P-51 fuselage fuel tank

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

The RAF tried the P-40 i the T/R role from UK and it couldnt do it, the Mustang Mk I excelled at it.
Curtiss P-40 Tomahawk couldn't do it? 'It' being the Tac/R role? Four ACC Squadrons were approved to use Tomahawks on Tac/R operations over occupied Europe on 15 August 1941. Main issues with the RAF Tomahawks preventing wider use at the time was the 'mixed bag' of the various sub-types in various states of modification, plus complications like the French contract aircraft with instruments in metric and 'reversed' engine controls, no armour plate and no self sealing fuel tanks. Add to that a number of issues with the engines and ancillaries eg. coolant leaks from radiators (foreshadowing similar issues encountered with the early Mustangs), repeated breakages of the generator drive, issues with the drive gearing, plus a couple of basic issues with the armament - UK had only been supplied with old manufacture 0.300in US BALL ammunition for the wing guns, no tracer, no SAP, and the 0.50in ammunition received was also of variable quality which didn't help with the nose gun synchronisation. But the four Squadrons approved for operational use, being 26, 239, 268 and 400 (RCAF) got on with it a flew a number of sorties along the Dutch and Belgian Coasts and over Northern France from September 1941. In a number of instances where the Tomahawks were intercepted at low level by Bf109s, the pilots reported that they were more than comfortable with their speed and handling in the resulting combat. For the sorties over northern France, the tactics they trialled and adopted on the P-40s were similar to those eventually used when they re-equipped with the Mustangs. Low level, pairs, making use of suitable weather, maintain a relatively high cruise speed over the enemy coast, regular changes of course to throw off potential interception by enemy fighters, and detailed planning.

Just as those Squadrons were getting into their operational activity and there were plans to expand it to other ACC Squadrons in early 1942 a couple of things happened.

1. The Mustang was starting to arrive in the UK and the discussion about the ACC Squadrons taking on the Mustangs was starting. It took a little while for all the various parties involved in the decision making process to come to agreement, but ACC took the Mustangs as best of what was on offer at the time. Other alternatives were being discussed to equip the ACC Squadrons including the likes of the Brewster Bermuda or Vultee Vengeance (the Army's obsession with the RAF having dive bombers for close support was still rampant) or even the P-39 Airacobra (trialled for the ACC role and rejected on a number of grounds).

2. Decisions about utilisation of aircraft in the different theatres of operations were occuring within the Air Staff from mid-1941 onwards with where to best place the UK manufactured types such as the Spitfire and Hurricane and expected future fighter types, versus the US manufactured types. So you get the decisions to send P-40s to the Middle East and Brewster Buffaloes to the Far East. Then overlaid on the Air Staff deliberations, political decisions about supply of aircraft from the UK to the USSR.

But, the UK ACC Squadrons did keep a number of P-40s on strength up until mid-1943. Used primarily for training as well as the oblique and vertical camera installations that had been developed by the RAF for the Tomahawk. That was until such time as sufficient of the Mustangs could over time be modified with the required oblique and vertical camera installations.


AND, "Mustang at War" gives a very simplistic and less than accurate overview fo the RAF's development of its operations with the early Mustangs. The RAF ACC Squadrons that were equipping with Mustangs had been conducting fairly broad ranging offensive sorties of various types and names from May 1942, and started to ramp up their operations as more Squadrons converted to the type and the early reliability issues were sorted, so that by late June, more operations and expanding the areas over which they were operating. It was an incremental process, increasingly flying longer and more wider ranging sorties and getting used to the aircraft, refining the tactics and techniques used. Each set of sorties built on the previous set, taking what had been learnt, each time going a bit further into enemy territory and extending the duration of the sortie. There was a degree of relearning of some skills, especially around accurate navigation over the seas and land at low level. That was backed up by a number of long range training flights over the UK simulating long range offensive operations against targets in occupied Europe. So by the end of September 1942 the stage was basically set for the longer range sorties from the UK. There were a series of sorties going deeper and deeper into the Netherlands over a number of weeks. That then culminating in the SORTIES of 21 October 1942 when four Mustang I aircraft of No.268 Squadron RAF conducted the Rhubarb that reached into western Germany in the area along the Dortmund-Ems Canal near Heede, Lathen and Meppen. They were supported by a sortie by another four Mustangs of the Squadron who also made a Rhubarb deep into the Netherlands, more to the south and almost to the German border slightly before the other four. They would make a number of similar long range sorties ranging over the Netherlands in the next few months, running right up to the German border on a number of occasions.
 
What the **** mind altering substances are you consuming?
  • Firstly, the Mustang was designed in April 1940 by a team headed by James H. Kindelberger of North American Aviation (NAA) in response to a requirement of the British Purchasing Commission.
  • Secondly the Mk IX Spitfire blueprints I have show the date the earliest drawing I have was made in February 1942. almost two years after the Mustang was designed.
  • Thirdly the P-51 was designed long before the first Mk IX ever reached US hands.
  • Fourthly the Mustang specification was written by the RAF, not the USAAF.
To even approach being correct your statement underlined above should have been something like before starting on the Mustang and developing it into the premier WW2 long range fighter, using RAF's specifications as detailed by the British Purchasing Commission's the RAF, BPC and NAA showed extreme forward thinking on how air fighting would be able to dictate future battles.

I am sure that drgondog will make corrections to that corrected statement and I will endorse every one of his corrections
I would be quibbling when I say that the foundations to the NA-73 specification began with the P-509 Specifications, General Arrangement and Performance report delivered in mid March to the Anglo France Purchasing Board in NY City - but in fact France had dropped out due to difficulties with the Boche. Recall that the Requirement from BPC/AFPB was for NAA to build P-40s.

What is 100% true is that the P-509 was a smaller NA-73 and conceptual in presentation. The development of the NA-74 1620 Specification, completed April 24 was an intense collaboration between NAA and RAF/BAM/BPC over the next 30days after delivery of the P-509..

The guiding framework were British Specification F.18/39, the P-509 proposal and Performance commitments, AAF Aircraft Design Stds, RAF experience and insights, technical collaboration between RAF and NAA. The notable jointly developed outcomes included increases to wing fuel (and growth of fuselage/wing), cockpit design and arrangement and preliminary design of the cooling system. 100% contribution from RAF were features including self sealing tanks, radio and mast features and insights on subtleties associated with combat reliability and operations.

The specific attributes solely in hands of NAA included aerodynamic and production related features such as engineering lines, flush rivets, trapezoidal wing/empennage, wing airfoil, landing gear arrangements, general arrangement for weights and balance.

Simply, shape and form and surface belonged to NAA, design features relating to ease of use and operational suitability were RAF. RAF input and contributions continued throughout the Mustang and Mustang IA and Mustang X. RAF and R-R continued adding valuable inputs to solving operational issues with the early P-51Bs.
 
The XP-58 shows what the forward thinking Americans thought was the future of air fighting. It was more like naval combat.

Screenshot 2024-07-02 at 10-13-17 lockheed-xp-58-chain-lightning_1.jpg (JPEG Image 800 × 488 p...png
 
I suspect the biggest problem with fitting what are probably best described as conventional drop tanks is the fact that the Spitfire wing had a very strong D type front spar and an almost cosmetic rear spar so there was nothing substantial between the spars to hang the tank from.
Because of the radiators the Spitfire was better served by a center line tank of 100ltres. The D section leading edge gave lots of volume for fuel, you could easily get 26G inboard of the cannons either side. George Buerling had twin centerline tanks fitted in parallel to his MkV at Malta.
 
Last edited:
What the **** mind altering substances are you consuming?
I think your misunderstanding what I wrote, the Americans experimented with two MkIX's but developed the P51 into their escort fighter, I never said any different.
 
Last edited:
Note also that the so called backward Japanese who some claim copied everything from the US had drop tanks with self seal couplings and integral sway braces on the Ki-43 and A6M from day one.

I often wonder where the time machine they used to steal these and other concepts like caseless ammunition for the Ki-44 is hidden. Maybe Shinpachi knows.
Wasn't one of the design parameters for the A6M very long range?, drop tanks would have been a given from day one.
 
Anybody know anything about these ferry tanks?.
Introduced on the A-36A, 150US Gallon wooden ferry tanks, could be jettisoned in flight if required. Required a fair degree of management by the pilot to ensure regular changes between the ferry tanks to ensure that a degree of balance was maintained. Not really intended for combat use. Carried through from the A-36 onto the P-51A/Mustang II, photo shows RAF Mustang II with the ferry tanks fitted for trials and ATP photography for production of Air Ministry technical documentaton. Where the earlier Mustang I and IA had ferry tanks that required the removal of the armament in the wing armament bays to fit the tanks and associated plumbing into the armament bays, the ferry tanks adopted for the A-36A and P-51A allowed them to keep their wing armament and ammunition in place.
 

Attachments

  • A-36A Ferry Tanks.jpg
    A-36A Ferry Tanks.jpg
    307.9 KB · Views: 20
They were of the type used on the Mustang Mk II/P-51A. They were attached using the same racks as for the bombs, and were droppable. Construction was of wood/plywood and they were intended as single use. The tanks were mounted and filled, then the aerodynamic fairings between the tanks and the wing were fitted. Capacity was 150 USgal each and installation weight was 110 lbs each. Only straight flying and gentle maneuvers were permitted with tanks installed, with Vmax limited to 250 mph IAS.

The above is all various from manuals.

P-51A 150 USgal droppable ferry tank.jpg
 
It is interesting that these drops were similar in concept to the Ki-43 except the bomb shackle was mounted in a pylon instead of internally and that the fairing is massive
 
Agree. I also do not understand why the 'shoe' or 'guppy' conformal type was chosen, although it is similar in concept to what they did for the P-39, P-47, and P-63 ferry tanks. It seems to me that since they could not fit a similar ferry tank under the fuselage - due to the location of the radiator intake - they put 2 smaller ones under the wings. If there were not the problem of the turbocharger being exposed and located on the bottom of the fuselage I suspect they would have developed a similar ferry tank for the P-43 also.
 
I'm proposing neither, what I am saying is the extra fuel allows the Spitfires to take off earlier so gaining both an altitude and tactical advantage over the incoming raid, chain home made standing patrols obsolete.
Your statement that Spitfires were held on the ground for fear of running out of fuel isn't true. In fact Leigh Mallory was a proponent of standing patrols and pushed for them. There was enough fuel for the "Big Wings" favored by him and Sholto Douglas to waste an extra 15 minutes forming up before heading off to intercept. This is why the Big Wings were always late to the party.
The "Big Wing" Controversy and Hugh Dowding's Fall From Grace
Due to the lack of early warning capabilities over Dunkirk it was necessary to institute standing patrols over the evacuation. Spitfires would fly to Dunkirk, "racetrack" for 40 minutes and fly back.
19 Squadron: The Spitfire Pilots Who Defended Dunkirk
Miracles and myths: The Dunkirk Evacuation – Part 1: Where was the RAF? - The National Archives blog

From Dilip Sarkars "How the Spitfire Won the Battle of Britain"
"On 28 May 1940 I led the Squadron in a wing on its first patrol over the Dunkirk beaches, at 6.30 am. The Sortie lasted 2 hours and forty five minutes, a long flight in a Spitfire.' This is a much great time in the air than any Battle of Britain interception.
The attitude disadvantage was due the fact that the primary goal of an interceptor is to shoot down bombers and the controllers vectored their fighters to put them into position to do so. As far as the fighter pilots were concerned, this left them at a disadvantage as the Luftwaffe fighter escorts were usually above the bombers. They are plenty of examples of squadron leaders climbing a couple of thousand feet above the altitude given by the controllers.
John Ray's "The Battle of Britain" gives the following timeline:

"Time was No 11 Group's greatest disadvantage because the Germans were so near their targets. For example, the Pas de Calais lay only 95 miles from an inland station such as Kenley…..By August, RDF stations in Kent, nearest to the enemy, could give about 20 minutes advanced warning of action. To be set against this, however, because of the nature of the defensive system, four minutes often elapsed before the RDF contact appeared as a plot on the table of the Operations Room at Stanmore or Uxbridge. In that time an enemy formation flying at 200 mph would have advanced more than 13 miles."

"Following the order to "Scramble', Spitfires needed 13 minutes to climb to 20,000feet; Hurricanes needed 16 minutes. Then a screen of Bf 109s almost invariably flew above the bombers, which on Dowding's and Park's insistence, were the prime targets, so, as RAF fighters attacked, they were assaulted from above. Soon some squadron leaders, when ordered to fly at a given height, used their initiative and added two or three thousand feet in an attempt to meet the enemy on equal terms."

There were no limitations on Spitfire operations during the Battle of Britain due to fuel capacity.
 
Park mounted patrols during the BoB, they probably couldnt be termed standing patrols but they didnt have to be. Any Bf109 escorting a raid had less fuel over south England than an RAF fighter had. With the vagaries of the Chain Home system Park needed eye contact by pilots of a raid before it crossed the coast, so he sent up patrols in a screen covering possibilities as an attack was developing and it either came their way or it didnt.
 
To give an idea of how little importance the USAAF was attaching to long range they had actually STOPPED production of the 75 gallon drop tank.

View attachment 786063
The reality is that in the middle of 1943 the USAAF is not placing a high priority on escorts for the B-17 over Germany. They have transferred their longest range fighter from the UK to North Africa and they attitude towards drop tanks is lackadaisical to say the least. But the RAF is supposed to reduce production of the most important fighter in the ETO and MTO in order to compensate for the tardiness of of US. If the US isn't doing all it can why should the RAF.

Also note that the RAF was carrying all the load in defending the UK. One thing that Spitfire never gets credit for is the air tight cordon they placed over the UK. Between the Spitfire by day and the Mosquito by night the US never had to worry about their home base being bombed. When they did leave the protective cocoon of RAF Fighter Command they found out at great cost that the Russians did not have anywhere near that capability
IIRC this was done because it was thought that the production in the UK would be sufficient and therefore the orders from the United States for drop tanks were canceled, then restarted later when it was realized that UK production was not yet up to the task.

It simply is not the case that the leadership conspired to deliberately hamstring attempts to produce combat tanks. Logistical and and administrative problems are what delayed drop tanks. Specifically what I mean by administration is that the drop tank production plans got caught up in the tug of war between various groups, resulting in less than what might have been possible getting done.

And quite frankly its sort of irrelvant that it took them a year to do this because for most of that year all the drop tanks on earth would not have solved the more pressing issues. Mainly that there were neither the fighters or bombers available to do long range missions. The P-38s were needed everywhere and were not available. P-47s were not available until almost the middle of 1943 and they lacked the internal plumbing and other modificatiosn necessary at that time to carry sufficient fuel even if a drop tank had been available.



I do not understand why this particular historical subject is discussed in a vaccuum without any context and why every single shortcoming must be either the result of buffoonery or malice.
 
IIRC this was done because it was thought that the production in the UK would be sufficient and therefore the orders from the United States for drop tanks were canceled, then restarted later when it was realized that UK production was not yet up to the task.

It simply is not the case that the leadership conspired to deliberately hamstring attempts to produce combat tanks. Logistical and and administrative problems are what delayed drop tanks. Specifically what I mean by administration is that the drop tank production plans got caught up in the tug of war between various groups, resulting in less than what might have been possible getting done.

And quite frankly its sort of irrelvant that it took them a year to do this because for most of that year all the drop tanks on earth would not have solved the more pressing issues. Mainly that there were neither the fighters or bombers available to do long range missions. The P-38s were needed everywhere and were not available. P-47s were not available until almost the middle of 1943 and they lacked the internal plumbing and other modificatiosn necessary at that time to carry sufficient fuel even if a drop tank had been available.



I do not understand why this particular historical subject is discussed in a vaccuum without any context and why every single shortcoming must be either the result of buffoonery or malice.
I am not suggesting that it was done with malice I am merely stating that it wasn't a high priority. They simply weren't paying much attention to it. Each party was assuming someone else was taking care of the problem. The issue I have is that posters on this forum are blaming the British for not solving the problem by extending the range of the Spitfire when they had other more pressing needs just like the US.
 
Park mounted patrols during the BoB, they probably couldnt be termed standing patrols but they didnt have to be. Any Bf109 escorting a raid had less fuel over south England than an RAF fighter had. With the vagaries of the Chain Home system Park needed eye contact by pilots of a raid before it crossed the coast, so he sent up patrols in a screen covering possibilities as an attack was developing and it either came their way or it didnt.
But they were launched After detection by radar not before which what a true standing patrol requires.
 
But they were launched After detection by radar not before which what a true standing patrol requires.
In the south east corner where most Bf 109s were stationed they were detected as soon as they took off, the issue was deciding what they were and what they would do, I believe there were proper standing patrols, that is a permanent presence over London docks but that was a special case.
 
I am not suggesting that it was done with malice I am merely stating that it wasn't a high priority. They simply weren't paying much attention to it. Each party was assuming someone else was taking care of the problem. The issue I have is that posters on this forum are blaming the British for not solving the problem by extending the range of the Spitfire when they had other more pressing needs just like the US.
Actually it was a high priority.

The acceleration into standard combat tanks, 52/60/75/100 &150gal was bogged down with perception that self sealing and low priority materials (wood, plastic, paper) drove Mat.Cmd into a bureaucratic design, build protortype, test and re-design cy cle.

Further complicating the challenge was a real logistics issue of transporting high volume/low weight tanks via shipboard when tanks, aircraft, vehicles, POL were critical.

I agree your point about British not solving the problem. That said the RAF had no high-altitude daylight strategic aims and were content, to a degree with what we provided to augment those few instances.
 

Users who are viewing this thread

Back