FW-190 instead of Me-109 on Graf Zeppelin

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

C

CorsairLarry

Recruit
5
0
Sep 7, 2018
I am new here, but am enjoying reading the various posts and the high level of knowledge I see in them. While at work this question passed through my head- I know there was work on an Me-109 derivative ( Me-109 T ) as an intended fighter for the German aircraft carrier, but I don't ever recall of reading about any moves to investigate a FW-190 version for the carrier. Perhaps this was just due to the timeline of FW-190 development, but it seems like a worthwhile direction to at least investigate on the part of the Germans, given the wide track undercarriage of the FW-190 (vs the narrow track of the Me-109 ) and the history of undercarriage failures on the Me-109 series. Has anyone seen anything on a navalized FW-190 ? Yes, this is where my mind goes when I'm at work ....!
 
A few points. On the whole 109 is smaller and lighter than 190 so that's a plus.
Also Fw 190 has some nasty stall characteristics.
The timeframe is against 190 as first appearance was Autumn 1941. Graf Zeppelin was not exactly doing much in 1941. The Bismarck had just been sunk and pretty clear that the Graf Zeppelin would be an instant target for the Royal Navy and life expectancy for the ship was probably in minutes.
I have not read of a naval version. Probably some kind of paper naval version.
One issue is any aircraft on a Kriegsmarine ship is Luftwaffe. So it's up to Goring not Raeder. And the Luftwaffe had bigger problems than naval warfare.
 
The timeline is not really the issue.

JG 26 flew the first operational mission with the Fw 190 on 14th August 1941.

At this time the Graf Zeppelin, on which work had ceased on the outbreak of the war, was in Stettin, but would shortly return to Gotenhafen where she would be used as a storage facility.

Work resumed on the carrier (after a fashion) in May 1942. This should have meant that the Fw 190 was a potential candidate for conversion for carrier operations. Unfortunately, as has already been mentioned, the decision was not the KM's but the RLM's. The decision to equip the Graf Zeppelin with what were then two state of the art aircraft had already been taken in 1937. Those two aircraft were the Bf 109 and Ju 87, and work was carried out on navalised versions of both types. The ship was supposed to have carried thirteen Ju 87 C-1s and twelve Bf 109 T-1s.

As far as I can tell there were never any plans to navalise the Fw 190, even at a paper stage.

Cheers

Steve
 
The Graf Zeppelin was part of the Z Plan which was a balanced surface fleet which could take on the Royal Navy.

The Z plan was dead as soon as the war started.

Although the focus on the surface fleet meant that the U-boat arm was under equipped for the first years of the war.

Also in this time frame the Bf109 was still a first rate aircraft so no need to doubt it's credentials especially since its main opponents were Skuas, Rocs and Swordfish!
 
But when if you have shot those down what do you have 13 JU 87s ?
 
CorsairLarry said:
given the wide track undercarriage of the FW-190 (vs the narrow track of the Me-109 ) and the history of undercarriage failures on the Me-109 serie
Click to expand...
The Bf109's main gear width was nearly identical to the F4F's and it was designed with being capable of handling unimproved landing fields, so the gear would be able to handle a carrier landing.
 
GrauGeist said:
The Bf109's main gear width was nearly identical to the F4F's and it was designed with being capable of handling unimproved landing fields, so the gear would be able to handle a carrier landing.
Click to expand...


Unimproved or grass fields?
They are not the same thing. many airfields in 1930s were grass but they were about as unimproved as a polo field is unimproved from hillside meadow.

I would also note that the F4F had about 12 1/2 inches of oleo travel from fully compressed to fully extended to help cushion the shock of landing (a P-40 had 7 inches).

I don't know what the 109 had.
 
Unimproved as opposed to hardpan or concrete. I suppose I should have said grass landing fields as a better description.

The Bf109's maingear was pretty rugged, although I am not sure what it's overall travel was. The main issue with the gear was inexperience, as the Bf109 required a different technique for taking off and landing than other tail-draggers and this is what got the new pilots into trouble.
 
By the way, I should add that they did make some slight modifications to the Bf109T's main gear, but to what end, I am not sure.

It seems that they retained the original configuration, but did they add structural reinforcements at the gear base/engine mount or change the dampers in the struts? I don't know, it's hard to find details.

In the end, though, it seems to me that the Bf109 was the best Germany had on hand for a Naval fighter even with it's terribly short range.

With the exchange of information that Germany had with Japan, it's a shame that Germany didn't tap into Japan's maritime resources for carriers and carrier aircraft.

Anyway, here's a 3-view of the Bf109T, for what it's worth.
 
The Bf 109 was a poor choice and the Ar 68 would have been wiser.

By 1942 any talk of the Graf Zeppelin was pure fantasy as Germany had more pressing matters and the U boat was achieving results at a fraction of the cost.

Germany had no carrier experience. Zero. So the Graf Zeppelin was over ambitious to say the least. Should have converted some old ship with a flat deck and give that a whirl for a few years. The timing of the war for the Zeppelin was terrible and doomed it from day dot. Do not want to be learning carrier aviation on the job.
 
"The Bf109's main gear width was nearly identical to the F4F's"

And was about six inches wider than the Spitfire. It was not the track but the geometry that was an issue.

The problem converting aircraft designed for grass fields to carrier aircraft lay in their fundamental aerodynamics.

Often they had to make carrier landings at speeds very close to their power on stall speeds. I don't have figures for the Bf 109, but for the Seafire it was just 1.05 Vse, whereas carrier aircraft were typically designed to land at something like 1.2 Vse, a much larger and safer margin.

Then there is the undercarriage design. The undercarriage of a Bf 109 was not designed to accept the side loadings imposed in carrier landings, in fact such loadings on hard runways almost invariably led to a ground loop (that geometry again), or failure. On the Seafire a heavy three point landing simply drove the undercarriage through the wing due to the forward rake, so neither was exactly ideal!
The undercarriages are typically just not strong enough for carrier landings. My father was an FAA pilot and always took exception to the description of a deck landing as a controlled crash, but take a look at landings in the 1940s and 1950s and it is difficult to argue that there is not an element of truth in that assertion. Aircraft designed to operate from fields typically have an undercarriage designed to take a sink rate of 6-8 feet per second on landing. US carrier aircraft were designed with a far more robust undercarriage, designed to accept a sink rate of at least 12 feet per second on landing.

There are many other different issues that can affect aircraft not designed from the drawing board to be operated from carriers. The tendency to float in a carefree manner over any arrestor system was common to many. The Bf 109 T had spoilers fitted to the wings (subsequently deleted) to prevent or mitigate this tendency. Their German name, 'Auftriebzerstorer', lift destroyers, is typically descriptive.

I know that new less 'bouncy' oleos were fitted to the main gear of Bf 109 T, but am unaware of any other strengthening. The undercarriage attached to a truss in the fuselage (the same one that took the lower ends of engine bearers) and I don't see how that could have been much modified.

Cheers

Steve
 
It is worth remembering that Fw 190 had very serious teething troubles, which needed quite a bit of time to iron out. By the time it was ready and available in numbers there was no point in completing the Graf Zeppelin.

Aircraft designed to operate from fields typically have an undercarriage designed to take a sink rate of 6-8 feet per second on landing
Click to expand...

Hi Stona, can you confirm if this is for WW2 aircraft or modern ones?
 
That was for WW2 era aircraft. I have no idea what the modern equivalents would be.
Cheers
Steve
 
The last commercial flight I had the pilot maintained power until touch down, no flair. Landing was firm but good, no bounce and no twist due to misalignment. As I walked out the pilot was standing at the exit. I said, "Navy Pilot?" He said "yep". On the he previous flight the pilot was not a Navy pilot, nor an Air Force pilot, nor any pilot who knew what he was doing (unless he was fighting a gusting crosswind landing which wasn't indicated by the approach.)
 

Dav,

Was your last flight on a 737? If so which model / models? The reason I ask is the 737-900 is seriously stretched, and has to fly a fast approach to a flat no or min flare landing to avoid dragging the tail. Lots of lipstick on that there swine.

Cheers,
Biff
 
There had been an Fw 190 version with an enlarged wing of 12,3 m length and 20,5 qm area. IIrc this was the projected high altitude version. Not sure if it could have been used for carrier duty. The longer wings should negate the nasty stall characteristics as it was the case with the Ta 152H. Take-off and landing roll-out should be shorter as well.
 
The Fw190 was developed after the Graf Zeppelin project came to a close and by the time Tank was working on a high-altitude variant, the GZ was a floating storage facility.

One aircraft that seems to have been overlooked for a GZ fighter candidate, is the Heinkel He112.
It wasn't fast as the Bf109, but it's lower stall speed (75mph) and decent range (680 miles) plus it's armament of two cowl 7.92mm MG17 and two 20mm MG/FF cannon (one per wing) made it a suitable candidate.
 
The Basket said:
The He 112 does meet the timelines and it was already a naval fighter with the IJN.

I buy that.
Click to expand...

I don't. The He 112 was effectively killed off in favour of the Bf 109 in September/October 1936. There was some talk of selling it abroad, but in the end it was the Bf 109 that most foreign buyers wanted too. The IJN had precisely twelve He 112s.

The Graf Zeppelin's keel was laid in late December 1936.

I don't see how that meets the timelines.

Cheers

Steve
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Users who are viewing this thread

Total: 1 (members: 0, guests: 1)

Similar threads

An early 'Me 209' instead of the Me 309?
2
Replies
21
Views
1K
TM06
FW-190 and The Battle of Britain
2 3
Replies
40
Views
2K
Admiral Beez
A
Spitfire vs Me-109
Replies
3
Views
1K
PAT303
P
S
Zeppelin
Replies
2
Views
528
GrauGeist
W
The scarcity of fighter to fighter FW-190A pilot combat accounts...
2 3
Replies
52
Views
3K
GrauGeist
Menu
Log in
Register