Air tanker Speculation

Shay · **Posted:** Mon Apr 04, 2005 10:59 am

I'm curious to know if anyone can shed some light onto why certain types were picked up for Air Tanker duty and not other. Example: Why were there no B-24s used where B-17s and PB4Y-2s were? There probalby many types that would have excelled. A-20s are one that I can think of off the top of my head. Just wondering if there were reasons for all of this.
Thanks

Shay

Scott Rose · **Posted:** Mon Apr 04, 2005 12:46 pm

My best guess was the high speed wing on the B-24 didn't perform well at low altitude and low speeds.

Does the Privateer share the same wing as the B-24? If so then my theory is trash.

Dan K · **Posted:** Mon Apr 04, 2005 1:19 pm

Theory trashed. :wink:

shoki · **Posted:** Mon Apr 04, 2005 1:45 pm

I think most of the PB4Y's were in service longer then the B-24's which were scrapped quickly after not many left to serve as tankers. Most of the B-17's that ended up as tankers went to another service before being used as tankers. So they were still around while the A-20, and B-24' were all gone. To bad there would still be B-24's left if they had been used.

Michel Lemieux · **Posted:** Mon Apr 04, 2005 1:52 pm

Proper place, proper time, proper deal ?

OK
PBY is amphib, makes sense
B17, availability & more serviceable
B24 vs PB4Y...engines !!!!!????

Jack Cook · **Posted:** Mon Apr 04, 2005 2:00 pm

The B-24 and the PB4Y had the same P&W engines. The $Y's were reengined by the operators with R-2600 QECs has were the PBYs hence the term 'Super Cats'

mrhenniger · **Posted:** Mon Apr 04, 2005 2:48 pm

I would imagine that the age of the technology played a major factor. Technology was maturing at such a rapid pace at that time, that it would not make sense to use an older design since it would like be much more out of date than say a B-29/B-50. New replacement components from original manufacturers would likely have been still in production as compared to a B-24 where production ended at the end of WWII (if not sooner). Considering that you might want the tankers around for a number of years you might want to be able to get new replacement parts.

Just thinking out loud.

Mike

Scott Rose · **Posted:** Mon Apr 04, 2005 2:51 pm

Were Skyraiders ever considered for tankers? I would guess it could carry a decent sized tank, akin to what the Tigercats carried. Just curious.

N3Njeff · **Posted:** Mon Apr 04, 2005 4:49 pm

I would tend to believe that when the B-17's and Privateers were being used that the skyraider was still in military service........but also on that note.......I think it stands to reason that you would not want a single engine.....if it were me, would rather have a multi engine.......for if one was going to quit, you could limp away to only not climb out of the vally and die instantly or have it quit on the fire run and to set it in short and survive only to be burned to death in the fire you were trying to put out cause you could not run fast enough.

I think the P-3's would be the cats meow...................or modified BE-1900D's

Scott Rose · **Posted:** Mon Apr 04, 2005 5:23 pm

N3Njeff wrote:

I would tend to believe that when the B-17's and Privateers were being used that the skyraider was still in military service........but also on that note.......I think it stands to reason that you would not want a single engine.....if it were me, would rather have a multi engine.......for if one was going to quit, you could limp away to only not climb out of the vally and die instantly or have it quit on the fire run and to set it in short and survive only to be burned to death in the fire you were trying to put out cause you could not run fast enough.

I think the P-3's would be the cats meow...................or modified BE-1900D's

Well yes, the single vs. multi-engined is the primary reason the Avenger left sprayer/tanker service in the U.S.

EDowning · **Posted:** Mon Apr 04, 2005 5:59 pm

The skyraider was used in a tanker role. The Wardird Tech book about the AD's has at least one picture of the Skyraider in that role.

JBoyle · **Posted:** Mon Apr 04, 2005 6:08 pm

shoki wrote:

I think most of the PB4Y's were in service longer then the B-24's which were scrapped quickly after not many left to serve as tankers. Most of the B-17's that ended up as tankers went to another service before being used as tankers. So they were still around while the A-20, and B-24' were all gone. To bad there would still be B-24's left if they had been used.

I agree with Shoki.
The bombers weren't converted into tankers until the late 50s (many of them were used by the USAF for various uses until then) ...by that time the fields full of B-24s were long gone.

Warbird Information Exchange

Air tanker Speculation

Who is online