the DB600 used a dry sump lubrication system, which means the engine oil was collected in a remote container. your graphics are impressivly done but incorrectly show the oil in the crankcase as if a wet sump engine were turned over 180 deg. you really need to fix this if you are trying to explain how this engine works.
I have seen a cutaway model of this engine in the Deutsches Museum in Munich. I remember it had cylinder sleeves that were screwed in with a gear on their side for removal. Sadly all that great tech got shelved, only to be ‘rediscovered’ some 6 decades later.
The claim about the oil lubricating the cylinders better in the upside down Vee is nonsense. One of the reasons this configuration is rarely seen is that the oscillating pistons throw oil that gets down to them, creating a lot of windage (drag) in the crankcase, also creating a lot of small oil droplets that end up being blown out the crankcase breather when the engine is at high power (ring leakage); triply so once the engine is a bit worn. Oil scavenging is a problem in these engines and their like. Standard Vee engines port the pistons so that oil coming up the connecting rod (to lubricate the wrist pin) also flow to a piston-ring groove, wetting the cylinder wall efficiently, but not to excess. I would imagine DB did that... Another problem with inverted cylinders is that when the engine is not running the oil can leak through the rings, and then if that piston is in a position where neither valve is open (like compression stroke) it can "oil lock" the cylinder so it cannot be started. This was a common problem with big radials. Most of them have a small port and manual valve on the bottom cylinder(s) to relieve this during preflight. And then on top of all of that, the valve-train area tends to fill solid with oil (becoming sort of the engine's "sumps") increasing valve train drag, and necessary oil volume. All of this is the tradeoff for getting the crankshaft axis up high, getting some "free" prop diameter, and clearing space for guns at the top of the engine bay. There is no way to shoot a bullet down the centerline of a crankshaft. Quite a few aircraft that had a single 20 mm cannon were geared (conventional engines with offset gears, not planetary) so the bullet could pass through a bored-out gear & propeller shaft right out the centerline. (avoiding a prop interuptter that was more of a problem on slow rate cannon than on a machine gun) The geared engine allowed the engine RPM to be higher than the prop rpm, allowing more engine power ... particularly as the propellers got larger and larger and so needed to turn more slowly to keep the tips from going transonic. With a geared engine the standard Vee works fine, with an offset reduction drive rather than a planetary. I had to check because I wasn't sure ... but the DB 601 and 605 were both designed to be used with a propeller drive assembly that did have gear reduction. However this was a planetary, and that is more compact. I can't quickly find 20 mm cannon arrangement... if anyone knows where that can be seen, LMK. The Merlin and the Griffon were also geared-output designs -- basically mandatory for all 1000+ hp engines to swing a prop that could handle the horsepower. The gear ratios were changed to suit the aircraft too -- bombers swung bigger slower propellers.
In creating such a machine it doesn't matter about certain small advantages or disadvantages, what matters is the end result of applying multiple technologies and strategies to achieve one goal which is winning the war, I Don't think alot of people care about efficient engineering, even though I appreciate it .
@@TheAlgorithm733 -- I'm not following all of your points, other than "most people don't appreciate" -- sadly true everywhere all the time, about everything. If you are arguing that the MB engines were successful; then obviously you are right. Just the history of the 109 and 190 proves it; also the story of the 190 that switched to the liquid-cooled Vee is fascinating. I'd remind you of a few things though -- the first of which is "An airplane is a million compromises flying in tight formation ... until it doesn't anymore." So is an engine. The engine is make-or-break to powered aircraft, lots of "good military airframes" failed as aircraft due to inadequate engines. But this statement also tends to hide another reality: a horsepower advantage can hide a fair amount of bad aeronautical engineering. A hidden issue for engines is how critical it is that they be "worked up." Almost all new engine designs are poor on early iterations. You can look at an engine as a LARGE collection of parts, every part is subject to optimization. And particularly in military aviation , "Henry Ford's kingpins" is a key consideration. That story is that after 10's of thousands of Model T's were running around on American roads, Ford ask the question "what parts never break?" The reply was "the steering kingpins." Ford's swift order was "make them cheaper." In the military context this is particularly critical because it can mean LIGHTER, TOO (or not!) and it can mean balancing war-critical materials, and how many the war effort can have. The German engines had to run on worse gasoline, and faced much larger problems with alloys, and were being assembled in far less efficient lines (due to bombing) than Allied engines. Given this, they were outstanding. The combat lifetime of a fighter was almost never 100 hours. Rational engineering was not to build "civilian" engines or airframes designed for long service lives. This is something war-bird enthusiasts usually don't think about, but true.
@leeharrison2722 you are right the engine is the most crucial part of the aircraft , I always try to know how we should perfectly balance our technological and manufacturing capabilities in creating better machines, for example if we know that investing time and effort in developing the engine outweighs the benefit of developing a lighter airframe then we should focus in this direction more , I'm curious what did you study because you seem to have alot of knowledge.
Yeah, until you try to maintain and service an inverted V12 installed inside an armored hull that you can access only from a hood located on top. Good luck. 🤔
@razorback20 in the tank application seems like u could install it right side up but a large bolt on skid plate or hull plate in the rear wouldn't be hard to design into a tank actually having them at every torsion bar cross section wouldn't weaken the hull either heavy equipment has this setup and you could repair mine damage easier that way if it didn't knock your tank out anyways but the hp and torque this engine made at a lower rpm really would have made the difference on King tiger and jag tiger and tiger 1 possibly then the final drive woulda needed beefing up and transmission that power train worked awesome on panthers which was 48 tons and pulled the tiger 1 which was 56 tons well but those wide tracks and weight made it tough on final drives they really needed a slanted tooth gear design rather than those straight teeth cogs at the finals that alone woulda made the difference I firmly believe
Traditionally inverted engines put the prop shaft higher up, giving more room for the propellor, like interwar De Havilands. Problem was with both the DBs & Junker V12s the prop’s downspeed gearbox got in the way in this regard, meaning in the end it didn’t improve things like it should’ve in this regard
Hi there, thanks for stopping by our channel! The ads are actually set automatically by RUclips, but we’ll try to find a way to reduce them. Thanks a lot for your advice and support! 🙏:))
@@martin-vv9lf I use a Roku box, and I have 5 premium channels anyway and 1 more Premium RUclips is very worthwhile it is like how RUclips used to be & I get YT music almost the same as Spotify but this one has more videos which you can have or not depending on your data & I can download any video and I recommend people use Premium 0 ad's except authors in video plugs Try it for a month there is no contract 👍👍👍👍👍
I woulda used a one super charger on each side to keep the engine compression ratio simple and easy plus more power even if I had to run smaller chargers I think that woulda been way better
The W12 inverted engine had many advantages easier to see over the nose, just point the nose to shoot cannons Hessler did not get his Shnell ( high speed ) bomber like the DH Mosquito, one reason he had no heavies, Even the FW 190 Butcher bird that had a radial engine, but they fitted the inverted V12 to this aircraft after the UK countered with mk 9 With a twin spool supercharger, it is still a fascinating engine, Even having a canon direct me through the spinner Centre These German aircraft just had to point their plane to make a kill England's.303 cal needed far more skill, beginning machine guns outside the propeller in the Wings Like the Schneider trophy which we won that was the origins of the Merlin engine.
Schneider trophy was a yearly race of fast seaplanes The winner gets money and takes the trophy home for 1 year Many Ariel races in the solent waters over different years with each winning Country being added to the cup The country to win the Schneider trophy 3 years in the row would win the entire event which was England I'm guessing to take the cup home forever Schneider trophy event then ended The British seaplane team was Supermarine with RJ Mitchell designer of the Spitfire the greatest World War II fighter The P 51 was not designated as an F for fighter The Tempest Teardrop pilot and the Merlin engine into the plane it would become England did all this to the Mustang it became Anyone believing the mustang was better should know these facts RULE BRITANNIA
Nice video. The connecting rods on all versions in the family were bolted on rod caps. Only radials use one piece rods. In fact only capped rods can be used in almost any inline because it is next to impossible to design a bolted up crank shaft strong enough. Most likely the reason for the needle bearing change was because we destroyed close to 90% of their bearing manufacturing capacity and plain bearing are cheaper and simpler to make.
Alu'-min-nium . . . . only one group of people who say that. . . .of British decent. Though a British man, Sir Humphry Davy, first coined the word and called it 'Aluminum', his peers later decided they needed to make sound a bit more 'stuffed shirt' . . .the down to earth man calls it Aluminum.
6:54 That view is wrong. Because of the fork and blade design the cylinder banks are not offset. The shooting trough the propeller hub was given up on later models because of unsufficient accuracy.
That's the neat part : you can't. There was a constant shortage of DB 601 engines at that period. At such a point that, the Bf 110 having priority for them, the E variant of the 109 was delayed until the situation became critical. And by that, I mean when the earlier and underpowered D models started to have their asses handed to them by french and british fighters during the early stages of the Phoney War.
@@razorback20 Ok, Thanks! I've got some other manufacturers like Cessna and Beachcraft that the Department of Homeland Security has recommended, that could Make America 1939 Germany Again! We must protect the Home Land from brown people flying across our borders.
Your intent was to show the mechanical design of the engine. But for the WW2 aircraft buff you committed so many technical errors. From an illustration view point, you made constant chronical errors jumping back and forth from early aircraft and later ones, which had different versions of the engines. DB-601 in the Bf-109E & F and the DB-605 in the BF-109G & K. You keep referring throughout the video to the DB-600 which was a prewar version. Maybe use the term DB-600 "family". The angle of the landing gear was so wrong that the aircraft could never have landed without ending up on its nose. Know the subject and do it correctly or STOP.
Excuse me what? The average He 111 powered by DB 601s? Fake news ! 😮💨 Actually, this plane and the Ju 88 were compelled to use different engines (Junkers Jumo) on purpose because the production of the DB 601 was insufficient to provide for the whole fleet. They could barely equip all of their fighters (109 and 110), let alone their bombers. Same for the Fw-190. It's no coincidence if it was design around a different radial engine.
Interesting video but narrated with some pronunciation errors and no indication that the speaker understands what he (or it) is talking about. The inverted design was important and interesting, but this presentation is not completely factually trustworthy. Some of the details are new information for me, maybe, but I'll try to find an additional source. Some of the rendering is excellent. So: mixed response. Try to do better. Don't give up!
You seem to be a little foggy with your poor aviation history, firstly the main reason for the inverted V was to mount a 20mm or 30mm cannon, secondly the Merlin was a better engine, the Germans lost the war FYI. Lastly the Me 109 was slightly inferior to Spitfire in the early years of the (the Germans lost the war FYI), the gap increased as the war went on, the Me 109E+F were the best. The P-51, Yak-3, Yak-7, Yak-9 were all far better than the Me 109.
THANKS! Australia!!👍💥
the DB600 used a dry sump lubrication system, which means the engine oil was collected in a remote container. your graphics are impressivly done but incorrectly show the oil in the crankcase as if a wet sump engine were turned over 180 deg. you really need to fix this if you are trying to explain how this engine works.
I have seen a cutaway model of this engine in the Deutsches Museum in Munich. I remember it had cylinder sleeves that were screwed in with a gear on their side for removal. Sadly all that great tech got shelved, only to be ‘rediscovered’ some 6 decades later.
The claim about the oil lubricating the cylinders better in the upside down Vee is nonsense. One of the reasons this configuration is rarely seen is that the oscillating pistons throw oil that gets down to them, creating a lot of windage (drag) in the crankcase, also creating a lot of small oil droplets that end up being blown out the crankcase breather when the engine is at high power (ring leakage); triply so once the engine is a bit worn. Oil scavenging is a problem in these engines and their like.
Standard Vee engines port the pistons so that oil coming up the connecting rod (to lubricate the wrist pin) also flow to a piston-ring groove, wetting the cylinder wall efficiently, but not to excess. I would imagine DB did that...
Another problem with inverted cylinders is that when the engine is not running the oil can leak through the rings, and then if that piston is in a position where neither valve is open (like compression stroke) it can "oil lock" the cylinder so it cannot be started. This was a common problem with big radials. Most of them have a small port and manual valve on the bottom cylinder(s) to relieve this during preflight.
And then on top of all of that, the valve-train area tends to fill solid with oil (becoming sort of the engine's "sumps") increasing valve train drag, and necessary oil volume.
All of this is the tradeoff for getting the crankshaft axis up high, getting some "free" prop diameter, and clearing space for guns at the top of the engine bay.
There is no way to shoot a bullet down the centerline of a crankshaft. Quite a few aircraft that had a single 20 mm cannon were geared (conventional engines with offset gears, not planetary) so the bullet could pass through a bored-out gear & propeller shaft right out the centerline. (avoiding a prop interuptter that was more of a problem on slow rate cannon than on a machine gun) The geared engine allowed the engine RPM to be higher than the prop rpm, allowing more engine power ... particularly as the propellers got larger and larger and so needed to turn more slowly to keep the tips from going transonic. With a geared engine the standard Vee works fine, with an offset reduction drive rather than a planetary.
I had to check because I wasn't sure ... but the DB 601 and 605 were both designed to be used with a propeller drive assembly that did have gear reduction. However this was a planetary, and that is more compact. I can't quickly find 20 mm cannon arrangement... if anyone knows where that can be seen, LMK.
The Merlin and the Griffon were also geared-output designs -- basically mandatory for all 1000+ hp engines to swing a prop that could handle the horsepower. The gear ratios were changed to suit the aircraft too -- bombers swung bigger slower propellers.
In creating such a machine it doesn't matter about certain small advantages or disadvantages, what matters is the end result of applying multiple technologies and strategies to achieve one goal which is winning the war, I Don't think alot of people care about efficient engineering, even though I appreciate it .
@@TheAlgorithm733 -- I'm not following all of your points, other than "most people don't appreciate" -- sadly true everywhere all the time, about everything.
If you are arguing that the MB engines were successful; then obviously you are right. Just the history of the 109 and 190 proves it; also the story of the 190 that switched to the liquid-cooled Vee is fascinating.
I'd remind you of a few things though -- the first of which is "An airplane is a million compromises flying in tight formation ... until it doesn't anymore." So is an engine.
The engine is make-or-break to powered aircraft, lots of "good military airframes" failed as aircraft due to inadequate engines. But this statement also tends to hide another reality: a horsepower advantage can hide a fair amount of bad aeronautical engineering.
A hidden issue for engines is how critical it is that they be "worked up." Almost all new engine designs are poor on early iterations. You can look at an engine as a LARGE collection of parts, every part is subject to optimization. And particularly in military aviation , "Henry Ford's kingpins" is a key consideration.
That story is that after 10's of thousands of Model T's were running around on American roads, Ford ask the question "what parts never break?" The reply was "the steering kingpins." Ford's swift order was "make them cheaper."
In the military context this is particularly critical because it can mean LIGHTER, TOO (or not!) and it can mean balancing war-critical materials, and how many the war effort can have. The German engines had to run on worse gasoline, and faced much larger problems with alloys, and were being assembled in far less efficient lines (due to bombing) than Allied engines. Given this, they were outstanding.
The combat lifetime of a fighter was almost never 100 hours. Rational engineering was not to build "civilian" engines or airframes designed for long service lives. This is something war-bird enthusiasts usually don't think about, but true.
@leeharrison2722 you are right the engine is the most crucial part of the aircraft , I always try to know how we should perfectly balance our technological and manufacturing capabilities in creating better machines, for example if we know that investing time and effort in developing the engine outweighs the benefit of developing a lighter airframe then we should focus in this direction more , I'm curious what did you study because you seem to have alot of knowledge.
I think this engine woulda been great for the heavy panzers than the Maybach V12 engines was I think
Yeah, until you try to maintain and service an inverted V12 installed inside an armored hull that you can access only from a hood located on top. Good luck. 🤔
@razorback20 in the tank application seems like u could install it right side up but a large bolt on skid plate or hull plate in the rear wouldn't be hard to design into a tank actually having them at every torsion bar cross section wouldn't weaken the hull either heavy equipment has this setup and you could repair mine damage easier that way if it didn't knock your tank out anyways but the hp and torque this engine made at a lower rpm really would have made the difference on King tiger and jag tiger and tiger 1 possibly then the final drive woulda needed beefing up and transmission that power train worked awesome on panthers which was 48 tons and pulled the tiger 1 which was 56 tons well but those wide tracks and weight made it tough on final drives they really needed a slanted tooth gear design rather than those straight teeth cogs at the finals that alone woulda made the difference I firmly believe
Traditionally inverted engines put the prop shaft higher up, giving more room for the propellor, like interwar De Havilands. Problem was with both the DBs & Junker V12s the prop’s downspeed gearbox got in the way in this regard, meaning in the end it didn’t improve things like it should’ve in this regard
So supercharged V-8 became peak aviation prop engine for fighters
I liked the video but there are quite a few inaccuracies.
good video, too many adverts though. one ad at the start and one at the end is enough.
Hi there, thanks for stopping by our channel! The ads are actually set automatically by RUclips, but we’ll try to find a way to reduce them. Thanks a lot for your advice and support! 🙏:))
@@martin-vv9lf I use a Roku box, and I have 5 premium channels anyway and 1 more
Premium RUclips is very worthwhile it is like how RUclips used to be & I get
YT music almost the same as Spotify but this one has more videos which you can have or not depending on your data
& I can download any video and I recommend people use
Premium 0 ad's except authors in video plugs
Try it for a month there is no contract 👍👍👍👍👍
If my country syria has any advantages that would be no ads on youtube .
@TheAlgorithm733 I like your name
AI generated 109 landing gear is incorrect. The main gear legs were not vertical but were splayed outward several degrees.
Thanks for pointing that out bro, I’ll try to be more accurate next time.🙏
Fuel injectors are out of a very modern vehicle
And yet the DB600 had them when most other engines were carbonated
Could you post the link to these carbonated engines you speak of @@bradschoeck1526
I woulda used a one super charger on each side to keep the engine compression ratio simple and easy plus more power even if I had to run smaller chargers I think that woulda been way better
That style super charger looks alot alike a pro charger
The W12 inverted engine had many advantages easier to see over the nose, just point the nose to shoot cannons
Hessler did not get his
Shnell ( high speed ) bomber like the
DH Mosquito, one reason he had no heavies,
Even the FW 190 Butcher bird that had a radial engine, but they fitted the inverted V12 to this aircraft after the UK countered with mk 9
With a twin spool supercharger, it is still a fascinating engine,
Even having a canon direct me through the spinner Centre
These German aircraft just had to point their plane to make a kill
England's.303 cal needed far more skill, beginning machine guns outside the propeller in the Wings
Like the Schneider trophy which we won that was the origins of the Merlin engine.
Schneider trophy was a yearly race of fast seaplanes
The winner gets money and takes the trophy home for 1 year
Many Ariel races in the solent waters over different years with each winning Country being added to the cup
The country to win the Schneider trophy 3 years in the row would win the entire event which was England I'm guessing to take the cup home forever
Schneider trophy event then ended
The British seaplane team was Supermarine with RJ Mitchell designer of the Spitfire the greatest World War II fighter
The P 51 was not designated as an F for fighter
The Tempest Teardrop pilot and the Merlin engine into the plane it would become
England did all this to the Mustang it became
Anyone believing the mustang was better should know these facts
RULE BRITANNIA
Thanks for sharing!!!!!!!!!!
Nice video. The connecting rods on all versions in the family were bolted on rod caps. Only radials use one piece rods. In fact only capped rods can be used in almost any inline because it is next to impossible to design a bolted up crank shaft strong enough. Most likely the reason for the needle bearing change was because we destroyed close to 90% of their bearing manufacturing capacity and plain bearing are cheaper and simpler to make.
With the 211/213 series Junkers built a similar engine.
I don't get adverts as I am premium RUclips and is so worth it, as said too many adverts,
This is very much worth it
Awesome engine......Thank you....
Our pleasure!
Highly interesting !
Heinkel 111 aircraft type was not said as 'H E One, one one', but rather as 'H E One eleven'. It was less likely to be misheard that way.
What an engine!!!!!
I though the inverted position allowing the crankshaft in-line with the prop hub.
Love this video.
Glad you liked it! 😊
Does the gun synchronization accuracy change over time.
drawing a line for the piston head's height and then saying "stroke"...
Inaccurate video. The Luftwaffe issued an order not to engage the YAK3 below 2000 feet. 😂😂😂
Germans are brilliant at making the impossible work, But that doesn't make the machine the best.. Yet, the DB's were definately formidable
There are so many inaccuracies in this video, it's almost useless.
The engine was designed inverted because the German air ministry specification called for it to be so .
Alu'-min-nium . . . . only one group of people who say that. . . .of British decent. Though a British man, Sir Humphry Davy, first coined the word and called it 'Aluminum', his peers later decided they needed to make sound a bit more 'stuffed shirt' . . .the down to earth man calls it Aluminum.
Fuel capacity 9 litres ???
6:54 That view is wrong. Because of the fork and blade design the cylinder banks are not offset.
The shooting trough the propeller hub was given up on later models because of unsufficient accuracy.
Nope! they had the 30mm cannon on all the final versions of the me 109, including the K series!
I don't know, I'm still skeptical and not entirely sold. Can you produce them in volume before September 1939?
That's the neat part : you can't.
There was a constant shortage of DB 601 engines at that period. At such a point that, the Bf 110 having priority for them, the E variant of the 109 was delayed until the situation became critical. And by that, I mean when the earlier and underpowered D models started to have their asses handed to them by french and british fighters during the early stages of the Phoney War.
@@razorback20 Ok, Thanks! I've got some other manufacturers like Cessna and Beachcraft that the Department of Homeland Security has recommended, that could Make America 1939 Germany Again! We must protect the Home Land from brown people flying across our borders.
Many of these innovations (fuel injection, supercharging, etc.) were real world tested in the MB Grand Prix cars of the late thirties.
And reversed landing gear apparently.
Silicon/ Silicone
Not the same thing.
Why not cars?¿
Your intent was to show the mechanical design of the engine. But for the WW2 aircraft buff you committed so many technical errors. From an illustration view point, you made constant chronical errors jumping back and forth from early aircraft and later ones, which had different versions of the engines. DB-601 in the Bf-109E & F and the DB-605 in the BF-109G & K. You keep referring throughout the video to the DB-600 which was a prewar version. Maybe use the term DB-600 "family". The angle of the landing gear was so wrong that the aircraft could never have landed without ending up on its nose. Know the subject and do it correctly or STOP.
Excuse me what? The average He 111 powered by DB 601s? Fake news ! 😮💨
Actually, this plane and the Ju 88 were compelled to use different engines (Junkers Jumo) on purpose because the production of the DB 601 was insufficient to provide for the whole fleet. They could barely equip all of their fighters (109 and 110), let alone their bombers.
Same for the Fw-190. It's no coincidence if it was design around a different radial engine.
Interesting video but narrated with some pronunciation errors and no indication that the speaker understands what he (or it) is talking about. The inverted design was important and interesting, but this presentation is not completely factually trustworthy. Some of the details are new information for me, maybe, but I'll try to find an additional source. Some of the rendering is excellent. So: mixed response. Try to do better. Don't give up!
You seem to be a little foggy with your poor aviation history, firstly the main reason for the inverted V was to mount a 20mm or 30mm cannon, secondly the Merlin was a better engine, the Germans lost the war FYI. Lastly the Me 109 was slightly inferior to Spitfire in the early years of the (the Germans lost the war FYI), the gap increased as the war went on, the Me 109E+F were the best. The P-51, Yak-3, Yak-7, Yak-9 were all far better than the Me 109.
The British Merlin still had another 400hp...and without nitrous 😮 and it's standard cruise speed was over 750km/h
They had better fuel
Because they had access to higher quality fuel, not to mention materials.