Navalized P-38 Lightning?

[Steven Wagner]

Was there a navalized version of the P-38 Lightning?

Or is it just wishful thinking?

Thanks.

[Jim Herring]

Steven Wagner wrote:

> Was there a navalized version of the P-38 Lightning?

Nope. Think of where you would put the tailhook. Don't even think about
putting on the aft wing (I don't know what you call it). If you put it
on the fuselage you're sure to break the tail as it dips down

Also the USN and the USAAF were fighting for resources. No way they
would share combat aircraft. Transports are another story.

> Or is it just wishful thinking?

Yeap.



--
Jim

carry on




----== Posted via Newsfeed.Com - Unlimited-Uncensored-Secure Usenet News==----
http://www.newsfeed.com The #1 Newsgroup Service in the World! >100,000 Newsgroups
---= 19 East/West-Coast Specialized Servers - Total Privacy via Encryption =---

[Chad Irby]

In article >, Jim Herring >
wrote:

> Steven Wagner wrote:
>
> > Was there a navalized version of the P-38 Lightning?
>
> Nope. Think of where you would put the tailhook. Don't even think about
> putting on the aft wing (I don't know what you call it). If you put it
> on the fuselage you're sure to break the tail as it dips down
>
> Also the USN and the USAAF were fighting for resources. No way they
> would share combat aircraft. Transports are another story.
>
> > Or is it just wishful thinking?
>
> Yeap.

Sorta.

Lockheed suggested a naval version of the P-38, arrestor hook and all,
but it never got past the paper stage.

And the USN *did* own a few photo recon P-38s, used from ground-based
runways only.

--
cirby at cfl.rr.com

Remember: Objects in rearview mirror may be hallucinations.
Slam on brakes accordingly.

[B2431]

>From: Jim Herring
>>
>Steven Wagner wrote:
>
>> Was there a navalized version of the P-38 Lightning?
>
>Nope. Think of where you would put the tailhook. Don't even think about
>putting on the aft wing (I don't know what you call it). If you put it
>on the fuselage you're sure to break the tail as it dips down
>
>Also the USN and the USAAF were fighting for resources. No way they
>would share combat aircraft. Transports are another story.
>

The Navy used B-25s. The Navy designation was PBJ-1.

Dan, U.S. Air Force, retired

[ANDREW ROBERT BREEN]

In article >, Jim Herring > wrote:
>Steven Wagner wrote:
>
>> Was there a navalized version of the P-38 Lightning?
>
>Nope. Think of where you would put the tailhook. Don't even think about
>putting on the aft wing (I don't know what you call it). If you put it
>on the fuselage you're sure to break the tail as it dips down

Actually, that's not an insuperable problem. Think De Havilland Sea
Vampire, Sea Venom and Sea Vixen..

--
Andy Breen ~ Interplanetary Scintillation Research Group
http://users.aber.ac.uk/azb/
"Time has stopped, says the Black Lion clock
and eternity has begun" (Dylan Thomas)

[Steven P. McNicoll]

"Steven Wagner" > wrote in message
nk.net...
>
> Was there a navalized version of the P-38 Lightning?
>

No.


>
> Or is it just wishful thinking?
>

What wish?

[Steven P. McNicoll]

"Jim Herring" > wrote in message
...
>
> Nope. Think of where you would put the tailhook. Don't even think
> about putting on the aft wing (I don't know what you call it).
>

Horizontal stabilizer. If you know so little of aircraft that you don't
even know basis nomenclature how do you know the horizontal stabilizer is a
bad place for a tailhook?


>
> If you put it
> on the fuselage you're sure to break the tail as it dips down
>

Placing it on the fuselage would put it near the main gear.


>
> Also the USN and the USAAF were fighting for resources. No way they
> would share combat aircraft. Transports are another story.
>

They navalized a P-51.

[Steven P. McNicoll]

"B2431" > wrote in message
...
>
> The Navy used B-25s. The Navy designation was PBJ-1.
>

The Navy used many Army aircraft.

[Steven P. McNicoll]

"Chad Irby" > wrote in message
.. .
>
> Lockheed suggested a naval version of the P-38, arrestor hook and all,
> but it never got past the paper stage.
>

Never heard of such a thing. Have you got a reference for that?


>
> And the USN *did* own a few photo recon P-38s, used from
> ground-based runways only.
>

Yup. Ten F-5Bs acquired from the Army and designated FO-1.

[Chad Irby]

In article . net>,
"Steven P. McNicoll" > wrote:

> "Chad Irby" > wrote in message
> .. .
> >
> > Lockheed suggested a naval version of the P-38, arrestor hook and all,
> > but it never got past the paper stage.
>
> Never heard of such a thing. Have you got a reference for that?

I've read about it in several books over the years, but here's a Web
site that mentions it:

<http://home.att.net/~jbaugher1/p38_19.html>

--
cirby at cfl.rr.com

Remember: Objects in rearview mirror may be hallucinations.
Slam on brakes accordingly.

[frank may]

(ANDREW ROBERT BREEN) wrote in message >...
> In article >, Jim Herring > wrote:
> >Steven Wagner wrote:
> >
> >> Was there a navalized version of the P-38 Lightning?
> >
> >Nope. Think of where you would put the tailhook. Don't even think about
> >putting on the aft wing (I don't know what you call it). If you put it
> >on the fuselage you're sure to break the tail as it dips down
>
> Actually, that's not an insuperable problem. Think De Havilland Sea
> Vampire, Sea Venom and Sea Vixen..

Actually, the Navy used a lot of USAAF combat types, tho not from
carriers. P-59, P-61, even tested a P-51 from a carrier, or at least
simulated, & B-24s & B-17s & B-29s as well as the P-38 & B-25
mentioned.

[Matt Wiser]

"Steven P. McNicoll" > wrote:
>
>"Jim Herring" > wrote in message
...
>>
>> Nope. Think of where you would put the tailhook.
>Don't even think
>> about putting on the aft wing (I don't know
>what you call it).
>>
>
>Horizontal stabilizer. If you know so little
>of aircraft that you don't
>even know basis nomenclature how do you know
>the horizontal stabilizer is a
>bad place for a tailhook?
>
>
>>
>> If you put it
>> on the fuselage you're sure to break the tail
>as it dips down
>>
>
>Placing it on the fuselage would put it near
>the main gear.
>
>
>>
>> Also the USN and the USAAF were fighting for
>resources. No way they
>> would share combat aircraft. Transports are
>another story.
>>
>
>They navalized a P-51.
>
>

That was the Seahorse P-51. Wasn't it tested as a backup to the Corsair because
of the F4U's carrier problems in the USN? Or was it another reason altogether?



Posted via www.My-Newsgroups.com - web to news gateway for usenet access!

[Krztalizer]

Also, P-47s and other "ground-based" aircraft were ferried to war zones and
then launched from carriers. I have a great photo of a herd of P-47s preparing
for such a launch. Also, US operated Hurricanes off carriers, I think during
Torch...? I saw a photo of a US-marked Hurri on a beach in NA, getting
manhandled into position for a takeoff attempt after it was forced down in the
middle of the US invasion troops.

v/r
Gordon
<====(A+C====>
USN SAR

Donate your memories - write a note on the back and send your old photos to a
reputable museum, don't take them with you when you're gone.

[Keith Willshaw]

"Krztalizer" > wrote in message
...
> Also, P-47s and other "ground-based" aircraft were ferried to war zones
and
> then launched from carriers. I have a great photo of a herd of P-47s
preparing
> for such a launch. Also, US operated Hurricanes off carriers, I think
during
> Torch...? I saw a photo of a US-marked Hurri on a beach in NA, getting
> manhandled into position for a takeoff attempt after it was forced down in
the
> middle of the US invasion troops.
>

US carriers launched RAF and Hurricanes on Malta resupply missions
and IRC at least one managed to land on without the benefit of
arrester gear after his aircraft developed a problem.

Keith

[ANDREW ROBERT BREEN]

In article >,
frank may > wrote:
(ANDREW ROBERT BREEN) wrote in message >...
>> In article >, Jim Herring > wrote:
>> >Steven Wagner wrote:
>> >
>> >> Was there a navalized version of the P-38 Lightning?
>> >
>> >Nope. Think of where you would put the tailhook. Don't even think about
>> >putting on the aft wing (I don't know what you call it). If you put it
>> >on the fuselage you're sure to break the tail as it dips down
>>
>> Actually, that's not an insuperable problem. Think De Havilland Sea
>> Vampire, Sea Venom and Sea Vixen..
>
> Actually, the Navy used a lot of USAAF combat types, tho not from
>carriers. P-59, P-61, even tested a P-51 from a carrier, or at least
>simulated, & B-24s & B-17s & B-29s as well as the P-38 & B-25
>mentioned.

Not many of them were twin boom/twin tail though :)
The reason I mentioned Vamp, Ven and Vix were that they all shared the
short fuselage page/twin boom layout of the lightning, albeit with
more advanced engines...
And, in the case of the Vixen, much more weight. If the DH110 could
be made carrier-capable, so could the P38 (given enough work, money
and added weight)

--
Andy Breen ~ Interplanetary Scintillation Research Group
http://users.aber.ac.uk/azb/
"Time has stopped, says the Black Lion clock
and eternity has begun" (Dylan Thomas)

[Thomdenton]

>Yup. Ten F-5Bs acquired from the Army and designated FO-1.

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

[John Keeney]

"Krztalizer" > wrote in message
...
> Also, P-47s and other "ground-based" aircraft were ferried to war zones
and
> then launched from carriers. I have a great photo of a herd of P-47s
preparing
> for such a launch. Also, US operated Hurricanes off carriers, I think
during
> Torch...? I saw a photo of a US-marked Hurri on a beach in NA, getting
> manhandled into position for a takeoff attempt after it was forced down in
the
> middle of the US invasion troops.

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.

[Steven P. McNicoll]

"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?

[Guy Alcala]

"Steven P. McNicoll" wrote:

> "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?

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. 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. Here they are, in order
of shortest to longest takeoff run in the above conditions, in feet:

P-40E, 1,070.

P-38J, 1,080.

P-51D, 1,185*

P-51A, 1,415.

P-39Q-1, 1,650.

P-63A, 1,700.

P-39D-2, 1,750.

P-40N-1, 1,760.

P-47C, 2,220.

P-61B, 2,420.

P-47D-25, 2,540.

*I have serious doubts about this being correct, and suspect it's a
typo. The P-51D weighs over 1,500 lb. more than the P-51A (albeit
with considerably more power and a four-bladed prop), and I just don't
believe that it's better than, e.g., the P-63A.

Now here's the navy fighters, same conditions:

F2A-3, 620.

F4U-4, 630.

F4F-3A, 650.

F4F-3, 690.

F4F-4, 710.

F4U-1 (early), 750.

F6F-5, 780.

F4U-1D, 840.

F6F-3, 950*

I suspect this is another typo. There's no obvious reason why the
slightly lighter F6F-3 should be so much worse than the F6F-5, even if
there was some increase in t/o power with the latter, and I don't
think there was. I'd also expect the F6F to have better t/o
performance than the F4U-1 and 1D.

As you'd expect, the Army fighters require considerably longer t/o
runs than the navy ones, with the P-47 bringing up the rear. checking
various navy S.A.C. charts, a WoD of 25 knots cuts the (deck) t/o run
to a bit less than half of the zero wind run, i.e. the F6F-5 drops
from 799 to 384 ft. and the F4U-4 from 790 to 377 ft. Assuming the
same % decrease for the P-47, it still would need a run of 1,000 ft.+
with 25 knots WoD. The a/c would normally be much lighter for a
delivery flight, but still, CVE flight decks allowed 450 ft. runs at
the outside. In other words, it's extremely unlikely that a P-47
could make a free run deck takeoff from a CVE.

Guy

[Harry Andreas]

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.
Is it that much heavier that it has a longer take-off roll than a C model?

I've always been interested in the P-47. Big P-47 AAF base in my hometown.

--
Harry Andreas
Engineering raconteur

[Guy Alcala]

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

[Peter Stickney]

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

[John Keeney]

"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.

[Steven P. McNicoll]

"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.

[Steven P. McNicoll]

"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.

[Steven P. McNicoll]

"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.

[Guy Alcala]

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

[Guy Alcala]

"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

[Guy Alcala]

"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]

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

[Peter Stickney]

In article >,
Guy Alcala > writes:
> 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.

The 2100 HP engines would be the 'C' series engines.
>
> <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.

I'll resend, both to you, and to Dan Ford, as of 23:30 EST

--
Pete Stickney
A strong conviction that something must be done is the parent of many
bad measures. -- Daniel Webster

[Peter Stickney]

In article >,
Guy Alcala > writes:
> 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.

Oh, yeah! I've got the Phase II reports on teh F-104A, the F-101A, and
teh F-195B, _and_ all the stuff on the RB-57A and the B-57B, and
everything ever reported on the XC-120 ('cause the Germans can't be
weird enough) And about a zillion other things, too.
I haven't checked through the applicable categories, yet.
They've got the Operational Suitability tests for various F-86s there,
and the Project Gunval reports, as well.

They keep digitizing stuff all the time, as well. I just printed off
the German wind tunnel data reports on cleanup efforts for the Me 262.
Perhaps I can translate it into English for the Rootin' Teuton.

--
Pete Stickney
A strong conviction that something must be done is the parent of many
bad measures. -- Daniel Webster

[Guy Alcala]

Peter Stickney wrote:

> In article >,
> Guy Alcala > writes:
> > 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.
>
> Oh, yeah! I've got the Phase II reports on teh F-104A, the F-101A, and
> teh F-195B, _and_ all the stuff on the RB-57A and the B-57B, and
> everything ever reported on the XC-120 ('cause the Germans can't be
> weird enough) And about a zillion other things, too.
> I haven't checked through the applicable categories, yet.
> They've got the Operational Suitability tests for various F-86s there,
> and the Project Gunval reports, as well.

I know, and I don't qualify for access to any of the F-86 stuff either. But I'd _really_ like
to get ahold of the Fixed-wing losses study, as I've been looking for years for a statistical
comparison of F-105 and F-4 losses by cause, and that's just what that includes, according to
the citation.

Guy

[Guy Alcala]

Peter Stickney wrote:

> In article >,
> Guy Alcala > writes:
> > 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.
>
> The 2100 HP engines would be the 'C' series engines.
> >
> > <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.
>
> I'll resend, both to you, and to Dan Ford, as of 23:30 EST

H'mm, nothing's shown up (other than Spam) as of 22:05 PST -> 01:05 EST.

Guy

[Peter Stickney]

In article >,
Guy Alcala > writes:
> Peter Stickney wrote:
>
>> In article >,
>> Guy Alcala > writes:
>> > 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.
>>
>> The 2100 HP engines would be the 'C' series engines.
>> >
>> > <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.
>>
>> I'll resend, both to you, and to Dan Ford, as of 23:30 EST
>
> H'mm, nothing's shown up (other than Spam) as of 22:05 PST -> 01:05 EST.

Odd. Try dropping me a line at:

and I'll piggyback on your return address.


--
Pete Stickney
A strong conviction that something must be done is the parent of many
bad measures. -- Daniel Webster

[Lawrence Dillard]

See Warren Bodie's work on the P-38 for mention of this proposal.

"Steven P. McNicoll" > wrote in message
link.net...
>
> "Chad Irby" > wrote in message
> .. .
> >
> > Lockheed suggested a naval version of the P-38, arrestor hook and all,
> > but it never got past the paper stage.
> >
>
> Never heard of such a thing. Have you got a reference for that?
>
>
> >
> > And the USN *did* own a few photo recon P-38s, used from
> > ground-based runways only.
> >
>
> Yup. Ten F-5Bs acquired from the Army and designated FO-1.
>
>

[Steven P. McNicoll]

"Lawrence Dillard" > wrote in message
...
>
> See Warren Bodie's work on the P-38 for mention of this proposal.
>

What page?

[Scott Peterson]

Guy Alcala > wrote:

>
>*I have serious doubts about this being correct, and suspect it's a
>typo. The P-51D weighs over 1,500 lb. more than the P-51A (albeit
>with considerably more power and a four-bladed prop), and I just don't
>believe that it's better than, e.g., the P-63A.

Now go back and look at the numbers for the B-25.....and yet they were
able to take off with less than half the flight deck.

In point of fact, the Navy conducted flight tests using a slightly
modified P-51D (I think) on USS Shangrila in 1944. The plane was
easily able to take off using the same space as Navy fighters and no
catapult and easily landed using a hook fitted for the tests. The
results were quite favorable but not compelling enough to continue.

Scott Peterson

--
God must love stupid
people, he made so many.

69/570

[Guy Alcala]

Scott Peterson wrote:

> Guy Alcala > wrote:
>
> >
> >*I have serious doubts about this being correct, and suspect it's a
> >typo. The P-51D weighs over 1,500 lb. more than the P-51A (albeit
> >with considerably more power and a four-bladed prop), and I just don't
> >believe that it's better than, e.g., the P-63A.
>
> Now go back and look at the numbers for the B-25.....and yet they were
> able to take off with less than half the flight deck.

Certainly. I'll have to use the figures for the PBJ-1H, essentially the
marine version of the B-25H. With a bombload of 6 x 500 lb bombs plus the
75mm cannon and ammo, at a t/o weight of 35,106 lb. (considerably heavier
than Doolittle's B-25Bs), the t/o runs are as follows (note, this is for a
field not a carrier deck):

0 wind, 1495 feet.
15 knots, 1064 feet.
25 knots, 813 feet.

Please note that the Hornet was worked up to just about full speed, i.e.
30+ knots, and there was a considerable natural wind blowing when Doolittle
& Co. took off. Even so, at least some of them dipped below the flight
deck after takeoff (an advantage from a carrier deck, which is why carrier
takeoffs can be made from slightly shorter runs than under the same
conditions on land). Oh, and less than half the flight deck of the 32 kt.
Hornet is just about the maximum available t/o run of an 18 kt. CVE.

> In point of fact, the Navy conducted flight tests using a slightly
> modified P-51D (I think) on USS Shangrila in 1944. The plane was
> easily able to take off using the same space as Navy fighters

And how, pray tell, was it able to "take off using the same space as a navy
fighter," when (even assuming the '1,185 ft.' figure for the P-51D's t/o
run given in "America's Hundred Thousand," is _not_ a typo) the
contemporary F6F-5 and F4U-1D only required t/o runs under the same
conditions of 780 ft. (405 feet less than the P-51D) and 840 feet (345 feet
less) respectively?

> and no
> catapult and easily landed using a hook fitted for the tests. The
> results were quite favorable but not compelling enough to continue.

'Quite favorable' is an interesting way of putting it. Eric Brown's
comments are rather different:

"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
these reasons."

All of which makes the later Corsair sound like a great deck-landing a/c by
comparison. But what, exactly, does this digression have to do with the
ability of a P-47 to make a non-catapult take off from a Casablanca or
Bogue class CVE that's only allows roughly half the t/o run, and is 15
knots slower than the Shangri-La?

Guy

[Scott Peterson]

Guy Alcala > wrote:

>Certainly. I'll have to use the figures for the PBJ-1H, essentially the
>marine version of the B-25H. With a bombload of 6 x 500 lb bombs plus the
>75mm cannon and ammo, at a t/o weight of 35,106 lb. (considerably heavier
>than Doolittle's B-25Bs), the t/o runs are as follows (note, this is for a
>field not a carrier deck):
>
>0 wind, 1495 feet.
>15 knots, 1064 feet.
>25 knots, 813 feet.
>
Nice of you to use a version that's almost 7000 pounds heavier.

>Please note that the Hornet was worked up to just about full speed, i.e.
>30+ knots, and there was a considerable natural wind blowing when Doolittle
>& Co. took off.

Glad it wasn't an unnatural wind. But so what? From what I remember
they were anticipating and trained based on about 40 knots over the
bow when they took off. That they got more was a bonus.

>
>> In point of fact, the Navy conducted flight tests using a slightly
>> modified P-51D (I think) on USS Shangrila in 1944. The plane was
>> easily able to take off using the same space as Navy fighters
>
>And how, pray tell, was it able to "take off using the same space as a navy
>fighter," when (even assuming the '1,185 ft.' figure for the P-51D's t/o
>run given in "America's Hundred Thousand," is _not_ a typo) the
>contemporary F6F-5 and F4U-1D only required t/o runs under the same
>conditions of 780 ft. (405 feet less than the P-51D) and 840 feet (345 feet
>less) respectively?
>

Apparenttly very easily. If you read the rest of the report you quote
below it mentions that they had deck left when they lifted on all the
takeoffs.

>> and no
>> catapult and easily landed using a hook fitted for the tests. The
>> results were quite favorable but not compelling enough to continue.
>
>'Quite favorable' is an interesting way of putting it. Eric Brown's
>comments are rather different:
>
>"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
>these reasons."

It just shows you're taking material out of context. The problems
were because they had made so few modifications for the initial tests.
Had they continued, modified landing gear and modified tail were among
the anticipated changes.

The view was bad, but certainly no worse than the Corsair. And until
strut changes were made to the Corsair it had the same bouncing
problems.

And tests were not abandoned because of poor results. The results were
quite good. They were abandoned because the P-51 did not show any
significant advantage over the naval aircraft it would have replaced.

>All of which makes the later Corsair sound like a great deck-landing a/c by
>comparison.

Why should it? The Corsair was notorious for bad visibility during
landing.

>But what, exactly, does this digression have to do with the
>ability of a P-47 to make a non-catapult take off from a Casablanca or
>Bogue class CVE that's only allows roughly half the t/o run, and is 15
>knots slower than the Shangri-La?

P-51's were mentioned in the discussion and you posted those
meaningless numbers which had nothing to do with getting a plane off
of a carrier..

Scott Peterson

--
Despite the cost of living, have you
noticed how it remains so popular?

339/570

[Guy Alcala]

Scott Peterson wrote:

> Guy Alcala > wrote:
>
> >Certainly. I'll have to use the figures for the PBJ-1H, essentially the
> >marine version of the B-25H. With a bombload of 6 x 500 lb bombs plus the
> >75mm cannon and ammo, at a t/o weight of 35,106 lb. (considerably heavier
> >than Doolittle's B-25Bs), the t/o runs are as follows (note, this is for a
> >field not a carrier deck):
> >
> >0 wind, 1495 feet.
> >15 knots, 1064 feet.
> >25 knots, 813 feet.
> >
> Nice of you to use a version that's almost 7000 pounds heavier.

The discussion was about the ability of a P-47 to make a free-running t/o from a
CVE. I used the heaviest weight B-25 data I had to show that even _that_
version only needed between 2/3rds and 3/5ths of the t/o run that a clean but
fully fueled and armed P-47 does (2,220 - 2,540 feet). Hell, the PBj-1H's power
on stall speed at that weight was only 93 knots (see Hornet WoD below).
Naturally, lighter B-25s like Doolittle's (about 31,000 lb. was the predicted
weight, or about 4,000 lb. less than the above -- see

http://www.ibiblio.org/hyperwar/AAF/rep/Doolittle/B25B-Special.html

have even shorter t/o runs, given them an even more significant advantage over
the P-47.

> >Please note that the Hornet was worked up to just about full speed, i.e.
> >30+ knots, and there was a considerable natural wind blowing when Doolittle
> >& Co. took off.
>
> Glad it wasn't an unnatural wind. But so what? From what I remember
> they were anticipating and trained based on about 40 knots over the
> bow when they took off. That they got more was a bonus.

Here's so what. 40 knots WoD (combination of 'unnatural' wind, i.e. ship speed,
and natural wind) is considerably more than an 18 kt. CVE is likely to be able
to supply in the generally warmer and calmer tropics, while a 30+ kt. CV in the
North Central Pacific can almost guarantee it. Actually, checking Hornet's
after action report at

http://www.ibiblio.org/hyperwar/USN/ships/logs/CV/cv8-Tokyo.html

it seems that the Hornet was steaming at only 22 kts, as there was 40+ knots of
natural wind (see para. 1(j). of the above), for a WoD of 62kts or better. And
the lead a/c (Doolittle's) had a 467 ft. deck run available (para 1(g), same
ref.), i.e. 25 feet more than the_total_ length of a Bogue's flight deck (442
feet) and only 10 feet less than the total length of a Casablanca (477 feet). A
ferry carrier would have to catapult its entire deck load off first, before it
had anywhere close to that much t/o run available.

> >> In point of fact, the Navy conducted flight tests using a slightly
> >> modified P-51D (I think) on USS Shangrila in 1944. The plane was
> >> easily able to take off using the same space as Navy fighters
> >
> >And how, pray tell, was it able to "take off using the same space as a navy
> >fighter," when (even assuming the '1,185 ft.' figure for the P-51D's t/o
> >run given in "America's Hundred Thousand," is _not_ a typo) the
> >contemporary F6F-5 and F4U-1D only required t/o runs under the same
> >conditions of 780 ft. (405 feet less than the P-51D) and 840 feet (345 feet
> >less) respectively?
> >
>
> Apparenttly very easily. If you read the rest of the report you quote
> below it mentions that they had deck left when they lifted on all the
> takeoffs.

Not sure which report you're referring to. It's not in Brown's account which I
quoted. But how long was the deck run, exactly, what were the WoD conditions,
what did the P-51s weigh, and what were they loaded with (and where was the
Cg)? I'd be kind of surprised if the rear tank was filled.

> >> and no
> >> catapult and easily landed using a hook fitted for the tests. The
> >> results were quite favorable but not compelling enough to continue.
> >
> >'Quite favorable' is an interesting way of putting it. Eric Brown's
> >comments are rather different:
> >
> >"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
> >these reasons."
>
> It just shows you're taking material out of context. The problems
> were because they had made so few modifications for the initial tests.
> Had they continued, modified landing gear and modified tail were among
> the anticipated changes.

Sure, they could maybe have made the a/c work, about as well as the Seafire
eventually did, and probably considerably less well than the Corsair (and look
how long that took to get right), which had, after all, been designed for the
job.

> The view was bad, but certainly no worse than the Corsair. And until
> strut changes were made to the Corsair it had the same bouncing
> problems.

Uh-huh. and look how long it took to get those fixed (and the slow-speed control
problems, and the stall, etc.). If you haven't already read it, I can recommend
Boone T. Guyton's "Whistling Death: the Test Pilot's story of the F4U Corsair,"
as he was Vought's project pilot for the a/c.

> And tests were not abandoned because of poor results. The results were
> quite good. They were abandoned because the P-51 did not show any
> significant advantage over the naval aircraft it would have replaced.

Sure. Why go to all that trouble to modify the a/c (adding lots of weight),
when you've got the F4U-4 available that has equal or better performance.

> >All of which makes the later Corsair sound like a great deck-landing a/c by
> >comparison.
>
> Why should it? The Corsair was notorious for bad visibility during
> landing.

Until they raised the seat 7" and bulged the hood, which is why I specified the
'later' Corsairs, i.e. -1A and subsequent. Still not great, but much improved.

> >But what, exactly, does this digression have to do with the
> >ability of a P-47 to make a non-catapult take off from a Casablanca or
> >Bogue class CVE that's only allows roughly half the t/o run, and is 15
> >knots slower than the Shangri-La?
>
> P-51's were mentioned in the discussion and you posted those
> meaningless numbers which had nothing to do with getting a plane off
> of a carrier..

I posted the t/o numbers for context, during a discussion of the ability of the
P-47 (and for that matter, most army fighters) to get off a CVE unassisted,
which (barring unusual circumstances), it couldn't. And I'm curious as to why
you think a/c t/o run distances, whether relative or in this case absolute, are
meaningless and have nothing to do with getting a plane off a carrier. Which
numbers do you think would be more relevant?

Guy

[Scott Peterson]

Guy Alcala > wrote:

>Not sure which report you're referring to. It's not in Brown's account which I
>quoted. But how long was the deck run, exactly, what were the WoD conditions,
>what did the P-51s weigh, and what were they loaded with (and where was the
>Cg)? I'd be kind of surprised if the rear tank was filled.

Checking Hardy's "North American Mustang", taking off from the 600
foot mark, the deck run was 250 feet. I don't know which tanks were
filled. The aircraft was at a gross weight of 9600 lbs. The run out
on landing was 82 feet.

>
>Sure, they could maybe have made the a/c work, about as well as the Seafire
>eventually did, and probably considerably less well than the Corsair (and look
>how long that took to get right), which had, after all, been designed for the
>job.
>
>> The view was bad, but certainly no worse than the Corsair. And until
>> strut changes were made to the Corsair it had the same bouncing
>> problems.
>
>Uh-huh. and look how long it took to get those fixed (and the slow-speed control
>problems, and the stall, etc.). If you haven't already read it, I can recommend
>Boone T. Guyton's "Whistling Death: the Test Pilot's story of the F4U Corsair,"
>as he was Vought's project pilot for the a/c.

I don't think it's a valid argument that because one plane had
teething problems that took a long time to resolve that another
entirely different plane would take as long.

>
>> And tests were not abandoned because of poor results. The results were
>> quite good. They were abandoned because the P-51 did not show any
>> significant advantage over the naval aircraft it would have replaced.
>
>Sure. Why go to all that trouble to modify the a/c (adding lots of weight),
>when you've got the F4U-4 available that has equal or better performance.

In many categories. Which is why they chose not to continue. But you
also have to remember that these tests were conducted in 1944, not
long after the Corsair had been certified for carrier use and before
the first Corsair squadrons went into carrier service in December of
that year. Maybe it didn't seem so unreasonable at the time.

>I posted the t/o numbers for context, during a discussion of the ability of the
>P-47 (and for that matter, most army fighters) to get off a CVE unassisted,
>which (barring unusual circumstances), it couldn't. And I'm curious as to why
>you think a/c t/o run distances, whether relative or in this case absolute, are
>meaningless and have nothing to do with getting a plane off a carrier. Which
>numbers do you think would be more relevant?

Because I don't think the numbers you posted are maximum performance
takeoffs and certainly do not reflect what it takes to get off a
carrier. Note the 250' takeoff distance for these tests as compared
to the standard performance takeoff numbers you quote.



Scott Peterson

--
Ed Knott was shot, and Sam Shott was not.
So, it is better to be Shott, than Knott!
Some say that Knott was not shot, but Shott
says he shot Knott!
Either the shot Shott shot shot Knott, or
the shot Shott shot at Knott was not shot,
or, Knott was not shot! If the shot Shott
shot shot Knott, Knott was shot. But, if
the shot Shott shot shot Shott, then Shott
was shot, not Knott! However, the shot Shott
shot, shot not Shott, but Knott!

80/570

[Guy Alcala]

Scott Peterson wrote:

> Guy Alcala > wrote:
>
> >Not sure which report you're referring to. It's not in Brown's account which I
> >quoted. But how long was the deck run, exactly, what were the WoD conditions,
> >what did the P-51s weigh, and what were they loaded with (and where was the
> >Cg)? I'd be kind of surprised if the rear tank was filled.
>
> Checking Hardy's "North American Mustang", taking off from the 600
> foot mark, the deck run was 250 feet. I don't know which tanks were
> filled. The aircraft was at a gross weight of 9600 lbs. The run out
> on landing was 82 feet.

Thanks for that info. I've read the details somewhere a few years back, but can't
remember/find the source. At 9,600 lb. it's clear that the rear tank wasn't filled.
With the aft tank full a clean, fully armed P-51B would be about 9,800 lb., a P-51D
about 10,100 lb. The aft tank holds 85 (US) gallons, or 510 lb. of gas., so that
checks with a P-51D weight above. It's possible that for carrier use the P-51D might
not need the aft tank, as the Hellcat (250 gal.) and Corsair (234-237 gal.) would
have had similar ranges as a P-51 with just the 184 gallons in the wing tanks. OTOH,
endurance might have been inadequate especially when escorting strike a/c, as the
P-51 tended to cruise a lot faster than the navy fighters were designed to. I take
it that 82 feet was the arresting gear pull-out? Either that, or the WoD must have
been really high, if that's braking distance. BTW, you didn't mention the WoD, a
rather critical value. Do you not have that info, or did you just forget?

> >Sure, they could maybe have made the a/c work, about as well as the Seafire
> >eventually did, and probably considerably less well than the Corsair (and look
> >how long that took to get right), which had, after all, been designed for the
> >job.
> >
> >> The view was bad, but certainly no worse than the Corsair. And until
> >> strut changes were made to the Corsair it had the same bouncing
> >> problems.
> >
> >Uh-huh. and look how long it took to get those fixed (and the slow-speed control
> >problems, and the stall, etc.). If you haven't already read it, I can recommend
> >Boone T. Guyton's "Whistling Death: the Test Pilot's story of the F4U Corsair,"
> >as he was Vought's project pilot for the a/c.
>
> I don't think it's a valid argument that because one plane had
> teething problems that took a long time to resolve that another
> entirely different plane would take as long.

Well, let's see. North American was going to have to design a folding wing, beef up
the landing gear and its attachment points, increase the stroke and change the
rebound ratio (it often takes quite a bit of testing to arrive at the proper ratio),
beef up the rest of the structure to absorb repeated cat shots and arrested landings
(just because experienced test pilots can land fairly easily in fairly benign
conditions without bending the a/c, doesn't mean some nugget fresh from the FRS can
do so repeatedly under operational conditions), probably decrease the stall speed by
enlarging the wing (and also to deal with all the extra weight that has been added),
probably modify the ailerons and flaps to improve low speed control and get the stall
speed down to a reasonable level, possibly play around with the throttle box to give
the precise speed adjustments necessary for landing, find the proper location for the
arrestor hook ( a big problem with the Seafire prior to the sting hook on the XV) and
beef up that structure, etc., and then build/modify all the tooling jigs for the new
parts for mass production. Since it's wartime, let's say 1 year minimum, 18-24
months more likely, and that's assuming there are no major problems (and NAA had no
carrier-compatibility design experience).

The Spitfire, which had a far lower stall speed, much lower weight (ca. 7,100 lb. for
a Seafire IIC) and better low speed handling than the P-51, took quite awhile to tame
for carrier use. Indeed, the Seafires' stall speed was lower than either the
Hellcat or Corsair, and it had a shorter t/o run than either owing to its low wing
and power loading. Yet see the poor results at Salerno when operating from escort
carriers, although that was primarily an issue of deck-landing. Quoting from Jeff
Quill's "Spitfire: A Test Pilot's Story":

"At this time delivery to the Royal Navy of the American-built Type G-3 [Sic. C-3,
i.e. British versions of the Bogue class]escort carriers (CVEs) was getting started .
.. . . They were, on the whole, very effective ships but their principal shortcoming
was lack of speed; they could not raise more than about 17 knots and in some cases
only 14. This was adequate provided there was at least 10 to 15 knots of natural
surface wind to ensure a 25- to 28-knot wind over the deck which the Seafire liked to
have for landing on. If the wind speed over the deck was below this, serious
problems could arise especially for the less experienced pilots. . . . [skipping to a
discussion of the Seafire in Operation Avalanche]

"D-Day for the assault was 9 September and the first fighter patrols were airborne at
0615. By the end of the day Force V had flown a total of 265 Seafire sorties making
an average of 2.5 sorties for every aircraft embarked. There was no surface wind
throughout the day with the result that there was only 17 knots of wind speed over
the deck for landing; also it was very hot. This lead to a very high incidence of
aircraft damaged in deck landing accidents; by dawn on D plus One the number of
Seafires available in force V had dropped from 105 to 65. As no shore base had been
captured or established on the first day the carriers had to continue to provide the
main fighter cover on the second day, D plus One . . . By dawn on D plus Two the
remaining force of serviceable Seafires was down to 39, but still 160 sorties were
flown during that day. . . . The inescapable conclusion to be drawn from Avalanche
was that the accident rate in landing Seafires on the small escort carriers in
conditions of no surface wind was unacceptably high. A total of 713 sorties had
resulted in 73 deck-landing accidents of which 32 were write-offs, 24 were damaged
beyond immediate repair, and 17 sustained damage to their undercarriage. Throughout
the operations four a/c were lost due to engine failure and a further six from
miscellaneous accidental causes not associated with deck landing. Altogether a total
of 42 Seafires had been written off in accidents and a further 41 damaged ut of a
total embarked force, including those embarked with the covering force [the fleet
carriers], of 121 Seafires."

Realistically, the Seafire XV was the first version that was really carrier-suitable,
and even with them and subsequent versions buckled or wrinkled fuselages weren't all
that uncommon, especially after the Brits went over to American LSO batting
techniques (for commonality), which resulted in a harder landing than British
technique. The Brits made do with the earlier versions because they had to. The
P-51 is probably somewhat stronger structurally to start with than the
Spitfire/Seafire, although still a long way down on strength compared to the products
of the Iron Works. And provided it was only operated from the CVs it would have had
better conditions than the Seafires operating from CVEs had to put up with, but
there's still all that extra weight and higher stall/landing speeds that the P-51
would have to deal with. Stock, the P-51D was still markedly inferior to the Corsair
for carrier compatibility. See, for example:

http://www.geocities.com/slakergmb/id101.htm

and

http://www.geocities.com/slakergmb/id102.htm

for comments about the P-51's stall speed and aileron control at slow speed. This is
a comparison of the P-51B vs. F4U-1 and -1A, and all a/c are somewhat
unrepresentative of stock, but it's still a good source. Be sure to check out

http://www.geocities.com/slakergmb/id3.htm

at the same site, for S.A.C. charts for various Hellcat and Corsair versions, as well
as comparisons between the Hellcat, Corsair and FW-190A-5/U4.


<snip>

> >I posted the t/o numbers for context, during a discussion of the ability of the
> >P-47 (and for that matter, most army fighters) to get off a CVE unassisted,
> >which (barring unusual circumstances), it couldn't. And I'm curious as to why
> >you think a/c t/o run distances, whether relative or in this case absolute, are
> >meaningless and have nothing to do with getting a plane off a carrier. Which
> >numbers do you think would be more relevant?
>
> Because I don't think the numbers you posted are maximum performance
> takeoffs and certainly do not reflect what it takes to get off a
> carrier. Note the 250' takeoff distance for these tests as compared
> to the standard performance takeoff numbers you quote.

Since we don't have the WoD during the tests or the power settings, the t/o run by
itself is meaningless. Could all of these a/c take off in shorter distances? Sure,
if they had very high WoD, or used War Emergency rather than take off power, but
those aren't things you can do routinely. And, as I mentioned above, the performance
that experienced test pilots can accomplish in lightly loaded, (probably clean and
new) a/c in benign conditions is not indicative of typical operational capability.
I've seen Bob Hoover fly his Commander deadstick through a landing circuit while
doing an 8 (or was it 16) point hesitation roll, land and roll to a stop exactly
where he started engines from without ever touching the brakes, but I don't consider
that reperesentative of what the average pilot can do, routinely or otherwise ;-)

Guy

[Greg Hennessy]

On Tue, 24 Feb 2004 10:50:38 GMT, Guy Alcala
> wrote:


>
>at the same site, for S.A.C. charts for various Hellcat and Corsair versions, as well
>as comparisons between the Hellcat, Corsair and FW-190A-5/U4.
>

Thats an interesting read. One wonders at the possibility of corsairs
providing top cover for daylight bombing raids all the way to Berlin a good
12-18 months before merlin engined mustang was available.


Interesting choice. Build thunderbolts or an equivalent number of corsairs
instead.

greg

--
You do a lot less thundering in the pulpit against the Harlot
after she marches right down the aisle and kicks you in the nuts.

[Peter Stickney]

In article >,
Greg Hennessy > writes:
> On Tue, 24 Feb 2004 10:50:38 GMT, Guy Alcala
> > wrote:

>>at the same site, for S.A.C. charts for various Hellcat and Corsair versions, as well
>>as comparisons between the Hellcat, Corsair and FW-190A-5/U4.
>>
>
> Thats an interesting read. One wonders at the possibility of corsairs
> providing top cover for daylight bombing raids all the way to Berlin a good
> 12-18 months before merlin engined mustang was available.

I dount it - a Mustang's economical cruise burns about 40-45 US
Gal/Hr. An F4U burns about 100 U.S. Gal/Hr.
The Miustang also has its best cruist at 'bout 185 mph IAS. The
Corsair's is 170.

I'm glad that Guy brought up that report, though. It's an intersting
example of how a report can be "cooked". In this case, it happens in
two areas. First is the preparation of teh three aircraft involved.
The P-51C is entirely stock, with a light sanding of the wing. That
cleans it up, some, certainly. The F4U-1A receives a similar prep,
and has the tailhook removed. That also wasn't unreasonable, and was
often dome when the Corsairs were operating exclusively from land
bases. The F4U-1, though, is a different matter entirely. Not only
was the entire surface prepped, but the wing fold joints were filled
and sealed, and the cowling was sealed. Those measures aren't
practical in service. The wing fold seams weren't the worst
offenders, but they did controibute to the drag burden. The real
killer, though, in terms of drag, are the cowling seams. In normal
service condition, those add a serious burden.

The second area, and this is the big one, is the issue of engine
ratings. While the Mustang was held to its handbook limits, both
Corsairs were being operated in excess of their emergency ratings -
slightly so, in the case of the F4U-1A (60" MAP/2700RPM, instead of
57.5" Neutral Aux Stage/59" Low or High Aux / 2700R), and
significantly so in the case of the F4U-1. (65" MAP/2700R).

Nor are the aircraft being compared at the more useful Military Power
rating, which, since the Merlin in the Mustang isn't relying on
Anti-Dtonant Injection, means less of a penalty.

Plotting the performance of the stock (but new) F4U-1D from the SAC
Chart from the same site, (Which uses the same flight test data used
to produce the Pilot's Handbooks), The V1650-3 engined P-51B/C holds
an advantage at all heights. In Military Power (61"/3000R for the
P-51, 53"/2700R for the Corsairs), the P-51 has a significant
advantage at all heights above 'bout 4500'. adn an advantage over the
stock Corsair using Emergency Power above 16.500'. Note that the
reason for the Corsair's better performacne at low altitude in this
case is due to the fact that the external auxiliarry stage
supercharger could be turned off (Neutral Aux) when its extra
compression wasn't needed.

There's one other sneaky trick that is pulled in the presentation of
the report itself. The graph showing the comparative speed
performance is truncated, showing only the true airspeed range between
350 mph amd 480 mph, with the data biased to the left side of the
plot. This does two things. It exaggerates the relatively small
differnces in performance between all 3 airplanes, and puts the
"Juiced-up" Corsair's plot in the center of the plot, where it will
tend to catch the eye. (Right out of "How To Lie With Statistics",
that is.)

Now, even with all that I've said, I don't think that the Corsair was
significantly worse than the Mustang, or vice versa. But this
particular report, which was put together by Navy Pilots, to justify
the development of a Navy Aircraft. (In this case, the F4U-4) If it
had been an Army Air Forces test of the same aircraft types, I'd bet
that the data presented, and the conclusions drawn, would be shaded
just as much the other way.

> Interesting choice. Build thunderbolts or an equivalent number of corsairs
> instead.

Ah, but P-47s had their own set of advantages/disadvanges. Since they
used turbosuperchargers as their auxiliary stage, rather than a
gear-driven blower, hey had significantly more power as they gained
altitude. (About 350 HP at 21,00o', with that margin increasing up to
the P-47's Critical ALtitude af around 28-30,000'. The P-47 was also
unique among WW 2 fighters in that its controls (Especially roll
control) didn't heavy-up significantly while pulling G. This was a
significant advantage.

I don't think that there were any Corsairs to spare, though. The Navy
had 3 separate manufacturers (Vought, Goodyear, and Brewster) going
flat out to build as many as they, the Brits, and the New Zealanders
could use. (Well, maybo not quite flat out, in the case of Brewster)

--
Pete Stickney
A strong conviction that something must be done is the parent of many
bad measures. -- Daniel Webster

[Guy Alcala]

Peter Stickney wrote:

> In article >,
> Greg Hennessy > writes:
> > On Tue, 24 Feb 2004 10:50:38 GMT, Guy Alcala
> > > wrote:
>
> >>at the same site, for S.A.C. charts for various Hellcat and Corsair versions, as well
> >>as comparisons between the Hellcat, Corsair and FW-190A-5/U4.
> >>
> >
> > Thats an interesting read. One wonders at the possibility of corsairs
> > providing top cover for daylight bombing raids all the way to Berlin a good
> > 12-18 months before merlin engined mustang was available.
>
> I dount it - a Mustang's economical cruise burns about 40-45 US
> Gal/Hr. An F4U burns about 100 U.S. Gal/Hr.
> The Miustang also has its best cruist at 'bout 185 mph IAS. The
> Corsair's is 170.
>
> I'm glad that Guy brought up that report, though. It's an intersting
> example of how a report can be "cooked".

Yup. ISTR we discussed this in the past..

> In this case, it happens in
> two areas. First is the preparation of teh three aircraft involved.
> The P-51C is entirely stock, with a light sanding of the wing. That
> cleans it up, some, certainly. The F4U-1A receives a similar prep,
> and has the tailhook removed. That also wasn't unreasonable, and was
> often dome when the Corsairs were operating exclusively from land
> bases. The F4U-1, though, is a different matter entirely. Not only
> was the entire surface prepped, but the wing fold joints were filled
> and sealed, and the cowling was sealed. Those measures aren't
> practical in service. The wing fold seams weren't the worst
> offenders, but they did controibute to the drag burden. The real
> killer, though, in terms of drag, are the cowling seams. In normal
> service condition, those add a serious burden.
>
> The second area, and this is the big one, is the issue of engine
> ratings. While the Mustang was held to its handbook limits, both
> Corsairs were being operated in excess of their emergency ratings -
> slightly so, in the case of the F4U-1A (60" MAP/2700RPM, instead of
> 57.5" Neutral Aux Stage/59" Low or High Aux / 2700R), and
> significantly so in the case of the F4U-1. (65" MAP/2700R).
>
> Nor are the aircraft being compared at the more useful Military Power
> rating, which, since the Merlin in the Mustang isn't relying on
> Anti-Dtonant Injection, means less of a penalty.
>
> Plotting the performance of the stock (but new) F4U-1D from the SAC
> Chart from the same site, (Which uses the same flight test data used
> to produce the Pilot's Handbooks), The V1650-3 engined P-51B/C holds
> an advantage at all heights. In Military Power (61"/3000R for the
> P-51, 53"/2700R for the Corsairs), the P-51 has a significant
> advantage at all heights above 'bout 4500'. adn an advantage over the
> stock Corsair using Emergency Power above 16.500'. Note that the
> reason for the Corsair's better performacne at low altitude in this
> case is due to the fact that the external auxiliarry stage
> supercharger could be turned off (Neutral Aux) when its extra
> compression wasn't needed.

Of course, it would have been the heavier and slightly draggier P-51D rather than the B/C,
but then again that would have used the -7 engine, fattening up the climb and speed in the
low/mid altitudes where the F4U tended to be superior, while falling off more at the higher
altitudes (where it already held the advantage).

> There's one other sneaky trick that is pulled in the presentation of
> the report itself. The graph showing the comparative speed
> performance is truncated, showing only the true airspeed range between
> 350 mph amd 480 mph, with the data biased to the left side of the
> plot. This does two things. It exaggerates the relatively small
> differnces in performance between all 3 airplanes, and puts the
> "Juiced-up" Corsair's plot in the center of the plot, where it will
> tend to catch the eye. (Right out of "How To Lie With Statistics",
> that is.)
>
> Now, even with all that I've said, I don't think that the Corsair was
> significantly worse than the Mustang, or vice versa. But this
> particular report, which was put together by Navy Pilots, to justify
> the development of a Navy Aircraft. (In this case, the F4U-4) If it
> had been an Army Air Forces test of the same aircraft types, I'd bet
> that the data presented, and the conclusions drawn, would be shaded
> just as much the other way.

What? NIH? Surely you jest;-) But I do like the conclusions in the F6F/F4U/FW-190
comparo, especially since Eric Brown, who'd flown all three a/c extensively, was in no
doubt as to which one he considered superior in combat, and it wasn't either of the ones in
dark navy blue;-) And he was a fan of the Hellcat as a naval fighter. Specifically, in
reference to the Corsair II (F4U-1A) head to head vs. an FW-190A-4, he writes:

"This would be a contest between a heavyweight and a lightweight fighter, with virtually
all the advantages on the side of the latter. Having flown both aircraft a lot, I have no
doubt which one I would rather fly. The FW-190 could not be bested by the Corsair."

Which isn't to say that the report is inaccurate as far as it goes, just that there can be
a bit more to it than statistical figures of performance. Handling qualities, personal
preference, flying style and ability are also factors, and besides, the A-5 would have been
a bit long in the tooth by the time the F4U-1D was in service -- the A-8 would be more
contemporary, or even the D-9. The Corsair would be one of the few a/c that could roll
with an FW-190, though.

> > Interesting choice. Build thunderbolts or an equivalent number of corsairs
> > instead.
>
> Ah, but P-47s had their own set of advantages/disadvanges. Since they
> used turbosuperchargers as their auxiliary stage, rather than a
> gear-driven blower, hey had significantly more power as they gained
> altitude. (About 350 HP at 21,00o', with that margin increasing up to
> the P-47's Critical ALtitude af around 28-30,000'. The P-47 was also
> unique among WW 2 fighters in that its controls (Especially roll
> control) didn't heavy-up significantly while pulling G. This was a
> significant advantage.

And besides, even the razorback P-47s had 305 gallons internal fuel (the bubble-canopy D-25
and subsequent had 370), while the F4U-1/-1A had 361, but only 237 of that was in
self-sealing tanks. The other 124 gallons were in unprotected tanks in the outer wings.
There was also an inerting system for at least some of the internal tanks (IIRC it was
CO2), but I don't remember if it extended to the wing tanks or not. But those tanks were
removed from the -1D and subsequent models, presumably to reduce vulnerability, leaving the
internal fuel (with the same basic engine, although different supercharging) considerably
less than the P-47 had. The F4U did have larger drop tanks available earlier, though.
IIRR, it was around Big Week or a bit later that the P-47s first got the "150" gallon
(actual capacity 165 gallon) drop tanks.

Guy

[Matt Wiser]

Guy Alcala > wrote:
>Peter Stickney wrote:
>
>> In article >,
>> Greg Hennessy > writes:
>> > On Tue, 24 Feb 2004 10:50:38 GMT, Guy Alcala
>> > > wrote:
>>
>> >>at the same site, for S.A.C. charts for
>various Hellcat and Corsair versions, as well
>> >>as comparisons between the Hellcat, Corsair
>and FW-190A-5/U4.
>> >>
>> >
>> > Thats an interesting read. One wonders at
>the possibility of corsairs
>> > providing top cover for daylight bombing
>raids all the way to Berlin a good
>> > 12-18 months before merlin engined mustang
>was available.
>>
>> I dount it - a Mustang's economical cruise
>burns about 40-45 US
>> Gal/Hr. An F4U burns about 100 U.S. Gal/Hr.
>> The Miustang also has its best cruist at 'bout
>185 mph IAS. The
>> Corsair's is 170.
>>
>> I'm glad that Guy brought up that report,
>though. It's an intersting
>> example of how a report can be "cooked".
>
>Yup. ISTR we discussed this in the past..
>
>> In this case, it happens in
>> two areas. First is the preparation of teh
>three aircraft involved.
>> The P-51C is entirely stock, with a light
>sanding of the wing. That
>> cleans it up, some, certainly. The F4U-1A
>receives a similar prep,
>> and has the tailhook removed. That also wasn't
>unreasonable, and was
>> often dome when the Corsairs were operating
>exclusively from land
>> bases. The F4U-1, though, is a different
>matter entirely. Not only
>> was the entire surface prepped, but the wing
>fold joints were filled
>> and sealed, and the cowling was sealed. Those
>measures aren't
>> practical in service. The wing fold seams
>weren't the worst
>> offenders, but they did controibute to the
>drag burden. The real
>> killer, though, in terms of drag, are the
>cowling seams. In normal
>> service condition, those add a serious burden.
>>
>> The second area, and this is the big one,
>is the issue of engine
>> ratings. While the Mustang was held to its
>handbook limits, both
>> Corsairs were being operated in excess of
>their emergency ratings -
>> slightly so, in the case of the F4U-1A (60"
>MAP/2700RPM, instead of
>> 57.5" Neutral Aux Stage/59" Low or High Aux
>/ 2700R), and
>> significantly so in the case of the F4U-1.
>(65" MAP/2700R).
>>
>> Nor are the aircraft being compared at the
>more useful Military Power
>> rating, which, since the Merlin in the Mustang
>isn't relying on
>> Anti-Dtonant Injection, means less of a penalty.
>>
>> Plotting the performance of the stock (but
>new) F4U-1D from the SAC
>> Chart from the same site, (Which uses the
>same flight test data used
>> to produce the Pilot's Handbooks), The V1650-3
>engined P-51B/C holds
>> an advantage at all heights. In Military
>Power (61"/3000R for the
>> P-51, 53"/2700R for the Corsairs), the P-51
>has a significant
>> advantage at all heights above 'bout 4500'.
>adn an advantage over the
>> stock Corsair using Emergency Power above
>16.500'. Note that the
>> reason for the Corsair's better performacne
>at low altitude in this
>> case is due to the fact that the external
>auxiliarry stage
>> supercharger could be turned off (Neutral
>Aux) when its extra
>> compression wasn't needed.
>
>Of course, it would have been the heavier and
>slightly draggier P-51D rather than the B/C,
>but then again that would have used the -7 engine,
>fattening up the climb and speed in the
>low/mid altitudes where the F4U tended to be
>superior, while falling off more at the higher
>altitudes (where it already held the advantage).
>
>> There's one other sneaky trick that is pulled
>in the presentation of
>> the report itself. The graph showing the
>comparative speed
>> performance is truncated, showing only the
>true airspeed range between
>> 350 mph amd 480 mph, with the data biased
>to the left side of the
>> plot. This does two things. It exaggerates
>the relatively small
>> differnces in performance between all 3 airplanes,
>and puts the
>> "Juiced-up" Corsair's plot in the center of
>the plot, where it will
>> tend to catch the eye. (Right out of "How
>To Lie With Statistics",
>> that is.)
>>
>> Now, even with all that I've said, I don't
>think that the Corsair was
>> significantly worse than the Mustang, or vice
>versa. But this
>> particular report, which was put together
>by Navy Pilots, to justify
>> the development of a Navy Aircraft. (In this
>case, the F4U-4) If it
>> had been an Army Air Forces test of the same
>aircraft types, I'd bet
>> that the data presented, and the conclusions
>drawn, would be shaded
>> just as much the other way.
>
>What? NIH? Surely you jest;-) But I do like
>the conclusions in the F6F/F4U/FW-190
>comparo, especially since Eric Brown, who'd
>flown all three a/c extensively, was in no
>doubt as to which one he considered superior
>in combat, and it wasn't either of the ones
>in
>dark navy blue;-) And he was a fan of the Hellcat
>as a naval fighter. Specifically, in
>reference to the Corsair II (F4U-1A) head to
>head vs. an FW-190A-4, he writes:
>
>"This would be a contest between a heavyweight
>and a lightweight fighter, with virtually
>all the advantages on the side of the latter.
> Having flown both aircraft a lot, I have no
>doubt which one I would rather fly. The FW-190
>could not be bested by the Corsair."
>
>Which isn't to say that the report is inaccurate
>as far as it goes, just that there can be
>a bit more to it than statistical figures of
>performance. Handling qualities, personal
>preference, flying style and ability are also
>factors, and besides, the A-5 would have been
>a bit long in the tooth by the time the F4U-1D
>was in service -- the A-8 would be more
>contemporary, or even the D-9. The Corsair
>would be one of the few a/c that could roll
>with an FW-190, though.
>
>> > Interesting choice. Build thunderbolts or
>an equivalent number of corsairs
>> > instead.
>>
>> Ah, but P-47s had their own set of advantages/disadvanges.
> Since they
>> used turbosuperchargers as their auxiliary
>stage, rather than a
>> gear-driven blower, hey had significantly
>more power as they gained
>> altitude. (About 350 HP at 21,00o', with that
>margin increasing up to
>> the P-47's Critical ALtitude af around 28-30,000'.
> The P-47 was also
>> unique among WW 2 fighters in that its controls
>(Especially roll
>> control) didn't heavy-up significantly while
>pulling G. This was a
>> significant advantage.
>
>And besides, even the razorback P-47s had 305
>gallons internal fuel (the bubble-canopy D-25
>and subsequent had 370), while the F4U-1/-1A
>had 361, but only 237 of that was in
>self-sealing tanks. The other 124 gallons were
>in unprotected tanks in the outer wings.
>There was also an inerting system for at least
>some of the internal tanks (IIRC it was
>CO2), but I don't remember if it extended to
>the wing tanks or not. But those tanks were
>removed from the -1D and subsequent models,
>presumably to reduce vulnerability, leaving
>the
>internal fuel (with the same basic engine, although
>different supercharging) considerably
>less than the P-47 had. The F4U did have larger
>drop tanks available earlier, though.
>IIRR, it was around Big Week or a bit later
>that the P-47s first got the "150" gallon
>(actual capacity 165 gallon) drop tanks.
>
>Guy
>
So how would the F4U fared over Europe against the Me-109 and Fw-190? Assuming
there were no encounters between Royal Navy Corsairs (or Hellcats) and Luftwaffe
fighters in Norway. (Although there had to be some?)

Posted via www.My-Newsgroups.com - web to news gateway for usenet access!

[Steven P. McNicoll]

"Greg Hennessy" > wrote in message
...
>
> Thats an interesting read. One wonders at the possibility of corsairs
> providing top cover for daylight bombing raids all the way to Berlin a
> good 12-18 months before merlin engined mustang was available.
>

Not possible, for several reasons.

There were no combat-ready Corsairs 18 months before the Merlin Mustang.
The Merlin Mustang entered combat in December 1943, 12-18 months prior to
that would be the period June to December 1942. The first F4U-1s were
delivered to VMF-124 in September 1942, and that unit was declared
combat-ready three months later.

The F4U-1 could not reach Berlin from England.

There were no US bombing raids on Berlin 12-18 months before Merlin engined
Mustang was available, the first USAAF strike on Berlin was in March 1944.


>
> Interesting choice. Build thunderbolts or an equivalent number of corsairs
> instead.
>

The only real advantage the Mustang had over the Thunderbolt was range. If
the Thunderbolt had been able to reach Berlin in 1943 the USAAF wouldn't
have gone to the Merlin Mustang as an escort fighter.

[Guy Alcala]

"Steven P. McNicoll" wrote:

> "Greg Hennessy" > wrote in message
> ...
> >
> > Thats an interesting read. One wonders at the possibility of corsairs
> > providing top cover for daylight bombing raids all the way to Berlin a
> > good 12-18 months before merlin engined mustang was available.
> >
>
> Not possible, for several reasons.
>
> There were no combat-ready Corsairs 18 months before the Merlin Mustang.
> The Merlin Mustang entered combat in December 1943, 12-18 months prior to
> that would be the period June to December 1942. The first F4U-1s were
> delivered to VMF-124 in September 1942, and that unit was declared
> combat-ready three months later.

And first saw combat on Feb. 14th, 1943.

> The F4U-1 could not reach Berlin from England.

Well, it could, but didn't have enough internal fuel for the normal allowance
for combat and the return. The P-47D-25 and subsequent, with 370 gallons
internal and a pair of 150 gal. drop tanks, could just escort to Berlin and back
with a combat allowance given an experienced group and direct routing, but by
the time enough bubble-canopy Jugs were available to re-equip an entire group
the 8th AF transition to P-51s was well along, and the P-51s still had better
range and endurance. The P-47s were more comfortable, though. The radius king
was the P-47N (556 gallons internal), but that barely made it into the war in
the Pacific.

Guy

[Robert Inkol]

> of the Iron Works. And provided it was only operated from the CVs it would have had
> better conditions than the Seafires operating from CVEs had to put up with, but
> there's still all that extra weight and higher stall/landing speeds that the P-51
> would have to deal with. Stock, the P-51D was still markedly inferior to the Corsair
> for carrier compatibility. See, for example:
>
> http://www.geocities.com/slakergmb/id101.htm
>
>Guy

In addition to the specialized requirements for operation from a
carrier deck, the US navy would have put some weight on the practical
advantages of standardizing on a proven radial engine, such as the
R-2800, which was also used by the other naval types, including the
Hellcat and Avenger. This would have simplified requirements for
maintainance and spares, not a small consideration on an aircraft
carrier. The radial engines also had the advantage of being less
vulnerable to combat damage, a consideration that might receive some
extra emphasis for over water operation. Furthermore, there were
promising prospects for further performance improvements with the C
series R-2800s and R-4360.

Given that operational requirements for naval operations would have
emphasized performance at low and medium altitudes, particularly for
the Pacific theatre, the Mustang's fine high altitude performance
would have been relatively unimportant.

Robert

[Steven P. McNicoll]

"Robert Inkol" > wrote in message
om...
>
> In addition to the specialized requirements for operation from a
> carrier deck, the US navy would have put some weight on the practical
> advantages of standardizing on a proven radial engine, such as the
> R-2800, which was also used by the other naval types, including the
> Hellcat and Avenger.
>

The Avenger used the Wright R-2600.

[Guy Alcala]

"Steven P. McNicoll" wrote:

> "Robert Inkol" > wrote in message
> om...
> >
> > In addition to the specialized requirements for operation from a
> > carrier deck, the US navy would have put some weight on the practical
> > advantages of standardizing on a proven radial engine, such as the
> > R-2800, which was also used by the other naval types, including the
> > Hellcat and Avenger.
> >
>
> The Avenger used the Wright R-2600.

As did the Helldiver. But his basic point is valid.

Guy