Ad: This forum contains affiliate links to products on Amazon and eBay. More information in Terms and rules
Not one of our brightest bulbs ...
It was designed as a long range fighter but by the time it flew the P-51B was already doing the job.
Fisher P-75 Eagle
Getting a large, pressurized belly tank into service sooner probably would have been even more useful than the added 60 gal tank (plus didn't have the problems with streamlining that the wing pylons -oddly- posed). A P-47C or early D with 200 gal flat (or long or conformal), pressurized belly drop tank should have helped a great deal and been getting better performance and fuel economy than the wing-pylon equipped models or ones with the added 60 gal tank. (not P-51 level range, but still a lot more useful especially early war) I forget if that flat belly tank used in the PTO was 200 US or IMP gallons, but I think it was US.I agree - but I do have a little confusion regarding Republic taking so long to get the extra 60 gallons internally that didn't seem to require much engineering or tooling changes - and the issue was obvious when the P-47C was introduced into the ETO before the first production P-51B flew.
Getting a large, pressurized belly tank into service sooner probably would have been even more useful than the added 60 gal tank (plus didn't have the problems with streamlining that the wing pylons -oddly- posed). A P-47C or early D with 200 gal flat (or long or conformal), pressurized belly drop tank should have helped a great deal and been getting better performance and fuel economy than the wing-pylon equipped models or ones with the added 60 gal tank. (not P-51 level range, but still a lot more useful especially early war) I forget if that flat belly tank used in the PTO was 200 US or IMP gallons, but I think it was US.
For planning purposes, the internal fuel capacity was the foundation - and by necessity the most important factor - including PTO. The reason the F6F could not have been very effective as an escort (high altitude performance deficiencies versus Bf 109 aside) is that the F6F never had more than 250 gallons of internal fuel. No matter how big the external tank is, It is gone when entering combat, and all you have left to fight with at 3X fuel consumption, then return home is what you have left in the tanks. The P-47C through D-22 had 55 more gallons than F6F and couldn't go near far enough to provide medium to deep range escorts.
I'm not sure, but limiting the wing racks to carry only 75 gal or smaller tanks (or 500 lb bombs) might have allowed a more streamlined arrangement too. (or at least reduced the apparent difficulties) 200+75+75 gallons externally plus the added 60 gal internally along with water injection and the paddle props should have been enough to make it full-length escort worthy in the UTO)
Getting a large, pressurized belly tank into service sooner probably would have been even more useful than the added 60 gal tank (plus didn't have the problems with streamlining that the wing pylons -oddly- posed). A P-47C or early D with 200 gal flat (or long or conformal), pressurized belly drop tank should have helped a great deal and been getting better performance and fuel economy than the wing-pylon equipped models or ones with the added 60 gal tank. (not P-51 level range, but still a lot more useful especially early war) I forget if that flat belly tank used in the PTO was 200 US or IMP gallons, but I think it was US.
I'm not sure, but limiting the wing racks to carry only 75 gal or smaller tanks (or 500 lb bombs) might have allowed a more streamlined arrangement too. (or at least reduced the apparent difficulties) 200+75+75 gallons externally plus the added 60 gal internally along with water injection and the paddle props should have been enough to make it full-length escort worthy in the UTO)