Navalized P-38 Lightning?

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

"Steven P. McNicoll" wrote in message
link.net...

"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?

What I saw, they used a catapult. They showed a fair amount
of footage hooking them up and talked about the rate they
launched them; I don't recall the number but I was impressed
and though it compared favorably with modern carrier ops.

"Thomdenton" wrote in message
...

Actually only four. BuNos 01209-01212. Correct designation was FO.


It appears four is the correct number. Angelucci and Bowers state "10 F-5Bs
given by the USAAF to the U.S.Navy. New serial numbers: 01209/01212." I
assume the authors could count and it's a publisher's error.

But the correct designation was indeed FO-1. In the Navy's pre-1962
designation system all aircraft had a series number, -1 in this case, even
if there was only one series, as in this case. Note that that's not
consistent with the manufacturer's model number. The first model of a basic
mission type by a particular manufacturer had no model number. As an
example, the first Navy fighter built by Grumman was the FF-1, the second
was the F2F-1.

"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.

"John Keeney" wrote in message
...

What I saw, they used a catapult. They showed a fair amount
of footage hooking them up and talked about the rate they
launched them; I don't recall the number but I was impressed
and though it compared favorably with modern carrier ops.


If they showed it I accept it. "Wings" has a lot of good footage, but the
narration tends to be rather poor. The narrator frequently refers to the 50
millimeter machine guns on US aircraft of WWII.

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

"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

Guy Alcala wrote:

Peter Stickney wrote:

snip

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.

Which reminds me, have you seen the F-104A and F-105B "Phase II Flight Evaluation" files
at Stinet? Good Stuff. Unfortunately, I don't seem to qualify under any of the
appropriate categories to order any of the stuff that isn't online (maybe I can become a
student at a Historically Black College), so I can't get my hands on "A Comparative
Analysis of USAF
Fixed-Wing Aircraft Losses in Southeast Asia Combat", record number ADC016682.

Guy