If this is your first visit, be sure to check out the FAQ by clicking the link above. You may have to register before you can post: click the register link above to proceed. To start viewing messages, select the forum that you want to visit from the selection below. |
|
|
Thread Tools | Display Modes |
#1
|
|||
|
|||
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 |
#3
|
|||
|
|||
"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 |
#4
|
|||
|
|||
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 |
#5
|
|||
|
|||
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 |
#6
|
|||
|
|||
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 |
#7
|
|||
|
|||
"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 |
#8
|
|||
|
|||
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 |
#9
|
|||
|
|||
|
#10
|
|||
|
|||
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 |
Thread Tools | |
Display Modes | |
|
|
Similar Threads | ||||
Thread | Thread Starter | Forum | Replies | Last Post |
GPT (Gulfport MS) ILS 14 question | A Lieberman | Instrument Flight Rules | 18 | January 30th 05 04:51 PM |
VOR/DME Approach Question | Chip Jones | Instrument Flight Rules | 47 | August 29th 04 05:03 AM |
Question | Charles S | Home Built | 4 | April 5th 04 09:10 PM |
Tecumseh Engine Mounting Question | jlauer | Home Built | 7 | November 16th 03 01:51 AM |
Question about Question 4488 | [email protected] | Instrument Flight Rules | 3 | October 27th 03 01:26 AM |