A quick summery of the technical report. I need to reread this and give each topic a better platform for discussion.
The fuel capacity was a problem from day one, and he said they designed the carburetor around a centrally located float with the 'leak points' as close to the float as possible to increase the angle of tip need to bleed fuel through the booster. He claims they have 40 deg of tip before the fuel leaks from the bowl. And, he claims that up to 25% of the fuel evaporates. Then goes out the vent and gets sucked back down the bores, disrupting the air/fuel metering on a hot engine. So a small fuel bowl cuts down on evaporation since cool fresh fuel must flow in, and that improves fuel economy.
The 'air valve secondary' was originally the whole carburetor, there were no primaries. And it was not twin secondary bores, they were one big bore. And, it was designed to accommodate for wide open throttle on a 400ci + engine running at 100% efficiency. Not sure if they were thinking aircraft carb or what. real world constraints split the air valve bores into one for each side of the engine and the primaries were added for low speed. But, somehow, in the end, the primaries deliver 80% of the HP and the secondary delivers 20%. Opening after 50 deg of primary rotation, 50 deg being for drivability, and basically on a 400 ci engine is the 3200 rpm+ carburetor. They found this out after they were testing prototypes, I think he is hinting that the primaries are too big. Something about they forgot about the air cleaner restriction.
It also sounds like they wanted a taller carburetor height. Maybe then correcting the small fuel bowl. But, a design criteria was to fit under lower hoods. The shape of the carburetor is to allow the air cleaner to envelop the carburetor. This allows for a larger filter element and so reduces the vacuum drop.
don't tell anyone where you got this pdf from - I had to delete the cover page to fit in the CK5 upload limit, it was just the journals cover scan.
