![]() |
#11
|
|||
|
|||
![]() Quote:
As for post-war engine development, the US government funded considerable development work on the R-3350 turbocompound, and indeed also upon the R-4360, both of which found their way into airline service. Britain funded development of the Napier Nomad, which was a more ambitious take on the turbocompound idea (I strongly suspect that this engine was cancelled due to failure to meet its quoted performance; I modelled it in considerable detail a couple of years ago, and I could never make the quoted component efficiencies add up to the quoted SFC...). Direct injection makes a lot of sense for naturally aspirated engines, compression ignition engines, or engines which operate over a wide power range. 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. Of course, these days people aren't designing big piston aero-engines anymore, and they aren't supercharging*, so DI makes sense. *and turbochargers tend to be bought from turbocharger companies, which means that injection into the eye of the turbo-supercharger impeller isn't really an option because it would be too much of a nightmare to organise the development effort - who pays for what etc? |
|
|