Ad: This forum contains affiliate links to products on Amazon and eBay. More information in Terms and rules
There was a firewall between the pilot and the tanks in front of him. Sitting on a unprotected tank would not be popular
In any case having big fuel tanks just ahead of the pilot seems extra dangerous, as the slipstream would push flames and burning fuel right into the cockpit.
Though apparently we have this to thank for advances in plastic surgery in the early WWII years. But what a ghastly price..
IMHO, would have been better to put the cockpit as far forward as possible, and instead put fuel below/behind the pilot, or in the wings. Better forward visibility as well. Oh well.
This is a great find. The US operated P-51D/K placed IFF fwd of firewall and the carb return line always went to left main.Late war the RAAF removed the IFF from P-51D&K aircraft when the rear fuselage tank was used. By that time the allies had air superiority in the SWPA.
Mustangs used by 3 RAAF and 450 squadrons in Italy came from RAF stocks.This is a great find. The US operated P-51D/K placed IFF fwd of firewall and the carb return line always went to left main.
Many RAF Mustang III were delivered without 85gal tank but I was unclear regarding P-51D/K. Do you know if RAAF received any MK IV or IVa directly from US, or purchased by RAF and then allocated?
Really? I would not have thought there would be enough room.The US operated P-51D/K placed IFF fwd of firewall
Really? I would not have thought there would be enough room.
The US developed a new, UHF, much more sophisticated IFF, the BC-645, that had all kinds of features including the ability of aircraft to interrogate each other. But the British refused to change and you can't very well have two different IFF systems. As a result the BC-645 became a common surplus item offered to radio amateurs for about the next 40 years.
View attachment 788739
A friend of mine said a guy he knew was driving through the midwest in the 60's and passed a rural school with a P-51 in the playground. He stopped, went to see the principle, and offered to take that beat up eyesore off his hands. The principle agreed. The canopy was smashed and he found a surplus store selling new unused canopies for use as fish tanks.Good value! Unfortunately, I am saving for a $1,000 P51-D Mustang!
Well, I obviously know that. It was just an instinctive guess.Then you are wrong.
Well, I obviously know that. It was just an instinctive guess.
Regardless, what caused the control-reversal?
This is a great find. The US operated P-51D/K placed IFF fwd of firewall and the carb return line always went to left main.
Many RAF Mustang III were delivered without 85gal tank but I was unclear regarding P-51D/K. Do you know if RAAF received any MK IV or IVa directly from US, or purchased by RAF and then allocated?
So, the airplane becomes very twitchy on pitch?In this case it is not "control reversal", what the report says is that "control loads rapidly reverse". What this means is that instead of requiring increasing stick load per G, the stick load per G decreases. This is a difficult response to handle, where normally, stick loads increase per G. This effect varies in different aircraft and with increasing aft Cof G.
From what I understand both the P51 and Spit tightened their turns with full rear tanks so they needed less force on the stick, is that correct?.In this case it is not "control reversal", what the report says is that "control loads rapidly reverse". What this means is that instead of requiring increasing stick load per G, the stick load per G decreases. This is a difficult response to handle, where normally, stick loads increase per G. This effect varies in different aircraft and with increasing aft Cof G.
So, the airplane becomes very twitchy on pitch?
As I just wrote to Zipper, you need to find and read the flight test reports of specific aircraft to know.From what I understand both the P51 and Spit tightened their turns with full rear tanks so they needed less force on the stick, is that correct?.
Actually at stick force per G reaches zero, there is a control reversal where fwd pressure on stick is required to maintain the turn - which is why bob weights were added to the 85gal equipped Mustangs. The P-51H did not have that issue.In this case it is not "control reversal", what the report says is that "control loads rapidly reverse". What this means is that instead of requiring increasing stick load per G, the stick load per G decreases. This is a difficult response to handle, where normally, stick loads increase per G. This effect varies in different aircraft and with increasing aft Cof G.
Eng
You might have a different report that describes the response in this specific case differently to the one in this thread?Actually at stick force per G reaches zero, there is a control reversal where fwd pressure on stick is required to maintain the turn - which is why bob weights were added to the 85gal equipped Mustangs. The P-51H did not have that issue.
In this case - specifically reversal of controls occur in zero stick force per G range.You might have a different report that describes the response in this specific case differently to the one in this thread?
I think you will find that the terms here should be very specific. In this case in the report, and what you describe, is not control reversal, it is changes in control loading, the aircraft still responds in the same sense to stick movement, but the stick load per G reduces with stick movement when the Cof G is too far aft and this is a difficult handling trait.
Paragraph 3 Conclusions (b) first page "I would be interested in the report that the stick force per G actually got down to the true zero load per-G, in a Service released aircraft.
Also, are you saying that "bob weights were added to the 85gal equipped Mustangs" as a mandatory mod for use of the 85gal tank and ordinary "Mustangs" didn't have a counterweight? G-load counterweights on elevators are quite common on many aircraft.
Eng
In this case - specifically reversal of controls occur in zero stick force per G range.
In layman term you find yourself pushing the stick (gently) to maintain bank.
Paragraph 3 Conclusions (b) first page "
If you have a copy of Ed Horkey's "The Real Stuff" see page 12 Plate II-1 where he discusses Longitudinal Stability relative to CG and shows cross over from Pull to Push in pounds per G acceleration.
A stick force reversal occurs at Zero force per G.
Unfortunately, I don't have Ed Horkey's "The Real Stuff". Could you possibly post "page 12 Plate II-1" ?