Now that the dust has settled, has there been a definitive answer as to what was the best engine for ww2 single seat fighters: Radial or Inline/Water-Cooled? Purely from a performance or power to weight ratio, resistance to battle damage and ease of maintenance notwithstanding.
Didnt the Corsair outperform the Mustang on every appreciable metric though? Granted Spitfires and Mustangs (that is, the latter bubble-canopy version) were some of the prettiest planes to come out of WW2
There's no need to get testy anon, i wasn't suggesting the P-51 vs. Corsair debate is the case point for radial superiority. Isnt the water cooled "Longnose" FW190 considered to be superior to the radial version?
Probably would not have been if the 801F actually made it to production. These things tended to leapfrog each other. Our perception of things is distorted by the fact that the end of the war (and budget drawdowns in the Western Allies) tended to cut off development of new things right in the middle of a leap-frog cycle.
What that other anon said, the choice to place an inline in place if the bmw engine was one of expediancy.
They didnt want to dip into BF109 production and use their engines, so why not the Jumo v12s if they needed an updrade?
Its not like your bombers are utilizing them anyway.
Fair enough, my source is a half remembered thread on some message board where plane autists were throwing figures at each other, which is about as valid a source as >it cane to me in a dream
pretty sure it varied more with the specific engine and plane as well as time period then radial vs inline. Theres also production to take into account, iirc part of the reason the fw 190 was approved to be made was because it didnt use the inline engines from the bf-109s and so could be produced in parallel much easier
I feel like inlines are better for long distance fighters due to inherent aerodynamic advantage, while radial favors anything else due to just being able to pack more power in the nose.
The p47 was the only successful single engine fighter of the war with a turbo-supercharger, and it was a fine high altitude performer.
It had a radial, not an inline.
If youre bench racing stats pages only then yeah, inlines were clearly the correct choice, but radial engines have several advantages, mainly being durability from both battle damage and simply being abused by pilots.
Imo this is why the navy essentially eschewed the inline in favor of the radial, the only really widespread inline engined fighter was the seafire, and it was such a heavy turd it traded any of the advantages the spitfire held for the ability to operate from a carrier.
>Purely from a performance or power to weight ratio
effective power to weight would be inline because of reduced drag, otherwise radial. in the end it all depends on the use / strength of the aircraft.
As was the rate of climb vs newer models of Spitfire and 109G, and the perfomance at altitude declined rapidly over 20000ft due to the weak supercharger (had to develop the 190D to compensate - which was more like a new plane). In some ways it was like the Typhoon - very fast at low and med altitudes, heavily armed and good handling. Also had serious engines problems for the 1st year due to the cooling system but no one ever mentons that.
Absolutely beautiful airplane. And a solid fighter
How the Forest Service intercepts enemy bombers. Act accordingly
I really can't tell if that guy is based, or calling for acts of terrorism to undo a century of social progress.
Now that the dust has settled, has there been a definitive answer as to what was the best engine for ww2 single seat fighters: Radial or Inline/Water-Cooled? Purely from a performance or power to weight ratio, resistance to battle damage and ease of maintenance notwithstanding.
idk what was in the best spitfires and mustangs again?
Didnt the Corsair outperform the Mustang on every appreciable metric though? Granted Spitfires and Mustangs (that is, the latter bubble-canopy version) were some of the prettiest planes to come out of WW2
>did a 46 liter engine outperform a 28 liter engine?
no shit moron.
There's no need to get testy anon, i wasn't suggesting the P-51 vs. Corsair debate is the case point for radial superiority. Isnt the water cooled "Longnose" FW190 considered to be superior to the radial version?
Probably would not have been if the 801F actually made it to production. These things tended to leapfrog each other. Our perception of things is distorted by the fact that the end of the war (and budget drawdowns in the Western Allies) tended to cut off development of new things right in the middle of a leap-frog cycle.
What that other anon said, the choice to place an inline in place if the bmw engine was one of expediancy.
They didnt want to dip into BF109 production and use their engines, so why not the Jumo v12s if they needed an updrade?
Its not like your bombers are utilizing them anyway.
pretty sure the p-51 has better performance at altitude but my source is war thunder so take it with a cargo container of salt
Fair enough, my source is a half remembered thread on some message board where plane autists were throwing figures at each other, which is about as valid a source as
>it cane to me in a dream
Besides very high altitude yes
http://www.wwiiaircraftperformance.org/f4u/p-51b-f4u-1-navycomp.pdf
P51 had a combat range of 750 miles while the Corsair's combat range was 328
P-47 mogs both at altitude.
pretty sure it varied more with the specific engine and plane as well as time period then radial vs inline. Theres also production to take into account, iirc part of the reason the fw 190 was approved to be made was because it didnt use the inline engines from the bf-109s and so could be produced in parallel much easier
I feel like inlines are better for long distance fighters due to inherent aerodynamic advantage, while radial favors anything else due to just being able to pack more power in the nose.
if you want to operate above 20,000 ft better to go inline and Liquid cooled
The p47 was the only successful single engine fighter of the war with a turbo-supercharger, and it was a fine high altitude performer.
It had a radial, not an inline.
I guess every one else was too poor to make it work
P-38s Allison was turboed
Purely from a power to weight ratio? No other factors?
>liquid cooled vs air cooled
Bruh. This isn't rocket science.
If youre bench racing stats pages only then yeah, inlines were clearly the correct choice, but radial engines have several advantages, mainly being durability from both battle damage and simply being abused by pilots.
Imo this is why the navy essentially eschewed the inline in favor of the radial, the only really widespread inline engined fighter was the seafire, and it was such a heavy turd it traded any of the advantages the spitfire held for the ability to operate from a carrier.
Radials also have reduced complexity since they're air cooled. No radiator, water pump, lines, etc.
>Purely from a performance or power to weight ratio
effective power to weight would be inline because of reduced drag, otherwise radial. in the end it all depends on the use / strength of the aircraft.
>effective power to weight would be inline
no way, no how
Water injection inline > radial except in the one case where they managed to put a turbocharger in it, creating a monster of an aircraft.
Performance only goes to the liquid cooled inlines.
Actually closer to the Fw190 due to being one of the only fighters with a cooling fan for tighter cowling.
>single engine
Water injection != water cooling
Heh, fricker wulf
>frick the wolf 190
>boyfriend 109
What a bunch of homosexuals
>messy shit 262
germoids are SICK
DH.98 Mosquito
DH stands for Dutiful Husbando
Some curious thing you don't about FW190
Fw190 Armorglass Windscreen Refraction
P.S. it's not exclusive for FW190 of course. For example US old tanks commander cupolas (Pre M1) work sane way
>FOCKE WUUUUULF!
I love flying 190 in il-2
oh my
>dat machine gun cowling
Oooh. Pretty.
for me, it's the Dora
It fockes wulfs.
>mogs you
>shit engine assplodes
Sad really.
>reich explodes
oh no
>ur a wheraboo of you dont agree that my english shitbox isnt da best
Everyone knows that american aircraft are the pinnacle of human aviation, you snaggle toothed hillbilly.
Go back to russia, you commie Black person.
Fix your teeth you stank mouth brit.
Napier engines suck anus, just like 90% of all british developed vehicles.
All anglo stuff is shit, you commie homosexual.
Black person
>Angloboo calling anyone commie when British cucked out to Soviets during WW2
Tail falling off was that types issue.
forward visibility in this aircraft is so bad lmfao
As was the rate of climb vs newer models of Spitfire and 109G, and the perfomance at altitude declined rapidly over 20000ft due to the weak supercharger (had to develop the 190D to compensate - which was more like a new plane). In some ways it was like the Typhoon - very fast at low and med altitudes, heavily armed and good handling. Also had serious engines problems for the 1st year due to the cooling system but no one ever mentons that.
IRL it's not as bad as it looks thanks to
My favorites are the cats.
>pre-war USN livery
kino
>Frick a wolf
furry aero homosexual
a man of taste, I see
How do you do fellow hellcats?