U.S. Navy Aircraft Designation System

[Mike64]

Originally Posted by ccheese

You are correct, Mike, it was changed by Mack The Knife. The paperwork I
got most of my information from starts out, "As is well known, the DOD
unified all military aircraft designations in 1962 under a common designation
system, based on the USAF's". The Navy (USCG and USMC) did not have a
choice in the matter.

One thing I meant to say in my post; I know for a fact that the Navy had
P-38's. Albeit, they were highly modified for photo-recon, but I am unable
to find any "unit" that flew them, or what the Navy called them. They
had a V in their designation, being made by Lockheed, but by 1962 they
were not flying them so it didn't matter.

Charles

Charles -

I found your answer:

The Navy P-38 version was the Lockheed FO-1.

As you likely know, the letter "O" was also used for some miscellaneous aircraft -

Lockheed
Piper
Viking


"The US Navy acquired four F-5Bs from the AAF in North Africa and redesignated them FO-1 [01209/01212]. They were operated exclusively as land-based aircraft and never from carriers.

Lockheed had proposed a carrier-based version of the Lightning (Model 822) with folding wings, arrester hooks, and a strengthened airframe. However, the Navy looked askance at such a large aircraft on its carrier decks, and they disliked liquid-cooled engines for carrier-based planes. Consequently, the project never got past the paper stage. "

I would also add, the Navy was skeptical about turbochargers (vice mechanical superchargers) because of reliability and shipboard maintenance support.

I hoped this helped, shipmate

Also, forgive my previous "double post" above. I am new and still trying to get a handle on the posting process!



Mike

[ccheese]

Thanks, Mike.....

I didn't know someone had suggested a P-38 for carrier use. My old ship
USS Conyngham (DDG-17) was in company with the USS Forrestal when
they were doing landings (trapped & touch & go) with the C-130. We
were in her wake for plane guard duties. I never thought that big thing
would be able to take a trap, or an un-assisted take off, but it did.

FWIW, that particular C-130 is in the inventory at Pensacola.

Charles

[Graeme]

Some sources indicate that the Lockheed FO-1's were used for photographic work in North Africa. Another more likely use was as twin-engined trainers for experience in preparation for the F7F Tigercat. One source reports that they were based at Hawaii for a time, were left in bare metal, and carried their Bureau Numbers on the tail in the Air Corps manner.

At one time the U.S. Navy possessed Lockheed P-80A's, also designated FO-1. This strange duplication of designation seems to be due to the fact that the Navy obtained their Lightnings directly from the Army. Apparently Lockheed was unaware that the FO-1 classification had already been assigned and, in company, records, lists three P-80A's as FO-1's. However these planes are listed under their Air force designations as P-80A's. Number 29668 was outfitted with catapult hooks and arresting gear for carrier trials aboard the USS Franklin D. Roosevelt. Although fifty of the single-seat Shooting Stars were ordered by the Navy, they were of the F-80C types and classed as T0-1 trainers. As mentioned Lockheed became "V" and the planes were relabeled TV-1's.
In 1948 Marine Squadron VMF-311 received 16 TO-1's and operated them as fighters, but no carrier equipment was installed.

The Navy also purchased two Bell P-39Q Airacobras. These were classed as F2L-1K's and used as unarmed drones. In 1946, one was fitted with swept wings for evaluation of their use on future high performance fighters.

Also purchased were twelve Northrop P-61A's, designated F2T-1. They were used for radar operator training in the use of the SCR-720 airborne intercept radar-the type used in the F7F Tigercat. In 1946, four of these planes were assigned to Headquarters Squadron MAG-31, Marine Corps at NAS Miramar. They remained on the Navy roster until 1948. The F2T-1's retained their distinctive all-black colour scheme throughout their Naval service.

[Mike64]

Originally Posted by ccheese

Thanks, Mike.....

I didn't know someone had suggested a P-38 for carrier use. My old ship
USS Conyngham (DDG-17) was in company with the USS Forrestal when
they were doing landings (trapped & touch & go) with the C-130. We
were in her wake for plane guard duties. I never thought that big thing
would be able to take a trap, or an un-assisted take off, but it did.

FWIW, that particular C-130 is in the inventory at Pensacola.

Charles

Charles -
And I thought I was an old timer!

The C-130 was flown by Jim Flatley, son of the WWII Flatley. The tests were done by Naval Air Test Center at Patuxent River. They were trying to find a way to bring as many supplies / people as they could to a Carrier in a crunch situation. The only other option was to keep using the little Grumman C-1 "Trader". They has practiced the approach and takeoff profiles for months before they actually did it. It was also an obvious PAO victory ,drawing positive attention to the capabilities of the new Super Carriers.

The C-130 didn't have a hook to actually "trap" - they went to BETA pitch (flat pitch) on the props as they crossed the round down, on the LSO's signal. Once they touched down, they went to full reverse to stop. He was flying the C-130 about as slow as he could safely get it, and the "Forest Fire" was about to be lifting the safeties on the boilers to get as much wind over the deck as she could. I imagine you guys on Plane Guard were turnin' and burnin' to keep up!

The C-130 is still a great airplane, and has always been a great performer from small or unprepared airstrips.

Mike

[Mike64]

Graeme -

Nice rundown of some "also ran"s.

The FO-1s were definitely used for recon - to support US/RN surface combatants in keeping tabs on German ship action. There was little Navy shipboard recon capability from US or RN Carriers at the time, and the German withdrawal to Sicily / Italy was a good Allied opportunity to catch them in vulnerable situations.

You bring up some good points about the USMC; our motto in Carrier Aviation was typically "..if it sucks for Carrier ops, just give it to the Marines .." The F7F was an excellent example.

Even the F4U was that way - it never was well thought of on a Carrier - terrible arrestment problems. Most of its deserved reputation in combat was in the hands of land-based Marine squadrons.

Mike

[ccheese]

Mike:

I remember the Conyngham was busting a gut to keep up with the
Forrestal. Their CIC kept telling us to move to the port side of Forrestal, but
we couldn't keep up with her there, so we stayed in her wake. I'm sure
she was pushing 33-35 knots.

Think I'm old ? Check out my post in WW-I about my father.

Charles

[Graeme]

Originally Posted by Mike64

The C-130 is still a great airplane, and has always been a great performer from small or unprepared airstrips.Mike

Very True.

'Lockheed'-Bill Yenne.
According to this book, Flatley completed 29 touch-and-go landings, 21 unarrested landings and 21 unassisted takeoffs from the USS Forrestal. For his efforts he received the distinguished flying cross. The book is 'dated' (1987), and reports him as now an admiral.

[renrich]

Even the F4U was that way-it never was well thought of on a carrier. might be a little bit of an overstatement. The Navy evaluated the Corsair and Hellcat in late 44 and declared the Corsair as superior as a ship board fighter in all respects and recommended that Hellcats be replaced by Corsairs as soon as practicable and of course Corsairs did yeoman service in the Korean War off of carriers and also the French used the F4U7 for a number of years. I have a friend who flew Corsairs off carriers in the Korean War and he said there was no particular problem operating them as long as one was prepared for the torque factor during a wave off. The landing gear bounce was the main problem with the early Corsairs and films of the landings of those early models demonstrate a huge contrast when compared with the later models with the soft oleos.