Just a Quick question regarding engine installation on luftwaffe aircraft

Something like this?

Xld1amY.png
Its quite an impressive drawing, and it could perhabs have been a napkinwaffe.
 
The Argus AS-5 was a mid-20s German engine producing 1500 hp. It was cancelled in 1927, by the Ministry of Transportation, because they could use 2 small engines instead. Looking back, I could say they had no foresight.

while in general agree with you, that was 2,400 lb. engine (and decade later BMW 801 over 2,200 lb.) both managing 1,500hp while the Bramo 323 and Jumo 211 weighed approx. 1,200 lbs. and could manage 1,200 - 1,300hp? (crude comparison ignoring fuel economy, supercharger use, etc.)

my point being they go off cliff in power/weight ratio. (do their fuels or materials trip them up?)
 
while in general agree with you, that was 2,400 lb. engine (and decade later BMW 801 over 2,200 lb.) both managing 1,500hp while the Bramo 323 and Jumo 211 weighed approx. 1,200 lbs. and could manage 1,200 - 1,300hp? (crude comparison ignoring fuel economy, supercharger use, etc.)

my point being they go off cliff in power/weight ratio. (do their fuels or materials trip them up?)
The german WW2 engines were heavy as a rule. Particular the radials. 10 years later the engines had almost twice the rpm's and better compression ratio with new fuels. A lot of aluminium was used in the Argus, so it would gain weight there, but otherwise we are talking 25-3000 HP for such an engine with superchargers etc in 1940.Quite a promising design.
 
news-351_1.jpg


While I cannot speak of potential success of the Argus AS5, I can address the need for a large, powerful engine. The 12 Jupiters were later swapped for 12 Conquerors.

the Bramo 323 and Jumo 211 weighed approx. 1,200 lbs. and could manage 1,200 - 1,300hp? (crude comparison ignoring fuel economy, supercharger use, etc.)

I never knew about a 1200-1300 hp Bramo 323, which was based on Jupiter, or 1300hp Jumos that weighed 1200 lbs. Thanks.
 
I suspect that torsional vibration broke too many multi-bank (more than 2 banks) piston engines. Consider that every time a cylinder fires, it creates a torsional surge, followed by a torsional lag as the cylinder exhausts then refills. If those surges are not carefully timed, they can quickly pile up to break shafts, gears, etc.

Coupled engines never proved practical until turbines were introduced. Now thousands of helicopters are powered by multiple turbine engines. The best example is the Bell 212 and 412 Twin Huey's that have a pair of PT6A engines with a combining gearbox and the gearbox drives the main transmission.

One of the few propeller-driven airplanes with side-by-side engines was the Fairey Gannet, but it had a pair of Mamba engines (turbine so less vibration) driving co-axial propellers. But the two different engines really only shared a few bearings around the propeller drive shafts.

The only WW2-vintage combined engine was the Chrysler multi-bank engine installed in some Sherman tanks. They ran well in tanks, but the USA promptly "gifted" them to allies after the war. I suspect that they were "gifted" because US Army mechanics did not want to maintain them in the low run.

WALLIES never succeeded in coupling large piston engines. The Rolls Royce Vulture proved so unreliable that some Avro Manchester squadrons were derisively referred to to as "Regiments of Foot!"
Hah!
Hah! The closest thing was the Pratt & Whitney R4360 radial engine with 4 rows of cylinders. R4360 proved such a maintenance hog that it only powered American bombers and transports during the Cold War. Civilian airlines could not afford to maintain R4360 engines.
 
allison-x-4520-rrhtab-rear.jpg


By way of context for the Argus, Allison built the air-cooled X-4520 in 1927, and it produced 1325 hp, more than anything else available. However, the Army didn't test it until 1931, no war on, and the rear cylinders overheated. Forgotten.


WALLIES never succeeded in coupling large piston engines. The Rolls Royce Vulture proved so unreliable that some Avro Manchester squadrons were derisively referred to to as "Regiments of Foot!"

The Vulture was an X engine with one crankshaft, not a coupled one. One could say that an H engine, such as the Sabre, was 2 coupled boxers, or not. The Wright H was 2 coupled boxers.

The Allison V-3420 was 2 V-1710s coupled in a common crankcase, and it was fairly successful, but the aircraft made to employ it were not, so success is relative.
 
that was 2,400 lb. engine (and decade later BMW 801 over 2,200 lb.) both managing 1,500hp while the Bramo 323 and Jumo 211 weighed approx. 1,200 lbs. and could manage 1,200 - 1,300hp? (crude comparison ignoring fuel economy, supercharger use, etc.)

my point being they go off cliff in power/weight ratio. (do their fuels or materials trip them up?)

The german WW2 engines were heavy as a rule. Particular the radials. 10 years later the engines had almost twice the rpm's and better compression ratio with new fuels. A lot of aluminium was used in the Argus, so it would gain weight there, but otherwise we are talking 25-3000 HP for such an engine with superchargers etc in 1940.Quite a promising design.

not all trees grow to the sky , meaning who can say the development of Argus engine and who would push its development thru 1920's if it had a rocky path similar to Jumo 222? (not saying DON'T develop it)

I never knew about a 1200-1300 hp Bramo 323, which was based on Jupiter, or 1300hp Jumos that weighed 1200 lbs. Thanks.

that is the version of Bramo supercharged within an inch of its life!

my scenario was to find better engines for FW-200 Condor and first thought of BMW 801s but they are much heavier (2,200 lbs) and read an actual development to add fifth engine to Condor (it might be possible to cruise on three for fuel economy?)
 
I found that pic a long time ago on Bing Images and the site it was on was a dead one so I have no information on it but I believe its someone's art work because I've never seen this pic on any of the Luftwaffe 46 sites.


Thanks for the answer. It just looked strange and had features akin to a B-29.

Well whoever created it did a nice job, artistic wise.
 
not all trees grow to the sky , meaning who can say the development of Argus engine and who would push its development thru 1920's if it had a rocky path similar to Jumo 222? (not saying DON'T develop it)



that is the version of Bramo supercharged within an inch of its life!

my scenario was to find better engines for FW-200 Condor and first thought of BMW 801s but they are much heavier (2,200 lbs) and read an actual development to add fifth engine to Condor (it might be possible to cruise on three for fuel economy?)
"Who is to say", that Can be said of almost anything written here.
Fifth condor engine? Why not add the sixth in a push pull config?
 
"Who is to say", that Can be said of almost anything written here.
Fifth condor engine? Why not add the sixth in a push pull config?

my overall point was the actual events showed a diminishing return with the larger German engines, power/weight.

the fifth engine for Condor would not require as much re-engineering as attempting a push-pull configuration, that was actual project but do not know if it was for increased performance or to maintain performance as they added more guns and munitions.
 
Top