By: Eddie - 10th March 2006 at 23:09
I suppose with the Griffon engined aircraft, there’s a lot more weight in the aircraft, given that there is the extra weight of the engine PLUS the weight in the tail to counterbalance the extra weight in the nose. The extra weight that is fairly close to the CoG would presumably not make as much difference as it would in the lighter Merlin engined aircraft.
By: Fluffy - 10th March 2006 at 22:28
Found a bit more info Mod 1752 Lf MkXVI only, dated 1948, Lock filler cap on top rear fuel tank and wire lock fuel selector in off postion. It doesn’t seem apply to other Mks. Thats probably why Griffon engined Spits still use rear tanks.
By: Bruce - 10th March 2006 at 21:45
As far as I remember, use of the top rear tank is not so bad. Use of the bottom rear tank is bad! When I was in Spitfire mode, we fitted rear tanks to most of the Griffon engined aircraft we did, but none of the Merlin ones.
RW382 had both tanks fitted – neither were refitted in that instance!
Bruce
By: Eddie - 10th March 2006 at 19:15
BWB – is MV293 ever flown with the rear tank filled?
By: bentwingbomber - 10th March 2006 at 19:10
TFCs FR.XIVe MV293 has the rear top tank still fitted.
Interesting to remove and fit as well!!
By: Eddie - 10th March 2006 at 18:12
I believe that ML417 does have rear tanks fitted. Whether they are actually plumbed in or not is another matter.
I also have a shot of the Spitfire XVI that Kermit Weeks owns, and the pipework appears to be fitted for the rear tanks.
From the Fantasy of Flight website:
http://www.fantasyofflight.com/Images/aircraft/Spitfire%20Mk16%20cockpit.JPG
By: Fluffy - 10th March 2006 at 18:03
Eddie
Read pilots notes today most strange they raise a couple of questions which someone on here might care to answer
1 Why fit lowback XVI’s with rear tanks if trials were unsuccesful.
2 Are there any MkIX or XVI’s flying with rear tanks and if so do they use the rear tanks and who gives them the authority to do so as nobody to quote the pilot notes does special ops.
By: Bruce - 10th March 2006 at 09:32
Most restored examples with the rear tank fitted only have the upper tank used, and not the lower one. I believe that the use of the upper tank is quite acceptable, and does give a useful range extension. Adding the lower tank causes the problem!
Bruce
By: Eddie - 9th March 2006 at 22:42
Yes, the PN’s do say they make the handling unpleasant, and I believe longitudinally unstable. For example, it says to keep the gear down and canopy open until above 100ft on takeoff when the rear tanks are filled.
By: Bradburger - 9th March 2006 at 22:28
The 1946 edition of the Mk.IX/XVI PN’s says
“[the rear] tanks should only be filled for special operations at the discretion of the appropriate Area Commander and normally their cocks should be wired OFF. If fitted in aircraft with “rear view” fuselage, they must not be used in any circumstances”.
Presumably they were so detrimental to the handling characteristics that they would only ever be used in wartime.
Like on the P51, when they fitted the 85 US gal rear fuselage tank, it caused severe pitch instability. Well, maybe not as bad as on the Mustang but seemingly enough to make handling in pitch unpleasant from the accounts I’ve read.
Interesting what the IX/XVI PN’s say about the cut-back rear fuselage versions. I’ll dig out the MKXIV PN’s to refresh my memory on what they say about those aircraft that where fitted with rear fuselage tanks.
Although not low back models, I believe that RN201 has a rear fuselage tank fitted as does SM832 & ML417. I wonder how often they use them or indeed if they fill them completely when used?
Nice to see more pics of TE311 Fluffy & UNC. 🙂
Cheers
Paul
By: Eddie - 9th March 2006 at 20:10
The 1946 edition of the Mk.IX/XVI PN’s says
“[the rear] tanks should only be filled for special operations at the discretion of the appropriate Area Commander and normally their cocks should be wired OFF. If fitted in aircraft with “rear view” fuselage, they must not be used in any circumstances”.
Presumably they were so detrimental to the handling characteristics that they would only ever be used in wartime.
By: Fluffy - 9th March 2006 at 20:06
Eddie
Are you sure about the use of rear tanks TE was used for handling trials at Hullavington in 1945 for the use of rear tanks. This information was incorporated into the Pilots notes. RW388 at Stoke on Trent still has rear tanks fitted. Why fit them if they can’t be used?
The black box is indeed the brake control valve.
By: Eddie - 9th March 2006 at 19:45
Aha! Thanks Fluffy. Interesting photo! It doesn’t surprise me that the tanks were removed – from the pilot’s notes, apparently their use on the “rear view” fuselage Spitfires was entirely prohibited, which begs the question – why were they fitted in the first place!?!
Between the rudder pedals, is that little black box the valve that controls the left/right balance on the wheel brakes?
By: Fluffy - 9th March 2006 at 19:33
Eddie
Yes it did but they were removed years ago, fuel **** for rear tanks is on lefthand side of picture
By: Eddie - 8th March 2006 at 15:10
On a more serious note – did/does TE311 have rear fuselage tanks? If so, does anyone know what the rear fuel tank cocks look like? I believe they should be mounted on the bottom left hand side of the cockpit, but I have not been able to find them in any photos.
By: Eddie - 8th March 2006 at 15:03
OH NO!!!!
Why did you have to take all the skin off again???
😉
By: usernamechanged - 8th March 2006 at 14:50
te311
By: Seafuryfan - 7th March 2006 at 07:41
Great work Fluffy 🙂 Agreed, looking forward to seeing another low-back in the air.
Roobarb, the only post-war roudnel colours I have seen are usually in black and white! Why are they so ghastly?
By: Roobarb - 7th March 2006 at 07:35
Don’t forget to move the roundel forward and DON’T use those hideous post war colours for the roundel unless you are doing a post 1946 scheme. Please!
PM me if you require assistance
By: SADSACK - 3rd March 2006 at 14:20
thought so
I thought so. I thought the 2 ex display spits were earmarked for spares, this one must be a quicker restoration than any of the other BBMF flight
Sign In
March 2, 2006 at 9:26 pm