WI: the Me 210 cancelled early enough

TBH, Willi Messerschmitt as a designer is vastly overrated.
I agree about Messerschmitt, it seems after the Bf-109 and 110 which were good machines (especially 109 of course) most of his subsequent design were monumental failures, the 210, the 309, wasting time with the 209 (first), and not sure if 209A(V5) was any good, though it was going in the right direction at least (using as many 109 components as reasonably possible) even if bested by the FW-190D. As i understand he was a political animal (one anecdote says that he tried to convince Hitler to build the rejected Me-209A(V5) instead of Me-262) probably exacerbated by his meteoric rise to fame and power, in 1935 he was almost no one, while in 1940 he was running an aviation empire and was one of Hitler's favourites no?

Anyway back to the Me-210, there's one thing what the germans would do if they cancel the 210, and another what we think it's best for them to do. Imo, instead of the 210, which according to whom you ask swallowed resources for at least 1000-1500 aircraft or even more, continue building more 110F/G with the freed resources plus some more Me-109Gs (including in Hungary, have them build extra 109Gs instead of the OTL Me-210) while instead of the Me-410, build 2000 or more FW-190Cs, obviously! Speaking of which, i was thinking whether a lightened FW-190C (like they did widely with the A models) armed with just the axial gun and two MG-131s would be an effective P-51/P-47 killer? Would it have a sufficient performance advantage over them to make their lives difficult over Germany - thus freeing that many more uparmed FW-190As and Bf-109Gs to attack the bombers?

However, i wouldn't be surprised if the germans, while they might build more 110s instead of the OTL 210 (a good thing), they'd probably used the DB-603s for bombers like Do-217 or some Ju-188 variant! But at least if they'd use even a part of them for more nightfighters like He-219 or even more Do-217 nightfighter variants would be something useful. Also, i'm surprised that there was never a DB-603 powered Ju-88 variant, surely there would be no problem in building bomber and nightfighter Ju-88 variants with DB-603 engines?
 
Last edited:
If He-111 -changing to the aerodynamic Plexiglas nose over the stepped configuration- can increase speed 10-15% 'over and above' the power to weight ratio , why can't they do similar things to the Me-110?
 

Deleted member 1487

If He-111 -changing to the aerodynamic Plexiglas nose over the stepped configuration- can increase speed 10-15% over and above the power to weight ratio , why can't they do similar things to the Me-110?
Where are you getting your info about the speed increase for the He-111 and are you factoring in the increased engine power in that equation?
If you do that with the Bf-110 you make the nose very vulnerable to enemy fire AND you eliminate the ability to mount guns in the nose. That is the reason the Ju88C heavy fighter used an all metal nose instead of the glass one of the bomber version.
Has_Ju88D-1_cover.jpg


ju88c4jf_title.jpg
 
no I'm speaking of the change from stepped nose of the original He-111C to more aerodynamic nose of the HE-111H.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Heinkel_He_111

Based on the figures presented we have

He 111 C-0[edit]
Data from Black Cross Volume 4: Heinkel He 111[93]

General characteristics

  • Crew: 2
  • Length: 17.5 m (57' 5")
  • Wingspan: 22.60 m (74 ft 2 in)
  • Height: 4.10 m (13' 5⅜")
  • Wing area: 87.60 m² (942.92 ft²)
  • Empty weight: 5,400 kg (11,905lb lb)
  • Loaded weight: 9,610 kg (21,186 lb)
  • Powerplant: 2 × BMW VI liquid-cooled inverted V-12, (660 hp) each
Performance


to

He 111 H-6[edit]
Data from Heinkel He 111: A Documentary History[90][91]

General characteristics

  • Crew: 5 (pilot, navigator/bombardier/nose gunner, ventral gunner, dorsal gunner/radio operator, side gunner)[92]
  • Length: 16.4 m (53 ft 9½ in)
  • Wingspan: 22.60 m (74 ft 2 in)
  • Height: 4.00 m (13 ft 1½ in)
  • Wing area: 87.60 m² (942.92 ft²)
  • Empty weight: 8,680 kg (19,136lb lb)
  • Loaded weight: 12,030 kg (26,500 lb)
  • Max. takeoff weight: 14,000 kg (30,864 lb)
  • Powerplant: 2 × Jumo 211F-1 or 211F-2 liquid-cooled inverted V-12, 986 kW (1,300 hp (F-1) or 1,340 (F-2)) each
Performance

Armament

  • Guns:
    • up to 7 × 7.92 mm MG 15 or MG 81 machine guns, (2 in the nose, 1 in the dorsal, 2 in the side, 2 in the ventral) some of them replaced or augmented by
    • 1 × 20 mm MG FF cannon (central nose mount or forward ventral position)
    • 1 × 13 mm MG 131 machine gun (mounted dorsal and/or ventral rear positions)
  • Bombs:
    • 2,000 kilograms (4,400 lb) in the main internal bomb bay.
    • Up to 3,600 kilograms (7,900 lb) could be carried externally. External bomb racks blocked the internal bomb bay. Carrying bombs externally increased weight and drag and impaired the aircraft's performance significantly. Carrying the maximum load usually required rocket-assisted take-off.[41]

so we have 2 x 660hp/ 9.6 ton = 137.5 hp/ton
vs

2 x 1300hp /12 ton = 216.7 hp/ton.

strictly on power to weight it should be 1.57^ 0.334 = 16% x 193 mph= 225 mph. Historically it was 273mph. more like20%
 
Last edited:
If you do that with the Bf-110 you make the nose very vulnerable to enemy fire AND you eliminate the ability to mount guns in the nose. That is the reason the Ju88C heavy fighter used an all metal nose instead of the glass one of the bomber version.

Well, field mod B-25Cs had this
5b5fdd13f3291f79a81cadc5a380b270.jpg

b25-004.jpg
feedf742c94f1580259669f46934221d.jpg
 

Deleted member 1487

no I'm speaking of the change from stepped nose of the original He-111C to more aerodynamic nose of the HE-111H.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Heinkel_He_111

Based on the figures presented we have



to



so we have 2 x 660hp/ 9.6 ton = 137.5 hp/ton
vs

2 x 1300hp /12 ton = 216.7 hp/ton.

strictly on power to weight it should be 1.57^ 0.334 = 16% x 193 mph= 225 mph. Historically it was 273mph. more like20%
Yeah no shit, you go from a BMW VI engine with 660hp each to a Jumo 211F engine with 1300hp each! The engines are double the power in the 111H6 vs. the 111C! Even though the engines are heavier they are much more fuel efficient with their fuel injection system, plus much more efficient supercharger, plus smaller displacement and more aerodynamic cowling so the engines and fuel needs are substantially changed. The aerodynamics of the air frame are an afterthought in comparison to the improved engine power and efficiency.

Well, field mod B-25Cs had this
5b5fdd13f3291f79a81cadc5a380b270.jpg

b25-004.jpg
feedf742c94f1580259669f46934221d.jpg
Would you want to be the nose gunner doing ground attack in a glass nose?
Besides the gunship varieties changed from the glass nose to a metal one:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/North_American_B-25_Mitchell#Use_as_a_gunship
Following the two gunship series NAA again produced the medium bomber configuration with the B-25J series.. It optimized the mix of the interim NA-100 and the H series having both the bombardier's station and fixed guns of the D and the forward turret and refined armament of the H series. NAA also produced a strafer nose first shipped to air depots as kits, then introduced on the production line in alternating blocks with the bombardier nose. The solid-metal "strafer" nose housed eight centerline Browning M2 .50 calibre machine guns. The remainder of the armament was as in the H-5. NAA also supplied kits to mount eight underwing 5 "high velocity airborne rockets" (HVAR) just outside the propeller arcs. These were mounted on zero length launch rails, four to a wing.
 
Would you want to be the nose gunner doing ground attack in a glass nose?

Take this:

he111b2_1.gif

add a German version of this to the nose
man_fn4_rearturret.jpg

That allows aimed strafing if you think the Pilot is unable to use a gunsight like the later B-25 had. Plus the advantage of the armored back of the turret would keep bullets from going thru and thru the greenhouse crew area, only the poor gunner would get perforated rather than everybody up front


[/QUOTE]
Besides the gunship varieties changed from the glass nose to a metal one:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/North_American_B-25_Mitchell#Use_as_a_gunship[/QUOTE]
Aluminum was cheaper and faster to make than plexiglass. But there is no reason it can't be done
 
Yeah no shit, you go from a BMW VI engine with 660hp each to a Jumo 211F engine with 1300hp each! The engines are double the power in the 111H6 vs. the 111C! Even though the engines are heavier they are much more fuel efficient with their fuel injection system, plus much more efficient supercharger, plus smaller displacement and more aerodynamic cowling so the engines and fuel needs are substantially changed. The aerodynamics of the air frame are an afterthought in comparison to the improved engine power and efficiency.


Actually you have the 'kart before the horse'. to go from 195mph to 273mph on the same plane you need a speed increase of 1.4 times. After power cubed law that becomes 2.744 time the original figure of 137.5hp/ton or 377hp/ton . Given the same mass of 9.6tons requires 3622hp or 2 x 1811hp. Two JU-211 aren't going to cut it.

Another sources put the increase at 295mph requiring a 1.51 increase in speed or a power increase of 3.46 times or 476 hpÉton. So with the same fixed plane mass of 9.6 tons you need 4574 hp or two 2287 hp engines.

Best Jumo 211 could manage was 1300hp per engine or 270.8 hpéton 1.25 increase in speed to 244mph.

However the new bomber weight in at 12tons requiring 571hp t (12 x 377) . That needs power of 4524hp or 2262 hp per engine. Changing the nose shape from step to rounded- is like getting another 1000hp per engine.... 74% increase in effectiveness.
 
Last edited:
Do you know how much difference going from step nose to rounded nose makes?

I know that Curtiss Commandos went from rounded nose to a stepped nose, but nobody cared. I know that the Blenheim went from a glazed faceted nose to a stepped nose for better crew function. I know that Mosquitos with guns had flat windscreens while those without had faster curved windscreens. The Ki-46 Dinah III went faster with a blended windscreen. But, sometime, function dictates form.
 
The reason the Me 210 flew like such a pig to start with was that Messerschmitt himself, who was obsessed with saving weight, took out a one metre section of the fuselage length and it screwed the aerodynamics. It was only when that section was put back in did the Me 210 fly with any sort normality.

I've always fancied building an Me 210 as intended, with a correct length fuselage and the twin fins. It's quite an attractive design.


<snip>
y6tK9Ee.jpg
 
I sure it's meant to be helpful and who wants to see a dozen more Sea Lion or other tried and popular threads started.

But one of the things that grind my gears here is when someone posts without commentary a link to an earlier thread on a similar topic ALWAYS started by the poster, as a means of shutting down discussion. You can almost hear the poster shouting "gotcha!" through his pc.
 
Cortz, which kit is that based on? Matchbox Me 410?

TBH, I would have started with an Italeri 210, because given that they did a 410 as well, I'm sure the fuselage was a common part and that would have had the correct length. Sure I have an Italeri 210 somewhere. Although my 210 would have to end up in captured markings. RAF, natch.
 
The people at RLM, in their own 'sanity moment', decide that Me 210 is more trouble than it's worth it and decide to cancel it. Date might be, say, a day in September 1940, just afterthe second prototype crashed.
So what the resources saved on the Me 210 (and by extension on the Me 410) could buy for the RLM/LW/Axis AFs? Some options include better/different/more of:
- Bf 109
- Bf 110
- Ju 88
- Fw 190
or a combination. Almost 4000 of DB engines are freed with 210/410 out of picture, some might end in, say, Italian fighters.
Of course, people might add their proposals.
A good CAS aircraft would be smart. Maybe use the time saved on the Me 210 and get the Henschel Hs 129 improved to a state where it can kill tanks and survive outside of LW air superiority. It's a good looking bird, IMO, and with the pilot's armoured bathtub it's in the right direction.

1024px-Henschel_Hs_129B.jpg


34b28339ff18dd374e1cf43ccd94e948.jpg


Apparently the cockpit was very tight. Perhaps that's a good place to start with improvements.

4b78863996c962a40fa55e746f8ecd0c.jpg
 
Last edited:
This is fascinating, comparing the He-111C-0 airliner to the He-111H bomber on a thread about the Me-210.

Do you know how much difference going from step nose to rounded nose makes?

thought it was useful in the argument "better to keep making 110" vs. "that is an obsolete aircraft" how much the rounded nose adds.

(although point valid about rabbit holes)
 
Cortz, which kit is that based on? Matchbox Me 410?

TBH, I would have started with an Italeri 210, because given that they did a 410 as well, I'm sure the fuselage was a common part and that would have had the correct length. Sure I have an Italeri 210 somewhere. Although my 210 would have to end up in captured markings. RAF, natch.
I wish I knew, its an old pic I found a long time ago.
Wish I could be of more help, thought you would appreciate the pic though and if you do build one, please post pics of it on the "Air and Space Photos from Alternate Worlds" thread.
Here's a link- https://www.alternatehistory.com/forum/threads/air-and-space-photos-from-alternate-worlds.222258/
 

Deleted member 1487

I sure it's meant to be helpful and who wants to see a dozen more Sea Lion or other tried and popular threads started.

But one of the things that grind my gears here is when someone posts without commentary a link to an earlier thread on a similar topic ALWAYS started by the poster, as a means of shutting down discussion. You can almost hear the poster shouting "gotcha!" through his pc.
Who says I was trying to shut down discussion? I was trying to provide a starting point from a similar previous discussion to inform this one.

A good CAS aircraft would be smart. Maybe use the time saved on the Me 210 and get the Henschel Hs 129 improved to a state where it can kill tanks and survive outside of LW air superiority. It's a good looking bird, IMO, and with the pilot's armoured bathtub it's in the right direction.

1024px-Henschel_Hs_129B.jpg


34b28339ff18dd374e1cf43ccd94e948.jpg


Apparently the cockpit was very tight. Perhaps that's a good place to start with improvements.

4b78863996c962a40fa55e746f8ecd0c.jpg
The HS129 was a dead end. The Fw190F was the future, especially if using R4M style FFAR rockets.
 
The HS129 was a dead end.

I disagree. With more powerful engines it could have been awesome. A specialist ground attack aircraft covered in armour for the pilot and other vitals and with twin engine safety. Shame it was never carried through OTL.

YA-10A_Thunderbolt_II-2.jpg
 

Deleted member 1487

I disagree. With more powerful engines it could have been awesome. A specialist ground attack aircraft covered in armour for the pilot and other vitals and with twin engine safety. Shame it was never carried through OTL.

YA-10A_Thunderbolt_II-2.jpg

The A-10 was a very different aircraft and arguably a dead end in itself in a high intensity war against a Soviet or Western style military with sufficient supply of SAMS, fighters, MANPADs, AA guns, etc. Also the layout of the A-10 was strongly influenced by what NOT to do, learned from the HS129. Note the engine placement (the HS129's were on the wings and highly vulnerable, often seeing them downed by rifle caliber rounds when unarmored engines were hit), plus the overall larger size. Adding more powerful engines to the HS129 is not going to fix the basic flaws of the design.
 
Top