liquid cooled or air cooled engines??

Discussion in 'Engines' started by Jgonzalez, Jun 21, 2008.

  1. Jgonzalez

    Jgonzalez Member

    Joined:
    Sep 30, 2007
    Messages:
    121
    Likes Received:
    0
    Trophy Points:
    16
    Occupation:
    Architect
    Location:
    Barranquilla, Colombia
    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....
     
  2. Kilroy

    Kilroy New Member

    Joined:
    Jan 15, 2007
    Messages:
    12
    Likes Received:
    0
    Trophy Points:
    1
    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.;)
     
  3. Catch22

    Catch22 Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Jun 13, 2007
    Messages:
    9,562
    Likes Received:
    64
    Trophy Points:
    48
    Gender:
    Male
    Occupation:
    Graphic Designer
    Location:
    Edmonton, Alberta
    Home Page:
    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.
     
  4. Jgonzalez

    Jgonzalez Member

    Joined:
    Sep 30, 2007
    Messages:
    121
    Likes Received:
    0
    Trophy Points:
    16
    Occupation:
    Architect
    Location:
    Barranquilla, Colombia
    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.
     
  5. Becco_UK

    Becco_UK Member

    Joined:
    Jun 13, 2007
    Messages:
    154
    Likes Received:
    0
    Trophy Points:
    16
    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?
     
Loading...

Share This Page