![enginehistory.org Forum Index](templates/subSilver/images/logo_phpBB.gif) |
enginehistory.org Aircraft Engine Historical Society Members' Bulletin Board
|
View previous topic :: View next topic |
Author |
Message |
rinkol
Joined: 13 Jul 2003 Posts: 40
|
Posted: Sun Aug 19, 2007 07:23 Post subject: Jumo 222 - Postwar Soviet Development? |
|
|
I noted with interest the recent article on the Jumo 222. I recall a report that the Soviets continued the development under a team of interned German personnel. However, AFAIK, there does not appear to have been any significant outcome.
Can anyone else shed further light on this?
One thing that is curious about the Jumo 222 development is that versions with three different sets of cylinder dimensions were developed, and moreover, there seemed to be parallel developments with different sized cylinders. I would have thought that the priority would have been on resolving the reliability issues. Can anyone comment as to the severity of these issues and the progress made on them?
Robert |
|
Back to top |
|
![](templates/subSilver/images/spacer.gif) |
pshort
Joined: 13 Jul 2003 Posts: 50 Location: Auckland, New Zealand
|
Posted: Mon Aug 20, 2007 17:51 Post subject: |
|
|
Robert,
I have a book "Junkers Aircraft and Engines 1913-1945" by Antony L Kay (Putnam, 2004) which has a pretty brief glance at the various Junkers engines.
The engines mentioned in regard to later work by the Soviets were the Jumo 223 and 224 - large diesel engines in a square or cruciform layout. No more info given about the Russians except to say these large engines were overtaken by the jet age.
I can't make much sense out of the info given in this book about the Jumo 222. There is one page given to the the various models of Jumo 222, but the author confuses me by saying "the bore and stroke (of the E/F series) was less than the C/D series but the capacity was increased"?? Later says "bore and stroke of the G and H models reverted to that of the A and B models but capacity was greatly increased"!! Maybe this meant the latter were 36 cylinders, but this isn't mentioned.
The Jumo 225 is mentioned as a projected development of the 222G/H using 36 cylinders (six banks of six cylinders).
I suspect there is better information in "Junkers Flugtriebewerke", but I can't decipher much of it! Hoping for an English translation of this nice book. |
|
Back to top |
|
![](templates/subSilver/images/spacer.gif) |
kmccutcheon
![](images/avatars/373.jpg)
Joined: 13 Jul 2003 Posts: 298 Location: Huntsville, Alabama USA
|
Posted: Tue Aug 21, 2007 06:19 Post subject: |
|
|
Quote: | One thing that is curious about the Jumo 222 development is that versions with three different sets of cylinder dimensions were developed, and moreover, there seemed to be parallel developments with different sized cylinders. I would have thought that the priority would have been on resolving the reliability issues. Can anyone comment as to the severity of these issues and the progress made on them? |
The reports used as source material for the article included an account of the changes between models. While this goes into great detail concerning WHAT was changed, it says nothing about WHY.
Some have opined that the entire “B” bomber program failed because of problems with the Jumo 222. With so much at stake, I also find it odd that the development effort was not more focused.
I cannot think of a single example of a radial with an even number of cylinders per row that was successful. The Curtiss H-1640 “Chieftain”, the Bristol Hydra and the Jumo 222 are the best known failures. I wonder if there is something fundamental about the configuration that makes it troublesome --- something that no one has yet documented.
I too hope someone can shed further light on this. _________________ Kimble D. McCutcheon |
|
Back to top |
|
![](templates/subSilver/images/spacer.gif) |
rinkol
Joined: 13 Jul 2003 Posts: 40
|
Posted: Fri Aug 24, 2007 16:41 Post subject: |
|
|
The motivation for the increases in cylinder size would seem to be to squeeze out more power. The primary application, at least to start out with, was the Ju 288, and this in turn went though increases in size and weight to meet changing specifications.
In highly political bureaucracies, there is often a temptation to keep making promises, some of which result from a need to make amends for the failure to make good on previous promises, no matter how unrealistic they are, because to not to do so would effectively be an admission of the unmentionable, namely that things have gone terribly wrong.
FWIW, Irving's book on Milch reports that Koppenberg, the head of Junkers, was dismissed on the spot after Milch decided his promises for Ju 288 production were not credible. The book goes on to say that shortly afterwards, reports indicated that there were fundamental problems with the Jumo 222 piston rod bearings and cylinder heads, but that mass-production was envisaged in August 1942. It also states that Milch was given permission to cancel the Jumo 222 engine contract, though it appears that development continued.
Robert |
|
Back to top |
|
![](templates/subSilver/images/spacer.gif) |
pshort
Joined: 13 Jul 2003 Posts: 50 Location: Auckland, New Zealand
|
Posted: Thu Aug 30, 2007 18:59 Post subject: |
|
|
There is a little bit about these engines in "Russian Piston Aero Engines" by Vladimir Kotelnikov, pages 236-237.
The author says there was great interest in the Jumo 222, and that two engines were taken to Moscow. Apparently there were preliminary projects prepared for long-range bombers using both 222 and 224. The Jumo 222 was re-designated the M-222.
It was the Jumo 224 that he says a little more about though - how the Russians went about getting the engine re-drawn (drawings and engines were destroyed before the Russians arrived) and how a group of Germans were taken to the Soviet Union to work on this engine design. Work on this design (M-224) stopped in June 1948. Apparently V.M. Yakolev slowed down work before this, believing his M-501 diesel engine would be better for long-range bombers. Apparently this engine went on into series production for marine work - seven blocks in radial, 42 cylinders. Sounds like another very interesting design! |
|
Back to top |
|
![](templates/subSilver/images/spacer.gif) |
mmotley
Joined: 09 Feb 2005 Posts: 1
|
Posted: Tue Jan 08, 2013 20:08 Post subject: Russian Jumo 222 Development |
|
|
There is mention of a follow on development in 1949: Dobrynin WD-4K also a 6 Bank, 4 Row Inline Radial about to be used ,but replaced by a lighter Turboprop. |
|
Back to top |
|
![](templates/subSilver/images/spacer.gif) |
|
|
You cannot post new topics in this forum You cannot reply to topics in this forum You cannot edit your posts in this forum You cannot delete your posts in this forum You cannot vote in polls in this forum
|
Powered by phpBB © 2001, 2005 phpBB Group
|