P-51 Mustang family aside, any other good implementations of ventral Meredith radiators, or good ways to do it? (1 Viewer)

[tomo pauk]

Tomo has faster fingers.

My big mouth is even faster

Wrt. Nakajima Ki-62: Shinpachi - please help, is there a consensus between the Japanese researchers about how good/bad the Ki-62 was supposed to be?

 

[Admiral Beez]

Not the prettiest application. Martin-Baker MB 5.

 

[Shinpachi]

My big mouth is even faster

Wrt. Nakajima Ki-62: Shinpachi - please help, is there a consensus between the Japanese researchers about how good/bad the Ki-62 was supposed to be?

The Ki-62 is almost perfectly ignored except this small article.

"2. Army Awakened to Heavy Fighters

.....However, in the summer of 1939, IJA which realized the need for a heavy fighter with an emphasis on the speed and firepower earlier than IJN decided to focus on some heavy fighters as the army general staff also approved this.

Slightly behind the Ki-43, Nakajima Aircraft had already launched a typical heavy fighter Ki-44 equipped with a large bomber engine and a wingspan of less than 10 meters. However, in May 1940, the development plan announced to aircraft makers by the army aeronautical research institute included a number of heavy fighters to show IJA's strong intention to shift from the light fighters.

As many as 24 models for this development plan were Ki-60 heavy fighter, Ki-61 medium fighter (Kawasaki), Ki-62 light fighter, Ki-63 heavy fighter (Nakajima), Ki-64 heavy fighter (Kawasaki), Ki-65 heavy fighter (Mitsubishi), Ki-66 dive bomber (Kawasaki), Ki-67 heavy bomber (Mitsubishi), Ki-63(?) long-range fighter (Mitsubishi) and many others.

However, many of them were either to be cancelled on the way or to end as only plan and never built but Kawasaki completed all but one of its six models requested."

Source: ダイムラーベンツを積んだ高速機

 

[tomo pauk]

Thank you

 

[BarnOwlLover]

Any consensus on how well the Hawker Tempest I/Hawker Fury I radiators worked vs the DH Mosquito/Hornet radiators, which are sometimes claimed (Mosquito/Hornet) to have made good use of the Meredith effect (in spite of the relatively short intake and exhaust systems of them)? I'd guess maybe anything that's lost from not making as good of use of the Meredith effect (positive thrust gains) could be offset though reduced frontal area vs running a large/prominent duct?

 

[BarnOwlLover]

Not the prettiest application. Martin-Baker MB 5.

View attachment 696531

Having seen some cutaways of the MB5, I do believe they were aiming for a P-51B/C/D/K approach, though it used a combined radiator/oil cooler/intercooler like on the Hornet. Oddly (for some reason) the MB5's overall length was similar to a Hornet. The earlier MB3 used radiators mounted under the wing similar to the Me 109 and the Spiteful/Seafang, and I've seen proposals for the MB4 that kept those radiators.

 

[tomo pauk]

Any consensus on how well the Hawker Tempest I/Hawker Fury I radiators worked vs the DH Mosquito/Hornet radiators,

The proof is in the pudding?
All of the listed aircraft were pretty fast; granted, (good) radiators are just a part of the equation.

 

[BarnOwlLover]

I think that the leading edge radiators are more elegant, and IMO better than like say the MiG I-220 and Westland Whirlwind/Welkin radiators. I suppose that if done right the wing mounted flow-though radiators (Whirlwind) can use the Meredith effect if done right, one, the wing spars have to be made to accept radiator ducting (intake/exit), the radiators take up room in the wings that can be used for fuel, and on the MiG designs, due to how thin the wing was, the exhaust has to come out though the top or bottom of the wing.

However, both do have the advantage (IMO, though probably small) of not having to modify the fuselage to take a radiator if going from a radial engine to an inline engine (Macchi 200 to 202/205) or getting rid of it if doing the reverse (Ki-61 to Ki-100).

 

[Admiral Beez]

I think that the leading edge radiators are more elegant, and IMO better than like say the MiG I-220 and Westland Whirlwind/Welkin radiators.

Putting the radiators inside the wings took a lot of what could have been the Whirlwind's internal fuel capacity. Move those rads to the exterior and we can double the fuel load.

Rather than two underwing rads, would a single Mustang-like radiator below the pilot work for the Whirlwind?

 

[spicmart]

Putting the radiators inside the wings took a lot of what could have been the Whirlwind's internal fuel capacity. Move those rads to the exterior and we can double the fuel load.

View attachment 696670

Rather than two underwing rads, would a single Mustang-like radiator below the pilot work for the Whirlwind?

Are there any twin-engined fighters designs known which woud have featured a ventral main fuselage radiator or ventral engine nacelle radiators.?

 

[Admiral Beez]

Are there any twin-engined fighters designs known which woud have featured a ventral main fuselage radiator or ventral engine nacelle radiators.?

I can't think of any twin-engined piston-powered aircraft that shared one radiator, wherever located. But that doesn't mean it can't be done.

 

[Thumpalumpacus]

Rather than two underwing rads, would a single Mustang-like radiator below the pilot work for the Whirlwind?

I'm no engineer, but one radiator cooling two engines seems like a good way to court overheating issues, or require a radiator so large that drag could still remain a problem.

You'd also need two pumps instead of one -- more weight -- and the pumps would probably need to be larger (again, more weight) in order to service the longer fluid runs.

 

[Shortround6]

Maybe you can do it, but you need to be very careful, if one pump is running a slightly high pressure than the other (and this is a higher pressure at the point where they join so that includes friction loss in the piping) the higher pressure is going to get a disproportionate amount of fluid going into the matrix, lower pressure system will be being blocked and not able to send the hot coolant to the radiator. Even if it is only 10% off that is going to cook the lower pressure engine.

 

[Thumpalumpacus]

Maybe you can do it, but you need to be very careful, if one pump is running a slightly high pressure than the other (and this is a higher pressure at the point where they join so that includes friction loss in the piping) the higher pressure is going to get a disproportionate amount of fluid going into the matrix, lower pressure system will be being blocked and not able to send the hot coolant to the radiator. Even if it is only 10% off that is going to cook the lower pressure engine.

Great point, I hadn't even considered that.

A one-pump system probably won't work because 1) the upstream engine will get the coolest fluid, and the downstream engine the warmest and 2) due to friction loss, the coolant pressure in the downstream engine will be lower without aux pumps (more weight!)

 

[pbehn]

One radiator cooling two engines means you can take out both with a single bullet.

 

[spicmart]

What if, on a twin, you mount a radiator installation (with sufficient ducting to produce good Meredith effect) ventrally or laterally on the engine nacelles?
Would a Honet with such a config be faster but slower in a climb due to higher weight?
A how do the Meredith-effect-favoring installations compare against others weight-wise anyway?

 

[GrauGeist]

The Whirlwind, Mosquito and Hornet had main gear mounted behind the engine in the nacelles, so that limits how much room you have to work with in regards to a cooling system.

 

[BarnOwlLover]

I don't think there's a significant weight increase with a well-done Meredith radiator, because though it requires shrouding and such, a lot of that is (or seems to be) incorporated into the plane's structure.

I do have a couple of questions/comments about a ventral Meredith radiator intake system. One, if you were running a single seater in a recon configuration, how would you do a downwards firing camera? And one of the objections for that Hawker Tempest I and its leading edge radiators was possible vulnerability to damage from ground fire or return fire from bombers or recon planes. IMO, that doesn't make sense given that the Typhoon and Tempest had a big radiator/oil cooler assembly under the nose/engine.

And a question I had since I saw the Alf Faddy recon/long range single seater sketch, which featured a ventral Meredith radiator and a Spitfire-type supercharger intake, how would the supercharger intake effect air flow into the rad intake? The P-51 and the MB5 didn't have that issue since the supercharger intake ran to the back of the spinner, but how about a Spitfire type intake?

 

[GrauGeist]

The Photo Recon versions of the P-51 had their cameras mounted higher in the fuselage, not the bottom.
The F-6B/C had the cameras mounted behind the pilot's head, the F-6D had the cameras mounted in a "blister" on the side of the fuselage, midway between the cockpit and the tail.

 

[wuzak]

Rather than two underwing rads, would a single Mustang-like radiator below the pilot work for the Whirlwind?

There seems to be too much emphasis on the location of the Mustang's radiator than how it actually worked.

As others have said, having a single radiator for two engines would be a bad idea.

Having one centrally mounted radiator would require more ducting, the radiator would have to be the size of the two original radiators. It could be done with two radiators in the one duct, but you still have all the extra piping.

You could have a Mustang style radiator under each nacelle. But then you have to figure out where to put the main landing gear.