Video explains CoG effects.

[MaxGunz]

Answer is more efficient/faster with CG rearward OR more stable
with CG forward. With the more stable the gunnery platform, the
higher the stalling speed and worse turning and slower the plane.
So be careful what you ask for.

[jameson]

Are changes of cog modelled in game?

[MaxGunz]

With different fuel loading the P-51 is supposed to shift since a patch a while back now.

I can't remember if dropping bombs makes a difference. Most bombers are loaded at or near center, jabos are, so you wouldn't notice.

Added: what I get from that is that the positive control stability that makes a good gunnery/bombing platform costs drag in proportion to the stability.
Nose-heavy takes a heavier push down on the tail and that induces more drag.

[mark_009_vn]

Originally Posted by MaxGunz

I can't remember if dropping bombs makes a difference. Most bombers are loaded at or near center, jabos are, so you wouldn't notice.

Yes, try the Yak-9B, it is the only plane where bombs are loaded off-center. The change in CoG is quite noticable with/ without bombs.

[pandacat]

I thought the COG effect on stall is opposite. Rear forward COG makes your tail heavy, and for the same lbs of stick pressure, you get larger AOA displacement. It is the sudden large AOA change that causes accelerated stall. Isn't it why P39 was so prone to stall and spin in RL because its rear mounted engine caused significant rearward COG shift? Besides, P51's main issue in current game is lack of stability. You can fly fast but you can't shoot straight. In this aspect, HSFX did a lot better job than the stock. I believe most of p51 complainers are not arguing whether p51 cog should be moving forward or backward. The main issue is due to the limitations of the game, you cannot have inflight COG shift like what a real life p51 can. So to be fair, might as well model 100% fuel loaded p51 with the same COG as 30% loaded one.

[Janosch]

You can fly fast but you can't shoot straight. In this aspect, HSFX did a lot better job than the stock.

Ha ha ha, that's a novel idea. HSFX doing something better than stock in terms of flight modeling! That's rich! Hehehehohohoho. Ahem.

P-51, especially D, in stock is a frigging good plane. It can fly fast and shoot straight, just like your given 190 can do.

[MaxGunz]

Originally Posted by pandacat

I thought the COG effect on stall is opposite. Rear forward COG makes your tail heavy, and for the same lbs of stick pressure, you get larger AOA displacement. It is the sudden large AOA change that causes accelerated stall. Isn't it why P39 was so prone to stall and spin in RL because its rear mounted engine caused significant rearward COG shift? Besides, P51's main issue in current game is lack of stability. You can fly fast but you can't shoot straight. In this aspect, HSFX did a lot better job than the stock. I believe most of p51 complainers are not arguing whether p51 cog should be moving forward or backward. The main issue is due to the limitations of the game, you cannot have inflight COG shift like what a real life p51 can. So to be fair, might as well model 100% fuel loaded p51 with the same COG as 30% loaded one.

Accelerated stall is a stall at over 1G condition such as in a turn. If you yank the stick to bring it about then fine but that's not the only way it happens.

When weight is dropped that makes the nose heavier, will the TAIL go down or up?

The P-39 is balanced as they did. Mid-engine as opposed to front engine is about where the significant mass is located and what can be done with it, goes the same with cars too.

The same plane can fly faster with CoG less far forward, the plane closer to balanced simply because the tail is not having to push down as much and make that extra drag at the tail that does keep the nose pointed frontwards just that mush more at a small cost.
Figure it out. This doesn't make fast planes slow, just not as fast and a bit more stable.

It in no way accounts for conspiracy theories about your most favorite or hated planes except where it does.

[mark_009_vn]

Originally Posted by MaxGunz

The P-39 is balanced as they did. Mid-engine as opposed to front engine is about where the significant mass is located and what can be done with it, goes the same with cars too.

The P-39 should never enter a stall in a turn fully loaded, the problem with the P-39 regarding it's nasty spin characteristics is only when a large amount of 37 mm shells where expended, this caused a shift in CoG and only then would it become dangerous to do acrobatics.

Of course this is not modeled ingame for obvious reasons...

[MaxGunz]

Riiiiiiiiight. They didn't model shift in CoG just because it would favor the P-39.

[IceFire]

Originally Posted by mark_009_vn

The P-39 should never enter a stall in a turn fully loaded, the problem with the P-39 regarding it's nasty spin characteristics is only when a large amount of 37 mm shells where expended, this caused a shift in CoG and only then would it become dangerous to do acrobatics.

Of course this is not modeled ingame for obvious reasons...

Might also have had to do something with the Pentium III processors we were using when the game came out originally...