Best dive-bomber of the pacific
- Thread starter tbfighterpilot
- Start date
Ad: This forum contains affiliate links to products on Amazon and eBay. More information in Terms and rules
buffnut453
Captain
Joe,
I suspect that has as much to do with service traditions and evolving technologies than anything else. For example, the USN never operated in-line pistons and continued that model throughout. The USAF consolidated onto P-51 derivatives until replaced by jet-powered airframes. The RN maintained a mix, just as they had throughout WWII, with radial engined Sea Fury, Avenger and AD-4W but piston engined Firebrand (ok, not much of an aircraft), Sea Hornet and Firefly until, again, jet-engined aircraft became more prevalent. The RAF continued with its wartime piston engines, again a mix of radial and in-line, but piston propulsion was pretty much a dead-end for anything other than derivative types (such as the Shackleton and Hornet).
Just a thought...
Cheers,
Mark
syscom3
Pacific Historian
At Midway, the Zero's had trouble with the retreating SBD's because they had run out of their 20mm ammo and were relying on the small MG's.
Plus the CAP had plenty of time to get up to the altitude of the dive bombers as there was plenty of time between the VT and VB strikes. The Zero was a fast climber. The main problem wasn't so much the altitude of the two planes, it was the Zero's were completely out of their assigned sectors, horizontally speaking, for patrolling.
renrich
Chief Master Sergeant
Thanks Sys, for your clarification. If memory serves, you are the one who made me aware of "The Shattered Sword" which was a very good read. Wish I owned the book for my library.
Vincenzo, I addressed the huge number of sorties by the P47 and P51 compared to the action sorties of Navy fighters in another thread. I copied down the info on sorties in the ETO from a reliable source a number of years ago but can't remember where they came from. I can only conclude those sorties included every flight made by those fighters in the ETO which probably included training, familiarization, testing after maintenance, etc. One could say that the sortie versus losses of the P47 V P51 proves even more strongly the reliability of the air cooled radial V liquid cooled engines.
Vincenzo, I addressed the huge number of sorties by the P47 and P51 compared to the action sorties of Navy fighters in another thread. I copied down the info on sorties in the ETO from a reliable source a number of years ago but can't remember where they came from. I can only conclude those sorties included every flight made by those fighters in the ETO which probably included training, familiarization, testing after maintenance, etc. One could say that the sortie versus losses of the P47 V P51 proves even more strongly the reliability of the air cooled radial V liquid cooled engines.
buffnut453
Captain
Not if the P-47s were involved in fewer engagements, and suffered concomitantly fewer combat losses, because of their shorter range. This state of affairs, at least as far as the range issue goes, was certainly the case for 8th AF escort missions. You're extrapolating a statement from a very broad data set that simply cannot be justified from the available information.
syscom3
Pacific Historian
Renrich; one more thing about Midway. The IJN had a very primitive system for central fighter control. Granted that the USN still had a LOT to learn, but the IJN simply was not able to handle multiple threats coming in at different altitudes and distances. You might say that the lack of an effective doctrine and radio control put the fleet defenses into a position it could not handle nor recover from.
FLYBOYJ
"THE GREAT GAZOO"
Agree to a point. Perhaps I should have been more specific and brought in civilian operators as well. Even today, you still have newer designs (past 20 years) that have used radials. The only "modern" reciprocating engines that use coolant that I'm aware of are Rotax.
buffnut453
Captain
True enough, but then the primary benefit of in-line engines was streamlining to obtain faster speeds. Most post-war designs using piston engines had other performance drivers (endurance, fuel efficiency, ease of maintenance etc) with outright speed being a much lower priority. Therefore it makes sense that radials were more popular.
renrich
Chief Master Sergeant
Buffnut, if you look at my earlier statements about statistics I am not claiming that the stats prove anything. I understand and have stated that there are too many variables. I said, " one could say" but I realise what you say is true. I will stick with common sense and the pilot's judgment at the Fighter Conference and the USN's judgment. I don't understand though how anyone could look at a cutaway of say a P47 or Corsair and compare it to a Spit or P51 (I have all of those) and not understand that the liquid cooled engine's cooling system creates a lot more places a single bullet can cause a shutdown of the engine. One other point is that Lindberg chose an air cooled engine at least partly because it was more reliable than a liquid cooled engine.
buffnut453
Captain
Renrich,
What you stated was "One could say that the sortie versus losses of the P47 V P51 proves even more strongly the reliability of the air cooled radial V liquid cooled engines." Yes, one could say that but it would be unproven and unprovable based on the info provided. Now, I don't disagree with your overall concept that there are more things to go wrong in a liquid cooled engine, nor that liquid cooling might be more vulnerable (depending on the layout of the coolant pipes relative to armour plating etc) but we need to see more comprehensive and detailed stats to prove that for sure (and, to be honest, I don't think those stats exist).
Cheers,
Mark
What you stated was "One could say that the sortie versus losses of the P47 V P51 proves even more strongly the reliability of the air cooled radial V liquid cooled engines." Yes, one could say that but it would be unproven and unprovable based on the info provided. Now, I don't disagree with your overall concept that there are more things to go wrong in a liquid cooled engine, nor that liquid cooling might be more vulnerable (depending on the layout of the coolant pipes relative to armour plating etc) but we need to see more comprehensive and detailed stats to prove that for sure (and, to be honest, I don't think those stats exist).
Cheers,
Mark
renrich
Chief Master Sergeant
I am looking at the coolant system in a P51 in AHT as well as the armor. The cooling system has a header tank mounted just above and behind the spinner. It has a vent line to the radiator, the radiator behind and below the pilot,, the return line, the pump and a supercharger cooler line. That meant that there were two separate cooling systems both connected to the same radiator. A hit to any of the supercharger system means the supercharger does not work and a hit to the engine cooling system means the engines quits at best and at worst the engine catches on fire. The armor consists of armor behind the pilot seat, armor in the firewall in front of the pilot and armor in front of the header tank. So the header tank is protected from the front but vulnerable to rounds from above or the side,. The radiator is vulnerable from below, above and from the side and rear and the lines are vulnerable from the side and below and above except at angles where the pilot armor, firewall and header tank might protect them. If armor protected all or most of the cooling and supercharger system, the plane would have it's performance seriously degraded. Just as I can deduce that an AFV powered by a gasoline engine will burn easier than one powered by diesel. I can deduce without stats the liquid cooled engine is more vulnerable and less reliable than than the air cooled engine. To boot I have had enough old cars with liquid cooled engines to be familiar with their problems.
buffnut453
Captain
I'm not arguing that air-cooled radials are less complex than liquid-cooled in-lines, nor that in theory the coolant system might have been a point of weakness (depending on the installation etc). What I'm saying is your assertion that radials are less resistant to damage based on bland stats across all sorties is an extrapolation too far.
Catch22
Major
While I cannot provide links (I'm sure someone can), I've heard stories of cylinders being shot off of radial engines yet they still bring the pilot home.
pbfoot
1st Lieutenant
I've also read of guys having the cooling system damaged and needles in the red and staying airborne for another 20 minutes IU believe much of this would have to do with the skill if the pilot and his ability to diagnose and act upon his specific damage, the US Navy possibly opted for aircooled engines because the Allison wasn#t up to snuff
Shortround6
Major General
The US Navy went for air cooled engines in the late 20s and never changed their minds after that (except for airship engines).
pbfoot
1st Lieutenant
I guess I`m correct then
Shortround6
Major General
The only way the Allison wasn't up to "snuff" was that it went against navy "policy" and even then the Navy did experiment with liquid cooled engines. The only way to make sure the "policy" was a good one was to test other options to make sure they weren't giving up much in the way of performance to achieve their other goal/s.
FLYBOYJ
"THE GREAT GAZOO"
There was nothing wrong with the Allison engine, it was the "installation" of that engine in certain aircraft that gave it a bad reputation. In some cases it was superior to the Merlin and this has been pointed out on other threads.
pbfoot
1st Lieutenant
I'm really not smart enough to say one is better then another but as for radials being easier to work on I can point out some guys that would dispute that after working on the Wright 3350 Turbo Compound
nice sound of 4 of them on take off as soon as you to website
New Page 1
syscom3
Pacific Historian
A blown off cylinder would entail the loss of lubricating oil. If the top of a cylinder is blown off, that's probably a fire hazard right there (raw fuel being dumped onto the engine).
Perhaps the story's that have made the rounds, pertain to cooling fin damage or cracked cylinders that aren't leaking oil to any degree.
