Japanese Zero vs Spitfire vs FW 190

[XBe02Drvr]

without a restriction into the bowl of the carburetor, under negative G the float goes up and the carb floods and the engine cuts.

when the float goes up in a carburetor, it shuts off the fuel flow to the float bowl in the carb., the engine cuts out because it's starved for fuel, not flooded

Perhaps it is an issue of what happens to the fuel that is already in the bowl.

This stuff gets confusing, doesn't it? According to my engines instructor in mech school, who was an 8thAF mechanic in Britain, originally on the first Mustangs, then shunted off to a B17 outfit, and also worked on some American PR Spits, the float carb thing worked like this:
The pickup tube rose from near the bottom of the float bowl and exited the top before bending forward and terminating in the throat of the carburetor venturi. It was fairly large diameter with a smooth bend for minimum flow restriction, thus containing a significant volume of fuel. When negative G was applied, everything went up; fuel in the bowl (uncovering pickup tube), floats and needle valve (shutting off inflow), and all the fuel in the pickup tube squirted into the venturi in one liquid slug rather than a metered aerosol flow. So the engine was subjected to a flood followed by starvation.
So Miss Schilling's fix was to put a calibrated orifice in the venturi end of the pickup tube designed to restrict flow to the maximum the engine could ever legitimately demand. Thus under the intense pressure from a negative G bunt, the fuel would come out in an atomized spray that wouldn't exceed the engine's rich limit.
Mr. Hamm said as he shook his head and clucked his tongue he just couldn't understand why the Brits would build such an elegant airplane and then put such a rinky-dink fuel system in it. Everyone else had gone to pressure carbs or fuel injection long ago.
Cheers,
Wes
PS: How do you get Android to stop substituting smiley faces for random words? Can't make it go away.

 

[MiTasol]

Mr. Hamm said as he shook his head and clucked his tongue he just couldn't understand why the Brits would build such an elegant airplane and then put such a rinky-dink fuel system in it. Everyone else had gone to pressure carbs or fuel injection long ago.
Cheers,
Wes

It comes back to the right way, the wrong way, and the British way of building aircraft as the chief instructor where I started used to say

 

[PAT303]

https://www.aerosociety.com/media/4953/the-aerodynamics-of-the-spitfire.pdf

Here is a good read on the Spitfire.

 

[Reluctant Poster]

I am unable to find an exact date.
The Martin Baker MB5 had a P51 style radiator.

Found an old post on this site that quoted Morgan and Shacklady's Spitfire.
"On 12 May MAP issued a notice to the effect that all new production Merlin 46 and 47 engines would be fitted the new Rolls Royce negative G carburettor.
The Merlin 61 and 63 used this carb

 

[Reluctant Poster]

It comes back to the right way, the wrong way, and the British way of building aircraft as the chief instructor where I started used to say

The anti g carb was in production before the 8th AF dropped it first bomb.

 

[Barrett]

Ref. Spits v. Zeros:

Joe Foss told the story a couple of times. Between Guadalcanal tours he got R&R in Australia and met Caldwell & Co. Joe was immediately struck by the Spit pilots' attitude of extreme confidence. So he told them: "I understand that a lot of you guys are aces. Well, congratulations. And I know what you're thinking. You think that if a stiff-necked American can get 20 Japs in an 8000-lb airplane, you're gonna clean up in your 6,000-lb airplane. But I'm here to tell you: if you try dogfighting a Zero he's gonna eat your lunch."

I don't think Joe had the chance to say I Told You So.

 

[XBe02Drvr]

You think that if a stiff-necked American can get 20 Japs in an 8000-lb airplane, you're gonna clean up in your 6,000-lb airplane. But I'm here to tell you: if you try dogfighting a Zero he's gonna eat your lunch."
I don't think Joe had the chance to say I Told You So.

IIRC, a tail gunner in an F1M2 biplane ate JOE'S lunch and sent him for a swim.
Cheers,
Wes

 

[ThomasP]

Sorry BiffF15,

re your post#524

All of the info I posted relative to air combat maneuvering is straight out of the current USN Basic ACM (Air Combat Maneuvers) manual.

The diagram I posted is from the manual and is labeled as I stated. The shaded area of the aircraft executing the maneuver is the aircraft rolling so that the bottom of the aircraft is facing you, it then continues the roll so that the top pf the aircraft is once again facing you.

As to the rest of your post, although some of it is correct, none of what you posted that contradicts what I stated is correct.

Again I refer you to the USN Basic ACM manual, and to the basic (for the most part) laws of physics, both available online.

 

[XBe02Drvr]

Again I refer you to the USN Basic ACM manual, and to the basic (for the most part) laws of physics, both available online.

Hoo boy, here we go again! The American civil war: USN vs USAF and the eternal contest of semantics and terminology. The laws of physics apply equally to all aircraft, whether they wear a tailhook or not, but you wouldn't think it to hear us talk.

 

[ThomasP]

Hey XBe02Drvr,

I do not think that semantics is the issue in this case. The USN and USAF have been using the same basic terminology and diagraming method for ~35-40 years. The High Yo-Yo is as BiffF15 described, he simply did not recognize the roll aspect of the diagram I posted.

P.S. My apologies, I just reread my post#568 and realized it sounds kind of snarky. It is not meant to be snarky.

 

[XBe02Drvr]

P.S. My apologies, I just reread my post#568 and realized it sounds kind of snarky. It is not meant to be snarky.

And Biff is not the man to snark at. He spent years practicing and teaching ACM in the Eagle, and more than many here, he knows where of he speaks. My exposure to ACM was nearly fifty years ago, shortly after Top Gun was established.
Fifty years ago today, I received a message that my birthdate was 55 out of 365 in the draft lottery, and I could expect orders to the induction center in March. The Air Force recruiter was out of town, so I trotted right down to the Navy guy and signed on the line.
Cheers,
Wes

 

[DerAdlerIstGelandet]

Hey XBe02Drvr,

I do not think that semantics is the issue in this case. The USN and USAF have been using the same basic terminology and diagraming method for ~35-40 years. The High Yo-Yo is as BiffF15 described, he simply did not recognize the roll aspect of the diagram I posted.

P.S. My apologies, I just reread my post#568 and realized it sounds kind of snarky. It is not meant to be snarky.

BiffF-15 is an actual fighter pilot. Not a keyboard and Cessna warrior like the rest of us...

 

[BiffF15]

Sorry BiffF15,

re your post#524

All of the info I posted relative to air combat maneuvering is straight out of the current USN Basic ACM (Air Combat Maneuvers) manual.

The diagram I posted is from the manual and is labeled as I stated. The shaded area of the aircraft executing the maneuver is the aircraft rolling so that the bottom of the aircraft is facing you, it then continues the roll so that the top pf the aircraft is once again facing you.

As to the rest of your post, although some of it is correct, none of what you posted that contradicts what I stated is correct.

Again I refer you to the USN Basic ACM manual, and to the basic (for the most part) laws of physics, both available online.

ThomasP,

No disrespect taken.

Without having access to your reference source I will attempt to bring a bit more perspective to this convo.

The first time I saw the clip art / picture in your post it was of an offensive F4 against a Mig-21 while going through a program in AT-38s, called Lead In Fighter Training (LIFT) in 1989. It was used to describe an actual or theoretical encounter and how to handle it. Yes, in those days (Vietnam era) Phantom Drivers, and probably F8 guys as well, called it and used the Lag Scissors or Displacement Roll. If you watch the Dogfight Series on the History Channel it is shown at least once between a Mig and Phantom, I believe at low altitude over North Vietnam ending in a victory if I remember correctly. If you notice the offender is in lag (outside) the turn circle of the defender and about 1200-1500 in lag. The AIM-9 variant used in WWNam needed those parameters to work, and that is what the drawing was initially designed to show. However those terms are not in use by the USAF today and I never once encountered them by my USN/USMC brethren.

The maneuver depicted in your drawing now has what appears to be T-45s, but regardless depicts a shallow version of what I would call a Hi Yo-Yo. Scissors are a maneuver to get on or move towards your opponents 6. A drawing of it from Gods eye would look like a string of 8s stretched out in the shape of a footballs. Guys will cross each other's flight path once or numerous times depending on the entry set up, energy, a/c types, and skill of the pilots. It usually ends after a leaf or two.

In your commentary below the picture you mention a Martlet pulling up to trade energy for an increased turn rate. In actuality you trade energy for altitude and a smaller turn circle when you go over the top (transition from goin up to going down). Imagine you pull up to 45 degrees nose up with the intent of a split S but instead of rolling completely over you roll to something less and pull your nose back down. As seen from a God's Eye view your turn circle appears much smaller than an identical aircraft that does a hard turn starting just beneath you at the same time. This is the benefit of the Hi Yo-Yo and it's done for the most part only while on the offensive. If the manual says turn rate instead of turn radius it's incorrect in the example you gave.

I also recognize the roll aspect of the diagram. When maneuvering in relation to an opponent you must keep him in sight. Also very few pilots like extended negative G and will therefore roll to keep sight and maintain positive G on the plane.

Please have another look at what it says, and if able post in a scan.

Semantics between the branches have long been different, even including basics such as "aspect" angles. The USAF measures it from the tail of the opponents a/c while my anchor wing wearing friends measure it from the nose.

Cheers,
Biff

 

[PAT303]

BiffF-15 is an actual fighter pilot. Not a keyboard and Cessna warrior like the rest of us...

Some of us aren't even Cessna pilots.

 

[pinsog]

Some of us aren't even Cessna pilots.

I did stay in a Holiday Inn Express one time but my friends tell me I'm still kinda stupid.

I can vouch for Biff15 being a real fighter pilot. He and I had a private chat on here a long time ago and turns out a retired F15 pilot at my church was an instructor of his when he was in training. What a small world.

 

[pbehn]

Some of us aren't even Cessna pilots.

I don't even have a keyboard.

 

[XBe02Drvr]

I don't even have a keyboard.

Here, everyone's a warrior, whether they have a touchscreen, a keyboard, a Cessna yoke or an Eagle joystick in their hand. Brothers of the sky.
Cheers,
Wes

 

[BiffF15]

I did stay in a Holiday Inn Express one time but my friends tell me I'm still kinda stupid.

I can vouch for Biff15 being a real fighter pilot. He and I had a private chat on here a long time ago and turns out a retired F15 pilot at my church was an instructor of his when he was in training. What a small world.

Talk about a small world. My son and I fly to Honolulu for a few days before Turkey Day. Land, get our rental car and it turns out the kid who is handing the keys over grew up in my home town (New Smyrna Beach, FL) and I went to high school with his dad.

Cheers,
Biff

 

[MiTasol]

Talk about a small world. My son and I fly to Honolulu for a few days before Turkey Day. Land, get our rental car and it turns out the kid who is handing the keys over grew up in my home town (New Smyrna Beach, FL) and I went to high school with his dad.

Cheers,
Biff

Years ago I went to a consular event in PNG and instead of the small town (250-300 people) I grew up in I had a nearby city on my name badge.
There were two others from that town there and I knew both of them from school. They had the towns name on their tags

 

[ThomasP]

Hey BiffF15,

The Martlet vs Seafire part of my post was not referring to the diagram I posted.

I have been assuming that the "steep turn" referred to in the previous posts was started from similar velocity as in the rest of the maneuver comparisons (ie first one aircraft starting in trail then again with the other in trail). The lead aircraft begins a climbing turn (approximately a helix) and the trailer tries to follow and get in position for a shot.

Apparently the Martlet was better than the Seafire at this maneuver.

The only way I can figure this could work is if the Martlet trades excess Ps to increase turn rate and/or decrease turn radius depending on the aircraft velocity, while climbing (or should it be phrased the other way around?).