WWII Transport Aircraft off a Carrier (1 Viewer)

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

kitplane01

Airman 1st Class
132
32
Apr 23, 2020
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.
 
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.
 
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).
 
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.

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.
 
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.
 
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."


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...?)
 
Last edited:
"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.
 

Users who are viewing this thread

Back