Please do more of the cool obscure aircraft that you've been doing that not many of youtubers talk about. Pretty sure the 3 listed are very rarely mentioned at all. Keep it up 👍
A useful briefing. As an ex navy man (snipe, not an airdale), considering the USN's fixation on radial engines I am sort of drawn to the idea that Fw190 would've been far better as a candidate for conversion to a Carrier Fighter. The 109T sort of converges several contra-indications, especially the narrow track gear*. Which raises the question: why is Seafire so heavily complimented by aviation historians? Didn't she suffer the same narrow track gear flaw as the 109T? What am I missing here? *A certain skittishness has been alluded to on takeoff and landing the 109 in any configuration. To be fair, with Corsair (and some others) the torque on take-off could roll the plane as its wheels left the deck.
The 190 likely wasn't considered because in 1938/1939 it wasn't in service as of yet. The 109 beat out biplanes and when you consider what other air forces had, it was a superior choice. If you watch the two videos that go with this one, you'll see kind of how they envisioned operations.
I'm guessing the Seafire was regarded the same as the Spitfire was: a superb aircraft. As take-off and landing are relatively small parts of most aircraft operational profile, I'm assuming any shortcomings with those were simply put up with and worked around.
@@bunion8579 Takeoff, yes. Landing, not so much when it comes to a carrier. Slamming down on a deck at stall speed puts a lot of stress put on an airframe, so the Seafire - like any other land-based aircraft rehomed to a life on the ocean waves - had to be strengthened appropriately. That offsets centre of gravity and creates a challenge for engineers as well as pilots learning the quirks of a new aircraft.
Fun fact, the 109s landing gear was wider than the F4Fs... The 109 was supposed to be catapulted, not to take off from the deck. The 109 had excellent low speed handling, approach was slow 125Km/h and easy, no abrupt stall... the 190 however, had a 200Km/h landing speed and if it stalled it dropped the right wing violently... kinda bad when close to the surface.
So strange seems like the stuka would have made a great torpedo plane with the inverted gull wings and surprised it is slower than its biplane competition. Ad far as a fighter though I don't know why they bothered with the 109 spin off when the FW-190 would have been an ideal naval fighter
Tom, you're right about the Stuka and being a torpedo bomber, but the Ju87C was pathetically slow (87mph) when loaded with only 700lbs of ordnance. The stall speed wasn't much lower, either. A biplane gives a more stable, safer platform at low speeds at wavetop level. By 1941, the three-squadron setup was being replaced by a Bf 109 & Stuka setup that made better use of the carrier decks. Check out the main video for details. I get into that in the last third or so.
Sorry, but the Ju 87C had a top speed of 320Km/h with a 500Kg bomb AND 2 x 300l drop tanks (1.100Kg payload) at 5.000m, without the drop tanks its speed was 344Km/h at 6.000m. You can check the data on Graf Zeppelin, Volume 42, pp75, of Encyklopedia Okrętów Wojennych, by Siegfried Breyer, it reproduces the primary source in German. Be careful, there is a LOT of crap data on the Ju 87, mostly war propaganda. Fun fact, the 109s landing gear was wider than the Wildcat's... The 109 was supposed to be catapulted, not to take off from the deck. The 109 had excellent low speed handling, approach was slow 125Km/h and easy, no abrupt stall... the 190 however, had a 200Km/h landing speed and if it stalled it dropped the right wing violently... kinda bad when close to the surface.
I love going back to your posts. Back here again. ❤
Welcome back!
Thanks again WM. Always enjoy (and learn something new) with your content!
Always welcome!
Please do more of the cool obscure aircraft that you've been doing that not many of youtubers talk about. Pretty sure the 3 listed are very rarely mentioned at all. Keep it up 👍
Very cool
Darn it! I missed the live chat but this is a great video. Thanks for sharing.
Thank you for enjoying it!
Love it❤️
A useful briefing.
As an ex navy man (snipe, not an airdale), considering the USN's fixation on radial engines I am sort of drawn to the idea that Fw190 would've been far better as a candidate for conversion to a Carrier Fighter. The 109T sort of converges several contra-indications, especially the narrow track gear*.
Which raises the question: why is Seafire so heavily complimented by aviation historians? Didn't she suffer the same narrow track gear flaw as the 109T? What am I missing here?
*A certain skittishness has been alluded to on takeoff and landing the 109 in any configuration. To be fair, with Corsair (and some others) the torque on take-off could roll the plane as its wheels left the deck.
The 190 likely wasn't considered because in 1938/1939 it wasn't in service as of yet. The 109 beat out biplanes and when you consider what other air forces had, it was a superior choice. If you watch the two videos that go with this one, you'll see kind of how they envisioned operations.
I'm guessing the Seafire was regarded the same as the Spitfire was: a superb aircraft. As take-off and landing are relatively small parts of most aircraft operational profile, I'm assuming any shortcomings with those were simply put up with and worked around.
@@bunion8579 Takeoff, yes. Landing, not so much when it comes to a carrier. Slamming down on a deck at stall speed puts a lot of stress put on an airframe, so the Seafire - like any other land-based aircraft rehomed to a life on the ocean waves - had to be strengthened appropriately. That offsets centre of gravity and creates a challenge for engineers as well as pilots learning the quirks of a new aircraft.
Fun fact, the 109s landing gear was wider than the F4Fs...
The 109 was supposed to be catapulted, not to take off from the deck.
The 109 had excellent low speed handling, approach was slow 125Km/h and easy, no abrupt stall... the 190 however, had a 200Km/h landing speed and if it stalled it dropped the right wing violently... kinda bad when close to the surface.
Great video...👍👍
So strange seems like the stuka would have made a great torpedo plane with the inverted gull wings and surprised it is slower than its biplane competition. Ad far as a fighter though I don't know why they bothered with the 109 spin off when the FW-190 would have been an ideal naval fighter
Tom, you're right about the Stuka and being a torpedo bomber, but the Ju87C was pathetically slow (87mph) when loaded with only 700lbs of ordnance. The stall speed wasn't much lower, either. A biplane gives a more stable, safer platform at low speeds at wavetop level. By 1941, the three-squadron setup was being replaced by a Bf 109 & Stuka setup that made better use of the carrier decks. Check out the main video for details. I get into that in the last third or so.
Sorry, but the Ju 87C had a top speed of 320Km/h with a 500Kg bomb AND 2 x 300l drop tanks (1.100Kg payload) at 5.000m, without the drop tanks its speed was 344Km/h at 6.000m.
You can check the data on Graf Zeppelin, Volume 42, pp75, of Encyklopedia Okrętów Wojennych, by Siegfried Breyer, it reproduces the primary source in German.
Be careful, there is a LOT of crap data on the Ju 87, mostly war propaganda.
Fun fact, the 109s landing gear was wider than the Wildcat's...
The 109 was supposed to be catapulted, not to take off from the deck.
The 109 had excellent low speed handling, approach was slow 125Km/h and easy, no abrupt stall... the 190 however, had a 200Km/h landing speed and if it stalled it dropped the right wing violently... kinda bad when close to the surface.
Like these shorts , Thanks
Any time! I'm getting the sense that a lot of people don't have the time for a full video, so I'm glad these are being enjoyed! Cheers!
F167 all around looking for to it
Claire 👍