Navalized P-38 Lightning?

"Krztalizer" wrote in message
...
Also, P-47s and other "ground-based" aircraft were ferried to war zones
and
then launched from carriers. I have a great photo of a herd of P-47s
preparing
for such a launch. Also, US operated Hurricanes off carriers, I think
during
Torch...? I saw a photo of a US-marked Hurri on a beach in NA, getting
manhandled into position for a takeoff attempt after it was forced down in
the
middle of the US invasion troops.

Way back when Wings was on the Discovery channel instead of being a channel
(that I don't get) they had one episode that was basicly the P-47 in the
PTO.
That episode had a fair amount of footage showing Jugs being catapulted off
a carrier.

"John Keeney" wrote in message
...

Way back when Wings was on the Discovery channel instead of
being a channel (that I don't get) they had one episode that was
basicly the P-47 in the PTO. That episode had a fair amount of
footage showing Jugs being catapulted off a carrier.


Are you sure they were catapulted and not simply flown off?

"Steven P. McNicoll" wrote:

"John Keeney" wrote in message
...

Way back when Wings was on the Discovery channel instead of
being a channel (that I don't get) they had one episode that was
basicly the P-47 in the PTO. That episode had a fair amount of
footage showing Jugs being catapulted off a carrier.


Are you sure they were catapulted and not simply flown off?

From at least 1944 on, all American fighters were equipped for or with
catapult hooks, so they could be air-delivered to forward airfields by
CVEs. In the specific case of the P-47, I'm guessing you'd need about
a 50-60 knot WoD to make a successful free take-off from a CVE.
Checking "America's Hundred Thousand," it lists the P-47C takeoff run
with full internal fuel and ammo (13,582 lb.) @ SL, zero wind, hard
surface runway, and t/o power, as 2,220 ft. Here they are, in order
of shortest to longest takeoff run in the above conditions, in feet:

P-40E, 1,070.

P-38J, 1,080.

P-51D, 1,185*

P-51A, 1,415.

P-39Q-1, 1,650.

P-63A, 1,700.

P-39D-2, 1,750.

P-40N-1, 1,760.

P-47C, 2,220.

P-61B, 2,420.

P-47D-25, 2,540.

*I have serious doubts about this being correct, and suspect it's a
typo. The P-51D weighs over 1,500 lb. more than the P-51A (albeit
with considerably more power and a four-bladed prop), and I just don't
believe that it's better than, e.g., the P-63A.

Now here's the navy fighters, same conditions:

F2A-3, 620.

F4U-4, 630.

F4F-3A, 650.

F4F-3, 690.

F4F-4, 710.

F4U-1 (early), 750.

F6F-5, 780.

F4U-1D, 840.

F6F-3, 950*

I suspect this is another typo. There's no obvious reason why the
slightly lighter F6F-3 should be so much worse than the F6F-5, even if
there was some increase in t/o power with the latter, and I don't
think there was. I'd also expect the F6F to have better t/o
performance than the F4U-1 and 1D.

As you'd expect, the Army fighters require considerably longer t/o
runs than the navy ones, with the P-47 bringing up the rear. checking
various navy S.A.C. charts, a WoD of 25 knots cuts the (deck) t/o run
to a bit less than half of the zero wind run, i.e. the F6F-5 drops
from 799 to 384 ft. and the F4U-4 from 790 to 377 ft. Assuming the
same % decrease for the P-47, it still would need a run of 1,000 ft.+
with 25 knots WoD. The a/c would normally be much lighter for a
delivery flight, but still, CVE flight decks allowed 450 ft. runs at
the outside. In other words, it's extremely unlikely that a P-47
could make a free run deck takeoff from a CVE.

Guy

In article ,
wrote:


P-47C, 2,220.


P-47D-25, 2,540.

Very interesting post Guy.
Question, I Thought the D-25 had a much more powerful engine and the 4
blade prop.
Is it that much heavier that it has a longer take-off roll than a C model?

I've always been interested in the P-47. Big P-47 AAF base in my hometown.

--
Harry Andreas
Engineering raconteur

Harry Andreas wrote:

In article ,
wrote:

P-47C, 2,220.


P-47D-25, 2,540.

Very interesting post Guy.
Question, I Thought the D-25 had a much more powerful engine and the 4
blade prop.

Both had 4-blade props, although the D-25 had the paddleblade prop. I don't
think the t/o power was substantially different (Pete Stickney undoubtedly has
the numbers), just the D-25 had water injection for a W.E. rating.

Is it that much heavier that it has a longer take-off roll than a C model?

P-47C (block unstated), 13,582 lb. P-47D-25, 14,411 lb., 829 lb. difference or
a 6.1% increase.

Guy

In article ,
Guy Alcala writes:
Harry Andreas wrote:

In article ,
wrote:

P-47C, 2,220.


P-47D-25, 2,540.

Very interesting post Guy.
Question, I Thought the D-25 had a much more powerful engine and the 4
blade prop.

Both had 4-blade props, although the D-25 had the paddleblade prop. I don't
think the t/o power was substantially different (Pete Stickney undoubtedly has
the numbers), just the D-25 had water injection for a W.E. rating.

A quick search tells me that there isn't any real difference. The
-21, -57 and -63 were all Factory TSB1 models. The only differences
were the water injection kits on the -57 adn -63, and a different
ignition harness on the -63.
Dry ratings certainly won't be any different.
The first big change in P-47 engine ratings was when the 'C' series
engines were introduced on the P-47M and N models.


Is it that much heavier that it has a longer take-off roll than a C model?

P-47C (block unstated), 13,582 lb. P-47D-25, 14,411 lb., 829 lb. difference or
a 6.1% increase.

I'm not certain wht the effect would be. A lot depends on the
propeller efficiency at low speeds, as well.

As a side note - I've had some mail server problems (House server),
and soem connectivity problems. It's likely that my attention will be
a bit spotty for the next week or so.

Guy, did you get the F-102 stuff I sent?

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

Peter Stickney wrote:

In article ,
Guy Alcala writes:
Harry Andreas wrote:

In article ,
wrote:

P-47C, 2,220.


P-47D-25, 2,540.

Very interesting post Guy.
Question, I Thought the D-25 had a much more powerful engine and the 4
blade prop.

Both had 4-blade props, although the D-25 had the paddleblade prop. I don't
think the t/o power was substantially different (Pete Stickney undoubtedly has
the numbers), just the D-25 had water injection for a W.E. rating.

A quick search tells me that there isn't any real difference. The
-21, -57 and -63 were all Factory TSB1 models. The only differences
were the water injection kits on the -57 adn -63, and a different
ignition harness on the -63.
Dry ratings certainly won't be any different.

That's what I thought, although I had a vague memory that some models were rated at
2,100 vs. 2,000 hp.

snip

As a side note - I've had some mail server problems (House server),
and soem connectivity problems. It's likely that my attention will be
a bit spotty for the next week or so.

Guy, did you get the F-102 stuff I sent?

Nope, haven't seen anything. What day did you send it? It's possible that I deleted
it unwittingly as Spam, but I check the senders and subjects (fairly quickly) before
they go to the trash.

Guy

"Guy Alcala" wrote in message
. ..

From at least 1944 on, all American fighters were equipped for or with
catapult hooks, so they could be air-delivered to forward airfields by
CVEs.


I've never heard of that, do you have a reference?



In the specific case of the P-47, I'm guessing you'd need about
a 50-60 knot WoD to make a successful free take-off from a CVE.
Checking "America's Hundred Thousand," it lists the P-47C takeoff run
with full internal fuel and ammo (13,582 lb.) @ SL, zero wind, hard
surface runway, and t/o power, as 2,220 ft.


That may be, but there'd be no need to takeoff with full internal fuel and
ammo just to deliver the airplane.

"Steven P. McNicoll" wrote:

"Guy Alcala" wrote in message
. ..

From at least 1944 on, all American fighters were equipped for or with
catapult hooks, so they could be air-delivered to forward airfields by
CVEs.


I've never heard of that, do you have a reference?


In the specific case of the P-47, I'm guessing you'd need about
a 50-60 knot WoD to make a successful free take-off from a CVE.
Checking "America's Hundred Thousand," it lists the P-47C takeoff run
with full internal fuel and ammo (13,582 lb.) @ SL, zero wind, hard
surface runway, and t/o power, as 2,220 ft.


That may be, but there'd be no need to takeoff with full internal fuel and
ammo just to deliver the airplane.

Which I mentioned in my post. Depending on how far away they were at launch,
and the tactical situation at the landing field, they could be carrying a
variable amount of fuel and ammo. I still very much doubt that a P-47 could
make a running t/o from a CVE under likely WoD conditions (the ships
themselves were only good for about 18 kts), no matter how light it was. High
enough winds that would allow a running takeoff would most likely occur with
sea states that would cause flight ops to be shut down owing to ship pitch,
roll and yaw.

Guy

"Steven P. McNicoll" wrote:

"Guy Alcala" wrote in message
. ..

From at least 1944 on, all American fighters were equipped for or with
catapult hooks, so they could be air-delivered to forward airfields by
CVEs.


I've never heard of that, do you have a reference?

snip

From Friedman's "Carrier Air Power," pp 98-9:

"Catapults also made possible the delivery of land-based fighters by escort
carriers; . . . .The first such delivery occurred during the North African
invasion [Guy: P-40Fs IIRR], when paratroopers captured an airfield, and the
techique was particularly common in the Pacific. Thus by the end of the war
all Mustangs and Thunderbolts assigned to the Pacific received their
(removable) catapult fittings on the assembly line. The United States
continued to use escort carriers for aircraft delivery postwar, and indeed
continued to experiment with catapult fittings for land jet fighters. However
by the early 1950s even light fighters required such powerful catapults that
existing transport carriers had to be reduced to carrying their aircraft
cocooned on deck, and all had their catapults removed in 1952."

Guy