| |
VK3XX > CARS 06.07.08 04:30l 33 Lines 1350 Bytes #999 (0) @ WW
BID : 701612VK3XX
Read: GUEST
Subj: Re: Gas producers
Path: DB0FHN<DB0MRW<DK0WUE<7M3TJZ<ZL2BAU<VK4TRS<VK3API
Sent: 080706/0228Z @:VK3API.#MEL.VIC.AUS.OC #:17319 [Lilydale] FBB7.00g
From: VK3XX@VK3API.#MEL.VIC.AUS.OC
To : CARS@WW
Greetings to all contributers to this topic.
Several referred to water injection in internal combustion engines as
being beneficial. The Spitfire was specifically mentioned. I think that
may well be true but if we go back to the 1960's when the jet propelled
aircraft became common in commercial aviation, water injection to boost
power output was certainly used. Two particular aircraft come to mind.
The early Boeing 707-100 series were nearly all equipped with water
injection facilities because many airfield runways were marginal in take
off length for safety. The thrust of the engines available at that time
needed a boost. This was accomplished with very dirty exhaust plumes but
how the water injection contributed other than perhaps allowing an
increase in fuel/air ratio by cooling the inlet air I really dont know.
Maybe just the extra steam in the exhaust gas.
Another aircraft was the BAC 111 which operated from smaller airfields. I
recall a major accident where the distilled water tank on a BAC 111 was
accidentally filled with jet fuel.
This philosophy was abandoned eventually as jet engines with greater
thrust became available.
Cheers and
73 - GORDON, VK3XX @ VK3API.#MEL.VIC.AUS.OC
Message timed: 12:27 AEST on 06 Jul 2008
Message sent using WinPack V6.80 (Registered)
Read previous mail | Read next mail
| |
