Anonymous at Thu, 24 Oct 2024 22:15:08 UTC No. 16447919

>>16447858
the best engines available at that time were supercharged gasoline engines with fuel injection.
>but diesel engines were theoretically better
you can't install a theoretical engine into an airplane. The best engines that were actually made were gasoline engines.

Anyway, Germany used some diesel engines in some of their planes. They weren't that great.

Anonymous at Thu, 24 Oct 2024 22:21:45 UTC No. 16447931

>>16447919
I'm asking why it didn't happen not if it did.

Anonymous at Thu, 24 Oct 2024 22:22:37 UTC No. 16447935

>>16447931
It didn't happen because nobody designed and built the engines you are imagining.

Anonymous at Fri, 25 Oct 2024 00:08:47 UTC No. 16448032

>>16447858
False premise. They were used, and they were not obviously superior to gasoline aero engines. While the fuel economy was favorable, they had substantially lower power-to-weight ratio. You can compare Jumo 205 to Jumo 211 for example

Anonymous at Fri, 25 Oct 2024 00:12:20 UTC No. 16448040

>>16447858
Where do you put DEF fluid?

🗑️ Anonymous at Fri, 25 Oct 2024 01:11:07 UTC No. 16448139

>>16448032
they both sucked compared to the jumo 004. between the me262, the fa 223 and the aggregat 4, nazi germany developed all of the significant transportation technology for the modern era of air and space travel.

Anonymous at Fri, 25 Oct 2024 02:38:08 UTC No. 16448248

>>16448032
>compare Jumo 205 to Jumo 211
the 211 is newer, a V engine and twice as powerful in total, the Jumo 207 compares more favorably

Anonymous at Fri, 25 Oct 2024 02:59:45 UTC No. 16448274

>>16447858
Diamond Aircraft slaps turbo-diesels in their planes

Anonymous at Fri, 25 Oct 2024 03:30:37 UTC No. 16448310

>>16447931
>It happened.
>Why not?
JHFC

Anonymous at Fri, 25 Oct 2024 08:31:14 UTC No. 16448612

>>16448248
>211 is newer
Just by few years. Both engines are originally pre-war designs, and both were further developed until the end of ww2. You can compare late war versions. I think 207 is merely a variant of 205.

>V engine
So? 205 is a opposed piston straight 6. It's not like V12 has any magic to it when compared with straight 6.

> twice as powerful in total
Yet roughly similar size, and only some 10-15% heavier

Anonymous at Fri, 25 Oct 2024 10:39:39 UTC No. 16448707

>>16448612
>I think 207 is merely a variant of 205
Yes, but it's comparable to the 211 in power and power-to-weight.
>So? 205 is a opposed piston straight 6. It's not like V12 has any magic to it when compared with straight 6.
Crankshafts are very heavy, that's why V's, flats and radials were preferred over inlines. With two crankshafts you need gearing, ~twice the lubrication system etc which increases the weight and decreases reliability.

Anonymous at Sat, 26 Oct 2024 09:33:02 UTC No. 16450235

>>16447858
because okay?

Anonymous at Sat, 26 Oct 2024 09:33:36 UTC No. 16450237

>>16448707
>comparable to the 211 in power and power-to-weight
To a same year version of 211?

>>16448707
205 and it's derivatives have two camshafts because it's an opposed piston engine, not because it's an inline engine. It need two camshafts and two sets of pistons to facilitate efficient two-stroke aspiration. All the extra weight that comes with it is due to it's two stroke nature. Two stroke diesel is not a straight up improvement over four stroke, it's a compromise

Regular V12s and I6s both have just one camshaft, even if an I6 might need slightly heavier one for same power