Why no multi engine diesels?
Thread Starter
Join Date: Sep 2006
Location: Los Angeles, USA
Age: 52
Posts: 1,631
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Why no multi engine diesels?
As I understand it, most serious flying over populated areas require 2-engine safety, either by regulation or by safety. Turbines were the perfect choice for this, but as we all know, they're very expensive to operate.
Now with the introduction of the new certified diesel engines like the Thielert's, wouldn't these be perfect for helicopters? The benefits would be that you get to fill up with Jet A1 which the industry has the infrastructure for, you also get a long TBO and most importantly, lower fuel consumption and a much lower servicing/overhaul/investment costs.
Imagine a R22-sized chopper with two Thielert 140hp - perfect for law enforcement or inspection where you need to be able to fly over dense population and have the safety of 2-engines, but don't really need the space of of carrying around 2 extra seats you never use. Or a larger corporate-type/oil rig helicopter using Thielert's new 350hp diesels?
The benefits would be obvious. After all, with all the global warming and environmental stuff going on, it doesn't make sense to waste such huge amounts of fuel right into thin air as a turbine does - it's not a very effective way to turn gas into shaft horse powers. And who wouldn't want to cut their servicing and fuel bill by lots (I'm guessing 1/5 - 1/6 of the cost of a turbine or something?).
What's wrong with this idea?
Now with the introduction of the new certified diesel engines like the Thielert's, wouldn't these be perfect for helicopters? The benefits would be that you get to fill up with Jet A1 which the industry has the infrastructure for, you also get a long TBO and most importantly, lower fuel consumption and a much lower servicing/overhaul/investment costs.
Imagine a R22-sized chopper with two Thielert 140hp - perfect for law enforcement or inspection where you need to be able to fly over dense population and have the safety of 2-engines, but don't really need the space of of carrying around 2 extra seats you never use. Or a larger corporate-type/oil rig helicopter using Thielert's new 350hp diesels?
The benefits would be obvious. After all, with all the global warming and environmental stuff going on, it doesn't make sense to waste such huge amounts of fuel right into thin air as a turbine does - it's not a very effective way to turn gas into shaft horse powers. And who wouldn't want to cut their servicing and fuel bill by lots (I'm guessing 1/5 - 1/6 of the cost of a turbine or something?).
What's wrong with this idea?
Join Date: Nov 2004
Location: Cambridgeshire, UK
Posts: 1,334
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Not sure what the official view on this is, but...
Adam, single engine piston radials were often chosen on 40s vintage propeller fixed wing since they were very damage tolerant. The best way for a piston engine to go is to have seperate injector systems and controls - ideally one for each piston. As long as the big end is nice and robust, reliability is then not an issue. Failures often seem to be drivebelts, so better to design these out in favour of direct drive to gearbox (at some cost).
Turbine modes of failure tend to be catastrophic, so a small fault rapidly developes into a total engine failure. Perhaps the best way is to think of the crankshaft as part of the gearbox system, with multiple pistons....
Mart
Turbine modes of failure tend to be catastrophic, so a small fault rapidly developes into a total engine failure. Perhaps the best way is to think of the crankshaft as part of the gearbox system, with multiple pistons....
Mart
Join Date: Mar 2006
Location: Where i hang my hat
Age: 47
Posts: 91
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
There is one heli that is being developed in OZ that has a turbocharged diesel engine.
Think the heli right now is undergoing FAR part 27.
Read a bit about the engine they are going to use, sounded interesting.
Think the heli right now is undergoing FAR part 27.
Read a bit about the engine they are going to use, sounded interesting.
Join Date: Dec 2001
Location: Philadelphia PA
Age: 74
Posts: 1,835
Likes: 0
Received 2 Likes
on
2 Posts
The main issue for putting two piston engines in any helicopter has got to be matching the power output and speed of the two engines.
Modern computers coupled to the fuel control will probably have to be used, and that introduces a whole new set of problems.
Just think of the issues - the engines have to be running at the same RPM, and then produce equal amounts of power. Pretty complicated, and certainly not the sort of thing I'd like to do manually.
(So we're lifting off to the hover, and I've got to manually match the engines - what parameters are we going to use for the matching? RPM first - so I have to fiddle with two throttles or maybe a 4 way beep switch, then torque (perhaps), all the time I'm trying to hover....)
Are we going to have contingency power ratings on the engines in the event that one engine fails?
Loads of issues that will probably stop the project from ever getting off the ground.
Modern computers coupled to the fuel control will probably have to be used, and that introduces a whole new set of problems.
Just think of the issues - the engines have to be running at the same RPM, and then produce equal amounts of power. Pretty complicated, and certainly not the sort of thing I'd like to do manually.
(So we're lifting off to the hover, and I've got to manually match the engines - what parameters are we going to use for the matching? RPM first - so I have to fiddle with two throttles or maybe a 4 way beep switch, then torque (perhaps), all the time I'm trying to hover....)
Are we going to have contingency power ratings on the engines in the event that one engine fails?
Loads of issues that will probably stop the project from ever getting off the ground.
Join Date: Oct 2004
Location: Europe
Posts: 483
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
TGR Helicorp Ltd
Mr Edd, I think, you mean this...
http://www.tgrhelicorp.com/home.htm
"TGR Helicorp Ltd is the only commercial helicopter manufacturer in the Southern Hemisphere"
"powered by a brilliant aircraft diesel engine, specifically designed by DeltaHawk Engines of Wisconsin USA."
http://www.tgrhelicorp.com/home.htm
"TGR Helicorp Ltd is the only commercial helicopter manufacturer in the Southern Hemisphere"
"powered by a brilliant aircraft diesel engine, specifically designed by DeltaHawk Engines of Wisconsin USA."
Join Date: Oct 2004
Location: Europe
Posts: 483
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
The main issue for putting two piston engines in any helicopter has got to be matching the power output and speed of the two engines.
Modern computers coupled to the fuel control will probably have to be used, and that introduces a whole new set of problems.
Modern computers coupled to the fuel control will probably have to be used, and that introduces a whole new set of problems.
S-56, S-60, Cypher-2
Shawn,
From before my time the S-56, and the S-60 were both dual engine recips. And, I think I remember reading somewhere that the Cypher-2 UAV had dual recips as well.
But, if you think it through, what's the big deal? Pretend some mechanic mis-rigs the throttles in your dual engine recip such that one of them has 25% of the displacement compared to the other. Now head off into the wild blue yonder. As you pull pitch, the engine with its throttle more advanced will do all the heavy lifting. You have significant collective pitch, and significant throttle on both engines even though they are mis-matched. What happens to the engine with the retarded throttle? It doesn't just stay at idle. It will rev up until it hits the brick wall of the rotor system, then it won't accelerate any more. Everything will stay at the same RPM, both engines and the rotor system. Equivalent rotor RPM, that is. So none of your 3 needles will split. But, the engine with the retarded throttle is adding a lot less torque to keep the rotor turning, the other engine is adding a lot of torque. Not good for the hard working engine, or the input shaft/gears/bearings it is hooked to, but it will work.
A good analogy is a tandem bike. Similar overrunning clutches and everything. The guy in the front works hard, pedals up the hill. The guy in the back spins his pedals just as fast, but doesn't put any effort into it. Works fine until the guy in the front has a coronary.
How do you balance out the torque between the engines? I don't know how they do it, if the pilot has 2 throttles or if they do it in rigging. But either a torque measurement or manifold pressure should be close enough of a measurement to keep everybody happy.
-- IFMU
From before my time the S-56, and the S-60 were both dual engine recips. And, I think I remember reading somewhere that the Cypher-2 UAV had dual recips as well.
But, if you think it through, what's the big deal? Pretend some mechanic mis-rigs the throttles in your dual engine recip such that one of them has 25% of the displacement compared to the other. Now head off into the wild blue yonder. As you pull pitch, the engine with its throttle more advanced will do all the heavy lifting. You have significant collective pitch, and significant throttle on both engines even though they are mis-matched. What happens to the engine with the retarded throttle? It doesn't just stay at idle. It will rev up until it hits the brick wall of the rotor system, then it won't accelerate any more. Everything will stay at the same RPM, both engines and the rotor system. Equivalent rotor RPM, that is. So none of your 3 needles will split. But, the engine with the retarded throttle is adding a lot less torque to keep the rotor turning, the other engine is adding a lot of torque. Not good for the hard working engine, or the input shaft/gears/bearings it is hooked to, but it will work.
A good analogy is a tandem bike. Similar overrunning clutches and everything. The guy in the front works hard, pedals up the hill. The guy in the back spins his pedals just as fast, but doesn't put any effort into it. Works fine until the guy in the front has a coronary.
How do you balance out the torque between the engines? I don't know how they do it, if the pilot has 2 throttles or if they do it in rigging. But either a torque measurement or manifold pressure should be close enough of a measurement to keep everybody happy.
-- IFMU
Join Date: Mar 2006
Location: Where i hang my hat
Age: 47
Posts: 91
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Kulwin park the link Ptkay posted is spot on the one i ment.
So the answere would be DeltaHawk.
I coulden´t find the link so thanks Ptkay for posting it.
They have a bit more to do before well see the little buggar in action.
But it´s going to be interesting to hear how that diesel will performe.
Soon it´s Pattys day lads, not having a beer then is a crime
So the answere would be DeltaHawk.
I coulden´t find the link so thanks Ptkay for posting it.
They have a bit more to do before well see the little buggar in action.
But it´s going to be interesting to hear how that diesel will performe.
Soon it´s Pattys day lads, not having a beer then is a crime
Join Date: Nov 2004
Location: Cambridgeshire, UK
Posts: 1,334
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Originally Posted by IFMU
How do you balance out the torque between the engines? I don't know how they do it, if the pilot has 2 throttles or if they do it in rigging. But either a torque measurement or manifold pressure should be close enough of a measurement to keep everybody happy.
What i do find amazing is that the TGRHelicorp machines are full fly-by-wire! They may only be CAD renderings, and no mention of price is made, but it does make the dream of FBW in a light heli closer. I wonder what sort of additional safety features they are thinking about putting into cyclic & collective control. The system may be a simple gyro feedback rate control system, or there may actually be control software. One to watch for sure.
Final note on Deltahawk is that quoted BSFC is 0.38 lb/HP-hour, which to my metric mind is 190 g/kW-hour. Using the figure i ealier worked out of BSFC 83.7 g/kW-hour for 100% efficiency (most aviation fuels), this makes the engine 44% efficient when running at optimum rpm.
Mart
Graviman,
I agree with your comments to Shawn, I would guess in the current multi-engine turbine fleet most just use RPM. How diifficult would it be to do? OK some FADEC controlled engines can be Q or T matched but only because they can. Torquemeters these days are pretty simple as well if you wanted to go that way with digital electronics, phonic pickup measuring phase shift
I'm currently based on a ship that has 8 engines the same, diesel electric, doesn't seem to be an issue.
As for FADEC, when I did the PW 206/207 course the instructor mentioned how the PT6 FADEC in the S-76B became rapidly obsolete because it was basically over engineered and in a short period of time you could not purchase the components in the FADEC any more! His comment was that the FADEC in the 206/207 engine was probably very similar to what was in a Fuel Injected Korean car. The box it was in and the screws were made in the US by Hamilton Standard and that was about all.
There was a similar issue with Concorde near the end of it's life. They were having difficulty supporting the analogue and steam powered electronic systems in it.
On another issue with diesels that are out there in FW the penalties aren't as great as you would first assume. The lower SFC trades into not having to carry so much fuel. With the current cab 1 hours fuel = 2.5 average sized people!
Also I think you would need to address the torsional issues well on a diesel.
I agree with your comments to Shawn, I would guess in the current multi-engine turbine fleet most just use RPM. How diifficult would it be to do? OK some FADEC controlled engines can be Q or T matched but only because they can. Torquemeters these days are pretty simple as well if you wanted to go that way with digital electronics, phonic pickup measuring phase shift
I'm currently based on a ship that has 8 engines the same, diesel electric, doesn't seem to be an issue.
As for FADEC, when I did the PW 206/207 course the instructor mentioned how the PT6 FADEC in the S-76B became rapidly obsolete because it was basically over engineered and in a short period of time you could not purchase the components in the FADEC any more! His comment was that the FADEC in the 206/207 engine was probably very similar to what was in a Fuel Injected Korean car. The box it was in and the screws were made in the US by Hamilton Standard and that was about all.
There was a similar issue with Concorde near the end of it's life. They were having difficulty supporting the analogue and steam powered electronic systems in it.
On another issue with diesels that are out there in FW the penalties aren't as great as you would first assume. The lower SFC trades into not having to carry so much fuel. With the current cab 1 hours fuel = 2.5 average sized people!
Also I think you would need to address the torsional issues well on a diesel.
Join Date: Nov 2004
Location: Cambridgeshire, UK
Posts: 1,334
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
RVDT, i thought about the phase shift torque measurement technique - i've never seen it in use, so can't comment about it's effectiveness over the design life of an aircraft powertrain. Electric drive is also an area of interest to me, the larger contruction equipment uses it, and i've whiled away many an hour discussing heli applications with Dave Jackson. There are several promising contenders for direct fuel to electricity conversion, so i wouldn't rule out the electric helicopter. My best guess is i'll be making my move into the heli industry at about the same time.
Diesel torsional resonance is not such an issue now as it might once have been. Finite element analysis techniques allow accurate predictions of powertrain vibration modes, allowing design out on the "drawing board". One of the more obvious things highlighted is the need to put the camshaft drive near the flywheel, for accurate timing. Various solutions can be examined to keep crankshaft modes away from drivetrain, and actually this is why the old LandRover TD5 was a 5 cyl design - the 2N (2x crank speed) inertial of 5 pistons acting on crank balances out the diesel knocks (i've got an interesting internal paper somewhere). There are also emerging laser ignition/combustion techniques which i believe will cure the diesel engine of any disadvantage regarding RPM and vibration.
I am convinced that high boost turbodiesels will be the future of helis in the near future. Basically the turbine handles the airflow for power, while the piston handles the pressures for efficiency. Whether i can get back into the development arena is another question.
Mart
Diesel torsional resonance is not such an issue now as it might once have been. Finite element analysis techniques allow accurate predictions of powertrain vibration modes, allowing design out on the "drawing board". One of the more obvious things highlighted is the need to put the camshaft drive near the flywheel, for accurate timing. Various solutions can be examined to keep crankshaft modes away from drivetrain, and actually this is why the old LandRover TD5 was a 5 cyl design - the 2N (2x crank speed) inertial of 5 pistons acting on crank balances out the diesel knocks (i've got an interesting internal paper somewhere). There are also emerging laser ignition/combustion techniques which i believe will cure the diesel engine of any disadvantage regarding RPM and vibration.
I am convinced that high boost turbodiesels will be the future of helis in the near future. Basically the turbine handles the airflow for power, while the piston handles the pressures for efficiency. Whether i can get back into the development arena is another question.
Mart
Interesting thread - not so long ago I was kicking about a hangar looking at a 300 with no engine - and the mechanic working on his motorbike on the side. Obviously the conversation drifted toward the fact that there is enough room under a 300 to easily fit 2 large motorcycle engines side by side, both driving the MRGB through a triangular pulley system (with curved edges, ovbiously)
A 1000cc motorcycle engine develops 150bhp or so and can be fitted with turbochargers. (Put a Lancer turbo on a Hayabusa and you get 350bhp)
Obviously you would have two stressed out engines, but they could be replaced every 500 hours or so and still be cheaper to overhaul, plus you'd have a spare engine if and when one does go 'pop'.
Any thoughts? or are there not enough of those 'Tork' things?
A 1000cc motorcycle engine develops 150bhp or so and can be fitted with turbochargers. (Put a Lancer turbo on a Hayabusa and you get 350bhp)
Obviously you would have two stressed out engines, but they could be replaced every 500 hours or so and still be cheaper to overhaul, plus you'd have a spare engine if and when one does go 'pop'.
Any thoughts? or are there not enough of those 'Tork' things?
Thread Starter
Join Date: Sep 2006
Location: Los Angeles, USA
Age: 52
Posts: 1,631
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Fadec would make 2 engines harmonize easily.
But even without modern things like that, he venerable Sikorsky CH-37 Mojave proved that a 2-engine piston helicopter is fully workable. The Mojave had 2x Pratt and Whitney Wasp engines hanging in pods outside the main fuselage - driving the main blades through a shaft entering the fuselage and into the gearbox from each side.
But even without modern things like that, he venerable Sikorsky CH-37 Mojave proved that a 2-engine piston helicopter is fully workable. The Mojave had 2x Pratt and Whitney Wasp engines hanging in pods outside the main fuselage - driving the main blades through a shaft entering the fuselage and into the gearbox from each side.
Join Date: Jan 2007
Location: Germany
Age: 43
Posts: 10
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
190 or 235 g/kWh?
Graviman, you wrote that .38 lbs/hph equals 190g/kWh. Now if I do the maths, I end up with a different figure:
1 lb = 454 g
1 kW = 1.36 hp
so:
0.38 lbs/hph = (0.38*454*1.36) g/kWh = 235 g/kWh
Or did I make a mistake?
However, 235 g/kWh would still be very good, especially compared to our pre-war avgas guzzlers... Very good truck engines can get as efficient as around 190g/kWh, but they are "somewhat" heavier than what can be accepted for aircraft...
Cheers,
Simon
1 lb = 454 g
1 kW = 1.36 hp
so:
0.38 lbs/hph = (0.38*454*1.36) g/kWh = 235 g/kWh
Or did I make a mistake?
However, 235 g/kWh would still be very good, especially compared to our pre-war avgas guzzlers... Very good truck engines can get as efficient as around 190g/kWh, but they are "somewhat" heavier than what can be accepted for aircraft...
Cheers,
Simon
Join Date: Nov 2004
Location: Cambridgeshire, UK
Posts: 1,334
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Oops!
My mistake Simon, you are correct. I was using the program "convert" and hit "pounds (troy)" not "pounds (lb)" - this is why i much prefer metric!
So 0.38 lb/hp * 454 g/lb / 0.746 kW/HP = 231 g/kW (using BHP not PS).
Then using BSFC 83.7 g/kW-hour for 100% efficiency (most aviation fuels), makes the engine 36% efficient when running at optimum rpm.
I was suprised at my original figure since the most efficient small 4-stroke diesel is 45%, and 2-stroke is never as efficient (even with low bore/stroke ratio designs). I was designing a 2-stroke turbodiesel for fun, but dropped it when i realised that the slight power advantage of 2-stroke disappears when you look in detail. The scavenging process of even a uniflow design (like the Wilksh aeromotive) is not as good as 4-stroke, and at high turbo boost makes up for power. CAT have even developed hybrid generator turbos to take off excess blowdown power directly. Besides oil always gets into exhaust with 2-stroke.
I don't know your level of interest, but i believe that high boost turbodiesel has the potential to revolutionise the light helicopter market. The concept is that the turbine does all of the compression and expansion work, with a much smaller piston core replacing what would be the high pressure stage. Either the combustion pressure would be very high, or the engine would run very low compression ratios. This greatly reduces engine size and weight for a given power. There are also emerging technologies which overcome the combustion ignition rpm limitations of diesel engines. I have also considered alternative layouts and crank mechs to reduce the higher piston skirt wear which would occur.
Mart
So 0.38 lb/hp * 454 g/lb / 0.746 kW/HP = 231 g/kW (using BHP not PS).
Then using BSFC 83.7 g/kW-hour for 100% efficiency (most aviation fuels), makes the engine 36% efficient when running at optimum rpm.
I was suprised at my original figure since the most efficient small 4-stroke diesel is 45%, and 2-stroke is never as efficient (even with low bore/stroke ratio designs). I was designing a 2-stroke turbodiesel for fun, but dropped it when i realised that the slight power advantage of 2-stroke disappears when you look in detail. The scavenging process of even a uniflow design (like the Wilksh aeromotive) is not as good as 4-stroke, and at high turbo boost makes up for power. CAT have even developed hybrid generator turbos to take off excess blowdown power directly. Besides oil always gets into exhaust with 2-stroke.
I don't know your level of interest, but i believe that high boost turbodiesel has the potential to revolutionise the light helicopter market. The concept is that the turbine does all of the compression and expansion work, with a much smaller piston core replacing what would be the high pressure stage. Either the combustion pressure would be very high, or the engine would run very low compression ratios. This greatly reduces engine size and weight for a given power. There are also emerging technologies which overcome the combustion ignition rpm limitations of diesel engines. I have also considered alternative layouts and crank mechs to reduce the higher piston skirt wear which would occur.
Mart
Join Date: Jan 2007
Location: Germany
Age: 43
Posts: 10
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Mart, 231 g/kWh makes it look even better than 235, doesn't it? That's a good figure when you compare it to car engines. No comparison with "Continencoming" :-D
I am neither a technician nor an engineer, just an interested layman, by the way :-)
You wrote that 2-stroke engines are always less efficient than 4 stroke engines. That's what I thought , too until lately. But by now I know that the most efficient piston engine of the world is a 2 stroke turbodiesel. Look here:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wärtsilä-Sulzer_RTA96-C
163 g/kWh at best economy... just unfortunately this (ship diesel) baby would be too heavy to be built into even an A380 :-) It has valves, however. Maybe you can tell me how that works...?
But anyways, the problem with traditional 2 stroke engines is that air (and with gasoline engines: fuel) have to go through the crank case and than push out the burned gases of the cylinder - with more or less losses and a lubrication in which the oil is lost/burned. The deltahawk diesel, however, has an oil filled crank case, just like a 4 stroke engine. The fresh air is being pumped in by a supercharger (in the deltahawk case combined with a turbocharger). This overcomes the oil loss. Fuel loss isn't an issue, anyways, because a diesel injects its fuel only when the piston is up. I think this kind of engine does have some potential. Especially in aviation. Why?
1. It is simpler than a 4 stroke turbodiesel --> less error sources, cheaper to build and overhaul (important with our low numbers of engines sold in aviation, which makes us always more expensive than the road traffic folks!), possibly easier certification
2. It (should) have a better power/weight ratio than a 4 stroke. Thus you can possibly (as in the case of delta hawk) also save the reduction gearbox (with airplanes) and run the diesel engine at rpms that are more efficient for diesels, anyways
3. There are no exhaust emission standards in aviation (yet) which might be a bit tougher to fulfill with these engines
What do you think?
How about that Wilksch diesel? Do you know, how that works? I just browsed through their homepage, but I didn't really understand it. It has overhead valves like that ship diesel, doesn't it?
Anyways, 2 stroke or 4 stroke, I quite agree with you that diesel engines have good potential for aviation. They may be heavier than turbines, but then, much more efficient.
Simon
I am neither a technician nor an engineer, just an interested layman, by the way :-)
You wrote that 2-stroke engines are always less efficient than 4 stroke engines. That's what I thought , too until lately. But by now I know that the most efficient piston engine of the world is a 2 stroke turbodiesel. Look here:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wärtsilä-Sulzer_RTA96-C
163 g/kWh at best economy... just unfortunately this (ship diesel) baby would be too heavy to be built into even an A380 :-) It has valves, however. Maybe you can tell me how that works...?
But anyways, the problem with traditional 2 stroke engines is that air (and with gasoline engines: fuel) have to go through the crank case and than push out the burned gases of the cylinder - with more or less losses and a lubrication in which the oil is lost/burned. The deltahawk diesel, however, has an oil filled crank case, just like a 4 stroke engine. The fresh air is being pumped in by a supercharger (in the deltahawk case combined with a turbocharger). This overcomes the oil loss. Fuel loss isn't an issue, anyways, because a diesel injects its fuel only when the piston is up. I think this kind of engine does have some potential. Especially in aviation. Why?
1. It is simpler than a 4 stroke turbodiesel --> less error sources, cheaper to build and overhaul (important with our low numbers of engines sold in aviation, which makes us always more expensive than the road traffic folks!), possibly easier certification
2. It (should) have a better power/weight ratio than a 4 stroke. Thus you can possibly (as in the case of delta hawk) also save the reduction gearbox (with airplanes) and run the diesel engine at rpms that are more efficient for diesels, anyways
3. There are no exhaust emission standards in aviation (yet) which might be a bit tougher to fulfill with these engines
What do you think?
How about that Wilksch diesel? Do you know, how that works? I just browsed through their homepage, but I didn't really understand it. It has overhead valves like that ship diesel, doesn't it?
Anyways, 2 stroke or 4 stroke, I quite agree with you that diesel engines have good potential for aviation. They may be heavier than turbines, but then, much more efficient.
Simon