Re: Status of Maine 1649 Connies?

From:         tim@me.rochester.edu (Tim Takahashi)
Organization: University of Rochester, School of Engineering
Date:         22 Jul 96 01:53:09 
References:   1 2 3
Next article
View raw article
  or MIME structure

Steve Lacker  <slacker@arlut.utexas.edu> wrote:
>falke@pweh.com ( 0 Falke_Charlie phone dist ) wrote:
>>
>>The answer to "why bother?" is specific fuel consumption.  The
>>recovered energy in the exhaust put the fuel efficiency of turbo
>>compounds in a class by themselves among aircraft engines. They were
>>almost as good as diesels!

>I agree that SFC of turbo-compounds was astounding... but was that really the
>motivation??

For ultra-long range flights, it would appear that it was.

>And since you mentioned it... why aren't we overrun with diesel engined
>aircraft? Poor power-to-weight ratio?

Dr. Junkers in pre-war Germany was an advocate of the aircraft
diesel. The Jumo series 2-stroke opposed-piston turbo-diesels exhibited
excellent power (well over 1hp per cubic inch at altitude,
something that sea-level automotive power-plants have only recently
achieved), remarkable SFC and low-RF -emissions (important in those
pre-FM-transciever days).

It would appear that interest in this configuration did not survive
the war.

-tim