F4U-1C Fuel Quantity

[Stoney]

Got a copy of America's Hundred Thousand for Christmas, and noticed that it shows the F4U-1C having the same fuel load as the F4U-1 and F4U-1A--the wing tanks.  I know there are a few errors in the book; is this another one?

[Widewing]

F4U-1Cs were really modified F4U-1A air frames. Thus, they had the same internal fuel capacity.   


My regards,

Widewing

[Stoney]

That's what I thought.  Aren't the F4U-1Cs in-game missing the wing tanks?

[fudgums]

Stoney where ya from?

[Stoney]

Stoney where ya from?

Originally from NC.  If you're wondering about the Avatar, I lost a bet with Nefarious over the WVU/UNC football game this past weekend... 

[Saxman]

Stoney,

It gets a little more complicated because I think the wing tanks were removed and readded at different points in the production run of the 1 and 1A. Additionally there wasn't a single block of 1As that was used for modification, so the aircraft would have been pulled from different points in the BuNo series. I THOUGHT I read that one of the modifications was the removal of the wing tanks.

I'm sure WW and others would have more specific info in this regard, tho.

[fudgums]

Originally from NC.  If you're wondering about the Avatar, I lost a bet with Nefarious over the WVU/UNC football game this past weekend... 

Nefari and those northern boys yia yia yia yiaaa

[Stoney]

Stoney,

It gets a little more complicated because I think the wing tanks were removed and readded at different points in the production run of the 1 and 1A. Additionally there wasn't a single block of 1As that was used for modification, so the aircraft would have been pulled from different points in the BuNo series. I THOUGHT I read that one of the modifications was the removal of the wing tanks.

I'm sure WW and others would have more specific info in this regard, tho.

Well, IIRC, I read an excerpt somewhere that the wing tanks were removed to make room for the cannon and ammo storage.  I was just curious as to whether the book was correct or not.

[Saxman]

I don't see that as accurate. The wing tanks were WAY out at the end of the wings, nowhere near the cannon mounts and ammunition storage. Otherwise they would have had to remove the wing tanks to fit the .50cal as well (the 20mm were located in the same position on the wing).

[Widewing]

Stoney,

It gets a little more complicated because I think the wing tanks were removed and readded at different points in the production run of the 1 and 1A. Additionally there wasn't a single block of 1As that was used for modification, so the aircraft would have been pulled from different points in the BuNo series. I THOUGHT I read that one of the modifications was the removal of the wing tanks.

I'm sure WW and others would have more specific info in this regard, tho.

I found the BUNO numbers of the F4U-1C run. Let's look at the F4U-1As and -1Ds as well. 

F4U-1A: 49660 thru 50359 (49664 was the used as airframe for the XF4U-3. 49763 and 50301 were rebuilt into the 1st and 2nd XF4U-4) and 55784 thru 56483

F4U-1C: 50360 thru 50559.

F4U-1D: 50560 thru 50659 and 57084 thru 57983 and 82178 thru 82852


My regards,

Widewing

[Saxman]

Interesting, because there's F4U-1As in the 17xxx range (both Boyington F4Us I skinned; 17740 and 17883).

Or are there two different numbering schemes involved here? Maybe one is the Navy, one is Vought's internal?

[Widewing]

Interesting, because there's F4U-1As in the 17xxx range (both Boyington F4Us I skinned; 17740 and 17883).

Or are there two different numbering schemes involved here? Maybe one is the Navy, one is Vought's internal?

Nope... I just didn't include the very early -1A numbers as they didn't related to the -1C BUNOs.

Early F4U-1A BUNOs are: 17456 thru 18121

17740 was a mid-run F4U-1 BUNO. However, F4U-1 and -1A serial numbers sort of intermingle.

From what I can determine, Vought introduced changes in the production line without changing designation. For example, BUNOs 18122 thru 18191 were assigned to F4U-1s. This creates confusion as these numbers are higher than those for the first run of -1As.

17740 was probably built as a -1A, but delivered as a -1 per contract.

We find similar issues when tracing P-38E to P-38F deliveries. Since the first builds of P-38Fs were built to an original P-38E contract, all were stenciled as P-38E and were issued P-38E manuals that with required changes. That's why you find P-38E stenciled on Glacier Girl when we know for a fact it was built as a P-38F-1-LO. All P-38E and F and F-1 Lightnings were manufactured to contact AC-15646, which stipulated how they were to be marked and labeled. Hence, every one of those early P-38Fs were stenciled as P-38Es.

Tracing this stuff can be quite a challenge. 


My regards,

Widewing

[Saxman]

IIRC, the F4U-1/1A differentiation is even more challenging because there WASN'T a real distinction made between them until later

However I'm still curious about the 1Cs. My understanding was that the 1Cs weren't pulled in one big sequential block from the 1A BuNo's, but rather from a couple different points in the series so there WASN'T a continuous series from 1A, to 1C, to 1D. Did I receive bad info?

Also, per the OP, should our 1C still have the wing tanks?

[Krusty]

I don't see that as accurate. The wing tanks were WAY out at the end of the wings, nowhere near the cannon mounts and ammunition storage. Otherwise they would have had to remove the wing tanks to fit the .50cal as well (the 20mm were located in the same position on the wing).

Actually I've got a skeletal view of the F4u1 and the wing tanks look like they stretch from just inside the MGs to the extent of the ammo boxes. Looks like they either lay flat under the gun barrels or maybe wrap around them (not too sure, but they are somewhat tiny tanks).

It's possible the 20mm guns were too deep in the wing or just too large and had to be set lower, meaning there wasn't any room for the tanks, but I don't know about the 20mm ammo storage, I'd think it would take up the same room as the 50cal (but I am unsure).

EDIT: cropped this from a MUCH larger scan.

[Saxman]

I can't find the reference photo I used right now, but here's the skin I did of 17740:



As in the original photo, note where the tape is located on the starboard wing (I'll post the photo if I can find it, but it shows the tape in the exact same location as in the skin). Like the fuselage, the wing tanks tended to leak, so crews in the field would tape them down. If the fuel tank was directly outboard of the engines, why would the panel so far OUT be taped?