PDA

View Full Version : How to fly the Ta-152c without killing oneself?



Objektskaya
05-11-2008, 08:40 PM
So far I can't get the damned thing off the ground. As soon as I get to a near-takeoff speed, say 160 km/h, it starts rolling to the left. If I actually rotate, the aircraft immediately spins uncontrollably to the left, right into the ground.

So how do you take this thing off? Clearly it is not as simple as the usual "takeoff flaps, 110% power w/boost if available, steer straight ahead" that works with 90% of the aircraft in Il-2.

ImMoreBetter
05-11-2008, 08:49 PM
You're torque rolling.

You are either:

-Taking off too slow
-Pulling up too hard
-Not properly counteracting with rudder

Also, use 100% power, not 110.

steiner562
05-11-2008, 08:54 PM
Lock the tailwheel maybe?.

berg417448
05-11-2008, 08:59 PM
I think your take off speed is too low for the Ta-152C.I'd use closer to 130 mph/210 kph. I just tried it at that speed and had no problems.

Objektskaya
05-11-2008, 10:14 PM
Yes, reducing power to 100% and taking off faster did the trick.

What's the best climb speed/power setting? Should I just reduce fuel weight a bit? I'm trying to do the single-player mission for the Ta-152C, in which one must intercept a bunch of B-29s, using X-4 missiles (and of course the guns).

Jaws2002
05-11-2008, 10:29 PM
Take 100% fuel, few sandwitches, few bottles of water, make sure your relief tube works before the flight.

Then take off the day before just to be sure you get to the crusing altitude of the B-29's in time. :

Good luck! http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/shady.gif

Daiichidoku
05-12-2008, 09:31 AM
but Jaws, isnt the wait worth it?

that speed.....those freight-train-tossing guns


http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/heart.gif the 152C

corpse_grinder1
05-12-2008, 09:38 AM
Low speed + high torque + high angle of attack = DANGER!

cawimmer430
05-12-2008, 09:42 AM
What's wrong with taking off with 110% power and open radiators?

DKoor
05-12-2008, 10:28 AM
Originally posted by cawimmer430:
What's wrong with taking off with 110% power and open radiators? +1

I use MW50 as well http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/16x16_smiley-very-happy.gif.

cawimmer430
05-12-2008, 01:08 PM
Originally posted by DKoor:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by cawimmer430:
What's wrong with taking off with 110% power and open radiators? +1

I use MW50 as well http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/16x16_smiley-very-happy.gif. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_biggrin.gif

Objektskaya
05-13-2008, 06:38 AM
While I can now take off without crashing shortly thereafter, what I cannot do is intercept bombers. Or even P-51s. Is the Ta-152C really that pathetic, or is there some super secret combination of engine/prop settings to use? I've found performance peters out before I'm at, let alone above, the altitude of the B-29s I'm supposed to shoot down. So much for doing boom 'n' zoom on them. I can't get enough altitude or airspeed to do either. It's more like, "struggle to keep up, slowly gain on them from behind and below over many miles, then, well after they've dropped on their target, MAYBE get a shot off before being shot down."

Also, what is the proper engine speed range (I assume the tachometer on the right gives engine revs)? It will easily do over 3000 rpm going level at full throttle, but that can't be good for it. I was playing with throttle & prop settings at altitude (around 4000 m) and found I had to reduce prop pitch to 10% or less to keep it below 3000 rpm. That doesn't seem right. What is the best prop setting for climbs?

Performance seems to drop off quite sharply when you get up high. With a full weapons and fuel load, reaching 9000m is possible, but I'm struggling to stay up, and can't go more than 250-300 km/h. So much for this thing being fast, or intercepting bombers,

Jaws2002
05-13-2008, 09:22 AM
The TA-152C problem is in the way is modeled. They modeled the plane with the regular FW-190 wing span (10.383 m) instead of the new TA-152 wing (11m).

This may explain few things. The only thing you can do to compensate is to fly at much higher speeds then normal. Normaly less wing area means that you need more speed to get the same lift.
So i sugest you climb at above 350 km/h at all times. The plane is not bad bomber interceptor if you run fast and it can sure run fast.

All you need is once you got above the bombers keep your speed very high at all times.

Jaws2002
05-13-2008, 09:53 AM
One more thing: If you plan to get that high don't take the missiles.

DKoor
05-13-2008, 09:58 AM
I agree with Jaws, however X-4 is fun!

And especially effective vs B-29 formation.
There was this mission where you intercept Russian B-29 (Tu-4?) formation...

BTW TA-152C is not bad aircraft in game. It's super fast airplane and super armed, thus making it super bomber killer!

Be sure TA-152C does not falls away from this epithet!

Jaws2002
05-13-2008, 10:30 AM
Originally posted by DKoor:



There was this mission where you intercept Russian B-29 (Tu-4?) formation...



That mission brings the bombers at 4000m.

JtD
05-13-2008, 10:36 AM
I managed to get killed by Spitfires. Think that qualifies as not killing myself. It's pretty easy, just turnfight them but don't stall.

DKoor
05-13-2008, 10:42 AM
Originally posted by JtD:
I managed to get killed by Spitfires. Think that qualifies as not killing myself. It's pretty easy, just turnfight them but don't stall. http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/88.gif

cawimmer430
05-13-2008, 10:44 AM
If you plan on taking on B-29's at high altitude, wouldn't the Ta-152H be the better choice?

Klemm.co
05-13-2008, 11:00 AM
Originally posted by cawimmer430:
If you plan on taking on B-29's at high altitude, wouldn't the Ta-152H be the better choice?
It would be, but the H version was supposed to have a top operational ceiling of 14800 meters, whereas in the game i couldn't even get it to 12000 meters. And i tried everything, and i'm not such a noob.
With the C version i had troubles getting it to 10000 meters and stay there. I could get to 11000 meters, but that was it and my engine was overheating.
The C model was more supposed to be an all-around model, combining bomber intercepting qualities with ground attack capabilities.

Altititude performance AND turning circle/turning speed is undermoddeled. Big time.
So even if he took a Ta-152 H to intercept the bombers, the situation would've been unrealistic also. And when you're in a campaign, you won't hahve a choice which plane you take for the mission.

Just had to get that off my chest, since your comment was really lacking, well, perspective. http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/16x16_smiley-wink.gif http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/1072.gif

cawimmer430
05-13-2008, 11:12 AM
Originally posted by Klemm.co:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by cawimmer430:
If you plan on taking on B-29's at high altitude, wouldn't the Ta-152H be the better choice?
It would be, but the H version was supposed to have a top operational ceiling of 14800 meters, whereas in the game i couldn't even get it to 12000 meters. And i tried everything, and i'm not such a noob.
With the C version i had troubles getting it to 10000 meters and stay there. I could get to 11000 meters, but that was it and my engine was overheating.
The C model was more supposed to be an all-around model, combining bomber intercepting qualities with ground attack capabilities.

Altititude performance AND turning circle/turning speed is undermoddeled. Big time.
So even if he took a Ta-152 H to intercept the bombers, the situation would've been unrealistic also. And when you're in a campaign, you won't hahve a choice which plane you take for the mission.

Just had to get that off my chest, since your comment was really lacking, well, perspective. http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/16x16_smiley-wink.gif http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/1072.gif </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

You're the man! http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_razz.gif http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/25.gif

mortoma
05-13-2008, 11:59 AM
I don't think the 152C was modeled very well. It's almost exactly like the Dora except the cockpit was a few inches farther back. Although overall heavier than Dora, with half fuel tanks it's lighter than the Dora is at full fuel. So it should handle almost exactly as the Dora in my opinion, or very close. But fly it a few times at half a fuel tank and compare to either Dora at full fuel. The Dora handles like a Ferrari in comparison. While the 152C handles like a over-loaded wheel barrow.

JSG72
05-13-2008, 02:34 PM
+1

http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/agreepost.gif

Just did a QMB. 4x152c V. 4xLagg-7s 2000metres.

Better get them on the first pass as it flies like it is carrying bombs all the time. I just couldn't get near them.

Same again with 190Ds (1945) and I am turning banking accelorating no probs and shot 2 down.

mortoma
05-14-2008, 07:03 AM
Yep, theoretically both the Dora and 152C should handle nearly identical at the same weights but they don't. The overall dimensions and shape are close, so aerodynamically they should fly almost the same. The wing loading should be almost identical at at similar weights.

The big differences are:
152C has a different engine that has slightly more power at full boost but slightly less at full throttle with no boost.

Kurt Tank mover the cockpit of the 152C back about two to three inches. I think due to slightly heavier engine??

The vertical stab is more square and longer dimensionally at the top.

At about 3/4 full in the fuel tank the 152C should be about the same weight as fully laden Dora by my estimates. A 152C with half tank of fuel should be lighter than a fully laden Dora and probably should handle better. But yet it looses energy easier and does not zoom as well as our Dora. Looses energy in the turn quite a bit faster than the Dora and you have to keep the nose down and lose altitude to turn very well at all. The Dora accels faster than the 152C even when the 152C is almost out of fuel.
The 152C prop is optimized for a higher altitude( bigger paddles ) but this should not make that much of a difference in my opinion. But even at high altitudes the Dora accels faster!!
Too bad it's porked a bit but there's nothing that will be done about it now. We will have to live with it.

Objektskaya
05-14-2008, 07:49 AM
Yup, I was talking about the mission where you have to intercept B-29's flying in at 4000 m.

Leaving the X-4 missiles on the ground helped a HUGE amount. I was able to get the -152C to zoom-able altitude advantage in plenty of time to give the bombers grief, well before they got to their target.

Problem is, I stink at head-on intercepts. What usually ends up happening is that I am not leading them enough, and with the closing speed being effectively 900 km/h or so, they zoom by really quickly. Any suggestions for head-on intercepts? It takes a good amount of time to fly past them, turn around, then catch up with them from behind & above.

I also tried flying the -152C with X-4s but 50% fuel. It sure climbed a lot better, but I messed around chasing the bombers too much after expending my X-4s, and ran out of fuel on the way home. Oops.

FWIW, I'm absolutely flabbergasted by how easy it is to shoot down bombers with the X-4s. It's almost like cheating.

mortoma
05-14-2008, 07:58 AM
Just flew a mission in the 152C and I was at about 3000 meters and a Ruski P-39Q10 was pacing away from me at a great rate though I was trimmed perfectly and had the ball centered. I was flying level as was the red and I had MW50 at 110% throttle too. Yet I could see his distance icon clicking away, .50, .75, so on, so forth. I may have caught him after four minutes or so and into overheat but he started diving. I was able to get him at low altitude. But ya gotta laugh when a Q-10 embarrasses you at mid altitude like that. I'm sure in real life 152C would have run down a Q-10 super easily at any altitude.

Daiichidoku
05-14-2008, 02:16 PM
top speed and acceleration have little to do with each other

anarchy52
05-14-2008, 03:05 PM
Ta-152C is a prime example of bad modeling and lack of interest by the developers. It is wrong in all aspects except perhaps level speed.

JSG72
05-14-2008, 04:07 PM
I seem to remember a thread about this model when '46 was released. Various charts were banded about. and all portrayed flight performances of the TA-152c before it was even flown!

Can't find it now. But I do remember a big fight between Charts and Reality.

Thank goodness those days are over http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/16x16_smiley-wink.gif