Ad: This forum contains affiliate links to products on Amazon and eBay. More information in Terms and rules
The top 200gal tak was the plastic/paper composite rated to 7psi and deemed 'not suitable' for pressurization. I supplied Greg all those tank and related source docs - ut as usual n mention of the help. That said, they DO form the source pool for Boylon's Study 136, which is how I found them at USAFHRC.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.
The B-7 'std' as used on P-47 and P-51 early, was rated at 600# AFAIK.
It was a standard method of handling the fuel, ALL US fighters routed the fuel back to one of the main tanks, the tank that also the "reserve" tank.Another question regarding Greg's range calculations.
He says that when the external tank(s) is in use, the overflow from the carburetor is returned to the main tank, thus topping up the main tank.
He used, IIRC, this fuel to add range in his calcultions.
Is this a legitimate method?
The first question I would ask there is how was the fuel consumption data collected in the first place? Was it from a bench test of fuel flow and calculation of cruise speeds etc. Or was it from actual data on planes, taking the actual fuel used on actual flights where the fuel is returned to the tank and therefore inclusive of it. The first thing I would say is that if your calculations use such margins of safety as normal then you risk your whole force dropping in the sea off the English coast when things go even slightly fubar.Another question regarding Greg's range calculations.
He says that when the external tank(s) is in use, the overflow from the carburetor is returned to the main tank, thus topping up the main tank.
He used, IIRC, this fuel to add range in his calcultions.
Is this a legitimate method?
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.
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.
Thank you both for your invaluable information.re the 200 gallon steel belly tank or auxiliary tank referred to in the above document
My understanding is that the 200 gallon steel belly tank referred to in the document above is the prototype for what became the 205 gallon 'paper' ferry tank as we are referring to it. Republic made the aerodynamic shape and mechanical function testing prototype(s) out of steel because they worked with steel on a regular basis, and steel was cheap and easy to work with. When the production RFQs were sent out the respondents came up with a couple of different designs - including what became what we (and others) are calling the 205 gallon 'paper' ferry tank, although it was sometimes called a 'fiber' tank. One of the respondents also offered what was referred to as a 'composite' tank made of steel, wood, and plastic. For whatever reason the 'paper' aka 'fiber' tank design was chosen over a steel design - I suspect for weight reasons but do not know.
re the term auxiliary tank
In the pre-war and early-war period the USAAC/AAF often referred to the ferry tanks and DT as auxiliary tanks. The terminology bounced around a bit, and started to use modifiers like droppable, and belly or underwing.
The Australians seemed to use the term belly tank for all drop tanks and ferry tanks if they were not carried in the bomb bays, at least in their contracts.
re the term assemblies
The USAAC/AAF used the term assemblies to denote what are sometimes referred to as knockdown kits by the UK & Australians - ie the parts are shipped to wherever they are going in disassembled or partially disassembled kit form for ease of shipment and reduced space required. It takes a lot less space to package the drop tank half shells when they are packed like spoons and the baffles are still flat pressed stampings. I do not know how many were shipped like this to the ETO but there were a lot of them shipped as knockdown kits to Australia, where the factories would then solder, weld, or braze the appropriate half-shells, baffles, fuel tight fittings, etc. Also, shipping the tanks with all the bits already in place would allow greater chance of damage to the more fragile pieces.
I have also seen the term assemblies used in other military equipment literature to mean assembly kits or knockdown kits.
I do not know if this helps with the discussion, but it provides part of the timeline for the initial use of the British made 108 USgal paper and the US made 205 USgal paper ferry tank relative to the P-47. I think this has already been posted on the forum somewhere (maybe even by me?) in one form or another, but I do not remember for sure.
This would depend entirely on the fuel pump and the carburettor system. Many P-47 R-2800 engines used the Bendix Stromberg PT13 Pressure Carburettor. This carburettor did not feature a fixed rate of fuel return to the tanks. What it did have was a vapour separator operated by a float valve. This vapour separator released trapped air that had been entrained in the fuel flow, back to the (vented) fuel tank. In steady flight, the return of vapour with some fuel would be minimal. In aerobatics or manoeuvring flight it is likely that some fuel would recycle to the tank. However, this returned fuel was not metered and did not effect the fuel consumption, it was just recycled in the process of keeping the carb fuel air-free.Another question regarding Greg's range calculations.
He says that when the external tank(s) is in use, the overflow from the carburetor is returned to the main tank, thus topping up the main tank.
He used, IIRC, this fuel to add range in his calcultions.
Is this a legitimate method?
LOL - I called him on that and quoted E=mC^2, reminding him that a.) carb overflow returns were small in cruise, more common while starting engine and taxiing, while avancing and retarding throttle, and b.) was not a filling station in the sky adding to internal fuel.Another question regarding Greg's range calculations.
He says that when the external tank(s) is in use, the overflow from the carburetor is returned to the main tank, thus topping up the main tank.
He used, IIRC, this fuel to add range in his calcultions.
Is this a legitimate method?
Another question regarding Greg's range calculations.
He says that when the external tank(s) is in use, the overflow from the carburetor is returned to the main tank, thus topping up the main tank.
He used, IIRC, this fuel to add range in his calcultions.
Is this a legitimate method?
It's double-counting the returned fuel -- once when loaded in, and then again when it's returned.
I'd think a pilot would have better math skills than this. I hope it's someone else doing the fuel calculations on his aircraft.
I think he is using it to claim that there is more fuel in the internal yanks for the return journey, rather than it being additional to the overall fuel.
But wouldn't that amount of fuel be dwarfed by the required fuel reserve?
Would having P-47s escort to target or the Schweinfurt raids made much difference to the losses on those raids?
We know that in early 1944 the Eighth Air Force bomber losses remained high, even though raids were escorted.
In other words, there was little short term gain, but big long term gains.