P-47: Range, Deceit and Treachery

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

If you are laboring under the assumption that Doolittle 'plotted' against Republic to cast the P-47D in an unfavorable light, 'say it isn't so'.
Until the P-47D-25 entered limited combat operations in Mid May 1944, in limited quantities below squadron level strength, it was flying in mixed formations to the endurance radius of the earlier P-47Ds with only 305 gallons of internal fuel. It was incapable of target escort beyond Brunswick until late June 1944. By then most of the P-47D groups had converted to P-51B/C/D and three of the four P-38 groups converted by mid July.

The P-51B comparison in 1943 to the P-47D of early 1944 showed a demonstrable advantage over the pre -25D. In January 1944 when the P-51B/C arrived into combat ops With the 85 gallon mod (and no combat tanks), the P-51B could escort farther than the P-47D w/150gal external tank. When 2x75 gallon external tanks were added, the P-51B went to Poland and back while the P-47s turned back mid-Germany.
 
Last edited:

If you haven't already, you should post that on his YouTube page:

 
There are two separate discussions - Ferry tanks and Combat (self sealing) tanks. The US produced only Ferry tanks through most of 1943 despite Arnold ordering Combat tanks as a high priority to Materiel Command in Fighter Conference of Feb 1942.

The use of Ferry Tanks in combat was forbidden in AAC. The mention of Arnold in Bodie was convoluted in origin and specifically pointed out for conversation Kelsey had with Arnold about how the P-38s of 1st FG were flown to England in July 1942.

The order 'forbidding' dropping external tanks was issued by CO of VIII FC, Gen. Monk Hunter because the supply of 75 gal Combat tanks was still very limited in August - October 1943. The Fighter Group CO's basically told their pilots to ignore the order if combat was imminent.

As to the Mustang I and IA. True no provision for combat or external ferry tanks - but early 1941 NAA developed an auxiliary fuel cell housed in the gun bay 0f 18 gal enabling a 1500 mi ferry (or about a 500 mi combat radius with 2x50 cal guns in Mk I and camera). The P-51-NA had the same provision but USAAF never used it as removing 4x20mm eliminated all armament.
 
Well, the Mustang MkI/IA had a 1000 mile range on internal fuel alone, and given their use of the airplane, which was not for long range escort, that was more than enough and verged on twice the range of a Spitfire.

Were the paper tanks self-sealing?
 
Zipper730 said:
Just out of curiosity, what kind of errors?
Click to expand...

He was talking about why the Daimler-Benz was inverted, and had listed all the usual things people say in his video, I gave him a list that was written by Wolfram Eisenlohr, who was in charge of German aero engine development from 1938 to 1944. He wasnt very interested, that was more an attempt at a helpful addition than an "error" as such.

He then made a fairly big error in his P51 performance video, which claimed that the laminar flow wing was basically a legend which had built up and wasnt really very important and didnt work nearly as well as people thought it did. I mentioned 3 archive reports I had which stated the opposite (one was a Supermarine report, the other two were German windtunnel tests of the P51). He made it clear that he was perfectly happy and didnt want to alter anything. So there you go.
 
drgondog said:
There are two separate discussions - Ferry tanks and Combat (self sealing) tanks. The US produced only Ferry tanks through most of 1943 despite Arnold ordering Combat tanks as a high priority to Materiel Command in Fighter Conference of Feb 1942.
Click to expand...
Fascinating. What I'm confused about were these tanks the P-47 had which were nicknamed "babies" because of their bulged appearance -- just to be clear, these are the ferry tanks, and they can be jettisoned? They didn't look like they could be.
The use of Ferry Tanks in combat was forbidden in AAC. The mention of Arnold in Bodie was convoluted in origin and specifically pointed out for conversation Kelsey had with Arnold about how the P-38s of 1st FG were flown to England in July 1942.
Click to expand...
From what I remember the issue of drop-tanks in general was that, for escort missions, they figured that pilots would just punch them off and sacrifice all the range. The fact is that the use of fuel from shortly after takeoff to cruise altitude is a substantial amount of gas. With no change of internal fuel during that period, you would get some range benefit even if you punched it off at the top of the climb. Then around 1939, I'd almost swear there was a concern of it being a fire-hazard and, I do remember looking at a gun-cam shot of a German fighter getting shot in the drop-tank: The tank exploded, one wing came off, and the aircraft did a remarkable roll-rate (uncontrollably, of course).
I honestly thought the 4 x 20mm arrangement was something that was solely a British thing. I thought the P-51's originally had 6 x 0.50 (2 x nose + 4 x wings).

I can sort of understand that, if you're trying to make a video of suitable length. That said, I would be interested in such a thing.
I was under the impression that it did produce considerable reduction in drag, though it didn't produce a flow that was perfectly laminar (or at least, as laminar as desired) because of limits in manufacturing tolerances, paint-jobs, and dirt.
 
Why was the DB engine inverted?
 
Drop tanks in general were not self sealing
 
Marshall_Stack said:
Why was the DB engine inverted?
Click to expand...
Why not? What is "inverted". In aero engines a huge number were rotary or radial. Some are horizontally opposed today. The convention of V engines being with cylinders pointing up comes from the car industry and modern times in the 1930s there were no such conventions.
 
I did not think that drop tanks were self sealing but there was a distinction being made between ferry tanks and combat drop tanks.

The P-39 could carry a 200 gal ferry tank as well, and I wonder if there was any relationship between it and the 200 gal P-47 tank. The picture is of a P-400 in England equipped to deploy to North Africa.
 
R RCAFson

From the document I found a passage on page 9

...."During the twenties only a few innovations were added to
the general escort tactics used in the first World War.
Pursuits were to assist any bomber forced to drop behind the
formation and to prevent concentration of superior enemy forces
against any part of the friendly formation. The basic tenets
of pursuit tactics placed escort under the classification of
"special missions," and through pursuit and bombardment manuals
discussed escprt, no new theories on its used were developed
for many years. Airmen regarded escort as a legitimate
function for pursuit, but found no plane that could provide
it.
.....Most fliers considered the multiplace or two-place type as
ideal for escort since they believed its greater defensive
firepower was advantageous in missions that were lacking in
support."

I don't understand what that means. Lacking in support? Do they mean numerical support -- like they don't have enough fighters?
 

The way I interpret it is that ideally, a bomber formation provides mutual support.
A "bomber forced to drop behind the formation" loses such mutual support, so the "greater defensive firepower" of the "multiplace or two-place type" is a way to mitigate that.
 
gjs238 said:
The way I interpret it is that ideally, a bomber formation provides mutual support.
Click to expand...
So, the idea might have meant in cases where the bombers didn't have sufficient overlapping firepower -- the twin-seat fighter could add some extra firepower to the equation?
 
Hey MIflyer:

re: "The P-39 could carry a 200 gal ferry tank as well, and I wonder if there was any relationship between it and the 200 gal P-47 tank."

I remembered building Col. Gabreski's P-47 when I was a kid, the Monogram(?) model had the flat steel 200 USgal DT. From what I can see in the P-400 picture it is the same type of DT.
 
re the question of self-sealing DTs (SSDT).

There were several SSDT used by the US and UK in WWII.

For the UK there was at least one 30 Impgal slipper "combatable" SSDT used by the Spitfire (starting with the Mk V) and Seafire. There was also a 45 Impgal version (though maybe not used during the war?) All normal maneuvers could be carried out with these tanks, full or empty.

For the US there was at least one version of the USN 150 USgal DT that was "combatable" and self-sealing. I have run across documents (including a couple of the SACs and Pilot's Manuals) that mention the F4U often carried one of them on an inner wing station during the late-war period. There are also some photos floating around on the internet somewhere. As with the UK "combatable" SSDT, all normal maneuvers could be carried out with these tanks, full or empty.

I have read that the F6F also used this 150 USgal SSDT on the centerline, but I have not been able to find any detailed information or photos.
 
Last edited:
You must log in or register to reply here.

Users who are viewing this thread

Total: 1 (members: 0, guests: 1)

Similar threads

N
The Great P-47 Range Debate on you tube now.
4 5 6
Replies
105
Views
8K
Holtzauge
T
P-47 roll rate - a bit of new (to me) info
Replies
1
Views
609
Shortround6
S
Paper comparing the flight performance of the P-40E Warhawk and the A6M2 Zero
Replies
8
Views
884
Ivan1GFP
I
Range drop tanks and declining returns
Replies
12
Views
1K
drgondog
M
P-61 Performance
Replies
15
Views
944
Snautzer01
Menu
Log in
Register