ADS NOT DISPLAYED TO REGISTERED USERS.
+ Reply to Thread
Page 1 of 3 1 2 3 LastLast
Results 1 to 15 of 33

A question about aero diesel engine in WWII

Engines Discuss A question about aero diesel engine in WWII in the Technical forums; I'm quite wondering why aero diesel engine wasn't popular like avgas engine in WWII. I know a main advantage the ...

  1. #1
    Member
    Join Date
    Dec 2005
    Posts
    31

    A question about aero diesel engine in WWII

    I'm quite wondering why aero diesel engine wasn't popular like avgas engine in WWII.




    I know a main advantage the diesel engine has much higher compression ratio than avgas engine.

    What disadvantages were aero diesel engine in WWII?
    Thanks
    Last edited by donkeyking; 07-04-2011 at 04:23 AM.

  2. #2
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    Jun 2009
    Location
    Connecticut
    Posts
    5,327
    Country
    United States
    They were heavy. Because of the high cylinder pressures a diesel operates at they require heavier construction than a gas engine. The better fuel economy doesn't equal the combined engine+fuel weight of the gas engine until long flights are required. There was a lot of interest in diesels during the 20s and 30s but gasoline kept getting better allowing higher compression to be used in gas engines for better economy so the goal post kept moving. The diesels that were built needed careful maintenance and didn't like the frequent throttle changes that combat required.

  3. #3
    "Shooter" evangilder's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2004
    Location
    Moorpark, CA
    Posts
    18,841
    Country
    United States
    Another thing that could be problematic is the cold temperatures at altitude. Diesel fuel gels in cold weather and unless an anti-gel agent is added to the fuel, you could have a rough time when you need power the most. Some diesels are "winterized" by mixing with a more refined diesel, but these are local mixes that are dependent on how cold it will get, etc.


    > I Support Doug Gilliss <

    For once you have tasted flight you will walk the earth with your eyes turned skywards, for there you have been and there you will long to return. Leonardo Da Vinci

  4. #4
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    May 2008
    Posts
    186
    Country
    United States
    For worries about gelling, using jet fuel would be the way to go for an aircraft diesel engine.

  5. #5
    Senior Member Snautzer01's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2009
    Posts
    600
    N.A.C.A. Technical memo nr.565

    Development of the Junkers-Diesel aircraft engine

    .
    A question about aero diesel engine in WWII-development-junkers-diesel-aircraft-engine.pdf
    Last edited by Snautzer01; 07-04-2011 at 06:31 AM.

  6. #6
    Senior Member johnbr's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2006
    Location
    London Ontario Canada
    Posts
    6,085
    Country
    Canada
    good post.

  7. #7
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    May 2011
    Posts
    115
    Country
    Finland
    How reliable are the sources on the issue of the built diesels not liking rapid throttle movements? E.g. if US fleets submarines it was found that the Fairbanks-Morse tolerated rapid starting and stopping and throttling much better than other designs and the F-M engine was based on the Junkers principle.

    I also believe that had some maker built a "normal" air-cooled radial using 4-stroke diesel principle with pure turbocharging the power/weight might have been quite good.

  8. #8
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    Jun 2009
    Location
    Connecticut
    Posts
    5,327
    Country
    United States
    Fast throttle response in a submarine and fast throttle response in an airplane might be two different things. Full power in a F-M Submarine diesel being 720 rpm and Junkers aircraft diesel being 2500-3000rpm.

    Pre- WW II radial Diesels include Packard and Guiberson in the US. a few experimentals in England and Germany, All 9 cylinders I believe (?). There was a French experimental Clerget 14F of 940hp at 1477lbs. 14 cylinder two row radial, 4 stroke supercharged.
    The Clerget company had also built a V-16 engine, perhaps for airships or flying boats?, it was turbo charged and while it gave 2000hp it also weighed 3750lbs and was of 4970cu in (81.4liters) displacement.

    There were a few other experimental or airship engines in the 30s, every time the diesel guys got close the gasoline engine moved the goal post with better fuel that allowed higher compression and fuel economy in the gas engine and/or a better power to weight ratio that meant that the combines weight of the engine and fuel for given length of flight stayed in the gasoline camp for all but the absolute longest of flights, dening the diesel any market. The Junkers was the only commercial use of the aircraft diesel. The Russians tried a few in long range bombers.

  9. #9
    Senior Member davebender's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2009
    Location
    Michigan, USA
    Posts
    5,236
    Country
    United States

    Jumo 205 diesel engine and German seaplanes

    Do-18
    Do-26
    Bv-138
    Bv-139
    Bv-222

    Blohm & Voss and Dornier built quite a few seaplanes powered by Jumo 205 diesel engines.

    1930s Dornier was probably the most experienced seaplane builder in the world. They must have had good reason to power the state of the art Do-26 with 4 Jumo 205 diesel engines rather then 2 Jumo 211 V12s.

  10. #10
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    Jun 2009
    Location
    Connecticut
    Posts
    5,327
    Country
    United States
    Quote Originally Posted by davebender View Post

    1930s Dornier was probably the most experienced seaplane builder in the world. They must have had good reason to power the state of the art Do-26 with 4 Jumo 205 diesel engines rather then 2 Jumo 211 V12s.
    They had two reasons. For the length of flight they were planning the diesels and their fuel weighed less than the gas engines and their fuel. These were very long ranged aircraft.
    Two Jumo 211s were never going to replace four Jumo 205s. In the early planes the four diesels offered 2400hp vs the 2000hp of a pair of Jumo 211s and in the later planes the four diesels offered 3520 hp vs the 2400-2800hp of a pair of later Jumo 211s.
    with 44-49,000 planes a few hundred horsepower would make a difference even with a catapult launch.

  11. #11
    Senior Member GrauGeist's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2008
    Location
    Redding, California
    Posts
    6,687
    Country
    United States
    A version of the Ju86 (Ju86C) used the Jumo205 in the 1930's as a commercial carrier as well as a couple military versions, which also used the 207 & 208 types.

    "Look back over the past, with its changing empires that rose and fell, and you can foresee the future."
    - Marcus Aurelius, Emperor of Rome


    > I Support Doug Gilliss <

  12. #12
    Member
    Join Date
    Dec 2005
    Posts
    31
    Thanks your reply.

    Another question: why does diesel engine not react fast for throttle changes?
    Last edited by donkeyking; 07-13-2011 at 04:54 PM.

  13. #13
    Senior Member davebender's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2009
    Location
    Michigan, USA
    Posts
    5,236
    Country
    United States

    why does diesel engine not react fast for throttle changes?

    I've wondered that myself. I have driven diesel powered cars and trucks that responded to throttle changes just fine.

  14. #14
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    Jun 2009
    Location
    Connecticut
    Posts
    5,327
    Country
    United States
    Descriptions of engines of the time don't say they didn't respond to throttle changes, they say the engines didn't "like" them or didn't "respond" well to them in terms of service life or maintenance. The Jumo 205s seem to have done well enough in airliner service given careful maintenance but didn't seem to perform well in combat service in Spain.

  15. #15
    Senior Member davebender's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2009
    Location
    Michigan, USA
    Posts
    5,236
    Country
    United States

    combat service in Spain

    Those would have been early model engines. I've got to assume there were improvements by the early 1940s.

+ Reply to Thread
Page 1 of 3 1 2 3 LastLast

Bookmarks

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 34 35 36 37 38 39 40 41 42 43 44 45 46 47 48 49 50 51 52 53 54 55 56 57 58 59 60 61 62 63 64 65 66 67 68 69 70 71 72 73 74 75 76 77 78 79 80 81 82 83 84 85 86