Ross, you're right - the thread has deviated, and it's partly my fault, so I apologize. Much of this was beat to death in the other thread - and made clear that you're not buying that diesels pull better.
So I'll bring it back to aviation. You completely disregarded my last paragraph regarding the fact that my NORMALLY ASPIRATED 318 cubic inch (5.2L) diesel routinely out accelerated and out-pulled many 454 cu in Chevys of the day, burning 1/3 less fuel. Why? because it's a two stroke. Granted, it was heavy, and a little bulky, but it did fit under the hood of a regular pickup.
My point is this: As the two-stroke aviation diesel evolves - I'm talking WAM, DH, and CMD, that I know of, but others may come - I'm convinced that we'll see a 5-ish liter non-turbo 180 hp, air cooled, light weight, two stroke aerodiesel, a platform that can be turbocharged to produce 250-300 hp. We're practically there now, if the CMD ever makes it to market. That platform, minus the turbos and the common rail, would very close.
Here's the reasoning: 1. The actual two-stroke diesel technology has been around for ages, both uniflow and loop scavenged, with the above parameters, minus the weight, being met. (my 318 cu in V6 mentioned above made 230 hp/470 ft/lb continuous with
no turbo, bone stock, 2800 rpm). This engine, and millions like it routinely ran 500,000 miles between overhauls, pulling hard most of their lives.
2. The real technology needed to do this comes with computer modeling, new alloys and manufacturing techniques, giving the ability to make these engines light enough. This seems to be coming. My WAM weighs 220 lb with coolers. The CMD (310 hp) weighs about double that, with six cyl. so it's essentially two WAM's in a flat six configuration.
3. These engines do not need to be electronically controlled or have variable turbos, or have any other complicated systems to work well. This is proven, because myself and several others are flying them now (not to mention BILLIONS of road miles with the exact same technology - even the bore and stroke don't need to change).
4. Some new fancy technologies, like electronic common rail injection, airflow optimizing, etc. can be applied to make these engines even more efficient and green.
Yeah, I might be dreaming, but I think the writing is on the wall. In my eyes it's not if, but when. And I won't give up the idea that diesels pull better!
Kurt