Focke Wulf light fighter

Ad: This forum contains affiliate links to products on Amazon and eBay. More information in Terms and rules

Calum wrote this.
Would that be feasible/possible to scale down a Jumo 213J for the light fighter design's purposes?

From what I understand, Calum's point was that the 213J contained many for the time advanced features that you'd find to this day in a high performance piston engine. To quote the same post you quoted "water cooled exhaust valve guides, swirl throttle, crankshaft nose oil feel, oil centrifuge and so on.". So would it be possible to create a smaller engine with these same features, yes of course it would.

The problem is timing. The 213J was a late 1944(?) prototype. If you start a new engine from scratch, count say 5 years before you have something mature for service. If by some magic Germany is still undefeated in 1950, the new lightweight fighter with the smaller 213J inspired engine would be going up against what, F-86 and Mig-15? Good luck with that.
 
Sometimes if you scale, you can short cut the development time a bit. This worked with jet engines a bit but not as well as they thought.

However it sometimes trapped designers. What does not scale well (or didn't at the time, before computers) were vibration patterns. Sometimes things worked well and other times they were chasing harmonic vibrations out into 3rd, 4th, 5th orders. 1930s engine designers did not like to change cylinder dimensions unless they had to.
Car engines are different, they are much heavier and can damp the vibrations out that way and they rarely run at high power settings which lessens the strain and since vibration is linked to the rpm cruising speed it often a very different vibration pattern than high speed.
This goes the other way at times. I had a BMW R90/6 motorcycle. BMW twins were noted for having low vibration back in the 60s and 70s. Except..................the 900 cc size. It liked to vibrate at about 55-60mph (you could not use the mirrors) but at 65-70 it was very smooth. Cracked the rear frame at about 8000 miles behind the left rear shock. When I was calling the east coast disruptor the service manager started describing where the break was to me before I finished talking. Hey, just putting in larger pistons and using bigger bore cylinders should be no problem right?
 
There s no need to scale down the jumo 213j. With an output of 2600 ps , installed in a ,D-9 airframe (4100 kgr weight) the result would be spectacular performance. The problem is that
a) they would use it on 5+ tones Ta152
b) jumo 213j was scheduled for production in September 1945...
Only jumo213EB was production ready. Not as spectacular as the j , but still of decent performance given the limitations German industry faced
 
I meant the scaling down to be wrt creating a Focke Wulf light fighter with the best piston propulsion.
 

Hi Tomo,

I was going back to your 190 lite and went through it again.
When taking a wing of 17 sqm and an armament of 3 x MG 151/20 (with 200 rouns per gun) and using your methods presented I get to about 585 kg that can be cut which is close enough to 600 kg.
Later DB 605 models weigh 10 to 50 kg. Especially the two-stage versions were heavier.

About range. I guess the DB 605 is less thirsty than the BMW 801's? I could find only a figure which is practically the same..
An estimate of how good range of the fighter would be with/without wing tanks and how much weight accrues when taking the ones from the D-12/13 R5?
 
Last edited:
Later DB 605 models weigh 10 to 50 kg. Especially the two-stage versions were heavier.
I'd wager that late 605s weighted a bit more
There was only one 2-stage version, the 605L. It probably saw no service, though.

About range. I guess the DB 605 is less thirsty than the BMW 801's? I could find only a figure which is practically the same..

Spec consumption of the BMW 801D went to 300 g/PSh in Notleistung at the 2nd rated altitude (2nd S/C gear), dropping to 200 at different cruise settings in 2nd gear; figures for the fully rated engine. 801C consumption figures were worse (lower CR main culprit?), up to 345 g/PSh on Notleistung at the 2nd rated altitude (and still at 2550 rpm), and 215 at most efficient cruise settings. Per hour, the 801C was supposed to use 610+- L/h in 2nd gear on Notleistung, and about 300 L/h in most efficient cruise
DB 601E went to 235 g/PSh on Notleistung (440 L/h at the rated altitude), down to 205 in best cruise setting (2000 rpm, 1 ata; 240 L/h).
605A was supposed to consume 480 L/H in Notleistung ( obviously, this assume the fully rated engine), 440 L/h at Kampfleistung (the best power what it was reliably able to make before October of 1942), and 255 at best cruise (2000 rpm, 1 ata).

Note that 801s will still be with the greater drag and weight, further reducing the mileage.

An estimate of how good range of the fighter would be with/without wing tanks and how much weight accrues when taking the ones from the D-12/13 R5?
Sorry, that is all for today from me
 
Thanks!
Then MW50 became mandatory and accounted for the weight growths of the engines.

Edit: The MW50 installation weighed 64 kg (got that from a Ta 152). The unprotected wing bag tanks weighed about a couple of kilos (?). Our fighter gains about 100 kg and surpasses 3600 kg, still a very light figure.
With greater performance comes greater weight.
 
Last edited:

Users who are viewing this thread