# Do 335



## bob44 (Oct 29, 2013)

Lets talk of the pros and cons of this aircraft.
Was it a necessary aircraft for Germany? Or just another late war hope? Too little, too late.
I have read many "reports/stories" about the 335. 
How bout some accurate reports form the Germans and post war Allies.


----------



## pattern14 (Oct 30, 2013)

No-one seems interested in this subject so far, which seems strange, being such an innovative aircraft. Fastest piston engine luft aircraft ( faster than the Ta 152, although not operational) and "probably " the fastest piston engined aircraft of its time ( wait for the chorus of "no way, this X plane was faster...etc etc.) It does not seem to have any post war copies or derivatives that I know of, although Dornier was working on swept wing versions. Like the He 162, it seemed destined for the Museum of desperate German curiosities. Hopefully some one else out there will chime in with some interesting facts and figures.


----------



## GregP (Oct 30, 2013)

We're interested, but we already DID this one ... in some depth, not too long ago. Maybe the rank and file are not up to doing again in a relatively short time.

Some feel the Do 335 was a good way to go, many didn't. It was NOT a fighter that was maneuverable with others ... but opinions vary here. It rolled well, but would never pitch with a single-engine fighter with the two large masses on either end. It had explosives in the rear to blow away the fin and prop for bail out ... right in the path of incoming fire from behind. The high speeds were at WER power ... that was almost never used. So the REAL speeds were closer to low-to-mid 400 mph range.

Lots of arguments here, both pro and con. But, nobody ever made a successful warplane of the general type, so it seems like a dead end. That CAN be argued, but not very successfully.

I like it as an exercise but maybe would have censurd the designer who wasted resources on it in Germany when the need was for practical aircraft. The population was ridiculously small and ineffective due to being prototypes near the end of the war.


----------



## pattern14 (Oct 30, 2013)

GregP said:


> We're interested, but we already DID this one ... in some depth, not too long ago. Maybe the rank and file are not up to doing again in a relatively short time.
> 
> Some feel the Do 335 was a good way to go, many didn't. It was NOT a fighter that was maneuverable with others ... but opinions vary here. It rolled well, but would never pitch with a single-engine fighter with the two large masses on either end. It had explosives in the rear to blow away the fin and prop for bail out ... right in the path of incoming fire from behind. The high speeds were at WER power ... that was almost never used. So the REAL speeds were closer to low-to-mid 400 mph range.
> 
> ...


 Hi GregP; I did not realise that this one had been already discussed in depth previously, and I thought the poor fellow was being overlooked! No arguments about the Do335; if it had had potential, someone would have picked it up and ran with it post war.


----------



## GrauGeist (Oct 30, 2013)

There's actually dozens of threads spanning years on the forum here regarding the Do335.

It was fast, there is no doubt about it. But it had limitations as far as what it could do.

The Pfeil was big, expensive to make and would have been best suited for bomber intercepting *if* it had top cover nearby to keep escorts off it's back. It could have also been a high-speed photo-recon aircraft...though an expensive one.

It was pretty much an evolutionary dead-end in the grand scheme of things...


----------



## OldSkeptic (Oct 30, 2013)

Silly design. There were no advantages of the pusher/tractor design and a heck of a lot of disadvantages.

It was not faster than, say, a DH Hornet, which would have ran rings around it and been simpler to build, maintain and use.
Also Tank's own estimates for a later developed Ta-154 put that well into the 460mph class. And again simpler to build, maintain and use.

Why the Luftwaffe tolerated this nonsense from the manufacturers sod only knows. Why, say, cancel the Ta-154 and waste scarce resources on this pig????
Then again, from the Allied point of view, having them running around throwing away resources into 'hyper' engines that never worked, 'hyper' planes that also never worked, helped us a lot.

There have been a lot of daft aircraft designs over the years ... this was one of them...


----------



## nuuumannn (Oct 30, 2013)

> No-one seems interested in this subject so far,



Enter "Dornier Do 335" into the Search function at top right and see what you come up with.


----------



## tomo pauk (Oct 30, 2013)

OldSkeptic said:


> Silly design. There were no advantages of the pusher/tractor design and a heck of a lot of disadvantages.



Exceptional desing that arrived too late to matter. Another problem is use of rare DB-603, rather than widely available DB-601-605 and/or Jumo 211, of course provided the plane of similar layout is produced in early- or mid-war.
The advantages: far less drag than 'classic' twin; the Pfeil was much faster than Me-410 on same engines. With one engine out there is no asymmetric thrust. The engines at centerline do not hamper roll rate, unlike the engines mounted away from centerline (at wings).
Disadvantages are the need to have the extension shaft, while the pilot needs to have a safe system of leaving the moving aircraft. The Western aircraft with such layout will need to have all/most of the weponry in the wings, not an issue for German or Soviet (there was none) aircraft of push-pull layout.



> It was not faster than, say, a DH Hornet, which would have ran rings around it and been simpler to build, maintain and use.



Hornet was using engines of 1945, Pfeil was using engines of 1943. Let's have the Hornet outfitted with Merlin 66 and see how it compares with Pfeil and historical Hornet. In the meantime, the Pfeil also has a bomb bay to offer.



> Also Tank's own estimates for a later developed Ta-154 put that well into the 460mph class. And again simpler to build, maintain and use.
> Why the Luftwaffe tolerated this nonsense from the manufacturers sod only knows. Why, say, cancel the Ta-154 and waste scarce resources on this pig????



If Tank was really talknig that (estimates for it's own product), that alone raises a suspicion alert. For example, the estimate for the speed of the Fw-190A-3 (it's BMW working okay there) was 700 km/h, vs. 660 actually achieved. So, yes, cancel the Ta-154 and make two Ta-152s or Bf-109Ks for each of Ta-154 and Do-335 not built, they use only one engine. 
The story of the Ta-154 is a really sad one, indeed.



> Then again, from the Allied point of view, having them running around throwing away resources into 'hyper' engines that never worked, 'hyper' planes that also never worked, helped us a lot.
> There have been a lot of daft aircraft designs over the years ... this was one of them...



Compared with other mistakes Germans (and others) made during ww2, the Do-335 looks like a flawless execution on the theme 'fast well armed 2-engine combat aircraft'.


----------



## davebender (Oct 30, 2013)

Apparently not since Germany had no plans to place the Do-335 into mass production during 1945.

It appears to me Do-335 and Me-163 rocket powered interceptor were developed to test new technology and to provide an alternate solution in case jet engines didn't pan out.


----------



## GregP (Oct 30, 2013)

As far as I know, the Do-335 never fired a shot in anger or dropped a bomb in anger. The Allies encountered one with a flight of four Tempests and they were not able to catch it ... so it also didn't have a loss in wartime due to enemy aircraft action.

They built a total of 37.

I don't call 37 aircraft with no war record exceptional in any manner. Innovative? yes. Had potential? Maybe and probably? Made a dofference? No. Was it good? It was fast with MW-50 boost. That does not mean it was good at anything else much, but it might have been. We don't know much about it actually.

I rather like it as a fast bomber used in a Mosquito sort of way. But not as a fighter ... I think it would have been rather ineffective at that based on poor pitch rate with two heavy masses on either end. These are my opinions and I might be wrong, but there is no proof for or against that as far as I know. Others may and probably do have different opinions.

But without a war record, there is little to argue about concerning this interesting machine.


----------



## OldSkeptic (Oct 31, 2013)

> Exceptional desing that arrived too late to matter. Another problem is use of rare DB-603, rather than widely available DB-601-605 and/or Jumo 211, of course provided the plane of similar layout is produced in early- or mid-war.


So exceptional a design, no one has every copied it ever since....
Anyone that depended on the 603 was being a bit naive. DB used it more as a political ploy to stuff up Jumo than anything else.
With 605's it would have been slower ... slower than a Hornet with Merlin 66's perhaps...



> The advantages: far less drag than 'classic' twin; the Pfeil was much faster than Me-410 on same engines. With one engine out there is no asymmetric thrust. The engines at centerline do not hamper roll rate, unlike the engines mounted away from centerline (at wings).


Nope that is a matter of design. As per the Hornet .. and every modern prop twin that has ever been built since WW2.
Roll rate is up for grabs. Because you don't get the lift from the propwash over the wings you need much larger wings for takeoff and climb, which increase drag and reduce roll rate. The P-38 showed the way, with boosted ailerons.
No one complained about the Hornet's roll rate ...



> Disadvantages are the need to have the extension shaft, while the pilot needs to have a safe system of leaving the moving aircraft. The Western aircraft with such layout will need to have all/most of the weponry in the wings, not an issue for German or Soviet (there was none) aircraft of push-pull layout.


Plus heat build up issues, radiator issues (you need 2 of them or one big one, either option with complex (and heavy) plumbing issues, then fuel safety issues pumping fuel into a hot engine bay ... and so on.
Plus the solution to the little matter of a the pilot/crew getting out depended on an explosive blowing off the rear tail....
Right this is a warplane, where the most common attack will be from the rear ... and it is full of explosives..

Other disadvantages: (1) a very long plane, with all the take off, stability, CoG, maneuverability issues to be overcome, this plane is not going to be a turner (2) as mentioned, no propwash over the wing, therefore a larger wing = roll issues, more weight and drag and so on (3) maintenance, I can just see an engineer coming to work on the engines going "and what f*kwit thought this abortion up" (4) engine bay heat issues, a very hot area indeed, you either cool it more = complexity, drag and weight or let it run hot and risk fires ... which killed the pilot who flew it after Eric Brown did.

Looking around the skies for tractor/pusher designs these days wither civilian or military ... and can't find any. 

As I said in the first time this topic came up, it was far easier to solve the straightforward issues of reducing drag and increasing roll rates for a traditional twin tractor engines in the wing, than try to solve a whole new bunch of issues for a very iffy design. Or in other words, if you could (like DH and others did) reduce the drag of the engine nacelles in the wing then you will get, at least, the same speed performance, plus you avoid so many other issues, like the ones mentioned above.

[Related to the Issues, ignore if you want]
I see this as a classic case of design monomania, fixating one one issue. But instead of coming up with a solution and then, instead of bouncing it around and working through the issues, then rejecting it and the focusing on the real issues, they went and tried to make it? 
Many of the issues of the design are blindingly obvious and unless you can come, right at the beginning, with effective solutions then you start again with a clean sheet of paper.

But at least it kept them from having to make 190s or Ju-88s, kept them busy, in a job having a bit of a lark on Govt money, that's being very cynical but I'll bet it was one of the motivations. Just as was DB's one to stuff up Jumo, promising the earth to get a (forgotten the name) purpose built factory and all the contracts, with zero intention of ever delivering. Just edging out Jumo was good enough for them, because it meant that their 605 sales were guaranteed then, the fact the the 605 was way past its use by date by then (by German design criteria) and it meant that their fighters and bombers were going up against seriously superior power levels was irrelevant to them. They Had Won and seen off a competitor.

Must admit I do have a bit of soft spot for Jumo as an engine maker, even though they also succumbed to the 'promising the Earth and never delivering' syndrome of the time. But at least they tried to match RR and the others in the advanced engine stakes on something like a rational basis, though my personal favorite was BMW, after the usual teething issues and development that 801 was a heck of good engine.

Reactions: Like Like:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## Milosh (Oct 31, 2013)

> Looking around the skies for tractor/pusher designs these days wither civilian or military ... and can't find any.



http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/f/ff/Cessna_Skymaster_O-2_5.jpg


----------



## davparlr (Oct 31, 2013)

OldSkeptic said:


> So exceptional a design, no one has every copied it ever since....



Not really fair since the jet engine quickly obsoleted high performance propeller driven fighters of all configurations.


The Do-335 was a reasonable attempt to get the maximum amount of horsepower with a minimum of drag. According to Wikipedia it performed similarly to Hornet with 400 less hp. It was, however, a day late and a dollar short. The US had already started operations with the powerful P-47M/N and had cancelled the production program for very powerful and impressively performing P-72.


----------



## tomo pauk (Oct 31, 2013)

OldSkeptic said:


> So exceptional a design, no one has every copied it ever since....
> Looking around the skies for tractor/pusher designs these days wither civilian or military ... and can't find any.



Covered in 'sandwiched' posts. BTW, during all Cold war and after, only a handful of jet-engined combat airplanes featured wing-mounted engines either.



> Anyone that depended on the 603 was being a bit naive. DB used it more as a political ploy to stuff up Jumo than anything else.



Doh. DB-603 was a far earlier design, flying in combat aircraft a good year prior that was true for the Jumo 213.



> With 605's it would have been slower ... slower than a Hornet with Merlin 66's perhaps...



With DB-601/605 the whole airplane would've been far smaller and lighter, unlike the Hornet with M.66s.



> Nope that is a matter of design. As per the Hornet .. and every modern prop twin that has ever been built since WW2.
> Roll rate is up for grabs. Because you don't get the lift from the propwash over the wings you need much larger wings for takeoff and climb, which increase drag and reduce roll rate. The P-38 showed the way, with boosted ailerons.
> No one complained about the Hornet's roll rate ...



There is/was no designer that was able to magically wave off the fact that you have two 1-ton power-plants (engine, cooling, prop, oil, water..) mounted 8-10 ft away from centerline. P-38 showed the way for roll rates at high speeds, once boosted ailerons were installed, but the roll rates at low speed remained low.
The wing of the Do-335 was about the same size of the Mosquito, the 3 cannons were carried, the bomb bay was capable to hold up to 2200 lbs, the airplane was good for 460 mph. Seem like a good trade off, re. wing size; the Me-410 was far slower despite smaller wing. 



> Plus heat build up issues, radiator issues (you need 2 of them or one big one, either option with complex (and heavy) plumbing issues, then fuel safety issues pumping fuel into a hot engine bay ... and so on.



There were two engines per each Do-335, so two radiators seem okay 
Reliable informations confirming 'complex and heavy plumbing issues' would be welcomed, as well as 'fuel safety issues pumping fuel into a hot engine bay'. 



> Plus the solution to the little matter of a the pilot/crew getting out depended on an explosive blowing off the rear tail....
> Right this is a warplane, where the most common attack will be from the rear ... and it is full of explosives..



Germans were outfitting the He-219 with eject seat, so there lays a solutin for non-explosive rear end. But, full of explosives???



> Other disadvantages: (1) a very long plane, with all the take off, stability, CoG, maneuverability issues to be overcome, this plane is not going to be a turner (2) as mentioned,



Where I can read a credible information about 'all the take off, stability, CoG, maneuverability issues' that Do-335 was facing? Who says it won't be a turner? Seem like people don't see that a Do-335 (and other similar planes) during a take off will have less risk to crash in case of engine failure.



> no propwash over the wing, therefore a larger wing = roll issues, more weight and drag and so on



Design it around DB-601/605 or Jumo-211, forget the bomb bay and you don't gave to have a big wing. Again, I'll like to see what plane with heavy punch and a bomb bay was capable to do 460 mph.



> (3) maintenance, I can just see an engineer coming to work on the engines going "and what f*kwit thought this abortion up" (4)



A pilot in a plane that is capable for 370-390 mph at 25000 in 1944 (read: Bf-109G, Fw-190A) will not have anything to say, curses maybe, since he is too busy to fend off the 430-440 mph P-51 or P-47. The P-38 was utterly maintenance-unfriendly, yet nobody that flew it claimed 'I want P-40, not this complicated thing'. Nobody asked mechanics, they did their job as good as possible.



> engine bay heat issues, a very hot area indeed, you either cool it more = complexity, drag and weight or let it run hot and risk fires ... which killed the pilot who flew it after Eric Brown did.



The Do-335 was pushing the envelope for the piston engined fighters. Expecting it to be flawless in just every area is unrealistic. 



> As I said in the first time this topic came up, it was far easier to solve the straightforward issues of reducing drag and increasing roll rates for a traditional twin tractor engines in the wing, than try to solve a whole new bunch of issues for a very iffy design. Or in other words, if you could (like DH and others did) reduce the drag of the engine nacelles in the wing then you will get, at least, the same speed performance, plus you avoid so many other issues, like the ones mentioned above.



MTT tries with 210/410, they did not went very far. Again, comparing the fighter that was using 1945 engines, and was without a bomb bay, with a plane with 1943 engines and a bomb bay is comparing apples and oranges.



> [Related to the Issues, ignore if you want]
> I see this as a classic case of design monomania, fixating one one issue. *But instead of coming up with a solution and then, instead of bouncing it around and working through the issues, then rejecting it and the focusing on the real issues, they went and tried to make it? *



Seems my understanding of English is a bit under-strength to understand this properly? The bolded sentence is a bit tough for me to understand.



> Many of the issues of the design are blindingly obvious and unless you can come, right at the beginning, with effective solutions then you start again with a clean sheet of paper.
> But at least it kept them from having to make 190s or Ju-88s, kept them busy, in a job having a bit of a lark on Govt money, that's being very cynical but I'll bet it was one of the motivations.



Was it maybe that you've forgot the Do-217, a far more capable bomber than Ju-88? 



> Just as was DB's one to stuff up Jumo, promising the earth to get a (forgotten the name) purpose built factory and all the contracts, with zero intention of ever delivering. Just edging out Jumo was good enough for them, because it meant that their 605 sales were guaranteed then, the fact the the 605 was way past its use by date by then (by German design criteria) and it meant that their fighters and bombers were going up against seriously superior power levels was irrelevant to them. They Had Won and seen off a competitor.
> Must admit I do have a bit of soft spot for Jumo as an engine maker, even though they also succumbed to the 'promising the Earth and never delivering' syndrome of the time. But at least they tried to match RR and the others in the advanced engine stakes on something like a rational basis, though my personal favorite was BMW, after the usual teething issues and development that 801 was a heck of good engine.



German engine development was surely a story with many mishaps and designers/manufacturers promising what they cannot deliver. Eg. Jumo-222 was a sad story. Just how the Jumo 'tried to match RR and others' is a mystery to me, care to elaborate a bit? BMW was never outfitted with two-stage compressor, BTW; the DB being Germany's 1st to make a two-stager.
The DB's 'zero intention of ever delivering' could also use some reliable data to confirm it.


----------



## GrauGeist (Oct 31, 2013)

Just a quick note regarding OldSkeptic's comment about push-pull configurations.

There's several out there that are modern builds, the Cessna Skymaster is the first that comes to mind. There's also a fairly attractive commuter made by Adam Aircraft, the A500.


----------



## tomo pauk (Oct 31, 2013)

An excerpt from the Do-335 page at Smithsonian's museum web site:



> Unlike conventional twin-engine aircraft with wing-mounted engines, the Do 335 would not yaw sharply to one side if one engine failed, and single-engine flying speed remained respectable at about 620 km/h (345 mph). Pilots reported exceptional flight performance in acceleration and turning radius, and docile handling with no dangerous spin characteristics. In an emergency, however, the pilot could detonate explosive bolts and jettison the pusher three-blade propeller and dorsal fin to increase the chances of successfully bailing out using the pneumatic ejection seat. When fired, the seat pushed the pilot away from the aircraft with a force of 20 Gs.


----------



## davebender (Oct 31, 2013)

Heavy bomber (by German definition) vs dive bomber. What sort of comparison is that? Different capabilities for different mission types.


----------



## stona (Oct 31, 2013)

davebender said:


> Apparently not since Germany had no plans to place the Do-335 into mass production during 1945.



What is mass production? 
Lieferplan No.227/1 of 15th November 1944 required 4,174 Do 335s of various types to be produced by March 1946, including substantial production throughout 1945.
For example, according to the minutes of a meeting held on 24th January 1945 "series production" of the Do 335 B-6 was to start in April 1945.

Other points, from other posts. 

The rear fuselage was not "packed with explosives". There were far more dangerous and vulnerable components on any 1940s war plane to worry about.

The pneumatic ejection seat worked in conjunction with the tail jettison system. Actually only a few attempts were made to use it and these were less than successful.


Cheers
Steve


----------



## tomo pauk (Oct 31, 2013)

Both bombers required two engines and multiple crew to fly it. With those resources spent/invested, the Do-217 was able to carry more fuel and bombs, internally to boot with. Unlike Ju-88, it was also able to carry the LW's guided missiles.

BTW, English-language Wikipedia got the wing area wrong for Do-335: it was 38 m^2, not 55 m^2. Hornet was at 33.5 m^2. I mixed up the bomb bay capability - one 1100 lbs bomb was the max.


----------



## davebender (Oct 31, 2013)

Ju-88 dive bomber could place bombs far more accurately. It also had superior aerial performance when powered by a pair of V12 engines. 

Historical Do-217 was a decent heavy bomber. With Jumo 222 engines it probably would have been an outstanding heavy bomber. But that's another discussion.


----------



## GrauGeist (Oct 31, 2013)

davebender said:


> Ju-88 dive bomber could place bombs far more accurately. It also had superior aerial performance when powered by a pair of V12 engines.
> 
> Historical Do-217 was a decent heavy bomber. With Jumo 222 engines it probably would have been an outstanding heavy bomber. But that's another discussion.


The 801 powered G-2 (which was faster than the Jumo powered varients) was still over 100 mph slower thn the Do335...


----------



## Shortround6 (Oct 31, 2013)

davebender said:


> J With Jumo 222 engines it probably would have been an outstanding heavy bomber. But that's another discussion.



No, with Jumo 222 it would have been the grandmother of all hanger queens or at best, a useful decoy to distract allied attacks from planes that actually worked.


----------



## davebender (Oct 31, 2013)

Same issue. Heavy bomber vs light bomber. 

One could argue Do-335 was the ultimate schnellbomber as it could outrun everything except jets while carrying a 1,000kg bomb load.

Reactions: Like Like:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## stona (Oct 31, 2013)

OldSkeptic said:


> engine bay heat issues, a very hot area indeed, you either cool it more = complexity, drag and weight or let it run hot and risk fires ... which killed the pilot who flew it after Eric Brown did.



Amazingly I actually agree with some of your post  However, running hot had nothing to do with the death of Group Captain Alan Hards who was Commanding Officer, Experimental Flying at Farnborough. The rear engine was indeed prone to over heating, but the fire that ultimately killed Hards (18/1/46) was caused by a faulty spark plug blowing out. This was a problem known to have plagued Luftwaffe pilots too.
Brown had last flown 240112/AM223 three days earlier.
Cheers
Steve


----------



## pinsog (Oct 31, 2013)

davebender said:


> Same issue. Heavy bomber vs light bomber.
> 
> One could argue Do-335 was the ultimate schnellbomber as it could outrun everything except jets while carrying a 1,000kg bomb load.



What about the P47M?


----------



## davebender (Oct 31, 2013)

Not a factor as P-47M was rejected by U.S. Army Air Corps after procuring only 130 aircraft. If Do-335 encounters a P-47 during summer 1945 it would probably be P-47N.


----------



## Milosh (Oct 31, 2013)

davebender said:


> Not a factor as P-47M was rejected by U.S. Army Air Corps after procuring only 130 aircraft. If Do-335 encounters a P-47 during summer 1945 it would probably be P-47N.



It wasn't rejected by the USAAF but was a short production run.

The P-47M was a special high-speed version of the Thunderbolt specifically evolved to counter the Fieseler Fi 103 (V-1) buzz bomb and the new jet- and rocket-powered fighters that were entering service with the Luftwaffe.


----------



## tomo pauk (Nov 1, 2013)

OldSkeptic said:


> ...
> 
> Also Tank's own estimates for a later developed Ta-154 put that well into the 460mph class. And again simpler to build, maintain and use.
> 
> ....



I'll return to this. German estimates put the Ta-154A-1 and Do-335 night fighters at around 680 and 690 km/h respectively. The quirk is that such Ta-154 need to be equipped with Jumo 213E, ie. a two-stage engines, vs. the Do-335A-6 that was to be outfitted with DB-603A or 603E, ie. with single stage engines. A table can be seen here:
Focke-Wulf Ta 154 ? Wikipedia
So we're again at 1945 engines vs. 1943 engines, and the 'classic' has a hard time to beat the push-puller even with that.

As a day fighter, both can get rid of the antlers, flame suppressors and like. The Do-335 also deletes the protruding second cockpit, lowering the drag further; the Ta-154 cannot gain anything with that, having second cockpit 'laying' flush with 1st.


----------



## davebender (Nov 1, 2013)

If you want a late war German night fighter IMO it makes more sense to use a pair of 2,000hp DB605D engines. Then the entire aircraft can be smaller and lighter in weight. In addition to improved maneuverability such an aircraft should be considerably less expensive to manufacture.

Larger Jumo 213 or DB603 engines make sense for a bomber which is what historical Do-335 was.

Reactions: Like Like:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## tomo pauk (Nov 1, 2013)

Problem is that, until DB-605D is available in some numbers, the German factories, refineries, marshaling yards etc are in shambles, and Germany has one enemy at the Rhine, another on the Oder. Read - too late no matter what they do. Not even the jets can help them, not only because there is no well trained and/or experienced pilots to fly them.


----------



## wuzak (Nov 2, 2013)

davebender said:


> Larger Jumo 213 or DB603 engines make sense for a bomber which is what historical Do-335 was.



It was designed as a heavy fighter and a bomber.


----------



## wuzak (Nov 2, 2013)

davebender said:


> Ju-88 dive bomber could place bombs far more accurately. It also had superior aerial performance when powered by a pair of V12 engines.
> 
> Historical Do-217 was a decent heavy bomber. With Jumo 222 engines it probably would have been an outstanding heavy bomber. But that's another discussion.




Dive bombers had a problem when they couldn't operate where they didn't enjoy local air superiority. Or where there were effective anti-aircraft defences.


----------



## stona (Nov 2, 2013)

wuzak said:


> It was designed as a heavy fighter and a bomber.



Pretty much. The earliest recognisable design drawing, marked Do 335, so post the initial RLM order for ten prototypes of January 1943, is for an interceptor fighter, fast bomber, reconnaissance aircraft.

Throughout the war the RLM kept moving the goal posts on the aircraft designers, which definitely didn't help get promising designs into production  

Cheers

Steve

Reactions: Like Like:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## davebender (Nov 2, 2013)

Jumo 213 and DB603 engines were never available in adequate numbers. So IMO that argument doesn't have much weight.

By fall 1943 the DB605A engine was producing 1,475 reliable hp and plenty were available. Seems to me a smaller and lighter tandem engine fighter aircraft out to have decent performance with "only" 2,950 total hp. More powerful DB605ASM and DB605D engines would be an upgrade when they become available.


----------



## GrauGeist (Nov 2, 2013)

davebender said:


> By fall 1943 the DB605A engine was producing 1,475 reliable hp and plenty were available. Seems to me a smaller and lighter tandem engine fighter aircraft out to have decent performance with "only" 2,950 total hp. More powerful DB605ASM and DB605D engines would be an upgrade when they become available.


And yet, with all their technical know-how and various types (and mutitudes of varients of those types) it ended up being the Do335 that emerged as the fastest twin of the war.

You can't simply take a small airframe and cram the biggest possible engines in it and have an instant winner, it's just not that easy. Otherwise the skies would have been darkened by clouds of super Fw189s zooming all over the place creating mayhem...


----------



## davebender (Nov 2, 2013)

> You can't simply take a small airframe and cram the biggest possible engines in it and have an instant winner



It worked for Sptifire and Me-109. Those aircraft were so successful that I'd try the same design formula again.

Reactions: Like Like:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## GrauGeist (Nov 2, 2013)

But now you have an airframe with not only one massive engine, but two.

Engines are heavy, they can be big. They need large amounts of fuel. You need a structure that can support the additional weight and withstand the dynamic forces the engines create.


----------



## tomo pauk (Nov 2, 2013)

davebender said:


> Jumo 213 and DB603 engines were never available in adequate numbers. So IMO that argument doesn't have much weight.



DB-605D lags almost a year behind the Jumo 213, and that one lags a year behind the DB-603A. The DB-603A can make it's presence felt in ww2, unlike the DB-605D. 



> By fall 1943 the DB605A engine was producing 1,475 reliable hp and plenty were available. Seems to me a smaller and lighter tandem engine fighter aircraft out to have decent performance with "only" 2,950 total hp. More powerful DB605ASM and DB605D engines would be an upgrade when they become available.



That I can agree with. Design a push-pull fighter around the DB-601/605/Jumo-211, with 300-350 sq ft wing, 4-5 20mm cannons and you have a plane to match anything prop-driven in ww2.


----------



## cimmex (Nov 2, 2013)

tomo pauk said:


> Design a push-pull fighter around the DB-601/605/Jumo-211, with 300-350 sq ft wing, 4-5 20mm cannons and you have a plane to match anything prop-driven in ww2.



I think this is no “what if” thread!


----------



## davparlr (Nov 2, 2013)

The Allies already had answers for this aircraft if it had shown up earlier and had become a threat. In the Fall of 1943 the XP-47J with the 2800 hp R2800-57 flew and in 1944, flew 500 mph. But even this plane was cancelled due the impressive performance of the XP-72 with the 3450 hp R-4360. It, in turn, was cancelled on VE day because of the advent of the jet. If the jet had not come along and the Do 335 had become a threat, they would have met over Europe. Even the P-47M/N with more power and speed available above 25k ft.(substantially more above 30k) would certainly be able to harass the Do 335 at the lower altitudes. At even lower altitudes it would have to deal with the very fast Tempest IIs and P-51Hs.


----------



## tomo pauk (Nov 2, 2013)

The Allies will need to wait for 1945 to have, in numbers, a plane capable for 470 mph and better. The XP-47J (I love that plane) was using the 'C' series R-2800, as was the P-47M/N, and it took some time to debug the P-47M's engine to work properly.



cimmex said:


> I think this is no “what if” thread!



Feel free to contribute in any constructive manner to this and other discussions.


----------



## davebender (Nov 2, 2013)

Americans already had answers to German Panzer IVH, Panther and Tiger tanks too yet getting those answers into production and transported to Europe required about two years. What makes you think American reply to a new German fighter aircraft would be any faster?

Reactions: Like Like:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## BiffF15 (Nov 2, 2013)

DaveBender,

In my opinion fighter technology in WW2 was a series of leapfrogs. The leapfrogs were mostly reactive but could be seen as proactive. The Zero, P40 and Me109 all came out at roughly the same time but performance was not equal. The P38 came out later but was being worked prior to Pearl Harbor. It then leapfrogged the Zero but was not in "reaction" to the Zero. The P-51 came about due to the Brit's asking for it because they knew they would eventually end up at war with Germany. This could be classified as both reactive as well as proactive. Reactive if looked at from the viewpoint they wanted something to counter the 109, proactive if looking at the distinct possibility that they would get bombed and have difficulty producing enough fighters. When an adversary fighter is shown to have an advantage, the manufacturer as well as the military will want to introduce "upgrades" to make the home team fighter equal or superior. The Griffon engine in the Spit is a good example, as it was being worked during the early part of the war, and not introduced until 43 (I think). It allowed equality / superiority to current production 109's. I don't think countries back then waited to get a beat down to start scheming up improvements (except maybe to some point the Japanese did with the Zero).

Cheers,
Biff


----------



## GrauGeist (Nov 2, 2013)

davebender said:


> Americans already had answers to German Panzer IVH, Panther and Tiger tanks too yet getting those answers into production and transported to Europe required about two years. What makes you think American reply to a new German fighter aircraft would be any faster?


The Allied fighters that could catch the Do335 (and other high-speed Axis aircraft) were already in the works. Several new designs along with existing model upgrades would soon be available. The Allies didn't sit around waiting for a new Axis aircraft to popup, the were constantly testing, enhancing and developing as time went by.

It was just a matter of time before there was a showdown between the fastest of the fast, but that didn't happen. Just like the enevitable showdown between Axis and Allied jets never happened.


----------



## stona (Nov 3, 2013)

tomo pauk said:


> The Allies will need to wait for 1945 to have, in numbers, a plane capable for 470 mph and better.



Gloster Meteor.

Had the Germans produced significant numbers of any aircraft that gave them a major performance advantage, and Do 335 production scheduled for 1944 certainly doesn't amount to that, then it is probable that the RAF would have accelerated development and introduction of a jet fighter.

The Meteor first flew around the time the RLM was ordering Do 335 prototypes. 

Cheers

Steve


----------



## tomo pauk (Nov 3, 2013)

Timing is the key, and historically Do-335 failed in that category. 
If the Germans introduce the Do-335 in late 1943 (instead of Me-410), and Allies feel the need to introduce the jet ASAP, what engines could one expect to see in the Meteor and what kind of performance to expect from it? Presumed service use from early 1944?


----------



## stona (Nov 3, 2013)

1943 is not a realistic time frame for introduction of the Do 335. The first order for ten prototypes was not issued until 27th January 1943. The RLM examined the first mock up in April. The test installation of the rear engine installation was first run on 27th August.
The first flight of V1 was at the end of October 1943. Series production wasn't even _planned_ to start until early 1944.
The Me 210 by contrast was a pre war design.
Cheers
Steve


----------



## tomo pauk (Nov 3, 2013)

All good. 
The Do-335 falls within the category of using the 'off-the-shelf' engine to produce a plane with as much power as possible, for least cost in drag. The Meteor (and other jets) is in the category of breaking the new ground, since it was using, for the time frame, novel engines. 
In case Germany deploys a push-puller in early 1944, and Allies deploy jet in same time, that would mean that a bomber stream is escorted by less performing aircraft once it's ~200 miles from Kent. That gives Germans enough time place to deploy their own jets in force, too.

What kind of performance one can expect from Meteor in 1944, on what engines?

Reactions: Like Like:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## stona (Nov 3, 2013)

I don't know much about Meteors but I think the Mk 3 entered service in late '44 with the R.R. Derwent engines. I'm confident that this version would have a top speed above that of a Do 335.

Just about everyone on this forum will know more about jet aircraft than me. I've never been much interested in things powered by giant hair dryers 

Cheers

Steve

Reactions: Like Like:
2 | Like List reactions


----------



## tomo pauk (Nov 3, 2013)

> I've never been much interested in things powered by giant hair dryers



Preach on, brother Steve


----------



## Milosh (Nov 3, 2013)

It depends on what engines are fitted to the Meteor.

http://www.wwiiaircraftperformance.org/meteor/meteor3-9jan45.jpg

The B.37 engines with 2000lb thrust will give 365mph @ SL and 485mph @ 30,000'.


----------



## tomo pauk (Nov 3, 2013)

Thanks. The document talks about the engines in the future, and the docu's date is January 1945. Even the 1st engine mentioned, the W.2B/23, is stated as the engine that 'will be fitted' to the Meteor III.


----------



## davebender (Nov 3, 2013)

Production would be cancelled for same reason Henschel had to cancel production of Me-410. Ostmark engine plant was not building 1,000 DB603 engines per month as planned.


----------



## tomo pauk (Nov 3, 2013)

The Me-410 was unable to bring anything to bolster LW capacities, especially for daylight operations of 1944. No wonder that got cancelled. For the Do-335 in 1944, nobody, in his right mind would've canceled a plane that is faster than Merlin Mustang, while featuring a heavy punch needed to kill the heavies.


----------



## stona (Nov 3, 2013)

davebender said:


> Production would be cancelled for same reason Henschel had to cancel production of Me-410. Ostmark engine plant was not building 1,000 DB603 engines per month as planned.



Are you sure that's why Henschel didn't make the Me 410?

The decision to have Henschel build the Me 410 was taken in March 1943 and the loss of 500 Ju 188s anticipated and accepted. 

On 3rd August 1943 Henschel still hadn't produced a Me 410, but not because of a lack of engines but rather because _"they are currently involved in wrapping up current types (Do 217 and Ju 88) and will not be starting production of the Me 410 until early/mid next year"_ That would be mid 1944! There would be less than a year of the war left, though obviously Milch didn't know that at the time.

In April 1944 there was discussion at the RLM about the distribution of the July, August, September production of DB 603 engines. The majority of the engines were assigned to the Me 410.

I can't find any reference to a shortage of engines preventing production of the Me 410 at Henschel. It may have been a factor, but there were several others.

Cheers

Steve


----------



## davebender (Nov 3, 2013)

Ostmark engine plant production data. Chart calls it "RLM Plant Austria".
U.S. Strategic Bombing Survey Aircraft Division Industry Report


----------



## davebender (Nov 3, 2013)

> 1944, nobody, in his right mind would've canceled a plane that is faster than Merlin Mustang, while featuring a heavy punch needed to kill the heavies.



1944, nobody in his right mind would've delayed mass production of Me-262 either. Unfortunately neither aircraft is much use without engines. 

If you want 1944 Germany to mass produce a tandem engine fighter aircraft it must be designed for DB605 engines. However if you are willing to use the smaller engine why not begin design work during 1937 (i.e. when Dornier patented the rear shaft arrangement)? You could have it in mass production during 1941 ILO the problem plagued Fw-190A / BMW801 engine.


----------



## tomo pauk (Nov 3, 2013)

davebender said:


> 1944, nobody in his right mind would've delayed mass production of Me-262 either. Unfortunately neither aircraft is much use without engines.



With Me-410 out of the picture, you have the engines. The problem with jet engines in 1944 (at least for German ones) is that each of them will work maybe 10% of the time the DB-603 will. But then, expecting the RLM, Goering, Hitler co. to make flawless decisions is probably too much to ask. And even small mistakes made are compounded by the fact they're against 3 major powers from 1941/42 on.



> If you want 1944 Germany to mass produce a tandem engine fighter aircraft it must be designed for DB605 engines. However if you are willing to use the smaller engine why not begin design work during 1937 (i.e. when Dornier patented the rear shaft arrangement)? You could have it in mass production during 1941 ILO the problem plagued Fw-190A / BMW801 engine.



I've already agreed with that.


----------



## stona (Nov 3, 2013)

davebender said:


> Ostmark engine plant production data. Chart calls it "RLM Plant Austria".
> U.S. Strategic Bombing Survey Aircraft Division Industry Report



I can't find any reference at the RLM to an engine shortage being the reason that Henschel, despite the March 1943 decision, did not even plan to start production of the Me 410 before "early/mid" 1944, nor that it led to a cancellation of that program..
That is a far more specific response to your original assertion.

_"Production would be cancelled for same reason Henschel had to cancel production of Me-410. Ostmark engine plant was not building 1,000 DB603 engines per month as planned" _

I don't question the failure of the plant to live up to production expectation, it was far from alone. I haven't seen any evidence that this led to a cancellation of Me 410 production by Henschel. It may have done, or at least have been a contributing factor, but you haven't provided any evidence for that either. You are making an assertion which is not backed up by _any_ evidence. If there is any I would love to see it and will happily defer to it.

It's just a matter of facts, facts based on some evidence. Otherwise you are simply stating your opinion of why the Me 410 production was cancelled at Henschel.

The RLM was definitely preferring the Me 410 over other types in its allocation of the engines it was receiving. That is reflected in the minutes from several meetings at the RLM which are on the record.

Cheers

Steve


----------



## davebender (Nov 3, 2013)

> haven't seen any evidence that this led to a cancellation of Me 410 production by Henschel.



400 x Me-410 produced by Henschel (planned production rate).
They require 800 DB603 engines per month plus spares. 

Ostmark was the only large scale DB603 engine plant Germany had. If Ostmark fails to deliver (as happened historically) then aircraft programs which require DB603 engine (Me-309, Me-410, Fw-190C, etc.) are up a creek without a paddle.


----------



## stona (Nov 4, 2013)

I don't really want to get to embroiled in the trials and tribulations of engine production. The supply of engines was not what had been anticipated and I don't think anybody is contesting that.
My issue isssues with your statement are.

1 Henschel did not have the power to cancel any RLM program at one of their facilities, only the RLM did.

2 Henschel was putting off conversion to Me 410 production by reporting that it was still tied up with production of other types, to other RLM orders. This was accepted by the ministry.

3 I can't find any reference to a cancellation of the decision to have Henschel produce the Me 410. It may well be that the shortage of engines contributed to the failure of this program, but _as far as I can tell _it was never cancelled.
Someone might well come up with some reference or document to show that it was cancelled, in which case I will gladly defer 

This may seem to be pedantic but many people with less access to resources read statements like yours and could easily draw completely wrong conclusions from it, at least in the absence of evidence to the contrary.

Cheers

Steve

Reactions: Like Like:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## l'Omnivore Sobriquet (Nov 5, 2013)

A hell of an elevator, for heavy gear...
Horizontaly quite a thing too.
The best cruiser around.
And of course that directional instability at high speed, not mentioned in this forum strangely, that kept stakes at an excitng level.

[Bombed out by the RAF heavies, it should be noted.]


----------



## OldSkeptic (Nov 6, 2013)

I never understood why the 210 was such a disaster and the 410, though better, still had its issues. They had already designed the excellent (though not as a day fighter) 110.

Manufacturers, of all sides, were knocking out good twins, of all types and size, all over the place. So you just have to wonder what happened at Messerschmitt. Very strange.


----------



## stona (Nov 6, 2013)

Prof Willy Messerschmitt.

After the first flight of V1 Wurster said that the fuselage should be a metre longer. Messerschmitt replied that he wasn't about to throw the jigs away.

Despite a report from Mtt, E-Stelle suggesting an problem with the wing profile, Messerschmitt reported that the handling of the prototypes was in order, comparing it with the Bf 100C. He also wrote that stall handling characteristics were satisfactory with or without leading edge slats and that it was up to the E-Stelle to decide if they should be deleted.
To improve the rear field of fire production models should have the single fin and rudder provisionally fitted to V2 and standard from V5 onwards.

On 5th September 1940 Wendel was forced to bail out of V2. Porpoising caused a vibration whicheventually led to disintegration of horizontal stabilisers. This was a further demonstration that the rear fuselage boom was too short and structurally too weak.

On 19th December 1940 Me 210 V9, supposedly the production prototype is flown by the E-Stelle (Rechlin) and reported to stall when flown in a steep bank in a dirty configuration. It is very unstable around the pitch axis. In a fly off with a Bf 110 it was found that the Bf 110 recovered far better from separation of the airflow.

5th June 1941. Messerschmitt are asked to eliminate the following problems.

1 The Me 210 oscillates in its vertical axis making accurate sighting when firing difficult.

2 The power driven elevators should be replaced with an internally balanced system

3 The tendency to veer during take off and landing must be eliminated by lengthening the fuselage

4 The recent engine fires with the DB 601 need to be clarified and eliminated with the help of Daimler Benz.

5 The DB designed supercharger intake screen must be modified for aerodynamic reasons.

6 The instability in the vertical axis caused by deploying the dive brakes must be eliminated.

7 The automatic dive recovery system does not meet expectations.

Messerschmitt had built a dog, but most worryingly most of the major problems had existed and been known for well over a year.

On 27th May 1941 Udet wrote his well know letter admonishing Messerschmitt and questioning his entire design philosophy. On 25th June he wrote another complaining about delays and problems with the undercarriage on the Me 210. He concluded.

"All these unnecessary annoyances and unacceptable time delays of late compel me once again to apply a tougher scale for reviewing your new types and to instruct my officers accordingly. In the future I ask that you keep them fully informed so that close cooperation will avoid any further situations of a similar nature."

In November 1941 Erprobungskommando 210 receives 16 Me 210 A-1s. It reports that whilst experienced pilots quickly come to terms with the aircraft's unique features new pilots have considerable difficulty. Particular caution is needed when dealing with the aircraft's tendency to veer on take off (which has obviously not been fixed). Flight characteristics and performance are as good as or better than the Bf 110.

On 12th December 1941, at the RLM, the results of an investigation at Messerschmitt are reported. It is the opinion of Dipl.Ing. Frydag, Major Storp and Major Peterson that the Me 210 is a viable aircraft. Peterson emphasises that the fuselage must be lengthened. A timetable for various modifications at Messerschmitt's expense is discussed.

10th February 1942, first reports from units operating the Me 210 are extremely critical. A month later I.ZG/1 reports that in the week 3rd March to 9th March one aircraft was damaged taxying, eight have crashed landed, three have crashed on training flights. Many crashes are the result of young or inexperienced pilots who find themselves in a flat spin.

At a meeting at Karinhall on 6th March 1942 Jeschonnek is recorded saying.

"The Me 210 in its current configuration can't be imposed on the crews. It goes into a flat spin quite easily and the reason has not yet been found. Then there are serious problems with the engine installation. Twice now engines have broken free in flight. Crews have died when the aircraft noses over on the ground. It is extremely questionable whether the Me 210 can enter operations this spring. For its intended role the plane is entirely unsuited in its current configuration."

Milch (who has now replaced Udet) replied that 

"Prof Messerschmitt wants to try lengthening the types fuselage to make it operationally ready."

It will not escape the sharp eyed that this was first suggested in September 1939!

Following a meeting with Goering on 10th March a Memorandum (GL/C-B2) was sent to Messerschmit on 12th March halting any further construction of the Me 210, effective immediately.

Thus ended episode one of the saga.

Cheers

Steve

Reactions: Like Like:
3 | Like List reactions


----------



## OldSkeptic (Nov 7, 2013)

Thanks Steve, what a debacle.


----------



## tomo pauk (Nov 8, 2013)

Fine post indeed. Too bad some people here don't start the blog or something.


----------



## stona (Nov 8, 2013)

It is a debacle but the Me 210 was far from dead.

Despite considering ditching the Me 210 for the Ar 440 a 1st April 1942 re-start date is considered for the Me 210 program in the same memorandum that had halted production!

Messerschmitt are ordered to modify six aircraft with a lengthened fuselage, slats, internally balanced elevators, autopilot to a zerstorer configuration but without armour for a rapid testing program.
Another ten are to be similarly modified complete with armour for an extended series of tests at Rechlin.
The deadline for this is 16th March 1942. Willy Messerschmitt agreed to this despite being aware that it was unrealistic and impossible.

25th March 1942, Messerschmitt, a man battling to keep the project alive, writes to Test Center Director Franke.

"You are certainly aware that the field is having problems with the Me 210 and that, contrary to all expectations, these are mainly attributable to stalling."

Talk about economical with the truth! He continued.

"The defects already known (ground looping on landing, unpleasant handling of the elevators) have been taken into consideration by lengthening the fuselage and fitting a counterbalanced elevator, both of which were approved by the test centre and, after just a few flights, were considered satisfactory by both the field and the test centre. The remaining criticisms of the landing gear (hydraulics, weapons etc) are fundamentally engineering issues and can be remedied in the near future."

14th April 1942 Oberst Vorvald reports to Milch that the 6 Me 210 test examples are not finished and will not be finished by Messeschmitt until 20th April. The delay is caused by an increase in the number of changes required from 4 to 40.

Makes me wonder what exactly Willy was basing the assertions in his earlier letter on, at least one aircraft was presumably modified, at least partially.

19th April 1942. Milch states that "the Me 210 will no longer be a significant player in 1942." He doubts whether it will ever go into production. Everything depends on the test programmes and series production can't start until four months after completion of the programme.

21st April 1942. Milch reports that the Me 210 is to be dropped from production programmes on the express orders of the Reichsmarshall. The 16 test examples are to be completed and tested. All further work to cease immediately. 
The Gotha and Luther companies are to be withdrawn from the Me 210 license building programme for good. 
The air attache at the Hungarian Consulate is to be officially informed that Me 210 production is frozen "for technical reasons".

Messerschmitt is officially informed of this decision, by the RLM, on 25th April 1942.

At this time 94 Me 210s had been completed at Augsburg and another 258 at Regensburg. At both plants a total of 540 Me 210s were at various stages of construction. Materials for large scale series production had already been delivered to the plants. Close to 4,000 employees were left standing around with nothing to do. 
It is almost inconceivable that such a state of affairs was allowed to develop at such a crucial stage of the war. 1942 is often seen as a turning point, not least due to the faltering campaign in the east and then the debacle at Stalingrad later in the year. A situation like this in the aircraft industry, as the Anglo-Americans geared up for their massive aerial assault on the Reich can hardly have helped.

Another swipe of the axe, and thus ended the second episode of the saga.

The Me 210 was still not dead though. 

Cheers

Steve


----------



## davebender (Nov 8, 2013)

Fw-187 was production ready by 1940. 
Historical flight tests suggest the aircraft was largely free of technical flaws needing to be fixed.
Aerial performance was outstanding.
Range / endurance was outstanding.
Firepower with four nose mounted cannon outstanding.
Mass production cost was reasonable.
Can be powered by any version of DB601 or DB605 engine. Performance improves as more powerful engine versions enter production.
Easily adaptable to long range photo recon role. Survivable enough to go where most recon aircraft cannot.

With an existing twin engine fighter aircraft this good there's little incentive to pour money into a new tandem engine fighter program. Place the Fw-187 into mass production and call the job done.


----------



## stona (Nov 8, 2013)

Since the Fw 187 was finally and irrevocably axed from all RLM programs well before a design for the Do 335 was even submitted, let alone an order made, I don't really see the point of your post.

There are several threads about the Fw 187 already and none amount to more than "what ifs". I don't see any reason to start another one.

Cheers

Steve


----------



## GrauGeist (Nov 8, 2013)

Not sure why the Fw187 keeps creeping in everywhere...it wasn't all that great in terms of fighting ability. Sure it, was reported to have made some impressive high-speed runs, but that was clean. Operationally speaking, it was capable of 329mph (529kph) in combat configuration. The Fw187 also suffered skin buckling issues and was plagued with over-heating.

For a twin, the better option would have been to pursue the Ar240 (later V series) as it had a higher max-ceiling and a higher rated max speed at 345mph (555kph). Additionally, the Ar240 was capable of multi-roles whereas the Fw187 would have been limited to a gun platform. The handling and overheating problems that plagued V1 were corrected on V2 and the following airframes performed very well, even in light of the high wing loading.

If the Do335 wasn't considered as a replacement for the Bf110, the Ar240 should have been.


----------



## davebender (Nov 8, 2013)

Ju-88G. Everything I have read suggests it was a fantastic night fighter aircraft.


----------



## stona (Nov 8, 2013)

GrauGeist said:


> If the Do335 wasn't considered as a replacement for the Bf110, the Ar240 should have been.



It was. It was seriously considered as a substitute for the Me 210 when that project was in the doldrums. I can give some references for this (not now  ). I think the Ar 240 was a little unlucky.
Cheers
Steve


----------



## stona (Nov 8, 2013)

davebender said:


> Ju-88G. Everything I have read suggests it was a fantastic night fighter aircraft.
> View attachment 247398



The problem is that the RLM was looking for what we would now call a MRCA. It was trying to rationalise several types in one aircraft. This was the final death knell for your beloved Fw 187. The Ju 88/188 was certainly a serious contender.
Cheers
Steve


----------



## Denniss (Nov 8, 2013)

GrauGeist said:


> The Fw187 also suffered skin buckling issues and was plagued with over-heating.


No skin-buckling and overheating issues in Fw 187 with standard cooling systems. Please do not repeat old myths.


----------



## GrauGeist (Nov 8, 2013)

So you're going to tell me that the fastest version, the V6, did not suffer surface distortion at all?

The Fw187 was NOT perfect, the first two versions (V1 and V2) crashed and the program was beset with problems, including frustrations from over-heating.


----------



## davebender (Nov 8, 2013)

That's ok as long as you don't carry it too far. 

Ju-88/Ju-188 was a great light/dive bomber, recon aircraft, torpedo bomber and night fighter. 

Fw-187 was a great long range day fighter and recon aircraft.

Me-110 tried to be good at everything and ended up great at nothing. Luftwaffe should have figured this out by 1941 and dumped the Zerstorer concept in the trash bin.


----------



## Milosh (Nov 8, 2013)

GrauGeist said:


> So you're going to tell me that the fastest version, the V6, did not suffer surface distortion at all?
> 
> The Fw187 was NOT perfect, the first two versions (V1 and V2) crashed and the program was beset with problems, including frustrations from over-heating.



Not to be considered a Fw187 fanboy, but many prototypes crashed. The P-47 for example.


----------



## nuuumannn (Nov 8, 2013)

> Fw-187 was a great long range day fighter and recon aircraft.



Don't you mean "Fw 187 _might_ have been a great long range day fighter and recon aircraft"?


----------



## wuzak (Nov 8, 2013)

davebender said:


> Fw-187 was *potentially* a *good* long range day fighter and recon aircraft.



Fixed that for you Dave.

The Fw 187 could not in any way be considered great - it was very much unproven.


----------



## stona (Nov 9, 2013)

I don't think everyone has a concept of the chaos that reigned at the RLM during this period. There is a surviving report from 12th March '42 which refers to the meeting between Milch, Goering and others about the Me 210 on Goering's train on the 9th March.

"The Reichsmarschall condemns in the strongest terms the premature stoppage of the Bf 110, Ju 87 and Ju 88 in favour of the Me 210.
As a result he will bring three men from the GL (Generalluftzeugmeister Luftwaffe) Division on charges before a military tribunal."

It is clear that the RLM was looking for one aircraft to carry out multiple roles or they wouldn't be considering the cancellation of those three types. 
It is also clear that Goering was more than a little miffed about the Me 210 debacle.

Messerschmitt was very out of favour. On 21st March Milch described the Me 321, in an official document, as "a fraud".

The Fw 187 and Ar 240 were considered specifically as Zerstorer as late as 18th August 1942. Both were discounted. 

Cheers

Steve


----------



## nuuumannn (Nov 9, 2013)

"He would have lived longer if it were not for the Me 210" Isn't that what Herr Goering wanted inscribed on his headstone? Good info Steve.


----------



## stona (Nov 9, 2013)

davebender said:


> Me-110 tried to be good at everything and ended up great at nothing. Luftwaffe should have figured this out by 1941 and dumped the Zerstorer concept in the trash bin.



They probably should have. 

The zerstorer concept did develop from its original form to the point that by 1942 it effectively meant heavy fighter. It's no accident that ever heavier weapons were being fitted. As early as October 1942 Milch was exploring the fitting of 3.7, 5 and 7.5 cm cannon to heavy fighters and bombers. The intended target then was tanks and armoured vehicles but it was an obvious adaptation for a bomber destroyer.

The Flak 18, Flak 43 and 5cm KWK were all fitted to the Me 410, something way beyond the capability of the Fw 187 airframe.

Cheers
Steve

Reactions: Like Like:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## davebender (Nov 9, 2013)

That doesn't necessarily mean Me-110 program should have been immediately cancelled. However during 1941 it should have been reclassified as a night fighter and recon aircraft. No more nonsense about day fighter capability.

With day fighter mission dropped (from Me-110) RLM would be forced to consider a replacement for long range bomber escort and Me-210 light bomber won't cut it anymore then Me-110 night fighter aircraft.

Reactions: Like Like:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## stona (Nov 9, 2013)

davebender said:


> With day fighter mission dropped (from Me-110) RLM would be forced to consider a replacement for long range bomber escort and Me-210 light bomber won't cut it anymore then Me-110 night fighter aircraft.



Historically Pelz didn't want the Me 210/410 as a fast bomber, a role forced on it for political reasons. Galland did want it as a heavy fighter and bomber destroyer.
Cheers
Steve


----------



## bob44 (Nov 9, 2013)

stona said:


> Galland did want it as a heavy fighter and bomber destroyer.
> Cheers
> Steve



That is most interesting. After experiences with heavy fighters during the BOB.


----------



## stona (Nov 9, 2013)

It is important to emphasise the different mission Galland was envisaging. This was not an offensive campaign like the BoB but rather a defensive action against the various USAAFs. Most of these discussions took place in the latter part of 1943 and the resultant plans would be rendered obsolete by the arrival in numbers of the P-51 shortly thereafter.

On 12th November 1943, at the RLM, Milch reports that due to the demands of Hitler and Goering's orders only 10-15 Me 410s per month can be delivered as zerstorer. The rest must go to Oberst Pelz in order to follow the Fuhrer's order to attack England.

Milch wants to petition Goering to produce more heavy fighters. [By this time zerstorer and heavy fighter are used interchangeably at the RLM].

The General der Kamfflieger (Pelz) _places no value in the Me 410 and would much prefer the Ju 88 S._

The Me 410 is not expected to leave the production line as a zerstorer until mid 1944 and then it is to be produced in lightened form with the armament that Galland has called for.

A Erprobungskommando 25 action report later that month re-iterates the same.

Galland is on the record as saying he would like all the zerstorer version with the streamlined canopy and "G-supercharger". I'd have to check what he meant by G-supercharger. He wanted to establish a Geschwader of Me 410s equipped with the 5cm gun as bomber destroyers.

At the same time Pelz stated that he did not want the Me 410 but preferred the Ju 88 S. He felt that the Me 410 was being forced on him due to a lack of the Junkers bomber.

Milch chipped in saying that he considered the Me 410, now fixed, to be a fantastic heavy fighter.

The plan is to replace the Me 410 with the Do 335. The Do 335 is to be the fast bomber, heavy day fighter and reconnaissance aircraft. The Do 335 is also discussed as a potential night fighter as the Me 262s range is considered inadequate.

As a result the number of Me 410s to be built by Dornier is kept open in order not to compromise Do 335 production. If some resources are freed up by cancellation of the He 219 [which was presumably discussed] then these are to be channelled into the Do 335.

Cheers

Steve


----------



## davebender (Nov 9, 2013)

> Historically Pelz didn't want the Me 210/410 as a fast bomber, a role forced on it for political reasons.



When was 1,000kg bomb bay incorporated into the aircraft design? That will tell us when Me-210 became a light bomber.


----------



## stona (Nov 9, 2013)

I probably didn't write that very well 

I meant that it was due to Hitler's insistence on bombing England that Pelz had the Me 410 forced on him as a fast bomber. He really didn't like or want it in this role and was prepared to say so on several occasions. 

The Me 210 had been intended to have a bombing capacity from the outset. As early as November 1938, before the type had even flown, plans were being made to equip 7 of 16 proposed heavy fighter wings and 8 dive bomber wings with the Me 210. The dive bomber wings would initially be Ju 87 equipped but by April 1942 all these wings were to be Me 210 equipped.
The Me 210 had dive brakes (which caused serious stability issues) and a dive recovery system (which didn't work very well) as standard.

If only they'd known what a dog they were investing in!

Cheers

Steve


----------



## swampyankee (Nov 9, 2013)

stona said:


> I probably didn't write that very well
> 
> I meant that it was due to Hitler's insistence on bombing England that Pelz had the Me 410 forced on him as a fast bomber. He really didn't like or want it in this role and was prepared to say so on several occasions.
> 
> ...



Overall, I think we can all be glad that the RLM's relationship with Messerschmidt was cozy enough for them to permit resources to be wasted on such a dog for so long.


----------



## davebender (Nov 9, 2013)

> dive bomber wings would initially be Ju 87 equipped but by April 1942 all these wings were to be Me 210 equipped.



Ju-88A dive bomber worked just fine and it was in mass production by 1940. It wasn't obsolete by 1942. In fact Ju-88 could be upgraded with BMW801, DB603 or Jumo 213 engines just as Me-210 was upgraded with more powerful engines.

Ordering development of Me-210 dive bomber during 1938 makes sense as Ju-88 had yet to prove itself. However the program should have been declared redundant and cancelled during 1940. Shift development resources into a purpose built long range day fighter aircraft. If RLM doesn't like Fw-187 then kick the long range Me-309 program into high gear.


----------



## stona (Nov 9, 2013)

swampyankee said:


> Overall, I think we can all be glad that the RLM's relationship with Messerschmidt was cozy enough for them to permit resources to be wasted on such a dog for so long.



It was compromised by the Me 210 debacle.

I'll try and list the salient points without writing an essay!

In mid November 1943, during a meeting, Goering asked Messerschmitt why he had not come directly to him with the matter of delayed deliveries of the Me 262. Messerschmitt replied that he had been forbidden to do so by Milch.

This led to an enquiry and Seiler gave this account in a sworn affidavit.

There was a discussion in early 1942 between Milch, Seiler (financier) and Croneiss (Mtt. MD) about a shake up in the management of Messerschmitt AG following the Me 210 debacle. Willy Messerschmitt was side lined to the design office and Croneiss would take over the running of the company.

Milch was adamant that Messerschmitt should not be allowed to use his direct contacts with Hitler and Goering as a threat against the men in the Amt at every opportunity and every time he felt he was not getting his own way.

Seiler and Croneiss both promised Milch that they would ensure that Willy Messerschmitt understood that he must "march in step". They did not see any reason for Messerschmitt to visit Hitler or Goering.

Seiler said that on the train back to Regensburg Croneiss suggested telling Messerschmitt that Milch had forbidden him from dealing directly with Goering or talking to Hitler.

Seiler objected to this as Milch had made no such order and anyway, given the tension between he and Croneiss and Messerschmitt such a request would have been ignored.

Seiler was also of the view that it was unhelpful for Prof. Messerschmitt to approach Hitler or Goering by himself as his artistic style prevented him from seeing how things need to be reasonably approached from an industrial standpoint.

Seiler concluded that it was inexcusable that Messerschmitt did not give a personal report to Milch, he was not forbidden to do so. Furthermore he (Seiler) could not fulfil the tasks given to him by Milch whilst Messerschmitt refused to adhere to company discipline.

Milch and Messerschmitt had history from Milch's days at Lufthansa. Despite the reorganisation at Messerschmitt AG and a loss of faith by both Udet and later Milch Messerschmitt always seems to have retained the ear of both Hitler and Goering.

Cheers

Steve

Reactions: Like Like:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## Denniss (Nov 9, 2013)

G-supercharger - probably the DB 603A with the improved supercharger intended for the 603G. This may point to the 603AA version the Me 410 never received (He 219 A-2 got it instead).


----------



## stona (Nov 9, 2013)

Denniss said:


> G-supercharger - probably the DB 603A with the improved supercharger intended for the 603G. This may point to the 603AA version the Me 410 never received (He 219 A-2 got it instead).



That sounds feasible. Thanks Denniss.
A lot of things were discussed and agreed in Milch's office that never happened for many reasons. Often the reason was Goering, and contrary to myth, he wasn't always wrong 
Steve


----------



## bob44 (Nov 9, 2013)

Thanks Steve. 
Most enlightening.


----------



## Aozora (Nov 9, 2013)

davebender said:


> Ju-88A dive bomber worked just fine and it was in mass production by 1940. It wasn't obsolete by 1942. In fact Ju-88 could be upgraded with BMW801, DB603 or Jumo 213 engines just as Me-210 was upgraded with more powerful engines.
> 
> Ordering development of Me-210 dive bomber during 1938 makes sense as Ju-88 had yet to prove itself. However the program should have been declared redundant and cancelled during 1940. Shift development resources into a purpose built long range day fighter aircraft. If RLM doesn't like Fw-187 then kick the long range Me-309 program into high gear.



Why bother with the 309? It, too, required the DB 603 to even approach the performance of the 109G, and it has been shown that the 603 wasn't fully reliable until 1943 - then we had the same instability that had plagued the original 210, and for similar reasons - take a look at that short, shallow rear fuselage and tell me that the same design flaws hadn't been repeated. 







As Stona has mentioned, http://www.ww2aircraft.net/forum/aviation/do-335-a-38895-5.html#post1072584 Messerschmitt was most reluctant to redesign the 210's rear fuselage - is there any reason to suppose that the same reluctance wouldn't come up with the 309? In addition to all of this the 309 V1 was almost completely outclassed by a 109G in comparative tests: without a complete redesign and a lot more power, an Me 309 faced with a P-51B/C/D would have been toast.


----------



## tomo pauk (Nov 9, 2013)

Interestingly enough, the Nowarra's "Die Deutsche Luftrüstung 1933-1945: Band 3" lists the Me-309 as having the DB-603G on-board (a late war engine), even though the 309 was cancelled in 1943. Engiles-language Wikipedia, of course, repeats this verbatim 

The Fw-190 always seemed to me like a cool place to bolt the DB-603 on, but that went nowhere until too late. The Fw-190 was also capable to hold additional fuel cells between wing spars, with the outer cannons deleted in that case.


----------



## davebender (Nov 9, 2013)

Because it carried 770 liters of internal fuel. If Fw-187 (1,300 liters of internal fuel) is not an option then Me-309 is probably the only other choice for a long range German day fighter aircraft.


----------



## Aozora (Nov 9, 2013)

davebender said:


> Because it carried 770 liters of internal fuel. If Fw-187 (1,300 liters of internal fuel) is not an option then Me-309 is probably the only other choice for a long range German day fighter aircraft.



That was about the only "asset" of the Me 309, otherwise it was a waste of time which would have taken far too long to develop into a halfway decent fighter. By the time a properly developed Me 309 could have reached operational service its long range, and need for extra fuel, would have been wasted in light of Allied air superiority and diminishing fuel reserves. In addition, Tank was developing the Ta 152 series which was far more useful.


----------



## Milosh (Nov 10, 2013)

Fw187 2 engines 1300/2 = 650, so less fuel than the 1 engine Me309 by 120l.


----------



## wuzak (Nov 10, 2013)

Milosh said:


> Fw187 2 engines 1300/2 = 650, so less fuel than the 1 engine Me309 by 120l.



Yes, but two very much less powerful engines.

Tha Fw 187A-0 had 700hp engines. The B was to have DB 601s and the C DB 605s. The Me 309 used a 1900hp DB 603.


----------



## GrauGeist (Nov 10, 2013)

Without running the risk of sounding like an ass, but how does a Me309 have anything to do with a Do335?

I can understand the comparison between the Fw187 and the Do335, since they're twin engined (i'm surprised the Fw187 hasn't appeared in the WWI discussion, actually) but seriously, where does the ill-fated Me309 project come into comparison with the Do335?

The Do335 had the advantage of speed over the 309, it was larger and could carry a heavier loadout. It had a sound design and it showed good flight characteristics for an aircraft of it's size. It was fast, which would have proven very troublesome to Allied fighters, making the Do335 capable of choosing when to fight and when to leave un-challenged. It packed a heavy punch, so anything in it's sights would have been in big trouble.

In all honesty, the Do335 had merit to it's design and application. If (and it always comes down the the big IF) this had been produced sooner in larger quantities than 35 units by war's end, then it may have had time to not only make a name for itself, but evolve as most successful airframes do.


----------



## stona (Nov 10, 2013)

GrauGeist said:


> In all honesty, the Do335 had merit to it's design and application. If (and it always comes down the the big IF) this had been produced sooner in larger quantities than 35 units by war's end, then it may have had time to not only make a name for itself, but evolve as most successful airframes do.



I agree, about the only thing that the Fw 187 has in common with the Do335 was that you could have written that about either of them. Just substitute Fw 187 for Do 335 and 7 for 35. At least the Do 335 was planned to go into series production whereas the Fw 187 never even got that far 

I think that the Do 335 did have potential. The development problems were being overcome in the face of difficult conditions. How well it would have performed the various roles envisaged for it we will never know. I think it would have made a decent fast bomber, a very good night fighter and reconnaissance aircraft but I'm not so sure about a heavy day fighter. 
The last is a role which was being rendered redundant by the performance of the opposing single engine fighters. Just because one Do 335_ supposedly _out ran a flight of Tempests on one occasion does not mean it could have held its own against that sort of aircraft in combat.
Cheers
Steve


----------



## tomo pauk (Nov 10, 2013)

The Fw-190A-8 started carrying the additional 'drum' fuel tank behind the pilot (115 L), bringing the total fuel carried at 640 liters. With that tank in place, there was no more space for MW-50 (cannot be used with BMW-801 anyway), nor for GM-1 tank. 640 liters is still 20% less than 770 than what is claimed the 309 was being able to carry, and Ta-152C carried almost twice what Fw-190A-7 and earlier were capable for (wing was just a tad bigger), and almost 300 L more than Bf-309.
The wing fuel tanks (outboard of the cannons, 4 tanks total per plane) were to be incorporated into the Doras, too. Supposedly the Fw-190D-12/R5 and D-13/R5 were the 'names' of the planes with those.


----------



## stona (Nov 10, 2013)

tomo pauk said:


> The Fw-190A-8 started carrying the additional 'drum' fuel tank behind the pilot (115 L), bringing the total fuel carried at 640 liters.



I believe that the 115litre auxiliary fuel tank was introduced on the A-9, but don't want to start a debate about what an A-9 is! DU+JB, W.Nr. 170002, an A-8, was the first aircraft known to have been fitted with the 801 TS engine. It may have been designated V52 making it effectively an A-9 prototype. It first flew in this configuration on 30th August 1944 and shortly thereafter A-9s started to be produced at Cottbus and Nordenham.

This was carried over to the D-9 which carried 520 litres as standard (in the two self sealing fuselage tanks) and an additional 115 litres in the auxiliary fuel tank which could be fitted instead of the GM-1 tank. The aircraft carried enough oil to operate with this total fuel load,635 litres.
Oil consumption is almost invariably overlooked by those seeking to increase the endurance of an aircraft by adding more fuel.
The D-9 could of course carry a 300litre drop tank but the oil system was not designed to cope with this. 
Cheers
Steve


----------



## tomo pauk (Nov 10, 2013)

The 115 L tank was introduced with A-8, the A-9 also using it. The A-9 was more or less the A-8 with TS engine, and many A-8s received that engine when overhauled, thus becoming the A-9 in effect. Similar story as with Spit I/II -> Spit V, or Spit V -> Spit IX or XII. The A-8 was basically A-7 with that 115 L tank. More on A-8 weight and fuel here (weight 4365 kg), here (table header lists "115L tank or GM-1 tank", 4300 kg), here.

The last link also gives the fuel volume for the D-9 as 520 liters, the space where the A-8 and A-9 were carrying the 115L tank was occupied with MW-50 tank of same volume. I cannot find any source that would confirm the D-9 carrying GM-1 installation.


> The D-9 could of course carry a 300litre drop tank but the oil system was not designed to cope with this.



Care to share some info re. this?


----------



## stona (Nov 10, 2013)

You are correct about the A-8, I've had time to look it up...... my bad 
The self sealing 115 litre fuel tank was the standard fitting from August 1944. The plan was that it could be changed for an unprotected MW 50 tank of 115 or 140 litres or a GM1 tank of 85 litres. The use of GM1 was abandoned in January 1944 (Ago was to have built this version) so it certainly didn't get fitted to the D-9. 

Original specification for the D-9 did include a GM-1 installation, via Smith and Creek, 

"For increased high altitude performance an 85 litre GM 1 tank may be installed in the rear fuselage. At an average rate of consumption of 100g/sec this provides for approximately 17 minutes of operation."

This sort of contradiction is not unusual.

It was the installation of this auxiliary fuel tank as standard that led to the FuG 16 radio equipment being moved from Bulkhead eight to the area behind the pilot. An access door appeared on the port side to allow access to the equipment.
The ETC 501 was also moved forward by 200mm.

The only information I have on oil capacity is that when the 300l drop tank is used "part of the cold start mixture will have to be sacrificed".

Cheers

Steve


----------



## tomo pauk (Nov 10, 2013)

> This sort of contradiction is not unusual.



Indeed, in many ways 
Eg. German-language Wikipedia entry states that Fw-190A-8 was regularly using the MW-50 system, despite the fact that no operative Fw-190A ever carried MW-50 system (the tank behind pilot was for fuel or GM-1). Again, any corrections are welcomed.

Similar thing was for Doras - if they carried MW-50 tank behind pilot, that excludes both fuel and GM-1 tanks using that place. Anyway, I've located data for the 213A with GM-1, should be adding maybe 50% more HP above ~25000 ft:


----------



## Denniss (Nov 10, 2013)

The Me 309 used several different 603 engines including 603G prototypes
The BMW 801 could be used with MW system although it's said to be less effective than the C3 fuel system they used. With the fuel shortages late-war they were believed to switch from C3 to MW ystem to conserve fuel.
The 801TS was not an engine, it was the complete interchangable engine with all external mountings ready to be bolted onto an aircraft. The engine used in the A-9 was the 801S.
The 115l-tank in the D-9 was intended for MW but could also be used for fuel.
The initial A-8 were delivered without the 115l tank but were prepared for installation and was often backfitted in the field. Regulare delivery with tank in summer 44.
300l extra fuel should be no problem regarding oil reserve, the combination of 300+115l may be a problem but with the later 44 engines they increased the oil capacity if I remember right (801S + 801Q with more armor for the oil coller + increased capacity oil tank).
Can't remember to have seen a comment regarding oil problems with D-9 + 300l DT.

Reactions: Like Like:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## tomo pauk (Nov 10, 2013)

Thanks for the feedback


----------



## stona (Nov 10, 2013)

tomo pauk said:


> German-language Wikipedia entry states that Fw-190A-8 was regularly using the MW-50 system, despite the fact that no operative Fw-190A ever carried MW-50 system (the tank behind pilot was for fuel or GM-1). Again, any corrections are welcomed.



I avoid Wikipedia like the plague. Of course there are some good and well written entries but the lack of editorial control means a lot of BS gets on to 

D.(Luft)T.2190 A-8 is the official Luftwaffe handbook on the A-8 and here's what it says. 

"Behind bulkhead eight there is also provision for the installation of a GM-1 tank, 85 litre capacity, or an auxiliary fuel tank, 115 litre capacity."

No mention of MW 50 anywhere. I would tend to agree with you.

On the other hand Shacklady states, with no reference, that "the reintroduction of the MW50 water-methanol engine booster gave the Fw 190 A-8 additional airspeed when crucially needed.." (2003)
He also refers to the aircraft's increased fuel capacity, and you can't have both!

Though never operational, the proposed G-8 version was to be MW 50 equipped and the testing was to be done on V50 according to a "Sonderausrustung Entwicklungsmitteilung" dated 25th August 1943. I love those German compound words! Let's say "special equipment development notice", though I'm open to suggestions. The whole thing was cancelled early next year anyway.

The first test aircraft for MW50 using a BMW engine was W.Nr. 1469, an A-5.

Someone who knows more about the BMW 801 series engine would have to tell me if MW50 was ever used on operational aircraft.


Cheers

Steve


----------



## tomo pauk (Nov 10, 2013)

Just to be crystal clear, I've said:


> [This sort of contradiction is not unusual.]
> Indeed, in many ways
> Eg. German-language Wikipedia entry...



In other words, they have it wrong


----------



## stona (Nov 10, 2013)

Thanks Denniss.
I was aware of the injection of C3 as a means of cooling the charge to the engine. I've read of problems with MW50 in conjunction with the earlier 801 series engines though this may have been solved on later versions. 

Shacklady has got something wrong because you can't have the extra 115 litre of fuel and MW50 in the same tank! 

The comment on the oil consumption of the D-9 was that when using a 300 litre drop tank in conjunction with the extra internal tank some of the cold start mixture would be sacrificed. I am unclear what exactly that means.

Cheers

Steve


----------



## davebender (Nov 10, 2013)

> where does the ill-fated Me309 project come into comparison with the Do335?


Long range. The same reason Fw-187 comes into the comparison.

If the mission dictates long range then suggesting range was Me-309s only asset is a poor argument. Better a mediocre fighter aircraft which can reach the objective then a superb fighter aircraft which cannot. Otherwise the Me-163 (range 40km) would have been a world beater interceptor well into the early 1950s.

Reactions: Like Like:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## GrauGeist (Nov 10, 2013)

The Me309 is single engined, this is about the Do335 which had two engines. Comparing the two isn't realistic.

If you want to compare comparable types based on the Me309, then why not look at the proposed me609 even though it never left at the drawing board. Same would go for the Bf109Z-1.

In reality, the Do335 had a combat range of over 720 miles (1,160 km), the He219 had a range of 960 miles (1,540 km), the Ar240 had a range of 1,243 miles (2,000 km) and as much as range is an important quality, it's what it's *capable of doing when it gets there*, that matters. otherwise we could look at the Hs124V2, which had a range of 2,610 miles (4,200 km) but was slower and lightly armed.

And the Fw187 had a range of 650 miles...


----------



## silence (Nov 11, 2013)

tomo pauk said:


> The wing fuel tanks (outboard of the cannons, 4 tanks total per plane) were to be incorporated into the Doras, too. Supposedly the Fw-190D-12/R5 and D-13/R5 were the 'names' of the planes with those.



Just to clarify, are you sure that the Ta-152Cs had only four wing bag tanks, and not six like the H-1? I do seem to recall the D-12s and -13s could only hold four.

Also, could a Dora be both a /R5 and a /R11? (/R16??)


----------



## davebender (Nov 11, 2013)

P-38, P-47 and P-51 designs have little in common except long range but they are comparable since they all meet mission requirement to escort long range bombers.

Fw-187, Me-309 and Do-335 meet the same requirement. 

Fw-190 was a decent short range fighter aircraft but it's the wrong aircraft when the objective is 500 miles from your airfield or if you are required to loiter over the Bay of Biscay for a couple hours to guard against British ASW aircraft.


----------



## GrauGeist (Nov 11, 2013)

Oh, my mistake, I thought we were looking at twin engined aircraft for comparable applications, not comparing things with wings and maybe a cockpit. And maybe an engine.

The Me309 had an approximate range of 685 miles (1,100 km) which was just a few miles further than the Fw187, neither of which could compare to the P-38's range of about 1,300 miles (2,100 km)

So how would the Me309 make it 500 miles and "loiter" and even then, it was lightly armed (2 MG and 2 light cannon) to deal with any enemy contact.

I listed a progression of twins that had range and firepower up there, but if we're going to try and make comparisons with aircraft that lead nowhere, then we're simply doing the same thing the RLM did in WWII.

Even the Fokker G.I had better range (938miles/1,510km) and firepower (8 x 7.9mm MG foreward/1 x 7.9mm MG rear) and was available to the Luftwaffe in 1940


----------



## tomo pauk (Nov 11, 2013)

Hi, Silence. Sorry if I was not being crystal clear. 
The D-12 and D-13 were to be equipped with 4 wing tanks each, exact volume is unknown to me. The volume of fuel in wing tanks of the Ta-152H-1* was 400L in five tanks, the 6th tank (inner left actually; noted at drawing, too) was to carry 70L of MW-50, so that would yield some 330L for the Doras with wing tanks? The position for the 2 wing tanks was to serve as a place for verically-fired weapons, tanks not being installed in that case. 
Hope that I'm not mistaking about following:
The Fw-152C-1 and 152E-1 were to carry fuel in all 6 tanks, 1064L total (vs. 994L for the 152H-1), the C-1 and E-1 tanks for MW-50 being in rear fuselage (140L for those two) . Here is the fuel and MW-50 volume listed.

I'm not familiar with /R11 nor /R16 equipment sets, care to elaborate?
Between the wing stations (ribs?) 3 and 4, and 7 and 9 the late Doras were to carry tanks, the Ta-152 was to carry another between the stations (ribs?) 4 and 6. 

*the 'Monografie Lotnize' book states that Ta-152H-0 did not featured GM-1 nor MW-50 tanks, the rear tank being filled with 115L of fuel instead. The H-1 was to have 85L of GM-1 mixture (tank in rear fuselage) and 70L of MW-50.


----------



## davebender (Nov 11, 2013)

> Me309 had an approximate range of 685 miles (1,100 km) which was just a few miles further than the Fw187, neither of which could compare to the P-38's range of about 1,300 miles



That defies common sense. P-38J didn't enter service until August 1943. P-38H and earlier models carried less fuel then Fw-187 and the aircraft was considerably heavier. How could P-38H possibly have twice the range?


----------



## tomo pauk (Nov 11, 2013)

stona said:


> I avoid Wikipedia like the plague. Of course there are some good and well written entries but the lack of editorial control means a lot of BS gets on to
> ...



If we were to believe the books as new as from yaer 2008 (4+Publication book on the Ta-152), the BMW-801D in the Fw-190 was featuring a two stage supercharger??  The same book says this about the Jumo-213:

_It must be stressed that this engine was not turbo-supercharged (ie., it did not have supercharging from the recycling of hot exhaust gases, *but used instead air*)._

Used the air to power the supercharging??
The same book hardly mentions that Jumo 213E was a better hi-alt engine because it was outfitted with a 2-stage supercharger, and we cannot read that DB-603L was featuring the same. On the other hand, the MW-50 and GM-1 abbreviations are mentioned in almost every second sentence, despite the Ta-152H-0 being without those.

Reactions: Like Like:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## stona (Nov 11, 2013)

tomo pauk said:


> *the 'Monografie Lotnize' book states that Ta-152H-0 did not featured GM-1 nor MW-50 tanks, the rear tank being filled with 115L of fuel instead. The H-1 was to have 85L of GM-1 mixture (tank in rear fuselage) and 70L of MW-50.
> 
> 
> > That sounds right to me. Hermann reckons that the H-1 and H-10 should both have had both systems as standard.
> ...


----------



## Shortround6 (Nov 11, 2013)

davebender said:


> That defies common sense. P-38J didn't enter service until August 1943. P-38H and earlier models carried less fuel then Fw-187 and the aircraft was considerably heavier. How could P-38H possibly have twice the range?



It didn't.

On the other hand:







P-38 _can_ fly 840 miles on 250 gallons of fuel. Not saying it was smart to fly at those speeds or altitudes and since the earlier planes were a bit more more streamline they _might_ get a few more miles from the same fuel. 

P-38s also carried drop tanks earlier than _some_ other US fighters. Flying the Atlantic in the summer of 1942.


----------



## tomo pauk (Nov 11, 2013)

Steve - the H-10?



davebender said:


> _Me309 had an approximate range of 685 miles (1,100 km) which was just a few miles further than the Fw187, neither of which could compare to the P-38's range of about 1,300 miles _
> 
> That defies common sense. P-38J didn't enter service until August 1943. P-38H and earlier models carried less fuel then Fw-187 and the aircraft was considerably heavier. How could P-38H possibly have twice the range?



Despite the disclaimer saying that figures are not (yet) flight-checked, they should not be that far off. 2640 miles with 890 US gals (the 2x300 gals drop tanks are attached, minus the allowance for warm up, take off and climb to 5000 ft):


----------



## Aozora (Nov 11, 2013)

tomo pauk said:


> If we were to believe the books as new as from yaer 2008 (4+Publication book on the Ta-152), the BMW-801D in the Fw-190 was featuring a two stage supercharger??  The same book says this about the Jumo-213:
> 
> _It must be stressed that this engine was not turbo-supercharged (ie., it did not have supercharging from the recycling of hot exhaust gases, *but used instead air*)._
> 
> ...



Bought it, disappointed now lingers on shelf, will probably sell: has anyone bought or read Thomas Hitchcock's book on the Ta 152? The Focke-Wulf Ta 152 By Thomas H. Hitchcock Book Review by Brett Green 

I have the books on the Ar 234 Do 335 so I'm hoping to complete the series.


----------



## tomo pauk (Nov 11, 2013)

What were the main disappointments?


----------



## Denniss (Nov 11, 2013)

I'm not the specialist in US a/c but I remember to have read these 300 gal tanks were ferry tanks and not intended for combat use.


----------



## tomo pauk (Nov 11, 2013)

The 300 gal tanks have been able to be fully pressurized (as seen at table, altitudes up to 30000 ft are listed), and P-47s and P-38s were using those, especially P-47N. It was the 200 (205?) gal tank at P-47s that was for ferry purposes only, since it was not able to be pressurised (the fuel will boil above 15000 ft) and was likely to stay attached to the plane, despite pilot's wishes


----------



## Aozora (Nov 11, 2013)

tomo pauk said:


> What were the main disappointments?



The main failing is no bibliography or notes about sources, and no index - finding information means wading back through the book.

Also other things, one of which you've noted; another example is a statement that a captured Ta 152H-1 wasn't tested using GM 1 or MW 50 because the "British did not have supplies of theses concoctions" - this is straight after saying that the aircraft was never formally tested "because it was of no great interest to the Allies", and then explaining that the only tests carried out were "informal' tests by Eric Brown. 
*Did Brown have the authority to ask that Nitrous Oxide or a mix of Methanol Water be provided so he could take the Ta 152 up for a spin even if no formal performance tests were to be carried out?

Then there's a comment about "Hawker Tempest fighter bombers"; no, they weren't carrying bombs, they were out on an armed recce mission.

*Dang it* Now that I'm re-reading it...


----------



## silence (Nov 11, 2013)

stona said:


> tomo pauk said:
> 
> 
> > *the 'Monografie Lotnize' book states that Ta-152H-0 did not featured GM-1 nor MW-50 tanks, the rear tank being filled with 115L of fuel instead. The H-1 was to have 85L of GM-1 mixture (tank in rear fuselage) and 70L of MW-50.
> ...


----------



## silence (Nov 11, 2013)

tomo pauk said:


> Hi, Silence. Sorry if I was not being crystal clear.
> The D-12 and D-13 were to be equipped with 4 wing tanks each, exact volume is unknown to me. The volume of fuel in wing tanks of the Ta-152H-1* was 400L in five tanks, the 6th tank (inner left actually; noted at drawing, too) was to carry 70L of MW-50, so that would yield some 330L for the Doras with wing tanks? The position for the 2 wing tanks was to serve as a place for verically-fired weapons, tanks not being installed in that case.
> Hope that I'm not mistaking about following:
> The Fw-152C-1 and 152E-1 were to carry fuel in all 6 tanks, 1064L total (vs. 994L for the 152H-1), the C-1 and E-1 tanks for MW-50 being in rear fuselage (140L for those two) . Here is the fuel and MW-50 volume listed.
> ...



R-11 is the all-weather flying package. R-16 is R-5 plus R-11 (okay, I admit that was very bad and deserving of a ban - or at least a wedgie).


----------



## GregP (Nov 12, 2013)

What has all this to do with the Do 335, the title of this thread?

Just saying ...


----------



## GrauGeist (Nov 12, 2013)

GregP said:


> What has all this to do with the Do 335, the title of this thread?
> 
> Just saying ...


I asked myself, that a while back, Greg

I can see comparisons with twins (Do335 was a twin, after all) but then the dreaded "thread drift" set in...


----------



## tomo pauk (Nov 12, 2013)

Sorry about that, I've contributed to the drift, too.


----------



## bob44 (Nov 12, 2013)

I did find a read on the 335, by a German pilot, flown near the end of the war. 
In German. Dornier Do 335 ? Mein letzter Flug mit der Do 335


----------



## stona (Nov 13, 2013)

Ta 152 H-10 was a proposed high altitude reconnaissance aircraft based on the H-0 hence the GM-1. The original designation may have been E-2, it's a bit confusing. E-1 was a proposed medium altitude reconnaissance version (with MW 50)
Cheers
Steve


----------



## tomo pauk (Nov 13, 2013)

Okay, thanks for clearing that to me.


----------

