Military Review

Aircraft engine: air or water cooled?

67

Which plane would you take to battle?

1.With air cooled engine - 165 (85.05%)
85.05%
2.With liquid cooled engine - 29 (14.95%)
14.95%

So, having considered the best representatives of the motors of the Second World War, the god of motors himself orders to reflect on which of the heroes was more profitable and cooler. There are many opinions here, but let's try to look at the engines impartially and with some lust.


We will consider the examples of fighters, simply because the bomber with its tasks, in principle, does not matter which engine to fly. We fly and fly, flew in, bombs dropped, we fly back. For fighters, everything was somewhat more complicated in terms of tasks.

So which was better: an air-cooled engine or a water-cooled engine?

Yes, we will call the liquid cooling engine out of habit water, because what kind of antifreezes were there in the 30-40s of the last century? At best, water with ethylene glycol. At worst, water and salt or just water.

By screws!


The confrontation between "liquid" and "air" engines began when these motors appeared. More precisely, when the engineers came up with the idea that it was worth stopping to rotate the cylinders of the rotary motor around the crankshaft. And so the "air star" appeared. Quite a normal engine, no quirks and problems. But by the end of World War I, engineers were quite able to adapt a water-cooled car engine, so the competition began even then.

And throughout its existence, liquid-cooled V-engines and air-cooled radial engines competed with each other.

Each of these engine types has advantages and disadvantages. Let's take a few motors from both categories to compare. Let's just say the best of the best.

ASh-82 and Pratt & Whitney R-2800 Double Wasp will play for the airmen, and Rolls-Royce Merlin X, Daimler-Benz DB 605, Klimov VK-105 will play for the watermen.


There is one injustice in the table. Connoisseurs will immediately understand what this is about: of course, this is weight. For "water" in the performance characteristics, the so-called "dry" weight is always given, that is, without water / antifreeze. Accordingly, they will be behind the scenes, that is, on the runway, heavier. Somewhere by 10-12%, which is a lot.

Now let's go compare.

Design


Structurally, of course, it is easier to air. No cooling jacket needed, no radiator needed, no armor protecting the radiator, piping, radiator shutters.

The air engine is simpler and therefore cheaper to manufacture and maintain. And more reliable in battle. It is known that air-cooled engines withstood several hits and continued to work, having lost two or even three cylinders. But the water engine easily failed in the event of one hit in the radiator.

1: 0 in favor of air engines.

Охлаждение


More effective, in general, air. The main problem with double stars was heat removal from the second row of cylinders. If the designers could handle it, everything was just fine.

In flight, the aircraft quietly provided the necessary amount of air to cool the cylinder heads. And the water engine had a limitation in the form of liquid temperature, which was limited by the boiling point of water / antifreeze. The temperature of the cylinder heads of an air engine is in any case higher than the temperature of the coolant, so that with the same volume of air passing through the cylinder heads of an air engine and a radiator of a water engine, air was more efficient, since the radiator area was clearly inferior to the area of ​​a star. And the removal of one unit of heat required a larger volume of air than from the cylinder heads.

All the more so when, over time, the radiators were hidden in the tunnels.

2: 0 in favor of air.

Aerodynamics


Yes, water engines definitely had an advantage here. Thinner and sharper nose, narrower fuselage - water-powered aircraft were noticeably faster than their air-powered competitors.


The thick forehead of an air-powered aircraft is a serious blow to the aircraft's aerodynamics. And at the beginning of the journey, and in general, the Townend ring was considered the pinnacle of aerodynamic inventions.

And in the early 40s, there was a kind of division: airplanes with water engines were faster, airplanes with air ones were more maneuverable.

It is worth noting here that the lighter I-16, A6M, “Rock” were indeed very maneuverable machines. But they were inferior in speed to their water competitors.

The best example here is our I-16.


In fact, with the "Cyclone" from the "Wright" company, I-16 easily beat Bf-109B in Spain. However, as soon as the Germans got the DB-600, which gave Emil an advantage in speed and vertical, the roles changed immediately, and yesterday's hunter became a game.


In reality, it was not only a more powerful generation of motors, it was also a matter of aerodynamics. The planes became thinner and sleeker, the radiators were recessed into the wings and fuselages, and the use of antifreezes made it possible to improve heat transfer and reduce the size and - importantly - the weight of the radiators and coolant, which had to be poured into the system.

So 2: 1 in favor of air.

weaponry


And here there are a lot of nuances.

The water engine was simply created for real air snipers, as it allowed the use of such a wonderful thing as a motor-gun. The gun was aimed exactly at the nose of the plane, no problem. Plus, a couple of machine guns could be placed around the cylinder block.


All this gave a very good second volley with minimal dispersion. A very important point.

Here you immediately need to give a point to the watermen. 2: 2.

However, who said that the air-cooled fighters were all sad? Absolutely not!

Let's start with the fact that there were two unique fighters, La-5 and La-7, which the ASh-82 engine made it possible to place two and three synchronous ShVAK cannons. Yes, the ammunition load was quite decent, about 120 rounds per cannon, this was enough above the roof to conduct a battle and smash any enemy bomber.

Aircraft engine: air or water cooled?

But Lavochkin's fighters are a very interesting exception to the rule.

But everyone else, Germans, Japanese, Americans, preferred to take advantage of the fact that there are no bulky cooling radiators in and around the wing, and placed whole batteries in the wings.


By the way, there are also enough pluses. Easier to maintain ... no, not weapon... Just the engine, around which there are no cannons, machine guns and cartridges / shells stuck. There is more space in the wing, respectively, you can mark out more ammunition and more barrels.

The Focke-Wulf 190A-2, the owner of one of the most impressive second rounds, carried four 20mm cannons in its wings. True, there was a "secret". The root (located closer to the fuselage) cannons had 200 rounds of ammunition, and the distant ones only 55. But still impressive. Plus two synchronous machine guns.


The Japanese on the Ki-84 "Hayate" cost less ammunition for the wing guns, only 150 rounds and 350 rounds for synchronous machine guns.

But in my opinion, the Americans have achieved the most significant success in terms of the placement of weapons. The P-47 with eight 12,7-mm Browning and the F4U Corsair with six is ​​quite. Plus an ammunition load of 400-440 rounds per barrel. On the wing outermost from the fuselage, the side-box could be reduced to 280 rounds, but this is really insignificant.


You can talk for a long time on the topic of which is better, two cannons or six large-caliber machine guns, but this is a topic for a separate study. There are pros and cons. In any case, 3 rounds against 000-300 rounds - there is something to talk about.


So in the quantitative terms of the deployment of weapons, the fighters with air engines turned out to be no worse than their colleagues. Moreover, since the air engines were more powerful than the water ones, then, accordingly, they allowed to take on board the most. It is logical.

And if we take as a comparison the Yak-9 with one 20-mm cannon and one 12,7-mm machine gun against an American fighter with a battery of eight 12,7-mm Browning, it is very difficult to say who will be the winner. Asu-sniper, of course, will only need a dozen or two shells, but if we are talking about mid-range pilots ... There machine guns will be more interesting, because at least something will hit.

Air score. 3: 2.

Protection


Everything is completely different here. The water engine had to be protected. Protect the engine itself from lumbago, protect the radiator, protect all fittings. For one or two hits in the engine jacket or radiator - and that's it, they arrived. Yes, there is some time before the engine gets stuck from overheating. And you can try to reach a convenient place either on your territory, or - a parachute. Not very reliable, not very convenient.

An air star could simply be defended like an armor plate. Of course, these engines were afraid of lumbago, but there were cases when the Focke-Wulfs smoked without a pair of cylinders, but flew. And our "La" quite normally crawled to airfields with three knocked out cylinders. IN stories many such cases have been recorded.

That is why La, Thunderbolt, and Focke-Wulf proved to be very good attack aircraft. An air engine could hide from small-caliber anti-aircraft guns and carry everything in its path. And more powerful engines easily allowed bombs to be taken on board. La-5 - 200 kg, Focke-Wulf 190 series F - up to 700 kg, and Thunderbolt series D - up to 1135 kg.

Now some will say that the best attack aircraft of the Second World War flew on a water motor, and they will be right.


However, the Il-2 is an attack aircraft that was born as an attack aircraft. And above it was about the fighters that became attack aircraft. There is a difference, and primarily in terms of protection.

And in terms of protection, air-cooled engines are definitely ahead. 4: 2.

This is the picture. The reason for this, of course, is the double-row stars that appeared in the early 1940s. And they eclipsed the water engines, which have taken a big step forward since their inception.

The main step in the development of air-cooled engines was the moment when the designers coped with the problem of cooling the second row of cylinders. Much has been done for this: the rows of cylinders were pushed apart to allow air to flow better around the cylinder heads, the area of ​​the oil coolers was increased, since most of the heat was removed precisely through the oil, and the fins of the cylinders were increased.

It was the solution to the cooling problem that put the stars ahead in terms of power and mass. It was simple: the double star had a larger displacement compared to the water engine. Hence the great power.

If we compare the specific power of our engines at the level of 1943, then the ASh-82F had an indicator of 1,95 hp / kg, and the VK-105P - 2,21 hp / kg of engine weight. It seems that the VK-105P was better. And any plane with it had to have an advantage.

However, if we take an aircraft that flew both the VK-105 and the ASh-82 and compare, we will not be surprised to see that the LaGG-3 with the VK-105P in terms of flight performance was losing to the La-5 with the ASh-82 in all respects. And this despite the fact that La-5, let's say, did not shine aerodynamically.

The power of the ASh-82 double star solved all the aerodynamic problems by simply pulling the plane out at the expense of "extra" 500 hp.


Of course, the designers of the water engines were not going to give up and tried to catch up with the air vents. There have been attempts to pair the motors so that the two motors work through a gearbox on one propeller. In reality, no one succeeded.

Smarter was the design of H- and X-shaped engines, when several cylinder blocks would work on one crankshaft. Such an engine came from the British, Napier "Saber", a 24-cylinder monster. "Typhoon", of course, flew with him, but as soon as the British brought to mind their air Bristol "Centaur", then they safely forgot about the "Saber".

At the very end of World War II, a new generation of water engines appeared, with an increased displacement mainly due to an increase in the piston diameter and a thinning of the block walls. On the one hand, this affected the resource, on the other, it gave the necessary power. AM-42, "Griffon", DB-603, Yumo-213 - they were all good in this regard, but they were late for the war.

To put the finishing touches on the piston engine competition, it's worth looking at the end of their careers.

When turbojet engines appeared, piston engines had to retire.

Lightweight and sporty became the domain of internal combustion engines aviationwhere there were requirements for the engines.


Air engines occupied sports aviation, but water engines simply had to leave altogether. True, in recent years there has been a tendency to return diesel engines to aviation, but in any case, these are not so much aviation engines as automobile engines.

So to summarize, I would take responsibility for arguing that air-cooled aircraft internal combustion engines were more efficient than their liquid-cooled counterparts in several ways.

The fact that the miracle engine ASh-82 still works both in airplanes and in helicopters only confirms this statement.


So if someone thinks differently, there is where to speak and leave your vote in the appropriate form.
Author:
Articles from this series:
Combat aircraft. Water cooled motors
Combat aircraft. About fiery hearts
67 comments
Information
Dear reader, to leave comments on the publication, you must to register.

I have an account? Sign in

  1. Mik13
    Mik13 13 August 2020 18: 05
    24
    ... More precisely, when the engineers came up with the idea that it was worth stopping to rotate the cylinders of the rotary engine around the crankshaft ...

    This type of engine is called not "rotary", but "rotary". And it was always called that. The rotary (or rotary-piston) engine is now called the Wankel engine.
    1. Mik13
      Mik13 13 August 2020 18: 21
      10
      Yes, and more - in pursuit:
      True, in recent years there has been a tendency to return diesel engines to aviation, but in any case, these are not so much aviation engines as automobile engines.

      This is exactly what very specific aircraft diesels. Which work on aviation kerosene (for jet engines that is). Because kerosene is much cheaper than aviation gasoline and is available at almost any airfield.
      Yes, these diesels use a variety of modern automotive engine technology. But in any case, these are aircraft engines.
    2. kaban7
      kaban7 8 November 2020 20: 52
      0
      This is in Russian, everything is clear, and in Aglitsky, both the rotary one (which is Wankel) and the other is also rotary (which is rotative).
  2. Errr
    Errr 13 August 2020 18: 16
    +4
    From the text of the article:
    ... when the engineers figured out that they should stop rotating the cylinders of the rotary motor around the crankshaft.
    My first reaction after reading the above quote is trying to scratch my turnips. laughing But in the process of comprehending this subject, I found out that, it turns out, there were such interesting motors, but not rotary, but rotary ones. Thank you, Roman, for enlightening the dark. hi smile
  3. lucul
    lucul 13 August 2020 18: 18
    0
    However, if we take an aircraft that flew both the VK-105 and the ASh-82 and compare, we will not be surprised to see that the LaGG-3 with the VK-105P in terms of flight performance was losing to the La-5 with the ASh-82 in all respects. And this despite the fact that La-5, let's say, did not shine aerodynamically.

    The power of the ASh-82 double star solved all the aerodynamic problems by simply pulling the plane out at the expense of "extra" 500 hp.

    There is not only power, but also the second important parameter of the motor, which is not indicated in aviation - torque. The air vent is better in terms of torque - which means you can tighten the screw more often ...
    1. Martin
      Martin 13 August 2020 19: 23
      +2
      "There is not only power, but also the second important parameter of the motor, which is not indicated in aviation - torque."

      Don't play the fool. The moment is not the "second important parameter", but the same, only in profile. Power is torque multiplied by rpm (well, well, multiplied by a factor).
      Eternal amateurish disputes, "what is more important in the internal combustion engine - the moment or the power", amateurish and are. It's like arguing: which is more important - inches or centimeters.
      And about "not specified." He is not indicated in advertising brochures. Engineers indicate everything: the flow of torque characteristics, and the flow of power characteristics (and not just the point of maximum power so beloved by the masses), and specific fuel consumption, and power (power balance).
  4. Undecim
    Undecim 13 August 2020 18: 30
    20
    Yes, we will call the liquid cooling engine out of habit water, because what kind of antifreezes were there in the 30-40s of the last century? At best, water with ethylene glycol. At worst, water and salt or just water.
    And from the very first lines a tub of ignorance falls on the reader.
    First, no salt solutions have ever been used in cooling systems, as this is a disaster for the engine.
    Secondly, alcohols - ethanol, methanol, ethylene glycol and others, have been the basis of all antifreezes from the moment they appeared in 1926 to the present day. Only recently have they begun to give way to propylene glycol and organic acids.
  5. Constanty
    Constanty 13 August 2020 18: 35
    +7
    But by the end of the First World War, engineers were quite able to adapt the water-cooled car engine, so the competition began even then.


    What the hell!
    The Mercedes D.III engine is a liquid-cooled six-cylinder in-line aircraft piston engine in production since 1914 - and it is not the first liquid-cooled aircraft engine produced and used in large numbers!
    1. Undecim
      Undecim 13 August 2020 19: 41
      11
      Really crap.

      Léon Levavasseur liquid-cooled eight-cylinder V-aircraft engine. 1906 year.
    2. NF68
      NF68 14 August 2020 15: 57
      0
      Quote: Constanty
      But by the end of the First World War, engineers were quite able to adapt the water-cooled car engine, so the competition began even then.


      What the hell!
      The Mercedes D.III engine is a liquid-cooled six-cylinder in-line aircraft piston engine in production since 1914 - and it is not the first liquid-cooled aircraft engine produced and used in large numbers!


      The Germans who only did not deal with such engines. For example MAN:

      http://alternathistory.com/aviatsionnye-dvigateli-kompanii-man-chast-2/
  6. Free wind
    Free wind 13 August 2020 18: 44
    0
    There were air-cooled V-engines. Example, the same Tatra. I wonder if there were planes with such engines in aviation?
    1. Constanty
      Constanty 13 August 2020 19: 22
      +6
      Caudron CR.714C1 Cyclone, Focke-Wulf Fw 189, PZL-38 Wilk.
    2. Undecim
      Undecim 13 August 2020 19: 25
      +9
      Of course there were. Even fighters.

      This is an Isotta Fraschini Gamma RC12, an Italian air-cooled 35-cylinder aviation V-engine.
      The latest modifications had power up to 900 hp.
      1. Undecim
        Undecim 13 August 2020 19: 32
        +6

        An Italian fighter with the aforementioned Ambrosini SAI.403 engine. 1943 year.
        1. Undecim
          Undecim 13 August 2020 20: 03
          14
          Moreover, in aviation there were also ralial liquid-cooled engines.

          Salmson 9Z water cooled radial motor.
          1. NF68
            NF68 14 August 2020 16: 04
            +1
            Quote: Undecim
            Moreover, in aviation there were also ralial liquid-cooled engines.

            Salmson 9Z water cooled radial motor.


            BMW-803, BMW-803A:







            http://alternathistory.com/aviatsionnye-dvigateli-firm-siemens-bramo-bmw-po-materialam-karla-prestelya/
      2. Undecim
        Undecim 13 August 2020 21: 16
        13
        And then there were H-shaped air-cooled engines. The author, it seems, is not even aware of the existence of such engines.

        24-cylinder Napier Dagger. 1934 year.
        1. NF68
          NF68 14 August 2020 15: 59
          +4
          Quote: Undecim
          And then there were H-shaped air-cooled engines. The author, it seems, is not even aware of the existence of such engines.

          24-cylinder Napier Dagger. 1934 year.


          The author is unaware of many things. This is normal for him.
  7. mark1
    mark1 13 August 2020 18: 45
    +1
    The superiority of air vents over liquid-cooled engines before and at the beginning of WWII was due to the addition of a second row of cylinders (double star), i.e. due to a banal increase in displacement - 27 / 36l for ZhO versus 43 / 59l for VO without increasing the frontal dimension (increased specific frontal power). Liquid engines did not succeed in increasing the displacement so quickly. In this regard, Mikulin's engines stood out favorably, they initially had a huge displacement - 46 liters and, as a result, not a small potential, unfortunately not fully revealed (could potentially produce 2500/2600 hp by the end of the war). with. takeoff power)
    1. Bad_gr
      Bad_gr 13 August 2020 22: 05
      +3
      Quote: mark1
      The superiority of air vents over liquid-cooled engines before and at the beginning of WWII was due to the addition of a second row of cylinders (double star),

      And there were such:
  8. Free wind
    Free wind 13 August 2020 18: 59
    +6
    It is easier for a water-cooled engine to maintain the optimum temperature. An air-cooled engine spends 10-20% of its power on cooling, data from textbooks. Protection of the cockpit, does not depend on the engine, it all depends on the designer. Can be protected by armor, with a water-cooled engine. Or maybe covered with tissue paper, with an air vent, let's say the same Zero.
    1. EvilLion
      EvilLion 14 August 2020 10: 55
      +2
      It is one thing to put the armor on purpose, another thing when it is actually already available for free, well, or almost free.
  9. Alf
    Alf 13 August 2020 19: 37
    +5
    It is worth noting here that the lighter ones ...., "Rock"

    Who it ? Why dont know ?
    That is why "La" ... have proved themselves very well as attack aircraft.

    This is where and when Lahs perfectly declared themselves as stormtroopers?
    1. Errr
      Errr 13 August 2020 21: 01
      +3
      Quote: Alf
      It is worth noting here that the lighter ones ...., "Rock"

      Who it ? Why dont know ?
      Here, obviously, we are talking about "Blackburn Rock" (English "Blackburn Roc") - a British carrier-based fighter of the Second World War.
      1. Alf
        Alf 13 August 2020 21: 38
        +1
        Quote: Herrr
        Here, obviously, we are talking about "Blackburn Rock" (English "Blackburn Roc") - a British carrier-based fighter of the Second World War.

        I will say more, I even know from whom Roca was created, from the deck dive bomber Skew, who, even at the time of creation, could not boast of excellent data, and Rocky in his entire, to put it mildly, not a long career, did not shoot down a single Hans. Most of their service Rocky stood at airfields as an air defense installation, by the way, they also did not grounded anyone.
  10. Ryaruav
    Ryaruav 13 August 2020 19: 44
    +5
    the ash-82 and its half ash-61 are excellent engines, but the American double wasps in 2000-2400 hp are excellent achievements in the engine building of those times
  11. BAI
    BAI 13 August 2020 19: 48
    +1
    When turbojet engines appeared, piston engines had to retire.

    With turbojets (in fighter aircraft) it is clear, with turboprop what to do (if the author remembered the helicopter)?
    1. EvilLion
      EvilLion 14 August 2020 10: 58
      +1
      So they are "turbo", not "piston".
  12. dgonni
    dgonni 13 August 2020 20: 02
    18
    Yeah. Skomorokhov again failed in analytics and understanding.
    I have not seen a comparison of the two types of engines. There are some conjectures of the author and ridiculous assumptions and conclusions.
    When commenting on the previous article, I asked the author. Take the propeller characteristics. Attach them to the article and everything will fall into place.
    But the author could not even rummage through the net and compare the graphs.
    For a freak analogy or a comparison of a 14-cylinder ash 82 with an 18-cylinder prite, I just keep silent. Why was it not possible to list the parameters in the table. Wright's R-2600 blood brother released in a series of 50+ thousand?
    From the statement that the star is simpler and cheaper, I just precipitated. Does the author have any idea what a single star is? A double row? And how is the central rolling bearing mounted on a non-separable crankshaft in a double-row sprocket? And the provision of a gas joint at the priest's head cylinder?
    For cooling the same heresy from the unreadable and not understood but twisted.
    In general, if it was possible to put a minus, then the author would have been ogreb in full.
    P.S. I don't understand one thing. Why write a topic if it's not in the tooth?
    1. lelik613
      lelik613 23 August 2020 13: 41
      +1
      I would compare the design of a typical "air vent" with a cuckoo clock ... How many difficulties it is to balance all this bundle of connecting rods and achieve more or less uniform cooling.
  13. Gato
    Gato 13 August 2020 20: 22
    +6
    S, no fuss. If the performance characteristics of the opponents' vehicles do not differ significantly (and during WW2 they differed by percentages), then they have no fundamental significance. Quantitative superiority, training of pilots, tactics and methods of combat use are all important. Counting the rivets is certainly interesting, but the last article on tactics was on VO ... I can't remember when.
    1. English tarantas
      English tarantas 14 August 2020 17: 27
      0
      It's not about this site ...
      1. Gato
        Gato 15 August 2020 11: 51
        0
        Are you proposing to leave for schizomilitarism?
        1. English tarantas
          English tarantas 15 August 2020 14: 19
          0
          I would not want to. It's just that in the last article in this series, the author tried to find the best single-engine fighter and made some kind of strange rating. You can find and read the comments there, many articles here should be in the "opinions" section, as they are dilemma disputes about which is better: round or blue, or maybe the top one.
          1. Gato
            Gato 15 August 2020 14: 51
            0
            I read and even participated in .. mneee ... discussions. A very emotional activity, but completely useless.
    2. lot
      lot 23 August 2020 16: 40
      -2
      The tactics are simple.
      The presence and absence of radios and coordination / intelligence.
      It is known that we practically did not have radios, like in tanks.
      Further cryptography, etc.
  14. Cats
    Cats 13 August 2020 20: 25
    +2
    I wonder why they did not create an attack aircraft with an air-cooled engine, with the same ASh-82? Unlike the Il-2, it would not need the engine's armor protection, and this is already weight savings, which was a significant plus for those years. I just remembered the story when the airmen were riveted in 42, if I'm not mistaken, and there were no planes for them, it's good that Lavochkin turned up on time.
    1. Alf
      Alf 13 August 2020 21: 46
      +3
      Quote: Cats
      I wonder why they didn't create an attack aircraft with an air-cooled engine, with the same ASh-82

      There was a variant of the IL-2 with the M-82. It did not differ particularly strongly in data from the serial version, so we decided not to fence the garden.

      In addition, Semyon Alekseevich and Andrei Nikolaevich provided constant consumers of the M-82, and the entire AM-38 went to Ilyushin. And to rebuild production during the war ...
      1. dauria
        dauria 13 August 2020 23: 33
        +3
        There was a variant of the IL-2 with the M-82

        They tried to install it on the Yak, and before Lavochkin Gudkov independently installed the m-3 on the LaGG-82. The plane was called the Gu-82. Flew on September 11, 41. Six months earlier than La-5. A dark story, a one-on-one machine, Shakhurin's retroactive references to "nosing" are unconvincing. But the plane was held back.
        1. Alf
          Alf 14 August 2020 19: 51
          0
          Quote: dauria
          Dark story

          Everything is clear and understandable.
    2. KERMET
      KERMET 13 August 2020 21: 54
      +2
      The military in general, from the very beginning, wanted an air-cooled attack aircraft, and the release of the Il-2 was generally planned only in a small military series, Rastrenin seems to have already described everything in his works
    3. Bad_gr
      Bad_gr 13 August 2020 22: 22
      +6
      Quote: Cats
      I wonder why they did not create an attack aircraft with an air-cooled engine, with the same ASh-82? Unlike the IL-2, it would not need engine armor protection, and this is already weight saving,

      Su-6 M-71f
      "..... The State Testing Act noted:
      “... In terms of maximum speeds, climb rate, ceiling and range, the Su-6 M-71f aircraft significantly surpasses the Il-2 attack aircraft in service with the Red Army Air Force;
      ... The Su-6 aircraft, in terms of its armor and flight-fighting qualities, is primarily intended for solving assault missions, but, at the same time, it can be successfully used to combat enemy bombers;
      ... Recommend the Su-6 aircraft with the M-71f engine for serial production "..........."

      1. Alf
        Alf 14 August 2020 19: 53
        +2
        Quote: Bad_gr
        ... Recommend the Su-6 aircraft with the M-71f engine for serial production "..........."

        Hurray, hurray, hurray! But the signatories did not say where to get the WORKING M-71F.
        1. Bad_gr
          Bad_gr 14 August 2020 20: 00
          +2
          There was already an article where the topic of the M-71F debugging was mentioned. This engine, simply, was not on the list of engines that needed to be refined first. This task would have been set - the engine would have been brought to mind.
          1. Alf
            Alf 14 August 2020 20: 09
            0
            Quote: Bad_gr
            This task would have been set - the engine would have been brought to mind.

            The power of the M-71F was brought to 2200 horses. Well, during the war, there is no one to do everything at once and there is no time. But, the question is why the M-71F was not brought to the series AFTER the war, after all, time appeared, and people, and factories. For example, an LA-9/11 flew with the same old ASh-82FN, would it really be prevented by an additional 300 mares? And if we also recall the IL-12/14? And MI4? Dvigun was still needed after the war at the most, but ... she couldn’t.
            1. KERMET
              KERMET 21 August 2020 10: 07
              0
              On the La-7, they tried to install the ASh-71, they did not get a special advantage in terms of characteristics, after the war there was an opportunity and need - they created the ASh-73 as a logical development of the ASh-71 and ASh-72, did you notice any prejudice against this line of engines?
              1. Alf
                Alf 21 August 2020 17: 39
                +1
                Quote: KERMET
                On the La-7, they tried to install the ASh-71, they did not get a special advantage in terms of characteristics, after the war there was an opportunity and need - they created the ASh-73 as a logical development of the ASh-71 and ASh-72, did you notice any prejudice against this line of engines?

                There is no bias. About the lack of advantages from the extra 300 horses, I do not believe, we need proof. And again, why was the ASh-73 not installed on other aircraft?
                1. KERMET
                  KERMET 22 August 2020 15: 59
                  0
                  I was wrong about La-7, they tried to put ASh-71TK on it, and this is a slightly different song. the simple 71st was tried on the La-5.
                  Quote: Alf
                  And again, why was the ASh-73 not installed on other aircraft?

                  The pure ASh-73 was installed only on the Be-6, on which it served flawlessly, and for a long-range sea reconnaissance seaplane, the reliability of the engine is a priority (if the Be-6's range is almost 5000m and the flight duration is up to 20 hours), but what is it years? production 1952-1957, this is the era of jet and turboprop engines. On the Be-6, it was installed because this development was still 43-44 years old, with the ASh-72 engines, which were then replaced by the ASh-73.
            2. Yuriy Nikolaev
              Yuriy Nikolaev 27 September 2020 23: 28
              0
              Since 1946 It has already become clear that the internal combustion engine is yesterday and their further development is a waste of time and resources, they began to force jet engines.
          2. Alexey RA
            Alexey RA 15 August 2020 15: 17
            0
            Quote: Bad_gr
            This engine, simply, was not on the list of engines that needed to be refined first. This task would have been set - the engine would have been brought to mind.

            Uh-huh ... like the M-107 - by the end of the war, and even received in the first series a low-resource and extremely demanding product for the quality of service.
            1. KERMET
              KERMET 21 August 2020 10: 09
              0
              M-107 is already the limit of what could be squeezed out of this line, M-71 in this regard is just a start in the development of the engine
  15. Undecim
    Undecim 13 August 2020 21: 11
    +6
    Smarter was the project of H- and X-shaped engines, when several cylinder blocks would work on one crankshaft
    Another nonsense.
    The essence of the H-layout: two blocks of oppositely moving cylinders each work on its own crankshaft, then the power from each shaft is transmitted through the gearbox to the propeller.
    Only X-motors run on a common shaft.
  16. Undecim
    Undecim 13 August 2020 21: 36
    +2
    double-row stars that appeared in the early 1940s.
    The author was mistaken for a decade. Double stars appeared in the early thirties, including the famous Pratt & Whitney R-1830 Twin Wasp.
  17. Bad_gr
    Bad_gr 13 August 2020 22: 30
    18
    Structurally, of course, it is easier to air.
  18. Narak-zempo
    Narak-zempo 13 August 2020 22: 56
    +3
    rotary motor cylinders around the crankshaft

    Rotative actually
  19. Cherry Nine
    Cherry Nine 14 August 2020 09: 10
    +6
    It's funny in its own way. The author was mistaken on almost all points, but came to the correct conclusion.
    air-cooled aircraft internal combustion engines were more efficient than their liquid-cooled counterparts

    Perhaps, yes, for the conditions of WWII fighters, they were better suited.
    At the very end of World War II, a new generation of water engines appeared, with an increased displacement

    Displacement is not needed, and AM has extra displacement. High-speed engines appeared back in the 30s. Saber, then Eagle.
    And in terms of protection, air-cooled engines are definitely ahead

    Perhaps yes, although there are problems there.
    The water engine was simply created for real air snipers.

    So in the quantitative terms of the deployment of weapons, the fighters with air engines were no worse than their colleagues. Moreover, since air engines were more powerful than water engines, then, accordingly, they allowed taking on board most of all


    Both are nonsense. Aircraft on merlin did not use the central location of the gun, but FV, La, Zero did. As for weight, it's all about power. Hawker Typhoon dragged as much as necessary. The location of the weapon is a question for the glider designers, not the engine builders.

    The thick forehead of an air-powered plane is a serious blow to the aircraft's aerodynamics

    This argument was used by supporters of the rowers in the 30s. In reality, the rower usually required radiators protruding from the fuselage, and the well-ventilated air vent was quite aerodynamic. In any case, the aerodynamics of the WWII aircraft was determined primarily by the wing.
    Охлаждение

    More efficient, in general, air

    On the contrary. The main advantage of the rowers was a simpler heat removal. This made it possible to increase the revs and boost pressure, that is, the liter power, and not the displacement.
    The air engine is simpler and therefore cheaper to manufacture and maintain

    At the same time, only Americans were able to produce double nines, and the V12 was still produced from the First World War.
    It is not easy to create an air vent of sufficient power.

    Summing up. For a WWII fighter - frontline, naval, escort - with equal power, an air vent is better. Combat survivability should not be underestimated.

    At the same time, the row bed allowed to place more power in a smaller working volume. If combat survivability is less important - an air defense fighter like Spitfire, a high-speed, especially a night bomber like Mosquito, scout, etc. - the rower has its advantages.

    A separate conversation - the rower mates much better with the pushing screw. This scheme seemed very promising before the war, but it was implemented, without much success, only by the Swedes (I do not consider small Japanese and German series). The Americans, in their usual style, implemented on the B-36 an air vent with a pushing propeller, and four-row, and heroically overcame its cooling.
  20. 2112vda
    2112vda 14 August 2020 09: 39
    +2
    The author writes. "The thick forehead of an airplane with an air engine is a serious blow to the aerodynamics of the aircraft. And at the beginning of the journey, and in general, the Townend ring was considered the pinnacle of aerodynamic inventions.
    And in the early 40s, there was a kind of division: airplanes with water engines were faster, airplanes with air - more maneuverable. "

    In the previous article, in the comments, I already wrote that the R-47 Thunderbolt fighter had the lowest drag coefficient compared to all known at that time single-engine aircraft, both with in-line liquid and air vents. So the rating is not correct. An airplane with a liquid engine certainly looks great, just do not forget about the resistance created by the radiators.
  21. The comment was deleted.
  22. Murrr 27
    Murrr 27 14 August 2020 18: 25
    +1
    There is one more parameter of assessment - the technological capabilities of industry.
    With all due respect to Shvetsov - but the ASh 82 resource was brought to the standard 100 hours only after the war - there were 25 and 30 in the war. https://airpages.ru/mt/mot4.shtml
    1. dgonni
      dgonni 15 August 2020 00: 33
      +1
      These are not technological capabilities but the level of knowledge of designers. That is, the presence of a school and developments.
      And something tells me that the introduction from the 4th series of parabolic bore of cylinders and then temperature reduction from the 5th series was introduced after the disassembly and research of the Wright Cyclone 1830 and 2600 series engines that were supplied with a lend lens.
  23. kolchinab
    kolchinab 16 August 2020 10: 06
    -1
    In general, it is competent. Which is rare. Thank you!
  24. Private SA
    Private SA 18 August 2020 01: 57
    0
    "Because of the radial engine, German pilots loved to go head-on on Fokkers, especially at first, hiding behind the engine, and his armament is very powerful.
    4 20mm cannons and 2 machine guns. Know that your car will withstand a couple of hits,
    and you will smash the enemy in one burst, this is great confidence in a frontal attack
    gives ". Golodovikov N.G.
    "The superiority of the Focke-Wulfs over the Spitfires in the spring of 1943 was too great."
    (D.E. Johnson). From the same place in the collection of A. Drabkin "I fought in a fighter".
    F4U, F6F, P-47, Lavochkin to La11.
    And there is no need to worry about the loss of water cooling.
  25. 2112vda
    2112vda 21 August 2020 08: 00
    0
    Quote: Private SA
    German pilots loved to go head-on on Fokkers

    I remembered the memoirs of a German expert who fought in the Fokker. A young pilot who had just arrived at the front from training was appointed as his wingman. In the first sortie, this young man launched a frontal attack on the Il-2. The host shouted at him to stop it. The Russian pilot, according to the German, was also at first stunned by such impudence, then fired a volley from everything he had, that is, cannons, machine guns and RS. The boy's plane turned into a fireball. You need to think when you go to the frontal.
  26. Dmitry V.
    Dmitry V. 28 September 2020 10: 28
    0
    The author's conclusions are not correct:
    1. Cooling:
    air-cooled engines, do not have forcing reserves - it is impossible to improve the cooling of the cylinder heads of an air-cooled engine above a certain limit - they depend on the ambient temperature, it is possible to reduce cooling (by closing the hood flaps, but increasing above a certain limit - it is impossible, which limits its forcing capabilities heat-resistant materials of the ICE head.
    In a water-cooled engine, this issue is solved by increasing the volume or speed of the coolant flow through the cylinder block and changing the effective radiator area and raising the pressure in the engine cooling system (Yumo engines of the 211-213 series), which increased the boiling point of the coolant to 110 degrees C and made it possible to carry out measures for fossing - to raise the boost pressure, convert to 100 octane gasoline, etc.
    As a side bonus, tunnel water radiators also added thrust up to 3-3,5%, due to the reactive effect that occurs during heat exchange.
    An example of the transition of the FW-190 series of fighters from air (FW-190A series) to liquid engines (FW-190D series).
    even the introduction of an air cooling fan with twice the rotation speed did not improve the cooling of the air engine and limited its boost.

    Junkers Motorenwerke designed pressure cooling systems back in 1938. The experiments on Yumo-211 were so successful that it became clear that not only the engine could be built smaller and smaller. lighter by reducing the need for coolant, but can operate at higher power settings without overheating ...
    Further work on the Jumo-213A-1 while maintaining a working volume of 35 liters, as in the Jumo 211 series, and then further increasing the settings of the supercharger boost, the resulting model was able to produce 1750 hp. (metric hp) @ 3250 rpm. This made it significantly more powerful than the corresponding DB 601E, which provided 1350 hp, and about the same power as the much larger DB 603 with a displacement of 44,52 liters.


    Griffon engines were mass-produced until 1955 - so the advantages of the stars are not obvious.
  27. Dmitry V.
    Dmitry V. 28 September 2020 11: 08
    0
    2. Design (I would write - reliability)
    The air engine is simpler and therefore cheaper to manufacture and maintain. And more reliable in battle.

    Not simpler and not more reliable, since it is much more difficult to ensure uniform cooling of the cylinder with air - the candles on the M-82 did not last longer than one flight due to the heat-intensive work of the cylinder head, by the way, after the war, the ASh-82T engines were not reliable - my father flew on Li-2 on both the Il-12 and Il-14 - candles remained consumable even after the war, although their resource increased. "Kapitalka" ASh-82T every 800 hours of flight (and mostly more often) was too ruinous for the Civil Air Fleet. The reason is the uneven cooling of the second row of cylinders.
    Li-2 and An-2 with single stars were operated much longer in the GVF than Il-12 and Il-14 with double stars.

    But the water engine easily failed in case of one hit in the radiator.

    Well, these are myths: it all depends on the area of ​​damage to the water radiator - the coolant has an expansion tank, which for some time will compensate for the leakage from the cooling system - a will of chance.
    And the radial engine will work a little longer - if one lower cylinder of the air-cooled engine is broken - the oil in the engine will run out much faster than when it enters the upper row of cylinders, the oil will also be consumed from the oil tank, after its exhaustion, the engine will also jam from the oil fasting.
    In general, the air-cooled engine has a slightly higher survivability. But here it is worth considering that the probability of getting into the engine, especially into the water-cooled radiator - is much lower than into the air-cooled engine - the area of ​​the midsection of the air-cooled engine is much larger.
    So 1: 1
  28. Dmitry V.
    Dmitry V. 28 September 2020 11: 43
    0
    Armament.
    Why did the author forget that the effective rate of fire of unsynchronized weapons is up to 27-30% higher.
    Accordingly, the motor-cannons firing through the propeller shaft, which did not require synchronization, had both a greater second salvo and accuracy.
    The FW-190 guns at the root of the wing were also synchronized and lost in the rate of fire.
    On the FW-190, a pair of MG 151/20 was installed in a synchronous design at the wing root. At the same time, the synchronous options lost in rate of fire. The rate of fire decreased from 700-750 to 550-680 rds / min.

    The spread of parameters depends on the engine speed - the more often the propeller blade passes in front of the gun barrel, the more often the shooting is interrupted.


    So in terms of armament - definitely more advantageous - water-cooled with motor cannons.
  29. Dmitry V.
    Dmitry V. 28 September 2020 12: 12
    0
    The author did not mention that the air-cooled engine significantly limited forward-downward visibility.

    Vorozheikin A.V. recalled how on Khalkhin-Gol his fighter was suddenly attacked by the Japanese Ki-27, which, on a collision course, from the front from below with an ascending half loop, went into the tail only, the intuition of the fighter and a comrade on the I-153 saved the pilot's life.

    This is how the famous ace described this fight in his memoirs:
    The neighbor went to the right I-97, I to the left. The enemy probably does not see us. The partner is already firing. I was going to press the triggers too, but then in front, below and a little to the left, something flashed towards me. I caught this movement out of the corner of my eye, having time to distinguish one thing: my plane "seagull". Again I clung to the sight ... An almost reflexive look back - and with a swift jerk, like a man who noticed a snake under his feet, I jump back. At the very tail of my plane, its wheels turned upside down, is a Japanese fighter. Automatically preparing for the defense. But what is it? It seems to be motionless and smokes, and below, with its nose raised, a "seagull" hangs with a large roll and pours it from machine guns ... This is how it turned out: the Japanese was killed before he could open fire on my car.

    The "Seagull" that saved me lost speed and fell into a tailspin. One loop, two, three ... I know that the "seagull" does not come out of a spin well ... Four ... Finally, it stopped! .. And then the Japanese fell on it. I'm not giving it!..
    Did not give. "The Seagull" has joined me ...
    The "Seagull" sat down with me ...
    In the pilot who flew in the "seagull", I recognized from a distance my friend from the military school Sergei Mikhailovich Petukhov.

    - Seryozha! - I exclaimed, delighted at such an unexpected meeting.

    - Oh, it's you ... Hello, - Petukhov smiled languidly. He had a thick bass that did not fit with short stature. - Here s ... chi! - he angrily threw at the Japanese. - Probably destroyed our entire squadron.
    Then he explained how it happened that the Japanese fighter suddenly and precisely went into the tail of my car. It turns out that this I-97 flew towards me much lower. Of course, I could not see the enemy behind the wide nose of the plane. Being under me, the Japanese went on a "loop" and calculated his actions so precisely that when I was at the top point and in an inverted position, I was already in his sight at a distance of 15-20 meters. One more thing ... The Japanese obviously believed that with such a complicated maneuver no one would hit him, and he paid with his life for this.

    I have heard that Japanese pilots practice shooting at aerial targets from any position, including inverted. But it struck me that with this maneuver the Japanese managed to get close to me from behind and completely unnoticed.

    To carry out so many air battles, to be in so many bindings, to bring the ability to see the enemy to the level of a conditioned reflex - and it is so dangerous to let a Japanese fighter get close to you! But he crept up from where it had never occurred to him - from the front and from the bottom! .. This means that the ability to see the enemy in battle is not enough, one must also be able to foresee, in particular, to know the most various methods of attack that the enemy can use. The fact that Petukhov shot down the Japanese asa with an extremely simple technique - with a combat turn, once again confirmed the old truth: for every poison there is an antidote, for every maneuver there is a counter-maneuver. Grigory Panteleevich Kravchenko is right: aerial combat is as diverse as human characters are diverse, there can never be invariable forms of struggle in it ... Therefore, there should never be complacency, even for a moment!

    http://militera.lib.ru/memo/russian/vorozheikin_av2/09.html
  30. yehat2
    yehat2 28 September 2020 16: 34
    0
    It seems to me that during the Second World War, both types of engines had equal opportunities, but with specifics.
    with air, everything was simpler and more stable, the result was obtained, but the cars were consistently heavy.
    it was not so simple with water vehicles, but sometimes you could get a very successful and light car
    An example of this is the VF-109 in 40-42 or the Yak-1 with the VK-105K, if they had time to bring the engine up.
    Or, for example, how the engine from Messer transformed the 7C Makki - it began to tear up the mustangs.