Navalized P-38 Lightning?

(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.

"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!

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.

"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

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)

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

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

"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.

"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?

"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

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