Wingtip Tanks

[BlackSheep]

How detrimental to performance would wingtip tanks be, especially on short-range aircraft like early war Spitfires, for example?
Was it so bad that it was better to wait until disposable drop tanks became available en mass or an idea whose time hadn't come yet? I've seen early jets with these tanks but except for Cavalier Mustang IIs, as flown by El Salvador during the 100 Hour War aka Football War aka Soccer War and A-26Ks during Viet Nam and a few brush wars not many WW2-era planes seem to have gotten them.

As an example, what effect could you see happening by trading two guns (leaving 6) for wingtip tanks on a P-47, when range was still an issue and bomber crews were being lost in tens of dozens? If needed drop two more guns leaving a 4-gun, presumably tough as nails aircraft to escort the big guys against mid-war 109s and 190s. Thoughts?

 

[GregP]

On a single-seat fighter, nobody would want wingtip tanks. It takes away a lot of instantaneous roll authority and, if one fails to drop,you are stuck with a lot of asymmetrical drag. Drop tanks should be centerline if one, two as close to centerline as possible if two, and one enterline and two as close to centerline as possible if three.

Here's a Douglas Skyradier, all armed-up:

Notice all the heavier stuff is as close to centerline as possible.

I don't think any pilot would trade guns for tanks. What he might want instead is a droppable tank and ALL the guns.

 

[Shortround6]

As an example, what effect could you see happening by trading two guns (leaving 6) for wingtip tanks on a P-47, when range was still an issue and bomber crews were being lost in tens of dozens?

radius of action, as apposed to range, was determined by internal fuel.

External tanks with a few exceptions, were not self sealing and were jettisoned before going into combat.

A single .50 cal and around 350rouunds of ammo is worth about 30 gallons of fuel and does not include the weight of the tank.

Tip tanks are going to reduce the roll rate or at least the roll acceleration as you build up to high roll rate.
They may offer aerodynamic benefits acting as fences or helping control spanwise airflow.

Please note the Cavalier Mustangs and A-26Ks had reinforced wing structure to handle increased loads. Both planes also went to tip tanks to clear underwing space for ordnance.

Everything is a compromise and adding weight to fighter planes was usually avoided in WW II.

With jets you had more power available and with rockets fighting for space underwing the fuel tanks wound up going to the tips.
Not to mention early jets really sucked fuel.

 

[GregP]

While your post above is true, A-26Ks are not single-seat fighters and Cavalier Mustangs never went into service with anyone. For service aircraft, I can think only of some early jets like the P-80, F-84, and maybe the FJ-1 with tip tanks. Looking forward from early jets, the rest have the fuel much more toward the centerline once they realized how limiting tip tanks were when the volume was anything other than nominal.

The F-86 and FJ-2 and above didn't have them, and neither did any mass-produced WWII fighters have tip tanks that I can think of offhand. There aren't any U.S., UK, German, Japanese, Italian, or any other major WWII aircraft of the single-seat, single-engine fighter variety I can think of with tip tanks that went into service with tip tanks. Their relative dearth tells me that tip tanks on a fighter aren't a good idea and weren't embraced by anyone very much other than maybe a single try at it per company. The Vampire/Vixen might have had small ones, but don't look for them very much after that. Once they figured out the disadvantages, tip tanks pretty much disappeared from high-performance fighters.
You very certainly don't see them on fighters after about 1960 or so.

They DO show up on non-fighter aircraft, particularly multiengine planes. Maybe not tip tanks, but outboard tanks to help with wing flex-loading. The B-52 has tip-tank-like engine pods that help the wing stiffness. There are plenty of example of outboard tanks and engine, but ... really, very few actual tip tanks.

I like the Cessna 310s look with tip tanks, but maybe that's just me.

 

[Shortround6]

The tip tank idea had a rather limited application

Of course nobody is trying to roll twin engine cabin planes very much

And with large tanks on the wing tips and not little pods the wing should have been designed from the start for such things and not added on.

You want more fuel in a P-47?
add the 65 gallon internal tank sooner, The space was there, It was a lot closer to the CG than the tanks in the Spitfire and Mustangs

They enlarged the 205 gallon tank to 270 gallons.

 

[BlackSheep]

While your post above is true, A-26Ks are not single-seat fighters and Cavalier Mustangs never went into service with anyone. For service aircraft, I can think only of some early jets like the P-80, F-84, and maybe the FJ-1 with tip tanks. Looking forward from early jets, the rest have the fuel much more toward the centerline once they realized how limiting tip tanks were when the volume was anything other than nominal.

The F-86 and FJ-2 and above didn't have them, and neither did any mass-produced WWII fighters have tip tanks that I can think of offhand. There aren't any U.S., UK, German, Japanese, Italian, or any other major WWII aircraft of the single-seat, single-engine fighter variety I can think of with tip tanks that went into service with tip tanks. Their relative dearth tells me that tip tanks on a fighter aren't a good idea and weren't embraced by anyone very much other than maybe a single try at it per company. The Vampire/Vixen might have had small ones, but don't look for them very much after that. Once they figured out the disadvantages, tip tanks pretty much disappeared from high-performance fighters.
You very certainly don't see them on fighters after about 1960 or so.

They DO show up on non-fighter aircraft, particularly multiengine planes. Maybe not tip tanks, but outboard tanks to help with wing flex-loading. The B-52 has tip-tank-like engine pods that help the wing stiffness. There are plenty of example of outboard tanks and engine, but ... really, very few actual tip tanks.

I like the Cessna 310s look with tip tanks, but maybe that's just me.

At least 5 Cavalier Mustangs sold/transferred to El Salvador and took place in the Soccer War/ 100 Hour War where a Captain Soto put his name in the history books downing Mustangs in a Corsair in what is considered the last air war pitting piston engine fighters against each other. Assuming, that is, SOCOM. Sky Wardens never match up against Taliban Super Tucanos. Something, I hope I never see, but, I would kinda like to see…

 

[FLYBOYJ]

At least 5 Cavalier Mustangs sold/transferred to El Salvador and took place in the Soccer War/ 100 Hour War where a Captain Soto put his name in the history books downing Mustangs in a Corsair in what is considered the last air war pitting piston engine fighters against each other. Assuming, that is, SOCOM. Sky Wardens never match up against Taliban Super Tucanos. Something, I hope I never see, but, I would kinda like to see…

Soto was a student of my former neighbor who was a WW2 combat pilot. He said Soto was his star student and was not surprised by his success.

Michael Alba | American Air Museum

www.americanairmuseum.com

 

[GregP]

From memory of several articles on the war, the Cavalier Mustangs used for combat in the soccer war were not equipped with tip tanks (Models 2000 or 2500). They instead shorter-range models (Models 750, 1200, 1500) with a second seat and a tall fin. I saw some pics several times in the past, and there weren't any tip tanks in them.

Combat with tip tanks would NOT have been a good thing! The tip-tank models likely made decent COIN airplanes, but not decent dogfighters, particularly if there was any fuel in the tip tanks.

 

[hundriver]

While your post above is true, A-26Ks are not single-seat fighters and Cavalier Mustangs never went into service with anyone. For service aircraft, I can think only of some early jets like the P-80, F-84, and maybe the FJ-1 with tip tanks. Looking forward from early jets, the rest have the fuel much more toward the centerline once they realized how limiting tip tanks were when the volume was anything other than nominal.

The F-86 and FJ-2 and above didn't have them, and neither did any mass-produced WWII fighters have tip tanks that I can think of offhand. There aren't any U.S., UK, German, Japanese, Italian, or any other major WWII aircraft of the single-seat, single-engine fighter variety I can think of with tip tanks that went into service with tip tanks. Their relative dearth tells me that tip tanks on a fighter aren't a good idea and weren't embraced by anyone very much other than maybe a single try at it per company. The Vampire/Vixen might have had small ones, but don't look for them very much after that. Once they figured out the disadvantages, tip tanks pretty much disappeared from high-performance fighters.
You very certainly don't see them on fighters after about 1960 or so.

They DO show up on non-fighter aircraft, particularly multiengine planes. Maybe not tip tanks, but outboard tanks to help with wing flex-loading. The B-52 has tip-tank-like engine pods that help the wing stiffness. There are plenty of example of outboard tanks and engine, but ... really, very few actual tip tanks.

I like the Cessna 310s look with tip tanks, but maybe that's just me.

Hmmm. Do F9F Panther and F2H Banshee ring a bell?

 

[Admiral Beez]

On a single-seat fighter, nobody would want wingtip tanks.

The first production aircraft with wingtip tanks?

It seems like as soon as WWII was over, wingtip tanks were the rage, I have been trying to find out what was the first production aircraft with wingtip fuel tanks. I found a picture of the second prototype of the F4U-4 Corsair fitted with wingtip tanks in March 1945, but no data on the test...

ww2aircraft.net

 

[BlackSheep]

Soto was a student of my former neighbor who was a WW2 combat pilot. He said Soto was his star student and was not surprised by his success.

Michael Alba | American Air Museum

www.americanairmuseum.com

You wouldn't happen to know where the training took place?
The reason I ask is that a great uncle of mine was the first American of Mexican ancestry to act as a fighter pilot instructor for the USAAF at the old Williams AFB (now Gateway ..) Before he transitioned to jet instructor, I remember his Spanish coming in handy training Mexican and Central American pilots in the P-47 and other planes.

 

[BlackSheep]

From memory of several article on the war, the Cavalier Mustangs used for combat in the soccer war were not equipped with tip tanks (Models 2000 or 2500). They instead shorter-range models (Models 750, 1200, 1500) with a second seat and a tall fin. I saw some pics several times in the past, and there weren't any tip tanks in them.

Combat with tip tanks would NOT have been a good thing! The tip-tank models likely made decent COIN airplanes, but not decent dogfighters, particularly if there was any fuel in the tip tanks.

I found an excellent article regarding the planes in the war WITH first hand commentary by some interesting cats whites to bring the Salvadorans to speed (no pun intended ) in the Mustangs. They were shipped with wingtip tanks in place but because the AO was short, the tanks were removed in exchange for extra speed and performance at the advice of the afore mentioned cats. So, yes, El Salvador had wingtip tank equipped Mustangs but no, they did not use the tanks in the war.

Edit: forgot the most important part

https://www.flightjournal.com/wp-content/uploads/2014/07/The-Soccer-War.pdf

 

[PAT303]

 

[GregP]

Hmmm. Do F9F Panther and F2H Banshee ring a bell?

Yep. Both singularly unimpressive from a fighter point of view, but they DID make a few airplanes with tip tanks. Both planes flew a lot better without tip tanks.

Thank heavens the Panther evolved into the Cougar, which would give an F-86 all it could handle and then some.

 

[FLYBOYJ]

Originally, the Panther was not equipped with wing tip fuel tanks but they were soon fitted. These tanks gave the Panther a mission time of just over 2 1/2 hours radius and permitted a radius of action needed so that the flight deck crews had time to re-spot the plane on the deck between launching. The tanks were usually empty after the initial climb to the Panther's 40,000 foot cruising altitude. Besides adding 120 gallons to the fuel capacity, they also improved the aileron response when empty. Although these tanks were detachable, they could not be jettisoned in flight. Valves at the tail end of the tanks allowed for quick venting of the fuel to lighten the load while in flight. Once fitted, Panthers were rarely seen without these tanks.

Grumman F9F Panther Jet

The Grumman F9F Panther was one of the US Navy’s first successful carrier-based jet fighter and Grumman’s first jet fighter. It was a single-engine, straight-winged day fighter armed with …

mikesresearch.com

 

[PStickney]

While your post above is true, A-26Ks are not single-seat fighters and Cavalier Mustangs never went into service with anyone. For service aircraft, I can think only of some early jets like the P-80, F-84, and maybe the FJ-1 with tip tanks. Looking forward from early jets, the rest have the fuel much more toward the centerline once they realized how limiting tip tanks were when the volume was anything other than nominal.

The F-86 and FJ-2 and above didn't have them, and neither did any mass-produced WWII fighters have tip tanks that I can think of offhand. There aren't any U.S., UK, German, Japanese, Italian, or any other major WWII aircraft of the single-seat, single-engine fighter variety I can think of with tip tanks that went into service with tip tanks. Their relative dearth tells me that tip tanks on a fighter aren't a good idea and weren't embraced by anyone very much other than maybe a single try at it per company. The Vampire/Vixen might have had small ones, but don't look for them very much after that. Once they figured out the disadvantages, tip tanks pretty much disappeared from high-performance fighters.
You very certainly don't see them on fighters after about 1960 or so.

They DO show up on non-fighter aircraft, particularly multiengine planes. Maybe not tip tanks, but outboard tanks to help with wing flex-loading. The B-52 has tip-tank-like engine pods that help the wing stiffness. There are plenty of example of outboard tanks and engine, but ... really, very few actual tip tanks.

I like the Cessna 310s look with tip tanks, but maybe that's just me.

You missed the La-11, which could indeed have tip tanks.
Tip tanks on swept-wing jets are really not useful - having that much disposable weight aft of the Center of Gravity. On the early Straight-wing jets, they're pretty much ubiquitous - F-80/F-94/T-33, the plank-wing F-84s, and F-89s, Panthers, Banshees, the Venom, Ouragan, B-57 and Canberra (Don't count it out, I've sen a B-57 out-dogfight F-100s, A-4s, and T-2s) If the wing has enough torsional stiffness, you get the benefit of reduced Induced Drag (And potentially better cruise performance), less spanwise bending, no CG shift as you burn/dump fuel or jettison the tanks, and you free up space on the wing for useful pylons - either for bombs/rockets, or more fuel. With boosted controls, (F-80 onward, for the U.S.), roll rate and roll acceleration aren't much of an issue - an F-80 with full tip tanks will get you more than 120 deg/sec. More than that is super cool, yeah, but when it reduces your view to a blur and accurately stopping the roll (As in a good gun/bomb platform) isn't possible. However, if the torsional stiffness isn't sufficient, a tip tank can cause the wing to twist enough to tear it right off - that was a problem with early F-89s
Oh, and the F-104s and F-5s would like to have a word about "No high performance fighters" having tip tanks. The -104, particularly the -19 powered F-104As, has performance in teh Upper Right Corner of the envelope that weren't matched until the F-22, and the little F-5A was capable of meeting or beating a MiG-21, although smaller and with less power.

 

[FLYBOYJ]

I've had the opportunity to fly in a T-33 several times, with and with out tip tanks. When I flew the aircraft without the tip tanks I immediately noticed the controls around the longitudinal axis lighter and the wings didn't flex as much when doing tighter turns. The tip tanks seemed to give more stability around the vertical axis. I don't remember how much fuel we were carrying in the tip tanks.

 

[GregP]

Mostly true above. The F-104 had flight restrictions when equipped with tip tanks as far as rolling and g-load. The F-5 was ALWAYS better without tip tanks and most had sidewinders instead. Yanks has a Taiwanese F-5 and it is fitted ONLY with wing tip missile rails, not droppable tanks.

A T-33 with full tip tanks is prohibited from any aerobatics. I believe the P-80 IS permitted aerobatics with tip tanks. I'd want them empty before flying aerobatics.

 

[FLYBOYJ]

Mostly true above. The F-104 had flight restrictions when equipped with tip tanks as far as rolling and g-load. The F-5 was ALWAYS better without tip tanks and most had sidewinders instead. Yanks has a Taiwanese F-5 and it is fitted ONLY with wing tip missile rails, not droppable tanks.

A T-33 with full tip tanks is prohibited from any aerobatics. I believe the P-80 IS permitted aerobatics with tip tanks. I'd want them empty before flying aerobatics.

True - I can't recall the limit but I think bank angles over 30 degrees were prohibited. Now with tip tanks with the required capacity, aerobatics were allowed. One of the T-33s I worked on, when we did FCFs, we spent a lot of time upside down. I have some great shots of Lake Isabella somewhere

 

[special ed]

My only ride in a T-33 was a "morale" flight for USAFA cadets. When my turn came, I sat down, strapped in and away we went. After a short climb out and a few turns I realized this was to be a half hour flight because we were already turning downwind leg. I said, "Sir, I thought we might get to do some aerobatics" and he instantly rolled us while on downwind leg. Impressive.