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

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

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

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