Me-110 Underrated

[Shortround6]

Was this magical levitation device located at Muroc Airfield?

A number of american aircraft ( I don't know about others) were rated with "yardstick" ranges for comparison purposes. They simply figured out what the fuel burn was for a given speed/altitude and then divided that into the total fuel capacity for the length of flight and then multiplied the cruise speed by the hours of endurance to get this range.
no allowance made for warm up, take-off, climb to altitude or even powered decent at the end of the "flight". Basically it tells you that fighter A might have a range 20% longer than fighter B but in neither case do you know what distance they can actually travel. Unfortunately AHT uses these theoretical ranges quite a bit.

 

[Schweik]

Please note that a Spitfire V, if measured the same way as some of these aircraft (magicly levitated to cruising altitude with a warm engine) was good for about 650 miles so obviously large adjustments have to be made to get to operational ranges/radius.

You seem to be implying that most of the aircraft we discussed have an unrealistic range estimate, but you haven't actually shown that. I say again - neither the A6M nor the Beaufighter needed to be levitated anywhere to fly 1,000 miles.

As far the range actually goes, all we have to do is compare like with like. It doesn't matter much they are all based on being magically at 15,000 feet first or all from takeoff plus time for warmup, they just all need to be roughly the same criteria. We know that the Bf 109 did not have enough range or endurance for escort missions in the BoB, and for example often had to turn back for home after only a few minutes of combat. So a fighter with similar combat capability and say, twice or three times the range (for whatever specific design reason) would have helped their cause. Objectively.

 

[pbehn]

It is 636 miles from Duxford to Prague, 449 miles from Lille France to Edinburgh. Why on earth do you need a 1000 mile range? How far did the tip and run Jabo raids penetrate into UK airspace 1942/43? I no longer know what the discussion is, do you think Fairey Battles would have helped the LW just because they can cover a long distance?

 

[buffnut453]

I see that 'tactical-only' Luftwaffe myth is alive and well, despite 1000 mile capable Bf 110s, He 111s, Do 17s and Ju 88s.
Nobody is asking that a fighter floats over enemy airspace at 200 mph.

There's more to strategic capability than just reach. You actually have to deliver effects once you get there. What bomb load could any of the bombers carry out to 1,000 miles? According to Wikipedia (yes, I know, but it's all I have to hand at the moment), the Do17 had a combat radius of 628 miles with 1,100 lb bomb load. Extending that range would require a reduction in bomb load...and 1,100 lbs is a very long way from being a strategic load. It certainly isn't going to deliver a strategic effect.

 

[Shortround6]

You seem to be implying that most of the aircraft we discussed have an unrealistic range estimate, but you haven't actually shown that. I say again - neither the A6M nor the Beaufighter needed to be levitated anywhere to fly 1,000 miles.

As far the range actually goes, all we have to do is compare like with like. It doesn't matter much they are all based on being magically at 15,000 feet first or all from takeoff plus time for warmup, they just all need to be roughly the same criteria. We know that the Bf 109 did not have enough range or endurance for escort missions in the BoB, and for example often had to turn back for home after only a few minutes of combat. So a fighter with similar combat capability and say, twice or three times the range (for whatever specific design reason) would have helped their cause. Objectively.

True but the Beaufighter had no business trying to fight single engine fighters. Not saying it didn't on occasion.

The Zero was a great piece of engineering and a great airplane. But part of it's range seems to have been an element of luck. The Sakae engine being able to run at a cruise setting at lower than normal lean mixture without overheating or causing problems. Since this engine was actually the 2nd choice we wonder what the performance might have been otherwise.
One source claims the early Zero could cruise at 180 kts (altitude not given) at 16.4 US gallons and hour but increasing to 190kts meant 24.04 US gallons an hour and 200kts meant 26.15 gallons an hour. At max rated power it used 91.14 gallons an hour.

Spitfire V could cruise at 225mph using 29 imp gallons an hour, but at full boost (16lbs) it burned 150 imp gal an hour (180 US gal)

The early Zero held about 141 US gallons inside the plane according to one source.
The Spitfire held about 101 US gallons.
The P-40B held 160 gallons.
The Zero had 84-87.2 gallons underneath.

 

[Schweik]

It is 636 miles from Duxford to Prague, 449 miles from Lille France to Edinburgh. Why on earth do you need a 1000 mile range? How far did the tip and run Jabo raids penetrate into UK airspace 1942/43? I no longer know what the discussion is, do you think Fairey Battles would have helped the LW just because they can cover a long distance?

I think if you really are confused, you are confused on purpose. I've already pointed out why the range would help. Range is an indicator for endurance. Are you or are you not aware that both range and endurance were considered major limitations for the Bf 109 during the Battle of Britain?

Also keep in mind, it's you and a couple of others who keep continuously bringing this back to the BoB, I was talking about the whole war. But the BoB is fine to look at if you prefer because it is a classic case of exactly what I'm talking about. If the Bf 110 had worked out as an escort fighter, and / or if the 109 had say twice or three times the range it did, I think it's very hard to argue that it wouldn't have helped the Germans.

 

[Schweik]

True but the Beaufighter had no business trying to fight single engine fighters. Not saying it didn't on occasion.

I would say the chief limitation for the Beaufighter was it's low ceiling. It couldn't escort certain types of raids. However Beaufighter itself worked pretty well as an attack plane, so I could see low level raids by Beaufighters, escorted by Beaufighters flying a little higher and 'cleaner', as being quite effective. I bet Beaufighters could hold their own against Hurricanes at least as well as Bf 110s, probably a bit better. They did Ok against Zeros, MC 200s etc. on a few occasions.

The Zero was a great piece of engineering and a great airplane. But part of it's range seems to have been an element of luck. The Sakae engine being able to run at a cruise setting at lower than normal lean mixture without overheating or causing problems. Since this engine was actually the 2nd choice we wonder what the performance might have been otherwise.

Interesting but basically irrelevant.

One source claims the early Zero could cruise at 180 kts (altitude not given) at 16.4 US gallons and hour but increasing to 190kts meant 24.04 US gallons an hour and 200kts meant 26.15 gallons an hour. At max rated power it used 91.14 gallons an hour.

Spitfire V could cruise at 225mph using 29 imp gallons an hour, but at full boost (16lbs) it burned 150 imp gal an hour (180 US gal)

The early Zero held about 141 US gallons inside the plane according to one source.
The Spitfire held about 101 US gallons.
The P-40B held 160 gallons.
The Zero had 84-87.2 gallons underneath.

Ok so it looks like we are starting to delve into the elements that contribute to range. You are mentioning here fuel capacity and the ability for the engine to fly at low RPM. I would also add to that altitude capability (higher altitude cruising generally uses up less fuel and allows faster flight at lower power), overall drag (draggier airframes require more power to keep the speed up, so things like tail wheels, various protrusions for guns or engine fittings, even rear view mirrors and radio masts can all make a diffeence) and wing efficiency (a balance between drag and lift of the wing).

And then of course, weight. The tradeoff between carrying more fuel and having less weight to carry. This is the basic difference between the light and heavy fighter.

Finally there are also things like plumbing.

Fuel capacity is a good place to start though as is the 'average' fuel burn rate during combat, because that tells us a bit more about endurance.

 

[Schweik]

There's more to strategic capability than just reach. You actually have to deliver effects once you get there. What bomb load could any of the bombers carry out to 1,000 miles? According to Wikipedia (yes, I know, but it's all I have to hand at the moment), the Do17 had a combat radius of 628 miles with 1,100 lb bomb load. Extending that range would require a reduction in bomb load...and 1,100 lbs is a very long way from being a strategic load. It certainly isn't going to deliver a strategic effect.

Mosquitoes could carry a fairly heavy bomb load out to a good range with an internal bomb load, up to 4,000 lbs 3,000 miles
Wellingtons could carry 2,000-4,500 lbs internally up to 2,000 miles or more
G3M could carry a 1000+ lb bomb load over 2,500 miles
G4M could carry a 2000+ lb bomb load over 1,500 miles
Ju 88 could carry a 2000 lb bomb load internally roughly 1,000 miles, external stores limited the range more
He 111 could carry a 1000 lb bomb load internally about 1,400 miles
The CANT 1007 could carry a 2000 lb bomb load internally about 1,000 miles
The DB-7 / A-20 could carry a 1000 lb load internally about 900 miles

 

[Dimlee]

Can you please cite your sources.
Milos Vestsik's books on La-5 and La-7 cites the ammo count as Shortround6 said.
(Gordon/Khazanov - books unfortunately are not as bolt and nuts thing)

I prefered the articles from "Mir Aviatsiyi" and "Voina v vozdukhe" in 1990s and early 2000s. They were based on information provided by people who participated in the development, such as Semyon Alekseyev.

 

[buffnut453]

Mosquitoes could carry a fairly heavy bomb load out to a good range with an internal bomb load, up to 4,000 lbs 3,000 miles
Wellingtons could carry 2,000-4,500 lbs internally up to 2,000 miles or more
G3M could carry a 1000+ lb bomb load over 2,500 miles
G4M could carry a 2000+ lb bomb load over 1,500 miles
Ju 88 could carry a 2000 lb bomb load internally roughly 1,000 miles, external stores limited the range more
He 111 could carry a 1000 lb bomb load internally about 1,400 miles
The CANT 1007 could carry a 2000 lb bomb load internally about 1,000 miles
The DB-7 / A-20 could carry a 1000 lb load internally about 900 miles

I can't understand the point you're making. Tomo Pauk made a statement indicating that the long-held view of the Luftwaffe was a tactical rather than strategic air arm was a myth. For evidence, he provided quote of 1,000 mile range for a number of German aircraft.

My point is that long range does not necessarily equate with a strategic capability. In order to have strategic capability, you also have to deliver a strategic punch once you arrive over the target, and 1,100 lbs is not a strategic punch.

 

[pbehn]

Now you have Wellingtons flying 2,000 miles It is 2,100 miles from London to Cairo. Why was the Wellington replaced?

 

[Shortround6]

The He 111 was good for around 400 miles radius with about 4400lbs of bombs, that is a realistic radius.
It was also about as good as an early Wellington. correction welcome.

The 110 had more range than the 109 but it couldn't be used quite like a 109. The two planes were not interchangeable.

Ok so it looks like we are starting to delve into the elements that contribute to range. You are mentioning here fuel capacity and the ability for the engine to fly at low RPM. I would also add to that altitude capability (higher altitude cruising generally uses up less fuel and allows faster flight at lower power), overall drag (draggier airframes require more power to keep the speed up, so things like tail wheels, various protrusions for guns or engine fittings, even rear view mirrors and radio masts can all make a diffeence) and wing efficiency (a balance between drag and lift of the wing).

All true, so let's look at a few of these "details" like the Zero's supercharger having a critical altitude several thousand feet lower than the Merlin, (Model 21 Zero vs MK I Spit, later Spits get better, so does the Zero when it gets the two speed supercharger but that isn't till when?) ), many of these long ranges are actually done at a relatively low altitude. Less fuel burned in the climb, IF the supercharge has two gears the lower gear will use less power. At low rpm the supercharger uses less power/heats the intake charge less. But is all a juggling act. airflow through the supercharger is proportional to the square of the speed of the impeller.

And then of course, weight. The tradeoff between carrying more fuel and having less weight to carry. This is the basic difference between the light and heavy fighter.

but not the only difference. A MK I Spit went 5875lbs with a wooden prop. useful load is given as 1585lbs.
200lbs for the pilot & chute
646lbs for fuel
54lbs for oil
685 lbs for Military load. Guns, ammo, gun sight, even the radio or large part of the radio installation.

The structure was 1890lbs and the powerplant was 2035 of which the engine was only 1412lbs.

this plane had no armor, no self sealing, no IFF. A Spitfire II went 6172lbs with the bells and whistles of the summer of 1940.

You can swap some military equipment (guns/ammo) for more fuel for the same weight but there are some other things that need to stay.

as far as light fighters go, you can't pick lighter pilots, or use smaller parachutes, the radios are the same. There is only so much you can take-out.

there are a lot of fixed weights in a fighter unless you change the engine. Look at the Spitfire again, ANY plane using the Merlin III engine is going to have just about the same powerplant weight if not heavier (due to using a real propeller and not a hunk of tree). The light fighter cannot use a smaller radiator or use less cooling fluid. (296lbs for the cooling system).

 

[Schweik]

I can't understand the point you're making. Tomo Pauk made a statement indicating that the long-held view of the Luftwaffe was a tactical rather than strategic air arm was a myth. For evidence, he provided quote of 1,000 mile range for a number of German aircraft.

My point is that long range does not necessarily equate with a strategic capability. In order to have strategic capability, you also have to deliver a strategic punch once you arrive over the target, and 1,100 lbs is not a strategic punch.

Tomo may be focused on Strategic air war, but that is a sideshoot from an earlier argument about Operational warfare, which is more what I was referring to. Destroying radar stations, airfields, training facilities, trains and railyards, bridges and so forth. Aircraft factories and merchant ship convoys are probably more Strategic but that would be helpful too. A few 250 or 500 lbs bombs can destroy any of these kinds of targets if they hit accurately.

Most of the aircraft I mentioned, including the He 111 and the Ju 88, could carry far heavier payloads for shorter trips. The Ju 88 in particular was also capable of dive bombing and was therefore considerably more accurate than most level bombers. So I guess it depends on what you mean by Strategic capability. Allied bombers flying missions from 1940 through 43 dropped many many tons of bombs, but did not necessarily have much Strategic impact on the war. Only a few of the more precision strikes really had far reaching effects. Most of those bombs contributed to 'de-housing' as the euphemism went.

But the main limitation for the Germans wasn't their bombers. German bombers for example destroyed a plethora of Operational targets and quite a few Strategic ones in Russia early in Operation Barbarossa. Including many aircraft factories, which forced the relocation of Soviet factories across the Urals causing immesurable disruption and contributing to the chaotic circumstances in Soviet aircraft factory and the poor build quality of many Soviet aircraft in the first 18 months or so of the Soviet- German war (as just one example, the factory making the original version of the Yak-3 was destroyed delaying that project by a couple of years, which is a small but fairly substantial Axis Strategic victory I would say).

The idea that you need tons and tons of bombs or that 'mud moving' is the key to success in Strategic warfare is another debate we have had here many times. I think precision is more important than bomb load, ultimately, though there were times when really big bombs were needed.

The main point though is that the limitation to German Strategic warfare such as there was one, was that their best fighter was a short range interceptor / frontal aviation type bird, not capable of escorting bombers on those longer missions. So once the Allies stiffened their fighter defenses, such as with PVO units in the Soviet Union, it seriously curtailed their ability to conduct Operational or Strategic missions.

 

[Schweik]

Now you have Wellingtons flying 2,000 miles It is 2,100 miles from London to Cairo. Why was the Wellington replaced?

Easy! Because WW2 ended! Wellingtons were produced and still used through 1945.

 

[Schweik]

The He 111 was good for around 400 miles radius with about 4400lbs of bombs, that is a realistic radius.
It was also about as good as an early Wellington. correction welcome.

Obviously with a heavier load it couldn't fly as far. I was quoting figures for a relatively light load of 1,000 lbs. If you quadruple the load yes it shortens the range. But an He 111 could also carry a torpedo quite far (at about 2,000 lbs) which also made it dangerous against maritime targets. Torpedo's did cause more drag though as it was external on an He 111. The Wellington (also a torpedo carrier potentially) has a far greater range, from my understanding. And I believe it could fit a torpedo internally ? Correct me if I'm wrong.

The 110 had more range than the 109 but it couldn't be used quite like a 109. The two planes were not interchangeable.

Agreed, and that was the problem. If the 110 had air to air combat capabilities more like the 109, or even more like say, an A6M, it could have been a lot more dangerous to the Allied cause.

All true, so let's look at a few of these "details" like the Zero's supercharger having a critical altitude several thousand feet lower than the Merlin, (Model 21 Zero vs MK I Spit, later Spits get better, so does the Zero when it gets the two speed supercharger but that isn't till when?) ), many of these long ranges are actually done at a relatively low altitude. Less fuel burned in the climb, IF the supercharge has two gears the lower gear will use less power. At low rpm the supercharger uses less power/heats the intake charge less. But is all a juggling act. airflow through the supercharger is proportional to the square of the speed of the impeller.

And yet the A6M had no problem flying all the way to Darwin and arriving at ~25,000 ft from I believe 500 + miles away, they were flying over the Owen Stanley range on several occasions in New Guinea, and they conducted far longer trips sometimes in the Solomon's etc., (Rabal to Guadalcanal is 620 miles each way) also arriving at high altitude.

but not the only difference. A MK I Spit went 5875lbs with a wooden prop. useful load is given as 1585lbs.
200lbs for the pilot & chute
646lbs for fuel
54lbs for oil
685 lbs for Military load. Guns, ammo, gun sight, even the radio or large part of the radio installation.

The structure was 1890lbs and the powerplant was 2035 of which the engine was only 1412lbs.

this plane had no armor, no self sealing, no IFF. A Spitfire II went 6172lbs with the bells and whistles of the summer of 1940.

You can swap some military equipment (guns/ammo) for more fuel for the same weight but there are some other things that need to stay.

as far as light fighters go, you can't pick lighter pilots, or use smaller parachutes, the radios are the same. There is only so much you can take-out.

Again, in terms of estimating whether an aircraft is a light or heavy fighter, all that matters is whether you are comparing like with like.

there are a lot of fixed weights in a fighter unless you change the engine. Look at the Spitfire again, ANY plane using the Merlin III engine is going to have just about the same powerplant weight if not heavier (due to using a real propeller and not a hunk of tree). The light fighter cannot use a smaller radiator or use less cooling fluid. (296lbs for the cooling system).

That's why fighter design was and still is hard Which is what makes it all fun and interesting.

I agree you can't have everything, especially not early on. Early war fighters are going to have some limitations. But we do see some examples of fighters where they managed to thread the needle and get a lot of the desired characteristics into the same airframe.

 

[pbehn]

Easy! Because WW2 ended! Wellingtons were produced and still used through 1945.

Not as bombers, you are taking maximum range and maximum bomb load and inferring that something useful could be done at extreme range. 1000lb is not sufficient to be anything other than a nuisance.

 

[Schweik]

Also worth pointing out, despite that lower critical altitude A6M2's didn't have a tough time against Spit V's over Darwin. We know there were many extenuating circumstances, but I think it's a safe bet that an A6M2 was competitive with a Spit I.

 

[Schweik]

Not as bombers, you are taking maximum range and maximum bomb load and inferring that something useful could be done at extreme range. 1000lb is not sufficient to be anything other than a nuisance.

The maximum bomb load of a Wellington is 4500+ lbs, and the maximum range is 2,500+ miles. Contrary to what you are suggesting, I did not combine maximum range with maximum bomb load in my post. But I think the Wellington which had a large internal bomb bay could carry a 2,000 lb or more bomb load for quite a long distance.

You may think that 1,000 or 2,000 lbs of bombs is insufficient to do anything more than cause a nuisance, but I don't agree.

I happen to know a little bit of the operational history of the Wellington in the MTO and the CBI, and I know that it was in fact capable of conducting successful missions at quite a long distance. For example flying raids from Malta to Crete (~600 miles), Alexandria to Tobruk (~700 miles) and Protville, Tunisia to the vicinity of Crete (~900 miles). They also flew missions quite a bit further in China and over the Atlantic. They were effective enough in strikes, for example sinking ships and submarines, wrecking airbases and destroying planes on the ground and so forth, that they were one of the more valuable Operational assets in the Allied arsenal in the MTO without a doubt.

 

[Shortround6]

Again we are mixing timelines and capabilities and intent and what planes could do late in life.

Some of these aircraft can be broken down into several "models" like the Wellington.

Pegasus engines, early Hercules, late Hercules, rather different capabilities when you go from a bit over 1000hp per engine to over 1600hp per engine.
But the 1600hp engines weren't even a gleam in the designer's eye (or in the air ministries) in 1935-36 When the Wellington was first worked on.

Same for some of the German planes. The JU-88 especially. The ones available in 1940 weren't really that good. You had the A-1 and A-2 versions. They had 1200hp engines, a small wing and a max gross weight of 22,840lbs (correction welcome). the A-4 was in works with 1320hp engines, 5 ft more wing span, about 20 sq ft more wing area, a beefed up under carriage and a max gross weight of 30.685lbs (Corr. wel.) unfortunately for the Germans. the 1340hp engines were late in showing up and 1940 saw a number of A-5 bombers built which used the big wing and higher gross weight with the old engines.

If we want to talk about 1938-41 lets do that, and keep in mind what was possible or likely to be possible in those years, and realize there was quite and change even in those years. If we want to talk about 1942-44 (or pick a year or group of years) lets do that. Otherwise we are trying to compare this

to what most us have in our pockets now.

Also worth pointing out, despite that lower critical altitude A6M2's didn't have a tough time against Spit V's over Darwin. We know there were many extenuating circumstances, but I think it's a safe bet that an A6M2 was competitive with a Spit I.

and here we are, the Spit's over Darwin, while having better engines than the Spit I were not allowed to use the boost settings the Spit I was using in the BoB. Granted it had a better supercharger.

 

[SaparotRob]

A number of american aircraft ( I don't know about others) were rated with "yardstick" ranges for comparison purposes. They simply figured out what the fuel burn was for a given speed/altitude and then divided that into the total fuel capacity for the length of flight and then multiplied the cruise speed by the hours of endurance to get this range.
no allowance made for warm up, take-off, climb to altitude or even powered decent at the end of the "flight". Basically it tells you that fighter A might have a range 20% longer than fighter B but in neither case do you know what distance they can actually travel. Unfortunately AHT uses these theoretical ranges quite a bit.

That sounds like a good starting point for performance comparisons. Perhaps too optimistic for real use. Thanks!