Ad: This forum contains affiliate links to products on Amazon and eBay. More information in Terms and rules
As I read accounts of it, one group had to fight their way in, the other had to fight their way out. Due to a screw up with timing the second group had to fight their way in and out because the LW had time to land refuel and rearm. Things like that are a learning experience, if you make the same timing mistake with escorts, you also end up with unescorted bombers. Gregs calculations leave no contingency or slack to allow for any event be it delayed take off, head winds navigation errors etc.Greg talks about the Schweinfurt missions and unecessay bomber losses because they weren't escorted all the way to the target.
Has anybody seen or got a copy of the fighter mision reports from those missions?
In the first Schweinfurt mission, one of the two task forces went to Regensburg and then on to Africa.
No P-47 is going to be able to escort them that far.
As I read accounts of it, one group had to fight their way in, the other had to fight their way out. Due to a screw up with timing the second group had to fight their way in and out because the LW had time to land refuel and rearm. Things like that are a learning experience, if you make the same timing mistake with escorts, you also end up with unescorted bombers. Gregs calculations leave no contingency or slack to allow for any event be it delayed take off, head winds navigation errors etc.
Not only does his example fly in a straight line but so does every other fighter, the only logical explanation is that the bombers escort the fighters to their RDV point at Schweinfurt. It is nonsense, someone posted the bomber Group form up locations, they eventually formed an arc above the North Sea from The Wash almost to the Thames.His calculations are also straight line.
He also included 140 miles for the climb in his distance calculations.
I though that wasn't generally done.
Troll.Greg dismissed them as not 'representativ
I wanna know where the hell the pictures are. That should clear things up.I looked more closely at the first document which Greg shows as proof that there indeed was a 200 gallon drop tank ready for production in 1942. It's interesting because the terminology used is "auxiliary tank assembly" which I wondered if this term means the same thing as a droppable tank because it could easily be the ferry tank being discussed. Here's a definition I found on line:
Aux tanks are just extra, or long range, tanks for more fuel. They can be built in to the aircraft or mounted externally or internally and plumbed into the fuel system. Usually these are used for ferry flights or when air to air refueling is impractical. Fighter aircraft use them to extend range.
Has anyone seen period documents which also describes the ferry tank as an auxiliary tank? Also, would an external drop tank require a redesign of the crash skid? This is stated in the 1942 document as well.
View attachment 782851
The P-39 and P-40 got center line tanks in 1941, but pretty much only to replace the fuel lost to self sealing in the internal tanks. Ferry tanks (big) were added later. P-40Ns got piped for wing tanks.What pylons were the P-38, P-39 and P-40 using?
The P-38E was base for theWing pylon B-10 type rack in December 1941, kits built for E and F-4. Production pylons Feb 42 with early F.The P-39 and P-40 got center line tanks in 1941, but pretty much only to replace the fuel lost to self sealing in the internal tanks. Ferry tanks (big) were added later. P-40Ns got piped for wing tanks.
Not sure on the P-38s but the P-38s got ferry tanks early in 1942? The D & E didn't have them. Most Fs had them (only just the very early Fs didn't) but there may have been two stages. a pair of 150 gal tanks to start followed by a pair of 300 gallon tanks. Not sure it there was very early intermediate stage with a pair of 75 gal tanks.
I don't know when the big tanks got combat (high altitude) rated. Maybe from the start?
Later for P-47, P-38 Dec 1941 prototype flight and kits for wing pylons and 165/330gal steel ferry tanks, A-36 prototype flight Aug 1942 for both bombs and auxiliary 60gal fuel tanks. P-39/P-40 centerline racks B-7 type for bombs and aux. fuel tamks.drgondog , in response to your points about the standard centre and wing pylons, Greg will often describe them as being "later" equipment.
Were they "later", or just later on teh P-47?
The reference to the P-47B crash skid is also applicable to P-47C-2 thru P-47D-4.
I looked more closely at the first document which Greg shows as proof that there indeed was a 200 gallon drop tank ready for production in 1942. It's interesting because the terminology used is "auxiliary tank assembly" which I wondered if this term means the same thing as a droppable tank because it could easily be the ferry tank being discussed. Here's a definition I found on line:
Aux tanks are just extra, or long range, tanks for more fuel. They can be built in to the aircraft or mounted externally or internally and plumbed into the fuel system. Usually these are used for ferry flights or when air to air refueling is impractical. Fighter aircraft use them to extend range.
Has anyone seen period documents which also describes the ferry tank as an auxiliary tank? Also, would an external drop tank require a redesign of the crash skid? This is stated in the 1942 document as well. To me it sounds like a mod which wouldn't be required UNLESS it were to fit snug against the bottom of the fuselage (as with the ferry tank).
View attachment 782851All external tanks were defined as auxiliary. Internal, removable tanks (i.e.tokyo tank) were also 'auxiliary' fuel tanks.
Mainly going by a P-38 manual that covers the P-38D to most of the "G"s.The P-38E was base for theWing pylon B-10 type rack in December 1941, kits built for E and F-4. Production pylons Feb 42 with early F.
The B-7 tpes were installed on P-40E and P-49D (IIRC) and needed to install 52gal and 60gal tanks. I'm pretty sure a 91gal tank was fitted in Australia but not sure of this.