Ad: This forum contains affiliate links to products on Amazon and eBay. More information in Terms and rules
In case the Focke Wulf gets to build the Fw-190C, the LW basically gets the Fw-190D-9 equivalent more than a year earlier.
too many problems with the C-series to implement, not necessarily due to lack of engines.
The DB 603 in 41-43 was not really deemed reliable enough for fighter use with the long use of high powersettings in combat.
And again, it's a myth you would get the 43/44 DB 603A several years earlier without the continuous improvements and developments done for the 601/605 series.
Why didn't they historically though? AFAIK there were too many problems with the C-series to implement, not necessarily due to lack of engines.
https://de.wikipedia.org/wiki/Focke-Wulf_Fw_190_B_und_C
Again you repeat that as an article of faith without realizing the the DB601/5 improvements had little relevance to the much larger DB603, which had unique engineering issues that made the smaller engine's developments useless for it. It required its own fuel injector and cooling system due to having larger displacement, which caused specific cooling issues that simply scaling up the DB601/5's developments wasn't enough........ Those years wasted from 1937-1940 would have been enough to figure out the specific engineering issues of the 603 and developed in parallel with the 601, which if anything would have offered help with the bigger 605's cooling issues.
The Fuel injection isn't an issue, once you have a working system you can enlarge the injector pumps/plungers for the fuel flow desired. Some of the "cooling" issues are things like a the bigger pistons are harder to cool on ANY engine than smaller pistons. DB 603 used about the biggest pistons of any "common" WW II engine ( Ok only 2 mm bigger than the Russian AM series). Now if you can't keep the center of a 154mm piston to stay 'cool' then expecting a 162mm piston to stay cool is asking a bit much, especially if you are burning more fuel above each sq. cm. of piston area. (12.5% longer stroke). This is plain physics and geometry and has nothing to do with the coolant passages, coolant flow, or pressure the cooling system is operating at. These things can help solve the cooling problem but big cylinders are harder to cool.
Operative word: may. Can you provide evidence that it did?But the 601-605 "research" may very well have helped with supercharger design, bearings, cam timing, materials and heat treatment of parts.
Again 601 development is not the same as 603, so 603 specific development time is necessary. Unless you can provide evidence that 601/5 developments positively influenced 603 development, it cannot be inferred that 601/5 research shortened the development cycle of the 603; the only thing that would have given it a chance to be ready by 1941-42 was uninterrupted development of the 603 from 1936-1941. I'm not claiming it was a sure thing, other than using the historical timeline of 603 development, which was from 1936-1937 with one prototype, with another built in 1939 for the racing stunt that never happened, then prototype construction through 1940 into 1941 and development from late 1940-to late 1943 when it became reliable. Added up that's about 5 years of development, which from mid-1936 through mid-1941 is the same timeframe, 5 years; generally in the 1930s and 40s it took about 5-6 years to develop an engine into reliability, so the 603 fits into the model.Cooling problems of pistons and cylinder heads also go up with the amount of fuel/air burned in the cylinder (boost) so a smaller cylinder with high boost can give some (but not all) of the same problems as a big cylinder with low boost.
People keep wanting the 603 to show up in 1940-41 using the same boost the 605 had trouble with in 1942 and claiming that 1937-40 "development" would have solved the problem/s.
Was DB sitting back fat, dumb and happy with the 601 from 1938-41 or were they constantly working to improve the 601 series, with higher rpm, better superchargers, more compression and other changes? How many of these changes and changes done to the 605 were they able to apply to the 603?
Compared with earlier Rolls-Royce designs, the Griffon engine featured several improvements which meant it was physically only slightly larger than the Merlin, in spite of its 36% larger capacity of 37 litres (2,260 cu in).[3] One significant difference was the incorporation of the camshaft and magneto drives into the propeller reduction gears at the front of the engine, rather than using a separate system of gears driven from the back end of the crankshaft; this allowed the overall length of the engine to be reduced as well as making the drive train more reliable and efficient.[7][nb 2] The Griffon was the first Rolls-Royce production aero engine to use a hollow crankshaft as the means of lubricating the main and big end bearings, providing a more even distribution of oil to each bearing.[7] In another change from convention, one high efficiency B.T.H-manufactured dual magneto was mounted on top of the propeller reduction casing;[8] earlier Rolls-Royce designs using twin magnetos mounted at the rear of the engine.[9]
The Griffon 61 series introduced a two stage supercharger and other design changes: the pressure oil pumps were now housed internally within the sump and an effort was made to remove as many external pipes as possible.[10] In addition, the drive for the supercharger was taken from the crankshaft at the back of the engine, via a short torsion shaft, rather than from the front of the engine, using a long drive shaft as used by earlier Griffon variants.[11]