Morgans wrote:
"Kyle Boatright" wrote

And if you add up all the Sukhois, Murphy Mooses (not rebels), Thrushes,
etc. it isn't a drop in the bucket. There isn't nearly enough volume there
to make a radial diesel worthwhile for someone who wants to make money.

I would think that the reason is not economics, but the suitability of a
radial for diesel.

You always see diesels using a very stout block, and very stout cranks and
rods. Could a radial diesel be beefed up enough? I don't know, but I think
the answer is no.

GM tried to use a gas engine block converted to diesel, and it was a dismal
failure. That even had a solid cast iron block, and stout crank, and that
wasn't even up to the task.

Individual jugs are weak, since they blow off even with gasoline pressures,
sometimes. How much stronger would they have to be, for diesel? Could it
be done using separate cylinders?

Pressures during misfiring/backfiring are considerable also
but don't bust the jugs. I'm no engine expert but think that
jug failures are mostly O/H, fatique or casting related (?)
and they sure do happen on opposed gas engines as well as
radials. The difference is that a radial (at least one I saw)
just kept on going.

Most gas radials I've seen/flown had around 8:1 compression,
that's food for thought. Just wondering though, are the german
aircooled diesel cylinders intergral with the block?


A master rod may be strong enough, but I would think that the slave rods and
pins would not be. They would have to be extremely beefed up to stand the
pressures. I don't know if there would be enough room in the case to do it.

Good questions raised here. Answers?