WWII Fighter Bombers

[zxcv]

Would a fighter plane (say a P-51 or P-40 for example) that was on mission
to drop some tactgical bombs and encountered some any fighters generally
drop its bombs before engaging the enemy? or just try to run away? or fight
with them still hanging on (sounds pretty dangerous to me with the extra
weight and the BOMBs hanging under their wings)?

[John Keeney]

"zxcv" > wrote in message
...
> Would a fighter plane (say a P-51 or P-40 for example) that was on mission
> to drop some tactgical bombs and encountered some any fighters generally
> drop its bombs before engaging the enemy? or just try to run away? or
fight
> with them still hanging on (sounds pretty dangerous to me with the extra
> weight and the BOMBs hanging under their wings)?

First choice is not to engage the enemy fighters and continue with the
mission.
Second choice is to drop the bombs and engage the enemy fighters.
Third choice, selected only under dire circumstances, is to drop the bombs
and run for home.
There really isn't a fourth choice.

WWII fighters just didn't have the power to try and fight with bombs
attached.

[M. H. Greaves]

I read a book recently about a fighter group who flew with one under wing
tank, and a bomb under the other, with P51's, the drag must have been
hellish!
The U.S. used the P47, and the P38's to great advantake for ground attack,
the RAF used the typhoon, the tempest, the beaufort, these are the most
prominent ones i can remember.
The P51's mainly carried two under wing tanks, which they used first, them
when the time came to dog fight, they would let them go; they had a big fuel
tank in behind the pilot to fall back on.
Any fighter bomber that had say small bombs would execute their primary
objectives first,i.e. drop the bombs first because to dog fight with a bomb
under neath could be too risky, the drag, extra weight, and the damger of
the bombs being hit while still attached., they would not be required to go
any great distance with the bombs; this was the medium, and heavy bombers
task, if the fighters carried a bomb or two they would be used to soften a
target with aswell as others straffing, and perhaps those doing the
straffing would cover thos carrying the bombs.
"zxcv" > wrote in message
...
> Would a fighter plane (say a P-51 or P-40 for example) that was on mission
> to drop some tactgical bombs and encountered some any fighters generally
> drop its bombs before engaging the enemy? or just try to run away? or
fight
> with them still hanging on (sounds pretty dangerous to me with the extra
> weight and the BOMBs hanging under their wings)?
>
>

[Cub Driver]

>Would a fighter plane (say a P-51 or P-40 for example) that was on mission
>to drop some tactgical bombs and encountered some any fighters generally
>drop its bombs before engaging the enemy? or just try to run away? or fight
>with them still hanging on (sounds pretty dangerous to me with the extra
>weight and the BOMBs hanging under their wings)?

I suppose some pilots would jettison bombs and go for it, but I
suspect the preferred action would be to avoid air-to-air combat if he
could, and finish the mission before reverting to the fighter role.
Definitely not engage with the ordnance hanging on (or the drop-tank
either :)

all the best -- Dan Ford
email: (requires authentication)

see the Warbird's Forum at www.warbirdforum.com
and the Piper Cub Forum at www.pipercubforum.com

[Cub Driver]

>I read a book recently about a fighter group who flew with one under wing
>tank, and a bomb under the other, with P51's, the drag must have been
>hellish!

Did the pilot pickle them off at the same time?

all the best -- Dan Ford
email: (requires authentication)

see the Warbird's Forum at www.warbirdforum.com
and the Piper Cub Forum at www.pipercubforum.com

[Keith Willshaw]

"M. H. Greaves" > wrote in message
...
> I read a book recently about a fighter group who flew with one under wing
> tank, and a bomb under the other, with P51's, the drag must have been
> hellish!
> The U.S. used the P47, and the P38's to great advantake for ground attack,
> the RAF used the typhoon, the tempest, the beaufort, these are the most
> prominent ones i can remember.

The Beaufort was a twin engined bomber and you missed out the P-40
which was used heavily by the RAF , RAAF ad USAAF and the
Hurricane used extensively by the RAF and Soviets

Keith

[M. H. Greaves]

he dropped the wing tank firstm then the bomb!
"Cub Driver" > wrote in message
...
>
> >I read a book recently about a fighter group who flew with one under wing
> >tank, and a bomb under the other, with P51's, the drag must have been
> >hellish!
>
> Did the pilot pickle them off at the same time?
>
> all the best -- Dan Ford
> email: (requires authentication)
>
> see the Warbird's Forum at www.warbirdforum.com
> and the Piper Cub Forum at www.pipercubforum.com

[M. H. Greaves]

yep i appreciate that i havent exhausted every aircraft there is; it was
just what i could remember at the time!
(i know; no offence meant, and none taken!!)
"Keith Willshaw" > wrote in message
...
>
> "M. H. Greaves" > wrote in message
> ...
> > I read a book recently about a fighter group who flew with one under
wing
> > tank, and a bomb under the other, with P51's, the drag must have been
> > hellish!
> > The U.S. used the P47, and the P38's to great advantake for ground
attack,
> > the RAF used the typhoon, the tempest, the beaufort, these are the most
> > prominent ones i can remember.
>
> The Beaufort was a twin engined bomber and you missed out the P-40
> which was used heavily by the RAF , RAAF ad USAAF and the
> Hurricane used extensively by the RAF and Soviets
>
> Keith
>
>

[Tony Williams]

Cub Driver > wrote in message >...
> >Would a fighter plane (say a P-51 or P-40 for example) that was on mission
> >to drop some tactgical bombs and encountered some any fighters generally
> >drop its bombs before engaging the enemy? or just try to run away? or fight
> >with them still hanging on (sounds pretty dangerous to me with the extra
> >weight and the BOMBs hanging under their wings)?
>
> I suppose some pilots would jettison bombs and go for it, but I
> suspect the preferred action would be to avoid air-to-air combat if he
> could, and finish the mission before reverting to the fighter role.
> Definitely not engage with the ordnance hanging on (or the drop-tank
> either :)

Which reminds me - I read once that combat with a drop tank still
attached wasn't as hazardous a you might think (apart from the effect
on performance of course). If it was hit and set alight, the flames
went straight back and didn't set the plane alight. Not something I'd
care to try, though...

Tony Williams
Military gun and ammunition website: http://www.quarry.nildram.co.uk
Discussion forum at: http://forums.delphiforums.com/autogun/messages/

[M. H. Greaves]

The book was "an ace of the eighth" by Norman "Bud" Fortier.
i bought it last october in edinburgh Either Waterstones or Ottakars on
princess st. It was about £5, which was partly why i bought it; i didnt have
much wonga on me and didnt have a book to read back in the caravan. Good
book!
"M. H. Greaves" > wrote in message
...
> he dropped the wing tank firstm then the bomb!
> "Cub Driver" > wrote in message
> ...
> >
> > >I read a book recently about a fighter group who flew with one under
wing
> > >tank, and a bomb under the other, with P51's, the drag must have been
> > >hellish!
> >
> > Did the pilot pickle them off at the same time?
> >
> > all the best -- Dan Ford
> > email: (requires authentication)
> >
> > see the Warbird's Forum at www.warbirdforum.com
> > and the Piper Cub Forum at www.pipercubforum.com
>
>

[Peter Stickney]

In article >,
"M. H. Greaves" > writes:
> I read a book recently about a fighter group who flew with one under wing
> tank, and a bomb under the other, with P51's, the drag must have been
> hellish!
> The U.S. used the P47, and the P38's to great advantake for ground attack,
> the RAF used the typhoon, the tempest, the beaufort, these are the most
> prominent ones i can remember.

Not a whole lot of Beuforts used as Firgter-Bombers or Light Bombers.
They were tasked as Torpedo Bombers, for antishipping work. (As were,
in fact, most Beaufighters) By mid '44, the usual RAF Light Bomber was
the Mosquito FB.VI.

> The P51's mainly carried two under wing tanks, which they used first, them
> when the time came to dog fight, they would let them go; they had a big fuel
> tank in behind the pilot to fall back on.

A little bit oof there. For P-51s with the aft fuel tank, the
sequence was to burn the fuel in the aft tank first, then the drops.
A full aft tank moved the Center of Gravity to the extreme back end of
its allowable range, and caused a tendency to overshoot in pitch
(pulling G, for instance) that wasn't acceptable in combat. Return
fuel would have been in the normal wing tanks.

> Any fighter bomber that had say small bombs would execute their primary
> objectives first,i.e. drop the bombs first because to dog fight with a bomb
> under neath could be too risky, the drag, extra weight, and the damger of
> the bombs being hit while still attached., they would not be required to go
> any great distance with the bombs; this was the medium, and heavy bombers
> task, if the fighters carried a bomb or two they would be used to soften a
> target with aswell as others straffing, and perhaps those doing the
> straffing would cover thos carrying the bombs.

It perhaps should also be pointed out that the bombs were the
fighter-bomber's most effective weapons, so naturally they'd be used
first. Bombs are pretty inseneitive to damage from things like
bullets & fragments. That's why they require special fuzes and
booster charges (Which are in the fuze wells in the center of the
bomb) to set them off. The danger of a hung bomb comes from two
sources - if the arming wire's been pulled, allowing the vanes onthe
fuze to turn, moving the firing mechanism into alignment, then it can
go off with a sufficient impact in the right direction. If the rack
didn't release all the way, or if one lug has released and the other
hasn't then the bomb could fall of its own accord at just about any
time, and if it doesn't release cleanly can casue severe damage to teh
airframe. USAAF firghter-bombers, (And RAF Mustangs used as
fighter-bombers) were quite wide-ranging. The first RAF fighter over
Germany were Mustang Is (Allison engines, and no fuselage tank) flying
Armed Recce missions past Kiel in early 1942. (Brit built fighters
just never had much in the way of range, carrying bombs or not).

Ta answer the previous poster's question (And this is why Top Posting
is abhorrent - it breaks up the flow of the conversation):

It depends on the situation. If the fighter-bombers are being
escorted, and the escorts can handle teh attackers, then they'd
probably keep the bombs and press on to the target. If the attacking
fighters don't have enough of a performance advantage to be able to
catch the fighter bombers in good time - tail chases are slow - then
it would be a jusdgement call. The drag of bombs was about the same
as that of an equivalaently sized drop tank.

> "zxcv" > wrote in message
> ...
>> Would a fighter plane (say a P-51 or P-40 for example) that was on mission
>> to drop some tactgical bombs and encountered some any fighters generally
>> drop its bombs before engaging the enemy? or just try to run away? or
> fight
>> with them still hanging on (sounds pretty dangerous to me with the extra
>> weight and the BOMBs hanging under their wings)?



--
Pete Stickney
A strong conviction that something must be done is the parent of many
bad measures. -- Daniel Webster

[M. H. Greaves]

Okay Peter, thanks for setting me straight on a point or two there! it seems
on the top posting/bottom posting that i'm stuck between a rock and a hard
place: if i top post people complain, if i bottom post people complain, i'm
not getting at you, its just that i was in another n/g that had a rather
large debate cum argument online about people that top or bottom post;
nowadays i dont bother either way, if it annoys people that much whether i
top post or bottom post then thats just too bad, i'm sorry and all that but
who really cares!??? i dont, i just scroll down to where the latest comments
are!
"Peter Stickney" > wrote in message
...
> In article >,
> "M. H. Greaves" > writes:
> > I read a book recently about a fighter group who flew with one under
wing
> > tank, and a bomb under the other, with P51's, the drag must have been
> > hellish!
> > The U.S. used the P47, and the P38's to great advantake for ground
attack,
> > the RAF used the typhoon, the tempest, the beaufort, these are the most
> > prominent ones i can remember.
>
> Not a whole lot of Beuforts used as Firgter-Bombers or Light Bombers.
> They were tasked as Torpedo Bombers, for antishipping work. (As were,
> in fact, most Beaufighters) By mid '44, the usual RAF Light Bomber was
> the Mosquito FB.VI.
>
> > The P51's mainly carried two under wing tanks, which they used first,
them
> > when the time came to dog fight, they would let them go; they had a big
fuel
> > tank in behind the pilot to fall back on.
>
> A little bit oof there. For P-51s with the aft fuel tank, the
> sequence was to burn the fuel in the aft tank first, then the drops.
> A full aft tank moved the Center of Gravity to the extreme back end of
> its allowable range, and caused a tendency to overshoot in pitch
> (pulling G, for instance) that wasn't acceptable in combat. Return
> fuel would have been in the normal wing tanks.
>
> > Any fighter bomber that had say small bombs would execute their primary
> > objectives first,i.e. drop the bombs first because to dog fight with a
bomb
> > under neath could be too risky, the drag, extra weight, and the damger
of
> > the bombs being hit while still attached., they would not be required to
go
> > any great distance with the bombs; this was the medium, and heavy
bombers
> > task, if the fighters carried a bomb or two they would be used to soften
a
> > target with aswell as others straffing, and perhaps those doing the
> > straffing would cover thos carrying the bombs.
>
> It perhaps should also be pointed out that the bombs were the
> fighter-bomber's most effective weapons, so naturally they'd be used
> first. Bombs are pretty inseneitive to damage from things like
> bullets & fragments. That's why they require special fuzes and
> booster charges (Which are in the fuze wells in the center of the
> bomb) to set them off. The danger of a hung bomb comes from two
> sources - if the arming wire's been pulled, allowing the vanes onthe
> fuze to turn, moving the firing mechanism into alignment, then it can
> go off with a sufficient impact in the right direction. If the rack
> didn't release all the way, or if one lug has released and the other
> hasn't then the bomb could fall of its own accord at just about any
> time, and if it doesn't release cleanly can casue severe damage to teh
> airframe. USAAF firghter-bombers, (And RAF Mustangs used as
> fighter-bombers) were quite wide-ranging. The first RAF fighter over
> Germany were Mustang Is (Allison engines, and no fuselage tank) flying
> Armed Recce missions past Kiel in early 1942. (Brit built fighters
> just never had much in the way of range, carrying bombs or not).
>
> Ta answer the previous poster's question (And this is why Top Posting
> is abhorrent - it breaks up the flow of the conversation):
>
> It depends on the situation. If the fighter-bombers are being
> escorted, and the escorts can handle teh attackers, then they'd
> probably keep the bombs and press on to the target. If the attacking
> fighters don't have enough of a performance advantage to be able to
> catch the fighter bombers in good time - tail chases are slow - then
> it would be a jusdgement call. The drag of bombs was about the same
> as that of an equivalaently sized drop tank.
>
> > "zxcv" > wrote in message
> > ...
> >> Would a fighter plane (say a P-51 or P-40 for example) that was on
mission
> >> to drop some tactgical bombs and encountered some any fighters
generally
> >> drop its bombs before engaging the enemy? or just try to run away? or
> > fight
> >> with them still hanging on (sounds pretty dangerous to me with the
extra
> >> weight and the BOMBs hanging under their wings)?
>
>
>
> --
> Pete Stickney
> A strong conviction that something must be done is the parent of many
> bad measures. -- Daniel Webster

[Keith Willshaw]

"M. H. Greaves" > wrote in message
...
> Okay Peter, thanks for setting me straight on a point or two there! it
seems
> on the top posting/bottom posting that i'm stuck between a rock and a hard
> place: if i top post people complain, if i bottom post people complain,
i'm
> not getting at you, its just that i was in another n/g that had a rather
> large debate cum argument online about people that top or bottom post;
> nowadays i dont bother either way, if it annoys people that much whether i
> top post or bottom post then thats just too bad, i'm sorry and all that
but
> who really cares!??? i dont, i just scroll down to where the latest
comments
> are!


There are several very good reason for bottom posting.

Firstly and most importantly replies can read in the
context of the original post.

Secondly in a post to which there are several responses its
much easier to keep track of who said what and when.

Keith

[M. H. Greaves]

yes, thats true, i appreciate that, and like i say i wasnt getting at you
mate! just expressing an opinion thats all
regards, Mark {:-)}
"Keith Willshaw" > wrote in message
...
>
> "M. H. Greaves" > wrote in message
> ...
> > Okay Peter, thanks for setting me straight on a point or two there! it
> seems
> > on the top posting/bottom posting that i'm stuck between a rock and a
hard
> > place: if i top post people complain, if i bottom post people complain,
> i'm
> > not getting at you, its just that i was in another n/g that had a rather
> > large debate cum argument online about people that top or bottom post;
> > nowadays i dont bother either way, if it annoys people that much whether
i
> > top post or bottom post then thats just too bad, i'm sorry and all that
> but
> > who really cares!??? i dont, i just scroll down to where the latest
> comments
> > are!
>
>
> There are several very good reason for bottom posting.
>
> Firstly and most importantly replies can read in the
> context of the original post.
>
> Secondly in a post to which there are several responses its
> much easier to keep track of who said what and when.
>
> Keith
>
>

[[email protected]]

"Keith Willshaw" > wrote:

-cut-
>
>
>There are several very good reason for bottom posting.
>
>Firstly and most importantly replies can read in the
>context of the original post.
>
>Secondly in a post to which there are several responses its
>much easier to keep track of who said what and when.
>
>Keith
>
But only if people would keep the quoted amount within reason...I
hate it when I select a msg in an interesting thread, scroll down
to see what it's about then scroll through innumerable lines to
see the new stuff then again and again...how come people can't
learn to remove all that superfluous text? Why quote the old
stuff over and over? I think there's a conspiracy afoot to
change me over to a top-poster!...
--

-Gord.

[Mortimer Schnerd, RN]

Gord Beaman wrote:
> But only if people would keep the quoted amount within reason...I
> hate it when I select a msg in an interesting thread, scroll down
> to see what it's about then scroll through innumerable lines to
> see the new stuff then again and again...how come people can't
> learn to remove all that superfluous text? Why quote the old
> stuff over and over? I think there's a conspiracy afoot to
> change me over to a top-poster!...


I generally hate top posting if there's more than a paragraph quoted. Frankly,
I hate bottom posting under the same conditions. I do believe that bottom
posting under a very sparse quotation makes for an easier flow of ideas, as in
who said what. There's no need to requote an entire conversation in order to
give context.



--
Mortimer Schnerd, RN


http://www.mortimerschnerd.com.

[Keith Willshaw]

"Gord Beaman" > wrote in message
...
> "Keith Willshaw" > wrote:
>

<snip>

> But only if people would keep the quoted amount within reason...I
> hate it when I select a msg in an interesting thread, scroll down
> to see what it's about then scroll through innumerable lines to
> see the new stuff then again and again...how come people can't
> learn to remove all that superfluous text?

Agreed

Keith

[Cub Driver]

On Mon, 22 Mar 2004 03:24:15 GMT, "Gord Beaman" )
wrote:

>But only if people would keep the quoted amount within reason..

Amen!

all the best -- Dan Ford
email: (requires authentication)

see the Warbird's Forum at www.warbirdforum.com
and the Piper Cub Forum at www.pipercubforum.com

[M. H. Greaves]

ya never know!!???
"Gord Beaman" > wrote in message
...
> "Keith Willshaw" > wrote:
>
> -cut-
> >
> >
> >There are several very good reason for bottom posting.
> >
> >Firstly and most importantly replies can read in the
> >context of the original post.
> >
> >Secondly in a post to which there are several responses its
> >much easier to keep track of who said what and when.
> >
> >Keith
> >
> But only if people would keep the quoted amount within reason...I
> hate it when I select a msg in an interesting thread, scroll down
> to see what it's about then scroll through innumerable lines to
> see the new stuff then again and again...how come people can't
> learn to remove all that superfluous text? Why quote the old
> stuff over and over? I think there's a conspiracy afoot to
> change me over to a top-poster!...
> --
>
> -Gord.

[Peter Stickney]

In article >,
"M. H. Greaves" > writes:
> he dropped the wing tank firstm then the bomb!
> "Cub Driver" > wrote in message
> ...
>>
>> >I read a book recently about a fighter group who flew with one under wing
>> >tank, and a bomb under the other, with P51's, the drag must have been
>> >hellish!
>>
>> Did the pilot pickle them off at the same time?

I rather doubt it. I had occasion to pull out the F-51's -1, and
there isn't any provision to drop from each station individually.
Both stations go at the same time.

--
Pete Stickney
A strong conviction that something must be done is the parent of many
bad measures. -- Daniel Webster

[MLenoch]

>I rather doubt it. I had occasion to pull out the F-51's -1, and
>there isn't any provision to drop from each station individually.
>Both stations go at the same time.
>
>--

There was/is a manual cable release in the P-51 for each bomb shackle
separately.
VL