In-flight refueling in ww2: worth the effort, or why bother?

msxyz said:

Isn't the... Human factor a bit overlooked in this discussion? One thing is to cover 1000 km on an aircaft with a cruise speed of 900 km/h, another is to cover the same distance at 350-400 km/h, especially if, after having travelled said distance, a pilot is required to mantain full alert because it happens to be in a hostile environment.

At the typical speeds of ww2 aircrafts, most long range bombers and escort fighters would have benfited more having an extra pair of non-tired eyes onboard rather than larger quantities of fuel!

Click to expand...

You bring up good points. As for the fighters, you're not going to get away from the single pilot cockpit. As far a multi engine aircraft, yes. Not so much during the cruise portion of the flight, but during landings, especially during adverse weather conditions. I've always had issue with the Lancaster for single pilot operations.

As far as extra fuel - it's always welcomed. The only time you don't want extra fuel is when you're on fire.....

As far as extra fuel - it's always welcomed. The only time you don't want extra fuel is when you're on fire.....[/QUOTE]

Thats funny! (and probably wasn't meant to be!)

Yes, Human factor is overlooked. Modern patrol planes and bombers have, at the very least, heated or air-conditioned crew spaces (climate controlled to borrow a phrase). The ones with larger crews (more than 2-3 crewpersons) may have hot beverage makers if not other cooking equipment, A few bunks and/or relief crewpersons. Sanitary facilities more sophisticated than a relief tube or bucket?
Granted some WW II aircraft had some of these features but very few ( B-29?) had all.

Throw in the fact that modern turbo-props and jet engines cause much less vibration to the aircraft and crew than piston engines (and they are better sound proofed)and cause less fatigue and a modern crew is in much better shape at the end of an 18-24 hour mission/flight than a WW II crew would be.
It is amazing that those crews did what they did in cold, drafty, noisy vibrating aircraft for hours on end without asking them to make flights lasting hours longer on a routine basis.

Another factor overlooked so far is that by increasing the flight time by refuelling many WW2 era engines will run out of oil.

Steve

Great points, SR6 Steve.

I think aerial refueling would have been useful in specific circumstances. Mostly a FEW planes on a long-range specific mission, such as perhaps the Mosquito raid on the pison, perhaps liaison into France at night, and certainly bombing raids on Japan with few bombers involved in the specific mission. They could have taken off, climbed to some height, refuelled and had more reserve for the mission.

Like the others above, I do not think it would have been practical or even possible for mass raids due to the sheer numbers of refellers. I have sat in the back of a KC-135 while F-16's refuelled and it was QUICK ... but mostly due to quick ractions of the F-16 by getting into position quickly, quickly receiving fuel, and the maneuverability to rapidly change planes at the boom. There is no way a WWII aircraft could have cycled through anywhere NEAR as quickly, and the quantity of fuel might be wildly different if refuelling, say, a B-17 or B-29 in fight. The B-29 was a wondr, but was NEVER what you might call "maneuverable!"

So perhaps in certain specific constrained circumstances but mostly not pracrtical or possible at the time.

tomo pauk said:

Great points, SR6 Steve.

Click to expand...

Indeed.The P-51 D had an oil capacity of over 20 gallons which enabled it to have such endurance. The Spitfires oil capacity (non tropical) was less than 6 gallons IIRC. We may be talking US and Imperial units but the difference is still significant.
Bf 110s fitted with auxiliary fuel tanks also required auxiliary oil tanks.
It was only tropicalised Spitfires,with their increased oil capacity,that could use the largest ferry tanks as they flew up to North Africa from bases in West Africa like Takoradi.
Steve

IMO a dangerous combination. Elite units with well trained pilots might use aerial refueling. Would be a lot safer with rear mounted prop. Or a tandem engine aircraft such as the Do-335 where the front prop could be feathered while refueling.

davebender said:

IMO a dangerous combination. Elite units with well trained pilots might use aerial refueling. Would be a lot safer with rear mounted prop. Or a tandem engine aircraft such as the Do-335 where the front prop could be feathered while refueling.

Click to expand...

The refueling boom in the wingtip will make it no more of a hazard than refueling an early jet.

Had the B-29 had aerial refueling capability, Iwo Jima would still have to be neutralized, but may not necessarily needed to be taken, saving almost 7000 US and 22000 Japanese lives and 17000 US wounded, an extremely high price. Since not every bomber would need a tanker, a controllable amount of refueling aircraft (C-54s?) could have been used.

another question is going to be the ratio of tankers to strike and escort ac that will need fueled. if you are talking a normal 1000 plane raid then you are going to have to put another 250 to ???? planes in the air. those planes couldnt fly every day so your fleet of tankers would be twice that big....with trained crews...and service personnel...and bases. this isnt taking into account the stateside training facilities that would be needed. would tying up those kinds of resources be worth what you woudl gain? can you afford to tie them up? the lines building the replacement tankers would take away from fighter, bomber production unless you are going to use the dakota....then you are taking away from replacing the transport ac. on a small scale for special missions it might be worthwhile but on a scale that grand i dont think you can afford it....resoursewise.

In flight refueling would have added substantially to luftwaffe capabilities.

Two missions stand out:
1 Transport missions for ultra important raw materials, technology interchange etc with Japan flying over the pole.
2 Special opperations against US continnental targets. This would force a substantial increase in US investment in defenses.
3 Ultra long range maritime patrol to the horn of Africa and the US East Coast.
4 Threatening large parts of the Atlantic, the Nth of Scotland and near Liverpool.

A Major advantage of in flight refueling is the aircraft can then be tanked up well beyond its max takeoff weight thereby carrying both a full load of bombs and a full load of fuel.

The Luftwaffe had a preliminary US target list, mainly Aluminium smelters. Unless an ultra expensive formation of a thousand or so bombers were used to saturate US defenses the losses would be substantial, but a few special opperations against coastal targets or attacks at night might yield results worth their cost.

The Luftwaffe conducted several very succesfull couplings and refueling with both large and small aircraft. He 177's were even ordered with in flight refueling kits (probe and drogue style) whose opperation was to be supervised by the rear gunner in 1941. The work was regarded as production ready by many. Quite a few are detailed in Manfred Griehls "luftwaffe over America". Aircraft as large as Ju 290 were consistantly refueled in 1943.

Erhardt Milch initially tended to pooh pooh this work as the ideas of egg heads (boffins) citing difficulties in rendezvous in realistic conditions such as bad weather to which supporters generally argued that if two similar aircraft buddy refueled at least a 33.3% increase in range can be expected, that rendezvous issues can be avoided by the tanker and receiver leaving in formation at the same time and that the aircraft would always be in an abort back to base situation if they were seperated or a technical fault occured.

The Luftwaffe also had radio homming equipment used to home on to radio navigation buoys dropped by pathfinder aircraft or placed by u-boats as well as homming becons used to find downed pilots at sea and I can't see it would be hard to adapt such things.

The so called "Luft46" long range jet bombers planed for Luftwaffe use were generally to be fitted with in flight refueling eg Horten Ho XVIII.

Had they developed a reliable 4 engined version of the He 177, had they preceded with that in flight refueling kit of 1941 it seems likely they could have been in a position to conduct opperations against the US east coast using two in flight refuelings perhaps as early as 1943. (ie it would have required rendezvous beacons).

That's a huge logistical problem. Two inflight refuellings of a transatlantic bomber force would involve numerous tankers,remembering that they themselves would also need to be refuelled.

Admittedly not the best comparison but it took 13 tankers to get 2 Vulcans (only 1 in the end) from Ascension to Port Stanley in 1982.

Steve

It depends on the risk acceptable. The tanker chart for for the Port Stanley raid was posted earlier. Each plane ALWAYS had enough fuel to make it to a friendly (or neutral) air field capable of handling the plane in case of a mechanical problem with the refueling equipment, Ditching was not considered an option.

Shortround6 said:

It depends on the risk acceptable. The tanker chart for for the Port Stanley raid was posted earlier. Each plane ALWAYS had enough fuel to make it to a friendly (or neutral) air field capable of handling the plane in case of a mechanical problem with the refueling equipment, Ditching was not considered an option.

Click to expand...

One of the Black Buck Vulcans had to divert to Brazil when the fuel probe broke. There was a huge diplomatic hoohaa over the crew who nearly got interned luckily the US pointed out in a freindly way who supplied Brazil with armaments and bought most of its sugar.

Now that 'Amerika bombers' are mentioned, how about a 'Japan bomber', a B-24/-29 that could, with refueling, attack Japan from USA (Alaska?)?

It was called the B-36

You could do a lot of things if all you wanted was one or two planes to drop bombs somewhere/anywhere on an enemy country and you didn't particularly care if you got the planes back (50% losses, 25% losses, 10% or 5% losses??).

A sustainable bombing campaign with selected targets is quite another thing.

There is a what if discussion of an early LW use of aerial refuelling at Axis History Forum • View topic - If the Luftwaffe had developed air to air refuelling by 1940

I've read the thread at the Axis History forum. Seem like the man proposing the idea wants the Ju-88s to perform the tanker job, using Norway as a staging base. With Fw-200, there is no need to use Ju-88s as tankers. Flying off from Norway put both tankers and bombers into a range of radars RAF; why not to take off from France?

Historically, some of the FW 200 flights started in France, looped around below Ireland and then northward and then turn for Norway flying Between Scotland and Iceland. After landing in Norway the plane would refuel, rearm and repair (?) and then reverse the route back to France a few days later.

It is hard to plot an a Map but much easier on a Globe. The Convoy routes were not Straight across the Atlantic but on sort of "great Circle" routes that took them up the coast of Labrador and curved towards Iceland before curving back down towards the British Isles. This also in part to get closer to Iceland based air and a bit further away from France based aircraft but it really didn't add that much to to the trip.