Me-110

The Me-110(Bf-110), an effective aircraft, your thoughts?

 

As a day fighter, no.
No heavy multi-seat twin has been able to hold its own in combat with single-engined types, except possibly the P38 which was a single-seater, and even that needed highly disciplined tactics to make up for being less manouverable than Me109s, Zeroes, etc.
(By the way, it should be Bf110 not Me- this was the manufacturer's designation, which the Allies did not realise till after the war).
The Bf110 was faster than a Hurricane and had a usefully heavy cannon and m/gun armament concentrated in the nose; you didn't want to find one on your tail. But generally the lack of manouverability let it down.
One elite unit (LG?? - LG = Lehrgeschwader, an experimental unit) had some success in the BofB using highly disciplined, dive-&-strike-&-continue-diving away-even-if-you-missed tactics, but this was too little too late in the BofB, and in any case this tactic depends on the element of surprise.
The 110 achieved considerably more success as a night-fighter, for which it was much better suited, and other versions did some useful work in the ground-attack role in North Africa and Russia.
Its British equivalent was probably the Beaufighter. The British learned from the experience with the Defiant and the naval Fulmar that an extra seat was no subsitute for manouverability as a day fighter, so the Beau was used in the night-fighter and strike roles.
In the jet age, multi-engined multi-seaters became useful because the crew workload became so great that a second crewman became necessary as a systems operator, which is why the F4 Phantom was so successful - but even they got a nasty shock when they got into dog-fights with 37mm cannon-armed Mig-17s over Vietnam; the reheat didn't always work quickly enough to enable escape. These days, digital tecnology has reduced the workload so fighters can be single-seat, light and manouverable again - Typhoon, F22 etc.
Adrian

 

In its intended role, it was proven to be useless since it needed fighter escort itself.

As a nightfighter, it was in its element. the heavy firepower and the space on board for all the new equipment made it a very good aircraft.

 

Like the Stuka, it made a pretty good target.

 

Yes he did Von Poop! Obviously not such a good target then if he made it :p

 

In it's original role it was a failure (although Britain feared it more the BF-109 at the start of the war). As a nightfighter though it excelled before being slowly phased out at the end of the war replaced by JU-88G's and others.

 

Didn't Hess pop over in a 110?

most of it is in the IWM in London. One of the props is in the RAFA club in Prestwick!

 

Goring placed a lot of faith in the 110 (destroyer units) before the Battle of Britain. As history points out, misguided faith. The 110s in the BoB used to take up a defensive circle to protect one another.
As has been said you wouldn't want to attack one head on as it had fearsome firepower in the nose. However the pilots found it very difficult to bring this firepower to bear (two 20mm cannons and four rifle calibre machine guns).
It did have far more sucess in the nightfighter role.
In official Luftwaffe documents the abbreviations of 'BF' and 'Me' both appear frequently; so both are correct.

 

Nice little website on Russian view of the me110 here:
http://luthier.stormloader.com/SFTacticsIV.htm
There was a German Veteran on British TV last yearish who (if raddled memory serves me) said that the rearwards facing MG15 was one of the most effective ways of night attacking British bombers by getting right underneath them and opening fire at point-blank range. So the attack went in hard and at the same time you were already accelerating/diving away from any defensive response.

Thanks Von Poop, neat website.
The Germans also had the upward firing (was it cannon?) gun called jazz music (translated). The RAF never did know about it until after the war.

 

Would their have been a way to up engine the Me-110 or would that have required the engineers to design a whole new airframe?

 

Would their have been a way to up engine the Me-110 or would that have required the engineers to design a whole new airframe?
Typically it is hard to get a twin to perform like a single because of size (drag) and weight relationships. All planes need an engine. The wimpiest engine weighs something so pepping up the single engine is not that costly. But with a twin they burn fuel at a huge rate (almost twice that single for the same performance) so there is a point of diminishing returns. The more "peppy the engine" the shorter the range and that is quite a bit worse on twins. It requires more space to carry even more fuel. This adds more weight more area (well you can see where this going). The P-38 got away with it because it used a super charger. But this means it had to have skinny and long fuselages. But even the P-38 using the Allison engines could not keep up with the singles. You also have to increase the wing area to support a stronger air frame. This creates more drag. So you are constantly fighting all of these tradeoffs.

The single engine fighter planes in WWII where pretty optimized for the available technology. The only way you could get more speed out of them is to up the technology (like construction materials). The Mustang did have some new innovations in it, in that it had a new laminar wing technology design that allowed it to be stronger than the equivalent of older style wings. It also had a two-stage supercharger which gave it good high and low altitude performance. The Spitfire had huge wings but they were relatively thin so they could handle like a dream and still have the top end speed, this allowed it to climb like a bandit too. <o:p></o:p>
<o:p> </o:p>
The Jug design went another way. The design of the Jug actually started with the supercharger ducting which was so large the plane had to be made large. Then they put a heavy bomber engine on it (used on the B-29s) that compensated for its huge girth, big wings and heavy weight. So basically they scaled it up. The trade offs for using Jugs was that it used a lot of fuel and it could not turn like a Spit or Mustang. They compensated this by adding combat flaps (which the Mustang got too). Combat flaps allow you to suddenly drop your air speed so if you are in a turn you can instantly deploy them and turn sharper producing more lift and giving it the sharper turning radius. In fact the Jug pilots claimed they could outturn the FW-190 with these flaps. In addition it had a huge rudder. This also prevents skidding in a turn which probably more other fighters did do especially when they were turning fast. If you turn too fast, you can (as they say) "run out of rudder". In other words your rudder is too small to compensate for the yawing forces on the plane. (yawing is pivoting left and right on a horizontally vertical axis (no bank).

From what I understand, the Spitfire had too small of a rudder. In fact (some of you Spit fans can correct me if I am wrong) on take off, you couldn't use full throttle because you couldn't compensate for the yawing affect that comes from the propeller when climbing. If I remember correctly it would tend to roll because the yaw was so exaggerated. I would think this would also cause excessive skidding in high speed turns.

Back to the issue, what multiple engine planes bring you is progressively more wing loading because the wings can be so much larger (area). Of course the trade off is more drag and less speed but far less than if you increased the wing size on a single engine plane. You trade off air speed for lift and payload.

The ME-110 reminds me of the Typhoon. It had a good wing loading and was intended to be a fighter/bomber but its fighter role left it a little wanting. If I was in a Typhoon, I would run before I would fight. Same in a ME-110. The odds of you winning against a nimble fighter are not good.<o:p></o:p>

 

The best German nightfighter was the Heinkel 219 - much faster than the 410 and as fast (in a straight line) as the late-war single.

I thought that o would provide this which shows how Eric brown felt about the HE219

From my experience with the He219A-2, I would say that this heinkel fighter's reputation was somewhat overrated. it was, in my view, basically a good night fighter in concept but it suffered from what is prehaps the nastiest characteristic that any twin-engined aircraft could have - it was underpowered....

...Furthermore, it appeared to be short on performance to deal with the Mosquito, a task which was, in part its raison d'etre...

 

They did the latter, with the Me210 and Me410, both of which illustrate Jim's point of diminishing returns with Twins.
The 210 was a failure, suffering from directional instability and a disappointing performance; production terminated after only 352 in <st1:country-region w:st="on">Germany</st1:country-region> and 108 in <st1:country-region w:st="on"><st1:place w:st="on">Hungary</st1:place></st1:country-region>. The 410, entering service from late '42, was better, but complex. The Germans never intended it to be a day fighter but it did well as a night-fighter. In that role, the need to carry radar and extra navigation-radio equipment and its operator meant a large airframe with two engines and at least two seats. The best German nightfighter was the Heinkel 219 - much faster than the 410 and as fast (in a straight line) as the late-war singles.
<st1:city w:st="on"><st1:place w:st="on">Adrian</st1:place></st1:city>, you seem to know a lot about the 210 and 410. I have failed to find decent descriptions of these planes versus the 110. Do you know what the upgrades were? They all look the same and it is curious to me why they would have changed the numerical designator rather than a version letter like they did with the 109. They did the same thing with the FW190/290. Can you shed any light on these variation differences?


Generally this would be true, but the Typhoon was found to have an exceptional low altitude performance (probably by luck rather than design) and was able to counter the FW190 when the latter was used for strike missions over the UK midwar, at a period when no version of the Spitfire was able to do this. The LA performance was the reason they were later successful in Ground Attack.
I am sort of a fan of the Typhoon. It like the Jug were tremendously destructive airplanes. I think by the time the later generation changes came along the Typhoon lost its snap. It was a really good plane in 1940-41 from what I understand. The Tempest was also kick-butt. The Tempest V seems to be a cross between a Typhoon and a Spitfire. They used the new laminar wing technology like the Yanks used on the P-51. The Fury was also a mamma-jamma plane. I can't tell it from the Tempest V. I believe that the Tempest V was meant to be used exactly like the P-47. Switch it to the fighter after dropping ordinance. Put a radial engine in it and drop that stupid looking cowling and you would think you were looking at a Jug. The Tempest V was without a doubt one of WWII's best fighter/bombers. It had many of the same capabilities of the Jug (including the problems with the engine after initial development that had to be worked out). I believe if they had added a supercharger to it, it would have competed with the Jug for "Mr. Bad" in WWII. If I had the money to buy a couple of WWII fighters, I would want a Jug and a Tempest V or Fury. The more close minded would probably chose a Spit and a Mustang. That's so "passé". If you are going to get a plane, "make a statement", that's what I say.

 

the main differeance between the BF110 and the BF210 was the addition of twin remotely controlled gun barrbettes for rearward defence.

The Messerschmitt Test pilots thought there was no real improvement in perforance over the BF110.

You are correct about them changing the designation rather than issuing a new mark.

The 410 used quite a lot of 210 parts and Jigs, so much so in fact that they should have been called 210s as they were almost identical in layout and design.

However, the company did manage to iron a lot of the problems that caused 210 production to close.

 

Jim, Morse
somethings gone a bit awry above; my original post seems to have been replaced by Morse's reply to it with my name attached. However....

Adrian, you seem to know a lot about the 210 and 410. I have failed to find decent descriptions of these planes versus the 110. Do you know what the upgrades were? They all look the same and it is curious to me why they would have changed the numerical designator rather than a version letter like they did with the 109. They did the same thing with the FW190/290. Can you shed any light on these variation differences?



What I said is about all I know; Morse has shed some more light. I've often wondered just how much use the remote-controlled barbette was; seems over-complex to me with little extra field of fire (except possibly downwards, but the gunner couldn't see there, or was there a camera sight in the belly?).

From my experience with the He219A-2, I would say that this heinkel fighter's reputation was somewhat overrated. it was, in my view, basically a good night fighter in concept but it suffered from what is prehaps the nastiest characteristic that any twin-engined aircraft could have - it was underpowered....
...Furthermore, it appeared to be short on performance to deal with the Mosquito, a task which was, in part its raison d'etre...


I've seen a top speed quoted for the He219 of 416mph. Seems pretty fast, but I know max speed figures alone can be uniformative - depends on altitude; may have had poor acceleration.

The Tempest V seems to be a cross between a Typhoon and a Spitfire. They used the new laminar wing technology like the Yanks used on the P-51. The Fury was also a mamma-jamma plane. I can't tell it from the Tempest V

The Tempest V was an exptrapolation of the Typhoon - same Napier Sabre engine (cylinders in W-formation) but laminar wing and general clean-up meant better performance. The guys at Hawkers would have been very indignant if you suggested they had had any inspiration from the Spitfire at all! The Tempest II (i.e. 2 - but produced later than the V) had a Bristol Centaurus radial which boosted the performance even more. The Sea Fury was a navalised version of this, with shorter span folding wings.

Adrian