German Light Carrier Seydlitz

Probably the same handling as the A6M2-N Rufe...those things were sluggish, and not much good as fighters unless you were going after patrol planes or less manuverable fighters like the P-39. Several F4F and F6F aces pointed out that if you faced a Rufe, the best place to put your rounds was in that center float-it doubled as a fuel tank!
 

Cook

Banned
I’ve no knowledge on the Spitfire version's performance, but it does give you the impression of someone trying to perform Swan Lake while wearing Welly Boots.

SpitFloatplane.jpg
 
I’ve no knowledge on the Spitfire version's performance, but it does give you the impression of someone trying to perform Swan Lake while wearing Welly Boots.

Three Spitfire V were built as a floatplanes but cancelled when their use in the Med seemed unlikely. The conversion was applied to a single model 385 Mk IX by Folland. A maximum speed of 377 mph was reached by this model. It's satisfactory performance was the inspiration for the development of the Saunders-Roe SR.A1 flying boat fighter, another experimental without operational service application.
 
Then there's Japanese, with not just the Rufe, but the Rex (N1K) floatplane fighter. The land-based version was the N1K1-J and N1K2 George, and that was probably the best land-based fighter the Japanese had as far as the JNAF was concerned.
 
I cant find it now but I have seen a picture of a US Navy float plane being recovered by a cruiser at speed. The ship lowered a mat on to the water that the plane taxied on to. The mat was then dragged alongside the ship and the crane winched it up. I know the ship was moving but don't know how fast.
docfl

Edit, Found it.
http://www.usslittlerock.org/Armament/SC-1_Aircraft.html

The Hein Mat was used by several navies to recover floatplanes I have had a good google but cant find any pictures of it in operation.
 
Since we hadn't had one of these in a while

ME-109T Carrier plane

This would have been a complete failure. It was basically an ME-109E3 with arrestor/catipult hookups and slightly reinforced landing gear and a tiny bit narrower wings. It would have still born all the horrible take off and landing features of the land version coupled with trying to land on a pitching carrier deck rolling at 25 knots into the wind. You can't do a stream take off on a carrier, you have to circle and form up to attack in squadron strength, and you have to leave fuel to find mother (not always easy over the atlantic with no landmarks, and you might need to do a square search since she could be 40 miles from where you left her) The problems with the ME-109 drop tank are well known and don't require repeating

Functionally allowing 10 minutes for combat at full throttle, form up, and a minimum of fuss for landing the ME-109T's at best effective range (without suicide drop tank) would be about 80 miles; although IMO that leaves frighteningly little for contingencies and you would be a mad man to do more than 50 (all you need is one pilot with battle damage or who is wounded to botch a landing and then the rest of the squadron ends up in the drink if it can't be cleaned up in time

The FW-190 of course would be a different story as it's gear and layout would have translated well to carrier work



On the hurricat's admiral helmuth brinkmann suggested copying them and replacing the front AR-196 with an ME-110E-4 with a modular tail and wings that could be launched from a collapseable ramp on the bow (the thought was the ME-110 could chase of old/slow swordfish/albacores then fly back to Bordeux (since it was long ranged. He even suggested building a 110 with pontoons and the modular tail and wings to replace all the arado's since it would be faster, longer ranged, more manueverable and more heavily armed...Goering's reply was a mixture of go fuck yourself captain, and everything that flies belongs to me:p
 

Cook

Banned
It would have still born all the horrible take off and landing features of the land version coupled with trying to land on a pitching carrier deck rolling at 25 knots into the wind.
Well that sounds rather unpleasant; weren't more Me-109s disabled during the Battle of Britain due to landing accidents than by the RAF?
 
Well that sounds rather unpleasant; weren't more Me-109s disabled during the Battle of Britain due to landing accidents than by the RAF?

I can't speak to that; but somewhere (depending on source) between 6.3 and 8.9 percent of all ME-109 pilot casualties where in take off and landing accidents; and that is not taking into account the hundreds of accidents where the pilot wasn't injured but the aircraft was still in an accident

The FW-190 was less than 1 percent :rolleyes: and yet somehow they still kept the 109 in service till the bitter end
 
I can't speak to that; but somewhere (depending on source) between 6.3 and 8.9 percent of all ME-109 pilot casualties where in take off and landing accidents; and that is not taking into account the hundreds of accidents where the pilot wasn't injured but the aircraft was still in an accident

The FW-190 was less than 1 percent :rolleyes: and yet somehow they still kept the 109 in service till the bitter end

Another source told me that 5.1% of Me 109 aircraft were destroyed in landing accidents.

Still, the Fw-190 was a lot more expensive.
 
Another source told me that 5.1% of Me 109 aircraft were destroyed in landing accidents.

Still, the Fw-190 was a lot more expensive.

It was more expensive because it didn't get the DB engine that was already in production and had reasonable unit costs since it was being supplied in a number of frames

an early inline FW-190 would proportionally have been cheaper (especially when you take into account the huge savings in not losing so many pilots)
 
It was more expensive because it didn't get the DB engine that was already in production and had reasonable unit costs since it was being supplied in a number of frames

an early inline FW-190 would proportionally have been cheaper (especially when you take into account the huge savings in not losing so many pilots)

So, something like this?

1586-20512.jpg
 
So, something like this?

1586-20512.jpg

With a nose that long, no way it would pass even German carrier trials.

Regarding potential German carrier planes, I question the ideal suitability of either the Bf-109T or a hypothetical variant of the Fw-190. The Bf-109 was hampered by its narrow undercarriage and all Fw-190 variants had horrible taxying visibility (something that is fairly important on an aircraft carrier and one of several reasons the F4U was initially rejected by the USN for carrier operations).

I propose three alternative carrier planes, available to the Germansin 1940: (1) A "dumbed down" and carrier-stressed He-100 lacking all the complexity of the original . It would lack the high performance of the land-based prototypes, but was already available and its relatively light weight and wide-track undercarriage would probably make it better suited for carrier operation than the Bf-109T. It would be adequate against Fulmars, Sea Hurricanes, and early Seafires. (2) A license-built, virtually off-the-shelf A6M2. Cheap to produce, and as good a carrier plane as anything the British operated in the Atlantic until 1943 when Corsairs and Hellcats were gotten via lend-lease. Germans might have to get used to the lack of pilot and fueltank protection, but if the Japanese could fly it effectively against Hurricanes, Spitfires, and Wildcats in the Pacific (which they did), Germans could off the decks of all those never-completed or otherwise fictional German aircraft carriers. (3) Regianne 2001. Simple Italian radial engine fighter considered for use on Italy's equally paper aircraft carriers that was stressed for catapult launching from capital ships. Probably only slightly inferior to A6M and already in existence.
 
I suggest that no suitable German carrier fighter existed in a 1940 time frame, or any time to 1945. German fighters, including the Me-109, FW-190, and He-100, all had high wing loadings, and lacked exotic high lift flaps. Germans wouldn't likely use a Japanese aircraft, even if it was ready, or proven yet. The Regianne, like the Seversky P-35, was pleasant, but under-performing. If they really wanted a naval fighter, they would have to design and build it as such. Something like the British did with the Sea Fury. It's all about time, will, materials, knowledge, and priorities.
 
Top