Author Topic: Kreigsmarine Carrier Aircraft Possibilities  (Read 34170 times)

Offline Volkodav

  • Counts rivits with his abacus...
  • Much older now...but procrastinating about it
Re: Kreigsmarine Carrier Aircraft Possibilities
« Reply #25 on: September 30, 2013, 05:05:15 PM »
This would almost be worth a Gb with all the good ideas and great work coming out.

Offline Weaver

  • Skyhawk stealer and violator of Panthers, with designs on a Cougar and a Tiger too
  • Chaos Engineer & Evangelistic Agnostic
Re: Kreigsmarine Carrier Aircraft Possibilities
« Reply #26 on: September 30, 2013, 07:36:34 PM »
looking at the shelves, i remember building a Navalised Heinkel He70, the He.70T
would have been used from German Carriers in the beginning days of the Battle of Britain to sink Royal Navy warships docked in Dover.








That's a neat idea!  :)

Also worth remembering that the Revellobox kit has all the parts for the radial-engined He-170 version too. The real one had a Gnome Rhone 14 of about 1000hp, so you could easily update it to use the Fw-190's BMW 801.

Another Heinkel-ish option would be a "Germanised"  Aichi D3A. The Val was the result of a collaboration between Heinkel and Aichi and had the characteristic oval wings of the He-70, in fact, if you set out to properly militarise the He-70, you'd end up with something very like the D3A.

A further though: if you wanted retractable gear, He-70 wings are only a shade bigger than the Val's (1.5 ft on the span, 23 sq ft on the area) and combined with a BMW 801 would make a seriously capable aircraft......
"I have described nothing but what I saw myself, or learned from others" - Thucydides

"I've jazzed mine up a bit" - Spike Milligan

"I'm a general specialist," - Harry Purvis in Tales from the White Hart by Arthur C. Clarke

Twitter: @hws5mp
Minds.com: @HaroldWeaverSmith

Offline jcf

  • Global Moderator
  • Turn that Gila-copter down!
Re: Kreigsmarine Carrier Aircraft Possibilities
« Reply #27 on: October 01, 2013, 12:17:09 AM »
Putting an 801 on a D3A is a much better solution than trying to put one on a He 170 airframe,
the latter would require major redesign as the airframe actually wasn't very good as a warplane.
The He70 series originated as an answer to the Lockheed Orions used by SwissAir, and that emphasis
showed when they tried to turn it into a warplane. In either case the 801 is a large, heavy engine
slightly larger in diameter than the G-R 14N or the Kinsei, and much heavier, over 900 lbs heavier
than the former and more than a 1000lbs greater than the latter. For modelling purposes, I'd take
a look at seeing if a Ju 88 801 cowling/exhausts would fit.

As pointed out, the Aichi bomber's Heinkel influences are pretty obvious, so I'd be inclined to do one
as an He 118B, as a simplified, multi-crew, fixed gear 're-design' of the He 118 following it's troubles.
It wouldn't be the first time Heinkel seriously re-jigged a design and called it by the same designation,
see the He 112. It could double duty as dive-bomber and torpedo carrier.
 ;)

Sticking to an all 801 radial powered, single-engined air group would also greatly simplify logistics, and
stay away from the GM-1 boost system, it worked but it also had a habit of ruining engines,
particularly the DB inverted Vs.
 :-\
« Last Edit: October 01, 2013, 12:31:09 AM by jcf »
“Conspiracy theory’s got to be simple.
Sense doesn’t come into it. People are
more scared of how complicated shit
actually is than they ever are about
whatever’s supposed to be behind the
conspiracy.”
-The Peripheral, William Gibson 2014

Offline Cliffy B

  • Ship Whiffer Extraordinaire...master of Beyond Visual Range Modelling
  • Its ZOTT!!!
    • My Artwork
Re: Kreigsmarine Carrier Aircraft Possibilities
« Reply #28 on: October 01, 2013, 01:12:02 AM »
Thanks for that Nils!  From reading about the He-70 it seems that Heinkel and Aichi worked together to develop the Val based on the He-70.  I wonder if that could be used as a basis for the Val or a Val derivative to fly in Kriegsmarine colors?  Thoughts?  Maybe as an early replacement for the Stuka or as a modified/upgraded Stuka replacement?

Edit: Didn't even notice the 2nd page of posts when I made that  :)

Volkodav - I'll second that idea certainly!!!  :)  Wonder how much interest we can generate?

Weaver - A swarm of 190s would certainly ruin a Swordfish run that's for sure! 30 some planes wouldn't be a decent sized strike but that's why I foresee them using multiple CVLs for large convoy attacks especially after they start beefing up escort quantity and adding heavier units.  They'll provide CAP for the heavy ships as well as harassing attacks when Cruisers come calling.  The later will come in handy when they need to run from BBs and given that the raiding group can all run at 35+ knots some harassing attacks is just what they'd need to make a getaway, at least until the O-class Battlecruisers join the raiding groups  ;)
« Last Edit: October 01, 2013, 01:33:34 AM by Cliffy B »
"Radials growl, inlines purr, jets blow!"  -Anonymous

"Helos don't fly.  They vibrate so violently that the ground rejects them."  -Tom Clancy

"If all else fails, call in an air strike."  -Anonymous

Offline Weaver

  • Skyhawk stealer and violator of Panthers, with designs on a Cougar and a Tiger too
  • Chaos Engineer & Evangelistic Agnostic
Re: Kreigsmarine Carrier Aircraft Possibilities
« Reply #29 on: October 01, 2013, 08:25:28 AM »
Putting an 801 on a D3A is a much better solution than trying to put one on a He 170 airframe,
the latter would require major redesign as the airframe actually wasn't very good as a warplane.
The He70 series originated as an answer to the Lockheed Orions used by SwissAir, and that emphasis
showed when they tried to turn it into a warplane. In either case the 801 is a large, heavy engine
slightly larger in diameter than the G-R 14N or the Kinsei, and much heavier, over 900 lbs heavier
than the former and more than a 1000lbs greater than the latter. For modelling purposes, I'd take
a look at seeing if a Ju 88 801 cowling/exhausts would fit.

As pointed out, the Aichi bomber's Heinkel influences are pretty obvious, so I'd be inclined to do one
as an He 118B, as a simplified, multi-crew, fixed gear 're-design' of the He 118 following it's troubles.
It wouldn't be the first time Heinkel seriously re-jigged a design and called it by the same designation,
see the He 112. It could double duty as dive-bomber and torpedo carrier.
 ;)

Cheers Jon!

Perhaps you could balance the extra weight of the BMW engine by giving the Val a better defensive armament, and then compensate for all the extra weight by fitting the He-70 wing, with or without retractable gear?
"I have described nothing but what I saw myself, or learned from others" - Thucydides

"I've jazzed mine up a bit" - Spike Milligan

"I'm a general specialist," - Harry Purvis in Tales from the White Hart by Arthur C. Clarke

Twitter: @hws5mp
Minds.com: @HaroldWeaverSmith

Offline GTX_Admin

  • Evil Administrator bent on taking over the Universe!
  • Administrator - Yep, I'm the one to blame for this place.
  • Whiffing Demi-God!
    • Beyond the Sprues
Re: Kreigsmarine Carrier Aircraft Possibilities
« Reply #30 on: October 02, 2013, 02:52:33 AM »
Of course, one could later replace the Fw190s with later models:


All hail the God of Frustration!!!

You can't outrun Death forever.
But you can make the Bastard work for it.

Offline jcf

  • Global Moderator
  • Turn that Gila-copter down!
Re: Kreigsmarine Carrier Aircraft Possibilities
« Reply #31 on: October 02, 2013, 03:30:01 AM »
Perhaps you could balance the extra weight of the BMW engine by giving the Val a better defensive armament, and then compensate for all the extra weight by fitting the He-70 wing, with or without retractable gear?

The main weakness of the He 70 series was the wooden wing design, by the time you beefed
it up enough to take the stresses, any weight advantage, which was minor to start with, would
be completely gone.
The 'flat' wing design of the D3A was an improvement over the mild gull form of the He 70,
which was reused on the He 112 and He 118. Heinkel dumped the Gunter Bros wing form
completely on later projects. The Gunter wing was more expensive and time consuming to
manufacture and it would be harder to "break" for wing fold purposes.

My personal inclination would be to keep the fixed gear and install MG81Z as the rear armament,
however if one was to go for retracts, keep it simple and use something Northrop-ish; A-17A or
SBD style. The other option would be the Boeing designed gear as used on the P-40.
“Conspiracy theory’s got to be simple.
Sense doesn’t come into it. People are
more scared of how complicated shit
actually is than they ever are about
whatever’s supposed to be behind the
conspiracy.”
-The Peripheral, William Gibson 2014

Offline jcf

  • Global Moderator
  • Turn that Gila-copter down!
Re: Kreigsmarine Carrier Aircraft Possibilities
« Reply #32 on: October 02, 2013, 03:31:39 AM »
Of course, one could later replace the Fw190s with later models:





Why? They're ugly fuel hogs.  ;D
“Conspiracy theory’s got to be simple.
Sense doesn’t come into it. People are
more scared of how complicated shit
actually is than they ever are about
whatever’s supposed to be behind the
conspiracy.”
-The Peripheral, William Gibson 2014

Offline raafif

  • Is formally accused of doing nasty things to DC-3s...and officially our first whiffing zombie
  • Whiffing Insane
Re: Kreigsmarine Carrier Aircraft Possibilities
« Reply #33 on: October 02, 2013, 05:35:06 AM »
I'm glad the Bf-109T was killed off early - imagine trying to land on a carrier with that narrow undercarriage, dropping a wing &, with that canopy, getting out after you went in the drink !

I still plan to do GTX's He-219 (droop radar nose, remote tail-turret) as a naval version with a torpedo ! :)

Offline Weaver

  • Skyhawk stealer and violator of Panthers, with designs on a Cougar and a Tiger too
  • Chaos Engineer & Evangelistic Agnostic
Re: Kreigsmarine Carrier Aircraft Possibilities
« Reply #34 on: October 02, 2013, 09:14:19 AM »
I'm glad the Bf-109T was killed off early - imagine trying to land on a carrier with that narrow undercarriage, dropping a wing &, with that canopy, getting out after you went in the drink !

Don't have to imagine it, just read up on on Seafire ops..... ;)
"I have described nothing but what I saw myself, or learned from others" - Thucydides

"I've jazzed mine up a bit" - Spike Milligan

"I'm a general specialist," - Harry Purvis in Tales from the White Hart by Arthur C. Clarke

Twitter: @hws5mp
Minds.com: @HaroldWeaverSmith

Offline ChernayaAkula

  • Was left standing in front when everyone else took one step back...
  • Global Moderator
  • Putting the "pro" in procrastination since...?
Re: Kreigsmarine Carrier Aircraft Possibilities
« Reply #35 on: October 02, 2013, 10:29:27 AM »
One thing that could work against a carrier-borne Fw 190 is their high landing speed (even worse with the D-models).
Cheers,
Moritz

"The appropriate response to reality is to go insane!"

Offline elmayerle

  • Its about time there was an Avatar shown here...
  • Über Engineer...at least that is what he tells us.
Re: Kreigsmarine Carrier Aircraft Possibilities
« Reply #36 on: October 02, 2013, 11:12:39 AM »
One thing that could work against a carrier-borne Fw 190 is their high landing speed (even worse with the D-models).
Fw-190A/F/G/S variants with a folding version of the Ta-152H wing to reduce their landing speed?

Offline ChernayaAkula

  • Was left standing in front when everyone else took one step back...
  • Global Moderator
  • Putting the "pro" in procrastination since...?
Re: Kreigsmarine Carrier Aircraft Possibilities
« Reply #37 on: October 02, 2013, 01:42:09 PM »
^ Yeah, something like that. And all sorts of high-lift devices they can cram onto it, probably.
Cheers,
Moritz

"The appropriate response to reality is to go insane!"

Offline GTX_Admin

  • Evil Administrator bent on taking over the Universe!
  • Administrator - Yep, I'm the one to blame for this place.
  • Whiffing Demi-God!
    • Beyond the Sprues
Re: Kreigsmarine Carrier Aircraft Possibilities
« Reply #38 on: October 03, 2013, 02:14:35 AM »

Why? They're ugly fuel hogs.  ;D

Bah!!  "Ugly" (as is beauty) is in the eye of the beholder... ;)
All hail the God of Frustration!!!

You can't outrun Death forever.
But you can make the Bastard work for it.

Offline GTX_Admin

  • Evil Administrator bent on taking over the Universe!
  • Administrator - Yep, I'm the one to blame for this place.
  • Whiffing Demi-God!
    • Beyond the Sprues
Re: Kreigsmarine Carrier Aircraft Possibilities
« Reply #39 on: October 03, 2013, 02:19:57 AM »
Of course you could go the tried and true way - licence build Japanese designs (carriers and associated aircraft), after all come the late '30s/early '40s, the Japanese were probably the world leaders in carrier weapons.  Therefore German versions of:

Mitsubishi A6M Zero - maybe a stretch (stick with Bf109/Fw190 IMHO)
Aichi D3A Val - or Ju87
Nakajima B5N Kate
Nakajima B6N Jill
Aichi B7A Grace
All hail the God of Frustration!!!

You can't outrun Death forever.
But you can make the Bastard work for it.

Offline Weaver

  • Skyhawk stealer and violator of Panthers, with designs on a Cougar and a Tiger too
  • Chaos Engineer & Evangelistic Agnostic
Re: Kreigsmarine Carrier Aircraft Possibilities
« Reply #40 on: October 03, 2013, 02:35:46 AM »
Perhaps you could balance the extra weight of the BMW engine by giving the Val a better defensive armament, and then compensate for all the extra weight by fitting the He-70 wing, with or without retractable gear?

The main weakness of the He 70 series was the wooden wing design, by the time you beefed
it up enough to take the stresses, any weight advantage, which was minor to start with, would
be completely gone.
The 'flat' wing design of the D3A was an improvement over the mild gull form of the He 70,
which was reused on the He 112 and He 118. Heinkel dumped the Gunter Bros wing form
completely on later projects. The Gunter wing was more expensive and time consuming to
manufacture and it would be harder to "break" for wing fold purposes.

My personal inclination would be to keep the fixed gear and install MG81Z as the rear armament,
however if one was to go for retracts, keep it simple and use something Northrop-ish; A-17A or
SBD style. The other option would be the Boeing designed gear as used on the P-40.


I was thinking more in terms of the kits than the real aircraft, to be honest. My retractable gear big-wing Val would only look like it had an He 70 wing: the claim would be that internally, it was quite different (all metal for one thing). The point of fitting the "He-70ish" wing wouldn't be to compensate for the weight of the BMW by the new wing being lighter, but rather by increasing the wing area, so that the wing loading didn't go up as much.

I'm with you on the long-nosed Dora BTW: perfect example of a good plane spoiled by a good engine.... ;)
"I have described nothing but what I saw myself, or learned from others" - Thucydides

"I've jazzed mine up a bit" - Spike Milligan

"I'm a general specialist," - Harry Purvis in Tales from the White Hart by Arthur C. Clarke

Twitter: @hws5mp
Minds.com: @HaroldWeaverSmith

Offline GTX_Admin

  • Evil Administrator bent on taking over the Universe!
  • Administrator - Yep, I'm the one to blame for this place.
  • Whiffing Demi-God!
    • Beyond the Sprues
Re: Kreigsmarine Carrier Aircraft Possibilities
« Reply #41 on: October 03, 2013, 02:40:59 AM »
I guess you guys haven't heard of the concept of "Sexy Ugly" ;D
All hail the God of Frustration!!!

You can't outrun Death forever.
But you can make the Bastard work for it.

Offline jcf

  • Global Moderator
  • Turn that Gila-copter down!
Re: Kreigsmarine Carrier Aircraft Possibilities
« Reply #42 on: October 03, 2013, 03:40:03 AM »
The problem with licensing Japanese 'world beater' designs in the late '30s ~ 1941 is two-fold:
1) Nazi racial and industrial/economic policies, stated offhandedly as 'they'se subhuman and we'se broke'
2) the world beaters were still mostly in the prototype and development stages

The answer to the FW 190 landing speed issue would probably be a mild span increase and enlarged,
improved flap system.

Ditto a bigger-wing D3A+BMW 801 hybrid, the He 70 wing is only slightly larger than the
D3A, @ 19 ft2, so extend the tips, and again, use an improved, enlarged flap system.
For retracts, on a model, steal the wheel bays, gear and doors from an SBD.

Heck, use Fowler flaps on both types, they were well known by the late '30s so it wouldn't be a stretch.

So, perhaps, extended, rounded tips on the 190 ala the 109F and on; and extended, pointed tips on the
'He 118B', both Fowler flaps, heck on the 190 make'em like the Nakajima 'butterfly flaps' so they can
be used for combat maneuvering as well as take-off/landing.

 :icon_fsm:
“Conspiracy theory’s got to be simple.
Sense doesn’t come into it. People are
more scared of how complicated shit
actually is than they ever are about
whatever’s supposed to be behind the
conspiracy.”
-The Peripheral, William Gibson 2014

Offline Logan Hartke

  • High priest in the black arts of profiling...
  • Rivet-counting whiffer
Re: Kreigsmarine Carrier Aircraft Possibilities
« Reply #43 on: October 03, 2013, 05:46:11 AM »
There is also the obvious issue that we bring up all the time.  The Japanese aircraft were so efficient BECAUSE they were Japanese.  Their growth potential was usually relatively limited.  You have to remember, if the Germans built (or even operated) a Zero, they'd have added a good deal of armor, self-sealing fuel tanks, and a number of other German essentials.  That would have increased the gross weight considerably.  Then you'd need to beef up the structure to accommodate it.  Then you add a more powerful engine, more strengthening, and suddenly it's not a Zero any more.  The increased power means increased fuel consumption.  Self-sealing tanks means that it holds less fuel, etc.  All that would decrease the rate of climb, for example.

I'm not saying that you couldn't do it or that there still wouldn't be a net benefit.  But there is no such thing as a free lunch.  The Japanese built fantastic, efficient aircraft, but you have to keep it in perspective.  They were building aircraft that nobody else would have built if they had wanted to.  The Japanese were leaving out things that everyone else considered essential in a combat aircraft.  They got a considerable benefit in performance as a result, but they didn't get it for free.  They paid the price in durability, protection, and growth potential.  In some cases, the aircraft were even built so small that it's doubtful your average Westerner could have flown the plane.  The Ki-43 Oscar, for example, may have been big enough for 95% of Japanese pilots, but I wouldn't be surprised if it was closer to 60% or 70% in the West.  I'm just guessing, but these are all factors to consider on the real things.

That having been said, in the Whif world, do whatever you want.  I love seeing Japanese aircraft in other countries' markings since almost nobody else actually used them.

Thanks,

Logan

Offline jcf

  • Global Moderator
  • Turn that Gila-copter down!
Re: Kreigsmarine Carrier Aircraft Possibilities
« Reply #44 on: October 03, 2013, 07:42:15 AM »
Pretty much agree Logan, particularly when discussing the late '30s - early '40s,
going into late '43 and up to the end however, Japanese designs are closer to
European and US types in terms of equipment, weight and performance. In
a few cases they were superior. Problem is they couldn't build enough and had
serious issues with engines, performance and supply, and their fuel was crap.

Another thought, Junkers built various types of the same aircraft that were equipped
with both V engines and radials, Ju 86 and Ju 88, so how about they do a radial
powered Ju 87 variation for the KM? Perhaps a BMW 132 powered version of the B, and
a more heavily re-designed 801 powered D-based type.

“Conspiracy theory’s got to be simple.
Sense doesn’t come into it. People are
more scared of how complicated shit
actually is than they ever are about
whatever’s supposed to be behind the
conspiracy.”
-The Peripheral, William Gibson 2014

Offline GTX_Admin

  • Evil Administrator bent on taking over the Universe!
  • Administrator - Yep, I'm the one to blame for this place.
  • Whiffing Demi-God!
    • Beyond the Sprues
Re: Kreigsmarine Carrier Aircraft Possibilities
« Reply #45 on: October 03, 2013, 04:56:23 PM »
Recommended in relation to this thread:

All hail the God of Frustration!!!

You can't outrun Death forever.
But you can make the Bastard work for it.

Offline Logan Hartke

  • High priest in the black arts of profiling...
  • Rivet-counting whiffer
Re: Kreigsmarine Carrier Aircraft Possibilities
« Reply #46 on: October 03, 2013, 05:58:52 PM »
Pretty much agree Logan, particularly when discussing the late '30s - early '40s, going into late '43 and up to the end however, Japanese designs are closer to European and US types in terms of equipment, weight and performance. In a few cases they were superior. Problem is they couldn't build enough and had serious issues with engines, performance and supply, and their fuel was crap.


I agree, though by late '43, the matter was basically academic.

I did a few proposed schemes for Graf Zeppelin aircraft that I thought came out pretty well, too.









Finally, I heard something that's related to this topic a while ago that I found amusing that many of you might appreciate.

Apparently, after the Battle of Midway in June of 1942, the Germans had heard a bit about it and asked the Japanese how the whole thing had gone.  The Japanese weren't entirely forthcoming, vaguely mentioning that it had gone just fine.  Something the Japanese said later, however, tipped the Germans off to the possibility that the truth may have been more complicated.  I imagine the conversation went something like this:

Germany: "Hey, the US news sources have been bragging about some battle they had with you around Midway Island.  Everything turn out alright?"

Japan: "Oh, yeah, that?  Yeah, that went fine.  We blasted the island, sank a couple of US carriers, it all went pretty well."

G: "That's good, we were worried when we first heard about it, but I'm glad to hear it was just Allied propaganda."

J: "Yeah, you know how their propaganda can be.  Anyway, not to change the subject, but my government was wondering if you could forward a request on to your government."

G: "Absolutely.  What can we do for you?"

J: "Well, that carrier of yours, the Graf Zeppelin?"

G: "Yeah, what about it?"

J: "Well, our Navy was wondering--if you weren't using it--if they could borrow it, or even buy it from you?"

G: "Borrow it?  I can ask, but wait..."

Cheers,

Logan

Offline GTX_Admin

  • Evil Administrator bent on taking over the Universe!
  • Administrator - Yep, I'm the one to blame for this place.
  • Whiffing Demi-God!
    • Beyond the Sprues
Re: Kreigsmarine Carrier Aircraft Possibilities
« Reply #47 on: October 04, 2013, 02:17:55 AM »
Actually that does make an interesting whiff scenario - somehow the Graf Zeppelin ends up in the Pacific with the Japanese.  It was launched in Dec 1938 and originally had a projected completion by the middle of 1940.  What if this occurred and perhaps a breakout was staged whereby it and possibly one of the Battleships joined it.  After raiding in the Atlantic, rather than come home and risk loss, the ship diverts to Japan and ends up staying there and operating in cooperation with the IJN...Hmmm...story forming.
« Last Edit: October 04, 2013, 02:20:08 AM by GTX_Admin »
All hail the God of Frustration!!!

You can't outrun Death forever.
But you can make the Bastard work for it.

Offline Logan Hartke

  • High priest in the black arts of profiling...
  • Rivet-counting whiffer
Re: Kreigsmarine Carrier Aircraft Possibilities
« Reply #48 on: October 04, 2013, 03:21:37 AM »
It's not like the Germans were using it, after all.  It would have to be before 1942, though.  There's little chance they'd have been able to get it out anytime during the war, but by 1942 it would be almost impossible.  Best chance would be the Japanese buying it before WWII and towing or sailing it under the Japanese flag in 1939 or 1940 to avoid it being attacked.  Japanese flag or not, the British wouldn't let it pass freely by 1941.  They'd rather impound it and pay Japan restitution or something.

Cheers,

Logan

Offline GTX_Admin

  • Evil Administrator bent on taking over the Universe!
  • Administrator - Yep, I'm the one to blame for this place.
  • Whiffing Demi-God!
    • Beyond the Sprues
Re: Kreigsmarine Carrier Aircraft Possibilities
« Reply #49 on: October 05, 2013, 02:02:31 AM »
I'm actually thinking the Graf Zeppelin remains in Kreigsmarine control with German crew.  It would just be operating alongside the IJN and possibly start operating Japanese designs out of necessity since they would be easier to support locally.
All hail the God of Frustration!!!

You can't outrun Death forever.
But you can make the Bastard work for it.