Doesn't matter how much you try to pin it entirely on the folks bringing it up, at some point logic and common sense come in and you have to ask "Why is this so" and NOT "prove it"...
You know Krusty, if you actually went an tried to educate yourself about aerodynamics first, it would help your credibility whenever you bring these arguments up. But you don't, and the result is that you have no idea about what you're even arguing for or against from an aerodynamic perspective. And when we say the burden of proof lies with the "accuser"--I don't know, pick a word that represents that better. Its just a figure of speech that means HTC should get the benefit of the doubt.
I admit I don't know all of the details and ramifications about high aspect ratios but I do know a few things I've picked up here and there.
Just stop. Stop, stop, stop, stop, stop, stop... Caution: Severe Aeroflymanics follows:
It had much longer wingtips than its predecessor...Shall we consider the A-10 warthog? By all accounts its gets its loiter time and low-speed takeoffs from its high aspect ratio wing...What about the long-tipped spits? What about long-tipped Ju-188s? No reports of squirrely behavior on those...What about P-60 Black Widows? Loooooong wings (66ft) with relatively high aspect ratio.How about the much-loved B-24? It doesn't seem nearly as prone to skidding through a turn like a Ta152 would.
1. Repeat this with me: "Wingspan isolated from wing area has nothing to do with Aspect Ratio". You cannot have a conversation about aspect ratio that's based purely on wingspan. The formula for aspect ratio is:
AR = B^2 / S
Where:
AR = Aspect Ratio
B = Wingspan
S = Wing Area
2. So, using this formula, we find that the A-10 has an aspect ratio of 6.6 and the P-61 has an aspect ratio of 6.5, both of which get placed firmly in the "medium" category of aspect ratios. Neither, despite Wikipedia articles to the contrary (vis a vis the A-10), would ever be classified by aeronautical engineers as having "high" aspect ratios. The B-24 is the only aircraft you mentioned that would be classified as having a "high" aspect ration, coming in with an 11.5.
3. Adverse yaw can be counteracted by a number of design characteristics. On those bombers you mention, like the B-24, it has an immense amount of fuselage and vertical stabilizer area to counteract any adverse yaw created by its high aspect ratio wing. Both the bubble-top P-47 and P-51 were introduced with higher adverse yaw characteristics compared to their earlier models because the fuselage behind the canopy was cut down, removing that stabilizing influence. They were both fitted with dorsal fillets after the fact to combat this. If the vertical stabilizer area and length of the moment arm were not increased enough to counteract the increased yaw forces, its easy to see a situation where adverse yaw could still exist, despite the fact that both made the tail bigger and longer.
So what I am trying to say is I feel like when people throw out "It's got a high aspect ratio" then expect that to end the discussion, I'm sitting there as if they just said "talk to the hand cause the ears ain't list'nin'!" in a very simplistic way....Okay... It's got a high aspect ratio. And...?...That's not the answer.
How do you know? First, you haven't even educated yourself fully about what aspect ratio is. Second, you haven't done any serious design analysis of the Ta-152 beyond squeaking about its performance in-game, compared to some ethereal expectation of what you think it should and should not be able to do. Finally, I haven't done the analysis either, but I know enough to suspect that the increased aspect ratio is
probably the culprit. I can also state that I suspect that despite the increase in area and moment, the empenage probably wasn't increased sufficiently to handle the H model wing. If I really wanted to know, I could spend 6-8 hours plugging in all the numbers to find out, but I choose not to.
It's one small part that people harp about as if it's the end-all be-all of reasons why this plane is so unstable in this game. There's more to it but nobody ever looks further.
Its not one small part. Its a huge change to the aircraft--huge. The reason why people say this, is that one, they're making a cursory opinion based purely on what they see from a casual analysis, and two, because they don't want to take the time to find out because they can push the "I believe" button that gives HTC the benefit of the doubt.
I think if they did they would see that simply adding long wingtips wouldn't screw up a plane this badly. There's too many other instances of planes with high aspect ratios that DON'T have recorded handling problems.
They didn't just add long wingtips. They fundamentally changed the way the aircraft performed. And, to compare the Ta-152 H to any other aircraft with high aspect ratios is foolish if you ignore all the other design characteristics of those aircraft. Its comparing apples to oranges, period...
Stoney: P.S. The added weight of the engine was offset by a slightly longer nose, so the extended tail should be adequate and still well balanced.
How do you know? Just because they moved some stuff around doesn't mean that the changes they made completely compensated for the changes to the airframe. Its possible that the longer nose, longer tail, etc. merely helped to lessen those undesirable handling characteristics. We don't know because we haven't done detailed design analysis.