Menu Sign In Contact FAQ
Banner
Welcome to our forums

Great Video About Carburetors

Some amazing high-speed footage in this one. They make a transparent version allowing you to see the whole sequence.



EIMH, Ireland

Very cool. Weber in action.

ENVA ENOP ENMO, Norway

This channel can steal a life, it’s so good!

Airline/Mentor/Safety/Instructor - Pilot
Based Austria | Operating Worldwide

Slightly long winded, but pretty cool
Been around all kind of engines since an early age (whatever that means…), and never realized to the full that the air basically stops in the throat, probably less so on a multi-cylinder at hi revs.

Good find!

Life's short... enjoy!
LSZF, Switzerland

Our ground school teacher having Aircraft General Knowledge has said he’ll use (parts of) that video in the next course.

ESKC (Uppsala/Sundbro), Sweden

The bowl is not a necessity for a carburetor though, in fact it is useless when trying to fly upside down. It’s only there to mitigate variations due to varying supply pressure of fuel. Small “household” engines typically use a diaphragm carburetor, which is a compact, combined pump and metering system and has no need for a bowl, and works in all directions. Then there is the simple ventury/needle carburetors used in RC and also in some large airplanes, notably Ellison and Rotec. They call it “throttle body injectors”, probably because it sounds way cooler than “carburetor” They are still carburetors though, only without the bowl.

The basic principle is the same in all. A venturi with high velocity, lower than ambient pressure air sucks out fuel and breaks it up into tiny droplets. This is captured exceptionally well in that video. One can literally see the large droplets “explode” into a mist.

ENVA ENOP ENMO, Norway

Why doesn’t everybody use fuel injection?

Administrator
Shoreham EGKA, United Kingdom

Peter wrote:

Why doesn’t everybody use fuel injection?

Gravity feed to a single carb is about the simplest and least troublesome fuel system that exists and with it the engine also starts immediately every time, even with the no battery Armstrong Method when necessary. The slightly higher fuel burn is a non-issue to me by comparison, about $4/hr or say $200/year for my usage to have a simpler, easier to maintain engine.

My current plane has two fuel pumps, I’d surely prefer none.

Last Edited by Silvaire at 08 Jul 14:09
8 Posts
Sign in to add your message

Back to Top