Fuel system of the FW 190 A3 and A5

[Yogiflight]

After the complex fuel management was cancelled, I would like to suggest, changing the way the fuel system of the FW 190 A3 and A5 works to the way it works in the later versions. Will say the front fuel tank staying full until the rear fuel tank is empty, like it works in the FW 190 A6, not the way it still works in the A3 and A5, with both fuel tanks being emptied simultaniously.

[FTC_Zero]

6 minutes ago, Yogiflight said:

After the complex fuel management was cancelled, I would like to suggest, changing the way the fuel system of the FW 190 A3 and A5 works to the way it works in the later versions. Will say the front fuel tank staying full until the rear fuel tank is empty, like it works in the FW 190 A6, not the way it still works in the A3 and A5, with both fuel tanks being emptied simultaniously.

Cancelled? Does it include droptanks?

[Yogiflight]

3 hours ago, FTC_Zero said:

Cancelled? Does it include droptanks?

Unfortunately

[FTC_Zero]

10 hours ago, Yogiflight said:

Unfortunately

WTF, 109's in BoN needs those drop tanks. They should introduce a weekly WDDD blog instead. "What Devs Dont do". Where is that statement of theirs?

[=MERCS=JenkemJunkie]

Idc about drop tanks, but being able to mess with the planes CoG by changing the fuel flow is the only thing I miss from the clicky cockpits of DCS. If it's too much work/impossible to model buttons where we manage fuel flow in flight, would it be easier/possible for us to choose which tanks get emptied first in the mod menu where we choose convergence, fuel level etc.? Theres benefits/disadvantages of both forward and rearward CoG, so it sucks the decision is made for us.

[FTC_Zero]

57 minutes ago, =MERCS=JenkemJunkie said:

Idc about drop tanks, but being able to mess with the planes CoG by changing the fuel flow is the only thing I miss from the clicky cockpits of DCS. If it's too much work/impossible to model buttons where we manage fuel flow in flight, would it be easier/possible for us to choose which tanks get emptied first in the mod menu where we choose convergence, fuel level etc.? Theres benefits/disadvantages of both forward and rearward CoG, so it sucks the decision is made for us.

I would assume that we need a complex fuel overhaul to use DTs, but lets hope it is not the case. Just having toggleable fuel gauge selector would be nice instead staring half a minute on instuments.


Bye bye phantom controls, t'was nice to meet you.

[=MERCS=JenkemJunkie]

Oh yeah, I forgot about changing which tank is showing in the fuel gauge, I miss 2 things then. 

[LukeFF]

8 hours ago, FTC_Zero said:

Where is that statement of theirs?

 

Do a search of Han's posts - you'll find it there.

[FTC_Zero]

49 minutes ago, LukeFF said:

 

Do a search of Han's posts - you'll find it there.

Is it that one? There is talk about about the development difficulties, not if is cancelled or not.

 

[JG27*PapaFly]

Be careful what you wish for.  The A6 and A8 are very nose heavy compared to other 190 models.  You can't even trim the A8 for level flight at and below 300 kph. And especially turning the A8 feels like trying to make a train turn.  It's much too nose heavy for my taste. Perhaps the fuel flow sequence plays a key role here. 

[Yogiflight]

1 hour ago, JG27_PapaFly said:

Be careful what you wish for.  The A6 and A8 are very nose heavy compared to other 190 models.  You can't even trim the A8 for level flight at and below 300 kph. And especially turning the A8 feels like trying to make a train turn.  It's much too nose heavy for my taste. Perhaps the fuel flow sequence plays a key role here. 

I don't care about issues. You have to live with it. My wish is simply for historical reason. The Fw 190 had both fuel pumps, of the front and the rear tank, serving fuel to the engine and as this was double the amount of what the engine was using, half of the fuel was pumped back to the front tank, so that one remained full until the rear one was empty.

I am always amused about players, who want to have eveything historically correct, as long as it isn't to their disadvantage. And as you are talking about the A8, there is a reason why I wrote, I want it to work like in the A6 and not in the A6 and A8. The A8 had an additional fuel tank behind the pilot, which gave additional weight and moved the COG. Therefore it is an even worse turning fighter than the earlier 190s, and still I prefer it over the A6, because of the 10 minutes maximum power instead of only 3 minutes for the A6. The heavy machineguns in the nose are another reason.

[JG27*PapaFly]

51 minutes ago, Yogiflight said:

The A8 had an additional fuel tank behind the pilot, which gave additional weight and moved the COG. Therefore it is an even worse turning fighter than the earlier 190s,

That doesn't make sense.  A tank behind the pilot would move the COG further back,  making the plane less nose heavy and therefore improving pitch authority and instantaneous turn rate, perhaps at the expense of harsher stall behavior (see P51 with the extra tank behind the pilot). In reality, the 190A series were described as needing very little trim change over their speed envelopes. I'm convinced that A6 and A8 were not as nose heavy  in reality). German planes that cannot be trimmed for best climb speed? Must be a joke, right?

Unrealistically noseheavy trim is not a mere inconvenience:

1) It's hampering pitch authority, which was one of the things that the 190s had in spades

2) It leads to a lot of trim drag while turning,  which, in combination with the high wing loading,  leads to abysmal energy retention. Trim drag reduction is a key reason for today's fighter designs with relaxed pitch stability.

[=MERCS=JenkemJunkie]

1 hour ago, Yogiflight said:

I don't care about issues. You have to live with it. My wish is simply for historical reason. The Fw 190 had both fuel pumps, of the front and the rear tank, serving fuel to the engine and as this was double the amount of what the engine was using, half of the fuel was pumped back to the front tank, so that one remained full until the rear one was empty.

 

There's controls inside the cockpit that the pilot can use to cut off fuel flow from the front or rear tank, so historically the pilot could have chosen for himself which tank emptied first. I always preferred emptying the front tank first manually when given the option when I played 190s in DCS in the past, but others might prefer something else.

[FTC_Zero]

Fuel cut off has 5 Positions.

From up to down:
1. Open (Both tanks)
2. Front tank closed
3. Pump test

4. Rear tank closed
5. Closed (Full cut off)

From the diagramm all tanks but the auxilary tank goes to the booster pump, whereas the 2 main fuel tanks have cut offs, which makes sense with the lever configuration. On the later modells, the fuel from the auxiliary tank is pumped into the rear tank. I see 1 Main Booster Pump for the engine and 2 fuel tank pumps with seperate fuel lines to the engine pump. No sure though how pumping back half of the fuel from the main pump would work.

The other thing is, that ingame the lever is always in the fully open position (both tanks) early and late 190's, while the fuel tank usage is different among the various 190's.



A8 Fuel system

 

 

Edited February 17, 2023 by FTC_Zero

[Yogiflight]

On 2/17/2023 at 11:20 PM, JG27_PapaFly said:

German planes that cannot be trimmed for best climb speed? Must be a joke, right?

You must be talking about DCS, because in IL-2 I can clearly trim the 190 for climbing in the recommended climb speed.

 

On 2/18/2023 at 12:37 AM, FTC_Zero said:

3. Pump test

Pumpenprüfung (pump test) means the whole placard, there is no position pump test.

 

The last sentence is not quite correct. The rear fuel tank is the larger one, the 240 liters tank is the front tank. You can read it on the gauge, on top of the gauge, above the 300 liters scale, there is a writing 'Hinten', which means rear, and below the 240 liters scale a writing says 'Vorn', which means front.

 

For the 'Brandhahn' (fuel cut off), the positions 'Front Tank closed' and 'Rear Tank closed' absolutely make sense, as they prevent the system from running dry, when one tank or fuel line was hit, as it happens in IL-2. Your front tank was hit? Just cut off the line to the rear tank, fly with the remaining fuel of your front tank, then cut off the line to the front tank and the fuel of your rear tank will not follow vaporing outside.

 

And now to what my suggestion is all about. Do I know how the fuel system was working in all the different A-versions. Of course not. But that is not the point. The developers decided to make the fuel system in the A8 (and D9?) for BOBP and later in the A6 for BON work in a different way than in the two 190s, which were released years earlier. I would guess, they did it for a reason. Especially the fuel system in the A6 working different than in the A5, a very similar version, makes me guess, the A5 should have it working the same way as the A6. The only version I know how it was working is the A1, as I read it in the manual. And in the A1 it was working the same way as it is modelled for the A6. Anyway, I made this suggestion for historical accuracy and the decision, to change it or not, is on the developers side.

 

 

[JG27*PapaFly]

On 2/19/2023 at 11:40 AM, Yogiflight said:

You must be talking about DCS, because in IL-2 I can clearly trim the 190 for climbing in the recommended climb speed.

Nope in both cases. And the problem gets more pronounced as you load bombs.

[Yogiflight]

On 2/20/2023 at 3:55 PM, JG27_PapaFly said:

Nope in both cases. And the problem gets more pronounced as you load bombs.

Which version, which loadout, how much fuel, which map, which season and how much power?