Ta 152

[Babalonian]

What context did I miss?  The above quote was reply to simple question by me - are you saying AFT makes no difference to agility?

Regardless what the physics are, the practical bottom line is that empty AFT is easily the best config for dogfighting agility.  Including off the wall maneuvers like flying sideways and back again for shots you couldn't otherwise get.  You can maneuver over departure limit much easier without aft fuel.  Agility benefits just keep growing as total fuel drains, but aft is by far the biggest positive.

And I'm pretty sure AFT is the biggest tank. Unless you meant that the other three together add up to more than AFT.

A contradicted absolute.

I do strongly personaly feel in AH that (1) it makes _barely_ a noticable difference [it _is_ noticable, and a most notable hinderance in a situation I avoid at most costs and the most likely outcome to a fight starting with me being low, slow n heavy], (2) especialy in comparison to the much more signifigantly notable impacts to performance and handling obtained by draining either of the other three tanks it also has, (3) which I admit is in stark contrast to logic or historical accounts of how of all tanks it had the most notable impact on performance when full or empty.

I agree, the practicality behind draining it first is undisputable, and I am aware that the aft tank is by a signifigant margin the single largest internal tank in the aircraft.  My honest opinion is it seems, in comparison to what was described by pilots that tested the aircraft, our aft tank is too light when full, and too heavy when empty, but this is another gut feeling that if anything has already been disproven with heavy research into the matter already on weights and the CoG in a 152 earlier in this thread.

[icepac]

My point is that the 152 flies far worse than the 190d at high altitude.

My understanding is that the 152 was the high altitude king of german propellor aircraft but here it flies very badly at high altitude regardless of speed.

I think it flies well down low.

[moot]

Sorry Babs but.. For the first time I truly am in fact going to lean on my experience and say you somehow don't know what you're talking about. I listened to you give people guidelines during that big Germany scenario and I was almost going to speak up because overall it wasn't all that great (nor esp bad either) advice to 152 newbies, but I didn't because it was good enough overall and because it's no good to argue with command.  

Empty AFT is like catnip for 152's agility.  It's not arguable.  If this were some other subject where there was a lot of complicated room for misunderstanding of some kind, I'd argue it but... This is a night and day, black and white thing.  
For dogfight agility purposes AFT tank completely changes the 152's performance, for the better.  This is 10 years of flying the thing speaking.  I can't think off the top of my head of anyone else with experience in it that ever said otherwise.  

What are the positives of draining the others first?  The wings are slightly fwd of FWD tank.  It's a toss up between very small extra fwd CG from leaving em last, to small roll rate bonus burning em first.


Icepac - what are the criteria exactly?  The 190D is out of speed and lift by 30k.

[dtango]

My point is that the 152 flies far worse than the 190d at high altitude.

My understanding is that the 152 was the high altitude king of german propellor aircraft but here it flies very badly at high altitude regardless of speed.

Please answer me this:  Would adverse yaw get better or worse with increasing altitude?  I'll give you a hint.  Air density makes a difference.

[icepac]

Bringing in basic aero 101 in some cheeky fashion does nothing at all to someone far beyond your understanding.

I'll bet you've never flown all the planes in game to thier ceiling.......which I did within a week of opening my account.

That is how I discovered the uber a6m3 first.

My point is that the TA152, which was engineered primarily for high altitude performance, performs far worse than a 190d or ever 190a8 at 30,000 feet.

Sure it's fast up there but it's nearly incapable of putting guns on a group of b17s in a dead six tail chase at 35,800 feet.

Forget yaw, it is bad in all axis.

[dtango]

Bringing in basic aero 101 in some cheeky fashion does nothing at all to someone far beyond your understanding.

The fact that you think you'd have the same stability down low vs. up high belies who has the understanding vs. not.  I'll ask you again, why do you think stability would remain the same or improve with altitude?  Prove to me you have the right understanding.  All you've stated so far is YOUR OPINION of how the Ta-152 should perform at altitude.

[moot]

Why choose dead six chase as the criteria ?  It's academic comparison at best - you don't fly up bombers' dead six, especially not at 35k where you've got so much less lift to maneuver (evade) with.

The 152 owns the D9 at that altitude. 

[dtango]

icepac - Look, I completely disagree with the manner you've flung your arguments out there willy-nilly.  Be that as it may, I'll back off of my rhetoric a bit alright?

It's illogical to conclude that the Ta-152's stability (or any airplane for that matter) would remain the same or improve with increasing altitude.  Increasing altitude decreases stability.  Lower air density decreases airplane short period damping rate.  This means it takes longer for aerodynamic damping moments to stabilize motion after aircraft controls are returned to neutral thus aircraft control is less precise.  Whatever existing relative stability differences there are between airplanes only get's magnified with increasing altitude.

Peace, out.

[Debrody]

Bringing in basic aero 101 in some cheeky fashion does nothing at all to someone far beyond your understanding.

My point is that the TA152, which was engineered primarily for high altitude performance, performs far worse than a 190d or ever 190a8 at 30,000 feet.

ouch... the 152 easily outmaneuvers the dora or the a8 at any alitude, without being forced to do agressive or risky moves. Simly turns much tighter and with a faster rate. Not to mention its faster and climbs better than almost everything at that altitude.
If you dont provocate this plane, it wont end up in a tailspin. Soft hand is your friend, Sir.

[FLS]

Bringing in basic aero 101 in some cheeky fashion does nothing at all to someone far beyond your understanding.

I'd be interested in the data that supports that statement. Please explain how your knowledge, which has so far not been evident here, surpasses anyone's understanding. It seems more likely that we are seeing an example of the opposite case, where your uninformed opinion is indefensible and you are unable to understand dtango's explanations. 

[icepac]

Just take the 152 up to 30k feet and compare it to the other 190 models at that height.

I don't need data to tell me something is wrong in the plane that was designed to be better at that altitude ending up not being as good as the models it was to replace.

[Wmaker]

Just take the 152 up to 30k feet and compare it to the other 190 models at that height.

I don't need data to tell me something is wrong in the plane that was designed to be better at that altitude ending up not being as good as the models it was to replace.

What if I said that I just did that and in my opinion Ta152 is easily the best handling 190 at that altitude. So, whose opinion is more correct and more valuable, yours or mine?

[icepac]

Why choose dead six chase as the criteria ?  It's academic comparison at best - you don't fly up bombers' dead six, especially not at 35k where you've got so much less lift to maneuver (evade) with.

The 152 owns the D9 at that altitude.  

My point is that the 152 does not own the d9 at high altitude even though it was designed to be better at high altitude.

Do any of you guys even fly up there?

I fly all the planes at maximum altitude.

This is how I discovered THIS........when the plane was introduced.



I guess it's best I just fly something other than the TA152 for my high altitude action since other planes here are better suited for the job.

[Wmaker]

The high altitude performance "bug" on the A6M3 was fixed. It is a totally separate issue and has nothing to do with Ta152.

[icepac]

My mentioning it was to illustrate the fact that I fly all of the planes at super high altitudes.

I discovered that bug day 1 but it took others months to catch on.

Why?.....Because most at aces high (including people on this thread) rarely, if ever, fly anything but bombers above 30k feet.

Go fly the 152 on a bomber intercept mission at 35k and get back to me.