Aces High Bulletin Board
General Forums => Aircraft and Vehicles => Topic started by: Nilsen on January 29, 2007, 05:19:05 PM
-
I little bird whispered in my ear the other day that the forward fueltank should be burned off first. Ive always done the aux or aft tank first.
Is the little birdy nutty or am I mistaken?
-
Always burn the AUX first because the AUX tank has more than the AFT in 190A-8. Burning the AUX will restor te plane's ideal CoG to front.
-
so... AUX ---> FWD ---> AFT ?
-
oops, told you the wrong order. Burn the AUX*, AFT, then FWD
*The AUX tank was suppose to carry some special additives to increase the max power to 2100hp but it was not officialy cleared for normal use.
-
It used to be (before the 190s were remodeled) that you had to change the way the tanks drained. After they were redone, the order they drained (automatically) was changed. It's best to leave them on "auto", for the most part.
EDIT: see my post here:
http://forums.hitechcreations.com/forums/showthread.php?s=&threadid=197645
Scroll down to the end of the first post for the two myths about 190As and fuel weight.
-
The guy who told me was in our squad, but i cant recall who it was (an american who uses it alot). I do remember that back in the days of AH1 we could not use the automatic fuelburn in some of the planes..... might have been the 190 in question.
-
Originally posted by 1K3
oops, told you the wrong order. Burn the AUX*, AFT, then FWD
*The AUX tank was suppose to carry some special additives to increase the max power to 2100hp but it was not officialy cleared for normal use.
No, the aux tank only carried C3 fuel. I can't remember the German word but C3 was injected to give the increase in power output.
In the 109 it was used for MW50.
-
C3 wasn't used on A-8s. The aux tank was also used to store fuel, which is what we use it for in AH, fuel only.
-
Originally posted by Krusty
C3 wasn't used on A-8s. The aux tank was also used to store fuel, which is what we use it for in AH, fuel only.
Sorry Krusty but ALL BMW801 engines, except for the very early models which used B4 fuel, required C3 fuel. The Fw190A-8 was powered by a BMW801D engine.
C3 is the grade of German fuel with a rich mixture rating approaching 140.
-
What am I thinking of, then? Must be MW I'm thinking of. The A-9 had it and it was tested in A-8 but not used widely. The aux tank held normal avgas in A-8s but held "special go-juice" in A-9s.
-
Sure you don't mean the D-9? The D-9 had MW50.
Do you have a good reference for A-9 use of MW50?
-
Originally posted by MiloMorai
Sure you don't mean the D-9? The D-9 had MW50.
Do you have a good reference for A-9 use of MW50?
I'm drawing a blank on the name. It was some sort of boost. If it wasn't MW50 it was one of the others. GM-1, maybe? Anyways, I just remember that the Aux tank in the A-8 was used to test it, but often left in as just a fuel tank when the boost wasn't used wide-scale. Something like that.
-
Krusty, I think you are thinking of the C3 injection (Erhonte notleistung ??). The aux tank was used for this though I think the fuel was fed to the main tanks and drawn from there.
-
The problem is, AH's Fw190A-8 has three groups of fuel tanks, which burns in the order of aux -> aft -> fwd. The fuel in the aux tank is not used for Erhoete Notleistung(hereafter "EN"). It has nothing to do with the activation of emergency power, and is simply used for flight, powering the engine.
Now, this presents a confusion. Just how does our AH Fw190s work?
Injection of the C3 grade fuel mounted in the aux tanks, IIRC, is supposed to be essentially identical to the MW50 in functionality, cooling the cylinders in exactly the same manner. Does this mean the Fw190A-8 will not use the fuel in the aux tanks for normal flight? What if the Fw190A-8 flies around at normal power, without engaging EN? Will it; a) burn aft and fwd tanks, and then the engine quits due to the lack of fuel? Or b) can the fuel in aux tanks be fed into the engine like fuel in the fwd/aft tanks and be used for powered flight?
If its the former a), then our Fw190A-8 and Fw190F-8, which uses aux tanks for powered flight has some problems and should be fixed. The aux fuel should not be burnt, but rather its weight must be present on the Fw190A-8 as a constant value, since AH is unlimited in WEP - since the aux tank fuels were used for emergency power, not flight.
However, if its the latter b), then its another damn confusion brewing in the alley. If the aux tank fuels were used for both flight and emergency power, then the aux tank should not be used for flight until both the fwd/aft fuels run dry, but whenever WEP is engaged on the 190 the fuel should burn... except... that would mean AH will start limiting WEP times.
What's even worse, is our Fw190A-5 is at 1.65ata, which has a 10 minute WEP time. In AH, this 10 minute time is a loose indicator of a plane equipped with a special injection/boost system for emergency power. This can be viewed as some indication that our 190A-5 is the more rare versions mounted with the same EN system as the later A-8s. Then why does our 190A-5 have only fwd and aft tanks, but no aux tanks? How's the weight problem in the aux tank handled with the 190A-5 then?
...
In any case, all of this confusion is essentially a remnant of the old AH1 when WEP systems were not modelled in separately, but rather in a generic, simplified form of boosting the engine.
IMO this calls for a yet another revamp on how the WEP system is handled in each planes. There is just so much confusion revolving around the WEP, and especially if the WEP problem is related to the modelling problem as per the case of the Fw190A-8 and its aux fuel tanks... IMO something must be done.
I think I'd better write a suggestion in the wishlist forums.
Perhaps HT has changed his mind since then.
-
Let me re-phrase Kwessa.
The aux tank was not exclusively used for EN. It was added to extend the range but also due to the large fuel fuel flow when EN was used.
-
"If the aux tank fuels were used for both flight and emergency power, then the aux tank should not be used for flight until both the fwd/aft fuels run dry"
Why? If its in the regular fuel system I bet it is drained first.
IF it's used to inject the fuel in the eye of the supercharger it is used only when EN is used to provide further enrichment and cooling for intake mixture.
Then it would easily be replaced by MW mixture.
So where do the pipes actually go from aux tank? Was there two optional routes or only one and that to the supercharger?
-C+
-
I always burn the forward tank off first, it makes the difference in the 190-A-8's performance.
-
"Injection of the C3 grade fuel mounted in the aux tanks, IIRC, ETC at great length"
Given your aggressive mistake in the eighth post, and your unimpressive and immediate backpedal in the tenth post, how on earth do you expect anybody to take you and your words seriously? You remind me of the third personality type here (http://www.lifehack.org/articles/lifehack/creating-hardworking-idiots.html).
And no doubt you will leap in and argue that Erich von Manstein did not say those things (I have heard the same anecdote applied to the Soviet army). Well done.
-
Originally posted by Sweet2th
I always burn the forward tank off first, it makes the difference in the 190-A-8's performance.
A negative one i would say based on above mentioned facts.
-
Originally posted by Apeking
"Injection of the C3 grade fuel mounted in the aux tanks, IIRC, ETC at great length"
Given your aggressive mistake in the eighth post, and your unimpressive and immediate backpedal in the tenth post, how on earth do you expect anybody to take you and your words seriously? You remind me of the third personality type here (http://www.lifehack.org/articles/lifehack/creating-hardworking-idiots.html).
And no doubt you will leap in and argue that Erich von Manstein did not say those things (I have heard the same anecdote applied to the Soviet army). Well done.
What are you babbling about for Kweassa has only posted once in this thread?
-
Originally posted by Nilsen
A negative one i would say based on above mentioned facts.
Yea considering those guys are experten in the field right?You gonna go hop in thier Jules Vern Time Machine and go get the real deal on it too?
I have always burnt the forward tank first, and that is my choice, no one said you have to follow.
-
Like I mentioned in my FW190 weights thread, the ONLY reason it "flies better" Is because you're some 350lbs lighter. That doesn't mean it's more stable, just lighter. It would be like taking 350lbs from the nose of a spitfire -- sure it'll turn a bit tighter because the weight's been reduced a lot, but it's going to stall out left and right if you pull any real Gs.
Same for the 190. The front and aft tanks are almost identical in size. Draining one will result in the same weight loss as draining the other. Only, if you drain the front you'll flop about, and if you drain the aft you won't flop as much.
Sure, it's your choice, but it's a matter of weight and center of gravity. You chose poorly.
Then again, not everybody bothers pulling many Gs in a 190. Maybe I'm one of the few?
-
In theory a cg to the rear of center of pressure will increase total lift (tailplane adds lift) ,decrease stall speed and increase turn performance. Spin recovery would be harder however. I don't know if this is modeled in AH.
Aside from decreasing total lift, a forward cg only 'helps' turning down. Turns with the lift vector above the horizon would be degraded.
-
The CoG is best toward the front half of the wing, if memory serves. It should be near the thickest part of the wing (something to do with AoA and stall benefits). The 190A8 is dangerously unstable, too far to rear. So in other planes maybe shifting it aft might do something, but the default 190a8 is past that point already.
-
Originally posted by Sweet2th
I always burn the forward tank off first, it makes the difference in the 190-A-8's performance.
Take up a 190F8 (i know it's not EXACTLY the same, but close enough) 100% fuel with the 500kg egg and the rockets...
1st time up set it to burn the forward tank, let it burn at least half the tank....then climb to about 5 or 6k then dive as you would a dive-bombing run, about 45deg dive angle...keep the trottle wide open...drop the bomb about D1000 out, now pull out about D800 from the ground or so....work well???? ;)
2nd time do exactly the same thing with a new plane ;) but this time burn the aft first...then come back and tell me it does not matter which tank you burn first ;)
-
Originally posted by zorstorer
Take up a 190F8 (i know it's not EXACTLY the same, but close enough) 100% fuel with the 500kg egg and the rockets...
1st time up set it to burn the forward tank, let it burn at least half the tank....then climb to about 5 or 6k then dive as you would a dive-bombing run, about 45deg dive angle...keep the trottle wide open...drop the bomb about D1000 out, now pull out about D800 from the ground or so....work well???? ;)
2nd time do exactly the same thing with a new plane ;) but this time burn the aft first...then come back and tell me it does not matter which tank you burn first ;)
The F model fly's like a **** no matter what you do with the fuel tanks.
-
Originally posted by Sweet2th
The F model fly's like a **** no matter what you do with the fuel tanks.
So did you try it?