Naval versions of Bf109 and Stuka?

[Westy]

 Naval Stuka and ME-109"T" !!! YES!  

(I need something I can run down while in a Zeke or TBM)

   -Westy

[-lazs-]

Why not have a carrier plane that never saw carrier operation?   Well..... I say that without 1,000 lbs of folding wing, tail hook and reinforced frame... The plane would be useless and/or dangerous.   I don't think a standard E would hold up to carrier landings and without folding wings, how many could be carried?

I don't know... On the one hand you have the 109T that never saw carrier operation and was as close to useless as a WWII fighter could be and would be as popular as a swordfish.  It "saw combat" but so did every car, truck building and rock in germany by the end of the war.  On the other hand you have a Bearcat that saw extensive carrier use in WWII but no "combat" and would be an extremely popular addition.    
lazs

[Fishu]

Too bad that those stupid nazis didn't leave us complete set of kriegsmarines with CVs included  
Would be nice if there would be a little chance to re-write the history in a game..  I'd order them to make 3 CVs and some planes.
(...and then game would be nothing but a hypothetical mass of this and that..)

[lazs]

fish.. I think the point is that they were a long way off even with operable carriers.   Carrier planes need range and durability.  The 109T would be even worse than a seafire and the Brits never did get a good carrier plane even tho they had very good carriers.  Rather than re-invent the wheel they used American F4f's F4U's and Hellcats.   The japs had excellent carrier planes from the very start also.

The 190 might have been a good starting point for a carrier plane but it would need a lot of work or it would just be a very poor ac.   If wingloading were decreased, range increased, load increased, airframe strengthened and folding wings and tailhook added it would be a very weak copy of a Corsair.   The nazies were not so much stupid as, they realized how much work would be involved and they had other ideas and priorities.   I believe that if they had hung on a little longer their lack of carrier capability would have been their downfall anyway.  
lazs

[funked]

190 wouldn't have needed strengthening probably, because the wing and landing gear were overdesigned.  But the high stall speed would have been a dealbreaker.

[M.C.202]

As I recall... The Italians were going with a version of the Re 2000/2002.
Good in low speed, good range with a fair bomb load. Standard Italian lack of gunpower :-(
Anyone know if the wings were to fold?

------------------
M.C.202
Dino in Reno

[Nashwan]

Lazs, the Seafire was eventually developed into a good carrier plane, although the early versions weren't particulary good. HTC, of course, has chosen to model the worst possible model, that only saw brief service before being phased out.

[Sable]

Actually, the P-51K did see combat.  It's just a P-51D built at a different plant, equipped with an Aeroproducts propeller instead of a Hamilton Standard and a slightly different shaped bubble canopy.  Performance was identical to the P-51D.  A few thousand built, and many saw combat in Europe and the Pacific.  

Sable
352ndFG

[M.C.202]

Sable said:
> Actually, the P-51K did see combat. It's just a P-51D built at a different plant...

Note to self, proof read all your posts when you have a cold...  :-)

P-51H for P-51K

------------------
M.C.202
Dino in Reno

[-lazs-]

funked, by "strengthened" I meant that the plane would be torn apart if an arrestor hook were used.  The seafire was an ok plane it's just that it had no range, no load and it had a water cooled inline.   None of those things were ever fixed.   A carrier plane is a very special combination of features.
lazs

[Nashwan]

Lazs, the later Seafires had a range of 1000 miles,and whilst bomb load never exceeded 1000lb, they could outperform any other carrier prop fighter.