Ad: This forum contains affiliate links to products on Amazon and eBay. More information in Terms and rules
Consensus appears to support pushing DB603 and Jumo213 V12 engines to completion followed by mass production. I agree.
Every aircraft historically powered by BMW801 will perform as well or better powered by the V12s. So why spend resources developing and producing the big radial engine?
Consensus appears to support pushing DB603 and Jumo213 V12 engines to completion followed by mass production. I agree.
Every aircraft historically powered by BMW801 will perform as well or better powered by the V12s. So why spend resources developing and producing the big radial engine?
The Fw190A. No other engine will give it that performance; the FW190C/D were no where near as maneuverable.
Partially agree.
If the Fw-190 gets 2-stage DB-601 or Jumo 211, then it will perform even better. The historical Fw-190 C D were as heavy as overweight Fw-190A-8 (~4300 kg in combat trim), there was no way those will be as maneuverable as early Antons, weighting 3800-3900 kg.
Length: 2,006 mm (79 in)
Diameter: 1,290 mm (51 in)
Dry weight: 1,012 kg (2,226 lb)
http://kurfurst.org/Engine/DB60x/DB601_datasheets_A1.htmlLength: 1,722 mm (68 in)
Dry weight: 590 kg (1,320 lb)
The Fw190A. No other engine will give it that performance; the FW190C/D were no where near as maneuverable.
I also want the BMW 801 with the FW 190A as stop gap between 1941 till end 1942, till the introduction of the D-9 and afterwards as fighter bomber with a radial.
But I disagree to your claim, why the hack rated Eric Brown and other allied Pilots the D-9 as one of the best WWII fighter and as much state of the Art as the Mustang; P 47 and Spitfire?
They wouldn't be the FW190 though. Not sure how they would have performed with the different balance resulting from using an altered fuselage due to the different engine size and more limited power:
...
So the DB601 was shorter and much less wide, so the FW190 fuselage could be build much more narrowly. That changes the performance and makes it pretty much a different aircraft than the FW190.
DB603 had prototypes running during 1937. BMW801 was only a draft blueprint. I find it difficult to believe BMW801 would be production ready before DB603 if both programs receive similar funding. More likely the opposite is true. DB603 will be in mass production first and nobody will want to switch to BMW801 which was less reliable and less powerful when running on similar quality fuel.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fiat_G.55
Fiat G.56
The Fiat G.56 was basically a Fiat G.55 with a German Daimler-Benz DB 603 engine. Two prototypes were built, flight tests starting in March 1944.[10] On 30 March, Commander Valentino Cus reached speeds of 690/700 km/h (430/440 mph).[18] Official maximum speed was 685 km/h (426 mph) and the aircraft was armed with three 20 mm MG 151/20s, one firing through the propeller hub, the other two installed in the wings.[19] While performance was excellent, the aircraft proving superior to both the Bf 109K and Bf 109G and Fw 190A, outmanoeuvring [2] all types in testing, production was not allowed by the German authorities.[10]
Do you have info about the Fw190 Jumo 211 power egg?Don't get me wrong, but I'm not dazzled with any particular aircraft designation. Cat needs to catch mice, the color of the cat is irrelevant.
The Fw need to push with Fw-190-type aircraft by all means. But since we can't bet that the radial engine will be 100% ready for operations earlier than historical, we need an engine as a back-up. The only reason I look after the Jumo 211 is because they are offered as a power egg, so the subsequant radial engine installation can be straight forward, both because of piping and CoG issues. It also had less cooling drag than the DB-601 installation on Bf-109E. We won't build the 190 too narrow.
Performance is bound to suffer*, the 1300-1400 PS vs. 1000 PS is a huge difference. But we will have an aircraft that has good punch, far better roll, superior field of view, superior layout of U/C both when retracted and extended (= better rough field capability streamlining), more internal fuel - seems worth the effort.
Once the radial engine is ready, then, by all means, proceed with it.
*Instead of 640-660, maybe around 600 km/h?
Look at the DB603A as an example of what that would be. It would probably be reasonably reliable (80 hours between overhaul) by 1941.Out of curiosity, what kind of RPM and manifold pressure would the DB-603 be capable for, if available earlier?
DB603 had prototypes running during 1937. BMW801 was only a draft blueprint. I find it difficult to believe BMW801 would be production ready before DB603 if both programs receive similar funding. More likely the opposite is true. DB603 will be in mass production first and nobody will want to switch to BMW801 which was less reliable and less powerful when running on similar quality fuel.
Look at the DB603A as an example of what that would be. It would probably be reasonably reliable (80 hours between overhaul) by 1941.
Considering it was only developed for about 12 months before being cancelled in 1937, then did nothing until it started preparing fora mid-1939 racing stunt that never happened, it got funding restored in 1940 at a limited level, as the DB604 was given even greater priority. That wallowed as the 603 showed more promise and in 1941 it started to really enter into production planning. By 1942 it was in service after 1 initial year of development, followed by minor work in 1939 and then serious work from 1940-41. Without the delay in development it would continue through 1937, 38, 39, and 40 before entering production at 1750PS in 1941 at 1943 levels of reliability. Compared to the historical development from June 1936-June 1937, then 1939-1941 before entering production in 1942 is a roughly comparable time frame, though historically 1939 was at best a very limited partial development year. That is why it wasn't reliable until 1943. Had 1939 been a fully funded development year, it would have been reliable by late 1942, rather than a year later. The work done on the DB601 wasn't really that useful for the 603, due to the differing cooling issues and need to build the 603 stronger due to high output. Only uninterrupted funding and time from mid-1936 onward was needed to get it ready by mid-1941 for relatively reliable service.The DB-603A was allowed for 2700 rpm and 1.40 ata. And was not reliable until late 1943 on those settngs. Though smaller (ie. in theory more amenable for bigger RPM), the DB-601E was allowed only for 2500 rpm in late 1941, and 1.30 ata.
Sorry, I don't buy that DB-603 would be allowed for more stress (ie. rpm + ata) than the DB-601E in 1941, or ever.
Not really, as in 1940 the DB603 was offering 1750PS, but wasn't yet reliable due to its low level of development. Also the 603 had a lot of different cooling and engineering issues due to its larger displacement per cylinder and overall larger size. With full scale support from 1936-1941, it should be ready to go at 1750PS by June 1941 considering that would be exactly 5 years of development. Historically it took about that long to make the 603 reasonably reliable.This claim is wrong! The DB 603 needs all the steps of the DB 601 till the DB 605 to have a performance of 1600-1750PS. It is an ilusion to think you can put the DB 603 in mass production before 1942
I don't disagree about the radials. However the only reason it was further ahead of the DB603 historically is due to the cancellation of funding and development from 1937-1939.Also if you got the fusion of BMW and Bramo earlier (1936) as I said in my earlier post, there is a good chance to have the BMW 801 at mass production 1940. Radials are simplier and didn't need pressurised water cooling, also the BMW 139 was much further developed then a DB 603. I thought this thread should be realistic and not some mythical myths.
Why can't developing an aircraft from the beginning around the DB603 or Jumo 213 rather than adapting an existing aircraft have resulted in something better than the FW190C/D by 1942 if the engine is available by 1940-41. I'm not suggesting that such an aircraft would have the high altitude performance of the Ta-152H, but the lower altitude performance of the Ta-152C is realistic (minus boost systems).Also to think you could develop a Ta 152 fast without the development of the FW 190-D9 is simply a myth. Anybody must develop the ring cooling for example and the new fulsage and so on.....
The Ta 152 was developed from the FW 190 C and D-9)
Did I claim that it would?
Now I know that DB-603 was hampered by on/off funding support. What is often overlooked is how much the knowledge gained from development of the DB-601 series contributed in development of DB-603.
The BMW 132 was on a continuous development also with fuel injection from 1934 till end of production.
To claim it was not or the BMW 801 influenced this development in a wrong way is totaly wrong. The development of the BMW 132 was the base of the 801.
The advertisement of a big radial engine was 1935 and totaly rational, because the BMW engineeres were specialist of radial engines and not liquid cooled engines since 1929, also the engineers from Bramo. Both companies were the most important engine companies from 1932-1938 of Germany and it was more then right and rational to integrate them in the development of high performance military engines.
A failure was the long wait of the fusion of both companies. Bramo was owned since 1935 from the RLM/Germany but no fusion with BMW till 1938 and no new engine factory till 1938/39. This was a big mistake. Fusion both companies at 1936 and funding a new engine factory at 1936/37 just as Junkers and Daimler Benz.
One of my personal important points to built a LW from 1936 onwards.
An other realy important point at 1936 to fund in agreement with BMW, Junkers and Daimler Benz, component supplier of modern all around production tools for development and to enlarge production of this tools.