Military Aviation History Channel | alternate-timelines.com

miletus12
Squadron vice admiral

To get yourself lost, just follow the signs.

Posts: 7,470

Likes: 4,287

Military Aviation History Channel Jan 19, 2022 3:01:11 GMT

Quote

Post by miletus12 on Jan 19, 2022 3:01:11 GMT

Okay, here is the leadoff and it is a "controversial" one. Fuel injection was not a feature of British aero-engines at the beginning of WWII (1938ish in the timeline). Why was that decision made?

Problems; for airplane carburetors

a. freezing. The 6% loss of ICE engined aircraft due to carburetored engines holds down to the present. Americans develop a Bendix forced injection carburetor in 1940.
b. the carburetor float jams when the planes inverts.
c. gumminess of safety fuels fouls the fuel feed lines.
d. British screw up their testing program and they abandon their own fuel injection program. George Borman warns the British after his sit-down with the Americans, go fuel injection or else. A Doctor Morley, at the British air ministry's Royal Aircraft Establishment, nixed the British programs. NACA sent their own reports and the British air ministry ignored those reports (as they did about US research about wing chords, propeller and even swept wings, if one can believe it!)

The upshot? About 20% loss of power for the aero-engine. The German DB601 by direct fuel injection boosts Watts output by 20%. That crashes in the UK in 1939. Rolls Royce gets the SHOCK of their lives. Then they tested their carburetor fitted to the Merlin. The SU series they tested in a tilt test choked out.

June 1940 captured Jumo engine is tested. Fuel economy and so Beatrice Shilling designs a British pressurized carburetor. This is almost a duplicate of the Americans' work, but it is British. Wonder if she saw a Bendix fitted to a PRATT?

British finally figure it out. Fuel injection is applied to the Bristol Centaurus. Now this is 1945.

And that is the reason a Warhawk or a Wildcat could hang with a BF 109 in a rolling scissors and kill it, while a Spitfire (At least before Beatrice Shilling's pressurized carburetor in 1943.) would choke out at the top of the negative gee loading, fall off in power and be blasted out of the skies.

Last Edit: Jan 19, 2022 3:34:40 GMT by miletus12

stevep
Fleet admiral

Posts: 23,406

Likes: 12,027

Military Aviation History Channel Jan 20, 2022 17:49:18 GMT

Quote

Post by stevep on Jan 20, 2022 17:49:18 GMT

Jan 19, 2022 3:01:11 GMT miletus12 said:

Okay, here is the leadoff and it is a "controversial" one. Fuel injection was not a feature of British aero-engines at the beginning of WWII (1938ish in the timeline). Why was that decision made?

Problems; for airplane carburetors

a. freezing. The 6% loss of ICE engined aircraft due to carburetored engines holds down to the present. Americans develop a Bendix forced injection carburetor in 1940.
b. the carburetor float jams when the planes inverts.
c. gumminess of safety fuels fouls the fuel feed lines.
d. British screw up their testing program and they abandon their own fuel injection program. George Borman warns the British after his sit-down with the Americans, go fuel injection or else. A Doctor Morley, at the British air ministry's Royal Aircraft Establishment, nixed the British programs. NACA sent their own reports and the British air ministry ignored those reports (as they did about US research about wing chords, propeller and even swept wings, if one can believe it!)

The upshot? About 20% loss of power for the aero-engine. The German DB601 by direct fuel injection boosts Watts output by 20%. That crashes in the UK in 1939. Rolls Royce gets the SHOCK of their lives. Then they tested their carburetor fitted to the Merlin. The SU series they tested in a tilt test choked out.

June 1940 captured Jumo engine is tested. Fuel economy and so Beatrice Shilling designs a British pressurized carburetor. This is almost a duplicate of the Americans' work, but it is British. Wonder if she saw a Bendix fitted to a PRATT?

British finally figure it out. Fuel injection is applied to the Bristol Centaurus. Now this is 1945.

And that is the reason a Warhawk or a Wildcat could hang with a BF 109 in a rolling scissors and kill it, while a Spitfire (At least before Beatrice Shilling's pressurized carburetor in 1943.) would choke out at the top of the negative gee loading, fall off in power and be blasted out of the skies.

miletus12,

Its been mentioned a month or so back on the site. The wrong expert was asked to evaluate the need and for reasons that aren't clear decided that carburetors aren't necessary. Actually checking back it was the same video you linked to above and I posted it on the 3rd page of DMZ's Nieuport 161 thread, 5th post down, here. Back on the 13th Nov last year!

Steve

miletus12
Squadron vice admiral

To get yourself lost, just follow the signs.

Posts: 7,470

Likes: 4,287

Military Aviation History Channel Jan 20, 2022 23:04:51 GMT

Quote

Post by miletus12 on Jan 20, 2022 23:04:51 GMT

Jan 20, 2022 17:49:18 GMT stevep said:

The wrong expert was asked to evaluate the need and for reasons that aren't clear decided that carburetors aren't necessary.

1. He was not an expert. Carburetors or fuel air mix metering of some sort for an ICE engine is always necessary. What that "expert" assumed was that gravity feed metering with some temperature adjustment was sufficient. He was an idiot.
2. Like with the recent current scientific imbroglio with certain technical features of the F-35, a second and third opinion and independent lab work was not done, leading to underperformance, wrong conclusions and (In the case of the F-35, because it is still peacetime.), expensive fixes in money costs. The F-35 had an oxygen concentrator that failed to function. Lockmart claimed otherwise. But once pilots blacked out or came back with reports, mandatory tests by law were required to proof the system. There were fines and program delays while the problem was fixed. In war this defect would have killed pilots as they fought at altitude.
3. Why was Ricardi not consulted back then, since they knew all about fuel injection? See 2. This was the political lesson that should be learned from the WWII British torpedo crisis and more recently the American Littoral Combat Ship. Was it learned? British Tigerfish torpedoes did not work, and neither did British radars, so apparently the British had forgotten that one must test and seek second and third opinions and not rely on so-called single "experts", who have a political agenda to taint technical judgments. I have an entire thread dedicated to that subject.

Last Edit: Jan 20, 2022 23:12:41 GMT by miletus12

miletus12
Squadron vice admiral

To get yourself lost, just follow the signs.

Posts: 7,470

Likes: 4,287

Military Aviation History Channel Jan 22, 2022 15:18:51 GMT

Quote

Post by miletus12 on Jan 22, 2022 15:18:51 GMT

FW200 "Condor"

Why was this aircraft used, and why did it fail?

1. The FW 200 was a four-engined airliner with a good range which had poor survivability and unacceptable low altitude performance.
2. The aircraft was not very reliable. Average operability was a lousy 23% (KG 40 had 30 aircraft assigned of which the on-hand fit for service was 7 aircraft.
3. The Germans had to import torpedoes from Italy.
4. At the start, the Luftwaffe planes could not talk to Kriegsmarine shore stations or to KM ships.
5. The Germans eventually figured out to skip-bomb the bombs into the sides of ships about two years before the USAAF developed the technique.
6. The British cured their Condor problem with Catapult Aircraft Merchantmen and war weary Hurricanes.

miletus12
Squadron vice admiral

To get yourself lost, just follow the signs.

Posts: 7,470

Likes: 4,287

Military Aviation History Channel Jan 26, 2022 21:21:09 GMT stevep likes this

Quote

Post by miletus12 on Jan 26, 2022 21:21:09 GMT

How good was the Luftwaffe over the Russian Front.

Their ground establishment was outstanding. The Luftwaffe, however, logistics was horrible. The key takeaway was the same lesson the Americans learned in Alaska Command fighting the Japanese in the Aleutians applied to Russia. Aircraft shelters and ground crew shelters had to be provided. The open-air maintenance in arctic conditions was a killer of men and machines. So... put the airplane and the ground crew in the same building and HEAT them both at the same time. As for runways, the Germans seemed to not have heard of this thing called a TANK, with a snowplow bulldozer blade. Anything expedient. The British would have said, "Take what you have been given and get on with the job." USAAF must have learned that one, from them. The Luftwaffe obviously tried the same idea and it failed. Fundamentally they did not think the problems through. No shelter, no maintenance. No maintenance, no sorties. No sorties, no own use and denial of the air to the enemy.

C'est la guerre.

Last Edit: Jan 28, 2022 9:00:11 GMT by miletus12