Aces High Bulletin Board
General Forums => Aircraft and Vehicles => Topic started by: Whisky58 on November 06, 2006, 09:54:32 AM
-
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?
-
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?
5% of 109s were lost in takeoff/landin gaccidents. I'm pretty certain more were lost in combat...
Besides...
Bf 109 D:
"The controls, sensitive ailerons, and tail group were fully effective to the time the wheels touched the ground. So much for that."
- US Marine Corps major Al Williams. Source: Bf 109D test flight, 1938.
Me 109 E:
"Stalling speeds on the glide are 75 mph flaps up, and 61 mph flaps down. Lowering the flaps makes the ailerons feel heavier and slightly less effective, and causes a marked nose-down pitching moment, readily corrected owing to the juxtaposition of trim and flap operating wheels. If the engine is opened up to simulate a baulked landing with flaps and undercarriage down, the airplane becomes tail-heavy but can easily be held with one hand while trim is adjusted. Normal approach speed is 90 mph. At speeds above 100 mph, the pilot has the impression of diving, and below 80 mph one of sinking. At 90 mph the glide path is reasonably steep and the view fairly good. Longitudinally the airplane is markedly stable, and the elevator heavier and more responsive than is usual in single-seater fighters. These features add considerably to the ease of approach. Aileron effectiveness is adequate; the rudder is sluggish for small movements.
(Landing) This is more difficult than on the Hurricane I or Spitfire I. Owing to the high ground attitude, the airplane must be rotated through a large angle before touchdown, and this requires a fair amount of skill. If a wheel landing is done the left wing tends to drop just before touchdown, and if the ailerons are used to lift it, they snatch, causing over-correction. The brakes can be applied immediately after touchdown without fear of lifting the tail. The ground run is short, with no tendency to swing. View during hold-off and ground run is very poor, and landing at night would not be easy."
- RAF Royal Aircraft Establishment (RAE) Farnborough handling trials,Bf.109E Wn: 1304. M.B. Morgan and R. Smelt of the RAE, 1944.
Me 109 E-4:
"I established a speed of 200 kmh to enter the downwind leg, 150 at the end of the downwind, a curving final approach aiming to reduce speed to 130 kmh halfway around, 120 kmh with 30 degreed to go to the centreline and a threshold speed of 110 kmh with a dribble of power to stabilise the rate of speed decay.
Compare this with Black 6 (109 G) where I aimed to be at 200 kmh at the end of the downwind leg and not less than 165 kmh at the threshold."
- Charlie Brown, RAF Flying Instructor, test flight of restored Me 109 E-4 WN 3579. Source: Warbirds Journal issue 50.
Me 109 G:
"Once the tailwheel was firmly on the ground the brakes could be applied quite harshly, thus giving a short landing run, but care had to be taken to prevent any swing as the combination of narrow-track undercarriage and minimal forward view could easily result in directional problems."
- Eric Brown
- That is the only mention about the narrow undercarriage. Take notice that even this is just an objective note and Brown doesn't say anything else about it.
Landing battle damaged Me 109 G-2:
"I did my best landing ever. Wind blew from the right and the plane tends to veer to that direction. I hit the left brake but it was all slack. No response, but giving brief bursts of power with the engine I managed to create enough slipstream to keep the plane in straight course. Then I saw I cannot use any more power or I shall hit the tree stumps at the far end of the runway. I cut the ignition and said to myself, here we go.
By the by the plane began to veer to the right, at an ever faster rate and then the tail went up, the soil off the runway was soft. The tail went up, then the plane began to tilt to the left, the left wingtip, a 50cm piece hit the ground with a crunch and was bent. The plane was just about to nose over, but not even the prop did contact the ground, and the plane stopped there in the normal position."
- Kyösti Karhila, Finnish fighter ace. 32 victories. Source: Interview by Finnish Virtual Pilots Association.
Me 109 G-2/G-6:
- Pokela has told me that he took special care to teach the proper take-off and landing on the Me. How about the Germans, I've heard they didn't believe you could fit the planes in our small fields?
"They spoke of how the final approach speed should be 220 km/h. That would overshoot the field, we said. We landed at 180. "
- Mauno Fräntilä, Finnish fighter ace. 5 1/2 victories. Source: Interview by Finnish Virtual Pilots Association: Chief Warrant Officer Mauno Fräntilä.
Me 109 G-6:
In landing the Me was stable. The leading edge slats were quick and reliable, and they prevented the plane from lurching in slow speeds and made it possible to make "stall landings" to short fields. The problem in landings was the long nose, so the plane was partly controlled by touch in the final seconds of landing.
- Torsti Tallgren, Finnish post war fighter pilot. Source: Hannu Valtonen, "Me 109 ja Saksan sotatalous" (Messerschmitt Bf 109 and the German war economy), ISBN 951-95688-7-5.
Me 109 G:
"-Was the Messerschmitt difficult to land?
She was not difficult to land but after touchdown you must not let her curve. In Malmi there was a 10 by 10 m spot where German night fighter pilots broke at least six of their Messerschmitts. After touchdown they had veered to the right and the plane tilted to the left until the wingtip and prop contacted the ground. Yet they had logged thousands of hours with the Messerschmitt. In the night they flew like angels and landed without any veering, but in daytime they couldn't do anything."
- Kyösti Karhila, Finnish fighter ace. 32 victories. Source: Interview by Finnish Virtual Pilots Association.
Me 109 G-6:
"The Me was stable on landings. The quickly reacing automatic wing slats negated any swaying on slow speeds and made it possible to make "stall landings" to small fields. The problem in stall landings was the long nose, which hindered visibility forward. Because this controlling at the last stages of landing was done partly by sense of touch on the controls."
- Torsti Tallgren, Finnish post war fighter pilot. Source: Interview of Torsti Tallgren by Finnish Virtual Pilots Association.
Me 109 G-6:
Landing was slightly problematic if the approach was straight, with slight overspeed at about 180 km/h. Landing was extremely easy and pleasing when done with shallow descending turn, as then you could see easily the landing point. You had a little throttle, speed 150-160 km/h, 145 km/h at final. You controlled the descent speed with the engine and there was no problems, the feeling was the same as with Stieglitz. If I recall correctly the Me "sits down" at 140-142 km/h.
The takeoff and landing accidents were largely result from lack of experience in training. People didn't know what to do and how to do it. As a result the plane was respected too much, and pilots were too careful. The plane carried the man, and the man didn't control his plane.
- Erkki O. Pakarinen, Finnish fighter pilot, Finnish Air Force trainer. Source: Hannu Valtonen, "Me 109 ja Saksan sotatalous" (Messerschmitt Bf 109 and the German war economy), ISBN 951-95688-7-5.
-
Me 109 G:
"Speed at 150 knots or less, gear select to DOWN and activate the button and feel the gear come down asymmetrically. Check the mechanical indicators (ignore the electric position indicators), pitch fully fine... fuel - both boost pumps ON. If you have less than 1/4 fuel and the rear pump is not on the engine may stop in the three-point attitude. Rad flaps to full open and wings flaps to 10 degrees to 15 degrees. As the wing passes the threshold downwind - take all the power off and roll into the finals turn, cranking the flap like mad as you go. The important things is to set up a highish rate of descent, curved approach. The aircraft is reluctant to lose speed around finals so ideally you should initiate the turn quite slow at about 100-105. Slats normally deploy half way round finals but you the pilot are not aware they have come out. The ideal is to keep turning with the speed slowly bleeding, and roll out at about 10 feet at the right speed and just starting to transition to the three point attitude, the last speed I usually see is just about 90; I'm normally too busy to look after that!
The '109 is one of the most controllable aircraft that I have flown at slow speed around finals, and provided you don't get too slow is one of the easiest to three point. It just feels right ! The only problem is getting it too slow. If this happens you end up with a very high sink rate, very quickly and absolutely no ability to check or flare to round out. It literally falls out of your hands !
Once down on three points the aircraft tends to stay down - but this is when you have to be careful. The forward view has gone to hell and you cannot afford to let any sort of swing develop. The problem is that the initial detection is more difficult. The aeroplane is completely unpredictable and can diverge in either direction. There never seems to be any pattern to this. Sometimes the most immaculate three pointer will turn into a potential disaster half way through the landing roll. Other times a ropey landing will roll thraight as an arrow!"
- Mark Hanna of the Old Flying Machine Company flying the OFMC Messerschmitt Bf 109 G (Spanish version).
Me 109 G:
"I didn't notice any special hardships in landings."
-Jorma Karhunen, Finnish fighter ace. 36 1/2 victories, fighter squadron commander. Source: Hannu Valtonen, "Me 109 ja Saksan sotatalous" (Messerschmitt Bf 109 and the German war economy), ISBN 951-95688-7-5.
Me 109 G-2:
"Landing was normal."
-Lasse Kilpinen, Finnish fighter pilot. Source: Hannu Valtonen, "Me 109 ja Saksan sotatalous" (Messerschmitt Bf 109 and the German war economy), ISBN 951-95688-7-5.Source: Hannu Valtonen, "Messerschmitt Bf 109 and the German war economy"
Me 109 G:
"It was beneficial to keep the throttle a little open when landing. This made the landings softer and almost all three-point landings were successful with this technique. During landings the leading edge slats were fully open. But there was no troubles in landing even with throttle at idle."
-Mikko Lallukka, Finnish fighter pilot. Source: Hannu Valtonen, "Me 109 ja Saksan sotatalous" (Messerschmitt Bf 109 and the German war economy), ISBN 951-95688-7-5.Source: Hannu Valtonen, "Messerschmitt Bf 109 and the German war economy"
Me 109 G:
"Good in the Me? Good flying characterics, powerful engine and good take-off and landing characterics."
- Onni Kuuluvainen, Finnish fighter pilot. Source: Hannu Valtonen, "Me 109 ja Saksan sotatalous" (Messerschmitt Bf 109 and the German war economy), ISBN 951-95688-7-5.
Me 109 G:
"Landing: landing glide using engine power and the following light wheel touchdown was easy and non-problematic. I didn't have any trouble in landings even when a tire exploded in my first Messerschmitt flight."
-Otso Leskinen, Finnish fighter pilot. Source: Hannu Valtonen, "Me 109 ja Saksan sotatalous" (Messerschmitt Bf 109 and the German war economy), ISBN 951-95688-7-5.
Me 109 G:
"MT could "sit down" on field easily, without any problems. Of all different planes I have flown the easiest to fly were the Pyry (advanced trainer) and the Messerschmitt."
- Esko Nuuttila, Finnish fighter pilot. Source: Hannu Valtonen, "Me 109 ja Saksan sotatalous" (Messerschmitt Bf 109 and the German war economy), ISBN 951-95688-7-5.
Me 109 G:
"Takeoff and landing are known as troublesome, but in my opinion there is much more rumours around than what actually happened. There sure was some tendency to swing and it surely swerved if you didn't take into account. But I got the correct training for Messerchmitt and it helped me during my whole career. It was: "lock tailwheel, open up the throttle smoothly. When the speed increases correct any tendency to swing with your feet. Use the stick normally. Lift the tailwheel and pull plane into the sky.
Training to Me? It depended on the teacher. I got good training. First you had to know all the knobs and meters in the cockpit. Then you got the advice for takeoff and landing. Landing was easy in my opinion. In cold weather it was useful to have some RPMs during the finals and kill throttle just before flaring."
- Atte Nyman, , Finnish fighter ace. 5 victories. Source: Hannu Valtonen, "Me 109 ja Saksan sotatalous" (Messerschmitt Bf 109 and the German war economy), ISBN 951-95688-7-5.Source: Hannu Valtonen, "Messerschmitt Bf 109 and the German war economy"
Me 109 G:
There wasn't any special problems with landing.
- Reino Suhonen, Finnish fighter pilot. Source: Hannu Valtonen, "Me 109 ja Saksan sotatalous" (Messerschmitt Bf 109 and the German war economy), ISBN 951-95688-7-5.
Me 109 G:
Landing: approach field with about 250 km/h speed. When turning to landing direction slow down to 200-210 and always try to land as close to the beginning of runway as possible, so you won't have problems in small fields. Gear is out, flaps out, radiator open - those operations were done at 220-240 km/h speed. Bring plane to landing direction's center and sit down on three points at 180 km/h.
- Pekka Tanner, Finnish fighter pilot. Source: Hannu Valtonen, "Me 109 ja Saksan sotatalous" (Messerschmitt Bf 109 and the German war economy), ISBN 951-95688-7-5.
-
I'd say that it was quite normallly controllable in landing BUT if for some reason you did something wrong it was not very forgiving. I've got an impression that the Finnish pilots preferred taking off and landing at slower speed than Germans did and though that too high speed was the reason for 109's bad reputation in landing accidents.
I recall that one Finnish rookie died because he didn't lock the tailwheel and the plane turned around in take-off.
I suppose any fighter of that era tends to get nasty if the tail wheel swings around loose...
-C+
-
most 109s landed on mud too....:)
-
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?
Hitech doesn't model from infamy and notoriety, he uses some other proprietary method.
-
The 109 had a rep of swinging when the wheels were on the ground. This was due to the toe-in or toe -out (can't remember which) of the wheels. If allowed to go to far, and it does not seem to be to much, a ground loop or worse could happen.
Hard surfaces, such as concrete, seemed to exagerate the problem.
-
This guy makes a perfect landing:
http://www.flightlevel350.com/aviation_video.php?id=3671
Too bad Red 7 later chrashed. :(
-
Got to love the sound of that DB though! :)
-
This landing looks a bit more hairy :O
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5nj77mJlzrc
-
While the RAF Pilots liked the Spits, they hated the view taxi'ing, and landing. They preferred the Hurricane for these hated traits.
-
Combat Trim! Turn it OFF and you will see how much more, work it is if you dont have the computer doing all the triming instantly.
Be sure to set rudder trim for takeoff:)
-
In the FAF service there were a bit over 50 take off/landing accidents during service of the Bf 109G. That means that roughly one third of about 160 planes suffered some kind of damage due to this. The most were repaired and some suffered take off/landing related accident more than once. Statistically the worst period was the summer 1944 when large number of new pilots were trained for the Bf 109G.
-
Hmmm........
I fly the 109s allot and rarely have any problems take off or landing?
I don't use auto takeoff and I don't use CT for landing.
LOL I have bent some props landing from time to time, but not just in 109s.
-
Originally posted by FLS
Hitech doesn't model from infamy and notoriety, he uses some other proprietary method.
I think persistent handling weaknesses that result in loss of planes & pilots can reasonably be described as notorious and infamous.
-
Originally posted by wrag
Hmmm........
I fly the 109s allot and rarely have any problems take off or landing?
I don't use auto takeoff and I don't use CT for landing.
LOL I have bent some props landing from time to time, but not just in 109s.
A game is not real life. ;)
The 109 got the long tail wheel strut to help aliviate(sp??) the ground handling problems. Another reason for the ground handling problem was the forward placement of the u/c.
-
Originally posted by MiloMorai
A game is not real life. ;)
Very deep
:)
I'm not suggesting 100% realism but highlighting a possible inconsistency in AH modelling ie F4us swing but Bf109s don't.
The bottom line is does anybody feel strongly about it?
Overall I think AH deliver a first class package.
Regards
-
In comparison P-51 releases the tail wheel only if you push the stick forward so if you do not touch the stick the tail wheel does not turn freely, so you do not need to remeber it.
In 109 you have to lock the tailwheel separately which you have to remember, otherwise you will notice it when the torgue starts to turn the plane and you have other foot on the floor and the speed is not enough for rudder effect and the accident/death is one breath away...
The toe in/out explanation is one explanation for difficult landing characteristics but I think it effects only if you speed is too high and the plane is in too steep angle. And this happens if you land with too high speed. I think in take-off the torgue and rudder effectiviness and the general narrowness of landing gear are dominant factors.
-C+
-
Encyclopaedic contribution Grendel, thanks v much. Quotes from the fellers who flew the 109 are hard to beat, but -
.....saddling the Emil with a heavier engine, armour protection & additional ammunition resulted in a higher wing loading. The landing speed consequently went up and brought about a worrying increase in Bf109E crashes and ground loops.
The aircraft was notoriously difficult to land because of it's narrow undercarriage...
- Combat Legend Mess. Bf109. Jerry Scutts.
....one of the aircraft's greatest weaknesses throughout it's life, unforgiving ground handling characteristics that were to cause the loss or damage of hundreds of production aircraft.
....while the Bf109G-5/R2 featured a taller rudder & lengthened tailwheel leg in an effort to counter the aircraft's swing on take-off.
- Warplanes of the Luftwaffe. Ed David Donald.
Drawbacks were the narrow landing gear, severe swing on take-off or landing.....
- Fighting Aircraft of WW2. Bill Gunston.
....(on take off) the strong swing to port.....
....(on landing) but care has to be taken to prevent any swing....
- Wings of the Luftwaffe. Eric Brown. (you quote this)
....the Bf109 was notoriously difficult to take off & land & many planes simply veered off or tipped over...
- Wikipedia
"Why was the Bf109 so prone to swing on take-off?"
....the take-off swing is well known & notorious, almost as many accidents took place during landing when the aircraft was allowed to swing.
- Keski-Suomen Ilmailumuseo.
Mark Hanna. Your quote. He describes the development of swing as "completely unpredictable"
So was the 109 swing a myth or just exaggerated? Was it there but only trapped the unwary/inexperienced?
Do we want it modelled?
Regards.
-
The toe in/out explanation is one explanation for difficult landing characteristics but I think it effects only if you speed is too high and the plane is in too steep angle. And this happens if you land with too high speed. I think in take-off the torgue and rudder effectiviness and the general narrowness of landing gear are dominant factors.
Any deviation from the horizontal will have one main wheel in contact with the ground. Because of the toe-in/out this will cause the a/ to veer. It does not matter what speed the a/c is doing though higher speeds will have more effect.
The Spit had a slightly narrower track than the 109 and I don't recall it having the same problems the 109 had.
-
In the book "Flying American Combat Aircraft of WWII", Mark Bradley writes how the ground loop problems of the P-43 and P-40 were solved by raising the the tail by increasing the lenght of the tail wheel srut. Notable thing is that these planes had a rather wide main landing gear.
gripen
-
Originally posted by gripen
In the book "Flying American Combat Aircraft of WWII", Mark Bradley writes how the ground loop problems of the P-43 and P-40 were solved by raising the the tail by increasing the lenght of the tail wheel srut. Notable thing is that these planes had a rather wide main landing gear.
gripen
The P-40's track was ~12"/30cm wider than on the 109 and ~2.5ft narrower than the 190s.
-
I don't know the dimensions but at least the P-43 had inwards rectrating main gear and a bad problem with the ground loop according to Bradley.
gripen
-
"So was the 109 swing a myth or just exaggerated? Was it there but only trapped the unwary/inexperienced?
Do we want it modelled?
My answers:
I don't think it wasn a myth or exaggarated. If you did not put your mind to it, it killed you. Experienced pilots did not have problems with it.
I think the tendency should be modelled (as it is in Corsair, to some extent) but I doubt it will be. There is a limit how tough you can make the planes to fly before it starts to pizz off customers.
Btw. do you know what is the part of Spitfire is in biggest demand?
The underwing pitot tube holder. Do you know why?:D
But really, Spit probably has the same problems but maybe the larger wing is able to hold the plane straight during take-off/landing. And the wheels are in different angle as Milo pointed out.
-C+
-
Let's look at it from the other side shall we. Greenhorns were responsible for crashing most of those 5% lost in T/O and landing accidents. Those greenhorns were fresh out of school in trainers and with less than 5 hours in 109G-12's if any 109 training at all ...
And most of them made it! :)
-
Well, a take off/landing accident rarely caused complete write off. Probably something like 20-30% of all Bf 109s had such accident assuming that the relation was elsewhere about same as in the FAF.
gripen
-
I bet that is similar to all types that operated from rough airfields regardless of nationality.
-
Originally posted by Whisky58
I think persistent handling weaknesses that result in loss of planes & pilots can reasonably be described as notorious and infamous.
I don't disagree. I'm just guessing but I think HiTech uses math when he models the aircraft.
-
Originally posted by Viking
I bet that is similar to all types that operated from rough airfields regardless of nationality.
There might be differences but at least in the case of the FAF, it's difficult say because the use of the types varied so much as well as the conditions. In addition the populations were so small; the Bf 109G was by far largest (about 160), the second was Fokker D.XXI (97), the third was the MS.406 (87) and so on.
Anyway, I'm pretty sure that a plane like the F2A was seen as much easier than the Bf 109.
gripen
-
Originally posted by gripen
Anyway, I'm pretty sure that a plane like the F2A was seen as much easier than the Bf 109.
gripen
I'm pretty sure about that too. The F2A had a much slower landing speed and better visibility over the nose. A more modern high-speed fighter like the 109, 190, Spitfire etc. were more difficult to handle. Also I seem to remember that the Germans had about the same accident rate with the 190 as they did with the 109.
-
But really, Spit probably has the same problems but maybe the larger wing is able to hold the plane straight during take-off/landing. And the wheels are in different angle as Milo pointed out.
-C+ [/B][/QUOTE]
"The type has a fearsome reputation as one of the most challenging piston-engine warbirds to fly, especially during take-off or landing, when it is highly susceptible to loss of directional control and groundlooping. This is due to the forces exerted by significant engine torque, along with a very narrow-track canted undercarriage, restricted visibilty and limited rudder authority."
Richard Paver on the Hispano HA-1112 Buchon (Spanish Merlin engined 109)
"Limited rudder authority". Is that the difference between the Spit & the 109?
-
The 109 is supposed to have superior rudder authority over most other planes. It was one of its strengths AFAIK. However on the ground all tail-draggers suffer from rudder inefficiency until they build up enough speed to lift the tail of the ground.
I think the placement of the main gear so far forward of CG, combined with the toe-out of the wheels was what made the 109 dangerous unless you landed it in a tree-point attitude.
-
There is a film somewhere where a 109 comes down with quite high speed and it really looks dangerous as the a/c really looks as it would start to swerve on grass. The landings in slower speed look more gentle and controlled.
I think the point in 109 is to keep the tail down so long that you can feel the rudder reacting, then you can let the tail come up. Somebody described the 109 similar to Spitfire in that it likes to flare upon landing. That makes me think that there is really no point to come down in high speed.
"The 109 is supposed to have superior rudder authority over most other planes. It was one of its strengths AFAIK. "
Well I think this is true but it also reveals why there is a directional problem in slow speed. If you can force the plane in extreme angles in flight it means that the fuselage does not really add much directional force. Thus in slow speed it needs the rudder desperately to keep it straight and if the rudder gets ineffective... If you compare you notice that E.g. the Spit has a tall slender aft fuselage which increases it directional stability.
-C+
-
The funny thing is that only the very first model Corsairs had the dangerous characteristics that the entire line is thought to have. After the first model or two, a stall strip was added to one of the wings and the problem was solved. The Me-109, on the other hand, never was fixed.
-
Originally posted by Benny Moore
The Me-109, on the other hand, never was fixed.
You're assuming there was something wrong with the 109 in the first place. The 109 was designed to be the plane it was. All planes are full of compromises, and the 109's ground handling was one of them. There simply wasn't room in the thin wings for a better undercarriage. It was designed to be the mount of Germany's elite pilots during the 1930's, they never intended it to be flown by inexperienced pilots. Flown correctly the 109 was perfectly safe, however it was unforgiving if you made a mistake on landing. And for all its alleged landing problems the 109 was nevertheless also made into a carrier plane.
-
The 109T was not the same as the109E which it was based on.
As was stated in a previous post, Messerschmitt attempeted to fix the problem with a longer tail wheel strut and larger fin/rudder.
Charge is that the one of the German 109 (German language) which shows 2 landings? The first looked like an accidendent waiting to happen while the other shows how it should be done.
-
Originally posted by MiloMorai
The 109T was not the same as the109E which it was based on.
It pretty much was the same in this regard. The undercarriage legs were strengthened to allow for the faster sink rates involved in carrier landings, but the landing gear was otherwise identical; same narrow track, same toe-out of the main wheels, same tail wheel. Landing a 109T would present the same inherent difficulties to the pilot as a 109E.
-
Except for one small item, the tail hook.
Some 1800 arrested landings were done with non fatal.
-
Originally posted by MiloMorai
Charge is that the one of the German 109 (German language) which shows 2 landings? The first looked like an accidendent waiting to happen while the other shows how it should be done.
I think I already posted that film earlier in this thread.
-
Originally posted by MiloMorai
Except for one small item, the tail hook.
Some 1800 arrested landings were done with non fatal.
Yes of course, but the arrestor hook is not technically part of the undercarriage I think. Also it is irrelevant; the 109 was made into a carrier plane with only minor modification to the landing gear, none of which made the plane easier to land on a conventional airfield.
-
Originally posted by MiloMorai
Except for one small item, the tail hook.
Some 1800 arrested landings were done with non fatal.
I didn't see this at once, but do those 1800 landings belong to 109T testing?
-
"The funny thing is that only the very first model Corsairs had the dangerous characteristics that the entire line is thought to have. After the first model or two, a stall strip was added to one of the wings and the problem was solved. The Me-109, on the other hand, never was fixed."
Benny, the torque of the engine is hard to overcome by any other means but by pilots control of how much trottle is applied. The wing strip helped Corsair's stall behaviour in flight -it did not affect its ground handling as far as torque effects are concerned, AFAIK. In both aircraft throttle must be applied slowly as the speed builds up.
Basically the problem is more severe the more power you have at our disposal.
-C+
-
Hmm, I'm talking about the stall characteristics. That's what the Corsair is notorious for, not bad ground handling. I don't know where anyone gets the idea that the Corsair was a bad plane to handle on the ground. Really, all taildraggers should handle more like the Corsair does in the simulator. In real life, all taildraggers have to be carefully kept from groundlooping, but in the simulator, only certain planes will groundloop at all - and even those need to be deliberately mishanded, usually. The Corsair's the only plane in the simulator I've had groundloop without me deliberately trying to do so.
-
Originally posted by Angus
I didn't see this at once, but do those 1800 landings belong to 109T testing?
Yes Angus that was testing.
A landing area (~22m long) was marked out on a runway for the testing. This was what the USN did when it was considering the P-51 as a carrier a/c.
-
That is quite interesting.
So I presume they did it with the hook, and made it work.
I always wondered about the German Carrier program. They seem to have been so semi-serious about it, but yet developing a fighter variant and practically building the ship. BTW, I recall from recent news that the Zeppelin has been found. Anybody?
-
Originally posted by Angus
I always wondered about the German Carrier program. They seem to have been so semi-serious about it, but yet developing a fighter variant and practically building the ship.
The Kriegmarine was being built according the Z-Plan.
This was to have the Kriegsmarine equipped with four operational carriers.
But: in 1946.
When the war began, the commander of the German Navy said that now the only thing Kriegsmarine can do is to die honorably.
The war disrupted and cancelled the German carriers building. IIRC two had been laid down, with Graf Zeppelin in quite advanced stage. The planes had been developed, the catapults and all finished. There were other planes planned for carrier use, than the original three. But as things went, there was no resources to finish Graf Zeppelin, neither there was anymore any strategical or tactical use for it. The carrier versions of the 109s were put into use and they were found to be good fliers, able to fly well high and had very short takeoff/landing characterics.
-
The resources part rather boggles me.
In 1940 autumn, the Germans have about the biggest resources in the world. They sit on and milk the continent of Eourope, have a trade deal with the USSR, and the English have been eating on rations for almost a year. Surely enough to clap together one carrier?
Now Raeder was always careful, but was this a thing between Dönitz and him perhaps, and/or where did Hitler enter the equation?
Opinions?
-
The Germans did have plenty of resources to finish the Graf Zeppelin. But after the Germans lost the Battle of Britain they correctly assessed that a German carrier wouldn't survive to open water with the RAF still intact, so they mothballed her. It was thought to be a temporary situation, but later in the war when they realized it wasn't they scuttled her in the Baltic Sea.
-
The British fleet made the life difficult for Kriegsmarine, too...
-C+
-
Just read up on it.
It was close to what I thought, - a conflict between commanders that caused the project to be stopped, - Dönitz-Hitler-Göring-Raeder as players.
They finished her 95%, so I don't see how "practical" it can be not to close the last 5%. Would have made a hell of a difference for the Axis in the med or the S Atlantic - or even on the Murmansk route in summertime, but there would not have been many escorts around by the time she would have been ready.
Think of it though, A CV, Tirpitz, Prinz Eugen and a few destroyers clapped together into a taskforce...
Edit: Ran across this. Interesting stuff for LW studies.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Messerschmitt_Me_155
-
Originally posted by Angus
Just read up on it.
Would have made a hell of a difference for the Axis in the med or the S Atlantic - or even on the Murmansk route in summertime, but there would not have been many escorts around by the time she would have been ready.
Think of it though, A CV, Tirpitz, Prinz Eugen and a few destroyers clapped together into a taskforce...
But you don't get operational carrier just by building it. Germany had no previous carriers. Training pilots, learning operational procedures, all the work required before the first operational sortie would have taken a lot of time. When the carrier would have been combat ready? Too late. The only area of operations for the CV would have been against Murmansk convoys, and those were well within range of land based air. And Allied superiority was clear even there, when the Allied had enough carriers to protect those convoys with carriers.
A single German CV would have had no chance.... The CV should have been operational in 1940, 1941 latest, so it could have supported the last attacks by German navy in the Atlantic. Its range was shorter than Bismarcks, but close enough to be useful in raids into Atlantic. The recon capability would have been very useful and the Messerschmitts would be superior against British carrier planes. But. If there was a German CV around, the Allied would know that and they would have made preparations for it during the previous years.
-
I tend to diagree. The problem would have been getting it away wither to N-Norway or the S-Atlantic
On the High seas it might have been rough, (109's on the deck rather than bipes), but bear in mind that the British used smaller carriers and even for Seafires and Hurricanes!
Would a German CV have been an asset in N-Norway or on the high seas in the South Atlantic? I bet the cost for Germany would have been more than balanced by the force the Allies would have had to put against it...
-
A German fleet carrier with assorted escorts would probably be a match for the entire British home fleet in '40-'41. The British naval air arm was hopelessly outdated and would be no match for 109T's and Ju-87's at that time. Only when the British got Martlets from America did they build an effective fleet air arm.
However, getting the German carrier through Skagerrak, past the British isles and into open sea would be the challenge. The RAF would have plenty of opportunity to attack and destroy such a taskforce.
-
Exactly :aok
And yet, remember Scarnhorst and Gneisenau. Although scarred, they made it.
BTW, about the time the GZ "would have been" ready it's roughly that era. Tirpitz was on the final too BTW, and it got unscratched to Norway.
Regarding the Murmansk line, remember that at summertime there is NO NIGHT!
Also bear in mind that the ship was (AFAIK) sailable. The speed was some 32 kts (?), and there was....Brest, - from 1940.
If you ponder on the Med, I wonder what the Brits could have done to stop her with full crew, - an independent air cover as well as escorts, passing through at Gibraltar. Well, I guess if she had existed properly, they would have had to take quite some measures for that possibility.
My conclusion is:
95% ready ship is a waste
100% was well possible if not for politics
100% would have called for British countermeasure worth much more than those odd 5%
-
German destroyers were not the best sea boats.
How much damge would 50 a/c do?
10 Messerschmitt Bf 109 fighters
20 Junkers Ju 87 dive bombers
20 Fieseler Fi 167 torpedo bombers
-
They could have sunk the entire British fleet. At that time shipboard AAA was woefully inadequate to defend capital ships; something Bismarck discovered to her demise. It was only later in the war that AAA became effective with the advent of radar-fused shells and purpose built AA cruisers and destroyers.
In 1941 every British warship was as helpless against aircraft as the Bismarck was.
-
i dont know about tripleA being no good in 1941, but i do remember reading that RN captains didn't really like to use onboard radar early in the war, as they thought it would give away their position
-
You think so Viking? Then I suggest you look at RN ship losses at Dunquerke and the during Norway campaign due to a/c.
-
I'd rather look at the sinking of Prince of Wales and Repulse by the IJN. The LW hadn't really trained on attacking ships at that stage. The result would be very different with trained naval aviators like the IJN and USN proved in the Pacific.
-
Originally posted by Viking
I'd rather look at the sinking of Prince of Wales and Repulse by the IJN. The LW hadn't really trained on attacking ships at that stage. The result would be very different with trained naval aviators like the IJN and USN proved in the Pacific.
Big deal since there was no air cover for the PoW and Repulse. The Japanese used over twice as many bombers and torpedo a/c than the GZ had.
Even if your mighty KM aviators were up to the standards of the IJN, there was not enough a/c on the GZ to sink the entire Home Fleet as you claim. After one mission, a/c losses would be such that any further missions would have no effect.
Kindly put your hobnailed boots back in the closet.
-
did the GZ have an armored deck like RN carriers or a wood one like USN flat tops?
-
Originally posted by MiloMorai
Big deal since there was no air cover for the PoW and Repulse.
Nor would there be any air cover for the home fleet in 40-41.
Originally posted by MiloMorai
The Japanese used over twice as many bombers and torpedo a/c than the GZ had.
The Japanese sent two strikes of level bomber that only made one hit on Repulse starting a small fire in the hangar deck area. The planes that did the real damage were the torpedo bombers:
16 torpedo bombers from the Genzan Air Corps.
8 torpedo bombers from the Mihoro Air Corps.
26 torpedo bombers from the Kanoya Air Corps.
Originally posted by MiloMorai
Even if your mighty KM aviators were up to the standards of the IJN, there was not enough a/c on the GZ to sink the entire Home Fleet as you claim. After one mission, a/c losses would be such that any further missions would have no effect.
The Japanese lost 3 planes to the Prince of Wales and Repulse. Hardly an unsustainable loss rate for a 50 plane strong force.
Replacement aircraft and crew could easily be transferred from Norway or France, depending on were the GZ was operating.
Originally posted by MiloMorai
Kindly put your hobnailed boots back in the closet.
No need to be offensive. If you cannot debate in a civil manner I will have to put you on ignore.
-
The RN was not without carriers in 40-41, so no free attack. So nice of you to forget about them. :eek:
The Home Fleet comprised the flagship HMS Nelson leading a force of one battle squadron (5 more battleships), one battlecruiser squadron (2 ships), one cruiser squadron (3), three destroyer flotillas (27), a submarine flotilla (6) two aircraft carriers and associated vessels. Another 1 or 2 carriers would have re-enforced the Fleet if the GZ was commisioned.
HMS Formidable was damaged by two 1,000 KG bombs and due to this damage she was out of action for 6 months. The Ju87 sure could not takeoff with that bomb load from the GZ.
For sure replacement a/c could be flown to the GZ but only if within range of the GZ. They would have also have to find the GZ in the vaste expanse of the NA. The 109T could only stay in the air for 1h40m and a range of 635km(~400mi).
So how many a/c would land safely on the not so calm NA? It is not just losses due to enemy actions. So nice of you to forget.
The Home Fleet was NOT just 2 heavy ships.
Talk sense and I would not have to tell you to put them away. :)
-
Originally posted by MiloMorai
The RN was not without carriers in 40-41, so no free attack. So nice of you to forget about them. :eek:
The Seafire did not enter service until 1942, and the "Hurricat" did only operate in small numbers from catapult ships in 1941. The Swordfish bombers the carriers could launch would be a rather ineffective defense don't you think? In 40-41 the RN was without effective air cover whenever they operated outside the range of the RAF.
In any case by 1941 German u-boats had already sunk HMS Courageous, HMS Ark Royal and HMS Audacity.
Originally posted by MiloMorai
The Home Fleet comprised the flagship HMS Nelson leading a force of one battle squadron (5 more battleships), one battlecruiser squadron (2 ships), one cruiser squadron (3), three destroyer flotillas (27), a submarine flotilla (6) two aircraft carriers and associated vessels. Another 1 or 2 carriers would have re-enforced the Fleet if the GZ was commisioned.
An impressive fleet to be sure, but its carriers didn't have effective planes to launch until mid-1942. Also, when did the home fleet ever sortie in any sizable formations? The hunt for Bismarck clearly shows how the RN operated prior to the Force-Z incident. The home fleet was deployed in small groups, usually pairs of ships or even single ships.
Originally posted by MiloMorai
HMS Formidable was damaged by two 1,000 KG bombs and due to this damage she was out of action for 6 months. The Ju87 sure could not takeoff with that bomb load from the GZ.
I don't know how much the carrier version if the Ju-87 could carry.
Originally posted by MiloMorai
For sure replacement a/c could be flown to the GZ but only if within range of the GZ. They would have also have to find the GZ in the vaste expanse of the NA. The 109T could only stay in the air for 1h40m and a range of 635km(~400mi).
Is that including the drop tank? In any case the GZ would naturally have to return to port to refuel and rearm between sorties.
Originally posted by MiloMorai
So how many a/c would land safely on the not so calm NA? It is not just losses due to enemy actions. So nice of you to forget.
Carrier operations would of course be limited to calm oceans, just like for all carriers of that time. During the attack on Pearl Harbor the IJN fleet launched two strikes with over 300 planes. No planes were lost in accidents during that operation.
Originally posted by MiloMorai
The Home Fleet was NOT just 2 heavy ships.
No, but they often sailed in small groups … just like Force-Z did.
Originally posted by MiloMorai
Talk sense and I would not have to tell you to put them away. :)
I do talk sense, but even if you do not understand me or don't agree with me you should refrain from provocative remarks like that. Unless that is the only way you know how to debate?
-
Originally posted by Viking
They could have sunk the entire British fleet. At that time shipboard AAA was woefully inadequate to defend capital ships; something Bismarck discovered to her demise. It was only later in the war that AAA became effective with the advent of radar-fused shells and purpose built AA cruisers and destroyers.
In 1941 every British warship was as helpless against aircraft as the Bismarck was.
I think that is an overstatement, but they sure would have been a nasty surprize. Remember, that any capital ship the Germans managed to get to the high seas caused the Brits to goo chase the fox, with many times the resources. And those were already stretched in 1941. So, with say one German TG out in the Atlanticboth the Home fleet and force "H" at Gibraltar have an extra job on their hands.
But:
"The Seafire did not enter service until 1942, and the "Hurricat" did only operate in small numbers from catapult ships in 1941. The Swordfish bombers the carriers could launch would be a rather ineffective defense don't you think? In 40-41 the RN was without effective air cover whenever they operated outside the range of the RAF."
Already in 1940, a squadron of Hurricanes landed on a carrier, with no tailhook, no experience, and no accident! The Hurricat and Seafires weren't so much on the carriers in the beginning for they weren't needed that bad, - not untill the Condors started to bother the convoys.
A German carrier with 109's aboard would have pressed those into service at once! And a humble Seafire in 1942 is a handful for a 109T.
As an offensive weapon, the GZ was just as good or better than anything the Allies had at the time, and as a defensive weapon she might have proved very useful for the German capital ships, for spotting, and although the little bombs did have problems with the armoured decks of capital ships, there was always the chance, and not all ships were capital ships.
So, just my cents.
-
Originally posted by Angus
Already in 1940, a squadron of Hurricanes landed on a carrier, with no tailhook, no experience, and no accident! The Hurricat and Seafires weren't so much on the carriers in the beginning for they weren't needed that bad, - not untill the Condors started to bother the convoys.
A German carrier with 109's aboard would have pressed those into service at once!
I don't think that reasoning adds up. You see the "Scourge of the Atlantic" was most active from June 1940 to February 1941 when they sank 365,000 tons. Still it took the British a whole year more to get the Seafire operational.
Originally posted by Angus
And a humble Seafire in 1942 is a handful for a 109T.
Do you think the 109T could outturn a Spit5? BRING THE 109T TO AH!!! ;)
-
"I don't think that reasoning adds up. You see the "Scourge of the Atlantic" was most active from June 1940 to February 1941 when they sank 365,000 tons. Still it took the British a whole year more to get the Seafire operational. "
365.000 tonnes? Wholy crap?!?!?! All British shipping?
Well, anyway, and obviously they could not have a cv with every convoy. But the deck landing Hurricanes did it when retreating from Norway, and in the timeframe you mentioned, the RAF whad it's hands full with the BoB, so this does have it's reasons.
The GZ might have been ready in 1942 I belive, by that time the Seafires are around as well as Hurricats.
I didn't spot the specs for the 109T, but it has a greater wingspan, DB 601, wider track and added weight. Performancewise between the 109E and 109F?
-
You don't talk sense since you think the British would do nothing to counter the threat the GZ posed. That would include getting the Seafire into the FAA earlier.
Carrier operations would of course be limited to calm oceans, just like for all carriers of that time.
Nice to know that the NA is a calm ocean. :rolleyes: Better tell the British that the escort carriers of the sub hunting groups should not have been there.
So 3 carriers had been sunk but the British still had 5 more carriers. You think that British attack a/c would be sitting idle and not going after the GZ. :eek:
So do those 10 109Ts escort the German a/c or stay and defended the GZ? Sea Gladiators would be able to take care of most of the 20 German torpedo a/c but would those 10 109Ts be able to shoot down the 100 or so British attack a/c before they sunk the GZ?
Is that including the drop tank? In any case the GZ would naturally have to return to port to refuel and rearm between sorties.
Was the navigation of the pilots of the a/c that good that they could find the GZ in the expanse of the NA, drop tanks or no drop tanks? Any radio traffic would have been picked up and given the away location of the GZ to the British. The 109T-2 only had a range with d/ts of ~450mi.
Yes the GZ would have to run the gaunlet of land based a/c to make port, if it had not been sunk and with how many a/c to defend itself after previous battles?
Unlike Allied carriers, the 109Ts of the GZ had to be placed on a cradle for launch. Sure not expediant for quick reaction to an attack.
No, but they often sailed in small groups … just like Force-Z did.
So which small group of British ships that encircles the GZ do the miniscule number of a/c available do they attack?
-
Hehe, I missed this:
"Carrier operations would of course be limited to calm oceans, just like for all carriers of that time."
The conditions in the N-Atlantic and as well how small some of the carriers of the British were is a good example of the standard of their airmen. It was anything but calm when they went after the Bismarck for instance.
BTW, a Swordfish was doing subspotting from an escort CV outside Iceland in 1941 (I think). Hit by heavy headwind, the pilot realized he would not make it back to the ship, so he landed on the noodleula of Snæfellsnes.
The landing patch was really a tiny patch, and he landed totally perfectly!
A Sea Gladiator is a match for the Stuka. A Hurricane is the nightmare of the Stuka. A Seafire (bear in mind that the most common one is better than the one we have in AH) is also nasty enough for a 109T.
A Swordfish is easy prey for a 109. Then there were the Barracuda and some more.
So, yet again, in short, I think the British would have gone wild after the GZ, BUT had it been launched it would not have been good news from them. And had it been launched, those 109T's would also have been more than 10....
-
So Angus if there was more 109Ts that would mean less attack a/c which would mean even less chance of any success in the attacks on the British ships.
Only so many a/c could be carried on the GZ.
-
Yep.
Imagine she was ready, and you were Raeder (boss), how would you have used her.
Always like what-if's ;)
In my case, I think I would have used her as balanced as possible, with some 12-16 109's though.
-
Apart from Milo's usual "t3h British rulez" commentary (;)) it is interesting to se how Angus and I are bouncing back and forth from one side of the argument to the other. One thing is for sure though: Like with all hypothetical arguments this one will not yield any clear answers.
-
That's what I like most when viewing a thing like that. Bounce around it and take a look from many positions.
Brittannia ruled teh waves though :D
-
Originally posted by Viking
Apart from Milo's usual "t3h British rulez" commentary (;)) it is interesting to se how Angus and I are bouncing back and forth from one side of the argument to the other. One thing is for sure though: Like with all hypothetical arguments this one will not yield any clear answers.
No Viking, it is not Brittannia Rules but good old fashioned common sense unlike your fantasy dreams of the superior Germany with its one carrier that would wipe the British Home Feet from the surface of the ocean. :rolleyes: :rolleyes:
-
Angus, I see Milo still hasn't developed a sense of humor. Or common decency. I'd better put him on ignore now than later.
-
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.
-
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
-
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!
-
Maybe the Germans didn't like the limitation of having to turn towards wind to launch aircraft..?
-C+
-
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.
-
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?
-
Because it was clumsy and for some provokative.
-
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
-
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
-
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.
-
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??????
-
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
-
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.
(http://home.att.net/~Historyzone/318thManilaBay.JPG)
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.
(http://home.att.net/~Historyzone/P-47catapult.JPG)
Below, a Jug comes off the catapult of the Manila Bay.
(http://home.att.net/~ww2aviation/Saipan-Jugs.jpg)
"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
-
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"?
-
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.
-
Originally posted by Viking
How could an opinion on a hypothetical situation be provocative? What was provocative about my posts?
And what do you mean by "clumsy"?
You know Milo (and I can see he's now on your ignore list), so you know that this:
"A German fleet carrier with assorted escorts would probably be a match for the entire British home fleet in '40-'41. The British naval air arm was hopelessly outdated and would be no match for 109T's and Ju-87's at that time. Only when the British got Martlets from America did they build an effective fleet air arm."
Will definately provoke. Being very doubtable, yet debateable, I would view this as either clumsy or a troll (provocative).
Well, we've been going in rounds though, like here, where you baffle me a bit:
"The Germans did have plenty of resources to finish the Graf Zeppelin. But after the Germans lost the Battle of Britain they correctly assessed that a German carrier wouldn't survive to open water with the RAF still intact, so they mothballed her. It was thought to be a temporary situation, but later in the war when they realized it wasn't they scuttled her in the Baltic Sea."
I guess you mean the closed waters, or the gauntlet and GIUK for this one:
"However, getting the German carrier through Skagerrak, past the British isles and into open sea would be the challenge. The RAF would have plenty of opportunity to attack and destroy such a taskforce."
This all depends where you're in time. If you want to be true to a well thought "what if" theory, you're stuck with "what if they had finished her", which brings us to some month of 1942, where the British home fleet, carriers and carrier aircraft are a full match and much more. And even in 1941 , it's about the same. Those obsolete British strike planes actually did scratch the Bismarck under horrible conditions, and sink the Italian fleet at Taranto at Night, already in 1941. So, their fleet air arm was ready for offensive tasks already in 1941, it's just the air-to-air that needs to be pondered about, - so the nuisance are those odd 10? 109's that stay airborne for not much more than an hour.
The RN had more than just the Sworfish, and as pointed out before, Hurricanes could have been easily rushed out to CV's, as well as even Spitfires in the case of an enemy CV threat, so, she WOULD have been facing very tough odds. Be it the 109's or the attackers.
1940, AFAIK is hardly something that was an option. One factor there is the engines (AFAIK 100.000 hp turbo, but they were not really reliable), - this gave some trouble to it's classes service time.
And here comes the other side, -hehe, - I still think she would have been a formidable nuisance.
-
Originally posted by Angus
You know Milo (and I can see he's now on your ignore list), so you know that this:
"A German fleet carrier with assorted escorts would probably be a match for the entire British home fleet in '40-'41. The British naval air arm was hopelessly outdated and would be no match for 109T's and Ju-87's at that time. Only when the British got Martlets from America did they build an effective fleet air arm."
Will definately provoke. Being very doubtable, yet debateable, I would view this as either clumsy or a troll (provocative).
What's provocative about that? Why would someone take offence by debating history (or 'what if' scenarios)? People that get emotional over friendly and polite debates need to stay out of them.
And this was your response to my post:
Originally posted by Angus
Exactly :aok
(Snip)
If I'm a troll what are you? Some kind of assistant troll perhaps?
Originally posted by Angus
Well, we've been going in rounds though, like here, where you baffle me a bit:
"The Germans did have plenty of resources to finish the Graf Zeppelin. But after the Germans lost the Battle of Britain they correctly assessed that a German carrier wouldn't survive to open water with the RAF still intact, so they mothballed her. It was thought to be a temporary situation, but later in the war when they realized it wasn't they scuttled her in the Baltic Sea."
I guess you mean the closed waters, or the gauntlet and GIUK for this one:
"However, getting the German carrier through Skagerrak, past the British isles and into open sea would be the challenge. The RAF would have plenty of opportunity to attack and destroy such a taskforce."
Those two quotes of mine describe the same situation. The RAF would be the GZ biggest threat.
Originally posted by Angus
This all depends where you're in time. If you want to be true to a well thought "what if" theory, you're stuck with "what if they had finished her", which brings us to some month of 1942, where the British home fleet, carriers and carrier aircraft are a full match and much more. And even in 1941 , it's about the same. Those obsolete British strike planes actually did scratch the Bismarck under horrible conditions, and sink the Italian fleet at Taranto at Night, already in 1941. So, their fleet air arm was ready for offensive tasks already in 1941, it's just the air-to-air that needs to be pondered about, - so the nuisance are those odd 10? 109's that stay airborne for not much more than an hour.
The RN had more than just the Sworfish, and as pointed out before, Hurricanes could have been easily rushed out to CV's, as well as even Spitfires in the case of an enemy CV threat, so, she WOULD have been facing very tough odds. Be it the 109's or the attackers.
1940, AFAIK is hardly something that was an option. One factor there is the engines (AFAIK 100.000 hp turbo, but they were not really reliable), - this gave some trouble to it's classes service time.
And here comes the other side, -hehe, - I still think she would have been a formidable nuisance.
I've always debated a 1940-'41 scenario. In 1942 and onwards the GZ would stand little chance against the RN.
-
Originally posted by BugsBunny
Who cares? It is a fighting game not a flight sim
That's a can o' worms, BugsB. War game or Flight sim?
The two aren't mutually exclusive tho'. Why not a flight sim quality war game? ;)
-
It was an outright no brainer myoptic tunnel visioned troll. I have no time for such utter nonsense. I see nothing serious from him.
If he wants to live in a fantasy world of '40-'41 with the GZ taking on the Home Fleet, and winning, that is his option.
All one has to do is look at the RN ship losses at Narvik from the better equiped LW and see that the puny force the GZ carried would hardly put a dent in the Home Fleet. Even during the evacuation of Dunkirk not many RN ships were lost and some were lost while at anchor loading troops.
He totally ignores that if the GZ had been completed, and made it to a Norwegian port, the British would continue on their merry way as history tells us, without any counter measures.:rolleyes:
On sided 'what ifs' just don't cut it!!!
-
oh my, oh my.
Viking:
"I've always debated a 1940-'41 scenario. In 1942 and onwards the GZ would stand little chance against the RN."
Firstly, there is a lot to choose between 1940 (i.e. Norwegian campaign) and late 1941 (Italian fleet torpedoed, Bismarck sunk, USA enters the war through the same lesson as the Italians had etc).
The Spit IX would also have made a heck of a difference in the BoB, The P51 in bundles would also have made a lot of difference in 1941, the Americans would have changed the equation in 1939, and so on.
So, put the GZ in time where she would have belonged, as to where. Or, even somewhat out of it ...
(just me here, if it's any good)
WHEN
1940 A bad bad nuisance
1941 bad nuisance
1942 bad nusiance
1943 oh golly another one to chase
1944 locked in a Fjord if still alive.
WHERE
1940 All over the seas
1941 on the run but maybe in the Atlantic
1942 being chased over the Atlantic
1943 being chased wherever
1944 Locked up in a Fjord if still alive.
Then finally to this:
"All one has to do is look at the RN ship losses at Narvik from the better equiped LW and see that the puny force the GZ carried would hardly put a dent in the Home Fleet. Even during the evacuation of Dunkirk not many RN ships were lost and some were lost while at anchor loading troops."
The Brits indeed lost surprizingly little shipping at "Dunquerque". The RAF was however quite effective in screwing up the LW, very much more than the ground Tommy at Dunkirk ever realized. Actually the surfaced Kriegsmarine only (AFAIK) sank one capital British ship, and that one being some 20 years older (HOOD). And Narvik, well Viking, you can tell us a lot I guess, for the source is near, but as far as I remember the Kriegsmarine lost a lot of blood there while the LW was not able to prevent that. The LW force in those engagements was a lot bigger than the one onboard GZ.
So...Hypothetically and without provocation, I still belive the GZ would have been a nuisance. Just like Graf Spee and the Bismarck.
-
So...Hypothetically and without provocation, I still belive the GZ would have been a nuisance. Just like Graf Spee and the Bismarck.
Be sure Angus, for a little while. :D
Units from the RN quickly sent the GS and Bismarck to the seabed, and as would be the permanent dock of the GZ.
-
Angus you conveniently forgot to answer this:
Originally posted by Angus
"A German fleet carrier with assorted escorts would probably be a match for the entire British home fleet in '40-'41. The British naval air arm was hopelessly outdated and would be no match for 109T's and Ju-87's at that time. Only when the British got Martlets from America did they build an effective fleet air arm."
Will definately provoke. Being very doubtable, yet debateable, I would view this as either clumsy or a troll (provocative).
What's provocative about that? Why would someone take offence by debating history (or 'what if' scenarios)? People that get emotional over friendly and polite debates need to stay out of them.
And this was your response to my post:
Originally posted by Angus
Exactly :aok
So Angus … ARE YOU A TROLL TOO?
-
"What's provocative about that? Why would someone take offence by debating history (or 'what if' scenarios)? People that get emotional over friendly and polite debates need to stay out of them."
Exactly. I can live with this, but you know Milo won't .....
-
Widewing, do you have a more detailed picture of the cat wire attachment system in those P47s? Was it something all US planes had or was it something that didn't need anything other that some empty space in landing gear leg to attach?
Somekind of hook which opened rearwards perhaps?
-C+
-
Originally posted by Angus
"What's provocative about that? Why would someone take offence by debating history (or 'what if' scenarios)? People that get emotional over friendly and polite debates need to stay out of them."
Exactly. I can live with this, but you know Milo won't .....
Which is why Milo is now in the company of cav58d and Bruno.
-
"A German fleet carrier with assorted escorts would probably be a match for the entire British home fleet in '40-'41. The British naval air arm was hopelessly outdated and would be no match for 109T's and Ju-87's at that time."
They could have sunk the entire British fleet.
In 1941 every British warship was as helpless against aircraft as the Bismarck was.
You come in with your goosestepping superiority of Nazi Germany and make totally outrageous statements Viking. :rolleyes: One can't have a discussion with someone that has shown themselves to be so totally clueless. LOL and then Viking gets all in a snit thinking some people are getting emotional, which is not true, but that is typically of those of that ilk. :( Don't like the truth Viking, too bad. :)
It is nothing but an outright no brainer myoptic tunnel visioned troll from someone with a closed mind.[/B]
How many other dumb statesments did Viking make, like : "Carrier operations would of course be limited to calm oceans, just like for all carriers of that time." and "Do you think the 109T could outturn a Spit5?" :eek: :eek: :eek: There is more to air combat than turning.:rolleyes: The 109T was still basically a 109E, not a 109F.
Cripes, the LW could not even sink the Warspite off Norway and he expects a few a/c from the GZ to sink the entire British Home Fleet.:rofl :rofl :rofl Someone is living in a fantasy world of faery tales
-
Ahh, life is too short for such.
Anyway, a little teaser, or provocation will often yeald lots of information ;)
-
Originally posted by Angus
Ahh, life is too short for such.
I take it Milo once again showed why he should be ignored?
-
Originally posted by Angus
Anyway, a little teaser, or provocation will often yeald lots of information ;)
Yes Angus so true BUT when one person does not and won't learn and continues on with his myoptic tunnel vision faery tale fantasy world....... it is so :(.
-
That set aside, was there anywhere some performance specs of the 109T around?
-
If it had been operational late 1942 that was the same time the Seafire IIc with the Merlin 45/6 was discontinued in favor of the L IIc with the Merlin 32.
Planned powerplant 109T was DB-601E @ 1350HP (for take off)
versus
L IIc with a Merlin 32 @ 1645HP
Compare that to the old Spit V that had a Merlin 55M @ 1585HP (not including the uber WEP)
An L IIc would have been more than a handfull for a converted 109E. (109T).
-
Originally posted by Angus
That set aside, was there anywhere some performance specs of the 109T around?
You mean like this Angus?
This is for the 109T-2, the de-avalized version.
Climb
0m - 17m/s - 2400rpm - 1.25ata - speed 250kph
6km - 13m/s - time > 6.4min - 2400rpm -1.06ata - 195kph
10km - 1.5m/s - time > 17.4min - 2400rpm - 0.68ata - 170kph
Speed
0 - 1.15ata(2300rpm) > 433kph - 1.25ata (2400rpm) > 475kph - 1.35ata(2600rpm) > 490kph
6km - 1.08ata(2300rpm) > 552kph - 1.25ata(2400rpm) > 570kph
10km - 0.68ata(2300rpm) > 515kph - 0.70ata(2400rpm) > 520kph
2600rpm could not be used over 4km height. Cruise is 2300rpm. Full power is 2400rpm. Take off and emergency is 2600rpm.
Data for 2800kg weight
Take off distance to 20m > 500m
Liftoff speed > 120kph
Landing distance, from 20m > 700m
Landing speed > 130kph
See pages 114 and 115 for more in Messerschmitt Bf 109 A-E by Radinger and Schick
For comparison with the Spitfire V see http://www.spitfireperformance.com/spitfire-V.html
-
Better comparison -
Same site but with a Merlin 32 L IIc -
http://www.spitfireperformance.com/mb138.html
Should point out - Prod L IIc's were delivered with 6 exahust stacks not the fishtail ones in the report.
This resulted in a slight speed increase.
Saying that the 109T probably would have retained a small speed advantage over the L IIc, but lose in almost every other category, esp rate of climb and acceleration.
Should add as it never happened this is IMO only.
-
So.....by the time the 109T would have had it's chance, it's....not the meanest dog around.
Nice data guys. Milo, I wish I had as much about the 109 as you. Interesting to see the differences in ground clearences as well, which actually give a very good point on how the aircraft actually behave in combat when the stall starts teasing you.
Would you happen to have something of this quality of data from a 109E in the BoB? I've been asking quite a bit but even from the Messer camp, I have got very little. Looking for weight, power, ROC (alt vs time), top speed and of course ground clearance is a good bonus ;)
-
Angus, dispite Kurfurst's German is superior, all else is crap attitude he does sometimes prove useful. ;) This is his site on the 109, http://kurfurst.allaboutwarfare.com/ You should be able to find some info there.
The book I mentioned has some data on the 109Es. ISBN 0-7643-0951-X There is a 2cd book for the F-K series.
Try also, http://109lair.hobbyvista.com/index1024.htm
and http://www.beim-zeugmeister.de/zeugmeister/index.php?id=7&L=1
All kinds of manuals you can buy for German a/c, http://www.luftfahrt-archiv-hafner.de/
DB605 engines, http://www.axiomdigital.com/db605.htm
Another site with 109 and other a/c info, http://mitglied.lycos.de/luftwaffe1/aircraft/lw/
-
Ah, good old Kuffie ;)
A lot of good stuff on his site. Now I finally have some stuff on the Emil ;)
Many things there I'd been looking for, such as Mölder's notes on the 109E vs Spit & Hurry. Hehe, he tried an old MkI with two pitch prop and presumably 87 oct fuel, so It must have come as a surprize when he faced the later types. But lots of good stuff there, Lots.
-
Oops, just stumbled on the difference between a CS airscrew and 2 pitch regarding climbing. It's awesome!
Same with the takeoff roll, Spit I:
Airscrew Take-off run
(yards) Distance to clear
50' screen (yards)
Rotol 225 370
2-Pitch Metal 320 490
Wooden Fixed Pitch 420 790
Spit V:
The take-off run in zero wind and standard conditions is 330 yards, and the distance to clear a 50 foot screen is 530 yards.
So it must have needed headwind to take off a carrier while being loaded with a big slipper tank, but however it had the flaps half down in that business.
Lots of stuff on the http://www.spitfireperformance.com, hadn't looked there in a while.
-
"Oops, just stumbled on the difference between a CS airscrew and 2 pitch regarding climbing. It's awesome!"
Cmon Angus, what did you expect? The fixed pitch is optimized for flight, not for take off. It really starts to bite well only after some speed is gained... :p
-C+
-
Yes but with variable speeds, angles and so on, the CS wins.
Acually, the LW's estimates from Mölders are fun to read. He compares a 109 E4 I belive, to a Spit I with a 2 spreed screw, running on 87 octs.
While the Spit is an underdog in Speed and climb, he advises against close manouvers like turning.
So, he later got pawned by some Spitty running on a CS and even 100 octanes, with a very good pilot at the controls.
Anyway, the CS owns the oldr version in all ways eithe as equal or better.
-
Well, if two planes are close enough in turn performance it gets tactically unwise to engage into a decelerating turning fight where the odds tend to get even.
I think Mölders was being wise and trying to direct the fight tactics to direction where Germans where already strong. I don't think he was necessarily trying to point out an apparent deficiency in 109...
-C+
-
On the original topic:
The toe-in of the 109 was a design to counter the force that could produce a ground loop if you touched down 1 wheel first. For example: if the right wheel touched down first, the nose would want to swing right. The wheel acting like a brake and the center of gravity behind pivot point. The left toe-in of the right wheel created a counter force to reduce swing until left wheel touched down.
-
Originally posted by Charge
Well, if two planes are close enough in turn performance it gets tactically unwise to engage into a decelerating turning fight where the odds tend to get even.
I think Mölders was being wise and trying to direct the fight tactics to direction where Germans where already strong. I don't think he was necessarily trying to point out an apparent deficiency in 109...
-C+
Absolutely. And on top of that, Mölders does NOT consider the turn performance close. So, it was indeed a wise move.