What might have been for the P-51...“Project Seahorse”

[Reschke]

Such a beautiful aircraft would have looked even better painted in the colors of the US Navy during WW2. However the D model just didn't have a good enough low speed handling to make it worth the risk and the fact that Okinawa and Iwo Jima got captured created an entirely different set of circumstances. Although later in 1945 the P-51H series was tested and found to have better low speed handling but the need for the Pony flying off a carrier just wasn't there anymore. Too bad in my view.

Had the naval Mustang entered operational service, this is what it could have looked like. Based on a VF-4 F6F Hellcat's livery in early 1945. Profile by Gaëtan Marie.

http://www.mustang.gaetanmarie.com/articles/naval/naval.htm

44-14017 on the deck of USS Shangri-La during the trials in November 1944. (US Navy).

The ETF-51D prototype about to catch the arrester cable upon landing. Elder complained that aircraft attitude upon landing had to be precisely controlled, or the airframe would be damaged. (US Navy).

[Devil 505]

Another mark against the Mustang was that the Navy didnt like the idea of a water cooled engine. Cool looking scheme though.

[mthrockmor]

Great post!

Boo

[cobia38]

  The most obvious reason the navy scrapped the project,was they feared pilots would become timid and start running from fights. 

[icepac]

LOL

[MAINER]

  The most obvious reason the navy scrapped the project,was they feared pilots would become timid and start running from fights. 

 

Most of though was due to the structure of the P-51 not being built rugged enough to handle the continual hard carrier landings. navy planes back then and even today are built a lot heavier then Air-force planes. As said earlier the Navy preferred air cooled Wright Cyclones and Pratt and Whitney radials over water cooled in-lines. The radials were also known for being more reliable.

[Reschke]

With the strengthening of certain points on the airframe the aircraft was deemed worth of at least going to carrier trials and it was done more than once with different aircraft. So apparently the strength of the airframe obviously wasn't an over-riding concern and neither was the engine which was certainly able to do the job. Otherwise they never would have considered the aircraft for anything.

[MAINER]

What I am trying to say is that the airframe was not designed for carrier use nor was it designed for per navy spec. It wouldn't have worked out well.

[clerick]

I had never seen this. I was just reading about the testing they did to see if the 38 could be used as a float plane. I wonder what other USAAF planes were considered for naval duty.

[Shuckins]

I remember reading about these carrier trials for the Mustang a few years ago.  To make the Mustang carrier ready the wing would have had to be lengthened considerably and at least 400 pounds of structural modifications to strengthen the airframe so that it could take the pounding of continuous carrier operations.  The aircraft that best fit carrier requirements were aircraft that were designed at the outset to meet those requirements....such as the Hellcat and Corsair.

The problems that the Mustang encountered were essentially the same that the British ran into when they ran carrier trials for the Spitfire;  flimsy structure, anemic landing gear, etc.  However, the Spitfire had suitable low-speed handling for carrier operations.  Nevertheless, Eric Wood told Corky Meyer that the British had a lot of trash in their Hurricanes and seafires and that the Corsair and Hellcat were far more suitable for carrier duty.

[Karnak]

I find the Seafire to be, by far, the hardest carrier aircraft to land on a carrier in AH.  The A6Ms, F4Fs, F4Us and F6F are all vastly easier.  Being designed from the ground up as a carrier aircraft has distinct advantages.

Keep in mind that the British never would have done the Seafire if the Royal Navy had been able to procure aircraft, but the RAF completely controlled aircraft procurement and the RN was only able to beg for the scraps of what the RAF had decided to order.  The Seafire was the best thing they could get under those circumstances, unless they wanted to keep on going with Skuas and Rocs or rely on the uncertain availability of the Martlet (F4F).

That being the case, I really don't see a need for the USN to navalize P-51s when they already have the superb F6F and F4U.

[Arlo]

Nooooooo!  That would just eventually lead to this:

[USAF2010]

There was a Navy recon unit that did operate Mustangs from carriers in the ETO during WWII, actually one of their aircraft became the first Allied fighter to land in France after D-Day.


There's an article about them in Flight Journal, I just have to find the issue that has it and I'll try and put the info on here.

If anyone else has more specific info on hand, can you add to this?


-INCOMING

[Ack-Ack]

There was a Navy recon unit that did operate Mustangs from carriers in the ETO during WWII, actually one of their aircraft became the first Allied fighter to land in France after D-Day.


There's an article about them in Flight Journal, I just have to find the issue that has it and I'll try and put the info on here.

If anyone else has more specific info on hand, can you add to this?


-INCOMING

11 USN pilots from VCS-8 were temporarily assigned to the 111th Tactical Reconnaissance Squadron and flew out of Berteaux, Algeria in support of the invasion of southern France.  The Navy piloted F-6s and P-51Cs were never operated off a carrier during the operations of August 15 through August 30th 1944 when the Navy pilots were returned to their ships.

ack-ack

[NZTyphoon]

An article on VCS-7's Seafires  http://spitfiresite.com/2010/04/spitfires-of-the-us-navy.html  and VCS-8's Mustangs can be found here with a pdf file http://www.history.navy.mil/download/ww2-30.pdf