What if the Bf110 only have one pilot?

[Thumpalumpacus]

No padantry about it, nothing was side about twin nacelles, only twin engines. The DO-335 fits the description of a twin engine aircraft by all measures.

*said
































That's pedantry.

 

[special ed]

I actually never hear anyone "say" anything. I have to read it. The only voices I hear, are the ones in my head, telling me to keep reading posts on the forum.

 

[GrauGeist]

Yes, I did notice you excluded the ME-262, that is why I did not mention it, or the HS-129, again.
AR-234b, you assumed correctly.
Do335 was in production, 90 were built, 60 were flown, since you did say "production aircraft", not "in service", that counts.
GO 244 could have 1 crewman.
Thank you for the debate.

I might point out (since we're in the process of being technical) that the RLM assigned aircraft designations based on the manufacturer's name (or in some cases, the designer's), so when referring to the Do335, the prefix should be Do, not DO: Dornier.
For example:
Blohm and Voss: BV
Heinkel: He
Kurt Tank: Ta
Göppingen: Gö
Flettner: Fl

And so on.

 

[SaparotRob]

I actually never hear anyone "say" anything. I have to read it. The only voices I hear, are the ones in my head, telling me to keep reading posts on the forum.

The voices in my head do most of my research.

 

[tomo pauk]

It was too heavy, slow, and un-maneuverable to be a good ground attack, or fighter aircraft. Could not carry enough bombs to be a useful light bomber.

Up to 1000 kg (2200 lb) bomb load for the Bf 110 by early 1940, 2000kg (4400 lbs) bomb load by late 1940. See book by Petrick and Mankau for the details,
It was certainly much more maneuverable than the Ju 87, as well as much faster than the Ju 87. It was also faster and more maneuverable than many other aircraft ( both axis and allied), that were used for ground attack.

Way too heavy for dive bombing.

Source?

Did not have the range for maritime reconnaissance.

Really?

Only the morphine driven stubbornness of Goering kept the aircraft in service after its failure in Poland. While being interrogated after the war, Goering blamed the Zerstorer program for the loss of the war. I believe his words were something like "they are the reason for my being in this predicament".

Let's not take the words of a drug addict as a proof for anything.

 

[GrauGeist]

I suppose no one notified the Bf110D units stationed in Norway that they weren't long range, maritime units...

 

[Tanker Tom]

(my bold)

Source for the number of 90 built Do 335s?

Wood, Tony, Gunston Bill, "Hitlers Luftwaffe" (second printing 1978, Cresent Books), Smith, J. Richard. "Dornier Do 335: The Luftwaffe's Fastest Piston-Engine Fighter" (Classic Publications, 2007), www.century of flight.net, Schick, Walter, Meyer, Ingolf, (1997) "Luftwaffe Secret projects: Fighter 1939-1945", Hinckley, Christopher, John "The Race for Hitler's X-planes" (Glouchestershire History Press, 2013), Aircraft of the Third Reich, volume one (London). These are a few references; in your research you will find more.
Given the Do-335's first flight was 26 October 1943, 90 aircraft of all types is not unrealistic. Nor was the engine lay out unique. Claude Dornier started designing tandem layouts as far back as the first world war, the Do X is an extreme example, the Do-26 more conventional. Dornier proposed the tandem arrangement for a bomber in 1939, the schnell bomber program, and accepted as the P-59, I believe. By 1942 this bomber version was upgraded, the number escapes me right now. This was later cancelled and changed to a fighter requirement, the Do-335. In May of 1943 Hitlers emergency fighter program hurried things along. Deliveries of pre-production aircraft could have been as early as July 1944. Then there are the 16-25 or so prototypes and when each flew and how many times, fuel was getting scarce. Production was being set up in both Friedrichshafen and Munchen with orders for over 2,000 by early 1946, that did not happen. A main production line would have been established at Manzell, but due to the allied bombing, was moved to Oberpaffenhofen. As with so many other programs in Germany at the time, records were destroyed or lost, the exact numbers may never be known. No matter how many frames were built the real weakness of the program was the DB 603 engine, which it was sharing with the HE-219. They just could not be made fast enough.
There may well be better information out today, let me know when you do your research if anything has changed. Never relie on a single source.

 

[Tanker Tom]

I might point out (since we're in the process of being technical) that the RLM assigned aircraft designations based on the manufacturer's name (or in some cases, the designer's), so when referring to the Do335, the prefix should be Do, not DO: Dornier.
For example:
Blohm and Voss: BV
Heinkel: He
Kurt Tank: Ta
Göppingen: Gö
Flettner: Fl

And so on.

Guess you are just going to have to learn to live with typo's.

 

[Tanker Tom]

Up to 1000 kg (2200 lb) bomb load for the Bf 110 by early 1940, 2000kg (4400 lbs) bomb load by late 1940. See book by Petrick and Mankau for the details,
It was certainly much more maneuverable than the Ju 87, as well as much faster than the Ju 87. It was also faster and more maneuverable than many other aircraft ( both axis and allied), that were used for ground attack.



Source?



Really?



Let's not take the words of a drug addict as a proof for anything.

Truth or not he did say that. Find your own source, i am tired of doing research for everyone.

 

[tomo pauk]

Find your own source, i am tired of doing research for everyone.

Making the claims without pointing out to the sources (either together with the claim, or when the claim is challenged) is bad scholarship.

 

[GrauGeist]

Guess you are just going to have to learn to live with typo's.

Sorry, those aren't typos, those are simply incorrect references.

If you can't at least try to be accurate at that simple level, then what about more complex data?

 

[GrauGeist]

Truth or not he did say that. Find your own source, i am tired of doing research for everyone.

Odd, in the short length of time here, you haven't provided any.

But here, let me help you with some research. There were NOT 90 Do335s built. There were around 50 some-odd airframes laid out, some were completed, some were destroyed in bombing raids and some were never finished by war's end.

Here's a comprehensive list of types by WerkNummer as well as proposed (but never built).

Dornier Do 335 Manufacture - Aeroflight

Do 335V series prototypes 14 aircraft built at Friedrichshafen, mid 1943 to mid 1944, and tested at Mengen. Model Code Werk Nr. Notes Do 335V-1 CP+UA 230001 First prototype. DB603A-1 engines. First flight 28 Oct 1943 Do 335V-2 CP+UB 230002 To Rechlin, rear engine caught fire, w/o 15 April 1944...

www.aeroflight.co.uk

 

[DerAdlerIstGelandet]

Truth or not he did say that. Find your own source, i am tired of doing research for everyone.

The burden of proof generally lies with the person making a claim.

 

[DerAdlerIstGelandet]

And for the record, nobody made a personal attack at anyone.

1. Pointing out technical inaccuracies is not an attack. It is correcting something that is factually wrong. Don’t we all want to be accurate?
2. Asking for sources when a claim has been made is also not a personal attack. In scholarly research, the researcher or person making a claim should always provide their sources. In fact it is required in almost all forms of official research (which I am not saying this is).

The report will be rejected.

 

[Tanker Tom]

Up to 1000 kg (2200 lb) bomb load for the Bf 110 by early 1940, 2000kg (4400 lbs) bomb load by late 1940. See book by Petrick and Mankau for the details,
It was certainly much more maneuverable than the Ju 87, as well as much faster than the Ju 87. It was also faster and more maneuverable than many other aircraft ( both axis and allied), that were used for ground attack.



Source?



Really?



Let's not take the words of a drug addict as a proof for anything.

Being more maneuverable than the JU-87 is not much of a stretch. Bomb load? Compared to what the fighters could carry that was not much, the P-40 could handle 1,500 pounds and some photos show even more. Two thousand two hundred pounds is not much. As far as range goes no, 418Nm (363mi, 774Km) at sea level and is not much compared to the vastness of the North Sea, or the P-40E at 622Nm (716mi, 1152Km). The HE-111 was not considered a long-range bomber but still had 1200Nm (1,400mi, 2,300Km) range. I could not find separate data about the ME-110 drop tank range.

Making the claims without pointing out to the sources (either together with the claim, or when the claim is challenged) is bad scholarship.

Source on everything, you sure about that? So, if you ask for a source then you will be supplying your own source at the same time? What is your source for the assumption the JU-87 was less maneuverable? What is your source for the JU-87 being slower? What are the many other allied aircraft that were slower and less maneuverable than the ME-110? What is your source that Goering was a drug addict? . . . Bad scholarship perhaps? No, not at all. Most points can be a given, common knowledge if you will, nothing wrong with that.
However, if someone is trying to find a certain point in the discussion it is perfectly acceptable to ask for a reference once that person has done their own due diligence. I for one am happy to help, and hopefully other will also. There is nothing wrong with a discussion between aficionados that does not need constant source references. There is nothing wrong with broad sweeping statements that are generally accurate. Nothing wrong with researching those statements and asking for clarity. There is also no need for yelling in bold or snark like "really?" comments. There is nothing wrong with someone else point of view or lifetime of learning. These formats are pure gold for learning and expanding knowledge, for getting a point to research and see what else there is out there to know.

 

[GrauGeist]

Using bold to highlight a certain portion of text is not yelling.

However, using all caps is considered to be YELLING.

 

[tomo pauk]

So, if you ask for a source then you will be supplying your own source at the same time? What is your source for the assumption the JU-87 was less maneuverable? What is your source for the JU-87 being slower? What are the many other allied aircraft that were slower and less maneuverable than the ME-110? What is your source that Goering was a drug addict?

If you disagree with any of my claims, simply asking for sources will suffice.

There is also no need for yelling in bold or snark like "really?" comments.

I haven't yelled in bold at you.
If you feel offended by any of my comments, I apologize.

Bomb load? Compared to what the fighters could carry that was not much, the P-40 could handle 1,500 pounds and some photos show even more. Two thousand two hundred pounds is not much.

We'd need to wait until 1944 for a P-40 to carry such a bomb load.
If you feel that 2200 lb is not much for early 1940 for a converted heavy fighter to carry, there is nothing I can do there.

As far as range goes no, 418Nm (363mi, 774Km) at sea level and is not much compared to the vastness of the North Sea, or the P-40E at 622Nm (716mi, 1152Km).

I could not find separate data about the ME-110 drop tank range.

2000 miles per the British for the Bf 110C.

 

[GrauGeist]

The long range Bf110D series had the "dachshund belly" fuel tank, which greatly increased their range.

 

[Tanker Tom]

If you disagree with any of my claims, simply asking for sources will suffice.



I haven't yelled in bold at you.
If you feel offended by any of my comments, I apologize.


We'd need to wait until 1944 for a P-40 to carry such a bomb load.
If you feel that 2200 lb is not much for early 1940 for a converted heavy fighter to carry, there is nothing I can do there.




2000 miles per the British for the Bf 110C.

Ok, now a conversation! True the later versions of the P-40 had different bomb racks than the D through L variants, but the same wing as the P-36. It had the capability, not the ability. It was used as an example because it is a much-maligned aircraft. Then again it is hard to find direct comparisons because the Zestorer program and the emphasis on it was unique among the warring powers as far as I know. The bell Airacuda comes close but was never envisioned to deal with fighters. Doing some comparisons, research, with other pure bombers of the time I guess it was not so bad a bomb load. Now I wonder what the bomb aiming system was . . .

 

[tomo pauk]

True the later versions of the P-40 had different bomb racks than the D through L variants, but the same wing as the P-36. It had the capability, not the ability. It was used as an example because it is a much-maligned aircraft.

Should you find the time and desire to read what was posted on this forum about the P-40, you will see that it received a fair shake here, to say at least.
Profile and the wing layout on of the P-36 and P-40 were very similar, we can say they were the same. The later P-40s used stronger wing sets than the early P-40s, weight difference of 10-12% (just wings, not counting the wepons, ammo, U/C etc.; see pg. 234 and 235 of the 'America's hundred thosuands' book).
Early P-40s used stronger wing sets than the P-36A, since it was found that wing skins on the P-36 were wrinkling at high G maneuvers, so remedial actions were taken - see here.

Then again it is hard to find direct comparisons because the Zestorer program and the emphasis on it was unique among the warring powers as far as I know. The bell Airacuda comes close but was never envisioned to deal with fighters.

Airacuda was as good as a fighter as it was the He 111 in that role?
Main job of the Bf 110 was to deal with fighters.