Author Topic: 190a-5 vs. Fuel Burn  (Read 1387 times)

Offline Slade

  • Silver Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 1848
190a-5 vs. Fuel Burn
« on: September 15, 2013, 04:29:22 PM »
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  :salute
-- Flying as X15 --

Offline Tank-Ace

  • Persona Non Grata
  • Platinum Member
  • ******
  • Posts: 5298
Re: 190a-5 vs. Fuel Burn
« Reply #1 on: September 15, 2013, 04:44:30 PM »
Truth is that any advantage gained by burning your fuel in a specific order will easily be out weighed by the one single screw up you might or might not make.
You started this thread and it was obviously about your want and desire in spite of your use of 'we' and Google.

"Once more unto the breach"

Offline Butcher

  • Platinum Member
  • ******
  • Posts: 5323
Re: 190a-5 vs. Fuel Burn
« Reply #2 on: September 15, 2013, 04:48:02 PM »
only thing ive ever been told over the years was burn the AFT in case you get hit or you will catch fire, whether its true or not I'm not sure, I never mess with fuel really.
JG 52

Offline Zacherof

  • Gold Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 3996
Re: 190a-5 vs. Fuel Burn
« Reply #3 on: September 15, 2013, 06:11:57 PM »
in the 152 ive been told to always burn the Aft tank
In game name Xacherof
USN Sea Bee
**ELITE**
I am a meat popsicle

Offline SmokinLoon

  • Platinum Member
  • ******
  • Posts: 6168
Re: 190a-5 vs. Fuel Burn
« Reply #4 on: September 15, 2013, 10:56:45 PM »
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".   :bhead

When in doubt just let the system do it for you.   :aok
Proud grandson of the late Lt. Col. Darrell M. "Bud" Gray, USAF (ret.), B24D pilot, 5th BG/72nd BS. 28 combat missions within the "slot", PTO.

Offline save

  • Gold Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 2873
Re: 190a-5 vs. Fuel Burn
« Reply #5 on: September 16, 2013, 01:35:27 AM »
I burn 190 tanks default, with the exception of the F8, that is already nose-heavy ( forward first).
My ammo last for 6 Lancasters, or one Yak3.
"And the Yak 3 ,aka the "flying Yamato"..."
-Caldera

Offline Krusty

  • Radioactive Member
  • *******
  • Posts: 26745
Re: 190a-5 vs. Fuel Burn
« Reply #6 on: September 16, 2013, 02:19:57 AM »
Never burn F-8s aft tank first. It is the 190 you are most likely to dive bomb with. If you dive bomb with empty fwd and full aft, you'll rip your wings off.

Most planes in this game burn tanks in the best order already. 190s are one of them. Just burn it on auto (aux - aft - fwd, in that order)

Offline save

  • Gold Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 2873
Re: 190a-5 vs. Fuel Burn
« Reply #7 on: September 16, 2013, 07:17:12 AM »
I've been using the F8 90% as a fighter last month, but made some dive-bombing in it too before that.

With 60% dive angle, keep the F8 within 450-500mph, drop at 5-7k and pull up gently to start with, also use trim up extensively, this will keep our wings on and roll to avoid acks. Either I normally take rockets, or bomb, not both.

I have lost two airframes in 190A/F due to sharp high-speed pull-up twice in two years, one in an A8 and one in the F8.
I manually trim the birds all the time, and extensively.
My ammo last for 6 Lancasters, or one Yak3.
"And the Yak 3 ,aka the "flying Yamato"..."
-Caldera

Offline 33Vortex

  • Platinum Member
  • ******
  • Posts: 4754
      • Dirac's equation (non truncated)
Re: 190a-5 vs. Fuel Burn
« Reply #8 on: September 16, 2013, 07:24:45 AM »
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.

GameID: Turner
Truth has no agenda.

Offline GScholz

  • Plutonium Member
  • *******
  • Posts: 8910
Re: 190a-5 vs. Fuel Burn
« Reply #9 on: September 16, 2013, 09:50:35 AM »
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.

+1
"With the first link, the chain is forged. The first speech censored, the first thought forbidden, the first freedom denied, chains us all irrevocably."

Offline 33Vortex

  • Platinum Member
  • ******
  • Posts: 4754
      • Dirac's equation (non truncated)
Re: 190a-5 vs. Fuel Burn
« Reply #10 on: September 16, 2013, 10:13:28 AM »
By the way the GM1 boost system was omitted in the H-1 version making it more stable. It was realized that the system was of no use because no Ta152 ever reached that altitude before finding themselves in a fight.

GameID: Turner
Truth has no agenda.

Offline Butcher

  • Platinum Member
  • ******
  • Posts: 5323
Re: 190a-5 vs. Fuel Burn
« Reply #11 on: September 16, 2013, 08:05:21 PM »
To me it doesn't matter what fuel the Ta-152 has, it seems unstable no matter what I do, i dunno why it just does not feel like any other fighter (even at 40k)
JG 52

Offline 33Vortex

  • Platinum Member
  • ******
  • Posts: 4754
      • Dirac's equation (non truncated)
Re: 190a-5 vs. Fuel Burn
« Reply #12 on: September 17, 2013, 02:01:38 AM »
Yes that is true, but it probably matters a lot how your controls are set up as well and how you use them. The 152H sideslip a lot so you need to work the rudder a whole lot if you want to fly straight. During combat maneuvers flying straight is extremely important at slow speeds (say, below 200 but at 150-140 it gets to be very sensitive) or she will depart controlled flight quite easily. The more fuel you carry the more difficult it will become to counter the yawing movement once started, then you'll find yourself flying sideways for a bit until dropping out of the sky.  :lol

GameID: Turner
Truth has no agenda.

Offline Debrody

  • Platinum Member
  • ******
  • Posts: 4487
Re: 190a-5 vs. Fuel Burn
« Reply #13 on: September 17, 2013, 04:16:58 AM »
Slade,

i cant talk about the A-5 as all i am flying is and was the D-9. Tryed everything, but i still think, letting the auto manage your fuel is the best you can do.

On the D-9, the aft tank is already small - at least it feels like its far back in the fuselage. The auto almost empties it, then switches for the fwd for a while, turns back to the aft, then back to the fwd.

Emptying the aft tank first improves the stability in the stallfights, but makes the aircraft feel heavy, slowenings its reactions to the control inputs. Just like when a car is understeering. I dont need this on the D-9 because the plane is already steady as an arrow, but its more than a must in the 152.
Burning the fwd tank first is just a bad idea. The planes reactions to the inputs are much more violent, "i" cant aim properly. There is no 152-like control-loss habit, but the general feeling is pretty much the same. Post-stall moves became nearly impossible to be performed properly.

Leavning it on auto results the best balance "for my taste".
AoM
City of ice

Offline MiloMorai

  • Platinum Member
  • ******
  • Posts: 6864
Re: 190a-5 vs. Fuel Burn
« Reply #14 on: September 17, 2013, 05:51:43 AM »
On the D-9, the aft tank is already small - at least it feels like its far back in the fuselage. The auto almost empties it, then switches for the fwd for a while, turns back to the aft, then back to the fwd.

The aft tank is larger than the fwd tank.