Navalized P-38 Lightning?

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

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

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

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

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

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.

"Lawrence Dillard" wrote in message
...

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


What page?

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

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

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