A5M droptank?

[SaparotRob]

Either tank droppable by the pilot in flight?

 

[ThomasP]

I think Shinpachi answered the droppable part in his post#16 above. The description would say 'fixed' (or something similar) if it could not be dropped.

 

[SaparotRob]

I took that to mean the 160 liter tank. I'm still not sure if the smaller tank could be dropped in flight

 

[ThomasP]

My understanding is that the early 160L DT was similar to the small 30 Impgal slipper type DT used on the Spitfire. It was combatable (even if full) but could be dropped if necessary.

Again, my understanding is that the later 210L DT could be dropped, but was not combatable with any significant amount of fuel in it.

Also, it should be noted that there were at least 2 different 210L DTs, similar in shape but of different construction, and with slightly different diameter, length, and profile.

 

[Admiral Beez]

Either tank droppable by the pilot in flight?

What else could droppable mean? Anything on the aircraft could be affixed and removed on the ground, the engine is droppable by that measure.

A drop tank is one that can be jettisoned, or dropped by the pilot whilst in flight. Anything else is a fixed auxiliary fuel tank.

 

[Acheron]

Correct me if I am wrong, but during the Battle of Britain, the Me-109's short range was a major issue, no? Wouldn't drop tanks have greatly alleviated the problem?

 

[ThomasP]

Hey Acheron,

Yes and Yes.

 

[Acheron]

Hey Acheron,

Yes and Yes.

And may I assume that drop tanks were known to the Luftwaffe, but nobody bothered so develop them for the Me-109 beforehand and during the BoB, it was too late to get them to work in time?

If so, it seems like a great example for shortsightedness and general unprofessional attitude.

 

[ThomasP]

From Wiki: "Drop tank - Wikipedia"

"During World War II, the German Luftwaffe began using external fuel tanks with the introduction of a 300-liter (80 US gallon) light alloy model for the Ju 87R, a long-range version of the Stuka dive bomber, in early 1940. The Messerschmitt Bf 109 fighter also used this type of drop tank, starting with the Bf 109E-7 variant introduced in August 1940."

I have never run across a definitive explanation of why the Germans did not have drop tanks available before they began hostilities. The best (I think) that I have run across being that the operational concepts they planned on using, and what they actually used in the early part of the war, did not require them. Possibly as inept (IMO) as the USAAF and RAF higher-ups' views on the subject pre-war.

 

[fastmongrel]

I built a 1/72 scale model of the A5m recently and the external tank seems to have had metal straps round it holding it in place.

I did some research on the tank and as far as I could make out (I don't read Japanese) the tank could be jettisoned but it wasn't a hit the button and drop it like a P51 before a fight over Germany drop tank. The pilot had to close fuel valves and pull pins out with a cord before the tank could be jettisoned by pulling on a lever. Not something a pilot wants to do with an enemy trying to kill him.

 

[Shinpachi]

I think Shinpachi answered the droppable part in his post#16 above. The description would say 'fixed' (or something similar) if it could not be dropped.

There seemed to be 3 types of additional tanks for the A5M.
160L slipper type, 160L and 210L tear drop type.
All were droppable.

They were distinguished from the fixed type which was adopted by A4M.

 

[fubar57]

Good stuff Shinpachi

 

[ThomasP]

Thank you Shinpachi, that clears things up.

 

[Admiral Beez]

And may I assume that drop tanks were known to the Luftwaffe, but nobody bothered so develop them for the Me-109 beforehand and during the BoB, it was too late to get them to work in time?

If so, it seems like a great example for shortsightedness and general unprofessional attitude.

For a nation intent of waging war in Russia and while not planned, foreseeably across the Channel the Germans chose an oddly short ranged fighter. The Spitfire and Hurricane's moderate endurance makes sense, as they're intended as home defence fighters, and the Spitfire's range increased as Britain's war moved to the offensive. But Germany was on the offensive from the onset, but chose a decidedly defensively ranged fighter.

 

[Acheron]

For a nation intent of waging war in Russia and while not planned, foreseeably across the Channel the Germans chose an oddly short ranged fighter. The Spitfire and Hurricane's moderate endurance makes sense, as they're intended as home defence fighters, and the Spitfire's range increased as Britain's war moved to the offensive. But Germany was on the offensive from the onset, but chose a decidedly defensively ranged fighter.

I guess the assumption was to be on an offensive all the time and Luftwaffe only needing to handle close-air-support and battlefield interdiction. I wonder what general Wever would have made of the Me-109.

 

[tomo pauk]

The only German drop tank i know of during BoB is the pregnant belly type on Bf 110.

The Hs-123 and He 51 both used drop tanks during the Spanish civil war.
Bf 109 stated using drop tank facility in the closing phase of the BoB.

If the Germans got drop tank like the one A5M have they would have done a lot better during BoB.

Drop tank solves one problem.
It can't solve the problem of UK handsomely outproducing the Germans both in pilots' and fighters' numbers, low number and expensive replacement for Bf 110s being shot down, weak defensive armament of bombers, Bf 109E-3s and E-4s having low ammo count for cannons, lack of comprehensive strategy by German high command, the fact that radar-assisted air defense network is a gamechanger (yet that fact escaped to the Germans), the defender having advantage here with regard to what happens to the pilots that bailed out and to the damaged aircraft...

For a nation intent of waging war in Russia and while not planned, foreseeably across the Channel the Germans chose an oddly short ranged fighter. The Spitfire and Hurricane's moderate endurance makes sense, as they're intended as home defence fighters, and the Spitfire's range increased as Britain's war moved to the offensive. But Germany was on the offensive from the onset, but chose a decidedly defensively ranged fighter.

German long-range air war was prerogative of their bombers, that were as fast or faster than contemporary fighters. Enemy air opposition was supposed to be dealt with bombers and, what managest to take off, with Bf 110s - the fighter designed as long-range fighter.
Germany have had intent to wage war against Poland (for Lebensraum) and against France (as payback for 1918) in the time Bf 109 and 110 were being designed.

 

[Dimlee]

VVS (Soviet air force).
Drop tanks were tested in spring-summer 1939 on I-15bis and I-16. Used often during the Winter War with Finland.

 

[Shortround6]

The development of the 109 was a bit convoluted but lets try to remember that it was a replacement for
The He 51

and Arado 68

And the Jumo 210 put out around 700hp, give or take depending on exact model.

There is only so much fuel you can put in a 700hp fighter. When they put the DB 601 in they increased the fuel by over 50%.
Without totally redesigning the aircraft where are you going to put it?
lets also remember that the 109 prototype flew almost 1 1/2 years before the Japanese Ki 27 and about 4 months after the A5M.
Please note that the He 51 used an engine with NO supercharger and altitude performance was pretty poor.
Maybe the Germans wanted to build a fighter that could fight at 12-20,000ft for starters and they would worry about long range later?
And then they designed the 110

 

[taly01]

The IJN theory was to have fighters and bombers with similar range, ie the A5M/G3M pairing, then later the A6M/G4M pairing, which was a good lesson they learned in China.

I have never run across a definitive explanation of why the Germans did not have drop tanks available before they began hostilities. The best (I think) that I have run across being that the operational concepts they planned on using, and what they actually used in the early part of the war, did not require them. Possibly as inept (IMO) as the USAAF and RAF higher-ups' views on the subject pre-war.

The Germans early WW2 plan was that the Bf110 was the long range escort (didn't work well in BoB). Its OK to have theory but if you do not modify from actual experience thats a problem, but the actual BoB only lasted about 2 months which was not enough for a drop tank system to be developed into mass production IMHO.

Yet the USAAF in 1943 went into daylight bombing without fighters with adequate range for deep escort into Europe, and they already knew the problems the Germans had faced in BoB, and the British also told them it was a risky idea, but they went ahead anyway and took terrible losses.

 

[MiTasol]

I do not know the earliest American aircraft with drop tanks but the P-36 tank part number 75-45-433 was also used on the P-40.
I do not know the date of introduction.
I cannot remember the P-39 tank number but from memory it had a low prefix meaning it came out fairly early in the types development.