Ad: This forum contains affiliate links to products on Amazon and eBay. More information in Terms and rules
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.
By late 1942 it was starting to dawn on the Germans that they were in a death struggle with the Soviets that they might not win, and they were beginning a long phase of increasingly desperate crisis management so clarity of Strategic thinking may have been affected.
I suspect the historical reality is they could have made them, but because of the way the war was going (the direct survival impetus so to speak) militated toward the fastest best performing interceptor / frontal aviation fighter possible, and because the British could get longer range aircraft from the Americans, they just didn't prioritize a longer range fighter enough in time to get anything into action during the war, really. Plus the British had the Mosquito.
??
Bf 110B, with 610L of fuel per Jumo 210, was in service in early 1939.
Not sure what 1942 has to do with anything.
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?).
Stick the Hercules power egg on the Miles M20
To clarify my positions, my understanding is that the Bf 110 lacked a good range throughout the war and was a bit sub-par in daytime air to air combat after 1940. The other points are built from that basic premise.
You Americans just don't understand English sarcasm.From Wiki
"The first 136 Fairey-built Battles were the first to be powered by the Merlin I engine.[2] By the end of 1937, 85 Battles had been completed and a number of RAF squadrons had been re-equipped with the type, or were otherwise in the process of re-equipping"
The Merlin I had the ramp style head. 890hp for take-off.
Which power egg?
The one with the Hercules III or the one with the Hercules VI engine?
1250hp at 16,750ft is just not enough from a radial engine with a really crappy cowl.
View attachment 588143
Carb intake at 12 o'clock, crap for exhaust thrust, high drag plus the oil cooler hanging out at 6 0'clock.
The Miles M 20 used a Merlin XX poweregg and had a bit more power than a Merlin III several thousand feet higher and had the benefit of around 100hp of exhaust thrust at high speed in the upper teens.
Please see the P-36 tests and P-40 tests for the difference in power needed for a radial engine of the time and a V-12 engine of the time when installed on the same airframe.
Unless you can also introduce cowling/radial cooling knowledge from several years after 1940-41 the Hercules is a non-starter. Also please note a Hercules is several hundred pounds heavier than a Single stage Merlin + radiator + coolant.
Another strike against the quick and dirty stick a power egg on it idea, Beaufighter used a 12ft 9 in propeller.
Hercules powered fighter might want a different reduction gear?
An escort fighter has to be able defend the bombers, not just fly along side them. That is where the 110 gets part of it's bad reputation. The 100 could certainly fly alongside the bombers, it could not defend them while doing so.
Did it have the range to get to most of it's targets or could it be modified to do so fairly easily?
Yes the big belly tank was a mistake. could later versions carry under fuselage ordnance plus drop tanks?
German range requirements were less than that of the allies. Germans could base in captured countries, Allies had to fly over the captured countries in order to hit Germany proper.
Just about any twin engine fighter was sub par in air to air combat vs single engine fighters.
However single engine fighters are not the only aircraft that need engaging.
Could 110s perform maritime patrol or strike missions better than 109s or 190s?
Could 110s do bomber intercepts in the early years better than 109s?
The 110 was another German aircraft that did not have a smooth development curve. by that I mean it's development was somewhat in fits and starts as it supposed to be taken out of production at least once if not several times and then reinstated when the desired replacement turned out to be a turkey. This did NOT help later models stay up to date or as competitive as they might have been.
Yea but, not as well as Beaufighters. And that was actually a problem. Nor could they escort Ju 88s to their maximum range.
Forgive me, what is your point? Are you saying it had very good range?
The end of 1942 was Stalingrad. The Germans were in a bit of trouble from that point onward. Probably hard to completely relax and make good long term plans....
To clarify my positions, my understanding is that the Bf 110 lacked a good range throughout the war and was a bit sub-par in daytime air to air combat after 1940.
...
Well every aircraft has stories like that. Look how long it took to upgrade the Spit after the V.
Over a year. Spitfire V in combat March 1941. Spitfire IX June 1942.How long did it take?
You are the one who wants to turn this into a 110 vs Beaufighter argument.
You can't turn a 110 into Beaufighter, it isn't big enough, it isn't heavy enough and the Germans didn't have an engine even the Hercules III catagory until 1941 and as relayed by koopernic in another thread, the BMW 801 was nowhere near reliable enough for long range missions in 1941. So that puts you into 1942.
applying 1941-42 standards to a plane that first flew in in May of 1936 seems a bit unfair ( See P-40s built in 1941-42 compared to FW 190s and Typhoons)
Not being able to escort Ju 88s to their max range is not that big a deal. Ju-88s operating at max range have about zero bomb load.
So pick a worthwhile bomb load and try to find out how far a JU-88 could actually carry it. If it is more than 10 50 kg bombs the bombs go on the outside which really screws up the speed/range.
and if the 110 doesn't have enough gun armament then the Ju-88C-2 was a real failure and the C-4 only a marginal improvement.
It have had a very good range.
Discussing 1942 is all good and well, Germany needs to kick UK out of the war by 1940/41 in order to stand chances.
I think we all agree with that.
In Russia, second line fighters were manning most of the PVO units. that were protecting the operational targets in the rear areas, at least until some time in 1943 when they started getting some Spit IXs.
Only a Mig-3, Spitfire IX, Thunderbolt or Kingcobra. Hurricane IIc, P-40M/N went to PVO too.But could a Yak 7 intercept a high flying Ju 88?
Yes, the Yak-9U appeared late in the war.In order to do effective damage, the Ju 88 needed to dive bomb, which brought them down low. But they were often doing that at Malta and Hurricanes seemed unable to catch them.
I think there were also some high(er) altitude Yak variants right?