Quote:
Originally Posted by ElAurens
In reference the P51's CoG. Since it is established that CoG does not change with fuel use, is it possible that the P51's CoG is simply placed incorrectly in the model to begin with? Perhaps in some attempt to replicate some of the P51's instability when rear tank is full? And what we feel in game when only 25% or less of fuel is on board is simply the lower weight of the aircraft with the CoG still in same (incorrect?) place?
If an earlier P51B or a P51A were modeled without the rear tank, where would the CoG be placed vs. the ingame P51s we currently have?
And why not do an early P51B without the rear tank? Or even better a P51A (Mustang I). It would be the fastest aircraft in the ETO below 15,000 ft. in 1943.
|
If they do the Allison Mustang, we definitely want the [url=http://home.att.net/~jbaugher1/p51_2.html]Mustang Mk IA[/i],
now with cannon!
After IvanK's post about the CoG being where it would be with the empty tank, I went back and did some flying and maneuvering in the P-51D-20 with 100% fuel, and found that while it was still snappy and spin-happy, it doesn't get into the tail down spins that it used to, and correction is generally quick if you cut the throttle, so it looks like the CoG issue has been fixed; I'm just behind the times. It looks like it's the natural snap stall being exacerbated by torque that's driving the spin behaviour now. Seems a bit much, given the low power to weight ratio of the plane, but then again, it had a smaller tail than was perhaps needed. I do know that starting with the XP-51F, the tail surfaces got much taller, so I'd have to dig into it a lot more than I'm really interested in to say anything meaningful on that.
Harry Voyager