Ad: This forum contains affiliate links to products on Amazon and eBay. More information in Terms and rules
I have a little experience with this doing annual pump tests.
View attachment 783052
Now at sea level the air pressure on the surface of the water is 14.7lb/sq in. and if you had 100% vacuum in the semi rigid tube you should be able to suck the water up over 20ft. If I remember right theory says you can get 2 ft per pound of air pressure.
Ok I looked it up.
View attachment 783051
But you can't reach 100% vacuum outside of a well equipped lab. The problem as you go higher (Like Bolivia) you have less air pressure pushing down on the water which means less pressure to force it up the tube but the weight is pretty much the same (no super lab equipment to measure gravity) so you can lift it less.
Didn't matter if we used a 12hp salvage pump or 300hp/1500gpm diesel pumper. We could only pull water up to the same height.
We weren't dealing with gasoline vapor or other problems.
You can not suck harder than 100% vacuum.
Maybe you can get 80-90%, our gauges didn't measure vacuum very well.
If, on the other hand, your water (liquid) was in a sealed box/tank and you could add even a few pound of pressure to box/tank you could raise the lift distance of the pump.
gasoline is lighter than water, but as stated by others, the pressure inside the tanks is affected by other things. (below zero temperature are not going to help).
You don't need much pressure in the tank, you just need enough to help lift the fluid to the pump. even a couple of pounds of pressure can lift the fluid (fuel) 3-4 ft and then the pump will take care of the rest.
Fire pumps that were 15 to 20 years old that had good gaskets and seals (and grease to seal off the leaks) could pull their rated flow at the specified engine rpm unless they had sucked up a lot of sand, rocks, debris. Fish didn't bother them
Hope I have not confused you more.
So If I am understanding this correctly, it doesnt matter how powerful the pump is because you are ultimately limited by the fact that regardless of how good your pump is you cant pull harder than the ambient pressure because it cant equalize any better than it is being pushed by the atmosphere. No pump, however powerful, can exceed vacuum and even then you cant pull harder than the other side is pushing. So the only solution is to pressurize the side you are drawing from so that you have more pressure on that side.I have a little experience with this doing annual pump tests.
View attachment 783052
Now at sea level the air pressure on the surface of the water is 14.7lb/sq in. and if you had 100% vacuum in the semi rigid tube you should be able to suck the water up over 20ft. If I remember right theory says you can get 2 ft per pound of air pressure.
Ok I looked it up.
View attachment 783051
But you can't reach 100% vacuum outside of a well equipped lab. The problem as you go higher (Like Bolivia) you have less air pressure pushing down on the water which means less pressure to force it up the tube but the weight is pretty much the same (no super lab equipment to measure gravity) so you can lift it less.
Didn't matter if we used a 12hp salvage pump or 300hp/1500gpm diesel pumper. We could only pull water up to the same height.
We weren't dealing with gasoline vapor or other problems.
You can not suck harder than 100% vacuum.
Maybe you can get 80-90%, our gauges didn't measure vacuum very well.
If, on the other hand, your water (liquid) was in a sealed box/tank and you could add even a few pound of pressure to box/tank you could raise the lift distance of the pump.
gasoline is lighter than water, but as stated by others, the pressure inside the tanks is affected by other things. (below zero temperature are not going to help).
You don't need much pressure in the tank, you just need enough to help lift the fluid to the pump. even a couple of pounds of pressure can lift the fluid (fuel) 3-4 ft and then the pump will take care of the rest.
Fire pumps that were 15 to 20 years old that had good gaskets and seals (and grease to seal off the leaks) could pull their rated flow at the specified engine rpm unless they had sucked up a lot of sand, rocks, debris. Fish didn't bother them
Hope I have not confused you more.
The thing is that by 1944 losses in 8th AF had largely shifted from losses to fighters to losses from flak.
I'm willing to bet that USAAF fighters over Schweinfurt for that raid would've reduced B-17 losses. How much is obvs uncertain, but the inbound track would likely have suffered less.
I suspect without proof that the noted 200gal steel tank experienced initial problems - either with Republic mounting scheme or sway braces contemplated with future B-7/B-10 rack scheme. Recall that would begreater weight than 1000 ound bomb. I also suspect that it was downscaled to the 150gal flat tank - which was delivered first.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 bomber losses to flak were in the 1% range. Fighters far greater threat until 1945. chwinfurt losses were GAF inflicted.By mid to late 1944 the bulk of the losses were to flak.
In the first few months of 1944 the Eight AF was still losing large numbers of bombers per mission.
I'm not sure that the presence of P-47s over Schweinfurt would have saved many, if any, B-17 crews.
German losses, however, would have been higher.
That is pretty close or it is expressed a different way.So If I am understanding this correctly, it doesnt matter how powerful the pump is because you are ultimately limited by the fact that regardless of how good your pump is you cant pull harder than the ambient pressure because it cant equalize any better than it is being pushed by the atmosphere. No pump, however powerful, can exceed vacuum and even then you cant pull harder than the other side is pushing. So the only solution is to pressurize the side you are drawing from so that you have more pressure on that side.
so if I have that right, what is that document on about with 16lbs of pressure?
Month | Aphrodite | Battle | Collision | Crash | Flak & | Fighter | Flak | Friendly | Fuel | Icing | Landing | Mechanical | On | Take off | Taxi | Not | Total | Credit | %fighter | %flak |
Month | Aphrodite | Damage | Collision | Crash | Fighter | Fighter | Flak | Fire | Starvation | Icing | Accident | Failure | Ground | Accident | Accident | given | Total | Sorties | %fighter | %flak |
Sep-42 | 1 | 2 | 3 | 106 | 1.89 | 0.00 | ||||||||||||||
Oct-42 | 1 | 1 | 1 | 6 | 1 | 10 | 157 | 3.82 | 0.64 | |||||||||||
Nov-42 | 1 | 2 | 1 | 4 | 5 | 1 | 14 | 382 | 1.05 | 1.31 | ||||||||||
Dec-42 | 1 | 14 | 15 | 243 | 5.76 | 0.00 | ||||||||||||||
Jan-43 | 2 | 1 | 2 | 10 | 5 | 1 | 3 | 24 | 279 | 3.58 | 1.79 | |||||||||
Feb-43 | 2 | 4 | 13 | 5 | 24 | 298 | 4.36 | 1.68 | ||||||||||||
Mar-43 | 2 | 1 | 2 | 15 | 2 | 22 | 716 | 2.09 | 0.28 | |||||||||||
Apr-43 | 3 | 21 | 4 | 28 | 373 | 5.63 | 1.07 | |||||||||||||
May-43 | 3 | 9 | 39 | 20 | 1 | 1 | 73 | 1340 | 2.91 | 1.49 | ||||||||||
Jun-43 | 5 | 2 | 7 | 60 | 15 | 1 | 90 | 1447 | 4.15 | 1.04 | ||||||||||
Jul-43 | 13 | 4 | 10 | 67 | 36 | 1 | 3 | 1 | 2 | 137 | 2334 | 2.87 | 1.54 | |||||||
Aug-43 | 7 | 6 | 15 | 79 | 41 | 3 | 4 | 1 | 1 | 157 | 2058 | 3.84 | 1.99 | |||||||
Sep-43 | 1 | 6 | 3 | 3 | 38 | 21 | 24 | 1 | 3 | 100 | 2561 | 1.48 | 0.82 | |||||||
Oct-43 | 12 | 1 | 13 | 141 | 35 | 2 | 5 | 7 | 216 | 2159 | 6.53 | 1.62 | ||||||||
Nov-43 | 2 | 11 | 2 | 11 | 53 | 16 | 1 | 13 | 1 | 110 | 2916 | 1.82 | 0.55 | |||||||
Dec-43 | 9 | 8 | 2 | 21 | 80 | 49 | 3 | 16 | 4 | 6 | 2 | 200 | 5618 | 1.42 | 0.87 | |||||
Jan-44 | 4 | 12 | 6 | 12 | 127 | 36 | 1 | 1 | 8 | 7 | 214 | 5562 | 2.28 | 0.65 | ||||||
Feb-44 | 12 | 8 | 8 | 26 | 147 | 74 | 5 | 1 | 3 | 16 | 2 | 302 | 8572 | 1.71 | 0.86 | |||||
Mar-44 | 12 | 19 | 6 | 12 | 157 | 112 | 4 | 1 | 3 | 21 | 5 | 1 | 353 | 10552 | 1.49 | 1.06 | ||||
Apr-44 | 13 | 2 | 7 | 13 | 203 | 140 | 4 | 3 | 6 | 21 | 4 | 1 | 417 | 11428 | 1.78 | 1.23 | ||||
May-44 | 13 | 21 | 4 | 9 | 160 | 115 | 6 | 4 | 13 | 18 | 1 | 9 | 1 | 374 | 16346 | 0.98 | 0.70 | |||
Jun-44 | 7 | 10 | 11 | 12 | 42 | 181 | 1 | 4 | 6 | 21 | 44 | 3 | 6 | 2 | 350 | 25866 | 0.16 | 0.70 | ||
Jul-44 | 17 | 22 | 10 | 7 | 60 | 151 | 1 | 10 | 18 | 17 | 3 | 2 | 5 | 323 | 21979 | 0.27 | 0.69 | |||
Aug-44 | 6 | 29 | 12 | 6 | 5 | 36 | 172 | 1 | 1 | 10 | 13 | 5 | 2 | 3 | 301 | 21837 | 0.16 | 0.79 | ||
Sep-44 | 3 | 27 | 22 | 5 | 5 | 97 | 141 | 2 | 7 | 11 | 3 | 4 | 2 | 329 | 16556 | 0.59 | 0.85 | |||
Oct-44 | 4 | 12 | 17 | 3 | 27 | 95 | 1 | 5 | 14 | 3 | 2 | 183 | 17717 | 0.15 | 0.54 | |||||
Nov-44 | 25 | 14 | 5 | 2 | 56 | 130 | 1 | 4 | 8 | 4 | 3 | 1 | 253 | 15361 | 0.36 | 0.85 | ||||
Dec-44 | 2 | 28 | 11 | 8 | 3 | 41 | 61 | 1 | 1 | 14 | 11 | 12 | 2 | 195 | 16260 | 0.25 | 0.38 | |||
Jan-45 | 2 | 55 | 19 | 6 | 2 | 13 | 102 | 1 | 8 | 13 | 20 | 11 | 16 | 1 | 269 | 15249 | 0.09 | 0.67 | ||
Feb-45 | 38 | 14 | 8 | 1 | 6 | 82 | 2 | 8 | 6 | 28 | 7 | 1 | 201 | 20194 | 0.03 | 0.41 | ||||
Mar-45 | 30 | 24 | 9 | 1 | 37 | 98 | 4 | 3 | 6 | 16 | 1 | 3 | 232 | 28826 | 0.13 | 0.34 | ||||
Apr-45 | 13 | 16 | 7 | 2 | 42 | 57 | 10 | 4 | 7 | 1 | 7 | 4 | 170 | 18459 | 0.23 | 0.31 | ||||
May-45 | 1 | 1 | 78 | 0.00 | 1.28 | |||||||||||||||
Total | 17 | 390 | 289 | 119 | 215 | 1893 | 2003 | 44 | 100 | 1 | 130 | 287 | 57 | 96 | 34 | 15 | 5690 | 293829 | 0.64 | 0.68 |
% of loss | 0.30 | 6.85 | 5.08 | 2.09 | 3.78 | 33.27 | 35.20 | 0.77 | 1.76 | 0.02 | 2.28 | 5.04 | 1.00 | 1.69 | 0.60 | 0.26 |
I've always found that hard to believe that bad weather was continuous for 3 months! Further more it only affected areas of Germany outside of the combat radius of 8th AF fighters.The daylight raids were not 'suspended' by LW as much as bad weather over the continent, but Bremen and Kiel remained as tagets (some successfully escorted by 55th FG P-38s, but no P-47s)
6/10 and above made accurate daylight bombing 'iffy' Europe in Fall/Winter has a lot of cloud cover.I've always found that hard to believe that bad weather was continuous for 3 months! Further more it only affected areas of Germany outside of the combat radius of 8th AF fighters.
One month after Black Thursday RAF Bomber Command relaunched their Battle of Berlin. In two months of inaction by the 8th AF they flew 10 missions to Berlin totaling ~ 5000 heavy bomber sorties. In addition they flew deep missions to other targets in Germany. In his book "The Berlin Raids" Martin Middlebrook notes that there was a 12 day period early in December when no heavy bombers flew but otherwise Bomber Command was flying on a regular basis deep into Germany. Either the weather cleared up at night or there was significant difference between the RAF and the USAAF definitions of bad weather.
The 8AF did fly a lot of missions to Germany during this period but without penetrating beyond fighter range.
View attachment 783234
Either the weather cleared up at night or there was significant difference between the RAF and the USAAF definitions of bad weather.
With conspiracy theories anything unsupportive is forgotten instantly, anything that may distract is used endlessly to go down cul de sacs and meanders. So far as I understand it, the 1943 P-47 with 305 gals internal fuel could not fight for 20 minutes over Schweinfurt and make it back to UK. Even with a 200 gallon tank it couldnt do it, but it was closer to doing it than with no external tank or with 100 gallon droppable tank. It is BS that only results in more conspiracy videos not a correction to the original nonsense. I regularly used to drive from Northern England to Northern Germany, I couldnt treat the fact that my car cannot travel on water as an esoteric irrelevance. The straight line distance between some airfield and Schweinfurt at optimal consumption conditions means less than nothing.People forget that the high humidity in the tropics means icing is/was a continuous issue. One Nomad crash in PNG in the 80s was caused by intake icing on take off at 8,500 feet.
Forecast | Actual | |||
Forecast | less than 5/10 | 5 to 8/10 | 8 to 10/10 | Total |
less than 5/10 | 155 | 42 | 39 | 236 |
5 to 8/10 | 31 | 68 | 83 | 182 |
8 to 10/10 | 9 | 16 | 81 | 106 |
Total | 195 | 126 | 203 | 524 |
That is perfectly correct, small is a great word, on a gas guzzling hog like a P-47 a 200 gallon tank only produces a "small" increase in range, I have no idea why Greg bangs on about it so much. To match the P-38 and P-51 the P-47 needed around 500 gallons internal and 400 gallons external fuel, since that was impossible, lets talk about pressurisation of fuel in modern airliners.Finally watching his video "P-47 Pacific Theater Missions".
One of his examples is from Februry 1944, and he isn't sure whether the aircraft was configured with the "Brisbane" tank built in Geelong by Ford, or later standard tanks.
He also cites the small amount of performance lost by the P-47 when carrying drop tanks, and concluded that the tanks don't add much drag.
He didn't seem to make the connection that the P-47 could also be draggy, and that the extra drag of the tanks was proptionally smaller than for other aircraft.