P-47 carrier capable?

[GregP]

It isn't the CARRIER in question and never was. A carrier can be made to handle a LOT of weight and generate a LOT of force.

It is the airframe of the P-47 that is in question. It was never designed for carrier operations and was not suitable in ANY way to carriers. Sure, it could be launched if that was carefully done, but you didn't see any land on a carrier except maybe a touch and go. They did THAT with MUCH bigger airplanes than a P-47 and carriers transported many non-carrier-suitable aircraft.

The weak link here is the T-bolt, not carrier.

 

[GregP]

Nice pic.

Beg to differ if you want, the guys who were there on the first landings said it was not arrrested. I have NO IDEA when or where this pic was taken and it might or might not be from that cruise. ID markings are conveniently missing. If anyone knows the ID of this plane. please post it so we can find out the disposition.

In the end, the experiment was terminated and nobody operated P-51H's or any other model in Navy service from a carrier. The P-51 was NOT carrier qualified and there was never a P-51 Navy carrier squadron, group, or any other organization ... it was a TEST, nothing more. They tested a lot of stupid things, including hanging a jet from a trapeze in the bomb bay of a B-36.

The B-25 wasn't carrier qualified either, but they launched Jimmy Dootlttle's raid on Tokyo from a carrier. I sincerely hope you aren't claiming the B-25 was carrier qualified becuase it flew from one once. All kinds of tests were run, and many ended in tragedy. Because they have a pic of something doesn't mean it was ever used in service.

We never adopted the F-107A, but we have flight pics of it. That list is VERY long and not important ... neither is the P-51 carrier test. Only ONE GUY ever flew them (named above in my post). It was abandoned and all the pics and posts in the world won't change that fact. They did a lot of things in WWII that were never repeated after the war. This one was forgetable for its inevitability.

 

[GrauGeist]

Jesus Christ, Greg!
You just said "lucky they never tried" and I just showed you photographic proof that they did recover with a cable! Many times!!

I don't give a flying fig what the guys down at the hanger are all BS'ing about today, this was a matter of official record, the P-51D underwent seagoing trials aboard the U.S.S. Shangri-La and it wasn't a one-shot wonder.

Read up on it before posting that nonsense...

 

[GregP]

Yeah, you showed us a pic, and the guy who gave the talk was speaking about the test he witnessed. I have no idea when this pic was taken and neither do you. Might even be on the same cruise. Since I wasn't there, for all I know this might have been taken when the LSO who gave the talk wasn't on duty ... I don't know.

And in case you missed it, I didn't say or imply the pic was false (in fact, thanks for the pic) ... I asked if anyone knew the aircraft ID so we could check on the disposition. This isn't a personal attack on YOU ... get over it. The test was run and one guy who was there made a statement that the landings he saw weren't arrrested. Your pic seems to indicate it wasn't the only test ... but, again, I wasn't there.

The only thing for sure is the P-51 test was terminated and the aircraft would have had to have some major modifications had they decied to go forward with it since the P-51 was NOT designed for carrier operations.

They tried carrier opertions with the Spitfire, too, and it wasn't exactly a rousing success. The Seafires were fragile and not a few came apart as predicted. Likewise the P-51 would have followed suit, but smarter heads prevailed and terminted the experiment before they made that same mistake.

Graugeist (what does that mean in German?), the Navy and Air Force (or Air Corps as the case may be) did NOT share planes as a matter of course, though they did occasionally operate some common types for a short while of necessity, mostly on the part of the Air Forces of the world, NOT the other way around.

I have no trouble with the fact that the test was run ... it developed into nothing and was bound to do just that.

 

[GrauGeist]

I know exactly when the photo was taken and posted exactly where it was taken. I even posted the EF-51's serial number above.

If you weren't so busy with your BS, you'd have noticed it and we wouldn't be wasting time here, would we?

 

[GregP]

Thanks! I was looking at the pic!

And also didn't really take note of the BS part in your post above.

You're wrong. It was covered in a talk from a guy who was there ... apparently he didn't see all of it.

 

[GrauGeist]

Thanks! I was looking at the pic!

 

[GregP]

OK, Graugeist,

Using your thoughtfully-provided serial number, I found this, which is perhaps where you found the pic? The P-51H test ended in 1952 and that serial number was transferred to the National Guard. I am trying to find a disposition for it out of curiosity only.

Mustang! - Documents

Perhaps you will note the test pilot did not think it was suitable and only 25 landings and takeoffs in total were accomplished with the modified airframe. Also, the P-51H was modified for carrier TAKEOFFS, not for carrier landings. Eventually, even though North American was interested in it, as was the Navy, it was deemed unsuitable. Maybe this was due to the coming of the jet age more than the inability of the P-51 to be "Navalized?" I don't know but it wasn't adopted. Might have been possible with modifications.

So, on the face of this, it would appear the LSO who gave us a talk on it wasn't the LSO on duty for all the landings. I'd say that is probable since the pic is pretty solid evidence.

It doesn't change the fact that Air Force planes are not carrier planes. But it does show that, given suitable incentive, they can be modified to handle a few Navy tasks. It might have been interesting had they proceeded with it. I'd assume the wing would have to have more washout, the stall speed would have to drop some to make Naval margins for arrested landing safety, and the rudder authority would have to improve.

Had they added folding wings, I wonder if it could have been done while simultaneously maintaining performance on the top end. I doubt it, but maybe ...

Perhaps it would have made a good COIN (counterinsurgency) plane. The military investigated those at length in the 1950's - 1960's.

I stand corrected on arrested P-51 landings during a test series.

Good find.

Edit:

If there is anyone out there who knows about these tests, can you tell us if there were any other aircraft on deck in front of the P-51 when it landed, or was the deck empty in case of go around? No reason for asking other than curiosity ... but, if there WERE planes in front of the P-51 then he possibly HAD to make as arrested landing to stop. If there were NO planes in front, he could have landed, rolled out, and stopped. Just curiosity, not a point of argument with anyone.

Usually, when they were doing carrier suitability trials, the deck as empty in case the candidate aircraft bounced and did not catch a wire.

About this point I am wondering if he stopped without being arrested at all ... I wasn't there and, if there WERE planes in front, it would almost HAVE to be arrested. If he lands at 85 mph into a 38 mph wind, he still has to stop from 47 mph deck speed. I have never seen stopping distances for a P-51 on a carrier deck, so I am in unfamiliar territory here.

 

[VBF-13]

I guess the moral of the story is, while a picture may indeed be worth 1000 words, if there are words that go along with the picture, read them too!

EDIT: Good night!

 

[GregP]

I'd have to agree with you ... VBF!

 

[GregP]

From late WWII into the 1970's there were a LOT of new US military aircraft that came along. I don't have an exact count, but it has to be well more than 60 aircraft. This thread has caused me to wonder about carrier trials and I think there may be at least five "air corps" type aircraft that were tested on carriers, with one actually seeing service. Five of 60+ is not a large percentage, but is also not insignificant.

First would be the Airabonita, a "navalized" P-39. Here is a pic.

This is just a guess, but maybe the carrier suitability trials went something like this ...

Note it was rather modified from a tricycle plane into a conventional gear aircraft. There were also modifications to strengthen the fuselage for carrier operations. It was not selected for Naval use and the airframe is buried in the mud near the river at Patuxent River, Maryland.

Second would be the P-51 discussed above. It was not selected for Naval service.

Third would be the B-25 that became the PBJ in naval service. All but one were used as land planes. One PBJ-1H was modified with carrier takeoff and landing equipment and successfully tested on the USS Shangri-La post-war, but the Navy did not continue development. The flight deck was cleared and it made a successful landing as well as takeoff. It was not selected for Naval use on carriers and remained a land-based bomber / patrol plane.

Fourth would be the F-86 Sabre, starting with the FJ-2. This was a "Navalized" F-86 but was not fully carrier capable, and was given to the Marines for use as a land-based fighter, though it DID successfully takeoff and land on carriers in the 1950's. They built about 200 FJ-2's. Here is a pic of the FJ-2.

This evloved into the FJ-3 and later FJ-4. The FJ-3 was a Naval redesign and they built 538 of them. Here is an FJ-3. As it happens, we have one of these at the Planes of Fame in unrestored state. The long nose gear kept the aircraft at liftoff attitude (13° or so) during the cat shot.

and here is an FJ-4 that is currently flyable (only one in the world).

The final development of the airframe that started out as the F-86 was the FJ-4 above. They built 374 of them. You could see the lineage in it, but it really didn't look like a classic Sabre to me.

Last, they did carrier takeoffs and landings with the Lockheed C-130. It was not selected for Naval use, but DID manage to operate from a carrier during tests. Naturally, the landing was not "arrested." They used reverse thrust to stop. Here is a video of it:


View: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=CfwJJD5jGXk

Anyone know of any more "Air Corps / Air Force" types planes that were tested on a carrier?

 

[GrauGeist]

I don't want to hijack the P-47 thread with P-51 info, that's why.

If I get time, I'll start a thread with the U.S. Navy's P-51 trials. (or a person can use google to find the 1944 trials aboard the U.S. Carrier Shangri-La using keywords from my earlier posts, if they don't want to wait.)

 

[Shortround6]

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.

A problem with being carrier capable isn't the weight alone but the weight and speed. You also have to figure in closing speeds and reaction times. If we assume the carrier is moving at just over 30kts (34.5mph) with 0 head wind the 15,000lb Avenger is closing on the carrier at around 45mph ( a few mph above stall) and the landing officer and pilot have a certain amount of time to observe the approach and wave paddles and so on. The P-47 is closing at about 70mph and over the same distance has much less time to 'correct' things. These are also the close to the relative speeds the plane will 'hit the wire' at and the 7 1/2 ton Avenger at 4.5 X 4.5 (getting rid of a lot zeros to make things easy)= 152. The P-47 ( 6 tons X 7 X 7 = 294) hits the wire with over 1.9 times the force of the Avenger.

I don't know if the Navy would insist on landings on a slow or non-moving carrier.

I don't know when or by how much the carriers were modified to handle some of the early jets but extensive modifications started in the late 40s. Some of the first ones converted did not get steam catapults and were later used as anti sub carriers instead of strike carriers due to the lower weight of the then anti-sub aircraft.

A couple of the early Navy jets may have had fairly low landing speeds. Despite a number of prototypes flying in 1946-48 there were only a couple of squadrons equipped with jets before 1949. Initial trials of the FH-1 Phantom were done on the Franklin D Roosevelt ( a Midway class carrier and the largest in service at the time) and while the first squadron to use the FH-1 in service did so from the light carrier Saipan it did not do so until May of 1948 and the FH-1 had a very low wing loading for a jet. about 34lb per sq ft for "normal" gross weight (clean) of 10035lbs.
Without KNOWING what modifications the Navy did or did not do to the Essex class carriers to handle jets before the major rebuilds ( and they had 4 years from the end of the war to do them) it is a bit of a stretch to say that because a carrier operated jets in 1949 it could have operated them in 1943/44.

 

[GrauGeist]

It was mentioned that the stall speed of the P-47 being close to 100 mph wouldn't be much of a problem, but it would have been, since the arrsting cable system was rated 90 mph max through early 1945.

 

[GregP]

I thought the cables and arrester were rated by energy absorbed ... but maybe not. New arrester systems are rated at 47,500,000 foot-pounds (64.4 MJ) at maximum cable run-out ... but I don't know how they were rated in WWII.

Edit: Found one reference that said the Essex class carriers of WWII had the Mk 4 arrester system rated to handle 10,000 pounds at 70 mph. The P-47D had an empty weight of 10,000 pounds and a loaded weight of 13,300 pounds. Typical landing weight was therefore probably around 10,850 pounds or so.

10,000 pounds at 70 mph equates to 4,443,474 Joules (KE = 1/2 mv^2). At 10,850 pounds the arrester systen could handle the P-47 at only 67.2 mph. And that would be the maximum rating.

Not sure anyone would want to be trying that even once, assuming the P-47 was stressed for an arrested landing, and it wasn't. When you operate with no safety margin, bad things happen with startling regularity.

 

[tyrodtom]

How did that Mk4 handle a TBF Avenger ?

It weighed more than 10,000 lbs, empty, no pilot, no fuel. And it's landing speed was over 70 mph .

 

[GregP]

The reference didn't say specifically. I am assuming they deployed on Essex class carriers, but it should be easy to find out at least a few carrier that deployed them.

According to the pilot's manual I have in PDF format, the stall speed power off was 66 knots and 71 knots with full fuel. The power on stall speed was 68 knots. I'll get back to that in a minute.

Takeoff weight was 17,280 pounds including 2,010 pounds if internal fuel, 900 pounds of frop fuel, 1,160 pounds of ordnance, and 510 pounds of crew. Assume we didn't drop any ordnance, we still have all the crew, and flying it until we get down to 500 pounds of internal fuel left. The weight would then be 13,200 pounds or 5,987 kg.

I'll assume he approaches at about 71 knots, which is 81.7 mph, or 36.5 m/s. That adds up to 7,975.181 Joules and seems too much ... but the carrier is making 30+ knots. Let's say he is making 30 knots into a 5 knot wind, so the speed over the deck is 36 knots, or 18.5 m/s. The energy the arrester gear must absorb in that case is 2,049,051 Joules or about half of the energy the P-47 would take. So the TBF could have a deck speed of about 60 mph and still be making the same kinetic energy as the the example of the P-47. So it could land if the carrier was making only about 18 knots into no wind.

Looks to me like it was an easy landing for the TBF in the conditions above, and no Essex class carrier had any trouble making more than 28 knots assuming no battle damage.

Concur?

 

[tyrodtom]

Oh, I forgot to take into account the carrier is moving.
But they were handling the TBF on a lot less than Essex class carriers.

Sounds like you'd have mount a couple dozen J47's on the fantail of the carrier to get up enough speed to handle a P47.

 

[GregP]

Maybe.

If the fuselage could have been strengthened, perhaps they could have fitted unpowered slats and added a bit of wing area to knock off about 10 knots or more from the power-on stall speed. If so, and if the carrier could make 30 knots ... into a wind, maybe it would have been possible.

I wouldn't say it was impossible .... I simply say the P-47, as it was flown in WWII, was never designed for carrier service.

Somewhere I have a pic of a Seafire breaking in half at the arrester hook ... and it WAS strengthed for carrier service.

 

[Shortround6]

It took me about 4-5 minutes of google searching to find several pictures of F6F Hellcats breaking up while landing including:

You do have metal fatigue and corrosion and not ALL landings are perfect and a landing that, say we say, 'stretches/stresses' a fuselage might not result in failure until several landing later?

The Spitfire at least landed at close to the speeds of specialized naval aircraft.

and occasionally the arresting gear failed.