How to pronounce Daimler. kzfaq.info/get/bejne/n6uHqrZ5xrKxZJc.html

In his autobiography 'He-1000' Ernst Heinkel described the disbelief that he and He-177 Chief Engineer Hertel felt when Generalluftzeugmeister Udet expected this 4 engine aircraft (already expected to meet stringent performance demands for a late 1930s heavy bomber) to be capable of dive bombing. This led to extra structural reinforcement which added weight and reduced payload and performance and left them scrambling for ways to make up for these losses. If I recall correctly, the idea of reducing drag with coupled engines cooled by surface evaporation (which was dropped early on) arose from attempts to claw back performance losses caused by the dive bombing requirement. This had worked well for the He-119, so it seemed like a good idea. Heinkel held Hertel responsible for the missing DB-606 firewall and later fired him for allowing it. Heinkel offered a new He-177 version with new wings supporting 4 discrete engines as you describe in the video, only (as he put it) to be declined by a piqued Goering, personally embarrassed before Hitler due to the ongoing failure of this aircraft who ordered Heinkel make the He-177 work with coupled engines. While attempting to do so, Heinkel built two of the the 4 discrete engine versions in secret out of the view of Goering in France (the Farman He-274) and in Vienna-Schwecat (the He-277B). Both were said to have shown really promising performance and the Farman was used by France after the war into the 1950s for launching high speed test aircraft. Thus Germany lost it's final chance (perhaps too late to be of much use) at a possibly first class heavy bomber. Goering was adept at deflecting personal blame. He told Heinkel that Udet had told him the He-177 was required to dive bomb, which he rightly considered to be madness. Sounds like he dismissed coupled engines after the fact the same way. Much of this grief might have been avoided had the Jumo-222 appeared on schedule, but it arrived late in the war and really wasn't ready for operations. Junkers just didn't have enough qualified engineers to oversee production plus intensively develop this 24 cylinder engine. Contrast this sorry tale with the Avro Manchester. This was a heavy bomber built around the Rolls Royce Vulture X shaped engine that turned out like the DB-606 to be unreliable in service. Rather than being forced to waste time and resources making the unworkable work, its designer Roy Chadwick was allowed by the British Air Ministry to redesign the wings to carry 4 Rolls Royce Merlins, resulting in the hugely successful Lancaster. So much of the engine technical problems the Luftwaffe suffered was due to remarkably poor technical oversight from the RLM. In another video you mentioned the German lack of equivalent to the British use of RTOs to report what was happening in the engine development and production which held the British engine manufacturers to account. Had Germany somehow been able to find back-channel sources of strategic minerals like tungsten, chromium, tin and manganese specifically for engines, backed up decent official technical oversight, one can only imagine the engines they might have made. Given all of that, what they achieved - especially in gas turbines - was pretty extraordinary IMHO. Heinkel made a point during in his book that the imposition of The Treaty of Versailles sought to destroy Germany's ability to produce viable military aircraft. In his view the interwar years showed it had failed to significantly affect German air-frame design but that it had seriously impacted reciprocating engine design and development. He had considered moving into building such engines himself, but he considered Jumo, BMW, Bramo and DB had too big a lead for that. Besides Heinkel was aware of transonic propeller tip speeds limiting the ultimate performance of propellers. So he chose a different direction and pioneered jet aircraft - for which once again his efforts appear to have been slapped down by the RLM. Great video! Totally enjoyed it.

This double engine was also used in the Messerschmitt Me 261, where it worked well. But in the Me 261 the double engine was installed in wide nacelles that cantilevered in front of the wing. While in the He 177 the double engine was buried in a narrow, cramped compartment that blended with the wing. This made it very difficult to service and very prone to fires.

Love this. I've always been obsessed with the DB series of engines. Thank you for the time and effort you have put into making these videos.

The Napier Sabre 24 cyl engine in the Typhoon also had two crankshafts although this was how it was designed - not done as an after thought. It had its fair share of teething problems (which included catching fire) but really came into its own once these were ironed out. It had sleeve valves and was really compact making it also tricky to work on and a lot of special tools were required.

I'm reminded of later work with coupled engines. Specifically the F-84 Thunderscreech with the supersonic propller and coupled turboshaft engines, and the A2D Skyknight with a similar layout. Ed Heinamann likened the gearbox trouble to a chronic toothache, and walked away in disgust. A rare thing for the man. The Thunderscreech was deemed a death trap early on. It does puzzle me from this distance why Dornier's 335 wasn't gaining more attention. Seems safer at every stage.

The tree DB 600 engines series shared similar issues with all double engines that was tried to be produced like the Vulture all sharing similar unreliability due to the excessive heat generated by inner exhaust system possibly because of badly cooling system. The other issue was that the DB engines was built too near the main spar with no firewall despite the criticism of the engineers. The real failure of the DB 600 engine series was the enormous waste of resources and time when it could be easily built like the Lancaster but unfortunately it was built with a moderately dive requirement requiring strengthening of the wings and of course weight. Really a good job, looking forward to see your next video 👍👍👍

the sideways superchargers of the benz motors are pure art

Great video. DB606 was also licensed by the Japanese Navy and imported in 1941. This was used as a reference when making the inverted-W24 for the Navy's prototype 'Keiun'. By uprating Atsuta (DB601) from 1,200->1,700 horsepower and coupling, Keiun was inevitably only an "expensive toy", but it's still interesting engineering. 3,400 takeoff horsepower!

The photograph of the HE-119 at 1:22 is interesting as it includes what appears to be members of a Japanese delegation. The 7th and 8th prototypes of the HE-119 were sold to Japan and insights gained were used to design the Yokosuka R2Y which also used coupled engines driving a single propeller.

I think at first they tried surface cooling, by sending the coolant in tubes below the wings plates, and it gave the bomber a speed well past the contemporary fighters! But at high altitude and low temperatures it made the plates crumple, so they had to add ordinary coolers, giving more drag, and needing defensive armament, and more weight and drag.

Excellent overview. Super well done! I'm a big fan of your channel.

The machetti aircraft that still holds the float plane speed record was powered by 2 fiat engines one behind the other with shared induction systems I think...I suppose that's a success story? It killed its first three test pilots. I'm in awe of the man who went fourth....that's courage in my opinion.

The Fairey Prince and Monarch engines were also double engines (V within V), which flew in Fairey Battle, but were not proceeded with. A Monarch engine supposedly still exists at FAA Museum, Yeovilton, UK.

The Napier Sabre H-24 sleeve valve engine also flew and reached 3,500HP. And flew in Hawker Tempest and Typhoon.

Great video I really enjoy this detailed stuff As a note I am a blind subscriber and your audio was so good I didn’t miss the video Cheers

I love how you also discuss the logistics surrounding the engine!

So many parts, so terribly complicated ... but somehow beautiful

I’m sure someone has swapped it into a miata.

There's nothing worse than a bad idea that won't go away. Allison tried it with the V3420 and it didn't work out well.

Absolutely fantastic! I love the history of aircraft in vivid details

Excellent series. Don't forget to include the Soviet engines.

Moving away from aircraft, the record for combining engines has to be the Chrysler A57 Multibank. This had 30-cylinders and consisted of five inline-6 cylinder engines.

I'm pretty sure the engines were not literally welded together. Looks like they were bolted to a common gear reduction/propeller drive.

I appreciate the accuracy of your research. 👍

Had they gone with a pusher puller arrangement similar to the Do 336 on each wing they probably would have met with more success. Without the firey crashes.

Allison tried the same thing with the V-1710 giving the V-3420.

Love this channel

Outstanding channel.

Well done. What an interesting design. It goes to show that wars make country's desperate enough to try anything. Thank you for all the effort you put into the research on DB Engines. Phew! All those figures!

Aa Video that explain questions I ever had--the HE 177 information are great --thx

Welded? Exactly where are these engines "welded" together?

Another merged block engine design was the Rolls-Royce Vulture engine, which was based on having 2 Peregrine, but instead of having a 'W' configuration, it was in a 'X' configuration. Early in the war it was the engine used by the Avro Manchester heavy bomber, but it turned out that the engine was not reliable. The engine failure resulted in the 4 Merlin engine powered Heavy Bomber which became the legendary Avro Lancaster en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rolls-Royce_Vulture kzfaq.info/get/bejne/apinqaZmy7nKeZs.html Makes you wonder if the Heinkel He 177 Greif with 4 engines would be just as successful

Wow, quite interesting! Thanks!!!

Wow! Great topic!

I looked at the one Kermit Weeks has on display in his museum Florida and it was very interesting to study up close. I could see why there was a problem with cooling such a large liquid cooled engine and complicated gearing system for the prop. After spending 60+ years as an A&P mechanic is was impressive as the Lycoming 7755 radial at the Smithsonian Institution has on display. You could see how they pushed the limits of piston engines !

Glad I was not a mechanic on these double engines - it must have been a nightmare setting the ignition timing just to start with

I could imagine the frustration and trouble, in fitting the Centre Exhaust Manifold - or Headers, between both engines. To fix and tighten all those nuts in the tightest space would require a small hand! What do others think about this?

This was very interesting. Please do more ww2 engines

Great video didn’t realise these engines existed. For the next video can you produce tables of the performance figures rather than reading them out, and just point out the important figures? Cheers

Post-war, a French-version of the Heinkle He 274 was built and became successful as the French A.A.S-01A, which was to have become the 1st French Nuclear-Bomber, except the 1st French A-bomb was exploded from a tower in 1960, as the A.A.S-01A and its 2nd sister-plane had been scrapped 7 years earlier in 1953. From 9/44--1953, it become a 'Mother-ship' carrying Various research craft to be dropped from altitudes to test. Single, not coupled, DB 603/605s were used per engine nacelle. The French plane was as fast as the coupled-engines used on the He-177 series.

They did a good job with metric horsepower; basing it on whole metric units (1PS = 75kg*1m/sec) and having it almost exactly equal to Watt's (and imperial) horsepower.

Bevel drive ohc, 4 valves per cylinder. The drawing is great.

With the propensity to catching fire,,,, reminds me of an Italian manufacturer we all know and,,, dare say love?

I see two engines on a reduction box but I don't see two blocks welded together

Just amazing..... where do you find this content? The subject matter.

Chrysler put more than two together for tanks. I Saw one at the Chrysler museum. It was very impressive!

Seems like having the exhaust on the outside ports and the intake inside the V would have made more sense, especially on a forced induction engine.

As we are all listing other double engines can I offer the Allison double V-1710 (the V-3420) and the Chrysler two V-8s end to end and the A-S Double Mamba - and I think there were double opposed motors from Arsenal and Hispano-Suiza?

In the end, the double-engine idea used on the Daimler-Benz DB606 and DB610 proved to be disastrous becuase the engineers never considered the complexity of the design and the fact the whole unit became very vulnerable to engine fires. It wasn't until 1943 when engineers at Luftwaffe's Rechlin test center identified some _56_ causes of engine problems and by correcting these problems, the engine was _finally_ able to work reliably.

Since criticism with hindsight seems to be in style, picture this: Stalin starts WWII, Britain, France, Germany, and the US are allies. Imagine the technological leaps Germany could have made then, partnering w the other three nations. I guess we could add Italy to the club also, with their technology spinoffs from the likes of the M.C.72.

I have had the idea for a scale model, using 72x 50cc scooter cranks, rods , pistons, cylinders, and heads build a foam crank case, to be cast in aluminum, using two light weigh cranks using counter rotation on oneof them. Use a turbo or compound turbo setup, with a large plenum per four banks, being similar to a boxer engine, with another stacked on top with the exhaust exiting top and bottom, intake in center, being 4stroke, 72 cylinders a cylinder fires every 10° of rotation, a 2-stroke every 5° a 4crank 2stroke could be built. 9 cylinder inline , so two opposed 18 cylinder engine stacked on top of each other, it would be cool for a 1/4 scale p-51 or similar , or build multiple engines for a 1/8 scale B-52 , it would make plenty of power to actually fly a person or two, a B-52 or p-51 the size of a cessna 2-6 seater, , the engine with mild boost making 5hp /cylinder and firing a single cylinder every 10° rotation, or two cylinders every 20° and revving to 8500 rpm, making 4-7Hp /cylinder, with an emergency rating of possibly 9-10 HP per cylinder, for 60 seconds, holding the waste gate closed longer, the emergency waste gate will eventually open At roughly 16-18 psi, normally running 6-8 psi, or extreme power running 10-12psi, for 30 minutes or so, the extra emergency power up to 16-18 psi for 30 seconds. Normal energy running 1 bar, 14psi +/- 1 psi with the emergency waste gate open it 16-18 psi. Maybe the engine can handle more. The sound of 72 cylinders spinning at a cruise speed of 7200 rpm, and a peak rpm of 8500-9000 must sound like something else!! Or a 2stroke version spinning 18,000 rpm with 50-85 cc per cylinder it would be plenty of power for a mid sized automobile!

Now I'm trying to picture a metric horse. 🐎

Good show, sport. Best wishes.

It’s really amazing how far ahead of everyone they were in certain fields

Putting two engines together to back into the 1920s on cars. The problem always becomes keeping multiple engines close enough in rpm and the overall weight of the gear box.

Off the double engines built and flown in the period the Sabre was likely the best. In terms of combining two inline engines into one unit i really think the least ambitous of them the Allison V-3420 may have been the best if it had entered service.

Oil seeping past the pistons into the combustion chamber was, presumably, always a greater risk with an inverted engine.

They were not 'welded' together, they were bolted together, 'der dicke' said that when he was infuriated about the problems experienced with this eccentric double engine layout! I still think the Greif had the potential to be a great aircraft, but there was not enough time to iron out the snags! Late war German designs had a unique 'futuristic' look about them, the Germans are an innovative people like most Europeans, but even more so than others!

This reminds me of the RR Vulture engines that powered the Avro Manchester - which was another non-standard engine design to develop powerful engine for a bomber. And it failed just as spectacularly as these DB600 double motors did.....

14:05 this should be 20.9 psi of total pressure, 6.2 psi of boost

CONVERSION HELP Pferdestärke is pronounced (that is as close as I can get it using English annunciation) 1 PS (Pferdestärke, literally Horsepower in German) is equivalent to 0.9863 HP

The GM EDM big 2 str oke diesels and the tinny torpodo ( that became the Crosley ) both were welded together . Btitish Napier ( and later in the 1960s ) the BRM WERE H- 16 .

The British made a similar mistake in the Avro Manchester with is 24 cylinder RR Vulture engines. However, Britain realised it was going to take a lot of time and effort to get working, IF it would work properly at all and simply changed the design to use four Merlins instead and the Lancaster was born. German aircraft engine development in WW2 is lamentably awful, they wasted what resources they had and didn't have anythingto challenge the Griffon-Centaurus-Sabre generation of British engines, instead they were left using developments of what they began the war with.

They really should have looked at the issues with the Vulture, most of which seemed to also afflict the DB versions.

8:00 Where did you get this exploded view?

Some Sherman tanks had five dodge straight six truck engines all geared together. Each section could be replaced when needed.

I'd like to have a Pickup Truck fitted with one of those!! That would be so cool!!!!

Large earth scrapers have for wheels and an engine at each end. The rear engine carries a deliberately lug of balm e damper on thx non drive end. If this is not fitted, harmonic vibrations will literally break a crankshaft. Was this a component of these DB engine failures?

Is it the 601 you have pictured at the two minute mark the one in the Smithsonian that’s actually a license built Japanese copy

It is a mystery to me why they didn't abandon the two-in-one engine concept as soon as they saw the magnitude of the problems it had operationally. Especially as they had a four-engine He-177 on the drawing board as early as 1938!! (That was news to me, BTW.) Were they oblivious to the conversion of the Avro Manchester into the Lancaster and the success of the four-engine bomber? Did they know of it but decline to do something similar for reasons of "national pride?" Honestly, I can't think of a single two-in-one piston-engined aircraft that was a success. Am I wrong?

Love the compressor packaging, so Deutsch.

I had an engineering professor who would remind us: If it didn’t work very well in theory, It won’t work any better in practice…

Hmmm Jaguar also welded two engines together making it a powerfull but troublesome to maintain unit.

_Why did WW2 Germany start welding engines together?_ Because glue hadn´t been invented yet...? (Yes, yes. I am aware that primitive animal-collagen-based glues were extant in the 40s, but that wouldn´t be nearly as funny, would it?) I cannot help thinking that this excellent video, one of many, couldn´t have been joined with a _ahem_ better title....

I am no expert, & perhaps I'm missing something. But why with one dialog am I seeing illustrations which haphazardly keep changing from inline design to side by side design, to two engines on wings? As well as nose mounted single four blade , double four blade, & two separate engines on wings ???

The secondary harmonics of this set up must have been horrendous.

Why didn't they put the two engines one behind the other, in an elongated nacelle and with two different propellers one pulling and one pushing, and without any mechanical connection between the two? Possibly the aft propeller might be designed to spin faster that the forward one, as it would on an air flow already accelerated by the other one.

To save forward performance like the heinkel 177

IMO....The most ingenious German WW2 aircraft, aside from Me-262/163, was Do 335...2 contra-rotating engines sharing common fuselage. As in everything during wartime...Too Much, Too Little, Too Late

So were they welded together or bolted together at the gear housing?

Kind of an odd way of doing things but it works. The far more modern, but still old BMW M70 is a similar concept. It does have a new original crankcase containing a single shaft driven by two otherwise separate inline 6s which are essentially M20B25s. In theory I don't know why you couldn't make a w24 that way, but I don't know of any engine like that. Such an engine would probably have 4 rods per crankpin. There was at least one american analogue to these DB engines, the Allison V-3420, which was two V-1710s.

ermagerd...how did i only find this now!?!?!

Why anyone would think that conjoining two engines into one package would be easier than simply having a four engined bomber escape me. Very odd!

So these are metric horsepower instead of what? Inchic horsepower?

So does combining 2 engines really reduced the drag and increas the speed of the bombers?

The Rolls-Royce Crecy engine first ran in early 1941 and made 5000HP....

Those DB606 and DB610 were as a disaster as the Rolls-Royce Vulture. At least the British changed their minds fast to get the Lancaster

"Why did WW2 Germany start welding engines together?" - they never did.

good content.... little tip, slow down a little. Some times you are speaking to fast.

If you are not allowed to build a four engine bomber you have to make the two propellers bigger right ? This is what happens when politicians design airplanes.

US tried to do the same thing with the Allison V-3420 which powered the Fisher P-75 Eagle. See en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Allison_V-3420

This was interesting but why the distracting monotone background?

I guess that brings us rather neatly to the Rolls-Royce Vulture x motor which led to the failure of the Avro Manchester and the success of the Merlin powered Avro Lancaster. What seemed like a simple idea turned into a nightmare of unexpected problems as everyone on both sides discovered.

Combining two motors or doubling the size of a motor WILL NOT double the power output.

Have you EVER had the schnitzel ?

Hs 129: can i have engines that dont suck DB: nien, we have wielded all of them together, so we dont have any leftover Hs 129: sad duck noises

neat

And if the double engine was great Georing would have said he built it like Kim Jun Un

DB 610 in pather tank 😅 impossiple but would be pretty wounderwaffe