liquid cooled or air cooled engines??

[Jgonzalez]

Hey guys, I've been in some kind of a modeling nap here... but I'm back. After finishing my Hasegawa ME109g14 (pics soon) I started wondering what were the pros and cons of liquid cooled engines and air cooled engines. Both systems gave great birds, like the liquid cooled ME109ers and the Mustangs, and the air cooled FW190s and the Thunderbolts. I know this is more of a prototype question, but I'm just a modeler....

 

[Kilroy]

In the case of liquid cooled engines, they were vulnerable to radiator punctures coolant leaks the same as in any liquid cooled engines, and at the speeds of fighters at altitude you were screwed if that happened, radial powered engines were far more reliable and rugged, there were reports of P-47's making it safely back to base with a couple of cylinders shot away, if i were a fighter jock i'd take a T-bolt over a Mustang any day.

 

[Catch22]

Or a Corsair. There really wasn't that much of a performance difference between the radials and in-lines either, as the Corsair and Thunderbolt were two of the fastest planes in the war. If I were designing a plane, I'd put a radial in it.

 

[Jgonzalez]

But if radial engines were so good, howcome designers kept choosing liquid cooled engines. The Lancaster for example used liquid cooled, but the B17 used radials, but again later a liquid cooled egine version of this bomber was built... So there must have been pros and cons for both kind of engines, what made designers choose between or another.

 

[Becco_UK]

Liquid cooled engines are generally (but not always) more reliable. Liquid engines do not suffer the same heat fluctuation as their air cooled counterparts.

Were the aircooled engines really aircooled or did they rely on oil being sprayed at stategically placed positions inside the engine - if so I wouldn't consider that a true aircooled engine.

I suppose liquid cooled engines also are used as a ready source for cabin heating purposes?