V12 Diesel

HomeBuiltAirplanes.com

Help Support HomeBuiltAirplanes.com:

B100

Well-Known Member
Joined
Jan 23, 2014
Messages
66
Location
Albufeira , Portugal
Ironically it was very fortunate that others did not think like the Wrights, and that the Wrights blocked others from following their methodology turned out to be a good thing forcing individuals to discover far superior solutions. Don't try using history as a weapon unless it's properly loaded.

I have "pushed the boundaries" many a time and my aviation based patents/applications are all about "new possibilities". I spend time and money researching stuff like the possibilities of diesels and in fact, a product of mine being currently developed is advantageous in it's market place through it being diesel powered (modern 2.0 turbo common rail), so overtones of me having anti-diesel bias or ignorance in anyway is nonsense, but it's just not a fit for HBA typical light aircraft. It always comes back to the math and 2+2 needs to equal 4.

Cheapracer, I am glad that you have pushed boundaries, which is a natural thing for someone who is in product development, hence my surprise at your constant reluctance to discuss new possibilities! In fact I can attest to the fact that you have actually raised some questions on this forum that revolve around new ideas , but you insist on denying facts, even in the face of evidence of the links I posted that fit precisely in the specs you say are correct to discuss on HBA! So I will post them again ! And let others judge for themselves ;

http://gazaile2.free.fr/englishInformations.pdf

Gaz'aile 2 : caract&#233ristiques et performances




You have an unfortunate short history here of not liking other people actually having experience in matters overriding your veritable delusions, but anyway, no problem as I don't actually answer for you, there's many others reading here as well and I'm sure they enjoying reading and learning, especially from Ross's posts which are book worthy.
Yes my history here is short (41 posts) compared to over 2000 of yours, or Ross, but does that imply that you are right or more entitled to discuss issues then me?
To be clear, this is not a pissing contest on who is right or wrong, all on here I'm sure, have knowledge to share, or are open to learn and sharing depending on their background and capabilities! There might be some initial head butting on some issues, but civilised men , will find ways to communicate in a civil way( and in this case technical a way) and exchange views and ideas in a respectful manner, and on this thread Ross and I have been communicating better , and while I don't question his competence and knowledge , some of his opinions are based on engines he is familiar with, but there are others that he is not.

So its frustrating to be criticised for daring to raise questions , and have them dismissed even in the face of proven evidence, something my friend that is not pleasant or even rational!

Now on a lighter note.....;)....can you elaborate more on the mentioned product you developed involving a 2,0 CR Diesel ? Just curious? unless you cant divulge more info, or consider Im not worthy......
 

BJC

Well-Known Member
HBA Supporter
Joined
Oct 7, 2013
Messages
10,502
Location
97FL, Florida, USA
LOl..... my sofa! but I have to admit that your reply is a funny way of manning up to the fact that you Rabbit example was just ridiculous! :gig:

Dixit!
Nope. You missed my point.

The info on the VW that I owned in the last century was just a data point about car size and fuel mileage. If you find that rediculous, I don't care.

You are bragging on your automobile over there, and I am bragging on my airplanes over here.

Time to go flying.


BJC
 

B100

Well-Known Member
Joined
Jan 23, 2014
Messages
66
Location
Albufeira , Portugal
Great! good for you! I wasn't bragging just stating some facts, and I hope you agree that we can do better than this in terms of communication. So with that in mind, and since you are lucky enough to own a plane/s , can you tell me what you fly ;) ? Just curious !
 

BJC

Well-Known Member
HBA Supporter
Joined
Oct 7, 2013
Messages
10,502
Location
97FL, Florida, USA
Great! good for you! I wasn't bragging just stating some facts, and I hope you agree that we can do better than this in terms of communication. So with that in mind, and since you are lucky enough to own a plane/s , can you tell me what you fly ;) ? Just curious !
I have a Pitts S-1S and a Glasair Aviation Sportsman 2+2. You can see photos on my album here.


BJC
 

B100

Well-Known Member
Joined
Jan 23, 2014
Messages
66
Location
Albufeira , Portugal
Lol.....If its any consolation its a lot more advanced than mine.:speechles...lol.... and who knows by the time your´e done there might be a decent diesel to propel it....LOL :gig:
 

Kingfisher

Well-Known Member
Joined
Aug 14, 2013
Messages
448
Location
Perth, WA, Australia
As you'll see in my reply to B100, I was talking about increased specific power output almost always reduces engine life to some extent. He was advocating increasing boost to improve the power to weight ratios of auto diesels for use in aircraft- contrary to what most experts do and contrary to what certified aero diesel manufacturers are doing today. Of course auto diesels are subjected to similar validation as SI auto engines so we don't expect them to expire in normal use at normal factory hp levels. Upping the boost in a stock SI or Diesel with proper mapping usually does not materially affect longevity in road use because the duty cycle is very low for a high percentage of of the operating time- the opposite of aviation use. You'll see that the industrial and marine versions of VWs diesel engines are substantially de-rated compared to their automotive counterparts- again the factory engineers have reasons for this in these high continuous power applications.

The original SMA and Thielert designs underestimated the aviation cycle stress IMO. They have both been updated. The improved Thielert now has a good record. The SMA does not have enough fleet time to know but I believe the engineers will lick their problems as well. People seem to think that truck diesel longevity somehow automatically translates into lightweight (relatively speaking) aero versions. Clearly to date, it has not. Austro has been able to apply lessons learned form the failures on the similar Thielert and has had decent reliability out of the box but the engines are still heavy (414 lbs.) and very expensive.

Actually in the North America, 30-50% of light pickup trucks are turbo diesel these days. I can't drive 10 seconds in my city without seeing a cluster of them, especially those used for hauling on the highway, private and business use. Ford, Dodge and GM all have turbo diesel trucks here and they've sold millions of them.

Absolutely as I said before, diesels make huge sense if the fuel in cheaper than gasoline and more readily available and the engine options are the same prices. Here is North America, that simply isn't true.

I follow all engine developments as that used to be my field, pretty up on the latest technology out there and being developed for SI and CI engines. The fuel economy gap is closing every year.

We have relatively cheap petrol and that's the main reason why most people drive SI powered cars here. Lots of people simply prefer the quiet refinement of SI engines. I assume that any OEM could offer more diesel car models here but they just don't seem to sell. Most diesel cars over here are VW, Mercedes and a few BMWs. VWs are by far the most plentiful, perhaps 30% of those are diesels.
Well B100 said "
 

Kingfisher

Well-Known Member
Joined
Aug 14, 2013
Messages
448
Location
Perth, WA, Australia
As you'll see in my reply to B100, I was talking about increased specific power output almost always reduces engine life to some extent. He was advocating increasing boost to improve the power to weight ratios of auto diesels for use in aircraft- contrary to what most experts do and contrary to what certified aero diesel manufacturers are doing today. Of course auto diesels are subjected to similar validation as SI auto engines so we don't expect them to expire in normal use at normal factory hp levels. Upping the boost in a stock SI or Diesel with proper mapping usually does not materially affect longevity in road use because the duty cycle is very low for a high percentage of of the operating time- the opposite of aviation use. You'll see that the industrial and marine versions of VWs diesel engines are substantially de-rated compared to their automotive counterparts- again the factory engineers have reasons for this in these high continuous power applications.

The original SMA and Thielert designs underestimated the aviation cycle stress IMO. They have both been updated. The improved Thielert now has a good record. The SMA does not have enough fleet time to know but I believe the engineers will lick their problems as well. People seem to think that truck diesel longevity somehow automatically translates into lightweight (relatively speaking) aero versions. Clearly to date, it has not. Austro has been able to apply lessons learned form the failures on the similar Thielert and has had decent reliability out of the box but the engines are still heavy (414 lbs.) and very expensive.

Actually in the North America, 30-50% of light pickup trucks are turbo diesel these days. I can't drive 10 seconds in my city without seeing a cluster of them, especially those used for hauling on the highway, private and business use. Ford, Dodge and GM all have turbo diesel trucks here and they've sold millions of them.

Absolutely as I said before, diesels make huge sense if the fuel in cheaper than gasoline and more readily available and the engine options are the same prices. Here is North America, that simply isn't true.

I follow all engine developments as that used to be my field, pretty up on the latest technology out there and being developed for SI and CI engines. The fuel economy gap is closing every year.

We have relatively cheap petrol and that's the main reason why most people drive SI powered cars here. Lots of people simply prefer the quiet refinement of SI engines. I assume that any OEM could offer more diesel car models here but they just don't seem to sell. Most diesel cars over here are VW, Mercedes and a few BMWs. VWs are by far the most plentiful, perhaps 30% of those are diesels.
Well B100 said in post #41 "...., but the point is the engine examples I mention have decent power to weight ratios that are stock and can maintain high power output all day without undue stress! So you can increase power levels safely between 20 to 25% and some makers actually offer that as an option! But you dont need to , because the power is there already....so correct me if I´m wrong take off on 80 to 100% power for 2 minutes, then back of to 75 to 80 % on climb , and cruise on 60 to 65 % power...
In a current diesel engine that translates into 3600 to 4000 rpm then back of to 3000 to 3200 rpm and cruise at 2400 to 2600 rpm..."

This statement makes sense to me.

However, I agree the fuel economy gap is getting smaller, so a Diesel may only make sense if the fuel choice is limited. Also agree that engine durability suffers with higher pressures, and a diesel piston is beefier than a gasoline piston of similar size, as are most other stressed parts. So the weight penalty is undeniable. I am also doubting that one can just run a diesel on jet fuel without any changes. Is the cetane number the same? We made SI DI engines that run on jet fuel, but not on diesel.

Diesel popularity in Europe is not only driven by frugality, however. The fact that a high torque is available at low rpm and over a wider RPM range is enhancing driving pleasure, there is no doubt about that. You can shift up earlier and can stay in a higher gear longer. For an aircraft with a variable pitch prop this should translate into creating the same amount of thrust at a lower rpm, shouldn't it?

Well, my assessment of the U.S. diesel engine use is 10 years old and only based on my personal observations in the greater Detroit area and Wisconsin. I did notice on my holiday at the west coast that there were a lot more Japanese and European car makes in the mix
even back then. Things must have changed since then. I'm also not sure if a 80% portion of diesel engines is desirable, since they still are smellier and have these small particle emissions. I suppose the distribution between diesel and gasoline engines should match the distribution of diesel and gasoline due to the refinery process. I once read that there was a fixed ratio that determines how much of each comes out of a litre of crude oil, but that may be bollucks...
 

Kingfisher

Well-Known Member
Joined
Aug 14, 2013
Messages
448
Location
Perth, WA, Australia
There are no 4 stroke diesels out there flying which beat the power to weight ratios of traditional aircraft engines and especially turbocharged ones (let's remember to compare apples to apples here). Let's also compare certified aero diesels to certified SI engines. Cost wise, the current crop of certified aero diesels are all way more expensive to buy in the first place.


The only way for a diesel to even approach these levels is with massive boost pressures, limiting both engine life and altitude performance with single stage turbos. No free ride here.


That is correct , " There are no 4 stroke diesels out there flying which beat the power to weight ratios of traditional aircraft engines"
Just because they are not flying does not mean that on specs alone they dont beat SI engines certified or not, or even the certified aerodiesels !
Now Ross with your experience in auto conversions its a pity you dont have access to the variety o diesel engines we have on this side of the pond, as I am sure you would do well, but you would have to loose your aparent anti diesel bias!

But part of the problem comes from as you say " comparing apples and apples" You make a living from auto conversions of SI engines, and to do so, some mods had to be done for that to work! The same principal applies to the conversion of a auto diesel engine, but work has to be done around the specific technical pros and cons of a diesel.

"The only way for a diesel to even approach these levels is with massive boost pressures, limiting both engine life and altitude performance with single stage turbos. No free ride here."

Well all current diesels are all tubocharged and have very high compression ratios, so I doubt engine life would be an issue, besides considering what is demanded in terms of work, a diesel will have a esier life as a aero engine then as a normal auto engine ! In general there is a lot of margin for power upgrades in all current diesel engines! Its common for the same engine to be on the market with 3 or 4 diferent power levels! And what changes ? engine management, injectors, injection pressure and parameters, turbos, intercoolers, air filters, exaust systems, among many others, but the basic engine is the same !

In spite of all the nay sayers, its inspiring that some people just shut them out and prove it can be done, but old habbits die hard and the aeronautical community is by nature very conservative.
I say we should be striving to do it better, not denying what has been done!

Now for comparisons:
TIO-540-AF1B270HP weight 493 lbs dry - vs- Audi 3.0 V6 272 hp 478 lbs dry (can be chipped to to 336 hp, 2014 Q7 comes with 320hp )

TIO-540-AE2A 350 hp weight 548 to 595 lbs dry -vs- Audi 4,2 V8 349 hp 567 lbs dry (can be chipped to 432 hp)

These are just a couple of examples, so Ross you are right on one point, these engines are not Flying! But the do exist and have better power to weight ratios.

Now even if you had some type of reduction or other form of mouting a prop , adding another say 80 lbs, you still end up with a mtow equal or less to a Lyc 540 because of the lower fuel comsumption!

But you are right.....they are not flying....yet...but they exist!;)
We discussed the power per weight before here:
http://www.homebuiltairplanes.com/forums/general-auto-conversion-discussion/12051-what-best-auto-engine-aircraft-use-250-350-hp-range-5.html

I figure I share these two pictures of two pistons I have in my shed:
IMG_1272.jpgIMG_1273.jpg
The left piston is from a VW 1.9 litre inline 4 TDi (Turbo Diesel).
The right one is from a Mercury Marine Verado 2.5 litre inline 6 supercharged spark ignition 4 stroke.
The bore is almost the same, slightly bigger for the Verado.
The TDi piston weight is over 1.5 times the SI engine's, and the Diesel has no wrist pin in it, whereas the Verado piston does!

So I do believe it would be impossible to make a Diesel and a SI engine that have the same displacement and the same weight, just judging from these single component masses. A very strong case is indeed necessary to justify the diesel, but I'm sure it can be done.
 

rv6ejguy

Well-Known Member
Joined
Jun 26, 2012
Messages
3,749
Location
Calgary, Alberta, Canada
Well B100 said in post #41 "...., but the point is the engine examples I mention have decent power to weight ratios that are stock and can maintain high power output all day without undue stress! So you can increase power levels safely between 20 to 25% and some makers actually offer that as an option! But you dont need to , because the power is there already....so correct me if I´m wrong take off on 80 to 100% power for 2 minutes, then back of to 75 to 80 % on climb , and cruise on 60 to 65 % power...
In a current diesel engine that translates into 3600 to 4000 rpm then back of to 3000 to 3200 rpm and cruise at 2400 to 2600 rpm..."

This statement makes sense to me.

However, I agree the fuel economy gap is getting smaller, so a Diesel may only make sense if the fuel choice is limited. Also agree that engine durability suffers with higher pressures, and a diesel piston is beefier than a gasoline piston of similar size, as are most other stressed parts. So the weight penalty is undeniable. I am also doubting that one can just run a diesel on jet fuel without any changes. Is the cetane number the same? We made SI DI engines that run on jet fuel, but not on diesel.

Diesel popularity in Europe is not only driven by frugality, however. The fact that a high torque is available at low rpm and over a wider RPM range is enhancing driving pleasure, there is no doubt about that. You can shift up earlier and can stay in a higher gear longer. For an aircraft with a variable pitch prop this should translate into creating the same amount of thrust at a lower rpm, shouldn't it?

Well, my assessment of the U.S. diesel engine use is 10 years old and only based on my personal observations in the greater Detroit area and Wisconsin. I did notice on my holiday at the west coast that there were a lot more Japanese and European car makes in the mix
even back then. Things must have changed since then. I'm also not sure if a 80% portion of diesel engines is desirable, since they still are smellier and have these small particle emissions. I suppose the distribution between diesel and gasoline engines should match the distribution of diesel and gasoline due to the refinery process. I once read that there was a fixed ratio that determines how much of each comes out of a litre of crude oil, but that may be bollucks...
Well, if you can find an auto diesel which matched the power to weight ratio of a turbo SI engine that would be valid. The popular 2L VW longblock weighs almost 100 more pounds than a SOHC EJ257 Subaru which we rate at 225-250hp for takeoff.

The diesel has less torque and a much narrower rpm range than an SI engine of the same displacement and the same manifold pressure. If you can find any production example CI which has more torque and a wider rpm range, show me.

The latest diesels are very clean in all emissions with particulate traps actually.

I was interested to know the theoretical power increase going from 14 to 1 CR to 18 to 1 and it was only 5%.
 
Last edited:

B100

Well-Known Member
Joined
Jan 23, 2014
Messages
66
Location
Albufeira , Portugal
Well, if you can find an auto diesel which matched the power to weight ratio of a turbo SI engine that would be valid. The popular 2L VW longblock weighs almost 100 more pounds than a SOHC EJ257 Subaru which we rate at 225-250hp for takeoff.

The diesel has less torque and a much narrower rpm range than an SI engine of the same displacement and the same manifold pressure. If you can find any production example CI which has more torque and a wider rpm range, show me.

The latest diesels are very clean in all emissions with particulate traps actually.

I was interested to know the theoretical power increase going from 14 to 1 CR to 18 to 1 and it was only 5%.
Hi Ross, curious about the SOHC EJ 257 , can you post some more specs, like weight, rpm range !

You are right, latest diesels are cleaner , in fact more so than SI engines !

In the mean time here are some all aluminium examples that you or others might find interesting from BMW in, or over the power range of your EJ 257, and with comparable or higher torque figures. They are 3,0 L though and I don't have weight for them yet!

BMW N57 - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia (note that these are all proven stock OEM offered different models)

Here is another all Aluminium new kid on the block from the PSA group , will post weight asap!

Peugeot - 308 II - GT 2.0 BlueHDi (180 Hp) Automatic - Technical specifications, Fuel economy (consumption) Will need another year or two to see how reliable they are! but its proving very successful in terms of sales due to unbeatable (so far) emissions (= lower taxes) and fuel consumption.
 

B100

Well-Known Member
Joined
Jan 23, 2014
Messages
66
Location
Albufeira , Portugal
Well B100 said in post #41 "...., but the point is the engine examples I mention have decent power to weight ratios that are stock and can maintain high power output all day without undue stress! So you can increase power levels safely between 20 to 25% and some makers actually offer that as an option! But you dont need to , because the power is there already....so correct me if I´m wrong take off on 80 to 100% power for 2 minutes, then back of to 75 to 80 % on climb , and cruise on 60 to 65 % power...
In a current diesel engine that translates into 3600 to 4000 rpm then back of to 3000 to 3200 rpm and cruise at 2400 to 2600 rpm..."

This statement makes sense to me.

However, I agree the fuel economy gap is getting smaller, so a Diesel may only make sense if the fuel choice is limited. Also agree that engine durability suffers with higher pressures, and a diesel piston is beefier than a gasoline piston of similar size, as are most other stressed parts. So the weight penalty is undeniable. I am also doubting that one can just run a diesel on jet fuel without any changes. Is the cetane number the same? We made SI DI engines that run on jet fuel, but not on diesel.

Diesel popularity in Europe is not only driven by frugality, however. The fact that a high torque is available at low rpm and over a wider RPM range is enhancing driving pleasure, there is no doubt about that. You can shift up earlier and can stay in a higher gear longer. For an aircraft with a variable pitch prop this should translate into creating the same amount of thrust at a lower rpm, shouldn't it?

Well, my assessment of the U.S. diesel engine use is 10 years old and only based on my personal observations in the greater Detroit area and Wisconsin. I did notice on my holiday at the west coast that there were a lot more Japanese and European car makes in the mix
even back then. Things must have changed since then. I'm also not sure if a 80% portion of diesel engines is desirable, since they still are smellier and have these small particle emissions. I suppose the distribution between diesel and gasoline engines should match the distribution of diesel and gasoline due to the refinery process. I once read that there was a fixed ratio that determines how much of each comes out of a litre of crude oil, but that may be bollucks...
Hi Kingfisher while the fuel gap is indeed getting smaller this has not yet trickled down to real world everyday cars , but is rather still very much in the research realm ! Duel to technical limitations it never will, so the variables will be cost per liter and taxes !
Here is a link that exemplifies what I mean ;

Ten of the best used diesel cars | This is Money (remember to convert imperial gallons to US where applicable)

Now bare in mind that the UK is one o the few countries in the world where Diesel costs more than gas! ( an economic contradiction as diesel is cheaper to produce/refine)

In regard to more boost reducing engine life, that is true for most SI engines, not so for Diesels, as they are built from the ground to include those factors so the reliability is built in which explains that they are normally heavier Ltr for Ltr when compared to SI ! Besides in diesels power increase is more than just pushing up boost pressure . You can actually increase power and torque to reduce fuel consumption and eliminate turbo lag at low rpms (that why I chipped mine and it works great)

As for running a diesel on jetA without changes, you are right ! there are issues involved to consider!
I have actually researched this hands on, and can give you some good info on it!
Some years back I was contacted on a Biodiesel forum by a guy who asked me to teach him to make Biodiesel. He worked at the local international airport refuelling Jets and was able to "procure" (lol...free):ban: enough jet A to power his Mercedes (old 87 model) and the wife's VW Golf ! Problem was it didnt take long for his injection pump to break !
Repair shop told him it was very worn and that he should mix a little 2 stroke oil with the diesel for better lubrication! This problem became more common when Europe adopted ULSD, ultra low sulphur diesel in early 1990`s . Sulphur had a lubricating properties, but provoked acid rain, so when it was removed , it was replaced with an additive to restore the lost lubricity . This helped but it too was found to be carcigenous and toxic so in the late 1990´s The European union mandated a new enviroment green replacement, biodiesel! Now all diesel in Europe has at least 2% biodiesel as an additive !

The problem with Jet A or other types of jet fuel is two fold;
1- It has a lower cetane number that varies a bit from lot to lot , and this gets worse with other types specific for cold weather! which puts it way under the European 51 cetane minimum (remember its meant to be used by burning not CI!)
2-Its thinner and thus more aggressive to the injection system , having almost no lubricating properties .

After some experimenting we came to conclusion that a minimum of 10 % biodiesel mix was required to up cetane and lubrication properties to acceptable levels , 20% and up was even better!
I supplied him small amounts of Biodiesel for the mix, until he eventually made his own ....and lived happily ever after...lol

With these factors in mind and based on hands on experience, I would only use Jet A in a Diesel auto conversion aircraft engine in an emergency, or with a very small dose of 2 stroke oil , but ideally with road diesel or a blend of diesel and biodiesel , being the latter the best option due to higher cetane and less engine/injection system wear.

That being said since the introduction of common rail injection systems resistance to wear from less lubricating fuel has improved somewhat. I also remember back from my Military days that a NATO standard came into force that stipulated all machines on the battlefield should be able to operate on the same fuel! This implied that a jet could run on road diesel in an emergency, and all other combustion engines on Jet fuel if need be !

As for smell....well diesel will always stink! except if it mixed with at least 20% biodiesel.
or more.....then it smells good ...lol....:gig:
In the last years diesels have become cleaner then SI engines which in some countries contributes to lower taxes and lower running costs and helps explain the popularity of Diesel.
Refining crude depends on how a refinery is set up! but diesel is always cheaper to produce as it requires less energy to refine . Older refineries would be set up to produce diesel , and gasoline was a by product , don't forget that the world runs on Diesel, or diesel type fuels be that trains, boats and planes lol...as the song goes! These days most refineries are set up for diesel od diesel type fuels , like jet fuel ! To sum it up , if gasoline disappeared today the world wouldn't stop , but if Diesel ended it would all stop!
 
Last edited:

B100

Well-Known Member
Joined
Jan 23, 2014
Messages
66
Location
Albufeira , Portugal
We discussed the power per weight before here:
http://www.homebuiltairplanes.com/forums/general-auto-conversion-discussion/12051-what-best-auto-engine-aircraft-use-250-350-hp-range-5.html

I figure I share these two pictures of two pistons I have in my shed:
View attachment 38986View attachment 38989
The left piston is from a VW 1.9 litre inline 4 TDi (Turbo Diesel).
The right one is from a Mercury Marine Verado 2.5 litre inline 6 supercharged spark ignition 4 stroke.
The bore is almost the same, slightly bigger for the Verado.
The TDi piston weight is over 1.5 times the SI engine's, and the Diesel has no wrist pin in it, whereas the Verado piston does!

So I do believe it would be impossible to make a Diesel and a SI engine that have the same displacement and the same weight, just judging from these single component masses. A very strong case is indeed necessary to justify the diesel, but I'm sure it can be done.
I agree ! Diesel and SI with same displacement and same weight and same power.....impossible, so its only down to power t weight ratio, forget displacement if that was a criteria then LYCs and Contis loose big time! But since ultimately its down to MTOW then I agree with you , it can be done! In fact , it has been done in the real world with a real planes with a old primitive 1,4 diesel and 1,7 auto engines ! http://gazaile2.free.fr/History_of_my_developments.pdf and here:

http://gazaile2.free.fr/englishInformations.pdf

So no doubt it can be done, and now there are 1,4 L engines with the same weight but with double the power( 1,4 HDI turbo ) ,so its only a matter of time until more info is available. i read somewhere that the creator of the Gazaile is already experimenting with one of the new engines with great performance increase, (climb , cruise, and altitude performance) with about the same fuel burn!
 
2
Group Builder
Top