All at Sea

[tigercat]

Which aircraft that never got an opportunity to experience life on the ocean wave could have made it as a Carrier aircraft

Ie: How would the Il 2 have fared as a carrier aircraft

or how about the Seatiger Moth

[The Rat]

The U.S. Navy was interested in the DH Mosquito, don't know if they wanted it for shipboard service though. And if I recall correctly the British Admiralty had an interest in the Supermarine Swift. Even if they didn't, they did in MY universe, and I'm gradually building a carrier capable one now.

[McColm]

The were plenty of designs for the F-117 in this role, there was even talk of a carrier version of the Tornado GR1. The Royal Navy Fleet Air Arm and the Lossiemouth boys would have preferred the F3 with the GR1 nose.

[pyro-manic]

I think if the Soviets had had carriers, the IL-2 or a variant would have been a staple. There was a Sea Mosquito developed, but only a handful were built IIRC, and they didn't see any service. Highball was meant for them.

[perttime]

... but the Brits got the Sea Hornet. Not bad at all.

Germany converted some Bf 109s to Bf 109T (T for träger, or carrier) but their carrier Graf Zeppelin was never completed.

[PR19_Kit]

A Swift on a casrrier? It better have had a MASSIVELY long deck or a very pokey catapults!

A Swift needed full 'burner to get off with a decent load on land, and if the 'burner failed it would go in. I saw one do exactly that at Benson in 1958 or so, not fun. 

[Hobbes]

My favorite could-have-been naval aircraft is the Fokker F-28 tanker/COD:

[kerick]

The Navy suggested the idea of basing air to air refuelers around the Med to tank up Hornets.  It would have taken a load off of the ship borne refueling assets.  A refueler that could land on the carrier and transport people and supplies would have been useful.  An interesting whif.

[simmie]

The naval Swift was type 548 to N.105D and NR/A.34, March 1952.

20 ordered but cancelled late 52.

[McColm]

The English Electric Lightning would have been great at sea. The Navy would have gone for the two seater.

[pyro-manic]

Not really - it's landing speed was much too high for carrier ops. Plus range would be a big problem - Lightnings were always very short-legged. The proposed naval variant was massively altered.

[tigercat]

I understand the Reggiane Re.2001 woud have been the Italian Carrier fighter of choice not sure what they would have chosen for torpedo / attack/dive bombers

Apparently the Germans preffered  Reggiane to their own ME109  T

[The Wooksta!]

There was a Sea Mosquito developed, but only a handful were built IIRC, and they didn't see any service. Highball was meant for them.

There were two marks of Sea Mosquito, the TR33 and TF37.  The first 17 had the standard wing and u/c, later ones having folding wings and revised Lockheed u/c.  Most saw second line service (the war was over) and none went to sea.

Highball's development began in '42 and was initially planned to be carried by Beauforts (!) and was to be used against the Tirpitz in May '43.  618 Sqn was formed with Mosquito B.IVs modified to carry two Highballs.  Development difficulties prevented the attack happening and the unit was sent far east aboard the carrier Fencer, the operational codename being Oxtail.  Again, not used, partly because they had no targets worthy of use, partly because the US was afraid the Japanese would copy it, but mainly because Admiral King hated the British and didn't want us taking part in 'his' war.

Post war, Highball was developed further, being trialed with Sea Mosquitos and then later with the Sea Hornet.

[The Wooksta!]

The English Electric Lightning would have been great at sea. The Navy would have gone for the two seater.

I wouldn't want to land that aircraft on a carrier with those stalky legs - look at the number of Seafires lost in landing accidents.  Pyro has mentioned the fuel problems but the Lightning was a maintenance nightmarer on land.  To change the bottom engine you have to take out the op one and it takes over a week.  Try that on a pitching carrier.

[Pellson]

...There was even talk of a carrier version of the Tornado GR1. The Royal Navy Fleet Air Arm and the Lossiemouth boys would have preferred the F3 with the GR1 nose.

Would you please elaborate? Apart from the obvious storage space issue below deck with the longer snoot, what was the point of going blunt? From whatever references I can find, it doesn't seem that the pointy beak had any major impeding landing view characteristics, but again, I might be badly mistaken.. 

On the original issue - SAAB is currently studying a navalized Gripen. Apparently, most of the structure is existant so it is mainly a matter of beefing up the already beefy landing gear a bit, it seems.

A never explored option by the same manufacturer could have been the Viggen as this machine already had tough enough legs, designed for a sink rate at touchdown of 5 m/s, almost twice the standard rate for land based aircraft. Also, the stability and visibility forward/downward during approach was excellent, a requirement from the RSwAF in order to facilitate STOL landings on very cramped unprepared roads and strips when the bad reds had bombed out the main bases.
Ah, the cold war, when designers had to design for th unexpected rather than a preplanned text book conflict not likely to materialize outside the offices of the finance chaps at the MoD..