Ta 152

[Wmaker]

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

You are free to fly the planes what ever altitudes you like, until you somehow quantify and isolate the percieved problem against hard data, you are just blowing hot air.

I'm not saying wheather the Ta152 modelling is right or wrong, I'm just saying that your logic is pathologically flawed.

[Zeagle]

I routinely fly 30+k on buff hunting trips with the TA-152. It's good up there. Honestly, once I get above like 25k I can't think of a plane it doesn't own. Not scientific, but my experience tells me that its a great performer.

Now some of the bombers' performance might be another question...for another thread

[icepac]

Are you even flying this plane wmaker?


Thanks zeagle, I have an easier time hearing it from someone who's actually flown the plane more than twice in the last 5 tours.

[FLS]

There isn't much you can compare the Ta152 to at 43k. Offhand I think it's only a couple of Jugs. The Ta152 is clearly superior to the 190D at 30k and of course the 190 can't even reach 40k.

[moot]

Do any of you guys even fly up there?

To 40k+

Like FLS says I'm not sure the Dora can even get up there.  What is going on in some people's computers/heads....

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

LOL!
I can't remember how many times I've compressed DIVING to bombers at 35-35+.  Of all the squads I've been in and friends I've flown with, I can easily count on one hand the number that had the patience to wing up on my 100+DT high alt sorties.

I've been flying it since the day it came out.  I don't know how many hours total playing the game but it must be in the ten thousand+ range.  Maybe half of it is flying the 152.  Once looked up total kills in 152 across all accounts I've had and it was some similar ridiculous number like 10-15k.    You tell me - how factual is my basis?

The D9 doesn't even compare with the 152 above 30k.  Already at 25 it's peaked.  Ask anyone from any of the events that had D9s and 152s side by side.  Ask either the D9 sticks or the guys fighting them both on allied side.


Blue is AH 152, green AH D9.

9 km is 30,000 ft
The two curves cross at ~22,000 ft.

Just no comparison.  You've got a better engine, better wings, better guns.  Whatever you're doing wrong ... - that slightly better performance of the 152 over the D9 at low altitude is small compared to at high altitude.

I have an easier time hearing it from someone who's actually flown the plane more than twice in the last 5 tours.

[Debrody]

Well, complaining about the 152s instability, thats ok.
But complaining about its hi-alt performance?
LOL

[Wmaker]

Are you even flying this plane wmaker?

As long as your logic is as flawed as it is, wheather I fly it or not is actually irrelevant.

Basic rules of argumentation, I strongly suggest you look them up.

[grizz441]

Thanks zeagle, I have an easier time hearing it from someone who's actually flown the plane more than twice in the last 5 tours.

Questioning moot's knowledge of the Ta-152 is like questioning a heart surgeon if he knows what the Aorta is.

[Spikes]

Are you even flying this plane wmaker?


Thanks zeagle, I have an easier time hearing it from someone who's actually flown the plane more than twice in the last 5 tours.

Who are you?

[Zeagle]

I fly the Ta-152 a lot. I like it. I'd love to wing up with any other 152 flyer for some high alt hunting. I know it's tough to find anyone with patience for that kind of flying. But that's what I enjoy..

(And I lost my last one due to a compression....!@#$%)

[moot]

I mean.. Icepac you've even got a trainer putting it straight up, categorically.  And you don't buy that either, but you do accept a normal player's testimony merely on his word. 

What's the thought process here??

[Zeagle]

      

normal player.....

[moot]

It sounds demeaning but what I'm saying is how Icepac figures a Trainer would say something so positively, without serious amount of empirical certainty.

[icepac]

Well, complaining about the 152s instability, thats ok.
But complaining about its hi-alt performance?
LOL

Go back and read the thread before putting words into my mouth.

My complaint is about stability and not about the 152 being able to fly high and fast.

Wmaker is arguing this plane yet he has only flown 2 sorties in it in the last 5 tours (134 to 138).

I took Zeagle's information because he actually flies the plane he is talking about.

When comparing the 190d, I clearly stated 30,000 feet yet many here have turned that into 40,000 feet which is a world of difference...........and not at all what I said.

The 190d is much more stable and able to intercept bombers at 30,000 feet than the 152.

Yes, the 190d will make 40,000 feet........but not well.....however it is more stable than the 152 even way beyond it's maximum altitude.

I flew the 190d and spit IX, XVI, and XIV over 40,000 feet today.......ask the 163 drivers who felt the need to dive out of icon range/dive in or be rescued by another fighter as they absorbed bullets this afternoon.

That said, the spit XIV (yes the 16 and not the 14) has better stability than either 190/152 at 40,000 feet even though it is not known for it's high altitude performance like the spit 14.

The whole crux of my observations is that the 152 is more unstable that it should be at high altitude while planes that shouldn't fly well at high altitude turn better and are more stable than the ta152......of course, they don't reach the same speeds.....but they have better utility than the 152 even outside of thier known flight envelope than the 152 does well within it's envelope.

At low altitude, the 152 seems fine.

[moot]

You have it wrong on all counts except spits being more user friendly.