What was the the best location of fuel tanks in WW2 single seat fighters

[FLYBOYJ]

Consider that fuel in the wings offer a huge target area, sealed or not....

 

[drgondog]

Consider that fuel in the wings offer a huge target area, sealed or not....

Agreed Joe - but the object of getting the legs is to make the other guy the target.. the 51 and F4U obviously qualified on that score more often than not.

I suspect that if you added the scores of the US fighters with Fuel in the wings, 51/F4U/P-47D-25 and P-38 the victory credits far exceed the fuselage 'only' fighters..

 

[davebender]

It's a good thing these aircraft arrived during 1944. Otherwise European air forces would not have learned they had been fighting improperly for the previous five years.

 

[swampyankee]

It's a good thing these aircraft arrived during 1944. Otherwise European air forces would not have learned they had been fighting improperly for the previous five years.

Well, the Germans certainly found out that their fighters weren't the best thing since sliced bread.

 

[drgondog]

It's a good thing these aircraft arrived during 1944. Otherwise European air forces would not have learned they had been fighting improperly for the previous five years.

The aircraft (P-38 and P-51) 'arrived' in combat ops 1942. The P-47D didn't have a wing tank version until mid 1944 and cut out of long range ops until then... Neither the Brits nor the Germans contemplated long range fighter operations - which shaped their tactics and mix of aircraft and one would argue, limited their options to stretch their enemies.

Neither approach is right or wrong until you ask the questions "what missions do we need to be most effective at?"

 

[tomo pauk]

Bill- a nitpick: the P-47 received wing tanks with the -N variant. The late Ds featured enlarged fuselage tank, bringing tankage to 370 gals.

 

[bob44]

For the P-51B/C/D/K the 85 gallon fuselage tank addition limited the Mustang's maneuverability with the full tank, but burning down to ~ 25-30 gallons made the 'stability' issue go away. The P-51H put 205 in the wings (vs 184 gallons for B-D) and 50 in the fuse tank, lengthened the fuselage aft of the fuselage fuel tank - and dramatically improved both stability and take off management.

That 85 gallon tank meant nearly 220 more radius miles of range. The difference between barely making Berlin and easily making east of Munich to Posnan Poland.

ALL of the fighters with very long range - except the Zero- had wing fuel tanks, and the Zero made its capability by sacrificing pilot protection and G loads with an ultra light fighter.

I believe, with the aft tank, taking off was not so much of a problem as was combat maneuvers especially pulling out of a dive.

 

[bob44]

Well, the Germans certainly found out that their fighters weren't the best thing since sliced bread.

I think they found this out during the BOB.
But the incoming FW190 and later 109's with better tactics helped for awhile till better Allied fighters, better tactics and in numbers doomed the LF.

 

[Aozora]

Good Aluminium armor protects on level close to the same weight of steel armor.

The advantage in light armored vehicles (and some aircraft?) is that the much thicker aluminium is better able to act as "structure" and eliminate the need for framing/structural support. An M113 is sort of a monocoque APC No real frame work.

The type of fuel tank installed can also help, as can the use of an inert gas pumped into the tank as the fuel level goes down - the Russians used cooled exhaust gases (carbon monoxide), although this apparently degraded the self-sealing.

The WWII Fighter Gun Debate: Fighter Armour

 

[MiTasol]

Sir Archibald MacIndoe (Archibald McIndoe - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia) and (Guinea Pig Club - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia) treated hundreds of Spitfire and Hurricane pilots who had suffered horrific burns as a result of the fuel being immediately in front of them and then leaking all over the pilots legs and cockpit floor as a result of bullets and other damage.
Fuel under the pilot in the wings does not normally enter the cockpit when the aircraft is shot.
Mosleys 1962 book "Faces from the Fire: The biography of Sir Archibald McIndoe" is most enlightening and Richard Hillary's 1941 book "The Last Enemy" (about his experiences as a burn victim) plus Geoffrey Page's two books ("Tale of a Guinea Pig: Exploits of a World War II Fighter Pilot" and "Shot Down in Flames: A WW2 Fighter Pilot's Remarkable Take of Survival") provide more evidence of the gross stupidity of putting avgas in front of a pilot in a combat aircraft

 

[MiTasol]

To Quote page 48 on the Airlife publication on the Hurricane
"Tom Gleave's extensive burns to face, hands, arms and legs - 'standard Hurricane burns' - were to require many months of surgery and treatment at the Queen Victoria Hospital, East Grinstead, as a patient of Sir Archibald McIndoe, the New Zealand-born consultant in plastic surgery"

 

[stona]

To Quote page 48 on the Airlife publication on the Hurricane
"Tom Gleave's extensive burns to face, hands, arms and legs - 'standard Hurricane burns' - were to require many months of surgery and treatment at the Queen Victoria Hospital, East Grinstead, as a patient of Sir Archibald McIndoe, the New Zealand-born consultant in plastic surgery"

Yes, and many thought these were caused by the wing tanks. The fire was drawn into the cockpit as there was no bulkhead/firewall or other obstruction between these tanks and the cockpit. The relatively small tank in front of the pilot was a much smaller and harder to hit target and most likely not the major culprit in the infliction of the aptly named 'Hurricane burns'.

Cheers

Steve

 

[Glider]

Fairly soon in the war additional plates were installed on the Hurricane to reduce the chances of flames being sucked into the cockpit, giving the pilot a few more precious seconds to get out. I am afraid I don't have access to my papers on that but maybe someone else can help?

 

[stona]

Fairly soon in the war additional plates were installed on the Hurricane to reduce the chances of flames being sucked into the cockpit, giving the pilot a few more precious seconds to get out. I am afraid I don't have access to my papers on that but maybe someone else can help?

From the wings? I am unaware of such a modification. I know it was suggested in late 1940, but considered too time consuming, involving considerable redesign, to be done. The smaller header tank was at least made self sealing and the modification retro fitted quickly to Hurricanes already in service. That was a wise decision. Though the tank was considered a difficult target there is little between it and the pilot apart from the instrument panel.
I too am away from home so can't access anything not already on my lap top.

I'm not sure that there is a 'best' position for large quantities of petrol in a WW2 fighter. All of them were prone to fire and little or more often no consideration was given to protecting the fuel tanks or cells in the design of the aircraft. All the protection, be it armour or the various self sealing solutions were more or less retro-active. Even the engine was considered as 'armour' for fuel tanks in some aircraft though the fact that it was bolted to the front of the machine had nothing to do with shielding the fuel tanks and its protective role seems not to be by design but by coincidence

Cheers

Steve

 

[MiTasol]

Agreed Steve, the Hurricane cockpit tank was "relatively small" but exactly the same burns occurred to Spitfire pilots which is a clear indication that the self sealing tanks did not work as predicted.
I must say however the definition of "relatively small" is rather important.
The wing tanks were 33 gallons each and cockpit tank 28 gallons which means this "small" tank actually held 28/94 = 29.8% of the total fuel load.
The cockpit tank is the same width and height as the instrument panel - over 75cm/30in wide (twice as wide as the pilot) and 45cm/18in high
As far as being hard to hit you must remember that it was immediately forward of the instrument panel and was less than one metre in front of the prime target (the pilot). That means it was far closer to the prime target than the wing tanks and was inside the cone of projectiles aimed at the pilot. From the 180 degree arc from behind an instrument panel has no armour properties. The very small armour behind the pilot would only protect the tank for a stern attack and those were not common. For above and behind the pilot armour did not protect the fuel tank at all.
In frontal attacks the fuel tank was again well inside the cone of projectiles.
Another minor consideration is the fuel lines in the cockpit, small target but very fragile

 

[stona]

The majority of successful attacks made on RAF fighters during the BoB were made from within 15 degrees of dead astern. Successful was deemed an attack in which the RAF fighter was hit at least once, giving the researchers something to measure. I have the report and figures somewhere, but not with me here in Budapest!
It wasn't me but the RAF that considered the header tank in front of the pilot to be a relatively difficult target compared with the wing tanks on a Hurricane. It isn't so much the volume of a fuel tank as the area exposed to attack. From 15 degrees off the wing tanks offer a much better target.
The lack of successful attacks from larger angles off is probably a reflection of the inability of most Luftwaffe pilots, like their RAF contemporaries, to estimate angle off (and range) accurately and consequently be rather bad at deflection shooting.
Cheers
Steve

 

[Ivan1GFP]

The F4U Corsair and P-47 Thunderbolt also had rather large fuel tanks in front of the pilot and both aircraft were known for pretty good durability. I don't believe the location results in an obvious vulnerability. Bottom line is that fuel ANYWHERE is vulnerable.

The choice depends a LOT on the size of the aircraft and the amount of fuel required. What works for 100 gallons in a P-39 or Me 109 would not work for 300 gallons for a P-47 or Corsair. The bottom line is that with fuel and ammunition being disposable loads, it MUST be placed near the CoG to avoid a drastic shift. Ideally the pilot should also be near the CoG. This is not because s/he is disposable but more because differing weight pilots should not change the aircraft trim or require ballast to compensate.

With that stated, my choice for MOST aircraft would be to put the main tanks into the wing roots for reasonably small quantities and in the fuselage over the wings for a larger quantity. The 184 gallons in the P-51 fit in the wing roots under the pilot without making the fuselage overly fat. The Macchi fighters and P-40 (Reserve Tank) mostly used the same location though with less quantity.

Some of the choices in this poll really describe the same thing. The Reserve and Main tanks on a P-40 are at least:
Under the Cockpit,
In the Wings,
Forward of the Cockpit.

- Ivan.

 

[parsifal]

I found this cutaway, which provides an indication of the fuel stowage positions of the Zeke. Zekes were flying torch basically, but they also possessed phenomenal range for an early war aircraft, not really eclipsed until the P-51s arrived. and range was all important at the beginning of the Pacific war

 

[Ivan1GFP]

The reason for the A6M Type Zero being so easy to burn wasn't because of its fuel tank locations;
It was because of the fuel tank construction.

Unlike most WW2 fighters, the A6M series had simple aluminum tanks rather than bags suspended by straps.
This made for better capacity, but when they were hit, the hydrostatic shock would usually rupture the tank which made for a LOT of leaking fuel to ignite.

Interestingly enough, surviving warbirds typically are equipped with aluminum fuel tanks again.
I suppose they aren't terribly concerned about getting shot at.

= Ivan.

 

[parsifal]

I agree, however it had a lot of fuel to burn and a lot of places that an incendiary round could inginte the aircraft. its hard to know which tank position was the most likley to catch fire, though anecdotally ive read it was the wing mounted tanks that were hit most often