P-47: Range, Deceit and Treachery

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

When you turn any engine "upside down" you complicate oil scavenging, make air/oil separation more challenging, and increase the risk of hydraulic lock in the cylinders as the engine cools down. More a problem in air cooled engines with their looser tolerances, but liquid cooled engines are not immune. That's why "inverted" engines are in the minority everywhere except in the lands of DeHaviland, Daimler, and Junkers.
Cheers,
Wes
 
Yes but I do not know what steps were taken to meet the self sealing criteria for combat tanks. IIRC the p-39 ferry tank was a slipper like but only 170 gal.
 
Last edited:
The tank shown is the 150 gal 'flat tank. The 200 was a bulbous monstrosity in ltd use from July through August 1943.
 
According to Warren Bodie, the flat tank steel like that featured on the Monogram P-47D bubbletop kit held 150 gallons and was used only on the P-47, due to the obvious ground clearance problems. He also says they tried a flat paper tank but it was a dismal failure. I assume that the big belly tank on the P-400 could have held no more than 150 gallons as well.

Attached is some info from Bodie on the so-called 200 gallon P-47 belly tank. He says in reality it held only about 100 gallons of usable fuel, which I could believe because it was unpressurized and thus would have required the pumps in the airplane to suck the fuel up from the tank, a task which became more difficult as the altitude increased. So I think that pretty well blows the "drop tank conspiracy" idea out of the water.
 
Snowygrouch said:
I offered him archive documents to fix serious errors / give additional info to two of his videos, he didn't seem to be interested. Which is a shame
as he obviously puts in a lot of work, and makes videos which thousands of people enjoy.
Click to expand...

I've also seen this time and time again while reading his comments section. People will bring up factual mistakes in his videos but he rarely accepts their version of things, even when they provide hard evidence that support their position. Once he makes a determination on something, right or wrong, he tends to stick with it.

In regards to this video his time line is wrong in places, and his insistence that the ferry tank was actually a dedicated combat ready drop tank that was available in early 1943 really hurts the credibility of the entire video. Too bad, as he does make some valid points elsewhere and I've enjoyed watching all of his videos so far. I'm still thankful for his contributions as they allow for a discussion on highly technical topics, which is exactly where my interests lie.
 
Hey guys,

The information I have may be wrong, but as far as I can find the 150 USgal DT used on the P-47 was a metal cylindrical teardrop shape. The only steel 'flat' type DT I can find information on was technically listed as 215 USgallons but usually just called a 200 USgal DT. Both types are shown below.


I do not have the ability to scan manuals right now, but the late-war P-47 manuals mention the 200 USgal steel 'flat' type DT also. This DT is not related to the 200 USgal ferry tank (ie the "bulbous monstrosity") used mid-war.

Possibly there was a 150 USgal steel 'flat' type DT also, but I have not found reference in the manuals, only the 150 USgal teardrop types.
 
Last edited:
What strikes me the most reading the posts in this thread is the attitude of the USAF compared to the RAF, it must have been frustrating seeing P47-P51's flying to Germany when your own plane after 4 years of war could still barely cross the channel.
 
PAT303 said:
What strikes me the most reading the posts in this thread is the attitude of the USAF compared to the RAF, it must have been frustrating seeing P47-P51's flying to Germany when your own plane after 4 years of war could still barely cross the channel.
Click to expand...

The USAAF's attitude was that the bombers didn't need escorts at all until the Luftwaffe started destroying the bombers in large numbers in the latter half of 1943. Even after this the 8th AF commanders were unconvinced, and would have continued raids into Germany had it not been for (mainly) the weather preventing "precision" bombing.

Note that at this time the P-47 was not much better than the Spitfire in terms of escorting bombers - neither could escort the bombers to Germany.

The RAF's attitude was that it was necessary, but not possible. They discovered this the hard way early in the war, and switched, predominately, to night bombing.

This attitude did not change, even after the P-51 (not the P-38 or P-47) showed it was possible. But for the RAF it was a moot point, as by 1944 their night bombing raids were as accurate as the 8th AF daylight "precision" raids, thanks to technological bombing aids (H2S, Oboe, Gee-H).

It must be noted that the Spitfire was always intended as a home defence fighter, hence it remained with small amount of internal fuel. The Typhoon had longer range then the Spitfire, but failed because of lack of altitude performance.

So, no, I doubt that the RAF ever felt any frustration at not having a domestic long range fighter (the RAF did field the Mustang III and IV, their versions of the P-51B and D).

I also doubt that the attitude of the USAAF had anything to do with the range of the P-51B before it actually flew in combat. It was a function of fuel carried, the engine and the efficiency of the airframe, none of these parameters ever being defined by the USAAF.
 
PAT303 said:
What strikes me the most reading the posts in this thread is the attitude of the USAF compared to the RAF, it must have been frustrating seeing P47-P51's flying to Germany when your own plane after 4 years of war could still barely cross the channel.
Click to expand...
When you country is subject to enemy bombing and thousands of your countrymen have been killed and thousands more maimed you have different priorities for your fighters
 
Arnold gets a bum rap as an acolyte in high command that stubbornly believed that 'the Bomber will always get through'. He re-prioritized the #4 priority for a fighter with 1500 mi range to #1 in the Emmons Board Report. He held the Fighter Conference a little more than a month after Pearl Harbor to prioritize combat tanks and activated Barney Giles to 'solve the escort fighter problem by the end of 1943 - with existing or new airframe' and approved Giles push to NAA/Lockheed and Republic to design more internal fuel into their fighters - July 1943. Giles and Arnold were the key HQ Command Staff to over-ride Echols and assign NAA highest priority in late 1942 to break loose tooling, Packard Merlin production and Materiel Command obstruction at the War Production Board.

The flood of issues encountered by VIII ASC with arriving P-47s and then P-38s with respect to combat readiness led to disengaging Materiel Command from Testing responsibilities and re-assign to Eglin Proving Ground in 1943.
 
Compare that flat steel tank with the huge 205 gallon "Pregnant Thunderbolt" ferry tanks and you can see there was no way that flat tank could hold anywhere near 200 gallons. The real amount seems to have been 150 gallons, which is a lot more believable as well as asserted by Warren Bodie, who did more original research in that area than anyone else I know of.

 
Reluctant Poster said:
When you country is subject to enemy bombing and thousands of your countrymen have been killed and thousands more maimed you have different priorities for your fighters
Click to expand...

Totally agree, but that doesn't excuse the fact both the RAF and Luftwaffe pilots complained of short range when a solution was at hand. Look at the 109 in the BoB, they used DT's to deliver aircraft to front line units then didn't use them during the actual battle, same as the MkV during the lean into France, both planes suffered through lack of range, the American's on the other hand straight to tanks, fixed.
 
Th British didn't have a problem with range, they had a problem with performance, would you want to fly to Berlin in a Spitfire MkV. The Americans were not there at the time. Things were solved with the Mustang air frame and the RR two stage engine, they made their debut at Dieppe but not as one aircraft.
 
Hey MIflyer,

Thanks for the photos of the 150 USgal flat steel DTs. I had not been aware of them before. And I still have not been able to find mention of them in anything official, unless they are lumped under the general heading of 150 USgal DTs.

I have to continue to assert, however, that there was a 200(215) USgal flat steel DT. It was visually significantly wider than the images of the 150 USgal flat steel DT, having a larger straight profile on the front-center. The 150 USgal flat steel DT had the filler port off of centerline (I think to the left but not sure).
 
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
6K
Holtzauge
T
P-47 roll rate - a bit of new (to me) info
Replies
1
Views
211
Shortround6
S
Range drop tanks and declining returns
Replies
12
Views
1K
drgondog
A
Max range of the Supermarine Stranraer
Replies
14
Views
1K
EwenS
E
E
Range of CR.42AS with 2×100kg bombs?
Replies
2
Views
442
elbmc1969
E
Menu
Log in
Register