190 fuel tank question

[deSelys]

Hello,


Some dedicated 190 pilots say that it is necessary to drain the rear tank down to 25% first. However the AH auto-tank-switching system, which is supposed to keep the plane as well balanced as possible, drains the front tank 1st.

I've already tried it, but frankly the handling seems even a bit worse to me when I manually select the rear tank. I don't see the same huge difference as when I drain the P51's fuselage tank empty before going back to the DTs.

So...Is this a myth? Or am I doing something wrong?

Thanks.

[Flit]

does'nt change the roll rate, but does lighten the tail

[Virage]

Myth.

or should be if ah model is accurate.

by draining the aft tank first (moving cg forward)  the plane becomes nose heavy,  decreasing total lift performance.

many like to have a heavier nose and you will notice  the nose falling thru the horizon faster when turning down.. say at the top of a zoom.  But conversely, the nose will be harder to lift when turning up.

nose heavy also makes the plane more stable.  a rearward cg increases lift performance but decreases stability making it harder to get the max performance.  but forward cg = less lift = higher stall speed = worse turn performance.

stall recovery is also easier with a forward cg.

I leave the ah modeled fuel tank selection.

[NHattila]

if your in a D9, drain the rear. you aren't going for turning ability in that plane. i have been doing this for quite sometime and i think it definitly enhances the performance for the type of flying i do when i'm in a 190. then again, it is your own preferance. try it out and see what you think. they key is to keep a 190 fast though, get cought slow and you most likely going down in flames.

[mars01]

I only fly the 190A5 and sometimes the D9.  I like balance, favoring less fuel in the aft tank if I am over 50% capacity.  

The only time it is really noticable is when you are 100% cap or if one tank is over 50% less than the other.

[MrSpanky]

Everything that Virage has said is acurate exept one.  With Foward CG you actualy require more tail down force to compensate for the nose down tendancy.  The horizontal stabilizer (tail) is really an upside down wing.  So lift is acting down, not up.  Total lift on the aircraft is increasing, which means drag is increasing.  Wouldn't that mean poorer acceleration and top speeds?  I would think for energy fighting you'd actually be better  off with an aft CG.  Though it is true the foward CG would help bring the nose through vertical manuevers.  

Ham on!