Jump to content


Photo

Flugzeugträger A


  • Please log in to reply
143 replies to this topic

#41 Marek Tucan

Marek Tucan

    Powerpoint Ranger, Chairborne

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 15,973 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Versailles, France

Posted 25 March 2018 - 0342 AM

The issue with Seafire and 109 was the same - landing gear - but with the 109 the long takeoff was added to the mix, seems Spitfire had less issues with that (plus Allies used a sensible catapult ;))


  • 0

#42 Stuart Galbraith

Stuart Galbraith

    Of the Veronica Cartwright Ilk

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 48,112 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Eloiland

Posted 25 March 2018 - 0344 AM

And the Spitfire/Seafire was relatively easy to land compared to a 109. They are horribly easy to prang, even on takeoff.


  • 0

#43 wendist

wendist

    Crew

  • Members
  • PipPip
  • 593 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Skåne,Sweden

Posted 25 March 2018 - 0350 AM

My knowledge of how exactly the GZ was supposed to work is limited, as can be seen in my previous posts. :D Are you guys saying that all aircrafts had to use the catapult system for take off? It was not possible for Ju-87s, for example, to choose not to use the catapult if they so wanted?


  • 0

#44 wendist

wendist

    Crew

  • Members
  • PipPip
  • 593 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Skåne,Sweden

Posted 25 March 2018 - 0355 AM

The Seafire made for a poor carrier aircraft precisely for the same reasons.In the Pacific, Corsairs practically replaced them.

I'm aware it did not work very well but it did work well enough to be considered useful until better aircrafts became available so maybe the Me-109T could have been of limited use. But the catapult requirement really does not help.


  • 0

#45 Marek Tucan

Marek Tucan

    Powerpoint Ranger, Chairborne

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 15,973 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Versailles, France

Posted 25 March 2018 - 0413 AM

My knowledge of how exactly the GZ was supposed to work is limited, as can be seen in my previous posts. :D Are you guys saying that all aircrafts had to use the catapult system for take off? It was not possible for Ju-87s, for example, to choose not to use the catapult if they so wanted?


The catapult had a complex rail system and elevated platform. Hypothetically stuka would be able to roll between them, but tightly squeezed and at a presumably low rate.
  • 0

#46 wendist

wendist

    Crew

  • Members
  • PipPip
  • 593 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Skåne,Sweden

Posted 25 March 2018 - 0521 AM

Thanks again! All I have to go on is stuff i find on the internet, like Wiki. The part below f.ex.

 

"It was intended from the outset that all of the Graf Zeppelins' aircraft would normally launch via catapult. Rolling take-offs would be performed only in an emergency or if the catapults were inoperable due to battle damage or mechanical failure. Whether this practice would have been strictly adhered to or later modified, based on actual air trials and combat experience is open to question, especially given the limited capacity of the air reservoirs and the long recharging times necessary between launches.[19] One advantage of such a system, however, was that the Graf Zeppelins could have launched their aircraft without need for turning the ship into the wind or under conditions where the prevailing winds were too light to provide enough lift for her heavier aircraft."

 

When I suggested that they should simply give up on the catapults I was under the impression that it was actually possible to perform limited flight operations without them, not that they where an absolute requirement. 


  • 0

#47 a77

a77

    Crew

  • Members
  • PipPip
  • 669 posts

Posted 25 March 2018 - 0609 AM

An interesting gambit would have been to complete Graf Zeppelin for the purpose of selling it to Japan in 1940. Its participation in the 1941/42 Pacific campaign would have been a welcome addition to the striking power of the IJN in that period.

 

One non-standard carrier will not turn the tides of war...


  • 0

#48 wendist

wendist

    Crew

  • Members
  • PipPip
  • 593 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Skåne,Sweden

Posted 25 March 2018 - 0641 AM

Just to give you an idea of what it looked like. Would it have been very difficult to remove the parts of the catapult that protruded above the flight deck? Yes I'm still thinking of giving up on the catapult idea, obviously this means no Me-109T in the inventory, instead I suggest we use the He-100. Which of course had its own problems. ^_^

 


  • 0

#49 wendist

wendist

    Crew

  • Members
  • PipPip
  • 593 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Skåne,Sweden

Posted 25 March 2018 - 0709 AM

German test flights!  :blink: OMG (Not on the GZ though)

 

From 4:16

 


  • 0

#50 shep854

shep854

    Member

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 19,324 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Birmingham AL, USA
  • Interests:Military History, Aviation

Posted 25 March 2018 - 0756 AM

Also, the Spits main gear was vertical to the ground instead of splayed out like the Bf. This allowed better ground handling for the Spit/Seafire.
  • 0

#51 Olof Larsson

Olof Larsson

    Crew

  • Members
  • PipPip
  • 1,271 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Sweden

Posted 25 March 2018 - 0836 AM

 

An interesting gambit would have been to complete Graf Zeppelin for the purpose of selling it to Japan in 1940. Its participation in the 1941/42 Pacific campaign would have been a welcome addition to the striking power of the IJN in that period.

 

Probably not, it would be about as good as the liner conversions of the Hiyo class with the aircraft capacity of Ryujo, so a waste of resources.

 

 

Especially with the horribly unreliable German high-pressure steam-plants.


  • 0

#52 RETAC21

RETAC21

    A la lealtad y al valor

  • Members
  • PipPip
  • 13,001 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Madrid, Spain
  • Interests:Military history in general

Posted 25 March 2018 - 0854 AM

Thanks again! All I have to go on is stuff i find on the internet, like Wiki. The part below f.ex.

 

"It was intended from the outset that all of the Graf Zeppelins' aircraft would normally launch via catapult. Rolling take-offs would be performed only in an emergency or if the catapults were inoperable due to battle damage or mechanical failure. Whether this practice would have been strictly adhered to or later modified, based on actual air trials and combat experience is open to question, especially given the limited capacity of the air reservoirs and the long recharging times necessary between launches.[19] One advantage of such a system, however, was that the Graf Zeppelins could have launched their aircraft without need for turning the ship into the wind or under conditions where the prevailing winds were too light to provide enough lift for her heavier aircraft."

 

When I suggested that they should simply give up on the catapults I was under the impression that it was actually possible to perform limited flight operations without them, not that they where an absolute requirement. 

 

Looking the Schiffer volume on GZ, the catapults were expected to launch an 8 planes squadron in 3.5 minutes, which could be a nice to have capability to quickly build up an alfa strike or to put fighters in the air in an attack.

 

Machinery was similar to Prinz Eugen, but nearly 50% more powerful (200k hp vs 132k hp).


  • 0

#53 Olof Larsson

Olof Larsson

    Crew

  • Members
  • PipPip
  • 1,271 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Sweden

Posted 25 March 2018 - 0859 AM

Just to give you an idea of what it looked like. Would it have been very difficult to remove the parts of the catapult that protruded above the flight deck? Yes I'm still thinking of giving up on the catapult idea, obviously this means no Me-109T in the inventory, instead I suggest we use the He-100. Which of course had its own problems. ^_^

 

 

A guy in my home town built a 1:100 RC-model of the KM Bismarck. He wouldn’t say whether he feared RC-Swordfish's or RC-Lancaster’s the most...


  • 0

#54 Panzermann

Panzermann

    REFORGER '79

  • Members
  • PipPip
  • 14,434 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Teutonistan

Posted 25 March 2018 - 0934 AM

Yes, I think starting with a non-fleet carrier would have been much more useful for creating a naval air doctrine in a short amount of time. A willingness to imitate what was known of RN naval air doctrine would have been a starting point.

 

For operational purposes, a lighter carrier able to keep up with German heavy raiding units would have been more useful as well.

 

Interestingly, the argument that the RN would have concentrated its heavy units to sink a KM carrier implies the RN would have been threatened by it.

 

The Royal Navy only needs to feel threatened by a Kriegsmarine carrier to divert its own carriers. A night attack on a british harbour might just do the trick for example.


  • 0

#55 Markus Becker

Markus Becker

    Crew

  • Members
  • PipPip
  • 3,006 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Westphalia, Germany

Posted 25 March 2018 - 0957 AM

The design of the catapult shows that the KM made a severe mistake by trying to go straight from a proposed 1918 liner conversion to a 1930s fleet carrier. The choice of the Me 109 as the carrier fighter underlines that. The world’s first high performance carrier fighter was the F2A-1 and it only entered service in December of 1939. Before that you had monoplanes with a fixed landing gear or biplanes or dive bombers with some forward firing machine guns that were labeled 'fighters'.

 

No need for a cutting edge fighter like the 109. Until the Sea Hurricane shows up a navalized Henschel 123 gives you all the carrier fighter you need.


  • 0

#56 JasonJ

JasonJ

    majideyabai

  • Members
  • PipPip
  • 9,073 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:dokodoko?
  • Interests:Being odd and unusual.

Posted 25 March 2018 - 1008 AM

The design of the catapult shows that the KM made a severe mistake by trying to go straight from a proposed 1918 liner conversion to a 1930s fleet carrier. The choice of the Me 109 as the carrier fighter underlines that. The world’s first high performance carrier fighter was the F2A-1 and it only entered service in December of 1939. Before that you had monoplanes with a fixed landing gear or biplanes or dive bombers with some forward firing machine guns that were labeled 'fighters'.

 

No need for a cutting edge fighter like the 109. Until the Sea Hurricane shows up a navalized Henschel 123 gives you all the carrier fighter you need.

 

Although, if the carrier was to want to conduct operations any where near an enemy air field, carrier fighter aircraft would then have to hold their own to land based fighter aircraft.


  • 0

#57 Ken Estes

Ken Estes

    Member

  • Members
  • PipPip
  • 14,436 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Seattle
  • Interests:USMC Tanker, Historian

Posted 25 March 2018 - 1319 PM

I think the catapult might have been mandatory for launching torpedo bombers with that payload.

 

I wonder when the LW was going to develop AP bombs.

 for naval use.


  • 0

#58 MiloMorai

MiloMorai

    Member

  • Members
  • PipPip
  • 3,137 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Ottawa

Posted 25 March 2018 - 1429 PM

Also, the Spits main gear was vertical to the ground instead of splayed out like the Bf. This allowed better ground handling for the Spit/Seafire.

 

The track of the Spit was ~6" narrower than on the Bf109.

 

Even on the ground the Spit's prop was prone to ground strikes.

 

Land testing of the arresting gear and the 109T showed very little or no problems when landing.


  • 0

#59 Nobu

Nobu

    Crew

  • Members
  • PipPip
  • 1,737 posts
  • Gender:Male

Posted 25 March 2018 - 2336 PM

Probably not, it would be about as good as the liner conversions of the Hiyo class with the aircraft capacity of Ryujo, so a waste of resources.

 

Such a cost/benefit analysis of a sale of GZ to Japan in 1940 would have to take into consideration the performance of the GZ's IJNAF air group augmenting the striking power of the 1st Air Fleet in the following naval battles:

 

Pearl Harbor

Indian Ocean

Coral Sea

Midway

Eastern Solomons

Santa Cruz


Edited by Nobu, 25 March 2018 - 2338 PM.

  • 0

#60 Stuart Galbraith

Stuart Galbraith

    Of the Veronica Cartwright Ilk

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 48,112 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Eloiland

Posted 26 March 2018 - 0250 AM

 

Also, the Spits main gear was vertical to the ground instead of splayed out like the Bf. This allowed better ground handling for the Spit/Seafire.

 

The track of the Spit was ~6" narrower than on the Bf109.

 

Even on the ground the Spit's prop was prone to ground strikes.

 

Land testing of the arresting gear and the 109T showed very little or no problems when landing.

 

 

 

Ive never personally read of it. It certainly had the capacity for it. There was reportedly a notch in the Spitfires throttle so you know what the takeoff setting was, as you might over rotate. But ive not personally read of this regarded as a problem. Spitfire knuckle seemed to be more of a problem among early Spitfire pilots.

 

The Haynes book on the ME109 is interesting, in that a pilot relates how careful he is on takeoff, to the point of checking the compression on the undercarriage to make sure one side isnt softer than the other. Which suggests ground loops on landing are never far from the pilots mind.

 

I was going to relate the crash of Black 6, but in truth that was to some extent pilot error.


  • 0




0 user(s) are reading this topic

0 members, 0 guests, 0 anonymous users