# Replace Me-109 with Me-155?



## davebender (Aug 9, 2009)

Blohm Voss BV 155 - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
During 1942 Messerschmitt designed the Me-155 for use on German aircraft carriers. Supposedly the design was complete by September 1942, just in time to be cancelled along with the German CV program.
1 x 1,475 hp DB605 engine.
Wide track landing gear.
3 x MG151/20 cannon. Prop shaft plus 1 in each wing.
403 mph estimated max speed.

Messerschmitt Me 209-II - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
During 1943 Messerschmitt designed the Me-209 II as a replacement for the Me-109 series. This aircraft was powered by a DB603 engine. The shortage of DB603 engines was probably the major factor why the Me-209 II did not superceed the Me-109.

Why didn't the Luftwaffe select the Me-155 as a replacement for the aging Me-109 series starting in 1943? There were plenty of DB605 engines available.


----------



## DAVIDICUS (Aug 9, 2009)

It looks like in February of 1943 they were looking at the Fiat G55 as a replacement for the 109.

http://xoomer.virgilio.it/g55/G55his.htm#his3




Transcript from the German official BA-MA archives courtesy of Civettone:



AWM 54 423/4/103 Part 63, Report of a Conference held by Reichsmarschall Goering on 22 February 1943


*Milch: ... Perhaps Petersen can inform us on this question and also about the comparison flights in Italy.

Petersen: ... There will be a further report about comparison flights with all the Italian types ... Against this, the Italian fighter is equal to the German fighter, especially as regards rate of climb. They are also superior in armament. The Fiat 55 aircraft has four cannon and a performance similar to that of the German aircraft, although powered by an engine that
is a hundred horsepower less.

Peltz: Were they series or experimental aircraft?

Petersen: There is an experimental series of ten aircraft, but these trials concerned new aircraft that had been 'titivated up'.

Goering: I'm glad that the Italians at long last have produced a respectable fighter. And I can only say; let them build them to capacity.

Milch: We also should do something in that sphere. It is indeed a disgrace to our own industry.

Goering: The Italians have never built inferior aircraft and have always been competent in the construction of aircraft and engines. I remember the Fiat and Alfa. They have also held the world speed record. The ability of the Italian aircraft industry has always been of the best. They are unable to mass produce however, and there we must help them. We can consider ourselves lucky, if they have produced a good fighter aircraft. It's one in the eye for our own people anyway.

Petersen: We must attend to this at once. The airframe of the Fiat G 55 can accommodate the DB 603 engine, while the Me 109 is unable to do so any longer. The G 55 with the DB 603 would be an ideal fighter aircraft.

Galland: From our experience the Italians have always forgotten something in their fighter aircraft, either the armour or guns.

Goering: It's to be hoped however that for the purposes of these comparison flights, they've been informed about this, otherwise it's a waste of time.

Petersen: The fighter specialist has flown the aircraft. With the exception of the radio it carried complete equipment, and fuel for one and a half hours, whereas we carried fuel for only one hour. We can't ignore the fact that the Italian aircraft has a performance equal to that of our latest types.

Milch: Then please obtain three Italian aircraft at once, and fly them here, in Rechlin. I would have the DB 603 installed in these aircraft that we have been discussing this morning. It would mean a considerable advance towards the Me 209. I can't imagine the FW 190 with the BMW 801 engine as it is today being sufficient for the next two and half years. [sic!] Especially as we don't know what the English and the Americans are building.

...

Goering: I'm also in favour of the proposal. However I consider it more than likely that the English will effect an improvement with their own types. I would like to ask what is our best means of improving our fighters other than the jet propulsion business?
Milch: The Me 209 and especially its engine. ...

...

Goering: If the Italian aircraft is good, then we won't deny the fact, and we'll mass produce them here. We don't want any false pride.

Milch: Thereby we could advance a year.

Galland: And it would also do our designers good.

Goering: On top of that perhaps we could include the Italian pilots as well, in our complete programme. Anyway I'm very pleased to hear this about the Italians.*

Reactions: Like Like:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## davebender (Aug 9, 2009)

That won't work for the same reason the Me-209 II won't work. There weren't enough DB603 and Jumo213 engines. If the Me-109 is to be superceded with something else the replacement aircraft must be powered by the DB605 engine.


----------



## Waynos (Aug 9, 2009)

davebender said:


> Why didn't the Luftwaffe select the Me-155 as a replacement for the aging Me-109 series starting in 1943? There were plenty of DB605 engines available.



I thought the Me-155/Bv-155 was a high altitiude fighter in a similar fashion to the Westland Welkin, rather than a potential 109 replacement?


----------



## Tzaw1 (Aug 9, 2009)

Waynos said:


> I thought the Me-155/Bv-155 was a high altitiude fighter in a similar fashion to the Westland Welkin, rather than a potential 109 replacement?


This plane was the chameleon. Had first to be deck fighter for the "Graf Zeppelin", later speed fighter-bomber. To the end - the high altitude fighter.


----------



## vikingBerserker (Aug 9, 2009)

It looks the it really did not fly until late 1944. ARBA makes a 1/48 model of it and it looks pretty nice.


----------



## davebender (Aug 9, 2009)

> I thought the Me-155/Bv-155 was a high altitiude fighter


The Bv-155 had a different fuselage, different wing, different engine and was designed by a shipyard rather then by Messerschmitt. To my way of thinking that is an entirely different aircraft.

I am referring to the CV fighter aircraft designed by Messerschmitt during 1942.


----------



## Waynos (Aug 9, 2009)

I had thought they were the same project, the work being transferred from Messerschmitt to BV, who then 'made alterations'.

I take the earlier point about it having several different iterations though.

Edit; just had a quick look in my book and I see there was the 'A' model shipboard fighter and 'B' model High alititude fighter, the latter being transferred to BV in August 1943.

Does anyone have an illustration of the Me 155A?


----------



## Colin1 (Aug 9, 2009)

I thought the Me155 did replace the Bf109 - the T
I understand it was scheduled for the Graf Zeppelin until they canned the project. The German High Command then got a taste for the impact carriers could have and re-opened it. 
They didn't reopen the Bf109T program though. I think the T was based on the E and by 1942 and onwards that would have been rather soundly outclassed. Around 60 planes were de-navalised and redeployed as land-based fighters. I think most of them ended up in Norway.


----------



## Colin1 (Aug 9, 2009)

Waynos said:


> Does anyone have an illustration of the Me 155A?


There's this plan-form shot of the A, I'll see what else I can dig up


----------



## Waynos (Aug 9, 2009)

I have the Me 155B colin, but thanks anyway for taking the trouble. I was wondering if/how the Me 155A was different in detail.


----------



## A4K (Aug 10, 2009)

Waynos said:


> I had thought they were the same project, the work being transferred from Messerschmitt to BV, who then 'made alterations'.



From all I've read on them, you're right. The main stumbling block for Messerschmitt was the cooling arrangement of the engine and improvement of the supercharger. They were more or less ordered to concentrate on Me 262 production instead in the end, the design being transferred to Blohm und Voss, who, after subsequent design changes, mananged to smooth out most, if not all, of the problems...

As a side note, ever noticed how there were no official Bf 109I and J? What would have been the 109J was the Bf 109 G-6 airframes (ie, aircraft minus engines) exported to Spain. 'Official' name for these in Germany was Bf 109G-6a (a: 'Ausland'/ foreign), in Spain, after fitting with Merlins, Hispano Ha-112.
My personal theory on the lack of a Bf 109I is that the designation was deliberately skipped to avoid confusion with the Messerschmitt P.1091 project, which was to become the Me 155/ BV 155...


----------



## davebender (Aug 10, 2009)

> main stumbling block for Messerschmitt was the cooling arrangement of the engine and improvement of the supercharger.


Do you have any additional details? 

The Me-155 used the same engine as the Me-109G. Why didn't they use the same supercharger and cooling system?


----------



## Auravir (Aug 10, 2009)

Waynos said:


> Does anyone have an illustration of the Me 155A?



I found a few diagrams of the me 155a and b

Me 155 A





Me 155 A with bomb





Me 155 B-1





Me 155 B-1a


----------



## davebender (Aug 10, 2009)

I'm surprised they didn't install a bubble canopy. But I suppose that would involve serious fuselage modification. Perhaps the Erla Haube would be good enough.


----------



## Waynos (Aug 10, 2009)

Thank you for that. Something that isn't clear from the side views, was the Span longer on the B or were they the same in those initial versions? I have seen the freakish wing of the Bv 155, so I'm thinking of when Messerschmitt were still in charge.


----------



## A4K (Aug 10, 2009)

davebender said:


> Do you have any additional details?
> 
> The Me-155 used the same engine as the Me-109G. Why didn't they use the same supercharger and cooling system?



She was designed as an Extremer Höhenjaeger (extreme high altitude fighter), so the arrangement had to be revised for performance at those heights. (The Bv 155 V1 was test flown at 55,610 ft (16, 950 m)...).
An idea of the complexity of the arrangement: (from 'German Aircraft Interiors 1935-1945 Vol.1', by Kenneth A. Merrick)

...due to other commitments , Prof. Messerschmitt and his staff had done very little work on the project when it was transferred to the firm of Blohm und Voss, under the able leadership of Dr. Richard Vogt.

Dr. Vogt and his team quickly discovered that the original Messerschmitt design simply wouldn't work, and immediately set about to completely redesign the fighter while making an effort to retain as much of the original Messerschmitt concept as feasible. A number of powerplants were considered, but in the end, the Daimler Benz DB 603E was selected to be used in conjunction with the Heinkel-Hirth TKL 15 turbo supercharger. When used in this combination, the designation of the engine was amended to DB 603 U. The TKL 15 and DB 603 U were mutually dependent, but the latter could operate without the former engaged. When both components were functioning together, outside air was ducted through a ventrally-mounted intake, where it reached the eye of the TKL 15 turbo supercharger. There it was forced under pressure from the turbo's volute, to the intercooler located immediately above. From the intercooler, the compressed and cooled air was fed along a semi-enclosed duct mounted on the outside of the fueslage to the port side entry of the engine-driven, single stage supercharger. Air from the engine-driven supercharger was first fed into the aftercooler and then into the intake manifold located between the cylinder blocks of the inverted V-type engine. Hot exhaust gases would leave the engine via manifolds which were connected to two 5.5 inch (140 mm) exhaust pipes. The exhaust travelled to the rear via the two semi-enclosed exhaust pipes mounted on both sides of the fueslage running to the turbine compartment. both the starboard and port exhaust pipes forked at the turbine compartment, one branch on each side leading to the turbine, while the other branches, which had waste-gate valves, lead to the exhaust duct below the rear fueslage. The waste-gate valves regulated the quantity of gas passing to the turbine, thereby controlling it's speed. The TKL 15 was mounted with it's axis in the direction of flight. 
The hot gases from the inboard forks lead directly to the collecting chamber through to a row of fixed blades and one row of moving turbine blades to the exit duct below rear fueslage. The turbine blades were holllow and cooled by air drawn in from the air entry duct below below the fueslage through a seperate pipe to the centre of the turbine rotor, passing outward through the blades to escape from their tips into the exhaust exit duct.

...

If anyone wants photos and diagrams of the Bv 155 functioning components from that book, drop us your address in a PM (I don't have access to a scanner!)

Evan


----------



## davebender (Aug 10, 2009)

I am referring to the CV fighter aircraft designed by Messerschmitt during 1942. Not the high altitude aircraft designed by Blohm Voss from August 1943 onward.


----------



## Burmese Bandit (Aug 11, 2009)

Again and again the question comes up: why was not the 109 replaced with something better? And the answer is something that cannot be seen in the plane's performance statistics - Willi Messerschitt designed the 109 from the beginning as a production friendly aircraft. With a production time of 5000 man hours and a cost far cheaper than any other aircraft, it was, warts and all, simply the best bargain for the GAF from 1935-45. 

What should have been done for the 109 is, perhaps, an armament package which I have described in my thread 'could you have designed a better aircraft' thread. 

Reverse the gun philosophy. Put one 20 mm in the cowl on top, and have another 20 mm in the bottom as a belly pack. Since there is only one gun on top, even if it is much bigger than the historical 13 mm, it will blend smoothly into the airframe and not cause vision impairing bulges on each sice. 

To get around the problem of the lower 20 mm interfering with the oil cooler, have the engine come with a raidial cowl integrated at the engine factory similar to the FW 190 D. Hve both engine and oil cooling integrated in that cowl. Have the lower 20 mm blend smoothly into the lower engine hatch and cowl lower lip with a fairing. Have it swing together with the lower engine hatch sideways so that the lower gun will not interfere at all with access to the engine. 

Now, for the engine mounted gun, put two MG 13 Zwilling mounted on top of each other so that four 13 mm barrels are firing through the propeller boss. 

In the space in the wings vacated by the deletion of the wing radiators, put two 30 gal blister tanks, with a smooth and pointed rear end. 

Result:

Minimal change to the cheap 109 airframe.
DOUBLE the firepower of the historical 109 G.
60 gallons more fuel.


----------



## A4K (Aug 11, 2009)

davebender said:


> I am referring to the CV fighter aircraft designed by Messerschmitt during 1942. Not the high altitude aircraft designed by Blohm Voss from August 1943 onward.



Damn...took a while to type that lot out!  

B.B, I reckon the Bf 109 WAS replaced where possible with something better - THE FW 190!!!


----------



## Clay_Allison (Aug 11, 2009)

> Galland: From our experience the Italians have always forgotten something in their fighter aircraft, either the armour or guns.


----------



## Burmese Bandit (Aug 11, 2009)

A4K said:


> Damn...took a while to type that lot out!
> 
> B.B, I reckon the Bf 109 WAS replaced where possible with something better - THE FW 190!!!



A4, I suggest you take a look at the man-hours per plane and cost in RM per plane comparision between the 109 and the 190.

Then you will see why Speer, in spite of his inclination to the 190, kept the 109 in production until the end of the war...

you see, cancelling all 109 production in favour of the 190 would have meant something like six 190 produced for every 10 109 cancelled. 

And as good as the 190 was, ten 109s were still a better deal than six 190s. 

And this is an ADMIRER of the Wurger speaking!


----------



## davebender (Aug 11, 2009)

The Me-155 should have been production friendly also as it used the same engine and essentially the same fuselage (except for tail hook) as the Me-109G. The main differences are wide track landing gear and more internal wing space allowing one MG151/20 cannon in each wing root as standard equipment. I assume a land based variant would eliminate the tail hook and wing folding.


----------



## A4K (Aug 11, 2009)

Yep, BB, you're right in terms of man hours. my comment was made as a joke mostly...

The Fw 190 was alot more complicated in design than the Bf 109, so naturally required a longer poduction time. Focke-Wulf tried to compensate for this by recycling damaged airframes, an earlier variant often receiving a new Werk Nummer in it's new guise.

While most Bf 109's were fine aircraft in their own right (with the exception of types like the G-2 and G-10 which received alot of criticism from pilots), the FW 190 was by far the superior of the two (IMO).


----------



## Shortround6 (Aug 11, 2009)

Burmese Bandit said:


> What should have been done for the 109 is, perhaps, an armament package which I have described in my thread 'could you have designed a better aircraft' thread.
> 
> Reverse the gun philosophy. Put one 20 mm in the cowl on top, and have another 20 mm in the bottom as a belly pack. Since there is only one gun on top, even if it is much bigger than the historical 13 mm, it will blend smoothly into the airframe and not cause vision impairing bulges on each sice.
> 
> ...



Are four 13 mm barrels actually going to fit inside the 70mm tube through the engine?
not just the barrel dimensions but just how close can you pack the recievers which is going to control barrel spacing.
How is the airplane going to handle with the oil and coolant radiators move as far forward as they can go and the new fuel tanks empty?
If the Germans had been able to make enough electic primed ammo the simple solution would have been a single 20mm/mg 151 in a belly mounted pod with a pair of small under wing drop tanks. 
Least amount of changes.
doubling of the cannon armament.
less drag and handling problems than under wing guns even if less firepower.
under wing tanks restore endurance of belly tank if needed.


----------



## Burmese Bandit (Aug 11, 2009)

_Are four 13 mm barrels actually going to fit inside the 70mm tube through the engine?
not just the barrel dimensions but just how close can you pack the recievers which is going to control barrel spacing._

The receivers will be behind and outside the engine, as historically was the case with the 20mm engine mount.
How close can we pack the receivers? Well, if we offset the bolts so that they are not symetrical relative to the barrel, we can pack the recivers - and their barrels - until they almost touch each other. 

_How is the airplane going to handle with the oil and coolant radiators move as far forward as they can go and the new fuel tanks empty?_

Better IMHO. You will remember that one of the problems of the G series was that it was tail heavy. The nose heaviness resulting from my modifications will make this a better handling aircraft. Oh, and it will make it much faster in the initial dive as well!


----------



## Civettone (Aug 11, 2009)

This is one of my favourite subjects. And I also wonder if the Me 155A wouldn't have been a good option.
My conclusion is that it was a promising design but then they started bringing in that DB 628 which meant the whole design had to be changed. That proved too much of a problem as it was in fact the same as designing a new aircraft which was more than Messerschmitt could handle. The project then went to B&V which saw that this was going nowhere anc changed pretty much everything. The idea that the eventual BV 155 was derived from the Bf 109 is staggering. A bit like Superman from Clark Kent  

So I wonder what would have happened if they had stuck to the Me 155 design - so a Bf 109 with different wings and two extra wing root guns - and made that into the standard interceptor. Coupled with the later DB 605AS it would have been quite capable. Spped would have been reduced somewhat though. 

One question though ... would the extended wing have seen the same problems as the Bf 109H ??? Wing flutter and instability that is... I'm not an engineer so I can only guess that it is possible ...



davebender said:


> That won't work for the same reason the Me-209 II won't work. There weren't enough DB603 and Jumo213 engines. If the Me-109 is to be superceded with something else the replacement aircraft must be powered by the DB605 engine.


Nonsense. By 1944 DB 603 production was taking over the DB 605. I have figures from the USSBS report to prove that the DB 603 production was widespread. Not in 1943 though. 

Kris


----------



## davebender (Aug 11, 2009)

By 1944 you may as well forget the project and concentrate on rushing the He-162 into mass production. The Me-155A design was supposedly ready during the fall of 1942. If it is to enter production it should be early 1943.

I wonder if the land based variant would shorten the wings a bit? Low wing loading was desirable on a CV aircraft to lower the stall speed. High speed and firepower are more important when intercepting heavy bombers.


----------



## Civettone (Aug 11, 2009)

The need for a higher altitude interceptor only really emerged in 1943. So earliest use would have been late 1943. One can speculate on what-ifs but let's keep the historical perspective please.

On the DB 603, there was little use for them: relatively few Do 217s, He 219s and Me 410s flew with them. Once a larger production was needed, the Germans could have switched to production sooner. As a side note, that is why I'm no fan of the Fw 190D. Tank should have gone ahead with what was available: the Fw 190C-1 with a DB 603A. Stop modifying and start producing, Kurt!

As to the shortening of the wings. I agree that speed was important. But handling and climb rate were also issues. And those longer wings would have been good to take care of the heavier weight. You have to remember this: the Germans were expecting the Americans to start producing B-29s which would fly 600 km/h above 10 km high. 
Then again, shortening them somewhat - but still larger than the original 109s - could well have been a good idea.

As to the He 162 ... that request happened at the end of 1944. And the BMW 003 wasn't ready until then. So no point in dragging that in the conversation. 
Perhaps you are confusing it with the Me 262, that would make sense! Right? 

Kris


----------



## davebender (Aug 11, 2009)

> need for a higher altitude interceptor only really emerged in 1943


If the historical size wings are retained the Me-155 may be capable of turning inside a Spitfire Mk IX. That would be a nasty surprise for RAF pilots.


----------



## Clay_Allison (Aug 12, 2009)

I think that a 109 with wide track landing gear and maybe a higher pilot seat and a bubble canopy would have been all you'd want.


----------



## davebender (Aug 12, 2009)

I'm all in favor of a bubble canopy. However I assume there are sound engineering reasons why the F and later variants of the Me-109 did not get this feature. Since the Me-155A uses essentially the same fuselage as the Me-109G it won't have a bubble canopy either.


----------



## Marshall_Stack (Aug 12, 2009)

Burmese Bandit said:


> A4, I suggest you take a look at the man-hours per plane and cost in RM per plane comparision between the 109 and the 190.
> 
> Then you will see why Speer, in spite of his inclination to the 190, kept the 109 in production until the end of the war...
> 
> ...



I believe Bandit's response aims at the crux of this question. It is the same reason that the P-40 was still being produced after becoming obsolete.


----------



## Clay_Allison (Aug 12, 2009)

Bubbly canopy increases drag. We decided it was worth it. Seems like they didn't.



> I'm all in favor of a bubble canopy. However I assume there are sound engineering reasons why the F and later variants of the Me-109 did not get this feature. Since the Me-155A uses essentially the same fuselage as the Me-109G it won't have a bubble canopy either.


----------



## Civettone (Aug 14, 2009)

Marshall_Stack said:


> I believe Bandit's response aims at the crux of this question. It is the same reason that the P-40 was still being produced after becoming obsolete.


Exactly! It's something which people either forget or either don't realize. When it comes to wartime production, numbers matter, and often over quality. 

I can understand that people say the Fw 190 was better than the Bf 109, but was it 40% better (that is 6 fw's vs 10 bf's) ? That's the question one must ask!


Kris


----------



## davebender (Aug 14, 2009)

> When it comes to wartime production, numbers matter


That does not explain why the Me-155A did not supercede the Me-109. It wa essentially the same fuselage with an improved wing.


----------



## Civettone (Aug 15, 2009)

Well, I never claimed that that was the reason. That point was about the Bf 109 vs Fw 190...


But as to why the Me 155A didn't supercede the 109, I think the reasons have already been given. I'll summarize and elaborate a bit.

The Me 155 was designed as an aircraft carrier fighter, the design was then modified to become a bomber and a high altitude fighter. It was never intended to be a regular fighter like the Bf 109. Until 1942, the Bf 109 was considered to be doing fine, after that the Me 209-II was the dedicated successor. This too was to be merely a modified Bf 109 like the Me 155. 

In hindsight it would make sense to skip the Me 209 and go for a modified Me 155 but it's clear that at that time, it would have made no sense: the Me 155 didn't offer any advantage over the Me 209. 

In fact, they have more in common than it might seem: both started as simple adaptations from the basic Bf 109 but once they chose to put a different engine in it more elements had to be changed and in the end, it didn't resemble the basic Bf 109 anymore.

Again in hindsight, smaller steps would have been a better option. Just keep the engine and use the enlarged wings with broad-tracked landing gear. But then one final question ... what's to prevent it from suffering from the same problems as the Bf 109H ?? That's the question !!

Kris


----------



## davebender (Aug 15, 2009)

> Me 155 didn't offer any advantage over the Me 209


1. The Me-155 was powered by the widely available DB605 engine.
2. The Me-155 was apparently ready to enter production by the end of 1942.


----------



## Civettone (Aug 15, 2009)

You're missing the point. 

I'll try one more time. The Me 155 was not meant as a successor of the Bf 109. The Me 209 was. The Me 155 design didn't have any advantage over the Me 209. That the DB 605 was widely available is not an argument for a future design. All new fighters were designed with the DB 603 in mind. It would make no sense to stick to the DB 605 because it was widely available. From a production point of view it would but not with an aircraft which is still in the design phase. 
Also, there was no need for a successor of the Bf 109 in 1942. 

The point is that back in 1943 the Me 209 was the LOGICAL path, and the Me 155 a very strange choice. In hindsight it could have been a good idea but back in 1942/1943 it would have been very bizarre to go with the Me 155 instead of the Me 209. 

And one still has to wonder what the Me 155 would have been like: would it have suffered from the same problems as the Bf 109H? In that case, the end of 1942 would see no production of the Me 155 and likely not ever.

Kris


----------



## davebender (Aug 15, 2009)

> All new fighters were designed with the DB 603 in mind.


The Me-155 would not be a new fighter. Just an improved version of the Me-109G that would enter production during early 1943.
- Wide track landing gear.
- Room for a Mg151/20 cannon in each wing root.


----------



## Civettone (Aug 17, 2009)

If it would work ... one last time, what about the Bf 109H? It too got a inner wing section inserted. It subsequentally suffered from wing flutter... 

and if it wasn't a new fighter, why did they give it a new number then??  

Kris


----------



## Civettone (Oct 4, 2010)

Does anyone have a picture of the wing of the Me 155 carrier version?

I found the one for the later Me 155B hi-alt with DB 628:





At least that is very different from the plug-inserted Bf 109H:





Kris


----------



## tomo pauk (Oct 5, 2010)

The last picture shows inserts/plugs, as for 109H (maybe that is 109H?)...


----------



## Civettone (Oct 5, 2010)

yeah dude, that's the 109H. Looking for a pic of the wings of the Me 155 carrier version ....


Kris


----------



## CharlesBronson (Oct 9, 2010)

The Me-155 was by far a more expensive airplane than the Me-109G, the better option was to replace it with the Me-309 or Fw-190D.


----------



## davebender (Oct 9, 2010)

Why? It's essentially the same aircraft except for the wing.


----------



## Civettone (Oct 9, 2010)

I suppose CB is thinking about the later Me/BV 155 version. 


Btw, I am still looking for a drawing of the wings of the Me 155 carrier version if someone has it. I had a book about the BV 155 which I think also contains illustrations of the previous versions but I cannot locate the damn thing anymore!

I need to know if that had a wing adaptation like the Bf 109T or a totally new wing like the later Me 155A/B ? In the case of the former, the wing would of course be based on that of the Bf 109F/G. So in other words, a plug or a new wing?
















Kris


----------



## krieghund (Oct 10, 2010)

According to Monogram Close-up 20 "BV-155" this is the BV-155A for the Graf Zeppelin


----------



## vikingBerserker (Oct 10, 2010)

What an odd looking aircraft.


----------



## Civettone (Oct 10, 2010)

krieghund said:


> According to Monogram Close-up 20 "BV-155" this is the BV-155A for the Graf Zeppelin


Of course it's not! The BV 155 was a "very high altitude" fighter. Nothing left in common with the Me 155 carrier version.

Kris


----------



## Glider (Oct 10, 2010)

krieghund said:


> According to Monogram Close-up 20 "BV-155" this is the BV-155A for the Graf Zeppelin



The Deck crew would have a lot of fun trying to get that below deck.


----------



## davebender (Oct 10, 2010)

> BV 155 was a "very high altitude" fighter. Nothing left in common with the Me 155 carrier version.


No argument there. The Me-155 would weigh about half as much as the BV-155 and be powered by a different engine.

*BV155*
Blohm Voss BV 155 - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
4,868 kg Empty Weight.
DB603 engine.

*Me-109G6*
Messerschmitt Bf 109 - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
2,247 kg Empty Weight
DB605 engine.


----------



## Colin1 (Oct 10, 2010)

Glider said:


> The Deck crew would have a lot of fun trying to get that below deck.


I wonder what its roll rate is like


----------



## CharlesBronson (Oct 10, 2010)

> Why? It's essentially the same aircraft except for the wing.



The same aircraft with diferent wing is a prototype, Me-109V...something, the Me-155 was to be equipped with a turbosupercharger engine DB 628, the germans had the technology for the superchargers but no enough high quality steel to manufacture them . So That s why I say better to stay with the DB 603G equipped Me-309 or Jumo 213 equipped Fw-190D.


----------



## davebender (Oct 10, 2010)

Why? 

If the Me-155 supercedes the Me-109G then it gets the historical Me-109G missions. DB605 series engines which worked just fine in the Me-109G will work just as well in the Me-155.


----------



## CharlesBronson (Oct 10, 2010)

Probably, but if you got a longer winspan and heavier take of weight you got more draw so with the same DB 605 As "your " (  ) Me-155 is slower than an average me-109G6 or G-10. I dont think that is a good recipe for 1944-45.


----------



## Civettone (Oct 10, 2010)

Colin1 said:


> I wonder what its roll rate is like


 a day 




CharlesBronson said:


> The same aircraft with diferent wing is a prototype, Me-109V...something, the Me-155 was to be equipped with a turbosupercharger engine DB 628, the germans had the technology for the superchargers but no enough high quality steel to manufacture them . So That s why I say better to stay with the DB 603G equipped Me-309 or Jumo 213 equipped Fw-190D.


IIRC the DB 628 was a two-stage supercharger with intercooler. I don't think materials have much to do with giving up on the engine. I think they decided the DB 605 was a dead end and the DB 603 was the way to go. In the end they did come up with the DB 605L which seems to be similar to the DB 628 though 
I also think it is possible that the DB 628 may have changed the CoG of the Bf 109 in such a way that too many modifications were needed, negating the advantage of a new engine for the Bf 109. So the Me 155 or Bf 109H were discarded in favour of the Me 209/309. Would have seemed logical at the time.

Kris


----------



## CharlesBronson (Oct 10, 2010)

Oh, oh, I stand corrected , I tought the Db 628 had an "turbokompressorlader"


----------



## Civettone (Oct 10, 2010)

CharlesBronson said:


> Probably, but if you got a longer winspan and heavier take of weight you got more draw so with the same DB 605 As "your " (  ) Me-155 is slower than an average me-109G6 or G-10. I dont think that is a good recipe for 1944-45.


I agree. A more powerful engine would have been needed to give the Me 155 an edge over the Bf 109G. And with the Me 209/309 expected to enter production within months ...

The Me 155 was a possibility but only with a more powerful engine. Changes necessary would have to remain minimal: the DB 628 or DB 603, the new wings and a lengthened fuselage and a larger tail section. Basically a new fighter.

Kris


----------



## Matt308 (Oct 10, 2010)

So remind me what the radiator "thingies" are supposed to do for a single engine airplane with a radiator scoop already inline? I'm still trying to figure out if we are discussing a EA Games bullexcrement development or something that real aeronautical engineers were involved with.

Help me out here guys.


----------



## davebender (Oct 10, 2010)

> Changes necessary would have to remain minimal: the DB 628 or DB 603


If Germany had chosen to mass produce the DB603 engine early and in greater numbers then the entire issue is moot. Dr. Tank would get his wish to mass produce the Fw-190C.


----------



## krieghund (Oct 10, 2010)

Civettone said:


> Of course it's not! The BV 155 was a "very high altitude" fighter. Nothing left in common with the Me 155 carrier version.
> 
> Kris



I agreed the earlier picture of the Bf109G with larger wings grafted on it is probably a better representation however just relaying what was printed in the Monogram


----------



## Civettone (Oct 10, 2010)

davebender said:


> If Germany had chosen to mass produce the DB603 engine early and in greater numbers then the entire issue is moot. Dr. Tank would get his wish to mass produce the Fw-190C.


That is all wishfull thinking. The DB 603 had problems until 1944. Of course we could say that they had to be finished sooner but this is all pretty easy in hindsight. Maybe it would have meant giving up on fixing the low ata for the DB 605 thereby sealing the fate of the Bf 109 with no clear successor.
As to what Tank was doing ... it took him over a year to simply re-engine a fighter and get it ready for production. The Fw 190C could indeed have entered production as soon as 1943 (if the engine permitted). 
But I have had some discussions before as to why he was not allowed the DB 603 and I think a lot is made up post-war. The only reason I see is that the DB 603 was reserved for the Me 209, Me 410, Do 217M/N and that rotten He 219. So once again it is the Me 209 which blocks everything: the Me 155 and now the Fw 190C. 

Kris


----------



## DonL (Oct 11, 2010)

Hi,



> That is all wishfull thinking. The DB 603 had problems until 1944



Which problems, other than he wasn`t produced in numbers?
He had little problems with the running time in combat, 60 hours to 100 hours but not serios problems and these problems were solved in steps



> Of course we could say that they had to be finished sooner but this is all pretty easy in hindsight. Maybe it would have meant giving up on fixing the low ata for the DB 605 thereby sealing the fate of the Bf 109 with no clear successor.



I don't understand that. The DB 603 was from 1936! The RLM wasn't realy interested until 1941.
The change from Jumo 222 to DB 603 at the Flugmotorenwerke Ostmark was 24.12.1941.
For the persons who understand german a link:
Flugmotorenwerke Ostmark ? Wikipedia. Sorry there is no english wiki article with all informations.
At the Flugmotorenwerke Ostmark the DB 603 was sabotaged from the early junkers senior management that was in the factory from 1937.The sabotage was until 1943 and the DB management didn't get it.
The whole management was replaced at 5.5.1943 with Dr. Georg Meindl fom the Steyr-Werke.

For the whole understanding, the Flugmotorenwerke Ostmark was the main engine factory for the DB 603.

So I don't understand the the comment from above. When you do the math, there were 4-5 years of development time, that were lost with no interest from the RLM and 1 and a half year with home made production troubles. If Jeschonnek and Kesselring hadn't want this fiction Bomber B programm, with a total new engine (Jumo 222) but rather a normal evolution development (the DB 603 is very equal to the DB 601)
then with no doubt the DB 603 could be realy mass production ready at 1941 with a completly other output in numbers.
The DB 605 is a whole other issue. And the production and engineering wasn't in conflict with the DB 603.



> As to what Tank was doing ... it took him over a year to simply re-engine a fighter and get it ready for production. The Fw 190C could indeed have entered production as soon as 1943 (if the engine permitted).



Where do you have this information? The FW 190C with the TK 11 Turbolader, had serious problems with the turbolader. The TK 11 was to heavy in weight because the german hadn't enough wolfram and molybdänerz to built a smaller Turbolader for massproduction. And the normal C without Turbolader hadn't enough power to change the production.
Not until the FW 190 D with Jumo 213A and the solved problems of the ignition with the forced vibrations of the earlier Jumo 213A.
The germans hadn't a design problem the whole war, they had home made engine problems because of the wrong decisions of Jeschonnek and Kesselring with the bomber b. A normal engine advertisement at 1937/38 for normal evolution engines with more horsepower and the DB 603 and Jumo 213 could be massproduction ready a whole decade earlier than happened.



> But I have had some discussions before as to why he was not allowed the DB 603 and I think a lot is made up post-war.


No it all happened before the war!


----------



## davebender (Oct 11, 2010)

I agree. Besides an inadequate fuel supply, the delay in DB603 engine development and mass production was probably the single biggest mistake made by RLM.

However that's all water under bridge. Without adequate numbers of DB603 and/or Jumo 213 engines the Fw-190C and Me-209 cannot be mass produced. The Me-109 series must soldier on until at least 1945. Building the Me-155 offers an option besides the historical Me-109G6.


----------



## DonL (Oct 11, 2010)

> I agree. Besides an inadequate fuel supply, the delay in DB603 engine development and mass production was probably the single biggest mistake made by RLM.



I agree.

This,the death of Wever and the decision for the bomber b were the drastic events of the LW.


----------



## davebender (Oct 11, 2010)

It's ironic that the final (almost produced) version of the Jumo213 engine had as much hp as the original (almost produced) version of the Jumo222 engine. With a bit of hindsight the Ju-288 bomber could have been designed for a pair of the 2,500 hp Jumo211J engines. Alternately I suspect the Do-217 would have matured into a relatively powerful level bomber equipped with DB603 engines which start at 1,750 hp and produce over 2,000 hp when fully developed.


----------



## Milosh (Oct 11, 2010)

> As to what Tank was doing ... it took him over a year to simply re-engine a fighter and get it ready for production. The Fw 190C could indeed have entered production as soon as 1943 (if the engine permitted).





> Where do you have this information? The FW 190C with the TK 11 Turbolader, had serious problems with the turbolader.



There was more than just the V18/U1.

The V13, V15, V16, V18, V20/U1, V21/U1, V30, V31, V32/U1, V33/U1 all used the DB603 engine.


----------



## DonL (Oct 11, 2010)

From my sources Prototype of the FW 190C

V17, V18, V19, V29, V30, V31, V32, V33.

V18, V29, V30, V32 and V33 later as Prototys for the Ta 152H.


----------



## riacrato (Oct 11, 2010)

Civettone said:


> That is all wishfull thinking. The DB 603 had problems until 1944. Of course we could say that they had to be finished sooner but this is all pretty easy in hindsight. Maybe it would have meant giving up on fixing the low ata for the DB 605 thereby sealing the fate of the Bf 109 with no clear successor.
> As to what Tank was doing ... it took him over a year to simply re-engine a fighter and get it ready for production. The Fw 190C could indeed have entered production as soon as 1943 (if the engine permitted).
> But I have had some discussions before as to why he was not allowed the DB 603 and I think a lot is made up post-war. The only reason I see is that the DB 603 was reserved for the Me 209, Me 410, Do 217M/N and that rotten He 219. So once again it is the Me 209 which blocks everything: the Me 155 and now the Fw 190C.
> 
> Kris


I will have to check my sources again, but the Fw for the DB603 was basically ready by 1942. I think the most plausible answer why Tank didn't build the Fw 190 C is simply that the RLM had no real interest in it. So yeah it was simply reserved for programs that were theoretically more advanced in the design cycle. Which was a pretty dumb decision: Once it became clear the Me 209 was disappointing the Fw 190 C should've been put into production.

And yeah MTBO for the DB603 was bad until late '43 at least (iirc around 50 hours), but then that didn't stop Jumo 004 production.


----------



## Shortround6 (Oct 11, 2010)

davebender said:


> It's ironic that the final (almost produced) version of the Jumo213 engine had as much hp as the original (almost produced) version of the Jumo222 engine. With a bit of hindsight the Ju-288 bomber could have been designed for a pair of the 2,500 hp Jumo211J engines. Alternately I suspect the Do-217 would have matured into a relatively powerful level bomber equipped with DB603 engines which start at 1,750 hp and produce over 2,000 hp when fully developed.




A large part of the problem was the different time lines and development of the engines. This relates to the development of fuel and mechanical components like bearing and rings. 
In 1937 when development of the Ju 222 and the Db 603 are starting they are 44-46 liter engines. As is the air cooled P&W R-2800. Liquid cooled engines can usually make more power per liter than air cooled engines.
In 1937 87 octane fuel was good stuff. Some planes (including the FW 200) were actually set up with dual fuel systems to use 87 octane for take off and 80 octane for cruising. While everybody KNEW that higher octane fuels were coming, nobody knew exactly when. At the time Howard Hughes set the record with 100 octane it was more laboratory experiment than a commercially available fuel, costing around $4.00 a gallon at the time. 
100octane wasn't available to American air racers in the Thompson races until the sumer of 1939. 
This limited the developers of engines. If they were limited by the available fuel (or what they thought would be available in a few years) they had to make certain choices. They were limited in the amount of boost and compression that could be used which left them with engine displacement and RPM as the only avenues to make more powerful engines. Engine displacement also had certain choices, 12, 12 or 18 large cylinders or 24 or more small cylinders. Small cylinders allow for better cooling and breathing. The smaller reciprocating parts also allow for higher RPM. But more cylinders means more cost and more weight. It also may mean more friction loss. 
High RPM had it's own difficulties. Stress on bearings and crankshafts went up the square of the speed. 
Friction losses also went up with the square of the speed so that for the same output a high RPM engine had to make more gross power (burn more fuel) than a low RPM engine. 
Many engine programs were made superfluous when improvements in fuel allowed older smaller, engines to make more power without the cost and weight of "newer" engines that were supposed to replace them.

Remember that when the Jumo 222 was first proposed the DB 601 had just gone into production at around 1100hp. The 601 E was several years in the future and the DB 605 was even further off. 

As far as the JU 213 goes it was first run in 1940, about a year later than the Jumo 222 and at lower power. It wasn't ready for production or service use until 1943 which is way too late for the Ju 288 program. This 1943 version was no where near 2500hp. 

The Jumo 213J may have had some problems as a bomber engine. With one of the higher RPMs used by a large aircraft engine (and by far the highest piston speed) it may have had engine life problems. While short engine life may be acceptable in an interceptor engine where each flight may be on the order of 2 hours it may be less acceptable for a bomber engine when each flight may be on the order of 6-8hours. 

late war engines may also have benefited in improvements in bearings and/or lubrication technology.


----------



## DonL (Oct 11, 2010)

@ Shortround6

Mostly I agree with you.

But 



> Remember that when the Jumo 222 was first proposed the DB 601 had just gone into production at around 1100hp. The 601 E was several years in the future and the DB 605 was even further off.



The Jumo 222 is a completly other engine design as all other german engines. 
There were no single experiences with such an engine in production, mass production etc.

The DB 603 is very equal to the DB 601 from design and materials to manufactor. A well developped DB 603 (start time 1937) is to my opinion the better choice. Less development time, less costs, easier for mass production because you could use many experience from the DB 601. 
The DB 601 starts production end of november 1937, the DB 601 E starts mass production end of 1941.
I think a realistic scenario for a well developped DB 603 (start time 1937) is mass production at 1941 with 1500 hp and someting like 2000hp at 1944. But with a whole other output in numbers.


----------



## davebender (Oct 11, 2010)

That's not quite right. RLM provided funding for DB603 engine development in 1936 and then cancelled funding during 1937. Maintain full funding for the DB603 engine and I'd hazard a guess it would be ready for mass production at least a year early.

Fw-190 development began during the fall of 1937. If the DB603 engine had not just been cancelled the Fw-190 could have been designed for the DB603 engine right from the beginning. The Fw-190C and it's DB603 engine could both have been in mass production during 1941. Even if early DB603 engines have a service life of only 50 hours that's still twice as good as early BMW801 radial engines.


----------



## riacrato (Oct 11, 2010)

The point is the DB603 was in a different performance and application class than the Jumo 222. At least at the time it was canceled. The 50 hours MTBO was a 1943 DB 603 not an early one.

Sure in hindsight the DB603 if ready by 1941 could likely make the BMW801 unnecessary, but at the time it was a logical choice: BMW had engineering and manufacturing capacity and it was becoming clear that the air cooled radials were not dead. better to have at least_ some_ money on that horse.


----------



## DonL (Oct 11, 2010)

Sometimes it is better the bird in the hand than a pigeon on the roof. 

The DB 601->DB605->DB 603 and Jumo 211->213 are normal steps, the Jumo 222 is a completly other engine....


----------



## johnbr (Oct 11, 2010)

It makes me think could the 603q and 603n been made sooner.


----------



## johnbr (Oct 11, 2010)

Here is the db628


----------



## davebender (Oct 11, 2010)

That's true when war threatens as was the case during 1934 to 1939. It looks like France and Russia were exploring a joint invasion of Central Europe but halted preparations when Poland refused to be absorbed into the Soviet Union. Under these circumstances Germany needs an air force ASAP, not 10 years down the road.

1934. 
Soviet Union begins a massive increase in military spending.

2 May 1935. 
Franco-Russian military alliance.

16 May 1935. 
Russo-Czechoslovak military alliance.

7 Sep 1936. 
The Marxist Popular Front government of France approves an additional 14 billion francs for the French military, to be spent by 1940. ¼th of this money was for army mechanized forces (i.e. increasing offensive capability).


----------



## DonL (Oct 11, 2010)

@ davebender

I agree!

Without Wevers death and Wimmers replacement with Udet and a clear conception the LW could be very efficient!

Without the Bomber B, a normal advertisement of an engine with more horsepower at 1937, a normal project P 1041 of a strategic bomber without diving and the the FW 187 instead of the Me 110 would be all "you" need!
The plans of the He 177/277 with 4 "normal" engines exist since 1937, with an built wood modell. So I think with normal development this bird could be production ready at 1941.

That would be "one hell" of an efficient LW at 1941/1942

Fighter

Bf 109E-Bf 109F perhaps G
Fw 190A- FW 190C- Ta 152H (later than 1942)
FW 187

Nightfighter
FW 187 and Ju 88 perhaps Bf 110

Fighterbomber
FW 190A

Divebomber
Ju 87

Destroyer
FW 187/Ju 88

Mediumbomber
Ju 88

Torpedobomber/Long range scout over the See
Ju 88/Ju 290/He 177/277 with 4 normal engines at 1941

Strategicbomber
He 177/277 with 4 normal engines at 1941

Transporter
Ju 52/Ju 290

Scout
Fw 187


----------



## Shortround6 (Oct 11, 2010)

davebender said:


> That's not quite right. RLM provided funding for DB603 engine development in 1936 and then cancelled funding during 1937. Maintain full funding for the DB603 engine and I'd hazard a guess it would be ready for mass production at least a year early.
> 
> Fw-190 development began during the fall of 1937. If the DB603 engine had not just been cancelled the Fw-190 could have been designed for the DB603 engine right from the beginning. The Fw-190C and it's DB603 engine could both have been in mass production during 1941. Even if early DB603 engines have a service life of only 50 hours that's still twice as good as early BMW801 radial engines.



I was being approximate in the time line. It took 4-6 years to bring an engine from drawing board to production. 
You also have to consider what happens if you do get your wish and and work on the DB603 continues in 1937. All those engineers and draftsmen At DB that were working on the 603 didn't take a year long Holiday on the Baltic coast and ski trips. I would hazard a guess that they worked on the later versions of the DB 601 and perhaps learned things that could be applied to the 603 when it was taken up again. You also have the supercharger situation. You can't take the performance of an engine from 1943 and claim that if development hadn't been interrupted in 1937 the same performance could have been had in 1941 or early 42. A lot was learned about superchargers in 1940-41-42 and on. the superchargers of 1943 were not the same as the superchargers of 1939-40. 
Wright had a similar problem. They had worked on the R-3350 in the mid to late 30s but put it aside to work on the R-2600 (bring it to production) and work on the R-2160. When they dusted off the prints for the R-3350 and started work again they found that the sate of the art had changed so much in just a few years that they were almost starting from scratch. A 1941 DB603 might be a far cry from a 1943 DB603. 

In those 4-6 years a lot can (and did) happen. Fuel availability can change, Rival manufacturers can get ahead due to luck or better capacity. Many manufacturers were stretching the boundaries of what was possible, read about the problems P&W had with vibration on the R-2800 during development. 

Putting engines with an overhaul life of 50 hours into combat planes is a sign of desperation. Especially in 1941-43. Overhaul life is not a minimum life guarantee. It is the time at which ,by manufacturers recommendation, an engine should be pulled from service EVEN IF it is showing no sign of trouble. Some engines did go longer, other engines of the same make and model never made it close to the overhaul life. 
Some air cooled engines had 2 or 3 cylinders replaced without being torn down for an overhaul.
It is one thing to use an interceptor that might get 30-40 flights out of a 50 hour engine, you don't see combat on every flight. It is quite another thing to build a bomber fleet using engines that need replacement/overhaul ever 8-12 flights.


----------



## DonL (Oct 12, 2010)

> It took 4-6 years to bring an engine from drawing board to production.



I can't see that.

DB 600, 1932-1935 production
DB 601, 1935-1937 production
DB 605, 1939-1941 production

Junkers 211, 1934-1937 production
Junkers 213, 1939-1942 production

BMW 801, 1938-1940 production

I think 3 years are the normal time from drawing board to production. Also the DB 603 isn't a complete new engine, most of it came from the DB 601 and it is a natural development step with more engine displacement, water pressure cooling system and an other ignition system.



> All those engineers and draftsmen At DB that were working on the 603 didn't take a year long Holiday on the Baltic coast and ski trips. I would hazard a guess that they worked on the later versions of the DB 601 and perhaps learned things that could be applied to the 603 when it was taken up again.



Or making "stupid" things like built a DB 604X for a Bomber B or an DB 606 for a Strategic Divebomber.
The Bomber B and the divebombing He 177 were the most expensivest development lines of the LW from 1933-1945 from money,time, human and material resources.
I think for a normal development, there are more than enough human "heads" in the system, to develop two main engines DB 601/605 and DB 603.



> You also have the supercharger situation. You can't take the performance of an engine from 1943 and claim that if development hadn't been interrupted in 1937 the same performance could have been had in 1941 or early 42. A lot was learned about superchargers in 1940-41-42 and on. the superchargers of 1943 were not the same as the superchargers of 1939-40.



I agree, but you could far better concentrate on this development without production problems.
At 1941 the LW/RLM was comming and said, put the DB 603 in production it is simular to the DB 601 *now* and we want the combat ready engine *tomorrow*. That was the situation plus the whole problems with the Flugmotorenwerke Ostmark (Junkers/DB).
Every engine of the world would have problems under these circumstances at the beginning of the production. In no book I ever read about engines, were list any serious engine problems of the DB 603 in contrast to the DB 605 or BMW 801. All said the problems came from this harum-scarum induced production.

So I think with a normal development from 1937 and mass production from 1941 you have very good chances to get the same output of the DB 603 1942 compare with 1943/44 realy happened.



> A 1941 DB603 might be a far cry from a 1943 DB603.


Any serious hints or problems you can name?



> Putting engines with an overhaul life of 50 hours into combat planes is a sign of desperation. Especially in 1941-43. Overhaul life is not a minimum life guarantee. It is the time at which ,by manufacturers recommendation, an engine should be pulled from service EVEN IF it is showing no sign of trouble. Some engines did go longer, other engines of the same make and model never made it close to the overhaul life.


From this point of view the BMW 801 and DB 605 would never go in production, because they suffered far more problems than the DB 603 and the running time in combat were shorter than 50 hours at the beginning of there mass production.


----------



## riacrato (Oct 12, 2010)

DonL said:


> Sometimes it is better the bird in the hand than a pigeon on the roof.
> 
> The DB 601->DB605->DB 603 and Jumo 211->213 are normal steps, the Jumo 222 is a completly other engine....



I think the 1937 DB603 was not powerful enough to be used in the applications that were being developed for the Jumo 222 and I also don't think it was a safe bet to say it would be any time soon.


----------



## riacrato (Oct 12, 2010)

Shortround6 said:


> Putting engines with an overhaul life of 50 hours into combat planes is a sign of desperation. Especially in 1941-43. Overhaul life is not a minimum life guarantee. It is the time at which ,by manufacturers recommendation, an engine should be pulled from service EVEN IF it is showing no sign of trouble. Some engines did go longer, other engines of the same make and model never made it close to the overhaul life.


Overhaul doesn't necessarily mean the engine is lost. Sometimes it's enough to replace components. A fixed overhaul time is an indication the design is not fully developed, that there are still certains problems for there is no solution implemented or developed. Those problems can be bad or minor. I am not aware of any serious problems as were the case with the early BMW801. It's just to say the engine in 1943 was far from trouble free.



> Without the Bomber B, a normal advertisement of an engine with more horsepower at 1937, a normal project P 1041 of a strategic bomber without diving and the the FW 187 instead of the Me 110 would be all "you" need!
> The plans of the He 177/277 with 4 "normal" engines exist since 1937, with an built wood modell. So I think with normal development this bird could be production ready at 1941.
> 
> That would be "one hell" of an efficient LW at 1941/1942


And where would 1941 Germany have the resources (pilots, fuel, LOGISTICS) to put up a significant strategic bomber fleet? They were already stretching their resources too far with the defensive fighter force in the west and the offensive tactical air force in the east.


----------



## DonL (Oct 12, 2010)

> And where would 1941 Germany have the resources (pilots, fuel, LOGISTICS) to put up a significant strategic bomber fleet? They were already stretching their resources too far with the defensive fighter force in the west and the offensive tactical air force in the east.



I agree!
My summary is more a technological statement of an efficient LW. There would be many insolvable problems with the rawmaterials to manufactor a realy mass production and the fuel supply.

But if you look at my choose, there would be no needing for an introduction of a totally new design until the jets. The designs need only minor development steps with more powerfull engines and they would be up to date for a long time.
Many projects like Me 210/410, Arado 240, Me 264 and Ju 288 wouldn't be necessary. Also the concentration of the Ju 88 as a true multi role aircraft, so you can cancel the He 111 and Do 217 for a better output on numbers.

The german produced something about 1100 He 177, so I think with the above circumstances there will be room for perhaps 2000-3000 "normal" He 177. But this would't do anything on the war itself. It would be only a much better LW from technology.


----------



## davebender (Oct 12, 2010)

> Putting engines with an overhaul life of 50 hours into combat planes is a sign of desperation


What was the service life of B-29 engines during 1944? I know it was bad enough to cause a Senate investigation. Early model P-38 engines didn't have a good reputation either.


----------



## Milosh (Oct 12, 2010)

davebender said:


> What was the service life of B-29 engines during 1944? I know it was bad enough to cause a Senate investigation. Early model P-38 engines didn't have a good reputation either.



The P-38's engines were still Allison V1710s. Afaik only the P-38s in the ETO had problems and they were caused by the oil cooler and turbocharger.

The engine problems in the B-29 were caused by the B-29.

The Senate investigating committee was set up to investigate the crash of the XB-29.


----------



## davebender (Oct 12, 2010)

Most P-38s were sent to the ETO during 1942 and 1943. So your statement only adds more fuel to the fire.


----------



## drgondog (Oct 12, 2010)

Milosh said:


> The P-38's engines were still Allison V1710s. Afaik only the P-38s in the ETO had problems and they were caused by the oil cooler and turbocharger.
> 
> The engine problems in the B-29 were caused by the B-29.
> 
> The Senate investigating committee was set up to investigate the crash of the XB-29.



You are correct about the high altitude caused issues to P-38F - it wasn't about the Allison per se - it was about inadequate intercooler design primarily. Neither MTO nor PTO Lightnings experienced major issues and I'm pretty sure they were ok in the Aleutians because they operated at medium altitudes - even escorting B-24s.

The statement that 'engine problems were caused by the B-29' is true to the extent that adequate cooling for the 3360's were a lingering sore for a long time, but IIRC the heat exchange design for cylinder heads left something to be desired, particularly in the aft bank of cylinders.


----------



## drgondog (Oct 12, 2010)

davebender said:


> Most P-38s were sent to the ETO during 1942 and 1943. So your statement only adds more fuel to the fire.



The Allison was a well established and reliable engine platform in 1942..when they pushed for supercharger enhancements they certainly had birthing problems but that was a mjor design complexity to add to the existing design.


----------



## riacrato (Oct 12, 2010)

drgondog said:


> The statement that 'engine problems were caused by the B-29' is true to the extent that adequate cooling for the 3360's were a lingering sore for a long time.



Same could be said about the BMW801 in the Fw 190 application.


----------



## Shortround6 (Oct 12, 2010)

I believe the R-3350 had a fair amount of trouble in all three of it's early applications. Although without turbochargers in the Lockheed Constellation they may not have pushed it quite as hard. 

The early P-38s were used in all theaters with constant demands for more. The Needs of the North African invasion and campaign caused the transfer of most of the early P-38s from England so there really isn't a good data base on problems in the ETO for the early versions. 
"H" had problems achieving WER ratings because the inter-coolers were way too small. Radiators were also a limiting factor although these were changed part way through the production run?

"J" had problems and not just in Europe. But they had new engines, new turbo controls, new inter-coolers, the new radiators, a new cowling and there was a change in the gasoline specification that affected volatility. It was sorted out and had little to do with the basic engine aside from a change in the intake manifold but not intime to affect teh choice of the Mustang as the escort fighter for use in Europe.


----------



## Civettone (Oct 12, 2010)

It is all so very very easy to decide what should have happened with full hindsight ... 

3,000 He 177s, sure, why not?

They should have done this and that. And other things remain the same... I don't think so.

So if you think you are going to get a 1944 DB 603 ready by 1941/1942 you are dreaming. Dreams sometimes come true. But I wouldn't count on it. There are too many variables in these what-if stories that it's about closing the eyes and only seeing what you want to see. 

For instance the DB 603, it was built in the special Mercedes T80 record breaking car. So there you have a DB 603 ready to work. Also the DB 603 was tested even sooner than that. And yet the DB 603 was considered to be unreliable until well in 1944. Do 217s were being reengined with BMWs because the DB 603 was so problematic! In the first six months of 1944, 178 DB 603s were brought in for major overhaul to Antwerp. Their average run time was 49 hours. 

But naah, we can solve all of these problems by 1942...
Kris


----------



## DonL (Oct 12, 2010)

I have described the whole story of the DB 603 in my posts!

The DB 603 was from 1936 and was only developed on a very low level from DB on their own costs.

If you have arguments then please post them, but please do not negate the loss of 5 years development time!
This count also for the arguments for the He 177/277 please name the problems and arguments for the bomber b and a divebombing strategic bomber.


----------



## davebender (Oct 12, 2010)

The argument against He-177s is the same as the argument against BMW801 and Jumo222 engines. By the mid 1930s Central Europe looked to be on the verge of war. Germany must make a decision as to what inexpensive and reasonably effective aircraft and engines could enter service ASAP. For the short term Germany focused on only two aircraft - the Me-109 fighter and Ju-88 light bomber. Those proved to be excellent choices.

It's the follow on aircraft and engines where Germany stumbled. Rather then focusing on only a few engines and aircraft types RLM funded development of everything from heavy bombers to 24 cylinder monster motors. A focused approach would have the Fw-190 supercede the Me-109 and the Ju-188 supercede the Ju-88, perhaps supplemented by the Do-217 bomber for longer range missions. All new aircraft models would be powered by the DB603 and/or Jumo213, which are developments of the existing DB601 and Jumo211 engines.


----------



## riacrato (Oct 13, 2010)

Hindsight. Who's to say in 1938 that no 3000 hp engine is ever needed? If the jets had turned out to be a dead end road in the way th rocket fighters did, the you might be seeing fighters like the XP-72. Plus no to even mention in the long run the Jumo 222 (had it ever worked) would've always been relevant for applications the DB603 / Jumo 213 is not. There's only so much you can do. Sure with hindsight we know the war ends sooner than the engine becoming feasible, was that apparent in the late 30s? Didn't other nations try to find a way to get more performance out of the piston engine (also with mixed results)?


----------



## Shortround6 (Oct 13, 2010)

DonL said:


> I can't see that.
> 
> DB 600, 1932-1935 production
> DB 601, 1935-1937 production
> DB 605, 1939-1941 production



I see, the DB 601 was a clean sheet of paper design?
The DB 605 was a clean sheet of paper design?

I did not know that. 

I also did not know that production He 111s with DB 600 engines were delivered in 1935 or that Bf 109s and Bf 110s were being fitted with DB 601 engines in 1937, or was it another airplane in production with DB 601s in 1937? Maybe the Germans were stockpiling these production DB 601s for future needs while they used up their backlog of Juno 210s? As far as the DB 605 goes, William Greene (out dated?) claims that the first 109G-0 retained the DB 601 because of the non-availability of the DB 605A and that is in October of 1941. Bf 109G-1s with DB 605 engines don't leave the production lines until early spring of 1942. 


DonL said:


> Junkers 211, 1934-1937 production
> Junkers 213, 1939-1942 production



Would you care to be a little more specific?


DonL said:


> BMW 801, 1938-1940 production



I think the record of the BMW 801 in the FW 190A-0 in early 1941 at Le Bourget speaks to how ready the BMW 801 was for production in 1940. 


DonL said:


> I think 3 years are the normal time from drawing board to production. Also the DB 603 isn't a complete new engine, most of it came from the DB 601 and it is a natural development step with more engine displacement, water pressure cooling system and an other ignition system.



3 years is actually fairly quick. I am not picking on the Germans here, some allied engine makers seem to have a bit of revisionist history going on too. There is also the question of what is meant by "production". For instance P&W is usually credited with times of 3 years to get the R-2800 from drawing board to production. Work starts in Mar1937, First experimental engine run in Sept 1937 and the 5th production engine delivered in Mar of 1940. Three years to the month,right? Not exactly,it took them until Jan 1 1941 to deliver 12 more engines for a 'production' rate of under 2 engines a month. Things got much better very quickly but "production" in March of 1941 was 64 engines. Maybe we should add another year to the P&W figure?
Packard rolled out a couple of ceremonial "production" Merlins in the summer of 1941 and then waited until Sept to deleiver 4 more followed by October's run of 5 engines. Things got better fast after that. 

Perhaps the less said about early Napair Sabres the better



DonL said:


> I think for a normal development, there are more than enough human "heads" in the system, to develop two main engines DB 601/605 and DB 603.



Maybe but I would note that P&W, Wright, Rolls-Royce and Bristol all only seemed to manage one major and one secondary effort at the same time. A few legacy engines or very minor projects aside. 

The Dictator nations ( and I include the Soviet Union here) seemed to suffer more from the "order into production NOW and worry about problems later" syndrome than the west although the west had it's moments too. Early B-29s and the Curtiss Helldiver program come to mind. 






DonL said:


> So I think with a normal development from 1937 and mass production from 1941 you have very good chances to get the same output of the DB 603 1942 compare with 1943/44 realy happened.
> 
> Any serious hints or problems you can name?



No real problems but I would note that the DB 600-601 series went through at least 4 different supercharger designs or modifications between 1936 and 1941. When 603 development was restarted it could take advantage of all that was learned in the development of the 601 and early 605 work. If the pioneering work is done on the 603 or in parallel development might not be quite so fast. There might also have been a side track during the time when they thought C3 fuel might be more available than it was. 



DonL said:


> From this point of view the BMW 801 and DB 605 would never go in production, because they suffered far more problems than the DB 603 and the running time in combat were shorter than 50 hours at the beginning of there mass production.


Simply answer is that they shouldn't have been ordered into mass production at that stage in their development. Just as modern consumers should not be beta testers for defective software, service pilots in combat should not be beta testers or development testers for engines. 
manufacturing two hundred 50 hour engines instead of 120 or so 100 hour engines because you can't wait for the 100 hr version to be developed seems to smack of desperation. 
It is not a question of "never" going into production but waiting until some of the more serious problems had been solved before going into production. 
To knowingly go into production without such problems being solved or having pilots go into combat knowing you have such problems is stupid at worst or desperate at best (loss of pilots due to defective engines vs losses of population manufacturing/infrastructure due to bombing).


----------



## drgondog (Oct 13, 2010)

Shortround6 said:


> I see, the DB 601 was a clean sheet of paper design?
> The DB 605 was a clean sheet of paper design?
> 
> I did not know that.
> ...



Good points. Might add that piston engine design engineers are as rare as helicopter transmission design engineers - not a lot of demand but the best ones are kept in a closet and fed in secrecy... not exactly 'Brains on stick" commodities..


----------



## davebender (Oct 13, 2010)

Jumo222 and BMW801 engines should have been low priority projects (i.e. similiar to historical DB603 priority during 1937 to 1941).


----------



## Shortround6 (Oct 13, 2010)

davebender said:


> The argument against He-177s is the same as the argument against BMW801 and Jumo222 engines. By the mid 1930s Central Europe looked to be on the verge of war. Germany must make a decision as to what inexpensive and reasonably effective aircraft and engines could enter service ASAP. For the short term Germany focused on only two aircraft - the Me-109 fighter and Ju-88 light bomber. Those proved to be excellent choices.



The He 111 didn't play much of a part in early WW II, I take it?


davebender said:


> It's the follow on aircraft and engines where Germany stumbled. Rather then focusing on only a few engines and aircraft types RLM funded development of everything from heavy bombers to 24 cylinder monster motors. A focused approach would have the Fw-190 supercede the Me-109 and the Ju-188 supercede the Ju-88, perhaps supplemented by the Do-217 bomber for longer range missions. All new aircraft models would be powered by the DB603 and/or Jumo213, which are developments of the existing DB601 and Jumo211 engines.



The DB 603 isn't really a development of the DB 601 unless you think that the Griffon was a development of the Merlin. 
The Jumo 213 had a few issues of it's own from a design point of view. It used the highest piston speed of any major aircraft engine. A feature that would have been viewed with suspicion at the time. Few major aircraft major engines exceeded 3000 feet per minute and even the V-12 Mercedes Formula I racing car engine of 1939 ( 480hp at 7500rpm from 3 liters) did not use a piston speed as high as the Jumo 213. 
While this did not mean the Jumo 213 was doomed it did mean that prudent people would have a back up engine in the works.


----------



## davebender (Oct 13, 2010)

Early engines. DB601 and Jumo211.
Later engines. DB603 and Jumo213.
In addition to providing a back up this also provides commercial competition to keep engine prices low.


----------



## Civettone (Oct 13, 2010)

I completely agree with Shortround. Engine development was a very complex thing. The engineers worked hard to get that engine ready. Sometimes they succeeded, sometimes they failed. It would be impossible to predict in advance what would happen with their designs.

The Jumo 222 was the pinnacle to the future German Luftwaffe. The Germans worked hard on it and if they had succeeded it would have been the standard engine for all their twin-engined bombers and night fighters. The BMW 801 only seemed the natural thing to do: it's a good thing to develop radials and inline engines. 

DB 603 instead of DB 605? Reminds me of all those other projects where the Germans decided to skip one step and go for the most advanced imagineable. He 177? Me 262? Panther tank? Why not go for an easier solution? Well, that was the DB 605. 

*It's easy to criticize. But always think about the full consequences. If you add one thing you have to detract from somewhere else. And your decision has to make sense given the information you have at that time.*
Kris


----------



## Shortround6 (Oct 13, 2010)

davebender said:


> Jumo222 and BMW801 engines should have been low priority projects (i.e. similiar to historical DB603 priority during 1937 to 1941).




While the Jumo 222 may have been viewed with suspicion there should have been no real reason that Germany couldn't have made a 14 Cylinder radial.
France was working on 4-5 different ones. Italy was working on a bunch of them. P&W had 3 different ones in the 30s, Wright had one. For the Japanese Mitsubishi had 3 while Nakajima had 2. The Soviets had 2. England had 3 different ones. World wide well over 20 different 14 cylinder radials. Granted some of these stemmed from the same sources but with the 14 cylinder radial arguably the most popular type of large aircraft engine in existence to say that the Germans could not build one or should not have built one is certainly going against the prevailing wisdom of the time. 

Speaking in generalities the advantages of a 14 cylinder radial over a V-12 are lighter weight from a smaller, more compact crankcase. More displacement if the cylinders of of equal size or close to it, 16% larger. No liquid cooling system for even more weight advantage and less expense and maintenance. Disadvantages include much more frontal area and usually less power per cu in or liter due to less efficient cooling. 

In the the 1936-38 period while improved fuels were on the distant horizon few people KNEW how far away (or close) it was and even fewer people could predict what the actual effect was going to be. The actual amount of performance gain varied from engine to engine for a number of reasons. So there were only two ways to get big power, 1500hp and up, from existing technology (boost levels), go for big displacement or push the feet per minute limit on piston speed and go for high rpm. 
America had announced the 42.7 liter wright R-2600, France had the 18 cylinder, 52.24 liter Gnome-Rhone of 1400-1500hp in 1936. Italy had a very imposing selection of prototypes. The 48.2 liter Alfa 135 18 cylinder radial, the !8 clyinder Fiat A80-A82 series at 45.7-47.1liters, the 18 cylinder 'W' Isotta Fraschini Asso L180 of 48 liters and the Piaggo P.XII and P. XXII. of 53.0 and 60.5 liters. the Russians had the AM series of V-12s at 46.6 liters and were starting to think about a double Cyclone. 
Nobody was pushing the high piston speed route, the engines that used high rpm used small cylinders to keep piston speed down and lots of cylinder to keep displacement up. The 24 cylinder Napier Dagger may have turned 4200rpm but it's 3.75in stroke kept the piston speed down to a comfortable 2,625fpm. 

By the way, the grand Prix engine I mentioned earlier used two stage supercharging, 2.31 Atm of boost, a fuel blend of 86.0 % methanol, 4.4% nitrobenzol, 8.8% acetone and 0.8% sulphuric ether. it also weighed 603 pounds for a power to weight ratio of 1.25lbs per HP which wasn't all that hot compared to aircraft engines even in 1939. Especially considering they were using 87 octane gas. 

All tings considered the Germans would have been negligent in the extreme if they hadn't explored a high powered radial in the late 30s.


----------



## DonL (Oct 13, 2010)

Some quick replies...



> I see, the DB 601 was a clean sheet of paper design?
> The DB 605 was a clean sheet of paper design?
> 
> I did not know that.



No but the DB 603 either. It was directly derived from the DB 600 at 1936. That's a matter of fact.
To correct my post above. The begining of the development of the DB 600 was 1929 not 1932, 1932 was the year of the first prototype of the DB 600. 

Source 
Flugmotoren und Strahltriebwerke: Amazon.de: Kyrill von Gersdorff, Helmut Schubert, Kurt Grasmann: Bücher

Some information about the DB 600 series
Daimler-Benz DB 601 - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
The most informations are basicly true.

Production of the DB 600 started 1935, of the DB 601 end of 1937 and DB 605 end of 1941!
Sources see above

The Jumo 211 engine was directly derived from the Jumo 210. The Jumo 210 was called 2/3 engine because of his deplacement compared to the Jumo 211. The Jumo 213 is also directly derived from the Jumo 211.
To say it with very very simple words, it was a much tuned 211! Something like an AMG Mercedes or an BMW M. 
But that is very simplified!

The begining of the development of the Jumo 210 was 1931, production was 1934.



> Jumo222 and BMW801 engines should have been low priority projects (i.e. similiar to historical DB603 priority during 1937 to 1941).



I disagree to the BMW 801 and agree with the arguments from Shortround6.

I agree with the Jumo 222. I wasn't only suspicios to me, I can't understand this whole step inclusive the Bomber B. Nobody in germany had any experience with an radial-inline-engine at this time. It was something completly new! The DB 603 isn't that completly new. It is an DB 600 with much more deplacement and with some benefits, to say it simply. But the whole engine layout is completly the same!

So I think it is much easier to built and produce such an engine compare to the Jumo 222.

Edit


> It's easy to criticize. But always think about the full consequences. If you add one thing you have to detract from somewhere else. And your decision has to make sense given the information you have at that time.



Oh I think I have named enough arguments! For my opinion the whole Bomber B program is nonsens and two steps to far and a *divebombing* strategic bomber is more nonsens! And the full consequences to cancel or even begining this two programs (*divebombing* He 177 )would be much more better for the whole LW!


----------



## davebender (Oct 13, 2010)

> Speaking in generalities the advantages of a 14 cylinder radial over a V-12 are lighter weight from a smaller, more compact crankcase.


Specifics trump generalities every time. Let's look at historical German aircraft engines available during 1941.

*BMW801C. *
1,539 hp
2,226 lbs dry weight. .69 hp / lb
14.7 sq ft Frontal Area.

*DB601E.*
1,350 hp
1,540 lbs. .88 hp / lb
5.4 sq ft Frontal Area

The DB601 adds some weight for the liquid cooling system which is more then compensated by the Fw-190 gaining 635 kg when switching from the BMW139 to the massive BMW801 engine. Then we must consider the large increase in aerodynamic drag caused by the radial engine over that slim V12.


----------



## DonL (Oct 13, 2010)

That's true Dave,

From all german engines that were mass produced in WWII the BMW 801 had the highest dry weight.

But I think the germans wanted a radial engine and I think the BMW has done very fine after his problems were solved. And for a fighter bomber a radial engine is to my opinion elemental.

With other raw materials a turbocharger was possible but not with the reality supply for germany in WWII.
And with a turbocharger it would be a good radial engine in WWII compare to the other nations.


----------



## davebender (Oct 13, 2010)

The BMW801 never caught up with German V12s in power to weight ratio. During 1942 the BMW801 engine switched to C3 fuel just to get the engine to an acceptable power output. However the same trick could have been performed with the DB601E. Modify it to take advantage of C3 fuel and a 1,350 hp V12 becomes a 1,500 hp V12. And the V12 still maintains a significant advantage in both weight and frontal area.


----------



## Civettone (Oct 13, 2010)

DonL said:


> That's true Dave,
> 
> From all german engines that were mass produced in WWII the BMW 801 had the highest dry weight.
> 
> ...


I wonder if it is really because of the materials. They were able to make jet turbines so why no turbochargers? 




DonL said:


> Oh I think I have named enough arguments! For my opinion the whole Bomber B program is nonsens and two steps to far and a *divebombing* strategic bomber is more nonsens! And the full consequences to cancel or even begining this two programs (*divebombing* He 177 )would be much more better for the whole LW!


Only in hindsight. The dive bombing principle was very sound at the beginning of the war. It was the only way to achieve sufficient accuracy. Worked fine for the Ju 88. Didn't work out for the He 177. The Bomber B program would have been a success if the Jumo 222 had worked. And it should have worked.

Kris


----------



## Shortround6 (Oct 13, 2010)

DonL said:


> No but the DB 603 either. It was directly derived from the DB 600 at 1936. That's a matter of fact.
> To correct my post above. The begining of the development of the DB 600 was 1929 not 1932, 1932 was the year of the first prototype of the DB 600.



so the DB 600 took 4-6 years depending on when pencil first meet paper?

I think we may be having a language problem on "directly derived" 

To my way of thinking the DB601 was "directly derived" from the DB 600. I have no idea how many parts of an early DB 601 could interchange with a DB 600 if any, but with the same size cylinders and many other parts the same size if not identical DB 600s could be used as test rigs and much knowledge could be carried over. Similarly the 605 was developed from the last version/s of the 601 with similar cam timing 
With the larger size of the 603 cylinders much of this is lost. Will the flame front travel work the same in the larger cylinder? Will it need more spark advance? will the larger cylinders require different bore spacing and a longer crankshaft? What will the different weights and lengths do to the vibration characteristics? 
does it use cam 9valve) timing like the early 601s or the like the 601E and 605?
One description says that 603s used either 3 row roller bearings on on the big ends of the connecting rods or plain bearings. DB 601s used roller bearings and 605s used plain bearings? When did the 603 change and why? the 603 used a circular section volute in the supercharger while previous DB engines used a rectangular section volute. 
aside from them both being Inverted V-12s and sharing some design features how much does the 603 have in common with the 601?
It is a bit like saying the P&W R-2180 (post war) was developed from the R-1830, they are both 14 cylinder radials after all. The truth is that the post war 2180 owed a lot more to the "C" series R-2800 than to the R-1830. it was more like an R-2800C with two cylinders left off each row. 
Or saying that the RR Griffon was developed from the Merlin. Both V-12s but after that what parts did they have in common? The Griffon had the same bore and stroke as the old Buzzard and had the same number of cylinders set at the same angle but actually had no interchangeable parts except perhaps for a few stray nuts or bolts. 



DonL said:


> The Jumo 211 engine was directly derived from the Jumo 210. The Jumo 210 was called 2/3 engine because of his deplacement compared to the Jumo 211. The Jumo 213 is also directly derived from the Jumo 211.
> To say it with very very simple words, it was a much tuned 211! Something like an AMG Mercedes or an BMW M.
> But that is very simplified!
> 
> The begining of the development of the Jumo 210 was 1931, production was 1934.



I might disagree with the direct development of the 211 from the 210. Influenced yes. the 213 might be closer to being "directly derived" though. 

I do have a question on the Jumo 210. If it was in production in 1934 why did the first BF 109 use a RR kestrel in the fall of 1935 for it's first flights? why did the first He 112 use a Kestrel? While several Arado prototypes did use Jumo 210s in 1935 other Arado prototypes (AR 80V1 and V2) used RR Kestrels for initial flights in 1935. It doesn't seem like there were too many of them around.


----------



## DonL (Oct 14, 2010)

> I might disagree with the direct development of the 211 from the 210. Influenced yes. the 213 might be closer to being "directly derived" though.



Sorry no. It's a direct development from the Jumo 210.

The Jumo 211 was mainly an enlarged scale of engine block and piston kinematics of the Junkers Jumo 210.
The magnification was done with a pantograph from the design drawings of the Jumo 210. Due to this significant increase was called the Junkers Jumo 211 in 3/3-Maschine also compared to the Jumo 210, which 2/3-Maschine.

pantograph- (in german) Storchenschnabel
Pantograph - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia



> do have a question on the Jumo 210. If it was in production in 1934 why did the first BF 109 use a RR kestrel in the fall of 1935 for it's first flights? why did the first He 112 use a Kestrel? While several Arado prototypes did use Jumo 210s in 1935 other Arado prototypes (AR 80V1 and V2) used RR Kestrels for initial flights in 1935. It doesn't seem like there were too many of them around.



The same answer is for the early production of the DB 600 and 601.
Germany was under the Versailles Treaty and all this was new, they were learning. Mainly in the production. You can't even speak of a mass production.So they can't produce in numbers in the early years.


----------



## Shortround6 (Oct 14, 2010)

DonL said:


> Sorry no. It's a direct development from the Jumo 210.
> 
> The Jumo 211 was mainly an enlarged scale of engine block and piston kinematics of the Junkers Jumo 210.
> The magnification was done with a pantograph from the design drawings of the Jumo 210. Due to this significant increase was called the Junkers Jumo 211 in 3/3-Maschine also compared to the Jumo 210, which 2/3-Maschine.



This may be true, it looks plausible by comparing bore and strokes anyway. 
However some of the things I read about the Jumo 210 and Jumo 211 are not plausible. Or they are really bad translations. Like 
"The Jumo 21H, which did not go into production , formed the basis for the 211 series, prototypes of which were built in 1935 and tested in 1936" page 269 of "Junkers Aircraft Engines by Antony Kay. 
One would assume that the H followed the G but if the 210 did enter production in 1934 those guys at Junkers must have been very busy boys to go through the A,B, C,D, E, and G models in just a year to get the H that forms the basis for the 211. 

pantograph- I actually know what they are, I had a cheap one as a child. 



DonL said:


> The same answer is for the early production of the DB 600 and 601.
> Germany was under the Versailles Treaty and all this was new, they were learning. Mainly in the production. You can't even speak of a mass production.So they can't produce in numbers in the early years.



Sorry no. 
With something on the order of 1000 L5 straight 6 engines built in the 20s and early 30s plus a handful of L55s,L8s and L88s plus some Jumo 4/204 diesels the Junkers engine factory was not a small prototype shop. It may have been small compared to what it would become in WW II but the idea that an engine is "IN" production while producing a mere handful over a number of months doesn't seem to make sense. 
From the book quoted above "In March 1934 the 210 passed it's its type test and from 5 July 1934 began flight trials in a Junkers W33. In the same year initial production of the Jumo 210A was started."
Now starting production can have a lot of meanings. It can mean when production drawings and bills of material are released to the shop floor. It can mean when a new or specialized tooling is ordered. It can mean when first casting molds or forging dies are made. Yes it can mean when the first engine is rolled out the door but there are a lot of months between deciding to go into production and ordering tools,etc and actually delivering an engine to a customer. It can also be a number of months more before the 5th or 10th engine is delivered. While a few prototypes flew with Jumo 210s in 1935 there are a number that had to make do with Kestrels which cast a lot doubt on just how "IN PRODUCTION" the Jumo 210 was.


----------



## DonL (Oct 14, 2010)

> Sorry no.
> With something on the order of 1000 L5 straight 6 engines built in the 20s and early 30s plus a handful of L55s,L8s and L88s plus some Jumo 4/204 diesels the Junkers engine factory was not a small prototype shop. It may have been small compared to what it would become in WW II but the idea that an engine is "IN" production while producing a mere handful over a number of months doesn't seem to make sense.
> From the book quoted above "In March 1934 the 210 passed it's its type test and from 5 July 1934 began flight trials in a Junkers W33. In the same year initial production of the Jumo 210A was started."
> Now starting production can have a lot of meanings. It can mean when production drawings and bills of material are released to the shop floor. It can mean when a new or specialized tooling is ordered. It can mean when first casting molds or forging dies are made. Yes it can mean when the first engine is rolled out the door but there are a lot of months between deciding to go into production and ordering tools,etc and actually delivering an engine to a customer. It can also be a number of months more before the 5th or 10th engine is delivered. While a few prototypes flew with Jumo 210s in 1935 there are a number that had to make do with Kestrels which cast a lot doubt on just how "IN PRODUCTION" the Jumo 210 was.



You hit the goal, I totaly agree! But anyway it is true.

This development was all for the military. So you should consider the financial side and the acceptance of the RLM. This all means time. And all this is realy new after 15 years without a military production. Also the versaille treaty was hanging over germany at 1934. All was very harum-scarum and a little uncoordinated.


Some informations to the Jumo 210 B/C and 210 D/E. It was only the ratio of the shaft gearbox for fast aircrafts B/D or slow aircrafts C/E.


> A,B, C,D, E, and G models in just a year to get the H that forms the basis for the 211


This is totaly wrong serously.
The Junkers 210G was a 210 D with direct fuel injection. And the difference between a B and D was a two gear supercharger.
This had nothing to do with the development of the Jumo 211 from 1934. The Jumo 211G was from 1937. And the first prototyps of the Jumo 211 were with a carburetor. Also how on earth you will develop and produce an engine in one year.
I think the translation isn't proper of this book.


And yes the guys at Junkers were very busy also through the business competition with DB. The advertisement of the 35L 1000PS engine was very important. 
A not so serious comment, why do you think there were so few people without a job at this time. From 8 Millionen people to all are busy. This means a lot of organisation in all companys.....


----------



## DonL (Oct 14, 2010)

> I wonder if it is really because of the materials. They were able to make jet turbines so why no turbochargers?



Not enough raw materials to initiate a mass production, mainly wolfram and molybdänerz.
Also the BMW 801J was developed, but as I said not enough raw material to manufactor in numbers



> Only in hindsight. The dive bombing principle was very sound at the beginning of the war. It was the only way to achieve sufficient accuracy. Worked fine for the Ju 88. Didn't work out for the He 177. The Bomber B program would have been a success if the Jumo 222 had worked. And it should have worked.



The Ju 88 wasn't a *real* divebomber. And the dive wasn't a dive of a Ju87. The idea of an airplne like the He 177 to put in a dive for bombing is nonsens.


----------



## davebender (Oct 14, 2010)

That's true until 1936. Once Germany began to reestablish border defenses (i.e remilitarize the Rhineland) France could no longer motor into Germany and loot at will as they did during the 1920s.

In any case aircraft engines aren't nearly as threatening as military aircraft. The new DB601 and Jumo211 engines would work just fine powering civilian aircraft like the Fw200 and Ju90 airliners. Might even get foreign sales for use in aircraft like the American DC3. RLM subsidies to develop these engines don't need to be public knowledge.


----------



## Civettone (Oct 14, 2010)

DonL said:


> Not enough raw materials to initiate a mass production, mainly wolfram and molybdänerz.
> Also the BMW 801J was developed, but as I said not enough raw material to manufactor in numbers


And like I said, I have my doubts turbochargers need more special alloys than turbine jets. The Germans were able to produce thousands of those so why not a few hundred turbochargers?
I think the answer might be more complex...




> The Ju 88 wasn't a *real* divebomber. And the dive wasn't a dive of a Ju87. The idea of an airplne like the He 177 to put in a dive for bombing is nonsens.


Yes it was. It had dive brakes, a dive bombing sight and an automatic pull out system and was designed as a dive bomber. 

Of course as an aircraft capable of more than dive bombing. But still a dive bomber. To have the bigger He 177 do the same was a stretch but makes perfect sense. How else to get bombs on target in those days? 

Of course it turned out be impractible but this - and I keep repeating this over and over again - is all very clear with 20/20 hindsight. 

Kris


----------



## davebender (Oct 14, 2010)

> I have my doubts turbochargers need more special alloys than turbine jets. The Germans were able to produce thousands of those so why not a few hundred turbochargers?


Germany produced thousands of Jumo004B engines. That particular engine used few special alloys. Junkers worked around the problem by diverting air to cool hollow compressor blades. I don't know if that engineering solution would work with a turbocharger.


----------



## DonL (Oct 14, 2010)

> And like I said, I have my doubts turbochargers need more special alloys than turbine jets. The Germans were able to produce thousands of those so why not a few hundred turbochargers?
> I think the answer might be more complex...



No! There only molybdänerz mine was lost 1943 at Knaben in Norway. The mine was bombed two times and dead. The whole production of steel suffered since 1943/44 of molybdänerz! Tanks, U-Boots, all. Speer was giving prioritys. And the turbocharger wasn't the highest on the list. And wolfram was short the whole war. Or can you answer the question why since 1942/43 no APC wolfram grenade was at the frontline?



> Yes it was. It had dive brakes, a dive bombing sight and an automatic pull out system and was designed as a dive bomber.
> 
> Of course as an aircraft capable of more than dive bombing. But still a dive bomber. To have the bigger He 177 do the same was a stretch but makes perfect sense. How else to get bombs on target in those days?
> 
> Of course it turned out be impractible but this - and I keep repeating this over and over again - is all very clear with 20/20 hindsight.



Then please tell me why under Wever and Wimmer the Ju 89 development was without divebombing? Only the the death of Wever and the change in positions of Wimmer and Udet had brought up this stupid divebombing for the He 177. Udet was not technical advanced enough for his new position and a total bone-head in divebombing. All aircrafts must dive. lol. This all because the Curtiss was that amazing for him!

Yes the Ju 88 could dive no doubt, but how many missions were flown as a *real* divebomber simiular to the Ju 87?
It was good for the Ju 88 to be able to divebomb, but the Ju 88 is a totaly other plane with other missions as the He 177! The Ju 88 was a multiroleplane the He 177 should be a stratgic bomber.


----------



## Civettone (Oct 14, 2010)

davebender said:


> Germany produced thousands of Jumo004B engines. That particular engine used few special alloys. Junkers worked around the problem by diverting air to cool hollow compressor blades. I don't know if that engineering solution would work with a turbocharger.


No. They used plenty of special alloys, just less than the 004A. And the hollow compressor blades came later. A turbocharger is not more advanced than a turbojet. 



DonL said:


> No! There only molybdänerz mine was lost 1943 at Knaben in Norway. The mine was bombed two times and dead. The whole production of steel suffered since 1943/44 of molybdänerz! Tanks, U-Boots, all. Speer was giving prioritys. And the turbocharger wasn't the highest on the list. And wolfram was short the whole war. Or can you answer the question why since 1942/43 no APC wolfram grenade was at the frontline?


Knaben was not the only Mo mine. It was not dead because it was bombed. Since 1942/1943 no tungsten shells? I must have missed the million PzGr 40s available as late as 1943. 




> Then please tell me why under Wever and Wimmer the Ju 89 development was without divebombing? Only the the death of Wever and the change in positions of Wimmer and Udet had brought up this stupid divebombing for the He 177. Udet was not technical advanced enough for his new position and a total bone-head in divebombing. All aircrafts must dive. lol. This all because the Curtiss was that amazing for him!


You anwered your own question. The Ju 89 was too ambitious and turned out to be an absolute failure. It was too slow, too vulnerable, couldn't carry enough bombs and because of the level of electronics of the mid 1930s couldn't find its target nor bomb it with any accuracy. At least that last part was solved by dive bombing. 



> Yes the Ju 88 could dive no doubt, but how many missions were flown as a *real* divebomber simiular to the Ju 87?


I have read more dive bombing accounts than I can count. And what does a "real" dive bomber mean to you? You think only a Stuka is a real dive bomber but this is pure prejudice.



> It was good for the Ju 88 to be able to divebomb, but the Ju 88 is a totaly other plane with other missions as the He 177! The Ju 88 was a multiroleplane the He 177 should be a stratgic bomber.


The He 177 was a strategic bomber but one which dived towards the target (at angle of 60 degrees) to achieve accuracy. You mix up dive bombing with tactical bombers. 

Kris


----------



## davebender (Oct 14, 2010)

I wouldn't go that far. The German emphasis on dive bombing made the Ju-88A the most capable light bomber in the world during the first half of WWII. Unlike contemporary level bombers the Ju-88A dive bomber could hit what it was aiming for.

As for dive bombing with larger aircraft, nobody knew whether it would work until they tried it. Once they did RLM quickly dropped the dive bombing requirement for aircraft like the Do-217 and He-177.


----------



## DonL (Oct 14, 2010)

> Knaben was not the only Mo mine. It was not dead because it was bombed. Since 1942/1943 no tungsten shells? I must have missed the million PzGr 40s available as late as 1943.



To my sources Knaben was absoluetly dead after the second bombardement 1943. And the PzGr 40 was canceld at 1942 because there was not enough tungsten! So do you have sources about millions of PzGr 40 at 1943?



> You anwered your own question. The Ju 89 was too ambitious and turned out to be an absolute failure. It was too slow, too vulnerable, couldn't carry enough bombs and because of the level of electronics of the mid 1930s couldn't find its target nor bomb it with any accuracy. At least that last part was solved by dive bombing.



Have you any source for this statement? The Ju 89 was in the same category as the B17 from engine power, bombloading and range. Sorry to ambitious?! This bird was not a failure. You can't be serious to compare Ju 89 from 1937, to the potiential with more powerfull 4 x Jumo 211 as all other planes got later then 1938. The first flights of the Ju 89 were 1937.
And how on earth the B17 developed at 1935 could find it's target? 

Sorry but I think our opinions are miles away from eachother and we couldn't get together.


----------



## Civettone (Oct 14, 2010)

I have a chart with available PzGr 40s but it's on my other pc. IIRC 300,000 were PzGr for the short 5 cm, a similar number for the longer 5 cm cannon, the rest mainly for the 3,7 cm Pak. The problem with Knaben as for ALL other mines was transportation from the mines. Ok next, the Ju 89 was called the Ural bomber for a reason. Could it get there? No, it had a limited range. Fine, who killed the program? Udet? No, my friend, it was Wever himself who started the Bomber A program which lead to the He 177. The Ju 89 and Do 19 were simply considered to be inadequate in range, speed, protection and payload. The comparison with the B-17 is invalid. 

It is not that our opinions are miles apart, yours is simply based on outdated and cliche information. Don't mean to be rude here. I am just saying that I used to share your opinion but I have gradually moved away from it and have become a bit more critical to the standard cliches I usually read. Still a long way to go though. I am not a Juha yet 

If you have more questions, don't hesitate. 
Kris


----------



## DonL (Oct 14, 2010)

Please post that chart of the PzGr. 1940.



> The problem with Knaben as for ALL other mines was transportation from the mines.



The transport from Narvic was still intact. Sorry my sources tells Knaben was dead. Why were the problems with molybdänerz relevant for the german steel economy at 1944? There are more hints that the steel was bridle and many many projects suffered from enough molybdänerz.



> Ok next, the Ju 89 was called the Ural bomber for a reason. Could it get there? No, it had a limited range. Fine, who killed the program? Udet? No, my friend, it was Wever himself who started the Bomber A program which lead to the He 177.



I didn't told that Udet killed the Ju 89 program, i told he wanted the He 177 to divebomb and that's a matter of fact! It was an order from Udet himself!
And yes Wever started the Bomber A. But that's not an argument that the Ju 89 was a total failure. The bird was in the category of the B17, more engine power is all you need. That are the same arguments against the FW 187, because all compare this bird with Jumo 210 engines, what is absurd.



> It is not that our opinions are miles apart, yours is simply based on outdated and cliche information. Don't mean to be rude here. I am just saying that I used to share your opinion but I have gradually moved away from it and have become a bit more critical to the standard cliches I usually read.



I don't want to be rude as well, but I think I have my arguments documented by many sources, and realy, I don't think I'm naive and basing my arguments on cliches!


----------



## Civettone (Oct 14, 2010)

It was the transport to Narvik. Manpower shortages. The Germans had enough mines for Ni, Cr, Mo, ... but they couldnt get the material back to Germany. The Ju 89 could not get the job done and I already explained why. Wever started the Bomber A program because of it. C'mon, it's clear. The Ju 89 was powered by the most powerful engine at the time. Freezing the design for two more years to give it Jumo 211 would be stupid. There are several good aircraft designs in history which failed because of a lack of engine power. So be it.
And it's fine, you're not naive. Will post the chart when I find it again. But I already gave you the approx numbers. Or you don't believe me?

Kris


----------



## DonL (Oct 14, 2010)

> The Ju 89 was powered by the most powerful engine at the time. Freezing the design for two more years to give it Jumo 211 would be stupid. There are several good aircraft designs in history which failed because of a lack of engine power. So be it.



No Kris, that's a little bit to easy! Please tell me one important german aircraft design prior the war, besides the Bf 109D, that was powered by a Jumo 210 engine at the begin of the war? And al,l realy all designs were tested first with the Jumo 210 engine and were upgraded as the Jumo 211 engine was available!

That isn't an argument for me. 



> There are several good aircraft designs in history which failed because of a lack of engine power. So be it


No, they had not failed, they had no real chance, or it was political like the FW 187, because Willy Messerschmitt was the world best designer, from the opinion of Udet, Milch and Göring.
What a brilliant designer he was had shown the crap of Bf 210/410. That's my opinion.
In germany Messerschmitt was under total protection from the RLM and you arn't a brilliant designer just with one very good design just like the Bf 109.
Heinkel and Focker Wulf (Kurt Tank) were more then one time outmaneuverd with better designs compare to Messerschmitt.


----------



## spicmart (Oct 14, 2010)

DonL said:


> No, they had not failed, they had no real chance, or it was political like the FW 187, because Willy Messerschmitt was the world best designer, from the opinion of Udet, Milch and Göring.
> What a brilliant designer he was had shown the crap of Bf 210/410. That's my opinion.
> In germany Messerschmitt was under total protection from the RLM and you arn't a brilliant designer just with one very good design just like the Bf 109.
> Heinkel and Focker Wulf (Kurt Tank) were more then one time outmaneuverd with better designs compare to Messerschmitt.




Second that.


----------



## Civettone (Oct 14, 2010)

The Fw 187 was chosen because of political reasons?? Hahaha, not again, please!! How many times more do we have to read this?? More plausible reasons for the Fw 187 failing have been discussed on this forum several times...

Just an old ,,, wait for it ... CLICHE!!! 

Kris


----------



## DonL (Oct 14, 2010)

was not!

You should read some books. For example Dietmar Hermann, Peter Petrick, then you know what is cliche or not cliche. And the Fw 187 is only one example for many decissions. So we can discuss this in an other thread. 

http://www.ww2aircraft.net/forum/aviation/westland-whirlwind-vs-fw-187-vs-p-38-a-26065.html


----------



## Civettone (Oct 14, 2010)

We have discussed the Fw 187 times before. Not going there again. It was not politcs. 
And you are wrong about simply upgrading aircraft with more powerful engines. We have been through that several times before on this forum. I am wasting my time. 

Kris


----------



## DonL (Oct 14, 2010)

> And you are wrong about simply upgrading aircraft with more powerful engines



Bf 109; Jumo 210, DB 601 A-E, DB 605A-D and DB 603
Ju 88; DB 600, Jumo 211, BMW 801, Jumo 213A-E
Me 110; Ju 210, DB 601 A-E, DB 605A
FW 190; BMW 801, Jumo 213A, DB 603
Me 210/410; DB 601, DB 605, DB 603

I can't see your argument!



> We have discussed the Fw 187 times before. Not going there again. It was not politcs.



I think it is allowed to have an other opinion and I have sources for this opinion.I accept other opinions. But it is not a fact that is was not politics!


----------



## Civettone (Oct 14, 2010)

rephrase it to heavier engines. What about the Fw 190? Not Me is it?

finished. Good luck!
Kris


----------



## riacrato (Oct 14, 2010)

Civettone said:


> And like I said, I have my doubts turbochargers need more special alloys than turbine jets. The Germans were able to produce thousands of those so why not a few hundred turbochargers?
> I think the answer might be more complex...


German turbocharger design was not very mature imo. They were overweight and overly complex beasts and too large for the small airframes Germany tyically used. The exception being maybe the 801 TJ. But that came too late.


----------



## davebender (Oct 14, 2010)

The only thing wrong with the Me-210C / Me-410A light bomber is that it was forced to operate as a fighter vs American B-17s and their escorts. It compares well to contemporary light bombers in service from January 1943 onward.


----------



## davebender (Oct 14, 2010)

Did anyone produce a compact and reliable turbocharger installation for a fighter aircraft prior to 1945?


----------



## DonL (Oct 14, 2010)

> The only thing wrong with the Me-210C / Me-410A light bomber is that it was forced to operate as a fighter vs American B-17s and their escorts. It compares well to contemporary light bombers in service from January 1943 onward.



But they were not planed as lightbombers. They should be the direct replacement of the ME 110.
And the Me 210 suffered massive design problems, they both were worst aircrafts in the nightfighter/escortfighter role. And there were other aircrafts that could do the zerstörer and lightbombing role. This aircrafts were a lost in materials nothing more. They couldn't perform their roles!


----------



## Shortround6 (Oct 14, 2010)

davebender said:


> Did anyone produce a compact and reliable turbocharger installation for a fighter aircraft prior to 1945?



I don't think it can be done.

American turbo chargers were reliable but the compact part takes a bit of doing. The Turbocharger itself is not all that large but the required ducting and intercooler with it's ducting add up to a considerable increase in volume. Using a liquid intercooler can make things somewhat smaller but you still need another radiator for the intercooler. 
I don't think anybody made a compact turbocharger installation after 1945.


----------



## davebender (Oct 14, 2010)

The Me-210 / Me-410 had dive brakes, a bomb bay and a dive bomber sight. If that isn't a light bomber then what is?


----------



## Shortround6 (Oct 14, 2010)

davebender said:


> The only thing wrong with the Me-210C / Me-410A light bomber is that it was forced to operate as a fighter vs American B-17s and their escorts. It compares well to contemporary light bombers in service from January 1943 onward.



How does it compare and to what aircraft?

The bomb bay may have been a bit cramped and gave some what limited options. Range may not have been all it could be either. 

While it was certainly fast it's standard bombload wasn't much better than a Blenheim and it couldn't carry it as far. A pair of 1750-1900hp engines seems a steep price to pay for a 1100lb standard bomb load (2205lb in overload) and a range of just over 1000miles.


----------



## Civettone (Oct 15, 2010)

But like you said, it was fast! It compares to the Mosquito.

From early 1944 only Me 410 day fighters were delivered. The Me 410 achieved some great successes as a Zerstorer. One usually reads how it failed completely against the American Mustangs. But which German fighters succeeded? 

If it had been up to me both the Me 110 as the Ju 88 would be replaced by the superior Me 410. Just so you know where I stand. (It's a lonely place I admit )

Kris


----------



## davebender (Oct 15, 2010)

*Blenheim Mk IV*. This is the newer version contemporary with the Me-410A.
266 mph Max Speed.
~200 mph Cruise Speed
1,000 lb bomb bay.
Cannot dive bomb. 
2% chance to hit a 100 meter target circle when attacking at high level.
25% chance to hit a 100 meter target circle when attacking at low level.

*Me-410A.*
388 mph Max Speed.
365 mph Cruise Speed.
2,200 lb (i.e. 1,000 kg) bomb bay.
Can dive bomb (60 degree angle).
50% chance to hit a 50 meter target circle (assuming accuracy similiar to Ju-88A dive bomber).

Which aircraft would you prefer for attacking a well defended bridge across the Meuse River?


----------



## DonL (Oct 15, 2010)

> But like you said, it was fast! It compares to the Mosquito.
> 
> From early 1944 only Me 410 day fighters were delivered. The Me 410 achieved some great successes as a Zerstorer. One usually reads how it failed completely against the American Mustangs. But which German fighters succeeded?
> 
> If it had been up to me both the Me 110 as the Ju 88 would be replaced by the superior Me 410. Just so you know where I stand. (It's a lonely place I admit )



You should read some books before you make such statements.

Messerschmidt Bf 110, Me 210, Me 410. Die Messerschmitt-Zerstörer und ihre Konkurrenten: Amazon.de: Heinz Mankau, Peter Petrick: Bücher
Focke-Wulf Fw 187. Der vergessene Hochleistungsjäger: Amazon.de: Dietmar Hermann, Peter Petrick: Bücher

Also I want to know with wich fact you can claim a Me 410 as a Nightfighter was faster then a Mosquito or a Ju 88 G6? Please show some facts! And please facts with a Me 410 as NF and the equipment of a NF not some "dayfighter" version.

And to confirm this effective design, it was developed since 1937, first flight 1939, going in production 1943.
What an effective and superior design, which wasn't able to perform all roles of the Me 110 as replacement and was in need of a DB 603 for a little performance. 
And then to say the FW 187 is inferior and it wasn't some political decision.


----------



## Milosh (Oct 15, 2010)

davebender said:


> *Blenheim Mk IV*. This is the newer version contemporary with the Me-410A.
> 266 mph Max Speed.
> ~200 mph Cruise Speed
> 1,000 lb bomb bay.
> ...



I didn't know the Me410 was around in 1939.


----------



## riacrato (Oct 15, 2010)

Civettone said:


> But like you said, it was fast! It compares to the Mosquito.
> 
> From early 1944 only Me 410 day fighters were delivered. The Me 410 achieved some great successes as a Zerstorer. One usually reads how it failed completely against the American Mustangs. But which German fighters succeeded?
> 
> ...



Very lonely indeed. Can the 410 be a good nightfighter? I think not or at least it was never deemed worth trying. And the Ju 88 bomber versions at least don't eat up two high performance engines that would be put to much better use in a Fw 190 airframe. The only thing that would've really worked for me was the original Me 210 as planned as a fastbomber capable of divebombing, with limited numbers used as heavy fighters (there were afterall still many un- or limitedly escorted bomber missions).


----------



## riacrato (Oct 15, 2010)

Shortround6 said:


> I don't think it can be done.
> 
> American turbo chargers were reliable but the compact part takes a bit of doing. The Turbocharger itself is not all that large but the required ducting and intercooler with it's ducting add up to a considerable increase in volume. Using a liquid intercooler can make things somewhat smaller but you still need another radiator for the intercooler.
> I don't think anybody made a compact turbocharger installation after 1945.












BMW 801 TJ: The installation is only moderately longer than that of the standard 801 D.


----------



## davebender (Oct 15, 2010)

Why? Competent organizations learn from their mistakes. The Zerstorer multipurpose aircraft concept did not work and Germany learned this lesson during the first year of WWII. Just as RAF Bomber Command quickly learned that unescorted day bombers would get slaughtered.


----------



## DonL (Oct 15, 2010)

> Why? Competent organizations learn from their mistakes. The Zerstorer multipurpose aircraft concept did not work and Germany learned this lesson during the first year of WWII. Just as RAF Bomber Command quickly learned that unescorted day bombers would get slaughtered.



Ok other question?
What do you think the LW was more in need from 1941-1944, a good longrange fighter and nightfighter or a fast lightbomber?


The Ju 88 could do all this missions. Later on some missions can do the FW 190 fighterbomber.
I see no pros for producing an aircraft only for lightbombing.
The same question goes to the Do 217. Could this aircraft anything realy better than the Ju 88? So much better to get it in production? For germany raw materials and manufactoring is an essential goal, you can't compare this with the economics of the USA. Economization and the focus on multirole aircrafts are essential.
And the Me 210/410 showed only performance with an DB 603.
Also you can't forget the production. It was never planed to let the Me 110 in service. They wanted this material to produce the replacement aircraft in greater numbers. 
But the Me 210/410 showed not enough performance for a total replacement!

The whole story of the Me 210/410 with it's design problems and little performance with DB 605 engines was a mistake.


----------



## davebender (Oct 15, 2010)

The Luftwaffe needed three major combat aircraft types during the second half of WWII. These aircraft types maintain air superiority and support Heer operations.

Day Fighter.
Night Fighter.
Light Bomber.

In addition the German Navy needs a long range aircraft for maritime recon and maritime bombing. The Do-217 could fill this role if the KM are willing to fund the program. A less expensive alternative to the He-177 and the Do-217 is ready for mass production by the end of 1940.


----------



## DonL (Oct 15, 2010)

> The Luftwaffe needed three major combat aircraft types during the second half of WWII. These aircraft types maintain air superiority and support Heer operations.
> 
> Day Fighter.
> Night Fighter.
> ...



I disagree.

For support of Heer operation are the Ju87 and Henschel 129 as direct support.
And for me it's important the first half of the war because that's the basics you could built on.

The ideal for me between Me 109/ FW 190 and Ju 88 is the FW 187.
This aircraft could be longrange fighter, light destroyer and nightfighter. All other aircrafts are compromises in the direction lightbomber/destroyer. And i can't see the pros to only produce a fast lightbomber sorry.

Also to my opinion a He 177 with normal 4 engine layout is a better alternativ to the Do 217. The Do 217 had not much more range than the Ju 88, but the He 177 could load much more fuel as an navyfighter only loaded with torpedos and you have an aircraft for strategic bombing.

My focus is more to the multirole aircrafts and I think the germans had some fine designs as multirole aircrafts.
This would be much better for the production.


----------



## Civettone (Oct 15, 2010)

riacrato said:


> Very lonely indeed. Can the 410 be a good nightfighter? I think not or at least it was never deemed worth trying. And the Ju 88 bomber versions at least don't eat up two high performance engines that would be put to much better use in a Fw 190 airframe. The only thing that would've really worked for me was the original Me 210 as planned as a fastbomber capable of divebombing, with limited numbers used as heavy fighters (there were afterall still many un- or limitedly escorted bomber missions).


At the time of the Me 410 the Ju 88/188 switched to BMW 801s, similar to the DB 603 of the Me 410. 
Now riacrato, as to the Me 410 as a night fighter. I started a thread at LEMB about it. There were several opinions that the Me 410 would not have been suited as a night fighter. Most of these reasons proved to be inaccurate as the plane was a success as a nocturnal intruder. It also had good performance, ceiling, etc. It would not have been good enough to catch a Mosquito but no other German NF was able anyway. 
I have seen a plan of the Me 410 converted to a NF. The installation would weight 80 kg and the expected speed loss would have been around 20 kmh. This would make the NF still capable of speeds of at least 600 kmh. It would have a max range of 1750 km which would put it in the range of the Ju 88G.
So the Me 410 would have been perfectly able to replace both the Me 110 as the Ju 88R/G. Same goes for the He 219 and Do 217N. Reducing the number of types in production is of utmost important for the war economy. And while we are it, why not take another look at bomber production: Ju 88, He 111 and Do 217? But I will give my 2 cents on that some other time...



davebender said:


> Why? Competent organizations learn from their mistakes. The Zerstorer multipurpose aircraft concept did not work and Germany learned this lesson during the first year of WWII. Just as RAF Bomber Command quickly learned that unescorted day bombers would get slaughtered.


Yeah, I would agree with you Dave. But let's take another look at the Zerstörer principle. What is it? It is essentially a heavy multifunctional fighter, capable of destroying fighters but also bomber escort, ground attack and reconaissance. But look at American heavy fighters like the P-38? Isn't that a Zerstörer? Ok, maybe it's a single-person aircraft but other than that... And what about the Me 262 or British Meteor? Or an F-4 Phantom if you will?



DonL said:


> The whole story of the Me 210/410 with it's design problems and little performance with DB 605 engines was a mistake.


The Me 210 had DB 601s, not DB 605s. However, when the last serie of the Me 210 got the lengthened fuselage and the DB 605 the Me design finally came of age. The Me 410 could do things no other aircraft in the world was able to. Not even the best aircraft in the world, the DH Mosquito 8)

Kris


----------



## Shortround6 (Oct 15, 2010)

davebender said:


> *Blenheim Mk IV*. This is the newer version contemporary with the Me-410A.
> 266 mph Max Speed.
> ~200 mph Cruise Speed
> 1,000 lb bomb bay.
> ...



I would hope that the 410 was better seeing as how it was a number of years newer and not really a contemporary. The 410 also had about twice the power. 
But once again there seems some picking and choosing of stats. While you could fit a single 2205lb bomb in the 410 or 2 1100lbs it would also only take 2 550lb bombs or 8 110 lb bombs. Standard bomb load was 1100lbs according to one source with the 2205 lb bomb load carried in overload condition. The Blenheim can carry two 500lb inside the bomb bay and another 340lb under the wings at the same time. 
I notice you don't mention range which may be 400 miles further for the Blenheim while carrying a "standard" load. 
Granted the Blenheim can't survive long in defended airspace but it can reach over water target that the 410 couldn't.
If you are going to claim a plane was the "Best" light bomber of it's time you might want to tell us what you are comparing it to, and not the 3-4 year older bomber I brought up that can carry the same bomb load on medium to long range missions and out range it. If you can't reach the target it doesn't matter what kind of accuracy you have at short range.


----------



## Shortround6 (Oct 15, 2010)

riacrato said:


> BMW 801 TJ: The installation is only moderately longer than that of the standard 801 D.



Thank you, I stand corrected.


----------



## Shortround6 (Oct 15, 2010)

DonL said:


> The Ju 88 could do all this missions. Later on some missions can do the FW 190 fighterbomber.
> I see no pros for producing an aircraft only for lightbombing.
> The same question goes to the Do 217. Could this aircraft anything realy better than the Ju 88?



Carry a lot more bombs?
Or carry the same amount of bombs further?


----------



## Shortround6 (Oct 15, 2010)

DonL said:


> For support of Heer operation are the Ju87 and Henschel 129 as direct support.
> And for me it's important the first half of the war because that's the basics you could built on.



The Henschel 129 may be another plane that gets a lot more attention than it deserved. 
One description claims it was only about 20mph faster than a JU 87D, was much inferior in maneuverability, had engines that were less reliable and as a bomber carried a smaller bomb load than the Ju 87D. It was sturdy and had good armor protection but part of it's "fame" may stem for the variety of cannon that were carried for anti-tank work.


----------



## riacrato (Oct 16, 2010)

How does the Hs 129 get a lot of attention? I think it's getting rather little. It was an acceptable plane plagued mostly by weak engines. But then, the fact it had these otherwise unused engines was one reason for its existance.

It was never meant to carry a bombload and it is not a Stuka. The only Ju 87 version it can be compared to is the Ju 87 G and even that is a bit of a stretch.


----------



## Shortround6 (Oct 16, 2010)

riacrato said:


> How does the Hs 129 get a lot of attention? I think it's getting rather little. It was an acceptable plane plagued mostly by weak engines. But then, the fact it had these otherwise unused engines was one reason for its existance.
> 
> It was never meant to carry a bombload and it is not a Stuka. The only Ju 87 version it can be compared to is the Ju 87 G and even that is a bit of a stretch.



It gets a lot of attention from modelers and war gamers. In part because of the variety of weapons it was fitted with. With under 900 made in about 2 1/2 years production just about kept up with losses and from what I have read there were never more than 5 active stafflen equipped with it at any one time. 
No disrespect to the pilots and ground crews but did the HS 129 really accomplish much more than 900 other aircraft could have?
I am not really comparing it to a Stuka as a dive bomber but as a close support aircraft it would need more than just guns. Considering that the HS 126 had a bomb dispenser/bay that could hold ten 22lb bombs instead of a camera and/or a 110lb bomb out side the plane and that FW 189s were fitted to carry four 110lb bombs. It doesn't seem far fetched that some sort of bomb load wasn't considered when designing the plane. He 51s carried six 22lb bombs in Spain and the old He 45s and 46s also carried bomb loads of 440-660lbs. The He 70 also had an internal bomb bay. 

For anti-personnel use the old HS 123 could carry a pair of containers each holding 92 (?) 4.4 lb bombs while the D model Stuka used containers with 96 bombs each. The Hs 129 maxed out with 96 under the fuselage in packs of 24 in place of the big under fuselage gun and a pack of 24 under each wing. Or it could carry four 110lb bombs under the fuselage and one under each wing. 

When it comes down to it, it was a 1400hp airplane with a lot of armor while the Ju 87D was a 1400hp airplane with less armor.


----------



## Civettone (Oct 16, 2010)

Shortround, you are mistaken. The Hs 129 was designed for a small bomb load and it carried it for many missions. The 30 mm cannons came later when available. It carried the same SD 2 cluster/butterfly bombs. 

But like you said, the Hs 129 cannot be compared with the Ju 87. The Ju 87 only became a close support aircraft later on in the war and only a tank destroyer with the Ju 87G. I would compare the Hs 129 a bit more with the Il-2. Both armored bathtubs (though the Hs 129 better protected). The Ilyushin also carries an amazingly light bomb load but understandable due to the weight of the armour. 

A couple more things: the Hs 129 was not really underpowered and the engines proved to be VERY reliable. And the engine was carefully chosen as it had the best power-weight ratio. And not because several were captured. I hope one day all these myths will disappear. 

Kris


----------



## tomo pauk (Oct 16, 2010)

Kris, man, Hs-129 competes with such stellar power-houses as Ba.88, or Blenheim, when we talk about power-to-weight ratios. 

Power-to-weight ratio of an engine is of secondary importance to the power-to-weight ratio of a plane.


----------



## riacrato (Oct 16, 2010)

Civettone said:


> Shortround, you are mistaken. The Hs 129 was designed for a small bomb load and it carried it for many missions. The 30 mm cannons came later when available. It carried the same SD 2 cluster/butterfly bombs.
> 
> But like you said, the Hs 129 cannot be compared with the Ju 87. The Ju 87 only became a close support aircraft later on in the war and only a tank destroyer with the Ju 87G. I would compare the Hs 129 a bit more with the Il-2. Both armored bathtubs (though the Hs 129 better protected). The Ilyushin also carries an amazingly light bomb load but understandable due to the weight of the armour.
> 
> ...


Yes I led him to that what I intended to write was "LARGE bombload" as it was never meant to attack the same targets the Stukas did. Nevertheless iirc the original solicitation asked mainly for cannons and armor.

_View: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=YcUlsNBeiPo_
But about the Hs 129 not being underpowered: care to elaborate?


----------



## davebender (Oct 16, 2010)

Even if the Me-410 fuselage can be modified to provde space for radar equipment and operators what does this accomplish that the Ju-88G cannot? It's the same reason Germany did not mass produce the Ta-154 and He-219 night fighter aircraft. The Me-262 B-2 (stretched fuselage) is the next major advance in German night fighter performance.


----------



## Shortround6 (Oct 16, 2010)

Civettone said:


> A couple more things: the Hs 129 was not really underpowered and the engines proved to be VERY reliable. And the engine was carefully chosen as it had the best power-weight ratio. And not because several were captured. I hope one day all these myths will disappear.
> 
> Kris



I guess it was no more under powered than any other 11,000lb plane with 1400hp. 7.8lbs/hp. 
Certainly many other bombers and attack aircraft had power to weight ratios that were no better. 

Some accounts say that they did have quite a bit of trouble with the initial units in North Africa but then quite a few engines had trouble in North Africa. 
The engine was chosen because it was the only engine available in any quantity in the power and weight range needed. 
The Germans hadn't captured several, they had captured thousands and had captured the factory that made them. 
No German engine or other French engine (except the Hispano-Suiza 14AB) or Czechoslovakian engine was of a suitable size or power to be used. The Hispano was available in small numbers and may have had an even worse reputation for reliability.


----------



## Civettone (Oct 17, 2010)

Shortround, I agree completely. The engine did have some problems in North Africa but after some modifications it served the Hs 129 very well. On the Eastern Front the Hs 129 was very reliable, able to perform several missions a day!

Dave, no modification of the Me 410 fuselage was needed. Two man crew. The Me 410 would have performed substantially better than the Ju 88R/G, even better than the G-6 with Jumo 213: max speed of 600+ kmh. Also superior climb rate, ceiling, etc. 

Tomislav:
_1. Tests of the Hs 129A with the Argus engines showed it being 12% underpowered. The Hs 129B received a power upgrade from two 460 HP engines to two 750 HP engines.
2. If the Hs 129B was underpowered, it would have been strange to install a 1000 kg gun under the fuselage. Even the Germans weren't that desperate._

Kris


----------



## davebender (Oct 17, 2010)

That's fine but what about internal space for radar equipment?


----------



## tomo pauk (Oct 17, 2010)

Civettone said:


> ...
> 
> Tomislav:
> _1. Tests of the Hs 129A with the Argus engines showed it being 12% underpowered. The Hs 129B received a power upgrade from two 460 HP engines to two 750 HP engines.
> ...



I'd say that, if the 129 was not being underpowered, it would've have performance figures of contemporary twins (Beaufighter, A-20), or at least some kind of self-defence (like Ju-87, or Il-2 from 1942/43), or both. Yet, it did not have any of those properties.
The attempts to mount yet another foreign engine (Isota-Frachini Asso) point to lack of power, too.
As for 1400 HP to drag around a 1000 kg of weaponry, SBD Dauntless was able to do the same. Ju-87D ditto.
And yes, Germans were desperate in time 7,5cm was being mounted on the 129.


----------



## davebender (Oct 17, 2010)

IMO the Fw-190F killed the Hs-129 program. What can the Hs-129 do that a Fw-190F cannot do better?


----------



## CharlesBronson (Oct 17, 2010)

> IMO the Fw-190F killed the Hs-129 program. What can the Hs-129 do that a Fw-190F cannot do better?



Having a central heavy antitank cannon is the only one I think.

By the way an DB 603G powered alternative to the Me-109/me-155 would be this one. It had heavier armament than the standar Me-109 and longer wingspan to improved maneouvrability.

*Fiat G56:*


----------



## davebender (Oct 17, 2010)

I'll buy that. 

However WWII era tanks like the T-34 and Sherman typically had only 20 to 25mm armor on top. Wing mounted 3cm Mk103 cannon on a Fw-190F would slice through it at essentially any range they could score a hit.

MK 103 cannon - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Armour penetration: AP-T(WC) 70 mm/60°/300 m or 100 mm/90°/300 m.


----------



## Juha (Oct 17, 2010)

Hello Davebender
Quote:"_Wing mounted 3cm Mk103 cannon on a Fw-190F would slice through it at essentially any range they could score a hit_."

Nope, that was tested but found impractical.

Juha


----------



## davebender (Oct 17, 2010)

Impractical in what way? The Fw-190F had plenty of payload capacity to carry the Mk103 cannon.


----------



## CharlesBronson (Oct 17, 2010)

No, no, the 30mm Mk 108 could be carried without problem, but the MK 103 was too long and wide, no Me-109 ever was actually manufactured with an 103 inside the V-12.


----------



## davebender (Oct 17, 2010)

I was talking about the Fw-190F ground attack aircraft.

*Fw-190F-8/R3. *
WW2 Warbirds: the Focke-Wulf Fw 190 Wrger (Shrike) - Frans Bonn
360kg of additional armor to protect the pilot, engine and oil tank. 
2 x cowl mounted MG131 13mm MG
2 x wing mounted MG151/20 cannon.
2 x Mk103 3cm high velocity cannon in underwing gondolas.


----------



## Milosh (Oct 17, 2010)

davebender said:


> I was talking about the Fw-190F ground attack aircraft.
> 
> *Fw-190F-8/R3. *
> WW2 Warbirds: the Focke-Wulf Fw 190 Wrger (Shrike) - Frans Bonn
> ...



As Juha said. In tests it couldn't hit the broad side of a barn if it was parked right in front of the barn door.


----------



## riacrato (Oct 18, 2010)

I'd like to see a source for that. Really, I never read anything on why the project was abandoned. I would guess it had much more to do with the stress applied to the wings than with concerns about accuracy. And of course when the project was underway, the MK 103 was barely a viable anti-tank gun. I don't think the fighter bomber could really hope to get a top down shot: The Fw 190 builds up way too much speed in a dive, only a real hot shot could hope to hit a tanks roof. IIRC for practical purposes most fighter bombers usually attacked at a rather shallow angle (see the Hs 129 video I posted above). In those situations a Mk 103 could only destroy lightly armored mid-war vehicles. It's for a reason the Hs 129 was upgunned from the early MK 101 carrying versions.


----------



## Shortround6 (Oct 18, 2010)

To do a top down shot the plane has to dive at better than a 45 degree angle.

To pull out the plane needs to start pulling out at a much higher altitude than the pull out from a shallower dive. Once you are pulling out you are no longer on target. The plane is firing from further away which reduces penetration a bit and reduces accuracy a lot.

The high step dive also gives more warning to the target/s and exposes the aircraft for a longer time to AA fire. 

I doubt the Fw 190 had much to do with the end of the HS 129 program. The Hs 129 production ended in the summer of 1944 along with a number of other programs when the priorities of aircraft production changed to almost all fighters. This 18 months or more after the FW 190s start showing up in squadrons. Was any Hs 129 unit re-equipped with FW 190F's?


----------



## riacrato (Oct 18, 2010)

Good question, I think not. But one might argue because of the limited numbers of the Henschel that were ever available in the first place there was never the need for a transition program as with the Ju 87. It simply took itself out of service when production stopped.

There were groups flying the Hs and the Fw in parallel thought, so they at least on paper served in the same roles. Then again so did the Ju 87. Since the LW had the glorious idea to simply rename the Stuka squadrons to "battle" squadrons in late '43 it is very hard to discern between the individual roles.


----------



## davebender (Oct 18, 2010)

I would too. The slower flying Ju-87G was undoubtedly more accurate as a cannon platform but I suspect the faster (and consequently more survivable) Fw-190F could also hit targets.

Speaking of the Ju-87G...
This aircraft is another reason not to produce the Hs-129. What can a Hs-129 do that a Ju-87G cannot? Like the modern day A-10, the Ju-87 had the sort of low speed maneuverability that makes for very accurate CAS. That holds true both when dropping bombs and when equipped with anti-tank cannon.


----------



## riacrato (Oct 18, 2010)

For what I know the Ju 87 had a very limited ammo supply and was not armored nearly as well. And of course the Hs 129 flew long before the Ju 87 G came to being (even if it _could've_] been built earlier). All in all it's difficult to assess the true effectiveness of the G with the massive overclaiming vs tanks that was commonplace. And for lightly armored targets, locomotives and troops the MG151 does the job while firing faster and being less draggy installation-wise.


----------



## Shortround6 (Oct 18, 2010)

The HS 129 used French built radial engines which means that it didn't compete for Jumo 211s or other high powered German engines. It had no liquid cooling system which reduced it's vulnerability a bit and it had two engines so a few planes probably made it back with one engine out.


----------



## davebender (Oct 18, 2010)

Germany produced zillions of Jumo211s and DB605s. From 1942 onward there shouldn't have been a shortage. Not to mention that the Ju-87 required only 1 engine.

As for battle damage, I have read statements to the effect that Ju-87s had a better survivability rate then the Fw-190F. However I have not seen historical statistics to substantiate this claim.


----------



## Civettone (Oct 18, 2010)

Some points:
The Hs 129B was not underpowered but this depends on what you compare it with. Also the Hs 129 didnt need to be that fast. It was designed to fly low, take enemy fire and drop cliuster bombs or strafe targets. Only the Il-2 is comparable. 
As the Fw 190 was designed for completely different specs one cannot compare the two. The Fw 190 was indeed faster but also less accurate because of it. There have always been two types of ground attack aircraft, think MiG-27 vs Su-25. F-16 vs A-10. Never ending discussion.
The Hs 129 had a centrally mounted gun while the Ju 87 or Fw 190 had converging guns. Less accurate unless at a specific range. 

Then one more thing: the MK 103 was definitely not enough because there is one very important thing you forget. AP figures are against a 0 or 30 degree angle from vertical while hitting a tank will more likely be at an angle of at least 45 degrees. So for instance for a 20 mm armour you'll need an AP of 40 mm.

Kris


----------



## looney (Oct 19, 2010)

But due to the sloping armor of tanks you'll hit it closer to perpendicular than fired from the ground.


----------



## Shortround6 (Oct 19, 2010)

davebender said:


> Germany produced zillions of Jumo211s and DB605s.



Zillions?

Got a source for that?


----------



## Shortround6 (Oct 19, 2010)

looney said:


> But due to the sloping armor of tanks you'll hit it closer to perpendicular than fired from the ground.



The difference isn't enough to get excited about. A plane in a 3 degree "dive" will be 150 ft above ground at a range of 1000yds. Or 500ft for a 10 degree "dive" . This also shows how the "thin" roof armor would stand up pretty well to planes using a strafing attack.


----------



## Milosh (Oct 19, 2010)

davebender said:


> Germany produced zillions of Jumo211s and DB605s. From 1942 onward there shouldn't have been a shortage.














D-B produced a total of 71,478 engines of which 42,400 were D-B605s.
U.S. Strategic Bombing Survey Aircraft Division Industry Report


----------



## davebender (Oct 19, 2010)

*Mk103 3cm AP Penetration.*
AP-T(WC) 
70 mm/60°/300 m 
100 mm/90°/300 m. 

Typical WWII top armor was 20 to 25mm thick. So the 70mm penetration achieved at a 60 degree angle should work just fine.


----------



## Civettone (Oct 19, 2010)

Shortround6 said:


> The difference isn't enough to get excited about. A plane in a 3 degree "dive" will be 150 ft above ground at a range of 1000yds. Or 500ft for a 10 degree "dive" . This also shows how the "thin" roof armor would stand up pretty well to planes using a strafing attack.


Interesting, I never did the maths. Could it be that slower attack aircraft like the Il-2 or Ju 87 used a steeper dive? 
Anyway, the sloping armour was think enough to stop the shells from aircraft guns anyway, regardless of the angle. The deck and top turret armour was not sloped but would always be hit in a very shallow angle. 

As a side note, the less accurate rockets have better penetration and do not rely on the right angle. Unless of course you are talking about the hollow-charged rockets like the Panzerblitz which would not be a very reliable weapon if you ask me. 
Kris


----------



## Civettone (Oct 19, 2010)

davebender said:


> *Mk103 3cm AP Penetration.*
> AP-T(WC)
> 70 mm/60°/300 m
> 100 mm/90°/300 m.
> ...


Those figures seem dubious. What I have is 75 mm vertical at 300 m. But with an angle of 15 degrees a Sherman top armour would go from 25 to 75 mm. 

Even though those figures seem nice I still wonder why they went over to the 3.7 cm? And then the 5, 5.5 and 7.5 cm?
Kris


----------



## Shortround6 (Oct 19, 2010)

davebender said:


> *Mk103 3cm AP Penetration.*
> AP-T(WC)
> 70 mm/60°/300 m
> 100 mm/90°/300 m.
> ...



Not a chance.

To get the 90 degree penetration you would have to be in a vertical dive. To get the 60 degree angle of impact on the roof you would have to be in a 60 degree dive. 
Do you really want to be in a 60 degree dive 300 meters from the ground? 
at a 30 degree angle of impact (30 degree dive) the path the projectile must take through 25mm armor is actually 50mm in length and this does NOT factor in any tendency to skid or ricochet, or any other misbehavior of the projectile.
The reason the these guns worked, at least to some extent, was that "typical" WW II top armor wasn't 20-25mm thick but more like 15-20 mm thick. 
20-25 mm armor was more in the area of Tiger tank or KV/JS thickness. 
MK IVs, Shermans, Cromwells and T-34s had top armor in the 13 -20mm range in many locations. Some tanks having different thickness on the turret roof vs the front part of the hull roof and engine decks being even thinner. 
Since the ground guns could deal with the medium tanks fairly well it was the Heavy tanks that the ground troops wanted help with.

If the 30mm gun could deal with tanks just fine why did the Germans spend so much time and effort trying to use 50mm and 75mm anti-tank guns from planes?


----------



## davebender (Oct 19, 2010)

> why did the Germans spend so much time and effort trying to use 50mm and 75mm anti-tank guns from planes?


What do you mean by "So Much"? As far as I'm aware German attempts to use aircraft mounted guns larger then 3.7cm in size were experiments. None of those installations were employed in large numbers. In fact not even the Ju-87G (with 3.7cm cannon) was produced in large numbers.


----------



## Civettone (Oct 19, 2010)

They weren't produced in large numbers because fighters got the priority.

But again, why move to the 3,7 cm if you think the 3 cm was sufficient?
Kris


----------



## billswagger (Oct 19, 2010)

any info on penetration for the mk103 HE round?

They probably went for larger rounds to compensate for the shallower angle and to lower trigger times seeing as ground attack on tanks and armored targets was usually more dangerous. 


Bill


----------



## Shortround6 (Oct 19, 2010)

davebender said:


> What do you mean by "So Much"? As far as I'm aware German attempts to use aircraft mounted guns larger then 3.7cm in size were experiments. None of those installations were employed in large numbers. In fact not even the Ju-87G (with 3.7cm cannon) was produced in large numbers.



Well, they "experimented" with both 50mm guns and 75mm guns on the Ju 88. They "experimented" with the 75mm gun on the HS 129. They even experimented with putting the 75mm cannon in the He 177. Now each of these "experiments" used from 5 to 20+ airframes depending on which source you believe. Three different projects totaling from 20+ to 40+ plus aircraft and you don't consider it a lot of effort?


----------



## Shortround6 (Oct 19, 2010)

Against most armored vehicles the 30mm would have been sufficient because the basic idea is to shoot the tank, armored car/halftrack in the back or side were the armor is much thinner than on the front and you can get a descent angle of attack. 
But military requirements tend to stress worst case scenarios and like I said, they wanted to aircraft to take out the heavy tanks. the heavy tanks were armored to withstand 30-50mm guns (or even larger) pretty much all around at medium to long range. But if you could get the 50-75 mm gun behind the tank at medium to close range it should work. And the best way to do that was by airplane. Except that none of the airplanes available had both the structural strength needed to withstand the firing and the performance necessary to carry the weight in a combat environment. bomber or fighter bomber that comes and drops it's bombs is 1/2 to 2 tons lighter after bomb release to help with evasive maneuverers as it leaves the target zone. One of these gun carrying planes is leaving just about as heavy as it went in (minus a few shells) so it has no more speed, climb, or turning ability after the strike than it did went when in with surprise on it's side.


----------



## davebender (Oct 19, 2010)

Did any German AT aircraft use the 3.7cm weapon except the Ju-87G? I believe the Hs-129 and Fw-190F both mostly used the 3cm Mk103 cannon.


----------



## Civettone (Oct 19, 2010)

Bill, what do you mean by lower trigger time?

Dave, the Fw 190F did not use the MK 103 as the wings couldnt handle the recoil. The Hs 129 was armed with the 3,7 cm but most stayed with the 3 cm. With the Bk 5 was only experiment wise while the 7,5 cm was more common. 
I also think that the Hs 129 with the lighter 3,7 cm Flak 43 would have been the best option. The Hs 129 had a center mounted gun which would have been much more accurate than the wing guns of the Ju 87. The positive side of the Ju 87G is that it could be turned into a Ju 87D in a minute.

Kris


----------



## davparlr (Oct 20, 2010)

davebender said:


> Specifics trump generalities every time. Let's look at historical German aircraft engines available during 1941.
> 
> *BMW801C. *
> 1,539 hp
> ...



A slice in time

August, 1941, production delivery of Fw-190A-2 begins.

Fw-190A-2, engine BMW 801C-2, 1539 hp, dry weight 2226 lbs

Bf-109F, engine DB 601E, 1350 hp, weight 1620 lbs (1320 lbs + 300 lbs cooling system-ala P-39) 

P-47B, engine PW R-2800-21, 2000 hp, dry weight 2265 lbs

With these numbers, the power to weight ratio of the three aircraft is as follows:

BMW 801C-2 .69 hp/lb

DB 601E .83 hp/lb

PW R-2800 .88 hp/lb

It was already apparent that the radial had considerable potential that the Germans could use. They should have pulled a Russian reverse engineering on a captured R-2800. Can you imagine an Fw-190 with an R-2800-18W equivalent (F4U-4) engine in the fall of ’44. It would have flown circles around the D-9 at any altitude, and, most other aircraft, including the P-51D at high altitude, which the D-9 could not do.



> The BMW801 never caught up with German V12s in power to weight ratio. During 1942 the BMW801 engine switched to C3 fuel just to get the engine to an acceptable power output. However the same trick could have been performed with the DB601E. Modify it to take advantage of C3 fuel and a 1,350 hp V12 becomes a 1,500 hp V12. And the V12 still maintains a significant advantage in both weight and frontal area.



It seems PW did not have such a problem, maybe if the Germans had emphasized the radial more they would have also.



davebender said:


> Did anyone produce a compact and reliable turbocharger installation for a fighter aircraft prior to 1945?





Shortround6 said:


> I don't think it can be done.
> 
> American turbo chargers were reliable but the compact part takes a bit of doing. The Turbocharger itself is not all that large but the required ducting and intercooler with it's ducting add up to a considerable increase in volume. Using a liquid intercooler can make things somewhat smaller but you still need another radiator for the intercooler.
> I don't think anybody made a compact turbocharger installation after 1945.



These are confusing comments. Both the P-47 and, especially late model, P-38s were effective and reliable turbocharged fighters, therefore, apparently turbochargers compact enough for fighters were made. These were big aircraft, but still fighters. However, Shortround is correct in that the physics of compressing the massive amount of air for these large engines prevented compact and efficient turbochargers to fit small airframes.


----------



## NZTyphoon (Oct 20, 2010)

Shortround6 said:


> Not a chance.
> 
> To get the 90 degree penetration you would have to be in a vertical dive. To get the 60 degree angle of impact on the roof you would have to be in a 60 degree dive.
> Do you really want to be in a 60 degree dive 300 meters from the ground?
> ...



One thing most people are forgetting is that tanks, even something as big as a Tiger II or JS 2/3, are still small targets for a fast fighter bomber, especially to one flying at low altitude. Added to that are the problems of camouflage and dispersal - a tank could be even harder to see if camouflaged, or against a backdrop of trees etc. 

A fast F-B such as the Fw 190 was harder to hit from the ground, hence better able to survive than something flying low and slow, but it also meant it was harder to hit ground targets - trying flying at (say) 300 mph at low altitude while aiming at a small target like a tank, then further reduce the target area to the turret roof or engine compartment! 

One way of compensating was to have a weapon with a high rate of fire (eg: the GAU-8 30mm cannon of an A-10), which could guarantee multiple strikes in a small area, or to fly slower and have a larger weapon which had more chance of a one-shot kill, such as the 50 or 75mm A-T gun carried by the likes of the Hs 129. The 37 mm cannon carried by the Ju 87G was effective (Gustav Rudel), but it came at a cost of high attrition. Does anyone know how many Panthers and Tigers were knocked out by IL-2s alone? How many IL-2s did it cost to knock out one German heavy tank? How many JS-2s were knocked out by Ju 87Gs?. 

BTW The Hs 129B-3 had a 7.5cm BK (a modified PaK 40) and it was more than "experimental", going operational in 1944, unlike the He 177 which stayed experimental.

Other aircraft to carry heavy weapons: 
B-25G and H Mitchell (75 mm)
Piaggio P-108B Heavy Bomber (105 mm howitzer)
Mitsubishi Ki-109 (75 mm)
Me 410A-1/U4 (50 mm)


----------



## Glider (Oct 20, 2010)

Mossie with the 57mm AT gun
Hurricane with the 40mm


----------



## riacrato (Oct 20, 2010)

NZ, I guess the true numbers of heavy German or heavy Soviet tanks _destroyed_ out by either IL-2s, Hs 129s or Ju 87 Gs is low. I think even the numbers of medium tanks such as Pz IV or T-34 claimed destroyed is too high by a very large margin and that includes Rudel.

The attack aircraft's capability to destroy tanks was probably good _when compared to fighter bombers_ of the time, but that's about it. For practical purposes they could really only hope to disable them (damaging the tracks) or suppress their movement. For these purposes, small to medium bombs, rockets and medium sized cannons are sufficient. My personal opinion. I don't think investing in 5 cm or larger cannons on a large scale was worth the trouble. Especially the ammo needed (Wolfram) was much better spent with AT guns on the ground.

That is not to say I would solely go with fighter bombers instead. I think the experience in late '44 has shown that these are too vulnerable to light AAA. That's why I overall think the Fw 190 F was a good choice: A good fighter bomber with decent armor but enough speed down low to make interception a very hard job.


----------



## Milosh (Oct 20, 2010)

Between April 1944 and Sept 1944, 23 Hs129B-3s were built.


----------



## riacrato (Oct 20, 2010)

davparlr said:


> A slice in time
> 
> August, 1941, production delivery of Fw-190A-2 begins.
> 
> ...


And on what fuel? 87 octane? Otherwise that comparison is rather useless and the 801 D should've been taken: 1,677 hp for the same weight: .75 hp/lb


> With these numbers, the power to weight ratio of the three aircraft is as follows:
> 
> BMW 801C-2 .69 hp/lb
> 
> ...


I guess you mean the power to weight of the _engines_. The contemporary fighters actually powered with these engines had very different power to weight ratios. Installing the not-fan-cooled 2800-21 would've meant a completely different and I'd say less drag-efficient cowling. R-2800 was also larger in diameter (only slightly though). Then there's the other not adressed questions: Fuel? Efficiency? Alloys?

The resulting aircraft may look much different than the real Fw 190 did.

And the reality in 1942 was that the existing Fw 190 with its BMW 801 D held up well with contemporary P-47s (and even early Hellcats and F4Us).



> It was already apparent that the radial had considerable potential that the Germans could use. They should have pulled a Russian reverse engineering on a captured R-2800. Can you imagine an Fw-190 with an R-2800-18W equivalent (F4U-4) engine in the fall of ’44. It would have flown circles around the D-9 at any altitude, and, most other aircraft, including the P-51D at high altitude, which the D-9 could not do.


 I don't know where to start: Did Germany even get the opportunity to have a detailed look at R2800s before 1942? Reverse engineering and industrialization in less than 2 years without detailed drawings, specifications? You'd take all these risks in 1942 Germany over developing satisfactory homegrown engines?

All the Jumo 213 needed was a better supercharger (which it got eventually, but too late) for pretty much the same result.

There were several improved versions of the BMW 801, too. The 801 E was a good improvement, increasing power by a good 200 KW and possibly more because the exhaust problems of the D were fixed. This also would've given the 801 a more stable, quiet run. The E version was to enter production in 1943 but didn't for several reasons. Instead they skipped it for the F. The F version had 2,367 hp, even 2,564 in the latest development. But it came too late. 20/20 hindsight. In 1942 there was a good chance the BMW 801 would have a normal lifecycle with the E and F (supercharged) and T (turbocharged) versions. Afterall the reality is not too far from it, but unfortunately the E was missing at a time when there was massive need for it (late 43 and 44).


----------



## Shortround6 (Oct 20, 2010)

davparlr said:


> A slice in time



Quite right.

Originally Posted by davebender 
"Specifics trump generalities every time. Let's look at historical German aircraft engines available during 1941."

August, 1941, production delivery of Fw-190A-2 begins.

Fw-190A-2, engine BMW 801C-2, 1539 hp, dry weight 2226 lbs

Bf-109F, engine DB 601E, 1350 hp, weight 1620 lbs (1320 lbs + 300 lbs cooling system-ala P-39) 

P-47B, engine PW R-2800-21, 2000 hp, dry weight 2265 lbs

With these numbers, the power to weight ratio of the three aircraft is as follows:

BMW 801C-2 .69 hp/lb

DB 601E .83 hp/lb

PW R-2800 .88 hp/lb

At this point in time the BMW is just introducing it's first production model. The DB series is on what? it's 5th or 6th or 7th version, at any rate it is 4-5 years into it's production life and development cycle. The R-2800 is on it's second seres, the "A" series were 1850 hp engines. Following the normal progression of things later versions of the BMW should have offered more power while the DB was closer to being tapped out without going to extremes like changing to the 605 series. 

I have no idea why the BMW was so heavy. At these numbers it has one of the worst power to weight ratios of any large radial engine built by anybody during all 6 years of WWII. I am not sure if the BMW's weight may include some parts or accessories not normally included in the "dry" weight. And "dry" usually doesn't mean just the absence of coolant and oil. It also means the absence of such things as starters, exhaust manifolds and pipes, vacuum pumps, generators and even in some cases variable pitch propeller controls in addition to other accessories. many of these things changed from installation to installation so the "dry" weight may be the only fair way to compare engines but it is far from being the installed weight. 
Some times the weight of the BMW as given in some sources is the weight of the "power egg" which is much heavier. I don't know how much the cooling fan contributes to the weight or if there are another bits/pieces that are included in the "dry" weight that are not included in the other engines weights. 






davparlr said:


> These are confusing comments. Both the P-47 and, especially late model, P-38s were effective and reliable turbocharged fighters, therefore, apparently turbochargers compact enough for fighters were made. These were big aircraft, but still fighters. However, Shortround is correct in that the physics of compressing the massive amount of air for these large engines prevented compact and efficient turbochargers to fit small airframes.



I had assumed that Mr. Bender was aware of both of those aircraft in addition to the bomber installations. I thought he was referring to installations that would be even more compact.


----------



## tomo pauk (Oct 20, 2010)

Fellas, 
What does "a slice in time" mean?
Thanks


----------



## Shortround6 (Oct 20, 2010)

tomo pauk said:


> Fellas,
> What does "a slice in time" mean?
> Thanks



To my way of thinking ( and they may disagree) it is the situation at a particular point in time. As in what engines were available in Aug of 1941 while disregarding what was available in either July or Sept. 
While you don't want to compare engines that debuted several years apart "a slice in time" comparisons can also give a false picture if you are comparing the future potential of an engine near the end of it's development cycle and one near the beginning.

It has been said by people wiser than me that an engine goes through three stages.
1. It''s early stage, where it is low on power and teething troubles are being worked out so reliability is not all it could be. Users/customers are a bit unhappy but generally OK.

2. It's mid life where power is up and reliability is way up making for very happy users/customers.

3. near the end of it's life when it is being pushed to it's limits to remain competitive with newer designs. Power is even higher but the engine is temperamental and needs careful handling, reliability and durability are both going down hill and users/customers are increasingly starting to look elsewhere.


----------



## Shortround6 (Oct 20, 2010)

riacrato said:


> I don't know where to start: Did Germany even get the opportunity to have a detailed look at R2800s before 1942? Reverse engineering and industrialization in less than 2 years without detailed drawings, specifications? You'd take all these risks in 1942 Germany over developing satisfactory homegrown engines?



The first P-47s don't show up in England until Dec of 1942 and don't fly over Europe until March 10th 1943, a bit late to reverse engineer anything in time to do any good. 
B-26s don't really show up until the North African invasion in Nov of 1942 and they have the older 1850hp "A" series engines. 

Unless the Germans had somebody in the factory there was no way for them to get a detailed look at an R-2800 before 1942. 



riacrato said:


> All the Jumo 213 needed was a better supercharger (which it got eventually, but too late) for pretty much the same result.



The Jumo 213 may have worked as an interceptor engine or short range bomber engine but it is highly suspect that it could do what the R-2800 did.


----------



## michaelmaltby (Oct 20, 2010)

Cross section of time - frozen - and thus revealing the interaction of components within a system: engine, battle, economy etc.

MM


----------



## DonL (Oct 20, 2010)

> The Jumo 213 may have worked as an interceptor engine or short range bomber engine but it is highly suspect that it could do what the R-2800 did.



Please can you give some arguments or hints?

The Jumo 213 engines, had a very low specific fuel consumption. This was for cruising speed between 258 (190) to 274 (202) g/kWh (g/PSh) ) depending on the series.
And with the three gear two stage supercharger it was the only real high altitude engine from germany.

I can't see what the Jumo 213 can't do compare to the PR 2800.
In addition the Jumo 213J (2240 PS) with 4 Valves was developed and ready to go in production.

The dryweight of the the Jumo 213 E1 for B 87 fuel was 940kg.

The Ta 152 H1 with something about 1050 l complete internal capacity for fuel, MW 50 and GM 1, so I think something about 800-900l internal fuel had a range of 1550 km.
So the Jumo 213 wasn't a short legged engine with too much fuel consumption.


----------



## riacrato (Oct 20, 2010)

Shortround6 said:


> The first P-47s don't show up in England until Dec of 1942 and don't fly over Europe until March 10th 1943, a bit late to reverse engineer anything in time to do any good.
> B-26s don't really show up until the North African invasion in Nov of 1942 and they have the older 1850hp "A" series engines.
> 
> Unless the Germans had somebody in the factory there was no way for them to get a detailed look at an R-2800 before 1942.


At first I thought davparl suggested captured examples from Soviet Union, but I guess he meant Russian reverse engineerng as a term. Now I know that P-47s were delivered to the VSS and I assume some spare engines as well. But I don't know when and I don't know if anyhting was ever captured to make the story possible.





> The Jumo 213 may have worked as an interceptor engine or short range bomber engine but it is highly suspect that it could do what the R-2800 did.


What DonL said. The Jumo 213 was seen as the ultimate clean copy 211 and as such I'd be very surprised if there was anything the 211 could do that the 213 could not. It had a fuel efficiency good enough for it to be used as a bomber or nightfighter engine (Ju 188 and Ju 388). So what can the R2800 do what the Jumo 213 could not in your opinion? The obvious air-cooled vs liquid-cooled arguments aside.


----------



## davebender (Oct 20, 2010)

> should have pulled a Russian reverse engineering on a captured R-2800.


I'll buy that. The problem is obtaining a R-2800 early enough to matter. By April 1939 BMW had an 801 prototype running. I suspect BMW promised a lot more then 1,539 hp and a relatively short development period.


----------



## DonL (Oct 20, 2010)

> It had a fuel efficiency good enough for it to be used as a bomber or nightfighter engine



It had the best fuel efficiency from all german engines. This was stated in many books.

Also I don't see were the Ta 152H1 was an interceptor. The range was 1550km with internal fuel.
Please name any other high performance fighter year 1944/45 with this range with internal fuel, accept the Mustang. The Ta 152H1 played in the same league with a Jumo 213 E1 engine with B 87 fuel not C3 fuel.


----------



## Shortround6 (Oct 20, 2010)

DonL said:


> Please can you give some arguments or hints?
> 
> The Jumo 213 engines, had a very low specific fuel consumption. This was for cruising speed between 258 (190) to 274 (202) g/kWh (g/PSh) ) depending on the series.
> And with the three gear two stage supercharger it was the only real high altitude engine from germany.



R-2800s could get specific consumptions down around .45lbs/hp/hr or 204 g/hp/hr so the difference isn't in fuel consumption. 
The difference is in the life of the engines. The R-2800 was good for hundreds of hours before overhaul and in post war service went to 2000 hours recommended between overhauls with a few engines making 3000 hrs. Granted this wasn't combat but what was the recommended overhaul life of a 213?
How many long range/ long duration missions were you going to get before pulling the engines? The US and British sometimes figured on needing 50% more engines (of all types) than a strict count of engines to airframes would cover and that does not include normal spare parts. The US got themselves in trouble when they only ordered 20% extra Merlin engines for the P-40F Ls. The British gave the US up to 600 Merlin engines to swap into P-40s in the field and/or to break down for parts while the US came up with a program to re-engine the planes with Allisons. 
I have seen figures as low as 50 hrs thrown around for overhauls times for Jumo 213s but I don't know if that is true. I would venture to guess however that the over haul life of the 213 was lower than the R-2800 due to the higher rpm and piston speed. While you may get a fair number of flights out of an interceptor or short range bomber (1 1/2-4 hours of flight goes into overhaul life how many times?) trying to use the same engine for long range recon or bombing gets a little expensive in terms of spare engines needed and overhaul/maintenance facilities and manpower. 


DonL said:


> I can't see what the Jumo 213 can't do compare to the PR 2800.
> In addition the Jumo 213J (2240 PS) with 4 Valves was developed and ready to go in production.
> 
> The dryweight of the the Jumo 213 E1 for B 87 fuel was 940kg.
> ...



On a flight by flight basis maybe the Jumo 213 could match the R-2800 but as an engine to be used in many different aircraft flying many different roles it may have presented too many maintenance issues to be really good at all the roles. 
Using a hot rodded 35 liter engine at 3700rpm probably wasn't the way to go. I would like to see the specific fuel consumption figures on that engine, especially at altitude.


----------



## DonL (Oct 20, 2010)

> Using a hot rodded 35 liter engine at 3700rpm probably wasn't the way to go



It was 3200rpm for continuous operation and not 3700rpm.
The Jumo 213 was in combat and mass produced since 1942 and I haven't read about serious problems.
The three gear two stage supercharger had some problems at the beginnings but not the engine itself.

In addition the USA had completly other opportunities to manufactor matalurgie and raw materials, you should not forget these when you compare.

And the Jumo 213 was the planed engine for whole lot of german aircrafts in very different roles.
Look at the Ju 88 G6 and other aircrafts.

The DB 603 and the Jumo 213 were constructed as quick change engines. So every Jumo 213 could be replaced with an DB 603 and the other way around


----------



## davebender (Oct 20, 2010)

On the other hand most fighter aircraft built for this monster engine were large and heavy. Plus you have a huge frontal area of 15 sq ft (compared to 6.3 sq ft for the Ju213A engine). Consequently the P-47D15 was a fuel hog that achieved long range only by carrying an incredible 375 gallons of internal fuel. 4 Me-109s (or Me-155s) could be fueled with the contents from a single P-47. Perhaps WWII Germany could have built a more fuel efficient fighter aircraft powered by the R2800 engine. They certainly didn't have enough aviation gasoline to operate P-47s.

Internal Fuel Capacity. For comparison purposes.
Me-109G10. 90 gallons. (340 liters)
Fw-190A8. 141 gallons. (535 liters)


----------



## Shortround6 (Oct 20, 2010)

DonL said:


> It was 3200rpm for continuous operation and not 3700rpm.



And the R-2800 ran at 2550-2600 for continuous operation and not the 2700-2800rpm used for take off and max power. Cruising rpm was 2250 or below. 
The 213 B,C and E maxed at 3200rpm but then they also maxed at 1750hp for take off. 
The F did do better but the J which every on likes to quote the power number from was the one at 3700rpm.
It's cruise rating was 1970hp, was that at 3200rpm? 
Late model P-47s could run 1700hp at 2600rpm up to 25,000-26,600ft continuous. 



DonL said:


> The Jumo 213 was in combat and mass produced since 1942 and I haven't read about serious problems.


Care to give information about being combat in 1942?
or do you mean sometime in 1943?


DonL said:


> In addition the USA had completly other opportunities to manufactor matalurgie and raw materials, you should not forget these when you compare.


Not forgetting, the Jumo 213 might have been even better with better materials but that is really getting into "what if" land. maybe a German built R-2800 in WW II would have had a shorter overhaul life due to poorer materials too but there were certain choices made in it's design that were going to affect it's durability. that choice being the high rpm and high piston speed. There are reasons no other aircraft engine maker used pistons speeds that high. 


DonL said:


> And the Jumo 213 was the planed engine for whole lot of german aircrafts in very different roles.
> Look at the Ju 88 G6 and other aircrafts.


 What choice did they have?
They had to use what they had, not what they wished they had. If it is a choice between using a short lived engine in a certain role and not having an aircraft that can fly that mission at all you use the short life engine. Just because they used it doesn't mean it was the best for the role or that it didn't place a strain on the maintenance services that that other countries didn't have to put up with. 
Not that other countries didn't have problems of their own.
Parachuting the plans and a sample engine of either an early R-3350 or Napair Sabre into Germany in 1941 might have done more damage to the German aircraft industry than a 1000 bomber raid 


DonL said:


> The DB 603 and the Jumo 213 were constructed as quick change engines. So every Jumo 213 could be replaced with an DB 603 and the other way around



So what?

If you have to swap engines every 10-15 missions to send them back for overhaul it doesn't really matter if you can swap them 3 or 4 times quicker than the allied plane that gets it's engines pulled after 30-45 missions of the same length. You have the same number of man hours at the squadron level and a whole bunch more hours at the overhaul depot. 
It is an advantage to keeping planes flying if your transport network is screwed up so you can't get the right engines to the right units but it no real substitute for longer lasting engines in the first place is it?


----------



## Shortround6 (Oct 20, 2010)

davebender said:


> On the other hand most fighter aircraft built for this monster engine were large and heavy. Plus you have a huge frontal area of 15 sq ft (compared to 6.3 sq ft for the Ju213A engine).



When you get the frontal area of the pilot/cockpit down to to 6.3 sq ft or less let me know. 



davebender said:


> Consequently the P-47D15 was a fuel hog that achieved long range only by carrying an incredible 375 gallons of internal fuel. 4 Me-109s (or Me-155s) could be fueled with the contents from a single P-47. Perhaps WWII Germany could have built a more fuel efficient fighter aircraft powered by the R2800 engine. They certainly didn't have enough aviation gasoline to operate P-47s.
> 
> Internal Fuel Capacity. For comparison purposes.
> Me-109G10. 90 gallons. (340 liters)
> Fw-190A8. 141 gallons. (535 liters)



First, learn the difference between Imperial gallons and US gallons. 
Then learn which planes used which measure.
Then do the math. 

For comparison 
Early P-47. 305 US gallons (1,154.6 liters) 
Later P-47D. 375 US gallons (1,419.5 liters) 

Didn't the 109 use a 400 liter internal tank?
And the FW was 599liters if the rear tank was used for fuel and not MW 50.

Maybe it doesn't change things a lot but lets be accurate.
As far as the range bit goes that early P-47 was supposed to be able to go 450 miles at 30,000ft at 370mph on the 265 US gallons of fuel.

A Bf 109G-6 was supposed to go 350 miles at 330 mph at 19,030 ft on internal fuel. If you have figures for the G-10 bring them on out. 

I wonder what the range of the P-47 would be if slowed down to 330-340mph?
Maybe 550miles on that 265 US gallons? 

Yes the 109 is getting better fuel mileage but much closer to twice the P-47 than 4 times and of course it is carrying a much smaller weight of guns and ammo.


----------



## tomo pauk (Oct 20, 2010)

davebender said:


> On the other hand most fighter aircraft built for this monster engine were large and heavy. Plus you have a huge frontal area of 15 sq ft (compared to 6.3 sq ft for the Ju213A engine). Consequently the P-47D15 was a fuel hog that achieved long range only by carrying an incredible 375 gallons of internal fuel. 4 Me-109s (or Me-155s) could be fueled with the contents from a single P-47. Perhaps WWII Germany could have built a more fuel efficient fighter aircraft powered by the R2800 engine. They certainly didn't have enough aviation gasoline to operate P-47s.
> 
> Internal Fuel Capacity. For comparison purposes.
> Me-109G10. 90 gallons. (340 liters)
> Fw-190A8. 141 gallons. (535 liters)



1st, R-2800 was not a monster engine - it was under 1000 kg dry, while providing 300 HP more than similarly sized BMW 801, or Jumo 213. And it was available 1/3rd of German WW2 earlier then 213.
2nd, when comparing frontal areas of radial vs. inline, it would be good to add the radiator area for the later.
3rd, when comparing ranges, stating miles flown vs. fuel carried would be nice.
4th, also, picking the heaviest fighter with R-2800 vs. the light opposition, for combat range comparison is, well, silly. Perhaps we could add F-4U1 in comparison, with twice the range vs. 109 190, on 234 gallons of internal fuel?


----------



## riacrato (Oct 20, 2010)

How about we stop dabbeling about a German R-2800. Really it's just all opinion and what if's and had not's. It's not going to happen one way or another. The R-2800 was a great engine, possibly the best radial of the war. But it's an American engine and aircraft design is no cherry picking, you work with what you got. Let's keep it at that.

Your opinion is that the Jumo 213 was for some reason not usable in the same roles as the R-2800. For me this goes completely against the facts of its development and application as an allround engine for many different projects including btw the long range recon role you just mentioned. If you have any source indicating it was meant to be an interceptor engine please post so. I'm sure if there was such a drastic limitation for the planned purposes of this engine there would be a primary source for that. What alternatives did they have? DB 603. Was there ever a distinction made between the DB 603 with its normal rpm and Jumo 213 with its high rpm regarding feasible applications? No. If you have sources indicating catastrophic problems related to rpm, again, I'd be very interested to see them.

As for specific fuel consumption. When DonL says it had the lowest sfc of any German engine you counter this by saying the R-2800 could go even lower. So what? The point is unless you count all German engines or all engines with a sfc worse than 260 kg/kwh as "interceptor engines" your conclusion should be that this is no indication whatsoever that the Jumo 213 is one.

As for overhaul times: Which MTBO of a German 1944-45 engine was not poor? It plagued pretty much all of them and we all know the reasons. To take this is an indication of the intended purpose as an interceptor engine is misleading imo. Unless you have real figures and strong evidence that the MTBO was NOT for the same reasons poor as that of the DB 603, late DB 605s...

The Jumo 213 was a development of the Jumo 211 with no specific target in mind and certainly not the Ta 152 which was barely on paper when the engine made its first test runs. It was a late-war allround engine with an unsually high rpm, end of story. And I think it's useless to quote performance figures of inlines side by side with that of radials without taking the aerodynamic deficiencies of the latter into context. The Merlin, Jumo and Daimler powered fighters certainly did okay when compared to its radial-powered contemporaries, pure horsepowers aside.


----------



## NZTyphoon (Oct 20, 2010)

Just for comparison: 
* Napier Sabre IIA or IIB *(from the Tempest V Pilot's Notes 1944):
Take-off to 1,000 ft = 3,700 rpm
Climbing (1 hr limit) = 3,500 rpm (or 3,700 rpm for Sabres embodying Mod. 158 or 297 and Mod. 276 ie: Sabre IIB)
Rich Continuous = 3,150 rpm
Weak Continuous = 3,150 rpm
Combat 5 mins = 3,700 rpm

(Lumsden 2003)
Displacement = 2,240 in³ (36.65 L)
Dry weight = 2,260 lb (1,024 kg)
Power = 2,235 or 2,400 hp (IIA or IIB)

(Pilot's Notes)
Fuel Consumption: ( imp. gallons per hour)
Weak mixture M ratio at 5,000 ft
100 g/ph at 3,150 rpm +6 lb/sq.in boost
42 g/ph at 2,300 rpm -4 lb/sq.in boost

Weak mixture S ratio at 20,000 ft
94 g/ph at 3,150 rpm 0 lb/sq.in boost
49 g/ph at 2,300 rpm -4 lb/sq.in boost

Rich Mixture at all altitudes:
190 g/ph at 3,700 rpm +7 lb/sq.in boost
132 g/ph at 3,150 rpm +4.5lb/sq.in boost

*Rolls-Royce Griffon III or IV* (Spitfire XII Pilot's Notes 1943)
Take-off to 1,000 ft = 2,750 rpm
Climbing (1 hr limit) = 2,600 rpm 
Rich Continuous = 2,400 rpm
Weak Continuous = 2,400 rpm
Combat 5 mins = 2,750 rpm
(Lumsden 2003)
Displacement = 2,240 in³ (36.65 L)
Dry weight = 1,820 lb (825 kg)
Power =1,850 hp 

(Pilot's Notes)
Fuel Consumption: ( imp. gallons per hour)
Weak mixture M ratio at 5,000 ft
74 g/ph at 2,400 rpm +6 lb/sq.in boost
42 g/ph at 2,000 rpm -4 lb/sq.in boost

Weak mixture S ratio at 20,000 ft
75 g/ph at 2,400 rpm +6 lb/sq.in boost
43 g/ph at 2,000 rpm -4 lb/sq.in boost

Rich Mixture all altitudes
132 g/ph at 2,750rpm +12lb/sq.in boost
88 g/ph at 2,400 rpm +7lb/sq.in boost


----------



## davebender (Oct 20, 2010)

I agree. Which is why I like the Me-155 option. 

By 1943 Germany was producing DB605 engines like they were hot rolls. Most teething problems were fixed and significantly more powerful versions of the engine were not far off. The Me-109 airframe was also being produced in large numbers and at a very low cost compared to most contemporary fighter aircraft. Switching to the Me-155 shouldn't be terribly difficult as we are essentially just giving the Me-109G a new wing with wide track landing gear and room for internal MG151/20 cannon. The resulting aircraft won't be quite as capable as a Fw-190C or Fw-190D but it's good enough and can be produced in large numbers.


----------



## DonL (Oct 20, 2010)

> Parachuting the plans and a sample engine of either an early R-3350 or Napair Sabre into Germany in 1941 might have done more damage to the German aircraft industry than a 1000 bomber raid



Sorry but you have no expert knowledge about german engine technology of WW II!
This statement shows your ignorance!

Jumo 222
BMW 802
BMW 803

Jumo 222 A/B-1 2000 PS at 3200rpm with 43.380 cm³, was in the air
Jumo 222 A/B-2 2500 PS at 2900rpm with 49.880 cm³ was in the air
Jumo 222 C/D 3.000 PS at 3200rpm with 55.480 cm³ testengines were running!

You should rethink your post and statement. And the Jumo 222 was production ready and in development since 1937. So I don't know what is your intention but german aircraft technology of WWII didn't lag on aircraft designs or engine designs, it laged on enough metallurgy, raw materials and enough C3 fuel thats all!
There was no technology advantage of the USA or England!

And besides the Lancaster Bomber was powered by an inline rolls royce merlin and no radial engine. And the Jumo 213 could match with a rolls royce merlin.


----------



## DonL (Oct 20, 2010)

> Not forgetting, the Jumo 213 might have been even better with better materials but that is really getting into "what if" land. maybe a German built R-2800 in WW II would have had a shorter overhaul life due to poorer materials too but there were certain choices made in it's design that were going to affect it's durability. that choice being the high rpm and high piston speed. There are reasons no other aircraft engine maker used pistons speeds that high



Lol, look at ricartos reply! You suggestive something that you can't proof! The lag of raw materials and metallurgy by german aircarft industry of WWII is proofed! The Jumo 213, 211, 601 and 603 had no serious engine problems!
The only one was the DB 605 and all were solved at the begining of 1944 for DB 605 A, AS and D 



> What choice did they have?
> They had to use what they had, not what they wished they had. If it is a choice between using a short lived engine in a certain role and not having an aircraft that can fly that mission at all you use the short life engine. Just because they used it doesn't mean it was the best for the role or that it didn't place a strain on the maintenance services that that other countries didn't have to put up with.



Have you any sources or evidences for a short life Jumo 213?
The normal life of a Jumo 211F was 200 hours! Thats what is my knowledge to the Jumo 213!
And this 200 hours were dued to the metallurgy and not the design!
So you can report or tell a book of storys about the running hours of allied engines that isn't any real hint at all of a what if superior design!


----------



## Shortround6 (Oct 20, 2010)

riacrato said:


> How about we stop dabbeling about a German R-2800. Really it's just all opinion and what if's and had not's. It's not going to happen one way or another. The R-2800 was a great engine, possibly the best radial of the war. But it's an American engine and aircraft design is no cherry picking, you work with what you got. Let's keep it at that.


leaving out a German R-2800 is fine with me. 

"you work with what you got"
is rather the whole point here isn't it?

the Germans had the Jumo 213 and they had the DB 603 and the had the BMW 801 at a bit less power and that is ALL they had. The 605 was bit small by the end of the war unless it was really pressed. 


riacrato said:


> Your opinion is that the Jumo 213 was for some reason not usable in the same roles as the R-2800. For me this goes completely against the facts of its development and application as an allround engine for many different projects including btw the long range recon role you just mentioned.



"you work with what you got"


riacrato said:


> If you have any source indicating it was meant to be an interceptor engine please post so. I'm sure if there was such a drastic limitation for the planned purposes of this engine there would be a primary source for that. What alternative's did they have? DB 603. Was there ever a distinction in class made between the DB 603 with its normal rpm and Jumo 213? No. If you have sources indicating catastrophic problems related to rpm, again, I'd be very interested to see them.


There is no primary source for it. It is just logic. In German's situation from 1942 onward a high powered engine with a short overhaul life is not a big handicap *IF* it is used for interceptors or short ranged aircraft. I have no information on catastrophic problems and never said I did. I have been referring all along to service life or overhaul life which is somewhat different isn't it?

The Problem isn't so much RPM as it is piston speed and here the DB 603 was no great shakes either. With it's long stroke and "normal" rpm it had a piston speed of 3190.5 fpm at 2700rpm. The Jumo 213 was either 3520fpm or 4008fpm depending on 3250 rpm or 3700rpm.

For comparison piston speeds for a few other engines are:

R-2800 at 2800rpm.----2800fpm
Merlin at 3000rpm-------3000fpm
Sabre at 3,850rpm------3048fpm
Griffon at 2750rpm------3025fpm
DB 605 at 2800rpm-----2940fpm
Hercules at 2800rpm----3030fpm
Centaurus at 2700rpm--3150fpm
M-105 at 2700rpm-------3100fpm
AM-38 at 2350rpm-------3035fpm

And for a little perspective 
1939 auto union Grand Prix V-12 at 7000rpm------3445fpm
1939 Mercedes Grand Prix V-12 at 7500rpm-------3445fpm
1951 BRM Grand Prix V-16 at 11000rpm------------3486fpm
1955 Mercedes Grand Prix I-8 at 8500rpm---------3837fpm 

these are straight piston speeds and uncorrected for the Bore:stroke ratio. Some racing engines in the early 50s did go over 4000fpm.
Pardon me if I think that airplane engines that use Grand Prix piston speeds may not have been the best idea. But "you work with what you got".




riacrato said:


> As for specific fuel consumption. When DonL says it had the lowest sfc of any German engine you counter this by saying the R-2800 could go even lower. So what?



You are right, so what, I am not the one who brought specific fuel consumption into the discussion. 


riacrato said:


> As for overhaul times: Which MTBO of a German 1944-45 engine was not poor? We all know the reasons and we all know the reasons for it. To say this is an indication of its intended purpose is misleading imo.


"you work with what you got"
Then don't say a Jumo 213 with a better supercharger could do what an R-2800 could do.
I didn't say that it was it's intended purpose, I have been saying that for certain jobs, like interceptor the difference in overhaul times wouldn't make that much difference. For long range or long duration flights it would and more from an operational point of view than form a specific, one mission point of view.



riacrato said:


> And I think it's useless to quote performance figures of inlines side by side with that of radials without taking the aerodynamic deficiencies of the latter into context. The Merlin, Jumo and Daimler powered fighters certainly did okay when compared to its radial-powered contemporaries, pure horsepowers aside.



An interesting comparison can be made between the Merlin and the R-2800 because both were installed in the same airframe. Granted it was a 4 engined airliner and it was post war but more than one was built of each type and they were flown for a number of years. the Merlin looses this contest but at the time R-2800s had to bought with cash from out side the commonwealth while Merlins were from within the commonwealth.

"you work with what you got"


----------



## Shortround6 (Oct 20, 2010)

Me "Parachuting the plans and a sample engine of either an early R-3350 or Napair Sabre into Germany in 1941 might have done more damage to the German aircraft industry than a 1000 bomber raid"



DonL said:


> Sorry but you have no expert knowledge about german engine technology of WW II!
> This statement shows your ignorance!



Please, get a grip, it was joke. Read it again. Both the early R-3350 and the Napair Sabre looked good to begin with but with hindsight were both problematic engines that took a great deal of time, money and effort to bring to anything approaching a satisfactory service engine. And that is with the better materials of the allies. An argument could be made that the Allies would have been better off junking both of them and concentrating on other engines. 

How you took this to be a slam against the German aircraft industry I don't know. It was a way of saying that the Allies produced some real mistakes of their own. 

Now can we all say "Rolls-Royce Vulture" or Continental IV-1430 or Lycoming O-1230/H-2470 for some even bigger ones. 


DonL said:


> So I don't know what is your intention but german aircraft technology of WWII didn't lag on aircraft designs or engine designs, it laged on enough metallurgy, raw materials and enough C3 fuel thats all!
> There was no technology advantage of the USA or England!



Actually there was an advantage in Allied technology but it wasn't so much in the design of the engines but in how they were made. 
I have read one account of how the Germans were amazed at the forged cylinder heads on some of the American radials, not so much that they were forged but at the idea that the Americans could produce thousands of such forgings a week. Some of these things meant that the engine designers could pursue paths the German designers could not. It is no good coming up with a trick design if it can't be massed produced. 
The Americans came up with several ways to increase the cooling on radial engines. One was the aluminium "muff" that fit over the steel barrel. The aluminium fins were larger and cooled better than steel fins, this idea goes back to WW I but the ability to make the steel liner and the aluminium stay together with temperature changes took a bit longer to work out as did machining the fin fins. Wright did come up with rolling and caulking sheet metal fins into groves cut in the outer cylinder walls instead of machining the fins out of the steel of the cylinder walls. maybe somebody else had the Idea originally but the US had the ability to make such cylinders in quantity and that opened up a path for the designers. It was this sheet metal finning that helped allow the R-1820 to go over 1200hp and the R-2600 to go from 1700hp to 1900 hp. 
Going back to Wright and the R-3350, it took them way too long to get over the "not invented here" and adopt the type of bearings (silver) that P&W had been using for several years even when it was offered to them at no cost. To turn an early R-3350 into a late R-3350 you needed the better bearing material, you needed the sheet metal cylinder finning, you needed to change from cast heads to forged heads and a bunch more. 
Please note that none of this has to do with cylinder layout, or valve timing or valve angle or intake manifold design or carburetors or fuel injection or a host of other things that may be considered engine design.


----------



## riacrato (Oct 21, 2010)

Shortround6 said:


> leaving out a German R-2800 is fine with me.
> 
> "you work with what you got"
> is rather the whole point here isn't it?
> ...


So all in all, besides your attempts to take what I said out of context and redicule me you base your whole statement on the low number of hours between overhaul (ignoring that these were no worse than that of other contemporary German V12) you think you read somewhere and your knowledge on piston speeds and rpm. And that is of course better than going with what is documented about the engine in either primary or secondary sources. What is your experience with WW2 era V12s btw and your theoretical knowledge on the Jumo 213 in particular? And I'm not sure what your last sentence is to show: That there were cases where a radial was chosen over an inline?


----------



## Milosh (Oct 21, 2010)

DonL said:


> You should rethink your post and statement. And the Jumo 222 was production ready and in development since 1937. So I don't know what is your intention but german aircraft technology of WWII didn't lag on aircraft designs or engine designs, it laged on enough metallurgy, raw materials and enough C3 fuel thats all!
> There was no technology advantage of the USA or England!.



_As far as I have seen, the Jumo-222A-1 was designed to run on 2500hp / 3200rpm /SL and was in it´s first production version derated to 2000hp at SL raising to 2200hp @ 16400ft. The take-off and emergancy rating was tested but showed bearing damage and piston seizure and thus was blocked. The two speed, single stage Jumo-222A-1 could deliver for 30 minutes the 2000hp/SL rating and was run in 1940 repeatedly on the testbench (flown on a Ju-52, too). When the requirements moved to larger capacity A-2/A-3 and then to the Jumo-222 C/D engines problems still were unsolved except for the basic Jumo-222A-1 design.
There was some increased interest late in the war to come back to the original A-1 design fitted with a new two stage, three speed supercharger ( Jumo-222E/F).

It is particularely important, esspeccially with reference to Red Admiral, that the initial Jumo-222A design at 2000hp (still running on B4-fuel) was choosen for *mass production in 1941*. The RLM even financed the installation of a special Junkers aeroengine works at Wien-Neustadt (FMO-Flugmotorenwerke Ost) to deliver monthly 1000 engines of this 2000hp class Jumo-222A-1 design. On 25th of july 1941 11.500 construction workers begun building six production halls. On 28th of oct. the halls were worked enough that Junkers ordered tooling equipment beeing produced for this plant.

At about this time, as K. v. Gersdorff pointed out, several long time issues were discovered on the Jumo-222A, he mentions *vibration fractures and casing corrosion* which demanded engine changeovers on the Ju-228V-prototypes equipped with the Jumo-222A after 20 to 50 hours flighttime.
That´s about as poor as the engine changeover times for the contemporary BMW-801C, actually it´s even a bit better. However, he makes a point that increased demands on the Ju-288 lead to increased demands on the Jumo-222A to clear take off emergancy raring, which in turn run into the aforementioned problems and required extensive redesign, esspeccially in the enlargement of the bore and a change in the ignition system to lead into the Jumo-222A-2/A-3 designs.

Trial production of the Jumo-222A commenced in Taucha and at other plants.

The RLM canceled serial production of the Jumo-222A in december and handed over the FMO-plant to Daimler Benz for db-610 production, something which never materialised (only about 50 specimen were produced before production was halted there). All tooling equipment already installed there was put into store. L. Budraß dissertation makes a strong case for Milch intentionally wanting to stall the Ju-288 program which he feared could become to important for the german aerial procurement program and would lead to a much to important role of the Junkers company. The Ju-288, however, would only realise with the Jumo-222.

Production numbers are inconsistent, going as low as 240 and as high as 289._
http://www.ww2aircraft.net/forum/aviation/why-no-jumo-222-a-17421.html


----------



## bada (Oct 21, 2010)

Shortround6 said:


> August, 1941, production delivery of Fw-190A-2 begins.
> 
> Fw-190A-2, engine BMW 801C-2, 1539 hp, dry weight 2226 lbs
> 
> ...



wrong interpretation of numbers: 

the weight of the 801 given here above, is the POWER-EGG weight, what means, the weight of the engine ready to bolt on the Holder, armored oil-tank/cooler and cover panels included, simply add 55l of oil, attach control wires et ready is the engine!

Now for the 2800: add all the necessary tanks, engine covers and oil and compare the weight..and if you use the corsair as reference, add the weight of the compressor,intercooler, etc,etc...

You can't compare a dry weight/power ratio, because no engine can devlop power at DRY weight, it's just metal scrap without use.
Only a comparaison of ready to use engine(with all it's secondary equippement) can be applied.


----------



## davebender (Oct 21, 2010)

How do you figure that? The U.S. Army Air Corp preferred the Merlin engine powered P-51 over the R2800 powered P-47 from 1944 onward. The RR Merlin also powered most Spitfires which entered service during WWII plus the Mosquito and Lancaster bombers.

*P-51D Engines.*
North American P-51 Mustang - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
748kg Dry Weight.
1,490 to 1,720 hp.

*DB605AM Engine*
Daimler-Benz DB 605 - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
756 kg Dry Weight. Almost identical to the Merlin engine.
1,775 hp. Takeoff.
1,677 hp. Max @ 4,000 meters.


----------



## Shortround6 (Oct 21, 2010)

bada said:


> wrong interpretation of numbers:
> 
> the weight of the 801 given here above, is the POWER-EGG weight, what means, the weight of the engine ready to bolt on the Holder, armored oil-tank/cooler and cover panels included, simply add 55l of oil, attach control wires et ready is the engine!
> 
> ...



You are quite right that the comparison of the ready to use engine would be the best way but that information is usually impossible to find. 

As for the BMW 801 I have one book that says it's dry weight was 1940lb for a "D" model but it is a war time book and I have seen no other source to back it up.

the 1946 "Janes" gives weights of 2,669lbs for the "A" and 2,702lbs for the "B" which may be for the power egg. It gives 2321lbs for the "C" and says it is a bare engine but bare may not be the same as "dry" weight. 

If someone has any German data sheets or manuals that give weights it would be much appreciated as I think many websites are not clear or are repeating information with their own interpretation. Trying to translate such things as "dry" and "bare" can be tricky. 

The dry weights come from the engine manufacturer and the engines are about as stripped as possible without being totally ridiculous. Since everybody at the time knew what was going on it was no big deal.
As a for instance the American Allison engine included 10lbs of exhaust flanges, gaskets and nuts in it's dry weight but the exhaust stacks were the responsibility of the airframe manufacturer. The stacks were welded onto the provided flanges to suit what ever cowl shape the airframe manufacturer decided on. 
Various accessories were "optional" such as generators. The British (and Russians) got into trouble with the early P-40s because the British had specified a 1500 watt generator on their planes instead of the smaller unit on American planes. Not only did it weigh more but the increased load on the drive gears caused numerous failures. Gun synchronizers weighed about 4lbs apiece.
Starters were another "option", yes you need a starter if you don't want to turn it over by hand or use a Hucks starter but do you want an electric only, a hand cranked inertia starter, a electric inertia starter with hand crank option or do you want a cartridge starter? And some countries had more than one starter supplier even of the same type. 
you could easily add several hundred pounds to an Allison engine before you fitted a propeller, added any fluids or fitted engine mounts and a cowl to it. 
dry engine weights usually included the ignition harness, the carburetor,a fuel pump and if needed a water or coolant pump. 
The ignition harness bit is interesting because small planes of the 30s and 40s often did not have radios and so an ignition harness that was shielded for radio use was an optional extra over a non-shielded harness. The shielded harness weighed more. 

getting back to "Only a comparaison of ready to use engine(with all it's secondary equippement) can be applied." in a more direct fashion, I can give two comparisons from " Development of Aircraft Engines" by Robert Schlaifer and "Development of aviation Fuels" by S.D. Heron. 
1. The comparison of the Merlin and the R-2800 I mentioned before. 
Including everything except fuel tanks the Merlin installation in a Candair DC-4M weighed 3,980lbs while the R-2800 installation in a DC-6 weighed 4,087lbs. a 2.7% difference. The R-2800 had 70% more displacement 
and 35% more take off power. At maximum continuous power on low blower (low altitude climb) the R-2800 had about 20% more power at about the same specific fuel consumption. there is a bit more.
2. there is a comparison of the Merlin in the P-51 and the R-2800 in an F4U in early 1943. Both with 2 stage superchargers.
Again with out fuel tanks.

.................................................................... Merlin.............................. R-2800

Engine with
charge cooler..................................................1,639lbs........................... 2,517lb
Cooling system with coolant
includes oil coolers............................................. 652lbs................................95lbs
_____________________________________________________________
total engine weight with 
cooling system ........................................................... 2,291lbs .........................2,612lbs


Engine mount &cowl.............................................284lbs............................303lbs
Cooling system mounts, 
control mechanisms and/or cowl flaps.......................116lbs............................101lbs
Intake exhaust, starter, control
propeller controls.............................................. 624lb............................ 681lbs
 ________________________________________

total associated weight..................................................1,024lbs...........................1,085lb
_______________________________________

Total installed weight.................................................... 3,315lbs..........................3,697lbs

I will freely admit that these comparisons have nothing to do with German engines.


----------



## Civettone (Oct 21, 2010)

Don, I also have my doubts if you can put everything on a lack of special alloys. I know this was true for the second part of the war. But the Germans used their materials so lavishly - which is why they were able to increase production with a low increase in raw materials - that I would doubt they would hold back on their aircraft engines as early as 1937.

The other reasons mentioned so far seem to be more logical.

Great stuff guys, keep it up!
Kris


----------



## tomo pauk (Oct 21, 2010)

bada said:


> wrong interpretation of numbers:
> 
> the weight of the 801 given here above, is the POWER-EGG weight, what means, the weight of the engine ready to bolt on the Holder, armored oil-tank/cooler and cover panels included, simply add 55l of oil, attach control wires et ready is the engine!
> 
> ...



Not so fast 

Dry weight of the BMW 801D in power-egg configuration is more than 1,5 tons:


----------



## Shortround6 (Oct 21, 2010)

davebender said:


> How do you figure that? The U.S. Army Air Corp preferred the Merlin engine powered P-51 over the R2800 powered P-47 from 1944 onward. The RR Merlin also powered most Spitfires which entered service during WWII plus the Mosquito and Lancaster bombers.


It was a bit small for powering twin engined bombers or large night fighters that needed engines in the 1750hp to 2000hp class. These planes need engines with cruising powers to match to the take off power and not an engine that reaches the 1750-2000hp neighborhood by using water injection or a "sprint" rating. 

Figures from the 1946 Jane's. I would welcome better ones?

DB 603A as in the Me 410,

take-off 1750hp at 2700rpm at 1.4 ata.
Emergency at 18,700ft is 1620hp at 2700rpm at 1.4ata.
Climb (or max continuous?) is given as 1580hp at 2600rpm and 1.3 ata. at sea level. 
Max Cruise is 1375/1400 at 2300rpm/1.2 ata at sea level/17,700ft.

DB 605 BD engine

take off and emergency at sea level-1800hp at 2,800rpm and 1.8ata
emergency at 19,600ft- 1530hp at 2800rpm at 1.8ata.
Climb 1275hp at 2600rpm at 1.3ata at sea level
Max cruise is 1075/1050 at 2400rpm at 1.15ata at sea level/25,200ft.

Some other sources may give different numbers but I think that we can see that while the two engines have similar take off power the 603 is much better suited to hauling heavy aircraft around the sky with several hundred more horsepower available per engine in both climb and cruise modes.


----------



## Shortround6 (Oct 21, 2010)

tomo pauk said:


> Not so fast
> 
> Dry weight of the BMW 801D in power-egg configuration is more than 1,5 tons:



thank you Tomo, but power plant will include the propeller which may not be part of the power egg? different planes needing different propellers while using the same engine?

Powerplant can include the fuel/oil tanks unless they are broken out separately. that sheet just lists weight for fuel so I would guess the tanks are part of the powerplant weight. 

It is confusing at times


----------



## bada (Oct 21, 2010)

tomo pauk said:


> Not so fast
> 
> Dry weight of the BMW 801D in power-egg configuration is more than 1,5 tons:



not really tha same date as found in the bmw manual (found here if i remember). there are Deutsche sprachend menschen here that could translate perfectly this document

I try to only use original charts, made in the original country, don't know why but seeing a german chart in english gives me always a strange feeling....and that's also an other way to learn new words in german.


----------



## davparlr (Oct 21, 2010)

Wow, this has been updating faster than I can respond. Some of these comments may have already been addressed.



riacrato said:


> And on what fuelAnd on what fuel? 87 octane? Otherwise that comparison is rather useless and the 801 D should've been taken: 1,677 hp for the same weight: .75 hp/lb



These ratings was all made in 1941 so I would say whatever fuel they used then. If the Allied engines were using 100 octane, which is reasonable, then your number on the 801 D should be used. 

Data was taken from Wagner’s “American Combat Planes”, Wagner and Nowarra’s “German Combat Planes”, and Dean’s “America’s Hundred Thousand”.



> I guess you mean the power to weight of the engines. The contemporary fighters actually powered with these engines had very different power to weight ratios.


Yes



> Installing the not-fan-cooled 2800-21 would've meant a completely different and I'd say less drag-efficient cowling. R-2800 was also larger in diameter (only slightly though).



I don’t think the 2800 is much larger than the 801. The same techniques to cool may still be applicable but must address the added power. US designers were not so concerned about the streamlining of the cowl as apparent in the F4U, P-47, F6F, F8F, etc. Apparently added power covers some evil.



> Then there's the other not adressed questions: Fuel? Efficiency? Alloys?



I do not know the specific fuel consumption of the engines. Certainly radials tend to use more fuel per hp than liquid cooled engines. As far a alloys, I do not know if the 2800 used any more exotic materials that what the Germans were using on their engines. 



> The resulting aircraft may look much different than the real Fw 190 did.



I don’t see this. The 2800 only has about 2” greater diameter than the 801 and is maybe a few inches longer. It certainly seems to me it would be less of an impact than putting in a liquid cooled engine.



> And the reality in 1942 was that the existing Fw 190 with its BMW 801 D held up well with contemporary P-47s (and even early Hellcats and F4Us).



Yes, it did. Can you imagine how well it would have performed with 4-600 more hp?



> I don't know where to start: Did Germany even get the opportunity to have a detailed look at R2800s before 1942? Reverse engineering and industrialization in less than 2 years without detailed drawings, specifications? You'd take all these risks in 1942 Germany over developing satisfactory homegrown engines?



The Russian reverse engineered the most complex aircraft and engine in the world in two years! The B-29 was delivered to Russian industry in mid ’45 and the Tu-4 flew in mid ’47. This was a magnitudes larger task than re-engineering the 2800, and no drawings. 

You are right about the risks, but there is a lot of what ifing on this site where impacts of other possibilities are not addressed.



> All the Jumo 213 needed was a better supercharger (which it got eventually, but too late) for pretty much the same result.



The 213 had probably close to 300 less hp than the 2800-18W, and was probably the same weight with coolant. And, as mentioned, the modification to put in the 2800 would be considerable less than the 213.



> There were several improved versions of the BMW 801, too. The 801 E was a good improvement, increasing power by a good 200 KW and possibly more because the exhaust problems of the D were fixed. This also would've given the 801 a more stable, quiet run. The E version was to enter production in 1943 but didn't enter service for several reasons. Instead they skipped it for the F. The F version had 2,367 hp, even 2,564 in the latest development. But it came too late. 20/20 hindsight. In 1942 there was a good chance the BMW 801 would have a normal lifecycle with the E and F (supercharged) and T (turbocharged) versions. Afterall the reality is not too far from it, but unfortunately the E was missing at a time when there was massive need for it (late 43 and 44).



I would probably agree with all of this. There is no reason to believe the Germans could not have improved the 801 as PW did the 2800. There just didn’t seem to be the enthusiasm in Germany for the radial as there was in the US.



Shortround6 said:


> I have no idea why the BMW was so heavy. At these numbers it has one of the worst power to weight ratios of any large radial engine built by anybody during all 6 years of WWII. I am not sure if the BMW's weight may include some parts or accessories not normally included in the "dry" weight. And "dry" usually doesn't mean just the absence of coolant and oil. It also means the absence of such things as starters, exhaust manifolds and pipes, vacuum pumps, generators and even in some cases variable pitch propeller controls in addition to other accessories. many of these things changed from installation to installation so the "dry" weight may be the only fair way to compare engines but it is far from being the installed weight.
> Some times the weight of the BMW as given in some sources is the weight of the "power egg" which is much heavier. I don't know how much the cooling fan contributes to the weight or if there are another bits/pieces that are included in the "dry" weight that are not included in the other engines weights.



This is one of the problems of comparisons. From the Dean book I can get good weight data on American fighters, but for the other aircraft, dry weight conditions are unknown.



tomo pauk said:


> Fellas,
> What does "a slice in time" mean?





Shortround6 said:


> To my way of thinking ( and they may disagree) it is the situation at a particular point in time. As in what engines were available in Aug of 1941 while disregarding what was available in either July or Sept.
> While you don't want to compare engines that debuted several years apart "a slice in time" comparisons can also give a false picture if you are comparing the future potential of an engine near the end of it's development cycle and one near the beginning.



I agree but a “slice in time” allows analysis based on conditions present for the time identified and allows us to understand the circumstances faced by the decision makers. The problem is, of course, where to make the slice.




DonL said:


> I can't see what the Jumo 213 can't do compare to the PR 2800.
> In addition the Jumo 213J (2240 PS) with 4 Valves was developed and ready to go in production.



The 2800-18W generated 2380 hp in fall of ’44. The 2800-57 generated 2600 hp (probably on 150 octane) about the same time. Both were in combat by the end of the war.



> The dryweight of the the Jumo 213 E1 for B 87 fuel was 940kg.



Plus coolant, 300lbs?



riacrato said:


> So what can the R2800 do what the Jumo 213 could not in your opinion? The obvious air-cooled vs liquid-cooled arguments aside.



More power, more potential power, and less complexity.



DonL said:


> Please name any other high performance fighter year 1944/45 with this range with internal fuel, accept the Mustang



P-47N



davebender said:


> Plus you have a huge frontal area of 15 sq ft (compared to 6.3 sq ft for the Ju213A engine)



Eyeballing and some picture measuring, the Fw-190A vs the Fw190D-9 fuselage cross sectional area at the engines shows 15.2 sq.ft. for the 190A and 9.6 sq.ft. for the Fw-190D-9. However, I would guess the actual cross sectional area of the two aircraft are the same since the over all fuselage is similar. The 190D-9 may have a reduced Cd since the nose is slimmer.



Shortround6 said:


> thank you Tomo, but power plant will include the propeller which may not be part of the power egg? different planes needing different propellers while using the same engine?
> 
> Powerplant can include the fuel/oil tanks unless they are broken out separately. that sheet just lists weight for fuel so I would guess the tanks are part of the powerplant weight.
> 
> It is confusing at times



A breakdown from “America’s Hundred Thousand” for the P-47D-25 is this:

Engine 2283 lbs
Engine Section (undefined) 383 lbs
Engine accessories (undefined, I’d guess includes the supercharger and turbosupercharger) 977 lbs
Engine controls (undefined) 58 lbs

F6F-3
Engine 2469 lbs
Engine Section (undefined) 411 lbs
Engine accessories (undefined) 318 lbs
Engine controls 37 lbs

A better breakdown than most but still not the best. Who knows what wikipedia includes in dry weight.

I didn't intend this to be a pro 2800 debate, just that the Germans didn't pursue the radial as much as they probably should. They would have never built the 2800 but would have come up with something bigger, more complex and more powerful and could only build 50 a month.

One last comments on the 2800. In the P-47M/N, in May '45, it generated 2600 at SL (probably on 150 octane) and 2800 hp at 33k, where the 213 in the Ta-152 only generated about 1250 hp. Also, I read somewhere where it ran at 3500 hp for 100 hour with no noticeable wear, an amazing engine.


----------



## davebender (Oct 21, 2010)

In the case of a Fw-190A that would be misleading. The aircraft gained 635kg in order to accommodate the physically larger and heavier BMW801 engine. The weight gain forced an increase in wing area which of course added additional weight. The Fw-190A5 (and later models) gained even more weight when the engine was moved forward by 15cm to provide additional space for cooling air. The total of these aircraft strutural changes amounts to a lot more then the weight of a liquid cooling system.

I assume these same factors come into play for R2800 powered aircraft. That's why the P-47, Corsair and F6F are all heavy compared to the Merlin powered P-51. If you desire to improve fighter aircraft power to weight ratio then you want a liquid cooled engine. 

*Aircraft Empty Weight. *Data is from Wikipedia. Should be in the ballpark even if not exact.
7,635 lbs. P-51D
8,982 lbs. F4U-1.
9,238 lbs. F6F-5.
10,000 lbs. P-47D.


----------



## tomo pauk (Oct 21, 2010)

I can cherry pick, too:
F8F1: 7070lbs empty. Fully carrier capable.
Yak-3U (ASh-82FN): 5011 empty.
Ki-100: lighter then Ki-61, with more HP.

Obviously, if one wants good power to weight ratio, radial engine is the choice.


----------



## Shortround6 (Oct 21, 2010)

davparlr said:


> A few corrections/clarifications if I may:
> 
> 
> 
> ...


----------



## tomo pauk (Oct 21, 2010)

bada said:


> not really tha same date as found in the bmw manual (found here if i remember). there are Deutsche sprachend menschen here that could translate perfectly this document



'Accesories' (pumps, fuel lines injectors, cowling (not for 801C/D), cooling fan, air intakes, elastic attachment joints..., but not armor or prop with spinner, or oil tank cooler (last two not for 801C/D again)) listed @ your picture make the issue quite clear: the 801C/D weighted 1055kg. Meaning, without armor, prop, spinner, oil tank cooler, cowling.


> I try to only use original charts, made in the original country, don't know why but seeing a german chart in english gives me always a strange feeling....and that's also an other way to learn new words in german.



This is the best manual I was able to find for the 190, and it seems like a strict copy, apart for addition of imperial measurements. Where can I find the one you have?


----------



## bada (Oct 22, 2010)

tomo pauk said:


> 'Accesories' (pumps, fuel lines injectors, cowling (not for 801C/D), cooling fan, air intakes, elastic attachment joints..., but not armor or prop with spinner, or oil tank cooler (last two not for 801C/D again)) listed @ your picture make the issue quite clear: the 801C/D weighted 1055kg. Meaning, without armor, prop, spinner, oil tank cooler, cowling.
> 
> 
> This is the best manual I was able to find for the 190, and it seems like a strict copy, apart for addition of imperial measurements. Where can I find the one you have?



thanks for the translation, it's slighlty clearer now.
Got the same A8 manual. But in the A5/6 manual(big version), there are others data's for the engine and the spinner separated.

I think the engine manual is from here:
http://www.ww2aircraft.net/forum/engines/db-801c-d-engine-manual-7385.html
but not sure if it's the same (can't download it to compare, beeing at work).

Could you translate the following: Ohne antrieb fur motorausrustungs- und fremgerate.

got some difficulties to find out what that is,especially the fremgerate , the first beeing "motor-equipement" if understood well


----------



## NZTyphoon (Oct 22, 2010)

tomo pauk said:


> This is the best manual I was able to find for the 190, and it seems like a strict copy, apart for addition of imperial measurements. Where can I find the one you have?



Check out  Luftwaffe Cockpits...8)


----------



## tomo pauk (Oct 22, 2010)

Thanks for the links, I've downloaded the stuff 



> Could you translate the following: Ohne antrieb fur motorausrustungs- und fremgerate.
> 
> got some difficulties to find out what that is,especially the fremgerate , the first beeing "motor-equipement" if understood well



That sentence in German should mean "Without power(ing) for engine accesories auxiliary equipment". The aux equipment should be the different power-operated things on a plane (radio, hidraulics, heating, gun heating, radar if installed etc).


----------



## Milosh (Oct 22, 2010)

Tomo and others, manuals of all kinds can be ordered from,
Luftfahrt-Archiv Hafner


----------



## tomo pauk (Oct 22, 2010)

Thanks, Milosh 

Anyway, here is my take on data about BMW 801:


----------



## bada (Oct 22, 2010)




----------



## Shortround6 (Oct 22, 2010)

Thank you Tomo.


----------



## bobbysocks (Oct 25, 2010)

found a site about the freeman army airfield with a ton of different stuff...and it seems they got a at least one bv 155. this is what that site had to say and some of the pics. 

the original link is: Freeman Army Air Field

you can go down the left column and see what they had/tested in the way of all allied and axis ac.

this accompanied the pic of the dismantled 155...

The origins of the Blohm Voss Bv 155 lay in a meeting held at the Messerschmitt's Augsburg plant in May 1942 to discuss the "Special High Altitude Fighter". Both Messerschmitt and Fock-Wulf expressed interest in developing a special high altitude fighter, Messerschmitt had already done some design work on a related project. Messerschmitt's preliminary study, known as the Bf 109 ST, which had been allocated the official RLM 8-series aircraft designation Me 155. The number 155 had previously been assigned to the Klemm firm but since it had not taken up the number the RLM reassigned it to Messerschmitt. At the same time, numbers 152, 153 and 154, which had also been allocated to Klemm but not used, were reassigned to Focke-WuIf. The original Me 109 ST was advanced in three variants; A, B C (version A) called for a carrier/aircraft fitted with the DB 605, while (version B) called for a similar fighter powered by the high altitude DB 628. In order to relieve his already over committed design bureau and to speed development, Messerschmitt decided to transfer the Me 155B to Paris. Due to various problems work progressed only slowly throughout the remainder of 1942. By early 1943 things were starting to go wrong with the project, whares Fock-Wulf were progressing well with their Ta 152, little had been achieved with the Me 155B. During the first half of 1943, Messerschmitt's design engineers had evolved basic parameters of an (extreme high altitude fighter) design study under the company designation Me P1091. By mid 1943 the Messerschmitt people were vacillating as ever pursuing the Me 209H in competition with the Ta 152H and turning there Me P1091 in to the Me 155B.

Though this prototype of the Blohm and Voss 155 was far from complete, there was enough interest in this aircraft to warrant bringing it to Freeman Field. (NASM) 

FE-505 Bv-155B V3 This prototype was captured before it was completed , and came to the US by way of the Royal Aircraft Establishment in Farnborough , England, where it was on display in fall 1945. It was probably shipped to the US in early 1946, going to Park Ridge that summer, and subsequently to Silver Hill. It is presently in storage at the Paul E. Garber Facility.


----------



## davebender (Oct 25, 2010)

Just so we are clear....
I am proposing a land based version of the Me-155A CV fighter. The Bv-155 was an entirely different aircraft except that it retained the "155" aircraft designation.


----------



## zoomar (Oct 26, 2010)

The whole Bf-155/Me-155/Bv-155 thing seems like a typical WW2 German miision creep design debacle. First, ask Messerschmitt to design a follow on Bf-109 based carrier fighter to replace an earlier "Bf-109T" before you even know Messerschmitt has any clue about designing and producing shipborne aircraft and no assurance the carrier in question will ever be finished (instead of negotiating an agreement with Japan to license-build A6Ms if and when the carrier is ready). Then, because you've wasted effort on this design and it does have a slightly extended span, decide it can be transformed into a high altitude interceptor, making it even uglier, and finally give the whole thing to Blohm und Voss and they turn it into a monstrosity that looks like it would fall apart the first time it enters a high-G turn All the while the Focke Wulf company is churning out fighters that, with much less radical modifications in the "D" and Ta-152 models, are better at any missions planned for the 155 than the 155 would be.


----------



## Shortround6 (Oct 26, 2010)

zoomar said:


> The whole Bf-155/Me-155/Bv-155 thing seems like a typical WW2 German miision creep design debacle. First, ask Messerschmitt to design a follow on Bf-109 based carrier fighter to replace an earlier "Bf-109T"........ Then, because you've wasted effort on this design and it does have a slightly extended span, decide it can be transformed into a high altitude interceptor, making it even uglier, and finally give the whole thing to Blohm und Voss and they turn it into a monstrosity that looks like it would fall apart the first time it enters a high-G turn........



In all fairness to the guys at Blohm und Voss, they got handed that mission creep thing you were talking about. 
The Germans for some reason decided to skip the 30-40,000ft band of the sky and jump to aircraft for the 40,000 to 55,000ft band. At least for the most part. 
And to get piston planes to fly at 50,000ft plus, you need so many compromises in wing area, superchargers and radiators, that the plane becomes almost useless at 30,000ft and below.


----------



## zoomar (Oct 26, 2010)

Shortround6 said:


> In all fairness to the guys at Blohm und Voss, they got handed that mission creep thing you were talking about.
> The Germans for some reason decided to skip the 30-40,000ft band of the sky and jump to aircraft for the 40,000 to 55,000ft band. At least for the most part.
> And to get piston planes to fly at 50,000ft plus, you need so many compromises in wing area, superchargers and radiators, that the plane becomes almost useless at 30,000ft and below.



BV also probably got handed the project because the RLM was still ticked off that the Bv-141 could fly!


----------



## davebender (Oct 26, 2010)

> ask Messerschmitt to design a follow on Bf-109 based carrier fighter to replace an earlier "Bf-109T" before you even know Messerschmitt has any clue about designing and producing shipborne aircraft


I don't think that's fair to Messerschmitt. Despite being a rush job I think the Me-109T conversion of the Me-109E1 was pretty good.

WW2 Warbirds: the Messerschmitt Bf 109 - Frans Bonn
- Larger wing. 11.84 sq ft more area then the Me-109E wing.
- Extendible spoilers added to the upper surfaces of the wing to steepen the approach angle for CV landings.
- The new wing had folding tips for easier CV storage.
- Wing leading edge slots increased in span.
- Trailing edge flaps given greater travel.
- Ailerons interconnected with the flaps.
- Catapult attachment points under the fuselage.
- Arrester hook under the rear fuselage.


----------



## Milosh (Oct 26, 2010)

davebender said:


> I don't think that's fair to Messerschmitt. Despite being a rush job I think the Me-109T conversion of the Me-109E1 was pretty good.
> 
> - Catapult attachment points under the fuselage.



You do know that the 109T was launched from a cradle?


----------



## davebender (Oct 26, 2010)

I wasn't aware the Me-109T ever operated from a CV. When did this take place?


----------



## zoomar (Oct 27, 2010)

davebender said:


> I wasn't aware the Me-109T ever operated from a CV. When did this take place?



It wasn't, and I too have always believed it would have been catapult launched. Perhaps Milosh is referring to some sort of test launch system using a cradle?


----------



## davebender (Oct 27, 2010)

That makes sense. Thanks to Lufthansa experience with catapult ships the German Navy had all sorts of catapult experience to draw upon.


----------



## Milosh (Oct 27, 2010)

When did all this take place? During the testing of the 109 for carrier operations.

On pg 107 of the Radinger/Schick 109 book there is a photo of TK+HM, WNr 301, just after it left the take off dolly/cradle/sled.

_"The catapults used launching sleds, which would accelerate the aircraft forward"_


----------



## zoomar (Oct 27, 2010)

Milosh said:


> When did all this take place? During the testing of the 109 for carrier operations.
> 
> On pg 107 of the Radinger/Schick 109 book there is a photo of TK+HM, WNr 301, just after it left the take off dolly/cradle/sled.
> 
> _"The catapults used launching sleds, which would accelerate the aircraft forward"_



This could have merely been tests of how well the aircraft structure was stressed to withstand the sudden acceleration of a catapult launch, and or to provide prospective pilots with the experience of a catapult launch. I'm pretty sure "Graf Zeppelin" was intended to be equipped with two steam catapults following British practice, so it is hard to imagine operational Bf-109Ts would not have been launched in the same manner as British carrier planes. Germany also requested and obtained some technical advice from Japan on the use of carriers. It's hard to imagine they would then ignore the practical examples provided by people who actually knew a lot more about naval aviation than they did. If this was actually the planned method of carrier operations (which I strongly doubt), the Germans were going in a tangent nobody else did.


----------



## Milosh (Oct 27, 2010)

_The fwd lift was exclusively used for the transportation of the planes from the hangardeck to the catapults. They were set on rails with their trolleys and rolled over a switch alternating to the catapults.This procedure was unique and was intended to make possible a very short takeoff sequence

From the start of the launching procedure by the operator to the completion of the take-off normally 3 seconds were needed (according to the handling instructions): 1,5 seconds for retardation in the system and 1,5 seconds for the acceleration of the trolley and aircraft.
After the launch of the aircraft the catapult went back into starting position and the trolley was transported by an inclined elevator at the top of the flightdeck downward to the hangardeck for the next use. [p. 65]

In case of the DWK [Deutsche Werke Kiel AG] catapults new technical solutions were developed, making it possible to make them shorter and lighter than those of other manufacturers. Other than in catapults known so far with a fix glideway, DWK designed a device which made it possible to shorten the length of the catapult by moving the glideway as well during the launch.

The compressed air moved a mobile cylinder opposite a firm piston. The cylinder was connected with the mobile part of the glideway, on the rear end of which the trolley with the aircraft was.
After the beginning of the lauching procedure the introduction of the compressed air into the cylinder caused that when the trolley with the aircraft moved forward, the rear mobile end of the glideway as well moved forward over the fix forward part (therefore the term "telescope-catapult").

Thus the two motions added up: the motion of the trolley on the glideway and that of the mobile part of the glideway. After passing a certain distance, the lock of the aircraft on the trolley was released and the aircraft remained connected to the trolley only due to the acceleration [...]

By a suitable shaping of the valve slots in the cylinder acceleration up to the maximum value ran gradually increasingly and then up to the stop with the deceleration gradually removing. Rise and waste of acceleration caused a approximately around 20 % longer acceleration distance than due to the technical possibilities would have been possible. [p.107/108]

Axis History Forum • View topic - Just how good or bad was the Graf Zeppelin_

Notice the number of times 'dolly' is mentioned.

There are some photos on pg 7 of the thread.


----------



## davebender (Oct 27, 2010)

Nice pictures! I suppose that catapult trolly would work but it looks overly complicated.

http://www.diecastaircraftforum.com...700-carrier-catapult-bridle-i-didnt-know.html
With a bit more experience I suspect German CVs would adopt a simple catapult bridle system similiar to that used by the USN and RN. Perhaps the Me-155A was designed that way from the beginning. Without detailed specifications there is no way to tell.


----------



## zoomar (Oct 28, 2010)

Well, Milosh, it looks like you were correct about what the Germans were planning for the Graf Zeppelin's catapult system...and the thread has loads of fascinating information and outstanding pictures BTW, thanks.

Why on earth the Germans were apparently taking this route is a harder thing to understand. It seems as if they deliberately ignored what little they could discover about Japanese and British practice and went to what they already new about - catapult systems on other surface ship types where use of the trolly system made sense when you are launching only one plane (a floatplane). For a carrier, however, it seems to be extremely complicated and, if I followed the discussion in the thread accurately, the carrier would have been unable to launch planes by rolling takeoffs. This drastically limits the flexibility a ship that is designed solely to operate airplanes.


----------



## davebender (Oct 28, 2010)

Not necessarily. Nothing prevents lightly loaded fighter aircraft from conducting a deck launch. RAF and U.S. Army Air Corps fighter aircraft did this all the time during ferry operations.


----------



## zoomar (Oct 28, 2010)

davebender said:


> Not necessarily. Nothing prevents lightly loaded fighter aircraft from conducting a deck launch. RAF and U.S. Army Air Corps fighter aircraft did this all the time during ferry operations.



You are right, rolling takeoffs are possible on a normal aircraft carrier. But was the GV a "normal" carrier? When you read some of the posts on the thread, and look at the pictures of the incomplete GZ, it appears GZ was being built in such a way that the catapults mightbe the only possible means of takeoff (unlike US and UK catapults, they were not flush with the deck and would present dangerous obstacles to any pilot attempting a full length rolling takeoff). Given the fact that the Germans would be operating the ship in the pitching north sea or north atlantic with pilots with no real experience, it would be practically impossible to do this even if it was technically feasible. It's possible that, when compketed, GZ would have had its deck built up to be flush with the catapults, but that didn't seem clear to me.


----------



## riacrato (Nov 4, 2010)

Sorry for answering so late, I was going to let it rest originally, but I am bored atm



davparlr said:


> I don’t think the 2800 is much larger than the 801. The same techniques to cool may still be applicable but must address the added power. US designers were not so concerned about the streamlining of the cowl as apparent in the F4U, P-47, F6F, F8F, etc. Apparently added power covers some evil.


I think there was a special force cooled 2800 available, either way I am sure a cowling for a R2800 powered Fw 190 would look different from the historical one. I simply don't believe the thin inlets would work when all historical R2800 applications I can think of had a wide open cowling usually not even incorporating a streamlined spinner. I'm not saying this or that solution was better but the engine and the cowling are closely linked imo.





> I do not know the specific fuel consumption of the engines. Certainly radials tend to use more fuel per hp than liquid cooled engines. As far a alloys, I do not know if the 2800 used any more exotic materials that what the Germans were using on their engines.


Neither do I but I read they used more forgings for example. This input would be required though to judge whether or not the R2800 was better suited to German fighters than the DB 603.





> I don’t see this. The 2800 only has about 2” greater diameter than the 801 and is maybe a few inches longer. It certainly seems to me it would be less of an impact than putting in a liquid cooled engine.


Speculative, as already menioned the Fw 190 powered by the much more similar BMW139 looked _very_ different to the Fw190 A, but some of those changes were not solely linked to the engine swap, so it's speculation. Hence my "may look".





> Yes, it did. Can you imagine how well it would have performed with 4-600 more hp?


Since this was in no way possible sooner than the late Doras or the Ta 152, why bother?





> The Russian reverse engineered the most complex aircraft and engine in the world in two years! The B-29 was delivered to Russian industry in mid ’45 and the Tu-4 flew in mid ’47. This was a magnitudes larger task than re-engineering the 2800, and no drawings.
> 
> You are right about the risks, but there is a lot of what ifing on this site where impacts of other possibilities are not addressed.


They reverse engineered the airframe and used homegrown engines. Go figure.





> The 213 had probably close to 300 less hp than the 2800-18W, and was probably the same weight with coolant. And, as mentioned, the modification to put in the 2800 would be considerable less than the 213.


I highly doubt this. The modified areas of the fuselage are the same for either a larger radial or an inline engine with the radiator used. Everything I read so far points out how easy it was to modify the airframe of the Fw 190 for the DB 603 or Jumo 213. Sorry but where is your source for that claim? And you are again blatantly ignoring impacts on drag. I don't remember which thread here it was posted in, probably drgondog will know, but the VSAERO models for the Fw 190 A and D show considerable differences. IIRC the cd for the Fw 190 D was about the same as that of the Spitfire IX and the Fw 190 A was much worse. This is not the ultimate bible, but the effects were certainly there in reality.



> More power, more potential power, and less complexity.


In which way is the jumo 213 more complex than other V12s of the era?



> One last comments on the 2800. In the P-47M/N, in May '45, it generated 2600 at SL (probably on 150 octane) and 2800 hp at 33k, where the 213 in the Ta-152 only generated about 1250 hp. Also, I read somewhere where it ran at 3500 hp for 100 hour with no noticeable wear, an amazing engine.


... whereas I heard it had serious teething issues. I'm going to check the E power curve later.


----------



## Civettone (Jul 15, 2013)

DonL said:


> Please post that chart of the PzGr. 1940.


This is looooong overdue, my apologies. But here are the figures for German tungsten shells



> December 1943:
> 680,000 3.7 cm Pzgr. 40 for the 3.7 cm Pak and about 269,000 3.7 cm Pzgr. 40 for the Kw.K.
> 207,000 5 cm Pzgr. 40 and 40/1 for the 5 cm Pak 38.
> 298,000 5 cm Pzgr. 40 and 40/1 for the 5 cm Kw.K. (L/42).
> ...



Kris


----------



## GregP (Jul 15, 2013)

Riacrato,

The Planes of Fame operates a Flugwerk Fw 190 powered by an R-2800. It has the same cowl opening as stock, but now sports two very samll underwing oil coolers in addition to the coolers around the inside of the front cowling. They overheated on the first flight and have never done so since fitting the small outboard oil coolers.

It is owned by Rudy Frasca of Illinois and fies 1 - 5 times per year quite reliably. I have no idea how it would fend as a regular daily flyer.

Don't know of a force-cooled R-2800 unless it was buried inside a wing or fuselage ... and I'm not aware of one so-configured at this time. I'll look!


----------



## riacrato (Jul 15, 2013)

Hi Greg,

I know of this FW, I've seen a few videos of it a year or so ago. It seemed to have a bulge at the underside of the cowling, but looked close enough to the real thing.

It seems only logical that it would need some additional cooling provisions going from 14 to 18 cylinders. The BMW801 also had the fan, but then also had the armor inside the cowling so hard to compare on paper, i guess. Any pictures of those radiators? I also wondered where the supercharger air intake is.

It'd be interesting to know if it's ever been put to the edges of the R-2800s performance envelope and how the engine and bird handle that. Not to be nitpicking, it works as has been proven, but a replica bird in civilian use is different from a war machine. My point in this whole thread (iirc) was that reverse engineering the R-2800 and using it instead of the Jumo 213 was a nonsense idea.

The wikipedia article on the R-2800 mentions a fan-cooled prototype able to give 2800hp, that's where I think I got the info from. Don't think it was ever produced though.


----------



## Shortround6 (Jul 15, 2013)

The engine on the XP-47J _appears_ to be fan cooled. 







How it was done I don't know. P&W lists two engines for the XP-47J, one is the standard -57 engine used in a lot of other P-47s and the other one is one-off that was shipped with-out a nose case and later fitted with a standard reduction gear nose to convert it to a -57. 

Unless we know the model of the R-2800 in the Flugwerk Fw 190 and the _operating conditions/limits_ we really don't know much. A post war commercial engine from a DC-6 was good for 1800hp at 6000ft and 1600hp at 6000ft MAX continuous. Given the FAA speed limits at low altitude and the rare flights (if any) at higher altitudes one of these engines provides more than enough power at _way less_ than full throttle (cooling load) to power the FW 190 to a flight performance that any sane or legal pilot would need. 
These engines also use a different form of construction than the early R-2800s ( different cylinder barrel and heads with much more finning/cooling capacity).

But for all I know the Flugwerk Fw 190 uses an old Martin B-26 bomber engine with the old cooling fins and lower power limits and is driven harder. Right now we don't know one way or the other.


----------



## swampyankee (Jul 15, 2013)

davparlr said:


> I don’t think the 2800 is much larger than the 801. The same techniques to cool may still be applicable but must address the added power. US designers were not so concerned about the streamlining of the cowl as apparent in the F4U, P-47, F6F, F8F, etc. Apparently added power covers some evil.



The important streamlining in a radial-engined installation is on the inside. Since many of the German radial installations seem to have required cooling fans, I tend to think that shows that the Americans did a better job of designing their radial engine installations than the Germans. 

As for the outside, do remember that piston-engined aircraft are too slow for nose shape to make a significant difference in overall drag, so long as there is no separation in normal conditions.


----------



## riacrato (Jul 15, 2013)

swampyankee said:


> The important streamlining in a radial-engined installation is on the inside. Since many of the German radial installations seem to have required cooling fans, I tend to think that shows that the Americans did a better job of designing their radial engine installations than the Germans.
> 
> As for the outside, do remember that piston-engined aircraft are too slow for nose shape to make a significant difference in overall drag, so long as there is no separation in normal conditions.


Many? There were few German radials to begin with, with many being more or less direct copies of American designs of the thirties. And I don't think the fan-cooling is shoe-horned in as an afterthought when cooling proves insufficient, rather it is designed around that principle from the start. The reason behind being that the closer cowling will be more aerodynamic and more than offset the loss of power. Whether or not this proved to be wrong or true is not for me to judge, but BMW certainly wasn't the only one thinking along those lines, as the XP-47J and the Ash-82 that lowered the late Lavochkins show.

And I wouldn't say that the nose shape was not important enough to matter. Far from. Even the windshield can have significant impact as can be seen by the Spitfire drag analysis posted on this forum somewhere.


----------



## Shortround6 (Jul 15, 2013)

There is nose shape and there is nose shape. And some of the radial engine installations may have caused separation. 

The Curtiss Hawk 75-87 family being an almost classic example. The Early P-40 was considered to have 22% less drag than the R-1830 powered P-36. And the R-1830 powered planes were a bit faster than the R-1820 powered planes _IF THE ENGINES WERE OF EQUAL POWER. _ which they often were not, especially at altitude. 
You also have to consider what was actually known at the _TIME_ vs what is known now. 

The XP-42 ( a P-36 with and extended shaft and a pointy nose) 











went through over a dozen nose configurations searching for the solution. 

This was the fastest radial engine Curtiss Hawk built, a re-engined P-40. 






But then it used a TWO-STAGE supercharger and hit peak speed at over 22,000ft so comparing speed to P-36s at 15,000ft or under has a real difference in drag.


----------



## spicmart (Jul 15, 2013)

riacrato said:


> And I wouldn't say that the nose shape was not important enough to matter. Far from. Even the windshield can have significant impact as can be seen by the Spitfire drag analysis posted on this forum somewhere.



So the Spitfire wind screen is quite draggy. Anybody know how draggy the canopies of other fighters were in comparison?
The one of the Me 109 seemed quite bad also.


----------



## Shortround6 (Jul 15, 2013)

I believe he is referring to the fact that the external bullet proof windscreen was worth about 6mph in top speed in the 360mph speed range. That is leaving the rest of the canopy alone. Entire change was on the "nose" of the canopy. Sharp edges may have caused breakdown/separation of airflow.


----------



## GregP (Jul 15, 2013)

Hi Riacrato.

The R-2800 Fw 190 was raced for a couple of years at Reno in the Bronze Class by John Maloney after the small external oil coolers were installed. Unfortunately it had a DC-3 propeller at the time so the 2,000 HP engine was driving a 1,200 HP prop. Didn't get but a tad over 300 mph. As of NOW however, it has a DC-3 Glider tug prop that has very wide chord baldes and goes MUCH better than before. The aircraft is currrently over at the Palm Springs Museum for awhile but, when it comes back, I'll be happy to check the dash number of the engine. The operating conditions are whatever the stock dash number calls for ... this is NOT a hopped-up race engine. It is a stock R-2800 with no fan blades on the spinner backplate. I'll ask Matt Nightengale who built it. He is a museum member and I see him on occasion.

It is also a Flugwerk plane, so the g-limit is on the order of 4.5-g's or so ... not a wartime limit rating. The FLugwerk airframes lack the cannon mounts in the upper cowling and aren't nearly as strong as the real Fw 190 as a result. It isn't the wings ... it is the support (or lack of it) for the egnine mount. In the real Fw 190, the cannon mounts acted as partial support for the upper engine mount.

None of the R-2800's above appear to be fan cooled to me, including the XP-47J, and I still don't see the fan that is supposed to be there. There is no room on the driveshaft of an R-2800 for a fan ... unless it had an extended driveshaft or the "fan" is just blades on the back of the spinner backplate as on the Fw 190. If so, you'd think the blades would be visible.

*Edit*: I just zoomed in to 400% and you CAN see the fan blades. They must be attached to the spinner backplate.

The scoops under the front cowling are oil cooler inlets on each side and a central inlet for the turbocharger fresh air or intercoooler air depending on installation, just as on a standard P-47. The entire bottom 1/3 of the plane is nothing but air duct. The fresh air and exhaust go back to the turbocharger, and the compressed air (boosted induction air) goes back forward to the carburetor, either with or without being intercooled.

Hey Riacrato, let's start another thread for this line of discussion and let this onhe get back to the thread title. OK? Since I just answered here, if you want to discuss it, maybe start one? In any case, I'll check on the R-2800 dash number and talkw ith Matt Nightengale as I said. Might tale a week or longer. In only get there once a wekk.


----------



## spicmart (Jul 15, 2013)

On 12.08.1944 the Erprobungsstelle Rechlin submitted some proposals to the Technisches Amt of the RLM on how to improve upon the Me 109K-4's performance significantly.
Eight options were outlined:

a) change of wing inclination (is this the correct term?)
b) smooth surface structure
c) aerodynamically refined canopy
d) improved air intakes
e) improved super charger air intake
f) enlarged oil cooler (0,400 m^2, normal for K-4: 0,360m^2)
g) new exhaust nozzles
h) aerodynamically refined engine cowling

All these changes it was estimated would have brought a speed increase of about 60 km/h, the equivalent of about 200 PS more engine power.
Though the efforts to apply these modifications into production were deemed too much,
one such plane was build at Rechlin and underwent testing presumably from 20.10.1944 on, the fate of it being unknown.
The speed achieved would be as good as or better than its allied counterparts (latest variants).


As for the planned built-in-wing armament (another thread, similar topic) of the K-version in summer 1943 Messerschmitt commissioned the Wolf Hirth GmbH to build a wooden wing that could house the MK 108 plus ammo. 
The construction and build of it proved uneconomical though.
For the connection rib and around the wood chord metal still had to be used.
Furthermore wood could not be used for the complex shape of the landing gear recesses.
Breaking tests also showed a need of structure strengthening.
Great difficulties for the merge of wood and metal parts were expected.
Nevertheless an experimental build of gun in wing was performed in November 1943 and work ended 28.12.1943.
But at that time metal wings for the Me 109 K were already chosen (Why That?)
So the planned production of 3995 wing pairs until summer 1945 was omitted.

Sources: "Messerschmitt Bf-109 G/K" Flugzeuge Profile 5; Manfred Griehl


----------



## davebender (Jul 15, 2013)

Volksjäger program specifications were issued 10 September 1944. I suspect that ended any chance for significant change to 10 year old Me-109 program.

1942 Me-109G was probably the last chance to make significant changes to Me-109 design.


----------



## GregP (Jul 15, 2013)

If they didn't correct the control column fulcrum issue, the extra speed would be good for nothing. The Bf 109 was a slow to medium speed dogfighter and when going faster than about 340 mph, the ailerons and elevator were almost set in stone. Without correction in the leverage ratio, this speed would only be for straight line running either to or from a fight, as most fast Bf 109's were doing. They also seriously needed to fit a rudder trim tab. I like the bubble canopy on the Bf 109 fitted with a R-1820 egnine as a prototype. It was far and away better than the stock windshield-canopy setup.

The Bf 109 had growth potential in it yet, but Germany lacked the time to take advantage of the fact. I'm sure it could have evolved at least a few more times before being done. I can think of a new airfoil, wider landing gear, and even slightly more wing area with commensurate tail attention. The basic airframe was solid as were the engine and propeller.

The term you are looking for above is wing incidence. It is the angle of the chord to the fuselage level line. It determine if the plane flies level, nose up, or nose down. If you've ever seen a B-52 flying at low level as in an airshow, you know it flies nose well down when low. It flies essentially level at 50,000+ feet.


----------



## Civettone (Jul 16, 2013)

GregP said:


> The Vf 109 was a slow to medium speed dogfighter and wehn going faster than about 340 mph, the ailerons and elevator were almost set in stone.


It was a power fighter and I have yet to see solid evidence that the controls were beyond control at high speed. The only sources we have for that are Allied test pilots who were completely biased.


Kris


----------



## Milosh (Jul 16, 2013)

Were they biased or was it that it took much more muscle than it did in a/c they were used to flying?


----------



## swampyankee (Jul 16, 2013)

Were the test pilots "biased" or are people getting pissy because German technological superiority is being questioned? The post-war test pilots had absolutely no incentive to denigrate any part of the performance or handling of the *loser's* aircraft. They did, however, have a lot of experience providing objective data to flight test engineers and aircraft designers so that aircraft could be improved, and that would include contributions resulting from the flight test of captured aircraft.


----------



## GregP (Jul 20, 2013)

If you have yet to see that Civetone, then you aren't reading many of the same flight reports about the Bf 109 that I have read. It is virtually every flight report I have seen.

1) I don't read German, but the few former Luftwaffe pilots we have had speak at the museum said it was true. 

2) We have an Hispano Ha.1112 that several of our pilots, including our president and chief pilot, have flown and it has the same characteristics. The airframe is essentially a Bf 109G with a Merlin in front. 

3) A Bf 109E was restored at Chino and now flies out of Niagra Falls. It has the same characteristic according to the pilots that initially flew it and fly it now.

4) The Planes of Fame has a complete Bf 109G-6 that is flyable, but doesn't fly anymore these days since we don't have a spare engine for it. When we operated it, if exhibited the same characteristics according to the pilots who flew it.

Seems pretty clear to me. 

I absolutely love the sound of the DB 6000 series engines and wish our Ha.1112 has a DB in the nose instead of a Merlin, but they aren't anywhere near reasonably-priced these days and we don't fly any plane that we don't have at least two engines for. When they break at an airshow, you HAVE to be able to fix them and fly them home. So our Bf 109G-6 is on display until and if we can get another engine so we can add it to the flyable palnes we operate. It would require some work at this time, but it is VERY complete.

Not saying you are wrong. I am saying I have a LOT of evidence, including first-hand flight reports from pilots I know and trust, that points to the reported flight characteristics as being in line with the reports that make the claims.


----------



## Aozora (Jul 20, 2013)

spicmart said:


> On 12.08.1944 the Erprobungsstelle Rechlin submitted some proposals to the Technisches Amt of the RLM on how to improve upon the Me 109K-4's performance significantly.
> Eight options were outlined:
> 
> a) change of wing inclination (is this the correct term?)
> ...



All proposals which might have increased the maximum speed but would have done little to improve high-speed handling. Had the K-6 with wing armament been produced it was more than likely that extra weight of the MK 108s and ammo would have increased lateral instability, particularly when turning. For example, when III./JG 26 was issued with K-4s with MG 151/20 wing gondolas they were universally hated because they turned the 109 into a wallowing cow at higher altitudes.

The 109 was past its use-by date without extensive modifications and an indication of this is Program 228, issued on 15 March 1945 by Albert Speer, which, amongst other things, recommended that production of the 109 and DB605 be stopped immediately in favour of the Me 262, Ar 234, He 162 and Ta 152. The Ta 152C series was a better bet for a fighter which could compete against fighters (eg: P-51H, Tempest II, P-47N, La-9 11) the Allies might have been able to field had the war continued into 1946


----------



## cherry blossom (Jul 21, 2013)

GregP said:


> If they didn't correct the control column fulcrum issue, the extra speed would be good for nothing. The Bf 109 was a slow to medium speed dogfighter and when going faster than about 340 mph, the ailerons and elevator were almost set in stone. Without correction in the leverage ratio, this speed would only be for straight line running either to or from a fight, as most fast Bf 109's were doing. .....


Presumably these speeds are indicated airspeeds or possibly calibrated airspeeds. At 25,000 ft., you won't be able to get even a Bf 109K beyond about 310 mph IAS except in a dive. Thus the Luftwaffe was being logical in 1942 by building the Bf 109G for fighting at high altitude and the Fw 190A for low altitude. Naturally, it didn't work out like that and the Bf 109G did a lot of fighting at low altitude. Thus it was sensible to go a single fighter as soon as they had an engine for the Fw 190 family that gave good power at high altitude but the Bf 109G probably outperformed a Fw 190A high up where it also had good handling.


----------



## GregP (Jul 21, 2013)

I fully understand what you are saying cherry blossom and agree that the Bf 109 was generally in the 350 mph and under IAS category, with the very high reported speeds being the difference between IAS and TAS. However, at speeds above 310 - 320 mph or so IAS, the Bf 109 was pretty much becomming a tough plane to fly. The good 109 pilot would attempt to get his opponent to fight at 180 - 290 mph, right in the realm of the best 109 flying characteristics. Best combat speed was right in the mid 200 range, with 250 mph being the point where NOBODY wanted to fight a Bf 109.

Coincidentally, these are the exact speeds where the majority of early Soviet planes operated, and they were fighting the Bf 109 at its own game. History will show how successful the Luftwaffe was at that. Once the Soviets and the rest of the Allies started operating faster fighters, the heyday of the Bf 109 was over and the attrition began. To be sure, the Bf 109 was adangerous opponent to the end. While not at the top of the game anymore, the better pilots were very familiar with it and could give an excellent account of themselves anytime if not overrun by sheer numbers, which they frequently were. At the end, they were short of pilots, fuel, and propellers, and simply could not field many fighters against the many-plane sweeps the Allies were flying.

I know there are people who claim the Germans were not short of fuel, pilot, or props, but they are wrong. Germany had the fuel but, if you can't get it to the airfelds where the planes are, of what use is it in a tank? Germany had many pilots near the end buy most were very green and had almost no combat experience much less time in the aircraft. They might also have had the props but, again, it they don't reside on the end of the DB driveshaft on a Bf 109, they are useless as wall decorations.

I am not a 109-basher, but it was what it was. As for its standing in history, I am one of the guys who thinks the Bf 109 ranks near or at the top of the chain for actual combat accomplishments, even though the war was lost from the German side. It ALMOST took the world and DID take the world's air forces into their worst nightmare. I KNOW the Fw 190 has its fans, but the achievements of the Bf 109 make it the top German fighter in my book, despite the fact that it SHOULD have been replaced in 1942 or 1943 and DID have glaring deficiencies that could easily have been corrected but never were. 

Truly a plane that was more than it's paper performance ever suggested it would be and its debut gave NO hint of the achievements to come.


----------



## cimmex (Jul 21, 2013)

I would like to know from what source is the info that in Germany was lack of propellers during the war. This is pure nonsense. If you refer to pictures of planes without propellers, those are made after the war mostly in the British occupied zone because they ordered the groundcrew to remove the propellers to disable serviceable planes.
cimmex


----------



## davebender (Jul 21, 2013)

Why?

2,000hp DB605D engine has just entered mass production. You would be hard pressed to find a piston engine with a better power to weight ratio during early 1945. Production cost was relatively cheap too. One could argue it would be better for Fw-190 / Ta-152 airframe then the much heavier Jumo 213 engine which required a longer nose plus rear fuselage extension.


----------



## GregP (Jul 21, 2013)

Hi Cimmex,

I would like to know the English-language source for your assertion that a propeller shortage was NOT in effect. I have read it WAY too many times for there not to be some basis in fact, the most obvious one being the fact that the transportation system was broken late in the war, and any trucks or trains running on roads or tracks were attacked by hordes of Allied fighters, thus making supply a complex affair late in the war.

The LAST thing the Germans would do is to fly aircraft to the fuel source for refueling. They’d be seen and the fuel reserve tanks would have been destroyed easily.

So, right back at you, how can you claim it was NOT true? Any sources for that claim dispute?


----------



## DerAdlerIstGelandet (Jul 21, 2013)

How about both of you post your sources, instead of playing a tit for tat game. 

I would especially like to hear about a prop shortage. I have not read about it "too many" times...


----------



## Shortround6 (Jul 21, 2013)

davebender said:


> Why?
> 
> 2,000hp DB605D engine has just entered mass production. You would be hard pressed to find a piston engine with a better power to weight ratio during early 1945. Production cost was relatively cheap too. One could argue it would be better for Fw-190 / Ta-152 airframe then the much heavier Jumo 213 engine which required a longer nose plus rear fuselage extension.



Slight problem. The 2000hp take-off/sea level fades to 1800hp at 4900 meters and down to 1550hp at 6000 meters. Not much different than the Jumo 213A except it needs MW 50+ C3 fuel to pull the 2000hp. What was the 213A good for with MW 50?


----------



## Aozora (Jul 22, 2013)

davebender said:


> Why?
> 
> 2,000hp DB605D engine has just entered mass production. You would be hard pressed to find a piston engine with a better power to weight ratio during early 1945. Production cost was relatively cheap too. One could argue it would be better for Fw-190 / Ta-152 airframe then the much heavier Jumo 213 engine which required a longer nose plus rear fuselage extension.


 
1) The DB605 had reached the end of its development/power potential with the D series. There was far more growth potential with the Jumo 213 and its more direct equivalent the DB 603 series, both of which were considered to be more reliable than the DB 605.

2) The DB 605 was only used in the 109. No sense in building one engine type for one aircraft type when both were at the end of their development lives without a great deal of work.


----------



## cimmex (Jul 22, 2013)

DerAdlerIstGelandet said:


> How about both of you post your sources, instead of playing a tit for tat game.
> 
> I would especially like to hear about a prop shortage. I have not read about it "too many" times...


Well, I’m interested in WWII aircrafts since around 40 years and during the time I read hundreds of related books and magazines but never found any hint concerning lack of propellers during the war. There was no reason because no material shortage and the VDM or Schwartz production companies were never heavily bombed. Sure the transport to the units was hindered by strafing planes a lot but Germany had and has a very tight railroad net and when one route was blocked there was always a maybe longer alternative track. Mr. GreP made this claim several times in the past, so I asked in a very credible German forum LBB « Luftwaffe Bullet Board » Forum zur deutschen Luftfahrtgeschichte
cimmex


----------



## riacrato (Jul 22, 2013)

Aozora said:


> 1) The DB605 had reached the end of its development/power potential with the D series. There was far more growth potential with the Jumo 213 and its more direct equivalent the DB 603 series, both of which were considered to be more reliable than the DB 605.
> 
> 2) The DB 605 was only used in the 109. No sense in building one engine type for one aircraft type when both were at the end of their development lives without a great deal of work.


 
There was still plenty of potential for the DB605, or room for improvement, if you want to put it negatively. Especially, in the supercharger department. DB605L would probably have been the more "definitive" DB605.


----------



## Civettone (Jul 22, 2013)

Aozora said:


> There was far more growth potential with the Jumo 213 and its more direct equivalent the DB 603 series, both of which were considered to be more reliable than the DB 605.


I think you are wrong there. The DB 605 was way more reliable than the other two.

Kris


----------



## davebender (Jul 22, 2013)

RLM wanted Genshagen retooled for DB603 engine production during 1944 but were unable to provide Daimler-Benz with the necessary machine tools. DB605D was the alternative as Genshagen conversion required far fewer machine tools. 

It's difficult to believe anyone would whine about being forced to use DB605D engine. If it needs a better supercharger or turbocharger to improve high altitude performance then build one but the basic engine design was outstanding.


----------



## Aozora (Jul 22, 2013)

Civettone said:


> I think you are wrong there. The DB 605 was way more reliable than the other two.
> 
> Kris



That's not what I am reading; eg:




















If the 605 was way more reliable than the 603 and Jumo 213 then the Luftwaffe must have been in bad shape once all three engines had been adopted.


----------



## davebender (Jul 22, 2013)

What does this mid 1943 report have to do with DB605 engines produced after teething problems were fixed?


----------



## GregP (Jul 22, 2013)

When I get some free time, I'll see if I can dig up the references to propeller shortage.

Read it maybe 25+ years ago and it could take time, but it's out there somewhere. Can't say if it is right. I seem to remember Martin Caiden as part of it but could be mistaken there. Way back, I rode in his Ju-52 once. A VERY neat ride in an historic airframe. I lost my pics while moving and they were Polariod things, so they can't be replaced digitally.

Anyway, the gist was that transporation was so disrupted that the props were readily available but could not be gotten to the factory reliably due to Allied aircraft attacks on transport and there were airframes without props ready for delivery for 2 - 3 months before the collapse.

Can't say if I can find it again, but I'll look for it as I get time.

Until then, we KNOW there were fuel and pilot shortages, fuel reserves notwithstanding. It simply could not be transported without being destroyed. Lots of Bf 109's and Fw 190's didn't fly late in the war due to empty fuel tanks. It happens when the end is near and is notr slight on the service or the pilots OR the transport people. It is the fog of war that happened at the time. Nobody is saying there was a lack of bravery or desire, the fuel just wasn't there.

Kind of like in the movie Road Warrior. There WAS fuel, but nobody could GET it.

I have definitely read that props were there but in short supply. 

So was food. Anyone who says otherwise is going against what I've personally heard from Germans people who lived it. 8 people who were there and KNOW.

If they couldn't transport FOOD, why would props be any different? The ONLY reason the airframes could be made in the last 2 months is the Aluminum and rivets were already at the factory in great numbers. That's from a Messerchmitt worker who was there and BUILT Bf 109's. I have NO personal knowledge of it but believe my old acquaintence, especially since he had pictures (actually photographic slides) that he showed a couple of times when we had a group together.


----------



## Aozora (Jul 22, 2013)

davebender said:


> What does this mid 1943 report have to do with DB605 engines produced after teething problems were fixed?


 
Have you got any report stating that the "teething problems" were fixed and that Petrick Mankau's conclusion that the RLM regarded the 605 as a sick engine, which remained problematic to the end of the war, is wrong? Note that even the 1943 extract was written some 18 months _after_ the DB 605 was first introduced, which means that it should have been well past "teething problems".


----------



## GregP (Jul 22, 2013)

So many DB 605-powered fighters flew that it is hard to believe there were major issues ...


----------



## riacrato (Jul 23, 2013)

It is well known that the DB 605 had an oil problem through most of 1943. A problem that led to start und notleistung being blocked as a workaround an that was fixed by installing a larger oil cooler and radiatior and most of all an oil slinger to eliminate foaming. Nothing new here and I think I have that same book on my pc somewhere, can't remember if the author bothered to give a reference for that statememnt. He or they certainly aren't experts on the DB 605 development. That the teething problems could've been fixed earlier is another matter, but they still were basically that. I'll stop now, because probably or hopefully someone with vast knowledge about these problems will chime in but nothing of what you have posted relates DB 605 reliability to that of the 603 or the Jumo so I wonder how you can arrive at such a statement.


----------



## Tante Ju (Jul 23, 2013)

Aozora said:


> Have you got any report stating that the "teething problems" were fixed and that Petrick Mankau's conclusion that the RLM regarded the 605 as a sick engine, which remained problematic to the end of the war, is wrong? Note that even the 1943 extract was written some 18 months _after_ the DB 605 was first introduced, which means that it should have been well past "teething problems".



It's funny detractors always choose the last "problematic" report, but forget of papers mentioning the fix. The lubrication teething troubles of the DB 605 were fixed in the summer/automn of 1943. Mankau's book also reports this, but this has been missed by Aozora, unfortunately... the transprict of the relevant GL meeting has been transcribed full in kurfurst seite.

Kurfürst - Transcript of Generalluftzeugmeister meeting on 7th September, 1943.

BTW if anyone reads Mankau book, there is lot of reference and talks to DB 605 issues before September 1943 in GL meetings. Then afterwards - they cease.

Bottomline - even though the early 605 did not reach the robustness of for example, Jumo engines, it was quite sufficiently reliable even when introduced, even the first versions having a service life of 80-100 hours in practice. That's much better than early BMW 801s, or that achieved Napier Sabres achieved, like ever. The latter did not seem to last more than 20 hours even at the height of their "reliability" record.

Aozora needs to bring strong evidence to his claims into discussion to even be considered. By 1945, DB 605 series was producing 2000 HP, and they still saw potential for ca. 2300 HP in immidiate future. Two stage superchargers were developed for them, which gave outstanding (better even than Griffon 65 for exampe, which was the best of operational Allied V-12 altitude engines) altitude performance. Sure it had potential.

Of course in the long run DB 603/Jumo 213 series offered greater potential, at almost the same size and a bit more weight, but the 605 series still had potential IMHO.


----------



## Aozora (Jul 23, 2013)

Tante Ju said:


> It's funny detractors always choose the last "problematic" report, but forget of papers mentioning the fix. The lubrication teething troubles of the DB 605 were fixed in the summer/automn of 1943. Mankau's book also reports this, but this has been missed by Aozora, unfortunately... the transprict of the relevant GL meeting has been transcribed full in kurfurst seite.
> 
> Kurfürst - Transcript of Generalluftzeugmeister meeting on 7th September, 1943.



"Teething troubles" hardly covers issues which took two years to resolve - still doesn't explain why M P say there were still unresolved problems with the engine right through until the surrender of the Nazis.



Tante Ju said:


> BTW if anyone reads Mankau book, there is lot of reference and talks to DB 605 issues before September 1943 in GL meetings. Then afterwards - they cease.



Because Mankau Pertrick are concentrating on material relating to development the 110 or 210/410. It's interesting that one way of resolving the issues with the 210 was to replace the 605s with 603s. In addition, reading about the development of Fw 190Ds and Ta 152s, for example, Kurt Tank didn't consider using the DB 605, which is a good indication as to the value he placed on it as an engine. 



Tante Ju said:


> Bottomline - even though the early 605 did not reach the robustness of for example, Jumo engines, it was quite sufficiently reliable even when introduced.



Thus proving my point that it was not way more reliable than either the DB 603 or Jumo 213. "Sufficiently reliable" could mean anything.



Tante Ju said:


> That's much better than early BMW 801s, or that achieved Napier Sabres achieved, like ever. The latter did not seem to last more than 20 hours even at the height of their "reliability" record.



Evidence please, particularly with the claim about the Sabre.



Tante Ju said:


> Aozora needs to bring strong evidence to his claims into discussion to even be considered.



I'm not the only one who needs to produce "strong" evidence. 



Tante Ju said:


> By 1945, DB 605 series was producing 2000 HP, and they still saw potential for ca. 2300 HP in immidiate future. Two stage superchargers were developed for them,...



What was the average TBO for this series? Any solid figures showing that DB 605Ds averaged more than say 20 hours?



Tante Ju said:


> ...which gave outstanding (better even than Griffon 65 for exampe, which was the best of operational Allied V-12 altitude engines) altitude performance.



The Griffon 65 was a medium altitude rated engine, plus the Griffon had not reached its full power potential. Daimler Benz might have envisaged ca 2,300 hp, but that's purely hypothetical.


----------



## Gixxerman (Jul 23, 2013)

riacrato said:


> and most of all an oil slinger to eliminate foaming.



I've never heard of an 'oil slinger' before have no idea what this is, just out of interest would anyone care to explain please 
(with a diagram or pic if poss)?


----------



## razor1uk (Jul 23, 2013)

I think the term 'oil slinger' could refer to a type of device that flung oil onto the walls of its collection chamber either by centrifugal rotation or via a nozzle/spray, that would allow air bubbles to escape the oil easier hence quicker, perhaps, or something with an edge or change of angle upon a shaft that would help stop oil going where it isn't needed by flinging it off at that point - like stopping it before a bearing or trying to minimise flung oil being lost into the piston bores loosing some of it to ring creep by and burning.. 

For a large engine needing a fast and efficient supply of cooled un-aerated oil, but to do this at the flow rates required would/could need to progress through an R&D period, let alone combat certification. Using a scaled up idea from earlier engines, might not always work, due to space, design changes and material requirements - the latter seems to be what 'hung up' there usage.


This DB605 related sub topic is going around yet again...
http://www.ww2aircraft.net/forum/av...ne-top-fighters-field-34534-2.html#post950376


----------



## Shortround6 (Jul 23, 2013)

Tante Ju said:


> By 1945, DB 605 series was producing 2000 HP, and they still saw potential for ca. 2300 HP in immidiate future. Two stage superchargers were developed for them, which gave outstanding (better even than Griffon 65 for exampe, which was the best of operational Allied V-12 altitude engines) altitude performance. Sure it had potential.



Are we talking about "Luft '46" engines vs Allied 1944 service engines? Or Allied 1943 service engines? 

BTW, Best Merlin Altitude Performance was from the 113/114 engines used in Mosquito 34s. 1440hp/3000rpm at 27,000ft using 18lbs boost or 1200hp/2850rpm at 30,000ft using 12lbs boost max continuous climb. 

and for "Allied V-12 altitude engine" consider the engines in the P-38L. 1600hp WEP at 25,800ft no RAM and 1425hp at 26,600ft military (15 min) no RAM and 1100hp at 31,200ft max continuous ( no time limit) no ram. 

What was the 605L rated at? take-off and emergency 1350hp at 31,400ft? Climb 1150hp at 31,400ft? max cruise 930hp at 31,000ft? 

DB 605 figures are from an old "Jane's" and may be a bit off PS to HP conversion for one thing.


----------



## Tante Ju (Jul 23, 2013)

Shortround6 said:


> Are we talking about "Luft '46" engines vs Allied 1944 service engines? Or Allied 1943 service engines?



We are talking about _development potential_ of the late war DB 605 engines (supposedly exhausting its development capability), precisly the 605DC and 605L. There wasn't much Luft 1946 about them - the latter was cancelled in late 1944 because it was a backup, should the Ta 152 program fail for some reason, but supposedly, some still found their way into aircraft.

Your examples show the DB 605 had still a lot of potential in 1945. IMHO it was a viable engine, until the larger and heavier 603/213 series developed to a point where they produce _MUCH _ more power than the lighter 605.


----------



## Shortround6 (Jul 23, 2013)

There is development potential and there is development potential.

A P&W engineer got a "B" series R-2800 up to 3800hp using 150in MAP and _LOTS_ of ADI fluid on a test stand. Service "B" series R-2800s were not rated for over 2540hp WEP. "C" series R-2800s used different crankcases, crankshafts, connecting rods, pistons, cylinders, cylinder heads and every thing else _except_ the bore and stroke. And they topped out at 2800hp in service. 
How much development potential was there in the R-2800? 

You were comparing prototype engines that never flew ( or at least were never in service aircraft) to engines that were in production and squadron use at the same time. 

The History of aviation is littered with the stories of engines ( and aircraft) that were canceled "just as the bugs were worked out" and not just German ones. The number of failed American engines makes me suspicious of any claims of "future" potential.


----------



## Tante Ju (Jul 23, 2013)

So, in your point of view, the 605 series did not have potential to increase power by 10-15% compared to current service ratings, ie. you say it would be _impossible _ and/or _unlikely_? Because of what, _exactly_...? Any particular reason on your mind why DB could not pull off a planned development that occured in a similar timeframe between V-1650-7 and -9 series? (apart from the calandar showing April 1945 of course  )

What would prevent running the 605L series at 1.75ata, the _same _boost as the service AM series but with a two stage supercharger and ADI as intercooler, ie. a different supercharger setting running at modest boost levels (ie. ca + 7 lbs) ? Some unknown issue with such powers at altitude - or roughly the same powers that were already achievable with NO2 injection in service?

Truth is, that the 605 series would somehow at the end of their development potential was a statement built on hot air. They did run into bearing problems in 1942-3, not forgetting they fixed those and then increased power output by 50% (ie. 1300 -> 2000 hp). Such claims about lack of potential are even more difficult to believe when one considers that DB was already running race db 601 series engines at 2700 HP in 1939, already proving the potential.

But then again, if you have any particular point (apart from generalisation) that would point towards the 605 exhausting its potential, I am curious to hear it.

Truth of the matter is, both the 109 / 605 could be further developed the same way as any other comparable plane was/could have been, but they represented a niche of lightweight, agile fighter-interceptor along the lines of Yaks, Spitfires - a niche that the RLM no longer wanted. What they wanted was one-pass bomber destroyer brutes, jets in particular, with heavier, sturdier airframes capable of carrying an armament best described as an overkill and absorbing punishment. None of the 152 series were particularly agile compared to the 109, but that wasn't on the wish list. IF fighters would have been such a major concern, the 109 would have a place, but they weren't, they were to be ignored. Since a.t.m. it was Messerschmitt who was producing jets, they would retire the Messerschmitt prop-job to concentrate on the Messerschmitt jet-job, kinda making the whole 605 series redundant, given that the aircraft using it would be no longer produced.


----------



## DonL (Jul 23, 2013)

I think you are on a wrong way Tante Ju.

There are very serious issues, that the DB 605 could *not* be developed past 2000PS.

1. The DB 605 was linited to 2800 rpm max, no any normal engine or test engine (except the race engines) from all I have read, was ever past 2800rpm
2. The performance increase from 1475 PS to 2000PS was mainly through use of C3 and MW50 not through major design development.
3. The DB 605 was a "save" alloy engine built from inferior alloys then the Jumo 211 (as Bomber engine), the BMW 801, Jumo 213 and the DB 603.

Here had the Jumo 213 very big advantages because he got the same alloys then the Jumo 211, BMW 801 and DB 603 and could run at 3250 rpm and had a normal performance of 1750PS without C3 and MW50. Also to my understanding the DB design philosophy was rather different to the Jumo design, through their very light weight built, the DB engines were limited at their rpm output, and at some point of a design you can't only create more performance through rpm.

The weight difference between the Jumo 213 and the DB 605 was something about 150kg and that are to my opinion the better alloys and the more robust design for much higher rpm. So the Jumo 213 B-0 (test engine for C3) could create 2000PS with C3 but without MW50, with MW50 this engine would be at 2300PS, also the Jumo 213 could create a higher Kampf and Steigleistung then the DB 605.

Also the Jumo 213 was produced till the mid of the fifties for the french navy and could win an advertisement against the Bristol Hercules and Gnome-Rhône 14R engine for a air-sea rescue flying-boat. If the DB 605 would have had so much potential the french military would be interested and not only at the Junkers 213.

Also from LW manuals the Jumo 213 had a normal overhaul time of 170 hours compare to the 75-100 to the late DB 605.

I agree with Sh6 and the other Members that the DB 605 was at the end of his development, first through his light weight design and the inferior alloys.


----------



## Gixxerman (Jul 23, 2013)

razor1uk said:


> I think the term 'oil slinger' could refer to a type of device that flung oil onto the walls of its collection chamber either by centrifugal rotation or via a nozzle/spray, that would allow air bubbles to escape the oil easier hence quicker, perhaps, or something with an edge or change of angle upon a shaft that would help stop oil going where it isn't needed by flinging it off at that point - like stopping it before a bearing or trying to minimise flung oil being lost into the piston bores loosing some of it to ring creep by and burning..



Thanks for the reply.
I have a fair understanding of car especially motorcycle engines - the oil-cooled Suzuki Gsxr's - itself reputedly inspired by the RR/Packard Merlin's oil cooling - in particular (although I am a later w/c Gsxr convert).

If I was to use the parlance there, would I be correct as thinking of this as something like an oil gallery then, when oil is sprayed/pumped to the gallery to lose any aeration and then go on to the areas it's needed without any foaming?

I wonder if it was inspired by a look at the allied engines or just another case of engineers tackling similar problems coming up with similar solutions?


----------



## Shortround6 (Jul 23, 2013)

Tante Ju said:


> So, in your point of view, the 605 series did not have potential to increase power by 10-15% compared to current service ratings, ie. you say it would be _impossible _ and/or _unlikely_? Because of what, _exactly_...? Any particular reason on your mind why DB could not pull off a planned development that occured in a similar timeframe between V-1650-7 and -9 series? (apart from the calandar showing April 1945 of course  )



There are basically two ways to get from 2000hp to 2300hp (15% increase). One is to increase the rpm 15% And keep the boost the same ( assuming the supercharger can actually supply 15% more air. )
Problems with this is that a, the internal friction goes up with the square of the speed so a 15 increase in RPM causes about 32% more friction so you don't quite get 15% net horsepower gain (although the cooling load has gone up 15%). b, the stress on the reciprocating parts has gone up a similar 32% as well as stress on crankshaft and crankcase. Maybe they can stand it and maybe they can't or maybe they can stand it for a short while ( shorter time between overhauls?) If the strength was there to begin with the engine was probably over weight for 1475hp. DB 605 is already running at 2940fpm piston speed and very few successful engine ran faster ( Jumo 213 and Bristol Pegasus)Please note the weight jump from the 2400rpm DB 601 to the 2800rpm 605, not all is due to stronger parts I am sure but some is. This method does have the advantage of not requiring "super fuels" or at leas t not to the extent of method 2. 

2nd way is to increase the boost, cram more air into the cylinder each time it fires. This is the way many engine designers went. It does increase the peak and average pressures inside the cylinder and _can_ require stronger construction. (A bit more on that later). This one is _very_ fuel dependent. If you don't have super fuels it doesn't work. 15% more than 1.98 AtA is 2.32 AtA to go from 2000hp to 2300hp. This pressure is possible, it was used by allied aircraft. Late war German fuel was close and _might_ have permitted it. again this is net power, you do have to add in the power needed to drive the supercharger ot the higher boost/airflow. and the engine has to be strong enough to handle the _total_ power made in the cylinders. 

as far as the V-1650-7 and -9 series goes there was a lot more going on than just adding ADI. the -9 got stronger basic casting for the crankcase, it got the end to end oil crankshaft. Not only was oil distribution better but the elimination of oil holes and groves in plain bearings meant there was more net bearing area for the same sized bearings. The -9 engine was essentially a Merlin 100/110 and not just a Merlin 61/66 with ADI. 

Maybe DB could have pulled it off. It depends on fuel, materials for the engine, lubrication and so on. 



Tante Ju said:


> What would prevent running the 605L series at 1.75ata, the _same _boost as the service AM series but with a two stage supercharger and ADI as intercooler, ie. a different supercharger setting running at modest boost levels (ie. ca + 7 lbs) ? Some unknown issue with such powers at altitude - or roughly the same powers that were already achievable with NO2 injection in service?



The trouble with replacing N2O from a power output stand point is that the extra air (oxygen) that is supporting the higher power level is "free" from the engines stand point. The plane has to carry the weight and bulk of the N2O set up. Engines make two different powers that concern us, one is net power to the propeller or brake horsepower ( can be measured on a brake or dynamometer) the other is indicated horsepower ( also a number of names) but it is the power actually developed in the cylinders. The net or brake horsepower is what is left after you take out the friction, the pumps, and the power to drive the supercharger. The N2O system provides extra oxygen to burn without the engine having to pay (use) power to drive a supercharger to compress that much air. A second or auxiliary stage can take several hundred horsepower to run. One text book from WW II shows a "theoretical" supercharger of 65% efficiency needing about 175 hp to deliver 1200hp worth of air to it's outlet (intake of the next stage) at _sea level_ pressure. the supercharger has also raised the temperature of the intake air from -48 degrees F to +200 degrees F. Now your inter cooler or ADI (or both) can help lower the temperature of the intake air, your second stage can boost the 1 AtA air to 1.8 rather easily but the total power needed in the cylinders may be 1575 hp for 1200hp to the prop. (100 for friction/pumps, 100 for the 2nd stage or engine supercharger and 175 hp for the 1st stage or auxiliary supercharger. 
The use of N2O allows an engine of 1400hp or so in the cylinders to give 1200hp to the propeller. 
The engine with the two stage supercharger has to be built strong enough to stand up to the total power developed in the cylinders. It can be done, it was done but it is not simple. 




Tante Ju said:


> Such claims about lack of potential are even more difficult to believe when one considers that DB was already running race db 601 series engines at 2700 HP in 1939, already proving the potential.



It rather depends on the life of the engine ( most aircraft engines could be run at much higher than normal powers for short periods of time, experimenters got over 900hp from a 550-600hp P&W R-1340 Wasp engine in 1933/34 with 100 octane fuel)
and it depends on the fuel. I believe the race DB engine was running on a blend of fuel with a lot of alcohol ? It may show the engine won't instantly self destruct at such power levels and thus show "potential" but turning it into usable aircraft power may be another story. Alcohol needs less air per pound to burn on a Btu basis ( 1 pound of air will give more btus burning with alcohol than with gasoline), some alcohols are about equal to 114 octane for knock rating, and alcohol has a much high latent heat of vaporization than gasoline ( it sucks up more heat per pound of liquid) helping cool both the intake charge and the engine. 
The R R type "R" racing engine was good for 2,783 hp (2,075 kW) at 3,400 rpm for "sprint" racing but R R never used the "potential" of this engine for a service engine or aircraft.


----------



## davebender (Jul 23, 2013)

It's a matter of timing. 

DB605D engine didn't enter production until fall 1944. Designing a new lightweight airframe to use the relatively lightweight DB605 engine isn't worth the trouble at such a late date. Ta-153 airframe was rejected for the same reason. Instead Focke-Wulf produced Fw-190D9 which was a relatively simple conversion of existing Fw-190A airframe.


----------



## Jabberwocky (Jul 23, 2013)

Tante Ju said:


> Bottomline - even though the early 605 did not reach the robustness of for example, Jumo engines, it was quite sufficiently reliable even when introduced, even the first versions having a service life of 80-100 hours in practice. That's much better than early BMW 801s, or that achieved Napier Sabres achieved, like ever. The latter did not seem to last more than 20 hours even at the height of their "reliability" record.


 
That's how it may "seem" to you, but actual history is very different.

Napier Sabre TBO's evolved significantly through the war. Initial TBO's were 40 hours, but then dropped to 25 hours and then 20 hours as more engines came off the assembly line and Napier's quality control issues raised their head. However, with improved machinery and consulting from Bristol helping them come up with better sleeve alloys and nitriding techniques, TBO was about 75 hours by the end of 1943 and about 120 hours by the end of the war in Europe.


----------



## Aozora (Jul 23, 2013)

davebender said:


> It's a matter of timing.
> 
> DB605D engine didn't enter production until fall 1944. Designing a new lightweight airframe to use the relatively lightweight DB605 engine isn't worth the trouble at such a late date. Ta-153 airframe was rejected for the same reason. Instead Focke-Wulf produced Fw-190D9 which was a relatively simple conversion of existing Fw-190A airframe.


 
In other words there were no other aircraft, apart from the 109 110, which could use the 605. How many other projected or existing designs were slated to use the projected 605L series?


----------



## davebender (Jul 23, 2013)

That's true during 1945 when German economy was collapsing and it's impossible to introduce any new piston engine airframe into mass production. Back up to 1942 (i.e. when Me-155 was designed) and there were a bunch of DB605 powered airframes which could have been placed into mass production.


----------



## DonL (Jul 23, 2013)

> no other aircraft, apart from the 109 110, which could use the 605
> 
> That's true during 1945 when German economy was collapsing and it's impossible to introduce any new piston engine airframe into mass production. Back up to 1942 (i.e. when Me-155 was designed) and there were a bunch of DB605 powered airframes which could have been placed into mass production.



Which?

The BV 155 was planed with a DB 603, as all new designs since 1942/43 were planed for the Jumo 213/DB 603!

The last serious new design was the Me 209 nothing else.

The only other fighter which was flying DB 605 was the Me 210C, and as we know with very inferior performance.

Next to this the He 111 was flying DB 601, Do 215 and FW 187. No other design to my knowledge.


----------

