Author Topic: Ta 152  (Read 27880 times)

Offline colmbo

  • Gold Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 2246
      • Photos
Re: Ta 152
« Reply #315 on: July 29, 2011, 03:05:39 PM »
Aspect Ratio

The B-24 has a higher aspect ratio than the B-17....the B-17 exhibits more adverse aileron yaw than the B-24....talking r/l experience here.

I don't see that apsect ration is going to be a determining factor in adverse yaw.  Wingspan would make a difference, simple leverage.  Aileron type is probably the biggest factor for adverse yaw -- simple vs frise, etc.
Columbo

"When once you have tasted flight, you will forever walk the earth with your eyes turned skyward, for there you have been, and there you will always long to return."

Fate whispers to the warrior "You cannot withstand the storm" and the warrior whispers back "I AM THE STORM"

Offline moot

  • Plutonium Member
  • *******
  • Posts: 16333
      • http://www.dasmuppets.com
Re: Ta 152
« Reply #316 on: July 29, 2011, 05:35:45 PM »
I don't know where the total CG is relative to fuel CG..

I don't know if there's less authority from having more fuel fwd than aft (overall, regardless which specific tanks we're talking about), but what I have no doubts about is that the right side of the equation (ie the right side of the = sign) means getting rid of aft fuel first gives you a net improvement on agility. 

Describing it.. The plane feels more docile and predictable.. You can more easily coax it into much better maneuvering performance (maybe fool proof enough way to measure part of it could be sustained turn trials - the character of what I'm talking about's immediately apparent in even most basic acm like flat scissors).  The departures are softer, more forgiving, more usable.  You can recover spins more easily, and spins feel less like they've totally broken away from controlled flight. You get less of that feeling from the tail where it's like you're towing a trailer and if you treat it wrong it just derails and then it's you that's being towed by it into departure.  Exactly those departures that Krusty and others mean, where for seemingly no reason the plane decides to quickly go from slight sideslip to out-of-control yaw departure. 
With nothing left but ~10-15min of FWD fuel (or wings, but personally I like FWD better because the forward fuel CG is indistinguishable to me, while the roll rate bonus is noticeable) the plane feels so much more like it's meant to be.  Not just in terms of weight burden but aerodynamically.

The interference of that tail weirdness .. whatever it is exactly, in strict and accurate aerodynamics and physics, resolves itself when you lose the AFT fuel. 

And.. You'd think that you can "cheat" by taking a DT because it's further forward than at least the AFT tank.  I only got around to try it near the end of playing AH and all I can say is it's definitely better for maneuverability than AFT fuel.  But you do feel slightly more roll inertia and aerodynamically it's a penalty - although IMHO if you're after max maneuverability, speed's probably dispensable - and also unless you know the plane well enough (ie ~ 6mo to a year's worth) it'll be hard to distinguish the CG benefits amidst the extra weight of the fuel.  Because at this point (25 or 50 + DT) the CG benefit really is almost on par with fuel weight malus.

-----

So clearly this is all very subtle stuff.  So what's the big deal?  The big deal is that the further you get up the competitive ladder - in the pure performance sense, regardless whether you actually do any competitive events or do the score/rank thing - the smaller are the margins that people compete over.  Another racing analogy:  if you're 15 seconds off pace at a competitive race, it's easy to find the first 10 seconds, harder to find the next 2-3, and then it's orders of magnitude harder to get the next 1/2 seconds and yet another couple orders for the very last few tenths and hundredths of a second.

In Aces High that's no different.  And just like in racing where a tenth or two per corner adds up to as much as a whole second in a whole lap, in AH every little fraction of a second and of a degree and every yard given or taken adds up real quick to winning/losing life/death difference. 

The extra agility that the 152 gets from max fwd fuel CG, independently of how "realistic" it is or indeed of what the actual physics are, that subtle extra agility is easily as large as the margins for succeeding/failing to make the decisive shots that the 152s flight envelope allows (emphasized because the two go hand in hand - we're talking about the specific shots that the 152's specific ACM allow).  For all its extra maneuverability and lesser roll rate, it's still by and large a Fw 190.  You usually can't hang around for more than a couple of knife fight revolutions.

Its specialty is still (30mm) snapshots and the higher the relative speed they happen (esp if you're still >50% fuel) the bigger the multiplicative effect of any bonus/handicap to agility.  The 152 is already as cumbersome as it is, so smoothing out those wrinkles in the envelope is a major factor in pilot comfort and confidence on top of plain machine performance.


Not very well written but I'm toast from a long week and didn't want to keep putting off reply
TLDR:  the full range of effects of fuel CG is pretty subtle, but the least subtle effects are easily noticeable in most basic ACM. Not least of which, the type that tend to trigger those nasty spins.
« Last Edit: July 29, 2011, 05:47:44 PM by moot »
Hello ant
running very fast
I squish you

Offline Babalonian

  • Platinum Member
  • ******
  • Posts: 5817
      • Pigs on the Wing
Re: Ta 152
« Reply #317 on: August 03, 2011, 05:06:31 AM »
Great posts, returning from my recent "vacation", sorry for the delay.

Moot, as I digest what you've gone into detail and put a lot of time into, check out this brief simple film I shot last week after my last reply and I decided to do a quick offline aft-heavy messing around.  I admit I forgot to lower my arena setting's ammo multiplier from previous offline gunnery practice, but I dont think that should effect the outcomes, but wouldn't mind trying it again if anyone does.

http://www.mediafire.com/file/x621k3adlaby87z/Ta152AftHeavy04.ahf

I recall starting around 15k, had 1/4 or less in all tanks except aft (~90% or more full in the aft tank, ~50% total left).  I'm glad I decided to roll film as one of the first things I do is go straight nose up after gaining some speed, other than rolling the plane 180 degrees during this climb to keep it nose up as it continued upward a ways further, I swear I touched nothing and no player input whatsover.  I couldn't of recovered it quicker, retained more E, avoided any stalling and gotten it nose down and properly diving back down quicker if I tried (well maybe, but would be very close).  I recall then doing a couple minutes of other unorchestrated maneuvers to play and feel it, then forced a very low alt nasty tail stall, and that's when I say I noticed it.

Was it "noticable", sure.  Would it of performed better with that weight distributed elsewhere, I do believe so.  Unsafe and fatal folly in the practice of fuel management, I really don't think so.  Black and white.... shades of grey....   I stand by my opinion that in-game it only becomes a critical issue if you're fighting another equally piloted 152 with all things equal except fuel distributions, in which case one will be doing maneuvers with an advantage over the other, but the other will by no means have his death cert already signed because of their disadvantage.
-Babalon
"Let's light 'em up and see how they smoke."
POTW IIw Oink! - http://www.PigsOnTheWing.org

Wow, you guys need help.

Offline Babalonian

  • Platinum Member
  • ******
  • Posts: 5817
      • Pigs on the Wing
Re: Ta 152
« Reply #318 on: August 03, 2011, 04:05:00 PM »
^ Been waiting a week to get back on here and post that little clip, surprised nobody has come along by now to tell me how blatantly wrong and clearly confused I am on comprehending this matter...

So, chya, another "unusual instability characteristics" in-game because of some factor I'm not completely understanding or aware of as a whole yet, again, or?...
-Babalon
"Let's light 'em up and see how they smoke."
POTW IIw Oink! - http://www.PigsOnTheWing.org

Wow, you guys need help.

Offline mtnman

  • Gold Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 2438
Re: Ta 152
« Reply #319 on: August 04, 2011, 05:56:06 PM »
^ Been waiting a week to get back on here and post that little clip, surprised nobody has come along by now to tell me how blatantly wrong and clearly confused I am on comprehending this matter...

So, chya, another "unusual instability characteristics" in-game because of some factor I'm not completely understanding or aware of as a whole yet, again, or?...

I'm not sure what we should be looking at?  Or what your question is?

Lots of adverse yaw in your film.
MtnMan

"Those who hammer their guns into plows will plow for those who do not". Thomas Jefferson

Offline moot

  • Plutonium Member
  • *******
  • Posts: 16333
      • http://www.dasmuppets.com
Re: Ta 152
« Reply #320 on: August 05, 2011, 08:42:27 AM »
I don't get it either.  What are you showing?

The basics of benchmarking includes consistent trends across multiple runs, at least 2 series (AFT vs FWD) to compare between, ideally more than one player to rule it out as a cause, and in this case certainly something more exact than random maneuvers that aren't combat maneuvers.

..
The only two things I see as possibly relevant are the rope and the stall at the end.  The tail wagging elsehwere in the film.. What's the point?  There is no context to those.  The only way they mean something in terms of benchmarking is if you run those same sequences of tail wags with a FWD fueled plane for comparison.  And then it's obvious why it's better to do conventional maneuvers like scissors: replicating random tail wags is way too dodgy.   

Next AFT fuel agility disadvantage isn't going to show itself in a rope like that.

I don't think you understand what I'm talking about when I describe what the difference is between aft/fwd fuel cg.  And I'm gonna get flak for this again but I get the impression you don't know how to fly near enough the plane's full potential for it to be apparent. The difference between aft/fwd fuel is subtle but it's not at all negligible.

E.G. every now and then I'll go to the DA with a group.  And I'll try and fly the 152 anytime it's near enough manageable. E.G. Bighorn and some other squaddies in K4s.  With (say) 33% fwd fuel it's doable.  It's pretty damn hard, but doable.  It's not doable with AFT at all.  The difference in performance looks small on paper, but in practice it's the difference between contending and being left in the dust.
« Last Edit: August 05, 2011, 08:58:25 AM by moot »
Hello ant
running very fast
I squish you