Mike Williams
Senior Airman
- 572
- Oct 19, 2006
Thanks for the info OldSkeptic. I've ordered the book based on your recommendation.
Best twin engine dogfighter
- Thread starter Thorlifter
- Start date
Ad: This forum contains affiliate links to products on Amazon and eBay. More information in Terms and rules
vinnye
Senior Airman
Westland Whirlwind gets my vote. I love the Mossie, but dont think she was a genuine dogfighter?
FLYBOYJ
"THE GREAT GAZOO"
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
Colonel
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
Senior Airman
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!
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
Captain
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.
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.
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
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
Captain
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.
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
1st Lieutenant
IMO F-111 is a better comparison. Do-335 was a high speed light bomber with some ability to defend itself if necessary.
GregP
Major
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.
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.
Last edited:
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.
So were the Spitfire, Mustang and Thunderbolt as they to carried bombs.
davebender
1st Lieutenant
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
Major
I have a great pic of the G-1:
you consider the g-1 a bomber as well then?
davebender
1st Lieutenant
Yup.
Rather light though with only 300kg bomb bay.
Rather light though with only 300kg bomb bay.
Shortround6
Major General
He 51?
Vought F4U ?
Vought F4U ?
