Douglas reopens the Devastator production line for Cash&Carry
they were more modernand faster than the Stringbag, and only slightly higher landing speed
Not better than the Fieselers, and actually the Fi-167 had higher cruise speed.
German carrier aircraft
- Thread starter Gudestein
- Start date
Not better than the Fieselers, and actually the Fi-167 had higher cruise speed.
marathag
Banned
Germans won't sell to the RN
It really was an advanced design, though
Here is some info on early Torpedo planes
Great Lakes TG2 124 mph top speed 59 mph landing speed, 656sq.ft area and 4140 pounds of payload. The TG-2 was a slightly improved T4M from Martin that dated to 1928
Fairey Swordfish 138 mph top speed ,46mph landing 607sq.ft and 4000 pound payload 1934
Devastator had a 206mph top speed 63 mph landing speed, 422sq.ft area and 4594 pounds of payload, 207 gallon tank. 1935
B5N Kate had a 235mph top speed 72 mph landing speed, 406sq.ft area and 4016 pounds of payload, 255 gallon tank 1937
Fieseler Fi 167 had a 198 mph top speed 59 mph landing speed, 490sq.ft area and 3859 pounds of payload, 286 gallons with external 66 gallon drop tank. 1938
Germans won't sell to the RN
It really was an advanced design, though
Here is some info on early Torpedo planes
Great Lakes TG2 124 mph top speed 59 mph landing speed, 656sq.ft area and 4140 pounds of payload. The TG-2 was a slightly improved T4M from Martin that dated to 1928
Fairey Swordfish 138 mph top speed ,46mph landing 607sq.ft and 4000 pound payload 1934
Devastator had a 206mph top speed 63 mph landing speed, 422sq.ft area and 4594 pounds of payload, 207 gallon tank. 1935
B5N Kate had a 235mph top speed 72 mph landing speed, 406sq.ft area and 4016 pounds of payload, 255 gallon tank 1937
Fieseler Fi 167 had a 198 mph top speed 59 mph landing speed, 490sq.ft area and 3859 pounds of payload, 286 gallons with external 66 gallon drop tank. 1938
As said, the cruise speed was the advantage. And keep in mind the extraordinary maneuverability of the Fi-167. In combat, one of the 20 or so Fieselers shot down a P51 mustang.....
Saphroneth
Banned
So the heck what? One Bf109 was shot down by a WW1 biplane.
You can't really extrapolate from exceptional victories.
The navalized broad carriage FW-190 is a good candidate for carrier operations. Besides that, the airframe is Multi-purpose, not just a fighter, but also capable as a fighter bomber, ground attack aircraft and even a torpedobomber. As such, it would outclass any opposition in 1941 and later on, beign a true combat plane intended for heavy fighting.
The ship itself might be a problem, as Germany had no real experience and lacke a will to deploy airpower at sea innitially. Best was a large liner conversion of some king, as the size allowed a usefull airgroup, besides it being a quite cheap thing to do, rather than a purpose build large fleet carrier type.
SO, I will probably watch this inquirer less intensely now as I started the Zweites Buch Rewrite TL. However, I've taken the liner rebuild as a possible starting point. Thanks, the drawing you provided is from a rather large liner. DO you have the link and info for it? Seems like the SS Europe or similar, but I have not discovered anything on that liner except that the conversion faced stability issues and were seen as too troublesome IOTL.
Off course you cant, just an anecdote, but the Fi-167 was one of the rather capable thirties biplane torpedo bombers.
Nevertheless, I'll be following this thread less intensely now a I started the Zweites Buch Rewrite TL.
This post was intended to provide info on how the Germans would proceed with carrier aircraft designs, but ended p providing more info and focus on German experience with use of carriers. This suggestion from many on this thread is well taken.
And as you've been told before (by me) being king of the biplanes in a WW2 thread is like being the tallest midget
You could have, but you had not.
Anyway. The horrendous conditions (40ft pitching and everything) was not something usual for pilots on Victorious either - as far as i know, they were pretty much rookies. But desperate times call for unusual acts - and the mentioned mission was certeanly showed superb training/drill/operations/whatever on behalf of the FAA.
And if the germans were in the same shoes? Well, first of all, im quite sure, that before sorieing, they would have a good amount of training/flights from the deck of the GZ, in every possible and seemingly safe conditions - and thats pretty much rule out the 40ft pitching. Still, takeoff would have been not disasterious - well, if the catapult officer miscalculates the pitching, that would total the aircraft and kill the pilot - so lets be generous, they make it. Landing would have been quite disasterious, IMHO. So, after one, but lets be generous again, 3 patrols, the fighter wing would have been lost, with only about half of the pilots surviving. Of course, the math behind it come completely out of my bottom, so take it as a sentiment.
Still, i think, that they would have been not there, because after some extensive trials, the ship would be in a shipyard, under some heavy modifications.
I was under the impression, that the germans tested the arresting gear extensively, and it worked... for some extent at least. But the system does not have a "monkeycatcher", wich is a big minus.
Of course, inspecting it with some 20? years of extensive actual service in the pocket... yeah, experience, thats it.
marathag
Banned
In some ways, was superior to the monoplane B5N Kate. Had some armor, and self sealing fuel tankage, for starters.
Don't underestimate this bomber, on any other nations flight deck, would have been very useful thru 1942
Well, thank you for giving me the benefit of both your charm and your wisdom.
Welcome to my ignore list.
marathag;10614110 Don't underestimate this bomber said:
The Fieseler Fi167 was pretty much an outstanding design. Exactly what the customer wanted and needed (in 1938). It was one of the rare occurences when any aircraft industry (let alone the German) got it right first go.
It had the low speed handling of a Storch, but could carry a 1000kg bomb without too much effort and had a decent radius of action. IMHO it had the postives of the Swordfish, and could probably outperform the worn out Devastators at Midway. ( I have been trying to find an old thread on another forum which compared the Swordfish to the Devastator and was most illuminating. Common sense would put the all-metal, low wing, semi-monocoque monoplane with retractable undercarriage and an enclosed cockpit well ahead, but they were much more closely matched.)
However, good though the Fieseler was, it was still expected to operate from possibly the worst carrier of World War Two. Can anyone think of a worse design?
The Fieseler Fi167 was pretty much an outstanding design. Exactly what the customer wanted and needed (in 1938). It was one of the rare occurences when any aircraft industry (let alone the German) got it right first go.
It had the low speed handling of a Storch, but could carry a 1000kg bomb without too much effort and had a decent radius of action. IMHO it had the postives of the Swordfish, and could probably outperform the worn out Devastators at Midway. ( I have been trying to find an old thread on another forum which compared the Swordfish to the Devastator and was most illuminating. Common sense would put the all-metal, low wing, semi-monocoque monoplane with retractable undercarriage and an enclosed cockpit well ahead, but they were much more closely matched.)
However, good though the Fieseler was, it was still expected to operate from possibly the worst carrier of World War Two. Can anyone think of a worse design?
Well about the carrier, it could go 35 knots or close to it. The Fieselers would not need the catapult system to launch.
Saphroneth
Banned
...so?
It's still an awful design.
(And Wiki has it as 33.8 knots, I suspect that's based on assumptions because the thing was never dang well finished!)
Point is it is not quite as awful for operating the Fi-167 as it is for operating the Me-109T's and anything else.
The Fi-167 would not need to use all its faulty gimmicks.
Saphroneth
Banned
A fair point.
...though, if I were to nitpick, I'd say it'd lead to unescorted strikes if relied upon. That may well be fine for whatever role it's used for, of course.
Looking at the history of the Fieseler Fi167 continues to show the insanity of the German attitude toward naval aviation. They ordered the plane for the GZ, which was never completed, so they sold them to the Croats - when GZ was briefly restarted they wanted Stukas as divebombers but no TBRs.
So we have the following:
a) An aircraft carrier that has a poor design and which was never completed more than partly because of the machinations of the Fat Man.
b) A second carrier that was completed up to the armoured deck but which was then stopped and scrapped in June 1940, a month before she had been planned to be launched.
c) Carrier aircraft that are either well-suited for carrier operations (the Fieseler Fi167) or insanely poor (the Me109, with its notoriously narrow undercarriage).
d) No experienced officers or crew in carrier operations in any way shape or form.
Conclusion: a completed GZ would have had a short, nasty and fiery life.
So we have the following:
a) An aircraft carrier that has a poor design and which was never completed more than partly because of the machinations of the Fat Man.
b) A second carrier that was completed up to the armoured deck but which was then stopped and scrapped in June 1940, a month before she had been planned to be launched.
c) Carrier aircraft that are either well-suited for carrier operations (the Fieseler Fi167) or insanely poor (the Me109, with its notoriously narrow undercarriage).
d) No experienced officers or crew in carrier operations in any way shape or form.
Conclusion: a completed GZ would have had a short, nasty and fiery life.
So I'm new to this thread, and I'd like to walk through it. We will take the 109, a thoroughly excellent fighter aircraft, and we're going to operate it off a carrier deck. The 109 is already known for being a bit difficult, if not unforgiving to land, requring a high approach speed, and the ability to go through a large attitude change right before landing, and a need to deal with a wing dip to the left a lot of the time when that happens. The narrow under carriage has its problems too. This is already known to be difficult to do on dry land, with large airstrips withe great version of not moving.
The 109T will need to do all of this on a moving carrier deck. If the Graf is sortieing with the Bismarck, it's pilots are doing this for the first time. Carrier landings, which are notoriously stressful, in an underway ship, for the first time, in an aircraft which could be hard to land in the best of conditions.
They are doing this for the first time on a ship that is it sea for the first time, and thus with a great many of the crew in the traditional position of sailors in a shakedown cruise on a new ship, which is clutching the railing or head while vomiting profusely. Everyone is learning on the job, is what I'm saying, in the North Sea or North Atlantic, for the merciful love of Christ. Carrier operations are complicated if your the USN or RN, who've practiced extensively. They are complicated if your the Teikoku Kaigun, with its practice policies of "do it until your fingers bleed, and then do it some more until you do it right."
The F4F was not the 109 by any stretch of the imagination - but it was an excellent airplane for getting off of and back on to the carrier in one piece, which is what a naval fixed wing aircraft is supposed to do. And they were Ensign killers themselves.
And hard is lethal. And their are ten airframes of the 109T on board. And the carrier's systems are, ahem, innovative and optimistic. Bluntly, the Graf sortieing with Bismarck means you are spending several thousand lives and tons of steal to put a single finger four of 109s over the Atlantic, assuming the pilots live that long, which is a serious question. Heck, a malfunctioning Graf coulud be more of a deadweight than the torpedo hit. Look up shake-down cruises - its when ships break spectacularly and hilariously.
Bluntly, the idea is a bad one, and unlikley, considering the nature of the Wehermacht's nuttery has a certain style.
The 109T will need to do all of this on a moving carrier deck. If the Graf is sortieing with the Bismarck, it's pilots are doing this for the first time. Carrier landings, which are notoriously stressful, in an underway ship, for the first time, in an aircraft which could be hard to land in the best of conditions.
They are doing this for the first time on a ship that is it sea for the first time, and thus with a great many of the crew in the traditional position of sailors in a shakedown cruise on a new ship, which is clutching the railing or head while vomiting profusely. Everyone is learning on the job, is what I'm saying, in the North Sea or North Atlantic, for the merciful love of Christ. Carrier operations are complicated if your the USN or RN, who've practiced extensively. They are complicated if your the Teikoku Kaigun, with its practice policies of "do it until your fingers bleed, and then do it some more until you do it right."
The F4F was not the 109 by any stretch of the imagination - but it was an excellent airplane for getting off of and back on to the carrier in one piece, which is what a naval fixed wing aircraft is supposed to do. And they were Ensign killers themselves.
And hard is lethal. And their are ten airframes of the 109T on board. And the carrier's systems are, ahem, innovative and optimistic. Bluntly, the Graf sortieing with Bismarck means you are spending several thousand lives and tons of steal to put a single finger four of 109s over the Atlantic, assuming the pilots live that long, which is a serious question. Heck, a malfunctioning Graf coulud be more of a deadweight than the torpedo hit. Look up shake-down cruises - its when ships break spectacularly and hilariously.
Bluntly, the idea is a bad one, and unlikley, considering the nature of the Wehermacht's nuttery has a certain style.