P-51 question.

JStONGE123 wrote:

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

From "Duels in the Sky," by Eric Brown:

"Landing the Mustang required concentration, for at an approach speed of 105 mph
the view was bad, and high-rebound-ratio landing gear made a three-point landing
tricky. This state of affairs was exacerbated by the aircraft's lack of
directional stability on the landing run. The U.S. Navy abandoned the Mustang's
deck-landing trials on an aircraft carrier for this reason."

BTW, all USAAF fighters were fitted with catapult spools for at least a while in
the late war years, to allow them to be delivered to bases by flying them off
escort carriers, instead of having to crane them off.

Guy

"Guy Alcala" wrote in message
. ..
JStONGE123 wrote:

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

From "Duels in the Sky," by Eric Brown:

"Landing the Mustang required concentration, for at an approach speed of
105 mph
the view was bad, and high-rebound-ratio landing gear made a three-point
landing
tricky. This state of affairs was exacerbated by the aircraft's lack of
directional stability on the landing run. The U.S. Navy abandoned the
Mustang's
deck-landing trials on an aircraft carrier for this reason."

BTW, all USAAF fighters were fitted with catapult spools for at least a
while in
the late war years, to allow them to be delivered to bases by flying them
off
escort carriers, instead of having to crane them off.

Hi Guy;


HiGuy;


I would agree with Brown, but with a serious caveat !!!! 105 would be the
absolute minimum I'd use, and even that would be at the extreme low end of
the GW range for the airplane, say about 8000 lbs, which is real low for a
combat loaded Stang. At 12000lbs that final approach airspeed has to go up
to somewhere around 135mph or you're courting disaster in a Mustang.

About his comment on rollout, I personally consider the 51 to be just about
the best tailwheel fighter on rollout I've ever flown. It tracks straight as
an arrow. About the visibility problem; at full flaps, it's not all that
bad, but he's right about slowing it down. The more you slow it down on
final, the less you see. At 105, you wouldn't see much !!! :-)))
I agree with Brown generally though. The 51 is NOT the airplane to put on
the boat!!
Dudley Henriques
International Fighter Pilots Fellowship
Commercial Pilot/CFI
Retired

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

Missed most of this thread, BUT the USN had decided to go with aircooled rather
than liquid cooled engines for various reasons.

Oxmoron1
MFE

(ArtKramr) wrote:

"All single engine aircraft go into automatic rough when
out of sight of land". The is supposedly a true story, If
it isn't, it should be. (grin)

An old wives tail, Art. I've flown thousands of miles over water in
single-engine planes and each flight was a non-event (well, except
for one time when the nosegear malfuctioned while flying down in the
Keys). Anyway, flying over water is safe enough. Crashing into the
water gets a little tedious at times, though.

-Mike Marron

wrote:
An old wives tail, Art. I've flown thousands of miles over water in
single-engine planes and each flight was a non-event (well, except
for one time when the nosegear malfuctioned while flying down in the
Keys). Anyway, flying over water is safe enough. Crashing into the
water gets a little tedious at times, though.


I've got a couple of hundred hours flying over water in single engines. My
theory has always been that the airplane doesn't know what it's over. Never
tried ditching, though I have managed to crash twice. And as I think about it,
I've had three engines quit over water (once at night). Luckily, I was able to
get a restart each time. No need for seatbelts; I had a cheeklock on the seat
that wouldn't quit.

As a matter of fact, I had a twin engine flameout in nighttime IFR conditions
over the Appalachian Mountains once. My fault, really... I fell asleep while I
was on the aux tanks. I woke up pretty damned quick after the first one quit.
Sad to say, the second one quit before I got the first one restarted. After I
got them both going again, I had time to marvel on how close I had them leaned.
You have to find the good wherever you can.

Now I work with HIV patients as a nurse, so I can be safe.


--
Mortimer Schnerd, RN


http://www.mortimerschnerd.com

1950s P2V Neptunes. No jets. Alameda to Hawaii. 12 hour flight. Maybe 3
hours of "single engine time" during which if one engine goes, you're too heavy
with fuel to make land, but if you discharge enough fuel to stay airborne, you
haven't enough fuel to make land. Catch 22. There are a couple of
possibilities ("ground" effect for one) but essentially you are a single engine
aircraft - - with two engines. With greater than twice the chance of engine
failure. Scary.

Quent

unists (JStONGE123) wrote:

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

Actually it was tested in early 1944. One P-51D was modified at the
factory with strengthened inboard wing panels, a taller fin and
rudder, strengthening of the upper wing panels. It was tested making
simulated deck landings quite successfully.

Another P-51D was fitted with a tail hook and some strengthening in
the tail area. Test catapult launches in Philadelphia were so
successful that follow up tests were canceled.

In November 1944, flight tests were conducted off of Norfolk using the
USS Shangrila. 5 landings and takeoffs were conducted. The takeoffs
were using 700' mark, 600' mark and 250' mark. All successful.

With the aircraft at max gross weight, the run out on landing was 82'.

North American did a series of design studies designated P-51H that
included an arrestor hook and folding wingtips.

Comparative trials were flown between the Corsair F4U-1 and 1A and a
P-51B. The most telling points, the Corsair had the same range as the
Mustang but twice the firepower. The Corsair was faster than the P-51B
up to 24,500 feet. Above that the Mustang had the edge.

The Corsairs had a better climb rate to 20,000 feet and better level
flight acceleration.

Anyway, there's quite a bit more to the critiques, but the bottom line
was that the Navy elected to stay with the aircraft it was already
using in spite of the fact that the Mustang did show a lot of promise.

There's quite a bit of information about this in "The North American
Mustang" by M.J. Hardy.

I've put two pictures of the plane landing on the Shangrila at
http://home.mindspring.com/~scottp4/p51/





Scott Peterson


Santa's elves are just a bunch of subordinate Clauses.