Ad: This forum contains affiliate links to products on Amazon and eBay. More information in Terms and rules
How come the P-51 had such a large internal fuel capacity relative to other fighters interceptors?
Was it a larger aircraft?
Was construction lighter, freeing up internal space?
Did the designers figure out a more space-efficient way to arrange internal components?
How come the P-51 had such a large internal fuel capacity relative to other fighters interceptors?
Was it a larger aircraft?
Was construction lighter, freeing up internal space?
Did the designers figure out a more space-efficient way to arrange internal components?
While the laminar wing design did in fact give the Mustange great performance, it was the decision of the North American engineers that placed the main tanks between the forward and aft spars of the wing. This enabled a much greater fuel load vs other Liquid cooled aircraft. (Spitfire, Messerschmitt} The other aircraft carried thier main fuel load in the fuselage. Which was the secondary area the later Mustangs used to add to thier fuel capacity.
I think that the decidsion to carry the fuel in the wings, may be one of the biggest acheivements of the Mustang. If it did not have the great range, it would have been just another fighter. The range gave it the ability to be used over enemy territory, which was not possible ( except for the P-38 ) in any other front line fighter.
Didn't one version of the F4U place fuel in the wings, with mixed results?
Compared to other American aircarft, the P-51 had a relative light internal fuel load.
P-38J 410 gal
P-47D-20 305 gal
F4U-1 351 gal
P-51D 269 gal
The P-51 was a very aerodynamically clean aircraft which allowed it to get great performance out of each gallon.
Note: P-38 had two inline engines so in comparison the 51 had quite a bit more fuel.
The 47 and F4U had gas guzzling Piston engines, so by comparison the 51 had an advantage ther also.
But of course Drag was the key.
On top of aerodynamics, I've heard a few times in the past, that the P-M engine was actually quite thrifty with the fuel, in cruise mode.
It was a combination of both of those factors that allowed the plane to have the long range that it did have.
Elvis
The P-51 was much cleaner than the P-47 or F4U and thus required less HP to cruise. So, even at equal efficiency, the P-51 would use less fuel. I think this advantage would reduce as altitude increased, however, engine efficiency at altitude also becomes a factor so a blanket statement like this is risky.
On top of aerodynamics, I've heard a few times in the past, that the P-M engine was actually quite thrifty with the fuel, in cruise mode.
It was a combination of both of those factors that allowed the plane to have the long range that it did have.
Also, I understand that the little internal tank, located behind the piilot, came into being because technology had progressed enough that the radio in that plane could be shrunk down with no detriment to performance.
This opened up a cavity and it was decided to put fuel in there.
This idea could've coincided with the P-51 being picked for bomber escort duty into Germany, but on that point, I'm mearly speculating.
Elvis
Hey, guys, it's what I've heard.
Please, don't shoot the messenger.
If that's incorrect, fine. I was only trying to help shine some light on the initial question.
---------------------------------------------------------------
Not shooting the messenger, just bringing facts to the table.
Elvis
Hey, guys, it's what I've heard.
Please, don't shoot the messenger.
If that's incorrect, fine. I was only trying to help shine some light on the initial question.
---------------------------------------------------------------
Daveprlr,
If I had started my post with "In addition to...", instead of "On top of...", then in your mind, would that have changed the meaninig of what I posted?
I ask this, because to me, it seems you misinterpreted my post.
Elvis
Very true. Period. I believe the 51 had it way over both of those ships up to critical altitude respectively, both for reasons of drag and also the fuel consumption for each ship in optimal range cruise speed.
IIRC the optimal cruise (range vs loiter) for the 51D (and B-10 and -15) with the 1650-7 was around 16-17K at 27" and 2000 rpm. As you well know the optimum is influenced by payload but that fuel consumption was around 48gpm. I'm goind to have to dig but I believe the fuel consumption for cruise speed for optimal range for both the F4U and P-47 were about 35-40% higher.