shouldn't radials be more durable?

[6./ZG26_Klaus_Mann]

Srsly, the Yak is a torch, but the La-5 shouldn't go all engine destroyed after 1 strafing run on a He-111

[Y-29.Silky]

You haven't flown the FlammableWulf-190? And the He-111 is a burning coffin itself. I have the exact opposite experiences. Maybe the La-5, but the Yaks engine can take a beating and a half.

[Finkeren]

Depends on where the He 111 gunner hit you. One AP bullet in the right place is all it takes to destroy any engine. The La-5 has a specific problem with fuel tanks that burn too easily, not related to the engine. The La-5 is also the only plane where I've experienced a light engine damage witch would slowly over the course of maybe half an hour drain away the engines power but never make it stop completely. I've flown all the way home on such an engine a couple of times, which seems pretty realistic to me. The Fw 190 is the toughest fighter in BoS in my experience. On average it takes far more hits to bring down than a 109 (though ofc you do get that one lucky shot from time to time) so I'm not really sure what the complaint is about there.

 

And no: Radials are not more 'durable' per se. They just don't have a liquid coolant system, that can be punctured which will lead to massive overheating issues within very short time. Other than that, they're really not any different from an inline engine: Puncture the fuel lines and you'll likely start an engine fire, puncture the oil system and you get black smoke and an engine that seize up within minutes, knock out a cylinder and most likely the entire engine locks up immediately (the stories of pilots who flew home with a blown cylinder were rare enough to become legendary)

 

I think the DM's all right save for the easy-to-torch fuel tanks on the La-5.

[Yakdriver]

Like you should know.
a single Bullet can destroy any engine when put in one of the right places.

this isnt some game where engines have health bars...

[Brano]

Radial engine is same piece of engineering as inline engine.Why it should be more durable?Only advantage of radial air cooled engine is lack of coolant circuit+radiator.One less thing to care about.But when you hit piston and shot it thru there is big chance of engine to cease ( breaking crankshaft is most probable result) Just stop living in those anecdotal fairytales world.

[bivalov]

according to my game experience, M-82 in game are eeee too easy to damage by any bullets (often even 7.92 mm). BMW different only in that he almost not burns, or burns not so often (well, there armor).....

 

i expected a bit different picture, and just personally for me, it seems a bit strange

 

but, maybe, this is really normally, or just well/enough

Edited November 18, 2014 by bivalov

[SvAF/F19_Klunk]

The Zero Was Also a radial

[t4trouble]

 

 

The Zero Was Also a radial

 

The problem with that plane was its fuel tanks not the engine   

[SvAF/F19_Klunk]

... And aluminium coating?

[Yakdriver]

nono. magnesium.

and water in the fire extinguishers...

mwahahaha

[Sokol1]

"Depends on where the He 111 gunner hit you."

 

In that game any plane hit in nose "hit box" catch fire easily.

 

http://forum.il2sturmovik.com/topic/12955-5-10-20mm-hits-stuka-1x8mm-my-engine-and-it-stops/?do=findComment&comment=202893

[URUAker]

Radial engine is same piece of engineering as inline engine.Why it should be more durable?Only advantage of radial air cooled engine is lack of coolant circuit+radiator.One less thing to care about.But when you hit piston and shot it thru there is big chance of engine to cease ( breaking crankshaft is most probable result) Just stop living in those anecdotal fairytales world.

 

Well russian pilots deemed the La5 much more durable than Yak 1 mainly due to its radial engine that could take a lot more damage than inline. There are reports of La5 making it back to base with a blown cylinder!

[Dr_Molenbeek]

A friend told me he had read (i don't remember where) that a Fw 190A-8 was back to its airfield with 28 holes of .50 bullets in its engine.

[=LD=Hethwill]

Well russian pilots deemed the La5 much more durable than Yak 1 mainly due to its radial engine that could take a lot more damage than inline. There are reports of La5 making it back to base with a blown cylinder!

 

... as many reports of casualties ( immense casualties ) right after the first La-5's were delivered given the amount of head ons given the "resilience" of the frontal engine. It would keep the pilot more safe, not the engine... see ? big difference. Immense casualties in planes, not in pilots. They would bail out.

 

Reports of returning to base with massive damage are always an exception and valuable of course, but never the norm.

 

A direct frontal hit will leave your radial crippled and it might or not work enough for you to baby it back to base, but it won't WORK properly for you to keep engaged. That is as far as it goes. A in line engine will die faster than a radial and that's as much as it goes.

Edited November 18, 2014 by =LD=Hethwill_Khan

[Crump]

Radial engines are simply more durable than an inline or opposed configuration for a variety of engineering reasons.

[URUAker]

... as many reports of casualties ( immense casualties ) right after the first La-5's were delivered given the amount of head ons given the "resilience" of the frontal engine. It would keep the pilot more safe, not the engine... see ? big difference. Immense casualties in planes, not in pilots. They would bail out.

 

Reports of returning to base with massive damage are always an exception and valuable of course, but never the norm.

 

A direct frontal hit will leave your radial crippled and it might or not work enough for you to baby it back to base, but it won't WORK properly for you to keep engaged. That is as far as it goes. A in line engine will die faster than a radial and that's as much as it goes.

Of course, getting your engine shot will make it run worse and worse until it stops probably in most cases, but making it back to base or even friendly territory made all the difference, in general, radials are more durable

Edited November 19, 2014 by URUAker

[=LD=Hethwill]

Yes. They are. They are also as prone to fire as any other engine though. They are more prone to fast cooling though, especially in a dive with very very dangerous results but have yet to feel this properly implemented in BoS or any other sim.

 

Do we know IF the cylinders are modelled independently so the DM acts in accordance when a radial gets hit ?  

Edited November 19, 2014 by =LD=Hethwill_Khan

[Crump]

 

 

They are more prone to fast cooling though, especially in a dive with very very dangerous results but have yet to feel this properly implemented in BoS or any other sim.

 

Shock cooling does exist but it is EXTREMELY hard to crack a cylinder just due to shock cooling.   Powerful piston engines such as those found in World War II fighters are probably the most susceptible to shock cooling but even then ONLY under extreme circumstances.  If you ran your engine at full WEP maxing out the CHT's into the yellow arc, cut the engine off, and did a Vne dive at ISA -30 conditions, you run a small chance of shock cooling a cylinder.  Under normal circumstances encountered by your World War II fighter and that includes combat......it is not an issue.

 

 

Think about the just starting your engine in the winter time and thermal stress it undergoes just starting.  If shock cooling was as big a deal as some folks make it out to be, most general aviation aircraft would be out of action their first winter start!!

 

 

 

What I'm simply trying to say is, the hard evidence is scanty. I know of no fleet studies on this subject. I know of no pilot who can say "I went up and did this and this and this to the engine, and then when I landed I found these cracks that weren't there before."

If shock cooling were a definite hazard, your engine should fall apart when you bring the mixture into idle cutoff at the end of a flight. CHTs fall at a rate of 100°F/min or more in the first seconds of shutdown—triple the rate that starts the typical "shock cooling" annunciator blinking. Does anyone complain that repeated shutdowns are causing head cracking? Of course not.

 

Then why are we worried about pulling the throttle back?

 

http://www.avweb.com/news/maint/182883-1.html?redirected=1

 

You should see more cracked cylinders from improper leaning procedures than anything else, IMHO.

[=LD=Hethwill]

The extreme cooling i referred, and its effects on the plane has nothing to do with cracking cylinders, sorry if i made it confusing. It will cause some really serious and dangerous effects on the flying of the plane, as much as getting shot.

 

And quoting Arthur Gärtner - JG52 ( for all it is worth is another veteran story and personal insight only )

 

" The Focke Wulf had a very strong engine, very robust and well built. It coped very well with being shot at more so than the Me109. The Focke Wulf had an air cooled engine while the 109 had a liquid cooled engine which meant if, for instance, some shrapnel damaged the cooling system the Me109 couldn't continue whereas the FW190 with its air cooled system could.

 

It was much more robust than the 109 but some of the short comings ( of the 190 ) were, for instance, that when dive bombing, because of the air cooling system, and depending on the speed, it would open up and therefore affect the stability of the aeroplane in the air. Sometimes the aircraft would tilt to one side and you could find yourself in a helpless situation. You had no control over it and very difficult to get it right again. " - The War in the Air (BBC)

Edited November 19, 2014 by =LD=Hethwill_Khan

[Crump]

Not directly related but some really good experience with these type engines.

 

http://www.warbirddepot.com/library/general/Warbird_Notes-02Dec2011.pdf

 

http://www.avweb.com/news/profiles/182142-1.html?redirected=1

 

 

Sometimes the aircraft would tilt to one side and you could find yourself in a helpless situation.

 

My thought is this sounds like the cooling gills opening up due to excessive pressure from the dive. 

 

 

The extreme cooling i referred, and its effects on the plane has nothing to do with cracking cylinders, sorry if i made it confusing.

 

 

Shock cooling does exist but it is extremely hard to put the airplane in a position to do it.

[6./ZG26_5tuka]

Indeed radial engines were less prone to battle damage. They weren't preferred by many pilots for their great safety and ability to take beating compared to an inline engine for no reason.

 

Due to the distinctive layout (critical sytsems insede and cylinders at the outside "protecting" the inner engine) a critical damage was less likely to occurr. Now keep in mind shooting sby from front or behind will most likely end up in a cylinder hit, which isn't devastating at all, while on an inline engine the whole cooling and oil system might collapse.

 

Fw 190 pilots reported single cylinder damage was no issue to them, once they noticed the engine ran violent they opened up the throttle and the damaged cylinder was blown out of the engine block providing for a smooth ride.

 

Sure they're not invincible, especilly against cannon calibre, but it's pretty obvious they're lacking ingame. That's one of my major concerns about DMs currently.

[TheElf]

Inline engines and Radial engines are EQUALLY vulnerable as far as the mechanical attributes of an airplane engine.  What made Inline engines different from radials was how they were cooled.  You cannot destroy airflow over a radial engine, but you can take damage or destroy the liquid glycol cooling lines and radiators of an inline enigne which THEN causes the engine to fail.  The extent to which and amount of damage sustained to the cooling apparratus would likely determine if it destroyed the engine rapidly or overcame it over a longer period.  

 

Bottom line, it isn't the engine itself which makes an inline engine more vulnerable, it is the design decision to introduce and extra system that presents its own set of vulnerabilities.  In simulations this typically manifests in the "glass jaw" of inline engines and the perceived ruggedness of Radials.

[Y-29.Silky]

I really like these old books as sources as their sources weren't the internet.
http://books.google.com/books?id=UPNzp8-i63EC&pg=PA8&lpg=PA8&dq=Fw190+engine+damage&source=bl&ots=Zzml1to5bX&sig=6hr95EQ1lSH6id04NULUIRY0mHg&hl=en&sa=X&ei=Yf1sVKDaIJKuogTth4DoBA&ved=0CDUQ6AEwBDgU#v=onepage&q=Fw190%20engine%20damage&f=false

Read the bold text on the bottom right.

Edited November 19, 2014 by Silky

[=LD=Hethwill]

No. Hence my question on the DM. Are cylinder blocks individually modeled in the radials yet ? As far as it goes the result, albeit being shot by soviet caliber soviet cannon, is the same on both radials or in line.

[Crump]

 

 

Inline engines and Radial engines are EQUALLY vulnerable as far as the mechanical attributes of an airplane engine.

 

Not correct.  

 

 

 

Thanks to the simpler design, radial engines are usually less vulnerable to damage. While this was a much bigger deal when the engines were used in combat, knowing that an engine can stand up better than another option is still a good reason to consider it.

 

 

 

 

 In most cases, a smooth operation is easier to get with a radial engine than other options like inline engines cooled with liquid. Smooth performance matters, and the radial engine is generally a better call where performance is concerned.

 

 

 

 

Simply put, the radial engine is generally much more reliable. This is because it features a shorter crankshaft, simpler design, and creates less vibration. That less vibration means that it will suffer from greatly reduced levels of wear and tear during use.

 

 

http://blog.covingtonaircraft.com/2014/05/15/advantages-radial-engines/

 

 

 

 For a long time, aircraft designers were overly concerned with frontal area of engines, because this had to be accounted for in the design of the airframe, and produced drag. In-line, opposed, and V-type engines provide the least frontal area because cylinders are "stacked" one behind the other. Unfortunately, any engine flexes as it runs and must be stiff enough so that it does not crack its components. This requires a very heavy crankcase and crankshaft. The radial configuration avoids this problem by having a short, stiff crankcase and crankshaft.

 

http://www.pilotfriend.com/aero_engines/aero_eng_dvmt.htm

 

 

Radial engine geometry permits a lighter block, a smaller, simpler and more mechanically efficient crankshaft, fewer parts and bearings, reduced contact surfaces and, therefore, a lower coefficient of friction. Master and link rod all act upon a single crank journal, and the low rod angles deliver superior transmission of cylinder pressure to the crankshaft. The crankshaft is extremely short and sturdy compared to its long inline counterparts, and supported by pressure lubricated roller bearings. As a result, it suffers no significant torsional distortion or excessive friction.

 

http://www.clearenergysystems.com/docs/ARC930TA%20Radial%20Engine%20Dvlp.pdf

 

 

No. Hence my question on the DM. Are cylinder blocks individually modeled in the radials yet ? As far as it goes the result, albeit being shot by soviet caliber soviet cannon, is the same on both radials or in line.

 

Good question.  Maybe the devs will answer it. 

[SCG_Space_Ghost]

Radial engine is same piece of engineering as inline engine.Why it should be more durable?Only advantage of radial air cooled engine is lack of coolant circuit+radiator.One less thing to care about.But when you hit piston and shot it thru there is big chance of engine to cease ( breaking crankshaft is most probable result) Just stop living in those anecdotal fairytales world.

Cool.

 

Can you prove that to me on a graph or a chart? I don't do well with your anecdotes...

[6./ZG26_5tuka]

Unless they chanved the DM over time single cylimders are still not modeled. I think it was Loft telling so back in EA before the radials were introduced, which by that time was fine.

 

Dont think we have to go as far though. The radial dm only needs to be some more robust against machine calibre rounds, thats the deal.

 

Its hard to imagine radials cought fire that easily as well. Hope this is going to change as well.

[Anw.StG2_Tyke]

Who the hell really thinks that there is no difference in between inline engines and radial engines when it comes to vulnerability? I mean, come on guys look at those engines. LOOK AT THEM! I mean, you even could compare a V2 Motorcycle engine with an 4 Cylinder Superbike engine. And now tell me that there is no difference when I shoot with a 7.92 mm Gun on it. Its not like one cylinder of the V2 is half as big as the whole motorblock of the 4 cylinder engine.....

[=LD=Hethwill]

7.92...23 mm... 37mm

 

Oh yes... I enjoy too much soviet standard guns setup. Nothing says  "you're going down" more precisely than a shvak pouring HE into your big chubby engine block. 

 

The engine should be able to be babied back to base better than a in line serial. And you know what, sometimes it does, but then even the 109 does it. So yeah... hope that they model the DM differences, which mostly accounts for cylinder layout at this moment.

Edited November 20, 2014 by =LD=Hethwill_Khan

[t4trouble]

[JG1_Pragr]

Radial engine is same piece of engineering as inline engine.Why it should be more durable?Only advantage of radial air cooled engine is lack of coolant circuit+radiator.One less thing to care about.But when you hit piston and shot it thru there is big chance of engine to cease ( breaking crankshaft is most probable result) Just stop living in those anecdotal fairytales world.

I think you're wrong here. The radial engines are able to work under the piston loss conditions. I read many reports (and I mean WWII Combat reports) about such situations and even saw several pictures including Fw 190 returned from JaBo mission over England with such damage, P-47s or F6-F Hellcats returned from escort duty or CAS missions. I can't remember the single one report of such damage mentioned in context of inline engine.

 

EDIT: I don't say that the radial engine has to survive the loss of piston in 100 cases. I say that at least there is considerable chance to do so, while in case of inline engine such a loss prove to be fatal.

Edited November 20, 2014 by II./JG1_Pragr

[Leaf]

 

Interesting quote "the Focke Wulf could outturn and outroll the Messerschmitt at any speed". The the latter is true in-game, the former is not.

[TheElf]

Not correct.  

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

http://blog.covingtonaircraft.com/2014/05/15/advantages-radial-engines/

 

 

http://www.pilotfriend.com/aero_engines/aero_eng_dvmt.htm

 

 

http://www.clearenergysystems.com/docs/ARC930TA%20Radial%20Engine%20Dvlp.pdf

 

 

 

Good question.  Maybe the devs will answer it. 

 

Wow I wish I hadn't missed this response so long ago.  I think you missed my point.  I wasn't saying that Radials were equally durable, or equally reliable in mechanical terms, just that when damaged by enemy fire, the Inline engine was thought of, by pilots, as more susceptible to combat damage, particularly damage that was light by all accounts, but that had caused damaged to the cooling system of the inline.  Yes of course the radial is all those things you diligently posted links to, but the reason inline Aircraft got the reputation they got, and radial aircraft got the rep THEY got was due to the complexity of the additional subsystems inlines required, not necessarily because the cylinders weren't arrayed radially.   

 

If you stripped away all the accessory parts of an inline engine, and all those of a radial, yes the Radial is more durable, reliable etc, but insert a large caliber explosive shell into either while operating at high RPM, and the results will likely be the same.  Yes I know there were many accounts of aircraft returning with thrown rods, blown cylinders etc. but an engine is an engine...they are all delicate pieces of engineering. 

[Chuck_Owl]

Pratt & Whitney's 18-piston R-2800 engine proved to be very, very durable on the P-47 Thunderbolt. It could sustain combat damage and yet keep its cooling capabilities (as the engine did not require glycol/water-based coolant, it just used the airflow as a natural coolant) unlike traditional inline engines like the Merlin or the DB601, who were practically doomed if they were shot in their radiator. This is why during the Battle of Britain lots of RAF pilots aimed at the radiator, knowing that .303 caliber guns were not powerful enough to create critical structural damage to the aircraft unless you either killed the pilot (difficult), shot its engine (difficult) or its radiators. If a 109 lost its radiators over England, the german pilot was very unlikely to make it back to France before his engine died. 

 

Most radial engines had the advantage of being able to operate (albeit with reduced performance) with piston damage and tended to be more "reliable" than inline engines in the sense that you had better odds at being able to make it home if you got shot over enemy territory. The mission of the aircraft determined what kind of damage it could sustain, and looking at photographs of P-47s coming back from ground attacks I am sure pilots could fully appreciate the reliability of the R-2800. However, from the ground crew technician's perspective, it is important to note that engine maintenance time was a critical factor.

[LizLemon]

Wow I wish I hadn't missed this response so long ago. I think you missed my point. I wasn't saying that Radials were equally durable, or equally reliable in mechanical terms, just that when damaged by enemy fire, the Inline engine was thought of, by pilots, as more susceptible to combat damage, particularly damage that was light by all accounts, but that had caused damaged to the cooling system of the inline. Yes of course the radial is all those things you diligently posted links to, but the reason inline Aircraft got the reputation they got, and radial aircraft got the rep THEY got was due to the complexity of the additional subsystems inlines required, not necessarily because the cylinders weren't arrayed radially.

 

If you hit an inline and crack the engine block then you'll potentially have several cylinders knocked out of action.

 

If you hit and crack a cylinder head in a radial that damage is limited to the cylinder head you hit.

 

Hence the stories of P-47s making it back with several cylinders knocked out. That isn't going to happen nearly as often with inlines.

[Wulf]

Interesting quote "the Focke Wulf could outturn and outroll the Messerschmitt at any speed". The the latter is true in-game, the former is not.

 

 

No, that's not true.   The difference in roll speed between the BoS 109 and 190 is 'negligible' at low speed.  At high speed the 190 can roll a little bit fasted but not so fast as to give the 190 a tactical advantage. Pretty much any fighter in the sim can follow a 190 in a roll.  Yeah, I know, that 'be crazy' but there it is.

[Wulf]

Radial engine is same piece of engineering as inline engine.Why it should be more durable?Only advantage of radial air cooled engine is lack of coolant circuit+radiator.One less thing to care about.But when you hit piston and shot it thru there is big chance of engine to cease ( breaking crankshaft is most probable result) Just stop living in those anecdotal fairytales world.

 

 

No, the engineering isn't the same at all.  Perhaps if you read more you'd understand that.  Unlike a radial, an inline engine contains internal galleries to allow coolant to flow through the motor.  So, if you fracture the block on an inline engine the cooling system will almost invariable fail.  Radials don't have this problem.  Consequently, a radial can sustain more damage without it necessarily leading to catastrophic failure. 

Edited February 14, 2015 by Wulf

[Chuck_Owl]

Some nice cutaways of the R-2800 for those who want to know how a radial works.

 

 

And a nice documentary on the Merlin for a better understanding of inline engines.

 

[69th_chuter]

I worked on a B-29 (Miss America '62 42-65281) back in the late '80s that, on it's last flight to China Lake for storage it swallowed a valve in one of its engines.  According to the logbook the flight crew simply throttled the motor up slightly and continued on.  When we took the cowlings off we found half a cylinder head and valve in the bottom of one and a thoroughly holed piston in a damaged cylinder.  Those were fun days, met lots of cool people.  Now I'm old ... 

Edited February 14, 2015 by chuter

[Jade_Monkey]

You haven't flown the FlammableWulf-190? And the He-111 is a burning coffin itself. I have the exact opposite experiences. Maybe the La-5, but the Yaks engine can take a beating and a half.

 

Lol !!!

 

I agree, the Yaks, Il2 and Pe-2 can take a beating.