Spitfire (OT)

Matrix Games Forums

Forums Register Login Photo Gallery Member List Search Calendars FAQ

My Profile Inbox Address Book My Subscription My Forums Log Out

Spitfire (OT)

View related threads: (in this forum | in all forums)

Logged in as: Guest

Users viewing this topic: none

Printable Version

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

Page: [1]

Message

<< Older Topic Newer Topic >>

Spitfire (OT) - 3/9/2017 8:31:38 PM

Grfin Zeppelin

Posts: 1515
Joined: 12/3/2007
From: Germany
Status: offline

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.

< Message edited by Gr�fin Zeppelin -- 3/9/2017 8:33:05 PM >

_____________________________

Post #: 1

RE: Spitfire (OT) - 3/9/2017 8:37:53 PM

Jorge_Stanbury

Posts: 4320
Joined: 2/29/2012
From: Toronto and Lima
Status: offline

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

< Message edited by Jorge_Stanbury -- 3/9/2017 8:38:39 PM >

(in reply to Grfin Zeppelin)

Post #: 2

RE: Spitfire (OT) - 3/9/2017 8:39:47 PM

Lecivius

Posts: 4845
Joined: 8/5/2007
From: Denver
Status: offline

Against the wind, as opposed to into it? I'm not so sure.

_____________________________

If it ain't broke, don't fix it!

(in reply to Jorge_Stanbury)

Post #: 3

RE: Spitfire (OT) - 3/9/2017 8:40:13 PM

btd64

Posts: 9973
Joined: 1/23/2010
From: Mass. USA. now in Lancaster, OHIO
Status: offline

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

_____________________________

Intel i7 4.3GHz 10th Gen,16GB Ram,Nvidia GeForce MX330

AKA General Patton

WPO,WITP,WITPAE-Mod Designer/Tester
DWU-Beta Tester
TOAW4-Alpha/Beta Tester

"Do everything you ask of those you command"....Gen. George S. Patton

(in reply to Jorge_Stanbury)

Post #: 4

RE: Spitfire (OT) - 3/9/2017 8:41:19 PM

btd64

Posts: 9973
Joined: 1/23/2010
From: Mass. USA. now in Lancaster, OHIO
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: Lecivius

Against the wind, as opposed to into it? I'm not so sure.

You want to turn into the wind....GP

_____________________________

(in reply to Lecivius)

Post #: 5

RE: Spitfire (OT) - 3/9/2017 8:46:04 PM

Lecivius

Posts: 4845
Joined: 8/5/2007
From: Denver
Status: offline

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)

_____________________________

If it ain't broke, don't fix it!

(in reply to btd64)

Post #: 6

RE: Spitfire (OT) - 3/9/2017 8:48:09 PM

Grfin Zeppelin

Posts: 1515
Joined: 12/3/2007
From: Germany
Status: offline

Ah well does turning into the wind mean the wind comes from behind the starting plane or the opposite direction ?

_____________________________

(in reply to Lecivius)

Post #: 7

RE: Spitfire (OT) - 3/9/2017 8:53:39 PM

btd64

Posts: 9973
Joined: 1/23/2010
From: Mass. USA. now in Lancaster, OHIO
Status: offline

From the front to the back of the ship. The air flow provides lift under the wings....GP

_____________________________

(in reply to Grfin Zeppelin)

Post #: 8

RE: Spitfire (OT) - 3/9/2017 8:54:15 PM

Grfin Zeppelin

Posts: 1515
Joined: 12/3/2007
From: Germany
Status: offline

Ah I see thank you.

_____________________________

(in reply to btd64)

Post #: 9

RE: Spitfire (OT) - 3/9/2017 8:54:40 PM

jcjordan

Posts: 1900
Joined: 6/27/2001
Status: offline

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.

(in reply to Grfin Zeppelin)

Post #: 10

RE: Spitfire (OT) - 3/9/2017 8:56:11 PM

btd64

Posts: 9973
Joined: 1/23/2010
From: Mass. USA. now in Lancaster, OHIO
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: Gr�fin Zeppelin

Ah I see thank you.

Your welcome

....GP

_____________________________

(in reply to Grfin Zeppelin)

Post #: 11

RE: Spitfire (OT) - 3/9/2017 9:13:39 PM

Lecivius

Posts: 4845
Joined: 8/5/2007
From: Denver
Status: offline

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

_____________________________

If it ain't broke, don't fix it!

(in reply to btd64)

Post #: 12

RE: Spitfire (OT) - 3/9/2017 9:24:07 PM

btd64

Posts: 9973
Joined: 1/23/2010
From: Mass. USA. now in Lancaster, OHIO
Status: offline

....GP

_____________________________

(in reply to Lecivius)

Post #: 13

RE: Spitfire (OT) - 3/9/2017 9:41:44 PM

Itdepends

Posts: 937
Joined: 12/12/2005
Status: offline

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.

(in reply to btd64)

Post #: 14

RE: Spitfire (OT) - 3/9/2017 10:51:43 PM

geofflambert

Posts: 14863
Joined: 12/23/2010
From: St. Louis
Status: offline

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.

(in reply to Itdepends)

Post #: 15

RE: Spitfire (OT) - 3/9/2017 11:04:03 PM

sandlance

Posts: 31
Joined: 8/5/2012
Status: offline

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.

(in reply to geofflambert)

Post #: 16

RE: Spitfire (OT) - 3/10/2017 12:40:51 AM

NigelKentarus

Posts: 207
Joined: 3/27/2015
From: OH, USN 20 yrs, & FL
Status: offline

Didn't Bob Seger write a song about Against The Wind?

_____________________________

Fight like you're the 3rd monkey on the plank to Noah's ark. And brother, it's starting to rain.

(in reply to sandlance)

Post #: 17

RE: Spitfire (OT) - 3/10/2017 1:03:02 AM

sandlance

Posts: 31
Joined: 8/5/2012
Status: offline

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.

_____________________________

(in reply to NigelKentarus)

Post #: 18

RE: Spitfire (OT) - 3/10/2017 2:55:56 AM

Sauvequipeut

Posts: 79
Joined: 4/7/2007
Status: offline

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.

(in reply to sandlance)

Post #: 19

RE: Spitfire (OT) - 3/10/2017 2:56:28 AM

Sauvequipeut

Posts: 79
Joined: 4/7/2007
Status: offline

Double Post :s

< Message edited by Sauvequipeut -- 3/10/2017 2:57:41 AM >

(in reply to sandlance)

Post #: 20

RE: Spitfire (OT) - 3/10/2017 3:28:58 AM

geofflambert

Posts: 14863
Joined: 12/23/2010
From: St. Louis
Status: offline

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.

(in reply to Sauvequipeut)

Post #: 21

RE: Spitfire (OT) - 3/10/2017 3:29:53 AM

wdolson

Posts: 10398
Joined: 6/28/2006
From: Near Portland, OR
Status: offline

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

_____________________________

WitP AE - Test team lead, programmer

(in reply to Sauvequipeut)

Post #: 22

RE: Spitfire (OT) - 3/10/2017 3:56:41 AM

wdolson

Posts: 10398
Joined: 6/28/2006
From: Near Portland, OR
Status: offline

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

_____________________________

WitP AE - Test team lead, programmer

(in reply to geofflambert)

Post #: 23

RE: Spitfire (OT) - 3/10/2017 5:38:58 AM

Reg

Posts: 2787
Joined: 5/26/2000
From: NSW, Australia
Status: offline

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.

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.

Attachment (1)

_____________________________

Cheers,
Reg.

(One day I will learn to spell - or check before posting....)
Uh oh, Firefox has a spell checker!! What excuse can I use now!!!

(in reply to Grfin Zeppelin)

Post #: 24

RE: Spitfire (OT) - 3/10/2017 6:04:08 AM

warspite1

Posts: 41353
Joined: 2/2/2008
From: England
Status: offline

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.

< Message edited by warspite1 -- 3/11/2017 5:45:34 AM >

_____________________________

England expects that every man will do his duty. Horatio Nelson October 1805

(in reply to wdolson)

Post #: 25

RE: Spitfire (OT) - 3/10/2017 9:17:22 AM

Grfin Zeppelin

Posts: 1515
Joined: 12/3/2007
From: Germany
Status: offline

Thank you all for the answers, much appreciated

_____________________________

(in reply to warspite1)

Post #: 26

RE: Spitfire (OT) - 3/10/2017 2:43:39 PM

crsutton

Posts: 9590
Joined: 12/6/2002
From: Maryland
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: Gr�fin 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.

_____________________________

I am the Holy Roman Emperor and am above grammar.

Sigismund of Luxemburg

(in reply to Grfin Zeppelin)

Post #: 27

RE: Spitfire (OT) - 3/10/2017 8:39:08 PM

rustysi

Posts: 7472
Joined: 2/21/2012
From: LI, NY
Status: offline

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.

_____________________________

It is seldom that liberty of any kind is lost all at once. Hume

In every party there is one member who by his all-too-devout pronouncement of the party principles provokes the others to apostasy. Nietzsche

Cave ab homine unius libri. Ltn Prvb

(in reply to crsutton)

Post #: 28

RE: Spitfire (OT) - 3/10/2017 9:45:01 PM

Reg

Posts: 2787
Joined: 5/26/2000
From: NSW, Australia
Status: offline

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

< Message edited by Reg -- 3/10/2017 9:57:51 PM >

_____________________________

Cheers,
Reg.

(One day I will learn to spell - or check before posting....)
Uh oh, Firefox has a spell checker!! What excuse can I use now!!!

(in reply to rustysi)

Post #: 29

RE: Spitfire (OT) - 3/10/2017 9:55:23 PM

AW1Steve

Posts: 14507
Joined: 3/10/2007
From: Mordor Illlinois
Status: offline

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.

_____________________________

(in reply to Reg)

Post #: 30