johnbr
2nd Lieutenant
Junkers Jumo 213J, nose section, dissasembled; 7-22-46." Detail view of parts from a Junkers Jumo 213 J 12-cylinder V engine; Wright Field, Ohio, July 22, 1946.
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
johnbr
2nd Lieutenant
"Junkers Jumo 213J, nose section, dissasembled; 7-22-46." Detail view of parts from a Junkers Jumo 213 J 12-cylinder V engine; Wright Field, Ohio, July 22, 1946.
johnbr
2nd Lieutenant
Junkers Jumo 213J, nose section, scavenge pump and governor drive; 7-22-46." Detail view of parts from a Junkers Jumo 213 J 12-cylinder V engine; Wright Field, Ohio, July 22, 1946.
johnbr
2nd Lieutenant
johnbr
2nd Lieutenant
Junkers Jumo 213J, oil-coolant heat exchanger; 7-22-46." Detail view of parts from a Junkers Jumo 213 J 12-cylinder V engine; Wright Field, Ohio, July 22, 1946.
johnbr
2nd Lieutenant
Junkers Jumo 213J, tubes, heat exchanger, foreign matter [adhered] to tubes as received; 7-22-46." Detail view of parts from a Junkers Jumo 213 J 12-cylinder V engine; Wright Field, Ohio, July 22, 1946.
johnbr
2nd Lieutenant
Junkers Jumo 213J, heat exchanger, disassembled; 7-22-46." Detail view of parts from a Junkers Jumo 213 J 12-cylinder V engine; Wright Field, Ohio, July 22, 1946.
johnbr
2nd Lieutenant
That was not easy.
Vintageaeroengines
Airman
- 39
- Oct 20, 2010
some observations on pics,
The prop shaft has the oil tubing for the fighter prop with the cannon going through the prop shaft.
The inlet to the supercharger has the movable vanes in the inlet to regulate the air flow into the impeller. This was controlled by the boost pressure regulator.
Not a lot of changes from the earlier engines and much of the 211 carries through.
The factory manual, engine handbook covers most of the systems and how they interacted.
the German version is available from Hafner in Germany.
I did an English translation for the 213 I am restoring.
I will be selling copies later this year after I get the copyrights done.
M
The prop shaft has the oil tubing for the fighter prop with the cannon going through the prop shaft.
The inlet to the supercharger has the movable vanes in the inlet to regulate the air flow into the impeller. This was controlled by the boost pressure regulator.
Not a lot of changes from the earlier engines and much of the 211 carries through.
The factory manual, engine handbook covers most of the systems and how they interacted.
the German version is available from Hafner in Germany.
I did an English translation for the 213 I am restoring.
I will be selling copies later this year after I get the copyrights done.
M
Deleted member 68059
Staff Sergeant
- 1,058
- Dec 28, 2015
A few notes to clear up some errors in this thread:
1) Fuels
C3 required an entire extra reprocessing stage (dehydrogenation) than did B4, and shortages of it were catastrophoic and had profound influence on the number of 190`s allocated for production and also able to be operated. Anyone disagreeing please provide archival references. The figure everyone loves to quote from the "Production of Aviation Fuel..." report of "two thirds of which was C3" is a pure guess by the investigator who admits about two lines before that "it is impossible to ascertain the relative volumes produced" (B4/C3).
2) Some 213 power figures for the posts about what was achievable with what fuel and MW50 or not:
-213A/2 "Höhenleistung" on B4 fuel, 1820PS, 3200rpm (flight test November 1941, no MW50 specified, this appers to be a special test)
" as above repeated on C3 = 2000PS
-213A on C3 fuel, 1950PS (8th November 1944) - No MW50 use - No chargecooler
-213E on B4 fuel, 1880 PS (18th November 1944) - No MW50 use - WITH chargecooler
-213E could do 1730PS on B4 fuel without MW50 - rising to 2050 with MW50 on B4 (both at 3250rpm, datacard date 21st October 1944).
-213E with C3 and WITHOUT MW50 could do 1880PS (higher compression ratio, biggest benefit considerably lower fuel consumption, dated 16th May 1944 - this
variant with C3 has NO power curves with MW50)
-213FB turns the above to 1880PS & 2260 PS (also B4, Jan 1945 datacard date)
1) Fuels
C3 required an entire extra reprocessing stage (dehydrogenation) than did B4, and shortages of it were catastrophoic and had profound influence on the number of 190`s allocated for production and also able to be operated. Anyone disagreeing please provide archival references. The figure everyone loves to quote from the "Production of Aviation Fuel..." report of "two thirds of which was C3" is a pure guess by the investigator who admits about two lines before that "it is impossible to ascertain the relative volumes produced" (B4/C3).
2) Some 213 power figures for the posts about what was achievable with what fuel and MW50 or not:
-213A/2 "Höhenleistung" on B4 fuel, 1820PS, 3200rpm (flight test November 1941, no MW50 specified, this appers to be a special test)
" as above repeated on C3 = 2000PS
-213A on C3 fuel, 1950PS (8th November 1944) - No MW50 use - No chargecooler
-213E on B4 fuel, 1880 PS (18th November 1944) - No MW50 use - WITH chargecooler
-213E could do 1730PS on B4 fuel without MW50 - rising to 2050 with MW50 on B4 (both at 3250rpm, datacard date 21st October 1944).
-213E with C3 and WITHOUT MW50 could do 1880PS (higher compression ratio, biggest benefit considerably lower fuel consumption, dated 16th May 1944 - this
variant with C3 has NO power curves with MW50)
-213FB turns the above to 1880PS & 2260 PS (also B4, Jan 1945 datacard date)
