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 of Auto and Airplanes has asked for a Debate
- Thread starter ObtuseOcelot
- Start date
wuzak
Captain
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.
Low Battery
Airman
- 39
- Sep 11, 2014
Lol Greg finally responded about the Red text in the 1943 manual by completely missing the point.
To reiterate, Greg's entire logic concluding thr existence of some high altitude 200 gallon tank is that the existence of said numbers at thr back of that manual over 20000ft indicate said existence. This is what he says in his first video on this subject. He specifically states it was "flight tested"
But the red letters demonstrate it was not flight tested, which immediately demonstrates there is no evidence for a new drop tank. He points out thst red numbers are used all the time etc. Not relevant, except to drill down the fact that said numbers don't matter.
So to rephrase and sum up: Gregs original argument was that the existence of that chart proves the existence of another 200 gallon tank that was not the ferry. But the fact that the end of charts are not in fact flight tested means these these charts can serve so such evidentiary purpose.
To reiterate, Greg's entire logic concluding thr existence of some high altitude 200 gallon tank is that the existence of said numbers at thr back of that manual over 20000ft indicate said existence. This is what he says in his first video on this subject. He specifically states it was "flight tested"
But the red letters demonstrate it was not flight tested, which immediately demonstrates there is no evidence for a new drop tank. He points out thst red numbers are used all the time etc. Not relevant, except to drill down the fact that said numbers don't matter.
So to rephrase and sum up: Gregs original argument was that the existence of that chart proves the existence of another 200 gallon tank that was not the ferry. But the fact that the end of charts are not in fact flight tested means these these charts can serve so such evidentiary purpose.
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.
drgondog
Major
Sigh - in recent email exchange (respectful) with Greg- I pointed out that Gabreski (pg 109) stated same as Hough, Zemke (pg 103-104), Freeman M8WM (pp219-222) and BG Branshaw in letter to Johnson Pres Repulic 6/30/43 - Unpressurized, incapable above 20K, dangerous and leaked badly.
I pointed out that Zemke switched to Ferry tank after forming up - then climbing in ascending orbit to 12K over Halesworth before setting course for continent, punching tanks at 22K, continue climbing to 28K. Pointed to pages and sent images. Crickets until yesterday when he suggested that I misinterpreted their (particuarly Zemke) statements. The circular orbit kills 140mi cimb out, Punching tank at 20K forces next climb segment at Max Continuous burn to 28000 on internal Auxiliary, then burning next 100+mi inbound S flight path escort to the fight, and 240+ miles back to Halesworth on internal fuel. Greg dismissed that narrative also
I pointed out that real samples using 75gal (84 actual) tank actually delvered greater istance combats than the 205gal Republic tank. Few people understood my spreadsheet due to my cnnectivity issues in the debate - and Greg dismissed them as not 'representative'.
All in conflict with his POV, but most of his audience seems loath to read what the key folks said and wrote.
I pointed out that Zemke switched to Ferry tank after forming up - then climbing in ascending orbit to 12K over Halesworth before setting course for continent, punching tanks at 22K, continue climbing to 28K. Pointed to pages and sent images. Crickets until yesterday when he suggested that I misinterpreted their (particuarly Zemke) statements. The circular orbit kills 140mi cimb out, Punching tank at 20K forces next climb segment at Max Continuous burn to 28000 on internal Auxiliary, then burning next 100+mi inbound S flight path escort to the fight, and 240+ miles back to Halesworth on internal fuel. Greg dismissed that narrative also
I pointed out that real samples using 75gal (84 actual) tank actually delvered greater istance combats than the 205gal Republic tank. Few people understood my spreadsheet due to my cnnectivity issues in the debate - and Greg dismissed them as not 'representative'.
All in conflict with his POV, but most of his audience seems loath to read what the key folks said and wrote.
BarnOwlLover
Staff Sergeant
And that's the problem with people today--they won't get off their asses to do even 5 minutes of research and put their trust in one source who may be (or in the case is) wrong. Or (and something I have an issue with) is that people online form parasocial relationships with online or even celebrity figures and don't call them to task when they're wrong.
Low Battery
Airman
- 39
- Sep 11, 2014
I guess I'm the "red text mafia" now according to Greg.
I also find it truly bizarre that he points out that other manuals without the drop tank have the numbers in black. Yes? It hardly surprising that calculated numbers for those conditions would end up being verified later and republished in black.
What exactly does that have to do with claims that the 200 gallon chart in older manuals prove the existence of some never before discovered high altitude drop tank.
It's clearly just the ferry tank with extrapolated calculations.
But hey, apparently they could have just used that up to 30k too! Just gotta stick a fuel pump or two in every single drop tank and gasoline is totally the same as jet fuel lol.
I also find it truly bizarre that he points out that other manuals without the drop tank have the numbers in black. Yes? It hardly surprising that calculated numbers for those conditions would end up being verified later and republished in black.
What exactly does that have to do with claims that the 200 gallon chart in older manuals prove the existence of some never before discovered high altitude drop tank.
It's clearly just the ferry tank with extrapolated calculations.
But hey, apparently they could have just used that up to 30k too! Just gotta stick a fuel pump or two in every single drop tank and gasoline is totally the same as jet fuel lol.
Low Battery
Airman
- 39
- Sep 11, 2014
Another thing:
Am I missing something about his pumps document? Does anyone have else have this document?
Someone correct me if this is wrong, but how would an bigger pump in the aircraft ever solve the issue of the fuel boiling off and causing lock upstream? Isn't the entire point of putting booster pumps in fuel tanks so they they are in the fuel and therefore under at lest some pressure?
Is this document actually suggesting putting fuel pumps in the drop tanks themselves? If so that's nuts. What, are we gonna spending enormous resources on putting pumps in drop tanks that are going to be jettisoned by the tens of thousands?
Am I missing something about his pumps document? Does anyone have else have this document?
Someone correct me if this is wrong, but how would an bigger pump in the aircraft ever solve the issue of the fuel boiling off and causing lock upstream? Isn't the entire point of putting booster pumps in fuel tanks so they they are in the fuel and therefore under at lest some pressure?
Is this document actually suggesting putting fuel pumps in the drop tanks themselves? If so that's nuts. What, are we gonna spending enormous resources on putting pumps in drop tanks that are going to be jettisoned by the tens of thousands?
Snautzer01
Marshal
- 46,292
- Mar 26, 2007
Troll.
One can not dismiss without counter period docs. Because you do not like them, because it doesnt fit your believes. So you ignore.
Call period document not representive and all is cool again. Then the minions kick in.
I am amazed with your patience.
Its a click bait trap. Said it when started.
DarrenW
Staff Sergeant
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).
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).
Last edited:
Low Battery
Airman
- 39
- Sep 11, 2014
I wanna know where the hell the pictures are. That should clear things up.
This could also be the other metal 200 gallon tank that is already known but was not available until much later. Or this is some experiment that never went anywhere. This document doesn't even state if the tank is pressurized or suitable for combat.
wuzak
Captain
"Belly tank"
Is that a tank that is fitted to some kind of rack and can be jettisoned, or is it a conformal tank that fits to the external shape of the aircraft and can't be dropped?
The 600 gallon tank can only be a ferry tank?
Is that a tank that is fitted to some kind of rack and can be jettisoned, or is it a conformal tank that fits to the external shape of the aircraft and can't be dropped?
The 600 gallon tank can only be a ferry tank?
wuzak
Captain
wuzak
Captain
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?
What pylons were the P-38, P-39 and P-40 using?
Surely those were all using drop tanks before the P-47 saw service?
Shortround6
Lieutenant General
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?
drgondog
Major
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.
drgondog
Major
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.
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.
This is the genesis for the future 150gal Flat tank, and possibly the 215gal flat tank mounted on B-7/B-10 type rack in serial production from P-47D-5.
The four point attach scheme is the reason that the D-2 & D-4 headed for PTO did Not receive B-7/lower cowl kits as the Brisbane tank was schemed for the four point attach scheme of earlier models.
I'll see if Aero Library has the drawing numbers cited above, but believe a.) above is the 205 gal composite tank used briefly for about 30 days before B-7 kits installed and 75 (84actual)gal tank was first used.
The telex indeed proves that Republic was at advanced stage to test and then deliver a 200gal steel tank, so Greg was correct in that assertion. I wonder why it was not delivered until 1944.
Last edited:
Peter Gunn
Master Sergeant
And my opinion of Greg sinks even lower, something I didn't think possible.
Shortround6
Lieutenant General
Mainly going by a P-38 manual that covers the P-38D to most of the "G"s.
TO-01-75F-1 From 1 October 1942, revised 20 Sept 1944.
A lot of manuals have typos and might not be definitive.
This one has 10 different weight and loading charts covering different models of P-38s including the F-4, F-4A and F-5A (3 different dash numbers). The F-4 is listed with tanks, the P-38D, P-38E, and P-38F are listed without but the P-38F-1 LO is listed with the tanks.
One page weight and loading charts. not a lot of details. Like no mention of bombs.
Low Battery
Airman
- 39
- Sep 11, 2014
I don't think the document listing the 1942 200 gallon tank shows anything really. We have bo idea what that tank is or it's specifications. It could be a ferry tank that was made of metal. Or otherwise unpressurized.
Could it not also just be the 205 gallon tanks of the later war but still in development?
The assertion that there was some high altitude capable 200 gallon tank before now never discovered by historians remains without evidence.
Could it not also just be the 205 gallon tanks of the later war but still in development?
The assertion that there was some high altitude capable 200 gallon tank before now never discovered by historians remains without evidence.
