Ad: This forum contains affiliate links to products on Amazon and eBay. More information in Terms and rules
If you were a novice pilot thrown into a Dora in late 44 early 45 would complain about flying a bad aircraft?
And i think your quote about lumping the 200 series is a little like splitting hairs. The engine is the engine, it doesnt matter what gets bolted on afterwards to squeeze a few more horsepower out of it. And the Jumo on the Dora was set up originally for high altitude performance together with the paddle prop (also effective at high altitude to cut through the air) + an over the top array of firepower and your telling me the Dora wasn't a bomber destroyer.......
Next you will tell me the Do 335 was a dogfighter too.
But i respect your opinion and thank you for the input.
Firstly i would just like to say a lot of people seem happy to simply quote statistics/aircraft performance rather than take into consideration all the variables of a paper flight compared to a real flight. Im sure you are aware that by the time the D series started its combat Germany was using very low grade fuel/oil. And in some cases even synthetic substitutes. Compared to the high octane 100% proof fuel the Allies were using. As for the Tempest, it was much faster than the Dora and any Tempest pilot would agree with that. I have even seen accounts of Typhoon pilots chasing down Doras. And as im sure you aware the Tiffy had the same massive Napier Sabre H-24-cylinder, liquid-cooled, sleeve valve, piston aero engine that after having its gremlins ironed out was capable of 2500hp +.
P.S. Sorry i forgot to add. Many pilot claims of kills/aircraft shotdown should never be taken as gospel/truth. ww2 pilots were prone to some wild claims or just plain wrong assumptions. Claims from one side do not always match the losses from the other. I highly recommend anyone to research both sides claims for kills and losses as they dont always tally.
....
And the Jumo on the Dora was set up originally for high altitude performance together with the paddle prop (also effective at high altitude to cut through the air) + an over the top array of firepower and your telling me the Dora wasn't a bomber destroyer
.....
...
Maybe this assessment by a ww2 fighter pilot might help....
...
The contemporary radial-engined FW 190's usually carried a very heavy standard armament of 4-20mm cannon. The Dora's firepower was reduced to 2-20mm wing mounted cannon and 2-.50 caliber cowl mounted machine guns,
...
Are there actually any trained pilots among the members of this site?
P.S I also have over 20 years hands on experience both in service and in a voluntary basis helping to recover and restore all types of allied and axis ww1 - ww2 aircraft. Perhaps you would like me to post a copy of my C.V./Resume. Piston driven prop aircraft are by no means an exact science. And with the parts sourcing/fabricating, many aircraft were simply modified in the factory or in the field which throws all written/paper data and stats out the window. I am not saying anyone posting here is wrong or giving false information but i do know for a fact you simply cannot rely on data/stats alone to determine an aircrafts ability/performance characteristics as many aces had highly modified/personalized machines set up to suit their own flying skills/attributes.
and then:
So what was it - over the top armament, or reduced armament?
I woukd not take any claim made by Pierre Clostermann as gold, just saying
As i said in my previous reply. I view all claims of ww2 pilots with a degree of caution. History is a fickle business and it never hurts to question thing. They are guides not gospel. But sometimes all we have to go on
1100 Hours - Commercial pilot, CFII mainly GA aircraft, I've flown L29s, L39s (from the front seat), T-33s, and F-4s, all time logged and I still consider myself one of the baby pilots when compared to some on this site.
I also have almost 40 years in aircraft manufacturing and maintenance. My resume is too long and boring, so I'll just post this;
View: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=DG1I56ujQCs
You're entitled to your opinions but be advised there are many here who've been around. Again I suggest you browse some of the older threads to find many of us been around the block a few times at least.
Excellent. So there is plenty of experienced aviators/mechanics here. I have been on the ground in a full combat situation and spent many hours talking to pilots old and new. I now work in civil aviation so i too have good knowledge of aviation. And i have great respect for anyone who has a passion for flying. Im not trying to get anyone's back up. I just simply dont always conform to popular belief. And if i feel something should be questioned i will. We are all entitled to our own opinions and im not trying to convert anyone's beliefs. Im just making a genuine observation after extensive experience of the Fw190 - D. Both in restoration and observation of flight trials.
I think you know very well it all depends on what Mk of Dora it is. Even the most basic armament is still almost twice the weight of anything used by the allies.
And if you want to try and reduce the discussion to knit picking so i will give you some stats as your assessment/opinion of the Tempests Napier Sabre engine is a little off to say the least.....
The Dora was a terrible dogfighter and most accounts of German pilots i have read/heard have said they would try to avoid dogfighting altogether and simply try to outrun their opponent.