Wet wings.

[pamgb]

Which was the first plane to have fuel tanks inside the wings?

 

Paulo Barbosa

[theplasticsurgeon]

First Wet wing I remember reading about was the Boeing B-52G and H.

No idea if it was innovated prior to this though.

[PhoenixII]

Hi Paulo, @pamgb would I be right in thinking you mean a true 'wet wing', where a part / the whole wing is a fuel tank?

If so, some P.R. versions of the Spitfire had a wet wing, also the Mk.VIII and others.

Hope this is of some help?

Paul

[janneman36]

I remember being the first wet wing aircraft the Consolidated B-24 here is an excerpt of an article about the B24..

Later on in the war that concept being revised if i remember it correctly and these aircraft were  fitted with self sealing tanks instead of a wet wing as the wet wing wasn’t self sealing..

 

“The wing structure was stiff and offered the maximum internal volume for the accommodation for fuel. The wing did not contain any fuel cells but rather entire sections of the wing were sealed with Duprene sealant and filled with fuel, creating the first "wet wing" on an American military aircraft.”

 

cheers, Jan

[dogsbody]

The Reggiane Re.2000 prototype was designed with a wet wing, but it couldn't be sealed properly so the wing was fitted with regular fuel cells on the production machines.

 

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Reggiane_Re.2000

 

 

 

Chris

[pamgb]

 I don't remember how and when this question arised in my mind, but now, it is like an obssession, I must find the answer. I understand we don't have the answer because we are all too young. Nevertheless, more precisely, which was the first air or sea plane, in history, to have wet wings or fuel tanks inside the wings?

 

Paulo Barbosa

 

[Army_Air_Force]

Wet wings and fuel tanks in the wings is two different questions.
I expect the first aircraft with fuel tanks in the wings was in the 1920's, with aircraft like the de Havilland designs, using the centre section of the upper wing as a fuel tank. 

For true wet wings, on another forum, someone said "The first production aircraft with a wet wing was the DC-6" but I haven't seen confirmation anywhere else. Someone else posted "Constellation was designed from new with initially four integeral tanks in the wings, and the design for that was 1938/39."

A net search doesn't bring much up, other than describing what wet wings are.

[pamgb]

The Martin B-10 of 1934 seems to be the obvious answer because of the all metal construction, but I'm not sure...

[Graham Boak]

Not as obvious as that, aircraft such as the Junkers F13 had metal wings long before then.  But these would be fuel tanks inside the wings not wet wings.  Conventional aircraft of the 1920s were designed to thin wing theories, so the wing section was not deep enough to include tanks.  Fokker and Junkers were distinctive.  Early metal thick wings were not leak proof.

 

I'd agree that the Spitfire PR bowser wing was probably the first built in significant numbers, but being First is another matter.  Perhaps one of the long range record attempts?

[Army_Air_Force]

I've asked the question on the Flypast forum, so perhaps the guys there many have some answers.

[pamgb]

49 minutes ago, Army_Air_Force said:

Wet wings and fuel tanks in the wings is two different questions.
I expect the first aircraft with fuel tanks in the wings was in the 1920's, with aircraft like the de Havilland designs, using the centre section of the upper wing as a fuel tank. 

For true wet wings, on another forum, someone said "The first production aircraft with a wet wing was the DC-6" but I haven't seen confirmation anywhere else. Someone else posted "Constellation was designed from new with initially four integeral tanks in the wings, and the design for that was 1938/39."

A net search doesn't bring much up, other than describing what wet wings are.

I don't see much difference, fuel tanks, fuel cells or wet wings, it is all the same idea but it is true, the words are different.

 

[Army_Air_Force]

Wet wings have no fuel tanks inside them - the wing skin and internal structure is the fuel tank. Tanks in the wings are separate containers, fitted inside the wings.

[pamgb]

10 hours ago, PhoenixII said:

Hi Paulo, @pamgb would I be right in thinking you mean a true 'wet wing', where a part / the whole wing is a fuel tank?

If so, some P.R. versions of the Spitfire had a wet wing, also the Mk.VIII and others.

Hope this is of some help?

Paul

Hi Paul, I want to know which was the first airplane in history to have fuel inside the wings, call it wet wings, fuel cells or fuel tanks, it must have fuel inside the wings, the outer part of the wings not the center section.

[pamgb]

1 hour ago, Graham Boak said:

Not as obvious as that, aircraft such as the Junkers F13 had metal wings long before then.  But these would be fuel tanks inside the wings not wet wings.  Conventional aircraft of the 1920s were designed to thin wing theories, so the wing section was not deep enough to include tanks.  Fokker and Junkers were distinctive.  Early metal thick wings were not leak proof.

 

I'd agree that the Spitfire PR bowser wing was probably the first built in significant numbers, but being First is another matter.  Perhaps one of the long range record attempts?

All Junker's airplanes had metal wings, since the first one (1915).

[Army_Air_Force]

The Vultee BT-13 Valiant, first flown in March 1939, had a true wet wing rather than wing tanks.

Edited February 4, 2019 by Army_Air_Force

[PhoenixII]

Hi Paulo, @pamgb as it's not specifically a wet wing your looking for, but fuel carried in tanks within the wings, obviously the Interwar biplanes from many companies fit the bill, though the fuel tank makes up the centre section, being gravity fed. You could also look at such types as the Douglas DC1/2/3/C-47 family, where the fuel tanks were mounted within the centre section but used fuel pumps. My guess would be the very first aircraft to store fuel in tanks/bags other than in the fuselage would be from the 20's/30's.

Which one though I don't know, enjoy your search.

[pamgb]

1 hour ago, Army_Air_Force said:

The Vultee BT-13 Valiant, first flown in March 1939, had a true wet wing rather than wing tanks.

It is funny, the Vultee Valiant, it seems like a clone of the North American Texan.

[Army_Air_Force]

No, very different aircraft. Valiant was a basic trainer with low power and fixed gear while the Texan was an advanced trainer, more heavily loaded with retracts and more power. Other than a round engine, the same wingspan and a big green house, quite different.

[pamgb]

12 minutes ago, Army_Air_Force said:

No, very different aircraft. Valiant was a basic trainer with low power and fixed gear while the Texan was an advanced trainer, more heavily loaded with retracts and more power. Other than a round engine, the same wingspan and a big green house, quite different.

The only difference I can see, besides the mechanics complexity, is the advanced wing in the Texan against the more centraly mounted wing in the Valiant.

[pamgb]

23 hours ago, Graham Boak said:

Not as obvious as that, aircraft such as the Junkers F13 had metal wings long before then.  But these would be fuel tanks inside the wings not wet wings.  Conventional aircraft of the 1920s were designed to thin wing theories, so the wing section was not deep enough to include tanks.  Fokker and Junkers were distinctive.  Early metal thick wings were not leak proof.

 

I'd agree that the Spitfire PR bowser wing was probably the first built in significant numbers, but being First is another matter.  Perhaps one of the long range record attempts?

https://www.luftfahrt-archiv-hafner.de/

20 hours ago, Army_Air_Force said:

No, very different aircraft. Valiant was a basic trainer with low power and fixed gear while the Texan was an advanced trainer, more heavily loaded with retracts and more power. Other than a round engine, the same wingspan and a big green house, quite different.

The only difference I can see, besides the mechanics complexity, is the advanced wing in the Texan against the more centraly mounted wing in the Valiant.

[Giorgio N]

On 2/4/2019 at 11:06 AM, Graham Boak said:

Not as obvious as that, aircraft such as the Junkers F13 had metal wings long before then.  But these would be fuel tanks inside the wings not wet wings.  Conventional aircraft of the 1920s were designed to thin wing theories, so the wing section was not deep enough to include tanks.  Fokker and Junkers were distinctive.  Early metal thick wings were not leak proof.

 

I'd agree that the Spitfire PR bowser wing was probably the first built in significant numbers, but being First is another matter.  Perhaps one of the long range record attempts?

 

What would be considered a significant number ? The Seversky P-35 had a wet wing well before the PR variants of the Spitfire were developed and around 120 were built. Kartveli strongly believed in the wet wing concept, wonder if the first ever example was in one of his design ? Incidentally Kartvel's work was of strong inspiration for Roberto Longhi, the designer of the Re.2000 mentioned by @dogsbody, who had worked with him at Seversky for a period

[Graham Boak]

23 hours ago, pamgb said:

All Junker's airplanes had metal wings, since the first one (1915).

  I'm aware of that, but not that they had fuel tanks in those wings.  The military types from WW1 would have had spare space inside the fuselage for a more conventional (and protected) position, whereas the F13 had to find space for four passengers in its fuselage. This, and the thick wing aerodynamics, gave room inside the wing for fuel tanks where the thinner internally-braced wings most commonly used did not.  Fokker of course had a very similar thick wing but of wooden construction.

 

Don't let the similarity in configuration mislead you.  The T-6 family is considerably heavier, more powerful, and more capable than the Valiant.  It has a much wider performance envelope.  Hence its role as an advanced level trainer (and even secondary combat type) whereas the Valiant was a stepping stone between the elementary trainers a pilot would start on, and the T-6.

 

Giorgio.  I grant the P-35 as a precedent, and although there were considerably more than 120 PR wings built, I agree that 120 is a significant number.  I still suspect the origin lies in a record attempt rather than a combat design.

Edited February 5, 2019 by Graham Boak

[pamgb]

The first airplane which had fuel tanks in the wings was
Junkers F13, maiden flight 25. July 1919.

Bernd Junkers

[dogsbody]

49 minutes ago, pamgb said:

The first airplane which had fuel tanks in the wings was
Junkers F13, maiden flight 25. July 1919.

Bernd Junkers

Check the port wing root, under the pilot's seat and you can see the triangle shaped tank.

 

 

 

 

Chris

[tweeky]

its know as integral tanks. bag tanks or fuel cells. Bag tank being one big bag cells are smaller bag tanks