Was the Bf-110 really that bad?

CaptHawkeye · Post by **CaptHawkeye** » 2008-08-12 06:59pm

When most people look back on aviation history they tend to see the Bf-110 as the whipping boy of aircraft design. Despite promising performances in France and Poland, the 110 ended up getting manhandled over Britain. The Luftwaffe was so mortified with it that they withdrew it from frontline dogfighting not long after. But really, was the 110 all *that* bad at interception and dogfighting, or was it just another victim of the Luftwaffe's knee-jerk reactions towards design?

The 110 had all of the tell tale advantages of a heavy fighter. It was remarkably similar to the P-38 in design in use. Heavy, nose concentrated firepower. Straight and level flight speed for the C model was 350 mph which was actually quite good for 1940. Good flight characteristics, ease of control and safely reliable. They even shared similar design weaknesses. Both the 110 and P-38 had issues with control at high speeds. neither of them were particularly maneuverable. (Though the 110 did have a pretty tight turning radius for an aircraft of its size.)

So what was the problem? The 110 was just like any other heavy fighter. The Mosquito, Pe-2, and P-38 were all considered good at their jobs. The 110 even got a second lease on life as a night fighter in which job it was *very* well suited for. Was it just being on the wrong side?

Post by **Sea Skimmer** » 2008-08-12 07:53pm

The main problem is the Bf 110 was weighted down by a rear gunner who, armed as he was with a single 7.92mm machine gun, was not actually able to defend the plane worth a damn from rear attacks. This severally hampered maneuverability, and while it wasn’t slow, faster then a Hurricane in fact, it was no match for improved single engine fighters like the Spitfire. Combined this with a doctrine which said the plane would be able to offensively engage enemy single engine fighters and the result was some very heavy losses over France and England. Thinking they could take on single engine fighters, the Luftwaffe also ended up with a higher proportion of Bf 110s then it should have in the 39-41 period.

As a bomber destroyer it worked great, but it stayed introduction far too long which further tarnished its record as it faced newer and newer planes. This happened because the replacement plane, Me 210, was a total disaster (various aerodynamic flaws made it a deathtrap) and eventually had to be totally redesigned into the Me 410 before it was satisfactory. To make it worse political issues prevented the large scale production of some other promising twin engine fighters like the Hs 219 in the interim.

The Mosquito and P-38 both had the asset of very high speed and rates of climb, which combined with proper tactics, let them overcome the maneuverability advantages of other planes. Both were also simply significantly more modern designs then the mid 1930s origin of the Bf 110. In the 1930s and 40s a plane was lucky to be competitive for two years, and the poor Bf 110 first flew in 1936.

CaptHawkeye · Post by **CaptHawkeye** » 2008-08-12 10:16pm

Ah, so the problem was that it was simply an aircraft for the 1930s. Not the 1940s. I've heard the story about the 210 and 410. Aren't their normally design competitions for these aircraft? So if one design is clunky and stupid another company can give it a shot?

The rear gunner ended up being useless in a lot of aircraft. At least the allies made the decision between "no rear gunner at all" or "rear gunner with lots of firepower". The axis were always sticking guys in the back of their planes with pea shooters. Thus wasting weight and providing little defense!

The 110 was never really upgraded progressively like the 109 was. (When it was it half assed. Spontaneously exploding fuel tanks lololol.) Probably because they counted on the 210 just replacing it entirely. Whoops, the 210 is a pile of shit, and by the time the 410 goes into mass production it will be too late. The Luftwaffe will be in too desperate a situation to have factory space for it.

Phantasee · Post by **Phantasee** » 2008-08-14 12:20am

Planes had a shelf life of two years? When did this change into the modern life span of a few decades? I mean, the Super Hornet is going to have to last for a while longer yet, and the Tomcat only recently retired...

Setzer · Post by **Setzer** » 2008-08-14 01:02am

It was a time of rapid advances in the field. I think tanks were the same way.

phongn · Post by **phongn** » 2008-08-14 01:21am

Phantasee wrote:Planes had a shelf life of two years? When did this change into the modern life span of a few decades? I mean, the Super Hornet is going to have to last for a while longer yet, and the Tomcat only recently retired...

Modern aircraft are significantly more complicated, the aerodynamic art is much more mature, and the costs of electronics and systems integration are huge. All that combined mean lengthy stays for aircraft.

Block · Post by **Block** » 2008-08-14 02:30am

phongn wrote:
Phantasee wrote:Planes had a shelf life of two years? When did this change into the modern life span of a few decades? I mean, the Super Hornet is going to have to last for a while longer yet, and the Tomcat only recently retired...
Modern aircraft are significantly more complicated, the aerodynamic art is much more mature, and the costs of electronics and systems integration are huge. All that combined mean lengthy stays for aircraft.

We're also not in a desperate and active struggle for survival against an enemy that's evenly matched with us technologically and constantly striving to gain an edge in that area.

phred · Post by **phred** » 2008-08-14 04:12am

Airplanes were still fairly new at that point. People were trying new things, figuring out what worked and what didnt. Nowdays we can theoretically see the upper limits on whats possible

Its like computers today. my 6 year old computer is a dinosaur that wouldnt be able to run several of the games I have on it if I hadnt extensively upgraded it over its lifetime.(It was low end when I bought it) In another 50 years, that trend may slow down.

Omega18 · Post by **Omega18** » 2008-08-14 08:37pm

Another issue I've read about with the Bf 110 was that it had a very slow acceleration speed, so faster accelerating single engine fighters could often get the jump on it when it was going at cruise speed before the Bf 110 could react and accelerate sufficiently. (Among other issues with this deficiency.)

CaptHawkeye · Post by **CaptHawkeye** » 2008-08-26 02:25pm

Well, the 110 could dive away from an enemy and then use its inertia to hold that high speed. The problem with that is, the 110's control forces at high speeds were immense. So it would be difficult for it to turn the situation into its advantage. The Americans had the same problem with the P-38 and I believe later models used hydraulically assisted controls to make up for it. Yet another piece of equipment the 110 could have benefit from, but never received.

chitoryu12 · Post by **chitoryu12** » 2008-08-26 11:05pm

CaptHawkeye wrote:Well, the 110 could dive away from an enemy and then use its inertia to hold that high speed. The problem with that is, the 110's control forces at high speeds were immense. So it would be difficult for it to turn the situation into its advantage. The Americans had the same problem with the P-38 and I believe later models used hydraulically assisted controls to make up for it. Yet another piece of equipment the 110 could have benefit from, but never received.

Exactly how much did the hydraulic controls help the P-38? I haven't been able to find a definate source on it.