Ad: This forum contains affiliate links to products on Amazon and eBay. More information in Terms and rules
Why did this adaptation fail while the FW190D succeeded?
My understanding was the 'kangaroo pouch' turbosupercharger had too many problems so they dropped it and moved on to the D and Ta-152. But why didn't they go for a supercharger like they did with the 190D?
Also why didn't they go for a medium altitude FW190C without pouch? Could they have had a low/medium altitude fighter like the Hawker Typhoon in 1943 had they continued with a turbosupercharger-less Fw190C?
Why did this adaptation fail while the FW190D succeeded? My understanding was the 'kangaroo pouch' turbosupercharger had too many problems so they dropped it and moved on to the D and Ta-152. But why didn't they go for a supercharger like they did with the 190D? Also why didn't they go for a medium altitude FW190C without pouch? Could they have had a low/medium altitude fighter like the Hawker Typhoon in 1943 had they continued with a turbosupercharger-less Fw190C?
Why did this adaptation fail while the FW190D succeeded? My understanding was the 'kangaroo pouch' turbosupercharger had too many problems so they dropped it and moved on to the D and Ta-152. But why didn't they go for a supercharger like they did with the 190D? Also why didn't they go for a medium altitude FW190C without pouch? Could they have had a low/medium altitude fighter like the Hawker Typhoon in 1943 had they continued with a turbosupercharger-less Fw190C?
Although the DB603 entered service in mid 1943 (probably on the Me 410, possibly the Do 217) it did not break the 100 hour MTBO mark till 1944. This was a normal trajectory for a new engine in its first year of servivce.
Although the DB603 entered service in mid 1943 (probably on the Me 410, possibly the Do 217) it did not break the 100 hour MTBO mark till 1944. This was a normal trajectory for a new engine in its first year of service. The DB603 was offered to the RLM, I believe as early as 1937, but was not accepted though Ernst Udet allowed a low priority development contract. The question will always be whether if the effort put into developing the Jumo 222 and DB604 had of been put directly into the Jumo 213 and DB603 whether the Luftwaffe would have had a 2000hp class engine earlier. Otto Marder at Junkers seemed to think so, saying that the Jumo 213 was a step that could not be skipped on the way to getting to Jumo 222 class engines.
Jumo 222 was never given a chance. It might have produced a viable 2000hp engine at the end of 1942 given that it was flying at the end of 1941.
Could they have skipped to a de-rated Jumo 222? Or do you disagree with your previous statement?
A 20% reduction in mechanical and thermal load is a considerable reduction in engine and bearing stress. It is also the initial design target. Having been able to use C3 fuel (about 95/125) rather than B4 ( mere 87 octane) also would have helped. The Jumo 222 was considered a viable engine for the Ta 152.
C3 fuel does not require increase in compression ratio; increasing the CR is a self inflicted wound that, indeed, increases thermal load and stress on engine parts. The Jumo 222 restricted by 20% (from 2000 down to 1600) loses badly vs. BMW 801C, let alone vs. 801D, even vs. a fully rated DB 605A.
The 2-stage 801, Db 601/605 or Jumo 211 will provide far more for less.
C3 fuel does not require increase in compression ratio; increasing the CR is a self inflicted wound that, indeed, increases thermal load and stress on engine parts. The Jumo 222 restricted by 20% (from 2000 down to 1600) loses badly vs. BMW 801C, let alone vs. 801D, even vs. a fully rated DB 605A.
The 2-stage 801, Db 601/605 or Jumo 211 will provide far more for less.
Isn't the entire point of high performance fuel that you can compress the fuel more before it detonates and drives the cylinder, allowing for greater energy transmission per revolution?
Hi tomo,
i believe that by 20% derated jumo222., he means from 2500 ps down to 2000ps, not from 2000 to 1600 ps
And indeed ,in 1942, a 2000ps,1080 kgr jumo 222 would be extremely useful for the ju88 family, and the do217
However c3 is out of the question for a LW bomber. Even the Bmw s 801 when used on bombers had b4 fuel and reduced horsepower
I feel , of course i am just an amateur, the problems of the ju222 were more of political nature than technical
Kurt tank, in 1942, did propose the serial production of the Fw190C, in the form of the non turbosupercharged V13-V16 prototypes.
RLM rejected the proposal.Despite the problems of the db 603 in 1943, its quite reasonable to expect initial service for the Fw190C in september 1943 and full servise by early 1944. Of course that means cancel the me410.
But the main influence in RLM decisions was not of technical nature. The simply did not want ANY delay of production.They refused even improvements to the standart fighters , let alone introduce radical diferent subtypes. They kept producing obselete vertions of the 109 and 190 in order not to delay the production. Today we know the disastrous results of this policy. Not only the Fw190C was victim of this. The FW190D and Ta152A were almost ready for production in the spring1944 and still, the rlm delayed their production another 6 months.
My opinion is that the installation of the db 60A in the light Fw190A4 airframe with c3 fuel and an armament ofm 3 MG151s, would result in a formidable air superiority fighter until 8000m. With future use of the db603EM would be formidable until the very last day of the war.
What's the difference between manifold pressure and compression ratio?
Manifold pressure is measured in the intake manifold, and it is listed either in absolute terms (ata, in Hg, mm H2O, mm Hg) or in relative terms - ie. how much different vs. standard air pressure (eg. +12 psig, but also -2 psig, for example). Standard air pressure at sea level is 1 ata, or 29.90something in Hg, or +0 psig. Compressor helps when people wanted to increase manifold pressure, while water-alcohol injection and/or intercooler can help the compressor in that job. Different engines can accept different increase in manifold pressure before they fail, though.
Compression ratio is measured, or rather calculated in cylinder - didvide the volume in the cylinder when the piston is in the 'low point' with the volume in cylinder when the piston is in 'high point'. Merlin have had the CR of 6:1, most of V-1710s were at 6.65:1, DB 605A was at 7.5:1 for one cylinder bank, but 7.3:1 for another cylinder bank, the AM 38F was at 6:1, R-1830 was mostly at 6.7:1 etc.