Author Topic: Fuel tank sequence in the FW190 (Read 583 times)

Duedel · « **Reply #15 on:** August 28, 2002, 10:17:35 AM »

Great post thx Naudet

ra · « **Reply #16 on:** August 28, 2002, 10:21:25 AM »

Naudet, in that case you are right, it's no big deal but the autoswitch should be changed to use the aft tank first.

"Sucks to always have to work harder for lesser results than almost every other fighter pilot out there."

Moot, If you are getting lesser results in a 190 maybe you should switch to the Niki. The 190 consistently gets one of the highest K/D's of all the non-perked planes.

ra

hazed- · « **Reply #17 on:** August 28, 2002, 01:33:05 PM »

absolutely agree. I fly EXT-AUX(190a8)-AFT-FWD on all 190s and its annoying having to do it manually.

Escpecially when the original WW2 order was EXT-AFT-FWD.

Why is it this way around?

funkedup · « **Reply #18 on:** August 28, 2002, 03:11:26 PM »

Quote

Originally posted by moot
Sucks to always have to work harder for lesser results than almost every other fighter pilot out there.

\

Fly something else, whiner.

funkedup · « **Reply #19 on:** August 28, 2002, 03:16:10 PM »

"optimizes the CG"

Mularkey

Aft CG gives more maneuverability and less trim drag.

Anyways the two tanks are right next to each other and they are both directly over the wing. There is not going to be a big change in static margin by draining one tank or the other first.

Dollars to donuts you geniuses can not quantitatively demonstrate any difference in aircraft behavior with FWD or AFT tank draining first.

Yes the sim plane should drain in the same order as the real plane, but get a grip and quit yer whinin.

JimBear · « **Reply #20 on:** August 28, 2002, 03:25:51 PM »

Tell us what you really think Funky

funkedup · « **Reply #21 on:** August 28, 2002, 03:32:21 PM »

OK maybe I had a little too much caffeine. I apologize to anybody I offended. Time to get back to work.

minus · « **Reply #22 on:** August 28, 2002, 03:47:48 PM »

hey funked , in your explication it looks like plane loadet with 1 big funkedup wil fly same like lodet with 5x funkedup and whole family ?

nothing wrong with kofein , you just need more sex !:D

moot · « **Reply #23 on:** August 28, 2002, 04:40:42 PM »

funked, stick to coffee.

furious, it's pretty hard, i have really fat fingers, but that's not the point; the said other planes always outturn you given equal pilots in both, and some of them without having to bother with cg managment & co. I will not engage a p47 or p51 or spit9 etc that looks like a proper pilot in it unless I have at least fwd=2aft.

moot · « **Reply #24 on:** August 28, 2002, 04:43:10 PM »

just read your second post.
If you are already in plugged-ears mode, this is useless. otherwise I will tell you the 190 stall is less sharp with aft drained. 152 is then much closer to what you'd expect a following of the 190 series to be, even more so without the famous wing tanks.[grammar edit]

moot · « **Reply #25 on:** August 28, 2002, 04:48:17 PM »

same thing as funked,
I'm not going to fly the planes I don't like flying; the point is said planes have the game setup in easier optimisation than another that either has fuel tanks in an order that makes tight furballing (which said planes almost always have to resort to once past first stage of bnz VS tnb encounter) hairy (stall twitchier than with said optimised CG by quite a bit) or dangerous (wing tanks braking wings left and right) or both.
Then someone shows evidence for it not being so in RL, of course I revendicate it changed.

If I wanted to fly N1K and have it easy I would, but that's not what this is about.

[edit
Take up a 100 fuel 190, drain the aft on one flight (you can use offline fuel mult to accelerate this; or be patient like others have to), and drain the fwd on the other. say, then, that there is no quantifiable difference in (if not more than just) stall behavior.
]

Glasses · « **Reply #26 on:** August 28, 2002, 05:39:21 PM »

Hmm... Considering these Conventional Gear aircraft have an AFT CG from the start burning the FWD would certainly shift the CG AFT of the AFT limits. It will give it much more speed and seem more maneuverable because it reduces the wingloading and in theory would accel/ have a faster top speed but it will be much less stable and much more stall/spin prone than with a FWD CG especially when you're setting up those tough deflection shots.

Funked, even if they would seem side by side in a diagram,although I'm not quite familiar with the placing It would make sense that the further away from the Datum , giving more weight to the back of the aircraft would make the CG indeed change, taking into account how rapidly we burn the fuel in the MA the weight shift would be noticeable.

I think it's a small thing to ask for since, it has been asked for other aircraft in AH and those have been corrected.

Moot yes the famous wing tanks in the Ta152 that shouldn't be filled with fuel for regular flights. Ever since I read the intended purpose for the Wing tanks on the H-1 was for long range flights
which would be burnt first leaving those unprotected tanks dry then continue the sequence like it was in the other 190s, I posted a while back with suggested fuel loading for 25% to 100%
redistributing the fuel from the secondary wing tanks to the primary FWD and AFT tanks instead leaving those tanks full for when you indeed intend to go on a long range flight similar to the P51's Aux in AH is loaded.

Heinkel · « **Reply #27 on:** August 28, 2002, 10:08:02 PM »

What Glasses said ^^

From all that I have read, it just seems like the wing tanks on the 152 were just bascially rubber bags kinda. They had no protection what so ever, and were only used for long range flights. Most sorties in AH wound't be considered "long range"

About the 190 fuel sequence...it's a small and easy fix, and it's only historically correct, so I would like to see it

Heinkel · « **Reply #28 on:** August 28, 2002, 10:09:19 PM »

What Glasses said ^^

From what I have read, It just seems like the wing tanks were unprotected bags kinda (rubber I think), that were only used for long range flights. Most AH sorites arent considered "long range".

About the 190 fuel order...I would like to see it fixed...only becasue it's historically correct

Naudet · « **Reply #29 on:** August 29, 2002, 01:29:05 AM »

A little addition about fuel tank placing in the FW190.

both tanks are next to each other, but they are not located centered on the CG.

They are placed a little bit further aft.

The FWD tank sits pretty much on the centerline of the wings.
The AFT tank moves out aft over the rear wing edge and the internal aux tank is place again further back.

So if the FWD tank is used 1st the CG will actually move towards the rear wing edge, which is in a plane with a nasty high speed stall not the best thing to do i guess.
Also in level flight the FW190 had a nose down attitude (about 5°), so why move the CG further aft in a plane that already needs to fly nose down to stay in level flight and not to start to climb.

All ACM that need a "forward CG" such as hammerhead or wingover are much much easier to fly if AFT is drained 1st.