As an aircraft mech no doubt you'd heard the question "If diesel engines are so good, how come they're never used on aircraft?" except of course, there's that Irish? short field cargo job that does indeed run diesels, so it can fuel up in odd places that don't have aircraft support or fuel.<G>
I had the good luck to learn some of my engine knowledge from a man who had multiple PhDs and a list of patents as long as your arm. If you've ever ridden on a diesel-pulled train, a couple of cents of your train fare went to his royalties, they wre that basic and that universal, having to do with combustion engineering. Even with that background he would have said diesels weren't right for everything, they are (were) at their best in steady-state operation, pulling a specific load at a specific rpm
and then sitting and doing it all day long without interruption. For varying loads and stop-and-go, he preferred the Otto cycle (gasoline) engine. Not that we were discussing boats at the time.
I think you're spot on about getting rid of raw water cooling
. It is used because it is CHEAP
and takes less space, so it makes for an easy sell. And the first ten or 20 years of owners will rarely miss it. In the longer term? Yeah, an engine running raw salt water
may be rotted out in 20 years while the closed cooled engine will still be in new condition.
I'm surprised to hear aircraft hoses are dated for 0-year replacement. The folks at Goodyear, Firestone, Gates all those nice places tell me five years and that's enough. (You don't think they're trying to sell more hoses, do you?<G>)
Then there's Westerbeke
, who still slap red paint
over everything including the hoses. WB says all those rubber companies who tell you paint
rots the rubber, are wrong. Ahuh. Funny
thing, I know a tank commander who said sloppy paint jobs rotted the CBW rubber seals
on his tanks
, too. He didn't give a damn what it cost, he just wanted seals
that worked, 100% of the time. Wasn't his wallet.