P-47 from a carrier?

[EwenS]

The Casablanca class CVE were fitted with an H2 Mod 1 hydraulic catapult. These began with a capability of launching 8,800lb at 70 knots (zero wind conditions) but were upgraded later in the war to 11,000lb at the same speed. Add in the ship's own speed (19 knots) plus any natural wind.

A (USN) Navy News article from Jan 1946 states the H2-1 were regularly capable of launching up to 18,000lb but without stating wind conditions.

So fuel and ammo load would depend on the available natural wind.

The P-47s were given just enough fuel to get to their new base, and had no ammunition in them ... they were LIGHT ... at least, for a P-47 they were light. The carrier would steam into the wind at 30+ knots and they could make it off, but could not land back aboard.

I've dealt with the carrier speed issue. Max 19 not 30 knots. But what about no ammo and minimal fuel?

The first group flew ashore on 22nd June and flew their first combat mission 4 hours after landing (a rocket strike on Tinian). On 23rd June the two CVE were attacked. The response was to launch 4xP-47 on CAP which later flew onto Saipan. They would hardly be unarmed for that. And if they really intended to pare the weight down to an absolute minimum why fit drop tanks, even if empty? They were launched from 60 miles offshore.

This video shows the prep for the launch (incl fitting drop tanks and work of some kind on the wing guns) as well as the launchings themselves

HD Stock Video Footage - U.S. Army Air Force P-47 aircraft take off from USS Manila Bay, underway off the coast of Saipan, during World War II.

View 73rd Fighter Squadron vintage historic HD stock video footage in Pacific Ocean, 1944. Buy HD video and archival still photo images of clip number 65675047538.

www.criticalpast.com

 

[Wild_Bill_Kelso]

I've dealt with the carrier speed issue. Max 19 not 30 knots. But what about no ammo and minimal fuel?

The first group flew ashore on 22nd June and flew their first combat mission 4 hours after landing (a rocket strike on Tinian). On 23rd June the two CVE were attacked. The response was to launch 4xP-47 on CAP which later flew onto Saipan. They would hardly be unarmed for that. And if they really intended to pare the weight down to an absolute minimum why fit drop tanks, even if empty? They were launched from 60 miles offshore.

This video shows the prep for the launch (incl fitting drop tanks and work of some kind on the wing guns) as well as the launchings themselves

HD Stock Video Footage - U.S. Army Air Force P-47 aircraft take off from USS Manila Bay, underway off the coast of Saipan, during World War II.

View 73rd Fighter Squadron vintage historic HD stock video footage in Pacific Ocean, 1944. Buy HD video and archival still photo images of clip number 65675047538.

www.criticalpast.com

Fascinating, thanks for posting. I think this was the mission they mentioned in the caption of the photo I posted in the OP. They said they were basically launched as CAP to intercept some dive bombers, from the carrier. That was what surprised me so much. Very interesting!

 

[fubar57]

Escort carriers can make 30 knots?

Remove the nose armour and heater

 

[airdave]

Anyone know more about the catapult cable?

Obviously its securely attached to the landing gear, and stays with the plane after takeoff.
Did it get in the way raising the gear and closing the doors?
Or maybe, if it was just a short jaunt to shore, they left the gear down?

 

[EwenS]

Anyone know more about the catapult cable?

Obviously its securely attached to the landing gear, and stays with the plane after takeoff.
Did it get in the way raising the gear and closing the doors?
Or maybe, if it was just a short jaunt to shore, they left the gear down?

It doesn't stay with the aircraft. It gets caught by the bridle catcher at the end of the catapult track. Watch again and you can see a chap recovering it from over the forward end of the flight deck after the aircraft has gone. Once the aircraft gains sufficient speed the undercart can be retracted. The launch is really no different from any other carrier aircraft.

The aircraft had to be modified to have the hooks to hold the catapult strop on the undercarriage legs and a point on the aft fuselage to attach the hold back strop (deck crew can be seen attaching it at one point).

Explanation of how a catapult launch in WW2 all works in this video.

 

[Icorps1970]

LolWut?

View attachment 674895

Did I have a stroke? What am I looking at here

They were at least once launched with fuel and ammo to drive off attacking Japanese planes then flown on to their destination when the enemy was cleared. The P-47 could be and was catapult launched. I have seen a photo of a TBM/TBF being launched out the side of a hanger deck.

 

[MiTasol]

Can't help myself :

View attachment 674985
View attachment 674986

days from now some retard somewhere on the net will claim these are original untouched photos.

 

[nuuumannn]

days from now some retard somewhere on the net will claim these are original untouched photos.

Shhh... don't spoil it...

 

[GrauGeist]

days from now some retard somewhere on the net will claim these are original untouched photos.

The condensed version of that paragraph is: "War Thunder"...

 

[EwenS]

..... I have seen a photo of a TBM/TBF being launched out the side of a hanger deck.

Fixed cross-hangar deck catapults were a feature of US carrier designs from CV-4 Ranger through to the Essex class. More information and photos about them here

Launched directly from hangar

In the very first years of aircraft carriers development both English and Japanese envisioned launch of their aircrafts directly from the hangar. This result was usually achieved through an opening in the bow, at the hangar level, and a catapult that launched aircraft in the ship's direction...

www.secretprojects.co.uk

 

[GHWW2]

OK plenty of USAAF aircraft were catapulted off USN ships in WW2 - but did any every recover back to USN ships in WW2?

 

[Wild_Bill_Kelso]

I don't think they made any USAAF planes with arrestor hooks, but I'm prepared to be proven wrong. I think they did fly STOL planes like L-4 'grasshopper' etc. this way maybe? For sure they launched some at Torch but maybe they landed on shore.

 

[FLYBOYJ]

I don't think they made any USAAF planes with arrestor hooks, but I'm prepared to be proven wrong. I think they did fly STOL planes like L-4 'grasshopper' etc. this way maybe? For sure they launched some at Torch but maybe they landed on shore.

They didn't, but a P-51 was tested for carrier landing.

Boeing Images - P-51 Mustang Carrier Qualification Test, 1943

Welcome to The Boeing Company's official source for licensed aerospace photography, illustrations and videos.

secure.boeingimages.com

 

[Wild_Bill_Kelso]

It's interesting that the US and Japan seemed to go 100% (or close to that?) radial engine for their naval aircraft while the RN liked to use liquid cooled engines.

 

[Wild_Bill_Kelso]

That said if you could make one land on a carrier Ok, a P-51 with it's long range and high cruise speed would probably have made a good carrier plane.

 

[FLYBOYJ]

It's interesting that the US and Japan seemed to go 100% (or close to that?) radial engine for their naval aircraft while the RN liked to use liquid cooled engines.

With radial engine aircraft you have one less liquid needed on board, that being coolant. Additionally, aside from being a bit more robust, there are maintenance advantages with radials, the ability to change individual cylinder heads for one.

 

[GrauGeist]

I don't think they made any USAAF planes with arrestor hooks, but I'm prepared to be proven wrong. I think they did fly STOL planes like L-4 'grasshopper' etc. this way maybe? For sure they launched some at Torch but maybe they landed on shore.

There were several tested:
XFL-1
PBJ-1H
P-51
P-51D (as Joe just noted)
(2) P-51H

 

[special ed]

B-25 also tested on same carrier but not chosen for deck duty.

 

[GrauGeist]

That said if you could make one land on a carrier Ok, a P-51 with it's long range and high cruise speed would probably have made a good carrier plane.

The problem encountered with the P-51s, was it's stall speed.
Getting it to slow down enough to catch the wire put it dangerously close to a stall.
None tested ever crashed, but there were some harrowing moments - and consider that these test aircraft were flown by extremely experienced pilots.

 

[SaparotRob]

The XFL-1 should have been chosen as the standard carrier fighter. With it's tail-hook as counter-weight, some of the nose armor could remain. Politics!