I'm curious which engine type can take the most damage and make it home my guess would be to say the V and H pattens wouldn't make it if they took any damage if a merlin or db601 takes a .30 in or .50 into the block i wouldn't say it would make it home the H pattern the naiper pattern im not sure about. The radial (think wright 9 cyl or Pratt style) would be best the best because of not having a block per say.
radial vs inline vs naiper h-pattern
- Thread starter VA5124
- Start date
Ad: This forum contains affiliate links to products on Amazon and eBay. More information in Terms and rules
wuzak
Captain
It's the cooling system.
The Merlin, V-1710, DB 601 and Sabre were all liquid cooled. If the cooling system is damaged and the coolant leaks out the engine doesn't have long to live.
The major radials were all air cooled. So they had a chance of surviving a hit on the cylinder.
There were in-line and H engines that were air cooled too, but none that were high powered in WW2.
The Handley Page Hereford, a Hampden with Napier Dagger engines, did enter service, but did not see combat and were quickly withdrawn.
- Thread starter
- #3
Ok i get that but from a pure design point of the engine its self could a V or H block take the kind of damage a radial could
It isnt a design PoV it is statistics.
cherry blossom
Senior Airman
- 513
- Apr 23, 2007
It is not relevant to WW2 because it was not actually produced but there was an H design which was hoped made the two blocks of 12 cylinders independent, so that half the engine would run if the other half was damaged Fairey Monarch - Wikipedia.
They went on to use the double Mamba which may also be a dance, not sure lol
Clayton Magnet
Staff Sergeant
- 902
- Feb 16, 2013
Another potential advantage for a radial engine, beyond the already described lack of coolant, was the steel construction. A liquid cooled engine could theoretically be cast from aluminum, which would significantly reduce it's weight, but would also reduce its robustness.
Howard Gibson
Senior Airman
I am not aware of steel engines. Lots of liquid cooled engine blocks and heads are cast iron, which has a higher melting temperature than aluminium. Your statement is backwards. If you can make a liquid cooled engine out of aluminium, it saves weight.
Are you sure that all radial engines are ferrous?
Clayton Magnet
Staff Sergeant
- 902
- Feb 16, 2013
Modern (for WWII) liquid cooled engines, like a Merlin, used aluminum crankcases and cylinder blocks (with steel sleeves). Something like an R-2800, will have steel cylinders (with aluminum bands) to better handle the increased cylinder head temperature of the air cooled engine. My understanding is that the crankcase will also be steel, but perhaps I am mistaken
Clayton Magnet
Staff Sergeant
- 902
- Feb 16, 2013
Sorry, the intent of my original statement was unclear. I was referring to advantage of steel in respect to battle damage, as per the original post in the thread, not the advantage for construction. Aluminum is obviously better from a weight consideration
- Thread starter
- #11
But an aluminium block wont take a round to the block like a steel block or a radial
Howard Gibson
Senior Airman
Are you claiming that cast iron (not steel) engine blocks are bulletproof?
How thick is functional WWII fighter plane armour? The people designing engines make the walls as thin as possible. 1/4"?
- Thread starter
- #13
An iron block could take more stress ask nascar when the COT car was a thing (2008-2013) they could go 850 hp for over 4 hours the only major place for failures was talladega and daytona if you can do 200mph for over 4 hours im sure you could take a 20mm and make it home
Howard Gibson
Senior Airman
If I am converting my stressed design from cast iron (not steel) to aluminium, I will account for aluminium's lower yield stress by using more aluminium. Aluminium has one third the elastic modulus and one third the density of cast iron. An aluminium structure can be lighter and stiffer than an equivalent cast iron or steel one. It is substantially weaker, especially at running temperature. This may not matter since wall thicknesses of castings are often dictated by the casting process, rather than structural integrity. This definitely is true if they are sand cast.
Airplanes need to be light weight. The thickness of an engine block is no where near what it needs to be to stop bullets. Cast iron (not steel) is brittle, not a good quality for armour.
Many cast irons do not even have a quoted yield strength value because the Y/UTS is too close and the elongation too small, whatever their "strength" they are very brittle.
Look at any installed aircraft engine and imagine trying to hit the engine block with a normal rifle sight from 400 yards. If you could fire wit the accuracy of a sniper there are many things that can stop the engine as effectively as a hole in the engine block.
If you are that good, just hit the pilot. He's all soft and squishy.
My point exactly.
Howard Gibson
Senior Airman
High strength aluminium castings are heat treated. I don't know how reliable this is if they get exposed somehow to high temperatures.
Cast Iron isnt cast aluminium. Heat treated cast iron isnt cast iron it is iron normalised, stress relieved or whatever.
Users who are viewing this thread
Similar threads
