Me-210C vs Me-410A - Aircraft of World War II

davebender · 10-13-2009, 04:16 PM

The discussion on DB603 engine availability during 1943 has got me wondering if the Luftwaffe made a mistake manufacturing the Me-410A rather then the Me-210C/D (i.e. Hungarian version. Bugs have been fixed.)

Me-210C.
2 x 1,475hp DB605 engines.
5,440kg empty weight. .54 hp per kg.

Me-410A.
2 x 1,750hp DB603 engines.
6,100kg empty weight. .57hp per kg.

The Me-410A has more powerful engines but it is also heavier. Power to weight ratio is not much better. 1943 Germany is producing plenty of DB605 engines so the Me-210C/D would not have to wait in line for scarce DB603 engines.

Maximowitz · 10-13-2009, 06:40 PM

As much as I love both those aircraft neither should have been produced and engine production streamlined for single engine fighters. If the 210 had been in service as scheduled it would have been a useful aircraft, but by '42 it was virtually worthless.

davebender · 10-13-2009, 07:32 PM

I don't know about that. The 2 December 1943 air stike on Bari, Italy shows that German light bombers could dish out serious damage even late in the war. In that particular bombing raid the attacking aircraft were Ju-88s. However they could just as easily have been Me-210Cs.

Air Raid on Bari - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Quote:

The Air Raid on Bari was an air attack on Allied forces and shipping in Bari, Italy by Nazi German bombers on December 2, 1943. In the attack, 105 German Junkers Ju 88 bombers of Luftflotte 2, achieving complete surprise, bombed Allied shipping and personnel operating in support of the Allied Italian campaign, sinking 17 cargo and transport ships in Bari harbor.

Njaco · 10-13-2009, 10:41 PM

Didn't the 210 fail on stabilty at its axis' and the corrections were eventually modelled into the 410?

I believe at this point in the war (1943) Germany needed as many single engine fighters and not raids like Bari. That was a mistake IMHO

vanir · 10-13-2009, 11:34 PM

Several units were operating the Me210A-1, A-2 and B at Sicily and Tunisia in 1942-43 after the fuselage/flap fix that solved its handling problems. Consider that the DB-601F has the same performance as a derated DB-605A at that time, with only a slightly reduced critical altitude between the two engines and of course the 601F is far more reliable until the 605 underwent some fixes later.
What they did however, was wherever possible convert to Ju-88 variants in preference, which reduced losses so during 1943 squadrons like 10./ZG26 and 2.(F)/122 had abandoned Me210's received only six months earlier for Ju88's before finally converting to Me410. Clearly the Ju88 was preferred by field units given the choice.
Me210 elsewhere, in units like ZG1 were replaced by Me410 as they became available. It wasn't just the performance, brake failure and gear failures were common in Me210 production leading to frequent runway mishaps, it was at type which simply had both the reputation and service record of being absolutely plagued with problems.

As mentioned there was really very little potential for performance change between the 601F and 605B engines particularly as the 605A/B was derated to max 1.35atm for start u-notleistung until mid43. Even from this time the performance difference is really about 100hp at take off and slightly improved critical altitude, which is not much use at typical combat altitude.
The 605 is basically an overbored 601 and has higher demands on the base engine and its anciliaries for this. Its development as a high performance aero engine was never really complete until the D version with its new combustion chambers, piston crowns and supercharger.

An Me210 fitted with 605D engines would be something.

The 603 motors are a different kettle of fish, an entirely new engine block and technically speaking they're really designed for light bombers and twin engine a/c in the first place. It's not so much the power-weight so long as it's comparable to the 210 but it's a lot like comparing cars, a Ford Mustang with a small block engine and one with a big block. In terms of balance and power-weight the small block is actually quicker on a tight track, but doesn't even come close in a race across the continent. On an open field with all else equal, the saying in motorsport is you can't beat cubic inches.

The 603A develops a lazy 1750PS I mean that's without even trying, it's got 1600PS just cruising around on steig u-kampfleistung for half the mission. There's no real comparison. Critical altitude is the same, loadbearing up, climb rate much higher, sustained manoeuvres much more easily, and all this at the normal power settings without even pulling out all the stops.
I'm sure it's a totally different experience to pilot, much more like a lightweight Ju88 than an up-engined Me210 I'll bet.

Then the Me410B probably often used the 603Aa engine fitment which has a 7km critical altitude. I believe 603E high altitude variations of the 603G (1900PS) motor were planned but I don't think it ever entered production. This would be what the Me109G-14/AS was to the Me109F when compared to the Me210 I think, where the change to the DB-605 is more like a G-6.

Compare the combat/pilot reports of the Me109F-4 in particular to the G-2 who's sparkling debut was killing Marsielle. In detailed analysis particularly once the 605A was derated there is no appreciable gain over the F-4 with its much more reliable and similar performing 601E motor. Everybody liked the Friedrich better until the 605D finally came on the scene. The performance difference between 109F and G models is almost invariably assumed between comparisons of F-2 (601N motor) and G-2 where indeed a notable 20km/h speed and 1.5km critical altitude difference exists. But the 601E with its 1.42atm start u-notleistung doesn't really give anything away on the G-2, mostly any performance gain is taken up with extra weight in the later model.
Now compare either of them wth a Ta152C, that's got a DB-603.

Anyways that's my thoughts.

Maximowitz · 10-14-2009, 06:19 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by davebender

I don't know about that. The 2 December 1943 air stike on Bari, Italy shows that German light bombers could dish out serious damage even late in the war. In that particular bombing raid the attacking aircraft were Ju-88s. However they could just as easily have been Me-210Cs.

Air Raid on Bari - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Well, yes they could have been. But I don't think that what might have been is indicative of potential. I could list a quite remarkable amount of data about how poorly received the 210 was but I think my fingers couldn't take all that typing.

There was one area where the 410 was sucessful though and could have been more so had wiser heads prevailed..

davebender · 10-14-2009, 08:44 AM

Quote:

The 603A develops a lazy 1750PS I mean that's without even trying, it's got 1600PS just cruising around on steig u-kampfleistung for half the mission. There's no real comparison. Critical altitude is the same, loadbearing up, climb rate much higher, sustained manoeuvres much more easily, and all this at the normal power settings without even pulling out all the stops.

I agree with this. All other things being equal, the DB603 is superior to the DB605. However all other things were not equal. 1943 Germany did not have enough DB603 engines to go around but they had plenty of DB605 engines. Using DB605 engines for the Me-210C/D gives you a small but acceptable performance decrease. In return you can build the Me-210C/D light bomber in greater numbers as there are plenty of DB605 engines available. You can also build 500 or so Fw-190Cs using DB603 engines which historically powered the Me-410s built during 1943.

Juha · 10-14-2009, 02:40 PM

Hello Dave
was there plenty of DB 605s available when we take account those needed to the main day and night fighters of LW, namely Bf 109G and Bf 110G.

And as a night bomber a la Bari, Ju 88 was able to carry clearly heavier bomb load and had a bomb aimer.

Juha

tomo pauk · 10-14-2009, 02:43 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by vanir

...
Compare the combat/pilot reports of the Me109F-4 in particular to the G-2 who's sparkling debut was killing Marsielle.
....

Couldn't agree more.

tomo pauk · 10-14-2009, 02:47 PM

As for the questions of he thread (210 vs. 410), my take is that LW should've produced the 109Z. Yep, the Me-109 hulls mated together, therefore canceling the 110-210-410 line all together ASAP.

davebender · 10-14-2009, 04:23 PM

If you want a twin engine day fighter then Germany can put the Fw-187 into mass production during 1940. It should be quite a rocket when powered by a pair of 1,350 hp DB601E engines.

However this has nothing to do with the Me-210 light bomber.

tomo pauk · 10-14-2009, 04:56 PM

Actually, it has a lot to do with 210, as well as the 110 and 410.

The heavy Messerschmidts were served to be heavy fighters/zerstoeres, light bombers and night fighters. The Bf-109Z was to have top speed of almost 700km/h & plenty of cannons, making him more than fit to take it at anything with prop mounted.
It was supouse to have a decent bomb load too, and with crew and radar disposal a la P-82 it would've make a better night fighter then anything Germans had in numbers.

Almost forgot: since the 109 is already in the production, producing the 109Z version should've been a no-brainer (same for maintenance), contrary to the production of Fw-187. Not that I don't like the Falke

Civettone · 10-14-2009, 05:11 PM

The Me 210C is one of my favourite subjects.
I believe this was the missing link and a missed opportunity, It could have been the standard night fighter and tactical bomber of the Luftwaffe. It could have replaced the Bf 110 on the production lines (once again) but also the Ju 88. It could carry a bigger internal payload than the Ju 88 anyway. Multiseat bombers were on their way out. The British realised this with the Mosquito and at the end of the war all (medium) bomber designs were for a crew of 2 or 3.

My sig shows the Bf 109Z so sure enough I am a fan of this one. Though as a bomber it would never succeed: the payload would be carried externally and would probably never exceed 1000 kg. Also the range would be limited. The Bf 109Z could well have been the perfect bomber Zerstoerer, faster than the American escort fighters. Also as a Jabo but not as a bomber.

Kris

davebender · 10-14-2009, 05:41 PM

Quote:

since the 109 is already in the production, producing the 109Z version should've been a no-brainer

It's not quite as simple as fastening two Me-109Gs together. The center wing section will be unique and the cockpit will be different as you need to accomodate instruments for two engines. The jury rigged Me-109Z may work but I suspect the Fw-187 would perform better and cost no more to produce. The Fw-187 is also production ready practically from the begining of the war.

Back to the main topic....
What could Oberst Rudel accomplish if his Geschwader flew the Me-210C ILO the Ju-87?

Juha · 10-14-2009, 05:52 PM

Hello Kris
LW found out that Me 410 was unsuitable for night fighter duties, so it would have been surprising if Me 210Ca would have been successful in that role.

Now British tried to develop a new medium bomber but Warwik was a failure. So they had to rely on US types like B-25 and B-26. And produced old Wimpys to the end of the war.

Hello Tomo
IMHO the problem in early 109Gs was the engine, not the airframe. G airframe was more suited for multi-role jobs and it had stiffer wings, which was good in high speed manoeuvres.

Juha

10-13-2009, 04:16 PM	#1
davebender Senior Member Join Date: Jan 2009 Location: Michigan, USA Posts: 614	Me-210C vs Me-410A The discussion on DB603 engine availability during 1943 has got me wondering if the Luftwaffe made a mistake manufacturing the Me-410A rather then the Me-210C/D (i.e. Hungarian version. Bugs have been fixed.) Me-210C. 2 x 1,475hp DB605 engines. 5,440kg empty weight. .54 hp per kg. Me-410A. 2 x 1,750hp DB603 engines. 6,100kg empty weight. .57hp per kg. The Me-410A has more powerful engines but it is also heavier. Power to weight ratio is not much better. 1943 Germany is producing plenty of DB605 engines so the Me-210C/D would not have to wait in line for scarce DB603 engines.

10-13-2009, 06:40 PM	#2
Maximowitz Senior Member Join Date: Jun 2008 Location: London, England. Posts: 839	As much as I love both those aircraft neither should have been produced and engine production streamlined for single engine fighters. If the 210 had been in service as scheduled it would have been a useful aircraft, but by '42 it was virtually worthless. __________________

10-13-2009, 10:41 PM	#4
Njaco The Pop-Tart Whisperer Join Date: Feb 2007 Location: South Jersey, United States Posts: 10,237	Didn't the 210 fail on stabilty at its axis' and the corrections were eventually modelled into the 410? I believe at this point in the war (1943) Germany needed as many single engine fighters and not raids like Bari. That was a mistake IMHO __________________ "If you can read this, thank a teacher. If it's English, thank a soldier!" http://www.njcacoa.org/

10-14-2009, 02:47 PM	#10
tomo pauk Senior Member Join Date: Apr 2008 Posts: 588	As for the questions of he thread (210 vs. 410), my take is that LW should've produced the 109Z. Yep, the Me-109 hulls mated together, therefore canceling the 110-210-410 line all together ASAP. __________________

10-14-2009, 04:23 PM	#11
davebender Senior Member Join Date: Jan 2009 Location: Michigan, USA Posts: 614	LW should've produced the 109Z If you want a twin engine day fighter then Germany can put the Fw-187 into mass production during 1940. It should be quite a rocket when powered by a pair of 1,350 hp DB601E engines. However this has nothing to do with the Me-210 light bomber.

10-13-2009, 11:34 PM	#5
vanir Senior Member Join Date: Jul 2005 Location: Melbourne Posts: 293	Several units were operating the Me210A-1, A-2 and B at Sicily and Tunisia in 1942-43 after the fuselage/flap fix that solved its handling problems. Consider that the DB-601F has the same performance as a derated DB-605A at that time, with only a slightly reduced critical altitude between the two engines and of course the 601F is far more reliable until the 605 underwent some fixes later. What they did however, was wherever possible convert to Ju-88 variants in preference, which reduced losses so during 1943 squadrons like 10./ZG26 and 2.(F)/122 had abandoned Me210's received only six months earlier for Ju88's before finally converting to Me410. Clearly the Ju88 was preferred by field units given the choice. Me210 elsewhere, in units like ZG1 were replaced by Me410 as they became available. It wasn't just the performance, brake failure and gear failures were common in Me210 production leading to frequent runway mishaps, it was at type which simply had both the reputation and service record of being absolutely plagued with problems. As mentioned there was really very little potential for performance change between the 601F and 605B engines particularly as the 605A/B was derated to max 1.35atm for start u-notleistung until mid43. Even from this time the performance difference is really about 100hp at take off and slightly improved critical altitude, which is not much use at typical combat altitude. The 605 is basically an overbored 601 and has higher demands on the base engine and its anciliaries for this. Its development as a high performance aero engine was never really complete until the D version with its new combustion chambers, piston crowns and supercharger. An Me210 fitted with 605D engines would be something. The 603 motors are a different kettle of fish, an entirely new engine block and technically speaking they're really designed for light bombers and twin engine a/c in the first place. It's not so much the power-weight so long as it's comparable to the 210 but it's a lot like comparing cars, a Ford Mustang with a small block engine and one with a big block. In terms of balance and power-weight the small block is actually quicker on a tight track, but doesn't even come close in a race across the continent. On an open field with all else equal, the saying in motorsport is you can't beat cubic inches. The 603A develops a lazy 1750PS I mean that's without even trying, it's got 1600PS just cruising around on steig u-kampfleistung for half the mission. There's no real comparison. Critical altitude is the same, loadbearing up, climb rate much higher, sustained manoeuvres much more easily, and all this at the normal power settings without even pulling out all the stops. I'm sure it's a totally different experience to pilot, much more like a lightweight Ju88 than an up-engined Me210 I'll bet. Then the Me410B probably often used the 603Aa engine fitment which has a 7km critical altitude. I believe 603E high altitude variations of the 603G (1900PS) motor were planned but I don't think it ever entered production. This would be what the Me109G-14/AS was to the Me109F when compared to the Me210 I think, where the change to the DB-605 is more like a G-6. Compare the combat/pilot reports of the Me109F-4 in particular to the G-2 who's sparkling debut was killing Marsielle. In detailed analysis particularly once the 605A was derated there is no appreciable gain over the F-4 with its much more reliable and similar performing 601E motor. Everybody liked the Friedrich better until the 605D finally came on the scene. The performance difference between 109F and G models is almost invariably assumed between comparisons of F-2 (601N motor) and G-2 where indeed a notable 20km/h speed and 1.5km critical altitude difference exists. But the 601E with its 1.42atm start u-notleistung doesn't really give anything away on the G-2, mostly any performance gain is taken up with extra weight in the later model. Now compare either of them wth a Ta152C, that's got a DB-603. Anyways that's my thoughts.

10-14-2009, 02:40 PM	#8
Juha Senior Member Join Date: Jan 2007 Location: Helsinki Posts: 1,361	Hello Dave was there plenty of DB 605s available when we take account those needed to the main day and night fighters of LW, namely Bf 109G and Bf 110G. And as a night bomber a la Bari, Ju 88 was able to carry clearly heavier bomb load and had a bomb aimer. Juha

10-14-2009, 04:56 PM	#12
tomo pauk Senior Member Join Date: Apr 2008 Posts: 588	Actually, it has a lot to do with 210, as well as the 110 and 410. The heavy Messerschmidts were served to be heavy fighters/zerstoeres, light bombers and night fighters. The Bf-109Z was to have top speed of almost 700km/h & plenty of cannons, making him more than fit to take it at anything with prop mounted. It was supouse to have a decent bomb load too, and with crew and radar disposal a la P-82 it would've make a better night fighter then anything Germans had in numbers. Almost forgot: since the 109 is already in the production, producing the 109Z version should've been a no-brainer (same for maintenance), contrary to the production of Fw-187. Not that I don't like the Falke __________________ Last edited by tomo pauk; 10-14-2009 at 05:02 PM.

10-14-2009, 05:11 PM	#13
Civettone Senior Member Join Date: Oct 2005 Location: Limburg Posts: 1,225	The Me 210C is one of my favourite subjects. I believe this was the missing link and a missed opportunity, It could have been the standard night fighter and tactical bomber of the Luftwaffe. It could have replaced the Bf 110 on the production lines (once again) but also the Ju 88. It could carry a bigger internal payload than the Ju 88 anyway. Multiseat bombers were on their way out. The British realised this with the Mosquito and at the end of the war all (medium) bomber designs were for a crew of 2 or 3. My sig shows the Bf 109Z so sure enough I am a fan of this one. Though as a bomber it would never succeed: the payload would be carried externally and would probably never exceed 1000 kg. Also the range would be limited. The Bf 109Z could well have been the perfect bomber Zerstoerer, faster than the American escort fighters. Also as a Jabo but not as a bomber. Kris __________________

10-14-2009, 05:52 PM	#15
Juha Senior Member Join Date: Jan 2007 Location: Helsinki Posts: 1,361	Hello Kris LW found out that Me 410 was unsuitable for night fighter duties, so it would have been surprising if Me 210Ca would have been successful in that role. Now British tried to develop a new medium bomber but Warwik was a failure. So they had to rely on US types like B-25 and B-26. And produced old Wimpys to the end of the war. Hello Tomo IMHO the problem in early 109Gs was the engine, not the airframe. G airframe was more suited for multi-role jobs and it had stiffer wings, which was good in high speed manoeuvres. Juha

Thread Tools
Show Printable Version Email this Page
Display Modes
Linear Mode Switch to Hybrid Mode Switch to Threaded Mode