Messerschmitt Bf 110 vs P-38 Lightning

[davebender]

Göring's Zerstörer concept called for a heavy, long range day fighter to fly ahead of the bomber streams and attack enemy interceptors as they were either on the runway or still climbing for altitude.

Nothing wrong with that concept. It's what the Allied air forces did to Germany during 1945 to suppress the new German jets.

The problem is that Germany still needs a long range fighter to protect the bombers in flight. The Luftwaffe elected not to produce the Fw-187 and didn't even procure drop tanks for the early model Me-109s. For that matter Germany did not have all that many Me-110s available for the Battle of Britain. The Me-110s were badly outnumbered even before considering aircraft performance and Britain having the use of ground control radar.

 

[davebender]

If that were true then the P-39 fighter would have retained the turbocharger.

 

[Colin1]

If that were true then the P-39 fighter would have retained the turbocharger.

I'm not sure cost was the only factor in decision to omit the turbocharger from the P-39

 

[Maximowitz]

For that matter Germany did not have all that many Me-110s available for the Battle of Britain. The Me-110s were badly outnumbered even before considering aircraft performance and Britain having the use of ground control radar.

Very true Dave. In the opening conflicts of the Battle of Britain the Bf 110's were few yet also managed to hold their own against the RAF. It was only later when tied to close support of the Kampfgruppen that they became sitting ducks against Spitfires. They had already shown in the Battle of France that they were a match against the Hawker Hurricane, the poor tactical decisions forced upon the ZG units and lack of adequate drop tanks for the Bf 109 equiped JG's for long range missions increased the attrition on the Bf 110.

 

[syscom3]

11,220lbs (5,089Kgs) :Empty weight: 12,800lbs (6,395Kgs)

How did the -110 end up being 1600 lbs lighter than the P38?

The weight of the P38 nose gear should more than offset the weight of a 2 or 3 man cockpit of the -110.

 

[Shortround6]

If that were true then the P-39 fighter would have retained the turbocharger.

Another myth.

The P-39 dropped the turbo when they found that it wouldn't really fit in the plane, at least not with an effective intercooler. Without effective intercooler the plane wouldn't come close to meeting the performance specifications.

 

[Colin1]

How did the -110 end up being 1600 lbs lighter than the P38?

The weight of the P38 nose gear should more than offset the weight of a 2 or 3 man cockpit of the -110.

Hey
read my subsequent posts
if you have some more accurate data, let me know - I'm only trying to give folks something to juggle with. Two or three sites corroborated the weights of the Bf110G-2

Besides, your post doesn't make any sense, are you saying the 110 should be lighter, or shouldn't be lighter?

 

[syscom3]

Besides, your post doesn't make any sense, are you saying the 110 should be lighter, or shouldn't be lighter?

Its quite clear what I wrote. How did the P38 end up having an empty weight 3/4 ton heavier than the -110?

Maybe its the booms [is that the correct word?] that added that weight.

 

[Soren]

The Bf-110 is a lot lighter than most people believe it to be, and actually had a pretty low wing loading.

Also the Bf-110 C-4 had a top speed of 561 km/h with 2x 1,085 hp DB601B engines, so the Bf-110G-2 was surely gonna be a lot faster as it featured 2x 1,455 hp DB605B engines. That's an extra 740 hp, now that would bring speed up around 600 km/h and climb rate to around 3,000 ft/min. And service ceiling was around 12 km. (10.5 km for the C-4)

 

[Colin1]

Also the Bf-110 C-4 had a top speed of 561 km/h with 2x 1,085 hp DB601B engines, so the Bf-110G-2 was surely gonna be a lot faster as it featured 2x 1,455 hp DB605B engines. That's an extra 740 hp, now that would bring speed up around 600 km/h and climb rate to around 3,000 ft/min. And service ceiling was around 12 km. (10.5 km for the C-4)

I can't find anything putting the G-2 over 350mph or a climb rate any like as ambitious as 3,000ft/min
Where are you getting this from?

 

[Colin1]

It's quite clear what I wrote

In sentence 1, you ask why the P-38 ended up heavier than the Bf110
In sentence 2 (of the same post), you more or less state WHY the P-38 was heavier, something to do with it's nose gear arrangement. What was clear about that?

 

[Soren]

I can't find anything putting the G-2 over 350mph or a climb rate any like as ambitious as 3,000ft/min
Where are you getting this from?

Colin the data you provided is for the Bf-110 C-4, the speed, climb rate etc etc.. the Bf-110G2 was both faster and climbed faster, naturally as it possessed an extra 740 hp over the C-4.

So an educated guess is that top speed will be around 600+ km/h and climb rate around 3,000+ ft/min.

That having been said the P-38 was both faster and climbed quicker, and thus had the advantage in a head to head fight. I do believe the Bf-110 will turn better though. Not that it matters with the P-38 superior speed, climb roll rate.

The Bf-110 was the better nightfighter, bomber destroyer ground attack a/c while the P-38 was the better escort heavy fighter.

 

[Stitch]

Sure P-38 it's a best day fighter of 110, but if i'm not in wrong 110 fightning from '39 and P-38 from '42

The P-38 actually entered service in 1941 so, more or less, it was a contemporary of the Me 110; the advantage the P-38 had was, a.) turbo-supercharged engines, b.) lower inertial mass, which contributed to a better roll rate, c.) contra-rotating engines which allowed the P-38 to roll equally well in either direction (left or right), and d.) single-pilot operation, which required less in the way of support hardware vs. the 110 and, therefore, lower overall weight. The P-38 is generally overlooked vs. the more "glamorous" fighters like the P-47 and the P-51, but it was the first production fighter in the world to exceed 400 mph in horizontal flight, and the first operational fighter with a 1,000 mile range; it was also the only US fighter to remain in constant production from 1941 to 1945.

 

[DAVIDICUS]

"... more the "glamorous" fighters like the P-47..."

I don't think I have ever heard P-47 and "glamorous" in the same sentence. The P-38 was much more sexy looking and glamorous IMHO and I assume that was the general consensus at the time too.

 

[davebender]

P-39 dropped the turbo when they found that it wouldn't really fit in the plane

P-39 Airacobra - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

In February 1937, Lieutenant Benjamin S. Kelsey, Project Officer for Fighters at the United States Army Air Corps (USAAC), issued a specification for a new fighter via Circular Proposal X-609.[5] It was a request for a single-engine high-altitude interceptor aircraft having "the tactical mission of interception and attack of hostile aircraft at high altitude".[6] Specifications called for at least 1,000 lb of heavy armament including a cannon, a liquid-cooled Allison engine with a General Electric turbo-supercharger, tricycle landing gear, a level airspeed of at least 360 mph (580 km/h) at altitude, and a climb to 20,000 ft (6,100 m) within 6 minutes

Why was the P-39 design approved if it could not meet a major component of the U.S. Army Air Corps specificaiton?

 

[Shortround6]

P-39 Airacobra - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Why was the P-39 design approved if it could not meet a major component of the U.S. Army Air Corps specificaiton?

Could it be that they changed the Specification between Feb 1937 and April 1939? For one thing the speed at 20,000ft was changed from 360mph to 400mph.

The Army desperately needed new aircraft and the P-39 wasn't going to work in the original form.

Of course the fact the 13 turboed YP-37s that were delivered to the 36th pursuit squadron by November of 1939 weren't really trouble free has nothing to do with the decision either, right?
And this is 2 months after the NACA has issued a report that says the turboed P-39 doesn't have a hope of meeting the 400mph guarantee.
There is some evidence that the XP-39 NEVER flew to the advertised 390mph at 20,000ft or the 5min to 20,000ft climb.

 

[Butters]

In the hands of a capable pilot who knew how to get the best out of his machine, the most widely produced variants of the P-38 (J&L models) were vastly superior to the Bf 110. The 110 could not out-turn a P-38, nor could it match it in any aspect of combat performance. It was kept in production only because of the failure of the Me 210, and because it had sufficient performance to handle the night-fighting role.

To compare the two, imagine if their roles were reversed...

LW P-38's, even F's and G's, would have been far more formidable foes to the Hurricane and Spitfire than was the 110 in the BoB. And designed as an interceptor from the get-go, the P-38's fast climb rate, high speed, good firepower, and decent manoeverability would have caused havoc amongst the bombers and escorts of the 8th AF. And the P-38M nightfighter would have given the nachtjaegers an a/c that could meet the Mosquito NF's on an equal basis.

Now imagine the clumsy 110 fighting the agile fighters of the IJA and IJN. Lacking the performance edge of the P-38, it could not have made use of the very effective 'boom and zoom' air combat technique that led to the death of of so many Japanese pilots. It would have been shot out of the skies in droves.

The highly versatile, high-performance Lightning is superior in every respect to Goering's beloved Zerstorer.

BTW, I looked up the specs on the 110-G model in 3 credible references, and none showed a top speed of more than 350 mph.

JL

 

[Sweb]

In the ETO the P-38 was a difficult airplane for the pilots. They froze their butts off at escort altitudes due to a poor-to-non-existent cockpit heating system. It's minus 60 degrees F at those altitudes. The airplane would experience compressibility when diving from altitudes higher than 20,000 feet and the dive flaps incorporated to solve this phenomena were only partially successful. Planes were lost to loss of control. The biggest problem with P-38's prior to the J model was inadequate intercoolers for manifold combustion air. This lead to elevated carburetor air temps (CATs), subsequent detonation, power losses and engine failures. Higher boost was necessary at combat altitudes so pilots frequently had their crew chiefs remove the throttle stops and went full power when combat conditions dictated the need. This increased dramatically the manifold air temps beyond the 45 degree C limits and failures were common. Finally, the fuels available in Britain did not perform well with the Allison/GE turbo combo causing poor performance. None of these problems were encountered in the PTO due to the lower altitudes and manifold pressures needed for combat and warmer climate in general. The only reason the 38 was moved to the ETO at all was because it had the greatest range of any Allied escort fighter available at the time and the AAF could not continue to sustain 20% losses on missions like the Schweinfurt ball bearing mission due to a lack of escort.

 

[vanir]

The figures I have in publication laying around the place give 560km/h @ 7000m for the C-4 and 550km/h at the same height for the G-4 nightfighter (3-seat configuration with radar, 2x Mk108 and 2x MG151/20 in nose, 2x MG151/20 in belly pack and 2x MG151/20 in schräge musik, plus 2x MG81Z in rear cockpit, plus two 300l drop tanks under wings).

I'd say that puts a G-2 topping 600km/h easy as pie, considering being two-seater with typical armament 2x Mk108 and 2x MG151/20 in nose and 2x MG81Z in rear cockpit, with no stores under wings and no radar.

 

[Colin1]

Colin the data you provided is for the Bf-110 C-4, the speed, climb rate etc etc.. the Bf-110G2 was both faster and climbed faster, naturally as it possessed an extra 740 hp over the C-4.

S'possible
I'll have a better look when I get in tonight. Pretty sure I farmed info from the G-4 though (as it shared the same powerplants)