Aces High Bulletin Board
General Forums => Aircraft and Vehicles => Topic started by: Heinkel on May 21, 2002, 05:44:37 PM
-
The LW currently has no Carrier planes. Whats a LW fan to do :confused: Can we plllllz add the 109T? Here's a brief summary of it
THE BF 109 T
The first Bf 109T (Träger, German for carrier) prototype was a basically a Bf-109E-1 with its wings increased in span and area by some 3ft 11.75in (1.22m) and 11.84 sq ft (1.10m2) respectively. Other modifications involved extendable spoilers added on the upper surfaces of the wing at about one-third chord to steepen the approach angle for carrier landings, break points added in the wings outboard of the gun bays to allow the manual upward folding of the outer panels and reduce width to 13ft 4in (4.06m), leading-edge slots increased in span, trailing-edge flaps with a greater extending angle, ailerons interconnected with flaps, catapults spools added under the fuselage and frame 5 which accomodate them strenghtened. Finally, an arrestor hook was installed under the rear fuselage. The armament was that of the E-1 variant, with two 0.312in (7.92mm) MG 17 fuselage-mounted machine guns and two more MG 17 wing-mounted machine guns.
Messerchmitt's conversion was approved but actual works would be carried out by Fieseler, the only company in Germany with some experience in naval aircraft. An order was issued for the completion of ten Bf 109E-1 fighter as Bf 109T-0 pre-production aircraft. Trials at the Erprobungstelle in Travemünde revealed that the fighter's offensive punch was insufficient and therefore two of the prototypes were modified to accomodate two MG FF 20mm cannons in the wings, thus bringing the armament to E-3 standard. The modified prototypes were denominated Bf 109 T-1 and sixty production aircraft were ordered. But only a few months later, works on the Zeppelin were halted and Fieseler was instructed to remove all carrier gear and complete the fighters as STOL (short take-off and landing) airplanes. Stripped of catapult spools and arrestor hooks and fitted with the new Daimler Benz DB601N engine, new angular canopy (E-4 standard) and a a ventral rack that could carry one 551lb (250kg) SC-250 bomb, or four 100lb (50kg) SC-50 bombs or a 79.25 US gal (66 imp gal; 300 liters) drop tank (E-7 standard), they were redenominated Bf 109 T-2. Works were completed in early 1942 and by then the sixty T-2's were already obsolete. They were assigned to III/JG77 in Norway and relegated to secondary roles, mostly to protect harbors from unlikely raids of Russian bombers. The survivors were used for the point defense of the island of Heligoland in late in 1944.
We were unable to find photos of a Bf 109T. Gerd Eles says that there might be a couple of T-2 shots while operating in Norway in private collections. Unfortunately not in his.
Characteristics (T-2) :
Dimensions: Wing span: 36ft 4.25in (11.06m) with an aspect ratio of 7.015; (wing folded upward) 13ft 4in (4.06m) Wing area: 188.37 sq ft (17.50 sq m) Length: 28ft 9in (8,76m) Height: 8ft 6.33in (2,60m)
Weights: empty weight: 4,967 lbs (2,253kg), normal take-off weight: 6,173 lbs (2,800kg), maximum take off weight: 6,786 lbs(3,078kg)
Powerplant: one Daimler Benz DB601N 12-cylinder inverted Vee, rated at 1,200 hp (895kW) for take-off and 1,270 hp (947 kW) at 16,405ft (5,000m)
Performance: maximum level speed 310 kt (357 mph; 575 km/h) at 19,685ft (6,000m), declining to 264 kt (304.5 mph; 490 km/h) at sea level, maximum cruising speed 298 kt (343 mph; 522 km/h) at 16,405ft (5,000m), economical cruising speed 191 kt (220 mph; 355 km/h); climb rate: initial climb rate 3,346ft (1,020m) per minute, climb to 19,685 ft (6,000m) in 6 min. 24 secs; service ceiling: 34,450 ft (10,500m); range: maximum range 493 nm (568 miles, 915 km) with drop tank
Armament: two 0.312in (7.92mm) MG 17 fuselage-mounted machine guns, each with 1,000 rounds or either two more MG 17 machine guns with 500 rounds each or two 0.787in (20mm) MG FF cannon in the wings leading edge with 60-rounds drum.
-
The reason that there aren't any Luftwaffe carrier planes is that, well, the Kreigsmarine never had any carriers. No German fighter ever flew from a carrier, thus we shouldn't have any German aircraft that are enabled from the carrier. We only have one Japanese aircraft that can fly from carriers, and they were actually a carrier power.
If you're so set on flying Axis aircraft only, fly an A6M5b from the carrier.
Remember, there aren't American, British, German, Japanese, Italian and Russian sides here, just Bishops, Knights and Rooks.
-
Some (very few, probalyl single digit numbers, but hey, there were only what, 25 ostys made? ) 109T-1 were able to fly off of carriers (it had a tail hook), but it never flew any sortie's off of carriers. It only had 4x7'mm's, it's not that scary of a plane. I could i see if i was asking for a plane with 2x30mm's and 4x20mm's to be enabled off a carrier, but i am not. Since the carriers in the game belong to every country, that means they belong to Italy, Germany, US, ect, ect, i dont think adding this plane would be too crazy of an idea. Since HTC is on the topic of adding early war planes, i think this would fit in.
-
I agree with Karnak on this one.
Why model a 109T outfitted to take off and land from a carrier (when Germany never had an operational carrier to begin with) when they never did that on an operational basis?
From what I have read and others have posted the 109T's had all their carrier gear stripped and were reoutfitted for land use.
IMO, to model the 109T for carrier use teeters on the edge of "fantasy land"; the planes were made, but never put to use in their intended role.
Would be like enabling P-47's on the CV's........they took off from there when being ferried to the various combat zones, but that was not their operational environment.
-
It doesn't teeter on fantasy land, it is fantasy land. Bf109T was only ever used on land, mostly in Norway but at least one somehow ended up in North Africa.
It is not needed in AH generally, and certainly not in carrier capable form.
-
Bf-109T, Oblt. Herbert Christmann, Staffelkapitan 11./JG 11, Lister, Norway, Spring '44. His tally was approximately 5 kills, and he was killed on the Normandy front in August, 1944.
-
Did he take off or land on a carrier?
The guys who flew the 109T did so from LAND. They did not take off or land their combat sorties from a carrier, not once.
I don't think the 109T would be a MA monster, but I do think it is already well represented, in the 109E. No 109T EVER operated from a carrier, therefore, it should not be brought to AH.
Just my two cents.........
-
Never heard of a 109-T, looks interesting, but I think a SeaGladiator would be more usefull and is in more of need. Though its not german it would make a great carrier defense plane and it would just be so cool!...
I just cant stop dreaming about flying a Gloster Gladiator over a map of Europe shootin 109's!:D... We also need stuka, I dont know much about it but just looks cool, has a back gunner and heard something about a siren?
-
Originally posted by cajun
I just cant stop dreaming about flying a Gloster Gladiator over a map of Europe shootin 109's!:D...
Keep right on dreaming there son! :)
-
Originally posted by GRUNHERZ
Keep right on dreaming there son! :)
lol I knew someone would say that...
But I think the Gladiator would be a pretty good match for the 109 (maybe not later versions but definitly early versions) It could outturn it out roll it and gennerally outmanuver anyother plane on AH, It might not be able to outrun it but theres no way to get on its tail and stay there over 2 seconds... and even BnZ stratigey wouldnt work good on such a manuverable aircraft.
-
Originally posted by cajun
blah blah blah and even BnZ stratigey wouldnt work good on such a manuverable aircraft.
Perhaps not, but E-fighting would. Manuever all you want as your opponent gets leverage on you in the verticle, waits for you to trade your E for angles, then kills you while you're floundering. If your theory was valid, the forces of the world would not have moved on to monoplanes.
-Sikboy
-
Sikboy's got it pegged. According to Cajun's theory, the Me262 would be completely ineffective against amost any other plane in AH, due to it's lack of maneuverability and awful E-retention. Yet, it consistently as one of the best K/D ratios. Maneuver all you want against the faster late-war monsters...you'll just die with tired arms from all that flapping about. All that being said, it would be kind of fun to play with a biplane in AH.
Regarding the 109T, if I were HiTech I'd just add the ability to deploy a tail hook to the 109E. It doesn't even have to be modelled visually (except perhaps the "hook" light in the cockpit). This would add the option for "what-if" set ups/scenarios and for general MA play, without requiring a lot of effort. I believe our Hurri-IIC is modelled that way, to allow it to sub as a Sea Hurricane. No more improbable than all the F4U-1C's and -4's running around. They didn't see much action either in the war.
-
Originally posted by Sikboy
Perhaps not, but E-fighting would. Manuever all you want as your opponent gets leverage on you in the verticle, waits for you to trade your E for angles, then kills you while you're floundering. If your theory was valid, the forces of the world would not have moved on to monoplanes.
-Sikboy
True, but thats why you do not fight verticle with a faster enemy, as you dont when you are flying a zero. But I see your point.
QUOTE: Origunally posted by Sabre:
Sikboy's got it pegged. According to Cajun's theory, the Me262 would be completely ineffective against amost any other plane in AH, due to it's lack of maneuverability and awful E-retention. Yet, it consistently as one of the best K/D ratios. Maneuver all you want against the faster late-war monsters...you'll just die with tired arms from all that flapping about. All that being said, it would be kind of fun to play with a biplane in AH.
Regarding the 109T, if I were HiTech I'd just add the ability to deploy a tail hook to the 109E. It doesn't even have to be modelled visually (except perhaps the "hook" light in the cockpit). This would add the option for "what-if" set ups/scenarios and for general MA play, without requiring a lot of effort. I believe our Hurri-IIC is modelled that way, to allow it to sub as a Sea Hurricane. No more improbable than all the F4U-1C's and -4's running around. They didn't see much action either in the war."
The ME262 isnt the worst fighter in AH lol? I love fighting ME262's allways an interesting fight :) though I don't allways win I have come up with some very effective stratigey's & ways to deal with them, which would be the same if I were flying a biplane.
It all depends on how you use them. They would also be good for taking of from vulched feilds, wouldnt take long to get in the air and would be very manuverable, I usuelly find this the case with the zero.
-
here is a variant of the 109T designated as the Me 109 TL
It was initially conceived to be a backup for the 262
-
LOL
-
The 109T would be a valid aircraft for use in AH, imo. Seeing how the MA is NOT a replication of WWII but an environment to enjoy aircombat using simulated WWII aircraft it COULD be (along with the navalised version of the Suka) a welcome addition.
Westy
-
Westy,
Remember, this is an environment in which the squeaking about the N1K2-J never ceases because only 406 of them were built.
I still think that moving into fantasy aircraft would be the wrong way for HTC to go, but if they do I'm not leaving. Its not that big a deal, I just think there are much more worthy additions.
-
according to eric hammel (in the beginning of Carrier Clash) the square-heads had 1 carrier
-
Sikboy, and Sabre, if two pilots of equal ability are in a P51D and the other in a Gloster Gladiator.. I'm pretty positive it would result in a draw.
It's all speculation (based on my experiences, however), but I would wager that a really good guy behind the stick of a Gloster Gladiator would easily hold his own against faster planes.
I know I have no problem dodging someone BnZing me. I never follow someone vertically and save my speed.
So it's just a matter of intelligence and ability of the guy in the slower, more manueverable plane.
Sure, he's got speed and can E-fight me all day.. but if he can't get his guns on target then it's a moot point.
-SW
-
Me109T (Me109D) catapult launched during trials in Travemünde 21.6 1940... ;)
-
Originally posted by AKSWulfe
Sikboy, and Sabre, if two pilots of equal ability are in a P51D and the other in a Gloster Gladiator.. I'm pretty positive it would result in a draw.
It's all speculation (based on my experiences, however), but I would wager that a really good guy behind the stick of a Gloster Gladiator would easily hold his own against faster planes.
I know I have no problem dodging someone BnZing me. I never follow someone vertically and save my speed.
So it's just a matter of intelligence and ability of the guy in the slower, more manueverable plane.
Sure, he's got speed and can E-fight me all day.. but if he can't get his guns on target then it's a moot point.
-SW
Exactly what I was trying to point out :) . Flying both the zero and Corsair allot I've found the strengths and weaknesses over speed/manuverability. I'm by far not the best pilot in AH, since I've only been playin since about early september. But I find you can usuelly deal with a faster opponent pretty easy especially if you had the manuverability of a biplane like the Gloster Gladiator.