Shortround6
Major General
Hmmmm, A5M4 was in a whole different class than the 109. A wing a speckle bigger than wing on a 109T and weight of around 62% (both clean) means a much lower stalling speed. Wing loading of a 109T was 32.7lb per sq fr clean. the A5M4 was under 20. Even a late model F4F-4 was under 31 lb/sqft clean.
Some things are scaled due to the size/weight of the fighter and somethings are not. A small plane needs a proportionally larger hook on the arresting gear because the cables are a standard size and standard height above deck. Catapult attachment points are standardized. Yes the reinforcement on a lighter plane might be lighter.
as for the controlled crashes. The main landing gear on a P-40 had 7in of travel. the P-51 had 8in, the F4F had 12.5in of travel.
Other planes had????
Different countries may have had different radius requirements due to the size of the carriers and doctrine. The US operate large carriers with large strike groups.(or multiple carriers per carrier task force) As did the Japanese. the majority of early war British carriers, the only French carrier, the planned Italian carrier and the German carrier/s (planned/converted) operated small air groups and didn't have to speed as much time forming up or recovering strike groups. Of course some of these carriers would only have a nominal effect on a battle. For the Germans it doesn't matter if the carrier fighters do 330mph or 360mph. With only 12 fighters planned to be embarked they hardly have enough for a CAP let alone an escort group for the strike planes.
The Spitfire/ 109 Hurricane and any like conversions may have enough range/endurance for use in European waters but would be short of range/endurance for pacific operations.
Some things are scaled due to the size/weight of the fighter and somethings are not. A small plane needs a proportionally larger hook on the arresting gear because the cables are a standard size and standard height above deck. Catapult attachment points are standardized. Yes the reinforcement on a lighter plane might be lighter.
as for the controlled crashes. The main landing gear on a P-40 had 7in of travel. the P-51 had 8in, the F4F had 12.5in of travel.
Other planes had????
Different countries may have had different radius requirements due to the size of the carriers and doctrine. The US operate large carriers with large strike groups.(or multiple carriers per carrier task force) As did the Japanese. the majority of early war British carriers, the only French carrier, the planned Italian carrier and the German carrier/s (planned/converted) operated small air groups and didn't have to speed as much time forming up or recovering strike groups. Of course some of these carriers would only have a nominal effect on a battle. For the Germans it doesn't matter if the carrier fighters do 330mph or 360mph. With only 12 fighters planned to be embarked they hardly have enough for a CAP let alone an escort group for the strike planes.
The Spitfire/ 109 Hurricane and any like conversions may have enough range/endurance for use in European waters but would be short of range/endurance for pacific operations.