Dornier Do 335 (oz12465)
About this Plan
Dornier Do 335. Rubber scale model German WWII fighter. Wingspan 18 in, wing area 65 sq in.
Direct submission to Outerzone.
Update 23/10/2023: Added article, thanks to DLLReid.
Quote: "Dornier Arrow. The Dornier Do 335 was at the same time one of the most unorthodox and one of the highest performance piston-engine fighters to come out of World War II. Due to its novel tandem engine arrangement, it had little more frontal area than a single-engine aircraft. The low drag that resulted, along with two powerful engines, gave the peculiar looking aircraft remarkable speed and acceleration. The 'Pfeil' (Arrow in English) was also innovative in several other respects, It was the first German fighter to employ a tricycle landing gear, and it was the first to be equipped with an ejection seat.
The idea for the Do 335 took shape in 1937 when Dr Claude Dornier took out a patent on a tandem-engined high-speed aircraft design. The novel aircraft design incorporated cruciform tail surfaces and a long drive shaft which drove the rear propeller from a centrally located rear engine. To prove the practicality of the long drive shaft, Dr Donner had a small 22-foot wingspan test aircraft built. Known as the Goppinger Go9, the test vehicle had a cruciform tail, a single 80-hp motor buried in the fuselage below the shoulder wing, and a long drive shaft turning a rear mounted, four-blade pusher propeller. Flight tests confirmed the remarkable efficiency and practicality of the design, as well as the reliability of the long drive shaft. The Go9 had a respectable speed of 137 mph.
In 1942 Dornier was given the go-ahead on an unorthodox push-pull fighter-bomber design proposal. It was late in 1943 when the prototype made its first test flight. The huge aircraft's capabilities and versatility were immediately recognized and a heavy day-fighter version, and a specialized two-seat night-fighter version were built and tested.
In spite of the new fighter's great potential, the Arrow never reached Operational status before the war ended. It did Come close, however. Between 35 and 40 Do 335s were built, including 21 production prototypes which went through field service tests.
The Do 335, or 'Anteater' as some of its pilots referred to it, had truly awesome performance. A large aircraft of over 44-ft. span and length, it weighed over 20,000 pounds. Its two Daimler Benz 603E-1 engines developed a total of 3,600 hp at takeoff, and gave the giant a top speed of about 475 mph. Even more amazing was the fact that the rear engine alone could prdpel the Arrow at a speed of 350 mph! Armament varied, but usually included one 30mm cannon and two 15mm guns in the nose, plus two 30rnm cannons in the wings: An internal bomb bay and wing-pylons could accommodate a variety of bomb stores or auxiliary fuel tanks.
The Dornier 335 has been used very little as a subject for scale modeling, even though its moments and general arrangement lend themselves well to both free-flight and radio control models. The unusual push-pull engine arrangement probably steers most modelers clear. I first tested the Arrow's possibilities as a rubber-poweredprofile model. It not only proved to be a workable arrangement, but seemed to have good flying potential and more than adequate stability.
The model presented here has a span and length of 18 inches, and is modeled after the single seat, pre7prochiCOon fighter bomber version:As an aside, the only surviving Do 335 is an A-0 model and is owned by the Smithsonian. It was recently restored by the Dornier Company in Germany, and is Currently on temporary display in the Deutsches Museum in Munich, Germany. It is scheduled to return to the Aerospace Museum in Washington, DC in 1983. If you would like your model to duplicate this particular aircraft, simply use the tail number '102' instead of the '107' you see on my model.
Before starting the Arrow you have several options to choose among. The model can be built with the landing gear down or up (on or off actually). It is easier to build without the gear - and since it will be lighter this way, the model will also fly better. If you fly from hard or rough surfaces, however, the gear would protect the bottom of the model somewhat. Also with the gear, you can enjoy those beautiful unassisted takeoffs. If you plan to enter AMA rubber scale events with the Arrow you will also need the gear, since all flights must be made ROG.
The other choice you haves has to do with the motor/propeller combination. There are three basic ways to go: the simplest is to power the model in the conventional way with one rubber motor and a single prop in the nose or the rear; the other prop in this case is left off. This is the simplest and easiest arrangement; but foregoes the real challenge of this particular aircraft subject.
If you choose to power both props, you can use either a single rubber motor or a rubber motor for each prop. For general sport flying I would recommend the use of a single motor. For the best flight performance the two motor arrangement should be used. In this case winding the two motors and preventing tangles is a bit of a hassle, but can be done with a little care and the help of a flying buddy.
Construction: Construction is conventional in most respects. Carefully select straight grained. medium to lightweight balsa to keep the weight down to a minimum. The flying capability of the model will depend on its weight.
Fuselage construction is the usual half-shell method. After cutting the formers from light weight balsa, laminate the top and bottom profile keels from two strips of 1/16 square balsa strips glued with white glue, and pinned in place over the plans. Next, glue in the half formers. keeping them 90 degrees to the workboard. While the side is in place, laminate the side keel piece from two strips of 1/16 square, again using white glue...."
Supplementary file notes
Did we get something wrong with these details about this plan (especially the datafile)?
That happens sometimes. You can help us fix it.
Add a correction
Dornier_Do_335 | help
see Wikipedia | search Outerzone
search RCLibrary 3views (opens in new window)
ScaleType: This (oz12465) is a scale plan. Where possible we link scale plans to Wikipedia, using a text string called ScaleType.
If we got this right, you now have a couple of direct links (above) to 1. see the Wikipedia page, and 2. search Oz for more plans of this type. If we didn't, then see below.
ScaleType is formed from the last part of the Wikipedia page address, which here is https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dornier_Do_335
Wikipedia page addresses may well change over time.
For more obscure types, there currently will be no Wiki page found. We tag these cases as ScaleType = NotFound. These will change over time.
Corrections? Use the correction form to tell us the new/better ScaleType link we should be using. Thanks.
Do you have a photo you'd like to submit for this page? Then email firstname.lastname@example.org
User commentsI'm tempted to take on this build mainly because the design and structure looks geared towards rubber free flight. The kit versions I've seen look more adapted for electric conversion unless significantly lightened in the build.
Is there an article with the plan? Particularly with regards to the size of plastic prop. I assume the rear is a pusher. Many Thanks.
D L L Reid - 22/10/2023
video on https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=JjMgDYofRn8
pit - 22/10/2023
I've noticed an error in the article supplemental article. Whereas in the single motor 2 prop setup the rear propeller needs to be a reverse pitch aerofoil. In the 2 motor setup the rear prop would also need a reverse pitch. Simply reverse mounting a standard prop is incorrect since the pitch is still set to the right. A hack (workaround) would be to take the standard prop cut the blades at the hub and remounting with the same pitch but turning the aerofoil through 180 degrees. Of course the expert builder could just fashion another left hand prop.
D L L Reid - 24/10/2023
in 2 motors (2 separate rubber bands) two identical prop can be used as per Srull's description, you only have to remember to crank rear motor in the correct direction and install the prop blade with concave facing to the rear (exactly like the front prop). Reversing pitch is necessary only with I.C. engines that can't change their rotational sense.
I built the West Wings Do-335 with this concept, the real nightmare was to realize the free-wheeling rear prop system.
Pit - 24/10/2023
There's no doubt simply reversing the standard prop will generate thrust. I was was thinking more on the efficiency of this setup considering the margins are so small with free flight scale rubber.
Might the difficulty with the free wheel of the rear prop be related that the trailing edge will be hitting the airflow first?
D L L Reid - 25/10/2023
You don't have to reverse the prop at all, the rear prop remains in the same position of the front prop, quite simple. Look at the side view, ideally translate the front prop at the rear end : the prop remain in the correct efficient position of the front prop, you only have to crank the rubber band in the correct rotational sense.
You're obliged to reverse pitch only if the "engine" has a unique rotation sense, that's not the case of rubber motor. Don Srull description for 2 motor is so perfect that he remember you the position of the concave face of the rear prop (exactly as the front prop). Not reverse prop, not reverse pitch.
Pit - 25/10/2023
Thank you, Pit, your working principle is well known.
Miguel - 25/10/2023
From my perspective since I'll be using a single motor to drive both props I'll be reversing the rear.
I fully accept that that inverting a standard prop at the rear will work provided it's cranked in the right direction. My issue was how efficient that would be. Could you drive the model from the rear with a single prop and achieve the same performance as running it on a single prop on the front, motor weights and cranking turns being the same.
D L L Reid - 25/10/2023
Reminds me of my marriage... it went nowhere. Thanks Miguel. I will print, frame and hang this in my man cave.
RC Yeager - 25/10/2023
you're correct with single rubber band, but I read you found an error in 2 rubber band configuration.
In any case the real one was tested with front only and real only engine propulsion. The best speed was obtained with rear only engine running because the rear prop air current do not invest fuselage creating air drags. My model (1993 circa) with 2 separate rubber bands and handmade 3bladed props had a bad habit. Once handlaunched (with a friend aid) it regularly made an Immelman an continued to fly inverted undisturbed. No way to correct it, I suspended test wayting for microservo and mini brushless... Do-335 is not for anyone
Pit - 25/10/2023
You are quite right; I did query the efficiency of the two motor layout. Having just mounted a prop on a wire and reversed it. You are absolutely right...Apologies!
Free Flight really does test one's knowledge of physics and applied Mathematics. Your experience with this build is interesting. Inverted flight....I'll have to look that one up. Regards, D L L Reid
D L L Reid - 25/10/2023
Hi Reid, just for comparison, Ray Malmstrom used the same rear prop configuration in different plans: Marquita (oz4017).
You're right, Free Flight it's the real aeromodelling school. R/C is for kids.
Pit - 25/10/2023
I couldn't agree with you more Pit! That must be the reason why there are so many chaps flying RC while only old geezers (like yours truly here) fly Free Flight...
Arno - 26/10/2023
Mind you, the last FF models I've flow were paper darts across my office.
Arno - 26/10/2023
Thanks Arno, Paper Planes was my first love. During the Covid reclusion I launched once a day a paper plane from my third floor for the joy of childrens. Paper Dart construction is described in a 1859 (yes, eighteen fiftynine) book I have.
Pit - 26/10/2023
Re: inverted flight. Having perused the model aircraft aerodynamics Books I believe it's related to using to similar props one as a tractor and the other as a pusher. If both are right hand twist then they will spin clockwise requiring a counter clockwise reactive torque from the airframe ( Newton's 3rd Law). The problem is compounded by both props acting along the same axis or using high pitch props. Ideally for a twin motor model right and left props should be used both props spinning out and up to counteract the torque of its neighbour. Just my two cents.
David L Reid - 20/11/2023
Add a comment
* Credit field
The Credit field in the Outerzone database is designed to recognise and credit the hard work done in scanning and digitally cleaning these vintage and old timer model aircraft plans to get them into a usable format. Currently, it is also used to credit people simply for uploading the plan to a forum on the internet. Which is not quite the same thing. This will change soon. Probably.
This model plan (like all plans on Outerzone) is supposedly scaled correctly and supposedly will print out nicely at the right size. But that doesn't always happen. If you are about to start building a model plane using this free plan, you are strongly advised to check the scaling very, very carefully before cutting any balsa wood.
© Outerzone, 2011-2023.
All content is free to download for personal use.
For non-personal use and/or publication: plans, photos, excerpts, links etc may be used, provided that full and clear credit is given to Outerzone with appropriate and specific direction to the original content i.e. a direct hyperlink back to the Outerzone source page.
Unauthorized use and/or duplication of this material without express and written permission from this site's owner is strictly prohibited. If we discover that content is being stolen, we will consider filing a formal DMCA notice.