Me-110 Underrated

[Glider]

Only after Jan '45 did the La-7 have 3 cannons.

Plus if I remember correctly, it depended on which factory made them due to a shortage of the cannons. A good proportion (which I do not know) only carried 2 cannons of a different type

 

[Shortround6]

As noted by others (thanks) the LA-7 had two different gun set ups. The ones with 3 guns show up late, they use the new lighter, B-20 cannon instead of the ShVAK gun. Weight of 3 B-20s was less than two ShVAK guns. Production shortages of the B-20 gun meant that the Moscow factory making LA-7s didn't change over to 3 guns for a number of months after the other factory. The 3 gun fighters carried 170 rpg instead of the 200rpg of the 2 gun fighters due to ???? weight? space?
The later LA-9 which was a total redesign got four guns in the fuselage, B-20s at first and then four NS-23 but ammo was only 75 rpg.

BTW the Lagg-1 prototype carried one 23mm gun, two 12.7mm machine guns and soon had two 7.62mm guns added. The 23 mm gun didn't work out but it shows the Russians were interested in heavy armament as do the I-16s with a 20mm gun in each wing with 1000 hp (or less) engines.

LA-7 carried 610 liters of fuel inside. The LA-5 had 454 liters?

The Russian fighters suited the Russian conditions but in some cases, the conditions/tactics had to suit the fighters. Stalin called for more range, it wasn't quite a simple as just sticking in more fuel tanks. Improved performance with only marginal increases in power could only be accomplished with the help of keeping the aircraft as light as possible.

If we are to believe that the LA-7 differed greatly from the Lagg-3 then we have to believe that the P-40N differed greatly from the P-40C or bubble top Spitfires differed greatly from some earlier ones or that a metal wing Hurricane differed greatly from the fabric covered wing versions. The wing structure was totally different on the two Hurricanes but you could fit either wing to the same fuselage and it made little difference to performance or flying characteristics except for a higher diving speed.
LA-7 got metal spar/s instead of wood ones? big deal.

 

[Schweik]

Considering the La 7 was introduced to combat in Sept 1944 for combat trails in small numbers, and most of the operational units were in action from 1945, I don't think it's such a stretch. I don't know the exact numbers of how many had two guns vs. three but I believe the majority had three. It was a late war, and basically a 1945 fighter as far as WW 2 goes.

As for your examples, I assume you aren't implying that a Hurricane II was as far removed from a Hurricane I as a Spitfire 21 was from a Spitfire I?

As for P-40s, a more apt comparison would be a P-36 to a P-40L or N. But even that isn't quite as radical of a difference as an early Merlin Spt vs. a Griffon Spit, an a LaGG-3 to an La 7, or a Bf 109D to a 109K in terms of either design changes or performance increase.

All of this is just a half-assed attempt to shoot down a solid and self evident observation. The "light fighters" aren't just modified versions of earlier models, they weren't just early war fighters. A lot of newer and even postwar designs were made lightweight. And it's not just a response to a lack of engine power. There was a role for the lightweight fighter, clearly.

and 1,100 hp to 1,900 hp horsepower isn't a marginal increase in power. They actually sorted out the range with the even more reworked postwar La 9 fighter, which had a two stage supercharger, a laminar flow wing, and a 1,000 mile range, but still weighed in at under 6,000 lbs empty. And four 23mm guns.


Overall like the somewhat similar Bearcat it seemed to represent a continued interest in lighter weight fighter design. The issue of lighter and heavier fighters continued well into the jet age of course and remains with us today. Compare a Mirage III or MiG 21 to an F-4 or an F-16 to an F-111.

 

[pbehn]

Of course at truly extreme range you probably would revert to aircraft which weren't fighters at all. But the British Isles would have been much more vulnerable it the Germans had fighters with a 1,000+ mile range.

This is all hind sight in terms of what happened and technical development. In 1939/40 who had a s/e fighter with 1000mile range, or a competitive twin engine fighter. Who had commissioned one and for what? If the Germans could choose any engine in service anywhere in 1939 which one would give them their fighter with 1000+ mile range?

 

[glennasher]

I used to be a light fighter, but now I'd surely be classified as a heavyweight. Does this count?

Things evolve with time, that's how it is. Like people, they hardly get lighter, though.

 

[Schweik]

This is all hind sight in terms of what happened and technical development. In 1939/40 who had a s/e fighter with 1000mile range, or a competitive twin engine fighter. Who had commissioned one and for what? If the Germans could choose any engine in service anywhere in 1939 which one would give them their fighter with 1000+ mile range?

Well I don't think the engine mattered that much. It was more a factor of how much fuel they could fit in the airframe without harming flying characteristics, and how much they could reduce drag while retaining good lift. But I can think of several early-war aircraft which had quite long range.

The A6M zero and Ki-43 both had a 1,000 mile range and I believe that was indeed part of the design requirement.
The Fairey Battle, though not successful, had a 1,000 mile range.
The Beaufighter (first flight 1939, first confirmed kill 1940) eventually had a 1,600 mile range and long range was also a design requirement for that aircraft.
The Dutch Fokker G.1 had almost a 940 mile range, and had development continued it probably would have exceeded 1,000 miles.
The Pe-3 (heavy fighter derivative of the Pe-2, developed in 1941) had a range of 930 miles
The P-38 lightning didn't get into production until 1941 but it's first flight was 1939. It achieved a 1,300 mile range.
The F2A Buffalo (operational 1940) had a range of 965 miles which is in the ball park.

Some of the aircraft listed above, other than the Zero may not initially have had a 1,000 mile range, most took some tweaking to get to that point, but they eventually got there (by mid-war in most cases) and the long range was clearly a design goal. I could probably come up with a few more examples if I really needed to.

 

[pbehn]

I used to be a light fighter, but now I'd surely be classified as a heavyweight. Does this count?

Things evolve with time, that's how it is. Like people, they hardly get lighter, though.

People don't but machines go up and down in size and weight, they get bigger and heavier until a re design using smaller fittings like radios, radar and guns and stronger materials more compact engines. The Lancaster was designed as the Manchester medium bomber but carried more, further and higher than the Stirling designed as a heavy bomber. In fact the bomb bays are about the same length and the defensive armament is the same, the Stirling just carries a huge amount of redundant metal and space.

 

[Dimlee]

The 3 gun fighters carried 170 rpg instead of the 200rpg of the 2 gun fighters due to ???? weight? space?

Just to clarify about the cannons on Lavochkin fighters:
La-5 - 220 rpg
La-5F - 200 rpg
La-5FN - 170 rpg
La-7 - 170/180 rpg 2xSHVAK cannons
La-7 - 170 rpg 3xB-20 cannons. Tests in 1944, serial production since summer 1945. B-20 was less reliable than SHVAK.

 

[pbehn]

Well I don't think the engine mattered that much. It was more a factor of how much fuel they could fit in the airframe without harming flying characteristics, and how much they could reduce drag while retaining good lift. But I can think of several early-war aircraft which had quite long range.

The A6M zero and Ki-43 both had a 1,000 mile range and I believe that was indeed part of the design requirement.
The Fairey Battle, though not successful, had a 1,000 mile range.
The Beaufighter (first flight 1939, first confirmed kill 1940) eventually had a 1,600 mile range and long range was also a design requirement for that aircraft.
The Dutch Fokker G.1 had almost a 940 mile range, and had development continued it probably would have exceeded 1,000 miles.
The Pe-3 (heavy fighter derivative of the Pe-2, developed in 1941) had a range of 930 miles
The P-38 lightning didn't get into production until 1941 but it's first flight was 1939. It achieved a 1,300 mile range.
The F2A Buffalo (operational 1940) had a range of 965 miles which is in the ball park.

Some of the aircraft listed above, other than the Zero may not initially have had a 1,000 mile range, most took some tweaking to get to that point, but they eventually got there (by mid-war in most cases) and the long range was clearly a design goal. I could probably come up with a few more examples if I really needed to.

So which one is going to revolutionise the LW campaign in 1940?

 

[wuzak]

As for P-40s, a more apt comparison would be a P-36 to a P-40L or N. But even that isn't quite as radical of a difference as an early Merlin Spt vs. a Griffon Spit,

What's the big difference was there between the Spitfire I and XII, or even the XIV?

And why is that a bigger change than going from a radial engine to an in-line engine?

 

[Schweik]

So which one is going to revolutionise the LW campaign in 1940?

Well that is into the realm of pure speculation, but I would say if they had something like an A6M, that would have helped a great deal during the BoB. Or if they had made the Bf 110 more like the Beaufighter or the Fokker G.1, with the same DB engines but either double the fuel (ala Beaufighter) or just thinner wings and better streamlining (G1), sufficient to achieve a range of 1,000 miles or more, I would say it might have helped a bit too.

That of course is very hard to estimate because nothing of the sort was ever done. There were some design problems with the 110 which they clearly could and did work out, but just didn't manage to do quickly enough for a variety of reasons. All the existence of the other long range fighters shows us is that it was indeed possible, by means a variety of different approaches, to achieve a long range fighter (heavy or light) in 1940.

 

[Schweik]

What's the big difference was there between the Spitfire I and XII, or even the XIV?

And why is that a bigger change than going from a radial engine to an in-line engine?

I'm not sure diving into all the differences between a Spit I vs. say a Spit XIV or 21 or postwar 24 (I never mentioned the XII I don't believe) would be worth the effort. Nobody seems to concede any of the points I make here even when they are decisively proven. I think there are obvious differences, there were a lot of incremental changes but they added up to a (IMO) completely different aircraft (by the F.21 it's new engine, new wing etc.). But obviously this conclusion is somewhat subjective and there is room to believe what you want.

 

[GrauGeist]

The A6M zero and Ki-43 both had a 1,000 mile range and I believe that was indeed part of the design requirement.

Those max. ranges were possible when using drop-tanks for the A6M2 onward and KI-43-II onward.

The Beaufighter (first flight 1939, first confirmed kill 1940) eventually had a 1,600 mile range and long range was also a design requirement for that aircraft.
The Dutch Fokker G.1 had almost a 940 mile range, and had development continued it probably would have exceeded 1,000 miles.
The Pe-3 (heavy fighter derivative of the Pe-2, developed in 1941) had a range of 930 miles.
The P-38 lightning didn't get into production until 1941 but it's first flight was 1939. It achieved a 1,300 mile range.

All twins and has been discussed earlier, have the ability to carry more fuel/weight than a S/E fighter.

 

[Schweik]

Did you mean the Grumman F7F Tigercat?

Yes. Corrected.

 

[Schweik]

Those max. ranges were possible when using drop-tanks for the A6M2 onward and KI-43-II onward.

So what? Plumbing for drop tanks and working out the details of using them are part of what made a long range fighter. Same for Mustangs or P-38s. Or Corsairs, Hellcats, P-47s etc. A6M's also could and did sometimes fight with their drop tanks still attached.

All twins and has been discussed earlier, have the ability to carry more fuel/weight than a S/E fighter.

Again, so what? The thread is about the 110 and the concept of the 'heavy fighter'. Clearly you could make a single engined (and lightweight) fighter that could manage 1,000 miles range, even with a relatively weak engine. You could also do it with a twin engined aircraft but that was a bit more of a challenge in terms of streamlining and weight management. But it could be done as we can clearly see. Making a twin engined fighter competitive with single engined types was harder but also not impossible as we know.

I would go so far as to say that with it's short range, the Bf 110 was kind of an outlier. This was probably due to the overly thick wing and some other streamlining / drag issues. Fixing all that (which I think is "just" a matter of design) would have improved it's combat performance too.


Oh and I Ieft a few more early long ranged fighters off the list -

Ki-45 had a 1,200 mile range.
Potez 630 had a 930 mile range.
Mosquto (first flight 1940) had a 1,300 mile range
Martin Maryland 1,300 mile range

 

[GrauGeist]

Ok, let's discuss the "so what?" factor, then.
The A6M and KI-43, were lightly armed and did not have self-sealing tanks. Once these were installed in later variants, their range took a hit.

There has to be a trade off at some point. The Luftwaffe wasn't looking to travel long expanses of ocean to patrol/engage enemy A/C. Their short-coming was certainly range, but the Bf109's wing and fuselage was designed more as a performance-oriented type and left little in the way for additional fuel capacity.
And as it happens, the more robust He112 had perhaps the best range of all the Luftwaffe fighters in 1940/41
-

 

[pbehn]

So what? Plumbing for drop tanks and working out the details of using them are part of what made a long range fighter. Same for Mustangs or P-38s. Or Corsairs, Hellcats, P-47s etc. A6M's also could and did sometimes fight with their drop tanks still attached.

When were drop tanks fitted to P-51s? Was it late 1940 or early 41?

 

[Reluctant Poster]

German pilots in North Africa hated flying escort missions though and complained bitterly about it.

The private charging the machine gun nest on D Day (or any day) had more to complain about than any fighter pilot. I get tired of hearing how hard done by fighter pilots were. They were soldiers and soldiers have to do things that might not be good for them but are good for others on the team. If a Hurricane shoots down a 109 instead of a 111 that's a win for the Germans.

 

[Schweik]

Ok, let's discuss the "so what?" factor, then.
The A6M and KI-43, were lightly armed and did not have self-sealing tanks. Once these were installed in later variants, their range took a hit.

According to what I can find, the A6M5 (self sealing tanks, armor, bigger guns) had an 1,100 mile range. Obviously depending on the cruise speed etc. It was quite a good fighter just came out too late. The Ki-84 (self sealing tanks and armor, 2 x 20mm and 2 x 12.7mm guns) had a 1,300 mile range. Also good, also too late. And of course (sorry Pbehn) the Mustang. So while yeah it's trickier to pull off long range and heavier protection and armament, it's certainly not impossible.

Also my understanding is that early in the BoB neither the Spitfires nor the Bf 109s had significant armor or self sealing tanks either until part way through the engagement. Am I wrong about that? Personally I think the A6M2 would have done quite well in the BoB even without such protection, but that is another discussion entirely.

There has to be a trade off at some point. The Luftwaffe wasn't looking to travel long expanses of ocean to patrol/engage enemy A/C. Their short-coming was certainly range, but the Bf109's wing and fuselage was designed more as a performance-oriented type and left little in the way for additional fuel capacity.

I would agree the Bf 109 probably couldn't have been made into a long range fighter. It was very small (7 foot shorter wingspan than an A6M) and that is part of why it was so fast. he question is could they have done it with the 110 (with a better design or redesign). I think the answer is yes because the Me 210 eventually, once the bugs were ironed out (whether the problem was the wing or something else seems to be another debatable issue I guess) did meet the requirements they needed, just way too late.

And as it happens, the more robust He112 had perhaps the best range of all the Luftwaffe fighters in 1940/41
-

Better, but still not all that great if Wikipedia is right (680 miles?)

 

[Schweik]

The private charging the machine gun nest on D Day (or any day) had more to complain about than any fighter pilot. I get tired of hearing how hard done by fighter pilots were. They were soldiers and soldiers have to do things that might not be good for them but are good for others on the team. If a Hurricane shoots down a 109 instead of a 111 that's a win for the Germans.

I never said they had a good reason to complain. Issues of that nature were a major bone of contention between the Luftwaffe and Afrika Korps throughout the North African campaigns. The fighter units were arguably only interested in fighting in optimal conditions. At any rate, this is what many complained about.