P-47 drop tanks

Ad: This forum contains affiliate links to products on Amazon and eBay. More information in Terms and rules

Donivanp

Major
9,462
8,104
Feb 23, 2014
Katy Texas
Question; paper drop tanks, were they used in the southwest pacific ie New Guinea, Dobodura, Nazdab etc…. The ranges were long and when the P-38's were pulled from the 475th they got the 47D's.
 
Question; paper drop tanks, were they used in the southwest pacific ie New Guinea, Dobodura, Nazdab etc…. The ranges were long and when the P-38's were pulled from the 475th they got the 47D's.
I know the 348th Fighter Group in New Guinea used the metal tanks locally manufactured in Australia known as Brisbane tanks. Google that and you will find photos showing them, they are not similar to the P-38 Lightning tanks used by the 475th.
Dave
 

Attachments

  • Screenshot_20241103_163528_Chrome.jpg
    Screenshot_20241103_163528_Chrome.jpg
    111.8 KB · Views: 7
  • Screenshot_20241103_163504_Chrome.jpg
    Screenshot_20241103_163504_Chrome.jpg
    57.2 KB · Views: 6
  • Screenshot_20241103_163403_Chrome.jpg
    Screenshot_20241103_163403_Chrome.jpg
    57 KB · Views: 7
re
Thanks. I've found them using Lockheed 75 gallon tanks and 65 gallon tanks.

I have never heard of a 65 gallon DT used on the P-47. Do you mean 165 gallon?

P-47D 2x165 USgal DTs_100.jpg


These are the Lockheed type 165 USgal DTs (sometimes referred to as 150 USgal), originally designed for the P-38. Large numbers were used by both aircraft in the PTO. I think there was a production line set-up in Australia as well, but cannot say for sure.
 
Question; paper drop tanks, were they used in the southwest pacific ie New Guinea, Dobodura, Nazdab etc…. The ranges were long and when the P-38's were pulled from the 475th they got the 47D's.
Paper tanks have turned up here in Australia, indicating they could have also been used operationally.

As an aside, the term "Brisbane tank" would appear to be a fictional creation, coined by barefoot historians and subsequently embraced uncritically by enthusiasts.
 
Care to elaborate?
No wartime references to the term can be found in either the US or Australia. The first references appear late last century in published secondary sources, and are never accompanied by source citations.

Moreover, no documentary evidence has ever emerged to show that these larger capacity tanks were ever manufactured in Brisbane. In his 1947 memoir George Kenney notes only that "I put the Ford Company of Australia to work making them," vide General Kenney reports : a personal history of the Pacific War / George C. Kenney
 
Last edited:
No wartime references to the term can be found in either the US or Australia. The first references appear late last century in published secondary sources, and are never accompanied by source citations.
Thank you.

Moreover, no documentary evidence has ever emerged to show that these larger capacity tanks were ever manufactured in Brisbane. In his 1947 memoir George Kenney notes only that "I put the Ford Company of Australia to work making them," vide General Kenney reports : a personal history of the Pacific War / George C. Kenney
Seems like that there was the Ford manufacturing plant in Brisbane.
 
I don't think there were 75 US gallon P-38 (Lockheed) tanks, either. There were the standard teardrop shaped USAAF 75 gal tanks, I believe made of steel. There were 150, 165, and 300 US gal tanks made for the P-38. The models rated for 1000 lb bombs underwing could've used the 150 and 165 gal versions, but I'm not sure about 300 gal. I vaguely remember something about it, but I may be thinking of something else. They also might have only been used for ferry flights. (similar to the P-80B that mounted those 300 gal tanks under its wingtips in place of the 165 gal tanks for the Trans-continental speed record flight)

I've never seen the P-47 mounting any of the Lockheed tanks on the belly shackle, and it might have been a clearance issue. There was also a 175 US gal (145.6 imp gal) belly tank used on the P-39 that might have fit under the P-47, but I haven't seen that in use. It's also possible the P-47 lacks the clearance needed to carry that under the belly.

That said, there were several 200 US gal (166.5 imp gal) belly tanks used on the P-47 (other than the conformal Ferry tank). I believe there were more than 3 different types of combat-usable 200 gal belly tanks, maybe more variations than that. There's the "flat" steel tank that wasn't available early on and ended up used more in the Pacific (and I think I've seen another flat/squarish 200 gal steel tank in use), and there's the 200 gal British made impregnated paper tank (a bigger version of the common 108 gal paper tanks). I'm not sure how early that was available, but would've been one around in the ETO.

And then there's one other large belly tank, that I presumed was 200 gal (as I've not seen anything bigger than that mentioned in planning or performance charts) that's depicted in one of the Pilot training manuals for the P-47B,C,D, and G.
Posted years ago in this thread:

It's a very long, banana shaped tank, circular in frontal cross section, and sized to fit just within the clearance limits of the P-47. It's clearly not the ferry tank and not conformal and also doesn't look like the British made paper tank. I'm not sure if it was ever used in service, but presumably it was either the USAAC's or Republic's own design.

See pages III and 14. Pg 28 also mentions 45 gallons for warmup and climb plus 460 gallons for flight (including belly tank). This would be 505 gallons total, implying use of a 200 gallon belly tank plus 305 gallon internal capacity.

So whatever that tank is, it's 200 gallons. Maybe it's just a really poor depiction of the British made paper tank, but I highly doubt it's a representation of the conformal ferry tank. It very clearly depicts a hanging belly tank and not a conformal one.

All of those depictions are without any wing pylons fitted, either, and the P-47B is depicted without any external stores.

The range figures for any given fuel capacity are also likely a bit higher than later P-47D models with wing pylons given the added drag. (Top speed cut from 435 to 420 mph, though supposedly the earliest pylons cut speed by 45 mph) Internal fuel capacity was also later increased to 370 US gallons.

The drag of the pylons seems like it would've made for an interesting case to experiment with drop tanks mounted under the wingtips on flush hardpoints. (though that would've been even more important on the P-47J, had it gone into production)
 

Attachments

  • P-47B,C,D,G.pdf
    13.2 MB · Views: 1
I don't think there were 75 US gallon P-38 (Lockheed) tanks, either. There were the standard teardrop shaped USAAF 75 gal tanks, I believe made of steel. There were 150, 165, and 300 US gal tanks made for the P-38. The models rated for 1000 lb bombs underwing could've used the 150 and 165 gal versions, but I'm not sure about 300 gal. I vaguely remember something about it, but I may be thinking of something else. They also might have only been used for ferry flights. (similar to the P-80B that mounted those 300 gal tanks under its wingtips in place of the 165 gal tanks for the Trans-continental speed record flight)

I've never seen the P-47 mounting any of the Lockheed tanks on the belly shackle, and it might have been a clearance issue. There was also a 175 US gal (145.6 imp gal) belly tank used on the P-39 that might have fit under the P-47, but I haven't seen that in use. It's also possible the P-47 lacks the clearance needed to carry that under the belly.

That said, there were several 200 US gal (166.5 imp gal) belly tanks used on the P-47 (other than the conformal Ferry tank). I believe there were more than 3 different types of combat-usable 200 gal belly tanks, maybe more variations than that. There's the "flat" steel tank that wasn't available early on and ended up used more in the Pacific (and I think I've seen another flat/squarish 200 gal steel tank in use), and there's the 200 gal British made impregnated paper tank (a bigger version of the common 108 gal paper tanks). I'm not sure how early that was available, but would've been one around in the ETO.

And then there's one other large belly tank, that I presumed was 200 gal (as I've not seen anything bigger than that mentioned in planning or performance charts) that's depicted in one of the Pilot training manuals for the P-47B,C,D, and G.
Posted years ago in this thread:

It's a very long, banana shaped tank, circular in frontal cross section, and sized to fit just within the clearance limits of the P-47. It's clearly not the ferry tank and not conformal and also doesn't look like the British made paper tank. I'm not sure if it was ever used in service, but presumably it was either the USAAC's or Republic's own design.
The 200gal 'croaking bullfrog' (Gabreski description) was indeed the four point attach point attach bolt Republic ferry tank. Operational service 28 July thru 23 August. The new keel/B-7 bomb/belly tank racks were installed on the C-2 thru D-4s in ETO. First US 75gal tank mission also flown on 8/23.
A plywood 'bow' was installed to force the tank downward when released, was unpressurized and would not feed draw fuel above 20-23000 (by report, it often would not always feed at 20K, but sometimes to 23K). Operationally limited to 100gal. Photo - Roger Freeman TM8WM
 

Attachments

  • 200gal Ferry tank- freeman.jpg
    200gal Ferry tank- freeman.jpg
    272.4 KB · Views: 3
Last edited:
I'm familiar with what the conformal ferry tank looks like (and its limited usability). Then there's the later-war "flat" steel belly tank and the other I was thinking of was a somewhat similar, but more tapered tub-shaped steel tank with built-in sway-brace style wings or brackets along the top of either side. The latter turns out to be the "Brisbane Tank" already mentioned above by Davecww1.

Flat tank:
urg0517-jpg.jpg


Brisbane tank:
RRR72182%20P-47%20Brisbane%20Tank%201a.jpg



More good pics of both the flat and brisbane tanks here:
And more here:
3138820_84d5585f3aba57785488abfb390eb67d_t.jpg

3138820_aebbd5dc47ed0903bc5d9824037846f9_t.jpg






But the two examples that (should) predate them are these two:

A British style 200 gal impregnated paper tank:
drop-tanks-jpg.jpg


This would implicitly be ETO-specific and supplied by the British, but I don't think I've seen it in photos. (either that or it's just too hard to tell from the 108 or 110 gal paper tanks without a better sense of scale, given how much perspective can skew things)

Then again, I don't think I've seen a P-39 with its 175 US gal tank mounted either.


And the mystery tank pictured in the P-47B/C/D/G manual: see the attachment.
 

Attachments

  • P-47C,D,G belly tank.jpg
    P-47C,D,G belly tank.jpg
    93.6 KB · Views: 2
I'm familiar with what the conformal ferry tank looks like (and its limited usability). Then there's the later-war "flat" steel belly tank and the other I was thinking of was a somewhat similar, but more tapered tub-shaped steel tank with built-in sway-brace style wings or brackets along the top of either side. The latter turns out to be the "Brisbane Tank" already mentioned above by Davecww1.

Flat tank:
View attachment 805044

Brisbane tank:
View attachment 805045


More good pics of both the flat and brisbane tanks here:
And more here:
View attachment 805046
View attachment 805047





But the two examples that (should) predate them are these two:

A British style 200 gal impregnated paper tank:
View attachment 805048

This would implicitly be ETO-specific and supplied by the British, but I don't think I've seen it in photos. (either that or it's just too hard to tell from the 108 or 110 gal paper tanks without a better sense of scale, given how much perspective can skew things)

Then again, I don't think I've seen a P-39 with its 175 US gal tank mounted either.


And the mystery tank pictured in the P-47B/C/D/G manual: see the attachment.
Good research.
Comments
The top tank labeled '200 gallon tank' is the Bowater 108gal composite paper tank.
The bottom tank labeled '200gallon Flat Belly Tank' is Republic design that actually has 215gal capacity

IIRC Bowater did not make a composite 200/215gal flat tank - and equally unsure that any tank made in UK was made of steel as BWM denied Bowater priority for rolled steel in May 1943.

The tank shown in the early P-47B/C manual Is the Republic 200gal Ferry tank - with four point attach.
 

Users who are viewing this thread

Back