P-51 fuselage fuel tank (1 Viewer)

drgondog said:

Actually it was a high priority.

The acceleration into standard combat tanks, 52/60/75/100 &150gal was bogged down with perception that self sealing and low priority materials (wood, plastic, paper) drove Mat.Cmd into a bureaucratic design, build protortype, test and re-design cy cle.

Further complicating the challenge was a real logistics issue of transporting high volume/low weight tanks via shipboard when tanks, aircraft, vehicles, POL were critical.

I agree your point about British not solving the problem. That said the RAF had no high-altitude daylight strategic aims and were content, to a degree with what we provided to augment those few instances.

Click to expand...

My experience on large infrastructure structure projects is that unless one individual is given the mandate to do what ever it takes things don't happen quickly. If you truly want to give high priority a Leslie Groves type must be assigned.

Reluctant Poster said:

I am not suggesting that it was done with malice I am merely stating that it wasn't a high priority. They simply weren't paying much attention to it. Each party was assuming someone else was taking care of the problem. The issue I have is that posters on this forum are blaming the British for not solving the problem by extending the range of the Spitfire when they had other more pressing needs just like the US.

Click to expand...

and the most pressing of those needs was to keep the Spitfires coming off the line without all the lost production that comes with a major design change.

Ideally they should have filled the wing leading edge with a large fuel tank but that would have been a massive redesign. Given how light the fuselage structure is on the Mk V (the only version I have worked on) just fitting the tank(s) behind the pilots seat would have involved some substantial structural changes. The wing design aft of the main spar means fitting bag tanks between each rib like used on some US aircraft was not practical so where else were they going to add fuel without going outside the CofG range?

MiTasol said:

and the most pressing of those needs was to keep the Spitfires coming off the line without all the lost production that comes with a major design change.

Ideally they should have filled the wing leading edge with a large fuel tank but that would have been a massive redesign. Given how light the fuselage structure is on the Mk V (the only version I have worked on) just fitting the tank(s) behind the pilots seat would have involved some substantial structural changes. The wing design aft of the main spar means fitting bag tanks between each rib like used on some US aircraft was not practical so where else were they going to add fuel without going outside the CofG range?

Click to expand...

Ther is a logical nonsense in the history of the Spitfire. The Mk V was a stop gap using new engines in old Mk I/II airframes. The Mk IX was a stop gap using new engines in Mk V airframes and the Mk XIV was a stop gap using new Griffon engines in Mk IX airframes. So a MK XIV used the same airframe as a MKI/II? No it didnt because when the already manufactured airframes were completed design changes were introduced to improve the marque. As far as I can see there wasnt a huge amount of work done on making long range Spitfires because "more" was always more important. The Mustangs range and use changes the debate, the RAF didnt need massive range in its fighters except for crtain missions and it specifically developed the Mustang and later P-51 for that type of mission.

Reluctant Poster said:

My experience on large infrastructure structure projects is that unless one individual is given the mandate to do what ever it takes things don't happen quickly. If you truly want to give high priority a Leslie Groves type must be assigned.

Click to expand...

As a friend of mine puts it - A committee of one gets things done.