190a-5 vs. Fuel Burn

[Slade]

Thanks for the feedback all. 
 
Almost seems like we need a forum or on-going thread to dispel fallacies with respect to these type beliefs.

[colmbo]

The Ta152H has stability issues which is why burning the aft tank is benificial in terms of stability. If you find yourself in a deep stall falling straight down flat or upside down a empty aft tank will help you get out of the situation. A full aft tank means you just might not. That is the difference it makes, besides the fact that you'll slip yourself into said situation somewhat easier with a full aft tank.

The reason for this instability (documented fact) was the addition of the tank for the GM1 high-altitude boost system which was placed just behind the cockpit. It shifted CG enough to make the a/c dangerously unstable.

In Aces High I haven't found this to be true.  Have burned off all but the aft tank in 152 and still able to recover.

[33Vortex]

In Aces High I haven't found this to be true.  Have burned off all but the aft tank in 152 and still able to recover.

Interesting I'll have to test that. What I've noticed is that recovery is much more difficult with the aft tank but I've not confirmed that it is impossible. How much altitude did you need to recover?

[colmbo]

Interesting I'll have to test that. What I've noticed is that recovery is much more difficult with the aft tank but I've not confirmed that it is impossible. How much altitude did you need to recover?

I don't remember, I just remember that I didn't notice any difference in handling regardless of fuel situation.

[33Vortex]

Well I have, but I suppose I've not really been scientific in my methods of examining that. It's just that the only times I find myself unable to recover from said situation is when I'm on a full (or at least 3/4 full) aft tank.

[Rino]

As long as I've been playing I've only seen two verifiable "burn X tank" first in terms of historical accuracy.  First, the early Spitfires would burn the TOP tank first while ascending evidently to help with the roll rate (lowers center of gravity worth while enough).  Secondly, the F4U's with the wing tanks would burn the LEFT wing tank first to help stave off a premature stall (left wing dip). 

Otherwise... everything else I've heard or seen in AH is coincidental and is best remedied and verified like most things in the virtual world: extensive testing on your own.  This means using controls and testing it time and time again for verification AND being able to document speeds, weight, alt, etc.  Otherwise, it is truly just hear-say.

FWIW, I've not seen any benefit in burning X tank first in the 190 for improving a certain handling characteristic. Ditto for the P47.  There may be some benefit to longevity while sustaining damage if there is a fuel tank that easily receives damage (P47 prior to HTC's adjustment, etc).  I think this urban legend is along the same lines as those poor souls that would empty out the rear guns on their 110's or stukas thinking that it actually benefited them "in the turn".   

When in doubt just let the system do it for you.   

     I think you forgot the P-51 aft tank, it definitely effects the flight characteristics if not burned off
first.

[SmokinLoon]

     I think you forgot the P-51 aft tank, it definitely effects the flight characteristics if not burned off
first.

Respectively..... meh. How does it hinder the P51 if the aft tank is not burned first?

[MiloMorai]

Respectively..... meh. How does it hinder the P51 if the aft tank is not burned first?

The CG is moved to the rear limit, or possibly outside, of the CG limits.

[GScholz]

Respectively..... meh. How does it hinder the P51 if the aft tank is not burned first?

It would kill you if you tried any aerobatics.

[Babalonian]

Guys,

Some say you should burn the FWD fuel 1st in 190a5 and it is most nimble.  Others say the default setting allows for the most nimble performance.

What is the truth?


Thanks,

Slade 

Little research and basic knowledge (cog, weight and balance, etc.) will yield you (or for others) multitudes of information on this matter.





As you can see with the A model, both are well aft of the wing, one is notabley larger than the other and placed much further aft from the planes cog than the other.  As the series advanced, more tanks were added, and even further to the rear of the COG.