Jumo 213 E Question

[Shortround6]

I am trying to keep it to engines that were actually used.

Was the RM17SM standard engine ever used in a service aircraft?

While many engines performed absolutely amazing stunts on test stands ( a P&W R-2800 once survived 150in of manifold pressure or 60lb of boost) other engines never went into service with planned or announced HP ratings. It may be that post war engines for civil use ( or even military use) weren't pressed as hard as war time engines because of safety or longevity concerns.

Very late Allisons did go to 3200rpm instead of 3000rpm but they used a different crankshaft with more counter weighting. It weighed 27lbs more than the "normal" crankshaft and, since it fits into older blocks, is the crankshaft of choice for high performance rebuilds.

 

[davebender]

Isn't that rough on head gaskets, piston rings and piston crowns? Not to mention the supercharger and associated plumbing which must be capable of delivering that much air pressure and volume.

 

[Milosh]

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!

I find it hard to believe that C3 was scare as every BMW powered Fw190 required C3 fuel. There was no lack of Fw190As flying as can be attested to by Allied pilots.

Two thirds of German avgas produced late war was C3.

 

[red admiral]

Was the RM17SM standard engine ever used in a service aircraft?

No, hence the RM17SM standard rather than a mark. Would likely have been Merlin 150 series. The RM17SM was in the same family as the Merlin 130s on the dH Hornet, but with a different supercharger giving more power at altitude. The 130s were tuned more for low altitude. Service rating would have been 2,300hp but without ADI.

2000hp and high boost might be considered "rough" on engine parts, but engine life was increasing all the time, even with contemporary power increases.

 

[Shortround6]

Isn't that rough on head gaskets, piston rings and piston crowns? Not to mention the supercharger and associated plumbing which must be capable of delivering that much air pressure and volume.

Yes it is.
There is no such thing as a free lunch.
If you want 50% or 100% more power out of an engine there is going to be more strain and wear&tear on the engine. Different designers/countries used different methods or approaches to getting the extra power.
Early Merlins (and other V-12s) used a one piece head and cylinder block to avoid the head gasket joint problems. As head gasket materials/construction got better and head bolts/studs got better (less stretching in use?)in addition to perhaps better surface finishing of the mating surfaces (thinner head gasket needed?) the two piece head and cylinder block could hold all the pressure that was needed.

Engine designers of the time (1930s) had much less knowledge than we have now, on a number of different subjects. Even well into WW I vibration was not well understood (or often ignored), metal fatigue didn't exist (it did but they called it crystallization and had no idea what caused it or how to stop it except by luck and experience). even the ability to measure gasoline octane was only about 10 years old.
Designers of powerful aircraft engines were using the most advanced alloys they could get and using the most advanced metal working and foundry techniques they could use and were still asking for more. The 'state of the art' was constantly moving and what was a world class engine one year was obsolete in 5-8 years. Since it took 2-6 years to bring an engine from drawing board to full production These guys almost had to see into the future ( and depend a bit on luck) to keep making progress.

 

[Civettone]

Junkers Engines - Jumo 213
That's not true. Most Jumo213 engines were low octane models because high octate fuel was scarce in WWII Germany.

I have my doubts if that is true. C3 was considered to be just another type of fuel. Production was not much more complicated and there were no C3 shortages as far as I can tell.
It would also be strange to have the Fw 190 fly with superior fuel towards the Bf 109.


I also recall the DB 605DB (with B4) able to fly with C3 but perfornance would remain the same. As such C3 does not automatically give better performance but gives more possibilities for an engine upgrade.

I am sure Kurfurst can say more about these things.

Kris

 

[Milosh]

DB 605 AS(M), Altitude optimized version of 605 A using the larger DB 603 supercharger, up to 1435 PS, ASM with MW-50 system and up to 1800 PS

DB 605 ASB(M), Altitude optimized late-war version of 605 AS using B4 fuel, ASBM with MW-50 system and up to 1800 PS

DB 605 ASC(M), Altitude optimized late-war version of 605 AS using C3 fuel, ASCM with MW-50 system and up to 2000 PS

DB 605 DM First DB 605 D version, standard MW-50 equipment, up to 1700 PS

DB 605 DB, Improved 605 DM, standard MW-50 equipment, first version up to 1850 PS, later reduced to 1800 PS, B4 fuel

DB 605 DC, Improved 605 DM, standard MW-50 equipment, up to 2000 PS, C3 fuel

Daimler-Benz DB 605 - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

 

[Civettone]

Don't know if the DC had standard MW 50. Have to look that up later this evening...



Kris

 

[johnbr]

Junkers Jumo 213J

 

[johnbr]

Jumo 213J, German, right side view; 2/13/1947." Right side view of Junkers Jumo 213 J 12-cylinder V engine suspended from overhead crane; Wright Field, Ohio, February 13, 1947.

 

[Piper106]

What have we here???. Looks like a two stage supercharger casing, like a Jumo 213E/F but... Everything I have ever read indicated that the Jumo 213A, 213E, and 213F had three valves per cylinder, two intake valves and a single exhaust valve. But look at picture 224701. Clearly two exhaust valves per cylinder.. From what I have read the only Jumo 213 engine variant with four valves per cylinder was the 213J.

And what's up with the inch / cm yard stick laying alongside the crankcase between the lifting shackles?? If would seem that this series of images was taken post war at a Junkers facility by a British or American technical investigation group.

 

[Denniss]

Good observation !
Propulsion, Engines, Junkers "JUMO" 213 12-Cylinder V. [negative]

 

[tomo pauk]

I also have a question - is that engine still somewhere preserved?

 

[Koopernic]

What have we here???. Looks like a two stage supercharger casing, like a Jumo 213E/F but... Everything I have ever read indicated that the Jumo 213A, 213E, and 213F had three valves per cylinder, two intake valves and a single exhaust valve. But look at picture 224701. Clearly two exhaust valves per cylinder.. From what I have read the only Jumo 213 engine variant with four valves per cylinder was the 213J.

And what's up with the inch / cm yard stick laying alongside the crankcase between the lifting shackles?? If would seem that this series of images was taken post war at a Junkers facility by a British or American technical investigation group.

From what I can surmise the Jumo 213E was the same core engine as the Jumo 213F but the F (which was used on the Fw 190D12 and D13) in the Fw 190D12/D13 continued to use the Jumo 213A radiator of the Fw 190D9. Due to this the Fw 190D12/D13 could only make use of full power for 30 seconds before the cooling gills opened and slowed the aircraft down.

The solution was the Jumo 213EB which was to be common to both the Ta 152H and the Fw 190D12EB. This engine used common heat exchangers for oil, engine cooling and super charger after cooling and had a more capable radiator. It still had three valve cylinders, enlarged however. The Jumo 213J was an parallel development with the Jumo 213EB with a 4 valve head and much higher RPM and piston velocity.

There was a lot and technology developed from these engines. Pistons were oval not circular when viewed from the top, convex when viewed from the side. Ive seen technology and research developed for the DB604 (X24 engines) used in textbooks so some of the things learned from these engines did effect engine design.

 

[Deleted member 68059]

I also have a question - is that engine still somewhere preserved?

I`m currently trying to find it....although I have not been successful so far.

Those photos at the Smithsonian (of which I have the rest), are part of the Wright-Field collection which were donated to the Smithsonian.
I have spoken to wright-field and the 213J is not stored there (I suppose predictably - although the do have "a" 213. Just not this late special type).

About 8>12 were built, so its probable that there is at least ONE somewhere, given that anyone with half a brain would know they were looking at probably the best piston engine of the war. However, I do not in fact think this is the final "J", but a development engine, probably a modified "E" with 4 valve heads.

The "J" is supposed to have a considerably more complex supercharger system, however it is also possible that the desired changes for the intended "J", were never able to be realized - and that this engine is all that was managed.

My personal feeling is that the engine is probably in some collectors garage somewhere, there are a lot of memos discussing tests with Chrysler all the way up to 1947. But it didnt happen as by then clearly Jets were what was wanted. The engineers clearly wanted to have it fired up and put on the dyno at Chrysler - but the budget was refused by the USAF in 1947. The trail runs cold for me after that, if anyone fancies flying to the states sometime and having a wild goose chase to find it pm me ! haha

(credit to Kim McKutcheon at AEHS for getting me the paperwork between Chrysler and USAF).

 

[johnbr]

"Jumo 213J, propellor shaft, oil transfer rings; 7-22-46." Detail view of parts from a Junkers Jumo 213 J 12-cylinder V engine; Wright Field, Ohio, July 22, 1946.

 

[johnbr]

"Junkers Jumo 213J, engine coolant pump, exploded view; 7-22-46." Detail view of parts from a Junkers Jumo 213 J 12-cylinder V engine; Wright Field, Ohio, July 22, 1946.

 

[johnbr]

"Junkers Jumo 213J, prop. [propeller] shaft, oil transfer rings; 7-22-46." Detail view of parts from a Junkers Jumo 213 J 12-cylinder V engine; Wright Field, Ohio, July 22, 1946.

 

[johnbr]

"Junkers Jumo 213J, coolant pump, exploded view; 7-22-46." Detail view of parts from a Junkers Jumo 213 J 12-cylinder V engine; Wright Field, Ohio, July 22, 1946.

 

[johnbr]

"Junkers Jumo 213J, prop. [propeller] shaft bearing and seal; 7-22-1946." Detail view of parts from a Junkers Jumo 213 J 12-cylinder V engine; Wright Field, Ohio, July 22, 1946.