FW 190A vs Hellcat and Corsair (1 Viewer)

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

DonL said:
@ syscom3

Which significant structural modifications?

On the Graf Zeppelin Carrier were catapults for take offs!
The FW 190 had a very robust landing gear, and the aircraft was overall very robust.
Click to expand...

Carrier capable aircraft are a design all to themselves.

Just because a land based aircraft has a robust landing gear, doesnt necessarily make it carrier capable. Same with catapult launches. high stress on the landing gear. And your still asking your aircraft (loaded down with payload too) to be accelerating at a safe rate at only 100 mph or so.

Add in the tailhook, and its easy to add several hundred pounds of weight to make it carrier capable.
 
DonL said:
@ syscom3

Which significant structural modifications?

On the Graf Zeppelin Carrier were catapults for take offs!
The FW 190 had a very robust landing gear, and the aircraft was overall very robust.
Click to expand...

As can be seen carrier aircraft were designed from he ground up, it's a lot more complicated than putting an arrestor hook on an aircraft and calling it good. Although the Fw 190 was a wonderful aircraft, I question how it would of held up in a navalized configuration. The radial engine on the "A" would of been one redeeming factor...
 
Looking at the weights of RAF land based fighter to naval fighter conversions:

The Seafire IB/II, which were straight conversions of Mk VB airframes, were only about 200-300 lbs heavier at normal loaded weight than their land-based counterparts.

The later Seafire Mk XV, which was a more thorough attempt to make a carrier borne fighter out of the Spitfire, was about 700lbs heavier than the late production Mk XIIs it was based on. The extra weight was accounted for but the addition of wing folding gear, landing gear reinforcement, addition of tropical cooling equipment for the Griffon IV, sting-type arresting gear and rear fuselage reinforcement.

SeaHurricanes were between 250-400 lbs heavier than their equavilent Hurricane counterparts.

So, realistically, it seems that a navalised FW-190 is going to be somewhere between 200 and 700 lbs heavier than a land-based FW-190, depending on what modifications are deemed necessary.

On a loaded FW-190 airframe, weighing approximately 8700-9700 lbs, this isn't going to dramatically affect performance, although it may affect things like the aircraft's Center of Gravity and consequently its lateral stabilty and overall handling.

For example, the early tests of the Seafire Mk XV displayed a tendency for the aircraft to skid and then pitch nose downward when yawed more than three degrees to either side in high speed dives (approaching 450 mph IAS), due to changes in the aircraft's balance.

The solution was to change the rudder trimmer gearing (it was a new type, and too sensitive) and add a rudder balance tab. The lateral stability of the type was also considered poor at low speeds, which is not the sort of thing you want on a carrier aircraft. The problem was solved between the combination of the aforementioned rudder changes and the addition of an enlarged horn balance (which alleviated the lateral instability, but could cause minor oscillations at low speeds in rough weather).

While seemingly relatively minor, the weight and gear changes to a land based fighter could actually become a major headache for naval pilots if they weren't dealt with. Different operational requirements often require very different aircraft.

The only major question mark I would place on the ability of the FW-190 to operate effectively as a naval fighter would be its relatively high stalling speed (approximately 120 mph) and its tendency to drop a wing rather nastily when stalled. These two elements are serious drawbacks when comined with the travails of a carrier landing.
 
Actually the Germans had planned to use the BF109T on the Graf Zeppelin and I could imagine that the landing gear of the BF109 made it much easier to incoporate folding wings. Denavalized BF109Ts were in service for a while and didn't perform that bad. First B17 shot down by the LW was claimed by a BF109T AFAIK.
 

The other way to look at it is the additional weight is the same as going into a dogfight carrying a bombload. I think we all agree that I fighter carrying a bombload has a significantly reduced performance which I think deals with the point your trying to raise.
 

Wow I see you finally agree with what we were argueing about a while back! I applaud you syscom, you are learning!
 
Personally I dont think the undercarriage on the 190 would have been suitable for carrier landings. Its narrow track would have made pitching deck landings very interesting.
 
Where did the FW 190 had a narrow track?

We are talking about a FW 190 not a ME 109!

Sorry but I can't see a narrow track on the FW 190!
 
Well, if we are talking 'carrierized' Fw190A it has to have the structure to fold wings and take a carrier landings.. would think 600-1000 pounds of dead weight would make a carrier version of any Fw190A series less capable in turn and climb and acceleration- (no data to support speculation) and with added wing weight out to wing fold point even roll would be somewhat affected.

I would prefer to think the F4U-1 would battle a Fw190A (unaltered) at low to medium altitudes on equal/better terms as it was the equal of a 51B or D pretty much everywhere except >20K.

Even if you take the D9 and add the weight for carrier ops, the F4U should be the equal at all altitudes until 30000 plus with a 13 (for those whose superchargers actually work)

Too bad we will never know what the world would be like if the USAAF bought the F4U starting in 1942 instead of the P-47.

Regards,
 
Seeing as the FFA used Hellcats during D-Day, did they ever meet in the air? The Wiki entry for the Hellcat states it was equal to the FW190 and Bf109, but provides no further info
 
LOL fellas, all I am saying is look at the geometry of the Fw190 undercarriage, great attachment point locations, but the oleos taper IN and that to me says instability. Look at a front view drawing not a photo.
On the other hand look at the F6F, designed from the ground up to be a carrier fighter, the U/C is perpendicular to the oleo attachment points giving better stablility for deck landings.
 
@ renrich

Is this an opinion, or do you have facts for you statement?

You read the F4U-1D, F6F-3, and FW190-A5 Comparison Report?
The test was with a fighter bomber version of the FW 190A, which had more weight than a fighter version. I think because of the robust landingear from the FW 190A there would be 300-400 pounds extra weight for a navalized FW 190A and that is not very much for a FW 190A.

Oh and i can post exaggerated statements too!
For me a fully developed naval FW 190A can outperforme a Hellcat in any single way! The Hellcat would be nothing more than a served peace of meat for a navalized FW 190 A.
 

A fully navalized -190 would undoubtably be far more than 300-400 pounds heavier. Probably twice that weight.

Everything about it would need to be redesigned. Even mundane things like cockpit placement for pilot visibility might need to be changed. In the end, ths hypothetical -190 would have significant changes in performance.
 
One main question is:
How many aircrafts you can store on a carrier?
The FW190 has a wide track.
So you have only "short" parts of the wings, which you can fold.

The question is, can you store enough FW190 A on a carrier?
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Users who are viewing this thread

Total: 2 (members: 0, guests: 2)

Similar threads

W
The scarcity of fighter to fighter FW-190A pilot combat accounts...
2 3
Replies
52
Views
3K
GrauGeist
S
Spitfire vs. Dora mass battle
2
Replies
30
Views
2K
PAT303
P
S
Fw 190D-9 vs. Spitfire Mk. XIV, same engines
Replies
8
Views
2K
dedalos
D
FW-190 and The Battle of Britain
2 3
Replies
40
Views
2K
Admiral Beez
A
Vickers Wellington vs. Warwick
Replies
0
Views
116
Aeroweanie
Menu
Log in
Register