Ad: This forum contains affiliate links to products on Amazon and eBay. More information in Terms and rules
l'Omnivore Sobriquet
Airman 1st Class
Me-209 or Fw-190C2, that's the question..
Shortround6
Major General
Me 209
Or Me 209
THAT is the question
Or Me 209
THAT is the question
l'Omnivore Sobriquet
Airman 1st Class
The fighter prototype I guess.
- Thread starter
- #5
l'Omnivore Sobriquet
Airman 1st Class
My mistake, a quick check on Wiki tells me it was fitted with the Jumo 2013 and not the Db-603 as I thought it was. (or else?)
So no comparison with Fw-190C.
But with the D. Which was prefferd as we know, righfully it seems.
Would love some more info on the 209 beyond its "unfavourable" performance, and the good decision to go with the Me-262 alone, instead...
So no comparison with Fw-190C.
But with the D. Which was prefferd as we know, righfully it seems.
Would love some more info on the 209 beyond its "unfavourable" performance, and the good decision to go with the Me-262 alone, instead...
davebender
1st Lieutenant
Shortage of DB603 engine program funding wrecked several promising airframe programs. Original DB powered design for Fw-190, Do-217 bomber, Me-209II, Me-309, Me-410 etc.
Shortround6
Major General
Another problem for the 209II was the anticipated 65% common parts with the 109G making conversion of existing production lines easy fell to 40% common parts or less as the project advanced. With less performance than promised and a higher cost of conversion (both in new tooling and lost production) the 209IIs fate was sealed.
kool kitty89
Senior Master Sergeant
It seems to me that putting all the test engines, material resources, and funding that went to the Me 309 and 209 II into developing Fw 190 derivatives using the DB 603 and 605 would have made much more sense in practical, production/manufacturing, and operational terms.
Mtt AG also tried to do a fighter from the racer a fighter, unsucesfully
The problem with the second incarnation (Me 209 "II") is that there isn't many primary sources neither for its flying qualities nor its performance, so anything written about it (V5, V6 or V7) must be taken with a grain of salt.
The problem with the second incarnation (Me 209 "II") is that there isn't many primary sources neither for its flying qualities nor its performance, so anything written about it (V5, V6 or V7) must be taken with a grain of salt.
davebender
1st Lieutenant
Therein lays the rub.
RLM cancelled DB603 funding during 1937 after only a single year of development. Partial funding was grudgingly restored during 1940 but RLM never put their full support behind DB603 engine development and mass production. So DB603 powered Fw-190s are no more likely then DB603 powered Me-209 or Me-309.
RLM cancelled DB603 funding during 1937 after only a single year of development. Partial funding was grudgingly restored during 1940 but RLM never put their full support behind DB603 engine development and mass production. So DB603 powered Fw-190s are no more likely then DB603 powered Me-209 or Me-309.
kool kitty89
Senior Master Sergeant
Plus, the DB-601 and 605 were hard pressed to be allocated to new (particularly non-messerschmitt) projects, so Fw 190 derivatives using those powerplants would likely require a different political situation. Though I'm not aware if Focke Wulf ever seriously attempted to allocate 601/605 engines for testing, it seems like the original small-wing 190 would have been better matched to the 601 at its inception and lacked the teething troubles of the BMW/Bramo radials.
razor1uk
Staff Sergeant
It might not be the Jumo powered one in that pic, but the annular mixed water oil cooler are certainly connected with typically later Jumo's were shared between later engines of either manufacturer.
Last edited:
l'Omnivore Sobriquet
Airman 1st Class
Not developping or "freezing" the big Db-603 at an early stage was not a bad decision in itself nor even bound to be a bad one. There were short term war urgencies by the late 30's and it is just like Britain's RR decision to "freeze" the RR Griffon for a while. Quite sound in the days.
What was bad was Germany's decision makers somehow listening to themselves and keeping that decision way out of time. They just stuck to it far too long. In my view because of over-confidence, just enhancing their previous judgements for the sake of it. The Brits were more 'flegmatics' (is the word ok?) about it all.
Obviously Daimler's Db-603 ran into silly conservative behaviour and opporunities were missed.
Really by a hair-thin margin.
What was bad was Germany's decision makers somehow listening to themselves and keeping that decision way out of time. They just stuck to it far too long. In my view because of over-confidence, just enhancing their previous judgements for the sake of it. The Brits were more 'flegmatics' (is the word ok?) about it all.
Obviously Daimler's Db-603 ran into silly conservative behaviour and opporunities were missed.
Really by a hair-thin margin.
davebender
1st Lieutenant
Two bad decisions but IMO cancelling DB603 was the worst since it was essentially just an enlarged DB601 and already had a 1,500hp prototype running.
The "original" Me209 developed from the high-speed record machine would have been a non-starter. The Me209II was a reasonably effective development of the Bf109 series, so it's the only one that merits serious discussion. The problem for Messerschmitt was that Fw190/Ta152 series of fighters were already in development, and these offered the same general performance that the Me209II. Unlike the USA, which had the design and manufacturing capacity to produce a number of different aircraft for basically the same role, Germany did not have that luxury. The RLM was just not going to spend money on a heavily modified development of the Bf109 when it could get basically the same performance from existing Bf109s and the soon-to-be available Fw190D and Ta-152. Coupled with the abject failure of the entirely new Me309, Messerschmitt had by this time frozen itself out of the piston-engine fighter business. The future for Messerschmitt lay with the Me262 and other jets.
davebender
1st Lieutenant
Me-309 development effectively ended during 1942 after a mere four prototypes. How can anyone call that an "Abject failure"? Development was cancelled before the aircraft had a chance to prove itself powered by DB603 engine for which it was designed.
During 1943 to 1945 (i.e. after Me-309 funding cancelled) Messerschmitt produced more then 20,000 Me-109s. That doesn't meet my definition of "frozen out of piston engine fighter business". To the contrary it appears Luftwaffe was pleased with performance and low cost of late war Me-109 variants.
Shortround6
Major General
A lot depends on timing. The small cylinder but many cylindered engine has several advantages over a large cylinder engine.
1. The small cylinders offer better cooling. Both due to a higher cylinder wall to volume ratio and and a shorter path for the heat to travel from center of piston to cylinder walls. This allows for higher compression or higher boost than the big cylinder engine can use.
2. The smaller reciprocating parts allow for higher rpm. The DB 604 could turn about 18% more rpm than the DB 603.
3. The smaller cylinders should show higher volumetric efficiency than large ones.
For any given grade/PN number fuel the high rpm small cylinder/multi cylinder (over 12 in the case of inline or V engine) should show a marked advantage over the large cylinder 12.
However there are also a number of disadvantages to the layout/s and the large 12s did NOT stay frozen in time.
Comparing a 1943/44 large 12 to a 1940/41 24 cylinder engine ignores some of the progress made in rings, bearings, piston design and other aspects that helped close the gap. Scaling up only works to a certain extent. Changing the stroke from 160mm to 180mm and keeping the smaller engines rpm means about a 26% increase in loads on the rod bearings and main bearings just from the change in piston speed and doesn't take into account the increased weight of the bigger rods and pistons. Granted the scaled up engine has larger bearings but are they large enough?
In the late 30s many engine designers/companies thought they could just add cylinders or adopt complex engine layouts with little more trouble than they had with the lower number of cylinders. Time proved them wrong. But without the aid of the retrospectroscope it is a lot harder to find fault with them. If all you have is 87 octane fuel you run into limits on how much power you can get from a certain size cylinder pretty quick. The size of the cylinder helps dictate engine rpm. The common V layout was 12 cylinders so the basic limits were pretty well known.
The ways out included better fuel for higher boost/compression. Higher RPM which required better bearings and a much better understanding of harmonic vibration. Or going the 16-14 cylinder route.
wuzak
Captain
The DB604 was substantially more powerful than the DB603.
T/O/Max Power
DB603A: 1,750hp @ SL, 1,850hp @ 6,900ft, 1,625hp @ 18,700ft
DB604: 2,660hp @ SL, 2,410hp @ 20,600ft
Climb Combat
DB603A: 1,575hp @ Sl, 1,675hp @ 6,900ft, 1,520hp @ 18,700ft
DB604: 2,270hp @ SL, 2,120hp @ 21,000ft
Max Cruising
DB603A: 1,375hp @ SL, 1,450hp @ 6,900ft, 1,400hp @ 17,700ft
DB604: 1,830hp @ SL, 1,860hp @ 20,000ft
The DB604 did weigh more, by about 400lbs. 20% more weight for 30%+ more cruising power, ~40% more climb/combat power and ~50% more take-off/maximum power. From 4% greater capacity.
GED0109
GED0106
T/O/Max Power
DB603A: 1,750hp @ SL, 1,850hp @ 6,900ft, 1,625hp @ 18,700ft
DB604: 2,660hp @ SL, 2,410hp @ 20,600ft
Climb Combat
DB603A: 1,575hp @ Sl, 1,675hp @ 6,900ft, 1,520hp @ 18,700ft
DB604: 2,270hp @ SL, 2,120hp @ 21,000ft
Max Cruising
DB603A: 1,375hp @ SL, 1,450hp @ 6,900ft, 1,400hp @ 17,700ft
DB604: 1,830hp @ SL, 1,860hp @ 20,000ft
The DB604 did weigh more, by about 400lbs. 20% more weight for 30%+ more cruising power, ~40% more climb/combat power and ~50% more take-off/maximum power. From 4% greater capacity.
GED0109
GED0106
