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
swampyankee
Chief Master Sergeant
- 4,002
- Jun 25, 2013
The swept wing was probably due to a too-far aft center of gravity.
The Me 210 was originally designed with a certain aspect of instability to be more maneuverable in certain (dogfight) situations. But it proved to be difficult to handle even for experienced pilots especially during low speed flight (Take-off and landings). Imagine what happended with not so experienced pilots at the controls - Crash Boom Bang. Mtt was forced back to the drawing board and amongst other fixes they lengthened the tail section. Further improvements led to the Me 210C (of which most were assembled in Hungary) and Me 410
Shortround6
Major General
The problem just pre-war and in the early part of the war was that you could
1. Build a high performance fighter with short range.
OR
2. Build a low performance fighter with long range.
Yes the Beaufighter had fantastic range. Now use the MK I version to escort bombers into France or the Ruhr trying to fight BF 109s in daylight.
Early designs are almost always going to be worse because so much in aerodynamics, structure, metallurgy was changing so fast not to mention engines and fuel and for the British, especially propellers. A few other nations didn't start the war with the best propellers either.
Just consider Flaps and structure, the US went from this in 1933
to this in 1942.
The Flaps went from plain flaps to double slotted Fowler flaps. So a few years difference in start of design work can make big differences.
This first flew July 17th 1935
Same experimental 14 cylinder two row Curtiss radials that were in the Hawk 75 prototype and went nowhere and the props were two position, The plane was rebuilt with 9 cylinder Cyclones and constant speed props.
Wing was fabric covered from the main spar to the trailing edge. When first tested it was the fastest military plane in the US.
The 109 remained viable because Germany's enemies very obligingly delivered the 109s targets close to the 109 airfields.
The Germans also went through about 3 generations of cannon and two generations of Machine guns in the 109 and they still had trouble as bomber interceptors.
Using 5 gun 109s to attack the bombers and 3 gun 109s to "escort" the 5 gun 109s is a sign that all is not well in fighter land.
The Germans were often a step behind the British as far as engine power goes, Sometimes they caught up and things were somewhat equal and then the British surged ahead again.
This is in regards to the DB 601 and Jumo 211 engines, The BMW 801 did beat the single stage Merlins and the less said about the Sabre in 1941-42 the better.
Both the 601E and the 605 had to be derated for a number of months after introduction which certainly didn't help things.
Care to tell us what this fundamental issue was?
as far as what engine the 110 was designed to use, different accounts say different things. This is not helped by the crappy delivery of DB 600 engines in 1935-36-37.
Some accounts say the V3 got the DB 600 engines, some accounts say the V1 had them,
one account lists
V1.....Jumo 10D (jumo 210)
V2.....Jumo 210B
V3.....DB 600A
V4.....Jumo 211 (?)
V5.....not listed Prototype A-0 so probably Jumo 210s
V6.....DB601A
V7.....prototype of the 110B-0 with Jumo 210Gs
V8.....test of Me P 6 airscrews Jumo 210G
The Bf 161V1 got DB 600 engines
The Bf 161V2 got Jumo 210s
The Bf 162V1 got DB600 engines
The Bf 162V2 and V3 got Jumo 210s.
He 111Bs were being built at the end of 1936 with DB600 engines.
The Prototype He 118 dive bomber crashed by Udet in June of 1936 was powered by the DB 600.
The Jumo 211 entry for the Bf 110 could very well be a typo.
Other accounts of the Bf 161 and Bf 162 may differ, point is that most of these planes were designed for the DB 600 engine and were using the Jumo 210s for flight trials to discover/sort out handling problems.
Interesting, and not entirely unreasonable way to put it. Though as with anything in WW2 aviation, the Devil is in the details.
In 1940 the Bf 109 and the Spitfire were the two best fighters in the world, from a point of view of any air to air engagement. The only possible rival would be the A6M just entering the war, with the F4F Wildcat following after that. The main advantage that the 109 and the Spit had over all others, including the Zero, was their engines. They had good, powerful, and simultaneously low-drag engines that gave good performance at altitude. That, IMO, is not the only thing but probably the main thing that makes the Spit and the 109 stand above the other modern contenders: the D.520, the Yak -1, the P-36, MC. 200, G.50 and so on.
I would argue that the engine is the one real limiting factor, the rest is basically putting out the right specs, having the right designers and having a little luck.
Well you have a point, but I think you are oversimplifying a bit. We saw already that even with it's limited range, and the risk of tangling with Spitfires, there was sufficient need for Bf 110s to escort long range bomber missions that they risked doing it with extremely hazardous and draggy wooden fuel tanks. And while the Bf 110 didn't do fantastically well against British Spitfires and Hurricanes, it wasn't catastrophically bad (so long as you didn't load it down with one of those dog bellies). It wasn't like Blackburn Skuas or Fairey Battles going up against 109s for example, or F2A's tangling with Zeros.
If your fighter is 30 or 40% as good as the enemy fighters, but still in the ball game so to speak, that means that you can still use them in places where the enemy has fewer fighters and you can achieve local situational and / or numerical superiority. And if you have all that extra range you can hit them where they are ill prepared, which will in turn force them to spread their interceptor force that much thinner. Again the 110 was not outstanding but it was in the game. If it's legs were a little longer it would have been more useful.
And the Beaufighter was probably a bit better than the 110 at least within certain altitude bands (and that would basically just depend on how they tuned the engines). So I think it too could be viable. in the sense of being and example of an aircraft that the Germans could have matched. Beaufighters did fly missions over France sometimes and did tangle with 109s quite a bit in the Med, not with great success but not necessarily catastrophic losses every time either.
I don't know if they ever put external fuel tanks on a Whirlwind but something a bit more like that might have been more viable as an escort fighter if it just had the range. In terms of both range and fighting capability, even with it's tiny engines, it was roughly midway between your two poles (high vs. low performance). All you really needed was a medium performance aircraft with medium or long range and that would have helped - especially if it could fight at altitude.
And lets remember, the need for the useful escort fighter did not end with the Battle of Britain. It may have been pretty hard in 1940 but it was easier by 1941 and easier still by 1942. Another good example kind of mid-range performance by early war standards would be the Pe-2 / Pe-3. With only 1100 hp engines it made 330 - 340 mph and had a 900 mile range. It was stressed for dive bombing so it could make the tight turns, and they managed to fit a 20mm ShVak and two 12.7mm HMG in the nose of the Pe-3bis. If you had say a DB 601 or a Merlin XX in that thing with an extra two or three hundred horsepower in each nacelle, you could make a single seat day fighter variant that I suspect could give most front line fighters a challenge.
Another one worth looking at is the Japanese Ki-45. It too was saddled with relatively weak engines - 1,050 hp Mitsubishi Ha102 radials. And with that, it managed 340 mph, a 1,200 mile range, and it was quite maneuverable. Armament was the same as the Pe-3bis, a 20mm gun and two 12.7mm HMG. But it was just a liitle too draggy and the engines were a little too weak to handle single seat fighters like the P-40s they ran into in China. However, you take that same basic design, put a pair of reliable 1,300 hp inline engines in it, (or the 1,500 hp radials like on the Beaufighter) and you have now entered the realm of viability as a heavy fighter. Yes you need to add armor and self sealing tanks, but you have a bit of extra range to play with there and with an extra 600 hp or so, it shouldn't break the bank.
Yeah I am familiar with those aircraft. Not all the 1930's vintage planes were as primitive as all that.
I think this is ultimately what drove the differences we do see - the top priorities were for the interceptor / frontal aviation types, for the British, for the Germans, and for the Russians. The Americans and Japanese were fighting over the vast distances of the Pacific. But the decision to stick with just the shorter range aircraft would eventually become a problem, and long before the war was over.
The Germans were running up against the limitations of their home run 1930's prewar fighter design. You won't get any argument from me on that. That's why I think they needed that long range fighter, or a viable 'heavy fighter' if you will. Because those were what proved best at knocking down the heavy bombers, yet they too had to be escorted to survive.
I don't know but I can guess - in the broad sense the failure to fit sufficient fuel in that big airframe to give it the longer range it needed, and more specifically I gather there was a problem with the wing being too thick and maybe not efficient enough.
Shortround6
Major General
The British thought that a long range single engine fighter was impossible in the late 30s and given the "conditions" in England at the time they were right. the conditions include the refusal of the air ministry to approve anything but fixed pitch propellers for fighters. This meant long take-off runs and slow cimb outs, The British also had small airfields (although not that much smaller than many other countries) which meant that you needed a big wing to get even a 5-6000lb fighter off the ground. Big wing means more drag than a small wing, in general. British got constant speed props fitted in the nick of time (just a few weeks) before the BoB. Other countries weren't quite as stubborn/stupid. Other conditions include the requirement for no more than 38lbs/sq/in tire pressure to keep from putting ruts in the grass fields (main reason some british bombers had rather large tires.) Other Countries may have had a few requirements of their own. Most of the 1930s fighters got several hundred pounds of protection added which hurt performance and nullified small increases in power.
The American P-40 shows the results if things don't go exactly right, Stick a good (not great) V-12 (low drag) engine in a P-36, it carries about 60% more fuel (but not for combat?) than either a Spit or 109E,
It is a fast as either the Spit MK I or the 109E but due to weight and size it won't climb for crap (talking about the long nose planes as they existed in 1940/41) and the two .50s and four .30s don't show much of an advantage. The Allison actually made as much or slightly more power in the mid teen altitude range as some early model DB601 engines. 109s performance wasn't so much due to the engine as it was a small and "light" aircraft. If you have around 1000-1050hp at 14-16,000ft there is only so much you can do. Of course redoing the 109E into the F made a large difference but there you have "new" knowledge working for you.
The engine (and prop) are a major part but again, if the engines are fairly equal you need a really good design to show a big advantage.
It doesn't really matter what the Beaufighters could do on their own. If the mission is to escort bombers and the escort fighters (Beaufighters or 110s) can barely defend themselves what is defending the bombers? The 110s could not defend the bombers, if the Beaufighters cannot defend the bombers but are spending all their effort at not being shot down themselves they have failed as escort fighters despite their range. What versions of the Beaufighter were in the Med? some MK Is but please remember the MK VI got rather more powerful engines.
Just showing the advances made in 7-9 years. 7 years between the A-14 twin and the A-26. so even 2-3 years can make a big difference in airframe design, high lift devices and powerplants.
The time just pre-war and early war shows that where performance took hit on a fighter, it had nothing to do with range.
Either the air ministries were of opinion that another set of wings on a fighter was a way to go (Italy, mostly; Czechoslovakia). Or, that they will not pay for retractable U/C (or/and the designers/companies were not eager to implement retractable U/C) - Poland, Japan in mid-1930s, Netherlands, Czechoslovakia, Yugoslavia. Or where the fighter was company's 1st monoplane (Hawker) so the wing was too big & thick, fuelage too, and radiator placement was appalling. Or where engine installation and overall streamlining was a rush job (Bf 109E). Or where it was expected that a new fighter also sings, dances, and cooks so it ended up bigger than many 2-engined A/C (Fulmar), while being powered by the 3rd or 4th best engine the country makes. Or - let's halve the firepower of the day and install a turret on a fighter (Defiant). Most of those aircraft didn't have drop tanks as option, even if that was a known thing to exist by mid-1930s, so the range remained short where that was the case.
I'm not suggesting that designers had to somehow overcome bad requirements from their national aviation boards etc., as I said before it's a matter of both the designer / aircraft and engine companies ability, plus the specs which is often the major stumbling block. Referring to Tomo's post, look at the Firefly and the FAA. They seemed to consistently make requirements which prevented the development of useful aircraft. Or the Germans insistence that every new bomber be able to dive bomb like a Stuka.
I couldn't really assess it in terms of BoB era, because the P-40 wasn't quite ready by then, but later in 1941 when the fighting in the Med started, those early P-40 B/C / Tomahawk IIA / IIB types were apparently able to hold their own against Bf 109s, even with abyssmally bad tactics (not flying in pairs etc.). Their main limitation by that point, as compared to say Spit V or 109E7 etc., was the relatively low critical altitude of the single speed Allison engine. This was why the RAF decided they were unsuitable for combat in NW Europe. I'm sure it wouldn't have mattered as much if the aircraft had been 1,000 lbs lighter, but essentially it was the same limitation as the D.520, Yak-1, and others I mentioned. The Engine didn't perform well above 12,000 or 15,000 ft.
Also the early (long nose / Tomahawk) variants didn't have a particularly bad rate of climb, it was usually rated as somewhere between 2,500 ft and 3,000 ft per minute. That notorious deficiency was first felt with the D/E ("Kittyhawk") models, especially until they improved the engine power (with a climb rate of sometimes under 2,000 ft per minute). And yet the extra range did help quite a bit. They were certainly able to escort bombers, and the German pilots themselves noted that they were very effective at it.
My point was that a lot of countries were able to make good designs, including the twin engined fighters I mentioned, and the others like the D.520, Yak etc. The biggest stumbling block was usually the engine.
I refer again to the anecdote about Bf 110s being used to escort He 111s to raids on Scotland etc., seemingly so necessary that they were willing to risk flying with a 'dog belly'. Obviously there was some perceived utility. And the other solution is if you can't win complete air superiority and your bombers can't quite hang in the environment you are entering, like Blenheims over Libya in 1941, then you put bombs on your fighters. Some fighters carry the bombs and the others fly cover. That seemed to work with Kittyhawks.
Yeah I get you, my point is that some of the early designs were more modern than others, and the reverse was also true.
Shortround6
Major General
I will go back and pick on the British, since in 1938-39 they had the best V-12 engine available (highest critical altitude.)
A lot of things interrelate early in design process when things are still on paper and you can stretch certain things with an eraser and new pencil line. There was certainly space (volume) in a Spitfire for more fuel. But like I said earlier the fixed Pitch prop rather limited the take off from small fields if you added weight. I have mentioned the tire pressure more than once. If you make the plane heavier (more fuel) you need to either pump up the tires a bit more (forbidden under the British "rules") or you need to fit larger tires to spread the weight out. The larger tires are heavier, they may require lumps or bumps to fit them in the plane. Larger tires on a Hurricane may not be a problem (thick wing to hide them in) larger tires on a Spitfire might be a problem. See late model 109s for an extreme example. While the bigger tires cause other problems? Will you need to beef up the landing gear (or attachment points) to handle the extra weight of the fuel and tires? In peacetime small changes often rippled out quite far, In war people were often told to shut up and get on with it (or words to that effect) and things were added without any changes to landing gear, tires or beefing up airframes until proven necessary (things broke more often). I would note that this is not purely hypothetical. The Whirlwind was granted an exception and allowed to use 42lbs/sq/in in it's tires to avoid redesigning/enlarging the rear of the engine nacelles to accommodate larger tires.
Were there any other restrictions/requirements that increased weight could have screwed up?
Please note Britain's first long range fighter (Blenheim with gun pack) had some serious issues in the MK IV version. (1400 mile range) in that it had to dump the fuel in the outer wing tanks before trying to land. The landing gear and brakes designed for a 12,500lb plane were not up to the job for a 14,000lb + airplane and hundreds of pounds of fuel had to be dumped before even trying for an emergency landing. Yes Spitfires did get steadily heavier but what was allowed in 1942/43 was not what would be allowed in 1938.
Most but not all of Britain's problems in designing a long range single engine fighter were self inflicted. But please consider that between improved Merlins and better fuel a Two stage Merlin engine had a much better power to weight ratio than an early Merlin running on 87 octane.
The P-40 engine didn't change from the P-40 no letter to the P-40C. The P-40 was ordered in the Spring of 1939 even if deliveries didn't take place until the summer of 1940.
however some of the "book" numbers for the P-40 need a vigorous shake of the salt cellar.
http://www.wwiiaircraftperformance.org/P-40/P-40B_41-5205_PHQ-M-19-1227-A.pdf
has some nice test numbers but please note the weight. then compare to
http://www.wwiiaircraftperformance.org/P-40/P-40B_Official_Summary_of_Characteristics.jpg
the test plane was running at the design weight. but the design weight was about 500lbs below the normal gross weight and normal gross weight only counted 120 US gallons of fuel
(about 3 imp gallons more than a Hurricane).
Using it as an example of what was possible in 1939/40. The C15 Allison had one of the higher critical altitudes of 1939/early 1940 period. (higher than any French or Italian engine and higher than most versions of the DB601 used until the fall of 1940). The P-40B at normal gross (not the reduced weight used for the performance tests) was about 16-1700lb heavier than the 109 or around 30% heavier. That is the 109s altitude advantage, not anything particularly noteworthy about the DB601 engine.
P-40s in the desert held their own in part because much of the desert fighting was done at lower altitudes than was common over England or europe in 1940-42. And in part because at those lower altitudes the Allison tolerated a fair amount of of over boosting.
A lot of things interrelate early in design process when things are still on paper and you can stretch certain things with an eraser and new pencil line. There was certainly space (volume) in a Spitfire for more fuel. But like I said earlier the fixed Pitch prop rather limited the take off from small fields if you added weight. I have mentioned the tire pressure more than once. If you make the plane heavier (more fuel) you need to either pump up the tires a bit more (forbidden under the British "rules") or you need to fit larger tires to spread the weight out. The larger tires are heavier, they may require lumps or bumps to fit them in the plane. Larger tires on a Hurricane may not be a problem (thick wing to hide them in) larger tires on a Spitfire might be a problem. See late model 109s for an extreme example. While the bigger tires cause other problems? Will you need to beef up the landing gear (or attachment points) to handle the extra weight of the fuel and tires? In peacetime small changes often rippled out quite far, In war people were often told to shut up and get on with it (or words to that effect) and things were added without any changes to landing gear, tires or beefing up airframes until proven necessary (things broke more often). I would note that this is not purely hypothetical. The Whirlwind was granted an exception and allowed to use 42lbs/sq/in in it's tires to avoid redesigning/enlarging the rear of the engine nacelles to accommodate larger tires.
Were there any other restrictions/requirements that increased weight could have screwed up?
Please note Britain's first long range fighter (Blenheim with gun pack) had some serious issues in the MK IV version. (1400 mile range) in that it had to dump the fuel in the outer wing tanks before trying to land. The landing gear and brakes designed for a 12,500lb plane were not up to the job for a 14,000lb + airplane and hundreds of pounds of fuel had to be dumped before even trying for an emergency landing. Yes Spitfires did get steadily heavier but what was allowed in 1942/43 was not what would be allowed in 1938.
Most but not all of Britain's problems in designing a long range single engine fighter were self inflicted. But please consider that between improved Merlins and better fuel a Two stage Merlin engine had a much better power to weight ratio than an early Merlin running on 87 octane.
The P-40 engine didn't change from the P-40 no letter to the P-40C. The P-40 was ordered in the Spring of 1939 even if deliveries didn't take place until the summer of 1940.
however some of the "book" numbers for the P-40 need a vigorous shake of the salt cellar.
http://www.wwiiaircraftperformance.org/P-40/P-40B_41-5205_PHQ-M-19-1227-A.pdf
has some nice test numbers but please note the weight. then compare to
http://www.wwiiaircraftperformance.org/P-40/P-40B_Official_Summary_of_Characteristics.jpg
the test plane was running at the design weight. but the design weight was about 500lbs below the normal gross weight and normal gross weight only counted 120 US gallons of fuel
(about 3 imp gallons more than a Hurricane).
Using it as an example of what was possible in 1939/40. The C15 Allison had one of the higher critical altitudes of 1939/early 1940 period. (higher than any French or Italian engine and higher than most versions of the DB601 used until the fall of 1940). The P-40B at normal gross (not the reduced weight used for the performance tests) was about 16-1700lb heavier than the 109 or around 30% heavier. That is the 109s altitude advantage, not anything particularly noteworthy about the DB601 engine.
P-40s in the desert held their own in part because much of the desert fighting was done at lower altitudes than was common over England or europe in 1940-42. And in part because at those lower altitudes the Allison tolerated a fair amount of of over boosting.
The stat block you linked from WW2Aircraftperformance showing the rate of climb of close to 3,000 fpm up to 10,000 ft is basically what I usually see for the P-40B, the P-40C which had heavier (but better protected) fuel tanks and some other weighty gear was closer to around 2,800 fpm or thereabouts, but that along with the 352 mph top speed was still reasonable for 1941.
Part of the thing with the extra fuel in a long or medium range fighter (compared to an interceptor / frontal aviation type) means that the fighter may have too much fuel for a fight until it's flown for a while. Kind of like the P-51 with the fuselage tank full. It can fly but it's probably not a good idea to fight until you burn some of that fuel. When they had to use P-40s to scramble to intercept targets over their own airfields like in China, Java and so on, they often put in less fuel, and if it's on an escort mission it's probably going to (as you so often note) warm up, taxi out, takeoff, climb to altitude, form up and then fly halfway to the target before they are likely to hit any enemy fighters, hence the 120 gallons isn't necessarily unrealistic. That ~400 lbs of fuel made a difference as it was right on the edge of the weight limit for the engine, with the cutoff being a horsepower to weight ratio of at least 0.15 and a rate of climb of at least 2,500 fpm
The early Kittyhawk (P-40D/E) fell below both of those thresholds until they figured out the boost issues.
P-40B had 0.153 hp to lb (at that loaded weight of 6,835 lbs), at the heavier weight it's 0.143.
P-40E flying at 45" Hg (1,150 hp) had 0.138 (at a loaded weight 8,280 lbs)
P-40E flying at 56" Hg (1,470 hp) was 0.177 which is pretty decent for a fighter of that era, and burning fuel on the way to the target that will improve.
though a Bf 109E had closer to 0.2 and I think the Spit I was close to that. And they get better as they burn fuel too.
The Bf 110 C4 (according to this) had a decent power / mass ratio of 0.155
I thought the Critical Altitude for the Spit I and II was around 16,000 ft, is that incorrect? If that is correct it's about 3-4,000 ft higher than the V-1710-33 (depending on who you believe)
Didn't the DB 601 have the hydromatic supercharger gear?
Yeah but (and it's amusing which sides of this we are on right now) I don't think they were necessarily overboosting the Tomahawks. As best I've been able to determine, that came later with the Kittyhawks when the rated power of around 45" HG was way too low for the amount of weight it was carrying. And far less power than the new engines could handle, it turned out.
Part of the thing with the extra fuel in a long or medium range fighter (compared to an interceptor / frontal aviation type) means that the fighter may have too much fuel for a fight until it's flown for a while. Kind of like the P-51 with the fuselage tank full. It can fly but it's probably not a good idea to fight until you burn some of that fuel. When they had to use P-40s to scramble to intercept targets over their own airfields like in China, Java and so on, they often put in less fuel, and if it's on an escort mission it's probably going to (as you so often note) warm up, taxi out, takeoff, climb to altitude, form up and then fly halfway to the target before they are likely to hit any enemy fighters, hence the 120 gallons isn't necessarily unrealistic. That ~400 lbs of fuel made a difference as it was right on the edge of the weight limit for the engine, with the cutoff being a horsepower to weight ratio of at least 0.15 and a rate of climb of at least 2,500 fpm
The early Kittyhawk (P-40D/E) fell below both of those thresholds until they figured out the boost issues.
P-40B had 0.153 hp to lb (at that loaded weight of 6,835 lbs), at the heavier weight it's 0.143.
P-40E flying at 45" Hg (1,150 hp) had 0.138 (at a loaded weight 8,280 lbs)
P-40E flying at 56" Hg (1,470 hp) was 0.177 which is pretty decent for a fighter of that era, and burning fuel on the way to the target that will improve.
though a Bf 109E had closer to 0.2 and I think the Spit I was close to that. And they get better as they burn fuel too.
The Bf 110 C4 (according to this) had a decent power / mass ratio of 0.155
I thought the Critical Altitude for the Spit I and II was around 16,000 ft, is that incorrect? If that is correct it's about 3-4,000 ft higher than the V-1710-33 (depending on who you believe)
Didn't the DB 601 have the hydromatic supercharger gear?
The Me 110G2 had a speed of 369mph. With flame dampers and radar aerials the speed dropped to 346mph. Even more was lost with drop tanks and their attachment points. At one point the aircraft had to carry both SN-2 radar and Lichtenstein C2 radar which cost nearly 100kmh in total. 369mph is not a bad speed and I imagine it could have been used as a torpedo bomber as it could also lift 4400lbs of bombs.
The slow speed and modest range (it often carried drop tanks) meant a long interception time and RAF spoof raids often burned up time. By the time the deception was discovered the Me 110 was in the wrong location and could not find the real bomber stream.
The Beaufighter, despite its slower speed, was less effected by the drag of the radar it carried because of the greater power. British Radar appears to have been heavier and bulkier by a factor of 4 (300lbs easily) but it had much less external drag even in the non microwave versions. it didn't matter, the Beaufighters had plenty of internal space. This is one reason Britain had airborn radar so early, the space in the Beuefighter.
One of the Me 110 early specification tasks was 'bad weather fighter' which means night fighter, It could be fitted with navigation homing and triangulation equipment as well as FuBl blind landing equipment and had an operator to do the triangulations etc.
The range was too limited to make it an efficient night fighter but it was there when needed. The Luftwaffe didn't have good night fighters till the Ju 88R (with BMW 801) and the purpose bult Ju 88G1.
It should be noted that the Wurzburg radar was in service in 1941 and could easily position an Me 110 to within 300ft of a bomber.
Interestingly the Me 110 never received water methanol injection equipment like the Me 109G14 did.
Snautzer01
Honourably banned
- 42,430
- Mar 26, 2007
You do know a vey big percentage of night kills were done by bf110 crews? The germans had no good nightfighter untill...the bulk of all were shot down with 110. Weakpoint was not the fighter but the Himmelbett system.
Beaufighters were carrying 550 imp gals of fuel internally early on - 2500L - and later 682 imp gals - 3100 liters. The drop tanks up to 200 gals were later the options.
Bf 110C was carrying up to 965 kg of fuel internally (~ 1270L, or, obviously, ~635L per engine); similar was fuel tankage for Bf 110B (Jumo 210 engines) - 1220L. External tanks were more than making the Bf 110s the long-range fighters, to the best of my knowledge the 2x900 L was maximum. The ungainly belly tank was holding 1050 L of fuel (and some engine oil). It was possible to carry both belly tank and wing tanks.
One wonders how good/bad would've been a German fighter with same fuel-per-engine tankage as the Bf 110, but on just 1 engine. Or a British fighter powered by single Hercules and 225 imp gals.
Certainly faster than the fastest bombers of the day - Do 17, SB-2, Blenheim. Plus, faster than any fighter in service (perhaps not faster than latest I-16?).
Kevin J
Banned
Stick the Hercules power egg on the Miles M20 or retain the Merlin, add 2 x 60 IMG drop tanks and then you've got your long range fighter. Alternatively wait for the Merlin powered Mustang, maybe even longer for the MB5.
