Why Did This P-51 Mustang Land on a WWII Aircraft Carrier?
HTML-код
- Опубликовано: 24 авг 2024
- Did you know? 💭
Only one P-51 Mustang has ever attempted to land on a WWII aircraft carrier. ⚓️
The P-51 "Seahorse" was an extraordinary testing variant of the legendary Mustang. In the late 1940s, the United States conducted a secret test mission on USS Shangri-La to determine if a modified version of the P-51 could land on aircraft carriers. Although the project never reached production, the P-51 "Seahorse" showcased innovative thinking, pushing the boundaries of WWII aviation capabilities. 🛩️🌊
Landing gear not designed for the shock of carrier landings. Navy also preferred radial air-cooled engines over in-line coolant based engines. Wings would not fold for below deck storage. Just not designed for carrier duty.
This one was
@@tomhenry897a single modified specimen used for testing doesn't change the fact that the Mustang was not designed for carrier operations, as the op pointed out the landing gear couldn't handle carrier landings and launches along with the wings not folding upright for storage.
@@tomhenry897No it was just barely strengthened enough for some tests. Look how heavy set the bodies are on real carrier planes. When that tailhook grabs the arresting wire it slams the craft down on the deck and that flexes the thin body, the airframe, of the P-51.
Why did the navy prefer air-cooled?
I'm just an enthusiast, not a mechanic, but wouldn't *naval* planes do better with an engine that has a closed loop cooling system, as to not suck in water?
@PootisPenserPow I believe the biggest factor was what happens when a round goes through an engine block. With a water cooled engine, that motor is going to lose all its coolant and overheat. An aircooled motor may still keep going. You might be down a cylinder but as long as it doesn't loose oil pressure or hit something vital like a crank or main bearing it may get you home. All problems that would also kill a water cooled engine.
Over land an engine failure sucks but you can bail out or land in a field. In the ocean that's a lot less enticing. Don't forget WWII carrier aircraft had a combat radius of several hundred miles. Good luck being found if you go for a swim. Even if a wingman saw you go down.
As awful as a Japanese or German P.O.W camp was, it would probably seem like heaven compared to those that had to bail out in the ocean far from any ships or land. What takes you? Dehydration? Sharks? Exposure such as hypothermia? (Less a concern in the south pacific) Or do you decide to give up and choose to vist Davy Jones Locker?
Then there's probably the need to train your mechanics to service two completely different engines. Can they learn sure. But it's easier the less different your engine is.
If Im not mistaken the Corsair and Hellcat shared an engine which meant you could share engine parts. Not something you could do with a mustang. And the wildcat while a technically a different aircraft then a hellcat probably had far more in common with each other than a mustang. Helps with both maintain and pilots. Especially on an aircraft carrier where space is at a premium.
Seahorse is a great name for a carrier based mustang
The FJ-1 Fury got the design effort instead.
I met a ww2 vet who served on the uss shangri-la. Wish i asked him about that. Only story i remember from him is a corsairs wing coming off on apporach
The main reasons for why the Mustang wasn't used in Carrier groups was the F6F and F4U. Both were designed for the pacific and were more than capable against the Japanese. There was no need for a 3rd aircraft
How would a Mustang fare against a Hellcat or Corsair in dogfight? All 3 aircraft are capable of 400mph and armed with 6x .5 cal MGs. But speed and armament are not the only factors to consider, manoeuvre ability, acceleration, climb rate, height ceiling are also key, pilots being equal.
@@user-pj3ch8ou2hshould also consider the logistics of the matter though.
P-51 is big and doesn't fold up, it's fragile for carrier ops which means more repairs and more spare parts need to shipped over *constantly*, and the different engine type means more training for fresh crews in a situation where interchangeability is king.
Plus there were already a shitton of Helldivers and Corsairs in that theater, and they were doing just fine against their opponents.
The aircraft was not the ETF-15D as is sometimes reported. The only aircraft to carry the ETF-51D designation was a P-51D-25-NT, serial number 44-84900, which was used by NACA for wing airflow research. The aircraft used in the carrier trials was P-51D-5-NA s/n 44-14017. There are no documents that refer to 44-14017 as an ETF-51D, therefore it is likely that it was at one point confused with the NACA aircraft.
Edit: Perhaps I should clarify the meaning of the ETF-51 designation. The baseline designation was “F-51” (formerly P-51), meaning the 51st fighter design since 1924. “T” indicates an aircraft that was modified as a trainer (44-14017 was never modified as such). “E” indicates an aircraft that is exempt from modification orders because it is loaned to outside organizations, which included NACA/NASA, but not other branches of the military.
Thank you for the breakdown, I watch and play a lot of aviation stuff but didn't know how the US designated their craft. Why since 1924?
@@PootisPenserPow in 1924, the United States Army Air Service (a predecessor to the modern USAF) introduced the designation system that would be used until 1962. They had previously been using a different system since 1919, but that one was known for being a bit confusing so they replaced it with a simpler system). In 1962, all branches of the US military adopted the Tri-Service designation system, which was based on the 1924 USAAS system and continues to be used to this day.
One point was surely, there was no need for a seahorse P-51! They'd already planes who executed the missions they wanted. A carrier version of the P-51 would be the solution for a non-existent problem!
Yup by then they had the F4U Corsair & F6F Hellcat!! And the F7F Tigercat but that would be for a diff mission. I’d say Corsair would be a good counterpart to the Mustang
@Legion-xq8eo Two of my favorite US prop driven war planes. F4U and P51. I built many plastic model kits of both when I was a kid.
Slightly off topic, I didn't learn until later in life that my favorite 60's muscle car was actually named after the P51 fighter plane. I had a 67' Mustang coupe in high-school followed by a nice 68' California Special Mustang that I've now owned since 1986. Several years ago, I met and befriended an elderly gentleman named Joe. Turns out, he flew a P51 during the Korean War. He was shot down over the sea and rescued by an Army helicopter. He later transitioned into the F-86 Sabre Jet. On a whim, I asked him to please sign my dash board (where Carroll Shelby normally signed his name). Joe was touched and teared up a little while he signed his name. He later sent me a small black and white photo of his P51 "Lil Joe" which I affixed onto my dash next to his name.
There was a naval version of the spitfire. They had no chop 6 Inches of the prop because it had a tendency to pitch forward on landing and bend the blades. The Supermarine Seafire.
dont forget about the sea hurricane
It was also noted that sometime Seafire planes structure would crack from landings.
The Seafire/Spitfire wing was much better suited for the slow landing approach on a carrier deck as it hardly would stall at all. The laminar flow Mustang wing couldn't handle the difficult slow speed approach equally well as Reginald Mitchell's mid thirties ellipical wing. In addition the Mustang was a ton heavier than the more nimble and maneuverable Spitfire.
Naval aircraft airframes are radically different. The P-51 wasn't designed/engineered with carrier operations in mind. It's not a STOL aircraft.
Came here to say this!
Nor are Naval Aircraft (STOL). The carrier will steam into the wind at 20-30 knots during landing and launch, that's more than enough for any fighter of the era (remember, the USS Hornet launched B-25s for the Doolittle raid, so takeoff distance is of no issue to the Mustang at all).
They wrote MAD MAX on a restored fighter!? Man, what a day. What a lovely day!
That last photo of the the propeller vortices circling the aircraft is so cool
Not only it had been featured with a reinforced landing gear, but also it could have folding wings in order to fit the plane for storage under deck of the aircraft carriers on active service at the era.
I always wondered why the navy never adopted the p-51 because it was an awesome fighter. Now I know.
That's a partial explanation. There are other longer reasons.
Pretty sure the mustang also handles poorly at low speeds due to it's aerodynamics which would have have been a good thing trying to land on a moving ship.
Right. The laminar flow wing didn't handle low speed very well. It stalled much easier than the lighter and more maneuverable Spit/Seafire.
Thank you so very much for posting.
MAKE WAR NO MORE.
As long as humans exist there will always be war
“There is only one P-51 mustang to ever have attempted to land on an aircraft carrier.”
me in War Thunder: “Not if I have anything to say about it.”
The Mustang didnt attempt to land on a carrier. It did land on the Shangri La. The Navy was not equipped to maintain water cooled engines on carriers. That was the reason they didnt use them.
Now that's not entirely true. The US Navy had used water cooled engines previously. Last one being the Curtiss f6c Hawk.
Plenty of other reasons, as stated. Along with time running out.
If they'd strengthened the airframe, beefed up the landing gear and added all the gear for folding wings, it would have ruined every advantage the P-51 had. It would be akin to slapping armor plating onto a formula one race car to make it a tank. They had the Corsair. They had the Hellcat. Both were superior to their opponents. They didn't need to screw with a successful land based fighter to build a mediocre carrier based one.
day to day operations are one thing. carrier operations are another. carrier landings are brutal.
The P-51 Mustang is. Y favorite aircraft.
The Corsair was better below 27000 feet anyway and in the Pacific theater they didn't need to fly as high as the Mustangs did in bomber escort.
I like the name - Seahorse... Perfect. It's too bad they couldn't make it work.
The P51 turned into the great fighter after it got a Rolls Royce engine. Prior to that, it was a great air frame but was woefully underpowered.
Nice 👍
Absolutely
F4u Corsair was the best fighter of WW2.
For the most part the P-51 could only handle basic takeoff and landing stresses.
Yes. It was a very heavy aircraft, especially compared to the more nimble and maneuverable Spitfire.
Nah that carrier does not look like the bo1 zombies map
I knew one landed on a carrier. I did not know it was designated as a "Sea Horse" nor that it was airframe issues that prevented its being used by the US Navy for carrier operations.
Think three was prejudice involved
There is no prejudice against North American aviation. The need for the aircraft was not there. Not only is there issues with the airframe. It has poor vision for Carrier aircraft. As well as stall speed. And existing aircraft got the mission done.
The P-51 didn't become the legendary airplane until it changed engines and went to a Rolls-Royce Merlin(so I've read in previous books).😊😊😊😊
P47s were trialled too
" Old Crow " P - 51
Salute
( I think it was flown / owned by WWII Ace " Bud " Anderson , who just recently passed away... )
Salute
To All who Flew & Fought in the Battle of the Air
Meanwhile me using the p 51 mustang in ptfs in gr and taking off from hhs
The" Sea Horse"
The unanswered question is, why test a P-51 on a carrier to begin with?
It was a test program. The need for long range escorts was solved by actually taking land bases. The Army Air Force need for b-29 escorts led to the invasion of Iwo Jima. Meanwhile , the US Navy was already working on a long-range twin engine fighter.
I didn't know that
If it wasnt for the double supercharged Merlin it would have been a mediocre fighter
The British tried. Duhhh. How do you think they ended up with the Roll-Royce Merlin to replace the crappy Allison?
I loveee the mustang
And the the mustang only became a mustang after being paired with Rolls Royce Merlin engine. Prior to that it was a hobby horse or a show pony at best.
Fragility…. Entities attempting to blow each other out of the skies probably in the short term would have been worthy
Not tough enough for carrier operations... built for speed so i had to be significant lighter than carrier planes🤔
That's only part of the reason. It has a poor approach view with the long nose. Bad stall characteristics and it uses a water cooled engine.
Can a B52 bomber land on a carrier?
it couldn't work cuz his balls were too big to fit on the carrier. imagine being the guy to test that out
the F4U and F6F were better aircraft anyway.
Also do to its British engine.
There are many reasons.
@@WALTERBROADDUS -- it was not a great plane until they put the Merlin engine in it.
@@user-og1ux8nr3i the Allison 1710 gets a bad rap. The quality of fuel and dual stage supercharging is what makes a better high altitude aircraft. The early model and the A-36 did well at low level.
@@WALTERBROADDUS -- it turned into a beast with the Merlin engine. Make all the excuses you want.
@@user-og1ux8nr3i no just pointing out that it's nothing about the engine design itself that is special. It's the second stage supercharger. That gave the performance edge to the Merlin. Otherwise, the two engines are similar.
naval aircraft are built MUCH MUCH hardier than ground based. naval aircraft have to be able to handle literally slamming into the deck and being suddenly jerked to a stop by an arrestor cable, and also need to be able to launch on super short runways. there’s a reason things like the sbd dauntless, corsair, f4f and f6f etc were all purposely designed for aircraft carrier ops and they didn’t just modify existing planes. it’s the same reason why the navy and air force use different planes, the navy uses the f18 super hornet and the f35c which are both designed for carrier ops, and have MASSIVELY beefed up frames, suspension, etc as well as folding wings and arrestor hooks on them.
Also the aluminum the airframe was made from would corrode quickly from the sea air
That's not really an issue. What do you think Navy aircraft are made from?
Gotta work on enunciation - a load of mushy words in there.
So mustang was easier to land on carrier than corsair 😮
Not at all.... It's long nose has a poor field of view. It also has a high stall speed. Corsair has a stall speed of about 77 mph. P-51 is like 85. Hellcat is 73.
a Z on the carrier deck? weird. correlation between that and the russians with their Z on tanks?
L9oking for a conspiracy under every rock are you ?
@@Ian-mj4pt they have to start somewhere right??? 😬😬😬😬😬
Jesus H, not everything is a conspiracy 😂
Your narrative voice is good, but occasionally slurs words together, as though you were speaking informally to friends. If you are more careful with this, you will have an even better narrator's voice.
The liquid cooled engine wouldn't survive the carrier landings.
Yes it would had airframe been designed for carrier landings. Water cooling has nothing to do with carrier work
@@RT22-pb2pp The plumbing for the radiator doesn't do well in the controlled crash environment of carrier landings.
The Brits flew Seafires off of their carriers. Same engine.
@@73Trident The Brits had no other choice. The under powered 2 man multi role planes were total jokes.
Radial engines were air cooled. So one stray round wouldn't make the engine seize. Especially over open ocean.
I can't imagine liquid cooling having much to do with it. I could see the rather long main gear and maybe the gear mounting points in the wings or the main spars or wing carrythrough needing to be beefed up. Also no folding wings. But yeah, I dont believe the P51 was ever ment for carrier duty in the first place.