Aces High Bulletin Board
General Forums => Aces High General Discussion => Topic started by: Sixpence on December 13, 2003, 07:54:05 AM
-
http://www.csd.uwo.ca/~pettypi/elevon/baugher_other/grzepp.html
I was going to post this in hoping HTC would think about trying to model these prototypes into the game. I realize there may be other aircraft deserving to get into the game before these.
We all know that when a CV is close to an airfield, enmy aircraft the likes of La7's and especially the 109g10 are quickly launched to get an alt advantage. The G10 usually can outclimb any CV based plane.
I was wondering if activating the 109G6 at Cv's would be a bad idea. I like the way HTC creates an even playing field by allowing every team access any plane. I think this would be in line with that thinking.
I think allowing the G6 would also help in defending the Cv from the many(understatement) suicide dive bombing Lancs and B17's. Just a thought.
-
yes i need more people to help suport my 109T hopes in AH.:cool:
-
Even though they never saw service as carrier based planes I think a german plane for carrier service would be a great addition.
-
no way...
You start adding stuff like that into the game, it basically opens the floodgates for all other prototypes/experimental for inclusion.
If that is included, i demand a De Havilland Sea Hornet, that will outclimb those pesky 109G-10's
-
Thought German has one Carrier in WW2
-
They never finished the CV ... however they DID make a few squadrons worth of CV capable 109s. After the CV was scrapped the 109s were transfered to Norway where they served to the end of the war. One that was ditched just off the coast after an engine fire has now been collected and is being restored here.
Stripped of naval equipment and fitted with a rack for a 66 Imp gal drop tank, 4 110-lb bombs, or a single 551-lb bomb, the planes were redesignated Bf 109T-2. It was concluded that the Bf 109T-2 would be ideal for operation from small, exposed airstrips such as those from which the Jagdflieger were forced to operate in Norway. Several units operated with the Bf 109T-2 in Norway. However, it never operated in its intended shipboard role. The short-field performance of the Bf 109T lead to surviving Norwegian-based Bf 109T-2s to be based on the tiny fortified island of Heligoland in 1943. The last of the Bf 109T-2s disappeared from the inventory at the end of 1944.
http://www.csd.uwo.ca/~pettypi/elevon/baugher_other/grzepp.html
-
Not to Pimp our events but...
The Germans have had Access to the Graf Zeplin in a few CAP frames from time to time. We enabled 109Fs and Stukas from a CV. The Stuka operates perfectly, in fact it's easier to takeoff and land than a lot of Carrier planes. I suck trying to get the 109 back on the deck.
-Sik
-
Originally posted by Sikboy
Not to Pimp our events but...
The Germans have had Access to the Graf Zeplin in a few CAP frames from time to time. We enabled 109Fs and Stukas from a CV. The Stuka operates perfectly, in fact it's easier to takeoff and land than a lot of Carrier planes. I suck trying to get the 109 back on the deck.
-Sik
It's odd that they would pick the 109F-4 when the Bf 109T-1 and T-2 were developed from the 109E-1. Likewise, performance was very much along the the lines of the later 109E models.
My regards,
Widewing
-
Originally posted by Widewing
It's odd that they would pick the 109F-4 when the Bf 109T-1 and T-2 were developed from the 109E-1. Likewise, performance was very much along the the lines of the later 109E models.
My regards,
Widewing
Do you feel that the luftwaffe would have continued to use those Aircraft in late 1943, had the Graff Zepplin been completed and deployed? I don't think it's that odd.
-Sik
-
Originally posted by Sixpence
http://www.csd.uwo.ca/~pettypi/elevon/baugher_other/grzepp.html
I was going to post this in hoping HTC would think about trying to model these prototypes into the game. I realize there may be other aircraft deserving to get into the game before these.
We all know that when a CV is close to an airfield, enmy aircraft the likes of La7's and especially the 109g10 are quickly launched to get an alt advantage. The G10 usually can outclimb any CV based plane.
I was wondering if activating the 109G6 at Cv's would be a bad idea. I like the way HTC creates an even playing field by allowing every team access any plane. I think this would be in line with that thinking.
I think allowing the G6 would also help in defending the Cv from the many(understatement) suicide dive bombing Lancs and B17's. Just a thought.
Hypothetical German carrier aircraft would be really pushing it I think. Since they never had an operational carrier, that makes it a bit tough. I could see the 109T since it actually existed, but there were no G6 or G10 carrier aircraft.
You start that kinda deal, then you are going to have folks wanting all kinds of what if birds, and having all kinds of justifications for it.
And lets face it, we've got more then eough 109 variants. Not that the LW contingent would ever agree.
Dan/Slack
-
You can have your Kraut/Nazi carrier planes when I can have my F8F.
-
lol, whats next? mby 262 from carrier?
we saw 163 year ago on con evill mission;-)
germans was building carrier and never done it
60 109T was build, all of them was used in norway or as experimental planes. Btw 109T is 109E with rebuild wing and hook system
So , never used operational
-
A 109T would be interesting. I don't think it would take much to model a tail hook on a Bf 109E4 to do the job. I am not sure that it would be any more effective than the SeafireII but it would
Stuka would be interesting as well.
I suspect that if the Graf Zepplin had made it to completion there would have been different aircraft. I suspect the 109T would have been upgraded to G6 specs and the Stuka to the D configuration.
Of course the ship probably wouldn't have sortied anyway, by 43 Hitler was pretty skittish about letting his capital ships out of port. I suspect that the Graf Zepplin wouldn't have performed very well near Norway and it's sinking would have been a big propaganda loss for Germany.
It is also interesting to read about the ship. Compared to later US carriers (essex class) the GZ wasn't supposed to be inferior with less aircraft carrying capability, fewer defenses, less capability. I can't imagine Germany being able to mass produce those things like the US so the GZ probably wouldn't have lasted long had she decided to sortie for more than one or two times.
-
Ok, well if we cant have a 109 at a CV, how about unperking the F4u-c and limiting it to CV operation only? At least getting jumped by a 109 and an la7 while trying to get the relentless waves of b17's and Lancs sacrificing themselves by the dozen won't cost me 10 perks. Talk about insult to injury. Besides you need the punch of multi cannons to take these bombers down.
Back during the days of the single bomber, CV's were still sunk with ease. Now they have formations of three:confused:
Or maybe get the perk down to 3 or 4. This way you don't mind talking on off repeatedly and getting shot down.
i.e., 20 planes x 3 = 60 perks. 15 planes x 4 = 60 perks
The unlimited choice of plane at the enemy airfield makes it real tough for a single CV task group. On top of that you need at least 20 players to fill positions of gunners, LTV drivers, attackers, and fighters. Going in against several La7's, niks and 109's while watching for bombers is a tall order.
C'mon, add the G6 to the CV groups, at least give the CV a buff interceptor.
-
Originally posted by Mathman
You can have your Kraut/Nazi carrier planes when I can have my F8F.
I agree with Mathman :aok :aok
-
So, What happened to Graf Zepplin Carrier now?
-
Razor Blades would be my guess.
-Sik
-
The 109 t would be easy to model... just take a 109 e and add 1,000 lbs of tail hook and stregthened airframe. It would not be any tougher than a regular e model tho except in ditching and landing.
-
LOL:aok
i wanna the carrier's 109:D
-
Originally posted by Sikboy
Razor Blades would be my guess.
-Sik
Are you serious?! I kid you not!
-
According to Warships1.com, it was used as a Target by the Russians.
-Sik
-
The Germans skuttled it near the end of the war, the Russians later raised it and used it as a target ship. Another report say it struck a mine off the coast of Norway.
-
I'm not as greedy as Math. They can have their 109T if I can have my F6F-6.
Shuckins
-
109 for CV is IMO one of the next things that should be added, only place LW is lacking is in that field, i dont think the G-6 should be done for it, but i dont think the 109Ts should be added as itd be really easy, but no point in worrying bout it, AH2 is still long ways off, doubt theyll add anything till thats all done.
-
T-0 (1939)
Ten pre production T-0 airframes were produced. It was based on the E-3 with a new wing of greater span and powered by the DB 601Aa. It had an arrester hook and two catapult hooks under the fuselage.
T-1 (1940)
In total 60 T-1’s were produced. This was based on the E-4/N with the DB 601N engine. The T-1 was fully “navalized” with arrester hook and catapult hooks. As the interest in the German carrier disappeared, the T-1’s were rebuild as T-2’s devoid of all naval equipment.
T-2 (1941)
This were the T-1 airframes without the arrester hook and catapult hooks but retaining the greater span wing. They served on Helgoland and in Norway.
(http://www.xs4all.nl/~tozu/me109/family/Images/01-109t.jpg)
(http://www.xs4all.nl/~tozu/me109/family/Images/aj2-t22.jpg)
(http://www.xs4all.nl/~tozu/me109/family/Images/aj2-t2.jpg)
(http://www.xs4all.nl/~tozu/me109/family/Images/aj2-b-t.jpg)
-
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! :)
-
The first 10 aircraft were of the pre production Series (T-0), followed by 60 production aircraft of the T-1 series. When construction of the Graf Zeppelin was halted in 1940, further development of the Me 109 T was stopped, too. In late 1940 Fiesler was ordered to complete the 60 T-1 models but to remove all all carrier-equipment. The result were 60 aircraft of the now called T-2 series which were able to operate from short land airstrips.
70 were made!!!! we MUST have it in aces high!! in fact; lets rename the game 109T's off of imaginary carriers High!
-
grendl... it needs larger wings to stay in the air with that 109e engine and 1,000 extra pounds.
lazs
-
im still thinking 800 or so pounds of structrual addition ( addmited guess ) it must have been a little tougher than the standard 109 probly a lot. look at the oustanding toughness/surviavability of u.s. naval carrier craft compaired to a p40 or p51.
-
Originally posted by lazs2
grendl... it needs larger wings to stay in the air with that 109e engine and 1,000 extra pounds.
lazs
How much Seafire's and Seahurricane's wings were enlarged to make them carrier capable? To my knowledge none at all, even when those planes were also heavier due the new carrier equipment.
Larger wings were to facilitate takeoff and landing to shorter carrier runways. Since the carrier never came operational the 109 Ts were specially used from fields which had unusually short runways, as they could takeoff and land from them without difficulty, unlike normal 109s.
Free suggestion: why not restrict to comment on ONLY those subjects on which you actually know something? Making fantasy claims doesn't help anyone.
-
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.
-
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
-
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.
-
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.