2&3 too lean (?)

Post by **paulk** » Fri Mar 31, 2006 8:48 am

Yes, I remeber being told about that but wasn't there an advantage that we had using the system that the injected engines didn't? I'm sure there was, but I can't remember now.

We could bank faster I think!

Post by **bigginger** » Fri Mar 31, 2006 8:54 am

It was British spunk and pluck that we had and they didn't

Post by **paulk** » Fri Mar 31, 2006 8:56 am

Try saying that fast after a shandy or seven

Post by **bigginger** » Fri Mar 31, 2006 9:08 am

Hee hee - I think I'll avoid the shandy at this time of the morning, just think of my reputation...

Post by **bmcecosse** » Fri Mar 31, 2006 6:45 pm

My mate had one of the big twin SUs - looked a bit like a weber - plan was to fit it on a Mini, but sadly I have lost touch with him now. Injection was always better - and gave more altitude capability too - it was the Spitfire's superior wing shape/design that made a difference - but mainly it was because the attacking planes were well low on fuel by the time they had flown over to Britain - and couldn't afford to hang about for long before heading for home !

Post by **Cam** » Fri Mar 31, 2006 9:15 pm

Well there WAS an advantage of the SU system over the injection system. But I can't remember what it was now. Maybe it was the banking? But it was carb related, not wing related.

Post by **bigginger** » Fri Mar 31, 2006 9:21 pm

Spares easier to get?

Post by **chrisd87** » Fri Mar 31, 2006 10:59 pm

Hmm... wouldn't the carbs get iced up rather quickly?

Post by **Dominic** » Sat Apr 01, 2006 9:38 am

On all aircraft with carbs, there are heaters fitted to counteract that problem. The icing is more apparent when flying through damp air, even when well above freezing, than when flying through drier air at altitude.