F4U in Europe

[Howard Gibson]

That means the F4U was, as we all pretty much said, never going to be a long-range escort. I think it would have done better than the P-47 in air-to-air combat, but not quite as good in ground attack ... unless the armament was changed to cannons but, this was covered above sufficiently.

Did the Thunderbolts use all eight machine guns for strafing? I was under the impression that they turned some of them off. Eight machine guns was how you made sure you hit other aircraft.

For tactical air superiority and ground attack, I would go for the Corsairs. The Thunderbolts were excellent escort and air superiority planes at 30,000ft. They were effective at ground attack because the Germans were out of fuel and trained pilots.

 

[pbehn]

Hi pbehn. I get your point above about the ground speed. Agreed. So, the escort had to fly a much longer mission to escort the slower bombers than the bombers flew. We pretty much all knew that, but perhaps haven't heard it said quite that way. I have expressed it as, "Since the escorts flew faster than the bombers, they needed to fly farther. Said another way, they all needed the same endurance, but at different speeds, so the distances flown were not the same."

It is something people forget when discussing the radius of a action for a plane. The biggest problem AFAK was in the conduct of a mission, when the formation is going 60MPH slower than planned the various waves to take the bombers in and out get to the RDV point but the bombers arent there.

This was critical in the big raids by the LW on London in the BoB. They were flying into strong head winds which meant the whole formation had a ground speed of around 100mph, the waves of 109 that were sent out to cover the final leg to London caught up with the formation too early and had to turn back before they reached London to avoid running out of fuel. If the wind was blowing the other way the RAF would have been in big trouble.

 

[P-39 Expert]

The 1943 Corsair and Thunderbolt were both great planes, but the Thunderbolt carried 305gal internal fuel and the Corsair only 237gal if the unprotected wing tanks were excluded. The Thunderbolt would have significantly greater combat radius for escort, and it was not known as a long range plane.

Oddly the Thunderbolt escorting 8thAF bombers didn't carry drop tanks until August 1943 and then only single 75gal drop tanks. Larger tanks were added later. The Corsair didn't carry factory installed drop tank racks until production began in October 1943 (AHT). These likely barely made combat theaters until 1944. There were some field modification (home made) bomb racks (not tanks) in the Pacific in 1943. Also the Corsair didn't get factory water injection until late November 1943, unlikely these made combat until 1944.

 

[pbehn]

Oddly the Thunderbolt escorting 8thAF bombers didn't carry drop tanks until August 1943 and then only single 75gal drop tanks. Larger tanks were added later.

That was quite an achievement IMHO. The P-47 didnt become operational until April 1943 when the official doctrine was heavy bombers could defend themselves. To go from "no escorts needed" to "escorts available with LR tanks" in 4/5 months is quick in military terms, especially when it was on the other side of the Atlantic.

 

[P-39 Expert]

That was quite an achievement IMHO. The P-47 didnt become operational until April 1943 when the official doctrine was heavy bombers could defend themselves. To go from "no escorts needed" to "escorts available with LR tanks" in 4/5 months is quick in military terms, especially when it was on the other side of the Atlantic.

Huge blunder to produce Thunderbolts without provision for drop tanks. P-38, P-39, P-40 and P-51A all had drop tanks before then.

 

[Milosh]

• Jun 19, 2020

drgondog

There are two separate discussions - Ferry tanks and Combat (self sealing) tanks. The US produced only Ferry tanks through most of 1943 despite Arnold ordering Combat tanks as a high priority to Materiel Command in Fighter Conference of Feb 1942.

The use of Ferry Tanks in combat was forbidden in AAC. The mention of Arnold in Bodie was convoluted in origin and specifically pointed out for conversation Kelsey had with Arnold about how the P-38s of 1st FG were flown to England in July 1942.

The order 'forbidding' dropping external tanks was issued by CO of VIII FC, Gen. Monk Hunter because the supply of 75 gal Combat tanks was still very limited in August - October 1943. The Fighter Group CO's basically told their pilots to ignore the order if combat was imminent.

As to the Mustang I and IA. True no provision for combat or external ferry tanks - but early 1941 NAA developed an auxiliary fuel cell housed in the gun bay 0f 18 gal enabling a 1500 mi ferry (or about a 500 mi combat radius with 2x50 cal guns in Mk I and camera). The P-51-NA had the same provision but USAAF never used it as removing 4x20mm eliminated all armament.

 

[pbehn]

Huge blunder to produce Thunderbolts without provision for drop tanks. P-38, P-39, P-40 and P-51A all had drop tanks before then.

The blunder is obviously not ordering them, people dont produce things like that unless they are asked. I think you may find the pesky British were involved in some of those types being fitted with bomb and drop tank capability. Further to Milosh' post I think Bill posted that initially the ferry tanks werent pressurised so could only be filled with circa 100 gals which helped a bit on take off and climb. However the P-47 on internal fuel could go further than a P-39 with an external tank and neither the P-39 or P-40 could be considered for use from UK and N Africa is a big place.

 

[P-39 Expert]

Plenty of combat with normal (unprotected) external tanks in '42 and '43. I was speaking of the P-51A, not the Mustang I.

 

[P-39 Expert]

The blunder is obviously not ordering them, people dont produce things like that unless they are asked. I think you may find the pesky British were involved in some of those types being fitted with bomb and drop tank capability. Further to Milosh' post I think Bill posted that initially the ferry tanks werent pressurised so could only be filled with circa 100 gals which helped a bit on take off and climb. However the P-47 on internal fuel could go further than a P-39 with an external tank and neither the P-39 or P-40 could be considered for use from UK and N Africa is a big place.

P-47 on internal fuel could not go as far as a P-39 with an external tank.

 

[pbehn]

Plenty of combat with normal (unprotected) external tanks in '42 and '43. I was speaking of the P-51A, not the Mustang I.

I think the British specified drop tanks/ bomb hard points for future Mustangs but the war and lend lease took a hand, the British received 50 P-51As which were operated as Mustang Mk IIs, I need to wait for Christmas to find out in a book lol.

 

[pbehn]

P-47 on internal fuel could not go as far as a P-39 with an external tank.

It had over 300 gals compared to 90, but we have been through this, the P-39 couldnt fly from UK and certainly couldnt escort anything with or without a tank.

 

[FLYBOYJ]

P-47 on internal fuel could not go as far as a P-39 with an external tank.

The P-47N carried over 500 gallons internally IIRC.

 

[ARTESH]

I wonder if that "U" has any other meaning other than "The Enemy".

 

[GrauGeist]

.

I wonder if that "U" has any other meaning other than "The Enemy".

If you're referring to the "U" in the USN's designation "F4U", it stands for "Vought aircraft".

The breakdown is:
"F" - fighter
"4" - fourth type from manufacturer
"U" - Vought Aircraft

The US Navy had an interesting way of designating aircraft manufacturers, most often by an assigned letter that was not consistent with the manufacturer's name.

Several, like Douglas and Curtiss did have a corresponding suffix letter, but others (like Vought and Grumman), did not.

 

[pbehn]

Huge blunder to produce Thunderbolts without provision for drop tanks. P-38, P-39, P-40 and P-51A all had drop tanks before then.

Just looked up, the British were receiving Tomahawk IIBs in 1941 with drop tank and self sealing tanks.

The prototype, XP-40, was first flown in October 1938. Deliveries to the USAAC commenced in June 1940. The aircraft caught attention of several countries. The French ordered a batch of Hawk 81A fighters, which was the export version of the P-40, but France was overrun by the Germans shortly afterwards. The French order was taken over by the British, who gave the aircraft their own name – Tomahawk Mk I. Soon Curtiss came up with an improved version, more heavily armed and armored, with self-sealing coating for fuel tanks. The P-40B, first flown in March 1941, was named Tomahawk Mk IIA by the RAF. Two months later Curtiss made available P-40C (Tomahawk Mk IIB to the British) with provision for mounting a drop tank or a bomb on the centerline rack. The aircraft's weight increased, and its performance suffered accordingly.

Curtiss P-40 Warhawk (Tomahawk/Kittyhawk)

Kagero's Area.

www.kagero.eu

 

[Conslaw]

This video by Greg's Airplanes and Automobiles goes into the P-47 range issue in great detail. It would have been very hard for the F4U to match the P-47 for bomber escort missions. The F6F is interesting because a relatively large 150-gallon drop tank was integral to the design and available from the start, but in terms of availability, the P-47 was (generalizing) a couple months behind the F4U, and the F6F was a couple months behind the P-47. Would the F6F have had the altitude performance necessary with a. 150-gallon droptank. (At some point, the F6F was also plumbed for carrying a tank under each wing. With 3 tanks, the F6F probably flew like a pig but had fantastic loiter time. A group commander actually got an F6F off a carrier deck with three tanks.

 

[GrauGeist]

Starting with the P-47C-2, provisions were made for a 200 gallon centerline drop tank.

 

[FLYBOYJ]

I've seen this quoted several times and I think it was mentioned in the book "The Forked Tailed Devil."

"In November 1941, Kelsey asked his Lockheed contacts to design drop tanks to extend the range of the P‑38, even though Air Corps policy at the time was absolutely inflexible toward fighter aircraft carrying external fuel tanks."

In other publications (that I can't remember at the current time) I believe that Kelsey verbally authorized Lockheed to design a drop tank installation in the guise of pylons that can carry bombs.

Too bad he didn't have the foresight to ask to improve the heater!

A perfect example of the "customer" getting what they asked for, whether it was right or wrong!

 

[Dash119]

The US Navy had an interesting way of designating aircraft manufacturers, most often by an assigned letter that was not consistent with the manufacturer's name.

I believe the idea was to assign a letter consistent with the manufacturers name. The problem is that several aircraft manufacturers had the gaul to use the same first letter in the name of the company.

F4U - The company that produced the Corsair was Chance-Vought, but the 'C' was already taken by Curtiss, so it was designated with a 'U'.

F4F, F6F, F7F, F8F, etc. - Grumman produced many aircraft for the Navy, but 'G' was already the designator for Great Lakes and later Goodyear, so it was designated with 'F'.

SNJ - North American was the manufacturer, but 'N' was already assigned to the Naval Aircraft Factory, so it was designated with 'J'. As an aside, the 'S' was for Scout, and the 'N' was for Trainer, 'T' having already been used to designate a Torpedo carrying.

See, clear as mud...

 

[FLYBOYJ]

More about the AAC/ AAF ordering fighters with drop tank capability;

In November 1941, Kelsey asked his Lockheed contacts to design drop tanks to extend the range of the P-38, even though Air Corps policy at the time was absolutely inflexible toward fighter aircraft carrying external fuel tanks—the so-called Bomber Mafia favoring heavy bombers wanted no challenge from fighters and medium bombers in the long-range department. Lockheed proceeded with the request, starting with a batch of 100 P-38Es intended for photo reconnaissance, despite having no written orders, only Kelsey's handshake. Thus, when combat requirements called for longer range via drop tanks, the P-38 was already equipped with fuel lines, hardpoints, and a supply of drop tanks.

Wiki - reference Bodie, Warren M. (1991). The Lockheed P-38 Lightning