Build a better Sea Hurricane 1938

JAG88 · Dec 2, 2017

Shortround6 said:
It has been mentioned in other threads but in 1938 the British have 5-6 carriers in commision (depending on you rate the Argus) with the Ark Royal commissioning in Nov of 1938, the four Illustrious class were all laid down in 1937 but what the planned for completion was I don't know. Actual completion was two in 1940 and two in 1941. Two were under the 1936 program and two under the 1937 program. Indomitable was modified and perhaps delayed as a result.

However what the number of aircraft berths were was:
Argus, rated at 20 aircraft*
Hermes, rated at 20 aircraft*
Eagle, rated at 24 aircraft*
Courageous, rated at 48
Glorious, rated at 48
Furious, rated at 36?
Ark Royal rated at 60-72 aircraft.

The ratings need a little interpretation (dose of salt?) as the 3 early carriers were rated with early 1920s type aircraft. The Hermes for example was down to 15 aircraft in the early 30s and 12 aircraft by WW II.
The Argus had been down graded to a training carrier in the 1930s and was only brought back into front line service by the war losses suffered by the newer carriers.
the British carriers operated air groups below the numbers shown both because of lack of funding and lack of space. The Fairey Flycatcher fighter shown in the photo in a previous post had a 29ft wingspan and was only 23ft in length. For the Courageous and Glorious the "48" aircraft were supposed to be 16 Flycatchers, 16 Rippons and 16 reconnaissance aircraft. in the 1920s. I don't have much in the way of aircraft compliments for the late 30s. except the Ark Royal was supposed to get 48 Swordfish and 24 Skuas. As first in service one source claims Hawker Ospreys were substituting for the Skuas.

Courageous light battlecruisers (1917) - Royal Navy (United Kingdom)

Cant attest to its accuracy...

Btw, Graf Zeppelin was laid down at the end of 1936, how could things have changed for the FAA if the Germans had actually given it priority and commissioned it by the end of 1939?

A related question, when were the WW1 conversions due to retire? ANd how many carriers could the RN have? With the Implacables I believe they would have had 7 carriers and been over the 135.000t allowed by treaty. Or am I mistaken?

Shortround6 · Dec 3, 2017

At least one of the old ships had been "retired" in the 30s. I don't know how treaty makers viewed it but some of these old carriers were retitled as training ships or in the case of the US and Langley perhaps "aircraft ferry". The Hermes came back to the "active" list after the early war losses.

JAG88 · Dec 3, 2017

Thx, but even if all the old ships were retired or reclassified, the 6 Illustrious plus Ark Royal made for 157.500t, one 22.500 carrier above the 135.000t limit of the treaties, or am I missing something?

Shortround6 · Dec 3, 2017

Treaty expiration date???

Or at some point they just figured that since nobody else was paying any attention to the treaties why should they?

HMS Implacable was ordered in Oct 1938 right after the Munich crisis, so any adherence to the old treaties (Japan had already withdrawn in 1936) was being rapidly done away with.

JAG88 · Dec 3, 2017

Shortround6 said:
Treaty expiration date???

Or at some point they just figured that since nobody else was paying any attention to the treaties why should they?

HMS Implacable was ordered in Oct 1938 right after the Munich crisis, so any adherence to the old treaties (Japan had already withdrawn in 1936) was being rapidly done away with.

Sure, but the 1936 treaty was signed by the remaining powers and additional treaties with Germany and the USSR were also made, when after several attempts Japan refused to rejoin, a new treaty was signed in June 1938 invoking the escaltor clause AND allowing the subscribers of the 1936 treaty to increase their BBs tonnage to 45.000t each (making Lions, Vanguard, Iowas and Alsace possible), so it was still in force.

Glider · Dec 3, 2017

JAG88 said:
Btw, Graf Zeppelin was laid down at the end of 1936, how could things have changed for the FAA if the Germans had actually given it priority and commissioned it by the end of 1939?

The problem was the design which wasted a lot of weight and space on 5.9in guns but more importantly aircraft. The Ju87 was up to the job but the 109's were simply inadequate. They lacked range, payload, strength and were difficult to land than most fighters of the period. The there was a total lack of carrier operating experience. Look how difficult it is for the Russians to operate their carriers today and that's in peace time with loads of time to practice

JAG88 · Dec 3, 2017

Ok, I think I found it, the 1922 Treaty set the tonnage limits, it was due to expire on 1936:

"The present Treaty shall remain in force until December 31st, 1936, and in case none of the Contracting Powers shall have given notice two years before that date of its intention to terminate the treaty, it shall continue in force until the expiration of two years from the date on which notice of termination shall be given by one of the Contracting Powers, whereupon the Treaty shall terminate as regards all the Contracting Powers."

Once Japan gave notice in 1934 the tonnage limits were dead. Somehow I was sure the 1936 treaty renewed the limits.

JAG88 · Dec 3, 2017

Glider said:
The problem was the design which wasted a lot of weight and space on 5.9in guns but more importantly aircraft. The Ju87 was up to the job but the 109's were simply inadequate. They lacked range, payload, strength and were difficult to land than most fighters of the period. The there was a total lack of carrier operating experience. Look how difficult it is for the Russians to operate their carriers today and that's in peace time with loads of time to practice

Sure, but the RN didnt know that, the point is how would have the RN reacted had they expected to deal with a KM carrier a lot sooner and whether that could have made the Sea Hurricane happen earlier.

The 109 was very stable to land thanks to the slats and spoilers, its landing gear was widened and strengthened in the carrier version and could carry a drop tank from the start. It wasnt perfect but would have been superior in the air to any carrier aircraft of the time.

The 15cm guns were to be replaced at one point, but since due to thier location they couldnt be replaced by further flak they were kept. The space issue is one that keeps me wondering, its hangar capacity was similar to Ark Royal`s, yet they claimed just 43 aircarft...

The IJN gave a lot of assistance and even offered unlimited access to their carrier designs and construction... which the KM of course... DECLINED!

pbehn · Dec 3, 2017

Washington Naval Treaty - Wikipedia
The Washington Naval Treaty set limits. Ships such as HMS Nelson were built around these treaties. The fundamental problem is how do you verify it and then if someone breaks it what do you do? The Graf Spee was declared at 10,000 tons but was actually 14,000.

German cruiser Admiral Graf Spee - Wikipedia
HMS Rodney (29) - Wikipedia

Glider · Dec 3, 2017

JAG88 said:
Sure, but the RN didnt know that, the point is how would have the RN reacted had they expected to deal with a KM carrier a lot sooner and whether that could have made the Sea Hurricane happen earlier.

The 109 was very stable to land thanks to the slats and spoilers, its landing gear was widened and strengthened in the carrier version and could carry a drop tank from the start. It wasnt perfect but would have been superior in the air to any carrier aircraft of the time.

The 15cm guns were to be replaced at one point, but since due to thier location they couldnt be replaced by further flak they were kept. The space issue is one that keeps me wondering, its hangar capacity was similar to Ark Royal`s, yet they claimed just 43 aircarft...

The IJN gave a lot of assistance and even offered unlimited access to their carrier designs and construction... which the KM of course... DECLINED!

I disagree. The RN would have known about the design flaws and about the lack of experience the Germans had. They probably knew about the handling differences as they had flown captured examples of the 109E. Clearly it would have been strengthened for carrier operations but at the end of the day the 109 was more difficult to land than a Spitfire or a Hurricane, something even the Germans admitted.
Someone once quoted the Seafire as being just about good enough to operate from carriers, which sums it up pretty well. Well on all the evidence the 109 would have been worse than that. As for the 109 being the best carrier fighter of the time, not a chance, the Zero was streets ahead.

JAG88 · Dec 3, 2017

They flew a 109E on 1940, not before.

The Spitfire often "floated" on landing causing it to crash land on the barrier, the 109 was equipped with spoilers to prevent this and allow for a power on approach, the rest are just myths.

The Spitfire was barely strengthened for carrier operations, and it was so only on the later marks, IIRC.

pbehn · Dec 3, 2017

JAG88 said:
The Spitfire often "floated" on landing causing it to crash land on the barrier, the 109 was equipped with spoilers to prevent this and allow for a power on approach, the rest are just myths.

.

I cant see any reason to think the Bf 109-T would have been better than a Spitfire on carrier operations. A rough sea would make it a single use weapon.

Glider · Dec 3, 2017

The versions of the 109 B - D were very inferior fighters which the Hurricane could easily dominate so it didn't matter that the RAF hadn't flown them. A number of overseas pilots including a number of American pilots flew the early 109 and its secret would have been known,

It was a German pilot who described the Hurricane and Spitfire as follows

Major Werner Mölders, JG 51, ( who I think we can both agree knew what he was talking about) compared the British fighters to his own prior to the Battle:

It was very interesting to carry out the flight trials at Rechlin with the Spitfire and the Hurricane. Both types are very simple to fly compared to our aircraft, and childishly easy to take-off and land.

This isn't a myth sorry.

The 109 had spoilers but it didn't stop it being more difficult to land. All WW2 naval fighters had a power on approach and all cut the engine before landing. A 109 would have been no exception as if you try to land with the engine powered up and miss the wire then you will go full tilt into the aircraft park at the bow of the ship. Grabbing the wire with engine on full power only became possible with the angled deck.

To pretend that the Seafire wasn't strengthened for carrier operations is a myth.

JAG88 · Dec 3, 2017

Glider said:
The versions of the 109 B - D were very inferior fighters which the Hurricane could easily dominate so it didn't matter that the RAF hadn't flown them. A number of overseas pilots including a number of American pilots flew the early 109 and its secret would have been known,

It was a German pilot who described the Hurricane and Spitfire as follows

Major Werner Mölders, JG 51, ( who I think we can both agree knew what he was talking about) compared the British fighters to his own prior to the Battle:

It was very interesting to carry out the flight trials at Rechlin with the Spitfire and the Hurricane. Both types are very simple to fly compared to our aircraft, and childishly easy to take-off and land.

This isn't a myth sorry.

The 109 had spoilers but it didn't stop it being more difficult to land. All WW2 naval fighters had a power on approach and all cut the engine before landing. A 109 would have been no exception as if you try to land with the engine powered up and miss the wire then you will go full tilt into the aircraft park at the bow of the ship. Grabbing the wire with engine on full power only became possible with the angled deck.

To pretend that the Seafire wasn't strengthened for carrier operations is a myth.

The 109 got the DB601 only in the E model, and that made a huge difference as the hapless Hurricane pilots soon noticed, or not, wartime RAF was convinced they were anihilating the LW even when they losing aircrafts in a 4 to 1 ratio in 1941...

The LW had a cultural problem towards training which created a large number of accidents due to faulty training, you can read about it here:

FalkeEins - the Luftwaffe blog: Pilot training in the Luftwaffe - flight discipline, pilot culture and the development of procedures and check lists - "Why Air Forces Fail " (2)

On the other hand, the Finns had no problem with the aircraft since they took better care of training since for them both pilots and machines were a much more precious commodity:

virtualpilots.fi: 109myths

So yes, Molders can say that the Spitfire was easier to land, specially since they were taught to land at high speed in order to avoid the opening of the slats, something that would have actually helped in landing the aircraft safely.

The LW continued to have these issues well into the post war, they lost many F84s and F104s to accidents until better training practices ameliorated the problem.

109s into other aircraft? First you are assuming a deck park, that is a nono, why are you assuming a KM would have that? The lifts were large enough to take the 109 under with wings deployed. Second, the spoiler gives you better control over the approach, power and glide angle which is critical for a carrier aircraft. The 109T wasnt an improvised aircraft.

The Spitfire was barely modified for carrier operations, and paid for it, that is a fact.

"The only major change over the basic RAF Spitfire Mk V machine was the installation of a retractable "V"-frame containing an arrester hook to the strengthened underbelly of the fighter. The final flight-deck modification was catapult spools to allow the Seafire to be mounted on a carrier's accelerator for an assisted take-off."

"The first navalised conversion – of a Spifire VB – was completed in January 1942. This Seafire Ib was delivered to the RN for operational service on June 15.

More flight-deck trials were conducted aboard the highly experienced HMS Victorious in March and April 1942. The first Seafire IIC also was tested aboard HMS Illustrious in March.

Again, the lack of vision over the Merlin was the main complaint from the aircraft tested on Victorious. The Seafire IIC testing, however, raised additional concerns. An inspection of the aircraft after a series of accelerator launches revealed bucking in the rear fuselage and tail unit. The tail plane had become deformed, and the Merlin displayed a startling tendency to cut-out on launch.

Remedial work was immediately commenced. A Supermarine report from November 1942 reveals efforts to strengthen the airframe by up to 50 per cent."

"The main undercarriage legs were strengthened and extensive landing trials conducted aboard HMS Pretoria Castile in February 1944 and HMS Indefatigable in March to find ways to eliminate Seafire's tendency for arrester-hook bounce.

A major discovery of these trials was that arrester wires needed to be correctly tensioned to avoid the tail of the Seafire rising after capture, which – in turn – caused the propeller to make contact with the deck."

The Germans had figured out the landing characteristics of the 109T after 1.500 arrested landings on the proving grounds, of course, carrier landings were still ahead of them but they had already eliminated a number of issues pre-war.

pbehn · Dec 3, 2017

JAG88 said:
The Spitfire was barely modified for carrier operations, and paid for it, that is a fact.

.

Yes that is a symantic fact, when Spitfires were modified for carrier use they were called Seafires. You seem to forget that the RN operated Martlets which were re named F4F Wildcats, a land based F4F scored its first kill on Christmas day 1940 over Scapa Flow. Spitfires were used experimentally on carriers but any operational aircraft ordered had to be superior to the F4F which remained in service with the US navy until the end of the war. The seafire had to be superior to the Wildcat or it wouldn't be used and an F4F on carrier operations was much superior to a Bf 109.

JAG88 · Dec 3, 2017

pbehn said:
Yes that is a symantic fact, when Spitfires were modified for carrier use they were called Seafires. You seem to forget that the RN operated Martlets which were re named F4F Wildcats, a land based F4F scored its first kill on Christmas day 1940 over Scapa Flow. Spitfires were used experimentally on carriers but any operational aircraft ordered had to be superior to the F4F which remained in service with the US navy until the end of the war. The seafire had to be superior to the Wildcat or it wouldn't be used and an F4F on carrier operations was much superior to a Bf 109.

You mean semantic maybe?

I truly cant see your point about the F4F or what does it have to do with anything...

pbehn · Dec 3, 2017

JAG88 said:
You mean semantic maybe?

I truly cant see your point about the F4F or what does it have to do with anything...

Well then you have selective blindness. The Royal Navy has a custom built carrier capable fighter in 1940, that was the Martlet. Any modified Spirfire had to be superior to that or it would not have been used (there are considerations of Lend Lease I admit but the USA had no interest in the UK failing for want of a few hundred aircraft fighters.

JAG88 · Dec 3, 2017

pbehn said:
Well then you have selective blindness. The Royal Navy has a custom built carrier capable fighter in 1940, that was the Martlet. Any modified Spirfire had to be superior to that or it would not have been used (there are considerations of Lend Lease I admit but the USA had no interest in the UK failing for want of a few hundred aircraft fighters.

Perhaps, but I was at least able to notice a glaring mispelling so my eyes cant be that bad...

The F4F was slow, even the Zero was faster, the 109 would have that advantage and dictate the fight in any duel, which is why the RN used the Spitfire since even if it wasnt as good a carrier aircraft as the Wildcat, it was a much better fighter and hence, worth it...

pbehn · Dec 3, 2017

JAG88 said:
Perhaps, but I was at least able to notice a glaring mispelling so my eyes cant be that bad...

The F4F was slow, even the Zero was faster, the 109 would have that advantage and dictate the fight in any duel, which is why the RN used the Spitfire since even if it wasnt as good a carrier aircraft as the Wildcat, it was a much better fighter and hence, worth it...

Nothing to do with spelling, your selective blindness was ignoring the simple fact that any carrier based aircraft had to be superior to the F4F. The 109 would have dictated the terms of the conflict until the pilot looked at the fuel gauge, please remember it could just reach London from northern France a distance of about 100 miles.

Glider · Dec 3, 2017

JAG88 said:
The 109 got the DB601 only in the E model, and that made a huge difference as the hapless Hurricane pilots soon noticed, or not, wartime RAF was convinced they were anihilating the LW even when they losing aircrafts in a 4 to 1 ratio in 1941...

So we agree that the early 109's were not up to scratch and that the fact the RAF hadn't flown them wasn't a problem

So yes, Molders can say that the Spitfire was easier to land, specially since they were taught to land at high speed in order to avoid the opening of the slats, something that would have actually helped in landing the aircraft safely.

The LW continued to have these issues well into the post war, they lost many F84s and F104s to accidents until better training practices ameliorated the problem.

Sorry but this is far too simplistic, to blame the problems on the F104 with the problems on the 109 and blame the culture is foolish almost crass.

109s into other aircraft? First you are assuming a deck park, that is a nono, why are you assuming a KM would have that? The lifts were large enough to take the 109 under with wings deployed. Second, the spoiler gives you better control over the approach, power and glide angle which is critical for a carrier aircraft. The 109T wasnt an improvised aircraft.

If you want to operate your aircraft effectively then you need a deck park. If you don't then the number of aircraft you will be able to operate will be pitiful.

The Spitfire was barely modified for carrier operations, and paid for it, that is a fact.

"The only major change over the basic RAF Spitfire Mk V machine was the installation of a retractable "V"-frame containing an arrester hook to the strengthened underbelly of the fighter. The final flight-deck modification was catapult spools to allow the Seafire to be mounted on a carrier's accelerator for an assisted take-off."
"The first navalised conversion – of a Spifire VB – was completed in January 1942. This Seafire Ib was delivered to the RN for operational service on June 15.

the Seafire was modernised to the extent it was needed.

The Germans had figured out the landing characteristics of the 109T after 1.500 arrested landings on the proving grounds, of course, carrier landings were still ahead of them but they had already eliminated a number of issues pre-war. [/QUOTE]

My only experience is on the Ark Royal. A full size outline of the Ark was at Culdrose and used to train pilots in carrier landings and the ground crew in how to manoeuver the aircraft, helicopters, aircraft tugs and others safely and effectively and it wasn't easy. This in a Navy which had been operating carriers for decades. Trust me, landing on a carrier is very, very, different from doing it on land. When on exercises the USN F4's had to land on the Ark it wasn't unusual for one to abandon the attempt and they were massively experienced naval pilots. Only when you do it at sea do you realise what the requirements are.
If you think the Spitfire had a problem with the view over the nose what makes you think this would be any different in a 109?

Build a better Sea Hurricane 1938

Banned

Major General

Banned

Major General

Banned

Captain

Banned

Banned

Colonel

Captain

Banned

Colonel

Captain

Banned

Colonel

Banned

Colonel

Banned

Colonel

Captain

Users who are viewing this thread

Similar threads