Replace Me-109 with Me-155?

[riacrato]

leaving out a German R-2800 is fine with me.

"you work with what you got"
is rather the whole point here isn't it?

the Germans had the Jumo 213 and they had the DB 603 and the had the BMW 801 at a bit less power and that is ALL they had. The 605 was bit small by the end of the war unless it was really pressed.


"you work with what you got"

There is no primary source for it. It is just logic. In German's situation from 1942 onward a high powered engine with a short overhaul life is not a big handicap IF it is used for interceptors or short ranged aircraft. I have no information on catastrophic problems and never said I did. I have been referring all along to service life or overhaul life which is somewhat different isn't it?

The Problem isn't so much RPM as it is piston speed and here the DB 603 was no great shakes either. With it's long stroke and "normal" rpm it had a piston speed of 3190.5 fpm at 2700rpm. The Jumo 213 was either 3520fpm or 4008fpm depending on 3250 rpm or 3700rpm.

For comparison piston speeds for a few other engines are:

R-2800 at 2800rpm.----2800fpm
Merlin at 3000rpm-------3000fpm
Sabre at 3,850rpm------3048fpm
Griffon at 2750rpm------3025fpm
DB 605 at 2800rpm-----2940fpm
Hercules at 2800rpm----3030fpm
Centaurus at 2700rpm--3150fpm
M-105 at 2700rpm-------3100fpm
AM-38 at 2350rpm-------3035fpm

And for a little perspective
1939 auto union Grand Prix V-12 at 7000rpm------3445fpm
1939 Mercedes Grand Prix V-12 at 7500rpm-------3445fpm
1951 BRM Grand Prix V-16 at 11000rpm------------3486fpm
1955 Mercedes Grand Prix I-8 at 8500rpm---------3837fpm

these are straight piston speeds and uncorrected for the Bore:stroke ratio. Some racing engines in the early 50s did go over 4000fpm.
Pardon me if I think that airplane engines that use Grand Prix piston speeds may not have been the best idea. But "you work with what you got".




You are right, so what, I am not the one who brought specific fuel consumption into the discussion.

"you work with what you got"
Then don't say a Jumo 213 with a better supercharger could do what an R-2800 could do.
I didn't say that it was it's intended purpose, I have been saying that for certain jobs, like interceptor the difference in overhaul times wouldn't make that much difference. For long range or long duration flights it would and more from an operational point of view than form a specific, one mission point of view.



An interesting comparison can be made between the Merlin and the R-2800 because both were installed in the same airframe. Granted it was a 4 engined airliner and it was post war but more than one was built of each type and they were flown for a number of years. the Merlin looses this contest but at the time R-2800s had to bought with cash from out side the commonwealth while Merlins were from within the commonwealth.

"you work with what you got"

So all in all, besides your attempts to take what I said out of context and redicule me you base your whole statement on the low number of hours between overhaul (ignoring that these were no worse than that of other contemporary German V12) you think you read somewhere and your knowledge on piston speeds and rpm. And that is of course better than going with what is documented about the engine in either primary or secondary sources. What is your experience with WW2 era V12s btw and your theoretical knowledge on the Jumo 213 in particular? And I'm not sure what your last sentence is to show: That there were cases where a radial was chosen over an inline?

 

[Milosh]

You should rethink your post and statement. And the Jumo 222 was production ready and in development since 1937. So I don't know what is your intention but german aircraft technology of WWII didn't lag on aircraft designs or engine designs, it laged on enough metallurgy, raw materials and enough C3 fuel thats all!
There was no technology advantage of the USA or England!.

As far as I have seen, the Jumo-222A-1 was designed to run on 2500hp / 3200rpm /SL and was in it´s first production version derated to 2000hp at SL raising to 2200hp @ 16400ft. The take-off and emergancy rating was tested but showed bearing damage and piston seizure and thus was blocked. The two speed, single stage Jumo-222A-1 could deliver for 30 minutes the 2000hp/SL rating and was run in 1940 repeatedly on the testbench (flown on a Ju-52, too). When the requirements moved to larger capacity A-2/A-3 and then to the Jumo-222 C/D engines problems still were unsolved except for the basic Jumo-222A-1 design.
There was some increased interest late in the war to come back to the original A-1 design fitted with a new two stage, three speed supercharger ( Jumo-222E/F).

It is particularely important, esspeccially with reference to Red Admiral, that the initial Jumo-222A design at 2000hp (still running on B4-fuel) was choosen for mass production in 1941. The RLM even financed the installation of a special Junkers aeroengine works at Wien-Neustadt (FMO-Flugmotorenwerke Ost) to deliver monthly 1000 engines of this 2000hp class Jumo-222A-1 design. On 25th of july 1941 11.500 construction workers begun building six production halls. On 28th of oct. the halls were worked enough that Junkers ordered tooling equipment beeing produced for this plant.

At about this time, as K. v. Gersdorff pointed out, several long time issues were discovered on the Jumo-222A, he mentions vibration fractures and casing corrosion which demanded engine changeovers on the Ju-228V-prototypes equipped with the Jumo-222A after 20 to 50 hours flighttime.
That´s about as poor as the engine changeover times for the contemporary BMW-801C, actually it´s even a bit better. However, he makes a point that increased demands on the Ju-288 lead to increased demands on the Jumo-222A to clear take off emergancy raring, which in turn run into the aforementioned problems and required extensive redesign, esspeccially in the enlargement of the bore and a change in the ignition system to lead into the Jumo-222A-2/A-3 designs.

Trial production of the Jumo-222A commenced in Taucha and at other plants.

The RLM canceled serial production of the Jumo-222A in december and handed over the FMO-plant to Daimler Benz for db-610 production, something which never materialised (only about 50 specimen were produced before production was halted there). All tooling equipment already installed there was put into store. L. Budraß dissertation makes a strong case for Milch intentionally wanting to stall the Ju-288 program which he feared could become to important for the german aerial procurement program and would lead to a much to important role of the Junkers company. The Ju-288, however, would only realise with the Jumo-222.

Production numbers are inconsistent, going as low as 240 and as high as 289.
http://www.ww2aircraft.net/forum/aviation/why-no-jumo-222-a-17421.html

 

[bada]

August, 1941, production delivery of Fw-190A-2 begins.

Fw-190A-2, engine BMW 801C-2, 1539 hp, dry weight 2226 lbs

Bf-109F, engine DB 601E, 1350 hp, weight 1620 lbs (1320 lbs + 300 lbs cooling system-ala P-39)

P-47B, engine PW R-2800-21, 2000 hp, dry weight 2265 lbs

With these numbers, the power to weight ratio of the three aircraft is as follows:

BMW 801C-2 .69 hp/lb

DB 601E .83 hp/lb

PW R-2800 .88 hp/lb

At this point in time the BMW is just introducing it's first production model. The DB series is on what? it's 5th or 6th or 7th version, at any rate it is 4-5 years into it's production life and development cycle. The R-2800 is on it's second seres, the "A" series were 1850 hp engines. Following the normal progression of things later versions of the BMW should have offered more power while the DB was closer to being tapped out without going to extremes like changing to the 605 series.

I have no idea why the BMW was so heavy. At these numbers it has one of the worst power to weight ratios of any large radial engine built by anybody during all 6 years of WWII. I am not sure if the BMW's weight may include some parts or accessories not normally included in the "dry" weight. And "dry" usually doesn't mean just the absence of coolant and oil. It also means the absence of such things as starters, exhaust manifolds and pipes, vacuum pumps, generators and even in some cases variable pitch propeller controls in addition to other accessories. many of these things changed from installation to installation so the "dry" weight may be the only fair way to compare engines but it is far from being the installed weight.
Some times the weight of the BMW as given in some sources is the weight of the "power egg" which is much heavier. I don't know how much the cooling fan contributes to the weight or if there are another bits/pieces that are included in the "dry" weight that are not included in the other engines weights.

I had assumed that Mr. Bender was aware of both of those aircraft in addition to the bomber installations. I thought he was referring to installations that would be even more compact.

wrong interpretation of numbers:

the weight of the 801 given here above, is the POWER-EGG weight, what means, the weight of the engine ready to bolt on the Holder, armored oil-tank/cooler and cover panels included, simply add 55l of oil, attach control wires et ready is the engine!

Now for the 2800: add all the necessary tanks, engine covers and oil and compare the weight..and if you use the corsair as reference, add the weight of the compressor,intercooler, etc,etc...

You can't compare a dry weight/power ratio, because no engine can devlop power at DRY weight, it's just metal scrap without use.
Only a comparaison of ready to use engine(with all it's secondary equippement) can be applied.

 

[davebender]

How do you figure that? The U.S. Army Air Corp preferred the Merlin engine powered P-51 over the R2800 powered P-47 from 1944 onward. The RR Merlin also powered most Spitfires which entered service during WWII plus the Mosquito and Lancaster bombers.

P-51D Engines.
North American P-51 Mustang - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
748kg Dry Weight.
1,490 to 1,720 hp.

DB605AM Engine
Daimler-Benz DB 605 - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
756 kg Dry Weight. Almost identical to the Merlin engine.
1,775 hp. Takeoff.
1,677 hp. Max @ 4,000 meters.

 

[Shortround6]

wrong interpretation of numbers:

the weight of the 801 given here above, is the POWER-EGG weight, what means, the weight of the engine ready to bolt on the Holder, armored oil-tank/cooler and cover panels included, simply add 55l of oil, attach control wires et ready is the engine!

Now for the 2800: add all the necessary tanks, engine covers and oil and compare the weight..and if you use the corsair as reference, add the weight of the compressor,intercooler, etc,etc...

You can't compare a dry weight/power ratio, because no engine can devlop power at DRY weight, it's just metal scrap without use.
Only a comparaison of ready to use engine(with all it's secondary equippement) can be applied.

You are quite right that the comparison of the ready to use engine would be the best way but that information is usually impossible to find.

As for the BMW 801 I have one book that says it's dry weight was 1940lb for a "D" model but it is a war time book and I have seen no other source to back it up.

the 1946 "Janes" gives weights of 2,669lbs for the "A" and 2,702lbs for the "B" which may be for the power egg. It gives 2321lbs for the "C" and says it is a bare engine but bare may not be the same as "dry" weight.

If someone has any German data sheets or manuals that give weights it would be much appreciated as I think many websites are not clear or are repeating information with their own interpretation. Trying to translate such things as "dry" and "bare" can be tricky.

The dry weights come from the engine manufacturer and the engines are about as stripped as possible without being totally ridiculous. Since everybody at the time knew what was going on it was no big deal.
As a for instance the American Allison engine included 10lbs of exhaust flanges, gaskets and nuts in it's dry weight but the exhaust stacks were the responsibility of the airframe manufacturer. The stacks were welded onto the provided flanges to suit what ever cowl shape the airframe manufacturer decided on.
Various accessories were "optional" such as generators. The British (and Russians) got into trouble with the early P-40s because the British had specified a 1500 watt generator on their planes instead of the smaller unit on American planes. Not only did it weigh more but the increased load on the drive gears caused numerous failures. Gun synchronizers weighed about 4lbs apiece.
Starters were another "option", yes you need a starter if you don't want to turn it over by hand or use a Hucks starter but do you want an electric only, a hand cranked inertia starter, a electric inertia starter with hand crank option or do you want a cartridge starter? And some countries had more than one starter supplier even of the same type.
you could easily add several hundred pounds to an Allison engine before you fitted a propeller, added any fluids or fitted engine mounts and a cowl to it.
dry engine weights usually included the ignition harness, the carburetor,a fuel pump and if needed a water or coolant pump.
The ignition harness bit is interesting because small planes of the 30s and 40s often did not have radios and so an ignition harness that was shielded for radio use was an optional extra over a non-shielded harness. The shielded harness weighed more.

getting back to "Only a comparaison of ready to use engine(with all it's secondary equippement) can be applied." in a more direct fashion, I can give two comparisons from " Development of Aircraft Engines" by Robert Schlaifer and "Development of aviation Fuels" by S.D. Heron.
1. The comparison of the Merlin and the R-2800 I mentioned before.
Including everything except fuel tanks the Merlin installation in a Candair DC-4M weighed 3,980lbs while the R-2800 installation in a DC-6 weighed 4,087lbs. a 2.7% difference. The R-2800 had 70% more displacement
and 35% more take off power. At maximum continuous power on low blower (low altitude climb) the R-2800 had about 20% more power at about the same specific fuel consumption. there is a bit more.
2. there is a comparison of the Merlin in the P-51 and the R-2800 in an F4U in early 1943. Both with 2 stage superchargers.
Again with out fuel tanks.

.................................................................... Merlin.............................. R-2800

Engine with
charge cooler..................................................1,639lbs........................... 2,517lb
Cooling system with coolant
includes oil coolers............................................. 652lbs................................95lbs
_____________________________________________________________
total engine weight with
cooling system ........................................................... 2,291lbs .........................2,612lbs


Engine mount &cowl.............................................284lbs............................303lbs
Cooling system mounts,
control mechanisms and/or cowl flaps.......................116lbs............................101lbs
Intake exhaust, starter, control
propeller controls.............................................. 624lb............................ 681lbs
________________________________________

total associated weight..................................................1,024lbs...........................1,085lb
_______________________________________

Total installed weight.................................................... 3,315lbs..........................3,697lbs

I will freely admit that these comparisons have nothing to do with German engines.

 

[Civettone]

Don, I also have my doubts if you can put everything on a lack of special alloys. I know this was true for the second part of the war. But the Germans used their materials so lavishly - which is why they were able to increase production with a low increase in raw materials - that I would doubt they would hold back on their aircraft engines as early as 1937.

The other reasons mentioned so far seem to be more logical.

Great stuff guys, keep it up!
Kris

 

[tomo pauk]

wrong interpretation of numbers:

the weight of the 801 given here above, is the POWER-EGG weight, what means, the weight of the engine ready to bolt on the Holder, armored oil-tank/cooler and cover panels included, simply add 55l of oil, attach control wires et ready is the engine!

Now for the 2800: add all the necessary tanks, engine covers and oil and compare the weight..and if you use the corsair as reference, add the weight of the compressor,intercooler, etc,etc...

You can't compare a dry weight/power ratio, because no engine can devlop power at DRY weight, it's just metal scrap without use.
Only a comparaison of ready to use engine(with all it's secondary equippement) can be applied.

Not so fast

Dry weight of the BMW 801D in power-egg configuration is more than 1,5 tons:

 

[Shortround6]

How do you figure that? The U.S. Army Air Corp preferred the Merlin engine powered P-51 over the R2800 powered P-47 from 1944 onward. The RR Merlin also powered most Spitfires which entered service during WWII plus the Mosquito and Lancaster bombers.

It was a bit small for powering twin engined bombers or large night fighters that needed engines in the 1750hp to 2000hp class. These planes need engines with cruising powers to match to the take off power and not an engine that reaches the 1750-2000hp neighborhood by using water injection or a "sprint" rating.

Figures from the 1946 Jane's. I would welcome better ones?

DB 603A as in the Me 410,

take-off 1750hp at 2700rpm at 1.4 ata.
Emergency at 18,700ft is 1620hp at 2700rpm at 1.4ata.
Climb (or max continuous?) is given as 1580hp at 2600rpm and 1.3 ata. at sea level.
Max Cruise is 1375/1400 at 2300rpm/1.2 ata at sea level/17,700ft.

DB 605 BD engine

take off and emergency at sea level-1800hp at 2,800rpm and 1.8ata
emergency at 19,600ft- 1530hp at 2800rpm at 1.8ata.
Climb 1275hp at 2600rpm at 1.3ata at sea level
Max cruise is 1075/1050 at 2400rpm at 1.15ata at sea level/25,200ft.

Some other sources may give different numbers but I think that we can see that while the two engines have similar take off power the 603 is much better suited to hauling heavy aircraft around the sky with several hundred more horsepower available per engine in both climb and cruise modes.

 

[Shortround6]

Not so fast

Dry weight of the BMW 801D in power-egg configuration is more than 1,5 tons:

thank you Tomo, but power plant will include the propeller which may not be part of the power egg? different planes needing different propellers while using the same engine?

Powerplant can include the fuel/oil tanks unless they are broken out separately. that sheet just lists weight for fuel so I would guess the tanks are part of the powerplant weight.

It is confusing at times

 

[bada]

Not so fast

Dry weight of the BMW 801D in power-egg configuration is more than 1,5 tons:

not really tha same date as found in the bmw manual (found here if i remember). there are Deutsche sprachend menschen here that could translate perfectly this document

I try to only use original charts, made in the original country, don't know why but seeing a german chart in english gives me always a strange feeling....and that's also an other way to learn new words in german.

 

[davparlr]

Wow, this has been updating faster than I can respond. Some of these comments may have already been addressed.

And on what fuelAnd on what fuel? 87 octane? Otherwise that comparison is rather useless and the 801 D should've been taken: 1,677 hp for the same weight: .75 hp/lb

These ratings was all made in 1941 so I would say whatever fuel they used then. If the Allied engines were using 100 octane, which is reasonable, then your number on the 801 D should be used.

Data was taken from Wagner's "American Combat Planes", Wagner and Nowarra's "German Combat Planes", and Dean's "America's Hundred Thousand".

I guess you mean the power to weight of the engines. The contemporary fighters actually powered with these engines had very different power to weight ratios.

Yes

Installing the not-fan-cooled 2800-21 would've meant a completely different and I'd say less drag-efficient cowling. R-2800 was also larger in diameter (only slightly though).

I don't think the 2800 is much larger than the 801. The same techniques to cool may still be applicable but must address the added power. US designers were not so concerned about the streamlining of the cowl as apparent in the F4U, P-47, F6F, F8F, etc. Apparently added power covers some evil.

Then there's the other not adressed questions: Fuel? Efficiency? Alloys?

I do not know the specific fuel consumption of the engines. Certainly radials tend to use more fuel per hp than liquid cooled engines. As far a alloys, I do not know if the 2800 used any more exotic materials that what the Germans were using on their engines.

The resulting aircraft may look much different than the real Fw 190 did.

I don't see this. The 2800 only has about 2" greater diameter than the 801 and is maybe a few inches longer. It certainly seems to me it would be less of an impact than putting in a liquid cooled engine.

And the reality in 1942 was that the existing Fw 190 with its BMW 801 D held up well with contemporary P-47s (and even early Hellcats and F4Us).

Yes, it did. Can you imagine how well it would have performed with 4-600 more hp?

I don't know where to start: Did Germany even get the opportunity to have a detailed look at R2800s before 1942? Reverse engineering and industrialization in less than 2 years without detailed drawings, specifications? You'd take all these risks in 1942 Germany over developing satisfactory homegrown engines?

The Russian reverse engineered the most complex aircraft and engine in the world in two years! The B-29 was delivered to Russian industry in mid '45 and the Tu-4 flew in mid '47. This was a magnitudes larger task than re-engineering the 2800, and no drawings.

You are right about the risks, but there is a lot of what ifing on this site where impacts of other possibilities are not addressed.

All the Jumo 213 needed was a better supercharger (which it got eventually, but too late) for pretty much the same result.

The 213 had probably close to 300 less hp than the 2800-18W, and was probably the same weight with coolant. And, as mentioned, the modification to put in the 2800 would be considerable less than the 213.

There were several improved versions of the BMW 801, too. The 801 E was a good improvement, increasing power by a good 200 KW and possibly more because the exhaust problems of the D were fixed. This also would've given the 801 a more stable, quiet run. The E version was to enter production in 1943 but didn't enter service for several reasons. Instead they skipped it for the F. The F version had 2,367 hp, even 2,564 in the latest development. But it came too late. 20/20 hindsight. In 1942 there was a good chance the BMW 801 would have a normal lifecycle with the E and F (supercharged) and T (turbocharged) versions. Afterall the reality is not too far from it, but unfortunately the E was missing at a time when there was massive need for it (late 43 and 44).

I would probably agree with all of this. There is no reason to believe the Germans could not have improved the 801 as PW did the 2800. There just didn't seem to be the enthusiasm in Germany for the radial as there was in the US.

I have no idea why the BMW was so heavy. At these numbers it has one of the worst power to weight ratios of any large radial engine built by anybody during all 6 years of WWII. I am not sure if the BMW's weight may include some parts or accessories not normally included in the "dry" weight. And "dry" usually doesn't mean just the absence of coolant and oil. It also means the absence of such things as starters, exhaust manifolds and pipes, vacuum pumps, generators and even in some cases variable pitch propeller controls in addition to other accessories. many of these things changed from installation to installation so the "dry" weight may be the only fair way to compare engines but it is far from being the installed weight.
Some times the weight of the BMW as given in some sources is the weight of the "power egg" which is much heavier. I don't know how much the cooling fan contributes to the weight or if there are another bits/pieces that are included in the "dry" weight that are not included in the other engines weights.

This is one of the problems of comparisons. From the Dean book I can get good weight data on American fighters, but for the other aircraft, dry weight conditions are unknown.

Fellas,
What does "a slice in time" mean?

To my way of thinking ( and they may disagree) it is the situation at a particular point in time. As in what engines were available in Aug of 1941 while disregarding what was available in either July or Sept.
While you don't want to compare engines that debuted several years apart "a slice in time" comparisons can also give a false picture if you are comparing the future potential of an engine near the end of it's development cycle and one near the beginning.

I agree but a "slice in time" allows analysis based on conditions present for the time identified and allows us to understand the circumstances faced by the decision makers. The problem is, of course, where to make the slice.

I can't see what the Jumo 213 can't do compare to the PR 2800.
In addition the Jumo 213J (2240 PS) with 4 Valves was developed and ready to go in production.

The 2800-18W generated 2380 hp in fall of '44. The 2800-57 generated 2600 hp (probably on 150 octane) about the same time. Both were in combat by the end of the war.

The dryweight of the the Jumo 213 E1 for B 87 fuel was 940kg.

Plus coolant, 300lbs?

So what can the R2800 do what the Jumo 213 could not in your opinion? The obvious air-cooled vs liquid-cooled arguments aside.

More power, more potential power, and less complexity.

Please name any other high performance fighter year 1944/45 with this range with internal fuel, accept the Mustang

P-47N

Plus you have a huge frontal area of 15 sq ft (compared to 6.3 sq ft for the Ju213A engine)

Eyeballing and some picture measuring, the Fw-190A vs the Fw190D-9 fuselage cross sectional area at the engines shows 15.2 sq.ft. for the 190A and 9.6 sq.ft. for the Fw-190D-9. However, I would guess the actual cross sectional area of the two aircraft are the same since the over all fuselage is similar. The 190D-9 may have a reduced Cd since the nose is slimmer.

thank you Tomo, but power plant will include the propeller which may not be part of the power egg? different planes needing different propellers while using the same engine?

Powerplant can include the fuel/oil tanks unless they are broken out separately. that sheet just lists weight for fuel so I would guess the tanks are part of the powerplant weight.

It is confusing at times

A breakdown from "America's Hundred Thousand" for the P-47D-25 is this:

Engine 2283 lbs
Engine Section (undefined) 383 lbs
Engine accessories (undefined, I'd guess includes the supercharger and turbosupercharger) 977 lbs
Engine controls (undefined) 58 lbs

F6F-3
Engine 2469 lbs
Engine Section (undefined) 411 lbs
Engine accessories (undefined) 318 lbs
Engine controls 37 lbs

A better breakdown than most but still not the best. Who knows what wikipedia includes in dry weight.

I didn't intend this to be a pro 2800 debate, just that the Germans didn't pursue the radial as much as they probably should. They would have never built the 2800 but would have come up with something bigger, more complex and more powerful and could only build 50 a month.

One last comments on the 2800. In the P-47M/N, in May '45, it generated 2600 at SL (probably on 150 octane) and 2800 hp at 33k, where the 213 in the Ta-152 only generated about 1250 hp. Also, I read somewhere where it ran at 3500 hp for 100 hour with no noticeable wear, an amazing engine.

 

[davebender]

In the case of a Fw-190A that would be misleading. The aircraft gained 635kg in order to accommodate the physically larger and heavier BMW801 engine. The weight gain forced an increase in wing area which of course added additional weight. The Fw-190A5 (and later models) gained even more weight when the engine was moved forward by 15cm to provide additional space for cooling air. The total of these aircraft strutural changes amounts to a lot more then the weight of a liquid cooling system.

I assume these same factors come into play for R2800 powered aircraft. That's why the P-47, Corsair and F6F are all heavy compared to the Merlin powered P-51. If you desire to improve fighter aircraft power to weight ratio then you want a liquid cooled engine.

Aircraft Empty Weight. Data is from Wikipedia. Should be in the ballpark even if not exact.
7,635 lbs. P-51D
8,982 lbs. F4U-1.
9,238 lbs. F6F-5.
10,000 lbs. P-47D.

 

[tomo pauk]

I can cherry pick, too:
F8F1: 7070lbs empty. Fully carrier capable.
Yak-3U (ASh-82FN): 5011 empty.
Ki-100: lighter then Ki-61, with more HP.

Obviously, if one wants good power to weight ratio, radial engine is the choice.

 

[Shortround6]

A few corrections/clarifications if I may:

These ratings was all made in 1941 so I would say whatever fuel they used then. If the Allied engines were using 100 octane, which is reasonable, then your number on the 801 D should be used.

in 1941 American fuel was in a state of flux. While we certainly use 100 octane fuel the american fuel did not have a rich rating like 100/130 and because of the fuel composition it wasn't a matter of not having a rating it was a matter of the fuel not acting like 100/130 at rich settings. It should still give an advantage over German 87 octane though. We were bringing our fuel standards in line with the British at the time.

I do not know the specific fuel consumption of the engines. Certainly radials tend to use more fuel per hp than liquid cooled engines.

Radials used more fuel at high power settings. They used the fuel as an internal coolant and some of it was not burned but just passed through the engine. At lean cruising settings a Radial could be close enough to a liquid cooled engine to make any difference too small to worry about. Older aircooled and liquid cooled engines did have a difference, say WW I through the 20s and early thirties but by WW II the better finning and cowlings meant that the fuel cooling wasn't needed at cruise speeds.

The Russian reverse engineered the most complex aircraft and engine in the world in two years! The B-29 was delivered to Russian industry in mid '45 and the Tu-4 flew in mid '47. This was a magnitudes larger task than re-engineering the 2800, and no drawings.

While they reversed engineered the airplane there is a question as to wither they reverse engineered the engines. One soviet bureau had been working on an 18 cylinder engine derived from a licence built 9 cylinder Cyclone for 4-6 years. they were already into the 4 version when the B-29s showed up. I don't know if seeing the latest American version of a twin Cyclone helped any but they sure weren't starting from scratch. If you believe the Russians they just dropped their own engines into the airframe.

A breakdown from "America's Hundred Thousand" for the P-47D-25 is this:

Engine 2283 lbs
Engine Section (undefined) 383 lbs
Engine accessories (undefined, I'd guess includes the supercharger and turbosupercharger) 977 lbs
Engine controls (undefined) 58 lbs

F6F-3
Engine 2469 lbs
Engine Section (undefined) 411 lbs
Engine accessories (undefined) 318 lbs
Engine controls 37 lbs

The P-47 used a single stage-single speed supercharger built in unit with the engine so it's weight would be under the engine weight. This is backed up by the weight of the engine in the F6F-3 which had a two stage supercharger also built in unit with the engine. Change engines and the superchargers go with them. the 180lb difference helps back this up.

 

[tomo pauk]

not really tha same date as found in the bmw manual (found here if i remember). there are Deutsche sprachend menschen here that could translate perfectly this document

'Accesories' (pumps, fuel lines injectors, cowling (not for 801C/D), cooling fan, air intakes, elastic attachment joints..., but not armor or prop with spinner, or oil tank cooler (last two not for 801C/D again)) listed @ your picture make the issue quite clear: the 801C/D weighted 1055kg. Meaning, without armor, prop, spinner, oil tank cooler, cowling.

I try to only use original charts, made in the original country, don't know why but seeing a german chart in english gives me always a strange feeling....and that's also an other way to learn new words in german.

This is the best manual I was able to find for the 190, and it seems like a strict copy, apart for addition of imperial measurements. Where can I find the one you have?

 

[bada]

'Accesories' (pumps, fuel lines injectors, cowling (not for 801C/D), cooling fan, air intakes, elastic attachment joints..., but not armor or prop with spinner, or oil tank cooler (last two not for 801C/D again)) listed @ your picture make the issue quite clear: the 801C/D weighted 1055kg. Meaning, without armor, prop, spinner, oil tank cooler, cowling.


This is the best manual I was able to find for the 190, and it seems like a strict copy, apart for addition of imperial measurements. Where can I find the one you have?

thanks for the translation, it's slighlty clearer now.
Got the same A8 manual. But in the A5/6 manual(big version), there are others data's for the engine and the spinner separated.

I think the engine manual is from here:
http://www.ww2aircraft.net/forum/engines/db-801c-d-engine-manual-7385.html
but not sure if it's the same (can't download it to compare, beeing at work).

Could you translate the following: Ohne antrieb fur motorausrustungs- und fremgerate.

got some difficulties to find out what that is,especially the fremgerate , the first beeing "motor-equipement" if understood well

 

[NZTyphoon]

This is the best manual I was able to find for the 190, and it seems like a strict copy, apart for addition of imperial measurements. Where can I find the one you have?

Check out Luftwaffe Cockpits...8)

 

[tomo pauk]

Thanks for the links, I've downloaded the stuff

Could you translate the following: Ohne antrieb fur motorausrustungs- und fremgerate.

got some difficulties to find out what that is,especially the fremgerate , the first beeing "motor-equipement" if understood well

That sentence in German should mean "Without power(ing) for engine accesories auxiliary equipment". The aux equipment should be the different power-operated things on a plane (radio, hidraulics, heating, gun heating, radar if installed etc).

 

[Milosh]

Tomo and others, manuals of all kinds can be ordered from,
Luftfahrt-Archiv Hafner

 

[tomo pauk]

Thanks, Milosh

Anyway, here is my take on data about BMW 801: