Spitfires saddle tank

[Cajunn]

I was asked a question by one of my squad mates and I didn't have an answer and told him I would ask. The question was "can you fight with the saddle tanks on the spitfire, and does it hurt the performance?" He was told that you could and that's why the saddle tanks were made the way they were, it had minimum drag and was meant to stay on while in a fight.

[Guppy35]

They were't meant to be left on.  Pilots sometimes forgot the 30 gallon tank was still on in the heat of battle, but it wasn't meant to be left on in a fight.  They'd keep them on and bring them home if the flight was uneventful

[SectorNine50]

I hardly notice a difference with them on or off...  So I suppose you could tell him it really doesn't matter!

[RTHolmes]

theres a report somewhere on spitfireperformance.com which says the 30gall didnt noticeably effect handling. I tested a spit VIII in AH and the difference is 2-4mph. I always leave em on - one less thing to worry about

[MachFly]

Definitely does not hurt performance as much as much as the "suet case thing", the 75 gallon tanks. But still sometimes every milligram can make a different. In a stall fight for example it would be a good idea to drop it, but in an everyday dogfight (especially when your wining) would not hurt to keep it on. I usual keep it on.

[Spikes]

Usually the 30gal is enough for me to get to the fight and settled in, and normally I remember to drop it. I don't see much of a difference with it, but I bet a few times it's saved my cartoon pilot's life.

[SgtPappy]

The performance deficit was not too much of a problem, especially for what superiority later Spitfires enjoyed.

RAAF pilots were known for bolting the 30 gal tank on the plane during 1945, but then again, they were staying out of heavy combat zones.

In the game, every little thing hurts performance just like in real life. If you want the most out of your bird, drop that tank when empty. Taking the Spitfire VIII can usually be a healthy alternative due to its slightly longer range than the IX. So if you're going anywhere where the IX will need extra gas, try just taking an VIII.

[Die Hard]

I would also have liked to have the 170 gallon tank for the Spits.




Also, I'm not sure if our Spit XIV has the 75 imp gal rear fuselage tank?


An interesting anecdote is the two American long-range Spit experiments. The Americans modified two Mk XIs, MK210 and MK317, at Wright field. Internal fuel capacity was increased by fitting a 43 gallon tank in the fuselage behind the pilot�s seat, and two leading edge tanks of 16� gals each. Additional fuel was carried externally in two 62� gallon P-51 type drop tanks suspended under the wings on P-51 bomb racks. Oil tank capacity was also increased to 20 gallons. The still air range of the modified Spitfires was approximately 1,600 miles. Both flew non-stop across the Atlantic from Newfoundland. MK210 tested by RAE at Boscombe Down.

[Karnak]

If it had been needed, the Spitfire could have been modified to be a long range escort fighter.  Interestingly, aerobatics were not advised when the rear tank was full, just as in the P-51.

[moot]

I've seen a lot of instances of fwd CoGs being called problematic, but IMO, the real bugger is rear bias.. How could you have too much front bias, as far as dogfighting agility went?

[Baumer]

Moot from what I have read with the Spit 9, 11, and 16 pilots notes, confirms your thoughts about the aft CG.

[BaldEagl]

<--- Spit Dweeb. 

I fight with mine on all of the time.  If things get really hairy and I think about it I might drop it.  On the other hand there have been times I carried it for my entire flight even after it's dry. 

I don't really notice too much of a difference.  If you're losing the fight it's probably not because of the drop tank.

[moot]

Thanks Baumer.. I can't recall any US planes that had reportedly too much weight forward.. I'll try and remember, maybe someone has documentation of one, and more details on why it would be a problem.

[Guppy35]

I would also have liked to have the 170 gallon tank for the Spits.


Also, I'm not sure if our Spit XIV has the 75 imp gal rear fuselage tank?


An interesting anecdote is the two American long-range Spit experiments. The Americans modified two Mk XIs, MK210 and MK317, at Wright field. Internal fuel capacity was increased by fitting a 43 gallon tank in the fuselage behind the pilot�s seat, and two leading edge tanks of 16� gals each. Additional fuel was carried externally in two 62� gallon P-51 type drop tanks suspended under the wings on P-51 bomb racks. Oil tank capacity was also increased to 20 gallons. The still air range of the modified Spitfires was approximately 1,600 miles. Both flew non-stop across the Atlantic from Newfoundland. MK210 tested by RAE at Boscombe Down.

Planning on flying to Malta?  Thats what the 170 gallon tank was designed for.  Took the armament out, had to have a larger oil tank etc.  It was a ferry tank.  The 90 gallon tank was used late in the game, July or August 44 on when some of the Spits started to fly escort for RAF bombers having a shot at daylight stuff.

Understand I'm a huge Spit history guy, but for the game I sure don't see that adding those kind of tanks would serve much purpose.  The fuselage tank on Spits was not often used either because of the CG issues.

As for the modified Spit IXs from the US.  They were one off modifications but they were not viable for combat aircraft,

[sethipus]

I've seen a lot of instances of fwd CoGs being called problematic, but IMO, the real bugger is rear bias.. How could you have too much front bias, as far as dogfighting agility went?

I recall, back when I flew R/C airplanes, that moving the CG forward made the plane more sluggish and "gentle", while moving it back made it more unstable, and more prone to wigging out if it was too far back.  Moving it back also generally made it capable of more extreme maneuvers, if it could be kept stable.