Direct Injection

[Tom Parker]

Howard Wilkinson <owly at mcn.net> wrote:

>    I suspect that we are comparing apples to oranges here.  The
>engines you are speaking of are extreme high performance supercharged
>engines, and I suspect that direct injection was a strategy to help
>combat detonation / as was the water injection system common on WW2
>aircraft.  The problem with direct injection which resulted in the use
>of two injectors (not the Orbital system) was atomization was not as
>good as with port injection resulting in less max power output.

I always thought that the advantage of the Daimler Benz WWII engine was that
its fuel injection system worked when you went into a dive, while the SU
caburettors of the Rolls Royce would starve momentarily due to some sort of
gee force effect.

The fuel injection was also less likely to catch fire...

1937 Damiler Benz 601 A                 1100hp, 1344lb
1940 Rolls Royce Merlin Series II       1030hp, 1335lb

(From Fighter, by Len Deighton)

Very similar power to weight ratio. 

--
Tom Parker - parkert at ihug.co.nz
           - http://www.geocities.com/MotorCity/Track/8381/