Jumo 213 E Question
- Thread starter Achi
- Start date
Ad: This forum contains affiliate links to products on Amazon and eBay. More information in Terms and rules
o the Jumo 213 E have an intercooler or not?Thank you for answer.Regards,AchiColin1
Senior Master Sergeant
The 213E and F were very similar to one another
both had the new two-speed, two-stage supercharger but the 213E possessed an intercooler for higher-altitude work; the F did not require the intercooler, being tuned for lower-altitude work.
both had the new two-speed, two-stage supercharger but the 213E possessed an intercooler for higher-altitude work; the F did not require the intercooler, being tuned for lower-altitude work.
jerryw
Airman 1st Class
An interesting question from Achi.
The Ju 213 E model did have an intercooler but used a different arrangement from the Merlin.
On the Ju 213 E, both the supercharged air and the oil were cooled by devices referred to by the Junkers people as "warmetaucher" ie "heat exchangers".
The cooling was done entirely by the engine coolant returning from the nose-mounted radiators. In the photo below, the heat exchanger for the oil can be seen as the cigar-shaped object at the bottom of the engine. The coolant entered the "cigar" at the front and exited at the rear from whence it travelled to the main coolant pump at the back of the engine. The oil entered and left from side openings.
I cannot find a drawing which shows the location of the "warmetaucher" for the supercharger air but, presumably, it was located the same place as in the Merlin, ie, at the exit to the supercharger scroll.
The diagram below shows the circulation of coolant through the oil and compressed air heat exchangers.
All this meant that the nose radiators had a lot of work to do to get rid of all the heat from the engine, the oil and the supercharger air.
P.S. Colin 1, above, claims the Ju 213 E F had two-speed superchargers. My references all say three!
The Ju 213 E model did have an intercooler but used a different arrangement from the Merlin.
On the Ju 213 E, both the supercharged air and the oil were cooled by devices referred to by the Junkers people as "warmetaucher" ie "heat exchangers".
The cooling was done entirely by the engine coolant returning from the nose-mounted radiators. In the photo below, the heat exchanger for the oil can be seen as the cigar-shaped object at the bottom of the engine. The coolant entered the "cigar" at the front and exited at the rear from whence it travelled to the main coolant pump at the back of the engine. The oil entered and left from side openings.
I cannot find a drawing which shows the location of the "warmetaucher" for the supercharger air but, presumably, it was located the same place as in the Merlin, ie, at the exit to the supercharger scroll.
The diagram below shows the circulation of coolant through the oil and compressed air heat exchangers.
All this meant that the nose radiators had a lot of work to do to get rid of all the heat from the engine, the oil and the supercharger air.
P.S. Colin 1, above, claims the Ju 213 E F had two-speed superchargers. My references all say three!
Attachments
Last edited:
Colin1
Senior Master Sergeant
My oh my
this IS exciting...
you may well be right, I'll check my own references when I get home
I'm so glad I found this site.I hope you can help me with a model of the TA-152 in 1/24 scale. I need close up views of the 213e engine at the rear gearbox. It appears from what I can see from the pictures I do have,the supercharger plumbing and the coolant plumbing are different between 213 engines.Any other pictures out there that you would think I can use , please feel free. Thanks so much in advance.nam72 out
Specifications (Jumo 213E)
General characteristics
* Type: 12-cylinder supercharged liquid-cooled inverted Vee piston aircraft engine
* Bore: 150 mm (5.906 in)
* Stroke: 165 mm (6.496 in)
* Displacement: 35 L (2,135.2 in³)
* Length: 2,266 mm (89.2 in)
* Dry weight: 940 kg (2,072 lb)
Components
* Valvetrain: Three valves per cylinder.
*Supercharger: Two-stage three-speed centrifugal type supercharger with MW50 injection into the intake and an aftercooler..
* Cooling system: Pressurized water up to 120°C (248°F)
Performance
* Power output:
o 1,750 PS (1,726 hp, 1,287 kW) at 3,250 rpm for takeoff; rated altitude 9,600 m (31,500 ft)
o 2,050 PS (2,022 hp, 1,508 kW) for takeoff with MW50 injection
* Specific power: 50 PS/L (0.81 hp/in³, 36.8 kW/L)
* Compression ratio: 6.5:1 (B4 fuel, 87 octane)
* Power-to-weight ratio: 1.37 kW/kg (0.83 hp/lb)
Nam72,
have you seen this Junkers Jumo 213E-1 - Forums - FineScale Modeler: Online Community, Forums, Blogs, Galleries
more,
Junkers Jumo 213E-1 engine - ARC Air Discussion Forums
General characteristics
* Type: 12-cylinder supercharged liquid-cooled inverted Vee piston aircraft engine
* Bore: 150 mm (5.906 in)
* Stroke: 165 mm (6.496 in)
* Displacement: 35 L (2,135.2 in³)
* Length: 2,266 mm (89.2 in)
* Dry weight: 940 kg (2,072 lb)
Components
* Valvetrain: Three valves per cylinder.
*Supercharger: Two-stage three-speed centrifugal type supercharger with MW50 injection into the intake and an aftercooler..
* Cooling system: Pressurized water up to 120°C (248°F)
Performance
* Power output:
o 1,750 PS (1,726 hp, 1,287 kW) at 3,250 rpm for takeoff; rated altitude 9,600 m (31,500 ft)
o 2,050 PS (2,022 hp, 1,508 kW) for takeoff with MW50 injection
* Specific power: 50 PS/L (0.81 hp/in³, 36.8 kW/L)
* Compression ratio: 6.5:1 (B4 fuel, 87 octane)
* Power-to-weight ratio: 1.37 kW/kg (0.83 hp/lb)
Nam72,
have you seen this Junkers Jumo 213E-1 - Forums - FineScale Modeler: Online Community, Forums, Blogs, Galleries
more,
Junkers Jumo 213E-1 engine - ARC Air Discussion Forums
Hello, I have a question:
In Dietmar Herrmann`s book about the Ta 152, it is stated that the forward fuselage of the Fw 190D did not have enough space to house an intercooler. Thus the D-12 and D-13 versions had the Jumo213F which is basically an E-engine without intercooler AFAIK. The space behind the engine is occupied by cowl guns and ammunition.
But the Spitfire Mk XIV with the large griffon engine did have an intercooler although the space between engine and cockpit is filled with fuel. The tank should take as much space as the Fw190`s weapons
Why the difference? Did the British have smaller intercoolers or did they just used the space more efficiently?
So I am not an expert, maybe someone of you knows the answer.
Thanks
P.S.: Somewhere I also read (can`t remember) that this problem was obviously solved: The Germans finally managed to cram the intercooler into the Dora-airframe. Do you know more?
In Dietmar Herrmann`s book about the Ta 152, it is stated that the forward fuselage of the Fw 190D did not have enough space to house an intercooler. Thus the D-12 and D-13 versions had the Jumo213F which is basically an E-engine without intercooler AFAIK. The space behind the engine is occupied by cowl guns and ammunition.
But the Spitfire Mk XIV with the large griffon engine did have an intercooler although the space between engine and cockpit is filled with fuel. The tank should take as much space as the Fw190`s weapons
Why the difference? Did the British have smaller intercoolers or did they just used the space more efficiently?
So I am not an expert, maybe someone of you knows the answer.
Thanks
P.S.: Somewhere I also read (can`t remember) that this problem was obviously solved: The Germans finally managed to cram the intercooler into the Dora-airframe. Do you know more?
razor1uk
Staff Sergeant
I would hazard a guess that the air via oil cooled intercooler space needed for the 213 would be quite a bit bigger than for the smaller Merlin, that and the 213 was developed from a bomber engine AFAIK, so size wise its bigger than the fighter baised designs of the Merlin/Griffon/DB60(1/5).
I envisiage this as a partial reason for the anular radiators; compact, less plumbing pipe routing + less weight of coolant, minimise aerodynamic drag etc, while the benefits of 'power egg' servicing, and not having to redeisign more of the aircraft to take more normal burried rads and their pipework (coolant supply, coolant return, possible condensor feed returns etc).
Trying to fit that all on a 190 based a/c wouldn't leave much space, where as the Griffon wasn't much bigger in metal than the earlier Merlin, although in some respects it was a more compact design than the Merlin, leaving space for the intercooler between the rear of the cylinders 'V'
I envisiage this as a partial reason for the anular radiators; compact, less plumbing pipe routing + less weight of coolant, minimise aerodynamic drag etc, while the benefits of 'power egg' servicing, and not having to redeisign more of the aircraft to take more normal burried rads and their pipework (coolant supply, coolant return, possible condensor feed returns etc).
Trying to fit that all on a 190 based a/c wouldn't leave much space, where as the Griffon wasn't much bigger in metal than the earlier Merlin, although in some respects it was a more compact design than the Merlin, leaving space for the intercooler between the rear of the cylinders 'V'
Last edited:
thanks for the answer,
though I think the 213 and Griffon don't take much from each other size wise, but you may be right about it being developed as a bomber engine.
So a Dora with a jumo213E would be superior to the Ta 152 as a dogfighter thanks to lighter weight.
This Dora would have to be equipped with the Ta 152`s larger radiator to make full use of that engines performance I believe.
though I think the 213 and Griffon don't take much from each other size wise, but you may be right about it being developed as a bomber engine.
So a Dora with a jumo213E would be superior to the Ta 152 as a dogfighter thanks to lighter weight.
This Dora would have to be equipped with the Ta 152`s larger radiator to make full use of that engines performance I believe.
davebender
1st Lieutenant
Since the issue was raised I think a comparison is in order.
Jumo 213E V12.
Junkers Jumo 213 - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
89.2 in Length.
30.6 in Width
38.6 in Height.
2,072 lbs Dry Weight.
2,022 hp for take off.
87 octane fuel.
Griffon 65 V12.
Rolls-Royce Griffon - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
81 in Length
30.3 in Width
46 in Height
1,980 lbs Dry Weight.
2,035 hp
100 octane fuel.
Weight is similiar.
Power output is similiar.
The Griffon is a bit higher while the Jumo213 is a bit longer.
The only significant difference is the Jumo213 achieves that performance using 87 octane fuel while the Griffon requires 100 octane fuel.
Jumo 213E V12.
Junkers Jumo 213 - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
89.2 in Length.
30.6 in Width
38.6 in Height.
2,072 lbs Dry Weight.
2,022 hp for take off.
87 octane fuel.
Griffon 65 V12.
Rolls-Royce Griffon - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
81 in Length
30.3 in Width
46 in Height
1,980 lbs Dry Weight.
2,035 hp
100 octane fuel.
Weight is similiar.
Power output is similiar.
The Griffon is a bit higher while the Jumo213 is a bit longer.
The only significant difference is the Jumo213 achieves that performance using 87 octane fuel while the Griffon requires 100 octane fuel.
razor1uk
Staff Sergeant
Quite similar overall, even weight differences aren't much, and those could be possibly attributed to lack of strategic materials forcing lesser quality elements (so heavier or more amount of it needed to achiev similar atomic/elctro-magnetic/elctro-resistive, etc qualities) to be used for say magneto magnets and the different accessories like inertia starters, fuel injection pumps. injectors plumbing.
Mind due, it's not that the Luftwaffe didn't have high octane fuel, its just that it some might have been blended/'watered down' with other locally available fuel, so long as the overall octane was above 87, the engines wouldn't detonate.
I'm not meaning they didn't keep different stocks apart, just that some would have been used to boost locally scrounged/discovered fuel. We in our present time, take the '87' to mean thats all they used or had available. Although for that Jumo test, is their data supporting what the test fuel was; I don't wish to appear challenging, just circumspective.
Towards the end of the war, most of the luftwaffe's fuel was AFAIR/AFAIK around 90 - 96 octane. The once the jet engines had been redesigned to run on centrifugally seperated oil, that released held back stocks of higher octanes to the remaining forces; assuming it would survive transport to where ever.
Mind due, it's not that the Luftwaffe didn't have high octane fuel, its just that it some might have been blended/'watered down' with other locally available fuel, so long as the overall octane was above 87, the engines wouldn't detonate.
I'm not meaning they didn't keep different stocks apart, just that some would have been used to boost locally scrounged/discovered fuel. We in our present time, take the '87' to mean thats all they used or had available. Although for that Jumo test, is their data supporting what the test fuel was; I don't wish to appear challenging, just circumspective.
Towards the end of the war, most of the luftwaffe's fuel was AFAIR/AFAIK around 90 - 96 octane. The once the jet engines had been redesigned to run on centrifugally seperated oil, that released held back stocks of higher octanes to the remaining forces; assuming it would survive transport to where ever.
Last edited:
Shortround6
Major General
It is very difficult to compare German and British/allied fuels.
the Griffon was going to need 100/130 fuel.
But feeding the Jumo British 87 octane fuel might have been a recipe for disaster.
The Germans didn't really specify rich mixture response like the British did. With well over 400 different compounds available to "blend" into "gasoline" quoting a single octane rating doesn't tell the whole story.
I would also note that most sources say the Jumo 213 only reached the over 2,000hp ratings while using MW/50 or water/alcohol injection
the Griffon was going to need 100/130 fuel.
But feeding the Jumo British 87 octane fuel might have been a recipe for disaster.
The Germans didn't really specify rich mixture response like the British did. With well over 400 different compounds available to "blend" into "gasoline" quoting a single octane rating doesn't tell the whole story.
I would also note that most sources say the Jumo 213 only reached the over 2,000hp ratings while using MW/50 or water/alcohol injection
davebender
1st Lieutenant
Junkers Engines - Jumo 213
That's not true. Most Jumo213 engines were low octane models because high octate fuel was scarce in WWII Germany. But Junkers did produce the 2,031 hp Jumo211F in small numbers.
The 2,563 hp Jumo213J may have entered mass production during 1945 if not for the end of the war. That's a V-12 with serious power!
red admiral
Senior Airman
- 479
- Mar 24, 2005
What's not true? The high power settings for period German engines are invariably with the additional of MW-50 injection. This provides much more of an advantage than simply increasing the octane rating of the fuel. Not to mention that the German octane ratings weren't that much different from the UK. B4 isn't equivalent to Allied 87-oct fuel. It's much more like 100-oct, the issue comes from different ratings.
If you want a V-12 with serious power, you should go with the Merlin 100+series. Adding ADI (like MW-50) enabled power to be increased considerably. Highest tested was 2640hp, which is quite a lot for a 27L engine.
Shortround6
Major General
The Merlin also kept the piston speed down.
The 4000fpm piston speed of the JUMO 213J might have presented some serious problems in service as opposed to the test stand.
That kind of piston speed was in in the area of 1960s formula I racing car engines.
late model Griffons could also post some large numbers for a 12 cylinder engine.
Edit>
At some point after the war the French got the JUMO 213 up to 2300hp for take-off as the S.F.E.C.M.A.S. 12H.
They were using 100/130 fuel and water injection. 3,250 rpm and 11lbs of boost (1.73 ata?)
This is with a two speed SINGLE stage supercharger so there is no power loss in driving a second stage.
This is the engine used in the Nord 1402 Amphibian flying boat. <edit.
The 4000fpm piston speed of the JUMO 213J might have presented some serious problems in service as opposed to the test stand.
That kind of piston speed was in in the area of 1960s formula I racing car engines.
late model Griffons could also post some large numbers for a 12 cylinder engine.
Edit>
At some point after the war the French got the JUMO 213 up to 2300hp for take-off as the S.F.E.C.M.A.S. 12H.
They were using 100/130 fuel and water injection. 3,250 rpm and 11lbs of boost (1.73 ata?)
This is with a two speed SINGLE stage supercharger so there is no power loss in driving a second stage.
This is the engine used in the Nord 1402 Amphibian flying boat. <edit.
Last edited:
I put a 1949 datasheet here of the french Ju213 using 100/130 fuel
http://www.ww2aircraft.net/forum/engines/ju-213a-100-130-grade-fuel-26047.html
http://www.ww2aircraft.net/forum/engines/ju-213a-100-130-grade-fuel-26047.html
Shortround6
Major General
Thank you. I believe it was the same in the 1953 edition.
davebender
1st Lieutenant
How do you achieve so much hp from so little displacement while keeping RPMs relatively low? Did RR just keep increasing supercharger boost?
Shortround6
Major General
Yes.
the Merlin was always limited to 3000rpm (except in a dive). an early Merlin of 1030HP was running 6lbs of boost for a total manifold pressure of 21lbs (give or take a fraction) while the very late Merlins of around 2000hp were running 25lb of boost for a total manifold pressure of 40lbs. Roughly twice the air and fuel were going through the engine each minute.
While the power needed to run the supercharger/s went up with the higher pressures the friction losses in the engine stayed roughly the same. Piston ring drag, bearing friction, cam follower friction, etc.
A rough rule of thumb is that the friction losses go up with the square of the engine speed.So a 10% increase in RPM can mean a 21% increase in friction loss.
Most race car engines use high RPM because of the rules. If engine size is limited by the rules then more power can only be had by increasing rpm or more boost if supercharging is allowed. If supercharging isn't allowed then rpm is the only way out.
Loads on the connecting rods, crankshafts, bearings and crankcases also go up with the square of the engine speed and may require heavier construction to handle the higher rpm. Heavier construction is also required to handle the stress of the higher boost pressure.
I know these differences exist but I am not an engineer and I don't know at what point one type of construction or approach crosses over. I do know that many automobile racing engines of the 1930s-40s-50s were heavier per HP than many(most) aircraft engines.
red admiral
Senior Airman
- 479
- Mar 24, 2005
The later Merlins around the RM17SM standard were being rated up to 3150rpm which helped increase power a little bit, but the main reason was the increase in boost to 35lb with the addition of ADI. Lovesey describes a later 3-speed design with a reshaped intake that would've increased power by another ~150hp. The 3-speed supercharger drive was incorporated into the Griffon 100 series, but not the Merlin.
