Dora vs Tempest

[DerAdlerIstGelandet]

Jank I have downsized your siggy.

You have been here for quite some time, you know that that is too big.

[Jank]

Thanks.

It was big but I didn't think it was taller than both of the images that make up your sig.

[drgondog]

Originally Posted by Kurfürst

It`s an excellent resource IMHO, but a word of warning : I`ve noticed especially about the first six months of 1944 that the subtypes are not always 100% accurate.

Thinking about conversions and rebuilds here.. for example the first G-5/6/AS are reported on those TOEs (rather, equipment 'movement' reports) list in June/July the earliest IIRC (which I why I was surprised when you said somewhere you saw /AS aircraft in the spring - which unit..? ). Hhowever it is certain that the first lucky units had them as early as March/April 1944 already.




The unit strenght returns of ww2.dk however only lists ordinary Neubau G-5s arriving... no /AS, nothing.

K - I'm not sure what my source was for -6/AS deployment in Spring..

I presume they reported dataplates and serial numbers, which, for some early conversions, may have not been stamped over in the factory, and on paper those aircraft were still 'G-5's and 'G-6's, or the designation was just not yet standard etc. And, most /AS aircraft until mid-1944 were conversions... same about MW-50. No clue in the Bewegungsmeldungen which aircraft have these... the precise subtypes are obviously not listed in many cases, which as I said, probably a result of the conversion, not to mention there was no clear designation for the aircraft with MW-50 initially (unofficial things like G-6/MW and the like appearing sometimes..).

Interesting info - thx

For this reason, the exact type structure are difficult to arrive at for early 1944, but it seemed to it`s specific thing to that period, which can be explained by large number of conversions, and interim designations suddenly appearing.

Where was the photo of the 109G-5/AS taken?

[DerAdlerIstGelandet]

Originally Posted by Jank

Thanks.

It was big but I didn't think it was taller than both of the images that make up your sig.

Your are right. It is not any taller but it is the overall size of your siggy that was too big.

[Erich]

Günther Specht gruppenkommandeur of II./JG 11. JG 1, JG 3-II.gruppe and II./JG 11 were the first to have G-5/AS and later G-6/AS a more efficient model. Jg 27 followed along with the rest of JG 3, and JG 5

[Kurfürst]

Hi Erich,

Do you have dates and TOE strenghtss for these /AS aircraft with units? I am looking for something specific on the early /AS deployment, but I have bumped into the wall I've described above. :/

G-6/AS more efficient, why, I believe the only difference being the G-6/AS un-pressurized. Am I wrong..?

[Erich]

April 1944 G-6/AS of I./JG 3 provided high cover for Sturmstaffel 1 and the twin engine destroyer ZG units. this was told to me by the creator of the high stafflen who came from JG 51 flying Fw 190's against the Soviets, Horst Petzschler.

the Specht machine is photographed at Wunstorf both were presurrized as Theo Weissenberger of II./JG 5 said of his flights over Normandie in a G-5/AS

there are NO exact dates or strengths as the G-6/AS flew along side standard G-6's in the staffeln. obviously it was not a huge surge of replacement high flyers in the 109 gruppen as it was slow, Jg 300 received them in late summer and into fall though 10.Nacht staffel/Jg 300 had a full compliment of 18 of them to chase down Mossies, g-14/AS later just when the unit was forming II./NJG 11 still having G-6/AS on strength and not totally replcaed by G-14/AS, then G-10's in the line-up no dates, but sorry I am getting off track.

we would literally have to go back to every gruppe and then staffel and unless written by the staffeln historian........ ?

[Boemher]

Read through this thread and as a big Tempest andDora fan I can say that there have been few even handed posts and most here simply have picked their favourite based on what country it was made in.

Both aircraft were very similar in many aspects. Pilot skill was undoubtedly the most important factor between these two.

Now the Tempests performance mostly mentioned here is the 9lb Sabre IIA version. The one serving operationaly in April 1944. The Dora 9 performance being mentioned here is invariably that of a late 44 early 45 variant. If you want to give a fair apraisal of both types be honest with the performance figures you are using.

I think Soren is using SonderLeistung A-Lader figures for a special Fw 190 D9 with sealed gaps and modified engine. This ofcourse gave the best performance and was phenomenal but lets be honest how many of these ever flew or even saw action? if you want to discuss this variant of the D9 when looking at the regular D9's performance then please compare it to Clostermans special Sabre II C Tempest V with Rotol propellor blades and 2800 HP - because both were contemporaries and both were about as rare as each other.

Otherwise we could just look at the most common variants

I believe that the Tempest was a better diver and a better zoom climber - why ? Because the British considered it better than the P51 which itself was regarded as the best. It was heavier more powerful and very clean. Its 545 IAS Red Line speed was the highest of any WW2 fighter and of all the piston engined fighters the Tempest had the best handling at speed. This is clearly noted in its performance tests.

The Tempest also had a higher rate of roll at speeds of 400mph and higher and generally was a very responsive aircraft at all speeds above 250 mph.

It was regarded for good reason as the best Low to Medium altitude fighter of the war. The Dora was in the same league and bettered it at high altitude but overall the Tempest carried greater payload, farther and faster - FOR ANY GIVEN CONTEMPORARY MODEL.

The famous D9 vs Tempest test was a D13 vs a Tempest at 3000m (worst supercharger height for Tempest) and the German pilot said it could go either way and it had depended on pilot qualtity.

Anoher pointer to the Tempests qualities as a fighter is that of all of its operational losses only 24 are directly attributed to enemy fighters.

[johnbr]

For me I have always thought that the best tempest was the mark 1.But it was not put in to production.For they got it up to 497mph.

[Boemher]

Hi there,

The Tempest Mk I reached speeds of over 466 mph at 24,000ft but was found to be no faster at low altitudes than the Mk V. The wing radiators and unproven Sabre version meant that it was delayed and then cancelled in favour of the Tempest II and Mk V.

The Sabre powered Fury however rached speeds over 483 mph and had a roc of over 5000 ft at sea level. But then it did have over 3050 HP !

[Soren]

Boemher,

I'm using SonderNotleistung figures (MW-50 & C3), thats 2,100 PS @ 3,250 rpm.

I'm not using the SonderNotleistung Mit A Lader als Bodenmotor figures, in this configuration speeds of over 640 km/h could be reached at SL.

[titeketaamogs]

I am a loser and I like boys and old ladies.

[Jank]

Of potential relevance to some concerning this thread -

Willi Heilmann flew 190's, first some of the "A" series and towards the end, the D-9. In his book, "I Fought You From the Skies," he recounts his wingman and he catching two Tempests at low altitude. They shoot down one - the other, now aware he is boxed in on both sides, at low-level.

As they try to kill him, the Tempest pilot takes his only remaining option - balls to the wall and run like hell.

The D-9 pilots were left slackjawed - despite max' power AND water/methanol boost, they were unable to catch their quarry.

[Soren]

When did this supposedly happen ?

[Jank]

Don't know. Obviously late in the war.