Ad: This forum contains affiliate links to products on Amazon and eBay. More information in Terms and rules
I do like this concept as well, and i would add have them borrow a bit from DB as well, and bore it out to 155mm like the later Jumo-213J for a bit more capacity. Should be good for what, 1675 PS at TO and say 1450 PS at 5500 m? Would be very useful if this is ready by 1942 so it could take full advantage of Jumo's surplus capacity. Note, i see this entirely replacing the OTL Jumo-213, which while eventually becoming an excellent engine, it took far too long to be available.The '213 lite' looks interesting.
Power-wise, and for early 1943 (?), half-way between the 211N and 213A (~1400 HP at 5.5 km, 1600 at SL), all on 87 oct, outfitted with swirl throttle.
For early 1944, 2-stage version, altitude power better than the 213A or DB 605AS, if worse than the 213E)? Puts it also a bit above 2-stage Merlins of the day.
All big radials suffered so yes it was an inherent feature of the air cooled radial design. The inherent feature is that air cooling is more difficult than water cooling. This is why it has become almost extinct in large engines. The problem is exacerbated at higher altitudes because of the lower density and hence heat capacity of the air. The numbers of cooling fins on a late production radial is astounding.Yes, but I think the interesting question is whether this was due to some inherent feature of radial engines, or was it just that at that point in time, the particular radial engined planes were more in need of a performance boost to keep up with the competition?
And in the case of Germany, it seems their valve/bearing/etc. problems meant that their inlines were not capable of taking advantage of the extra power higher octane fuel would provide. Again, was this something fundamentally inherent to radial vs inline engines, or was it just a fluke of history that their inlines were already so close to their design limits on B4 that a lot more work was needed for them to be able to take advantage of higher octane gas?
All big radials suffered so yes it was an inherent feature of the air cooled radial design. The inherent feature is that air cooling is more difficult than water cooling. This is why it has become almost extinct in large engines. The problem is exacerbated at higher altitudes because of the lower density and hence heat capacity of the air. The numbers of cooling fins on a late production radial is astounding.
All big radials suffered so yes it was an inherent feature of the air cooled radial design.
The inherent feature is that air cooling is more difficult than water cooling. This is why it has become almost extinct in large engines. The problem is exacerbated at higher altitudes because of the lower density and hence heat capacity of the air. The numbers of cooling fins on a late production radial is astounding.
The relatively small flat 6 engines produced by Continental and Lycoming still use air cooling but the more recently designed Rotax engines use liquid cooled heads.
Large engines were the air cooled types, not the liquid-cooled types. Air cooled engines were working just fine at high altitudes, too. Even without the forced cooling.
Even with the number of cooling fins accounted for, large radials were manufactured in huge numbers, including the many thousands of R-3350s or late R-2800s.
As for the suffering - the R-2800, Centaurus or Ha 42 were yet to know the suffering of the Wright R-2160, Jumo 222 or Sabre.
Check out the British and the French post-war, who were buying more of Bristol's 2-row radials than RR or HS V12s, let alone the Sabre.Yes, though to a large extent I think the dominance of radials in the post WWII era before jets took over is largely due to the industrial dominance of the US, and their historical preference for radials in bombers and commercial aircraft, rather than any inherent superiority of radials vs inlines.
Radials certainly make sense for commercial aircraft. Rolls Royce tried hard with Merlins but were ultimately unsuccessful. The ultimate performance offered by inlines had its proper application in high performance combat aircraft such as the Spitfire , P-51 , Mosquito, ME 109, FW 190D etcCheck out the British and the French post-war, who were buying more of Bristol's 2-row radials than RR or HS V12s, let alone the Sabre.
The ultimate performance offered by radials have had it's proper application in high performance combat aircraft like the P-47, Sea Fury, F4U, F7F, F8F and the likeThe ultimate performance offered by inlines had its proper application in high performance combat aircraft such as the Spitfire , P-51 , Mosquito, ME 109, FW 190D etc
Liquid radiators dump heat out into the airflow. Are radials really that bad?All big radials suffered so yes it was an inherent feature of the air cooled radial design. The inherent feature is that air cooling is more difficult than water cooling. This is why it has become almost extinct in large engines. The problem is exacerbated at higher altitudes because of the lower density and hence heat capacity of the air. The numbers of cooling fins on a late production radial is astounding.
The relatively small flat 6 engines produced by Continental and Lycoming still use air cooling but the more recently designed Rotax engines use liquid cooled heads.
Actually they are.Are radials really that bad?
Actually they are.
In a good liquid cooled engine the liquid jackets can be rather close to the head surfaces and/or valve stem area and they can adjust for size/volume of the coolant flow and deal with the heat later (in the radiator) while the air cooled engine has to transfer the heat from the inner surfaces to the fins (though the solid parts of the head )
And lets remember that air at 20,000ft has only around 55-60% of the cooling power it does at sea level. Yes it is colder but you are getting about 1/2 the mass of air flowing over the fins for the same cubic feet of air.
And the real problem isn't high speed, it is climb.
Wright tried to go down the liquid cooled radial routeI suspect that if turbines hadn't arrived and destroyed the prospects for even higher power piston aero engines, we'd have seen something like liquid cooled radials. Seems two row 18 cylinder engines were about the upper end of what could be reliably air cooled (the four row Wasp Major evidently suffering from overheating issues that were never properly resolved). And similarly for V engines, while V-12 is in many ways a sweet spot, those cylinders are getting awfully big when you scale the engine ever bigger.
Take banks of 6 cylinders (nice primary and secondary balance, suitably long) and put them around a common crankshaft. The ill-fated RR Vulture being an example of the approach, but why stop at only 4 banks. With, say, 9 banks and 6 cylinders in each bank you'd have 54 cylinders (though spare a thought for the poor bloke tasked with checking the spark plugs on that monster!).
Though I'm not sure whether such engines should be classified as inlines since they'd have banks of inline cylinders (presumably of monoblock construction), or are they radials since there's multiple banks arranged radially around the crankshaft? With the Vulture and similar engines being classified as 'X', maybe with more banks it would be a, uh, 'star' configuration?
To an extent, that problem is present for liquid cooling engines as well, in the sense that the designer wants to make the radiator as small as possible to minimize drag. If you size the radiator for a slow full power climb at 20k, well, then the radiator is going to be needlessly large and draggy in most other situations.
In both types of engine you can adjust the cooling air flow, liquid cooled engines usually used a flap at the back of the radiator and radials tended to use a series of flaps around the rear of the cowl. Trickier methods were sometimes used like sliding shutters. Trying to balance the needed air flow with drag was often difficult.To an extent, that problem is present for liquid cooling engines as well, in the sense that the designer wants to make the radiator as small as possible to minimize drag. If you size the radiator for a slow full power climb at 20k, well, then the radiator is going to be needlessly large and draggy in most other situations.
In both types of engine you can adjust the cooling air flow, liquid cooled engines usually used a flap at the back of the radiator and radials tended to use a series of flaps around the rear of the cowl. Trickier methods were sometimes used like sliding shutters. Trying to balance the needed air flow with drag was often difficult.
I would note that the cooling problems were the least of the R-2160s problems, a poster child of how not to design an aircraft engine. Using 42 cylinder to get 2500hp should have been the first clue
Indeed, both 2-speed drive and a better S/C was needed.Of course, in this ATL BMW and Bramo should never be merged. BMW should entirely focus on improving the BMW-132 instead of BMW-116/117 inlines, the 132 badly needs better 2-speed superchargers,
two speed engines do not actually make more power.Well, i probably said this with other occasions, but what Germany really lacked was a mid-1930s 14 cylinder radial equivalent to say the GR14K, at about 36-37 litres or so. For this, instead of competing with BMW, Bramo would be in an ideal position to design a 14 cylinder radial instead of the Bramo-323. Let's call it Bramo-324. Initially it would be good for what, 1100-1200 PS? Then the later two-speed variant should be good for 1300-1350 PS?
Only a few companies develop engines for which there is no market. BMW had been one of the few companies in Germany allowed to make aero engines in the late 20s and early 30s . If the German Air Force says they want V-12s (and inverted ones at that) does BMW tell them "No, what you really want are radials" ?. BMW was selling a crap load of old V-12s to the Luftwaffe but the Luftwaffe and put out the requirements for the "new" engines that lead to Jumo 210 and the DB 600 and the Jumo 211. The Luftwaffe didn't have any interest in high powered radials and the German domestic market (Ju 52) wasn't crying out for new improved engines in 1932-35.Of course, in this ATL BMW and Bramo should never be merged. BMW should entirely focus on improving the BMW-132 instead of BMW-116/117 inlines, the 132 badly needs better 2-speed superchargers, and then work on the 14 cylinder BMW-139 of 1500 PS,
It would be benefit to the Germans. The problem is how do you get there?From the German point of view, a BMW 132 that can do 1000 HP for take off on 87 oct fuel has the benefit of avoiding the need for 100 octane fuel to be used for overboosting in order to gain 1000 HP,
Am I really required to suggest for the 3rd time, in a same thread, that a 2-speed drive for an improved S/C would've mean a better 132?It would be benefit to the Germans. The problem is how do you get there?
You have two choices but both require more cylinder finning (including head finning to keep from typing so much).
You can increase cylinder pressure (increase compression and/or increase boost) and use higher octane fuel.
You ca increase engine rpm and keep the same fuel.
But both methods burn more fuel per minute in the cylinders and so need better cooling.
The BMW 132 K & M were rated at 960hp for take-off. Problem was that they used a 7.0 supercharger gear to do it and altitude performance went into the toilet compared to the 132 N that used a 10.14 gear set. Just use a a 2 speed supercharger to get both ratings or use the 11.4 gears from the F & J to get 890hp at 11,500ft.
The fellow member suggested that BMW does not make the 116 and 117, so there is more money to spend.You can do better than the Germans did, but you need to spend a lot more money to do it.
sorry to keep picking at this, we can figure out the power of the "better" 132 with a 2 speed supercharger pretty well by using the power figures from the existing 132 engines. Doesn't require redoing the engine. If you want more than that then we have to get really tricky.Am I really required to suggest for the 3rd time, in a same thread, that a 2-speed drive for an improved S/C would've mean a better 132?
This is the ideal world.The fellow member suggested that BMW does not make the 116 and 117, so there is more money to spend.