PDA

View Full Version : Question about spit V



deathhamster
09-10-2004, 07:38 AM
I have read that early marks of spitfire upto the mark V did not have direct fuel injection like the BF109 and so the engines cut out during negative g manouvers, a common tactic in BoB for 109 pilots with a spit on their tail was to push the nose down with the throttle wide open and the spit couldn't follow it would have to do a half roll first, can anyone tell me if this problem has been included in FB because i haven't noticed it when flying the spit V

deathhamster
09-10-2004, 07:38 AM
I have read that early marks of spitfire upto the mark V did not have direct fuel injection like the BF109 and so the engines cut out during negative g manouvers, a common tactic in BoB for 109 pilots with a spit on their tail was to push the nose down with the throttle wide open and the spit couldn't follow it would have to do a half roll first, can anyone tell me if this problem has been included in FB because i haven't noticed it when flying the spit V

robban75
09-10-2004, 07:40 AM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by deathhamster:
I have read that early marks of spitfire upto the mark V did not have direct fuel injection like the BF109 and so the engines cut out during negative g manouvers, a common tactic in BoB for 109 pilots with a spit on their tail was to push the nose down with the throttle wide open and the spit couldn't follow it would have to do a half roll first, can anyone tell me if this problem has been included in FB because i haven't noticed it when flying the spit V<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

I believe this was only for the earlier marks, like the Mk I and Mk II.

http://members.chello.se/unni/D-9.JPG

Oberleutnant Oskar-Walter Romm thoughts on his aircraft.

"I found the Fw 190D-9 to be greatly superior to those of my opponents. During dogfights at altitudes of between about 10,000 and 24,000ft, usual when meeting the Russians, I found that I could pull the D-9 into a tight turn and still retain my speed advantage. In the descent the Dora-9 picked up speed much more rapidly than the A type; in the dive it could leave the Russian Yak-3 and Yak-9 fighters standing."

p1ngu666
09-10-2004, 07:42 AM
which was partly fixed anyways

http://www.pingu666.modded.me.uk/mysig3.jpg
&lt;123_GWood_JG123&gt;NO SPAM!
&lt;badsight&gt;my name is tracy and pingu is the Anitchrist of Combat Flight Simmers
&lt;lexx_luthor&gt;flowers across the land in BoB

WOLFMondo
09-10-2004, 07:54 AM
Some thing I found with my buddy google:

http://www.spitfiresociety.demon.co.uk/engines.htm

"One of the great problems as discerned by pilots was the tendency for the carburetted engine to cut out under negative 'g'. Luftwaffe pilots learned to escape by simply pushing the nose of their aircraft down into a dive, as their fuel- injected engines did not cut out under these circumstances. Many authors have criticised this aspect of the Merlin design. In reality, like most engineering, it resulted from a design compromise- the drop in temperature developed in a carburetor results in an increase in the density of the fuel-air mixture when compared to that of a fuel injection system. As a consequence the Merlin produced a higher specific power output (horse power per pound) that the equivalent German engine. It was felt that this gave a higher power to weight ratio for the fighter and (rightly or wrongly) that this outweighed the disadvantages. By 1941 Miss Tilly Shilling in Farnborough had developed a partial cure for the problem. A diaphragm across the float chambers with a calibrated hole (the infamous "Miss Shilling's orifice"!) allowed negative 'g' manouvres, and was fitted as standard from March 1941. Sustained zero 'g' manouvres were not sorted out until somewhat later. In 1942 an anti-g version of the SU carburetor was fitted to single and two-stage Merlins. 1943 saw the introduction of the Bendix-Stromburg carburetor which injected fuel at 5psi through a nozzle direct into the supercharger and was fitted to the Merlins 66, 70, 76, 77, and 85. The final development was the SU injection carburetor which injected fuel into the supercharger using a fuel pump driven as a fuction of crankshaft speed and engine pressures, which was fitted to the 100 series Merlins."

http://bill.nickdafish.com/sig/mondo.jpg
Wolfgaming.net. Where the Gameplay is teamplay (http://www.wolfgaming.net)

VW-IceFire
09-10-2004, 08:42 AM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by deathhamster:
I have read that early marks of spitfire upto the mark V did not have direct fuel injection like the BF109 and so the engines cut out during negative g manouvers, a common tactic in BoB for 109 pilots with a spit on their tail was to push the nose down with the throttle wide open and the spit couldn't follow it would have to do a half roll first, can anyone tell me if this problem has been included in FB because i haven't noticed it when flying the spit V<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>
You'll notice this included on aircraft like the I-16 and the Hurricane Mark I. The Hurricane Mark II does not suffer and nor does the Spitfire Mark V. The game could model this in more detail in that a large duration of negative G manuvering would still starve the Mark V's engine but it did not suffer from instant neg-g cut out like its ealier breatheren.

Remember that the Mark V wasn't introduced until almost a full year from the Battle of Britain. During that time a number of changes were made including more powerful engines, solving of most problems with the Hispano 20mm cannon, and the sort of stop-gap solution that worked quite well against neg-g cut out. Interesting subject to be sure.

The direct fuel injection in German engines was still a major advantage in terms of that type of manuvering but I think by that time it didn't have as much of an advantage as previously.

http://home.cogeco.ca/~cczerneda/sigs/tmv-sig1.jpg
RAF No 92 Squadron
"Either fight or die"

Xiolablu3
09-10-2004, 04:29 PM
The problem with fuel injection is that a it was a lot easier to knock out than a carb style engine.

There are many accounts of how easily a plane with fuel injection could be brought down by a single .303 bullet much easier than the carb style engines.

Chuck_Older
09-10-2004, 05:55 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by WOLFMondo:
The final development was the SU injection carburetor which injected fuel into the supercharger using a fuel pump driven as a fuction of crankshaft speed and engine pressures, which was fitted to the 100 series Merlins."

http://bill.nickdafish.com/sig/mondo.jpg
http://www.wolfgaming.net
<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

thank goodness sombody mentioned the pump http://ubbxforums.ubi.com/images/smiley/11.gif

http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v441/Chuck_Older/BBB3.jpg
Killers in America work seven days a week~
Clash