Replace Me-109 with Me-155?

DonL · Oct 12, 2010

It took 4-6 years to bring an engine from drawing board to production.

I can't see that.

DB 600, 1932-1935 production
DB 601, 1935-1937 production
DB 605, 1939-1941 production

Junkers 211, 1934-1937 production
Junkers 213, 1939-1942 production

BMW 801, 1938-1940 production

I think 3 years are the normal time from drawing board to production. Also the DB 603 isn't a complete new engine, most of it came from the DB 601 and it is a natural development step with more engine displacement, water pressure cooling system and an other ignition system.

All those engineers and draftsmen At DB that were working on the 603 didn't take a year long Holiday on the Baltic coast and ski trips. I would hazard a guess that they worked on the later versions of the DB 601 and perhaps learned things that could be applied to the 603 when it was taken up again.

Or making "stupid" things like built a DB 604X for a Bomber B or an DB 606 for a Strategic Divebomber.
The Bomber B and the divebombing He 177 were the most expensivest development lines of the LW from 1933-1945 from money,time, human and material resources.
I think for a normal development, there are more than enough human "heads" in the system, to develop two main engines DB 601/605 and DB 603.

You also have the supercharger situation. You can't take the performance of an engine from 1943 and claim that if development hadn't been interrupted in 1937 the same performance could have been had in 1941 or early 42. A lot was learned about superchargers in 1940-41-42 and on. the superchargers of 1943 were not the same as the superchargers of 1939-40.

I agree, but you could far better concentrate on this development without production problems.
At 1941 the LW/RLM was comming and said, put the DB 603 in production it is simular to the DB 601 now and we want the combat ready engine tomorrow. That was the situation plus the whole problems with the Flugmotorenwerke Ostmark (Junkers/DB).
Every engine of the world would have problems under these circumstances at the beginning of the production. In no book I ever read about engines, were list any serious engine problems of the DB 603 in contrast to the DB 605 or BMW 801. All said the problems came from this harum-scarum induced production.

So I think with a normal development from 1937 and mass production from 1941 you have very good chances to get the same output of the DB 603 1942 compare with 1943/44 realy happened.

A 1941 DB603 might be a far cry from a 1943 DB603.

Any serious hints or problems you can name?

Putting engines with an overhaul life of 50 hours into combat planes is a sign of desperation. Especially in 1941-43. Overhaul life is not a minimum life guarantee. It is the time at which ,by manufacturers recommendation, an engine should be pulled from service EVEN IF it is showing no sign of trouble. Some engines did go longer, other engines of the same make and model never made it close to the overhaul life.

From this point of view the BMW 801 and DB 605 would never go in production, because they suffered far more problems than the DB 603 and the running time in combat were shorter than 50 hours at the beginning of there mass production.

riacrato · Oct 12, 2010

DonL said:
Sometimes it is better the bird in the hand than a pigeon on the roof.

The DB 601->DB605->DB 603 and Jumo 211->213 are normal steps, the Jumo 222 is a completly other engine....

I think the 1937 DB603 was not powerful enough to be used in the applications that were being developed for the Jumo 222 and I also don't think it was a safe bet to say it would be any time soon.

riacrato · Oct 12, 2010

Shortround6 said:
Putting engines with an overhaul life of 50 hours into combat planes is a sign of desperation. Especially in 1941-43. Overhaul life is not a minimum life guarantee. It is the time at which ,by manufacturers recommendation, an engine should be pulled from service EVEN IF it is showing no sign of trouble. Some engines did go longer, other engines of the same make and model never made it close to the overhaul life.

Overhaul doesn't necessarily mean the engine is lost. Sometimes it's enough to replace components. A fixed overhaul time is an indication the design is not fully developed, that there are still certains problems for there is no solution implemented or developed. Those problems can be bad or minor. I am not aware of any serious problems as were the case with the early BMW801. It's just to say the engine in 1943 was far from trouble free.

Without the Bomber B, a normal advertisement of an engine with more horsepower at 1937, a normal project P 1041 of a strategic bomber without diving and the the FW 187 instead of the Me 110 would be all "you" need!
The plans of the He 177/277 with 4 "normal" engines exist since 1937, with an built wood modell. So I think with normal development this bird could be production ready at 1941.

That would be "one hell" of an efficient LW at 1941/1942

And where would 1941 Germany have the resources (pilots, fuel, LOGISTICS) to put up a significant strategic bomber fleet? They were already stretching their resources too far with the defensive fighter force in the west and the offensive tactical air force in the east.

DonL · Oct 12, 2010

And where would 1941 Germany have the resources (pilots, fuel, LOGISTICS) to put up a significant strategic bomber fleet? They were already stretching their resources too far with the defensive fighter force in the west and the offensive tactical air force in the east.

I agree!
My summary is more a technological statement of an efficient LW. There would be many insolvable problems with the rawmaterials to manufactor a realy mass production and the fuel supply.

But if you look at my choose, there would be no needing for an introduction of a totally new design until the jets. The designs need only minor development steps with more powerfull engines and they would be up to date for a long time.
Many projects like Me 210/410, Arado 240, Me 264 and Ju 288 wouldn't be necessary. Also the concentration of the Ju 88 as a true multi role aircraft, so you can cancel the He 111 and Do 217 for a better output on numbers.

The german produced something about 1100 He 177, so I think with the above circumstances there will be room for perhaps 2000-3000 "normal" He 177. But this would't do anything on the war itself. It would be only a much better LW from technology.

davebender · Oct 12, 2010

Putting engines with an overhaul life of 50 hours into combat planes is a sign of desperation

What was the service life of B-29 engines during 1944? I know it was bad enough to cause a Senate investigation. Early model P-38 engines didn't have a good reputation either.

Milosh · Oct 12, 2010

davebender said:
What was the service life of B-29 engines during 1944? I know it was bad enough to cause a Senate investigation. Early model P-38 engines didn't have a good reputation either.

The P-38's engines were still Allison V1710s. Afaik only the P-38s in the ETO had problems and they were caused by the oil cooler and turbocharger.

The engine problems in the B-29 were caused by the B-29.

The Senate investigating committee was set up to investigate the crash of the XB-29.

davebender · Oct 12, 2010

Most P-38s were sent to the ETO during 1942 and 1943. So your statement only adds more fuel to the fire.

drgondog · Oct 12, 2010

Milosh said:
The P-38's engines were still Allison V1710s. Afaik only the P-38s in the ETO had problems and they were caused by the oil cooler and turbocharger.

The engine problems in the B-29 were caused by the B-29.

The Senate investigating committee was set up to investigate the crash of the XB-29.

You are correct about the high altitude caused issues to P-38F - it wasn't about the Allison per se - it was about inadequate intercooler design primarily. Neither MTO nor PTO Lightnings experienced major issues and I'm pretty sure they were ok in the Aleutians because they operated at medium altitudes - even escorting B-24s.

The statement that 'engine problems were caused by the B-29' is true to the extent that adequate cooling for the 3360's were a lingering sore for a long time, but IIRC the heat exchange design for cylinder heads left something to be desired, particularly in the aft bank of cylinders.

drgondog · Oct 12, 2010

davebender said:
Most P-38s were sent to the ETO during 1942 and 1943. So your statement only adds more fuel to the fire.

The Allison was a well established and reliable engine platform in 1942..when they pushed for supercharger enhancements they certainly had birthing problems but that was a mjor design complexity to add to the existing design.

riacrato · Oct 12, 2010

drgondog said:
The statement that 'engine problems were caused by the B-29' is true to the extent that adequate cooling for the 3360's were a lingering sore for a long time.

Same could be said about the BMW801 in the Fw 190 application.

Shortround6 · Oct 12, 2010

I believe the R-3350 had a fair amount of trouble in all three of it's early applications. Although without turbochargers in the Lockheed Constellation they may not have pushed it quite as hard.

The early P-38s were used in all theaters with constant demands for more. The Needs of the North African invasion and campaign caused the transfer of most of the early P-38s from England so there really isn't a good data base on problems in the ETO for the early versions.
"H" had problems achieving WER ratings because the inter-coolers were way too small. Radiators were also a limiting factor although these were changed part way through the production run?

"J" had problems and not just in Europe. But they had new engines, new turbo controls, new inter-coolers, the new radiators, a new cowling and there was a change in the gasoline specification that affected volatility. It was sorted out and had little to do with the basic engine aside from a change in the intake manifold but not intime to affect teh choice of the Mustang as the escort fighter for use in Europe.

Civettone · Oct 12, 2010

It is all so very very easy to decide what should have happened with full hindsight ...

3,000 He 177s, sure, why not?

They should have done this and that. And other things remain the same... I don't think so.

So if you think you are going to get a 1944 DB 603 ready by 1941/1942 you are dreaming. Dreams sometimes come true. But I wouldn't count on it. There are too many variables in these what-if stories that it's about closing the eyes and only seeing what you want to see.

For instance the DB 603, it was built in the special Mercedes T80 record breaking car. So there you have a DB 603 ready to work. Also the DB 603 was tested even sooner than that. And yet the DB 603 was considered to be unreliable until well in 1944. Do 217s were being reengined with BMWs because the DB 603 was so problematic! In the first six months of 1944, 178 DB 603s were brought in for major overhaul to Antwerp. Their average run time was 49 hours.

But naah, we can solve all of these problems by 1942...
Kris

DonL · Oct 12, 2010

I have described the whole story of the DB 603 in my posts!

The DB 603 was from 1936 and was only developed on a very low level from DB on their own costs.

If you have arguments then please post them, but please do not negate the loss of 5 years development time!
This count also for the arguments for the He 177/277 please name the problems and arguments for the bomber b and a divebombing strategic bomber.

davebender · Oct 12, 2010

The argument against He-177s is the same as the argument against BMW801 and Jumo222 engines. By the mid 1930s Central Europe looked to be on the verge of war. Germany must make a decision as to what inexpensive and reasonably effective aircraft and engines could enter service ASAP. For the short term Germany focused on only two aircraft - the Me-109 fighter and Ju-88 light bomber. Those proved to be excellent choices.

It's the follow on aircraft and engines where Germany stumbled. Rather then focusing on only a few engines and aircraft types RLM funded development of everything from heavy bombers to 24 cylinder monster motors. A focused approach would have the Fw-190 supercede the Me-109 and the Ju-188 supercede the Ju-88, perhaps supplemented by the Do-217 bomber for longer range missions. All new aircraft models would be powered by the DB603 and/or Jumo213, which are developments of the existing DB601 and Jumo211 engines.

riacrato · Oct 13, 2010

Hindsight. Who's to say in 1938 that no 3000 hp engine is ever needed? If the jets had turned out to be a dead end road in the way th rocket fighters did, the you might be seeing fighters like the XP-72. Plus no to even mention in the long run the Jumo 222 (had it ever worked) would've always been relevant for applications the DB603 / Jumo 213 is not. There's only so much you can do. Sure with hindsight we know the war ends sooner than the engine becoming feasible, was that apparent in the late 30s? Didn't other nations try to find a way to get more performance out of the piston engine (also with mixed results)?

Shortround6 · Oct 13, 2010

DonL said:
I can't see that.

DB 600, 1932-1935 production
DB 601, 1935-1937 production
DB 605, 1939-1941 production

I see, the DB 601 was a clean sheet of paper design?
The DB 605 was a clean sheet of paper design?

I did not know that.

I also did not know that production He 111s with DB 600 engines were delivered in 1935 or that Bf 109s and Bf 110s were being fitted with DB 601 engines in 1937, or was it another airplane in production with DB 601s in 1937? Maybe the Germans were stockpiling these production DB 601s for future needs while they used up their backlog of Juno 210s? As far as the DB 605 goes, William Greene (out dated?) claims that the first 109G-0 retained the DB 601 because of the non-availability of the DB 605A and that is in October of 1941. Bf 109G-1s with DB 605 engines don't leave the production lines until early spring of 1942.

DonL said:
Junkers 211, 1934-1937 production
Junkers 213, 1939-1942 production

Would you care to be a little more specific?

DonL said:
BMW 801, 1938-1940 production

I think the record of the BMW 801 in the FW 190A-0 in early 1941 at Le Bourget speaks to how ready the BMW 801 was for production in 1940.

DonL said:
I think 3 years are the normal time from drawing board to production. Also the DB 603 isn't a complete new engine, most of it came from the DB 601 and it is a natural development step with more engine displacement, water pressure cooling system and an other ignition system.

3 years is actually fairly quick. I am not picking on the Germans here, some allied engine makers seem to have a bit of revisionist history going on too. There is also the question of what is meant by "production". For instance P&W is usually credited with times of 3 years to get the R-2800 from drawing board to production. Work starts in Mar1937, First experimental engine run in Sept 1937 and the 5th production engine delivered in Mar of 1940. Three years to the month,right? Not exactly,it took them until Jan 1 1941 to deliver 12 more engines for a 'production' rate of under 2 engines a month. Things got much better very quickly but "production" in March of 1941 was 64 engines. Maybe we should add another year to the P&W figure?
Packard rolled out a couple of ceremonial "production" Merlins in the summer of 1941 and then waited until Sept to deleiver 4 more followed by October's run of 5 engines. Things got better fast after that.

Perhaps the less said about early Napair Sabres the better

DonL said:
I think for a normal development, there are more than enough human "heads" in the system, to develop two main engines DB 601/605 and DB 603.

Maybe but I would note that P&W, Wright, Rolls-Royce and Bristol all only seemed to manage one major and one secondary effort at the same time. A few legacy engines or very minor projects aside.

The Dictator nations ( and I include the Soviet Union here) seemed to suffer more from the "order into production NOW and worry about problems later" syndrome than the west although the west had it's moments too. Early B-29s and the Curtiss Helldiver program come to mind.

DonL said:
So I think with a normal development from 1937 and mass production from 1941 you have very good chances to get the same output of the DB 603 1942 compare with 1943/44 realy happened.

Any serious hints or problems you can name?

No real problems but I would note that the DB 600-601 series went through at least 4 different supercharger designs or modifications between 1936 and 1941. When 603 development was restarted it could take advantage of all that was learned in the development of the 601 and early 605 work. If the pioneering work is done on the 603 or in parallel development might not be quite so fast. There might also have been a side track during the time when they thought C3 fuel might be more available than it was.

DonL said:
From this point of view the BMW 801 and DB 605 would never go in production, because they suffered far more problems than the DB 603 and the running time in combat were shorter than 50 hours at the beginning of there mass production.

Simply answer is that they shouldn't have been ordered into mass production at that stage in their development. Just as modern consumers should not be beta testers for defective software, service pilots in combat should not be beta testers or development testers for engines.
manufacturing two hundred 50 hour engines instead of 120 or so 100 hour engines because you can't wait for the 100 hr version to be developed seems to smack of desperation.
It is not a question of "never" going into production but waiting until some of the more serious problems had been solved before going into production.
To knowingly go into production without such problems being solved or having pilots go into combat knowing you have such problems is stupid at worst or desperate at best (loss of pilots due to defective engines vs losses of population manufacturing/infrastructure due to bombing).

drgondog · Oct 13, 2010

Shortround6 said:
I see, the DB 601 was a clean sheet of paper design?
The DB 605 was a clean sheet of paper design?

I did not know that.

I also did not know that production He 111s with DB 600 engines were delivered in 1935 or that Bf 109s and Bf 110s were being fitted with DB 601 engines in 1937, or was it another airplane in production with DB 601s in 1937? Maybe the Germans were stockpiling these production DB 601s for future needs while they used up their backlog of Juno 210s? As far as the DB 605 goes, William Greene (out dated?) claims that the first 109G-0 retained the DB 601 because of the non-availability of the DB 605A and that is in October of 1941. Bf 109G-1s with DB 605 engines don't leave the production lines until early spring of 1942.

Would you care to be a little more specific?

I think the record of the BMW 801 in the FW 190A-0 in early 1941 at Le Bourget speaks to how ready the BMW 801 was for production in 1940.

3 years is actually fairly quick. I am not picking on the Germans here, some allied engine makers seem to have a bit of revisionist history going on too. There is also the question of what is meant by "production". For instance P&W is usually credited with times of 3 years to get the R-2800 from drawing board to production. Work starts in Mar1937, First experimental engine run in Sept 1937 and the 5th production engine delivered in Mar of 1940. Three years to the month,right? Not exactly,it took them until Jan 1 1941 to deliver 12 more engines for a 'production' rate of under 2 engines a month. Things got much better very quickly but "production" in March of 1941 was 64 engines. Maybe we should add another year to the P&W figure?
Packard rolled out a couple of ceremonial "production" Merlins in the summer of 1941 and then waited until Sept to deleiver 4 more followed by October's run of 5 engines. Things got better fast after that.

Perhaps the less said about early Napair Sabres the better

Maybe but I would note that P&W, Wright, Rolls-Royce and Bristol all only seemed to manage one major and one secondary effort at the same time. A few legacy engines or very minor projects aside.

The Dictator nations ( and I include the Soviet Union here) seemed to suffer more from the "order into production NOW and worry about problems later" syndrome than the west although the west had it's moments too. Early B-29s and the Curtiss Helldiver program come to mind.

No real problems but I would note that the DB 600-601 series went through at least 4 different supercharger designs or modifications between 1936 and 1941. When 603 development was restarted it could take advantage of all that was learned in the development of the 601 and early 605 work. If the pioneering work is done on the 603 or in parallel development might not be quite so fast. There might also have been a side track during the time when they thought C3 fuel might be more available than it was.

Simply answer is that they shouldn't have been ordered into mass production at that stage in their development. Just as modern consumers should not be beta testers for defective software, service pilots in combat should not be beta testers or development testers for engines.
manufacturing two hundred 50 hour engines instead of 120 or so 100 hour engines because you can't wait for the 100 hr version to be developed seems to smack of desperation.
It is not a question of "never" going into production but waiting until some of the more serious problems had been solved before going into production.
To knowingly go into production without such problems being solved or having pilots go into combat knowing you have such problems is stupid at worst or desperate at best (loss of pilots due to defective engines vs losses of population manufacturing/infrastructure due to bombing).

Good points. Might add that piston engine design engineers are as rare as helicopter transmission design engineers - not a lot of demand but the best ones are kept in a closet and fed in secrecy... not exactly 'Brains on stick" commodities..

davebender · Oct 13, 2010

Jumo222 and BMW801 engines should have been low priority projects (i.e. similiar to historical DB603 priority during 1937 to 1941).

Shortround6 · Oct 13, 2010

davebender said:
The argument against He-177s is the same as the argument against BMW801 and Jumo222 engines. By the mid 1930s Central Europe looked to be on the verge of war. Germany must make a decision as to what inexpensive and reasonably effective aircraft and engines could enter service ASAP. For the short term Germany focused on only two aircraft - the Me-109 fighter and Ju-88 light bomber. Those proved to be excellent choices.

The He 111 didn't play much of a part in early WW II, I take it?

davebender said:
It's the follow on aircraft and engines where Germany stumbled. Rather then focusing on only a few engines and aircraft types RLM funded development of everything from heavy bombers to 24 cylinder monster motors. A focused approach would have the Fw-190 supercede the Me-109 and the Ju-188 supercede the Ju-88, perhaps supplemented by the Do-217 bomber for longer range missions. All new aircraft models would be powered by the DB603 and/or Jumo213, which are developments of the existing DB601 and Jumo211 engines.

The DB 603 isn't really a development of the DB 601 unless you think that the Griffon was a development of the Merlin.
The Jumo 213 had a few issues of it's own from a design point of view. It used the highest piston speed of any major aircraft engine. A feature that would have been viewed with suspicion at the time. Few major aircraft major engines exceeded 3000 feet per minute and even the V-12 Mercedes Formula I racing car engine of 1939 ( 480hp at 7500rpm from 3 liters) did not use a piston speed as high as the Jumo 213.
While this did not mean the Jumo 213 was doomed it did mean that prudent people would have a back up engine in the works.

davebender · Oct 13, 2010

Early engines. DB601 and Jumo211.
Later engines. DB603 and Jumo213.
In addition to providing a back up this also provides commercial competition to keep engine prices low.

Replace Me-109 with Me-155?

Banned

Senior Airman

Senior Airman

Banned

1st Lieutenant

Senior Master Sergeant

1st Lieutenant

Major

Major

Senior Airman

Major General

Tech Sergeant

Banned

1st Lieutenant

Senior Airman

Major General

Major

1st Lieutenant

Major General

1st Lieutenant

Users who are viewing this thread

Similar threads