- Thread starter
- #101
GregP
Major
Ah, the old world domination trick ... he whispers under the cone of silence ...
Twin Engine Fighters
- Thread starter GregP
- Start date
Ad: This forum contains affiliate links to products on Amazon and eBay. More information in Terms and rules
I already have a white cat, a mock eastern accent and stupid belly laugh I am working on the Caribbean island and death ray.
- Thread starter
- #103
GregP
Major
You really need the stuff that makes women want you.
I think it's called money.
What's six inches long and drives women crazy?
$100 bills ...
I think it's called money.
What's six inches long and drives women crazy?
$100 bills ...
- Thread starter
- #105
GregP
Major
Underdog ...
or
Powdered Toast Man ...
or the Rulers of the world ... a loco Chihuahua and a submental dog ...
Think they're smarter than Obama? Nothin' up my sleeve ...
or
Powdered Toast Man ...
or the Rulers of the world ... a loco Chihuahua and a submental dog ...
Think they're smarter than Obama? Nothin' up my sleeve ...
Last edited:
Just Schmidt
Senior Airman
I should come to the rescue as it is one of my favorites.
To answear your question from the Ki 83 thread, one big differense is that the Ki 83 had nearly twice the engine power. Also it's development started (in the guise of the Ki 38 ) some 5 years earlier, it was a long time in the gestation. It can safely be said to belong to the first generation of modern twin engined fighters, and like most of them found much employment in other roles than the long range escort that usually figured largely in the ideas behind them.
It is said to have had exceptional manouverability for a twin, though inferior to single engined fighters it was able to out-manouver the P 38. Upon entering servise in late 42 it was one of few japanese planes with some armour and protected fuel tanks. Some consideration had been given to ease of production and maintenance. It had good armament for a japanese fighter, the first versions sporting 1xHo 3 20 mm and 2x12.7 mm, while it had 1x7.92 for rear defence. The armament was progressively modified, one late model had 1 37mm Ho 203 cannon firing forward and 2xHo 5 20 mm cannon in an arrangement similar to German night fighters. Late models dispensed with the rearward firing gun, as it was considered ineffective at high speed.
The early 20 mm cannon was ineffective in air to air combat, at least against fighters. The top speed (547 km/h) of the early models was good for a 42 japanese fighter, but modest by world standards. It saw no success in the long range escort role, but was an effective bomber interceptor. It was never to be considered an easy kill, I'd like to know if anybody have information that corrobates the edge in 'dogfighting' capabilities over the lightning? In any case the later could (and probably did) adopt zoom and boom tactics. Like most of the twins it eventually found employment in the ground attack role, and its success against smaller allied vessels lead to a specialized model with 1 37 and 2 20 mm forward firing cannon.
It stayed in production untill july 45, when it was replaced by the Ki 102. Too slow to catch up with a B-29, I still have (in a book somewhere else) a picture of one making an interception. Though not fitted with radar, it enjoyed some success as a night fighter. 1691 was built.
Last edited:
SpicyJuan11
Senior Airman
Now this is somewhat pertaining to the Fw 187 discussion so forgive me, I heard that technically the Me 110 was fine for the BoB, but due to the tactics that the LW leadership made it use, it couldn't use any of its advantages and thus was torn up. Does this have any grain of truth, or is this pure fiction?
- Thread starter
- #110
GregP
Major
One of the reasons for the relative lateness of the Ki-83 was engine problems. The engines required development, and thus would not have been good candidates for installation on earlier aircraft.
Hi Juan,
Tactics had little to do with the Bf 110's problems. During the Battle of Britain tha Gernams came in at the altitude they wanted to and the British had to find and meet them, which usually meant climbing to meet them. The main problem with the Bf 110 was that it was supposed to be a Heavy Fighter but, in fact, needed an escort of its own as it could not maneuver with teh Spitfires and Hurricanes. To be fair, nothing else in the ETO at the time could generally maneuver with the Spitfire either, but at least the Bf 109 could hang tight for some part of a turn and give a good account of itself, climbed better and at a very steep angle, could dive away in a negative pushover, and the top speeds were very close. The Bf 110 could not pitch, roll, or yaw with a Spitfire, wasn't as fast and didn't accelerate as well either.
The one aspect where the Bf 110 was as good or better than the Spirfire was armamaent. But you have to be able to bring that armament to bear in order for it to do any good. The Bf 110 proved adaptable and gave good service in a lot of other roles that were never originally considered when it was designed.
All in all, it was a pretty good airplane that handled and flew well, was decently rugged, and was adaptable enough to be useful elsewhere. It became the best night fighter of the war, if you look at results.
Hi Juan,
Tactics had little to do with the Bf 110's problems. During the Battle of Britain tha Gernams came in at the altitude they wanted to and the British had to find and meet them, which usually meant climbing to meet them. The main problem with the Bf 110 was that it was supposed to be a Heavy Fighter but, in fact, needed an escort of its own as it could not maneuver with teh Spitfires and Hurricanes. To be fair, nothing else in the ETO at the time could generally maneuver with the Spitfire either, but at least the Bf 109 could hang tight for some part of a turn and give a good account of itself, climbed better and at a very steep angle, could dive away in a negative pushover, and the top speeds were very close. The Bf 110 could not pitch, roll, or yaw with a Spitfire, wasn't as fast and didn't accelerate as well either.
The one aspect where the Bf 110 was as good or better than the Spirfire was armamaent. But you have to be able to bring that armament to bear in order for it to do any good. The Bf 110 proved adaptable and gave good service in a lot of other roles that were never originally considered when it was designed.
All in all, it was a pretty good airplane that handled and flew well, was decently rugged, and was adaptable enough to be useful elsewhere. It became the best night fighter of the war, if you look at results.
Last edited:
wiking85
Staff Sergeant
Got to disagree here. The Bf110 had serious maneuverability issues and needed to be within 20-30mph of the BoB era top speed to less than a dog. However it achieved a highly favorable kill ratio once its initial disastrous introduction demonstrated that its tactics were not working against S/E fighters with radar warning in the close escort role (and the defensive circle didn't work). If it could fly top cover and accelerate to attack, which it did after August it was just fine and did great as a fighter-bomber. It was not a dogfighter, but as a diving energy fighter it was just fine. The problem is experience was needed to figure out what worked; still it was topped out in term of performance by 1942 even with the DB605 engine and needed to be retired. For the BoB it certainly was inferior to the potential of the Fw187, we know that in term of maneuverability the Fw187 was better according to pilots that flew it, but it wasn't useless and outmatched if used properly.
http://www.ww2aircraft.net/forum/aircraft-requests/battle-britain-bf110-losses-victories-21704.html
The vast majority of Bf110 losses were in July-August.
- Thread starter
- #112
GregP
Major
We're probably talking semantics here. Until the Bf 110s and the British opposition met each other and went at it, there were no tactics that could be realistically assigned, at least by the RAF. They had some "feeling out" encounters and the Bf 110 crowd found out they were overmatched against Spitfires and Hurricanes. At least the Bf 110 could outrun the Hurricanes. Once their shortcomigns were revealed, THEN they could work out some tactics.
During the BOB, I think Fighter Command was still flying in vics of 3 and the only air force wtih any tactics from the Spanish Civil War that might work was the Luftwaffe. They were largely confined to the Bf 109 guys.
Yes, they DID have to have some sort of a plan once joined, and that could be called tactics, but the Bf 110 crowd hadn't had the experience of the Spanish Civil War to fall back on and were more or less learning what worked and what didn't. So they were "experimenting." In 1939, the Bf 110s were just getting the DB 601s I think ... or they had just gotten them. The early 110s were using the DB 600. So it was a learning curve for the big twin, and they leanrned not to mix it up with the Spitfires and Hurricanes unless they were well and truly caught. If you're going to get shot anyway, you might was well turn and fight.
I think the pitch capability of the Bf 110 was not really an issue from what I've read ... it was roll. They couldn't roll fast enough to acheive separation from pursuit and, while the pitch was OK, it wasn't better than the Spitfire or Hurricane. So the Bf 110 had little chance with a Spitfire in the 6 o'clock position. That doesn't mean they couldn't get the odd kill here and there over a Spitfire, it means if both pilots knew what was going on, the Spitfire had a decided advantage over a Bf 110. Being faster and more maneuverable gave the Spit driver the ability to engage or disengage at will. Not many Spit pilots were stupid enough to try to creep up on a Bf 110 from 6 o'clock and slightly high, so the rear gunner probably had only a fleeting chance of making a big difference.
I don't believe the Bf 110 was seriously less maneuverable than most other twins, but it fell short of any decent single-seat, single-engine fighter. It probably was less maneuverable than something like a P-38 or a Whirlwind. How much less is a good subject for debate. All it has to be is less maneuverable enough to take a few hits in order to be in trouble.
During the BOB, I think Fighter Command was still flying in vics of 3 and the only air force wtih any tactics from the Spanish Civil War that might work was the Luftwaffe. They were largely confined to the Bf 109 guys.
Yes, they DID have to have some sort of a plan once joined, and that could be called tactics, but the Bf 110 crowd hadn't had the experience of the Spanish Civil War to fall back on and were more or less learning what worked and what didn't. So they were "experimenting." In 1939, the Bf 110s were just getting the DB 601s I think ... or they had just gotten them. The early 110s were using the DB 600. So it was a learning curve for the big twin, and they leanrned not to mix it up with the Spitfires and Hurricanes unless they were well and truly caught. If you're going to get shot anyway, you might was well turn and fight.
I think the pitch capability of the Bf 110 was not really an issue from what I've read ... it was roll. They couldn't roll fast enough to acheive separation from pursuit and, while the pitch was OK, it wasn't better than the Spitfire or Hurricane. So the Bf 110 had little chance with a Spitfire in the 6 o'clock position. That doesn't mean they couldn't get the odd kill here and there over a Spitfire, it means if both pilots knew what was going on, the Spitfire had a decided advantage over a Bf 110. Being faster and more maneuverable gave the Spit driver the ability to engage or disengage at will. Not many Spit pilots were stupid enough to try to creep up on a Bf 110 from 6 o'clock and slightly high, so the rear gunner probably had only a fleeting chance of making a big difference.
I don't believe the Bf 110 was seriously less maneuverable than most other twins, but it fell short of any decent single-seat, single-engine fighter. It probably was less maneuverable than something like a P-38 or a Whirlwind. How much less is a good subject for debate. All it has to be is less maneuverable enough to take a few hits in order to be in trouble.
Last edited:
wiking85
Staff Sergeant
Spitfires were left to deal with Me109s and if the Bf110 was used right, i.e. as a top cover diver against Hurricanes or Spits as they mixed it up with Me109s or went after bombers, they could achieve kills in that context. The issue was that they still needed to have Me109s operating along side.
Whatever the strengths or weaknesses of the Bf 110 were the BoB proved it was not a close escort fighter. During the course of the BoB in numbers all its front line strength had been lost Bungays " The most dangerous enemy" has many statistics which show the main strength of the Bf 110 in the BoB was being an easier plane to shoot down than the bombers.
I dont dispute the statistics that say the Bf110 was on a kills basis the best performing night fighter but it didnt stop night bombing. The Mosquito had fewer targets but decimated the LW on operation steinbock Wiki states 329 bombers lost against 1 night fighter lost and 5 damaged,not all losses of course due to night fighters.
I think in terms of night fighter on fighter the mosquito had the edge over the Bf110 not because of performance but more due to radar tech.
The performance of EPG 210 showed that the Bf110 was a good fighter bomber achieving some success against airfields, in that the LW missed a trick.
In my opinion a twin fighter absolutely MUST be faster than its opposition in speed and climb because it has no chance in roll and turn.
I dont dispute the statistics that say the Bf110 was on a kills basis the best performing night fighter but it didnt stop night bombing. The Mosquito had fewer targets but decimated the LW on operation steinbock Wiki states 329 bombers lost against 1 night fighter lost and 5 damaged,not all losses of course due to night fighters.
I think in terms of night fighter on fighter the mosquito had the edge over the Bf110 not because of performance but more due to radar tech.
The performance of EPG 210 showed that the Bf110 was a good fighter bomber achieving some success against airfields, in that the LW missed a trick.
In my opinion a twin fighter absolutely MUST be faster than its opposition in speed and climb because it has no chance in roll and turn.
Last edited:
Where did that occur? The RAF were guided by Radar which just identified approximate numbers. The idea that spitfires took on fighters and hurricanes took on bombers is one of the hardest myyhs to break. Park did not have the luxury of sending specific squadrons against specific escorts. In the last days of the massed assaults by the LW against London, squadrons were paired with the rough intention of Spitfires covering Hurricanes in squadrons at the rear but the results are clouded by Leigh Mallory's big wing stamping all over the battlefield.
- Thread starter
- #116
GregP
Major
I pretty much agree, pbehn, but a twin with close-inboard engines might be fine. Once the P-38J came online with hydraulic assists for the ailerons, it could roll with alacrity. The Do 335 Pfeil probably had no rolling deficicncies other than sheer mass.
But in general, I must agree that mass out on the wings slows the roll, at least initially.
I know from personal experience that the tip tanks on a Cessna 310 make the roll a bit ponderous when they have fuel in them. I have no doubt that two 1,500-pound engines coupled with radiators and props would make at LEAST the initial roll breakout slow down considerably unless some specialy design features could be found to make the roll response faster.
Perhaps if they did something like eliminate the ailerons entirely and have the entire wing pivot like an aileron ... it might eliminate the issue. But it would surely bring issues of its own and, if it DID work, the singles would follow suit in a very short time and probably resestablish their roll superiority.
But in general, I must agree that mass out on the wings slows the roll, at least initially.
I know from personal experience that the tip tanks on a Cessna 310 make the roll a bit ponderous when they have fuel in them. I have no doubt that two 1,500-pound engines coupled with radiators and props would make at LEAST the initial roll breakout slow down considerably unless some specialy design features could be found to make the roll response faster.
Perhaps if they did something like eliminate the ailerons entirely and have the entire wing pivot like an aileron ... it might eliminate the issue. But it would surely bring issues of its own and, if it DID work, the singles would follow suit in a very short time and probably resestablish their roll superiority.
I agree, I have not worked on aircraft but have worked with machines. I can easily roll a 5 ton pipe along a flat bench using only a short metal bar, myself and all my colleagues couldnt raise it by an inch without a crane. Spitfires had wings clipped to improve roll rate but the tip was not a control surface and (I presume) would act against the manoeuvre. As you say anything introduced on a twin could be done on a single, the limit I think would be snapping the wings trying to get the engines to turn around the fuselage.
- Thread starter
- #118
GregP
Major
Yea, it's hard to overcome basic Physics. Inertia and momentum will be there no matter what you do.
kool kitty89
Senior Master Sergeant
Between the Kasai and Homare, it seems like there were decent alternatives with only modestly less power that could have been applied. That or the Ki 83's engines were more powerful than the figures I've seen listed.
In that regard, I'd be more curious to know if the Fw 187 would have had any greater limitations as a figher-bomber (with similar engine power) or cost more or less to build than the Bf 110. (lower weight and less materials, sure, but man-hours in manufacturing and maintenance are both major concerns)
Closest comparison would be in mock dogfights and similar tactical test maneuvers. (but then only useful in as far as tactics in use by their own forces and assumed/known tactics in use by the enemy)
Jumo 210s, not DB 600s. I think only bombers ever used DB 600s operationally.
Early P-38s had heavy ailerons and slow roll response (though good turn and stall behavior -partially due to wing design and partially to the lack of torque). The Whirlwind apparently had very good roll response and better aileron response than the contemporary Spitfire.
It also comes down to wing and aileron design. The P-38 had the right aerodynamics but simply high stick forces at all speeds to roll well initially (F4U style boost tabs on the ailerons should have addressed that much earlier than the Hydraulic boosting on the P-38J). As mentioned above, the Whirlwind had better aileron control and roll response than the Spitfire too. (especially at high speed -as with most American fighters)
The P-47, while single engined was still large and heavy, with relatively large, heavy, strong wings but its aerodynamic design lent itself to one of the highest roll rates of fighters in the ETO. (supposedly the best rolling fighter in service there in early 1943)
There's some indication that the Fw 187 had more responsive controls than the Bf 109, but the information I've seen on this is limited. (given the common problems with high speed control forces on the 109, Hurricane, and Sptifire -especially prior to adopting metal ailerons- it wouldn't be hard toimagine the Fw 187 fared better in that respect, especially with the lighter Jumo 210 engines)
- Thread starter
- #120
GregP
Major
Funny you should mention the F4U. Last weekend we flew our F4U-1d and someone in the crowd asked me about the twin tabs on the elevators. I told him one was a trimn tab and the other was a servo or boost tab, and then had to explain what servo and anti-servo tabs meant. The untimate example I gave was the Hughes H-4 Hercules that didn't have any direct connect to the rudder at all ... it was all moved by a servo tab.
I have wondered for years why they didn't put servo tabs on the P-38 and F6F ailerons immediately after they flew them for the for time. Steve Hinton does a lively break for landing on our early P-38J ... before the hydraulic boost ... but, to do so, he has to really yank on the wheel.
We volunteers are looking for a P-38 hydraulic boost system to steal other than the obvious one right on the same field at Chino in Jack Crowell's P-38 that used to be called "Honey Bunny." If theirs went missing and we suddenly got boost, it would be a dead giveaway ...
I have wondered for years why they didn't put servo tabs on the P-38 and F6F ailerons immediately after they flew them for the for time. Steve Hinton does a lively break for landing on our early P-38J ... before the hydraulic boost ... but, to do so, he has to really yank on the wheel.
We volunteers are looking for a P-38 hydraulic boost system to steal other than the obvious one right on the same field at Chino in Jack Crowell's P-38 that used to be called "Honey Bunny." If theirs went missing and we suddenly got boost, it would be a dead giveaway ...
