German airframes, allied/foreign parts

[tomo pauk]

...

What would be the advantage of it? German aircraft manufacturers had access to their own equivalents of each of these (i.e. Junkers 213 or Daimler Benz 603 instead of Griffon, their EZ series gyroscopic predictor sights, their own high octace fuel etc.), sometimes even at an earlier date.. although I am sure they would have liked unlimited fuel, problem being none had such 'item' at their disposal! Also I believe using the Griffon would be actually disadvantagous, as it consumed a lot more fuel than the engines it would be replacing, so range would suffer, and with its supercharger mounted at the back of the engine, one cannot use engine mounted cannons either.

(Glider: )
Its a personal view but the problem with the Db605 was that in that last couple of years it relied on GM1 or MW50 to make the Me109 competative. This added weight and complexity for a very temporary gain. The Griffon was able to make those performance gains as a stand alone unit.

603 605 are way too different engines

Glider proposed Griffon as replacement for BMW-801 in Fw-190, and I like that. By early 1944, planes using Griffon were have had on disposal (Wiki - sorry):
Power output:
2,035 hp (1,520 kW) at 7,000 ft (2,135 m MS gear),[nb 7] +18 psi boost pressure at 2,750 rpm
2,220 hp (1,655 kW) at 11,000 ft (2,135 m MS gear), +21 psi at 2,750 r.p.m using 150 Octane fuel
1,820 hp (1,360 kW) at 21,000 ft (6,400 m) at 2,750 rpm

... therefore beating contemporary DB-603 Jumo 213 by large margin ( if 213 was flying by that time anyway in a serial-produced shape?).

Replacing, in spirit of this thread, of DB-605 in Bf-109 was a task for Merlin, not for Griffon.

 

[Tante Ju]

Very impressive performance for 1944! Jumo 213. Production started middle 1942, small scale (50 a month) in 1943, but not so small scale by 1944.. 500 a month. Output similiar as Griffon, depends on variant.

What are advantages of using Merlin for 605 in 109? Engineering point of view? Spanish did this, for availability.

 

[tomo pauk]

(my declaimer was "in spirit of this thread")

What are advantages of using Merlin for 605 in 109?

More power in 1942 43.

 

[tomo pauk]

Another idea (guess an old one):
Ju-87 with Hercules/R-2600/R-2800.

 

[gorizont]

Opposite from the another thread: what Allied/foreign ( = including Japanese, Italian etc) part would've you mate to German airframe in order to have a better plane?

To start the ball rolling, I'd like to see Merlin 60s series mated to a Fw-190, for a great mid-war fighter.

Maybe, another idea - allied airframe plus german parts?
Especially Japanese airframes with German parts (engines mainly)?

For me BMW -801 ideally fits N1J-2 Shiden airframe (based on Kiofu, with 1340 mm in diameter Kasei, in comparison with 1290 mm BMW-801).
Or Ki-61, D4Y Susey, M6 Seiran and Nanzan, modernized with DB-605.
Or the same BMW-801 in B6N Tenzan airframe.
Or A7M Reppu with Jumo 222 - I know that there was no serial production of Jumo 222, but if make free our imagination - the engine perfectly fits Reppu huge airframe, doesn't it?
Or B7A Rusei with Jumo 213 or DB 603 - isn't it possible?

And for german airframes - I suppose japanese Navy's 30mm Type 5 cannon is much better as engine-mounted cannon than Mk-108.

 

[rank amateur]

Why not a A6M2 with an DB601N? Would have weighted a lot more but I'd think the extra horsepower would easily cope with that.

 

[Lighthunmust]

Why not a A6M2 with an DB601N? Would have weighted a lot more but I'd think the extra horsepower would easily cope with that.

Any one know if the airframe could accept the weight and make use of any potential performance from the increased power? The A6M if I recall correctly was a relatively fragile airframe with many restrictions at high speed. The DB would have certainly adversely affected the beautiful proportions of the Zero. Of course we are temporarily forgetting that the A6M is not German and the DB601N is not an Allied engine.

 

[Njaco]

Didn't the very first Bf 109 use a Merlin?

 

[Shortround6]

Didn't the very first Bf 109 use a Merlin?

Kestrel.

As did the first Ju 87.

 

[Shortround6]

Any one know if the airframe could accept the weight and make use of any potential performance from the increased power? The A6M if I recall correctly was a relatively fragile airframe with many restrictions at high speed. The DB would have certainly adversely affected the beautiful proportions of the Zero. Of course we are temporarily forgetting that the A6M is not German and the DB601N is not an Allied engine.

A much easier swap would have been the Mitsubishi Kinsei.

Which was done at the very end of the war, and with a 1560hp version.

early war versions would give about 100hp more than the Sakae.

It was a bit heavier and a bit bigger in diameter than the Sakae but the main problem was that it wouldn't run as well in extreme lean condition which shortened the range.

 

[Trilisser]

Speaking of the issues raised by Tante Ju, one must ask that why DB chose the path of very high compression ratio. According the DB technical orders on the DB 605A , burned pistons were a problem. Yet, it is a fact that if one chooses to use high CR to get power, it also means that the peak pressure and peak temperature during combustion is higher than in the case that the same power was obtained with lower CR but higher boost. Yes, higher CR reduces sfc, but the difference is small in the ranges in question, as proven by comparing to the Jumo.