Author Topic: LW and VVS fighters/interceptors... did they use drop tanks? (Read 727 times)

1K3 · « **on:** October 24, 2005, 01:21:25 AM »

Did Eastern Front air forces used drop tanks? I noticed that air war in E Europe was basically a tactical role and i think external tanks can only be used for ultra long range missions (in eastern front "standards") and high alt interception(... which was very rare in eastern front.)

Treize69 · « **Reply #1 on:** October 24, 2005, 01:51:58 AM »

I dunno, I think a dawn patrol or fighter escort for attackers could justify drop tanks. You always want maximum time over the target in either case.

I seem to recall Hartmann mentioning using them in his biography, but its been a long time and I dont have a copy handy, so I can't look at the moment.

gripen · « **Reply #2 on:** October 24, 2005, 03:08:37 AM »

The Russians used drop tanks in fighters during winter war (1939-1940).

gripen

straffo · « **Reply #3 on:** October 24, 2005, 03:50:27 AM »

Or they built long range variant of their mainstream fighter like the Yak 9DD (don't confuse it with the Yak9D)

Tilt · « **Reply #4 on:** October 24, 2005, 05:54:27 AM »

There was an option tested for external tanks on the Lagg3 using the wing bomb shackels.

Yaks had no bomb shackels and the option was not AFIIK used on any Lavochkins.

As Straffo says long range stuff was very rare (hardly needed) and covered by ac built for the job.

Whilst the Yak9DD was a long range ac by VVS standards it would not have qualified under any Western or even Japanese definition.

Zveno

One method adopted of increasing fighter bomber range was to piggy back a pair of I16's under the wings of a large Tupolov SPB or TB-3........these would then be released to attack the target then return under their own power.

gripen · « **Reply #5 on:** October 24, 2005, 08:35:54 AM »

Here is a I-153 in FAF service with drop tanks. The tanks of the LaGG-3 and I-16 were quite similar. Source: Suomen Ilmavoimien Historia 7 (2005 edition). There is pictures of LaGG-3s with tanks, so apparently there was some service use.

gripen

zorstorer · « **Reply #6 on:** October 24, 2005, 04:37:32 PM »

Quote

Originally posted by Tilt
...Yak9 "DD"....

Freudian slip???

Thems is bigguns!!

Skilless · « **Reply #7 on:** October 24, 2005, 07:52:00 PM »

Quote

Originally posted by Tilt

One method adopted of increasing fighter bomber range was to piggy back a pair of I16's under the wings of a large Tupolov SPB or TB-3........these would then be released to attack the target then return under their own power.

Pretty radical thinking. Could you imagine sitting out on that wing all the way to target...

Skilless · « **Reply #8 on:** October 24, 2005, 07:55:59 PM »

Check this out...

Those Soviets were crazy.

gripen · « **Reply #9 on:** October 25, 2005, 02:17:15 AM »

Quote

Originally posted by Skilless

Those Soviets were crazy.

Maybe the Yanks were grazy too

gripen

justin_g · « **Reply #10 on:** October 25, 2005, 03:41:13 AM »

Wasn't there a B-29 with an F-84 on each wingtip, too?

SMIDSY · « **Reply #11 on:** October 25, 2005, 03:57:45 AM »

AAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAA AAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAWWWWWWWWWWW WWWWWWWWWW!!! CAN WE PWEEEEEZE HAVE A GOBWIN!?! ITS SOOOOOOOO CUUUUUUUTE!!!!

coffin stuffers say "but de gobwin aint ww2!!!"

Widewing · « **Reply #12 on:** October 28, 2005, 11:08:42 AM »

From Wikipedia:

"A parasite fighter is a fighter aircraft intended to be carried into a combat zone by a larger aircraft, such as a bomber. If the bomber were threatened, it would be able to release the parasite to defend itself. Parasite fighters have never been highly successful and have seldom been used in actual combat. Projects for this type were designed to overcome the massive disparity in range between bombers and their escort fighters. Apart from the fact that none of these schemes worked particularly well, aerial refuelling has done away with the need for such schemes.

The first parasite fighters were carried aboard military airships. As early as 1918, the Royal Air Force launched Sopwith Camel fighters from HMA 23, and tried again with Gloster Grebes on the R.33 in 1925. The Imperial Airship scheme envisaged an airship carrying 5 fighter aircraft but the scheme died with the loss of the R101. In the following decade, two U.S. Navy airships, the USS Akron and USS Macon were built with parasite fighter carrying capabilities designed into them from the start. Although operations with F9C Sparrowhawks were quite successful, the loss of both airships in crashes put an end to this programme.

The first bombers to carry parasite fighters did so as part of experiments carried out in the Soviet Union by Vladimir Vakhmistrov from 1931 onwards. Up to five fighters of various types were carried by Tupolev TB-2 and TB-3 bombers. One of these combinations would fly the only combat mission ever undertaken by parasite fighters when a TB-2 carrying Polikarpov SPB dive bombers attacked the Negra Voda bridge in Romania in 1941.

Later in World War II, the Luftwaffe experimented with the Messerschmitt Me 328 as a parasite fighter, but problems with its pulsejet engines could not be overcome. Other late-war rocket-powered projects such as the Arado E.381 and Sombold So 344 never left the drawing board.

During the early years of the Cold War, the United States Air Force experimented with a variety of parasite fighters to protect its Convair B-36 bombers, including the dedicated XF-85 Goblin, and methods of either carrying a F-84 Thunderjet in the bomber's bomb bay (the "FICON project"), or attached to the bomber's wingtips ("Project Tom Tom"). These projects were all abandoned before long."

My regards,

Widewing