P-51 question.

JStONGE123 wrote:
Why was the P-51 not used on aircraft carriers during WWII? Beside
the obvious no tail hook.....ect.


No tail hook. No extra heavy duty landing gear for carrier "landings". No
folding wing. No need.... the F6F was quite capable in its place.



--
Mortimer Schnerd, RN


http://www.mortimerschnerd.com

On 21 Aug 2003 00:48:18 GMT, unists (JStONGE123) wrote:

Why was the P-51 not used on aircraft carriers during WWII? Beside the obvious
no tail hook.....ect.




The Durango 95 purred away real horrorshow. A nice warm vibratey feeling all
through your guttiwuts.

A modified P-51D WAS tested by the Navy. It did land aboard a carrier. At the
conclusion of the tests, the Navy elected not to employ a navalized Mustang
having several aircraft better suited to the task. Designated the ETF-51D, s/n
44-84900 was modified for the task.

My regards,

Widewing (C.C. Jordan)
http://www.worldwar2aviation.com
http://www.netaces.org
http://www.hitechcreations.com

"Mortimer Schnerd, RN" wrote:
JStONGE123 wrote:

Why was the P-51 not used on aircraft carriers during WWII? Beside
the obvious no tail hook.....ect.

No tail hook. No extra heavy duty landing gear for carrier "landings". No
folding wing. No need.... the F6F was quite capable in its place.

And no round engine. Lots of good reasons why the USN preferred
air-cooled over liquid-cooled engines.

-Mike Marron

wrote:

snip

And no round engine. Lots of good reasons why the USN preferred
air-cooled over liquid-cooled engines.

-Mike Marron


At what point did the USN decide they preferred twin-engined a/c?
What's the evolution of that philosophy? Did it come out of the
sometimes questionable reliability of early turbine powerplants? Before
the advent of jets, was there ever any similar preference expressed for
piston twins?

David Windhorst wrote:
wrote:

And no round engine. Lots of good reasons why the USN preferred
air-cooled over liquid-cooled engines.

At what point did the USN decide they preferred twin-engined a/c?
What's the evolution of that philosophy? Did it come out of the
sometimes questionable reliability of early turbine powerplants? Before
the advent of jets, was there ever any similar preference expressed for
piston twins?

Good questions. The RCAF seems to prefer twin-engined fighters too.

Anyone?

-Mike Marron

wrote:

David Windhorst wrote:

At what point did the USN decide they preferred twin-engined a/c?
What's the evolution of that philosophy? Did it come out of the
sometimes questionable reliability of early turbine powerplants? Before
the advent of jets, was there ever any similar preference expressed for
piston twins?

Good questions. The RCAF seems to prefer twin-engined fighters too.

Anyone?

Since you open it to "anyone" I will point out that the RCAF was
disbanded on 1 February 1968 -- IT CEASED TO EXIST. Please see the
National Defence Act as amended by the Canadian Forces Reorganization
Act, especially Section 14.
http://laws.justice.gc.ca/en/N-5/83413.html#section-14

The money-bag from which Canada buys its aircraft takes into account
many needs, one of which is survival over vast expanses of terrain
with small populations. Two engines would seem to be the ticket. This
significantly reduces the time that the land force spends traipsing
across the tundra looking for lost airmen.
--
Andrew Chaplin
SIT MIHI GLADIUS SICUT SANCTO MARTINO
(If you're going to e-mail me, you'll have to get "yourfinger." out.)

wrote:

David Windhorst wrote:
wrote:

And no round engine. Lots of good reasons why the USN preferred
air-cooled over liquid-cooled engines.

At what point did the USN decide they preferred twin-engined a/c?
What's the evolution of that philosophy? Did it come out of the
sometimes questionable reliability of early turbine powerplants? Before
the advent of jets, was there ever any similar preference expressed for
piston twins?

Good questions. The RCAF seems to prefer twin-engined fighters too.

Anyone?

-Mike Marron

I've heard it mentioned that the reason for that is the
comparatively much greater distances between available airports
in Canada mandating the added reliability of twins.
--

-Gord.

"Gord Beaman" ) wrote:
wrote:

Good questions. The RCAF seems to prefer twin-engined fighters too.

Anyone?

I've heard it mentioned that the reason for that is the
comparatively much greater distances between available airports
in Canada mandating the added reliability of twins.

The USAF's 317th FIS based at Elmendorf AFB (Anchorage, AK) flew
single-engine fighters (F-102's) for 12-years.

-Mike Marron

In article ,
"Mortimer Schnerd, RN" writes:
JStONGE123 wrote:
Why was the P-51 not used on aircraft carriers during WWII? Beside
the obvious no tail hook.....ect.


No tail hook. No extra heavy duty landing gear for carrier "landings". No
folding wing. No need.... the F6F was quite capable in its place.

A liquid cooled engine, with all the plumbing and coolant requirments
that that entails. Wasn't it Admiral Apollo Souchek, or his brother
Zeus, who stated that "Putting a water-cooled engine on a carrier
aircraft is like putting an air-cooled engine in a submarine."

It should be noted that a P-51D was, in fact, fitted with a tailhook,
and did successfully complete a series of traps & takeoffs from a
carrier at sea, late in the war. North Americal also did the same
with a PBJ (Marine Corps B-25)

--
Pete Stickney
A strong conviction that something must be done is the parent of many
bad measures. -- Daniel Webster

Why was the P-51 not used on aircraft carriers during WWII?

Stick and rudder wise.........the F6F was far easier to fly than the P-51.
After having flown one, you could easily see why the Hellcat was an ACE maker,
even if you were an Ensign!!
VL