What if the Bf110 only have one pilot?

Ad: This forum contains affiliate links to products on Amazon and eBay. More information in Terms and rules

tomo pauk said:
Italians have gotten it right with the Ro.58, but engine supply said 'nope, not today'.
Click to expand...
Too heavy. But give the Ro.57 the engines from the Ro.58 and we've got potential. Throw on folding wings and a torpedo rack for an expedited commissioning of Aquila and we're onto something exciting. Fulmar's and Sea Hurricanes may have trouble intercepting this beast.
 
Admiral Beez said:
Fulmar's and Sea Hurricanes may have trouble intercepting this beast.
Click to expand...
Don't need to, The Italians will be too busy fishing the crews out of the sea after trying to take off.

For the recap, Take plane about the size of a Whirlwind (smaller wing than a Hurricane) fit two DB 601 engines to it, strap a torpedo under it, Launch it off an aircraft carrier.
 
Shortround6 said:
Don't need to, The Italians will be too busy fishing the crews out of the sea after trying to take off.

For the recap, Take plane about the size of a Whirlwind (smaller wing than a Hurricane) fit two DB 601 engines to it, strap a torpedo under it, Launch it off an aircraft carrier.
Click to expand...
Good points, What were Italians thinking with the Re. 2000 torpedo fighter intended for Aquila?
 
Admiral Beez said:
Re. 2000 torpedo fighter intended for Aquila
Click to expand...

At least the Re. 2000 series of fighters used a 219sq ft wing so the wing loading would be somewhat lighter.
The torpedo carrier (two built) was either a 2001 with either a DB 601 or Italian copy, or an Re. 2002 with a radial engine (different engine than the 2000)
The latter looks scary, the torpedo tail fins are just about dragging in the grass.
Italians were going to use the spare catapults from the Graf Zeppelin's sister ship.
Which is even worse for a twin engined powered plane (due to weight)
 
Shortround6 said:
At least the Re. 2000 series of fighters used a 219sq ft wing so the wing loading would be somewhat lighter.
The torpedo carrier (two built) was either a 2001 with either a DB 601 or Italian copy, or an Re. 2002 with a radial engine (different engine than the 2000)
The latter looks scary, the torpedo tail fins are just about dragging in the grass.
Italians were going to use the spare catapults from the Graf Zeppelin's sister ship.
Which is even worse for a twin engined powered plane (due to weight)
Click to expand...
There was the half dozen "catapaultine" Re.2000s in service before the Italian armistice, not sure if those were compatible with torpedo carrying, though.
 
The Re.2000 "Catapultabile" is more akin to the Hurricane on the CAM ships. And the catapults on the Italian BBs were originally for IMAM Ro.42 floatplanes.

We will note that the torpedo for the fighter bomber was a reduced size (capability) unit - W200 450 x 3.38
450mm diameter
3.38m long
600 kg total

So, 2/3rd weight of regular torpedo...

Bf.110 was already missing much of the Kampfzerstörer specification - i.e. internal bomb bay. (which Me.210 adds back in). To go all the way to single engine twin would have resulted in it being rejected from competition.
 
don4331 said:
Bf.110 was already missing much of the Kampfzerstörer specification - i.e. internal bomb bay. (which Me.210 adds back in). To go all the way to single engine twin would have resulted in it being rejected from competition.
Click to expand...

Bomb bay was no longer an issue by 1935, since the spec for the Zerstoerer removed the need to carry bombs, because the fast bombers were speced by LW (link)

When the RLM defined new requirements for a high-speed bomber in 1935 (500 km/h, 500 kg bomb load) and Junkers presented a concept that even promised a top speed of 500 km/h and 1000 kg bomb load, the "bomber/destroyer" was no longer planned to use as a bomber.
 
Excluding two DB601s in tandem, like on the Kawasaki Ki-64, per FWIW per Wikipedia, here are the fastest twin DB601 or DB605 powered aircraft:

Messerschmitt Bf 110 - Wikipedia 541 km/h (336 mph)
Savoia-Marchetti SM.91 - Wikipedia 584 km/h (363 mph)
Messerschmitt Me 210 - Wikipedia 564 km/h (350 mph)
Saab 18 - Wikipedia 575–590 km/h (367 mph)
IMAM Ro.58 - Wikipedia 605 km/h (378 mph)
Henschel Hs 130 - Wikipedia 610 km/h (380 mph)
Savoia-Marchetti SM.92 - Wikipedia 615 km/h (382 mph)

Given that the Bf 110's DB601/605 engines could haul its heavy weight to close to 340 mph and over 380 mph in later aircraft, I think something close to 400 mph or more should be possible for a smaller German single seat, twin engined fighter derived from the Bf 110.
 
Last edited:
Sevvy said:
My question is actually pretty simple.

What would have been the implications if the bf 110 only had 1 pilot and became a heavy fighter just like the P-38. Would the performance be greater with it having significantly reduced weight? Or would the weight saved be not enough to make a difference? Would they been able to compete more favorably against the Spitfires and Hurricanes?
Click to expand...
Changing the flight-deck would not have made enough difference in weight to change the ME-110's performance, it was the overall aircraft. Designed to do to many things and in the end could none very well. It was too heavy, slow, and un-maneuverable to be a good ground attack, or fighter aircraft. Could not carry enough bombs to be a useful light bomber. Way too heavy for dive bombing. The wing loading was too high for high altitude reconnaissance work. Too slow for other reconnaissance without escort. Did not have the range for maritime reconnaissance. Th entire structure would have had to be redesigned to make it light enough to make a difference. Then the wing itself would need to be re-designed for speed. After all that, what would its mission be? The chance of it being a successful heavy fighter is doubtful given that all other two engine fighters, save the P-38, were failures. The only thing to do was to abandon the whole concept, aircraft and all. Only the morphine driven stubbornness of Goering kept the aircraft in service after its failure in Poland. While being interrogated after the war, Goering blamed the Zerstorer program for the loss of the war. I believe his words were something like "they are the reason for my being in this predicament".
 
GrauGeist said:
Notice in my post, where I excluded the Me262?
Ar234: jet - also by stating "Ar234", I assume you mean the B variant, since the C was four engined.
Do335: still in testing at war's end, meaning not "in service".
Go244: 1 or 2 crewmembers.
Click to expand...
Yes, I did notice you excluded the ME-262, that is why I did not mention it, or the HS-129, again.
AR-234b, you assumed correctly.
Do335 was in production, 90 were built, 60 were flown, since you did say "production aircraft", not "in service", that counts.
GO 244 could have 1 crewman.
Thank you for the debate.
 
Tanker Tom said:
Do335 was in production, 90 were built, 60 were flown, since you did say "production aircraft", not "in service", that counts.
Click to expand...
GrauGeist said:
The only production single seat, twin engined aircraft the Luftwaffe had (excluding the Me262) in service, was the Hs129.
Click to expand...
(my bold)

Source for the number of 90 built Do 335s?
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Users who are viewing this thread

Total: 1 (members: 0, guests: 1)

Similar threads

W
What if the Me109Z instead of Bf110?
Replies
11
Views
1K
Admiral Beez
A
tomo pauk
German artillery what-if: going all-in with gun-howitzers past 1935
2 3 4
Replies
63
Views
3K
Shortround6
S
M
If German have access to high ocatane fuel, how does that impact the performance of their fighters?
2 3
Replies
51
Views
4K
Engineman
E
A
What if the Germans had radar proximity fused AA shells?
3 4 5
Replies
92
Views
9K
Snautzer01
Snautzer01
Venomstick121
What if the Luftwaffe gained air superiority during d-day?
2 3 4
Replies
70
Views
6K
tomo pauk
tomo pauk
Back