Follow along with the video below to see how to install our site as a web app on your home screen.
Note: This feature may not be available in some browsers.
Ad: This forum contains affiliate links to products on Amazon and eBay. More information in Terms and rules
Macchi C.205, Reggiane Re.2005 or Fiat G.55
Vincenzo do you mean the best aircraft with a V 12 engine that wasnt a Rolls Royce or Daimler Benz.
yes i mean this, so i was in wrong in my words?
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.
Ditto, I was about to suggest that one myself.P-51A?
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 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.
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.
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.
I personally don't think the Jumo engine, 211 or 213 is much of a show.
Do you have sources for this statement?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.