# P-47 carrier capable?



## marshall (Jun 5, 2008)

Anyone knows something about this, what version of P-47 that is, when and where it happend?


----------



## comiso90 (Jun 5, 2008)

_View: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=RRGYXMs9n1s_


On 23 June Manila Bay came under enemy air attack during refueling operations east of Saipan. Two fighter bombers attacked her from dead ahead, dropping four bombs which exploded wide to port. Intense anti-aircraft fire suppressed further attacks; and, as a precautionary and rather unusual move which Admiral Spruance later characterized as "commendable initiative", Manila Bay launched four of the Army P-47's she was ferrying to fly protective CAP until radar screens were clear of contacts

USS Manila Bay (CVE-61 - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia)

.


----------



## buzzard (Jun 5, 2008)

Along with the Manila Bay, the escort carrier Natoma Bay also ferried P-47Ds of the 318th FG. The event above took place in '44

P-47s in the Marianas | Flight Journal | Find Articles at BNET.com


----------



## marshall (Jun 5, 2008)

Thanks for the info. Something I wasn't expecting to see, a Jug taking-off from a carrier...


----------



## Catch22 (Jun 5, 2008)

Most planes could take off from carriers, but I'm not so sure they all could land on them. I'm pretty sure the P-47s could not land on them, they would have been lifted by crane onto the ship.


----------



## Wildcat (Jun 5, 2008)

Some more pics. P-40's were also launched from carriers at one stage.


----------



## Flyboy2 (Jun 5, 2008)

Wow. A Jug definatly couldn't have landed on a carrier. To darn heavy. I bet they also ate up alot of space


----------



## Aaron Brooks Wolters (Jun 5, 2008)

Marshall, I'm just guessing here but if they did use a variant for carrier trials I would tend to think it would have to be the M. They made somewhat lighter, two fewer guns and so on but again I'm just stabbing in the dark. I will try to find out more.


----------



## syscom3 (Jun 6, 2008)

A P47 landing on a carrier would have damaged the deck .... but not the P47

Reactions: Like Like:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## magnocain (Jun 6, 2008)

Taking off is the easy part. Landing is pretty easy too. Landing and walking away from it is more tricky.


----------



## kool kitty89 (Jun 6, 2008)

The P-47 (particularly the earlier D models) wasn't all that much heavier than the Corsair, and considderably lighter than a/c like the SB2C.

However it had a relatively high landing speed, and landings would have been pretty hard. (think about what would happen to the arrestor hook and wire...)

This was due to a combination of high wing loading and a lower lift airfoil (nearly all USN a/c used the high lift NACA 23000 series), and smaller flaps.


If you enlarge the flaps (and make them fowler type), added the necessary carrier equipment, and completely removed the turbocharger system (cut over over 1,000 lbs off weight and replaced with 2-stage supercharger like on F4U) and subsequently cleaned up the fusalage a bit (with the turbo ducting now gone, reducing drag and weight) it might just have been a workable (and probably more than decent) carrier fighter.

Of course, by then you'd have a considderably different a/c, with different optimised performance characteristics. And the F4U would still be better suited, being specifically designed for it.



And remember though, they took B-25's off from a carrier.


----------



## kool kitty89 (Jun 6, 2008)

comiso90 said:


> _View: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=RRGYXMs9n1s_
> 
> 
> On 23 June Manila Bay came under enemy air attack during refueling operations east of Saipan. Two fighter bombers attacked her from dead ahead, dropping four bombs which exploded wide to port. Intense anti-aircraft fire suppressed further attacks; and, as a precautionary and rather unusual move which Admiral Spruance later characterized as "commendable initiative", Manila Bay launched four of the Army P-47's she was ferrying to fly protective CAP until radar screens were clear of contacts
> ...




How and where did the P-47's flying CAP land?


And it looks like the P-47's in the youtube clip are being catapult launched.


----------



## JoeB (Jun 6, 2008)

Those P-47's were being ferried to their newly seized bases in the Marianas (as I guess it says). There was no intention for them to land back on the carrier, just be catapulted off and land ashore.

P-39's also did this, in the Pacific, in addition to P-40's as already mentioned. When P-40's were ferried across the Atlantic on the carrier Ranger on a few occasions, they flew off, IOW were not catapulted, similarly to the 700+ Hurricanes and Spitfires flown off to Malta in 1940-42 from RN, and on 2 occasions USN (USS Wasp), carriers. In a tiny handful of those cases a/c with mechanical trouble did manage to land back aboard, a Spitfire did so on one of the Wasp missions.

Late in the war the USN conducted landing trials with PBJ's (ie B-25's) on carriers. Catapulting or flying off from carriers was feasible for a broad range of WWII a/c not designed for it. Landing was harder but also feasible in a one-off emergency or trial in fairly many cases, especially on a bigger carrier. Day in/day out carrier operations with a reasonably low operational loss rate is where the purpose designed carrier plane usually had the advantage. Even somewhat successful carrier planes adapted from land planes were sometimes weak in that aspect. Needless to say the *pilots* also had to have carrier landing training; there was no attempt to do that in any of the USAAF ferry/fly off operations, usually minimal training even in the taking off part, but it usually went OK anyway.

Joe


----------



## renrich (Jun 6, 2008)

They probably would have had to have a lot of wind also for the launch. The takeoff distance on land with zero wind, paved strip, sea level, full load of fuel and ammo for P47D-25 at 14411 pounds was 2540 feet. The TO distance for F4U4, same specs, at 12281 pounds was 630 feet.


----------



## starling (Jun 6, 2008)

hi all,was the corsair as fast as a jug-p47.lee.


----------



## renrich (Jun 6, 2008)

Which Corsair, which P47, what altitude, what load, what mission, too many variables for an answer.


----------



## antoni (Jun 7, 2008)

318 FG USS Manilla Bay. Note theatre markings, stripes across the fuselage tailplanes, fin/rudder. Front of cowlings and wing tips also painted in the same colour. Ailerons as well? Presumably each squadron used a different colour. That of the 73 FS appears to have been white. Aircraft’s number painted on inner side of wheel hub.


----------



## antoni (Jun 7, 2008)

Spittin Kitten 73 FS 318 FG.


----------



## antoni (Jun 7, 2008)

Sonny Boy.


----------



## antoni (Jun 7, 2008)

Cannot read the name on this one. Note face painted on the drop/ferry tank and number painted on inner face of the wheel hub. Tyre walls appear to have been painted white.


----------



## antoni (Jun 7, 2008)

73 FS after landing in Siapan July 1944. Aircraft in the background belonged to Lt Cormier.


----------



## Glider (Jun 7, 2008)

Unless my eyes deceive me, those P47's were catapulted off the deck which says something about how strong the P47 was.
I have never seen or heard of a catapult being attached like that.


----------



## wh1skea (Oct 3, 2008)

That was how tail draggers were catapulted. Search for Korean War pic of Corsairs being catapulted. They're done the same way.

Lets not forget the Mustang that the Navy tested for carrier ops. It was fitted with arrestor hook and the like.


----------



## AlphaGeek (Nov 5, 2009)

kool kitty89 said:


> How and where did the P-47's flying CAP land?



Hi folks,

I'm way late to this particular party, but may have some information to add. My uncle was pilot of Sonny Boy, Eubanks Barnhill. This isn't particularly about the CAP, but does regard where those razorbacks landed:

'banks told me a little about Saipan. He told me that when he launched, they strip was already taken, but the battle was still going on. His and some other crew chiefs and support crew had embarked on landing craft to meet the planes when they came in.

When Sonny Boy landed, my uncle was met by his crew chief running to meet him with a steel pot helmet. They were still taking sniper fire.

Less than an hour later, he was in the air again flying ground support.

Thanks for sharing the images here. As with so many of the greatest generation, these were ordinary men, but they rose to the occasion and became heroes.

Cheers,

AG


----------



## AlphaGeek (Nov 6, 2009)

...and the youtube link previously cited is dead. Here's some film of a P-47 carrier launch:


----------



## DAVIDICUS (Nov 6, 2009)

That was great.

I watched one of those movie previews on that site and they had a picture of a P-47 that flew through a tree and made it back. Unbelievable damage. Another pilot explained that as he taxied after landing, people were pointing at the side of his plane. He said here was oil all over the side of his aircraft and a one foot sized hole in the side of the engine that knocked out two pistons.


----------



## AlphaGeek (Nov 6, 2009)

antoni said:


> Cannot read the name on this one. Note face painted on the drop/ferry tank and number painted on inner face of the wheel hub. Tyre walls appear to have been painted white.



#29= "Dee Icer", Cpt John O'Hare.

More pics here!





AG


----------



## vikingBerserker (Feb 4, 2014)

I'm in the middle of reading _Little Giants: US Escort Carriers Against Japan _by Y'Blood and I came across the P-47's being catapulted from the CVE's.

I am amazed and impressed.


----------



## R Pope (Feb 5, 2014)

I recall a quote somewhere to the effect that, "if they built a runway all around the world, Republic would build an airplane that would use it all!"


----------



## Balljoint (Feb 5, 2014)

If B-25s could takeoff from a carrier…


----------



## vikingBerserker (Feb 5, 2014)

Take off is one thing, but being catapulted to me is another.


----------



## Shortround6 (Feb 6, 2014)

The Photos are interesting but in no way prove that a P-47 was carrier capable. 

1, what was the take-off weight?
a, Ferrying aircraft to an Island/shore base is one thing ( what was the ammo load? full ammo, part ammo, _no ammo?_ even at 267 rpg a P-47 carried around 640lbs of ammo.)
b, what was the fuel load? The planes are fitted with drop tanks but are they full or just going ashore with the plane? 
c, They can _pick_ favorable times (weather/wind) for take-off. 

2, Just because you can get it into the air doesn't mean you can land it 
a, at 10,600lbs a P-47 was _supposed_ to have a "best IAS approach" of 115mph. Now stall speed may well be a bit under that but even a TBF with torpedo was supposed to land in the 70mph range. Even if you can get the P-47 to actually touch down at 100mph the extra speed means about twice the force per pound of aircraft weight on the arrestor system. 
b, The P-47 may have been rugged but carrier aircraft often landed with around 40-50% higher _vertical_ impact speeds than land planes. 
c,the above are numbers, the next thing you need is low speed control. What was the P-47s rudder control and aileron control near stall for making those last second corrections before _hitting the deck._ One of the things that kept the Corsair off of carrier decks for quite a while even though in landed in the low 70mph range.


----------



## vikingBerserker (Feb 6, 2014)

I do not believe they were carrier capable as the book I'm reading commented several times that once the pilots were launched they could not return to the carrier. They were carrying ammo and must have had a decent amount of fuel as they were flying CAP for the CVEs as well as attacking targets on land.


----------



## GrauGeist (Feb 6, 2014)

The P-47s were simply ferried to their destination. You'll find that several land types were transported like this, such as P-40s to North Africa and so on. In some cases, the aircraft were launched and others, they were gantried from the decks.

Just because one sees land-based aircraft on the decks of carrier, doesn't mean they were carrier-capable.

If this were the case, then the Fw190, Bf109, Do335 and Me262 (to name a few of the types transported to America) would qualify, since they were on a carrier...


----------



## Messy1 (Feb 7, 2014)

Weight should not be in issue, The F7F Tigercat was designed as a carrier aircraft, and it weighed much more than the p-47. Now, maybe you would need to use a newer style Midway carrier to handle the weight, but if theP-47 was strong enough to handle the landings, it should not have been a problem in regards to weight. The Tigercat was designed a carrier borne fighter.
According to Military Factory the empty weight of the two aircraft are as follows
P-47 Thunderbolt 9.949 lbs.
F7F Tigercat 16,270 LBS.


----------



## Glider (Feb 7, 2014)

I would have thought that most single engine fighters could be made carrier compatible given suitable modifications. The question would be _would they be good enough to be effective carrier fighters_. Landing speed would probably be a major factor. The P51 had on paper a lot of the right factors, range, speed, performance but I understand that its landing speed made it too marginal for carrier operations. A similar issue might also be applicable to the P47, I don't pretend to know the facts on this aspect of her performance.

But Spits, Hurricanes and Me109's were modified. The Seafire was probably just about good enough as a carrier fighters, not even it greatest fans would claim that it was good. The Hurricane lacked performance and probably range and I see no reason why the 109 would be any better than the Seafire.


----------



## GrauGeist (Feb 7, 2014)

U.S. Navy also needed the aircraft to have such features such as tail-hook, folding wings and to have a period of floatation if ditched at sea.

Also, the P-47D weighed 10,000 lbs. empty (max. load 17,500 lbs.), the F6F weighed a little less at 9,238 lbs. empty and 15,415 lbs. max. and the Corsair weighed even less than the Hellcat (empty and max.) Also look at the comparable ranges (without drop-tanks), the P-47 was roughly 800 miles, the Hellcat was about 945 the Corsair was 1,015 miles.

In order to get the P-47 to land on a carrier, you would have to come up with a solution to shorten it's landing distance, strengthen it's tail to handle it's mass during violent deceleration and redesign the wings to fold yet still handle the max. loadout the P-47 was capable of handling.


----------



## Shortround6 (Feb 7, 2014)

Messy1 said:


> Weight should not be in issue, The F7F Tigercat was designed as a carrier aircraft, and it weighed much more than the p-47. Now, maybe you would need to use a newer style Midway carrier to handle the weight, but if theP-47 was strong enough to handle the landings, it should not have been a problem in regards to weight. The Tigercat was designed a carrier borne fighter.
> According to Military Factory the empty weight of the two aircraft are as follows
> P-47 Thunderbolt 9.949 lbs.
> F7F Tigercat 16,270 LBS.



Great, Midway class carriers went into operation when? Fall/winter of 1945? Now the Essex class carriers did operate much heavier aircraft post war but that was _after_ the catapults were upgraded, the arresting systems were upgraded and maybe the decks were reinforced/rebuilt? By that time the Navy had Bearcats, F4U-5s and jets. Not much need for P-47s.

BTW, Stall speed for a F7F-3n at 21,746lbs was 90.9mph with 375 gallons fuel and 86mph with the fuel burned off.


----------



## Shortround6 (Feb 7, 2014)

The main thing for carrier aircraft is getting them back on board. The Navy had enough accidents with the planes they were using, even 2-3 crashes per 1000 landings (0.2-0.3%) can deplete your air-group in several weeks worth of operations even without enemy contact. How many planes need to launched and recovered _every single day_ that flight operations are possible? A CAP does little good if it is sitting on the deck. You have to launch the replacement CAP before you land the current CAP. The only way to find the enemy ships is with search planes, if your radar finds the enemy ships before your planes you are in _DEEP SH**_. so you need search planes in the air 2-3 times a day. You can have 2-3 dozen take-offs and landings per day even without training flights.


----------



## Glider (Feb 7, 2014)

GrauGeist said:


> U.S. Navy also needed the aircraft to have such features such as tail-hook, folding wings and to have a period of floatation if ditched at sea.
> 
> In order to get the P-47 to land on a carrier, you would have to come up with a solution to shorten it's landing distance, strengthen it's tail to handle it's mass during violent deceleration and redesign the wings to fold yet still handle the max. loadout the P-47 was capable of handling.



I agree with all of this but it was achievable, the weight would have increased. All these changes were done to the Seafire, so it would probably have been possible. However the performance would have suffered and the USN didn't need it, but it probably could have been done.


----------



## Shortround6 (Feb 7, 2014)

Glider said:


> I agree with all of this but it was achievable, the weight would have increased. All these changes were done to the Seafire, so it would probably have been possible. However the performance would have suffered and the USN didn't need it, but it probably could have been done.




There is at least one major difference between a Spitfire and a P-47. The Spitfire landed at about the right speed to begin with. Not 30-50% faster than the 'normal' carrier planes.


----------



## boeing299 (Feb 11, 2014)

Interesting that the Skyraider which was designed to operate from WW2 era carriers had a design wing loading of 45 lbs per foot compared to the P-47s 44.3. From what I've read it also had a maximum arrested landing weight of 17,000 pounds, although the landing speed, as expected, was quite a bit lower. The max take off weight was just over 21,000 pounds. Heavier in all respects than a P-47.
I guess my point is that weight would probably not be so much of a factor as airframe strength and stall speed.

Reactions: Like Like:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## Shortround6 (Feb 11, 2014)

Many of the WW II Carriers were upgraded after the war, new arrestor systems, new catapults, new elevators, rebuilt flight decks.

SCB-27 - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Also please note that the Skyraider had about 33% more wing than a P-47, a different air foil and different flaps. It also went through several different engine versions. 

Question is while some version/s of the Skyraider may make arrested landings at 17,000lbs it _may_ vary with which version and which ship?


----------



## GregP (Feb 11, 2014)

The P-47 was not carrier capable and would never be so. The airframe was not designed for carrier landings. The thing was heay enough as it was without trying to add the strength for carrier operations, and the wing was optimized for higher altitude operations, not for good manners around the carrier at low speeds. The landing gear would not take it, the airframe would not take it, the visibility was awful (about like a Corsair, and one of those was enough), and the wings were never designed to be able to fold.

The amount of weight that can be handled by an arrester system is almost completely dependent on the piston system. The Midway calss carriers had an enormous piston system capable of landing an A-3 Skywarrior, so they would easily have been able to handle a P-47, but the airframe of the P-47 would have broken in half during an arrested landing on a WWII carrier with WWII arrester systems.

As stated above, many planes were capable of taking off from a carrier pointing into the wind at about 30 knots or so. Jimmy Dolittle launched B-25's from a carrier to bomb Tokyo. I hope there is nobody in here who thinks he could have landed back aboard with the B-25's! Now there HAVE been carrier suitability trials of the C-130 and you can find YouTube videos of it. But they weren't WWII size carriers. And it did not use the arrester gear ... it used reverse thrust.

The main criteria for carrier suitability is to have the airframe strength to handle it combined with slow-flight manners suitable for carrier operations. Along the way it is nice to fold up the wings, but the main thing is have a strong enough airframe to handle the stresses. Without deliberate design for that, you won't have it in any aircraft. There is absolutely no reason to design in that strength unless you have carrier operations in mind.

Reactions: Like Like:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## VBF-13 (Feb 16, 2014)

GregP said:


> [...] but the airframe of the P-47 would have broken in half during an arrested landing on a WWII carrier with WWII arrester systems.


Funny, I was reading down to this, thinking, "I wonder if anyone ever landed a P-47 on a carrier." I guess not, huh?


----------



## vikingBerserker (Feb 16, 2014)

Interestingly I was reading _Air Arsenal North America: Purchases Lend-lease, Aircraft for the Allies 1938-1945_ by Phil Butler and in the book showed a picture of one of the first P-39s shipped to England. They added a tail hook and another gadget that I cannot recall and landed it onto a carrier. I know repeated landings is one thing on an air frame, but I would think landing a P-47 a few times would be possible.


----------



## GrauGeist (Feb 16, 2014)

Keep in mind that a Jug needed considerable real estate to land, so even if you reinforced the P-47's aft superstructure and added a tailhook, it's weight and speed would rip the sh!t out of the shipboard arrestor equipment during a landing


----------



## Shortround6 (Feb 17, 2014)

For an aircraft to be _truly_ "carrier capable" it has to be able to operate from the carrier for a large number of take-off and landing cycles. Otherwise you are either carting around special purpose aircraft that suck up hanger/deck space and are useless for the majority of flights the carrier does handle OR you have a high speed fighter replenishment ship accompanying the carrier to feed in new aircraft as operational accidents take out the original complement of aircraft. 

Even a pair of carriers operating together are going to need 12-16 fighter flights every other "flying weather day" to put a minimum CAP of 4 aircraft over the taskforce during daylight hours ( it may be 16-24 flights a day ?) with carriers alternating CAP duty. You also need searches to find/warn of the enemy fleet so again you need a number of flights per day by the 'strike' aircraft operating in the 'search' mode. Having 12-16 aircraft on board that are not to be flown until the enemy fleet is actually found (or island target is reached) really impacts the ability of the carriers to perform fleet protection in the one to two weeks before the strike is made and one the way back to base.


----------



## tyrodtom (Feb 17, 2014)

I'm not saying the P-47 could ever be made carrier capable , but we seem to be forgetting the Navy was already operating aircraft from carriers heavier than a P-47, both the TBF and SB2C were heavier, and even the Hellcat was close to the P-47's weight, less than a thousand pounds difference. 

The P-47 did land faster. But wasn't the arresting gear adjustable ? 

Surely a 6000 lb Wildcat didn't get arrested with the same settings as the 12,000 lb Avenger ?


----------



## Shortround6 (Feb 17, 2014)

There is an upper limit to the adjustment, and the arresting gear has to handle the kinetic energy. formula for kinetic energy is weight( or mass) X the velocity *squared* with a few constants. 10% increase in speed is a 21% increase in energy and a 20% increase in speed is a 44% increase in energy. 30% increase in speed is 69% increase in energy. 

The Essex class carriers were rebuilt during the late 40s/early 50s to handle the heavier faster jets and the rebuilding took over 2 years on average. Granted the rebuild allowed them to operate _MUCH_ larger aircraft than the P-47 but the P-47 was going to present a bunch of problems without offering a whole lot in the way of return. 
What was a P-47C really going to offer the Navy over a F6F-3? What was a P-47D-25 offer over an F4U-4 or F6F-5? 

If the Japanese had miraculously come up with a 425mph fighter at 30,000 ft in the summer of 1944 in numbers then _maybe_ the Navy might have gone for a carrier P-47. Since the Navy fighters could handle pretty much anything the Japanese had there was no pressing need to adapt ill suited aircraft to the Navy environment.

Reactions: Like Like:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## stona (Feb 17, 2014)

What was the P-47s minimum landing speed and how far above the power on stall was it? On the Seafire the margin was very small and pilots tended to add a few knots 'for the wife and kids' resulting in fast landings that damaged or destroyed the aircraft.

What was it's rate of descent in that condition? Again the Seafire's was several ft/sec higher than the US aircraft designed for carrier operations.

Carrier aircraft were designed with a margin above the stall and a lower rate of descent than land based aircraft. These you can't easily change. Other aerodynamic factors which might be disastrous in carrier operations but benign when operating from airfields are also difficult to overcome. You don't want an aircraft with a tendency to float over the deck for example. You do want an aircraft with neutral handling and balance on which authority of all the controls exists in a landing condition.

They also had things that you could theoretically fix to a land based aircraft like different undercarriage (the P-47s has a limited 'stroke', but then you don't want a big 'bounce' either) and strengthening for arrestor hooks etc.

The question is much more complicated than it might seem.

Cheers

Steve


----------



## VBF-13 (Feb 17, 2014)

tyrodtom said:


> The P-47 did land faster.


That's on land, on the longer land strips. When they're getting the "cut" from the LSO to land on the shorter carrier decks, they're cutting their engines.


----------



## GregP (Feb 17, 2014)

The P-47 airframe was never stressed for carrier operations. It would not make even ONE carrier landing ... maybe on a Midway class carrier, but not on a WWII carrier.


----------



## MikeGazdik (Feb 17, 2014)

I love the Jug but.... The aircraft carrier and the arresting gear on the ship is the least of any concern. In fact, I would bet they could have been made to accept the speed / weight of the P-47.

As tough as the P-47 was, it was just not designed as a carrier plane period and don't think any adaptation would have made it any better than something that already existed in the F6F or the F4U.

The Thunderbolt was already very heavy. How much heavier is it going to be with wing-fold gear, tail hook gear, the added weight stronger landing gear brings, etc? Now you have either a higher landing speed, or increasing wing area even more, which now slows its top speed.


----------



## VBF-13 (Feb 18, 2014)

GregP said:


> The P-47 airframe was never stressed for carrier operations. It would not make even ONE carrier landing ... maybe on a Midway class carrier, but not on a WWII carrier.


But that's not because it landed faster. That was my point. When these aircraft got the cut, they dropped in, they didn't land in, as on a land base. Thus, it wasn't that they'd come in too "hot." The fact is, landing on a carrier deck, they wouldn't be coming in any "hotter" than any other aircraft of comparable size and weight.


----------



## GregP (Feb 18, 2014)

The P-47 WAS NOT capable of a carrier landing guys. It has NOTHING to do with the size or speed of the P-47. The AIRFAME could not take the stress to come to a stop on a carrier, nor was it designed to "drop in."

Jeez, go read some design stuff on naval aircraft ... the P-47 was NOT one of them. The notion is just not embedded in reality.


----------



## Shortround6 (Feb 18, 2014)

VBF-13 said:


> But that's not because it landed faster. That was my point. When these aircraft got the cut, they dropped in, they didn't land in, as on a land base. Thus, it wasn't that they'd come in too "hot." The fact is, landing on a carrier deck, they wouldn't be coming in any "hotter" than any other aircraft of comparable size and weight.



Uh. The F6F, F4U, Avenger and so on were doing about 70mph when they got the order to "cut". The P-47 would be doing 90 minimum ( or more?) or else it would have nosed up and dropped like a rock even with power on (stalled). 

Wing area and wing loading are _indicators_ of performance, they are by no means a guarantee. Different air foils and different flaps can have rather different lift/stall characteristics even for roughly the same size wing and at near the same wing loadings. 

P-47 'approach' speed was around 120 mph just before coming over the fence. about the same as a B-25 at 31,000lbs and around 30+mph faster than a P-40. 

Look it up.


----------



## VBF-13 (Feb 18, 2014)

Shortround6 said:


> Uh. The F6F, F4U, Avenger and so on were doing about 70mph when they got the order to "cut". The P-47 would be doing 90 minimum ( or more?) or else it would have nosed up and dropped like a rock even with power on (stalled).
> 
> Wing area and wing loading are _indicators_ of performance, they are by no means a guarantee. Different air foils and different flaps can have rather different lift/stall characteristics even for roughly the same size wing and at near the same wing loadings.
> 
> ...


If it's capable of being "looked up," why don't you "look it up" for me, and show it to me? That way, I don't have to just accept your conclusory statements, in the light of what I know, that being, no LSO is going to let any aircraft drop in "hot." He's going to wave it off, signaling to the pilot, "Get your attitude and air speed right, and come back around and try it, again." You're maintaining it's aerodynamically impossible for a P-47 pilot to configure that approach in that aircraft at the proper attitude and air speed to drop down on a carrier deck. I'm not saying you're incorrect. Let me say that, again, just in case you didn't hear it. I'm not saying you're incorrect. I'm saying, show me. I'm saying, that's a rather incredulous conclusion. They come in "nose up," and "drop like a rock," all the time, that's what it's about. You're envisioning they're landing on a land strip, coming in "over the fence," and you're imposing those constraints to conclude they can't drop down on a carrier deck? I'm sorry, I'm now buying it. Show me where that's impossible. Show me where it says all your facts and figures add up to the one inescapable conclusion it's aerodynamically impossible to set that aircraft to drop down at the proper attitude and air speed on a carrier deck. You're the one with the burden of persuasion, here, persuade me. To this point, you haven't. At least, not convincingly.


----------



## stona (Feb 18, 2014)

VBF-13 said:


> But that's not because it landed faster. That was my point. When these aircraft got the cut, they dropped in, they didn't land in, as on a land base. Thus, it wasn't that they'd come in too "hot." The fact is, landing on a carrier deck, they wouldn't be coming in any "hotter" than any other aircraft of comparable size and weight.



They have to make their approach above their power on stalling speed. Many aircraft not designed for carrier landings had to make the approach at a speed very close to the stall in order to land at an acceptable speed. The margin on carrier designed aircraft was always higher, usually because they stalled at a lower speed in their landing configuration. This is an aerodynamic factor which can not easily be altered.

Stall and you crash, it's that simple. Aircraft did not drop to the deck, they flew onto it (which by definition means that the wings have not stalled), usually landing in a three point attitude close to the stall.

Cheers

Steve


----------



## VBF-13 (Feb 18, 2014)

Steve, they don't actually "drop." As compared to landing on a land strip, they "drop." That's all I meant by that. In that regard, there's nothing special about the design of "carrier-built" aircraft. At bottom, I'm still just not seeing how a P-47 is not, by design, enabled to "drop" down on a carrier deck, at the proper attitude and air speed.


----------



## Shortround6 (Feb 18, 2014)

You have been here for over 3 years and over 800 posts.

I am not going to do your work for you. 

For resources try : Zeno's Warbird Videos - World War II Pilot Training videos air combat documentaries playing for free over the Internet

Specifically: http://www.zenoswarbirdvideos.com/Images/P-47/47TOCL.gif

http://www.zenoswarbirdvideos.com/Images/P-40/P-40TOCLC.pdf

http://www.zenoswarbirdvideos.com/Images/B-25/B25TOC&LC.pdf

http://www.zenoswarbirdvideos.com/Images/F4U/F4UTOCL.gif

There are a number of aircraft manuals available on this site in the Other Mechanical Systems Tech. section.

BTW the manual for the P-47B,C,D and G says the stalling speed is 100mph IAS with flaps and gear down. 

A number of people have told you that you are wrong and yet you want US to prove it. 

You want to come up with ideas the question "conventional" wisdom how about doing a little research yourself with these "FREE" on line resources and come up with some hard facts. All it will cost you is time.


----------



## Shortround6 (Feb 18, 2014)

Trouble is that the "proper" attitude and airspeed is going to be about 30mph faster than the Navy planes and there is no getting around it. The P-47 simply will NOT fly at 75-95mph. It is stalled and dropping fast.


----------



## stona (Feb 18, 2014)

VBF-13 said:


> Steve, they don't actually "drop." As compared to landing on a land strip, they "drop." That's all I meant by that. In that regard, there's nothing special about the design of "carrier-built" aircraft. At bottom, I'm still just not seeing how a P-47 is not, by design, enabled to "drop" down on a carrier deck, at the proper attitude and air speed.



Because the proper airspeed for a carrier deck landing is below the speed at which a P-47 will fly. Slowing down to a speed at which it can make the landing will just result in it falling into the sea.

There are special features built in to aircraft designed for carrier operations which is why aircraft converted to such from another role are often not very good at it. These vary from complex aerodynamic properties, to the design of the undercarriage and cockpit and even the exterior and interior finish.

Cheers

Steve

Reactions: Like Like:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## VBF-13 (Feb 18, 2014)

Well, to say this is all news to me, is quite the understatement, I have to tell you. May I conclude this, on what you're saying, the P-47 can't be brought to the requisites for a carrier deck landing, for its stall characteristics? If that's it, I'd just never have imagined it. I can understand it, though. These aircraft have to be "brought down," and if the P-47 can't be, for its stall characteristics, that'd cinch it for me.


----------



## GrauGeist (Feb 18, 2014)

It was common practice for the Army and Navy to compare and evaluate the same airframe for their needs. I am sure that the U.S. Navy looked at the P-47 and decided it wasn't suitable for it's needs.

The slowest stall speed for the P-47D was 98 mph IAS, full flaps, gear down, cowl shutters closed and engine at idle.

Reactions: Like Like:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## FLYBOYJ (Feb 18, 2014)

GrauGeist said:


> It was common practice for the Army and Navy to compare and evaluate the same airframe for their needs. I am sure that the U.S. Navy looked at the P-47 and decided it wasn't suitable for it's needs.
> 
> The slowest stall speed for the P-47D was 98 mph IAS, full flaps, gear down, cowl shutters closed and engine at idle.



It seems someone is reading a flight manual!

Reactions: Like Like:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## VBF-13 (Feb 18, 2014)

OK, then. Let's move on. Lead the way. I'm feeling strong and daring.


----------



## stona (Feb 18, 2014)

VBF-13 said:


> Well, to say this is all news to me, is quite the understatement, I have to tell you. May I conclude this, on what you're saying, the P-47 can't be brought to the requisites for a carrier deck landing, for its stall characteristics? If that's it, I'd just never have imagined it. I can understand it, though. These aircraft have to be "brought down," and if the P-47 can't be, for its stall characteristics, that'd cinch it for me.



Not just that. There may well have been other aerodynamic features undesirable for making carrier landings. This could be something as simple as the oleo travel, or lack of damping, to things more difficult to fix. I don't know specifics for the P-47 because if any deck landing trials were undertaken I've never seen a report.
Deck landing trials need not actually be undertaken on a deck, just a land based mock-up so there would be room for error without destroying the aircraft or killing the pilot.

An even more serious problem might be getting a loaded P-47 off a carrier deck rather than launching it over the bows and into the ocean! In 1943 US carriers were fitted with the latest version of the H2-1 catapult. This could accelerate an 11,000lb aircraft to 70 mph in a 73 foot run. That would do nicely for lobbing a P-47 (maximum take off weight was over 17,000lbs IIRC) over the bow.

Cheers

Steve


----------



## GrauGeist (Feb 18, 2014)

Something else I might point out, is that upon arresting, the aircraft will pitch forward and with the current gear configuration of the P-47, it'll become a wood-chopper real fast.

Here's a photo of a F4U with VF-17 during recovery aboard the Bunker Hill, 11 July 43 that illustrates how far the prop is from the deck in relation to it's gear.







Also, here's a great video of a P-47D in the process of landing. In the video, the pilot gives you a breakdown of the landing procedure in realtime, with tips, info from the USAAF manual and some commentary.


_View: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dwVXV0bPTik_


----------



## pbehn (Feb 18, 2014)

Some great info here, seems that a P 47 made carrier capable would look just like a corsair.


----------



## VBF-13 (Feb 18, 2014)

stona said:


> Deck landing trials need not actually be undertaken on a deck, just a land based mock-up so there would be room for error without destroying the aircraft or killing the pilot.


Before they went out to the "carriers" on the Lake, that's exactly what they did, at Glenview, on mock-up land "decks."


----------



## tyrodtom (Feb 18, 2014)

stona said:


> Not just that. There may well have been other aerodynamic features undesirable for making carrier landings. This could be something as simple as the oleo travel, or lack of damping, to things more difficult to fix. I don't know specifics for the P-47 because if any deck landing trials were undertaken I've never seen a report.
> Deck landing trials need not actually be undertaken on a deck, just a land based mock-up so there would be room for error without destroying the aircraft or killing the pilot.
> 
> An even more serious problem might be getting a loaded P-47 off a carrier deck rather than launching it over the bows and into the ocean! In 1943 US carriers were fitted with the latest version of the H2-1 catapult. This could accelerate an 11,000lb aircraft to 70 mph in a 73 foot run. That would do nicely for lobbing a P-47 (maximum take off weight was over 17,000lbs IIRC) over the bow.
> ...



The TBF Avenger was operated from carriers almost from the beginning of the war, it's normal loaded weight was above 17,000 lbs, it's maximum takeoff weight was 18,250 lbs., Even the Hellcat's maximum was 15,500. Evidently they managed.

I think the carriers could have handled the P-47, after all they managed to handle the first generation jets without a lot of modifications, but the P-47 couldn't cope with carrier operations.

Reactions: Like Like:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## VBF-13 (Feb 18, 2014)

By the way, I'm reading and looking at all these links you guys are posting, so, just so you know. And, OK, learning from them, too.


----------



## VBF-13 (Feb 18, 2014)

tyrodtom said:


> The TBF Avenger was operated from carriers almost from the beginning of the war, it's normal loaded weight was above 17,000 lbs, it's maximum takeoff weight was 18,250 lbs., Even the Hellcat's maximum was 15,500. Evidently they managed.


Yeah, well, that's where I was coming from! That's why what they said wasn't making sense to me, Tom.


----------



## GregP (Feb 18, 2014)

The stall characteristics, though important for a Navy plane, have nothing to do with carrier suitability in the case of the P-47. It flew just fine though it would not have passed flying characterictics for a Navy aircraft.

The issue is that the fuselage was not designed for carrier operations and would have ripped off if anyone had fitted a tailhook. The structure to absorb the stopping energy was simply not there ... nobody designs that in unless the aircraft is designed as a carrier aircraft from the start.

Later, well after WWII, some big fighters had arrester gear in them as a safety precaution even if they were NOT intended for carrier operations. One such was the Air Force variant of the F-4 Phantom. The landing gear was not designed for carrier operations, but the arrester gear was there in case the aircraft was damaged and could not stop on the runway.

Last year at our airshow, we had an F-4 fly an aerobatic demo but could not legally land it at Chino because our runway does not have arrester gear at the end. So he did a touch and go. He was based out of March AFB that is about 15 miles down the road for the show.

The Navy and Air Corps did NOT evaulate the same planes ... no Air Corps aircraft would pass the required flying characteristics for a Navy plane unless they were designed in from the start. The Air Corps had completely different requirements from the Navy.

The RAF was very unhappy when they were more or less forced to take the Hawker-siddeley Buccaneer, but found out they had gotten a pretty decent aircraft after all. But the Navies of the world would not be able to take most Air Force aircraft since they cannot pass Navy requirements for landing aboard a carrier.

Navy carrier pilots do not flare when they land ... they establish a sink rate and fly it until it hits the deck. They fly the ball all the way down and go to full military power just before touchdown. Most Air Force aircraft would sustain serious damage if subjected to this. You can drop a Navy plane straight down from 10 feet or so and it is designed to take that as a matter of course since all carrier landings are "firm arrivals."

Reactions: Like Like:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## GrauGeist (Feb 18, 2014)

The argument that the P-47D was just as big and/or heavy as a Navy carrier designed aircraft is an "apples and oranges" argument.

The P-47 was designed to be rugged, taking advantage of unimproved landing surfaces and to carry maximum loads (hence the dual spar wing construction). The Naval aircraft are designed to literally "drop down" on a carrier deck at low speeds and then get jerked to a stop, displacing a great deal of kinetic energy in the process. In the event that a Naval aircraft "jumps the wire" on recovery or has to ditch at sea, it will float for a period of time, allowing pilot and/or crew the ability to get clear of the aircraft. If a P-47 ditches, it sinks like a stone. A big, fat, ugly stone.

*Grumman F4F-4 Wildcat*
*Empty Weight:* 5,895 lbs.
*Combat Weight:* 7,975 lbs.
*Combat Weight plus one external tank:* 8,369 lbs.
*Combat Weight plus two external tanks:* 8,762 lbs.
*T/O distance - calm:* 640 ft. @ 7,975 lbs. *|* 733 ft. @ 8,369 lbs. *|* 842 ft. @ 8,762 lbs.
*T/O distance - 15 knot headwind:* 410 ft. @ 7,975 lbs. *|* 475 ft. @ 8,369 lbs. *|* 550 ft. @ 8,762 lbs.
*T/O distance - 25 knot headwind:* 278 ft. @ 7,975 lbs. *|* 330 ft. @ 8,369 lbs. *|* 390 ft. @ 8,762 lbs.
*Stall Speed:* 81.2 mph @ 7,975 lbs.
(FM-1 gross weight is 75 lbs. more than the F4F-4, otherwise identical performance as listed)

*Vaught F4U-4 Corsair*
*Empty Weight:* 9,167 lbs.
*Combat Weight:* 12,405 lbs.
*Combat Weight with (8) 5" HVAR:* 16,160 lbs.
*T/O distance - calm:* 790 ft. @ 12,405 lbs. *|* 1,349 ft. @ 16,160 lbs.
*T/O distance - 25 knot headwind:* 377 ft. @ 12,405 lbs. *|* 708 ft. @ 16,160 lbs.
*Stall Speed:* 66.9 mph @ 13,579 lbs.

*Grumman F6F-5 Hellcat*
*Empty Weight:* 9,238 lbs.
*Combat Weight:* 12,740 lbs.
*T/O distance - calm:* 799 ft. @ 13,797 lbs.
*T/O distance - 25 knot headwind:* 384 ft. @ 13,797 lbs.
*Stall Speed:* 72.2 mph @ 13,797 lbs.

*Douglas SBD-5 Dauntless*
*Empty Weight:* 6,533 lbs.
*Combat Weight with (1) 500 lb. bomb:* 9,903 lbs.
*Combat Weight with (1) 1,000 lb. bomb:* 10,403 lbs.
*T/O distance - calm:* 1,073 feet @ 9,903 lbs. *|* 1,225 ft. @ 10,403 lbs.
*T/O distance - 15 knot headwind:* 682 ft. @ 9,903 lbs. *|* 800 ft. @ 10,403 lbs.
*T/O distance - 25 knot headwind:* 480 ft. @ 9,903 lbs. *|* 570 ft. @ 10,403 lbs.
*Stall Speed:* 77.8 mph @ 9,903 lbs.

*Curtiss SB2C-5 Helldiver*
*Empty Weight:* 10,589 lbs.
*Combat Weight:* 14,415 lbs.
*Combat Weight with (2) 250 lb.bombs (1) 1,000 lb. bomb:* 15,915 lbs.
*Combat Weight with (1) 1,000 lb. bomb 100 gallon fuel tank (AN/APS-4):* 16,287 lbs.
*T/O distance - calm:* 1,142 ft. @ 15,915 lbs. *|* 1,243 ft. @ 16,287 lbs.
*T/O distance - 25 knot headwind:* 531 ft. @ 15,915 lbs. *|* 584 ft. @ 16,87 lbs.
*Stall Speed:* 65.5 mph @ 15,195 lbs.

*Grumman TBF-1 Avenger*
*Empty Weight:* 10,555 lbs.
*Combat Weight with (1) 1,000 lb. bomb:* 15,422 lbs.
*Combat Weight with (1) MK13 torpedo:* 16,412 lbs.
*Combat Weight (scouting - 760 gals. fuel):* 17,121 lbs.
*T/O distance - calm:* 880 @ 15,422 lbs. *|* 1,071 @ 16,412 lbs. *|* 1,285 ft. @ 17,121 lbs.
*T/O distance - 15 knot headwind:* 520 @ 15,422 lbs. *|* 650 ft. @ 16,412 lbs. *|* 796 ft. @ 17,121 lbs. 
*T/O distance - 25 knot headwind:* 340 ft. @ 15,422 lbs. *|* 435 ft. @ 16,412 lbs. *|* 532 ft. @ 17,121 lbs.
*Stall Speed:* 74.6 mph @ 15,422 lbs.

Now...let's compare the P-47D against the above listed aircraft and see how well it does...

*Republic P-47D-25 Thunderbolt*
*Empty Weight:* 10,700 lbs.
*Combat Weight:* 14,600 lbs.
*Combat Weight (max loadout):* 17,500 lbs.
*T/O distance - calm:* 2,200 ft. @ 13,300 lbs. *|* 4,100 ft. @ 17,500 lbs.
*Stall Speed:* 98 mph @ 12,000 lbs. *|* 106 mph @ 14,000 lbs.

Reactions: Like Like:
3 | Like List reactions


----------



## GrauGeist (Feb 18, 2014)

GregP said:


> The Navy and Air Corps did NOT evaulate the same planes ... no Air Corps aircraft would pass the required flying characteristics for a Navy plane unless they were designed in from the start. The Air Corps had completely different requirements from the Navy.


Disagree...

P-51 (XP-51) #41-37426 was evaluated by the U.S. Navy. Army plane (ok, actually RAF), Naval evaluation.
P-51D #44-14017 carried the designation ETF-51D as a Naval variant. Army plane, Naval evaluation.
Douglass Dauntless evaluated by U.S. Army, approves and adds it to their inventory as the A-24 Banshee.

These are a few of several cases, but don't think for a minute that when one branch is eyeballing a new toy, that it goes by un-noticed by the others...


----------



## GregP (Feb 18, 2014)

Hi Graugeist.

The P-51 WAS evaluated for potential carrier suitability, with gentle touchdowns. If it had been deemed desirable, the entire structure would have had to be redesigned for carrier operations. They could DO that ... with a lot of work. The evalutaion plans would NEVER have been accepted nor survivied carrier operations, but a few takeoffs and landings were tried with a very senior carrier pilot in the seat after a thorough checkout in the P-51. It was NOT stopped with arrester gear, even though the test aircraft was fitted with a tailhook that was attached to a specially reinforced bulkhead aft of the tailwhell opening. The "strengthening" included long, thick Aluminum doublers that were riveted to a lot of structure. The tests were flown by Lt. Bob Elder and he touched down tailwheel first and got stopped with a carrier speed of some 30 knots into a 15+ knot wind. Repeated use like this would have broken the airframe.

Luckily the "navalized" P-51 never had to try an arrested landing before the idea was shelved.

ANY Navy aircraft could operate from Army fields, and all they did for the A-24 Banshee was to delete the arrester gear. It was a case of a plne already designed and a temporary need for a scout bomber, not a portent of things to come. They didn;t get many and didn't use them particularly long.

These couple of examples would be the exception to the rule, not anywhere near the norm.

This subject is starting to sound mighty strange ... if you are anywhere around aviation, this topic is simply never heard. They tried a C-130 on a carrier, but never once, thankfuly, did it cross anyone's mind to try an arrested landing. They launched a U-2 from a carrier, but would NEVER try a landing. Today, with nuclear carriers, they could probably get almost anything airborne from a carrier, especially with the speed they can generate into a good wind. That wouldn't make it a carrier plane by any means.


----------



## tyrodtom (Feb 18, 2014)

I've never suggested the P-47 was or could be adapted to carriers. But a carrier would have no trouble handling the P-47 greater weight or speed.

After all the same carriers managed ( with some modification I'm sure ) with the first generation jets, whose weight and landing speeds make the P-47 seem tame. 
Angle deck carriers didn't start appearing till the early 50s.

As for those saying a P-47 couldn't be catapulted, several of the pictures early in this thread plainly show P-47s hooked to the catapult. 
Probably not fully loaded, and likely the catapult wasn't at full pull.


----------



## GrauGeist (Feb 18, 2014)

GregP said:


> Hi Graugeist.
> 
> The P-51 WAS evaluated for potential carrier suitability, with gentle touchdowns. If it had been deemed desirable, the entire structure would have had to be redesigned for carrier operations. They could DO that ... with a lot of work. The evalutaion plans would NEVER have been accepted nor survivied carrier operations, but a few takeoffs and landings were tried with a very senior carrier pilot in the seat after a thorough checkout in the P-51. It was NOT stopped with arrester gear, even though the test aircraft was fitted with a tailhook that was attached to a specially reinforced bulkhead aft of the tailwhell opening. The "strengthening" included long, thick Aluminum doublers that were riveted to a lot of structure. The tests were flown by Lt. Bob Elder and he touched down tailwheel first and got stopped with a carrier speed of some 30 knots into a 15+ knot wind. Repeated use like this would have broken the airframe.
> 
> ...


I beg to differ, Greg...the Navy even evaluated a P-51H: P-51H-5-NA #44-64420 in 1945.

As far as arresting on recovery, how do you suppose they got the P-51 to keep from shooting off the end of the deck?

Here's the ETF-51D during recovery aboard the Shangri-La.






As far as "exceptions rather than the norm", this conversation came about because of the comment of Navy evaluating Army aircraft and visa-versa.

Well, lo and behold, they did.


----------



## GregP (Feb 18, 2014)

It isn't the CARRIER in question and never was. A carrier can be made to handle a LOT of weight and generate a LOT of force.

It is the airframe of the P-47 that is in question. It was never designed for carrier operations and was not suitable in ANY way to carriers. Sure, it could be launched if that was carefully done, but you didn't see any land on a carrier except maybe a touch and go. They did THAT with MUCH bigger airplanes than a P-47 and carriers transported many non-carrier-suitable aircraft.

The weak link here is the T-bolt, not carrier.


----------



## GregP (Feb 19, 2014)

Nice pic.

Beg to differ if you want, the guys who were there on the first landings said it was not arrrested. I have NO IDEA when or where this pic was taken and it might or might not be from that cruise. ID markings are conveniently missing. If anyone knows the ID of this plane. please post it so we can find out the disposition.

In the end, the experiment was terminated and nobody operated P-51H's or any other model in Navy service from a carrier. The P-51 was NOT carrier qualified and there was never a P-51 Navy carrier squadron, group, or any other organization ... it was a TEST, nothing more. They tested a lot of stupid things, including hanging a jet from a trapeze in the bomb bay of a B-36. 

The B-25 wasn't carrier qualified either, but they launched Jimmy Dootlttle's raid on Tokyo from a carrier. I sincerely hope you aren't claiming the B-25 was carrier qualified becuase it flew from one once. All kinds of tests were run, and many ended in tragedy. Because they have a pic of something doesn't mean it was ever used in service.

We never adopted the F-107A, but we have flight pics of it. That list is VERY long and not important ... neither is the P-51 carrier test. Only ONE GUY ever flew them (named above in my post). It was abandoned and all the pics and posts in the world won't change that fact. They did a lot of things in WWII that were never repeated after the war. This one was forgetable for its inevitability.


----------



## GrauGeist (Feb 19, 2014)

Jesus Christ, Greg!
You just said "lucky they never tried" and I just showed you photographic proof that they did recover with a cable! Many times!!

I don't give a flying fig what the guys down at the hanger are all BS'ing about today, this was a matter of official record, the P-51D underwent seagoing trials aboard the U.S.S. Shangri-La and it wasn't a one-shot wonder.

Read up on it before posting that nonsense...


----------



## GregP (Feb 19, 2014)

Yeah, you showed us a pic, and the guy who gave the talk was speaking about the test he witnessed. I have no idea when this pic was taken and neither do you. Might even be on the same cruise. Since I wasn't there, for all I know this might have been taken when the LSO who gave the talk wasn't on duty ... I don't know.

And in case you missed it, I didn't say or imply the pic was false (in fact, thanks for the pic) ... I asked if anyone knew the aircraft ID so we could check on the disposition. This isn't a personal attack on YOU ... get over it. The test was run and one guy who was there made a statement that the landings he saw weren't arrrested. Your pic seems to indicate it wasn't the only test ... but, again, I wasn't there.

The only thing for sure is the P-51 test was terminated and the aircraft would have had to have some major modifications had they decied to go forward with it since the P-51 was NOT designed for carrier operations.

They tried carrier opertions with the Spitfire, too, and it wasn't exactly a rousing success. The Seafires were fragile and not a few came apart as predicted. Likewise the P-51 would have followed suit, but smarter heads prevailed and terminted the experiment before they made that same mistake.

Graugeist (what does that mean in German?), the Navy and Air Force (or Air Corps as the case may be) did NOT share planes as a matter of course, though they did occasionally operate some common types for a short while of necessity, mostly on the part of the Air Forces of the world, NOT the other way around.

I have no trouble with the fact that the test was run ... it developed into nothing and was bound to do just that.


----------



## GrauGeist (Feb 19, 2014)

I know exactly when the photo was taken and posted exactly where it was taken. I even posted the EF-51's serial number above.

If you weren't so busy with your BS, you'd have noticed it and we wouldn't be wasting time here, would we?


----------



## GregP (Feb 19, 2014)

Thanks! I was looking at the pic!

And also didn't really take note of the BS part in your post above.

You're wrong. It was covered in a talk from a guy who was there ... apparently he didn't see all of it.


----------



## GrauGeist (Feb 19, 2014)

GregP said:


> Thanks! I was looking at the pic!


----------



## GregP (Feb 19, 2014)

OK, Graugeist,

Using your thoughtfully-provided serial number, I found this, which is perhaps where you found the pic? The P-51H test ended in 1952 and that serial number was transferred to the National Guard. I am trying to find a disposition for it out of curiosity only.

Mustang! - Documents

Perhaps you will note the test pilot did not think it was suitable and only 25 landings and takeoffs in total were accomplished with the modified airframe. Also, the P-51H was modified for carrier TAKEOFFS, not for carrier landings. Eventually, even though North American was interested in it, as was the Navy, it was deemed unsuitable. Maybe this was due to the coming of the jet age more than the inability of the P-51 to be "Navalized?" I don't know but it wasn't adopted. Might have been possible with modifications.

So, on the face of this, it would appear the LSO who gave us a talk on it wasn't the LSO on duty for all the landings. I'd say that is probable since the pic is pretty solid evidence.

It doesn't change the fact that Air Force planes are not carrier planes. But it does show that, given suitable incentive, they can be modified to handle a few Navy tasks. It might have been interesting had they proceeded with it. I'd assume the wing would have to have more washout, the stall speed would have to drop some to make Naval margins for arrested landing safety, and the rudder authority would have to improve. 

Had they added folding wings, I wonder if it could have been done while simultaneously maintaining performance on the top end. I doubt it, but maybe ...

Perhaps it would have made a good COIN (counterinsurgency) plane. The military investigated those at length in the 1950's - 1960's.

I stand corrected on arrested P-51 landings during a test series.

Good find.

Edit:

If there is anyone out there who knows about these tests, can you tell us if there were any other aircraft on deck in front of the P-51 when it landed, or was the deck empty in case of go around? No reason for asking other than curiosity ... but, if there WERE planes in front of the P-51 then he possibly HAD to make as arrested landing to stop. If there were NO planes in front, he could have landed, rolled out, and stopped. Just curiosity, not a point of argument with anyone.

Usually, when they were doing carrier suitability trials, the deck as empty in case the candidate aircraft bounced and did not catch a wire.

About this point I am wondering if he stopped without being arrested at all ... I wasn't there and, if there WERE planes in front, it would almost HAVE to be arrested. If he lands at 85 mph into a 38 mph wind, he still has to stop from 47 mph deck speed. I have never seen stopping distances for a P-51 on a carrier deck, so I am in unfamiliar territory here.


----------



## VBF-13 (Feb 19, 2014)

I guess the moral of the story is, while a picture may indeed be worth 1000 words, if there are words that go along with the picture, read them too! 

EDIT: Good night!


----------



## GregP (Feb 19, 2014)

I'd have to agree with you ... VBF!

Reactions: Like Like:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## GregP (Feb 19, 2014)

From late WWII into the 1970's there were a LOT of new US military aircraft that came along. I don't have an exact count, but it has to be well more than 60 aircraft. This thread has caused me to wonder about carrier trials and I think there may be at least five "air corps" type aircraft that were tested on carriers, with one actually seeing service. Five of 60+ is not a large percentage, but is also not insignificant.

First would be the Airabonita, a "navalized" P-39. Here is a pic.







This is just a guess, but maybe the carrier suitability trials went something like this ...






Note it was rather modified from a tricycle plane into a conventional gear aircraft. There were also modifications to strengthen the fuselage for carrier operations. It was not selected for Naval use and the airframe is buried in the mud near the river at Patuxent River, Maryland.

Second would be the P-51 discussed above. It was not selected for Naval service.

Third would be the B-25 that became the PBJ in naval service. All but one were used as land planes. One PBJ-1H was modified with carrier takeoff and landing equipment and successfully tested on the USS Shangri-La post-war, but the Navy did not continue development. The flight deck was cleared and it made a successful landing as well as takeoff. It was not selected for Naval use on carriers and remained a land-based bomber / patrol plane.

Fourth would be the F-86 Sabre, starting with the FJ-2. This was a "Navalized" F-86 but was not fully carrier capable, and was given to the Marines for use as a land-based fighter, though it DID successfully takeoff and land on carriers in the 1950's. They built about 200 FJ-2's. Here is a pic of the FJ-2.






This evloved into the FJ-3 and later FJ-4. The FJ-3 was a Naval redesign and they built 538 of them. Here is an FJ-3. As it happens, we have one of these at the Planes of Fame in unrestored state. The long nose gear kept the aircraft at liftoff attitude (13° or so) during the cat shot.






and here is an FJ-4 that is currently flyable (only one in the world).






The final development of the airframe that started out as the F-86 was the FJ-4 above. They built 374 of them. You could see the lineage in it, but it really didn't look like a classic Sabre to me.

Last, they did carrier takeoffs and landings with the Lockheed C-130. It was not selected for Naval use, but DID manage to operate from a carrier during tests. Naturally, the landing was not "arrested." They used reverse thrust to stop. Here is a video of it:


_View: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=CfwJJD5jGXk_

Anyone know of any more "Air Corps / Air Force" types planes that were tested on a carrier?


----------



## GrauGeist (Feb 19, 2014)

I don't want to hijack the P-47 thread with P-51 info, that's why.

If I get time, I'll start a thread with the U.S. Navy's P-51 trials. (or a person can use google to find the 1944 trials aboard the U.S. Carrier Shangri-La using keywords from my earlier posts, if they don't want to wait.)


----------



## Shortround6 (Feb 19, 2014)

tyrodtom said:


> I've never suggested the P-47 was or could be adapted to carriers. But a carrier would have no trouble handling the P-47 greater weight or speed.
> 
> After all the same carriers managed ( with some modification I'm sure ) with the first generation jets, whose weight and landing speeds make the P-47 seem tame.
> Angle deck carriers didn't start appearing till the early 50s.
> ...



A problem with being carrier capable isn't the weight alone but the weight *and* speed. You also have to figure in closing speeds and reaction times. If we _assume_ the carrier is moving at just over 30kts (34.5mph) with 0 head wind the 15,000lb Avenger is closing on the carrier at around 45mph ( a few mph above stall) and the landing officer and pilot have a certain amount of time to observe the approach and wave paddles and so on. The P-47 is closing at about 70mph and over the same distance has much less time to 'correct' things. These are also the close to the relative speeds the plane will 'hit the wire' at and the 7 1/2 ton Avenger at 4.5 X 4.5 (getting rid of a lot zeros to make things easy)= 152. The P-47 ( 6 tons X 7 X 7 = 294) hits the wire with over 1.9 times the _force_ of the Avenger. 

I don't know if the Navy would insist on landings on a slow or non-moving carrier.

I don't know when or by how much the carriers were modified to handle some of the early jets but extensive modifications started in the late 40s. Some of the first ones converted did not get steam catapults and were later used as anti sub carriers instead of strike carriers due to the lower weight of the _then_ anti-sub aircraft. 

A couple of the early Navy jets _may_ have had fairly low landing speeds. Despite a number of prototypes flying in 1946-48 there were only a couple of squadrons equipped with jets before 1949. Initial trials of the FH-1 Phantom were done on the Franklin D Roosevelt ( a Midway class carrier and the largest in service at the time) and while the first squadron to use the FH-1 in service did so from the _light_ carrier Saipan it did not do so until May of 1948 and the FH-1 had a _very_ low wing loading for a jet. about 34lb per sq ft for "normal" gross weight (clean) of 10035lbs. 
Without _KNOWING_ what modifications the Navy did or did not do to the Essex class carriers to handle jets _before_ the major rebuilds ( and they had 4 years from the end of the war to do them) it is a bit of a stretch to say that because a carrier operated jets in 1949 it could have operated them in 1943/44.

Reactions: Like Like:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## GrauGeist (Feb 19, 2014)

It was mentioned that the stall speed of the P-47 being close to 100 mph wouldn't be much of a problem, but it would have been, since the arrsting cable system was rated 90 mph max through early 1945.


----------



## GregP (Feb 19, 2014)

I thought the cables and arrester were rated by energy absorbed ... but maybe not. New arrester systems are rated at 47,500,000 foot-pounds (64.4 MJ) at maximum cable run-out ... but I don't know how they were rated in WWII.

Edit: Found one reference that said the Essex class carriers of WWII had the Mk 4 arrester system rated to handle 10,000 pounds at 70 mph. The P-47D had an empty weight of 10,000 pounds and a loaded weight of 13,300 pounds. Typical landing weight was therefore probably around 10,850 pounds or so.

10,000 pounds at 70 mph equates to 4,443,474 Joules (KE = 1/2 mv^2). At 10,850 pounds the arrester systen could handle the P-47 at only 67.2 mph. And that would be the maximum rating.

Not sure anyone would want to be trying that even once, assuming the P-47 was stressed for an arrested landing, and it wasn't. When you operate with no safety margin, bad things happen with startling regularity.


----------



## tyrodtom (Feb 19, 2014)

How did that Mk4 handle a TBF Avenger ?

It weighed more than 10,000 lbs, empty, no pilot, no fuel. And it's landing speed was over 70 mph .


----------



## GregP (Feb 19, 2014)

The reference didn't say specifically. I am assuming they deployed on Essex class carriers, but it should be easy to find out at least a few carrier that deployed them.

According to the pilot's manual I have in PDF format, the stall speed power off was 66 knots and 71 knots with full fuel. The power on stall speed was 68 knots. I'll get back to that in a minute.

Takeoff weight was 17,280 pounds including 2,010 pounds if internal fuel, 900 pounds of frop fuel, 1,160 pounds of ordnance, and 510 pounds of crew. Assume we didn't drop any ordnance, we still have all the crew, and flying it until we get down to 500 pounds of internal fuel left. The weight would then be 13,200 pounds or 5,987 kg.

I'll assume he approaches at about 71 knots, which is 81.7 mph, or 36.5 m/s. That adds up to 7,975.181 Joules and seems too much ... but the carrier is making 30+ knots. Let's say he is making 30 knots into a 5 knot wind, so the speed over the deck is 36 knots, or 18.5 m/s. The energy the arrester gear must absorb in that case is 2,049,051 Joules or about half of the energy the P-47 would take. So the TBF could have a deck speed of about 60 mph and still be making the same kinetic energy as the the example of the P-47. So it could land if the carrier was making only about 18 knots into no wind.

Looks to me like it was an easy landing for the TBF in the conditions above, and no Essex class carrier had any trouble making more than 28 knots assuming no battle damage.

Concur?


----------



## tyrodtom (Feb 19, 2014)

Oh, I forgot to take into account the carrier is moving.
But they were handling the TBF on a lot less than Essex class carriers.

Sounds like you'd have mount a couple dozen J47's on the fantail of the carrier to get up enough speed to handle a P47.


----------



## GregP (Feb 19, 2014)

Maybe.

If the fuselage could have been strengthened, perhaps they could have fitted unpowered slats and added a bit of wing area to knock off about 10 knots or more from the power-on stall speed. If so, and if the carrier could make 30 knots ... into a wind, maybe it would have been possible.

I wouldn't say it was impossible .... I simply say the P-47, as it was flown in WWII, was never designed for carrier service.

Somewhere I have a pic of a Seafire breaking in half at the arrester hook ... and it WAS strengthed for carrier service.


----------



## Shortround6 (Feb 19, 2014)

It took me about 4-5 minutes of google searching to find several pictures of F6F Hellcats breaking up while landing including:






You do have metal fatigue and corrosion and not ALL landings are perfect and a landing that, say we say, 'stretches/stresses' a fuselage might not result in failure until several landing later? 

The Spitfire at least landed at close to the speeds of specialized naval aircraft.

and occasionally the arresting gear failed.

Reactions: Like Like:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## tyrodtom (Feb 19, 2014)

There's a well known picture of a Hellcat doing the same, but it was probably because of battle damage.

The modern arresting gear, and catapults are adjustable to take various weights and speeds. Were the WW2 era equipment also ?


----------



## GregP (Feb 19, 2014)

They almost HAD to be or it would be tough to land planes of more than a few percent difference in weight.

But ... I don't know for sure. Maybe some of our "carrier guys" know?

If not, it's time for some research ...


----------



## Glider (Feb 20, 2014)

I don't know if it was the same in WW2 but in the 70's the arrester gear was tensioned for the type of aircraft landing. In the USN there was a huge difference between say an A4 and a Vigilante or F4


----------



## oldcrowcv63 (Feb 20, 2014)

GregP said:


> Fourth would be the F-86 Sabre, starting with the FJ-2. This was a "Navalized" F-86 but was not fully carrier capable, and was given to the Marines for use as a land-based fighter, though it DID successfully takeoff and land on carriers in the 1950's. They built about 200 FJ-2's. Here is a pic of the FJ-2.



Not too surprising the USN adopted the 'F-86' as I am pretty sure it started development (in an unswept wing configuration) as a Navy sponsored project: 'NA FJ-1'.


----------



## Shortround6 (Feb 20, 2014)

The Navy had used hydraulic brakes on the Lexington and Saratoga around 1932. They had revised the arresting gear several times from the 20s to the 30s and used some sort of hydraulic system in the arresting gear which may very well have been adjustable. It may also have been adjustable for different landing conditions. Slow moving or stationary or full speed even with the same weight aircraft?


----------



## VBF-13 (Feb 20, 2014)

tyrodtom said:


> Oh, I forgot to take into account the carrier is moving.


They're hooking different lines, too, with different deck left to spare. I think I can understand, a big aircraft, coming down hot, hooking a late line, I don't even know that they can keep that baby on the deck.


----------



## GregP (Feb 20, 2014)

The Vigilante was a BIG aircraft!

I'm sure it was near the upper end of the arrester gear's capabilities. They launched at 65,000 pounds and could go from zero to 150 knots ina 250 foot cat stroke. They had a 60 foot run in to the arrester wire, a 350 foot deceleration stroke, and another 100 feet in which to turn around. The thing that helped them the most was the length of the arrester gear deceleration stroke.

If I'm not mistaken, they were only on Forrestall class carriers (Kennedy, Kitty Hawk, Constellation, America, Ranger, Saratoga, Independence).

It probably trapped at weights close to 50,000 pounds!


----------



## oldcrowcv63 (Feb 20, 2014)

GregP said:


> If I'm not mistaken, they were only on Forrestall class carriers (Kennedy, Kitty Hawk, Constellation, America, Ranger, Saratoga, Independence).
> 
> It probably trapped at weights close to 50,000 pounds!



Greg, You were not mistaken about the deployment of the Viggie. The 27C modified Essex class typically carried the RF-8 as 'recce' bird. Interestingly, the EKA-3 electric sky warrior, while heavier than the Viggie at both launch and landing had a max landing weight of 50,000 lbs, but could be recovered on the smaller carriers I assume its a landing speed differential.. The VIggie looks like its going Mach 1 just standing still so imagine how fast it's going when its actually moving… 

The EKA-3 (Whale) supposedly had, at first recovery attempt, only enough fuel for two more passes before the crew had to abandon the a/c… I suspect this is a distortion of facts as most of the weight at launch would be fuel which would be dispensed during the flight. Supposedly, the original A-3 once launched at a record 85,000 pounds in 1959! I don't believe the RA-5C would have exceeded 65,000 lbs at launch. 

Re carrier classes: You've listed the big deck post war carriers but lumped them together as a class. The Forrestal class. That class had only CV-59 thru CV-62: Forrestal, Sara, Ranger and Idependence. 

The Kitty Hawk class consisted of a very modified flight deck and bridge layout. It consisted of the Hawk, Connie (whose names were switched), and America… JFK is a further modification of the KH that is sometimes considered a separate class itself. The modified flight deck plan developed for the KH and subsequent CVs is basically the same as that used on the Nimitz class carriers.

The RA-5C landing weight

Flight deck plans and profiles of the two classes are presented below. first CV-59 and below CV-63 (on which I cruised)


----------



## GregP (Feb 20, 2014)

Thanks Oldcrow,

I'm not exactly a ship nut, but I listed some of the carriers the A-5 / RA-5 flew from.

The Vigilante wasn't exactly shaped to be a short-field aircraft, was it?

I knew a couple of guys who flew it and said was an A-ticket ride. But ... the guy I knew who was most enthusiastic about his plane flew the A-10. Go figure ... he said he had so much fun down in the weeds playing with it that it should have been illegal.


----------



## oldcrowcv63 (Feb 20, 2014)

I get the affection for the A-10… Some aircraft achieve design perfection for their mission… I think the A-10 is one of those. I feel very much the same about the venerable A-6… It's not the beauty of the beast, its the fun you have playing with it. 

The Viggie was quite the show bird. During air shows it would fly by the carrier dumping fuel then light its afterburner… Wow! The resulting flame was quite spectacular and delighted whatever audience was assembled on the flight deck. On recce flights over Vietnam, the very clean RA-5C would outrun the escorting F4J Phantom IIs. 

Re your list of carriers… Nearly complete, but you need to add Enterprise. (How could you forget the namesake of a Starship?)


----------



## GregP (Feb 21, 2014)

Somebody slap me ...


----------



## oldcrowcv63 (Feb 21, 2014)

GregP said:


> Somebody slap me ...


 

Oh No!!! I didn't notice the absence of the JFK (CV-67) from your list!! Somebody slap ME!! I believe it came into service too late for a cruise off Vietnam but I am sure it included RA-5Cs in its embarked Air Wing (CVW-1) as the photo below confirms: See one nosed a/c spotted just forward of the island.


----------



## GregP (Feb 21, 2014)

Looks like two RA-5's in addition to A-3's, F-4's, and A-7's plus the odd S2F (looks like one ahead of the island to the left, facing backwards with wings folded).


----------



## Messy1 (Feb 21, 2014)

Are those A-6's parked further next to the Vigilante's? Also, are those A-4's behind the island to the back of the ship?


----------



## l'Omnivore Sobriquet (Feb 21, 2014)

> The VIggie looks like its going Mach 1 just standing still so imagine how fast it's going when its actually moving…



Yes.
Hm, anyboby having ever seen Le Mirage Quatre 'round here ? Live I mean.
Same category.
Same impression, and quite a show even when on finals.

A great recce ship too...

Land based.

Reactions: Like Like:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## GregP (Feb 21, 2014)

Mirage IV's were beautiful aircraft and, as you say, very impressive. 

I aways liked the Mirage F1, too. Too bad the beautiful slim nose couldn't house much of a radar, but it sure looked good and still does.

Saw a gorgeous Paris jet at Reno a couple of years back for sale on the ramp during the races. It looked better than new but was, as we know, more than 40 years old.

But, I didn't see any P-47's on carriers.


----------



## oldcrowcv63 (Feb 21, 2014)

Ok, I'll do my best to identify the aircraft spotted on the JFK's flight deck:

Forward of the Island and on the ship's starboard (island) side we have from bow to island: 6 LTV A-7 Corsair II 1 Mc-Dac F4 Phantom II facing toward the port bow, 2 Grumman A-6, 1 North American RA-5C, 1 A-7, 1 RA-5C, and 1 A-7 all facing to the ship's Port-side. Abeam the island and facing the starboard side are 2 Grumman E-2 Hawkeyes. Next to them are parked 2? Sikorsky SH3 Sea Kings. Directly aft of the Island it looks like may be 1 RA-5C and 2 Douglas EKA-3B SkyWarriors all facing starboard. Looks like an F-4 is rearmost on the port side facing somewhat toward the port bow. Looking at the center of the flight deck from stern to bow, we have what is probably a Grumman C-1 Trader COD aircraft. Looks like 7 A-7s are spotted near the center of the flight deck and facing the starboard side. Near the bow, 1 EKA-3 is spotted behind 2 F-4s, all facing forward. 
Down the Port side are from Bow to Stern are 7 F-4s, all facing toward the starboard bow while behind them an F-4 is being moved to a different spot. Near the stern are an EKA-3B, 2 F-4s and finally spotted rearmost on the starboard side, another EKA-3B. Total a/c tally:

14 x F-4
15 x A-7
2 x A-6
3 x RA-5C
2 E-2
5 EKA-3
1 C-1
2 SH-3

If this Air Wing is comprised as a normal air wing complement, circa late 60's to mid-1970s, the hangar deck should have:

10 x F-4
8 or 10 x A-6 (assuming the EKA-3s are performing both the ECM and the refueling mission as substitutes for 4 KA-6s)
9 x A-7
2 x E-2
2 x SH-3

One of the EKA-3s may actually be a VQ EA-3B embarked for ELINT missions. 

That's my best guess anyways.


----------



## davparlr (Feb 21, 2014)

and it is now obvious why the Navy was desperate to reduce aircraft type on board. 
At least by this time it appears they had gotten rid of avgas.


----------



## oldcrowcv63 (Feb 22, 2014)

davparlr said:


> and it is now obvious why the Navy was desperate to reduce aircraft type on board.
> At least by this time it appears *they had gotten rid of avgas.*



Almost but not quite Dav, The C-1 had two Wright R-1820 recips. Once it was replaced by the Grumman C-2 Greyhound with turboprops the conversion to JP5 fueled gas turbines was complete.


----------



## GregP (Feb 22, 2014)

It's the C-1 I mistook for an S-2.


----------



## Denniss (Feb 22, 2014)

https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:USS_John_F._Kennedy_(CVA-67)_underway_c1970.jpg

Larger color version


----------



## oldcrowcv63 (Feb 22, 2014)

GregP said:


> It's the C-1 I mistook for an S-2.




Easy to do.


----------



## oldcrowcv63 (Feb 22, 2014)

Denniss said:


> https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:USS_John_F._Kennedy_(CVA-67)_underway_c1970.jpg
> 
> Larger color version



Da*m, missed the F4 spotted after of the KA-3 near the fantail on the port-aft elevator. and what I thought was an SH3 near the E-2s was actually another F-4. There does appear to be an SH-3 near the RA-5 aft of the island. One can just spot the tail rotor. finally the nearer of the two A-3s on the Starboard side behind the island does not have the waist stripes that appear to be squadron markings and instead of the cheek mounted ECM jammers looks to have fuselage crew windows; characteristic features of a VQ EA-3B passive ELINT bird. Think that's all.

Thanks Denniss


----------

