LSAs with a single fuel tank in the fuselage

[N918KT]

Hello all, I'm just wondering what are some LSAs with just one fuel tank in the fuselage? I know the RV-12 has one single fuel tank. Are there others too? Also, do you know by chance on what LSA has the highest single fuel tank capacity in the fuselage? Also, if the fuel tank is inside the fuselage, does that mean that baggage space for the LSA is less because that is where the fuel tank is?

Are there any benefits of having one big single fuel tank in the fuselage, like perhaps it may be easier to fill the fuel up? What about low-wing LSAs? If there is only one fuel tank in the fuselage, does that mean that you don't need to switch the left and right wing fuel tanks during flight, therefore not worrying about center of gravity issues during the flight?

[FastEddieB]

My Sky Arrow carries it's 18 gals of fuel in a fuselage mounted tank, behind the passenger seat:



That's me on my belly checking the landing gear bolt torque at the last annual.

Still lots of baggage room, more than most LSA's I've encountered.

Mine fuels from the top of the high wing, much like a Cessna.

Newer Sky Arrows moved the fuel to the wings.

I believe the RV12 LSA also carries fuel in the fuselage.

[drseti]

Yes, Eddie is right about the RV12. It sacrifices space in the baggage compartment. Ditto Remos, who does that to enable the wings to fold (folding wings is difficult when they're full of fuel). Probably other folding wing designs as well.
Kevin, you're right about no fuel selector valve, assisting with lateral balance. But instead, with the weight of the fuel far aft, longitudinal balance changes throughout the flight, as you burn off fuel. So, you have to compute CG for both the beginning and the end of a trip to make sure you stay inside the envelope.

[CTLSi]

......

[FastEddieB]

Fuel behind a seat seems dangerous.

Or so it would seem.

Nothing more horrible than getting doused with gasoline and then burning to death.

Then again, incidents like this really do seem extremely rare - maybe because fuel in the fuselage is relatively rare these days.

And pilot regularly burn up in planes where the fuel is carried in the wings as well.

So - a valid concern, but not something that keeps me up at night.

[c162pilot]

The in-development high wing Merlin from Glasair also has a single fuel tank of 24 US gallons.

The other challenge not mentioned previously is that some fuselage based fuel tanks can be hard to measure with a measuring stick compared to tanks in the wings.

[Jim Stewart]

I believe the original Sportstar had a fuselage fuel tank.

And the original WWII Army Jeep had the fuel tank under the driver's seat.

[drseti]

I believe the original Sportstar had a fuselage fuel tank.

True. The Eurostar (from which the SportStar was derived) had a ~20 gal tank in the baggage compartment. So did the early SportStars. The SportStar Plus was their first wet wing design; it carries just under 32 gallons (hence the "plus" name).

[patmike]

The Gobosh Aero AT-4 carries it's 18.5 gals. right behind the firewall

[Wm.Ince]

. . . "Fuel behind a seat seems dangerous." . . .

What seems dangerous to you and I may not seem dangerous to someone else.

I think it is subjective on what someone else is comfortable with.

That withstanding, the point you make did have some influence on my choice of LSA's.
During a crash scenario, the further away from the fuel . . . the better . . . even if it is inches.
For those wondering, I ended up with a CTSW.
I love everything else about the RV-12 though. . . .

[Merlinspop]

Internal fuel storage of a few familiar aircraft...
P-38J 410 gal

P-47D-20 305 gal

F4U-1 351 gal

P-51D 269 gal

[garbageman]

B-52, forward body tank; many pounds--just about a foot behind my head.

David

[snaproll]

Each individual should fly what they are comfortable with, whether their fears are unrealistic or not. Having a fuel tank in the fuselage has been common for the past century and has not led to increased fatalities. Typically, when the crash is severe enough to rupture the fuel tank, the souls on board are already history. There is only a small probability of fire when the tank does rupture.

[MovingOn]

.......

[zaitcev]

I'm onboard with snaproll's thesis, with some qualifications. The tank has to be engineered right, and it has to be defect-free. The fuel shut-off, sight gauge (if present), the breather, and the fill cap are all included. With that in mind, I think the fuselage tank could be safer than wing tanks, especially wet wings. That is because the tank in the fuselage can be easily made inside the survival cell, while wings are made to be sacrificed with the resulting rupture. The alternative is Diamond's two-longeron wing.

For what it's worth, in the 2nd fatal of Remos the airplane broke up at impact, but there was no fuel tank rupture.