German Carrier-Based Aircraft

[Karnak]

Originally posted by Grendel
And those 109 Ts were used operationally . One of them shot down the first B-17 shot down in European theatre.

The 109 Ts were in continious use until '43 or '44 until they all were worn out.

T model is no prototype but a series built combat fighter.

And by the way - it was larger wings than any 109. It is the turn'n'burn variant of 109 family!

So should the B7A1 Ryusei "Grace" be carrier enabled if it is added to AH?  After all it was fully carrier capable, it just never operated from a CV because the Japanese didn't have any left by the time the B7A1 entered service.  114 B7A1s were built and it was probably the best CV strike aircraft of the war, it just lacked any CVs.

For the record I don't think the B7A1 should be CV enabled.


Oh, the Hurri and Spit had far lower wing loading than the Bf109 and didn't need bigger wings.  Furthermore it was desparation that got the Seafire project going and it was dumb to continue with it due to the narrow track landing gear of the Spitfire.  Now, the Bf109 had not just narrow track landing gear, but was noted for its poor ground handling.  Boy, that's a great fighter for CV ops.

[Wmaker]

Originally posted by Karnak
Now, the Bf109 had not just narrow track landing gear, but was noted for its poor ground handling.  Boy, that's a great fighter for CV ops.

"Why was the Bf 109 so prone to swing on take-off?
The Bf 109 take-off swing was a very well known and notorious phenomenon. Already the external looks of the aircraft’s landing gear indicate that it is very easy to suspect it to be the culprit for the whole event. However, this is not the case. The swing is mainly caused by the the propeller slipstream which does not move backwards in a straight line along the fuselage but in a spiral path which is caused by the angle of the propeller blades to the aircraft’s center line. When this spiral airflow hits the tail, it tends to turn the rudder (seen from the back where the starboard and port sides of the aircraft are defined) to the right and the nose to the left. The swing can be compensated with an appropriate use of opposite rudder. If the tail is lifted too soon during the take-off, the propeller’s gyroscopic forces contribute to the left swing.

The narrow landing gear track creates the conditions for the swing: the brakes turn (prevent the swing) less effectively than with a wider track gear. The Bf 109 gear track is undeniably narrow ( Bf 109 E 1,97 m, 109 G 2,06 m, 109 K 2,1 m), but, for example, the Spitfire’s track is only 1,68 m. However, this is only a half of the case.

The other and decisevily important factor is the aircraft’s relatively rearward center of gravity. If the swing is allowed to develop, the rearward c.g. increases the swing and not even the highly regarded Messerschmitt brakes could no longer rectify the situation. If the pilot at this stage closes the throttle, it increases the swing still and the inevitable will happen: the landing gear collapses. In reality the process is also very quick. In addition it must be said that although the take-off swing is well-known and notorious, almost as many accidents took place during landings when the aircraft was allowed to swing.

The Bf 109 landing gear has been blamed for the swing without a cause. The real reason has been between the stick and the seat. The whole swing problem was a mere instructional mistake. The pilots should have been made to adopt one golden rule: the Messerschmitt Bf 109 must be steered to go absolutely straight during the ground run in take-off and landing and any tendency to swing must be corrected immediately with a well-timed use of the brakes and/or the rudder."

source: http://www.jiop.fi/ksimuseo/faq_mtkierto.html

[Karnak]

Wmaker,

I wasn't saying the narrow track gear were responsible for the swing.  Narrow track gear are a problem in and of themselves as the aircraft is less stable and more likely suffer a landing accident.  Notice that all Japanese carrier planes had wide track landing gear.  That wasn't a coincidence.

The Bf109's poor ground handling is added on top of that, not because of that.

[Wmaker]

Originally posted by Karnak
The Bf109's poor ground handling is added on top of that, not because of that.

My point is this:

"The Bf 109 landing gear has been blamed for the swing without a cause. The real reason has been between the stick and the seat. The whole swing problem was a mere instructional mistake. The pilots should have been made to adopt one golden rule: the Messerschmitt Bf 109 must be steered to go absolutely straight during the ground run in take-off and landing and any tendency to swing must be corrected immediately with a well-timed use of the brakes and/or the rudder."

Steering 109 absolutely strainght is a standard operating procedure (or should have been) just like many other aircraft have SOPs...."if you are going to do this the this can happen so don't do it". Basically "109's poor ground handling" is and was an instructional mistake.