P-47: Range, Deceit and Treachery

[MIflyer]

In France the US Army refurbished captured German Panzers and issued them to French Marquis forces to use in rooting out pockets of German holdouts.

It was normal practice for the US Army to utilize captured German artillery if they also acquired suitable stocks of ammunition.

 

[MIflyer]

Like the P-39?

Even that one carried a drop tank.

 

[MIflyer]

A book I am reading, "Air War Normandy" has a summary of the RAF's attitudes on drop tanks.

"Drop Tanks had been designed for use only when ferrying aeroplanes. Their use on operations was widely regarded as an aberration and imputed to the Air Ministry, where, it was supposed, the Staff's knowledge of flying was minimal."

 

[RCAFson]

A book I am reading, "Air War Normandy" has a summary of the RAF's attitudes on drop tanks.

"Drop Tanks had been designed for use only when ferrying aeroplanes. Their use on operations was widely regarded as an aberration and imputed to the Air Ministry, where, it was supposed, the Staff's knowledge of flying was minimal."

The Spitfire used combat drop tanks from 1942 onward. The Darwin Spitfires used 30IG tanks regularly, after the early episode where fuel starvation caused the loss of many aircraft.

 

[PAT303]

A book I am reading, "Air War Normandy" has a summary of the RAF's attitudes on drop tanks.

"Drop Tanks had been designed for use only when ferrying aeroplanes. Their use on operations was widely regarded as an aberration and imputed to the Air Ministry, where, it was supposed, the Staff's knowledge of flying was minimal."

Well that answers my question.

 

[PAT303]

The Spitfire used combat drop tanks from 1942 onward. The Darwin Spitfires used 30IG tanks regularly, after the early episode where fuel starvation caused the loss of many aircraft.

Caldwell refused the use of slipper tanks until the 2nd May screw up forced his hand.

 

[ThomasP]

I ran across a book that covers subject(s) of this thread in some detail.

"Overlord's Eagles: Operations of the United States Army Air Forces in the Invasion of Normandy in World War II" by John J. Sullivan.

It goes into quite a bit of detail involving the problem of getting DTs for the 8th Fighter Command, including a number of direct quotes from messages within the US command and between US and UK higher-ups. Interesting reading. Here are some examples:

"In late 1942 the AAF had to transfer aircraft and pilots of the 78th Fighter Group to the North African Theater. This took from Eaker the P-38 Lightnings...that he had planned to use for long-range bomber escort."

and

"In January 1943, 8th Fighter Command had only one thousand 205 gallon* steel drop tanks on hand. Furthermore, pilots preferred a smaller tank, one that could provide just enough fuel to reach fighting altitude as they crossed the "far shore" - the continental coastline where tanks could be jettisoned. P-47 pilots believed that they should not enter skies patrolled by the enemy encumbered with drop tanks."

"Reports had come in to AAF headquarters charging that (US) pilots in the UK climbed to ceiling on drop tanks and then dropped them, even though about 80 gallons of gas remained unused.* Pilots did this, the report stated, because they were "naturally anxious to burn the fuel out of the auxiliary tank behind the pilot seat before getting into combat..."

*Me: The 205 gallon drop tank referred to here is I think the 200 gallon ferry tank. I wonder if the 80 gallons remaining unused out of the 205 gallons is the basis for the idea that the 200 gallon ferry tank only held 100-120 gallons of usable fuel?

and

"The search for efficient drop tanks was part of a general AAF range extension program for fighters. Arnold received weekly reports on its progress. In January 1944, he sent a reprimand to Eaker about the drop tank situation. "The use of 75-gallon drop tanks on Thunderbolts (for which it was not intended) results in an unanticipated reduction in a definitely limited supply and thereby endangers the mission of the Mustang which can be flown at present only with the same 75-gallon metal tank."

There is a lot more.

 

[drgondog]

A book I am reading, "Air War Normandy" has a summary of the RAF's attitudes on drop tanks.

"Drop Tanks had been designed for use only when ferrying aeroplanes. Their use on operations was widely regarded as an aberration and imputed to the Air Ministry, where, it was supposed, the Staff's knowledge of flying was minimal."

A similar philosophy existed in USAAC and AAF until the Arnold Fighter Conference focused on long range escort in Feb 1942.

 

[ThomasP]

Fixed under-wing long range tanks were developed for the Hurricane Mk I? Mk II?, entering service shortly after the BoB (I think). I am not sure of the size but I think they were listed as 90 Impgal (88 effective). The tanks had integral fuel pumps allowing the fuel to be pumped into the internal tanks to top them up. I am not sure how they were constructed but they were not of the 'paper' variety. They were not combatable or self-sealing.

Droppable tanks were developed for the Hurricane, entering service in mid-1941. The DTs were 'paper' (composite paper, plastic, and wood) with a capacity listed in AM literature as 45 Impgal (43.5 or 44.5 effective). A larger 90 Impgal (90 effective) version of the 'paper' drop tank became available shortly after the 45. Although the 90 Impgal DT could be used for CAP missions where short range and long loiter time were required, they were not normally used for combat operations, only for ferry purposes.

Fixed combatable self-sealing under-wing tanks were also developed for the Hurricane Mk II, around the same time as the drop tanks (maybe slightly before as the Mod No. is lower than for the drop tanks). They are usually listed as 44 Impgal (40 effective) in AM literature. Again, am not sure how they were constructed.

Does anyone have any photos or details of the construction for either version of the fixed long-range tanks?

 

[PAT303]

A book I am reading, "Air War Normandy" has a summary of the RAF's attitudes on drop tanks.

"Drop Tanks had been designed for use only when ferrying aeroplanes. Their use on operations was widely regarded as an aberration and imputed to the Air Ministry, where, it was supposed, the Staff's knowledge of flying was minimal."

Giving a balanced argument, when you see things like this you can see the air ministries point.

 

[PAT303]

Fixed under-wing long range tanks were developed for the Hurricane Mk I? Mk II?, entering service shortly after the BoB (I think). I am not sure of the size but I think they were listed as 90 Impgal (88 effective). The tanks had integral fuel pumps allowing the fuel to be pumped into the internal tanks to top them up. I am not sure how they were constructed but they were not of the 'paper' variety. They were not combatable or self-sealing.

Droppable tanks were developed for the Hurricane, entering service in mid-1941. The DTs were 'paper' (composite paper, plastic, and wood) with a capacity listed in AM literature as 45 Impgal (43.5 or 44.5 effective). A larger 90 Impgal (90 effective) version of the 'paper' drop tank became available shortly after the 45. Although the 90 Impgal DT could be used for CAP missions where short range and long loiter time were required, they were not normally used for combat operations, only for ferry purposes.

Fixed combatable self-sealing under-wing tanks were also developed for the Hurricane Mk II, around the same time as the drop tanks (maybe slightly before as the Mod No. is lower than for the drop tanks). They are usually listed as 44 Impgal (40 effective) in AM literature. Again, am not sure how they were constructed.

Does anyone have any photos or details of the construction of either version the fixed long-range tanks?

Found this, scroll down the page. fighters – Page 6

 

[ThomasP]

Thank you for the photo of the Spitfire with the fixed tank and link PAT303, very useful.

 

[MIflyer]

Does anyone have any photos or details of the construction of either version the fixed long-range tanks?

 

[MIflyer]

To put things in perspective:

(All figures from the William Green Fighters Books)

F2A-3 Normal Range 965 miles, Maximum Range 1680 miles

P-39D Max range 600 miles, 1100 miles with one 145 Imp gal drop tank

P-36C Max range 820 miles

P-40B Normal Range 730 Miles, max range 945 miles

P-40E Max range 650 miles, 850 miles with one 43 Imp Gal drop tank

P-40N-15-CU Range 750 miles, 1080 miles with one 62.4 Imp Gal drop tank

CW-21 Range 630 miles

F4F-4 Normal range 770 miles

FM-1 Normal Range 830 miles, maximum range 1275 miles

XF5F-1 Range 1200 miles

F6F-3 Normal range 1090 miles, 1590 miles with one 125 Imp Gal drop tank

F7F-3 Normal range 1200 miles, Maximum range 1572 miles

F8F Range 1105 miles, 1965 miles with two 125 Imp Gal Drop tanks

P-38F-15-LO Range 400 miles at 350 mph, 900 miles at 219 mph, 850 miles at 327 mph with two 125 gal drop tanks

P-51A-10-NA Range 750 miles at 300 mph, 1000 miles at 232 mph, 2000 miles at 266 mph with two 125 Imp Gal drop tanks

P-61A-5-NO Range 415 miles at 319 mph, 1010 miles at 224 mph, 1900 miles with max internal fuel

P-43A-1 Range 650 miles with a 200 lb bomb, max ferry range 1450 miles

F4U-1D Normal range 1015 miles, maximum range 1562 miles

Beaufighter IF 1500 miles at 194 mph

Mosquito NF Mk II Range 1300 miles at 250 mph, with maximum auxiliary fuel 1770 miles

Fulmar II Range 780 miles at 196 mph

Gladiator I Range 410 miles

Hurricane I Range 425 miles, 900 miles with two 44 Imp gal drop tanks

Hurricane IIB Range 480 miles, 985 miles with max external fuel

Typhoon IB Range 610 miles at 254 mph, 510 miles with max bomb load, 1000 miles with max external fuel

Spitfire MkI Range 575 miles at 210 mph

Spitfire MkVC Range 470 miles at 226 mph

Spitfire LF IXE Range 434 miles at 220 mph, 934 miles with max external fuel

FW-190A-8 Range 500 miles on internal fuel

BF-109E Range 412 miles at 248 mph

BF-109F Range 440 miles

Ercoupe 415C 416 miles at 104 mph with a 30 min reserve (disregards pilot's bladder).

 

[stona]

Fixed under-wing long range tanks were developed for the Hurricane Mk I? Mk II?, entering service shortly after the BoB (I think). I am not sure of the size but I think they were listed as 90 Impgal (88 effective). The tanks had integral fuel pumps allowing the fuel to be pumped into the internal tanks to top them up. I am not sure how they were constructed but they were not of the 'paper' variety. They were not combatable or self-sealing.

Droppable tanks were developed for the Hurricane, entering service in mid-1941. The DTs were 'paper' (composite paper, plastic, and wood) with a capacity listed in AM literature as 45 Impgal (43.5 or 44.5 effective). A larger 90 Impgal (90 effective) version of the 'paper' drop tank became available shortly after the 45. Although the 90 Impgal DT could be used for CAP missions where short range and long loiter time were required, they were not normally used for combat operations, only for ferry purposes.

Fixed combatable self-sealing under-wing tanks were also developed for the Hurricane Mk II, around the same time as the drop tanks (maybe slightly before as the Mod No. is lower than for the drop tanks). They are usually listed as 44 Impgal (40 effective) in AM literature. Again, am not sure how they were constructed.

Does anyone have any photos or details of the construction of either version the fixed long-range tanks?

There are lots of examples of efforts to increase the range of aircraft.

Two Hawker ferry tanks, each with a 44 gallon capacity, were jury rigged on a locally made frame and used on Spitfires in Malta from 1942.

 

[ktank]

IIRC, one of the 'virtues' of the paper tanks was that they were of no use to the Axis when dropped, as they could not be reused/recycled, unlike the aluminium tanks.

A regular customer at the hobby shop I worked with grew up in Germany late in WW2 in the countryside, and he and his friends used to collect the aluminium tanks and cut them in half to make canoes!

 

[SaparotRob]

A regular customer at the hobby shop I worked with grew up in Germany late in WW2 in the countryside, and he and his friends used to collect the aluminium tanks and cut them in half to make canoes!

Reduce, re-use, recycle!

 

[MIflyer]

Postwar some of the Lockheed P-38 steel drop tanks were converted into racers.

 

[Milosh]

Postwar some of the Lockheed P-38 steel drop tanks were converted into racers.

Photos of tank cars, bonneville tank racers - Bing images

How Belly Tank Racers Work

How Belly Tank Racers Work

 

[Reluctant Poster]

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.

The attached document (an appendix of the Air War Plans Division AWPD-1) gives the USAAC perspective on deployments in the event of the seemingly inevitable war with Germany.

The following excerpts are interesting:

The primary purpose of the the pursuits to be based in GB was to protect the USAAC bases but as it tuned out this was not necessary so the role in actuality became short range bomber support, but the important thing to note was that the idea of long range escort was still given at least some support.