wuzak
Captain
Nice job Tartle.
Ad: This forum contains affiliate links to products on Amazon and eBay. More information in Terms and rules
The inverted Vee engine is the same as a Vee engine, but turned upside down, so that the crank sits at the top and the heads at the bottom. The thory is, for single engined aircraft at least, that the inverted Vee allows the pilot a better view over the nose. If you look at a Spitfire you can see the cam covers make the top of the cowling wider at the front, particularly on Griffon engined models. If the engine was inverted then the top of the cowling coud be narrower, theoretically giving the pilot a better view.
The P-51D air scoop as little to do with fuel injection or lack thereof. The belly scoop is purely for the radiator group, while the chin scoop feeds air back to the engine.
Fuel injection is far superior to carburettors now because of the sophisticated electronic managment systems that are used. But in the time of WW2 injection was all mechanically operated.
The German engines, Daimler Benz's at least, used direct fuel injection - fuel is injected directly into the cylinder. This has the advantage of the supercharger only having to compress the intake air, and not the fuel. But it has the disadvantage that the effect of the fuel vapourising in the intake system is lost, and thus the intake air is hotter.
Some US and British aircraft used fuel injection, but I believe that these injected fuel into the eye of the supercharger impeller. In this instance the injection offers better metering with the cooling effect of the fuel, and is otherwise the same as a carburettor.
Direct injection systems also reduce the possiblity of backfires in the engine, as there is no fuel/air mix in the intake ducts.
Comapred to earlier carburettors, fuel injection was able to deal with negative G manouevres better. Egines fitted with earlier carburettors would cut out when negative Gs were encountered - something the Germans would exploit in the battle of Britain. Later carburettors solved this problem, however.
always been curious as to how you prevent oil collecting in the skirts of the pistons on an inverted V engine?
carburettor cut out? google miss schillings orifice.
I know of this device, but it was not until after the BoB that the device was invented and fitted to frontline aircraft. And even then it wasn't a complete cure.
'On a further point of interest regarding CRs, J.J. notes, quite correctly, the 8.3/9.5 figures that pertain to the left and right cylinder banks of the Daimler-Benz 603 when running on 100 octane fuel.'
it was 8.3/8.5:1 when running 100oct fuel. these engines could also run on 87oct too.
2) The DB 600 series V-12s were never fitted with anything but fork and blade con-rod pairs! '
I don't think so! NOT a fork/blade design!
'Theory two centers on the fact that the supercharger on the DB 600 V-12s as located on the left hand side of the engine and, thus, from such position would naturally provide mere "huff" to the cylinder bank nearest to it. In order not to (relatively) over-boost the left hand bank, the CR would have to be lowered slightly on that side.'
what difference does it make where the s/c is located? the s/c outlet connects to the rear center of the intake plenium. no different then when you install a supercharger to a Chevy LS series engine.
2) The DB 600 series V-12s were never fitted with anything but fork and blade con-rod pairs! '
I don't think so! NOT a fork/blade design!
@ Tartle's excellent posts,
it amazes me to no end how so called " experts " (ie: the authers of the article) can make such grievous
mistakes.
Would it be possible to list the mistakes made
Ranger, Argus, DeHavilland,Hirth,Menasco,Alfa , Renault, and several other aircraft engine manufactors all made the same mistake.Only one mistake mate.
Turning an aeroengine upside down in the first place
Ranger, Argus, DeHavilland,Hirth,Menasco,Alfa , Renault, and several other aircraft engine manufactors all made the same mistake.