The Dupuy Institute Forum
  Other Subjects
  German tank engines (Page 2)

Post New Topic  Post A Reply
profile | register | preferences | faq | search

UBBFriend: Email This Page to Someone!
This topic is 2 pages long:   1  2 
next newest topic | next oldest topic
Author Topic:   German tank engines
Jukka Juutinen
Senior Member
posted 12-08-2002 02:34 PM     Click Here to See the Profile for Jukka Juutinen     Edit/Delete Message   Reply w/Quote
Sorry to burst the bubble but lack of ignition system has no impact on why modern trucks are diesel powered, neither does simplicity. In fact, during the last 10 or so years disels have become extremely complicated with variable geometry turbosuperchargers, electronically controlled fuel high pressure injection etc.
Which one has more torque and power, is entirely up to definition in large engines. However, if we compare torque and power, diesels easily better petrol engines in Nm per kW comparison. And supercharging also improves that NM/kW ratio. Again, we are entering an off-topic arena...

Jukka

IP: Logged

kevsharr
Member
posted 12-08-2002 04:46 PM     Click Here to See the Profile for kevsharr     Edit/Delete Message   Reply w/Quote
Sorry to burst your bubble but being someone who has driven modern truck's turbo charging and all the other modern devices like electronic fuel injection are relativly hand's off were as spark plug's,wiring etc play a major part.When an engine is expected to run 2 to 300.000 miles a year anything that reduces maintanence downtime are welcome
Let's see a 600 hp cummin's diesel displaces 855 ci's A gasoline engine utiliesing supercharging and variable cam timing with the same displacement will produce more torque and hp because gasoline is a much more efficient fuel.And as someone stated earlier the multi bank engine of the sherman was a maintenance nightmare because for one the lack of accesability to some of the sparking mechanism's.And back in the old day's of coil's,condenser's and point's which are all subject to breakdown the lack of these potential problem's had to be desirable.As an aside the early Ju-86's twin engined aircraft had diesel engines,granted they were underpowered but what was the reasoning behind there use?More torque?Maybe because once started diesel's can only be stopped by a lack of fuel not by a field breakdown in a coil or condenser.As for diesel's being bulkier than gas engine's,sure but what about Japanese tank's?They were all powered by air-cooled diesel's,sure they were little pieces of junk but what advantage did they see in it's utilization?Cheap fuel? All there other motor transport used gasoline engines.I still say that the lack of an ignition system is one of the major benefit's of a diesel powerplant,like posted earlier they are under a lot more stress than a gas engine,what with compression ratio's on the order of 20 to 1.Just my opinion sorry if it doese'nt jib with your's but if everyone agreed with everyone else it would be a boring world indeed.

IP: Logged

Jukka Juutinen
Senior Member
posted 12-09-2002 02:29 AM     Click Here to See the Profile for Jukka Juutinen     Edit/Delete Message   Reply w/Quote
"Gasoline more efficient fuel". Tell me how since diesel fuel has higher energy content than gasoline per kg.
Though you have driven trucks you do not obviously know much about them. 20:1 is way too high a compression ratio for a large turbocharged diesel.
Why did Ju 86 use diesels? For fuel economy reasons.

Jukka

IP: Logged

kevsharr
Member
posted 12-09-2002 08:18 AM     Click Here to See the Profile for kevsharr     Edit/Delete Message   Reply w/Quote
Then you tell me what the comp.ratio of a turbo charged diesel is.I don't think you know how a diesel function's so i'll tell you .A diesel compresses air till it reaches a very high temperature then fuel is injected into the cylinder which causes combustion,high compression is REQUIRED to accomplish this,turbo or not the only way to cause the oxygen atom's to reach the proper temp for combustion is extreme compression.Turbocharging assist's in this but in no way makes it possible for lower compression ratio's to be possible if anything it assist's in compression by increasing the volume of oxygen in the combustion chamber is'nt that what it was created for?To allow an aircraft to fly at high altitudes and not suffer from the lower air pressure and oxygen content by increasing both in the combustion chamber.As for the Ju-86 reliability had nothing to do with it I take it.I don't know how old you are but I remember when you had to replace point's,condensor's and spark plug's and wires and distributor rotor's and cap's on a regular basis,imagine not having to do this,would'nt that increase reliability by not having said part's and not having the chance of one of them failing and deadlining the vehicle and reduce maintainance cost's in both part's and time and would'nt this be of benefit in a combat vehicle in a combat environment???..naaaa you're right I don't know anything about the subject.

IP: Logged

Jukka Juutinen
Senior Member
posted 12-11-2002 06:57 PM     Click Here to See the Profile for Jukka Juutinen     Edit/Delete Message   Reply w/Quote
The compression ratio for most large truck turbocharged diesels is about 16:1. In fact, you are also wrong about the need for high CR for combustion purposes. For example, French Hyperbar diesel fitted to Leclerc MBT has a CR less than 10:1 to facilitate high boost pressure (over 7 bars!).
BTW, I am 29.

IP: Logged

Joseph Scott
Senior Member
posted 12-20-2002 04:01 PM     Click Here to See the Profile for Joseph Scott     Edit/Delete Message   Reply w/Quote
[QUOTE]Originally posted by Rich:
[B]Jukka,

>You are fairly close to the mark on your comments. The Maybach's were good engines, they do not appear to be the cause of many of the reliability problems that plagued German tanks. Which should be expected, considering that they were developed as specialized tank engines over the course of more than 10 years. However, your criticism of them is also on the mark. They were developed for high horsepower and low torque - not a problem neccessarily in and of itself, especially in the early, lighter German tanks - but coupled with the increased weight of later German tanks and the poor material quality in their later transmissions, it was disastrous. The transmission in the Panther appears to be the cause of 80+ percent of the failures in the late-model Panther, a problem associated with the use of poor quality steel in the gearing (there was barely enough hi-quality steel available for the better-made Tiger transmissions) and the overly-complicated, multiple gear design.

>But as to the US tank engines, that was a product of parsimony and short-sightedness, as well as some good luck and clever engineering. The original US "tank" engine was nothing of the sort. It was actually a de-rated radial aircraft engine. Designing tanks around them was a matter of economy, decided on in the 30's. The engines were light weight, with excellent power output and torque, but were also bulky and were fuel hogs.

I know nothing about engines whatsoever, and I am trying to find out about tank engine possibilities for an alternate history excercise. I know that the Germans had some trouble finding suitably powerful engines for Tigers and Panthers, but had various aerial and ship engines around that were more powerful. Would either their aircrafts' radial engines,or the engines used in warships have been adaptable for use in a heavy tank? If so, what drawbacks would this have entailed, and when would such engines have been available? Specifically,I am looking at what possibilites would be available in the period 1932-1939, though later developments would still be of some relevance to me. I am looking for an engine to power 50-75 ton vehicle along the lines of the unfinished Panther.2 or E series.

Also, can anyone tell me how the slope of a vehicle's body would affect the usable volume, and therefore weight? I know nothing about engineering,and my 3D-geometry is very shaky. The only source I found so far to discuss this was a vehicle design book for a role-playing game. (GURPS Vehicles, 2nd Ed.) This book contained a formula for slope implying that sloping the sides of an AFV was counterproductive in terms of lost volume for equipment and crew, and the additional structure that would need to be added to compensate. Of course, this does not seem to make sense, logically.

Joseph

IP: Logged


This topic is 2 pages long:   1  2 

All times are ET (US)

next newest topic | next oldest topic

Administrative Options: Close Topic | Archive/Move | Delete Topic
Post New Topic  Post A Reply
Hop to:

Contact Us | The Dupuy Institute

Powered by Infopop www.infopop.com © 2000
Ultimate Bulletin Board 5.47e