Aces High Bulletin Board
Help and Support Forums => Help and Training => Topic started by: Duedel on April 07, 2003, 07:51:02 AM
-
... like me.
I thought this tour i'll try to fly the Ta152 a bit cause my squaddy chris3 always told me its the best plane (besides his beloved 110C4).
Surely its one of the most beautifull planes and really a fun thing to fly - if u take a few things into account:
First, yes the Ta152 originally is a high alt interceptor but this role i wont discuss here cause most fights are between 0k and 20k.
Second, yes there are "better" german planes (like the dora) but i love the challenge and they are only better if u dont take the following tips into account:
- Max. take 75% fuel (unless u want do cruse the whole Trinity map).
- Burn LW and RW tanks (wing tanks) first (while climbing) cause:
- if empty u are sitting in a very agil and mobile fighter
- ur wings wont rip of when pulling hard G turns
- Climb the first 7-9k with wep (its faster)
- Stay fast (>250mph) when enemies are around
- Try to stay high (cause there always be the next and higher enemy)
- Dont turn to long with better turners (N1K, Spit, P38)
- Turn long with worse turners (P51, 190D9, 109G10) cause the Ta152 is a fairly good turner (when LW and RW are empty)
- Make excessive use of deflection shots cause u have a real good gun package and good roll rate
- If ur engine is out/damaged u can glide and glide and glide and....
- When engaged by a plane with slightly more E (lets say spit, N1k) make a 0G dive and the Ta will dive away fast
- When engaged by a faster plane with slighty or much more E (lets say La7, P51) try to make him overshoot (flat tightening turn with barrel role at the end) or make a split S
- Dont forget that the Ta152 has a good acceleration (when LW and RW are empty)
The Ta152 provides u with many good features that give u a good chance even if an enemy is higher, faster and in a better turning plane. I guess its one of the most underestimated planes cause most people think one only can fly this thing at at least 25k -30k.
(http://www.kotfsc.com/aircraft/graphics/ta152-main.jpg)
-
You forgot to mention:
Try to limit your flying of them to those times when your country is outnumbered, because if you lose one it'll be less expensive that way.
-
Originally posted by Duedel
- Burn LW and RW tanks (wing tanks) first (while climbing) cause:
- ur wings wont rip of when pulling hard G turns
- Turn long with worse turners (P51, 190D9, 109G10) cause the Ta152 is a fairly good turner (when LW and RW are empty)
- Dont forget that the Ta152 has a good acceleration (when LW and RW are empty)
If this is all true in the game, the flight model really, well, somewhat strange.
Less fuel in the wing tanks compared to less fuel in after/rear tanks (compare at same total mass) should rather do the following things:
- wings should rip easier with light wings and heavy fuselage (less force at the inner part of the wing)
- turn rate (when flying with bank angle larger than 45 degrees) should be worse with empty wings compared to empty forward/after tanks (higher inertia in the pitch axis, which turns at high bank angles)
- acceleration should be completely unaffected
what will improve with empty wing tanks should be roll acceleration, not roll rate though.
-
Biggest drawback and only real problem I have with the 152 is the icon. That big shiny red "152" draws dweebs from all over. Personally I think that the icons should be more generic; like "Fw" or "Fock" for 190's/152, or just "Lav" or "La" for LA7/LA5, simply F4U for the 4-hog, and just SPIT for the spit14. It would make for much more enjoyable perked sorties. And apart from that, it is relatively difficult to distinguish between the perked-variant and it's more common relatives... for an LA you'd be quite hard-pressed to tell even when engaged.
I kinda started ranting there... not trying to hijack :D
-
Hum.. Ta152 for Dummies.
Rule #1: Leave it in the hangar, where it belongs.
Rule #2: See rule number 1.
Rule #3: See rule number 2.
-
Emptying wing tanks first won't get you a betyer turn rate, it's a rumor that has been going on for some time. Turn rate is mostly affected by weight and wing area. The bigger the wings are the less weight per square/meter the better turn rate. Emtying wing tanks will of course give less weight per square/meter but no more then emptying fwd or aft tanks, the fuel is the same. Emtpying aft tank will give you a better CG (for turning, will make the plane somewhat more nose heavy and less prone to stall and spin as the Ta152 has a very very thin line between controlled flight/good turn and spin).
Emtpying wing tanks first does seam to make them less prone to ripping off. Wether this is right or wrong I am not sure of, it seams right IMO as more weight further away from a solid stable source will give a bigger momentum.
As for acceleration, the Ta152 is the #21 on the new list of best accelerating planes at 18k. That is in level flight. In dives it accelerates fairly well.
It is underestimated though and a great deal of fun to fly, my other thoughts of the way it has been modelled I will leave out of this thread as I have stated them many times before.
-
Originally posted by Wilbus
Emtpying wing tanks first does seam to make them less prone to ripping off. Wether this is right or wrong I am not sure of, it seams right IMO as more weight further away from a solid stable source will give a bigger momentum.
It's the whole wing that creates lift (not with an even distribution but the whole wing). Emptying the wing tanks makes more mass rest on the center.
Imagin a bar on two rests. Drop a mass on the center between them. Now split the mass in two pieces and drop both of them outside of the center. In which case would the bar break easier?
-
Here is roughly where tanks lie in Ta152:
53 is Fwd, 52 is Aft, wings are apparently more forward, worst possible position would be right at the side of flaps which is not likely.
(http://taenia.homestead.com/files/152_A8_tanks.jpg)
-
Obviously the wings brake easier in high G turns if they are filled, but you are probably braking the rules of flying the 152 safely (in the MA) as well if you do turn so tight.
Like Wilbuz says the stall isnt the same as the D9's, the beginning of stall is what's most different, and counter-steering/recovery against the stall is also a little different at least because the plane is so much heavier, almost like flying an F4U, if you brake the point of no return it's not as snappy as the D9 to put back in the right direction.
-If you empty aft last the nose is more stable for example when you need it to stay where you point it at high speed on bombers for example,
-if you empty fwd last you have more stability in stall during turns, almost like if you'd emptied the wings except
-if you empty the wings last, you get, in addition to stable stall in turns, a bit more mushy handling near limit of stall, and the wings having more weight, will start to flop around near the stall limit, the roll is more of a handful.
You turn a bit better but it's such a little advantage it's really up to you to prefer one or the other. If you are trying that hard to turn slow, it's probably more effective to fly better/smarter etc.
-
ccvi, we're discussing high G turns. Oppisite of your example where of course the wing brake easier if there is more weight in the center (if the wings rest on the wing tips). But in a high G (possitive G) the wings shouldn't brake as easily if they are light.
No need to explane the dummy way for me ccvi, I've read quite alot about it in school although I don't remember as much as I'd like to. But you example only matters in negative G's where the mass of the plane actually rests on the center of the wing. In positive G's this is not the case as the wing is is mounted bellow the entire fuselage on the 190's and Ta152.
SO AH seems to be right in this case...
-
Wilbus, what you're saying would imply that emptying the wing tanks makes the wings break later when pulling positive, and earlier when pushing negative Gs. LOL.
Why do most fighters carry their bombs under the wings instead of the fuselage? Surely because it's so easy to get the release actuators build in there...
-
What I am saying is that in Aces High anyway, emptying the wing tanks does make your wings less fragile.
A Ta152 with full wing tanks can pull about 7Gs before the wings snap. With empty wing tanks it can do at least 9.
Feel free to test this yourself, it isn't that hard. Take a 152 up offline, turn on your film recorder and turn until your wings snap. Then take off again, empty the wing tanks and turn until your wings snap. Since blackouts aren't rendered in the film viewer, you can watch the G meter to determine the G-load at which your wings snapped.
-
I have no doubt that it is the case in the game.
-
Actually, let me be more clear in expressing my distaste for this plane.
Below 10,000 feet, it is utterly worthless.
Where all of the fighting takes place (10k and down), the Ta152 cannot win in a fight against any of the top 10 unperked planes. With equal pilots that is, I'm sure some people can fly a spit poorly enough to get killed by a Ta152, but usually after their two weeks is up these people decide to play something else.
Between 10 and 20k, it is only marginally worthless. You still won't have a chance against any Spit (Spit 1 excluded), N1K, any 190, any 109, an La7, either P51, any F4U, any P47, a P38, wait wait, this list is going to be to long.
Between 10 and 20k, if you see a plane co alt, or within a couple thousand feet of you, you are going to do one of two things. A. Die, or B. Run. Exceptions to this rule include the 109E and the Spit 1. Occasionally you will be able to out-zoom a co-E Spit 1 or 109E, I wouldnt try it with anything else though.
Above 20k, the Ta152 starts coming into its own. While its climb rate and acceleration still suck ass, so does the climb rate and acceleration of just about every plane except the Spit 9, the 109G10, and the U.S. planes. If you meet any of the above, you will still die. If you manage to find a 110G gasping along at 25k, I'd give the Ta152 50/50 odds or so.
The Ta152 was actually made to shoot down satellites in low orbit. The Germans would have the pilot take off a week in advance (to climb to altitude, and then accelerate to speed), and would then direct the pilot to the satellite via radar tracking. Since we don't have any satellites in AH, the plane isnt a very good choice.
-
Now I doubt you actually know anything about the issue ccvi.
Take a wing that weights 1000 kg (example) and one that weights 500 kg.
Pull 2 G's. One wing will weigh 2000 kg and the other one 1000 kg. They are both the same material and built for the same thing, difference is they have different amount of fuel in them thus different weights. Wich wing do you think will rip first, the one that has 2000 kg on it or the one with 1000 kg weight on it?
Might wanna take back that little LOL of yours.
And btw, yes the wings brake easier in negative G's, most wings do but that's cause they aren't designed to take as many negative G's and positive.
AND NO, I did NOT say that they brake earlier when pulling Negative G's when the tanks are empty compared to full, how on earth could you missread it like that? Must take alot of skill from your side. Of course they brake later when pulling negative G's when emtpy aswell.
Did you understand me this time or will I have to clearify it even more for you?
-
personaly I dont see how the surface of the wings are effected buy internal weight in any G situation. the weight may (and should) increase the turn radius due to weight and kinetic energy. but I do see where the weight of fuel in the fusalage would effect it. simple physics....
====={X}===== <----- Plane form from front
^^^..............^^^ <----- Lift
either increased lift will rip the wings as well as extra center pressure in the center pushing downward.
anyone remember the basic rules of flight? lift verses weight? the only thing that will happen is the weight in the wings will do is fight the lift the winds themselves are creating. the way you all are talking its the fusalage thats creating lift and the wings are along for the ride.
think about camping trips when you breaking wood for the fire... you can place your hands at both ends and try to break them but as much as you try some of them just wont break. but you apply extra pressure to the center (i.e. your knee) and it will usualy break.
hope this dont confuse anyone.
-
Originally posted by Wilbus
Emtpying wing tanks first does seam to make them less prone to ripping off. Wether this is right or wrong I am not sure of, it seams right IMO as more weight further away from a solid stable source will give a bigger momentum.
Your conclusion is correct, emptying the wing tanks will make the wings less prone to damage under the same g loading. That is exactly what you would expect in a real aircraft.
When part of an aircraft structure fails, it does so because one or more of its elements have been over stressed due to excessive force. However, the g that we normally refer to is simply a force multiplier. If the TA 152 contained 50lbs in a wing tank, then at 9g that would be an extra 450lbs that would then produce extra bending moments at the wing root, and thus extra bending stress. An aircraft without that additional weight in the wing, would therefore suffer that much less stress and so would not fail under the same g load.
That is why aircraft in the real world have different g restrictions depending on their internal/external stores/weapons configuration. So for example an aircraft with weapons or fuel in or hanging off its wings would be able to pull less g than one in a clean configuration.
Since that is what folk have reported... More Kudos to the Aces High flight/damage model.
Hope that helps.
Badboy
-
Originally posted by Wilbus
Did you understand me this time or will I have to clearify it even more for you?
Please go ahead, seldom laughed so hard ;)
So far you, and also Badboy, completely missed the point. Discussion isn't about ripping wings when the plane is heavy or light (more or less fuel in the wings), but with changing distribution of the fuel, or bombs attached to the wings vs. fuselage if you want.
I'd like to hear your oppionion about ripping wings with fuselage tanks empty vs. filled up with fuel...
-
Originally posted by ccvi
So far you, and also Badboy, completely missed the point.
Actually, Duedel made the point that if you used the contents of the wing tanks first, the wings would then be less likely to suffer damage under high g load. That is what you would expect in reality... That was my point.
I haven't addressed any of the other points, or any of the factual errors in other posts, including yours, not because I have missed them, but because I simply choose not to.
Hope that helps.
Badboy
-
Suggesting to drain the wing tanks first implies that during fighting the fuel from the fuselage tanks is beeing used. The alternative beeing to empty the fuselage tanks and use the wing tanks during fighting. That's what this discussion is about.
A plane with more fuel on board breaks easier than one with less fuel. That's true even for fuel in the wings. It's just not worth discussing.
-
Originally posted by ccvi
It's just not worth discussing.
I think it is always worth discussing issues that can help folk understand concepts that will allow them to play the game better.
It is just a shame that for every message that throws light on a subject, there are several more to confuse it again. I teach this stuff professionally, and even I have to confess that these boards, and the inevitable conflict, can be frustrating.
So long as we all keep talking, I believe everything will work out well.
Badboy
-
Originally posted by Badboy
Your conclusion is correct, emptying the wing tanks will make the wings less prone to damage under the same g loading. That is exactly what you would expect in a real aircraft.
That is why aircraft in the real world have different g restrictions depending on their internal/external stores/weapons configuration. So for example an aircraft with weapons or fuel in or hanging off its wings would be able to pull less g than one in a clean configuration.
Think it over one more time. The aerodynamic lift tends to bend the wing tips upwards (during positive g manouvres), right?. The weight of the wings, wing fuel, and possible stores tend to bend them down, thus decreasing the total wing root bending moment.
The following link explains cantilevers (which the wings are from the structural point of view):
http://www.brantacan.co.uk/momentsc.htm
This is more academic link of aircraft loads:
http://www.sml.lr.tudelft.nl/education/ae1-019-3/Ch3_part1_int.pdf
RL aircraft have flight restrictions when they carry external stores, but that is because the attachment points have been designed for certain vertical and lateral load factors.
BTW, the Ta152 is not the only AH plane with wing fuel tanks, quite a many have them. If the weakening effect have been modelled it should show in these planes as well.
-
Originally posted by TimRas
Think it over one more time. The aerodynamic lift tends to bend the wing tips upwards (during positive g manouvres), right?. The weight of the wings, wing fuel, and possible stores tend to bend them down, thus decreasing the total wing root bending moment.
Of course you are absolutely correct... my mistake, and my apologies.
Badboy
-
TimRas, quote from the second link you posted:
"Aircraft condition with empty tanks gives higher bending moment on the wing. This situation develpos during flight (near the end of the flight)" (page 13)
I was tempted to comment that this is ( :mad: ), as this represented the other far end of possible oppinions (full wings break easier compared to full fuselage vs. empty plane breaks easier than one with full wings), seems to contradict common sense and the "why" wasn't really explained - I guess that's the drawback of many engineering lectures compared to scientific ones ( ;) ). After doing some simple calculations i changed my mind.
It turned out that fuel is better kept in the wings than the fuselage - that part I had no doubt about at all ( :p ). Then I compared an empty plane with one that had it's wings filled up with fuel. To my big... huge astonishment ( :eek: ) the torque bending wings (and later braking them) is reduced by filling up the wing tanks, although increased lift is required.
The pictures on page 11 of your second link seem to show that, though they don't really make it clear (apart from the strange shape). Comparing pictures 1 and 3 there doesn't seem to be a big difference. With an mass increase of 20% put just outside the center of each wing (e.g. bombs) maximum torque at the center (fuselage) decreased to 1/2. Again, :eek:
Your pony rips wings too easily? Put bombs on it...
Still, :eek:
-
Very good TimRas. I was waiting for someone to make that clear. The other arguments didn't seem right in my mind either. :confused: If you have more weight in the wings, that should help offset the lift component somewhat in a high G turn, making the wings less likely to break, the opposite of what happens when you add weight in the fuselage. Also, good illustration AeroCat. The breaking stick illustration shows what happens when the relative weight of the fuselage is increased over the wings. Now, that is not to say that in AH you will get the same effect. It is likely that unloading the wings will result in stronger wings, just like emptying the aft tank in the 190's results in a more maneuverable airplane. It's a gamey thing.