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

The USAAF really only had three operational types that could fit into the "heavy fighter" category:
P-38
P-82
P-61
The XP-58 was to have been in this category as well.

As far as the "bomber destroyer" category goes, the YFM and the XA-38 are the few in class. The XA-38 was changed to a ground attack candidate (and didn't develop further) while the YFM slid into obscurity.
 
Should you find the time and desire to read what was posted on this forum about the P-40, you will see that it received a fair shake here, to say at least.

To be fair to Tom, in unschooled circles, the P-40 was long considered a dog, not because it was one, but because it labored under unfair comparisons and/or selective readings. I myself long thought of it as mediocre at best until I started reading more about it.

It certainly receives a fair shake here, but the knowledge on this forum is much more detailed and insightful than general aviation literature, where the plane was indeed often maligned.

And to be fair, some of its pilots did dislike it. But we can say that about almost any airplane, no?
 
To be fair to Tom, in unschooled circles, the P-40 was long considered a dog, not because it was one, but because it labored under unfair comparisons and/or selective readings. I myself long thought of it as mediocre at best until I started reading more about it.

I myself consider the P-40 as a fighter that was there for the Allied cause in the time when the Allies were stretched thin. When flown in it's best altitude band (as determined by the engine it used), it was a dangerous opponent. Say, good, if not ideal fighter?
Too bad it never gotten more modern engines.
 
I myself consider the P-40 as a fighter that was there for the Allied cause in the time when the Allies were stretched thin. When flown in it's best altitude band (as determined by the engine it used), it was a dangerous opponent. Say, good, if not ideal fighter?
Too bad it never gotten more modern engines.


Well-put. All airplanes have strengths and weaknesses in various proportions, and the P-40, flown by a knowledgeable fighter pilot was certainly dangerous to any aircraft it opposed, when used in accordance with its strengths, mainly (from my understanding, amenable to correction) dive acceleration and high-speed roll, and some ruggedness thrown in too.
 
A shark-mouth just doesn't look right on any other airplane, to my eyes.
I know taste is taste, but in my eyes that's one of the things the Bf 110 could do well.

1674406935397.jpeg
 
Hey boys - a quick post and a turd in the punch bowl, and VASCO correct me if I'm wrong but the early -110 did not have cockpit heaters, later ones had provisions for heated suits. 🤔
 
Hey boys - a quick post and a turd in the punch bowl, and VASCO correct me if I'm wrong but the early -110 did not have cockpit heaters, later ones had provisions for heated suits. 🤔
And that is why the Rumanian ones performed so poorly. The Rumanians specified a cast iron, coal fired heater much like the British did on the P-3______ (must not be named) :)
 

Users who are viewing this thread

Back