# Best twin engine dogfighter



## Thorlifter (May 11, 2013)

Excluding the P-38, what was the best twin engine dog fighter of WWII? By best, I mean what twin engine plane would stand the best chance against a single engined fighter? Planes that come to mind are:

Bristol Beaufighter
de Havilland Mosquito
Dornier Do-215
Dornier Do-217
Douglas P-70 Havoc
Heinkel He-219
Junkers Ju-88
Kawasaki Ki-45
Messerschmitt Bf 110
Messerschmitt Me 210
Messerschmitt Me 410
Nakajima J1N Gekko
Northrop P-61 Black Widow
Petlyakov Pe-3

Any others you can think of that are better than those listed?


----------



## OldSkeptic (May 11, 2013)

Ignoring being able to do a surprise attack on the single engined fighter (which nearly all of them could do and did at some point or another) then really the only one was the P-38.
In good hands it could hold its own, depending on what model of P-38, the flight regime (height, speed, etc) and what it was up against (eg it was much faster at high altitude vs a 190A).

Don't forget also that the 110s shot down a lot of RAF fighters in the BoB (a heck of a lot more of them got shot down though).

None of the rest were in the P-38s class as a dogfighter.

That being said though, reading about the Banff strike wing in 44/45 they had many dogfights in their Mossies vs 109s and 190s. 
At very low level the Mossies could sort of hold their own (and yes they did shoot down some planes with the 57mm Molins gun). 
Their loss/kill rate probably was around about 0.8:1, maybe a bit lower, they were not an easy target by any means. That heavy firepower meant you crossed the nose of a Mossie at your peril. And though their roll rate was low they could turn pretty well. Bob Braham once took on a Fw-190 in a turning fight .. and beat it.

But for the Banff wing that was all at very low level, where the difference in performance between the Mossies and (particularly) the 109s was quite low (the Mossie might have been quicker in fact). Do that at even 15,000ft and they would have been shot out of the air in a proper dogfight unless they could escape (which they could usually do of course).

The others in your list weren't really in that class in speed and/or agility and/or firepower. While they might meet the Mossie in one of those area (eg the Beau also had 4x20mm in the nose) they couldn't in the others. 
So if a Mossie could just about hold its own at low level (and a much poorer chance at a higher one) then the others would have little chance, except in a surprise attack.

There is also a story in the Banff book where they came across a bunch of Ju-88s (might have been 188s by that time) and the Mossies were getting in they way of each other shooting the 88s down .. a total slaughter. Like putting a bunch of goldfish in a piranha tank.

Not bad for something designed as a unarmed bomber.


----------



## GregP (May 11, 2013)

For WWII, I'll go out on a limb and say the Hornet, which first flew in 1944. It didn't make the war, but flew during the war. About the same for the F7F Tigercat. Flew in 1944 and delivered to the Navy before war's end, but didn't make the conflict in combat. Of the two, I'd take the Tigercat. Personal preference, not nationalism. I have SEEN a Tigercat doing hard aerobatics but have never seen a Hornet fly.

If it had to make the war, which seems likely, I'd say the Mosquito, Do 335, or the P-61. I'd probably give the nod to the Mosquito fighter versions during the day and the P-61 at night, based on maneuverability.

If I could look at the post-war Zenith pistons, I'd say the FMA I.Ae.30 Namcu was the best, but it didn't fly until 1950 (Merlins). 460 mph and six 20 mm cannons! Unfortunately the entire population was 1, so it really doesn't count!

Go Tigercat or Mosquito. If it had to make the fray, Mosquito, possibly a cluex.


----------



## Greyman (May 11, 2013)

I don't know how manoeuvrable they were - but the Potez 631, Fokker G1 and Westland Whirlwind were potentially quite agile for twin-engine aircraft.


----------



## GregP (May 11, 2013)

Pretty good choices, The G-1 was quite manruverable and was seriously underrated by most.


----------



## OldSkeptic (May 11, 2013)

Oh yes, the Hornet was in a class by itself. If that had been operational in 44 it would have shot down a heck of a lot of single engined Luftwaffe fighters. Far faster (470+mph) , pretty good roll rate, incredible climb rate ... and on. About the closest prop job ever built to be an 'unber' all round fighter

I'd give it a bit of an edge over the Tigercat (also a very good plane) on speed, climb and range (the chart I have is 5,500ft/min up to about 6,000ft and 4,800 ft/min to 20,000ft) and comfortably do loops on a single engine.


----------



## GregP (May 11, 2013)

I have about the same parameters for it and think it was pretty good, but would LOVE tro see one flying.

The Namcu was also pretty amazing, but didn't make the war. Devastating armament, though, and dazzling performance, right there with the Hornet. Just included it as a lasp-gasp piston.


----------



## A4K (May 11, 2013)

Of operational types I'd say the Mossie or Ju 88, preferably the Mossie given the choice.


----------



## delcyros (May 11, 2013)

I am surprised that nobody yet has mentioned jets in this context.


----------



## OldSkeptic (May 11, 2013)

A4K said:


> Of operational types I'd say the Mossie or Ju 88, preferably the Mossie given the choice.



Yes, when Ju-88s met Mossies (day or night) they nearly always came off 2nd best.


----------



## yulzari (May 11, 2013)

For me it has to be the Whirlwind. No problem dogfighting the Luftwaffe of it's day and Petter had reams of potential developments to extend it's life throughout the war. Including a jet version.


----------



## CobberKane (May 11, 2013)

Guess it depends onnwhat you mean by 'dogfighting'. If that means being effective in air to air combat, and excluding the P-38, probably the Mossie. But having said that, purely in the fighter role I'd say none of them really cut the mustard, and even the P-38 was really a qualified success. Twin engine fighters cost more than single engine fighters so they really had to offer more, and they seldom did. The Hornet and Tigercat might have changed that, but they were too late.


----------



## drgondog (May 11, 2013)

GregP said:


> For WWII, I'll go out on a limb and say the Hornet, which first flew in 1944. It didn't make the war, but flew during the war. About the same for the F7F Tigercat. Flew in 1944 and delivered to the Navy before war's end, but didn't make the conflict in combat. Of the two, I'd take the Tigercat. Personal preference, not nationalism. I have SEEN a Tigercat doing hard aerobatics but have never seen a Hornet fly.
> 
> *The F7F was deployed with USMC as a nightfighter IIRC before war end in PTO.*
> 
> ...



The P-61 was very agile but of the ones listed the F7F was by far the best and should have been better than the P-38. I didn't see the Meteor and Me 262 but assumed piston engined.


----------



## Kryten (May 11, 2013)

It's either the P38 or Westland Whirlwind, purely on a dogfight scenario, low down probably the Whirlwind, light fast, excellent visibility, big punch and good handling. higher up the P38, the Mossie great as it was had no advantages over either in a brawl?


----------



## stona (May 11, 2013)

Another for the Whirlwind.

The Fw 187 showed potential but we'll never know.

Cheers

Steve


----------



## R Pope (May 11, 2013)

Having known an old Whirlwind driver, I must say that was one of the biggest "missed opportunities" of the war. That, and the FW187 Falke.


----------



## vikingBerserker (May 11, 2013)

How agile was the Do 335?


----------



## stona (May 11, 2013)

vikingBerserker said:


> How agile was the Do 335?



Not very, but then it was huge.

Cheers

Steve


----------



## OldSkeptic (May 11, 2013)

vikingBerserker said:


> How agile was the Do 335?



Like a brick.


----------



## vikingBerserker (May 11, 2013)

Well I guess that answers that question.


----------



## Glider (May 11, 2013)

Working on the basis that you can only really compare one aircraft with onather against the level of opposition at the time then I suggest that the Fokker G1 more than held its own in daytime fighting until the odd took over. At this time the Me110 had a good track record but came unstuck when it met the SPits and modified Hurricanes.


----------



## spicmart (May 11, 2013)

Count the Ki-83 in. Given the right treatment and fuel it would have been 
right up there with the Tigercat and Hornet as was the Fw 187 (I am just claiming that ).


----------



## Mike Williams (May 11, 2013)

OldSkeptic said:


> [...]That being said though, reading about the Banff strike wing in 44/45 they had many dogfights in their Mossies vs 109s and 190s.


 Sounds interesting OldSkeptic, can you please provide a title and author? Thanks.


----------



## davebender (May 11, 2013)

No other twin mass produced prior to May 1945 can match Me-262s aerial performance.


----------



## OldSkeptic (May 11, 2013)

Mike Williams said:


> Sounds interesting OldSkeptic, can you please provide a title and author? Thanks.



Yes a lovely little book Mike.

"A Separate Little War", The Banff Coastal Command Strike Wing vs the Kreigsmarine and Luftwaffe in Norway.. Sept 44 to March 45.
Andrew D Bord.

And yes you can get it on Kindle. Great little book. Max Aitken was the Group Captain.

Not that small in the end, they had Beaus, Mossies, later added Mustangs. Moved to a total Mossie force a bit later (though Beaus still came in from another base) , and Mustang (Poles) support was added later. Had a mixed force of Torbeaus, Tse Mossies (Molins 57mm) and Mossies VIs with bombs at first. Moved to an all Mossie rocket force at Banff later.


The Mossie vs Ju-88 is covered in Chapter 16, Mossies vs KG 25 II Grupe and III Grupe.
Now remember this was combat at 200ft, the weather, as always, was so very bad.

Squadron Leader Alec Gunnis recorded that the "sea was ablaze with aircraft".
And he also says "5 times I had a Ju in my sights and each time another Mosquito crew mixed in and shot it down before I could draw a bead".

Funny you read time and time again that the Ju-88 was the German's Mossie .. not it wasn't by a long, very long, shot (even just as a pure bomber). 
If they had got the Tu-154 up and running they might have had something equal (except it couldn't carry bombs of course).


----------



## vikingBerserker (May 11, 2013)

The Me 262 had speed and firepower, but I thought it was not much of a dog fighter.


----------



## Dogwalker (May 11, 2013)

Thorlifter said:


> Any others you can think of that are better than those listed?


Don't know if better, but the IMAM Ro.57 can be listed. In 1939, 516 km/h at 5250m, climb at 6000m in 7m,6s, 1200km range. At the Air Force trials, at Guidonia, it was found to be less agile than the Macchi C.200, but the opposite would have been a miracle.


----------



## OldSkeptic (May 11, 2013)

vikingBerserker said:


> The Me 262 had speed and firepower, but I thought it was not much of a dog fighter.



Despite its high wing loading it was surprisingly agile. Once you got it up to speed (450mph) it could turn pretty well and use that energy for zoom climbs, etc.
You had to had careful not exceed its mach limits of course. And it had poor acceleration as did all the early jets.
The important thing was to get it up to speed and keep it there, once you did that you were untouchable.

It was a good airframe the 262, its weaknesses were with the engines not the performance of the actual plane.

Basically you can compare it to the UK's Meteor: the 262 was a great airframe with crappy engines, the Meteor was great engines within a crappy airframe.

Though you have to think the wicked thought: If Willy Messerschmitt had spent a bit more time on a successor to the 109 (a real 209), or even make those disasters the 210 and 410 actually work, then his time might have been spent more effectively for Germany's defence. Bit of a Prima Donna I suspect. 
One of the reasons I respect Kurt Tank a lot more. Just imagine what he could have achieved if Daimler Benz and Jumo had actually delivered on some of their promises on engines. The Allied air forces would have had a bit more trouble than they did.

It is a total condemnation of the whole system and people involved (Govt, airframe manufacturers, engines manufacturers, etc) that they were still producing and using the Me-110 in 1945, a plane that was obsolete in 1940*.

_Note: I always prefer to use the term agile to sum together all the elements needed, roll, zoom/contineous climb, dive, instantaneous/contineous turn, acceleration, etc, etc._

* Then again are we any better with that mega (giga, more accurately tera) disaster the F-35?


----------



## davebender (May 11, 2013)

> Me 262 had speed and firepower, but I thought it was not much of a dog fighter.


Are you expecting a 540mph aircraft to stall fight at 200 mph? Any pilot who attempted that would be an idiot.

Me-262 was plenty maneuverable @ speeds above 500mph. It can dictate the engagement, making high speed pass followed by zoom climb. Four nose mounted cannon provide a weapons package that has no WWII equal.


----------



## Glider (May 11, 2013)

If I can add to positng 25 in the battles over the Bay of Biscay the Luftwaffe Ju88's were ordered not to take on Mosquitos and only take on the Beaufighters if they had a clear advantage in numbers.

May I also second "A Separate Little War", its a good read, full of details.


----------



## altsym (May 11, 2013)

The need to stop bombers from reaching their targets, or to protect them on their missions, was the primary purpose for most dogfights of the era


----------



## CharlesBronson (May 11, 2013)

Doghtfighting with a P-70 havoc ??  

The P-38 is my choice.


----------



## Greyman (May 11, 2013)

CharlesBronson said:


> Doghtfighting with a P-70 havoc ??



In AFDU trials a Boston II was almost able to out turn a Hurricane I with 15 - 30 degrees of flap.


----------



## davebender (May 11, 2013)

> 262 was a great airframe with crappy engines, the Meteor was great engines within a crappy airframe.



1935. Anglo-German détente.
Think what might have been if bone headed politicians in Berlin and London expanded détente into Anglo-German cooperation rather then destroying the fragile new relationship? 

Britain and Germany would pretty much have a monopoly on radar and jet aircraft.

The new Mosquito Schnell bomber would be made of German aluminum and armed with MG151/20 cannon. Customers have their choice of RR Merlin or DB605 engines.

Speaking of RR Merlin engines...
Miss Shilling can keep her orifice. RR Merlin engines will have Bosch fuel injection.


----------



## jim (May 11, 2013)

stona said:


> Not very, but then it was huge.
> 
> Cheers
> 
> Steve


 
Mr Stona 
How you support your opinion that Do 335 was not agile ?

1) Rate of rall : Do 335 had a huge advantage in this area in comparison to every other twin engined fighter having both engines on the central axis of the aircraft and not on the wings. Additionaly it had hydraulically boosted ailerons . On paper Do 335 should have the best rate of rall
2) Power loading and wing loading . WITHOUT bombs Do 335A had a power loading of 2,45kgr/m2 without MW50 and 2,07 kgr/m2 with MW50
F These numbers are similar if not superior to the Hornets and i believe superior in comparison to F7F . And do 335 could recieve any new german engine for future upgrade. Hornets merlin 130 was specifically desighed for the aircraft and the only engines available for the aircrafts
3) The low frontal area of do335 (because of its unique shape) along with his relatively low power loading suggests that at least its sustained turn rate should be excellent
4) many late war alleid fighters used laminar flow wings, including hornet. Thats good for speed . However i believe that Do 335s normal, fat wing would produce more lift in a dogfight
Do 335 was very complicate design and thats not good . But i can not see any reason that it should be less manouverable thatn the rest late twin engine fighters


----------



## davebender (May 11, 2013)

Like the Mosquito, Ju-88 and Me-410 it was a light bomber. I don't doubt Do-335 would best these three but they cannot compare with purpose built fighter aircraft such as P-38, Fw-187 and Me-262 for aerial combat.


----------



## drgondog (May 12, 2013)

jim said:


> Mr Stona
> How you support your opinion that Do 335 was not agile ?
> 
> 1) Rate of rall : Do 335 had a huge advantage in this area in comparison to every other twin engined fighter having both engines on the central axis of the aircraft and not on the wings. Additionaly it had hydraulically boosted ailerons . On paper Do 335 should have the best rate of rall.
> ...



The first quick rule of thumb comparisons should be on CLmax and Excess Power at approximately 240 mph to 280mph which is where the high performing fighter Corner Speed ranges occurred.


----------



## wuzak (May 12, 2013)

davebender said:


> Like the Mosquito, Ju-88 and Me-410 it was a light bomber. I don't doubt Do-335 would best these three but they cannot compare with purpose built fighter aircraft such as P-38, Fw-187 and Me-262 for aerial combat.



The light bomber was but one version of the Do 335.

There were also the heavy fighter and night fighter versions. 

Unlike the Mosquito, it was designed from the outset to perform each of those roles.


----------



## Tante Ju (May 13, 2013)

In the Bay of Biscay they had mostly Ju 88Cs, essentially Ju 88 bombers with forward firing armament, quite underpowered and rather slow. They had their long range going for them.

There is somewhere a British AFDU tactical trial with Ju 88 bomber, they found it very surprisingly agile though.

Anyway for a dogfight its probably the Me 110. It was surprisingly agile and a good turner (for a twin), its successors 210/410 were more like fast bombers and not particularly agile. The Do 215, 335 or the He 219 were heavy, but fast planes, but not very manouverable (they did not need to be). I do not know about the Mosquito, but probably the same, a fast aircraft, but its construction does not lend to agility. The Beaufighter, Pe 3 are also strong contenders. I do not know about the Japanese planes.


----------



## Tante Ju (May 13, 2013)

jim said:


> Do 335 was very complicate design and thats not good . But i can not see any reason that it should be less manouverable thatn the rest late twin engine fighters



I can - see wing loading of Do 335. Fast, good roller - but huge wingloading so turns would be probably absymal (would two heavy engines in axis make it even worse..?). 

Its a bit like P-47.


----------



## Mike Williams (May 13, 2013)

OldSkeptic said:


> Yes a lovely little book Mike.
> 
> "A Separate Little War", The Banff Coastal Command Strike Wing vs the Kreigsmarine and Luftwaffe in Norway.. Sept 44 to March 45.
> Andrew D Bord.


Thanks for the info OldSkeptic. I've ordered the book based on your recommendation.


----------



## vinnye (May 13, 2013)

Westland Whirlwind gets my vote. I love the Mossie, but dont think she was a genuine dogfighter?


----------



## Tante Ju (May 13, 2013)

The Whirlwond was a hot aircraft - both in specs and looks! Given the high wingloading, I do not think it was a particularly good turner, and there was its relatively short range.

It would have been a stellar bomber destroyer during BoB.


----------



## FLYBOYJ (May 13, 2013)

davebender said:


> No other twin mass produced prior to May 1945 can match Me-262s aerial performance.





drgondog said:


> The first quick rule of thumb comparisons should be on *CLmax and Excess Power at approximately 240 mph to 280mph which is where the high performing fighter Corner Speed ranges occurred*.



As far as flat out dog-fighting, I don't think the 262 "would have" been that effective at those speeds, also consider engine spool up if one chopped throttle to slow down....


----------



## parsifal (May 13, 2013)

vinnye said:


> Westland Whirlwind gets my vote. I love the Mossie, but dont think she was a genuine dogfighter?



Ove read somewhere that in 1944 the mossie shot down 600 or more Me 109s and FW 190s. Now how accurate that is, I dont know, but many SE Fighters of the LW were flying WildBoar missions at night, without radar. These fights were probably not true dogfights in th daylight sense.

In daylight I doubt there were that many dogfights between Mossies and SE fighters.


----------



## vinnye (May 13, 2013)

I agree with you Tante Ju - the Whirlwind would have been a stellar bomber destroyer in the BoB.
I think that not deploying 263 squadron from up North to be active in 12 Group was one of the few mistakes Sir Hugh Dowding made.
The limited range (300 miles) would not have been an issue - whereas the concentrated firepower would have knocked bombers down like swatting flies!


----------



## Glider (May 13, 2013)

The RAF wanted to get them into action but the aircraft were not combat worthy due to technical problems. In the NA there are a number of documents around the deployment of these aircraft. 
I have to say the Squadron Leader didn't make himself popular but stuck to his guns and wouldn't be rushed. It says something about the RAF that they supported him and didn't just order him into combat.


----------



## altsym (May 13, 2013)

How many 'true' style dogfights happened in WWII? I bet the vast majority consisted of 'didn't know what hit him' scenario.


----------



## jim (May 13, 2013)

Tante Ju said:


> I can - see wing loading of Do 335. Fast, good roller - but huge wingloading so turns would be probably absymal (would two heavy engines in axis make it even worse..?).
> 
> Its a bit like P-47.


 
Mr Tante Ju

I dont agree that it has a huge wing loading at FIGHTER configuration= without bombs . Note that very often the weight data for Do335 include bomb load


----------



## jim (May 13, 2013)

drgondog said:


> The first quick rule of thumb comparisons should be on CLmax and Excess Power at approximately 240 mph to 280mph which is where the high performing fighter Corner Speed ranges occurred.



Mr drgondog
In my post i dont try to prove that Do 335 is more or less manouverable than Hornet or F7F. I express my opinion that they should be generally at the same class, and that surely Do 335 was not a "brick" as Mr Stona suggested
You are of course correct, with your great scientific knowledge, ( i was only an amateur pilot), that we need all these advanced datas if we want to decide wich airplane had an edge in manouverability. I dont have such datas . ( I have somewhere CDo , but can t find it right know)
But i believe that considering Do335 a) on same or less power achieved similar or better speeds b) had similar or better power and wing loadings
c) had only one propeller arc causing drag d) had its engines at the central axis e) had boosted ailerons
we could suppose that do 335 was at least near the rest late twin engined fighters in manouverability
Finally ,with great respect to your technical expertise, i find a bit strange your thesis that a wing of the era could have superior both drag and lift charachteristics


----------



## Glider (May 13, 2013)

I admit to being a bit cautious re the Do 335. It just seems to be too good to be true. 

When you compare it to the Hornet, its a lot longer about 8 ft. The wingspan is more or less the same. The engines are less powerful, It has a much bigger wing area and presumably wing structure. Its Fuselage is huge, I was quite amazed at its physical size which must have a significant impact on the drag. Plus the engines weighed more than the Hornet

Yet despite all this the max take off weight is less than the Hornet which isn't a big aircraft 

I can see the advantage in the weight being on the centre line and the strainght line speed is broadly the same but something just doesn't add up in my book, but admit to not knowing what.


----------



## davebender (May 13, 2013)

IMO F-111 is a better comparison. Do-335 was a high speed light bomber with some ability to defend itself if necessary.


----------



## GregP (May 13, 2013)

They built 380 Hornets. 11 were rebuilt from F3 to FR4. A small but credible force.

They only built 37 Do 335’s. Deliveries to combat units commenced in January 1945. When the United States Army overran the Oberpfaffenhofen factory in late April 1945, only 11 Do 335 A-1 single-seat fighter-bombers and two Do 335 A-12 trainers had been completed. These were production units that maybe got delivered and maybe not all. The rest were prototypes and test birds. There is a picture in Wiki showing the ramp at the Oberpfaffenhofen factory when it was taken with 9 Do 335’s, only one of which looks like maybe it could be made to fly, though some pieces are missing. The rest are minus engines and major pieces of airframe, so at least these nine were never delivered, and the picture caption does not say if the nine were test birds or production units. That leaves 28 possible birds, with 11 production fighters built and 2 trainers. That’s less even than the Ta 152’s, of which never more than 25 of the 43 delivered were in service at any one time.

Performance-wise, the Do 335’s speed was almost identical with the Hornet at 474 mph to the Hornet’s 472 mph. But the speed of 474 mph was only with emergency boost for a few minutes and was 413 mph on what we would call military power. It supposedly had a 721 mile combat radius at half load. The Hornet had a 3,000 mile range which equates to a 1,500 mile radius with probably a 1,100 – 1,200 mile combat radius. Interestingly, the Hornets with 1,770 HP per side were the fastest variants at 472 mph. The NF21 with 2,030 HP per side was the slowest at 430 mph and the PR22 with 2,070 HP per side went 467 mph. Naturally, these Hornet speeds are at max boost, as with the Do 335, but it was faster at military power than the Do 335 by a margin. 

If you dig around, you can find an initial climb rate for the Do 335 of 4,600 feet per minute, but they don’t tell you at what weight that was recorded. The Hornet can be found to have a climb rate of 4,650 feet per minute with the same caveat. The people reporting these data obviously aren’t thinking about analysis by someone at a later date.

Wing loading for the Do 335 at 25,800 pounds is 43.6 pound per square foot. At the empty weight of 16,975 pounds it was 28.7 pounds per square foot. Combat wing loading was in between the two. I’d estimate it was probably in the 38 – 40 pounds per square foot range typically.

Wing loading for the Hornet at 19,500 pounds was 54.1 pounds per square foot (NF). At the F1's normal weight of 16,100 pounds it was 44.6 pounds per square foot. At the empty weight of 12,502 pounds (F1) it was 34.6 pounds per square foot. The heavy Hornets were the night fighters with radar and antennas. I’d estimate the fighter variants at 38 – 40 pounds per square foot typically, without drop tanks (or after dropping them).

On paper they have close to the same speed, climb about the same and the Do 335 has a possibly lower wing loading, but maybe not by as much as it might seem at first. The Do 335 SHOULD be able to roll better, but I can’t find any data to support the contention. I also cannot find any CL data at all for either aircraft.

The Hornet had four 20 mm cannons and the Do 335 had two 20’s and one 30. Call the armament a wash.

But with something like 28 Do 335’s perhaps flyable and something like 11 or less production units completed and maybe delivered, the Do 335 must be considered against 380 Hornets delivered. If the types had met, the Hornets would have overwhelmed the Do 335 if only by virtue of there being 10 times more available, all of which had longer range. Even if the Hornets couldn’t catch the Do 335’s, and it is probable they could after emergency boost was used up, they could certainly follow them (or it, if only one) until the Do 335 had to land or become a glider. I’d say advantage Hornet in the real world with the comparsion being essentially unkown in a one-on-one mixup.

Sorry, that was not a best twin dogifghter response, it was copmaring the Hornet with the Do 335 ... I didn't mean to wander, but noticed it after I posted and figured I'd just leave it in for postetrity.


----------



## Marcel (May 13, 2013)

Not surprisingly I would recommend the G-1, a very capably fighter, given the right engines. But even with the less powerfull engines it performed well in the short time it saw active service. The best example has been the fight on May 10 over Rotterdam where it performed well against the Bf109. Unfortunately this great fighter did not get the chance to prove it's worth during the rest of the war.


----------



## Milosh (May 13, 2013)

davebender said:


> IMO F-111 is a better comparison. Do-335 was a high speed light bomber with some ability to defend itself if necessary.



So were the Spitfire, Mustang and Thunderbolt as they to carried bombs.


----------



## davebender (May 13, 2013)

Spitfire, Mustang and P-47 do not have a bomb bay. Do-335 and most other purpose built bombers do have a bomb bay.


----------



## GregP (May 13, 2013)

I have a great pic of the G-1:


----------



## Marcel (May 13, 2013)

davebender said:


> Spitfire, Mustang and P-47 do not have a bomb bay. Do-335 and most other purpose built bombers do have a bomb bay.


you consider the g-1 a bomber as well then?


----------



## davebender (May 13, 2013)

Yup. 

Rather light though with only 300kg bomb bay.


----------



## Shortround6 (May 13, 2013)

He 51?

Vought F4U ?


----------



## jim (May 13, 2013)

GregP said:


> They built 380 Hornets. 11 were rebuilt from F3 to FR4. A small but credible force.
> 
> They only built 37 Do 335’s. Deliveries to combat units commenced in January 1945. When the United States Army overran the Oberpfaffenhofen factory in late April 1945, only 11 Do 335 A-1 single-seat fighter-bombers and two Do 335 A-12 trainers had been completed. These were production units that maybe got delivered and maybe not all. The rest were prototypes and test birds. There is a picture in Wiki showing the ramp at the Oberpfaffenhofen factory when it was taken with 9 Do 335’s, only one of which looks like maybe it could be made to fly, though some pieces are missing. The rest are minus engines and major pieces of airframe, so at least these nine were never delivered, and the picture caption does not say if the nine were test birds or production units. That leaves 28 possible birds, with 11 production fighters built and 2 trainers. That’s less even than the Ta 152’s, of which never more than 25 of the 43 delivered were in service at any one time.
> 
> ...


 
Mr GreqP
As far as range is concerned , i would like to notice that the Do 335 had the option to use its bomb bay for additional fuel tank if nessecary
Also Mw 50 could be used up to 10 min continiously. Do you believe that merlin s could be used at max boost for longer periods? 
Also Do 335 made 474 mph on DB603A.Single stage engines while Hornet on two stage engines . I believe that this means that above 5000m the Hornet had plenty more power yet had near identical top speed By the time Hornet entered service much more powerful engines would be available for the 335 and two stages as well
On the other hand Hornet could NOT recieve any other engine than the Merlin 130
I believe Do 335 had greater potentional ,but was very complicate, and required a lot of maintance
Hornet is extremely beautiful as well as its cousin the Argentinian Namcu. A comparison between them would be very interesting . I think Namcu was somewhat lighter


----------



## DonL (May 13, 2013)

> They built 380 Hornets. 11 were rebuilt from F3 to FR4. A small but credible force.
> 
> They only built 37 Do 335’s. Deliveries to combat units commenced in January 1945. When the United States Army overran the Oberpfaffenhofen factory in late April 1945, only 11 Do 335 A-1 single-seat fighter-bombers and two Do 335 A-12 trainers had been completed. These were production units that maybe got delivered and maybe not all. The rest were prototypes and test birds. There is a picture in Wiki showing the ramp at the Oberpfaffenhofen factory when it was taken with 9 Do 335’s, only one of which looks like maybe it could be made to fly, though some pieces are missing. The rest are minus engines and major pieces of airframe, so at least these nine were never delivered, and the picture caption does not say if the nine were test birds or production units. That leaves 28 possible birds, with 11 production fighters built and 2 trainers. That’s less even than the Ta 152’s, of which never more than 25 of the 43 delivered were in service at any one time.



Mr. GregP,

your are always repeating your same useless opinion about german a/c's. It's boring, because at 90% of your posts about german a/c's you have not much knowledge about what you talk, nor you have any knowledge about primary sources of various german a/c's.
The numbers that were built of an a/c says nothing about it's performance or it's potential to perform with further development.

Every german a/c from FW 187, Ta 152H, FW 190D-9, He 177 or Do 335 is simply **** to your opinion, because not much were built, and as I have seen at the FW 187, you have not a single clue about, what you are talking (The FW 187 had no single drop clue, because it was a full metal a/c).
If you want to talk about german a/c's and their performance you should read some well researched sources or better primary sources, inclusive performance datas from E-Stelle Rechlin. The numbers built at such a discusion are totaly irrelevant.


----------



## GregP (May 13, 2013)

Hi Jim,

I really like the Namcu, but have only seen 1 or 2 pics of it and only have the performance data numbers from the web, no test data. The Do 335 was a pretty interesting bird and, potential-wise it of course had room for development as it was so early in its development cycle when the cycle was terminated. Later Do 335 variants might have been quite a package. But all we have to compare with is what was actually built, flew, and for which we have data. So I use that data, not paper "what if" data.

Thank you for your opinion DonL. Actually I like most German birds. No plane, Allied or Axis, was best at everything. Each has strengths and weaknesses. If an Allied late-war type got a ltittle slow, a well-flown Bf 109 would hand him his walking papers pretty quick. Seems like the Fw 190 and Spitfire traded the top pure fighter spot back and forth for a few years. 

I get a little tired of hearing about the Ta 152 wonder plane not because it didn't have potential (it DID), but because so few made the war and they did so little. The performance numbers look sparkling and it is likely that if it had been built in numbers and deployed in numbers, it would have been formidable indeed. In real life, it only did what it did and that wasn't much. Great potential just too late to do any real good for the war effort from the German side. Sorry if you don't like it.

None of the late-war German prototypes were crappy at all. They showed great engineering and promise, all unfulfuilled due to the war ending before they could get built and deployed. Unlike what you state above of me, I like most of the German equipment as far as design, quality, and potenial goes ... maybe except for the Bachem Natter. That one you'd never get me to believe was ever going to be practical in any way.

However, they were beaten in real life by large numbers of mid-war designs through no fault of the aircraft designers or the average German pilot.

We all have our own opinions and if mine is absolutely useless to you as you say, you can imagine how valuable your opinion is to me. As for not knowing what I am saying, let's jusy say, with over 50 years as an avid reader of WWII aviation (from all sides, I might add), over 30 years as a pilot and over 8 years restoring WWII fighters (including our Hispano Ha.1112 Buchon), I have a slightly different take on it that you seem to. However, you certainly don't have to agree with me and you rather obviously don't.

By the way, just foir the record, in my post about the Hornet vs. the Do 355, I believe I did state that one-on-one, the outcome would be uncertain. That doesn't favor the Hornet or the Do 355. It would probably favor the better pilot.

Have a nice day in Germany, wherever you are. Cheers.


----------



## DerAdlerIstGelandet (May 13, 2013)

DonL if you find someones opinion boring, then ignore it. If you wan't to discuss their opinion, do it respectfully and in an adult like manner.

You know that childish ignorant comments are not tolerated here.


----------



## GregP (May 13, 2013)

Hi Jim, I didn't address one of your points but, no I don't think the emergency power was of any longer duration for the Merlin than it was for the German engines. The Hornet was faster at max continuous power than the Do 335 was, barely, and just barely slower at WER (or the British term) boost. All in all, pretty even. The differences were easily covered by the differences in individual aircraft trim and fit. Of course, the max numbers are at critical altitude. I don't have sea level numbers for either type.

I did not know the bomb bay could be used for extra fuel but, with a 700+ mile radius, I doubt it needed to abandon armament for extra fuel very often. Late in the war they were pretty desperate to stop bomber streams, not so much to attack the UK. If the Do 335 had reached anything like service with a regular group, I think it would have been employed against bombers, probably at lighter weights than 25,500 pounds. But I don't know for sure and there weren't enough that we could establish what their deployment strategy might have been.

Perhaps some German members might know. 

If not, we have a good airplane with a lot of potential that was flown just before the war ended. The only combat I have read about was in April 1945. A lone Do 335 was seen at low altitude (treetop height) by Tempests lead by Closterman who were not able to catch it and engage, despite diving on it from height. I have no knowledge of any Do 335 victories, but am interested enough now to at least look around to see if any were claimed by the type, but haven't done so yet.


----------



## bobbysocks (May 13, 2013)

i would pull for the Do335. they had a captured one at neubiberg whle the 357th was there. they flew it several times and had a dogfight with it in one of their 51s. they said its extremely fast but not as agile as the mustang. its a bigger plane and heavier....how it stacked up against other twins is a guess. i would think its slimline and counter rotating props/engines would have made it a pretty good contender.


----------



## vikingBerserker (May 13, 2013)

I have to admit, the Fokker G-1 was a beautiful aircraft.


----------



## altsym (May 13, 2013)

GregP said:


> I have no knowledge of any Do 335 victories, but am interested enough now to at least look around to see if any were claimed by the type, but haven't done so yet.


There are no known air to air victories for the DO 335.


----------



## vikingBerserker (May 13, 2013)

Luftwaffe's Classics _Dornier Do 335 Pfeil_ only has a short blurb about the dog fighting ability of it on page 48. 

Dipl. -Ing Beauvais (a highly experienced test pilot) fly in mock combat against a Fw 190 which he quickly left in the dust. He found that the aircraft: 

_"possessed excellent handling characteristics, and was extremely manoeuvrable for its size."_


----------



## GregP (May 13, 2013)

"Extremely manueveragle for its size" doesn't tell us much about maneuverability versus the Fw 190, but it's all we're likely to get. They aren't flying any these days.


----------



## Marcel (May 14, 2013)

GregP said:


> "Extremely manueveragle for its size" doesn't tell us much about maneuverability versus the Fw 190, but it's all we're likely to get. They aren't flying any these days.


the G-1 was even bigger and could turn with the nimble D.XXI.


----------



## parsifal (May 14, 2013)

It certainly did well by the accounts ive read, in a hopeless fight.


----------



## OldSkeptic (May 14, 2013)

Wing loading can't be compared to a normal wing mounted twin. 
That is because, with a wing mounted twin, you have accelerated air coming off the prop's flowing over the wing. This produces additional lift.
The 335 had to have a big wing, otherwise it would never have taken off. let alone climb.

You have to compare it to single engined aircraft in term of the wing loading affecting performance.

Now it wasn't bad (using the A0's numbers), at max wight it's loading was 33 lbs/sq ft. Compare that to a FW-190 A8 which was 49.3lbs/sq ft.
If fact about equal to a Spit XIV.

Then look at the thrust loading (at max weight and power). About 5.6 lbs/bhp. An 190A8 was actually poorer at 6.4lbs/bhp.
But now compare that to a Spit XIV at 4.1lbs/bhp.

So you can say straight off, that it should outclimb a 190A8 (all other things like drag being equal, but that is less of an issue in the climb) , but nowhere near a Spit XIV, and the Hornet was much better than the Spit.
Now obviously climb rates will drop the higher you go and how they drop off will be a function of the high altitude performance of the engine.
Given that its max altitude was only about 35,000ft you'd expect it climb rate would drop off rapidly.

Finding figures for this is not easy. Janes has no climb ones and Wikipedia is wrong (wrong for the Hornet too)
The ones I have are from Eric Browns book "Wings of the Luftwaffe", have it taking 1.3 mins to 1000m, which is about 2,500ft/min, not that great, especially when the Hornet was 5,000ft per minute at that altitude.

Now more power helps of course, but even with a later model DB 603 (the A- used the A1), and MW-50 I think you'd struggle to get to 3,500ft/min (plus who'd want to waste MW-50 for take off, you need it for combat).

Anyway, where could you fit MW-50 (let alone GM-1) without having to remove a fuel tank, thus cutting range.
Looking at the cut away for the 335B-2 there is no MW-50 tank and precious little room for it. There is so little room in the fuselage that the oxygen tanks are in the wings!!!!
So you'd have to cut out one of the fuel tanks in the rear.

The more and more I look at this plane the more absurd it seems. Do you know the bale out procedure was:
(1) press button to blow off the rear propeller.
(2) press button to blow of upper tail piece.
(3) press button to arm ejection seat.
(4) Pull handle to remove canopy.
(5) Press ejection button....


And those long oxygen runs, you'd be petrified of freezing in the lines.
Not to mention that if your rear engine went on fire (a common occurence, killed a RAF test pilot that one) you can't see it...
And rear visibility was non existent (which for a late model plane like that was criminal).

Then you think of how much more work was needed to make it reliable (if it could be done) .. and how difficult it would be to manufacture and that maintenance would be a nightmare.
And resistance to battle damage, hit on the rear and your prop and/or top tail piece blows off if the explosive charges are hit??? Hit on the wing that hits the oxygen tanks and your wing blows off.
And the rear engine (and its radiator) and so on and so on...

Absurd as I said, I suppose it could have, in the end been, been turned into a fair day/night bomber destroyer ... but why bother.


----------



## GregP (May 14, 2013)

Some pretty good points in the OldSkeptic. I've been accused of disliking German equipment and didn't want to bring up some of them myself since thye Do 335 turned into a dead end anyway with the end of the war. 

The Hornet served well and reliably though it didn't really have to fight much maybe except for the Mayalan Emergance. It operated against guerilla insurgency there instead of aircraft.

With different circumstances after WWII, who knows the Do 335 might have found a niche ... maybe not. It was a very interesting project nonetheless.


----------



## OldSkeptic (May 14, 2013)

GregP said:


> Some pretty good points in the OldSkeptic. I've been accused of disliking German equipment and didn't want to bring up some of them myself since thye Do 335 turned into a dead end anyway with the end of the war.
> 
> The Hornet served well and reliably though it didn't really have to fight much maybe except for the Mayalan Emergance. It operated against guerilla insurgency there instead of aircraft.
> 
> With different circumstances after WWII, who knows the Do 335 might have found a niche ... maybe not. It was a very interesting project nonetheless.



Oh they had much better designs available for development. The TA-154 for example would have been superb and uprated engines and the like later on could have put it into the 450+ class easily.
Typical Kurt Tank design ... it worked and very well too (did that man and his team ever make a bad aeroplane?). 
The RLM were against it though, preferring (or at least some did) the vastly overweight 219 (33,000lb fully loaded, no wonder it was a dog) and the glue factory being hit by a bomb was more a political rational for dropping it than anything else.

Unfortunately for them, fortunately for us. 

And you see the same old pattern over and over.. Excepting Tank and his team, designs ranging from bad to terrible (Me 210 and 410 anyone?), or even if they were good, vastly too complex.
Far too many prototypes, far too little development of successful ones.

In the end the Luftwaffe basically ended up (with a few exceptions, nearly all by Tank) with a lot of very obsolete equipment making up the bulk of what it had, with small numbers of high performance types that were competitive (or in the case of the 262 superior), hence it got swept from the sky. 

Still building and using the Me-110 in 45 for example.
And take the 109 as another example, it could have been fixed up and developed further, but good old Willy had lost any interest in it. 
The fact that even the K still had the same miserable aileron and elevator performance the E had was a damning indictment of Messerschmitt (and the RLM), let alone the terrible visibility.
What was needed was a thing like a Typhoon to Tempest design upgrade (or the 190A to D). Something that fixed the major issues and could be put into production quickly and actually contribute to winning their side of the war.

And don't even get me started about the engine manufacturers, if anything they were worse (excepting BMW, after the usual teething issues were sorted out, the 801 was probably one of the best of its type around).

So I'm not anti-German in that sense, just anti stupidity and incompetence.

As the old saying goes, wars are usually won by the side that makes the least mistakes. And in the air war, despite the massive number the Allies made, the Germans made even more.


----------



## delcyros (May 14, 2013)

I too, would prefer the Hornet over the Do-335. However, that beeing said, I remain not convinced that either of those two is superior to late war single engine A/C types.


----------



## OldSkeptic (May 14, 2013)

delcyros said:


> I too, would prefer the Hornet over the Do-335. However, that beeing said, I remain not convinced that either of those two is superior to late war single engine A/C types.



Depends what you mean as superior. The key is too identify a need and then come up with a design that will meet that, plus be easy to manufacture, maintain, fly, et al.

The Hornet design came from early studies on the Mosquito being looked at as a long range escort fighter. 
The results were that it couldn't, but they did some trials with a (very) lightened Mosquito and the performance was remarkably better, but not operationally practical.

Hence the Hornet. Smaller, lightened, huge range, incredible climb and speed, agile, capable of hanging lots of kit off of it (though not a true bomber). And of course easily converted to carrier operations (one of the very few that could do both). It was the British answer to the need for a long range fighter.
Basically the Hornet was to the Mosquito what the prototype super lightweight Mustangs* were to the P-51D (with their also remarkably better performance).

Now DH was pushed to the limit producing Mosquitos and developing new models (eg NF 30 series, etc). If the need for the Hornet had become really necessary (eg the TA-154 had gone into mass production) then resources would have been shifted and it would have gone into production earlier. 
How well would it have done? Well it had the capability of 'booming and zooming' just about anything else (except a jet) to death. Very probably ... quite well.

_*Note the P-51H was not one of those, it was only slightly lighter and the real rational for it was the ever decreasing G limits of the P-51 A, B D (each model going down) especially with high fuel loads. 
The H restored those even with high fuel loads and its higher performance really came from using a 100 series Merlin._


----------



## Sid327 (May 14, 2013)

Tante Ju said:


> The Whirlwond was a hot aircraft - both in specs and looks! Given the high wingloading, I do not think it was a particularly good turner, and there was its relatively short range.
> It would have been a stellar bomber destroyer during BoB.





> Westland Whirlwind gets my vote. I love the Mossie, but dont think she was a genuine dogfighter?



Agree,

pity it wasn't ever developed to show it's potential.


----------



## jim (May 14, 2013)

OldSkeptic said:


> Wing loading can't be compared to a normal wing mounted twin.
> That is because, with a wing mounted twin, you have accelerated air coming off the prop's flowing over the wing. This produces additional lift.
> The 335 had to have a big wing, otherwise it would never have taken off. let alone climb.
> 
> ...


 
Mr OldSceptic
I would like to obsrve that the climb performance at Erich Browns book is at 9500kgr . That means it includes a 500kgr bomb. Also is WITHOUT MW50
The non spectacular ceiling of 35000 is not the airframes fault. It s the result of use of single stage engines. Availability of Jumo 213E &EB or DB 603 L would have added several thousands meters of ceiling
Some of the reliability issues of Do 335 was not airframes faults , but the lack of raw materials. Weak breakes, weak batteries,weak landing gears were results of lack of proper alloys and materials
Also notice that the Do335A1 with MW50 and the basic sinle stage DB603As with 87 octane fuel , achieved similar performance with the Hornet using two stage engines and 130 octane fuel
The real engine overheating was a problem but could be fixed given reasonable development conditions . The same is true for the high speed shaking 
Also the batlle damage issues . Do 335 was extremely fast on one engine ,at 560 km/h.Thats good for escaping Also hits on the wings of any aircraft can be disastrous .In alleid fighters could explode the ammo
Do 335 appears to have been an excellent idea from aerodynamical point of view . In my opinion , the real problem with the aircraft, was that TA152 ,Fw157C and an all metal Ta 154 could offer similar (even if not fully equal) performance as fighters at much lower cost and sooner and with less fuel consuption


----------



## wuzak (May 14, 2013)

jim said:


> Also Do 335 made 474 mph on DB603A.



Smith and Creek have the Do 335 as making 455mph with DB 603A/QA.

I think the 474mph was with the L.




jim said:


> Single stage engines while Hornet on two stage engines.



Hornet's engines did not use, or need, ADI (MW50) to get the boost.

Hornet's total engine capacity was 54l. Do 335's total engine capacity was 89l.

As with the DB 601 DB 605, the DB 603 used higher compression ratios which enabled the compressor to run at lower pressure ratios at lower altitudes, which negated, somewhat, the need for 2 stage superchargers.

That said, the Do 335's service ceiling was 35,000ft at 18,300lbs, but only 31,200ft at 20,944lbs - equipped weight plus 4000lb fuel, ammo for the three guns, oil, etc.

The Hornet's service ceiling at normal loaded weight would be, I suspect, approaching 40,000ft. Certainly for teh Spitfire XIV it was over 40,000ft.




jim said:


> I believe that this means that above 5000m the Hornet had plenty more power yet had near identical top speed



I would like to see the FTH for the DB 603A and Db603L.

The maximum power for the Merlin 130/131 was 1625hp @ 11,000ft, +20psi FS gear, and 1850hp @ 6,250ft, +20psi boost. It could also use +25psi boost, which would allow 2090hp, but at only 2,000ft.




jim said:


> By the time Hornet entered service much more powerful engines would be available for the 335 and two stages as well



There were more powerful versions of the Merlin potentially too. The Merlin 130/131 were to the RM.14SM rating. There was also the RM.16SM, which was the rating for the V-1650-9 - 1920hp @ 9,500ft, +20psi boost MS gear and 1620hp @ 21,750ft FS gear. Sure, it has less hp in FS gear than the 130/131, but it makes that power more than 10,000ft higher.

Then there is the RM.17SM - flight cleared for +30psi boost. It was rated at 2200hp @ 2,000ft and 2100hp @ 15,000ft, and flight cleared for 2380hp! The end of the war meant that no Merlins were built to that rating.




jim said:


> On the other hand Hornet could NOT recieve any other engine than the Merlin 130



Not true. Later Hornets got different versions, but still to the same basic rating, RM.17SM. The Merlin mark numbers changed with differences in gearing for the supercharger or reduction gearing, or any number of other variations.

There is no reason a RM.16SM or RM.17SM version of the Merlin could have been made for the Hronet. The only major change was the downdraft carburettor. The 130 series Merlins had all the strengthening of the 100 series Merlins required for the higher ratings. So, to get the higher ratings would basically have meant changing the supercharger gearing in a 130/131 Merlin.

Also, the Griffon could, I am sure have been made to fit. The Griffon was no much larger than the Merlin, though 300lbs heavier.

By the end of the war the Griffon was becoming available in the 100 series. This meant 2 stage, 3 speed superchargers, contra props as an option, and 2400-2500hp in LS gear (3 speeds - Low, Medium, Full).


----------



## wuzak (May 14, 2013)

DB 603A B4 fuel
1750hp @ Sea level, 2700rpm, 1.4ATA
1850hp @ 6,900ft, 2700rpm, 1.4 ATA
1625hp @ 18,700ft, 2700rpm, 1.4 ATA

DB 603AM C3 fuel, +MW 50
2250hp @ Sea level, 2700rpm, 1.7ATA
2300hp @ 3,280ft, 2700rpm, 1.7 ATA
2100hp @ 12,200ft, 2700rpm, 1.7 ATA

GED0106


----------



## Aozora (May 14, 2013)

jim said:


> Mr OldSceptic
> I would like to obsrve that the climb performance at Erich Browns book is at 9500kgr . That means it includes a 500kgr bomb. Also is WITHOUT MW50
> The non spectacular ceiling of 35000 is not the airframes fault. It s the result of use of single stage engines. Availability of Jumo 213E &EB or DB 603 L would have added several thousands meters of ceiling



Mr Jim
I wonder why Luftwaffephiles often seem to make their performance figures conditional, based on projected figures with theoretical engines/superchargers/boost equipment? The BfFw190109K-15 would have had much better performance AND been better than the Hawksuper Spitpest Mk XXXIII if only the fabulous GMMW51 and C4 superblasterfuel been available...

MW50 WAS NOT INSTALLED IN A Do 335. Nor were there more than a small number of Jumo 213Es available, thus only two Do 335 prototypes V6 and V7 were fitted with them. The Do 335 had to make do with the engines that were fitted, namely the DB 603A and E series. As it was the projected figures for the DB 603L added about 1,200 metres to the service ceiling. While you maintain the 9,500 kg airframe weight quoted by Brown includes a 500 kg bomb the climb rate was still poor for a 1945 vintage fighter and in no way could it compete with a de H Hornet: 10 minutes to 19,685 ft, albeit for a Do 335A-0, was not going to translate to anything fabulous, even with the projected engines.











Fact is the Do 335 needed a better, possibly low aspect ratio wing, something that Dornier and the RLM recognised with several different wing designs being planned.



jim said:


> Some of the reliability issues of Do 335 was not airframes faults , but the lack of raw materials. Weak breakes, weak batteries,weak landing gears were results of lack of proper alloys and materials



Mr Jim

There was no way that such deficiencies were going to be rectified in the short or long term so, again, the Do 335 had to live with the deficiencies noted.



jim said:


> Also notice that the Do335A1 with MW50 and the basic sinle stage DB603As with 87 octane fuel , achieved similar performance with the Hornet using two stage engines and 130 octane fuel



Mr Jim 

MW50 was never used or fitted to the Do 335A1, nor did the Hornet use 130 Octane fuel - the Hornet used 100 Octane fuel, same as the majority of Allied piston engined fighters.




jim said:


> The real engine overheating was a problem but could be fixed given reasonable development conditions . The same is true for the high speed shaking



That's always the way; didn't happen because Germany surrendered.



jim said:


> Also the batlle damage issues . Do 335 was extremely fast on one engine ,at 560 km/h.Thats good for escaping Also hits on the wings of any aircraft can be disastrous .In alleid fighters could explode the ammo



In Do 335B series hits on the wing could also have exploded the ammo.



jim said:


> Do 335 appears to have been an excellent idea from aerodynamical point of view . In my opinion , the real problem with the aircraft, was that TA152 ,Fw157C and an all metal Ta 154 could offer similar (even if not fully equal) performance as fighters at much lower cost and sooner and with less fuel consuption



Note, too, the poor range of the Do 335.


----------



## wuzak (May 14, 2013)

Aozora said:


> MW50 was never used or fitted to the Do 335A1, nor did the Hornet use 130 Octane fuel - the Hornet used 100 Octane fuel, same as the majority of Allied piston engined fighters.



Yes, the fuel mostly used was PN100/130.

B4 isn't as bad as it seems, from what I understand.


----------



## jim (May 14, 2013)

Aozora said:


> Mr Jim
> I wonder why Luftwaffephiles often seem to make their performance figures conditional, based on projected figures with theoretical engines/superchargers/boost equipment? The BfFw190109K-15 would have had much better performance AND been better than the Hawksuper Spitpest Mk XXXIII if only the fabulous GMMW51 and C4 superblasterfuel been available...
> 
> MW50 WAS NOT INSTALLED IN A Do 335. Nor were there more than a small number of Jumo 213Es available, thus only two Do 335 prototypes V6 and V7 were fitted with them. The Do 335 had to make do with the engines that were fitted, namely the DB 603A and E series. As it was the projected figures for the DB 603L added about 1,200 metres to the service ceiling. While you maintain the 9,500 kg airframe weight quoted by Brown includes a 500 kg bomb the climb rate was still poor for a 1945 vintage fighter and in no way could it compete with a de H Hornet: 10 minutes to 19,685 ft, albeit for a Do 335A-0, was not going to translate to anything fabulous, even with the projected engines.
> ...


 
Mr Wuzak
a) Please do not misunderstand me . Hornet is one of my favorites aircrafts( one of the few alleid) I just want to prove that Do 335 was not a brick as suggested by Mr Stona
2) As far as i know , Hornets engines were extensively modifeid to fit the very streamlined engine nacelles. Also the late post war merlin that you suggest never saw active duty on aircrafts. Why? Even the P51H, was kept away from combat. Obviously the americans knew something.
3) If Griffons could be used on Hornets would be surprising to me . On german aircrafts use of heavier engines created CoG issues. It appears alleid aircraft did not had problems with such small details

Mr Aozora
a) How can you compare the climb of rate with the Do 335 carrying a bomb? Check their power and wing loadings on equal configurations. Compare their power with all the INTENDED equipment . It seems to me they are generally at the same performance class.
b) You and Mr Greq P deny to accept an aircraft as its mother company designed because some equipment was not installed. There was a good explanation. It was raining bombs. 
If you deny the Do 335 its MW50 systems that were ready and in action with other aircrafts, if you deny proper materials for its brakes, if you deny proper fuel ,if you deny technicians to install the equipment and generally to run the development program then i agree with you.Do 335 was a brick. And if you deny its propellers it s not an aircraft at all .Can not fly.
Jumo213 Eo1 were ready, Db603EM flew on Ta 152V6 DB 603L was delayed only because of the C3 fuel shortages. All tis equipment was not fitted for reasons un related to the aircraft
If you insist to include these reasons and their results in the comparison of the two aircrafts ,then ,in my opinion, we dont speak seriously
.
I repeat i do find Do335 very complicate and i would prefer Fw187 with DB605DC and laminar flow airfoil on the internal part of the wing

We respect to both of you 
Jim


----------



## Tante Ju (May 14, 2013)

The Do 335 had plenty of potential. Here are some actually measured numbers, the site claims it has been made with 30-rating only, and the aircraft was in crappy aerodynamic condition.

Do335 Flugleistungen

At the bottom of the article, there are some very impressive numbers calculated for show of full potential.


----------



## mhuxt (May 14, 2013)

wuzak said:


> Yes, the fuel mostly used was PN100/130.
> 
> B4 isn't as bad as it seems, from what I understand.


 
No, B4 was pretty crappy. I posted some curves from the German Oppauer test facility on here a while back, comparing B4 and C3 to Allied fuels captured and tested by the Germans. Also posted a pdf describing the test method used.


----------



## wuzak (May 14, 2013)

jim said:


> Mr Wuzak
> a) Please do not misunderstand me . Hornet is one of my favorites aircrafts( one of the few alleid) I just want to prove that Do 335 was not a brick as suggested by Mr Stona



Understood.




jim said:


> 2) As far as i know , Hornets engines were extensively modifeid to fit the very streamlined engine nacelles.



There was the downdraft carburettor instead of the regular updraft carby. That was the big thing. Then some accesories were moved around, to reduce the frontal area.

The point I was making is that the main features of the Merlin 130/131 were common with other 100 series Merlins - such as the V-1650-9 and RM.17SM. The changes for them were supercharger gearing and, for the RM.17SM, the supercharger size. The higher ratings should have been quite easily achievable with the same volume/frontal area as the Merlin 130/131.




jim said:


> Also the late post war merlin that you suggest never saw active duty on aircrafts. Why? Even the P51H, was kept away from combat. Obviously the americans knew something.



The P-51Hs weren't required in Europe, because the Luftwaffe was defeated by then. They were delivered to the PTO, but I don't think they saw action. It wasn't a case of being kept away from combat - just too late for combat.




jim said:


> 3) If Griffons could be used on Hornets would be surprising to me . On german aircrafts use of heavier engines created CoG issues. It appears alleid aircraft did not had problems with such small details



The Spitfire started with a 1375lb (624kg) Merlin and ended up with a 1980lb (898kg) Griffon. Not only was the Griffon heavier, it was mounted further forward.

If the Spitfire can me modified to go from a Merlin to a Griffon I can't see why the Hornet couldn't (some strengthening may be required!).




jim said:


> a) How can you compare the climb of rate with the Do 335 carrying a bomb? Check their power and wing loadings on equal configurations. Compare their power with all the INTENDED equipment . It seems to me they are generally at the same performance class.



I also have 10 minutes to 6,000m (19,685ft). It doesn't specify the weight at which this is achieved, but the rest of the performance numbers are without a bomb.

In 10 minutes the Spitfire has climbed to around 33-34,000ft. If the Hornet climbs better then it has the Do 335 well and truly beaten.

But I haven't seen any time to climb figures for the Hornet.


----------



## Dogwalker (May 14, 2013)

The Do.335 has the weight extended on the longitudinal axis rather than centered around the center of gravity.
Do we know how this had effect on pitch inertia and stall characteristics?


----------



## Neil Stirling (May 14, 2013)

DH Hornet

4 minutes to 20,000ft.









Neil.


----------



## vikingBerserker (May 14, 2013)

Now that is impressive.


----------



## parsifal (May 14, 2013)

The heavywaeights are out tonite.....ill just watch this one boys....


----------



## Neil Stirling (May 14, 2013)

Sea Hornet.









Neil.


----------



## tomo pauk (May 14, 2013)

Just a big 'thank you', Neil 

BTW, time for the P-82 vs. Hornet vs. F7F vs. DO-335 thread?


----------



## altsym (May 14, 2013)

OldSkeptic said:


> And take the 109 as another example, it could have been fixed up and developed further, but good old Willy had lost any interest in it.
> The fact that even the K still had the same miserable aileron and elevator performance the E had was a damning indictment of Messerschmitt (and the RLM), let alone the terrible visibility.


Are you serious? Where are you getting this information from (please don't say Allied flight reports from captured aircraft)? High speed control forces on the late 109's are much more manageable then the "E" "F" series.


----------



## delcyros (May 14, 2013)

OldSkeptic said:


> Depends what you mean as superior. The key is too identify a need and then come up with a design that will meet that, plus be easy to manufacture, maintain, fly, et al.
> 
> (...)
> 
> ...


 
No disagreement here. However, the reason why I remain sceptical is the rapd changing technological environment in 1945, which in case of conflict, would render these two planes (add the Tigercat and the Ki-83) pretty obsolete against single engined fighter opposition from the start.

See it this way:
Neither the Hornet nor the Do-335 had a service record in ww2. Assume those as well as Tigercat and Ki-83 become operational somewhere in late 45 in measurable quantity. Fine.

Ki-83 or Do-335 vs P-80A? Big disadvantage for the Do-335 or Ki-83. Do-335 vs DH Vampire? Same. Against Jet´s, those two don´t stand a chance.
What about the other side?
Hornet or Tigercat vs He-162? Big disadvantage for the prop driven A/C. The He-162 cruises at a speed, which neither of them can attain at all-out conditions (in every altitude) and is more maneuverable at high speed combat, too. 

One may stress that jet´s are a different category and wouldn´t be commonly engaged. However, given the frantic efforts by both, Axis and Allies to get jets in the air, by mid and late 45, things may differ a bit from january 45 and likely many bugs, which troubled early jets would have been sorted out by then. But ok, let´s only assume single engined conventional driven fighter opposition:

Ki-83 or Do-335 vs P-51H? vs P-47N? vs F4U-4? vs Spitfire Mk21? My take is that the edge of performance is practically not existing against those A/C, and they are more flexible and less demanding to fly.

Tigercat or Hornet vs Ta-152? vs Fw-190D12? I cannot see a significant performance edge existing either, to justify the contention that the twin engined A/C has a better than equal chance of survival. In the best case, it´s a wash between them.


Thus, I wouldn´t opt for any of the late ww2 designed twin engined fighter designs, which may represent the pinacle of their respective technological envelope but are rendered obsolete with the advent of the jet fighter. The chronological framework of their arrival even preceedes the appearence of these late ww2 twins in service. 
In an heuristic approach, I would look for an earlier date for a "best twin engined dogfighter", returning to candidates like the Bf-110, Fokker G-1, Ki-45 and W. Whirlwind in the timeframe 1939 to 1941.
For 1944 /45, only the Me-262 qualifies (to be compared against Spitfire IX and XIV, P-47D and P-51D) and respresents a serious thread for bombers, but- skillfully flown- to any single engined fighter A/C of this period (You can´t beat it in energy tactics with a prop A/C, which dominated the skies over europe), resulting in their recognition as a special high value targets for escort fighters and ground attack ones.


----------



## FLYBOYJ (May 14, 2013)

delcyros said:


> For 1944 /45, only the Me-262 qualifies (to be compared against Spitfire IX and XIV, P-47D and P-51D) and respresents a serious thread for bombers, but- skillfully flown- to any single engined fighter A/C of this period (You can´t beat it in energy tactics with a prop A/C, which dominated the skies over europe), resulting in their recognition as a special high value targets for escort fighters and ground attack ones.



Energy tactics "would have" only worked if the -262 entered combat at higher speeds. If it slowed down without any excessive thrust available to maneuving speeds close to the top recip fighters of the period (power was reduced to slow it down) it was toast. Some LW pilots knew how to deal with this and did not allow themselves to be placed in this corner of the envelope.


----------



## Sid327 (May 14, 2013)

Re: Post #89 (and to a _slightly_ lesser extent #92) by Neil Stirling......

................seriously impressive!

I just want one.


----------



## bobbysocks (May 14, 2013)

the Do335 was just starting out and would have been modified and changed several times to fix the teething problems. most of the other ac had already gone through this years before..p38, mossie, etc. so in a lot of cases we are comparing a prototype or early version to a much refines later version of different ac.


----------



## Aozora (May 14, 2013)

jim said:


> a) How can you compare the climb of rate with the Do 335 carrying a bomb? Check their power and wing loadings on equal configurations. Compare their power with all the INTENDED equipment . It seems to me they are generally at the same performance class.



We only have your word and no real evidence that the Do 335 was carrying a bomb. It's interesting that Luftwaffe fans always seem to need to quote projected performance figures as proof that their wundermachines were better than everyone elses. Even with all the advantages of MW50 and more powerful engines etc the climb rate would not have been anything special or spectacular. You keep quoting "official figures" but have shown none of them here.


----------



## wuzak (May 14, 2013)

Neil Stirling said:


> DH Hornet
> 
> 4 minutes to 20,000ft.



That is seriously quick. More than 1 minute faster than a Spitfire XIV to 20,000ft!


----------



## drgondog (May 14, 2013)

OldSkeptic said:


> The Hornet design came from early studies on the Mosquito being looked at as a long range escort fighter.
> The results were that it couldn't, but they did some trials with a (very) lightened Mosquito and the performance was remarkably better, but not operationally practical.
> 
> Basically the Hornet was to the Mosquito what the prototype super lightweight Mustangs* were to the P-51D (with their also remarkably better performance).
> ...



True the F/G/J Mustangs were even lighter (~600 pounds) than the H, but the H was ~1000 pound lighter than the D/K and 500 pounds lighter than the B/C - but carried 6x50 cal vs 4x50 for the B/C

The 1650-9 engine on the P-51H was basically the 1650-3 with WI added to a modified pressure injection Simmonds boost control.

The Rolls 14 S.M. was in the last two of five XP-51F's and re-named XP51G - and this was best performer with 495mph at 26,000 feet and service ceiling of 46,000 - only because cabin not pressurized to enable pilot to climb higher. Having said that, when you added guns and armor and external racks it would nver have climbed to 20000 in 3.4 minutes, made 495mph or climbed to 46000 - it would have dropped closer to P-51H capability


----------



## Glider (May 14, 2013)

vikingBerserker said:


> Now that is impressive.


I am reading that right 4 mins to 20,000ft at combat power!! I wonder what the max initial climb rate was


----------



## OldSkeptic (May 14, 2013)

Glider said:


> I am reading that right 4 mins to 20,000ft at combat power!! I wonder what the max initial climb rate was



Have a look at these (5,500ft/min).
You can see the difference between the low level RM-14SM Merlin 130s and the high level Griffon 65.
Note that the Sea Hornets were slightly slower.


----------



## OldSkeptic (May 14, 2013)

altsym said:


> Are you serious? Where are you getting this information from (please don't say Allied flight reports from captured aircraft)? High speed control forces on the late 109's are much more manageable then the "E" "F" series.



Nonsense. Eric Brown wings of the Luftwaffe, 109 G6, page 210..
_"Control harmony was poor for a fighter, the rudder bring light, the ailerons moderately light and the elevators extremely heavy".
".... in a dive at 644km/h (400mph)the controls felt as though they had seized! The highest speed that I dived to below 3,048m (10,000ft) was 708km/g (440) and the solidity of control was such that this was the limit in my book".
_

And since he was a professional and definitely not biased against German kit by any means (he loved the 190 in all its versions and especially raved about the TA 152H).

_"However, things were very different at high altitude, and providing the Gustav was kept where it was meant to be (i.e. above 7,620m, 25,000ft) it performed efficiently both in dogfighting and as an attacker of bomber formations. To give some idea of its performance, I measured 618km/h (384mph) in level flight at 7,010m (23,000ft), which confirmed pretty well with the officially claimed maximum speed pf 621km/h (386mph) at 6,900m (22,640)."
_


----------



## redcoat (May 14, 2013)

jim said:


> Mr OldSceptic
> I would like to obsrve that the climb performance at Erich Browns book is at 9500kgr . That means it includes a 500kgr bomb.


I find it difficult to believe that a test pilot of the caliber of Eric Brown would take a plane up to evaluate its performance while carrying a 500kgr bomb ?????


----------



## jim (May 14, 2013)

Aozora said:


> We only have your word and no real evidence that the Do 335 was carrying a bomb. It's interesting that Luftwaffe fans always seem to need to quote projected performance figures as proof that their wundermachines were better than everyone elses. Even with all the advantages of MW50 and more powerful engines etc the climb rate would not have been anything special or spectacular. You keep quoting "official figures" but have shown none of them here.


 
Mr Aozora 
Its my last answer to you since you dont read them carefy or you ignore them, and you put words in my mouth

In every of my post i say that I dont consider Do 335 wundermachine or even slightly superior to the hornet. I simply i have not enough datas to give the edge in one of these close matched aircrafts. My argument is that Do 335 is not the dog that is very often presented in this forum
But it appears that for you that if a LW aircraft claimed performance near that of the late alleid fighters it was a fantastique wundermachine

As for the 9500 kgr it was with a bomb , you like it or not. Check the bibliografy. You can start with the link that Mr Tante Ju posted at post #85
Even if you dont speak german you will be able to notice that it clearly says that at 9500kgr weight a 500kgr bomb was included
Read the french experience with the Do335 ,where captured examples in poor condition outrun their escorts. 

If you search for wundermachines you may look at the other side of the Atlantic or in the Soviet union . Aircrafts claiming superlative perormance and agility with absolutely zero weaknesses or shortconings.Aircrafts that eg the weight went down 500kgr but the claimed structural strength went up 10% !!! Have you ever seen such a claim by a german machine? But what a coinsidense. None of those super,duper machines saw combat despite the fact that ,unlike Do 335, had all the fuel,and pilots, and time to fully be develped and everything that was nessecary. But of course nobody wants to lose a wing during combat, and some of those super aircrafts were losing half their wings even in exersices. Or in the case of the soviets , had to be removed from service after a few months
Friedrich schier flew a Ta152H to an altitude of 13654 metrs . He had a partially working pressure cabin and he was half paralyzed .
American pilots could fly at 46000ft without any pressure cabin . Wonder pilots as well ! Ta152H with its huge wings ,even with GM1 ,could not surpass 14000-15000metrs . American fighter with much shorter wings could reach over 46000ft, even then the limitation being the pilot!!!! F4E phantom II barely surpassed this claimed performance having a ceiling of 60000ft!!!!
Please look elsewhere for wonders


----------



## OldSkeptic (May 14, 2013)

jim said:


> Mr Aozora
> American pilots could fly at 46000ft without any pressure cabin . Wonder pilots as well ! Ta152H with its huge wings ,even with GM1 ,could not surpass 14000-15000metrs . American fighter with much shorter wings could reach over 46000ft, even then the limitation being the pilot!!!! F4E phantom II barely surpassed this claimed performance having a ceiling of 60000ft!!!!
> Please look elsewhere for wonders



Not sure where you get that from. Way above the Mustangs maximum height. That was the height even the late PR Spits could barely reach (Spit XIX service ceiling was 44,500)... and they all had pressure cabins.

I think you need to check your nums (perhaps the meters to feet conversion?)


----------



## OldSkeptic (May 14, 2013)

redcoat said:


> I find it difficult to believe that a test pilot of the caliber of Eric Brown would take a plane up to evaluate its performance while carrying a 500kgr bomb ?????



He didn't. I checked his report carefully.

He was a test pilot going up in a very iffy plane (due to maintenance issues), no way he was going up with a bomb as well. 
What he was doing was dodgy enough, shortly after that another RAF pilot was killed in testing the same 335, due to a rear engine fire.

Killed 2 German test pilots that thing, personally I wouldn't have flown in if you put a gun to my head.

He flew the 2 seat A0, which probably explains the higher weight.

Why they wasted their time developing it is a mystery, they had the excellent Ta-154 as an alternative and, perhaps, if they had managed to get 10,000lbs of bloat off the Do-219 then it might have been pretty good too.


----------



## nuuumannn (May 14, 2013)

Jim, I don't think anyone (with maybe one or two exceptions) is claiming the Do 335 is a dog; it was, as has been pointed out, an exceptional design, but what frustrates many is the fact that actual figures that were recorded by the aircraft that were available are what's being asked for and not claims of the aircraft's potential that never materialised because of the end of the war. Stating that the Do 335's performance _would have been better _ if MW 50 was added just isn't going to stand up to criticism. Can't you post actual occurances that took place rather than hypothesies based on potential improvements that never happened?


----------



## nuuumannn (May 14, 2013)

...and here's a bit from Brown's Wings of the Luftwaffe on the Do 335;

"The Do 335 had certainly proved itself the most troublesome, mechanically, of the captured German aircraft that we has tested at Farnborough, probably indicative of the fact that it had been committed to production before all of its bugs had been wrung out, but despite all the trouble that it gave us I was of the opinion that it would have made a highly successful night fighter with its good stability, endurance and excellent turn of speed. As a day fighter, however, although possessing an impressive performance by piston-engined fighter standards and a pretty potent armament, it was no aircraft for dog fighting. To be fair, fighter-versus-fighter combat was never intended to be the Do 335's forte and it certainly could have given Allied heavy bombers an unpleasant time with its good overtaking speed, its lethal firepower and its worthwhile endurance which would have enabled it to fly standing patrols while awaiting intruding bomber formations."


----------



## parsifal (May 14, 2013)

nuuumannn said:


> ...and here's a bit from Brown's Wings of the Luftwaffe on the Do 335;
> 
> "The Do 335 had certainly proved itself the most troublesome, mechanically, of the captured German aircraft that we has tested at Farnborough, probably indicative of the fact that it had been committed to production before all of its bugs had been wrung out, but despite all the trouble that it gave us I was of the opinion that it would have made a highly successful night fighter with its good stability, endurance and excellent turn of speed. As a day fighter, however, although possessing an impressive performance by piston-engined fighter standards and a pretty potent armament, it was no aircraft for dog fighting. To be fair, fighter-versus-fighter combat was never intended to be the Do 335's forte and it certainly could have given Allied heavy bombers an unpleasant time with its good overtaking speed, its lethal firepower and its worthwhile endurance which would have enabled it to fly standing patrols while awaiting intruding bomber formations."



That at least appears to be a balanced assesment, and certainly would be consistent with what the LW high Command was looking for towards the end of the war. They wanted survivable bomber destroyers, not aircraft to tackle the allied fighters so much...


----------



## davebender (May 14, 2013)

Dornier Do 335 - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia


> Delivery commenced in January 1945. When the United States Army overran the Oberpfaffenhofen factory in late April 1945, only 11 Do 335 A-1 single-seat fighter-bombers and two Do 335 A-12 trainers had been completed.


Personally I wouldn't get too excited about an aircraft that had only 13 production models, all of which were built under conditions where German industrial production was falling apart.


----------



## altsym (May 14, 2013)

OldSkeptic said:


> Nonsense. Eric Brown wings of the Luftwaffe, 109 G6, page 210..


Exactly what I meant when I said, 'please don't quote/say/use flight reports from captured 109's lol


----------



## OldSkeptic (May 14, 2013)

altsym said:


> Exactly what I meant when I said, 'please don't quote/say/use flight reports from captured 109's lol



And why not? What possible incentive would the Allies have in being wrong? 
Given that their pilots lives depended on this information, they would do their best to make them as good as possible in fact.
In fact if they understated German performance figures they would very quickly get feedback from their own pilots that this was not true, probably very forceful feedback (along the lines of "you told us that X does Y mph, but I was at Z mph and it caught up with me, you stupid prat").

Quite possibly in the very early days they would have had issues with correct maintenance and procedures, therefore not getting the best out of any captured plane. 
But by later in the war they would have gotten that worked out pretty well.

For example, Rolls Royce had stripped down Jumo 211s totally and tested them on their own testbeds to measure their performance. 

Plus by '42 the British had worked out the Luftwaffe's order of battle pretty well. RV Jones famously stated that he could give a month's warning of any new Luftwaffe bombing campaign and then proved it, hence their terrible losses in Operation Steinbock (he also predicted to the day when V1s would be launched at Britain).
The Germans Knew about the Mustang long before it appeared and had a very good idea of its performance, ditto the Allies with the introduction of the 190D.

So I just can't see how they could be dramatically out. This also applies to the Germans, by later in the war both sides had a pretty good idea of what they were up against.


----------



## parsifal (May 15, 2013)

The argument about not relying on allied intell reports is that we dont know how to get the best out of superior german equipment, or that the aircraft we were tested were clapped out clunkers anyway.

I dont buy it either....


----------



## OldSkeptic (May 15, 2013)

Yeh, that might have been an issue on both sides early in the war, but not later. Both had too much to lose by getting things wrong.

Were they 100% perfect, of course not. But neither were performance tests done by both side on the own equipment. 
There was always a fuzz factor due to manufacturing tolerances.
Take the Spit LF IX, top speed given as 404mph, but if you got a good one you might see 415, or 390 with a bad one as the allowed tolerance was 3%.

Then you have the test methodologies and standards. On the face of it the British were the leaders in this with very vigorous standards
The US was behind at the beginning of the war (and produced some very ropy numbers for their early planes), then caught up.

I might be wrong in this, but the Germans seemed to just leave it up the manufacturers, rather than having a central Govt body, with a consistent set of testing standards (and unbiased), to do the testing. If that is not the case I'd love to learn more about it.


----------



## Tante Ju (May 15, 2013)

OldSkeptic said:


> Have a look at these (5,500ft/min).
> You can see the difference between the low level RM-14SM Merlin 130s and the high level Griffon 65.
> Note that the Sea Hornets were slightly slower.
> 
> *snip graph*



Since Wunderplanes are a popular term recently, I wonder which one of the above Wunderplane curves have been flight tested, under what conditions, which one are specially prepeared prototypes and which ones are random serial production aircraft, and which curves have been calculated by the manufacturer for sales purposes based on expected (but perhaps not realized/realizable) conditions.

P-51H projected vs final/measured/serial production condition performance figures come to mind.



OldSkeptic said:


> I might be wrong in this, but the Germans seemed to just leave it up the manufacturers, rather than having a central Govt body, with a consistent set of testing standards (and unbiased), to do the testing. If that is not the case I'd love to learn more about it.



Yes you are wrong, sry. The Luftwaffe's own Gov't BAL service did all the acceptance tests, not the manufacturers (though the latter did tests too), while 'official' specs were usually based what tthe Luftwaffe's own testing station at Rechlin measured. From what I read from Fey (sp?) they would reject aircraft not meeting specs without missing a heartbeat, even in 1945.


----------



## OldSkeptic (May 15, 2013)

Thanks for that Tante.

The UK figures are always (within the allowed tolerances) pretty good. Random testing (which later the US did as well) of production machines by the RAE were also taken. 
Plus there was the feedback from the production test pilots (like Alex Henshaw) plus they (under strict instructions) would reject planes if they didn't meet specs (again within the allowed tolerances).
Every single production plane was tested in flight. Henshaw's book tells you what the test schedule was. Climb, speed, dive, maximum speed, stability, turn, etc, etc. Everything was documented and the individual plane's results would be available.

Hence the practice of people like Squadron Leaders carefully selecting the best ones for their use. 

I can't speak for the others but North American did the same, though there was a wrinkle in this. Yes they were tested as they came off the production lines, but then broken down for shipping. Then reassembled in Britain.
Does anyone have any information on what happened when they were reassembled in the UK? were they retested again? Frankly I'd expect so, but any information would be interesting. 

By and large the Germans and Americans were well ahead of the UK on quality manufacturing (the typical British problem, excepting Rolls Royce*), through the Germans deteriorated towards the end of the war due to dependence on slave labour (plus sabotage) plus over complex designs (of a lot of equipment).

That meant that if you had (say) a 109 G6 and the specification speed was (again say) 386 mph, your one would quite probably do that. If you were a Spit IX pilot and low on the rank levels, you might be struggling to get within a cooee of the specified performance, especially if it was a bit older. Low quality meant that planes also aged faster. As they age they always get slower. Opening and closing panels, repairs, re-painting, etc meant more drag and the engine was getting older (anyone else here old enough to remember the effect of your points needing maintenance on your car/bike? plus the 'joys' of tuning carbies). Doesn't take a lot of wear on the bores or valves before your real compression levels are well below the 'spec' ones.

Typically you'd see a typically downward 'saw tooth' shape of performance as the plane ages

The US, once it spun up to speed, led the World then in high quality mass manufacturing of, often, pretty good designs (we take the Sherman off that list of "often petty good" of course).

But even Mustangs aged. If you had an old one, with 30+ missions (roughly 1,500 air hours) under its belt and your speed might be down 20 or 30 mph. Up against an _experten_ (note that they always grabbed the best ones and made sure they had the best maintenance) with a brand new model 109G at 25,000 ft. You'd be struggling.

_* Sir Henry Royce famously said "the future is quality mass manufacturing .. and the British are poor at both"._


----------



## jim (May 15, 2013)

nuuumannn said:


> Jim, I don't think anyone (with maybe one or two exceptions) is claiming the Do 335 is a dog; it was, as has been pointed out, an exceptional design, but what frustrates many is the fact that actual figures that were recorded by the aircraft that were available are what's being asked for and not claims of the aircraft's potential that never materialised because of the end of the war. Stating that the Do 335's performance _would have been better _ if MW 50 was added just isn't going to stand up to criticism. Can't you post actual occurances that took place rather than hypothesies based on potential improvements that never happened?


 
Mr Nuuumannn
Since you posses Eric Browns "Wings of the Luftwaffe" on page 74 he states that he achieved 692 km/h (430mph) at 5486m (18000ft) with the TWO sets version and WITHOUT MW50. Considering that the single seat version was 40-50 km/h faster thatn the two seat version, i believe that we have an indication of impressive speed performance( note the relatively low altitude)
Generaly i agrre that do 335 probably couldnt mix it with late sinlge seat fighters.
As far as Mw50 is concerned is proven beyond any doubt that it added 350-450 Ps to the output of jumo 213A&E and DB 603. Why would be any diferent in Do 335? Is un reasonable to assume that additional 700-900 PS would have positive influenceon Do335s performance?
Jumo 213 with Mw 50 saw extensive combat. Db603 EM was flying on othet prototypes. MW 50 was always intende as standart equipment, 
Honestly i cant understand why you dont accept its use. 
I dont speak about exotic engines( 213EB J, 603L&LA&N, Jumo 222) I speak about standart equipment of all late war german figthers. 

I repeat, Hornet ,Ki 83 , Fw187C were superior .They achieved similar performance with more conventional and reliable methods


----------



## nuuumannn (May 15, 2013)

Jim, you are missing the point.



> Why would be any different in Do 335?



You can assume as much as you like, but it didn't happen - the Do 335 V7 didn't get anywhere. There's nothing wrong with presuming things that might have happened or were going to happen, but didn't, but do you understand what it is that Aozora and others are pointing out to you? It's nonsense to compare the de Havilland Hornet's figures with the Fw 187C (for example) because the latter did not exist. Do you understand the point I was making?



> Hornet, Ki 83, Fw187C were superior. They achieved similar performance with more conventional and reliable methods



Again, this is what I'm talking about; the Fw 187C was not real, so this entire statement is nonsense.


----------



## FLYBOYJ (May 15, 2013)

OldSkeptic said:


> And why not? What possible incentive would the Allies have in being wrong?
> Given that their pilots lives depended on this information, they would do their best to make them as good as possible in fact.
> In fact if they understated German performance figures they would very quickly get feedback from their own pilots that this was not true, probably very forceful feedback (along the lines of "you told us that X does Y mph, but I was at Z mph and it caught up with me, you stupid prat").
> 
> ...



If the aircraft was captured intact, one would get very accurate information on that aircraft's performance provided it can be maintained and operated correctly without the benefit of technical data. It the aircraft crashed, landed gear up or was salvaged, you always run the risk of never getting that aircraft to the state it was in operationally. Once an aircraft lands hard or winds up on its belly it is never the same....


----------



## bobbysocks (May 15, 2013)

a lot of the stuff tested was new or practically new. like the Do335 i made reference to....and the one that crashed and killed the pilot due to a fire in the rear engine. i had come right from the factory. there were enough brand new ac laying around that they didnt need to piece togther shot up ac or wrecks. that happened early in the war but not afterwards.


----------



## FLYBOYJ (May 15, 2013)

bobbysocks said:


> *a lot of the stuff tested was new or practically new*. like the Do335 i made reference to....and the one that crashed and killed the pilot due to a fire in the rear engine. i had come right from the factory. there were enough brand new ac laying around that they didnt need to piece togther shot up ac or wrecks. that happened early in the war but not afterwards.



Not at the beginning or even during the middle of the war. Many of the captured aircraft evaluated by both sides seen some type of trama, usually gear up landings which tend to put stresses on parts of the airframe that could actually throw the assemtry off.

As far as this incident straight from the factory - not surprising considering the quality of the production work force at the end of the war.


----------



## altsym (May 15, 2013)

bobbysocks said:


> a lot of the stuff tested was new or practically new.


Only the G-6/U2 that landed by mistake in Britain was in relative good condition, everything else tested had serious problems that needed to be addressed, including the British tested G-6/U2 (which btw had the two MG151/20 gunpods, being a U2 it never had the GM-1) that was torn apart and put back together.

I respect Eric Brown's opinions, at the same time I disagree with some of his conclusions.


----------



## Juha (May 15, 2013)

altsym said:


> Only the G-6/U2 that landed by mistake in Britain was in relative good condition, everything else tested had serious problems that needed to be addressed, including the British tested G-6/U2 (which btw had the two MG151/20 gunpods, being a U2 it never had the GM-1) that was torn apart and put back together.
> 
> I respect Eric Brown's opinions, at the same time I disagree with some of his conclusions.



Very few 109G-6 if any had GM-1 anyway. But I agree that IIRC Brown in his analyze published in various publications forgot to emphase that the plane had the gun gondolas and in the first article in which I saw Brown's assesment there was an info box which gave the armament of normal 109G-6 but the speed of 109G-6/R6 ie the "gunship" version.

Juha


----------



## Milosh (May 15, 2013)

FLYBOYJ said:


> As far as this incident straight from the factory - not surprising considering the quality of the production work force at the end of the war.



Do335s had a problem with overheating of the rear engine.


----------



## nuuumannn (May 15, 2013)

> I respect Eric Brown's opinions, at the same time I disagree with some of his conclusions.



It always makes me cringe when I see this kind of thing written, for example, here's a bloke who served as a test pilot and having flown in combat from aircraft carriers and shot down enemy aircraft, who flew almost every captured enemy aircraft post war and who is in the Guinness Book of Records for flying more types of aeroplane than any other individual, yet his opinion is somewhat biased and tainted by his Britishness.

Altsym, don't take this personally, but what qualifications or experience do you have to quantify your disagreement with him? I'm not saying we should naturally accept everything he states, as he has made some about faces in his printed recollections, but I find it hard to accept that so many here should write him off as biased because they don't agree with them. What makes you qualified enough to do so compared with his experience?


----------



## pinsog (May 15, 2013)

nuuumannn said:


> It always makes me cringe when I see this kind of thing written, for example, here's a bloke who served as a test pilot and having flown in combat from aircraft carriers and shot down enemy aircraft, who flew almost every captured enemy aircraft post war and who is in the Guinness Book of Records for flying more types of aeroplane than any other individual, yet his opinion is somewhat biased and tainted by his Britishness.
> 
> Altsym, don't take this personally, but what qualifications or experience do you have to quantify your disagreement with him? I'm not saying we should naturally accept everything he states, as he has made some about faces in his printed recollections, but I find it hard to accept that so many here should write him off as biased because they don't agree with them. What makes you qualified enough to do so compared with his experience?[/QUOTE
> 
> When Mr Brown rated the Fairy Swordfish as a better torpedo plane than the Grumman Avenger, it tends to make some of us question his judgement even if we have 0 experience flying airplanes.


----------



## altsym (May 15, 2013)

nuuumannn said:


> Altsym, don't take this personally, but what qualifications or experience do you have to quantify your disagreement with him? I'm not saying we should naturally accept everything he states, as he has made some about faces in his printed recollections, but I find it hard to accept that so many here should write him off as biased because they don't agree with them. What makes you qualified enough to do so compared with his experience?


I never take anything the wrong way, friend. pinsog made a good example.. Stringbag superior to the Avenger? Come on now. As far as my qualifications, hmmm, well....

Let me put it this way, Einstein knew ALOT about outer space, but had he ever been there?


----------



## OldSkeptic (May 15, 2013)

> When Mr Brown rated the Fairy Swordfish as a better torpedo plane than the Grumman Avenger, it tends to make some of us question his judgement even if we have 0 experience flying airplanes.



Must admit I have never come across that, but taking iit as a fact then you have to look at his rational for that.

Remember he was a Naval test pilot and what he would be evaluating on the suitability for the Royal Navy in its own operations. And there would be a multiplicity of factors that would affect his overall evaluation.
Like takeoff in bad weather, landing in bad weather, abilities on small escort carriers, being able to handle operating in bad weather, etc, etc, etc.
In that case you could see why the Swordfish would be better for (say) British small carrier operations in the Atlantic rather than the Avenger, despite the latter's higher speed and so on.

Context is everything in this sort of thing, so you have to look at the factors considered in the evaluation.


----------



## Aozora (May 16, 2013)

pinsog said:


> When Mr Brown rated the Fairy Swordfish as a better torpedo plane than the Grumman Avenger, it tends to make some of us question his judgement even if we have 0 experience flying airplanes.



Here's what Brown wrote about the Avenger:















Drawing particular attention to:






and his conclusions






As OldSkeptic has said, some context is needed before dissing the comments of someone who has far more experience flying aircraft than all of us combined could hope to have.


----------



## FLYBOYJ (May 16, 2013)

Milosh said:


> Do335s had a problem with overheating of the rear engine.


so does any other pusher/ tractor configuration, right up to the cessna 337


----------



## nuuumannn (May 16, 2013)

> Context is everything in this sort of thing, so you have to look at the factors considered in the evaluation.



Altsym, not having a dig and glad you're not taking it personally, but Pinsog, please show me the quote and in what context it is meant? What were his exact words? OldSkeptic has a very vaild point, and in this instance...



> Like takeoff in bad weather, landing in bad weather, abilities on small escort carriers, being able to handle operating in bad weather, etc, etc, etc. In that case you could see why the Swordfish would be better for (say) British small carrier operations in the Atlantic rather than the Avenger, despite the latter's higher speed and so on.



Brown was right.



> Einstein knew ALOT about outer space, but had he ever been there?



Yes, you do have a valid point, but you're missing mine. If you disagreed with Einstein I'd still ask on what grounds do you disagree with him? Mine was more intended to demonstrate that Brown has a lot of experience in this sort of thing and even if he says something that we might find objectionable, he's got a lot more experience with which to back it up than we do to discount it. So, regardless of what you might know, surely it is still worth examining Brown's opinion, even if you don't agree with it, simply because of the context in which he bases it; that of far greater experience than we could ever have access to, rather than dismissing it because of some accusation with no grounds whatsoever, like a bias to British equipment. 

If I said Brown was Scottish and not English, would it make a difference to how Americans rate him?


----------



## nuuumannn (May 16, 2013)

And I've just read Aozora's post and I say thank you, useful supplier of pertinent information! I used to have a copy of Wings of the Navy, but along with the rest of my book collection at my parent's house, it got given away when they moved overseas.

From what I've read, Brown's assessment of the Avenger is quite fair and balanced without any bias or preference for another type over it. Obviously it refers to the FAA use of the Avenger, but then that is Brown's frame of reference; his experience with it.


----------



## altsym (May 16, 2013)

nuuumannn,

It wouldn't matter to me where Eric Brown was from. BUT in my personal opinion, he does have a small bias towards British aircraft, which is totally understandable.AS far as testing however (in regards to German aircraft) I doubt very much that he (and others.. like Mark Hanna) took the 109 to its limits like in wartime scenarios (for safety reasons). Therefore, they can give a general idea about performance, but not the complete picture, as say a German or Finnish pilot would have in WWII. Those 'seasoned' 109 pilots would now every creek, groan, vibration, and sound from there mounts. 

I believe that Mr.Hanna said that the P-51 would have 'no chance' against the 109 in a lower altitude, lower speed dogfight. But we know that not nessesarily the case. Just like the P-51 wouldn't always shoot down a 109 at high speed and high altitude. in a dogfight


----------



## CobberKane (May 16, 2013)

I suspect expert test pilots are as prone to hyperbole as anyone else. Hanna's statement that the P51 wouldn't stand a chance low and slow against a 109 might be an exaggeration, but the Mustang would be at a serious disadvantage. Brown said that the P 38 was useless in the ETO, which seems more than a little harsh, but then again Brown was writing circa '43, when the Lightning was struggling against the LW while the RAF was enjoying parity (at least) thanks to the Spit IX. On the other hand, accusing another commentator of bias without presenting anymore justification than that persons opinions being at variance with your own leaves you open to the charge of ganesaying (not directed at anyone in particular). Anybody looking for bias masquerading as reasoned argument, go read David Irving.


----------



## nuuumannn (May 16, 2013)

> he does have a small bias towards British aircraft, which is totally understandable



Altsym, can you provide examples of this? 



> I doubt very much that he (and others.. like Mark Hanna) took the 109 to its limits like in wartime scenarios (for safety reasons).



And your point is? Isn't that what test pilots do? Even if that were not the case, what bearing does it have on Brown's experiences? Also, Mark Hanna was not a test pilot, why would he do that in a civilian owned warbird? Somewhere I have a copy of Flypast or something with his recollections of flying Bf 109G Black 6, which I watched flying on many occasions at Duxford, I'll have to see if I can find that particular quote.

Here's a snippet from Wings of the Luftwaffe on the Bf 109G;

"At its rather disapponting low level cruising speed of 240 mph (386 km/h) the Gustav was certainly delightful to fly, but the situation changed as speed increased; in a dive at 400 mph (644 km/h) the conrols felt as if they had seized! The highest speed that I dived to below 10,000 ft (3 048 m) was 440 mph (708 km/h) and the solidity of control was such that this was the limit in my book. However, things were very different at high altitude, and providing the Gustav was kept where it was meant to be (i.e. above 25,000 ft/7 620m) it performed efficiently both in dog fighting and as an attacker of bomber formations. To give some idea of its performance, I measured 384 mph (618 km/h) in level flight at 23,000 ft (7 010 m), which conformed pretty well with the officially claimed maximum speed of 386 mph (621 km/h) at 22,640 ft (6 900 m)."


----------



## Shortround6 (May 16, 2013)

What test pilots do changes with the "mission requirements". 
When flying a single example of a captured enemy plane the goal would more likely be to to fly the plane to 8/10s or 9/10s of the planes limits and preserve the plane for as long as possible. A few 10/10s speed runs and climbs being thrown in but they are more of an engine test than a an airframe test like trying to pull a 7 or 8 G turn. You do have instruments to tell you if the engine is misbehaving, temp and pressure. 

The US Navy had a pre-war requirement (biplane days) that each aircraft type HAD to be tested in a terminal Velocity dive. A 90 degree dive as fast as the airplane would go, not that hard with a high drag biplane but risky enough that it was often contracted out to free lance test pilots. With the coming of monoplanes they had to give it up. Too many other things were entering into the test besides structural strength Like having enough room to pull out. 

Once a test pilot establishes some data points some of the rest of the performance can be calculated from how similar planes behave. Then a few further flights may be done to see if the flight envelope matches the calculations. There is little need for the test pilot to fly the aircraft 10/10s in every conceivable situation or corner of the flight envelope if flying a captured aircraft. 

Even when testing aircraft for one's own company or air force the extreme limits are approached slowly and in incremental steps. Too many test pilots were lost before WW II (and during) by jumping into planes and flying high speed runs or performing acrobatics on early flights.


----------



## pinsog (May 16, 2013)

OldSkeptic said:


> Must admit I have never come across that, but taking iit as a fact then you have to look at his rational for that.
> 
> Remember he was a Naval test pilot and what he would be evaluating on the suitability for the Royal Navy in its own operations. And there would be a multiplicity of factors that would affect his overall evaluation.
> Like takeoff in bad weather, landing in bad weather, abilities on small escort carriers, being able to handle operating in bad weather, etc, etc, etc.
> ...



Look at "Duels in the Sky" by Captain Brown and you will read on pages 214-217 about torpedo bombers. He rates the Swordfish as the best torpedo bomber of WW2. His ranking is as follows:

1. Swordfish
2. Grumman Avenger
3. Nakajima Kate
4. Nakajima Jill

This single ranking is so outrageous that it tends to put a twist on everything else he evaluated, ie: "If he can rank a Swordfish over an Avenger, then is a Spitfire really better than a 109? Or a 190 better then a Spitfire? Or does he smoke crack on a regular basis"


----------



## Shortround6 (May 16, 2013)

It may be no more crack than some of the people who post on this forum 

Which plane sank the greatest number of ships with torpedoes (of course this brings the torpedo into the equation) 
Which plane sank the most tonnage " " " " 
Which plane had the highest hit rate, number of torpedoes dropped vs hits? 
Which plane sank the most for the least losses?

For comparison:

which fighter plane shot down the most enemy planes?

Which fighter shot down the most enemy fighters? (if different) 

Which fighter had the best kill to loss ratio? 

The planes that best answer the last three questions are not really the "best" fighter/s of WW II (Brewster Buffalo on the last one)
But often crop as as such. 

It depends on your criteria and the Swordfish did have 'results' all out of proportion to it's actual flight performance, in part due to having a torpedo that worked and in part due to a lot of it's opposition. 

Does Brown explain his criteria?


----------



## altsym (May 16, 2013)

@ nuuumannn, yeah.. him (Brown) being a Royal Navy pilot. I didn't say it influenced his decisions, only that he had a small bias (ie: like) towards British a/c.
Yeah I know what he said about the 109. Thanks.


----------



## pinsog (May 16, 2013)

Shortround6 said:


> It may be no more crack than some of the people who post on this forum
> 
> Which plane sank the greatest number of ships with torpedoes (of course this brings the torpedo into the equation)
> Which plane sank the most tonnage " " " "
> ...



Where it operated and the conditions it operated from can be 90% of an aircrafts success. Obviously, if the Swordfish would have had to operate in an area of contested air filled with Zero's, it would have made the Devastator look great by comparison.


----------



## nuuumannn (May 16, 2013)

Altsym, bias doesn't mean 'like', it means a demonstration of favouritism and lack of objectivity, just for kicks.



> This single ranking is so outrageous that it tends to put a twist on everything else he evaluated



Why is it so outrageous? My understanding is that the Swordfish sank a greater tonnage of enemy shipping than any other type in the war, that would make it rank higher than the Avenger then, wouldn't it? Again, what is the criteria by which this list is compiled?



> Obviously, if the Swordfish would have had to operate in an area of contested air filled with Zero's, it would have made the Devastator look great by comparison



And every other torpedo bomber operated by the Allies would fare differently in this scenario, because...


----------



## pinsog (May 16, 2013)

nuuumannn said:


> Altsym, bias doesn't mean 'like', it means a demonstration of favouritism and lack of objectivity, just for kicks.
> 
> 
> 
> ...



Your making a torpedo run on a carrier, you have a choice between a 90 mph biplane with a 30 caliber machine gun and a bolt of cloth between you and the Zero coming up behind you OR a modern 270 mph aircraft with a 50 Browning in a power turret and some armor plate with a Zero coming up behind you. Which would you choose?

I think the Swordfish was a beautiful plane and it did an amazing job, but to rank it as the BEST TORPEDO BOMBER OF THE WAR is crazy. Thats like saying the Hellcat was the best fighter of WW2 because it shot down so many Japanese planes. It may have had the highest kill ratio of all time, but it wasn't as good a fighter as a Spitfire, Mustang, Corsair, FW190 and so on. It simply was in a theater where it thrived, same with the Swordfish.

Sinking unarmed freighters one at a time or making suprise night raids on ships at anchor is alot different than a daylight attack on a Japanese Carrier Task Force with a full CAP in the air waiting on your arrival. The Swordfish could not have survived in the Pacific.


----------



## altsym (May 16, 2013)

nuuumannn said:


> Altsym, bias doesn't mean 'like', it means a demonstration of favouritism and lack of objectivity, just for kicks.



bi·as:

a. A preference or an inclination, especially one that inhibits impartial judgment.

Like I said, he's a _*little*_ bias. Nobody who read his works would deny that. Its only natural.


----------



## nuuumannn (May 16, 2013)

> but to rank it as the BEST TORPEDO BOMBER OF THE WAR is crazy.



It ISN'T crazy. If you compare the highest tonnage of enemy shipping sunk, the Swordfish WAS the best because it sank a greater tonnage than any other. Once again, Pinsog; here is a man who has flown both the Avenger and Swordfish and has a pretty good understanding of carrier aviation, so I wouldn't be so dismissive of his findings. You have every right to disagree with him, but on what basis do you have to make your assertion?



> Thats like saying the Hellcat was the best fighter of WW2 because it shot down so many Japanese planes.



I think there are a few on this forum who would state that it was, based solely on this exact criteria. Show us the actual context in which that poll was made and the criteria by which he judges it, then. Scan the pages and put it up here so we can read it.


----------



## pinsog (May 16, 2013)

nuuumannn said:


> It ISN'T crazy. If you compare the highest tonnage of enemy shipping sunk, the Swordfish WAS the best because it sank a greater tonnage than any other. Once again, Pinsog; here is a man who has flown both the Avenger and Swordfish and has a pretty good understanding of carrier aviation, so I wouldn't be so dismissive of his findings. You have every right to disagree with him, but on what basis do you have to make your assertion?
> 
> 
> 
> I think there are a few on this forum who would state that it was, based solely on this exact criteria. Show us the actual context in which that poll was made and the criteria by which he judges it, then. Scan the pages and put it up here so we can read it.



Attacking a Japanese Carrier Task Force in broad daylight, which would you rather be in? And yes, it is still a rediculous statement I don't care how many airplanes he has flown.


----------



## vikingBerserker (May 16, 2013)

So it's settled then, we all agree that the Swordfish was the best twin engine dogfighter.....


----------



## altsym (May 16, 2013)

Oh yes the original question LOL. My vote: Douglas A-20 Havoc.


----------



## nincomp (May 16, 2013)

I have noticed in some forums that many people pick the most obvious choice, at least to them, and never do any original thinking. Clearly vikingBerserker is not one of these people! I applaud your brave choice, sir!



vikingBerserker said:


> So it's settled then, we all agree that the Swordfish was the best twin engine dogfighter.....


----------



## nuuumannn (May 17, 2013)

It was after all, the BEST torpedo bomber! (still awaiting that info Pinsog)


----------



## nincomp (May 17, 2013)

nuuumannn said:


> It was after all, the BEST torpedo bomber!



It is clear to me that you all can think well above my level of comprehension, so I will just keep my mouth (keyboard?) shut.


----------



## OldSkeptic (May 17, 2013)

If you think of it in purely conceptional terms (sort of the way economists think), we can assume that it really is a twin engined plane ... with one engine permanently taken out for maintenance


----------



## Glider (May 17, 2013)

pinsog said:


> Attacking a Japanese Carrier Task Force in broad daylight, which would you rather be in?.


A Torbeau


----------



## cimmex (May 17, 2013)

I never understood Brown’s statement concerning the “Swordfish”. During the Channel Dash the attacking Swordfish didn’t hit anything but all were shot down by Fw190 which covered the battleships.
cimmex


----------



## OldSkeptic (May 17, 2013)

Its funny but when you got through the WW2 twins you can see the failures, the also rans and the successes. 
But there is also a group I classify as "what were they thinking of", or perhaps, more accurately "what were they on"?

Where the designs are just so silly and/or inappropriate that you just wonder.

Number one on my list just just has to be The Blohm Voss BV 141, though strictly not a twin engined plane, it sort of looks like one (_so I'm giving it an honorary 'twin' placing_). I mean were these people on drugs? This is a sort of hallucinogenic nightmare. Sort of the thing you might have nightmares about after far too many banned substances. Most people simply forget it once the hangover disappears. But these people actually built it!

My second is the Do-335 (you might have guessed that from my comments earlier). 
I always think of this as a perfect case of _monomania_. The concept obviously was to reduce the drag from the engines and nacelles that many of the twins of the day suffered from.
But in doing so they created many other (and in many ways far more serious) problems. And that was just in building it. Operating and maintaining it would have have seasoned Luftwaffe engineers and fitters signing up for the Russian front in droves (actually quite a few pilots might have done the same, their survival rates would have been better).

My third is the P-61. This one I never understood, even as a vague concept. The US had operated Beaufighters and Mosquitos. They had a lot of operational experience and therefore knew what a good night fighter should be like .. then they built the P-61. They could have built an 'uber' Mosquito type, or converted one of their fairly fast twin bombers, or (quite sensibly) converted the p-38 into a twin seater with all the gubbbins, even accelerated the Tigercat development (or something like that). They had all these options, ranging from 'very good' to 'fairly good' to 'acceptable', but no they went to the time and effort to build a bomber (fairly big bomber too) sized 'something' that was barely acceptable. 

The US's Do-335 I think. 

The British are not on this list, mainly because they never really built anything totally absurd, instead in that time honoured way that they have: _they just built an awful lot of rubbish_. 

See I'm an equal opportunity 'insulter'.


For the satirically challenged out there (and sadly there are so many of you): *Warning Will Robinson*: some of this is 'dark' humour.


----------



## drgondog (May 17, 2013)

The P-61C was a very good night fighter and would run with the P-51D at altitude..


----------



## wuzak (May 17, 2013)

drgondog said:


> The P-61C was a very good night fighter and would run with the P-51D at altitude..



In 1945....

Basically after the war (ie too late).


----------



## wuzak (May 17, 2013)

Personally, I think that the P-61E would have made a better basis for a night fighter.

Only fixed guns. Pilot and radar operator, under a bubble canopy. 4 x 20mm cannon only, but that was more than sufficient, I would think.


----------



## drgondog (May 17, 2013)

Wuzak - I agree on both counts. My father had the 318th FG after the war. It was a P-61B eqipped outfit but he got a chance to fly the C and had fun twice dogfighting with P-51D's. Much better acceleration and climb. He said the B could turn with a D for about 360 but lost too much energy to hang in that manuever for much longer..

I really don't know much about the E.


----------



## OldSkeptic (May 17, 2013)

wuzak said:


> Personally, I think that the P-61E would have made a better basis for a night fighter.
> 
> Only fixed guns. Pilot and radar operator, under a bubble canopy. 4 x 20mm cannon only, but that was more than sufficient, I would think.



Ah but careful research had shown a hand written note somewhere about a P-61L, with a 3 speed 2 stage R-2800 at 3,200rpm and 3,400bhp, cleaned up profile and laminar flow wings being able to do 448mph, with water injection (and 3,900bhp at 3,300rpm) 462mph (perhaps even more with a hinted at NO2 injection). 
There is a PDF somewhere of it, but it is a bit fuzzy being written on something that sort of looks like a napkin and stained with some sort of light brown substance.....


----------



## wuzak (May 17, 2013)

drgondog said:


> I really don't know much about the E.



The E was a long range fighter version of the P-61 based on the P-61B. It ditched the radar set, added 4 (IIRC) 0.50"s in the nose. Had a new crew nacelle with single bubble canopy, 2 seats and no turret.

As it was based on the B it lost out badly to the P/F-82 on performance grounds, though it was faster than the B. The crew nacelle was similar, or the same, as the one in the F-15 Reporter - though I'm not sure which came first.

P-61E

















F-15 Reporter





http://napoleon130.tripod.com/sitebuildercontent/sitebuilderpictures/p61w11w3.jpg


----------



## wuzak (May 17, 2013)

OldSkeptic said:


> Ah but careful research had shown a hand written note somewhere about a P-61L, with a 3 speed 2 stage R-2800 at 3,200rpm and 3,400bhp, cleaned up profile and laminar flow wings being able to do 448mph, with water injection (and 3,900bhp at 3,300rpm) 462mph (perhaps even more with a hinted at NO2 injection).
> There is a PDF somewhere of it, but it is a bit fuzzy being written on something that sort of looks like a napkin and stained with some sort of light brown substance.....



My point is that the third crew memeber and turret probably weren't necessary. The performance of the E was only slightly better than the B, basically because it punched a smaller hole in the air.

No reason why the P-61A could not have looked like the E.

Wonder why they felt the need to use a turret?

Without it, the P-61 may have been available sooner.


----------



## Shortround6 (May 17, 2013)

OldSkeptic said:


> Ah but careful research had shown a hand written note somewhere about a P-61L, with a 3 speed 2 stage R-2800 at 3,200rpm and 3,400bhp, cleaned up profile and laminar flow wings being able to do 448mph, with water injection (and 3,900bhp at 3,300rpm) 462mph (perhaps even more with a hinted at NO2 injection).
> There is a PDF somewhere of it, but it is a bit fuzzy being written on something that sort of looks like a napkin and stained with some sort of light brown substance.....




All will be revealed on the USAAC '46 web site ?


----------



## Shortround6 (May 17, 2013)

wuzak said:


> Wonder why they felt the need to use a turret?



Because the British were in on the initial planning and requirements? 






Some of the size might be excused because nobody at the initial planning _KNEW_ what the final radar fit would be. Radar was advancing at a fairly rapid pace at the time. Better to have a little extra room than not enough.


----------



## yulzari (May 17, 2013)

drgondog said:


> The P-61C was a very good night fighter and would run with the P-51D at altitude..



and a Vulcan could out perform an F14 Tomcat at altitude but it wouldn't be a choice for a night fighter. Impressive ability to do standing patrols though which, IIRC, was the raison d'etre for the P61 size.


----------



## OldSkeptic (May 17, 2013)

drgondog said:


> The P-61C was a very good night fighter and would run with the P-51D at altitude..



And that altitude is that? 50 feet? It weighed 35,000 lbs on take off.
That's more than a Mossie bomber with a 4.000lbl Cookie and external 100 gal (UK) drop tanks.


----------



## Shortround6 (May 17, 2013)

P-61C was the one with turbos. Pretty much the same engine/s as a P-47N.

A dog at 50 feet but with 2100hp Military power at 30,000ft per engine (and 2800hp WER) it would take a pretty good plane to keep up with it at 30,000ft or above.


----------



## Milosh (May 17, 2013)

The Germans put upward firing guns to good use but without the complexity of a turret. The turret did allow the a/c to sit off to the side instead of under the a/c being attacked thus out of the way of any debris from the attacked a/c.

On the P-61: would a twin 20mm turret have been better than the quad .50s?


----------



## Shortround6 (May 17, 2013)

Milosh said:


> On the P-61: would a twin 20mm turret have been better than the quad .50s?



OH CRAP!!!!

Another 30 pages on the 20mm vs the .50


----------



## Milosh (May 17, 2013)

Shortround6 said:


> OH CRAP!!!!
> 
> Another 30 pages on the 20mm vs the .50



LOL, that didn't even enter my mind. What I was thinking of was a smaller turret as the quad .50 turret caused aerodynamic problems.


----------



## OldSkeptic (May 18, 2013)

Milosh said:


> LOL, that didn't even enter my mind. What I was thinking of was a smaller turret as the quad .50 turret caused aerodynamic problems.



Why bother? The tactical environment was completely different.
The Germans needed Schräge Musik, because it was taking down large night bombers. It made it safer for the nightfighter, letting them creep up into an attacking position without risk form the rear turret.
And it meant they could carefully hit one of the most vulnerable parts of the aircraft, without hitting the bomb bays, which was much more dangerous.

Naturally it was useless in daylight.

Now by mid 43 onwards the tactical requirement was for an allied nightfighter that could takeout Luftwaffe one, plus hitting the small numbers of twin engined night tactical bombers that might be encountered after the invasion. There were no hoards of German night bombers, or day bombers to fight. Plus the British had more than enough for their defence. 

And that last point is a key one. By the end of 41 it was clear the majority of the German bombers were tied up in the Eastern Front and that the British were rapidly building up their night defences to a point where any further Luftwaffe night bombing attempts would suffer tremendous losses (as did happen). Plus they had good operational feedback from the success of the Beaufighter.

So what was needed? From the British experience with night fighting (and their own experience later) that was a better Beaufighter, something fast, with good forward guns, good range, good radar, good speed and agility. 
A turret? Just weight and drag to slow it down, reduced its range and completely useless for any conceivable tactical environment they might face.

Now if by the end of '41 they had looked at that actual operational information and changed the design (which was incomplete at that time), stripped it down to 2 people only, got rid of the turret, did a radical weigh reduction program, improved pilot and radar operator visibility... they they could have had something pretty good and a lot faster than they did (basically a Tigercat like plane a couple of years before the 'real' one arrived).
But they soldiered on with an obsolete operational requirement, the rest as they say, is history.


----------



## Milosh (May 18, 2013)

> From the British experience with night fighting (and their own experience later) that was a better Beaufighter, something fast, with good forward guns, good range, good radar, good speed and agility.



They did with an aircraft from deHavilland > the Mosquito.


----------



## mhuxt (May 18, 2013)

parsifal said:


> In daylight I doubt there were that many dogfights between Mossies and SE fighters.



Tended to be between Coastal Command Mossies and JG 5 over Norway. I have 89 total claims by Mossies for Fw 190s destroyed air-to-air (the majority, IIRC, being Fw 190s of SKG 10), and 34 against 109s. I stress these are claims.


----------



## OldSkeptic (May 19, 2013)

mhuxt said:


> Tended to be between Coastal Command Mossies and JG 5 over Norway. I have 89 total claims by Mossies for Fw 190s destroyed air-to-air (the majority, IIRC, being Fw 190s of SKG 10), and 34 against 109s. I stress these are claims.



Yes, see posts #2 and #25 about the Banff Strike wing.


----------



## mhuxt (May 19, 2013)

OldSkeptic said:


> Yes, see posts #2 and #25 about the Banff Strike wing.


 
Yup, and I concur with your view about A Separate Little War.

There were also assorted 1 v 1 Mossie / 190 encounters - one crew of 333 Sqn (Norwegian) fought with two 190s, after shooting down a Do 24 (latter type from memory).

They were able to out-turn the 190s individually, but then had to evade the other. Got away clean in the ned.


----------



## OldSkeptic (May 19, 2013)

Yes Mhuxt, It was surprised at the Fw-190 nums vs the 109s. Since the 190s were faster at low level (where much of this combat took place), but the 109 could out turn the 190 and in that sort of low level combat turning means a lot. 
Usually with bad weather and very low cloud levels and the Mossies on the deck at 100ft or so, not an environment for a successful 'boom and zoom' type of attack. 

Plus the Mossies would be flat out and even the 190 would be struggling to keep up and the 109s at a speed disadvantage, so if they climb to get altitude for a diving attack, the Mossy just disappears into the sunset.
And with both of them being short ranged, you'd be a but reluctant following the Mossies much out into the North Sea.

Their best chance was when they were coming in for a shipping attack at lower speeds, but the Mossies were coming in under the radar cover and there would be little warning. So even if you managed an intercept it often would be when they are back up to full speed, right on the deck and heading home.

Until they got a couple of Mustang squadrons, the Mossies were originally tasked to escort the Beaufighters and were expected to fight the enemy fighters.

So summing up the point of the thread. You'd pick the P-38 first and the Mossie second and not really anything else that could be called a dogfighter.

And the one I find amazing was some kills by the Tse Tse Mossies, not easy to hit an enemy fighter with that 57mm 6 pounder, but if you did, not much left of it. "Oops, where did my plane go".

There were many battles in the Biscay as well. A separate (and very dangerous, since your survival options were poor) little war indeed.


----------

