Dora vs Tempest

[Kurfürst]

Originally Posted by Civettone

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.

'Messerschmitt lied about the ME 410 claim'.

The Li P.10 was being compared to the projected figures of the Me 410C, which had new and improved engines (high alt DB 603Es) as opposed to the standard production 410A/B. The 670 kph projected speed for the 410C was understood with 603E engines, and Methanol-Water injection. They look absolutely feasable for me, given the power increase. You`re trying to make it look like some sort of absurd claim for the standard 410 versions. It wasn`t. It was a performance projection for the latest DB engines.

'British tests with D-9 vs Tempest', again, no such things exist.

It`s becoming taxying to just read through these things you make up on the run, and then keep repeating - see also D-9&MW50.. I don`t think I`ll bother to even respond to that kind of nonsense..

[corsair19]

the tempest will shoot down any 190 coming its way

[Glider]

Originally Posted by Kurfürst

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.

The Hispano V had a MV of 830m/s and the German 151 720m/s with the API and HET shells, hardly similar. The HEM was close at 800m/s but filling your belts with two shells of such significant differences in balistics cannot help

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.

I think you might be getting confused with the Typhoon. Only the first 100 Tempests had the longer guns, the others were all series 2 with the changes you mentioned. As far as I can tell all Tempest V series 2 had the Sabre IIb with some later planes having the Sabre V.
As an aside the MW-50 certainly worked but the downside of this type of boost was that it was only limited in its endurance and of course when not in use, it was more dead weight to carry around.

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.

This had been solved by the time the Tempest came on stream with the Series IIb engine. Typhoons were also refitted with this engine.

[Glider]

Originally Posted by Civettone

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

Its worth pointing out that these performance figures for the Tempest, which are pretty impressive, are for a series 1 Tempest. The Series 2 which was the normal version had a more powerful (and reliable) engine as well as aerodynamic improvements, which would have improved the performance.
If we are talking about later Tempests, these had the even more powerful series VI engines.

[DerAdlerIstGelandet]

Originally Posted by corsair19

the tempest will shoot down any 190 coming its way

That was a very educated post.

[Soren]

The only chart where the Dora-9 doesn't reach 700 + km/h at VH at full boost is the one where it reaches past 625 km/h at SL at 2.02 ata (Different gearing) - which is allot faster than the Tempest. The Dora-9's in service with MW-50 (1.78 ata) reached 612-615 km/h at SL and 703 km/h at 5.7km.

From 11/3 1945, performance with MW-50: 615 km/h at SL, 705 km/h at 5.7km:


Dora-9 climb rate with MW-50 [Without ETC-504]: 22.5 m/s (4,400 ft/min) at SL, 18.5 m/s (3,641 ft/min) at 4.8 km:


Dora-9 time to climb & climb rate [with ETC-504]: 1.8min to 2km (6,591 ft), 5.5min to 6km (19,685 ft), 13.4min to 10km (32,808 ft), 17.5 m/s (3,444 ft/min) at 4.8km:


Dora-9 Time to climb & Climb rate [without ETC-504]: 12.5 min to 10km, 18.5 m/s (3,641 ft/min) at 4.8km:

[Glider]

Originally Posted by Soren

The only chart where the Dora-9 doesn't reach 700 + km/h at VH at full boost is the one where it reaches past 625 km/h at SL at 2.02 ata (Different gearing) - which is allot faster than the Tempest. The Dora-9's in service with MW-50 (1.78 ata) reached 612-615 km/h at SL and 703 km/h at 5.7km.

From 11/3 1945, performance with MW-50: 615 km/h at SL, 705 km/h at 5.7km:

Tempest 632km/h at sea level 701 km/h at 5.5km, 683 at 8.5km

Dora-9 time to climb & climb rate [with ETC-504]: 1.8min to 2km (6,591 ft), 5.5min to 6km (19,685 ft), 13.4min to 10km (32,808 ft), 17.5 m/s (3,444 ft/min) at 4.8km:

Dora-9 Time to climb & Climb rate [without ETC-504]: 12.5 min to 10km, 18.5 m/s (3,641 ft/min) at 4.8km:

Tempest time to 15,000ft 5 mins, 20,000ft 7.5min
Combat Rating
4,380 ft/min at sea level
3,000 ft/min at 13,500 ft (4,100 m)

Dive Tempest red lined at 540mph (870km/H)

So as for speed the Tempest has it at low level, about the same at medium level and probably about the same at high altitude (I don't know the 190's numbers)

Climb - the 190 clearly has an advantage

Dive I don't know the 190's numbers but I suspect the Tempest has the advantage. I don't know of another plane that has such a high red line speed.

[HoHun]

Hi Glider,

>Dive I don't know the 190's numbers but I suspect the Tempest has the advantage. I don't know of another plane that has such a high red line speed.

It's actually not all that high - 540 mph at 10000 ft (the red-line speed decreases above this altitude) work out to Mach 0.80 if you figure in the position error given by the Pilot's Notes and neglect the compressiblity error of the airspeed indicator (which means that Mach 0.80 is still optimistic).

That such a high figure appears in the Pilot's Notes is more a sign that towards the end of the war, the conditions under which compressibility occurred were better understood than early on (or at least that the pilots were better trained to understand them).

Mach 0.80 appears to be more or less a typical figure for a late-war fighter. A Me 109 was dived to this speed once (but that was seriously pushing the envelope!), and while the Spitfire exceeded this speed frequently and probably is the record holder, it was not really safe at those speeds anymore, with both elevator and aileron controls capable of destroying the airframe.

The mid- to late-war designs like the Fw 190 or the Tempest (or reportedly the Ki-84) usually were safer than earlier designs because they lost control efficiency with increasing speed to make inadvertant overstressing of the airframe impossible while retaining a useful amount of control effectiveness.

It's not speed, it's what you can do with it

Regards,

Henning (HoHun)

[Glider]

I don't disagree with what you say but there is a lot of myth and exceptions re dive speeds. The speed at which a plane is red lined is at least a common base to work from.
Mustangs were I believe red lined at 505mph, 109G's at 466mph so 540 mph is really motoring.

Planes often exceeded these figures and no one is saying that a Mustang will come apart at 506mph or a 109 at 467mph but the more you exceed them the greater the chances of hitting terra firma, hard. If I had to go downhill at 540mph, then the Tempest is my choice of mount.
I really do not know what the figures are for a 190D and they may match the Tempest, but I doubt they will exceed them.

The Spitfire is a good example. It certainly did have the highest mach no in a dive of its time, but that was a proper test, that used a heck of a lot of hight and definately wasn't an average pilot in a combat situation. Its well know that a Spitfire for all its well know advantages didn't include diving as one of its strengths, anything but.

[HoHun]

Hi Glider,

>Mustangs were I believe red lined at 505mph, 109G's at 466mph so 540 mph is really motoring.

Mach number is dependend on speed, so you have to add altitude information to make this information comparable. I don't believe the Me 109G had 540 mph on the clock, but it reached Mach 0.80 at an altitude where the Tempest was not cleared for 540 mph either.

(You are right that the Me 109 was really motoring ... it was modified with a reduced aileron gearing to avoid flutter, and fitted with an ejection seat just in case.)

>Planes often exceeded these figures and no one is saying that a Mustang will come apart at 506mph

Quite right. However, while the 540 mph figure probably had some safety margin, it's equivalent to less than Mach 0.80 if you'd account for the compressibility error of the airspeed indicator (which is not listed in the Pilot's Notes, so it's unknown quantitatively). Qualitatively, it causes a higher than realistic speed reading.

So all considered, and with some caution because we don't have the complete data, I don't think there is a reason to assume that the Tempest was superior to the Fw 190 in a dive. However, the gaps in our data leave room for individual speculation, so we can all safely disagree

>The Spitfire is a good example. It certainly did have the highest mach no in a dive of its time, but that was a proper test, that used a heck of a lot of hight and definately wasn't an average pilot in a combat situation.

Absolutely true - diving to that speed could save your life if all went well, and break your neck if something went wrong. And individual Spitfires would handle different in a dive, so it was hard to tell just what would happen.

One of Alfred Price' books features an interesting article by a contemporary aerodynamicist, stating that before the war, aircraft were built for smooth controllability at dogfight speeds, while dives at breakneck speeds were regarded as "of academical interest only".

RAE test pilot Eric Brown used the term "tactically useful Mach number" quite a bit, which usually was somewhat below the maximum survivable Mach number even for well-handling types.

Regards,

Henning (HoHun)

[renrich]

I don't know where all the numbers posted for the FW190D-9 come from but my reference, "The Great Book of WW2 Airplanes" which I have found to compare pretty well with other sources has the following for the so called "Dora" Weight=4300kg with MW 50 boost(clean), sea level vmax=575km/h, vmax @ 6600m=686 km/h, time to 2000m=2min 6sec. Range=(clean) 837 km. Pretty good performance

[Civettone]

Lost a long post so fuk it I'll just say it in brief.

I'm sorry Kurfurst that you believe I deliberately used wrong stats. I thought the comparison was with the regular Me 410, not the Me 410C.
I read a while ago that the MW 50 was only standard in 45. Can't remember where I read it so I won't mention it again.
I quoted Mike Williams and I think I have a right to. I did some research and saw a website where you made a good case of showing that Williams used only the sources he wanted. Don't blame me for that.

Going back to my original post, I reacted to people saying the Dora was better than the Tempest. I never said the Tempest was better than the Dora. I said the Tempest was faster at all altitudes. Now it seems it was only faster at low alt and equal at medium and high alt. So still faster.
I said the Tempest had excellent handling.
I said the Dora was better at roll rate.
I said the Dora was equal to the Tempest in turn rate. I take that back.
I said the Tempest had better zoom climb (not sustained climb).

So in short, I believe the Dora was the better dogfighter. But the Tempest was the better BnZ fighter, especially at low altitude. It was also the better ground attack fighter.

All of this stuff is based on these two official reports:
Tempest V Performance
Tempest V Performance Data
Kris

[Erich]

someone have Dietmar H.'s Dora book via Schiffer on this forum as I have a question.

ya know the only way anyone is going to get anywhere is to post some 1st person accts of Tempest/Dora pilots meeting and the outcomes if any aerial combat is discussed in any type of detail(s).

[HoHun]

Hi Erich,

>ya know the only way anyone is going to get anywhere is to post some 1st person accts of Tempest/Dora pilots meeting and the outcomes if any aerial combat is discussed in any type of detail(s).

Hm, actually I think this is the most difficult to handle and unreliable source. Just identifying the enemy correctly is difficult enough, and the "long-nosed Focke-Wulf" in particular appeared in Allied combat reports long before it was actually delivered at the Luftwaffe.

The main difficulty might actually be that the combat reports have a certain and very brief standard form that leaves a lot of the story untold. They were not written with the kind of evaluation in mind that we'd like to perform.

For us, their main use is to highlight any additional properties beyond the basic parameters discussed here that might have impact on their combat effectiveness, but I'd be hesitant to use them as a primary analysis tool.

Regards,

Henning (HoHun)

[Erich]

well I agree then I disagree. from combat reports from both sides you can get a clue at to what alt. the opposite a/c and yours performed. was my gunsight/20mm's on target, did the opponent break away in what direction and was I able to keep up and did I or was I able to turn inside of him. these things are quite likely to give a good insight as to the pilot and his craft. Many of the P-51 cmbat reports have much in the way of details