P-47 carrier capable?

Ad: This forum contains affiliate links to products on Amazon and eBay. More information in Terms and rules

You have been here for over 3 years and over 800 posts.

I am not going to do your work for you.

For resources try : Zeno's Warbird Videos - World War II Pilot Training videos air combat documentaries playing for free over the Internet

Specifically: http://www.zenoswarbirdvideos.com/Images/P-47/47TOCL.gif

http://www.zenoswarbirdvideos.com/Images/P-40/P-40TOCLC.pdf

http://www.zenoswarbirdvideos.com/Images/B-25/B25TOC&LC.pdf

http://www.zenoswarbirdvideos.com/Images/F4U/F4UTOCL.gif

There are a number of aircraft manuals available on this site in the Other Mechanical Systems Tech. section.

BTW the manual for the P-47B,C,D and G says the stalling speed is 100mph IAS with flaps and gear down.

A number of people have told you that you are wrong and yet you want US to prove it.

You want to come up with ideas the question "conventional" wisdom how about doing a little research yourself with these "FREE" on line resources and come up with some hard facts. All it will cost you is time.
 

Because the proper airspeed for a carrier deck landing is below the speed at which a P-47 will fly. Slowing down to a speed at which it can make the landing will just result in it falling into the sea.

There are special features built in to aircraft designed for carrier operations which is why aircraft converted to such from another role are often not very good at it. These vary from complex aerodynamic properties, to the design of the undercarriage and cockpit and even the exterior and interior finish.

Cheers

Steve
 
Last edited:
Well, to say this is all news to me, is quite the understatement, I have to tell you. May I conclude this, on what you're saying, the P-47 can't be brought to the requisites for a carrier deck landing, for its stall characteristics? If that's it, I'd just never have imagined it. I can understand it, though. These aircraft have to be "brought down," and if the P-47 can't be, for its stall characteristics, that'd cinch it for me.
 
It was common practice for the Army and Navy to compare and evaluate the same airframe for their needs. I am sure that the U.S. Navy looked at the P-47 and decided it wasn't suitable for it's needs.

The slowest stall speed for the P-47D was 98 mph IAS, full flaps, gear down, cowl shutters closed and engine at idle.
 

It seems someone is reading a flight manual!
 

Not just that. There may well have been other aerodynamic features undesirable for making carrier landings. This could be something as simple as the oleo travel, or lack of damping, to things more difficult to fix. I don't know specifics for the P-47 because if any deck landing trials were undertaken I've never seen a report.
Deck landing trials need not actually be undertaken on a deck, just a land based mock-up so there would be room for error without destroying the aircraft or killing the pilot.

An even more serious problem might be getting a loaded P-47 off a carrier deck rather than launching it over the bows and into the ocean! In 1943 US carriers were fitted with the latest version of the H2-1 catapult. This could accelerate an 11,000lb aircraft to 70 mph in a 73 foot run. That would do nicely for lobbing a P-47 (maximum take off weight was over 17,000lbs IIRC) over the bow.

Cheers

Steve
 
Something else I might point out, is that upon arresting, the aircraft will pitch forward and with the current gear configuration of the P-47, it'll become a wood-chopper real fast.

Here's a photo of a F4U with VF-17 during recovery aboard the Bunker Hill, 11 July 43 that illustrates how far the prop is from the deck in relation to it's gear.



Also, here's a great video of a P-47D in the process of landing. In the video, the pilot gives you a breakdown of the landing procedure in realtime, with tips, info from the USAAF manual and some commentary.

View: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dwVXV0bPTik
 
stona said:
Deck landing trials need not actually be undertaken on a deck, just a land based mock-up so there would be room for error without destroying the aircraft or killing the pilot.
Click to expand...
Before they went out to the "carriers" on the Lake, that's exactly what they did, at Glenview, on mock-up land "decks."
 

The TBF Avenger was operated from carriers almost from the beginning of the war, it's normal loaded weight was above 17,000 lbs, it's maximum takeoff weight was 18,250 lbs., Even the Hellcat's maximum was 15,500. Evidently they managed.

I think the carriers could have handled the P-47, after all they managed to handle the first generation jets without a lot of modifications, but the P-47 couldn't cope with carrier operations.
 
Last edited:
By the way, I'm reading and looking at all these links you guys are posting, so, just so you know. And, OK, learning from them, too.
 
tyrodtom said:
The TBF Avenger was operated from carriers almost from the beginning of the war, it's normal loaded weight was above 17,000 lbs, it's maximum takeoff weight was 18,250 lbs., Even the Hellcat's maximum was 15,500. Evidently they managed.
Click to expand...
Yeah, well, that's where I was coming from! That's why what they said wasn't making sense to me, Tom.
 
The stall characteristics, though important for a Navy plane, have nothing to do with carrier suitability in the case of the P-47. It flew just fine though it would not have passed flying characterictics for a Navy aircraft.

The issue is that the fuselage was not designed for carrier operations and would have ripped off if anyone had fitted a tailhook. The structure to absorb the stopping energy was simply not there ... nobody designs that in unless the aircraft is designed as a carrier aircraft from the start.

Later, well after WWII, some big fighters had arrester gear in them as a safety precaution even if they were NOT intended for carrier operations. One such was the Air Force variant of the F-4 Phantom. The landing gear was not designed for carrier operations, but the arrester gear was there in case the aircraft was damaged and could not stop on the runway.

Last year at our airshow, we had an F-4 fly an aerobatic demo but could not legally land it at Chino because our runway does not have arrester gear at the end. So he did a touch and go. He was based out of March AFB that is about 15 miles down the road for the show.

The Navy and Air Corps did NOT evaulate the same planes ... no Air Corps aircraft would pass the required flying characteristics for a Navy plane unless they were designed in from the start. The Air Corps had completely different requirements from the Navy.

The RAF was very unhappy when they were more or less forced to take the Hawker-siddeley Buccaneer, but found out they had gotten a pretty decent aircraft after all. But the Navies of the world would not be able to take most Air Force aircraft since they cannot pass Navy requirements for landing aboard a carrier.

Navy carrier pilots do not flare when they land ... they establish a sink rate and fly it until it hits the deck. They fly the ball all the way down and go to full military power just before touchdown. Most Air Force aircraft would sustain serious damage if subjected to this. You can drop a Navy plane straight down from 10 feet or so and it is designed to take that as a matter of course since all carrier landings are "firm arrivals."
 
Last edited:
The argument that the P-47D was just as big and/or heavy as a Navy carrier designed aircraft is an "apples and oranges" argument.

The P-47 was designed to be rugged, taking advantage of unimproved landing surfaces and to carry maximum loads (hence the dual spar wing construction). The Naval aircraft are designed to literally "drop down" on a carrier deck at low speeds and then get jerked to a stop, displacing a great deal of kinetic energy in the process. In the event that a Naval aircraft "jumps the wire" on recovery or has to ditch at sea, it will float for a period of time, allowing pilot and/or crew the ability to get clear of the aircraft. If a P-47 ditches, it sinks like a stone. A big, fat, ugly stone.

Grumman F4F-4 Wildcat
Empty Weight: 5,895 lbs.
Combat Weight: 7,975 lbs.
Combat Weight plus one external tank: 8,369 lbs.
Combat Weight plus two external tanks: 8,762 lbs.
T/O distance - calm: 640 ft. @ 7,975 lbs. | 733 ft. @ 8,369 lbs. | 842 ft. @ 8,762 lbs.
T/O distance - 15 knot headwind: 410 ft. @ 7,975 lbs. | 475 ft. @ 8,369 lbs. | 550 ft. @ 8,762 lbs.
T/O distance - 25 knot headwind: 278 ft. @ 7,975 lbs. | 330 ft. @ 8,369 lbs. | 390 ft. @ 8,762 lbs.
Stall Speed: 81.2 mph @ 7,975 lbs.
(FM-1 gross weight is 75 lbs. more than the F4F-4, otherwise identical performance as listed)

Vaught F4U-4 Corsair
Empty Weight: 9,167 lbs.
Combat Weight: 12,405 lbs.
Combat Weight with (8) 5" HVAR: 16,160 lbs.
T/O distance - calm: 790 ft. @ 12,405 lbs. | 1,349 ft. @ 16,160 lbs.
T/O distance - 25 knot headwind: 377 ft. @ 12,405 lbs. | 708 ft. @ 16,160 lbs.
Stall Speed: 66.9 mph @ 13,579 lbs.

Grumman F6F-5 Hellcat
Empty Weight: 9,238 lbs.
Combat Weight: 12,740 lbs.
T/O distance - calm: 799 ft. @ 13,797 lbs.
T/O distance - 25 knot headwind: 384 ft. @ 13,797 lbs.
Stall Speed: 72.2 mph @ 13,797 lbs.

Douglas SBD-5 Dauntless
Empty Weight: 6,533 lbs.
Combat Weight with (1) 500 lb. bomb: 9,903 lbs.
Combat Weight with (1) 1,000 lb. bomb: 10,403 lbs.
T/O distance - calm: 1,073 feet @ 9,903 lbs. | 1,225 ft. @ 10,403 lbs.
T/O distance - 15 knot headwind: 682 ft. @ 9,903 lbs. | 800 ft. @ 10,403 lbs.
T/O distance - 25 knot headwind: 480 ft. @ 9,903 lbs. | 570 ft. @ 10,403 lbs.
Stall Speed: 77.8 mph @ 9,903 lbs.

Curtiss SB2C-5 Helldiver
Empty Weight: 10,589 lbs.
Combat Weight: 14,415 lbs.
Combat Weight with (2) 250 lb.bombs (1) 1,000 lb. bomb: 15,915 lbs.
Combat Weight with (1) 1,000 lb. bomb 100 gallon fuel tank (AN/APS-4): 16,287 lbs.
T/O distance - calm: 1,142 ft. @ 15,915 lbs. | 1,243 ft. @ 16,287 lbs.
T/O distance - 25 knot headwind: 531 ft. @ 15,915 lbs. | 584 ft. @ 16,87 lbs.
Stall Speed: 65.5 mph @ 15,195 lbs.

Grumman TBF-1 Avenger
Empty Weight: 10,555 lbs.
Combat Weight with (1) 1,000 lb. bomb: 15,422 lbs.
Combat Weight with (1) MK13 torpedo: 16,412 lbs.
Combat Weight (scouting - 760 gals. fuel): 17,121 lbs.
T/O distance - calm: 880 @ 15,422 lbs. | 1,071 @ 16,412 lbs. | 1,285 ft. @ 17,121 lbs.
T/O distance - 15 knot headwind: 520 @ 15,422 lbs. | 650 ft. @ 16,412 lbs. | 796 ft. @ 17,121 lbs.
T/O distance - 25 knot headwind: 340 ft. @ 15,422 lbs. | 435 ft. @ 16,412 lbs. | 532 ft. @ 17,121 lbs.
Stall Speed: 74.6 mph @ 15,422 lbs.

Now...let's compare the P-47D against the above listed aircraft and see how well it does...

Republic P-47D-25 Thunderbolt
Empty Weight: 10,700 lbs.
Combat Weight: 14,600 lbs.
Combat Weight (max loadout): 17,500 lbs.
T/O distance - calm: 2,200 ft. @ 13,300 lbs. | 4,100 ft. @ 17,500 lbs.
Stall Speed: 98 mph @ 12,000 lbs. | 106 mph @ 14,000 lbs.
 
Disagree...

P-51 (XP-51) #41-37426 was evaluated by the U.S. Navy. Army plane (ok, actually RAF), Naval evaluation.
P-51D #44-14017 carried the designation ETF-51D as a Naval variant. Army plane, Naval evaluation.
Douglass Dauntless evaluated by U.S. Army, approves and adds it to their inventory as the A-24 Banshee.

These are a few of several cases, but don't think for a minute that when one branch is eyeballing a new toy, that it goes by un-noticed by the others...
 
Hi Graugeist.

The P-51 WAS evaluated for potential carrier suitability, with gentle touchdowns. If it had been deemed desirable, the entire structure would have had to be redesigned for carrier operations. They could DO that ... with a lot of work. The evalutaion plans would NEVER have been accepted nor survivied carrier operations, but a few takeoffs and landings were tried with a very senior carrier pilot in the seat after a thorough checkout in the P-51. It was NOT stopped with arrester gear, even though the test aircraft was fitted with a tailhook that was attached to a specially reinforced bulkhead aft of the tailwhell opening. The "strengthening" included long, thick Aluminum doublers that were riveted to a lot of structure. The tests were flown by Lt. Bob Elder and he touched down tailwheel first and got stopped with a carrier speed of some 30 knots into a 15+ knot wind. Repeated use like this would have broken the airframe.

Luckily the "navalized" P-51 never had to try an arrested landing before the idea was shelved.

ANY Navy aircraft could operate from Army fields, and all they did for the A-24 Banshee was to delete the arrester gear. It was a case of a plne already designed and a temporary need for a scout bomber, not a portent of things to come. They didn;t get many and didn't use them particularly long.

These couple of examples would be the exception to the rule, not anywhere near the norm.

This subject is starting to sound mighty strange ... if you are anywhere around aviation, this topic is simply never heard. They tried a C-130 on a carrier, but never once, thankfuly, did it cross anyone's mind to try an arrested landing. They launched a U-2 from a carrier, but would NEVER try a landing. Today, with nuclear carriers, they could probably get almost anything airborne from a carrier, especially with the speed they can generate into a good wind. That wouldn't make it a carrier plane by any means.
 
Last edited:
I've never suggested the P-47 was or could be adapted to carriers. But a carrier would have no trouble handling the P-47 greater weight or speed.

After all the same carriers managed ( with some modification I'm sure ) with the first generation jets, whose weight and landing speeds make the P-47 seem tame.
Angle deck carriers didn't start appearing till the early 50s.

As for those saying a P-47 couldn't be catapulted, several of the pictures early in this thread plainly show P-47s hooked to the catapult.
Probably not fully loaded, and likely the catapult wasn't at full pull.
 
I beg to differ, Greg...the Navy even evaluated a P-51H: P-51H-5-NA #44-64420 in 1945.

As far as arresting on recovery, how do you suppose they got the P-51 to keep from shooting off the end of the deck?

Here's the ETF-51D during recovery aboard the Shangri-La.



As far as "exceptions rather than the norm", this conversation came about because of the comment of Navy evaluating Army aircraft and visa-versa.

Well, lo and behold, they did.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Users who are viewing this thread

Total: 1 (members: 0, guests: 1)

Similar threads

T
P-47 roll rate - a bit of new (to me) info
Replies
1
Views
624
Shortround6
S
Best "general purpose" prop fighter also capable of best high altitude performance
2
Replies
31
Views
3K
PAT303
P
N
The Great P-47 Range Debate on you tube now.
4 5 6
Replies
105
Views
8K
Holtzauge
M
P-61 Performance
Replies
15
Views
1K
Snautzer01
Latécoère 299 Developed for Carrier Operations?
Replies
15
Views
1K
chris ballance
Menu
Log in
Register