Jump to content

Recommended Posts

multifuel engine test ?

 

 

pekka

 

Sorry missed you there Pekka, not multifuel as we know it but there is something in what you say.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

is this to do with our old friend of density of air at altitude and how to get more air into the fuel mixture

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
is this to do with our old friend of density of air at altitude
Yes it has a bearing

 

 

how to get more air into the fuel mixture
Nope

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
is it to do with a fuel mixture ie diesel and ethanol ?

 

Wally I don't know if ethanol is part of it but there is no mention of ethanol.

 

The focus of this investigation was on the ignition method (as outlined in MO No.190 high voltages were a problem at high altitudes).

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
or an added mixture of 80% methanol/20% water in the intake?

 

Neither are mentioned Richard.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Hi Clive,

This is what I was reading, how does it match with the info you have?

https://oldmachinepress.com/2015/09/26/junkers-jumo-223-aircraft-engine/

 

Richard that is a good link to a most impressive bit of engineering. But it doesn't cover the aspects of this particular research I have in front of me, this engine was running off 87 octane petrol. The issue investigated was the novel method of ignition & in the earlier MO it was overcome with a low voltage spark sliding on the porcelain of a special plug.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Richard that is a good link to a most impressive bit of engineering. But it doesn't cover the aspects of this particular research I have in front of me, this engine was running off 87 octane petrol. The issue investigated was the novel method of ignition & in the earlier MO it was overcome with a low voltage spark sliding on the porcelain of a special plug.

 

Ether injection (or possibly some other chemical method - hydrogen peroxide would probably be far too dangerous)?

 

Chris.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Richard that is a good link to a most impressive bit of engineering. But it doesn't cover the aspects of this particular research I have in front of me, this engine was running off 87 octane petrol. The issue investigated was the novel method of ignition & in the earlier MO it was overcome with a low voltage spark sliding on the porcelain of a special plug.

 

Clive,

I am wondering if the engine type number, 223 on the report you have seen was incorrect as the diesel version seemed to have been shelved and tests continued on a petrol engine, the Jumo 222, your post with a scan in it gave the single cylinder engine a low compression rating so it was not the diesel test engine, see this excerpt from the link I posted;

 

Tests continued into 1942, but the engine’s reliability was a concern. The vibration issues seemed to be a result of the two-piece crankshafts and crankcase and the high rpm needed to produce the desired power. Along with the Jumo 223, Junkers was developing the Jumo 222—a 24-cylinder, spark ignition engine close to the same power and physical size as the Jumo 223, but lighter and of greater displacement. The Jumo 222 engine had more than its share of problems, and it made little sense to develop two engines in the same power class at the same time. In addition, developmental engines capable of more power than the Jumo 223 were needed.

 

Vibration and cracks on the 223 diesel engine seemed to be serious problems and I don't think the engine got any further than a test bed.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Ether injection (or possibly some other chemical method - hydrogen peroxide would probably be far too dangerous)?

 

Chris.

 

Chris well done, the ignition was the result of an injection but of what I know not, other than it was "Ignition Oil".

 

Scan0100.jpg

 

Scan0101.jpg

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Clive,

I am wondering if the engine type number, 223 on the report you have seen was incorrect as the diesel version seemed to have been shelved and tests continued on a petrol engine, the Jumo 222, your post with a scan in it gave the single cylinder engine a low compression rating so it was not the diesel test engine, see this excerpt from the link I posted;

 

Tests continued into 1942, but the engine’s reliability was a concern. The vibration issues seemed to be a result of the two-piece crankshafts and crankcase and the high rpm needed to produce the desired power. Along with the Jumo 223, Junkers was developing the Jumo 222—a 24-cylinder, spark ignition engine close to the same power and physical size as the Jumo 223, but lighter and of greater displacement. The Jumo 222 engine had more than its share of problems, and it made little sense to develop two engines in the same power class at the same time. In addition, developmental engines capable of more power than the Jumo 223 were needed.

 

Vibration and cracks on the 223 diesel engine seemed to be serious problems and I don't think the engine got any further than a test bed.

 

Richard I don't know, 223 gets mentioned a number of times in the original German papers. This report is from the Combined Intelligence Objectives Sub-Committee Item No.19 File No. XXIX-54. I'll try & post up some more extracts but upload speeds are very slow this morning.

Share this post


Link to post
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



×