Dornier Do 335 Pfeil

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

I have compiled this info from various sources:


  • [*]Grumman F7F................Dornier 335 ..............Dehavilland Hornet

    [*]Power 2- 2100hp...................2- 1726hp............................... 2- 2080hp
    [*]area 455 sq. ft......................414 sq ft...............................361 sq ft.
    [*]span 51 ft...........................45 ft.....................................45 ft.
    [*]length 45 ft............................45 ft.....................................37 ft
    [*]weights
    [*]empty 16,270 lbs...................16,305 lbs..............................12,875 lbs.
    [*]max 25,720 lbs...................21,164 lbs.............................20,900 lbs.

    [*]speed 460 @ 22k ft...............474 @ 21k ft...........................472 @ 22k ft.
    [*]IROC 4500 ft/min..................3940 ft/min............................4000 ft/min

    [*]range 1200 miles......................1280 miles.............................2500 miles

    [*]armt. 4- 20mm.........................1- 30mm.............................4- 20mm
    [*] 4- .50 cal........................2- 20mm.............................2000 lbs of bombs
    [*] 1 torpedo........................2200 lbs of bombs.................8- 60 lb rockets.
    [*] 2000 lbs bombs..............................................................................


I have taken the liberty (lazy) to round some of the dimensions. I found a wide range of very limited info on the range of each aircraft. So I am not sure of those numbers.

Overall, I am amazed at the similarities of the 3 aircraft. Amazing. We need a Soren or someone to graph this info, would love to find roll rates, turn rates / radius and such.
 
Last edited:
Nice Job Mike. Seems everyone was chasing the same idea by mid war period. Heavy Fighter/Intruder wasn't dead, just morphed into something else. What, exactly, I am not sure as none of the three aircraft had a chance to actually see exetensive combat before the war ended.
 
Sure that can be a problem. Nevertheless they were used successfully as long range escorts and iirc even on intruder attacks on british soil.

If your engine cops out up it's going to hurt no matter if you are on a long range offensive or a short range defensive mission. The only chance is drop load and head back on the remaining engine. I understand where you are getting at though. And the there's the C version with four engines. Probably rather safe due to the redundant power. And better payload / range again, but now we are talking four engined planes so the comparison's getting unfair.

The Ar 234 (B) was likely a lot better as an intruder because of its visibility to the ground. As a night fighter, with the right cockpit layout that was already prototyped, I think the same applies. The only thing the Do's got running for it imo is that it *could* have been available earlier. But it wasn't.
 
Last edited:
Eric Brown flew all three, Do 335, F7F and not Hornet but Sea Hornet, and wrote articles on all three. I don't have time to reread them, bu IIRC he valued Sea Horned highest. As a short-cut checked his Wings on my Sleeve, and probably my memory is correct, of the three only Hornet "overpowered perfection" is in his "Top 20 list". But we must remember that Brown was/is RN man.

Juha
 
Eric Brown flew extensively only the two seated Do 335 and without MW 50 .He flew the single seat only once under dificult conditions. As potential Do was superior but would require development effort impossible for the conditions inGermany.
Hornet! What a beaty !!!
 
Brown's main point against Do 335 besides it being overcomplicated an prone to hydraulic problems was that it was too stable and heavy on elevators and rudder for a day fighter. That probably goes also for single seater.

Juha
 
Eric Brown is very tainted towards ANY British aircraft. Just take that with a grain of salt. He is a Brit, and I would expect that to be so!

Just looking at the numbers, I would think the Hornet would be the "dogfighter" of the group. But the lack of wing area may be to it's demise.

Just looking at the designs, I could see how the Dornier may be very good at rolling , but slow in pitch change and rudder affect.

All of these aircraft seem to be the early versions of the modern fighter/bomber concept such as the F/A18, F-15, Tornado, and Mig 29/ Su-27.
 
Hello Mike
You should read Brown's assessment on for ex Blackburn Firebrand to see that Brown didn't like every British plane! And in his top 20 list there are 6 US, 5 German, one Italian and one Japanese a/c besides 7 British ones. It might well be that of the planes he flew more than 7/20 was British. So he might not be so biassed than you think.

Juha
 
You're right Juha, I didn't say exactly what I was thinking. But at least from what I have read, if he is making a comparison between several aircraft, I think he usually favors the British aircraft.

I'm sure he flew some British aircraft he didn't like, what I said was inaccurate.

But again, I don't have a problem with that. It's kind of like reading a review from Corky Meyers, he will favor the Grumman usually. All very understandable.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Users who are viewing this thread

Total: 1 (members: 0, guests: 1)

Similar threads

Douglas C-47 "Johnny Reb" serial 41-18571
Replies
1
Views
406
Snautzer01
Douglas O-31 or O-43?
Replies
2
Views
1K
Sabrejet
W
Are there any external differences between the Dornier Do 335 A12 and B6
Replies
4
Views
2K
hal bregg
Can anyone identify this B-29, shot down over Manchuria in December 1944? (Markings on rudder: JJ- 26262)
Replies
7
Views
2K
pb43
P
S
Does this kind of F4U3 with a speed approaching 800 km/h really exist? Or "myth."
Replies
1
Views
1K
mjfur
M
Menu
Log in
Register