Did the Allies Just Have Better Engines?

mikemike · Jul 19, 2020

Correction - the wing cannon of the K-6 were MK108, as were the gondola weapons referred to in that report. MK103s would likely have wrenched the wings off when fired. The Mauser MG213 C revolver cannon was intended to replace the MK108 in most applications - in the 109 at least in the through-the-propeller-hub installation.

Ludwig Boelkow led the team that designed the 109 K - today we would probably call the Kurfuerst a re-imagination of the 109. The team worked in Wiener Neustadt, prototypes would be flying in October, 1943, with production start envisaged early in 1944. A bombing attack on August 13, 1943 (15th AF?) destroyed the prototype shop; essential drawings were lost. This set back production start by at least eight months.

Milosh · Jul 21, 2020

mikemike said:
Correction - the wing cannon of the K-6 were MK108, as were the gondola weapons referred to in that report. MK103s would likely have wrenched the wings off when fired. The Mauser MG213 C revolver cannon was intended to replace the MK108 in most applications - in the 109 at least in the through-the-propeller-hub installation.

Ludwig Boelkow led the team that designed the 109 K - today we would probably call the Kurfuerst a re-imagination of the 109. The team worked in Wiener Neustadt, prototypes would be flying in October, 1943, with production start envisaged early in 1944. A bombing attack on August 13, 1943 (15th AF?) destroyed the prototype shop; essential drawings were lost. This set back production start by at least eight months.

Were not MK103s tried on the Fw-190? IIRC it was found that the wings weren't strong enough to give stability to the weapons when fired.

Koopernic · Nov 9, 2020

Snowygrouch said:
The stages of compression used are to maintain whatever boost you have at sea-level, in fact raising boost tends to LOWER the (relative) effectiveness of any boosting system
because it makes it harder to maintain the power high up if you are highly boosted on the ground. The failure of the luftwaffe to impliment 2-stage SC has
absolutely nothing whatsoever to do with fuel octane or water injection.

Nobody knows exactly why Udet committed suicide, but I think its highly unlikely that two-stage superchargers had anything to do with it, as he died in
Nov 1941. At which point (from a technical perspective) the Luftwaffe was actually doing fairly well, the 109 F was doing well, and was competitive and
the 190 was entering service.

I didn't thoroughly explain myself. After the allied oil campaign of Early 1944 which damaged the German synthetic fuel industry, the production capacity of C3 fuel was impacted. One result of this is that there were delays in engine deployment.

The first Ta 152 should have been the Ta 152C with the DB603EM engine. This apparent variant of the DB603E engine had a single stage supercharger and water methanol injection but needed C3 fuel instead of B4 hence the Ta 152H was first produced because its engine the Jumo 213E could operate of B4 fuel. The engine could run of B4 fuel more successfully not because it had a two stage supercharger (which I had inadvertently implied) but because it had an intercooler.

The Jumo 213E1 had been designed with an intercooler to cope with the effects of heavy two stage supercharging. Having received an intercooler it was also however more suited to running competitive power levels of B4 fuel, albeit at lower performance possible with C3.

A companion of the Jumo 213E1 was the Jumo 213F1 which was the same engine but because it lacked an intercooler needed C3. It's smaller size suited it to the Fw 190D12. A latter variant of this engine series the Jumo 213EB had a compact enough intercooler (common to engine and charge cooling) and could be used with both the Ta 152H and Fw 190D12/EB

Mind you I'm an amateur and I'm not always getting my info from proper primary documents.

spicmart · Nov 21, 2020

Koopernic said:
Kurfürst - Geschwindigkeitseinfluß von 2 MK 108 unter den Flächen der Me 109 G.
These MK103 "Gondalla" weapons cost 6km/h speed at 525km/h at sea level at 1.3 ata boost. About 1.2%.
View attachment 588363
Below is the Me 109K6 which integrated the MK108 into the wings. This model didn't quite enter production. It is a mystery that Messerschmitt didn't design for the smaller MG131 machine gun (or other gun) to integrated in to the wing of the Me 109F or Me 109G from the very beginning as it could have avoided the cowling gun bulges that developed by retaining rifle calibre guns there and using the 13.2mm MG131 in the wing. The MG131 had the destructive fire power of 3 rifle calibre guns.

You need to zoom in on this image to appreciate it.
View attachment 588364

The Me 109K4 could do 452 mph with a thin bladed propeller optimised for speed though this reduced climb performance slightly. It could do 460mph with a scimitar (swept wing prop). More speed was possible with more engine power. The Me 109K14 was broadly an Me 109K4/K6 with a two stage supercharged DB605L engine estimated to be capable of 455mph at 1.75ATA boost. It had much better high altitude performance due to the two stage super charger. This model had an oval air intake to scoop in the thinner air at high altitude and a 4 bladed prop to grip the thinner air.

Many of the minor aerodynamic refinements on the Me 109K4 were on no brainer and should have been introduced with the Me 109G6.

View attachment 588366

There was life left yet in the Me 109. The Luftwaffe was trying to get rid of it. The Fw 190D12 EB with the Jumo 213EB engine was expected to be able to do 488mph. With the same engine the Ta 152H was expected to do 474mph, which is the same as the Jumo 213E1 version but without GM1 and at slightly lower altitude. They would have been a better match for the P51H.

The MK 103 installation inthe Fw 190 was judged to be not viable due to excessive vibration when shooting and arguealy deterioration of flight characteristics. The Me 109 with its much weaker wing was probably even worse.

Milosh · Nov 21, 2020

Koopernic said:
Mind you I'm an amateur and I'm not always getting my info from proper primary documents.

You also don't give or insert your sources.

spicmart · Nov 21, 2020

D Deleted member 68059 In your book you were very enthusiastic about the Jumo 213J which you described as probably the best liquid-cooled engine of the war and described it as Germany's Merlin. Wasn't the Griffon more of a foil to the Jumo 213?
Maybe you can give a comparison between the two and something about the Jumo 222 as well?

Deleted member 68059 · Nov 22, 2020

Koopernic said:
I didn't thoroughly explain myself. After the allied oil campaign of Early 1944 which damaged the German synthetic fuel industry, the production capacity of C3 fuel was impacted. One result of this is that there were delays in engine deployment.

The first Ta 152 should have been the Ta 152C with the DB603EM engine. This apparent variant of the DB603E engine had a single stage supercharger and water methanol injection but needed C3 fuel instead of B4 hence the Ta 152H was first produced because its engine the Jumo 213E could operate of B4 fuel. The engine could run of B4 fuel more successfully not because it had a two stage supercharger (which I had inadvertently implied) but because it had an intercooler.

The Jumo 213E1 had been designed with an intercooler to cope with the effects of heavy two stage supercharging. Having received an intercooler it was also however more suited to running competitive power levels of B4 fuel, albeit at lower performance possible with C3.

A companion of the Jumo 213E1 was the Jumo 213F1 which was the same engine but because it lacked an intercooler needed C3. It's smaller size suited it to the Fw 190D12. A latter variant of this engine series the Jumo 213EB had a compact enough intercooler (common to engine and charge cooling) and could be used with both the Ta 152H and Fw 190D12/EB

Mind you I'm an amateur and I'm not always getting my info from proper primary documents.

I`m extremely dubious about most of that, and would ask you what the sources are.

For a start, since the whole inception of the 153/152/D9 projects the engines under consideration were in a constant state of flux since mid 1943 anyway, with constant changes of plan between 213A, E and 603E/L and so on. That has nothing to do with fuel shortages, but which engines were late - and in any case, there were always many sub-variants of both 213 and 603 deisgned for B4 or C3, as the Luftwaffe never knew with absolute certainty what would be available in quantity anyway even before the attacks.

I very, very much doubt that the inception of the "H" version is because of a lack of C3, if you read the conference meetings the discussions are all about how to get the airframes into production with as small a number of changes as possible.

The 213E was a very good engine and certainly did make better use of lower octane fuels generally, but I would not ascribe technical points on combustion design to delays in airframe programmes with the Ta models.

Koopernic · Nov 30, 2020

Snowygrouch said:
I`m extremely dubious about most of that, and would ask you what the sources are.

For a start, since the whole inception of the 153/152/D9 projects the engines under consideration were in a constant state of flux since mid 1943 anyway, with constant changes of plan between 213A, E and 603E/L and so on. That has nothing to do with fuel shortages, but which engines were late - and in any case, there were always many sub-variants of both 213 and 603 deisgned for B4 or C3, as the Luftwaffe never knew with absolute certainty what would be available in quantity anyway even before the attacks.

I very, very much doubt that the inception of the "H" version is because of a lack of C3, if you read the conference meetings the discussions are all about how to get the airframes into production with as small a number of changes as possible.

The 213E was a very good engine and certainly did make better use of lower octane fuels generally, but I would not ascribe technical points on combustion design to delays in airframe programmes with the Ta models.

I can't find my original 2 references, they were internet sources. Google is so useless now that its currated.

Thomas H Hitchcok refers to 3 Ta 152C-0 being flight cleared with DB603E engines and MW50 being flight cleared between 3rd Dec 1944 and 12 Jan 45 because the DB603L engine was not yet ready. I presume this was the DB603EM engine that required MW50.

Furthermore he notes 10 Ta 152C-1 completed but these used the DB603LA (no intercooler) engine instead of DB603L (with intercooler) because the intercooler was not yet ready or ready for production..

Ta 152C-2 was as the Ta 152C-1 but with the DB603L with intercooler and a minor avionics modification.

Ta 152C-3 was as per the Ta 152C-1 but would initially have the DB603LA pending the Availability of the DB603L.

Hitchcok refers to the DB601LA and even DB603L as requiring C3 fuel. I've seen a reference in connection with the DB603L on a Do 335 producing 2400hp so I'm wondering if it could produce say 2250 with B4 (same as the DB603LA with C3)

As we now the Ta 152H-0 and Ta 152H-1 did enter production and combat and it used B4.

So the facts do fit my claim but I cant prove or rather provide a reference at this point to show that the reason the Ta 152H0 entered service rather than the Ta 152C0 was the B4 versus C3 fuel issue.

The Luftwaffe or RLM at this point must have been taking action to ensure its engines could run on the lower grade fuel.

Deleted member 68059 · Nov 30, 2020

Koopernic said:
I can't find my original 2 references, they were internet sources. Google is so useless now that its currated.

So the facts do fit my claim but I cant prove or rather provide a reference at this point to show that the reason the Ta 152H0 entered service rather than the Ta 152C0 was the B4 versus C3 fuel issue.

The Luftwaffe or RLM at this point must have been taking action to ensure its engines could run on the lower grade fuel.

I dont think the 603L was ready - I think thats simple answer.

Here Dr Kollmann writes that the testing of the 603-L was severely retarded by the attack on the Daimler-Benz plant on 5th September 1944, which resulted in: " the destruction of important parts and engines."

In this attack the engines V1 to V10 (research "Versuchs" engines) were destroyed according to the report, so even in Sep 1944, they had not even
made more than 10 test-level engines. Let alone started pre-production or mass production.

Also in the same report, its clear the DB603 LA was expected to have to use B4 or C3.

In fact this is definitely the case when reading the stenographic records: 23rd May 1944:

MILCH: "Yes, its a replacement for the 190, the Ta152, This replaces the 109 and 190 and comes exclusively with high altitude engines, the 603 L and the equivalent 213E. These have a big supercharger, two-stage. They begin in October with the 213 E and in January also with the 603 L and production will then start seriously."

I think its pretty clear that this is about production readiness and very little to do with fuel types.

hnx · Jan 17, 2021

I have a little riddle about the engines and the used sparkplugs. We found on a Ju-88 crashsite a sparkplug 9-4080-E2 that belongs to a Jumo 213A. so the aircraft should have been a G6 version. But we found also a Bosch DW250ET (10/ unreabable). if I google that it connects to a DB engine????

Denniss · Jan 17, 2021

Those are also listed for Jumo 213A in 5/44 manual: Bosch DW 250 ET 10 = 9-4080-F2 (Lw part number)
provisional manual of 12/43 has 9-4080-E2 linked to Bosch DW 250 ET 7/1 D
Both list a Beru type as third option
ET 7/1 and ET 10 are both listed in DB 603A manual although the ET10 has F-1 and not F-2 part number there

hnx · Jan 19, 2021

Denniss said:
Those are also listed for Jumo 213A in 5/44 manual: Bosch DW 250 ET 10 = 9-4080-F2 (Lw part number)
provisional manual of 12/43 has 9-4080-E2 linked to Bosch DW 250 ET 7/1 D
Both list a Beru type as third option
ET 7/1 and ET 10 are both listed in DB 603A manual although the ET10 has F-1 and not F-2 part number there

Thanks looking at the bougie again it says F2 .... where stand LW for?

hnx · Jan 19, 2021

hnx said:
Thanks looking at the bougie again it says F2 .... where stand LW for?

also attached from 213A gives E2 not F2? is there a difference?

Denniss · Jan 19, 2021

F-2 is probably a typo in the manual (an 1/44 parts list has it as F-1), E and F are different Bosch types

rinkol · Jan 21, 2021

Snowygrouch said:
I dont think the 603L was ready - I think thats simple answer.

Here Dr Kollmann writes that the testing of the 603-L was severely retarded by the attack on the Daimler-Benz plant on 5th September 1944, which resulted in: " the destruction of important parts and engines."

In this attack the engines V1 to V10 (research "Versuchs" engines) were destroyed according to the report, so even in Sep 1944, they had not even
made more than 10 test-level engines. Let alone started pre-production or mass production.

View attachment 603399
View attachment 603397

Also in the same report, its clear the DB603 LA was expected to have to use B4 or C3.

View attachment 603398

In fact this is definitely the case when reading the stenographic records: 23rd May 1944:

MILCH: "Yes, its a replacement for the 190, the Ta152, This replaces the 109 and 190 and comes exclusively with high altitude engines, the 603 L and the equivalent 213E. These have a big supercharger, two-stage. They begin in October with the 213 E and in January also with the 603 L and production will then start seriously."

I think its pretty clear that this is about production readiness and very little to do with fuel types.

I think I've seen a statement that DB had problems with the DB603L supercharger and that these were sufficiently serious that Junkers was ordered to provide assistance. Early 2 stage supercharged engines often had problems with surging and other issues and Junkers had experience with such engines dating back to the Ju49.

Did the Allies Just Have Better Engines?

More options

mikemike

Airman

Milosh

Senior Master Sergeant

Koopernic

Banned

spicmart

Staff Sergeant

Milosh

Senior Master Sergeant

spicmart

Staff Sergeant

Deleted member 68059

Staff Sergeant

Koopernic

Banned

Deleted member 68059

Staff Sergeant

hnx

Airman

Attachments

Denniss

Tech Sergeant

hnx

Airman

hnx

Airman

Attachments

Denniss

Tech Sergeant

rinkol

Airman 1st Class

Users who are viewing this thread

Similar threads