Ad: This forum contains affiliate links to products on Amazon and eBay. More information in Terms and rules
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?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"
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!.
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.
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.
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.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.
Not so fast
Dry weight of the BMW 801D in power-egg configuration is more than 1,5 tons:
Not so fast
Dry weight of the BMW 801D in power-egg configuration is more than 1,5 tons:
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
YesI 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.
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).
Then there's the other not adressed questions: Fuel? Efficiency? Alloys?
The resulting aircraft may look much different than the real Fw 190 did.
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).
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?
All the Jumo 213 needed was a better supercharger (which it got eventually, but too late) for pretty much the same result.
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).
Shortround6 said: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.
tomo pauk said:Fellas,
What does "a slice in time" mean?
Shortround6 said: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.
DonL said: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 dryweight of the the Jumo 213 E1 for B 87 fuel was 940kg.
riacrato said:So what can the R2800 do what the Jumo 213 could not in your opinion? The obvious air-cooled vs liquid-cooled arguments aside.
DonL said:Please name any other high performance fighter year 1944/45 with this range with internal fuel, accept the Mustang
davebender said:Plus you have a huge frontal area of 15 sq ft (compared to 6.3 sq ft for the Ju213A engine)
Shortround6 said: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 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.
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.
'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?
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?
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