Dear visitor, welcome to WesWorld. If this is your first visit here, please read the Help. It explains in detail how this page works. To use all features of this page, you should consider registering. Please use the registration form, to register here or read more information about the registration process. If you are already registered, please login here.
Quoted
Originally posted by Rooijen10
I seem to remember reading something somewhere on the internet about the radials performing better over sea while the inlines perform better over land. Can't remember where exactly I read that and how much of that is true...
Quoted
Originally posted by Rooijen10
I was referring to engine performance, not survivability. Sorry if that was not clear.
Quoted
Originally posted by Red Admiral
Not really true. So far as damage, a US study of radial engined planes found only 25-30% returned to base after any hit to the engine and only 20% for any hit to a fuel system. There are some examples of radials surviving after having cylinders shot away but they are fluke events in a massive data sample.
Quoted
Originally posted by Brockpaine
I agree, too tenuous a link is claimed between Sturmovik losses and engine type; if we could compare a radial and in-line Sturmovik over the same period over the same types of actions, I would be more willing to draw a conclusion.
Quoted
My understand is basically a hit of any type = engine will seize later.
Quoted
Originally posted by Red Admiral
Its a very tenuous link thats proves absolutely nothing. P-47s and Il-2s are not flying the same missions and they're not against the same targets so its difficult to compare. Then how do you judge whether it's been hit in the engine or not?
Its interesting to note that the Typhoon and Tempest were the main RAF fighter-bombers, both with liquid cooled engines but their vulnerability is not apparent. Mostly, anecdotes are with regards to how durable they were.
Quoted
Quoted
My understand is basically a hit of any type = engine will seize later.
It might seize later. It is unlikely that a single hit to the radiator will drain all the coolant and even then there is a fair amount of heat that is able to be rejected from other means. In cruise condition around 25-30% of the heat is rejected through the radiator (around 12-15% at full power but total heat transfer greater). Throttling back to lower powers will prolong the engine life. There are a couple of examples of P-51s having their radiators shot away over Germany but making it home.
Liquid cooled engines are more vulnerable but take into account the smaller size and lessened chance of hitting, the greater ease of armouring and there's very little difference.
Quoted
The British did not have good radials despite their Napiers and Bristols.
Quoted
Not true. Spitfire was a classic case in point;. One hit in the radiator and down she went. Same for any Messerschmidt of any make.
Quoted
Radials, generally, offered more total horsepower,
Quoted
Originally posted by Red Admiral
Quoted
The British did not have good radials despite their Napiers and Bristols.
What nonsense, the Hercules and Centaurus were excellent engines. Napier didn't make any radials. Armstrong-Siddeley and Alvis also produced good designs but for smaller applications.
Quoted
Quoted
Not true. Spitfire was a classic case in point;. One hit in the radiator and down she went. Same for any Messerschmidt of any make.
Again nonsense, you have no proof.
Quoted
Radials, generally, offered more total horsepower,
Quoted
Why did Pratts outperform the Bristols and Napiers?
Quoted
Originally posted by Red Admiral
Spitfires v Zeros over Australia has nothing to do with inline vulnerability. It has a great deal to do with a massive tropical filter robbing power, dust destroying the engines, having no spares and limited numbers of trained mechanics. Then you push the engines far over their limit by doing fast full power climbs in hot conditions to high altitude.
That is not evidence. The Australians moved to P&W because those engines were more available.
Quoted
To get the same power, the cylinder dimensions and displacement have to be larger for an air cooled engine. Thats in addition to being larger overall because of the general arrangement.
Quoted
Quoted
Why did Pratts outperform the Bristols and Napiers?
But the P&W engines didn't outperform the Bristol radials or the Sabre.
Centaurus v. R-2800; Centaurus is more powerful, lighter and has better fuel consumption but is a few litres larger
Centaurus v. R-3350; Centaurus is more powerful, much lighter, has better fuel consumption and considerably more reliable. Engines almost the same displacement
Sabre v. anything, more power, excellent p/w ratio, good fuel consumption, small size, very reliable by 1944/45
Bristol had their own 28-cylinder four row radials with a variety of cylinder dimensions with power up to around 4200hp (and easily more)
This post has been edited 1 times, last edit by "howard" (Nov 5th 2008, 2:11am)
Quoted
2. The Merlins failed later. Seafires were wiped out over Balikpapan in 1945! This time it was by Oscars when the BPF tried to do a raid. Those were FAA and they didn't have any Darwin excuses, then.
Quoted
The Australians moved to Pratts because Bristol hadn't worked the bugs out of their radials.
Quoted
2. The Merlins failed later. Seafires were wiped out over Balikpapan in 1945! This time it was by Oscars when the BPF tried to do a raid. Those were FAA and they didn't have any Darwin excuses, then.
Forum Software: Burning Board® Lite 2.1.2 pl 1, developed by WoltLab® GmbH