S/E lightweight Pusher Do 335.

• Aug 21, 2013

• #61

M

Milosh

Senior Master Sergeant

3,069

954

Aug 10, 2009

Göppingen Gö 9 The beginning of the Do335

 

• Aug 21, 2013

• #62

swampyankee

Chief Master Sergeant

4,031

3,259

Jun 25, 2013

wuzak said:

Isn't stability a matter of where the CoG is in relation to the lifting surfaces?

Click to expand...

Yes. Basically, the forward surface has to be more heavily loaded, and has to stall first. Moving the c/g aft, to get a positive lift on the tail is destabilizing: a conventionally configured aircraft (big wing in front, stabilizer in back, like every single aircraft the USAAF, RAF, USN, Japanese air forces, Soviet air forces) must have a download on the tail to be stable. Tail-less aircraft (XP-56) will have a lot of reflex in their airfoils, especially near the tips to do the same thing.

 

• Aug 21, 2013

• #63

davebender

1st Lieutenant

6,446

155

Jan 18, 2009

Michigan, USA

I don't think so.

Gö 9 was an advertising tool to secure RLM funding for development of a tandem engine aircraft. Just as Mercedes Benz T80 land speed record car was an advertising tool to have RLM funding restored for DB603 engine program. Dornier could skip the Gö 9 and begin full size aircraft development if funding were made available.

 

• Aug 21, 2013

• #64

GregP

Major

9,528

6,475

Jul 28, 2003

Chino, California, U.S.A.

Every source I have says the Go-9 was a proof of concept plane for the rear engine setup in the Do 335. Not the same scale, but the same mechanical setup scaled down to see how it worked.

 

• Aug 21, 2013

• #65

GrauGeist

Generalfeldmarschall zur Luftschiff Abteilung

28,974

24,028

Aug 29, 2008

Redding, California

www.netallurgy.com

The Go9 was in fact a trial aircraft designed by Dr. Hütter to prove Dornier's theory about parasitic drag and to validate his Do335 concept.

Dornier also patented this airframe design, too.

By the way, check out this footage of the Do335
View: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=E6ROSTqm2KQ

 

• Aug 21, 2013

• #66

davebender

1st Lieutenant

6,446

155

Jan 18, 2009

Michigan, USA

3 August 1937.
Dornier files patent number 728044.
For rear prop arrangement eventually employed on Do-335.

1941. Gö 9 first flight.
Four years after Dornier rear prop patent was filed.

 

• Aug 21, 2013

• Thread starter
• #67

W

wuzak

Captain

8,316

2,841

Jun 5, 2011

Hobart Tasmania

davebender said:

3 August 1937.
Dornier files patent number 728044.
For rear prop arrangement eventually employed on Do-335.

1941. Gö 9 first flight.
Four years after Dornier rear prop patent was filed.

Click to expand...

And?

 

• Aug 21, 2013

• #68

GrauGeist

Generalfeldmarschall zur Luftschiff Abteilung

28,974

24,028

Aug 29, 2008

Redding, California

www.netallurgy.com

Four year to build the Go9. Sounds about right...

 

• Aug 24, 2013

• #69

Juha

Senior Master Sergeant

3,725

104

Jan 8, 2007

Helsinki

Do 335 suffered from cooling problems of the rear engine, that's why one was lost at Farnborough, was that in 46. But 335 was slightly faster with only rear engine running that with only front engine running.

 

• Aug 24, 2013

• Thread starter
• #70

W

wuzak

Captain

8,316

2,841

Jun 5, 2011

Hobart Tasmania

Juha said:

Do 335 suffered from cooling problems of the rear engine, that's why one was lost at Farnborough, was that in 46. But 335 was slightly faster with only rear engine running that with only front engine running.

Click to expand...

That was not from overheating, but from a spark plug being ejected from the engine.

 

• Aug 25, 2013

• #71

O

OldSkeptic

Senior Airman

509

53

May 17, 2010

We had a thread on this before , daft plane.... waste of good aluminium.

All that time and effort to produce a plane that was inferior to comparable Allied planes like the Hornet and Tigercat ....

Another indicator of the totally stuffed German aircraft/engine manufacturers of the time.

In fact when you look at the history it is amazing they managed to build the 109, 190 and Ju-88 at all, as well as some moderately decent engines. MB was infamous for promising the earth to stop any resources going to other manufacturers .. eg the whole DB-603 nonsense (the most promised and least delivered engine in the record books, unless you look at the Jumo 'super engines' that they promised over and over again).
There was lot of work spent trying to destroy the Ju-88 as well....

Then again individuals matter, without Dowding (Sorley,et al) the British would have faced them with Hawker Harts and Gladiators with a couple of Vickers machine guns....
And, of course, the wonderful Hives in Rolls Royce.