Ad: This forum contains affiliate links to products on Amazon and eBay. More information in Terms and rules
Not a waste of time - how else to learn but by asking questions?i didnt realize they had so many problems in sorry i wasted your time i thought it might work
i will read that later thanksNot a waste of time - how else to learn but by asking questions?
Modern diesel engines have the benefit of alloys and technology that simply wasn't available before and during the war.
Here's a link to one of the more popular diesel engines used in Luftwaffe aircraft.
It has fairly good details to give you an overview of how it was used:
Junkers Jumo 205 - Wikipedia
also modern diesel engines life span is 30% of this old ones -at best - this is also "benefit" of "modern engineering approach" - other one is closing gap in fuel consumption between diesel and spark ignition engines - i'm not sure if we are going right direction hereNot a waste of time - how else to learn but by asking questions?
Modern diesel engines have the benefit of alloys and technology that simply wasn't available before and during the war.
Here's a link to one of the more popular diesel engines used in Luftwaffe aircraft.
It has fairly good details to give you an overview of how it was used:
Junkers Jumo 205 - Wikipedia
Like most things in life, the engineering of diesel engines is a series of trade offs. The "modern engineering approach" in the case of diesel engines was to reduce size and weight. I know this engine is older than you probably envisioned, but it best illustrates the issue. This was a state of the art British stationary engine in 1934. For thirty years it ran nightly providing electric power to a nearly dozen households on a small island in British Columbia. For the next 55 years it was run sporadically without any major maintenance. In addition to the lack of maintenance, the fuel consumption was minimal, far better than any "modern" high or medium-speed engine.also modern diesel engines life span is 30% of this old ones -at best - this is also "benefit" of "modern engineering approach" - other one is closing gap in fuel consumption between diesel and spark ignition engines - i'm not sure if we are going right direction here
It's better up close and personal, not really all that loud. It's hard to hear in the video, but you can actually hear the air "whoosh" into the manifold on each intake stroke. Mechanical music.That was a cool video. Liked listening to it. Might not be as pleasant if listening up close though.
I'm not an engineer, so what would be the best way to achieve the greatest efficiency if you were do design a diesel engine today? If that was your only consideration, I believe a large slow-speed engine with a long stroke is still your best pathway. Turbocharging should provide a benefit in almost any application, as it did with the Jumo 205. And as an ancillary benefit, you will probably get much greater longevity than you would with a medium or high-speed solution. Slow-speed engines just aren't practical in anything but the largest non-stationary applications.That Ruston Hornsby really isn't that efficient - 0.48 lbs fuel/hp/hr. Even the biggest Ruston Hornsby only managed 0.414 lb/hp/hr The Jumo 205 only burned 0.33 lbs/hp/hr.
The most modern high speed diesels don't get as good fuel economy due to the emissions restrictions on them, but they are still in the 0.4-0.45 lbs/hp/hr. You can cut down the flame propagation time, but using very high pressure to make very fine droplets.
Those in ocean liners are getting better numbers, but they turn even slower than that ancient engine.
Cool, reliable engine though.
A diesel 109 might not be possible but a diesel Fw.190D certainly was:
DB 6xx engines:
DB600 - sire of the 600 series line.
DB601 - V-12 of 33.0l used early in war
DB602 - Diesel V-16 used in airships, e boats in early 30s.
DB603 - V-12 of 44.5l, not ordered by RM so shunned initially
DB604 - X-24 answer to the RR Vulture just not as successful which says a lot about it.
DB605 - bored (aka larger diameter cylinders 601
DB606 - the infamous double V of the He.177 using 2 DB 601s
DB607 - Diesel V-12 of DB603 dimensions, 1,750hp takeoff
DB608 - Further increase of 601 to 36.6 l by increasing stroke.
DB609 - V-16 using DB603 bore/stroke
DB610 - double V using 2 DB 605s
DB612 - rotary valve engine
DB613 - double V using 2 DB 603s
... numbers continue to at least DB632.
Stop the train: Diesel V-12 of DB603 dimensions, 1,750hp takeoff - matches Fw.190D-12 pretty close...
Honourable mention - Ha.201 2 DB601s in tandem
If you enjoyed the video then the Anson Engine Museum in Cheshire Great Britain will be the best museum ever.Like most things in life, the engineering of diesel engines is a series of trade offs. The "modern engineering approach" in the case of diesel engines was to reduce size and weight. I know this engine is older than you probably envisioned, but it best illustrates the issue. This was a state of the art British stationary engine in 1934. For thirty years it ran nightly providing electric power to a nearly dozen households on a small island in British Columbia. For the next 55 years it was run sporadically without any major maintenance. In addition to the lack of maintenance, the fuel consumption was minimal, far better than any "modern" high or medium-speed engine.
The secret to these factors is a long, slow stroke that takes advantage of the slow flame propagation of diesel fuel and robust construction. However, the long slow stroke requires low RPM and a large cylinder, which requires a large flywheel, which requires a more robust crankshaft, which requires a more robust crankcase, etc... This is practical for a stationary application, but not so much for a vehicle of any kind, let alone an airplane. The only way to reduce the size and weight is to increase the RPM. Increases in RPM bring more power, but sacrifice efficiency and durability. The engine in the video produces 30HP @ 300RPM, and the flywheel weighs more that 1500 lbs.