A naval P-47?

Discussion in 'Aviation' started by pampa14, Sep 11, 2016.

  1. pampa14

    pampa14 Active Member

    Joined:
    May 14, 2013
    Messages:
    126
    Likes Received:
    38
    Trophy Points:
    28
    Looking for naval fighters on the web I found this article with pictures of Republic P-47 Thunderbolts embarked on aircraft carriers. There was a naval version of this plane? The report and photos, never seen by me before, can be viewed at the link below:


    Aviação em Floripa: Um P-47 Naval?


    Best Regards!
     
  2. fubar57

    fubar57 Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Nov 22, 2009
    Messages:
    11,089
    Likes Received:
    1,046
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Occupation:
    Heavy Equipment Operator
    Location:
    Jungles of Canada
    Probably just for transporting
     
  3. wuzak

    wuzak Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Jun 5, 2011
    Messages:
    4,179
    Likes Received:
    167
    Trophy Points:
    63
    Location:
    Hobart Tasmania
    Note that in some of them the props are removed and the engines covered over. This would suggest, as fubar says, that they are being transported.

    In teh last picture on that page half the carrier has P-47s and the other half P-38s without outer wing panels.
     
  4. pinehilljoe

    pinehilljoe Member

    Joined:
    May 1, 2016
    Messages:
    138
    Likes Received:
    10
    Trophy Points:
    18
    Gender:
    Male
    Some P-47s were fitted with catapult interfaces for flying off when transported to the War Zone. I've never read of studies of a Naval P-47. The P-39 without its nose wheel was prototyped for Carrier suitability.
     
  5. drgondog

    drgondog Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Jun 28, 2006
    Messages:
    7,359
    Likes Received:
    561
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Gender:
    Male
    Occupation:
    Executive, Consulting
    Location:
    Scurry, Texas
    No Naval version. No sea trials, No request from USN or USMC. F4U-1 was far superior to P-47D for carrier ops and had the same range at USN bomber altitudes.

    All pics on carrier deck (including P-51) are transport. One exception - P-51D-5-NA was tested for Carrier duty so that is one exception.
     
  6. pinehilljoe

    pinehilljoe Member

    Joined:
    May 1, 2016
    Messages:
    138
    Likes Received:
    10
    Trophy Points:
    18
    Gender:
    Male
    Its hindsight, but the Navalized P-51 Sea Horse, operating from Escort Carriers within range to escort B-29s might have been less costly in lives than taking Iwo Jima.
     
    • Like Like x 1
  7. airminded88

    airminded88 Member

    Joined:
    Mar 11, 2013
    Messages:
    124
    Likes Received:
    6
    Trophy Points:
    18
    Gender:
    Male
    Location:
    Texas, United States
    In this rather interesting scenario, would the VII FC been operating out of the carriers or would escort duties have fallen to USN personnel?
     
  8. John D. Voss

    John D. Voss New Member

    Joined:
    Aug 10, 2016
    Messages:
    9
    Likes Received:
    3
    Trophy Points:
    3
    Gender:
    Male
    To my knowledge the only naval P-47's were those used by the Soviet Navy during WWII. The book "Red Stars" has a color profile of one of the type. Of course the Soviet navy had no aircraft carriers so the type was used for attacking shipping. The Soviet air force was unimpressed with the type so they were off loaded to the navy. IIRC we provided about 200 P-47's via Lend-Lease.
     
  9. Niceoldguy58

    Niceoldguy58 New Member

    Joined:
    Mar 2, 2010
    Messages:
    8
    Likes Received:
    1
    Trophy Points:
    3
    Occupation:
    Aviation Historian/researcher/author/illustrator
    No, the P-47s seen on carrier decks were being transported to islands in the Pacific for combat use from land-based fields. They were both offloaded by crane and flown off in other cases. The same is true for P-39s and, I believe, P-40s. None of these aircraft had the range to be able to fly to forward bases.

    In all my research I have never seen a single reference to the P-47 being considered for a carrier-suitable version.

    AlanG
     
  10. tyrodtom

    tyrodtom Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Sep 6, 2010
    Messages:
    2,480
    Likes Received:
    108
    Trophy Points:
    63
    Occupation:
    auto body repair
    Location:
    pound va
    Pampa14 never replies to anything said about any of his posts.
    Though he says he has never seen any of the pictures before, he posted some of them about a year ago, on this forum. P-40s and P-47s being flown off aircraft carriers for delivery to land bases.

    This time it's just P-47s, some just being flown off for delivery to land bases, but most of the pictures are of P-47s that are in no fashion ready to be flown anywhere.
     
    • Agree Agree x 1
  11. Doug Benton

    Doug Benton New Member

    Joined:
    Jul 30, 2016
    Messages:
    5
    Likes Received:
    2
    Trophy Points:
    3
    Gender:
    Male
    Almost any WW2 US fighter could fly off a carrier deck to a land airfield.
    Though I personally love and have flown a several versions of F4U's, according to several WW2/Korean vets ive spoken to will tell you this : the aircraft that the F4U is being referred to as "superior in carrier flight ops" to exists only as a figment of imagination.
    Come on. the ship has poor visibility on the GROUND and on final, let alone to shipboard it being superior to anything.
    The brits had to show us how it was done on carrier decks with F4U's, and it STILL wasn't anyone's favorite in that role.
    The P47 was a superb ground attack fighter too, with all the range required.
     
  12. XBe02Drvr

    XBe02Drvr Active Member

    Joined:
    Mar 27, 2016
    Messages:
    133
    Likes Received:
    35
    Trophy Points:
    28
    Gender:
    Male
    Occupation:
    Retired
    Location:
    VT
    Surely you jest?? A converted fragile landlubber machine on a baby flattop? Only a few NAVAL aircraft types could operate (relatively) safely from those postage stamps! (Mostly Avengers and Wildcats) You might have saved a few Marines, but you would have killed a lot of Seahorse pilots and flight deck troops, not to mention damaged B-29 crews ditching at sea. Plus, you would have left 3 Japanese fighter bases right on the B-29s flight path to their targets.
     
  13. dogsbody

    dogsbody Member

    Joined:
    Jun 6, 2010
    Messages:
    76
    Likes Received:
    12
    Trophy Points:
    8
    Occupation:
    Shift Slave
    Location:
    Northern Alberta, Canada
    Be careful dissing on Pampa14. Everyone here seems to like his stuff. I'm probably taking a risk of banning for posting this.


    Chris
     
  14. GrauGeist

    GrauGeist Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Aug 29, 2008
    Messages:
    15,188
    Likes Received:
    2,029
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Occupation:
    Public Safety Automotive Technician
    Location:
    Redding, California
    Home Page:
    That is the stupidest thing I have read so far today...
     
  15. dogsbody

    dogsbody Member

    Joined:
    Jun 6, 2010
    Messages:
    76
    Likes Received:
    12
    Trophy Points:
    8
    Occupation:
    Shift Slave
    Location:
    Northern Alberta, Canada
    Oh yeah! When I questioned some of the images he posts and mentioned how he has been banned from quite a few other forums, for his activity, I was warned to stop.

    Mosquitoes and Cookies

    A fast and unusual German


    Just so you know


    Chris
     
    • Agree Agree x 1
  16. GrauGeist

    GrauGeist Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Aug 29, 2008
    Messages:
    15,188
    Likes Received:
    2,029
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Occupation:
    Public Safety Automotive Technician
    Location:
    Redding, California
    Home Page:
    I am fully aware of the great outcry at some of the other forums. I will also reserve my opinion about the quality of a good number of other WWII forums, too.

    So he posts a link to a page he's created about WWII aircraft he's interested in - he doesn't claim the images as his own, he doesn't intentionally post misleading information - he obviously shares an appreciation for the very same aircraft that you do.

    As it happens, if you look at any of his threads here, they have spawned countless discussions and in many cases, better information and data than a typical thread about similar aircraft.

    And is this not what the forum is about?
     
  17. tyrodtom

    tyrodtom Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Sep 6, 2010
    Messages:
    2,480
    Likes Received:
    108
    Trophy Points:
    63
    Occupation:
    auto body repair
    Location:
    pound va
    I was just making a observation about Pampa14. To my knowledge he has never replied to a post on this forum, but that's his prerogative .

    I've been a aviation fan for over 60 years. I was buying Air Progress and Royal Air Force Flying Review with my paper route earnings when I was 10 years old, I've seen a lot of aircraft pictures, and my memory is still pretty good. I'm not easily impressed by someone's else's view of what they judge to be a rare, never seen before picture.
     
  18. GrauGeist

    GrauGeist Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Aug 29, 2008
    Messages:
    15,188
    Likes Received:
    2,029
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Occupation:
    Public Safety Automotive Technician
    Location:
    Redding, California
    Home Page:
    And how about the visitors who see those collections and then read the comments in the related threads and learn details about those photos?

    I think my point here is that yes, he rarely responds to his own threads, but a great many threads here were also done by one-post wonders and left to die on the vine - at least, in pampa's case, alot of discussion breaks out in his threads leading to a great deal of information.

    You and I (and many others) have a good working knowledge of WWII aircraft and the details behind them, but how about the younger crowd that doesn't?
     
    • Like Like x 1
  19. dogsbody

    dogsbody Member

    Joined:
    Jun 6, 2010
    Messages:
    76
    Likes Received:
    12
    Trophy Points:
    8
    Occupation:
    Shift Slave
    Location:
    Northern Alberta, Canada
    He never ever posts anything else but the link to his own blog. Never ever!


    Chris
     
    • Agree Agree x 1
  20. GrauGeist

    GrauGeist Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Aug 29, 2008
    Messages:
    15,188
    Likes Received:
    2,029
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Occupation:
    Public Safety Automotive Technician
    Location:
    Redding, California
    Home Page:
    So...that's a requirement of posting - a follow-on post with words for whatever reason?

    I have posted links to news articles and didn't post again in that particular thread, should we have those removed to?

    Many members have posted links to websites that contain collections of photos, myself included - should this practice be stopped?

    How about the links to offsite pages that some members have in their sigs - perhaps we should ban those also.

    The rules of the forum is no advertising - I don't see pampa selling anything. His posts go to photograph collections of aircraft. On many occasions, those start informative discussions amongst the membership (as I have pointed out before).

    And with the exception of a couple people, this doesn't seem to be a problem, especially with the forum moderators and admins.
     
Loading...
Similar Threads
  1. Shortround6
    Replies:
    3
    Views:
    635
  2. JS P-47
    Replies:
    12
    Views:
    2,005
  3. nimrod.michaeli
    Replies:
    4
    Views:
    1,701
  4. big-jo
    Replies:
    5
    Views:
    2,445
  5. stormriders1
    Replies:
    4
    Views:
    2,685

Share This Page