German twin-engined carrier aircraft

[Flitzer]

The Fi 8-P19 set.

P

 

[AeroFranz]

I can't tell because the engines nacelle hides most of the torpedo, but make sure the cg of the torpedo is more or less in line with the quarter-chord of the wing. Right now it looks like it's aft.

This is to insure that the cg of the aircraft with and without the torpedo stays in the same place, otherwise you change the pitch stability. Sorry for the awful explanation, it's the best i can do right after waking up

 

[Flitzer]

Thanks AeroFranz
I'll try and adjust originals.
So the torpedo should be moved forward a touch?

Sorry my illustrations gave you so much trouble after your slumbers.

P

 

[Flitzer]

A few more.

 

[Flitzer]

And the Fi P22C

The torpedo may have the same problem here too (?).

P

 

[AeroFranz]

Ok, i'm a little bit more awake now.

I am not much of a torpedo expert, but I'm assuming the cg of the torpedo lies more or less midway between the front and aft end of the torpedo. If you have a picture of a torpedo hanging from some shackles, you can probably get an even better idea of where the cg is.
If you don't want to upset the trim of the aircraft upon release of the torpedo, you will want to put it where the cg of the aircraft is. Unless you are designing for fly-by-wire and unstable design, that means usually at the quarter chord of the mean aerodynamic chord. A good explanation of M.A.C. and how to find it can be found here

http://www.airfieldmodels.com/information_source/math_and_science_of_model_aircraft/formulas/mean_aerodynamic_chord.htm

 

[Jemiba]

Franz is quite right about the postition of the torpedo, I think.
Assuming it's a LT 5 with about 700 kg weight and 200 kg of explosives in
the nose and using a drawing from http://www.cockpitinstrumente.de/archiv/Dokumente/ABC/t/Torpedo/Skizzen/LT_F_5b_mit_K_3.jpg
I tried (very rough) to determine the CG of the torpedo. Putting it under the CG
at a quarter chord, as Franz proposed would mean the green outline.
Again, very rough and unprecise, but certainly the position would have to be
considerable more forward.

 

[Flitzer]

Many thanks AeroFranz and Jemiba for your trouble.
I will fix them.

Appreciate it very much
Peter

 

[Flitzer]

Is this looking better?

Many thanks
P

 

[Jemiba]

I would say : Yes !

And BTW: Good work !

 

[theponja]

Very interesting aircraft and great profiles by Flitzer.

 

[fightingirish]

Flitzer, great work! B)

Folks,
but how would these aircraft have taken off from a German aircraft carrier? Was the catapult system planned for the Graf Zeppelin the same as on earlier flying boat tenders? I remember seeing that that system had a take-off waggon (German: Startschlitten). Link (German) with pictures: http://www.luftarchiv.de/gerat/traeger.htm
Gears were only used for landing and deck operations. The aircraft was lifted on to waggon in the hanger under the deck with a crane.
So if these aircraft would have used a take-off waggon, would the angle of the aircraft have been parallel to the deck and have had more space between the fuselage and the deck?
Considering also a torpedo as a throw-away weapon before landing, do my questions change the whole discussion about the CoG of the torpedo and the aircraft? ???

Please don't get me wrong; I hope, I get my point.
Anyway I agree with Jemiba, that last configuration with the torpedo moved forward is better, when you add the gears fully deployed and taking off without a take-off waggon.

 

[AeroFranz]

The far forward location of the torpedo should not be disconcerting. Check out the corresponding installation on a Beaufighter (aka 'Torbeau').
BTW, I think it looks pretty good now!

 

[Jemiba]

"but how would these aircraft have taken off from a German aircraft carrier? "

Good point, but we should remember, that Germany had NO experiences with aircraft carrier
operations. For the "Graf Zeppelin" a system using a trolley was intended, but I have doubts,
if it would have been retained by the German Navy, especially as the methods used by other
navies were well known. Don't forget, the "Graf Zeppelin" principally was an outdated design,
still carrying medium artillery and an armoured belt, details already omitted by other countries.

 

[AeroFranz]

If I might add, I have a suspicion that using trolleys and catapults would severely limit the tempo, a major consideration in carrier operations

 

[Flitzer]

Adjusted the profiles.
Hope they are okay now.

Peter

 

[Michel Van]

Cool art work Peter

i notice here a another problem:
The aircraft Carrier "Graf Zepplin" had planed, a flightdeck of 240 meter (787 ft) long
can a Twin-engined Aircraft takeoff and Landing on this short stretch ?
or was STOL demanded in advertised bidding of Reichs Luftfahrt Ministerium or Kriegsmarine ?

 

[Nick Sumner]

i notice here a another problem:
The aircraft Carrier "Graf Zepplin" had planed, a flightdeck of 240 meter (787 ft) long
can a Twin-engined Aircraft takeoff and Landing on this short stretch ?
or was STOL demanded in advertised bidding of Reichs Luftfahrt Ministerium or Kriegsmarine ?

GZ had catapults and arrestor wires. Remember also that take off run is usually measured in still air whereas in most cases there would be at least 20 knots wind over the flight deck just due to the ships forward motion.

 

[Flitzer]

I seem to remember reading somewhere the Graf Zeppelin was only to b the first aircraft carrier the Reich intended to build.
And as the Graf Zeppelin was quite dated in its design at the time, maybe the additional carriers would have been more suitable for twin engine multi role aircraft such as these (?).

Also if they had proved good enough they may have supplemented the existing shore based array of maritime aircraft(?).

What if not intended by the way.

Peter ;D

 

[Michel Van]

thx for explanation, Nick Sumner

for other Aircraft Carrier there was "Flugzeugträger B"
but it's flight deck is only 4 meter longer as "Graf Zeppelin" :

the 1930s "Bauplan III" had 8 German Aircraft Carriers
2 with 20000 tons "Graf Zeppelin" and "Flugzeugträger B"
6 with 12750 tons "Flugdeck Kreuzer" 189 meter long

the final 1938 "Z-Plan" had 8 Aircraft Carriers
4 with 40000 tons "Großflugzeug Kreuzer" AII to IV. 240 m (A II), 250 m (IIA), 280 m (A III-IV), 24 up to 32 Aircraft (A III-IV)
2 with 12750 tons "Flugdeck Kreuzer" E IV-V. 189 m long with 10 Aircraft
1 with 6000 tons "Kleiner Flugzeugträger". with 15 fighters
source: http://www.german-navy.de/kriegsmarine/zplan/shipindex.html

that "Graf Zeppelin" and "Flugzeugträger B" not match the Z-plan
Is a reason of cancellation of projects in favor of Z-Plan?
who is cancel in 1939 also, because it was to megalomaniac...

 

[Jemiba]

The british Illustrious class had a length of about 230 m and that was sufficient for
take-off of the deHavilland Mosquito and later the Hornet. And the Grumman Avenger
probably was heavier, than those twins and could take-off from escort carriers.

 

[Nick Sumner]

Michael, the Nazis never cancelled anything for being 'too megalomaniac'. : GZ was tinkered with until 1942/43 when Hitler finally lost interest in the surface fleet. The Z plan was never realy anything more than a pipedream from a gang of idiots (the Nazis) who didn't even have the excuse of being on crack.

 

[Airborne2001]

I've done a bit more.

Is there any more background history info for the Fieselers?
I've done more on those too. I will post soon.

Many thanks
P

I have always been curious about Arado's submissions for the Graf Zeppelin, but have never been able to find them. Thank you.

 

[airman]

Surely Arado 240/340/440 was better than Me-210 but surely political influence had been influenced development of Arado 240 family .

 

[riggerrob]

Dear Nick Summer,
Hah!
Hah!
You should go read Hitler's medical history ... morning injections of cocaine, etc.
Hah!
Hah!

 

[riggerrob]

Regarding the Fi 8-P19 please.

Due to the year of the drawing, am I correct in assuming all movable surfaces would have been fabric covered? Plus where would any armament have been housed if any was planned?

Whereas the 22 A and C would have been all metal?

Plus if anyone has any markings/emblem suggestions please, I would be 'all ears and eyes'.

Many thanks
Peter

Yes Peter,

Most WW2 aircraft still had fabric-covered control surfaces. Fabric wrapped around wood, steel tube or sheet aluminum structure. Fabric helped reduce weight and flutter.
Would you like to hear the half-hour lecture about flutter?
Hah!
Hah!

First guess on armament is in the nose or under the forward fuselage. If cannon armament proved a significant fraction of the gross weight, then they would try to install cannon magazines/belts close to the centre of gravity/main wing spar/25 percent chord.

 

[Michel Van]

You should go read Hitler's medical history ... morning injections of cocaine, etc.

actually it was Cocaine solution to wash his Nose...

But it seems Göring was high on this stuff:

BACK TO TOPIC

I have always been curious about Arado's submissions for the Graf Zeppelin, but have never been able to find them. Thank you.

i think that after Arado lost against Messerschmitt Me-210, they try to get contract for the Aircraft carrier, only to face Göring "Everything that Fly in Reich belongs to ME !!!"
Odd Messerschmitt had not enter a proposal for Graf Zeppelin or were to much work in getting BF109 carrier ready ?
or had Me-210 scandal already disqualified them ?

 

[riggerrob]

Dear Flitzer,
I could not find any reference to BMW 800 engines.

OTOH BMW 801 was the most widely-produced Nazi radial engine. With two rows of air-cooled cylinders it pumped out 1500 to 2,000 horsepower and was installed in first-line Focke-Wulf 190 fighters, Junkers 88 fast bombers and a few large bomber/transports. Because BMW801 was so important for FW 190 production, its use was severely restricted in other airframes.

 

[riggerrob]

Dear Flitzer,

Not your fault, but I doubt if a twin-engined, carrier plane would have flow well with any of the Argus engines. They were not powerful enough.

The popular, inverted V-8, air-cooled, Argus As.10 only made 237 horsepower when installed in Feisler Storch light recce planes.

At best, war-time Argus 410, inverted V-12 engine produced only 450 horsepower. The prototype Henschel 129 briefly flew with a pair of Argus 410 engines, but was rapidly re-fitted with a pair of 900 horsepower Gnome-Rhone radial engines.
Even at 600 horsepower, I doubt if the post-war, inverted V-12, air-cooled, Renault-built, Argus 411 engine would have been powerful enough for a carrier-based airplane.

Back during WW2, few people understood the massive amounts of excess power required for both short take-offs and fast top speeds.

 

[Nick Sumner]

Dear Nick Summer,
Hah!
Hah!
You should go read Hitler's medical history ... morning injections of cocaine, etc.
Hah!
Hah!

Very true riggerbob, when I wrote that post in 2011 I hadn't read 'Blitzed' by Norman Ohler!