4 ms·
The good news is that losing intercooler or turbo would just be a fractional performance reduction, not a countdown to an engine loss that an oil cooler hit wou
by usrusr 6y ago
The good news is that losing intercooler or turbo would just be a fractional performance reduction, not a countdown to an engine loss that an oil cooler hit would be.
This ties in with a question I was asking myself after seeing this impressive setup: did anyone build a skin surface intercooler? I seem to remember reading about at least one plane that had its oil cooler in the skin early in development until they accepted that the added vulnerability was worse than the drag from a conventional box radiator and abandoned the idea. But with the intercooler the tradeoffs might be very different. You could even add a bypass mechanism for when the skin/cooler has become so leaky that the engine has effectively become naturally aspirated and turbo without intercooler would be an improvement.
- jabl 6y agoIIRC there were some late WW1, or early interwar period, liquid cooled planes that did use skin coolers. As engines got bigger, they became impractically large (covering a significant fraction of the fuselage), complicated with lots of pipes all over the place, and heavy. Don't see why the tradeoff would be that different for an intercooler vs. the main engine cooler.