Change Ta152 fuel drain wish

[Krusty]

I wish HTC would split the wing tanks into separate tanks on the TA152, and change the way the fuel is loaded and burned.


I'd like the wing tanks to drain first. Then the fuselage. Except for an aux tank in the starboard (right) wing. That should not be burned until last.


There're asymmetrical wing tanks in the 152. There is a 70 liter MW50 tank on the inboard port wing. On the starboard wing this same tank is used for normal fuel. This is modeled in-game, also! You'll see that when the fuel in the wing tank drains, this MW50 doesn't. Nor does it drain with WEP use. It's a dead weight. With 100% fuel load, the other wing balances it out, but very quickly this changes as the wing tanks drain but the MW50 dead weight stays there.

As it is now:

263 gal total
44 gal right wing
62 gal left wing  (18 gal more than right wing)
96 gal aft
62 gal fwd

The Ta152H1 had 3 bag type wing tanks. They simply used one of these for the MW50. Take a look at this for example:

http://www.afwing.com/images/ta152/ta152h.jpg

(here's a lower res of the same thing, in case the above doesn't want to load:)
http://www.afwing.com/images/ta152/Resize%20of%20ta152h.jpg

I'd like the starboard wing split up into 3 tanks (left, l-out, l-aux) and the port wing split up into 2 tanks (right, r-out).


Order of tank auto-selection during fuel burn:

Then the fuel order would drain left, right, l-out, and r-out all equally first, then move to AFT then move to FWD, but leave l-aux as the last tank ever drained.

Order of tank filling with fuel selection:

When filling the tanks (25%, 50%, 75%, 100%) I'd like that aux tank to ALWAYS be filled first, to balance out the MW50, but aside from that fill up FWD, AFT, and then finally the wings, so that if you take 50% you won't have any fuel in the wing tanks.

Why?

Instead of changing the modeling of the plane, which may never happen, I'd like to improve the performance by changing the way the fuel is burned, and loaded. This is no different than any other plane which has specialized fuel selection and fuel-load-priority (i.e. the 190a8 filling aux tank last, burning it first, etc). We have the spit fuel tanks split to match the real thing, I think splitting the 152's wing tanks will allow us to leave 1 tank undrained to better help balance, and is also like the real thing. There is precedent in this game for these requests.


That is my wish, split the wing tanks into separate tanks, and change the way the fuel is loaded and burned.

[moot]

Umm, no.. We had this discussion already and Pyro set it to what it is now because it's the best distribution for dogfighting.  If you're not dogfighting and want directional stiffness, e.g. hitting buffs, you're probably already fast and don't need it as much as you need agility in a dogfight.
I've already done a few trials on my own and found that having more fuel on one side of the plane is never as much or more destabilizing than having fuel in the AFT tank.  That's even with the wing tanks empty, which should equate to a heavier right side, since the MW50 tank should always be full (regenerating boost as it is in AH).
AFT tank is what should be filled last and burnt first.

The only improvement in your proposed configuration would be less fuel lost in case of a puncture, if the wing tanks worked that way.

TBH I think a better wish would be for HTC to add an H0 model, identical to the H1, but with the GM1 plumbing and maybe wing tanks removed.

[Krusty]

What's the point of separating the Spitfire tanks, either? What's the point of separating the mosquito tanks? They're all right next to each other.


I think when attacking bombers the off-set weight is actually more bearable than the off-set weight trying to pull tight turns in a dogfight. THAT is when it's going to screw you up more.

Note: I'm open to draining aft and wing tanks at same time, but pulling the weight out of the wings will help not only in roll rate, but will prevent ripping the wings off in high G manuvers. I'd rather have lighter wings to increase manuverability and burn off the fuel in the AFT tank, than vice versa.

Splitting the tanks up allows you to leave that aux un-drained, so that balance is the same regardless of attacking bombers or dogfighting on the deck. It's also a good idea regardless of however the fuel drain is changed. Drain wings first, or drain aft first, that aux will still remain. See what I mean?

[moot]

Krusty none of those planes need the fuel to be drained in a specific order like the 152 does.  The mossie benefits from the outer tanks emptying first, but other than that, it's a small difference in pitch stability (the major stability factor by far) whatever you choose, because all the tanks are aligned on the same lateral, and the plane doesn't really need it. 
Having less weight in the wings (fuel and 20mm) does help the 152's roll quite a bit, but it's maybe 1/2 as useful as having the AFT empty.
So that's that for ever getting the AFT filled and burned anything else than last and first, respectively.

Second, having the fuel tanks split up in the wings doesn't change anything except being able to drain them so that they perfectly keep a lateral balance with the MW50 tank (which btw you should test for stability and magnitude of its imbalancing the weight distribution - it's negligible), and like I said more compartments limiting fuel leaks.

Ripping wings... Who even does that anymore?  I knife fight the 152 pretty much every sortie and I haven't broken wings in years.  The lesser roll rate is a better trade off, compared to the instability from having any fuel in the aft tank.

In short you're proposing a solution where there's no problem.

[Krusty]

I disagree moot. Perhaps you're just "used to it" because you fly the 152 so much. Even folks that were "used to" the old 109 stall-flop model could fly around with it. It doesn't mean it was right.

Think of it this way, the total fuel tank in the right wing is larger and in a different location than the MW50 tank in the left. Even if you have the same weight, it's in a different place, spread out more.

(side thought: I wonder if HTC models in fuel slosh?)

It's not an earth-shattering difference when you have the MW50 balanced out, but it's noticable in my book. It's like trying to fly when out-of-trim, you end up fighting the controls a bit more than you really want to.

P.S. I've read several posts in the past 2-3 months where folks complain of ripping 152 wings off, I loathe the already-slow-as-hell roll rate, and yes I understand that the aft tank holds a lot more, weighs a lot more. That just means the wing tanks will be dry that much faster and the aft can be drained on climbout to the fight.

There are other options, too.

How would you best balance getting all that weight out of the wings, and reducing the AFT tank as well? Perhaps burn them evenly until the aft is 50%, then drain the last of the wings, and go back to AFT?

Offer suggestions!

I'm trying to improve things. Simply leaving them as-is is not right, or historically correct.

[moot]

No. Suggestions to what problem? Prove that there's anything wrong with it now.  That the MW50 tank is modeled and effectively unbalancing the plane, that it's causing trouble, and causing more trouble than we get from the AFT tank both in ACM agility and from tail-heavy spins.  We've always had trouble with the rear-heaviness, but never have I ever seen anyone mention that the plane had some lateral instability because of the MW50 tank.  Never have I heard anyone even noticing that there's a lateral imbalance.  Never have the wing tanks ever been as handicapping to agility as the AFT tank.

Draining the aft and wings at the same time would just take twice as long, since you're draining two volumes instead of one. That's not an improvement.  You'd end up with fuel in the aft tank later than is possible.

The folks that complain about wings ripping are probably the same that rip the Spit wings.. There's no reason to change a plane when the real problem is their control input. 

The roll rate, like I said, is not as bad a problem as instability from the aft tank would be.  Do you really fly this plane much?  The aft tank is way more destabilizing than the wings are, there's no reason at all to ever burn anything else before it's empty. 
You want to make an improvement that's barely noticeable (if you manage to prove it's even noticeable) at the cost of a problem that's not just an order of magnitude bigger, but also the one thing that pretty much kills the plane?  You want to improve the agility index of the plane by adding 2 and substracting 5? That makes no sense.
The only interesting improvement is separate fuel tanks in the wings.  You need to do the math and prove that that, too, is worth modeling.  I.E. quantify the difference in roll and stability between what we have now and what we'd have then.  That'll never be comparable to what the AFT does for balance; never be a valid trade-off.

My suggestion is to leave it as it is because that's as good as it could be.  The aft is at 20% or so on 75% total fuel, that's enough for a climbout on wep, or just a bit less, and then a pretty long sortie by MA standards. 

[Krusty]

I replied to the PM, didn't see you'd put the same thing in here.

First off, HTC went through a lot of trouble to add fuel tanks to other craft. Including spitfires, where the tanks literally sit on top of each other. There's no benefit to burning one or the other first, as they are exactly the same. The reason they were added was for accuracy!

I disagree with your comment about "the only improvement" with wing tanks. There are situations where having no fuel in the wings would be more helpful than having no fuel in the AFT tank. Such as high-speed manuvers, fast rolls, pulling out of steep high-speed dives without ripping wingtips off, and some other situations where you don't mind the centrally-located weight because you're not fighting on the stall. On the other hand, the balanced MW50 will in no way hurt, given all other things being equal, in any given situation.

I can't see why you would object to this. If you don't feel a difference, fair enough. However, there is a difference. Even if you find the AFT tank burning more important, the ability to perfectly balance the MW50 would be a benefit, no matter HOW you choose to burn your fuel. Small benefit or not, it's a benefit. The same benefit as, say, the auto-burn draining a P-51s wing tanks evenly rather than burning 75% of the right then 25% of the left.


So, while the actual burn and fill rate is open for dispute, I still request the fuel tanks be split up appropriately, and that the AUX (opposite of the MW50) be filled first and drained last.

The rest we can debate and hash out, but surely you can't object to this compromise?

[moot]

First off, HTC went through a lot of trouble to add fuel tanks to other craft. Including spitfires, where the tanks literally sit on top of each other. There's no benefit to burning one or the other first, as they are exactly the same. The reason they were added was for accuracy!

See my PM reply.  Given equal applied force and mass, spin around an axis will be slower if mass is distributed further from it.

I disagree with your comment about "the only improvement" with wing tanks. There are situations where having no fuel in the wings would be more helpful than having no fuel in the AFT tank. Such as high-speed manuvers, fast rolls, pulling out of steep high-speed dives without ripping wingtips off, and some other situations where you don't mind the centrally-located weight because you're not fighting on the stall. On the other hand, the balanced MW50 will in no way hurt, given all other things being equal, in any given situation.

I replied to this in my PM but will type it out again here, so that this doesn't spread around.. it's false. You don't need that little extra roll very often, and you never need it more than you need longitudinal stability as an empty aft tank gives you. 
You don't need empty wings to pull out of dives.  I've been diving well into compression with the 152 for years, and haven't broken wings in years.  If you're pulling out that hard in the 152, something's wrong with your ACM.  The same way something's wrong with your flying if you break wings pulling out of a dive in a 262, or break wings in the spits.

I can't see why you would object to this. If you don't feel a difference, fair enough. However, there is a difference. Even if you find the AFT tank burning more important, the ability to perfectly balance the MW50 would be a benefit, no matter HOW you choose to burn your fuel. Small benefit or not, it's a benefit. The same benefit as, say, the auto-burn draining a P-51s wing tanks evenly rather than burning 75% of the right then 25% of the left.

Prove it, let's see some numbers.

[TUXC]

I'm with Moot, leave it as is!

1) Aft tank first is best (shift c.g fwd as it burns and it's the biggest tank).
2) Don't you think 7 fuel tanks would be a little excessive?

Maybe someday we'll have the option to load each tank and set the burn order as we please, but until then just drain the wing tanks manually first if you don't like the burn order of the 152.

[EskimoJoe]

The Epic Battle Between Krusty and Moot! Who will win? Find out in our next episode! Not coming to theaters near you!

 

[moot]

There's little doubt to me anymore that people who read message boards will read their own writing and intentions in others', as often as read the text for only what it says.

[hubsonfire]

How far from the centerline is the MW tank?

[moot]

It's just outside of the 20mm gun.

[hubsonfire]

So an extra 106 lbs (6% of the max internal fuel load) added to the starboard wing is going to change the handling, improve roll, and keep me from ripping the wings off?

I'm not at all opposed to the ability to pick and choose tanks and fuel loads in each, but it's hard to believe this is going to have a noticeable impact on the 152's performance. If it would, couldn't a few simple tests (leaving ~3/8ths in the starboard tank, then emptying the tank) prove this? Controlled sort of test like Widewing or Mosq or whomever used to- check roll rate, climb, turning radius, all that?

[Krusty]

Moot, you're making a lot of absolute statements about YOUR OPINION and not overall fact. At least I understand that others might not fly the way I do.

Oh, and the "prove it" is a BS argument. On one hand you have a 70L tank that never drains, and no counter balance on the other wing. On the other hand you have a 70L tank that never drains, and an equal but opposite aux tank in the other wing. Common logic says the one that is balanced brings more benefit.

No matter what your OPINION of the effects, there is an effect modeled. One is balanced. One unbalanced. Simple physics. The balanced one is going to stall more evenly (in my opinion) because the left wing, which stalls first, isn't going to be significantly heavier than the right wing, which stalls last. [EDIT: Note that even if a minor change in handling, you cannot deny that a balanced plane will stall better than an unbalanced one. Try stall fighting a f4u1 with a full left tank and empty right tank, and you tell me if the stall is better or worse)


This is all WITHOUT changing the order of burning, just adding that extra tank.


Hubs: Well if they made an identical tank in the opposite wing as a shortcut HTC could just merge the inner/outer tanks into one, but again they don't do this on any other planes in the game, why this one?

P.S. I've said many times. NOT an earth-shattering change. But it IS a change. Why do we get Spit1s with 100 octane? Why do we get the new ammo packages on the 109Gs? Because they were that way in WW2.


P.P.S. You want the H-0 so HTC removes the weight of the GM1 in the tail. Rather hypocritical for you to go on and on about me wanting to balance out the MW50 in the wing, eh?