Talk:Aircraft diesel engine/Archive 1

Archive 1

Text move/merge to this article

The current text was the product of a cut and paste from the diesel engine page, where it had grown too unwieldy. Clearly, it needs cleanup and a fair degree of additional context. --Robert Merkel 01:18, 24 February 2006 (UTC)

Removed cleanup notice after rewrite. --Robert Merkel 06:02, 28 February 2006 (UTC)

Some paras moved to get order more chronological Hugo999 (talk)

Diesel engines in aircraft

Hi, just a quick piece of information - I'm fairly sure there was a four-engined Soviet bomber that was diesel powered, although I can't totally remember where I read about it - possibly in "Aviation History" (US publication), to which I had a subscription in the nineties.78.54.178.1 (talk) 15:22, 5 December 2008 (UTC)

I believe it is the Er-2/Yer-2. The Pe-8 was also apparently tested with diesel engines, but removed them for production. --UnneededAplomb (talk) 03:03, 1 April 2009 (UTC)

Orthography

"Diesel" is capitalised, as it is a proper noun. We would no more write "diesel" than we would write "ford", "mercedes benz" or "chrysler motors". — Quicksilver^{T @} 16:41, 24 July 2012 (UTC)

No it isn't. Diesel cycle might be, but diesel engines aren't even Diesel cycle and are so far genericised as to be far from any hope of being a proper noun. "Gasoline" began as a proper noun, but no-one would advocate Gasoline engine today. Andy Dingley (talk) 19:23, 25 July 2012 (UTC)

I Agree with Andy Dingley, in spite of it being a German word, English does not follow the same rules about the orthography of nouns. I've moved it back to lower case. Roger (talk) 12:37, 26 July 2012 (UTC)

You have to review this item, because of Diesel is not a simple noun; it is the family's name (first name) of the (german) inventor Rudolf Diesel. Diesel as Noun does not exist- as far as a "surname" for the blend to take into Diesel engine driven cars.

--Cosy-ch (talk) 09:52, 5 January 2019 (UTC)

Do you Hoover the floor? Andy Dingley (talk) 11:18, 5 January 2019 (UTC)

Reasons Why.

• Refineries are using old facilities to make 100/130 leaded avgas. They will stop doing this when the equipment needs replacing, and avgas is unprofitable.
• Unleaded avgas is max of 100 Octane. This limits the fuel to non-supercharged engines, with a max altitude of 10K feet. Methyl-analine gasoline is 150Octane, but storage is much too impractical. Jumo-205 attained 50K feet.

Source for the 10K feet limit? I have made quite a number long flights in a Socata TB-10 (Lycoming O-360-A1AD) at 13-15K feet.

• Cost of a small turbine engine is more than a small plane is worth. $500K-US for a PT-6A. Overhaul costs prohibitive for private ownership.
• Diesels need no reduction gearbox, and the prop is auto pitch adjusting. Full power available above 10K feet. 30-40% lower fuel consumption.
• Diesel fuel is cheap, and will easily tolerate very high supercharging ratios. Diesel engines are only a bit more expensive than gasoline engines.220.244.77.21 (talk)— Preceding unsigned comment added by 220.244.77.21 (talk) 04:00, 11 August 2012 (UTC)

I don't understand what you are talking about with the 10k foot limit. Supercharged and non supercharged planes running 100 octane fuel regularly fly above 10k feet. What are you referring to with this limit? Sunfishtommy (talk) 14:20, 20 April 2017 (UTC)

Perhaps a previous version of the article made a confusion with the 10kft VFR ceiling, the practical unpressurized ceiling?--Marc Lacoste (talk) 14:25, 20 April 2017 (UTC)

Ignored problems

Perhap redesign issue, however most engineers would NOT use a diesel engine because of its narrow power band. Those of us who have driven a diesel knows how balky the engines are to speed and load changes. You seem to forget that a main advantage of diesel is fuel injection, rather than a carburetor in old era engines. High "Octane" of avgas is an advantage to carbeurated engines only. New piston engines are fuel injected so fuel never touches the engine cycle where knocking (pre-ignition) occurs. TetraEthylLead is a Boomer thing, hasn't been in normal fuel for awhile. Better and "less harmful" octane boosters are used. (OTC booster is usuall cyclopentadienymanganese tricarbonyl.)(Fyi 100 octane officially equals 100% Isooctane; however isooctane hasn't been in "fuel mixtures" since the 70s). All diesels are phasing in requirements for lower emmissions: lowering compression ratio (main advantage over gas piston engine gone), urea adder (for NOx, ditto), "catalytic converter" for diesel soot, sulfur issues with diesel. Oh, turbine and jet engines are usually fueled with thickened kerosene; diesel is better refined kerosene. A turboprop gets power from prop and from exhaust. Been tried with piston engines but only a few extra horsepower. Hybrids where diesel or turbine powers constant speed generator (alternator nach) with batteries/electronics buffering drive motor. (IOW like 1950 diesel locomotive.) NOTE: Model airplane engines (smaller ones) are 2-cycle diesels usually run on methanol/nitromethane/castor oil mix but can be tweaked (aspiration) to #1 diesel (hard to find, higher Sulfur), lower flash point than #2 diesel and contains lubrication. Shjacks45 (talk) 18:06, 2 July 2020 (UTC)

WP:NOTFORUM. WP:Expert anyway, of which I'm unsure you are.--Marc Lacoste (talk) 06:43, 3 July 2020 (UTC)

Manual of Style for Units Conversions

[moved from User talk:Marc Lacoste, more relevant here]

Please stop reverting my edits which are in accordance with the Manual of Style. See MOS:UNIT.

Using the function is not editorializing, or adding anything to the source material. It is less likely to have errors than the original, and it puts everything in a consistent format.

Before you revert more of my edits, please explain why having many different number formats throughout an article is preferable to using the consistent format provided by the tag. In order to have a consistent voice throughout an article, the same units should be first (english or metric, I don't care which, so I keep whatever is the majority when I find an article), and all conversions should use the same format, e.g. "10 feet (3 meters)".

You should sign your comments with four tildes (~) as explained in the top of the edit window. This discussion should be moved to the relevant talk:Aircraft diesel engine, not an user discussion. Using convert templates is certainly not mandatory, MOS:UNIT applies the the visual formatting not the underlying wikitext. The same presentation can be reached with or without conversion templates. As explained in the edit summary, "if the source gives both values, we should avoid making conversion ourselves which can bring errors". You did not address that.--Marc Lacoste (talk) 14:55, 9 April 2021 (UTC)

I did address that. I said that it should be done to create a consistent format throughout the article, and that it does not introduce errors. Wikipedia is not a copy-paste collection of the sources that it uses, there is rewording and reformatting necessary to create a good article. Every article recognized as good on Wikipedia has a consistent format throughout. I push articles towards that goal and these reverts push them away.

You changed: "six opposed pistons, a 75 kW (100 hp) weighing 72.3 kg (159.5 lb)" to "six opposed pistons, a 100 hp / 75 kW weighing 159.5 lb / 72.5 kg" which does not follow the format of the rest of the article. Why is that better?Gfox88 (talk) 15:11, 9 April 2021 (UTC)

You do not understand the implications. Anyway, if all you want is the formatting it is easy to do.--Marc Lacoste (talk) 15:24, 9 April 2021 (UTC)

Great! I'm glad we agree on that point. Please do not imply that I don't understand the implications. I do, and I am trying to make the articles more encyclopedic.

Now, how about making the article consistent throughout by either using English or Metric units first? Will you revert that edit if I make it? Gfox88 (talk) 15:33, 9 April 2021 (UTC)

Pay attention to keeping the current conversions: keep both numbers when both are stated, just reorder them; and just add the order=flip toggle to templates when necessary. I would suggest metric first as this is a more European subject, and checking for UK rather than US terminology.--Marc Lacoste (talk) 15:39, 9 April 2021 (UTC)

Currently, the conversion is from inches to centimetres. I advise to change that to the much more common millimetres. best regards, --Johannes (Talk) (Contribs) (Articles) 17:58, 9 April 2021 (UTC)