CobberKane
Banned
- 706
- Apr 4, 2012
Ad: This forum contains affiliate links to products on Amazon and eBay. More information in Terms and rules
It is not only what we think or what we think we know now but what was thought at the time. The US army in the 1930s bought the argument that air-cooled engines were less vulnerable and specified only air cooled engines for "attack" aircraft. Aircraft intended for ground support and more likely to be hit by ground fire.
While only a few radials may have made it home with cylinders missing many more made it home with damaged cylinders, dented or broken cylinder fins or damaged cylinder heads. Hits that would have caused leaks on a liquid cooled engine. While a liquid cooled engine won't stop immediately with a cooling hit and may even run at low power settings for 15-20 minutes getting "home" all depends on how far you are from "home" ( friendly air field or friendly farmer's field) when the damage occurs. Some pilots may have nursed an ailing liquid cooled engine even further.
There is little doubt that the size of the liquid cooling system offers more target area than an equivalent air-cooled engine.
Try this for an experiment: take your car out on to the highway and run it up to operating temperature. Stop and take the radiator cap of. Keep driving (no crawling, if you were in an aircraft you would probably need fifty percent of throttle to stay in the air). How far do you think you will get?
Try this for an experiment: take your car out on to the highway and run it up to operating temperature. Stop and take the radiator cap of. Keep driving (no crawling, if you were in an aircraft you would probably need fifty percent of throttle to stay in the air). How far do you think you will get?
Losing a cylinder on a radial isn't all about cooling. There is the oil issue, as mentioned by Gumbyk. There is also the small matter of parts flailing about without their normal constraints. Lose the master rod cylinder and you've lost that row - because all timing will be lost.
It's not just oil that will be pumped out - the fuel/air mix will be escaping to atmosphere, and possibly onto hot parts as a potential ignition source. This will also screw up the buddy of the lost cylinder, as for many radials two cylinders shared the same intak pipe (4 cylinders in an R-4360).
So, all is well, we have oil spewing out, bits and pieces flailing about, fuel/air mix being pumped out but hey, we still have cooling to all the other cylinders.
Come on Wuzak, you're being selective. As I said, loosing an entire cylinder is an extreme example,
a hit that might dent the fins or knock a couple of valves off a radial' head would probably easily puncture the thin alloy of an LC engine's water jacket - which is the most robust part of the LC system.
Regarding oil fuel and air being pumped everywhere, sure - the same thing is just as likely to happen to an LC engine it is no more or less vulnerable in this respect
And oil is a viscous (thick) liquid that will never in an engine
whereas water/glycol has vastly lower viscosity and higher volatility - it will escape far more quickly through a hole of a given size, depriving the LV engine of ALL its cooling.
I just can't see any reason to resile from my original view that air cooled radials are significantly more resistant to battle dammage than LC Vs and Inlines. The great preponderance of available experience and commentary seems to support me.
the P-38 had the worst record of a.) destruction of German aircraft per fighter lost in the air, and b.) the destruction of German aircraft on the ground.
The latter environment was the most hazardous light flak concentration fighter encountered in WWII. Why did the single engine Mustang achieve far superior ratios?
The 8th AF P-38 destroyed ~161 a/c for the loss of ~ 109 P-38s while strafing at low altituded
The 8th AF P-47 destroyed ~740 a/c for the loss of ~ 200 P-47s " " " " "
The 8th AF P-51 destroyed ~ 3204 a/c for the loss of 569.
By contrast the 8th AF Mustangs destroyed 3315 air for the loss of 322 in air combat.
the P-47 destroyed 1562 for loss of 214
the P-38 destroyed 281 for loss of 101.
Am I?
It is an extreme example, but nonetheless it is the example you put forward to prove the air cooled engine's relative invincibility.
--I withdraw my assertion that the radial engine is invulnerable. I can't remember saying that, but obviously I must have.
How do you "knock a couple of valves of a radial's head"? The valves are captive in the head, and if they aren't constrained the only way they can go is into the cylinder and piston, which could potentially cause all sorts of mess inside the engine.
--Why couldn't a hit destroy or incapacitate valves and cams without damaging the cylinder and piston. The valves and cams are outside the cylinder surely?
There is truth to that, but it isn't the complete truth. A radial engine expels more heat through oil for a given power level than does a liquid cooled engine. This requires a larger oil cooling system (ie radiator). Radials also burn more oil, so need a larger system overall.
---but oil follows a distant second to air in cooling an air cooled motor.
Oil is less viscous at higher temperatures, such as in operating temperatures, than at room temperatures.
---And at whatever temperature is is far more viscous and less volatile than water
True.
Define significantly?
I would define 'significantly' as 'to a degree that makes a useful difference in practice'.
How do you explain this:
Sure the P-47 has better ratios than the P-38, but it has worse ratios than the P-51 with its "significantly" more vulnerable liquid cooling system.
Of course we can't know the reasons that the aircraft were lost - and most probably had nothing to do with the engine.
---Looks like you answered your own question. Probably most of the losses had nothing to do with the engine? Sticking 'probably' in frony of an unsubsttianted opinion is a pretty lazy way of disguising it as a fact.
--I withdraw my assertion that the radial engine is invulnerable. I can't remember saying that, but obviously I must have.
--Why couldn't a hit destroy or incapacitate valves and cams without damaging the cylinder and piston. The valves and cams are outside the cylinder surely?
---but oil follows a distant second to air in cooling an air cooled motor.
I would define 'significantly' as 'to a degree that makes a useful difference in practice'.
Spot on with the valve gear, brain fade on my part. Regarding everything else, I just watched the All Blacks do the Haka on top of the Wallabys and none of it seems to matter. To all American contributors, it's an Antipodean thing...
Eden Park?
No suprise that the All Blacks beat the Aussies. Two reasons:
1. I undertsand the Aussies have never won there.
2. The Wallabies are hopeless at the moment, and have been for some time.
I remember an early mission to Kiel, which brought home to me again the dependability of the P-47. The bombers were hitting the German U-boat base and naval base. As usual, we were giving them close escort over the target area. Suddenly, the heavy flak opened up, and almost immediately there were black woolly clouds with bright flashes in them floating by. One hit my engine, rocking the plane and filling the cockpit with the acrid smell of cordite. I heard the crump. Black oil hit the windscreen and I stated to lose power.
...
[After a forced landing near Martlesham Heath]
...
I climbed out onto the wing and looked at the smoking, stattered engine, covered in oil. The top of the front cowling was torn to bits and two cylinders were completely torn apart!
My wingman, Roy Rushing, came back aboard the Essex one day after being shot up by anti-aircraft fire and you could see the no. 9 piston pumping up and down. Roy sat in the cockpit with the "thumbs up" signal meaning the aircraft was ready in all respects for the next flight.
KardopolysevI remember the engines on Lavochkins were really good. I got hit by flak in the engine, and two lower cylinders were shattered to pieces… But I made it home. Mech opened cowls, and we saw some bits falling out. And I can't say that I lost power drastically.
How do you explain this:
Sure the P-47 has better ratios than the P-38, but it has worse ratios than the P-51 with its "significantly" more vulnerable liquid cooling system.
Of course we can't know the reasons that the aircraft were lost - and most probably had nothing to do with the engine.
A few anecdotes I could find quickly:
James A Goodson, 4th FG:
David McCampbell:
Ilyich Kardopoltsev:
Kardopolysev