Jumo 213 vs. Napier Sabre

Ad: This forum contains affiliate links to products on Amazon and eBay. More information in Terms and rules


Yes, 2090-1670=420hp, I should have been more accurate in that difference between T/O 18lb and low alt Combat 25lb.

Looking at the different tables in the sources, there are differences. This will be due to many reasons, even the Rolls-Royce data changes around. I can see that the RRHT data
differs considerably in the Merlin 100 book in the "Leading Particulars" tables, which look to possibly be from an RAF A.P. on p.194, 195 and 196, where there are International ratings and Combat ratings, only some of which match the Engines of the World table.
It would also seem that there were some censored details at the end of WW2, certainly in the free press.
The Rolls-Royce data presented in graphical form is possibly more useful. Careful reading of the RM14SM Rating graph on p.141 possibly shows the small differences that are sometimes quoted at T/O and low altitude. The T/O 3000, +18lb shows 1650hp rising to about 1670hp @ 1000'. The low gear Combat 3000, +25lb shows 2050hp rising to 2090hp at about 2000',
so there are those differences.
Another detail is that the high boost fuels were changing, the RRHT book often refers to 100/130 fuel and 100/150. There is also mention of 115/150. There are others.

Eng
 
I even looked up the R-R Griffon on the World War II Aircraft Performance site, and some details of some engines (namely power ratings) weren't fully quoted or censored. For example the Griffon 65, while the Griffon 69 (which I believe is for the most part identical to the 65) had full figures quoted. IMO, sort of weird what was censored/not quoted vs what was. Even the Griffon 130 had full power specs quoted, though you'd think that would've been restricted info, aside from the fact that the Griffon 130 may've been intended to be a civil engine (though it's most well known application was the Spiteful 16).
 
pbehn said:
There was a Rolls Royce version of the Sabre type engine Rolls-Royce Eagle (1944) - Wikipedia
Click to expand...
Sorry for taking this back, but was expecting some one to comment on this & didn't see it as I read through the next 3 pages. The Eagle had little in common with the Sabre other than the broad principle of being a sleeve valve H-24 unit, it was quite a lot bigger in swept volumes (46 litres as opposed to 36.6 for the Sabre) & had a RR developed sleeve actuation system of less complexity, apparently, than the Napier unit, so to describe it as a version of the Sabre type engine, is hardly accurate imho.
 
Sorry, I didnt mean it was a version of the Sabre, but that it was as you say a H format sleeve valve, posted in answer to the original post which said of the Jumo 213 and Napier Sabre "Being the peak engine developments of their specific countries which one was more modern, had more potential, was more efficient, more powerful, overall better?" Since the Eagle was developed later and RR will have known of problems with the Sabre to my mind it is logical that the Eagle would be more "advanced".
 
Rolls-Royce Heritage Trust told me that the Eagle suffered from all the same major problems that the Sabre did, namely, at very high boost the oscillating liners distort and create all manner of horrors. Nobody solved the problem, you can make the liner very thick so it wont warp, but then it weighs too much and has too low thermal conductivity and the piston temps rise and rings gum up and ... and.... and
 
I sort of gathered that just from the Wiki pages on the Eagle and Wyvern. Long before I read of the specific problems with sleeve valve engines I saw a powered cutaway Hercules in a museum. It just looks WRONG in a way that cutaway poppet valve engines. You could see the exhaust port being uncovered, and briefly both sides of a small part of the liner have the exhaust gases on both sides while the exhaust gases are also in contact with the cylinder outside of the liner. The whole thing looked like something designed to wear itself out.
 
And yet the maintenance manual of the Hercules 763/773 does not require any maintenance on the sleeves at all.
Poppet valves require considerable maintenance. I understand that the Merlin valves need to be checked every 25 hours.

It is worth remembering that the Hercules stayed in operation for decades. If the sleeves really were that bad, they would have been swapped out for Double Wasps way earlier. They weigh about the same and have about the same max continuous power.
 
It does help to remember that the Sabre was high revving and R-R probably tried to use Merlin or Griffon levels of supercharger boost in the Eagle (I know of the engine and it's basic details, but little about it's development)--it seems from what was said above that sleeve valves don't like huge amounts of boost. And though higher rpms was the reasoning behind the Sabre using sleeve valves, that also may've been part of the problem itself. The Hercules and Centaurus were both fairly large, low revving, low boosted engines, and hence the sleeve valves were probably more reliable in those applications.

It should also be noted that it seems that no production Sabres, Hercules or Centaurus engines ran two-stage superchargers, either.

As mentioned above, sleeve valves could've been a viable solution to the engine power problem if stuff like 100+ octane fuel, better poppet valve designs (better metals, sodium cooled valves, hard Stellite chrome--the same stuff used in firearms barrels, especially machine guns--being used in valve seats, improvement in OHC designs for inline engines and even improvements in pushrod designs for OHV radial engines) didn't make the reasoning behind them obsolescent or obsolete.

I know that they seemed like a good idea at the time (a lot of things in terms of aviation and automotive technology was trial and error), but in hindsight, sleeve valves were sort of a solution looking for a problem, and, sometimes, caused just as many problems as they solved.
 
How about the Jumo 213EB? Was it powerful enough to heave the 190D/152 into the realm of the Allied superprops like Sea Fury, P-51H, XP-47/72 or Bearcat? And which Allied engine was comparable to the EB?
 
Simon Thomas said:
It is worth remembering that the Hercules stayed in operation for decades. If the sleeves really were that bad, they would have been swapped out for Double Wasps way earlier. They weigh about the same and have about the same max continuous power.
Click to expand...

What has to be remembered is that in post-war UK, there was no money. Buying foreign anything was heavily taxed to reduce foreign expenditure. The Bristol engines had achieved a fair balance of power and reliability from wartime development that worked well-enough into the 50's for run-of the mill applications. Similar could be said of some USA radial engine products, until the civilian jet age got going.

Eng
 
Simon Thomas said:
True, however the Hercules were also being used in Canada, Australia and New Zealand (possibly others). Obviously the use in those countries are not constrained by the UK taxes.
Click to expand...

Perhaps those can be explained by contacts with the UK industry, despite those being in all practical aspects independent nations they were still a lot closer to the UK than to some other random country on the planet.

Anyway, the sleeve valve era pretty much started and ended with the Hercules, Centaurus and Sabre (and those interwar luxury Knight(?) cars). If sleeve valves had been objectively better in some important aspect, be it performance/weight, maintenance, fuel efficiency or something else, I'm sure they wouldn't have died out. There's been literally thousands of different ICE designs post-WWII, and a huge amount of $$$ has been made in these. If sleeve valves would have a significant advantage in some respects, surely someone would have continued developing them. But instead we got more or less nothing.
 
The British did control import and export, at least to some extent, to the entire British commonwealth in the late 40s and early 50s. Which is one reason that the Canadians got
DC-4 with Merlin engines.


There was also a late war/post war version of the Hercules engine (and the Centaurus) with quite a few changes from the war time versions. The Hercules engines started in the 100s.
They used a new crankcase, and new crankshaft (bigger) new cylinder heads (winding up with copper alloy) and new superchargers. They were very good engines indeed. But I don't know where to break off their record from the 1941-42 war time Hercules engines. The Hercules was constantly evolving during WW II let alone the early post war engines.
 
The perfect big piston engine would be a turbo compound sleeve valve, but by the late 1940's the big piston had one foot in the grave. No company was going to sink millions into developing their own sleeve valve to compete with Bristol or their own turbo compound to compete with Wright, with no chance of getting a return on investment.
 

While it's clear that the turbine killed the large aero piston engine, if you're going to argue that sleeve valves are superior in some aspect you really have to explain why all the zillion motorcycle/auto/truck/locomotive/marine/industrial/etc/etc piston engines (including purebred racing engines where power/weight is certainly important) developed and produced after WWII all have used poppet valves (or piston porting for two stroke engines).
 
BarnOwlLover said:
Did they ever actually do so really? And would a two stage supercharger be worth it aside from higher altitude performance? Sleeve valves didn't like large amounts of boost.
Click to expand...
The Hercules got pretty reliable eventually, but the trouble is even once you`ve got the sleeve metallurgy sorted (the tests took years and cost two million pounds,
which at the time would buy you 160 finished Spitfires), you tend to get all sorts of special issues on each new engine, hence the centaurus had sleeve
problems too, as you get different areas of the cylinder "picking up" on different bits of the wall depending on the expansion and so on, the Sabre
wasnt really working in terms of the sleeve until very late in the war. By 1942 average life was 67 hours (sleeve wear being responsible for 90% of the failures).

I`d say a sleeve isnt an impediment to 2-stage supercharging, the main objective of which in an aircraft is not an overall increase in boost but maintaining what
you can use to a higher altitude.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Users who are viewing this thread

Total: 1 (members: 0, guests: 1)

Similar threads

G
Should Napier have been building the Griffon instead of the Sabre?
2 3
Replies
57
Views
5K
MIflyer
M
Multi-gun day and night Fighter Aircraft with two Napier Sabre (two-stage supercharger) engines
Replies
4
Views
546
Steve Hnz
S
M
Alternate Jumo-213
Replies
17
Views
2K
mack8
M
Sakai Saburo Vs Sugita Sho-ichi
2 3 4
Replies
70
Views
4K
GrauGeist
Supercharging & stuff - losses, improvements, good vs. bad. vs. excellent etc
2 3
Replies
44
Views
3K
Bretoal2
B
Menu
Log in
Register