PDA

View Full Version : Radial Pacific?



XyZspineZyX
10-21-2003, 06:57 AM
Ok here's a noob question for you:

When comparing WWII planes used in Pacific and Europe I have noted that almost all Pacific planes have radial engines (zeros, bearcats ect.) while in Europe it wasn't so common. Is there a reason or is it just coincide? Does it have something to do with high altitudes or carrier based operation or what?

Thanks!

http://www.comicsutra.com/cs/tv2000/son_of_beach/notch.jpg



"Ride the Big One"
- Notch Johnson

http://www.comicsutra.com/cs/tv2000/son_of_beach/notch.jpg



"Ride the Big One"
- Notch Johnson

XyZspineZyX
10-21-2003, 06:57 AM
Ok here's a noob question for you:

When comparing WWII planes used in Pacific and Europe I have noted that almost all Pacific planes have radial engines (zeros, bearcats ect.) while in Europe it wasn't so common. Is there a reason or is it just coincide? Does it have something to do with high altitudes or carrier based operation or what?

Thanks!

http://www.comicsutra.com/cs/tv2000/son_of_beach/notch.jpg



"Ride the Big One"
- Notch Johnson

http://www.comicsutra.com/cs/tv2000/son_of_beach/notch.jpg



"Ride the Big One"
- Notch Johnson

XyZspineZyX
10-21-2003, 07:05 AM
^

Message Edited on 10/20/0311:13PM by tenmmike

XyZspineZyX
10-21-2003, 07:25 AM
As I understand it, you get better power/weight with a radial engine, & they tend to be a bit more rugged.

It's to do with carrier operation too, because to take off & land on a short deck you need to have a lot of engine power after you clear the deck. Catapults, ramps & arrestor wires help, but you still need to be able to pull the plane into the air once you're off.

Off the top of my head, the only carrier based planes with inline engines was the Seafire - any others?

(and please put that horrible picture away, or at least make it very small!)

XyZspineZyX
10-21-2003, 07:30 AM
using a liquid cooled plane would just add another fluid you would have to carry on the ship. You already need gas and oil for the planes, and fuel oil for the ship. Glycol takes up space too, in addition radials are easier to work on.

"Ich bin ein Wuergerwhiner"

"The future battle on the ground will be preceded by battle in the air. This will determine which of the contestants has to suffer operational and tactical disadvantages and be forced throughout the battle into adoption compromise solutions." --Erwin Rommel

http://lbhskier37.freeservers.com/Mesig.jpg
--NJG26_Killa--

XyZspineZyX
10-21-2003, 07:44 AM
Notch, its a well considered question but with due respect...I think you might have to reconsider your sig.

Its two; too big; and its too much... http://ubbxforums.ubi.com/infopop/emoticons/icon_smile.gif

XyZspineZyX
10-21-2003, 07:52 AM
is that you lol?

"Never forget the past so we dont make the same mistakes in the future"

MicroSoft Most Wanted
http://www.angelfire.com/empire/the-aztek-eagles/oleg.jpg

XyZspineZyX
10-21-2003, 08:17 AM
A few reasons.

#1, Radials are more dependable. You REALLY depend on your engine when your over the pacific far from lany known land.

#2, Radiators are just another thing to go wrong in conbat. Take a bullete in it, your not making it home.

#3, Storage for radiator fluid. And no they cant use sea water http://ubbxforums.ubi.com/infopop/emoticons/icon_wink.gif

#4, More power in a more combact design. Inline's made the aircraft longer. Notice how stubby carrier aircraft were? Space limitations. Yes the F4U was a beast, but the wings folded well.

#5, Dependability

#6, They were mode dependable.

Gib

No fancy quote or cool photo.... YET

XyZspineZyX
10-21-2003, 10:34 AM
So radial engine is more powerful, durable and smaller. Why did they use inline engines in Europe then?

P.S. I may reduce my sig quantity but not quality /i/smilies/16x16_smiley-happy.gif

http://images.amazon.com/images/P/B00008AOTD.01.LZZZZZZZ.jpg



"Ride the Big One"
- Notch Johnson

fluke39
10-21-2003, 01:30 PM
Bnej_03 wrote:
-
- Off the top of my head, the only carrier based
- planes with inline engines was the Seafire - any
- others?


Sea Hurricane /i/smilies/16x16_smiley-wink.gif

and

Fairey Fulmar
Fairey Firefly

there may be a few more - probably more obscure RAF types eg firebrand (was that a carrier plane?)



- (and please put that horrible picture away, or at
- least make it very small!)


i agree !! - and i'm afraid your new one is only a bit better and still way too big, sorry /i/smilies/16x16_smiley-sad.gif




<center><img src=http://mysite.freeserve.com/Angel_one_five/flukelogo.jpg>

XyZspineZyX
10-21-2003, 01:46 PM
and why had the P51 Mustang no radial engine ? /i/smilies/16x16_smiley-wink.gif

XyZspineZyX
10-21-2003, 02:17 PM
I started a thread awhile back asking about the specific differences between radials and in-lines if you can dig it up. The thread went for a long time and was one of the most informative threads I have read here.

Anyway, one adavantage of the in-line engine is that it does not require direct air-cooling so you don't have to have a big, drag inducing opening at the front of the plane. The in-line allows for a more aerodynamic shape and less drag, increasing top speed. This possibly effects dive and zoom climb, but I don't know. The 190 (my personal favorite) was very good in dive and zoom, especially at the initial stages due to great acceleration. It had a powerful radial, but then again it also had the neatest frontal section of all the radial aircraft IMHO. Maybe the more aerodynamic shape was more beneficial in prolonged dive and climb, but again, I'm not sure.

Actually I am bumping up my old thread now, enjoy the reading. Hope it helps.

<center>
http://www.brooksart.com/Icewarriors.jpg

"Ice Warriors", by Nicolas Trudgian.