How were the Doolittle raider B-25's going to be recovered originally?

[parsifal]

There had ben some investigation into twin engine carrier operations in the USN prior to 1941

First really serious investigations came in 1938


Source
Tommy H. Thomason
U.S. Navy Aircraft History: One if by Land, Two if by Sea

"The U.S. Navy solicited proposals for a twin-engine carrier-based fighter in 1937 but none of the submittals
were deemed to be acceptable. In 1938, the Navy had Lockheed modify an Electra Junior to have a fixed tricycle landing gear and tail hook. It was designated XJO-3 and delivered in October 1938. On 30 August 1939, Navy pilots made 11 takeoffs and landings from Lexington (CV-2) to evaluate it from both twin engine and tricycle landing gear standpoints".

It wasn't long after the war that true twin engine operations were part of the standard navy fare . The Grumman S2 Trackers come to mind. they even found these aircraft suitable for operations on the diminutive Majestic class CVLs.


S2 Trackers landing on HMAS Melbourne - Bing video

 

[GrauGeist]

Some where in my stuff, I have magazine photos of a U-2 landing and then taking off from a carrier. I cant remember if a hook was used but I think so. I'll look for the info if anyone cares. It is hard to find things since hurricane Katrina as I lost some books and photos and the survivors, since I moved, aren't shelved in order.

Look up Project Whale Tail

 

[R Leonard]

Shangri-La was an Essex Class carrier. The Enterprise was the only of the three (nominal) Yorktown Class still afloat by 1944.

Yes, I know, my father was on the TF-38 staff, Asst Ops Officer working for Jimmie Thach, aboard Shangri-La at the end of the war. And, yes, I know that Enterprise was the only Yorktown class carrier left in 1944, my father flew the last CAP over Yorktown at sundown on 4 June 42.

I apparently misconstrued your earlier comment on Army pilots . . .

. . .Then for a bunch of Army guys to try to find a carrier. . .

To mean a return to Hornet (CV-8).

Attached are official USN photos of PBJ, P-51, and F7F aboard Shangri-La, 15 Nov 44.

 

[swampyankee]

There had ben some investigation into twin engine carrier operations in the USN prior to 1941

First really serious investigations came in 1938


Source
Tommy H. Thomason
U.S. Navy Aircraft History: One if by Land, Two if by Sea

"The U.S. Navy solicited proposals for a twin-engine carrier-based fighter in 1937 but none of the submittals
were deemed to be acceptable. In 1938, the Navy had Lockheed modify an Electra Junior to have a fixed tricycle landing gear and tail hook. It was designated XJO-3 and delivered in October 1938. On 30 August 1939, Navy pilots made 11 takeoffs and landings from Lexington (CV-2) to evaluate it from both twin engine and tricycle landing gear standpoints".

It wasn't long after the war that true twin engine operations were part of the standard navy fare . The Grumman S2 Trackers come to mind. they even found these aircraft suitable for operations on the diminutive Majestic class CVLs.


S2 Trackers landing on HMAS Melbourne - Bing video

View attachment 522701





View attachment 522700

The USN had a twin-engined bomber operating off carriers in the 1920s, the T2D (see Douglas T2D - Wikipedia)

 

[MIflyer]

According to an article in the Jan 2017 issue of Aviation History the U-2's that landed on the carriers were specially equipped with tail hooks.

Note that virtually all USAF fighter aircraft are equipped with tail hooks anyway, so that they can use the emergency arresting system installed at Air Force bases. The tail hooks on those fighters are not nearly as strong as those used on USN aircraft since they still have a lot more room to stop than on a carrier.

The AH article remarks that considering all the excitement that accompanied a normal U-2 landing that maybe the arrestor system approach should have been a standard for all of them.

 

[pbehn]

The USa had the wealth to bin all the planes used in the raid but maybe not to bin the carrier by using a homing system to help the planes find and land on the carrier. just a thought.

 

[special ed]

There was never a thought of returning the B-25s to land aboard.. First of all, the reason each aircraft had to taxi forward of the mid point of the deck was that the right wing tip and the left L/G wheel had only a nine inch, if I remember, clearance between the island and the deck edge. I'm not certain but this taxi forward is how a seaman lost his arm in a propellor. Landing aboard would have been nearly impossible.

 

[R Leonard]

I believe that's the record for the largest to land/take-off from any carrier, too.

By the way, this would have been a cool option for our carriers during the war!

View attachment 522671

Ah, USS Patoka. An oiler, Patoka (AO-9) commissioned in 1919, was modified in 1924 to serve as a sea-going tender for the airship Shenandoah and following then for Los Angeles and Akron, sporting a 125-foot mooring tower. The ship retained its oiler designation while serving as an airship tender. After the need for such a ship went away, Patoka was decommissioned to reserve in 1933.

Patoka was recommissioned in 1939 as a seaplane tender and was briefly redesignated AV-6 for about a year when she was returned to her roots as an oiler and was redesignated with her original AO-9. Patoka served most of the war years in support of Atlantic Fleet operations. In June of 1945 the ship transferred to the Pacific Fleet and was redesignated AG-125 and served as a minecraft tender in the Okinawa campaign and the occupation of Japan. Decommissioned and stricken in July 1946; sold for scrap in 1948.

Blimps were successfully serviced from carriers in experiments during and after the war. The first blimp to do so conducted carrier experiments aboard USS Altamaha off the coast California in February 1944.

From the war diary of FleetAirShipsPac for February 1944:

"On 24 February 1944, in order to determine the practicability of operating airships from aircraft carriers, airship K-29, assigned to Blimp Squadron 31, effected three landings and take-offs on the deck of USS ALTAMAHA (CVE-18). On 28 February, K-29 again effected three landings and take-offs on USS ALTAMAHA and, in addition, took aboard fuel from the carrier."

Blimp pilots in this first endeavor were LTJGs Berton H Hickman, AV(N) (01) and Frederic M Lloyd, III AV(N) (01); project officer was the ZP-31 operations officer, LT James C Small AV(G) (01).

There were other tests, for example, with airship K-111 operating continuously for 72 hours in August 1945, changing pilots and refueling every 12 hours off USS Makassar Strait.

The theory was that with such capability blimps could be deployed to the Pacific Theater for ASW and mine detection, operating from carriers. Cooler heads must have prevailed. Tests of the carrier operating capability, however, continued into the mid-1950's as the airship community began its slow demise.

USN photos of the 24 February 1944 event:

 

[fliger747]

What a bunch of interesting factoids turning up! The F7F was a great plane. When the Navy acceptance pilot returned from wringing it out He laid into Corky Meyers (Grumman test pilot) with a long litany of faults, then grinned and said "Best Damn fighter I've ever flown".

However it didn't prove structurally robust enough for carrier operations, a number of them broke the wing spar on landing.

It is possible to land an aircraft on a carrier engine out, however the wave off capabilities may be nil due to the VMCA. The S2 and Willy Fudd variants had a interesting double hinged rudder and boost available to assist in single engine antics. This rudder design was shared by the DHC7. A friend of my fathers was one of the first to transition from the S2 to the S3! A rather slippery beast as I recall.

U2 would have been interesting to see aboard, quite a wingspan on those, we used to see them operate put of Osan.

 

[Shortround6]

The USa had the wealth to bin all the planes used in the raid but maybe not to bin the carrier by using a homing system to help the planes find and land on the carrier. just a thought.

Lets remember that the raid launched several hundred miles early due to a japanese picket boat (or fishing boat?)
Had the raid launched several hundred miles closer to the Japanese Islands the planes would have had several hundred miles more range to get into China and find better landing areas.

 

[pbehn]

Lets remember that the raid launched several hundred miles early due to a japanese picket boat (or fishing boat?)
Had the raid launched several hundred miles closer to the Japanese Islands the planes would have had several hundred miles more range to get into China and find better landing areas.

The raid was all about propaganda, and propaganda is important. if the USA had lost a carrier and many aircraft for one raid by twin engine bombers on Japan all the propaganda would have been in Japans favour. It was a game of high risks, however, since they are still discussed, they were obviously worthwhile.

 

[pinehilljoe]

Wohoo, I struck gold! Found this on a website and they claim it is the only known photo of a B-25/PBJ landing on a carrier. This was from the test R Leonard
talked about. Thanks for the info Leonard. I don't usually care for long post, but that one was well worth the read!

View attachment 522625

Great find. If the Midways had been built a year earlier, maybe the PBJs could have been deployed. I think space limitations would have made the PBJ impractical on an Essex. By late 44 and 45 Carrier Air Wings on the Essexs were shift to higher ratio of fighter bombers, with fewer TBFs and SB2Cs

 

[pinehilljoe]

The raid was all about propaganda, and propaganda is important. if the USA had lost a carrier and many aircraft for one raid by twin engine bombers on Japan all the propaganda would have been in Japans favour. It was a game of high risks, however, since they are still discussed, they were obviously worthwhile.

Completely hindsight, but if the Raid had not occurred, its probable that Enterprise and Hornet would have been at the Coral Sea, and with 4 to 2 ratio, Lexington might not have been sunk. I'm not suggesting the Raid should not have taken place.

 

[fliger747]

I had a friend who as a young man after boot camp mustered aboard the newly commissioned USS Hornet. He was aboard the whole year she was in commission, Doolittle Raid, Midway and Santa Cruze where he had to swim off...

Tumultuous times. Nimitz's instructions at Midway: "Be guided by the principal of calculated risk"; Rock e'm and sock e'm but don't loose your shirt...

 

[nuuumannn]

Great information on the Patoka and US non rigid ops on carriers, R Leonard. The RNAS landed the non rigid SSZ.59 aboard the carrier HMS Furious in 1918.

Furious SSZ 59

SSZ 59

SSZ 59 Furious

 

[soulezoo]

A U2 from a carrier... that would be a sight. I am in no position to say that didn't happen, but color me skeptical.

Takeoffs and landings in a U2 are special events with unnatural and uncommon behaviors.

 

[buffnut453]

A U2 from a carrier... that would be a sight. I am in no position to say that didn't happen, but color me skeptical.

Takeoffs and landings in a U2 are special events with unnatural and uncommon behaviors.

Hope this turns you into a believer:

 

[soulezoo]

^^^ Nice video. Thank you!!!

I was wondering about recovery of the wing "training wheels", and can see in the video that they fall off quite early and remain on the deck.