Messerschmitt Bf 110 vs P-38 Lightning

FLYBOYJ said:

Either way the 109 did not have the legs for the Pacific

Click to expand...

Hah, true, it didn't really have the legs for the English channel. They had very limited engagement time over England during the BOB and that is a pretty short hop.

Clay_Allison said:

Hah, true, it didn't really have the legs for the English channel. They had very limited engagement time over England during the BOB and that is a pretty short hop.

Click to expand...

So imagine trying to operate over Guadalcanal.

Since in a previous thread, I picked the P-38L as THE fighter I would pick to take on any other prop fighter, I certainly would think it would handle the Me110.

As far as turn rates, I think the Fowler flaps deployed into the manuvering position on the Lightning would even the field IF the P-38 pilot had to get into a turn fight. But if I were flying it, I certainly would not try to turn fight much. I would only use a maximum turn as an attempt to get a shot at my adversary. If it didn't work out quickly, I would use my climb performance to advantage.

Nightfighting is a different story. I think the Me110 certainly has the advantage over the P-38. I would much prefer to be in a P-61 at night vs the Messerschmitt.

Service deliveries of the P-61 night fighter began during May 1944. That makes it contemporary with the German Ju-88G night fighter. Off topic but let's look at that match up.

Ju-88G
Luftwaffe Annex - Warbirds Resource Group - Junkers Ju 88G-7b Nightfighter
389 mph with flame dampers
1,655 fpm climb
4 x forward firing 20mm cannon
2 x slant firing 20mm cannon.
3.72 hours endurance.
A very comprehensive and effective package of night fighter avionics.
The Ju-88 series of night fighter aircraft scored thousands of kills during WWII.

P-61B
P-61 Black Widow - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
366 mph.
2,450 fpm climb. Probably the best feature of the P-61.
4 x forward firing 20mm cannon.
4 x turret mounted .50cal MG. Turret not installed on all aircraft as it caused buffeting problems.
Effectiveness of avionics package ??
Number of combat kills achieved at night ??

saw timeline the 110 G-2 must compared with P-38G

MikeGazdik said:

As far as turn rates, I think the Fowler flaps deployed into the manuvering position on the Lightning would even the field IF the P-38 pilot had to get into a turn fight. But if I were flying it, I certainly would not try to turn fight much. I would only use a maximum turn as an attempt to get a shot at my adversary. If it didn't work out quickly, I would use my climb performance to advantage.

Click to expand...

Click the link I posted and see the puplication "12 to 1." It talks about actual P-38 tactics used in the SWP.

Soren said:

I believe the Bf-110 turns tighter, but the roll rate was worse so entering a turn would be slower. I can't see it be any other way atm, the Bf-110 simply has a much lower wing loading and power loading aint that much worse than the P-38.

Still the P-38 was better suited as a heavy fighter as it was faster, climbed quicker and rolled much faster.

Click to expand...

Especially when you toss in the boosted ailerons of the late versions.

Both had heavy control surfaces at high speed.

The P-38 was better for combat.

The Bf-110 could not keep up with the lightning nor could it turn with it.

The Me-110 was designed as a heavy fighter/destroyer. It succeeded in early WWII campaigns against inferior opponents, but failed miserably as a daytime fighter in the Battle of Britain. As a night fighter later in the war, it did very well. It also excelled in the ground support role in Russia and North Africa. It also did a good job as a daytime bomber interceptor in the second half of the war. According to Wikipedia, On 2 April, the Bf 110 achieved one of its final successful engagements. A force of 62 attacked a mixed bomber stream of B-17 and B-24s with R4M rockets, destroying five B-17s and three B-24s, as a well as a single P-38 Lightning.

On 9 April, ZG 76 committed 77 to an USAAF raid on Berlin. USAAF P-51 Mustangs had now appeared, and were able to escort the Allied bombers to and from the target. The Bf 110 force lost 23 of the 77 machines. It never flew another mission in this capacity. The losses had "marked the beginning of the end of the Bf 110 Zerstörer as a firstline weapon in the RLV". The Zerstörer was only to fly as a day fighter against unescorted formations.

The P-38 was used in a number of different roles including dive bombing, level bombing, ground strafing, photo reconnaissance missions and extensively as a long-range escort fighter when equipped with drop tanks under its wings.

The P-38 was the only American fighter aircraft in active production throughout the duration of American involvement in the war, from Pearl Harbor to VJ Day.

According to Wikipedia, in the ETO, P-38s made 130,000 sorties with a loss of 1.3% overall, comparing favorably with ETO P-51s which posted a 1.1% loss, considering that the P-38s were vastly outnumbered and suffered from poorly thought-out tactics. The majority of the P-38 sorties were made in the period prior to Allied air superiority in Europe when pilots fought against a very determined and skilled enemy. Lieutenant Colonel Mark Hubbard, a vocal critic of the aircraft, rated it third best Allied fighter in Europe. The Lightning's greatest virtues were long range, heavy payload, high speed, fast climb, and concentrated firepower. The P-38 was a formidable interceptor and attack aircraft and, in the hands of any pilot, dangerous in air-to-air combat.

In the Pacific theater, the P-38 downed over 1,800 Japanese aircraft, with more than 100 pilots becoming aces. American fuel supplies contributed to a better engine performance and maintenance record, and range was increased with leaner mixtures. In the second half of 1944, the P-38L pilots out of Dutch New Guinea were flying 950 mi (1,530 km), fighting for 15 minutes and returning to base. Such long legs were invaluable until the P-47N and P-51D entered service.

With all that being said, I give the edge to the P-38. It was more maneuverable and faster than the 110. It had a heavier payload and could outclimb the 110. And then there is the combat radius of the two planes. The Lightning blows the 110 away, 700 to 290. It's a smoking hole in a dogfight with a Lightning.

Stats for P-38J:

Max speed at critical altitude, 25,800'
(60.0" Hg. Man. Pr. 3000 rpm) = 421.5 mph

Max speed at sea level
(60.0" Hg. Man. Pr. 3000 rpm) = 345.0 mph

Rate of climb at sea level
(60.0" Hg. Man. Pr. 3000 rpm) = 4000'/min.

Rate of climb at critical altitude, 23,400 ft.
(60.0" Hg. Man. Pr. 3000 rpm) = 2900'/min.

Time to climb to critical altitude, 23,400 ft.
(60.0" Hg. Man. Pr. 3000 rpm) = 6.49 min.

Service Ceiling = 40,000'

The P-38J is designed as a high altitude fighter interceptor. This airplane has a fast rate of climb and performs well at high altitude, however, caution must be used in acrobatics and diving maneuvers at all altitudes to keep below limiting airspeeds. These airspeed limitations are low due to tail buffeting which may eventually cause structural failure and are definitely objectionable and hazardous from a combat viewpoint. The stability about all axis is good, the radius of turn is fairly large for a fighter and the rate of roll is fair at medium speeds, but slow at high speeds because of heavy aileron forces. The single engine operations, visibility on the ground and in the air and cockpit layout is good.

Stats for Bf-110G-4:

Maximum Speed: 311 m.p.h. (500 km/h) @ sea-level.
342 m.p.h. (550 km/h) @ 22,900 ft. (6,979 m)
Service ceiling: 26,000 ft. (7,924 m)
Range: 1,305 miles (2,100 km) with maximum internal fuel.

"According to Wikipedia..."

I can see you've been doing some heavy duty research...

Regarding the damage resistance of the Mossie, remember also that the laminate was spirally grained and oppositely spiralled. This conferred great strength and made the laminates mutually supportive if damaged. The structural load was spread over the entire shell of the fuselage, there was no internal structure to fail, so bullet holes could be more readily absorbed than with a metal framed structure.

I also have a photo of a Mossie of 464Sqn which returned to base with the outer 3rd of one wing blown off (but the aileron remained sticking out on its own) and with the loss of one engine and with some of the hydraulics gone, so it was a quite survivable type.

Waynos said:

Regarding the damage resistance of the Mossie, remember also that the laminate was spirally grained and oppositely spiralled. This conferred great strength and made the laminates mutually supportive if damaged. The structural load was spread over the entire shell of the fuselage, there was no internal structure to fail, so bullet holes could be more readily absorbed than with a metal framed structure.

Click to expand...

But the repair process usually calls for a plug or insert within the spiral grain held in with glues. By doing that you upset the natural strength properties by inserting a "void" into the grain. that leads to diminished strength properties. Additionally depending where the repair is made, eventually the glue could decay by either vibration, chemical attack (fuel) or by elements (weather and moisture).

To do wood repairs, many times you need a clean temperature controlled enviornment, not exactly ideal in all operations.

Maximowitz said:

"According to Wikipedia..."

I can see you've been doing some heavy duty research...

Click to expand...

Jane's wasn't available to me at the time.

Focke Wulf Meister said:

Jane's wasn't available to me at the time.

Click to expand...

Knock yourself out, you'll do well here...

Holy crap! That pilot's head is HUGE!!! I just now noticed that from the profile I attached of the Me-110 on Post #90. LOL.

He must be related to Hermann Goering. ("Education is dangerous - Every educated person is a future enemy" - HG)

It's well known how Germans used versions of Bf 110 up gunned with twin MG 151s in under fuselage gondola as bomber destroyers. How come they didn't put this additional two MG 151 cannons in wing roots? This would reduced drag to a significant degree and its not like if Bf 110's wings were too thin to hold them. Is there some good reason why this wasn't done?

Imalko - I wonder if a.) a fuel cell was located there, and b) whether the 110 wing was stressed for 20mm in that area?

The fuel tanks for the 110 were located in the inboard sides of the engine.

I would say that's more than enough reason. Thanks for clarification.