Me-210C vs Me-410A
- Thread starter davebender
- Start date
Ad: This forum contains affiliate links to products on Amazon and eBay. More information in Terms and rules
- Thread starter
- #42
davebender
1st Lieutenant
What does dogfighting have to do with WWII era night fighters? 
Hello Civettone
when I'll have spare time I'll check but IIRC also Eric Brown used superlatives when he described maneuverability of 88G but not when he descripted maneuverability of Me 410. That doesn't mean that maneuverability of me 410 was bad but that it wasn't so good that it would have inspired so much enthusiasm.
Hello Dave
Maybe not usually but if the rear man in a LW nightfighter saw a Mossie from 100 Group approaching, I'd say that maneuverability would have become very important issue in the minds of the LW crew.
Juha
when I'll have spare time I'll check but IIRC also Eric Brown used superlatives when he described maneuverability of 88G but not when he descripted maneuverability of Me 410. That doesn't mean that maneuverability of me 410 was bad but that it wasn't so good that it would have inspired so much enthusiasm.
Hello Dave
Maybe not usually but if the rear man in a LW nightfighter saw a Mossie from 100 Group approaching, I'd say that maneuverability would have become very important issue in the minds of the LW crew.
Juha
- Thread starter
- #44
davebender
1st Lieutenant
This data is from Wikipedia so I make no claims for it to be perfect.
Me-410A.
390 sq ft wing area.
24,766 lbs max take off weight.
63.5 lbs per sq ft wing loading.
Mosquito Mk XVI
454 sq ft wing area
25,000 lbs max take off weight.
55 lbs per sq ft wing loading
Ju-88G1
587 sq ft wing area
32,385 lbs max take off weight
55 lbs per sq ft wing loading.
Me-410A.
390 sq ft wing area.
24,766 lbs max take off weight.
63.5 lbs per sq ft wing loading.
Mosquito Mk XVI
454 sq ft wing area
25,000 lbs max take off weight.
55 lbs per sq ft wing loading
Ju-88G1
587 sq ft wing area
32,385 lbs max take off weight
55 lbs per sq ft wing loading.
also me 410 in day fighter configuration weight around 21-22000 pounds, idk with night equipment
Last edited:
- Thread starter
- #47
davebender
1st Lieutenant
That provides a wing loading almost identical to the Ju-88G.
Hello Civettone
Brow was clearly more critical on Me 410 manoeuvrability than I remembered. From Air International Nov 1981. "I soon discovered that the controls were not well harmonised, the elevators being heavy, the ailerons fairly heavy and the rudder moderately so. The Me 410 was therefore a rather poor a/c to manoeuvre, and it manifested a very sharp stall with severe wing drop, particularly if stalled in a tight turn. Furthermore, the stalling speed was high…it fell far short of Mosquito on the score of manoeuvrability."
Juha
Brow was clearly more critical on Me 410 manoeuvrability than I remembered. From Air International Nov 1981. "I soon discovered that the controls were not well harmonised, the elevators being heavy, the ailerons fairly heavy and the rudder moderately so. The Me 410 was therefore a rather poor a/c to manoeuvre, and it manifested a very sharp stall with severe wing drop, particularly if stalled in a tight turn. Furthermore, the stalling speed was high…it fell far short of Mosquito on the score of manoeuvrability."
Juha
and if this are trouble of tested plane?
Maximowitz
Tech Sergeant
Well, it's more than well documented that the '410 did not handle particularly well in a stall situation...."one hand on the control column, the other on the ripcord" was the description one Luftwaffe pilot made of the 210/410 design.
Hello Vincenzo
in the article there is nothing that indicates that, but of course it is impossible to say for sure, there has always been also "lemons" among a/c. The plane Brown flew in Dec 45 was a 410A-1, not the 410A-3 tested in UK during early summer 44 and late in USA, and on which there are plenty of photos around. And the opinion I posted is only the opinion of Brown, but of course he is a famous test pilot with vast experience on WWII a/c. Of course it would be better if some of us had access to LW, RAF or USAAF evaluation report on Me 410.
Juha
in the article there is nothing that indicates that, but of course it is impossible to say for sure, there has always been also "lemons" among a/c. The plane Brown flew in Dec 45 was a 410A-1, not the 410A-3 tested in UK during early summer 44 and late in USA, and on which there are plenty of photos around. And the opinion I posted is only the opinion of Brown, but of course he is a famous test pilot with vast experience on WWII a/c. Of course it would be better if some of us had access to LW, RAF or USAAF evaluation report on Me 410.
Juha
- Thread starter
- #52
davebender
1st Lieutenant
The problem with this statement is that it lumps the Me-210C and Me-410A with the 200 Me-210A aircraft produced during early 1942. They aren't the same thing.
Maximowitz
Tech Sergeant
Agreed Dave, by the time the fuselage length was inceased and other changes made, the 210 Ca and Me 410 were better handling aircraft and the 210 Ca was popular with its pilots. However it still had poor stability and manoeuvre qualities, although Luftwaffe pilots liked its (relatively) high speed and powerful armament.
- Thread starter
- #54
davebender
1st Lieutenant
What impresses me most about the Mosquito is that it was powered by the relatively small RR Merlin engines yet still achieved excellent performance.
To be honest I'm surprised the Hornet derivative took so long to get muted and built, I'd have expected the idea for a single seat fighter variant of the Mozzie to be on the drawing boards the month after service entry. And how about that Hornet eh, fastest postwar piston fighter in major service wasn't it?
- Thread starter
- #56
davebender
1st Lieutenant
Even better. Germany would have done well to copy the Mosquito design but using aluminum and DB605 engines.
Civettone
Tech Sergeant
What part of it? The Ta 154 proved to be a problematic design, it was operationally tested and was generally disliked. IIRC it was especially tail heavy. It also had structural problems.
One often reads that the bombing of the glue factory was the reason for the halt in development but this does not seem to have been the main reason.
In the last weeks of the war the remaining Ta 154s were used again but without any success.
The Germans pretty much tried to convert everything into a NF so it is suprising that they didn't do this with the most logical aircraft, the Me 410. Not even a prototype was built. This can only be attributed to the faith in the Ta 154. It is surprising to see that this changed once the Ta 154 project was completely cancelled.
Kris
Civettone
Tech Sergeant
You're probably right. But Germans simply copying a design?
They tried that with the T-34 tank and ended up with the Panther Kris
Civettone
Tech Sergeant
In fact, I wouldn't be surprised if that would be true. When I think about it, it's only natural. The Bf 110 and Me 210/410 were not designed to be manoeuvrable. High wing loading for violent and vertical manoeuvring were the core of all German fighters. They were all energy fighters not turn and turn fighters.
So I don't know what this would have meant in an actual fight. The Ju 88 was not succesful as a fighter while the Bf 110 was relatively so... and the Me 210 was designed as more manoeuvrable than the Bf 110.
I don't know how to put all these elements together...
Kris
- Thread starter
- #60
davebender
1st Lieutenant
There is some truth to this. The relatively large Do-217 medium bomber had no business being used as a night fighter. If the Ju-288 had entered production during 1944 it also would probably have been diverted to the night fighter force.
