Merlin negative G cutout too quick?

just had a word with one of the pilots, who confirmed me that as soon as you hit 0G with a float carburettor it's enough for the engine to falter or cut. He said the Harvard does it regularly (I never experienced stalls or 0G manouvres with it so I couldn't tell personally).

[IvanK]

Ok thanks for that, then based on that 0G is significant. If we accept 0G as the point at which the coughing starts then what we have now is GROSSLY over done.


I have a pretty good idea of 0G and the pitch rates required to achieve it in high performance aeroplanes and we are getting nowhere near it in COD before the engine starts coughing.

[Seeker]

It does seem very strange to me that the Merlin installation, lacking fuel injection as it was, though intended for an aerobatic use, is less robust to negative G than either a Prewar Matchless scrambler or the pilot's MG TA.

I can keep an MG TA for negative G for about2 to 3 seconds without it cutting out. The lube system is much more sensitive than the carbs, as merely throwing it hard into a roundabout can get the oil thrown to one side of the sump, but while I've heard bearing knock on round abouts and good hump back bridges, it's never had metering problems.

Of course it's a completely spurious comparison, but nonetheless odd that a machine designed for 2 D is more robust in this matter than a machine designed for 3D.

Originally Posted by Seeker

It does seem very strange to me that the Merlin installation, lacking fuel injection as it was, though intended for an aerobatic use, is less robust to negative G than either a Prewar Matchless scrambler or the pilot's MG TA.

I can keep an MG TA for negative G for about2 to 3 seconds without it cutting out. The lube system is much more sensitive than the carbs, as merely throwing it hard into a roundabout can get the oil thrown to one side of the sump, but while I've heard bearing knock on round abouts and good hump back bridges, it's never had metering problems.

Of course it's a completely spurious comparison, but nonetheless odd that a machine designed for 2 D is more robust in this matter than a machine designed for 3D.

..erm, you got me a bit confused mate, how can you exactly put a car into negative G load?

[II/JG54_Emil]

lol

the weirdest comparissons are made in this thread to find arguments to convince the developers to tune the favorite plane.

If this happens for blue side I instantly see 10 posts calling s.o. Luftwhiner.

[609_Huetz]

Please get rid of the Blue v Red comparison for once... This thread is inteded to find out if a.) the devs did it right or b.) the devs got it wrong and it needs fixing.

Just like many others in here, I am under the impression that this is meant to be a Sim.

[II/JG54_Emil]

You can read some very bad comparisons in this thread.
My take on this is the attempt to improve the FM of a favored AC, no matter if the comparison relates or not.

Anyway I just had to smile.
Just ignore my post.

I´ll listen to what Sternjaeger has to say.

[Moggy]

Originally Posted by II/JG54_Emil

You can read some very bad comparisons in this thread.
My take on this is the attempt to improve the FM of a favored AC, no matter if the comparison relates or not.

Or to worsen the FM of a hated AC, in this case the door does swing both ways..but you are quite correct.

Nothing speaks louder more than documentational fact as opposed to opinion.

[winny]

Originally Posted by Sternjaeger

..erm, you got me a bit confused mate, how can you exactly put a car into negative G load?

Crest of a hill...? Or, roll it.

[Viper2000]

Originally Posted by Seeker

Of course it's a completely spurious comparison, but nonetheless odd that a machine designed for 2 D is more robust in this matter than a machine designed for 3D.

In the official mind, interceptors go up, shoot a bomber or two, come back down, re-arm, refuel and repeat.

The RAF's aeroplanes are serious tools paid with using Public Money, not toys for pilots. Furthermore, pilots are reminded to fly directly to and from their targets, since prodigal use of fuel is burdensome to the Public Purse.

Or words to that effect.

If you just think of the interception task, and assume that the target is a cooperative bomber flying in a straight line, you really only need 1 g straight & level, plus axial acceleration/pitch changes to get the job done.

Is this silly? Of course. But if the people designing the aeroplanes have never flown them then it's unrealistic to expect them to imaginatively embellish the specifications given to them by the man from the Ministry, especially since they probably wouldn't be thanked for it anyway.