Dora vs Tempest

[Jank]

On a related and elementary note, manufacturer published charts and graphs, even of guaranteed performance, usually fall short of actual performance figures obtained with actual aircraft.

[Soren]

I've never experienced German performance figures to be overblown at all, infact the guaranteed performance figures I've seen so far from Focke Wulf & Messerschmidt have all been very conservative and never exceeded the actual achieved performance.

Promising "der Führer" some wild performance figures and then not to deliver on them was not to take ones own life very seriously!

[Civettone]

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.

I think you don't understand what I said so I'll say it again.
I totally agree that the pilot is the most important element. Other than that, surprise, altitude advantage, weather, etc all play an important or even decisive factor in air combat.
Fine.
However, when comparing aircraft, one can easily discard these factors as they can be attributed to both sides: weather and altitude advantage will be on one side, and on the other side the next time. Same thing with the pilots, one can easily start from the premise that all pilots are equal. Then one can start comparing aircraft quite easily.
It's the same thing with F1 racing. One can easily compare the different cars regardless whether Massa, Schumacher or Santa Claus would be driving it.

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.

I don't get this. I know you have a good knowledge of Luftwaffe pilots to know that the average German pilot at the time of the Tempest/Dora was inferior to the allied pilot.
If you disagree, you will surprise me, but I will easily back my statement up. All I would have to do is show the Luftwaffe training hours in the second half of WW2.

Promising "der Führer" some wild performance figures and then not to deliver on them was not to take ones own life very seriously!

There were several aircraft designers which lied to Hitler about their aircraft. Especially Messerschmitt was constantly taking Hitler for a fool.

I still stand by the fact that the Fw 190D didn't achieve its maximum performance until 1945 when the Ta 152 was entering service.
Kris

[Soren]

Especially Messerschmitt was constantly taking Hitler for a fool.

A statement like that begs an example! And I suspect you'll have a VERY hard time finding one!

[brano]

My vote goes to FW 190,he was faster,better armed and beter armored then Tempest!!!

[brano]

Can you tell me wy the American are use Browning M2 mashine guns till 1945,when are 20-30 mm cannons become standard armament on the all aircrafts.I don`t see much logic in that!!!

[Kurfürst]

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.

Nothing of that sort in real life quite the opposite happened.
In fact the Allies had went for lower muzzle velocity and higher RoF with the Tempests short Hispano Mk Vs, which were pretty much and equivalent to the Mauser MG 151/20 in these specs. They also immidiately copied the Minengeschoss rounds after the war, discarded the Hispano and replaced it with what (Aden/Defa) was basically a straight copy of the Mauser MG 213.

As for preference for penetration, the British never seem to have too much preference for it, since they switched quickly after the introduction of cannon armamemnt to semi-armour piercing rounds with reduced penetration performance but more versatality. As for the Germans, they hardly used only M-Gsch. rounds in their belts, the composition was typically AP/API- a conventional HE/HEI - followed by 3 Mineshells. In case of Viermot targets, one HE/HEI replacing a Mine shell.

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.

I do not see how this POV is sufficiently supported by facts. Opinion is of course a right of everyone, but I can`t share this opinion.

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.

What 'problems'?

And in any case, MW-50 injection was introduced already in 1944, a month or two after the operational introduction of the Dora. This is basically the same as the Tempest`s story, which did not receive the improved Sabre II B engine until September 1944.

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.

The Dora was fully operational by the automn of 1944. Period. It`s performance improved, about the same time and just like the Tempest`s.

As for the Tempest, it did not have the short barreld cannons, nor spring tabs until June 1944, nor the Sabre IIB engine until September-October 1944 - this concides with the introduction of MW-50 onto the Dora. Even then, production of the new, improved models was rather marginal, and it took quite some time until pilots actually saw those new models.

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?

I do not have any TBO figures for either engines. However, I`ve seen no indication so far there would be any serious trouble with the Jumo 213, while the Sabre is almost infamous. I am always a bit puzzled by the Sabre - technically very impressive and advanced, in practical terms, it managed to create an overcomplicated engine with all the disadvantages of a radial and an inline combined..

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 real problem of the Tempest was it`s Sabre engine, that never seem to work as it should, or the very least it proved to be fatally unreliable in service. Planes bursting into flames on startup, planes augmenting right after take off due to engine failures etc... and it kept happening.

The Dora arrived in November and it took until early 1945 for its teething problems to end.

Kris

What 'teeting problems', again? You keep repeating the Dora had 'teething problems', without any specifics...

[DerAdlerIstGelandet]

I think you don't understand what I said so I'll say it again.
I totally agree that the pilot is the most important element. Other than that, surprise, altitude advantage, weather, etc all play an important or even decisive factor in air combat.
Fine.
However, when comparing aircraft, one can easily discard these factors as they can be attributed to both sides: weather and altitude advantage will be on one side, and on the other side the next time. Same thing with the pilots, one can easily start from the premise that all pilots are equal. Then one can start comparing aircraft quite easily.
It's the same thing with F1 racing. One can easily compare the different cars regardless whether Massa, Schumacher or Santa Claus would be driving it.

I still disagree because as I said in order to compare aircraft then they need to be compared at all conditions to each other on a level playing field. Allied tests of a Luftwaffe aircraft were not on a level playing field because the pilots dont know the aircraft as well. Luftwaffe tests of an allied aircraft would be the same because they dont know the aircraft as well either.

You need to compare using the manufacturers data and as Jank was so kind to point out they are never the aircrafts limitations.

I don't get this. I know you have a good knowledge of Luftwaffe pilots to know that the average German pilot at the time of the Tempest/Dora was inferior to the allied pilot.
If you disagree, you will surprise me, but I will easily back my statement up. All I would have to do is show the Luftwaffe training hours in the second half of WW2.

While I agree with you (and would be a fool not to do so) that the Luftwaffe's training was declining it is a myth that the Luftwaffe was void of excellent and well trained pilots with experience in the later parts of the war. The Luftwaffe still had plenty of pilots.

Therefore my point is you can not dismiss the Luftwaffe pilot and say that the Tempest would win hands down becuase the allied pilots were better.


There were several aircraft designers which lied to Hitler about their aircraft. Especially Messerschmitt was constantly taking Hitler for a fool. Underestimating your opponent is a deadly mistake...

[Civettone]

Soren, Messerschmitt mislead Hitler on the Me 262 as a Jabo, the Me 209 being better than the Me 262, the Me 410 reaching 680 km/h, the Me 262 being a better bomber/recon than the Ar 234, etc. Hitler was genious at time but could also be incredibily naive when people told him things he liked. He was often overoptimistic and thereby chosing to believe the one with the best news. Messerschmitt quickly found that out.

Kurfürst, I read several accounts where the Fw 190D had lousy serviceability rates and that the Jumo 213 kept providing problems. And the MW 50 wasn't standard until 1945.
The Sabre was troublesome but nowhere near the level of the Jumo 213. British engines were generally very reliable so I think the accounts of the Sabre have to be seen in that light.

About the performance of the Dora...
I've got a graph drawn up by Focke Wulf itself. A Leistungvergleich Fw 190 and Ta 152. The Fw 190D (with MW 50) didn't reach 700 kmh at optimal altitude. The D-15 struggled to get there. Quite a different story for the D-12 which even got above 750 kmh!!
And on this one it barely reaches 700: http://pages.sbcglobal.net/mdegnan/_...aMitALader.bmp

And this comes from luftwaffe-experten:
the speed are comming fro a fw test from march 45 (from the smithonian german and japanees captured documents the IWM has probably a copy)
the fw 190 was with fully loaded 4250 kg and with the ETC 504 add around 10 kmh without it)
Speed WEP mw50 (b4)
692 kmh @ 5400 m (702 without ETC 504)


wep ladruckhohung
i do not have hard data but we can gustimate it around 680 @ 5400 m (690 without etc)

start and emmergency
677 kmh @ 6600 m (687 without ETC)

combat power (max continous )
666 kmh @ 6600 m (676 without ETC)


The Tempest had a lower wing loading which would (theoretically) make it a better turner, at least what initital turns are concerned. Sustained turns - which is usually talked about but not as important IMO - would be pro-Dora. The Dora had the better roll rate which would mean that it could shake of the enemy by rolling to one side and then roll again to the other side. A Tempest would not be able to follow that. Any opponent could outroll the Tempest. But about intitial turning and climbing would be in the advantage of the Tempest due to excellent handling, even at speeds above 400 mph, large wing loading and a huge amount of horses.
Also Tempest pilots considered their planes to be more manoeuvrable than the Fw 190 (not sure about which version), but I suppose Dora pilots thought the same. The ones that disagreed were probably dead anyway

For completeness here's an account by Lt Osenkop of I/JG26 who relates his experience with the Dora against the Tempest as "Almost equal in level flight, a length pursuit was generally fruitless. The D-9 climbed and turned better but was inferior in the dive."

I still disagree because as I said in order to compare aircraft then they need to be compared at all conditions to each other on a level playing field.

So tests done by their own pilots would be ok?
And what about German test pilots at Rechlin who were not used to new types?

You need to compare using the manufacturers data and as Jank was so kind to point out they are never the aircrafts limitations.

So that goes for both aircraft which still comes down to the same thing then.

Therefore my point is you can not dismiss the Luftwaffe pilot and say that the Tempest would win hands down becuase the allied pilots were better.

The allied pilot was better than the German pilot. I can make this statement because it speaks of THE German (Dora) pilot and THE allied (Tempest) pilot. The average quality of the German pilot was simply lower at this stage of the war. Of course there were dozens of Luftwaffe Experten but they do little to lift up the average quality of the German pilot.
And this fits in what I said before: the pilot, the weather, surprise element, altitude advantage are all incredibily important but when comparing aircraft you have to go by averages: each side will have equal amounts of these benefits ... and the average German pilot will be inferior to the British one.

Because if you would follow your logic, you can make a claim that the Polikarpov I-16 wasn't worse than the Vought F-4U because it could have had the better pilot, an altitude advantage, and a better turn radius. But I doubt anyone will ever claim the I-16 was a match for the Corsair.

Kris

[DerAdlerIstGelandet]

So tests done by their own pilots would be ok?

I am saying you will get a better test result.

And what about German test pilots at Rechlin who were not used to new types?

By the time they had flown the aircraft eneogh yes because you dont do just 10 hours of test flying. Aircraft are flown 100s of hours and even 1000's of hours in test flying.

The allied pilot was better than the German pilot. I can make this statement because it speaks of THE German (Dora) pilot and THE allied (Tempest) pilot. The average quality of the German pilot was simply lower at this stage of the war. Of course there were dozens of Luftwaffe Experten but they do little to lift up the average quality of the German pilot.
And this fits in what I said before: the pilot, the weather, surprise element, altitude advantage are all incredibily important but when comparing aircraft you have to go by averages: each side will have equal amounts of these benefits ... and the average German pilot will be inferior to the British one.

I will agree the average pilot was better. That is the truth of the matter.

As for the rest of the discussion. We will have agree to disagree because I look at this differently than you do and I would even say that technically neither of us are wrong. It just depends how you look at it.

Because if you would follow your logic, you can make a claim that the Polikarpov I-16 wasn't worse than the Vought F-4U because it could have had the better pilot, an altitude advantage, and a better turn radius. But I doubt anyone will ever claim the I-16 was a match for the Corsair.

Kris

Now you are just being silly...

[renrich]

Re question about US using cal .50 MGs in their fighters through the end of the war. Not strictly true as some models of the Hellcats and Corsairs utilised 20 mm cannons. However, in the first trials of the 20 mms, there were reliability problems. The .50 BMG was a tried and true design and very effective against enemy fighters. The US fighters could for the most part carry a large ammo load with the .50s which was a big consideration for the long range fighters which might have to fight their way home. By the way the P38 always carried a 20 mm, the very early P51s carried 20mms and the P39 carried either 1-37mm or a 20mm. These were usually nose mounted which apparently caused less feed problems.

[DerAdlerIstGelandet]

Also I think you have to look at what was the main thing they needed to arm there aircraft against. The USAAF did not have to worry about going up against large bomber formations where a 20mm might be better. The .50 Cal was certainly good eneogh to bring down fighters.

[Soren]

Soren, Messerschmitt mislead Hitler on the Me 262 as a Jabo, the Me 209 being better than the Me 262, the Me 410 reaching 680 km/h, the Me 262 being a better bomber/recon than the Ar 234, etc.

What ?!

First off Messerschmidt designed the Me-262 to be an air-superiority fighter, it was Hitler who wanted it to fullfill the fighter-bomber role, NOT Messerschmidt.

Secondly Messerschmidt never claimed the Me-209 to be better than the Me-262.

Thirdly where the heck have you heard the Me-410 was supposed to reach 680 km/h ??? The design goal was 625-630 km/h !

Hitler was genious at time but could also be incredibily naive when people told him things he liked.

Hitler wasn't really naive, he was paranoid as heck though.

He was often overoptimistic and thereby chosing to believe the one with the best news. Messerschmitt quickly found that out.

That is completely made up on your part Civettone.

About the performance of the Dora...
I've got a graph drawn up by Focke Wulf itself. A Leistungvergleich Fw 190 and Ta 152. The Fw 190D (with MW 50) didn't reach 700 kmh at optimal altitude. The D-15 struggled to get there. Quite a different story for the D-12 which even got above 750 kmh!!

I've got the very same chart and one thing is for sure, you're not reading it correctly!

And on this one it barely reaches 700: http://pages.sbcglobal.net/mdegnan/_...aMitALader.bmp

You need glasses Civettone cause on that very chart the Dora-9 exceeds 703 km/h at 5.7km, which "oddly" enough is exactly the same as on the official leistung chart I presented. Note the SL speed as-well plz, ~ 615 km/h.

And this comes from luftwaffe-experten:
the speed are comming fro a fw test from march 45 (from the smithonian german and japanees captured documents the IWM has probably a copy)
the fw 190 was with fully loaded 4250 kg and with the ETC 504 add around 10 kmh without it)
Speed WEP mw50 (b4)
692 kmh @ 5400 m (702 without ETC 504)

692 km/h at 5.4km with ETC-504 - sounds correct.

wep ladruckhohung
i do not have hard data but we can gustimate it around 680 @ 5400 m (690 without etc)

start and emmergency
677 kmh @ 6600 m (687 without ETC)

combat power (max continous )
666 kmh @ 6600 m (676 without ETC)

The above figures look right enough...

The Tempest had a lower wing loading which would (theoretically) make it a better turner, at least what initital turns are concerned.

Thats just being ridiculously simplistic & ignorant on your part Civettone, cause its not wing-loading which matters, its lift-loading, which in turn is dependant on CLmax. And like the P-51 the Tempest features a laminar flow type airfoil, which in short means low drag but also low lift pr. area - hence why a underpowered FW-190 Jabo will turn with the Tempest. The FW-190 on the other hand features a very high lift airfoil (NACA 23000 series) with a CLmax around 1.58 - 1.64, hence why the FW-190 was famous for its excellent responsiveness. So in this department the Dora-9 is far superior to the Tempest.

Sustained turns - which is usually talked about but not as important IMO - would be pro-Dora.

Again the Dora-9 is superior.

The Dora had the better roll rate which would mean that it could shake of the enemy by rolling to one side and then roll again to the other side. A Tempest would not be able to follow that. Any opponent could outroll the Tempest. But about intitial turning and climbing would be in the advantage of the Tempest due to excellent handling, even at speeds above 400 mph, large wing loading and a huge amount of horses.

As explained above you're incorrect in your assessment Civettone. The FW-190 Dora-9 featured both better instantanous and sustained turn performance than the Tempest, and the FW-190 already possessed the best high speed handling of any piston engined fighter. So the Tempest would be at a real loss if the fight was at high speed.

Also Tempest pilots considered their planes to be more manoeuvrable than the Fw 190 (not sure about which version), but I suppose Dora pilots thought the same. The ones that disagreed were probably dead anyway

As have already been told German comparative testing concluded the FW-190 Dora-9 to be a much superior dogfighter compared to the Tempest, and the RAF's own tests only reinforce that conclusion.

[Civettone]

First off Messerschmidt designed the Me-262 to be an air-superiority fighter, it was Hitler who wanted it to fullfill the fighter-bomber role, NOT Messerschmidt.

First, why do you write it with 'dt'? Second, I never said it was M. who wanted it as a FB but when asked, M. said that the Me 262 could easily be adapted to carry two 500 kg bombs. And he said it was a better bomber than the Ar 234 and Do 335.

Secondly Messerschmidt never claimed the Me-209 to be better than the Me-262.

When the Me 262 was chosen and he was ordered to stop the Me 209 development, he started to claim that the Me 209 was the better alternative.

Thirdly where the heck have you heard the Me-410 was supposed to reach 680 km/h ??? The design goal was 625-630 km/h !

There was a comparative study done between the Me 410, Me 329 and a Lippisch design.

Performance Comparison between Me 410/Li P.10/Me 329
Horizontal speed @ maximum pressure altitude
Service Ceiling
Range at best glide ratio
Me 410
672 kph / 418 mph
10900 m / 35671'
2020 km / 1255 miles
Li P.10
682 kph / 424 mph
12100 m / 39698'
2480 km / 1541 miles
Me 329
685 kph / 426 mph
12500 m / 41010'
2520 km / 1566 miles

So sorry it was 672 kmh, not 680.

Hitler wasn't really naive, he was paranoid as heck though.

He was both. The man had many sides to him.

That is completely made up on your part Civettone.Perhaps you should do some reading. Try Speer's autobiography to start.

I've got the very same chart and one thing is for sure, you're not reading it correctly!

Oh Soren ... please ... the Fw 190D-9 line doesn't reach the 700 kmh line. How do I misread that?

You need glasses Civettone cause on that very chart the Dora-9 exceeds 703 km/h at 5.7km

Like I said, barely. Look it up in the dictionary if you don't understand it. A synonym would be 'barely'. Or in German: 'kaum'.

As have already been told German comparative testing concluded the FW-190 Dora-9 to be a much superior dogfighter compared to the Tempest, and the RAF's own tests only reinforce that conclusion.

Like I said from the beginning, I have no problem admitting that the Dora was the better dogfighter as it had better roll rate and turn rate.
But British tests show that the Dora wasn't as responsive at speeds above 400 mph. The Tempest was regarded as superior at low altitudes and at high speeds.
Here you can see what the performance was at combat power settings.
Tempest V Performance Data WEP would have given better performance. 4380 ft/min and 432 mph.
Also after a new prop was installed around the middle of 1944 climb rate of the Tempest was 4,700 ft per min at sea level. Climb to 20,000 ft in 6 min 6 sec.
I would like to see a Fw 190D fight against that without the MW 50 which only appeared at the end, when all was too late.

And again, the Tempest was faster, had better zoom climb and was better armed. As such it was the better BnZ fighter.

Kris

[Marcel]

You need glasses Civettone cause on that very chart the Dora-9 exceeds 703 km/h at 5.7km, which "oddly" enough is exactly the same as on the official leistung chart I presented. Note the SL speed as-well plz, ~ 615 km/h.

Please Soren we could do without the personal insults in this thread, would you keep it civilised, please?