Ad: This forum contains affiliate links to products on Amazon and eBay. More information in Terms and rules
It was probably stressed to +4.5 - 1.5 Gs, like most multi-engined aircraft of the era - it is quite obvious it was not designed to go from 100 knots (it's approx. landing speed) to zero in 3 seconds, at least on a consistant basis. Skin thickness? In the tail probably between .030 to .050.syscom3 said:But how do we know that? What is the thickness's of the structure at various places? What were the stress margins that were designed into the structure to begin with?
Not at all, it wasn't designed as a naval aircraft, plain and simple. It was shown that a later model B-25 accomplished a carrier landing more than likely after great modification....syscom3 said:Too many unkowns to say offhand it was carrier capable or not.
FLYBOYJ said:BTW - ground based aircraft of WW2 were also manufactured with little or no corrosion protection within the structure - this was an another factor that would of had to be condiered for B-25 carrier operations...
Glider said:FJ Thanks for the info re the planning of the raid. Like others have said, something new that I hadn't heard before.
Syscom Can you say where the bit about blaming the USN for not wanting to hang around as the reason for not continuing with the plan came from?
I know that I was RN but us Navy types sometimes have to support each other.
plan_D said:"Too many unkowns to say offhand it was carrier capable or not."
If this is the case, why did you say that the B-25 was carrier capable?
plan_D said:Make up your mind, syscom.
First you said with no evidence or pause for thought, "The B-25 is carrier capable..."
It then took another member to prove that A) The B-25 did land on a carrier. B) There was a plan for B-25s to land back on the carrier after the Doolittle Raid.
Then you said, there's "too many unknowns" for us to be certain if the B-25 was carrier capable or not. And now, you're saying "B25's did take off and land on Essex class carriers which made them carrier capable".
We know now that the B-25s that did land on a carrier were modified beyond merely attaching an arrestor hook, as you'd like to believe. We also have recognised that the B-25s that did land were not proven to be able to sustained continued operations on a carrier. Also, several other factors of a naval aircraft were lacking on the B-25.
Telling us all, that the B-25 as history informs us was not carrier capable. It, however, may have had the potential to become a carrier capable plane but there was no need for it as carrier bombers already present were superior.
plan_D said:Merely taking off and landing on a carrier once or twice does not make the plane carrier capable. Being able to perform operation after operation off a carrier. The B-25B or J never proved it could perform combat operations off a carrier.
Many Thanks!syscom3 said:Flyboy is a wealth of information isnt he. I always learn something new from him. I always wonder how he finds this information while I always chase down leads that go nowhere.
(syscom3 bows down to flyboyj and exclaims "Im not worthy, I'm not worthy")
plan_D said:Once again, there's a time to make up your mind. You stated at first that the B-25 was carrier capable. But now, once again, you're saying it may have, or may not have been carrier capable.
Merely taking off and landing on a carrier once or twice does not make the plane carrier capable. Being able to perform operation after operation off a carrier. The B-25B or J never proved it could perform combat operations off a carrier.
"CODs" became popular after the war and I believe the TBM was the first aircraft to be used in this role - there were many of them around..syscom3 said:I'm glad Flyboy found the pics of the PBJ. I need to read up more on it. I wonder why they didnt convert it to a cargo plane to deliver goods or people from carrier to carrier. that would have been something, wouldnt it have been.