1940: ideal fighter for the Luftwaffe?

Ad: This forum contains affiliate links to products on Amazon and eBay. More information in Terms and rules


RAF had something like 900 s-e fighters in the beginning of July and lost about 1100 only during BoB, a hundred or two more since May.. that's loss rate well over 100%.. so you would not like to fly Spitfires and Hurricane either...? But yet propotionally losses were heavy for destroyer arm.

Small note of operational ready crews. Einsatzbereit in German from translation original... not operationally ready means crew still new, and was spending less than 5 (or 10, I don't recall exact) operational sorties since combat carrier begun, this was definition for "Einsatzbereit" when they were considered truely ready to fly against enemy.
 
My post was using statistics to show the relative vulnerability of the Bf 110 compared with the Bf 109.

RAF percentage losses are not a valid comparison. The only targets for the Luftwaffe during the BoB (with a few very minor exceptions) were the RAF's single engined fighters.

The targets for the RAF were primarily the Luftwaffe's bomber force.

We have to be very careful quoting raw statistics and attempting comparisons in a different context.

The exact definition of "operationally ready" is not important either as I am quoting two figures in which the definition is the same making the comparison perfectly valid.

Statistics,statistics and lies

Cheers

Steve
 
The P-51 first flew in 1940 so had a 5 year head start with new technology and new doctrines.

The Bf 110 was designed when the RAF main fighter was the Bristol Bulldog!

The 110 may or may not be rubbish...but if I am a crewmen in a Blenhiem or Wellington in daylight surrounded by 110 then crying won't help you and praying will do you no good.
 
Vincenzo said:
thanks, maybe i not understand what's the source for Spit V data?
Click to expand...

The figures are from an Alfred Price book "Spitfire" which seems to be a combination of two previous books. The Figures are supposed to be from a August 1942 document by the Air Tactics dept of the Air Ministry as a guide for optimum engine settings to use when over enemy held territory. The numbers I used were the optimum settings for boost and rpm (high boost and low rpm) high arm and low boost could use around 5 gallons more per hour for the same speed.
 

While the P-51 benefited from new technology I am not at all sure there was a new doctrine when it was designed. The perceived need for a single engine escort fighter was still several years away.

Many countries first monoplanes were designed when the the Bristol Bulldog was the RAF main fighter, in fact some of the second generation were almost on the drawing boards when the Bulldog left service, it doesn't mean that anybody really thought the new planes were going to fight Bulldogs

The 110 does get a bad Rap as several other countries designed and built twin engine fighters in the same "category", although in lesser numbers. Since a single engine fighter could not have the range ( at the time) a twin was the only answer ( a twin, in spite of it's handicap being thought better than NO fighter).

The French had several, the Japanese had the KI 45 ( started in 1937) and tried to follow it. The Italians had a few. The US had the Airacuda ( mercifully not many).
 
The Basket said:
The 110 may or may not be rubbish...
Click to expand...

Noone said or implied that the Bf 110 was rubbish.
It can be considered a successful aeroplane.It did struggle,even in 1940,against the RAF's single engined fighters.
It's service life may have been extended by the failiure of the Luftwaffe to acquire a suitable replacement but it did well until the end after its transformation into a night fighter.That's a role I'm sure was not foreseen when the design was on the drawing board.

Cheers

Steve
 

Thats exactly what it was designed for - a long-range fighter. The RLM specification for 1934 was for a heavy long-range strategic fighter - as Goering wanted.
 
Njaco said:
Thats exactly what it was designed for - a long-range fighter. The RLM specification for 1934 was for a heavy long-range strategic fighter - as Goering wanted.
Click to expand...

Yes, a "zerstorer" which can be interpreted as heavy fighter.

The original RLM specification you refer to called for an internal bomb load so the intention was not for a long range fighter in the sense we would understand it of an American or British fighter.

John Vasco,who knows a thing or two about the Bf 110 has written.

"The RLM also took the view,at this time (late 1935) that the Bf 110 mock up lent itself to a bomber configuration.This clearly shows that even before the maiden test flight of the Bf 110,Luftwaffe thinking had envisaged the aircraft not only as a machine that could clear a path for bomber formations,but which would also undertake duties as a ground attack aircraft in support of German ground forces."

That fits perfectly with German air doctrine of the 1930s.

Cheers

Steve
 
Shortround6 said:
While the P-51 benefited from new technology I am not at all sure there was a new doctrine when it was designed. The perceived need for a single engine escort fighter was still several years away.
Click to expand...

One advantage of the P-51 is that the designers can see aircraft like the Spitfire and 109 and see what is good and what is bad. They basically said the P-40 was rubbish and we can do better. This a huge advantage and only hindsight which they had the luxury of, could you do that. Mitchell designed the Spitfire because he knew no better other than to go for speed. The protoype 109 flew with a 600hp engine, the P-51 1100hp and the P-47 2,000hp! That is the problem right there!

American fighters were usually bigger than European aircraft. Even the P-40 was bigger than a 109 and Spitfire. So more room for fuel even if only bigger was just the way they did stuff.

I mentioned the Bulldog because that was the main fighter and the main benchmark of its day. Its design was the blueprint since WW1 and the Germans main Luftwaffe fighter, the He 51 was desegned exactly the same. Fixed undercarriage, open cockpit, biplane with 2 guns. Anything....even the Bf 110 is going to seem like an X-Wing against a He 51 and so hide any weaknesses that will show up later...ie...it does 330mph and whats wrong with that? For a 1930s big twin....absolutely nothing.
 
The original RLM specification you refer to called for an internal bomb load so the intention was not for a long range fighter in the sense we would understand it of an American or British fighter.
Click to expand...

This is clearly wrong!
The first advertisement was long range fighting and zerstoerer and without an internal bomb bay! And this advertisement was from Wever and Wimmer.

The second advertisement of the zerstoerer concept (Milch, Goering and Kesselring) at 1939-40 with the Arado 240 and the bf 210 had the internal bomb load but not the first advertisement with the Bf 110.

At the LW were heavy conflicts about the zerstoerer concept from the beginning!
Wever, Wimmer and later Udet favour more a heavy fighter concept, this is the reason why udet ordered the FW 187, but Goering; Milch and Kesselring favoured the Bf 110 and the zerstoerer concept.

As history has shown the later second advertisement with internal bomb bay was nothing but crap, wasting money, time and manpower!

And that is a twin so a single engine plane should have 550 liters? 145 US gallons? WHAT A CONCEPT!
Click to expand...

You should consider which timeline, the rapid developments from all "important" country's and the "new"learning.
Nobody of the designers had experience with the development of this new fighter generations.
And the Bf 109E was in service since the beginning of 1939.

It is some kind of funny to disqualify the FW 187 with arguments of internal fuel and the second engine, also the Bf 109E with it's aerodynamics, because both were from 1938 (flying) and sevice 1939 (Fw 187 A0 and Bf 109E), but on the other hand to argue with a'c's which were perhaps on the drawing board but wether in service nor even produced.

It is a fact that no heavy fighter with 1100 internal fuel at 1939-40 could ever match with the aerodynamics and performance of the FW 187 with a DB 601A. Also it is a fact that all mentioned a/c's in this thread as an alternative for the Bf 109E weren't produced in numbers at May to August 1940 and that the german developed at 1940 the Bf 109F which went in service late 1940. And no mentioned a/c was better or equal to the Bf 109F in aerodynamics and performance at the same timeline (P40, A6M, Macci 202).
 
It is a fact that no heavy fighter with 1100 internal fuel at 1939-40 could ever match with the aerodynamics and performance of the FW 187 with a DB 601A.
Click to expand...

The P-38 first flew in Jan 1939.

I would say the Westland Whirlwind would have given the Fw187 a good run for the money.
 
@ Milosh

To my very personal opinion I don't believe that the P38 would be a match for the FW 187 (with continuous development).
If you look at the real data's and estimated data's from FW, the P38 was outclassed at speed and climb performance and clearly at wing loading.

Also I have my doubt's that a Westland Whirlwind could match with a FW 187 with 2 x DB 601A.

When was the P38 in service?
 
The Basket said:
One advantage of the P-51 is that the designers can see aircraft like the Spitfire and 109 and see what is good and what is bad. They basically said the P-40 was rubbish and we can do better.
Click to expand...

True but more on that later.


I wold note that the FIRST prototype of the P-40 (Hawk 75) first flew in May 1935 with an experimental Curtiss engine of a supposed 900hp. It was replaced in succession by a 650hp P&W R-1535 and a 675hp Wright Cyclone. I believe the wing airfoil and plane form remained unchanged until the end in 1944? North American didn't have to look at the 109 and Spitfire (although I am sure they did), they could look at the 5 year old Curtiss fighter and the 4-5 year old Seversky fighter and even the 1 year old P-39.

The Basket said:
American fighters were usually bigger than European aircraft. Even the P-40 was bigger than a 109 and Spitfire. So more room for fuel even if only bigger was just the way they did stuff.
Click to expand...

one reason for the bigger was for the fuel. Was the plane fitted with more fuel because it would fit or did the fuel fit because it was designed to fit from the start?
The Curtiss Hawk/P-36 carried 151-162 gallons in three tanks from the beginning. Two tanks in the wing center section and one overload tank behind the cockpit. Just like the P-40. (what a surprise) Self sealing tanks cut into the capacity (which on the original P-40 was up to 180 gallons)

I once read an account of a P-40 squadron that deployed from the west coast to the east coast by air. Because of weather, break downs, malfunctions and fueling stops it took almost 2 weeks to get the squadron back together again. Mechanics, supplies and other support went by train. Flight is by VFR only which limits days/hours for flight. Distance from Southern Maine (Portsmouth Navy yard) to Miami is about the same as Gothenburg, Sweden to Marseille and from LA to Jacksonville FL is 2146 miles while it is only 1739 miles from Dublin to Moscow. American planes needed some range just to deploy around the country.
 

When was the DB601 Fw187 in service?
 
The 109 was seeing combat and that was a good judge of what is right. I am not saying that the Mustang is a copy but an anti copy. Look at the weakness and mistakes of current fighters and don't do it again.

I do think American things are bigger because they are. It helps as it means bigger aircraft can hold bigger fuel.
 
Plain a simple the Germans dropped the ball.

1934 (roughly) the Germans start work on the 109 and British start on the Hawker Hurricane.
1935, The first 109 flies in May and the First Hurricane flies in November.
1936, First flight of Spitfire in March. In June the Hurricane is ordered into production along with the Spitfire.
1937 sees the first deliveries of production 109s, Hurricanes and Spitfires, it also sees the British issue specification F.18/37 which leads to the Hawker Tornado and Typhoon. orders are also placed for 2 Westland P.9s. Germans start design process on FW 190
1938. sees some of the First 109E prototypes under test in Jan/Feb with initial E-0 and E-1s under going acceptance tests in NOV. Back in March the British had ordered 4 prototypes of the new Hawker fighter. October sees the first flight of a Whirlwind.
1939. Production of 109E gets into stride. end of the year sees work ( on paper?) for the "F"? First flight of the Tornado (with Vulture engine) is in Oct. First flight of FW 190 is in June but needs new cooling system for the BMW 139 engine.

The Germans had the oldest of the aircraft. By 1938-39 it needed a successor on the way, not a supplement and not "tweaks". They did a good job with the "F" but that should have been holding the line for the 209/309/whatever. Granted some of the British designs didn't work that well but at least they were trying for something new in 1938/39 and not expecting the Hurricane-Spitfire to go on forever.
 
Germans did have a doctrine for a long range fighter.
It was called the Bf 110.
Click to expand...

Me-110 production numbers were too low to fill that role.

USA Long Range Fighter Aircraft
US Warplanes
2,970 x P-38J.
3,923 x P-38L.
12,608 x P-47D.
1,988 x P-51B.
1,750 x P-51C.
8,100 x P-51D.

1940 Me-110 Fighter Production.
German aircraft production during World War II - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
1,006.
Less then 100 Me-110 fighter aircraft produced per month and most were diverted to the night fighter force by mid 1940. I think it's safe to say U.S. 8th Air Force on average received more long range day fighter aircraft per month then the Luftwaffe received during all of 1940.

Germany must produce several hundred Me-110 day fighter aircraft per month during 1940 (in addition to recon and night fighters) to have any chance for success as a bomber escort.
 
What does TOTAL US production of several long range aircraft have to do with Me 110 production JUST during 1940 ?
Over 6000 Me 110 were produced total.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Users who are viewing this thread

Total: 1 (members: 0, guests: 1)

Similar threads

I
Question on Luftwaffe protocols for missing aircraft??
Replies
17
Views
857
Snautzer01
W
The scarcity of fighter to fighter FW-190A pilot combat accounts...
2 3
Replies
52
Views
3K
GrauGeist
S
"Generations" of fighter aircraft
2
Replies
31
Views
1K
SaparotRob
S
Day fighter Ta 154
Replies
0
Views
622
spicmart
S
Hornet Deck Load for the Doolittle Raid
2
Replies
35
Views
3K
SaparotRob
Menu
Log in
Register