Merlin negative G cutout too quick?

[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.

Originally Posted by Moggy

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.

yes and no... it depends on the nature of the documented fact and the 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.

[klem]

Originally Posted by Viper2000

.............. 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.

Bear in mind that Hawker and Supermarine were ahead of the MoD on aircraft development, both producing what they thought was best and better than the basic MoD specs of the time. Imaginative embellishment is precisely what they did to the gratitude of the MoD. Hawkers had all their experience of the Hart/Fury line from which the Hurricane directly descended (some of those had Merlin engines, do you think they never hit negative G in their life or development?) and Mitchell had all the Se5/Se6 development behind his work on the Spitfire.

Added to that, these aircraft had to be passed fit for purpose by the appropriate authorities, from normal flight to combat.