ToughOmbre
Senior Master Sergeant
As comiso said, one German aircraft carrier would have had no impact. They might as well have painted a large bullseye on the flight deck. Would not have lasted long.
TO
TO
German aircraft carrier
- Thread starter fly boy
- Start date
Ad: This forum contains affiliate links to products on Amazon and eBay. More information in Terms and rules
syscom3
Pacific Historian
The AC capacity made this a medium carrier, if anything.
Leonard had a great analysis of it and showed in no uncertein terms that this carrier would have been doomed even before it left port.
Leonard had a great analysis of it and showed in no uncertein terms that this carrier would have been doomed even before it left port.
parsifal
Colonel
This was a problem , but it was not going to stop the introduction of the carrier, just slow down its introduction to service. The command structure of the air gropup, once on operations might have been an intersting issue.
That is absolutely not true.
There were 3 aircraft that were planned for the Carrier and none of them were versions of the Storch.
As a Torpedo bomber the Fi 167 was planned. The only things it has in common with the Storch are that it is built by the same company and that it has great slow speed performance.
The other aircraft planned were the Bf 109T as a fighter and the Ju 87 (cant remember the varient) as a dive bomber.
Flyboy2
Senior Airman
Sorry, I just always thought that the -167 was a version of the Storch. Thanks for clearing that up
bf109 Emil
Airman
i think the 109 would have been a flop for carrier operations, with the narrow landing gear, and the carrier operating in the northsea, or atlantic, more 109 would have been swept off the deck from collapsed landing carriages then lost to the elimants...perhaps the 190 with wider stance and more stongly built. I am uncertain, and whether i viewed this on history channel, but the USN tested the undercarriages by hoisting planes about 8 feet +/- and dropping them so as to test, and check undercarriage construction. The main problem was Goering was in control of all aircraft, even ones lent, or used by naval use, i.e laying mines, weather reconnasance, u-boat duties, and although the graf spree might have benefited in the atlantic, so as to constantly watch and trail convoys, sending info to u-boat crews, she ended her life in Russia, used as a target ship[, but read somewhere numerous torpedo's didn't sink, and she was eventually sank afterwards near archangel
bf109 Emil
bf109 Emil
pbfoot
1st Lieutenant
the spit landed on carriers why not the 109
bf109 Emil
Airman
the spit had the seafire, but found out that numerous carrier crashes or collapsed undercarriages, went to the corsair in the pacific instead, and i know of a canadian ace whom flew f6f hellcat.
jUST the fact the 109 was a small plane, originally built to use jumo engines of 680h.p. and later fitted with the db601's making over a 1000. they where nimble, light, and compared to allied fighter small in comparison.
perhaps this plane might have been functional..."The only serious competition to the Bf 109 was the Heinkel entry. Based on a scaled down Blitz, the He 112 proved to be similar but different. Positive aspects of the He 112 included the wide track and robustness of the landing gear, considerably better visibility from the cockpit, and a lower wing loading that led to easier landings and better maneuverability. By contrast, the Bf 109 was 30 km/h faster than the He 112 in level flight, and superior in climbing and diving. It was also cheaper.[14] Still, the He 112 was the favourite of the Luftwaffe leaders." from wikipedia
landing speed was higher in a 109, and thus, to land on a carrier would require greater skill, and a harder drop onto deck so to speak..."Since the fighter was being designed primarily for high speed flight, a smaller wing would be optimised for high speed use.
The downside of such a trade-off is that low-speed flight would suffer, as the smaller wing would require more airflow to generate enough lift to stay flying." from wikipedia
reply as to why spit might suffer less carrier mishaps during landing..."this landing gear arrangement ensured a narrow track and hence made the aircraft unstable in terms of balance while on the ground. In an attempt to increase the wheel track the legs were splayed out; this created another problem in that loads imposed during take-off and landings were transferred at an angle up the legs. The small rudder of the 109 was relatively ineffective at controlling the strong swing created by the powerful slipstream of the propeller and this sideways drift created disproportionate loads on the wheel opposite the swing. If the forces imposed were large enough the pivot points often broke and the landing gear leg would be forced sideways into its bay. The Spitfire had a similar, narrow landing gear arrangement, but because there were no sideways loads imposed on the undercarriage legs the undercarriage didn't have the same tendency to collapse.[8]" from wikipedia
bf109 Emil
jUST the fact the 109 was a small plane, originally built to use jumo engines of 680h.p. and later fitted with the db601's making over a 1000. they where nimble, light, and compared to allied fighter small in comparison.
perhaps this plane might have been functional..."The only serious competition to the Bf 109 was the Heinkel entry. Based on a scaled down Blitz, the He 112 proved to be similar but different. Positive aspects of the He 112 included the wide track and robustness of the landing gear, considerably better visibility from the cockpit, and a lower wing loading that led to easier landings and better maneuverability. By contrast, the Bf 109 was 30 km/h faster than the He 112 in level flight, and superior in climbing and diving. It was also cheaper.[14] Still, the He 112 was the favourite of the Luftwaffe leaders." from wikipedia
landing speed was higher in a 109, and thus, to land on a carrier would require greater skill, and a harder drop onto deck so to speak..."Since the fighter was being designed primarily for high speed flight, a smaller wing would be optimised for high speed use.
The downside of such a trade-off is that low-speed flight would suffer, as the smaller wing would require more airflow to generate enough lift to stay flying." from wikipedia
reply as to why spit might suffer less carrier mishaps during landing..."this landing gear arrangement ensured a narrow track and hence made the aircraft unstable in terms of balance while on the ground. In an attempt to increase the wheel track the legs were splayed out; this created another problem in that loads imposed during take-off and landings were transferred at an angle up the legs. The small rudder of the 109 was relatively ineffective at controlling the strong swing created by the powerful slipstream of the propeller and this sideways drift created disproportionate loads on the wheel opposite the swing. If the forces imposed were large enough the pivot points often broke and the landing gear leg would be forced sideways into its bay. The Spitfire had a similar, narrow landing gear arrangement, but because there were no sideways loads imposed on the undercarriage legs the undercarriage didn't have the same tendency to collapse.[8]" from wikipedia
bf109 Emil
pbfoot
1st Lieutenant
The 109 has a wider undercarriage by 6" over a Spit
The undercarriage of the Bf 109 was narrow but not fragile. the Bf 109T had an increased wingspan at least for better deck operations (take-off and landing on the flight deck).
Ju87C was the naval derivate of the Ju 87B. There were even plans for a naval derivate of the the Ju 87D called Ju 87T.
Ju87C was the naval derivate of the Ju 87B. There were even plans for a naval derivate of the the Ju 87D called Ju 87T.
How would you know?!? It's not like you access to a 109 and a Spit!
Yes, I was joking! pb really does have access to a 109 and a spit!
.
bf109 Emil
Airman
.Perhaps if willy messerschmitt had drawn up a specific design or carrier used aircraft, as above mentions the spitfire, but i think the seafire was the carrier version of the spitfire."The Supermarine Seafire was a naval version of the Supermarine Spitfire specially adapted for operation from aircraft carriers. The name Seafire was arrived at by collapsing the longer name Sea Spitfire." quote wikipedia...Compared with other naval fighters, the Seafire II was able to outperform the A6M5 (Zero) at low altitudes when the two types were tested against each other in World War II. Contemporary Allied carrier aircraft, such as the F6F Hellcat and the F4U Corsair, however, were considerably more robust and powerful. Late-war Seafire marks equipped with the Griffon engines enjoyed a considerable increase of performance compared to their Merlin-engined predecessors.
The first use of Seafires in sustained carrier operations was Operation Torch. Seafires saw most service in the Far East Pacific campaigns, serving with No. 887 and 894 Squadrons, Fleet Air Arm, aboard HMS Indefatigable and joining the British Pacific Fleet late in 1944. Due to their good high altitude performance and lack of ordnance-carrying capabilities (compared to the Hellcats and Corsairs of the Fleet) the Seafires were allocated the vital defensive duties of Combat Air Patrol (CAP) over the fleet. Seafires were thus heavily involved in countering the Kamikaze attacks during the Iwo Jima landings and beyond." from wikipedia
bf109 Emil
The first use of Seafires in sustained carrier operations was Operation Torch. Seafires saw most service in the Far East Pacific campaigns, serving with No. 887 and 894 Squadrons, Fleet Air Arm, aboard HMS Indefatigable and joining the British Pacific Fleet late in 1944. Due to their good high altitude performance and lack of ordnance-carrying capabilities (compared to the Hellcats and Corsairs of the Fleet) the Seafires were allocated the vital defensive duties of Combat Air Patrol (CAP) over the fleet. Seafires were thus heavily involved in countering the Kamikaze attacks during the Iwo Jima landings and beyond." from wikipedia
bf109 Emil
Haztoys
Senior Airman
From what I understand and have come across in pics of 109's ...Is the reason the Bf 109 undercarriage is so narrow is Willy Messerschmitt wanted the landing gear on the body of the plane ..And NOT on the wings.. And that's what he did..I'm sure you all have come across pic's of 109's with the wings off ...And they are still standing on the gear.. "I" would say it would make a stronger plane..."I" would think it would be EZer to work on the wings and the wings do not have to be that strong to hold up the plane...
But................
In life one problem fixed ...Leads to a new problem...
Hi Emil,
>the spit had the seafire, but found out that numerous carrier crashes or collapsed undercarriages, went to the corsair in the pacific instead, and i know of a canadian ace whom flew f6f hellcat.
Hm, Mike Crosley ("They gave me a Seafire", "Up in Harm's Way") flew Seafires - in the Pacific, too. I don't think collapsing undercarriages were much of a problem, but he gives a good account of the Seafire's landing difficulties. They were caused by an array of reasons, one important one being the gradual stall that was a beneficial feature in most situations, but a disadvantage in carrier landings where you want to quite flying at a precisely defined moment. Another important reason was the tail heaviness of the Seafire, brought about by the tail hook and additional equipment in the rear fuselage. It mean that the type came in for a landing with the tail providing lift instead of downforce, and when you chopped the throttle, the tail lost the extra lift from the propeller slipstream and dropped, causing the main wing to increase its angle of attack and make the Seafire float over the arrestor wires and, if you were unlucky, over the barrier as well.
The Seafires of Crosley's squadron had a good combat record during their deployment in the Pacific, but they lost quite a few aircraft to accidents brought about by the peculiarities of the type. Crosley apparently thought that the Americans had a much better approach to carrier aviation, including the way the US aircraft were designed to land under power with large, drag-producing split flaps allowing them to come it slowly and drop onto the deck positively as soon as the throttle was chopped.
>landing speed was higher in a 109, and thus, to land on a carrier would require greater skill, and a harder drop onto deck so to speak...
Actually, the Me 109T benefitted from a number of design changes over the Me 109E it was based on, and probably would have been much safer to land on a carrier than a Seafire. First, the wing was slightly larger than that of the Emil, it had well-defined stall characteristics (both the Emil-style wing and the Friedrich-style wing as well as experimental modifications of the basic wings were tested, and the rectangular wing was found to be best), and the Me 109T was equipped with spoilers that could be used to adjust the glide path easily and without the big trim changes jockeying the throttle or deploying large landing flaps could introduce. (The technology clearly speaks of the German sailplane expertise I believe spoilers were used with many later carrier-capable types as well, so this approach obviously had some merits ...
>from wikipedia
Hm, on top of the usual boiler plate warnings against Wikipedia content, I'd like to add one that warns against taking negative statements on Luftwaffe aircraft too seriously. There is a definite trend towards pessimism in these articles ...
Regards,
Henning (HoHun)
>the spit had the seafire, but found out that numerous carrier crashes or collapsed undercarriages, went to the corsair in the pacific instead, and i know of a canadian ace whom flew f6f hellcat.
Hm, Mike Crosley ("They gave me a Seafire", "Up in Harm's Way") flew Seafires - in the Pacific, too. I don't think collapsing undercarriages were much of a problem, but he gives a good account of the Seafire's landing difficulties. They were caused by an array of reasons, one important one being the gradual stall that was a beneficial feature in most situations, but a disadvantage in carrier landings where you want to quite flying at a precisely defined moment. Another important reason was the tail heaviness of the Seafire, brought about by the tail hook and additional equipment in the rear fuselage. It mean that the type came in for a landing with the tail providing lift instead of downforce, and when you chopped the throttle, the tail lost the extra lift from the propeller slipstream and dropped, causing the main wing to increase its angle of attack and make the Seafire float over the arrestor wires and, if you were unlucky, over the barrier as well.
The Seafires of Crosley's squadron had a good combat record during their deployment in the Pacific, but they lost quite a few aircraft to accidents brought about by the peculiarities of the type. Crosley apparently thought that the Americans had a much better approach to carrier aviation, including the way the US aircraft were designed to land under power with large, drag-producing split flaps allowing them to come it slowly and drop onto the deck positively as soon as the throttle was chopped.
>landing speed was higher in a 109, and thus, to land on a carrier would require greater skill, and a harder drop onto deck so to speak...
Actually, the Me 109T benefitted from a number of design changes over the Me 109E it was based on, and probably would have been much safer to land on a carrier than a Seafire. First, the wing was slightly larger than that of the Emil, it had well-defined stall characteristics (both the Emil-style wing and the Friedrich-style wing as well as experimental modifications of the basic wings were tested, and the rectangular wing was found to be best), and the Me 109T was equipped with spoilers that could be used to adjust the glide path easily and without the big trim changes jockeying the throttle or deploying large landing flaps could introduce. (The technology clearly speaks of the German sailplane expertise
I believe spoilers were used with many later carrier-capable types as well, so this approach obviously had some merits ...>from wikipedia
Hm, on top of the usual boiler plate warnings against Wikipedia content, I'd like to add one that warns against taking negative statements on Luftwaffe aircraft too seriously. There is a definite trend towards pessimism in these articles ...
Regards,
Henning (HoHun)
parsifal
Colonel
I dont know if this helps, but the Germans were using a small island in the baltic to train "Deck Landings" and "take offs". As far as i am aware there were no serious problems with the equipment. That is not to say there wouldnt be. The narrow undercarriage is a definite problem, but it is generally overstated, as are the admittedly high attrition rates of the Seafire.
There would have been some problems in the deck handling arrangements of the carrier, as well as a few other problems. As a rough sort of comparison, she would have been about as good as the Furious or Bearn, in terms of her ability to turn around the airgroup, ie, about the same as a first generation allied carrier. I believe, but am not certain, that she also suffered from a rather small set of lifts, and a small deck handling area. Compared to Ark Royal, or Illustrious, or even Ranger, she would have been outclassed, with the Allies enjoying a consideraqble turn around rate advantage. This means that unless she eliminated the threat with her first strike, she would take a long time to "reload" so to speak
However the greatest threat to the Carrier, in my opinion, is the fact that the Brits would have endeavoured to attack her using their night capable swordfish, such as they had done against the Bismarck.
There would have been some problems in the deck handling arrangements of the carrier, as well as a few other problems. As a rough sort of comparison, she would have been about as good as the Furious or Bearn, in terms of her ability to turn around the airgroup, ie, about the same as a first generation allied carrier. I believe, but am not certain, that she also suffered from a rather small set of lifts, and a small deck handling area. Compared to Ark Royal, or Illustrious, or even Ranger, she would have been outclassed, with the Allies enjoying a consideraqble turn around rate advantage. This means that unless she eliminated the threat with her first strike, she would take a long time to "reload" so to speak
However the greatest threat to the Carrier, in my opinion, is the fact that the Brits would have endeavoured to attack her using their night capable swordfish, such as they had done against the Bismarck.
parsifal
Colonel
There were also versions of the Me 109f and Ju87D being worked on for the 1942 version of the carrier. given that its likely commissioning date (according to OKM records) the Germans would almost certainly have needed to convert some version of the g ass well
I have often wondered why they never considered the FW 190 as a conversion. That would have been interesting
kool kitty89
Senior Master Sergeant
The Fw 190 would still have made a better carrier plane. Better range, excelent low-medium altitude performance, wide track landing gear, radial enging, good multi-role capabilities, high lift wing with good low speed stall characteristics. (actually the same airfoil as the F4U)
SoD Stitch
Banned
Yes, Willy's theory was that he wanted the stresses of the landing gear from landing to be transferred to the fuselage instead of the wings, hence the attachment points for the landing gear were in the fuselage, not the wings; this also made for a lighter wing structure, but at a price. Takeoffs and, in particular, landings were tricky at best, even for an experienced pilot; see the recent thread on the restored Bf 109 that crashed on landing. From eyewitness reports, the reason the aircraft crashed was at least partly due to the narrow track of the undercarriage. Many an inexperienced German pilot "pranged" their a/c on it's first landing, or did a ground loop. Good theory, bad execution, I say.
parsifal
Colonel
[QUOTE=kool kitty89;346041]The Fw 190 would still have made a better carrier plane. Better range, excelent low-medium altitude performance, wide track landing gear, radial enging, good multi-role capabilities, high lift wing with good low speed stall characteristics. (actually the same airfoil as the F4U)[/QUOTE]
Agreed, an almost impossible question to answer, if two pilots of equal quality face off, one in an FW 190, and the other in the Corsair, who has the inherent advantage???
Agreed, an almost impossible question to answer, if two pilots of equal quality face off, one in an FW 190, and the other in the Corsair, who has the inherent advantage???
Users who are viewing this thread
Similar threads
