I was thinking.... Flugwerke Fw 190D?

Scott Rose · **Posted:** Tue Jul 20, 2004 9:01 pm

... which is always a dangerous situation.

With Flugwerke making the Fw 190 airframes how hard would it be to mate a Merlin to this to create a Fw 190D?

The Oil cooler seemes to create a much more forgiving nose profile that the Merlin-equipped Buchons. Obviously the exhaust stacks would be higher up than the inverted Jumo's would be but other than that is there any big technical blockage of this idea? You would also of course have to extend the tail with a plug like the original.

This doesn't seem to be a difficult conversion but I'm assuming I'm missing something?

Opinions?

dj51d · **Posted:** Tue Jul 20, 2004 9:49 pm

The only thing that comes to mind is horsepower. The Jumo 213 has about a 300hp advantage over the Parckard -9, maybe some of the later Rolls Royce units could match the Jumo's 1776HP, but how available are the late Rolls motors?

O.P. · **Posted:** Tue Jul 20, 2004 10:46 pm

I think Flugwerk has a D9 for sale, all it needs is an engine and a couple ten other things. It'll probably take a pimped up merlin. No weapons, no armor, the horsepower difference might not be that big of a factor.

Jeff · **Joined:** Fri Apr 30, 2004 4:41 am **Posts:** 81

how would the line of thrust go? wouldn't the merlin have it's prop mounted at a different height to the other engine?

would that cause problems to the handling or mounting or looks?

O.P. · **Posted:** Wed Jul 21, 2004 1:40 am

You're right. I hadn't thought of that. If I remember right, the original D9 engine was an inverted V. If it worked at all, it would probably have a chin, like the Buchon 109's.

Jeff · **Joined:** Fri Apr 30, 2004 4:41 am **Posts:** 81

or an off centre propellor in an annular radiator like the griffon engines on the lincoln bombers and shackletons might be possible but well. wouldn't look the same.

James D · **Posted:** Wed Jul 21, 2004 3:27 am

Taken from www.motobende.de

The project was "sold by the customer due to personal reasons", but the engine is there for someone to finish it off.

I read on the F****** forum that someone has a D9 project in the UK, though whether this is the same aircraft as the above, I couldn´t say.

I should have thought that there were a few of these motors about. More, than perhaps Napier Sabres for example.

cheers

Michel Lemieux · **Posted:** Wed Jul 21, 2004 8:32 am

Which prompts another question I had in mind for a long time

Regarding line of thrust, stack position, etc.....

How difficult would it be to take an Allison or Merlin, Modify it to make run inverted on a daily base.

I rememder,.....well see the following link about this extract:

http://www.wwiitechpubs.info/hangar/ac-uk/ac-uk-eng-rolls-royce-merlin/ac-uk-eng-rolls-royce-merlin-br.html

Quote:

Rolls-Royce started design work on a new engine, the PV.12, in 1933; its major design features were broadly similar to previous Rolls-Royce V-12's, especially the Kestrel. Cylinder displacement was 27 litres, a figure that stayed the same for all subsequent marks of the Merlin. Initial design studies examined the possibility of using an inverted vee layout for the engine, and a mock up was duly shown to the aircraft manufacturers. Reactions were generally unfavourable, the consensus being that it would present installation difficulties. The German experience with engines such as the DB601 suggests that such concerns were probably unfounded.

Scott Rose · **Posted:** Wed Jul 21, 2004 12:11 pm

Michel Lemieux wrote:

How difficult would it be to take an Allison or Merlin, Modify it to make run inverted on a daily base.

This is something I've wondered for awhile, what would be required?

As for the thrust line of a conventional Merlin. How hard would it be to develope a transfer case and shaft? I'm thinking along the lines of a P-39 but over a shorter distance? The nose of the Dora should be long enough to hide the instalation.

As for horsepower, unless your planning on flying combat ops or air racing shouldn't a Merlin be sufficient?

Guest · **Posted:** Thu Jul 22, 2004 11:29 am

Michel Lemieux wrote:

Which prompts another question I had in mind for a long time

Regarding line of thrust, stack position, etc.....

How difficult would it be to take an Allison or Merlin, Modify it to make run inverted on a daily base.

I rememder,.....well see the following link about this extract:

http://www.wwiitechpubs.info/hangar/ac-uk/ac-uk-eng-rolls-royce-merlin/ac-uk-eng-rolls-royce-merlin-br.html

Quote:

Rolls-Royce started design work on a new engine, the PV.12, in 1933; its major design features were broadly similar to previous Rolls-Royce V-12's, especially the Kestrel. Cylinder displacement was 27 litres, a figure that stayed the same for all subsequent marks of the Merlin. Initial design studies examined the possibility of using an inverted vee layout for the engine, and a mock up was duly shown to the aircraft manufacturers. Reactions were generally unfavourable, the consensus being that it would present installation difficulties. The German experience with engines such as the DB601 suggests that such concerns were probably unfounded.

I would think that inverting a Merlin would require significant modifications to the oiling systems. Not sure how well the cooling system would function as-is without changes, too.

Regarding the D-9 project in Germany, I was very disappointed to hear that it was sold, since I'd been following the progress with great interest. The engine work looks outstanding and it would appear as though the project was not far from having a running engine. I believe that this project was a seperate project from the D-9 in the UK, since from what I had read it was under rebuild for a "German customer." So I'm hopeful that there will eventually be two airworthy Doras. The existing population could certainly use a boost.

Dan K · **Posted:** Thu Jul 22, 2004 1:38 pm

Instead of using the Jumo 213, what about the (slightly) more numerous Jumo 211? Profile must have been nearly identical, and horsepower in the later versions was greater than Merlin output.

I've always wondered what might be sitting around in the Czech Republic. I believe Avia built the Jumo 211 by license (called the M211 maybe?) and used 211's post-war in the S199 of course. Who knows--maybe even the Israelis have a spare 211 or two lying around!

Just daydreaming on a summer afternoon... :drinkers:

joe s · **Posted:** Thu Jul 22, 2004 2:33 pm

The cost of restoring an FW-190d is immaterial in that there are virtually none to restore, ONLY available engines exist. To buy the new build project is the only way that one would fly in the configuration that makes it historicly significant. So with the warbird scribes being what they are, and the current state of the industry being what it is, why did the idea of putting a merlin in a long nose even start. This is the same board that has had posts decrying the loss of the centarus powed sea fury among other things. the cost of re engineering a major comfiguration change like this would probably pay for two jumos. As for inverting the merlin, again, the cost of reengineering everything is greater then just building it stock. Look at the TFC p-39 and its incredible attention to detail, any of the flying heritage aircraft, and think of the money being spent to keep things accurate and original. Would an inverted merlin long nose d even be allowed at flying legends...DEFINITLY NOT. And justifyably so. Restoration is making it how it was, to the best of our ability. Looking at the investment that operations like TFC are making in their Beaufighter for originality and provenence will pay many dividends later. These aircraft and the reconstructions that follow are to recreate history the way it was, not the fastest cheapest way we can get close. IF you just want to see a close shape fly around and sound different, its a lot cheaper to go to the RC field.

rudie · **Joined:** Thu May 06, 2004 6:51 pm **Posts:** 32

...So no more of this 'thinking', Scott!!! :ouch:

Heaven forbid anyone should muse over anything here...

O.P. · **Posted:** Thu Jul 22, 2004 4:46 pm

joe s wrote:

The cost of restoring an FW-190d is immaterial in that there are virtually none to restore, ONLY available engines exist. To buy the new build project is the only way that one would fly in the configuration that makes it historicly significant. So with the warbird scribes being what they are, and the current state of the industry being what it is, why did the idea of putting a merlin in a long nose even start. This is the same board that has had posts decrying the loss of the centarus powed sea fury among other things. the cost of re engineering a major comfiguration change like this would probably pay for two jumos. As for inverting the merlin, again, the cost of reengineering everything is greater then just building it stock. Look at the TFC p-39 and its incredible attention to detail, any of the flying heritage aircraft, and think of the money being spent to keep things accurate and original. Would an inverted merlin long nose d even be allowed at flying legends...DEFINITLY NOT. And justifyably so. Restoration is making it how it was, to the best of our ability. Looking at the investment that operations like TFC are making in their Beaufighter for originality and provenence will pay many dividends later. These aircraft and the reconstructions that follow are to recreate history the way it was, not the fastest cheapest way we can get close. IF you just want to see a close shape fly around and sound different, its a lot cheaper to go to the RC field.

Hi Joe, Welcome aboard!
The originals are institutionalized. And they probably should be. That only leaves recreations. The Flugwerke machine is a recreation,I'm talking about the D9. It not being able to fly at legends, is ok by me.

What I would do with a D9. (Any D9)
By O.P.

1. Do high speed flyovers at Auburn, saturday at noon.
2. Do high speed flyovers at (norcal airport name here) saturday at noon.
3. (The controversial part) I would have a beautiful nose art, featuring a reclining Heidi Klum, wearing some victorias secret stuff, and call the plane "Darling Dora", I'd also have a green heart with a 13 in it painted on the fuse just beneath the canopy on the left side.
4. Be the coolest kid at my field with my Super-Bitchin D9.

I'm not sure, but, there aren't any flying D9's, restoration or recreation. One regularly flying D9 is all I wanna see, of either type. The world is gonna get 10 Flugwerke A8's airborne in the next couple of years, those are complete recreations. The estimated performance specs on those planes are better than the originals. It is my view that all of the original warbird aircraft will be institutionalized within the next fifty years. The only place to see them will be on a museum floor. The only way a kid born today will be able to see them fly, is if we start building more of them now. Having the correct engine in a recreation is moot. Does it look, walk, fly, and quack like a duck? Then I guess it's a ............

Scott Rose · **Posted:** Thu Jul 22, 2004 5:04 pm

joe s wrote:

The cost of restoring an FW-190d is immaterial in that there are virtually none to restore, ONLY available engines exist. To buy the new build project is the only way that one would fly in the configuration that makes it historicly significant. So with the warbird scribes being what they are, and the current state of the industry being what it is, why did the idea of putting a merlin in a long nose even start. This is the same board that has had posts decrying the loss of the centarus powed sea fury among other things. the cost of re engineering a major comfiguration change like this would probably pay for two jumos. As for inverting the merlin, again, the cost of reengineering everything is greater then just building it stock. Look at the TFC p-39 and its incredible attention to detail, any of the flying heritage aircraft, and think of the money being spent to keep things accurate and original. Would an inverted merlin long nose d even be allowed at flying legends...DEFINITLY NOT. And justifyably so. Restoration is making it how it was, to the best of our ability. Looking at the investment that operations like TFC are making in their Beaufighter for originality and provenence will pay many dividends later. These aircraft and the reconstructions that follow are to recreate history the way it was, not the fastest cheapest way we can get close. IF you just want to see a close shape fly around and sound different, its a lot cheaper to go to the RC field.

There will never be a Fw 190D or Ta 152 flown... ever. There just aren't any. I also didn't realize Jumos were as common as Merlins. I would of course love to see a new build Dora fly with a Jumo if only for the sound of the powerplant. I would love to see a Bf 109 or a Bf 110 flying original Daimler-Benz engines. At the very least it would be a rarity. I just want to see them fly.

So with what you were saying, when the new build Me 262's appear at airshows they should be turned away because they don't have Jumo 004's?

Warbird Information Exchange

I was thinking.... Flugwerke Fw 190D?

Who is online