Navy P51D modified for carrier operations.

[greekydeke]

In 1943-1944, B-29s were flying unescorted missions from their bases in China across the Yellow Sea to the Japanese homeland (and other Japanese-controlled areas) and back.  Losses were understandably high due to lack of fighter cover.  Early in 1943 the AAF and the U.S. Navy investigated the feasibility of stationing aircraft carriers in the Yellow Sea and using the US Army Air Force's long range P51D Mustang as fighter escorts for the B-29s.

USAAF P-51D-5NA, s/n 44-14017 was transferred by the USAAF to the Navy in May 1943 (as USN P-51D BuNo 57987) for modifications to enable the Mustang to land and takeoff from aircraft carriers.  The modifications included lengthening and strengthening the section of the fuselage aft of the cockpit in the tailwheel area, installing an arrestor hook, and beefing up the landing gear.

Navy Lt. Robert M. Elder (later to become Director of the Flight Test Center at NATC Patuxant River, Maryland) flight tested the aircraft in simulated carrier landings and takeoffs at Philadelphia while the aircraft was being modified.

By late-1944 the Mustang was ready to be tested for carrier operations.  The first successful arrested carrier landing by a P51D was made in November 1944 aboard the USS Shangri-La during that carrier's sea trials off the Virginia coast.

The Navy and Air Force also seriously looked into the possibility of using the twin engine B-25 Mitchell light bomber (USN designation PBJ, used by the US Marine Corps) aboard aircraft carriers.  The Navy modified one of its PBJ's for carrier operations, and flight tested that aircraft aboard the Shangri-La the same day that Elder flight tested the Mustang.

The project was cancelled shortly thereafter when the Marines took Iwo Jima.  That made it possible for B-29s and accompanying land based fighter escorts to fly from Iwo Jima to Japan instead of from China to Japan.

Here are some photos from the Naval Aviation History Center, Washington, DC, of Lt. Elder making an landing aboard the Shangri-La:









Ken Smith
Abingdon, Maryland USA

[Felix/FFDS]

There was some serious thought given to using the P-51 on carriers.  Studies were drawn up on wing folding, (including tip tanks), but in the end, several factors, including the late-war fighters, capture of island bases, and official Naval establishment's distrust of liquid-cooled engines for naval operations, in addition to the fact the North American was heavily commited to Mustang production for the Air Force, suspended the project.

Interestingly, though, the idea of putting a radial engine on the Mustang led to, in a convoluted manner, to the T-28 "Trojan" trainer.

[FLYING_TRUCKER]

Very Interesting Article!

Thanks for posting it

Cheers...Happy Landings...Doug

[Professor Brensec]

I've been landing my P51-B (RAAF) on the Lexington for years.......................... ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D (It's got a F6F tailhook  ;) )

Very interesting, mate. I knew that they 'toyed' with the idea at some point, but didn't know there were photos of it actually being done. I know the USN didn't like water cooled engines.

As for Felix's comment about the P51D with a radial. The 'almost' CA17 was basically a P51D which was supposed to have a P & W Radial but the engine didn't arrive in time, so they put a Griffon in instead, And then the silly bastards "scrapped" the only one that was made................... >:(
(There's a Sim model of both the Griffon and the "almost" P & W version somewhere in the downloads)

[Hagar]

Very interesting. I'm not surprised they tried it. With a little beefing up I see no reason why the P-51 would not make an excellent carrier-borne fighter. The wide-tracked main gear looks ideal for deck operations, much more so than the Seafire. Of course, as Felix has explained, it was badly needed elsewhere.

The US Navy prejudice against liquid-cooled engines is strange as the Admiralty seems to have had no such objection. Many of the British designed FAA aircraft were powered by the Merlin or Griffon. Some, like the Sea Hurricane & Seafire, were originally successful land-based fighters.

[Felix/FFDS]

The US Navy prejudice against liquid-cooled engines is strange as the Admiralty seems to have had no such objection. Many of the British designed FAA aircraft were powered by the Merlin or Griffon. Some, like the Sea Hurricane & Seafire, were originally successful land-based fighters.

It is interesting - while inter-war FAA fighters were (mostly) radial engined, I think the fact that the British liquid engines (i.e., RR Merlin) were so much better influenced the liquid engined combat aircraft (exception - the Stringbag).

Purposeful naval aircraft were basically two/three seaters (Fulmar, Flycatcher), with less than stellar performance, compared to the land based single seaters.  Performance, I believe, led to the hasty adaptation of the landplanes (Hurricane, Spitfire) to carrier duty. All in all, the Hurricane was the better carrier airplane than the Spit (as in better "sea legs", sturdier; many Spits suffered from blown tyres, etc.)

By concentrating on radial engines, the US Navy then didn't have to deal with coolant issues, a different "type" of engine issues, etc. - A P&W is a P&W.

[Professor Brensec]

By concentrating on radial engines, the US Navy then didn't have to deal with coolant issues, a different "type" of engine issues, etc. - A P&W is a P&W.

Plus, of course, as of '43 - '44, their two main Fighter Aircraft (USN - F6F, Corsair), not to mention the most numerous planes at that time used by the Marines and Army Air Force in the Pacific where Carrier operations mattered (Corsair, P47, B29) were all using the same engine.

I'm sure some kind of "standardization" issue was involved there. Or was it simply availability of vast numbers of P&W's as opposed to the Wright?? (I think the Wright was already being used by the USN in the Dive and Torpedo Bombers and by the USAAF in thousands of B17's times 4 - not to mention thousands of C47's & PBY's x 2 & 4)

Also the Yanks never really had a decent inline water cooled engine to use anyway. The Allison is the only 'noteable' example and they were in short supply anyway (and had proven not to be such a great engine for a single engine Fighter). This made the P51 the only 'viable' addition to the Navy. I'm sure P47's would certainly have been far too heavy for carrier operations.

But, big question: Did they really need another carrier based fighter at the time. All accounts indicate that the F6F and Corsair were more than a match for the Jap fighters and numbers were'nt a problem as by that time the US was at full production capacity in all areas.

I have always been under the impression that the B29 could virtually (with maybe the odd exception) outrun & outgun any Japanese fighter at the time anyway.
What was the top speed of an empty B29 as opposed to the fastest Japanese fighter???
Did they have a 400+ fighter (at least in any numbers). Because I'm sure an empty B29 was good for about 380 or a little more??

Comments??

[Woodlouse2002]

Top speed for the B29 in my book say's 358mph.

And Brensec, the idea that the bomber would always get through was something tried, tested and disproved all throughout the war. Even the B29's needed fighter escort. Just like the B17's did.

[Felix/FFDS]

I'm sure P47's would certainly have been far too heavy for carrier operations.

P-47s were ferried on carriers and catapulted off them.

I have always been under the impression that the B29 could virtually (with maybe the odd exception) outrun & outgun any Japanese fighter at the time anyway.
What was the top speed of an empty B29 as opposed to the fastest Japanese fighter???

One Japanese ARMY ace shot down 6 B-29s (not in the same sortie, mind you) and he was flying the Ki-43 Hayabusa/Oscar ...

[Hagar]

But, big question: Did they really need another carrier based fighter at the time. All accounts indicate that the F6F and Corsair were more than a match for the Jap fighters and numbers were'nt a problem as by that time the US was at full production capacity in all areas.

I think the P-51D was chosen for its long range. This was far better than other single-engined land-based fighters of the time. I'm sure it would have been ideal for the purpose. The P-38 might have had the range but I doubt it would have been suitable for carrier operations.

[greekydeke]

Here's an excerpt from a 1987 Northrop Aircraft  biographical sketch about Bob Elder, the pilot that's in the cockpit of that P-51D on the deck of the Shangri-La in 1944:

"Robert M. Elder returned from the Pacific combat zone serving on board the USS Yorktown at the height of World War II to conduct critical carrier suitability tests on all United States Army Air Corps tactical aircraft.  These tests were conducted to facilitate the transportation of thousands of those airplanes on jeep carriers to the European and Pacific theaters of operation and specifically in support of the North African Campaign.  A highly decorated combat pilot with two Navy Crosses, Bob applied his considerable operational expertise to those accelerated carrier suitability tests becoming the only pilot ever to land the P-51 Mustang on a carrier.  He also made the first carrier landings in the Grumann F8F Bearcat and the F7F Tigercat, and in the Ryan FR-1 Fireball."

His bio continues further on: "During his illustrious forty-three year flying career, Bob, accumulated over 8,200 flight hours in 140 different aircraft types, became carrier qualifed in 35 different aircraft types, and made 948 arrested landings in 35 different aircraft types, on 23 different aircraft carriers."

His bio goes on to say that Bob Elder "... was also the driving force that applied the technologies embodied in the YF-17 into the P630 design in support of the VFAX program which culminated finally in the highly successful F/A-18 Hornet."

Admiral Elder passed away only a few years ago.