Earlier Do-335: Mosquito repellent?

Wimble Toot

Banned
Wimble Toot sounds like he is trolling. Why are the moderators not doing anything about this?

My opinion is as valid as yours, so why should they?

The RLM could place as large an order as it liked for the Do335. If it intended them to be manufactured and delivered in 1946, they were going to disappointed.

They probably placed an order for 2000 Ar234Bs, too, for delivery in 1947. ;)
 

FBKampfer

Banned
Have you flown one in combat with other Allied aircraft? If you haven't, how do you know?

I prefer facts over opinion.
Well first I meant to say "one of the best".

Secondly you're going to be terribly disappointed with literally every claim for "best x under any circumstances.

Early German pilots smacked around every other airforce, but were fighting from a position of advantage, and were much better trained. Same with the Japanese.

Later the situation is reversed, with the Germans and Japanese getting smacked around, but the Allies fighting from a position of advantage, and superior training (nevermind more difficult-to-quantify problems such as lack of maintenance, and poor quality fuel, sometimes drastically reducing avaliable engine performance. Especially notable for the Japanese).


In comparisons, the only facts you're going to get are pure performance numbers, and historical context coloring everything. However, I'm assuming you're well aware of this.


Running 130 octane C3 fuel, and it's MW50 boost system, a well maintained and light-loaded Bf 109K-4 could achieve over 4500 feet per minute rate of climb, beat out only by the Spitfire 14, peaking at around 4800fpm at light load at around 3500ft, and just about tied with the Yak-3 and P-63, and superior to, but in the same general class as the 190D, La-7, Ki-84, Yak-9U, Spitfires VIII, IX LF, XII, and XVI's, the very very late F4U-4, J2M4, and the Italian 5-series C.205, Re.2005, and the G.55.

Additionally we can view rate of climb as a direct (if not perfectly accurate across the entire speed band) comparison of acceleration, given that climb is a result of excess power.

From numbers I've calculated, the Spitfire 14, and the K4 both have time to altitudes of 20,000ft at around 4.5 minutes (without being able to pull my reference material off my home computer, I believe the Spitfire 14 was at 4 minutes 22 seconds, while the K4 was at 4 minutes 35 seconds, with the P-63 coming at 4 minutes 43 seconds). Which was absolutely phenomenal in 1944. These were literally the two fastest climbing production fighters in the world at the end of 1944.


Top speed of the Bf 109K-4 was 453mph at ~23000ft, making it literally the fastest piston aircraft in the world at its peak altitude band (though admittedly it falls behind the Spitfire 14 above 25,000 feet, and is drastically outperformed by the late D blocs of P-47's, as well as the M, and N models, and the Ta-152 at extreme altitudes.

And at low altitudes, it remained one of the fastest, cleanly beat by only the Tempest, and the La-7.

The views were relatively restrictive, but quite fair for anything without a bubble canopy.

I would in fact say that the greatest weaknesses were its relatively high wing loading, and crazy amount of torque making slow speed combat frequently untenable, especially if engaging a peer-quality opponent.

However this goes somewhat out the window changing to a group engagement.

Based on my post, I'm guessing that you can infer that I'm a proponent of the energy fighting theory, at least for piston engine fighters with fairly low corner velocities.

As far as personal experience, I've never had the fortune to fly a K4 in real life (to the best of my knowledge, none are restored to running condition, much less airworthiness). However in coming up on 12 years of flight simulations, I've always found the K4 to be an absolute brute of a fighter, though quite difficult to access, a trait shared by the later model 109's in general. I personally attribute this to the MK 108's horrendous ballistics, and as previously mentioned the high wing loading and high torque can give it a very nasty stall, especially at high AoA, though nothing like the Ta-152's flat spin. Definitely don't want to jerk the stick when you're hanging on the prop though.


However I'd rate the K4 right next to the Spitfire XIV and XVI, the La-7, Tempest, and F4U-4 on the "shit you don't want to get jumped by" list.
 

FBKampfer

Banned
Based on what criteria? Having seen the cockpit that seems pretty hard to claim.
Engine-related performance primarily.


And while it certainly doesn't have a bubble canopy, the later erla haube canopies weren't terrible. Certainly better than the early F6F, razorback P-47's, P-51B's without a Malcom Hood, and most other framed canopies.
 

Deleted member 1487

Engine-related performance primarily.


And while it certainly doesn't have a bubble canopy, the later erla haube canopies weren't terrible. Certainly better than the early F6F, razorback P-47's, P-51B's without a Malcom Hood, and most other framed canopies.
Canopies were only part of the issue, general size and layout being part of the problem as well. Then there is the issue of the late war Bf109s not really having better engines than the Allied fighters.
 

FBKampfer

Banned
Canopies were only part of the issue, general size and layout being part of the problem as well. Then there is the issue of the late war Bf109s not really having better engines than the Allied fighters.

Its still a capable fighter, it's simply not the easiest to fly.

And no, the engine wasn't inherently better, but they were still wringing top-notch performance out of it.

As I explained in an earlier post, it was the fastest piston engine fighter at its peak altitude band, and only 10mph slower than the Tempest on the deck, clocking around 370mph, right along side the P-51, P-47M, Spitfire 14, and the other top performers.

It was just about tied with the Spitfire 14 for fastest climb to 20,000ft (12 seconds slower, and quite markedly ahead of most other aircraft).


It wasn't THE BEST engine. But it was nevertheless an excellent engine, and on a small, relatively lightweight fighter.
 
Canopies were only part of the issue, general size and layout being part of the problem as well. Then there is the issue of the late war Bf109s not really having better engines than the Allied fighters.

Not to mention the ballistic differences between the Mark 108 cannon and MG131 machine gun, the limited ammo load, the restrictive cockpit, the undercarriage design flaws, the high wing loading, the malicious landing characteristics... It had many features you wouldn't want to find in a service aeroplane.
 

Wimble Toot

Banned
However in coming up on 12 years of flight simulations

You know computer flight simulators bear no relation to reality, I hope?

Hermann Weber's description of the Bf-109K-4 was "the ultimate death trap for pilots," whose pilot was "all shook up" whenever the engine-mounted 30mm gun fired, by the way, the Bf-109K-4 was, according to Hermann, a very poor dogfighter due to its altered centre of gravity.


I've only ever spoken to two pilots that have flown the Me 262, one Scottish, one German - and the German one, a pilot with NJG 11, said he was glad the war ended when it did, as he would no longer have to fly the 262 any more. I still remember the look in his eyes.

Make of this what you will.
 

Deleted member 1487

I've only ever spoken to two pilots that have flown the Me 262, one Scottish, one German - and the German one, a pilot with NJG 11, said he was glad the war ended when it did, as he would no longer have to fly the 262 any more. I still remember the look in his eyes.

Make of this what you will.
Have you seen the night fighter version of the Me262? Whomever thought that up was insane.
 

Wimble Toot

Banned
Have you seen the night fighter version of the Me262? Whomever thought that up was insane.

I'm looking at a model of one now!

Even the 262 without antlers terrified him. 'One false move and you were dead.' was his verdict. Most of his units aircraft were delivered by road, without engines

The Ju88R was 'solid and dependable', and he shot down nine Lancasters in one.

Winkle Brown said the only reason he felt confident flying captured 262s "was that no-one else was trying to kill me!"
 

Deleted member 1487

I'm looking at a model of one now!

Even the 262 without antlers terrified him. 'One false move and you were dead.' was his verdict. Most of his units aircraft were delivered by road, without engines

The Ju88R was 'solid and dependable', and he shot down nine Lancasters in one.
Trying flying a first generation jet at night, often within landing lights being lit up due to Mosquitos with extra fuel tanks under the nose and an extra crew man crammed into the cockpit!
04179_Me_262_B-1a_U1_Nightfighter.jpg


It was a very different animal than the daylight fighter.
 

FBKampfer

Banned
You know computer flight simulators bear no relation to reality, I hope?

Hermann Weber's description of the Bf-109K-4 was "the ultimate death trap for pilots," whose pilot was "all shook up" whenever the engine-mounted 30mm gun fired, by the way, the Bf-109K-4 was, according to Hermann, a very poor dogfighter due to its altered centre of gravity.


I've only ever spoken to two pilots that have flown the Me 262, one Scottish, one German - and the German one, a pilot with NJG 11, said he was glad the war ended when it did, as he would no longer have to fly the 262 any more. I still remember the look in his eyes.

Make of this what you will.


Of course, it is however as close as one can get to flying a K4, or any WWII fighter for that matter, in a combat setting.

And dogfighting certainly wasn't the K-4's strength. However certain maneuvers like the yo-yos, lag rolls, and very large scissors seemed to suit the aircraft, avoiding its stability and torque issues at low speed, while making use of its engine performance.


As for the 30mm, I personally didn't care for it either, though that's purely for balistic reasons. If I'd been a German fighter pilot, I would have preferred one of the bastard G-10/K4's the factories would cobble together sometimes.

And I want to be clear, I make no arguments that the K4 (or any 109 for that matter) was easy to fly. Only that it had a very high potential.
 
could not exist earlier than it did, due to a shortage of engines
Okay, maybe I'm being dense or something, but...since when couldn't a pair of DB600s or 601s be stuffed into a single fuselage? Yes, the DB603 was unavailable; that's not what I'm demanding (or I wouldn't have suggested "earlier" in the first place).
 
Last edited:

Wimble Toot

Banned
There's absolutely no reason why that couldn't be done, but as the Nazis couldn't afford the Bf110 AND the FW187

Nor the Bf109 AND the He100

I would suggest it was unlikely, and the performance penalty would make it as vulnerable as the Bf110.

You need to be a wealthy country, like Britain, with a mature aero engine industry, to afford two different frontline fighters, with the same engine.
 
Top