Why did this P-51 Mustang land on a WW2 Aircraft Carrier?
HTML-код
- Опубликовано: 6 июн 2023
- Only one P-51 Mustang, serial # 44-14017, ever attempted to land on a WWII aircraft carrier.
Click for the full video...
• Why did this P-51 Must... 
Развлечения
Click for the full video...
ruclips.net/video/nWcvu_Qw3P0/видео.html
Why cant more people like you be on shorts because im sick of running into people that look shit up on google about an A-10 warthog like why the landing gear is shifted im glad i ran into your channel have a great day man 🫡
You are annoying when you force people to watch additionally a video when you can pack it easily into the 1 minute short.
@@harrison00xXx a classic Dunning krugger clown. If you understood how running a RUclips channel worked then you’d understand, instead you think you know what you’re talking about but you don’t have a clue. Congrats muppet.
@@harrison00xXx no one cares bro the comment is worthless bruh like I watched the video because IT WAS BETTER than SCROLLING THROUGH SHORTS for another 20 MINUTES watching videos that 9 YEAR OLDS post ABOUT THEIR BEST GAMEPLAY OR THEIR CRINGE ass memes 🗿
Your link is not a link
The Navy decided they didnt want to mix air-cooled and liquid-cooled powerplants on carriers, was one reason.
More like there was no need for it anymore.
@@WALTERBROADDUS I agree, that's another reason. By then islands within range of the P-51 were available to use, so there was no longer a real need for them to be carrier based.
The inhouse engine shop alone would take up half the ship. The in- lines had more maintanence, and down time than the radials
@@petermyers9442 they also have the rather major problem of poor deck Landing vision. The long nose makes for very poor Carrier Landing approach. The British had the same issues with the Seafire.
also wings didn't fold up for room
Navy preferred air-cooled radials, wings did not fold; Hellcat was sufficient for late war needs.
The P-51 is not a forgiving aircraft near stall speed as well (which aircraft are traveling when landing on aircraft carrier). In the post-war years when jets took over the air-combat roll the A-1 'Skyraider' soldiered on for reason's Mac-K listed. PS - The A-1 used the same engine as the B-29.
bingo
Think the Hellcat had more enemy kills than any other American warplane
wings didn't need to fold since it was small enough, same as SBD. It was more about jets coming online and the performance increases of the P-51 not being worth the effort giving how short it would be used before being replaced by jets.
@NesconProductions you're forgetting the Corsair as well
For the people saying the wings didn't fold that could've been retconned later, just like with the Seafire variant of the Spitfire.
The biggest problem with the Mustang on carriers was the unforgiveness of the airframe at stall speed, since it had a slightly different stall speed for each wing (just like early Corsairs) which also could be retconned.
And more importantly for the navy, a liquid cooled engine, you could bring a radial air cooled engine on deck missing an entire piston, you couldn't fly a Mustang for very long with a punctured radiator. The navy simply prefered air cooled radials.
...and for good reason
I would if lived to fly in the P▪︎51. Not a chance now. Fairly disabled. I dreamed about it. Then im dream I flew.w.just my ability off skyscraper through canyons of skyscrappers. That was a rush.
The reasoning was because there wasn’t much room for error between the max landing speed and the P-51’s stall speed. Lack of wing fold and being water cooled were lesser considerations.
When you have the Corsair, the Hellcat and the Bearcat in the pipeline, you really don't need to add an unfamiliar airframe/engine combo to flight ops.
It might have been used to test a possible safety buffer for Mustangs to escort b-29s to Japan. Then the range improved and it was unnecessary.
Personally I think this was the true reason. By late 1944 the Navy already had air superiority within the Pacific. There was no need for the Mustang on carriers and everyone knew it by that point.
P-51s were launched from land bases in China and on islands in late 44 and into 45, the P-51 could make the journey with drop tanks but according to some pilots the journey was so long that the only thing that kept them awake was the hum of the engine plus by early 1945 the Japanese Airforce couldn't effectively defend the skies over Japan agaisnt B-29s and for a while before the end of the war the casualty rate for air crews over Japan was lower than the training missions back in the US
The P51 was a good plane so was the F6F and the F4U both were already available with F8F and F7 on the way.
The F7F was a beautiful bird...but too big for the CVs. She was as sexy as the P-38 Lightning, but I think even better looking. It's been my fave since I first learned about it fifty years ago!
That ‘curved approach’ was s.o.p. for all F4U Corsairs, which were originally designed as carrier planes and had gull wings, but had great difficulty with carrier landings otherwise.
Corsairs have always fascinated me. An enhanced fighter plane designed around the realities of carrier landings. They came late in the war and were not around for very long.
@@reddiver7293
Designed for maximum power and speed ....
Probably required a very talented pilot ...
One of the few fighters that kept on flying from ww2 into the Korean conflict
@@DarksideDave42
Thanks, Dave.
Testing all existing aircraft for different roles was commonplace.
Probably because the Navy had Hellcats and Bearcats and Tigercats. Oh my! 😜
Let's not forget Corsairs.
Ken, you keep funding all these great videos! Great work!
USS Shangri-La (CV 38) took her name from a fictional place in James Hilton's novel "Lost Horizon," which President Roosevelt told the press was the launching point for the secretive Doolittle Raid in April 1942.
The president truly announced "our bombers from our secret base in ShangriLa attacked japan today". Japan even set out parties to locate this base.. the loss of CV8 led to the naming of CB38 in Hornets honor.
You don't say.
In my estimation the P-51 is the most beautiful aircraft to ever exist. It's the Hot rod you've always wanted. IT'S also the first plane to take advantage of laminar flow in it's wings. Agile and powerful. So freaking sleek 🔥😎
I saw Mark Hanna display a P-51 and a Spitfire in 1998.
Absolutely no comparison regarding the dynamics of his demonstration.
What might have been is that the Spitfires are original airframes, while you can get more or less complete brand-new P-51 airframes. The cast parts of the engine about the only thing not readily available.
Imagine the amount of rework for flight condition you have to do, when you don't want to take chances, you have anyhow to replace the complete electrical wiring, hydraulical and pneumatic plumbing, all control lines. If you leave out ONE joint, that will fail.
So he could probably push the P-51 harder without fearing of damaging something irreplaceable.
I was so looking forward to see him next year - and then he crashed in a Hispano Buchon, a spanish built Me 109.
As I had several instances where pilots that had stood out for me and I was looking forward to seeing again had died, I stopped going to airshows.
I am not superstitious, but it is simply weird, I do not want to put other people's lives at risk - and it would make ME feel horrible if that happened again.
? Messerschmitt Bf109 had laminar wings, didn't it?
You have obviously never seen a 707-300 with a hush puppy kit.
I beg to differ, i belive the corsair looks even better
@@therailfanman2078 It is beautiful as well ❤️🩹
Was scrapped posibably because retrofitting the mustang's main gear , entire fuselage , and Tailhook meant a lot of weight , and cost . Plus , jets were coming of age
Jets were coming of age, thanks to the Germans and their technology and engineering!
I believe the Navy so loved the Pratt n Whitney radial, like me, no liquid cooled V could take its place.
Reliability with damage , and no radiator would be a consideration....I believe.
Hellcat and Corsair were excellent and met the Navy's need
In 1950 or so I made a model from a kit and fell in love with the P51. It was so streamlined and beautiful compared to other planes. Only the B1 is more beautiful. I wish I could go back to that time and fly one.
Warthunder footage in history videos should be something you can go to jail for
Thanks for the comment, Duce AWJ. Why is that?
I don't think that's warthunder I think it's an older arcade fighter game can't really remember the name tho
I mean that was my first though was doing this in war thunder and all the other variants you could use. P59 maybe
If you thought that thing was real life you're more gullible than a 6 year old, you can count the pixels!
Explain or shut up.
They just had a Corsair and Hellcat. Two planes built for carriers and one incredible mid to low altitude aircraft. The Navy didn’t need an extremely high altitude escort fighter. They needed a low level agile and powerful dog fighters, ie the hellcat and Corsair
The wings don't fold, that was a big deal on a carrier.
Not really it would allow the navy to have more carriers with more pilots meaning more areas of operation it was the liquid cooled engine
@@austinrooks1787 how would putting bigger planes on a carrier, allow them to have more carriers? Did the planes build the carriers? The Navy only bought planes with folding wings, there were other concerns that sound trivial in war time, but they were most definitely concerned with how many would fit in a carrier.
Spitfire didn't have folding wings either. Didn't stop the Brits from making it carrier-borne
@@williamallan5791liquid v. Air cooled engines
@@williamallan5791the Seafire (the carrier modified version of the Spitfire) did have folding wings.
The "Sea Horse". That's perfect! Lol
I've Heard it referred to as "Sea Stang" before.
@@muttley00 Not bad but Sea Horse is pretty sweet!
Many reasons, as have been stated here. One I did not hear mentioned was the Navy also knew that the Bearcats were about to come on-line, as was the writing on the wall for piston driven aircraft.
The curved landing approach was invented by British test pilot Eric Brown using the Vought Corsair. An aircraft the US Navy refuse to use was well liked by British Fleet Air Arm pilots using the same landing method.
That myth has been debunked
Sea Spitfire, Seafire
Sea Mustang, Sea Horse...
Lovin it!
Damn! The Carrier is the F4U Corsair's home not the Mustang.
I think it was scraped because the wings would not fold up . the p 51 is the number one fighter plane to this day
Not only that.
The main reason why it was tested is that they ware considering an Upgrade for bomber escorts to Japan (as at the time , P51 was not in range).
However by the time they started testing , captured islands in range became available so the need was no longer there.
Also the Navy didnt want to mix the type of fighters they used (air cooled radial and liquid cooled engins). The liquid cooled added complexity they didnt need and also required the entire airgroup to be re-trained for the new type as the bigger nouses made landings more difficult.
It was just to much a hasstle for something they no longer needed. By the time P51 Navel could of been operational -they would of already won. They already had air dominance over the Japs ,so they didnt need a supper high performance fighter. The Hellcats and Cousairs ware good enaugh.
Scrapped. Not true
The primary reason was that the wings didn't fold. That's a giant consideration for carrier borne aircraft. Much bigger than most people realize.
The Shangri-La also had a few B25's try carrier takeoffs.
With the laminar flow wing and already pretty high wing loading of the P-51D it would have been a poor carrier fighter especially for less experienced pilots. Probably would have needed a larger wing so a huge redesign.
I doubt it would have been any worse than the Corsair. Like with the Corsair training was the solution.
@@Darren4352 no because the Corsair was purposely designed as a carrier plane and as such it had a much lower stalling speed and gentler stall characteristics. Larger wing and it was designed for low-speed flight unlike the laminar flow wing of the Mustang.
for what it's worth hanger 9 had a trainer p51 mustang added parts to the wings / prop to slow it down & would have been good for carrier landings but bad as a fighter ,
.
the corsair is a great plane for carriers VS the mustang .
.
for what it's worth I fly both RC versions both fly different and love to fly both , landing is very different for the planes
I would take a corsair any day over a mustang for a carrier landing ..
.
for what it is worth
Amazing story!! Thanks for sharing 👍
I was introduced to one of my wife's patients a few years ago. He was a deck hand and his brother a hellcat pilot on the Shangri-la. I wonder if they might have witnessed this event. However he has passed on , thank you all for sacrifice
The British used p-51 mustangs. They perfected the curved approach for landing, they also used the Corsair in the same manner. The problem is visibility. The engines used were 1000 horse power plus, designed for bombers. The pilot can't see past the engine. There were some purposed efforts to put window on the floor of the cockpit. However that would yeild a weaknesses to the armor protecting the pilot.😊
At one point, the USN had considered getting a Naval version of the F15, it would've been designated as a "F15N" but it also never happened
If they had adopted a Sea Mustang it probably would have had the same problems as the Seafire. It shared the long nose, as was noted here. But the Mustang also had some advantages over the Seafire, mainly longer range and a wide-stance main gear.
Admiral Nimitz said he did not want a liquid cooled engine on the flight deck, because the coolant used was highly flammable. Navy had enough issues with deck fires, adding one more thing would have been too much. As for the weak landing gear, and non-folding wings, those could have been addressed, but the anti-freeze used in the very flammable coolant used in the coolant system is what ended this idea.
Read a chapter in a forgotten book. The chapter was called “Down on the Deck: the P-51 Mustang.” It was about this Mustang.
USN committed to Radial engines early in the war and given the performance of the F6 and Corsair and the range of the upcoming Tigercat. It was not worth the complications involved in changing their whole airfleet..
The US Navy Corsair had to make the same kind of approach in order for it to land safely on the carrier decks too.
They named a carrier after a zombies map lmao
Maybe the best WW2 air-to-air dogfighter
So I think back about 15 years and this particular aircraft was a gate guard at 171st air wing ANG base in Pittsburgh Pa, I think it was donated to Air Heritage Inc. and was then moved through or sold off by the Collins foundation unless someone may know where it went but it was a rare bird and I remember only seeing it with wings off but all intact sitting in the hanger at KBVI. Would be nice to know the end story on it.
that last pic showing the prop spinning is awesome!??! 🧐🤔🤯🤷🏼😆👍🏻🖤👏🏻🤙🏻
Well what you're seeing there is a condensation trail from the prop-tip vortices. Pretty common to see on aircraft carrier-borne propeller aircraft.
I agree that the tests were done for a specific mission. Carriers just to be used for fuel stops.
Also had it had the same left wing stalls first problem as the Corsair.
The high landing speed was a major issue.
Because the bearcat came out and they were faster and more manuverable. Navy liked air cooled engines and already had corsairs
Bro's boutta get arrested by the government for revealing their secret 😭
Probably the biggest factor was, in fact, the presence of capable carrier based fighters that Naval Aviators already knew how to fly. Why complicate things by adding an unnecessary aircraft to the inventory that required significant weight adding modifications to make work? It was a little different for the UK and the Seafire, as they were more limited on manufacturing lines to start as well as having their manufacturing more readily targeted by an adversary, so modifications on the smaller number of aircraft types made sense. In this case, the US was already producing aircraft intended for carrier use that were more than adequate for their theatre of operations.
I studied the ship and theres a good amount of stuff that you can learn
It would have become the FJ-1(instead of the later Fury)had the Navy adopted it.
Which became the basis for the Sabre Jet
I would think that at that time, the end of the war was already noticable, so there was no need to make a carrier-usable Mustang, there were PLENTY of Navy fighters at about the same capabilities of the Mustang, plus they wanted jet powered planes for the future.
navy already had the supercoursair in the works and was gonna switch entirely to that shortly after the war
Because the wings did not fold for more aircraft to go on the flight deck
It's success wasn't used until some of the first Jets having both a Navy and air force counter part
Me in war thunder:
Seahorse? Genius.
They also landed a B-25 and a F7F on CV-38 USS Shangri La
Navy also did not like having to retrain mechanics for a new type engine.
Punctured radiators probably aren't a huge issue with land based operations, at least you had a chance to land somewhere. Over water? You want to keep things running as long as possible for the chance to make it to a carrier, you're not going to be swimming home anyway.
The ventral airintake could hve made ditching more dangerous than other aircraft types. Also by then the USN had taken over Corsair reciepts. After the RN had figured out how to make them carrier compatable.
The bottom mounted airscoop would immidiately drag underwater any P-51 attempting a belly water landing thereby vastly reducing the survival chances of the pilot.
Too much engineering changes required to field the Seahorse. Huge problem was the lack of folding wings.
The stall speed of the p51 is too risky to land on a carrier
No need to get Mustangs for carrier duty. Grumman already had the Navy contracts locked up, and they made capable, air-cooled, easier to maintain, rugged planes (Hellcats, Bearcats later).
Shoulda called it the"Sea-Stang"
For God's sake, man, get the tail numbers right, they are as follows, 414017, not 44-140-17. Like WOW!!!!
Quite simply, when you had the F6F in huge numbers, a very successful fighter made for carrier use, why make a whole new P-51 subtype with a heavier airframe and folding wings? Also, remember all the spare parts and tons of glycol the carriers would need to support the Mustang, just for starters.
Plus the p51 did not have folding wings, so it could fit less on the carrier then a f4u
I'm not sure how the chronology works out, but the US Navy did a nose to nose flight test of a P-51 against a Vaught F4U Corsair. The Corsair simply ate the P-51 alive. In fact, they found the Corsair could reach an effective low level attack speed so much more quickly that the Corsair had relatively little trouble taking out the P-51. The Problem is this: the P-51 Mustang was a lackluster low level fighter. In fact, while the Packard Rolls Royce engine (btw, my ex-wife's late grandfather was the number one person in the US during WW II on how to repair a Packard Rolls Royce and spent the war as a civilian training military repairmen how to work on it - interesting old guy who died shortly after falling off the roof of his house when he tried to repair it himself when he was 102). In fact, the Allison engine the P-51 used in its earlier models was a much better low level engine than the Rolls Royce. The P-51 was better at 25,000 feet than a Corsair was, but carrier fighter combat in the Pacific took place at a much lower level. The Pratt and Whitney R-2800 Double Wasp was just a better engine at sea level. They ran the Mustang versus Corsair test over and over and the Mustang was pretty much helpless against the Corsair until they reached higher altitudes. The Mustang was without competition as a prop driven high altitude fighter, but couldn't match either the Corsair or Hellcat at low level. The Mustang simply did not meet the needs of the Navy. Also, the Corsair and Hellcats were more ruggedly built; there was some concern about how tough the Mustang's landing gear was. To make the Mustang truly carrier-ready it was going to have to have its landing gear significantly strengthened, which would have added weight to the "Sea Horse". And another source of weight would be gears and machinery to fold the wings. Early in the war they used motorized folding wing, but the motor added too much weight and carrier crews removed the motors on most planes (such as the F4F-4 Wildcats). To counter this weight increase I believe they would have removed two of the Mustang's machine guns. This would also have given the Mustang a longer total burst time, since four guns use up the total amount of ammo more slowly than six. I find it interesting that the most advanced fighter the Navy used in WW II, the F8F Bearcat (basically a plane with the largest possible engine attached to the lightest possible air frame). It had been delivered to the Navy by August 1945, but they didn't make it into combat.
And yes, the fact that the Mustang had an inline engine rather than a radial was a massive factor. The Army Air Force had already learned that a P-47 could experience multiple hits to the engine, yet could continue to operate well even if they lost several pistons. The Mustang had a tough time of it if they lost any pistons.
AIR COOLED ENGINE WAS WHAT 2AS NEEDED.....water cooled can be taked down with one bullet...air cooled will still run with a few cylinders missing
Having only air cooled aircraft on carriers was wise. No extra coolant to carry, coolant is weight which displaces armament, battle damage to a coolant reservoir will down an otherwise airworthy aircraft...the list goes on.
i bet he did a cobra manuever right before he hit the deck
They got the serial number wrong on the tail rudded .
🤔🤣🇺🇲
The P51 wing had terrible low speed stall characteristics and would snap roll. Take offs on carriers required high speed into the wind take off
Research and development, critical info was obtained and served it's purpose.
Also, it must be said that the Navy has always had a bias against using Air Force aircraft, and the Air Force has always had a bias against using Navy aircraft.
And there's some logic to that since each service has its own unique requirements.
You read the tail number wrong.
Im guessing it was scrapped because it didn't have folding wings...
no, it was a couple reasons.
1. navy preferred aircooled radials- they were more durable than water-cooled engines
2. the P-51’s wings had slightly different stall speeds- very important factor with carrier operations
How did tail wheel planes keep the tail wheel out of the trap wires?
It was an experiment only. They determined that the cost and weight of a navalized P-51 simply didn’t make sense. The navy already had a superior aircraft in the F4U, so why bother?
The uss shangri la cvn-38 propeller is at medings seafood restaurant in Milford Delaware and you can always stop by there and see it
1st calling this Top Secret, is a pointless exaggeration at best and moronic sensationalism at worst.
2nd the Navy had zero need to introduce another aircraft into carrier service. The Corsair and Hellcat were already dominant against the Japanese, and the P-51 used a liquid cooled V-12 engine, something no other aircraft in the entire navy used.
Easy the Navy had two excellent fighters the Corsair and Hellcat with great kill ratios.
The mustangs dogspit visibility, non foldable wings and the fact that it needed all that modification might be a reason.
Wasn't it a fight between the Navy & Army? At the time US armed services fought constantly to have & use only specific hardware. I heard my grandpa talking about this once.
That is one impressive looking Aircraft carrier. It looks like it belongs of the shore of a Sri lanka scrap yard
The Shangri-la was only one if maybe three aircraft carriers from WW2 with a wooden deck which was later cut in half, lengthen and received a steel deck and catapult for extended use. I learned this from a WW2 vet I met who was a deck hand on board the Shangri-la.
Mostly because the Corsair had as good if not better performance except for range
A good premium aircraft for war Thunder
P-51 is a great plane but it’s delicate. Navy needed heartier planes. The Hellcat, Wildcat, and Corsair all were durable dependable planes. The P-51 was to much of a glass cannon
And it wasn't designed for carriers and couldn't fold its wings. But who knew about this?
What would be the point? The F4U and F6F were quite capable of doing the job. Plus they were designed for carrier work. The P-51 was NOT designed for carrier purposes. If they put folding wings on a P-51 it likely would have completely screwed up the aerodynamics of it! Bottom line; best just leave well enough alone. Some aircraft just cannot be truly made for carrier use.
Simple assumption, required a special approach because you can't see the deck. Same reason the navy moved on from the corsair.
Because the Navy had capable aircraft to do the job in F-6F Hellcats and F4U Corsairs.
Y dad, Lester Morrow served on the Shangrala as a Senior Chief Petty Officer, Boiler Tech until he retired in 1968. He took my brother's and me all over the ship while she was docked at Mayport, Florida.
Did bro really use a clip from war thunder with a monochrome filter💀💀💀
Thanks brother,I never heard of that before.😊
Wow, content creators finally have found a way to make their shorts a fckn youtube ad. Bless you all in the comments so I don't have to give this dude any more clicks.
I manage to do this on war thunder and actually made it. And made so happy
The Secret finally comes out. USS Shangri La? FDR when announcing the Doolittle raid on Tokyo said the bombers took off from Shangri La. So it wasn;t the USS Hornet as we have been told, but USS Shangri la!