Replace Me-109 with Me-155?

Ad: This forum contains affiliate links to products on Amazon and eBay. More information in Terms and rules

I completely agree with Shortround. Engine development was a very complex thing. The engineers worked hard to get that engine ready. Sometimes they succeeded, sometimes they failed. It would be impossible to predict in advance what would happen with their designs.

The Jumo 222 was the pinnacle to the future German Luftwaffe. The Germans worked hard on it and if they had succeeded it would have been the standard engine for all their twin-engined bombers and night fighters. The BMW 801 only seemed the natural thing to do: it's a good thing to develop radials and inline engines.

DB 603 instead of DB 605? Reminds me of all those other projects where the Germans decided to skip one step and go for the most advanced imagineable. He 177? Me 262? Panther tank? Why not go for an easier solution? Well, that was the DB 605.

It's easy to criticize. But always think about the full consequences. If you add one thing you have to detract from somewhere else. And your decision has to make sense given the information you have at that time.
Kris
 
davebender said:
Jumo222 and BMW801 engines should have been low priority projects (i.e. similiar to historical DB603 priority during 1937 to 1941).
Click to expand...


While the Jumo 222 may have been viewed with suspicion there should have been no real reason that Germany couldn't have made a 14 Cylinder radial.
France was working on 4-5 different ones. Italy was working on a bunch of them. P&W had 3 different ones in the 30s, Wright had one. For the Japanese Mitsubishi had 3 while Nakajima had 2. The Soviets had 2. England had 3 different ones. World wide well over 20 different 14 cylinder radials. Granted some of these stemmed from the same sources but with the 14 cylinder radial arguably the most popular type of large aircraft engine in existence to say that the Germans could not build one or should not have built one is certainly going against the prevailing wisdom of the time.

Speaking in generalities the advantages of a 14 cylinder radial over a V-12 are lighter weight from a smaller, more compact crankcase. More displacement if the cylinders of of equal size or close to it, 16% larger. No liquid cooling system for even more weight advantage and less expense and maintenance. Disadvantages include much more frontal area and usually less power per cu in or liter due to less efficient cooling.

In the the 1936-38 period while improved fuels were on the distant horizon few people KNEW how far away (or close) it was and even fewer people could predict what the actual effect was going to be. The actual amount of performance gain varied from engine to engine for a number of reasons. So there were only two ways to get big power, 1500hp and up, from existing technology (boost levels), go for big displacement or push the feet per minute limit on piston speed and go for high rpm.
America had announced the 42.7 liter wright R-2600, France had the 18 cylinder, 52.24 liter Gnome-Rhone of 1400-1500hp in 1936. Italy had a very imposing selection of prototypes. The 48.2 liter Alfa 135 18 cylinder radial, the !8 clyinder Fiat A80-A82 series at 45.7-47.1liters, the 18 cylinder 'W' Isotta Fraschini Asso L180 of 48 liters and the Piaggo P.XII and P. XXII. of 53.0 and 60.5 liters. the Russians had the AM series of V-12s at 46.6 liters and were starting to think about a double Cyclone.
Nobody was pushing the high piston speed route, the engines that used high rpm used small cylinders to keep piston speed down and lots of cylinder to keep displacement up. The 24 cylinder Napier Dagger may have turned 4200rpm but it's 3.75in stroke kept the piston speed down to a comfortable 2,625fpm.

By the way, the grand Prix engine I mentioned earlier used two stage supercharging, 2.31 Atm of boost, a fuel blend of 86.0 % methanol, 4.4% nitrobenzol, 8.8% acetone and 0.8% sulphuric ether. it also weighed 603 pounds for a power to weight ratio of 1.25lbs per HP which wasn't all that hot compared to aircraft engines even in 1939. Especially considering they were using 87 octane gas.

All tings considered the Germans would have been negligent in the extreme if they hadn't explored a high powered radial in the late 30s.
 
Some quick replies...

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.
Click to expand...

No but the DB 603 either. It was directly derived from the DB 600 at 1936. That's a matter of fact.
To correct my post above. The begining of the development of the DB 600 was 1929 not 1932, 1932 was the year of the first prototype of the DB 600.

Source
Flugmotoren und Strahltriebwerke: Amazon.de: Kyrill von Gersdorff, Helmut Schubert, Kurt Grasmann: Bücher

Some information about the DB 600 series
Daimler-Benz DB 601 - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
The most informations are basicly true.

Production of the DB 600 started 1935, of the DB 601 end of 1937 and DB 605 end of 1941!
Sources see above

The Jumo 211 engine was directly derived from the Jumo 210. The Jumo 210 was called 2/3 engine because of his deplacement compared to the Jumo 211. The Jumo 213 is also directly derived from the Jumo 211.
To say it with very very simple words, it was a much tuned 211! Something like an AMG Mercedes or an BMW M.
But that is very simplified!

The begining of the development of the Jumo 210 was 1931, production was 1934.

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

I disagree to the BMW 801 and agree with the arguments from Shortround6.

I agree with the Jumo 222. I wasn't only suspicios to me, I can't understand this whole step inclusive the Bomber B. Nobody in germany had any experience with an radial-inline-engine at this time. It was something completly new! The DB 603 isn't that completly new. It is an DB 600 with much more deplacement and with some benefits, to say it simply. But the whole engine layout is completly the same!

So I think it is much easier to built and produce such an engine compare to the Jumo 222.

Edit
It's easy to criticize. But always think about the full consequences. If you add one thing you have to detract from somewhere else. And your decision has to make sense given the information you have at that time.
Click to expand...

Oh I think I have named enough arguments! For my opinion the whole Bomber B program is nonsens and two steps to far and a divebombing strategic bomber is more nonsens! And the full consequences to cancel or even begining this two programs (divebombing He 177 )would be much more better for the whole LW!
 
Last edited:
As an Amazon Associate we earn from qualifying purchases.
Speaking in generalities the advantages of a 14 cylinder radial over a V-12 are lighter weight from a smaller, more compact crankcase.
Click to expand...
Specifics trump generalities every time. Let's look at historical German aircraft engines available during 1941.

BMW801C.
1,539 hp
2,226 lbs dry weight. .69 hp / lb
14.7 sq ft Frontal Area.

DB601E.
1,350 hp
1,540 lbs. .88 hp / lb
5.4 sq ft Frontal Area

The DB601 adds some weight for the liquid cooling system which is more then compensated by the Fw-190 gaining 635 kg when switching from the BMW139 to the massive BMW801 engine. Then we must consider the large increase in aerodynamic drag caused by the radial engine over that slim V12.
 
That's true Dave,

From all german engines that were mass produced in WWII the BMW 801 had the highest dry weight.

But I think the germans wanted a radial engine and I think the BMW has done very fine after his problems were solved. And for a fighter bomber a radial engine is to my opinion elemental.

With other raw materials a turbocharger was possible but not with the reality supply for germany in WWII.
And with a turbocharger it would be a good radial engine in WWII compare to the other nations.
 
Last edited:
The BMW801 never caught up with German V12s in power to weight ratio. During 1942 the BMW801 engine switched to C3 fuel just to get the engine to an acceptable power output. However the same trick could have been performed with the DB601E. Modify it to take advantage of C3 fuel and a 1,350 hp V12 becomes a 1,500 hp V12. And the V12 still maintains a significant advantage in both weight and frontal area.
 
I wonder if it is really because of the materials. They were able to make jet turbines so why no turbochargers?


Only in hindsight. The dive bombing principle was very sound at the beginning of the war. It was the only way to achieve sufficient accuracy. Worked fine for the Ju 88. Didn't work out for the He 177. The Bomber B program would have been a success if the Jumo 222 had worked. And it should have worked.

Kris
 
DonL said:
No but the DB 603 either. It was directly derived from the DB 600 at 1936. That's a matter of fact.
To correct my post above. The begining of the development of the DB 600 was 1929 not 1932, 1932 was the year of the first prototype of the DB 600.
Click to expand...

so the DB 600 took 4-6 years depending on when pencil first meet paper?

I think we may be having a language problem on "directly derived"

To my way of thinking the DB601 was "directly derived" from the DB 600. I have no idea how many parts of an early DB 601 could interchange with a DB 600 if any, but with the same size cylinders and many other parts the same size if not identical DB 600s could be used as test rigs and much knowledge could be carried over. Similarly the 605 was developed from the last version/s of the 601 with similar cam timing
With the larger size of the 603 cylinders much of this is lost. Will the flame front travel work the same in the larger cylinder? Will it need more spark advance? will the larger cylinders require different bore spacing and a longer crankshaft? What will the different weights and lengths do to the vibration characteristics?
does it use cam 9valve) timing like the early 601s or the like the 601E and 605?
One description says that 603s used either 3 row roller bearings on on the big ends of the connecting rods or plain bearings. DB 601s used roller bearings and 605s used plain bearings? When did the 603 change and why? the 603 used a circular section volute in the supercharger while previous DB engines used a rectangular section volute.
aside from them both being Inverted V-12s and sharing some design features how much does the 603 have in common with the 601?
It is a bit like saying the P&W R-2180 (post war) was developed from the R-1830, they are both 14 cylinder radials after all. The truth is that the post war 2180 owed a lot more to the "C" series R-2800 than to the R-1830. it was more like an R-2800C with two cylinders left off each row.
Or saying that the RR Griffon was developed from the Merlin. Both V-12s but after that what parts did they have in common? The Griffon had the same bore and stroke as the old Buzzard and had the same number of cylinders set at the same angle but actually had no interchangeable parts except perhaps for a few stray nuts or bolts.


I might disagree with the direct development of the 211 from the 210. Influenced yes. the 213 might be closer to being "directly derived" though.

I do have a question on the Jumo 210. If it was in production in 1934 why did the first BF 109 use a RR kestrel in the fall of 1935 for it's first flights? why did the first He 112 use a Kestrel? While several Arado prototypes did use Jumo 210s in 1935 other Arado prototypes (AR 80V1 and V2) used RR Kestrels for initial flights in 1935. It doesn't seem like there were too many of them around.
 
I might disagree with the direct development of the 211 from the 210. Influenced yes. the 213 might be closer to being "directly derived" though.
Click to expand...

Sorry no. It's a direct development from the Jumo 210.

The Jumo 211 was mainly an enlarged scale of engine block and piston kinematics of the Junkers Jumo 210.
The magnification was done with a pantograph from the design drawings of the Jumo 210. Due to this significant increase was called the Junkers Jumo 211 in 3/3-Maschine also compared to the Jumo 210, which 2/3-Maschine.

pantograph- (in german) Storchenschnabel
Pantograph - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia


The same answer is for the early production of the DB 600 and 601.
Germany was under the Versailles Treaty and all this was new, they were learning. Mainly in the production. You can't even speak of a mass production.So they can't produce in numbers in the early years.
 
Last edited:

This may be true, it looks plausible by comparing bore and strokes anyway.
However some of the things I read about the Jumo 210 and Jumo 211 are not plausible. Or they are really bad translations. Like
"The Jumo 21H, which did not go into production , formed the basis for the 211 series, prototypes of which were built in 1935 and tested in 1936" page 269 of "Junkers Aircraft Engines by Antony Kay.
One would assume that the H followed the G but if the 210 did enter production in 1934 those guys at Junkers must have been very busy boys to go through the A,B, C,D, E, and G models in just a year to get the H that forms the basis for the 211.

pantograph- I actually know what they are, I had a cheap one as a child.


Sorry no.
With something on the order of 1000 L5 straight 6 engines built in the 20s and early 30s plus a handful of L55s,L8s and L88s plus some Jumo 4/204 diesels the Junkers engine factory was not a small prototype shop. It may have been small compared to what it would become in WW II but the idea that an engine is "IN" production while producing a mere handful over a number of months doesn't seem to make sense.
From the book quoted above "In March 1934 the 210 passed it's its type test and from 5 July 1934 began flight trials in a Junkers W33. In the same year initial production of the Jumo 210A was started."
Now starting production can have a lot of meanings. It can mean when production drawings and bills of material are released to the shop floor. It can mean when a new or specialized tooling is ordered. It can mean when first casting molds or forging dies are made. Yes it can mean when the first engine is rolled out the door but there are a lot of months between deciding to go into production and ordering tools,etc and actually delivering an engine to a customer. It can also be a number of months more before the 5th or 10th engine is delivered. While a few prototypes flew with Jumo 210s in 1935 there are a number that had to make do with Kestrels which cast a lot doubt on just how "IN PRODUCTION" the Jumo 210 was.
 

You hit the goal, I totaly agree! But anyway it is true.

This development was all for the military. So you should consider the financial side and the acceptance of the RLM. This all means time. And all this is realy new after 15 years without a military production. Also the versaille treaty was hanging over germany at 1934. All was very harum-scarum and a little uncoordinated.


Some informations to the Jumo 210 B/C and 210 D/E. It was only the ratio of the shaft gearbox for fast aircrafts B/D or slow aircrafts C/E.
A,B, C,D, E, and G models in just a year to get the H that forms the basis for the 211
Click to expand...
This is totaly wrong serously.
The Junkers 210G was a 210 D with direct fuel injection. And the difference between a B and D was a two gear supercharger.
This had nothing to do with the development of the Jumo 211 from 1934. The Jumo 211G was from 1937. And the first prototyps of the Jumo 211 were with a carburetor. Also how on earth you will develop and produce an engine in one year.
I think the translation isn't proper of this book.


And yes the guys at Junkers were very busy also through the business competition with DB. The advertisement of the 35L 1000PS engine was very important.
A not so serious comment, why do you think there were so few people without a job at this time. From 8 Millionen people to all are busy. This means a lot of organisation in all companys.....
 
Last edited:
I wonder if it is really because of the materials. They were able to make jet turbines so why no turbochargers?
Click to expand...

Not enough raw materials to initiate a mass production, mainly wolfram and molybdänerz.
Also the BMW 801J was developed, but as I said not enough raw material to manufactor in numbers


The Ju 88 wasn't a real divebomber. And the dive wasn't a dive of a Ju87. The idea of an airplne like the He 177 to put in a dive for bombing is nonsens.
 
Last edited:
That's true until 1936. Once Germany began to reestablish border defenses (i.e remilitarize the Rhineland) France could no longer motor into Germany and loot at will as they did during the 1920s.

In any case aircraft engines aren't nearly as threatening as military aircraft. The new DB601 and Jumo211 engines would work just fine powering civilian aircraft like the Fw200 and Ju90 airliners. Might even get foreign sales for use in aircraft like the American DC3. RLM subsidies to develop these engines don't need to be public knowledge.
 
DonL said:
Not enough raw materials to initiate a mass production, mainly wolfram and molybdänerz.
Also the BMW 801J was developed, but as I said not enough raw material to manufactor in numbers
Click to expand...
And like I said, I have my doubts turbochargers need more special alloys than turbine jets. The Germans were able to produce thousands of those so why not a few hundred turbochargers?
I think the answer might be more complex...


The Ju 88 wasn't a real divebomber. And the dive wasn't a dive of a Ju87. The idea of an airplne like the He 177 to put in a dive for bombing is nonsens.
Click to expand...
Yes it was. It had dive brakes, a dive bombing sight and an automatic pull out system and was designed as a dive bomber.

Of course as an aircraft capable of more than dive bombing. But still a dive bomber. To have the bigger He 177 do the same was a stretch but makes perfect sense. How else to get bombs on target in those days?

Of course it turned out be impractible but this - and I keep repeating this over and over again - is all very clear with 20/20 hindsight.

Kris
 
I have my doubts turbochargers need more special alloys than turbine jets. The Germans were able to produce thousands of those so why not a few hundred turbochargers?
Click to expand...
Germany produced thousands of Jumo004B engines. That particular engine used few special alloys. Junkers worked around the problem by diverting air to cool hollow compressor blades. I don't know if that engineering solution would work with a turbocharger.
 
And like I said, I have my doubts turbochargers need more special alloys than turbine jets. The Germans were able to produce thousands of those so why not a few hundred turbochargers?
I think the answer might be more complex...
Click to expand...

No! There only molybdänerz mine was lost 1943 at Knaben in Norway. The mine was bombed two times and dead. The whole production of steel suffered since 1943/44 of molybdänerz! Tanks, U-Boots, all. Speer was giving prioritys. And the turbocharger wasn't the highest on the list. And wolfram was short the whole war. Or can you answer the question why since 1942/43 no APC wolfram grenade was at the frontline?


Then please tell me why under Wever and Wimmer the Ju 89 development was without divebombing? Only the the death of Wever and the change in positions of Wimmer and Udet had brought up this stupid divebombing for the He 177. Udet was not technical advanced enough for his new position and a total bone-head in divebombing. All aircrafts must dive. lol. This all because the Curtiss was that amazing for him!

Yes the Ju 88 could dive no doubt, but how many missions were flown as a real divebomber simiular to the Ju 87?
It was good for the Ju 88 to be able to divebomb, but the Ju 88 is a totaly other plane with other missions as the He 177! The Ju 88 was a multiroleplane the He 177 should be a stratgic bomber.
 
Last edited:
No. They used plenty of special alloys, just less than the 004A. And the hollow compressor blades came later. A turbocharger is not more advanced than a turbojet.

Knaben was not the only Mo mine. It was not dead because it was bombed. Since 1942/1943 no tungsten shells? I must have missed the million PzGr 40s available as late as 1943.


You anwered your own question. The Ju 89 was too ambitious and turned out to be an absolute failure. It was too slow, too vulnerable, couldn't carry enough bombs and because of the level of electronics of the mid 1930s couldn't find its target nor bomb it with any accuracy. At least that last part was solved by dive bombing.

Yes the Ju 88 could dive no doubt, but how many missions were flown as a real divebomber simiular to the Ju 87?
Click to expand...
I have read more dive bombing accounts than I can count. And what does a "real" dive bomber mean to you? You think only a Stuka is a real dive bomber but this is pure prejudice.

It was good for the Ju 88 to be able to divebomb, but the Ju 88 is a totaly other plane with other missions as the He 177! The Ju 88 was a multiroleplane the He 177 should be a stratgic bomber.
Click to expand...
The He 177 was a strategic bomber but one which dived towards the target (at angle of 60 degrees) to achieve accuracy. You mix up dive bombing with tactical bombers.

Kris
 
I wouldn't go that far. The German emphasis on dive bombing made the Ju-88A the most capable light bomber in the world during the first half of WWII. Unlike contemporary level bombers the Ju-88A dive bomber could hit what it was aiming for.

As for dive bombing with larger aircraft, nobody knew whether it would work until they tried it. Once they did RLM quickly dropped the dive bombing requirement for aircraft like the Do-217 and He-177.
 
Knaben was not the only Mo mine. It was not dead because it was bombed. Since 1942/1943 no tungsten shells? I must have missed the million PzGr 40s available as late as 1943.
Click to expand...

To my sources Knaben was absoluetly dead after the second bombardement 1943. And the PzGr 40 was canceld at 1942 because there was not enough tungsten! So do you have sources about millions of PzGr 40 at 1943?


Have you any source for this statement? The Ju 89 was in the same category as the B17 from engine power, bombloading and range. Sorry to ambitious?! This bird was not a failure. You can't be serious to compare Ju 89 from 1937, to the potiential with more powerfull 4 x Jumo 211 as all other planes got later then 1938. The first flights of the Ju 89 were 1937.
And how on earth the B17 developed at 1935 could find it's target?

Sorry but I think our opinions are miles away from eachother and we couldn't get together.
 
Last edited:
I have a chart with available PzGr 40s but it's on my other pc. IIRC 300,000 were PzGr for the short 5 cm, a similar number for the longer 5 cm cannon, the rest mainly for the 3,7 cm Pak. The problem with Knaben as for ALL other mines was transportation from the mines. Ok next, the Ju 89 was called the Ural bomber for a reason. Could it get there? No, it had a limited range. Fine, who killed the program? Udet? No, my friend, it was Wever himself who started the Bomber A program which lead to the He 177. The Ju 89 and Do 19 were simply considered to be inadequate in range, speed, protection and payload. The comparison with the B-17 is invalid.

It is not that our opinions are miles apart, yours is simply based on outdated and cliche information. Don't mean to be rude here. I am just saying that I used to share your opinion but I have gradually moved away from it and have become a bit more critical to the standard cliches I usually read. Still a long way to go though. I am not a Juha yet

If you have more questions, don't hesitate.
Kris
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Users who are viewing this thread

Total: 1 (members: 0, guests: 1)

Similar threads

Spitfire vs Me-109
Replies
3
Views
1K
PAT303
P
Z
Large gun Me 109
2 3
Replies
47
Views
3K
Engineman
E
S
Why did the Me 109 roll and turn so bad at speed?
5 6 7
Replies
134
Views
9K
GregP
Questions Bugging Me on Jet Engines
Replies
11
Views
1K
Engineman
E
An early 'Me 209' instead of the Me 309?
2
Replies
21
Views
1K
TM06
Menu
Log in
Register