Author Topic: WWWAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAA (Read 441 times)

moose · « **on:** November 12, 2001, 11:33:00 PM »

I WANT A 109 CARRIER VERSION!

IF YOU DONT GIVE IT TO ME ILL QUIT! WAAAAAAA

actually, all you LW leatherpanty types -

could someone post some stats/pics on the carrier version of the 109. (was it the 109E? I can't remember now)

thanks!

newguy · « **Reply #1 on:** November 12, 2001, 11:46:00 PM »

Well hb, where's the pictures?

Urchin · « **Reply #2 on:** November 12, 2001, 11:48:00 PM »

Didn't think the Germans had any carrier planes that saw service.

wklink · « **Reply #3 on:** November 12, 2001, 11:57:00 PM »

Damn, what was the designation. I want to say 109T.

It was a modified Bf 109E. It had a different wing design, was strengthened for carrier use and had a tailhook but it was a 109E as its base aircraft.

It was designed for the Graf Zeppelin, a carrier that never did see service

Compared to the Seafires, Hellcats and Corsairs of the Allies it probably would have been outclassed. Of course who was to say that the couldn't have modified a 109G for the job.

Ah, here's a site: http://www.csd.uwo.ca/~pettypi/elevon/baugher_other/grzepp.html

This might help.

[ 11-13-2001: Message edited by: wklink ]

Kratzer · « **Reply #4 on:** November 13, 2001, 12:08:00 AM »

There was a modified E3, called the Bf 109 T with a DB 601N engine, an arrestor hook, catapult spools, and a folding, larger wing. 10 T-0s (the pre-production evaluation units) were produced, and 60 of the production model (EDIT: T-1) were produced. They were all earmarked for the Graf Zeppelin, but when the carrier was scrapped, they just gave them to the Luftwaffe, with most, I believe, going to 11/JG 11 and I/JG 77. EDIT: Seems that when they went into service with the Luftwaffe, they must've been designated Bf 109 T-2s.

I've got pictures, but no scanner, so I did some searching, and found this site, among others:

http://www.jiop.fi/ksimuseo/faq_bf109evot.html

[ 11-13-2001: Message edited by: Kratzer ]

[ 11-13-2001: Message edited by: Kratzer ]

Wotan · « **Reply #5 on:** November 13, 2001, 01:12:00 AM »

stukas were modified for carrier use as well.......

however with the exception of being able to spawn a 109 from a gv the 109s can utilize carriers to rtb rearm and reup from easily.

This goes for all most all the planes.

I do it all the time

Mathman · « **Reply #6 on:** November 13, 2001, 01:22:00 AM »

Please, HTC, add this plane. I would very much appreciate the chance to further show Moose that the Hellcat is truly superior to the German coffins he flies.

Mitsu · « **Reply #7 on:** November 13, 2001, 01:32:00 AM »

Oh...so, AH would be minor planes paradise.

Change a game title to the "Minors High".

Mitsu

Apar1 · « **Reply #8 on:** November 13, 2001, 01:56:00 AM »

Common guy's, lets get the 109E first (among other early war planes still to be added).

Adding a plane that hasn'e even seen service

R4M · « **Reply #9 on:** November 13, 2001, 08:20:00 AM »

The 109T had an enlarged wing, strenghtened landing gear and arrestor hook. And 109Ts certainly saw service in Luftwaffe front lines, even getting some kills. It was a relatively minor production run -as it should,as the Kriegsmarine never was intended to have more than two 23000ton carriers-, but it was used over france and then over Denmark I think.

I dont say I support or not its inclusion in AH...but I'll say one thing. Until 1941 the RN standard fighters were Fairey Fulmars and Blackburn Skuas (this one was a fighter-divebomber, lol), and standard torpedo-bombers were Swordfishes. Sea Hurricanes were not standard until late 1941, and Sea Spitfires until 1942, I think.

The KM Graf Zeppelin would've had an air wing of 30 109Ts and 12 navalized Ju87s. I won't bet a cent on the RN in a theoreticall aeronaval RN-vs-Kriegsmarine battle in 1940-41.

A 109T would've shredded all naval british fighter to bites in its time frame (1940-41, that includes Sea Hurricanes). And the US Wildcat was a generally inferior plane too.

Mathman, you can fly your 1943 Hellcat with the 1940 109T claiming the latter is a coffin

. If you think that's fair...well, is your opinion

Kieran · « **Reply #10 on:** November 13, 2001, 08:43:00 AM »

Let's not forget the Brits had Martlets (F4F's). While outclassed by the land version of the 109, I suspect the additional weight of the arrestor gear and the beefier landing gear would have diminished the 109's qualities somewhat.

K West · « **Reply #11 on:** November 13, 2001, 08:54:00 AM »

Short of buying the book "Sea Eagles" this is some of the most concetrated info on German Naval aircraft
http://www.csd.uwo.ca/~pettypi/elevon/baugher_other/grzepp.html

As to whether it was superior or inferior to it's Allies contemporaries of the day all I can say is it would be fun to find out in AH someday

Westy

Eaglecz · « **Reply #12 on:** November 13, 2001, 08:55:00 AM »

I WANNA SEE JU88 WITH 109 on back

they used JU88 to grab 109 far away from Germany so they extended their fighting range. I will try post picture later.

skernsk · « **Reply #13 on:** November 13, 2001, 09:09:00 AM »

I ould like to see the "Naval Version" of the Stuka.

It would allow people to use it out of land bases as well as the CV's and it might see more use that way.

Plus just think of the posssibilities in the scenarios

Kratzer · « **Reply #14 on:** November 13, 2001, 09:18:00 AM »

Hey, I was just giving info. I completely agree with apar - we should have an Emil before we worry about carrier aircraft that never had a carrier.