I was rummaging through a couple of my friends old Squadron publishings talking shop when it hit me! (This is probably obvious to most of you guys and gals) None of the Navy birds had in-line engines. I’m sure there’s a reason for this. Since most (95% I’d say) of my subjects are USAAF or Luftwaffe subjects I never really explored this. And neither had my friend for that matter. Sorry if this seems like a silly question. [D)] Thanks in advance!
i would think that its just coincidence. while there were many many different designs used by the USN there werent so many that a little bit of luck would have it that there werent any in-line aircraft used.
then again, i have no facts to back the above, im just guessing [
There are several reasons the Navy did not use inline engines. P&W and Wright received a lot of their funding from the Navy. As a result they designed, developed and produces radial engines, which the Navy bought.
The AAF funded Allison and Continental, which produced inline engines. A lot of their aircraft received these engines.
The Navy always considered the radial engine a better engine. It was lighter, did not have to rely on cooling tanks or raidators, which saved weight. On power to weight ratio, the radial engine produced more power than an inline engine for its weight. You add the weight of coolant, storage tanks, plumbing and raidators, it would increase the weight of an aircraft.
Early inline engines were less reliable than radial. They were subject to cooling leaks and overheating. With only an aircraft carrier to land on, over hundreds of miles of open seas, the safety factor came into play. One bullet in the cooling system and hundreds of miles from the carrier, it would spell disaster for the aircraft and pilot or crew.
Radial engine aircraft were shorter, saving deck and storage space. The carrier did not have to keep a supply of coolent on hand, also saving space.
These are just a few of the reasons the Navy went with radial engines.
I think the main reason was size. The radial engine took less length & would allow more aircraft to be fit onto a Carrier.
Regards, Rick
Or as one Navy pilot reportedly put it, you can fly a Pratt & Whitney farther than you can ship an Allison…
The Navy had used liquid cooled engines early in the biplane era. Liquid cooled engines had a performance edge due to lower frontal area but the development of the NACA cowl for radials and adding displacement (power) with a second row of cylinders minimized that advantage, with reliability and the other factors listed by Berny tipping the scales to the air-cooled engines.
The Navy gave liquid cooling another shot in their 1938 fighter competition by contracting for the Allison powered Bell FL, the Grumman F5F (two existing radials) and the Vought F4U (one new big radial). If the Corsair is the only one of those three that you’ve heard of, you know how that turned out.
Later on, they funded a big Lycoming liquid cooled engine to power the Curtiss F14C. It finally flew with the Wright R-3350 radial air cooled engine so you know how that turned out.
I forgot to mention as an example of late 1920’s reliability perception that Lindberg, who had plenty of experience with liquid cooled engines, picked a Wright radial for his 33 1/2 hour flight from New York to Paris.
Thanks for the info guys! Makes sense now that you mention it. Kinda funny that the Germans came up with the Bf 109T as a carrier plane instead of a suitably modified Fw190. While the British had Seafires and Sea Hurricanes. I guess the US Navy was a little ahead of the game. Meanwhile the Japanese HATED inline engines, probably for the same reasons.
I think the Bf 109 was available in 1939 when aircraft for the Graf Zeppelin were being selected and the FW190 was still being developed.
Early models of the Japanese Yokosuka D4Y Suisei (Judy) were powered by a liquid cooled engine based on the Daimler- Benz - later models were powered by a radial air cooled engine, reportedly because the liquid cooled engine was unreliable.
I think one of the reasons was visibility over the nose for carrier landings.
Steve
When the Germans considered the Bf109T as a carrier plane, the FW190 didn’t exist. Of course the Germans never built a Carrier anyway. If they had, pretty fair guess that the FW-190 would have been adapted as it was far more suitable for carrier operation.
Regards, Rick
I would think so considering that the Bf 109 had such a narrow landing stance while the Fw’s gear hinged outward. Plus, from what I’ve read, the FW was generally easier to maintain. I wonder what a navalized version of a Fw 190 would have looked like. Hmmmmm… I do have that Hasegawa A-5 in 1/72 scale… Should I have wing folds?
Does anyone know if there were other planes destined for service on the Graf Zepplin, or were the 109T’s it?
Anybody for a Group Build on German Naval Aircraft? That would seem to be a very narrow field of oportunity. [alien}
That does sound sweet! Maybe open it up with a “what if?”
If your serious, Darwin, you can count me in.
Sure. I got mine done already [:)].
Regards, Rick
Nice work, Rick. Is that the Hasegawa boxing of the “T”, or did you add the Hawkeye conversion to an “E”?
I’ve got a book on the Navy’s fighters that begins with W.W.I up tp when the F-18 was still in development. I don’t remember there being a single aircraft that had anything but a radial or a jet engine mentioned, never thought about it.
The Focke Wulf would seem like a better choice. Doesn’t the Fw-190 have a larger wing area and lower stall speed?If this is true added to length, better undercarriage and the engine, the Fw190 might have been pretty good for carrier operations. Well, at least for an aircraft not originally designed for it.