"P-38 vs Me-110 ?" Topic

In reading and on videos, it's often stated that for daylight operations the Me-110 was a failure due to the fact that a two engine fighter was no match for single engine fighters. Yet the P-38 seems to have done very well against single engine fighters. The top US aces flew them. Why the difference as both were twin engine?

It is not about number of engines but rather overall performance.

I remember reading that the total surface area of the front profile of the P38 was only about 3ft square.

The Me-110 was designed as an interceptor plane that would look for enemy fighters and pounce on them and destroy them using heavy firepower, but since they were used as escorts because of their better range they were rarely in a position to attack the enemy and had to react to enemy attacks which is a huge disadvantage in most dogfights, where the one who is in position to attack first has a huge advantage. The Me-110 lost precious time getting into position when enemy fighters attacked.

They were converted to night fighters and suffered no such problems as they could once again concentrate on their task. They did will overall in straight fights early on, but against better planes they started to lag and being used as escorts made their problems only worse.

The P-38 was originally a high-altitude interceptor, it handled better than the Me-110, was faster and did better at altitude. Being a bit more aerodynamic with better engines the P-38 handled like a regular fighter, but with a heavier armament.

One factor is that it also fought mainly against Japanese planes whose configurations were not always a match for the bigger heavier US planes, though later Japanese planes could match any American one pound for pound, but by then they had a critical lack of skilled pilots.

The two are separated by about 4 years which is quite a bit n that era, also the 110's requirement was for a multi-seat 'destroyer' (including bomb bay) whereas the 38's requirement was for a single seat interceptor – that alone should perhaps explain why the latter was a better fighter. The 110 was also a very competent design and in the frei jagd role quite effective. Perhaps the final word goes to Eric Brown who thought it very effective but fated to be used in unforeseen roles it was not designed for and forced to serve far beyond its heyday.

I have to think one of the reason the top US aces flew P-38s (or rather became top aces in part due to the plane) was all the armament being in the nose. No convergence zone patterns to decide, no keeping the target at the sweet spot for range-just lead the target appropriately and put out a wall of lead for the enemy to fly into.

Also take into account the quality of fuel used by their respective countries. High Octane vs low octane.

Apples and oranges. The Porche 912 and an AMC Gremlin are both single engine automobiles.

The two-man crew of the 110 cost performance, especially when you included the weight of the MG and ammo. More structure needed to carry them adds to the weight. The long canopy added weight as well. And so on, and so forth.

The P-38 also rolled well because of its use of spoilers, rather than relying on ailerons. In addition, the P-38 had counter-rotating engines, so there was no net torque while rolling. (Not sure about the 110, but I'm pretty sure its engine rotated in the same direction.)

In any case, pilots in North Africa were able to use the neutral torque to escape Bf109s by rolling opposite the 109's preferred roll direction. The P-38's very odd flight controls actually helped with this. With a joystick, it's always easier to push the stick to the right. The steering wheel was pretty much equal to either side.