Talk:Bendix-Stromberg pressure carburetor

A-class review

Can someone get the ball rolling on this one. The article is certainly big enough, possibly too big

Merge

The contents of pressure carburetor surely should be merged with this one. Or vice versa. Another note is that I have a suspicion that diaphragm carburetor really is the same as a pressure carburetor. -- Egil (talk) 22:21, 18 January 2014 (UTC)

I agree. Pressure carburetor says it's about a carburetor manufactured by Bendix. --Anthrcer (click to talk to me) 22:04, 14 December 2017 (UTC)

Design and Development section - isn't there some nonsense there?

The paragraph that begins, "Last, it is also a given that it takes exactly seven pounds of air passing through an engine to create one horsepower" does not appear to make sense. It would seem to need some unit of time, or other dimension, because the implication at present is that seven pounds of air (+fuel) will create one horsepower ad infinitum.

The paragraph goes on to state that a 1000hp engine requires 7000 lb of air and 437.5-777.8 lb of fuel, which is consistent with most of the earlier statements (eg stoichiometric range) BUT does nothing to imply the rate of fuel/air consumption: does the engine require c. 600 lb of fuel per second, or per year, to produce its 1000 HP?

Please could a subject-matter expert look at this section and unscramble it into something that makes sense? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 87.115.200.156 (talk) 21:55, 29 December 2016 (UTC)

Quotation Usage

This article has a lot of single words with quotation marks. I'm not sure if the writer was attempting to stress the words or if it is some class of practical joke or what. It is distracting to the reader and the article would be improved by removing them.Citrus Cola (talk) 20:30, 1 April 2020 (UTC)

@Citrus Cola: I agree. It was also far too much detail for the lead (or maybe at all for a general encyclopedia) and totally un-cited and un-verifiable. I'd encourage the original IP editor to discuss their desired changes and provide reliable sources here. —[AlanM1 (talk)]— 21:47, 1 April 2020 (UTC)

Inaccurate description in quote from Reference 3

Good evening, I was reading this article and noticed an inaccurate description of "direct injection" in the paragraphs included inline from note 3.

"The direct-injection systems differed from a pressure carburetor in that the fuel is introduced just up stream from the intake valve in the inlet port in each individual cylinder head in the direct fuel injection system, as opposed to the pressure carburetor where the fuel is introduced at the carburetor. These fuel control devices were individually sized and calibrated to fit almost all piston aircraft engines used by both civil and allied military aircraft made in the post war era. These fuel injection systems are found on high performance general aviation piston engines that continue flying into the 21st century."

Port fuel injection (many implementations with many differing details) was later popular in cars postwar and indeed is common in light aircraft engines today, essentially unchanged from the postwar period.

Direct fuel injection is higher pressure injection directly into the combustion chamber. This was used in allied and German aircraft engines during the war. It didn't become common in automotive engines until the 21st century. Direct injection never became common on general aviation gasoline engines at any time. There are now some light aviation diesels with direct injection.

I have absolutely no idea how to properly edit this or ask for a review of it by the article authors. I apologize for my ignorance of the wikipedia procedures. Thank you 2603:7080:8237:E990:D89B:7608:61EE:7111 (talk) 03:13, 8 July 2022 (UTC)