Best twin engine dogfighter

[wuzak]

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]

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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]

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]

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.



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.



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.




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



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



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

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]

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]

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]

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.

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.

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.

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!).

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]

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]

DH Hornet

4 minutes to 20,000ft.

Neil.

 

[vikingBerserker]

Now that is impressive.

 

[parsifal]

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

 

[Neil Stirling]

Sea Hornet.

Neil.

 

[tomo pauk]

Just a big 'thank you', Neil

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

 

[altsym]

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]

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.

(...)

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.

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]

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]

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

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

I just want one.

 

[bobbysocks]

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]

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]

DH Hornet

4 minutes to 20,000ft.

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