Warbird Information Exchange

Today, Happy Jack flew and ran with fuselage tank fuel.
(Curious, if any other restorations had also; curious about their experiences with fuselage fuel.Thx)
VL

Vlado, did you fly it ? how did it handle with a bag of gas back there ?

It is an 85 gallon tank that had (we guess) 25 to 35 gallons at take off.
On takeoff, it 'rotated'/launched quite briskly in the air. Once cleaned up in flight, some tight (under G) turns were flown; it was easy to pull into the turns, not much effort on the stick. On landing, it was a little gusty, so what ever was happening with the CG was masked by the effort to make a smooth landing. Used about 15-20 minutes of fuel @ 65 gph from that tank; ops normal.
Curious item: the tech order for the fuselage tank states that the Mustang should be flown with 25 gallons remaining in the tank to enhance maneuvering and provide a flight reserve.
Nice blue day, otherwise.
VL

Although I'm not lucky enough (yet) to be a mustang driver, I would suspect that the reasoning here is that the CG is moved aft by keeping fuel in the fuselage tank. Aft CG=less stable=more maneuverable.

I seem to remember reading somewhere that one of the pitfalls of keeping fuel in the fuse tank was in tight radius turns, the possibility of snapping out of 'em is increased.

_________________
Know why FAA inspectors always wear neckties? To keep the foreskin from slipping over their heads...

So obviously it felt a little different than having a 175-200lb pax in the back Thanks for the update

I recall Kermit tried it with 'Cripes A Mighty' (I think), but only once!

_________________
Warbird Colour - Authentic historic aircraft finishes http://www.warbirdcolour.co.uk

Yes, it is different than carrying a big passenger in the back seat. The stock-restored Mustang already has 'weight' in the back seat area from the equipment located there: battery, crystal radio, armour plate and the fuel tank itself. The fuel contained in the tank is located further aft of the seating area of a civilian Mustang, thus making the CG shift even more pronounced; The fuel tank begins at about where a passengers' butt/glutimus/tushy would be and extends another 3.5 feet aft of the passenger seat back.
VL

I remember reading that the initial fuselage tank was larger than was optimum and that they were placarded to be filled only to a certain amount. Is that true and if so were that later tanks smaller or was the placard the only limiting factor?

_________________
"I can't understand it, I cut it twice and it's still too short!" Robert F. Dupre' 1923-2010 Go With God.

John:
I don't know about a limiting placard or a fill limit. Or the larger tank size.
The D models I have seen, have 85 gallon tanks and/or markings as such.
VL

Thanks for sharing, that is a really, really nice plane. If I hit the big lotto, I would have one just like it and that immaculate Corsair that's up in Canada now. And maybe an A-26 to haul the family....

Vlado, thanks for the feedback on the flight.......

Lynn

Vlado

I would assume that the drop tanks are not droppable, but will they hold gas? I was going to ask if the drop tanks are functional- you get the jest.

Steve

_________________
"Any excuse is good enough if you're willing to use it!"

I thought that at least one of them was a mock up. Still looks amazing.

_________________
Chris Henry
EAA Aviation Museum Manager

I've always wondered about that. I've heard from an long gone Mustang driver that they lost a new guy because he had a full fuselage tank and attempted a low level roll and didn't pull out due to the far aft CG.

The drop tanks were indeed dropable. We were careful not to lose those precious silver 'melons' in flight! They were functional also, in that all the hoses and vent lines were hooked up and pressurized. We just never had a chance to flight test them.
VL