Jumo 205 Engines for Land, Maritime, and Energy Applications?

Delta Force

Banned
This is inspired by this post.

The Jumo 205 was developed by Germany prior to World War II as an diesel aircraft engine. The engine was used on early versions of the Junkers Ju-86 bomber, but even there it was found to be too unresponsive for use and too unreliable at high power, so the engines were relegated to use on airships and maritime patrol aircraft. That presumably means it was quite unresponsive and unreliable at full power, seeing as the TF30 turbofan was infamous for both of those in 1960s and 1970s but powered early F-14 interceptors and all F-111 strike aircraft.

Although the Jumo 205 was something of a failure as an aircraft engine, it seems that it might have had potential in other applications. It might even be possible without too much modification or loss of performance, as the engine already runs on diesel fuel, and diesel engines have to be heavily built to cope with the demands of their use. It seems that there could have been some major performance advantages associated with using it, as the naturally aspirated Jumo 205 (later variants had supercharging) produced up to 850 horsepower while weighing 595 kilograms (1,312 pounds), compared to the Maybach ML230 diesel engine which produced 600 horsepower and weighted 1,200 kilograms (2,646 pounds). Also, the Jumo 205 wasn't very successful as an aircraft engine, so there probably wouldn't be as much concern about using aircraft engines to power tanks and ships and provide power for generators.
 

Deleted member 1487

IIRC its the standard German problem with diesels and engines: they had limited production capacity for diesel/aircraft engines so it would be too problematic to expand that capacity at the the expense of existing production. The other very serious problem is the lack of enough aluminum for that, which the Jumo required. The US and USSR had enough to use for their tank engines, Germany had to supply her and Europe's needs with her limited stocks, so it was not viable. Also they needed a lot for AAA shells IIRC, so they couldn't spare aluminum.

The original Maybach ML210 also used aluminum and had to convert to steel, which jacked up weight and size a lot due to shortages of aluminum.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Maybach_HL230
The engine was a follow-up version of the slightly smaller HL210 that had a displacement of 21 liters and, unlike the HL230, an aluminium crankcase and block. The HL210 was used to equip the first 250 Tiger I tanks built.
 

Delta Force

Banned
IIRC its the standard German problem with diesels and engines: they had limited production capacity for diesel/aircraft engines so it would be too problematic to expand that capacity at the the expense of existing production. The other very serious problem is the lack of enough aluminum for that, which the Jumo required. The US and USSR had enough to use for their tank engines, Germany had to supply her and Europe's needs with her limited stocks, so it was not viable. Also they needed a lot for AAA shells IIRC, so they couldn't spare aluminum.

The original Maybach ML210 also used aluminum and had to convert to steel, which jacked up weight and size a lot due to shortages of aluminum.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Maybach_HL230

How did using aluminum increase the engine's size? If anything it should be the same size or smaller since steel is stronger than aluminum, so less material would be required if the design was revised for the new material. Of course, it's possible they enlarged the engine to compensate for the increased weight.
 
How did using aluminum increase the engine's size? If anything it should be the same size or smaller since steel is stronger than aluminum, so less material would be required if the design was revised for the new material. Of course, it's possible they enlarged the engine to compensate for the increased weight.

Using Steel in the Mayboch increasrd its weight because there were certain fixed peramaters in the engine. These are fixed by the bore and stroke, bore center distance, head layout etc. I really don't think using steel made the Maybach bigger, it just weighed more
 

Delta Force

Banned
Using Steel in the Mayboch increasrd its weight because there were certain fixed peramaters in the engine. These are fixed by the bore and stroke, bore center distance, head layout etc. I really don't think using steel made the Maybach bigger, it just weighed more

It might be possible to see some savings though. There was an aluminum automobile engine that was switched to iron to save money, and because the company just built it exactly the same but out of a different material it came out heavier and more rugged because some areas were thicker than they needed to be.

Of course, as a diesel engine being converted for land or sea use during war time, the weight savings might not be worth the costs and delays of revision.
 

Deleted member 1487

Perhaps the reason wasn't strength, but it would seem they increased displacement with the 230, so that led to an increase not just in weight, but size
 
According to what I just googled, the Maybach was converted to iron because the tank compartment size in the Tiger was fixed and the power was inadequate. Changing material allowed the engine capacity to be increased from 21 to 23 liters and 50 more hp., still not enough. It was nothing to do with aluminum shortage.
 

Delta Force

Banned
According to what I just googled, the Maybach was converted to iron because the tank compartment size in the Tiger was fixed and the power was inadequate. Changing material allowed the engine capacity to be increased from 21 to 23 liters and 50 more hp., still not enough. It was nothing to do with aluminum shortage.

So it was the same design, just built in iron to allowed it to be bored and/or stroked out for more power in the same space?

Is there any reason why the Jumo was able to get more power out of its design despite being lower displacement? Is it because the Jumo was a fuel injected opposed piston design, while the Maybach was a carbureted V-12?
 

marathag

Banned
The Jumo 205 was an aluminum aircraft diesel of 1015 cubic inches and 868HP@2800 rpm. It ran at much higher RPM than most tank engines to make that power. Plan on 1800 rpm for reliability, that would give you 4-500HP

It weighed 1312 pounds. It was lighter and narrower than the Soviet V-2 diesel, but taller and shorter in length.

Back to Taller, as in just as tall as a Wright R-975.

Plan on having a Sherman sized hull for clearance.


Oh, and look at the service history of the Chieftain and its Leyland L60 engine, that was roughly the same engine design.

To save you some time with google, it wasn't happy. Many got only 60 miles before needing maintenance(read, pull engine from tank- it was cramped) Part of this from the desire to make it multifuel capable
 

Delta Force

Banned
The Jumo 205 was an aluminum aircraft diesel of 1015 cubic inches and 868HP@2800 rpm. It ran at much higher RPM than most tank engines to make that power. Plan on 1800 rpm for reliability, that would give you 4-500HP

Detuning the engine could allow for lower quality materials to be used, as with the Rolls-Royce Meteor, the tank version of the Merlin. In many cases older variant Merlin engines and/or rejected components were rebuilt into Meteor tank engines.

I'm not sure if it would be necessary to reduce the RPM though. The Maybach ML230 had peak torque at 2100 RPM and peak horsepower at 3000 RPM, and the Jumo 205 made its peak power around the same range (Wikipedia quotes 868 horsepower at 2800 RPM).

The related Jumo 223 ran at very high speeds though, with peak power at 4400 RPM.

It weighed 1312 pounds. It was lighter and narrower than the Soviet V-2 diesel, but taller and shorter in length.

Back to Taller, as in just as tall as a Wright R-975.

Plan on having a Sherman sized hull for clearance.
Height probably wouldn't be an issue for the Jumo. It's narrower and shorter than the Maybach HL230, but about a meter longer. Length isn't really a critical dimension for tanks though.

Also, it might be possible to have the engine mounted on its side, although this would require redesigning the oil system.

Oh, and look at the service history of the Chieftain and its Leyland L60 engine, that was roughly the same engine design.

To save you some time with google, it wasn't happy. Many got only 60 miles before needing maintenance(read, pull engine from tank- it was cramped) Part of this from the desire to make it multifuel capable
Diesel should be good enough for the Germans. That would probably even be a selling point, since the engine wouldn't have to be modified to run on lower quality fuel like a gasoline engine would, and also since the Jumo isn't used in critical aircraft applications.
 
One excellent reason for not using the Jumo diesel in a tank is that it is a Luftwaffe engine. One hilarious episode in the war was the building of Siebel ferries for Sea Lion. The navy couldn't build enough boats, so an aircraft manufacturer built nice houseboats for the crossing, made from bridge pontoons. The Army HAD to use truck engines and the Luftwaffe ferries HAD to use aircraft engines. Perhaps if they were Luftwaffe tanks...
 

marathag

Banned
Height probably wouldn't be an issue for the Jumo. It's narrower and shorter than the Maybach HL230, but about a meter longer. Length isn't really a critical dimension for tanks though.

Still 15" taller block height. Length gets to be an issue for rear drive, or for transverse mounting
 

Delta Force

Banned
One excellent reason for not using the Jumo diesel in a tank is that it is a Luftwaffe engine.

That's true. I think Imperial Japan might have had better relations between the services and government organs than Nazi Germany.

One hilarious episode in the war was the building of Siebel ferries for Sea Lion. The navy couldn't build enough boats, so an aircraft manufacturer built nice houseboats for the crossing, made from bridge pontoons. The Army HAD to use truck engines and the Luftwaffe ferries HAD to use aircraft engines. Perhaps if they were Luftwaffe tanks...
Did they use trainer and utility type aircraft engines, or were the Luftwaffe ferries the hot rods of the invasion fleet?

Still 15" taller block height. Length gets to be an issue for rear drive, or for transverse mounting

Is that between the Jumo and the Maybach? From what I'm seeing the Jumo is only 15 mm taller.
 
Did they use trainer and utility type aircraft engines, or were the Luftwaffe ferries the hot rods of the invasion fleet?

Big aircraft radials were used.

For further applications, Napier was a licence holder for Jumo 204 engines, and built the Culverin, which begat the triangular Deltic, which found its way to boats. Napier was bought by English Electric, and the Deltic locomotive was born. There's your land and sea applications.
 
Yeah, I was thinking the same thing - the Deltic is the ultimate expression of the Jumo 205, and is still in service powering Hunt-Class minehunters with the Royal, Hellenic and Lithuanian navies.
 

marathag

Banned
Is that between the Jumo and the Maybach? From what I'm seeing the Jumo is only 15 mm taller.

52" vs 37" per my data for block dimensions. With the aircleaners on, you may get your value. But the Jumo was near 400 cubic inches less in displacement. You won't get the Maybach's power, but closer to the Ford V-8

The Soviet V-2 Diesel was 2368 cubic inches, over twice the displacement of the Jumo, and was governed to 1800 rpm for reliability at 500HP[FONT=&quot][/FONT]
 
Last edited:

marathag

Banned
Big aircraft radials were used.

For further applications, Napier was a licence holder for Jumo 204 engines, and built the Culverin, which begat the triangular Deltic, which found its way to boats. Napier was bought by English Electric, and the Deltic locomotive was born. There's your land and sea applications.

The difference is what makes a good engine for constant speed applications, aircraft, marine, locomotive and generators, isn't always the same when used in variable speed applications, like tanks.

Like I posted upthread, read up on the Leyland L60. The trouble on that wasn't all on the multi-fuel requirement.
Think its just because well, it was Leyland and they were at their nadir of build quality?

Look at the Soviet T-64 5TDF engine.
Also an opposed piston design, and not reliable.
 
The difference is what makes a good engine for constant speed applications, aircraft, marine, locomotive and generators, isn't always the same when used in variable speed applications, like tanks.

Like I posted upthread, read up on the Leyland L60. The trouble on that wasn't all on the multi-fuel requirement.
Think its just because well, it was Leyland and they were at their nadir of build quality?

Look at the Soviet T-64 5TDF engine.
Also an opposed piston design, and not reliable.

The Nuffield Liberty and the R-R Meteor were aircraft engines, and the Sherman's radial to boot. The Sherman's Ford V-8 was originally an aircraft V-12 engine. There's an engine to wonder about. Anyway, a good engine is a good engine, and a poor or crap engine is not. Power characteristics can be adjusted with tuning, or as we used to call it, moddyfeecations.
 
Top