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?
Ad: This forum contains affiliate links to products on Amazon and eBay. More information in Terms and rules
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?
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?
Resp: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.
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.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.
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.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???
Did the Spitfire VC have a tougher gear than the P-40 or P-51?
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.
Reap: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.
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.
Resp:Don't forget the A-7 to the USAF and the FJ, T2V from the USAF. (F-18 from the YF-17.)
I wonder why they bothered. They already had the Hellcat, tough as sh#t, fast and powerful, arguably the best carrier fighter of WW2.The USN actually trialled four P-51s over the years:
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.
Resp: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.
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.
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.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
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.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 wonder why they bothered. They already had the Hellcat, tough as sh#t, fast and powerful, arguably the best carrier fighter of WW2.
Resp: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