Quote:
|
I suspect there is politics involved with that.
|
It was....
Both Daimler-Benz and BMW were forbidden from even being in the aviation market.
Post-war, both companies withdrew from anything to do with aviation and produced automobile engines instead. Both are industry leaders from the moment they entered the market and that leadership continues today.
They produced some of the best engines in the world.
Quote:
|
Injecting fuel upstream of the supercharger reduces the temperature by about 25 K due to the latent heat of evaporation of the fuel.
|
And injecting fuel directly into the combustion chamber is even better, Viper. How hard is that to understand?
Quote:
|
If you reduce the power consumed by the supercharger then you increase the brake horsepower and reduce the SFC.
|
And that it is much more efficient to realize the power gains by directly injecting fuel into the combustion chamber than it is by dumping it into an intake manifold......
Quote:
|
It's less attractive for a big aero-engine because if you're operating at fixed power with a reasonable amount of supercharge you should be able to attain excellent mixture distribution, and so the pragmatic solution is to have single point injection into the eye of the supercharger - which is basically what everybody ended up doing.
|
No, it is attractive and if we had the technology to do it on a cost effective basis, we would have done it. It is the ultimate fuel metering method for a piston engine in terms of power and efficiency. A single point injection simply cannot maintain a stoichiometric mixture in all the cylinders. That is why the EGT and CHT will always be different in each cylinder unless you have direct fuel injection.