US Navy preference for radial engines over inline engines blog article please

[Pioneer]

G'day all

I recall someone with a blog had an interesting article on why the USN preferred radial engines over that of inline engines... The article alluded to something along the lines that... The USN had a technical dislike for inline engines on its aircraft carriers.... All I can recall, is that it had something to do with a higher fire hazard / volatility - or something along them lines....
Hence the USN's preference for radial engines.

My apologies about my vagueness

Can anyone recall the blog article?

Regards
Pioneer

 

[TomS]

Possibly this Quora question, where one answer mentions a concern about the glycol needed to cool inline engines?

http://www.quora.com/Why-did-US-carrier-planes-in-WWII-have-radial-engines-instead-of-inline-engines

I'm a bit dubious that this was a major factor, though. The main reason, IMO, was that US radials in general were significantly better than most of the available US inlines through at least the late-1930s.

 

[Antonio]

A brief summary from my sources:

Pros: Radial engines were less complex than in line engines because of its nature. Thus they were easier to produce and maintain. They were more reliable and could accept more battle damage.

Cons: increased frontal area, imposing an aerodynamic penalty. Also flying higher meant less air for cooling the engine.

US engine manufacturers failed to keep pace, in the 30's, producing advanced high power in line engines like British and German.

In the Pacific War, Japanese faced the same limitations but USN enjoyed superior radial engines in their aircraft, which allowed heavier armament and protection with better overall performance.

The radial engined P-47 perfomance was also remarcable thanks to its radial engine and turbocompressor, but against Luftwaffe, it was the Merlin in line engined P-51 which offered decisive performance.

 

[Foo Fighter]

I do wonder what a Griffon engined P-51 would have been like and the comparison with the Merlin engined variant.

 

[Antonio]

I do wonder what a Griffon engined P-51 would have been like and the comparison with the Merlin engined variant.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Red_Baron_(aircraft)

 

[GeorgeA]

I do wonder what a Griffon engined P-51 would have been like and the comparison with the Merlin engined variant.

The CAC-15 is an approximation, although not exactly a P-51 analog.

 

[Pioneer]

Possibly this Quora question, where one answer mentions a concern about the glycol needed to cool inline engines?

http://www.quora.com/Why-did-US-carrier-planes-in-WWII-have-radial-engines-instead-of-inline-engines

I'm a bit dubious that this was a major factor, though. The main reason, IMO, was that US radials in general were significantly better than most of the available US inlines through at least the late-1930s.

Thank you TomS
Although this is not the more in-depth article I was looking for, Colin Burnett sentiment 'about the glycol' was what I was thinking of!

Now only to find that blog site, with the more descriptive article

Thank you everyone for your time, effort and contribution to my vague question!

Regards
Pioneer

 

[r16]

more power for torpedo bombers in take off , in relation to payload range . Sensible heads were examining Japanese and what might happen in a shootout in the extensively large Pasific : Americans could be outranged . Filtering down from that .