Me-110 Underrated

[John Vasco]

Of course controllers don't get it right, it is known in warfare that things go FUBAR. But the same is true on both sides. The LW made some very well executed raids in the BoB on airfields of Coastal and Bomber command. They were also making raids and developing tactics that were based on the RAF being down to their last 50 aircraft (an exaggeration but things like that were said) They were making raids to deliver the knock out blow to an enemy that was numerically as strong as ever.

True. The Lw plastered the wrong airfields at times. It was a classic military case of 'Not knowing what is going on over the other side of the hill'. And yes, their Intelligence Section (read Beppo Schmid) got things absolutely wrong, divorced from the reality of the situation. And so they continued to press against an enemy they thought was getting weaker, when the reality was they were getting stronger numerically. Stephen Bungay shows in 'The most dangerous enemy' that RAF Fighter Command had more aircraft and pilots at the end of October 1940 than they had going into the Battle at the start of July 1940.

 

[tomo pauk]

tomo pauk.

"...For investing twice of everything..." And there you go talking about investment/investing again. You are fixated on finance. Why???

"...I was not the one introducing the math, RLM did it..." Yes you were! The RLM have not posted once in this thread!!!

"...Your opinion, that you're certainly entitled to..." You don't answer the point, again. You don't like being challenged about facts, do you...?

"...German fighters were killing mostly RAF fighters during the BoB. Considering aircraft weight, price and ability to be reinforced by new production of Bf 110, the kills vs. loss ratio by Bf 110 is negative, at about 1:1.32..." You seem to have hit upon a new mathematical formula previously unknown to man. Weigh, price (AGAIN!!!) and ability - what the hell hs that got to do with claim-to-loss ratios? Come on, you're just making things up as you go along, aren't you?

"...Yes, you are right..." I think I do know a little bit about the Bf 110...

Seems like you think that aircraft were just materializing from thin air, all while not receiving well (to say at least) when someone disagrees with your assessment of this or that aircraft.

 

[pbehn]

True. The Lw plastered the wrong airfields at times. It was a classic military case of 'Not knowing what is going on over the other side of the hill'. And yes, their Intelligence Section (read Beppo Schmid) got things absolutely wrong, divorced from the reality of the situation. And so they continued to press against an enemy they thought was getting weaker, when the reality was they were getting stronger numerically. Stephen Bungay shows in 'The most dangerous enemy' that RAF Fighter Command had more aircraft and pilots at the end of October 1940 than they had going into the Battle at the start of July 1940.

I think we have all seen movie footage of the plotting rooms in the Battle of Britain, everyone so cool and composed. Last week I saw some actual footage, it was complete chaos at times. Things did go FUBAR at times but generally they didn't, throughout the conflict though it is clear that Park Dowding and Chruchill had a much better grasp of what was happening than Kesselring and his colleagues while Goering was close to being clueless.

 

[pbehn]

Regarding the performance of the Bf 110C: If I recall it had a top-speed around 340-350 mph. What was the typical cruise-speed used in combat, the power on/off stall, the maximum normal rated g-load, and CL Max figures?

I'm also curious as to what the range figures were -- I've gotten conflicting range figures and I can't tell if these differences are based on drop tanks or not.

John Vasco , Laurelix, P pbehn , S stona , swampyankee

Why would you expect me to know that and why do you want to know, what is a cruise speed in combat?

 

[John Vasco]

Seems like you think that aircraft were just materializing from thin air, all while not receiving well (to say at least) when someone disagrees with your assessment of this or that aircraft.

What ARE you talking about...?

My assessment of the 110 is that it performed as well as the other three fighters in the BoB, and also got knocked about just like the other three did, as the loss figures show. What's not to understand? I do believe you just want to argue, constantly...

 

[Zipper730]

Why would you expect me to know that and why do you want to know, what is a cruise speed in combat?

You're a knowledgeable member on the forum; the variables I asked for were to help determine some parameters of maneuvering performance; There's a cruise speed based on where the induced and parasitic drag merge, and there's a speed you'd typically fly for long-range escort and fighter-sweeps that are below the maximum speed, but above the cruise speed, and I'm not sure what you call that, so...

 

[Shortround6]

There's a cruise speed based on where the induced and parasitic drag merge, and there's a speed you'd typically fly for long-range escort and fighter-sweeps that are below the maximum speed, but above the cruise speed, and I'm not sure what you call that, so...

You are getting a bit hung up on you numbers and/or formula.

See: http://www.wwiiaircraftperformance.org/P-40/P-40B_41-5205_PHQ-M-19-1227-A.pdf

for just part of the possible cruising speeds for a P-40B.

Max continuous (fastest cruising speed) was at 2600rpm. and at 15,000ft that was 950hp
speeds are given for 720hp, 600hp, 480hp and 400hp but there is nothing saying that the plane could not be flown at power settings and speeds in between those settings. they are all cruise speeds.

Now as far as the part of your post highlighted in italics above, the speed you are referring to is seldom used as a cruising speed. It is near the climbing speed of an aircraft as it allows for the most surplus power to be used for climbing. However many planes use speeds a bit above the actual speed where the induced and parasitic drag curves cross as the speed is often so slow that good stability or control effectiveness is not quite adequate and an extra 10-30mph makes the plane easier to fly.

Take a look at the figures for the P-40. at 15,000ft it will "cruise" at 236mph using 400hp with the engine running at 2000rpm.

At 15,000ft they used 176mph true airspeed for climbing. Nobody was going to cruise at 176mph over enemy territory as it takes way too long to get up to effective fighting speed and in fact 236mph was too slow.

You also have no reserve of energy at that low a speed and are really depending on the engine to pull you around the turn. If you try to pull much over a 2 G turn your stall speed is getting rather close to the your airspeed. Many fighters bled off air speed as they turned (and often had to descend in a spiral turn), if the fighter enters the turn at 300mph is had a lot more speed (kinetic energy) to bleed off before having to start descending.

 

[pbehn]

You're a knowledgeable member on the forum; the variables I asked for were to help determine some parameters of maneuvering performance; There's a cruise speed based on where the induced and parasitic drag merge, and there's a speed you'd typically fly for long-range escort and fighter-sweeps that are below the maximum speed, but above the cruise speed, and I'm not sure what you call that, so...

Using 300MPH as a round number for calculation it takes 5 minutes at 300MPH to cross the narrowest part of the English Channel. If the range of RADAR is 100 miles that takes 20 minutes to cover. The speed chosen to cruise at depends on the mission much more than the actual qualities of the aeroplane, whatever it is and what type of aircraft. There were many Bf110s and many missions all different, the Dackelbauch versions had such a huge belly tank they were mistaken for bombers.

 

[stona]

I said 1 on 1 which was a very rare case in the BoB. Yes it had devastating armament but so did many aircraft, within a year the Hurricane had 4 x 20mm cannon but that wasnt enough to make it a competitive fighter.

The Bf 110 out performed the Hurricane in just about everything but turning at any sort of altitude.

Everyone seems to love Eric Brown's opinions on various aircraft. Of course, he had one on the Bf 100 too.

"In the Battle of Britain the Bf 110 fell far short of anticipation and its limited success was to lead to a widespread belief that it was an unsuccessful design. This was in fact, far from the case, for the Messerschmitt strategic fighter was not the indifferent warplane that its showing during the Battle of Britain led many to believe. It was an effective warplane but inadequate understanding on the part of the Führungsstab of the limitations of the strategic fighter category led to its incorrect deployment with the result that the Zerstörergruppen suffered some 40 per cent attrition within less than three weeks of the launching of Adlerangriff."

 

[Dimlee]

Financials, performance, effectiveness as a weapon...
There was a difficult period in the history of the Soviet VVS. End 1941 and the 1st half of 1942, when pilots with better pre-war training were in small and ever-dwindling numbers and new recruits were given the absolute minimum of hours. Fighters of so-called "new types" as Mig-3, Yak-1, LaGG-3 did not meet expectations for many reasons, including poor production quality, a lack of new tactics, deficit of instructors. Pilots, assisted by political officers, sent petitions to Moscow asking to resume production of I-16 and I-153. "At least they are good in a turning" was the typical phrase I read in a number of books.
If those pilots were more confident of I-16 as a more effective weapon (and of own chances of survival) and considering that I-16 was cheaper than any of "new type" fighters and in 1942 it was not produced at all, so its "cost" would be just spare parts and logistics... Can we say that I-16 was a "better" fighter than Yak-1 in that period? Not a rhetoric question, since VVS veterans continued to disagree on it 60 years after the war.

P.S. It would be nice to have kill/loss stats for "old" and "new" VVS fighters in that period, of course. But I did not see any reliable research of that.

 

[Zipper730]

You are getting a bit hung up on you numbers and/or formula.

Probably true!

Max continuous (fastest cruising speed) was at 2600rpm. and at 15,000ft that was 950hp
speeds are given for 720hp, 600hp, 480hp and 400hp but there is nothing saying that the plane could not be flown at power settings and speeds in between those settings. they are all cruise speeds.

Now as far as the part of your post highlighted in italics above, the speed you are referring to is seldom used as a cruising speed. It is near the climbing speed of an aircraft as it allows for the most surplus power to be used for climbing. However many planes use speeds a bit above the actual speed where the induced and parasitic drag curves cross as the speed is often so slow that good stability or control effectiveness is not quite adequate and an extra 10-30mph makes the plane easier to fly.

I based a statement drgondog said in a thread about the P-51 Mustang.

That said: What kind of cruise speeds would one have typically seen the Bf.110 variants used in the BoB use for traditional fighter-sweeps (if applicable), long-ranged fighter-sweeps and long-ranged bomber-escort missions? I'm curious how this compares with the Hurricane and Spitfire in speeds used during typical interception missions.

The Bf 110 out performed the Hurricane in just about everything but turning at any sort of altitude.

So the best tactics would have been to stay high and fast whenever possible?

Everyone seems to love Eric Brown's opinions on various aircraft. Of course, he had one on the Bf 100 too.

"In the Battle of Britain the Bf 110 fell far short of anticipation and its limited success was to lead to a widespread belief that it was an unsuccessful design. This was in fact, far from the case, for the Messerschmitt strategic fighter was not the indifferent warplane that its showing during the Battle of Britain led many to believe. It was an effective warplane but inadequate understanding on the part of the Führungsstab of the limitations of the strategic fighter category led to its incorrect deployment with the result that the Zerstörergruppen suffered some 40 per cent attrition within less than three weeks of the launching of Adlerangriff."

So, what led to this inadequate understanding of how to use this type of aircraft? Was it as simple as matters of doing successfully in the earliest days of the war?

 

[Greyman]

The Bf 110 out performed the Hurricane in just about everything but turning at any sort of altitude.

I'd say that's a bit generous towards the 110.

Hurricane was 10-15 mph faster under about 12,000 feet.
Hurricane could out-dive a 110C (though the result was delayed if the Merlin initially cut).
I have no data on the 110's roll rate but I would assume the Hurricane would be better in that respect. No automatic pitch control would also be a big strike against the 110C in the dogfight department.

I haven't come across any good climb figures for the 110C. I understand it was similar to the Hurricane but it would be interesting to see any numbers.

 

[Greyman]

So, what led to this inadequate understanding of how to use this type of aircraft? Was it as simple as matters of doing successfully in the earliest days of the war?

I don't collect a lot of 110 information but this further quote from Brown makes sense.

"It should be borne in mind, however, that the Führungsstab had never envisaged deploying Hermann's "Destroyer" other than in conditions of local Luftwaffe superiority if not supremacy; a situation such as that in which the Bf 110 found itself over Southern England had not been foreseen. No designer, however talented, had come up with a magic formula enabling a large and heavy twin-engined long-range fighter to compete in terms of agility with contemporary single-engined short-range single-seaters. The forward-firing armament of the Bf 110 was certainly lethal but lacking the manoeuvrability of its RAF opponents, it could bring this armament to bear only if it could employ the element of surprise or if it encountered an unwary novice -- a commodity of which admittedly RAF Fighter Command was in no short supply at that stage of the conflict. Its acceleration and speed were inadequate to enable it to avoid combat if opposed by superior numbers of interceptors ... But if the Bf 110 received a mauling in the Battle of Britain it gave a good account of itself on many battlefronts in the years that followed."

Also I find Brown's statement that '... I was certainly never to meet a German pilot that disliked it -- an accolade indeed" very noteworthy.

 

[Kevin J]

I'd say that's a bit generous towards the 110.

Hurricane was 10-15 mph faster under about 12,000 feet.
Hurricane could out-dive a 110C (though the result was delayed if the Merlin initially cut).
I have no data on the 110's roll rate but I would assume the Hurricane would be better in that respect. No automatic pitch control would also be a big strike against the 110C in the dogfight department.

I haven't come across any good climb figures for the 110C. I understand it was similar to the Hurricane but it would be interesting to see any numbers.

Home Page
Scroll down this and it will give you sufficient data to see how a Hurricane Ia compares with a ME110C in combat, the Hurricane must turn and burn, the Me 110 boom and zoom.

 

[pbehn]

Also I find Brown's statement that '... I was certainly never to meet a German pilot that disliked it -- an accolade indeed" very noteworthy.

He didn't interview the ones who were shot down over Kent.

 

[Shortround6]

Home Page
Scroll down this and it will give you sufficient data to see how a Hurricane Ia compares with a ME110C in combat, the Hurricane must turn and burn, the Me 110 boom and zoom.

I strongly advise double and triple checking data from games/flight simulators.
The armament section of the Hurricane I section has a number of errors for example. Errors that conflict with just about every other source, which casts doubt upon any other data.

 

[Kevin J]

I strongly advise double and triple checking data from games/flight simulators.
The armament section of the Hurricane I section has a number of errors for example. Errors that conflict with just about every other source, which casts doubt upon any other data.

But it does give you a pretty good idea about these fighters capabilities.

 

[Mike Williams]

Hurricane I and Bf 110 level speeds from data I have in hand:

 

[Mike Williams]

Hurricane I and Me 110 C-1 time to climb:

 

[swampyankee]

But it does give you a pretty good idea about these fighters capabilities.

That's presuming that the information loaded into the simulation is accurate. Even if it is, many of the low-end simulations (which will include *all* of the games) don't include quite a lot of the aircraft dynamic behavior, especially near stall, control harmony (or lack thereof), or control forces. I suspect most of them would also have quite crude models of damage tolerance.

That said, if the static performance information is correct, a properly written simulation will give reasonably accurate relative rankings.