I think 440mph @ 22,000 is a little generous. Also, just an observation/question: did you use P-38 wings on that drawing or were the wings just that similar OTL?Not the 1940 version, sorry.
It's gone from 1760 horsepower to 2780 horsepower and the speed has gone from 360 to 440.I think 440mph @ 22,000 is a little generous. Also, just an observation/question: did you use P-38 wings on that drawing or were the wings just that similar OTL?
I think 440mph @ 22,000 is a little generous. Also, just an observation/question: did you use P-38 wings on that drawing or were the wings just that similar OTL?
For those that are capable of photoshopping, how would you improve the Bf110 with 1940 tech?
Except that it could haul more bombs further than the others which is rather the task in hand. The trick for all of them was to find the place on which to drop them. Daylight with Wellingtons or Hampdens was not going to go well either.The Whitley was the only exclusive night bomber, having been deemed unfit for daytime use. Had it been used in daylight, it might have been as effective as the Monty Python WWII joke sketch. The Germans die laughing.
The Germans counter with:
My dog has no nose!
How does it smell?
Terrible!
It was ineffective.
Boom and zoom.Not likely, my friend
. Against the Hurricane was the aircraft's relatively slow acceleration and a top speed some 10-30 mph (16–48 km/h) slower, depending on altitude. This meant that the 109 pilot often held the initiative when it came to breaking off or attacking during combat. At higher altitudes especially, the Hurricane was hard-pressed to keep up with a well flown 109, or even a Bf 110.[6]
When attacking Luftwaffe bombers, it was discovered that the Hurricane's fuel tanks were vulnerable to defensive machine gun fire. The greatest hazard was with the unprotected gravity-feed fuel tank in front of the cockpit which could rupture when hit, allowing a jet of flame to penetrate the cockpit through the instrument panel, causing serious burn injuries to the pilot. The wooden and fabric rear fuselage was also far more likely to catch fire than the metal fuselages of its contemporaries. This issue was of such concern to Air Vice Marshal Hugh Dowding that he had Hawker retrofit the fuselage tanks of Hurricanes with a fire-resistant material called "Linatex" as a matter of priority. The wing tanks had already been fitted with a covering of this sealant, but the fuselage tank was considered to be too small a target. Hurricanes were soon being modified at the rate of 75 per month. In one month of combat, 10 July 1940 to 11 August, defensive fire from bombers hit 25 Hurricanes and 25 Spitfires; as a result 11 Hurricanes were shot down compared with two Spitfires.[7]
Not the 1940 version, sorry.
I think 440mph @ 22,000 is a little generous. Also, just an observation/question: did you use P-38 wings on that drawing or were the wings just that similar OTL?
Well are we talking Hurricane vs. 110, or Hurricane vs. 109?
. Against the Hurricane was the aircraft's relatively slow acceleration and a top speed some 10-30 mph (16–48 km/h) slower, depending on altitude. This meant that the 109 pilot often held the initiative when it came to breaking off or attacking during combat. At higher altitudes especially, the Hurricane was hard-pressed to keep up with a well flown 109, or even a Bf 110.[6]
From known losses and kills such as analysed by danish author
Christer Bergström, Luftskrid over kanalen (2006)
* Spitfire: 550 confirmable kills 329 losses -exchange ratio is 1.7: 1
* Hurricane: 750 confirmable kills 603 losses -exchange ratio 1.2: 1
* Bf 109 780 confirmable kills 534 losses – exchange ratio 1.5: 1
* Bf 110 340 confirmable kills 196 losses – exchange ratio 1.7: 1
The Bf-110 suffered from a negative exchange ratio only when forced to close escort orders in late august and early september 1940. Before and after this time (when these orders were lifted again), the exchange rate was very positive in favour of the Bf-110 as was the mean average from august to oct.
For those that are capable of photoshopping, how would you improve the Bf110 with 1940 tech?
Read again:
Also:
https://ww2aircraft.net/forum/threads/bf110-exchange-ratio.26265/
Hurricane Is were at a serious disadvantage if the Bf110 did not try and enter a turning fight.
It could boom and zoom being faster, which when used for that resulted in favorable kill rates. Permanently slow Hurricanes then make things worse from September on.Because a 110 couldn't turn for shit.
Couldn't hurt. More of them would be important too, same with more pilots. Plus a rotation system.So what is the solution....drop tanks for the Me-109?
6 of those (2 in nose, 2 in each wing) would have been pretty lethal to fighters or at least their pilots, while two in one wing was lighter than one MG FF with greater ammo capacity (not limited to a drum magazine), higher muzzle velocity, and higher rate of fire:
Rate of fire 1,200 rpm
Muzzle velocity from 855 m/s (2,810 ft/s) (Phosphor "B" round ) to 905 m/s (2,970 ft/s) (Armor Piercing Tracer "SmK L'spur" round)
Feed system 500 round belt
MG 81Z
- Weight: 12.9 kg
- Length: 915 mm (965& mm with flash hider)
- Muzzle velocity: 705 m/s (2,310 ft/s) (sS ammo), 760 m/s (2,500 ft/s), 785 m/s (2,580 ft/s) or 790 m/s (2,600 ft/s), depending on ammo type
- Rate of fire: 2800–3200 rpm (sS ammo)
The same principle was later used as the basis for the widely used Gryazev-Shipunov GSh-23L series of Russian aircraft cannon
...
Beyond that I'd also argue that like the 109F you might want to remove the wing armament to help with maneuverability. Supposedly that was an important factor in making the Fredrich series more aerodynamic...but without the motor cannon arrangement yet worked out that can't really happen. The MG131 in the wings or even two MG17s would help keep the weight down. 6x MGs, while not great for bombers would have been okay against fighters and improved ability to get into position.
The MG17 sounds like it was pretty nasty:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/MG_17_machine_gun
6 of those (2 in nose, 2 in each wing) would have been pretty lethal to fighters or at least their pilots, while two in one wing was lighter than one MG FF with greater ammo capacity (not limited to a drum magazine), higher muzzle velocity, and higher rate of fire:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/MG_FF_cannon
Or this:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/MG_81_machine_gun
Or a modern version of the WW1 best:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gast_gun
Compared to other 20s the MG FF was extremely light and limited to a drum magazine in 1940. However the remove of it's 26kg per wing, not counting ammo, was a significant help. Two MG 17s were lighter than 1 MG FF. The Bf109F's maneuverability enhancements weren't limited to just the removal of armament from the wings, but that was a factor (including the redesign of the wings...but why not the cockpit?). Yes, the 20mm mine shell will kill anything it hits in 1940...the problem is getting it to hit relative to the fire rate and velocity of the regular MG round, which was still quite lethal with multiple hits against a fighter.The MG FF was one of lightest 20 mm cannons ever. Thus it's impact on maneuverability was meager.
109F got streamlined nose and radiators, retractable tailwheel, better ram air intake, and lost the tail struts - no wonder it was more aerodynamic that the 109E.
The MG FFM of the BoB era and beyond, firing the 'Mine' shell at 700 m/s will ruin a day for anything it hits, preferably with a 90 rd drum (barely bigger than the 60 rd one) .
Once the engine-cannon installation is reliable, stick the third such cannon there. A belt-fed version will be nice, Japanese got it working with their copy of the Oerlikons, both FFF and FFL.
A twined MG 81Z is less than half the weight of a MG FF.MG 81 was indeed quite a weapon, cramming two of them in each wing will produce some serious rate of fire.