drgondog
Major
Lol.. that would be correct. A total and catastrophic loss of coolant would probably result in engine failure or fire in a very short time.
Do-335 ILO the Me-210? A Proposal.
- Thread starter davebender
- Start date
Ad: This forum contains affiliate links to products on Amazon and eBay. More information in Terms and rules
Lol.. that would be correct. A total and catastrophic loss of coolant would probably result in engine failure or fire in a very short time.
Almost to late in the fray...
The 'division' of targets between Spits and Hurricanes is a myth, no?
On the topic:
While I just love the Bf-109Z, Dornier 335-like design would present the most aerodynamically-efficient way of employing the two piston engines in a fighter, so I'm for it. Even if it has to use DB-601E and 3 x MG-151/20 it would've been a blast for 1942. And even in 1944 would be a tough nut for Mustang co.
Exactly.
- Thread starter
-
- #64
davebender
1st Lieutenant
That's my line of thinking. And you don't need DB603 / Jumo 213 / BMW801 monster size (and rare) engines either.
Heck if you could get the air cooling to work even a pair of 1,200 hp P&W R-1830 engines might achieve good results. You have a total of 2,400 hp. The two engines weight a total of 1,134 kg with no need for a heavy liquid cooling system.
parsifal
Colonel
Im a bit sceptical of the 1942 entry for this bird......compared to the FW190 which first flew in 1939, began entering squadron service mid to late 1941, full squadron service 1942.........by comparison the Do335 was a radical design with many new elements and features that would take longer to iron out.
Im also sceptical that introducing yet another major type would be conducive to high serviceability rates. And whilst having aircraft of high performance is a "nice to have" element of your force structure, having aircraft that can stay airborne is a matter of far greater importance. And saying you are going to produce the Do335 in liew of the Me 210 is not valid proposition. There were about 200 Me 210 produced, with a further 1300 of the rderived Me 410s following that. For the Do 335 to have any significant impact it would need several thousand introduced....given that each unit eats two engines instead of one (a major issue for the parts starved Luftwaffe) I tend to think introducing a third type to the Luftwaffe inventory may have been a detrimental decision in certain respects
I also have no idea how an aircraft like the Dornier, with its finicky engines, and tricycle landing gear, would have fared in the eastern front conditions
Im also sceptical that introducing yet another major type would be conducive to high serviceability rates. And whilst having aircraft of high performance is a "nice to have" element of your force structure, having aircraft that can stay airborne is a matter of far greater importance. And saying you are going to produce the Do335 in liew of the Me 210 is not valid proposition. There were about 200 Me 210 produced, with a further 1300 of the rderived Me 410s following that. For the Do 335 to have any significant impact it would need several thousand introduced....given that each unit eats two engines instead of one (a major issue for the parts starved Luftwaffe) I tend to think introducing a third type to the Luftwaffe inventory may have been a detrimental decision in certain respects
I also have no idea how an aircraft like the Dornier, with its finicky engines, and tricycle landing gear, would have fared in the eastern front conditions
- Thread starter
-
- #68
davebender
1st Lieutenant
The tandem engine Do J (Wal) flying boat was flying in November 1922.
I believe it safe to say that if the Do-335 fighter project had started during the autumn of 1937 (i.e. same time as the Fw-190 project) they would have a prototype flying by 1939.
From what I have read the Do-335 was relatively problem free. Certainly it had fewer bugs then the problem plagued Fw-190 radial engines. If development begins during 1937 the Do-335A is likely to enter service before the end of 1940 powered by reliable DB601 engines.
You aren't. The Do-335 woud be ILO the problem plagued Me-210.
Luftwaffe Resource Center - A Warbirds Resource Group Site - Dornier Do 335
Do-335 Range.
Me-210 Range.
Messerschmitt Me 210 - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
The Do-335 has more range then the Me-210 that it would be replacing.
We will place an initial order for 1,000 Do-335s ILO the historical initial order for 1,000 Me-210s. After that we will produce about 200 per month. Similiar to the intended Me-210 production.
The Me-210 also had two engines of exactly the same type.
Hello Juha,
Can't tell you why the British had problems with this, maybe the aircraft in question had a radiator leak or a clog in the system, things like that were common. All sorts of things tended to go wrong when testing enemy material, issues sometimes turning up just by the use of a different type oil or fuel, while other times it was as simple as a clogged radiator.
I can however tell you that the rear engine heat issue was solved after extensive testing with the V6 prototype, the Do-335A-0 1 running successfully at full emergency boost with MW50 engaged for extended periods without any signs of damage to the engine or deterioration in performance.
Last edited:
Yes it did. There was a sequence of inputs the pilot had to do before ejecting. One was blowing the prop off.
One story that did the rounds was that the pilot could loose his arms if he held onto the canopy ejection handles to hard or long. Pure fabrication though. The handles were attached to the fuselage not the canopy.
- Thread starter
-
- #75
davebender
1st Lieutenant
Historically the Do-335 did not exist during 1940. But it could have if RLM had funded some of the Dornier programs. What would this do to the Battle of Britain?
Ju-88A4.
3 Aircrew.
292 mph max speed.
~225 mph cruising speed.
1,300 ft/min climb.
1,429 miles range with internal fuel.
500 kg bomb bay. 5 x 100 kg bombs.
(up to 1,400 kg internal for 50 kg bombs)
Defensive Weapons.
.....4 x 7.92mm MG standard.
.....Various optional weapon packages.
Do-335 A6.
1 Aircrew.
~475 mph max speed.
426 mph max cruising speed.
281 mph economical cruising speed.
4,600 ft/min climb.
500 kg bomb bay. 1 x 500 kg or 2 x 250 kg bombs.
Forward Firing Weapons.
.....1 x 3cm cannon
.....2 x 2cm cannons.
Defensive weapons.
.....Why would you need any?
The Do-335 1940 version would be slower, powered by DB601 engines. But max speed should still be well over 400 mph.
Ju-88A4.
3 Aircrew.
292 mph max speed.
~225 mph cruising speed.
1,300 ft/min climb.
1,429 miles range with internal fuel.
500 kg bomb bay. 5 x 100 kg bombs.
(up to 1,400 kg internal for 50 kg bombs)
Defensive Weapons.
.....4 x 7.92mm MG standard.
.....Various optional weapon packages.
Do-335 A6.
1 Aircrew.
~475 mph max speed.
426 mph max cruising speed.
281 mph economical cruising speed.
4,600 ft/min climb.
500 kg bomb bay. 1 x 500 kg or 2 x 250 kg bombs.
Forward Firing Weapons.
.....1 x 3cm cannon
.....2 x 2cm cannons.
Defensive weapons.
.....Why would you need any?
The Do-335 1940 version would be slower, powered by DB601 engines. But max speed should still be well over 400 mph.
the LW has not 100 kg bombs, the 88 can load only 50kg bombs, 28, if use both bay for bombs only 10 if use the larger for optional fuel tank
- Thread starter
-
- #79
davebender
1st Lieutenant
My point is the technology necessary to produce something smiliar to the Do-335 existed in 1937. If RLM had funded some of the Dornier proposals instead of pouring money into the Me-110 / Me-210 / Me-410 programs the Luftwaffe would have a much more effective Zerstorer during the Battle of Britain.
parsifal
Colonel
Thats like saying the technology for the Me 262 or the Meteor existed in 1940. Sure the technology was there, but the development was not. and that stands for the Do-335 as well. Unless I can see a prototype flying with all developmental issues solved, the facts are the Do-335 was not even close to ready until the latter part of 1944
![](data:image/svg+xml;charset=utf-8,<svg height="1px" width="1px" xmlns="http://www.w3.org/2000/svg" version="1.1"/>)
![](data:image/svg+xml;charset=utf-8,<svg height="16px" width="16px" xmlns="http://www.w3.org/2000/svg" version="1.1"/>)