Quit Being A Goddamn Idiot, Bill ------!!
Guest
Posts: n/a
Re: Quit Being A Goddamn Idiot, Bill ------!!
I thought the Spitfires were all direct fuel injection? I thought this was one
of the big deals about the Merlins is that they were fuel-injected?
>Well, the earlier Rolls Royce Merlin powered fighters and bombers were
>certainly carburetored, and suffered from icing, so much so that the
>counter - measures were positively scary. Basically, an adjustable
>gate in the exhaust pipe from one of the cylinders was opened, and the
>exhaust flame was piped to a sleeve around the carburetor.
>
-Bill (remove "botizer" to reply via email)
of the big deals about the Merlins is that they were fuel-injected?
>Well, the earlier Rolls Royce Merlin powered fighters and bombers were
>certainly carburetored, and suffered from icing, so much so that the
>counter - measures were positively scary. Basically, an adjustable
>gate in the exhaust pipe from one of the cylinders was opened, and the
>exhaust flame was piped to a sleeve around the carburetor.
>
-Bill (remove "botizer" to reply via email)
Guest
Posts: n/a
Re: Quit Being A Goddamn Idiot, Bill ------!!
I thought the Spitfires were all direct fuel injection? I thought this was one
of the big deals about the Merlins is that they were fuel-injected?
>Well, the earlier Rolls Royce Merlin powered fighters and bombers were
>certainly carburetored, and suffered from icing, so much so that the
>counter - measures were positively scary. Basically, an adjustable
>gate in the exhaust pipe from one of the cylinders was opened, and the
>exhaust flame was piped to a sleeve around the carburetor.
>
-Bill (remove "botizer" to reply via email)
of the big deals about the Merlins is that they were fuel-injected?
>Well, the earlier Rolls Royce Merlin powered fighters and bombers were
>certainly carburetored, and suffered from icing, so much so that the
>counter - measures were positively scary. Basically, an adjustable
>gate in the exhaust pipe from one of the cylinders was opened, and the
>exhaust flame was piped to a sleeve around the carburetor.
>
-Bill (remove "botizer" to reply via email)
Guest
Posts: n/a
Re: Quit Being A Goddamn Idiot, Bill ------!!
A carburetor that didn't run upside down, until 1943 saw the
introduction of the Bendix-Stromburg carburetor which injected fuel at
5psi through a nozzle direct into the supercharger. At five pounds, no
one could call it fuel injection although it probably didn't use a float
bowl: http://www.spitfiresociety.demon.co.uk/engines.htm
God Bless America, ßill O|||||||O
mailto:-------------------- http://www.----------.com/
Wblane wrote:
>
> I thought the Spitfires were all direct fuel injection? I thought this was one
> of the big deals about the Merlins is that they were fuel-injected?
introduction of the Bendix-Stromburg carburetor which injected fuel at
5psi through a nozzle direct into the supercharger. At five pounds, no
one could call it fuel injection although it probably didn't use a float
bowl: http://www.spitfiresociety.demon.co.uk/engines.htm
God Bless America, ßill O|||||||O
mailto:-------------------- http://www.----------.com/
Wblane wrote:
>
> I thought the Spitfires were all direct fuel injection? I thought this was one
> of the big deals about the Merlins is that they were fuel-injected?
Guest
Posts: n/a
Re: Quit Being A Goddamn Idiot, Bill ------!!
A carburetor that didn't run upside down, until 1943 saw the
introduction of the Bendix-Stromburg carburetor which injected fuel at
5psi through a nozzle direct into the supercharger. At five pounds, no
one could call it fuel injection although it probably didn't use a float
bowl: http://www.spitfiresociety.demon.co.uk/engines.htm
God Bless America, ßill O|||||||O
mailto:-------------------- http://www.----------.com/
Wblane wrote:
>
> I thought the Spitfires were all direct fuel injection? I thought this was one
> of the big deals about the Merlins is that they were fuel-injected?
introduction of the Bendix-Stromburg carburetor which injected fuel at
5psi through a nozzle direct into the supercharger. At five pounds, no
one could call it fuel injection although it probably didn't use a float
bowl: http://www.spitfiresociety.demon.co.uk/engines.htm
God Bless America, ßill O|||||||O
mailto:-------------------- http://www.----------.com/
Wblane wrote:
>
> I thought the Spitfires were all direct fuel injection? I thought this was one
> of the big deals about the Merlins is that they were fuel-injected?
Guest
Posts: n/a
Re: Quit Being A Goddamn Idiot, Bill ------!!
A carburetor that didn't run upside down, until 1943 saw the
introduction of the Bendix-Stromburg carburetor which injected fuel at
5psi through a nozzle direct into the supercharger. At five pounds, no
one could call it fuel injection although it probably didn't use a float
bowl: http://www.spitfiresociety.demon.co.uk/engines.htm
God Bless America, ßill O|||||||O
mailto:-------------------- http://www.----------.com/
Wblane wrote:
>
> I thought the Spitfires were all direct fuel injection? I thought this was one
> of the big deals about the Merlins is that they were fuel-injected?
introduction of the Bendix-Stromburg carburetor which injected fuel at
5psi through a nozzle direct into the supercharger. At five pounds, no
one could call it fuel injection although it probably didn't use a float
bowl: http://www.spitfiresociety.demon.co.uk/engines.htm
God Bless America, ßill O|||||||O
mailto:-------------------- http://www.----------.com/
Wblane wrote:
>
> I thought the Spitfires were all direct fuel injection? I thought this was one
> of the big deals about the Merlins is that they were fuel-injected?
Guest
Posts: n/a
Re: Quit Being A Goddamn Idiot, Bill ------!!
> >
> > I thought the Spitfires were all direct fuel injection? I thought this was one
> > of the big deals about the Merlins is that they were fuel-injected?
No British or American liquid cooled production engines had direct
FI. The Daimler-Benz (the company was Daimler-Benz:the automobiles
were called Mercedes Benz)DB6xx inverted V12s were. They used a Bosch
diesel type pump ruggedized to handle nonlubricious fuels and diesel
style nozzles, directly into the combustion chamber. They were not
diesels: they had spark plugs and intake throttles and were operated
in pure SI mode. Later, people figured out that with Diesel injection
systems and spark plugs you could build multifuel engines, but the
Benz aeroengines, along with the 300SL inline six and the 300SLR/W196
Grand Prix desmo valve straight eight,were not diesel,"semidiesel", or
multifuel.
The early mark RR Merlins had float bowl carburetors, later mark RR
Merlins (and AFAIK all Packard built engines) had a pressure
carburetor.
There are probably several Web sites, and various books and
periodicals that cover this stuff.
As Hershel Smith and other authors have pointed out, there were
various Diesel aircraft engines and toward the end of piston aircraft
engine development by real companies (P&W,RR,etc: not Lycoming or
Continental, they couldn't develop a ****-up in a brewery) that was
the trend. The US military resisted the trend for the stated reason
that they didn't want to provide two fuels at air bases, with serious
consequences if a misfueling took place. The early jets offered so
much more speed the military had to accept them even if a different
fuel was required, but in fact, the early jets were all sold to the
Navy and the Army Air Corps on the basis that they could burn either
avgas or kerosene. When the military found that using kerosene
enhanced safety, provided extra range for a given gallonage, and
didn't require frequent lead defouling, jet fuels were here to stay.
But the Navy ran its carrier jets on avgas for several years so as not
to carry two fuels.
Jet engines on mixed-power aircraft-the P2V Neptune and the B-36-ran
on avgas their whole careers. That's not to say modern gas turbines
would tolerate leaded fuels at the ITT they run today.
> > I thought the Spitfires were all direct fuel injection? I thought this was one
> > of the big deals about the Merlins is that they were fuel-injected?
No British or American liquid cooled production engines had direct
FI. The Daimler-Benz (the company was Daimler-Benz:the automobiles
were called Mercedes Benz)DB6xx inverted V12s were. They used a Bosch
diesel type pump ruggedized to handle nonlubricious fuels and diesel
style nozzles, directly into the combustion chamber. They were not
diesels: they had spark plugs and intake throttles and were operated
in pure SI mode. Later, people figured out that with Diesel injection
systems and spark plugs you could build multifuel engines, but the
Benz aeroengines, along with the 300SL inline six and the 300SLR/W196
Grand Prix desmo valve straight eight,were not diesel,"semidiesel", or
multifuel.
The early mark RR Merlins had float bowl carburetors, later mark RR
Merlins (and AFAIK all Packard built engines) had a pressure
carburetor.
There are probably several Web sites, and various books and
periodicals that cover this stuff.
As Hershel Smith and other authors have pointed out, there were
various Diesel aircraft engines and toward the end of piston aircraft
engine development by real companies (P&W,RR,etc: not Lycoming or
Continental, they couldn't develop a ****-up in a brewery) that was
the trend. The US military resisted the trend for the stated reason
that they didn't want to provide two fuels at air bases, with serious
consequences if a misfueling took place. The early jets offered so
much more speed the military had to accept them even if a different
fuel was required, but in fact, the early jets were all sold to the
Navy and the Army Air Corps on the basis that they could burn either
avgas or kerosene. When the military found that using kerosene
enhanced safety, provided extra range for a given gallonage, and
didn't require frequent lead defouling, jet fuels were here to stay.
But the Navy ran its carrier jets on avgas for several years so as not
to carry two fuels.
Jet engines on mixed-power aircraft-the P2V Neptune and the B-36-ran
on avgas their whole careers. That's not to say modern gas turbines
would tolerate leaded fuels at the ITT they run today.
Guest
Posts: n/a
Re: Quit Being A Goddamn Idiot, Bill ------!!
> >
> > I thought the Spitfires were all direct fuel injection? I thought this was one
> > of the big deals about the Merlins is that they were fuel-injected?
No British or American liquid cooled production engines had direct
FI. The Daimler-Benz (the company was Daimler-Benz:the automobiles
were called Mercedes Benz)DB6xx inverted V12s were. They used a Bosch
diesel type pump ruggedized to handle nonlubricious fuels and diesel
style nozzles, directly into the combustion chamber. They were not
diesels: they had spark plugs and intake throttles and were operated
in pure SI mode. Later, people figured out that with Diesel injection
systems and spark plugs you could build multifuel engines, but the
Benz aeroengines, along with the 300SL inline six and the 300SLR/W196
Grand Prix desmo valve straight eight,were not diesel,"semidiesel", or
multifuel.
The early mark RR Merlins had float bowl carburetors, later mark RR
Merlins (and AFAIK all Packard built engines) had a pressure
carburetor.
There are probably several Web sites, and various books and
periodicals that cover this stuff.
As Hershel Smith and other authors have pointed out, there were
various Diesel aircraft engines and toward the end of piston aircraft
engine development by real companies (P&W,RR,etc: not Lycoming or
Continental, they couldn't develop a ****-up in a brewery) that was
the trend. The US military resisted the trend for the stated reason
that they didn't want to provide two fuels at air bases, with serious
consequences if a misfueling took place. The early jets offered so
much more speed the military had to accept them even if a different
fuel was required, but in fact, the early jets were all sold to the
Navy and the Army Air Corps on the basis that they could burn either
avgas or kerosene. When the military found that using kerosene
enhanced safety, provided extra range for a given gallonage, and
didn't require frequent lead defouling, jet fuels were here to stay.
But the Navy ran its carrier jets on avgas for several years so as not
to carry two fuels.
Jet engines on mixed-power aircraft-the P2V Neptune and the B-36-ran
on avgas their whole careers. That's not to say modern gas turbines
would tolerate leaded fuels at the ITT they run today.
> > I thought the Spitfires were all direct fuel injection? I thought this was one
> > of the big deals about the Merlins is that they were fuel-injected?
No British or American liquid cooled production engines had direct
FI. The Daimler-Benz (the company was Daimler-Benz:the automobiles
were called Mercedes Benz)DB6xx inverted V12s were. They used a Bosch
diesel type pump ruggedized to handle nonlubricious fuels and diesel
style nozzles, directly into the combustion chamber. They were not
diesels: they had spark plugs and intake throttles and were operated
in pure SI mode. Later, people figured out that with Diesel injection
systems and spark plugs you could build multifuel engines, but the
Benz aeroengines, along with the 300SL inline six and the 300SLR/W196
Grand Prix desmo valve straight eight,were not diesel,"semidiesel", or
multifuel.
The early mark RR Merlins had float bowl carburetors, later mark RR
Merlins (and AFAIK all Packard built engines) had a pressure
carburetor.
There are probably several Web sites, and various books and
periodicals that cover this stuff.
As Hershel Smith and other authors have pointed out, there were
various Diesel aircraft engines and toward the end of piston aircraft
engine development by real companies (P&W,RR,etc: not Lycoming or
Continental, they couldn't develop a ****-up in a brewery) that was
the trend. The US military resisted the trend for the stated reason
that they didn't want to provide two fuels at air bases, with serious
consequences if a misfueling took place. The early jets offered so
much more speed the military had to accept them even if a different
fuel was required, but in fact, the early jets were all sold to the
Navy and the Army Air Corps on the basis that they could burn either
avgas or kerosene. When the military found that using kerosene
enhanced safety, provided extra range for a given gallonage, and
didn't require frequent lead defouling, jet fuels were here to stay.
But the Navy ran its carrier jets on avgas for several years so as not
to carry two fuels.
Jet engines on mixed-power aircraft-the P2V Neptune and the B-36-ran
on avgas their whole careers. That's not to say modern gas turbines
would tolerate leaded fuels at the ITT they run today.
Guest
Posts: n/a
Re: Quit Being A Goddamn Idiot, Bill ------!!
> >
> > I thought the Spitfires were all direct fuel injection? I thought this was one
> > of the big deals about the Merlins is that they were fuel-injected?
No British or American liquid cooled production engines had direct
FI. The Daimler-Benz (the company was Daimler-Benz:the automobiles
were called Mercedes Benz)DB6xx inverted V12s were. They used a Bosch
diesel type pump ruggedized to handle nonlubricious fuels and diesel
style nozzles, directly into the combustion chamber. They were not
diesels: they had spark plugs and intake throttles and were operated
in pure SI mode. Later, people figured out that with Diesel injection
systems and spark plugs you could build multifuel engines, but the
Benz aeroengines, along with the 300SL inline six and the 300SLR/W196
Grand Prix desmo valve straight eight,were not diesel,"semidiesel", or
multifuel.
The early mark RR Merlins had float bowl carburetors, later mark RR
Merlins (and AFAIK all Packard built engines) had a pressure
carburetor.
There are probably several Web sites, and various books and
periodicals that cover this stuff.
As Hershel Smith and other authors have pointed out, there were
various Diesel aircraft engines and toward the end of piston aircraft
engine development by real companies (P&W,RR,etc: not Lycoming or
Continental, they couldn't develop a ****-up in a brewery) that was
the trend. The US military resisted the trend for the stated reason
that they didn't want to provide two fuels at air bases, with serious
consequences if a misfueling took place. The early jets offered so
much more speed the military had to accept them even if a different
fuel was required, but in fact, the early jets were all sold to the
Navy and the Army Air Corps on the basis that they could burn either
avgas or kerosene. When the military found that using kerosene
enhanced safety, provided extra range for a given gallonage, and
didn't require frequent lead defouling, jet fuels were here to stay.
But the Navy ran its carrier jets on avgas for several years so as not
to carry two fuels.
Jet engines on mixed-power aircraft-the P2V Neptune and the B-36-ran
on avgas their whole careers. That's not to say modern gas turbines
would tolerate leaded fuels at the ITT they run today.
> > I thought the Spitfires were all direct fuel injection? I thought this was one
> > of the big deals about the Merlins is that they were fuel-injected?
No British or American liquid cooled production engines had direct
FI. The Daimler-Benz (the company was Daimler-Benz:the automobiles
were called Mercedes Benz)DB6xx inverted V12s were. They used a Bosch
diesel type pump ruggedized to handle nonlubricious fuels and diesel
style nozzles, directly into the combustion chamber. They were not
diesels: they had spark plugs and intake throttles and were operated
in pure SI mode. Later, people figured out that with Diesel injection
systems and spark plugs you could build multifuel engines, but the
Benz aeroengines, along with the 300SL inline six and the 300SLR/W196
Grand Prix desmo valve straight eight,were not diesel,"semidiesel", or
multifuel.
The early mark RR Merlins had float bowl carburetors, later mark RR
Merlins (and AFAIK all Packard built engines) had a pressure
carburetor.
There are probably several Web sites, and various books and
periodicals that cover this stuff.
As Hershel Smith and other authors have pointed out, there were
various Diesel aircraft engines and toward the end of piston aircraft
engine development by real companies (P&W,RR,etc: not Lycoming or
Continental, they couldn't develop a ****-up in a brewery) that was
the trend. The US military resisted the trend for the stated reason
that they didn't want to provide two fuels at air bases, with serious
consequences if a misfueling took place. The early jets offered so
much more speed the military had to accept them even if a different
fuel was required, but in fact, the early jets were all sold to the
Navy and the Army Air Corps on the basis that they could burn either
avgas or kerosene. When the military found that using kerosene
enhanced safety, provided extra range for a given gallonage, and
didn't require frequent lead defouling, jet fuels were here to stay.
But the Navy ran its carrier jets on avgas for several years so as not
to carry two fuels.
Jet engines on mixed-power aircraft-the P2V Neptune and the B-36-ran
on avgas their whole careers. That's not to say modern gas turbines
would tolerate leaded fuels at the ITT they run today.
Guest
Posts: n/a
Re: Quit Being A Goddamn Idiot, Bill ------!!
Leave the Americans out of it. haven't every heard of running the
rack? 1946 Detroit and Cummins cylinder injection:
http://www.----------.com/detroitCumminsRack.jpg
God Bless America, ßill O|||||||O
mailto:--------------------
Ted Azito wrote:
>
> No British or American liquid cooled production engines had direct
> FI. The Daimler-Benz (the company was Daimler-Benz:the automobiles
> were called Mercedes Benz)DB6xx inverted V12s were. They used a Bosch
> diesel type pump ruggedized to handle nonlubricious fuels and diesel
> style nozzles, directly into the combustion chamber. They were not
> diesels: they had spark plugs and intake throttles and were operated
> in pure SI mode. Later, people figured out that with Diesel injection
> systems and spark plugs you could build multifuel engines, but the
> Benz aeroengines, along with the 300SL inline six and the 300SLR/W196
> Grand Prix desmo valve straight eight,were not diesel,"semidiesel", or
> multifuel.
>
> The early mark RR Merlins had float bowl carburetors, later mark RR
> Merlins (and AFAIK all Packard built engines) had a pressure
> carburetor.
>
> There are probably several Web sites, and various books and
> periodicals that cover this stuff.
>
> As Hershel Smith and other authors have pointed out, there were
> various Diesel aircraft engines and toward the end of piston aircraft
> engine development by real companies (P&W,RR,etc: not Lycoming or
> Continental, they couldn't develop a ****-up in a brewery) that was
> the trend. The US military resisted the trend for the stated reason
> that they didn't want to provide two fuels at air bases, with serious
> consequences if a misfueling took place. The early jets offered so
> much more speed the military had to accept them even if a different
> fuel was required, but in fact, the early jets were all sold to the
> Navy and the Army Air Corps on the basis that they could burn either
> avgas or kerosene. When the military found that using kerosene
> enhanced safety, provided extra range for a given gallonage, and
> didn't require frequent lead defouling, jet fuels were here to stay.
> But the Navy ran its carrier jets on avgas for several years so as not
> to carry two fuels.
>
> Jet engines on mixed-power aircraft-the P2V Neptune and the B-36-ran
> on avgas their whole careers. That's not to say modern gas turbines
> would tolerate leaded fuels at the ITT they run today.
rack? 1946 Detroit and Cummins cylinder injection:
http://www.----------.com/detroitCumminsRack.jpg
God Bless America, ßill O|||||||O
mailto:--------------------
Ted Azito wrote:
>
> No British or American liquid cooled production engines had direct
> FI. The Daimler-Benz (the company was Daimler-Benz:the automobiles
> were called Mercedes Benz)DB6xx inverted V12s were. They used a Bosch
> diesel type pump ruggedized to handle nonlubricious fuels and diesel
> style nozzles, directly into the combustion chamber. They were not
> diesels: they had spark plugs and intake throttles and were operated
> in pure SI mode. Later, people figured out that with Diesel injection
> systems and spark plugs you could build multifuel engines, but the
> Benz aeroengines, along with the 300SL inline six and the 300SLR/W196
> Grand Prix desmo valve straight eight,were not diesel,"semidiesel", or
> multifuel.
>
> The early mark RR Merlins had float bowl carburetors, later mark RR
> Merlins (and AFAIK all Packard built engines) had a pressure
> carburetor.
>
> There are probably several Web sites, and various books and
> periodicals that cover this stuff.
>
> As Hershel Smith and other authors have pointed out, there were
> various Diesel aircraft engines and toward the end of piston aircraft
> engine development by real companies (P&W,RR,etc: not Lycoming or
> Continental, they couldn't develop a ****-up in a brewery) that was
> the trend. The US military resisted the trend for the stated reason
> that they didn't want to provide two fuels at air bases, with serious
> consequences if a misfueling took place. The early jets offered so
> much more speed the military had to accept them even if a different
> fuel was required, but in fact, the early jets were all sold to the
> Navy and the Army Air Corps on the basis that they could burn either
> avgas or kerosene. When the military found that using kerosene
> enhanced safety, provided extra range for a given gallonage, and
> didn't require frequent lead defouling, jet fuels were here to stay.
> But the Navy ran its carrier jets on avgas for several years so as not
> to carry two fuels.
>
> Jet engines on mixed-power aircraft-the P2V Neptune and the B-36-ran
> on avgas their whole careers. That's not to say modern gas turbines
> would tolerate leaded fuels at the ITT they run today.
Guest
Posts: n/a
Re: Quit Being A Goddamn Idiot, Bill ------!!
Leave the Americans out of it. haven't every heard of running the
rack? 1946 Detroit and Cummins cylinder injection:
http://www.----------.com/detroitCumminsRack.jpg
God Bless America, ßill O|||||||O
mailto:--------------------
Ted Azito wrote:
>
> No British or American liquid cooled production engines had direct
> FI. The Daimler-Benz (the company was Daimler-Benz:the automobiles
> were called Mercedes Benz)DB6xx inverted V12s were. They used a Bosch
> diesel type pump ruggedized to handle nonlubricious fuels and diesel
> style nozzles, directly into the combustion chamber. They were not
> diesels: they had spark plugs and intake throttles and were operated
> in pure SI mode. Later, people figured out that with Diesel injection
> systems and spark plugs you could build multifuel engines, but the
> Benz aeroengines, along with the 300SL inline six and the 300SLR/W196
> Grand Prix desmo valve straight eight,were not diesel,"semidiesel", or
> multifuel.
>
> The early mark RR Merlins had float bowl carburetors, later mark RR
> Merlins (and AFAIK all Packard built engines) had a pressure
> carburetor.
>
> There are probably several Web sites, and various books and
> periodicals that cover this stuff.
>
> As Hershel Smith and other authors have pointed out, there were
> various Diesel aircraft engines and toward the end of piston aircraft
> engine development by real companies (P&W,RR,etc: not Lycoming or
> Continental, they couldn't develop a ****-up in a brewery) that was
> the trend. The US military resisted the trend for the stated reason
> that they didn't want to provide two fuels at air bases, with serious
> consequences if a misfueling took place. The early jets offered so
> much more speed the military had to accept them even if a different
> fuel was required, but in fact, the early jets were all sold to the
> Navy and the Army Air Corps on the basis that they could burn either
> avgas or kerosene. When the military found that using kerosene
> enhanced safety, provided extra range for a given gallonage, and
> didn't require frequent lead defouling, jet fuels were here to stay.
> But the Navy ran its carrier jets on avgas for several years so as not
> to carry two fuels.
>
> Jet engines on mixed-power aircraft-the P2V Neptune and the B-36-ran
> on avgas their whole careers. That's not to say modern gas turbines
> would tolerate leaded fuels at the ITT they run today.
rack? 1946 Detroit and Cummins cylinder injection:
http://www.----------.com/detroitCumminsRack.jpg
God Bless America, ßill O|||||||O
mailto:--------------------
Ted Azito wrote:
>
> No British or American liquid cooled production engines had direct
> FI. The Daimler-Benz (the company was Daimler-Benz:the automobiles
> were called Mercedes Benz)DB6xx inverted V12s were. They used a Bosch
> diesel type pump ruggedized to handle nonlubricious fuels and diesel
> style nozzles, directly into the combustion chamber. They were not
> diesels: they had spark plugs and intake throttles and were operated
> in pure SI mode. Later, people figured out that with Diesel injection
> systems and spark plugs you could build multifuel engines, but the
> Benz aeroengines, along with the 300SL inline six and the 300SLR/W196
> Grand Prix desmo valve straight eight,were not diesel,"semidiesel", or
> multifuel.
>
> The early mark RR Merlins had float bowl carburetors, later mark RR
> Merlins (and AFAIK all Packard built engines) had a pressure
> carburetor.
>
> There are probably several Web sites, and various books and
> periodicals that cover this stuff.
>
> As Hershel Smith and other authors have pointed out, there were
> various Diesel aircraft engines and toward the end of piston aircraft
> engine development by real companies (P&W,RR,etc: not Lycoming or
> Continental, they couldn't develop a ****-up in a brewery) that was
> the trend. The US military resisted the trend for the stated reason
> that they didn't want to provide two fuels at air bases, with serious
> consequences if a misfueling took place. The early jets offered so
> much more speed the military had to accept them even if a different
> fuel was required, but in fact, the early jets were all sold to the
> Navy and the Army Air Corps on the basis that they could burn either
> avgas or kerosene. When the military found that using kerosene
> enhanced safety, provided extra range for a given gallonage, and
> didn't require frequent lead defouling, jet fuels were here to stay.
> But the Navy ran its carrier jets on avgas for several years so as not
> to carry two fuels.
>
> Jet engines on mixed-power aircraft-the P2V Neptune and the B-36-ran
> on avgas their whole careers. That's not to say modern gas turbines
> would tolerate leaded fuels at the ITT they run today.