Ad: This forum contains affiliate links to products on Amazon and eBay. More information in Terms and rules
How bad would the extra 2 MK 103s have affected its performance though? The advantage I see is that it could've made it home in case defensive gunners disabled the forward engine (though that would make it easy prey for escorting fighters). Considering the two DB-603s could power two of the later Fw 109 Doras or Ta-152 Cs, those may have been the better application. The Do could've made a good nightfighter and fast bomber (then again the Ar 234 was still better at that). The question is how bad of a bottleneck the engines were compared to airframes and pilot availability.
The Ta 152 C (3-5 prototypes iirc) and according to some sources the Fw 190 D-15 (projected) were designed around the DB 603, though. Tank favoured the DB 603 over the Jumo, it was better at high altitude and had a better potential for further development.As for the engines, the Doras and the -152's used the more powerful Jumo Ju 213, not the DB 603, so there was no conflict there; in fact, IMHO, the 335 probably would've been a better a/c with Ju 213's, but they were all going to the Doras, the -152's, and the Ju 188 at the end of the War, so they weren't available for the 335.
the Do 335 as a night fighter would of been dropped there was no need for it when the Me 262B-2a was ready that I have tech data and will be included in my book.
Moskito-jagd über Deutschland
it is in preparation ~ of over 30 years of research, I have never spent so much time on anything in all my life ........
E ~
The main difficulties are:
- Landing Gear: is too weak, doesn't retract in 80 per cent of the conducted flights, wrong construction
- Hydraulics: especially unreliable concerning the landing gear when retracted
- Cooling, rear engine: Cooling leaky, control of the rear cooling flaps is too sensible. This leads to vibrations which in turn can lead to insecure flight attitudes, especially with low level flights. Regulation of the cooling flaps of the front engine is so bad that it can lead to under-cooling of the engine [odd since the installation seems similar to the Jumo 213 on the Fw-190 D or to those of the Ju 88 which don't report these problems afaik]
- Compass installation: the level [horizontal] mother compass installation leads to variations of up to 30 degrees (this led to the loss of one Do 335 on transit flight from Munich to Rechlin, Fw Wollank shot down by British fighters); emergency compass "not compensateable" due to disadvantageous relative strengths in the cockpit [???], variation of up to 30 degrees possible
- Radio: FuG 16: range too small; FuG 125: assessment not complete yet
- Canopy: very bad view; CO-seal not secure yet, opening and closing is too complicated both when entering the cockpit and on emergency exits [guess they didn't have the ejection seats yet?]
- E-Engine: The Do 335 is currently planned with DB 603 E engine. These are at the moment not used for the rear engine as they led to malfunctions (Getriebsstirnrad am Laderitzen gerissen) in 9 cases (on two planes: WrksNr. 109 and V 3). Alterations are currently under development at DB.
Flight evaluation:
There are no difficulties flying the plane. Somewhat distracting is the fact that the rear engine and propeller are not visible from the cockpit. Rear Engine can only be observed by looking at the instruments, becomes second nature after a few flights.
Take-off and landing are normal with weak tendencies to break out. Take-off length around 800m landing length is 1000m with favorable loading.
Performance: The flown performances are below the specifications of the industry. Performance down low 600 km/h, at altitude 800 km/h. By E'Stelle and Versuchverband OKL top speeds of 570km/h and 730 km/h and sometimes below were flown. These are prototype aircraft, further loss in performance for production aircraft due to installation of further equipment is possible (up to 20 km/h).
Curving: maneuverability is about on par with the Me 410, while speed increases to 300-350km/h. Acceleration high in dive, low in climb due to weight of the Do 335 (destroyer version take off weight is 10.4 tons).
Flights at high altitude not conducted yet.
View to the rear is bad. Sight blisters did not improve this because diameter of the plane is too big. During combat attacks from the rear and rear high have to be considered. View to the front low obscured by infavourable construction of the cowling. Changes for improvement are currently not possible.