Glider
Captain
I recognise that but some people do tend to get carried away
Me-110 Underrated
- Thread starter Zipper730
- Start date
Ad: This forum contains affiliate links to products on Amazon and eBay. More information in Terms and rules
Japanese wiki give us the monthly production for type
Type 11
May '40: 5
June: 3
July: 9
August: 8
September: 9
October: 19
November: 7
Type 21
November: 16
December: 19
Another good early example of a viable long range fighter design which I brought up before is the Beaufighter, although it is just short of being an ideal escort fighter. Could they have made a faster, lighter weight version of it? Say two cannon instead of four & a pair of machine guns in the nose, scratch the wing machine guns, two speed supercharger when it becomes available, thinner and maybe slightly shorter wings ... something a bit more like a hybrid between a Westland whirlwind and a Beau.
I know the Whirlwind was much smaller but I mean some design midpoint. All you need with the Beau is to increase speed by about 30 mph and ceiling by ... a bunch. Ten thousand feet. But a two speed supercharger should do that.
Even the historical Beaufighter could do long range low altitude raids. The famous Paris raid is a great example.
Big planes don't do great against heavy integrated air defenses especially at low altitude but something like a Beaufighter would have been very helpful for the Luftwaffe in North Africa or Russia I think.
I know the Whirlwind was much smaller but I mean some design midpoint. All you need with the Beau is to increase speed by about 30 mph and ceiling by ... a bunch. Ten thousand feet. But a two speed supercharger should do that.
Even the historical Beaufighter could do long range low altitude raids. The famous Paris raid is a great example.
Big planes don't do great against heavy integrated air defenses especially at low altitude but something like a Beaufighter would have been very helpful for the Luftwaffe in North Africa or Russia I think.
Damaging, of course.
Well, that's what you get from Wikipedia.
The armour over the upper tank was called 'deflection armour. The tanks were protected from the front by the engine and from the rear by the pilots armour. The defection armour was intended to do exactly that, deflect oblique strikes.
The 'bullet resistant' windscreen fitted to Spitfires in service in September 1939 and then fitted on production line. Spitfires delivered to Boscombe Down for various tests in October and November 1939 all had the add on panel fitted as factory standard. The Supermarine drawing for the 'add on' screen (Drawing 30030 sheet 33) is held by the RAF museum. The first internally-armoured screen was fitted to the Mk. III, and the "Spitfire III type windscreen and hood" were fitted from 26/4/41. The mod was not retrospective, and was production-line only, but how many had had their screens fitted before that date, and retained them until they were finished is impossible to judge. It is not easy to say overall which Mk Vs had the external and internal 'armoured' screens. From photos, it appears that all Spitfire Vs, for tropical use, had the new screens. Castle Bromwich built a lot of Vbs before they got the internal screens onto their production line. Westland was just getting into Spitfire production, but got it on their Vs pretty quickly (so very few if any Vs from Westlands had the external add on). No Spitfire fighter was without a bullet resistant windscreen in 1942.
These are the dates on which some of the features relevant were introduced to the production lines.
Pilot's rear armour 19/10/39
Additional armour under pilot's seat 16/12/41 (Mk V production)
Linatex covering for lower tank 25/4/40. The self sealing lower tank on 27/7/40.
Armoured glycol tank 6/6/40
Fireproof bulkhead behind pilot 20/11/40
SaparotRob
Unter Gemeine Geschwader Murmeltier XIII
So is it underrated or not?
SaparotRob
Unter Gemeine Geschwader Murmeltier XIII
Works for me.
No hard data for German fighters, I only have British intel reports based on crash surveys.
Between 9 Jul 40 and 5 Nov 40 -- 232 x Me 109 wrecks examined.
8-mm bulkhead behind petrol tank, ie: 5ft behind pilot (usually fitted)
8-mm trapezium-shaped plate behind pilot's head (usually fitted)
2.5-inch armoured windscreen (sometimes fitted)
self-sealing tanks (possible, but not usually found, especially early on)
Between 15 Aug 40 and 20 Oct 40 -- 85 x Me 110 wrecks examined.
11-mm upper plate and 9-mm lower plate in front of pilot (not found on crashes until 26 Aug)
2.?-inch armoured windscreen (sometimes fitted)
self-sealing tanks (always fitted)
rear armour found in only one example (a reconnaissance variant)
Shortround6
Major General
I am not saying the Germans should have magicly had hundreds of Zero's in 1940.
What I am trying to say is that the Japanese designers made certain choices to get the long range. Some of these choices (but perhaps not all) would have been available to any other fighter design team in any other country. However would some of those choices been acceptable to the generals/air ministries buying the planes?
Could the Americans, British, Germans or French and Italians have built a 1000 mile range fighter in 1938-40 gien their available engines, their structural strength requirements, desired dive speeds? Once these nations started fitting some sort of protected tanks and some pilot armor performance tended to drop in 1940.
For the British the MK II Spitfire with the Merlin XII showed little or no performance increase over the early MK I Spitfire due to the increased weight and drag of the now standard protection and, increased ammo (not much) and extra electronics (the IFF). There are performance figures for early Spitfires with a fixed fuel tank under one wing. Changing to internal linkage (which there may have been room for) would restore most (all?) of the lost speed but the same can not be said of the loss of climb rate. ANd climb rate is an indicator of the ability to sustain speed in turns. a poor climbing plane winds up descending fairly soon after starting a turning contest. A good climbing plane could very well wind up having to descend but not quite as soon and would not have to descend at quite the same rate while doing the same turn.
Without lighting the structure and making it weaker what avenue/s did some of these countries have for making a ling range fighter?
As for the Beaufighter, a lot of them had 2 speed engines. Not sure on some of the real early ones with Hercules engines but the MK II with Merlin XX engines certainly did. Quite of number of the middling Beaufighters did, Some of the later ones had the two speed supercharge locked in low gear for low altitude missions. I would also note that a Hercules XVI engine on 100 octane could make about 300hp more at most altitudes than a Hercules III engine on 87 octane could so be careful as to what combat examples you pick to show that the Beaufighter would have made some sort of day fighter for air to air combat. It was a very large airplane for a "fighter"
What I am trying to say is that the Japanese designers made certain choices to get the long range. Some of these choices (but perhaps not all) would have been available to any other fighter design team in any other country. However would some of those choices been acceptable to the generals/air ministries buying the planes?
Could the Americans, British, Germans or French and Italians have built a 1000 mile range fighter in 1938-40 gien their available engines, their structural strength requirements, desired dive speeds? Once these nations started fitting some sort of protected tanks and some pilot armor performance tended to drop in 1940.
For the British the MK II Spitfire with the Merlin XII showed little or no performance increase over the early MK I Spitfire due to the increased weight and drag of the now standard protection and, increased ammo (not much) and extra electronics (the IFF). There are performance figures for early Spitfires with a fixed fuel tank under one wing. Changing to internal linkage (which there may have been room for) would restore most (all?) of the lost speed but the same can not be said of the loss of climb rate. ANd climb rate is an indicator of the ability to sustain speed in turns. a poor climbing plane winds up descending fairly soon after starting a turning contest. A good climbing plane could very well wind up having to descend but not quite as soon and would not have to descend at quite the same rate while doing the same turn.
Without lighting the structure and making it weaker what avenue/s did some of these countries have for making a ling range fighter?
As for the Beaufighter, a lot of them had 2 speed engines. Not sure on some of the real early ones with Hercules engines but the MK II with Merlin XX engines certainly did. Quite of number of the middling Beaufighters did, Some of the later ones had the two speed supercharge locked in low gear for low altitude missions. I would also note that a Hercules XVI engine on 100 octane could make about 300hp more at most altitudes than a Hercules III engine on 87 octane could so be careful as to what combat examples you pick to show that the Beaufighter would have made some sort of day fighter for air to air combat. It was a very large airplane for a "fighter"
SaparotRob
Unter Gemeine Geschwader Murmeltier XIII
You want to to know what aircraft was most underrated? Not the Hurricane (the Rodney Dangerfield of the RAF). It was afforded a place of honor in the Battle of Britain flight. Not the P-40 nor the Buffalo. It's the KI-43 Hayabusa. I never knew about it until I saw a model of it in Thailand in Royal Thai livery. "Nice looking plane. Not a Zero. Must be crap." The opponents it faced identified it as something else. Losses were written up as losses to Zeros. It scored more victories than its famous cousin. Even the unassailable Caidin chalked up Allied losses to the wrong plane. The KI-43 Hayabusa, the Rodney Dangerfield of IJAAF.
GrauGeist
Generalfeldmarschall zur Luftschiff Abteilung
The closest the U.S. had to a fighter with a thousand mile range in the late 30's, was the SBD, oddly enough. Yes, it entered service in spring of '40, but it's design and development were late 30's.
Then there was the Seversky P-35A, which had a 950 mile range, it lacked armor and self-sealing tanks.
And an offshoot of the P-35, was the 2PA-B3 (A8V1), which was a two-seater designed for the Imperial Japanese Navy, who purchased 20. This R-1820 powered aircraft had a range of 1,950 miles.
So an Allied single-engine type with a thousand mile range by 1940 was not impossible.
Then there was the Seversky P-35A, which had a 950 mile range, it lacked armor and self-sealing tanks.
And an offshoot of the P-35, was the 2PA-B3 (A8V1), which was a two-seater designed for the Imperial Japanese Navy, who purchased 20. This R-1820 powered aircraft had a range of 1,950 miles.
So an Allied single-engine type with a thousand mile range by 1940 was not impossible.
Last edited:
Interesting, I had never heard of it. Great example Seversky A8V - Wikipedia
Typically that was the major problem preventing better aircraft from being produced, more than the design limitations. Procurement policy took different directions in different nations and each had their strength and weaknesses.
Performance dropped, but engine power steadily increased and it tended to equal out over time more or less, as in the case of the Mk II Spitfire. I think it is clear that in terms of design and production capability, it was possible to do so. But the decision didn't go in that direction right away. Basically of our six major aircraft producing powers: Russia, Germany, Italy, Britain, Japan and the US, The European powers focused more on interceptors or short range / frontal aviation types. It was the latter two which seemed to recognize the need for a long range fighter earliest which makes sense given geography. The Japanese initially focused on a long range escort fighter because of their experiences in China. The US foresaw a need to patrol long distances, envisioning the protection of their shorelines and places like the Panama canal. But once they got into it the long distances in the Pacific proved that need, and the longer (medium) ranged fighters they already had were helpful in the Med and elsewhere as well as for Allies in Lend Lease.
That is a complex issue worthy of a deeper discussion...
Well ultimately it boiled down to threading the needle. Use lighter materials, design intelligently. Find ways to save weight, improve efficiency, reduce drag. The A6M was actually a stronger airframe than most people give it credit for. It was a carrier aircraft after all, and had a once-piece construction method rather than having the wings bolted on separately. It was very streamlined as well. The designers of the P-51 like Ed Schmüd as we know found all kinds of ways to reduce drag and improve speed and range.
Personally I think the design and engineering challenges could be met by most of the major nations, the bigger issue was the purchasing commissions, corporate bureaucracy, air force leaders and so forth having sufficient vision and prescience to know what they wanted and what was really going to be needed.
I am aware of the 2 speed engines etc. with the later model Beaus, and I see the limitation in the day fighter role, but if you look at the Operational history, Beaufighters, especially late model ones, did pretty well in a few scrapes. Pacific Victory Roll seems to be down right now for some reason but if you have a look at that some time it shows a fairly impressive tally. In the MTO they seem to have fallen prey to Bf 109s a bit more when they encountered them, the difference is probably speed - Beaufighter was close to the same speed as a Zero down low but much slower than a 109F or G.
I would concede though for a true escort fighter type you would probably need a bit smaller and lighter airframe. The Beaufighter had 10 guns, two crew and a 1,600 mile range. I think as I mentioned before, 4 guns, a 1,000 mile range, and the higher altitude capable engines might have been an interesting experiment. The zippy Whirlwind had a wingspan of 45 ft, whereas the Beaufighter was 57 ft. Maybe the modified Beau could have a thinner wing around 52 ft like the P-38 Lightning, and perhaps inline engines like the Merlin XX on the Mark II. If they could get the weight down to ~15,000 lbs you might have something there. How much do 2 x 20mm cannons and 4 x .303 machine guns weigh with ammo?
Of course all rank speculation there, for which I apologize. I do have a weakness for that kind of thing.
Look at that bad boy. Beau Mk II Gibraltar 1944
Improve that somewhat awkward looking engine cowling a bit (I think there is a good deal of room for improvement there), add some jet effect with the exhaust, maybe a slightly pointier nose, reduce the size of that navigators bubble somewhat, and (the hard part) make the wings a bit thinner and about 5 feet shorter. Drop the wing guns and go down to two cannon instead of four. And then maybe you have something really interesting.
Improve that somewhat awkward looking engine cowling a bit (I think there is a good deal of room for improvement there), add some jet effect with the exhaust, maybe a slightly pointier nose, reduce the size of that navigators bubble somewhat, and (the hard part) make the wings a bit thinner and about 5 feet shorter. Drop the wing guns and go down to two cannon instead of four. And then maybe you have something really interesting.
It was a laminated glass panel, similar to those used in aircraft by all nations during (and after) WW2.
Any number of aircraft developed before the war used an add on or applique panel like this for additional pilot protection. Almost all eventually fitted the protection internally for aerodynamic reasons.
Last edited:
wuzak
Captain
The Beaufighter was supposed to be a quick program for a cannon armed fighter using the wings of the Beaufort mated to a new fuselage.
If you are starting with a new wing then it will be a completely new design and would probably take longer to get into service.
