guy wrote:

On 18 Oct, 00:51, Dan Nafe wrote:

In article . com,

Eunometic wrote:

The modification would have required a lengtened nose to and
additional
radiator area to deal with the extra head and to dump heat from the
intercooler.

Liquid cooling an aircraft engine is like air cooling a submarine
engine...

What has liquid cooled engines to do with intercoolers?
And if liquid cooled engines are so bad why did every airforce want
liquid cooled engines for their fighters in WW2 (except the USN)?
some may have not had them in enough numbers (Italy, Japan) but they
wanted them.

Well, "every airforce" would seem something of an exaggeration.

The Soviet La-5FNs and La-7s, the US P-47s, the radial-engined German Fw
190s, and the Japanese Ki-84s, Ki-100s, and N1K2-Js were certainly more
than satisfactory fighters for their respective air forces.

The British seemed to go mostly with inline liquid cooled engines for
their fighters but even there, the post-war Sea Fury (arguably the best
piston-engined fighter ever) provides an obvious exception.

Cheers,