Nakajima Ha-219 Ru (Ha-44-12Ru) - Does Anyone have source for powercurve?

[Laurelix]

This engine powered the Japanese Ki-94-II Interceptor.

So far I only managed to get info from websites.
According to Valka and Airwar

The Ha-44-12Ru engine has:
2450hp at Sea Level with Water/Methanol Injection
-
2350hp at 1000m at Military Power
2200hp at 4400m at Military Power
2040hp at 11000m at Military Power

 

[SaparotRob]

I have no clue but that's a beautiful plane.

 

[bf109xxl]

This engine powered the Japanese Ki-94-II Interceptor.

So far I only managed to get info from websites.
According to Valka and Airwar

The Ha-44-12Ru engine has:
2450hp at Sea Level with Water/Methanol Injection
-
2350hp at 1000m at Military Power
2200hp at 4400m at Military Power
2040hp at 11000m at Military Power

Honestly, I'm not even sure the Ha-44-12 was tested. The book "Japanese Aero-Engines 1910-1945" by Goodwin&Starkings states the following:

A prototype BH engine rated at 2,400hp was completed in July 1943 and given Joint designation [Ha-44]11 although the Ki-87 prototype was not ready until February 1945, by which time the 2,450 hp [Ha-44]12 was available. Differences between the [Ha-44]11 and 12 are not documented, but the latter is believed to have had a geared 16-bladed cooling fan behind the four bladed propeller.

I have not figured out which of the two engines (-11 or -12) was installed on the Ki-87. According to the above book, there were only 5 short flights without retracting the landing gear. I doubt that the engine's altitude characteristics could be measured during these flights. Did the Japanese have a high-altitude engine test bench at that time? Clearly the performance could not be measured on the Ki-94-II, which never got a propeller.

 

[Laurelix]

Honestly, I'm not even sure the Ha-44-12 was tested. The book "Japanese Aero-Engines 1910-1945" by Goodwin&Starkings states the following:

I have not figured out which of the two engines (-11 or -12) was installed on the Ki-87. According to the above book, there were only 5 short flights without retracting the landing gear. I doubt that the engine's altitude characteristics could be measured during these flights. Did the Japanese have a high-altitude engine test bench at that time? Clearly the performance could not be measured on the Ki-94-II, which never got a propeller.

it did have a propeller

 

[bf109xxl]

it did have a propeller

This is the second prototype with a four-bladed propeller that was not completed.

No, it's the first one. He didn't get a six-bladed propeller, but he did get a four-bladed propeller. Still, the test was scheduled for August 18. I apologize.

 

[wells]

There is a rather good engine table in Gakken Vol 31, which gives the following for that engine,

Takeoff - 2450 HP @ +450 mm @ 2800 rpm
Rated - 2330 HP @ 1100 m @ 2700 rpm ( boost unknown )
- and 2200 HP @ 4400 m
Bore and Stroke: 140 x 160 mm
What I think is prop ratio: 0.431
Compression Ratio: 7.0

Data specific to the Ki-94-II comes from "Japanese Army Fighters, Design with Precision 10"

Takeoff power: 2500 HP/2800 rpm
Normal Rated: 2350 HP/2700 rpm/1700 m
2100 HP/6000 m/2700 rpm
1900 HP/14000 m/2700 rpm

Propeller diameter is 4.0m
Max speed: 712 km/h @ 12000m and 687 km/h @ 14000 m

The books source is "Ki 94 Planning manual 1945/April Tachikawa Aircraft Co.Ltd"

 

[RichardSuhkoi]

Has anyone compared Japanese to other WW2 nations' engines in terms of design sophistication, materials, etc? A guess for me is the controls and turbo / supercharging were the areas of most critical competitiveness.

 

[bf109xxl]

There is a rather good engine table in Gakken Vol 31, which gives the following for that engine

Still the question remains - how could this data have been obtained if the Ki-94-II did not fly and the Ki-87 made only 5 short flights without retracting the landing gear?

 

[wells]

Still the question remains - how could this data have been obtained if the Ki-94-II did not fly and the Ki-87 made only 5 short flights without retracting the landing gear?

It may be only specs on paper, but engineers have a pretty good idea what they are doing to build an engine to meet those specs. They would know how large the impeller diameter needs to be and at what ratio it needs to turn in relation to the crankshaft to maintain pressure to a specific altitude, where "standard" atmospheric properties are known and stuff like that.