On Sat, 26 Jul 2003 14:13:11 -0000, "Jim Wilson" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>David Megginson <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> said: > >> Just like the Spitfire -- the ME-109's fuel-injected engine was one of >> the few advantages it had over the Spitfire's gravity-fed, carbureted >> engine, if I recall correctly. >> > >IIRC there was an oil issue with the Merlin's inverted as well. This is probably why it wasn't worth fitting a full inverted-flight fuel system. Actually, the problem wasn't so much _inverted_ flight as -ve g flight. The Bf 109 pilot could carry out a rapid push-over to escape into a steep power dive knowing that the Spitfire pilot would have to roll inverted and _pull_ over, minimising the time and amount of -ve g, or risk a dead engine. If the Bf 109 was power diving on to the Spitfire from above the situation was even more embarrassing. If you watch historical film of Spitfires 'breaking' into a dive you can see that it begins with a turning roll, pulling over into a dive when inverted before continuing the roll to upright flight. Its a +ve g maneuver throughout. Whilst the turn adds deflection for the attacker and the 'roll-and-pull' steepens this the Bf 109 pilot had more flexibility in how he carried out his 'break'. There was an issue with Merlin and oil in general. Oil consumption was measured in multiple Gallons per Hour! Oil tank size was a very real factor in determining the range of the long-range Recce versions. Presumably the P-51 suffered from limited inverted flight endurance (it would have had a later Mk Merlin with the limited duration inverted flight system) as well, or did the US fit different systems? Rick -- David Farrent and Dougie O'Hara on the Cold War role of the ROC: 'What a world of sorrow is hidden in those few words - "[Post attack] crew changes would have been based on crew availability."' _______________________________________________ Flightgear-devel mailing list [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://mail.flightgear.org/mailman/listinfo/flightgear-devel
