RAF Preference for in line engines vs radials in WW2

[stilton]

Most RAF aircraft seem to have used in line engines in WW2, the Spitfire, Hurricane, Lancaster are a few examples of this


The USAF still used radials in many of their types however, the P47, B17 and B29 etc, curious as to why this was

[Flying Binghi]

Been written about over the years.

How did we get to here from there ? Here being WW2, and there being the first petrol engine manufactured that would predate winged aviation.

[NutLoose]

Probably because in-line had a smaller frontal area, so less drag and were developed from the racing engines used in the likes of Schneider cup racers such as the S6.

[tdracer]

In-line engines were water cooled - they had less frontal area, but had complex cooling systems and could be taken out by a single hit on the cooling system. Some of that drag advantage was given back due to the need for big radiators, plus you couldn't run them very long on the ground prior to takeoff without overheating.
Radial engines had more frontal area, but were air cooled so no plumbing, radiator, etc. and were far more tolerant of battle damage. Radial engined aircraft were preferred for ground attack due to the better tolerance to damage from ground fire, and since cooling airflow was provided by the turning prop, they didn't generally overheat sitting on the ground waiting to takeoff.

[MAINJAFAD]

Most RAF aircraft seem to have used in line engines in WW2, the Spitfire, Hurricane, Lancaster are a few examples of this


The USAF still used radials in many of their types however, the P47, B17 and B29 etc, curious as to why this was

A Lot of RAF/FAA British Aircraft in WWII didn't use In-line Engines,

Most versions of the Wellington
Most versions of the Beaufighter (the merlin powered version was a dog)
The most successful version of the Halifax
Stirling
Sunderland
Anson
Lysander
Beaufort
Most versions of the Master
Martinet
Botha
Gladiator
Albemarle
Swordfish
Albacore
One version of the Tempest
Harrow
Bombay

Most of the USAAF Fighters did use in-line engines

P-38
P-39
P-40
P-51
P-63

The US use of Radials Would have been because that was what powered most of their civil airliners in the pre war period. The British civil market was a cottage industry in comparison.

[stilton]

A Lot of RAF/FAA British Aircraft in WWII didn't use In-line Engines,

Most versions of the Wellington
Most versions of the Beaufighter (the merlin powered version was a dog)
The most successful version of the Halifax
Stirling
Sunderland
Anson
Lysander
Beaufort
Most versions of the Master
Martinet
Botha
Gladiator
Albemarle
Swordfish
Albacore
One version of the Tempest
Harrow
Bombay

Most of the USAAF Fighters did use in-line engines

P-38
P-39
P-40
P-51
P-63

The US use of Radials Would have been because that was what powered most of their civil airliners in the pre war period. The British civil market was a cottage industry in comparison.


Thats a very interesting comparison and the historical perspective you provided was just what I was looking for

[Hueymeister]

Greg's Airplanes and Automobiles - YouTube (https://www.youtube.com/@GregsAirplanesandAutomobiles)

This guy has a plethora of content that deals with your question. Bit nerdy in places, but worth a shufti.

[rolling20]

A Lot of RAF/FAA British Aircraft in WWII didn't use In-line Engines,

Most versions of the Wellington
Most versions of the Beaufighter (the merlin powered version was a dog)
The most successful version of the Halifax
Stirling
Sunderland
Anson
Lysander
Beaufort
Most versions of the Master
Martinet
Botha
Gladiator
Albemarle
Swordfish
Albacore
One version of the Tempest
Harrow
Bombay

Most of the USAAF Fighters did use in-line engines

P-38
P-39
P-40
P-51
P-63

The US use of Radials Would have been because that was what powered most of their civil airliners in the pre war period. The British civil market was a cottage industry in comparison.
You forgot the MK II Lanc old boy.

[Bing]

The Secret Horsepower Race by Calum Douglas answers all the possible questions about the engine configuration choice of the British, American, and German manufacturer and is well worth a read. BMW for instance were basically told by the RLM to start building radials despite having no experience and started off by licence building some P&W models.

[NutLoose]

In-line engines were water cooled - they had less frontal area, but had complex cooling systems and could be taken out by a single hit on the cooling system. Some of that drag advantage was given back due to the need for big radiators, plus you couldn't run them very long on the ground prior to takeoff without overheating.
Radial engines had more frontal area, but were air cooled so no plumbing, radiator, etc. and were far more tolerant of battle damage. Radial engined aircraft were preferred for ground attack due to the better tolerance to damage from ground fire, and since cooling airflow was provided by the turning prop, they didn't generally overheat sitting on the ground waiting to takeoff.

The original S6 racers pumped the coolant through the leading edges of the wings for cooling IIRC

The P51 with clever ducting actually produced thrust from the big radiator bulge on the undersde, not a lot, but more than enough to offset it's drag.

A site well worth a visit and read through.

https://enginehistory.org/

[Jhieminga]

Nobody has mentioned availability yet. When designing a new aircraft type, you go to your (preferred) engine supplier(s) and see what they've got on the shelf/drawing board and how this fits your needs. Wright and P&W had a lot of radial types available or could produce them in sufficient numbers. RR had the Merlin available and could produce these in sufficient numbers. Other types may not have fitted the design as well as these did.

(I know that I am over-simplifying this... but it helps to get the point across. Nobody ever sat down and decided to only have radial engined fighters in the US and inline engined fighters in the UK, so the original question is also very much simplified, as already shown above.)

[VictorGolf]

And yet the USN fighters such as the Corsair,Wildcat, Hellcat, Bearcat and Tigercat all used radials. Were radials more reliable than in-line engines for over-sea ops?.

[rolling20]

Nobody has mentioned availability yet. When designing a new aircraft type, you go to your (preferred) engine supplier(s) and see what they've got on the shelf/drawing board and how this fits your needs. Wright and P&W had a lot of radial types available or could produce them in sufficient numbers. RR had the Merlin available and could produce these in sufficient numbers. Other types may not have fitted the design as well as these did.

(I know that I am over-symplifying this... but it helps to get the point across. Nobody ever sat down and decided to only have radial engined fighters in the US and inline engined fighters in the UK, so the original question is also very much symplified, as already shown above.)
Without wanting to open a can of worms, I was always led to believe that the reason most US aircraft ( civil and military) pre and indeed post war used air cooled engines, was to do with the superior weight/power ratio.
I know there are lots of arguments for and against.

[Sue Vêtements]

A quick search brought up the Hurricane Mk VII Radial Hurricane (http://www.airwar1946.nl/whif/L46-radhur.htm#:~:text=Hawker%20Hurricane%20Mk%2DVII&text=Hawker%20came%20up%20with%20a,as%20the%20Hurricane%20Mk %20VII.) with a Bristol Hercules installed

It says it flew with 320 squadron, but I can't find any other information. Another link on a modelers' site said it was a trial only

Not that the hurricane was an attractive aircraft, but in this configuration it's an aircraft only a mother could love

[MPN11]

A quick search brought up the Hurricane Mk VII Radial Hurricane (http://www.airwar1946.nl/whif/L46-radhur.htm#:~:text=Hawker%20Hurricane%20Mk%2DVII&text=Hawker%20came%20up%20with%20a,as%20the%20Hurricane%20Mk %20VII.) with a Bristol Hercules installed

It says it flew with 320 squadron, but I can't find any other information. Another link on a modelers' site said it was a trial only

Not that the hurricane was an attractive aircraft, but in this configuration it's an aircraft only a mother could love
The Radial Hurricane is bad enough. A Radial Spitfire would be an abomination! And a bet a modeller somewhere has done that!

[Old_Slartibartfast]

The Radial Hurricane is bad enough. A Radial Spitfire would be an abomination! And a bet a modeller somewhere has done that!

My late uncle flew both the Spitfire and the Hurricane during the war. His view was that the Hurricane was a far more capable aeroplane, and that the only reason the Spitfire got so much more attention was because it looked so much prettier. I've had the good fortune to fly a Spitfire H.F.IXe for a very short time and, apart from the unbelievable handling (particularly the roll response) the stand out memory is looking out over that beautiful elliptical wing when rolling around The Needles at the west end of the Isle of Wight. Of all the different types I've flown, or flown in, over 40 odd years, that short flight is the one that stands out.

A radial would indeed turn it into a complete abomination.

[Liffy 1M]

A quick search brought up the Hurricane Mk VII Radial Hurricane (http://www.airwar1946.nl/whif/L46-radhur.htm#:~:text=Hawker%20Hurricane%20Mk%2DVII&text=Hawker%20came%20up%20with%20a,as%20the%20Hurricane%20Mk %20VII.) with a Bristol Hercules installed

It says it flew with 320 squadron, but I can't find any other information. Another link on a modelers' site said it was a trial only

Not that the hurricane was an attractive aircraft, but in this configuration it's an aircraft only a mother could love

I think you will find that this is based on a design concept only and that no Hurricane was built, never mind entered service, with a radial engine. Note the url of the modelling website! http://www.airwar1946.nl/index.htm

[Dr Jekyll]

And yet the USN fighters such as the Corsair,Wildcat, Hellcat, Bearcat and Tigercat all used radials. Were radials more reliable than in-line engines for over-sea ops?.
A US Navy admiral is reputed to have pointed out that they didn't have air cooled submarines.

[uxb99]

Perhaps we couldn't build a decent fighter radial? Seems the only radials were for bombers.
Or perhaps it could be argued the inline was superior. P51?

[tdracer]

The P51 with clever ducting actually produced thrust from the big radiator bulge on the undersde, not a lot, but more than enough to offset it's drag.

That sort of depends on who you believe. While it's often claimed that the Mustang radiator had a net thrust gain, most knowledgeable analysis I've seen suggest that - at best - it was thrust/drag neutral and under most conditions it created some net drag (although not much). That being said it was a brilliant design that minimized the drag penalty of the cooling system.

Minimizing the frontal area (and resultant drag) of a big radial engine was non-trivial, but there were several highly successful designs that did that and gave the resultant fighter aircraft impressive top speed.
To name just a few:
F6F Hellcat
F4U Corsair
P-47 Thunderbolt
Japanese A6M Zero

[Saab Dastard]

Minimizing the frontal area (and resultant drag) of a big radial engine was non-trivial, but there were several highly successful designs that did that and gave the resultant fighter aircraft impressive top speed.
To name just a few:
F6F Hellcat
F4U Corsair
P-47 Thunderbolt
Japanese A6M Zero
Not forgetting the FW 190A, B, C, F & G

[teeonefixer]

I concur with Jheiminga, in that available or proposed engines would be called up in a new design and the airframe is built around it and the other key requirements of the contract. Significant modifications could then be assessed for a different engine type but would ultimately proven by flight test.
As stated above, some engine/airframe combinations were much more successful: the Hercules powered Halifax and Beaufighter than the Merlin-powered versions, for instance. The Hawker Tempest flew with both the Napier Sabre (Mk.V) and Bristol Centaurus(II) and both were extremely capable.

[Flying Binghi]

The Secret Horsepower Race by Calum Douglas answers all the possible questions about the engine configuration choice of the British, American, and German manufacturer and is well worth a read. BMW for instance were basically told by the RLM to start building radials despite having no experience and started off by licence building some P&W models.

Interesting to think how the ‘political’ goings on may have been a decider of just what engine brand got to be used.

“..the company, acting under pressure from the Air Ministry, bought the aero-engine division of the bankrupt Cosmos Engineering Company based in the Bristol suburb of Fishponds, to form the nucleus of a new aero-engine operation..”


https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bristol_Aeroplane_Company

[Anilv]

I seem to remember reading about RR scuppering work on other engine types on the basis that all resources should go towards improving the Merlin. I believe one casualty was an engine by Napier.

Anilv

[megan]

In-line engines were water cooled - they had less frontal area, but had complex cooling systems and could be taken out by a single hit on the cooling system. Some of that drag advantage was given back due to the need for big radiators, plus you couldn't run them very long on the ground prior to takeoff without overheating.
Radial engines had more frontal area, but were air cooled so no plumbing, radiator, etc. and were far more tolerant of battle damage. Radial engined aircraft were preferred for ground attack due to the better tolerance to damage from ground fire, and since cooling airflow was provided by the turning prop, they didn't generally overheat sitting on the ground waiting to takeoff.One of the major problems with the B-29 during WWII was overheating during the taxi for take off, such that there was a CHT limit laid down for commencing the take off run, reach that and it was back to dispersal, take off was commenced with the cooling flaps fully open and the flight engineer with an eye on the CHT's progressively closed them while barreling down the runway. They learnt that maintenance of the cooling baffles around the cylinders was critical. Certainly could take battle damage though, reports of radials making it home with cylinders missing, as in shot off, not misfiring.A quick search brought up the Hurricane Mk VII Radial Hurricane (http://www.airwar1946.nl/whif/L46-radhur.htm#:~:text=Hawker%20Hurricane%20Mk%2DVII&text=Hawker%20came%20up%20with%20a,as%20the%20Hurricane%20Mk %20VII.) with a Bristol Hercules installed

It says it flew with 320 squadron, but I can't find any other informationI think someone is having a leg pull with that site. 320 never flew fighters, they flew Fokker T.VIII (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fokker_T.VIII), Anson, Hudson and B-25.

[ZH875]

One of the major problems with the B-29 during WWII was overheating during the taxi for take off, such that there was a CHT limit laid down for commencing the take off run, reach that and it was back to dispersal, take off was commenced with the cooling flaps fully open and the flight engineer with an eye on the CHT's progressively closed them while barreling down the runway. They learnt that maintenance of the cooling baffles around the cylinders was critical. Certainly could take battle damage though, reports of radials making it home with cylinders missing, as in shot off, not misfiring.I think someone is having a leg pull with that site. 320 never flew fighters, they flew Fokker T.VIII, Anson, Hudson and B-25.Serial NH342 was allocated to a Spitfire. So could not have been a radial Hurricane

[PDR1]

I seem to remember reading about RR scuppering work on other engine types on the basis that all resources should go towards improving the Merlin. I believe one casualty was an engine by Napier.

I don't think history supports that. RR were developing the Merlin and Griffon side-by-side and only abandoned the Peregrine because there was little point in developing the last stretch of a 21Litre Kestrel V12 when they had a better 27LitreV12 (the merlin) which had both more power and more growth potential - it might have made 1200bhp but there was no demand for such an engine. They also abandoned the Vulture and other X-configuration engines because they never did find a solution to the problem of lubricating 4 big ends on the same crank pin at very high power outputs. This didn't stop them following Napier's lead and producing the H-configuration Eagle II, whose twin crankshafts (and thus only two big-ends per crankpin) circumvented the lubrication problem, alongside the Merlin and Griffon.

The engine they DID abandon despite it's evident potential was the 26litre V12 2-stroke Crecy - an engine that could have delivered a Spitfire limited only by Mcrit (~500mph) with 3,000bhp plus 1200lbs of direct exhaust thrust being a very realistic possibility. But the Crecy was mainly abandoned simply because jets were already in development that offered even better performance.

Of course Napier spent pretty well 100% of their effort tinkering with the potentially superb but flawed Sabre. The shear amount of time and effort dissipated in their tinkering was a serious issue at a time when war-survival needs demanded efficient use of all resources. There was a point when they were threatened with compulsory nationalisation and being handed to Rolls Royce (who were a "trusted pair of hands") if they didn't get their act together. But I digress.

On the point of the original question - in the limit a liquid-cooled engine can always be run at higher specific power outputs than an air-cooled one because of the finer control over the thermal dynamics of the internals. High-power air-cooled engines need to have wider fits and clearances when cold to allow for the poorer control of running temperatures, which is one of the reasons why they often belch so much smoke (burned oil) during start-up and warm-up compared to liquid-cooled ones

£0.02 supplied,

PDR

[Traffic_Is_Er_Was]

I think also it was due to industrial history. Rolls-Royce built inline engines. Bristol built radials. In the US, it was really only Allison that built inlines. Wright and Pratt & Whitney built radials and were good at it. Wartime exigency, you use the engines and technology you have, rather than trying to re-invent the wheel. Witness the RR Vulture and Napier Sabre developmental problems. You just develop the ones you have as much as you can, while concentrating on the next gen ie turbojet.

[vegassun]

I'm surprised nobody mentioned the Sea Fury. It had a radial.

[Chu Chu]

Maybe the U.S. found Rolls Royce's license fees to high?

[longer ron]

Maybe the U.S. found Rolls Royce's license fees to high?

Packard seemed to have no problems with the licence fee building 55,000 odd merlins ;)

[tdracer]

One of the major problems with the B-29 during WWII was overheating during the taxi for take off, such that there was a CHT limit laid down for commencing the take off run, reach that and it was back to dispersal, take off was commenced with the cooling flaps fully open and the flight engineer with an eye on the CHT's progressively closed them while barreling down the runway. They learnt that maintenance of the cooling baffles around the cylinders was critical. Certainly could take battle damage though, reports of radials making it home with cylinders missing, as in shot off, not misfiring.

The big problem with the B-29 engine was that it was a four-row radial (I believe the first ever attempt at a four-row radial) and cooling the back row was very problematic - especially as you note when there wasn't a lot of airflow through the engine.
Having race air-cooled engines, one trick to keep air-cooled engines from overheating was to run them intentionally fuel rich - the extra fuel that can't burn acts to keep the peak temps down (rather counter-intuitive to run more fuel to cool the engine but it works). Of course that has an adverse effect on range...

[treadigraph]

The big problem with the B-29 engine was that it was a four-row radial (I believe the first ever attempt at a four-row radial) and cooling the back row was very problematic - especially as you note when there wasn't a lot of airflow through the engine.
Having race air-cooled engines, one trick to keep air-cooled engines from overheating was to run them intentionally fuel rich - the extra fuel that can't burn acts to keep the peak temps down (rather counter-intuitive to run more fuel to cool the engine but it works). Of course that has an adverse effect on range...

The B-29 used the Wright R3350 which is a two row 18 cylinder engine; as you say the rear row initially proved hard to cool. The B-29 was then developed into the B-50 and C-97, both of which used the P&W R4360 with four rows and 28 cylinders - the "corncob". Also problematic in keeping the backmost rows cool. Did any other four row radial engines see production?

Fading memories of seeing/hearing a couple of AFRES KC-97s passing over the UK in the mid-70s, fantastic sound!

[PDR1]

I'm surprised nobody mentioned the Sea Fury. It had a radial.
The Sea Fury was developed from the Tempest, which was originally designed to have the liquid-cooled Napier Sabre (with its Tornado stablemate that was intended to have the liquid-cooled Rolls Royce Vulture). Development issues and delays with the Sabre led to evaluation with the air-cooled Centaurus radial (Tempest II) as the Centaurus was the only other engines of similar power. A perceived demand for a very high performance interceptor for V1s led to the specification for a "fast light fighter" and Hawker responded with a design based on a tempest wing on a cut-down centre section to reduce the span, mounted on a new monocoque fuselage just big enough to carry the driver, a Centaurus engine (lower complexity due to lack of radiators to reduce development risk) and enough fuel for (I think) 60 minutes. They called it the Fury, but A&AEE Martlesham Heath pronounced it "dangerously overpowered" so the RAF didn't want it. The Fleet Air Arm didn't accept that it was possible for an aeroplane to be overpowered, so Hawker navalised it (folding wings, slightly bigger fuel tanks, higher cockpit seat position etc) and the result was the Sea Fury.

PDR

[stilton]

The B-29 used the Wright R3350 which is a two row 18 cylinder engine; as you say the rear row initially proved hard to cool. The B-29 was then developed into the B-50 and C-97, both of which used the P&W R4360 with four rows and 28 cylinders - the "corncob". Also problematic in keeping the backmost rows cool. Did any other four row radial engines see production?

Fading memories of seeing/hearing a couple of AFRES KC-97s passing over the UK in the mid-70s, fantastic sound!


I’m guessing these engine cooling issues were also a factor in the B29’s noticeable shallow, almost flat climb angle after takeoff

Best forward speed for cooling ?

[Jason Burry]

B36's featured production, 4-row P&W R4360.

It was also used in Boeing 377, B50, C97, and the Flying Boxcar.

It was terribly maintenance intensive in all of them. But, yes, production 4-row radials existed, even, briefly, in civilian service.

[pasta]

Having race air-cooled engines, one trick to keep air-cooled engines from overheating was to run them intentionally fuel rich - the extra fuel that can't burn acts to keep the peak temps down (rather counter-intuitive to run more fuel to cool the engine but it works). Of course that has an adverse effect on range...
Funnily enough, many rocket engines use the same trick to stop the nozzles melting. Nothing new under the sun!

[Lyneham Lad]

The big problem with ... cooling the back row was very problematic - especially as you note when there wasn't a lot of airflow through the engine.


Sounds like my father's Ariel Square Four Mk II...

[tdracer]

The B-29 used the Wright R3350 which is a two row 18 cylinder engine; as you say the rear row initially proved hard to cool. The B-29 was then developed into the B-50 and C-97, both of which used the P&W R4360 with four rows and 28 cylinders - the "corncob". Also problematic in keeping the backmost rows cool. Did any other four row radial engines see production?

Yea, I stand corrected - apparently most B-29s (and all earlier build) had the two row R3350 engine, with the Pratt R4360 coming along later.
I visited an air museum last year that had a B-29 on display (sort of the crown jewel of their collection). It had the four row R4360 engines (one engine was sitting on a display stand next to the aircraft) - I mistakenly assumed that was the typical configuration. :(
At any rate, cooling the back row(s) on a big radial engine proved problematic, a problem big, water-cooled engines don't have.

[dduxbury310]

Yea, I stand corrected - apparently most B-29s (and all earlier build) had the two row R3350 engine, with the Pratt R4360 coming along later.
I visited an air museum last year that had a B-29 on display (sort of the crown jewel of their collection). It had the four row R4360 engines (one engine was sitting on a display stand next to the aircraft) - I mistakenly assumed that was the typical configuration. :(
At any rate, cooling the back row(s) on a big radial engine proved problematic, a problem big, water-cooled engines don't have.

Think you will find that your "B-29" was actually a B-50. No B-29 was ever fitted with the R-4360 engines, and I suspect the aircraft you viewed had the extremely tall fin/rudder assembly which was vital to all B-50s. Perhaps the person at the museum was not too well informed on American military aircraft of the 1950s, and just got it wrong with their caption. A B-50 is still rather B-29 (ish) after all!

[DuncanDoenitz]

B36's featured production, 4-row P&W R4360.

It was also used in Boeing 377, B50, C97, and the Flying Boxcar.

It was terribly maintenance intensive in all of them. But, yes, production 4-row radials existed, even, briefly, in civilian service.

As a Licensed Engineer/Mechanic I'd expect to allocate around 1 manhour to remove, clean, inspect, test and refit the 8 plugs on a small Cessna. By extrapolation, I'd make that about 42 manhours just to service the plugs of a B-36. That's a man-week. Compression checks and troubleshooting mag-drops must have been a hoot.

[tdracer]

Think you will find that your "B-29" was actually a B-50. No B-29 was ever fitted with the R-4360 engines, and I suspect the aircraft you viewed had the extremely tall fin/rudder assembly which was vital to all B-50s. Perhaps the person at the museum was not too well informed on American military aircraft of the 1950s, and just got it wrong with their caption. A B-50 is still rather B-29 (ish) after all!
It was a B-29D - which later was re-designated B-50 via a little USAF sleight of hand:
Because Congress was reluctant to continue funding wartime projects, the B-29D was redesignated B-50 (https://military-history.fandom.com/wiki/B-50_Superfortress) to make it appear completely new. Congress fell for the trick, and the B-29D was kept alive, even though no planes flew under the original designation.

[Big Pistons Forever]

As a Licensed Engineer/Mechanic I'd expect to allocate around 1 manhour to remove, clean, inspect, test and refit the 8 plugs on a small Cessna. By extrapolation, I'd make that about 42 manhours just to service the plugs of a B-36. That's a man-week. Compression checks and troubleshooting mag-drops must have been a hoot.

The SOP at least in the airline world, was to QEC the R4360 engines for a plug change rather than do it on wing.

[sycamore]

D-D/BPF,didn`t the F/Engineers panel have a selector and instrument to check each engine`s plugs for misfiring or failure...?

[stevef]

D-D/BPF,didn`t the F/Engineers panel have a selector and instrument to check each engine`s plugs for misfiring or failure...?

One of the DC6s (4 x 18 cylinder P&W R2800 engines) I've worked on had an ignition analyser for the Dark Arts Practitioner (flight engineer) to occupy himself with. The CRT display was quite interesting to watch, not that I had any idea what the trace patterns meant.

[sycamore]

Thanks stevef,think the Beverley may have had similar...

[megan]

Ignition analysers were an option available on some aircraft, such as the Constellation (R-3350) where the following comes from.


https://cimg3.ibsrv.net/gimg/pprune.org-vbulletin/704x844/lf_315ffc158a71e4640cf3f58060b06e27315c1704.png
https://cimg4.ibsrv.net/gimg/pprune.org-vbulletin/688x836/le_acf14c4c82e3eefde8c77d626239cab1ee3a60a5.png
https://cimg6.ibsrv.net/gimg/pprune.org-vbulletin/700x833/ld_6005d257231b2412a7bceb0263b3dd2249287904.png
https://cimg7.ibsrv.net/gimg/pprune.org-vbulletin/682x827/lc_ddacaecb6923284f77aa273a4c792bfa2e7858fe.png
https://cimg8.ibsrv.net/gimg/pprune.org-vbulletin/704x845/lb_6b8a882959fc1d15b0a43471b3368c4d695a1c9c.png
https://cimg0.ibsrv.net/gimg/pprune.org-vbulletin/712x850/la_f5a19f8403b54f2ef993ec0a113ed3d55b422483.png

[ZeBedie]

Was there a shadow factory for the production of Bristol engines?

[innuendo]

And yet the USN fighters such as the Corsair,Wildcat, Hellcat, Bearcat and Tigercat all used radials. Were radials more reliable than in-line engines for over-sea ops?.

I wonder if the USN found radials less fuss on board without the coolant requirements of inline engines??? Maybe not a determining factor but a consideration.

[ATSA1]

Blimey, Jet engines must have been a doddle compared to a 4-row radial!
Flight Engineers from the 40s and 50s have my utmost respect...

[Asturias56]

"Blimey, Jet engines must have been a doddle compared to a 4-row radial!"

they were - and thus FE's gradually disappeared

Read anything about trying to run an major airline in the '50's and it always comes back to the problems of the big engines.

[Buster15]

Was there a shadow factory for the production of Bristol engines?

Yes indeed.
There was one at Patchway very close to the railway line.
And another at a town called Corsham.

[steamchicken]

Yes indeed.
There was one at Patchway very close to the railway line.
And another at a town called Corsham.

There were a whole lot - there are five listed here as producing components for Bristol radials: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/British_shadow_factories

One of them is Jaguar-Land Rover Solihull these days. NB apparently Bristol itself refused to have them make whole engines, only sub-assemblies Bristol would finish itself.

[Geriaviator]

My former instructor and dear friend Sqn Ldr Desmond Mock flew Catalinas from Lough Erne in Northern Ireland. He recalled that the Merlin was highly valued and it wasn't done to admit that coolant leaks were often a problem. He and his colleagues much preferred their pair of P&W Twin Wasps when on an 18-hour Atlantic patrol. I remembered Desmond years later when I was in and out of Scottish Aviation at Prestwick, collecting and delivering parts for overhaul, and more than once saw an ex-Dakota Twin Wasp which had blown off a cylinder head and still kept going as long as all the oil didn't leak away.

[steamchicken]

Some of the really big US four-row jobs were manufactured from an alloy of magnesium and thorium, which was both radioactive and would burn through the main spar in the event the overheating problem reached its logical conclusion and caused a fire.

[megan]

Read anything about trying to run an major airline in the '50's and it always comes back to the problems of the big enginesPart of the problem was airlines tended to flog their engines in a competitive race to meet schedule, particularly when the first jets arrived, the military who operated their C-121 (Constellation) by the book (read conservative) had a very good record in comparason.