Flare Sci-Fi Forums: WWII aircraft engines

This is topic WWII aircraft engines in forum Officers' Lounge at Flare Sci-Fi Forums.

To visit this topic, use this URL:
https://flare.solareclipse.net/ultimatebb.php/topic/10/3415.html

Posted by B.J. (Member # 858) on :

I have noticed over time that most WWII naval aircraft were designed with radial engines, while most land-based aircraft were designed with inline engines. I have never heard, nor can I find, any explanation for this. There has to be some sort of reason for this fairly obvious design departure, but I can't find it. Anyone here have any clues?

Thanks,
B.J.

(BTW - I'm not going to join a more appropriate message board just to ask this question.)

Posted by Malnurtured Snay (Member # 411) on :

Maybe because radial engines could better absorb the impact of landing on a carrier ... ?

Posted by Wraith (Member # 779) on :

I think it has to do with ease of maintainance and storage of stuff- radial engines don't need coolent and with the limited space on a carrier. Also most USN carriers were deployed to the Pacific and the aircraft designs reflect this. Radial engines are a lot less vulnerable to overheating; a stray shot can't disable the cooling system.

Posted by Jay the Obscure (Member # 19) on :

See this.

quote:
The debate about the merits of the radial vs. the inline continued throughout the 1930's, with both types seeing at least some use. The radial tended to be more popular largely due to its simplicity, and most navy air arms had dedicated themselves to the radial because of its improved reliability (very important when flying over water) and lighter weight (for carrier takeoffs).

In the mid-1930s a new generation of highly streamlined high-speed aircraft appeared, along with more powerful inline engines like the Rolls Royce Merlin and Daimler-Benz DB 601. This re-opened the debate anew, with the needs of streamlining often winning out. However the Focke-Wulf Fw-190 showed that a radial engine fighter could compete with the best of the inlines, given a proper installation. From that point on many new designs used radials, and after the war the inlines quickly disappeared from the now-smaller aircraft market.

Posted by Da_bang80 (Member # 528) on :

Radial Engines were generally more reliable. Which is a good thing over the ocean... and had more power and torque to lift the planes off the carrier (or landing strip on very small islands...

Posted by Nim the Fanciful (Member # 205) on :

Well both the Spitfire and the Mustang are inlines, right?
But the fastest propeller-driven fighter ever built was the F8F BearCat (420 knots IIRC), which used a radial engine.

Posted by Neutrino 123 (Member # 1327) on :

The Sptifire and Mustang were definatly inline. A notable late-war rotary is the F4U Corsair. This was argueably the best mass-produced figher of the war.

After the war in the military market, most of the new production of fighters shifted to jets. The inline P-51s were used in the ground attack role in Korea, though.

Posted by Jay the Obscure (Member # 19) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Neutrino 123:
The Sptifire and Mustang were definatly inline. A notable late-war rotary is the F4U Corsair. This was argueably the best mass-produced figher of the war.

After the war in the military market, most of the new production of fighters shifted to jets. The inline P-51s were used in the ground attack role in Korea, though.

Slight correction, the Corsair used a radial engine, not a rotary.

In the end though, as far as propeller driven war planes go, the radial engine lasted. The last of the propeller driven attack planes, the A-1 Skyraider, which saw action in Vietnam, used a radial engine.

Posted by Neutrino 123 (Member # 1327) on :

Sorry, I meant to say radial, but I have recently conducted a study of WWI rotary engines causing me to type 'rotary'.

The B-36 didn't use a radial engine. After WWII, though, the number of new frontline planes with propellors greatly declined. Can it really be said that radial engines dominated with such a small sample size? Maybe the article was refering to civilian designs.

Posted by Jay the Obscure (Member # 19) on :

quote:
Sorry, I meant to say radial, but I have recently conducted a study of WWI rotary engines causing me to type 'rotary'.

I thought as much which is why I didn't make my post snarky. [Smile]

But I do have a question:

quote:
The B-36 didn't use a radial engine.

Where is the B-36 mentioned in the above posts?

Even though war planes is a category large enough to encompasses bombers, my comment about the A-1 and radial engines was meant to be narrow, aimed only for fighter/attack aircraft. I understand the phase-out of radial engine in the majority of propeller driven aircraft, and yet, the last great propeller driven fighter/attack plane, the A-1, used a radial engine.

Posted by Neutrino 123 (Member # 1327) on :

The B-36 was just an example of a post-war design with an inline engine.

Also, the A-1 was never a fighter (though I remember reading they actually got a couple of Mig-17s!). It was an attack plane, hence the 'A'. [Wink]

What I am saying, is that just because a radial engine military plane remained in service past inline ones, a general statement can't be made about radial engines being superior to inline ones post-WWII (though I suppose to determine this conclusivly civilian aircraft would have to be examined, and I am not familiar with many of them).

Posted by Nim the Fanciful (Member # 205) on :

Oh, Skyraider. Yeah, I like theuse, theuse are ceul.