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.
>
>

 

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.
>
>

 

On 15 Sep 2004 19:36:24 GMT, Wblane wrote:

>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?
>
The power plant for these was an 19 cylinder double row air cooled
radial engine with an exhaust driven intercooled supercharger feeding
a pressurised carburetor (sort of an early turbocharger). They weighed
7 tonne all up, and had a reputation for being able to "dive like a
rock". No aircraft on either side could match them in a dive, it's
said. Though not FI in the true sense, the pressurised carby was
virtually "gravity proof".

--
GW

 

On 15 Sep 2004 19:36:24 GMT, Wblane wrote:

>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?
>
The power plant for these was an 19 cylinder double row air cooled
radial engine with an exhaust driven intercooled supercharger feeding
a pressurised carburetor (sort of an early turbocharger). They weighed
7 tonne all up, and had a reputation for being able to "dive like a
rock". No aircraft on either side could match them in a dive, it's
said. Though not FI in the true sense, the pressurised carby was
virtually "gravity proof".

--
GW

 

On 15 Sep 2004 19:36:24 GMT, Wblane wrote:

>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?
>
The power plant for these was an 19 cylinder double row air cooled
radial engine with an exhaust driven intercooled supercharger feeding
a pressurised carburetor (sort of an early turbocharger). They weighed
7 tonne all up, and had a reputation for being able to "dive like a
rock". No aircraft on either side could match them in a dive, it's
said. Though not FI in the true sense, the pressurised carby was
virtually "gravity proof".

--
GW

 

On 15 Sep 2004 14:54:29 -0700, Ted Azito wrote:

>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...)

Later, yes. The early designs were as I said, scary.

--
GW

 

On 15 Sep 2004 14:54:29 -0700, Ted Azito wrote:

>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...)

Later, yes. The early designs were as I said, scary.

--
GW

 

On 15 Sep 2004 14:54:29 -0700, Ted Azito wrote:

>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...)

Later, yes. The early designs were as I said, scary.

--
GW

 

On Thu, 16 Sep 2004 03:56:34 GMT, griffin wrote:

>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.

LOL
Well, at least I was talking about early WW2 aircraft. I'm sure 4
decades have improved things immensely, although my current Lycoming
powered Worrier doesn't stand up as an example of those improvements.

;-)

--
GW

 

On Thu, 16 Sep 2004 03:56:34 GMT, griffin wrote:

>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.

LOL
Well, at least I was talking about early WW2 aircraft. I'm sure 4
decades have improved things immensely, although my current Lycoming
powered Worrier doesn't stand up as an example of those improvements.

;-)

--
GW