Print

Please login or register.
1 Hour 1 Day 1 Week 1 Month Forever
Login with username, password and session length

[Lizzie Zoom]

The radials were inferior and did not have similar power. That is why all Allied main fighters and bombers were equipped with water or oil cooled in line or V configuration engines that could out perform any radial that by then belonged to the early era of flying. If radials had been so good, and able to be developed further, then they would have been.

Look at American stuff again. Radials are everywhere. They were still fitted in high performance fighters into the fifties; look up Grumman's Corsair, which makes a Spitfire look slow, expensive, hard to fly and unreliable.


Even the workhorse P&W 1830(DC3 engine and bomber, so it's like a truck motor compared to a racecar) makes 1200hp when supercharged. A radial engined DC3 is still the most cost effective way of moving 3 tons of stuff of short grass strips.

I accept of course that radials continued to be in use both during and post WW2. But, the point is that the aircraft fitted with inline, water or oil cooled engines, can be far more streamlined, therefore faster, as they have far less frontal resistance to air flow, which of course they need to cool the engine.  Aircraft development before the jet focuses on non-radial engines as it became very apparent that the more aircraft was streamlined the more economical and efficient it would be, that is why the Spitfire and the Mustang were so advanced and a winner against even other inline engined aircraft, such as the German ME109.  Even the famous German FW190 found it's original radial engine restrictive, with power declining above 20,000ft, and had that engine replaced by an inverted v12 in a long nose FW190 C, which then gave the aircraft parity against the Mustang over Germany. It was too late though to make a real difference, and then the ME 262 came along and signalled the end for all piston driven fighters.

[Doctor Gollum]

The point remains that the Merlin is carved from the finest marble (the flying Ferrari V12) and the radials are poured concrete (the Chevy V8)...

Yes the Merlin is a work of art, and unlike the radial, can't be fixed in a swamp using frog guts, chewing gum and tobacco...

[Nick W]

I accept of course that radials continued to be in use both during and post WW2. But, the point is that the aircraft fitted with inline, water or oil cooled engines, can be far more streamlined, therefore faster, as they have far less frontal resistance to air flow, which of course they need to cool the engine.  Aircraft development before the jet focuses on non-radial engines as it became very apparent that the more aircraft was streamlined the more economical and efficient it would be, that is why the Spitfire and the Mustang were so advanced and a winner against even other inline engined aircraft, such as the German ME109.  Even the famous German FW190 found it's original radial engine restrictive, with power declining above 20,000ft, and had that engine replaced by an inverted v12 in a long nose FW190 C, which then gave the aircraft parity against the Mustang over Germany. It was too late though to make a real difference, and then the ME 262 came along and signalled the end for all piston driven fighters.

There's far more to a high performance fighter than just how streamlined the engine installation is.
As a historian, you really ought to look at some of the figures: a late Griffon engined Spitfire isn't any faster than a similarly powered Corsair that is considerably heavier(because it was designed for carrier use) and better armed(which is what matters, the rest of the machine is simply there to transport the guns to wherever they're needed). It benefits from being an early forties design(engine and airframe) intended for volume production, rather than one that's basically an early thirties handbuilt special.

[aaronjb]

Poor Terry is never getting that rattle sorted, is he.. 

[Andy H]

Poor Terry is never getting that rattle sorted, is he.. 

do you think a merlin engine will fit ?

[Kevin Wood]

If only we'd had access to engines from the mighty Astra in WWII. It would have been over in days.

[Lizzie Zoom]

I accept of course that radials continued to be in use both during and post WW2. But, the point is that the aircraft fitted with inline, water or oil cooled engines, can be far more streamlined, therefore faster, as they have far less frontal resistance to air flow, which of course they need to cool the engine.  Aircraft development before the jet focuses on non-radial engines as it became very apparent that the more aircraft was streamlined the more economical and efficient it would be, that is why the Spitfire and the Mustang were so advanced and a winner against even other inline engined aircraft, such as the German ME109.  Even the famous German FW190 found it's original radial engine restrictive, with power declining above 20,000ft, and had that engine replaced by an inverted v12 in a long nose FW190 C, which then gave the aircraft parity against the Mustang over Germany. It was too late though to make a real difference, and then the ME 262 came along and signalled the end for all piston driven fighters.

There's far more to a high performance fighter than just how streamlined the engine installation is.
As a historian, you really ought to look at some of the figures: a late Griffon engined Spitfire isn't any faster than a similarly powered Corsair that is considerably heavier(because it was designed for carrier use) and better armed(which is what matters, the rest of the machine is simply there to transport the guns to wherever they're needed). It benefits from being an early forties design(engine and airframe) intended for volume production, rather than one that's basically an early thirties handbuilt special.

As an historian I know whatever piston aero engine was around at the end of WW2, and the valid arguments about the for's and againsts of each type, it was an obsolete means of propulsion for any fighter aircraft, although many air forces carried on using them, as you rightly state, into the Korean War. 

From the introduction of the the Luftwaffe ME262 in 1941, although not fully operational until 1944, and RAF British Gloster Meteor in 1943, it was the age of the jet engine.  The ME262 was actually superior to the Gloster Meteor, but shortage of pilots, fuel and parts greatly restricted their full use to combat the bomber fleets attacking Germany.  So, as historians do, arguments for and against the facts can be disputed or upheld, the true fact is that by 1945 it was the age of the new fangled jets, and the piston engined aircraft belonged to the age before WW2.

Therefore, Terry's Astra really needs a jet engine to bring it bang up to date for maximum speed and performance..................on salt flats somewhere!!

[Doctor Gollum]

I accept of course that radials continued to be in use both during and post WW2. But, the point is that the aircraft fitted with inline, water or oil cooled engines, can be far more streamlined, therefore faster, as they have far less frontal resistance to air flow, which of course they need to cool the engine.  Aircraft development before the jet focuses on non-radial engines as it became very apparent that the more aircraft was streamlined the more economical and efficient it would be, that is why the Spitfire and the Mustang were so advanced and a winner against even other inline engined aircraft, such as the German ME109.  Even the famous German FW190 found it's original radial engine restrictive, with power declining above 20,000ft, and had that engine replaced by an inverted v12 in a long nose FW190 C, which then gave the aircraft parity against the Mustang over Germany. It was too late though to make a real difference, and then the ME 262 came along and signalled the end for all piston driven fighters.

There's far more to a high performance fighter than just how streamlined the engine installation is.
As a historian, you really ought to look at some of the figures: a late Griffon engined Spitfire isn't any faster than a similarly powered Corsair that is considerably heavier(because it was designed for carrier use) and better armed(which is what matters, the rest of the machine is simply there to transport the guns to wherever they're needed). It benefits from being an early forties design(engine and airframe) intended for volume production, rather than one that's basically an early thirties handbuilt special.

As a keen hobbyist I presume to know whatever piston aero engine was around at the end of WW2, and the valid arguments about the for's and againsts of each type, it was an obsolete means of propulsion for any fighter aircraft, although many air forces carried on using them, as you rightly state, into the Korean War. 

From the introduction of the the Luftwaffe ME262 in 1941, although not fully operational until 1944, and RAF British Gloster Meteor in 1943, it was the age of the jet engine.  The ME262 was actually superior to the Gloster Meteor, but shortage of pilots, fuel and parts greatly restricted their full use to combat the bomber fleets attacking Germany.  So, as historians do, arguments for and against the facts can be disputed or upheld, the true fact is that by 1945 it was the age of the new fangled jets, and the piston engined aircraft belonged to the age before WW2.

Therefore, Terry's Astra really needs a jet engine to bring it bang up to date for maximum speed and performance..................on salt flats somewhere!!

Fixed...

As for the Astra, you might squeeze an RB211 core into an Astramax

[Nick W]

From the introduction of the the Luftwaffe ME262 in 1941, although not fully operational until 1944, and RAF British Gloster Meteor in 1943, it was the age of the jet engine.  The ME262 was actually superior to the Gloster Meteor, but shortage of pilots, fuel and parts greatly restricted their full use to combat the bomber fleets attacking Germany.  So, as historians do, arguments for and against the facts can be disputed or upheld, the true fact is that by 1945 it was the age of the new fangled jets, and the piston engined aircraft belonged to the age before WW2.

I think you're letting your enthusiam get the better of you: those jet engined fighters were typical of any first generation tech, of limited value, except to show what the future would bring. And as far as airborne warfare was concerned, WW2 actually morphed into the helicopter age.

[Lizzie Zoom]

I accept of course that radials continued to be in use both during and post WW2. But, the point is that the aircraft fitted with inline, water or oil cooled engines, can be far more streamlined, therefore faster, as they have far less frontal resistance to air flow, which of course they need to cool the engine.  Aircraft development before the jet focuses on non-radial engines as it became very apparent that the more aircraft was streamlined the more economical and efficient it would be, that is why the Spitfire and the Mustang were so advanced and a winner against even other inline engined aircraft, such as the German ME109.  Even the famous German FW190 found it's original radial engine restrictive, with power declining above 20,000ft, and had that engine replaced by an inverted v12 in a long nose FW190 C, which then gave the aircraft parity against the Mustang over Germany. It was too late though to make a real difference, and then the ME 262 came along and signalled the end for all piston driven fighters.

There's far more to a high performance fighter than just how streamlined the engine installation is.
As a historian, you really ought to look at some of the figures: a late Griffon engined Spitfire isn't any faster than a similarly powered Corsair that is considerably heavier(because it was designed for carrier use) and better armed(which is what matters, the rest of the machine is simply there to transport the guns to wherever they're needed). It benefits from being an early forties design(engine and airframe) intended for volume production, rather than one that's basically an early thirties handbuilt special.

As a keen hobbyist I presume to know whatever piston aero engine was around at the end of WW2,

Therefore, Terry's Astra really needs a jet engine to bring it bang up to date for maximum speed and performance..................on salt flats somewhere!!

Fixed...

As for the Astra, you might squeeze an RB211 core into an Astramax

Wrong, so wrong

[Lizzie Zoom]

.......................and just to add DG since I was small I was surrounded by books on WW2 aircraft and ships, along with the politics of those times, with a father who taught all of us on the history of it all from a practical viewpoint and in theory.

I have also spent years studying, as much as time would allow, history generally, concentrating on the Tudors and then the 18th and 19th centuries,  but then heavily the WW1 and WW2 periods and 20th century due to my early up bringing.

 My knowledge is never complete as there is always more to learn, as I have with this thread, but I do know the difference between a Battlecruiser, Cruiser, Gladiator, Swordfish, Thunderbolt, Corsair, Spitfire, etc, and most of the bombers of the Allied and German forces.  My grandfather was killed by a bomb from a Junkers 88 whilst being chased by RAF fighters, so that has helped my learning, and has made me far from a hobbyist with studying history at university and walking the battlefields increasing my understanding.

Just because someone has a different viewpoint, as frequently happens with history, does not devalue or appreciate the worth of that; it makes the discussion of history even more interesting than it is already!

[Doctor Gollum]

Every family has a past were people were deeply, and often gravely, affected. I could list everything my grandparents did during WW2, but it would be incredibly disrespectful to everyone who served to reduce their lives to a pissing contest.

You enjoy studying history. That's great, but please try and refrain from passing subjective opinion as fact, or worse, superiority.

[Sir Tigger KC]

So did Terry do anything about his rattle or not? 

[Lizzie Zoom]

Every family has a past were people were deeply, and often gravely, affected. I could list everything my grandparents did during WW2, but it would be incredibly disrespectful to everyone who served to reduce their lives to a pissing contest.

You enjoy studying history. That's great, but please try and refrain from passing subjective opinion as fact, or worse, superiority.

Yeah, yeah, yeah.
What, like you do!   

[STEMO]

So did Terry do anything about his rattle or not? 

Rattle? Have I missed something?