![]() |
If this is your first visit, be sure to check out the FAQ by clicking the link above. You may have to register before you can post: click the register link above to proceed. To start viewing messages, select the forum that you want to visit from the selection below. |
|
|
Thread Tools | Display Modes |
|
#1
|
|||
|
|||
![]() "Dudley Henriques" wrote I flew a D, as well as various other prop fighters as a civilian operator. Never flew ours with external tanks. The airplane is stable on takeoff if flown correctly and I wouldn't anticipate any specific issues with the external tanks except the extended run. I believe the only caution on the external tanks was for high speed buffet above 400 mph. We had the fuselage tank removed and only flew the Mustang using the 2 mains at 92 gallons each.(90 usable) I had always heard that the fuselage tank was the source of the instability, with it being so far behind the CG, to give it a dangerously aft CG. Today, in peacetime, I don't suppose they would ever dream of putting that much weight that far back, but it was war. Comments? -- Jim in NC |
#2
|
|||
|
|||
![]() "Morgans" wrote in message ... "Dudley Henriques" wrote I flew a D, as well as various other prop fighters as a civilian operator. Never flew ours with external tanks. The airplane is stable on takeoff if flown correctly and I wouldn't anticipate any specific issues with the external tanks except the extended run. I believe the only caution on the external tanks was for high speed buffet above 400 mph. We had the fuselage tank removed and only flew the Mustang using the 2 mains at 92 gallons each.(90 usable) I had always heard that the fuselage tank was the source of the instability, with it being so far behind the CG, to give it a dangerously aft CG. Today, in peacetime, I don't suppose they would ever dream of putting that much weight that far back, but it was war. Comments? -- Jim in NC The fuselage tank held 85 gals of fuel and did indeed bring the cg back causing a real change in flight characteristics. It really screwed around with the pitch moments. It could be handled, but the general word was for pilots to take the bird out with fuel in the tank and go upstairs and do some "getting used to it" flying. The danger point where it actually became a cg issue began at about 25 gals. The flight characteristics got worse with more fuel in the tank over that 25 gals. At 40 gals in the tank, anything involving maneuvering flight was a toss up for pitch control. Dudley Henriques |
#3
|
|||
|
|||
![]() "Dudley Henriques" wrote in message ... At 40 gals in the tank, anything involving maneuvering flight was a toss up for pitch control. "This is your wingman. You appear to be leaking oil." "Negative, wingman. The CG just shifted and I **** my pants." |
#4
|
|||
|
|||
![]() Morgans wrote: I had always heard that the fuselage tank was the source of the instability, with it being so far behind the CG, to give it a dangerously aft CG. Today, in peacetime, I don't suppose they would ever dream of putting that much weight that far back, but it was war. Comments? I'll take that any day of the week over the Bf-109, where you're main fuselage tank goes under the pilot's seat, or the Me-163 where you're sitting squeezed in between two tanks of hydrogen peroxide at your sides. Another "brilliant" move was on the Sukhoi Su-7, where a cylindrical fuselage fuel tank has a tunnel down its inside in which the jet engine rests, so that bullets of shrapnel piercing the rear fuselage will penetrate the fuel tank...and then the engine...letting superheated air enter the fuel tank. This led to some wonderful combat shots in the 1973 Yom Kippur war and the wars between India and Pakistan of Su-7s plunging earthwards with everything behind the wings ablaze and spraying fire all over the place like a flamethrower. Pat |
#5
|
|||
|
|||
![]() "Pat Flannery" wrote in message ... Morgans wrote: I had always heard that the fuselage tank was the source of the instability, with it being so far behind the CG, to give it a dangerously aft CG. Today, in peacetime, I don't suppose they would ever dream of putting that much weight that far back, but it was war. Comments? I'll take that any day of the week over the Bf-109, where you're main fuselage tank goes under the pilot's seat, or the Me-163 where you're sitting squeezed in between two tanks of hydrogen peroxide at your sides. I always think flying an Me-163 in combat must have been one of the most crazy experiences in wartime aviation, firstly you have all the explosive fuel around you, secondly you are shortly to be boosted at tremendous climb rates into the middle of a heavily armed B-17 formation, thirdly if you survive all that and manage to get a shot in before the couple of minutes before the motor dies, you have to glide back like a brick to a tiny airfield and land on a skid! |
#6
|
|||
|
|||
![]() MichaelJP wrote: I always think flying an Me-163 in combat must have been one of the most crazy experiences in wartime aviation, firstly you have all the explosive fuel around you, secondly you are shortly to be boosted at tremendous climb rates into the middle of a heavily armed B-17 formation, thirdly if you survive all that and manage to get a shot in before the couple of minutes before the motor dies, you have to glide back like a brick to a tiny airfield and land on a skid! As a glider it was superb, thanks to Lippisch's background as a glider designer. Although the pilots tended to dive away at high speed to escape enemy fighters once their fuel was gone (and to get back to base ASAP for the same reason), it had a really good gliding performance, and the pilots who flew it said its handling qualities were superior to any other German aircraft. It's only drawback in gliding flight was that it was _too_ good at it - once it got down in ground effect near landing, it had a tendency to just float along above the ground till speed bled off and it would settle down. Even the addition of underwing extensible spoilers didn't completely solve the problem, and a lot of pilots were injured or killed by the aircraft remaining stubbornly airborne down the whole length of the landing field (they landed on grass generally) and not touching down till it arrived on the rough ground outside the field's boundaries. Pat |
#7
|
|||
|
|||
![]() "Pat Flannery" wrote in message ... MichaelJP wrote: I always think flying an Me-163 in combat must have been one of the most crazy experiences in wartime aviation, firstly you have all the explosive fuel around you, secondly you are shortly to be boosted at tremendous climb rates into the middle of a heavily armed B-17 formation, thirdly if you survive all that and manage to get a shot in before the couple of minutes before the motor dies, you have to glide back like a brick to a tiny airfield and land on a skid! As a glider it was superb, thanks to Lippisch's background as a glider designer. Although the pilots tended to dive away at high speed to escape enemy fighters once their fuel was gone (and to get back to base ASAP for the same reason), it had a really good gliding performance, and the pilots who flew it said its handling qualities were superior to any other German aircraft. It's only drawback in gliding flight was that it was _too_ good at it - once it got down in ground effect near landing, it had a tendency to just float along above the ground till speed bled off and it would settle down. Even the addition of underwing extensible spoilers didn't completely solve the problem, and a lot of pilots were injured or killed by the aircraft remaining stubbornly airborne down the whole length of the landing field (they landed on grass generally) and not touching down till it arrived on the rough ground outside the field's boundaries. Pat Thanks Pat - the ME-163 is modelled in the superb combat flight sim IL-2, trying it last night they must have modelled this aircraft quite nicely as I found it very difficult to bleed off enough speed in the hold-off, exactly as you said above. Landing on the grass the skid dug in and certainly a real aircraft would have been destroyed. Difference is I could reset for another go ![]() Doing some other testing I found it impossible to recover from a spin entered from a slow-speed stall. Wonder if that's correct? |
#8
|
|||
|
|||
![]() MichaelJP wrote: Thanks Pat - the ME-163 is modelled in the superb combat flight sim IL-2, trying it last night they must have modelled this aircraft quite nicely as I found it very difficult to bleed off enough speed in the hold-off, exactly as you said above. Landing on the grass the skid dug in and certainly a real aircraft would have been destroyed. Obviously somebody did their research when writing the program for it. It might have something to do with the fact tat the ailerons also serve as its elevators. Does the simulator have the spoilers on it? The controls for them are located just to the left of the control stick. There's a manual pump mechanism handle with a ball top, and to the rear of it the actual flap control lever. On the actual aircraft you turn the control handle 180 degrees, then pump the pump handle six times to put the flaps fully down. Difference is I could reset for another go ![]() Doing some other testing I found it impossible to recover from a spin entered from a slow-speed stall. Wonder if that's correct? It's supposed to have a very abrupt and severe stall according to Eric Brown's flight notes; he states it goes into a steep spiraling dive, but you can recover from it in a "straightforward" manner. I don't know it that means you turn into the spin and convert it into a dive or what. BTW, he was able to get the one he was flying up to 440 mph in _gliding_ flight in a dive, which gives you some idea of just how aerodynamic this little thing was. He wrecked his Komet by doing progressively faster and faster ballasted landings as tests for a British high speed research aircraft that the RAF was planning, till the skid finally came through the floorboard of the cockpit after a landing at 158 mph. Pat |
#9
|
|||
|
|||
![]()
MichaelJP wrote:
Thanks Pat - the ME-163 is modelled in the superb combat flight sim IL-2, trying it last night they must have modelled this aircraft quite nicely as I found it very difficult to bleed off enough speed in the hold-off, exactly as you said above. Landing on the grass the skid dug in and certainly a real aircraft would have been destroyed. Obviously somebody did their research when writing the program for it. It might have something to do with the fact tat the ailerons also serve as its elevators. Does the simulator have the spoilers on it? The controls for them are located just to the left of the control stick. There's a manual pump mechanism handle with a ball top, and to the rear of it the actual flap control lever. On the actual aircraft you turn the control handle 180 degrees, then pump the pump handle six times to put the flaps fully down. Don't think so, but it does have landing flaps. IL-2 is pretty good as a simulator but it models 100's of different aircraft and variants so it has to make compromises and not all the subtleties are there. Amazing value though for the price. Difference is I could reset for another go ![]() Doing some other testing I found it impossible to recover from a spin entered from a slow-speed stall. Wonder if that's correct? It's supposed to have a very abrupt and severe stall according to Eric Brown's flight notes; he states it goes into a steep spiraling dive, but you can recover from it in a "straightforward" manner. I don't know it that means you turn into the spin and convert it into a dive or what. BTW, he was able to get the one he was flying up to 440 mph in _gliding_ flight in a dive, which gives you some idea of just how aerodynamic this little thing was. He wrecked his Komet by doing progressively faster and faster ballasted landings as tests for a British high speed research aircraft that the RAF was planning, till the skid finally came through the floorboard of the cockpit after a landing at 158 mph. Pat Interesting, what's your source for the Eric Brown story, I'd like to read more. |
#10
|
|||
|
|||
![]()
In article ,
Morgans wrote: I had always heard that the fuselage tank was the source of the instability, with it being so far behind the CG, to give it a dangerously aft CG. Today, in peacetime, I don't suppose they would ever dream of putting that much weight that far back, but it was war. Yep, lots of compromises in some of those wartime designs... Some of the photo-recon versions of the Spitfire had a tail tank that compromised stability even more drastically: the aircraft was outright aerodynamically unstable with that tank full or nearly full. (Naturally, you emptied that tank *first*... and didn't have much attention to spare for anything else until it was empty.) -- spsystems.net is temporarily off the air; | Henry Spencer mail to henry at zoo.utoronto.ca instead. | |
Thread Tools | |
Display Modes | |
|
|
![]() |
||||
Thread | Thread Starter | Forum | Replies | Last Post |
How to get maximum height on a winch launch? | Dan G | Soaring | 38 | December 22nd 16 12:29 AM |
NASA: "The Shuttle Was a Mistake" | AES | Piloting | 39 | October 10th 05 01:10 PM |
Is possible to pair a Saitek X35 throttle and a MS Sidewinder Pro? | Riccardo | Simulators | 3 | December 24th 03 06:07 PM |
Boeing: Space shuttles to last into next decade | JohnMcGrew | Piloting | 17 | October 24th 03 09:31 PM |
Cause of Columbia Shuttle Disaster. | Mike Spera | Owning | 2 | August 31st 03 03:11 PM |