With regard to the comments in bold. the declaration of war changes everything and so did Arnold. In February 1942 things were very unclear, Germany was at the gates of Moscow. Hap Arnold made the decision he could make. The prosecution of a bomber offensive in Europe is now an historical fact, but it is a massive political decision before it is a military one. The forces involved had just been established in England in January/ February 1942, the first planes arrived in June. Before you can discuss drop tanks you need an aircraft, The first bombing mission of US forces in N Europe was on August 17 1942 escorted by Spitfires, the P-47 did not become operational until April 1943. This is why I dont understand the reference to something written in May 1939, it is irrelevant.
"The case for the P-47 Thunderbolt being the greatest fighter of the Second World War " (1 Viewer)
- Thread starter NVSMITH
- Start date
Ad: This forum contains affiliate links to products on Amazon and eBay. More information in Terms and rules
Deleted member 68059
Staff Sergeant
- 1,056
- Dec 28, 2015
I refer everyone to my earlier post>
drgondog
Major
Greg - and you, missed the memo distinguishing unsealed ferry tank prohibition and available in 1939 (and 1940, 1941, 1942). Simply, stated there were no combat tanks in the US inventory until those developed, tested and ordered into production by Materiel Command.
The 165/330 gal tanks Ben Kelsey 'snuck' onto P-38F&G's to make the trek to UK in late Spring 1942 were FERRY tanks. The next generation for the P-38 in late 1943 were 150/300 gal COMBAT tanks, self-sealing to improve pilot survivability.
Dr. Jan Zdiarsky is knowledgeable. If you wish to see citations galore - get off fat duff and actually read the references I offered for your consideration as each speaks Directly to the issues and development.
I'm not sure you are entitled to deny something that you don't subscribe to with just a wave of your hand.
The CinC of the Army Air Corps(Arnold) issued a directive(linked to/quoted above) that no drop tanks were to be developed for fighter aircraft(unless the manufacturer wanted to pay for such development out of their own pocket).
The official directive was not rescinded until 20 February 1942, as highlighted in bold in the earlier post above.
Please take issue with Mr. Zidiarsky, not with me.
Um, I was only hoping that the Zdiarsky article itself had some sources.
In particular, the reference to the 20 February 1942 directive by Gen. Arnold.
I have just found access to Volume 2 of his diary but that does not go into detail until 1943.
I am on the lookout for Volume 1 in accessible format.
P.S. You might like to convince PBEHN that he is a credible source.
He does not seem to believe me, as evidenced in his post #361.
Last edited:
drgondog
Major
You may have missed the memo - Lockheed had already Achieved wing pylon and plumbing to hang external ferry tanks on wing pylons before Pearl Harbor with zero assistance byAAC/AAF/USN. It may surprise you but the Lockheed P-38 program engineers actually talked to the Ventura engineers over coffee at Burbank. USN didn't develop diddly - nor had AAF, at the same time. That the concept was initiated at Lockheed is to the joint credit of Lockheed and AAC Kelsey and Bradley reporting to Materiel Command at Wright Field. They confidentally accepted a clandestine proposal by Kelly Johnson in Nov/Dec 1941 to modify a P-38E. Over next several months, kits were produced for pylon/plumbing for P-38E/F-4, and then became production articles in new P-38F production.
BTW a MCR for development of a wing mounted pylon to enable carrying a 2000 pound bomb did not meet with much AAF resistance. Once the FUNDED Stress analysis and aerodynamics of the pylon and the 2000 pound bomb external store had been completed, the wing modifications were designed and fabricated The parallel design effort to introduce the rest of the plumbing required was relatively simple and expensed by Lockheed.
Last edited:
Why? Republic were at liberty to develop tanks and they chose not to, Rolls Royce decided to develop a whole engine called the PV-12 which was still called the PV-12 when it was installed in a Hawker Hurricane it was known as a Merlin by the time it was installed in a Spitfire. From the Wright Flyer onwards most of the aviation industry started as private ventures along with the engines. The directive is logical for peacetime. I doubt that the use of drop tanks has changed in USA even now. It just isnt a winning argument, since the USA wasnt at war, it had almost no bombers or fighters and certainly no fighters that could escort bombers, why would you want to drop a tank on someones barbeque or kitchen instead of landing with it? What did Republic do after the order was rescinded? Did they install pressurisation systems, put on reinforced hard points, plumbing and develop a self sealing tanks suitable for escort operations in Europe?
BiffF15 What are the present day US regulations for drop tanks. As I understand UK regulations they are only dropped in case of extreme emergency, either to the pilot or the state.Republic WERE NOT AT LIBERTY to develop tanks.Why? Republic were at liberty to develop tanks and they chose not to, Rolls Royce decided to develop a whole engine called the PV-12 which was still called the PV-12 when it was installed in a Hawker Hurricane it was known as a Merlin by the time it was installed in a Spitfire. From the Wright Flyer onwards most of the aviation industry started as private ventures along with the engines. The directive is logical for peacetime. I doubt that the use of drop tanks has changed in USA even now. It just isnt a winning argument, since the USA wasnt at war, it had almost no bombers or fighters and certainly no fighters that could escort bombers, why would you want to drop a tank on someones barbeque or kitchen instead of landing with it? What did Republic do after the order was rescinded? Did they install pressurisation systems, put on reinforced hard points, plumbing and develop a self sealing tanks suitable for escort operations in Europe?
The CinC of the AAC said so, as of May 1939.
SaparotRob
Unter Gemeine Geschwader Murmeltier XIII
I have always found pbehn a credible source. His insights on Grumman manufacturing techniques alone have impressed even the most knowledgeable here.
I thought they could develop them at their own expense, as many others did with many other things. Did I misunderstand your post?
That's what you posted I have highlighted it in bold
Being required to pay for your own development is an impediment or disincentive.
I'm sure you will agree.
Accordingly, Republic is only reputed to have developed the "fixed" tanks(centreline only - looks like a "conformal" tank), not droppable tanks.
I'm sure it is mentioned in the video.
@5.13 Greg point out that the P47 was unable to carry drop tanks until September 1942.
This is obviously after the 20 February 1942 rescindment of the prohibition by Arnold.
That is a looooooong time after May 1939.
Last edited:
Deleted member 68059
Staff Sergeant
- 1,056
- Dec 28, 2015
That didn't stop the most important Allied liquid cooled aero engine of WW2 being developed.
I'm not sure Gen. Arnold would have his nose out of joint by that fact.
His directive concerned drop tanks, not British aircraft engines.
The C in C's directive as it reads states that the Army Air Corps was not to use drop tanks on the P-36. It also clearly states that Curtiss were
welcome to develop drop tanks but not at government expense. This obviously held for any other company who were producing aircraft.
There is nothing stating that any company was not at liberty to develop drop tanks for their aircraft designs.
The document also states no tactical aircraft was to have drop tanks.
The bomber offensive was a strategic operation, not a tactical one. Once escort planes were required for the strategic bomber force the drop
tank became a necessity as did larger internal loads along with more economical aircraft. The Mustang clearly fitted this role as it consumed half the fuel
per hour than the P-47 did. This fitted the long range "strategic" escort requirement.
Also, at the time the drop tank decision was made planes such as the P-36 carried two machine guns compared to the 12 .50 M2's of the B-17. That's
a lot of single seaters to tag along with not a lot of firepower.
The 1939 document was at the time, quite realistic and therefore valid, as was the 1942 directive which reflected the change in situational requirement.
GrauGeist
Generalfeldmarschall zur Luftschiff Abteilung
Just so that you're made aware:
Republic Aviation did not exist until September 1939, prior to that, it was Seversky Aircraft.
GrauGeist
Generalfeldmarschall zur Luftschiff Abteilung
On the internet, there are many methods by which one can make access.I'm not sure that you are correct.
In the following example I believe that the comma is only there because there are a number of items in succession.
You will note that a comma is also after "addition" and "supplement".
1. COUNTABLE NOUN
A postscript is something written at the end of a letter after you have signed your name. You usually write ' PS' in front of it.
A brief, hand-written postscript lay beneath his signature.
Synonyms: P.S., addition, supplement, appendix More Synonyms of postscript
Postscript definition and meaning | Collins English Dictionary
Postscript definition: A postscript is something written at the end of a letter after you have signed your name.... | Meaning, pronunciation, translations and exampleswww.collinsdictionary.com
If the P.S. is by itself, I don't believe that a comma is required.
Wikipedia seems to take the same approach as Collins.
Postscript - Wikipedia
en.wikipedia.org
My degree is in Economics/Accounting major, not English.
I am prepared to be educated on this small matter.
One being a cellphone (aka smart phone) and by and large, grammatical mistakes can be made via the phone's spell Check or due to the compact keyboard.
Having been on the internet (in it's modern form) since the 1990's, I have come to overlook spelling errors and instead, focus on the content of the conversation.
As this is also an international forum, where a good number of members use English (in it's various forms) as a secondary language, grammatical errors are the norm.
While I may not have a degree in linguistics, I was tutored in English as a child, by a retired Oxford University Professor of English.
That is the business that they are in, Wilbur and Orville managed to make their own engine and put it in their own plane at their own personal expense many others did too, not a company profit loss account. When you are selling very expensive aircraft and you dont make steps to keep ahead then someone comes along and takes your market. If Republic had been proactive and offered designs for extra internal fuel and drop tanks then maybe the first Schweinfurt raid could have been escorted to the target. Almost all early allied jet engines started as private ventures and you balk at developing a drop tank for a plane the company is already selling?
I was already aware, thank you.
I did not consider it necessary to make the distinction.
Do you consider it necessary?
If so, I am happy to comply, provided that the requirement is consistently applied by everyone posting.
Last edited:
I did not publish the Arnold directive of May 1939.
And as I just earlier pointed to, no Thunderbolt was able to carry DROP tanks until after the first 170 or so aircraft had been produced which according to the video was not until September 1942.
It is a directive not a book, you quoted it. September 1942 is 11 months before August 1943, ample time for Republic to get their thumb out of their fundament.
