Carrier Based F-80

[KJ_Lesnick]

From what I read, the US Navy took into it's possession, 3 P-80A's in May 1945; by December, the aircraft was fitted with bridle-attachments, and hooks: several takeoffs and landings were performed successfully.  At the time the USN apparently had little interest.

Later on, some F-80C's were procured as a trainer were developed as TO/TV-1's and at least some were fitted with arrester gear.

I'm curious how suitable the F-80A and F-80C's were for carrier operations: The US Navy had little interest, but I assume that was because they were more interested in pursuing their own designs rather than a modified USAF configuration.

Does anybody have any information as to the following

• How much more did the F-80A's weigh with arrestor hooks and bridle-attachments?
  
• How much did the TO/TV's weigh compared to the F-80C?
  

Yes, I did search believe it or not

[Gondor]

I would think that you should have realised that you have answered your own question.

Later on, some F-80C's were procured as a trainer were developed as TO/TV-1's and at least some were fitted with arrester gear.

This shows that the F-80C's were by themselves not good aircraft for carrier operations.

Additionally the F-80 was a first generation jet and the navy would have wanted something that was better than the F-80 for their carriers, the normal we want something better than you have song and dance between the USN and USAAF/USAF that continues to this day.

Gondor

[zenrat]

Hannah, what do you do with the answers to your questions?
Are you writing a book, dissertation, thesis or some other learned paper (if so the references/bibliography is going to make fascinating reading)?

[sandiego89]

From what I read, the US Navy took into it's possession, 3 P-80A's in May 1945; by December, the aircraft was fitted with bridle-attachments, and hooks: several takeoffs and landings were performed successfully.  At the time the USN apparently had little interest.

Later on, some F-80C's were procured as a trainer were developed as TO/TV-1's and at least some were fitted with arrester gear.

I'm curious how suitable the F-80A and F-80C's were for carrier operations: The US Navy had little interest, but I assume that was because they were more interested in pursuing their own designs rather than a modified USAF configuration.

A P/F-80A or C was not a very suitable carrier aircraft.  Even with the arresting hook and the bridle attachment points it still lacked a lot desired for carrier operations: No wing fold (greatly hampering parking on the deck and below in the hangar deck, and elevator handling), not marinized against the salt water environment, not optomised for low speed handling around the carrier, and perhaps most troublesome it did not have a structure robost enough for sustained carrier operations.  You need a wing with good low speed characteristics for takeoff and landing and with good stall warning and stall characteristics.  You need a very robust airframe for extended carrier ops.  Adding a tailhook may be fine for trials, but does not make for an operational aircraft.  

Undoubtedly the F-80, T-33 and the T0 and TV-1/2 provided good training platforms as the US Navy transitioned to jets, but I suggest you look at the T2V (later T-1 SeaStar) to see what it took to make the F-80 series into a suitable carrier aircraft.  

From the Wiki page on the T2V:  "Compared to the TV-2, the T2V was almost totally re-engineered for carrier landings and at-sea operations with a redesigned tail, naval standard avionics, a strengthened undercarriage (with catapult fittings) and lower fuselage (with a retractable arrestor hook), and power-operated leading-edge flaps (to increase lift at low speeds) to allow carrier launches and recoveries, and an elevated rear (instructor's) seat for improved instructor vision, among other changes. Unlike other P-80 derivatives, the T2V could withstand the shock of landing on a pitching carrier deck and had a much higher ability to withstand sea water-related aircraft wear from higher humidity and salt exposure."

[KJ_Lesnick]

Thanks for the clarification