Flying how high.
They did intercept German bombers in some cases. They could not intercept high flying recon aircraft of Theodor Rowehl units.
Ad: This forum contains affiliate links to products on Amazon and eBay. More information in Terms and rules
But could a Yak 7 intercept a high flying Ju 88?
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?
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.
I don't agree and I don't think you've shown that it did.
Germany almost won the Battle of the Mediterranean. If they had an effective long range fighter they might have done so. Long range fighter would have also helped in the Russian war by allowing better interdiction of Operational and Strategic targets. Even against England, they could have had a greater impact against the convoys at least.
In that case I don't understand your first comment.
I don't think it's necessary to turn a 110 into a Beau to improve it's range. Much smaller aircraft than the Beaufighter (see Mosquito) or the 110 (see P-38) managed much better range than the 110 and had better flight characteristics and performance to boot. It's a fairly low bar.
To sink a ship like the Ohio a 1,000 bomb load was sufficient.
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.
No, I don't think that's a valid assertion. I brought up the Beaufighter initially because I was told it was impossible to build a long range fighter in 1940. The Beau and the Zero are probably the two best counter examples to disprove that specious claim. But here I'm referring to the Beaufighter specifically because particularly in the maritime war from the Bay of Biscay to the Aegean, the Beaufigher was operating as probably the main competitor to the Bf 110 and frankly by the end of 1942 it was dominating those spaces.
I don't think it's necessary to turn a 110 into a Beau to improve it's range. Much smaller aircraft than the Beaufighter (see Mosquito) or the 110 (see P-38) managed much better range than the 110 and had better flight characteristics and performance to boot. It's a fairly low bar.
And yet, P-40s were still flying front line combat missions, and tangling with Fw 190s as late as Anzio in 1944.
ROFLMAO.Meanwhile, the 1930's vintage Bf 109 was competitive until the end of the war. So was the Spitfire.
Ah, but you are being a little bit literal minded here my friend, was that an accident? Ju 88s were flying bombing missions, air strikes, against ground targets and ships, until Allied fighters showed up to dissuade them. Sometimes they had to do it anyway and took heavy losses. A worthy escort fighter would have helped.
She seems to have survived quite a few bomb loads, some of which were delivered by Ju 87s.To sink a ship like the Ohio a 1,000 bomb load was sufficient.
When did I ever say, imply, or suggest that the 110 had insufficient gun armament?
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,
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.
Did Bf-110's engage with Grumman Martlets?
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.
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.
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.They didn't dramatically change the wing because it was a good design to begin with, but they certainly changed the wing armament.
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.