the flaw of the dornier do 335 design?

[wuzak]

In the night fighter variant I might consider it a peer of the P-61. I'm surprised that more weren't earmarked for that role as they could be used day or night against the bomber streams.

Cheers,
Biff

There was a single seat all-weather and night fighter proposed - the Do 335A-5 - as well as the two seat night fighters - the Do 335A-6 and Do 336B-6.

The A-6 and the B-2 (heavy destroyer) were to be the main initial production versions, along with the A-11 (trainer?) and the B-6 starting to come on stream a couple of months later.

But this production schedule was set in January 1945, and the program was to start producing aircraft in March.

There were 25 prototypes and about 20 pre-production A-0 aiframes built. A number of the A-0's were converted to A-10 2 seat trainers.

The night fighters had performance loss because the second crew member took up part of the fuselage normally used for fuel, which required extra tanks in the wings and bomb bay to be added, and the external aerials used by most German radar systems caused drag.

The loss of performance was not an issue for night fighting, but would have made operating in daylight against escorted bombers more difficult.

In comparison to the war time P-61 variants (A and B), the Do 335 didn't have as good a radar but it had superior performance (by about 40 - 50mph).

In terms of firepower, the A-6 had 2 x 20mm MG 151/20 firing through the prop arc and one MK 103 firing through the hub.

Endurance for the A-6 was approximately 2.35 hours at maximum continuous, over 4 hours if lower cruise power settings were used.

Just for the record, this is not a Do 335A-6


It is, in fact, a 2 seat trainer version.

The A-6's second cockpit was covered with a flush panel.
http://img.wp.scn.ru/camms/ar/470/pics/2_16_b1.jpg
WINGS PALETTE - Dornier Do.335 Pfeil - Germany (Nazi)

The B-6 had a small bubble, like an astrodome.
I am modelist » Dornier Do-335 B-6

 

[wuzak]

Unlike the United States, Germany never had the reliable high powered engine like a C series R-2800 that could be used in a simple single engine fighter.

The US didn't have the C-series R-2800 until late in the war either.

And when you mean "simple single engine fighter", you mean like the P-47?

Is having 2 engines in an unconventional layout what makes the Do 335 "complicated"? Apart from the engine, it seems rather conventional to me.

You also have to remember that the Do 335 was never intended to fill the role of a single-engine fighter. It was designed as a heavy fighter and light bomber, hence the bomb bay. It was also to be used as a night fighter and photo reconnaissance aircraft as well.

 

[Ivan1GFP]

Hello Wuzak,

The US didn't have the C-series R-2800 until late in the war either.

No, the C series R-2800 did come along pretty late, but the development of that particular engine wasn't just an overnight thing either.
The later B series engines such as installed in a P-47D-25 and later were already making about 2550 HP which is quite a bit better than any production German engine and doing it at a much greater altitude.

If we look at where these engines were able to make their power, then the difference becomes even more serious. As an example, the Merlin, Turbo Allison, and DB 605 were not that far off in maximum power output but while the DB 605 (and even JuMo 213) never got very far above 20,000 feet for critical altitude, the Allied engines were able to maintain power quite a bit higher.

And when you mean "simple single engine fighter", you mean like the P-47?

Is having 2 engines in an unconventional layout what makes the Do 335 "complicated"? Apart from the engine, it seems rather conventional to me.

Sorry about that. I should have put that term in quotes as you did.
In the big scheme of things, I don't consider the P-47 to be a particularly complex design but it was certainly a bit more so than P-51 or Spitfire. As for the Dornier 335, two engines, the pusher propeller and features added to make it work (such as ejection seat and propeller jettison) do make it more complicated to build and operate.

- Ivan.