Dora vs Tempest

[DerAdlerIstGelandet]

I think that with these 2 very fine aircraft it comes down to more than just the plane and performance and I think that many of you are forgetting this. Anyone who has flying experience (any kind of flying experience) will know that whats on paper does not tell the whole story. If that were the case then how the hell did prop aircraft with inferior performance take out jet aicraft in the later parts of WW2 and in the Korean War?

When you start comparing the great aircraft near the end of the war such as the Spitfire, P-51D, Fw-190D, Ta-152H, P-47s, Bf-109G,K, etc... in combat you have to take other things into considerations such as:

Pilot Skill
Allitude
Position
Weather Conditions
Condition of each aircraft

etc.
etc.
etc.
etc.
blah, blah, blah....

Basically the pilot who could get the most out there particular aircraft and fly it to its limits (which are allways higher than what is on paper) and do this better than the other pilot is going to win 9 out 10 times.

Thats just my two cents.

I am sure that some people here will come back with a consensus and disagree because they are allways right...

Anyhow I voted for the Dora. Not because I think it was far superior plane because as I stated above I think thers is more involved in the matter than performance figures on paper but because I like the aircraft. As I said it comes down more to the pilot.

 

[Eoptrimasa]

I like men and this one time at band camp...

 

[Erich]

as you say Chris it really was up to the pilot in his aircraft that is going to win the day. I go back to fall of 44 when the Dora was first introduced as a new and hopeful a/c, III./JG 54 was overwhelmed by the RAF fighters in all forms and the gruppe failed first as high cover for Kommando Nowotny's 262 kommando and then by itself with tremendous losses

 

[Aussie1001]

Which model of tempest are we talking about ?
Considering the mark 5 series 1 was the worst of the lot that doesn't really say anything for the dora if it was as good or a little bit worse than it, mind you though as Adler said it all comes down to the skill of the pilot and in some cases pure luck....

 

[Kurfürst]

It means that the shells had an explosive charge in them. According to Soren only German cannon shells had this...

I don`t think Soren has ever said this. Otherwise, he is correct about the fact that the Germans were much forward in HE shell design with their very high HE content Mine shells which had very thin walls, and were heavily stuffed with explosives - ie. 18 gramm of HE was found in a singe 20mm M-Geschoss compared to about 5-6 gramm in a 20mm Hispano shell (th

And yes Soren I do take Mike Williams seriously.

There is no need not to, but I think it has been already discussed that his site is very selective with tests when it comes to German aircraft.. only the worst are being up there. In case of the 190D, the only tests present are for some early test machines which had poor finish, and none of them are flying at full trottle and MW-50 boost - these tests were actually dug up by Bryan Bury.

There`s also a Focke-Wulf set of performance figures on the 190D, which shows the actual top performance of the 190D. It`s very competitive to the Tempest, very similiar, in fact.

To me the teething problem of the Dora lasted so long that the arrival of the Ta 152H made it obsolete.

... teething problem?

By then the Tempest was already one year operational.

That`s news. I`ve always believed (and with a good reason, Sqn. OOB and such) the Tempest was only in service a few months earlier than the Dora, and, much like the Dora, the number of Tempests around was very limited indeed. Not to mention the Sabre engines notorious unreliability, an issue that was never really fixed.

As for the Tempest vs. Dora, I think they`re very similiar profiled fighters. The pros for the Tempest is it`s longer range and higher payload. As a pure fighter, however, I feel the Dora 9 being a better aircraft, even if not much, but in about every characteristic it enjoys a bit of an advantage. It turns slightly better, it is about as fast (`cept at SL), roll rate is incomparably better, and generally it`s a sleeker aircraft with very high power-to-weight ratio. I think the Tempest with it`s four fast-firing Hissies have the advantage in firepower, but it`s not much, given the Dora`s better location of weapons, much better shells and ample of ammunition for the guns (not that it would present any troubles to fit more guns for the D-9 if.they`d wanted - it`s basically an A-8 with a Jumo engine)

 

[Civettone]

you have to take other things into considerations such as:

Pilot Skill
Allitude
Position
Weather Conditions
Condition of each aircraft

No that doesn't make sense to me. Of course these things would define the outcome of any battle, and perhaps even more than the plane characteristics.
But in comparing aircraft we cannot let the pilot be a factor. It's the plane you're judging, not the pilot. As such, comparisons between aircraft are done with premise of equal pilots, no position advantage, no weather advantage, no element of surprise. That's how comparisons were done by test pilots like in Rechlin. So I think it's perfectly possible to compare aircraft and tell which one was best. And even if you would take the pilot into consideration, the Tempest would win hands down as the average British pilot was superior to the German one in this stage of the war.
Apart from that, I agree that the two planes were closely matched.

I don`t think Soren has ever said this. Otherwise, he is correct about the fact that the Germans were much forward in HE shell design with their very high HE content Mine shells which had very thin walls, and were heavily stuffed with explosives - ie. 18 gramm of HE was found in a singe 20mm M-Geschoss compared to about 5-6 gramm in a 20mm Hispano shell

Sure my comment was more directed towards the importance of these Minengeschoss shells. The allies deliberately discarded the idea of Minengeschoss and went for more penetration values and higher muzzle velocity.

There is no need not to, but I think it has been already discussed that his site is very selective with tests when it comes to German aircraft.. only the worst are being up there. In case of the 190D, the only tests present are for some early test machines which had poor finish, and none of them are flying at full trottle and MW-50 boost - these tests were actually dug up by Bryan Bury.

There`s also a Focke-Wulf set of performance figures on the 190D, which shows the actual top performance of the 190D. It`s very competitive to the Tempest, very similiar, in fact.

I know, we discussed about the Fw 190D before. But to me it's also a matter of what you believe is more realistic for the Dora. To me the typical Dora couldn't fly faster than 685 km/h. In 1945 when all went well I'm sure they went faster. But by then the Tempest was already in service for (almost) a year.
My entire point is that the Dora couldn't live up to its expectations until its successor the Ta 152 became available. A stopgap which only proves itself when the successor becomes available, is a waste in my book. I believe Tank could just as well have skipped it all together and have the Ta 152 operational sooner.

... teething problem?

Yeah the problems you mentioned for the Fw 190D and especially the lack of a MW 50 boost until it was standard in 1945. That means the Fw 190D wasn't fully operational until then.

That`s news. I`ve always believed (and with a good reason, Sqn. OOB and such) the Tempest was only in service a few months earlier than the Dora

No I said the Tempest was already a year operational when the Ta 152 appeared, the successor of the Fw 190D. That was a further elaboration of the fact that it took too long for the Dora to become fully operational.

Not to mention the Sabre engines notorious unreliability, an issue that was never really fixed.

Unreliable, sure, but it didn't stop it from being an effective fighter. And how reliable was the Jumo 213? What was its life expectancy?
In any case, the Tempest was declared operational in April 1944 and by June the teething problems were finished with the adoption of new propellors. The Dora arrived in November and it took until early 1945 for its teething problems to end.

Kris

 

[Marcel]

Basically the pilot who could get the most out there particular aircraft and fly it to its limits (which are allways higher than what is on paper) and do this better than the other pilot is going to win 9 out 10 times.

Of course you're right, best pilot wins in these planes, but the reason I like technically compairing planes in these kind of threads is that people tend to bring forward quite interesting things about the planes while defending their point of view. I learn a lot by reading the replies given to my question.

 

[DerAdlerIstGelandet]

No that doesn't make sense to me. Of course these things would define the outcome of any battle, and perhaps even more than the plane characteristics.
But in comparing aircraft we cannot let the pilot be a factor. It's the plane you're judging, not the pilot. As such, comparisons between aircraft are done with premise of equal pilots, no position advantage, no weather advantage, no element of surprise. That's how comparisons were done by test pilots like in Rechlin. So I think it's perfectly possible to compare aircraft and tell which one was best.

I disagree. Here is why? I will use private flying for an example because I have experience here. You give me a Cessna 172 and you give FBJ a Cessna 172. They are the same aircraft. He has more experience than me he will get more out of the aircraft than I can.

Also the reason I disagree is because all aircraft have optimal operating conditions where they are equal or superior to other aircraft or inferior to other aircraft. The reason you can not take these tests for everything (and unfortunatly some people only believe whats on paper) is because combat is rarely at the optimal conditions.

And even if you would take the pilot into consideration, the Tempest would win hands down as the average British pilot was superior to the German one in this stage of the war.

I am not going to agree or disagree with you however please post some proof. Without proof you have made an unqualified statment that holds no bearing in this discussion.

 

[HoHun]

Hi Kris,

>I believe Tank could just as well have skipped it all together and have the Ta 152 operational sooner.

That was the original plan. However, the loss of German-held territory delayed and finally stopped Ta 152 production ...

The Ta 152 design (in the A version) was ready for series production in the first half of 1944. Since the jigs and tools were to be produced in France and the factories were overrun as a result of the invasion, the actual begin of the series production - in Cottbus - was in November 1944. (The planned production in Italy, scheduled to begin in May 1944, had to be canceled completely.) Due to difficulties in subassembly production, the first Ta 152 examples were delivered in January 1945. Only 43 aircraft were produced before in February, the Soviets overran the factory in Posen that supplied the wings and fuselages for the Ta 152, ending production of the type. (Production had been moved as far to the East as possible to reduce the risk of strategic bombing attacks by the USAAF and the RAF.) Of the 43 aircraft that were produced, 14 were destroyed in a low-level attack on the factory airfield. They were concentrated like that because due to poor workmanship, they were unsafe to fly out before they were repaired.

(I'm relying on Hermann's "Focke-Wulf Ta 152" for this summary.)

Regards,

Henning (HoHun)

 

[Soren]

Civettone here's why you shouldn't take Mike Williams figures on the Dora seriously;

The tests which he presents on his site were carried out with under-performing engines, and AFAIK that is as-well mentioned.

The real guaranteed performance of the Dora you can find on Focke Wulf's own official Leistung charts.

As you can see performance is 612 km/h at SL at SonderNotleistung (2,100 PS @ 3,250 RPM), and 702 km/h at 5.7km. As you can also see 685 km/h was reached at Start u. Notleistung (1,750 PS @ 3,250 RPM) at 6.6 km.

As to the American flight test of the Dora, well again that was flown at a power setting no higher than Steig u. Kampfleistung, and probably not with the right type of fuel, something which greatly affects the the turn performance.

Also note that in post war mock dogfights the captured Dora-13 easily out-maneuvered the Hawker Tempest Mk.V piloted by an experienced pilot in all aspects of maneuvering flight, easily emerging the victor.

According to FW-190 pilots the Dora-9 was a far better dogfighter than the Anton, featuring much better turning climbing performance than its predecessor. And according to German comparative testing with Allied aircraft the Dora-9 was a better dogfighter than the Tempest at all altitudes, also being much better than the P-47, P-38 P-51 at low altitudes, while the P-51 was considered equal at high altitudes.

You can read all this in Hermann's detailed book on the Dora...

 

[Jank]

On a related and elementary note, manufacturer published charts and graphs, even of guaranteed performance, usually fall short of actual performance figures obtained with actual aircraft.

 

[Soren]

I've never experienced German performance figures to be overblown at all, infact the guaranteed performance figures I've seen so far from Focke Wulf Messerschmidt have all been very conservative and never exceeded the actual achieved performance.

Promising "der Führer" some wild performance figures and then not to deliver on them was not to take ones own life very seriously!

 

[Civettone]

I disagree. Here is why? I will use private flying for an example because I have experience here. You give me a Cessna 172 and you give FBJ a Cessna 172. They are the same aircraft. He has more experience than me he will get more out of the aircraft than I can.


Also the reason I disagree is because all aircraft have optimal operating conditions where they are equal or superior to other aircraft or inferior to other aircraft. The reason you can not take these tests for everything (and unfortunatly some people only believe whats on paper) is because combat is rarely at the optimal conditions.

I think you don't understand what I said so I'll say it again.
I totally agree that the pilot is the most important element. Other than that, surprise, altitude advantage, weather, etc all play an important or even decisive factor in air combat.
Fine.
However, when comparing aircraft, one can easily discard these factors as they can be attributed to both sides: weather and altitude advantage will be on one side, and on the other side the next time. Same thing with the pilots, one can easily start from the premise that all pilots are equal. Then one can start comparing aircraft quite easily.
It's the same thing with F1 racing. One can easily compare the different cars regardless whether Massa, Schumacher or Santa Claus would be driving it.

I am not going to agree or disagree with you however please post some proof. Without proof you have made an unqualified statment that holds no bearing in this discussion.

I don't get this. I know you have a good knowledge of Luftwaffe pilots to know that the average German pilot at the time of the Tempest/Dora was inferior to the allied pilot.
If you disagree, you will surprise me, but I will easily back my statement up. All I would have to do is show the Luftwaffe training hours in the second half of WW2.

Promising "der Führer" some wild performance figures and then not to deliver on them was not to take ones own life very seriously!

There were several aircraft designers which lied to Hitler about their aircraft. Especially Messerschmitt was constantly taking Hitler for a fool.

I still stand by the fact that the Fw 190D didn't achieve its maximum performance until 1945 when the Ta 152 was entering service.
Kris

 

[Soren]

Especially Messerschmitt was constantly taking Hitler for a fool.

A statement like that begs an example! And I suspect you'll have a VERY hard time finding one!

 

[brano]

My vote goes to FW 190,he was faster,better armed and beter armored then Tempest!!!

 

[brano]

Can you tell me wy the American are use Browning M2 mashine guns till 1945,when are 20-30 mm cannons become standard armament on the all aircrafts.I don`t see much logic in that!!!

 

[Kurfürst]

Sure my comment was more directed towards the importance of these Minengeschoss shells. The allies deliberately discarded the idea of Minengeschoss and went for more penetration values and higher muzzle velocity.

Nothing of that sort in real life quite the opposite happened.
In fact the Allies had went for lower muzzle velocity and higher RoF with the Tempests short Hispano Mk Vs, which were pretty much and equivalent to the Mauser MG 151/20 in these specs. They also immidiately copied the Minengeschoss rounds after the war, discarded the Hispano and replaced it with what (Aden/Defa) was basically a straight copy of the Mauser MG 213.

As for preference for penetration, the British never seem to have too much preference for it, since they switched quickly after the introduction of cannon armamemnt to semi-armour piercing rounds with reduced penetration performance but more versatality. As for the Germans, they hardly used only M-Gsch. rounds in their belts, the composition was typically AP/API- a conventional HE/HEI - followed by 3 Mineshells. In case of Viermot targets, one HE/HEI replacing a Mine shell.

I know, we discussed about the Fw 190D before. But to me it's also a matter of what you believe is more realistic for the Dora. To me the typical Dora couldn't fly faster than 685 km/h. In 1945 when all went well I'm sure they went faster. But by then the Tempest was already in service for (almost) a year.
My entire point is that the Dora couldn't live up to its expectations until its successor the Ta 152 became available. A stopgap which only proves itself when the successor becomes available, is a waste in my book. I believe Tank could just as well have skipped it all together and have the Ta 152 operational sooner.

I do not see how this POV is sufficiently supported by facts. Opinion is of course a right of everyone, but I can`t share this opinion.

Yeah the problems you mentioned for the Fw 190D and especially the lack of a MW 50 boost until it was standard in 1945. That means the Fw 190D wasn't fully operational until then.

What 'problems'?

And in any case, MW-50 injection was introduced already in 1944, a month or two after the operational introduction of the Dora. This is basically the same as the Tempest`s story, which did not receive the improved Sabre II B engine until September 1944.

No I said the Tempest was already a year operational when the Ta 152 appeared, the successor of the Fw 190D. That was a further elaboration of the fact that it took too long for the Dora to become fully operational.

The Dora was fully operational by the automn of 1944. Period. It`s performance improved, about the same time and just like the Tempest`s.

As for the Tempest, it did not have the short barreld cannons, nor spring tabs until June 1944, nor the Sabre IIB engine until September-October 1944 - this concides with the introduction of MW-50 onto the Dora. Even then, production of the new, improved models was rather marginal, and it took quite some time until pilots actually saw those new models.

Unreliable, sure, but it didn't stop it from being an effective fighter. And how reliable was the Jumo 213? What was its life expectancy?

I do not have any TBO figures for either engines. However, I`ve seen no indication so far there would be any serious trouble with the Jumo 213, while the Sabre is almost infamous. I am always a bit puzzled by the Sabre - technically very impressive and advanced, in practical terms, it managed to create an overcomplicated engine with all the disadvantages of a radial and an inline combined..

In any case, the Tempest was declared operational in April 1944 and by June the teething problems were finished with the adoption of new propellors.

The real problem of the Tempest was it`s Sabre engine, that never seem to work as it should, or the very least it proved to be fatally unreliable in service. Planes bursting into flames on startup, planes augmenting right after take off due to engine failures etc... and it kept happening.

The Dora arrived in November and it took until early 1945 for its teething problems to end.

Kris

What 'teeting problems', again? You keep repeating the Dora had 'teething problems', without any specifics...

 

[DerAdlerIstGelandet]

I think you don't understand what I said so I'll say it again.
I totally agree that the pilot is the most important element. Other than that, surprise, altitude advantage, weather, etc all play an important or even decisive factor in air combat.
Fine.
However, when comparing aircraft, one can easily discard these factors as they can be attributed to both sides: weather and altitude advantage will be on one side, and on the other side the next time. Same thing with the pilots, one can easily start from the premise that all pilots are equal. Then one can start comparing aircraft quite easily.
It's the same thing with F1 racing. One can easily compare the different cars regardless whether Massa, Schumacher or Santa Claus would be driving it.

I still disagree because as I said in order to compare aircraft then they need to be compared at all conditions to each other on a level playing field. Allied tests of a Luftwaffe aircraft were not on a level playing field because the pilots dont know the aircraft as well. Luftwaffe tests of an allied aircraft would be the same because they dont know the aircraft as well either.

You need to compare using the manufacturers data and as Jank was so kind to point out they are never the aircrafts limitations.

I don't get this. I know you have a good knowledge of Luftwaffe pilots to know that the average German pilot at the time of the Tempest/Dora was inferior to the allied pilot.
If you disagree, you will surprise me, but I will easily back my statement up. All I would have to do is show the Luftwaffe training hours in the second half of WW2.

While I agree with you (and would be a fool not to do so) that the Luftwaffe's training was declining it is a myth that the Luftwaffe was void of excellent and well trained pilots with experience in the later parts of the war. The Luftwaffe still had plenty of pilots.

Therefore my point is you can not dismiss the Luftwaffe pilot and say that the Tempest would win hands down becuase the allied pilots were better.


There were several aircraft designers which lied to Hitler about their aircraft. Especially Messerschmitt was constantly taking Hitler for a fool. Underestimating your opponent is a deadly mistake...

 

[Civettone]

Soren, Messerschmitt mislead Hitler on the Me 262 as a Jabo, the Me 209 being better than the Me 262, the Me 410 reaching 680 km/h, the Me 262 being a better bomber/recon than the Ar 234, etc. Hitler was genious at time but could also be incredibily naive when people told him things he liked. He was often overoptimistic and thereby chosing to believe the one with the best news. Messerschmitt quickly found that out.

Kurfürst, I read several accounts where the Fw 190D had lousy serviceability rates and that the Jumo 213 kept providing problems. And the MW 50 wasn't standard until 1945.
The Sabre was troublesome but nowhere near the level of the Jumo 213. British engines were generally very reliable so I think the accounts of the Sabre have to be seen in that light.

About the performance of the Dora...
I've got a graph drawn up by Focke Wulf itself. A Leistungvergleich Fw 190 and Ta 152. The Fw 190D (with MW 50) didn't reach 700 kmh at optimal altitude. The D-15 struggled to get there. Quite a different story for the D-12 which even got above 750 kmh!!
And on this one it barely reaches 700: http://pages.sbcglobal.net/mdegnan/_images/DoraMitALader.bmp

And this comes from luftwaffe-experten:
the speed are comming fro a fw test from march 45 (from the smithonian german and japanees captured documents the IWM has probably a copy)
the fw 190 was with fully loaded 4250 kg and with the ETC 504 add around 10 kmh without it)
Speed WEP mw50 (b4)
692 kmh @ 5400 m (702 without ETC 504)


wep ladruckhohung
i do not have hard data but we can gustimate it around 680 @ 5400 m (690 without etc)

start and emmergency
677 kmh @ 6600 m (687 without ETC)

combat power (max continous )
666 kmh @ 6600 m (676 without ETC)


The Tempest had a lower wing loading which would (theoretically) make it a better turner, at least what initital turns are concerned. Sustained turns - which is usually talked about but not as important IMO - would be pro-Dora. The Dora had the better roll rate which would mean that it could shake of the enemy by rolling to one side and then roll again to the other side. A Tempest would not be able to follow that. Any opponent could outroll the Tempest. But about intitial turning and climbing would be in the advantage of the Tempest due to excellent handling, even at speeds above 400 mph, large wing loading and a huge amount of horses.
Also Tempest pilots considered their planes to be more manoeuvrable than the Fw 190 (not sure about which version), but I suppose Dora pilots thought the same. The ones that disagreed were probably dead anyway

For completeness here's an account by Lt Osenkop of I/JG26 who relates his experience with the Dora against the Tempest as "Almost equal in level flight, a length pursuit was generally fruitless. The D-9 climbed and turned better but was inferior in the dive."

I still disagree because as I said in order to compare aircraft then they need to be compared at all conditions to each other on a level playing field.

So tests done by their own pilots would be ok?
And what about German test pilots at Rechlin who were not used to new types?

You need to compare using the manufacturers data and as Jank was so kind to point out they are never the aircrafts limitations.

So that goes for both aircraft which still comes down to the same thing then.

Therefore my point is you can not dismiss the Luftwaffe pilot and say that the Tempest would win hands down becuase the allied pilots were better.

The allied pilot was better than the German pilot. I can make this statement because it speaks of THE German (Dora) pilot and THE allied (Tempest) pilot. The average quality of the German pilot was simply lower at this stage of the war. Of course there were dozens of Luftwaffe Experten but they do little to lift up the average quality of the German pilot.
And this fits in what I said before: the pilot, the weather, surprise element, altitude advantage are all incredibily important but when comparing aircraft you have to go by averages: each side will have equal amounts of these benefits ... and the average German pilot will be inferior to the British one.

Because if you would follow your logic, you can make a claim that the Polikarpov I-16 wasn't worse than the Vought F-4U because it could have had the better pilot, an altitude advantage, and a better turn radius. But I doubt anyone will ever claim the I-16 was a match for the Corsair.

Kris

 

[DerAdlerIstGelandet]

So tests done by their own pilots would be ok?

I am saying you will get a better test result.

And what about German test pilots at Rechlin who were not used to new types?

By the time they had flown the aircraft eneogh yes because you dont do just 10 hours of test flying. Aircraft are flown 100s of hours and even 1000's of hours in test flying.

The allied pilot was better than the German pilot. I can make this statement because it speaks of THE German (Dora) pilot and THE allied (Tempest) pilot. The average quality of the German pilot was simply lower at this stage of the war. Of course there were dozens of Luftwaffe Experten but they do little to lift up the average quality of the German pilot.
And this fits in what I said before: the pilot, the weather, surprise element, altitude advantage are all incredibily important but when comparing aircraft you have to go by averages: each side will have equal amounts of these benefits ... and the average German pilot will be inferior to the British one.

I will agree the average pilot was better. That is the truth of the matter.

As for the rest of the discussion. We will have agree to disagree because I look at this differently than you do and I would even say that technically neither of us are wrong. It just depends how you look at it.

Because if you would follow your logic, you can make a claim that the Polikarpov I-16 wasn't worse than the Vought F-4U because it could have had the better pilot, an altitude advantage, and a better turn radius. But I doubt anyone will ever claim the I-16 was a match for the Corsair.

Kris

Now you are just being silly...