TA 152 the wings break at 550 kmh by pulling on the handle

[butcherbird88]

I know that the wings of the ta 152 are longer so more load, but I wonder if this is normal?

[AndyJWest]

Hard to say, without knowing what the G load was you were pulling, or what G load the aircraft was designed for. It may well be possible to pull more G in the sim than you could achieve in reality. Was that IAS or TAS? And at what altitude? 

 

Note that max real-life G limits are generally based on symmetrical loads - add significant yaw or roll, and the limit may be lower.

[JG4_Widukind]

yes wings broke...same here

[AndyJWest]

How many G?

[Regingrave-]

Absolutely normal, it is safe to be both daring and gentle with the handle on such speeds. Long wings both provide lift for aggressive maneuvering and are a structural weakness of the plane, that wasn't really designed for that type of combat.

[Avimimus]

Maximum load factor: 8.5 g

 

Tempest pilots will be familiar already with the implications of pulling back too hard while at speed (i.e. in a dive)...

[AndyJWest]

I just ran a test of sorts, and then checked it via Tacview (which may not record the peak load). Pulled 7.0 G, 7.3 G and then 8.5 G, one after the other. The wings were still on after 8.5 G, but then came off at about 4.7 G. I think damage is supposed to be cumulative.

 

Unless you are doing something silly, like applying up trim at 550 KIAS, it shouldn't be hard to avoid yanking the stick enough to pull 8 G.

 

 

Edited June 20, 2024 by AndyJWest

[BlitzPig_EL]

Expectation crashing headlong into reality.

 

The 152 was not designed for stick yanking dogfights against fighters.  It came about because the Germans were fearful of the introduction of the Boeing B 29 to the European Theater, and needed a high altitude interceptor to counter it.  It is a very narrowly focused weapon, take it out of it's element at your own risk.

[Avimimus]

1 hour ago, BlitzPig_EL said:

Expectation crashing headlong into reality.

 

The 152 was not designed for stick yanking dogfights against fighters.  It came about because the Germans were fearful of the introduction of the Boeing B 29 to the European Theater, and needed a high altitude interceptor to counter it.  It is a very narrowly focused weapon, take it out of it's element at your own risk.

 

Except it is actually a pretty good dogfighter - have you tried it yet? You just have to fly it slightly more like it is a WWI dogfighter.

[R33GZ]

This may seem slightly off topic, but I believe it is related.

 

2 family friends, with 7000hrs of flight experience between them died in a 2 seat sports glider in Namibia a while back. Cause of the accident was over speeding the aircraft, resulting in a slight over control of the elevators. The wings folded up over the fuselage and they went in.

 

I know a glider is not rated or constructed the same as a WW2 fighter aircraft, but it's wing design has similar features to the 152, so I'd say it's most likely an accurate result

 

 

[Hook_Echo]

It's a secret feature. Pull hard to turn it back into a Dora.

[AndyJWest]

36 minutes ago, Hook_Echo said:

It's a secret feature. Pull hard to turn it back into a Dora.

 

Or a F-104...  

[Aleksander55]

How much fuel were you carrying? This monster carries 995 liters of fuel. How is it distributed? Mostly in the wings? Does it have a heavy rear one like the Mustang? Any german manual talking about restricitions in maneuvering with a full fuel load?

 

*I don't own the plane.

Edited June 21, 2024 by Aleksander55

[Avimimus]

10 hours ago, BlitzPig_EL said:

Expectation crashing headlong into reality.

 

The 152 was not designed for stick yanking dogfights against fighters.  It came about because the Germans were fearful of the introduction of the Boeing B 29 to the European Theater, and needed a high altitude interceptor to counter it.  It is a very narrowly focused weapon, take it out of it's element at your own risk.

 

Except it is actually a pretty good dogfighter - have you tried it yet?

 

Just fly it a bit more with the mentality of a WWI pilot (avoid prolonged fight on the vertical, using optimal turn speeds, and climbing occasionally).

[BlitzPig_EL]

 

Took it out on one of my DF missions last night for testing.  Was able to bag 3 AI enemy fighters in a sortie (a Mustang and two P39s) without too much trouble.  Then got it home safely.  The hardest thing was getting the measure of her guns as I fly US planes a lot the brick like trajectory of the German cannon was a bit difficult to deal with at first.

[LuftManu]

Thsoe big wings help sure when the airspeed is low and thus, can be great while turning.

 

[[CPT]Crunch]

The amount of lift generated isn't uniform through the length of the wing.  Generally there's a lot of aircraft that produce 80% in the first third of the wing.  So G produced on the outer portion can be minimal.

[AndyJWest]

1 hour ago, [CPT]Crunch said:

The amount of lift generated isn't uniform through the length of the wing.  Generally there's a lot of aircraft that produce 80% in the first third of the wing.  So G produced on the outer portion can be minimal.

 

Even if that is true (I'd like to see a source), the 'first third' of a Ta 152 wing is a lot further out than for a Fw 190. To withstand the same G loads, the wing would have to be substantially stronger at the root. Torsional loads are likely to be more of an issue too. 

[Gavrick]

From Dietmar Hermann Ta-152 book.
So, 6.5g service, approx. 9.5g breaking - with 4400 kg mass. 

[CountZero]

Tempest also brakes wings so easy pulling Gs, and no real life reports that this was so easy to do, so there is some disconect betwen real airplanes/pilots posibilitys and game, it seams 152 will have same problem. If making sim was ah lets just copy paste numbers from reports/manuals/specs in our black box and we are done, was that easy anyone would be making sims. Numbers mayybe correct but was real pilot able to so easy brake wings on tempests or 152s ? i guess no, so things should be looked at.

[RedeyeStorm]

Cause may be because we fly these planes with fly by wire instead of wires and pullies. We can yank the stick to a deflection the real pilots simply did not have the physical strength for. 
 

It would require the simulation of pilot’s physical strength somehow. That does not sound so easy to do.

Edited June 23, 2024 by RedeyeStorm

[AndyJWest]

6 hours ago, RedeyeStorm said:

Cause may be because we fly these planes with fly by wire instead of wires and pullies. We can yank the stick to a deflection the real pilots simply did not have the physical strength for. 
 

It would require the simulation of pilot’s physical strength somehow. That does not sound so easy to do.

 

And if you do model physical strength, you then get people complaining they cant get full deflection at high speeds. And engaging in silly hacks like linking trim to stick movement.

 

Every aircraft in IL-2 GB is capable of pretend-killing you if you do something stupid. It would be a poor simulation if it didn't. 

[Gavrick]

13 minutes ago, AndyJWest said:

And if you do model physical strength

We do.

Try to pull full stick at, for example, 300kph and 600kph, and notice difference in elevator deflection.