Dora vs Tempest

Which one was best?

  • Total voters
    176

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

Re question about US using cal .50 MGs in their fighters through the end of the war. Not strictly true as some models of the Hellcats and Corsairs utilised 20 mm cannons. However, in the first trials of the 20 mms, there were reliability problems. The .50 BMG was a tried and true design and very effective against enemy fighters. The US fighters could for the most part carry a large ammo load with the .50s which was a big consideration for the long range fighters which might have to fight their way home. By the way the P38 always carried a 20 mm, the very early P51s carried 20mms and the P39 carried either 1-37mm or a 20mm. These were usually nose mounted which apparently caused less feed problems.
 
Also I think you have to look at what was the main thing they needed to arm there aircraft against. The USAAF did not have to worry about going up against large bomber formations where a 20mm might be better. The .50 Cal was certainly good eneogh to bring down fighters.
 
Civettone said:
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.
Click to expand...

What ?!

First off Messerschmidt designed the Me-262 to be an air-superiority fighter, it was Hitler who wanted it to fullfill the fighter-bomber role, NOT Messerschmidt.

Secondly Messerschmidt never claimed the Me-209 to be better than the Me-262.

Thirdly where the heck have you heard the Me-410 was supposed to reach 680 km/h ??? The design goal was 625-630 km/h !

Hitler was genious at time but could also be incredibily naive when people told him things he liked.
Click to expand...

Hitler wasn't really naive, he was paranoid as heck though.

He was often overoptimistic and thereby chosing to believe the one with the best news. Messerschmitt quickly found that out.
Click to expand...

That is completely made up on your part Civettone.


I've got the very same chart and one thing is for sure, you're not reading it correctly!

And on this one it barely reaches 700: http://pages.sbcglobal.net/mdegnan/_images/DoraMitALader.bmp
Click to expand...

You need glasses Civettone cause on that very chart the Dora-9 exceeds 703 km/h at 5.7km, which "oddly" enough is exactly the same as on the official leistung chart I presented. Note the SL speed as-well plz, ~ 615 km/h.


692 km/h at 5.4km with ETC-504 - sounds correct.

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)
Click to expand...

The above figures look right enough...

The Tempest had a lower wing loading which would (theoretically) make it a better turner, at least what initital turns are concerned.
Click to expand...

Thats just being ridiculously simplistic ignorant on your part Civettone, cause its not wing-loading which matters, its lift-loading, which in turn is dependant on CLmax. And like the P-51 the Tempest features a laminar flow type airfoil, which in short means low drag but also low lift pr. area - hence why a underpowered FW-190 Jabo will turn with the Tempest. The FW-190 on the other hand features a very high lift airfoil (NACA 23000 series) with a CLmax around 1.58 - 1.64, hence why the FW-190 was famous for its excellent responsiveness. So in this department the Dora-9 is far superior to the Tempest.

Sustained turns - which is usually talked about but not as important IMO - would be pro-Dora.
Click to expand...

Again the Dora-9 is superior.


As explained above you're incorrect in your assessment Civettone. The FW-190 Dora-9 featured both better instantanous and sustained turn performance than the Tempest, and the FW-190 already possessed the best high speed handling of any piston engined fighter. So the Tempest would be at a real loss if the fight was at high speed.

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
Click to expand...

As have already been told German comparative testing concluded the FW-190 Dora-9 to be a much superior dogfighter compared to the Tempest, and the RAF's own tests only reinforce that conclusion.
 
Soren said:
First off Messerschmidt designed the Me-262 to be an air-superiority fighter, it was Hitler who wanted it to fullfill the fighter-bomber role, NOT Messerschmidt.
Click to expand...
First, why do you write it with 'dt'? Second, I never said it was M. who wanted it as a FB but when asked, M. said that the Me 262 could easily be adapted to carry two 500 kg bombs. And he said it was a better bomber than the Ar 234 and Do 335.

Secondly Messerschmidt never claimed the Me-209 to be better than the Me-262.
Click to expand...
When the Me 262 was chosen and he was ordered to stop the Me 209 development, he started to claim that the Me 209 was the better alternative.

Thirdly where the heck have you heard the Me-410 was supposed to reach 680 km/h ??? The design goal was 625-630 km/h !
Click to expand...
There was a comparative study done between the Me 410, Me 329 and a Lippisch design.

Performance Comparison between Me 410/Li P.10/Me 329
Horizontal speed @ maximum pressure altitude
Service Ceiling
Range at best glide ratio
Me 410
672 kph / 418 mph
10900 m / 35671'
2020 km / 1255 miles
Li P.10
682 kph / 424 mph
12100 m / 39698'
2480 km / 1541 miles
Me 329
685 kph / 426 mph
12500 m / 41010'
2520 km / 1566 miles

So sorry it was 672 kmh, not 680.


Hitler wasn't really naive, he was paranoid as heck though.
Click to expand...
He was both. The man had many sides to him.

That is completely made up on your part Civettone.Perhaps you should do some reading. Try Speer's autobiography to start.


I've got the very same chart and one thing is for sure, you're not reading it correctly!
Click to expand...
Oh Soren ... please ... the Fw 190D-9 line doesn't reach the 700 kmh line. How do I misread that?

You need glasses Civettone cause on that very chart the Dora-9 exceeds 703 km/h at 5.7km
Click to expand...
Like I said, barely. Look it up in the dictionary if you don't understand it. A synonym would be 'barely'. Or in German: 'kaum'.

As have already been told German comparative testing concluded the FW-190 Dora-9 to be a much superior dogfighter compared to the Tempest, and the RAF's own tests only reinforce that conclusion.
Click to expand...
Like I said from the beginning, I have no problem admitting that the Dora was the better dogfighter as it had better roll rate and turn rate.
But British tests show that the Dora wasn't as responsive at speeds above 400 mph. The Tempest was regarded as superior at low altitudes and at high speeds.
Here you can see what the performance was at combat power settings.
Tempest V Performance Data WEP would have given better performance. 4380 ft/min and 432 mph.
Also after a new prop was installed around the middle of 1944 climb rate of the Tempest was 4,700 ft per min at sea level. Climb to 20,000 ft in 6 min 6 sec.
I would like to see a Fw 190D fight against that without the MW 50 which only appeared at the end, when all was too late.

And again, the Tempest was faster, had better zoom climb and was better armed. As such it was the better BnZ fighter.

Kris
 
Soren said:
You need glasses Civettone cause on that very chart the Dora-9 exceeds 703 km/h at 5.7km, which "oddly" enough is exactly the same as on the official leistung chart I presented. Note the SL speed as-well plz, ~ 615 km/h.
Click to expand...

Please Soren we could do without the personal insults in this thread, would you keep it civilised, please?
 

'Messerschmitt lied about the ME 410 claim'.

The Li P.10 was being compared to the projected figures of the Me 410C, which had new and improved engines (high alt DB 603Es) as opposed to the standard production 410A/B. The 670 kph projected speed for the 410C was understood with 603E engines, and Methanol-Water injection. They look absolutely feasable for me, given the power increase. You`re trying to make it look like some sort of absurd claim for the standard 410 versions. It wasn`t. It was a performance projection for the latest DB engines.

'British tests with D-9 vs Tempest', again, no such things exist.

It`s becoming taxying to just read through these things you make up on the run, and then keep repeating - see also D-9&MW50.. I don`t think I`ll bother to even respond to that kind of nonsense..
 
Kurfürst said:
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.
Click to expand...

The Hispano V had a MV of 830m/s and the German 151 720m/s with the API and HET shells, hardly similar. The HEM was close at 800m/s but filling your belts with two shells of such significant differences in balistics cannot help

I think you might be getting confused with the Typhoon. Only the first 100 Tempests had the longer guns, the others were all series 2 with the changes you mentioned. As far as I can tell all Tempest V series 2 had the Sabre IIb with some later planes having the Sabre V.
As an aside the MW-50 certainly worked but the downside of this type of boost was that it was only limited in its endurance and of course when not in use, it was more dead weight to carry around.
This had been solved by the time the Tempest came on stream with the Series IIb engine. Typhoons were also refitted with this engine.
 

Its worth pointing out that these performance figures for the Tempest, which are pretty impressive, are for a series 1 Tempest. The Series 2 which was the normal version had a more powerful (and reliable) engine as well as aerodynamic improvements, which would have improved the performance.
If we are talking about later Tempests, these had the even more powerful series VI engines.
 
The only chart where the Dora-9 doesn't reach 700 + km/h at VH at full boost is the one where it reaches past 625 km/h at SL at 2.02 ata (Different gearing) - which is allot faster than the Tempest. The Dora-9's in service with MW-50 (1.78 ata) reached 612-615 km/h at SL and 703 km/h at 5.7km.

From 11/3 1945, performance with MW-50: 615 km/h at SL, 705 km/h at 5.7km:


Dora-9 climb rate with MW-50 [Without ETC-504]: 22.5 m/s (4,400 ft/min) at SL, 18.5 m/s (3,641 ft/min) at 4.8 km:


Dora-9 time to climb climb rate [with ETC-504]: 1.8min to 2km (6,591 ft), 5.5min to 6km (19,685 ft), 13.4min to 10km (32,808 ft), 17.5 m/s (3,444 ft/min) at 4.8km:


Dora-9 Time to climb Climb rate [without ETC-504]: 12.5 min to 10km, 18.5 m/s (3,641 ft/min) at 4.8km:
 
Tempest 632km/h at sea level 701 km/h at 5.5km, 683 at 8.5km

Tempest time to 15,000ft 5 mins, 20,000ft 7.5min
Combat Rating
4,380 ft/min at sea level
3,000 ft/min at 13,500 ft (4,100 m)

Dive Tempest red lined at 540mph (870km/H)

So as for speed the Tempest has it at low level, about the same at medium level and probably about the same at high altitude (I don't know the 190's numbers)

Climb - the 190 clearly has an advantage

Dive I don't know the 190's numbers but I suspect the Tempest has the advantage. I don't know of another plane that has such a high red line speed.
 
Hi Glider,

>Dive I don't know the 190's numbers but I suspect the Tempest has the advantage. I don't know of another plane that has such a high red line speed.

It's actually not all that high - 540 mph at 10000 ft (the red-line speed decreases above this altitude) work out to Mach 0.80 if you figure in the position error given by the Pilot's Notes and neglect the compressiblity error of the airspeed indicator (which means that Mach 0.80 is still optimistic).

That such a high figure appears in the Pilot's Notes is more a sign that towards the end of the war, the conditions under which compressibility occurred were better understood than early on (or at least that the pilots were better trained to understand them).

Mach 0.80 appears to be more or less a typical figure for a late-war fighter. A Me 109 was dived to this speed once (but that was seriously pushing the envelope!), and while the Spitfire exceeded this speed frequently and probably is the record holder, it was not really safe at those speeds anymore, with both elevator and aileron controls capable of destroying the airframe.

The mid- to late-war designs like the Fw 190 or the Tempest (or reportedly the Ki-84) usually were safer than earlier designs because they lost control efficiency with increasing speed to make inadvertant overstressing of the airframe impossible while retaining a useful amount of control effectiveness.

It's not speed, it's what you can do with it

Regards,

Henning (HoHun)
 
I don't disagree with what you say but there is a lot of myth and exceptions re dive speeds. The speed at which a plane is red lined is at least a common base to work from.
Mustangs were I believe red lined at 505mph, 109G's at 466mph so 540 mph is really motoring.

Planes often exceeded these figures and no one is saying that a Mustang will come apart at 506mph or a 109 at 467mph but the more you exceed them the greater the chances of hitting terra firma, hard. If I had to go downhill at 540mph, then the Tempest is my choice of mount.
I really do not know what the figures are for a 190D and they may match the Tempest, but I doubt they will exceed them.

The Spitfire is a good example. It certainly did have the highest mach no in a dive of its time, but that was a proper test, that used a heck of a lot of hight and definately wasn't an average pilot in a combat situation. Its well know that a Spitfire for all its well know advantages didn't include diving as one of its strengths, anything but.
 
Hi Glider,

>Mustangs were I believe red lined at 505mph, 109G's at 466mph so 540 mph is really motoring.

Mach number is dependend on speed, so you have to add altitude information to make this information comparable. I don't believe the Me 109G had 540 mph on the clock, but it reached Mach 0.80 at an altitude where the Tempest was not cleared for 540 mph either.

(You are right that the Me 109 was really motoring ... it was modified with a reduced aileron gearing to avoid flutter, and fitted with an ejection seat just in case.)

>Planes often exceeded these figures and no one is saying that a Mustang will come apart at 506mph

Quite right. However, while the 540 mph figure probably had some safety margin, it's equivalent to less than Mach 0.80 if you'd account for the compressibility error of the airspeed indicator (which is not listed in the Pilot's Notes, so it's unknown quantitatively). Qualitatively, it causes a higher than realistic speed reading.

So all considered, and with some caution because we don't have the complete data, I don't think there is a reason to assume that the Tempest was superior to the Fw 190 in a dive. However, the gaps in our data leave room for individual speculation, so we can all safely disagree

>The Spitfire is a good example. It certainly did have the highest mach no in a dive of its time, but that was a proper test, that used a heck of a lot of hight and definately wasn't an average pilot in a combat situation.

Absolutely true - diving to that speed could save your life if all went well, and break your neck if something went wrong. And individual Spitfires would handle different in a dive, so it was hard to tell just what would happen.

One of Alfred Price' books features an interesting article by a contemporary aerodynamicist, stating that before the war, aircraft were built for smooth controllability at dogfight speeds, while dives at breakneck speeds were regarded as "of academical interest only".

RAE test pilot Eric Brown used the term "tactically useful Mach number" quite a bit, which usually was somewhat below the maximum survivable Mach number even for well-handling types.

Regards,

Henning (HoHun)
 
I don't know where all the numbers posted for the FW190D-9 come from but my reference, "The Great Book of WW2 Airplanes" which I have found to compare pretty well with other sources has the following for the so called "Dora" Weight=4300kg with MW 50 boost(clean), sea level vmax=575km/h, vmax @ 6600m=686 km/h, time to 2000m=2min 6sec. Range=(clean) 837 km. Pretty good performance
 
Lost a long post so fuk it I'll just say it in brief.

I'm sorry Kurfurst that you believe I deliberately used wrong stats. I thought the comparison was with the regular Me 410, not the Me 410C.
I read a while ago that the MW 50 was only standard in 45. Can't remember where I read it so I won't mention it again.
I quoted Mike Williams and I think I have a right to. I did some research and saw a website where you made a good case of showing that Williams used only the sources he wanted. Don't blame me for that.

Going back to my original post, I reacted to people saying the Dora was better than the Tempest. I never said the Tempest was better than the Dora. I said the Tempest was faster at all altitudes. Now it seems it was only faster at low alt and equal at medium and high alt. So still faster.
I said the Tempest had excellent handling.
I said the Dora was better at roll rate.
I said the Dora was equal to the Tempest in turn rate. I take that back.
I said the Tempest had better zoom climb (not sustained climb).

So in short, I believe the Dora was the better dogfighter. But the Tempest was the better BnZ fighter, especially at low altitude. It was also the better ground attack fighter.

All of this stuff is based on these two official reports:
Tempest V Performance
Tempest V Performance Data
Kris
 
someone have Dietmar H.'s Dora book via Schiffer on this forum as I have a question.

ya know the only way anyone is going to get anywhere is to post some 1st person accts of Tempest/Dora pilots meeting and the outcomes if any aerial combat is discussed in any type of detail(s).
 
Hi Erich,

>ya know the only way anyone is going to get anywhere is to post some 1st person accts of Tempest/Dora pilots meeting and the outcomes if any aerial combat is discussed in any type of detail(s).

Hm, actually I think this is the most difficult to handle and unreliable source. Just identifying the enemy correctly is difficult enough, and the "long-nosed Focke-Wulf" in particular appeared in Allied combat reports long before it was actually delivered at the Luftwaffe.

The main difficulty might actually be that the combat reports have a certain and very brief standard form that leaves a lot of the story untold. They were not written with the kind of evaluation in mind that we'd like to perform.

For us, their main use is to highlight any additional properties beyond the basic parameters discussed here that might have impact on their combat effectiveness, but I'd be hesitant to use them as a primary analysis tool.

Regards,

Henning (HoHun)
 
well I agree then I disagree. from combat reports from both sides you can get a clue at to what alt. the opposite a/c and yours performed. was my gunsight/20mm's on target, did the opponent break away in what direction and was I able to keep up and did I or was I able to turn inside of him. these things are quite likely to give a good insight as to the pilot and his craft. Many of the P-51 cmbat reports have much in the way of details
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Users who are viewing this thread

Total: 1 (members: 0, guests: 1)

Similar threads

  • Poll
AH-4 Apache vs black hawk
2 3 4
Replies
76
Views
7K
Thumpalumpacus
K
  • Poll
P-40F vs P-40M
Replies
1
Views
1K
mjfur
M
  • Poll
Yak3 vs Spitfire IX?
Replies
10
Views
4K
bravenest0
  • Poll
Gloster Gladiotor vs PZL P24
Replies
0
Views
2K
Supermarine-SpitfireMkXIV
  • Poll
Hurricane Mk1 vs 109E-6
Replies
2
Views
1K
Shortround6
S
Menu
Log in
Register