FW-190 instead of Me-109 on Graf Zeppelin

[The Basket]

From my details He 112 was pretty much available until start of war.

 

[stona]

Efforts to sell it continued after the decision to produce the Bf 109.

The V9 was still flogging around air shows trying to stump up foreign orders, certainly into 1938, but the Luftwaffe itself had no interest in the aircraft. That had ended, as I said, in 1936.

Total production of all prototypes and series (which is a bit of an over statement) totalled about 100, a historical footnote.

Between January and September 1936 just seven He 112s were produced. In the RLM Lieferplan No.4 (1/11/36) another 9 He 112s appear, compared to 483 Bf 109s (manufactured across the aircraft industry). The Heinkel fighter was dead. Any future carrier aircraft was going to be purpose built or adapted from the Bf 109. History shows what happened.

Cheers

Steve

 

[The Basket]

The point is that the He 112 does meet the time lines and that it could have been used as a naval fighter. The fact it was not doesn't mean that it wasn't available or that it didn't have strengths over the 109.

The He 112 stood a better time line chance of a navy fighter than the Fw 190.

It certainly wasn't dead and certainly could have become a Navy fighter had the 109T gone sour or had the Kriegsmarine or Heinkel pushed for it.

A what if to be sure but not a unreasonable one.

 

[GrauGeist]

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

The He112 (first flew in 1935) competed against the Bf109 (first flew in 1935) for the RLM's order for a single seat fighter (along with the Ar80 and Fw159), both types saw action in the Spanish Civil War. The Japanese purchased 5 Bf109E-5s, which did not see combat, unlike the A7He1(He112B-0).

So I'm not quite sure how the He112 is considered outside of the timeline.

 

[stona]

The He112 (first flew in 1935) competed against the Bf109 (first flew in 1935) for the RLM's order for a single seat fighter (along with the Ar80 and Fw159), both types saw action in the Spanish Civil War. The Japanese purchased 5 Bf109E-5s, which did not see combat, unlike the A7He1(He112B-0).

So I'm not quite sure how the He112 is considered outside of the timeline.

Because as far as the Luftwaffe was concerned it was a dead duck BEFORE the keel of the Graf Spee was even laid.

Once the Bf 109 was chosen for series production the RLM had no interest in ordering the He 112 for the Luftwaffe.

A few examples of the prototypes of what would become the 'B' were included in the production plan I quoted, solely with a view to selling them abroad, while nearly 500 Bf 109s, which were to equip the Luftwaffe, were ordered.

The Luftwaffe supplied aircraft to the KM. The Kriegsmarine lost that battle with the Luftwaffe, though the fate of some special units wasn't settled until January 27th 1939 when Raeder effectively signed away the KM's ambitions for an independent air arm by signing away control of the remaining naval air units to the Luftwaffe. The 'Kustenfliegergruppen' started the war with aircraft like the He 59, He 60 and Do 18, only the He 115 was not obsolescent if not obsolete. So much for KM aviation.

Once the Luftwaffe had chosen the Bf 109 over the He 112, as it did in 1936, then there was no chance of the He 112 making it onto a yet to be built KM carrier.

Cheers

Steve

 

[GrauGeist]

The fact remains that out of all the fighter types under development at the time, the He112 was a viable candidate for the carrier program and it would have been perhaps better suited for carrier operations than the Bf109T.

It should also be noted that there were only 12 "V" or prototypes out of the 103 made and the 12th, V12 (WkNmr 2253) D-IRXS which first flew in March 1937, was converted to a C-0 navalized prototype.

 

[The Basket]

He 100 is within time scales. Just adding it out there!

 

[GrauGeist]

He 100 is within time scales. Just adding it out there!

The He100 might seem like a good idea, but with it's small wing came high wing-loading and higher stall speeds which was about 87 miles and hour (going by memory) although that was lower than a Bf109, it's still roughly 12mph faster than the He112.

On a carrier, those speeds make quite a difference.

 

[stona]

The fact remains that out of all the fighter types under development at the time, the He112 was a viable candidate for the carrier program and it would have been perhaps better suited for carrier operations than the Bf109T.

It should also be noted that there were only 12 "V" or prototypes out of the 103 made and the 12th, V12 (WkNmr 2253) D-IRXS which first flew in March 1937, was converted to a C-0 navalized prototype.

The V-5 was flown with a rocket motor, but that didn't amount to a whole hill of beans either

D-IRXS was sold to Japan, which explains the navalisation. Heinkel were hoping that the Japanese would produce it, but in the end they did not.

As I keep saying, the Luftwaffe had no interest in the He 112.

The He 100 V-1 first flew in January 1938, but to say that there was little interest in it, despite various stunts by Heinkel, would be an understatement. The He 100 D would have been a good aircraft, but then the RLM refused the Daimler-Benz engines for which its clever cooling system had been designed and Heinkel did not accept the proffered Jumo engine.

A Japanese commission, headed by Navy Capt. Wada and Capt Kikuoka, did purchase the three He 100 D-0 models. I don't know much about Japanese aircraft, but the Kawasaki Ki 61 seems to owe something to that German design.

Heinkel probably felt they were banging their heads against a brick wall, which is pretty much what they were doing.

Cheers

Steve

 

[fliger747]

Grumman began with the basic idea of the FW190 and tried to make a Carrier Aircraft out of it and ended up with the Bearcat. About the only item they retained was the size and weight, which in itself was responsible for the two not having much in common.

 

[GrauGeist]

Grumman released the G58 concept before they went to England.
The G58 was to be a small airframe with a large engine, which is roughly what the Fw190 is BUT, that was not a new concept.
Racing types like the GeeBee, Me209, SK-3 and so on, were successful with large engines and small airframes.

Grumman may have been impressed by the Fw190, but there's no mechanical features, dimensions or styling applied to the F8F from the Fw190.

 

[Shortround6]

Why anyone would take a a fighter with 42-44lb per sq ft of wing area and no high lift devices (split flaps do not count.) as a starting point for a carrier fighter is beyond me.

You need a new wing, new landing gear, once you use the R-2800 engine you need a new propeller. Aside from the big engine, small airframe what is left?

 

[nuuumannn]

It was not the track but the geometry that was an issue.

Yup, and that's only the half of it. There were several factors that would have made the Bf 109 a pig of a deck handling aircraft. Take a look at this picture of the RAF Museum's Bf 109E:

DG200 front

The first thing of note is the wide track for the location of the legs to the wing/fuselage; apparent in this photo, they also slope forward, but note the angle of the wheels to the ground, the aircraft rides on the inner rim of the wheels, not their centre, this made it a bit tricky to handle, particularly when a direction change was necessary. The next problem is that the Bf 109 is tail heavy on the ground and with a subsequent burst of power, the tail tends to lead in the direction of travel, hence the tendency to ground loop. Also, for directional control, the rudder was completely useless, direction changes were brought about by differential braking. The tailwheel was not interconnected to the rudder and it castored, so on the ground went all over the place, which aided in the tendency of the machine to ground loop because of the weight in the tail 'leading' the aircraft.

Another issue with the Bf 109 on the ground is that visibility outside was terrible. Whilst taxiing, the side window panels needed to be opened and the aircraft had to be zig zagged, as the pilot could see bugger all from the cockpit. Although the canopy hood, which hinged to the right could be opened on the move, it was advised against as the hinges wore out from the excessive pounding they took from taxiing over the ground, combined with the weight of the hood in the open position on them.

One thing that the Bf 109 had in its favour was that despite having a high wing loading, it had relatively benign stall characteristics because of those big leading edge slats. Where a high stalling speed becomes an issue is the difference between the minimum stall speed and minimum flying speed. If there isn't much of a gap, take-offs and landings can be tricky. I spoke to a Beaufighter pilot once who explained that its stall speed and minimum flying speed were just about the same and he said take offs in particular were like flying a knife edge. An engine out in a Beau on take-off usually ended badly. But I digress...

 

[GrauGeist]

Two things I might point out.

First, the Bf109's tail-wheel could be locked. This was useful to a land-based take-off, but the navalized Bf109 was to be launched with that goofy catapult abortion they had conjured up, so that is essentially a non-issue.

However, the Bf109's main-gear geometry is - the Graf Zeppelin would have most likely been operating in the North Atlantic (or thereabouts) and this patch of water is not really known for glassy seas.
Landing aboard the GZ in a Bf109 would have been a complete nightmare.
The pitching deck would not have been accommodating to the 109's gear as a slight pitch catching one of the 109's legs first would have sent the Messerschmitt in the opposite direction.

I recall reading that the F4F/FM-2 had it's moments during recovery in rough seas and I can only imagine ow that would have worked out for the Bf109T under similar circumstances.

 

[nuuumannn]

You taxied with the tailwheel unlocked because you are zig zagging because you can't see out the cockpit. From a translated Bf 109G-2 flight manual:

"If you have to make sharp turns during taxying, the tailwheel lock must be released (release switch on the left hand side of the upper spar). To steer in sharp turns, pick up speed by releasing throttle to idle and steer with the brakes."

Oddly enough, there's no mention of engaging it on take-off or landing in that manual, but in another, for the Bf 109G-6, there is the following step:

"2. Ensure the tailwheel is locked."

But no mention in that manual of unlocking the tailwheel for taxying, although it does state that taxying is to be done with brisk 'S' turns, which would negate its use.

 

[Ivan1GFP]

Yup, and that's only the half of it. There were several factors that would have made the Bf 109 a pig of a deck handling aircraft. Take a look at this picture of the RAF Museum's Bf 109E:

View attachment 525039DG200 front

The first thing of note is the wide track for the location of the legs to the wing/fuselage; apparent in this photo, they also slope forward, but note the angle of the wheels to the ground, the aircraft rides on the inner rim of the wheels, not their centre, this made it a bit tricky to handle, particularly when a direction change was necessary.
.....

Hello nuuumannn,
That is a really great photograph.
There is yet another factor that comes from the severe negative camber of the main wheels.
The Messerschmitt 109 has a fairly high difference between its angle with the fuselage level and its angle with the tail wheel on the ground.
The problem with this characteristic in combination with the camber of the main wheels is that while the main wheels are aligned fore and aft when the fuselage is level, as soon as the tail comes down, there is a severe toe-out which results in directional instability and wandering.
My understanding is that if the pilot plants the aircraft without any crabbing then this isn't too bad, but the aircraft also had a tendency to float and if alignment wasn't so good, a ground loop was a pretty good possibility.

- Ivan.

 

[nuuumannn]

That is a really great photograph.

Thanks Ivan.

The problem with this characteristic in combination with the camber of the main wheels is that while the main wheels are aligned fore and aft when the fuselage is level, as soon as the tail comes down, there is a severe toe-out which results in directional instability and wandering.

Hmm, I see what your saying, and as I've never flown one I can't testify, but it probably isn't as significant as you might believe, as the following photos attest to, despite the aircraft being a Buchon, but the undercarriage is identical.

Buchon take off

This slightly out of focus image shows the normal take off attitude, as, like I said, visibility in the three point attitude is terrible. Note the wheel alignment.

Buchon taxi

In a three point attitude, the wheel alignment doesn't change by much at all. In most reports I've read, taxying the Bf 109 is achieved by "excessive braking", as one foreign evaluation of the type worded it, and Eric Brown commented in his assessment of the type that the landing roll can be reduced by steady braking. All the ingredients are there for a ground loop to occur once the three point attitude is reached, the tail lock removed for taxying in a zig zag and constant use of brakes in a tail heavy aircraft.

but the aircraft also had a tendency to float and if alignment wasn't so good, a ground loop was a pretty good possibility.

D'you mean during the landing roll out? You're probably right, but that is not an issue that is unique to the Bf 109. That can happen with most tail draggers.

 

[Barrett]

The Kriegsmarine/Luftwaffe/whatever had a wide variety of options for Graf Zeppelin, and selected the worst (least workable) choice almost every dang time. The launch system was compressed air, which was limited to about 16 cycles before hours of replenishment. The launch method was by cradle, which may account for sticking with the 109 because that contraption was already finished and tested. The only pilot I met who'd flown the 109T was Johannes Steinhoff, and we had other things to discuss on both occasions!

 

[fliger747]

The F4F "Wildcat" had a narrow track and soft gear and was a bit of a handful on the ground but easier to land on a carrier in the respect that arrested landings avoid ground loops! Nearly all WWII tailwheel fighters lacked tailwheel steering but featured a lockable tailwheel. Having flown a lot of taildraggers with lockable tailwheels, they are of some help both on takeoff and landing in retaining directional control and on landing generally not released till taxi speed. Not often mentioned, they also help somewhat with tailwheel shimmy which as those who have experienced it can be fairly violent.

For normal taxi speeds locking is not used and differential braking used to stay straight or maneuver as necessary. My brief experience (several thousand hours) in taildraggers is that on landing roll much better directional stability is achieved through steady braking. It is somewhat true that the less time spend in the regime below touchdown and taxi speeds where ground loops are a major danger, the safer!

As far as the gear configuration the 109 could have been made to work "OK" given engineering changes to stroke, structure etc. Maybe not the optimum, but "OK".