Ad: This forum contains affiliate links to products on Amazon and eBay. More information in Terms and rules
When the Typhoon had to adopt thinner Laminar flow type wings they had less volume, so the re design Typhoon II which became the Tempest had fuel moved from the wings to the fuselage, according to wiki a 21 inch 70 gallon fuel bay was added in front of the pilot. The Hawker Tornado and Typhoon were very similar prototypes, but the Tornado was 12" longer, with the difference entirely due to the different engines.The P-36/40 had the main fuel under the cockpit in the wing, fuselage sat on top of the wing. Mustang did the same thing.
You want a skinny fuselage you have to
The Typhoon was sort of a special case. You had a 2400-2500lb engine instead of a 1400-1700lb Merlin. You need to keep that engine near the center of gravity.
View attachment 700367
Engine actually goes past the forward spar.
As mentioned by others, you want to keep most of the fuel on/near the center of gravity.
View attachment 700368
With an Allison the whole engine was out ahead of the wing leading edge.
Sometimes it was just a different way of solving a puzzle .
D. 520 put fuel ahead of the cockpit
View attachment 700366
main part of cockpit was behind the wing trailing edge. Great if you are looking down, not so good for deflection shooting
The Mustang also arranged it's landing gear different with the wheels going into the wing root extensions (?). the landing gear was in front of the main spar and not behind it which freed up space for the fuel. Just a different way of doing things.When the Typhoon had to adopt thinner Laminar flow type wings they had less volume, so the re design Typhoon II which became the Tempest had fuel moved from the wings to the fuselage, according to wiki a 21 inch 70 gallon fuel bay was added in front of the pilot. The Hawker Tornado and Typhoon were very similar prototypes, but the Tornado was 12" longer, with the difference entirely due to the different engines.
Also, with the Spitfire I read that special tyres and wheels were developed for it, I dont know about the Mustang but I would think it benefitted also because new developments quickly become the norm, so in terms of the OP the volume needed for something as mundane as a wheel changed, or the same sized wheel could cope with a massive increase in weight.The Mustang also arranged it's landing gear different with the wheels going into the wing root extensions (?). the landing gear was in front of the main spar and not behind it which freed up space for the fuel. Just a different way of doing things.
Are there any numbers,or percentages to compare?I've noticed that most British/European aircraft have their wings mounted further forward on the fuselage than planes like say the P-51 and P-47. Also, I know that planes like the Spitfire and Hawker Tempest and Fury have their main fuel tanks mounted between the engine and cockpit. Is this an accurate observation or an illusion? What could be governing this positioning?
The only philosophy is to maintain the CoG. The two types you quoted in your OP the P-51 and P-47 had equipment in the rear that wasnt there on other types, the cooling system on the P-51 and the Turbo system on the P-47. The USA produced other types like the P-40, F2A(Buffalo) F4F(Wildcat) with proportions similar to the Spitfire etc.The Hawker Typhoon (which used an engine much larger than the Merlin), the Tempest (a re-winged Typhoon with a longer front fuselage to take up displaced wing tanks and increase fuel capacity overall) and the Fury/Sea Fury (related to the Tempest and Typhoon lineage but foreward of the rear cockpit firewall was mostly a new aircraft) used a similar wing placement scheme. As did the likes of the Macchi C200/202/205.
So I question if there's anything wrong with that philosophy of design. Though it should be noted that the Merlin Mustangs and later Merlin-powered and Griffon powered Spitfires had fuselage tanks that did play havoc with CG and directional stability if they were filled beyond a certain point.