WWII Transport Aircraft off a Carrier

[kitplane01]

The navy tested operating a C-130 on the CVA-59 Forrestal. Did 29 touch-and-gos, and 21 unarrested landings followed by 21 unassisted takeoffs. Worked fine, but required reasonable weather and clearing most of the deck.

So my question is, could a C-46 or C-47 from WWII have done the same? (either on a WWII or modern carrier.) You're taking off an landing into a significant headwind, which helps.

 

[mjfur]

That's like asking if a Brick can fly. Sure, look at the F-4 Phantom. (lol)
I'm sure a lightly loaded C-46 or C-47 with RATO could takeoff. Landings, not so much. Could it be used on a daily basis......Nope.

 

[Snautzer01]

Ju52 could do that easily. Take off and landing.

 

[ThomasP]

Did the C-130 (at the time of the tests) have reverse thrust capability?

 

[kitplane01]

That's like asking if a Brick can fly. Sure, look at the F-4 Phantom. (lol)
I'm sure a lightly loaded C-46 or C-47 with RATO could takeoff. Landings, not so much. Could it be used on a daily basis......Nope.

Obviously this is not a day-to-day operation, but the Navy did think it might have a use. And the C-130 did it with no RATO packs at all.
So I just want to compare the capabilities of the C-130 and the C-47/C-46 in terms of stol usage (and I thought the carrier thing was cool, I'm interested in both).

 

[EwenS]

The USN launched R5Ds (their version of thr C-47) from the Essex class Philippine Sea during Operation High Jump to the Antarctic in 1947. Due to the wingspan they had to be positioned forward of the island for take off using RATOG.

Account Suspended

Landing back aboard was not possible.

During WW2 they could sometimes be seen as deck cargo on CVE making trans Pacific ferry voyages. But hoisted on and off by crane.

The biggest problem is the width of the carrier flight deck both forward and abreast the island in a straight deck carrier v the distance from the port undercarriage to starboard wingtip of any land plane.

Back in the day they flew an arrester hook equipped U2 from a Forrestal class. Not sure if it could be repeated today as the CVN islands are sited much nearer the stern.

 

[cvairwerks]

In 1948, a batch of P2V's were modified to launch with RATO assist off of carriers. Their sole purpose was to carry an updated Little Boy, giving the Navy a nuke strike capability.

 

[GrauGeist]

About the only transport that could operate from a WWII era carrier, that I can think of, would be the CB-25J.

It would require modifications like were done to the PBJ-1H, though.

 

[Frog]

The Bréguet 941 could take off / land from a carrier but it was conceived from the begining as a STOL.

 

[SplitRz]

The De Havilland Dominie had a take off run in zero wind of only 580 odd feet, so I guess that might have made a light transport for the FAA if the need had arisen (if its construction would have stood up to a deck landing, that is!)

 

[SaparotRob]

Would the wing have cleared the island?

 

[SplitRz]

Would the wing have cleared the island?

I should think so - its a pretty small aircraft. 48 foot wingspan. Only a foot and a half more than a Fairy Fulmar... Though it would have to be stressed, it would be a LIGHT transport! (Eight passengers)

 

[GrauGeist]

The B-25 (PBJ) had a wingspan of 67 feet and cleared the island on both the Hornet (CV-8, Yorktown class) and Shangri-La (CV-38, Essex class).

Both the TBD and SB2C had a wingspan of 50 feet and the TBF had a wingspan of 54 feet.

 

[Elvis]

While not in the same class as the C-130 or even a C-47, a C-64 Norseman could do it.
In fact, according to Wiki. "United States Navy purchased three Norsemans in 1945 (under designation JA-1) to support Antarctic expeditions like Operation Highjump."

 

[swampyankee]

Ju52 could do that easily. Take off and landing.

Well, except for the being shot down bit.

 

[GregP]

The De Havilland Dominie had a take off run in zero wind of only 580 odd feet, so I guess that might have made a light transport for the FAA if the need had arisen (if its construction would have stood up to a deck landing, that is!)

When I look it up, it says takeoff was 870 feet and landing was 510 feet. Still, that was in zero wind. A carrier at 30 knots might make the run acceptably short.

 

[SplitRz]

When I look it up, it says takeoff was 870 feet and landing was 510 feet. Still, that was in zero wind. A carrier at 30 knots might make the run acceptably short.

Yes, I just googled it - Wiki agrees with you. I know I quoted from a reliable sounding source when I claimed 580 - gonna have to go back and see where I got that conflicting data from.

Ah, here we go - not my original source, but something hinting at similar:

"With the simple Pre Take Off checks completed, the aircraft is ready for take off. Captain de Havilland's notes tell us that she should use up only 535 yards to reach a height of fifty feet on a maximum weight take off, in nil wind conditions, but that target sometimes seems improbable when viewed from the start of a short field. In fact the performance is lively, as the ground roll is pleasantly short with any sort of headwind."

FLYING THE DRAGON RAPIDE, SIXTY YEARS ON | Historic Aircraft Association

Aviation has its fair share of characters, both human and mechanical. It is the mechanical ones, the aeroplanes, that are particularly fascinating, because of the surprisingly personal characteristics possessed by some individual aircraft within types. Usually the outstanding characters can be...

haa-uk.aero

Perhaps I've misquoted yards for feet?

(This if for a Rapide rather than Dominie. As I understood it, they were virtually identical, but perhaps some military equipment aboard the Dominie added some weight, or military operational procedure demanded a different approach to take off...?)

 

[cvairwerks]

"With the simple Pre Take Off checks completed, the aircraft is ready for take off. Captain de Havilland's notes tell us that she should use up only 535 yards to reach a height of fifty feet on a maximum weight take off, in nil wind conditions, but that target sometimes seems improbable when viewed from the start of a short field. In fact the performance is lively, as the ground roll is pleasantly short with any sort of headwind."


Perhaps I've misquoted yards for feet?

Only a small miss on the performance specification. From the quote, the 535 yards is for brake release to clearing a 50' object...So an under 600' ground roll is possible.