Mon Oct 24, 2005 3:43 pm
Nice shot Peter, thanks. And w/a bearcat no less!
Man that Do was rougher than cob! I wonder what the reasoning was to have Dornier do the resto? Maybe they had the capacity and even some of the old tooling??
regards,
t~
Man that Do was rougher than cob! I wonder what the reasoning was to have Dornier do the resto? Maybe they had the capacity and even some of the old tooling??
regards,
t~
Mon Oct 24, 2005 5:31 pm
Peter A,
Fantastic shot of the Dorneir! Is that Bearcat in the background the one that the NASM traded to Greenamyer and was later restored by George Enhorning and sold to Howard Pardue? His XF8F-1 ? If so then it would give evidence to the aircraft's original markings. Do you have any pics of the Bearcat?
Also, when talking about the fastest WW II fighter, what about the magnificent Bell P-63 Kingcobra(464mph), Vought's Flying FlapJack(500 mph), and Martin Baker's MB-5. Plus the griffon Spitfires. Just kidding of course.
I try to remember that most of the numbers posted in WW II were purported by factory salesman and lobbyists vying for huge contracts.
Comparing stock airplanes to stock airplanes you can eliminate anything that doesn't have a laminar flow wing like the Mustang and Sea Fury. The Centaurus engine won't hold together at max. power even when they were new. So eliminate the otherwise magnificent Sea Fury. The Spitfire, Me-109, P-38, Hellcat, all have too much drag on the airframe and too much lift being produced by the wing at high speeds.
The Bearcat is light, clean and has a lot of cubic inches/horsepower. It has a different and thinner airfoil from the Hellcat and FW-190.
The Mustang is a close second because of it's magnifent wing, liquid cooling, and NACA airscoop that gave it a 40 knot increase over comparable aircraft with similar horsepower.
WHen you start mixing and matching engines and airframes, the 4360 Sea Fury still hasnt reached all it's potential. The Mustangs are maxed out and THe Bearcats are so rare, we have never seen just how radical they could go. The Dornier is awesome, but look how fat the leading edge is! My question is, to get those high airspeed numbers, how high of an altitude did they have to go and would the engines hold together?
Fantastic shot of the Dorneir! Is that Bearcat in the background the one that the NASM traded to Greenamyer and was later restored by George Enhorning and sold to Howard Pardue? His XF8F-1 ? If so then it would give evidence to the aircraft's original markings. Do you have any pics of the Bearcat?
Also, when talking about the fastest WW II fighter, what about the magnificent Bell P-63 Kingcobra(464mph), Vought's Flying FlapJack(500 mph), and Martin Baker's MB-5. Plus the griffon Spitfires. Just kidding of course.
I try to remember that most of the numbers posted in WW II were purported by factory salesman and lobbyists vying for huge contracts.
Comparing stock airplanes to stock airplanes you can eliminate anything that doesn't have a laminar flow wing like the Mustang and Sea Fury. The Centaurus engine won't hold together at max. power even when they were new. So eliminate the otherwise magnificent Sea Fury. The Spitfire, Me-109, P-38, Hellcat, all have too much drag on the airframe and too much lift being produced by the wing at high speeds.
The Bearcat is light, clean and has a lot of cubic inches/horsepower. It has a different and thinner airfoil from the Hellcat and FW-190.
The Mustang is a close second because of it's magnifent wing, liquid cooling, and NACA airscoop that gave it a 40 knot increase over comparable aircraft with similar horsepower.
WHen you start mixing and matching engines and airframes, the 4360 Sea Fury still hasnt reached all it's potential. The Mustangs are maxed out and THe Bearcats are so rare, we have never seen just how radical they could go. The Dornier is awesome, but look how fat the leading edge is! My question is, to get those high airspeed numbers, how high of an altitude did they have to go and would the engines hold together?
Mon Oct 24, 2005 5:53 pm
According to the NASM:
Do 335
The fastest production piston-engined fighter ever built, attaining 846 kilometers per hour (474 mph) in level flight, this large and heavy fighter was powered by two 1800hp push & pull Daimler Benz 603 engines. With one engine out speed was a respectable 621 kph (348 mph).
Dave
Do 335
The fastest production piston-engined fighter ever built, attaining 846 kilometers per hour (474 mph) in level flight, this large and heavy fighter was powered by two 1800hp push & pull Daimler Benz 603 engines. With one engine out speed was a respectable 621 kph (348 mph).
Dave
Mon Oct 24, 2005 6:18 pm
Did this one ever fly? I thought only the fixed gear prototype flew. Way cool aircraft though.marine air wrote:...Vought's Flying FlapJack(500 mph)
Tue Oct 25, 2005 4:15 am
marine air wrote:Peter A,
Fantastic shot of the Dorneir! Is that Bearcat in the background the one that the NASM traded to Greenamyer and was later restored by George Enhorning and sold to Howard Pardue? His XF8F-1 ? If so then it would give evidence to the aircraft's original markings. Do you have any pics of the Bearcat?
Marine air,
I cannot answer your question.
I was there principally to view and photograph the Spitfire which very generously they had pulled out. They even opened up the facility and allowed me access on a Sunday morning.
It was a whistle stop visit en route to 'Transpo 72'.
I should have an image of the Bearcat, only B/W and will see if I can locate it.
PeterA
Tue Oct 25, 2005 5:18 am
I guess I wasn't eally trying to get into the classic "fastest fighter" argument. I was just merely making an observation on the choice of design in relation to aerodyamics of time.
The front cowling of the Do looks very much like the ju-88's cowlings. See image below provided by www.btinternet.com
Perhaps Dornier was just following a precendence set earlier.
regards,
t~
The front cowling of the Do looks very much like the ju-88's cowlings. See image below provided by www.btinternet.com
Perhaps Dornier was just following a precendence set earlier.
regards,
t~
Tue Oct 25, 2005 5:52 am
It's a bit like politics, or religion; round versus pointy and never will the adherents of one church credit the others. 
All I was saying was there's no actual 'best' in applied aerodynamics for piston fighters - wheather you take end of W.W.II, Reno, or world speed record. There's always someone whose take the other type to the top.
It's true that pointy ought to have an aerodynamic advantage, but it's clear that round has a muscle advantage - and the 335 was very, very, fast - hardly a second rate design, so clearly the round front was more than good enough.
What I am certainly saying is that the 335 wasn't a bitser or a part time job - it was the best that could be done - so they hardly wouldv'e copied a 1930s engine design unless they thought it was more than adequate.
Just my thinking...
All I was saying was there's no actual 'best' in applied aerodynamics for piston fighters - wheather you take end of W.W.II, Reno, or world speed record. There's always someone whose take the other type to the top.
It's true that pointy ought to have an aerodynamic advantage, but it's clear that round has a muscle advantage - and the 335 was very, very, fast - hardly a second rate design, so clearly the round front was more than good enough.
What I am certainly saying is that the 335 wasn't a bitser or a part time job - it was the best that could be done - so they hardly wouldv'e copied a 1930s engine design unless they thought it was more than adequate.
Just my thinking...
Tue Oct 25, 2005 11:03 am
Here's a good example of gobs of HP, inline engine(s), "fairly" aerodynamic yet performance that is lacking.
http://www.wpafb.af.mil/museum/research/p75.htm
Obviously any aircraft has to be a balance of many variables to perform well and not one aircraft did or does do everything very well.
regards,
t~
http://www.wpafb.af.mil/museum/research/p75.htm
Obviously any aircraft has to be a balance of many variables to perform well and not one aircraft did or does do everything very well.
regards,
t~
Tue Oct 25, 2005 12:09 pm
originalboxcar wrote:I guess I wasn't eally trying to get into the classic "fastest fighter" argument. I was just merely making an observation on the choice of design in relation to aerodyamics of time.
The front cowling of the Do looks very much like the ju-88's cowlings. See image below provided by www.btinternet.com
Perhaps Dornier was just following a precendence set earlier.
regards,
t~
Ooh, where's that Ju88 kept
Tue Oct 25, 2005 12:16 pm
Museum of the USAF, Dayton, Ohio.
Dave
Dave
Tue Oct 25, 2005 3:01 pm
DaveM2 wrote:Museum of the USAF, Dayton, Ohio.
Dave
It's in the dark now there.
Tue Oct 25, 2005 3:26 pm
DaveM2 wrote:Museum of the USAF, Dayton, Ohio.
Dave
I did wonder, seeing as it has Romanian
markings on it.
Tue Oct 25, 2005 5:11 pm
DaveM2 wrote:According to the NASM:
Do 335
The fastest production piston-engined fighter ever built, attaining 846 kilometers per hour (474 mph) in level flight, this large and heavy fighter was powered by two 1800hp push & pull Daimler Benz 603 engines. With one engine out speed was a respectable 621 kph (348 mph).
Dave
In scientific tests conducted by RAE Farnborough to find out which was the fastest fighter, the results were
max speed stats:
Dornier Do335 -......474mph
Dh Hornet F.1 -.......472mph
Twin Mustang P82 - 470mph
This was with a production Hornet with full military equipment. The Hornet prototype achieved 490mph. As the Dornier was actually a prototype too, this puts a different slant on the figures.
__________________
Tue Oct 25, 2005 5:44 pm
DazDaMan wrote:DaveM2 wrote:Museum of the USAF, Dayton, Ohio.
Dave
I did wonder, seeing as it has Romanian
The aircraft served with the Romanian AF and the pilot defected to Cyprus in 1943.
Dave
Wed Oct 26, 2005 2:19 am
DaveM2 wrote:DazDaMan wrote:DaveM2 wrote:Museum of the USAF, Dayton, Ohio.
Dave
I did wonder, seeing as it has Romanian
The aircraft served with the Romanian AF and the pilot defected to Cyprus in 1943.
Dave
Thanks!