I think we all read a billion times about early Rolls Royce Merlin handicapped against Bf 109 during Battle of Britain by its own float-type carburetor...
But what about the rest of the world?
Today, for the first time, I read on Wikipedia:
"Negative G engine cut-out was not a problem unique to Merlin-powered fighters since many other pre-war aeroplanes also used carburettors containing a float chamber. For example, in 1942, the United States acquired a flyable, Japanese Mitsubishi A6M Zero, known as the Akutan Zero. When test-flown, this aircraft was also found to experience engine cut-outs, due to the float-type carburettor of its Nakajima Sakae engine. The Americans devised tactics to counter the Zero in combat that took advantage of this and other results of testing the aircraft."
and this unfolded a lot of questions for me, substantially converging to just one: how did behave under negative G's all other powerplants, from Klimov M-105 to Pratt&Whitney R-1830?
After some fierce research, I think to have understood that, in short, three types of carburating devices were in use during WWII: float carburetors, pressure carburetors and fuel injection. Only the first one was subjected to cut-off under negative-G condition. And this should have been true for ALL aircraft feeded by float carburetors.
If so, I wonder why a Yak-1 pilot never complained, fighting against a Bf 109 which could perform a sudden dive, not allowed by his Klimov? Fear of Stalin? Maybe!
But why his French collegue, flying a D.520 with same carburetors, never wrote of such an inconvenience? And even German pilots experiencing flight capabilities of the French fighter, didn't mention this drawback in respect of their fuel-injected mounts, they were accustomed with.
The above quote let suppose that F4F-3 (which mounted a pressure carburetor - Bendix Stromberg PD-12E) pilots were instructed to perform steep dives to evade Zero's, that is an absolute novelty for me. I would just see confirmation of my guess extended to all engines known as feeded by float carburetors, to set them in a more complete picture against their historical counterpart, like so often made for Hurricane and early Spitfire versus Bf 109.
But what about the rest of the world?
Today, for the first time, I read on Wikipedia:
"Negative G engine cut-out was not a problem unique to Merlin-powered fighters since many other pre-war aeroplanes also used carburettors containing a float chamber. For example, in 1942, the United States acquired a flyable, Japanese Mitsubishi A6M Zero, known as the Akutan Zero. When test-flown, this aircraft was also found to experience engine cut-outs, due to the float-type carburettor of its Nakajima Sakae engine. The Americans devised tactics to counter the Zero in combat that took advantage of this and other results of testing the aircraft."
and this unfolded a lot of questions for me, substantially converging to just one: how did behave under negative G's all other powerplants, from Klimov M-105 to Pratt&Whitney R-1830?
After some fierce research, I think to have understood that, in short, three types of carburating devices were in use during WWII: float carburetors, pressure carburetors and fuel injection. Only the first one was subjected to cut-off under negative-G condition. And this should have been true for ALL aircraft feeded by float carburetors.
If so, I wonder why a Yak-1 pilot never complained, fighting against a Bf 109 which could perform a sudden dive, not allowed by his Klimov? Fear of Stalin? Maybe!
The above quote let suppose that F4F-3 (which mounted a pressure carburetor - Bendix Stromberg PD-12E) pilots were instructed to perform steep dives to evade Zero's, that is an absolute novelty for me. I would just see confirmation of my guess extended to all engines known as feeded by float carburetors, to set them in a more complete picture against their historical counterpart, like so often made for Hurricane and early Spitfire versus Bf 109.