MIflyer
Captain
Note that unlike every other air force in the world, the USAAC and USN were flying fighters that carried drop tanks for over a decade before the war started. The reason was simple: our country is just too damn big to not use them.
Greg Spouts Off About P-38 Drop Tanks (1 Viewer)
- Thread starter elbmc1969
- Start date
Ad: This forum contains affiliate links to products on Amazon and eBay. More information in Terms and rules
Thumpalumpacus
Major
I find incorrect information to be uninteresting. I prefer my information to be correct.
I have covered this so many times in my videos, just keep clickin kerching kerching kerchiiiing. To keep the clicks going, Greg behaves in a way that would have had him charged, court martialled or meet an unfortunate accident if he did it in 1940-45. Only in the mad world of Youtube can you argue that you wont go through your incorrect calculations again because you have "covered it so many times". So, five times wrong means you got it right in the end due to the boredom factor.
Even in a huge country like the USA, any government body dropping metal containers on the land part filled with fuel would have questions to answer. They cost money and are a freakin nuisance. Sods law says you start hitting people and buildings and poisoning the cattle's water trough.
Shortround6
Major General
Slow starvation due to poverty restricting grocery money?
He has time to change his ways?
As a gun enthusiast I never click on videos that show a AI gun as an illustration. That is a gun that never existed in real life and often could not be made to function it real life. If they can't be bothered to even use a picture of a real gun why should I waste my time on anything they have to say? Reduces my need for need for antacids and heart medication
Thumpalumpacus
Major
You do realize that they weren't dropped each flight. They almost always landed with the airplane.
Of course, but in a peacetime USA the times they would be dropped would be few and far between. That is why I cant understand anything about the "bomber mafia" conspiracy around "drop tanks". It'th comleth horth thit.
Shortround6
Major General
They may have been droppable in an emergency. Like forced landing (dead engine?).
Obviously a fighter group being deployed from California to the east coast is not going to scatter drop tanks across the US, even assuming that the intermediate airfields had spare drop tanks. But the ability to get rid of even a fume filled tank when landing in a farmer's field might save both plane and pilot. Which means that there were both breakaway fuel fittings and a release mechanism built into the plane/s. Some of the US biplanes had two tanks, one in the fuselage and one tank mounted under the fuselage.
Not an aerodynamic tear drop shape
Most captions say "detachable" but not quick release or droppable.
Close up
Most sources say the planes held 50 US gallons inside and the external tank held another 50 US gallons.
The external tank goes back a long way in US service.
There is lots of interesting stuff on the development of aircraft in the period, however in terms of the bomber mafia conspiracy nonsense you need the creative powers of JK Rowling and Harry Potter to connect the planes in your post and a P-47 being short of fuel in deep penetration operations over Europe in 1943, and I dont care how long the word Maaaaaaaaaaaaafffffffia is dragged out it ith horth thit.They may have been droppable in an emergency. Like forced landing (dead engine?).
Obviously a fighter group being deployed from California to the east coast is not going to scatter drop tanks across the US, even assuming that the intermediate airfields had spare drop tanks. But the ability to get rid of even a fume filled tank when landing in a farmer's field might save both plane and pilot. Which means that there were both breakaway fuel fittings and a release mechanism built into the plane/s. Some of the US biplanes had two tanks, one in the fuselage and one tank mounted under the fuselage.
View attachment 821209
Not an aerodynamic tear drop shape
Most captions say "detachable" but not quick release or droppable.
Close up
Most sources say the planes held 50 US gallons inside and the external tank held another 50 US gallons.
The external tank goes back a long way in US service.
Shortround6
Major General
Just showing, without the whole song and dance, that auxiliary/external fuel tanks went back over 10 years before the start of WW II (1939) in US service. What doesn't seem to show up is why the US moved away from them. And they did, however unlike Europe the US kept a long range requirement, long in 1930s terms. They simply stuffed a lot of fuel tankage inside the airplanes in question and eliminated the external tank. P-36s could hold 160 US gallons of fuel. However the performance numbers were taken at 105 US gallons and the plane was restricted in flight maneuvers while carrying more than 105 US gallons. The plane was both overloaded and out of CG for certain maneuvers.
We also have to look at the context of the US bombers of the 1930s.
B-10B...........Normal range 590 miles, maximum range 1240 miles, ferry range 1830 miles
B-18.............Range was 1082 miles with 2200 pounds of bombs and 412 gallons of fuel, or 1200 miles with 4400 pounds of bombs and 802 gallons of fuel.
Weights: 15,719 pounds empty, 21,130 pounds gross, 27,087 pounds pounds maximum takeoff. Cruising speed 167 mph.
Y1B-17 No turbo.................Weights: 24,465 pounds empty, 34,880 pounds normal loaded, 42,600 pounds maximum. Normal range 1377 miles. Range with 4000 pounds of bombs was 2400 miles. Some of this may be in error but the idea of flying long range (hundreds of miles) through enemy air space didn't seem to be part of the planning. The Y1B-17 was armed with 5 .30 cal guns with 1000rpg each.
Also try to figure out how many other countries (Japanese A6M excluded) could even fly long range fighter missions.
Another hint is that you need long range radios and/or you really need to stay close to the bombers.
You forgot the French speciality : guillotine.
MIflyer
Captain
As other have said, they were not dropped on peacetime missions except in emergencies.
I recall a friend saying in our home town said he observed a USAF T-33A dropping its tip tanks over a populated area.
I recall reading in a USAF safety magazine about a T-33A taking off from Mountain Home AFB, ID, just before a storm front hit. They were rolling down the runway when the gust front overtook them from behind, instantly causing a huge drop in airspeed. The only way to get off the ground before the runway ran out was to punch off the tip tanks.
And I recall a former military pilot admitting that he left two drop tanks in a golf course.
And that is all the cases I have ever heard about, despite 25 years on active duty in the USAF and a lifelong study of aviation.
Now, a friend of mine who was in a German POW camp in WW2 said that Allied pilots would on occasion drop their tanks into the POW compound. They probably were Polish pilots and were just trying to say hello, buck, up, we're here, etc. but of course everyone's reaction was to run like hell and duck for cover. He said there occasionally was enough fuel left in the tanks to fill a cigarette lighter and that the tank he saw was made out of paper.
GrauGeist
Generalfeldmarschall zur Luftschiff Abteilung
There are some really good, informative and accurate YT channels and most of the authors welcome constructive criticism.
Greg's is not one of those.
wuzak
Captain
Sentenced to speech therapy to make listening to his videos easier.
And to a writing workshop to help make the video script more concise and shorter.
wuzak
Captain
My worry is that his fans pop up in comments sections of other videos, spreading his talking points.
Thumpalumpacus
Major
I don't often listen to Greg because his agenda is so obvious, so yeah, I've dropped the blade on watching him, for the most part. The other thing is that engine-specifics sorta give me brain-coma and he indulges in those liberally.
Thumpalumpacus
Major
He's not great, but he's far from the worst. There are a couple of naval channels where their diction and writing are so stilted that whether or not I watch them depends on the ship under discussion and my level of boredom. I also avoid artificial-voiceover videos likes the plague that they are.
I have to say that I don't trust anyone using either "greetings" or "salutations" as an opening. Greg, of course, uses the former.
wuzak
Captain
There is another channel where the creator was accused of being an AI voice!
Thumpalumpacus
Major
There are channels in which I wish the creator used an AI voice -- it would be better than his leaden diction.
