Comments by "" (@doktorbimmer) on "Real Engineering" channel.

  1. +otterspocket2 You absolutely correct about that! They do not work the same! No ones risking death, serious injury or invasion from another country if your smart phone design has a flaw...
    1
  2. +otterspocket2 A compromise? Perhaps.. or as is clearly the case a better solution simply wasn't available in the british aero industry.. Even if we were to accept your theory? In any case in hindsight it was certainly a mistake that cost lives and limited the aircraft's maneuverability until a permanent solution involving the adoption of an American fuel delivery system is what finally cured BOTH the fatal flaws. American and German aircraft were immune to this fatal flaw as they clearly saw the importance of maintaining proper fuel metering under all high 'G' maneuvers that R-R did not.
    1
  3. +Andrew Fishburn Well explain why German, American even Russian manufacturers adopted pressure feed fuel systems and Rolls-Royce continued to use an outdated automotive carburetor..?
    1
  4. +Tiger Moth You're clearly out of your depth here.. especially if you cannot grasp such fundamental fuel system concepts.
    1
  5. +Andrew Fishburn I said, cite an example that they did? which you clearly failed to produce. I can only guess you have never flown? Certainly a sudden, unplanned and unpowered landing (possibly over enemy territory or over the sea) IS NOT a minor flaw!!!
    1
  6. +Tiger Moth It wouldn't called a fatal flaw it no one ever crashed..
    1
  7. +Tiger Moth If it was a minor problem? why not just one, but TWO attempts to fix it?
    1
  8. +Andrew Fishburn We are not talking about whether they knew it existed.. the question was did they have access to practical, reliable, production quality fuel injection or pressure-feed carbs.. which clearly they did not. You kids are suggesting that it was something simple as downloading an app on your smart phone..
    1
  9. +Andrew Fishburn Now your just taking a piss! Are you suggesting that Spitfires were never shot down by a Me-109s, Fw-190's or other aircraft? Now if the Spitefire was so fast it couldn't be shot down? Now that would be a MASSIVE ADVANTAGE.
    1
  10. +Tiger Moth Why don't tell a fighter pilot that a momentary or total loss of power during a dogfight is not a fatal problem? I guarantee the response you'll get is swift kick in your fat arse you batty old fool.
    1
  11. +Andrew Fishburn Well if you insist they did PLEASE CITE AN EXAMPLE?
    1
  12. +Tiger Moth The RAF certainly lost many planes... some either directly or in part to the Merlin fatal flaw... many were lost to unrelated circumstances.
    1
  13. +Andrew Fishburn Tell us who you think did invent direct injection?
    1
  14. +Andrew Fishburn How old are son? That is a site for children struggling with their primary school homework..
    1
  15. +Tiger Moth Why don't you request the MoD for that information?
    1
  16. +Andrew Fishburn Where is your proof?
    1
  17. +Andrew Fishburn Google is not an brit invention either...
    1
  18. +Andrew Fishburn You should know this kid..Google was created by American Larry Page in Menlo Park, California
    1
  19. +otterspocket2 How would you like a ride in a single engine airplane that sometimes the engine stalls completely without warning.. and never mind someone is trying to shoot down the whole time...
    1
  20. +Andrew Fishburn That's easy... a Me-262
    1
  21. +otterspocket2 It was not to developed to fail to run properly or fail completely during a dogfight... which is why it has be accurately called a Fatal Flaw..
    1
  22. +otterspocket2 How many kills did you score with your lawn mower powered glider??? OH! that's right... you don't even need a pilots licence to fly a shed like that... LOL!!!
    1
  23. +Andrew Fishburn With a 100+ mph speed advantage over any Allied fighter it indeed had a MAJOR ADVANTAGE over any aircraft that saw combat service during WW2
    1
  24. +otterspocket2 The plain truth is that Rolls-Royce lagged years behind in fuel system technology... get over it.
    1
  25. +Andrew Fishburn yet they had one of highest kill ratios of WW2.. Not in a dogfight with a proper pilot at the controls.. Not during the war, postwar versions were faster but never matched the Me-262, the "meatbox" had enough trouble staying in the air.. it was a failure as a fighter.
    1
  26. +Andrew Fishburn The Merlin's fatal flaw was due to an outdated and obsolete carburetor design... not because of fuel quality or quantity... Have you lost the plot again?
    1
  27. +Andrew Fishburn The Meatbox was the worst fighter aircraft ever produced..
    1
  28. +Andrew Fishburn German engines didn't stall in a dive... only british ones.
    1
  29. +otterspocket2 I prefer to leave the lawn mower engines in the garden shed.. and rely on proper aircraft engines to keep me in the air.. much higher and faster than your primitive contraption..
    1
  30. +Andrew Fishburn If their purpose was not to stall in a dive... the Merlin was the only engine not fit for the job...
    1
  31. +Andrew Fishburn That Rolls Royce didn't have access to Fuel Injection technology... a point you failed miserably to disprove.
    1
  32. +Andrew Fishburn No, You made the claim they did... Or have you forgotten already? Then cite an example? Cite an example of a Rolls-Royce engine in this era with a practical, production quality fuel injection system?
    1
  33. +Andrew Fishburn You wrote this comment 14 hours ago quote; " Britain definitely had fuel injection technology even before the Spitfire." You have been dodging this foolish mistake ever since...
    1
  34. +Andrew Fishburn I stand by my comments as 100% factual and true.. Rolls Royce didn't have a fuel injection system developed for the Merlin or any other engine prior to 1935.. or 1939.
    1
  35. +Andrew Fishburn That is exactly what I claimed and its 100% true...
    1
  36. +Andrew Fishburn Thats easy! Rolls Royce never had a fuel injected Merlin engine..
    1
  37. +Andrew Fishburn Name a Rolls Royce engine that was fuel injected in the 1930's? There are none! Widely available everywhere except at Rolls Royce!
    1
  38. +Andrew Fishburn Yes, because they didn't.. and you failed to provide any evidence they did.
    1
  39. +Andrew Fishburn Correct, I didn't offer any proof to support your theory... and neither did you, because there isn't any. What other Brit engine manufacturer provided engines for the Spitfire in the 1930's???
    1
  40. +Andrew Fishburn Without any doubt Rolls Royce knew that fuel injection systems for aircraft existed... they just didn't know how to build one of their own. They didn't have a choice, it was not a technology they had developed or had access to buy.
    1
  41. +otterspocket2 Are you implying Rolls-Royce was not BRITISH!!!!! Rolls-Royce was 100% british... at least until the company went completely bankrupt in 1971..
    1
  42. +otterspocket2 Just the facts here.. something you seem to be completely unfamiliar with.
    1
  43. Not during WW2
    1
  44. +John Burns Then explain why brits all drive German cars and all the brits car companies are owned by India????
    1
  45. +John Burns Where ia that new Mazda RX-7 you promised was coming out this year??? Its 2017 and I can't find them for sale anywhere???? Why is everything you say turn out not to be true?
    1
  46. +KeyToTime I think you are naively speculating here, anyone familiar with both Carburetors and Fuel Injection knows very well that mechanical Fuel Injection is extremely reliable much more reliable than carbs.. the added cost is more than off-set by the many performance advantages... FI produces more power, improves fuel economy(thus improving range) is less prone to icing problems and in the case of the German's GDI system allowed high boost pressures without need or the negative effects of high octane leaded fuels... and of course, most importantly completely immune to flooding and stalling in high 'G' maneuvers. Carbs tend to run too lean at WEP... leading to detonation during WEP, the Rolls-Royce Merlin suffered rather badly from this design defect and so full power had to be limited to 5 minutes per flight and only used if absolutely necessary...otherwise the engine would usually self-destruct in flight resulting in a crash, if WEP was used during a flight the aircraft would be grounded upon return until completion of an internal inspection for damage and to replace the spark plugs which would always be damaged and no longer serviceable. Engines equipped with GDI typically did not suffer from these service and maintenance problems that cause problems with combat readiness.
    1
  47. +KeyToTime The point of the video is that IT DIDN'T WORK
    1
  48. +silver fox Then why the two separate attempts to correct this fatal flaw in its design???? Rolls-Royce did not develop a successful multi-point injection system for the Merlin until the design was already obsolete circa 1946
    1
  49. +silver fox All Spitfire models fitted with Merlin engines were equipped with breakable metal "tattle-tale" locks on the throttle lever stop, a pilot would have to forcibly break the metal strip to advance the lever into the boost regulator override position. Ground crews checked and replaced this locking device before every flight, failure to report the use of WEP in flight was a serious offense... pilot were required to give a detailed explanation of why he deliberately over-rode the boost regulator and risking damage to aircraft.
    1
  50. +silver fox Well as your knowledge is proving very limited that is not surprising...
    1