The Daily Alaska empire., 1941-04-02
WHAT IT MEANS: AR COOLED v5. LIQUID COOLED EN-
By MORGAN M. BEATTY
 AP Fcature Service Writer

WASHINGTON, April g. - The Battle of England is to large ex- tent the battle of the flying power plants.
 The battle of the flying power plants may be won or lost by nose-the nose of the fighter plane that climbs the fastest. flies the highest, and stays on top the long est.
 That plane, multiplied by thou sands, is the ship that can beat enemy planes.
 Naturally the hunt for the ulti- mate fighter has been, still is. frantic. The search has produced a war within the. war-the struggle of engineering brains.
 These brains are now backing two types of power plants, one liquid cooled, the other air-cooled. Each side claims it's motor will carry fighter plane fastest, high est, and longest.
 The development of aerial power plants would be slow process II it were not that governments are spending millions for research. Fir ally, young men by the thousands are risking their lives daily behind both motors.
 The status of the war within the war changes from day to day What was the latest word a few months ago, may now be obsolete. At the moment, the situation sums up like this:
 Both he major air forces in the World War-the German and Brit ish-are., using liquid cooled mo tors for fighter planes. The United States Army prefers them for fighter planes, too, but the Navy stands by the air-cooled engine for fighters.
 I On the other hand, about four fifths of all military planes, FIX CEPT fighters, are using air-cooled power. Bombers, transports, cargo ships, reconnaissance, and most heavier ships, have installed air cooled engines.
 The main reasons for the division of opinion can be summed up about like this:
 l. The vision of the pilot seems more nearly complete behind an engine built with one cylinder straight behind the other-in-line- rather than behind the radial-cir- cular-engine. Most high-powered liquid cooled engines are built in- line. Most high-powered air-cooled jobs are circular. There are prac- tical air-cooled engines milne, of course. One type runs as high as $50 horsepower, and engineers are working on much larger ones. But they aren't yet ready for military fighters.
 2. The liquid cooled motor seems to give the plane a faster take-off speed. It's cooler at the take-off. Because of streamlining, the liquid- cooled motor seems to give a plane more delicate touch, a faster turn in fighting. etc.
 3. The air-co0Ied motor to date has developed more power. It's generally more reliable and eco nomical. Air-cooled engine makers have claimed they have run their power plants 1,100 hours withou. a major overhaul. One of the hard est problems of the liquid-cooled people, up to now, is to match air cooleo power and stamina. In ex- treme high power ranges, liquid cooling. to date, has had a hard struggle to reach 100 hours of flaw less performance, without an over haul.
 4. It is necessary for both com mercial interests and governments to keep concentrating on the de- velopment of both motors until the uses for each shall be demon strated over a period of time. Our Navy is concentrating on air. cooled motors, but our Army favors liquid for some types of fighters.
 In all the maze of argument claim, and counterclaim, the most important thing to remember is this: up to now, neither of these ] motors has demonstrated that it is better than the other for all pur- poses. The air-cooled has shown itself to-. date to be useful for many purposes, the liquid-cooled for special purposes - primarily the high-flying military fighter plane. But, again, that's merely up to now.
 The best impartial engineer know tells me there's no reason why either of these motors should hold its supremacy in any certain kind of efficiency. For instance the air-cooled motor is more eco-