# Messerschmitt Bf 110 vs P-38 Lightning



## imalko (Jul 19, 2009)

Let's see what are similarities and differences between this two aircraft - both twin engined, heavily armed, both used as heavy day fighters, night fighters, fighter-bombers and recconaisance aircraft. Both outmatched in comparison to one engined fighters. And yet, Bf 110 is characterized to some extent as failure while P-38 is considered to be successful design. Why is that? I would like to hear opinions on this matter.

Also, is there any accounts of this two aircraft ever facing each other in direct combat? Which would emerge victorious out of dogfight between this two "heavies"?


----------



## syscom3 (Jul 19, 2009)

I would suspect that adding a second crewman added a lot to the weight and complexity to the airframe.


----------



## lingo (Jul 19, 2009)

imalko said:


> What are similarities and differences between this two aircraft?
> 
> Probably the most significant difference stems from the 110 being a twin seater fulfilling a different role to the 38. Both were designed for long range and primarily for bomber escort. After the Battle of Britain there was no need for a Luftwaffe escort fighter so its role changed to night fighter. The Lightning being a single seater remained in its primary role for much longer. With the primitive radar sets of the period a second pair of hands were needed onboard to operate the equipment at night with any chance of a successful interception.


----------



## Amsel (Jul 19, 2009)

P-38 would win any air to air confrontation. The Me110 was not a good fighter. It did better as a nightfighter or jabo.


----------



## DerAdlerIstGelandet (Jul 19, 2009)

I would suspect that this comes down to the fact that the P-38 succeeded in its intended primary role, while the Bf 110 did not.

The Bf 110 failed against the nimble fighters as a day fighter. It did however succeed in other areas such as night fighter. 

The P-38 for the most part succeeded in all intended roles.


----------



## Vincenzo (Jul 19, 2009)

Sure P-38 it's a best day fighter of 110, but if i'm not in wrong 110 fightning from '39 and P-38 from '42


----------



## syscom3 (Jul 19, 2009)

The -110 was defiantly a better night fighter than the P38. No question about that.


----------



## davebender (Jul 19, 2009)

> Bf 110 is characterized to some extent as failure


I doubt RAF Bomber Command would agree with that statement. Furthermore the American 8th Air Force considered the P-38 a failure.

Just for fun let's compare aircraft price during 1941.
Me-110. $84,056 (210,140 marks)
P-38. $134,284.

During 1941 an Me-110 cost 63% as much as a P-38.


----------



## Maximowitz (Jul 19, 2009)

It is actually something of a myth that the Bf 110 was a failure in its intended role as a long range fighter/bomber escort. I suggest you read "*Zerstorer"* by John Vasco and Peter Cornwell, you'll find that although as noted it was not as nimble in combat against single engine fighters if the correct tactics were used it could more than hold its own, at least in the conditions that prevailed during the Battle of Britain.

Admittedly by 1943/44 it was totally outclassed as a Zerstorer, but had found its true calling as a nightfighter.


----------



## Amsel (Jul 19, 2009)

I know it doesn't count for a whole lot, but I really like the "looks" of the Me110. It has a shark like appearance to me.

Does anyone have good info on how well it performed as a "tank buster"?


----------



## syscom3 (Jul 19, 2009)

davebender said:


> I doubt RAF Bomber Command would agree with that statement. Furthermore the American 8th Air Force considered the P-38 a failure.
> 
> Just for fun let's compare aircraft price during 1941.
> Me-110. $84,056 (210,140 marks)
> ...



And the US economy was so big, cost was no object.

And the 9th, 15th, 5th, 11th and 14th AF's didn't consider it a failure.


----------



## Amsel (Jul 19, 2009)

I don't see fighter cost as being an issue for the USA during WWII.


----------



## imalko (Jul 19, 2009)

Maximowitz said:


> It is actually something of a myth that the Bf 110 was a failure in its intended role as a long range fighter/bomber escort. I suggest you read "*Zerstorer"* by John Vasco and Peter Cornwell, you'll find that although as noted it was not as nimble in combat against single engine fighters if the correct tactics were used it could more than hold its own, at least in the conditions that prevailed during the Battle of Britain.
> 
> Admittedly by 1943/44 it was totally outclassed as a Zerstorer, but had found its true calling as a nightfighter.



Agree with everything you wrote... When said it was considered as failure I was referring exactly to this "popular myth". However, it's not my opinion. Actually I think that Bf 110 was very capable plane. For example, in 1940 max. speed of Hurricane was recorded to be 488 km/h, but in the same time this was cruising speed of Bf 110 on 4900m altitude! Under certain circumstances (escorting bombers flying high above them for example) in 1940 Bf 110 was more that capable to hold his own against RAF fighters.

On the other hand in "popular histories" P-38 was never considered to be a failure in any way. I thought it would be interesting to discuss why is that the case and how these two planes would perform in straight fight with each other...


----------



## michaelmaltby (Jul 19, 2009)

"..I don't see fighter cost as being an issue for the USA during WWII..."

Agreed. The P-47 was a more complex airframe and plumbing system than the P-51. And the P-51 in it's Allison incarnation was a more simple system than in its Merlin incarnation. The P-38 wasn't designed for manufacture the way the P-39, P-40 and P-51 were.

The reality is the American military had the OPTION - the LUXURY of the option - of choice. Allowing multiple platforms to be developed and delivered concurrently. More P-47's were built than P-51's. More B-24's than B-17's. In both cases the more expensive solution was favored.

Compare the flight deck of a Lanc with a B-24 Liberator ...  Bare bones vs LUXURY  Of course the Lanc carried more and flew way better 

MM


----------



## Colin1 (Jul 19, 2009)

imalko said:


> are there any accounts of this two aircraft ever facing each other in direct combat? Which would emerge victorious out of dogfight between this two "heavies"?


Bf110G-2 *:Name:* P-38J
53ft 4in (16.27m) *:Span:* 52ft (15.84m)
41ft 7in (12.67m) *:Length:* 37ft 10in (11.53m)
13ft 1in (4.0m) *:Height:* 12ft 10in (3.91m)
349mph (561kph) *:Max speed:* 414mph (666kph)
2,170ft/min (661m/min) *:Rate of climb (from sea level):* 3,700ft/min (1,127m/min)
19,000ft (5,791m) *:Best altitude:* 15,000ft (4,572m)
26,000ft (7,924m) *:Service ceiling:* 44,000ft (13,411m)
11,220lbs (5,089Kgs) *:Empty weight:* 12,800lbs (6,395Kgs)
18,800lbs (8,528Kgs) *:Take-off weight:* 17,500lbs (7,937Kgs)
22,100lbs (10,024Kgs) *:Max loaded weight:* 21,600lbs (9,798Kgs)
2 x DB605B-1 1,475hp (1,010Kw) each *owerplant:* 2 x Allison V-1710-111/113 1,425hp (1,062Kw) each
413.3sq ft (38.4sq m) *:Wing area:* 327.5sq ft (30.5sq m)
50lbs/sq ft (218.2Kgs/sq m) *:Wing loading @ take-off weight:* 53.4lbs/sq ft (260.3Kgs/sq m)
560 miles (901 Kms) *:Max Range:* 890 miles (1,432 Kms)
2 x MK108; 2 x MG151; 2 x MG81 (rear) *:Armament:* 1 x 20mm AN-M2C; 4 x .50 cal


----------



## vanir (Jul 19, 2009)

Göring's Zerstörer concept called for a heavy, long range day fighter to fly ahead of the bomber streams and attack enemy interceptors as they were either on the runway or still climbing for altitude.
Willy Messerschmitt didn't believe in it because he didn't think such a force would always be able to keep the fight on their terms, but he was happy to design the plane anyway.

Strictly speaking the BF-110 was designed to be and always was an attack aircraft of sorts, it was never truly a fighter. Consider how it was intended to be used, and how indeed it was used in France. About an hour before the bombers are sent, fly deep into the combat zone at cruise height, dive on enemy airbases, destroy enemy interceptors. It is something tactical bombers (like the stuka) would normally have to wait until the battlefront was moving forwards to do (due to limited combat range), well after the bombing phase. It was a revolution in aerial combat doctrine.

Well Chain Home killed it. Enemy interceptors were already at altitude and the BF-110 wasn't a match as a regular fighter type. After the first few sorties the idea was dropped in the Battle of Britain and the BF-109 sent to escort bombers in the regular fashion.
But then there is Norway, and attacks in Northern England were out of the range of the 109 so the BF-110 was sent as escort and attacks were massed on the southern coast to draw RAF interceptors southwards. Unfortunately RAF administration was well organised and when the northern attacks came there were interceptors in the air ready to defend, the BF-110 suffered terrific losses and this is one of the main reasons for its poor reputation. Among RAF pilots the turkey shoot of those particular missions became legendary.

But the Luftwaffe wasn't about to give up on the BF-110, which was already due to be replaced by an improved Me-210 with a dive bombing capability.
Erprobungstaffel 210, which was equipped with fighter-bomber modified BF-110s and BF-109s began making a series of limited raids on the southern coast and across the channel islands, exploring other tactical uses of the heavy fighter concept, this time as a schnellbomber or fighter-bomber and dedicated ground attack aircraft.
It achieved its second win in this role during 1941-42 on the Eastern Front, mostly because the few Soviet fighters it couldn't outrun it could still put up a worthy defence to, being heavily constructed and handling very well for an attack aircraft (compare it to a Mitchell for example).

Night fighter variants are three-seaters btw. The problem with these was that they lost so much speed they found it very difficult to catch enemy bombers. Not that they couldn't, but they were going hell for leather to do it. Other types like the Ju-88G and so on were far better for the role, but the BF-110 had the numbers (G-4 was the main type in the late war).

During 1943 the heavy fighters took up another new role as bomber destroyers. This was mostly due to the armament capabilities and variations of the BF-110G series which could mount some seriously heavy hardware. Again performance was an issue in this trim, but it was solid and could take a little defensive fire, and could mass ahead of the bombers and attack from good range with rockets and heavy BK cannons to break up the defensive boxes.
By this time the Me-210 had been in production and the Me-410 was entering production and dedicated versions of these models were again better for the role, particularly the Me-410 with its extremely powerful DB-603 engines.

During 1944 the air war had changed quite a bit for Germany and there wasn't really a place to use the last of the series. The Me-410 was in fact an excellent and contemporary design with fantastic performance in its class, but no two seater with twin engines was going to do well at this stage, the survivability rate for anything but a short range single seater, operating over limited range at very high speed was poor.

For 1945 the Ta-152C was due to take over as the new Zerstörer from the Me-410/Ju-88, with all the fighter performance of something like a Mustang and a Thunderbolt, and the attack performance of the Me-410 rolled into one.


----------



## Vincenzo (Jul 19, 2009)

too large difference from empty and take off weight (almost if this is not with boms) for 110, empty weight i think it's also a few too low


----------



## Colin1 (Jul 19, 2009)

Sorry Vincenzo
are you saying the weight difference between the two a/c is too great for comparison or that I've made a mistake? If a mistake, where? I had to run this together from several sites.


----------



## Vincenzo (Jul 19, 2009)

sorry for my english imho in the data there is a mistake, the empty weight for 110 it's a bit low (12300/12500 i think) and take off can't be 18800 w/o external load (that aren't good for fightning)

edit i think clean take off it's ~16000


----------



## Colin1 (Jul 19, 2009)

Altered
with new data, making the Bf110 heavier at empty and max weights. Neither a/c would engage each other at max weight, they'd drop all the external ordnance to shed weight and clean up


----------



## davebender (Jul 19, 2009)

> Göring's Zerstörer concept called for a heavy, long range day fighter to fly ahead of the bomber streams and attack enemy interceptors as they were either on the runway or still climbing for altitude.


Nothing wrong with that concept. It's what the Allied air forces did to Germany during 1945 to suppress the new German jets. 

The problem is that Germany still needs a long range fighter to protect the bombers in flight. The Luftwaffe elected not to produce the Fw-187 and didn't even procure drop tanks for the early model Me-109s. For that matter Germany did not have all that many Me-110s available for the Battle of Britain. The Me-110s were badly outnumbered even before considering aircraft performance and Britain having the use of ground control radar.


----------



## davebender (Jul 19, 2009)

If that were true then the P-39 fighter would have retained the turbocharger.


----------



## Colin1 (Jul 19, 2009)

davebender said:


> If that were true then the P-39 fighter would have retained the turbocharger.


I'm not sure cost was the only factor in decision to omit the turbocharger from the P-39


----------



## Maximowitz (Jul 19, 2009)

davebender said:


> For that matter Germany did not have all that many Me-110s available for the Battle of Britain. The Me-110s were badly outnumbered even before considering aircraft performance and Britain having the use of ground control radar.



Very true Dave. In the opening conflicts of the Battle of Britain the Bf 110's were few yet also managed to hold their own against the RAF. It was only later when tied to close support of the Kampfgruppen that they became sitting ducks against Spitfires. They had already shown in the Battle of France that they were a match against the Hawker Hurricane, the poor tactical decisions forced upon the ZG units and lack of adequate drop tanks for the Bf 109 equiped JG's for long range missions increased the attrition on the Bf 110.


----------



## syscom3 (Jul 19, 2009)

Colin1 said:


> 11,220lbs (5,089Kgs) *:Empty weight:* 12,800lbs (6,395Kgs)



How did the -110 end up being 1600 lbs lighter than the P38?

The weight of the P38 nose gear should more than offset the weight of a 2 or 3 man cockpit of the -110.


----------



## Shortround6 (Jul 19, 2009)

davebender said:


> If that were true then the P-39 fighter would have retained the turbocharger.



Another myth.

The P-39 dropped the turbo when they found that it wouldn't really fit in the plane, at least not with an effective intercooler. Without effective intercooler the plane wouldn't come close to meeting the performance specifications.


----------



## Colin1 (Jul 19, 2009)

syscom3 said:


> How did the -110 end up being 1600 lbs lighter than the P38?
> 
> The weight of the P38 nose gear should more than offset the weight of a 2 or 3 man cockpit of the -110.


Hey
read my subsequent posts
if you have some more accurate data, let me know - I'm only trying to give folks something to juggle with. Two or three sites corroborated the weights of the Bf110G-2

Besides, your post doesn't make any sense, are you saying the 110 should be lighter, or shouldn't be lighter?


----------



## syscom3 (Jul 19, 2009)

Colin1 said:


> Besides, your post doesn't make any sense, are you saying the 110 should be lighter, or shouldn't be lighter?



Its quite clear what I wrote. How did the P38 end up having an empty weight 3/4 ton heavier than the -110?

Maybe its the booms [is that the correct word?] that added that weight.


----------



## Soren (Jul 19, 2009)

The Bf-110 is a lot lighter than most people believe it to be, and actually had a pretty low wing loading.

Also the Bf-110 C-4 had a top speed of 561 km/h with 2x 1,085 hp DB601B engines, so the Bf-110G-2 was surely gonna be a lot faster as it featured 2x 1,455 hp DB605B engines. That's an extra 740 hp, now that would bring speed up around 600 km/h and climb rate to around 3,000 ft/min. And service ceiling was around 12 km. (10.5 km for the C-4)


----------



## Colin1 (Jul 19, 2009)

Soren said:


> Also the Bf-110 C-4 had a top speed of 561 km/h with 2x 1,085 hp DB601B engines, so the Bf-110G-2 was surely gonna be a lot faster as it featured 2x 1,455 hp DB605B engines. That's an extra 740 hp, now that would bring speed up around 600 km/h and climb rate to around 3,000 ft/min. And service ceiling was around 12 km. (10.5 km for the C-4)


I can't find anything putting the G-2 over 350mph or a climb rate any like as ambitious as 3,000ft/min
Where are you getting this from?


----------



## Colin1 (Jul 19, 2009)

syscom3 said:


> It's quite clear what I wrote


In sentence 1, you ask why the P-38 ended up heavier than the Bf110
In sentence 2 (of the same post), you more or less state WHY the P-38 was heavier, something to do with it's nose gear arrangement. What was clear about that?


----------



## Soren (Jul 19, 2009)

Colin1 said:


> I can't find anything putting the G-2 over 350mph or a climb rate any like as ambitious as 3,000ft/min
> Where are you getting this from?



Colin the data you provided is for the Bf-110 C-4, the speed, climb rate etc etc.. the Bf-110G2 was both faster and climbed faster, naturally as it possessed an extra 740 hp over the C-4. 

So an educated guess is that top speed will be around 600+ km/h and climb rate around 3,000+ ft/min.

That having been said the P-38 was both faster and climbed quicker, and thus had the advantage in a head to head fight. I do believe the Bf-110 will turn better though. Not that it matters with the P-38 superior speed, climb roll rate. 

The Bf-110 was the better nightfighter, bomber destroyer ground attack a/c while the P-38 was the better escort heavy fighter.


----------



## Stitch (Jul 19, 2009)

Vincenzo said:


> Sure P-38 it's a best day fighter of 110, but if i'm not in wrong 110 fightning from '39 and P-38 from '42



The P-38 actually entered service in 1941 so, more or less, it was a contemporary of the Me 110; the advantage the P-38 had was, a.) turbo-supercharged engines, b.) lower inertial mass, which contributed to a better roll rate, c.) contra-rotating engines which allowed the P-38 to roll equally well in either direction (left or right), and d.) single-pilot operation, which required less in the way of support hardware vs. the 110 and, therefore, lower overall weight. The P-38 is generally overlooked vs. the more "glamorous" fighters like the P-47 and the P-51, but it was the first production fighter in the world to exceed 400 mph in horizontal flight, and the first operational fighter with a 1,000 mile range; it was also the only US fighter to remain in constant production from 1941 to 1945.


----------



## DAVIDICUS (Jul 19, 2009)

_"... more the "glamorous" fighters like the P-47..."_

I don't think I have ever heard P-47 and "glamorous" in the same sentence. The P-38 was much more sexy looking and glamorous IMHO and I assume that was the general consensus at the time too.


----------



## davebender (Jul 19, 2009)

> P-39 dropped the turbo when they found that it wouldn't really fit in the plane


P-39 Airacobra - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia


> In February 1937, Lieutenant Benjamin S. Kelsey, Project Officer for Fighters at the United States Army Air Corps (USAAC), issued a specification for a new fighter via Circular Proposal X-609.[5] It was a request for a single-engine high-altitude interceptor aircraft having "the tactical mission of interception and attack of hostile aircraft at high altitude".[6] Specifications called for at least 1,000 lb of heavy armament including a cannon, a liquid-cooled Allison engine with a *General Electric turbo-supercharger*, tricycle landing gear, a level airspeed of at least 360 mph (580 km/h) at altitude, and a climb to 20,000 ft (6,100 m) within 6 minutes


Why was the P-39 design approved if it could not meet a major component of the U.S. Army Air Corps specificaiton?


----------



## Shortround6 (Jul 19, 2009)

davebender said:


> P-39 Airacobra - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
> 
> Why was the P-39 design approved if it could not meet a major component of the U.S. Army Air Corps specificaiton?



Could it be that they changed the Specification between Feb 1937 and April 1939? For one thing the speed at 20,000ft was changed from 360mph to 400mph. 

The Army desperately needed new aircraft and the P-39 wasn't going to work in the original form.

Of course the fact the 13 turboed YP-37s that were delivered to the 36th pursuit squadron by November of 1939 weren't really trouble free has nothing to do with the decision either, right?
And this is 2 months after the NACA has issued a report that says the turboed P-39 doesn't have a hope of meeting the 400mph guarantee. 
There is some evidence that the XP-39 NEVER flew to the advertised 390mph at 20,000ft or the 5min to 20,000ft climb.


----------



## Butters (Jul 19, 2009)

In the hands of a capable pilot who knew how to get the best out of his machine, the most widely produced variants of the P-38 (J&L models) were vastly superior to the Bf 110. The 110 could not out-turn a P-38, nor could it match it in any aspect of combat performance. It was kept in production only because of the failure of the Me 210, and because it had sufficient performance to handle the night-fighting role.

To compare the two, imagine if their roles were reversed...

LW P-38's, even F's and G's, would have been far more formidable foes to the Hurricane and Spitfire than was the 110 in the BoB. And designed as an interceptor from the get-go, the P-38's fast climb rate, high speed, good firepower, and decent manoeverability would have caused havoc amongst the bombers and escorts of the 8th AF. And the P-38M nightfighter would have given the nachtjaegers an a/c that could meet the Mosquito NF's on an equal basis.

Now imagine the clumsy 110 fighting the agile fighters of the IJA and IJN. Lacking the performance edge of the P-38, it could not have made use of the very effective 'boom and zoom' air combat technique that led to the death of of so many Japanese pilots. It would have been shot out of the skies in droves.

The highly versatile, high-performance Lightning is superior in every respect to Goering's beloved Zerstorer.

BTW, I looked up the specs on the 110-G model in 3 credible references, and none showed a top speed of more than 350 mph.

JL


----------



## Sweb (Jul 19, 2009)

In the ETO the P-38 was a difficult airplane for the pilots. They froze their butts off at escort altitudes due to a poor-to-non-existent cockpit heating system. It's minus 60 degrees F at those altitudes. The airplane would experience compressibility when diving from altitudes higher than 20,000 feet and the dive flaps incorporated to solve this phenomena were only partially successful. Planes were lost to loss of control. The biggest problem with P-38's prior to the J model was inadequate intercoolers for manifold combustion air. This lead to elevated carburetor air temps (CATs), subsequent detonation, power losses and engine failures. Higher boost was necessary at combat altitudes so pilots frequently had their crew chiefs remove the throttle stops and went full power when combat conditions dictated the need. This increased dramatically the manifold air temps beyond the 45 degree C limits and failures were common. Finally, the fuels available in Britain did not perform well with the Allison/GE turbo combo causing poor performance. None of these problems were encountered in the PTO due to the lower altitudes and manifold pressures needed for combat and warmer climate in general. The only reason the 38 was moved to the ETO at all was because it had the greatest range of any Allied escort fighter available at the time and the AAF could not continue to sustain 20% losses on missions like the Schweinfurt ball bearing mission due to a lack of escort.


----------



## vanir (Jul 20, 2009)

The figures I have in publication laying around the place give 560km/h @ 7000m for the C-4 and 550km/h at the same height for the G-4 nightfighter (3-seat configuration with radar, 2x Mk108 and 2x MG151/20 in nose, 2x MG151/20 in belly pack and 2x MG151/20 in schräge musik, plus 2x MG81Z in rear cockpit, plus two 300l drop tanks under wings).

I'd say that puts a G-2 topping 600km/h easy as pie, considering being two-seater with typical armament 2x Mk108 and 2x MG151/20 in nose and 2x MG81Z in rear cockpit, with no stores under wings and no radar.


----------



## Colin1 (Jul 20, 2009)

Soren said:


> Colin the data you provided is for the Bf-110 C-4, the speed, climb rate etc etc.. the Bf-110G2 was both faster and climbed faster, naturally as it possessed an extra 740 hp over the C-4.


S'possible
I'll have a better look when I get in tonight. Pretty sure I farmed info from the G-4 though (as it shared the same powerplants)


----------



## Vincenzo (Jul 20, 2009)

Stitch said:


> The P-38 actually entered service in 1941 so, more or less, it was a contemporary of the Me 110; the advantage the P-38 had was, a.) turbo-supercharged engines, b.) lower inertial mass, which contributed to a better roll rate, c.) contra-rotating engines which allowed the P-38 to roll equally well in either direction (left or right), and d.) single-pilot operation, which required less in the way of support hardware vs. the 110 and, therefore, lower overall weight. The P-38 is generally overlooked vs. more the "glamorous" fighters like the P-47 and the P-51, but it was the first production fighter in the world to exceed 400 mph in horizontal flight, and the first operational fighter with a 1,000 mile range; it was also the only US fighter to remain in constant production from 1941 to 1945.



1st i write fightning. 2nd so the P-38 it's contemporary of Me 262.


----------



## Waynos (Jul 20, 2009)

When did P-47 and P-51 production end?


----------



## davebender (Jul 20, 2009)

Let's make sure we are comparing aircraft from the same time period.
P-38 Lightning - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia


> The definitive P-38J was introduced in August 1943


So what version of the Me-110 was flying during the fall of 1943?






My money says that a P-38J day fighter foolish enough to be flying at night over Germany gets eaten for lunch by a Me-110G4 night fighter.


----------



## Vincenzo (Jul 20, 2009)

afaik the G-2 was the last zerstorer, the G-3 was a recce and G-4 a night fighter

p.s. for fall '43 there are also the Me 410


----------



## Colin1 (Jul 20, 2009)

Vincenzo said:


> ...the G-2 was the last zerstorer...


Largely why I picked it and faced it off against the one of the last of the P-38s, the L.
The G-2 did share performance similarities with the G-4


----------



## drgondog (Jul 20, 2009)

Waynos said:


> When did P-47 and P-51 production end?



summer 45 for the p-47 (VJ Day) and fall 45 for 51H and P-82 was last ordered in Oct 1945


----------



## Vincenzo (Jul 20, 2009)

Colin1 said:


> Largely why I picked it and faced it off against the one of the last of the P-38s, the L.
> The G-2 did share performance similarities with the G-6



G-6 ???


----------



## Colin1 (Jul 20, 2009)

Vincenzo said:


> G-6 ???


Well spotted
I did in fact mean the G-4


----------



## Vincenzo (Jul 20, 2009)

imho G-4 it's not a good proxy for G-2. it's more heavy, more drag.


----------



## Colin1 (Jul 20, 2009)

Vincenzo said:


> imho G-4 it's not a good proxy for G-2. it's more heavy, more drag.


Not all of it comes from the G-4, but anything I could base on the powerplant commonality, I did


----------



## Maximowitz (Jul 20, 2009)

I'm rather tempted to bring John Vasco over here to take a look at this thread...


----------



## Soren (Jul 20, 2009)

Butters said:


> In the hands of a capable pilot who knew how to get the best out of his machine, the most widely produced variants of the P-38 (J&L models) were vastly superior to the Bf 110. *The 110 could not out-turn a P-38*, nor could it match it in any aspect of combat performance.



Do you have anything to support that claim ? I think not.

*Bf-110G-2*
Weight: 7,500 kg
Wing area: 38.4 m^2
Power: 2,910 hp
Wing loading: 195.3 kg/m^2
Power loading: 2.57 kg/hp

*P-38J*
Weight: 7,940 kg
Wing area: 30.43 m^2
Power: 3,450 hp
Wing loading: 260.9 kg/m^2
Power loading: 2.3 kg/hp


----------



## Daviducus2 (Jul 20, 2009)

I don't profess to be able to evaluate turn radius of these aircraft but I do recall some very knowledgable folks on this forum like FlyboyJ believing that a very capable pilot in a P-38 (not sue if it was J or L) could out turn a Zero.

Butters post makes an interesting point in how the P-38 and Bf-110 would have fared if switched in BoB and in Pacific Theatre.


----------



## Soren (Jul 20, 2009)

Outturn a Zero now ? Hmm.. no.


----------



## Stitch (Jul 20, 2009)

DAVIDICUS said:


> _"... more the "glamorous" fighters like the P-47..."_
> 
> I don't think I have ever heard P-47 and "glamorous" in the same sentence. The P-38 was much more sexy looking and glamorous IMHO and I assume that was the general consensus at the time too.



You're right, perhaps glamorous wasn't the correct word; I agree with you that the P-38 was perhaps THE sexiest a/c of WWII, with the tapered booms and streamlined cowls.


----------



## FLYBOYJ (Jul 20, 2009)

Soren said:


> Outturn a Zero now ? Hmm.. no.



*HMM...YES!!!!* Bong, McGuire, MacDonald, Gerald Johnson, and I could name several other highly skilled P-38 drivers WHO CAN AND DID out turn a zero by using differential power settings based on the direction of the turn. Read the book "Peter Three Eight" and "Twelve to One" and some of the history of the 49th and 80th fighter group and these accounts are well documented.

WITH THAT SAID - 

Many of the guys who were able to do this discouraged any turn fight with the Zero. Here is excerpt from a booklet put out during WW2

http://webpages.charter.net/jimdoss/12to1/index.htm

Tommy McGuire perished attempting to turn with a Oscar and almost pulled it off had he punched off his drop tanks.

This was very do-able and there were a small handful of pilots who flew in the Southwest Pacific that had the skill and tenacity to do this.

Here's another account

http://www.kilroywashere.org/003-Pages/Tilley-John/03-Harm-Tilley-story.html


----------



## Soren (Jul 20, 2009)

I believe the accounts happened all right FLYBOYJ, and I know that the pilots spoke out honestly about what they knew, but lets remember one thing, we DON'T know what the Zero or Oscar pilots were doing, and most likely they were rookies. That's why such accounts aren't worth that much unless they can be backed up by aerodynamics. If we were to for example ignore the aerodynamics I can tell you that there are plenty accounts of Fw190's outturning Spitfires as-well, but I think we all know which a/c turned the tighest of those two.

That having been said, we've had these discussions before and I will say exactly the same as I said then, and that is; There is no way that a P-38 is EVER going to outturn a Zero if both pilots know their a/c 100%. Sorry but it just wont happen! 

Think about it, if it were to be true then a Bf-110 would be able to turn even better, its' got the exact same ability to apply differential engine power as-well, yet Spitfires preyed on it quite effortlessly. What you're suggesting is that pilots such as Bong would be able to turn fight Spitfires in a Bf-110 ?


----------



## FLYBOYJ (Jul 20, 2009)

Soren said:


> I believe the accounts happened all right FLYBOYJ, but lets remember one thing, we DON'T know what the Zero or Oscar pilots were doing, and most likely they were rookies.


You have a very valid point and I'll give the benefit of the doubt there. At the same time you "could have" had the cream of the crop sitting there wondering why this twin engine monster was chewing up their aircraft.


Soren said:


> That having been said, we've had these discussions before and I will say exactly the same as I said then, and that is; There is no way that a P-38 is EVER going to outturn a Zero if both pilots know their a/c 100%. Sorry but it just wont happen!


But also remember this NO pilot will ever fly their aircraft to 100% efficiency, with that said, what was done with the P-38 in this situation was done outside tactical and design parameters established for the aircraft.


Soren said:


> Think about it, if it were to be true then a Bf-110 would be able to turn even better, yet Spitfires preyed on it quite effortlessly.


Yes - and look into the multi engine training many 110 drivers received. From what I understand many of the pilots who flew the 110 had some time in bombers and flew the 110 like a bomber. Tactically the Bf 110 and P-38 were flown entirely different and I think history shows us the end results when comparing them in their respective theaters of operation (the SWP for the P-38 )


----------



## DAVIDICUS (Jul 20, 2009)

FLYBOYJ and Soren, what do you think about a turn contest between a Bf-110 and P-38?


----------



## Kurfürst (Jul 21, 2009)

Colin1 said:


> I can't find anything putting the G-2 over 350mph or a climb rate any like as ambitious as 3,000ft/min
> Where are you getting this from?



Top speed of the G-2 version was 595 kph at 6100 m (see Mankau). I guess the lower speeds quoted refer to nightfighters with extra equipment (gunpods, flame dampers, antenna).


----------



## FLYBOYJ (Jul 21, 2009)

DAVIDICUS said:


> FLYBOYJ and Soren, what do you think about a turn contest between a Bf-110 and P-38?


On paper it seems the Bf 110 would out turn the P-38, but look at how many of the 110s were configured in the field - the lower gun pod and the night fighter version and I think all the extra equipment would have hampered its performance. I believe the P-38 probably accelerated and climbed better, especially the later J and L models.


----------



## Maximowitz (Jul 21, 2009)

I agree with FLYBOYJ, with rockets, gunpods and who knows what else the Bf 110 G series would have been far less agile than a P-38.

However we're clearly talking 1943-1944 here so by then the main purpose of the Bf 110's and Me 410's used in daylight missions was that of _bomber destroyer _and would not be inclined to mix it with a P-38 or P-47's in the first place.

Unless your name is Eduard Tratt.


----------



## davebender (Jul 21, 2009)

> look at how many of the 110s were configured in the field - the lower gun pod and the night fighter version and I think all the extra equipment would have hampered its performance.


If the fight takes place at night, which will likely be the case during the fall of 1943, then all that specialized Me-110 night fighting equipment puts the P-38 at a huge disadvantage. Most likely the P-38 pilot will not even know where the Me-110 is until 3cm cannon shells start hitting his aircraft.


----------



## FLYBOYJ (Jul 21, 2009)

davebender said:


> If the fight takes place at night, which will likely be the case during the fall of 1943, then all that specialized Me-110 night fighting equipment puts the P-38 at a huge disadvantage. Most likely the P-38 pilot will not even know where the Me-110 is until 3cm cannon shells start hitting his aircraft.



That's a given - we're talking about *general aircraft performance*. The Bf 110 by configuration was the perfect night fighter. Although the P-38M was developed in the end I believe the 110 was the better machine as it had the room to carry the "bolt on" equipment.


----------



## Glider (Jul 21, 2009)

I must admit that I feel as if the Me 110 has a bit of a bad press when it coems to air to air combat. There can be no doubt that the Me110 would be at a significant disadvantage in a one to one against the P38. However, it is often forgotten that the Me110 performed well and met all expectations as a day fighter until the BOB. 
Until then, by using its superior speed and firepower it had performed well in air combat against all comers. It came unstuck when up against modified Hurricanes and Spitfires who matched or exceeded its speed and had the agility.
The P38 was in a similar position. It performed well in the air to air combat largely by using those same advantages against the Japanese i.e. its higher speed and firepower. Had the Japanese replaced the Ki43 and Zero in 1943 with a true 400 mph fighter, the P38 may well have a similar epitaph as a day fighter and concentrated on strike missions.


----------



## davebender (Jul 21, 2009)

Japan acquired a license to build the DB601 engine during 1938. Then set about modifying the engine and designing their own air frame. If they had simply built the Me-109F under license and without modification to either the engine or airframe the early model P-38s would have been in trouble.


----------



## Clay_Allison (Jul 21, 2009)

davebender said:


> Japan acquired a license to build the DB601 engine during 1938. Then set about modifying the engine and designing their own air frame. If they had simply built the Me-109F under license and without modification to either the engine or airframe the early model P-38s would have been in trouble.


The Ki-61 wasn't a bad plane anyway. More emphasis on getting it in faster might have been bad news for us.


----------



## FLYBOYJ (Jul 21, 2009)

davebender said:


> Japan acquired a license to build the DB601 engine during 1938. Then set about modifying the engine and designing their own air frame. *If they had simply built the Me-109F under license and without modification to either the engine or airframe the early model P-38s would have been in trouble.*



Not really

It lacked range - a major factor in the Pacific. More maneuverable, it wasn't going to "boom and zoom" with the P-38. Additionally tactics would have also put is at a disadvantage. Lastly I question the quality of a licensed built German aircraft by the Japanese. As the war went on the production quality of their aircraft got worse and worse - part interchangeability was almost non-existent.


----------



## Glider (Jul 21, 2009)

FLYBOYJ said:


> Not really
> 
> It lacked range - a major factor in the Pacific. More maneuverable, it wasn't going to "boom and zoom" with the P-38. Additionally tactics would have also put is at a disadvantage. Lastly I question the quality of a licensed built German aircraft by the Japanese. As the war went on the production quality of their aircraft got worse and worse - part interchangeability was almost non-existent.



All good points plus its worth remembering that the Japanese found the engine difficult to build and they had a large number of airframes awaiting engines. This was the driver for the Ki100, a much more effective aircraft.


----------



## FLYBOYJ (Jul 21, 2009)

Glider said:


> All good points plus its worth remembering that the Japanese found the engine difficult to build and they had a large number of airframes awaiting engines. *This was the driver for the Ki100, a much more effective aircraft*.


Was getting ready to mention that!


----------



## Glider (Jul 21, 2009)

Great minds think alike so they say.


----------



## FLYBOYJ (Jul 21, 2009)




----------



## Vincenzo (Jul 21, 2009)

Kurfürst said:


> Top speed of the G-2 version was 595 kph at 6100 m (see Mankau). I guess the lower speeds quoted refer to nightfighters with extra equipment (gunpods, flame dampers, antenna).



combat or take off setting? imho in combat


----------



## Butters (Jul 21, 2009)

I've looked around some for solid info on the P-38's turn rate, but no luck...So I'll just go with what I've read in numerous accounts of the later model P-38's (G model onward) ability to mix it up with most single engine fighters in turning battles. The combination of the boosted ailerons and manoeuvering flaps gave the Lightning a good rate of turn,both instantaneous and sustained, esp at lower altitudes. To my knowledge, none of the Bf 110 variants were capable of manoeuvering with any of the common Allied or Axis single-engine fighters, despite the fact that it's wing loading was nominally lower than the P-38's.

Complex machines like combat aircraft cannot be reduced to mere numbers, and the large number of aerodynamic variables involved in ACM render conclusions based on calculations from a small number of specs less than compelling. A well-handled P-38 was a formidable adversary for any single-engine fighter of the war. The same cannot be said for the Bf 110. It was an utter failure as a day fighter, and it's continued use by the Luftwaffe in other less demanding roles, was merely a consequence of the failure of it's planned successors.They used it because they had it, not because it was a great combat a/c.

Many of the problems that the P-38 encountered in the ETO were a result of engine failures due to inappropriate fuel. One can hardly blame the a/c if it's required to use fuel it was not designed for...

Other problems, such as compressibility, inadequate heating, etc, were remedied by simple modifications for the most part. And these modifications could have been carried out much sooner but for the USAAF's demand that Lockheed not allow production to be halted for the necessary tooling changes. The Bf 110, OTOH, was inherently obsolete as a day fighter by '41. 

As for the night fighter role, the P-38 could have handled that at least as well as the Bf 110, even minus the Schrage Musik armament. It had better performance, comparable range, and better load carrying capacity. It also had the room to carry 3 20 mm in the nose, if needed. But it wasn't needed, because the USAAF had no urgent requirement for a high performance nightfighter, whereas they did want all the P-38 day fighter-bombers that they could get.

JL


----------



## Glider (Jul 21, 2009)

On the comment about the Me 110 vs P38 I have a quote from Capt Maurice McLary 55th FS/20th FG

On the encounters that I have had with the enemy's twin engined aircraft, I have found that they can turn much shorter than I had anticipated. I've also had trouble in staying behind them - the tendancy being to overrun them. They usually try to outturn you and in so doing put their tail gunner in a good position. I learned this the hard way- by having an engine shot out by an Me110 tail gunner.
On another occaision I believe his fuel transfer system was shot up by a rear gunner in a turn and he flew back with two inches of fuel in the bottom of his cockpit.

I don't want anybody to put to much into a single comment but its the only one I can find relating to an Me110 and a P38 in combat. However there can be little doubt that the rear gunner can spoil the day of a P38 tryng to turn inside an Me110.


----------



## Soren (Jul 21, 2009)

DAVIDICUS said:


> FLYBOYJ and Soren, what do you think about a turn contest between a Bf-110 and P-38?



I believe the Bf-110 turns tighter, but the roll rate was worse so entering a turn would be slower. I can't see it be any other way atm, the Bf-110 simply has a much lower wing loading and power loading aint that much worse than the P-38.

Still the P-38 was better suited as a heavy fighter as it was faster, climbed quicker and rolled much faster.


----------



## FLYBOYJ (Jul 21, 2009)

Soren said:


> I believe the Bf-110 turns tighter, but the roll rate was worse so entering a turn would be slower. I can't see it be any other way atm, the Bf-110 simply has a much lower wing loading and power loading aint that much worse than the P-38.
> 
> Still the P-38 was better suited as a heavy fighter as it was faster, climbed quicker and rolled much faster.



I could agree with that


----------



## davebender (Jul 21, 2009)

The Ki-61 entered service too late and in too few numbers to matter. An inevitable result of designing an airframe from scratch plus major redesign of the DB601 engine. Producing an unmodified Me-109 should put the aircraft into mass production by 1942.


----------



## Clay_Allison (Jul 21, 2009)

davebender said:


> The Ki-61 entered service too late and in too few numbers to matter. An inevitable result of designing an airframe from scratch plus major redesign of the DB601 engine. Producing an unmodified Me-109 should put the aircraft into mass production by 1942.


I'd suggest even a Bf 109E would have been very challenging for the Japanese to produce, maybe if a simplified version had been designed it would have been possible.


----------



## FLYBOYJ (Jul 21, 2009)

Either way the 109 did not have the legs for the Pacific


----------



## Clay_Allison (Jul 21, 2009)

FLYBOYJ said:


> Either way the 109 did not have the legs for the Pacific


Hah, true, it didn't really have the legs for the English channel. They had very limited engagement time over England during the BOB and that is a pretty short hop.


----------



## FLYBOYJ (Jul 21, 2009)

Clay_Allison said:


> Hah, true, it didn't really have the legs for the English channel. They had very limited engagement time over England during the BOB and that is a pretty short hop.


So imagine trying to operate over Guadalcanal.


----------



## MikeGazdik (Jul 22, 2009)

Since in a previous thread, I picked the P-38L as THE fighter I would pick to take on any other prop fighter, I certainly would think it would handle the Me110.

As far as turn rates, I think the Fowler flaps deployed into the manuvering position on the Lightning would even the field IF the P-38 pilot had to get into a turn fight. But if I were flying it, I certainly would not try to turn fight much. I would only use a maximum turn as an attempt to get a shot at my adversary. If it didn't work out quickly, I would use my climb performance to advantage.

Nightfighting is a different story. I think the Me110 certainly has the advantage over the P-38. I would much prefer to be in a P-61 at night vs the Messerschmitt.


----------



## davebender (Jul 22, 2009)

Service deliveries of the P-61 night fighter began during May 1944. That makes it contemporary with the German Ju-88G night fighter. Off topic but let's look at that match up.

*Ju-88G*
Luftwaffe Annex - Warbirds Resource Group - Junkers Ju 88G-7b Nightfighter
389 mph with flame dampers
1,655 fpm climb
4 x forward firing 20mm cannon
2 x slant firing 20mm cannon.
3.72 hours endurance.
A very comprehensive and effective package of night fighter avionics.
The Ju-88 series of night fighter aircraft scored thousands of kills during WWII.

*P-61B*
P-61 Black Widow - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
366 mph.
2,450 fpm climb. Probably the best feature of the P-61.
4 x forward firing 20mm cannon.
4 x turret mounted .50cal MG. Turret not installed on all aircraft as it caused buffeting problems.
Effectiveness of avionics package ??
Number of combat kills achieved at night ??


----------



## Vincenzo (Jul 23, 2009)

saw timeline the 110 G-2 must compared with P-38G


----------



## FLYBOYJ (Jul 23, 2009)

MikeGazdik said:


> As far as turn rates, I think the Fowler flaps deployed into the manuvering position on the Lightning would even the field IF the P-38 pilot had to get into a turn fight. But if I were flying it, I certainly would not try to turn fight much. I would only use a maximum turn as an attempt to get a shot at my adversary. If it didn't work out quickly, I would use my climb performance to advantage.



Click the link I posted and see the puplication "12 to 1." It talks about actual P-38 tactics used in the SWP.


----------



## timshatz (Jul 23, 2009)

Soren said:


> I believe the Bf-110 turns tighter, but the roll rate was worse so entering a turn would be slower. I can't see it be any other way atm, the Bf-110 simply has a much lower wing loading and power loading aint that much worse than the P-38.
> 
> Still the P-38 was better suited as a heavy fighter as it was faster, climbed quicker and rolled much faster.



Especially when you toss in the boosted ailerons of the late versions.


----------



## Dark Matter (Jul 23, 2009)

Both had heavy control surfaces at high speed.

The P-38 was better for combat.

The Bf-110 could not keep up with the lightning nor could it turn with it.


----------



## Focke Wulf Meister (Jul 24, 2009)

The Me-110 was designed as a heavy fighter/destroyer. It succeeded in early WWII campaigns against inferior opponents, but failed miserably as a daytime fighter in the Battle of Britain. As a night fighter later in the war, it did very well. It also excelled in the ground support role in Russia and North Africa. It also did a good job as a daytime bomber interceptor in the second half of the war. According to Wikipedia, On 2 April, the Bf 110 achieved one of its final successful engagements. A force of 62 attacked a mixed bomber stream of B-17 and B-24s with R4M rockets, destroying five B-17s and three B-24s, as a well as a single *P-38 Lightning*.

On 9 April, ZG 76 committed 77 to an USAAF raid on Berlin. USAAF P-51 Mustangs had now appeared, and were able to escort the Allied bombers to and from the target. The Bf 110 force lost 23 of the 77 machines. It never flew another mission in this capacity. The losses had "marked the beginning of the end of the Bf 110 Zerstörer as a firstline weapon in the RLV". The Zerstörer was only to fly as a day fighter against unescorted formations.

The P-38 was used in a number of different roles including dive bombing, level bombing, ground strafing, photo reconnaissance missions and extensively as a long-range escort fighter when equipped with drop tanks under its wings.

The P-38 was the only American fighter aircraft in active production throughout the duration of American involvement in the war, from Pearl Harbor to VJ Day.

According to Wikipedia, in the ETO, P-38s made 130,000 sorties with a loss of 1.3% overall, comparing favorably with ETO P-51s which posted a 1.1% loss, considering that the P-38s were vastly outnumbered and suffered from poorly thought-out tactics. The majority of the P-38 sorties were made in the period prior to Allied air superiority in Europe when pilots fought against a very determined and skilled enemy. Lieutenant Colonel Mark Hubbard, a vocal critic of the aircraft, rated it third best Allied fighter in Europe. The Lightning's greatest virtues were long range, heavy payload, high speed, fast climb, and concentrated firepower. The P-38 was a formidable interceptor and attack aircraft and, in the hands of any pilot, dangerous in air-to-air combat.

In the Pacific theater, the P-38 downed over 1,800 Japanese aircraft, with more than 100 pilots becoming aces. American fuel supplies contributed to a better engine performance and maintenance record, and range was increased with leaner mixtures. In the second half of 1944, the P-38L pilots out of Dutch New Guinea were flying 950 mi (1,530 km), fighting for 15 minutes and returning to base. Such long legs were invaluable until the P-47N and P-51D entered service.

With all that being said, I give the edge to the P-38. It was more maneuverable and faster than the 110. It had a heavier payload and could outclimb the 110. And then there is the combat radius of the two planes. The Lightning blows the 110 away, 700 to 290. It's a smoking hole in a dogfight with a Lightning.


----------



## Focke Wulf Meister (Jul 24, 2009)

Stats for P-38J: 

Max speed at critical altitude, 25,800'
(60.0" Hg. Man. Pr. 3000 rpm) = 421.5 mph

Max speed at sea level
(60.0" Hg. Man. Pr. 3000 rpm) = 345.0 mph

Rate of climb at sea level
(60.0" Hg. Man. Pr. 3000 rpm) = 4000'/min.

Rate of climb at critical altitude, 23,400 ft.
(60.0" Hg. Man. Pr. 3000 rpm) = 2900'/min.

Time to climb to critical altitude, 23,400 ft.
(60.0" Hg. Man. Pr. 3000 rpm) = 6.49 min.

Service Ceiling = 40,000' 

The P-38J is designed as a high altitude fighter interceptor. This airplane has a fast rate of climb and performs well at high altitude, however, caution must be used in acrobatics and diving maneuvers at all altitudes to keep below limiting airspeeds. These airspeed limitations are low due to tail buffeting which may eventually cause structural failure and are definitely objectionable and hazardous from a combat viewpoint. The stability about all axis is good, the radius of turn is fairly large for a fighter and the rate of roll is fair at medium speeds, but slow at high speeds because of heavy aileron forces. The single engine operations, visibility on the ground and in the air and cockpit layout is good. 

Stats for Bf-110G-4: 

Maximum Speed: 311 m.p.h. (500 km/h) @ sea-level.
342 m.p.h. (550 km/h) @ 22,900 ft. (6,979 m)
Service ceiling: 26,000 ft. (7,924 m)
Range: 1,305 miles (2,100 km) with maximum internal fuel.


----------



## Maximowitz (Jul 24, 2009)

"According to Wikipedia..."

I can see you've been doing some heavy duty research...


----------



## Waynos (Jul 24, 2009)

Regarding the damage resistance of the Mossie, remember also that the laminate was spirally grained and oppositely spiralled. This conferred great strength and made the laminates mutually supportive if damaged. The structural load was spread over the entire shell of the fuselage, there was no internal structure to fail, so bullet holes could be more readily absorbed than with a metal framed structure.

I also have a photo of a Mossie of 464Sqn which returned to base with the outer 3rd of one wing blown off (but the aileron remained sticking out on its own) and with the loss of one engine and with some of the hydraulics gone, so it was a quite survivable type.


----------



## FLYBOYJ (Jul 24, 2009)

Waynos said:


> Regarding the damage resistance of the Mossie, remember also that the laminate was spirally grained and oppositely spiralled. This conferred great strength and made the laminates mutually supportive if damaged. The structural load was spread over the entire shell of the fuselage, there was no internal structure to fail, so bullet holes could be more readily absorbed than with a metal framed structure.


But the repair process usually calls for a plug or insert within the spiral grain held in with glues. By doing that you upset the natural strength properties by inserting a "void" into the grain. that leads to diminished strength properties. Additionally depending where the repair is made, eventually the glue could decay by either vibration, chemical attack (fuel) or by elements (weather and moisture).

To do wood repairs, many times you need a clean temperature controlled enviornment, not exactly ideal in all operations.


----------



## Focke Wulf Meister (Jul 24, 2009)

Maximowitz said:


> "According to Wikipedia..."
> 
> I can see you've been doing some heavy duty research...



Jane's wasn't available to me at the time.


----------



## Maximowitz (Jul 24, 2009)

Focke Wulf Meister said:


> Jane's wasn't available to me at the time.




Knock yourself out, you'll do well here...


----------



## Focke Wulf Meister (Jul 24, 2009)

Holy crap! That pilot's head is HUGE!!! I just now noticed that from the profile I attached of the Me-110 on Post #90. LOL.

He must be related to Hermann Goering. _(“Education is dangerous - Every educated person is a future enemy" - HG)
_


----------



## imalko (Dec 28, 2009)

It's well known how Germans used versions of Bf 110 up gunned with twin MG 151s in under fuselage gondola as bomber destroyers. How come they didn't put this additional two MG 151 cannons in wing roots? This would reduced drag to a significant degree and its not like if Bf 110's wings were too thin to hold them. Is there some good reason why this wasn't done?


----------



## drgondog (Dec 28, 2009)

Imalko - I wonder if a.) a fuel cell was located there, and b) whether the 110 wing was stressed for 20mm in that area?


----------



## beaupower32 (Dec 28, 2009)

The fuel tanks for the 110 were located in the inboard sides of the engine.


----------



## imalko (Dec 28, 2009)

I would say that's more than enough reason. Thanks for clarification.


----------



## syscom3 (Dec 28, 2009)

I wonder if the -110 could have been modified to carry a torpedo.


----------



## delcyros (Dec 28, 2009)

The Deb-601E/F driven Bf-110 had two ETC 1000 carrieges. They could -in theory- then carry two 1000kg bombs or two LT 800 kg torpedoes under the fuselage. It was to the best of my knowledge never made but it could have been made if required. Ground clearance requirements for the SD 1000 are more challenging than for the LT 800.


----------



## parsifal (Dec 28, 2009)

The Me 110 was successful in the anti-shipping role, carrying bombs, and as a convoy escort. Ive seen photos of the 110 carrying enormous fuel tanks under the wings.......


----------



## davebender (Dec 28, 2009)

> How come they didn't put this additional two MG 151 cannons in wing roots?


Centerline mounted cannon are inherently more accurate. No need to set the convergence for a specific weapons range. That's why cannon firing through the prop hub worked so well.


----------



## drgondog (Dec 29, 2009)

davebender said:


> Centerline mounted cannon are inherently more accurate. No need to set the convergence for a specific weapons range. That's why cannon firing through the prop hub worked so well.



There is also the factor of structural rigidity and availablity to absorb more recoil for nose mounted weapons- not to mention the guns/fuselage and sight are far better coupled in all flight manuevers..

Wing mounted weapons introduces loads the wing must be designed to accomodate - particularly if not present in original design.

This factor is more important for s/e fighters than twins as a twin engine wing is stressed for in plane loads (due to engine), but aerodynamic loads impose variable inputs (frequency and deflection) along with engine thrust for both twin engine and single engine ships - making a concentrated burst impact point less predictable in varying flight conditions (i.e. turn, dive, roll).


----------

