“Ultra conservative American market preventing innovation, basically”
I0540,
The truth is the reputation of diesel engines was destroyed in the U.S. by GM 20 years ago. (If you wish to know more, Google the 350 GM diesel engine) Even today with modern diesel engines so much better than ever, manufactures have, in the largest auto market in the world, a hard time selling just a few thousand nationwide for use in cars.
As not everyone has an artificial price difference between petrol and diesel fuel, and with the added weight of a diesel, and no power advantage, this is really no reason to change from what is working now.
But if you want to make equally cutting comments about the petrol aero engines most of us are forced to use, and ask the very reasonable question; why do the authorities insist we still use 1930’s technology and why do they make it so difficult to update, retrofit or modernize them?, then you’ll find you will have my full support, just as you do about GPS usage.
P.S. I loved your last rant about the CAA; I particularly enjoyed your use of ‘still flying rag winged aircraft’, wonderful stuff!
Captind,
As for Subaru manufacturing aero engines, well Nakajima did do so, but I am not aware of any flat 4 or flat 6 engines, plenty of radials, but they aren’t the same thing. So where this story of Subaru having a “aero engine available so they used it in their cars” came from I don’t know. By the way IMHO “flat” engines and “boxer” engines may look vaguely alike, but once again they are not the same thing. In a true “boxer” 2 pistons come together from opposite directions, in the same cylinder, to form the combustion chamber, and have 2 crankshafts.
Regards,
W.B.