best 12 cylinders engined fighters, but RR and DB
- Thread starter Vincenzo
- Start date
Ad: This forum contains affiliate links to products on Amazon and eBay. More information in Terms and rules
- Thread starter
- #4
this are DB engined
johnbr
2nd Lieutenant
Fiat G.55 Fw-190d
fastmongrel
1st Sergeant
Vincenzo do you mean the best aircraft with a V 12 engine that wasnt a Rolls Royce or Daimler Benz.
If thats what you mean I would go for the Yak 3.
If thats what you mean I would go for the Yak 3.
- Thread starter
- #7
yes i mean this, so i was in wrong in my words?
fastmongrel
1st Sergeant
You were nearly right Vincenzo if you had said
best 12 cylinders engined fighters, without RR or DB engines
It would be clearer. Dont worry English is my mother tongue and we English speakers get it wrong all the time
I go with Yak 3 too. Super airplane, every detail.
Shortround6
Major General
P-51A?
Ditto, I was about to suggest that one myself.
Yak-9U has the better engine, Yak-3 all kept the PF2 which is breathless above 3800 metres. Wright-Patterson tested the Yak-9P (identical to 9U but with Beresins instead of ShVAK), their results were "equivalent to the P-51D in all respects but more manoeuvrable." The Yak-9 is also much more stable than the Yak-3 which was such a problem for inexperienced pilots that it was restricted to Guards squadrons unless specifically requested by a field commander (naval aviation got a few this way).
It was always a problem. Of the three 1940-1 proposals for monoplane fighters, the MiG and Yak were unstable and the LaGG was preferred, despite being mostly a wood construction (in fact partly because of it, the type was easy enough to produce in the major cities whilst the ural facilities were being built). But the Yak and LaGG were underpowered, whilst the MiG had to compete with the Il-2 for engine production.
By the end of 1941 however it was clear the Yak was drawing ahead in ubiquitous design and this happened partly by accident. The VVS was so desperate for replacement fighters on a very large scale in a very short time facing the Luftwaffe, that large numbers of Yak/UTI conversion trainers in the field were fitted with engine guns and rockets and sent into combat (these Yak trainers were in very large numbers because they were meant to familiarise with all new types so was used to train LaGG and MiG pilots as well, at this stage the MiG was probably the main type in the field as it began a large production block sooner, the LaGG quickly caught up and the Yak followed, the MiG then backed off production as engines were diverted to the Il-2).
Yak pilots had always remarked that the UTI trainer handled better than the fighter version with no appreciable loss in performance, it has larger wings and nicer balance, plus more fuselage space. When the rear cockpit was stripped out and war equipment fitted it was the preferred type by pilots, which were still having problems with the Yak-1 instability, in which manoeuvring at all whilst impressively agile, nevertheless elicited continuous altitude loss where the Yak-7 as the converted trainers were designated, handled much better and gave less. TsAGI tested them comparatively and found no structural compromise between them, the Yak-7 would deal with any combat stresses the Yak-1 can.
As an aside, a common field repair for both Yaks was reskinning the wings, because it turned hard enough to take the plywood off. Not a bonding issue, although LaGG sometimes had those (late production Yak-3 and 9U/P were all metal but not until later, plywood wing skins were common for most of the war in the ussr, whilst individual examples of all metal wings began to appear from late 42).
When the decision was made to redesign the main Yak fighter type, proposals for the Yak-3 (Yak-1B) and Yak-9 (Yak-7B) were put forth and work on the M-107 engine stepped up. By late 42 all new Yak-1 and Yak-7 in the field were routinely featuring the cut down rear fuselage of the Yak-3 and 9 so visually there's not much difference, these late cut-down Yak-7B are visually identical really, you have to inspect the wings or check the fuel card to know one from another.
In the Yak-9 its Yak-7 roots allowed for a very wide array of variants by shifting the cockpit a little forward/back to move CoG around, something very easily done during construction. So for a whole world of reasons the Yak-9 trumps the Yak-3 which is just a less stable, lightened version "with no appreciable performance superiority" whilst the best of the breed, the Yak-9U with the M-107 fitted (from early 45, early ones still had the PF2 as the later engine wasn't ready yet, there was also a delay in the Beresins it was supposed to get, they didn't arrive until the postwar 9P).
However given that the Klimov roots are the Hispano 12Y (the M-105 is basically a licensed produced version with some local tuning mods), I'd have to say it is the Hispano which deserves the bronze medal just under RR and DB for the inline 12s.
It was always a problem. Of the three 1940-1 proposals for monoplane fighters, the MiG and Yak were unstable and the LaGG was preferred, despite being mostly a wood construction (in fact partly because of it, the type was easy enough to produce in the major cities whilst the ural facilities were being built). But the Yak and LaGG were underpowered, whilst the MiG had to compete with the Il-2 for engine production.
By the end of 1941 however it was clear the Yak was drawing ahead in ubiquitous design and this happened partly by accident. The VVS was so desperate for replacement fighters on a very large scale in a very short time facing the Luftwaffe, that large numbers of Yak/UTI conversion trainers in the field were fitted with engine guns and rockets and sent into combat (these Yak trainers were in very large numbers because they were meant to familiarise with all new types so was used to train LaGG and MiG pilots as well, at this stage the MiG was probably the main type in the field as it began a large production block sooner, the LaGG quickly caught up and the Yak followed, the MiG then backed off production as engines were diverted to the Il-2).
Yak pilots had always remarked that the UTI trainer handled better than the fighter version with no appreciable loss in performance, it has larger wings and nicer balance, plus more fuselage space. When the rear cockpit was stripped out and war equipment fitted it was the preferred type by pilots, which were still having problems with the Yak-1 instability, in which manoeuvring at all whilst impressively agile, nevertheless elicited continuous altitude loss where the Yak-7 as the converted trainers were designated, handled much better and gave less. TsAGI tested them comparatively and found no structural compromise between them, the Yak-7 would deal with any combat stresses the Yak-1 can.
As an aside, a common field repair for both Yaks was reskinning the wings, because it turned hard enough to take the plywood off. Not a bonding issue, although LaGG sometimes had those (late production Yak-3 and 9U/P were all metal but not until later, plywood wing skins were common for most of the war in the ussr, whilst individual examples of all metal wings began to appear from late 42).
When the decision was made to redesign the main Yak fighter type, proposals for the Yak-3 (Yak-1B) and Yak-9 (Yak-7B) were put forth and work on the M-107 engine stepped up. By late 42 all new Yak-1 and Yak-7 in the field were routinely featuring the cut down rear fuselage of the Yak-3 and 9 so visually there's not much difference, these late cut-down Yak-7B are visually identical really, you have to inspect the wings or check the fuel card to know one from another.
In the Yak-9 its Yak-7 roots allowed for a very wide array of variants by shifting the cockpit a little forward/back to move CoG around, something very easily done during construction. So for a whole world of reasons the Yak-9 trumps the Yak-3 which is just a less stable, lightened version "with no appreciable performance superiority" whilst the best of the breed, the Yak-9U with the M-107 fitted (from early 45, early ones still had the PF2 as the later engine wasn't ready yet, there was also a delay in the Beresins it was supposed to get, they didn't arrive until the postwar 9P).
However given that the Klimov roots are the Hispano 12Y (the M-105 is basically a licensed produced version with some local tuning mods), I'd have to say it is the Hispano which deserves the bronze medal just under RR and DB for the inline 12s.
Last edited:
GregP
Major
The Fw 190D-9 had a Jumkers Jumo engine in it, not a DB.
The He-112 had a Jumo 211D I think, and that was considered a very strong contender with the 109 if it wasn't for the radiator system. It made it quicker in a sprint, but worse in sustained manoeuvring or on the climb with the radiator open, Price says that's the real reason the Messer won out, which was also using the 211 at that stage. The DB for either was planned though, these were all intentionally development series airframes.
The 213E though had a lot of problems with its complicated blower, Hermann is good to reference on this. Test performance never matched the projected figures doing the rounds, they only even got the high gear upper stage working half the time in practise which would restrict throttle altitude randomly to 7500m, then at part throttle it would give you the impression you still had a strong engine to 12000 metres.
Ta-152H pilots noted this.
The 213A was even problematic, field mechanics and the Focke Wulf company couldn't agree on idle settings and there were arguments by correspondance between them. The RLM found it was underpowered in practise and ran out of steam above 5500 metres (lower in the hotrod C3 versions tested in 43). By the time it entered production under the required B4 fuel card mid 44, the RLM was demanding a boost system.
The 213 engine block was massively oversize for its swept capacity, which was in the Merlin class but its size and weight was virtually identical to the bomber-engine DB603. Presumably this was to withstand both cylinder overheating and further boost development in service, but in a shopping cart regular fighter version, with a simpler blower it was very heavy, very large and underpowered for that reason. Performance wise was actually excellent under 3000 metres, especially in C3 or boosted versions. But still it was a problematic engine overall that aircraft designers themselves listed as less desirable than the DB603, a nice simple version of the 601 which achieves its qualities by sheer swept capacity, which meant great throttle height with relatively soft boost, good for B4 fuel and the torque potential to exceed 2000PS with little development.
The Jumo 211 had minor design problems in all sorts of areas, someone like Shortround6 will know a lot more about this than me, but IIRC even fuel injection wouldn't take very well and the side blower inverted vees really needed injection for good feed and a clean engine bay.
I personally don't think the Jumo engine, 211 or 213 is much of a show. I'd go with the Hispano well before it, given its French development was arrested by surrender obviously, but the Klimov continued to develop well in the hands of the Russians.
But other than those I can't think of any second generation V12 inlines. The others like Kestrel, etc. were first generation motors based on the Curtiss D motor afaik. Others like the Peregrine weren't meant to be a front line fighter engine.
The 213E though had a lot of problems with its complicated blower, Hermann is good to reference on this. Test performance never matched the projected figures doing the rounds, they only even got the high gear upper stage working half the time in practise which would restrict throttle altitude randomly to 7500m, then at part throttle it would give you the impression you still had a strong engine to 12000 metres.
Ta-152H pilots noted this.
The 213A was even problematic, field mechanics and the Focke Wulf company couldn't agree on idle settings and there were arguments by correspondance between them. The RLM found it was underpowered in practise and ran out of steam above 5500 metres (lower in the hotrod C3 versions tested in 43). By the time it entered production under the required B4 fuel card mid 44, the RLM was demanding a boost system.
The 213 engine block was massively oversize for its swept capacity, which was in the Merlin class but its size and weight was virtually identical to the bomber-engine DB603. Presumably this was to withstand both cylinder overheating and further boost development in service, but in a shopping cart regular fighter version, with a simpler blower it was very heavy, very large and underpowered for that reason. Performance wise was actually excellent under 3000 metres, especially in C3 or boosted versions. But still it was a problematic engine overall that aircraft designers themselves listed as less desirable than the DB603, a nice simple version of the 601 which achieves its qualities by sheer swept capacity, which meant great throttle height with relatively soft boost, good for B4 fuel and the torque potential to exceed 2000PS with little development.
The Jumo 211 had minor design problems in all sorts of areas, someone like Shortround6 will know a lot more about this than me, but IIRC even fuel injection wouldn't take very well and the side blower inverted vees really needed injection for good feed and a clean engine bay.
I personally don't think the Jumo engine, 211 or 213 is much of a show. I'd go with the Hispano well before it, given its French development was arrested by surrender obviously, but the Klimov continued to develop well in the hands of the Russians.
But other than those I can't think of any second generation V12 inlines. The others like Kestrel, etc. were first generation motors based on the Curtiss D motor afaik. Others like the Peregrine weren't meant to be a front line fighter engine.
Interesting post on the Yaks, Vanir; very informative. I wasn't aware of most of it. I have to take issue with the comment that the Kestrel was based on the Curtiss D-12 (or Fairey Felix in the UK), as it was not. The two engines were quite different. Rolls got hold of one and examined it and decided his firm could do better, so in a sense the D-12 provided inspiration for Rolls to make improvements to the Kestrel, but it wasn't based on it; the Kestrel began as the private venture F.X based on the RR Falcon family.
I have to agree with the Yaks being great Vee-12 fighters based on your post, though.
I have to agree with the Yaks being great Vee-12 fighters based on your post, though.
Shortround6
Major General
The Early planes all used the Jumo 210, a Kestrel sized engine.
The Jumo 211 and 213 had the same sized cylinders 150mm x 165mm for 35 liters displacement which puts them in the Griffon class. I believe part of the weight came from the beefing up of the engine to run at 3250 rpm (or higher in some planned versions) which gave the 213 bar far the highest piston speed of any large aircraft piston engine. Since stress goes up with the square of the speed ???
You may be giving me too much credit
I don't know of any particular problems with the Jumo 211 that may not have been solved some where along the line (many engines had problems in the early models) but it was almost always used as a bomber engine. It was a Griffon sized engine with Merlin like weight so something has to give. Depending on model it may have been a bit bigger is size or weight than an equivelent DB engine and so not favored for fighters ??Unfortunately the Hispano 12Y was sort of a generation and a half engine.It came out in 1932 (?) and was a large displacement (Griffon size) but light engine. While it may have been good enough in the 30s it's limitations called for a total redesign (basically a new engine using the old cylinder dimensions) by 1940. as far as development goes, the Russians never really got it it over 1300hp even using 95 octane fuel, beefing it up, and using low altitude superchargers that took less power to drive than a high altitude supercharger. The 2 valve heads, Siamesed intake and exhaust ports and SIX carburetor intake system were all limits by 1940 in addition to the light construction, low RPM and poor supercharger design. Many "developments" gained several hundred pounds, 4 valve heads, fuel injection and other major changes. The Russians didn't some of these "improved" engines into real production until after the war even though they worked on them for 4-5 years.
Oh quite right, it was the Jumo 210Da I was thinking of.
Hey and thanks for all that great insight on the Hispano. Never known very much at all about that motor, and just what TsAGI wrote up about the Klimov but that's just about the Yak production really, not much about the engines (other than they talked about fuel and comp ratio/boost and didn't like Merlins).
Hey and thanks for all that great insight on the Hispano. Never known very much at all about that motor, and just what TsAGI wrote up about the Klimov but that's just about the Yak production really, not much about the engines (other than they talked about fuel and comp ratio/boost and didn't like Merlins).
- Thread starter
- #18
just for give my opinions
early in the war i think Dewoitine 520 is the best, good perfomances, good work in Battle of France.
in spring/summer '41 maybe Yak-1 get the position, and its derivatives.
the american fighters P-39, P-40 and P-51 all with Allison are all heaviest and with engine not much more powerfull of Klimov (they, the Allison, has the advantage of higher power in WEP) so imo i don't think they are good versus yakovlevs.
late in the war, ~fall '44, go in the arena the Fw 190D (with Jumo 213 engine) and the Yak-9U with the new M-107 engine; the 190D was the alone 12 cylinders SE fighter (not RR or DB powered) with high altitude perfomances so was not take out as best also if in the low altitude Yak-9U was best.
p.s. need a notion also MiG-3 was a high altitude fighter in '41/2
early in the war i think Dewoitine 520 is the best, good perfomances, good work in Battle of France.
in spring/summer '41 maybe Yak-1 get the position, and its derivatives.
the american fighters P-39, P-40 and P-51 all with Allison are all heaviest and with engine not much more powerfull of Klimov (they, the Allison, has the advantage of higher power in WEP) so imo i don't think they are good versus yakovlevs.
late in the war, ~fall '44, go in the arena the Fw 190D (with Jumo 213 engine) and the Yak-9U with the new M-107 engine; the 190D was the alone 12 cylinders SE fighter (not RR or DB powered) with high altitude perfomances so was not take out as best also if in the low altitude Yak-9U was best.
p.s. need a notion also MiG-3 was a high altitude fighter in '41/2
Last edited:
Didn't the Napier Sabre turn some 3700 or more rpm?
DonL
Banned
I think you are refering to the supercharger of the Jumo 213E?!
This was the first two stage supercharger in service from germany in WWII and the problem with the third gear at the second stage was a typical teething trouble of a product that was put in service with force or harum scarum.
And for me, it is the first time that I read, that the Jumo 213E couldn't reach his estimate performance!
The Jumo 213 E-1 (B4 fuel) was absolut the same engine as the Jumo 213A only with an other supercharger (two stage three gear supercharger).
Both engines had a max poweroutput of 1750 PS at start with B4 fuel!The high altitude performance of the Jumo 213E was 9600m, this was estimated and reached in combat and several test flights at Rechlin!
Also I can't follow this statement! The absolutley first Jumo 213A-0 with a one stage one gear supercharger was running out of steam at 5500 meters (high altitude performance 5500m). But this engine wasn't anytime in service!
This problem was solved with Jumo 213 A-1 with a one stage two gear supercharger, high altitude performance 6600m! This was the first engine in service! Both engines hat a max poweroutput of 1750PS at start (B4 fuel). All C3 fuel engines you were refering to, didn't enter service!
The demanding of the boost system is absolutley right, because of the lag of C3 fuel, but not of the lag of the estimated power! And the demanding of a boost system, was for every single LW engine that was in service!
Sorry but this is totaly wrong!
Deplacement: RR Merlin 27 Liters, Jumo 213 35 Liters other engines: Allison V1710 28 Liters, DB 601 33,7 Liters, DB 605 35,7 Liters, DB 603 44,5 Liters, RR Griffon 36,7 Liters
As you can see the Jumo 213 was in one leage with the RR Griffon and the DB 605 engine!
Dimensions: Jumo 213: lenghts: 2266mm, width: 777mm, height: 980mm, dry weight 920kg (A)/ 940kg (E)
Dimensions: RR Griffon: lenghts: 2057mm, width: 770mm, height: 1168mm, dry weight 900kg
Dimensions: RR Merlin: lenghts: 2253mm, width: 781mm, height: 1016mm, dry weight 744kg
Dimensions: DB 605: lenghts: 2158mm, width: 760mm, height: 1037mm, dry weight 750kg
Dimensions: DB 603: lenghts: 2610mm, width: 830mm, height: 1156mm, dry weight 910kg
I also can't follow your argument with the size of the Jumo 213! The size was for his deplacement, compare to the DB 605 and RR Griffon totaly normal! It was even smaller as the RR Merlin with only 27 Liter deplacemnt.
The small dry weight of the DB engines is one point, that they could not achieve the rpm and boost of other engines at the same timeline, also the Jumo 213 engine was good for 200 hours compare to the DB 605 (50 hours) and DB 603 (100hours).
As you can see, the dry weight of the Jumo 213 was near equal to the RR Griffon, with near equal deplacement!
Next thing is, that the DB engines could not achieve the same max poweroutput of the Jumo 213!
The Jumo 213 A-0/1 achieve from the beginning1750 PS max with B4 fuel.
No DB 605 in service could achieve a max poweroutput of 1750 PS without MW50 (Jumo 213 2050PS). Even the DB 603 with near 10 Liters more diplacement had problems to achieve the max poweroutput with the same high altitude performance.
Only the DB 603E with B4 fuel and max output of 1800PS and an high altitude performance of 7000meters was a little better with 10 Liters more diplacement. And both DB engines had much more development time!
I totaly disagree with this statement!
As I have shown above the Jumo 213A/E wasn't in anytime underpowered, also he achieves a very good high altitude performance, especially in the FW 190 D-9 and Tank 152 H1. I have also all books from Herrman about the FW 190 D-9 and the Ta 152 and several other books about these birds and I hear such a statement for the first time. All pilots of the FW 190 D-9 were very suprised of the very good performance and high altitude performance of this bird/engine compare to the FW 190 A8 and they were very skeptical at the beginning, because of the reputation of Jumo engines (Jumo 211 engine = bomber engine). All pilots stated that the poweroutput of the Jumo 213 was very good.
Also as reference to Herrmanns books, as well as both planes achieved there estimated performances (from FW) in combat and several testflights at Rechlin!
Your comment about the aircraft designers, is a commentar from Kurt Tank at the year 1942! At this time the DB 603 was "in service" and the Jumo 213 was in development and as I described above, the Jumo engine reputaion wasn't very good, because of the differences between the Jumo 211 and DB 601. Later Mr. Tank was total happy with Jumo 213!
This is totaly impossible. The DB 601 was with the DB 601E at the end of the possible poweroutput! The reasons were, that this engine wasn't constructed at the beginning for high pressure cooling and the DB 601 engine had roller bearings and not sleeve bearing/slide bearings as the DB 605 and Jumo 213!The sleeve bearings/slide bearings are absolutley necessary to get more boost and rpm!
From many engineers in several books was post war stated, that the Jumo 213 was the best V12 liquid cooled engine at WWII from germany.
1. For the best fuel efficiency of all german WWII engines
2. Very good poweroutput for his deplacement with B4 fuel
3. Very good reliability compare to all other high performance engines of the germans, even with MW50 and GM1.
Back to topic:
I also think that it is a close match between the FW 190 D-9, Ta 152H1, P51A and Yak9.
Both the Yak9 and the P51A would have clear disadvantages at high altitudes above 6000m.
Edit:
Do you have sources for this statement?
Besides to the statement that the Jumo 213A was problematic: From all research I have done, it was the only german engine, that had no single problem with the use of MW50 and GM1 from the beginning of entering service!
Last edited:
