Do 335

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

Without running the risk of sounding like an ass, but how does a Me309 have anything to do with a Do335?

I can understand the comparison between the Fw187 and the Do335, since they're twin engined (i'm surprised the Fw187 hasn't appeared in the WWI discussion, actually) but seriously, where does the ill-fated Me309 project come into comparison with the Do335?

The Do335 had the advantage of speed over the 309, it was larger and could carry a heavier loadout. It had a sound design and it showed good flight characteristics for an aircraft of it's size. It was fast, which would have proven very troublesome to Allied fighters, making the Do335 capable of choosing when to fight and when to leave un-challenged. It packed a heavy punch, so anything in it's sights would have been in big trouble.

In all honesty, the Do335 had merit to it's design and application. If (and it always comes down the the big IF) this had been produced sooner in larger quantities than 35 units by war's end, then it may have had time to not only make a name for itself, but evolve as most successful airframes do.
 

I agree, about the only thing that the Fw 187 has in common with the Do335 was that you could have written that about either of them. Just substitute Fw 187 for Do 335 and 7 for 35. At least the Do 335 was planned to go into series production whereas the Fw 187 never even got that far

I think that the Do 335 did have potential. The development problems were being overcome in the face of difficult conditions. How well it would have performed the various roles envisaged for it we will never know. I think it would have made a decent fast bomber, a very good night fighter and reconnaissance aircraft but I'm not so sure about a heavy day fighter.
The last is a role which was being rendered redundant by the performance of the opposing single engine fighters. Just because one Do 335 supposedly out ran a flight of Tempests on one occasion does not mean it could have held its own against that sort of aircraft in combat.
Cheers
Steve
 
The Fw-190A-8 started carrying the additional 'drum' fuel tank behind the pilot (115 L), bringing the total fuel carried at 640 liters. With that tank in place, there was no more space for MW-50 (cannot be used with BMW-801 anyway), nor for GM-1 tank. 640 liters is still 20% less than 770 than what is claimed the 309 was being able to carry, and Ta-152C carried almost twice what Fw-190A-7 and earlier were capable for (wing was just a tad bigger), and almost 300 L more than Bf-309.
The wing fuel tanks (outboard of the cannons, 4 tanks total per plane) were to be incorporated into the Doras, too. Supposedly the Fw-190D-12/R5 and D-13/R5 were the 'names' of the planes with those.
 
tomo pauk said:
The Fw-190A-8 started carrying the additional 'drum' fuel tank behind the pilot (115 L), bringing the total fuel carried at 640 liters.
Click to expand...

I believe that the 115litre auxiliary fuel tank was introduced on the A-9, but don't want to start a debate about what an A-9 is! DU+JB, W.Nr. 170002, an A-8, was the first aircraft known to have been fitted with the 801 TS engine. It may have been designated V52 making it effectively an A-9 prototype. It first flew in this configuration on 30th August 1944 and shortly thereafter A-9s started to be produced at Cottbus and Nordenham.

This was carried over to the D-9 which carried 520 litres as standard (in the two self sealing fuselage tanks) and an additional 115 litres in the auxiliary fuel tank which could be fitted instead of the GM-1 tank. The aircraft carried enough oil to operate with this total fuel load,635 litres.
Oil consumption is almost invariably overlooked by those seeking to increase the endurance of an aircraft by adding more fuel.
The D-9 could of course carry a 300litre drop tank but the oil system was not designed to cope with this.
Cheers
Steve
 
The 115 L tank was introduced with A-8, the A-9 also using it. The A-9 was more or less the A-8 with TS engine, and many A-8s received that engine when overhauled, thus becoming the A-9 in effect. Similar story as with Spit I/II -> Spit V, or Spit V -> Spit IX or XII. The A-8 was basically A-7 with that 115 L tank. More on A-8 weight and fuel here (weight 4365 kg), here (table header lists "115L tank or GM-1 tank", 4300 kg), here.

The last link also gives the fuel volume for the D-9 as 520 liters, the space where the A-8 and A-9 were carrying the 115L tank was occupied with MW-50 tank of same volume. I cannot find any source that would confirm the D-9 carrying GM-1 installation.
The D-9 could of course carry a 300litre drop tank but the oil system was not designed to cope with this.
Click to expand...

Care to share some info re. this?
 
You are correct about the A-8, I've had time to look it up...... my bad
The self sealing 115 litre fuel tank was the standard fitting from August 1944. The plan was that it could be changed for an unprotected MW 50 tank of 115 or 140 litres or a GM1 tank of 85 litres. The use of GM1 was abandoned in January 1944 (Ago was to have built this version) so it certainly didn't get fitted to the D-9.

Original specification for the D-9 did include a GM-1 installation, via Smith and Creek,

"For increased high altitude performance an 85 litre GM 1 tank may be installed in the rear fuselage. At an average rate of consumption of 100g/sec this provides for approximately 17 minutes of operation."

This sort of contradiction is not unusual.

It was the installation of this auxiliary fuel tank as standard that led to the FuG 16 radio equipment being moved from Bulkhead eight to the area behind the pilot. An access door appeared on the port side to allow access to the equipment.
The ETC 501 was also moved forward by 200mm.

The only information I have on oil capacity is that when the 300l drop tank is used "part of the cold start mixture will have to be sacrificed".

Cheers

Steve
 
This sort of contradiction is not unusual.
Click to expand...

Indeed, in many ways
Eg. German-language Wikipedia entry states that Fw-190A-8 was regularly using the MW-50 system, despite the fact that no operative Fw-190A ever carried MW-50 system (the tank behind pilot was for fuel or GM-1). Again, any corrections are welcomed.

Similar thing was for Doras - if they carried MW-50 tank behind pilot, that excludes both fuel and GM-1 tanks using that place. Anyway, I've located data for the 213A with GM-1, should be adding maybe 50% more HP above ~25000 ft:

 
The Me 309 used several different 603 engines including 603G prototypes
The BMW 801 could be used with MW system although it's said to be less effective than the C3 fuel system they used. With the fuel shortages late-war they were believed to switch from C3 to MW ystem to conserve fuel.
The 801TS was not an engine, it was the complete interchangable engine with all external mountings ready to be bolted onto an aircraft. The engine used in the A-9 was the 801S.
The 115l-tank in the D-9 was intended for MW but could also be used for fuel.
The initial A-8 were delivered without the 115l tank but were prepared for installation and was often backfitted in the field. Regulare delivery with tank in summer 44.
300l extra fuel should be no problem regarding oil reserve, the combination of 300+115l may be a problem but with the later 44 engines they increased the oil capacity if I remember right (801S + 801Q with more armor for the oil coller + increased capacity oil tank).
Can't remember to have seen a comment regarding oil problems with D-9 + 300l DT.
 
tomo pauk said:
German-language Wikipedia entry states that Fw-190A-8 was regularly using the MW-50 system, despite the fact that no operative Fw-190A ever carried MW-50 system (the tank behind pilot was for fuel or GM-1). Again, any corrections are welcomed.
Click to expand...

I avoid Wikipedia like the plague. Of course there are some good and well written entries but the lack of editorial control means a lot of BS gets on to

D.(Luft)T.2190 A-8 is the official Luftwaffe handbook on the A-8 and here's what it says.

"Behind bulkhead eight there is also provision for the installation of a GM-1 tank, 85 litre capacity, or an auxiliary fuel tank, 115 litre capacity."

No mention of MW 50 anywhere. I would tend to agree with you.

On the other hand Shacklady states, with no reference, that "the reintroduction of the MW50 water-methanol engine booster gave the Fw 190 A-8 additional airspeed when crucially needed.." (2003)
He also refers to the aircraft's increased fuel capacity, and you can't have both!

Though never operational, the proposed G-8 version was to be MW 50 equipped and the testing was to be done on V50 according to a "Sonderausrustung Entwicklungsmitteilung" dated 25th August 1943. I love those German compound words! Let's say "special equipment development notice", though I'm open to suggestions. The whole thing was cancelled early next year anyway.

The first test aircraft for MW50 using a BMW engine was W.Nr. 1469, an A-5.

Someone who knows more about the BMW 801 series engine would have to tell me if MW50 was ever used on operational aircraft.


Cheers

Steve
 
Last edited:
Just to be crystal clear, I've said:
[This sort of contradiction is not unusual.]
Indeed, in many ways
Eg. German-language Wikipedia entry...
Click to expand...

In other words, they have it wrong
 
Thanks Denniss.
I was aware of the injection of C3 as a means of cooling the charge to the engine. I've read of problems with MW50 in conjunction with the earlier 801 series engines though this may have been solved on later versions.

Shacklady has got something wrong because you can't have the extra 115 litre of fuel and MW50 in the same tank!

The comment on the oil consumption of the D-9 was that when using a 300 litre drop tank in conjunction with the extra internal tank some of the cold start mixture would be sacrificed. I am unclear what exactly that means.

Cheers

Steve
 
where does the ill-fated Me309 project come into comparison with the Do335?
Click to expand...
Long range. The same reason Fw-187 comes into the comparison.

If the mission dictates long range then suggesting range was Me-309s only asset is a poor argument. Better a mediocre fighter aircraft which can reach the objective then a superb fighter aircraft which cannot. Otherwise the Me-163 (range 40km) would have been a world beater interceptor well into the early 1950s.
 
The Me309 is single engined, this is about the Do335 which had two engines. Comparing the two isn't realistic.

If you want to compare comparable types based on the Me309, then why not look at the proposed me609 even though it never left at the drawing board. Same would go for the Bf109Z-1.

In reality, the Do335 had a combat range of over 720 miles (1,160 km), the He219 had a range of 960 miles (1,540 km), the Ar240 had a range of 1,243 miles (2,000 km) and as much as range is an important quality, it's what it's capable of doing when it gets there, that matters. otherwise we could look at the Hs124V2, which had a range of 2,610 miles (4,200 km) but was slower and lightly armed.

And the Fw187 had a range of 650 miles...
 
Last edited:
tomo pauk said:
The wing fuel tanks (outboard of the cannons, 4 tanks total per plane) were to be incorporated into the Doras, too. Supposedly the Fw-190D-12/R5 and D-13/R5 were the 'names' of the planes with those.
Click to expand...

Just to clarify, are you sure that the Ta-152Cs had only four wing bag tanks, and not six like the H-1? I do seem to recall the D-12s and -13s could only hold four.

Also, could a Dora be both a /R5 and a /R11? (/R16??)
 
P-38, P-47 and P-51 designs have little in common except long range but they are comparable since they all meet mission requirement to escort long range bombers.

Fw-187, Me-309 and Do-335 meet the same requirement.

Fw-190 was a decent short range fighter aircraft but it's the wrong aircraft when the objective is 500 miles from your airfield or if you are required to loiter over the Bay of Biscay for a couple hours to guard against British ASW aircraft.
 
Oh, my mistake, I thought we were looking at twin engined aircraft for comparable applications, not comparing things with wings and maybe a cockpit. And maybe an engine.

The Me309 had an approximate range of 685 miles (1,100 km) which was just a few miles further than the Fw187, neither of which could compare to the P-38's range of about 1,300 miles (2,100 km)

So how would the Me309 make it 500 miles and "loiter" and even then, it was lightly armed (2 MG and 2 light cannon) to deal with any enemy contact.

I listed a progression of twins that had range and firepower up there, but if we're going to try and make comparisons with aircraft that lead nowhere, then we're simply doing the same thing the RLM did in WWII.

Even the Fokker G.I had better range (938miles/1,510km) and firepower (8 x 7.9mm MG foreward/1 x 7.9mm MG rear) and was available to the Luftwaffe in 1940
 
Hi, Silence. Sorry if I was not being crystal clear.
The D-12 and D-13 were to be equipped with 4 wing tanks each, exact volume is unknown to me. The volume of fuel in wing tanks of the Ta-152H-1* was 400L in five tanks, the 6th tank (inner left actually; noted at drawing, too) was to carry 70L of MW-50, so that would yield some 330L for the Doras with wing tanks? The position for the 2 wing tanks was to serve as a place for verically-fired weapons, tanks not being installed in that case.
Hope that I'm not mistaking about following:
The Fw-152C-1 and 152E-1 were to carry fuel in all 6 tanks, 1064L total (vs. 994L for the 152H-1), the C-1 and E-1 tanks for MW-50 being in rear fuselage (140L for those two) . Here is the fuel and MW-50 volume listed.

I'm not familiar with /R11 nor /R16 equipment sets, care to elaborate?
Between the wing stations (ribs?) 3 and 4, and 7 and 9 the late Doras were to carry tanks, the Ta-152 was to carry another between the stations (ribs?) 4 and 6.

*the 'Monografie Lotnize' book states that Ta-152H-0 did not featured GM-1 nor MW-50 tanks, the rear tank being filled with 115L of fuel instead. The H-1 was to have 85L of GM-1 mixture (tank in rear fuselage) and 70L of MW-50.

 
Me309 had an approximate range of 685 miles (1,100 km) which was just a few miles further than the Fw187, neither of which could compare to the P-38's range of about 1,300 miles
Click to expand...

That defies common sense. P-38J didn't enter service until August 1943. P-38H and earlier models carried less fuel then Fw-187 and the aircraft was considerably heavier. How could P-38H possibly have twice the range?
 
stona said:
I avoid Wikipedia like the plague. Of course there are some good and well written entries but the lack of editorial control means a lot of BS gets on to
...
Click to expand...

If we were to believe the books as new as from yaer 2008 (4+Publication book on the Ta-152), the BMW-801D in the Fw-190 was featuring a two stage supercharger?? The same book says this about the Jumo-213:

It must be stressed that this engine was not turbo-supercharged (ie., it did not have supercharging from the recycling of hot exhaust gases, but used instead air).

Used the air to power the supercharging??
The same book hardly mentions that Jumo 213E was a better hi-alt engine because it was outfitted with a 2-stage supercharger, and we cannot read that DB-603L was featuring the same. On the other hand, the MW-50 and GM-1 abbreviations are mentioned in almost every second sentence, despite the Ta-152H-0 being without those.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Users who are viewing this thread

Total: 1 (members: 0, guests: 1)

Similar threads

N
How does Ural bombers(Ju-89/Do-19) compared to stuff luke B-17 or Lancaster?
Replies
1
Views
874
GregP
Things you can do with a J3 Cub
Replies
15
Views
971
Elvis
A
Couldn't a WW2 STOL do the same?
Replies
17
Views
1K
special ed
S
J
What was wrong with the Do-217?
Replies
13
Views
3K
elbmc1969
E
Hornet Deck Load for the Doolittle Raid
2
Replies
35
Views
2K
SaparotRob
Menu
Log in
Register