• Hi Guest! Forum rules have been updated. All users please read here.

Daimler Benz DB 109-016

Antonio

ACCESS: Top Secret
Staff member
Senior Member
Joined
Jan 22, 2006
Messages
3,524
Reaction score
278
Luftwaffe Secret Projects: Strategic Bombers 1939-1945
D. Herwig and H. Rode
Midland
ISBN 1 85780 092 3

On page 132 we have details about the DB 109-016 turbojet. A very large engine ( lenght: 6,70 m /21 ft, diameter: 2 m /6 ft) designed for large bombers. In March 1945 it was the most powerful jet engine in the world. Its static thrust was 13,000 Kg (28,652 lb).

Anybody can give confirmation about this figure?. I think it is a lot of power for a 1945 technology engine :eek:

B-52A Pratt & Whitney J57-P-1W turbojets, offered a dry thrust of 10,000 pounds and Molot turbojets were in the same class. (Why this German technology was not adopted in USA or USSR?)
 

elmayerle

ACCESS: Top Secret
Senior Member
Joined
Jan 8, 2006
Messages
1,391
Reaction score
174
Going by the dimensions, I think this engine got its power by brute force from it's size; not from advanced technology. Both length and diameter are considerably larger than most military engines, bar the high-bypass turbofans on transports (at least on diameter), are today; even then the length is definitely extreme by any standards.
 

Archibald

ACCESS: Top Secret
Senior Member
Joined
Jun 6, 2006
Messages
4,706
Reaction score
2,326
a 13000 kgp of thrust engine in 1945????!!! this is impressive!!! But I understand it was obtained by an enormous size...
 

elmayerle

ACCESS: Top Secret
Senior Member
Joined
Jan 8, 2006
Messages
1,391
Reaction score
174
I agree, that performance was obtained by brute force through size, not through any advanced technology.
 

Archibald

ACCESS: Top Secret
Senior Member
Joined
Jun 6, 2006
Messages
4,706
Reaction score
2,326
To your mind, would it be possible to monut such a big engine in pod, like an A-3 Skywarrior for example? I suppose it would been totally impossible to have an internal, side-by-side mounting...
Or maybe burry it in a flying wing, a la Avro Vulcan?
In every case, this 13000 kgp of thrust is impressive... 12 years passed before engines gave an equivalent thrust (I think about the
J-58, Gyron or Iroquois). Of course, they were much smaller and practical!
I heard about another engine , the BMW 109 018 of 3450 kgp. France tried to develop the engine to power the SO-4000 light bomber
 

Archibald

ACCESS: Top Secret
Senior Member
Joined
Jun 6, 2006
Messages
4,706
Reaction score
2,326
I searched " Daimler Benz DB 109-016" on google, and found this astonishig project. hope you'll enjoy it!!
http://www.geocities.com/Heartland/Village/4082/mistel1/dbd.htm
 

elmayerle

ACCESS: Top Secret
Senior Member
Joined
Jan 8, 2006
Messages
1,391
Reaction score
174
Archibald said:
To your mind, would it be possible to monut such a big engine in pod, like an A-3 Skywarrior for example? I suppose it would been totally impossible to have an internal, side-by-side mounting...
Or maybe burry it in a flying wing, a la Avro Vulcan?
In every case, this 13000 kgp of thrust is impressive... 12 years passed before engines gave an equivalent thrust (I think about the
J-58, Gyron or Iroquois). Of course, they were much smaller and practical!
I heard about another engine , the BMW 109 018 of 3450 kgp. France tried to develop the engine to power the SO-4000 light bomber

Such and engine would need to either be podded under the wing or buried in the wing root (I think it was the intended engine for some Messerschmitt bomber designs).
 

Meteorit

ACCESS: Secret
Joined
Jan 5, 2006
Messages
425
Reaction score
20
The only airplane project using this engine I know of is the Daimler-Benz 'parasite' bomber that Archibald linked to above; actually I believe the engine was tailor-made just for this bomber (where it was mounted on top of the fuselage).
 

Archibald

ACCESS: Top Secret
Senior Member
Joined
Jun 6, 2006
Messages
4,706
Reaction score
2,326
This remind some projects like the Me P.1075...I suppose that the fuel consuption of such a big engine would have been monstruous...
Just imagine that the Germans buried four of these engines in the wing roots. The result would have been close to the russian bomber 3M /M4.
Would it possible to reach the USA from Germany with such a bomber?
 

Archibald

ACCESS: Top Secret
Senior Member
Joined
Jun 6, 2006
Messages
4,706
Reaction score
2,326
This parasite bomber seems a daring project, as so many luft 46 projects...Its interesting looking at the projects the Nazis studied to bomb the eastern coast of the USA... they range from piston-engine bombers to early ICBM studies, including submarine towed V-2s!!!
 

elmayerle

ACCESS: Top Secret
Senior Member
Joined
Jan 8, 2006
Messages
1,391
Reaction score
174
Archibald said:
This remind some projects like the Me P.1075...I suppose that the fuel consuption of such a big engine would have been monstruous...
Just imagine that the Germans buried four of these engines in the wing roots. The result would have been close to the russian bomber 3M /M4.
Would it possible to reach the USA from Germany with such a bomber?

It would depend on route and point of departure. I'm not sure they could do a round trip, but a one-way mission likely could work.
 

Archibald

ACCESS: Top Secret
Senior Member
Joined
Jun 6, 2006
Messages
4,706
Reaction score
2,326
...which mean ditching a huge, powerful and very expensive bomber in the sea, just to drop some bombs on the eastern coast of the USA... what a stupid bombing method! But we all know what to think about nazis...
 

Jemiba

ACCESS: Above Top Secret
Staff member
Top Contributor
Senior Member
Joined
Mar 11, 2006
Messages
8,271
Reaction score
1,120
There were a lot of stupid ideas, which, if realised, just would have meant wasting
of resources ... only few of them ever came to fruition,one of the best known, I
think, was the V2 ballistic rocket. Ironically, this one often is regarded as a success ...
But I never get tired of telling : Not all of the engineers and designers were completely
mad, in fact, many of them just didn't want to do an infantry job at the eastern front.
The nazi leadership called for weapons, with which to retaliate against the US, ok, the
designers gave them what they wanted ... A vast number of fighters were developed,
most of them would have needed years of research for the basic principles, with
resources just available in peace times ! I don't think, that many of those, who were
working on those fancy designs, ever believed to see them flying one day !
At the end of WWII the best developed german weapon probably was ... propaganda !
It was propaganda against the allies, to make them fear some unknown, new weapons.
It was propaganda against the german people, to make them believe, that victory still
could be won.
And it was propaganda from the design offices against the leaders, to try to get more
resources and keep the personal they had .
I'm absolutely not happy, that all those german projects get much more attention, than
they actually deserve, especially here in Germany. Why ? It always leads to discussions,
where aviation after the war would have been, without the german influence and listening
to such discussion, I cannot help but wonder , that very often the intention is : Ok, Germany
lost the war, but at least technologically it was the winner ! Wrong, I think !
As a proof, mostly the swept wing is mentioned. This idea was publicised already in
1935. The jet engine ? An old idea in 1945 ! The rocket engine ? Even older ...
The reason, that so many new ideas were used in so many designs was sheer despair, because with conventionally, there was no way to change the situation.
 

Archibald

ACCESS: Top Secret
Senior Member
Joined
Jun 6, 2006
Messages
4,706
Reaction score
2,326
I'm asking if it would have been possible to build a fighter around such an engine... maybe a difficult task!
Is there a list of high-power german turbojets? I mean, more than 2000 kgp of thrust? Now I know two of them
- BMW 109 018 of 3450 kgp
- DB 109-016 13000 kgp
Was there other powerful turbojets in the germans test benchs at the end of the war?
 

Jemiba

ACCESS: Above Top Secret
Staff member
Top Contributor
Senior Member
Joined
Mar 11, 2006
Messages
8,271
Reaction score
1,120
It probably would have been easier, to build a fighter with such engine, than
a bomber. A frontal intake in a fuselage, which would have had very limited
internal space available. Fuel mainly in the wings, weapons in the bow and a
piloted seated above this construction ... a modernised version of the baron
of Münchhausens ride on the cannon ball ! :D
 

Attachments

  • muenchhausen.jpg
    muenchhausen.jpg
    8.1 KB · Views: 207

Archibald

ACCESS: Top Secret
Senior Member
Joined
Jun 6, 2006
Messages
4,706
Reaction score
2,326
Lot of fun with this concept... but I fear the fuel consuption of such a monster engine! With fuel only in the wings, maybe range was no better than a Me-163 (40km)! Well it is still better than Munchausen... ;D
With a 2m diameter, you have a large frontal area (but after all, you also have an enormous, brute power!).
Concerning armement, a pile of MK-108 below the air intake.
And why not adding some Walter-509 rocket engines to boost climb rate?
Any volunteer to draw this monster? well we stop here cause we enter the whatif world...
 

Similar threads

Top