A collection of photos posted on another board. and thought they might interest some. I've never seen them before, anyway. http://aviacaoemfloripa.blogspot.com.br/2011/02/um-p-51-mustang-navalizado.html I had always assumed they didn't handle well enough at low altitudes to be carrier qualified. Obviously I was wrong.
Nothing new here, the P-51 was tested to be used as a carrier base aircraft and failed. Most of the testing was done at Moffit Field NAS. The last four photos show USAAF P-51's being transported on a Navy carrier to the war front in the Pacific. All USAAF fighters destined for the Pacific war had to be transported by ship during WW ll. http://mustang.gaetanmarie.com/articles/naval/naval.htm
Ah. Somebody said on another board they were dumped when jets came along. They tried modifying the tail designs. I don't know squat about aeronautics and don't have any idea what that was supposed to do. I didn't know they shipped any to the Pacific during WW II, though iirc they had some in Korea; not sure about VN.
When my family first moved to Manhattan Beach, Ca. in 1955 I think it was a year later I saw 24 P-51's flying in a V-formation. At the time I thought they were USAF but would find out decades later they were California ANG. The P-51 was still being flown over a decade later after the Second World War. I know the main reason the Navy went to jets, piston powered propeller aircraft ran on high octane avgas which is extremely flammable and it's fumes very explosive. Most carrier losses during WW ll both U.S. Navy and Imperial Japanese Navy were caused by the aviation fuel that was stored upon the carriers. When the flames of fires or bomb explosions met the gas fumes you had major explosions. The Navy needed to get the avgas off their aircraft carriers. The last avgas navy carrier based aircraft to serve from carriers during the Vietnam War was the best Close Air Support (CAS) aircraft to ever fly, the Douglas A-1 Skyraider. They were replaced by the jet powered Douglas A-4 Skyhawk probably the best jet powered CAS aircraft to serve during the Vietnam War. By the end of the 1960's I think the only piston powered aircraft still operating from carriers was the navy's ASW patrol/bomber S-2 Tracker and HUS/CH-34 helicopters. There are big trades off going from avgas piston engines to jets, endurance time which is needed while providing CAS over the battlefield or establishing a CAP over an area. Today's jet fighters are dependent on air refueling from tankers. The P-51 almost came back to life with the U.S. Air Force during the 1970's as a CAS and tank buster attack aircraft, a turboprop P-51. The PA-48 Enforcer. Read the comments at the end of the article from those who were involved with the project and flew it.
Why was this the case in the Pacific and not in Europe? Were the Super fortresses that much slower than the bombers in Europe?
Neither have I, which is why I asked about that particular bolded sentence about what was different between the two theaters as to whether the Superfortress was slower than the bombers used in Europe. Or was the fouling also an issue in Europe as well.
No links but I would say it's a no brainer, the B-29 was a long range bomber and also a high altitude bomber and it wasn't needed in the European theatre. The B-17's, B-24's and the British bombers had no problem with range. In Europe it was precision bombing and the war in Japan was more like carpet bombing from high altitudes. But this is where the P-51 comes into play, it was the only fighter that had the range to escort the bombers over Europe or Japan. The P-51 Mustang was a damn good plane, one of the best fighters ever to fly once it was powered by a supercharged Rolls-Royce Merlin engine. The reason the P-51 was rejected as a carrier based aircraft, it's stall speed was to high, it was to fast to safely land on an aircraft carrier. Another link to this website, it's the comment section that makes it an excellent source, all 100 pages of comments on the P-51. -> http://www.aviastar.org/air/usa/na_mustang.php
There is a tradeoff between speed and distance. The distances in the European Theatre were much smaller then those in the pacific Theatre. Bombers could easily reach Germany from England and return, with fuel to spare. That was not the case in the Pacific, where bombers were frequently at their extreme limits until very late in the war. So to make the most of the fuel, they typically ran on super lean fuel mixtures at low RPM. If a bomber in Europe ran low on fuel, the crew could always bail out and hope to get help from locals, or might even be behind their own lines (and later in the war could even land at captured airfields). In the Pacific, a cew out of fuel was largely SOL, having to dump their aircraft in the ocean and pray that they might be found before they died. That is why islands such as Iwo Jima were so important. In itself, Iwo Jima was of little importance tactically or strategically. But it was critical as a base for B-29s in trouble to land at. The battle was still raging when the first B-29, Dinah Mite landed on 4 March 1945. The first of 2,251 B-29s to land on the island during the war. But notice, the island was never a base for Bombers, it was an emergency landing field for aircraft damaged or running low on fuel which had noplace else to land.
Cool stuff, the carrier shown was the USS Boxer which just missed WW2. By that time jets were being introduced so it was all academic from there on out. The Navy likes to try about anything (if it worked they too could get some). In 1959 they took off and landed C-130's on the Zippo, they got their Hercs partially because of it.
I remember those carrier trials with the C-130. Actually it was in 1963 and a USMC KC-130 was used with navy pilots in the cockpit. Video--> [video]https://youtu.be/uM5AI3YSV3M[/video]
Correct, I actually knew Flatley by sight, I was in the VAW squadron when he was Skipper of VF-31 http://www.navysite.de/cruisebooks/cv60-72/155.htm Memory fades but even back then the Breezy 21 (Acey Duecy Club) at NAS Norfolk had a private party room named after his old man. His squadron was credited with the only Sparrow night time kill during VN, I remember that launch well, dusk. He never went 100 feet above the surface until well out of sight, never saw a Phantom accelerate so fast.
Looking at the cruise book photos and seeing all of the mustaches and even a few beards it was Zumwalt's Navy. I served in the Corps 69-71. I was a naval gunfire spotter. After my tour of duty in the Nam I served out the rest of my enlistment at Camp Pendleton with the 5th MAB. We would use the NGF spot board at Coronado NAB and once the one they had at the Long Beach naval station and I remember the beer vending machines in the barracks. Seem that half the sailors at long Beach had beards back then.
The fowler flaps on a C-130 are the size of barn doors, and cover 2/3rds the length of the wing. These flaps which allow for shorter takeoffs and landings are basically 1920s technology. The C-130 itself is in it's seventh decade of contiuous productioin in one variant or another. It can be argued, it is the most successful military aircraft design in history. The ride is slow, bumpy and loud, the airplane handles like a Mack truck, but it can get 15 tons of supplies in and out of some tight spots. On a sidenote, and interesting trivia...Tom Cruise owns a P-51 and he's a licensed pilot.
Han Solo has pranged more birds than McCain who had reason. Crunching a 80 mph trainer should be enough to pull his ticket.
