Quit Being A Goddamn Idiot, Bill ------!!
Guest
Posts: n/a
Re: Quit Being A Goddamn Idiot, Bill ------!!
I was just reading a Ballantine books publication about the P47 Thunderbolt in
which one of the aces of the P47 stated that the Germans quick dive evasive
reaction didn't work against Thunderbolts. The Thunderbolts didn't use FI did
they?
>True.
>This led to possibly the only advantage enjoyed by the Germans during
>Battle of Britain dog fights. Because the British Hurricanes and
>Spitfires used float bowl carburetors, the aircraft had to be flown in
>a positive g mode at all times, otherwise the engine would stop. This
>meant (for example) that the aircraft had to be rolled before entering
>a dive, whereas the Germans FI engines did not. This split second
>delay in evasive action was responsible for a lot of German kills.
>
>--
>GW De Lacey
-Bill (remove "botizer" to reply via email)
which one of the aces of the P47 stated that the Germans quick dive evasive
reaction didn't work against Thunderbolts. The Thunderbolts didn't use FI did
they?
>True.
>This led to possibly the only advantage enjoyed by the Germans during
>Battle of Britain dog fights. Because the British Hurricanes and
>Spitfires used float bowl carburetors, the aircraft had to be flown in
>a positive g mode at all times, otherwise the engine would stop. This
>meant (for example) that the aircraft had to be rolled before entering
>a dive, whereas the Germans FI engines did not. This split second
>delay in evasive action was responsible for a lot of German kills.
>
>--
>GW De Lacey
-Bill (remove "botizer" to reply via email)
Guest
Posts: n/a
Re: Quit Being A Goddamn Idiot, Bill ------!!
I was just reading a Ballantine books publication about the P47 Thunderbolt in
which one of the aces of the P47 stated that the Germans quick dive evasive
reaction didn't work against Thunderbolts. The Thunderbolts didn't use FI did
they?
>True.
>This led to possibly the only advantage enjoyed by the Germans during
>Battle of Britain dog fights. Because the British Hurricanes and
>Spitfires used float bowl carburetors, the aircraft had to be flown in
>a positive g mode at all times, otherwise the engine would stop. This
>meant (for example) that the aircraft had to be rolled before entering
>a dive, whereas the Germans FI engines did not. This split second
>delay in evasive action was responsible for a lot of German kills.
>
>--
>GW De Lacey
-Bill (remove "botizer" to reply via email)
which one of the aces of the P47 stated that the Germans quick dive evasive
reaction didn't work against Thunderbolts. The Thunderbolts didn't use FI did
they?
>True.
>This led to possibly the only advantage enjoyed by the Germans during
>Battle of Britain dog fights. Because the British Hurricanes and
>Spitfires used float bowl carburetors, the aircraft had to be flown in
>a positive g mode at all times, otherwise the engine would stop. This
>meant (for example) that the aircraft had to be rolled before entering
>a dive, whereas the Germans FI engines did not. This split second
>delay in evasive action was responsible for a lot of German kills.
>
>--
>GW De Lacey
-Bill (remove "botizer" to reply via email)
Guest
Posts: n/a
Re: Quit Being A Goddamn Idiot, Bill ------!!
I was just reading a Ballantine books publication about the P47 Thunderbolt in
which one of the aces of the P47 stated that the Germans quick dive evasive
reaction didn't work against Thunderbolts. The Thunderbolts didn't use FI did
they?
>True.
>This led to possibly the only advantage enjoyed by the Germans during
>Battle of Britain dog fights. Because the British Hurricanes and
>Spitfires used float bowl carburetors, the aircraft had to be flown in
>a positive g mode at all times, otherwise the engine would stop. This
>meant (for example) that the aircraft had to be rolled before entering
>a dive, whereas the Germans FI engines did not. This split second
>delay in evasive action was responsible for a lot of German kills.
>
>--
>GW De Lacey
-Bill (remove "botizer" to reply via email)
which one of the aces of the P47 stated that the Germans quick dive evasive
reaction didn't work against Thunderbolts. The Thunderbolts didn't use FI did
they?
>True.
>This led to possibly the only advantage enjoyed by the Germans during
>Battle of Britain dog fights. Because the British Hurricanes and
>Spitfires used float bowl carburetors, the aircraft had to be flown in
>a positive g mode at all times, otherwise the engine would stop. This
>meant (for example) that the aircraft had to be rolled before entering
>a dive, whereas the Germans FI engines did not. This split second
>delay in evasive action was responsible for a lot of German kills.
>
>--
>GW De Lacey
-Bill (remove "botizer" to reply via email)
Guest
Posts: n/a
Re: Quit Being A Goddamn Idiot, Bill ------!!
wblane@aol.combotizer (Wblane) wrote in message news:<20040912215612.03319.00000433@mb-m25.aol.com>...
> 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.
Most Brit aeroengines with carb heat AFAIK had the design of running
engine oil through a carb passage, heating the venturi. A much more
sanitary practice than the US carb heat boxes which car manufacturers
in the 70s emulated for cold emissions compliance. I'm going by the
inline engine of a Auster AOP a local guy owns (sadly, he listened to
the hangar queens and converted it over to a piece of ----
Lycoming-but he still has the original FWF crated...)
> 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.
Most Brit aeroengines with carb heat AFAIK had the design of running
engine oil through a carb passage, heating the venturi. A much more
sanitary practice than the US carb heat boxes which car manufacturers
in the 70s emulated for cold emissions compliance. I'm going by the
inline engine of a Auster AOP a local guy owns (sadly, he listened to
the hangar queens and converted it over to a piece of ----
Lycoming-but he still has the original FWF crated...)
Guest
Posts: n/a
Re: Quit Being A Goddamn Idiot, Bill ------!!
wblane@aol.combotizer (Wblane) wrote in message news:<20040912215612.03319.00000433@mb-m25.aol.com>...
> 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.
Most Brit aeroengines with carb heat AFAIK had the design of running
engine oil through a carb passage, heating the venturi. A much more
sanitary practice than the US carb heat boxes which car manufacturers
in the 70s emulated for cold emissions compliance. I'm going by the
inline engine of a Auster AOP a local guy owns (sadly, he listened to
the hangar queens and converted it over to a piece of ----
Lycoming-but he still has the original FWF crated...)
> 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.
Most Brit aeroengines with carb heat AFAIK had the design of running
engine oil through a carb passage, heating the venturi. A much more
sanitary practice than the US carb heat boxes which car manufacturers
in the 70s emulated for cold emissions compliance. I'm going by the
inline engine of a Auster AOP a local guy owns (sadly, he listened to
the hangar queens and converted it over to a piece of ----
Lycoming-but he still has the original FWF crated...)
Guest
Posts: n/a
Re: Quit Being A Goddamn Idiot, Bill ------!!
wblane@aol.combotizer (Wblane) wrote in message news:<20040912215612.03319.00000433@mb-m25.aol.com>...
> 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.
Most Brit aeroengines with carb heat AFAIK had the design of running
engine oil through a carb passage, heating the venturi. A much more
sanitary practice than the US carb heat boxes which car manufacturers
in the 70s emulated for cold emissions compliance. I'm going by the
inline engine of a Auster AOP a local guy owns (sadly, he listened to
the hangar queens and converted it over to a piece of ----
Lycoming-but he still has the original FWF crated...)
> 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.
Most Brit aeroengines with carb heat AFAIK had the design of running
engine oil through a carb passage, heating the venturi. A much more
sanitary practice than the US carb heat boxes which car manufacturers
in the 70s emulated for cold emissions compliance. I'm going by the
inline engine of a Auster AOP a local guy owns (sadly, he listened to
the hangar queens and converted it over to a piece of ----
Lycoming-but he still has the original FWF crated...)
Guest
Posts: n/a
Re: Quit Being A Goddamn Idiot, Bill ------!!
On Wed, 15 Sep 2004 21:54:29 UTC larboard34@hotmail.com (Ted Azito)
wrote:
> Most Brit aeroengines with carb heat AFAIK had the design of running
> engine oil through a carb passage, heating the venturi. A much more
> sanitary practice than the US carb heat boxes which car manufacturers
> in the 70s emulated for cold emissions compliance. I'm going by the
> inline engine of a Auster AOP a local guy owns (sadly, he listened to
> the hangar queens and converted it over to a piece of ----
> Lycoming-but he still has the original FWF crated...)
Over the years I think I've seen just about anything that could be use
to keep a carb de-iced used in one way or another. Nearly all the
normally aspirated a/c engines were forced by the FAA to use exhaust
heat in one form or another but the automakers got realy ingenious at
times. For liquid cooled engines, running a coolant line thru the
manifold was common (took forever to do any good if it wasreally
cold!). Several tried using exhaust gas piped around the carb base
either in the manifold casting or in the carb casting itself (usually
plugged solid after a couple of years). Jeep uses an air intake tube
from the exhaust manifold with a vacuum controlled diverter valve to
allow the hot air to be shut off - damned if I cansee how it
specifically addresses icing, tho.
BTW, there have been several certified inverted flight carbs over the
years. I flew aStinson so equipped 40 years ago and early model (late
40- early 50's) T-34s were also rated for inverted flight with
restrictions on negative-G duration. Of course, some jet trainers I
flew had similar restrictions but those were based on fuel pick-up
considerations rather than burner supply (the "donkey dong" in the
central tank would hang and gulp air).
--
Will Honea <whonea@codenet.net>
wrote:
> Most Brit aeroengines with carb heat AFAIK had the design of running
> engine oil through a carb passage, heating the venturi. A much more
> sanitary practice than the US carb heat boxes which car manufacturers
> in the 70s emulated for cold emissions compliance. I'm going by the
> inline engine of a Auster AOP a local guy owns (sadly, he listened to
> the hangar queens and converted it over to a piece of ----
> Lycoming-but he still has the original FWF crated...)
Over the years I think I've seen just about anything that could be use
to keep a carb de-iced used in one way or another. Nearly all the
normally aspirated a/c engines were forced by the FAA to use exhaust
heat in one form or another but the automakers got realy ingenious at
times. For liquid cooled engines, running a coolant line thru the
manifold was common (took forever to do any good if it wasreally
cold!). Several tried using exhaust gas piped around the carb base
either in the manifold casting or in the carb casting itself (usually
plugged solid after a couple of years). Jeep uses an air intake tube
from the exhaust manifold with a vacuum controlled diverter valve to
allow the hot air to be shut off - damned if I cansee how it
specifically addresses icing, tho.
BTW, there have been several certified inverted flight carbs over the
years. I flew aStinson so equipped 40 years ago and early model (late
40- early 50's) T-34s were also rated for inverted flight with
restrictions on negative-G duration. Of course, some jet trainers I
flew had similar restrictions but those were based on fuel pick-up
considerations rather than burner supply (the "donkey dong" in the
central tank would hang and gulp air).
--
Will Honea <whonea@codenet.net>
Guest
Posts: n/a
Re: Quit Being A Goddamn Idiot, Bill ------!!
On Wed, 15 Sep 2004 21:54:29 UTC larboard34@hotmail.com (Ted Azito)
wrote:
> Most Brit aeroengines with carb heat AFAIK had the design of running
> engine oil through a carb passage, heating the venturi. A much more
> sanitary practice than the US carb heat boxes which car manufacturers
> in the 70s emulated for cold emissions compliance. I'm going by the
> inline engine of a Auster AOP a local guy owns (sadly, he listened to
> the hangar queens and converted it over to a piece of ----
> Lycoming-but he still has the original FWF crated...)
Over the years I think I've seen just about anything that could be use
to keep a carb de-iced used in one way or another. Nearly all the
normally aspirated a/c engines were forced by the FAA to use exhaust
heat in one form or another but the automakers got realy ingenious at
times. For liquid cooled engines, running a coolant line thru the
manifold was common (took forever to do any good if it wasreally
cold!). Several tried using exhaust gas piped around the carb base
either in the manifold casting or in the carb casting itself (usually
plugged solid after a couple of years). Jeep uses an air intake tube
from the exhaust manifold with a vacuum controlled diverter valve to
allow the hot air to be shut off - damned if I cansee how it
specifically addresses icing, tho.
BTW, there have been several certified inverted flight carbs over the
years. I flew aStinson so equipped 40 years ago and early model (late
40- early 50's) T-34s were also rated for inverted flight with
restrictions on negative-G duration. Of course, some jet trainers I
flew had similar restrictions but those were based on fuel pick-up
considerations rather than burner supply (the "donkey dong" in the
central tank would hang and gulp air).
--
Will Honea <whonea@codenet.net>
wrote:
> Most Brit aeroengines with carb heat AFAIK had the design of running
> engine oil through a carb passage, heating the venturi. A much more
> sanitary practice than the US carb heat boxes which car manufacturers
> in the 70s emulated for cold emissions compliance. I'm going by the
> inline engine of a Auster AOP a local guy owns (sadly, he listened to
> the hangar queens and converted it over to a piece of ----
> Lycoming-but he still has the original FWF crated...)
Over the years I think I've seen just about anything that could be use
to keep a carb de-iced used in one way or another. Nearly all the
normally aspirated a/c engines were forced by the FAA to use exhaust
heat in one form or another but the automakers got realy ingenious at
times. For liquid cooled engines, running a coolant line thru the
manifold was common (took forever to do any good if it wasreally
cold!). Several tried using exhaust gas piped around the carb base
either in the manifold casting or in the carb casting itself (usually
plugged solid after a couple of years). Jeep uses an air intake tube
from the exhaust manifold with a vacuum controlled diverter valve to
allow the hot air to be shut off - damned if I cansee how it
specifically addresses icing, tho.
BTW, there have been several certified inverted flight carbs over the
years. I flew aStinson so equipped 40 years ago and early model (late
40- early 50's) T-34s were also rated for inverted flight with
restrictions on negative-G duration. Of course, some jet trainers I
flew had similar restrictions but those were based on fuel pick-up
considerations rather than burner supply (the "donkey dong" in the
central tank would hang and gulp air).
--
Will Honea <whonea@codenet.net>
Guest
Posts: n/a
Re: Quit Being A Goddamn Idiot, Bill ------!!
On Wed, 15 Sep 2004 21:54:29 UTC larboard34@hotmail.com (Ted Azito)
wrote:
> Most Brit aeroengines with carb heat AFAIK had the design of running
> engine oil through a carb passage, heating the venturi. A much more
> sanitary practice than the US carb heat boxes which car manufacturers
> in the 70s emulated for cold emissions compliance. I'm going by the
> inline engine of a Auster AOP a local guy owns (sadly, he listened to
> the hangar queens and converted it over to a piece of ----
> Lycoming-but he still has the original FWF crated...)
Over the years I think I've seen just about anything that could be use
to keep a carb de-iced used in one way or another. Nearly all the
normally aspirated a/c engines were forced by the FAA to use exhaust
heat in one form or another but the automakers got realy ingenious at
times. For liquid cooled engines, running a coolant line thru the
manifold was common (took forever to do any good if it wasreally
cold!). Several tried using exhaust gas piped around the carb base
either in the manifold casting or in the carb casting itself (usually
plugged solid after a couple of years). Jeep uses an air intake tube
from the exhaust manifold with a vacuum controlled diverter valve to
allow the hot air to be shut off - damned if I cansee how it
specifically addresses icing, tho.
BTW, there have been several certified inverted flight carbs over the
years. I flew aStinson so equipped 40 years ago and early model (late
40- early 50's) T-34s were also rated for inverted flight with
restrictions on negative-G duration. Of course, some jet trainers I
flew had similar restrictions but those were based on fuel pick-up
considerations rather than burner supply (the "donkey dong" in the
central tank would hang and gulp air).
--
Will Honea <whonea@codenet.net>
wrote:
> Most Brit aeroengines with carb heat AFAIK had the design of running
> engine oil through a carb passage, heating the venturi. A much more
> sanitary practice than the US carb heat boxes which car manufacturers
> in the 70s emulated for cold emissions compliance. I'm going by the
> inline engine of a Auster AOP a local guy owns (sadly, he listened to
> the hangar queens and converted it over to a piece of ----
> Lycoming-but he still has the original FWF crated...)
Over the years I think I've seen just about anything that could be use
to keep a carb de-iced used in one way or another. Nearly all the
normally aspirated a/c engines were forced by the FAA to use exhaust
heat in one form or another but the automakers got realy ingenious at
times. For liquid cooled engines, running a coolant line thru the
manifold was common (took forever to do any good if it wasreally
cold!). Several tried using exhaust gas piped around the carb base
either in the manifold casting or in the carb casting itself (usually
plugged solid after a couple of years). Jeep uses an air intake tube
from the exhaust manifold with a vacuum controlled diverter valve to
allow the hot air to be shut off - damned if I cansee how it
specifically addresses icing, tho.
BTW, there have been several certified inverted flight carbs over the
years. I flew aStinson so equipped 40 years ago and early model (late
40- early 50's) T-34s were also rated for inverted flight with
restrictions on negative-G duration. Of course, some jet trainers I
flew had similar restrictions but those were based on fuel pick-up
considerations rather than burner supply (the "donkey dong" in the
central tank would hang and gulp air).
--
Will Honea <whonea@codenet.net>
Guest
Posts: n/a
Re: Quit Being A Goddamn Idiot, Bill ------!!
Welp, I finally just finished reading all of these posts and three things
have become clear:
1. I have no idea what any of you are talking about and I'm now deathly
afraid of flying in a small aircraft any higher than cornstalk.
2. I'm deathly afraid of driving my carburated Jeep in the -30 degree
weather here this winter for fear of my throttle sticking, my carb freezing,
propane exploding, or the slight possibility of some small aircraft
reversing G's in a float bowl and diving into my Jeep.
3. I have no idea which of you, Ted or Bill, is right ...but I do know that
Bill has helped me several times and his input is always positive and
almost, if not always, correct ...so I see no reason to pick on him.
Now, with that said, I'm going to try and erase everything I've just read
from my brain before I begin to fear all things relating to gases and
carburated engines.
"CRWLR" <beerman@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:10k3m8ltanuubfb@corp.supernews.com...
> Love you too, sh!thead ...
>
> ;-)
>
>
> "L.W. (ßill) ------ III" <----------@***.net> wrote in message
> news:4140E8F0.7A6F77F0@***.net...
> > Jeff, you're an a**hole too!
> > God Bless America, ßill O|||||||O
> > mailto:-------------------- http://www.----------.com/
> >
> > CRWLR wrote:
> > >
> > > Asking Bill to stop being an idiot is a bit like asking your dog to
stop
> > > licking his butt. The dog will look up and acknowledge the command,
but
> > > pretty soon his butt will itch again, and he will go back to cleaning
> it.
> > >
> > > The best you can do is hope he doesn't lick your face next ...
> > >
> > > And, Bill - like the dog - might be annoying but he means well is
right
> more
> > > often than not, except when he drifts completely off target. Your dog
> drifts
> > > off target too, but then you scream at him to stop licking his nuts.
>
>
have become clear:
1. I have no idea what any of you are talking about and I'm now deathly
afraid of flying in a small aircraft any higher than cornstalk.
2. I'm deathly afraid of driving my carburated Jeep in the -30 degree
weather here this winter for fear of my throttle sticking, my carb freezing,
propane exploding, or the slight possibility of some small aircraft
reversing G's in a float bowl and diving into my Jeep.
3. I have no idea which of you, Ted or Bill, is right ...but I do know that
Bill has helped me several times and his input is always positive and
almost, if not always, correct ...so I see no reason to pick on him.
Now, with that said, I'm going to try and erase everything I've just read
from my brain before I begin to fear all things relating to gases and
carburated engines.
"CRWLR" <beerman@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:10k3m8ltanuubfb@corp.supernews.com...
> Love you too, sh!thead ...
>
> ;-)
>
>
> "L.W. (ßill) ------ III" <----------@***.net> wrote in message
> news:4140E8F0.7A6F77F0@***.net...
> > Jeff, you're an a**hole too!
> > God Bless America, ßill O|||||||O
> > mailto:-------------------- http://www.----------.com/
> >
> > CRWLR wrote:
> > >
> > > Asking Bill to stop being an idiot is a bit like asking your dog to
stop
> > > licking his butt. The dog will look up and acknowledge the command,
but
> > > pretty soon his butt will itch again, and he will go back to cleaning
> it.
> > >
> > > The best you can do is hope he doesn't lick your face next ...
> > >
> > > And, Bill - like the dog - might be annoying but he means well is
right
> more
> > > often than not, except when he drifts completely off target. Your dog
> drifts
> > > off target too, but then you scream at him to stop licking his nuts.
>
>
