# Do-335 ILO the Me-210? A Proposal.



## davebender (Dec 17, 2009)

*Historical Timeline.*
*1923* Do J (Wal) flying boat. 
Two engines mounted back to back. One pushed. The other engine pulled. This was a very successful aircraft. Consequently the tandem engine arrangement was used on other Dornier aircraft during the 1920s and 1930s such as the Do-26 flying boat.

*3 August 1937.*
Dornier files patent number 728044 for a tandem engine fighter aircraft.

*1937 to 1941.* Goppingen Go 9 Research Aircraft.
Dornier experiments with building a twin engine fighter aircraft that uses a tandem engine arrangement. Despite the lack of Luftwaffe interest the experiments were successful. This aircraft introduced tricycle landing gear and a bubble canopy that provided exceptional visibility.

*Early 1940.* P.59 Fighter Aircraft.
Success with the small Go 9 research aircraft led Dornier to precede with the tandem engine P.59 fighter aircraft. This project was cancelled to free resources for other projects.

*May 1942. * P.231 Light Bomber.
Essentially an updated version of the P.59 fighter aircraft design.

*Autumn 1942.* Do-335 Multi-Role Fighter.
The P.231 light bomber design is modified for the new role.

*October 1943.* Do-335 prototype first flight. DB603A engines.
Speed, acceleration, turning circle and general handling were considered good. 

*March 1944. * An allied bombing raid destroys the main Do-335 production facility at Manzel. Production was shifted to Oberpfallenhofen (formerly used to produce the He-219 night fighter). This delays production for several months, by which time aviation gasoline is in extremely short supply.

*May 1944.* Do-335 program given top priority.
Essentially too late to matter. The destruction of German aviation gasoline hydrogenation plants was forcing a shift to jet engines.

*May 1944. * 10 Do-335A0 aircraft delivered for testing.

*January 1945.* Do-335 enters low rate production.
11 single seat fighters and 2 twin seat trainers completed by April 1945 when the factory was overran by enemy ground forces.



*Alternate Timeline.*
*1938.* RLM funds heavy fighter to eventually succeed the Me-110.
Messserschmitt enters the Me-210.
Arado enters the Ar-240.
Dornier enters a tandem engine fighter similar to the historical P.59.

*1940. * RLM heavy fighter flight competition. 
This decides who gets the contract. All entries are powered by DB601 engines to ensure a level playing field.
Ar-240. Rejected for overall poor handling.
Me-210. Rejected for overall poor handling. “All the least desirable attributes an airplane could possess”.
Dornier P.59. Well liked overall. A few minor problems like weak landing gear are easy to correct.

The Dornier P.59 is awarded the contract as the new Luftwaffe heavy fighter. It is re-designated Do-335.

*Spring 1942. *The Do-335 enters production ILO the Me-210.
Do-335 Long Range Day Fighter.
2 x 1,475 hp DB605 engines. Because of smaller engines the aircraft is overall a bit lighter and more compact.
450 mph max speed. Newer versions of the DB605 will push this to 475 mph.
Climb in excess of 4,000 ft/min
Acceleration and dive are superb. Roll is also good as both engines are on the centerline.
This aircraft is designed to be fast. The controls work just fine at 450 mph.
Combat radius (with drop tanks) of about 700 miles.
Without the drop tanks you can carry typical under wing ordnance..
3 x 3cm Mk108 cannon. 1 in the prop shaft. 1 in each wing root.
When used in the ground attack role the more powerful but slower firing 3cm Mk103 cannon may be carried.

*1943. * Do-435 night fighter.
This is essentially an adapted version of the twin seat Do-335 trainer. It will specialize in killing those pesky RAF Mosquito path finder aircraft. It has the speed to catch anything and enough endurance to maintain the chase across Germany.


----------



## Soren (Dec 17, 2009)

The Do-335 was a great aircraft, but to be honest the Germans would've benefitted a lot more from a redirection of resources towards a quicker adoptation of jet engines. The Jumo 004, while clearly ahead of any jet engine the Allies had in service, could've benefitted greatly from just a single extra year of research. The Jumo 004C which was ready in early 45 would increased not only the performance of the engine by over 10% but even more importantly astly improved its' fuel efficiency, allowing an equipped 262 to reach Britain and back. Such a thing would've doomed the Allied bomber offensive completely.

Reactions: Like Like:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## Burmese Bandit (Dec 17, 2009)

And, as I and others have pointed out time and again, dave, you CANNOT fire any type of 30 mm cannon synchronized through the prop!

Although as all on this forum know, I am a great fan of the 335 and the tandem concept.


----------



## timshatz (Dec 17, 2009)

Notwithstanding Burmese point on the 30mm (if it can't be done, it can't be done, maybe one through the prop and a couple of 20mm through the prop), I agree with him on the concept. It seems the tandem, heavy fighter concept was not suficienty explored. 

It seems that inline engines would allow the power and streamlining needed to make the concept effective. Put the fuel in the wings, armaments package underneath and slightly behind the pilot (with exception of the hub cannon) at it might work. The twin engined concept with a paddle prop would give you an excellent concept for a heavy interceptor. IMHO.


----------



## Soren (Dec 17, 2009)

The 30mm Mk103's weren't going to be firing through the propeller arc, one was through the hub the two other were mounted midwing. I just think dave accidently wrote wing root.


----------



## timshatz (Dec 17, 2009)

I did a quick look on Wiki and compared the P38 to the Do335. The Arrow came in about a ton lighter at max weight with the same horsepower. Add in less drag associated and it makes it a winner. 

Anybody have any idea how the Arrow handled? Probably dumped altitude in a heartbeat. Have to wonder if it could catch the P47 in a dive.


----------



## red admiral (Dec 17, 2009)

> The Do-335 was a great aircraft, but to be honest the Germans would've benefitted a lot more from a redirection of resources towards a quicker adoptation of jet engines. The Jumo 004, while clearly ahead of any jet engine the Allies had in service, could've benefitted greatly from just a single extra year of research. The Jumo 004C which was ready in early 45 would increased not only the performance of the engine by over 10% but even more importantly astly improved its' fuel efficiency, allowing an equipped 262 to reach Britain and back. Such a thing would've doomed the Allied bomber offensive completely.



Why do you persist in posting this nonsense?

The Jumo 004 is clearly ahead of ever jet engine the allies had in service by being inferior in every way?

Please tell me how the C-version results in better fuel consumption by increasing turbine temperature? This actually has completely the opposite effect, and with the limited reheat on the -D massively increase fuel consumption.

You're living in a dream world.


----------



## Soren (Dec 17, 2009)

red admiral said:


> Why do you persist in posting this nonsense?
> 
> The Jumo 004 is clearly ahead of ever jet engine the allies had in service by being inferior in every way?
> 
> ...



Aw, did I hurt your feelers?

I'm afraid you're the one who's posting nonsense.

_The Jumo 004 was to undergo various improvements during its service life, some of which resulted in new improved versions of the series. One of these was the Jumo 004D which featured a two-stage fuel injector and a new throttle control, both of which improved fuel efficiency over the Jumo 004B engine. Maximum turbine rpm's was increased to 10,000 rpm and thereby a new thrust output of 10.3 kN's was achieved. This engine was ready to enter full scale production shortly before the war ended. Had it been available in the middle of 1944 it is likely that the war in the skies over western europe would've turned out quite differently. Esp. as this engine had a much reduced chance of experiencing flameouts and featured an improved engine life._


----------



## red admiral (Dec 17, 2009)

So you've quoted some text from somewhere? That's hardly proof of your ridiculous claims, especially when the source is wrong.


----------



## Soren (Dec 17, 2009)

It's better than what you've achieved so far...

Facts are these:

The Jumo 004D featured a new two stage fuel injector and throttle control, both of which improved upon the fuel efficiency while the new throttle control prevented flameouts.

You can choose to accept this or not, doesn't matter the slightest to me.


----------



## red admiral (Dec 17, 2009)

> The Jumo 004D featured a new two stage fuel injector and throttle control, both of which improved upon the fuel efficiency while the new throttle control prevented flameouts.



This does not equate to "vastly improved fuel efficiency giving Me 262s the ability to fly to England and back". A small change (because that's all there is to be had) in combustion efficiency doesn't suddenly make it a super engine.



> The Jumo 004, while clearly ahead of any jet engine the Allies had in service



Clearly ahead in what way? None?


----------



## Milosh (Dec 17, 2009)

I would like to see more specific details on these 'new and improved' Jumo 004 engines.


----------



## Matt308 (Dec 17, 2009)

Take it easy guys.


----------



## Soren (Dec 17, 2009)

Don't worry, I'm not talking to the troll anymore.


----------



## Matt308 (Dec 17, 2009)

Soren, you have the right to remain silent. But you do not have the ability.


----------



## Soren (Dec 17, 2009)

I'm human, I don't like being attacked, that's normal enough I'd say. There was no reason for red admiral to step in in such a childish manner. Anyway I'm not going to discuss it any further cause we're ruining Dave's thread.

I personally like the idea of the Do-335 being used as a nightfighter bomber destroyer, esp. if it could've been achieved as early as the beginning of 1944. I am however also of the opinion that the resources would've been even better spent on the further development of the Jumo 004 engine and quicker service entrance of the Me262.


----------



## Marcel (Dec 17, 2009)

I have a book about the Fokker D.XXIII, an aircraft with the same tandem configuration like the Do-335, only 6 years earlier. Biggest problem was the cooling of the rear engine, which Fokker redesigned frequently, but never cured totally until the project was stopped in 1940. I was wondering if the Do-335 had these same problems, and if not, how Dornier solved this difficult problem.


----------



## Soren (Dec 17, 2009)

Some nice pictures of the bird:


----------



## Soren (Dec 17, 2009)

Marcel said:


> I have a book about the Fokker D.XXIII, an aircraft with the same tandem configuration like the Do-335, only 6 years earlier. Biggest problem was the cooling of the rear engine, which Fokker redesigned frequently, but never cured totally until the project was stopped in 1940. I was wondering if the Do-335 had these same problems, and if not, how Dornier solved this difficult problem.



Dornier solved this with a nice tunnel radiator for the rear engine. Worked beautifully.


----------



## beaupower32 (Dec 17, 2009)

red admiral said:


> Clearly ahead in what way? None?




You have to figure that the jet engines the USAAF and RAF had were centrifugal type and the Jumo 004 was a Axial flow. The big hit with centrifugal was that Centrifugal flow engines compress the air by accelerating air outward perpendicular to the longitudinal axis of the machine. Centrifugal compressor engines are divided into Single-Stage and Two-Stage compressor. The amount of thrust is limited because the maximum compression ratio. So their main advantages are 1. Light Weight 2. Simplicity 3. Low cost. 

The Germans developed the Jumo 004 with as a Axial Flow engine.They utalized a new type of compressor which allowed a continuous, straight flow of air through the engine. The axial-flow compressor not only had excellent performance, about 78% efficient in "real world" conditions, but it also had a smaller cross-section, important for a high-speed aircraft design.

The centrifugal flow compressor employs an impeller to accelerate the air and a diffuser to produce the required pressure rise. Flow exit's a centrifugal compressor radially (at 90° to the flight direction) and it must therefore be redirected back towards the combustion chamber, resulting in a drop in efficiency. The axial flow compressor employs alternate rows of rotating (rotor) blades, to accelerate the air, and stationary (stator) vanes ,to diffuse the air, until the required pressure rise is obtained. 

The pressure rise that may be obtained in a single stage of an axial compressor is far less than the pressure rise achievable in a single centrifugal stage. This means that for the same pressure rise, an axial compressor needs many stages, but a centrifugal compressor may need only one or two.

An engine design using a centrifugal compressor will generally have a larger frontal area than one using a axial compressor. This is partly a consequence of the design of a centrifugal impeller, and partly a result of the need for the diffuser to redirect the flow back towards the combustion chamber. As the axial compressor needs more stages than a centrifugal compressor for the equivalent pressure rise, an engine designed with an axial compressor will be longer and thinner than one designed using a centrifugal compressor. This, plus the ability to increase the overall pressure ratio in an axial compressor by the addition of extra stages, has led to the use of axial compressors in most engine designs, however, the centrifugal compressor is still favored for smaller engines where it's simplicity, ruggedness and ease of manufacture outweigh any other disadvantages.


----------



## Marcel (Dec 17, 2009)

Soren said:


> Dornier solved this with a nice tunnel radiator for the rear engine. Worked beautifully.



So did Fokker, but they were less satisfied. Do you have any drawings about how this radiator worked? I find this quite interesting.
See below Fokkers designs, old and improved one:


----------



## davebender (Dec 17, 2009)

> The Do-335 was a great aircraft, but to be honest the Germans would've benefitted a lot more from a redirection of resources towards a quicker adoptation of jet engines.


I agree if we are talking about late 1944.

However I am talking about early 1942. A version of the Do-335 powered by reliable and readily availble DB605A engines could theoretically have entered production during the Spring of 1942 ILO the Me-210. There is no way to get a jet fighter in service that quickly.


----------



## beaupower32 (Dec 17, 2009)

Looking at the rear radiator scoop on the Do-335, it looks very simular to the Mustangs scoop (more the H model than the D) and I think it would most likely work close to the same. Its a very effecent scoop and probably provided the cooling the rear engine needed. Also here are some line drawings with the 30mm cannons midway in the wings.


----------



## Shortround6 (Dec 17, 2009)

At the time of WW II the axial compressor was not well understood. There was a lot of theory but in practice most of the Axial compressors were hard pressed to get much above a 4 to 1 compression ratio which was achievable by a single stage centrifugal compressor. 
at the end of WW II and even into Korea the production axial compressor engines could not demonstrate a clear advantage over the centrifugal compressor engines. One or another might be better but a third might well be inferior. Same could be said about some of the centrifugal compressor engines.

As has been said the centrifugal compressor engines traded frontal area for less expense and in general lighter weight for the same thrust. 

From the time of the Korean war on the axial compressors kept improving their compression ratio and so were able to soon demonstrate much improved power to weight ratios and much improved fuel economy that no single or even 2 stage centrifugal compressor could match.

The fact that the axial compressor became the dominate type within 10 years of the end of the war does not mean that the axial compressor was necessarily the right choice during the war.


----------



## Milosh (Dec 17, 2009)

Soren said:


> Dornier solved this with a nice tunnel radiator for the rear engine. Worked beautifully.



No it didn't, the rear engine suffered overheating problems.


----------



## Soren (Dec 17, 2009)

Very nice picture BeauPower, thanks for that 



Marcel said:


> So did Fokker, but they were less satisfied. Do you have any drawings about how this radiator worked? I find this quite interesting.
> See below Fokkers designs, old and improved one:



Hi Marcel,

From just looking at the illustration it seems that the Fokker used an aircooled engine, where'as the Do-335 used two liquid cooled engines. The tunnel intake only really works well with liquid cooled engines, where you have the radiator form a barrier between the air intake and outtake tunnel. The Do-335 featured a veyr large rear radiator with no less than 3 rear outtakes. The design was similar to that of the P-51.


----------



## beaupower32 (Dec 17, 2009)

Milosh said:


> No it didn't, the rear engine suffered overheating problems.



How so?


----------



## Soren (Dec 17, 2009)

Milosh said:


> No it didn't, the rear engine suffered overheating problems.



Incorrect, that was an early prototype issue solved rather early in development. The A-0 A-1 had zero issues overheating.


----------



## Soren (Dec 17, 2009)

beaupower32 said:


> How so?



It didn't..


----------



## beaupower32 (Dec 17, 2009)

I was hoping he can produce some facts towards it. I read that they changed some cooling things, but it was more towards cooling the oil than anything.


----------



## red admiral (Dec 17, 2009)

> As has been said the centrifugal compressor engines traded frontal area for less expense and in general lighter weight for the same thrust.



It's worth noting that when installed, the drag from the Me 262 engine nacelles was greater than for the Meteor nacelles despite being a lot smaller diameter.



> The axial-flow compressor not only had excellent performance, about 78% efficient in "real world" conditions



78% is not "excellent" performance. In fact, the real efficiency was some way below that around 72-76% for likely engine speeds. When you consider that Whittle's "less efficient" centrifugal compressor was 79% efficient. Then there are the allied axial jets like the Metrovick F2 running around 86% efficiency.



> I'm human, I don't like being attacked, that's normal enough I'd say. There was no reason for red admiral to step in in such a childish manner.



I'm the troll? When you carry on posting ridiculously pro-german claims with no evidence to back them up despite being repeatedly proven wrong? 



> No it didn't, the rear engine suffered overheating problems.



Main problem was turbulence caused by the rear radiator outlets in front of the rear propeller. When the doors were open, it caused the aircraft to porpoise. The problem wasn't there when the doors were closed, but then the radiator couldn't get rid of as much heat, leading to the engine overheating if high power was maintained.

"One of the problems that had manifested itself as test-flying progressed was that it was found that the automatic opening of the rearoil cooler flaps caused an uncontrolled spontaneous flick which was transmitted through the lateral axis, causing the aircraft to porpoise. In order to establish the reason for this, and surmount any overheating problems with the rear engine, several tests were undertaken with the V6 fuselage "

In spite of its remarkable performance, the Do 335 failed to be seen in any numbers in Luftwaffe service. There were three main reasons for this. Firstly, the bombing of the Dornier factories which caused severe disruption to production plans; secondly the problem of the weakness of the undercarriage which was never satisfactorily solved; and thirdly, difficulties with stability. An insight into this last problem was given in a preliminary interrogation by USAAF staff of the respected Luftwaffe fighter ace, Generalleutnant Adolf Galland, on 14 May 1945:

"Galland had flown the Do 335, but although he found it a good aircraft, he believed it would require considerable improvement in design before it could be accepted as operational. As a twin engined fighter it lacked the stability required, and usually found, in such aircraft. He attributed this lack of stability to the distance between the two engines. In comparison to a single-engined fighter he stated that it handled 'too heavy'."

Dornier Do 335: The Luftwaffe's Fastest Piston-Engine Fighter by J. Richard Smith , Eddie J. Creek and Gerhard Roletschek 

Italy also designed a push-pull aircraft, the Jona J.10 from the mid 1930s. It was supposed to be a heavy fighter as well. Fiat A.80 radial and Isotta-Fraschini Asso XI inline. Speed was 600km/h at 4500m.


----------



## Milosh (Dec 17, 2009)

Soren said:


> Incorrect, that was an early prototype issue solved rather early in development. The A-0 A-1 had zero issues overheating.



A-12, WNr 240112, crashed because of an engine fire due to overheating. Sure the overheating problems was cured.

Werner Lerche mentions checking the rear engine coolant temperature but not the front engine coolant temperature. Only one reason to check the rear engine temperature, because it wasn't cooled as good as the front engine.


----------



## Soren (Dec 17, 2009)

Well the oil cooler was incorperated into a combined annular nose radiator system. The rear oil cooler was situated alongside the rear radiator inside the fuselage, air getting scooped in by the tunnel air scoop.


----------



## Soren (Dec 17, 2009)

> It's worth noting that when installed, the drag from the Me 262 engine nacelles was greater than for the Meteor nacelles despite being a lot smaller diameter.



I would very much like to see you back that up, esp. considering how much faster the Me262 is compared to the Meteor (And you can forget about the wing area fairytale, that has been thuroughly busted)

All available evidence points towards the Jumo 004B being a lot less draggy when installed than the RR Derwent ever was.


----------



## riacrato (Dec 17, 2009)

I suggest moving the jet discussion into an appropriate thread.

I agree with the original poster, I have often speculated about a similar design. Using two precious DB603s for a single fighter always seemed like a serious waste considering how great even a basic conversion of the Fw 190 would've been. Two DB605s seem more reasonable.

But then, simply producing the Bf 109Z would bring you almost there with minimal effort compared to the complex pull/push design.


----------



## red admiral (Dec 17, 2009)

Soren said:


> I would very much like to see you back that up, esp. considering how much faster the Me262 is compared to the Meteor (And you can forget about the wing area fairytale, that has been thuroughly busted)



http://www.wwiiaircraftperformance.org/me262/RAE-german-jets.pdf

Page 4, Second Table

12lbf for the Meteor, 15lbf for the Me 262

Aerodynamically, the mid wing installation is less draggy. The problem comes in fitting a relatively long axial jet into a thin wing, which is why on the Me 262 and the Metrovick-Meteor, the axials were in underslung pods. Move to a thicker wing like the Canberra and you can bend the main spar around the compressor, but there isn't really space in a smaller wing.

I'm not sure what wing area fairytale you're on about, but the data above definitely shows the larger wing on the Meteor as being the major cause of drag compared to the Me 262. That's until you get up to around M0.80+ when wave drag from the short nacelles becomes more important - later solved a great extent by longer nacelles.



> All available evidence points towards the Jumo 004B being a lot less draggy when installed than the RR Derwent ever was.



Which evidence?


----------



## Soren (Dec 17, 2009)

Aah www.wwiiaircraftperformance.com. Good site for info on Allied, bad site for info on German aircraft. The British didn't even manage to squeeze full power out of that Me262 only achieving a top speed of 830 km/h. The average top speed with average performing engines was proven to be 870 km/h with 125 seperate a/c tested. And the British even had some reach 911 km/h in level flight during testing at Farnburough.

In short, the Meteor didn't even come close. And excuse about the wing area was just that, an excuse. The drag added in level flight was far below what would have been the case if it truly was the wing area which caused the difference in speed alone. Larger nacelles of the Derwent engine quite simply caused a lot more drag than the narrower ones of the Jumo 004. Simple concept of area rule.


----------



## timshatz (Dec 17, 2009)

red admiral said:


> "Galland had flown the Do 335, but although he found it a good aircraft, he believed it would require considerable improvement in design before it could be accepted as operational. As a twin engined fighter it lacked the stability required, and usually found, in such aircraft. He attributed this lack of stability to the distance between the two engines. In comparison to a single-engined fighter he stated that it handled 'too heavy'."
> 
> ]



I am not suprised it was a heavy handler. That's a lot of weight in relatively small space. I was thinking it would need boosted or hydraulicly actuated controls as apposed to standard cable runs. 

Also thinking that as an interceptor, it could probably have external tankage (to get to the fight- internal once it got there) and relatively short wings. The idea would be to produce an aircraft that climbed, dived and flew extremely well but was not much of a turner. Definitely a bang and boom fighter. Rolls would be fast, especially with the hydraulics. However, stability due to the high horsepower/torque in a short fuselauge, would be a problem.

Definitely going to need some type of dive brake on this thing, otherwise, it's compressability city on every descent.


----------



## Soren (Dec 17, 2009)

Galland must have flown an early prototype cause Do-335A was mentioned as a stellar performer by all who flew it, including test pilot Hans Werner Lerche who was the birds main test pilot. According to him the a/c was contolled with a light touch and was very maneuverable, and performance was mind blowing. 

In his book 'Luftwaffe Test Pilot' Lerche describes the aircraft in detail and litterally has nothing but praise for the a/c, not a single bad word about it at all.


----------



## Soren (Dec 17, 2009)

Milosh said:


> Werner Lerche mentions checking the rear engine coolant temperature but not the front engine coolant temperature. Only one reason to check the rear engine temperature, because it wasn't cooled as good as the front engine.



Haha, he mentions checking wether the rear engine had sustained any damage after having been attacked by looking at its oil temperature, explaining that if the rear oil or coolant system had been hit then the engine would've seized within 30 seconds. That's all he says and thats why he esp. checked the rear engine oil temperature, and the exact same would've happened to a P-51 being hit in the oil cooler or radiator. I have the book, so don't make stuff up.


----------



## davebender (Dec 17, 2009)

> producing the Bf 109Z would bring you almost there with minimal effort compared to the complex pull/push design.


I'm not convinced the Me-109Z would be less expensive to produce nor am I conviced performance would be as good. 

The Do-335 is going to roll a lot better due to having a single fuselage and both engines on the centerline. Overall high speed handling is likely to be superior as the Do-335 controls are optimized for 450 mph.

The Do-335 wingspan will present a smaller target.

The Do-335 will fly better with one engine shot out as both engines are on the centerline. 350 mph with 1 engine shot out is an outstanding performance and offers a decent chance to limp home.

Not that I am opposed to the Me-109Z. Perhaps an Me-109Z should participate in the RLM competition between the Fw-187, Me-210, Do-335 and Ar-240.

If the judges are fair I feel confident the Fw-187, Do-335 and Me-109Z will all score higher then the Me-210 as a long range fighter.

Burmese Bandit will be in charge of the aircraft weapons system. That way when we shoot the front propellor off he gets the blame.


----------



## timshatz (Dec 17, 2009)

I could see it being very fast. Matter of fact, wicked fast. Couldn't see it as being much of a turner, but being a heavy fighter, it wasn't supposed to turn. Suprisingly, it has a fairly large wing area listed on Wiki. Given that and the weight involved, it had a relatively low wing loading for an airplane with twin engines.


----------



## Milosh (Dec 17, 2009)

Good , if you have the book what does it say on pg 86?

Yet he specifically made mention of the rear engine, yet failed to mention the front engine. Thirty seconds seems an rather short time for an engine seizure, and would seem to indicate the rear engine cooling was marginal.


----------



## red admiral (Dec 17, 2009)

> In short, the Meteor didn't even come close. And excuse about the wing area was just that, an excuse. The drag added in level flight was far below what would have been the case if it truly was the wing area which caused the difference in speed alone. Larger nacelles of the Derwent engine quite simply caused a lot more drag than the narrower ones of the Jumo 004. Simple concept of area rule.



I don't see how you can completely ignore that report. Simply saying the British source is wrong is hardly a defence, especially when presenting no evidence to the contrary.

As for wing area, the figure in the report show very clearly that the disparity in wing area results in the major difference in drag. 

Area rule doesn't come into it that much in this flight regime. You need to be going faster. The difference in top speed was from excessive wave drag caused by the short nacelles on the early Meteors. The longer nacelles added wetted area and increased drag in that way, but greatly reduced the wave drag, resulting in lower overall drag and a much higher top speed.

If you have evidence that says otherwise, please share it.


----------



## riacrato (Dec 17, 2009)

davebender said:


> I'm not convinced the Me-109Z would be less expensive to produce nor am I conviced performance would be as good.
> 
> The Do-335 is going to roll a lot better due to having a single fuselage and both engines on the centerline. Overall high speed handling is likely to be superior as the Do-335 controls are optimized for 450 mph.
> 
> ...


Considering how cheap a Me 109 airframe was by 1942 I doubt the Z airframe would be more expensive than a Do 335. And don't forget the tooling, training for workers and ground crew... 

But by effort I primarily mean development. The Do 335 concept wasn't exactly standard thus development was plagued with a lot of new issues to tackle. The 109 was a proven airframe, basically everything is already in place. And calculated figures (yes I know...) show the Z to be pretty good.

In short, for a heavy interceptor, the 109 Z is imo the easier and less risky solution. Roll rate will be worse compared to the Do 335,as will be most other performance figures, but is it worth the effort and delay ? I don't think so.


----------



## Bug_racer (Dec 17, 2009)

One thing I find interesting is that during the BOB the Hurricane was to take on the bombers while the Spitfire was to take on the fighters . 

The Luftwaffe seems to keen to try and make an all round fighter to take on bombers and fighters which I dont think worked . There are just too many attributed in a plane needed to be able to fight a plane like a P-51D and take out a heavy bomber like a B-17 . 

The Do-335 with 30mm cannons would have been best as a bomber destroyer . An Me-262 better as a fighter ?

Correct me if Im wrong ???


----------



## davebender (Dec 17, 2009)

Dornier had 20 years experience producing seaplanes with tandem engines. That's good enough for me. I am confident that bugs with the engine cooling system and other such glitches would be quickly solved. 

On the same topic.....
Why weren't the He-177 and Ju-288 bombers produced with tandem engines rather then coupling two DB605 engines together? You should get similiar aerodynamic benefits without all the mechanical problems and fire hazards.


----------



## drgondog (Dec 17, 2009)

davebender said:


> Dornier had 20 years experience producing seaplanes with tandem engines. That's good enough for me. I am confident that bugs with the engine cooling system and other such glitches would be quickly solved.
> 
> On the same topic.....
> Why weren't the He-177 and Ju-288 bombers produced with tandem engines rather then coupling two DB605 engines together? You should get similiar aerodynamic benefits without all the mechanical problems and fire hazards.



Pushing that much weight aft for the second pair of engines in the same nacelle could have posed an insurmountable aft cg issue..


----------



## Njaco (Dec 17, 2009)

davebender said:


> On the same topic.....
> Why weren't the He-177 and Ju-288 bombers produced with tandem engines rather then coupling two DB605 engines together? You should get similiar aerodynamic benefits without all the mechanical problems and fire hazards.



Heinkel tried and was expressidly told 'No' so he decided on his own and created the He 277 with 4 seperate engines, mainly DB 603A. But too late and only some prototypes were made. Goering got so fed up with Heinkel's incessant requests to make it that Goering finally forbid him to mention it (November 1941). Heinkel secretly ignored him and built the thing calling it intially the "He 177B". Heinkel finally convinced Hitler and they started the prototypes until all bomber production was stopped in favor of fighters.


----------



## davebender (Dec 17, 2009)

Not the same thing. Like the Ju-290, the He-277 was a more or less conventional heavy bomber design with 4 tractor engines. 

The Dornier tandem engine designs were unique.


----------



## Marcel (Dec 18, 2009)

Soren said:


> Hi Marcel,
> 
> From just looking at the illustration it seems that the Fokker used an aircooled engine, where'as the Do-335 used two liquid cooled engines. The tunnel intake only really works well with liquid cooled engines, where you have the radiator form a barrier between the air intake and outtake tunnel. The Do-335 featured a veyr large rear radiator with no less than 3 rear outtakes. The design was similar to that of the P-51.


Thanks Soren. Yes realised them being ait-cooled when I posted the pics. I had guessed they weren't as air-cooled inlines are not very common in WWII  There was also a design of the Fokker using two Merlins, so judging from your info, this would have been a better option.


----------



## Soren (Dec 18, 2009)

Milosh said:


> Good , if you have the book what does it say on pg 86?



No problem, I'll tell you as soon as I get home from work today. Although I admit I am abit curious as to what you are refering seeing as I remember having to start by going to page 133 yesterday to read his accounts on the Do335.



> Yet he specifically made mention of the rear engine, yet failed to mention the front engine.



Geez, I wonder why?? Maybe because he can't really see if the rear engine has been hit as it's situateed way in the back; and if the rear engine has lost its' radiator then it would probably be kind of a good idea turning it off as there was very little ventilation around there if the air scoop had been shot up! You couldn't think to yourself that might have been why? 



> Thirty seconds seems an rather short time for an engine seizure, and would seem to indicate the rear engine cooling was marginal.



Erm, no it doesn't. If a P-51 had its radiator shot to pieces it would have around 30 seconds until seizure as-well. Are you claiming that the P-51 suffered from insufficient cooling of its' engine?


----------



## Burmese Bandit (Dec 18, 2009)

davebender said:


> Burmese Bandit will be in charge of the aircraft weapons system. That way when we shoot the front propellor off he gets the blame.




Hey!!!


Stop making me da scapegoat you...bender...you!!!


----------



## davebender (Dec 18, 2009)

Herr Bronc needs to know who to kill when things don't work as planned.


----------



## Soren (Dec 18, 2009)

Ok Milosh, I opened up Hans Werner Lerche's book and turned to page nr. 86. There's a bit on his transition from the FW44 Stieglitz to the Klemm Kl125, the first low wing monoplane in his logbook. And at the bottom of the page he talks abit about the Ar 66 and the Go 145.

Now Milosh, what in the world has this got to do with our discussion ??? Have you even got the book? I suspect not seeing how badly you interpreted his account of being attacked on page 136, trying to skew his words in order to prove your point.


----------



## Soren (Dec 18, 2009)

Marcel said:


> Thanks Soren. Yes realised them being ait-cooled when I posted the pics. I had guessed they weren't as air-cooled inlines are not very common in WWII  There was also a design of the Fokker using two Merlins, so judging from your info, this would have been a better option.



Agreed Marcel.


----------



## timshatz (Dec 18, 2009)

drgondog said:


> Pushing that much weight aft for the second pair of engines in the same nacelle could have posed an insurmountable aft cg issue..



Definitely, flat spin heaven. Stalls could be tricky, might end up with instructions in the book to INCREASE power to the engines. Might be the only way to get the thing out of a flat spin.


----------



## timshatz (Dec 18, 2009)

Soren said:


> If a P-51 had its radiator shot to pieces it would have around 30 seconds until seizure as-well. Are you claiming that the P-51 suffered from insufficient cooling of its' engine?



A little tangent to this idea. You can make an engine last longer after it's dumped it's coolant (same with oil). Couple of things you do right away are:

1. Mixture full rich
2. Boost pump (if you have it) "on". If not, get going on the wobble pump.
3. Throttle back to lower/est setting
4. Cowl flaps wide open

Depending on a number of factors, you can keep the thing in the air, sometimes for quite a while. Losing your coolant/oil isn't an automatic death sentence for the bird (but it is very, very bad news).

(also, you are definitely sacrificing your engine to do this but it goes without saying)


----------



## Soren (Dec 18, 2009)

Agreed timshatz, but without doing any of these exercises the engine wil sieze very quickly, esp. if the engine isn't subject to any cooling air, which naturally is the reason why Lerche quickly checked the oil/coolant temperature for the rear engine first. (Plus the fact that he could actually see the front engine) The front engine had the advantage of being directly inline with the wind, the annular radiator design ensuring that the front engine also got some cooling effect from the wind. The P-51, P-39 etc etc plus the Do-335's rear engine didn't have this luxury and were entirely dependant on the radiator staying intact.


----------



## Shortround6 (Dec 18, 2009)

davebender said:


> The Dornier tandem engine designs were unique.



Not really, quite a few WW I bomber designs used them as did a number of aircraft in the late 20's and early 30's. Advantages were good streamlining (as it was understood then), keeping weights closer to the center line of the plane, keeping thrust lines closer to the center line in case of an engine out, and keeping mechanical parts localized. In the last case some of these planes offered in flight access to the engines for a mechanic. 

Disadvantages include not only cooling, especially for air cooled engines, but a lower propulsive efficiency for the rear propeller in each pair. Once it was realized that there was a lot less drag if the engine nacelle was some what in line with the wing instead of under it or over it the tandem engine mount really lost in popularity. Of course this last doesn't apply to the Do 335 and with the distance between the propellers the Do 335 probably didn't suffer the same loss in efficiency that closer spaced engines did although there may have still have been a slight loss.


----------



## drgondog (Dec 18, 2009)

Soren said:


> Erm, no it doesn't. If a P-51 had its radiator shot to pieces it would have around 30 seconds until seizure as-well. Are you claiming that the P-51 suffered from insufficient cooling of its' engine?



Lol.. that would be correct. A total and catastrophic loss of coolant would probably result in engine failure or fire in a very short time.


----------



## tomo pauk (Dec 18, 2009)

Bug_racer said:


> One thing I find interesting is that during the BOB the Hurricane was to take on the bombers while the Spitfire was to take on the fighters .
> ...



Almost to late in the fray... 
The 'division' of targets between Spits and Hurricanes is a myth, no? 

On the topic:
While I just love the Bf-109Z, Dornier 335-like design would present the most aerodynamically-efficient way of employing the two piston engines in a fighter, so I'm for it. Even if it has to use DB-601E and 3 x MG-151/20 it would've been a blast for 1942. And even in 1944 would be a tough nut for Mustang co.


----------



## Soren (Dec 18, 2009)

drgondog said:


> Lol.. that would be correct. A total and catastrophic loss of coolant would probably result in engine failure or fire in a very short time.



Exactly.


----------



## davebender (Dec 18, 2009)

> Dornier 335-like design would present the most aerodynamically-efficient way of employing the two piston engines in a fighter


That's my line of thinking. And you don't need DB603 / Jumo 213 / BMW801 monster size (and rare) engines either. 

Heck if you could get the air cooling to work even a pair of 1,200 hp P&W R-1830 engines might achieve good results. You have a total of 2,400 hp. The two engines weight a total of 1,134 kg with no need for a heavy liquid cooling system.


----------



## Waynos (Dec 18, 2009)

I know that there were jet powered versions, or derivatives, of the Do335 proposed too, how far away were any of these from being built?


----------



## parsifal (Dec 18, 2009)

Im a bit sceptical of the 1942 entry for this bird......compared to the FW190 which first flew in 1939, began entering squadron service mid to late 1941, full squadron service 1942.........by comparison the Do335 was a radical design with many new elements and features that would take longer to iron out.

Im also sceptical that introducing yet another major type would be conducive to high serviceability rates. And whilst having aircraft of high performance is a "nice to have" element of your force structure, having aircraft that can stay airborne is a matter of far greater importance. And saying you are going to produce the Do335 in liew of the Me 210 is not valid proposition. There were about 200 Me 210 produced, with a further 1300 of the rderived Me 410s following that. For the Do 335 to have any significant impact it would need several thousand introduced....given that each unit eats two engines instead of one (a major issue for the parts starved Luftwaffe) I tend to think introducing a third type to the Luftwaffe inventory may have been a detrimental decision in certain respects 

I also have no idea how an aircraft like the Dornier, with its finicky engines, and tricycle landing gear, would have fared in the eastern front conditions


----------



## Juha (Dec 18, 2009)

Hello Soren
Thanks for the nice photos on Do 335.

On rear engine cooling, Brown wrote that the rear engine ran consideraby hotter than the front one. And British lost one Do 335 with its pilot because of rear engine fire.

Juha


----------



## davebender (Dec 18, 2009)

> compared to the FW190 which first flew in 1939


The tandem engine Do J (Wal) flying boat was flying in November 1922. 

I believe it safe to say that if the Do-335 fighter project had started during the autumn of 1937 (i.e. same time as the Fw-190 project) they would have a prototype flying by 1939.



> began entering squadron service mid to late 1941


From what I have read the Do-335 was relatively problem free. Certainly it had fewer bugs then the problem plagued Fw-190 radial engines. If development begins during 1937 the Do-335A is likely to enter service before the end of 1940 powered by reliable DB601 engines.



> introducing yet another major type


You aren't. The Do-335 woud be ILO the problem plagued Me-210.



> having aircraft that can stay airborne is a matter of far greater importance.


Luftwaffe Resource Center - A Warbirds Resource Group Site - Dornier Do 335
*Do-335 Range.*


> Range (Maximum Fuel):
> 2050km (1,280 miles)
> Range (With Drop Tanks):
> 3750km (2,330 miles)



*Me-210 Range.*
Messerschmitt Me 210 - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia


> Range: 1,820 km (983 nmi, 1,130 mi)


The Do-335 has more range then the Me-210 that it would be replacing.



> For the Do 335 to have any significant impact it would need several thousand introduced


We will place an initial order for 1,000 Do-335s ILO the historical initial order for 1,000 Me-210s. After that we will produce about 200 per month. Similiar to the intended Me-210 production.



> given that each unit eats two engines instead of one


The Me-210 also had two engines of exactly the same type.


----------



## Soren (Dec 18, 2009)

Juha said:


> Hello Soren
> Thanks for the nice photos on Do 335.
> 
> On rear engine cooling, Brown wrote that the rear engine ran consideraby hotter than the front one. And British lost one Do 335 with its pilot because of rear engine fire.
> ...



Hello Juha,

Can't tell you why the British had problems with this, maybe the aircraft in question had a radiator leak or a clog in the system, things like that were common. All sorts of things tended to go wrong when testing enemy material, issues sometimes turning up just by the use of a different type oil or fuel, while other times it was as simple as a clogged radiator. 

I can however tell you that the rear engine heat issue was solved after extensive testing with the V6 prototype, the Do-335A-0 1 running successfully at full emergency boost with MW50 engaged for extended periods without any signs of damage to the engine or deterioration in performance.


----------



## riacrato (Dec 18, 2009)

EK 335 definetly noticed cooling problems with their Do 335s though aswell as with the front engine (though here the problem was opposite).


----------



## Soren (Dec 18, 2009)

Yes, early on, while in the prototype stage, but it was later solved with extensive testing being carried out with V6.


----------



## timshatz (Dec 19, 2009)

One thing struck me last night while I was thinking about the Do335, did it have an ejection seat? Gonna need one otherwise bailing out is gonna be a little rough on the pilots.


----------



## Milosh (Dec 19, 2009)

timshatz said:


> One thing struck me last night while I was thinking about the Do335, did it have an ejection seat? Gonna need one otherwise bailing out is gonna be a little rough on the pilots.



Yes it did. There was a sequence of inputs the pilot had to do before ejecting. One was blowing the prop off.

One story that did the rounds was that the pilot could loose his arms if he held onto the canopy ejection handles to hard or long. Pure fabrication though. The handles were attached to the fuselage not the canopy.


----------



## Soren (Dec 19, 2009)

Do-335 ejection seat being tested:


----------



## davebender (Dec 20, 2009)

Historically the Do-335 did not exist during 1940. But it could have if RLM had funded some of the Dornier programs. What would this do to the Battle of Britain?

*Ju-88A4.*
3 Aircrew.
292 mph max speed.
~225 mph cruising speed.
1,300 ft/min climb.
1,429 miles range with internal fuel.
500 kg bomb bay. 5 x 100 kg bombs.
(up to 1,400 kg internal for 50 kg bombs)
Defensive Weapons.
.....4 x 7.92mm MG standard.
.....Various optional weapon packages.

*Do-335 A6.*
1 Aircrew.
~475 mph max speed.
426 mph max cruising speed.
281 mph economical cruising speed.
4,600 ft/min climb.
500 kg bomb bay. 1 x 500 kg or 2 x 250 kg bombs.
Forward Firing Weapons.
.....1 x 3cm cannon
.....2 x 2cm cannons.
Defensive weapons.
.....Why would you need any?

The Do-335 1940 version would be slower, powered by DB601 engines. But max speed should still be well over 400 mph.


----------



## tomo pauk (Dec 20, 2009)

Dave, perhaps it would be better to came out with the weight performance figures for the 1940 Do twin fighter...


----------



## Vincenzo (Dec 20, 2009)

davebender said:


> Historically the Do-335 did not exist during 1940. But it could have if RLM had funded some of the Dornier programs. What would this do to the Battle of Britain?
> 
> *Ju-88A4.*
> 3 Aircrew.
> ...



the LW has not 100 kg bombs, the 88 can load only 50kg bombs, 28, if use both bay for bombs only 10 if use the larger for optional fuel tank


----------



## riacrato (Dec 21, 2009)

No bombardier and abysmal view to the ground and esp. forward low. I'd rather take a DB 603 engined Ju 88. And well comparing a early 40s vs a late 40s aircraft what do you expect performance wise?


----------



## davebender (Dec 21, 2009)

My point is the technology necessary to produce something smiliar to the Do-335 existed in 1937. If RLM had funded some of the Dornier proposals instead of pouring money into the Me-110 / Me-210 / Me-410 programs the Luftwaffe would have a much more effective Zerstorer during the Battle of Britain.


----------



## parsifal (Dec 22, 2009)

Thats like saying the technology for the Me 262 or the Meteor existed in 1940. Sure the technology was there, but the development was not. and that stands for the Do-335 as well. Unless I can see a prototype flying with all developmental issues solved, the facts are the Do-335 was not even close to ready until the latter part of 1944


----------



## davebender (Dec 22, 2009)

That isn't true. There was no possibility to mass produce a jet engine prior to about 1943. There was also no possibility for Germany to produce a decent domestically designed air cooled twin radial engine any sooner. The technology had yet to be invented.

A tandem engine fighter aircraft is an entirely different matter. The Dornier patent necessary to make the rear prop shaft work was filed 3 August 1937. After that it's just a matter of RLM funding the design work for a new fighter aircraft.

It seems odd to me that mid 1930s Germany took a chance on so many unproven technologies yet ignored Dornier's proven technology with tandem engine aircraft.


----------



## Soren (Dec 23, 2009)

Do-335A-6 equipped with the following would've been one very impressive night fighter and Mossie killer:

3x 30mm Mk103's
FuG280 "Kiel" Zeiss passive IR vision detector with a range of 4000m (Goodbye Mossies!)
FuG351 "Korfu Z" Passive radar homing device with a range of 300km (Improved Naxos)
FuG25a "Erstling" Ground-to-air Identification friend or foe (IFF) transponder with a range of 100 km
FuG 24SE w/ZVG 24: Ground/Air Radio w/ homing device 
Fu Bl 3 E w/AWG 1: Bad Weather Landing Aid w/ blind landing radio equipment
FuG 101: Bad Weather Landing Aid precision altimeter


----------



## timshatz (Dec 23, 2009)

Ipressive looking fighter. 

How was the radar mounted? I've never seen a German Sensing system that was standardly mounted anywhere but the nose. Would it be on the wing tip? 

Where were the 30MM Machine guns mounted? One in each wing root and one through the prop?


----------



## Soren (Dec 23, 2009)

timshatz said:


> Ipressive looking fighter.
> 
> How was the radar mounted? I've never seen a German Sensing system that was standardly mounted anywhere but the nose. Would it be on the wing tip?



Roger that, close to the wing tips on each side.



> Where were the 30MM Machine guns mounted? One in each wing root and one through the prop?



Yeah the 30mm guns would be mounted like on the A-1:





Two were mounted midwing and one in the engine.

The FuG280 night vision sight would be mounted inside each cockpit and turned on once an enemy a/c was tracked to within 4km by the Naxos system, it would then allow the pilot to clearly see the enemy a/c in pitch black darkness.


----------



## Juha (Dec 23, 2009)

Hello Soren
we have talked this earlier, but as Aders writes in his History of the German Night Fighter Force 1917-1945 p. 181 on FuG 280 "although on dark night it was possible to detect aircraft up to 4 km away, on lighter nights Kiel Z was also sensitive to starlight, and proved completely useless within the sight of ground fires."

Juha


----------



## Soren (Dec 23, 2009)

Err, Juha why would you need it on a bright night?? It was for use in pitch black darkness. And even modern NVD's are very sensitive to the light from fires. 

There was ofcourse also Spanner IV which was also passive but less sensitive.


----------



## Juha (Dec 23, 2009)

Eh, there tended to be lot of ground fires in Germany in 45 on nights BC operated. And Aders doesn't write bright night, he used term lighter nights, even some stars disturbed Kiel Z.

Juha


----------



## Soren (Dec 23, 2009)

He says it was sensitive to starlight Juha, he doesn't write that it ruined the effectiveness of the equipment. Geez, I really am starting to believe that you love anything Allied and hate anything German seeing how can claim a wooden a/c is as durable as metal one in an effort to defend the Mossie somehow. And now you're bashing on equipment which by actual accounts worked very well being capable of detecting other a/c 4km away in the dark. So it didn't have an effective range of 4km on a bright night, so what? It was probably never worse than 2-3km because of disturbance from starlight, whilst looking directly down at fires was a bad idea in any event nomatter what NVD you were using. Approach from below and make sure you dont get the light from the fire close to your line of sight and that problem should be solved...

Come on now Juha, credit where credit is due please.


----------



## Juha (Dec 23, 2009)

Heh
I can give credit to lot of German equipment, having even used some in the army. But Aders isn't very enthusiast on IR equipment and IMHO he is expert on LW Nightfighters and he doesn't say anything on looking "directly down at fires ". 

Juha


----------



## davebender (Dec 23, 2009)

No equipment is equally effective under all conditions. The point is that 1944 and later German night fighters had a very comprehensive avionics suite. That made them effective under most conditions. Have you seen this?
Axis History Forum • View topic - German vs Allied radar and electronic warfare equipment


> It is quite relavant for this discussion to list the avionics mounted on standard German nightfighters (mid 1944):
> 
> *Radar *
> FuG 220 Lichtenstein SN-2: metric radar
> ...


----------



## parsifal (Dec 23, 2009)

I think the record of the Mosquito stands as its own testament. There is no need to denigrate German equipment or manpower, as in the end this merely insults those that defeated them.

In the last 5 months of the war, the Mosquitos lost a total of 92 aircraft in combat (and that includes the bomber and fighter bomber variants) , whilst the night fighter groups, including the mahoud and intder groups, and groups undertaking flower missions, shot down well over 250 German night fighters. as well as being responsible for an unknown, but nevertheless large number, of crash landings, as the Night fighter pilots, crashed rather than risk attack from these Mosquitos that you are attempting to denigrate, and rob them of their rightful place in history. Overall, the Mosquito fighters shot down over 850 enemy night fighters, including 67 FW 190s.

As an operational type the Mosquito had the lowest loss rate in the RAF, was responsible for the succesful completion of some of the most daring and amazing bomber missions in history, of any nationality and was regarded at least with great respect by their most critical observers...their enemies. 

And yet, if this and similar threads are to be believed, it was a dog, fell to pieces, was not durable, too slow to stay out of trouble and cannon fodder for the luftwaffe.

You will excuse me if I say the facts dont support these sorts of statements and observations that you are making


----------



## Soren (Dec 23, 2009)

Parsifal AFAIK no'one ever called the Mosquito a dog or too slow. It was fast, could carry a heck of a bomb load and proved an excellent night fighter. And in terms of being durable, it held up well in the role it had which mostly kept it out of the direct line of fire.

As for shooting down 850 enemy a/c, well that probably needs to be cross referenced first before we have the right figure. But the Mosquito did prove trouble for the Germans, there's no denying it, it was a great a/c. However if a Mosquito was caught then it was bad with capital letters, cause it didn't take much to shoot one down.

That's it. Hope I didn't offend anyone


----------



## parsifal (Dec 23, 2009)

It does not offend me, but I think it offensive to the memory of the aircraft, those that flew it, but most of all, to the brave men that had to fight against this machine.

For the record, the Mosquito was durable and very resistant to battle damage. Cant give you figures, but I knew guys who flew them, and none of them ever thought of it as weak or not durable. It was armoured, fire resistant, and able to take punishment. I know you dont agree with that, and I will never convince you otherwise, but then, I at least have met and talked to people with first hand experience


----------



## Soren (Dec 23, 2009)

Offensive to the a/c??? So now you can't point out the flaws of an aircraft? I guess people saying that the Me262 had issues with its engines are being offensive towards the a/c and the guys who flew it... come on now.


----------



## parsifal (Dec 23, 2009)

For the record, I think some of the statements made in this forum concerning the 262 are a bit offensive to its legacy. 

A thing can have a legacy, just as a person can. You are getting emotions mixed up with effect . An Me 262 has no emotion, but it has a legacy, a niche in history that is important to those that believe in that thing. 

There is nothing wrong with analysis or even criticism, but it needs to be factually based. One approach is to look at the item from an engineering point of view, which is where you do well, another is to look at results. If the Mosquito was a hot air balloon, that still managed to shoot down 850 aircraft, its still an historical marvel, based on the results it achieved


----------



## Soren (Dec 23, 2009)

Why are you getting your panties up in a bunch over me saying that the Mosquito was easier to bring down than an a/c built with stronger materials. How does me pointing that simple little fact out suddenly transform into me saying the Mosquito was a dog, slow, unreliable, cannon fodder for the LW etc etc in your mind??

This happened in the warship thread as-well Parsifal, you winded getting offended over nothing. Come on now, I didn't call the Mosquito junk, I didn't say it didn't do well in service. All I did say was that being made from wood it didn't take damage as-well as other a/c such as the Ju-88.

And again, regarding the 850 a/c shot down, lets get it cross referenced first.


----------



## Njaco (Dec 23, 2009)

Lets chill. Parsifal just qualified his statement and from what I read, agrees with you Soren on some points. I think both of you guys need to take a breather, and read over the posts and see that you both are close to saying similar points.

I can''t think of one aircraft in history that didn't need improvement in a least one area.


----------



## Soren (Dec 23, 2009)

> I can''t think of one aircraft in history that didn't need improvement in a least one area.



Exactly Njaco, and mentioning them is ok in my book, as long as you don't make it seem worse than it is, which I dont believe I did.


----------



## Micdrow (Dec 23, 2009)

Soren said:


> Exactly Njaco, and mentioning them is ok in my book, as long as you don't make it seem worse than it is, which I dont believe I did.



Still all parties need to simmer down and heed Chris's word of advice!!!


----------



## Soren (Dec 23, 2009)

Will do.


----------



## Juha (Dec 24, 2009)

Hello Dave
No I haven’t have see that thread before but I have seen few other threads in which Hucks and LWD and Co argued, sometimes one can pick some new info from those but they are usually boring. I rather use my books, I have several on WWII night fighting/nightfighters and few on electronic equipments in use 39-45, one of which specialized on German equipment. Also Aders’ and Streetly’s books give good info on the electronic equipments of LW.

BTW, SES who wrote one message to that thread has very good site on German electronic equipments and LW night fighting tactics. He is a Danish Colonel (ret.) IIRC.

Merry Christmas to all!
Juha.


----------



## Soren (Dec 25, 2009)

Here's what the Do335 nightfighter I am proposing will look like, only difference being that I would add one 30mm Mk103 cannon to either wing, like on the A-1, (Cutting the wing LE fuel tanks in two instead of having one long one in order to make room for the cannons ammo), plus have a small Spanner IV or FuG280 IR light detector in each cockpit.







*Weapons pack: *

3x 30mm Mk103 automatic cannons
2x 20mm MG151/20 automatic cannons
FuG 280 Kiel Passive IR detector
Spanner IV Passive IR detector
R4M AA rockets

*Radar *
FuG 220 Lichtenstein SN-2: metric radar 
FuG 212 Lichtenstein C-1: decimetric radar 
FuG351 "Korfu Z" Passive radar homing device with a range of 300km (Improved Naxos) 
FuG 227 Flensburg: Metric radar detector 


*Navigation* 
Patin PKS 12: Course-steering autopilot 
Peil G6: Radio direction finding equipment 
Fu Bl 3 E w/AWG 1: Bad Weather Landing Aid w/ blind landing radio equipment 
FuG 101: Bad Weather Landing Aid precision altimeter 

*Communications *
FuG 10: Long range communications 
FuG 16ZY: Mid range communications 
FuG 25a: IFF (Identification Friend or Foe) Range 100km
FuG 120: Comm data link 
FuG 24SE w/ZVG 24: Ground/Air Radio w/ homing device


----------



## merlin (Dec 27, 2009)

davebender said:


> Not the same thing. Like the Ju-290, the He-277 was a more or less conventional heavy bomber design with 4 tractor engines.
> 
> The Dornier tandem engine designs were unique.



No, the French Centre (Farman) 222 - 223 aircraft had four engines in two nacelles with tractor pusher engines. One of the latter variants made the first Allied attack on Berlin, because of its long range it went via Denmark - Baltic - south to Berlin!


----------



## merlin (Dec 27, 2009)

Marcel said:


> Thanks Soren. Yes realised them being ait-cooled when I posted the pics. I had guessed they weren't as air-cooled inlines are not very common in WWII  There was also a design of the Fokker using two Merlins, so judging from your info, this would have been a better option.



The DXXIII was powered by two 540 h.p. Walter Sagitta I-SR 12 cyl air-cooled engines. Several alternative power plants were considered, including the Junkers Jumo 210G, the Hispano-Suiza Xcrs and the Rolls Royce Kestrel XV, these alternatives were considered in Dec '38 before the prototypes first flight, but later the Merlin DB 601 were under consideration - max spedd 385 mph expected.
The aircraft was publically displayed at an aircraft exhibition in paris in 1938.

Perhaps, with the spoils of war Dornier should have taken over the project!?


----------



## davebender (Dec 27, 2009)

Putting such long range cannon on a night fighter isn't necessary. Unless you also plan to use them in the daytime when you might get 1,000 meter kills vs B-17s using the new EZ-42 computing gunsight.


----------



## Marcel (Dec 27, 2009)

merlin said:


> The DXXIII was powered by two 540 h.p. Walter Sagitta I-SR 12 cyl air-cooled engines. Several alternative power plants were considered, including the Junkers Jumo 210G, the Hispano-Suiza Xcrs and the Rolls Royce Kestrel XV, these alternatives were considered in Dec '38 before the prototypes first flight, but later the Merlin DB 601 were under consideration - max spedd 385 mph expected.
> The aircraft was publically displayed at an aircraft exhibition in paris in 1938.
> 
> Perhaps, with the spoils of war Dornier should have taken over the project!?



Prototype reached 535 km/h in testflight with the Walter Sagitta's. Germans examined the prototype, but were just interested in the nose-wheel configuration.


----------



## Soren (Dec 27, 2009)

davebender said:


> Putting such long range cannon on a night fighter isn't necessary. Unless you also plan to use them in the daytime when you might get 1,000 meter kills vs B-17s using the new EZ-42 computing gunsight.



It will provide quicker kills, and the IR sights will make 1,000+ meter shots at night possible. As for daytime attacks, the EZ42 is unnecessary, it was most useful against fast flying fighters, against bombers a normal sight is more than good enough.


----------



## drgondog (Dec 27, 2009)

Soren said:


> It will provide quicker kills, and the IR sights will make 1,000+ meter shots at night possible. As for daytime attacks, the EZ42 is unnecessary, it was most useful against fast flying fighters, against bombers a normal sight is more than good enough.



I wonder how ANY IR technology short of CCD would enable consistent kills at night at 100 meters, much less 1000 unless the Germans had a very sophisticated capability to slave a radar to the IR signature to enable ranging capability plus the required 'center of image' to enable sighting and hits..


----------



## Soren (Dec 27, 2009)

drgondog said:


> I wonder how ANY IR technology short of CCD would enable consistent kills at night at 100 meters, much less 1000 unless the Germans had a very sophisticated capability to slave a radar to the IR signature to enable ranging capability plus the required 'center of image' to enable sighting and hits..



It's a matter of sighting the weapons for 1,000 meter shots with both types of sights before ever taking off. After that it's a matter of trial error until you get it right. But an attacking range of 600m would make abit more sence and improve hit probability. One successful burst and the bomber will be going down.

And ofcourse the tracking and identification of a bomber involved the use of radar, and the range estimation did as-well.


----------



## drgondog (Dec 27, 2009)

Soren said:


> It's a matter of sighting the weapons for 1,000 meter shots with both types of sights before ever taking off. After that it's a matter of trial error until you get it right. But an attacking range of 600m would make abit more sence and improve hit probability. One successful burst and the bomber will be going down.



Soren - as you know, the radar tecnology of the time was registering a 'return' as a spike with amplitude indicating range (and perhaps relative magnitude of the return). IR at the time was a 'blob' with zero definition and/or magnitude.

Sighting in on 'what' to calibrate 'what' for the IR. To me it is the equivalent of sighting in on a football stadium with IR and a relatively defined target in the meter x meter range for the optical sight - and how did they slave the IR to Radar for ranging?


----------



## Soren (Dec 27, 2009)

As far as I know IR equipment wasn't just showing a blob back then, the Germans using some quite sophisticated imaging equipment. The Allies were no less than stunned when they saw how good the picture quality of German IR was as they tested their sets at the end of the war. The IR sets used on German panzers SPWs provided good quality vision out to 700m, while Allied IR sets of the same period had max range of around 30 meters.

In the Do-335 NF radar would be used to find the bomber, identify the range and the FuG280 or Spanner IV would then be used to fix the target in the sights of the pilot. When the pre-adjusted range for the armament sight combination was achieved the pilot could open fire on the target. And seeing that the IR sights were telescopic the pilot always had one eye clear for observation.


----------

