Author Topic: Me109 landing characteristics  (Read 5870 times)

Offline Angus

  • Plutonium Member
  • *******
  • Posts: 10057
Me109 landing characteristics
« Reply #75 on: November 14, 2006, 07:08:26 AM »
Humour set aside, I can not see that the GZ would have made drastic changes in the naval warfare, only made the Kriegsmarine into more nuicance than they were.
So, I see Milo not having any particular sense of humour over your statement about the home fleet, and I understand that.
It was very interesting to carry out the flight trials at Rechlin with the Spitfire and the Hurricane. Both types are very simple to fly compared to our aircraft, and childishly easy to take-off and land. (Werner Mölders)

Offline gripen

  • Silver Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 1914
Me109 landing characteristics
« Reply #76 on: November 14, 2006, 09:53:14 AM »
AFAIK there was a problem with the catapult lauching system of the Graf Zeppelin, in practice planes had to be lifted one by one to the catapults making launching very slow. The Japanese experts recommended to reject the catapults and fly off planes from the board but Germans believed that the catapults were needed.

gripen

Offline Angus

  • Plutonium Member
  • *******
  • Posts: 10057
Me109 landing characteristics
« Reply #77 on: November 14, 2006, 11:10:30 AM »
Woot? they were catapulted? Do you know some more of times and specs?
Must have been some minutes between each aircraft, and that is very limiting for a 109.
Was it a silly decision or did the 109T really need that? After all, the Brits were launching bellyfull Spit V's (Slipper tanks for 600 miles flights) from AFAIK, a smaller carrier. And to top it, the GZ was intended to be fast!
It was very interesting to carry out the flight trials at Rechlin with the Spitfire and the Hurricane. Both types are very simple to fly compared to our aircraft, and childishly easy to take-off and land. (Werner Mölders)

Offline Charge

  • Gold Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 3414
Me109 landing characteristics
« Reply #78 on: November 14, 2006, 11:28:01 AM »
Maybe the Germans didn't like the limitation of having to turn towards wind to launch aircraft..?

-C+
"When you wish upon a falling star, your dreams can come true. Unless it's really a giant meteor hurtling to the earth which will destroy all life. Then you're pretty much screwed no matter what you wish for. Unless of course, it's death by meteorite."

Offline MiloMorai

  • Platinum Member
  • ******
  • Posts: 6864
Me109 landing characteristics
« Reply #79 on: November 14, 2006, 04:18:23 PM »
The Americans had some carriers with hanger deck cats. They were finally removed because they were not worth the hassle. A/c could be launched quicker from the deck.

Offline Viking

  • Personal Non Grata
  • Gold Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 2867
Me109 landing characteristics
« Reply #80 on: November 15, 2006, 04:26:00 AM »
Quote
Originally posted by Angus
So, I see Milo not having any particular sense of humour over your statement about the home fleet, and I understand that.


Why?

Offline Angus

  • Plutonium Member
  • *******
  • Posts: 10057
Me109 landing characteristics
« Reply #81 on: November 15, 2006, 04:40:44 AM »
Because it was clumsy and for some provokative.
It was very interesting to carry out the flight trials at Rechlin with the Spitfire and the Hurricane. Both types are very simple to fly compared to our aircraft, and childishly easy to take-off and land. (Werner Mölders)

Offline gripen

  • Silver Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 1914
Me109 landing characteristics
« Reply #82 on: November 15, 2006, 08:39:09 AM »
There is a picture of a trial catapult launch of a Ju 87 in Manfred Griehl's Ju 87 book. The catapult seems to be quite similar as used in the cruisers etc. to launch seaplanes.

gripen

Offline Widewing

  • Plutonium Member
  • *******
  • Posts: 8801
Me109 landing characteristics
« Reply #83 on: November 15, 2006, 10:25:32 AM »
Quote
Originally posted by MiloMorai
The Americans had some carriers with hanger deck cats. They were finally removed because they were not worth the hassle. A/c could be launched quicker from the deck.


Virtually all USN carriers had flight deck catapults, including the small CVEs. This allowed for launching from full decks. After the first 15 to 20 aircraft had been launched via the bow cat, the balance would deck run off.

Here's an example of the kind of utility catapults provided US carriers. Immediately after fields were secured on Saipan, CVEs catapulted off several squadrons of P-47Ds. That same afternoon, those P-47s were flying Combat Air Patrols and close support to the ground forces.

As to the Graf Zeppelin, it was widely regarded as a "white elephant". It was consuming resources and promised little in return.

A carrier's purpose is to be a mobile airfield and to project power. Inasmuch as the GZ's airwing was no larger than that aboard an American light carrier (Independence class), its effectiveness would be limited. Power projection wasn't much.

Germany still faced the same problem it had in WWI; limited access to the open ocean. There's no value in a coastal carrier...

Venturing out into the open seas meant dealing with the Royal Navy, and that problem, not withstanding the pie-in-the-sky analysis of some here, would be suicidal. The fact that the GZ would not be ready for combat until well into 1942 is generally overlooked in these arguments. Germany was a rank novice at carrier operations, and building a viable, trained air wing would take many months. Even then, they would still have to gain combat experience to expose weaknesses in the ship, aircraft, training and operations. Trust me, there would be many deficiencies needing to be addressed. Moreover, the aircraft slated for use were simply adaptations of land planes. Germany had no aircraft designed specifically for carrier ops. As Britain discovered with the Seafire, this assures a higher accident rate, plus the unsolved issue of limited range.

Another problem facing the the GZ was that by 1942, the USS Wasp and USS Ranger were operating in the Atlantic. Also, do not forget about Bomber Command. Think of hordes of torpedo carrying Beaufighters and Mosquitos, backed by swarms of medium and heavy bombers. A dozen 109s would be overwhelmed in short order. I haven't even mentioned FAA carriers, as well as the American CVs and their very potent air wings.

History shows that the Graf Zeppelin could not operate beyond the range of land-based air cover with any expectation of survival. Germany realized that and cancelled the project. Germany was not going to risk the major portion of its surface fleet to provide escort in the open ocean. While submarines could be placed to screen in advance, their very limited speed and the need to remain submerged during daylight mean't that U-boat protection would require the CV and her destroyer escort to reduce speed. Submarines can do nothing to protect the GZ from air attack, beyond picket duty.

My regards,

Widewing
My regards,

Widewing

YGBSM. Retired Member of Aces High Trainer Corps, Past President of the DFC, retired from flying as Tredlite.

Offline Squire

  • Aces High CM Staff (Retired)
  • Platinum Member
  • ******
  • Posts: 7683
Me109 landing characteristics
« Reply #84 on: November 15, 2006, 10:41:08 AM »
Had the GZ been built I it would have probably seen action on the Murmansk run, which is the only viable theater of ops for it post 1942. Med is out (Gibraltar), N. Atlantic is suicidal. That leaves the northern waters, which is where the last of the Kriegsmarine surface groups saw serious action.
Warloc
Friday Squad Ops CM Team
1841 Squadron Fleet Air Arm
Aces High since Tour 24

Offline Angus

  • Plutonium Member
  • *******
  • Posts: 10057
Me109 landing characteristics
« Reply #85 on: November 15, 2006, 10:57:07 AM »
I would have thought that the useage of the last German battleships in the Northern routes was mostly due to them not getting elsewhere, and that risk (like the Bismarck got to know) was not balancable to the useage at the growingly important Murmansk route.
A German TG on the S-Atlantic, say alone with a CV with it would have been somewhat of a nuicance.
Widewing:
"As Britain discovered with the Seafire, this assures a higher accident rate, plus the unsolved issue of limited range."

AFAIK the majority on the Seafire accidents were on the little escort carriers, notably outside Anzio(?), - the decks were wayyyy to little, the wind was still, and the CV was not so fast. Yet, where there was space, the Seafires fared okay, and both Hurricanes and Spitfires either landed on or flew of moderately big CV's without catapult or arresting cables! But compared to the escort carriers, the GZ is longer and faster. Ditto.
Anyway, nice input there about the P47's being catapulted off, - would you happen to have more of that??????
It was very interesting to carry out the flight trials at Rechlin with the Spitfire and the Hurricane. Both types are very simple to fly compared to our aircraft, and childishly easy to take-off and land. (Werner Mölders)

Offline BugsBunny

  • Parolee
  • Nickel Member
  • ***
  • Posts: 381
Re: Me109 landing characteristics
« Reply #86 on: November 15, 2006, 11:08:24 AM »
Quote
Originally posted by Whisky58
Corsair was infamous for its tendency to yaw on t/o & landing and this has been modelled in AH.
Me 109 was also notorious in this respect & more 109s were lost in t/o & landing accidents than in combat, but this is not modelled in AH and the 109s don't seem to have any landing vices.

Anyone know why please?


Who cares?  It is a fighting game not a flight sim

Offline Widewing

  • Plutonium Member
  • *******
  • Posts: 8801
Me109 landing characteristics
« Reply #87 on: November 15, 2006, 01:37:06 PM »
Quote
Originally posted by Angus
I
Anyway, nice input there about the P47's being catapulted off, - would you happen to have more of that??????


Absolutely...

Below, the 318th Fighter Group, consisting of 74 P-47Ds, was delivered to Saipan aboard the CVEs, USS Manila Bay and Natoma Bay. This photo, taken aboard the CVE Manila Bay, shows the deck crowded with Thunderbolts. Of greater interest is the large geysers of water from exploding bombs dropped by several Japanese Army aircraft.



Below, a 318th FG P-47D-11-RE runs up to full power as it prepares for a catapult launch from the deck of the CVE Manila Bay off of Saipan.



Below, a Jug comes off the catapult of the Manila Bay.



"On 23 June, Manila Bay came under enemy air attack during refueling operations east of Saipan. Two enemy aircraft attacked her from dead ahead, dropping four bombs which exploded wide to port. Intense antiaircraft fire suppressed further attacks; and, as a precautionary and rather unusual move which Admiral Spruance later characterized as "commendable initiative," Manila Bay launched four of the Army P-47s she was ferrying to fly protective CAP until radar screens were clear of contacts. The Army fighters then flew to Saipan, their intended destination. Manila Bay and Natoma Bay launched the remaining planes the next day."

My regards,

Widewing
My regards,

Widewing

YGBSM. Retired Member of Aces High Trainer Corps, Past President of the DFC, retired from flying as Tredlite.

Offline Viking

  • Personal Non Grata
  • Gold Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 2867
Me109 landing characteristics
« Reply #88 on: November 15, 2006, 04:55:42 PM »
Quote
Originally posted by Angus
Because it was clumsy and for some provokative.


How could an opinion on a hypothetical situation be provocative? What was provocative about my posts?

And what do you mean by "clumsy"?

Offline Whisky58

  • Copper Member
  • **
  • Posts: 289
Re: Re: Me109 landing characteristics
« Reply #89 on: November 16, 2006, 07:28:49 AM »
Quote
Originally posted by BugsBunny
Who cares?  It is a fighting game not a flight sim


Why bother having any differences in the flight models?  Let's have all the planes handle the same.  In fact why not just have one plane modelled then we can concentrate on the fighting and not have to worry about irritating details like differences in plane's performances?

Seems to me that there's a lot of posts all over the boards about different plane's relative performances so I would guess that many do care about a degree of flight modelling accuracy.
Whisky