Drop tank procedure

[MaverickMike 10]

I recently started an F-18F campaign in the awesome war for israel mod. It got me thinking about RL drop tank procedures on carrier based aircraft. As I have no idea about this topic I have a few questions for anyone in the know...

 

Firstly do they simply drop them once they are used or do they bring them back? The added weight must make a difference on landing?

 

Secondly when they do jettison tanks do they have designated tank drop zones or can they just drop anywhere. Once dropped are they recovered or just left?

 

In relation to the second question, what if they are over land, in a combat environment and are about to enter a dogfight?

 

Cheers for any help

 

Mike

[Caesar 305]

That depends on the plane and how many tanks are available. For the F-14, if tanks were on the plane, they STAYED on the plane, regardless of if they were empty.

 

"Cosmo", Tomcat Driver:

It was pretty rare (through the 90s) to NOT have drop tanks. The RAG had A/B/Ds and almost never used the tanks. In the fleet squadrons, A/B/D almost always HAD the tanks. That being said, when we went to train against the Israeli Air Force, we didn't use the tanks. It really didn't matter because we still had more ACM time available then their F-16s.

 

"Hey Joe" Parsons, Tomcat RIO:

Unlike WWII and Korea and even Vietnam, intentional jettisoning of external tanks was not SOP with the Tomcat. As soon as they were enough tanks to go around, everyone carried them and the ship did not carry enough to allow them to be jettisoned on a combat vector breaking with practices of the past. You literally had to get permission of the embarked flag to punch them off unless it was an emergency. The aircraft obviously maneuvered better without them, but some COs decided that pilots needed to know how to fight with them on so as soon as workups began, they'd go on and stay on through deployment. Other COs would pull them off whenever opportunity allowed it, but it was SOP for them to be on whenever Tomcats were deployed as that 4000 lbs of gas went a long way.

 

Note: USAF buys enough to punch them off anytime they take a hot vector or see AAA just like F-86s did over Korean skies.

 

So, it depends on the frame and the service. I don't know what SOP is for the Super Bug, but they might have to keep them on too.

[Fubar512 1,350]

"Duke" Cunningham wrote that he preferred flying with a single center-line drop tank, as opposed to the wing-mounted drop tanks that were considered a normal loadout at the time. He stated that the latter "severely compromised the handling of the F-4, even when they were empty". I interpret this as there having been a policy against jettisoning the tanks during a mission.

[+EricJ 4,244]

That depends on the plane and how many tanks are available. For the F-14, if tanks were on the plane, they STAYED on the plane, regardless of if they were empty.

 

"Cosmo", Tomcat Driver:

 

 

"Hey Joe" Parsons, Tomcat RIO:

 

 

So, it depends on the frame and the service. I don't know what SOP is for the Super Bug, but they might have to keep them on too.

 

Right now with OEF/OIF going on still, they're returning with the tanks, to include the birds tasked as tankers. So as of now they're obviously keeping them.

[HotNess 2]

I will have to try and find out from my brother what the RAF,s policy is.. although it was due to a failure,in late 80,s or early 90,s,unsure of year..but he once took off from Bae Warton in his Tornado and just as he raised the gear a wing tank came off and anyone who know warton knows its very residential,and at that time end of runway was a caravan park,it stopped short by just yards of hitting one.

 

xx v xx

[MaverickMike 10]

I guess with the current operations there isnt any need to drop tanks due to air threats. I wonder what the policy would be in a dogfight situation....

 

Id like to hear the RAFs policy aswell if you could HotNess. Be interesting to find out

 

As a side note those tanks do make a difference to carrier landings. Twice I have returned from a mission and potched the landing, the aircraft seems to sink alot quicker. (its most probably my error of judgement )

[Caesar 305]

Well, you've got a big chunk of metal affecting the airflow over your airframe and increasing drag; wouldn't surprise me at all if your plane isn't responding as quickly, or has a higher sink rate.

[+The Trooper 104]

I remember seeing a disposable MiG-15 or 17 drop tank made from something like cardboard....

[MaverickMike 10]

Well, you've got a big chunk of metal affecting the airflow over your airframe and increasing drag; wouldn't surprise me at all if your plane isn't responding as quickly, or has a higher sink rate.

 

 

Ye i knew it would affect the aircraft drag and sink rate. I just didnt think it would affect it that much. Does anyone know off the top of their head how much an empty 480gal tank weighs?

[Fubar512 1,350]

F-16 centerline tank weighs about 180-200 lbs empty, wing tanks about 150-175 lbs.

[+EricJ 4,244]

Well, you've got a big chunk of metal affecting the airflow over your airframe and increasing drag; wouldn't surprise me at all if your plane isn't responding as quickly, or has a higher sink rate.

 

If I remember from the NATOPs manual I had years ago, the flight software had to be adjusted to account for the drag and such like that. Going from virtual experience even at full load I don't have major issues trapping, with even five full tanks. You load a tank, and 24 Mk.82s, then you will definitely have a serious sink rate.

Edited February 5, 2010 by EricJ

[Stick 773]

Thats what happens to the F-15E. Is there any entry that makes DT's non-jettisonable. Coz these wingmen drop em like its nobody's business.

[ezlead 42]

During Vietnam era if you had them on you kept them on unless an emergency procedure recommended to jettison external stores.

During a mission the drops usually were empty first,so the extra weight didn't mean much.

It was recommended that in the case of a landing gear emergency you kept them on,raised the operable gear,if possible, and land on the drops.

There have been many Navy/Marine aircraft saved that way. :yes:

[MigBuster 2,884]

Interesting - never tried landing on the drops before - wonder if its even possible in this sim

[Stick 773]

you can...done it;not on carrier though;landing the a-5 is tricky!

[Rambler 1-1 9]

In WW2, the P-51 drop tanks were made of compressed waxed cardboard, so they weren't just dropping perfectly good metal on the enemies. I imagine that today, just a tank costs thousands of dollars, and a significant sum could be saved by not having to buy new tanks every mission.

 

I always try to keep mine on, unless it's an emergency, even though my wingies always drop them the first chance they get...

Edited February 6, 2010 by Rambler 1-1

[Slartibartfast 153]

I know that the RAF's fleet of F-4J's they always came back with their Drops unless there was a disaster in the air... Usual load was a pair of wing tanks 4 winders and 4 Skyflash and on the odd occasion the zip gun centreline...

[Sheriff 88]

I mainly "fly" F-4 and retain CL tank unless in extremis. It's historically correct as noted in other responses. Back in the seventies the syllabus at Top Gun included a secton specifically on ACM with center-line tank. Note that on some TW F-4s you have to edit aircraft data file to have a CL tank station.

[MaverickMike 10]

As a side note I tried landing the superbug on its tanks yesterday but the sim doesn't model this very weel and I ended up a hole in center of the runway. Oh well...

[+ghostrider883 526]

In the 1971 war, due to shortage of Su-7 drop tanks, all IAF Su-7 pilots were ordered not to jettison them even if they were engaged by PAF fighters, resulting in many air to air losses of the Su-7.

[hawkeye52 0]

In the 1971 war, due to shortage of Su-7 drop tanks, all IAF Su-7 pilots were ordered not to jettison them even if they were engaged by PAF fighters, resulting in many air to air losses of the Su-7.

 

That sounds like one idiotic policy...you have the option of

 

A) Losing a few tanks but adding maneuverability to add the chance of saving a pilot and a plane

 

B) Nah....lets make sure to save every drop tank. We're all or nothing, we'd rather you not drop tanks and lose the whole plane instead! All or nothing

 

If there were already a few losses due to this and I was a Su-7 pilot, I'd screw that and drop my tanks if it would help regardless of policy. If I got let go, that's fine. Some other schmo to get shot down with his tanks on!

 

Or they could have simply removed the drop tanks all together but have reduced endurance. Not sure about the logistics or specifics of the missions though.

 

Just sounds idiotic to drop the tanks to save the tanks when the plane gets blown up thus losing the tanks, pilot, and plane together.

Edited February 7, 2010 by hawkeye52

[FastCargo 412]

As a side note I tried landing the superbug on its tanks yesterday but the sim doesn't model this very weel and I ended up a hole in center of the runway. Oh well...

 

Actually, when we originally released the Super Hornet, I had engineered the ability to do a safe belly landing as long as you did it very gently. But the problem was that it caused issues for carrier launch, so we deleted the ability.

 

FC

[Stick 773]

That sounds like one idiotic policy

We're famous for idiotic policies.

 

 

 

[MaverickMike 10]

Actually, when we originally released the Super Hornet, I had engineered the ability to do a safe belly landing as long as you did it very gently. But the problem was that it caused issues for carrier launch, so we deleted the ability.

 

FC

 

Didnt realise this was possible to do. Would it be difficult for me to give this ability back to the aircraft? Im thinking of editing the campaign im flying so that the squadron im flying with are based at an airbase rather than a carrier so this ability could be useful. Although I have limited knowledge of modding aircraft would you mind telling me how its done? Im ok with ini editing but i have no idea when it comes to 3d modelling or lod files etc.

 

Cheers

 

Mike