Spitfire (OT)

Spitfire (OT) (Full Version)

All Forums >> [New Releases from Matrix Games] >> War in the Pacific: Admiral's Edition

Message

Grfin Zeppelin -> Spitfire (OT) (3/9/2017 8:31:38 PM)
Could a Spitfire (or contemporary fighters) without modifications just take off on a modern carrier if it turns against the wind ? Just curious since this debate came up in another forum.

Jorge_Stanbury -> RE: Spitfire (OT) (3/9/2017 8:37:53 PM)
If they could easily take off from WW2 era carriers, I cannot see why they shouldn't be able to launch from a modern carrier

Lecivius -> RE: Spitfire (OT) (3/9/2017 8:39:47 PM)
Against the wind, as opposed to into it? I'm not so sure.

btd64 -> RE: Spitfire (OT) (3/9/2017 8:40:13 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: Jorge_Stanbury If they could easily take off from WW2 era carriers, I cannot see why they shouldn't be able to launch from a modern carrier Would have a longer deck as well....GP

btd64 -> RE: Spitfire (OT) (3/9/2017 8:41:19 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: Lecivius Against the wind, as opposed to into it? I'm not so sure. You want to turn into the wind....GP

Lecivius -> RE: Spitfire (OT) (3/9/2017 8:46:04 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: General Patton quote: ORIGINAL: Lecivius Against the wind, as opposed to into it? I'm not so sure. You want to turn into the wind....GP quote: if it turns against the wind ? True, but our favorite teddy bear asked "if it turns against the wind ? " I'm not sure what the discussion is, just trying to be factual (and it's hard)

Grfin Zeppelin -> RE: Spitfire (OT) (3/9/2017 8:48:09 PM)
Ah well does turning into the wind mean the wind comes from behind the starting plane or the opposite direction ?

btd64 -> RE: Spitfire (OT) (3/9/2017 8:53:39 PM)
From the front to the back of the ship. The air flow provides lift under the wings....GP

Grfin Zeppelin -> RE: Spitfire (OT) (3/9/2017 8:54:15 PM)
Ah I see thank you.

jcjordan -> RE: Spitfire (OT) (3/9/2017 8:54:40 PM)
It might be possible for some to do it based on their stall speeds & how big a tailwind it might be. CVN capable of 30+ knots put flaps down & do a Doolittle type takeoff w/ full revs & IIRC the deck of a CVN is longer than a WW2 CV so they might have the length for the a/c to get enough speed to takeoff & not stall/crash once at the end of the deck.

btd64 -> RE: Spitfire (OT) (3/9/2017 8:56:11 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: Gräfin Zeppelin Ah I see thank you. Your welcome[:)]....GP

Lecivius -> RE: Spitfire (OT) (3/9/2017 9:13:39 PM)
Looking at what limited info I can find, the Spitfire & Seafire had the same power plant, and flight charactaristics. Just modifications to the frame to take the increased strain on landing. Getting off the flight deck going into the wind would have been no problem Of course, now that I say this someone is going to come in and step all over this with enough data to fill a dictionary [;)]

btd64 -> RE: Spitfire (OT) (3/9/2017 9:24:07 PM)
[:D][:D][:D]....GP

Itdepends -> RE: Spitfire (OT) (3/9/2017 9:41:44 PM)
The english language is a funny thing, I read against the wind and into the wind as the same thing. I.e. If I'm walking against the wind I'm pushing into it/fighting it as opposed to walking with the wind where I would have the wind at my back.

geofflambert -> RE: Spitfire (OT) (3/9/2017 10:51:43 PM)
I don't know about everyone else, and don't care. I'm against the wind. The wind blows people's houses away and worse things. I know something about those people who are into the wind and I can tell you without hesitation that they are all preverts.

sandlance -> RE: Spitfire (OT) (3/9/2017 11:04:03 PM)
Stall speed of a MkV Spit is 85mph. stall speed of a MkIX spit is 95 mph. at 30kts INTO the wind the aircraft need only 65-70mph to fly from a standing start. could easily be done.

NigelKentarus -> RE: Spitfire (OT) (3/10/2017 12:40:51 AM)
Didn't Bob Seger write a song about Against The Wind?

sandlance -> RE: Spitfire (OT) (3/10/2017 1:03:02 AM)
I forgot about wind speed, add this to ship's speed to get wind across the deck. Subtract this from stall speed to get additional airspeed needed to take off.

Sauvequipeut -> RE: Spitfire (OT) (3/10/2017 2:55:56 AM)
As a point of interest, there's at least one time when a Spitfire without modifications was landed on a carrier. It occurred during the first of the two ferry missions that HMS Eagle & USS Wasp carried out in early 1942 to supply Spitfires to Malta. A pilot who took off from the Wasp accidently jettisoned his drop tank early in the flight...so he returned to the Wasp to try and get another, despite the pilots having being told not to attempt landing back on the carriers under any circumstances.

Sauvequipeut -> RE: Spitfire (OT) (3/10/2017 2:56:28 AM)
Double Post :s

geofflambert -> RE: Spitfire (OT) (3/10/2017 3:28:58 AM)
That is interesting. Landing an aircraft on a carrier is much harder than taking off, just try to imagine a B-25 landing on the Hornet. Still it is instructive to know that Spitfires needed drop tanks to operate in the Med. A P-51 could go three times as far with no drop tanks but using a very similar engine. I don't think I'll ever really understand that but what I do know is Spitfires had really big fat wings which made them kites and fun to fly but in battle I think I'd rather be in a Hurricane.

wdolson -> RE: Spitfire (OT) (3/10/2017 3:29:53 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: Sauvequipeut As a point of interest, there's at least one time when a Spitfire without modifications was landed on a carrier. It occurred during the first of the two ferry missions that HMS Eagle & USS Wasp carried out in early 1942 to supply Spitfires to Malta. A pilot who took off from the Wasp accidently jettisoned his drop tank early in the flight...so he returned to the Wasp to try and get another, despite the pilots having being told not to attempt landing back on the carriers under any circumstances. I thought the situation was a little different. I think the fuel tank switch had a failure rather than a drop tank issue. But the pilot did come around and land with no arrestor gear, which was amazing piloting. The Spitfire was probably the only fighter of the era that could do it. It had a very low landing speed for a first class fighter. Bill

wdolson -> RE: Spitfire (OT) (3/10/2017 3:56:41 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: geofflambert That is interesting. Landing an aircraft on a carrier is much harder than taking off, just try to imagine a B-25 landing on the Hornet. Still it is instructive to know that Spitfires needed drop tanks to operate in the Med. A P-51 could go three times as far with no drop tanks but using a very similar engine. I don't think I'll ever really understand that but what I do know is Spitfires had really big fat wings which made them kites and fun to fly but in battle I think I'd rather be in a Hurricane. A B-25 landed on the Shangrila in 1944, so did a P-51. If I remember right, the Spitfire in question was a Mk V and the only external tanks available for that model was the slipper tank and they were rarely used. Spitfires defending Malta didn't need huge range, the war was coming to them. Bill

Reg -> RE: Spitfire (OT) (3/10/2017 5:38:58 AM)
Here is a Spifire Vb (lacking the 2nd cannon stubs of a Vc) taking off from HMS Eagle heading for Malta during Operation Picket in 1942. Note how it has got it's tail up off the deck in just its own length. [X(] [X(] [X(] Judging by the white cap waves in the background, there is quite a stiff breeze blowing over the flight deck. [;)] Note also these aircraft are all fitted with 30 gallon slipper tanks but they would have only been used for the ferry flight in so the carrier could launch them from as far away as possible. I would say there would be no problem for this aircraft taking off from the 333m (1092ft) flight deck of a Nimitz class carrier. [:)] [image]local://upfiles/446/A7B66FEB77FE489BBAFDAE8806601FB8.jpg[/image]

warspite1 -> RE: Spitfire (OT) (3/10/2017 6:04:08 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: wdolson quote: ORIGINAL: Sauvequipeut As a point of interest, there's at least one time when a Spitfire without modifications was landed on a carrier. It occurred during the first of the two ferry missions that HMS Eagle & USS Wasp carried out in early 1942 to supply Spitfires to Malta. A pilot who took off from the Wasp accidently jettisoned his drop tank early in the flight...so he returned to the Wasp to try and get another, despite the pilots having being told not to attempt landing back on the carriers under any circumstances. I thought the situation was a little different. I think the fuel tank switch had a failure rather than a drop tank issue. But the pilot did come around and land with no arrestor gear, which was amazing piloting. The Spitfire was probably the only fighter of the era that could do it. It had a very low landing speed for a first class fighter. Bill warspite1 Not quite. During the evacuation of Norway, Hurricanes of No.46 Squadron (9 or 10 aircraft I believe) flew onto HMS Glorious. This was the first time that a modern monoplane fighter had been landed on an aircraft carrier without the benefit of tailhook assistance. Sadly there were only 2 survivors from No.46 Squadron after HMS Glorious was sunk by the Scharnhorst and Gneisenau in, still unexplained, circumstances. It is believed the captain may have had a breakdown - but there are other ideas and theories, and whatever the reason it was a tragic event that cost the totally unnecessary loss of an important carrier, two destroyers over 1,500 sailors and skilled RAF and FAA pilots. quote: Grafin Zeppelin: Could a Spitfire (or contemporary fighters) without modifications just take off on a modern carrier if it turns against the wind ? Just curious since this debate came up in another forum. Yes, the same No.46 Squadron had earlier taken off from HMS Glorious for operations in Northern Norway. These were not Sea Hurricanes for the avoidance of doubt.

Grfin Zeppelin -> RE: Spitfire (OT) (3/10/2017 9:17:22 AM)
Thank you all for the answers, much appreciated [:)]

crsutton -> RE: Spitfire (OT) (3/10/2017 2:43:39 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: Gräfin Zeppelin Could a Spitfire (or contemporary fighters) without modifications just take off on a modern carrier if it turns against the wind ? Just curious since this debate came up in another forum. A spit could take off from a carrier in just about any condition even zero wind but it depends. All kinds of factors come into play-not just wind speed. There can also be too much wind. Humidity is a factor as well as aircraft have less lift in humid air. In the Pacific some of the early Allied float places could not get off the water on hot humid days. But the spit was probably a fairly easy plane to get up in good conditions as it was light and had a powerful engine. On a rolling and pitching ship it might be different story due to the very narrow landing gear. I imagine they would be very prone to ground loops.

rustysi -> RE: Spitfire (OT) (3/10/2017 8:39:08 PM)
quote: A B-25 landed on the Shangrila in 1944, so did a P-51. Obviously at a later date, but a C-130 landed on a carrier. Pilot even had a sign painted on the rear of the plane, 'look ma no hook'. Bet the navy brass loved that one.

Reg -> RE: Spitfire (OT) (3/10/2017 9:45:01 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: rustysi quote: A B-25 landed on the Shangrila in 1944, so did a P-51. Obviously at a later date, but a C-130 landed on a carrier. Pilot even had a sign painted on the rear of the plane, 'look ma no hook'. Bet the navy brass loved that one. True. USS Forrestal C-130 Hercules Carrier Landing Trials However the C-130 was designed as a (admittedly big) STOL aircraft and has well over 16000HP under the hood so it's not necessarily a fair comparison. Another link: Look Ma, No Hook

AW1Steve -> RE: Spitfire (OT) (3/10/2017 9:55:23 PM)
I'm pretty sure that a Spitfire could easily take off a modern carrier. Besides the C-130, other planes have. B-25's were launched in filming "The movie that shall not be named". S-3 Viking could and were on occasion "Deck launched". E-2's are capable , as C-1's, C-2's, E-1's and S-2's before. If a Spit could be launched of the USS Wasp CV-7 to fly Spitfires to Malta as they were twice , and Modern CV would be a piece of cake.

Page: [1]

Forum Software © ASPPlayground.NET Advanced Edition 2.4.5 ANSI

0.734375