Flying how high.
They did intercept German bombers in some cases. They could not intercept high flying recon aircraft of Theodor Rowehl units.
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
Flying how high.
They did intercept German bombers in some cases. They could not intercept high flying recon aircraft of Theodor Rowehl units.
Yak-9PD in 1943. Some of them climbed up to 11,000 m. They tried and failed to intercept Ju 86Rs over Moscow in 1943-1944.
That should be sufficient to intercept a regular Ju 88 though. Thanks.
On 2400 rpm (max power & max consumption setting for 1939 vintage DB 601A) and 6 km altitude, the Bf 110C was supposed to do 1040 km. The Bf 109E was supposed to do 520 km under same conditions. All for internal fuel. Both aircraft will cruise on less aggressive power settings, of course, the long use of max rpm is not healthy for engine life.
So I'd still say that range of Bf 110C was very good.
Yes, Germany still needed rangy aircraft, even if by early 1942 the question was not who will win, but when will Axis loose.
Sorry, I've misspoke. Te range was good, performance was not worth of investment.
wuzak
Captain
You think a Mosquito was "much smaller" than the Beaufighter?
1,000lb or 1,000kg?
1 bomb of 1,000lb/kg, or 2 at 500, or 4 at 250?
What is the range of a Ju 88 with such a bomb load? Given that if the larger size bomb is required, it has to be carried externally.
Beaufighter / Mosquito
57' 10" (17.63 m) / 54' 2 " (16.51 m) - Wingspan
503 Sq Ft (46.7 Sq m) / 454 Sq Ft (42.2 Sq m) - Wing Area
41' 4" / 44' 6" (13.56 m) - Length
15,592 lb / 14,300 lb - Empty Weight
"much" is a subjective term, but I'd estimate it was about 10% smaller. The wing in particular, which is usually where most of the fuel goes, is just about 90% the wing area of a Beaufighter.
My original point which you may have forgotten was that you didn't need to turn a Bf 110 into a Beaufighter to give it long range. The Me 210, for all it's faults, had nearly twice the range and fuel capacity (2,500 liters vs 1,200) of a Bf 110 with a somewhat smaller wing.
My understanding is that the normal practice with the Ju 88 on a long range strike was to put extra fuel in the internal bomb bays and carry 250 kg bombs on the external hard points, two 250 kg bombs is about 1,100 lbs. And a hit with a 250 kg bomb can sink a ship like the SS Ohio, which is what they needed to do most.
It could carry much more (up to 2,000 kg for an A4, according to this source) but that wouldn't be as common for a long range strike.
I don't know the precise range of a Ju 88 carrying a bomb load, but the "normal range" was listed as over 1,200 miles, and I know that Ju 88 units stationed in Crete did strikes on Malta which is around 400 miles I think round trip. No Bf 109 could make that journey, though of course they could fly from Sicily.
Shortround6
Major General
For an example of a poor long range fighter see the Blenheim IF. Yes it could fly 1000 miles but it's ablitiies against single engine (or the BF 110 ) in daylight are certainly subject to question. Before you poo-poo this notion please remember that in Jan 1940 Blenheim IFs equipped 17 squadrons in Britain, More than any other other fighter (Hurricanes equipped 15 squadrons) A number of these squadrons were re-equipped with Hurricanes and Spitfires before the BoB.
The "specious claim" needs a little clarifying. You could build long range fighters (1000 miles) before 1940, they just weren't likely to be very good. So does that mean impossible to build a 1000 mile fighter or impossible to build one that would be effective. Two different arguments.
Not really,
empty weight of a 110C-1..............9,775lbs.
empty weight of a 110G-4c..............11,220lbs.
Empty weight (tare) of a Mosquito NF II........13,431lbs.
Tare weight. Beaufighter MK VI.......... 14,900lbs
empty weight of a YP-38......................11.196lbs.
empty weight of a P-38J........................12,780lbs.
and just for laughs.
empty equipped weight of a Me 210A-1.....15,586lbs
empty equipped weight of a Me 410A-1.....16,574lbs
Granted empty equipped is heavier than just empty or tare weight. The 110 was considerably lighter than the planes it is being compared to and was designed with smaller engines (not the Jumo 210, but the almost 1000hp DB600).
The Mosquito NF II is delivered to the first service squadron in Jan of 1942. What was the boost level allowed for the Merlin 21 at that time?
They were tangling with FW 190, were they posting a positive kill ratio?
ROFLMAO.
Bf 109C/Ds were competitive until the end of the war?
Spitfire Is with fixed pitch props were competitive at the end of the war?
Yeah, I took it the wrong way on purpose. The 109 was not competitive, it was useful when fitted with a 1944 engine and 1942/44 guns. There had also been a major redesign with the "F" version. Late model Spits used engines that were like science fiction to an aircraft designer in the mid to late 30s.
No accident, I am simply tired of being told how great the range of the JU-88 was.
see the last post on this page for a loading chart on the Ju-88 from Tomo.
On German bombers
The max range often quoted is with both internal bomb bays fitted with fuel tanks and and no external bombs.
She seems to have survived quite a few bomb loads, some of which were delivered by Ju 87s.
Me "Could 110s perform maritime patrol or strike missions better than 109s or 190s? "
you "Yea but, not as well as Beaufighters. And that was actually a problem. Nor could they escort Ju 88s to their maximum range. "
for quite a while Coastal Command Beaufighters used their guns and guns alone for maritime patrol and Maritime strike. The first torpedo carrying Beaufighters were issued to No 254 Squadron in Nov 1942. The first strike wing comprised this squadron, another squadron with gun only Beaufighters and a 3rd squadron whose Beaufighters carried a pair of 500lb bombs.
I would note that the 110 actually carried bombs several years before the Beaufighter did. Granted only a small number of 110s were used as fast bombers but until the end of 1942 no Beaufighters carried bombs.
I'm well ware of Blenheim "Fighters"
It's funny, I have a distinct memory of myself arguing in this forum that a late model Spit or 109 was substantially different from the 1940 model, and was more or less shouted down. I also remember you arguing a few times that a P-36 and a P-40F were the same plane.
Implying that I was ever arguing or suggesting or implying that any aircraft should be able to compete in WW2 unchanged from 1940 to 1945, without substantial improvements in engines, guns, armor, communication systems, streamlining, etc. etc. etc., is specious. So pick yourself up off the floor and dust yourself off.
The basic design of the 109 was the same, it was substantially improved enough that it was certainly different by 1945, and at what point it becomes a new plane is certainly a point worth discussing, (I can see both sides of that) but I would expect the same thing from a 'good' heavy fighter as well. If the 210 had worked out it would have been that fighter for the 110.
See my post above on the range and bomb carrying capacity of the Ju 88
Beaufighters were not carrying bombs or torpedoes initially partly because the plane they were developed from, the Beaufort, was still operational and still pretty effective.
It's funny, I have a distinct memory of myself arguing in this forum that a late model Spit or 109 was substantially different from the 1940 model, and was more or less shouted down. I also remember you arguing a few times that a P-36 and a P-40F were the same plane.
Implying that I was ever arguing or suggesting or implying that any aircraft should be able to compete in WW2 unchanged from 1940 to 1945, without substantial improvements in engines, guns, armor, communication systems, streamlining, etc. etc. etc., is specious. So pick yourself up off the floor and dust yourself off.
The basic design of the 109 was the same, it was substantially improved enough that it was certainly different by 1945, and at what point it becomes a new plane is certainly a point worth discussing, (I can see both sides of that) but I would expect the same thing from a 'good' heavy fighter as well. If the 210 had worked out it would have been that fighter for the 110.
See my post above on the range and bomb carrying capacity of the Ju 88
Beaufighters were not carrying bombs or torpedoes initially partly because the plane they were developed from, the Beaufort, was still operational and still pretty effective.
As for Bf 110 and P-38 - I was comparing size not weight.
Wing area of a P-38 was 327.5 ft
Wing area of a Bf 110 was 413.3 ft
Wing span of the P-38 was 52'
Wing span of the Bf 110 was 53'
Length of the P-38 was 37' 10"
Length of the Bf 110 was 39' 7"
Again, how you define "much' is subjective, but the P-38 was smaller. Most importantly it had far less space in the wings which is where, ultimately with most successful WW2 aircraft, the gas usually goes.
Wing area of a P-38 was 327.5 ft
Wing area of a Bf 110 was 413.3 ft
Wing span of the P-38 was 52'
Wing span of the Bf 110 was 53'
Length of the P-38 was 37' 10"
Length of the Bf 110 was 39' 7"
Again, how you define "much' is subjective, but the P-38 was smaller. Most importantly it had far less space in the wings which is where, ultimately with most successful WW2 aircraft, the gas usually goes.
The Beaufort, which incidentally is another favorite of mine, had the same range as the Beaufighter.
Bristol Beaufort - Wikipedia
"Over the next 11 months, the Beaufort force, now usually accompanied by Beaufighters, was instrumental in crippling the convoy supply lines that were vital to Rommel's Afrika Korps. "
SaparotRob
Unter Gemeine Geschwader Murmeltier XIII
Did Bf-110's engage with Grumman Martlets?
Shortround6
Major General
The JU-88A-1 using the wing tanks is listed as having a range of 620 miles at 217mph at 18,500ft. (369imp gallons) When using the forward bomb bay for fuel ((268 imp gallons)the range is given as 1055 miles.
The A-1 didn't put fuel in the rear bay.
The JU-88A-4 with the bigger wing and more powerful engines is listed at 1112 miles with 647imp gallons and 1696 miles with 886 imp gallons. Actual speed, altitude and exact configuration will change these a bit. The A-4 used the same size wing tanks as the A-1.
Shortround6
Major General
As far as the P-36 and P-40F goes. The airframe of the P-40F was beefed up. The landing gear lost the doors. And after that, just about all the changes were internal with most taking place forward of the firewall. Later P-40Fs did get the extended fuselage. But the wing stayed the same shape and airfoil. The wing root fairings stayed the same, the cockpit/canopy stayed the same, the vertical stabilizer and rudder stayed the same, the horizontal and elevators stayed the same and in the same location even after the vertical stabilizer and rudder where moved back 20 inches. the fuel tanks even stayed pretty much in the same locations and only changed a bit in capacity due to the self sealing employed.
The "P-40" is rather unique in the fact that the airframe differed so little despite the variety of engines used in it making it useful as a comparison tool for different types/configurations of engines (at least over a few year period).
Please show me how I am wrong about the P-36/P-40.
The 109 went through at least two major revisions, the first when they replaced the Jumo 210 with the DB 601. The second when they did the F model. Your sources may vary,
one of mine (and it could be in error) gives the following changes for the "F"
No changes to the wing profile, taper or basic structure. However.
The leading edge slats were reduced in span.
The ailerons were reduced in span but increased in cord so the area stayed the same.
The ailerons were no longer interconnected with the flaps.
The ailerons were changed from slotted to the Frise type.
The wing span was first reduced and then the wing tips changed to rounded restoring most of the lost area.
The Radiators were changed from the type used in the E.
deeper more symmetrical engine cowl with bigger spinner.
Supercharger inlet moved outboard fro better RAM.
New type of propeller of slightly smaller diameter.
The rudder area was slightly reduced.
The vertical stabilizer's symmetrical section was replaced by a cambered section to reduce the amount of rudder needed while climbing.
the tail plane lost the struts and was relocated slightly lower and more forward of the original location.
The tailwheel was made semi retractable
six degrees more rake was added to the landing gear.
A lot of planes got modified some. The 109F was not a totally different plane than the 109E but obviously a fair amount of new tooling was needed and a lot of parts no longer interchanged.
They were in the same area - some Martlets operated in the Med both on carriers and briefly from land, but I haven't seen any examples of them fighting. They didn't seem to get in that many engagements, the main combat that Wildcats saw was a short but fairly intense battle against the French at the time of the Torch landings.
I was going by this page which is usually pretty good, though the range they are quoting is without bombs and probably both bomb bays full of fuel
Junkers Ju-88 - Technical pages - German U-boats of WWII - Kriegsmarine - uboat.net
I have some books on the Ju 88 but I hesitate to go look for them unless it's really necessary.
They aren't the same, the canopy by the way did change. They didn't dramatically change the wing because it was a good design to begin with, but they certainly changed the wing armament. That said, I don't want to debate the P-40 again in this particular thread, we can do it in some other one.
Shortround6
Major General
Changed the wing armament on F4Fs, F4Us (four 20mm cannon) some F6Fs, Hurricanes, Spitfires. and others, Few people claim changing the wing armament changed the aircraft to a new type of aircraft.
BTW the XP-36D (serial 38-174) was used to test two ,30 cal guns in each wing with 500rpg and a pair of .50 cal guns in the fuselage with 200rpg. The XP-36E (Serial 38-147) was used to test either three or four .30 cal guns in each wing with 500rpg, the single .50 cal gun in the cowl was not operational. The XP-36F (serial 38-172) was used to test both a pair 23mm Madson cannon with 100rpg in underwing pods and at a different point in time a pair of 20mm Hispano guns. (around April 16th 1940). With the Madsen cannon the speed fell to 265mph.
Ok so you are doubling down on the late model P-40 is the same aircraft as a P-36, no debate, no wiggle room,
... while the late model Bf 109 is a completely different aircraft from an early 109.
At the same time. You are arguing both of these points at the same time. No debate, no wiggle room.
Your confidence is impressive. If you can really convince yourself of that, you are in sync with the times, I'll give you that one.
Last edited:
Shortround6
Major General
Nice picture. I believe I have already noted that the later P-40s got the extended fuselage/tail? and we do know they changed the engine which changed the nose contours.
So that proves..............? for other changes?
I believe I have acknowledged that they beefed up the structure. The wing gained about 300lbs for instance so no you can't take a P-36 wing and stick an P-40 fuselage and engine on it and hang a 500lb (or 1000lb) bomb from each wing.
You can debate it, just use facts and not profile pictures which ignore the 5 changes I listed for the wings,
I listed changes from the E to the F, you posted a drawing of a late G or K?
when facts fail go for personal attacks. Nice.
