DB-610: build your Luftwaffe

Discussion in 'Aviation' started by tomo pauk, Mar 23, 2012.

  1. tomo pauk

    tomo pauk Creator of Interesting Threads

    Joined:
    Apr 3, 2008
    Messages:
    7,994
    Likes Received:
    438
    Trophy Points:
    83
    An invitation for a discussion about the coupled DB engine, but a late war Luftwaffe using it in combat planes would be nice to discuss too.
     
  2. davebender

    davebender Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Jan 18, 2009
    Messages:
    6,418
    Likes Received:
    64
    Trophy Points:
    48
    Location:
    Michigan, USA
    I prefer the 4 engine He-177B. However after Heinkel fixed the cowling problems the He-177A5 was a good bomber.
     
  3. tomo pauk

    tomo pauk Creator of Interesting Threads

    Joined:
    Apr 3, 2008
    Messages:
    7,994
    Likes Received:
    438
    Trophy Points:
    83
    All fine and dandy, however it does not have any bearing towards the thread :)
     
  4. tyrodtom

    tyrodtom Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Sep 6, 2010
    Messages:
    2,484
    Likes Received:
    110
    Trophy Points:
    63
    Occupation:
    auto body repair
    Location:
    pound va
    It's just a case of the hottest part of a engine, where the shared exhaust manifold of the 2 inverted V engines, just about coincided with the low point in the engine nacelle, which would be the point where any leakage from the engines would end up. So the engine evidently needed extraordinary leakage control, and/or better cooling in the central bottom of the engine nacelle. Good idea, coupled engines, but poor execution with the details.

    Couple that with the He177, bury that engine deep in the wing, attach it to the mainspar, with (what appears to be) no firewall, or the mainspar IS the firewall. With the oil tanks directly behind that mainspar, with fuel tanks on each side of those oil tanks. So if the engine does catch fire, you've got very little time before either the mainspar fails, or the oil/ fuel tanks ignite.
     
  5. tomo pauk

    tomo pauk Creator of Interesting Threads

    Joined:
    Apr 3, 2008
    Messages:
    7,994
    Likes Received:
    438
    Trophy Points:
    83
    Wasn't the Db-606 plagued with those issues, but the 610 was trouble-free?
     
  6. Juha

    Juha Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Jan 8, 2007
    Messages:
    3,734
    Likes Received:
    65
    Trophy Points:
    48
    Location:
    Helsinki
    At least early 610s were still far from trouble-free.

    Juha
     
  7. tomo pauk

    tomo pauk Creator of Interesting Threads

    Joined:
    Apr 3, 2008
    Messages:
    7,994
    Likes Received:
    438
    Trophy Points:
    83
    As I've said, the thread is more of an invitation for a discussion about Db-610 - I'd like to learn more about it :)
     
  8. tyrodtom

    tyrodtom Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Sep 6, 2010
    Messages:
    2,484
    Likes Received:
    110
    Trophy Points:
    63
    Occupation:
    auto body repair
    Location:
    pound va
    My face is red, I got the DB-606 and Db-610 confused.
    The 610 improved on a lot of the 606's problem areas, more ventilation in the nacelle, better exhaust manifold package. Not a lot of info out there.

    But i'm sure someone will speak up for it.
     
  9. davebender

    davebender Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Jan 18, 2009
    Messages:
    6,418
    Likes Received:
    64
    Trophy Points:
    48
    Location:
    Michigan, USA
    Wikipedia to the rescue.
    Heinkel He 177 - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
    Production.
    130 x He-177A1. Jan 1942 to Jan 1943.
    15 x He-177R1. Nov to Dec 1942.
    .....135 production aircraft before He-177A engine problems were fixed.
    .....I still prefer the He-177B but I don't think one year is bad at all for fixing technical glitches in a newly introduced heavy bomber.

    155 x He-177AR2 and later variants. Jan 1943 to June 1944.
    826 x He-177A5. Dec 1943 to Aug 1944.
     
  10. wuzak

    wuzak Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Jun 5, 2011
    Messages:
    4,184
    Likes Received:
    167
    Trophy Points:
    63
    Location:
    Hobart Tasmania
    The Me261 seemed to have less difficulty with its DB606s (V1 V2) and DB610s (V3) than the He177.

    Also, what if each engine half were to drive its own prop, ala Fairey P.24? Would that have been a solution, or woud that have introduced new problems (pitch control for co-axial props)?
     
  11. Denniss

    Denniss Active Member

    Joined:
    Oct 15, 2006
    Messages:
    835
    Likes Received:
    46
    Trophy Points:
    28
    German wiki has an exact listing of how many He 177 were built.
    Heinkel He 177
    "A-3 neuer Bauzustand" would be those with fixed engine nacelles, those with "Kehl" were prepared to use glide bombs
     
  12. tomo pauk

    tomo pauk Creator of Interesting Threads

    Joined:
    Apr 3, 2008
    Messages:
    7,994
    Likes Received:
    438
    Trophy Points:
    83
    A part of 'my' Luftwaffe would be a pusher, layout as of Saab 21, or maybe a full-length hull, akin to the various Dornier pusher projects (allows for more room, but it's harder to make space for prop clearance, unless we go for a counter-rotating prop). A NF two-seater, with crew compartment akin to Ki-45 (enabling Schraege musik; no tail gun here), front-firing cannons under the crew compartment. Another version of the same would be an attack aircraft, single seater, with dive brakes, 2 cannons 30-37mm.
     
  13. krieghund

    krieghund Member

    Joined:
    Sep 25, 2006
    Messages:
    611
    Likes Received:
    21
    Trophy Points:
    18
    Occupation:
    Avionics Engineer Advisor to RSAF
    Location:
    Riyadh
    The Me-261 nor the He119 encounter problems with either the DB606 or DB610. It was the installation into the airframe that made the difference ( or in this case, the He177 problems).

    As a rule coupled engines are too heavy for small (fighter) applications and would take up an excessive amount of the empty weight percentage of anything smaller than a P-75, Do335 or Ki-64 sized fighter. Of course the P-75 hosted the coupled V-1710(V-3420).

    It might be an interesting study to look at all the different "coupled" and the aircraft they were installed in, but that is off thread.

    Anyway, I kind of like the looks of the J7Wx with a DB610 in it. I would have to scale it up a bit though or maybe not.
     

    Attached Files:

  14. tomo pauk

    tomo pauk Creator of Interesting Threads

    Joined:
    Apr 3, 2008
    Messages:
    7,994
    Likes Received:
    438
    Trophy Points:
    83
    What was the weight of the DB-610, either dry, or as a complete installation?
     
  15. Shortround6

    Shortround6 Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Jun 29, 2009
    Messages:
    9,769
    Likes Received:
    800
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Occupation:
    retired Firefighter
    Location:
    Central Florida Highlands
    1946 Janes gives a weight for the 606A (right hand rotation) as 3333lbs with starter, and the 606B (left hand rotation) is 3443lbs, with starter.

    The 610A is given as 3388lbs and the 610B as 3476lbs (right and left rotation) condition not given.
     
  16. tomo pauk

    tomo pauk Creator of Interesting Threads

    Joined:
    Apr 3, 2008
    Messages:
    7,994
    Likes Received:
    438
    Trophy Points:
    83
    That should be dry weight; DB-605AM is listed as being 1667 lbs dry (Wikipedia. I know...). So we should look at 4500+ lbs installed - a tad heavier than P-47 powerplant? It should direct towards a size of a sinle-engined plane to carry it, circa 350 sq ft wing etc?
     
  17. SpicyJuan11

    SpicyJuan11 Member

    Joined:
    May 29, 2015
    Messages:
    235
    Likes Received:
    4
    Trophy Points:
    18
    Location:
    Luxemburg
    How did the coupled engines(DB 606,610,613)compare to other 'single' high powered engines such as the Jumo 222 C/D, BMW 802, and even the BMW 803? Were the coupled engines not really worth their weight compared to the 'singles'? Also, assuming the He 177 didn't encounter it's horrendous engine troubles, would German engineers be more comfortable in using coupled engines in their bombers? Many thanks.
     
  18. kool kitty89

    kool kitty89 Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Aug 29, 2007
    Messages:
    3,069
    Likes Received:
    36
    Trophy Points:
    48
    Gender:
    Male
    Location:
    San Jose, CA
    There's also the pre-war 2000 hp class 18 cylinder Bramo 329 that might have developed into something compelling in the vein of what the 606 and Jumo 222 were targeting initially had BMW not canceled development after their merger with Bramo. (admittedly, an earlier, more conservative 18 cylinder BMW 801 derivative might have made as much or more sense given the common bore/stroke and potential common tooling with the 801 for easier manufacturing, but the existing 802 started late and targeted much more advanced features)

    I'd argue Jumo might have been better of being the one to handle the coupled engine development anyway. Develop a coupled Jumo 211 derivative, don't bother with the 222, and leave DB to focus on DB 601/605 and 603 development and don't bother with the 604 either. (and of course continue Jumo 211/213 development)
     
  19. SpicyJuan11

    SpicyJuan11 Member

    Joined:
    May 29, 2015
    Messages:
    235
    Likes Received:
    4
    Trophy Points:
    18
    Location:
    Luxemburg
    Was the Jumo 212 ever produced? All I have managed to find on it is that it was a proposed powerplant for the He 177.
     
  20. kool kitty89

    kool kitty89 Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Aug 29, 2007
    Messages:
    3,069
    Likes Received:
    36
    Trophy Points:
    48
    Gender:
    Male
    Location:
    San Jose, CA
    As far as I know it was only a paper design, so unproven, but the Jumo 211 at least SEEMS like a safer bet to get a working twin-V12 going. (and probably less trouble than the 222 too) The vertically oriented twin-V arrangement that came up in the Typhoon thread (regarding the Peregrine) seems like it'd work better than the DB arrangement too. (mate an upright V to an inverted V at the crankcase, keep independent crankshafts and cylinders, just sharing the lubrication system and an integral crank case with the two crankshafts geared together -a more compact arrangement and simpler exhaust ducting with potential for ejector stacks on all 24 cylinders)
     
Loading...

Share This Page