Me-110 Underrated

Ad: This forum contains affiliate links to products on Amazon and eBay. More information in Terms and rules

In the other chart the G-2 may have been equipped with rocked pods (just Nebelwerfer is readable), speed is with Kampfleistung (30min rating) and not full power.
Plus the speed chart does not look right, it looks like a two-speed supercharged engine but not like one with fluid supercharger coupling
 
How does the later model 110F or G without rocket pods or radar antenna compare in speed to the Beaufighter at low altitude?
 
If it helps I have the following stats for the Beaufighter 1F from Air International 1974
Sea Level 306mph
323 at 15,000ft
Max Cruising at 15,000 ft 272mph
initial climb 1,850 ft/min
time to climb 10,000ft 5.8min
time to climb 20,000ft 14.1min
service ceiling 16,500ft
normal range 1,170 miles at 187mph at 5,000ft
 
Part of the Beaufighters performance at low altitude comes from having engines optimized for low altitude.
The Hercules III on 87 octane fuel was rated at
1375hp for take-off, 2800rpm/4lbs boost
1410hp at 2750ft, 2800 rpm/4lbs boost in medium supercharge (low gear)
1250hp at 16,740ft, 2800rpm/4lbs boost fully supercharged (high gear)
If Lumsden is to be believed.
 
well I'm pointing out the low altitude performance because somebody was saying that it's slow cause it couldn't beat 330 miles an hour. But that too is a function of where the engine is optimized to perform. 300 miles an hour on the deck is not bad for the early or even mid-war.
 
Beaufighter Mk.I is one of those tricky ones (like the Typhoon Mk.I) where the maximum speed can vary 30 mph depending on what improvements it had along its service life.
  • different nacelles
  • better finish
  • flush riveting
  • different escape door
  • different air intakes
  • different undercarriage doors
All this without getting into the different engines fitted (Herc III, Herc X, and Herc XI) and the settings changes as time went on.
 
If I can add to the previous posting. The Beaufighter VI fitted with Hercules VI has the following stats at Mean Weight

Mean Weight 19,600lb (max weight went up to 21,600lb)

Max Speed
325 at 8,500ft
333mph at 15,600ft

Engine rating
1,670 in M gear at 7,500ft
1,500 in S gear at 17,000ft

Range at economical cruise speed 243mph
Mk VIf 1,480 mile
MkVIC with wing tanks 1,810 miles

A brief comment on the use of 87 octane fuel in the Beaufighter. By the time the Beaufighter was in service 100 octane fuel was standard across all front line use in the RAF. As such any stats based on 87 octane fuel are always interesting but in practical terms for combat are not applicable.

Hope this helps
 
My experience with RAF data sheets is that they sometimes list the rated altitude too high, by several thousand feet too high.
For example, the data sheet for the Merlin-powered Beaufighter lists 1125 HP at 20500 ft (!!), that seem to be taken from the provisional power chart. The data sheet for Lanc II from mid-1944 lists Hercules VI as providing 1410 HP at 14500 ft, vs. data sheet for Beaufighter VI from late 1941 listing the same engine as providing 1500 HP at 17000 ft.
 
Even Lumsden needs a very careful reading as whoever compiled the tables at the end or typeset or proof read was not very careful. sometimes columns are moved over or rows are out of line making a quick read subject to mistakes.
at any rate most of the later engines (VI, XVI) seem to be good for 1510-1545hp at 2800rpm, 8.25lbs boost at 15,500ft.
The XI is listed at 1510hp at 2800rpm +6.75lbs at 11,250ft (?)

many Hercules engines are listed twice, once with 87 octane and another line with 100 and/or 100/130.

to show problem/s the Hercules XVII is shown as having a normal, continuous climb rating of 1695hp at 2800rpm rolleyes using +8.25lbs boost at 250ft on 87 octane in high gear.
The XVII used a cropped impeller and was often locked in low (medium supercharge) gear but was a 1943 engine. So why list it with 87 octane fuel?
It appears that the data for the Full power rating (5min) in medium supercharge was put in the wrong column under the 30min climb full supercharge heading.
 
Anyway I think it's clear the Beaufighter had some advantages over the 110. Not to say it was categorically superior or anything, and the 110 may have been a better Night Fighter, but I think the Beau had a bit of an edge for daytime combat, at least once the design had matured a little. And anyone who thinks a 1,000 mile range advantage doesn't mean anything is delusional.
 
Last edited:
Schweik said:
And anyone who thinks a 1,000 mile range advantage doesn't mean anything is delusional.
Click to expand...

It's irrelevant if the fight is a couple of hundred miles away. In the 1934 'zerstorer' 'Tactical Guidelines' an endurance of 2,000 km was desirable, but more telling was the ability to reach an altitude of 7 Km before over flying the front lines, distance to front lines 50 km.

All designs are compromises. To get eight guns in a Spitfire fuel capacity and hence endurance was reduced. These trade offs are made intentionally. The RLM did not require 1,000 miles of range for the role for which the Bf 110 was intended.

The large 900 litre auxiliary tanks used on Bf 110s from 1940 were exactly the same as those already used by the Ju88. In July 1940 the manufacturers were instructed to deliver the tanks with the support braces (only used on the Bf 110) included in the packaging, so that the tanks could be used on both types.
 
Timing is important. The 110 was designed around 1000hp engines, this at a time when the 109 was already in existence (prototypes) with a 700hp engine. The 109 didn't get the DB 601 engine for almost 2 years after work started on the 110.
The Beaufighter was designed around 13-1400hp engines and still couldn't climb well. Even with the Hercules VI it was not a good climbing airplane.
However for most of it's roles fast climb was not really needed.
Let's remember that the Beaufighter was a "sports model" Beaufort. Skinny body with big engines using the Beaufort wing and tail. Production versions differed but that was the basic concept.
You had the wing area to both support and house large fuel tanks. And the engine power to move the fuel load.

We have gotten a bit of topic from the 110 being under rated to a 110 vs Beaufighter comparison.
 
How else do you assess the merits of an aircraft if you can't compare it to another similar one? When I spoke about this in theoretical terms I was told it was impossible to build a long range fighter in the early war, (which is nonsense) when I provide examples I'm told they are invalid. Which is also nonsense.

I also really don't understand why an earlier design date matters so much either. Many of the early war designs (like the Bf 109, one of the earliest) continued to be viable in their roles through consistent upgrading, through the end of the war. Even if they had certain fundamental design limitations. Germany had one of the major issues basically in hand- the availability of good engines. Of course they had problems with design and development, high performance engines were near the pinnacle of technology in the 40's. But they never hit a dead end where they just couldn't get enough horsepower. The problem with the 110 was a fundamental design issue, and one which they never really fixed, or rather fixed far too late.

When assessing other designs I don't see this canard being brought up all the time.
 
Shortround6 said:
Timing is important. The 110 was designed around 1000hp engines,
Click to expand...

A report from Rechlin dated 15 August 1939, just one month before the beginning of the war, may cast some light on this.

"The powerplant of the Bf 110 C in no way meets the conditions expected of a modern engine system. One problem in development was the circumstance in which an aircraft designed to accommodate two 20 liter engines then had to be fitted with two 30 liter engines without any modification to the airframe. The system can be considered suitable for operations once the deficiencies listed on the page opposite have been rectified."

My bold.

There is some debate about which engine the A series of the Bf 110 would have had if it had gone into production. While it is true that the V3 got the DB 600 engines the B series production used the Jumo 210, as did the A-0 pre-production series. B series production was intentionally limited in anticipation of the start up of production of the DB 601.

The C series was the first to get the DB 601 and the much increased fuel consumption was one of the factors reducing endurance. That happens when you go from a 20 litre to a 30 litre engine. In September 1938 Goering wrote to Udet and Milch asking that the 'heavy fighter', meaning the Bf 110, should be developed so that its range would cover 'England'. This was a reflection of the change in Germany's strategic situation. The front line might not be 50 Km away. This may be what led to the development of the D series.

The Bf 110 B just missed the war, being withdrawn from front line units in July1939 and relegated to flight training schools. The Chief of training reported that he had received Bf 110 Bs on 7 July.
 
What prevented them from making a long range version in 1941 or 42? Were they unable to put a lot of fuel in the wings? What was the real problem with the 210? I always thought it was the backward swept wing causing stability issues but I've been told that's incorrect.

Can somebody break down the internal fuel capacity of the Beaufighter vs the Bf 110?
 
stona said:
The Bf 110 B just missed the war, being withdrawn from front line units in July1939 and relegated to flight training schools. The Chief of training reported that he had received Bf 110 Bs on 7 July.
Click to expand...

I thought they were used in the western front in the '39
 
Vincenzo said:
I thought they were used in the western front in the '39
Click to expand...

The notice of their withdrawal is in the minutes of a meeting at the RLM, as reproduced in Mankau and Petrick's 'Messerschmitt Bf 110/Me 210/Me 410'.

On 27th August 1939 the Luftwaffe had 23 operational Bf 110 Bs in its inventory.

John Vasco notes that though the B series found its way to front line units (ZG 26, and 1,[1(Z)/LG 1), 'By the summer of 1939 the B variant was being withdrawn from the front line and passed to training units'.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Users who are viewing this thread

Total: 1 (members: 0, guests: 1)

Similar threads

C
An early Me 264
Replies
5
Views
562
tonycat77
Spitfire vs Me-109
Replies
3
Views
1K
PAT303
P
Questions Bugging Me on Jet Engines
Replies
11
Views
1K
Engineman
E
An early 'Me 209' instead of the Me 309?
2
Replies
21
Views
1K
TM06
Z
Large gun Me 109
2 3
Replies
47
Views
3K
Engineman
E
Menu
Log in
Register