Ad: This forum contains affiliate links to products on Amazon and eBay. More information in Terms and rules
Dispair not, the T-45 Goshawk is lighter and slower than the A-4. With a stall speed of about 105 knots and a min weight of about 11,000 lbs. (not far off from the takeoff weight of the Douglas TBD Devastator) the Goshawk might be able to do it. Use a Lexington-class aircraft carrier running at 33 knots, set the wires for their loaded TBD recovery setting.I understand your restriction because it's the easiest(?) choice but I think the A-4 is probably the best choice.
Presumably not carrying much of anything in way of payload or fuel. It would still be an 'interesting' experiment but not one you'd find many willing volunteers to undertake!Dispair not, the T-45 Goshawk is lighter and slower than the A-4. With a stall speed of about 105 knots and a min weight of about 11,000 lbs. (not far off from the takeoff weight of the Douglas TBD Devastator) the Goshawk might be able to do it. Use a Lexington-class aircraft carrier running at 33 knots, set the wires for their loaded TBD recovery setting.
The lack of landing system is a problem for the pilot, since they'll have no experience landing without the guidance systems onboard and linked with the CVN. But having a straight stern approach rather than angled to port should help.Another problem for your 1930s carrier. No optical landing system on the ship for the pilot to follow. Can the batsman cope with the high approach speed?
Had the Argentines, Indians, Australians, Canadians, etc. kept their Colossus/Majestic class carriers in their CATOBAR layout I wonder what strike-fighter would have replaced the A-4s, Sea Hawks and Banshees. F-6 Crusader is too big. I suppose they'd need to stay with Skyhawks, so it's something like the ST Aerospace A-4SU Super Skyhawk into the 1990s.The Argentine CV was somewhat upgraded from original spec to handle jets (even then I think they were limited to A-4s?).View attachment 651208