PDA

View Full Version : Air Cooled vs Water Cooled Engines & Airplane Ruggedness



XyZspineZyX
07-05-2003, 07:08 PM
Air cooled radial engines in the P47's & 190's should generally be tougher to knock out than water cooled engines with a vulnerable raditator.

There are times when gun fire damage will stop radial engines in either a 47 or 190 dead in it's tracks--when it seems it should still be operating.

Does anybody know the damage modeling of water cooled vs radial engines ?

Does it include a damage to the radiator--a radiator leak ?



I have seen all the other damages on the screen but nothing about the cooling system.

_____________________________


Here is an interesting excerpt of an interview by Military History Magazine of Robert S. Johnson on airplane ruggedness :


MH: Pilots generally swear by their aircraft. Günther Rall and Erich Hartmann praised the Messerschmitt Bf-109, Erich Rudorffer and Johannes Steinhoff the Me-262, and Buddy Haydon the P-51 Mustang. I have to say after seeing all of the old photos of the various Thunderbolts and others that were shot up, I can't imagine any other plane absorbing that much damage and still flying. What is your opinion of your aircraft?

Johnson: This is very similar to the German debate. As far as the 109, all of the German pilots loved that plane, but the FW-190 was harder to shoot down. Just like the controversy over the P-51 and P-47. The P-47 was faster; it just did not have the climb and range the Mustang did. But it had speed, roll, dive and the necessary ruggedness that allowed it to do such a great job in the Ninth Air Force. As far as aerial kills go, we met and beat the best the Luftwaffe had when we first got there. It was the P-47 groups that pushed them back, as I said before. The P-51s had the advantage of longer range, and they were able to hit even the training schools, hitting boys just learning to fly. As the war dragged on, many of the old German veterans had been killed--so much of the experience was gone. As far as the 109 versus 190 argument, the 109 had the liquid-cooled engine whereas the 190 had an air-cooled radial engine, much like ours. One hit in the cooling system of a Messerschmitt and he was going down. Also, none of the German fighters were as rugged as a P-47. When I was badly shot up on June 26, 1943, I had twenty-one 20mm cannon shells in that airplane, and more than 200 7.92mm machine-gun bullets. One nicked my nose and another entered my right leg, where the bullet split in half. I still have those two little pieces, by the way; they went in just under the skin. I had been hurt worse playing football and boxing. However, I had never been that scared, I'll tell you that. I was always scared--that was what made me move quick. "Hub" Zemke liked the P-51 because it had great range, but he put one in a dive and when he pulled out he ripped the wings off that airplane--that was how he became a POW. Adolf Galland, who was a very good friend of mine and who I had known since 1949, flew the Me-262 and loved it, but he still swore by the 109, although it was still easier to shoot down.

When his combat tours were finished, Johnson returned Stateside, to a hero's welcome.

XyZspineZyX
07-05-2003, 07:08 PM
Air cooled radial engines in the P47's & 190's should generally be tougher to knock out than water cooled engines with a vulnerable raditator.

There are times when gun fire damage will stop radial engines in either a 47 or 190 dead in it's tracks--when it seems it should still be operating.

Does anybody know the damage modeling of water cooled vs radial engines ?

Does it include a damage to the radiator--a radiator leak ?



I have seen all the other damages on the screen but nothing about the cooling system.

_____________________________


Here is an interesting excerpt of an interview by Military History Magazine of Robert S. Johnson on airplane ruggedness :


MH: Pilots generally swear by their aircraft. Günther Rall and Erich Hartmann praised the Messerschmitt Bf-109, Erich Rudorffer and Johannes Steinhoff the Me-262, and Buddy Haydon the P-51 Mustang. I have to say after seeing all of the old photos of the various Thunderbolts and others that were shot up, I can't imagine any other plane absorbing that much damage and still flying. What is your opinion of your aircraft?

Johnson: This is very similar to the German debate. As far as the 109, all of the German pilots loved that plane, but the FW-190 was harder to shoot down. Just like the controversy over the P-51 and P-47. The P-47 was faster; it just did not have the climb and range the Mustang did. But it had speed, roll, dive and the necessary ruggedness that allowed it to do such a great job in the Ninth Air Force. As far as aerial kills go, we met and beat the best the Luftwaffe had when we first got there. It was the P-47 groups that pushed them back, as I said before. The P-51s had the advantage of longer range, and they were able to hit even the training schools, hitting boys just learning to fly. As the war dragged on, many of the old German veterans had been killed--so much of the experience was gone. As far as the 109 versus 190 argument, the 109 had the liquid-cooled engine whereas the 190 had an air-cooled radial engine, much like ours. One hit in the cooling system of a Messerschmitt and he was going down. Also, none of the German fighters were as rugged as a P-47. When I was badly shot up on June 26, 1943, I had twenty-one 20mm cannon shells in that airplane, and more than 200 7.92mm machine-gun bullets. One nicked my nose and another entered my right leg, where the bullet split in half. I still have those two little pieces, by the way; they went in just under the skin. I had been hurt worse playing football and boxing. However, I had never been that scared, I'll tell you that. I was always scared--that was what made me move quick. "Hub" Zemke liked the P-51 because it had great range, but he put one in a dive and when he pulled out he ripped the wings off that airplane--that was how he became a POW. Adolf Galland, who was a very good friend of mine and who I had known since 1949, flew the Me-262 and loved it, but he still swore by the 109, although it was still easier to shoot down.

When his combat tours were finished, Johnson returned Stateside, to a hero's welcome.

XyZspineZyX
07-05-2003, 08:03 PM
i can get plenty bullets from Hurri into BMW engine and its still running. Dont try that in 109... definitely that difference is modelled fairly well. Look how easily the Allison or Merlin catch the fire or stop working. To stop Pratt+Whittney or BMW, you need three time more damage.

-------------

"The picture repeats itself when operations, which began with great intent and local successes, degenerated into senseless, wild hammering at fixed front-line positions once they encounter initial heavy losses and unforeseen situations. This incomprehensible phenomenon appears again and again. But, even in extremis, the Russian is never logical; he falls back on his natural instinct, and the nature of the Russian is to use mass, steamroller tactics, and adherence to given objectives without regard to changing situations."

German 9th Army report after repulsing the Soviet offensive "Mars" in Rzhev bulge, December 1942.

XyZspineZyX
07-05-2003, 09:53 PM
A scientist had calculated(do not ask how) that the ASh-82FN was 9 times more durable than the M-105, AM-35, AM-38. Generally, the radial engines are able to absorb much more damage than the V-shaped engines. that was the reason why the naval based aircraft had Radial engines. thaey had to operate in much more heavy Flak, also, radial is easier to maintain, etc



http://www.navsource.org/archives/02/020634.jpg


"An attack against a unit of Flying Fortresses was something like controlled suicide...Sometimes 50, Sometimes 80 machine guns were firing at you... You attempted to close you eyes & continue to fire, Frightened to death, Frightened to death."

Oberst Johannes Steinhoff (176 kills)

1C Ankanor, Defender Of The Truth

XyZspineZyX
07-05-2003, 11:21 PM
"The P-47 was faster"

Not to hijack the discussion here, but the P-51 was faster than the P-47 below 30,000 ft. The P-51s max speed was 437 MPH and the jugs was 433 MPH. Above 30,000, the Jug dominated all http://ubbxforums.ubi.com/infopop/emoticons/icon_smile.gif

XyZspineZyX
07-05-2003, 11:29 PM
Not the P-47M. It out-classed the P-51.

Hot Space

XyZspineZyX
07-06-2003, 07:22 AM
Neither were as fast as the CA-15 Kangaroo so what's the point of arguing?

<center>
Read the <a href=http://www.mudmovers.com/sturmovik_101/FAQ.htm>IL2 FAQ</a>
Got Nimrod? Try the unofficial <A HREF=http://acompletewasteofspace.com/forum/viewforum.php?f=4&sid=4870c2bc08acb0f130e5e3396d08d595>OT forum</A>