P-51 Fuel Tank needs fixed! Please !Do not leave it broken!

[ramstein]

The P-51 flight model is Bad until the fuel tank is fixed. These are facts and there is no counter arguement for leaving the plane broken.

The center tank cannot be full and must drain first for combat!
This has been establishing for several years, with begging from the allies to not leave this plane as is! it's totally wrong to leave this plane broken! :twisted:

Thank you,
========

More info from the P-51 Mustang forums for pilots of real aircraft..

P-51 Fuel tank info:
http://www.mustangsmustangs.us/thehangar/index.php?PHPSESSID=2c5d438bf7779f0c99520fb597b9a0 12&topic=115.0


Multiple facted sort of question:

I have read that the Mustang was a bit unstable when the fuselage tank was full. Yet I also read that the pilots, understandably, burned down the drop tanks first.

So how "unstable" was the airplane with full fuselage tanks? Was the long ride enough time to burn some out of the Fuse tanks?

Then, on todays, Mustangs, do they still use the fuselage tanks? Does a passenger seat interfere with tank installations?

thanks

Saville

Logged



Sander Talman
Backseater

Offline

Posts: 63


Fuselage tanks, stability, passengers
« Reply #1 on: June 14, 2004, 11:50:58 AM »

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Hi Saville
I believe that the main fuselage tank (behind the cockpit) was not allowed to be filled completely, but I will check that to make sure if I'm right.
With the Mustangs of today, I think they fly different than the WWII Mustangs. Today the P-51 is much lighter, all armor is removed and no guns are installed.
The place were the second passenger sits is at the place of the former radio installation and armor plate.

Sander Talman

Logged



CraigQ.
Backseater

Offline

Posts: 52


Fuselage tanks, stability, passengers
« Reply #2 on: June 14, 2004, 04:15:28 PM »

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Saville, from what I understand from written accounts and personal conversations with former pilots, the standard procedure was to switch to the fuselage tank very soon after takeoff.
After burning down to 'X' amount of gallons of fuel in the tank (the number escapes me) the pilot then switched off to the drop tanks.
It may have varied from group to group.

Art Fielder should be able to provide insight here if he reads this thread.

Logged



vlado
Guest
Fuselage tanks, stability, passengers
« Reply #3 on: June 14, 2004, 07:22:32 PM »

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
The rear passenger seat occupies the space where the fuselage tank would be located.
Some recreation-restorations have the fuselage tank installed. With fuel in the fuselage tank, the aircraft is not dangerously unstable to fly. However, with full fuel in this fuselage tank during combat maneuvering, the aircraft would be very easy to stall with an aft center of gravity condition plus, should a spin occur, recovery would be difficult or impossible. Thus, for control considerations, the fuelage tank fuel is used first.

Logged



mayfair335@aol.com
Guest
Fuselage Fuel Tanks
« Reply #4 on: June 16, 2004, 09:05:10 PM »

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Re: Use of fuselage tanks. Initially we were unaware of the stability problem with a full fuselage tank and so in an effort to conserve fuel we would use the drop tank fuel first. The problem was that in a steep turning contest over Ploesti, our guys were reporting that once the turn had been established, they found themselves pushing FORWARD on the stick with all their strength to prevent the turn winding up. Some succeeded, some did not. Those that could not prevent the turn from getting tighter and tighter reported that the bird would whip over into the most vicious high speed stall snap roll they could imagine. This often culminated with a spin. To the best of my knowledge most were able to recover in the 30,000 feet or so they had available; however, it is possible that some who did not return might have failed to recover.

Within a couple of weeks we were given orders that after takeoff, we would burn the fuselage tank down to 35 gallons which would prevent the above from happening....well theoretically at least.

Cordially, Art Fiedler

Logged



Swiss Mustangs
P-51 Ace

Offline

Posts: 304



Fuselage tanks, stability, passengers
« Reply #5 on: June 17, 2004, 01:52:29 AM »

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Sir

your first hand experience input is always highly appreciated. You have stated the 'problem' of the full fuselage tanks moving the CG aft very accurately.

Thank you and blue sies
Martin / / Swiss Mustangs

Logged

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Skype: "swissmustangs"


Randy Haskin
Line Pass Holder

Offline

Posts: 120



Fuselage tanks, stability, passengers
« Reply #6 on: June 17, 2004, 02:11:12 AM »

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Art -

Thanks for the "pilot's eye" view of the situation -- the first accurate description that I've ever heard.

Logged

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
"Trains were meant to be strafed"


Saville
Guest
Thank you Mr. Feidler
« Reply #7 on: June 18, 2004, 06:33:13 AM »

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Thanks for the real life wartime word on Mustangs in combat.

We are indebted to you - in many ways.

Logged



Sander Talman
Backseater

Offline

Posts: 63


Fuselage tanks, stability, passengers
« Reply #8 on: June 18, 2004, 12:01:46 PM »

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Hi
Thank you Art for sharing your experiences!

I found some 'information' about a restriction that was used :the fuselage tank was usually filled with 65 gallon instead of 85 gallons.
http://home.att.net/~jbaugher1/p51_8.html

Sander Talman
======

[ramstein]

more on this problem with the Center tank..

http://home.att.net/~jbaugher1/p51_8.html

In the pursuit of still more range, a P-51B was experimentally fitted with an extra 85 US gallon self-sealing fuel tank behind the pilot's seat, bringing the total fuel to 419 US gallons (including 2 drop tanks). Although the Mustang already offered outstanding range performance, this additional fuel made it even better. This extra range was being demanded by expanding operations in both the European and Pacific theatres. However, this extra fuel tank moved the center of gravity aft, which made the directional stability of the Mustang quite poor, so that the pilot would have to spend the first hour or so concentrating on keeping his airplane pointed in the right direction until this new tank was finally empty. The last 550 P-51B-5-NAs were fitted with this extra tank, becoming P-51B-7-NAs, and into P-51C-1-NTs, becoming P-51C-3-NT. In addition, some earlier P-51Bs and Cs were modified in the field to accommodate this tank. In service, however, the directional instability caused by the presence of a full fuel tank behind the pilot's seat was a hazard for new or inexperienced pilots, and the tank was usually restricted to 65 US gallons. This extra tank, nevertheless, still made a crucial difference in combat radius, and it was standard equipment in all future production versions. With this extra fuel, Mustangs were able to escort bombers all the way to Berlin from bases in Britain.

[arthursmedley]

Dear Mr. Ramstein,
I'm afraid that the problem you have with the flying characteristics of the P-51 cannot and at this stage of the sims life, will not be fixed as the sim. does not model weight loss or changes to the C of G due to fuel usuage from individual tanks.

Perhaps BoB, when it arrives, will model these changes.
As Oleg has stated that weather and pilot fatigue will be modelled it seems reasonable that changes to C of G and the enormous effect this has on an aircrafts handling should be modelled but we'll all have our hands full selecting and changing over tanks in flight!

Thankyou for your rather startling posts on the Ubi forum recently as it led me to fly the P-51 much more often, especially online, and I think it's one of the best but underated aircraft in this sim.

What exactly do you find objectional about the handling of the P-51?
Best regards,
Arthur.

[HanneG]

I fly the 51 (D and to a lesser extent B) whenever it comes up and I likes it :)
Best cockpit view, excellent control response at all speeds and .... speed.

I think it handles reasonably well regardless of fuel load. The cg or weight or whatever shift is noticeable but unless you are a stick yanker it's nothing to worry about. All it takes is practice. I've noticed that after flying the 51 I tend to fly other planes in the same way, that is, smooth and coordinated control movements, no continous tight turns, etc. and it actually helps a lot and feels more natural.

Perhaps it's the handling of the other, presumably easier to fly aircrafts that needs to be fixed :P

[heywooood]

Hopefully - with the new sim - 1c will accurately model the C/G changes and weight reduction and its affect on the airframe in flight, as the fuel is used up, on ALL flyable aircraft....a feature that was not available in Il2 franchise.

So when and if the P-51 is finally added into the SoW series...we will be able to select and drain the main fuselage tank on takeoff and climbout as was historically done....and then saw Tiger tanks in half with our .50 cals

[Al Schlageter]

Aren't all fuel tanks modeled as one single fuel tank mass no matter how many fuel tanks the plane really had?

The CoG of the plane is based on this single fuel tank.

[ramstein]

Hi,

the unstable yaw of the plane... because the cog is wrong.. the fuel tank behind the seat, in the fuselage drains last, is totally wrong. The plane is extremely unstable with this. it is very easy to fix. I am flabergasted that they have refused to fix this for 2 or 3 years! In fact I am outraged (I know strong words) but it appears a simple please and help never worked..) They seemed to either have made a serious blunder, or left it porked on purpose (they can't have it both ways), if they would only answer why they refused to fix this... The developers have been sent reams of documents on problems in planes,,, it takes an outrageous amount of pleading with documents before they respond. Yet they waste time on adding things like aircraft that never flew.
I have probably gone to far in some people's eyes, but so what. I owe no one an apologly I just want this very serious wrong righted. If this were a wrongly modelled FW190, the Axis would start WWIII. Why was one of our most flown combat planes in WWII not fixed by the developers? :twisted: With 4.09 not yet finished, they can fix this. As they refused to in all previous patches.

I know I went beyond the answer, but again, I have to spell this out for those that refuse to listen and understand.

I appreciate the ability and chace to post my views, and I know I speak for many others, yet they will not come into these forums because of the nasty attacks (the Ubi Zoo forums are the example of a bad place to chat in a forum).

Thanx..

Dear Mr. Ramstein,
I'm afraid that the problem you have with the flying characteristics of the P-51 cannot and at this stage of the sims life, will not be fixed as the sim. does not model weight loss or changes to the C of G due to fuel usuage from individual tanks.

Perhaps BoB, when it arrives, will model these changes.
As Oleg has stated that weather and pilot fatigue will be modelled it seems reasonable that changes to C of G and the enormous effect this has on an aircrafts handling should be modelled but we'll all have our hands full selecting and changing over tanks in flight!

Thankyou for your rather startling posts on the Ubi forum recently as it led me to fly the P-51 much more often, especially online, and I think it's one of the best but underated aircraft in this sim.

What exactly do you find objectional about the handling of the P-51?
Best regards,
Arthur.

[Al Schlageter]

from ORR posted by IceFire

Remember that the fuel tank gauges only work visually. There are no fuel tanks...the plane is made of polygons and years ago we asked about this for the Mustang and other planes and we were told by Oleg that the engine does not model COG changes based on individual fuel tanks being empty or full.

[JG53Frankyboy]

Hi,

......................... If this were a wrongly modelled FW190, the Axis would start WWIII. Why was one of our most flown combat planes in WWII not fixed by the developers? .................[/quote]

you can say "bar" :twisted:

[123-Wulf-123]

This bollox has been argued about time and again, as I understand it there is NO effect from the centre tank modelled in the game, all FMS are EQUAL in this regard....some people are confusing the limitations inherent in this game with REALITY.
Oleg and others have repeatedly said tank whiners are talking nonsense, but they just can't or won't get it :roll:

[arthursmedley]

Ramstein,
I'm afraid that the guys above are right. This tankage problem affects all the planes in the sim so everyone is lumbered with the same problem.
From reading Oleg's latest posts in this forum the latest and last patch, 4.09, is done and dusted and will be released soon and will consist of some new maps and a few tweaks here and there.

Your UBI posts did however generate some really good advice about flying the P-51 in this sim, especially regards trim and prop pitch settings, so there are some workarounds.

I could not agree with you more on your point about adding planes that never flew. It seems to me that time could have been more fruitfully spent adding a cockpit and crew positions to, say, the B-17 and Avenger.

I appreciate that this is a subject very dear to you as I see your in San Diego and judging from last nights news reports I'd be running for my life right now and bugger a flight sim!

Perhaps in a couple of years we'll all be enjoying the P-51, with correct modelling of fuel systems, in SoW.

Good luck,
Arthur.

[31st_KABAYO]

~S~
I found that the P-51B/C didnt have center fusl. tanks but the P-51D-5 and later models did have and through off the CG of the later models. When the problem of the later models Mustangs was found and the reason that the plane was crashing due to the full center fusl. tanks, the brass higher up order that only 60 to 80 gals of fuel was to be in the center tank, also that the center tank be used and drain off frist before switching to drop tanks according to the offical Army Air Force manual, also for more details on the P-51 Mustangs I suggust reading Squadron/Signal books on the P-51 Mustangs (Walk Around the P-51 Mustangs) and P-51 Mustangs, also In Detail & Scale P-51 Mustang pt.1 and 2 By Bert Kinzey. These are 2 exlcet books, also Squadron/Signal has great books on the Bf 109s and FW 190's.
In flying the P-51b/c/d models I like to suggest taking only 25% fuel and 2 75 gal drop tanksI I fly the mustang with this fuel load, just dont forget to drop your tanks before enter combat.
31st_KABAYO

[Al Schlageter]

The late production B/C did get fuselage tanks.

[IFly_1968]

Give up already. It is what it is and you will have to deal with it that way. There are a number of issues on both sides of the line that will never be fixed. This is the nature of it all.

On a side note, and this may be a placebo effect, after I got 1946, I set all of my joystick settings back to default and all of the planes seem to respond 100% better than before. Like I said, could be placebo effect but I use those settings for good now.

[Jutocsa]

Ohh God...here too, after Ubi ? :roll: Mind you, most of the Ubi Zoo people are here as well...:)

[Foo'bar]

nice, eh? hehe :D

[DKoor]

CoG strikes again!

[ramstein]

Ohh God...here too, after Ubi ? :roll: Mind you, most of the Ubi Zoo people are here as well...:)

Maybe where you live, you can send the Goons out to shut people up you don't agree with, but I have provided enough proof of the plane being broken. There are those of us that are happy we are pvided a place that does not shup people up when they speak the truth. As long as ther eis a wrong (serious wrong) that needs righted, we will speak out, If that offends you and people like you, then learn to control your hatred of allies and their planes with your tendacies to try to shut us up! :twisted:

It was your choice to pick a fight with me because I have attempted, over the last few years, to get this porked plane fixed. And an easy fix it is. If it were plane your country and brothers flew that had severe problems, you would whine like a stuffed pig. Get over it.

[ruxtmp]

So is the CoG of all planes modelled at max takeoff weight or some value less? If I understand correctly all planes are modelled with their fuel tanks right above the CoG so as they empty they have zero effect on the CoG thus stability due to CoG position does not change in game.

Ramstein makes a valid point if the CoG is modelled at some position that represents a full fuel load on the P-51. Althought I do not think he is grasping the concept that multiple tanks are not modelled in game and his request cannot be implemented as he would like. :roll: The only thing that could possibly be done is change the position of the CoG to a spot that represents the rear tank being empty all the time and just give the plane less fuel (ie range) at 100%.

Disclaimer:
Red & Blue flame away. Personally the P-51 is fine for me, kills things well and also makes a nice target. From most FM comments I swear this game must run differently on each PC.

[Jagdwaffe]

Be nice if the Bf110's fuel guage was as fixed as well. And the landing gear indicator lights corrected? There are a host of little errors in IL2 that haven't been fixed...

[Jutocsa]

Maybe where you live, you can send the Goons out to shut people up you don't agree with, but I have provided enough proof of the plane being broken. There are those of us that are happy we are pvided a place that does not shup people up when they speak the truth. As long as ther eis a wrong (serious wrong) that needs righted, we will speak out, If that offends you and people like you, then learn to control your hatred of allies and their planes with your tendacies to try to shut us up! :twisted:

I dont hate planes. And I dont care about the P-51 either, porked or not.

If it were plane your country and brothers flew that had severe problems, you would whine like a stuffed pig. Get over it.

IF my country's planes are in,even faulty, Im happy to have the possibility to fly them. If my country's planes arent even in the game, I get myself together and model them. Like did with the Re.2000, or Avia or Letov. Even if they dont get added for lack of time, I dont whine like some others who didnt even have to cross a finger for getting their countries' planes, still they cry all the time. Amusing :) But then again...its not about P-51...its about your style, telling here people that Ubizoo are animals who chased you poor fellow away :) Well I guess thats one side of the story. Unfortunately since these folks ARE the Ubizoo, most of them know better :) And from the moderation of the first days it seems this place will tolerate a lot less of the name-calling like you did on Ubi

[DKoor]

Disclaimer:
Red & Blue flame away. Personally the P-51 is fine for me, kills things well and also makes a nice target. From most FM comments I swear this game must run differently on each PC.QFT

Was true from day one.

P-51 like some other planes, gets the bad end of the Oleg's FM, while some others got very optimistic view of their RL models.

[Al Schlageter]

Disclaimer:
Red & Blue flame away. Personally the P-51 is fine for me, kills things well and also makes a nice target. From most FM comments I swear this game must run differently on each PC.QFT

Was true from day one.

P-51 like some other planes, gets the bad end of the Oleg's FM, while some others got very optimistic view of their RL models.
Yes, be sure, the 109 is porked and the Spitfire is uber. :roll:

[DKoor]

Disclaimer:
Red & Blue flame away. Personally the P-51 is fine for me, kills things well and also makes a nice target. From most FM comments I swear this game must run differently on each PC.QFT

Was true from day one.

P-51 like some other planes, gets the bad end of the Oleg's FM, while some others got very optimistic view of their RL models.
Yes, be sure, the 109 is porked and the Spitfire is uber. :roll:Very nice way of summin it up.

[Al Schlageter]

Very nice way of summin it up.
Yes blue crew would have ppl think so. :D

[Bearcat]

What did you expect?
Ramstein didnt you have a 10 page thread in ORR about the same issue? I mean .... how many times doesn it have to be posted that fuel tank CoG is not modeled in this sim? I suggest that you just get used to it as it is and take some tips from Klingstroems Tips on Flying the P-51 (http://forums.ubi.com/eve/forums/a/tpc/f/23110283/m/5641027835/p/1).. thread and JTD's thread (http://forums.ubi.com/eve/forums/a/tpc/f/23110283/m/7281098944?r=7281098944#7281098944) as well. If you ever get a hit in your wing toss all that out the window.. you will stall and crash especially down low. Does the plane havea few issues? Yeah I think so.. but I have found that altering the way you fly and your stick settings will bring out new life to any plane along with practice..

[Y0RGO]

Yes" forget is centered of gravitee on petro cell....

On this DOG P/51 pleaes OLEG just only move centered of gravitee to forward for ENTIR airplane for realizm handle:

[ramstein]

Some of you guys miss the point, the center fuselage tank drains first. period. I don't know exactly how the code is written but just changing the COG without changing the the sequence at which the fuel tanks drain would be wrong. I am just asking for the fix to be the sequence of the fuel useage. Period. Have the Center tank drain first.

If people would not have some into the previous threads with the sole intention of polluting them with attacks and trying to turn the P51 threads into a circus, there would have not beena need to start a new thread each time. There are some very nasty people in these forums who purposley try to make a person look bad because of their politics on whih planes should be modelled correctly, eithe rbecause they would like to damage a person, the country, the planes, or al the above. Otherwise, they had no real business int he P51 threads in forums, but only to disrupt the threads and create Chaos.

Over the years, while many pilots of USA and Allied planes bring in documents and proof showing the modellers really messed up some planes. Then a bunch of crazies see this as their opportunityt make it into a circus, problably thinking and knowing the devolopers will not take the request seriously after the scumbags ruin the thread. To turn it on me to make me look bad is dispicable.

I am just a private individual and have no ther way of begging for a serious wrong to be righted. I have to communicate in these forums just as you guys do. How the hell else could I get this blunder fixed? And how many years of begging does it take? Liek I said before if they repeat these FM blunders in the next serious of flight sims, they will be in big trouble. If they fix these problems, they will be asked why they refused to fix them in the IL-2 Series. Either way, they will be busted for this serious problem.

I am pretty sure that the fuel tank weight COG works on all planes in IL-2. But the P51, to my knowledge is the one with the fuel tank drain problem and COG are both totally messed up badly. The COG and fuel weight/handling are modelled. Just are wrong in the P51.

Whoever has done this coding please fix it!! Why would they refuse to? Spite, hate? They don't believe it? They don't care? The management says let it go? What if they did that to all planes, everyone would dump flying the game. Just because it didn't happen to planes you care about doesn't mean those that care and want it fixed should be told to shut up and never come back. That's how I was treated. Multiply thois by al the people int he USA and the Allies in britain who fly this plane and you have thousands of people not happy with the plane in IL-2. Most of those pilots know they will just be ganged up on if they ask for it to be fixed in the biased forums.

I am partially relieved because there were only a few posts in this thread trying to find a way to turn it into a circus. For some reason they must wake up everyday looking to piss on somone else's parade.

This problem is not SMALL! It really messes up the plane and it swaps ends oftten, because of this problem! :roll: it is worth asking to be fixed! And since asking, begging pleading seems to not be enough , then fighting for it is worth it.

For those that see reason and are supportive thank you...
8)

[Al Schlageter]

Does the Fw190A-8 model its aux tank in Il-2?

If so, then I hear no complaints about CG problems with it.

ramstein, how do expect Maddox Games to model the aux tank fuel being used first in the P-51 when the 'fuel tank' is modelled as ONE mass?

I for one have no problem 'flying' the P51 with full tanks or not. Adjusting the joystick makes a big difference. It is not a Pitts Special.

During Bodenplatte some P-51s took off with full tanks while the airfield was under attack and had some nice success with several kills. They had no problem flying the P-51, so why are you?

[ruxtmp]

ramstein, how do expect Maddox Games to model the aux tank fuel being used first in the P-51 when the 'fuel tank' is modelled as ONE mass?


Ramstein is as Lt. Gen. Russel Honore would say "Stuck on stupid".

[ramstein]

ramstein, how do expect Maddox Games to model the aux tank fuel being used first in the P-51 when the 'fuel tank' is modelled as ONE mass?


Ramstein is as Lt. Gen. Russel Honore would say "Stuck on stupid".

These last posts are the ones that try to turn it into a circus. get over it, I know it bothers you guys to think an extremely valuable allied plane could be fixed, yet you come here to demand it left broken. It is broken, yet you guys demand it needs to be be left broken. What part of 'the fuselage tank absoltely needs to drain first, not last' is too much for your brains to handle? I find it astounding you guys still come here to not only demand it left be broken, but the insults continue to fly at me. I am being called stupid here by some gas bag.... :twisted: How about letting people who fly this sim ask a fair question and ask that the broken plane be fixed. What skin is it off your nose? Why do you guys (It appears some of you are from Eastern Europe) have some venom and hate for us in the West? Why do you refuse to fix our planes? Do you get off on figting crippled allied planes? Sick bastages..
:twisted:

[ramstein]

Does the Fw190A-8 model its aux tank in Il-2?

If so, then I hear no complaints about CG problems with it.

ramstein, how do expect Maddox Games to model the aux tank fuel being used first in the P-51 when the 'fuel tank' is modelled as ONE mass?

I for one have no problem 'flying' the P51 with full tanks or not. Adjusting the joystick makes a big difference. It is not a Pitts Special.

During Bodenplatte some P-51s took off with full tanks while the airfield was under attack and had some nice success with several kills. They had no problem flying the P-51, so why are you?

What a load... first of all, the P51 tank that is modelled completely wrong is not an auxillery tank... Pull your head out... you just jumped in here ot make this thread into a circus... The tank on your precious luftwhiner planes has nothing ot do with the fuselage tank in a P51. It is part of the plane and was puposely not filled of half filled and immediately switched on and emptied first before any manuevers could be made...


Thi has nothing to do with your freeeking German planes! Un-freeeking believable... you guys still pull these crap posts disrupting a serious P51 is broked thread.. why the hell do you guys attempt to destroy this thread with stupid statements? Why??? My guess is people like you just sit in your chair with no clue about the real worrld, see an American wanting an American planes correctly modelled and decide I want to screw around an American.

:twisted:

[ruxtmp]

ramstein, how do expect Maddox Games to model the aux tank fuel being used first in the P-51 when the 'fuel tank' is modelled as ONE mass?


Ramstein is as Lt. Gen. Russel Honore would say "Stuck on stupid".

These last posts are the ones that try to turn it into a circus. get over it, I know it bothers you guys to think an extremely valuable allied plane could be fixed, yet you come here to demand it left broken. It is broken, yet you guys demand it needs to be be left broken. What part of 'the fuselage tank absoltely needs to drain first, not last' is too much for your brains to handle? I find it astounding you guys still come here to not only demand it left be broken, but the insults continue to fly at me. I am being called stupid here by some gas bag.... :twisted: How about letting people who fly this sim ask a fair question and ask that the broken plane be fixed. What skin is it off your nose? Why do you guys (It appears some of you are from Eastern Europe) have some venom and hate for us in the West? Why do you refuse to fix our planes? Do you get off on figting crippled allied planes? Sick bastages..
:twisted:

I rest my case :roll:

First of all I am an American and I have absolutely no issue with your request, it seems valid, but your approach may be flawed. So I will attempt to pull your head out of your butt.
1. Find out exactly where Oleg modeled the CoG on the P-51
2. If he modeled it at a position that represents a full tank including the auxillary than continue to step three.
3. Unstick your head from your butt and understand that CoG on all aircraft modeled does not shift as fuel weight changes.
4. Request that the P-51 be modeled with the CoG at a point where the auxillary tank is empty and give up the associated weight and range provided by the extra fuel. Or have all aircraft remodeled with multiple tanks that effect the CoG as they drain in a specified order.
5. Cross your fingers and hope it happens.
6. Be ready to be berated as all other planes suffer/benefit from their CoG not changing due to fuel usage and people will want them changed also (unless multiple tanks and CoG shift is added)
7. Understand that this is a simple video game that will never be able to represent the fidelity of flight, especially at the edge of an aircraft's envelope.
8. Don't whine like a sissy when you do not get your way. Life is short and from the attitude of your posts it appears that it may suck.
9. Go out and rent a glider for a day and enjoy the true feeling of flight, it is much better than getting your panties bundled up due to the placement of the P-51's CoG.

[123-Wulf-123]

Holy Crap, I thought this bullshit was over with weeks ago. Does Ramstein not COMPREHEND what he is being told? :roll:

Why does he have this racist attitude in his posts as if the bloody war was still being fought? :roll:

What has where anyone lives in the world got to do with a flying GAME which has little aircraft from many countries available to fly, all of which have their own peculiarities thanks to the hard work of OM?

Why does this idiot think that in a GAME he is going to completely replicate his own FANTASY beliefs and perceptions rather than the generally perceived REALITIES of the flight models as interpreted by professional aero engineers with a touch more credibility than some whiny ass whinger who probably thinks tHe pOny Wun the Warz? :roll:

The Pony in game, flown CORRECTLY is almost UNTOUCHABLE.

It is NOT a dogfighter nor was it designed to be so...it doesn't fly like in the kiddy comics he reads, so he's just going to have to grow up and get over it :roll:

[Jutocsa]

Why do you guys (It appears some of you are from Eastern Europe) have some venom and hate for us in the West? Why do you refuse to fix our planes? Do you get off on figting crippled allied planes? Sick bastages..
:twisted:


And here we go again..good ole' Rammstein_USA with his trademark, name calling, racist remarks to Eastern-Europe, and the blind faith that his cause is ruined by anyone else but himself and his arrogant attitude :):D :roll:
Mind you...this forum is also Eastern-European, being Russian :P
Mind you, some of us would have possibly supported your case, havent you presented it with such an attitude.
Simple questions, so that you understand:

Do you really think anyone who doesnt care about P-51, hates Allied planes :?:
Do you really think anyone who doesnt like your style at all, hates "the West" :?:
Do you really think communists still rule Eastern Europe :?: Because besides the hatred that shows in all your posts, you seem to be living in the sixties, with an unhealthy amount of paranoia...

Edit: I also would like to ask why did you went at Ubi into two different threads about the upcoming 3rd party Slovak map, ranting and bítching on those who unlike you actually did something for this sim ? :)

[Al Schlageter]

What a load... first of all, the P51 tank that is modelled completely wrong is not an auxillery tank... Pull your head out... you just jumped in here ot make this thread into a circus... The tank on your precious luftwhiner planes has nothing ot do with the fuselage tank in a P51. It is part of the plane and was puposely not filled of half filled and immediately switched on and emptied first before any manuevers could be made...
The only one turning this thread and every other thread you have started on the P-51 was turned into a circus act is you!!!!

Would say someone has an inferiority complex from the blathering rants he posts.

Nitpick on a word all you want but even the Mustang manual calls it an AUXILIARY fuselage tank. :D

[ramstein]

You are a liar, you have harassed me since day one... in the Ubi zoo ,, the only reason why you even came to the p51 thread was to turn it freeeking circus :twisted:
Why do you guys (It appears some of you are from Eastern Europe) have some venom and hate for us in the West? Why do you refuse to fix our planes? Do you get off on figting crippled allied planes? Sick bastages..
:twisted:


And here we go again..good ole' Rammstein_USA with his trademark, name calling, racist remarks to Eastern-Europe, and the blind faith that his cause is ruined by anyone else but himself and his arrogant attitude :):D :roll:
Mind you...this forum is also Eastern-European, being Russian :P
Mind you, some of us would have possibly supported your case, havent you presented it with such an attitude.
Simple questions, so that you understand:

Do you really think anyone who doesnt care about P-51, hates Allied planes :?:
Do you really think anyone who doesnt like your style at all, hates "the West" :?:
Do you really think communists still rule Eastern Europe :?: Because besides the hatred that shows in all your posts, you seem to be living in the sixties, with an unhealthy amount of paranoia...

Edit: I also would like to ask why did you went at Ubi into two different threads about the upcoming 3rd party Slovak map, ranting and bítching on those who unlike you actually did something for this sim ? :)

[ramstein]

Again, the fuselage tank drains first.... and the weight of the tank screws the whole FM making it totally unstable... (those are/were the real life Flight models of the P51) not these broken planes were were left with..

fix the Freeking Tank! Stop making space ships for the luftwhiners.. Geesus H. freeking christ wtf is wrong with some of you people???

the luftwhiners who demand that American planes be broken so they do not get hurt feelings when an American plane is modelled correctly!!


:twisted:

you guys are some of the most twisted evil people I have ever met, and I have been around...


Wtf other reason could there be for keeping the P51 Broken?

If is is not fixed in BOB addons, or whenever they add the P51 to BOB, BOB will be a failure for the American market..

I am pretty damned sure the British will be pissed off too since they also flew it.. go ahead and screw it again.,,, see what happens..


for you nincompoops to keep arguing to leave it broken is so exhausing, so stupid, so arrogant..

:twisted: What a load... first of all, the P51 tank that is modelled completely wrong is not an auxillery tank... Pull your head out... you just jumped in here ot make this thread into a circus... The tank on your precious luftwhiner planes has nothing ot do with the fuselage tank in a P51. It is part of the plane and was puposely not filled of half filled and immediately switched on and emptied first before any manuevers could be made...
The only one turning this thread and every other thread you have started on the P-51 was turned into a circus act is you!!!!

Would say someone has an inferiority complex from the blathering rants he posts.

Nitpick on a word all you want but even the Mustang manual calls it an AUXILIARY fuselage tank. :D

[ramstein]

One more thing, those that have harassed me,, don't ever talk to me or fly with me... I won't take your shit... you truly are the worst mankind has to offer..

:twisted:

[ruxtmp]

Again, the fuselage tank drains first.... and the weight of the tank screws the whole FM making it totally unstable... (those are/were the real life Flight models of the P51) not these broken planes were were left with..

fix the Freeking Tank! Stop making space ships for the luftwhiners.. Geesus H. freeking christ wtf is wrong with some of you people???

:

:(
Ramstein,
Everyone including the game designer has said the following.

ALL PLANES HAVE ONE FUEL TANK MODELED and CENTER OF GRAVITY DOES NOT CHANGE AS FUEL IS DEPLETED.

So in response to your theory that the fuselage tank drains first I request you read the following a few times slowly and word for word so it sinks in.

THERE IS NO AUX TANK OR FUSELAGE TANK JUST AN IMAGINARY SINGLE TANK ON TOP OF THE CENTER OF GRAVITY. THIS SINGLE TANK DRAINS FROM ENGINE START TO ENGINE STOP IT IS THE FIRST TO DRAIN AND ALSO THE LAST. AT NO TIME DOES THE CENTER OF GRAVITY CHANGE AS THE IMAGINARY FUEL TANK DRAINS. THIS APPLIES TO ALL PLANES IN THE GAME INCLUDING LUFTWHINER SPACE SHIPS AND ALLIED UBERPLANES.

What part of this concept can you not get a grasp on?

Now just out of curiosity has anyone ever been able to determine where 1C models the CoG on the P-51 and other aircraft? Since it does not change as fuel is used did they model it at the max T/O weight position or some other arbitrary spot?

[Al Schlageter]

Oh deary me :roll:, ramstein get some professional help, for you surely need some.

One more thing, those that have harassed me,, don't ever talk to me or fly with me... I won't take your shit... you truly are the worst mankind has to offer.
- I see no harassment, only those trying to explain, but then you don't have enough of the grey matter to understand.

- Why would anyone want to talk with you? Talking to you is like trying to talk to the Al Queida.

- None will fly with you as you are an easy kill. :mrgreen:

- Only you are posting shit. :(

- Stop looking in the mirror and thinking the image you see is other people. :wink:

Other Americans fly the P-51 and have no problems, so why do you? :shock:

[ramstein]

A Cautionary Note: The Aft Fuel Tank
The first thing you will want to consider is whether or not to fly with the aft fuselage tank filled. When even half-full, this tank had a severely adverse affect on the aircraft's handling. Only normal, conservative maneuvers were allowed with this tank full, as it moves the aircraft's center of gravity well aft. Unless you are planning a long-range ferry mission, it is recommended this tank be set to empty or nearly empty. Note: for "Auto Start", this tank must have enough fuel in it to get the plane started, as the simulator will NOT select either wing tank automatically. To get around this, start with five gallons of fuel in the center tank if you plan on using the "Auto Start" feature to start your aircraft.

http://www.flightsim.com/cgi/kds?$=main/notams06/shoc0623.htm

[Al Schlageter]

:roll: :roll: :roll:

Shockwave Productions has released an update to the Wings of POWER P51 "Mustang" aircraft for Microsoft Flight Simulator 2004.

What does MSFS 2004 have to do with Il-2?

For the UMPTEENTH time, IL-2 DOES NOT MODEL INDIVIDUAL FUEL TANKS.

[DBCooper]

ramstein:

http://www.uknet.com/showcase/Animationart/cel_x_southpark_cartman1.sized.jpg

Yada yada yada....

[Antoninus]

--------------------------
/| /| | |
||__|| | Don't feed |
/ O O\__ the Troll! |
/ \ |
/ \ \ |
/ _ \ \ ----------------------
/ |\____\ \ ||
/ | | | |\____/ ||
/ \|_|_|/ | __||
/ / \ |____| ||
/ | | /| | --|
| | |// |____ --|
* _ | |_|_|_| | \-/
*-- _--\ _ \ // |
/ _ \\ _ // | /
* / \_ /- | - | |
* ___ c_c_c_C/ \C_c_c_c____________

You can as well argue with a member of the Flat Earth Society about gravity.

[Y0RGO]

Some you not see this Rammston is sheep on wulf clothis? Perhaps is luftflotte player attemp stir up problem for REAL P/51 enthussiast?

:(

I can agreed this P/51 has poor balance. but cannot agree this Rammston is help much'

:(

[Jutocsa]

Crap its useless...I thought my questions were simple enough but still they didnt put a single neuron to work in R's brain. Sad.

In the meantime Id like to apologize to everyone who thinks that feeding a troll is unnecessery. Normally Id agree with you. But...he harrassed my mates who made the Slovak map and therefore reached Rammstein's surely righteous :roll: :lol: :lol: wrath...also...I cant help it, he is so funny :))

Dont worry Rammstein, I cant speak for everyone who thinks you are a fool, there are way too many, but I wont fly with you I promise :)
And Im no liar, if you want I can quote all your posts from Ubi here with dates to prove you wrong. But its a waste of time anyway.

[ULTIMA_LATET]

The P-51 flight model is Bad until the fuel tank is fixed. These are facts and there is no counter arguement for leaving the plane broken.

The center tank cannot be full and must drain first for combat!
This has been establishing for several years, with begging from the allies to not leave this plane as is! it's totally wrong to leave this plane broken! :twisted:
======

Dear Ramstein,

Nothing is wrong with the P51 FM in IL2, I can tell you that because P51 is the plane I fly most in IL2. You just need to trim it correct! :)

"Funnily enough, the flight models on some full flight sims are less realistic than what you can get on modern PC based sims. But it is interesting how strong the effect of a mental cultural change of mindset can have. Although full flight simulators have their limitations what concerns FM's, they are now fully accepted by the pilot community. They are used as training tools, and their (slight) lack of realism in some areas is "integrated and realized" in training." - Ddt_IcemanFred

P51: "The flight characteristics, while suicidal for a novice, were sharp-edged and rewarded a skilled pilot with pulse-pounding performance."

[wgvette]

Ramstein,
As a fellow American who loves the P-51; I really have to ask you close your mouth and read the posts. Even on the Ubi sight most members of the community were trying to explain why it can't and won't be fixed, while also trying to give good pointers on flying the 51.

Yet you will not listen and have yourself drug these posts into the stinking pile that they've become.

So please, quit embarrasing yourself and read the posts given until comprehension sets in.

On a final note: You keep saying that it's an easy fix; so supply the new FM to Oleg and that will be the end of your problem.

[Al Schlageter]

Ramstein,
So please, quit embarrasing yourself and read the posts given until comprehension sets in.
Not just embarrassing himself but his rants reflects badly on and is an embarrassment for other Americans.

[Jutocsa]

Some P-51 tutorials: :lol:

http://www.50calibersixguns.com/Downloads.html

[wgvette]

wgvette wrote:
Ramstein,
So please, quit embarrasing yourself and read the posts given until comprehension sets in.

Not just embarrassing himself but his rants reflects badly on and is an embarrassment for other Americans.

I was hoping that would be implied. His rants and cultural remarks are way beyond embarrasing. To think that a prior military member would have so little tolorance is sad.