Aces High Bulletin Board
General Forums => Wishlist => Topic started by: Vart69 on January 07, 2009, 04:00:12 PM
-
Is there any possiblity in the future to dump fuel from aircraft?
-
Yeah! What he said... :rock
-
Only if I get my incendiary rounds to light the stream. :D
-
Doubt many planes in WW2 had this feature. Most took off with 100% internal (if not that AND drop tanks) and I guarantee you bombers never took off and flew their entire mission with 1/4 their full fuel load and a fraction of their total weight.
Matter of fact, only one plane comes to mind that even HAD a fuel dump, and that's select models of the Bristol Blenheim (or was that Beaufort? one of those two)
-
bombers i think flew with enogh fuel to get there and back with a litle more than necisary so they could cary more bombs than normal
-
bombers i think flew with enogh fuel to get there and back with a litle more than necisary so they could cary more bombs than normal
Nope.
At least the B-17's of the 385th out of England.
One of my Uncle's was with the 385th.
A quote from their web site.
" Great Ashfield -- Home of the 385th B-17 Heavy Bomb Group. --- The Airdrome was located in Suffolk England - some 90 miles north of London and 20 miles east of Cambridge near the small village of Stowmarket. --- It was estimated the base was some 20 miles west of the English Channel. --- And - possibly no more than 45 miles from the German coast !"
And the fuel tanks, according to my Uncle, were always full when they lifted.
I had the pleasure of meeting, and becoming friends with Carl Clark and his wife Maudie, who were volunteers with The Collings Foundation, the people who fly the B-17 Nine-0-Nine and a B-24 Liberator (among many other aircraft) around the country.
If the B-17 had been equipped with a method to dump fuel, the following story would have been completed in less than a 9 hour flight.
Carl also told me his plane was always full of fuel on take off, including this time....
http://www.91stbombgroup.com/91st_tales/carlclark.html
-
I have read too many WWII storeys and i know if i needed to i could find out that it is a fact that there were missions that only took the fuel they needed and then a little extra... This was done to allow for a bigger bomb load. When bombing the french coast it was commen to overload the bomber with bombs rather than excessive fuel for a 3hr flight.... now when bombing the heart of Germany, that was different, they took all the fuel they could and had to lighten the bomb load.
-
You read the story?
" Pas de Calais area of France"
"They had been flying nine hours."
Didn't think so.
-
You read the story?
" Pas de Calais area of France"
"They had been flying nine hours."
Didn't think so.
ya as if that was the only target in France. the B17 could carry up to 17,600lbs of bombs with a max takeoff of 65,500lbs now to make a 2,000mile trip it could only take about 6,000lbs of fuel. I know for a fact that not every mission had full fuel, but if you look at it as a max takeoff weight i bet that ever mission was a takeoff weight of 65,000lbs or better.
B-24's had a max load of 72,200 but i have read pilots talk of having every mission being overloaded by there lbs in bombs,
"we were always over loaded by 12,000lbs so you could eather take off over loaded or leave the bombs home, or leave the gunners and guns home, or leave with 12,000lbs less fuel and not make it home. So we took off over loaded"
-
"we were always over loaded by 12,000lbs so you could either take off over loaded or leave the bombs home, or leave the gunners and guns home, or leave with 12,000lbs less fuel and not make it home. So we took off over loaded"
So, based on this quote we can deduce that they always flew with a full fuel load.
I know where you are getting your inference about less than full fuel from, I think. There is a picture, somewhere, of a B-17 with two 1,000 lb. bombs on shackles under its wings between the fuselage and inboard engines. The caption reads along the lines that external bombs could be carried for short missions or with reduced fuel (which would be the same, I guess).
I guess the caption was wrong.
wrongway
-
you would have to read up on what i wrote b4 (i stated that not always was there full fuel. (sometime there was and sometimes there wasnt) it depended on the mission and its distance.
-
you would have to read up on what i wrote b4 (i stated that not always was there full fuel. (sometime there was and sometimes there wasnt) it depended on the mission and its distance.
I did read what you wrote before. The problem is, you contradict this:
I have read too many WWII storeys and i know if i needed to i could find out that it is a fact that there were missions that only took the fuel they needed and then a little extra... This was done to allow for a bigger bomb load. When bombing the french coast it was commen to overload the bomber with bombs rather than excessive fuel for a 3hr flight.... now when bombing the heart of Germany, that was different, they took all the fuel they could and had to lighten the bomb load.
with this:
"we were always over loaded by 12,000lbs so you could eather take off over loaded or leave the bombs home, or leave the gunners and guns home, or leave with 12,000lbs less fuel and not make it home. So we took off over loaded"
The only example you give of I have read too many WWII storeys and i know if i needed to i could find out that it is a fact that there were missions that only took the fuel they needed and then a little extra... This was done to allow for a bigger bomb load.
is one in which they take as big a bomb load as possible and as big a bomb load as possible.
HB555's example gives a short mission, just across the channel, with as much fuel as they can carry.
So, again, I would be led to believe that they flew fully fueled.
Oh, and here's the picture I was referring to of a B-17 with external bombs:
(http://img509.imageshack.us/img509/8296/theoldstandby425178nn9.jpg)
wrongway
-
AWwrgwy,
My gosh, I haven't seen or heard from you in a long time.
Hope we were just at the intersection at different times and everything is OK.
I think we are beating another dead horse here.
Made a promise to myself a long time ago to reply once and let it go.
Learned this after going toe to toe with a guy for two or three weeks, and come to find out, he was 12 and being fed (strange and wrong, but firmly stated) information by his extremely "knowledgeable" older brother, who had read an internet story on the subject we were discussing. I believe the older brother was almost 14.
<shrugs>
Also, as (clearly, I thought) stated by myself, I was speaking about only two of the many bomb groups to serve in WWII, and then, by only two pilots, whom I knew and spoke with and had full details on what the procedure was for each of them during their TOD.
We all know that there were very few hard and fast rules, so it is entirely possible that there were missions flown with less than full fuel, but I don't see the need to continue the converstion farther.
Take care, and good to see you are still around.
-
one of the fetures of the g was external bomb racks
-
"We can't fuel dump!"
Message sponsored by: The Sierra Club, E.P.A, Advocates against global warming, Democrats, Mothers against pollution, children against pollution, Car battery manufacturers, California politiciansm ACLU, Hollywood actors, New York times and Reverand Wright.....
-
Now, I would kill for fuel tank transfer pumps on the bombers and fire extinguishers in the cowls!
-
in WWII, USAAF SOP instructed %100 fuel. A few exceptions weere made by local commanders for legit reasons. In the case of the B17 w/ extra external ord, I'd be willing to bet that a "reduced" fuel loadout was actually quite minimal, say maybe to 75-80%. That is a far cry from the 25-50% BS we see on a consistant basis in the MA.
-
lol,
"We can't fuel dump!
Message sponsored by: The Sierra Club, E.P.A, Advocates against global warming, Democrats, Mothers against pollution, children against pollution, Car battery manufacturers, California politiciansm ACLU...."
I was an air traffic controller at MCAS Cherry Point working with the AV-8Bs. They were required to takeoff with a certain amount of fuel, but could not do an vertical landings until they dumped quite a bit of it. Needless to say, a lot all of y'alls money is spread over the Bogue sound in North Carolina.
-
Needless to say, a lot all of y'alls money is spread over the Bogue sound in North Carolina.
Whoa, there, RedTeck.
It sounds to me like you are trying to tell us the government is ... wasteful? <GASP>