F4U-1C Fuel Quantity

[Krusty]

For some other reason, perhaps? Maybe it was a poor fit from a spare part, and they were hoping to smooth out the gap/joint with some tape (lessen the drag, is what I mean).

Doesn't make sense to have wing tanks all the way out in the wingtips, because that's horribly destabilizing.

[Stoney]

Well, I was just curious as to the discrepancy between, what is by most accounts a thoroughly authoritative resource, and the in-game model of the F4U-1C we have.  Seems to me like it should have wing tanks, especially if Krusty's drawing is correct.  I wonder if Bohdi is around to comment.  I think he was working on a Hog recently.

[Krusty]

Seems to me like it should have wing tanks, especially if Krusty's drawing is correct.

Only, the image I have is not of a F4U-1C, but of an F4U-1 (or maybe an -1A?). Switching to those 2x20mm and all their hundreds of rounds of ammo may somehow interfere with the gas tank placement.

[F4UDOA]

FYI,

It is really a F4U-1D, you can see by the fuel capacity (237) that it had no wing tanks. For the record the pilots preferred the internal tanks because they did not increase drag. They tried many fixes to solve the leaking issues but never could resolve the issue. Eventually Navy brass pulled the plug on the wing tanks and mandated the switch to external drop tanks.

http://www.geocities.com/slakergmb/19d28170.jpg

[Stoney]

So the chart in "America's Hundred Thousand" is wrong then.  Thanks for the clarification.

[Bodhi]

The leading edge tanks that I have seen run most the length of the leading edge and started a rib or two outboard of the guns and continued to within a few feet of the tip.  We had some leading edges that had tanks at one point but they were taken out by the Navy.  Don't have them anymore as we did not need them.

All reports and maintenance directives I have seen state they were very problematic which is why they were deleted.