Jumo inverted vee's vs. Daimler-Benz inverted vee's - Pros and Cons

bdefen said:

The Fw 190D10 prototype tried a motor cannon with some variant of the Jumo 213, but there were problems with it. The D11 deleted the motor cannon, deleted to cowl machine guns, and mounted and additional cannon in the outer wing.

Click to expand...

I guess one purpose of prototypes is to find out these issues. I doubt wing canon would have been introduced into service on any Fw 190D variant. The Luftwaffe pilots needed the extra manoeuvrability their absence would provide just to survive. As it was the only variant to enter service besides the Fw 190D9 was the Fw 190D13 and did not have wing guns but a motor gun and the cowling guns removed. A restored version exists. A variant of the Fw 190D13 was to receive fuel tanks in the outer gun position. Also Eddie Creeks trilogy notes that a JG had been assigned to test the MG213 revolver canon on the Fw 190D. These guns could be synchronised and opperate as a motor canon. The MG213 would give the Fw 190 all the fire power it needed.

bdefen said:

The Fw 190D10 prototype tried a motor cannon with some variant of the Jumo 213, but there were problems with it. The D11 deleted the motor cannon, deleted to cowl machine guns, and mounted and additional cannon in the outer wing.

Click to expand...

Regardless of the particularities of what was mounted to what, both the 211 and 213 were all in terms of the basic core infrastructure kitted out to be
able to use coaxial cannon. Certain models may well have not been fitted with the cannon brackets etc, but it was fundamentally possible.

(Jumo213 accessory housing, Mike Nixon pointing at the shaft one down from the cannon clearance bore which is to the right)

Koopernic said:

I guess one purpose of prototypes is to find out these issues. I doubt wing canon would have been introduced into service on any Fw 190D variant. The Luftwaffe pilots needed the extra manoeuvrability their absence would provide just to survive. As it was the only variant to enter service besides the Fw 190D9 was the Fw 190D13 and did not have wing guns but a motor gun and the cowling guns removed. A restored version exists. A variant of the Fw 190D13 was to receive fuel tanks in the outer gun position. Also Eddie Creeks trilogy notes that a JG had been assigned to test the MG213 revolver canon on the Fw 190D. These guns could be synchronised and opperate as a motor canon. The MG213 would give the Fw 190 all the fire power it needed.

Click to expand...

Your supposition as to the need for maneuverability (my spelling) is certainly valid. This link below cites that between 15 and 20 of the D-11 subtype I referred to, with the guns added to the outer wings, were produced and deployed. We both know much too late. It's also my understanding that Red 4, of JV44 (Galland's Circus) was a D-11 subtype.

See here:

Focke-Wulf Fw 190D (historyofwar.org) Scroll down.

I enjoy this discussion.

Snowygrouch said:

Regardless of the particularities of what was mounted to what, both the 211 and 213 were all in terms of the basic core infrastructure kitted out to be
able to use coaxial cannon. Certain models may well have not been fitted with the cannon brackets etc, but it was fundamentally possible.

(Jumo211 accessory housing, Mike Nixon pointing at the cannon clearance bore)

View attachment 608726

Click to expand...

Calum,

Can you orient what I'm looking at? Is it mounted as it would be in the plane, and if so what goes into the large opening on the top?

Cheers,
Biff

Snowygrouch said:

Regardless of the particularities of what was mounted to what, both the 211 and 213 were all in terms of the basic core infrastructure kitted out to be
able to use coaxial cannon. Certain models may well have not been fitted with the cannon brackets etc, but it was fundamentally possible.

(Jumo211 accessory housing, Mike Nixon pointing at the cannon clearance bore)

View attachment 608726

Click to expand...

Anthony Kay in Junkers Aircraft and Engines I think mentions something about mounting the type of propeller (VDM?) needed being the issue rather than the engine/gearbox itself. There is no way I can find it in my library at the moment given the renovations going on.

bdefen said:

Your supposition as to the need for maneuverability (my spelling) is certainly valid. This link below cites that between 15 and 20 of the D-11 subtype I referred to, with the guns added to the outer wings, were produced and deployed. We both know much too late. It's also my understanding that Red 4, of JV44 (Galland's Circus) was a D-11 subtype.

See here:

Focke-Wulf Fw 190D (historyofwar.org) Scroll down.

I enjoy this discussion.

Click to expand...

It's turned out to be common to miss conversions of older airframes eg (Fw 190A8 to Fw 190D11). The outer wing guns were MK108 canon so short enough to not protrude much beyond the leading edge than the MG151/20 but certainly not lighter at 58kg. Hence the Jumo 213F may have been more common than we thought. Nearly 27 aircraft of D11/D13 type.

Would it be possible to build new Jumo 213s and DB 603s with all the knowledge and constructional plans available at present?

Koopernic said:

Nearly 27 aircraft of D11/D13 type.

Click to expand...

So even less than Ta152H a/c.

Koopernic said:

It's turned out to be common to miss conversions of older airframes eg (Fw 190A8 to Fw 190D11). The outer wing guns were MK108 canon so short enough to not protrude much beyond the leading edge than the MG151/20 but certainly not lighter at 58kg. Hence the Jumo 213F may have been more common than we thought. Nearly 27 aircraft of D11/D13 type.

Click to expand...

Thank you. It's interesting that among later series aircraft, many were conversions of earlier series models. Was that common among all the belligerents, or more of a German thing? Would make sense in terms of a "recycle and reuse" practice when production supply and wartime demands were tight.

One of my Fw190 books lists all the V models. It is surprising the number of V models that were reused, sometimes multiple times..

BiffF15 said:

Calum,

Can you orient what I'm looking at? Is it mounted as it would be in the plane, and if so what goes into the large opening on the top?

Cheers,
Biff

Click to expand...

I humbly defer to the expertise of Mike Nixon and Calum Douglas, but that looks like a Juno 213 A accessory case based on my references. From what I see, the accessory case would mount to the back of the engine. What is at left in the image would attach to the top of the engine. So, what is at the top of the image, would be on the rear left side of the engine when seen from the anti-propeller end.

The mount at the top of the image is for the supercharger drive. A shaft passes horizontally through the case and is coupled to the supercharger mounted on the right side (bottom in image) of the case.

Linked here is a Jumo 213 A-G1 cutaway showing the case. The nature of the cutaway makes it difficult to match everything up, but you can match up somethings.

spicmart said:

Would it be possible to build new Jumo 213s and DB 603s with all the knowledge and constructional plans available at present?

Click to expand...

I suspect it would but some of the fabrication processes would need to changed. With modification in areas such as newer materials it would no doubt be a great engine.,

High Power Piston Engines may make a comeback.

Consider the Celera 500L which on a 500hp piston engine promises to fly 6 passengers in a standing cabin 4500 miles at up to 450mph cruise. (An aircraft that outperforms a Mosquito on 1/6th the power). See:
Otto Aviation's Celera 500L Completes 31 Successful Flights | Flying (flyingmag.com)

Consider a big V12 HCCI "Homogenous Charge Compression Ignition" engine with micro pilot ignition. See:
Jumo inverted vee's vs. Daimler-Benz inverted vee's - Pros and Cons

The engine would be extremely efficient, perhaps approach 50% and clean because it avoids the pollution issues of SI and CI engines.

Fuel could be a carbon neutral "PtL""Power to Liquids" fuel where electrical power is used to extracted CO2 from the air and combine it with Hydrogen from Electrolysis and make a synthetic hydrocarbon by fischer-tropsch like processes. Already in small scale production. (Iceland using geothermal and soon Norway using hydro) Potentially 60% conversion efficiency around 45%-50% currently some other pilot plants.

Just scaling linearly as far as I can see a 1750hp engine could create a 25 passenger airliner able to fly at over 450mph for over 4500 miles, probably 6000.

I assume that the Jumo 213C and 213A (as used in Fw 190D) were highly similar if not the same. Both had the additional gun synchronizer gear added. The only major difference would be the installable propeller as only the VS 9 permitted a gun firing through its opening in the center.

WJPearce said:

I humbly defer to the expertise of Mike Nixon and Calum Douglas, but that looks like a Juno 213 A accessory case based on my references. From what I see, the accessory case would mount to the back of the engine. What is at left in the image would attach to the top of the engine. So, what is at the top of the image, would be on the rear left side of the engine when seen from the anti-propeller end.

The mount at the top of the image is for the supercharger drive. A shaft passes horizontally through the case and is coupled to the supercharger mounted on the right side (bottom in image) of the case.

Linked here is a Jumo 213 A-G1 cutaway showing the case. The nature of the cutaway makes it difficult to match everything up, but you can match up somethings.

Click to expand...

Yep, thats true, there were a lot of bits around and I`ve mixed them up, thats 213- oops. However, the 211 is below:

Hope this isn't too far off topic:

Were Jumo's diesel aircraft engines (Dornier Do18, Do26, Junkers Ju86) considered successful? What advantages/disadvantages did they have? It seems that diesels in any application were not that widespread among all the belligerents, except for the Soviet T-34. Thoughts?

Engines themselves were good. Advantage was low fuel consumption, while the low temperature was good for turbocharging even with closely-coupled turbo. Disadvantage was that they were heavy for power they offered, the actual power was not that great, usually 600-800 HP by the time gasoline engines were making 50-150% more. Reliability was good, unlike the Soviet aero diesels, for example.
Americans were also using diesel engines on some M4 tanks, ditto for British (Matilda II and some Valentine models that used American diesel).

bdefen said:

It seems that diesels in any application were not that widespread among all the belligerents, except for the Soviet T-34. Thoughts?

Click to expand...

The Kharkiv model V-2 was used in more than just the T-34.

The German Schnellboot used 3 MB MD501 engines.

Many of the Allied landing craft used diesel engines.

bdefen said:

Hope this isn't too far off topic:

Were Jumo's diesel aircraft engines (Dornier Do18, Do26, Junkers Ju86) considered successful? What advantages/disadvantages did they have? It seems that diesels in any application were not that widespread among all the belligerents, except for the Soviet T-34. Thoughts?

Click to expand...

These engines had a very low fuel consumption, furthermore the fuel was about 10% denser. The engines were relatively heavy though so only made sense on longer flights. Possibly also some good safety advantages. They had maintainability issues when formation flying due to constant throttle changes and this made them unpopular with the Luftwaffe. I suspect the Soviet diesels had the same issues.

The fuel efficiency was essentially the same as the impressive turbo compounded Napier Nomad, so extremely high. They were somewhat heavier though. These two stroke engines had two crankshafts connected by 4 gears with the 12 pistons punching inward in 6 cylinders. One or Two (sequential) superchargers (I think roots blowers). Napier had purchased rights to patented Junkers style of engine and made their own (I think for airships) and came up with a system using 3 crankshafts in a delta arrangements. This "deltic" was compact and very successful in motor torpedo boats and created a beloved series of diesel locomotives for British Rail. The engine stood on one of its apex's and was quite accessible. Napier's 2 stroke Nomad however used a conventional horizontal arrangement with single crankshaft but used sleeve valves to get good purging.

Daimler Benz had a range of large V12, V16 aero derivative style 4 stroke diesels similar to the DB603 but never made it on to an aircraft but mostly boats ships and a few proposed tanks.

Petrol Engines were Chosen by the US Army because of wide spread availability of the petrol fuel. Probably the same with the German army who refuelled at French petrol stations during the battle of France. The US Marines had a diesel Sherman because diesel was in their inventory already.

Diesel might have been good for the Germans since its easier to make from coal. It did work best when fuel from hydrogenation and fischer-tropsch was blended.

There is no doubt if it weren't for gas turbines we'd be winging our way across the oceans on giant diesels.

The Jumo 223 and Jumo 224 were giant (4500hp) engines with 4 crankshafts, 24 cylinder and 48 pistons. Less silly than the R-4360 really. I have several "3rd Reich" aviation books and they all start of with German manufacturers pre war dreams of building pressurised diesel airliners winging their way to the USA, Sth America and China etc.

Koopernic said:

These engines had a very low fuel consumption, furthermore the fuel was about 10% denser. The engines were relatively heavy though so only made sense on longer flights. Possibly also some good safety advantages. They had maintainability issues when formation flying due to constant throttle changes and this made them unpopular with the Luftwaffe. I suspect the Soviet diesels had the same issues.

The fuel efficiency was essentially the same as the impressive turbo compounded Napier Nomad, so extremely high. They were somewhat heavier though. These two stroke engines had two crankshafts connected by 4 gears with the 12 cylinders punching inward in 6 cylinders. One or Two (sequential) superchargers (I think roots blowers). Napier had purchased rights to patented Junkers style of engine and made their own (I think for airships) and came up with a system using 3 crankshafts in a delta arrangements. This "deltic" was very successful in motor torpedo boats and created a beloved series of diesel locomotives for British Rail. Napier's 2 stroke Nomad however used a conventional horizontal arrangement with single crankshaft but used sleeve valves to get good purging.

Daimler Benz had a range of large V12, V16 aero derivative style 4 stroke diesels similar to the DB603 but never made it on to an aircraft but mostly boats ships and a few proposed tanks.

Petrol Engines were Chosen by the US Army because of wide spread availability of the petrol fuel. Probably the same with the German army who refuelled at French petrol stations during the battle of France. The US Marines had a diesel Sherman because diesel was on their inventory.

Diesel might have been good for the Germans since its easier to make from coal. It did work best when fuel from hydrogenation and fischer-tropsch was blended.

There is no doubt if it weren't for gas turbines we'd be winging our way across the oceans on giant diesels.

The Jumo 223 and Jumo 224 were giant (4500hp) engines with 4 crankshafts, 25 cylinder and 48 pistons. Less silly than the R-4360 really. I have several "3rd Reich" aviation books and they all start of with German manufacturers pre war dreams of building pressurised diesel airliners winging their way to the USA, Sth America and China.

Click to expand...

Thank you!

Milosh said:

So even less than Ta152H a/c.

Click to expand...

Indeed it wasn't many but would have been much more but for the successful allied bombing campaign.

If we look at all the the 440+ mph Luftwaffe piston aircraft that entered service:
Fw 190D13 & D11 about 27
Ta 152H maybe 150 produced but less than 1/3rd into service.
Me 109K4 1593 examples of which nearly 900 before 1944 was out.
They almost match the total Griffon Spitfire Mk XIV (900), F20 Tempest V (1600)
We could also count in 1800 Fw 190D9 which if retrofitted with the MW50 system could reach 437mph at low medium altitude though it doesn't quite count as particularly 'super'. These only began to enter service in the 4th quarter of 1944 whereas it was the first quarter for the XIV and the second quarter for the RAF types.
The P51 was a 'super' fighter since Jan 1944.

There seems to have been a few field upgrades of Ju 88G6 upgraded with Jumo 213E replacing the Jumo 213A and likewise a few He 219 upgraded from DB603A to Jumo 213E. The point I'm making the engines needed to make the He 219 a successful night fighter were coming online. The Luftwaffe seemed to be betting on the Ju 88G7/Ju 388J/Do 335 taking a risk if they failed.