I'm curious about something: Does anybody have any idea how much weight was to be added to the Naval Mustang proposal over the baseline P-51D?
Corsair and Hellcat in Europe
- Thread starter GregP
- Start date
Ad: This forum contains affiliate links to products on Amazon and eBay. More information in Terms and rules
DarrenW
Staff Sergeant
According to the Bureau of Aeronautics there was a 48 lb reduction in the Corsair's all-up weight when the catapult hook, arresting hook, and associated equipment were removed. Something similar to this would have been added, along with the additional weight of the reinforced tail bulkhead and strengthening of the air frame at vital spots. Not sure how much this added up to though. By comparison the empty weight of the Seafire Mk. IIc was about 200 lbs more than the Spitfire Mk. Vc it was based on so maybe this is a good ballpark estimate for the Mustang as well???
If Mustangs were selected for carrier use it probably would have required additional strengthening (added weight) beyond what was needed for testing so it could endure the regular abuse found during daily carrier operations.
MIflyer
1st Lieutenant
An old issue of Airpower had an article on the navalization tests of the P-51 and had a be-you-tea-full painting on a P-51D about to tun final onto a carrier.
Navalwarrior
Staff Sergeant
- 764
- Jun 17, 2018
Resp:
In addition to the issues you pointed out, the Merlin was a liquid cooled vs the traditional air cooled engine. There is limited space on carriers and coolant would require additional storage space. I think that the US Navy was hesitant to employ a non-purpose built design for Naval use. The only good multi-service fighter that I am aware of was the F-4 Phantom, which began with Naval use that migrated to USAF use. Marines were considered a
part of the Navy.
Last edited:
Yes, but that doesn't factor in the fundamental airframe strengthening that mounts the catapult hook, arresting hook, and associated equipment. So you'd have well over 48 pounds.
Did the Spitfire VC have a tougher gear than the P-40 or P-51? I ask because of the fact that the P-40 had difficulty doing a three point landing, which the Hurricane (and possibly Spitfire) could.
DarrenW
Staff Sergeant
My general impression is that the P-51 probably had much stronger gear but I will leave that to the experts here to decide.
Don't know much about the P-40 or it's landing gear as well....sorry.
My general impression is that the P-51 probably had much stronger gear but I will leave that to the experts here to decide.
Don't know much about the P-40 or it's landing gear as well....sorry.
Until the experts arrive...
P-40 was tested with 2x225 gal drop tanks (= 450 gals = 2700 lbs, plus how much the drop tanks weighted empty) of fuel. Landing gear didn't break.
Navalwarrior
Staff Sergeant
- 764
- Jun 17, 2018
Reap:
The only mention that I have come across was when the Navy pilots recruited by Chennault for his Flying Tigers, landing his Tomahawks as if they were trying to 'catch a wire' on a carrier. At which point several Tomahawks never flew again, having been retained for spare parts to repair combat damaged P-40s.
Shortround6
Major General
It is not the take-off but the landing that beats up the landing gear (anad structure) .
Sometimes you can find the vertical impact speeds certain aircraft were designed for and once again, the energy needing to be absorbed (or dealt with ) goes up with the square of the speed, vertical impact of 6fps means 2.25 times the force of a 4fps impact. 7fps is about twice a 5fps impact and 36% higher than the 6fps impact.
for "rough" field use a similar problem exists. What you can manage from a concrete runway (or a good Marston mat= freshly topped and rolled) vs a field made with hand tools or rutted due to rains are not the same thing.
Sometimes you can find the vertical impact speeds certain aircraft were designed for and once again, the energy needing to be absorbed (or dealt with ) goes up with the square of the speed, vertical impact of 6fps means 2.25 times the force of a 4fps impact. 7fps is about twice a 5fps impact and 36% higher than the 6fps impact.
for "rough" field use a similar problem exists. What you can manage from a concrete runway (or a good Marston mat= freshly topped and rolled) vs a field made with hand tools or rutted due to rains are not the same thing.
GrauGeist
Generalfeldmarschall zur Luftschiff Abteilung
The USN actually trialled four P-51s over the years: a P-51 (41-37426), a P-51D (44-14016) and P-51H (44-64420) and P-51H (44-64700).
The P-51D (designated ETF-51D) trialled, had a reinforced bulkhead at the tail for the tail-hook, a reinforced center-section for the catapult hook, modified shocks at the Oleo to reduced "bounce" on touchdown along with firmer tires. It also had reinforcing at key points around the frame.
I haven't seen any hard data on what all the modifications would weigh, but it would have weighed a more than a standard P-51D-5-NA due to those modifications.
The P-51D (designated ETF-51D) trialled, had a reinforced bulkhead at the tail for the tail-hook, a reinforced center-section for the catapult hook, modified shocks at the Oleo to reduced "bounce" on touchdown along with firmer tires. It also had reinforcing at key points around the frame.
I haven't seen any hard data on what all the modifications would weigh, but it would have weighed a more than a standard P-51D-5-NA due to those modifications.
Don't forget the A-7 to the USAF and the FJ, T2V from the USAF. (F-18 from the YF-17.)
Navalwarrior
Staff Sergeant
- 764
- Jun 17, 2018
Resp:
Thanks. Never knew the F-18 actually came from a USAF prototype. I wouldn't call the FJ successful, as it was short lived (we have one example at a museum fairly close). As for the A-7 Corsair II, it was an overly dangerous aircraft to fly from a carrier, as per a High School friend who flew one for three years. According to him, it required too much attention for a single crewman. I can't challenge his assessment, as he tended to be a 'dare devil' individual who I never knew showed any fear . . . that those around him normally did. So when he threw his 'wings' on the carrier CAPT's desk . . . indicating he wouldn't fly anymore . . . we knew there was justification. It may have been different in USAF use, as runways are longer and don't 'rise and fall' during rain storms. The A-7 handling was in direct contrast to Vought's F-8 Crusader . . . which I'm told was a dream to fly.
Admiral Beez
Major
I wonder why they bothered. They already had the Hellcat, tough as sh#t, fast and powerful, arguably the best carrier fighter of WW2.
Perhaps North American or the USN procurement folks had some extra budget they had to blow. No one I expect wanted a naval Mustang. The Brits wanted more Hellcats and Corsairs, the USN had no shortage of either.
GrauGeist
Generalfeldmarschall zur Luftschiff Abteilung
The USN was looking at the P-39 and P-51 early in the war as a possible alternative to the F4F, which neither went any further than the test stage - the F6F came later, of course.
The P-51D was tested as a potential escort for the B-29, and several factors eliminated it, one of which, was it's potential for a "torque roll" during a wave-off, where the need for rapid throttle-up from the 85mph approach made it dangerous. One of the others, was the capture of Iwo and Okinawa making the need for a carrier-based P-51D moot.
The one positive feature discovered during trials, however, was the great visability over the engine during approach...
The P-51D was tested as a potential escort for the B-29, and several factors eliminated it, one of which, was it's potential for a "torque roll" during a wave-off, where the need for rapid throttle-up from the 85mph approach made it dangerous. One of the others, was the capture of Iwo and Okinawa making the need for a carrier-based P-51D moot.
The one positive feature discovered during trials, however, was the great visability over the engine during approach...
Interesting as CVW-20 had both the RF-8G (VFP-206) and the A-7E, the boarding rate was significantly better for the A-7.
My command also had four pilots and 3 RIOs drop their wings on night on the skipper after we lost two F-14's in three days. It was more of an indictment of the skipper than the airplanes.
Navalwarrior
Staff Sergeant
- 764
- Jun 17, 2018
Resp:
I saw him at a USAF funeral 4 years ago, at which time he expressed regret on his decision quit flying for the Navy. I encouraged him not to beat himself up about it. After all, he had a wife and a infant child at the time.
My understanding is that for a P40 to make a full stall "chop and drop" threepointer, it would be operating on the very margins of elevator authority, making it hard to control the attitude at touchdown and likely resulting in either a "tail bash" or a "crow hop", neither a carrier-friendly behaviour. This is not conducive to good aircraft availability numbers, either, as it tends to bend a lot of metal. In all the airshows and videos I've seen I've never seen anything but wheel landings. Speed = Life.
Dashes my dreams of being a P40 pilot, as I suck at wheel landings in taildraggers.
Cheers,
Wes
After I finished my aircrew survival training in preparation for my first F4 ride, I had a several hours wait for my ride back to homeplate, so I was invited by my fellow TDs to observe a training session in their A7 Carrier Landing Trainer. Well they had the rig all tweaked up when they got a call cancelling the training session, so (knowing I had a pilot's license) they asked me if I wanted to hop in and take it around the pea patch. Did I ever! They flew it regularly on daily maintenance checks, were pretty good at it, and were looking for a little entertainment. I promptly provided said entertainment, crashing the dang thing in just about every way imaginable. I'm no Naval Aviator, but I can definitely concur with Navalwarrior that it's a twitchy little bastard to fly, not to mention the most distracting and confusing telltale panel I've ever seen and the cacophony of alarm bells, whistles, screeches, clackers, buzzers, and voices that seem to go off at the slightest provocation.
Out of ten tries, I made one successful trap (three wire!), two ramp strikes, three bolters, two waveoffs, and went swimming twice, all at night. A blast, nonetheless!
Cheers,
Wes
Last edited:
wuzak
Captain
Range, climb, speed, altitude.
These are a few things a naval P-51 would have over a Hellcat.
Navalwarrior
Staff Sergeant
- 764
- Jun 17, 2018
Resp:
I did a fair amount of flying (no license) w my 1st landing at age 15. My last was for several months at age 28. However, like you, I got to fly an A-6 Intruder simulator at age 39. However, I chose to to take off and land at a NAS. Since I first rode R seat and was able to observe someone else fly it, I made mental notes of air speed, flap settings, etc before It was my turn to take her up. While doing so I did a single 'barrel role' without losing to much altitude. It really made me think that I bit off more than I could chew. However, the instructor came on the R/T asking if I had flown an A-6 before. Aside from a hard landing for an airfield, he said that the aircraft would have been fine.
