Straight deck ops

[Greasy Rider[_1_]]

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Ye6WeW6zYIk&mode=related&search

[Kyle Boatright]

"Greasy Rider" > wrote in message
...
> http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Ye6WeW6zYIk&mode=related&search

It is always interesting to watch film of WWII carrier operations. The
aircrew all had to have big brass ones. Even if you survived combat, you
still had to survive deck landings and those godawful barriers they put up
to punish people who missed the wires. Beyond that, your dead reckoning
navigation had to be decent in order to find the carrier before you ran out
of fuel. Even worse, if that carrier changed course, it could be 150 NM
from where you expected it.

Even getting off the deck was a tough proposition, with the occasional
engine burp, cold cat shot, or defective bridle.

Has anyone seen a source which gives the odds of a WWII carrier pilot
getting wet on any given mission? I'd bet the odds were 1:50 or worse.

KB

[DDAY]

----------
In article >, "Kyle Boatright"
> wrote:

> It is always interesting to watch film of WWII carrier operations. The
> aircrew all had to have big brass ones. Even if you survived combat, you
> still had to survive deck landings and those godawful barriers they put up
> to punish people who missed the wires. Beyond that, your dead reckoning

I once interviewed a guy who had been a Navy test pilot during WWII. He did
not fly combat because of a medical condition (stomach ulcer, with the
prescription being access to a steady supply of milk, which they could not
guarantee on deployment). He flew every plane in the Navy at the time and
did quite a few landings on (I think) the USS Wright on Lake Michigan. May
have also done landings on an East Coast carrier.

Anyway, he said that landings were not as difficult as you would think,
because the stall speed of the planes was low and the carrier at speed meant
that you approached the deck at less than 70 miles per hour in many cases.
He said that landing was in many ways like driving a car onto the deck. He
never flew jets, but he figured that bringing a jet in was much harder
because the approach speed was so fast.

His favorite plane to fly was the F4U Corsair. I cannot remember why. He
described one other plane--I cannot remember which one--as really
interesting to fly because the center of rotation was essentially at the
pilot's seat, meaning that you pretty much turned the plane around you. He
said that one was very easy to fly.





D

[vincent p. norris]

I was too young for WW II but CQed in an SNJ aboard USS Wright off
Pensacola in 1950. Not very different from WW II conditions.

>Even getting off the deck was a tough proposition, with the occasional
>engine burp, cold cat shot, or defective bridle.

Cat shots were infrequent in WW II ops. Even Doolittle's B-25s took
off without benefit of a cat shot. Engines were wound up to full
revs before being released for take-off.

>I once interviewed a guy who had been a Navy test pilot during WWII.......
>He flew every plane in the Navy at the time and did quite a few landings on
>(I think) the USS Wright on Lake Michigan.

That's possible, but I think the two carriers used for CQ on Lake
Michigan were converted lake steamers. One, IIRC, was a side-wheeler.

>Anyway, he said that landings were not as difficult as you would think,
>because the stall speed of the planes was low and the carrier at speed meant
>that you approached the deck at less than 70 miles per hour in many cases.

I would agree, so far as the SNJ is oncerned. After field carrier
practice, a flight of six of us flew out to the boat. We had to get
six "cuts" to qualify. Every one of us, green beginners, got six cuts
for six passes. So it couldn't have been too hard.

Of course, we did it on a sunny day with relative calm seas, not at
night in a storm, with controls shot up.

vince norris

[DDAY]

----------
In article >, vincent p. norris
> wrote:

>>I once interviewed a guy who had been a Navy test pilot during WWII.......
>>He flew every plane in the Navy at the time and did quite a few landings on
>>(I think) the USS Wright on Lake Michigan.
>
> That's possible, but I think the two carriers used for CQ on Lake
> Michigan were converted lake steamers. One, IIRC, was a side-wheeler.

It was one of those. I mixed up the names. They were Wolverine and Sable
and I think he landed on the Sable, flying out of Chicago where he did a lot
of test flights. He said that landing was ultimately unremarkable. Of
course, he was doing it in pristine aircraft in good weather on the Great
Lakes, not in the middle of the Pacific.

Most of what he did was taking up existing aircraft that had received new
equipment. For instance, if the manufacturer had changed the engine design,
he would take it up and see how well it performed. He was also assigned to
one of the paddlewheel carriers for a short time until he got taken out by a
failed arrestor cable and ended up in the hospital for awhile. He's still
alive, but considering his bad luck during WWII, it's amazing that he wasn't
killed 63 years ago.



D

[qui si parla Campagnolo]

Greasy Rider wrote:
> http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Ye6WeW6zYIk&mode=related&search

JJJeeeesussss..

I thought the F-14 was tough to bring aboard. Corsair pilots, very
impressed. Gotta love paddles in shorts too, getting their tan set for
liberty.

[Greasy Rider[_1_]]

On 8 Jan 2007 05:48:43 -0800, "qui si parla Campagnolo"
> postulated :

>I thought the F-14 was tough to bring aboard. Corsair pilots, very
>impressed. Gotta love paddles in shorts too, getting their tan set for
>liberty.

It was my understanding that the Corsair was not an ideal aircraft for
carrier ops because of the limited forward visibility and most were
transferred over the Marines.

[niceguy]

Ah Yes! Those were the days.

"Greasy Rider" > wrote in message
...
> http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Ye6WeW6zYIk&mode=related&search

[Andrew Robert Breen]

In article >,
Greasy Rider > wrote:
>On 8 Jan 2007 05:48:43 -0800, "qui si parla Campagnolo"
> postulated :
>
>>I thought the F-14 was tough to bring aboard. Corsair pilots, very
>>impressed. Gotta love paddles in shorts too, getting their tan set for
>>liberty.
>
>It was my understanding that the Corsair was not an ideal aircraft for
>carrier ops because of the limited forward visibility and most were
>transferred over the Marines.

The early Corsairs - what the RN called the Corsair I - were distinctly
sub-optimal for 'carrier operations: the undercarriage oelos were prone to
bouncing on landing, the unbulged cockpit hood meant that visibility was
restricted and the pilot's head took a beating on landing and - as you say
- forward visibility was restricted (though not much worse than many
V-engined types, such as Firefly or Seafire). The Fleet Air Arm took on
Corsairs as soon as it could get them and very quickly evolved a curving
approach to the deck which meant that forward visibility was not a problem
for landing - this had been done before the first FAA Corsair squadrons
started forming (835 was first, in August 1943): could be that "Winkle"
Brown was responsible? The Corsair Is were still difficult to land -
Norman Hanson makes this very clear in "Carrier Pilot" - and by the time
the Corsair went into action with the RN Eastern Fleet they'd re-equipped
with Corsair IIs (there were also Corsair IIIs - Brewster built - and IVs
from Goodyear). The Corsair II onwards don't seem to have been regarded as
more difficult around the ship than anything else, and the USN seems to
have been happy enough with them once it adopted the FAA style of deck
approach.

--
Andy Breen ~ Not speaking on behalf of the University of Wales, Aberystwyth
Feng Shui: an ancient oriental art for extracting
money from the gullible (Martin Sinclair)

[qui si parla Campagnolo]

Greasy Rider wrote:
> On 8 Jan 2007 05:48:43 -0800, "qui si parla Campagnolo"
> > postulated :
>
> >I thought the F-14 was tough to bring aboard. Corsair pilots, very
> >impressed. Gotta love paddles in shorts too, getting their tan set for
> >liberty.
>
> It was my understanding that the Corsair was not an ideal aircraft for
> carrier ops because of the limited forward visibility and most were
> transferred over the Marines.

All true but it was flown around the boat by a few really good
avaitors, had to be to be able to do it.

[Boomerang]

Prior to Flight Training in '53, I had been a black shoe OOD in USS Block
Island (CVE-106) and had become used to flight ops for a couple of years
involving the AF-2S and AF-2W, each of which had to wiggle and crab even to
taxi by the island they were so big - probably the largest carrier aircraft
in use in those days on the narrowest, shortest CVE decks. As a result,
bringing an SNJ aboard the CVL USS Monterrey seemed like having deck to
spare, but how soon we forget...looking at the video brings it all back.

[Bob McKellar]

"qui si parla Campagnolo" > wrote in message
ups.com...
>
> Greasy Rider wrote:
>> On 8 Jan 2007 05:48:43 -0800, "qui si parla Campagnolo"
>> > postulated :
>>
>> >I thought the F-14 was tough to bring aboard. Corsair pilots, very
>> >impressed. Gotta love paddles in shorts too, getting their tan set for
>> >liberty.
>>
>> It was my understanding that the Corsair was not an ideal aircraft for
>> carrier ops because of the limited forward visibility and most were
>> transferred over the Marines.
>
> All true but it was flown around the boat by a few really good
> avaitors, had to be to be able to do it.
>
A gentleman I know who few Corsairs in the Pacific war said they considered
the Japanese "a minor irritation", compared to the task of getting back
aboard the carrier.

Bob McKellar

[John Carrier]

Corsairs had two probs: Pilot vis over the nose in the early aircraft and
strut bounce. Both were solved after the war (the first only to a degree)
and the aircraft was no more challenging than its contemporaries. Night
work was another matter and when they tried to fly the relatively
underpowered jets of the late forties and early fifties in the same manner,
problems arose. Most Korean war losses were operational, not combat.

Personally, I found the Turkey quite nice around the back end of the boat.
It took flying, but with an approach speed about 10% less than the Phantom
and gobs of lift (and fuel), it was hard to hurt yourself in it. By
comparison, the Phantom was supremely stable and had great response to
thrust, but a few hit the ramp now and then. The F-8 would enact punitive
measures for just a moment's hesitation ... highest mishap rate in the
modern (angled deck, OLS) era.

A comment made at one of the last "Last Crusader Balls:" "You know
Lightning, we're looking at a lot of memorial services that never happened."

R / John

"Bob McKellar" > wrote in message
...
>
> "qui si parla Campagnolo" > wrote in message
> ups.com...
>>
>> Greasy Rider wrote:
>>> On 8 Jan 2007 05:48:43 -0800, "qui si parla Campagnolo"
>>> > postulated :
>>>
>>> >I thought the F-14 was tough to bring aboard. Corsair pilots, very
>>> >impressed. Gotta love paddles in shorts too, getting their tan set for
>>> >liberty.
>>>
>>> It was my understanding that the Corsair was not an ideal aircraft for
>>> carrier ops because of the limited forward visibility and most were
>>> transferred over the Marines.
>>
>> All true but it was flown around the boat by a few really good
>> avaitors, had to be to be able to do it.
>>
> A gentleman I know who few Corsairs in the Pacific war said they
> considered the Japanese "a minor irritation", compared to the task of
> getting back aboard the carrier.
>
> Bob McKellar
>

[J.McEachen]

In August, 1962, Forrestal joined Sixth Fleet and soon we had NATO ops
with Enterprise (this was when John McCain wiped his AD/A-1 oil cooler
on trees or a power line in Spain or Portugal and fouled Enterprise's
flight deck) and I am thinking, Ark Royal, Hermes, and Foch and/or
Clemenceau. We had F4H-2/F-4B's (VF-74 Bedevilers) on their first combat
cruise, and the F-4B's on CAP were soon jumped by French Corsairs, or
vv. the CAP was vectored down low to intercept incoming Corsairs. They
met in the vicinity of Forrestal, and everyone ran to the flight deck to
watch the Corsairs turning way inside, avoiding the Phantom II's which
skidded over the horizon. It was quite a show, the Corsairs could turn
literally on a dime, the Phantom's couldn't get near them. We had a good
number of Korean vet VF- and VA- senior types in Heavy Attack, they
really got excited seeing the Corsairs. Back in the ready room I nearly
got killed when I offered that I thought my Grandpappy flew them.

It was a memorable afternoon. We had cross deck operations with Ark
Royal and Hermes, some of our crewmen spent a few days on them - they
were amazed to see hammocks still in use. It was also when Long Beach
turned unnanounced across Forrestal's bow - even after hard right rudder
and all back emergency, our maintenance crews said men started running
aft on the flight deck, you could have spit down on Long Beach's stern
as she passed just ahead.
Joel McEachen VAH-5


qui si parla Campagnolo wrote:
> Greasy Rider wrote:
>
>>On 8 Jan 2007 05:48:43 -0800, "qui si parla Campagnolo"
> postulated :
>>
>>>I thought the F-14 was tough to bring aboard. Corsair pilots, very
>>>impressed. Gotta love paddles in shorts too, getting their tan set for
>>>liberty.
>>
>>It was my understanding that the Corsair was not an ideal aircraft for
>>carrier ops because of the limited forward visibility and most were
>>transferred over the Marines.
>
> All true but it was flown around the boat by a few really good
> aviators, had to be to be able to do it.

[niceguy]

Never flew on/off the CVE Block Island but flew AFs on/off CVE's Siboney,
Kula Gulf, and Gilbert Islands. As I remember, the AF was advertised as the
largest single recip. engine A/C ever.

"Boomerang" > wrote in message
...
> Prior to Flight Training in '53, I had been a black shoe OOD in USS Block
> Island (CVE-106) and had become used to flight ops for a couple of years
> involving the AF-2S and AF-2W, each of which had to wiggle and crab even
> to taxi by the island they were so big - probably the largest carrier
> aircraft in use in those days on the narrowest, shortest CVE decks. As a
> result, bringing an SNJ aboard the CVL USS Monterrey seemed like having
> deck to spare, but how soon we forget...looking at the video brings it all
> back.
>

[Harriet and John]

Awfully tight squeeze on to one of the two centerline elevators (no
deck-edges), cable barriers, single centerline cat, 557 feet 1 inch roundown
to bow, what a ride!

[vincent p. norris]

>>It was my understanding that the Corsair was not an ideal aircraft for
>>carrier ops because of the limited forward visibility and most were
>>transferred over the Marines.

As a Marine I shouldn't repeat this, but just to show you how
fair-minded we Marines are:

In _The Jolly Rogers_, Tom Blackburn, skipper of VF-17 during WW II,
tells how he insisted on getting F4Us, not F6Fs, for his squadron. It
became, IIRC, the highest-scoring USN squadron.

On one long flight, they had to land on a carrier ro refuel. Although
they hadn't done carrier ops for more than a year, every one of them
got a cut on the first pass.

So there were some pretty good F4U drivers in the Navy, too.

>..... The Fleet Air Arm took on Corsairs as soon as it could get them and very
>quickly evolved a curving approach to the deck which meant that forward visibility
>was not a problem for landing ....

The USN was still using that approach when I CQed in 1950 and, AFAIK,
continued using it till the jets and the "ball" arrived.

vince norris

[Dudley Henriques]

"vincent p. norris" > wrote in message
...
>I was too young for WW II but CQed in an SNJ aboard USS Wright off
> Pensacola in 1950. Not very different from WW II conditions.
>
>>Even getting off the deck was a tough proposition, with the occasional
>>engine burp, cold cat shot, or defective bridle.
>
> Cat shots were infrequent in WW II ops. Even Doolittle's B-25s took
> off without benefit of a cat shot. Engines were wound up to full
> revs before being released for take-off.
>
>>I once interviewed a guy who had been a Navy test pilot during WWII.......
>>He flew every plane in the Navy at the time and did quite a few landings
>>on
>>(I think) the USS Wright on Lake Michigan.
>
> That's possible, but I think the two carriers used for CQ on Lake
> Michigan were converted lake steamers. One, IIRC, was a side-wheeler.
>
>>Anyway, he said that landings were not as difficult as you would think,
>>because the stall speed of the planes was low and the carrier at speed
>>meant
>>that you approached the deck at less than 70 miles per hour in many cases.
>
> I would agree, so far as the SNJ is oncerned. After field carrier
> practice, a flight of six of us flew out to the boat. We had to get
> six "cuts" to qualify. Every one of us, green beginners, got six cuts
> for six passes. So it couldn't have been too hard.
>
> Of course, we did it on a sunny day with relative calm seas, not at
> night in a storm, with controls shot up.
>
> vince norris

As someone who has a bit of time in the F4U and the F8F, I have nothing but
respect for the guys who could put the Corsair on the boat without breaking
their necks. Grumman, being the kind hearted souls they are, and having some
sympathy for the guys who had to see over the nose of their prop fighters,
were good enough to design the cowls with a downward slant so you could at
least see SOMETHING out there in front of you....like the LSO for example.
But I found the Corsair as blind as a bat out front. Of course I never put
one on the boat, but even handling it on the runway could be a chore. You
had two tiny areas at the lower corners of the windshield where you kept the
sides of the runway equalized at touchdown and roll out. I can only imagine
what it must have been like putting one of those things on the boat in the
middle of the night.......or even in daytime for that matter!!
Go Navy!!
Dudley Henriques

[qui si parla Campagnolo]

John Carrier wrote:
> Corsairs had two probs: Pilot vis over the nose in the early aircraft and
> strut bounce. Both were solved after the war (the first only to a degree)
> and the aircraft was no more challenging than its contemporaries. Night
> work was another matter and when they tried to fly the relatively
> underpowered jets of the late forties and early fifties in the same manner,
> problems arose. Most Korean war losses were operational, not combat.
>
> Personally, I found the Turkey quite nice around the back end of the boat.
> It took flying, but with an approach speed about 10% less than the Phantom
> and gobs of lift (and fuel), it was hard to hurt yourself in it. By
> comparison, the Phantom was supremely stable and had great response to
> thrust, but a few hit the ramp now and then. The F-8 would enact punitive
> measures for just a moment's hesitation ... highest mishap rate in the
> modern (angled deck, OLS) era.

I think my disdain for the turkey stems from how tough of a time we had
keeping the things flying. It was pretty comfy around the boat, lots of
fuel, even carrying 1/1/1. BUT I really liked the throttle response of
the F-4, plus the very stable nose and, ya had only a pass or 2 before
you were off to the tanker..so you 'developed' a good boarding rate
early on.....
>
> A comment made at one of the last "Last Crusader Balls:" "You know
> Lightning, we're looking at a lot of memorial services that never happened."
>
> R / John
>
> "Bob McKellar" > wrote in message
> ...
> >
> > "qui si parla Campagnolo" > wrote in message
> > ups.com...
> >>
> >> Greasy Rider wrote:
> >>> On 8 Jan 2007 05:48:43 -0800, "qui si parla Campagnolo"
> >>> > postulated :
> >>>
> >>> >I thought the F-14 was tough to bring aboard. Corsair pilots, very
> >>> >impressed. Gotta love paddles in shorts too, getting their tan set for
> >>> >liberty.
> >>>
> >>> It was my understanding that the Corsair was not an ideal aircraft for
> >>> carrier ops because of the limited forward visibility and most were
> >>> transferred over the Marines.
> >>
> >> All true but it was flown around the boat by a few really good
> >> avaitors, had to be to be able to do it.
> >>
> > A gentleman I know who few Corsairs in the Pacific war said they
> > considered the Japanese "a minor irritation", compared to the task of
> > getting back aboard the carrier.
> >
> > Bob McKellar
> >