Ad: This forum contains affiliate links to products on Amazon and eBay. More information in Terms and rules
They tried the WB81Z pods slung underwing on the Ju87 and it wasn't a very successful venture.If you want to strafe then we are talking about CAS. Such aircraft fly low, slow and long range is not normally a mission requirement. Nor do you need a huge weapons load. Any aircraft that can carry a 1,000kg bomb (i.e. Ju-87) can carry cannon pods with a generous supply of ammunition.
Yes, but air superiority doesn't mean there's no need for escorts or ability to evade interception, including said evasion buying time and making escorts more effective.Local air superiority is a prerequisite for survival of CAS aircraft. That holds true even for fast aircraft such as Fw-190F and P-47 as enemy fighter aircraft in the area will almost always have an altitude advantage.
Indeed, pilot armor and fuel protection is very necessary as well and can't be ignored. Likewise, the Hs 129 itself (already very heavily armored) could have fared better with Bramo or 14N radials in both takeoff/speed/climb and single-engine performance (which was virtually unusable on the 14M -totally useless on the originally planned As 411).A worthwhile feature. However protecting aircrew against ground fire should have priority over protecting the engines. Otherwise you are likely to have an aircraft with good engines being flown by a dead pilot.
Indeed, the 323, 211, and DB 600/601 were all contemporaries and all in the same power class initially, but when the likes of the Jumo 210 (sometimes Bmw 132) were being substituted due to shortages of DB 600s and 211s, while the late 30s 323s seem like they would be more attractive alternatives in at least some situations. (Bf 110 and Ju 87 more so than Fw 187, and purely speaking of the early A/B and C/D models)The Jumo 210 and the Bramo 323 were not really contemporaries. Bramo 323 production was starting up as Jumo 210 production was winding down or at least crossing over. The Jumo 211 and the Bramo 323 started test running within months of each other while the Jumo 210 started 3-4 years earlier. By the time the higher power, improved 323s show up the Jumo 210 is out of production, prototypes used them, in some case, not because they were really the intended engine but because they were available.
At very low level, I'm not surprised the BMW V12 powered models were a bit faster (lower weight to consider too), but I have a hard time believing that was true at altitude. (given we're not talking about the 850 HP supercharged BMW XI -I think Kawasaki even implemented ejector exhausts on in the late 1930s)And go back to the early Do 17s. The BMW VII didn't use exhaust thrust and it was faster (slightly) than the Bramo powered version that had 20% more power. It was even supposed to be faster than the BMW 132 powered recon version that had 33% more power. The BMW version had 1000hp for take-off? I don't know what power levels they were using for sea level flight. Perhaps they had to cut back from take-off power. the point is that a lot of the extra power goes into fighting the extra drag.
From the discussions where that claim came up, it seems 'sea level' and 'low level' were confused and in fact the 322 MPH figure was for the crit alt of the 210G in low gear, which makes much more sense given the 329 mph figure for high gear (and the Bf 109C's performance on the same engine -or D on the slightly lesser 210D)Maybe you will wind a bit faster but not by a lot. The FW 187 was supposed to do 322mph at sea level with the Jumo 210 engines.
Perhaps also useful as a performance boost on Finnish B-239s with the 2-speed Bramos replacing the lower powered Cyclone engines, though I'm not sure how similar the mounts were.The big 9 cylinder radials worked fine on airliners, cargo planes and early bombers like Wellingtons, they weren't so good on planes with low drag airframes where the engines became a larger part of the drag picture.
Indeed, the 323, 211, and DB 600/601 were all contemporaries and all in the same power class initially, but when the likes of the Jumo 210 (sometimes Bmw 132) were being substituted due to shortages of DB 600s and 211s, while the late 30s 323s seem like they would be more attractive alternatives in at least some situations. (Bf 110 and Ju 87 more so than Fw 187, and purely speaking of the early A/B and C/D models)
This of course assumes the 323 was also not suffering shortages around the same time as the DB 600 and Jumo 211A.
At very low level, I'm not surprised the BMW V12 powered models were a bit faster (lower weight to consider too), but I have a hard time believing that was true at altitude. (given we're not talking about the 850 HP supercharged BMW XI -I think Kawasaki even implemented ejector exhausts on in the late 1930s)
The Russians and Japanese took more interest in supercharged BMW VI/VII/IX derivatives, but I'm not sure what the situation was like in Germany. (otherwise that may have been a more attractive alternative than either the Jumo 210 or radial engines for some applications)
From the discussions where that claim came up, it seems 'sea level' and 'low level' were confused and in fact the 322 MPH figure was for the crit alt of the 210G in low gear, which makes much more sense given the 329 mph figure for high gear (and the Bf 109C's performance on the same engine -or D on the slightly lesser 210D)
322 mph at SL would have been fantastic at the time, and significantly faster than any fighter in service in 1940, including the 109E. It's likely closer to what the 187 would have managed on DB 601As.
Perhaps also useful as a performance boost on Finnish B-239s with the 2-speed Bramos replacing the lower powered Cyclone engines, though I'm not sure how similar the mounts were.
Var Fuel System Supercharger Type ... Drive T/O HP Reduction
A High altitude engine 11.4 900 0.62
J Carburettor High altitude engine 11.4 900 0.62?
B High altitude engine 11.4 900 0.71
Q High altitude engine 11.4 900 0.71?
M Carburettor Low altitude engine 9.52 1000 0.62
D Low altitude engine 9.52 1000 0.62
C Low altitude engine 9.52 1000 0.71
T Low altitude engine 9.52 1000 0.71?
P Two-speed supercharger 9.6/12.4 1000 0.62
N Two-speed supercharger 9.6/12.4 1200 0.62? MW injection
S Two-speed supercharger 9.6/12.4 1000 0.71?
R Two-speed supercharger 9.6/12.4 1200 0.71? MW injection
The BMW V-12 was little more than two WW I straight sixes on a common crankshaft and was most definitely behind the other engines. It gave the Luftwaffe it's start. It was a 47 liter engine that weighed 1100lbs and ran at rather low RPM and was unsupercharged until the IX model. It wasn't a contender and that is why the Germans were working on so many new engines. BMW actually built the BMW 116 inverted V-12 in the same class as the Jumo 210 and Kestrel but it saw no use. Point in bring it up was, once more, to try to show the big difference in drag the radials had. You are going to use up several hundred of the extra HP just fighting the drag of the radial if the goal is speed.
This might decipher a bit the Bramo saga. The table is from the book about the Do-17/215.
-
-it is very much posible the 323R/2 was the version 'tailored' for C3 fuel (unlike the 'plain' 323R), hopefully someone will set me straight on this
View attachment 290619
Wouldn't any C3 applicable Bramo engine also be using direct fuel injection?Trying to mix the fuels ,ie, 75% 87 octane and 25% 100 octane is going to give you something like 91-92 octane fuel, assuming you get a good mixture in the intake manifold and not 89 octane going to a few cylinders and 95 octane going to others.
Wouldn't any C3 applicable Bramo engine also be using direct fuel injection?