# Dora vs Tempest



## Marcel (Oct 15, 2007)

2 of my favorites. I believe they saw eachother in combat on several occasions in the last year of the war. So which one is best?


----------



## Thorlifter (Oct 15, 2007)

hmmm, well, two totally different planes that excelled in the roll required of them.

Dora - High altitude intercepter
Tempest - Low level attack plane.

They saw each other in combat mostly when the Dora's were being used as CAP for the ME-262 airfields to protect the jets during take off and landings. I don't know how they faired against one another. My guess is, it's depends on the altitude they fought at. At low levels, I would give an edge to the Tempest. Higher elevations, I would give an edge to the Dora. But again, that's just my guess.

IMO, we are not really comparing apples to apples here.

Also, those are two of my favorite planes also. If I had to choose, I'd go with the Tempest.

Reactions: Like Like:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## Soundbreaker Welch? (Oct 15, 2007)

This is a good poll!

I don't know what to vote for!

Another good contender agains't the Tempest is the FW 190A. They fought each other over the English Channel a couple times, when the Fock Wulfs ran "Jabo" missions to harrass the English coast and country.


----------



## comiso90 (Oct 15, 2007)

As always.. Not just the best pilot, but the pilot that employed the best tactics for a given situation that optimized advantage and exploited weaknesses..

... and a little luck never hurt.... 

The Tempest would be better in a dive and it could hold it's own on the deck.
.


----------



## Marcel (Oct 15, 2007)

Thorlifter said:


> hmmm, well, two totally different planes that excelled in the roll required of them.
> 
> Dora - High altitude intercepter
> Tempest - Low level attack plane.
> ...


Well I'm not sure, but I think the Tempest was designed to be a high altitude interceptor as well. As the Typhoon with it's thick wing had disappointing performance at altitude, they designed the Tempest based on the Typhoon with thinner wings and some other modifications. Performance at higher altitude was much better than that of the Typhoon. So I don't think it was basicly a low altitude attack plane, but it became one when it ran out of aerial targets.


----------



## Erich (Oct 15, 2007)

well III./JG 54 failed in it's protection of Kommando Nowotny every time and the Dora high cover principle was dropped on the spot with III./JG 54 being absorbed by JG 26 Dora outfit which was in continual aerial combat with RAF Tempests and Spits which really took it to the Doras of JG 26.

Reactions: Like Like:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## Civettone (Oct 18, 2007)

Tempest hands down. With a speed of 435 mph at 17,500ft - around the same optimal height as the Dora - superior armament and great manoeuvrability the Dora had to wait for its big brother to come and help it out: the Ta 152. I read a Me 262 ace - I think his name was Lange - claim that the Tempest was the Me 262's most dangerous opponent...

I don't see what the Dora could bring to bear against the Tempest.



Marcel said:


> Well I'm not sure, but I think the Tempest was designed to be a high altitude interceptor as well. As the Typhoon with it's thick wing had disappointing performance at altitude, they designed the Tempest based on the Typhoon with thinner wings and some other modifications. Performance at higher altitude was much better than that of the Typhoon. So I don't think it was basicly a low altitude attack plane, but it became one when it ran out of aerial targets.


Just quoting this again because it seems some people didn't get this. The Tempest only became a succesful low level attack plane when it had nothing more to dogfight. 



Soundbreaker Welch? said:


> Another good contender agains't the Tempest is the FW 190A. They fought each other over the English Channel a couple times, when the Fock Wulfs ran "Jabo" missions to harrass the English coast and country.


No my friend, that was the Typhoon. 

Kris


----------



## lesofprimus (Oct 18, 2007)

I voted for the Dora, as it was a stop gap to the High Altitude issue, not the answer, and performed better than the Tempest at the "usual" combat altitude...


----------



## Civettone (Oct 18, 2007)

It performed better? Do you have any figures to back that up? 

The Tempest was faster at all altitudes. Zoom climb of the Tempest was unmatched. Handling of the Tempest was excellent, even considered better than the Spitfire. 
What was better on the Fw 190D? Perhaps roll rate? Turn rate was probably equal. 
And again, armament of the Tempest was also far superior.

I think some of you are more basing your judgment on emotions than on figures.
Kris

Reactions: Like Like:
2 | Like List reactions


----------



## Erich (Oct 18, 2007)

it doesn't matter when your enemy has the altitude advantage, an example

the French ace P. Clostermann on a late war mission with his wingman got jumped with their flight suit over their eyes with his wingman getting vaporized by 2cm MinenGeschoss rounds and Pierre's Temp got smeared so badly he made a crash landing. Pierre's report later he was quoted as saying that Rudi Wurf of II./JG 301 shot his wingman down and another Tempest pilot of the squad as well as almost himself. further investigation finds that Rudi indeed shoot down 1 Tempest but another pilot and from another squadron.

whomever has the top advantage of either a/c wins

go get a copy of the new eagle-editions Dora 9 book and be enlightened with the many first person accts as you will be glad you did..... Mine came today 8)


----------



## Marcel (Oct 18, 2007)

Erich said:


> it doesn't matter when your enemy has the altitude advantage
> 8)


Of course that's always the case with planes with performance and armament so similar. But that's not the fun of debating is it? The question is, if the higher flying pilot would fly a Tempest, would he have more or less trouble taking advantage of the situation then when he's flying a Dora.


----------



## Erich (Oct 18, 2007)

is it debating or arguing the same points over and over again like we have for years, which fighter is best, that type of thing. in normality it is going to be nigh impossible to have a Tempest with non support aerialy against a beleagured single Dora. the dora units were overwhelmed and they were not able to prove themselves on any equal terms except whom got the height and the first shots in


----------



## Aussie1001 (Oct 18, 2007)

That may be enrich but i'm just gonna go tempest because l like it....


----------



## lesofprimus (Oct 18, 2007)

> It performed better? Do you have any figures to back that up?


I dont base my opinions on ur precious little "figures"... The mean nothing in my equation..... As Erich pointed out, the were other contributing factors involved in combat than the same old "this ones top speed was faster...." bullsh!t...

Did u forget that some pilots "illegally" had their mechanics tweek their machines???

I base most of my Ofu*kingpinion on what the people who flew the craft/fought the craft in the air have to say....

Reactions: Dislike Dislike:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## Civettone (Oct 18, 2007)

So if you mainly read the accounts of the Dora pilots, I suppose you would get a distorted view. Or that Clostermann story, fascinating as it may be, doesn't mean much if it's not put in a statistical frame. Else you would simply conclude that the Tempest was inferior. 
Going with stories often leads to wrong interpretations. In fact, most of the errors in WW2 aircraft data come from these. Stories which were never backed up by figures. 

German and allied test pilots often had to take up the question of comparing aircraft. They did this with test flights resulting in specific data on climb rate, speed, roll rate, turn rate, handling, etc. I think these guys knew what they were doing...
Kris

Reactions: Like Like:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## Soren (Oct 19, 2007)

Civettone said:


> It performed better? Do you have any figures to back that up?



I have.



> The Tempest was faster at all altitudes.



Thats untrue though. 

I have a suspicion you've been fooled by some figures on Mike William's site...



> Zoom climb of the Tempest was unmatched.



What is that based off ?



> Handling of the Tempest was excellent, even considered better than the Spitfire.



The handling of the FW-190 was probably the best of any fighter of WW2, high speed handling being better than that of any other piston engined fighter.



> What was better on the Fw 190D? Perhaps roll rate? Turn rate was probably equal.



The FW-190 Dora-9 turned considerably better than the Tempest, and roll rate was MUCH higher. The Tempest didn't feature better maneuverability than a FW-190 Jabo as evident in RAF testing.



> And again, armament of the Tempest was also far superior.



Far superior ?? I'd say its about equal here considering the MG151/20 fires Minen rounds.



> I think some of you are more basing your judgment on emotions than on figures.



Considering what you just wrote above I find that comment very ironic.


----------



## eddie_brunette (Oct 19, 2007)

ill go for the tempest for versatility at different altitude, armament, but if i can give it a weak point, ONE SHOT CAN DISABLE THE ENGINE, same with p51. 

fw190's was always a bit overated to me, same with the p51's (my very personal view)

Reactions: Like Like:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## Soundbreaker Welch? (Oct 19, 2007)

> No my friend, that was the Typhoon.



You're right! Both the Typhoon and FW 190A were the little brothers of scarier things.


----------



## Thorlifter (Oct 19, 2007)

Soren said:


> Far superior ?? I'd say its about equal here considering the MG151/20 fires Minen rounds.



Soren, what are Minen rounds? I'll look it up, but I would like to hear an explanation from you guys.


----------



## Civettone (Oct 19, 2007)

It means that the shells had an explosive charge in them. According to Soren only German cannon shells had this... 

And yes Soren I do take Mike Williams seriously. 

According to the 10 test flights on FW 190 D-9 Flight Trials the Dora was slower at all altitudes:
Max rate of climb 4380 ft/min @ sea level 
Time to 10,000 ft. 2.8 mins. 
Time to 20,000 ft. 6.55 mins. 
Time to 30,000 ft. 14.0 mins

Level speed 
Speed at sea level M.S. gear* 376 mph true airspeed 
Max. speed in M.S. gear* 411 mph true airspeed @ 6,600 ft. FTH 
Max. speed in F.S. gear* 432 mph true airspeed @ 18,400 ft. FTH 
Speed at 28,000 ft. 405 mph true airspeed 

And take a look at this American test: http://www.wwiiaircraftperformance.org/tempest/material-command-tempest.pdf
again stressing the excellent handling of the aircraft. The only negative thing mentioned is that the turn rate was worse than that of the Typhoon. 



> The handling of the FW-190 was probably the best of any fighter of WW2, high speed handling being better than that of any other piston engined fighter.


This British test says different. And they were not biased as the rest of the report was very positive. 

We already had a discussion about that website but I believe it as much anything you might come up with. To me the teething problem of the Dora lasted so long that the arrival of the Ta 152H made it obsolete. By then the Tempest was already one year operational.

And perhaps Lesofprimus can take a look at these battle accounts by the Tempest if that's what he's looking for:
Tempest V Performance

Kris

Reactions: Like Like:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## DerAdlerIstGelandet (Oct 19, 2007)

I think that with these 2 very fine aircraft it comes down to more than just the plane and performance and I think that many of you are forgetting this. Anyone who has flying experience (any kind of flying experience) will know that whats on paper does not tell the whole story. If that were the case then how the hell did prop aircraft with inferior performance take out jet aicraft in the later parts of WW2 and in the Korean War?

When you start comparing the great aircraft near the end of the war such as the Spitfire, P-51D, Fw-190D, Ta-152H, P-47s, Bf-109G,K, etc... in combat you have to take other things into considerations such as:

Pilot Skill
Allitude
Position
Weather Conditions
Condition of each aircraft

etc.
etc.
etc.
etc.
blah, blah, blah....

Basically the pilot who could get the most out there particular aircraft and fly it to its limits (which are allways higher than what is on paper) and do this better than the other pilot is going to win 9 out 10 times.

Thats just my two cents.

I am sure that some people here will come back with a consensus and disagree because they are allways right...

Anyhow I voted for the Dora. Not because I think it was far superior plane because as I stated above I think thers is more involved in the matter than performance figures on paper but because I like the aircraft. As I said it comes down more to the pilot.


----------



## Eoptrimasa (Oct 19, 2007)

I like men and this one time at band camp...


----------



## Erich (Oct 19, 2007)

as you say Chris it really was up to the pilot in his aircraft that is going to win the day. I go back to fall of 44 when the Dora was first introduced as a new and hopeful a/c, III./JG 54 was overwhelmed by the RAF fighters in all forms and the gruppe failed first as high cover for Kommando Nowotny's 262 kommando and then by itself with tremendous losses


----------



## Aussie1001 (Oct 20, 2007)

Which model of tempest are we talking about ?
Considering the mark 5 series 1 was the worst of the lot that doesn't really say anything for the dora if it was as good or a little bit worse than it, mind you though as Adler said it all comes down to the skill of the pilot and in some cases pure luck....


----------



## Kurfürst (Oct 20, 2007)

Civettone said:


> It means that the shells had an explosive charge in them. According to Soren only German cannon shells had this...



I don`t think Soren has ever said this. Otherwise, he is correct about the fact that the Germans were much forward in HE shell design with their very high HE content Mine shells which had very thin walls, and were heavily stuffed with explosives - ie. 18 gramm of HE was found in a singe 20mm M-Geschoss compared to about 5-6 gramm in a 20mm Hispano shell (th



> And yes Soren I do take Mike Williams seriously.



There is no need not to, but I think it has been already discussed that his site is very selective with tests when it comes to German aircraft.. only the worst are being up there. In case of the 190D, the only tests present are for some early test machines which had poor finish, and none of them are flying at full trottle and MW-50 boost - these tests were actually dug up by Bryan Bury.

There`s also a Focke-Wulf set of performance figures on the 190D, which shows the actual top performance of the 190D. It`s very competitive to the Tempest, very similiar, in fact.



> To me the teething problem of the Dora lasted so long that the arrival of the Ta 152H made it obsolete.



... teething problem?  



> By then the Tempest was already one year operational.



That`s news. I`ve always believed (and with a good reason, Sqn. OOB and such) the Tempest was only in service a few months earlier than the Dora, and, much like the Dora, the number of Tempests around was very limited indeed. Not to mention the Sabre engines notorious unreliability, an issue that was never really fixed.

As for the Tempest vs. Dora, I think they`re very similiar profiled fighters. The pros for the Tempest is it`s longer range and higher payload. As a pure fighter, however, I feel the Dora 9 being a better aircraft, even if not much, but in about every characteristic it enjoys a bit of an advantage. It turns slightly better, it is about as fast (`cept at SL), roll rate is incomparably better, and generally it`s a sleeker aircraft with very high power-to-weight ratio. I think the Tempest with it`s four fast-firing Hissies have the advantage in firepower, but it`s not much, given the Dora`s better location of weapons, much better shells and ample of ammunition for the guns (not that it would present any troubles to fit more guns for the D-9 if.they`d wanted - it`s basically an A-8 with a Jumo engine)


----------



## Civettone (Oct 20, 2007)

DerAdlerIstGelandet said:


> you have to take other things into considerations such as:
> 
> Pilot Skill
> Allitude
> ...


No that doesn't make sense to me. Of course these things would define the outcome of any battle, and perhaps even more than the plane characteristics. 
But in comparing aircraft we cannot let the pilot be a factor. It's the plane you're judging, not the pilot. As such, comparisons between aircraft are done with premise of equal pilots, no position advantage, no weather advantage, no element of surprise. That's how comparisons were done by test pilots like in Rechlin. So I think it's perfectly possible to compare aircraft and tell which one was best. And even if you would take the pilot into consideration, the Tempest would win hands down as the average British pilot was superior to the German one in this stage of the war. 
Apart from that, I agree that the two planes were closely matched.



Kurfürst said:


> I don`t think Soren has ever said this. Otherwise, he is correct about the fact that the Germans were much forward in HE shell design with their very high HE content Mine shells which had very thin walls, and were heavily stuffed with explosives - ie. 18 gramm of HE was found in a singe 20mm M-Geschoss compared to about 5-6 gramm in a 20mm Hispano shell


Sure my comment was more directed towards the importance of these Minengeschoss shells. The allies deliberately discarded the idea of Minengeschoss and went for more penetration values and higher muzzle velocity. 




> There is no need not to, but I think it has been already discussed that his site is very selective with tests when it comes to German aircraft.. only the worst are being up there. In case of the 190D, the only tests present are for some early test machines which had poor finish, and none of them are flying at full trottle and MW-50 boost - these tests were actually dug up by Bryan Bury.
> 
> There`s also a Focke-Wulf set of performance figures on the 190D, which shows the actual top performance of the 190D. It`s very competitive to the Tempest, very similiar, in fact.


I know, we discussed about the Fw 190D before. But to me it's also a matter of what you believe is more realistic for the Dora. To me the typical Dora couldn't fly faster than 685 km/h. In 1945 when all went well I'm sure they went faster. But by then the Tempest was already in service for (almost) a year.
My entire point is that the Dora couldn't live up to its expectations until its successor the Ta 152 became available. A stopgap which only proves itself when the successor becomes available, is a waste in my book. I believe Tank could just as well have skipped it all together and have the Ta 152 operational sooner. 




> ... teething problem?


Yeah the problems you mentioned for the Fw 190D and especially the lack of a MW 50 boost until it was standard in 1945. That means the Fw 190D wasn't fully operational until then. 




> That`s news. I`ve always believed (and with a good reason, Sqn. OOB and such) the Tempest was only in service a few months earlier than the Dora


No I said the Tempest was already a year operational when the Ta 152 appeared, the successor of the Fw 190D. That was a further elaboration of the fact that it took too long for the Dora to become fully operational. 



> Not to mention the Sabre engines notorious unreliability, an issue that was never really fixed.


Unreliable, sure, but it didn't stop it from being an effective fighter. And how reliable was the Jumo 213? What was its life expectancy?
In any case, the Tempest was declared operational in April 1944 and by June the teething problems were finished with the adoption of new propellors. The Dora arrived in November and it took until early 1945 for its teething problems to end. 

Kris


----------



## Marcel (Oct 20, 2007)

DerAdlerIstGelandet said:


> Basically the pilot who could get the most out there particular aircraft and fly it to its limits (which are allways higher than what is on paper) and do this better than the other pilot is going to win 9 out 10 times.




Of course you're right, best pilot wins in these planes, but the reason I like technically compairing planes in these kind of threads is that people tend to bring forward quite interesting things about the planes while defending their point of view. I learn a lot by reading the replies given to my question.


----------



## DerAdlerIstGelandet (Oct 20, 2007)

Civettone said:


> No that doesn't make sense to me. Of course these things would define the outcome of any battle, and perhaps even more than the plane characteristics.
> But in comparing aircraft we cannot let the pilot be a factor. It's the plane you're judging, not the pilot. As such, comparisons between aircraft are done with premise of equal pilots, no position advantage, no weather advantage, no element of surprise. That's how comparisons were done by test pilots like in Rechlin. So I think it's perfectly possible to compare aircraft and tell which one was best.



I disagree. Here is why? I will use private flying for an example because I have experience here. You give me a Cessna 172 and you give FBJ a Cessna 172. They are the same aircraft. He has more experience than me he will get more out of the aircraft than I can.

Also the reason I disagree is because all aircraft have optimal operating conditions where they are equal or superior to other aircraft or inferior to other aircraft. The reason you can not take these tests for everything (and unfortunatly some people only believe whats on paper) is because combat is rarely at the optimal conditions. 




Civettone said:


> And even if you would take the pilot into consideration, the Tempest would win hands down as the average British pilot was superior to the German one in this stage of the war.



I am not going to agree or disagree with you however please post some proof. Without proof you have made an unqualified statment that holds no bearing in this discussion.


----------



## HoHun (Oct 20, 2007)

Hi Kris,

>I believe Tank could just as well have skipped it all together and have the Ta 152 operational sooner. 

That was the original plan. However, the loss of German-held territory delayed and finally stopped Ta 152 production ...

The Ta 152 design (in the A version) was ready for series production in the first half of 1944. Since the jigs and tools were to be produced in France and the factories were overrun as a result of the invasion, the actual begin of the series production - in Cottbus - was in November 1944. (The planned production in Italy, scheduled to begin in May 1944, had to be canceled completely.) Due to difficulties in subassembly production, the first Ta 152 examples were delivered in January 1945. Only 43 aircraft were produced before in February, the Soviets overran the factory in Posen that supplied the wings and fuselages for the Ta 152, ending production of the type. (Production had been moved as far to the East as possible to reduce the risk of strategic bombing attacks by the USAAF and the RAF.) Of the 43 aircraft that were produced, 14 were destroyed in a low-level attack on the factory airfield. They were concentrated like that because due to poor workmanship, they were unsafe to fly out before they were repaired.

(I'm relying on Hermann's "Focke-Wulf Ta 152" for this summary.)

Regards,

Henning (HoHun)

Reactions: Like Like:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## Soren (Oct 20, 2007)

Civettone here's why you shouldn't take Mike Williams figures on the Dora seriously;

The tests which he presents on his site were carried out with under-performing engines, and AFAIK that is as-well mentioned.

The real guaranteed performance of the Dora you can find on Focke Wulf's own official Leistung charts.







As you can see performance is 612 km/h at SL at SonderNotleistung (2,100 PS @ 3,250 RPM), and 702 km/h at 5.7km. As you can also see 685 km/h was reached at Start u. Notleistung (1,750 PS @ 3,250 RPM) at 6.6 km.

As to the American flight test of the Dora, well again that was flown at a power setting no higher than Steig u. Kampfleistung, and probably not with the right type of fuel, something which greatly affects the the turn performance. 

Also note that in post war mock dogfights the captured Dora-13 easily out-maneuvered the Hawker Tempest Mk.V piloted by an experienced pilot in all aspects of maneuvering flight, easily emerging the victor. 

According to FW-190 pilots the Dora-9 was a far better dogfighter than the Anton, featuring much better turning climbing performance than its predecessor. And according to German comparative testing with Allied aircraft the Dora-9 was a better dogfighter than the Tempest at all altitudes, also being much better than the P-47, P-38 P-51 at low altitudes, while the P-51 was considered equal at high altitudes.

You can read all this in Hermann's detailed book on the Dora...


----------



## Jank (Oct 20, 2007)

On a related and elementary note, manufacturer published charts and graphs, even of guaranteed performance, usually fall short of actual performance figures obtained with actual aircraft.


----------



## Soren (Oct 20, 2007)

I've never experienced German performance figures to be overblown at all, infact the guaranteed performance figures I've seen so far from Focke Wulf Messerschmidt have all been very conservative and never exceeded the actual achieved performance. 

Promising "der Führer" some wild performance figures and then not to deliver on them was not to take ones own life very seriously!


----------



## Civettone (Oct 20, 2007)

> I disagree. Here is why? I will use private flying for an example because I have experience here. You give me a Cessna 172 and you give FBJ a Cessna 172. They are the same aircraft. He has more experience than me he will get more out of the aircraft than I can.
> 
> 
> Also the reason I disagree is because all aircraft have optimal operating conditions where they are equal or superior to other aircraft or inferior to other aircraft. The reason you can not take these tests for everything (and unfortunatly some people only believe whats on paper) is because combat is rarely at the optimal conditions.


I think you don't understand what I said so I'll say it again. 
I totally agree that the pilot is the most important element. Other than that, surprise, altitude advantage, weather, etc all play an important or even decisive factor in air combat.
Fine.
However, when comparing aircraft, one can easily discard these factors as they can be attributed to both sides: weather and altitude advantage will be on one side, and on the other side the next time. Same thing with the pilots, one can easily start from the premise that all pilots are equal. Then one can start comparing aircraft quite easily.
It's the same thing with F1 racing. One can easily compare the different cars regardless whether Massa, Schumacher or Santa Claus would be driving it.




> I am not going to agree or disagree with you however please post some proof. Without proof you have made an unqualified statment that holds no bearing in this discussion.


I don't get this. I know you have a good knowledge of Luftwaffe pilots to know that the average German pilot at the time of the Tempest/Dora was inferior to the allied pilot.
If you disagree, you will surprise me, but I will easily back my statement up. All I would have to do is show the Luftwaffe training hours in the second half of WW2.



> Promising "der Führer" some wild performance figures and then not to deliver on them was not to take ones own life very seriously!


There were several aircraft designers which lied to Hitler about their aircraft. Especially Messerschmitt was constantly taking Hitler for a fool.

I still stand by the fact that the Fw 190D didn't achieve its maximum performance until 1945 when the Ta 152 was entering service. 
Kris


----------



## Soren (Oct 21, 2007)

> Especially Messerschmitt was constantly taking Hitler for a fool.



A statement like that begs an example! And I suspect you'll have a VERY hard time finding one!


----------



## brano (Oct 21, 2007)

My vote goes to FW 190,he was faster,better armed and beter armored then Tempest!!!


----------



## brano (Oct 21, 2007)

Can you tell me wy the American are use Browning M2 mashine guns till 1945,when are 20-30 mm cannons become standard armament on the all aircrafts.I don`t see much logic in that!!!


----------



## Kurfürst (Oct 21, 2007)

Civettone said:


> Sure my comment was more directed towards the importance of these Minengeschoss shells. The allies deliberately discarded the idea of Minengeschoss and went for more penetration values and higher muzzle velocity.



Nothing of that sort in real life quite the opposite happened. 
In fact the Allies had went for lower muzzle velocity and higher RoF with the Tempests short Hispano Mk Vs, which were pretty much and equivalent to the Mauser MG 151/20 in these specs. They also immidiately copied the Minengeschoss rounds after the war, discarded the Hispano and replaced it with what (Aden/Defa) was basically a straight copy of the Mauser MG 213.

As for preference for penetration, the British never seem to have too much preference for it, since they switched quickly after the introduction of cannon armamemnt to *semi*-armour piercing rounds with reduced penetration performance but more versatality. As for the Germans, they hardly used only M-Gsch. rounds in their belts, the composition was typically AP/API- a conventional HE/HEI - followed by 3 Mineshells. In case of _Viermot_ targets, one HE/HEI replacing a Mine shell.




> I know, we discussed about the Fw 190D before. But to me it's also a matter of what you believe is more realistic for the Dora. To me the typical Dora couldn't fly faster than 685 km/h. In 1945 when all went well I'm sure they went faster. But by then the Tempest was already in service for (almost) a year.
> My entire point is that the Dora couldn't live up to its expectations until its successor the Ta 152 became available. A stopgap which only proves itself when the successor becomes available, is a waste in my book. I believe Tank could just as well have skipped it all together and have the Ta 152 operational sooner.



I do not see how this POV is sufficiently supported by facts. Opinion is of course a right of everyone, but I can`t share this opinion. 



Civettone said:


> Yeah the problems you mentioned for the Fw 190D and especially the lack of a MW 50 boost until it was standard in 1945. That means the Fw 190D wasn't fully operational until then.



What 'problems'?

And in any case, MW-50 injection was introduced already in 1944, a month or two after the operational introduction of the Dora. This is basically the same as the Tempest`s story, which did not receive the improved Sabre II B engine until September 1944.



> No I said the Tempest was already a year operational when the Ta 152 appeared, the successor of the Fw 190D. That was a further elaboration of the fact that it took too long for the Dora to become fully operational.



The Dora was fully operational by the automn of 1944. Period. It`s performance improved, about the same time and just like the Tempest`s. 

As for the Tempest, it did not have the short barreld cannons, nor spring tabs until June 1944, nor the Sabre IIB engine until September-October 1944 - this concides with the introduction of MW-50 onto the Dora. Even then, production of the new, improved models was rather marginal, and it took quite some time until pilots actually _saw_ those new models.



Civettone said:


> Unreliable, sure, but it didn't stop it from being an effective fighter. And how reliable was the Jumo 213? What was its life expectancy?



I do not have any TBO figures for either engines. However, I`ve seen no indication so far there would be any serious trouble with the Jumo 213, while the Sabre is almost infamous. I am always a bit puzzled by the Sabre - technically very impressive and advanced, in practical terms, it managed to create an overcomplicated engine with all the disadvantages of a radial and an inline combined..



> In any case, the Tempest was declared operational in April 1944 and by June the teething problems were finished with the adoption of new propellors.



The real problem of the Tempest was it`s Sabre engine, that never seem to work as it should, or the very least it proved to be fatally unreliable in service. Planes bursting into flames on startup, planes augmenting right after take off due to engine failures etc... and it kept happening. 



> The Dora arrived in November and it took until early 1945 for its teething problems to end.
> 
> Kris



What 'teeting problems', again? You keep repeating the Dora had 'teething problems', without any specifics...


----------



## DerAdlerIstGelandet (Oct 21, 2007)

Civettone said:


> I think you don't understand what I said so I'll say it again.
> I totally agree that the pilot is the most important element. Other than that, surprise, altitude advantage, weather, etc all play an important or even decisive factor in air combat.
> Fine.
> However, when comparing aircraft, one can easily discard these factors as they can be attributed to both sides: weather and altitude advantage will be on one side, and on the other side the next time. Same thing with the pilots, one can easily start from the premise that all pilots are equal. Then one can start comparing aircraft quite easily.
> It's the same thing with F1 racing. One can easily compare the different cars regardless whether Massa, Schumacher or Santa Claus would be driving it.



I still disagree because as I said in order to compare aircraft then they need to be compared at all conditions to each other on a level playing field. Allied tests of a Luftwaffe aircraft were not on a level playing field because the pilots dont know the aircraft as well. Luftwaffe tests of an allied aircraft would be the same because they dont know the aircraft as well either.

You need to compare using the manufacturers data and as Jank was so kind to point out they are never the aircrafts limitations.



Civettone said:


> I don't get this. I know you have a good knowledge of Luftwaffe pilots to know that the average German pilot at the time of the Tempest/Dora was inferior to the allied pilot.
> If you disagree, you will surprise me, but I will easily back my statement up. All I would have to do is show the Luftwaffe training hours in the second half of WW2.



While I agree with you (and would be a fool not to do so) that the Luftwaffe's training was declining it is a myth that the Luftwaffe was void of excellent and well trained pilots with experience in the later parts of the war. The Luftwaffe still had plenty of pilots. 

Therefore my point is you can not dismiss the Luftwaffe pilot and say that the Tempest would win hands down becuase the allied pilots were better.


There were several aircraft designers which lied to Hitler about their aircraft. Especially Messerschmitt was constantly taking Hitler for a fool. Underestimating your opponent is a deadly mistake...


----------



## Civettone (Oct 21, 2007)

Soren, Messerschmitt mislead Hitler on the Me 262 as a Jabo, the Me 209 being better than the Me 262, the Me 410 reaching 680 km/h, the Me 262 being a better bomber/recon than the Ar 234, etc. Hitler was genious at time but could also be incredibily naive when people told him things he liked. He was often overoptimistic and thereby chosing to believe the one with the best news. Messerschmitt quickly found that out. 

Kurfürst, I read several accounts where the Fw 190D had lousy serviceability rates and that the Jumo 213 kept providing problems. And the MW 50 wasn't standard until 1945. 
The Sabre was troublesome but nowhere near the level of the Jumo 213. British engines were generally very reliable so I think the accounts of the Sabre have to be seen in that light.

About the performance of the Dora...
I've got a graph drawn up by Focke Wulf itself. A Leistungvergleich Fw 190 and Ta 152. The Fw 190D (with MW 50) didn't reach 700 kmh at optimal altitude. The D-15 struggled to get there. Quite a different story for the D-12 which even got above 750 kmh!!
And on this one it barely reaches 700: http://pages.sbcglobal.net/mdegnan/_images/DoraMitALader.bmp

And this comes from luftwaffe-experten:
_the speed are comming fro a fw test from march 45 (from the smithonian german and japanees captured documents the IWM has probably a copy)
the fw 190 was with fully loaded 4250 kg and with the ETC 504 add around 10 kmh without it)
Speed WEP mw50 (b4)
692 kmh @ 5400 m (702 without ETC 504)


wep ladruckhohung
i do not have hard data but we can gustimate it around 680 @ 5400 m (690 without etc)

start and emmergency
677 kmh @ 6600 m (687 without ETC)

combat power (max continous )
666 kmh @ 6600 m (676 without ETC)_


The Tempest had a lower wing loading which would (theoretically) make it a better turner, at least what initital turns are concerned. Sustained turns - which is usually talked about but not as important IMO - would be pro-Dora. The Dora had the better roll rate which would mean that it could shake of the enemy by rolling to one side and then roll again to the other side. A Tempest would not be able to follow that. Any opponent could outroll the Tempest. But about intitial turning and climbing would be in the advantage of the Tempest due to excellent handling, even at speeds above 400 mph, large wing loading and a huge amount of horses. 
Also Tempest pilots considered their planes to be more manoeuvrable than the Fw 190 (not sure about which version), but I suppose Dora pilots thought the same. The ones that disagreed were probably dead anyway 

For completeness here's an account by Lt Osenkop of I/JG26 who relates his experience with the Dora against the Tempest as "Almost equal in level flight, a length pursuit was generally fruitless. The D-9 climbed and turned better but was inferior in the dive." 




> I still disagree because as I said in order to compare aircraft then they need to be compared at all conditions to each other on a level playing field.


So tests done by their own pilots would be ok? 
And what about German test pilots at Rechlin who were not used to new types?



> You need to compare using the manufacturers data and as Jank was so kind to point out they are never the aircrafts limitations.


So that goes for both aircraft which still comes down to the same thing then.



> Therefore my point is you can not dismiss the Luftwaffe pilot and say that the Tempest would win hands down becuase the allied pilots were better.


The allied pilot was better than the German pilot. I can make this statement because it speaks of THE German (Dora) pilot and THE allied (Tempest) pilot. The average quality of the German pilot was simply lower at this stage of the war. Of course there were dozens of Luftwaffe Experten but they do little to lift up the average quality of the German pilot. 
And this fits in what I said before: the pilot, the weather, surprise element, altitude advantage are all incredibily important but when comparing aircraft you have to go by averages: each side will have equal amounts of these benefits ... and the average German pilot will be inferior to the British one.

Because if you would follow your logic, you can make a claim that the Polikarpov I-16 wasn't worse than the Vought F-4U because it could have had the better pilot, an altitude advantage, and a better turn radius. But I doubt anyone will ever claim the I-16 was a match for the Corsair.

Kris


----------



## DerAdlerIstGelandet (Oct 21, 2007)

Civettone said:


> So tests done by their own pilots would be ok?



I am saying you will get a better test result.



Civettone said:


> And what about German test pilots at Rechlin who were not used to new types?



By the time they had flown the aircraft eneogh yes because you dont do just 10 hours of test flying. Aircraft are flown 100s of hours and even 1000's of hours in test flying.



Civettone said:


> The allied pilot was better than the German pilot. I can make this statement because it speaks of THE German (Dora) pilot and THE allied (Tempest) pilot. The average quality of the German pilot was simply lower at this stage of the war. Of course there were dozens of Luftwaffe Experten but they do little to lift up the average quality of the German pilot.
> And this fits in what I said before: the pilot, the weather, surprise element, altitude advantage are all incredibily important but when comparing aircraft you have to go by averages: each side will have equal amounts of these benefits ... and the average German pilot will be inferior to the British one.



I will agree the average pilot was better. That is the truth of the matter.

As for the rest of the discussion. We will have agree to disagree because I look at this differently than you do and I would even say that technically neither of us are wrong. It just depends how you look at it.



Civettone said:


> Because if you would follow your logic, you can make a claim that the Polikarpov I-16 wasn't worse than the Vought F-4U because it could have had the better pilot, an altitude advantage, and a better turn radius. But I doubt anyone will ever claim the I-16 was a match for the Corsair.
> 
> Kris



Now you are just being silly...


----------



## renrich (Oct 21, 2007)

Re question about US using cal .50 MGs in their fighters through the end of the war. Not strictly true as some models of the Hellcats and Corsairs utilised 20 mm cannons. However, in the first trials of the 20 mms, there were reliability problems. The .50 BMG was a tried and true design and very effective against enemy fighters. The US fighters could for the most part carry a large ammo load with the .50s which was a big consideration for the long range fighters which might have to fight their way home. By the way the P38 always carried a 20 mm, the very early P51s carried 20mms and the P39 carried either 1-37mm or a 20mm. These were usually nose mounted which apparently caused less feed problems.

Reactions: Like Like:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## DerAdlerIstGelandet (Oct 21, 2007)

Also I think you have to look at what was the main thing they needed to arm there aircraft against. The USAAF did not have to worry about going up against large bomber formations where a 20mm might be better. The .50 Cal was certainly good eneogh to bring down fighters.

Reactions: Like Like:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## Soren (Oct 22, 2007)

Civettone said:


> Soren, Messerschmitt mislead Hitler on the Me 262 as a Jabo, the Me 209 being better than the Me 262, the Me 410 reaching 680 km/h, the Me 262 being a better bomber/recon than the Ar 234, etc.



What ?! 

First off Messerschmidt designed the Me-262 to be an air-superiority fighter, it was Hitler who wanted it to fullfill the fighter-bomber role, NOT Messerschmidt.

Secondly Messerschmidt never claimed the Me-209 to be better than the Me-262.

Thirdly where the heck have you heard the Me-410 was supposed to reach 680 km/h ??? The design goal was 625-630 km/h !



> Hitler was genious at time but could also be incredibily naive when people told him things he liked.



Hitler wasn't really naive, he was paranoid as heck though.



> He was often overoptimistic and thereby chosing to believe the one with the best news. Messerschmitt quickly found that out.



That is completely made up on your part Civettone.



> About the performance of the Dora...
> I've got a graph drawn up by Focke Wulf itself. A Leistungvergleich Fw 190 and Ta 152. The Fw 190D (with MW 50) didn't reach 700 kmh at optimal altitude. The D-15 struggled to get there. Quite a different story for the D-12 which even got above 750 kmh!!



I've got the very same chart and one thing is for sure, you're not reading it correctly!



> And on this one it barely reaches 700: http://pages.sbcglobal.net/mdegnan/_images/DoraMitALader.bmp



You need glasses Civettone cause on that very chart the Dora-9 exceeds 703 km/h at 5.7km, which "oddly" enough is exactly the same as on the official leistung chart I presented. Note the SL speed as-well plz, ~ 615 km/h.



> And this comes from luftwaffe-experten:
> _the speed are comming fro a fw test from march 45 (from the smithonian german and japanees captured documents the IWM has probably a copy)
> the fw 190 was with fully loaded 4250 kg and with the ETC 504 add around 10 kmh without it)
> Speed WEP mw50 (b4)
> 692 kmh @ 5400 m (702 without ETC 504)_



692 km/h at 5.4km with ETC-504 - sounds correct.



> wep ladruckhohung
> i do not have hard data but we can gustimate it around 680 @ 5400 m (690 without etc)
> 
> _start and emmergency
> ...



The above figures look right enough...



> The Tempest had a lower wing loading which would (theoretically) make it a better turner, at least what initital turns are concerned.



Thats just being ridiculously simplistic ignorant on your part Civettone, cause its not wing-loading which matters, its lift-loading, which in turn is dependant on CLmax. And like the P-51 the Tempest features a laminar flow type airfoil, which in short means low drag but also low lift pr. area - hence why a underpowered FW-190 Jabo will turn with the Tempest. The FW-190 on the other hand features a very high lift airfoil (NACA 23000 series) with a CLmax around 1.58 - 1.64, hence why the FW-190 was famous for its excellent responsiveness. So in this department the Dora-9 is far superior to the Tempest.



> Sustained turns - which is usually talked about but not as important IMO - would be pro-Dora.



Again the Dora-9 is superior.



> The Dora had the better roll rate which would mean that it could shake of the enemy by rolling to one side and then roll again to the other side. A Tempest would not be able to follow that. Any opponent could outroll the Tempest. But about intitial turning and climbing would be in the advantage of the Tempest due to excellent handling, even at speeds above 400 mph, large wing loading and a huge amount of horses.



As explained above you're incorrect in your assessment Civettone. The FW-190 Dora-9 featured both better instantanous and sustained turn performance than the Tempest, and the FW-190 already possessed the best high speed handling of any piston engined fighter. So the Tempest would be at a real loss if the fight was at high speed. 



> Also Tempest pilots considered their planes to be more manoeuvrable than the Fw 190 (not sure about which version), but I suppose Dora pilots thought the same. The ones that disagreed were probably dead anyway



As have already been told German comparative testing concluded the FW-190 Dora-9 to be a much superior dogfighter compared to the Tempest, and the RAF's own tests only reinforce that conclusion.


----------



## Civettone (Oct 22, 2007)

Soren said:


> First off Messerschmidt designed the Me-262 to be an air-superiority fighter, it was Hitler who wanted it to fullfill the fighter-bomber role, NOT Messerschmidt.


First, why do you write it with 'dt'? Second, I never said it was M. who wanted it as a FB but when asked, M. said that the Me 262 could easily be adapted to carry two 500 kg bombs. And he said it was a better bomber than the Ar 234 and Do 335.



> Secondly Messerschmidt never claimed the Me-209 to be better than the Me-262.


When the Me 262 was chosen and he was ordered to stop the Me 209 development, he started to claim that the Me 209 was the better alternative.



> Thirdly where the heck have you heard the Me-410 was supposed to reach 680 km/h ??? The design goal was 625-630 km/h !


There was a comparative study done between the Me 410, Me 329 and a Lippisch design. 

_Performance Comparison between Me 410/Li P.10/Me 329 
Horizontal speed @ maximum pressure altitude 
Service Ceiling 
Range at best glide ratio 
Me 410 
672 kph / 418 mph 
10900 m / 35671' 
2020 km / 1255 miles 
Li P.10 
682 kph / 424 mph 
12100 m / 39698' 
2480 km / 1541 miles 
Me 329 
685 kph / 426 mph 
12500 m / 41010' 
2520 km / 1566 miles _

So sorry it was 672 kmh, not 680.




> Hitler wasn't really naive, he was paranoid as heck though.


He was both. The man had many sides to him.

_That is completely made up on your part Civettone._Perhaps you should do some reading. Try Speer's autobiography to start. 




> I've got the very same chart and one thing is for sure, you're not reading it correctly!


Oh Soren ... please ... the Fw 190D-9 line doesn't reach the 700 kmh line. How do I misread that?  



> You need glasses Civettone cause on that very chart the Dora-9 exceeds 703 km/h at 5.7km


Like I said, barely. Look it up in the dictionary if you don't understand it. A synonym would be 'barely'. Or in German: 'kaum'. 



> As have already been told German comparative testing concluded the FW-190 Dora-9 to be a much superior dogfighter compared to the Tempest, and the RAF's own tests only reinforce that conclusion.


Like I said from the beginning, I have no problem admitting that the Dora was the better dogfighter as it had better roll rate and turn rate. 
But British tests show that the Dora wasn't as responsive at speeds above 400 mph. The Tempest was regarded as superior at low altitudes and at high speeds.
Here you can see what the performance was at combat power settings.
Tempest V Performance Data WEP would have given better performance. 4380 ft/min and 432 mph. 
Also after a new prop was installed around the middle of 1944 climb rate of the Tempest was 4,700 ft per min at sea level. Climb to 20,000 ft in 6 min 6 sec. 
I would like to see a Fw 190D fight against that without the MW 50 which only appeared at the end, when all was too late.

And again, the Tempest was faster, had better zoom climb and was better armed. As such it was the better BnZ fighter. 

Kris

Reactions: Like Like:
2 | Like List reactions


----------



## Marcel (Oct 22, 2007)

Soren said:


> You need glasses Civettone cause on that very chart the Dora-9 exceeds 703 km/h at 5.7km, which "oddly" enough is exactly the same as on the official leistung chart I presented. Note the SL speed as-well plz, ~ 615 km/h.



Please Soren we could do without the personal insults in this thread, would you keep it civilised, please?

Reactions: Like Like:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## Kurfürst (Oct 22, 2007)

Civettone said:


> There was a comparative study done between the Me 410, Me 329 and a Lippisch design.
> 
> _Performance Comparison between Me 410/Li P.10/Me 329
> Horizontal speed @ maximum pressure altitude
> ...



'Messerschmitt lied about the ME 410 claim'. 

The Li P.10 was being compared to the _projected figures of the Me 410*C*,_ which had new and improved engines (high alt DB 603Es) as opposed to the standard production 410A/B. The 670 kph projected speed for the 410C was understood with 603E engines, and Methanol-Water injection. They look absolutely feasable for me, given the power increase. You`re trying to make it look like some sort of absurd claim for the standard 410 versions. It wasn`t. It was a performance projection for the latest DB engines.

'British tests with D-9 vs Tempest', again, no such things exist.

It`s becoming taxying to just read through these things you make up on the run, and then keep repeating - see also D-9&MW50.. I don`t think I`ll bother to even respond to that kind of nonsense..


----------



## corsair19 (Oct 22, 2007)

the tempest will shoot down any 190 coming its way


----------



## Glider (Oct 23, 2007)

Kurfürst said:


> Nothing of that sort in real life quite the opposite happened.
> In fact the Allies had went for lower muzzle velocity and higher RoF with the Tempests short Hispano Mk Vs, which were pretty much and equivalent to the Mauser MG 151/20 in these specs.



The Hispano V had a MV of 830m/s and the German 151 720m/s with the API and HET shells, hardly similar. The HEM was close at 800m/s but filling your belts with two shells of such significant differences in balistics cannot help



> As for the Tempest, it did not have the short barreld cannons, nor spring tabs until June 1944, nor the Sabre IIB engine until September-October 1944 - this concides with the introduction of MW-50 onto the Dora. Even then, production of the new, improved models was rather marginal, and it took quite some time until pilots actually _saw_ those new models.


I think you might be getting confused with the Typhoon. Only the first 100 Tempests had the longer guns, the others were all series 2 with the changes you mentioned. As far as I can tell all Tempest V series 2 had the Sabre IIb with some later planes having the Sabre V.
As an aside the MW-50 certainly worked but the downside of this type of boost was that it was only limited in its endurance and of course when not in use, it was more dead weight to carry around.


> The real problem of the Tempest was it`s Sabre engine, that never seem to work as it should, or the very least it proved to be fatally unreliable in service. Planes bursting into flames on startup, planes augmenting right after take off due to engine failures etc... and it kept happening.


This had been solved by the time the Tempest came on stream with the Series IIb engine. Typhoons were also refitted with this engine.

Reactions: Friendly Friendly:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## Glider (Oct 23, 2007)

Civettone said:


> Like I said from the beginning, I have no problem admitting that the Dora was the better dogfighter as it had better roll rate and turn rate.
> But British tests show that the Dora wasn't as responsive at speeds above 400 mph. The Tempest was regarded as superior at low altitudes and at high speeds.
> Here you can see what the performance was at combat power settings.
> Tempest V Performance Data WEP would have given better performance. 4380 ft/min and 432 mph.
> ...



Its worth pointing out that these performance figures for the Tempest, which are pretty impressive, are for a series 1 Tempest. The Series 2 which was the normal version had a more powerful (and reliable) engine as well as aerodynamic improvements, which would have improved the performance.
If we are talking about later Tempests, these had the even more powerful series VI engines.

Reactions: Friendly Friendly:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## DerAdlerIstGelandet (Oct 23, 2007)

corsair19 said:


> the tempest will shoot down any 190 coming its way



That was a very educated post.

Reactions: Funny Funny:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## Soren (Oct 23, 2007)

The only chart where the Dora-9 doesn't reach 700 + km/h at VH at full boost is the one where it reaches past 625 km/h at SL at 2.02 ata (Different gearing) - which is allot faster than the Tempest. The Dora-9's in service with MW-50 (1.78 ata) reached 612-615 km/h at SL and 703 km/h at 5.7km.

From 11/3 1945, performance with MW-50: 615 km/h at SL, 705 km/h at 5.7km: 




Dora-9 climb rate with MW-50 [Without ETC-504]: 22.5 m/s (4,400 ft/min) at SL, 18.5 m/s (3,641 ft/min) at 4.8 km:




Dora-9 time to climb climb rate [with ETC-504]: 1.8min to 2km (6,591 ft), 5.5min to 6km (19,685 ft), 13.4min to 10km (32,808 ft), 17.5 m/s (3,444 ft/min) at 4.8km:




Dora-9 Time to climb Climb rate [without ETC-504]: 12.5 min to 10km, 18.5 m/s (3,641 ft/min) at 4.8km:


----------



## Glider (Oct 23, 2007)

Soren said:


> The only chart where the Dora-9 doesn't reach 700 + km/h at VH at full boost is the one where it reaches past 625 km/h at SL at 2.02 ata (Different gearing) - which is allot faster than the Tempest. The Dora-9's in service with MW-50 (1.78 ata) reached 612-615 km/h at SL and 703 km/h at 5.7km.
> 
> From 11/3 1945, performance with MW-50: 615 km/h at SL, 705 km/h at 5.7km:


Tempest 632km/h at sea level 701 km/h at 5.5km, 683 at 8.5km



> Dora-9 time to climb climb rate [with ETC-504]: 1.8min to 2km (6,591 ft), 5.5min to 6km (19,685 ft), 13.4min to 10km (32,808 ft), 17.5 m/s (3,444 ft/min) at 4.8km:
> 
> Dora-9 Time to climb Climb rate [without ETC-504]: 12.5 min to 10km, 18.5 m/s (3,641 ft/min) at 4.8km:


Tempest time to 15,000ft 5 mins, 20,000ft 7.5min
Combat Rating 
4,380 ft/min at sea level
3,000 ft/min at 13,500 ft (4,100 m)

Dive Tempest red lined at 540mph (870km/H)

So as for speed the Tempest has it at low level, about the same at medium level and probably about the same at high altitude (I don't know the 190's numbers)

Climb - the 190 clearly has an advantage

Dive I don't know the 190's numbers but I suspect the Tempest has the advantage. I don't know of another plane that has such a high red line speed.

Reactions: Like Like:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## HoHun (Oct 23, 2007)

Hi Glider,

>Dive I don't know the 190's numbers but I suspect the Tempest has the advantage. I don't know of another plane that has such a high red line speed.

It's actually not all that high - 540 mph at 10000 ft (the red-line speed decreases above this altitude) work out to Mach 0.80 if you figure in the position error given by the Pilot's Notes and neglect the compressiblity error of the airspeed indicator (which means that Mach 0.80 is still optimistic).

That such a high figure appears in the Pilot's Notes is more a sign that towards the end of the war, the conditions under which compressibility occurred were better understood than early on (or at least that the pilots were better trained to understand them).

Mach 0.80 appears to be more or less a typical figure for a late-war fighter. A Me 109 was dived to this speed once (but that was seriously pushing the envelope!), and while the Spitfire exceeded this speed frequently and probably is the record holder, it was not really safe at those speeds anymore, with both elevator and aileron controls capable of destroying the airframe.

The mid- to late-war designs like the Fw 190 or the Tempest (or reportedly the Ki-84) usually were safer than earlier designs because they lost control efficiency with increasing speed to make inadvertant overstressing of the airframe impossible while retaining a useful amount of control effectiveness.

It's not speed, it's what you can do with it 

Regards,

Henning (HoHun)


----------



## Glider (Oct 23, 2007)

I don't disagree with what you say but there is a lot of myth and exceptions re dive speeds. The speed at which a plane is red lined is at least a common base to work from.
Mustangs were I believe red lined at 505mph, 109G's at 466mph so 540 mph is really motoring.

Planes often exceeded these figures and no one is saying that a Mustang will come apart at 506mph or a 109 at 467mph but the more you exceed them the greater the chances of hitting terra firma, hard. If I had to go downhill at 540mph, then the Tempest is my choice of mount.
I really do not know what the figures are for a 190D and they may match the Tempest, but I doubt they will exceed them. 

The Spitfire is a good example. It certainly did have the highest mach no in a dive of its time, but that was a proper test, that used a heck of a lot of hight and definately wasn't an average pilot in a combat situation. Its well know that a Spitfire for all its well know advantages didn't include diving as one of its strengths, anything but.

Reactions: Agree Agree:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## HoHun (Oct 23, 2007)

Hi Glider,

>Mustangs were I believe red lined at 505mph, 109G's at 466mph so 540 mph is really motoring.

Mach number is dependend on speed, so you have to add altitude information to make this information comparable. I don't believe the Me 109G had 540 mph on the clock, but it reached Mach 0.80 at an altitude where the Tempest was not cleared for 540 mph either.

(You are right that the Me 109 was really motoring ... it was modified with a reduced aileron gearing to avoid flutter, and fitted with an ejection seat just in case.)

>Planes often exceeded these figures and no one is saying that a Mustang will come apart at 506mph 

Quite right. However, while the 540 mph figure probably had some safety margin, it's equivalent to less than Mach 0.80 if you'd account for the compressibility error of the airspeed indicator (which is not listed in the Pilot's Notes, so it's unknown quantitatively). Qualitatively, it causes a higher than realistic speed reading.

So all considered, and with some caution because we don't have the complete data, I don't think there is a reason to assume that the Tempest was superior to the Fw 190 in a dive. However, the gaps in our data leave room for individual speculation, so we can all safely disagree 

>The Spitfire is a good example. It certainly did have the highest mach no in a dive of its time, but that was a proper test, that used a heck of a lot of hight and definately wasn't an average pilot in a combat situation. 

Absolutely true - diving to that speed could save your life if all went well, and break your neck if something went wrong. And individual Spitfires would handle different in a dive, so it was hard to tell just what would happen.

One of Alfred Price' books features an interesting article by a contemporary aerodynamicist, stating that before the war, aircraft were built for smooth controllability at dogfight speeds, while dives at breakneck speeds were regarded as "of academical interest only".

RAE test pilot Eric Brown used the term "tactically useful Mach number" quite a bit, which usually was somewhat below the maximum survivable Mach number even for well-handling types.

Regards,

Henning (HoHun)


----------



## renrich (Oct 23, 2007)

I don't know where all the numbers posted for the FW190D-9 come from but my reference, "The Great Book of WW2 Airplanes" which I have found to compare pretty well with other sources has the following for the so called "Dora" Weight=4300kg with MW 50 boost(clean), sea level vmax=575km/h, vmax @ 6600m=686 km/h, time to 2000m=2min 6sec. Range=(clean) 837 km. Pretty good performance


----------



## Civettone (Oct 23, 2007)

Lost a long post so fuk it I'll just say it in brief.

I'm sorry Kurfurst that you believe I deliberately used wrong stats. I thought the comparison was with the regular Me 410, not the Me 410C.
I read a while ago that the MW 50 was only standard in 45. Can't remember where I read it so I won't mention it again.
I quoted Mike Williams and I think I have a right to. I did some research and saw a website where you made a good case of showing that Williams used only the sources he wanted. Don't blame me for that.

Going back to my original post, I reacted to people saying the Dora was better than the Tempest. I never said the Tempest was better than the Dora. I said the Tempest was faster at all altitudes. Now it seems it was only faster at low alt and equal at medium and high alt. So still faster.
I said the Tempest had excellent handling.
I said the Dora was better at roll rate.
I said the Dora was equal to the Tempest in turn rate. I take that back.
I said the Tempest had better zoom climb (not sustained climb).

So in short, I believe the Dora was the better dogfighter. But the Tempest was the better BnZ fighter, especially at low altitude. It was also the better ground attack fighter.

All of this stuff is based on these two official reports:
Tempest V Performance
Tempest V Performance Data 
Kris

Reactions: Like Like:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## Erich (Oct 23, 2007)

someone have Dietmar H.'s Dora book via Schiffer on this forum as I have a question. 

ya know the only way anyone is going to get anywhere is to post some 1st person accts of Tempest/Dora pilots meeting and the outcomes if any aerial combat is discussed in any type of detail(s).


----------



## HoHun (Oct 23, 2007)

Hi Erich,

>ya know the only way anyone is going to get anywhere is to post some 1st person accts of Tempest/Dora pilots meeting and the outcomes if any aerial combat is discussed in any type of detail(s).

Hm, actually I think this is the most difficult to handle and unreliable source. Just identifying the enemy correctly is difficult enough, and the "long-nosed Focke-Wulf" in particular appeared in Allied combat reports long before it was actually delivered at the Luftwaffe.

The main difficulty might actually be that the combat reports have a certain and very brief standard form that leaves a lot of the story untold. They were not written with the kind of evaluation in mind that we'd like to perform.

For us, their main use is to highlight any additional properties beyond the basic parameters discussed here that might have impact on their combat effectiveness, but I'd be hesitant to use them as a primary analysis tool.

Regards,

Henning (HoHun)

Reactions: Agree Agree:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## Erich (Oct 24, 2007)

well I agree then I disagree. from combat reports from both sides you can get a clue at to what alt. the opposite a/c and yours performed. was my gunsight/20mm's on target, did the opponent break away in what direction and was I able to keep up and did I or was I able to turn inside of him. these things are quite likely to give a good insight as to the pilot and his craft. Many of the P-51 cmbat reports have much in the way of details


----------



## lesofprimus (Oct 24, 2007)

Like I said earlier, the Dora was the better performer at the prescribed combat altitudes that usually took place....

It all comes down to pilot capabilities anyways...


----------



## drgondog (Oct 27, 2007)

Erich said:


> well I agree then I disagree. from combat reports from both sides you can get a clue at to what alt. the opposite a/c and yours performed. was my gunsight/20mm's on target, did the opponent break away in what direction and was I able to keep up and did I or was I able to turn inside of him. these things are quite likely to give a good insight as to the pilot and his craft. Many of the P-51 cmbat reports have much in the way of details



I very much agree.. the encounter reports are drawn from the 'winner's circle' but their more than a few with Dora's to remind you that the a/c were so close in performance that the outcome was rarely decided by pure performance match ups.

From Henning's perspective you would find it hard to judge a Dora as deficient in turn with the 51 just because it was shout down in a turn with deflection.. if the encounter report had one or more 360's with the 51 closing and pulling out in front (and vice versa) - at least you have an indicator if you ignore pilot skil


----------



## Kurfürst (Oct 28, 2007)

Not to mention, there`s no way to be certain about the aircraft being a Dora or not...

For Pierre Clostermann, every 190 in 1944 was a 190D and every 109 in 1944 was 109K. Just an example.

Reactions: Agree Agree:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## DerAdlerIstGelandet (Oct 28, 2007)

drgondog said:


> the a/c were so close in performance that the outcome was rarely decided by pure performance match ups.



Agreed and that was what I was trying to say but consensus says I am wrong....


----------



## Jank (Oct 29, 2007)

Someone just wrote to me about either an encounter report or just an account of a P-51D pilot that on January 20, 1945, he found himself seriously outnumbered by D-9's (just himself vs. more than 10 D-9's) and ran for home. He was chased from Regensburg to the Alps at an altitude of 32,000ft. at WEP and they slowly fell behind. This pilot estimated their top speed to be no more than 430mph.

I have no other information.

Reactions: Agree Agree:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## Jank (Oct 29, 2007)

OK, I see now that the Mustang driver was Arthur Fielder.


----------



## Erich (Oct 29, 2007)

Jank I have talked with Art at length some months ago about the 20 janaury 45 mission with JG 301, there were no D-9's, all were A-8's and A-9's, he has just forgotten that is all............. in fact the very same comments you quoted he repeated on 12 o'clock high some days earlier although again I point out I have written him privately with the correct information. a very kind man I might add.

E ~ and to note the D-9's of JG 301 were on fighter bomber ops against the Soviets that date.


----------



## enven (Oct 29, 2007)

I really like the Dora...A lot.


----------



## Jank (Oct 29, 2007)

Thanks for correcting the story.


----------



## Trautloft (Oct 30, 2007)

the tempest been the worst opponent of the me-262?
sure,most of the approx.20 262 lost to enemy fighters been claimed by Tempests,but it could be anything that time i think. a spit XIX or a p-47d whatever.the Me-262 ,as it flew , was superb to any allied fighters, they shot them down as they landed..these claims aren't real victories for me,at least they do not judge about the Tempest and its 'skill'. Anyway,i like both aswell , but i wouldn't compare them because of their different roles. The Tempest is a great fighter-bomber,and due to its extreme performance- like the corsair, one of the most powerful engines in ww2,these sabres...great bird,doing good as a pure fighter for sure. but as an interceptor i go with the dora


----------



## enven (Oct 31, 2007)

I have a quick question about the Dora-Nine: It seems that these planes saw a lot of combat, but from some of the history, its roll changed dramatically over the months/years of service: For me, flight intercepting seemed to have been the most effective for these higher altitude (faster) fighters/interceptor, but many find them to do a smash-up job with fighter-bombing; I also read some time ago that the 190D's transported Torpedo's as well....So the Dora seemed to have been a versatile aircraft...But what seemed to have been the best job for this beast?

As well: 

OT: - Ta-152: Its predecessor seemed to have had a larger wingspan, and a higher performing engine; the question I have for this aircraft is, in comparison to the 190 (Weight/wing type) did the Ta-152 truly perform better as a fighter?


----------



## CPWN (Nov 4, 2007)

I think the two planes' speed,dive and climb at the same level. The supercharger on their engines both one stage two speeds,ceiling should be similiar.Production numbers also close,700 and 800.Fw190D9 maybe nimbler than Tempest but Tempest has more range and payload.They would be competitors like Bf109 and Spitfire.Victory depends on pilot or lucky. Just my opinion and sorry for my bad English.

Reactions: Agree Agree:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## russhpatel (Nov 6, 2007)

gone


----------



## Kurfürst (Nov 7, 2007)

IIRC Dora-9 production was more like 1700 or so by the end of the war.


----------



## drgondog (Nov 7, 2007)

Kurfürst said:


> IIRC Dora-9 production was more like 1700 or so by the end of the war.



Kurfurst - how many actual squadrons were fully equipped with 190D-9s? similarly what about -12 and -13 actual combat sorties.


----------



## Erich (Nov 7, 2007)

Bill not enough to make one heck of a difference.........some of them were against Soviet A/C on the Ost front - JG 301 both the Russians and the US, JG 4 in the east, JG 3 of IVth gruppe in the east. JG 51 in the east. JG 300 - can't remember actually.

JG 2 fully equipped against US and RAF. JG 26 nearly fully equipped against the RAF and US, there were others in handfulls

Reactions: Informative Informative:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## drgondog (Nov 7, 2007)

Erich - did the -12 and/or -13 actually enter combat ops (like the Ta 152H did either actually form a complete squadron?)


----------



## Erich (Nov 7, 2007)

there were several yes I think 1-2 in the Würger staffel of JV 44, in JG 26 and another JG plus I think 2 test Kommando's.

nothing in numbers mind you.

Bill OT but still owe you the JG 300 stuff on Nov. 2nd 44, my allergies kicked in a month ago like something I have never had, I'm sicker than a stinkin wet dog and have no voice, maybe with the rain predicted this weekend I'll be up and around for it, right now it's lazin back with meds which totally freak my brain


----------



## drgondog (Nov 7, 2007)

Erich said:


> there were several yes I think 1-2 in the Würger staffel of JV 44, in JG 26 and another JG plus I think 2 test Kommando's.
> 
> nothing in numbers mind you.
> 
> Bill OT but still owe you the JG 300 stuff on Nov. 2nd 44, my allergies kicked in a month ago like something I have never had, I'm sicker than a stinkin wet dog and have no voice, maybe with the rain predicted this weekend I'll be up and around for it, right now it's lazin back with meds which totally freak my brain



Don't sweat it E.. just want to close loop w/Cullerton when we can.

PS - we are going to have an AWESOME re-union in April 2008. The Association has changed its byLaws to automatically include the 355TFW CO on the board in perpetuity and they have been busting their butts at Davis Monthan.

On tap is a major firepower demo (day and night) at the Gila Bend Range with A-10s from 355 at DM and Red Flag F-15/F-16 and AC-130 from Nellis.

The young guys from the current and Gulf War 355 are so excited about a big turn out from WWII and Viet Nam vets - and vice versa. I am personally also looking forward to the A-10 simulator... so is my better half.


----------



## DerAdlerIstGelandet (Nov 7, 2007)

drgondog said:


> AC-130 from Nellis.



OT still, but you will love that! I got to see her in action and it was simply amazing. One of the most beautiful things I have seen.


----------



## drgondog (Nov 7, 2007)

DerAdlerIstGelandet said:


> OT still, but you will love that! I got to see her in action and it was simply amazing. One of the most beautiful things I have seen.



LOL- If ever the phrase "beauty is in the eye of the beholder" was so true - it depends on your perspective if you happen to be the focus of 'attention'.. I saw the AC-47 and the early AC-130 in action - simply awesome


----------



## DerAdlerIstGelandet (Nov 7, 2007)

drgondog said:


> LOL- If ever the phrase "beauty is in the eye of the beholder" was so true - it depends on your perspective if you happen to be the focus of 'attention'.. I saw the AC-47 and the early AC-130 in action - simply awesome



That is true. It is like a laser show from the heavens. Truely beautiful (from our perspective! )


----------



## Airborne (Nov 8, 2007)

Well there were several variants of Tempest as well. Some powered with V form engines and some even with radials.
The one I saw at Hendon was a radial version.


----------



## Jank (Nov 8, 2007)

I don't believe the Tempest II (radial engined variant) ever saw combat.


----------



## Marcel (Nov 8, 2007)

Airborne said:


> Well there were several variants of Tempest as well. Some powered with V form engines and some even with radials.
> The one I saw at Hendon was a radial version.



In Hendon they also have a Tempest V with a Sabre H (not V) engine as well, I've put a picture of it in this thread http://www.ww2aircraft.net/forum/aircraft-pictures/my-visit-raf-museum-hendon-london-9876.html


----------



## Civettone (Nov 8, 2007)

Marcel, I went there last Sunday. Didn't get into the BoB hangar but nevertheless it was worth it! Good thing I didn't get off at Hendon itself.

Kris


----------



## Kurfürst (Nov 8, 2007)

I can`t tell you for 1945, but I did a bit of Excell work on that based on available online transcriptions of the original strenght reports. Here`s what I have for December 1944.

*1st December 1944 *: Total *124 D-9s* with the Tagjagd, 1 with Stab/JG2, 55 Doras with II./JG26, 68 Dora Nines with III./JG54. 

During the month, they receive no less than _214 brand new D-9_s; another five returns from repairs; 52 is lost to enemy action, 45 w/o enemy action, 7 to overhauls (or rather, leaves the unit and it`s adminstration).

*By the end of December, 1944, the day before Bodenplatte,* they report a total of *238 D-9s on hand*. The major users operating on around full Gruppe- strenght (~40 ac each) are I./JG2 (38), III./JG2 (35), I./JG26 (49), II./JG26 (39), III./JG54 (49). II./JG301 has 18, Stab/JG2 has 4 ac. III./JG26 (1), Stab/JG27 (2), Stab/JG4 (1), Stab/JG26 (2) also operates a couple.

Quick and dirty job from excell database, so there may be some ommitments, errors etc, but it gives the roughly accurate idea. Of course it`s just what they happened to have at hand on a given day, and only the_ Tagjagd._ And, no numerical data for 1945 (though units can be probably dig up for some months)

Which leaves me to believe, the greatest advantage of the FW 190 D-9 over the Tempest V was it`s sheer numbers and availability; it`s greatest disadvantage was the short training that far too many many of it`s pilots had.

BTW, Bill, you mentioned some G-6/AS data for unit strenghts around for 1944 you`ve seen (in some other recent thread).

Can I get a copy of, since the sources I use are unfortunately do not give much of an idea what is the _exact_ subtype present with the unit (ie. G-5/AS evidenced by pictures are just reported as factory-fresh G-5s.. probably data plate not being stemped over in early conversions..?), and I`d like to establish what the subtype structure looked like in 1944, when so many aircraft were just converted/updated/modernized from older airframes, and this leads to the above trouble with monthly strengh reports.. :/


----------



## drgondog (Nov 9, 2007)

Kurfürst said:


> I can`t tell you for 1945, but I did a bit of Excell work on that based on available online transcriptions of the original strenght reports. Here`s what I have for December 1944.
> 
> *1st December 1944 *: Total *124 D-9s* with the Tagjagd, 1 with Stab/JG2, 55 Doras with II./JG26, 68 Dora Nines with III./JG54.
> 
> ...



Flugzeugbestand und Bewegungsmeldungen, Jagdverbände

I have used the TO&E source to look at what types of 109s were dominant in LuftFlotte Reich including JG3, III/26 (several occcasions), JG5, JG27 and JG53 and JG301 in the March-May 1944 timeframe. Let me know whether you think they are representative?

Reactions: Informative Informative:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## Marcel (Nov 9, 2007)

Civettone said:


> Marcel, I went there last Sunday. Didn't get into the BoB hangar but nevertheless it was worth it! Good thing I didn't get off at Hendon itself.
> 
> Kris



Yeah that would have been a long walk  Glad you had a good time Kris!


----------



## Kurfürst (Nov 11, 2007)

drgondog said:


> Flugzeugbestand und Bewegungsmeldungen, Jagdverbände
> 
> I have used the TO&E source to look at what types of 109s were dominant in LuftFlotte Reich including JG3, III/26 (several occcasions), JG5, JG27 and JG53 and JG301 in the March-May 1944 timeframe. Let me know whether you think they are representative?



It`s an excellent resource IMHO, but a word of warning : I`ve noticed especially about the first six months of 1944 that the subtypes are not always 100% accurate. 

Thinking about conversions and rebuilds here.. for example the first G-5/6/AS are reported on those TOEs (rather, equipment 'movement' reports) list in June/July the earliest IIRC (which I why I was surprised when you said somewhere you saw /AS aircraft in the spring - which unit..? ). Hhowever it is certain that the first lucky units had them as early as March/April 1944 already.

For example, it is evidenced byKnoke`s diary and some photographs of his CO`s aircraft which is clearly a G-5/AS or G-6/AS with methanol boost (AS cowling + Red legs clearly visible, date of photo certain because he received some award which`s date is known, Knoke mentions the same in his diary).. here`s the beast :






The unit strenght returns of ww2.dk however only lists ordinary Neubau G-5s arriving... no /AS, nothing.

I presume they reported dataplates and serial numbers, which, for some early conversions, _may have not_ been stamped over in the factory, and on paper those aircraft were still 'G-5's and 'G-6's, or the designation was just not yet standard etc. And, most /AS aircraft until mid-1944 were conversions... same about MW-50. No clue in the Bewegungsmeldungen which aircraft have these... the precise subtypes are obviously not listed in many cases, which as I said, probably a result of the conversion, not to mention there was no clear designation for the aircraft with MW-50 initially (unofficial things like G-6/MW and the like appearing sometimes..). 

For this reason, the exact type structure are difficult to arrive at for early 1944, but it seemed to it`s specific thing to that period, which can be explained by large number of conversions, and interim designations suddenly appearing.

Reactions: Informative Informative:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## DerAdlerIstGelandet (Nov 11, 2007)

Jank I have downsized your siggy.

You have been here for quite some time, you know that that is too big.


----------



## Jank (Nov 11, 2007)

Thanks.

It was big but I didn't think it was taller than both of the images that make up your sig.


----------



## drgondog (Nov 11, 2007)

Kurfürst said:


> It`s an excellent resource IMHO, but a word of warning : I`ve noticed especially about the first six months of 1944 that the subtypes are not always 100% accurate.
> 
> Thinking about conversions and rebuilds here.. for example the first G-5/6/AS are reported on those TOEs (rather, equipment 'movement' reports) list in June/July the earliest IIRC (which I why I was surprised when you said somewhere you saw /AS aircraft in the spring - which unit..? ). Hhowever it is certain that the first lucky units had them as early as March/April 1944 already.
> 
> ...



Where was the photo of the 109G-5/AS taken?


----------



## DerAdlerIstGelandet (Nov 11, 2007)

Jank said:


> Thanks.
> 
> It was big but I didn't think it was taller than both of the images that make up your sig.



Your are right. It is not any taller but it is the overall size of your siggy that was too big.


----------



## Erich (Nov 11, 2007)

Günther Specht gruppenkommandeur of II./JG 11. JG 1, JG 3-II.gruppe and II./JG 11 were the first to have G-5/AS and later G-6/AS a more efficient model. Jg 27 followed along with the rest of JG 3, and JG 5

Reactions: Informative Informative:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## Kurfürst (Nov 11, 2007)

Hi Erich,

Do you have dates and TOE strenghtss for these /AS aircraft with units? I am looking for something specific on the early /AS deployment, but I have bumped into the wall I've described above. :/

G-6/AS more efficient, why, I believe the only difference being the G-6/AS un-pressurized. Am I wrong..?


----------



## Erich (Nov 11, 2007)

April 1944 G-6/AS of I./JG 3 provided high cover for Sturmstaffel 1 and the twin engine destroyer ZG units. this was told to me by the creator of the high stafflen who came from JG 51 flying Fw 190's against the Soviets, Horst Petzschler.

the Specht machine is photographed at Wunstorf both were presurrized as Theo Weissenberger of II./JG 5 said of his flights over Normandie in a G-5/AS

there are NO exact dates or strengths as the G-6/AS flew along side standard G-6's in the staffeln. obviously it was not a huge surge of replacement high flyers in the 109 gruppen as it was slow, Jg 300 received them in late summer and into fall though 10.Nacht staffel/Jg 300 had a full compliment of 18 of them to chase down Mossies, g-14/AS later just when the unit was forming II./NJG 11 still having G-6/AS on strength and not totally replcaed by G-14/AS, then G-10's in the line-up no dates, but sorry I am getting off track.

we would literally have to go back to every gruppe and then staffel and unless written by the staffeln historian........ ?


----------



## Boemher (Nov 12, 2007)

Read through this thread and as a big Tempest andDora fan I can say that there have been few even handed posts and most here simply have picked their favourite based on what country it was made in.

Both aircraft were very similar in many aspects. Pilot skill was undoubtedly the most important factor between these two.

Now the Tempests performance mostly mentioned here is the 9lb Sabre IIA version. The one serving operationaly in April 1944. The Dora 9 performance being mentioned here is invariably that of a late 44 early 45 variant. If you want to give a fair apraisal of both types be honest with the performance figures you are using.

I think Soren is using SonderLeistung A-Lader figures for a special Fw 190 D9 with sealed gaps and modified engine. This ofcourse gave the best performance and was phenomenal but lets be honest how many of these ever flew or even saw action? if you want to discuss this variant of the D9 when looking at the regular D9's performance then please compare it to Clostermans special Sabre II C Tempest V with Rotol propellor blades and 2800 HP - because both were contemporaries and both were about as rare as each other. 

Otherwise we could just look at the most common variants 

I believe that the Tempest was a better diver and a better zoom climber - why ? Because the British considered it better than the P51 which itself was regarded as the best. It was heavier more powerful and very clean. Its 545 IAS Red Line speed was the highest of any WW2 fighter and of all the piston engined fighters the Tempest had the best handling at speed. This is clearly noted in its performance tests.

The Tempest also had a higher rate of roll at speeds of 400mph and higher and generally was a very responsive aircraft at all speeds above 250 mph. 

It was regarded for good reason as the best Low to Medium altitude fighter of the war. The Dora was in the same league and bettered it at high altitude but overall the Tempest carried greater payload, farther and faster - FOR ANY GIVEN CONTEMPORARY MODEL.

The famous D9 vs Tempest test was a D13 vs a Tempest at 3000m (worst supercharger height for Tempest) and the German pilot said it could go either way and it had depended on pilot qualtity.

Anoher pointer to the Tempests qualities as a fighter is that of all of its operational losses only 24 are directly attributed to enemy fighters.

Reactions: Like Like:
1 | Agree Agree:
1 | Funny Funny:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## johnbr (Nov 13, 2007)

For me I have always thought that the best tempest was the mark 1.But it was not put in to production.For they got it up to 497mph.


----------



## Boemher (Nov 14, 2007)

Hi there, 

The Tempest Mk I reached speeds of over 466 mph at 24,000ft but was found to be no faster at low altitudes than the Mk V. The wing radiators and unproven Sabre version meant that it was delayed and then cancelled in favour of the Tempest II and Mk V.

The Sabre powered Fury however rached speeds over 483 mph and had a roc of over 5000 ft at sea level. But then it did have over 3050 HP !

Reactions: Informative Informative:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## Soren (Nov 17, 2007)

Boemher,

I'm using SonderNotleistung figures (MW-50 C3), thats 2,100 PS @ 3,250 rpm.

I'm not using the SonderNotleistung Mit A Lader als Bodenmotor figures, in this configuration speeds of over 640 km/h could be reached at SL.


----------



## titeketaamogs (Nov 19, 2007)

I am a loser and I like boys and old ladies.

Reactions: Funny Funny:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## Jank (Nov 23, 2007)

Of potential relevance to some concerning this thread -

Willi Heilmann flew 190's, first some of the "A" series and towards the end, the D-9. In his book, "I Fought You From the Skies," he recounts his wingman and he catching two Tempests at low altitude. They shoot down one - the other, now aware he is boxed in on both sides, at low-level.

As they try to kill him, the Tempest pilot takes his only remaining option - balls to the wall and run like hell.

The D-9 pilots were left slackjawed - despite max' power AND water/methanol boost, they were unable to catch their quarry.


----------



## Soren (Nov 23, 2007)

When did this supposedly happen ?


----------



## Jank (Nov 23, 2007)

Don't know. Obviously late in the war.


----------



## Soren (Nov 23, 2007)

Well then we really can't use it for much. We need to be sure that the a/c were equipped with MW-50 C3. If the Dora was running at increased boost pressure alone (1,900 PS @ 3,250 RPM) it would allow the Tempest to slowly escape.

With MW-50 C3 the Dora-9 had a top speed of 615 km/h at SL.


----------



## Jank (Nov 23, 2007)

I happened to come across this. Some may find it interesting - Tempest Performance:

Tempest V Performance

Reactions: Informative Informative:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## Obsenderunser (Nov 23, 2007)

Coffee makers have evolved like everything else in the world of technology. Unfortunately I'm too friggin stupid to even begin to know how to wipe my butt, so i go on websites spamming them with useless gibberish....


----------



## evangilder (Nov 24, 2007)




----------



## Boemher (Nov 27, 2007)

Soren said:


> Boemher,
> 
> I'm using SonderNotleistung figures (MW-50 C3), thats 2,100 PS @ 3,250 rpm.
> 
> I'm not using the SonderNotleistung Mit A Lader als Bodenmotor figures, in this configuration speeds of over 640 km/h could be reached at SL.



Hi Soren,

With SonderNotleistung Mit A Lader als Bodenmotor the Dora achieves the speed of the Tempest V 11lb Sabre II B. This was the normal Tempest model in service from late 44 onwards. 

Some Tempests were modified in 1945 with Rotol propellor blades and Sabre IIC engines at 13lb boost. Closterman famously talks of this plane in his book. He states it had 2800 HP and near enough 3000 HP at overboost and 4000 rpm. 

This plane probably saw as much action as the SonderNotleistung Mit A Lader als Bodenmotor Dora if not a little more but imo I dont think it should be used as a yardstick.

Fairer to both the Dora and the Tempest would be to use the main production variants for late 44 and most of 45 which imo give a performance edge to the Tempest V 11lb Sabre IIB at low to medium altitude. The Dora 9 with C3 and Mw 50 was a rare beast was it not? C3 was restricted by 1945 to types which could only run with it ie BMW 801 engined planes. Jumo 213 engined planes like the Dora could use B4, the MW50 was to help improve the Jumo's performance with B4 fuel because obviously B4 was lower octane than C3 fuel so without the use of MW50 B4 fueled variants would be slower than normal C3 variants.


----------



## HoHun (Nov 27, 2007)

Hi Boemher,

>This plane probably saw as much action as the SonderNotleistung Mit A Lader als Bodenmotor Dora if not a little more 

Do you have any data on the number of thus equipped Doras seeing action? I've love to see that!

Regards,

Henning (HoHun)


----------



## Kurfürst (Nov 27, 2007)

Boemher said:


> The Dora 9 with C3 and Mw 50 was a rare beast was it not? C3 was restricted by 1945 to types which could only run with it ie BMW 801 engined planes.



I have seen much speculation about this in the past, but so far nothing supported the notion that C-3 would be specifically rare, in fact, all the fuel shipments for late-war LW units I`ve seen show a roughly 50-50 B4/C3 ratio, even if most of the planes did not neccesarily required C-3 (which itself appears to be the greater volume of German avgas production, which kinda explains why units, not in dire need of c-3 actually got it instead of B4)

So, I`d like to see some evidence to this C-3 thing you said. I don` buy it, to me this thing born solely out of a desperate partisanship towards certain issues some simply don`t want to accept, and in that process, only the arguements (incl. amongs others, the allaged C3 shortage) change, but the conclusion is always the same.

There`s a very straightforward, two-letter Americanism for that kind of thing, the expression itself probably originating from Texas.


----------



## monsieurmonkey (Nov 28, 2007)

One of my Favorite memories from childhood is my Grandfather stradling the nose of a Five propelered Tempest (My Northern Irish Mother's side.) The simple answer is speed. The armaments were similar and both of the planes have been over shadowed by the Spitfire and the 109, even though they were both better planes. They were too expensive for each nation to produce after USA offered such reliable and inexpensive planes for and against.


----------



## Boemher (Nov 28, 2007)

As far as I know no squadrons were equipped with the type and it or they only existed in very few numbers. So iirc there was no recorded use of the type or if there was it would be one sortie or something similar.

The C3 fuel issue is not BS as far as Im aware. The reason the MW50 was added to the Dora 9 was to restore performance eroded by downgrading from C3 fuel to B4 fuel. Ofcourse if a Gruppe could get their hands on C3 they would use it but their was definately a fuel issue in Germany and there were certainly limitations on what aircraft could use what. BMW 801 equipped aircraft could ONLY use C3 so obviously they had priority. With Bf 109 squadrons C3 and B4 supplied units existed at the same time but this depended on location and supply. There would be a fair chance that by 1945 you would not encounter a C3 fueled D9 - it was by no means the normal opposition.

This still leaves us with even the best inservice D9 (MW50 + C3) being slower than the standard Tempest (Sabre IIB 11lb) serving with the 2nd TAF.

Reactions: Informative Informative:
2 | Like List reactions


----------



## Soren (Nov 28, 2007)

Boemher,

No Dora in service ever flew with the A Lader als Bodenmotor configuration (2,240 PS). 

And no Tempest in service reached 640 km/h at SL either.

The SL speed of the MW-50 equipped Dora's and the Tempest was virtually the same.


----------



## Boemher (Nov 28, 2007)

Hi Soren,

There is a performance chart at WW2 Aircraft performance that says a Tempest reached 404 mph at sea level. So just over 640 km/h. I think this may have been a V1 chaser. The 9lb Sabre II A Tempest could reach 377 mph at sea level and 405 mph at 6000ft. The Sabre IIB 11lb variant using 100/130 octane fuel reached 410 mph at 4,500 ft.

How fast at sea level, was the fastest D9 variant that saw service? 613 km/h?

The earliest Tempest V that saw service (April 44) achieved 607 km/h at sea level.

The normal Tempest V - the 11lb version that fought the D9 was faster than this. It had over the earlier Tempest an extra 240 HP at sea level and 230 HP more at 13,000ft and had cleaner lines thanks to the Mk V Hispannos which fitted entirely within the wing structure (estimate increase in speed between 3/5 mph for this improvement alone)

So I still believe the Tempest was usefully faster than the D9 at low altitude.

Reactions: Informative Informative:
2 | Like List reactions


----------



## Boemher (Nov 28, 2007)

Soren said:


> The SL speed of the MW-50 equipped Dora's and the Tempest was virtually the same.



That should read the SL speed of MW-50 + C3 Doras. I also strongly believe that the few 13lb boost Sabre II C Tempests could readily exceed 400mph at sea level. But I dont think they were active enought to warrant comparison

Reactions: Like Like:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## Soren (Nov 28, 2007)

Boemher,

Yes I know about the chart at Mike Williams site, problem is it's a estimate and doesn't represent the performance of the a/c in service. The top performance of the Tempests in service was ~378 mph (604 km/h) at SL.

The Dora-9's in service with the MW-50 system and C-3 fuel had a top performance of ~615 km/h (384 mph) at SL. With the far more present Oldenburg system the Dora-9's had a performance of ~590 km/h at SL.


----------



## Boemher (Nov 28, 2007)

Soren the top speed of a Tempest in April 44 was 607 km/h I agree, but the Tempest in service from Autumn 44 onwards was faster than this. From 625 kmh to 640 kmh.
607 kmh is the SL speed of the Tempests that were facing Fw 190 A8s and Bf 109 G6s not D9s.

This is the difference between a low boost model and a high boost model or in German terms a derated model and a normal model 

The Tempest V recieved two major blanket speed increases the 1st was the increase from Sabre IIA 9lb to Sabre IIA 11lb when chasing V1s and the second was Sabre IIA 11lb to Sabre IIB 11lb when operating as part of the 2nd TAF from bases in Europe.

Reactions: Informative Informative:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## wwii:)aircraft (Mar 7, 2010)

Comparing the two i would say the Dora is superior. From the beginning we knew that maneuverability wasn't one of the things the Tempest was known for; instead, it was known for its fire power and for its speed. As for the Dora, it was known for its great handling and its climbing and diving abilities. I choose the Dora for its better maneuverability, climb, and handling, not to mention that it becomes completely superior above 20,000ft.

The Dora would have also one in the close-support/ground attack role. Imagine, all the weapons, equipments, and modifications the F and G had, installed on a Dora.


----------



## Al. S. Neworth (Mar 12, 2019)

Tempest had A to A Kill ratio of 7:1 in its favour (6:1 in its favour against enemy single-seat fighters).
The Luftwaffe was seriously depleted by the time the Tempest was freed from taking on the V1 “doodlebugs”, but proved incredibly successful when pitted against 109 Gs and Ks, and FW190 As to Ds.
From what I read, they ran into a few Ta152Hs once, and once only; the result was one Ta152 shot down, and one Tempest V, flown by an inexperienced Warrant Officer pilot, that tried to turn inside for a deflection shot, but stalled, and crashed into a wood (the encounter had been at very low altitude).
The Tempest was responsible for 20 262 kills by VE Day.


----------



## bada (Jul 10, 2019)

Al. S. Neworth said:


> The Tempest was responsible for 20 262 kills by VE Day.



Well that's some serious numbers, on it's own the tempest killed 1/5 of all the LW production... bombers included....

Sarcasm inside...

Reactions: Funny Funny:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## swampyankee (Jul 10, 2019)

I think


bada said:


> Well that's some serious numbers, on it's own the tempest killed 1/5 of all the LW production... bombers included....
> 
> Sarcasm inside...



I think it should read "twenty Me262 kills."

Reactions: Funny Funny:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## DerAdlerIstGelandet (Jul 10, 2019)

bada said:


> Well that's some serious numbers, on it's own the tempest killed 1/5 of all the LW production... bombers included....
> 
> Sarcasm inside...



I don’t think you understand what he wrote...

He said 20 (as in twenty) 262 (as in Me 262)

Reactions: Funny Funny:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## CORSNING (Jul 27, 2019)

The following figures are for a Typical Fw 190D with MW 50 (most
did not have) when it became (officially) operational on 18 December 
1944.

Altitude / Speed / Climb
Meters / Mph / Fpm
S.L..........376 [382] / 4428
-1,000...388 [395] / 4388
-2,000...400 [408] / 4124
-3,000...406 [412] / 4103
-4,000...416 [421] / 3985
-5,000...427 [432] / 3493
-6,000...427 [432] / 2991
-7,000...421 [426] / 2499
-8,000...413 [418] / 1987
-9,000...403 [408] / 1485
10,000...391 [396] / 984

Speed with ET 504 [without].

Combat weight: 9,590 lb.
Jumo 213A (MW50): 2,071 hp. (2,100 PS) / 1.8 ata
Wing Area: 196.98 sq. Ft.
Wing Loading: 48.69 lb./sq. ft.
Power Loading: 4.631 lb./hp.

Ceilings:
Combat (1000fpm): 32,700 ft.
Operational (500fpm): 36,200 ft.
Service (100 fpm): 38,575 ft.

Pilot plus Notes:

Donald Caldwell wrote of the Fw 190D-9 operational debut in his
"The JG 26 War Diary Volume Two 1943-1945". December 17, 1944:
"The new airplane lacked the high turn rate and incredible rate of 
roll of its close-coupled radial-engine predecessor. Its 2,240 hp. with
MW 50 gave it an excellent acceleration in combat situation. It also 
climbed and dived more rapidly than the Fw 190A. Many of the
early models were not equipped with tanks for methanol, which was
in very short supply in any event. The D-9 was a bit faster."

From www.luftwaff-experten.org(http://www.luftwaff-experten.org)) :
"The 2240 PS maximum output that is often quoted for the Jumo213A
with MW 50 is a bit of a mystery. My collection of reports from 
Junkers that date up to the end of the war, never mention a 2240 PS
setting. According to Junkers and Focke-Wulf documents the 2100 PS
SEP was the maximum output for all production D-9s that entered 
service during WW2."

On Pages 119-121 in "Longnose" by Deitmar Hermann, Lt. Ossenkop
summarized the differences between the Fw 190D-9 and Fw 190A-8.
Page 121 part 7, "Takeoff and climb were rather better than in the 
A-8. It was possible to make tighter turns before the onset of flow
separation. In a dive, the D-9 was far superior to the A-8 with its 
drag-producing radial engine." He felt that the D-9 was equal to 
most enemy A/C above 4,000 meters up to its maximum boost 
altitude (est: 6-7,000 meters).

Lt. Ossenkop compared the Fw 190D-9 to its opponents:
vs. Tempest (V): Almost equal in level flight, a lengthy pursuit was 
usually fruitless. The D-9 climbed and turned better, but was 
inferior in a dive. Lt. Wssenkop compared the D-9 to the Spitfire,
Mustang and Thunderbolt, but that's another story.

The Fw 190D-9 was tested by the Army Air Forces Air Materiel Command.
Maneuverability and Aerobatics: The outstanding maneuverability trait
of this airplane is its rate of roll. In this respect it compares well with the 
P-51D or P-47, but it cannot match the rate of roll of the F-80 or P-38J.
The radius of turn, however, is poor and elevator forces in tight turns are
excessive. Constant stabilizer adjustments is required in turns and if pulled
in too abruptly a fast stall with little warning will occur. The airplane 
responds well to controls in all other fly through maneuvers attempted.

OK then, I would gladly do a side by side comparison of the Fw 190D-9
and Tempest V but by the time the D-9 with MW 50 came along the 
Tempest was using 100/150 fuel with +13 lb. boost, I think....?

If anyone has dates of when +11 and then +13 lb. boost was introduced
into operational squadrons, I would greatly appreciate the information and 
the sources.


----------



## GrauGeist (Jul 27, 2019)

Al. S. Neworth said:


> The Tempest was responsible for 20 262 kills by VE Day.


While that may seem impressive, just how many of those kills were achieved while the jet was taking off or landing?


----------



## Glider (Jul 27, 2019)

GrauGeist said:


> While that may seem impressive, just how many of those kills were achieved while the jet was taking off or landing?


Probably most if not all of them. However to be fair, they do seem to have caught them better than most. The high speed low altitude performance on the Tempest must have helped


----------



## swampyankee (Jul 27, 2019)

GrauGeist said:


> While that may seem impressive, just how many of those kills were achieved while the jet was taking off or landing?


They were just as shot down. Tactics is making sure a fight is unfair in your favor.

Reactions: Like Like:
1 | Agree Agree:
1 | Winner Winner:
2 | Like List reactions


----------



## pbehn (Jul 27, 2019)

swampyankee said:


> They were just as shot down. Tactics is making sure a fight is unfair in your favor.


One LW ace said that the Tempest was a very dangerous opponent for the Me262 at low level.


----------



## michael rauls (Jul 27, 2019)

pbehn said:


> One LW ace said that the Tempest was a very dangerous opponent for the Me262 at low level.


We may be thinking of the same quote but I remember reading one of the well known Luftwaffe aces( I believe it was Galland but not 100% sure) say that he thought the Tempest was the greatest threat to his jets at lower altitude.

Reactions: Agree Agree:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## pbehn (Jul 27, 2019)

michael rauls said:


> We may be thinking of the same quote but I remember reading one of the well known Luftwaffe aces( I believe it was Galland but not 100% sure) say that he thought the Tempest was the greatest threat to his jets at lower altitude.


None of them were stupid and they all had a fantastic sense of self preservation, that is why they survived. The Tempest was fast at low level, fairly agile and had 4 cannon, only a fool wouldn't respect it. Even today a Tempest would be bad news for an F-35B coming in to land.


----------



## GrauGeist (Jul 28, 2019)

swampyankee said:


> They were just as shot down. Tactics is making sure a fight is unfair in your favor.


True, however, there is a difference between exploiting the Me262's Achilles' heel and meeting it in combat.

Simply exclaiming that the Tempest downed 20 isn't doing the Tempest's fighting abilities any justice.


----------



## Mad Dog (Jul 28, 2019)

GrauGeist said:


> True, however, there is a difference between exploiting the Me262's Achilles' heel and meeting it in combat.
> 
> Simply exclaiming that the Tempest downed 20 isn't doing the Tempest's fighting abilities any justice.


 Not all the Me262s shot down by Tempests were kills as the jets were landing, as this list of some of the Tempest combat reports shows. It seems the high speed of the 262 forced it into wide turns the slower Tempest could cut across and get a deflection shot in.

Reactions: Like Like:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## HarryMann (Dec 10, 2021)

Kurfürst said:


> Not to mention the Sabre engines notorious unreliability, an issue that was never really fixed.
> 
> .



I think pretty well all it's issues were sorted, once EE took over Napiers … maybe itemise what you think wasn't?
Closterman didn’t seem to be concerned all the time it would let him down either.
And was being developed to well over 3000 HP by 1945, which wouldn’t be the case if it still had serious issues

Reactions: Agree Agree:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## HarryMann (Dec 10, 2021)

Soren said:


> What ?!
> 
> First off Messerschmidt designed the Me-262 to be an air-superiority fighter, it was Hitler who wanted it to fullfill the fighter-bomber role, NOT Messerschmidt.
> 
> ...


The Tempest had spring-tab ailerons and was renowned for light yet powerful controls right up to its max permitted diving speed, Vne.

Reactions: Agree Agree:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## HarryMann (Dec 10, 2021)

Glider said:


> Probably most if not all of them. However to be fair, they do seem to have caught them better than most. The high speed low altitude performance on the Tempest must have helped


It was the ability of if the Tempest to accelerate from a cruise power setting to a combat /intercept speed, surely, not the speed itself necessarily


----------



## Jagdflieger (Mar 23, 2022)

Comparison of the Fw 190D-9 and Tempest V - well!?? I guess we will never know

The issue to me in a comparison would be to have the same trained and experienced pilots in both aircraft's. No doubt both aircraft's were very capable fighter-planes. 
But by the time the Fw 190-9 came into service - there weren't really many well trained and experienced Luftwaffe pilots around - rather the opposite.
As such it was really the pilot that gave the edge not necessarily the aircraft. especially in hindsight towards the Luftwaffe.

Regards
Jagdflieger

Reactions: Like Like:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## Al. S. Neworth (Mar 29, 2022)

Kurfürst said:


> It`s an excellent resource IMHO, but a word of warning : I`ve noticed especially about the first six months of 1944 that the subtypes are not always 100% accurate.
> 
> Thinking about conversions and rebuilds here.. for example the first G-5/6/AS are reported on those TOEs (rather, equipment 'movement' reports) list in June/July the earliest IIRC (which I why I was surprised when you said somewhere you saw /AS aircraft in the spring - which unit..? ). Hhowever it is certain that the first lucky units had them as early as March/April 1944 already.
> 
> ...


I can't find the post I wanted to reply to, so I'm placing it here: Somebody wrote, "The D-9 was a high altitude interceptor ..."
That is not accurate. The D-9's wings were too short for high altitude flight. One reason that Kurt Tank deigned the Ta-152-H.
Now, that -- on paper at least -- was a truly magnificent fighter. The problem with many Luftwaffe aircraft by 1945 was a lack of spares, engines, and sabotage by the slave labourers building them.
Add the inexperienced pilots flying them (more in the xase of older fighters like the 109s and Fw190-A series), and you have a perfect storm of problems even before encountering Allied fighters.
I would still choose the Tempest V over any poston-engined fighter below 18,500ft. 
Above that? Spit XIV. Or Ta-152H.


----------



## tomo pauk (Mar 29, 2022)

Al. S. Neworth said:


> I can't find the post I wanted to reply to, so I'm placing it here: Somebody wrote, "The D-9 was a high altitude interceptor ..."
> That is not accurate. The D-9's wings were too short for high altitude flight. One reason that Kurt Tank deigned the Ta-152-H.



D-9 was not as good as Allied best at high altitudes mostly because of the engine installed. Aero engine with just 1 stage of supercharging (the Jumo 213A was one of those) will be running out of steam above 20000 ft vs. another comparable aero engine that has 2 stages of supercharging (like eg. Merlin 60s and 70s series, or R-2800 with a help by a turbo, or V-1710 with the help by a turbo).
A Fw 190 with 2-stage supercharged Jumo 213F was supposed to be one of best ww2 piston-engined fighters even in high altitudes, ditto for the Ta-152C with the 2-stage supercharged DB-603L, despite both of them having small and short wings. 
power chart Jumo 213A
power chart 2-stage Merlins 

FWIW

Reactions: Informative Informative:
1 | Like List reactions


----------

