What if BMW and Bramo merged in 1936?

[tomo pauk]

I did the coloured lines, and you can double check them with the graph at pg. 173 at the aforementioned book. If you have stuff that is more credible than the stuff I post here, then post it, by all means.
But, I guess it is always easier to throw mud on other peoples contribution here, rather than to contribute.

Tomo, when did work on the BMW 802 start? What sort of potential did it have?

The potential was there, the 'F. und S.' book states take off power of 2450 PS. Three speed supercharger was installed. Should be in the league of the Centaurus and the R-3350.

 

[wiking85]

The potential was there, the 'F. und S.' book states take off power of 2450 PS. Three speed supercharger was installed. Should be in the league of the Centaurus and the R-3350.

Historically it was abandoned due to work on the jet engines progressing, while wikipedia indicates that it started development once the 801 was brought into full production (so 1941-42). Would an earlier merger have allowed work to start sooner on it and prevent its cancellation in 1943 for work on the BMW003?

 

[cimmex]

I did the coloured lines, and you can double check them with the graph at pg. 173 at the aforementioned book. If you have stuff that is more credible than the stuff I post here, then post it, by all means.
But, I guess it is always easier to throw mud on other peoples contribution here, rather than to contribute.



The potential was there, the 'F. und S.' book states take off power of 2450 PS. Three speed supercharger was installed. Should be in the league of the Centaurus and the R-3350.

Whenever I alter an original photo or document I make a footnote; so the new pic will not appear later as original again. This is my way to handle historic documents.
cimmex

 

[tomo pauk]

All fine and dandy.
Would I be wrong to expect that you'd post the power chart (with German-language captions) for the BMW 801D within a few minutes?

Hello, wiking:
The BMW was working on quite a few projects. Focusing just on one or two piston engines should, maybe, bear more fruit than an earlier merger.

 

[wiking85]

Hello, wiking:
The BMW was working on quite a few projects. Focusing just on one or two piston engines should, maybe, bear more fruit than an earlier merger.

So no BMW 803 gives the 802 a chance to become operational in 1943-44?

 

[tomo pauk]

Not just the 803, the BMW was trying out the 800 (9-cyl engine, 1st run 1942), and a whole alphabet of the 801 versions. But, Id shelve also the 802, and go for the 801 with a 2-stage, 2-speed compressor. The 804 and 805 were such developments, but with 4-speed supercharger gears. Go figure.
In case BMW has real surplus of the resources (engineers, technicians, test benches, labs), put those on the jet engine.

 

[wiking85]

Any idea when this proliferation of projects began?

 

[tomo pauk]

Those projects (800, 802, 803, 804 and 805) started between 1939 and 1941.

 

[wiking85]

Those projects (800, 802, 803, 804 and 805) started between 1939 and 1941.

Hypothetically say BMW, given the 1936 merger, never started any other project beyond the 801 and 003. What could be achieved in terms of development of the 801? I'm assuming the BMW 132 and Bramo 323 stop development around 1939-40 when 1200hp is achieved and basically tops out.
German Research in World War II by Leslie E. Simon, Major General, Ordnance Department, U.S. Army, Retired, former Director, the Ballistic Research Laboratories. Merriam Press Military Digital Library L99
This interesting review suggests that despite excellent facilities and engineering staff German research establishments only achieved about 10-50% of what they could have had they not dispersed their research efforts and had better direction from above; from what I know about piston engine research it seems that the big 3 engine companies were pretty much more concerned with getting as many development contracts as possible to suck up money in the hopes that at least some of them would pan out into production contracts and the RLM did little under Udet to focus research; later there was still nowhere near enough direction even under Milch from 1942 on, as the 802 was killed by BMW itself and the 803 kept development going until the Atlantik Bomber project was cancelled.

I'm assuming some of the following become available in 1943-44; could any be ready by 1942? If so, could we see radial FW190s able to compete at 27,000 feet on equal terms with the P-51?
https://de.wikipedia.org/wiki/BMW_801#Versionen

Developments
801J: further development of the 801D-2 with turbocharger, power plant TJ 1944/45, 1,810 hp starting power
801K: how 801J, with Stirnradumkehrgetriebe (left-rotating propellers)
801S: 801D-2 with a better charger and other parts of the engine of the 801E project, enhanced oil cooler armor, 2000 HP startup performance with MW-50 (2,200 hp from the beginning of 1945 possible), power plant TS 1944-45

801E: Bomber engine, development of the 801D-2 with a higher charger translation, starting power 2000 hp
801F: Hunter engine, development of the 801E, starting power 2000 hp, with MW-50-2400 PS system, in February 1945, with 50 MW plant in 2580 hp, BMW internal name 801F-1
801F (-2) 2400 hp takeoff power beyond emergency power with MW-50 system; This engine differed from the 801F-1, 801F-2, the term would therefore be logical, just is not found in the documents of BMW

801R: further development of the 801E with two-stage four-speed supercharger
801 Home-engined vehicles: test engine to save alloy materials

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/BMW_801#Supercharger_development
Also any idea what the BMW 801E mentioned above wasn't produced and they waited for the F-series?

 

[tomo pauk]

...
I'm assuming some of the following become available in 1943-44; could any be ready by 1942? If so, could we see radial FW190s able to compete at 27,000 feet on equal terms with the P-51?

The 801J should be by all means be capable to propel the Fw-190 every bit as good as the 2-stage Merlin was been to propel the P-51. In case the BMW can do a swift job on either 801E or 801S, and the Fw is able to install it to a lighter weight fighter, say ~3900-4000 kg (comparable to the 190A-3 and A-4) rather than at 4300-4400 kg (comparable with 190A-8 ), the performance should be comparable with Fw-190D-9, if not that of the Merlin Mustang. For extra speed, delete the fuselage MGs, and install external air intakes, but a bit better faired-in for less drag.
BTW, the BMW-801 never liked MW-50 system. The E and S received significant improvements and strengthening of the engine's internals, so those were able to increase the 'regular' maximal manifld pressure from 1.42 to 1.65 ata (2000 PS for take off, minus power for the fan), and over-boosting manifold pressure from 1.58/1.62 ata to 1.82 ata (2200 PS, same remarks).
The 801F was a wholesale redesign of the 801E, with bigger valves, improved internal and external aerodynamics, strengthened and counter-weighted crankshaft with vibration dampers, etc. Take off power was to be 2400 PS, at bench tests it managed 2600 PS. Again, I'd be wary to 'connect' the 801F with MW-50 system.

Also any idea what the BMW 801E mentioned above wasn't produced and they waited for the F-series?

The 'Flugmotoren ...' book states just that 'realities of the war were very much felt' (my translation), so the (development of the?) power-plants with 801E couldn't been completed. Only 80 were produced. Much of the development of the 801E went into the 801S.

 

[wiking85]

Could the 801S be ready by 1943? Would it use basically the same airframe with minimal modifications?
What would be the difference with the A3/U7?
http://forum.warthunder.com/index.php?/topic/91352-focke-wulf-190-a-3u7-1-höhenjäger/

 

[tomo pauk]

Could it be ready by 1943? There is no 'right' answer to that question. The series 801S was flying in service from late 1944 on, hopefully we could expect a year shaved from that incase BMW drops other stuff early on, and concentrates just on the 801.
The A3/U7 was a much lightened version of the A3, much due to decrease in protection. I would not go that far, just the stuff I've proposed above.

 

[kool kitty89]

BMW 139 seems to have been similar in performance to the R-2600-8 if the latter was stuck with only the high supercharger gear. (both roughly 1250 hp at 16000 ft) Going by the chart here http://www.ww2aircraft.net/forum/engines/2600-table-28832-2.html
http://www.ww2aircraft.net/forum/attachments/engines/166968d1304950872-2600-table-26-vs-17.jpg

and going off the figures for the 139's performance mentioned in the Fw 190 thread here:

A more riskier earlier (with regard to the service use) approach to the Fw 190 engine might be pressing on with BMW 139. The installation will certainly need more louvers so it can be cooled better, along with cooling fan (instead of ducting spinner), as it was the case with reworked V1 prototype.
The BMW 139 was to make 1410 PS at 4500 m (5 min rating) and 1270 PS at 4900 m (30 min rating), weight 800 kg bare engine, but with cooling fan.

The 139's 30 min rating seems a bit better than the R-2600-8's military rating though. (1410 ps ~1390 hp at 4500 m ~14760 ft vs what looks like 1325 hp at the same altitude) Plus the 139 was smaller in diameter and lighter.


I've seen some claims to the BMW 139 being a 'failure' but most of the more detailed explanations for mass production being passed over in favor of the follow-on 801 project was simply the technical superiority of the latter. (I believe tomo_pauk made the argument for sticking with the earlier design and pushing it into production in place of the 801, allowing an earlier introduction of a significantly lighter, simpler, yet somewhat lower performing engine)


Likewise I can't seem to find much reason for the Bramo 329 being an actual 'failure' other than BMW wanting to concentrate on their own designs. That engine seems like it had more potential to be an early-war counterpart to the R-2800 (though closer to the R-3350, Centaurus, and BMW 802 in displacement) bench testing at 2000 hp (or possible PS) in october 1938.

A twined Fafnir engine.
https://books.google.ca/books?id=El...gIVg0mSCh0WrQCe#v=onepage&q=Bramo 329&f=false

There also seems to be a lot of confusion with authors referring to the 139 as an 18 cylinder engine and the 329 as 14 cylinder, or both as 14 cylinder (and others showing photographs of some mysterious pre-war 18 cylinder engine), but the information I've seen points to the BMW 139 being a 14 cylinder design of 155.5 mm bore and stroke.

Given the discussion in this thread http://www.ww2aircraft.net/forum/engines/bmw-139-information-13261.html
and the specific reference of the Bramo 329 using a 154 mm bore and stroke, even though it also lists it as 14 cylinders (and 40.2L displacement) it still seems likely that the bore/stroke figures are accurate and based on a shortened stroke version of the Fafnir's cylinders. (and thus a 51.63L engine)

It really seems like a good deal of the information on the 139 and 329 has been jumbled up over time and made a bit more confusing with the (projected but unbuilt) 18 cylinder BMW 140 design also being present prior to the 1938 merger.


It seems like the BMW merger may have done more harm than good there, or at least resulting BMW-led management. Rather than keeping the 329 in development as a larger, more powerful radial engine to complement the smaller, lighter 1500 ps take-off 129 (and indeed, potentially offer a 2000 ps class engine years before the Jumo 222 might have been ready, let alone 2000 ps class 603 or 213 models). They would have had 2 very useful bomber and transport engines potentially also useful for fighters. (the lower weight of the 139 seems like it would make a better fighter engine than the 801 did -or contemporary R-2600 due both to weight and frontal area there, especially with the cooling fan arrangement)

The 329 should have been a good match to the Do 217 while the 139 seems like it would be a better fit for the Ju 88 and possibly some He 111 derivatives (possibly the Ju 252 -though the 329 would have allowed that to get by with just 2 engines more like the C-46) among other possibilities. Aside from potentially keeping the He 111 more competitive as a bomber/patrol aircraft, there might have been more potential there in the transport role. (mostly if the fuselage was expanded or stretched, but at some point that's more a new aircraft just using the He 111's wings -something more akin to the Super Electra to Lodestar transition would merit engines more in the Jumo 211 class anyway)

 

[SpicyJuan11]

BMW 139 seems to have been similar in performance to the R-2600-8 if the latter was stuck with only the high supercharger gear. (both roughly 1250 hp at 16000 ft) Going by the chart here http://www.ww2aircraft.net/forum/engines/2600-table-28832-2.html
http://www.ww2aircraft.net/forum/attachments/engines/166968d1304950872-2600-table-26-vs-17.jpg

and going off the figures for the 139's performance mentioned in the Fw 190 thread here:


The 139's 30 min rating seems a bit better than the R-2600-8's military rating though. (1410 ps ~1390 hp at 4500 m ~14760 ft vs what looks like 1325 hp at the same altitude) Plus the 139 was smaller in diameter and lighter.


I've seen some claims to the BMW 139 being a 'failure' but most of the more detailed explanations for mass production being passed over in favor of the follow-on 801 project was simply the technical superiority of the latter. (I believe tomo_pauk made the argument for sticking with the earlier design and pushing it into production in place of the 801, allowing an earlier introduction of a significantly lighter, simpler, yet somewhat lower performing engine)


Likewise I can't seem to find much reason for the Bramo 329 being an actual 'failure' other than BMW wanting to concentrate on their own designs. That engine seems like it had more potential to be an early-war counterpart to the R-2800 (though closer to the R-3350, Centaurus, and BMW 802 in displacement) bench testing at 2000 hp (or possible PS) in october 1938.



There also seems to be a lot of confusion with authors referring to the 139 as an 18 cylinder engine and the 329 as 14 cylinder, or both as 14 cylinder (and others showing photographs of some mysterious pre-war 18 cylinder engine), but the information I've seen points to the BMW 139 being a 14 cylinder design of 155.5 mm bore and stroke.

Given the discussion in this thread http://www.ww2aircraft.net/forum/engines/bmw-139-information-13261.html
and the specific reference of the Bramo 329 using a 154 mm bore and stroke, even though it also lists it as 14 cylinders (and 40.2L displacement) it still seems likely that the bore/stroke figures are accurate and based on a shortened stroke version of the Fafnir's cylinders. (and thus a 51.63L engine)

It really seems like a good deal of the information on the 139 and 329 has been jumbled up over time and made a bit more confusing with the (projected but unbuilt) 18 cylinder BMW 140 design also being present prior to the 1938 merger.


It seems like the BMW merger may have done more harm than good there, or at least resulting BMW-led management. Rather than keeping the 329 in development as a larger, more powerful radial engine to complement the smaller, lighter 1500 ps take-off 129 (and indeed, potentially offer a 2000 ps class engine years before the Jumo 222 might have been ready, let alone 2000 ps class 603 or 213 models). They would have had 2 very useful bomber and transport engines potentially also useful for fighters. (the lower weight of the 139 seems like it would make a better fighter engine than the 801 did -or contemporary R-2600 due both to weight and frontal area there, especially with the cooling fan arrangement)

The 329 should have been a good match to the Do 217 while the 139 seems like it would be a better fit for the Ju 88 and possibly some He 111 derivatives (possibly the Ju 252 -though the 329 would have allowed that to get by with just 2 engines more like the C-46) among other possibilities. Aside from potentially keeping the He 111 more competitive as a bomber/patrol aircraft, there might have been more potential there in the transport role. (mostly if the fuselage was expanded or stretched, but at some point that's more a new aircraft just using the He 111's wings -something more akin to the Super Electra to Lodestar transition would merit engines more in the Jumo 211 class anyway)

How do you think BMW's engine development would've continued without the merger nor the RLM pushing harder for jets than historically? Would they still have continued work on the 801 and 802? Would Bramo have tried to match the 803?

 

[kool kitty89]

The historical 801, 802, and 803 all were impacted by Bramo engineering resources, so they wouldn't have existed in their historical form but BMW may have stuck closer to the original 139 design without some of the Bramo engineering modifications (I believe they were responsible for the single-lever engine control unit and possibly the supercharger redesigns, not sure on the details though). BMW also had the 18 cylinder 140 on paper which they might have continued to develop as a competitor to Bramo's 329, but focusing primarily on the 139 seems more likely. (offering an intermediate engine well above the existing 9-cylinder radials in power but smaller and lighter than the 18 cylinder 329 and possibly in production sooner)


The jets are another matter as the BMW 003 was mostly a Bramo design with the major early modification being adapting the air-cooled turbine technology BMW had been developing for their turbochargers. BMW had their own turbojet designs as well:
Origins of German jet power
Eventually, all the main aero-engine companies, plus some others, worked on jet engines in accordance with a programme laid down by Schelp and his staff in the German Air Minstry. Of these companies, BMW was the first to begin work on a turbojet in 1938 (Kurt Loehner's P.3303 centrifugal engine) which Bramo followed in the same year by building a piston-driven ducted fan engine and beginning the design of an axial turbojet (later designated P.3302). When in the summer of 1939, Bramo was taken over by BMW, a complicated counter-rotating axial turbojet project from Helmut Weinrich was also begun under the designation P.3304 or 109–002.


Given Jumo ended up developing similar air-cooling methods to BMW with the 004B-1, it seems likely that Bramo would have likely done the same for their axial design. BMW's early centrifugal turbojet design might have been the most interesting to see continued development of given the general lack of competing designs in that vein and particularly with BMW's studies on centrifugal compressors and air-cooled axial turbines as applied to their turbocharger work.

 

[kool kitty89]

Hmm, this discussion claims the 329 (Siemens Sh29) was the designation of Bramo's 14 cylinder engine in the 1400 (or 1500) HP class and the 18 cylinder engine was the 300, but that doesn't really sound right. The idea of Bramo having designed and built new 14 and 18 cylinder designs based on the 323 Fafnir engine makes sense, and both using 154x154 mm bore/stroke cylinders (shortened from the 323's 154x160 mm) makes sense too, but that numbering doesn't sound quite right. Seimens/Bramo had engines numbered up to the Sh29 (the 323 itself being the Sh23 -the older Sh22 and Sh14 being the 322 and 314 respectively) so it seems a bit more likely that both the 14 and 18 cylinder Fafnir derivatives were somewhere in the Sh24-Sh29 designations.

Interestingly, that discussion also mentions a 10 cylinder BMW design (2 5-cylinder rows using 801 bore/stroke perhaps?) which sounds like it might have produced a better performing and lower drag replacement for the old 9-cylinder engines or French 14N. (or Italian radials)

 

[Shortround6]

Interestingly, that discussion also mentions a 10 cylinder BMW design (2 5-cylinder rows using 801 bore/stroke perhaps?) which sounds like it might have produced a better performing and lower drag replacement for the old 9-cylinder engines or French 14N. (or Italian radials)

Not really, The British tried at least one 10 cylinder engine. The Armstrong Siddeley Serval or double Mongoose. Not surprisingly it had the same diameter as the Mongoose (a 5 cyinder engine) and according to Wiki was actually larger in diameter than the 7 cylinder Lynx which used the same cylinders. This maybe because exact contemporaries are not given in Wiki. All of these A-S engines went through a number of models but they had 5,7,10 and 14 cylinder engines all using the same cylinders (or at least the same bore and stroke) the Mongoose weighed 340lbs. The Double Mongoose weighed 714lbs (?). The extra cylinder of a 10 cylinder two row radial was hard pressed to make up for the extra weight of the longer crankshaft and longer crankcase of teh two row radial vs a single row 9 cylinder engine. With the same bore and stroke and same connecting rod length engine diameter wasn't going to change enough to matter.

 

[kool kitty89]

With the same bore and stroke and same connecting rod length engine diameter wasn't going to change enough to matter.

The stroke has been reduced on the 139 cylinders (and bore very slightly increased on the later 801) and diameter significantly reduced compared to the 132. It might not have ended up any better than the existing GR 14N in dimensions/weight/performance, though. (a smaller displacement 14 cylinder engine probably would have made more sense in terms of power and size/drag/cooling -and with Bramo and BMW both working with rather similar displacement and dimension 9-cylinder radials, they lacked the sort of competition that Wright and P&W had with the R-1820 and R-1830 in the 1930s -or various Japanese engines)

A smaller 14 cylinder engine in all dimensions likely would have been optimal, but there were cases where shortening the stroke alone was used for the basis of smaller diameter, lighter, higher RPM engines. (like the progression from Jupiter to Mercury or Kinsei to Zuisei -the latter along with the R-2000 being among the uncommon cases to use bore larger than the stroke)

Not that the Germans necessarily needed a radial engine in that class when they had the focus more on using the Jumo 211 in that same role.

 

[Shortround6]

I was referring to the 10 cylinder idea. A 5 cylinder radial is just about always the same diameter as the a 7 cylinder or 9 cylinder engine of one row using the same size cylinders. Shorten the stroke or not, if all the engines are using the same stroke and rod and same cylinder head then they all have the same diameter. A-S never built a 9 cylinder radial so perhaps the 10 cylinder made some sense for them (used two of the same master rods as the 5 cylinder?) but most companies would rather build a 9 than a two row 10. A-S shared the belief with G-R that a two row engine didn't need a center bearing.