PDA

View Full Version : Do-335 discussion.



darkhorizon11
12-10-2005, 12:40 AM
Though I ussually fly allied I like to dabble in the LW aircraft now and then, I'm a big Me262 fan. Anyways I thought I'd start a thread about this plane, it hasn't gotten much attention but since were the getting it...

What should we expect, its the faster prop aircraft of the war. I don't think it was very manueverable, but I'm guessing it will be the alpha and the omega of the game (if you dont count the jets). I wonder how she will compare to the new P-47, P-38L late, and a Bearcat if we had one...

XyZspineZyX
12-10-2005, 01:30 AM
Its difficult to say, I have no idea on its actual performance, but it looks big & with 2 propellers, I gather it will have some drive & the boom & zoom dept. Problem will be when your rear engine gets taken out by shots from astern

Gibbage1
12-10-2005, 01:32 AM
I think you should compair the Do-335 to something more like the P-47N/M, P-51H or even the F4U-4. All of them had about the same level speed as the Do-335, but only had 1 engine.

The Do-335 wont be a turn fighter, but will be a big B&Z. Fly the Ta-152H and you will get a feel for it since they have the same gun loadout (I think?). It was a big aircraft with an internal bomb bay, and yes. I did model in the bomb bay. It will be the Luftwaffe's hit-n-run master big time.

IL2-chuter
12-10-2005, 02:48 AM
It should turn tighter than you expect (though it definately is a large plane) due to the engine configuration. That pusher will help bring the tail around. Turn entry was sluggish, developed into pretty good for a bit then fell off badly (I hope I'm remembering this right, I wrote a paper on the 335 back in college, aviation tech/science double major. I'm an expert. http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/16x16_smiley-very-happy.gif) We almost certainly won't have the high speed porpoising that the real one had based on the fact that we don't have, for instance, the 262's high speed snaking. I am very much looking forward to this thing. http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/16x16_smiley-happy.gif

Gibbage1
12-10-2005, 03:29 AM
Originally posted by IL2-chuter:
It should turn tighter than you expect (though it definately is a large plane) due to the engine configuration. That pusher will help bring the tail around. Turn entry was sluggish, developed into pretty good for a bit then fell off badly (I hope I'm remembering this right, I wrote a paper on the 335 back in college, aviation tech/science double major. I'm an expert. http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/16x16_smiley-very-happy.gif) We almost certainly won't have the high speed porpoising that the real one had based on the fact that we don't have, for instance, the 262's high speed snaking. I am very much looking forward to this thing. http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/16x16_smiley-happy.gif

I think your not factoring in the gyroscoptic effect of the prop and engine in the back.

I also wonder if the back engine will overheat a lot like it did historically. I doubt it since in recent patches, NOTHING is "historical" or even close to it.

Pirschjaeger
12-10-2005, 04:16 AM
I usually don't pay much attention to this stuff until we get it, but, I didn't realize we were going to get this one. One time we were supposed to get then the next we were'nt. Are we really going to get this one? And when? (here come the 2 week jokes).

You modelled this one right Gib? If so, are you allowed to post some screenies? If it's anything like your previous work, it will be sweet. http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/25.gif

Another question; will it be flyable when we get it or limited to AI for some time first?

Fritz

alert_1
12-10-2005, 04:24 AM
Key words here: speed and Mk103 sniper gun...

Pirschjaeger
12-10-2005, 04:40 AM
If it has the 103, you won't need to BnZ, you can kill your enemy before he is close enough to fire on you.

I love the 103s. Accurate even at 800m, but too heavy on the wings of the 190.

Fritz

fighter_966
12-10-2005, 04:51 AM
This is little out of the topic But Iwould like
to see Arado 234 Blitz in game. That saw more action than Do335

Heliopause
12-10-2005, 06:23 AM
We'll have another jump seat plane....

p1ngu666
12-10-2005, 07:54 AM
as far as i can tell, the do335 combat career was all about teh runnin away.

its closest contemporary would be the hornet

Kocur_
12-10-2005, 08:10 AM
Do-335? P-51H? Hornet? Sorry lads but late/post war planes limit was all used by Yak-3P. Wish we could, but its just all used...

http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/icon_twisted.gif

stathem
12-10-2005, 08:23 AM
Which came first, in this sim - Ta152H-1 (another pre-eminent runner-away) or the Yak3P?

Kocur_
12-10-2005, 08:37 AM
Oh, it might get warm soon...

And prototype of which flew first? Even H-1 prototypes flew already in december 1944, and Yak-3P prototype flew first in march 1945...

Which doesnt change a bit my thinking that labelling planes according to dates of prototypes is BS. It should be, say, first delivery to combat unit.

VW-IceFire
12-10-2005, 09:04 AM
Originally posted by stathem:
Which came first, in this sim - Ta152H-1 (another pre-eminent runner-away) or the Yak3P?
Ta-152H did first...then the Yak-3P.

Except the Ta-152H can only truly run away at higher altitudes. The FW190D-9's are still faster on the deck.

The Do-335 will definately appeal to those who want speed and hitting power (two MG151/15 and 1 MK103 cannon) but if its handling and manuevering power its not going to be all that great.

stathem
12-10-2005, 09:07 AM
Originally posted by Kocur_:
Oh, it might get warm soon...

And prototype of which flew first? Even H-1 prototypes flew already in december 1944, and Yak-3P prototype flew first in march 1945...

Which doesnt change a bit my thinking that labelling planes according to dates of prototypes is BS. It should be, say, first delivery to combat unit.

Oh, '44 prototypes? well then we can have Tempest II, Spit 21, Hornet, Fury, - generationally the same as the Ta and Pfiel. (ignoring the jets)

I'm sure Gib can fill us in on the prototype flights of the F8F, P51H, P47N etc.

And the Ta-H was delivered to combat units when? Fired it's guns in anger for the 1st time?

zoomar
12-10-2005, 09:18 AM
Do-335 would be fast, with good acceleration, but not a dogfighter. Also, if the A-1 single seat fighter variant is the one modelled, it would be surprsingly under-gunned for such a large and heavy plane (1 30mm cannon and 2MGs) It would be interesting to watch bailouts, as I believe the pilot had to trigger explosive bolts to jettison the aft propellor so he didn't get chopped up. Also, the lower rudder/fin was jettisonable when you belly landed.

anarchy52
12-10-2005, 10:22 AM
Originally posted by Gibbage1:
The Do-335 wont be a turn fighter, but will be a big B&Z. Fly the Ta-152H and you will get a feel for it since they have the same gun loadout (I think?). It was a big aircraft with an internal bomb bay, and yes. I did model in the bomb bay. It will be the Luftwaffe's hit-n-run master big time.

Do-335 will not be a turn fighter for the same reason P-38 isn't one: it's a very large target and has poor rearward visibility. Do-335
was exceptional aircraft in turn radius, acceleration, combat range and speed. It was the zenith of fast (prop driven) bomber concept although more fighter then bomber (compared to Mossie or Ta-154). It also had a lot of potential for further development.

Arnament was nose mounted mk103 30mm cannon and two MG151/15 cannons (?). Mk103 has identical 30mm shell like mk108 but the propellant charge was much bigger allowing it to fire 30mm shells at almost 1000m/s muzzle velocity. However rate of fire was considerably lower.

In the game, Do-335 should be very tough opponent outrunning and out-accelerating almost anything prop driven (even with one engine it could do 621km/h !) . Arnament is good with sufficient ammo load, all weapons with very high muzzle velocity. In dogfight anyone taking Do-335 lightly would get a nasty surprise. As a jabo for quick hit & run strikes it would be unmatched.

DrHerb
12-10-2005, 11:00 AM
boy do i love the sound of the mk103 "whump whump whump" definately sounds better then the 108

RedDeth
12-10-2005, 01:26 PM
i want sabres and mig15s in a korean war IL2 add on.

period.

Xiolablu3
12-10-2005, 07:14 PM
Originally posted by dasriech:
Its difficult to say, I have no idea on its actual performance, but it looks big & with 2 propellers, I gather it will have some drive & the boom & zoom dept. Problem will be when your rear engine gets taken out by shots from astern

Good point! I had never thought bout this.

The rear propellor must have been very vulnerable.

Have you seen that film of a F117 when the flying computer malfunctions? It just sort of drops out of the sky like a brick, I can imagine the Do335 doing the same if the rear prop got hit.

darkhorizon11
12-10-2005, 08:08 PM
What combos of armaments are there?

VW-IceFire
12-10-2005, 10:54 PM
Originally posted by anarchy52:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by Gibbage1:
The Do-335 wont be a turn fighter, but will be a big B&Z. Fly the Ta-152H and you will get a feel for it since they have the same gun loadout (I think?). It was a big aircraft with an internal bomb bay, and yes. I did model in the bomb bay. It will be the Luftwaffe's hit-n-run master big time.

Do-335 will not be a turn fighter for the same reason P-38 isn't one: it's a very large target and has poor rearward visibility. Do-335
was exceptional aircraft in turn radius, acceleration, combat range and speed. It was the zenith of fast (prop driven) bomber concept although more fighter then bomber (compared to Mossie or Ta-154). It also had a lot of potential for further development.

Arnament was nose mounted mk103 30mm cannon and two MG151/15 cannons (?). Mk103 has identical 30mm shell like mk108 but the propellant charge was much bigger allowing it to fire 30mm shells at almost 1000m/s muzzle velocity. However rate of fire was considerably lower.

In the game, Do-335 should be very tough opponent outrunning and out-accelerating almost anything prop driven (even with one engine it could do 621km/h !) . Arnament is good with sufficient ammo load, all weapons with very high muzzle velocity. In dogfight anyone taking Do-335 lightly would get a nasty surprise. As a jabo for quick hit & run strikes it would be unmatched. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>
Size doesn't have too much to do with how well something turns. A Su-27 turns and flies like a leaf in some manuevers...and its the size of a WWII bomber. The P-38 was actually an excellent stall fighter...its engines, wings, and loading were excellent for an aircraft of its size. The Do-335 is by contrast far different as it has small wings that are heavily loaded like the FW190's.

p1ngu666
12-10-2005, 11:29 PM
google said 621kph is 385 mph

im dubious it could get that fast on one engine, as its so big and heavy, and draggy.

385mph is similer to a 109g6, faster than spitvb, and some yaks

how much power from each engine did it have?

Interminate
12-10-2005, 11:39 PM
Originally posted by p1ngu666:
as far as i can tell, the do335 combat career was all about teh runnin away.

its closest contemporary would be the hornet

like dkirk?

p1ngu666
12-11-2005, 12:15 AM
u mean dunkirk?

when the mighty luftwaffe set forth to destroy the remains of the allied armies, and truphantly snatched defeat from the jaws of victory?

iirec, a couple of men got back from dunkirk, erm a couple of hundred thousand infact.

dunkirk was a curious victory/loss thing for both sides, on the one hand germans had taken france, on the other they failed to stop a huge amount of men escaping to the UK.

IL2-chuter
12-11-2005, 12:46 AM
In response to previous post about rear prop gyroscopic effect maybe not being counted . . . all my comments (as best as I can recall) were from test reports. As for 385mph on one engine . . . it was on the rear engine (I know at least 350mph was possible, but not sure about 385mph) with front engine max speed being mor like 330/335mph. It will be interesting to see how the single engine performance is modelled.

http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/16x16_smiley-happy.gif

alert_1
12-11-2005, 04:36 AM
Me262 is banned from most servers because it's jet. Wonder what will be the reason for Do335. I gusss somebody is already working on that http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_biggrin.gif

Aaron_GT
12-11-2005, 05:52 AM
iirec, a couple of men got back from dunkirk, erm a couple of hundred thousand infact.

Even more than that - 338,000 from various Allied armies.

p1ngu666
12-11-2005, 06:08 AM
Originally posted by alert_1:
Me262 is banned from most servers because it's jet. Wonder what will be the reason for Do335. I gusss somebody is already working on that http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_biggrin.gif

late war plane that saw no action, or just the tinyest amount. imo if its uber itll be banned, if it isnt itll be allowed

stathem
12-11-2005, 06:28 AM
Originally posted by p1ngu666:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by alert_1:
Me262 is banned from most servers because it's jet. Wonder what will be the reason for Do335. I gusss somebody is already working on that http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_biggrin.gif

late war plane that saw no action, or just the tinyest amount. imo if its uber itll be banned, if it isnt itll be allowed </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

Maybe it should be allowed, so long as Loadout is set to 'Empty' http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/59.gif

Kocur_
12-11-2005, 06:33 AM
late war plane that saw no action, or just the tinyest amount. imo if its uber itll be banned, if it isnt itll be allowed

Hmm! Yak-3P! http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/icon_twisted.gif

CUJO_1970
12-11-2005, 06:39 AM
Originally posted by VW-IceFire:
The Do-335 is by contrast far different as it has small wings that are heavily loaded like the FW190's.


Nope, sorry - the Do-335 had massive wings - a 414 sq. ft. wing area and a 45+ ft. span.

A contemporary P-47 had a wing area of 300 sq ft by comparison, 115 sq ft less than the Dornier.

CUJO_1970
12-11-2005, 06:46 AM
Originally posted by p1ngu666:
google said 621kph is 385 mph

im dubious it could get that fast on one engine, as its so big and heavy, and draggy.




Less draggy than a P-38 or a Mosquito because the engines are mounted inline instead of side by side.

Captured Do-335 after the war was flown by a German pilot, supposed to be escorted by P-51 Mustangs. He had to shut down one engine to try and let the Mustangs catch up.

They never did.

p1ngu666
12-11-2005, 07:44 AM
i know its got less frontal area, but still compaired to a single engined plane, uve got a dead engine, prop, plus cooling bits, its dead weight.

Powerplant: 2 x 2,250hp Daimler-Benz DB 603E/MW50 liquid-cooled inline engines.

360mph seems reasonable, 385 seems abit optismistic

stathem
12-11-2005, 08:31 AM
Originally posted by CUJO_1970:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by VW-IceFire:
The Do-335 is by contrast far different as it has small wings that are heavily loaded like the FW190's.


Nope, sorry - the Do-335 had massive wings - a 414 sq. ft. wing area and a 45+ ft. span.

A contemporary P-47 had a wing area of 300 sq ft by comparison, 115 sq ft less than the Dornier. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

Pfiel A-6 empty weight - 7700Kg

P-47D empty weight - 4853Kg

So ~30% greater wing area and ~80% greater weight.

Wing area of Fw 190 A-8?

empty weight 3200Kg

VW-IceFire
12-11-2005, 08:36 AM
Originally posted by CUJO_1970:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by VW-IceFire:
The Do-335 is by contrast far different as it has small wings that are heavily loaded like the FW190's.


Nope, sorry - the Do-335 had massive wings - a 414 sq. ft. wing area and a 45+ ft. span.

A contemporary P-47 had a wing area of 300 sq ft by comparison, 115 sq ft less than the Dornier. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>
Small wings for the weight I should say. If I remember correctly...the wing shape is also similar to the FW190s...low drag but poor stall performance.

Unless I'm missing something, from what I can understand, this thing will turn very badly, but have excellent speed performance. I'm not sure on roll...do both engines torque in the same direction? I bet it rolls quicker one way than the other.

Pirschjaeger
12-11-2005, 08:39 AM
Originally posted by Xiolablu3:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by dasriech:
Its difficult to say, I have no idea on its actual performance, but it looks big & with 2 propellers, I gather it will have some drive & the boom & zoom dept. Problem will be when your rear engine gets taken out by shots from astern

Good point! I had never thought bout this.

The rear propellor must have been very vulnerable.

Have you seen that film of a F117 when the flying computer malfunctions? It just sort of drops out of the sky like a brick, I can imagine the Do335 doing the same if the rear prop got hit. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

You still have an engine in the front. You'll lose a lot of performance but there's no reason it shouldn't continue to fly. I'd also assume that since planes were most often hit from behind, the designers must have put some armor. There's probably little to hit in the back of the engine anyway.

BTW, are we really going to get this plane? When?

Fritz

p1ngu666
12-11-2005, 08:57 AM
Originally posted by VW-IceFire:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by CUJO_1970:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by VW-IceFire:
The Do-335 is by contrast far different as it has small wings that are heavily loaded like the FW190's.


Nope, sorry - the Do-335 had massive wings - a 414 sq. ft. wing area and a 45+ ft. span.

A contemporary P-47 had a wing area of 300 sq ft by comparison, 115 sq ft less than the Dornier. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>
Small wings for the weight I should say. If I remember correctly...the wing shape is also similar to the FW190s...low drag but poor stall performance.

Unless I'm missing something, from what I can understand, this thing will turn very badly, but have excellent speed performance. I'm not sure on roll...do both engines torque in the same direction? I bet it rolls quicker one way than the other. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

the engine was turned around, so in effect, one turns left one turns right, so they kinda cancel each other out

Pirschjaeger
12-11-2005, 09:04 AM
It seems to me that you might get a yaw unbalance when you slam the throttle rather than the usual roll from the single engine torquing.

Can't explain why, it just seems to me to be this way. It's mor to do with the blades having opposite pitch.

Fritz

anarchy52
12-11-2005, 09:16 AM
Originally posted by VW-IceFire:
Small wings for the weight I should say. If I remember correctly...the wing shape is also similar to the FW190s...low drag but poor stall performance.

On the small wings for the weight:

Wingloading in comparison to western planes (russians don't really have anything heavy to compare with):
Do-335 in full config but without bomb(s) has wingloading of : 236.36 kg/m^2 which is similar to P-47 and lower then combat equipped P-51 or P-38.

On the wing profile: Only similarity I see between FW-190 wing and Do-335 are the rounded corners of wingtips. Wing profile is completely different (Do-335 has surprisingly thick wing profile).

So, you are not correct on the wings http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_smile.gif



Unless I'm missing something, from what I can understand, this thing will turn very badly, but have excellent speed performance.

It should turn at least similar to aircraft with similar wingloading, powerloading and counter-rotating props (P-38) don't you think?
With the advantage of powerloading, wingloading and lower drag being on Do-335 side.

So basically people thinking it's some lumbering giant sort of like overloaded P-47 are not correct.

However how it will handle in game doesn't necessarily have anything to do with RL. I expect it to fly like an overloaded FW-190 with worse roll-rate, good for flying straight and fast, not much else. After all, it was a german plane, right?

CUJO_1970
12-11-2005, 09:42 AM
Originally posted by stathem:

Pfiel A-6 empty weight - 7700Kg

P-47D empty weight - 4853Kg

So ~30% greater wing area and ~80% greater weight.




The Do-335A-6 is the two-seater night fighter equipped with radar stathem.


Empty equipped weight for the single-seater we are getting is ~6530kg and max loaded weight w/ internal bomb load is ~9510 kg.

I'm not sure what configuration/varient Oleg is going to model, so the weights could be a bit different, we will have to wait and see.

VW-IceFire
12-11-2005, 09:44 AM
Originally posted by anarchy52:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by VW-IceFire:
Small wings for the weight I should say. If I remember correctly...the wing shape is also similar to the FW190s...low drag but poor stall performance.

On the small wings for the weight:

Wingloading in comparison to western planes (russians don't really have anything heavy to compare with):
Do-335 in full config but without bomb(s) has wingloading of : 236.36 kg/m^2 which is similar to P-47 and lower then combat equipped P-51 or P-38.

On the wing profile: Only similarity I see between FW-190 wing and Do-335 are the rounded corners of wingtips. Wing profile is completely different (Do-335 has surprisingly thick wing profile).

So, you are not correct on the wings http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_smile.gif



Unless I'm missing something, from what I can understand, this thing will turn very badly, but have excellent speed performance.

It should turn at least similar to aircraft with similar wingloading, powerloading and counter-rotating props (P-38) don't you think?
With the advantage of powerloading, wingloading and lower drag being on Do-335 side.

So basically people thinking it's some lumbering giant sort of like overloaded P-47 are not correct.

However how it will handle in game doesn't necessarily have anything to do with RL. I expect it to fly like an overloaded FW-190 with worse roll-rate, good for flying straight and fast, not much else. After all, it was a german plane, right? </div></BLOCKQUOTE>
Fair enough then http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_smile.gif

Yeah we'll see how well the game translates reality...at the moment its doing very poorly.

p1ngu666
12-11-2005, 09:58 AM
ya, the engines would twist the airframe, so it wont be as "perfect" as the p38

XyZspineZyX
12-11-2005, 10:58 AM
Originally posted by Pirschjaeger:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by Xiolablu3:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by dasriech:
Its difficult to say, I have no idea on its actual performance, but it looks big & with 2 propellers, I gather it will have some drive & the boom & zoom dept. Problem will be when your rear engine gets taken out by shots from astern

Good point! I had never thought bout this.

The rear propellor must have been very vulnerable.

Have you seen that film of a F117 when the flying computer malfunctions? It just sort of drops out of the sky like a brick, I can imagine the Do335 doing the same if the rear prop got hit. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

You still have an engine in the front. You'll lose a lot of performance but there's no reason it shouldn't continue to fly. I'd also assume that since planes were most often hit from behind, the designers must have put some armor. There's probably little to hit in the back of the engine anyway.

BTW, are we really going to get this plane? When?

Fritz </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

The only problem I see here is when the engine actually explodes & rips off the back end.
Gotta go work is calling

stathem
12-11-2005, 11:33 AM
Originally posted by CUJO_1970:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by stathem:

Pfiel A-6 empty weight - 7700Kg

P-47D empty weight - 4853Kg

So ~30% greater wing area and ~80% greater weight.




The Do-335A-6 is the two-seater night fighter equipped with radar stathem.


Empty equipped weight for the single-seater we are getting is ~6530kg and max loaded weight w/ internal bomb load is ~9510 kg.

I'm not sure what configuration/varient Oleg is going to model, so the weights could be a bit different, we will have to wait and see. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

So I took the worst case and you took the best - hardly unusual round here. Incindently, where do you get 6530Kg from - I have 7400Kg for the A-1 from book sorce and the top matches from google indicate this too. Over 1 metric ton (1200 kg) does seem a large figure for a radar set and an extra bloke (unless he'd been eating too many Bratwurst).

wintergoose
12-11-2005, 11:50 AM
The Do335 Pfeil never entred into a cobat fight, althoug the plain was reoported seen bay some alied fighterspilots.
I think the Do335 would have made it best as a two seter nightfighter.
It had a exellent radar and powerfull weapons.
As a singelseat fighter it was one of the fastest pistonengined fighters ever build.
Claimed top speed aroung 765 km/h.
In this sim it must be just funny to fly we will newer have a corect historical fight missions.

robban75
12-11-2005, 12:07 PM
Originally posted by anarchy52:
It should turn at least similar to aircraft with similar wingloading, powerloading

In a perfect world, perhaps. It's impossible to tell how the Pfeil will handle in the game. Look at the I-182 and Fw 190D-9. Both has equally high wingloading, and very similar powerloading, yet in the game the I-182 can sustain turnrates similar to the La-7.

p1ngu666
12-11-2005, 12:16 PM
ya http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/16x16_smiley-indifferent.gif

when i looked i didnt really find anything concreate, that was awhile ago..

thing is, if its uber itll be banned, if its **** to average, itll be on servers.

hope oleg gives it a bomb loadout, and its a curious plane, so im lookin forward to flying it

Hristo_
12-11-2005, 02:17 PM
Just by comparing my scale model Do-335 to other LW planes, I notice is has far superior aerodynamics to any other LW prop plane. The airframe is very clean - no openings or bulges.

On the other hand, wings are extremely thick. They instantly remind me of Hurricane or Typhoon wings.

IMO, Do-335 is fast due to its overall aerodynamics but despite its wings. It seems as if they put those wings on it to make it more maneuverable when slow, knowing it would still be among the fastest props in 1945.

Yet, they were working on a laminar flow wing for Do-335 at the same time. Probably a measure if and when Allied planes like P-51H would match Do-335 speeds.

the version we might get has a thick wing. So, there is probably more to its slow speed maneuverability than just pure wingloading.

Also, rear engine might help bring the tail around faster, similar to drifting with a RWD car. Of course, like drifting in a car - overdo it and you lose speed or even control of your plane.

p1ngu666
12-11-2005, 02:37 PM
shurely not better than your beloved 190? http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/16x16_smiley-surprised.gif

aircraft get more bits and bobs over time, and do335 was at the start. plus the kit might just be lackin details http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/16x16_smiley-sad.gif

CUJO_1970
12-11-2005, 02:50 PM
Originally posted by stathem:
So I took the worst case and you took the best - hardly unusual round here. Incindently, where do you get 6530Kg from - I have 7400Kg for the A-1 from book sorce and the top matches from google indicate this too. Over 1 metric ton (1200 kg) does seem a large figure for a radar set and an extra bloke (unless he'd been eating too many Bratwurst).


Actually, I just took the listed weights of the single seater from Eric Brown's Wings of the Luftwaffe and Jane's Fighting Aircraft of World War Two for the A-0 and A-1.

It's not as simple as just the extra radar set and extra person(bratwurst intake notwithstanding), there was also an extra cockpit for that pilot.

The A-6 also carried more fuel internally - 510 imperial gallons. So it had extra fuel tanks as well as 103 imp. gallons more of fuel.

Incredibly, RAF test pilot Eric Brown got a two-seater Do-335A-6 up to 430 mph at only 18,000ft http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_eek.gif

Imagine the speeds the lighter, cleaner single seater would be capable of.

anarchy52
12-11-2005, 03:20 PM
Empty weight is 6530kg, 7260 is empty weight +
1) additional flight control and navigation equipment - 42kg
2) safety & rescue equipment - 154kg
3) electric eq. & radio - 145kg
4) signal equipment 2kg
5) Weapons - 317kg
6) bomb drop system - 70kg

Full combat weight is 9510kg including one 500kg bomb and 1350 kg (1800 liters !) of fuel.

luftluuver
12-11-2005, 03:33 PM
The Monogram-Monarch book gives:

A-0
empty weight - not given
equiped weight - 6530kg/14,396lb
loaded weight - 9510kg/21,966lb
fuel - 1850l

A-6
empty weight - 6830kg/15,101lb
equiped weight - 7830kg/17,262lb
loaded weight - 10100kg/22,266lb
fuel - 1710l

As to the loaded weight for the A-0, it does not say 'max loaded weight'.

Atzebrueck
12-11-2005, 04:07 PM
The following site has a lot of information about the Do335:
http://mitglied.lycos.de/luftwaffe1/do335/do335_1.html

Atzebrueck
12-11-2005, 04:35 PM
empty:
Do335 170 kg/mÔ┬▓ 1,44 kg/PS
P47 174 kg/mÔ┬▓ 2,11 kg/PS
P38 210 kg/mÔ┬▓ 2,00 kg/PS

take-off weight:
Do335 234 kg/mÔ┬▓ 1,99 kg/PS
P47 316 kg/mÔ┬▓ 3,83 kg/PS
P38 260 kg/mÔ┬▓ 2,48 kg/PS

Judged by wing- and powerloading we have a winner I'd say http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_wink.gif.

Pirschjaeger
12-11-2005, 05:57 PM
Originally posted by dasriech:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by Pirschjaeger:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by Xiolablu3:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by dasriech:
Its difficult to say, I have no idea on its actual performance, but it looks big & with 2 propellers, I gather it will have some drive & the boom & zoom dept. Problem will be when your rear engine gets taken out by shots from astern

Good point! I had never thought bout this.

The rear propellor must have been very vulnerable.

Have you seen that film of a F117 when the flying computer malfunctions? It just sort of drops out of the sky like a brick, I can imagine the Do335 doing the same if the rear prop got hit. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

You still have an engine in the front. You'll lose a lot of performance but there's no reason it shouldn't continue to fly. I'd also assume that since planes were most often hit from behind, the designers must have put some armor. There's probably little to hit in the back of the engine anyway.

BTW, are we really going to get this plane? When?

Fritz </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

The only problem I see here is when the engine actually explodes & rips off the back end.
Gotta go work is calling </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

I've never heard of an engine exploding. I've seen them punch holes in the block, but never an explosion. As far as I figure, an engine can have no greater explosion than that contained in the cylinders, which wouldn't have enough power to damage the airframe.

BTW, I have seen an engine have an explodion from one cylinder. It was a run-away 350 Cummins. #6 let go with a loud bang, a hole in the block big enougn to put my fist through, spray of oil and debri. Quite a mess but no damage to the truck.

Fritz

IL2-chuter
12-11-2005, 06:24 PM
A couple of factors ignored by simple power loading and wing loading comparisons are prop and wing efficiencies and characteristics. All the comments I've read here seam to imply that these differences are non-existant or minimal but they're not. I've flown the Cessna 337 (an improved 335 http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/16x16_smiley-very-happy.gif) a few times and I can definately say that this experience doesn't really apply as the 337s tail is behind the aft prop so I won't discuss this further. http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/blink.gif The aft prop being aft of the tail appears to have had not only an affect on the turn rate (improving it) but also seems to have been responsible for the high speed porpoising (hoping to see this modelled, not betting on it), both effects discovered in testing. The aircraft was essentially torque free due to counter-rotating props and there was a fair amount of armor plate all around. With the bomb bay empty and the large available fuel supply whittled down to 25% it should be a fun plane to test in the game.

http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/16x16_smiley-indifferent.gif

AND . . . its got a HOTSEAT! http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/16x16_smiley-surprised.gif WHEEE http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/16x16_smiley-happy.gif

Pirschjaeger
12-11-2005, 07:27 PM
It was mentioned earlier in the thread that the Do335 should turn good due to its rear prop. This doesn't seem logical to me if the game is modelled correctly. When I fly a fither and want to turn tighter I must drop the throttle. For best effect, I must drop the throttle to idle.

It seems to me that the distance from the wing to the propeller makes a difference in turning ability. Also, the distance of the wings to the elevators. In both cases, isn't it logical to assume the closer the better the turning ability?

I do think it will turn good if you drop the throttle due to the position of the wings.

I'm not expert on aerodynamics but this is what my imagination tells me. Do the experts agree?

Fritz

CUJO_1970
12-11-2005, 09:49 PM
Um, most definitely not a dogfighter http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_biggrin.gif

But, with the exception of the 262 it will be the sickest B-n-Z machine you've ever seen.

darkhorizon11
12-11-2005, 09:53 PM
Slap me if I'm wrong but Gibbage modeled the 335 didn't he? or at least partly, I think it was about 3/4 finished then transferred to another party? So any questions about wing chord or exactly which model were seeing in the game should be pointed at him...

Anyways, the amount of throttle in a turn really isn't relevant. Its all airspeed and bank which affect radius and rate of turn. Remember the throttle is just a little valve that allows air into the CC of the cylinders! http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_biggrin.gif

p1ngu666
12-11-2005, 10:08 PM
not sure if itll be a good bnz machine, cos mk103 is low rof, and mg151/15 arent that powerful, sound cool thohttp://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_biggrin.gif

tempest and 190 are better imo, purely on number and spread of deadly rounds..

Hristo_
12-11-2005, 11:20 PM
Rear positioned prop would help turn rate. Ever experienced drifting in a RWD car ? Similar thing.

Somewhat similar in nature, today's thrustvectoring is responsible for unreal slow speed maneuvering abilities of new Sukhoi fighters.

Rear prop will help its turn by bringing the tail around. You can even call it dirty turn , because it introduces a lot of drag, but if you are above corner speed and want to turn as tight as possible - it is just what you need. Similar to reducing the throttle - getting to corner speed quicker. Below corner speed it isn't as useful as turn radius might get smaller, but turn rate might suffer.

This simply isn't possible with forward prop only.

Also, do not forget that rear prop pitch was capable of being set to act as a negative thrust, greatly reducing landing distances. An enterprising pilot might find the use of this in a close combat no doubt (P-38 airbrakes anyone ? http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_wink.gif).

Its thick wings are probably thick for a reason. Low speed maneuverability seems a logical goal to me. As I said earlier, laminar wings were being prepared, but they didn't need them yet.

Optimistic Do-335 flight scenario would mean slashing attacks on bombers with its sniper weapons (generally, firing distances at bombers would be greater, making is a little bit safer for the Do 335). Attacking fighters would be done in a similar fashion, with little care of getting caught by anything except diving planes.

when on defensive, a Do-335 would induce an overshoot like no other. Reducing throttle and using rear prop as drift device first until whole airframe starts acting as an airbrake will be the end of many P-51s. If Oleg models rear engine historical characteristic of being set to act as a negative thrust device, it would make the Do-335 the ultimate stop and go machine. Its powerloading, of course, would be responsible for picking up the speed lost during the overshoot.

Do-335's size and armor would probably mean a lot of this planes bringing their pilots home. Would a Yak be able to even bring it down with is ammo load ?

Still, Do-335 is a large plane and thus a large target. But I'm waiting for this plane since Aces High beta, so you can count on me flying it whenever I get the chance.

darkhorizon11
12-12-2005, 12:46 AM
Originally posted by Hristo_:
Rear positioned prop would help turn rate. Ever experienced drifting in a RWD car ? Similar thing.

Somewhat similar in nature, today's thrustvectoring is responsible for unreal slow speed maneuvering abilities of new Sukhoi fighters.

Rear prop will help its turn by bringing the tail around. You can even call it dirty turn , because it introduces a lot of drag, but if you are above corner speed and want to turn as tight as possible - it is just what you need. Similar to reducing the throttle - getting to corner speed quicker. Below corner speed it isn't as useful as turn radius might get smaller, but turn rate might suffer.

This simply isn't possible with forward prop only.

Also, do not forget that rear prop pitch was capable of being set to act as a negative thrust, greatly reducing landing distances. An enterprising pilot might find the use of this in a close combat no doubt (P-38 airbrakes anyone ? http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_wink.gif).

Its thick wings are probably thick for a reason. Low speed maneuverability seems a logical goal to me. As I said earlier, laminar wings were being prepared, but they didn't need them yet.

Optimistic Do-335 flight scenario would mean slashing attacks on bombers with its sniper weapons (generally, firing distances at bombers would be greater, making is a little bit safer for the Do 335). Attacking fighters would be done in a similar fashion, with little care of getting caught by anything except diving planes.

when on defensive, a Do-335 would induce an overshoot like no other. Reducing throttle and using rear prop as drift device first until whole airframe starts acting as an airbrake will be the end of many P-51s. If Oleg models rear engine historical characteristic of being set to act as a negative thrust device, it would make the Do-335 the ultimate stop and go machine. Its powerloading, of course, would be responsible for picking up the speed lost during the overshoot.

Do-335's size and armor would probably mean a lot of this planes bringing their pilots home. Would a Yak be able to even bring it down with is ammo load ?

Still, Do-335 is a large plane and thus a large target. But I'm waiting for this plane since Aces High beta, so you can count on me flying it whenever I get the chance.

The rear prop will reduce skid during the turn I would think...

Personally I would see the best role for the 335 as an interceptor and Jabo. Definetely not good in the slow speed regime, I'd probably fly her similar to the 262...

Gibbage1
12-12-2005, 01:17 AM
Originally posted by Pirschjaeger:

BTW, I have seen an engine have an explodion from one cylinder. It was a run-away 350 Cummins. #6 let go with a loud bang, a hole in the block big enougn to put my fist through, spray of oil and debri. Quite a mess but no damage to the truck.

Fritz

Watch an NHRA drag race and you can see some exploding engines. Those engines are EXTREAMLY overboosted, but so are aircraft engines.

As for what model I made, I made the A-0. About 10 were built, and only 1 A-1 was made. Im sure some of you wish I made the B-2 model http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_wink.gif As for what makes it into the game, I dont know. I did the external model, but not 100% of it. Another guy made the LOD's and finished up some little things. They could of made it into a A-1.

This is what the Do-335 looked like before I sent it off to the other guy who finished.

http://www.gibbageart.com/files/do335-36.jpg

As you can see, not all the textures were done. I think Snorri did the texture.

Just like the Me-262, in the right hands it will dominate anything other then another Do-335 or a jet. In the wrong hands, it will be an easy 200 points like the P-38 is in the wrong hands.

alert_1
12-12-2005, 01:57 AM
Do335 in RL:
- excellent speed in all altiutdes (the fastest prop drive AC of WWII)
- excellent zoomclimb
- perfect stable gun platform (long barreled Mk103 was nice weapon)
- very good maneuvrability for its size (dont know was meant by that)
- it was complicated machine

I dont think that all these properties gonna be modelled correclty in existing FB engine....

Friendly_flyer
12-12-2005, 02:26 AM
You're doing vey fine work, Gibbage!

ploughman
12-12-2005, 02:31 AM
Yes, this'll be a lot of fun.

Pirschjaeger
12-12-2005, 02:43 AM
Originally posted by Gibbage1:

Watch an NHRA drag race and you can see some exploding engines. Those engines are EXTREAMLY overboosted, but so are aircraft engines.



It's not the boost that's so important when talking about an engine exploding. It's the stroke and displacement. The drag racing engines are turning at 15,000+ rpms. The stroke is very short, explaining why they only tap into the power band at high rpms. The airplane engine cannot rely on high rpms alone. The need a wider range of power. Their stroke will be much longer, relative to drag racers.

Why should this engine explode when no other a/c engines explode in the sim? I think we can trust Oleg and the crew on this one. Where TaylorTony? He should have something useful to say about this.

BTW Gib, that pic is sweet, nice work. http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/25.gif

I also notice how close the rear engine is to the main wings. This telles me that it will still be capable of flying when the rear engine in non-operational.

Fritz

IL2-chuter
12-12-2005, 02:52 AM
Originally posted by Pirschjaeger:
It was mentioned earlier in the thread that the Do335 should turn good due to its rear prop. This doesn't seem logical to me if the game is modelled correctly. When I fly a fither and want to turn tighter I must drop the throttle. For best effect, I must drop the throttle to idle.

It seems to me that the distance from the wing to the propeller makes a difference in turning ability. Also, the distance of the wings to the elevators. In both cases, isn't it logical to assume the closer the better the turning ability?

I do think it will turn good if you drop the throttle due to the position of the wings.

I'm not expert on aerodynamics but this is what my imagination tells me. Do the experts agree?

Fritz



I will repeat ". . . both effects discovered in testing." I'm not making it up (but it is relative, being a 20000lb aircraft), it is what I recall from reading the test reports. Eric Brown said that the powered ailerons provided a sharp rate of roll at all speeds but the rudder and elevator forces were typically German (heavy). He says he "found the 335 lively to fly, and right from the short take-off run under the smooth roar of the two Daimler-Benz DB603s it afforded that comforting feeling of being overpowered, a gratifying sensation that one seldom experiences." "The climb was very steep for such a large aircraft, and it was obviously capable of keeping right on up to well above 35000ft." It climbed to 19,685ft in 10mins at 20,944lbs. This is the guy who says the 219 he flew was scarily underpowered.

Also, "I was of the opinion that it would have made a highly successful night fighter with its good stability, endurance and turn of speed (ed. accelleration not turning). As a day fighter, however, although possessing an impressive performance by piston-engined fighter standards and a pretty potent armament, it was no aircraft for dogfighting." One man's opinion and we all here have them.

Back to the turn rate, it was helped by the rear prop and it was pretty good when the speed was low enough to get the elevator working, but it wasn't a yak and it couldn't sustain it. I would guess that the P-38 would be the only twin in the game that could outmaneuver it. http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/16x16_smiley-very-happy.gif That is all.

http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/16x16_smiley-indifferent.gif

Pirschjaeger
12-12-2005, 03:00 AM
Interesting Chuter. If you posted that before, sorry I missed it. I'm often pressured for time and can't read all.

It will definitely be over powered so it will be great for a quick get away. I don't see too much in the possiblities of maneuverability, but, I think we'll find that when you combine the throttle with certain surface changes, you'll have unique possibilities. The rudder looks weak and the fact that there are two kinda points in that direction.

I seem to remember reading a report from a P-51(?) pilot about seeing a German plane, very odd plane, go by so fast that there was no reason to try to catch up to it. Maybe it was one of these.

Fritz

alert_1
12-12-2005, 03:01 AM
If Oleg models rear engine historical characteristic of being set to act as a negative thrust device, it would make the Do-335 the ultimate stop and go machine. Its powerloading, of course, would be responsible for picking up the speed lost during the overshoot.
If I'm not mistaken, Oleg already said that this wont be modelled, due to lack of time, of course http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/10.gif

Pirschjaeger
12-12-2005, 03:13 AM
Woo hoo! Bonus! two weeks after the Do335 release, we'll get a "stop and go" patch.
http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/16x16_smiley-happy.gif
Fritz

alert_1
12-12-2005, 03:50 AM
Pirsch, as for those wereWULFs in your sig, they looks exactly as those who took apart my slightly overmodelled spit last nigh wing by wing http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_biggrin.gif Still sweating and trembling... http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/16x16_smiley-surprised.gif
http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/cry.gif

Pirschjaeger
12-12-2005, 04:25 AM
Originally posted by alert_1:
Pirsch, as for those wereWULFs in your sig, they looks exactly as those who took apart my slightly overmodelled spit last nigh wing by wing http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_biggrin.gif Still sweating and trembling... http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/16x16_smiley-surprised.gif
http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/cry.gif

Don't take it personal, they're just hunting for the penguin from hell that ate one of their babies. They don't discriminate, only digest.(Check Ploughman's sig) http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/16x16_smiley-very-happy.gif

Fritz

luftluuver
12-12-2005, 04:52 AM
Originally posted by alert_1:
Do335 in RL:
- excellent speed in all altiutdes (the fastest prop drive AC of WWII)

The P-51H was faster and was in production while the 335 was still in the pre-production stage.

The best speed achieved with the 335 was 763kph/477mph using DB603A engines. The best SL speed was 580kph/360mph. These numbers from Dornier flight testing. When one sees 790kph/490mph, this is the calculated speed using DB603L engines, which were never installed.

The P-51H could do 784kph/487mph.

Codex1971
12-12-2005, 05:18 AM
THE source!

http://translate.google.com/translate?u=http%3A%2F%2Fxp...ev=%2Flanguage_tools (http://translate.google.com/translate?u=http%3A%2F%2Fxplanes.free.fr%2Fdo335%2 Fdo335-3.htm&langpair=fr%7Cen&hl=en&ie=UTF-8&oe=UTF-8&prev=%2Flanguage_tools)

Atzebrueck
12-12-2005, 05:29 AM
http://mitglied.lycos.de/luftwaffe1/do335/flugleistung.gif

580/725 was reached with Kampfleistung (ingame 100%).
So at Start-/Notleistung (110%) the top speed should be around 620/765.

With Sondernotleistung it would be even higher.

stathem
12-12-2005, 05:46 AM
Originally posted by Pirschjaeger:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by Gibbage1:

Watch an NHRA drag race and you can see some exploding engines. Those engines are EXTREAMLY overboosted, but so are aircraft engines.



It's not the boost that's so important when talking about an engine exploding. It's the stroke and displacement. The drag racing engines are turning at 15,000+ rpms. The stroke is very short, explaining why they only tap into the power band at high rpms. The airplane engine cannot rely on high rpms alone. The need a wider range of power. Their stroke will be much longer, relative to drag racers.

Why should this engine explode when no other a/c engines explode in the sim? I think we can trust Oleg and the crew on this one. Where TaylorTony? He should have something useful to say about this.

BTW Gib, that pic is sweet, nice work. http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/25.gif

I also notice how close the rear engine is to the main wings. This telles me that it will still be capable of flying when the rear engine in non-operational.

Fritz </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

Pirsch, I think you're confusing Drag engines with F1 engines; Drag engines are usually based on big-assed long stroke Yankee V-8s. Torque is everything.

A longer stroke means longer con-rods and more chance of them letting go (which I've experienced) ; I think the most scary pure engine explosion is when the head comes off due to huge over-pressure in the combustion chambers (high C.R.) snapping the head bolts; this I've heard about second hand and is, reportedly, unpleasant.

Pirschjaeger
12-12-2005, 07:27 AM
Originally posted by stathem:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by Pirschjaeger:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by Gibbage1:

Watch an NHRA drag race and you can see some exploding engines. Those engines are EXTREAMLY overboosted, but so are aircraft engines.



It's not the boost that's so important when talking about an engine exploding. It's the stroke and displacement. The drag racing engines are turning at 15,000+ rpms. The stroke is very short, explaining why they only tap into the power band at high rpms. The airplane engine cannot rely on high rpms alone. The need a wider range of power. Their stroke will be much longer, relative to drag racers.

Why should this engine explode when no other a/c engines explode in the sim? I think we can trust Oleg and the crew on this one. Where TaylorTony? He should have something useful to say about this.

BTW Gib, that pic is sweet, nice work. http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/25.gif

I also notice how close the rear engine is to the main wings. This telles me that it will still be capable of flying when the rear engine in non-operational.

Fritz </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

Pirsch, I think you're confusing Drag engines with F1 engines; Drag engines are usually based on big-assed long stroke Yankee V-8s. Torque is everything.

A longer stroke means longer con-rods and more chance of them letting go (which I've experienced) ; I think the most scary pure engine explosion is when the head comes off due to huge over-pressure in the combustion chambers (high C.R.) snapping the head bolts; this I've heard about second hand and is, reportedly, unpleasant. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

To achieve higher rpms you need a shorter stroke. Compare diesels with 4 stroke gas, then 4 stroke gas with 2 stroke gas. The diesel usually has a larger displacement and stroke because the combustion properties of the fuel. You need low end torgue in a diesel, there for a much longer stroke. High torque with low hp. Some of the most powerful trucks are running close to 700 hp.

Drag racing engines have a much shorter stroke. Yes, they need torgue but require much higher hp. They achieve this with high rpms and extremely cumbustable fuel.

Also, the higher the rpms, the shorter the life of an engine. Metal wears regardless. A drag racing engine, IIRC, has a racing life of about 7.5 minutes. After that they must be rebuilt. This could never work in a WW2 fighter. They run for many hours before a rebuild.

Shorter stroke = higher rpms = lower torque per hp = shorter life.

Aircraft engines can be boosted, but so are any other sort of cumbustion engines. How much you boost them will effect the life of the engine.

I really don't think a/c engines can be compared to drag racing engines.

Fritz

stathem
12-12-2005, 07:56 AM
Originally posted by Pirschjaeger:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by stathem:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by Pirschjaeger:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by Gibbage1:

Watch an NHRA drag race and you can see some exploding engines. Those engines are EXTREAMLY overboosted, but so are aircraft engines.



It's not the boost that's so important when talking about an engine exploding. It's the stroke and displacement. The drag racing engines are turning at 15,000+ rpms. The stroke is very short, explaining why they only tap into the power band at high rpms. The airplane engine cannot rely on high rpms alone. The need a wider range of power. Their stroke will be much longer, relative to drag racers.

Why should this engine explode when no other a/c engines explode in the sim? I think we can trust Oleg and the crew on this one. Where TaylorTony? He should have something useful to say about this.

BTW Gib, that pic is sweet, nice work. http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/25.gif

I also notice how close the rear engine is to the main wings. This telles me that it will still be capable of flying when the rear engine in non-operational.

Fritz </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

Pirsch, I think you're confusing Drag engines with F1 engines; Drag engines are usually based on big-assed long stroke Yankee V-8s. Torque is everything.

A longer stroke means longer con-rods and more chance of them letting go (which I've experienced) ; I think the most scary pure engine explosion is when the head comes off due to huge over-pressure in the combustion chambers (high C.R.) snapping the head bolts; this I've heard about second hand and is, reportedly, unpleasant. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

To achieve higher rpms you need a shorter stroke. Compare diesels with 4 stroke gas, then 4 stroke gas with 2 stroke gas. The diesel usually has a larger displacement and stroke because the combustion properties of the fuel. You need low end torgue in a diesel, there for a much longer stroke. High torque with low hp. Some of the most powerful trucks are running close to 700 hp.

Drag racing engines have a much shorter stroke. Yes, they need torgue but require much higher hp. They achieve this with high rpms and extremely cumbustable fuel.

Also, the higher the rpms, the shorter the life of an engine. Metal wears regardless. A drag racing engine, IIRC, has a racing life of about 7.5 minutes. After that they must be rebuilt. This could never work in a WW2 fighter. They run for many hours before a rebuild.

Shorter stroke = higher rpms = lower torque per hp = shorter life.

Aircraft engines can be boosted, but so are any other sort of cumbustion engines. How much you boost them will effect the life of the engine.

I really don't think a/c engines can be compared to drag racing engines.

Fritz </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

Yep Fritz, I do have quite a bit of understanding of racing engines; I suppose it depends what you call short stroke; I would consider Drag engines to be long stroke wrt a square or undersquare racing inline 4 like a BDA or V8 like a DFV. I agree that they're not too close to Aero engine; just thought that 15,000 rpm is a little high for a Hemi. Iirc, Drag cars are 2 speed; having a high revving engine with a high lift cam and very small power band would lose too much time in the gear changing required to keep it on cam.

Note that the Sabre was virtually square and ran at >4000 rpm.

Pirschjaeger
12-12-2005, 08:23 AM
Actually, that's the trick. with high rpms you can get a quicker shift. That drag racers are 2 speed but also automatic.

Now you have me curious as to the latest tech. I haven't been into this for years. My buddies and I used to rebuild cars for hobby. Getting our hands on a hemi was always a dream and of course we never got one. But we had enough fun rebuilding 440's, 386's, 454's, and 427's. I bought a 70' Fleetwood. That came the the 400hp 472. In 72' they were detuned to 210hp(gas shortages).

A crashed the Fleetwood one night why racing. Lots of power but no handling. I had a 72' Camaro with no engine. I thought, why not?.

One week later I had a Camaro with a 472. It was nice. We put 7:11 Munchie posi in it. Ha ha ha, talk about a gas shortage. It had no promblem to lift the front wheels. For a while it was the fastest car around my neck of the woods. Then I traded it for a Buick,.......sh1t, can't remember the name. All black, turbo charged V-6, not many made, oh yes, Grand National. The worlds fastest production car of 1988. I loved it. Hug V-6 Manard.

Never mind, I can go on and on all day about cars.

Fritz

luftluuver
12-12-2005, 09:07 AM
just some numbers

Merlin
bore - 5.4"
stroke - 6.0"
ratio - 1.11

Griffon
bore - 6.0"
stroke - 6.6"
ratio - 1.1

Sabre
bore - 5.0"
stroke - 4.75"
ratio - 0.95

DB605
bore - 154mm
stroke - 160mm
ratio - 1.04

Chev 454
bore - 4.25"
stroke - 4.0"
ratio - 0.94

Chev 502
bore - 4.466"
stroke - 4"
ratio - 0.90

Heliopause
12-12-2005, 11:20 AM
http://i22.photobucket.com/albums/b334/PauseHelio/Do335.jpg

Unknown-Pilot
12-12-2005, 11:35 AM
Why do people think that simply because it was a heavy plane that it can't turn?

The weights people keep referencing are fully fueled. It carried so much that people will never use above 25% in game. That makes a big difference.

Not only that, the Hellcat is 12,400lbs, yet it is an excellent turner with an incredibly low stall speed. The Su-33 is also a highly agile aircraft and it weighs in at about 22,000Kgs loaded (not maximum combat load).

What matters isn't weight, it's design. Lift to weight being a big part of that, and apparently the rear prop will help out as well according to some of the pilots here.

There is no question that it will be a preimier e-fighter, and I'm looking forward to it because of that, but if done properly (and let's be honest, that's a BIG 'if' here) it will apparently shock many people with it's handling.

Won't be a Yak3, but won't be a Jug either.

p1ngu666
12-12-2005, 03:11 PM
got a feeling it iddnt have armoured glass...

VW-IceFire
12-12-2005, 03:21 PM
Originally posted by Unknown-Pilot:
Why do people think that simply because it was a heavy plane that it can't turn?

The weights people keep referencing are fully fueled. It carried so much that people will never use above 25% in game. That makes a big difference.

Not only that, the Hellcat is 12,400lbs, yet it is an excellent turner with an incredibly low stall speed. The Su-33 is also a highly agile aircraft and it weighs in at about 22,000Kgs loaded (not maximum combat load).

What matters isn't weight, it's design. Lift to weight being a big part of that, and apparently the rear prop will help out as well according to some of the pilots here.

There is no question that it will be a preimier e-fighter, and I'm looking forward to it because of that, but if done properly (and let's be honest, that's a BIG 'if' here) it will apparently shock many people with it's handling.

Won't be a Yak3, but won't be a Jug either.
Weight isn't everything but its one of those general indicators. I mean the Zero is very lightweight which makes its wings lightly loaded and turn very well. The FW190 is somewhat heavy but with very heavily loaded wings and doesn't turn all that well. A Spitfire is somewhere in between. I don't understand all of the physics behind it but if you want to understand how a plane behaves in the air I think looking to weight VS power being one significant component (obviously modern jet fighters are big and heavy but also with those huge jet engines).

But you're right...definately not everything.

Looking forward to how this one works. I'll say it again...I can't do a proper campaign with a Tempest without some insane German prop-job to chase with great futility! http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_smile.gif

Pirschjaeger
12-12-2005, 05:52 PM
According to that drawing, the rear engine looks well protected. Where was the fuel tank? Wings? Under the pilot? It looks as if the best place to strike hits will be the wing root area or the belly, and if the Do355 has it's E, that will be almost impossible.

Fritz

JadehawkII
12-12-2005, 08:07 PM
I'm surprised none picked up on the fact the Do-335 had armored Radiator housing to protect the rear of the engine area. http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/16x16_smiley-tongue.gif

Plus as Gibbage said, I wish the Do-335 B2 was modeled more than the A series due to the better gun arraingement. Even the B4 and B6 versions which I believe had extended wings for high alitude flights would have beeen intresting as well. No doubt these would in deed turn very well too. http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/16x16_smiley-happy.gif
I dont have my references with me as most are still packed from my move. But anyone is welcome to correct my info. http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/16x16_smiley-wink.gif

Gibbage1
12-12-2005, 10:50 PM
I have collected quite a bit of Do-335 referances. Not flight data or operational data, but models, how it was built and many things concerning the aircraft and now what did or did not do. I think some will find this interesting.

http://www.gibbageart.com/files/Inside%20do335%20A-1.jpg

Please note. #1, the back engine had no armor. The front engine was protected by the back of the aircraft.

#2, the fuel tank is not protected by armor. Im positive its self sealing, but its in a bad spot. Self sealing fuel tanks are NOT going to prevent all leaks. If an aircraft get a good strike on it, it WILL leak fuel or vaper... ONTO THE ENGINE!!!! http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_eek.gif

#3, Wing tanks. Another good target. Difficult from dead-6 due to them being in the leading edge and the bullet would need to go through a LOT of wing and landing gear to get to the tank. But at deflection, a prime target. Just like the engine, center fuel tank, and pilot. Heck, the Do-335 dont have much open space if hit from deflection! Your gonna hit something valuable!

#4. Large oil tank behind the pilot. Im guessing the rounds would need to pass through the fuel tank first to get to the oil tank, so its the least of your concerns http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_wink.gif

#5. VERY bad rear visibility. With how fast this aircraft will be, everything will be behind it. It would be nice to see them http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_wink.gif Only the B models had rear view mirrors.

I wanna say one thing about the Do-335. I think its the most ingenious design concept the Germans had. Great concept, poor execution. Its WAY too big, and the aerodynamic benifits of having two engines in the same body is lost by how tall it is due to the bomb bay. The Do-335 was a victim of too many idea's going into one airframe and nobody being able to figure out just what this thing is supposed to do.

Pirschjaeger
12-13-2005, 03:42 AM
Hey Gib, do you know if the FM will have seperate throttle management?

Fritz

Heliopause
12-13-2005, 10:48 AM
Do 335:
B1 B2 B3 Zerst├┬Ârern
B6 B7 Nightfighters
B4 B8 High altitude (greater wingspan)
B5 Trainer

Do 535 1x prop engine + 1x jet engine
Do 635 Long distance (2 D0 335's together like He111Z)

And holland already had the Fokker D.23....

http://i10.photobucket.com/albums/a138/heliopause/fokkerd23.jpg

SnapdLikeAMutha
12-13-2005, 03:28 PM
Oh, yay, another paper plane http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_rolleyes.gif

Gibbage1
12-13-2005, 04:27 PM
Originally posted by Pirschjaeger:
Hey Gib, do you know if the FM will have seperate throttle management?

Fritz

Why would it? What benifit would if give you or anyone? Also, no other aircraft have it at the moment.

Atzebrueck
12-13-2005, 04:51 PM
In contrary I think the 335 is a very good design. Not only in concept but also the execution of it. After all there aren't that many possibilties how to place two engines into one body. The fuselage tank has to be placed around the center of gravity and the bomb bay was a requirement given by the RLM. At least they searched for a very fast JaBo.

Regarding its protection:
The most common armour plating carried by all planes was behind the pilot. Sometimes a fuel tank was protected and sometimes the oil tank. But you won't find too many planes, except maybe the IL2, which were protected against deflection shots.
If the enemy finds a way to point his weapons onto your plane from the sides, above or underneath, you are in big trouble, regardless which type you are in http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_wink.gif.
Yes, the 335 has wing tanks, but as do others. Don't forget that other planes even carried ammunition in their wings.
You are right, that the back engine is prone to 6 o'clock shots. But the way from the spinner to the engine is quite long. A lot of struts and structure is in the path of the bullets. And if I would sit in this cockpit I would be glad to be protected by the rear engine. I also would go as far to say that the engine is some kind of protection for the fuselage tank. Why put a heavy steel plate behind the tank, if it only protected against fragments, which the engine would have already absorbed. If there would be a bullet to be stopped from 6 o'clock before reaching the fuel tank the engine would have been damaged, be there an armor plate or not. In that case you have to reach for the nearest airfield, anyway. So armor between fuselage tank and rear engine = useless ballast.
Additionally don't forget that the plane could reach 550-590 km/h with one engine. So losing one isn't that much of a problem. The flying attitude of the plane didn't change as for other two-engined planes with more than one nacelle.
If engines are damaged, other planes tumble through the sky, single-engined aircrafts fall towards earth, the 335 just loses half of its power http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_wink.gif.

So the remaining problem I see is fire. But armour wouldn't help against that. If fuel gets in contact with the hot exhaust tubes or the engine itself it will probably cause a fire. Still, as I already mentioned, the main fuel tank had to be put in front of the rear engine. That's a problem of the concept, not its execution.
The remaining options to prevent fire is a selfsealing tank and a fire extinguisher. Both have been installed. In addition they have put fire warning lamps in the cockpit (at the lower right front panel).


Finally, on the one hand you say the plane is way too big, on the other hand you mentioned that there isn't much open space. Take the P47 as an example. It's praised as a flying tank, but as far as I know only two armor plates have been installed. One in front of the pilot and one behind him. I would say it's the solid structure of the P47 that counts. Or as you have put it: "There isn't much open space". Just have a look at its cutaway drawing http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_wink.gif (turbo supercharger here, engine there ... :P).

So in my opinion the points you listed hardly qualify the Pfeil as a paper plane or a bad executed design. Or if you define it as such, you have to see it in reference to all the other planes of which most would be more fragile than paper http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_wink.gif.
It's sheer size shouldn't be seen as a drawback at all. It never was meant as a compact fighter plane or interceptor.
You should see it more as a bomber than a fighter. I would define it as a much better Me110. The design also was meant to leave space for future development (e.g. night fighter).
Additionally it got a lot of features you won't find in German fighters: three axis autopilot, radio altimeter, fire extinguisher, bomb bay, ejection seat, trim for all three axis, roomy cockpit ... and so on. I think the Do335 is a very luxurious plane ;D.

Though, one drawback I agree with is the very bad rearward visibility, which will hopefully lead to some servers keeping the plane in their list. Because with the bad rear view its pilots will get bounced more than once, I guess http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_wink.gif.

Atzebrueck
12-13-2005, 05:19 PM
Originally posted by Pirschjaeger:
Hey Gib, do you know if the FM will have seperate throttle management?

Fritz

I guess it will be treated like every other two-engined plane: 110, 262, A10 ...
You'll be able to select both engines and set their prop pitch, throttle etc. independent from each other.

Gibbage1
12-13-2005, 06:16 PM
Originally posted by Atzebrueck:


So in my opinion those points you listed hardly qualify the Pfeil as a paper plane. Or if you define it as such, you have to see it in reference to all the other planes of which most would be more fragile than paper http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_wink.gif.

Your debating the wrong points against me. #1, I never said it was a paper airplane or even weak at all. All I did was list its possible vulnerabilities. It was in reply to someone saying the back engine had armor protecting it.

#2, I agree with everything you say but one thing. A P-47's body is not as filled by critical systems as the Do-335. The back of the aircraft has a lot of open space! No fuel tank, no engine, and nothing but the turbo unit and thats not critical at all. On the otherhand, the Do-335's body is fulled with critical systems like radiators, oil, fuel, engines, explosive ammo, and other things. So when you hit a Do-335, you have a better % chance of hitting something critical then the P-47. That was a point I was trying to make.

I also disagree about its design. It could be a LOT better. The benifit of having two engines in a single structure was pioneered by Donier in there floatplanes. Sort of a two for the price of one. Normal two engine aircraft like the BF-110 not only need to put air out of the way for the body, but also the two engine pods on the wing. The push-pull eliminates the two pods on the wings and puts them in the main body. The Do-335 cancles this benifit by making such a wide and tall body! They may as well put the engines back on the wings and make a much smaller body and have a MUCH less complex aircraft. The Do-335 was one of the most complex aircraft built in WWII, the electronics alone took 60 man hours and 110 pages!!!! This complexity kept it from doing anything FOR the German people besides being a waist of money. If they kept it simple, it would of benifited the Luftwaffe a lot more then being that complex and not fighting at all.

JadehawkII
12-13-2005, 07:56 PM
oops! I was wrong! http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/35.gif
The Do-335 does not have an armored raidiator (Cooler) housing in the rear. Shows what I know with what's in my foggy mind when I don't have my references in front of me! http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/16x16_smiley-wink.gif
It's up front as shown in the drawing of course. If that drawing is accurate, which I believe it is, then there is an armored plate protecting the lower part of the rear engine raditor (Cooler) shown in yellow correct? Seems it also protects the rear engine somewhat as well. http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/16x16_smiley-happy.gif

Pirschjaeger
12-13-2005, 09:01 PM
Originally posted by Gibbage1:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by Pirschjaeger:
Hey Gib, do you know if the FM will have seperate throttle management?

Fritz

Why would it? What benifit would if give you or anyone? Also, no other aircraft have it at the moment. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

All the dual engined planes in the game have it.

The benefit is simple, if one engine is hit and "squeeking", you can reduce the throttle on it and get a little longer life while running the other engine at full throttle.

Fritz

p1ngu666
12-13-2005, 09:37 PM
its too fiddly to be of much use in combat tbh

its useful for taxi, but rather fiddly. in combat i only use it to feather, or put out fire

oh, and we will shoot do335 till it recivies critical damage and/or till it falls out of the sky

Gibbage1
12-13-2005, 09:40 PM
Originally posted by Pirschjaeger:

All the dual engined planes in the game have it.

The benefit is simple, if one engine is hit and "squeeking", you can reduce the throttle on it and get a little longer life while running the other engine at full throttle.

Fritz

OK. Mis-communication. I thought you ment having two differant throttle commands. IL2 never fully supported multi-engine and in a way support was cheesed in by "switching" engines. Thats not true multi-throttle support. Multi-throttle support would be having two controles for two engines, not one controle and switch engines. From what I remember, the Do-335 had two throttles, so I dont see why Oleg would NOT allow you to switch engine controle like all other multi-engine aircraft. It would be rather stupid not too.

Question, does anyone know if the Do-335 could feather a dead engine? Just wondering. Not being able to could lead to some trouble. Thats a lot of drag, be sure!

luftluuver
12-13-2005, 10:37 PM
They tested one with the front engine shut down. Was almost as fast as with 2 engines,

Gibbage1
12-14-2005, 01:32 AM
Originally posted by luftluuver:
They tested one with the front engine shut down. Was almost as fast as with 2 engines,

Then they should of removed the front engine, saved weight, cost, production time, fuel, aerodynamics and all that. So excuse me if I call BS on this.

IL2-chuter
12-14-2005, 02:27 AM
. . . and the 109 and 190 had fully featherable props so I'd be surprised if the 335 didn't. http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/16x16_smiley-very-happy.gif I've seen the 335 firsthand at Silver Hill awhile back and it is a big plane though not quite as big as I imagined. I was surprised. It is like any other warbird in being just about as small as they could possibly make it and still have it be . . . http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/16x16_smiley-indifferent.gif . . . it.

One of the BIG advantages of the rear prop is no propwash drag (high speed air from the prop along the fuselage or nacelle or wing) AND it draws the air in behind the fuselage reducing turbulence and drag (by reducing the depth of the boundary layer on the retreating side of the fuselage skin). That is why the plane performs so much better on the rear engine than the front. Science http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/16x16_smiley-happy.gif.

WOLFMondo
12-14-2005, 02:38 AM
I'm curious. Did both props turn the same way? Did they rotate opposite ways to put all the torque in one direction?

I wonder if you open up both throttles on the ground the aircraft would just constantly donut if both props turn the same way.

Must have been a pain in the *** with torque and trimming which ever way they rotated.

Waldo.Pepper
12-14-2005, 03:37 AM
Originally posted by Gibbage1:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by luftluuver:
They tested one with the front engine shut down. Was almost as fast as with 2 engines,

Then they should of removed the front engine, saved weight, cost, production time, fuel, aerodynamics and all that. So excuse me if I call BS on this. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

Some details to relieve you of that burden of BS.

Also note the detail of the reversable prop when you read the text..

http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v516/WaldoPepper/335/3351.jpg
http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v516/WaldoPepper/335/3352.jpg
http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v516/WaldoPepper/335/3353.jpg

Atzebrueck
12-14-2005, 04:13 AM
Originally posted by Gibbage1:
#2, I agree with everything you say but one thing. A P-47's body is not as filled by critical systems as the Do-335. The back of the aircraft has a lot of open space! No fuel tank, no engine, and nothing but the turbo unit and thats not critical at all. On the otherhand, the Do-335's body is fulled with critical systems like radiators, oil, fuel, engines, explosive ammo, and other things. So when you hit a Do-335, you have a better % chance of hitting something critical then the P-47. That was a point I was trying to make.

http://club-du-theil.chez-alice.fr/images/dioramas/s-p47-map-Cutaway.jpg
The back of the P47 contains even less open space than the 335. It's the middle of the 335 which is packed with an engine and a fuel tank. The P47 and nearly all other planes carry the fuel and the pilot in that area. I think the man is the more important "part" http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_wink.gif. So from a pilot's point of view the 335 is the safer design.
Though, I agree that two engines lead to a bigger probability to hit one. But the probability to destroy both engines is smaller. Again, it's safer to lose one out of two than losing your one and only http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_wink.gif.


Originally posted by Gibbage
I also disagree about its design. It could be a LOT better. The benifit of having two engines in a single structure was pioneered by Donier in there floatplanes. Sort of a two for the price of one. Normal two engine aircraft like the BF-110 not only need to put air out of the way for the body, but also the two engine pods on the wing. The push-pull eliminates the two pods on the wings and puts them in the main body. The Do-335 cancles this benifit by making such a wide and tall body! They may as well put the engines back on the wings and make a much smaller body and have a MUCH less complex aircraft.
I guess they didn't want to copy the P38 ;D. Still the Lightning wasn't as fast, didn't have a bomb bay and didn't have as much potential for future development.
So, I don't agree that a better concept of a two-engined plane could have been selected.
I also disagree that three nacelles, one for the pilot and two for the engines neither would have lead to a simpler design, nor would it have caused less frontal area.
The 335 is a very clean design and the height of the body, if compared to other planes, isn't as big as you say. I still don't get how you would have designed it less "wide and tall", how the Do335 could have been made smaller with the remaining concept of two engines a bomb bay and everything else being put into one nacelle. There is none.

Heliopause
12-14-2005, 11:04 AM
Just a scan from a book I have....

http://i22.photobucket.com/albums/b334/PauseHelio/Scannen0001.jpg

Hristo_
12-14-2005, 11:55 AM
The more I look at the ugly beast, the more I like it http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_wink.gif.

Draggy ? To me it looks as an extremely sleek and clean airframe. Also, such a heavy plane with so small frontal area would be an awesome diver.

If we ever get it, it will be the ultimate Jabo, bomber interceptor and BnZer. Possibly even better dogfighter than some US planes, but that remains to be seen.

IMO, going down in such a plane would largely be to pilot mistake than to enemy actions. Use it as a hit'n'run machine and it would be hard to beat.

With laminar flow wings in development, radar and proposed guided missiles it would be hard to beat.

Right now it is the only plane capable of carrying MK103 into combat without suffering to high performance penalty.

MG151s as machine guns are extremely powerful. Did they use HE rounds as well ? Their trajectory is excellent compared even to .50 cals. So, Do-335 armamanet is very hard hitting and far easier to score a hit with, compared to usual LW armament.

One has only to look the intended purpose of this plane to see how versatile and ingenious it was: better interceptor than 109 or 190, better radar equipped night fighter than 219, better fighter bomber than 110/410, a fast recon...

SnapdLikeAMutha
12-14-2005, 12:01 PM
If I make the model and cockpit, do you think Oleg would put a MiG 29 in the next patch? After all, it probably flew about as many combat missions in WW2 as did the Pfeil http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_rolleyes.gif

Codex1971
12-14-2005, 01:21 PM
Originally posted by SnapdLikeAMutha:
If I make the model and cockpit, do you think Oleg would put a MiG 29 in the next patch? After all, it probably flew about as many combat missions in WW2 as did the Pfeil http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_rolleyes.gif

Are there not some allied aircraft in the sim that either never saw combat or were never deplyoed at all?

Heliopause
12-15-2005, 10:14 AM
Some extra info...

http://i22.photobucket.com/albums/b334/PauseHelio/Do3335.jpg

berg417448
12-15-2005, 10:19 AM
Flying the escorts with external tanks would definitly limit their cruising speed. That said...I'm sure the Do-335 was faster.

HayateAce
12-15-2005, 10:35 AM
Ugly...

http://www.princeton.edu/usg/images/icons/check_mark.gif


Banned from servers.....

http://www.princeton.edu/usg/images/icons/check_mark.gif



U blue kids spend enough time runnng from me as it is......

Kocur_
12-15-2005, 10:43 AM
Originally posted by Gibbage1:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by luftluuver:
They tested one with the front engine shut down. Was almost as fast as with 2 engines,

Then they should of removed the front engine, saved weight, cost, production time, fuel, aerodynamics and all that. So excuse me if I call BS on this. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

Acceleration! Not to mention some kmhs more!

OTOH if think of Do335 only as a fighter, I'd say, that cost/effect ratio was SO much better in case of P-51H!

darkhorizon11
12-16-2005, 12:01 AM
Originally posted by Gibbage1:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by Pirschjaeger:

All the dual engined planes in the game have it.

The benefit is simple, if one engine is hit and "squeeking", you can reduce the throttle on it and get a little longer life while running the other engine at full throttle.

Fritz

OK. Mis-communication. I thought you ment having two differant throttle commands. IL2 never fully supported multi-engine and in a way support was cheesed in by "switching" engines. Thats not true multi-throttle support. Multi-throttle support would be having two controles for two engines, not one controle and switch engines. From what I remember, the Do-335 had two throttles, so I dont see why Oleg would NOT allow you to switch engine controle like all other multi-engine aircraft. It would be rather stupid not too.

Question, does anyone know if the Do-335 could feather a dead engine? Just wondering. Not being able to could lead to some trouble. Thats a lot of drag, be sure! </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

The single throttle switch is a big problem. I was reading in SimHQ about this and a couple guys (bomber guys) pretty much said they don't bother will IL2 for that sole reason.

As for the Do-335 prop feathering... it sorta depends. Pretty much every multi-engine aircraft with constant speed props the ability to feather is prop, the key is if when. A lot of aircraft have anti-feathering pins which prevent feathering below a certain RPM so the engine doesn't feather on shutdown. The Seminoles and Baron 58s I flew have anti-feathering pins (you couldn't feather a Seminole under 950RPM). On the other hand a lot of larger turboprop aircraft do feather on shutdown and start-up which is a lot harder on the engine.

In the case of the Do-335 I'm pretty neither prop would feather on shutdown.

Gibbage1
12-16-2005, 01:30 AM
Originally posted by HayateAce:
Ugly...

http://www.princeton.edu/usg/images/icons/check_mark.gif


Banned from servers.....

http://www.princeton.edu/usg/images/icons/check_mark.gif



U blue kids spend enough time runnng from me as it is......

Well said! http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/25.gif

I may have modeled it, but I did not need to love it. Its an ugly beats, be sure!

Heliopause
12-16-2005, 11:40 AM
Some info again; France tested 2 Do 335's after the war.
The M14 (B2 prototype) and the two-seat M17 (this plane had a little radar operator seat behind the pilot).

M14:
http://i22.photobucket.com/albums/b334/PauseHelio/FrenchDo335.jpg

M17:
http://i22.photobucket.com/albums/b334/PauseHelio/FrenchDo3335.jpg

Codex1971
12-17-2005, 05:48 AM
Very interesting read...short but interesting.

http://www.squadron13.com/do335/DO335.htm

Edit: Above link has some great pictures....

...and a nice wall paper...

http://www.stormbirds.net/calendar/Do335_1024.jpg

Kurfurst__
12-17-2005, 08:13 AM
Originally posted by Hristo_:
One has only to look the intended purpose of this plane to see how versatile and ingenious it was: better interceptor than 109 or 190, better radar equipped night fighter than 219, better fighter bomber than 110/410, a fast recon...

Appearantly the Do 335 can be viewed as the first (would-be) successfull example of the "Zestorer" concept, a multirole aircraft for all jobs... like the fleet's destroyers.

But, I guess, in the 1930s they couldn't have pulled off such a plane, the engines were too weak at the time to support a plane that is large enough to have the neccesary qualities, yet still have the performance.

luftluuver
12-17-2005, 09:53 AM
Originally posted by Kurfurst__:
Appearantly the Do 335 can be viewed as the first (would-be) successfull example of the "Zestorer" concept, a multirole aircraft for all jobs... like the fleet's destroyers.


That is debatable as the 335 never went into production while the DH103 Hornet began production in late 1944. The Hornet also had a naval version which the 335 could not have done.

DIRTY-MAC
12-17-2005, 10:11 AM
I had a several minutes film clip of the Do335 in flight doing rolls an other stuff,
have posted it before but cant find it, I cant find it on my PC either, maybe somone else has it

Kurfurst__
12-17-2005, 12:47 PM
Originally posted by luftluuver:
That is debatable as the 335 never went into production while the DH103 Hornet began production in late 1944. The Hornet also had a naval version which the 335 could not have done.

Sure you can debate anything Milo Morai, but it's an entirely different matter how many care about that. http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_biggrin.gif

ploughman
12-17-2005, 12:54 PM
Originally posted by Kurfurst__:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by luftluuver:
That is debatable as the 335 never went into production while the DH103 Hornet began production in late 1944. The Hornet also had a naval version which the 335 could not have done.

Sure you can debate anything Milo Morai, but it's an entirely different matter how many care about that. http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_biggrin.gif </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

That's true of all debates Kurfy, and as long as your trailing that tail of anti-Gibbage vitriol how many do you think are going to take you seriously? Stop defining yourself by your arguements with Gibbage.

Low_Flyer_MkII
12-17-2005, 01:06 PM
http://forums.ubi.com/eve/forums/a/tpc/f/23110283/m/373100884

Codex1971
12-17-2005, 02:11 PM
Originally posted by luftluuver:
That is debatable as the 335 never went into production while the DH103 Hornet began production in late 1944. The Hornet also had a naval version which the 335 could not have done.

The Do335 was produced:

Do 335 Production List

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 1st prototype. DB603A-1 engines. FF 28.10.43
Do 335V-2 CP+UB 230002 to Rechlin, rear engine caught fire, w/o 15.04.44
Do 335V-3 CP+UC/T9+ZH 230003 A-4 prototype, to Ob.d.L.
Do 335V-4 CP+UD 230004 Do 435 prototype, not completed
Do 335V-5 CP+UE 230005 1st with armament fitted, A-2 engines
Do 335V-6 CP+UF 230006 Dornier development a/c, hit by bomb
Do 335V-7 CP+UG 230007 Junkers Jumo 213A & E testbed, Dessau
Do 335V-8 CP+UH 230008 Daimler-Benz DB603E-1 testbed, Stuttgart
Do 335V-9 CP+UI/V9 230009 A-0 prototype, to Rechlin May 1944
Do 335V-10 CP+UK 230010 A-6 prototype night ftr with SN-2 radar
Do 335V-11 CP+UL/11 230011 A-10 prototype trainer
Do 335V-12 CP+UM 230012 A-12 prototype trainer
Do 335V-13 RP+UA/13 230013 B-1 prototype, to France for tests
Do 335V-14 RP+UB/14 230014 B-2 prototype, destroyed


Do 335A-0 pre-production batch, 10 aircraft built at Oberpfaffenhofen July-Oct 1944.

One example converted to A-4 standard.
Model Code Werk Nr. Notes


Do 335A-0 VG+PG/101 240101 DB603A-2 engines, at Rechlin July 1944
Do 335A-0 VG+PH/102 240102 sole survivor, to USAAF as FE 1012, now at NASM
Do 335A-0 VG+PI/103 240103 to Ob.d.L. late July 1944
Do 335A-0 VG+IJ/104 240104 to Erkdo 335 Sept 1944
Do 335A-0 VG+IK/105 240105 to Erkdo 335 captured by US at Lechfeld 4.45
Do 335A-0 VG+PL/106 240106 to Erkdo 335
Do 335A-0 VG+PM/107 240107 to Erkdo 335
Do 335A-0 VG+PN/108 240108 to Erkdo 335
Do 335A-0 VG+PO/109 240109 to Erkdo 335
Do 335A-0 VG+PP/110 240110 to Erkdo 335 Oct 1944

Do 335A-1 production batch. 11 aircraft built at Oberpfaffenhofen,

plus 9 aircraft part assembled, Nov-April 1945.
Model Code Werk Nr. Notes


Do 335A-1 113 240113 Captured by US
Do 335A-1 240161 Captured by US
Do 335A-1 240162 Captured by US
Do 335A-1 240163 Captured by US
Do 335A-1 240164 Captured by US
Do 335A-1 240165 Captured by US
Do 335A-1 240166 Captured by US
Do 335A-1 240167 Captured by US
Do 335A-1 240168 Captured by US
Do 335A-1 240169 Captured by US
Do 335A-1 240170 Captured by US
Do 335A-1 01 240301 Partly assembled Captured by US
Do 335A-1 02 240302 Partly assembled Captured by US
Do 335A-1 03 240303 Partly assembled Captured by US
Do 335A-1 04 240304 Partly assembled Captured by US
Do 335A-1 05 240305 Partly assembled Captured by US
Do 335A-1 06 240306 Partly assembled Captured by US
Do 335A-1 07 240307 Partly assembled Captured by US
Do 335A-1 08 240308 Partly assembled Captured by US
Do 335A-1 09 240309 Partly assembled Captured by US


Do 335A-2 project only
Do 335A-3 project only

Do 335A-4 10 aircraft scheduled Jan-Feb 1945, only 4 part assembled at

Oberpfaffenhofen.
Model Code Werk Nr. Notes


Do 335A-4 10 240310 Partly assembled Captured by US
Do 335A-4 11 240311 Partly assembled Captured by US
Do 335A-4 12 240312 Partly assembled Captured by US
Do 335A-4 13 240313 Partly assembled Captured by US


Do 335A-6 none assembled, Heinkel Vienna factory bombed out.

Do 335A-10 aircraft built at Oberpfaffenhofen.
Model Code Werk Nr. Notes


Do 335A-10 111 240111 flew late Nov 1944. Captured by US at Oberpf.
Do 335A-10 240114 not completed


Do 335A-12. 2 aircraft built at Oberpfaffenhofen, plus 2 aircraft part assembled.
Model Code Werk Nr. Notes


Do 335A-12 112 240112 Air Min 225, to RAE, w/o 18 Jan 1946
Do 335A-12 121 240121 to England, w/o 13 Dec 1945
Do 335A-12 122 240122 not completed, scrapped by US
Do 335A-12 Partly assembled

Do 335B series prototypes. 6 aircraft part assembled at Oberpfaffenhofen.
Model Code Werk Nr. Notes


Do 335B-2 RP+UB 14/18 240118 B-2 replacement proto, to France with CEV until 4.6.48
Do 335V-15 RP+UC 15/19 240119 B-1 2nd prototype to Lwe 2.45
Do 335V-16 RP+UD 16/20 240120 B-2 2nd prototype night ftr with FuG 218
Do 335V-17 RP+UE 17/16 240116 B-6 prototype to France w/o Autumn 45
Do 335V-18 RP+UF 18/17 240117 B-6 2nd prototype night ftr to Lwe 2.45
Do 335V-19 RP+UG 19/15 240115 B-3 prototype not completed
Do 335V-20 B-7 prototype not completed
Do 335V-21 B-8 prototype not completed
Do 335V-22 B-8 2nd prototype not completed

luftluuver
12-17-2005, 02:13 PM
Originally posted by Kurfurst__:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by luftluuver:
That is debatable as the 335 never went into production while the DH103 Hornet began production in late 1944. The Hornet also had a naval version which the 335 could not have done.

Sure you can debate anything Milo Morai, but it's an entirely different matter how many care about that. http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_biggrin.gif </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

Who is this Milo Morai?

How do get away with such a <span class="ev_code_YELLOW">LARGE</span> sig?

To refresh the rules which don't seem to apply to Kurfurst:

<span class="ev_code_YELLOW"> - Limited to one image per signature or a short text.
- 500 wide x 200 high maximum dimensions
- 40KB file size maximum
- 3 lines of additional text
- If you have no picture then 10 lines of text only</span>

Tully
The moderators will ensure that these new guidelines are enforced.

Not in your case do they enforce the rules.

Kurfurst, I have been told your other nick is Barbi. Is this so?

ploughman
12-17-2005, 02:18 PM
Originally posted by Codex1971:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by luftluuver:
That is debatable as the 335 never went into production while the DH103 Hornet began production in late 1944. The Hornet also had a naval version which the 335 could not have done.

The Do335 was produced:

Do 335 Production List

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 1st prototype. DB603A-1 engines. FF 28.10.43
Do 335V-2 CP+UB 230002 to Rechlin, rear engine caught fire, w/o 15.04.44
Do 335V-3 CP+UC/T9+ZH 230003 A-4 prototype, to Ob.d.L.
Do 335V-4 CP+UD 230004 Do 435 prototype, not completed
Do 335V-5 CP+UE 230005 1st with armament fitted, A-2 engines
Do 335V-6 CP+UF 230006 Dornier development a/c, hit by bomb
Do 335V-7 CP+UG 230007 Junkers Jumo 213A & E testbed, Dessau
Do 335V-8 CP+UH 230008 Daimler-Benz DB603E-1 testbed, Stuttgart
Do 335V-9 CP+UI/V9 230009 A-0 prototype, to Rechlin May 1944
Do 335V-10 CP+UK 230010 A-6 prototype night ftr with SN-2 radar
Do 335V-11 CP+UL/11 230011 A-10 prototype trainer
Do 335V-12 CP+UM 230012 A-12 prototype trainer
Do 335V-13 RP+UA/13 230013 B-1 prototype, to France for tests
Do 335V-14 RP+UB/14 230014 B-2 prototype, destroyed


Do 335A-0 pre-production batch, 10 aircraft built at Oberpfaffenhofen July-Oct 1944.

One example converted to A-4 standard.
Model Code Werk Nr. Notes


Do 335A-0 VG+PG/101 240101 DB603A-2 engines, at Rechlin July 1944
Do 335A-0 VG+PH/102 240102 sole survivor, to USAAF as FE 1012, now at NASM
Do 335A-0 VG+PI/103 240103 to Ob.d.L. late July 1944
Do 335A-0 VG+IJ/104 240104 to Erkdo 335 Sept 1944
Do 335A-0 VG+IK/105 240105 to Erkdo 335 captured by US at Lechfeld 4.45
Do 335A-0 VG+PL/106 240106 to Erkdo 335
Do 335A-0 VG+PM/107 240107 to Erkdo 335
Do 335A-0 VG+PN/108 240108 to Erkdo 335
Do 335A-0 VG+PO/109 240109 to Erkdo 335
Do 335A-0 VG+PP/110 240110 to Erkdo 335 Oct 1944

Do 335A-1 production batch. 11 aircraft built at Oberpfaffenhofen,

plus 9 aircraft part assembled, Nov-April 1945.
Model Code Werk Nr. Notes


Do 335A-1 113 240113 Captured by US
Do 335A-1 240161 Captured by US
Do 335A-1 240162 Captured by US
Do 335A-1 240163 Captured by US
Do 335A-1 240164 Captured by US
Do 335A-1 240165 Captured by US
Do 335A-1 240166 Captured by US
Do 335A-1 240167 Captured by US
Do 335A-1 240168 Captured by US
Do 335A-1 240169 Captured by US
Do 335A-1 240170 Captured by US
Do 335A-1 01 240301 Partly assembled Captured by US
Do 335A-1 02 240302 Partly assembled Captured by US
Do 335A-1 03 240303 Partly assembled Captured by US
Do 335A-1 04 240304 Partly assembled Captured by US
Do 335A-1 05 240305 Partly assembled Captured by US
Do 335A-1 06 240306 Partly assembled Captured by US
Do 335A-1 07 240307 Partly assembled Captured by US
Do 335A-1 08 240308 Partly assembled Captured by US
Do 335A-1 09 240309 Partly assembled Captured by US


Do 335A-2 project only
Do 335A-3 project only

Do 335A-4 10 aircraft scheduled Jan-Feb 1945, only 4 part assembled at

Oberpfaffenhofen.
Model Code Werk Nr. Notes


Do 335A-4 10 240310 Partly assembled Captured by US
Do 335A-4 11 240311 Partly assembled Captured by US
Do 335A-4 12 240312 Partly assembled Captured by US
Do 335A-4 13 240313 Partly assembled Captured by US


Do 335A-6 none assembled, Heinkel Vienna factory bombed out.

Do 335A-10 aircraft built at Oberpfaffenhofen.
Model Code Werk Nr. Notes


Do 335A-10 111 240111 flew late Nov 1944. Captured by US at Oberpf.
Do 335A-10 240114 not completed


Do 335A-12. 2 aircraft built at Oberpfaffenhofen, plus 2 aircraft part assembled.
Model Code Werk Nr. Notes


Do 335A-12 112 240112 Air Min 225, to RAE, w/o 18 Jan 1946
Do 335A-12 121 240121 to England, w/o 13 Dec 1945
Do 335A-12 122 240122 not completed, scrapped by US
Do 335A-12 Partly assembled

Do 335B series prototypes. 6 aircraft part assembled at Oberpfaffenhofen.
Model Code Werk Nr. Notes


Do 335B-2 RP+UB 14/18 240118 B-2 replacement proto, to France with CEV until 4.6.48
Do 335V-15 RP+UC 15/19 240119 B-1 2nd prototype to Lwe 2.45
Do 335V-16 RP+UD 16/20 240120 B-2 2nd prototype night ftr with FuG 218
Do 335V-17 RP+UE 17/16 240116 B-6 prototype to France w/o Autumn 45
Do 335V-18 RP+UF 18/17 240117 B-6 2nd prototype night ftr to Lwe 2.45
Do 335V-19 RP+UG 19/15 240115 B-3 prototype not completed
Do 335V-20 B-7 prototype not completed
Do 335V-21 B-8 prototype not completed
Do 335V-22 B-8 2nd prototype not completed </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

Are any of those actual production aircraft, ie; Mk 1 Dornier 335s for operational use or are they all pre-production test/training/proving aircraft?

berg417448
12-17-2005, 02:34 PM
As far as I have read...they were all pre-production and testing models.
I have seen one site which made reference to possible night interdiction missions but no actual supporting data was provided. I would be most interested if anyone has a source that lists actual combat operations with verifiable details.

Codex1971
12-17-2005, 02:38 PM
The serial production 335's are the 'A-1' models.

Do 335A-1 113 240113 Captured by US
Do 335A-1 240161 Captured by US
Do 335A-1 240162 Captured by US
Do 335A-1 240163 Captured by US
Do 335A-1 240164 Captured by US
Do 335A-1 240165 Captured by US
Do 335A-1 240166 Captured by US
Do 335A-1 240167 Captured by US
Do 335A-1 240168 Captured by US
Do 335A-1 240169 Captured by US
Do 335A-1 240170 Captured by US

These units were ready to go...

If the war draged out for a few months more or the 335 was produced a few months earlier, I'm sure there would have been Do-335's in there air performing actaul combat missions.

ImpStarDuece
12-17-2005, 02:45 PM
You could argue equally that the Mosquito and P-38 both fit the Zerstoyer category, to a greater or lesser extent.

Both have twin engines, long range and heavy foward firepower. Both were used in a multiplicity of roles including day fighter, bomber, fighter-bomber, long-range reconnisance, pathfinder, night-fighter, strike fighter, maratime strike fighter and even personal transport role. Both were loaded with all types of specialised equipment (RADAR, naviagtion equipment, bombing equipment) during the war.

Codex1971
12-17-2005, 02:53 PM
Originally posted by berg417448:
As far as I have read...they were all pre-production and testing models.
I have seen one site which made reference to possible night interdiction missions but no actual supporting data was provided. I would be most interested if anyone has a source that lists actual combat operations with verifiable details.

I don't think the Do-335 ever saw combat.

VW-IceFire
12-17-2005, 03:09 PM
Originally posted by Codex1971:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by berg417448:
As far as I have read...they were all pre-production and testing models.
I have seen one site which made reference to possible night interdiction missions but no actual supporting data was provided. I would be most interested if anyone has a source that lists actual combat operations with verifiable details.

I don't think the Do-335 ever saw combat. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>
It did...but its star role was to run away. Surprisingly they managed to escape from even the fastest of Allied fighters.

berg417448
12-17-2005, 03:32 PM
Originally posted by VW-IceFire:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by Codex1971:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by berg417448:
As far as I have read...they were all pre-production and testing models.
I have seen one site which made reference to possible night interdiction missions but no actual supporting data was provided. I would be most interested if anyone has a source that lists actual combat operations with verifiable details.

I don't think the Do-335 ever saw combat. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>
It did...but its star role was to run away. Surprisingly they managed to escape from even the fastest of Allied fighters. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>


I forgot about that one! If I was a Do-335 pilot and had been fired upon by a Tempest, I would definitely claim to have seen combat!

Aaron_GT
12-17-2005, 03:33 PM
That is debatable as the 335 never went into production while the DH103 Hornet began production in late 1944.

The Hornet was intended as a long range fighter for the Pacific, not, AFAIK, as a multirole aircraft. It did ultimately get used as a fighterbomber (it's only use) but it wasn't intended to be multirole like its aunt, the Mosquito was used (the Mossie grew into multiple roles organically).

ploughman
12-17-2005, 03:35 PM
Originally posted by Codex1971:
The serial production 335's are the 'A-1' models.

Do 335A-1 113 240113 Captured by US
Do 335A-1 240161 Captured by US
Do 335A-1 240162 Captured by US
Do 335A-1 240163 Captured by US
Do 335A-1 240164 Captured by US
Do 335A-1 240165 Captured by US
Do 335A-1 240166 Captured by US
Do 335A-1 240167 Captured by US
Do 335A-1 240168 Captured by US
Do 335A-1 240169 Captured by US
Do 335A-1 240170 Captured by US

These units were ready to go...

If the war draged out for a few months more or the 335 was produced a few months earlier, I'm sure there would have been Do-335's in there air performing actaul combat missions.

Thanks. I can't wait to take a spin in this thing.

p1ngu666
12-17-2005, 03:36 PM
hornet was used as a night fighter by the navy? guy sat in the rear, like with buefighter http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_smile.gif

Aaron_GT
12-18-2005, 02:30 AM
That's the NF.21 for the RN. Still it was only intended to be a long range fighter, not multirole, whereas the Do-335 was intended to be multirole from the outset AFAIK.

Codex1971
12-19-2005, 02:08 AM
I hope we're going to have this modelled on the Do335....

http://i15.photobucket.com/albums/a362/CodexAssassin/MirriorsintheDo335.jpg

alert_1
12-19-2005, 02:20 AM
Mirrors? Lw planes dont need f***** mirrors! Mirrors are good only for Spits and La7. They wont be modelled, be sure http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/mockface.gif

Codex1971
12-19-2005, 03:04 AM
Originally posted by alert_1:
Mirrors? Lw planes dont need f***** mirrors! Mirrors are good only for Spits and La7. They wont be modelled, be sure http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/mockface.gif

http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/16x16_smiley-very-happy.gif

WOLFMondo
12-19-2005, 03:15 AM
Originally posted by VW-IceFire:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by Codex1971:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by berg417448:
As far as I have read...they were all pre-production and testing models.
I have seen one site which made reference to possible night interdiction missions but no actual supporting data was provided. I would be most interested if anyone has a source that lists actual combat operations with verifiable details.

I don't think the Do-335 ever saw combat. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>
It did...but its star role was to run away. Surprisingly they managed to escape from even the fastest of Allied fighters. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

It was already going full speed when it was spotted. Its like a plane at 200mph trying to catch one already doing 400mph. If Eric Browns test was anything to go on, the persuing plane had would have caught up eventually, probably over its airfield. Last place you'd want to be.

Heliopause
12-19-2005, 06:36 AM
Some more info....

http://i22.photobucket.com/albums/b334/PauseHelio/Do335Newark.jpg

and a pic....

http://i22.photobucket.com/albums/b334/PauseHelio/Do335twoseat.jpg

Gibbage1
12-19-2005, 01:28 PM
Originally posted by Kurfurst__:
Appearantly the Do 335 can be viewed as the first (would-be) successfull example of the "Zestorer" concept, a multirole aircraft for all jobs... like the fleet's destroyers.

But, I guess, in the 1930s they couldn't have pulled off such a plane, the engines were too weak at the time to support a plane that is large enough to have the neccesary qualities, yet still have the performance.

Maybe the first successfull GERMAN example of a successfull "Zestorer" concept, but the P-38 beat it by a long shot. I guess you define "successfull" as "Ran away from its only enguagement of the war". I define "successfull" as in "contributed to the war effort" and the only thing the Do-335 did for the Germans was waist money. Im sort of greatfull for the Do-335, since they waisted so much time, materials, money and resources on that aircraft, they could not build more truly "successfull" aircraft like the FW-190 and more bombers, fighters and pilots survived the war. Thanks Do-335! Many airment owe there lives too you!

Gib

Gibbage1
12-19-2005, 01:32 PM
Originally posted by Heliopause:
Some more info....


Thanks. After reading that, I find it even harder to believe the Do-335 could get "almost top speed" on one engine if its having trouble taking off with 1. P-38 also had trouble taking off with 1 engine, but it was possible. White knuckle flying, but possible. They have a training video on Zero's of a P-38 cutting its engine on takeoff and making it.

p1ngu666
12-19-2005, 02:08 PM
the view from the cockpit looks poor, and no armoured glass.

btw photo recon aircraft and others had mirrors like that...

Gibbage1
12-19-2005, 02:20 PM
Originally posted by p1ngu666:
the view from the cockpit looks poor, and no armoured glass.

btw photo recon aircraft and others had mirrors like that...

The B series and recon had the mirrors, but the A-0 and A-1 did not. I think the A-0 and A-1 had 2 panels of armored glass, but I am not 100% sure.

Aaron_GT
12-19-2005, 03:21 PM
Maybe the first successfull GERMAN example of a successfull "Zestorer" concept, but the P-38 beat it by a long shot.

The P-38 was not designed to be multirole, it simply achieved being multirole. The Do-335 was expressly designed to be multirole, which is what I think Kurfurst is trying to get at. The Mosquito also achived being multirole, but wasn't originally designed to be. However AFAIK the Me 210 was intended to be multirole and achieved it as the Me 410 and trumps the Do-335.

Aaron_GT
12-19-2005, 03:25 PM
Thanks. After reading that, I find it even harder to believe the Do-335 could get "almost top speed" on one engine if its having trouble taking off with 1. P-38 also had trouble taking off with 1 engine, but it was possible.

Many aircraft that can fly adequately on one engine cannot take off safely on only one, so your point it not well made. At low speed lift is diminished.

With conventional twins with engines mounted well off centre it is hard to fly on one as it requires large corrective forces and yaw to fly which induces a huge amount of drag. With the Do-335 this is not the case so it is not beyond the realms of possibility that it could fly well on only one engine with the prop feathered. I would say that given post war testing by Allied nations seems to confirm the single engine performance it is fairly reliable and not Luftwaffe propaganda.

Kurfurst__
12-19-2005, 05:40 PM
Originally posted by Gibbage1:
Maybe the first successfull GERMAN example of a successfull "Zestorer" concept, but the P-38 beat it by a long shot.


I did not know anybody else had called these planes 'Zestoerer' apart from the Germans, so thanks for explaining why I used a the term 'Zestorer'.

The P-38 is a pretty bad example, it was not intended to be a multirole aircraft, but an interceptor for special US requirements. And hardly a true multirole plane, if it's one, then all fighters that evolved into fighter-bombers(99%) and their oddball experimental versions are.



I guess you define "successfull" as "Ran away from its only enguagement of the war". I define "successfull" as in "contributed to the war effort" and the only thing the Do-335 did for the Germans was waist money. Im sort of greatfull for the Do-335, since they waisted so much time, materials, money and resources on that aircraft, they could not build more truly "successfull" aircraft like the FW-190 and more bombers, fighters and pilots survived the war. Thanks Do-335! Many airment owe there lives too you!

Gib


Yeah-yeah. http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_biggrin.gif DESPERATION! DESPERATION! German + Good = DESPERATION/WASTE OF TIME
Do I get the A+?
ROFLOL

Kurfurst__
12-19-2005, 05:46 PM
Originally posted by Aaron_GT:
The P-38 was not designed to be multirole, it simply achieved being multirole. The Do-335 was expressly designed to be multirole, which is what I think Kurfurst is trying to get at. The Mosquito also achived being multirole, but wasn't originally designed to be. However AFAIK the Me 210 was intended to be multirole and achieved it as the Me 410 and trumps the Do-335.


Gee, there ARE people who understood what I was trying to say fairly easily... Yep, exaclty Aaron, the LW (and add, many others, iirc French were also had their own... how do you destroyer in french?) had this thing about the multirole fighter that fill other tasks as well, the Zestorer, ie. Bf 110), the multirole fast/dive bomber that can be a fighter, the Kampf/Stukazestorer (Me210/410). In theory there was nothing bad with the concept, considering what was the situation at the time, and in fact the Zestorers worked far better in practice than their reputation says in many areas, they just weren't equals of S-E fighters in air combat.

Gibbage1
12-19-2005, 10:11 PM
Originally posted by Kurfurst__:

Yeah-yeah. http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_biggrin.gif DESPERATION! DESPERATION! German + Good = DESPERATION/WASTE OF TIME
Do I get the A+?
ROFLOL

OK. How DO you defind the Do-335 as "successfull" if #1, it never did anything in combat but ran away from a P-51 and #2, did nothing for the war other then help the allies drain the German war econimy?

How do you think the Do-335 was successfull as a "Zestorer" if it never dropped a bomb on any target, never destroyed ANYTHING beyond its own engines, and never fired its guns in anger?

Yes, the P-38 was designed as a bomber intercepter. That was its sole role, and its total kills in bombers during WWII was about 10% of its combined kills. It flew every type of combat mission description known during WWII from target tow, dive bomber, long range escort, level bomber, recon, smoke layer, and was even able to carry TWO anti-shipping torpedoes. Something no other fighter in WWII could do. Not only did it do those roles, but it played the roll of fighter so well, US's top two aces of WWII flew them. No other mass produced twin engine fighter of WWII did so well or even close to it. Considering it was a 1937 design as a bomber intercepter, that speaks volumes twards its design.

What did the Do-335 contribute to the war? ITs an interesting concept yes, but not successfull by any mark other then speed trails, and the P-51H could beat it with 1 engine.

Pirschjaeger
12-19-2005, 11:28 PM
The Do335 is a good example of the Nazi leaderships failures to act. They could have had this plan back in 42'. Too little, too late.

Gib, you mentioned speed. Speed isn't everything. How would the P-51H compare to the D0335 in climb? How much extra weight could each carry? I'd rather my enemy had 50.s than 103's. At least with 50's being fired at you, you had a chance.

The Do335 was a 41/42 design and for that time a great design, but the Me262 was chosen over it. The better decision would have been to produce both. That's not hindsight but rather logic.

BTW, what year was the 51H?

Fritz

Gibbage1
12-19-2005, 11:56 PM
Originally posted by Pirschjaeger:
The Do335 is a good example of the Nazi leaderships failures to act. They could have had this plan back in 42'. Too little, too late.


The first prototype flew in September 1943. How could it be available before the prototype flew? In those terms, the P-80 could also of been flying over Berlin in 43 also.



Gib, you mentioned speed. Speed isn't everything. How would the P-51H compare to the D0335 in climb? How much extra weight could each carry?


How about a P-51 with two engines? The P-82 could carry 7200ld of bombs. It could also do 475MPH. How much could the Do-335 carry?



I'd rather my enemy had 50.s than 103's. At least with 50's being fired at you, you had a chance.


Mk 103's? As in multiple? Try 1. Firing at half the ROF of a M2. Its an anti-bomber and anti-ground gun, not a fighter weapon. I would rather have 6 .50 cal's in fighter vs fighter. The two MG151/15's were nice though. With the combo, it was OK. Not an ideal fighter-vs-fighter loadout. It was made for attacking bombers and ground targets.



The Do335 was a 41/42 design and for that time a great design, but the Me262 was chosen over it. The better decision would have been to produce both. That's not hindsight but rather logic.


Prove it. Something drawn is not a real aircraft. You should of seen some of the drawings done by Lockheed in the 1940's!

http://renax.club.fr/sharkit/L-133/L133.jpg



BTW, what year was the 51H?


Its a 1941 design. Built and first flown in 1942. http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_wink.gif Its the evelution of the basic P-51. Its like me saying the BF-109K is a 1944 design. Its not! Its a 1936 design that has just evolved.



Fritz

Gib

Pirschjaeger
12-20-2005, 12:55 AM
Relax Gib, it's a discussion and not an argument.

The D0335 was offered in 41' but the Luftwaffe refused it. That means, they could have had it in 42' if they wanted it, simple.

Why bring in the P-82? It's post war and has little to do with the conversation. You mentioned the P-51H in comparision to the Do335 and I asked if you knew the climb rate. We weren't talking about "Z" models.

Prove what? I said it was a 41/42 design. It seems you agree it was on paper. Doesn't that constitute a design?

Gib, you are too oversensitive and it makes it difficult to have a discussion with you. You really have to learn who's jabbing you in the ribs and who is not.

Fritz

Gibbage1
12-20-2005, 01:05 AM
Originally posted by Pirschjaeger:
Relax Gib, it's a discussion and not an argument.

The D0335 was offered in 41' but the Luftwaffe refused it. That means, they could have had it in 42' if they wanted it, simple.


The Lockheed L-133 was offered in 1939. Could it be flying in 42? Lol. I doubt it. How long did it take for them to build and then fly the prototype of the Do-335? A year? No. Not even close. And thats the prototype. There is still a lot of development before the first production model. The P-80 was built and flown in 143 days, and that was TOTALLY unheard of. It was designed a lot earlier, and was a very conventional design. The Do-335 was not conventional at all. Like I said, the electronics alone took 60 man hours and the scematics for them was 110 pages. Even with the long development it still had a lot of teething problems like the rear engine overheating.

It was an interesting design, but too complex for its own good. Just like the early Axial flow engines.



Why bring in the P-82? It's post war and has little to do with the conversation. You mentioned the P-51H in comparision to the Do335 and I asked if you knew the climb rate. We weren't talking about "Z" models.


P-82 was a late war trin engine prop aircraft just like the Do-335. It also had as much service in WWII as the Do-335. Its very compairable. It was not a Z model. Thats German terminoligy. Like "Zestorer" http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_wink.gif Also the P-82 was conceaved in late 43. Not that far off. 20 were done by the end of WWII. More then the Do-335 http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_wink.gif Production models, not prototypes.



Gib, you are too oversensitive and it makes it difficult to have a discussion with you. You really have to learn who's jabbing you in the ribs and who is not.

Fritz

No. I just like to debate points. There are points I found in error, and I am debating them.

Pirschjaeger
12-20-2005, 01:24 AM
Gib, the L-133 was a jet design. It was a proposal before the technology was even developed. The Do335 was a prop design, long after the technology was developed. I don't think the two are comparable.

The P-80 was built in a remarkably short time but needed a long time to work out the bugs and IIRC, it killed atleast one test pilot.

I agree that the Do335 was about as far as the technology of the times would allow a prop design to go but if it had gone into mass production 2 years earlier it would have made a difference especially if supported by fighters.

You seem to have a personal hatred for this plane. Maybe it's all the hours you spend creating the model for the sim. http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_biggrin.gif

Fritz

Gibbage1
12-20-2005, 01:39 AM
Originally posted by Pirschjaeger:

You seem to have a personal hatred for this plane. Maybe it's all the hours you spend creating the model for the sim. http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_biggrin.gif

Fritz

Not that. I debate alot of things. Like the guy who posted a clip from an M82A1 sniper rifle as a demonstration of its power. You would think someone like me who has faught for the .50 cal M2 so long and hard would say "Hay! Look at that!" but no. I debated against that video. Why? Cuz a modern M82 and modern ammo cant represent a 1940's Ma-Duce. ITs the truth, I try to stick to it.

I find the Do-335 a good concept. I have said that many time so far. But I find it a bad design. Too wide, too tall, too complex. It could of been refind a LOT more.

On the otherhand, the Do-335 Z concept is brilliance for a high speed bomber concept! 4 engines in 2 body's with a good bomb load, range, and SPEED!!! THAT was a great design in my openion.

How about this for an interesting concept?

http://www.military.cz/usa/air/war/bomber/b42/b42_en.htm

Two engines, 1 body. Thought that was unique to the Do-335 hay? http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_wink.gif Note the bubble canopy. Much better visibulity then the Do-335, and it was designed as a bomber, not a fighter. Reading the stats, it seems compairable to the Do-335, but in honesty I think its a cleaner design. No big radiator in front, clean hull, and good pilot visibility. 410MPH is slower then the Do-335 but it also had weaker engines and a massive range. Also that body is rather bloated. I bet they could slim that puppy down in a fighter version, clip the wings a bit and make a very fast Do-335 competitor http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_wink.gif

BTW, that XB-42 flew in 1942, so it was on the designboard in 41 or earlier. Possibly before the Do-335 http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_wink.gif To bad its **** ugly.

Pirschjaeger
12-20-2005, 01:55 AM
2 props on the same shaft, it's a flying torpedo. http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/16x16_smiley-very-happy.gif

The range was really good. Why did they build only two? It looks like a good plane.

Building multi-purpose planes is not such a good idea. I think it's better to build special purpose planes and put them in multi-purpose squadrons. The planes should be designed to compliment each other.

Imagine Do335's with loaded with bombs and having the heavy guns. Then you have the 190's above and ahead flying cover while you have the 109's below. Mix that up with good tactics and it would be something you'd want to avoid.

Fritz

Gibbage1
12-20-2005, 02:03 AM
Originally posted by Pirschjaeger:
2 props on the same shaft, it's a flying torpedo. http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/16x16_smiley-very-happy.gif


You know what? You may have something there! Lol!



The range was really good. Why did they build only two? It looks like a good plane.


Official reason was "jets are commin", but the B-43 was a twin jet version. It also only had 2 built. Politics. Pure politics.



Building multi-purpose planes is not such a good idea. I think it's better to build special purpose planes and put them in multi-purpose squadrons. The planes should be designed to compliment each other.

Imagine Do335's with loaded with bombs and having the heavy guns. Then you have the 190's above and ahead flying cover while you have the 109's below. Mix that up with good tactics and it would be something you'd want to avoid.

Fritz

I disagree with this. Why? Well you need 3 differant factories, 5 differant ammo types, 2 differant fuels, lots of differant pilot training, and the logistics is just crazy. Multi-roll aircraft like the Do-335 and P-38 are the future. F-15, F-14, F4, Fa-18, Fa-22 and so many others are all multi-roll. I agree there is a place for single role aircraft like the B-52, B2, and A-10, but the true future is something that can do almost everything well. The 109 is old-hat and was out-dated before BoB. You cant win an offensive war with a defensive fighter http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_wink.gif

neural_dream
12-20-2005, 03:46 AM
Originally posted by Gibbage1:
I agree there is a place for single role aircraft like the B-52, B2, and A-10, but the true future is something that can do almost everything well ...
... and nothing exceptionally?

What makes you say so?

WOLFMondo
12-20-2005, 03:57 AM
Could the F22, Typhoon or J35 do the job of an A10? Could they do the job of the B52? They could but not to the same level of efficiency, especially in cost effectivness.

Gibbage1
12-20-2005, 04:16 AM
Originally posted by WOLFMondo:
Could the F22, Typhoon or J35 do the job of an A10? Could they do the job of the B52? They could but not to the same level of efficiency, especially in cost effectivness.

Thats why I said there is a place for them. I love the A-10, and its the best way to support the boots on the ground. Can an F-22 or F-35 do the same roll? Yes, but not as well or as cheap. B-2 is also an exceptional bomber with its new guidance system and SDB's. It would take a fleet of F-22's to do what 1 B-2 can do. But the days of the pure fighter are over. F-16 was the last pure fighter, and even that is being moved into the multi-roll catagory. The true pure light fighter like the 109 and A6M Zero died in WWII, and I would say died before WWII.

stathem
12-20-2005, 04:31 AM
It's interesting that stagnation in the development of German prop fighters occured in 1941/42 because they thought that they'd won and jets were coming, and stagnation in Allied types occured in 1945 because they knew they'd won, and jets were still coming.

Classic examples in the first instance are the Dornier, the He219, and refusing Kurt Tank the Db603 for his Doras.

An example of the second instance is the M.B.5. I'm sure there would be a number of US types also.

Viper2005_
12-20-2005, 05:21 AM
I think that you're writing off the fighter a little early Gibbage...

Ruy Horta
12-20-2005, 12:12 PM
What is a pure fighter?

The Bf 109 could function nicely as a Jabo, it did on many occasion.

The F-15 was designed as a fighter, we all know the Strike Eagle. The F-16 a cheap fighter, it became one of the mainstays of tactical aviation.

The F-104, a pure fighter, was developed into the F-104G, a Jabo.

As long as you can sling a dumb (or smart) bomb under a fighter, it is multi-role.

The F-22, will probably get dirty at some stage as well...

Actually in this day of high cost high tech, going specialist is a quick way to splinter your force into ineffectiveness. At some stage the numbers won't add up anymore. You cannot be at every place all the time with too few assets.

I am still not convinced that going high tech is the right way, there is always a break even point 3-5-10 low tech = 1 high tech, if low tech gets a break (tactics, luck, technology) the gap can be lessened.

The Germans had excellent high tech tanks, but too few to challenge the inferior but far more numerous allied tanks (not including the Allied heavies).

In a ways we are entering a period similar to the 1920-30s, where design is based upon small wars, wrong lessons learned and expectations unrealistic.

If push comes to shove, the F-4 Phantom can still carry dumb bombs and drop em on target, if the grunts need that, it is cost effective. If the F-22 cannot help the grunts when needed, flying endless CAP over safe skies, they are not cost effective.

Onehundred B-52 might be much more interesting than 10 B-2s seen from that angle.

Ruy Horta
12-20-2005, 12:22 PM
As for the Do 335, it was an interesting interim design, between proven prop technology and the upcoming jet.

Ironically, when it comes to Gib's take on the Dornier, the US Magazine Airpower, vol. 25 No. 3 (May 1995) regarded the Do 335 as one of Germany's most promising designs (46/50 compared to the Fw 190s 46, Bf 109s 39 - it ignores the Me 262).

So it basically just boils down to opinion...

p1ngu666
12-20-2005, 01:04 PM
the mossie was better than that torpedo plane http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/16x16_smiley-wink.gif

d0335 may have suffered what typhoon had. thought it would be so fast, rear view didnt matter...

still theres the curious things about it. one low rof 30mm, two mg151/15's. probably no armoured glass. kinda like a beufighter ingame actully http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/16x16_smiley-surprised.gif

internal bomb bay is pretty nifty tho, be the fastest with a bombload perhaps, either that or the mossie

Gibbage1
12-20-2005, 01:54 PM
Originally posted by Ruy Horta:
Ironically, when it comes to Gib's take on the Dornier, the US Magazine Airpower, vol. 25 No. 3 (May 1995) regarded the Do 335 as one of Germany's most promising designs (46/50 compared to the Fw 190s 46, Bf 109s 39 - it ignores the Me 262).

So it basically just boils down to opinion...

When compaired to the FW, BF and other contenporary designs, it was promising, but to complex and to late to deliver.