Page 4 of 4
Posted: Fri Mar 31, 2006 8:48 am
by paulk
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!
Posted: Fri Mar 31, 2006 8:54 am
by bigginger
It was British spunk and pluck that we had and they didn't
Posted: Fri Mar 31, 2006 8:56 am
by paulk
Try saying that fast after a shandy or seven
Posted: Fri Mar 31, 2006 9:08 am
by bigginger
Hee hee - I think I'll avoid the shandy at this time of the morning, just think of my reputation...
Posted: Fri Mar 31, 2006 6:45 pm
by bmcecosse
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 !
Posted: Fri Mar 31, 2006 9:15 pm
by Cam
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.
Posted: Fri Mar 31, 2006 9:21 pm
by bigginger
Spares easier to get?
Posted: Fri Mar 31, 2006 10:59 pm
by chrisd87
Hmm... wouldn't the carbs get iced up rather quickly?
Posted: Sat Apr 01, 2006 9:38 am
by Dominic
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.