P-47D or F4U-1?

"No there is a big idea floating around and you see it a lot on this thread. That misconception is that radials were no vulnerable to enemy fire and never broke."

Could you perhaps point out where anyone, at any time, has ever meant or otherwise intended to say that radials simply were not vulnerable to enemy fire and never broke? I for one have never see this "big idea floating around" which apparently rears its ugly head "a lot on this thread."

Again, you know what he meant. I supsect that if Marshall_Stack chimes back in, he can explain what he meant, which is what I think everyone else understood.

The big idea, Adler, is that radials could take a sh-t load of punishment and still bring their pilots back under circumstances where in-lines wouldn't.

No I do not have to to do any explaining. Is that a problem? Do you have a problem with me?

Deradler, you have to admit that having a liquid coollant system is one more thing to go wrong.

Air cooled radials simply are more reliable than liquid cooled engines.

"No I do not have to to do any explaining. Is that a problem? Do you have a problem with me?"

Adler, you were the one who claimed that a big idea existed that radials were not vulnerable to ground fire and that this big idea could be seen a lot on this very thread.

I disagree. I do not see it. I asked you to point it out so that you could set my stupid ass straight.

I have been respectful to you in this thread. Merely disagreeing with a claim by another and asking for the evidence that another says exists (that this big idea is floating around and can be seen a lot on this thread) should not be a problem either.

Hopefully we can agree on that.

I'm not sure how well this site would operate if when one's claims were challenged, the response was, "No I do not have to to do any explaining. Is that a problem? Do you have a problem with me?"

Jpatrick:

Yes, there were two actual speed runs. Those speeds were actual and were not estimated. The speeds on the two runs were 431mph and 423mph. The first of these actual speed runs is curiously similar to another actual performance test of the F4U-1:

http://www.wwiiaircraftperformance.org/f4u/f4u-1-17930.pdf
(Note the top speed of 431mph and S/L climb rate of 3,210fpm - also with a different test propeller and cleaned up. Note also that 2,000hp at WEP could be achieved as high as 16,400ft)

Anyway, the report you cited went on to say, "The maximum speed of F4U-1 airplane #02334 (special cleaned up version) is estimated to be 442mph."

The F4U-1 could not pull 2,000hp at 21,800ft. Show me a test, report, chart that states otherwise.

This special cleaned up version had a different propeller as well with greater propulsive efficiency. The surface of the aircraft was "smoothed," wing irregularities were faired, wing walkways were removed and there was fairing of fuselage access doors and such. I suspect that the 444mph of the P-47D could have been increased through some or all of these modifications as well.

As for the weight increase of the navalized version, as I indicated, aircraft of different roles have different baggage to contend with. The P-47 as an escort fighter had a lot of extra weight in fuel that the Cosair didn' have to contend with. The tests of the P-47D that I cited were all with full internal fuel of 370 gallons which is 133 gallons more than the tests cited by both you and myself for the Corsair at 237 gallons. (I believe one of the Corsair tests indiucated 230 gallons)

The P-47 test I cited with a top speed of 444mph and 3,260fpm climb at 10,000ft was actual and had no special test propeller, surface smoothing or other cleaned up characteristics.

We need to judge aircraft as they existed and not with special test propellers, cleaned up characteristics, removed arrestor hooks, reduced fuel loads or the like to account for different roles.

Just my 2 cents.

syscom3 said:

Deradler, you have to admit that having a liquid coollant system is one more thing to go wrong.

Air cooled radials simply are more reliable than liquid cooled engines.

Click to expand...

I agree with you. I have never said anything otherwise. I have allways stated that radials are more rugged.

There are just plenty of times that people post here that radials are invincible.

I make a simple statement and Jank wishes to blow it out of proportion.

Jank said:

"No I do not have to to do any explaining. Is that a problem? Do you have a problem with me?"

Adler, you were the one who claimed that a big idea existed that radials were not vulnerable to ground fire and that this big idea could be seen a lot on this very thread.

I disagree. I do not see it. I asked you to point it out so that you could set my stupid ass straight.

I have been respectful to you in this thread. Merely disagreeing with a claim by another and asking for the evidence that another says exists (that this big idea is floating around and can be seen a lot on this thread) should not be a problem either.

Hopefully we can agree on that.

I'm not sure how well this site would operate if when one's claims were challenged, the response was, "No I do not have to to do any explaining. Is that a problem? Do you have a problem with me?"

Click to expand...

Excuse me I should have said in this forum not in this thread.

However no I will not back down on this. In the almost 3 years that I have been a member of this forum. You allways see people post about how a Radial will not succumb to ground fire. That is absolutly not true.

Yes the radial is not liquid cooled however you put rounds in a cylinder I dont care if you are air cooled or liquid cooled. Engines dont like lead.

The reason I ask if you had a problem with me is because this is twice now that you have questioned my opinion on something. If you wish to question facts that is fine (we can debate all day and night its fun and I will admit if I am wrong in the end), but do not question an opinion that I hold. I do not question others opinions (unless it is syscoms opinion about Budweiser Beer ) it only leads to a pissing match that I will not loose.

This is not to say that a radial engine is impervious to damage from enemy fire but this is a quote from the book, EIGHTY KNOTS TO MACH 2 by Richard Linnekin. " there is a color photo of an AD Skyraider sitting in the arresting gear of the USS Essex, burning furiously. That was Lt Roger Nelson of VA-55. Roger took a 37 mm hit in the accessory section of the R-3350 engine. It took out one cylinder completely and most of a second; that the engine continued to run was miraculous." He nursed the plane over the beach and to the task force where he executed a 3 wire landing. The deck crew put out the fire but the plane was a wreck and was jettisoned overboard. This was in Korea. Linnekin was the maintenance officer on his carrier and flew F9Fs. Good book with a lot of first hand experiences. Would a liquid cooled engine be able to absorb that damage and still run? I have read of numerous radials that did something similar.

Okay, here it is for me..

1. I'm not a pilot
2. I'm not a airplane mechanic

I have however, read many accounts from WWII pilots that were afraid of "the golden BB" when flying glycol cooled engines. I have also read many accounts from pilots flying their P-47s back home with cylinders shot out.

If someone on this forum has worked on many types of engines, then I am not going to argue with that person. I am simply regurgitating what I have read from history.

"A Mission to Remember" won out as the title over "Thank God I wasn't flying a Spam Can Mustang"

-------------------------

A Mission to Remember
August 12th, 1944
By Kenneth Kik Richard Kik Jr.

My grandfather always said that "a good war story means that
something went wrong" August 12th, 1944 was one of those days.

As told by Richard Kik Jr. 395th Fighter Squadron.

We took off on a usual mission armor cover flight at the Falaise
track. Down at the Falaise track it was hard fighting, a lot of anti-
aircraft fire, a lot of infantry, armor, trucks, a lot of everything. I went
down on a strafing run and hit this truck. Previous to that I heard a
thump somewhere in the airplane and I didn't realize what it was, but
when I came off the strafing run my wingman, Chuck Rife said "have
you got the water on?" I said "no, why?" Chuck said "you're trailing
smoke." He came up and looked around and said "it's coming off
the bottom of the engine." It Turned out a 20 mm knocked two or
three cylinders off my engine. That Pratt Whitney never stopped.
I'm telling you, those people deserve a medal for that engine, I've
never seen one like it.

Our element leader, Captain Mazur said "well Rife, escort him
home." So we started back across the line and as we got going
along, Chuck caught a burst of anti-aircraft fire. Both of his wings
were struck by 40mm rounds. The flak rounds exploded and pieces
of metal entered his cockpit. The explosion damaged his
instruments and shredded his parachute pack. So as we got across
the line I told Chuck, "you better get ready to bail out." He said "I
can't, my parachute's all tore up." I told Chuck you've got two live
bombs on your wings, you're not going to be able to belly land with
those, can you drop them? He said "no, I can't" and held up his
bomb release, "cause here's my bomb thing." It was a mess. He
said "all my instruments are gone and I can't put the gear down." So
anyway, as we were going home and I'm talking to him all the time,
telling him try to do this, try to do that. He finally worked it hard
enough the handle, he said he had to take both legs and hold the
stick over cause it kept wanting to roll. Finally he got the gear down
manually. I said "okay, let's just fly her in." Chuck said "I don't have
any instruments, I don't have any idea what the speed is." I told him
okay, I'll tell you what, you fly on me, just stay right with me and we'll
get you down. So I kept the speed up pretty high and took him down
to the runway. He made it down safely.
Then when I turned around to land it dawned on me I'm burning! I
forgot about myself during this whole thing. The smoke's rolling out
now. So I whipped it around and landed, turned off the runway and
the engine quit.

We made it! I jumped out of my plane and ran over to Chuck and
helped him out of his damaged jug. Then I discovered that I also
had two live bombs on I had forgot to drop. And one of them was
hanging by the rear shackle, nose down. What happened was when
I strafed that damn truck I was a little to low, Something had hit the
nose fuse and I had a hanging armed bomb. They (the ground
crew) were a little unhappy that I didn't drop the bomb. Hell, I was
happy to just be on the ground. There happened to be a whole
bunch of AP reporters around that day, they write an article for the
AP news.

Cliff Gamble stated that after Kik pulled Rife out of his plane he
(Cliff) gave Kik a big hug and told him "Don't you ever do that again!"

Kik was awarded the Silver Star.

Charlie Rife was wounded in the lower back and spent a few days in
the hospital.

Marshall_Stack said:

Okay, here it is for me..

1. I'm not a pilot
2. I'm not a airplane mechanic

I have however, read many accounts from WWII pilots that were afraid of "the golden BB" when flying glycol cooled engines. I have also read many accounts from pilots flying their P-47s back home with cylinders shot out.

If someone on this forum has worked on many types of engines, then I am not going to argue with that person. I am simply regurgitating what I have read from history.

Click to expand...

Well I am a mechanic and pilot and I'll tell you radials and most air cooled engines are far superior to liquid cooled engines in their ability to be abused and take punishment. With that said, all it takes is one golden BB in the oil cooler or an oil cooler hose to be shot away and that big round engine may have about 2 to 5 minutes before it comes to a screeching halt.

FLYBOYJ said:

Well I am a mechanic and pilot and I'll tell you radials and most air cooled engines are far superior to liquid cooled engines in their ability to be abused and take punishment. With that said, all it takes is one golden BB in the oil cooler or an oil cooler hose to be shot away and that big round engine may have about 2 to 5 minutes before it comes to a screeching halt.

Click to expand...

As said here and other places, some radials have returned home with a jug or two missing. This must cause loss of oil at some rate. Is the fact that the radial could get home due to limited oil loss and/or lots of oil (I have heard that C-124 engines had a 50 gal. oil tank each)?

davparlr said:

As said here and other places, some radials have returned home with a jug or two missing. This must cause loss of oil at some rate. Is the fact that the radial could get home due to limited oil loss and/or lots of oil (I have heard that C-124 engines had a 50 gal. oil tank each)?

Click to expand...

True - in many of those cases the oil getting blown out of the missing jug was under low pressure. The oil going to or from the oil cooler is generally under pressure. If the oil is allowed to escape all in one shot or if the oil flow around the engine is severely disrupted, that's when you'll have failure.

The most important area in a radial is the master rod - when the bearing on that fails, time to start praying....

The oil capacity on the P-47C-M was 28 gallons.

The P-47N had a 40 gallon oil tank. The Republic Performance and Dimensions manual states, "The large quantity of oil carried in the P-47N is to ensure satisfactory operation on long range missions."

I believe that the engines on the P-38J and L had a capacity for 13 gallons. The Dauntless carried 20 gallons. I don't know about the P-51.

The P-47N being a long range fighter will both burn oil and "thow out oil through breather lines, something real common on recip engines.

Again people I am not saying that a radial will not take more punishment than an inline. I have never said so. However a radial is an engine as an engine is and is not oblivious to ground fire.

Besides the engine is not the only place to hit a plane and knock it out of the sky. If anyone actually believes that then they are very naive to the subject.

FLYBOYJ said:

True - in many of those cases the oil getting blown out of the missing jug was under low pressure. The oil going to or from the oil cooler is generally under pressure. If the oil is allowed to escape all in one shot or if the oil flow around the engine is severely disrupted, that's when you'll have failure.

The most important area in a radial is the master rod - when the bearing on that fails, time to start praying....

Click to expand...

It still amazes me that an entire jug could be blown away, piston flying back and forth, and not damage the crank or master rod or anything else that would immediately seize the engine.

DerAdlerIstGelandet said:

Again people I am not saying that a radial will not take more punishment than an inline. I have never said so. However a radial is an engine as an engine is and is not oblivious to ground fire.

Besides the engine is not the only place to hit a plane and knock it out of the sky. If anyone actually believes that then they are very naive to the subject.

Click to expand...

I agree. The radial is still an engine with many sensitive parts and subject to failure even without damage. It is not "bullet proof". It is more rugged than a liquid cooled engine and obviously has fewer single point failures, but not none.

FLYBOYJ said:

The P-47N being a long range fighter will both burn oil and "thow out oil through breather lines, something real common on recip engines.

Click to expand...

The radial was know for being thirsty for oil.

davparlr said:

I agree. The radial is still an engine with many sensitive parts and subject to failure even without damage. It is not "bullet proof". It is more rugged than a liquid cooled engine and obviously has fewer single point failures, but not none.

Click to expand...

Thankyou someone finally got what I was saying...