The other suggestion (of putting emphasis on a higher altitude rated 211 sooner -at the expense of low altitude performance) still stands. If the 211R used a 2-stage supercharger arrangement similar to the 213A, that would be less directly applicable to potential earlier developments, but if it was closer to the single-stage unit of the F/J/N/P (or identical to it, but using higher gear ratios) then that indicates such developments should have been feasible to introduce considerably sooner. (doing so in parallel with the 211J's intercooler development seems attractive given the greater needs for charge cooling with higher supercharger compression ratios)
If using an intercooler closer to (or the same) size of that of the 211J, wouldn't it be possible to increase the supercharger speed (or use a larger/different supercharger) and end up with acceptable charge densities and temperatures? (perhaps close to the 211F's but with higher critical altitudes)
Was that single-stage Jumo 213 still used the swirl type inlet/throttle guide vanes, right? Was it also intercooled?
Similar or better fire with the hub cannon, yes. (either an MG 151/20 or MK 108 should be more destructive than the pair of MG 131s, let alone preceding MG 17s). Drag might be a better than Jumo's standard annular radiator with a more streamlined one adapted specific to the 190 airframe. (plus, moving the radiator further aft, below the engine or fuselage should give better control over CoG while still keeping coolant lines and intercooler ducting short)
Sticking with the existing 211F and J as the basis might have advantages in reliability over the 605 too. (DB 601 with intercooled DB 603 supercharger would have been interesting, intercooled DB-605AS certainly too though again there's the bearing lubrication issues)
Weight would be a bigger consideration on a single engine fighter (cockpit/pilot/armor, fuel tankage, and engine weight would all be bigger considerations on a single engine fighter). And unless you use a push/pull arrangement, the twin engine examples have the full engine nacelles adding to drag rather than the engine sharing some of its drag with the fuselage.
From what I recall, the 211J intercoolers were also still fairly compact, fitting into an annular radiator cowling of the same diameter as the 211F but filling in some holes/gaps present between the coolant radiators.
Even assuming those figures stayed static (given whatever radiator configuration employed), there's still the question of: is it worth it relative to what alternative?
Sorry, I don't think I was very clear with my phrasing before. I'd meant to say that the 211J's arrangement is generally more useful all around than a hypothetical 211F with similar power levels achieved through water/rich mixture injection. (an overboosted 211F running C-2 or C-3 might be more useful, but it won't help altitude performance any)
You don't think there's any way of managing an embedded or retractable radiator with significant improvements over the annular arrangement? (especially for the 211F without concerns for the intercooler)
I was suggesting the 603 emphasis more in leu of the bearing shortages that forced some of the redesigns in transition from DB 601 to 605. (with continued use of ball bearings, the 601 -or alternate 605- might have had an easier time with higher RPM as well)
Larger single stage supercharged arrangements seemed to work well enough too (an intercooled DB-605AS should have covered most of the needs without resorting to a 2-stage arrangement or requiring water injection). The swirl/radial throttle guide vanes on the 213 also helped smooth power curves even better than the DB's fluid coupling in some respects. Having the latter available on the 211 earlier would have probably been more important than a 2-stage arrangement and probably more important than intercooling. (the upgrade from the crappy supercharger in the 211A-D series to the ones of the F was important for sure)
Interesting that the 213A manages best power at the low altitude ends of its 2 supercharger speeds. I'as assume the critical altitudes would remain rather similar in height and power output for a simpler throttle plate configuration which implies the radial guide vanes actually improve power under dense air + restricted flow conditions and that a similar configuration applied to the earlier 211 models should have significantly increased their power at all heights outside of critical altitudes (or above 2nd speed crit alt) as well as making peak power output at SL. (possibly allowing the 211J to outperform the 605A, or the 211F to directly compete? -possibly without the added reliability problems suffered by the 211N depending what the cause of that actually was)
A retractable radiator would still have advantages in drag over a similar fixed radiator, wouldn't it? The He 100's example for takeoff/ground running is a bad example as it's not ducted/cowled. I'm thinking more in line with designs intended to be used in-flight like the single seater Fw 187 prototypes, He 111, and I believe some He 112 prototypes.
Thinking on this again, I had originally meant to imply more of a 'beard' type radiator under the nose (like P-40, Typhoon/Tempest, Ju 87, Bf 109A/B/C/D, etc) but that might not work as efficiently on an inverted V arrangement than an upright V. (or have few/no advantages over the annular placement) The P-40Q seems to have slimmed it down a good bit (and the P-40B/C was more streamlined as well, or at least appeared so aesthetically) but I'm not sure that would mean so much for the Jumo or DB engines. In all cases you'd still want some sort of ducting/cowling arrangement with boundary layer splitter and radiator cores shaped/placed accordingly. (having ram ducting and diffusion area like the P-51 used is another matter entirely and requires a lot more space)
Agreed there, but I think the point of potential for an intercooled 605AS still stands. Similarly there should have been more room for single stage (with and without intercooling) growth on the 211 itself. The 213A seems to have maxed that potential out though, or come close enough. (same for the 605AS and the 603A)
I was more suggesting that the 211 might make better competitors had the swirl throttle been available sooner (and assuming Jumo got it working satisfactorily earlier than DB). The added power below critical altitude might make the 211F and J better for low level operation than the 601E and 605A (or at least more attractive with weight and production volumes in mind). 211N would be more interesting but as you mentioned also seems to have reliability issues, at least in testing on the Ta 154.
