but apparently we can't say it never happened.
Tiger Moths are known for their tendency to flat spin. Many Tiger Moths have extra "surface area" added to the rear fuselage just in front of the stabilizers for getting the nose down to prevent flat spins and the like. They are of course especially useful when more heavier built pilot is at the controls (aft CoG). Not all have them...
Here's one that has them:
(http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/7/7a/DH_82_A_Tiger_Moth_D-EBKT.jpg/640px-DH_82_A_Tiger_Moth_D-EBKT.jpg)
-
In my fall from 30,000 feet, I had time to try every single possible control combination and still simply fell tail first.
Ok.
Pretty much.
What was your fuel loadout at the time? This bit of information is the most crucial. Even almost empty it has a tail-heavy tendancy, stall it bad enough with even more weight in the back, you're SOL unless you can do the teeter-totter dance (and even then, a PITA).
I think I recal it was Moot who claimed to try to refuse making _any_ adverse maneuvers in a 152 with more than X% internal fuel.
-
Just as a reminder, people have been bringing up this same problem since day 1 of the introduction of the Ta-152 in AH.
It is typically often witnessed when the airframe is pushed into a vertical stall -- usually during an extreme hammerhead attempt that pushes the airspeed to near 0 IAS while maintaining almost perfect vertical. When the stall hits, the nose refuses to droop down, and the plane will start falling downwards in that state. No spinning at all, the plane is almost still, visibly the nose makes light, steady "8" shape oscillations, and it just goes straight down. Happens in all altitudes, all fuel configurations.
Some people, including myself, affectionately dubbed it the "falling cross." :x
Quite a few years since I've flown -- seems this particular problem (if it is a problem) still isn't fixed. Heh.
-
Krusty stated that it was never reported, which I think is because it was well known the problem could happen if the airplane was/is mishandled. My library on Luftwaffe aircraft is quite small.
"Focke-Wulf Ta 152 V19, Werke Nummer 110019, prototype for the Ta 152B-5/R11 (Ta 152C-3/R11) with 1,750 hp (1,300 kW) Jumo 213A engine, is written off this date in a crash during test flight out of Langenhagen. Airframe had been damaged in 1943 wheels-up landing during testing but was repaired."
Anyone know the cause?
-
Krusty stated that it was never reported, which I think is because it was well known the problem could happen if the airplane was/is mishandled. My library on Luftwaffe aircraft is quite small.
"Focke-Wulf Ta 152 V19, Werke Nummer 110019, prototype for the Ta 152B-5/R11 (Ta 152C-3/R11) with 1,750 hp (1,300 kW) Jumo 213A engine, is written off this date in a crash during test flight out of Langenhagen. Airframe had been damaged in 1943 wheels-up landing during testing but was repaired."
Anyone know the cause?
I don't think that the aircraft could have been repaired if it landed wheels up after a tailspin. Most likely the pilot hit a bump on the runway or over applied the brake to make the plane nose over.
-
Reading skills, Ripley. It was previously damaged in a wheels up landing, repaired, and then crashed in another incident.
-
Pretty much.
What was your fuel loadout at the time? This bit of information is the most crucial. Even almost empty it has a tail-heavy tendancy, stall it bad enough with even more weight in the back, you're SOL unless you can do the teeter-totter dance (and even then, a PITA).
I think I recal it was Moot who claimed to try to refuse making _any_ adverse maneuvers in a 152 with more than X% internal fuel.
I checked e6b and it said about 12 minutes fuel left as I fell through 10k feet.
I had drained the aft tank probably 2 hours earlier and ammo was around 25% remaining.
-
Just like the HTC-admitted inverted pancake the Spit1 gets into. They admitted the model doesn't know what to do in that case, so I'd describe it as a loophole in the flight model.
Where was this said please?
-
Was playing around with this 152 stall thing.....
Fuel load doesn't seem to have any effect on entry or recovery. I started with full tanks and burned off the Forward, then Left and Right. Even with fuel only in the aft tank I detected no difference in how the 152 handled.
The trick for recovery is to get the nose below the horizon. Dropping gear and flaps seemed to help get the nose down some. I was using forward stick and then full rudder on whichever side the airplane was banked toward to kind of "slice" the nose below the horizon. Once nose low standard spin recovery worked, the most altitude lost after starting the recovery was 6000' with the least being 2600'. Using idle power seemed to make for a quicker recovery than full power----and idle power seemed to make for a more reliable entry to the stall as well.
The 152 seems to have some issues with yaw/yaw stability/yaw control. Several times the ball would be full deflection, rudder to correct had no effect. This seemed to happen more with a steep deck angle.
-
Where was this said please?
A long time ago, in response to questions about the spit1 and it's upside-down straight vertical fall.
-
Just as a reminder, people have been bringing up this same problem since day 1 of the introduction of the Ta-152 in AH.
That's not really true... since it didn't start happening until well into AH2. It was never an issue "since day 1" so it wouldn't have been reported.
Krusty stated that it was never reported, which I think is because it was well known the problem could happen if the airplane was/is mishandled.
Not so. If there were handling issues they were noted. Especially in flight tests. They don't preclude it from still serving in combat (look at the condemning handling for the F7F -- didn't mean it wasn't on the road to becoming the next USN fighter!).
As to the Ta152 with the repaired tail, when the Smithsonian tore it down for restoration they found the entire tail was atrociously botched. Not only was the whole thing broken off and reattached, it was done so poorly, and the plates/joints where the horizontal stabs were attached and anchored were done all wrong, producing the wrong angle (as compared to blueprint specs). Further, the entire job looked like it was botched to begin with and if I recall there was some shock this airframe ever flew at all in this condition.
It was not a minor bump.
-
That's not really true... since it didn't start happening until well into AH2. It was never an issue "since day 1" so it wouldn't have been reported.
Not so. If there were handling issues they were noted. Especially in flight tests. They don't preclude it from still serving in combat (look at the condemning handling for the F7F -- didn't mean it wasn't on the road to becoming the next USN fighter!).
As to the Ta152 with the repaired tail, when the Smithsonian tore it down for restoration they found the entire tail was atrociously botched. Not only was the whole thing broken off and reattached, it was done so poorly, and the plates/joints where the horizontal stabs were attached and anchored were done all wrong, producing the wrong angle (as compared to blueprint specs). Further, the entire job looked like it was botched to begin with and if I recall there was some shock this airframe ever flew at all in this condition.
It was not a minor bump.
I don't think that is true. The tail was changed as early 152 H-0s had problems with the early metal tail assembly falling off. The whole thing didn't "break off" it was changed to the wooden tail assembly which production H-0s/1s began to use. As for it being a "botched" job I have not read that anywhere else. By the way the 152 chalenge mentioned is not the NASM 152.
-
I think you misunderstood what I am trying to say Krusty, but then you got wrong what NASM found.
As kilo2 said I am talking about a prototype that crashed during the war. A Ta152 historian would know the answer.
-
I believe the nasm Ta152 might have worn a standard 190d tail at one time but with the extension of the fuselage..........which happens to be where the mess was.
-
Icepac - I know exactly what you're talking about - I've spun a Ta-152 from 20,000ft and couldn't recover a while ago. I was trying to rope a P-51 but I chalked it up to just a quirk but it stailled tail-first trying to hammerhead and then fell and spun like a brick - no input would adjust or recover. Engine on/off, auto climb, stick all the way down, opposite rudder, nothing worked. It was as if someone took the 152 by the wing and spun it like a frisbee.
But posting it here just attracks trolls - film it and post in the bugs report forum (http://bbs.hitechcreations.com/smf/index.php/board,195.0.html). :salute.
-
I have a film of me offline forcing myself into a stall in the Ta-152. I had an airstart of 20k and forced myself into the "Spinning sideways" and into the "Falling tail first" stalls.
http://www.mediafire.com/?ug26ke2a3cxhnca
I had pushed full downward trim, dumped flaps as far as possible, played with the throttle/rudders and I toyed around with my ailerons/elevators quite a bit.
I don't know how much help this will be but I hope it helps a little bit. I had 100% fuel and full load out of ammo. No DT.
-
To brag he flies at 30,000ft.
ack-ack
Looks like you have some competion
-
Krup and kilo brought up the best ways to recover from the stall.
Riding that stall is tricky and it often leads to you on the guys six that you were trying to evade.
You will get a split second to push your nose down since this stall normally comes on a nose up turn.
When the tail slides out this is when the nose drops for a second.
:salute
Oh and I have no idea on the physics in game...just from personal experience
-
I checked e6b and it said about 12 minutes fuel left as I fell through 10k feet.
I had drained the aft tank probably 2 hours earlier and ammo was around 25% remaining.
10k and being in a full tail-first stall only gives you a few seconds to save it (or not). Anything lower than 10k and you need to catch it immediatley or you simpley don't have enough altitude to work with.
Less ammo means less weight in a 152 foward of the CoG. As I said earlier, even empty it has a tail-heavy tendancy.
Was playing around with this 152 stall thing.....
Fuel load doesn't seem to have any effect on entry or recovery. I started with full tanks and burned off the Forward, then Left and Right. Even with fuel only in the aft tank I detected no difference in how the 152 handled.
The trick for recovery is to get the nose below the horizon. Dropping gear and flaps seemed to help get the nose down some. I was using forward stick and then full rudder on whichever side the airplane was banked toward to kind of "slice" the nose below the horizon. Once nose low standard spin recovery worked, the most altitude lost after starting the recovery was 6000' with the least being 2600'. Using idle power seemed to make for a quicker recovery than full power----and idle power seemed to make for a more reliable entry to the stall as well.
The 152 seems to have some issues with yaw/yaw stability/yaw control. Several times the ball would be full deflection, rudder to correct had no effect. This seemed to happen more with a steep deck angle.
Icepac - I know exactly what you're talking about - I've spun a Ta-152 from 20,000ft and couldn't recover a while ago. I was trying to rope a P-51 but I chalked it up to just a quirk but it stailled tail-first trying to hammerhead and then fell and spun like a brick - no input would adjust or recover. Engine on/off, auto climb, stick all the way down, opposite rudder, nothing worked. It was as if someone took the 152 by the wing and spun it like a frisbee.
But posting it here just attracks trolls - film it and post in the bugs report forum (http://bbs.hitechcreations.com/smf/index.php/board,195.0.html). :salute.
Trust me brother, don't go down that path, I've been there and done that on this BBS with the 152. It gets chalked up to accelerating into a stall (the only nasty stall a 152 has) due to excessive yaw brought on by the adverse effects of such a wide wing rolling so quickly in conjunction with the aircraft's aftward-favoring CoG (If I remember the whole episode correctly).
-
Less ammo means less weight in a 152 foward of the CoG. As I said earlier, even empty it has a tail-heavy tendancy.
I don't feel that an aft CG on the 152 has an adverse effect. The testing I was doing the other day I did starting with full fuel then ended up with forward and wing tanks empty and the 30mm cannon rounds empty. Didn't notice any difference in tendency to depart or recovery regardless of CG.
-
10k and being in a full tail-first stall only gives you a few seconds to save it (or not). Anything lower than 10k and you need to catch it immediatley or you simpley don't have enough altitude to work with.
The tail stall started at 30,000 feet.
-
noob
ill <S> you when you learn how to recover from a ta stall from 5000 ft
greens
-
The straight-down-tail-slide is only a minor part of the problem. That condition is bad, but it rarely happens simply because you have to try to slide tail first to get into it.
What is the main issue is that you can be flying along in a perfectly normal part of the flight envelope and for no reason your tail will slide out from under you like you lost your stabs and THEN put you into the tail slide.
My distinction is not that the tail slide is hard to get out of, it's that you shouldn't get INTO IT in the first place in most times it's happened to me. Basic, controlled, well above stall speed maneuvers, and for no reason (even with moderate inputs, NOT forcing it to do bad things) your tail will just whip under and you're flying backwards.
-
Greens....do it on purpose then come talk to some TA sticks.
Krusty I do find that funny as well...I can go straight vertical in a TA slow to almost zero speed and preform a stall maneuver quite easily but when I preform a high speed high yo yo I can put myself into a stall which if i miss correcting it in the first second it takes me a minute to get my nose below my tail...
I don't know...seems off
-
The straight-down-tail-slide is only a minor part of the problem. That condition is bad, but it rarely happens simply because you have to try to slide tail first to get into it.
What is the main issue is that you can be flying along in a perfectly normal part of the flight envelope and for no reason your tail will slide out from under you like you lost your stabs and THEN put you into the tail slide.
My distinction is not that the tail slide is hard to get out of, it's that you shouldn't get INTO IT in the first place in most times it's happened to me. Basic, controlled, well above stall speed maneuvers, and for no reason (even with moderate inputs, NOT forcing it to do bad things) your tail will just whip under and you're flying backwards.
Really? So in the hundreds of hours I have in the AH Ta152 I should have had this happen, right?
Didn't happen. Not once. I routinely do the falling leaf in for landing (WW1 definition, not the ridiculous Pitts Special thing) and reversing the slip hasn't even caused it. Of course I don't bang the rudder or ailerons over either.
Stay off the ailerons in the stall.
-
Really? So in the hundreds of hours I have in the AH Ta152 I should have had this happen, right?
"Hundreds of hours"
Well lets look at your stats.
http://bbs.hitechcreations.com/scores/players.php
2 kills in it this tour so far. - All bomber kills.
http://bbs.hitechcreations.com/scores/players.php
3 kills in it the previous tour. - All bomber kills.
Yep. That's definitely "hundreds of hours" in it.
Now, from what iv'e gathered here by just reading posts about you, what do you know about stalls when all you do is pick people from 25k and all of your kills are bombers in the 152 for the present and previous tour? I'm curious to know how you could even stall when climbing out from your dive, its not too hard to level out once you get to the desired alt before you start stalling.
-
Well I have never had it happen in either. The majority of my sorties the last 2 years have been in the 152 and I have never just stalled out "for no reason."
Now entering the tail stall is easy to do in a couple of situations way above stall speed. A tight barrel roll to the right even at high speed can enter you into the tail stall for example.
-
"Hundreds of hours"
Well lets look at your stats.
http://bbs.hitechcreations.com/scores/players.php
2 kills in it this tour so far. - All bomber kills.
http://bbs.hitechcreations.com/scores/players.php
3 kills in it the previous tour. - All bomber kills.
Yep. That's definitely "hundreds of hours" in it.
Now, from what iv'e gathered here by just reading posts about you, what do you know about stalls when all you do is pick people from 25k and all of your kills are bombers in the 152 for the present and previous tour? I'm curious to know how you could even stall when climbing out from your dive, its not too hard to level out once you get to the desired alt before you start stalling.
Hey dweeblet, go back more than a few months. Check September when I shot down more than 100 bombers at high altitude. 129 kills to 1 death. Yes, bomber kills which is what the 152 was designed to do. What people 'say' about me doesn't concern me. It's just DA cry babies trying to make themselves feel better about not being able to kill at the same level. Uptown got his start in the Sick Puppies (not a bright student). It took him years after leaving us to finally understand what I was trying to tell him. His 'pony skills' are a combination of what I taught him and the inner 'niki dweeb' he really is.
I also fly the P-51 in bomber escort role. My K/D is unmatched with it also.
All these 'super elite' turn fighting dweebs are still at stage one. Yes, they rule the BBS, but they do not rule the skies. No one does. Any 'super elite' mouths on this board can be killed by the freshest noob off the Internet on any given day. So enjoy your fantasy, but realize it doesn't mean anything to anybody except you. Really.
-
:rofl :rofl :rofl
-
Hey dweeblet, go back more than a few months. Check September when I shot down more than 100 bombers at high altitude. 129 kills to 1 death. Yes, bomber kills which is what the 152 was designed to do. What people 'say' about me doesn't concern me. It's just DA cry babies trying to make themselves feel better about not being able to kill at the same level. Uptown got his start in the Sick Puppies (not a bright student). It took him years after leaving us to finally understand what I was trying to tell him. His 'pony skills' are a combination of what I taught him and the inner 'niki dweeb' he really is.
I also fly the P-51 in bomber escort role. My K/D is unmatched with it also.
All these 'super elite' turn fighting dweebs are still at stage one. Yes, they rule the BBS, but they do not rule the skies. No one does. Any 'super elite' mouths on this board can be killed by the freshest noob off the Internet on any given day. So enjoy your fantasy, but realize it doesn't mean anything to anybody except you. Really.
(http://static1.fjcdn.com/comments/lolwut+_4c1285e48cebd107b58174b864a9b5fa.jpg)
-
All these 'super elite' turn fighting dweebs are still at stage one. Yes, they rule the BBS, but they do not rule the skies. No one does. Any 'super elite' mouths on this board can be killed by the freshest noob off the Internet on any given day. So enjoy your fantasy, but realize it doesn't mean anything to anybody except you. Really.
Translation:
"I just couldn't grasp the finer points of stage one ACM, so I moved directly to professional picker, which was much more commodious to confirming my high opinion of myself. On the BBS no one agrees with my view of AH, but that's because they are all less intelligent than me. I simply have to state my view and it just washes away all of those lesser important and hurtful opinions. Turn fighters get killed, everyone can see that. I don't get killed hardly at all therefore I am a better pilot and a real killer. Anybody can look up my score to see that".
-
What people 'say' about me doesn't concern me. It's just DA cry babies trying to make themselves feel better about not being able to kill at the same level. Uptown got his start in the Sick Puppies (not a bright student). It took him years after leaving us to finally understand what I was trying to tell him. His 'pony skills' are a combination of what I taught him and the inner 'niki dweeb' he really is.
You sure like to use the "DA cry babies" excuse a lot. You also like to degrade people who could easily beat you in a 1v1.
-
.... Uptown got his start in the Sick Puppies (not a bright student). It took him years after leaving us to finally understand what I was trying to tell him. His 'pony skills' are a combination of what I taught him and the inner 'niki dweeb' he really is............
:lol I do actually wish we had the A36 in the game :D Now let me address your comments about me in further detail. Yes you did get me interested in the P51D and taught me a few things. Also you taught me a few things that I didn't want to do. Such as flying long boring flights without ever firing a shot. I want to get in there and mix it up and try things that some folks say can't be done in a Mustang..maybe that's the "stupid student Niki dweeb" in me. But it sure as hell is fun! :devil Maybe that's the reason I jumped over to Rooks to fly with the 412th at the time. SkatSr was doing things with the 51 that I was wanting to do. I learned quite a bit from him also, but began to see he had a style or pattern all his own as well.
Ya see I'm kind of hard headed and like to do things "my way" http://youtu.be/egY8rUpxqcE . <---tnx Pipz :cool:
But now with that being said, I do not believe there is any of your "students" in the Sick Puppies that came along after me that can whip me in a P51 today. Over these last several years I've tried to use the styles of many different players to come up with my own way of handling the P51. Is it smart? probably not as I'm never mentioned as a upper tier 51 guy, but I sure as heck enjoy myself none the less.
So now I'll leave you with the soothing sounds of HankJr. to express my will to carry on as just a ole stupid pixel pilot http://youtu.be/I4s0nzsU1Wg
-
:rofl :rofl
got him on ignore.....
but someone quoted him.....
holy hell chalenge....you have got to be.......seriously now...the greatest stick AH has ever seen.....
no seriously....I mean come on with that score I am surprised any cons can get close to you....... you are so good they drop out of the sky when you are around....
you are so bad arse you don't even have to go to DA.....you are smacking everyone around here just fine.....
I am utterly amazed.....its amazing at how you describe your flying and fighting skillz......hell I have never had the privilege of witnessing such greatness...but by your description....WOW I can tell you are the best there is......
-
:rofl :rofl
got him on ignore.....
but someone quoted him.....
holy hell chalenge....you have got to be.......seriously now...the greatest stick AH has ever seen.....
no seriously....I mean come on with that score I am surprised any cons can get close to you....... you are so good they drop out of the sky when you are around....
you are so bad arse you don't even have to go to DA.....you are smacking everyone around here just fine.....
I am utterly amazed.....its amazing at how you describe your flying and fighting skillz......hell I have never had the privilege of witnessing such greatness...but by your description....WOW I can tell you are the best there is......
Ink i agree with his vast knowledge of planes and the "correct" way to fly them i wonder if he would want to build a combat flight sim for me i have the Cash....
:x :x :airplane: :airplane: :joystick:
-
I thought I saw Chalenge's great p51 once. I tried to get a closer view of such awesome power. but after three sectors I ran low on fuel and was left wondering if I was only chasing a mirage.
-
Ink i agree with his vast knowledge of planes and the "correct" way to fly them i wonder if he would want to build a combat flight sim for me i havew the Cash....
that is a great idea..... :rock
I knew someone that was gonna do just that, but somehow a scorpion bite made it so it never went to completion.......so if I was you I would stay far away from deserts while this is going on.
:salute
-
I thought I saw Chalenge's great p51 once. I tried to get a closer view of such awesome power. but after three sectors I ran low on fuel and was left wondering if I was only chasing a mirage.
That's because you've never mastered the 'Forrest Gump' ACM Scotch. He can just do things with that aircraft that you can't grasp, you DA cry-baby moonbat :neener:
holy hell chalenge....you have got to be.......seriously now...the greatest stick AH has ever seen.....
One of the funniest things I've ever seen on this forum ever is this dingleberry's attempts clambering to try and reassert his personal reality, after the public arse humping he just got this week, in the following two posts:-
http://bbs.hitechcreations.com/smf/index.php/topic,344134.msg4547082.html#msg4547082
And especially this one where he tries to imply he's been called a cheat because he's 'out-turned' Zeros in his 51:-
http://bbs.hitechcreations.com/smf/index.php/topic,338341.msg4547098.html#msg4547098
Which is doubly strange when you consider this posting about a fight in equally turning planes:-
I had the honor of having Chalenge coming to the DA with me once. His plane, his setup. At the time he was playing regularly in EW or MW, don't remember. Tried to find an equal fight but he would always be with the stars or if in trouble, run for sectors to safety or until a friend was close. :) So anyways, we go in the DA, P51D was the choice he made. We merge, turn a little, I'm on his six, i'm in pursuit for the lenght of the canyons..... darn, he's not turning. So i'm D800 behind. I start to shoot seeing he's not going to turn. Almost ran out of ammo lol. Eventually have enough hits and he goes "boom". He tells me my gunnery sux.. lmao He logged, never had a rematch.
Which inexplicably didn't go so well.
When I read his postings now my eyes pass through his words but this is what I see flashing in my head:-
LACES OUT! I am good, I am good. LACES OUT! Black is white, black is white, I am uber, LACES OUT! Look at my score, LACES OUT!
Uptown, I remember a night when you brought your P-51D to my house (the furball lake) over two years ago now under that 'other' callsign and proceeded to bend that Pony like Beckham, flying the wings off it and scaring the living bejeebus out of an awful lot of Spixteen and chog pilots. Your flying of that aircraft that night inspired my to go deeper with my ACM and made me think: 'if he can do that with a P-5D...'.
Was a most memorable demonstration of skill and knowledge. I've never told you this but thank you for that :salute :rock
-
It's like watching NASCAR. Instead of cars turning in circles for an hour, they watch green and blue roll by for an hour. Instead of the occasional car crash, their plane crashes.
By the way Chalenge, I was looking for you today, but Uptown told me I forgot to check the heavens. That will be on my to-do list tomorrow.
-
Yes you did get me interested in the P51D and taught me a few things. Also you taught me a few things that I didn't want to do. Such as flying long boring flights without ever firing a shot. I want to get in there and mix it up and try things that some folks say can't be done in a Mustang..maybe that's the "stupid student Niki dweeb" in me. But it sure as hell is fun!
SkatSr was doing things with the 51 that I was wanting to do. I learned quite a bit from him also, but began to see he had a style or pattern all his own as well.
Over these last several years I've tried to use the styles of many different players to come up with my own way of handling the P51. Is it smart? probably not as I'm never mentioned as a upper tier 51 guy, but I sure as heck enjoy myself none the less.
I approve of this message, especially since its apaprently helped you advance up the AH foodchain.
-
Hey!!! Chalenge revolutionized fuel economy in this game!!!
Praise be to Chalenge!!!
-
:lol I do actually wish we had the A36 in the game
I have no idea what you're referring to, but so do I. I have fun playing AH. The only problem I have is on this page. Every one of these responses don't hold a candle to the reality of having fun. Besides, everyone of the respondants is still on level 1.
Most of these noobs (all of them) is that they have more fun poking fun at people on the BBS. Fortunately, most of the more mature crowd (and I'm talking brains, not age) realize how utterly moronic these noobs are. All of them.
But, they subscribe and help keep the lights on, so most people stop posting on the General forums where these moonbats hangout.
JunkyII, spend less time raving and more time. . . I don't know. . . growing a brain?
-
Can't take a joke!!! Real mature big guy...
Fact is in my 24 years I have probably seen more of this world then most 50 year olds.
How do I reach your so called level 2?
I'm interested....seriously
-
I also recall getting in close to the great and almighty chalenge's P51D o DOOM, I was utterly amazed at what awesomeness stood before me, I watched as he gracefully danced about the sky killing con after con after con and just effortlessly pwned all with his greatness...well until said greatness took a 30mm to the bellybutton and blew up *shrugs*
Many small, tiny pieces of said greatness proceeded to fall to Earth shortly there after :old:
-
I also recall getting in close to the great and almighty chalenge's P51D o DOOM, I was utterly amazed at what awesomeness stood before me, I watched as he gracefully danced about the sky killing con after con after con and just effortlessly pwned all with his greatness...well until said greatness took a 30mm to the bellybutton and blew up *shrugs*
Many small, tiny pieces of said greatness proceeded to fall to Earth shortly there after :old:
And yet the last time we met this is how I left you (1k off my field of course). You tried twisting and turning and flopping, but you're nothing like what I've seen out of Grizz and Junky. The smack you got down, but the flying needs polish just like everyone else. I checked my entire film cache. No other films feature you at all and I keep everything.
(http://i447.photobucket.com/albums/qq197/Chalenge08/Redbull_zps7d6d7ce3.jpg)
-
And yet the last time we met this is how I left you (1k off my field of course). You tried twisting and turning and flopping, but you're nothing like what I've seen out of Grizz and Junky. The smack you got down, but the flying needs polish just like everyone else. I checked my entire film cache. No other films feature you at all and I keep everything.
(http://i447.photobucket.com/albums/qq197/Chalenge08/Redbull_zps7d6d7ce3.jpg)
lmao, see the 109 in the top right? Im sure he, and quite a few other friends were there to help you :D and you still couldn't finish the job :aok
When did I say I was anywhere near Grizz or Junky's skill level? Never did, because I am not.
PS: How long have you been saving up this catalog of films and SS's for me? :rofl
-
That screen is from December 2012, less than a month ago. That 109 is one of yours. BTW, you are blacked out in that screen. I saw clearly from my nearness to you that I had already killed you (engine cold, blood, the whole bit). You flew directly into the ack and died. I am not too worried about you.
I watched you fighting some Bish in TT tonight. I was actually impressed that someone could over-control that much and still not spin and crash.
-
(https://encrypted-tbn2.gstatic.com/images?q=tbn:ANd9GcQJIiHOgS_vGYb6YX8cU0H7P2H6JREw6RIlCZ1W9SGLmWZOPelSSQ)
I guess over controlling is better than not controlling at all and just running straight to the deck 4 sectors home, eh Mr. Pony God? ^_^
Would you like me to go digging through films so I can prove how awesomesauce I am too? :rofl
-
I have no idea what you're referring to, but so do I. I have fun playing AH. The only problem I have is on this page. Every one of these responses don't hold a candle to the reality of having fun. Besides, everyone of the respondants is still on level 1.
Most of these noobs (all of them) is that they have more fun poking fun at people on the BBS. Fortunately, most of the more mature crowd (and I'm talking brains, not age) realize how utterly moronic these noobs are. All of them.
But, they subscribe and help keep the lights on, so most people stop posting on the General forums where these moonbats hangout.
JunkyII, spend less time raving and more time. . . I don't know. . . growing a brain?
Chalenge I'm sorry to break this to you but not only are you a crap cartoon pilot you're just not that intelligent. I know you think you are, but, well, that's because you're deluded. It seems probable you've got a decent narcissistic personality disorder on the go, which is sad and a source of constant smouldering pain & discomfort for you, but fortunately a hilarious source of humour and enjoyment for the rest of us. I'll give you an example: you uber score serves to confirm your awesomeness to yourself and conversely how pathetic your flying is to the rest of us. Do you know why those responses are dissimilar?
No one else agrees with your position, and I mean no one. Haven't you noticed this consistency? Your trying to get counter derisive comments such as moonbat, tumbleweed & DA whiners established in response to being labelled a 'picker' is hilarious, sad and very very obviously confirmation of everything everybody says and thinks of you.
If your 'Level 1' theory is valid, let's organise a series of duels versus some of the 'Level 1' dogfighting noobs around here (as YOU insist on calling us / them) in the same aircraft and see how you get on. You should win right, if your ability has transcended 'Level 1'? This would confirm beyond doubt your assertion that you are more evolved and sophisticated and skillful.
This is the only way you can actually save face now, by proving you are correct. Otherwise you are just going to fade away as a pathetic self-important, deluded whiner.
Let me help you, the deploy balls lever is on the left side of your cockpit just next to your flap control (which you may have also never used). What do you say uber boy?
Me first :banana:
No other films feature you at all and I keep everything.
Creepy. Lots of serial killers obsessively keep trophies too :D
-
Wow Shida, thank you for the kind words about me back there. I really appreciate that. :cheers: :salute
-
I have no idea what you're referring to, but so do I. I have fun playing AH. The only problem I have is on this page. Every one of these responses don't hold a candle to the reality of having fun. Besides, everyone of the respondants is still on level 1.
Most of these noobs (all of them) is that they have more fun poking fun at people on the BBS. Fortunately, most of the more mature crowd (and I'm talking brains, not age) realize how utterly moronic these noobs are. All of them.
But, they subscribe and help keep the lights on, so most people stop posting on the General forums where these moonbats hangout.
JunkyII, spend less time raving and more time. . . I don't know. . . growing a brain?
The A36 is a mistake on my part. I guess it's the Mustang 1 I'd like to have in the game (cannon bird). It'd be a good fit for a 51/niki guy IMO ;) Anyway I don't understand this:"Every one of these responses don't hold a candle to the reality of having fun". Each individual has their own idea of fun no matter what level of skill they may or may not be at. Whether it be buff hunting at 30K or trying to get 3 seconds of air in a jeep. I find that the journey to get to the next level is where the fun's at.
-
Chalenge I'm sorry to break this to you but not only are you a crap cartoon pilot you're just not that intelligent. I know you think you are, but, well, that's because you're deluded. It seems probable you've got a decent narcissistic personality disorder on the go, which is sad and a source of constant smouldering pain & discomfort for you, but fortunately a hilarious source of humour and enjoyment for the rest of us. I'll give you an example: you uber score serves to confirm your awesomeness to yourself and conversely how pathetic your flying is to the rest of us. Do you know why those responses are dissimilar?
No one else agrees with your position, and I mean no one. Haven't you noticed this consistency? Your trying to get counter derisive comments such as moonbat, tumbleweed & DA whiners established in response to being labelled a 'picker' is hilarious, sad and very very obviously confirmation of everything everybody says and thinks of you.
If your 'Level 1' theory is valid, let's organise a series of duels versus some of the 'Level 1' dogfighting noobs around here (as YOU insist on calling us / them) in the same aircraft and see how you get on. You should win right, if your ability has transcended 'Level 1'? This would confirm beyond doubt your assertion that you are more evolved and sophisticated and skillful.
This is the only way you can actually save face now, by proving you are correct. Otherwise you are just going to fade away as a pathetic self-important, deluded whiner.
Let me help you, the deploy balls lever is on the left side of your cockpit just next to your flap control (which you may have also never used). What do you say uber boy?
Me first :banana:
Creepy. Lots of serial killers obsessively keep trophies too :D
Shida, my coffee is all over my desk and monitor. :rofl
Crazy how how the truth of a pinpoint perception can make something so much funnier...
-
I got dibs on second. :banana:
Chalenge couldn't fight his way out of a wet toilet paper.
-
Game, Set and Match, Mr Shida.
:lol
-
I got dibs on second. :banana:
Chalenge couldn't fight his way out of a wet toilet paper.
with a straight razor.......... :D
-
Best way to get a 152 flying level is to not stall it in the first place.
If HTC weren't so good with the modeling, I would say the 152 has a bug in the CG. It really seems to act like your 400lb mechanic got caught on the tail wheel when you stall her.
-
Chalenge I'm sorry to break this to you but not only are you a crap cartoon pilot you're just not that intelligent.
And yet you, and all the other moonbats are just crap.
-
And yet you, and all the other moonbats are just crap.
Oh oh oh ooooh ooooch ouch, yikes the pain make it stop. :rofl
Is that all you've got Chalenge, after the reputation-spanking you just received? You argue like I'm told you fly. Run along now and gather your energy advantage. Pffft.
-
Oh oh oh ooooh ooooch ouch, yikes the pain make it stop. :rofl
Is that all you've got Chalenge, after the reputation-spanking you just received? You argue like I'm told you fly. Run along now and gather your energy advantage. Pffft.
IT'S CALLED EXTENDING!!!! TACTICAL STUFF HERE SHIDA, SHEESH
-
Oh oh oh ooooh ooooch ouch, yikes the pain make it stop. :rofl
Is that all you've got Chalenge, after the reputation-spanking you just received? You argue like I'm told you fly. Run along now and gather your energy advantage. Pffft.
Nrshida if you want to duel him you best be looking in the stratosphere you might be able to drag him down to 30k anything under that and his tuck tail reflex kicks in. :joystick:
-
IT'S CALLED EXTENDING!!!! TACTICAL STUFF HERE SHIDA, SHEESH
Oh yeah. I'm such a moonbat.
Nrshida if you want to duel him you best be looking in the stratosphere you might be able to drag him down to 30k anything under that and his tuck tail reflex kicks in. :joystick:
I'm afraid of heights ZooM :old:
-
I like Chalenge. I like flying with him and have many many times. Yeah, he flys with some alt but I have not observed him unwilling to give it up and have fought with him on the deck also. He has also dove in to save my butt many times and then I'm very thankful that he has the alt to convert to speed. My observation is, that he is a defender, which does not work at low alts when the inbound agressors are at alt. We talk quite a bit while flying and I have found him to be intelligent and a gentelmen, I look forward to winging with him upon my return.
-
I like Chalenge. I like flying with him and have many many times. Yeah, he flys with some alt but I have not observed him unwilling to give it up and have fought with him on the deck also. He has also dove in to save my butt many times and then I'm very thankful that he has the alt to convert to speed. My observation is, that he is a defender, which does not work at low alts when the inbound agressors are at alt. We talk quite a bit while flying and I have found him to be intelligent and a gentelmen, I look forward to winging with him upon my return.
wohoooo :rolleyes:
-
I like Chalenge. I like flying with him and have many many times. Yeah, he flys with some alt but I have not observed him unwilling to give it up and have fought with him on the deck also. He has also dove in to save my butt many times and then I'm very thankful that he has the alt to convert to speed. My observation is, that he is a defender, which does not work at low alts when the inbound agressors are at alt. We talk quite a bit while flying and I have found him to be intelligent and a gentelmen, I look forward to winging with him upon my return.
I'm not entirely sure if you're serious or just trolling here.
-
The Ta152 defies the laws of physics in this game. It flies like there's no stabililzers on it in many cases, when in fact it's an absurd stall code. Even in low-fuel (low weight) situations the stall is outrageous and unsubstantiated for how AH portrays it.
Likely the result of a conspiracy of jewish labor at the factory sabotaging production. I suggest we send a staff car and summon Mr Schindler at once!
-
<SIGH> thot this was about a unrecoverable stall/spin in a TA152? sheesh. id still pwn 99.9 percent of yall in a duel of TA152s and i aint even flown in about yr and a half besides one time couple weeks ago. crash landed 4 kills :lol btw anyone w know how in the ta152 can recover an uncontrollable stall tail spin if they know how.
i gots my Polar Bear chest out bigger!!
-
Greens....I would :ahand and deflate that chest for you :aok
-
And yet the last time we met this is how I left you (1k off my field of course). You tried twisting and turning and flopping, but you're nothing like what I've seen out of Grizz and Junky. The smack you got down, but the flying needs polish just like everyone else. I checked my entire film cache. No other films feature you at all and I keep everything.
(http://i447.photobucket.com/albums/qq197/Chalenge08/Redbull_zps7d6d7ce3.jpg)
I read this twice, just to be sure....it sounds as though you arerelating an incidence of ack hugging to me. 1k off your base, screenshot from inside the damaged aircraft. You should delve into your archive and show us the film of you killing redbull. Otherwise the credit should go to HiTech for his laser guided ack
-
Yes, bomber kills which is what the 152 was designed to do.
No. It was not. The Ta152 was designed as a high alt fighter, meant to engage other fighters. It was not intended as a bomber hunter nor was it used as one. Your use of it as one doesn't mean you have the same experience as somebody like moot (or, to a lesser extent, myself) that push this plane to places where it actually might stall. When you're hunting bombers, it is a chase, a hunt, but not a dogfight.
Doesn't matter if you had 100-1 ratio against bombers. You can get that in many/any plane in the game. When hunting bombers you're never going to get into the situation where you would experience the tail-stall.
So, frankly, it doesn't matter what others say about you... it matters what you described about yourself. You're not using the 152 in any way remotely aggressive enough to bring about the topic of this thread.
Which, by the way, is NOT to have a pissing contest between shida and chalenge.
-
No. It was not. The Ta152 was designed as a high alt fighter, meant to engage other fighters. It was not intended as a bomber hunter nor was it used as one. Your use of it as one doesn't mean you have the same experience as somebody like moot (or, to a lesser extent, myself) that push this plane to places where it actually might stall. When you're hunting bombers, it is a chase, a hunt, but not a dogfight.
Doesn't matter if you had 100-1 ratio against bombers. You can get that in many/any plane in the game. When hunting bombers you're never going to get into the situation where you would experience the tail-stall.
So, frankly, it doesn't matter what others say about you... it matters what you described about yourself. You're not using the 152 in any way remotely aggressive enough to bring about the topic of this thread.
Which, by the way, is NOT to have a pissing contest between shida and chalenge.
Krusty...just a heads up........you know you are arguing with the smartest guy here right.....the best there is......you are wrong obviously...cant you see that....durrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrr
I was hoping he would go to DA with me and teach me his elite skills and knowledge of fighting......Alas I am afraid he is just so good all he has to do is type out that he is the best....
-
No. It was not. The Ta152 was designed as a high alt fighter, meant to engage other fighters.
Where are you getting this?
The Ta-152H was a high-altitude interceptor, designed to hit fast bombers north of 20k. This was also in response to reports of the B-29. Everything I have ever read on the subject points to this, I would be more than interested to read anything to the contrary. Just the inclusion of 30mm cannon screams bomber-interceptor...
Just because the situation over Europe when the handful of Ta-152's saw combat ended up with them taking on enemy fighters doesn't mean that the entire project wasn't designed, from the start, to create a fast high-altitude bomber interceptor.
-
Where are you getting this?
The Ta-152H was a high-altitude interceptor, designed to hit fast bombers north of 20k. This was also in response to reports of the B-29. Everything I have ever read on the subject points to this, I would be more than interested to read anything to the contrary. Just the inclusion of 30mm cannon screams bomber-interceptor...
Just because the situation over Europe when the handful of Ta-152's saw combat ended up with them taking on enemy fighters doesn't mean that the entire project wasn't designed, from the start, to create a fast high-altitude bomber interceptor.
You really don't know what you're talking about. It had 30mm so it must have been designed for bombers, huh? Bzzzt! Wrong! It flew high, so it MUST have been to hunt B-29s, huh? Bzzzt! Wrong! 109K had both a high blown engine and a 30mm cannon, and they weren't designed for bomber hunting either.
The Ta152 was a continuation/modification of the Fw190 line, simple as that. The dora took the FTH up higher to contend with US fighter planes, as compared to the A8, but it wasn't enough. The 152 series had multiple lines, including the 152C and the 152H, C being the lower altitude variant, and H being the high-altitude FIGHTER variant. It was not an interceptor. That term really doesn't apply much until the jet ages and the cold war.
Its goal, its mission, and its purpose, was to give the Luftwaffe pilots an edge (or at least, an equal footing) to the P-51s and P-47s flying well over 30,000 feet, where the LW had previously not been able to fight.
It was intended to win dogfights, not hunt bombers. The Ta152 is a direct product of the early-1943 testing on a Fw190C prototype, though turbosuperchargers were deemed too complicated and too expensive when high-blown superchargers were just as good and far more reliable. In 1943 the Germans still had a chance (or at least high hopes) of winning the war against the Allies.
If you want to make a bomber killer you go the heavily armored and heavily armed route. You make it fast and you make it small so it's hard to hit. The 152 had such long slender wings so that it could turn and dogfight at extreme altitudes. It was significantly lightened, including REDUCING the ammo load. There's no need for this when hunting bombers. However, this was done on the 109 FIGHTERS as well, sometimes reducing ammo load to save weight for dogfighting. None of this adds up to "bomber hunter"... That's just bad info.
-
You really don't know what you're talking about.
Why should I have expected anything other than this kind of jerk-off response? I ASKED you to prove what you are saying, since it flies in the face of everything I have read. Your response is above.
You are not just wrong, you're arrogantly ignorant.
Specifically:
If you want to make a bomber killer you go the heavily armored and heavily armed route. You make it fast and you make it small so it's hard to hit. The 152 had such long slender wings so that it could turn and dogfight at extreme altitudes. It was significantly lightened, including REDUCING the ammo load. There's no need for this when hunting bombers. However, this was done on the 109 FIGHTERS as well, sometimes reducing ammo load to save weight for dogfighting. None of this adds up to "bomber hunter"... That's just bad info.
The Ta-152 had **330 POUNDS*** of armor added to the cockpit and engine areas. I guess so it could HO real good, right partner? YEEEHAAAW!!! :banana:
You DON'T put a 30mm cannon on anything that is supposedly purpose built to dogfight. We're talking reality here, the war that happened, not players able to learn to lob taters in a sim.
Since you have nothing but an enthusiast's heart and your own conjecture, let me throw just a FEW quotes out there to assist in illustrating why I found your assertion to be somewhat radical:
Due to the difficulties German interceptors were having when battling American heavy bombers at altitudes above 20,000 feet, and in light of rumors of new B-29 bombers with better altitude capabilities, the Reichsluftfahrtministerium (German Air Ministry, or "RLM") requested proposals from both Focke-Wulf and Messerschmitt for a high-altitude interceptor. Messerschmitt answered with the Bf 109H, and Focke-Wulf with the Fw 190 Raffat-1, or Ra-1 (fighter), Ra-2 (high altitude fighter) and Ra-3 (ground-attack aircraft).
The Fock-Wulf Ta 152 was a short-lived, high-level interceptor fielded by the German Luftwaffe in the latter part of World War 2. She was developed from the existing Fw 190 fighter series family and incorporated a new wing, lengthened fuselage, high-altitude/high-performance capabilities utilizing a new nitrous oxide power boosting system (one of the first known uses of such a system) and powerful cannon armament to contend with the ever-growing presence of Allied bombers wreaking havoc against German interests across Europe.
By 1944, German infrastructure and manufacturing capabilities were being ravaged on a daily basis by hundreds, sometimes thousands, of American bombers in the day and British bombers at night. Additionally, word of the new high-altitude, long-range Boeing B-29 Superfortress had soon spread throughout the German authority and a pressing matter for defense of its war industry soon became critical. As such, the Air Ministry (RLM) looked to fulfill a new requirement for a high-altitude interceptor and tapped both the proven Messerschmitt and Focke-Wulf firms for a viable solution.
As the Ta 152 was intended to kill enemy bombers, she would require a heavy "punch" in the armament department. As such, armament centered around a 30mm Mk 108 series cannon mounted in the propeller hub and set up to fire through the center of the spinning propeller.
The Ta 152C with the lighter DB 603 engine was otherwise identical to the Ta 152B. It was considered primarily as a Zerstorer. The MW 50 boost installation for the enhancement of low-altitude performance was standard. An Fw 190D prototype had been rebuilt and flown with a DB 603 engine in support of the Ta 152C program, and this plane took to the air for the first time in October 1944. During December 1944 and January 1945, the first Ta 152C-O service test aircraft joined the test program. The definitive production version was to be the Ta 152C-1, and it was hoped that the first examples could be rolling off the production lines in April of 1945. However, series production of the Ta 152C was only just beginning when Allied forces overran the assembly plants, so this fighter never entered service with the Luftwaffe.
Ta 152H/H-1/H-1
A high altitude fighter with a pressurised cabin and a long span wing, increased to 47 ft 6 3/4 in (14.50 m) span. The Ta 152H-0 pre-production aircraft were mostly rebuilt from Fw 190A-1 airframes and had a Junkers Jumo 213E engine with MW-50 water/methanol injection. The production Ta 152H-1 began to leave the Cottbus lines in November 1944, armed with one engine mounted 30 mm MK 108 cannon and two 20 mm MG 151/20 cannon in the wing roots.
Adding a pressurised cabin and a long span wing a fighter from a Zerstörer does not make.
If you can find the thread that unravels the great conspiracy to re-write history by dozens of books and websites, I will be more than happy to re-evaluate my opinion. Until then, I am sorry you are wrong. I do like your avatar.
-
It was not an interceptor. That term really doesn't apply much until the jet ages and the cold war.
Both the Supermarine Spitfire and the Messerschmitt Bf 109 (for just two examples), were designed originally as short range interceptors.
-
No. It was not. The Ta152 was designed as a high alt fighter, meant to engage other fighters. It was not intended as a bomber hunter nor was it used as one. Your use of it as one doesn't mean you have the same experience as somebody like moot (or, to a lesser extent, myself) that push this plane to places where it actually might stall. When you're hunting bombers, it is a chase, a hunt, but not a dogfight.
Doesn't matter if you had 100-1 ratio against bombers. You can get that in many/any plane in the game. When hunting bombers you're never going to get into the situation where you would experience the tail-stall.
So, frankly, it doesn't matter what others say about you... it matters what you described about yourself. You're not using the 152 in any way remotely aggressive enough to bring about the topic of this thread.
Which, by the way, is NOT to have a pissing contest between shida and chalenge.
Wrong again Krusty. The Ta152 was developed as a high altitude interceptor, because of the difficulties involved with battling American heavy bombers. Cute how you twist that word 'interceptor' to mean what you want it to mean. The Ta152 was designed from the beginning to stop heavies, which is the ultimate role of any fighter pilot. While the DA cry babies 'go round the roseberry bush,' the real work is upstairs. I can't blame them though. Even the Germans in WWII feared bombers at high altitude. The uber 30mm Mk 108's were mounted in fighters to knock down heavies, not shoot noobs. But, even the experten could not pull it off well. Lyric has produced actual evidence that every fighter equipped with the 30mm that went up against high altitude bombers never hit their targets.
As to your other accusation. Watch your mouth.
I wonder who the Ki84 is?
(http://i447.photobucket.com/albums/qq197/Chalenge08/InkUberalt_zps43db2dfc.jpg)
Oops, someone just got oiled! Say it ain't so!
(http://i447.photobucket.com/albums/qq197/Chalenge08/InkDies_zpse935b5b1.jpg)
The DA definition of 'getting owned' is reversing and killing anyone that has alt and position on you. Like I said, it can happen to anyone.
Oh, snap! Krusty just got told!
-
To quote Ron Burgandy....."Go on"....
Liking where this thread is going.
-
Apparently this recent Panzer driver got frustrated with the mudhens and decided to kill Bishop ordnance with a B17! Maybe he didn't want his fighter or attack score burned by ack, huh?
Who would this be Junky? :D
(http://i447.photobucket.com/albums/qq197/Chalenge08/Junky17_zpsb9c14cb6.jpg)
-
As to your other accusation. Watch your mouth.
(http://i1114.photobucket.com/albums/k526/rwrk2/scared9.gif)
-
I see while I've have been enjoying a nice beer or three in the pub, chalenge has continued to be ..
Here's a diagram to aid your selection.
(http://t2.gstatic.com/images?q=tbn:ANd9GcQHTfDGJfVtRIu1SC_GcuecU2-_UcIy7_xmF5tuR39Gtov8XOLL)
-
Why should I have expected anything other than this kind of jerk-off response? I ASKED you to prove what you are saying, since it flies in the face of everything I have read. Your response is above.
The Ta-152 had **330 POUNDS*** of armor added to the cockpit and engine areas. I guess so it could HO real good, right partner? YEEEHAAAW!!! :banana:
And yet first bullet in front arc will automatically get you radiator hit...
Regardless purpose of the plane, its either unacceptable made by design, or its unacceptable modelled.
I have yet to see a contemporary flight test report of the TA152 showing these flaws.
-
I have yet to see a contemporary flight test report of the TA152 showing these flaws.
Historical context. Picture this at Rechlin in 44/45. Remember e.g. half or a whole batch of production was destroyed by allied attack. Or... Some Rechlin test crew using emergency fire water as drinking water. Ruggedness under fire is lower in priority - if the plane can't even fly or shoot straight, you're not yet down priority list to get to fire resistance. Remember the plane was put into production before testing had gotten anywhere near halfway done (vague memory of exact proportions, but that's the gist of it)
Also see the fuss in other development times where the 152 is declared unfit for basic gunnery trials due to instabilities in 2 or more axes (vague memory cause I havent thought of this in years).
All in all the 152 was a bad design as flown in the field. Whether or not the reasons for it are mitigating (e.g. slave labor sabotage, instead of e.g. Kurt Tank screwing up or Rechlin being clueless about what pilots needed or field pilots not trying hard enough to make the best of what they got)
Finally Krusty saying the 152 was not made at least in majority of intent as high alt bomber intercept ... what are you smoking now Krusty? Have you not even read a single good 152 reference book, or going amnesiac or what?
And yes sometimes in that endless tail first spin, the controls are inverted in effect as someone above says. Sorry I don't remember well enough to give something useful like a flowchart.. And some of the above debate sounds a bit simplistic. E.G. Widewing once said the 152 felt like the rudder being blanked by airflow. When I considered this at the tail end of 10 years of "flying" the 152, that sounded as true as any other hypothesis for the 152 not "feeling" right. This suggestion of Widewing's is just one item that upsets the whole conviction that "the coad is wrong". IOW there could be many more such items should one actually study this case with proper aerodynamics knowledge instead of armchairing it.
I personally think the 152 "properly" modeled would be just as much a handful, even if the flight physics weren't (as they seem to be) OOR once you're beyond the useful (air combat) flight envelope as with this damned spin
---
yall have fun
-
Apparently this recent Panzer driver got frustrated with the mudhens and decided to kill Bishop ordnance with a B17! Maybe he didn't want his fighter or attack score burned by ack, huh?
Who would this be Junky? :D
(http://i447.photobucket.com/albums/qq197/Chalenge08/Junky17_zpsb9c14cb6.jpg)
Oh gawd he caught me in a buff....which I'm terrible in but I do like gunning....
Is that me?
-
Wrong again Krusty. The Ta152 was developed as a high altitude interceptor, because of the difficulties involved with battling American heavy bombers.
Interesting considering every book I have classify's the Ta-152 as a High Alt fighter - There was no designation for BOMBERS or Fighters - Look at the Bf109K - idea is hitting a target with a single 30mm causes enough damage it would bring down a single engined fighter.
Ta-152 was designed to fly High, fast with a good punch to combat bombers and mustangs.
There were other variants that were put on paper, so the real answer is it was NOT designed for bombers strictly, or an Interceptor, but a High Alt Fighter.
-
How about we classically the TA152 a multi-role fighter designed to take down any enemy aircraft put in front of it? :aok
-
Interesting considering every book I have classify's the Ta-152 as a High Alt fighter - There was no designation for BOMBERS or Fighters - Look at the Bf109K - idea is hitting a target with a single 30mm causes enough damage it would bring down a single engined fighter.
Ta-152 was designed to fly High, fast with a good punch to combat bombers and mustangs.
There were other variants that were put on paper, so the real answer is it was NOT designed for bombers strictly, or an Interceptor, but a High Alt Fighter.
The actual answer is much more convoluted than such black/white. Expectation of very high alt bombers was one of if not the main initial motivation for sure though.
-
Oh oh oh ooooh ooooch ouch, yikes the pain make it stop. :rofl
:rofl That made my day. Thank you.
-
To claim 30mm indicates an emphasis on bomber hunting is false and just uninformed. When you look at the timelines involved and the development of the 30mm cannon, it is much more likely it was to counter the super-resilient enemy aircraft on the Soviet front. When heavily armored Fw190s couldn't dent IL-2s, you know you need bigger guns.
The 30mm was intended for single engine fighters as well. Many's the time the sturdily-built US plane soaked up tons of damage, be it P-40s over Tunisa, or be it P-47s soaking up an entire Fw190's ammo load, or what have you. The Mk103 was intended to need LESS hits to kill a target. Any target. Their main concern was younger and greener pilots as the war went on, and it was decided that stronger round meant pilots had to stay on target for lesser time, allowing for better survival of German pilots. 30mms weren't developed only for bomber hunting.
Moot: You seem to suggest there were only 2 roles in the bomber campaign: US heavies, and the planes attacking them. For any 110G of sturmbock 190 going for the bombers there were twice as many Bf109s flying high cover and escort, engaging and dogfighting the US escorts. Often far far above the heads of the bomber attackers. This was still an important part of the war. When the high-cover could dominate (or at least contend with) the US escort fighters, the bomber hunters got through and made their runs. Fact of the matter is the LW had plenty of planes they could adapt to hunt higher-alt bombers. Even if the bombers were only flying an average of 5k above B-17 or B-24 formations. Ta-152s (and in general the high alt fighter design) were there as fighters. I'm sure if they were ever to run across bombers they would have made an attack run, but so would Bf109s, or Macchi C.205s... Doesn't mean they are bomber hunters. Hell anything could technically bring down a B-17, given the right situation. Far more likely, and quite clearly, the 152, the 109k, the 109H project, and so many other high-alt emphasis was to keep up with the US side of aviation. It wasn't role-specific.
C.202s, armed with only 2x 12.7mm Breda machine guns attacked and sometimes brought down B-24s. Should you re-write history to categorize this as a bomber-hunter? Bristol Blenheims were converted to 7mm-armed night fighters, to stalk and hunt bombers at night. Should history be rewritten to categorize the Blenheim as a bomber-hunter?
I ask those rhetorical questions because that is the same logic at work for calling the 152 a bomber hunter or bomber interceptor.
-
To claim 30mm indicates an emphasis on bomber hunting is false and just uninformed. . .
Wrong again. The primary objective was to knock down heavies. That is just the way it is Krusty. Fighter aircraft went up to attack the bombers and not just to score kills on escort fighters. The problem is that attacking bombers is very scary when it's your head on the line. So, most of the aircraft with the 30mm guns sat off at over 1,000 yards and hit nothing. Officers would put claims in and receive credit even when their gun cameras showed no hits whatsoever. Those that did dive away once the escorts attacked them may have gotten kills, but their primary mission was to attack the bombers. The number one responsibility of fighter pilots has always been to stop the bombers that are trying to end your ability to wage war. Shooting down other fighters has always been a secondary role.
The Ta152 was specifically designed to engage the B-29s, which the Germans expected to arrive at any time. Sure, they knew the B-29 was being developed, but they could not have known that it was never planned to use B-29s against Germany. The Americans already knew they would put Germany out of business with what they were already using, and the B-29 would be needed for the longer missions against Japan.
As to your clever comment about the 202s, well you don't change the mission role of an aircraft just because something could happen. Sometimes the mission role was changed because an aircraft showed an outstanding quality, as in the P-51s. Or, in the case of the P-38, were removed from the primary fighter role despite being well liked in that role, because the reality was quite a bit different from expectations.
-
Krusty, that's just plain stupid.
Even P-47s taking hundreds of machine gun rounds and 10+ 20mm rounds were extreme rarities. No aircraft, fighter or bomber, could reliably take that kind of beating.
Also, mountings on single engine fighter were specifically geared towards hunting bombers. The 190 in particular is a good example. Notice the 109 doesn't get the 30mm till late in the game, when bombers become a big threat.
Consider that all designated night fighters and bomber killers had the 30mm.
-
Wrong again. The primary objective was to knock down heavies. That is just the way it is Krusty. Fighter aircraft went up to attack the bombers and not just to score kills on escort fighters. The problem is that attacking bombers is very scary when it's your head on the line. So, most of the aircraft with the 30mm guns sat off at over 1,000 yards and hit nothing. Officers would put claims in and receive credit even when their gun cameras showed no hits whatsoever. Those that did dive away once the escorts attacked them may have gotten kills, but their primary mission was to attack the bombers. The number one responsibility of fighter pilots has always been to stop the bombers that are trying to end your ability to wage war. Shooting down other fighters has always been a secondary role.
The Ta152 was specifically designed to engage the B-29s, which the Germans expected to arrive at any time. Sure, they knew the B-29 was being developed, but they could not have known that it was never planned to use B-29s against Germany. The Americans already knew they would put Germany out of business with what they were already using, and the B-29 would be needed for the longer missions against Japan.
As to your clever comment about the 202s, well you don't change the mission role of an aircraft just because something could happen. Sometimes the mission role was changed because an aircraft showed an outstanding quality, as in the P-51s. Or, in the case of the P-38, were removed from the primary fighter role despite being well liked in that role, because the reality was quite a bit different from expectations.
Where the hell is your source for saying that these planes were "specifically designed to engage the B-29's"? And where's the source that says the K4 and 152 were designed for bomber hunting? Wouldn't they use planes specifically designed for that such as the 110 or the 410? Just because you have a 30mm doesn't mean you're attacking bombers. The 410 had a 50mm designed for buff hunting, the 110 had 6 cannons for buff hunting as well. The 152 and K4 has a single 30mm but the 410 has two and the 110 has two, coupled with A2A rockets, which leads me to believe that more cannons = bomber hunter. Not MG's + 30mm. Making a bomber hunter out of a fighter variant doesn't make sense.
-
Sometimes the mission role was changed because an aircraft showed an outstanding quality, as in the P-51s.
Like outstanding fuel conservation?
-
Where the hell is your source for saying that these planes were "specifically designed to engage the B-29's"? And where's the source that says the K4 and 152 were designed for bomber hunting? Wouldn't they use planes specifically designed for that such as the 110 or the 410? Just because you have a 30mm doesn't mean you're attacking bombers. The 410 had a 50mm designed for buff hunting, the 110 had 6 cannons for buff hunting as well. The 152 and K4 has a single 30mm but the 410 has two and the 110 has two, coupled with A2A rockets, which leads me to believe that more cannons = bomber hunter. Not MG's + 30mm. Making a bomber hunter out of a fighter variant doesn't make sense.
K4 got the 30mm because they were standardizing, and were moving towards the 30mm anyway. They lacked the planes and pilots to cover their ground forces, had no bombers that really needed escort, and couldn't even maintain a state of air inferiority, and thus wanted to focus on the bombers, since interception didn't require you to fight their whole air force.
-
Where the hell is your source. . .
I don't just smack talk with kids around the lunchroom table like you do. I read many books, so of course my take on everything Luftwaffe is enhanced by years of reinforced, cold, hard facts.
You can find this information simply by searching google for "purpose of the Ta152," or by reading the books of Capt. Eric Brown concerning any one of the late war aircraft (163, 262 just to name two), or by reading at least three different books by General Curtis LeMay on the development of the B-29.
-
I don't just smack talk with kids around the lunchroom table like you do. I read many books, so of course my take on everything Luftwaffe is enhanced by years of reinforced, cold, hard facts.
You can find this information simply by searching google for "purpose of the Ta152," or by reading the books of Capt. Eric Brown concerning any one of the late war aircraft (163, 262 just to name two), or by reading at least three different books by General Curtis LeMay on the development of the B-29.
Did you read any German books about the purpose and development of the 152 or just American?
-
I don't just smack talk with kids around the lunchroom table like you do. I read many books, so of course my take on everything Luftwaffe is enhanced by years of reinforced, cold, hard facts.
You can find this information simply by searching google for "purpose of the Ta152," or by reading the books of Capt. Eric Brown concerning any one of the late war aircraft (163, 262 just to name two), or by reading at least three different books by General Curtis LeMay on the development of the B-29.
And who wrote these books on the Luftwaffe? Was it an actual German writer who knew his stuff or some American/British fellow who was attempting to write about the planes?
-
And who wrote these books on the Luftwaffe? Was it an actual German writer who knew his stuff or some American/British fellow who was attempting to write about the planes?
Does it nesicarially matter? Zaloga is regarded as a reliable source on all things tank-related, even though he can't be native to all those countries.
Sure it would be a bit more credible if you had to translate the book, but what challenge is saying agrees with just about everything I've read, in both standard English, and German.
The Ta-152 was an INTERCEPTOR, not just a high-altitude fighter.
-
Does it nesicarially matter? Zaloga is regarded as a reliable source on all things tank-related, even though he can't be native to all those countries.
Sure it would be a bit more credible if you had to translate the book, but what challenge is saying agrees with just about everything I've read, in both standard English, and German.
The Ta-152 was an INTERCEPTOR, not just a high-altitude fighter.
I'd be more satisfied with someone who actually flew the plane/helped design it over someone who just read up on it then decided to write a book with all of their knowledge of the plane.
-
You'll be sorely disappointed then. Most records were lost in the massive s**t storm that was WWII. And since old Kurt ain't around any more, you'll just have to accept the word of people who have studied the topic extensively, and circumstantial evidence.
In fact, you calling it a high-alt fighter is just as unsupported as us calling it an interceptor. Less supported, actually.
If you wish, I'll break it down for you, and explain why we think it is an interceptor.
-
You'll be sorely disappointed then. Most records were lost in the massive s**t storm that was WWII. And since old Kurt ain't around any more, you'll just have to accept the word of people who have studied the topic extensively, and circumstantial evidence.
In fact, you calling it a high-alt fighter is just as unsupported as us calling it an interceptor. Less supported, actually.
If you wish, I'll break it down for you, and explain why we think it is an interceptor.
I never called it a high-alt fighter or interceptor. I just think its a fighter, not designed for high alt because most fights happened throughout the war at 15k+ anyways. Speed is nice to have up there, but i'd be more worried about how you're going to outmaneuver the guy trying to kill you.
-
So you think all of those optimizations for high altitude combat are just coincidental :huh?
-
So you think all of those optimizations for high altitude combat are just coincidental :huh?
That didn't quite come out as I intended it. Let me re-phrase that.
It wasn't designed to fight bombers way up there because most fights happened up there anyways, it was designed to be fast up there because it needed to be fast. P47's and P51's were doing 425+ up there and the current 109's/190's couldn't catch up to them. If you have enemies out-doing you in every category then how do you expect to win? The huge wings and massive engine weren't there because bombers were getting away, they're on the 152 because fighters were getting away and doing more damage. More lift and more speed = more chance of keeping up with the 51's and 47's.
-
Actually, you might be surprised. There was kind of a drop off in the trend of increasing combat altitude. Notice most fighters are optimized for performance between 23-30k, instead of 30k+, even fighters from late 1944 to 1945, like the K4, D9, Spit 14 and 16, the P-51D (though this was late 43 to early 44), the Tempest, F4Us (all of them), and the Russian and Japanese fighters are optimized for even lower!
-
Actually, you might be surprised. There was kind of a drop off in the trend of increasing combat altitude. Notice most fighters are optimized for performance between 23-30k, instead of 30k+, even fighters from late 1944 to 1945, like the K4, D9, Spit 14 and 16, the P-51D (though this was late 43 to early 44), the Tempest, F4Us (all of them), and the Russian and Japanese fighters are optimized for even lower!
So...Altitude no longer meant safety later in the war? Strange if you ask me, considering a P47 was doing 450 MPH at 30k on WEP, and 400 on MIL power way up at 30k. The 47's engine was designed to take it up there and make it faster than any other fighter -Which it was- the Germans made, I figured since that was the case the 152 was probably one of the responses to that threat.
-
Issue was that engine power couldn't easily overcome a lack of lift at high alt. You can probably get a standard 190 up to 40k, you just won't be able to turn without stalling.
Because its easier to make a specialized high-alt fighter (or just cram a huge engine into a suitable design like the P-47), or just ignore anything over 30k in the Soviet's case, than it is to redesign all your aircraft to be optimized for high alt, you end up with designs like the 152.
-
That didn't quite come out as I intended it. Let me re-phrase that.
It wasn't designed to fight bombers way up there because most fights happened up there anyways, it was designed to be fast up there because it needed to be fast. P47's and P51's were doing 425+ up there and the current 109's/190's couldn't catch up to them. If you have enemies out-doing you in every category then how do you expect to win? The huge wings and massive engine weren't there because bombers were getting away, they're on the 152 because fighters were getting away and doing more damage. More lift and more speed = more chance of keeping up with the 51's and 47's.
Have you read anything about the Ta-152H? It's quite clear you haven't from your posts because you are incorrect in all of your points. Some of us, like Widewing (he's a well known author on WW2 aviation), have a keen interest in WW2 aircraft and have spent quite a bit of time researching and learning about these planes.
ack-ack
-
Have you read anything about the Ta-152H? It's quite clear you haven't from your posts because you are incorrect in all of your points. Some of us, like Widewing (he's a well known author on WW2 aviation), have a keen interest in WW2 aircraft and have spent quite a bit of time researching and learning about these planes.
ack-ack
Everything I've looked at does call it a high alt interceptor...but specifically talks about bombers
Some people are getting the wording confused
-
Everything I've looked at does call it a high alt interceptor...but specifically talks about bombers
Some people are getting the wording confused
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=j4XT-l-_3y0 (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=j4XT-l-_3y0)
-
Has anyone suggested manually draining the fuel tanks (aft tank, then wings) in order to stop this unrecoverable stall you speak of?
-
Has anyone suggested manually draining the fuel tanks (aft tank, then wings) in order to stop this unrecoverable stall you speak of?
Yes. Doesn't change behaviour.
-
Has anyone suggested manually draining the fuel tanks (aft tank, then wings) in order to stop this unrecoverable stall you speak of?
I tried different fuel loads ending up with fuel only in the aft tank --- I did not see any difference in departure or recovery.
-
I read many books....
(http://cdn.trendhunterstatic.com/thumbs/pooptastic-parodies-childrens-book-everyone-poops-turned-into-pee-your-pant.jpeg)
-
I just keep re-reading that more lift = more speed...
-
Did you read any German books about the purpose and development of the 152 or just American?
I think a paper hanging SOB burned them.
-
Challenge is so far off as to not be worthy of response, but...
Krusty, that's just plain stupid.
Even P-47s taking hundreds of machine gun rounds and 10+ 20mm rounds were extreme rarities. No aircraft, fighter or bomber, could reliably take that kind of beating.
Also, mountings on single engine fighter were specifically geared towards hunting bombers. The 190 in particular is a good example. Notice the 109 doesn't get the 30mm till late in the game, when bombers become a big threat.
Consider that all designated night fighters and bomber killers had the 30mm.
Wrong, wrong, and wrong, on all 3 points.
First off, P-47s WERE repeatedly taking astounding amounts of damage, even blowing piston heads out of the engine, and still making it back to base. P-38s were rather rugged as well, and with the engine redundancy were able to make it home with 1 dead engine (someing most other fighters could not). Further, all the way from the first time the US planes encountered German planes, in the deserts of Africa, the P-40s were quite sturdy as well. They soaked up quite a lot of ammo. The few super-experten aces were able to land hits where they counted, but for the average german pilot, US planes were frustratingly tough to take down.
To follow along with this point, as early as 1942 Operation Barbarrosa began on the Soviet front. Here the super-rugged construction of Soviet aircraft began to be a major problem. Fighters weren't so resilient as were the bombers and attackers, which were armored. The IL-2s were literally armored bathtubs around the engine and crew compartment. Repeatedly IL-2s could soak up multiple attacks from German fighters and the Germans would break off after expending all ammo. Fw190s had a better time of it, but they still soaked up 20mm. If you look at the push and development of the 30mm Mk108 you will find it coincides with the increasing toughness of the single engine aircraft, NOT the skies-full-of-heavy-bombers, which weren't a problem at the time.
And the final issue for this increasing target toughness was the massive loss of the skilled aces and experts to train new pilots. Their schools weren't the same as US schools. Their green pilots passed the basic training and were sent to a new unit. The existing experts at that unit would then lead and train them in combat encounters, often the green pilots hanging back and watching as the expert flight leader engages a target or two. The problem is: What if there's no expert to lead them? They're basically cannon fodder. IF they saddle up on a target, their gunnery may only allow them to land a hit or two on target, and while they spend all their time fighting to finish a target off, others may come in behind them to shoot them down. The 30mm round was intended to allow finishing of fighters in as few rounds as possible so that those green pilots COULD land a hit or two and then pull off and look for the next target. No time wasted pursuing the target, getting fixated, and being shot down from behind. It was as much for the survival of their pilot force as it was for anything else. These aspects of combat were all known and appreciated by members of the Luftwaffe.
Your second point is utter nonsense! All mountings on single engine planes were for bombers? Uh... hum... Well I hate to break it to you, but the majority of single engine planes used their 30mm against other single engine planes. Or against twins. You could have a squadron with 1 gruppe of Fw190s heavily loaded to attack bombers, and the rest of the gruppe as escorts and fighter sweeps and ground attack, all of which could have the 30mm. The claim that any plane with 30mm was automatically intended to hunt bombers is disproven by all of my comments disproving your first point (and oh so many more).
The third point is quite wrong as well. In fact, 30mm was a rather BAD choice for night fighters. Most night fighters that used schrage muzik installations relied on MG/FFm upward firing 20mm cannons. Especially on planes like the 110G that would also attack with forward guns, the 30mm were often omitted entirely due to the blinding flash they caused -- it destroyed the pilot's ability to fly after his eyes adapted to the dark. Many flew with the under-side 20mms on 110Gs only, because the nose itself hit the flash and protected the pilot's night vision. For a good part of the night fighter forces, 30mm was NOT used. Some lesser-produced planes flew with 30mm, the He219 (though precious few of those ever saw combat) had the guns mounted well behind the pilot to prevent this blinding flash, but mostly the 110Gs and Ju88s were the main brunt of the night fighter force, and they ALL relied (almost entirely) on 20mm ammunition.
P.S. The Mk108 development was long and labored. There were many problems to overcome, though not as bad as some other guns in development. In early-to-mid 1944 they were ironed out and being pushed into EVERY airframe the Germans had in combat. It wasn't singled out for any sub-set of "bomber hunter" aircraft. It was put into every 109G variant and into every Fw190 D variant (though due to problems with the 190D development timetables most of these were scrapped in favor of ta152s which never showed up in time, which also had 30mm but weren't specifically bomber hunters).
A good example is the Fw190D series. It was lightened from the 190A8s and had less armaments to improve performance as a FIGHTER, against US fighters. And yet, still, it was being given hub-mounted mk108s and 2x 20mm in the wing roots in the next 190D variants (D-11s, D-12s, D-13s). These were not bomber hunter airframes. These were to be THE next variants of the Fw190 until the big Ta152 came along. They stopped the 190 line but the 152 suffered too many setbacks to fill the void. It would have filled this void with the same armament: a hub 30mm and a pair of 20mms. It was a direct replacement for a FIGHTER airframe, carrying the same weaponry as the FIGHTER it replaced.
-
So, if we take Krusty's viewpoint and all fighters attack only the other fighters, goons, IL2's in ground support roles then the fighters are basically glory hounds seeking a headline in a paper, a paper that might make a few copies, until finally the bombers reduce your fighter paradise into rubble, the paper is burned, your families are all dead, but you got lots of medals and fame and glory. Typical correctness on the part of Krusty.
It pretty much comes down to your (and I don't mean Krusty) ability to work out what it takes to win a war.
You can reduce his fighters in number and pretty much push past his forward lines with air superiority.
Or you can reduce his ability to bomb your assets by attacking his bombers, which will eliminate the threat to your ability to wage war. Don't forget, America and the U.K. lost thousands of bomber crewmen.
You can bomb his assets, and reduce his ability to wage war (oh, not true for Germany).
So, you claim the Luftwaffe was really stupid and went for the fighters instead of bombers? Good luck with that approach.
Lancaster crews alone lost more than 55,000 men. Now you tell me exactly what shot them down if it wasn't fighters? Oh, I know there was flack. Flack accounted for the loss of about 50%, but that figure includes aircraft that made it home too damaged to ever fly again. It's a terrible price to pay, but just think of all the Lancs, B-17s, B-24s, B-25s, . . .
Sorry, Krusty. You are dead wrong. The number one duty of a fighter pilot in war time is to knock down the heavies. You can take what you want away from the war, but that reality is unchanged.
-
At later stage of the war, German Luftwaffe used 'Sturmgruppen' with extra armoured fw190a's to attack bombers. they where escorted by the 'Höhen' 109s against allied fighters.
At the point when TA152 where deployed, they already had the best weapon against buffs : the R4M rocket. used from the ME-262 platform.
I do not know if TA152 had any buff kills, but I know they had fighter kills.
source :
The Luftwaffe over Germany
-
According to Willi Reschkes book JG 301/302 "Wild Sau"
Until the missions on 2 March 45 152s were in "heavy group" attack bombers. On march second they were given an escort mission. After that they continued escort or "free hunting" as they began to run out of parts.
Jupp Keil got at least 1 b-17 in it.
-
A lot of geniuses in this thread, no room for me.
-
:huh :huh :huh :huh :headscratch: :headscratch: :headscratch: :headscratch: :headscratch: :headscratch: :headscratch: :headscratch: :huh :huh :huh :huh
-
I just wanted to say this thread is full of win, an ego burt for you, and an ego burst for you! :rofl
-
Krusty, in WWII, an armored aircraft had maybe 10mm-20mm of armor. Maybe. IIRC, the F8s had something like 12mm on the engine.The Il2 would fall to the heavier end of that range, but its not even close to hauling around enough armor to necessitate a 30mm to kill.
P-47s were also more heavily armored, but even machine gun fire would be sufficient to kill them. US fighters could be called rugged more than well armored. You'll chew the hell out of the wing... it just wouldn't snap off like a Spitfire's.
As to the P-40, the Japanese fighters, which were even less well armed could bring them down.
Also, most MK108s mounted on 190s were rüstaze or Umrust-Bustaze kits specifically designed to improve efficiency at engaging bombers.
I never said all were bomber hunters, only that MOST TENDED to be for hunting bombers.
The K4 got it for reasons of standardisation. G models just supposed to be more heavily armed for general operations.
Also, the Ta 154, He 219, 110 G4 all were built as night fighters, all had 30mms.
-
Challenge is so far off as to not be worthy of response, but...
Wrong, wrong, and wrong, on all 3 points.
First off, P-47s WERE repeatedly taking astounding amounts of damage, even blowing piston heads out of the engine, and still making it back to base. P-38s were rather rugged as well, and with the engine redundancy were able to make it home with 1 dead engine (someing most other fighters could not). Further, all the way from the first time the US planes encountered German planes, in the deserts of Africa, the P-40s were quite sturdy as well. They soaked up quite a lot of ammo. The few super-experten aces were able to land hits where they counted, but for the average german pilot, US planes were frustratingly tough to take down.
To follow along with this point, as early as 1942 Operation Barbarrosa began on the Soviet front. Here the super-rugged construction of Soviet aircraft began to be a major problem. Fighters weren't so resilient as were the bombers and attackers, which were armored. The IL-2s were literally armored bathtubs around the engine and crew compartment. Repeatedly IL-2s could soak up multiple attacks from German fighters and the Germans would break off after expending all ammo. Fw190s had a better time of it, but they still soaked up 20mm. If you look at the push and development of the 30mm Mk108 you will find it coincides with the increasing toughness of the single engine aircraft, NOT the skies-full-of-heavy-bombers, which weren't a problem at the time.
Rheinmetall-Borsig started to develop the Mk 108 as a private venture in 1940 and submitted to the RLM in 1942 in response to a requirement set by the RLM for a heavy weapon mounted on aircraft for use against Allied heavy bombers which were appearing in large numbers by then over German controlled regions. It wasn't submitted as a response to the increasing ruggedness of Allied fighters like you claimed.
Testing of the MK 108 showed that it only took an average of 4 30mm rounds to shoot down a B-17 or B-24, compared the average of 25 rounds from a 20mm MG 151/120 cannon.
ack-ack
-
Rheinmetall-Borsig started to develop the Mk 108 as a private venture in 1940 and submitted to the RLM in 1942 in response to a requirement set by the RLM for a heavy weapon mounted on aircraft for use against Allied heavy bombers which were appearing in large numbers by then over German controlled regions. It wasn't submitted as a response to the increasing ruggedness of Allied fighters like you claimed.
Testing of the MK 108 showed that it only took an average of 4 30mm rounds to shoot down a B-17 or B-24, compared the average of 25 rounds from a 20mm MG 151/120 cannon.
ack-ack
Way to copy and past wiki, there, ack-ack...
Yes, I am aware of the testing and rounds required to take down bombers. I have also read a number of references and citations over the decades I've been reading up on the subject that directly attribute the need with the rising loss of expert fighter pilots and the rising number of completely unskilled replacement pilots.
I could draw a parallel to the Soviets and their very untrained pilots in the first half of the war -- despite relying on an ariframe that carried one of the worst 37mm guns of its time, they racked up many kills in P-39s, and later in Yaks with 37mm also. Soviet pilot training was slow and lethargic and wholly unimpressive. By the final days of the war they were putting out fresh pilots trained as well as any other nation, but up until then it was woefully inadequate. Yet with a weapon that killed in less shots those unskilled pilots were able to kill and move on to other targets much faster.
So, yes, while it was beneficial to taking out US heavy bombers, many members of the RLM felt that there was no need for such a weapon against heavy bombers until US heavy bombers were encountered in 1943. Well AFTER the initial development began on the gun. This RLM denial of the issue at hand is one reason for the sluggish progress on the Mk108, even though line pilots were starting to feel the hit.
They couldn't have known how hard US bombers were to shoot down until they actually encountered them. RAF Bomber Command was almost entirely running night bombing at the time. Daylight fighters weren't being used to hunt down RAF heavies. That was the job of the night fighters (Ju88s and 110s). Galland up-gunned his 109Fs, if you recall, adding MG/FFm outboard and upgunning the 7mms to 13mms. This was before US heavy bombers were even a threat. 109F-2s were upgunned from the flat-trajectory MG151 15mm cannons to MG151/20 20mm because there just wasn't enough firepower. 109Gs were being geared for heavier weapons loads (multiple gunpods). All of this is before any US bombers were even on the scene.
Besides, if I recall, the Mk108 met the requirements of an order that said the RLM wanted a weapon that could be fired from outside bomber defenses... Not that it was to take down the bomber in 5 hits or so. The Mk108 met this requirement, but it was already being developed anyways. It was a scaled-up version of the MG/FF cannon. It just so happened to meet one of the RLM requirements so it was given specific attention.
-
In 1942, the Reichsluftfahrtministerium (RLM - Reich Aviation Ministry) issued a requirement for a heavy aircraft weapon for use against Allied bombers during World War II. In response to the RLM, Rheinmetall-Borsig submitted its design for the Mk 108. The MK 108 was a 30 mm caliber auto-cannon developed as a private venture in 1940. The Mk 108 was accepted by the RLM and quickly ordered into production.
The gun was relatively light and easy to manufacture. The construction was simple with approximately 80% of the gun used stamped parts and the total number of parts kept to a bare minimum. It proved to be an effective and very reliable weapon and was optimized for a high rate of fire. Weapon maintenance was minimal and its compact size made it suitable for aircraft use.
It had a relatively low muzzle velocity and was designed to attack bombers and not fighter aircraft. The bullet drop was 41 m (135 ft) at a range of 1,000 meters (3,300 ft). To be effective it was necessary for fighter aircraft to get in close to 200 to 300 meters, making it especially challenging for the Me 262, with its high approach speed, to hit the target without colliding into it.
Source (http://www.aviation-history.com/guns/mk108.htm)
Another source (http://www.luft46.com/armament/mk108.html)
In many ways, the Rheinmetall-Borsig MK 108 30mm cannon was considered to be a masterpiece of weapons engineering, due to it's compact size, ease of manufacture and hitting power. Although it was first designed by Rheinmetall-Borsig in 1940 as a private venture, the design was finalized in 1942. It met a later RLM requirement for a new aircraft cannon that could knock down enemy bombers with the lowest expenditure of ammunition and stay beyond the range of enemy defensive fire.
If you have any sources you can cite that say otherwise, by all means post them.
ack-ack
-
He won't AKAK. At least not enough to creditable ones to contradict weapons development, fighter design and upgrades, and RLM requirements.
Krusty, you're the biggest BSer and outright liar on the BBS, and everyone knows it. The only thing in question on this subject is if YOU know exactly how wrong you are.
-
The quintessential book on the topic of the Ta152 was first mentioned in a press release by the Monogram model company, if memory serves. Many of us waited with great expectation as the company continued to postpone the release date years after the initial announcement.
The wait was worth it, but you would be hard pressed to find a copy of this book today, at least at a reasonable price. In fact, the cheapest I have been able to find a copy listed for, is $125.
This is the book on the Ta152, and undisputed source for every detail of this aircraft.
Focke-Wulf Ta 152, T.H. Hitchcock, Eagle Editions (May 15, 2010), ISBN-10: 0914144502.
From the Introduction the author summarises the presentation this way:
(http://i447.photobucket.com/albums/qq197/Chalenge08/Hitchcock_zps7af3d837.jpg)
End game.
-
Yeah I got my copy when the book was released. Signed by Willi Reschke.
-
I think a lot of them are signed, actually.
Also, I stand corrected. You can find this at Squadron for a little more than $60.
-
The Mk108 met this requirement, but it was already being developed anyways. It was a scaled-up version of the MG/FF cannon.
MK108 isn't an scaled-up version of the MG/FF. Both have the same working principle (API Blowback) but that is where the similarities end. As mentioned in this thread, MK108 was an original Rheinmetall-Borsig design constructed using largely stamped parts (very unique feature of the MK108 and totally different than the more traditional MG/FF). MG/FF on the other hand has its roots in the Becker 20mm which was the first API Blowback cannon in the world.
MG/FF:
(http://www.warbirdsresourcegroup.org/LRG/images/mgffcannon-1.jpg)
MK108:
(http://www.luft46.com/armament/mk108-1.gif)
(http://www.luft46.com/images/mk108-3.gif)
MG/FF and MK108 are two separate designs.
-
MK108 isn't an scaled-up version of the MG/FF.
MG/FF and MK108 are two separate designs.
You're being far too literal. The design started inception with the MG/FF and worked from there. Naturally it is NOT an MG/FF, but that's what I've read was the origin of its design.
-
You're being far too literal.
No I'm not. I'm simply telling how it is. MG/FF was originally developed by Oerlikon and then later manufactured under licence by Ikaria. MK108 on the other hand was developed by Rheinmetall-Borsig. Two different firms and two different cannons.
A good source: http://www.quarry.nildram.co.uk/apib.html (http://www.quarry.nildram.co.uk/apib.html)
The design started inception with the MG/FF and worked from there.
What does this even mean? :)
Naturally it is NOT an MG/FF, but that's what I've read was the origin of its design.
Where exactly did you read that MG FF was the origin of MK108-design? A source please?
-
MK 108 and the GAU-8 are 30mm and both are aircraft weapons. The GAU is an upscaled MK108 :O!!!
*inception theme*
-
.
-
No I'm not. I'm simply telling how it is. MG/FF was originally developed by Oerlikon and then later manufactured under licence by Ikaria. MK108 on the other hand was developed by Rheinmetall-Borsig. Two different firms and two different cannons.
Where exactly did you read that MG FF was the origin of MK108-design? A source please?
My first point stands. You are being far too literal. I didn't say it was from the same manufacturer. I didn't say it was scaled up. They took the basic design of the MG/FF and in 1940 built a larger, heavier, weapon based upon those mechanisms and action. Since English isn't your first language I'll put it simply in this way: That's the idea they started with. The end result doesn't look like an MG/FF, but that's what started the idea.
I've read this in some publication a long time back, and run across it on the Internet a couple of days ago which also had the same comment.
Don't mix up the point I was making... I was NOT saying the Mk108 was a bad anti-bomber weapon. I'm NOT saying that it wasn't used to hunt bombers. I am saying it was developed and designed BEFORE any bombers were even a hint on the global map.
Do you deny that the Mk108 began development in 1940? That its development was independently funded in the hopes of a possible contract? That while in development already, it just happened to meet a later RLM order for weapons to use against bombers? And that the requirement it met was NOT in destructive power, but in being able to fire from outside the bombers' range? These are the facts. These points and many others (which I've already mentioned in my previous post) point to the fact that heavier weapons were needed or wanted, but not just for the wikipedia copy-and-paste answer given here by some others.
This gun was in the pipeline LONG before the Luftwaffe ever encountered US heavy bombers. It had a prolonged development and was full of delays, and when it came out finally in late 1943 it was indeed used against bombers. The changing tide of war required its use against bombers. But it wasn't developed for them.
-
They took the basic design of the MG/FF and in 1940 built a larger, heavier, weapon based upon those mechanisms and action.
No they didn't. The designs are fundamentally different, you could say they adopted the same mode of operation but nothing further. An operating principal is a feature of a design not the design itself.
Wmaker's English is excellent by the way. Implying he doesn't understand is a bit weak and disrespectful as well in my opinion.
-
I used to take off on the 20k cliffs in the training arena and immediately heave the ta152 in an unrecoverable stall. At first it seemed impossible to get out of it. After some practice I could recover from every single ta152 stall in less than 5k of real estate. It had to do with a combination of rocking the nose and cutting throttle. Realistic I don't know but the aces high ta152 stall takes practice to recover from. Icepac you might have tried every stick throttle and flap combination you could think of but your order and timing was wrong.
Try 40k :)
-
I didn't say it was scaled up.
Actually, that is exactly what you said right here:
The Mk108 met this requirement, but it was already being developed anyways. It was a scaled-up version of the MG/FF cannon.
...otherwise there wouldn't have been any reason to correct you to begin with. :)
They took the basic design of the MG/FF and in 1940 built a larger, heavier, weapon based upon those mechanisms and action. Since English isn't your first language I'll put it simply in this way: That's the idea they started with. The end result doesn't look like an MG/FF, but that's what started the idea.
The only thing similar is the API Blowback principle they both use and the fact that they are both aircraft cannons.
I've read this in some publication a long time back, and run across it on the Internet a couple of days ago which also had the same comment.
...In other words you don't have any source? Well, no surprise there. :)
They took the basic design of the MG/FF and in 1940 built a larger, heavier, weapon based upon those mechanisms and action. Since English isn't your first language I'll put it simply in this way: That's the idea they started with. The end result doesn't look like an MG/FF, but that's what started the idea.
The only thing similar is the API Blowback principle they both use and the fact that they are both aircraft cannons.
Don't mix up the point I was making... I was NOT saying the Mk108 was a bad anti-bomber weapon. I'm NOT saying that it wasn't used to hunt bombers. I am saying it was developed and designed BEFORE any bombers were even a hint on the global map.
Do you deny that the Mk108 began development in 1940? That its development was independently funded in the hopes of a possible contract? That while in development already, it just happened to meet a later RLM order for weapons to use against bombers? And that the requirement it met was NOT in destructive power, but in being able to fire from outside the bombers' range? These are the facts. These points and many others (which I've already mentioned in my previous post) point to the fact that heavier weapons were needed or wanted, but not just for the wikipedia copy-and-paste answer given here by some others.
This gun was in the pipeline LONG before the Luftwaffe ever encountered US heavy bombers. It had a prolonged development and was full of delays, and when it came out finally in late 1943 it was indeed used against bombers. The changing tide of war required its use against bombers. But it wasn't developed for them.
I'm not mixing up anything. I didn't comment on anything in the quote above so why are you preaching to me about it?
To others:
As already posted, here's a good short article on API Blowback cannons: http://www.quarry.nildram.co.uk/apib.html (http://www.quarry.nildram.co.uk/apib.html). Anyone with any reading comprehension can see how MK108 is handled separately from Oerlikon family of 20mm cannons. For example, Hispano Mk.II has a heckuva lot more to do with MG/FF than MK108.
-
and................. id still pwn own demoralize 99.9% of yall OWNT!!
-
ina ta152 duel. but ah ah ah.... no intardnet n no comp so..... haha i got ownt too
-
I'll slap you so hard the bears will come out of hibernation before we see you again.
-
Actually. . .
Krusty is wrong either way. The weapon was developed in 1940 independently of any war request (http://www.luft46.com/armament/mk108.html), but not submitted until 1943 (as per an RLM request of late 1942) for weapons to destroy Allied (not originally American) heavy bombers. This information is also available at the National Museum of the United States Air Force in Dayton, Ohio.
-
I only read the first 7 or so pages of this thread. I fly the 152 exclusivley. A few things I have learned is never trim all the way up on approach, be gentle with rudder when slow.
It seems that throttle off is the only way to recover. With enough time in the plane you can "feel" when it is about to tail slide and relaxe the controls and get the stick forward. By "feel" I mean you are moving the stick and the results are not what you expect to see, you only have a couple seconds to react. Pay attention to your airspeed. With default fuel tank selection the aft tank burns first, forward tank last. Should it fly this way? Probably not, most planes recover quickly from a true tail slide with either up or down elevator. Radiator leaks and wing tip departures from near collisions are far more common than stalls for me.
-
and................. id still pwn own demoralize 99.9% of yall OWNT!!
I remember you being a very "ok" pilot in anything not a 1 percentile for sure
-
You both just took that bait? :bolt: