![]() |
#11
|
|||
|
|||
![]() Quote:
If you're supercharging then putting fuel into the flow upstream of the supercharger will cool the flow by about 25 K due to the latent heat of evaporation of the fuel. This considerably reduces the compression work required from the supercharger, which is equivalent to an increase in its polytropic efficiency. I would suggest that the mixture distribution is likely to be pretty good downstream of the supercharger under design conditions, because the fuel is completely evaporated. Direct injection will obviously achieve better mixture distribution at low rpm where the supercharger delta H isn't sufficient to guarantee that all of the fuel is evaporated. So DI will give you better performance close to idle. This is very important for car engines, but not so much for aeroplanes. Furthermore, as you develop your engine and increase the amount of supercharge, you'll tend to cruise higher. Even at constant boost, you'll see a higher supercharger delta H and higher charge temperature, which makes the advantage of adding fuel upstream of the supercharger more important. It's also much easier and cheaper to make and maintain a single point fuel injection system (be it via a pump or a carb) than it is to make individual injectors for each cylinder. http://www.flightglobal.com/pdfarchi...0-%200562.html http://www.flightglobal.com/pdfarchi...0-%200563.html http://www.flightglobal.com/pdfarchi...0-%200569.html If direct injection really was so great for piston aero-engines, the chances are that the Allies would have adopted it immediately post-war when all Axis technology was theirs for the taking. The fact that they didn't do so speaks volumes. See also: http://www.wwiiaircraftperformance.o...in-lovesey.pdf (The chronology of engine ratings and outputs may also be of general interest; presumably Mr. Lovesey counts as a primary source...) Last edited by Viper2000; 06-23-2011 at 01:08 PM. |
Thread Tools | |
Display Modes | |
|
|