Radial vs in-line engines

[Sternjaeger II]

Originally Posted by Igo kyu

The Sabre http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Napier_Sabre was a 2,000 hp inline.

Sleeve valves? No thank you

The Sabre was a bit of a trouble child, and considering the sheer weight and size of the thing, you could probably compare it to a radial more than an inline.

[madrebel]

in terms of power per cylinder the v12s easily beat the 14 and 18 cylinder radials.

[Crumpp]

you still need air to go through the cyl heads and out from the sides in a very turbulent fashion.

And a radiator does what?

It's not a good idea to run a Merlin, even with transport heads, beyond 600 hours,

You can't compare a Merlin or TBO's from the 1940's with today's engines. Most Merlin's are modified so that they will be reliable and last some time.

Mike Nixon can give you a quote...

Improved Engine Life
Engines restored today actually have enhanced service lives due to the application of improved materials and technology.

http://www.vintagev12s.com/services.htm

[Crumpp]

a radial can survive prohibitive temperatures, thermal shock and component failure

A radial cannot survive prohibitive temperatures or component failure any more than an in-line. In-lines are however immune to thermal shock from descents. Assuming of course, thermal shock exists.

[Sternjaeger II]

Originally Posted by Crumpp

And a radiator does what?

It generates thrust in some cases.. as a Mustang driver I'm sure you heard of the Meredith Effect

You can't compare a Merlin or TBO's from the 1940's with today's engines. Most Merlin's are modified so that they will be reliable and last some time.

I agree, different oils, fuels and servicing make for revised TBOs, but not by much, the real difference is made by engine management. We take off with 75% throttle on the Mustang, and are surprised to hear that several operators still firewall their throttles for takeoff..

Mike Nixon can give you a quote...

http://www.vintagev12s.com/services.htm

we buy material from the US for our overhaulings: critical components like bearings, pistons, piston rings, valves all contribute to the life expectancy of these engines, but constant monitoring is necessary nonetheless.

[Crumpp]

It generates thrust in some cases

Great theory that does not work out in most attempts. None of them produced any thrust AFAIK but a few meredith designs did have the effect of reducing drag somewhat. It requires very specific parameters which were not present in most installations. In fact, the radiator ducting on the P-51 was headache and plagued by duct rumble. That is flow separation in the duct and a source of high drag.

the real difference is made by engine management.

You are correct in that the throttle makes the largest difference in any engine on making it to TBO but that applies to any engine.

The real difference in the Merlin is made by valve springs, better coolant connectors, oil feed improvements to the cam, better bearings/races and some good machine work on the heads, just to name a few.

In the case of the Merlin, there are specific upgrades to improve reliability that are highly recommended if you want the motor to last. Those upgrades overcome the shortcomings of the design.

[Crumpp]

Meredith effect on the Mustang.



Only the RAE bought into the thrust production theory. Both the NACA and the RLM disagreed.

Understand that of the three, it was the RAE that was trailing in aerodynamics. The British engines were good, probably the best of all the combatants but their aerodynamic sciences was behind the other major combatants. That is why you have RAE claims for things like Mach .98 dives out of the Spitfire that later get retracted as they discovered the static port placement was completely wrong for any degree of accurate speed measurement in the transonic realm.

[Sternjaeger II]

Originally Posted by Crumpp

Meredith effect on the Mustang.



Only the RAE bought into the thrust production theory. Both the NACA and the RLM disagreed.

Understand that of the three, it was the RAE that was trailing in aerodynamics. The British engines were good, probably the best of all the combatants but their aerodynamic sciences was behind the other major combatants. That is why you have RAE claims for things like Mach .98 dives out of the Spitfire that later get retracted as they discovered the static port placement was completely wrong for any degree of accurate speed measurement in the transonic realm.

I'm not discussing the quality of British aerodynamic research, I'm just saying that the Meredith effect is not a made up thing, and the Mustang is probably the design that benefits most from it.
As you know, they took a great deal of care in the design of the radiator system on the P-51: the radiator intake is detached from the fuselage to avoid turbulent airflow from the fuselage, and the radiator exhaust port could be opened/shut automatically so that it wouldn't bother the pilot. It surely was an efficient and revolutionary system, which allowed for a better performance with a very low drag coefficient (if compared to others) because of its design.

Its clever aerodynamics, light weight and reliability made for a superb system compared to the conventional turbo supercharged radials.

[Sternjaeger II]

uh, I forgot to ask Crumpp, can you please point me to the source of that page? Sounds like an interesting read.

[Crumpp]

It is from The American Institute of Aeronautics and Astronautics (AIAA) library database and is from a presentation at an engineering conference. It is from the only modern design analysis on the P-51 Mustang and was done with an eye on improvements for one of the Reno racers. That being said, I got my copy directly from the author and can give you one if you like.