PDA

View Full Version : Carrier Borne FW190?



SnapdLikeAMutha
11-11-2005, 03:36 PM
Wasn't sure where to post this - here or on PF.

But I've posted it here since I'm guessing this is where the bulk of 190 knowledge resides http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_smile.gif

Was the 190 ever considered for carrier use? I know a variant of the ME109 (the 109T IIRC) was developed for use on the Kriegsmarine's CV Graf Zepplin (this ship wasn't completed of course). But what about the butcherbird - were there any plans to send the FW to sea? Or are there any reasons why it WOULDN'T have made a suitable carrier plane?

cheers

SnapdLikeAMutha
11-11-2005, 03:36 PM
Wasn't sure where to post this - here or on PF.

But I've posted it here since I'm guessing this is where the bulk of 190 knowledge resides http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_smile.gif

Was the 190 ever considered for carrier use? I know a variant of the ME109 (the 109T IIRC) was developed for use on the Kriegsmarine's CV Graf Zepplin (this ship wasn't completed of course). But what about the butcherbird - were there any plans to send the FW to sea? Or are there any reasons why it WOULDN'T have made a suitable carrier plane?

cheers

Zyzbot
11-11-2005, 05:08 PM
Don't know about proposed naval varients but the FW-190 helped design another carier fighter:

"In early 1943, Grumman officials were invited to England to see the captured fighters of the Axis powers and to fly some of them. The test team included: Leroy Grumman, president of Grumman and test pilot during and after WW I; Bud Gillies, vice president flight operations and a test pilot current in all American airplanes at that time; and Bob Hall, chief engineerexperimental, a famous test pilot of Grumman and other airplanes of the Gee Bee era.
Of all the airplanes they saw, they were most fascinated with the Focke-Wulf 190. It not only offered sprightly performance, but it also had excellent flight characteristics with a gross weight of 8,750 pounds and only 1,730hp. The Hellcat was 3,200 pounds heavier with just 270hp more. Both Gillies and Hall evaluated the Fw 190 and found it to be the aircraft they would have liked to have designed themselves. It was exactly what the Hellcat follow-on aircraft should be. The only things the Fw 190 lacked were a good gunnery-lead computing angle of vision over the nose and a structure that would withstand carrier operations.

The Focke-Wulf impressed them so much they felt compelled to hurry home and put together an airplane of this gross weight in time for the water-injected Pratt & Whitney R-2800 C model engine of 2,400hp (War Emergency Power) to be installed. This would give our naval aviators a big performance increase over the newer Japanese fighters and would still retain the proven performance of the P&W R-2800 series production engines installed in the Hellcat. "

http://www.findarticles.com/p/articles/mi_qa3897/is_199808/ai_n8826530

Eric Brown's description of lack of vision over the nose while landing a FW-190 reminded me of the early problems encountered while landing the Corsair on carriers. So who knows...adopt a curved approach, beef up the landing gear and add a hook. Can't say how much weight folding wings might add. Probably workable.

PBNA-Boosher
11-11-2005, 05:09 PM
The only fighters designed for carrier use that I know of is a 109 version: the Bf-109T.

The Ju-87C was also planned as a carrier dive bomber.

As the Graf Zeppelin never made it, neither did these planes.

SnapdLikeAMutha
11-11-2005, 05:27 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by Zyzbot:
Don't know about proposed naval varients but the FW-190 helped design another carier fighter:

"In early 1943, Grumman officials were invited to England to see the captured fighters of the Axis powers and to fly some of them. The test team included: Leroy Grumman, president of Grumman and test pilot during and after WW I; Bud Gillies, vice president flight operations and a test pilot current in all American airplanes at that time; and Bob Hall, chief engineerexperimental, a famous test pilot of Grumman and other airplanes of the Gee Bee era.
Of all the airplanes they saw, they were most fascinated with the Focke-Wulf 190. It not only offered sprightly performance, but it also had excellent flight characteristics with a gross weight of 8,750 pounds and only 1,730hp. The Hellcat was 3,200 pounds heavier with just 270hp more. Both Gillies and Hall evaluated the Fw 190 and found it to be the aircraft they would have liked to have designed themselves. It was exactly what the Hellcat follow-on aircraft should be. The only things the Fw 190 lacked were a good gunnery-lead computing angle of vision over the nose and a structure that would withstand carrier operations.

The Focke-Wulf impressed them so much they felt compelled to hurry home and put together an airplane of this gross weight in time for the water-injected Pratt & Whitney R-2800 C model engine of 2,400hp (War Emergency Power) to be installed. This would give our naval aviators a big performance increase over the newer Japanese fighters and would still retain the proven performance of the P&W R-2800 series production engines installed in the Hellcat. "

http://www.findarticles.com/p/articles/mi_qa3897/is_199808/ai_n8826530

Eric Brown's description of lack of vision over the nose while landing a FW-190 reminded me of the early problems encountered while landing the Corsair on carriers. So who knows...adopt a curved approach, beef up the landing gear and add a hook. Can't say how much weight folding wings might add. Probably workable. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

Thanks, this is exactly the type of thing I was looking for http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/16x16_smiley-wink.gif

Anyone think of any other reasons why it might not have been suitable for carrier use?

VW-IceFire
11-11-2005, 05:40 PM
Landing speed...it was quite high for the FW190. I can see a redesign being needed before the FW190 would be considered suitable for carrier ops.

SkyChimp
11-11-2005, 06:11 PM
Given it's robustness and radial engine, it seems to me that it would have been a better choice than the Bf-109. The Fw-190, with longer wings and lower stall speeds may have been a very good carrier plane.

neural_dream
11-11-2005, 06:50 PM
December 8, 1938 Launch of the Graf Zeppelin at Deutsche Werk, Kiel, Germany
http://www.maritimequest.com/warship_directory/germany/photos/aircraft_carriers/graf_zeppelin/01_graf_zeppelin.jpg
http://www.maritimequest.com/warship_directory/germany/photos/aircraft_carriers/graf_zeppelin/03_graf_zeppelin.jpg

It could carry about 40 planes.

They would be:
Bf 109T. basically a Bf 109E-1 with a larger wing, an attachment point for catapult points underneath the fuselage, and an arrester hook underneath the aft fuselage. Responsibility for the Bf 109T project was assigned to Fieseler Werke. 10 were ready for evaluation around late 1939.
Ju 87C. It was basically a Ju 87B, but featuring catapult spools, arrester gear, and jettisonable main undercarriage members for emergency landings on water. Flotation equipment was provided, and provisions were made for manually-folded outer wing panels.
Me 155. By 1942 the German interest on finishing the carrier was revived, and the plane of choice would be the Me 155, a navalised Bf 109G with entirely new wing.

The first two choices, the 109T and 87C were obvious ones, since there wasn't much else the Germans had ready and easy to navalise in 1939-40.

Why they chose to build the 155 based on the 109 in 1942, now that's a different story. Don't forget that things were not done that rationally at that time in the Reich. The overcompetition of the manufacturers and arbitrary events was what decided things, not an actual central authority, at least in terms of the communication between the air force and the navy.
tbh since they had already done it once, with the 109 E turning to T, they had valuable experience on how to do it again for the later version of the 109.

Doug_Thompson
11-11-2005, 07:15 PM
The wide-track landing gear alone would have made it a better choice, if the high landing speed could be tamed.

However, by the time a Fw 190 version could have been ready, the chances the Graf Zeppelin being completed were gone. All this assumed the GZ would have worked. The Germans had no carrier experience.

hobnail
11-11-2005, 09:03 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by PBNA-Boosher:
The only fighters designed for carrier use that I know of is a 109 version: the Bf-109T.

The Ju-87C was also planned as a carrier dive bomber.

As the Graf Zeppelin never made it, neither did these planes. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

Au contraire. At least 70 Bf109T were produced. Most served in Norway. The first B17 shot down in Europe fell to a Bf109T.

They continued to serve as fighters well after other Emils had been retired to the knackers or pressed into service as Jabos. The main reason being their short takeoff and landing run allowed them to operate from rugged small airfields in the Norway theatre.

p1ngu666
11-11-2005, 09:48 PM
high takeoff and landing speeds, and the low speed handling was dicey. otherwise it would be good

Ob.Emann
11-12-2005, 01:39 AM
The Focke Wulf's landing gear would certainly be more forgiving for carrier operations.

WOLFMondo
11-12-2005, 02:08 AM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by SkyChimp:
Given it's robustness and radial engine, it seems to me that it would have been a better choice than the Bf-109. The Fw-190, with longer wings and lower stall speeds may have been a very good carrier plane. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

The TA152 is very easy to land on a carrier but the other 190's approach speeds are way to high.

JG52Karaya-X
11-12-2005, 02:28 AM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by PBNA-Boosher:
The only fighters designed for carrier use that I know of is a 109 version: the Bf-109T.

The Ju-87C was also planned as a carrier dive bomber.

As the Graf Zeppelin never made it, neither did these planes. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

That's only partly true. The Bf109T was built (T-2 I think) and used in combat!

http://www.adlertag.de/hauptindex.htm

"- 7 T-1 in Serie gefertigt
- Lieferung zwischen Februar und April 1941
- sp├┬Ąter 46 T-2 zwischenzeitlich auf T-1 umger├╝stet
- Werknummern 7728 - 7734
- Ende April 1943 waren alle T-1 auf Stand T-2 umger├╝stet"

"- 63 T-2 in Serie gefertigt
- Lieferung zwischen April und Juni 1941
- sp├┬Ąter 46 T-2 zwischenzeitlich auf T-1 umger├╝stet
- Werknummern 7735 - 7797
- Ende April 1943 alle T-1 wieder zu T-2 umger├╝stet
- Danach Einsatz bei der Jagdstaffel Helgoland und Schuleinheiten"

That means 63 T-2s serial built plus all 7 T-1s were upgraded to T-2 standard until April 1943.

"Later units were modified, having the removal of the naval equipment, and further production of Bf109T-2 was used with considerable success as STOL fighter-bombers in Northern regions of the war."
IIRC they fought with JG5 Eismeer

LEXX_Luthor
11-12-2005, 03:32 AM
You mean the -152H? A -152 made for carriers would have been even better I would guess. The low altitude -C dogfighter had the smaller wings if I recall.

Bremspropeller
11-12-2005, 03:39 AM
For several reasons the 190 was everything but ideal for carrier ops:
you already mentioned it's high landing-speed.
Furthermore the view over the cowling wasn't pretty good during final approach.

And you weren't allowed to open the canopy once airborne. Although it could be blown off in emergency situations, this might cost very decisive seconds for the pilot to save himself in case of a ditch.


Quite interesting: there is a reason why the F8F has a quite similar layout to the 190A.

Low_Flyer_MkII
11-12-2005, 04:03 AM
A few links that might be of interest.


http://www.geocities.com/pentagon/2833/kriegsmarine/car...in/grafzeppelin.html (http://www.geocities.com/pentagon/2833/kriegsmarine/carrier/grafzeppelin/grafzeppelin.html)


Info on Bf109T here:
http://www.csd.uwo.ca/~pettypi/elevon/baugher_other/grzepp.html



http://www.german-navy.de/kriegsmarine/ships/carrier/index.html

The three projected aircraft types here:
http://www.german-navy.de/kriegsmarine/aviation/carrierbased/index.html
click on the pictures for more information.


http://i6.photobucket.com/albums/y231/Low_Flyer/wasserschleier_anlage_100dpireduced.jpg
a 6782 x 3500 pixel version of these plans here
http://www.dreadnoughtproject.org/plans/KM_Graf_Zeppeli...er_anlage_100dpi.jpg (http://www.dreadnoughtproject.org/plans/KM_Graf_Zeppelin_1939/wasserschleier_anlage_100dpi.jpg)

csThor
11-12-2005, 04:28 AM
I would say the 190 would have needed a major redesign for carrier use - basically for the reasons Bremspropeller said. There was a "true" carrier fighter in development by Messerschmitt (AFAIR Me 155), but it had low priority and so never made it off the design boards.

On the other hand I am currently happily playing Germany in "Hearts of Iron 2" with a total of five Fleets operating three carriers, five Battleships, five Heavy and ten Light Cruisers each. Not mentioning the destroyer screen and the submarines http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/59.gif

Ruy Horta
11-12-2005, 06:01 AM
The Fw 190 could have been adapted for carrier use, using a number of adaptations that were actually employed.

The extended wing of the B-model, without outboard cannon, blown canopy combined with a seat capable of being raised (at least a few inches) and an extended tailwheel.

Of course these modifications do not make a complete carrier fighter, but certainly don't add up to something inferior to a Navalized Bf 109.

As for the canopy, it would have been saver than Bf 109T or Me 155, by virtue of its explosive release.

Finally the radial engine would offer superior reliability (and resistance to combat damage) in a naval enviorment.

Although the above is worse than a Luft'46 Project in terms of conjecture, I would like to fool myself that it is based on reasonable assumptions. The hypothetical Kriesmarine aviators would have loved the multi-purpose Fw 190T!

OldMan___
11-12-2005, 10:17 AM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by csThor:
I would say the 190 would have needed a major redesign for carrier use - basically for the reasons Bremspropeller said. There was a "true" carrier fighter in development by Messerschmitt (AFAIR Me 155), but it had low priority and so never made it off the design boards.

On the other hand I am currently happily playing Germany in "Hearts of Iron 2" with a total of five Fleets operating three carriers, five Battleships, five Heavy and ten Light Cruisers each. Not mentioning the destroyer screen and the submarines http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/59.gif </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

I would killto have a copy of HoI2.. but is not solde here http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_frown.gif

Jaws2002
11-12-2005, 10:32 AM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by LEXX_Luthor:
You mean the -152H? A -152 made for carriers would have been even better I would guess. The low altitude -C dogfighter had the smaller wings if I recall. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

Smaller but not the size of the regular FW-190. The wings were half meter longer then regular FW. But was far from a carrier fighter.

p1ngu666
11-12-2005, 10:37 AM
152's got long wings, which take up alot of space...
and its a 45 plane aswell http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/16x16_smiley-wink.gif

Low_Flyer_MkII
11-12-2005, 10:47 AM
http://i6.photobucket.com/albums/y231/Low_Flyer/Me155Landing.jpg

p1ngu666
11-12-2005, 11:05 AM
http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/16x16_smiley-very-happy.gif

csThor
11-12-2005, 11:05 AM
Sorry for OT ...

I feel your pain OldMan http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_frown.gif

I'm using a "modified campaign" which disables the timelimit. It's now sometime in the 60s and my eastern border is at the Ural (you know ... the "Ostwall" http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_wink.gif). I haven't attacked the West because I didn't have to. Of course France and GB are not liking my occopation of the Netherlands and Luxemburg (I had to conquer both because of Allied attacks) and so they're declaring war on me once a while. Then I have to nuke Paris and London to make them ask for peace again. The US is trying to hurt me with carrier attacks against my seabases, but after the "Battle of Ireland" their fleet is pretty much non-existant. Of course me nuking the whole East Coast of the US didn't help their industrial capacity, either http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/59.gif

I'm in the middle of a consolidation phase where I am building infrastructure and factories in the conquered eastern provinces. If that is ready may have God mercy with the rest of the USSR - they won't stand a chance against my elite Panzerdivisionen

http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/784.gif

Low_Flyer_MkII
11-12-2005, 04:07 PM
Nice target for a Tallboy....big rectangular thingy at the bottom of pic if you've mislaid your specs.

http://i6.photobucket.com/albums/y231/Low_Flyer/al00317.jpg

darkhorizon11
11-13-2005, 12:44 AM
Yeah the FW-190 probably would have been one of the top carrier borne fighters of its time if the Graf Zeppelin worked out for Germany.

Although the time Germany spent on the GZ was wasted there was really no need for a carrier fleet for the war they were fighting. At least not in the forseeable future past 1945 (if Germany won).

MaxMhz
11-13-2005, 12:55 PM
Great question and great links too you guys - thanks for posting!

Wouldn't that Graf Zeppelin be great for the '46 add-on? - I hope Oleg and the developers see this thread http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_wink.gif

berg417448
11-13-2005, 06:48 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by MaxMhz:
Great question and great links too you guys - thanks for posting!

Wouldn't that Graf Zeppelin be great for the '46 add-on? - I hope Oleg and the developers see this thread http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_wink.gif </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

Yeah...and it would give a new torpedo plane!

http://www.lexikon-der-wehrmacht.de/Bilder/Fw190/fw190a5u16-2.jpg