Does HTC calculate CoG or use NASM documents for the Ta152?

[bustr]

If Hitech models the effect of weight in flight, why would he not model the effect on CG by burning off fuel tanks and dropping ord? It seems for this conversation to develop further, you will need an affirmation from the man that his flight model includes the effect of fuel tank burn and ord against outcomes from CG.

[ACE]

Please make my 152 more deadly than it already is

[Krusty]

If Hitech models the effect of weight in flight, why would he not model the effect on CG by burning off fuel tanks and dropping ord? It seems for this conversation to develop further, you will need an affirmation from the man that his flight model includes the effect of fuel tank burn and ord against outcomes from CG.

Fuel tankage DOES affect CoG in AH. You can even use it to help prevent hard stalls in some aircraft by controlling your fuel drain manually.

[Vraciu]

How does the wing construction cause the yaw??

The wing/aileron producing lift for a roll is outboard of the turn.   This lift creates more drag and yaws the airplane opposite the turn. 

Roll left, nose yaws right.

The longer the wing the greater the arm, hence a bigger effect.

[JunkyII]

If Hitech models the effect of weight in flight, why would he not model the effect on CG by burning off fuel tanks and dropping ord? It seems for this conversation to develop further, you will need an affirmation from the man that his flight model includes the effect of fuel tank burn and ord against outcomes from CG.

It's effect is more noticeable in different rides because of the size and location of fuel tanks. With the 152 with 75% fuel which is probably the most anyone takes (besides me) the aft tank is already down near a quarter full so that weight isn't substantial. Burning the wing tanks you will feel a huge difference if you don't burn them evenly...it will struggle to the side that is heavier.

Probably the most noticeable as far as overall performance in the burning of fuel tank properly IMO is the ME262.

[Krusty]

Probably the most noticeable as far as overall performance in the burning of fuel tank properly IMO is the ME262.

Just a few others with noticable effects

FW190A aux and aft tanks -- pulling out of a dive bomb with full aft tank can rip your wings off, with an empty one no problems

P-51 aux tank -- turning tight with that aux tank filled is a recipe to spin into the turn. Really need to burn that off before doing any kind of turning

P-40s -- aux/aft fuse tank highly recommended you burn that first before doing any serious maneuvering -- will make you more unstable in tight turns but not as bad as P-51.

F4U1 - leave about 1/3 of your fuel in one wing tank and then empty the other, manually switch to fuse tank. Will noticably improve your stall handling, reducing wing drop.

[Dawger]

Just a few others with noticable effects

FW190A aux and aft tanks -- pulling out of a dive bomb with full aft tank can rip your wings off, with an empty one no problems

P-51 aux tank -- turning tight with that aux tank filled is a recipe to spin into the turn. Really need to burn that off before doing any kind of turning

P-40s -- aux/aft fuse tank highly recommended you burn that first before doing any serious maneuvering -- will make you more unstable in tight turns but not as bad as P-51.

F4U1 - leave about 1/3 of your fuel in one wing tank and then empty the other, manually switch to fuse tank. Will noticably improve your stall handling, reducing wing drop.

Comparing results at different weights doesn't necessarily tell you that the FM is calculating center of gravity according to the fuselage station of the fuel consumed. The weight difference alone could be the performance difference you "feel". You need to compare handling at identical weight but with different fuel distribution to really figure out if what you think is happening is happening.

I ran a quick test in a private arena with 10 times fuel burn. There appears to be no effect on pitch burning the forward tank in the Ta-152 with Aft full. There is a minor effect burning a wing tank on roll but it is extremely minor.

[Krusty]

I'm not talking weight. Your test is flawed. They do affect balance. They have always affected balance. Bombs also affect CoG. Even the ETC rack on Fw190As have weight and that plays into the CoG balance of the aircraft.

[Dawger]

I'm not talking weight. Your test is flawed. They do affect balance. They have always affected balance. Bombs also affect CoG. Even the ETC rack on Fw190As have weight and that plays into the CoG balance of the aircraft.

If the tanks affected balance burning the forward tank without touching power or trim as in my video should make the aircraft pitch up. It doesn't pitch up.

It does appear wing tanks do affect roll to a minor degree.

It will be a awhile before the video finishes uploading but its pretty obvious.

[Zimme83]

Did you fly on combat trim?

[Dawger]

Did you fly on combat trim?

Combat trim is off. You can see the trim never changes. Not much else to look at in the video other than the trim indicators

[FLS]

Combat trim is off. You can see the trim never changes. Not much else to look at in the video other than the trim indicators

Are you assuming the Ta-152 would need trimming?    The Forward tank is on the CG. The Aft tank is next to it under the pilot's seat.

As far as I know all weight changes are calculated dynamically and applied to the CG along with the current forces.

[Dawger]

Are you assuming the Ta-152 would need trimming?    The Forward tank is on the CG. The Aft tank is next to it under the pilot's seat.

As far as I know all weight changes are calculated dynamically and applied to the CG along with the current forces.

If you read the thread, you would find that folks are positing that the 190 stability improves by burning the aft tank. The opposite would be that the stability would degrade if the aft tank were full and the forward empty.

That position implies a center of gravity change when burning the aft tank. A dynamic center of gravity due to fuel burn implies a change in the pitch trim of the aircraft. The video clearly shows there is no change in the pitch trim of the aircraft when fuel is burned from the forward tank.

In the real airplane (Dora model) there is a definite need to manage fuel balance. The correct sequence is burn rear tank before front tank for center of gravity reasons.

In every real world airplane I have ever flown, even fuel tanks with a centroid on the center of gravity require adjustment of pitch trim with fuel burn. This is because the center of gravity is a POINT and fuel tanks are not POINTS.

So if Aces High is calculating center of gravity dynamically AND modeling actual fuel tank fuselage stations one would expect a large trim change burning fuel from either forward or center tank in the 190 series

In Aces High there is no pitch trim change burning either tank. That clearly means that either C of G is not calculated dynamically or tanks are not modeled at the fuselage station or both. Most likely it is both.

Assumptions otherwise, despite evidence to the contrary, are erroneous.

[MiloMorai]

However, there is the NASM article where they were delving into the history of their captured airframe -- the only captured one, upon which all tests were run -- that showed the tail had been badly reconstructed and the H-stabs moved forward making it fly more tail heavily than it should have.

As can be seen there is no forward movement of the stab position between the 'D' and 'H'. I can see no difference in the stab position even with the 'A'.



Focke-Wulf also designed an enlarged stab/elevator for the 'H' to help with the tail heaviness.

[hitech]

The CG is dynamically calculated as gas is consumed, bullets shot, bombs dropped ...

HiTech