p40s and mustangs on carriers

Discussion in 'Aviation' started by mike siggins, Sep 19, 2013.

  1. mike siggins

    mike siggins Member

    Joined:
    Oct 29, 2009
    Messages:
    82
    Likes Received:
    0
    Trophy Points:
    6
    Occupation:
    mechanic
    Location:
    norfolk va
    does any one know of a p40 or p51 taking off from a carrier or did they didn't have enough room I don't know there minimum take off distance compared to a corsair or wildcat
     
  2. tomo pauk

    tomo pauk Creator of Interesting Threads

    Joined:
    Apr 3, 2008
    Messages:
    7,998
    Likes Received:
    440
    Trophy Points:
    83
  3. vinnye

    vinnye Member

    Joined:
    Dec 28, 2009
    Messages:
    604
    Likes Received:
    3
    Trophy Points:
    18
    Occupation:
    Maths teacher
    Location:
    Barnsley, UK
    Do not know about navalised P40's, but there were P51's used on carriers ;
    Mustang! - Documents
     
  4. stona

    stona Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Mar 28, 2009
    Messages:
    7,533
    Likes Received:
    947
    Trophy Points:
    113
    P-40s were flown off carriers if I remember correctly, maybe for Torch? I know that 325th FG P-40s were flown off the carrier USS RANGER to Casablanca. Can't think that they ever landed on a carrier.
    Cheers
    Steve
     
  5. T Bolt

    T Bolt Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Mar 24, 2010
    Messages:
    9,728
    Likes Received:
    194
    Trophy Points:
    63
    Gender:
    Male
    Occupation:
    Bridge & Highway Construction Inspector
    Location:
    Chicago, Illinois
    P-40's took off from carriers, most notably during Operation Torch, but to my knowledge they never landed on carriers and there was never a navalised version of the P-40. P-51s were transported on carriers but I don't know if there were any take offs made other than the carrier trials that were made with one navalised P-51 that was found to be unsuitable for carrier service. I don't remember exactly but it had to do with landing on a carrier being too close to the operational limits of the Mustang or some such.
     

    Attached Files:

  6. Aozora

    Aozora Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Dec 23, 2012
    Messages:
    1,011
    Likes Received:
    123
    Trophy Points:
    63
    What actually happened was the USN sailors quietly dropped a hint to the USAAF pilots that if they didn't fly their horrible, liquid cooled, glycol dripping fighters offa their pristine decks pronto they would find their P-40s and P-51s had been pushed into the ocean kinda accidentally-on-purpose; if they returned and tried to land, that's what the AA guns were for...

    [​IMG]
    The USN scrubs the decks after USAAF's dirty, liquid cooled fighters drip glycol all over the place.

    [​IMG]
    Unfortunately it took more than a few mops and buckets and large quantities of washing up foam and poopa-scoopas were called for. Never again will the USN allow liquid cooled fighters to sully its flight decks!
     
  7. OldSkeptic

    OldSkeptic Active Member

    Joined:
    May 17, 2010
    Messages:
    509
    Likes Received:
    36
    Trophy Points:
    28
    #7 OldSkeptic, Sep 19, 2013
    Last edited: Sep 19, 2013
    Biggest problem with the P-51 was it's high landing and stalling speeds ... about 110/95mph for the 51D. It was unusual in that the recommended landing speed was higher than the stalling (or even take off) speeds, to maintain good control.

    That was high for the era for deck landing. A Hellcat was about 80-85mph for example, depending on configuration.

    Edited to add: Just found this. Trials on deck landing. It could be done, but it was tricky.
    http://www.mustang.gaetanmarie.com/articles/naval/naval.htm

    "During the months of September and October 1944, Lt. Elder made nearly 150 simulated launches and landings with the ETF-51D. Sufficient data concerning the Mustang's low speed handling had to be gathered before carrier trials could begin. The Mustang's laminar-flow wing made for little drag and high speed but was relatively inefficient at low speed, resulting in a high stall speed. As the arrester cables could not be engaged at more than 90 mph, Elder reported that “from the start, it was obvious to everyone that the margin between the stall speed of the aircraft (82 mph) and the speed imposed by the arrester gear (90 mph) was very limited.”"

    Interesting the stall speed quoted, as the 95mph form above comes from WW2aircraft (http://www.wwiiaircraftperformance.org/mustang/p-51d-na-46-130.html), so this must be in a very light configuration.

    "But everything was not perfect. As previously mentioned, the margin between stall speed and maximum engagement speed was small, too small for safety. Rudder control at low speeds and high angles of attack was inadequate. In addition, landing attitude had to be carefully controlled to avoid damaging the airframe upon landing.

    One of the handling quirks of the Mustang was also potentially dangerous. During a missed approach or a wave-off, power has to be re-applied gently. If not, the aircraft could roll rapidly, or even snap-roll. At such low speed and altitude, the result could only be fatal."


    IFAIK this is the reason for the normal high landing speed, to maintain enough stability and control authority for a missed approach (or a sudden need for a bit of a throttle blip for whatever reason required).
     
  8. Aozora

    Aozora Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Dec 23, 2012
    Messages:
    1,011
    Likes Received:
    123
    Trophy Points:
    63
    Found some interesting correspondence on the prospects of a navalised P-51 here Unfortunately the original documents weren't posted, but it's clear from the transcriptions that the USN was very reluctant to use liquid cooled engines.
     
  9. gumbyk

    gumbyk Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Apr 2, 2009
    Messages:
    1,627
    Likes Received:
    209
    Trophy Points:
    63
    Occupation:
    Aviation QMS/SMS consultant
    Location:
    Blenheim
    An all washed down with sea-water! Specifically to ruin the aircraft.
     
  10. Procrastintor

    Procrastintor Member

    Joined:
    Jul 13, 2012
    Messages:
    348
    Likes Received:
    2
    Trophy Points:
    18
    Location:
    LA
    Those Warhawk pictures are pretty interesting, never knew they were operated off of carriers at any point.
     
  11. stona

    stona Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Mar 28, 2009
    Messages:
    7,533
    Likes Received:
    947
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Strictly speaking they were not operated off carriers. They were delivered by, and took of once, from a carrier but were operated from land based airfields. Somewhat similar to the Spitfires and Hurricanes flown into Malta by the British (when the remembered to take the correct ferry tanks with them).
    The aircraft were not equipped to land back on the carrier, even if it was a possibility otherwise.
    Cheers
    Steve
     
  12. gumbyk

    gumbyk Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Apr 2, 2009
    Messages:
    1,627
    Likes Received:
    209
    Trophy Points:
    63
    Occupation:
    Aviation QMS/SMS consultant
    Location:
    Blenheim
    The NZ occupation force in Japan wouldn't fly their Corsairs off the carrier that delivered them, because the sailors insisted in washing the decks daily with seawater. Apparently they had major problems getting with the hydraulic systems.
     
  13. HBPencil

    HBPencil Member

    Joined:
    Feb 22, 2012
    Messages:
    41
    Likes Received:
    5
    Trophy Points:
    8
    Location:
    Auckland
Loading...

Share This Page