Rear engine was closer to the CoG than to the rear prop, check out the picture at post #16 here.
Ad: This forum contains affiliate links to products on Amazon and eBay. More information in Terms and rules
Couple of faults come to mind: With the high inertia resulting from engines at each end the unexplored (at the time) issue of roll coupling and resulting possibilities of unrecoverable departures from controlled flight is one.
...
I always thought the a/c was designed to be a fast bomber destroyer not a dogfighter.
One of the big flaws, as a fighter, was that was intended to be a schnell bomber and as such had an internal bomb bay for a 1000kb bomb load (two 500kg bombs?).
This helped dictate the size of the aircraft. As a bomber destroyer this meant there was plenty of weight carrying ability for large,powerful weapons. As a night fighter it meant you could stick the 2nd crewman in the area where the fuel tank was and move the fuel to the bomb bay area.
You still had a very large airplane (for a fighter) though. Expecting it to maneuver like a single engine fighter (even a P-47) was a forlorn hope.
The Luftwaffe may have had no real requirement for a Shell bomber by the time the design was ready but did have a pressing need for bomber destroyers so the design was adapted.
Thanks Ivan. Maybe the tricycle undercarriage gives the 335 a larger look. The whole airframe is high off the ground. It is a big plane. I'm about 30 miles North of the Udvar Hazy. Its fun to go, and I still like the diversity of the Air and Space down town.
I stumbled on this site from Finland:
Dornier Do 335 "Pfeil"
One of the big flaws, as a fighter, was that was intended to be a schnell bomber and as such had an internal bomb bay for a 1000kb bomb load (two 500kg bombs?).
This helped dictate the size of the aircraft. As a bomber destroyer this meant there was plenty of weight carrying ability for large,powerful weapons. As a night fighter it meant you could stick the 2nd crewman in the area where the fuel tank was and move the fuel to the bomb bay area.
You still had a very large airplane (for a fighter) though. Expecting it to maneuver like a single engine fighter (even a P-47) was a forlorn hope.
The Luftwaffe may have had no real requirement for a Shell bomber by the time the design was ready but did have a pressing need for bomber destroyers so the design was adapted.
The P-51H was indeed one of the superb late model allied aircraft including the P-47M/N (with its amazing 2800 hp at 33k ft) and probably some Brit models. Performance of the P-51H did tend to drop off rather quickly above 25k ft. but just about unbeatable at or below that. I don't have good data on the XP-72 other than top speed was 20 mph faster than the P-51H and that it had a huge supercharger (not turbocharger) and was well liked by test personnel. All of these planes would be formidable opponents to the Do 335.Dave, have to respectfully disagree with you about the XP-72. Yes, heck of an aircraft, but... Probably the best prop fighter to get to a War Zone but not see combat, and was made in large numbers (555) was the P-51H. It could do everything the 72 could do which was more than a match for anything else already out there short of the Me-262, was already in production, used far less resources to make and use, fuel efficient, MPG on the XP-72, ouch!, was a lot less complex and far more maintainable and I'm sure a lot less expensive over all. The Merlin was a Mature engine, the R-4360 was not. My Dad told me they had problems with the Corncob from his times at American Overseas Airlines, after WW2, with the first batch of Stratocruisers' and these engines were being operated to Civilian standards, not in a War Zone in Combat. Heck, SAC had problems with them in the '50's with the B-36. How many times I have been told by former B-36 crewmen it was totally not unusual to take off with 6 running and return with only 5, sometimes 4, still running. I know, unusual backwards installation etc, but still, in a single engine Fighter a Decade earlier in Combat, no thanks!
About the DO-335. I am a Native of Alexandria VA. I have been going to the Air and Space Museums since I could walk, early '60's back when I could barely reach out and touch Yeagers' Bell X-1 sitting on the ground, to Silver Hill, the NASM DC and U/H on literally hundreds of times. My point, I'm now 6'9" and have literally grown up around all of these aircraft all my life and the DO-335 is still Freaking HUGE compared, to me, to any other fighter, P-47 included. It's like F-4 Phantom size! My Dads' opinion on the 335 besides having 2 engines on a fighter was from a maintenance side was simple. The higher up off the ground, the harder and more time consuming it is to work on. He absolutely hated the DC-10, I remember the first one we saw together when I was young. He pointed to the tail mounted engine and asked me, "what's wrong here? ". I said I didn't know. He asked, how do you get to that engine without a lot of new and expensive equipment unique to this plane! In my Decades of flying on A/A, I was forbidden to fly on one and I didn't disagree.
Dave, have to respectfully disagree with you about the XP-72. Yes, heck of an aircraft, but... Probably the best prop fighter to get to a War Zone but not see combat, and was made in large numbers (555) was the P-51H. It could do everything the 72 could do which was more than a match for anything else already out there short of the Me-262, was already in production, used far less resources to make and use, fuel efficient, MPG on the XP-72, ouch!, was a lot less complex and far more maintainable and I'm sure a lot less expensive over all. The Merlin was a Mature engine, the R-4360 was not. My Dad told me they had problems with the Corncob from his times at American Overseas Airlines, after WW2, with the first batch of Stratocruisers' and these engines were being operated to Civilian standards, not in a War Zone in Combat. Heck, SAC had problems with them in the '50's with the B-36. How many times I have been told by former B-36 crewmen it was totally not unusual to take off with 6 running and return with only 5, sometimes 4, still running. I know, unusual backwards installation etc, but still, in a single engine Fighter a Decade earlier in Combat, no thanks!
About the DO-335. I am a Native of Alexandria VA. I have been going to the Air and Space Museums since I could walk, early '60's back when I could barely reach out and touch Yeagers' Bell X-1 sitting on the ground, to Silver Hill, the NASM DC and U/H on literally hundreds of times. My point, I'm now 6'9" and have literally grown up around all of these aircraft all my life and the DO-335 is still Freaking HUGE compared, to me, to any other fighter, P-47 included. It's like F-4 Phantom size! My Dads' opinion on the 335 besides having 2 engines on a fighter was from a maintenance side was simple. The higher up off the ground, the harder and more time consuming it is to work on. He absolutely hated the DC-10, I remember the first one we saw together when I was young. He pointed to the tail mounted engine and asked me, "what's wrong here? ". I said I didn't know. He asked, how do you get to that engine without a lot of new and expensive equipment unique to this plane! In my Decades of flying on A/A, I was forbidden to fly on one and I didn't disagree.
Whatever the pros and cons of the DC-10 may be, it was a glorious sight here during the Carr Fire!If it was such a bad design why are so many still flying along with it's brother the MD11.
The real problem was that it was already obsolete. By the time the Do 335 would become operational, Allied jets, P-80, Meteor, were quickly maturing. Even without jets the Do 335 was equaled or outclassed by late war Allied designs, specifically the XP-72, which had completed impressive flight test and was in production when cancelled due to war progress. It was as powerful at all altitudes (using only one engine, even the P-47M/N was more powerful at 30,000 ft than the Do 335), about 5000lbs lighter, was faster, a 4500 ft. higher ceiling, and, most likely, more maneuverable. As usual, Germany spent too much time chasing concepts rather than building already proven designs, Ta 152, Me 262, other jets.