WI there were Nazi Aircraft Carriers by 1939?

[BlairWitch749]

Originally Posted by CalBear

No doubt that the actual range would be less, but the base ranges are also without drop tanks. Once you add the tank(s) the numbers are reasonable, especially in a time persective. The 109 would have about 90 milutes endurance, the Seafire had just under two hours and the Wildcat was around 3 hours.

The Germans did design a 66 liter plywood centerline drop tank for the ME-109 that if completely used increased range by about 180 miles however their experience with this system was terrible and it had a huge number of accidents during its testing phase which discovered several notable problems

1. poor construction quality created air leaks that would make the engine cut out and force the pilot to revert to the main tank

2. when released in anything but slow and level flight it would hit the tail plane or arrester spool and damage the aircraft or make landing even more dangerous

3. the release mechanism didn't work very well and pilots were forced to try to land still holding the tank which was very dangerous

4. the release mechanism would sometimes go off whilst taking off spraying fuel all over the runways

5 it manuevered and climbed like a pig whilst holding the tank

so the Germans would have to have done intense testing to correct all these issues maybe start experimenting with them in the spanish civil war or something

[zoomar]

I skimmed though this "one more time" discussion of German aircraft carriers ins WW2 and have the following observations:

Having the ships and planes is only half the the job. Lacking the same 20-year experience with such ships the British, Americans, and Japanese had, any German carriers would be far less effective than equivalent allied ships. Operaying doctrine would be conservative. Considering that Graf Zeppelin was not a particularly effective design, and that the types of aircraft planned for her would either be obsolescent (Fi-167, etc) or ill suited to the task (Bf-109T and Ju-87C), the ships would probably begin and end their days in the North Sea as targets.

If one tried to imagine a very unlikely PoD in which the Nazis immediately pushed for carrier construction as soon as they consolidated power (say 1934), the Germans would be best served by trading money and technology with Japan for their experience, designs, and perhaps even ordering a carrier in a japanese yards.

[Wolfman]

If the Nazis did that, what are the odds Japan would steal the carrier for themselves ASAP?

[esl]

Figures can be manipulated . American range figures pretty much always show econo cruise while Luftwaffe figures show max speed cruise endurance.

The Me 109 endurance was 3 hours with 300l drop-tank on 'econo cruise'. Theoretically ~1000km range.

http://www.beim-zeugmeister.de/zeugmeister/index.php?id=22&L=1

Example from the chart

["Uncle Joe"] "Example from the German chart: Grösste Flugstrecke at an of altitude 1 km: 1400 rpm/0.85 ata, 120 l/h, 315 km/h. Since we have 400 l of fuel, this gives theoretical max range of 1050 km with corresponding endurance of 3.3 hours."

[BlairWitch749]

Originally Posted by esl

Figures can be manipulated . American range figures pretty much always show econo cruise while Luftwaffe figures show max speed cruise endurance.

The Me 109 endurance was 3 hours with 300l drop-tank on 'econo cruise'. Theoretically ~1000km range.

http://www.beim-zeugmeister.de/zeugmeister/index.php?id=22&L=1

Example from the chart

300l drop tank and think of the problems i just listed with the small 66 liter one... could the me109 even take off with that monster under its belly?

[CalBear]

Originally Posted by esl

Figures can be manipulated . American range figures pretty much always show econo cruise while Luftwaffe figures show max speed cruise endurance.

The Me 109 endurance was 3 hours with 300l drop-tank on 'econo cruise'. Theoretically ~1000km range.

http://www.beim-zeugmeister.de/zeugmeister/index.php?id=22&L=1

Example from the chart

So that would raise max range to 600 miles at economical cruise. What does the effect of Run-up, climb out, form up, say 10 minutes of combat time, and waiting in the landing pattern do? That would trim off at least 1/3 of the range, so we are back to 400 miles, at best.

And what was the take off distance with a 300L drop tank? Don't have a nice long field. If you are using a catapult, you have at least doubled the take off time for your strike package (admittedly, it is a very SMALL strike package, however...) and have now reduced the available fuel and range even further.

What sort of war load could it carry with a 300L drop tank?

A dry Bf-109E weighed 4440 pounds, MAX take off load was 5,520 pounds, meaning a total liftable load of ~1,100 pounds (to be fair, lets jack that up to 1,500 pounds or 6,000 pounds). A "T" model will actually weight more, but for the sake of the exercise lets ignore that for the present.

Now, lets do the math:

1,500 -150 (pilot, nice wiry fellow) = 1,350 pounds.
1450-735 (internal fuel of 88 gallons) = 615 Pounds
715-500 (300L/66 Gal drop tank) = 115 pounds


So, after accounting for the pilot and fuel you have 115 pounds of usable lift remaining for things like oil, coolant, and ammo.

In short you can carry ammo or you can carry fuel.

[BlairWitch749]

Originally Posted by CalBear

So that would raise max range to 600 miles at economical cruise. What does the effect of Run-up, climb out, form up, say 10 minutes of combat time, and waiting in the landing pattern do? That would trim off at least 1/3 of the range, so we are back to 400 miles, at best.

And what was the take off distance with a 300L drop tank? Don't have a nice long field. If you are using a catapult, you have at least doubled the take off time for your strike package (admittedly, it is a very SMALL strike package, however...) and have now reduced the available fuel and range even further.

What sort of war load could it carry with a 300L drop tank?

A dry Bf-109E weighed 4440 pounds, MAX take off load was 5,520 pounds, meaning a total liftable load of ~1,100 pounds (to be fair, lets jack that up to 1,500 pounds or 6,000 pounds). A "T" model will actually weight more, but for the sake of the exercise lets ignore that for the present.

Now, lets do the math:

1,500 -150 (pilot, nice wiry fellow) = 1,350 pounds.
1450-735 (internal fuel of 88 gallons) = 615 Pounds
715-500 (300L/66 Gal drop tank) = 115 pounds


So, after accounting for the pilot and fuel you have 115 pounds of usable lift remaining for things like oil, coolant, and ammo.

In short you can carry ammo or you can carry fuel.

Calbear, the Germans were leading experts on using takeoff assist rockets on their bombers so they could carry larger mines and bombs or take advantage of short runways. I don't know if this was ever adapted to the ME-109 or FW-190 but I am sure it probably could be... would that solve the takeoff weight and distance problem?

[CalBear]

Originally Posted by BlairWitch749

Calbear, the Germans were leading experts on using takeoff assist rockets on their bombers so they could carry larger mines and bombs or take advantage of short runways. I don't know if this was ever adapted to the ME-109 or FW-190 but I am sure it probably could be... would that solve the takeoff weight and distance problem?

In the case of a single aircraft it would, but in the case of a deck full of fighter and bombers it would make things worse. While you could get the jump off the deck in probably 10-15 meters you would also leave a massive smoke cloud that would be difficult to escape even with a 28 knot advance into the wind by the carrier. You couldn't launch the next aircraft until you had good visibility (one of the underestimated parts of air operations on a carrier is the timing, don't what to launch an aircraft just as you are going into a bow down attitude off a swell.

This became a bit less of an issue as carrier got up to the 70,000+ ton size and aircraft got all the power on Earth (starting with the early afterburner equipped jets operating off of steam cats), but it was a serious issue on the WW II ships (even the big Ladies like Kaga (38K)or Lexington (40K+) had to account for it).

Nothing like shooting off the deck with JATO assist straight into a swell (and then being run over by your own ship). Tends to be bad for pilot morale and retention.

[BlairWitch749]

Originally Posted by CalBear

In the case of a single aircraft it would, but in the case of a deck full of fighter and bombers it would make things worse. While you could get the jump off the deck in probably 10-15 meters you would also leave a massive smoke cloud that would be difficult to escape even with a 28 knot advance into the wind by the carrier. You couldn't launch the next aircraft until you had good visibility (one of the underestimated parts of air operations on a carrier is the timing, don't what to launch an aircraft just as you are going into a bow down attitude off a swell.

This became a bit less of an issue as carrier got up to the 70,000+ ton size and aircraft got all the power on Earth (starting with the early afterburner equipped jets operating off of steam cats), but it was a serious issue on the WW II ships (even the big Ladies like Kaga (38K)or Lexington (40K+) had to account for it).



Nothing like shooting off the deck with JATO assist straight into a swell (and then being run over by your own ship). Tends to be bad for pilot morale and retention.

I totally except a mass number of accidents because the ME-109 wasn't suited for rough and tumble carrier ops... but the hundreds of landing accidents the plane had never stopped the Germans from using it. So if a few take off assists go strait into the drink it wouldnt be any worse for morale than having the undercarriage collapse and have the plane crash and burst into flames... you would probably need some type of steel shield to keep the assist rockets from touching off any of the other ready aircraft... this is probably a bad idea