Dive-bombing Me 110?

The Mosquito was the RAFs most accurate and successful level bomber day or night, its best night fighter, possibly best recon AC and amongst its best long range heavy fighters, the idea of modifying it to present the best possible target for ground fire gives me the vapours.

I'd agree except for the vapours part. That usually takes cabbage or potato chips and beer, and an hour or so.

THEN we can get vapours to the point of leaving the room or suffering the slings and arrows of ... vapours. Sometimes you can clear the entire room with a good one, even the dog.

SpicyJuan11 said:

Ok, what I was thinking was something along the lines of a Hs 123-129 hybrid. It would have the same (if not, a bit less) armor protection than the Hs 129, have a Mg FF/Mg 151/20 for rear protection (alternatively eliminate the rear gunner and replace it with more radio equipment), have an increased frontal armament (perhaps two 30mm/Bk 37. Standard missions would be tank busting, and infantry support. Thoughts?

Click to expand...

A 20mm out the rear sounds good, now you just have to figure the field of fire and how to aim it. Either one is much larger than the 7.9mm gun/s or the MG 131 and that means the rear end of the gun bumps into the fuselage side sooner limiting traverse unless you use some sort of turret, longer barrels get pushed on more by the slip stream making them harder to aim which means some sort of power assist would be nice, weight has now gone up a lot more than just the weight of the gun. The HS 129 only had to armor one cockpit, armoring two (especially when they are a distance apart adds hundreds of pounds. Bf 110 started with the same radio gear as a He 111 bomber which is one reason for the second crewman. CAS aircraft don't need long range radios. They do need radios with several channels so they can talk to ground controllers/spotters. AT guns make lousy general support weapons. Which is going to break up an enemy infantry assault better, say 48 37mm shells (24rpg for two Bk 37s) or thousands of mg rounds or hundreds of 20mm rounds or perhaps 8-12 50kg bombs? Or cluster bombs?

Anti-tank work falls under CAS but it is actually just ONE mission out of many done by CAS aircraft. The Bk 37 is only going to fire a few shots on each pass. A Bk 37 weighed 650lbs (plus ammo, plus mounting system) and fired at 160rpm (or about 5 shots in 2 seconds) Ju-87 fired single shots, not automatic, because they caused the plane to drop it's nose when fired (not as much of a problem if the gun/s are mounted closer to the CG in height) and also because the guns don't fire at exactly the same rate once the guns get out of sync the recoil caused the plane to weave from side to side as first one gun fired then the other. ALso not as much of a problem with guns close together under the fuselage. But you still are going to be lucky to fire 9-10 shells per barrel on one firing pass of 3 1/2 to 4 seconds. A 250mph plane will cover 450meters or almost 500yds in 4 seconds. AP 37mm ammunition has no explosive or darn little and 37mm HE ammo isn't very effective against tanks.

I'd think an armored heavy fighter (following the fighter-bomber concept) able to evade or engage enemy fighters as well as make effective ground strikes would be more feasible than including an effective defensive armament. At least if all you want is dive bombing and anti-tank/anti-rail/anti-material heavy cannons being carried. (with the weight/performance and rate of fire/penetration effectiveness trade-offs, it does seem like the Mk 103 would be the more practical weapon in a large number of cases, or even dual MK.103s -short of having something like the NS-37, of course)


As for the Mosquito, I was under the impression that (unlike German bombers) it had not been stressed for dive bombing OR high G maneuvering stresses typically applied to fighters. That and its roll rate being major limiting factors for its potential as a day fighter. (might have made a decent heavy interceptor against day bombers -had the threat persisted- but the British, unlike the Germans, didn't generally have that need)

The P-38 might make a useful dive bomber if you can manage enough drag. (not sure if the drag of bombs + dive flaps + maneuvering flaps + idled engines with props at flat pitch would be enough and I don't think the landing gear was stressed for dives like the F4U )
I know the dive recovery flaps DID also function as dive breaks to some extent, and also tended to force pitch-up. (so may be useful for forcing pull-out even if the pilot blacks out)

Shortround6 said:

A 20mm out the rear sounds good, now you just have to figure the field of fire and how to aim it. Either one is much larger than the 7.9mm gun/s or the MG 131 and that means the rear end of the gun bumps into the fuselage side sooner limiting traverse unless you use some sort of turret, longer barrels get pushed on more by the slip stream making them harder to aim which means some sort of power assist would be nice, weight has now gone up a lot more than just the weight of the gun. The HS 129 only had to armor one cockpit, armoring two (especially when they are a distance apart adds hundreds of pounds. Bf 110 started with the same radio gear as a He 111 bomber which is one reason for the second crewman. CAS aircraft don't need long range radios. They do need radios with several channels so they can talk to ground controllers/spotters. AT guns make lousy general support weapons. Which is going to break up an enemy infantry assault better, say 48 37mm shells (24rpg for two Bk 37s) or thousands of mg rounds or hundreds of 20mm rounds or perhaps 8-12 50kg bombs? Or cluster bombs?

Anti-tank work falls under CAS but it is actually just ONE mission out of many done by CAS aircraft. The Bk 37 is only going to fire a few shots on each pass. A Bk 37 weighed 650lbs (plus ammo, plus mounting system) and fired at 160rpm (or about 5 shots in 2 seconds) Ju-87 fired single shots, not automatic, because they caused the plane to drop it's nose when fired (not as much of a problem if the gun/s are mounted closer to the CG in height) and also because the guns don't fire at exactly the same rate once the guns get out of sync the recoil caused the plane to weave from side to side as first one gun fired then the other. ALso not as much of a problem with guns close together under the fuselage. But you still are going to be lucky to fire 9-10 shells per barrel on one firing pass of 3 1/2 to 4 seconds. A 250mph plane will cover 450meters or almost 500yds in 4 seconds. AP 37mm ammunition has no explosive or darn little and 37mm HE ammo isn't very effective against tanks.

Click to expand...

All good points. To make the 20mm work I guess the rear canopy could be enlarged? Or I guess get rid of the second crewman completely.

kool kitty89 said:

I'd think an armored heavy fighter (following the fighter-bomber concept) able to evade or engage enemy fighters as well as make effective ground strikes would be more feasible than including an effective defensive armament. At least if all you want is dive bombing and anti-tank/anti-rail/anti-material heavy cannons being carried. (with the weight/performance and rate of fire/penetration effectiveness trade-offs, it does seem like the Mk 103 would be the more practical weapon in a large number of cases, or even dual MK.103s -short of having something like the NS-37, of course)

As for the Mosquito, I was under the impression that (unlike German bombers) it had not been stressed for dive bombing OR high G maneuvering stresses typically applied to fighters. That and its roll rate being major limiting factors for its potential as a day fighter. (might have made a decent heavy interceptor against day bombers -had the threat persisted- but the British, unlike the Germans, didn't generally have that need)

The P-38 might make a useful dive bomber if you can manage enough drag. (not sure if the drag of bombs + dive flaps + maneuvering flaps + idled engines with props at flat pitch would be enough and I don't think the landing gear was stressed for dives like the F4U )
I know the dive recovery flaps DID also function as dive breaks to some extent, and also tended to force pitch-up. (so may be useful for forcing pull-out even if the pilot blacks out)

Click to expand...

How well did the Me 110 fight on its own against Migs, Yaks, and LaGG's, I was under the impression that it didn't at all, but the Fw 190F did.

The Moquito was stressed for a certain g-limit at a certain weight and, if it was a lightened single-seater version, could pull more g's than the bomber version, but really only if the inertia weight was removed from the elevator control system. If the inertia weight remained, it was difficult to pull more than 3g.

So far I unable to find a normal g-limit or a manuvering envelope when used as a fighter, but the maneuverability was not as good as a Typhoon or Spitfire and it was considered as not effective if employed as a day fighter from the Boscombe Down reports. It aslo wasn't really fast enough in the reports. Perhaps later versions might have been fast enough, but they were never going to out-turn a single seat fighter and roll control was nowhere NEAR what was needed for a fighter.

Day fighter was one mission the Mosquito was never going to fulfill with any degree of competence, though you could certainly use one in a pinch against bombers or transports, especially if other fighters were around to chase the enemy single-seaters. As a night fighter, it was a good one. Nobody could dogfight at night anyway.

You can find the reports at WWIIFighterPerformance.

Neil Stirling was kind enough to post a chart with some G factors on it.

http://www.ww2aircraft.net/forum/aviation/structure-weight-data-drag-analysis-42716.html

The Mosquito is hard to read, 6 or 8 Gs at 18,500lbs.

Since the label is "Ultimate flight Factor," we can infer the normal flight limits for the Mosquito to be between 5 and 6 g.

Thanks Shortround.

SpicyJuan11 said:

How well did the Me 110 fight on its own against Migs, Yaks, and LaGG's, I was under the impression that it didn't at all, but the Fw 190F did.

Click to expand...

I was thinking more potential twin engine heavy fighter/attack aircraft in general. More in the vein of the P-38 or possibly a Fw 187 derivative given the German context. (187 would probably be stuck with resorting to gondola mounted anti-tank cannons though, while the P-38 probably could have at least managed a high velocity 30 or 37 mm gun in the nose -like the American M9 cannon, not all that far from the size and weight of the MK-103, though much slower firing -closer in size/weight to the MK 101 or NS-37, but much lighter than the BK-37) Of course, for a strafer+dive bomber combination, you'd probably omit any sort of canon gondola in favor of the nose guns alone and bombs carried underwing.

Dive bombers also have the tendency to render rear gunners blacked out after pull-out, another thing avoided entirely if single-seat performance is emphasized. (or 2 seat if more optimized for long range with added navigation and radio operator duties -especially early war with more limited radio technology)

Not directly relevant to the german ground attack, but an AM-38 powered MiG-5 might also be relevant in the low alt heavy fighter/bomber context. (granted, probably close to twice as expensive as an Il-2, but then so would be a Bf 110 or Fw 187 over a Ju 87 -Bf 110 probably the worst case of the bunch)

GregP said:

So far I unable to find a normal g-limit or a manuvering envelope when used as a fighter, but the maneuverability was not as good as a Typhoon or Spitfire and it was considered as not effective if employed as a day fighter from the Boscombe Down reports. It aslo wasn't really fast enough in the reports. Perhaps later versions might have been fast enough, but they were never going to out-turn a single seat fighter and roll control was nowhere NEAR what was needed for a fighter.

Click to expand...

Would the Mossie (even in lightened fighter configuration with better power/wing loading) really not be competitive in turn rate? (twin prop wash would help too) Roll would be another matter, and probably not something addressed without having boosted ailerons and/or clipping the wings a significant amount. (the torque of the Merlin XX powered versions would be a disadvantage too compared to the less common counter-rotating L/R handed 2-stage merlin models)

Best case for a day fighter I'd think would be something along the lines of a streamlined single-seat canopy, low/medium altitude tuned 2-stage merlins with counter-rotation to elliminate torque (also improving stall and turning characteristics), and clipped wings with either boost tabs or hydraulic boosted ailerons. (akin to the tabs on the Corsair or hydraulics on the P-38J/L -the former would be much simpler to adapt)

kool kitty89 said:

I was thinking more potential twin engine heavy fighter/attack aircraft in general. More in the vein of the P-38 or possibly a Fw 187 derivative given the German context. (187 would probably be stuck with resorting to gondola mounted anti-tank cannons though, while the P-38 probably could have at least managed a high velocity 30 or 37 mm gun in the nose -like the American M9 cannon, not all that far from the size and weight of the MK-103, though much slower firing -closer in size/weight to the MK 101 or NS-37, but much lighter than the BK-37) Of course, for a strafer+dive bomber combination, you'd probably omit any sort of canon gondola in favor of the nose guns alone and bombs carried underwing.

Dive bombers also have the tendency to render rear gunners blacked out after pull-out, another thing avoided entirely if single-seat performance is emphasized. (or 2 seat if more optimized for long range with added navigation and radio operator duties -especially early war with more limited radio technology)

Not directly relevant to the german ground attack, but an AM-38 powered MiG-5 might also be relevant in the low alt heavy fighter/bomber context. (granted, probably close to twice as expensive as an Il-2, but then so would be a Bf 110 or Fw 187 over a Ju 87 -Bf 110 probably the worst case of the bunch)



Would the Mossie (even in lightened fighter configuration with better power/wing loading) really not be competitive in turn rate? (twin prop wash would help too) Roll would be another matter, and probably not something addressed without having boosted ailerons and/or clipping the wings a significant amount. (the torque of the Merlin XX powered versions would be a disadvantage too compared to the less common counter-rotating L/R handed 2-stage merlin models)

Best case for a day fighter I'd think would be something along the lines of a streamlined single-seat canopy, low/medium altitude tuned 2-stage merlins with counter-rotation to elliminate torque (also improving stall and turning characteristics), and clipped wings with either boost tabs or hydraulic boosted ailerons. (akin to the tabs on the Corsair or hydraulics on the P-38J/L -the former would be much simpler to adapt)

Click to expand...

The Mosquito would never ever compete as a fighter with single engined LW fighters in a straight fight but why should or would it? "Fighter" is a loose term normally confined to short range engagements attacking or defending a position . In theatres such as anti shipping the mosquito could take on Ju88s and in most cases out run single engined fighters while hitting shipping hard. The Mosquito could throw a bomb up a tunnel, knock down a wall at a prison why on earth would anyone think of using it as a dive bomber? Its record of hitting precision targets without diving speaks for its self. If the Mosquito was up against the P38 in the north sea then it may have had problems. As it was in most situations it could get its business done with very little that the LW could do about it.

British flight tests indicate it wasn't a fighter in any sense of the word. And big heavy twins don't turn with small, agile singles unless they cam pull the same g-force at the same speed. If the normal load factor of the Mosquito was around 4.8 - 5.5 g, then all the single had to do to out turn him was to pull a bit more g.

In WWII, most fighters could get around 5.5 - 6.5 g at 280 - 350 mph down at low to medium altitudes. Up high they were lucky to get 3 g, and the Mosquito was NOT a good plane at low speeds. At high altitudes, the IAS and stall speed get closer and closer until, at some point, the Mosquito can't get any slower without stalling. The Spitfire CAN get slower because it's stall pseed was quite a bit lower, meaning it was going win any turn contest up high. Since it was stronger, it was also going to win any turn contest down lower, assuming enougn energy to sustain the g-force required.

So the Mosquito was a very fast plane for a twin, but not all THAT fast. Many early variant were slower than 350 mph down low and the Bf 110 was right there with the Mossie at that time. It never got USED like a Mossie, and that's largely because the Mosquito could LIVE at high speed when necessary and the Bf 110 was fast for a few minutes and then became only moderately fast when they gave the DB's a rest.

Later versions of the Mosquito were pretty fast and could still stay fast for some time. But they never got an appreciable airframe strength modification, so the strength was always somwwhere near the early variants and even a bit less if the Mossie variant included extended wingtips. It was still not going to be a day fighter and, in fact, never was.

Believe me, if the British thought it could have been, it WOULD have been.

It certainly found a niche and gave great service. Nobody including its opponents has anything bad to say about the Mosquito. Quite the opposite ... the Germans wanted an equivalent plane of their own and expended considerable resources trying to get one. They never did.

Though the Me 410 wasn't a far cry away from the average Mosquito's capabilities, it somehow never got employed in a similar role. But it WAS as strong as a fighter and they tried to use is as one, largely unsuccessfully against fast, agile single seaters.

The only twin of which I am aware that regularly competed with singles as a fighter successfully was the P-38. After they fixed most of the early flaws, it made a good name in the MTO and PTO where the limiting Mach number wasn't nearly as much of a factor as it was in the ETO where enemy people escaped attack by diving away on a regular basis after a firing pass.

kool kitty89 said:

...
Not directly relevant to the german ground attack, but an AM-38 powered MiG-5 might also be relevant in the low alt heavy fighter/bomber context. (granted, probably close to twice as expensive as an Il-2, but then so would be a Bf 110 or Fw 187 over a Ju 87 -Bf 110 probably the worst case of the bunch)
...

Click to expand...

The price of the MiG-5 fighter bomber (with 2 AM 38 engines, though it would be interesting with the M 82 on board here) vs. Il-2 might be looked through the 'capability glasses'.
The Il-2 was able to carry max 600 kg of bombs and 2 x 20 mm with one AM 38. Exchanging two of the 20 mm for two 23 mm reduced max bomb load to 400 kg, installing 2 x 37mm meant no bombs were carried. No rear gunner until AM 38F (or M-82) on board. Well protected vs. AAA, easy target for fighters. Short range.
An aircraft with two AM 38 engines should be able to carry the rear gunner, a worthwhile load of bombs, strong gun armament - all in the same time. With MiG-5 as starting point (though I'd rather have the 'metal Mosquito' lookalike), we'd see a fighter-bomber that can beat the Pe-2 easily, and a tough proposal for LW fighters (under 3 km), if not AAA.

tomo pauk said:

The price of the MiG-5 fighter bomber (with 2 AM 38 engines, though it would be interesting with the M 82 on board here) vs. Il-2 might be looked through the 'capability glasses'.
The Il-2 was able to carry max 600 kg of bombs and 2 x 20 mm with one AM 38. Exchanging two of the 20 mm for two 23 mm reduced max bomb load to 400 kg, installing 2 x 37mm meant no bombs were carried. No rear gunner until AM 38F (or M-82) on board. Well protected vs. AAA, easy target for fighters. Short range.
An aircraft with two AM 38 engines should be able to carry the rear gunner, a worthwhile load of bombs, strong gun armament - all in the same time. With MiG-5 as starting point (though I'd rather have the 'metal Mosquito' lookalike), we'd see a fighter-bomber that can beat the Pe-2 easily, and a tough proposal for LW fighters (under 3 km), if not AAA.

Click to expand...

I prefer the capability argument more too, and I only cited the cost issue as the major trade-off. Having the cannons on the centerline would be an advantage as well, and I think that (like the P-38, Mosquito, and potentially Fw 187 derivatives) it may have been best without defensive armament but potentially still including a second crewman at least in some variants. (added navigation and radio resources would be useful, especially for longer range missions)

Aside from that, it should also make a good bomber interceptor/destroyer with heavy armament, good initial climb rate, and probably still enough power at middle altitudes to be competent. (possibly evading enemy fighters mostly with dives -assuming it had good enough high speed handling to mange)

The MiG-5 was provided with twice the fuel tankage per engine vs. the MiG-3, and some 3/4s more than Il-2: some 1800 kg, or ~2450L (650 US gals) - so we can play a bit with fuel vs. bomb load carried, depending with the distance of the target. The translated pages from Shavrov's book: link; the 'p' should be the Cyrillic 'p' (Latin 'r') and it means 'estimated' in English.

GregP said:

The only twin of which I am aware that regularly competed with singles as a fighter successfully was the P-38. After they fixed most of the early flaws, it made a good name in the MTO and PTO where the limiting Mach number wasn't nearly as much of a factor as it was in the ETO where enemy people escaped attack by diving away on a regular basis after a firing pass.

Click to expand...

and the Westland Whirlwind, except at high altitudes.

The Whirlwind didn't have anything like the combat success or length of service of the P-38. I like the Whirly, but it really wasn't a great fighter. Came into service in 1940 and was retired in 1943. Yes' it had some successes, but relatively few in comparison.

But technically, I suppose the Whirly DID compete as a fighter-bomber.

GregP said:

The Whirlwind didn't have anything like the combat success or length of service of the P-38.

Click to expand...

Because development was halted at the Mk.I in 1940. No real fault of the Whirlwind, just the engine rationalisation policy.

tomo pauk said:

The MiG-5 was provided with twice the fuel tankage per engine vs. the MiG-3, and some 3/4s more than Il-2: some 1800 kg, or ~2450L (650 US gals) - so we can play a bit with fuel vs. bomb load carried, depending with the distance of the target. The translated pages from Shavrov's book: link; the 'p' should be the Cyrillic 'p' (Latin 'r') and it means 'estimated' in English.

Click to expand...

Huh, the figures in those charts also put the AM35A's power figures only modestly behind the AM37. I wonder why the MiG-5 wasn't tested with those engines given the production availability (at least back when a mid/high altitude fighter was the project goal, or even later on as a medium altitude bomber interceptor).

But in any case yes, the MiG-5 looks to be a good deal more adaptable than most (if not all) other Soviet fighter and attack aircraft of the time. With the AM37's already having greater cooling requirements, the transition to AM38 may have been smoother than the attempts on the MiG-3 with its radiator inadequacies.

It doesn't matter whose fault it was. You get one shot at greatness and the Whirlwind didn't make it. Neat airplane, but not a great one ... possibly due to lack of development.

I still like it a lot, but it won't make the history of the aerial battles in WWII except as a footnote.

Too bad. It had potential that lack of a good engine with development possibilities made moot.

kool kitty89 said:

Huh, the figures in those charts also put the AM35A's power figures only modestly behind the AM37. I wonder why the MiG-5 wasn't tested with those engines given the production availability (at least back when a mid/high altitude fighter was the project goal, or even later on as a medium altitude bomber interceptor).

Click to expand...

The power of the AM 37 should be 1450 CV for take off, 1300 CV at SL (nominal regime) and 1400 CV at ~5.8 km (also nominal). The AM 35 A was, respectively, at 1350, 1120 and 1200 CV at 6 km. The MiG 5 was a substantial aircraft, almost 39 sq m of wing area (some 30% greater than of P-38, just some 7-8% less than Mosquito), and with two AM 35A would not perform as wanted, we'd have maybe 580 km/h?

But in any case yes, the MiG-5 looks to be a good deal more adaptable than most (if not all) other Soviet fighter and attack aircraft of the time. With the AM37's already having greater cooling requirements, the transition to AM38 may have been smoother than the attempts on the MiG-3 with its radiator inadequacies.

Click to expand...

This is where the 'substantial' stature of the MiG 5 is a good thing - big wing will help out with taking off with big payload in a fighter-bomber role.