Do-335 ILO the Me-210? A Proposal.

Ad: This forum contains affiliate links to products on Amazon and eBay. More information in Terms and rules

That isn't true. There was no possibility to mass produce a jet engine prior to about 1943. There was also no possibility for Germany to produce a decent domestically designed air cooled twin radial engine any sooner. The technology had yet to be invented.

A tandem engine fighter aircraft is an entirely different matter. The Dornier patent necessary to make the rear prop shaft work was filed 3 August 1937. After that it's just a matter of RLM funding the design work for a new fighter aircraft.

It seems odd to me that mid 1930s Germany took a chance on so many unproven technologies yet ignored Dornier's proven technology with tandem engine aircraft.
 
Do-335A-6 equipped with the following would've been one very impressive night fighter and Mossie killer:

3x 30mm Mk103's
FuG280 "Kiel" Zeiss passive IR vision detector with a range of 4000m (Goodbye Mossies!)
FuG351 "Korfu Z" Passive radar homing device with a range of 300km (Improved Naxos)
FuG25a "Erstling" Ground-to-air Identification friend or foe (IFF) transponder with a range of 100 km
FuG 24SE w/ZVG 24: Ground/Air Radio w/ homing device
Fu Bl 3 E w/AWG 1: Bad Weather Landing Aid w/ blind landing radio equipment
FuG 101: Bad Weather Landing Aid precision altimeter

do335-c4.jpg
 
Last edited:
Ipressive looking fighter.

How was the radar mounted? I've never seen a German Sensing system that was standardly mounted anywhere but the nose. Would it be on the wing tip?

Where were the 30MM Machine guns mounted? One in each wing root and one through the prop?
 
timshatz said:
Ipressive looking fighter.

How was the radar mounted? I've never seen a German Sensing system that was standardly mounted anywhere but the nose. Would it be on the wing tip?
Click to expand...

Roger that, close to the wing tips on each side.

Where were the 30MM Machine guns mounted? One in each wing root and one through the prop?
Click to expand...

Yeah the 30mm guns would be mounted like on the A-1:


Two were mounted midwing and one in the engine.

The FuG280 night vision sight would be mounted inside each cockpit and turned on once an enemy a/c was tracked to within 4km by the Naxos system, it would then allow the pilot to clearly see the enemy a/c in pitch black darkness.
 
Last edited:
Hello Soren
we have talked this earlier, but as Aders writes in his History of the German Night Fighter Force 1917-1945 p. 181 on FuG 280 "although on dark night it was possible to detect aircraft up to 4 km away, on lighter nights Kiel Z was also sensitive to starlight, and proved completely useless within the sight of ground fires."

Juha
 
Err, Juha why would you need it on a bright night?? It was for use in pitch black darkness. And even modern NVD's are very sensitive to the light from fires.

There was ofcourse also Spanner IV which was also passive but less sensitive.
 
Eh, there tended to be lot of ground fires in Germany in 45 on nights BC operated. And Aders doesn't write bright night, he used term lighter nights, even some stars disturbed Kiel Z.

Juha
 
He says it was sensitive to starlight Juha, he doesn't write that it ruined the effectiveness of the equipment. Geez, I really am starting to believe that you love anything Allied and hate anything German seeing how can claim a wooden a/c is as durable as metal one in an effort to defend the Mossie somehow. And now you're bashing on equipment which by actual accounts worked very well being capable of detecting other a/c 4km away in the dark. So it didn't have an effective range of 4km on a bright night, so what? It was probably never worse than 2-3km because of disturbance from starlight, whilst looking directly down at fires was a bad idea in any event nomatter what NVD you were using. Approach from below and make sure you dont get the light from the fire close to your line of sight and that problem should be solved...

Come on now Juha, credit where credit is due please.
 
Last edited:
Heh
I can give credit to lot of German equipment, having even used some in the army. But Aders isn't very enthusiast on IR equipment and IMHO he is expert on LW Nightfighters and he doesn't say anything on looking "directly down at fires ".

Juha
 
Last edited:
No equipment is equally effective under all conditions. The point is that 1944 and later German night fighters had a very comprehensive avionics suite. That made them effective under most conditions. Have you seen this?
Axis History Forum • View topic - German vs Allied radar and electronic warfare equipment
 
I think the record of the Mosquito stands as its own testament. There is no need to denigrate German equipment or manpower, as in the end this merely insults those that defeated them.

In the last 5 months of the war, the Mosquitos lost a total of 92 aircraft in combat (and that includes the bomber and fighter bomber variants) , whilst the night fighter groups, including the mahoud and intder groups, and groups undertaking flower missions, shot down well over 250 German night fighters. as well as being responsible for an unknown, but nevertheless large number, of crash landings, as the Night fighter pilots, crashed rather than risk attack from these Mosquitos that you are attempting to denigrate, and rob them of their rightful place in history. Overall, the Mosquito fighters shot down over 850 enemy night fighters, including 67 FW 190s.

As an operational type the Mosquito had the lowest loss rate in the RAF, was responsible for the succesful completion of some of the most daring and amazing bomber missions in history, of any nationality and was regarded at least with great respect by their most critical observers...their enemies.

And yet, if this and similar threads are to be believed, it was a dog, fell to pieces, was not durable, too slow to stay out of trouble and cannon fodder for the luftwaffe.

You will excuse me if I say the facts dont support these sorts of statements and observations that you are making
 
Last edited:
Parsifal AFAIK no'one ever called the Mosquito a dog or too slow. It was fast, could carry a heck of a bomb load and proved an excellent night fighter. And in terms of being durable, it held up well in the role it had which mostly kept it out of the direct line of fire.

As for shooting down 850 enemy a/c, well that probably needs to be cross referenced first before we have the right figure. But the Mosquito did prove trouble for the Germans, there's no denying it, it was a great a/c. However if a Mosquito was caught then it was bad with capital letters, cause it didn't take much to shoot one down.

That's it. Hope I didn't offend anyone
 
It does not offend me, but I think it offensive to the memory of the aircraft, those that flew it, but most of all, to the brave men that had to fight against this machine.

For the record, the Mosquito was durable and very resistant to battle damage. Cant give you figures, but I knew guys who flew them, and none of them ever thought of it as weak or not durable. It was armoured, fire resistant, and able to take punishment. I know you dont agree with that, and I will never convince you otherwise, but then, I at least have met and talked to people with first hand experience
 
Offensive to the a/c??? So now you can't point out the flaws of an aircraft? I guess people saying that the Me262 had issues with its engines are being offensive towards the a/c and the guys who flew it... come on now.
 
For the record, I think some of the statements made in this forum concerning the 262 are a bit offensive to its legacy.

A thing can have a legacy, just as a person can. You are getting emotions mixed up with effect . An Me 262 has no emotion, but it has a legacy, a niche in history that is important to those that believe in that thing.

There is nothing wrong with analysis or even criticism, but it needs to be factually based. One approach is to look at the item from an engineering point of view, which is where you do well, another is to look at results. If the Mosquito was a hot air balloon, that still managed to shoot down 850 aircraft, its still an historical marvel, based on the results it achieved
 
Why are you getting your panties up in a bunch over me saying that the Mosquito was easier to bring down than an a/c built with stronger materials. How does me pointing that simple little fact out suddenly transform into me saying the Mosquito was a dog, slow, unreliable, cannon fodder for the LW etc etc in your mind??

This happened in the warship thread as-well Parsifal, you winded getting offended over nothing. Come on now, I didn't call the Mosquito junk, I didn't say it didn't do well in service. All I did say was that being made from wood it didn't take damage as-well as other a/c such as the Ju-88.

And again, regarding the 850 a/c shot down, lets get it cross referenced first.
 
Lets chill. Parsifal just qualified his statement and from what I read, agrees with you Soren on some points. I think both of you guys need to take a breather, and read over the posts and see that you both are close to saying similar points.

I can''t think of one aircraft in history that didn't need improvement in a least one area.
 
I can''t think of one aircraft in history that didn't need improvement in a least one area.
Click to expand...

Exactly Njaco, and mentioning them is ok in my book, as long as you don't make it seem worse than it is, which I dont believe I did.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Users who are viewing this thread

Total: 1 (members: 0, guests: 1)

Similar threads

An early 'Me 209' instead of the Me 309?
2
Replies
21
Views
2K
TM06
T
P-47 roll rate - a bit of new (to me) info
Replies
1
Views
707
Shortround6
S
S
Why did the Me 109 roll and turn so bad at speed?
5 6 7
Replies
134
Views
11K
GregP
C
An early Me 264
Replies
5
Views
848
tonycat77
Spitfire vs Me-109
Replies
3
Views
1K
PAT303
P