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

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/theha...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
======

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.

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.

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

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

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.

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..

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.

[/quote]

you can say "bar" :twisted:

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: