Poor Low Speed Lateral Control!
Tue May 13, 2008 8:42 pm
Wonderful pictures, and I too like that profile of the P51 in USN colours!
Me neither Bill!
One of the reasons the P51 was rejected as a carrierborne fighter was because of it's poor low speed lateral control. Combine that with the high torque/prop slipstream effects and low directional stability on the P51, I should imagine it would be a recipe for disaster for an inexperienced pilot!
This is one thing the Spitfire/Seafire did have, along with superb longitudinal control at low speeds (as Bill or any Spit pilot will testify!), which was ideal for carrier operations!
However, the narrow undercart and long nose wasn't so helpful, but I think most pilots would rather land a Seafire on a moving & pitching deck than a P51. That said, Jeffery Quill mentions in his book 'Spitfire' that he felt that whilst he could land a Spitfire in his sleep on land, he would not be able to do so on a carrier!
Cheers
Paul
Bill Greenwood wrote:That is very interesting. Sounds like a very talented and brave pilot. I would not like to be trying to bring a 51 aboard a carrier after a 6 hour escort mission. And man would it be a marginal thing going off the front end at full fuel load with big drop tanks. They might have been able to delete 2 or 4 of the guns and some armor to save weight if needed. I looked up the specs on Seafire XV, the early Griffon one version. Stall was 62k or 71mphpower off. They came in at 65 to 70knots or 75 mph to 80 mph. A wave off would be no problem, IF one was easy on the power. I don't have the specs for the lighter Merlin models.
Me neither Bill!
One of the reasons the P51 was rejected as a carrierborne fighter was because of it's poor low speed lateral control. Combine that with the high torque/prop slipstream effects and low directional stability on the P51, I should imagine it would be a recipe for disaster for an inexperienced pilot!
This is one thing the Spitfire/Seafire did have, along with superb longitudinal control at low speeds (as Bill or any Spit pilot will testify!), which was ideal for carrier operations!
However, the narrow undercart and long nose wasn't so helpful, but I think most pilots would rather land a Seafire on a moving & pitching deck than a P51. That said, Jeffery Quill mentions in his book 'Spitfire' that he felt that whilst he could land a Spitfire in his sleep on land, he would not be able to do so on a carrier!
Cheers
Paul
Fri May 16, 2008 6:13 pm
Hi im new, but not new to warbirds, i play flight sim and i painted that mustang to see what it would look like. I think it looks pretty good in navy blue.
Mods sorry if this is in a irrelevent spot, just thought it fit witht he fictional navy stang.
Mods sorry if this is in a irrelevent spot, just thought it fit witht he fictional navy stang.
Fri May 16, 2008 6:29 pm
I have to agree that blue sure does look great!
IMHO some aircraft you cant pull that off with....i.e. B-17s as PB-1Ws (I just cant get over the blue). However.....black looks super mean on the 29 though.
IMHO some aircraft you cant pull that off with....i.e. B-17s as PB-1Ws (I just cant get over the blue). However.....black looks super mean on the 29 though.
Fri May 16, 2008 6:47 pm
I always thought the B-25/PBJ did it well. The PBJ was sharp in the tricolor scheme.
Fri May 16, 2008 7:03 pm
Django wrote:I can't stop looking at the Dark Sea Blue profile...
It looks sweet!
Sat May 17, 2008 2:56 am
Here's an old pic of a mustang in pretty similiar paint to what you guys are talking about, this bird was owned by Don Novis, of Blackfoot ID, it now belongs to Gene Mallette, and is based in Provo, UT.
I remember seeing Don fly her as a kid. In particular, I remember the blue tint on the canopy.
I remember seeing Don fly her as a kid. In particular, I remember the blue tint on the canopy.
Re: U.S. NAVY P-51D Mustang
Mon Aug 17, 2020 1:24 pm
A bit of addition to an old thread.
Below: 15 November 1944, LT. Bob Elder performed the first trap, or carrier landing, of an Army Air Forces aircraft with a North American P-51D Mustang.
Below: ETF-51D Mustang 44-14017 early 1950's.
Below: 15 November 1944, LT. Bob Elder performed the first trap, or carrier landing, of an Army Air Forces aircraft with a North American P-51D Mustang.
Below: ETF-51D Mustang 44-14017 early 1950's.
Re: U.S. NAVY P-51D Mustang
Mon Aug 17, 2020 1:37 pm
Per J Baugher:
"North American P-51D-5-NA Mustang 44-14017 fitted with arrester hook for carrier trials. Retained by North American Aviation, Dallas, TX for ‘Project Seahorse’ carrier-borne trials. Modified for carrier-borne operations designated ETF-51D. Mustin Field, PA for initial testing in September 1944. During the months of September and October 1944, the aircraft made nearly 150 simulated launches and landings. Transferred to the USS Shangri-La (CV-38), a newly-launched Essex class carrier undergoing its shakedown cruise off the coast of Virginia. On 15 November 1944, the aircraft made the first P-51 carrier landing. It is interesting to note that 15 November was a special day for the Shangri-La. It was the day flight operations began on the ship. Also, on the same day, the PBJ (the US Navy version of the B-25 bomber) made its first carrier landings and launches from it. The carrier suitability trials were short, only 25 landings and launches were made. By early 1945, the islands of Okinawa and Iwo Jima were taken. Their airfields were immediately taken over by US forces, providing fighter units with bases from which they could escort bombers to mainland Japan. The navalized P-51 was no longer needed and the program never went any further. Assigned to NACA Langley Memorial Aeronautical Laboratory, later renamed as the NACA Langley Research Center, Langley Field, VA January 18, 1945 to June 5, 1952. Registered as NACA 102. To USAF, Mobile AFB, AL. 2500th Maintenance Squadron, 2500th Mission Support Group, Mitchel AFB, NY. Accident landing at Bolling AFB, DC 10Dec53. This plane is often confused with BuNo 57987, which was actually an earlier P-51 (41-37426) that had been diverted from a British order."
"North American P-51D-5-NA Mustang 44-14017 fitted with arrester hook for carrier trials. Retained by North American Aviation, Dallas, TX for ‘Project Seahorse’ carrier-borne trials. Modified for carrier-borne operations designated ETF-51D. Mustin Field, PA for initial testing in September 1944. During the months of September and October 1944, the aircraft made nearly 150 simulated launches and landings. Transferred to the USS Shangri-La (CV-38), a newly-launched Essex class carrier undergoing its shakedown cruise off the coast of Virginia. On 15 November 1944, the aircraft made the first P-51 carrier landing. It is interesting to note that 15 November was a special day for the Shangri-La. It was the day flight operations began on the ship. Also, on the same day, the PBJ (the US Navy version of the B-25 bomber) made its first carrier landings and launches from it. The carrier suitability trials were short, only 25 landings and launches were made. By early 1945, the islands of Okinawa and Iwo Jima were taken. Their airfields were immediately taken over by US forces, providing fighter units with bases from which they could escort bombers to mainland Japan. The navalized P-51 was no longer needed and the program never went any further. Assigned to NACA Langley Memorial Aeronautical Laboratory, later renamed as the NACA Langley Research Center, Langley Field, VA January 18, 1945 to June 5, 1952. Registered as NACA 102. To USAF, Mobile AFB, AL. 2500th Maintenance Squadron, 2500th Mission Support Group, Mitchel AFB, NY. Accident landing at Bolling AFB, DC 10Dec53. This plane is often confused with BuNo 57987, which was actually an earlier P-51 (41-37426) that had been diverted from a British order."
Re: U.S. NAVY P-51D Mustang
Mon Aug 17, 2020 2:11 pm
I love that last B&W photo, Mark!
Just a note that again, part of the information stated by Baugher is incorrect. The aircraft was never re-designated for the carrier trials. It was never entered into Navy inventory, never given a BuNo., and never given a change of designation.
After the carrier trials were over, it was assigned to the NACA and received a number of further modifications, such as the removal of the guns, installation of test/monitoring equipment in the wings and fuselage, a taller (extended) tail fin cap, and other modifications for high-speed dive tests with experimental airfoils and airframe models mounted to the wings.
It wasn't until 1952 (around the time that last B&W photo would have been taken), when it was transferred from the NACA to the USAF that it was re-designated as an ETF-51D - E stood for "Exempt" from combat duty, due to the modifications from its time with the NACA, and TF-51D was the designation applied for every F-51D (dual and singe seat) assigned as a trainer. Every former NACA F-51D was re-designated as an ETF-51D when they were transferred to the USAF in the early 50's following their time and modifications with the NACA. This is backed-up in the accident reports from the 1950's, where ETF-51D shows up for a few different Mustangs, and they are all ex-NACA examples.
There are three P-51D's flying today that were former NACA and were all re-designated as ETF-51D's - those being 44-13257 (NACA 108), 44-84864 (NACA 126) and 44-84900 (NACA 127).
Just a note that again, part of the information stated by Baugher is incorrect. The aircraft was never re-designated for the carrier trials. It was never entered into Navy inventory, never given a BuNo., and never given a change of designation.
After the carrier trials were over, it was assigned to the NACA and received a number of further modifications, such as the removal of the guns, installation of test/monitoring equipment in the wings and fuselage, a taller (extended) tail fin cap, and other modifications for high-speed dive tests with experimental airfoils and airframe models mounted to the wings.
It wasn't until 1952 (around the time that last B&W photo would have been taken), when it was transferred from the NACA to the USAF that it was re-designated as an ETF-51D - E stood for "Exempt" from combat duty, due to the modifications from its time with the NACA, and TF-51D was the designation applied for every F-51D (dual and singe seat) assigned as a trainer. Every former NACA F-51D was re-designated as an ETF-51D when they were transferred to the USAF in the early 50's following their time and modifications with the NACA. This is backed-up in the accident reports from the 1950's, where ETF-51D shows up for a few different Mustangs, and they are all ex-NACA examples.
There are three P-51D's flying today that were former NACA and were all re-designated as ETF-51D's - those being 44-13257 (NACA 108), 44-84864 (NACA 126) and 44-84900 (NACA 127).
Last edited by JohnTerrell on Mon Aug 17, 2020 4:12 pm, edited 1 time in total.
Re: U.S. NAVY P-51D Mustang
Mon Aug 17, 2020 3:42 pm
JohnTerrell wrote:<>
There are three Mustangs flying today that were former NACA and were all re-designated as ETF-51D's - those being 44-13257 (NACA 108), 44-84864 (NACA 126) and 44-84900 (NACA 127).
And 44-64314 (NACA 130) - Coutches P-51H
Naval Mustangs;
- zp51a.jpg (16.64 KiB) Viewed 2014 times
Re: U.S. NAVY P-51D Mustang
Mon Aug 17, 2020 4:12 pm
Yes you're right, Lon, I meant to type "P-51D's" in that line rather than "Mustangs". Of course the XP-51 at Oshkosh, Tom Reilly's XP-82 and Pat Harker's F-82E are all former NACA aircraft as well (not to mention those of other types outside of the Mustang lineage surviving today).
Re: U.S. NAVY P-51D Mustang
Mon Aug 17, 2020 5:12 pm
JohnTerrell wrote:Yes you're right, Lon, I meant to type "P-51D's" in that line rather than "Mustangs". Of course the XP-51 at Oshkosh, Tom Reilly's XP-82 and Pat Harker's F-82E are all former NACA aircraft as well (not to mention those of other types outside of the Mustang lineage surviving today).
Re: U.S. NAVY P-51D Mustang
Mon Aug 17, 2020 5:24 pm
Would love to see one painted in blue with NAVY written on it.... 
Phil
Phil
Re: U.S. NAVY P-51D Mustang
Mon Aug 17, 2020 9:54 pm
A little too early for "NAVY" on the sides but I've liked this treatment.
Re: U.S. NAVY P-51D Mustang
Tue Aug 18, 2020 10:57 am
I think you guys just like Navy blue paint schemes. I’d
I’ve to see more Yaks , CJs, and Navions painted in the Navy blue instead of the Communist paint schemes, which I hate. The P-51 would’ve been lousy in Navy service. Performance would’ve suffered greatly from beefing up the airframe to handle carrier landings, folding wings , catapult hooks, tail hook etc. Hard landings would e collapsed the tail wheel and damaged the cooling system. The fuselage would be more prone to buckling on hard landings. Go around would’ve had the occasional pilot torque rolling, catching the left wing and crashing. The laminar flow wing makes it much more difficult to approach slowly and perform those go arounds. The P-51D has the worst loss rate in the Korean War due to its susceptibility to ground fire.
On the other hand, imagine if the Air Corps/ Force had halted production of the P-47 , P-40, etc and gone with the F4U Corsair. It and the P-51 would’ve cleaned up even more quickly. Also, the Air For e should’ve drafted Corsairs for the ground support role in the Korean War. It’s superior in the ground support role to the P-51.
I’ve to see more Yaks , CJs, and Navions painted in the Navy blue instead of the Communist paint schemes, which I hate. The P-51 would’ve been lousy in Navy service. Performance would’ve suffered greatly from beefing up the airframe to handle carrier landings, folding wings , catapult hooks, tail hook etc. Hard landings would e collapsed the tail wheel and damaged the cooling system. The fuselage would be more prone to buckling on hard landings. Go around would’ve had the occasional pilot torque rolling, catching the left wing and crashing. The laminar flow wing makes it much more difficult to approach slowly and perform those go arounds. The P-51D has the worst loss rate in the Korean War due to its susceptibility to ground fire.
On the other hand, imagine if the Air Corps/ Force had halted production of the P-47 , P-40, etc and gone with the F4U Corsair. It and the P-51 would’ve cleaned up even more quickly. Also, the Air For e should’ve drafted Corsairs for the ground support role in the Korean War. It’s superior in the ground support role to the P-51.