Ad: This forum contains affiliate links to products on Amazon and eBay. More information in Terms and rules
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
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.
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.
Yes, the fuel mostly used was PN100/130.
B4 isn't as bad as it seems, from what I understand.
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
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.
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.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.
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.
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.
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.
DH Hornet
4 minutes to 20,000ft.