Quote:
I don't think it's wrong, any ammount of negative G in early Spitfires causes the engine to cut with very little delay. That's why it was such a problem. There is no inbetween.
If anyone can prove otherwise I'd like to see it.
|
+1 on that.
The above post is an impressive demonstration of knowledge, and it is very interesting...BUT as mentioned above, the Cessna 172 is not a Spitfire.
I understand the need for explanation,and comparison, but you have to take into account at least 15-20 years difference in aero-engine technogical development between the Merlin Mk II and the Continental O-300(Early 172 engines).
From what I gather the problem of cut-out in the Merlin was not completely fixed until 1942 when pressure carburettors were introduced.
And as the CLoD manual states, pilots had to develop the tactic of half-rolling the Spitfire to chase the fuel injected 109s in negative G dives.
This seems to suggest to me that even a small amount of negative G was causing the cut out, or why else would the tactic be necessary?