Which was more valuable: mass production of the Jumo 213 in 1942 or Jumo 222 in 1943?

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

DonL said:
I don't think the LW was in any need of the Jumo 222.

It never realy functioned properly and it cost a lot of important alloy's. Also the maintenance could be very complicated, we have seen the desaster of the DB 606 and DB 610.
Click to expand...
It was on its way to passing the 100 hour test by early 1942 before Milch upped the hp requirements in December 1941. It had already passed the 50 hour test. The 1943 2500hp version was the one that required more alloy metals than were feasible for mass production, specifically nickel IIRC. Yet still they were planning on producing it in 1944, but bombing made that impossible. The Db606 and 610 had issues totally unrelated the the 222, as they were totally different concepts.


The 603 was far less fuel efficient AND it never passed the 100 hour between overhauls, even by late 1943 when it was made 'reliable enough' historically. With greater resources from 1937 on perhaps that wouldn't have been an issue, but it was still much lower in terms of power to weight and not that fuel efficient due to the large cylinders it used; cooling was also an issue for the same reason. The 603 was not lighter than the 213, rather the other way around. The 603A was 20kg lighter than the 213E, but that was due to the E having a much larger supercharger and GM-1 and MW-50 boost weight added, which the 603A did not have.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Junkers_Jumo_213#Specifications_.28Jumo_213E.29
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Daimler-Benz_DB_603#Specifications_.28DB_603A.29
 
The datas from wiki are not correct and they are mixing data's with MW50 and without.

DB 603A original from 1942 without MW 50:

Dryweight: 910 kg
max power: 1750 PS / 2700 RPM
continuous power: 1510 PS / 2500 RPM
best altitude performance: 5700m without ram etc.
power to weight ratio: 0,52 kg/PS (910/1750PS)
fuel consumption: 205 g/PSh

Jumo 213A original from 1943 without MW 50:

Dryweight: 920 kg
max power: 1750 PS /3250 RPM
continuous power: 1400 PS / 2900 RPM
best altitude performance: 5500m without ram etc.
power to weight ratio: 0,525 kg/PS (920/1750PS)
fuel consumption: 202 g/PSh

I can't follow your argumentation, both engines are nearly equal.
 
Last edited:
The Do 217 suffered a lot from the dive bombing requirement, lots of weight was added to reinforce the structure and it also limited the wingspan so it had high wing loading.
The Hs 129B was not bad as a specialized armored ground attack aircraft.
The Me 210 would have been better without the dive bombing requirement, lots of weight gained by structural reinforcements. If developed propely without the radical tail shortening with leds to endless problems it would have been a goof replacement for the Bf 110.
The Ju 290 was not bad either, developed from the civil Ju 90, as long range transport or maritime patrol (to replace the Fw 200).
The He 219 was not bad either, with sufficient development effort it could have been made better than the Ju 88 G-6, RLM interference spoiled the development multiple times. It suffered from high wingloading and was overweight, early DB603 engines lacked altitude power.
I would have actually liked to see the Jumo 222 developed to a production in ~42 without continuous changes to major parts, delaying it year for year even if it only develops 1800 PS.
 

Whats the source for this data? If true, then you are certainly right.
 

I have explicit written without all the fritter of dive bombing.

Why should somebody invest in the development of new aircrafts if they very perhaps have very very little more performance?

The Do 217 without all this dive bombing equipment and DB 603 would do a very good job.
The Hs 129B is a niche aircraft without any important engines also the FW 189.
You know my opinion, a FW 187 could do the Job much better then the Me 110 and 210 and she was developed.
For maritim long range patrol, there would be the He 177
I have my doubts, that a He 219 could ever reach more performance then a Ju 88 G6, but what is much more important, the Ju 88 was developed and in mass production and if somebody of the RLM had the right idea to continue the fast bomber development next to the dive bombing development, we have seen a faster nightfighter earlier, especially with earlier Jumo 213 engines.
 
Any idea what the performance would be without the dive bombing requirement?
 
Improvements in performance would most likely be in either range or bomb load. Without the dive bombing requirement the structure could be lighter for the same payload (or a bit greater payload). While the drag would not be much different (same exterior shape) aside from how well the dive brakes were 'hidden' when not deployed so the difference in speed would not be much the ability to carry more fuel for the same gross weight might be a nice advantage.
 
DonL said:
But I can't see what is wrong on the combination of the Ju 88, Do 217 (with earlier developed DB 603 from the original timeline) and a four gondula He 177.
Why should the LW needed an other Bomber?
Click to expand...

My apologies for the poor phrasing, "may very well have needed" is roughly the same as "may or may not have needed". You may be right about the Germans not needed anything more than the Do-217 and a 4 prop He 177 but should anyone argue that they did need another bomber the bomber "B" type was not it.
 
Denniss said:
The Do 217 suffered a lot from the dive bombing requirement, lots of weight was added to reinforce the structure and it also limited the wingspan so it had high wing loading.
Click to expand...
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dornier_Do_217#Level_and_dive_bomber_variants_.E2.80.93_inline-engined
The M-02 was given wing reduction to 59 m2, which became the predecessor of the M-3.
Click to expand...
The Do217M, the DB603 powered version actually had its wing size reduced in testing; any clue why and why they thought the smaller wing area was better?
 

The Jumo 222 had passed it's 100 hour test in 1941 but many engines passed 100 hour tests and were nowhere near ready for service introduction. Some were introduced anyway to the cost of pilots and crew. I don't know for sure if the Jumo 222 was ready or not but so far I have seen nothing that says it was and plenty of comments that the prototype aircraft powered by the handful of Jumo 222A/Bs that were declared 'airworthy' had problems.




As has been shown the 213 was not enough different in fuel efficiency to get excited about. as a general rule of thumb 80% of the friction in an engine is due the pistons and piston rings scrubbing the cylinder walls. While the 603 had more area to scrub it's lower rpm meant that it was scrubbing less often ( if 2700-3250 strokes per minute can be called less often) and since friction also goes up with the square of the speed, the Jumo 213 is going to need some pretty fancy features to counter it's higher friction.

For this exercise it would be best to compare the 213A and DB603 as the earliest and simplest versions of the engines in question as DonL has done.
 
I agree but low funding resulted in an underpowered aircraft produced in numbers too small to matter.

Building Hs.129 right.
Step 1. BMW132 or Bramo 323 engines. Now the aircraft has enough power to carry plenty of firepower and armor.
Step 2. Put the aircraft into mass production to achieve economy of scale. 100 aircraft per month minimum.
Step 3. Produce cluster and napalm munitions in quantities great enough so Hs.129 can carry them on every mission.

Building Hs.129 right requires adequate funding. Germany must decide in advance whether they can afford the program. Otherwise they would be further ahead to build additional Ju-87s.
 
I don't deny that the Hs 129 is usefull, but only without important engines and if Germany would have production capacity.

What could a Hs 129 do, what an introduced FW 190 F/G fighter bomber 1942/1943 couldn't do with all it's advantages of speed, payload, range etc.?
 
Last edited:
Production capacity isn't rocket science. If you want engines then you build or expand an engine factory. If you want airframes then you build an airframe factory. Etc.

Money is the only essential. Do you have enough to do the job right? Should something else in the defense budget be scaled back or cancelled (i.e. naval Z plan, V-2 rocket, Type XXI submarine) to pay for additional aviation production?
 
Sorry Dave, I think your analyse is wrong.

After the occupation of France money was total unimportant for Germany.
Essential were only skilled workers and all-around high quality production tools.

The not existing deep armour of the german industry before 1943 and the not mobolization of the womenfolk from the beginning retaliated bitter to the production capacity. Money was total unimportant.
 
If Luftwaffe wait until July 1940 before starting to plan then they are doomed.

Luftwaffe (and all of Wehrmacht) should have a development and production plan in place by mid 1935. For example, if Hs.129 program proceeds then BMW132 engine plant expansion should be completed before the first German tank enters France.
 
We have been over this before. IF you build a twin engine ground attack plane that uses BMW132 or Bramo 323 engines it will be a totally different airframe than the Hs 129. The HS 129 was originally designed to use the 315kg Argus 410 engine. Somebodies arithmetic was just a little off as the plane "came in 12% overweight with the engines 8% underpowered, and understandably, it flew poorly."

The French G-R 14M engines were available (as war booty) for free and weighed 419kg with about 50% more power. Building a NEW engine factory to make engines that are 100-130kg heavier and around 400mm bigger in diameter than the French engines to try to fit on the same airframe is rather foolish. For size and weight try thinking sticking on late 30s Wright Cyclone 9 engines.
 

The only problem is the spec wasn't even written until 1937 and the experience in the SCW suggested it might be useful. There is no way it could be ready by 1940; it wasn't really even ready until 1942.
 
For size and weight try thinking sticking on late 30s Wright Cyclone 9 engines.
Click to expand...

I'm realy curious what the germans had done with the Wright R-1820 Cyclone, if they had got a license like the UDSSR in the early 30's.

BMW managed to bring out 1100 PS of the BMW 132 (Pratt Whitney R-1690), the UDSSR managed 1000 PS of the Schwezow ASch-62 (Wright R-1820 Cyclone) and the USA managed till 1550 PS out of the Wright R-1820 Cyclone.
The B-17 was at 1250 PS the Douglas SBD at 1350 PS.

So it would be realy interesting what the germans had done/could manage to do with the Wright R-1820 Cyclone, because he had more engine displacement and was to my understanding a little more modern compare to the Pratt Whitney R-1690 and from the produced numbers of the world very very successful.
 
Last edited:
You must log in or register to reply here.

Users who are viewing this thread

Total: 1 (members: 0, guests: 1)

Similar threads

Making the best use of Jumo 211 series?
2
Replies
21
Views
1K
peceed
P
M
Alternate Jumo-213
Replies
17
Views
2K
mack8
M
"Jumo 222" and "DB 606/610" made in H16 form instead of being 24 cyl types - what gives?
3 4 5
Replies
86
Views
6K
peceed
P
A
Was the Hispano-Suiza 12Y the worst ≥25L V-12 of WW2?
2 3
Replies
46
Views
3K
ThomasP
T
617th squadron and the bunkers in Ijmuiden.
2
Replies
23
Views
801
DerAdlerIstGelandet
Menu
Log in
Register