Do 335

stona · Nov 11, 2013

tomo pauk said:
*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.

That sounds right to me. Hermann reckons that the H-1 and H-10 should both have had both systems as standard.
Cheers
Steve

Click to expand...

Shortround6 · Nov 11, 2013

davebender said:
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?

It didn't.

On the other hand:

P-38 can fly 840 miles on 250 gallons of fuel. Not saying it was smart to fly at those speeds or altitudes and since the earlier planes were a bit more more streamline they might get a few more miles from the same fuel.

P-38s also carried drop tanks earlier than some other US fighters. Flying the Atlantic in the summer of 1942.

tomo pauk · Nov 11, 2013

Steve - the H-10?

davebender said:
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

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?

Despite the disclaimer saying that figures are not (yet) flight-checked, they should not be that far off. 2640 miles with 890 US gals (the 2x300 gals drop tanks are attached, minus the allowance for warm up, take off and climb to 5000 ft):

Aozora · Nov 11, 2013

tomo pauk said:
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.

Bought it, disappointed now lingers on shelf, will probably sell: has anyone bought or read Thomas Hitchcock's book on the Ta 152? The Focke-Wulf Ta 152 By Thomas H. Hitchcock Book Review by Brett Green

I have the books on the Ar 234 Do 335 so I'm hoping to complete the series.

tomo pauk · Nov 11, 2013

What were the main disappointments?

Denniss · Nov 11, 2013

I'm not the specialist in US a/c but I remember to have read these 300 gal tanks were ferry tanks and not intended for combat use.

tomo pauk · Nov 11, 2013

The 300 gal tanks have been able to be fully pressurized (as seen at table, altitudes up to 30000 ft are listed), and P-47s and P-38s were using those, especially P-47N. It was the 200 (205?) gal tank at P-47s that was for ferry purposes only, since it was not able to be pressurised (the fuel will boil above 15000 ft) and was likely to stay attached to the plane, despite pilot's wishes

Aozora · Nov 11, 2013

tomo pauk said:
What were the main disappointments?

The main failing is no bibliography or notes about sources, and no index - finding information means wading back through the book.

Also other things, one of which you've noted; another example is a statement that a captured Ta 152H-1 wasn't tested using GM 1 or MW 50 because the "British did not have supplies of theses concoctions" - this is straight after saying that the aircraft was never formally tested "because it was of no great interest to the Allies", and then explaining that the only tests carried out were "informal' tests by Eric Brown.
*Did Brown have the authority to ask that Nitrous Oxide or a mix of Methanol Water be provided so he could take the Ta 152 up for a spin even if no formal performance tests were to be carried out?

Then there's a comment about "Hawker Tempest fighter bombers"; no, they weren't carrying bombs, they were out on an armed recce mission.

*Dang it* Now that I'm re-reading it...

silence · Nov 11, 2013

stona said:
tomo pauk said:

*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.

That sounds right to me. Hermann reckons that the H-1 and H-10 should both have had both systems as standard.
Cheers
Steve

Click to expand...

That's my understanding, too, with the MW-50 being in the left inside (nearest the wing root) bag tank and the GM-1 being in the tank behind the cockpit. Also, I don't believe that the H-0 had the wing tanks; only the H-1. But as usual I could be wrong.

Click to expand...

silence · Nov 11, 2013

tomo pauk said:
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.

View attachment 247651

R-11 is the all-weather flying package. R-16 is R-5 plus R-11 (okay, I admit that was very bad and deserving of a ban - or at least a wedgie).

GregP · Nov 12, 2013

What has all this to do with the Do 335, the title of this thread?

Just saying ...

GrauGeist · Nov 12, 2013

GregP said:
What has all this to do with the Do 335, the title of this thread?

Just saying ...

I asked myself, that a while back, Greg

I can see comparisons with twins (Do335 was a twin, after all) but then the dreaded "thread drift" set in...

tomo pauk · Nov 12, 2013

Sorry about that, I've contributed to the drift, too.

bob44 · Nov 12, 2013

I did find a read on the 335, by a German pilot, flown near the end of the war.
In German. Dornier Do 335 ? Mein letzter Flug mit der Do 335

stona · Nov 13, 2013

Ta 152 H-10 was a proposed high altitude reconnaissance aircraft based on the H-0 hence the GM-1. The original designation may have been E-2, it's a bit confusing. E-1 was a proposed medium altitude reconnaissance version (with MW 50)
Cheers
Steve

tomo pauk · Nov 13, 2013

Okay, thanks for clearing that to me.

Do 335

More options

stona

Major

Shortround6

Major General

tomo pauk

Creator of Interesting Threads

Aozora

Staff Sergeant

tomo pauk

Creator of Interesting Threads

Denniss

Tech Sergeant

tomo pauk

Creator of Interesting Threads

Aozora

Staff Sergeant

silence

Senior Airman

silence

Senior Airman

GregP

Major

GrauGeist

Generalfeldmarschall zur Luftschiff Abteilung

tomo pauk

Creator of Interesting Threads

bob44

Airman 1st Class

stona

Major

tomo pauk

Creator of Interesting Threads

Users who are viewing this thread

Similar threads