+Brain32 265 Posted February 18, 2008 Tempest II was fitted with a Bristol Centaurus 18-cylinder radial engine which owed much to its installation to the analysis of a stray FW-190 that landed by mistake in England... Yes Tempest Mk.II used the Bristol Centaurus also a good engine giving ~2500HP, however of all the Tempest engines SabreIIc was IMO most impressive as it could put out 3055HP!!!! at ~2000ft Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
+Corktip_14 0 Posted February 18, 2008 OK I concede, I must admit I am not 100% confident in my History, the Napier Sabre was indeed a MOSNTERRRRR :yes: (it also was very unreliable) but I guess the basis of the topic has wandered off, Radial or inline?, for me it is impossible to answer. Well, I repeat myself, but I think it's a simple choice of compromise depending on wich kind of plane you wanna make, nothing more, nothing less. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Viggen 644 Posted February 18, 2008 (edited) What corktip just said but, is it possible that people also just went with the engine their favorite plane used? You know, it is kind of hard to call a Radial heavy if the Zero used it. Edited February 18, 2008 by JA 37 Viggen Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Rambler 1-1 9 Posted February 19, 2008 I know very well that it depends on what engines you're talking/thinking about, but in general, would a plane with a radial or an inline be a better weapon? I though of the question when i considered that the last sucessful piston planes were mostly radials, then I remembered the Mustang and how great it was. Viggen- the zero has an itty-bitty twin bank of low displacement, but it was very advanced in it's construction, and it could operate at crazy-high RPMs. It's a pufter radial. May i remind all of you that the grumman bearcat and tigercat were radials? And those rivaled the early jets. oh, and THE CORSAIR WAS A FANTASTIC DOGFIGHTER! Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
+Brain32 265 Posted February 19, 2008 I know not of Corsair as "fantastic" dogfighter, not particulary good turn rate or roll rate, about average climb rate... It was very fast, rugged and reliable, versatile, but hardly fantastic dogfighter, even comparing to ETO planes not to mention Japaneese planes that were all generally slower but insanely manouverable, even Spitfires had to stick to BnZ tactics against the Japaneese planes... OK maybe F4U-4, but that one hardly saw the war so it's hard to speak about it being a good dogfighter or not... I would say the best radial dogfighters were La5/La7 with their Ash/M-82FN engines Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
JediMaster 451 Posted February 19, 2008 While you can argue it either way, the fact remains that the answer is radial. Inlines are ill-suited to combat damage, and since that's what they always take, why bet your life on it? Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Guest 531_Ghost Posted February 19, 2008 Me, I'll take a axial/centrifugal myself Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
+Brain32 265 Posted February 19, 2008 Inlines are ill-suited to combat damage, and since that's what they always take, why bet your life on it? Because the one of the goals of the fighter is not to get shot If you are attacking ground targets you may not have a choice and thus here is where I would choose radial, although that does not mean radial is imprevious to enemy fire(like many il2 players like to believe about R2800lol) just that you have better chances... Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
+hgbn 91 Posted February 19, 2008 This is like saying, what is best Diesels or Gas engines??? And the answer for that will be, it all depends of its use. Therefore I didnt vote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
+Corktip_14 0 Posted February 19, 2008 I know very well that it depends on what engines you're talking/thinking about, but in general, would a plane with a radial or an inline be a better weapon? The best weapon FOR WHAT??? Ah damn, sorry but again it depends on the purpose of the plane!! And no, the Corsair was an awful dogfighter, read anything you want about it made by men who flew it, it was a wonderful boom'n'zoom plane, but nothing of a good turning fight champion. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
JediMaster 451 Posted February 19, 2008 Take away the plane and the radial is the better weapon. It's bigger and heavier and will cause more damage on impact. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
+hgbn 91 Posted February 19, 2008 Take away the plane and the radial is the better weapon. It's bigger and heavier and will cause more damage on impact. That's the way the Japs were thinking in later stages of WWII I'll be guessing Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
+Major Lee 18 Posted February 24, 2008 (edited) Well, if the book "America's Hundred Thousand" (Francis H. Dean) is to be believed... TOP SPEED P-47M = 470mph P-47N = 460mph P-51D = 440mph Because of the P-47s turbo system, the Thunderbolts speed increased as altitude climbed. The P-51D speed fell off sharply above 25,000ft... ACCELERATION P-38L = 4.13 ft per second P-47M = 4.02 ft per second P-51D = 3.85 ft per second (These data are originally sourced from the "Report of Joint Fighter Conference: NAS Patuxent Riuver, MD, Oct 1944, and reported in the many other sources. These are real data, not wishful thinking or imaginative history...) Personally, I would have taken a P-47. I would have hated to ride the silk elevator because some jugend with a BB gun who got a lucky shot on a radiator hose... As for range, the P-47N was the US WWII champ with the longest legs... 996 gallons would get you a clean 1000 mile range at 25,000ft with a 30 minute reserve and 20 minutes of combat time. The P51D with external tanks only got 700 miles with those conditions... One last thing, if you are a Mustang fan, DO NOT read the comments by Naval LT Halaby on page 241 of the Fighter Conference Report... You'll only get mad and go into revisionist history denial... Edited February 24, 2008 by Major Lee Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
+SkippyBing 8 Posted February 24, 2008 One last thing, if you are a Mustang fan, DO NOT read the comments by Naval LT Halaby on page 241 of the Fighter Conference Report... You'll only get mad and go into revisionist history denial... And err where could I find a copy of that to work myself into a fit with?! Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
+Major Lee 18 Posted February 24, 2008 (edited) And err where could I find a copy of that to work myself into a fit with?! Barnes & Noble Just search for Report of Joint Fighter Conference # ISBN: 0764304046 # ISBN-13: 9780764304040 # Format: Hardcover, 356pp # Publisher: Schiffer Publishing, Ltd. # Pub. Date: January 1998 Edited February 24, 2008 by Major Lee Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
+SkippyBing 8 Posted February 24, 2008 Many thanks Major Lee Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
+Brain32 265 Posted February 24, 2008 Well, if the book "America's Hundred Thousand" (Francis H. Dean) is to be believed... TOP SPEED P-47M = 470mph P-47N = 460mph P-51D = 440mph Because of the P-47s turbo system, the Thunderbolts speed increased as altitude climbed. The P-51D speed fell off sharply above 25,000ft... While this figures are correct, what is valid to note is that both P47N and especially M, saw little to no service in WW2 while P51D was pretty much main USAF fighter since 1944 to the very end. It would be more accurate to compare those two with P51H, now that baby seriously rocked the skies, pushing 90" Hg it could attain 480mph and had initial climb rate of over 6000fpm!!! Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
+Major Lee 18 Posted February 25, 2008 True, the "M" only saw service with the 56thFG, the "N" equipped at least five fighter groups: 318FG, 413FG, 414FG, 507FG, 508FG. How many units actually flew the 51-H? The "H" didn't even fly until February '45 and only 370 were built before VJ day, making it a truly non-operational USAAF aircraft. Over 1800 P-47Ns were built by VJ day, and the last "Ace in a Day", Oscar Perdomo, flew the "N"... At least both high-performance P47 models actually equipped operational units and saw combat... Little to no service? That certainly describes the P-51H to perfectly... Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Rambler 1-1 9 Posted February 25, 2008 remember, I'm not asking if the radial or inline were better in WW2, just in general. I knew Majorlee would be a big asset for the radial side Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
+Major Lee 18 Posted February 25, 2008 Radial: Extraordinarily rugged and bullet proof (figuratively and literally...) The RW2800 that was installed in the YP-47-M was test run at 3600hp for a total of 250 hours before being released for production at a very detuned rating of 2800hp WEP. Many stories of thunderbolt pilots flying back with catastrophic damage such as blown off cylinders... Give me an air cooled round engine any day... Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
+streakeagle 871 Posted February 25, 2008 Despite the advantages of the radial, which aircraft served in Korea? Not the P-47. Of course pilots flying the P-51 in Korea for ground attack missions suffered the consequences. But, "best performance" doesn't win contracts. Lowest bidder usually wins with the US government. Some aspect of P-51s made them more appealing to the USAF. Another factor is that from the very start, the USAF has a history of choosing the better looking plane over the better performing plane, especially when the differences are relatively small. But overall price (both production and long term maintenance) has a huge influence. The USAF would have gladly built a fleet of F-15s, but lacking the funding, were forced to do a hi-lo mix with F-16s under pressure from congress. It would be interesting to see the politics behind keeping the P-51 in service while retiring the P-38 and P-47. Technically, engine types aside, the P-38 killed more planes than any other US plane in the war. Of course, with two engines, it would also be the most expensive to buy and maintain. P-38s were the F-15, P-51s were the F-16, and P-47s were the F-4/F-105. If I WW2 wasn't ending in 1945 and I was a bomber escort/air superiority fighter, I would have wanted the P-51H. If the British are to be trusted, their ranking of turn performance shows the P-51 turn rate/radius to be worse than the Spitfire but better than any other plane used in their tests including Bf109s, Fw190s, P-38s, and P-47s. The P-51H would have had not only higher speed and climb, but more maneuverability due to weight reduction. If I was going to pound the ground and try to strafe anything that moved, clearly the P-47 and its radial engine was the way to go. While air cooled engines air much simpler and more reliable... most car engines are liquid cooled. A big corporation like GM is very careful to engineer things to be cheap and reliable. There must be some reason why they have chosen liquid cooling over air cooling. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
hide86 0 Posted February 25, 2008 For a matter of lifetime love, my choice is inline: SPIT HELLA ROCKS!!! However, yeah, Streakeagle's damn right, over the ocean or in a ground pounding sortie, give me an air-cooled radial, but if Iye have to Slaye the Foe (excuse Ye Olde Pyrathe Talke XD), then just give me a Spit with its sleek and sexy Merlin, and I'm happy and efficient! However....guess even inline was not the right choice for me....I should say BOXER!!! My beloved SF-260 (I'm really missing the birdie, back in Latina A.M.I. Flight School...) is still one of the all-time sexiest flying machines... Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
JediMaster 451 Posted February 25, 2008 I may have this a little off, but the main reason P-51s were used in Korea and not P-47s was quite simply there weren't enough P-47s to do the job. Of course, jets were used in the early days but quickly replaced by piston engined fighters when their short legs became clear. The ANG nationwide had been given P-51s as the jets were delivered to the active force. The P-47s were mostly scrapped. Why? Hard to say. Perhaps for the intended mission of "defend US soil from waves of incoming Soviet bombers" the P-51 was seen as the better choice than the "Jug." The idea that only 5 years later they'd be doing ground attack in Korea literally never entered their minds. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
+Major Lee 18 Posted February 25, 2008 The P-51 in Korea generated enough issue with engine vulnerability that the USAF actually undertook a feasibility study to fit an alternate powerplant on the Mustang... The engine being examined for installation was the PW R-2800... :yu: Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
+Corktip_14 0 Posted February 25, 2008 Despite the advantages of the radial, which aircraft served in Korea? Not the P-47. Forgot about the Skyraiders and F4U, eh? Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
