Greg Boeser
1st Sergeant
Even the US forces were sometimes ordered not to jettison drop tanks due to shortages.
Rabaul Zeros with non-jettison drop tanks
- Thread starter windhund116
- Start date
Ad: This forum contains affiliate links to products on Amazon and eBay. More information in Terms and rules
- Thread starter
- #22
windhund116
Senior Airman
- 360
- Jul 3, 2017
Yeah. I've seen photos of fixed landing gear IJNAF and IJAAF (eg: Nates and Claudes) without covers. Even Oscars. But, I can't recall a Zero.
You know what is odd? I don't recall ever seeing a photo of a land-based Hellcat with the covers removed. The Wildcats and Corsairs didn't have covers which could potentially block wheel movement, if clogged with debris. Never seen any photos of a Mustang or Thunderbolt with covers removed. And the P-47 was used in a lot of unimproved forward airfields in France and Belgium (with 9AF) after Normandy landings.
GrauGeist
Generalfeldmarschall zur Luftschiff Abteilung
Examine the gear covers on a P-51B/C/D and you'll note that the Mustang's gear cover was a two-part set-up, where the wheels were covered by a seperate door attached to the fuselage, the portion of the gear's cover extending down as far as the strut/oleo and out enough to shed any debris.
P-47s typically operated from improved air fields, but I seem to recall a photo of one with the doors removed that was operating out of Foggia (or nearby), Italy during their rainy season.
There are, on the otherhand, photos of P-39s in New Guinea, the Aleutians and the Eastern Front with their maingear doors removed.
The P-40 had the benefit of the "rotate on retract" gear, so no doors to worry about.
So the practice would be one of nessecity: depending on time of year plus field conditions.
P-47s typically operated from improved air fields, but I seem to recall a photo of one with the doors removed that was operating out of Foggia (or nearby), Italy during their rainy season.
There are, on the otherhand, photos of P-39s in New Guinea, the Aleutians and the Eastern Front with their maingear doors removed.
The P-40 had the benefit of the "rotate on retract" gear, so no doors to worry about.
So the practice would be one of nessecity: depending on time of year plus field conditions.
- Thread starter
- #24
windhund116
Senior Airman
- 360
- Jul 3, 2017
In searching for film of P47 forward tactical units with gear covers removed, found this nice one on YouTube. No cover-less Thunderbolts, I could see.
GrumpyOldCrewChief
Airman 1st Class
Looking at the photo of that preserved Zero drop tank, it seems there is an awful lot of mechanism "up top", to be on a disposable tank. What method did the Zero use to extract the fuel from the tank? Is all of that the specialized pump for the tank only? Seems rather wasteful, if so. Didn't the U.S. (and most everyone, really) use disposable tanks with no real internals? Fuel extracted by pressurizing the tank?
MiTasol
1st Lieutenant
The Japanese drop tanks I have seen are all about aerodynamic cleanliness once the tank has been released so I think that performance gains outweighed the material loss. Compare that with the P-38/9/40 where the pylon or a forest of drag producing sway braces remain when the tank has been released.
On the Ki-43 the fuel is extracted by suction and I am pretty sure the same applies with the A6M
On the Ki-43 the fuel is extracted by suction and I am pretty sure the same applies with the A6M
The Zero only had an engine driven fuel pump (4 vane) with an emergency hand pump as backup, no booster pumps. Some drop tanks were also of paper, same as the allies used. The iron mongery on top of the tank would be for attachment I'd assume, the tank had a capacity of 87 gallons, so substantial attachment needed.
Wildcat
Major
To add to Emu's drop tank photo, here is one located at the Darwin Aviation Museum.
- Thread starter
- #30
windhund116
Senior Airman
- 360
- Jul 3, 2017
Well, that cylinder (filter cartridge?) certainly will add weight and help the tank drop clear of the airplane. Especially, if the plane is under certain G-forces.
Last edited:
- Thread starter
- #31
windhund116
Senior Airman
- 360
- Jul 3, 2017
Looking at that photo and many of WW2, it's amazing how most things were attached with flat-head screws. I guess Philips-head didn't become popular until after the war?
MiTasol
1st Lieutenant
Phillips head screw were introduced during the war and replaced Read and Prince screws that came a couple of years earlier. At first glance they look the same but the corners are sharp and tear out quicker which is probably what slowed the adoption. The P-40 aircraft used a mix of Phillips and Read and Prince. Read and Prince never gained an AC or AN standard but Phillips did though I do not know what year.
MiTasol
1st Lieutenant
The cylinder is the mounting and the square up the front is to keep it aligned with the direction of flight. A tube is structurally an extremely strong element and provides high strength for minimum weight. That part almost certainly weighs less than the sway braces of the P-39 and P-40 and far less than the pylon on the P-38, and of course creates no drag after the tank is released.
The A6M has many components that may look big and/or bulky but weigh far less than their US and UK equivalents. The tail landing gear and its retract mechanism for example weigh about 1/4 that of the P-40 and Spitfire.
The complete set of steel hangers and sway braces on the Ki-43 drop tank weigh about the same as one P-40 sway brace and fall away with the tank leaving a perfectly clean surface on the aircraft.
GrauGeist
Generalfeldmarschall zur Luftschiff Abteilung
The Frearson drive (later known as Prince-Reed) was a British design from the 30's and was actually hard to strip, unlike a Phillips, as long as the user held the driver properly.
Another screw that came into being during the war, was the "Clutch head", which could be driven by both a Clutch drive or a slotted drive.
Another screw that came into being during the war, was the "Clutch head", which could be driven by both a Clutch drive or a slotted drive.
fubar57
General
ROBERTSON IS THE BEST 
MiTasol
1st Lieutenant
ROBERTSON IS THE BEST
No Canadian bias there is there
MiTasol
1st Lieutenant
Given the majority of R&P heads I have come across were butchered your comment suggests that Joe Average had attacked them with a Phillips driver.
There were many other heads came out during and just after the war to try and save money (by not paying licence fees to Phillips).
That horrible head that Lockheed (and Fokker) used comes to mind along with triwing and quadwing.
GrauGeist
Generalfeldmarschall zur Luftschiff Abteilung
There's quite a few "cruciform" style fasteners out there, all spin-offs of the Frearson design, but like most things, people don't either take the time to know the difference or they think they can use whatever is at hand.
Over the many years as a mechanic, I've seen countless examples of that and I have to say that one of the most misused tools is the slotted (straight-blade) screwdriver.
It's sort of like the Ju88 of the tool world, doing just about every task imaginable aside from what it was designed for
Over the many years as a mechanic, I've seen countless examples of that and I have to say that one of the most misused tools is the slotted (straight-blade) screwdriver.
It's sort of like the Ju88 of the tool world, doing just about every task imaginable aside from what it was designed for
- Thread starter
- #39
windhund116
Senior Airman
- 360
- Jul 3, 2017
Over the many years as a mechanic, I've seen countless examples of that and I have to say that one of the most misused tools is the slotted (straight-blade) screwdriver.
It's sort of like the Ju88 of the tool world, doing just about every task imaginable aside from what it was designed for
