The B-50 introduced two wing pylons each able to carry a 700 gallon fuel tank (or a 4,000lb bomb).
Could earlier aircraft such as the Sunderland, B-24, Halifax, Lancaster etc have been fitted with large external tanks and if so would the extra drag etc have outweighed any advantage in the extra fuel?
I’m not thinking for ETO bombing missions, more Atlantic VLR and Indian Ocean/Pacific Ocean operations.
By: Pondskater - 2nd April 2009 at 00:44
As James rightly says, there was a lot of space in a Sunderland for additional fuel tanks or whatever else was needed to be carried.
The only reason for strapping something on the outside of a Sunderland (mini subs/Chariots etc) was because you needed to drop them off at some point, and they wouldn’t go through the door.
The reason the Sunderland didn’t carry more fuel was the power needed to to get it off the water in a suitable short distance and, once more powerful engines were available, the spray from an overloaded aircraft causing damage to the propellors. The hull pounding on the water was less of a concern, surprisingly.
There was a constant battle between adding more kit to the aircraft (radar etc) and the need for fuel to get long range over the Atlantic.
By: Arabella-Cox - 2nd April 2009 at 00:43
The rule of thumb for external tanks (then and now) is 50% of the contents are used just to counter the additional drag they cause
By: JDK - 2nd April 2009 at 00:16
The Sunderland was equipped with two external ‘Pigs’ – human torpedoes – at one stage… 😮
In the case of the Sunderland, B-24 etc payload was the limiting factor first, I’d expect, any extra tankage liftable could be carried internally, and probably still not conflict with any load of bombs left in the MTOW figure.
The Lanc had a huge saddle tank trialled for Far Eastern ops.
Sign In
April 1, 2009 at 9:38 pm