ThomasP
Senior Master Sergeant
Does anyone know what form of construction was used for the 85 USgal fuel tank - ie aluminum tank with SS outer shell, or maybe total non-metal except for fittings, etc?
Follow along with the video below to see how to install our site as a web app on your home screen.
Note: This feature may not be available in some browsers.
Ad: This forum contains affiliate links to products on Amazon and eBay. More information in Terms and rules
Hi,
I feel that the handling described in the Eglin test report 4-43-23-1 is much more complicated than the illustrations and text in Horkey's information that you posted.
Eng
Does anyone know what form of construction was used for the 85 USgal fuel tank - ie aluminum tank with SS outer shell, or maybe total non-metal except for fittings, etc?
In Bill's great book, P-51B MUSTANG, he writes that the prototype 85gal internal fuselage tank was metal. The production tanks are described as self-sealing Firestone constructed tanks.Does anyone know what form of construction was used for the 85 USgal fuel tank - ie aluminum tank with SS outer shell, or maybe total non-metal except for fittings, etc?
On these examples, no to CG effect, Yes to 'compromised handling'. The modifications restricted the ease of roll and rudder authority. They were driven by challenges experienced due to yaw issues encountered (i.e. throttle changes, high speed rudder input during sideslip or terminal dive trying to reduce drift/Hunt to right with left rudder input) which occasionally led to failure of horizontal or vertical stabilizer and subsequent empennage attach failures.Well, I think Bill is commenting on changes that added weight that moved the C of G rearwards and compromised handling, which then caused the extra modification of the controls, which made the control forces heavier, which makes the general handling characteristics less pleasing.
Eng
Yes, that is what experienced pilots have said. If you want to outturn an F4U, get rid of that bob weight.The addition of the weight is likely to have increased the stick loads to pull positive G, enough to prevent stick force reversal with a full rear fuselage tank on these aircraft.
Yeah, that's why I would have just thought a pitch-up would result.The base line here is that for stability and normal handling in upright normal flight, the horizontal tail produces a downforce to balance the aircraft weight and the wing lift, the lift being behind the C of G weight and the tail pushing down a bit to balance. A simple stable aircraft has a generous amount of stability if the horizontal tail has plenty of effect available compared to the Lift/Weight couple. Now, high performance aircraft generally reduce the margins of control to minimise structural weight and drag, but must still handle well. However, if you take any normal aircraft and put more weight towards the tail, it becomes less stable because the horizontal tail has to generate smaller control forces to balance the aircraft.