self sealing gas tanks

renrich · 08-12-2007, 01:11 PM

When did British and German ac start using self sealing gas tanks?

renrich · 08-12-2007, 01:14 PM

I have been rereading Peter Townsend's book about the BOB and he keeps mentioning instances where a hit in the gas tank on both Hurricanes and Spits causes the AC to catch on fire. Does anyone know for sure that the British and German AC in the BOB were equipped with self sealing gas tanks? I do know the early F4F3 DID NOT have self sealing gas tanks.

Glider · 08-12-2007, 01:25 PM

My understanding was that they started to be fitted during the Battle of France when it quickly became obvious that they were a must have addition. It was a rolling programme fitting them to existing A/C but new builds had them fitted.
I believe (bute certainly cold be wrong) that by the BOB all front line aircraft had them but it should be remembered that they had their limitations. A 20mm in the tank would be almost certain to set it alight.

mad_max · 08-12-2007, 07:27 PM

I'm not an expert; but in the books I have about the Spitfire, the Spit I's didn't have
self sealing tanks. When the Spit II's came out with the Merlin XII installed the Brits
added more armour and self sealing tanks. The first one to roll of the assembly lines
was in June 1940 and operational use began August 1940 with No 611 Sqn.

This is what I found. Disclaimer is someone may find different/better facts.

pbfoot · 08-13-2007, 04:42 PM

Self sealing tanks according to Spitfire the History by eric Morgan and Edward Shacklady indicate fitting selfsealing on to lower fuel tank on the MK1 27/7/40 I'm still searching for more info. I assume the upper drained into lower tank and probably most of the fuel in the upper was used while taking off and climbing to altitude

renrich · 08-13-2007, 05:20 PM

It sounds like to me that self sealing tanks were not all that prevelant during the BOB and that explains the easy flaming of the Hurricanes and Spits. Churchill should at the least be censured and possibly impeached for that.

HoHun · 08-13-2007, 05:23 PM

Hi Pbfoot,

>I assume the upper drained into lower tank and probably most of the fuel in the upper was used while taking off and climbing to altitude

I'm not sure whether it was the top tank or slow sealing on the low tank, but it's my impression that the front tanks remained a combat hazard during the Battle of Britain. I recently read a book titled "Guinea Pigs" (or similar), written by a fighter pilot who was one of the founding members of the Guinea Pig Club. He describes his first encounter with the brilliant surgeon Archibald McIndoe, who - after looking at the pilot's burns - simply asked "Hurricane or Spitfire?"

Apparently, the heavy facial burns were so typical for fighter pilots that McIndoe did not need to ask for any general information on cause of the injuries ...

(As so often, McIndoe worked wonders in the treatment of the author of "Guinea Pigs". Wish I'd remember the name - unfortunately, I have mislaid the book. It really made a deep impression on me.)

Regards,

Henning (HoHun)

comiso90 · 08-13-2007, 05:27 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by renrich

It sounds like to me that self sealing tanks were not all that prevelant during the BOB and that explains the easy flaming of the Hurricanes and Spits. Churchill should at the least be censured and possibly impeached for that.

Why? Because he's the Prime Minister?

If that's true then Roosevelt should have the same punishment for the abysmal performance of American torpedoes early in the war...

____

How much extra weight did self-sealers add? What was the effect on performance?

.

Glider · 08-13-2007, 05:28 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by renrich

It sounds like to me that self sealing tanks were not all that prevelant during the BOB and that explains the easy flaming of the Hurricanes and Spits. Churchill should at the least be censured and possibly impeached for that.

Be fair, no one else had them as standard at the time. Both the UK and Germany were fitting them as quickly as possible and when a war starts, you have to fight with what you have. The USA had the huge benefit of being able to learn from the European battles before December 1941 and they were by no means common in the USA at that time.

pbfoot · 08-13-2007, 06:09 PM

I'm reading this tome to find more info and came upon this item
"but the more serious problem was pilot protection from fire from the bottom tank. Sholto Douglas said that the tank could not have self sealing covering owing to insufficient clearance between it and the fuselage skin. A metal bulkhead had been designed for installation between the tank and the cockpit for this , it was suggested , would allow the pilot sufficient time to vacate the aircraft in the event of a fire . This modification took months to reachproduction aircraft and retrofitting was necessary . working parties had to go on 24 hr shift systemto clear the backlog and each Spitfire took 40 hours to modify ."
this was on the MKV around 11 june 41 this seem to contradict the previous info posted by me and it's from same book

Hop · 08-13-2007, 06:33 PM

The Spitfire II pilot manual, dated July 1940, says:

"The lower fuel tank is covered with self sealing rubber".

The Spitfire V manual I have doesn't mention the sealing on the tanks directly (as far as I can see), but does say that the tanks can be pressurised for operation at high altitude, but that this hinders the self sealing tanks.

The Spitfire IX manual I have is post war and says:

"Fuel is carried in two tanks mounted one above the other (the lower one is self sealing) forward of the cockpit".

pbfoot · 08-13-2007, 06:45 PM

This book I'm getting the ref from is 650 pages of microscopic print I has to hunt down my glasses I bought 3 years ago and never use. I'm heading out to the hanger tommorrow and will look through the extensive library on the Spit to see what I can find. And maybe the engine covers will be off on the IX and I can look

Marshall_Stack · 08-14-2007, 10:22 AM

Just curious..

How does a self-sealing tank work? Is it simply a tank lined with a rubber that melts at the area that it is leaking and seals itself?

Also, don't some airplanes have Co2 that they can inject into the tanks? I think it was to purge gas vapors out of an empty tank. Could that be used to combat a fire?

renrich · 08-14-2007, 12:00 PM

I was being facetious when I made the remark about Churchill being censured. It seems like every bad thing that happens lately is Bush's fault.

FLYBOYJ · 08-14-2007, 12:10 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Marshall_Stack

Just curious..

How does a self-sealing tank work? Is it simply a tank lined with a rubber that melts at the area that it is leaking and seals itself?

Also, don't some airplanes have Co2 that they can inject into the tanks? I think it was to purge gas vapors out of an empty tank. Could that be used to combat a fire?

Not so much melts, but the rubber in a self sealing tank is just very pliable and is able to fill the void left by a bullet. Mind you if the hole is too big or a portion of the tank is torn away, it will not work.

Co2 was used as a fire retardant - I never heard of it being pumped into a tank.