Dora vs Tempest

[Soren]

Originally Posted by Civettone

It performed better? Do you have any figures to back that up?

I have.

The Tempest was faster at all altitudes.

Thats untrue though.

I have a suspicion you've been fooled by some figures on Mike William's site...

Zoom climb of the Tempest was unmatched.

What is that based off ?

Handling of the Tempest was excellent, even considered better than the Spitfire.

The handling of the FW-190 was probably the best of any fighter of WW2, high speed handling being better than that of any other piston engined fighter.

What was better on the Fw 190D? Perhaps roll rate? Turn rate was probably equal.

The FW-190 Dora-9 turned considerably better than the Tempest, and roll rate was MUCH higher. The Tempest didn't feature better maneuverability than a FW-190 Jabo as evident in RAF testing.

And again, armament of the Tempest was also far superior.

Far superior ?? I'd say its about equal here considering the MG151/20 fires Minen rounds.

I think some of you are more basing your judgment on emotions than on figures.

Considering what you just wrote above I find that comment very ironic.

[eddie_brunette]

ill go for the tempest for versatility at different altitude, armament, but if i can give it a weak point, ONE SHOT CAN DISABLE THE ENGINE, same with p51.

fw190's was always a bit overated to me, same with the p51's (my very personal view)

[Soundbreaker Welch?]

No my friend, that was the Typhoon.

You're right! Both the Typhoon and FW 190A were the little brothers of scarier things.

[Thorlifter]

Originally Posted by Soren

Far superior ?? I'd say its about equal here considering the MG151/20 fires Minen rounds.

Soren, what are Minen rounds? I'll look it up, but I would like to hear an explanation from you guys.

[Civettone]

It means that the shells had an explosive charge in them. According to Soren only German cannon shells had this...

And yes Soren I do take Mike Williams seriously.

According to the 10 test flights on FW 190 D-9 Flight Trials the Dora was slower at all altitudes:
Max rate of climb 4380 ft/min @ sea level
Time to 10,000 ft. 2.8 mins.
Time to 20,000 ft. 6.55 mins.
Time to 30,000 ft. 14.0 mins

Level speed
Speed at sea level M.S. gear* 376 mph true airspeed
Max. speed in M.S. gear* 411 mph true airspeed @ 6,600 ft. FTH
Max. speed in F.S. gear* 432 mph true airspeed @ 18,400 ft. FTH
Speed at 28,000 ft. 405 mph true airspeed

And take a look at this American test: http://www.wwiiaircraftperformance.o...nd-tempest.pdf
again stressing the excellent handling of the aircraft. The only negative thing mentioned is that the turn rate was worse than that of the Typhoon.

The handling of the FW-190 was probably the best of any fighter of WW2, high speed handling being better than that of any other piston engined fighter.

This British test says different. And they were not biased as the rest of the report was very positive.

We already had a discussion about that website but I believe it as much anything you might come up with. To me the teething problem of the Dora lasted so long that the arrival of the Ta 152H made it obsolete. By then the Tempest was already one year operational.

And perhaps Lesofprimus can take a look at these battle accounts by the Tempest if that's what he's looking for:
Tempest V Performance

Kris

[DerAdlerIstGelandet]

I think that with these 2 very fine aircraft it comes down to more than just the plane and performance and I think that many of you are forgetting this. Anyone who has flying experience (any kind of flying experience) will know that whats on paper does not tell the whole story. If that were the case then how the hell did prop aircraft with inferior performance take out jet aicraft in the later parts of WW2 and in the Korean War?

When you start comparing the great aircraft near the end of the war such as the Spitfire, P-51D, Fw-190D, Ta-152H, P-47s, Bf-109G,K, etc... in combat you have to take other things into considerations such as:

Pilot Skill
Allitude
Position
Weather Conditions
Condition of each aircraft

etc.
etc.
etc.
etc.
blah, blah, blah....

Basically the pilot who could get the most out there particular aircraft and fly it to its limits (which are allways higher than what is on paper) and do this better than the other pilot is going to win 9 out 10 times.

Thats just my two cents.

I am sure that some people here will come back with a consensus and disagree because they are allways right...

Anyhow I voted for the Dora. Not because I think it was far superior plane because as I stated above I think thers is more involved in the matter than performance figures on paper but because I like the aircraft. As I said it comes down more to the pilot.

[Eoptrimasa]

I like men and this one time at band camp...

[Erich]

as you say Chris it really was up to the pilot in his aircraft that is going to win the day. I go back to fall of 44 when the Dora was first introduced as a new and hopeful a/c, III./JG 54 was overwhelmed by the RAF fighters in all forms and the gruppe failed first as high cover for Kommando Nowotny's 262 kommando and then by itself with tremendous losses

[Aussie1001]

Which model of tempest are we talking about ?
Considering the mark 5 series 1 was the worst of the lot that doesn't really say anything for the dora if it was as good or a little bit worse than it, mind you though as Adler said it all comes down to the skill of the pilot and in some cases pure luck....

[Kurfürst]

Originally Posted by Civettone

It means that the shells had an explosive charge in them. According to Soren only German cannon shells had this...

I don`t think Soren has ever said this. Otherwise, he is correct about the fact that the Germans were much forward in HE shell design with their very high HE content Mine shells which had very thin walls, and were heavily stuffed with explosives - ie. 18 gramm of HE was found in a singe 20mm M-Geschoss compared to about 5-6 gramm in a 20mm Hispano shell (th

And yes Soren I do take Mike Williams seriously.

There is no need not to, but I think it has been already discussed that his site is very selective with tests when it comes to German aircraft.. only the worst are being up there. In case of the 190D, the only tests present are for some early test machines which had poor finish, and none of them are flying at full trottle and MW-50 boost - these tests were actually dug up by Bryan Bury.

There`s also a Focke-Wulf set of performance figures on the 190D, which shows the actual top performance of the 190D. It`s very competitive to the Tempest, very similiar, in fact.

To me the teething problem of the Dora lasted so long that the arrival of the Ta 152H made it obsolete.

... teething problem?

By then the Tempest was already one year operational.

That`s news. I`ve always believed (and with a good reason, Sqn. OOB and such) the Tempest was only in service a few months earlier than the Dora, and, much like the Dora, the number of Tempests around was very limited indeed. Not to mention the Sabre engines notorious unreliability, an issue that was never really fixed.

As for the Tempest vs. Dora, I think they`re very similiar profiled fighters. The pros for the Tempest is it`s longer range and higher payload. As a pure fighter, however, I feel the Dora 9 being a better aircraft, even if not much, but in about every characteristic it enjoys a bit of an advantage. It turns slightly better, it is about as fast (`cept at SL), roll rate is incomparably better, and generally it`s a sleeker aircraft with very high power-to-weight ratio. I think the Tempest with it`s four fast-firing Hissies have the advantage in firepower, but it`s not much, given the Dora`s better location of weapons, much better shells and ample of ammunition for the guns (not that it would present any troubles to fit more guns for the D-9 if.they`d wanted - it`s basically an A-8 with a Jumo engine)

[Civettone]

Originally Posted by DerAdlerIstGelandet

you have to take other things into considerations such as:

Pilot Skill
Allitude
Position
Weather Conditions
Condition of each aircraft

No that doesn't make sense to me. Of course these things would define the outcome of any battle, and perhaps even more than the plane characteristics.
But in comparing aircraft we cannot let the pilot be a factor. It's the plane you're judging, not the pilot. As such, comparisons between aircraft are done with premise of equal pilots, no position advantage, no weather advantage, no element of surprise. That's how comparisons were done by test pilots like in Rechlin. So I think it's perfectly possible to compare aircraft and tell which one was best. And even if you would take the pilot into consideration, the Tempest would win hands down as the average British pilot was superior to the German one in this stage of the war.
Apart from that, I agree that the two planes were closely matched.

Originally Posted by Kurfürst

I don`t think Soren has ever said this. Otherwise, he is correct about the fact that the Germans were much forward in HE shell design with their very high HE content Mine shells which had very thin walls, and were heavily stuffed with explosives - ie. 18 gramm of HE was found in a singe 20mm M-Geschoss compared to about 5-6 gramm in a 20mm Hispano shell

Sure my comment was more directed towards the importance of these Minengeschoss shells. The allies deliberately discarded the idea of Minengeschoss and went for more penetration values and higher muzzle velocity.

There is no need not to, but I think it has been already discussed that his site is very selective with tests when it comes to German aircraft.. only the worst are being up there. In case of the 190D, the only tests present are for some early test machines which had poor finish, and none of them are flying at full trottle and MW-50 boost - these tests were actually dug up by Bryan Bury.

There`s also a Focke-Wulf set of performance figures on the 190D, which shows the actual top performance of the 190D. It`s very competitive to the Tempest, very similiar, in fact.

I know, we discussed about the Fw 190D before. But to me it's also a matter of what you believe is more realistic for the Dora. To me the typical Dora couldn't fly faster than 685 km/h. In 1945 when all went well I'm sure they went faster. But by then the Tempest was already in service for (almost) a year.
My entire point is that the Dora couldn't live up to its expectations until its successor the Ta 152 became available. A stopgap which only proves itself when the successor becomes available, is a waste in my book. I believe Tank could just as well have skipped it all together and have the Ta 152 operational sooner.

... teething problem?

Yeah the problems you mentioned for the Fw 190D and especially the lack of a MW 50 boost until it was standard in 1945. That means the Fw 190D wasn't fully operational until then.

That`s news. I`ve always believed (and with a good reason, Sqn. OOB and such) the Tempest was only in service a few months earlier than the Dora

No I said the Tempest was already a year operational when the Ta 152 appeared, the successor of the Fw 190D. That was a further elaboration of the fact that it took too long for the Dora to become fully operational.

Not to mention the Sabre engines notorious unreliability, an issue that was never really fixed.

Unreliable, sure, but it didn't stop it from being an effective fighter. And how reliable was the Jumo 213? What was its life expectancy?
In any case, the Tempest was declared operational in April 1944 and by June the teething problems were finished with the adoption of new propellors. The Dora arrived in November and it took until early 1945 for its teething problems to end.

Kris

[Marcel]

Originally Posted by DerAdlerIstGelandet

Basically the pilot who could get the most out there particular aircraft and fly it to its limits (which are allways higher than what is on paper) and do this better than the other pilot is going to win 9 out 10 times.

Of course you're right, best pilot wins in these planes, but the reason I like technically compairing planes in these kind of threads is that people tend to bring forward quite interesting things about the planes while defending their point of view. I learn a lot by reading the replies given to my question.

[DerAdlerIstGelandet]

Originally Posted by Civettone

No that doesn't make sense to me. Of course these things would define the outcome of any battle, and perhaps even more than the plane characteristics.
But in comparing aircraft we cannot let the pilot be a factor. It's the plane you're judging, not the pilot. As such, comparisons between aircraft are done with premise of equal pilots, no position advantage, no weather advantage, no element of surprise. That's how comparisons were done by test pilots like in Rechlin. So I think it's perfectly possible to compare aircraft and tell which one was best.

I disagree. Here is why? I will use private flying for an example because I have experience here. You give me a Cessna 172 and you give FBJ a Cessna 172. They are the same aircraft. He has more experience than me he will get more out of the aircraft than I can.

Also the reason I disagree is because all aircraft have optimal operating conditions where they are equal or superior to other aircraft or inferior to other aircraft. The reason you can not take these tests for everything (and unfortunatly some people only believe whats on paper) is because combat is rarely at the optimal conditions.

Originally Posted by Civettone

And even if you would take the pilot into consideration, the Tempest would win hands down as the average British pilot was superior to the German one in this stage of the war.

I am not going to agree or disagree with you however please post some proof. Without proof you have made an unqualified statment that holds no bearing in this discussion.

[HoHun]

Hi Kris,

>I believe Tank could just as well have skipped it all together and have the Ta 152 operational sooner.

That was the original plan. However, the loss of German-held territory delayed and finally stopped Ta 152 production ...

The Ta 152 design (in the A version) was ready for series production in the first half of 1944. Since the jigs and tools were to be produced in France and the factories were overrun as a result of the invasion, the actual begin of the series production - in Cottbus - was in November 1944. (The planned production in Italy, scheduled to begin in May 1944, had to be canceled completely.) Due to difficulties in subassembly production, the first Ta 152 examples were delivered in January 1945. Only 43 aircraft were produced before in February, the Soviets overran the factory in Posen that supplied the wings and fuselages for the Ta 152, ending production of the type. (Production had been moved as far to the East as possible to reduce the risk of strategic bombing attacks by the USAAF and the RAF.) Of the 43 aircraft that were produced, 14 were destroyed in a low-level attack on the factory airfield. They were concentrated like that because due to poor workmanship, they were unsafe to fly out before they were repaired.

(I'm relying on Hermann's "Focke-Wulf Ta 152" for this summary.)

Regards,

Henning (HoHun)

[Soren]

Civettone here's why you shouldn't take Mike Williams figures on the Dora seriously;

The tests which he presents on his site were carried out with under-performing engines, and AFAIK that is as-well mentioned.

The real & guaranteed performance of the Dora you can find on Focke Wulf's own official Leistung charts.



As you can see performance is 612 km/h at SL at SonderNotleistung (2,100 PS @ 3,250 RPM), and 702 km/h at 5.7km. As you can also see 685 km/h was reached at Start u. Notleistung (1,750 PS @ 3,250 RPM) at 6.6 km.

As to the American flight test of the Dora, well again that was flown at a power setting no higher than Steig u. Kampfleistung, and probably not with the right type of fuel, something which greatly affects the the turn performance.

Also note that in post war mock dogfights the captured Dora-13 easily out-maneuvered the Hawker Tempest Mk.V piloted by an experienced pilot in all aspects of maneuvering flight, easily emerging the victor.

According to FW-190 pilots the Dora-9 was a far better dogfighter than the Anton, featuring much better turning & climbing performance than its predecessor. And according to German comparative testing with Allied aircraft the Dora-9 was a better dogfighter than the Tempest at all altitudes, also being much better than the P-47, P-38 & P-51 at low altitudes, while the P-51 was considered equal at high altitudes.

You can read all this in Hermann's detailed book on the Dora...