Build a better Sea Hurricane 1938

Ad: This forum contains affiliate links to products on Amazon and eBay. More information in Terms and rules


We agree that you didnt know that the 109T was based on the E and had nothing to do with the early models making your comparison irrelevant.

Sorry, you need to read more on institutional culture and its relevance, and in this case we have the evidence from the Finnish side, they had no issues operating the type and in fact noted the differences with their German counterparts who were busy crashing 109s left and right because they were too macho to concern themselves with learning how to land them...

They also had issues with the 88 in the beginning, and it wasnt just the 104 post war, the F84 also caused trouble, if you cant see the pattern, well, is not my problem.

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.
Click to expand...

Shokaku operated 72, Akagi 72, Hiryu 64, Ark Royal 60, all without deck park (plus spares for the IJN ones). Pitiful?

GZ had 5.648m2 of hangar space, about the same as Ark Royal, less than the IJN carriers but all KM aircraft had foldable wings. Yorktown had barely 3.194m2, but USN carriers had been DESIGNED for deck parking.

the Seafire was modernised to the extent it was needed.
Click to expand...

I claimed it was barely modified at first, you claimed it was, I provided proof...


Which is why I specifically noted that:

"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."

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?
Click to expand...

Please feel free to quote me claiming that, if you cant I expect you to retract your statement.
 
Last edited:

You forgot the drop tank, so you should be careful about claiming "selective blindness"...
 
Unfortunately we are arguing over a timeline that stretches from 1938 to 1944 so obviously more than a few things changed.

The 109T evolved a bit and wasn't really ready for use in 1940 or before and according to one book the vast majority were delivered between April and June of 1941.
All I have seen is that the 109T had spoilers. How they operated is skipped over. Were they pretty much airbrakes? either in or out? were they variable?
could you make them deploy differently on each wing (1/2 out on one side and 3/4s on the other) for roll control?
Not all spoilers operate the same. Some spoilers just spoil (surprise) the lift over a portion of the wing and increase the sink rate without doing anything for lateral control. Other spoilers are intended to be aileron replacements. they obviously require different controls and control mechanisms.

I have no idea what the intended glide slope of the 109T was but the leading edge slats are not magic. They only work at certain angles of attack. Bf 109s on land came in nose high at least for short period of time in order to get into the 3 point attitude. At that attitude/angle of attack they maintained aileron control in case the wing started to stall. If you come in flat (two wheel landing) they aren't going to do much good unless the landing is really screwed up.

We have no idea how well the 109T would have stood up to actual carrier landings. I would note that simulating operating from a carrier is difficult as the "simulation" landing strip is not pitching and rolling. Real carrier landings are going to involve a higher percentage of one wheel hitting before the other and more variation in impact velocity of main wheels (is the deck rising or falling?)

Early Seafires did have a lot of trouble with landing gear, however a lot of them were operating off of slow, short escort carriers in the Med for the invasion of Sicily, July and Aug in the Med. High temperatures not only affect take-off, they affect landings. In the US pilot notes they often advise increasing approach speeds by 10% and roll out distances by 20% in temperatures over 35 degrees C or 95 degrees F. This is an indication of the increased loads put on the landing gear/arresting system vs testing in cool climates.

I have no idea how well the 109T would have handled such conditions. It might have done fine or.......
 
JAG88 said:
You forgot the drop tank, so you should be careful about claiming "selective blindness"...
Click to expand...
Which drop tanks? The 109 never ever took off from or landed on a carrier, you are comparing the theoretical performance of your chosen land based champion with actual carrier based aircraft. The 109 in service was a great aeroplane, on landing it was best on a grass surface and with a three point landing, the Hurricane F4F and Seafire went into carrier service with the RN but the Bf 109 never did, you therefore have all the advantages with your drawing board aircraft. The Bf 109 T would be like the 262 requiring the very best of pilots and then not guaranteeing that pilots would be able to land the plane.
 

The 300l ones the 109T was especifically designed to carry, if you dont know something you are better served abstaining than advertising the fact, it just makes you look bad and ignorant.
 
Last edited:

Fair points, all I am claiming is that the Germans took the time to address the most obvious issues the best they could, whether they would have been successful or not we will never know since it never landed on a carrier, all we know is that they spent 2 years making modifications and trials, and then operated them from a windswept sand bar in the North Sea and from northern Norway, were their enhanced capabilities were well appreciated by their crews.

Oh, and claiming that dismissing the aircraft out of hand due to some perceived disadvantages of doubtful merit is foolish.

Nothing more.
 
JAG88 said:
The 300l ones the 109T was especifically designed to carry, if you dont know something you are better served abstaining than advertising the fact, kust makes you look bad and ignorant.
Click to expand...
I am not ignorant of the simple fact that the Bf 109 T never took off or landed on a carrier and in fact no carrier was ever built for it to operate from, your arguments are purely theoretical. The Royal Navy actually did have carriers and it progressed from the Sea Hurricane to the F4F to the Seafire and also used Corsairs and Hellcats (plus others). Any discussion of the Bf 109 T is theoretical based on the certainty that it never ever operated from a carrier which is when the problems are discovered, especially in the North Sea
 

Yeah, but you were ignorant about the drop tank, which was my point.
 
Boys, boys, boys.....This is beginning to sound like a grade school pissing contest. Let's everybody stop, count to ten, take a deep breath, and relax. When the flow of interesting information degenerates into insults and name calling, it's no fun for anyone, even us spectators.
Cheers,
Wes
 

They started it!
 
And did you try to de-escalate it? Doesn't matter who started it so much as who winds it down. Diplomacy over denigration.
 
Last edited:
For completeness re the comment of mine that you thought the Spitfire had a problem with the view over the nose. You are correct you didn't make the comment, it was in one of the quotes you used. Post 94 Again, the lack of vision over the Merlin was the main complaint from the aircraft tested on Victorious

JAG88 said:
Please feel free to quote me claiming that, if you cant I expect you to retract your statement.
Click to expand...

As we all know the Spitfire did have a problem with the view over the nose and its a problem I believe the 109 would have shared

See post 9363 on Picture of the day.
 

That is easy to explain, I dont like to mutilate paragraphs in order to prevent suspicions, maybe I should have highlited the point, but since we were talking about modifications to the Spitfire I felt it wasnt needed:

"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."

Of course a 12V does cause visibility issues, and although the whole point of the inverted-V DB601 was to improve downward visibility, it was neveer going to be good on the 109 either.
 
Allow me to clarify.

It is of no importance at all if the Bf109 T was designed with or without a drop tank because the option to fit drop tanks is open to opposing aircraft. The F4F fitted drop tanks which would have increased its range advantage.

The Bf 109 out performed the F4F but the F4F was carrier capable, the pilot could see where he was landing on a straight approach.

Any comments about what the Spitfire/Seafire encountered in service to me just mean that the Bf109 T would have the same if not worse issues.

A windswept headland is not the most severe condition for a carrier based aircraft by any means. The worst condition is a pitching deck on a stationary carrier with no wind is much worse. The North Sea is not like the Pacific, if you steam into the wind for too long you run into land mine fields or an enemy fleet. While high winds do make a rough sea worse, it is completely common to have a swell of a few metres with no wind at all.

The Graf Zeppelin was only scheduled to have 10 or 12 fighters aboard, it is easy to see a situation where many if not most of those would be lost on one bad day, then what happens for re supply?
 
Last edited:
pbehn said:
The Graf Zeppelin was only scheduled to have 10 or 12 fighters aboard, it is easy to see a situation where many if not most of those would be lost on one bad day, then what happens for re supply?
Click to expand...

That is the big problem for the Graf Zeppelin. It was almost always going to be 2-3 British Carriers vs the GZ and at those odds it doesn't matter that much if the British are using Hurricanes, or WIldcats or Spitfires or even Fulmars.

With 12 109s how many do you send to escort the "strike group" while still keeping a few for either CAP or deck ready for interception?

If the British have two carriers with 48 planes apiece (pry extra money from treasury if Germans actually have functioning carrier) they can easily have 24 fighters and if the British keep even 12 Fulmars back for CAP can the 6-8 max 109s shoot the Fulmars down fast enough to keep the Fulmars from getting to the Ju 87/Fu 167s?

Can 4-6 109s stop 8-12 Fulmars and 50-60 strike aircraft? Play with the numbers as you see fit. The Germans just don't have enough planes.
 
XBe02Drvr said:
Not all of us subscribe to the fighter pilot culture of incessant ball-busting.
Cheers,
Wes
Click to expand...

Wes,

You almost made my drink shoot out my nose with that one!

Having spent a large portion of my adult life (my wife might argue the adult point) in a fighter squadron I've wondered a time or two why the "incessant ball-busting" occurs.

It might also be a point of view.

We plan, brief, lead, and debrief missions. In the debrief everyone has a time in which they may make comments regarding things done well or not. Everyone has skin in the game to do things well, however the way you get better is to point out things done well, and almost more importantly things not done well. In pilot training it's things that will keep you alive, along with your instructor. In flying fighters, it's things that will keep you alive, your wingman or flight lead, or the package of 20-50 aircraft that are following you into bad guy land.

The debrief is where the a tremendous amount of learning occurs, and for that to occur in the most pristine manner emotions must be pushed aside. For some people that is very difficult, as they take things as an attack when in reality it isn't. I think the incessant ball-busting teaches, and reteaches folks to not take things personally, to stay cool when "attacked", and think on your feet (can you chuck a spear back at the guy who just blind sided you?), and stay knowledgeable about their weapons systems and the tactics / techniques to use it well.

I also relate it to the medical field. I have a friend who went through it and it was quite a bit of a "haze" that sounded remarkably similar to the fighter debrief. However, if I was lying on an operating table and something goes wrong, blood starts gushing, etc., I would want a very knowledgable, cool as a cucumber type individual standing there making sure I was going to see another sunrise.

Also, the ball busting can be very entertaining.

Again, not an attack, it's just a point of view.

Cheers,
Biff
 
BiffF15 said:
Also, the ball busting can be very entertaining.
Click to expand...

There was plenty of mockage (ribald banter if you prefer) when I served on a front-line squadron. One of the pilots gained the moniker "Dot" (in Blighty, Dot is a truncation of the name Dorothy). He was known as Dot because...well, he flew like a Dorothy. Also a dot was what his aircraft looked like when he was formating on you in battle pair!

In fairness, he came to the squadron after flying PR9 Canberras....not a lot of call for formation flying with those beasts!
 

Indeed, but the mere existance of the GZ means the RN carriers have to be committed in pairs, which actually reduces the numbers of carrier equipped formations and of course the area they can cover, and the ocean is a big place.

As I indicated earlier, the GZ has a hangar area similar to Ark Royal's and yet the Germans declared that they would operate only 43 aicraft out of her, that in spite of the carrier design requirement stipulating 60 aircraft with a percentage as disassembled spares as per IJN practice. IIRC it was LW demands that meant land storing criteria had to be met aboard GZ which reduced its capacity to the 43 aforementioned aircraft.

But how long before such nonsense had been dipensed with once war was declared? The space was there to store up to 70+ aircraft (28x109s plus 45x87s/167s could have been possible), modifications would have been necessary to store extra Avgas (instead of some of the 15cm ammo I would venture), but the ammunition complement was already large enough for the larger group.

That could allow for 9 scouts, a 36 strong strike group with a 12/16 escort, plus 12/16 for an accurately radar directed CAP since the Freya was inherently far more capable than the early RN sets. That would make shooting down any shadower a much easier proposition.

Not too shabby.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Users who are viewing this thread

Total: 1 (members: 0, guests: 1)

Similar threads

G
Better Dambusters
2
Replies
25
Views
2K
GTX
A
A better Armstrong Whitworth Whitley
2
Replies
33
Views
2K
wuzak
W
S
Italian series 5/6 fighters really better?
Replies
8
Views
1K
GregP
Making better Italian aircraft, 1933~1945
3 4 5
Replies
86
Views
4K
Shortround6
S
S
Were the 15*69B cartridge a better option for early WWII fighters
2
Replies
24
Views
2K
tomo pauk
Menu
Log in
Register