Fire the band, I have not actually finished a profile (not even nearly)

[Vacajun]

O.K., John couldn't help me on the tank angle question. Does anyone have info on why those tanks would be carried in flight at such a large nose-down angle?? Seems like a terribly inefficient way to carry tanks.

Many of the nose-down tank photos were taken with the Mustang on the ground. Did the tank pylon have a pivoted end that allowed the tank to be level to the ground for fueling, then rotated to be parallel to the airplane centerline in flight?

[BLOWHARD]

Good question! Say, does the P-51 fly nose up or is it straight and level?

[Vacajun]

Arrrgghh..

Terribly disappointed in lack of sources to verify in-flight carriage of P-51 external tanks in nose-down position per E2*S on previous page.

Going nuts over this very obvious issue!!

Help! Educate me, please.

[GiantFlyingRobots]

I cant educate you on the matter at hand all I can do is re-iterate what I said before and looking at the images that I have a case can be made for either theory. Why dont you just draw yours level, and assume that those that you see on my E2-S are incorrect, I'm fine with that, and may even change it myself next time I open the file. I dont really care for the way I have drawn them anyways, and like having undercarriages down it tends to make the drawing look odd to me, so will probably not use them in the future.

Never claimed to be an expert. I just try and draw pretty picture.

Anyway a little food for thought. This is the reference that I used, sometimes you just have to draw the line someplace.

[GiantFlyingRobots]

Or just ignore all that crap in the above post, and do what pleases you, its my philosophy.

[Vacajun]

GFR,

Please don't take my question in a critical manner-I really appreciate your beautiful work, especially your Mustangs.

I'm just trying to understand why the tanks were rigged that way in some photos. Were the tanks variants of the 75 gal variety that needed to be hung that way? Was it done to enhance tank breakaway capabilities? Was it done to make long-range, lower-speed missions more efficient (thinking maybe the lower speed would require a more positive fuselage/wing angle of attack?

I'm just amazed that I can't find a single reference to such an obvious configuration feature in any technical discussions of P-51s!

Thanks buddy, and keep 'em coming!

[GiantFlyingRobots]

Its ok I wasn't taking offence at all.

Believe me if you look through this thread I'm pretty sure you'll find me asking exactly the same question. Its one the perplexed me for some time, I just chose to go with the consensus that was here at the time.

Anyway, you inspired me to do something I hadnt planned on doing for some time and open my Mustang file and have a very quick tinker, and layed the tanks out straight, hence the now non-aligned shadows. I also reduced it in size somewhat. I dont know for sure but it looks like ETO and PTO drop tanks were of different sizes.

Like I said I try and draw pretty pictures.

I will finish this one day I promise.

[Vacajun]

In your case, "pretty pictures" means works of art!

I'm going to continue to look into the tank question via my contacts at the Smithsonian, P-51SIG, old Mustang drivers, etc. and will post any findings.

[Clint Mitchell]

Stunning work! Well Done.

[Vacajun]

GFR, here's what I've learned re tanks via the WWII Aircraft Forum:

"The 75 gal steel tank used in the ETO (carried "level") was eventually almost totally replaced by the 108 gal paper composite tank (also carried "level"), or in limited cases a larger 110 gal steel tank of similar shape. Some units continued to use the 75 gal tank though.

The metal 'tear drop' tank used in the PTO and CBI theatres, although similar in shape to the 75 gal tank, was of larger capacity and a physically bigger tank. The suspension point, at the centre of balance of the tank, meant that the tank would therefore hang at a different (nose-down) angle, and, of course, it would protrude further forward than the smaller 75 gal tank, in order to clear the flaps.
Simple as that".

I note that most of our photos of nose-down tanks were indeed from the Pacific Theater.

Still amazed that this topic has never been documented in the hundreds (?) of P-51 books out there!