Bf 109T "Trägerflugzeug" (carrier aircraft)

Prior to the war the German Navy had become fascinated with the idea of the aircraft carrier. Borrowing ideas from the British and Japanese (mainly the Akagi), they started the construction of the Graf Zeppelin (not to be confused with the airship Graf Zeppelin) as part of the rebuilding of the navy. The air group for the carrier was settled on Messerschmitt Bf 109T fighters and Ju 87T dive bombers. The suffix 'T' denoting carrier, 'Träger', in German use.

Initially ten Bf 109E-3 were ordered to be modified to Bf 109T-0 standard. This included, adding a tail-hook, catapult fittings, structural strengthening, manually folding wings and increased wingspan (to 11.08 m). Also the landing gear track was a little wider. Thus prepared, the Bf 109T probably would have been proven much better for carrier operations than the British Supermarine Seafire, a hardly modified landplane that suffered from a bad accident rate flying from carriers. Following the flight tests, especially the catapult tests, a series of 70 T-1 with DB601N engine was to be produced at Fieseler in Kassel, but after seven T-1 were built, the carrier project was canceled. The remaining 63 of 70 T-1 were built as T-2 without carrier equipment and some of the T-0 and T-1s may have been "upgraded" to T-2 standard. These fighters were assigned to I/JG.77, deployed in Norway. The decision to base them in Norway was made primarily by the conditions on the Norwegian landing strips.

These landing strips being both short and subject to frequent, powerful cross-winds. Some time after the unit was ordered to turn over their aircraft to a test unit that was training on the Drontheim-Fjorde strip and received E-3s as replacements. The armament of the Bf 109T consisted of two MG 17 above the engine and one MG FF/M cannon in each wing.

see also

http://www.csd.uwo.ca/Elevon/baugher_other/grzepp.html

In many ways the fate of Graf Zeppelin mirrors the state of the Kriegsmarine itself , a service which was developed in the shadow of the Luftwaffe and the Wehrmacht and which was something of a Cinderella in terms of the pecking order for resources. the "big ship" thinkers thinking in terms of the "big gun" rather than the carrier.
The shifting priorites are understandable given the mess the Kriegsmarine found itself in when war broke out - a handful of submarines and a poorly balanced surface fleet which was greatly outnumbered , little wonder that Raeder said that all he could expect was that they would die with honour.

The design does look similar to the Akagi and was heavily influenced by an inspection of that ship , although initially design insights were initially borrowed from the British Courageous and the American Lexington
For the Germans this was virgin territory - they had no experience of carrier design and it was catch up all the way and it is not unreasonable to think that the same problems which existed in the design of the heavy cruisers would have existed in Graf Zeppelin in terms of mechanical vunerability within the steam turbines.

The Graf Zeppelin is a story of might have beens and perhaps should have beens , had she been ready for sea in 1941 and been with Bismarck (instead of Prinz Eugen) would things have been different ?
The navy was in an impossible position in 1939 and the directions which the war took further compromised them - decisions taken were often over taken by the changing political and military situations and priorities demanded yet another change in direction.
With hindsight a ship which was needed earlier which could have been in service later , by which time the opportunity for a productive deployment had passed.



( From Whitely's "German Capital Sips of World War two". This book provides a detailed yet concise history of the development and lack of directional thinking in how in the event of the ship(s) could or would be used.
It seems that the war left the servcie having to be always reactive in terms of planning.

A photo of the carrier converted Ju-87 with folded wings , from the old Ian Allen book Stuka at War , the wording from the reverse side of the page coming through.
Bottomline is use decent materials in the production process !







The information on the carrier coinverted 109's from "The Fighting Me109" by Uwe Feist.
( Campbell has already provided a link to info from Green's guide to German aircraft so I won't duplicate from that source).

From our old friend U-Tube and look who is launching her.....little wonder the project failed.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-OLj_TurDSg

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=MqGrLXF5 ... re=related

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=T7vXmKDy ... re=related

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/14062541/

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/14062541/

http://www.maritimequest.com/warship_di ... _index.htm