Read the forum code of contact
By: - 1st April 2010 at 01:08 Permalink - Edited 1st January 1970 at 01:00
Later mark of Merlin, packard or otherwise
Powerful, robust (i think) good on fuel when compared to other fighter engines in ww2 (Radial and inline)
During the war I would not have chosen the griffon, mainly because it was a considerably heavier engine and was producing roughly the same amount of horses :)
By: - 1st April 2010 at 09:11 Permalink - Edited 1st January 1970 at 01:00
Begging your pardon Ben, but at any similar time of production the Griffon was producing noticeably more power than the Merlin, wouldn't have thought they would want to put into the Spit if it was disadvantaged in the power stakes. It had a greater displacement in a similar size, it was slightly heavier, but it was better able to use its supercharging power.
To the original question of Radials versus Inlines, despite a basic understanding I've never been able to work out what suits which aircraft best.
If you take British WWII aircraft, a fair proportion used (or tried) both types of engine layout.
By: - 1st April 2010 at 10:59 Permalink - Edited 1st January 1970 at 01:00
You see i like Radial engines but then i also like inline engines, theres only one thing for it.......
FIGHT!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
By: - 1st April 2010 at 11:40 Permalink - Edited 1st January 1970 at 01:00
Inline then
http://www.googlefight.com/index.php?lang=en_GB&word1=Radial&word2=Inline
Moggy
By: - 1st April 2010 at 11:48 Permalink - Edited 1st January 1970 at 01:00
Whichever one makes the right noise. :D
By: - 1st April 2010 at 14:55 Permalink - Edited 1st January 1970 at 01:00
Has to be the incomparable British built Merlin.
Won the BoB, turned the Mustang into a first class fighter.
By: - 1st April 2010 at 16:19 Permalink - Edited 1st January 1970 at 01:00
Glad to see thoughtful consideration and no nationalism here...:rolleyes:
Yes, the sainted Merlin powered the Spitfire, Mustang and Hurricane...and other liquid-cooled engines powered some of the other greats: Bf-109, P-40, P-38...
But air cooled engines powered some greats too...P-47, FW-190, the Grumman Cats, B-17, B-24, Dakota, Catalina, A6M...
But recall why air cooled engines were valued...less weight and a greater resistance to battle damage. How many times have we read about a fighter being forced down to a hit in its coolant system?
It was the adoption of air cooled engines that made airmail and airlines profitable. A classic example was the Boeing 40 after it switched from the ancient Liberty engine to the new P&W Wasp.
On load critical aircraft, air cooled seems to have been preferred...
with, of course, the exception of the Merlin marks of some bombers.
BTW: anyone have the numbers handy on how the Merlin vs. radial Lancs compared? Or the YB-38 vs B-17F?
And air cooled engines outlived its competition lasting well into the 1950s in attack aircraft (Skyraiders) and trainers (Harvard) as well as transports.
So as usual, it's impossible to say one was better than the other....
Both had merits...it largely depends on the mission and what was required from the engine.
Which would I rather have...In a fighter, it's a toss up...
Hauling freight or bombs....probably air cooled.
By: - 1st April 2010 at 16:24 Permalink - Edited 1st January 1970 at 01:00
Whichever one makes the right noise. :D
You get my vote, a Merlin "sigh" to use a classic phrase from a great man, or that (struggles for words).. raw low key power you get from a Sea Fury flypast.....
If it sounds right, thats good enough !
By: - 1st April 2010 at 20:25 Permalink - Edited 1st January 1970 at 01:00
And air cooled engines outlived its competition lasting well into the 1950s in attack aircraft (Skyraiders) and trainers (Harvard) as well as transports.
Didn't the inline Griffon outlast them all, at least in front-line service?
By: - 1st April 2010 at 20:27 Permalink - Edited 1st January 1970 at 01:00
In that case, I choose the rotary, where the crank stays still & the cylinders go whizzing around it. :D
By: - 1st April 2010 at 23:04 Permalink - Edited 1st January 1970 at 01:00
Didn't the inline Griffon outlast them all, at least in front-line service?
Hard to say, perhaps as a unarmed semi-combat type in the Shack (I'm not sure I'd call it a "front-line" aircraft...especially in its later years, AWACS are supposed to be behind the lines), but I'd bet somewhere there are air cooled engines are still being used by a military.
Anyone still fly piston Dakotas operationally? CL-215s?
How about the engines in light training/observation helicopters & fixed wing?
By: - 2nd April 2010 at 10:25 Permalink - Edited 1st January 1970 at 01:00
Might mean different things in different areas, but RAF front-line was anything used in defence, combat, trooping, air movements, second-line was training and communications etc.
The 8 Sqdn Shacks most certainly were front-line, the radial powered Pembrokes were second-line.
By: - 2nd April 2010 at 16:14 Permalink - Edited 1st January 1970 at 01:00
South African Shackletons were very much "front line" until late 1984 when they were retired, and IIRC correctly, replaced in some roles by Dakotas ?
By: - 2nd April 2010 at 16:30 Permalink - Edited 1st January 1970 at 01:00
In that case, I choose the rotary, where the crank stays still & the cylinders go whizzing around it. :D
Hey... there's no shortage of cranks in aviation circles :D
By: - 2nd April 2010 at 17:06 Permalink - Edited 1st January 1970 at 01:00
In that case, I choose the rotary, where the crank stays still & the cylinders go whizzing around it. :D
Indeed. It's impossible for bullets to hit the spinny-thingy. :diablo:
Posts: 493
By: talltower - 1st April 2010 at 01:03
A radial engine is an engine with cylinders attached in a circular pattern to a central crankshaft, facing outward like the spokes of a wheel.
An inline engine is an engine with cylinders attached in lengthwise banks.
Pratt & Whitney R-2800
BMW 801
Packard V-1650 (license-built Rolls Royce Merlin)
Rolls Royce Griffon
What type of aircraft engine would you have preferred on your favorite WWII aircraft and why?