P-47 drop tanks

[ThomasP]

A bit more on the 90 Impgal/108 USgal DTs and 150 USgal DT made by UK manufacturers for the US contracts. Listed as Thunderbolt types - ie the modified UK 90 Impgal designs, and the 'flat' steel 150 USgal DT, requested by the US. From original source documents, but only numbers delivered.

_______________108 gal_______ 150 gal
___________Paper____Steel_____Steel
Dec'43____ 5943_____3095_____0
Jan'44_____8465_____3292_____0
Feb'44_____9464_____3257_____420

Unfortunately, I do not have any other contract data for DT production in the UK.


[Edited, typos - Jan'43 and Feb'43, should have been Jan'44 & Feb'44. Corrected the above.)

 

[drgondog]

Hey drgondog.

re


Possibly you already have this info, but if not - from my notes:

215 USgal (810 l) drop tank: 'flat' steel tank, developed by VIII Service Command, 1st operational use in February(January?) 1945. UK manufacture.

IIRC, Sir Withold Freeman relented on his refusal to authorize rolled steel priority to Bowater in 1944. I believe they made both the110-gal and 215-gal flat tanks.

 

[ThomasP]

Hey MIFlyer,

re

The earliest drop tanks used on the P-38 were 50 gal and were mounted close to the wing. They produced more drag than the larger ones as well as carrying much less fuel
and did not remain in use very long.

Do you have any other info or source on the DTs you refer to above?

 

[MIflyer]

Do you have any other info or source on the DTs you refer to above?

My friend, the late Lt Col Ward Duncan. He was maintenance chief of the 9th Photo Recon Sqdrn, which started out with F-4 (P-38E) recon aircraft that were deployed to India in 1942, Some of Ward's exploits in India were covered in the article "Duncan's Hot Rod."

 

[drgondog]

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

https://ww2aircraft.net/forum/attachments/p47-2-jpg.396894/

https://checksixblog.wordpress.com/wp-content/uploads/2020/04/p-47d-25_42-26418_of_the_61st_fs_56th_fg_col_francis_s_gabreski.jpg

Brisbane tank:
View attachment 805045


More good pics of both the flat and brisbane tanks here:

Drop Tank

During the Republic P-47 Thunderbolt’s initial deployment to the Pacific with the 348th Fighter Group in mid-1943, the issue of range became a challenge in operational employment given the vast dis…

checksixblog.wordpress.com

And more here:

HyperScale Forums-P-47 Brisbane tanks

Some photos were posted here and I made a resin tank in 1/48 based on these photos. I have lost the file I made on them and so trying to find the phot

www.tapatalk.com

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.

I don't believe that Bowater ever made a 'round' 200-gal composite/paper tank. Only a flat tank with essentially the same cross section of the 108-gal tank would fit under a P-47 on the centerline rack. Additionally the upgraded AN-B-10 rack would have to be installed with a load rating of 2100 pounds. The B-7 rack was rated to 1100 pounds.

The mystery tank with exaggerated spacing for attach points is the Republic 200-gal composite, unpressurized ferry tank - first tested on the P-47B circa October 1942. Republic skid plate mounts were 2 each on each skid plate, 28" O.C. The actual scale suggests the 600-gal, but it never got past wind tunnel testing.

 

[drgondog]

In the book Top Guns an F4F pilot who served at the 'Canal provided two bits of info:

1. They used drop tanks on the F4F that were made of a "bean pod" material, which I take to mean as being non-metallic.
2. The pilot had to manually pump the fuel from the drop tanks into the airplane.

The earliest drop tanks used on the P-38 were 50 gal and were mounted close to the wing. They produced more drag than the larger ones as well as carrying much less fuel
and did not remain in use very long.

The aircraft shown below, the Piper Skycycle, was said to be made using an F4U drop tank that was made of a non-metallic material.

View attachment 886648

I wonder if he was describing the 52-gal tanks currently at Guadalcanal for P-39s when the P-38s first arrived. The pylon on the P-38F remained consistent, with AN-B-10 as the primary rack.

The original wing tank/fuel feed scheme was first proposed for XP-49 and P-38E 'provisions for non-sealing droppable tanks' in August 1939.
Lockheed submitted proposals for four tank designs, including aluminum 75-gal tanks in May 1941- which AAF-MC accepted.
F-4 entered combat ops from Australia with 75-gal steel (Bell designed) drop tanks. The same 75-gal steel tanks were used to Ferry P-38F to UK for Bolero, but soon supplanted with Lockheed steel 150(165)-gal drop tanks.

 

[Geoffrey Sinclair]

Imperial Gallons for British types, US gallons for US types, 90/108 = Imperial/US gallons. Any material = Fibre + Metal + Wood. Ministry of Aircraft Production Monthly Statistical Bulletin Jettison tank reports start in December 1943 and end in April 1945

A Thread for Data Files

If you want another reference to check against, you may want to take a look at N.L. Avery's book B-25 Mitchell — The Magnificent Medium (Phalanx Publishing, 1992). It has many appendixes, several of which involve aircraft serial numbers. Some examples: Appendix C — USN/USAAF PBJ Serial Numbers...

ww2aircraft.net

message 32

 

[MIflyer]

The pylon on the P-38F remained consistent, with AN-B-10 as the primary rack.

The 9th when deployed to India had E-models, converted to F-4 recon aircraft I have always assumed they had just used a standard 50 gal belly tank and standard hard points rather than the long pylons of the 160 Gal and 300 Gal Lockheed steel drop tanks. It was a real rush to get the 9th airplanes dismantled and shipped out and at that time shipping such complex and large airplanes was in its infancy. The stevedores all but wrecked the airplanes stuffing them into crates and it required some very creative engineering to put them back together in India, even using parts from wrecked P-66 in some cases. And they ended up with one F-4 that had one engine that was decidedly nonstandard, possibly being a C series V-1710 with an F series reduction gear.

 

[drgondog]

The 9th when deployed to India had E-models, converted to F-4 recon aircraft I have always assumed they had just used a standard 50 gal belly tank and standard hard points rather than the long pylons of the 160 Gal and 300 Gal Lockheed steel drop tanks. It was a real rush to get the 9th airplanes dismantled and shipped out and at that time shipping such complex and large airplanes was in its infancy. The stevedores all but wrecked the airplanes stuffing them into crates and it required some very creative engineering to put them back together in India, even using parts from wrecked P-66 in some cases. And they ended up with one F-4 that had one engine that was decidedly nonstandard, possibly being a C series V-1710 with an F series reduction gear.

The CBI did subcontract 75-gal 'jutta/composite' out of India but I have no details other than the drawings for the US made (US Rubber Co.) 75-gal tanks delivered in early December 1941. I have never seen an image of the P-38E/F-4 wing mount kits, but the production F with standard pylons for drop tanks were delivered only a month after the prototype P-38E wing mount was delivered in December 41.

Did you mean '9th deployed to Australia'? AFAIK the 49FG/9FS were deployed to Australia. An F-4E may have been deployed to CBI for recon but P-38s were not operational anywhere until Sept 1942 in ETO and IIRC with 49FG in Australia in December 1942? The F-4E was certainly operational in Australia, with drop tanks in April 42. I don't think the P-38E ever saw combat ops, being retained on west coast as part of Air Defense.

 

[MIflyer]

Did you mean '9th deployed to Australia'?

Nope. The 9th PRS, equipped with straight-no-suffix F-4, was sent to India in 1942. They later received later model F-4 and F-5. P-38E did get into combat in AK.

 

[drgondog]

Nope. The 9th PRS, equipped with straight-no-suffix F-4, was sent to India in 1942. They later received later model F-4 and F-5. P-38E did get into combat in AK.
View attachment 886988View attachment 886989
View attachment 886990
View attachment 886991
View attachment 886992
View attachment 886993View attachment 886994View attachment 886995View attachment 887000

Good article, I was thinking 9th FS when you referred to the '9th'. I did notice standard pylons on the P-38/F4? shown with both engines removed. Bodie quotes first operational F4 flights out of Australia in April 1942. If true it begs the question why the article has such a high % of P-38E mods going to India? Does he point to sources in the article?

 

[MIflyer]

Good article, I was thinking 9th FS when you referred to the '9th'. I did notice standard pylons on the P-38/F4? shown with both engines removed. Bodie quotes first operational F4 flights out of Australia in April 1942. If true it begs the question why the article has such a high % of P-38E mods going to India? Does he point to sources in the article?

I do not know if the small drop tanks made it to India with the 9th or if they had been phased out before, or how long they were used in India if they did get there. I just know that Ward told me the first ones were too small to be useful and also produced too much drag. I'd suspect they'd have separation problems, too.

As for Warren Bodie not mentioning the early use of the F-4 in India, that theater is truly the forgotten part of the war. When I did research for the article I was surprised to find there were actual Japanese bombing attacks inside India and that the Japanese conducted a land invasion. About all you hear about for the CBI is the Hump, the Flying Tigers, and maybe a little about the Air Commandos in Burma. There is a rather scare book, Eyes for the Phoenix, about air recon in the CBI, but that's about it. as far as I know.

By the way, the 9th Air Refueling Squadron is considered the descendant of the 9th PRS and they contacted me about getting a copy of the article for use in their squadron history display. I also sent them the 9th PRS patch that Ward had given to me.

 

[GregP]

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.

No, not used there. Hot temps and humidity played havoc with metal and canfas. Paper would not likely survive a week in tropical rain, which was p[resent almoste very day at some point.

 

[bauple58]

No, not used there. Hot temps and humidity played havoc with metal and canfas. Paper would not likely survive a week in tropical rain, which was p[resent almoste very day at some point.

One turned up in Melbourne in the early 1980s

 

[Donivanp]

No, not used there. Hot temps and humidity played havoc with metal and canfas. Paper would not likely survive a week in tropical rain, which was p[resent almoste very day at some point.

England rains all the time, or so I'm told. They were doped finish. Can't say as rain and humidity would have much. I don't know but just saying. Europe was humid and no issues.

 

[drgondog]

England rains all the time, or so I'm told. They were doped finish. Can't say as rain and humidity would have much. I don't know but just saying. Europe was humid and no issues.

The Bowater tanks were short lasting as high octane fuel degraded the composite binding. Rarely used for more than one mission, rarely brought home after first use.