From: viking@iastate.edu (Dan Sorenson)
Subject: Re: In-flight refueling in WWII
Keywords: refueling, flight, WWII
Organization: Iowa State University, Ames IA
Date: Wed, 9 Sep 1992 16:48:47 GMT


From viking@iastate.edu (Dan Sorenson)

umteghts@ccu.umanitoba.ca (david teghtsoonian) writes:


>   During the early days of the strategic bombing campaign against Germany
>during WWII, the USAF did not have fighter aircraft with sufficient range
>to escort the B17s and B24s on deep penetration missions. Did the concept
>of in-flight refueling ever occur to anyone back then? It wouldn't have
>been too difficult to stick some bomb bay tanks into a '17 or Lib and let
>the P-38s and Thunderbolts take a drink now and then.
>Anyone care to share some insight on the origin of in-flight
>refueling (and why it wasn't used during WWII) ?

	Two problems I can think of right away: 1) where would you put the
fuel nozzle on the bomber, and where would you put it on the fighter?  With
the exception of the P-38, most of the fighters were single props, and I'd
hate to think of what a nozzle that clears the prop by sufficient margin
would do to the aerodynamics of the fighter.  2) The bombers were typically
loaded to within an inch of their life with bombs, guns, and ammunition.
Adding fuel here would require less of either bombs or firepower, which is
not an endearing trait to bomber crews.  Fewer bombs means more bombers
needed per target, so naturally there would be some reluctance.  In
addition, how many planes will the bomber have to be responsible for,
and wouldn't this refueling operation require the breaking of bomber
formations in the interest of safety?  Wasn't it the YB-17 that was a
B-17 converted to gunship, just guns and ammo and no bombs?  As I recall,
that was a failure from the first since it was overloaded on take-off and
burned too much fuel keeping up with the rest of the squadron, and then
fell behind for the same reason once the squadron has released their bombs
and made a run back home.  Those extra guns and ammunition came in quite
handy as the YB-17 fought its way back home without the extra protection
afforded by the formation.  I suppose it would have been handy to link
up with stragglers minus an engine or three, but having bombers refuel the
fighters make the bombers all YB-17's, and that's not good.

	A far easier solution is to equip the fighters with multiple drop
tanks attached to their hard points.  Let's say one centerline and four
wing-mounted tanks of smaller capacity.  Burn the outside wing-mounted
first, drop them, and continue on.  Tactics for getting jumped over France
with two wing-mounted and one centerline tank full could do with lots of
debate, but in general it's easier to haul fuel on the fighter than on
a bomber it's supposed to be protecting, and it would probably work better
in some scenario's than in others.

	I don't design aircraft, but these are the immediate problems I see.

<Dan Sorenson, DoD #1066 |"There'll be angels on Ariels in leather>
<z1dan@exnet.iastate.edu | and chrome, Ridin' down from heaven    >
<viking@iastate.edu      | just to carry me home." -- R. Thompson >
< ISU thinks I need more education, which they provide for a fee. >



Newsgroups: sci.military