Ad: This forum contains affiliate links to products on Amazon and eBay. More information in Terms and rules
Sounds interesting OldSkeptic, can you please provide a title and author? Thanks.[...]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.
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.Any others you can think of that are better than those listed?
The 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 had speed and firepower, but I thought it was not much of a dog fighter.
Doghtfighting with a P-70 havoc ??
262 was a great airframe with crappy engines, the Meteor was great engines within a crappy airframe.
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.
Possibly. What is important include a.) initial roll response to overcome intertia and b.) sustained Roll rate. Do you have any date regarding the mass distributions?
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
Unless you have Cdo data you don't have a notion of the ability of the Do 335 to sustain energy with low drag characteristics compared to other ships. Sustained turn performance is about a.) CL, b.) Wing Loading, c.) Drag, which not only comprises CDo and CDi but also Profile Drag of airframe in high AoA environment... do you have the other data other than wing loading? What was CLmax without flaps, and if manuevering flaps are used what is the reduction of CL/CD?
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.
What is the CLmax and what does the CL/CD curve look like? You can't make simple generalizations based on laminar vs non laminar.
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
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.
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