Jump to content

LSP Engines


Uncarina

Recommended Posts

On 2/6/2022 at 12:35 AM, MARU5137 said:

Maybe this Zac?

Details:

Eduard Accessories 634011 - 1:3 2 P-40N Löök for Eduard/Hasegawa - New 8591437535729 | eBay

 says order can be received by 2/14/2022.

Thanks Maru, but that appears to be just an instrument panel set - I'm looking for an engine and accessories ^_^

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • 4 weeks later...

Hi guys, following is the R2600 Wasp engine that is the powerplant for the 1/32 Trumpeter TBF-1c I am building.  Trumpeter did a good job here, and I think the engine looks pretty nice.  I only added ANYZ spark plugs (to the front of the cylinders), and scratched the plug wires.  As I will not be showing the engine with the panels off, I did not go wild on either adding A/M or scratchbuilding, as only the front part of the engine will be seen when everything is buttoned up.  I still need to weather it, which I plan to do shortly before buttoning up the fuselage.

 

Ernest

 

IMG_4081

 

IMG_4083

 

IMG_4084

 

IMG_4085

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

8 hours ago, Greif8 said:

Excellent Sakae Tom! What did you use for the spark plug wires? 

 

Ernest 

Thank you! I used fine gauge lead wire, and for the tiny straps I used lead foil from a wine bottle.

 

 

4 hours ago, MARU5137 said:

Tom,

:wow:

 

That's heckuva beautiful  engine. 

:bow:

Thank you very much Maru!

 

Cheers,  Tom

Link to comment
Share on other sites

You may remember my DO-335 rear engine (Daimler Benz 603) that I posted pictures of a few months back.  Here's a few pics as a refresher:

 

Right side.

w9NIif.jpg

 

Left side.

VjA6Xq.jpg

 

At long last, here's the front engine.

 

Right side.

HEVJJV.jpg

 

Left side.

hsmhA3.jpg

 

Underside.

jdn34R.jpg

 

Rear.

UUEjEG.jpg

 

Top.

nuP9QF.jpg

 

 

Cheers,

Michael

Link to comment
Share on other sites

19 hours ago, MARU5137 said:

Michael,

Your work  on the Engine is IMPECCABLE and IMPRESSIVE. 

Very pristine  detailing.

Love it.

:wub:     :wow: 

Kudos. 

   :bow:

 

 

Thanks very much.  Both engines have been built OOB which says a lot for Z-M's level of detail that you can get such an impressive looking build without modification.  I did have thoughts of adding the fuel injector lines from the silver fuel distributor than you can see in the underside view, but decided against doing so as I've added some of the firewall plumbing, the other end of which goes into the same area.  It would have been way to crowded.  Maybe when the 1/24 version comes out :lol:.

 

11 hours ago, Greif8 said:

Sweet looking DB605 Michael! 

 

Ernest 

 

It's actually a DB603 which was much bigger than the DB605.  The '603 was 44.5 litres or 2717 cubic inches, making it the biggest inverted V12 of WW2.  By comparison, the DB605 was "only" 35.7 litres or 2176 cubic inches.  Despite being so much bigger, however, production DB603's only produced a maximum output of 1775hp vs the DB605's production maximum of 1775 if using water methanol injection (DB605AM).  I guess the DB603 was not developed to it's full potential, though the third prototype engine was fitted to a land speed record car and could produce over 2900hp.  And the DB605's output was a lot less impressive if you consider that when used to it's maximum for 3 or 4 minutes, the engine was basically stuffed!!

 

 

Cheer,

Michael

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, Dpgsbody55 said:

 

Thanks very much.  Both engines have been built OOB which says a lot for Z-M's level of detail that you can get such an impressive looking build without modification.  I did have thoughts of adding the fuel injector lines from the silver fuel distributor than you can see in the underside view, but decided against doing so as I've added some of the firewall plumbing, the other end of which goes into the same area.  It would have been way to crowded.  Maybe when the 1/24 version comes out :lol:.

 

 

It's actually a DB603 which was much bigger than the DB605.  The '603 was 44.5 litres or 2717 cubic inches, making it the biggest inverted V12 of WW2.  By comparison, the DB605 was "only" 35.7 litres or 2176 cubic inches.  Despite being so much bigger, however, production DB603's only produced a maximum output of 1775hp vs the DB605's production maximum of 1775 if using water methanol injection (DB605AM).  I guess the DB603 was not developed to it's full potential, though the third prototype engine was fitted to a land speed record car and could produce over 2900hp.  And the DB605's output was a lot less impressive if you consider that when used to it's maximum for 3 or 4 minutes, the engine was basically stuffed!!

 

 

Cheer,

Michael

 

 

Thanks for the correction Michael; for some reasaon I was thinking of a DB605 engine - maybe because I am considering a future build of a late war 109.  I think developing and fielding high performance engines above medium altitude was an Achilles heel for Germany.  And I think that hurt their ability to defend their skies during daylight hours, just as their inability to develop and field centimetric wave radar until nearlt the end of the war, sub-optimized their night defense.  Thank you as well for the specs on both engines, and I completely agree that if used a max wartime power for more than a few minutes bascially destroyed the engine.

 

Ernest  

Link to comment
Share on other sites

8 hours ago, Greif8 said:

 

 

Thanks for the correction Michael; for some reasaon I was thinking of a DB605 engine - maybe because I am considering a future build of a late war 109.  I think developing and fielding high performance engines above medium altitude was an Achilles heel for Germany.  And I think that hurt their ability to defend their skies during daylight hours, just as their inability to develop and field centimetric wave radar until nearlt the end of the war, sub-optimized their night defense.  Thank you as well for the specs on both engines, and I completely agree that if used a max wartime power for more than a few minutes bascially destroyed the engine.

 

Ernest  

 

Another big problem for them was their low octane fuel.  German engines needed nitrous oxide and/or water methanol injection to make power at altitude as all the inline engines fitted to their fighters only had single stage supercharging trying to shove low octane fuels into their engines to make power.  I've recently read a quite damning report recorded by a pilot who survived the war flying 109's, and in his words, using such boost to escape trouble (ie 3 or more minutes) made the engine completely kaput.  When you consider the power output of a DB605 of 35.7 litres capacity being about 1475hp without such chemical boost to an RR Merlin 65 of 27 litres making a reliable 1650hp, you start to see how important higher octane petrols were.

 

It's a hugely interesting subject.

 

 

Cheers,

Michael

Link to comment
Share on other sites

15 hours ago, Dpgsbody55 said:

 

Another big problem for them was their low octane fuel.  German engines needed nitrous oxide and/or water methanol injection to make power at altitude as all the inline engines fitted to their fighters only had single stage supercharging trying to shove low octane fuels into their engines to make power.  I've recently read a quite damning report recorded by a pilot who survived the war flying 109's, and in his words, using such boost to escape trouble (ie 3 or more minutes) made the engine completely kaput.  When you consider the power output of a DB605 of 35.7 litres capacity being about 1475hp without such chemical boost to an RR Merlin 65 of 27 litres making a reliable 1650hp, you start to see how important higher octane petrols were.

 

It's a hugely interesting subject.

 

 

Cheers,

Michael

 

Hi Michael, I agree that the development of engines and other technology during WW2 is a fascinating topic.  I was what the U.S. Army calls a Master Gunner, which is a school trained weapons systems expert on either the M1 Series Abrams tanks, the M2/M3 series Bradley Fighting Vehicles, (my specialty area) or small arms.  I enjoyed the challenge of both "building a better mouse trap" when it came to gunnery planning, and working to master the technical aspects of the weapons system.   So I have always liked learning about the technological aspects of warfare, as well as the tactics, techniques and procedures.  It is interesting that Germany was never able to develop multi-stage superchargers during the war, and your point about their lack of high octane fuel is a fact that is often overlooked concerning engine performance at altitude.  If I remember correctly, one of the primary reasons the P-38 was not as successful in the ETO was due to it using British high octane fuel which was said to be inferior to the U.S. 100 octane gas.  Interesting topic to be sure!

 

Sincerely,

Ernest   

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now
  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    • No registered users viewing this page.
×
×
  • Create New...