PDA

View Full Version : What was better: db605 or Jumo 213?



Achilles97
02-01-2004, 12:21 AM
I've always wondered why a bf109 was never made with a Jumo 213, it seems to make more power than the db605 engines.

I read that Kurt Tank wanted the db603 engine for the TA 152 instead of the Jumo, but the Jumo powered 152 had better performance. Why is that? Read here:
http://www.csd.uwo.ca/~pettypi/elevon/baugher_other/ta152.html

I don't know much about this, so I would appreciate any information.

Thanks!

Achilles97
02-01-2004, 12:21 AM
I've always wondered why a bf109 was never made with a Jumo 213, it seems to make more power than the db605 engines.

I read that Kurt Tank wanted the db603 engine for the TA 152 instead of the Jumo, but the Jumo powered 152 had better performance. Why is that? Read here:
http://www.csd.uwo.ca/~pettypi/elevon/baugher_other/ta152.html

I don't know much about this, so I would appreciate any information.

Thanks!

Der_Schnitter_t
02-01-2004, 12:34 AM
I did a short bit of googling and those are two results I came up with:

http://frhewww.physik.uni-freiburg.de/~jaensch/109/mdb603.htm

http://frhewww.physik.uni-freiburg.de/~jaensch/109/mjumo213.htm

Seeing this (and if the numbers are accurate enough), I would say I would prefer the DB-603 as it has more power than the Jumo in all three of its versions.

http://hometown.aol.de/Deathbrng/262sig.jpg

wastel
02-01-2004, 03:36 AM
the 109 was simply to small for the 213 or 603
i think

wastel

Staga
02-01-2004, 04:47 AM
109 airframe was too small for DB603.

Jumo 213A-1 and DB603G had very similar performance outputs but Jumo 213E (Ta-152H) with 3 speed supercharger (2-speed in 213A) was superior at altitudes over 7km.

FW190fan
02-01-2004, 04:48 AM
The Jumo-213 is one of the most under-appreciated engines of WWII. It was a very powerful(2200+hp operationally) and very adaptable engine, and it was also available when the DBs weren't.

Most of the tests graphs that I've seen show the Jumo 213 and the DB603 running pretty closely in performance when tested in the FW190D and Ta-152 series of fighters.

The DB603N may have been the best of the lot though, with a mechanical/hydraulic supercharger and 96 octane fuel it developed 2,830hp at 2.0 ata at sea level http://ubbxforums.ubi.com/infopop/emoticons/icon_eek.gif and still developed nearly 2,000hp at 32,000ft.

http://people.aero.und.edu/~choma/lrg0645.jpg

butch2k
02-01-2004, 04:53 AM
The main problem was that the DB603G was plagged with problems and never achieved production status before the war ended. As a quick fix the DB603G larger supercharger was fitted to the earlier DB603A hence producing the DB603E.

FW190fan
02-01-2004, 04:53 AM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Staga:
Jumo 213A-1 and DB603G had very similar performance outputs but Jumo 213E (Ta-152H) with 3 speed supercharger (2-speed in 213A) was superior at altitudes over 7km.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

This Jumo could also use three different types of boost systems depending on the need/altitude.

http://people.aero.und.edu/~choma/lrg0645.jpg

Staga
02-01-2004, 04:54 AM
http://www.kolumbus.fi/staga/charts/Speedchart.jpg

MiloMorai
02-01-2004, 04:56 AM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by FW190fan:

The DB603N may have been the best of the lot though, with a mechanical/hydraulic supercharger and 96 octane fuel it developed 2,830hp at 2.0 ata at sea level http://ubbxforums.ubi.com/infopop/emoticons/icon_eek.gif and still developed nearly 2,000hp at 32,000ft.

<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

How many manufactured? 30psi boost you say. http://ubbxforums.ubi.com/infopop/emoticons/icon_cool.gif



Long live the Horse Clans.

FW190fan
02-01-2004, 04:59 AM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by butch2k:
The main problem was that the DB603G was plagged with problems and never achieved production status before the war ended. As a quick fix the DB603G larger supercharger was fitted to the earlier DB603A hence producing the DB603E.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Do you know what the main problem with the DB603G was butch? I have read that it was connecting rod failures due to the type of metal used.

http://people.aero.und.edu/~choma/lrg0645.jpg

FW190fan
02-01-2004, 05:07 AM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by MiloMorai:

How many manufactured? 30psi boost you say. http://ubbxforums.ubi.com/infopop/emoticons/icon_cool.gif



<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

No, Jane's says Milo - and I'm not talking about "Janes Addiction" either http://ubbxforums.ubi.com/infopop/emoticons/icon_cool.gif

As far as how many produced, don't you know Milo? Probably if built in Derby, Bristol, or Flint they would have been rolling off the assembly lines like hotcakes wouldn't you say old chap? http://ubbxforums.ubi.com/images/smiley/mockface.gif

http://people.aero.und.edu/~choma/lrg0645.jpg

JR_Greenhorn
02-01-2004, 07:02 PM
Peraps there are some hints here:
(From: http://www.bf109.com/foreign.html
Please, check out the site for more.
The excerpt here is used without permission.)

------------------------------------------------

"The Bf 109 was to be seen in large numbers on German airfields in Czechoslovakia, and on many scrap-heaps in various stages of disrepair. With the diligence of ants, Avia engineers concentrated all the available Bf 109's together, and from them reconstructed 500 serviceable airframes, after manufacturing all missing components.

Only twenty of the reconstructed Bf 109 fighters could be powered by the original DB605A engine of 1,475hp, these serving as S-99s. As there were no more Daimler-Benz engines to be had, Czechoslovak engineers adapted the airframe for the only engine available in large numbers -- the 1,350 hp Jumo 211F. This had powered the Ju-88 bomber, and had low rpm and a large torque moment. Modified VS-11 three-blade propellors, with large paddle blades, were fitted to these engines.

The new fighter, with Jumo 211F, received the designation S-199...

...Use of the Jumo 211F engine, combined with the VS-11 paddle-bladed propeller, resulted in some unpleasant characteristics, particularly a tendency to turn over the left wing during take-off run at full throttle. The S-199's, disliked by their pilots, who nicknamed them mezek (mule)...
In March 1948 several C-210's were sold to Israel...but the Israeli's were far from complimentary about their new mounts.
...viscious characteristics...."

------------------------------------------------
While the question in this thread concerns the Jumo 213, it was based on the Jumo 211, and as such likely had similar characteristics.

At any rate, my point here is that in addition to max. power ratings and external dimensions (which dictate ease of installation, etc.), there may well be other factors that are hard to represent with spec. sheets.

As stated at http://www.bf109.com/ the Jumo 211 "had low rpm and a large torque moment." Such charactaristics are undesirable in a small fighter like the Bf 109, while the Ta 152 may have tolerated such an engine better because of its increased size and weight. Although it was "tolerated," it may have not been the most desirable powerplant for that application, hence Tank's insitence on the DB603.

It is also very likely that the DB600 series engines were more "free revving" than the Jumo 210 series. Again, this is hard to represent on a spec. sheet, but it plays a big role in the way the aircraft perfoms and behaves.

From my own experiences with cars, a larger (displacement) engine that produces more torque and horsepower does not always work as well in a relatively light car as a smaller, "freer revving" engine that may make less power. The same may be true for aircraft.
(If I had experience flying the Bf 109 with both the DB605 and the Jumo 213, I'd be sure to let you know http://ubbxforums.ubi.com/infopop/emoticons/icon_wink.gif )

MiloMorai
02-01-2004, 07:43 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by FW190fan:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by MiloMorai:

How many manufactured? 30psi boost you say. http://ubbxforums.ubi.com/infopop/emoticons/icon_cool.gif
<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

No, Jane's says Milo - and I'm not talking about "Janes Addiction" either http://ubbxforums.ubi.com/infopop/emoticons/icon_cool.gif

As far as how many produced, don't you know Milo? Probably if built in Derby, Bristol, or Flint they would have been rolling off the assembly lines like hotcakes wouldn't you say old chap? http://ubbxforums.ubi.com/images/smiley/mockface.gif

<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Never seen the tea commercial it seems.http://ubbxforums.ubi.com/infopop/emoticons/icon_smile.gif


What you as a 'German is uber' doesn't know how many of this uber German engine was produced. http://ubbxforums.ubi.com/images/smiley/mockface.gif http://ubbxforums.ubi.com/infopop/emoticons/icon_biggrin.gif


Well I can't say how many engines R-R produced but I can tell you how many of each type of engine P&W produced.http://ubbxforums.ubi.com/infopop/emoticons/icon_smile.gif

Just so you don't think the Germans were so uber, Napier had a Sabre putting out 3500hp on 70.6"Hg @ 3850rpm. With ADI (you do know what ADI is, don't you?) it put out 4000hp.

Just FYI, I have Fw books going back that were published 30+ years ago. In fact, I have more German a/c books in my library than I do Allied a/c books. http://ubbxforums.ubi.com/infopop/emoticons/icon_razz.gif http://ubbxforums.ubi.com/infopop/emoticons/icon_razz.gif http://ubbxforums.ubi.com/infopop/emoticons/icon_razz.gif

I don't have tunnel vision like some do here, FW190fan.http://ubbxforums.ubi.com/infopop/emoticons/icon_smile.gif



Long live the Horse Clans.

Staga
02-07-2006, 02:03 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by MiloMorai:
I don't have tunnel vision like some do here, FW190fan.http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_smile.gif
</div></BLOCKQUOTE>

Fact is You're one of the most biased persons ever roamed in boards like this but you're unable to understand your own behaviour.

Gibbage1
02-07-2006, 02:13 PM
Allison Turbo Compound V12 = 3500HP. http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_wink.gif

http://www.pilotfriend.com/aircraft%20performance/aero_...20Turbo-Compound.htm (http://www.pilotfriend.com/aircraft%20performance/aero_engines/Allison%20V-1710%20Turbo-Compound.htm)

butch2k
02-07-2006, 02:16 PM
hummm guys couldn't you leave the dead threads rest in peace http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_wink.gif
Damn it was young when this one started !!

Gibbage1
02-07-2006, 02:28 PM
Lol! I did not notice this was the "fine whine" of threads. Looks like we have a dead-thread digger.

alert_1
02-07-2006, 03:13 PM
Too bad for LW (and good for World) was, that there was no hioctane fuel available, DB601/605 were running mostly on 87/96 octane fuel, Db605 had stroke volume 35l while Merlin "only" 27l...

Cajun76
02-07-2006, 03:35 PM
Look at the dates, Staga is replying almost 2 years to the day from the last response...

http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/blink.gif

Message in a bottle, heh... http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_biggrin.gif