Technology Stats Help

[HHAYD]

[quote name='king of cochin' timestamp='1280456408' post='2394676']
The power and torque required for a tank is different from that required by an aircraft, different type of power is required. Want to consider better engines for tanks? look for the best truck engines and modify them to have an insane starting torque, ability to sprint.
[/quote]
You know the Honeywell AGT1500 engine that the M1 Abram uses? It's an aircraft turboprop/turboshaft engine stripped of its propeller.

The TP400 engines are used in the Airbus A400M, which has a max takeoff weight of 155.426 tons, divide it by four; it would be 38.8565 tons per engine and would be close to the weight that most of my tanks are at.

EDIT: All of the truck engines I checked are piston based, which are inferior to turbines when it comes to hp. I would need to stack a few of them together and it wouldn't go too well.

Edited July 30, 2010 by HHAYD

[king of cochin]

[quote name='HHAYD' timestamp='1280458074' post='2394698']
You know the Honeywell AGT1500 engine that the M1 Abram uses? It's an aircraft turboprop/turboshaft engine stripped of its propeller.

The TP400 engines are used in the Airbus A400M, which has a max takeoff weight of 155.426 tons, divide it by four; it would be 38.8565 tons per engine and would be close to the weight that most of my tanks are at.

EDIT: All of the truck engines I checked are piston based, which are inferior to turbines when it comes to hp. I would need to stack a few of them together and it wouldn't go too well.
[/quote]

Thanks for that info, I did not know that.

Yeah, they are Turboshaft engines and they never have the mileage as you get from piston engines. If you want a tank for combat better not look for mileage, this is the reason that tanks are usually transported on trailers. And as I said earlier if you want more mobility you would have to compromise elsewhere. You can add a more powerful Turboshaft engine, but that will increase the size of the tank and would require greater fuel capability, again increasing the size.

And yeah piston engines have lower HP than turboshaft, but they have far greater fuel mileage. That is why it is always a compromise between power and mileage.

[HHAYD]

I understand that gas turbines would be inefficient, but would it be possible to throw in a heat engine to use some of the waste heat as mechanical energy?

Is it practical to use the TP400 in a tank?

[king of cochin]

[quote name='HHAYD' timestamp='1280459311' post='2394715']
I understand that gas turbines would be inefficient, but would it be possible to throw in a heat engine to use some of the waste heat as mechanical energy?

Is it practical to use the TP400 in a tank?
[/quote]

Throwing in additional heat engines would only keep on increasing the weight and size of the engine without a corresponding increase in efficiency. Of course you can use a TP400 in a tank, but have you seen its size as per the wiki page? The tank would be huge to carry engines like that.

[HHAYD]

[quote name='king of cochin' timestamp='1280460122' post='2394726']
Of course you can use a TP400 in a tank, but have you seen its size as per the wiki page? The tank would be huge to carry engines like that.
[/quote]
I didn't think it was that large even though it weighted 1,890kg, I was comparing its size to the people in the background on the first photo of it in the wiki page. Maybe a slightly smaller version if it (with reduced hp of course) would fit.

[Il Terra Di Agea]

[quote name='BaronUberstein' timestamp='1280436666' post='2394333']
I'm always open for free commisions, though only with tanks and I require full details before I try to design it and no deadline besides "a few months at most."
[/quote]
I on the other hand can do anything if I get a picture (Within reason), I work fast, and I only require the payment of one human soul (Or the closest equivalent possible)

[Uberstein]

[quote name='Il Terra Di Agea' timestamp='1280462899' post='2394757']
I on the other hand can do anything if I get a picture (Within reason), I work fast, and I only require the payment of one human soul (Or the closest equivalent possible)
[/quote]
^^^He's honestly a better deal than I am.

[king of cochin]

[quote name='HHAYD' timestamp='1280461324' post='2394739']
I didn't think it was that large even though it weighted 1,890kg, I was comparing its size to the people in the background on the first photo of it in the wiki page. Maybe a slightly smaller version if it (with reduced hp of course) would fit.
[/quote]

A smaller version, with reduced HP? That would give you, I believe same capability as the AGT1500,

The trick is to have an engine of the same size as the AGT1500, giving greater HP and lesser fuel consumption, which would need an entirely new design concept.

[Uberstein]

I'm working on a SPA in sketchup, and I have come upon some issues with size.

[IMG]http://i254.photobucket.com/albums/hh108/BaronUberstein/MTA1SPAFront.png[/IMG]
[IMG]http://i254.photobucket.com/albums/hh108/BaronUberstein/MTA1SPASide.png[/IMG]

It's current armament is 155mm L52 howitzer. I have no idea what it's recoil is like, and hence I made the vehicle big. Could I upgun it or get advantages from the size like a really good autoloader with the current size?

I plan to use the same chassis for an engineering vehicle, is that a good idea? The engine is front-mounted.

The reason for wheels is because I'm lazy, to be honest. I could give it treads but it's a good two hours of work with something this size. >_<

Edited July 30, 2010 by BaronUberstein

[king of cochin]

The 155mm L52 gun that you are planning to use for this vehicle is already used in an SPG role by [url="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/ARCHER_Artillery_System"]ARCHER[/url], [url="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Panzerhaubitze_2000"]PZH 2000[/url] etc. For a vehicle of the size you are considering, you should be able to use 180mm or even 220mm artillery gun. But when you increase the size to that much, it would be better to make it a tracked rather than wheeled platform.

And sure, an engineering vehicle on that chassis would be quite formidable. Again it would be more effective tracked rather than wheeled.

By the way awesome images.

[Uberstein]

[quote name='king of cochin' timestamp='1280483616' post='2394904']
The 155mm L52 gun that you are planning to use for this vehicle is already used in an SPG role by [url="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/ARCHER_Artillery_System"]ARCHER[/url], [url="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Panzerhaubitze_2000"]PZH 2000[/url] etc. For a vehicle of the size you are considering, you should be able to use 180mm or even 220mm artillery gun. But when you increase the size to that much, it would be better to make it a tracked rather than wheeled platform.

And sure, an engineering vehicle on that chassis would be quite formidable. Again it would be more effective tracked rather than wheeled.

By the way awesome images.
[/quote]
http://i254.photobucket.com/albums/hh108/BaronUberstein/MTA1SPASide-1.png

http://i254.photobucket.com/albums/hh108/BaronUberstein/MTA1SPAFront-1.png

http://i254.photobucket.com/albums/hh108/BaronUberstein/MTA1SPA-4.png

That's it with a 220mm L52 gun. Working on the treads right now.

EDIT:
http://i254.photobucket.com/albums/hh108/BaronUberstein/MTA1SPA-5.png

It has the option of road wheels or if you need it you can put on treads. Featured with continuous rubber-composite treads

Edited July 30, 2010 by BaronUberstein

[king of cochin]

Darn you, Uberstein for yet again making me drool over your graphics skills,

[HHAYD]

[quote name='king of cochin' timestamp='1280464956' post='2394783']
A smaller version, with reduced HP? That would give you, I believe same capability as the AGT1500,

The trick is to have an engine of the same size as the AGT1500, giving greater HP and lesser fuel consumption, which would need an entirely new design concept.
[/quote]
Hm, a lighter engine with bigger HP: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Progress_D-27

1,650kg
14,000hp

I think the 1,650kg engine would fit inside the tank, right?

As for a new design concept, the only one I found was microturbines, but I figured the more engines a tank has, the prone it is to breakdowns. Another way would be to use fuel that give even more explosive power, liquid explosives, the ones that are used in bombs.

[king of cochin]

[quote name='HHAYD' timestamp='1280493595' post='2394947']
Hm, a lighter engine with bigger HP: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Progress_D-27

1,650kg
14,000hp

I think the 1,650kg engine would fit inside the tank, right?

As for a new design concept, the only one I found was microturbines, but I figured the more engines a tank has, the prone it is to breakdowns. Another way would be to use fuel that give even more explosive power, liquid explosives, the ones that are used in bombs.
[/quote]

That my friend is an excellent idea!!! The [url="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Propfan"]propfan engines[/url] combine the power of turbofan engine with the engine efficiency of turboprop!! Using a propfan design for the tanks can give upto 30% extra energy efficiency!!

GE36

[img]http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/c/c1/Nasa_ge_udf.jpg[/img]

Also I would suggest you not to use liquid explosives. A tank is anyway a hazardous environment with the internal fuel tanks and the ammunition. Using more explosive fuels would cause greater damage on the engines, reducing its longevity and would also reduce chances of the crew being able bale out if and when the tank is crippled.

[HHAYD]

[quote name='king of cochin' timestamp='1280494356' post='2394951']
That my friend is an excellent idea!!! The [url="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Propfan"]propfan engines[/url] combine the power of turbofan engine with the engine efficiency of turboprop!! Using a propfan design for the tanks can give upto 30% extra energy efficiency!!

GE36

[img]http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/c/c1/Nasa_ge_udf.jpg[/img]
[/quote]
Now my only concern is, where am I going to find a transmission that can tolerate the massive RPM the turbine is going to crank out? If I try to use the standard tanks' transmissions, they would snap left and right.

Edited July 30, 2010 by HHAYD

[king of cochin]

[quote name='HHAYD' timestamp='1280495771' post='2394955']
Now my only concern is, where am I going to find a [b]transmission[/b] that can tolerate the massive RPM the turbine is going to crank out? If I try to use the standard tanks' transmissions, they would snap left and right.
[/quote]

With regard to that, I frankly have no idea, Stumped,

[HHAYD]

Assuming if there was a transmission to handle such engine, I am kind of torn between that engine and the most powerful turboprop engine that I mentioned earlier: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kuznetsov_NK-12

It only weights 1,155kg yet cranks out close to 15,000 hp. I could lower it down to 2000hp and it would still have a decent power-to-weight ratio. Dunno about fuel efficiency.

Edited July 31, 2010 by HHAYD

[Michael McBride]

Uber, I can haz 220mm mobile artillery boom boom stick?

[DeSchaine]

Auto loaders on artillery of that type... well, not generally accepted idea. Mostly because they're actually slower than human crews. That's why even the Abrams don't have them. For artillery it'd be even slower. It'd also take up more room than a loader crewman.

[HHAYD]

[quote name='DeSchaine' timestamp='1280555021' post='2395793']
Auto loaders on artillery of that type... well, not generally accepted idea. Mostly because they're actually slower than human crews. That's why even the Abrams don't have them. For artillery it'd be even slower. It'd also take up more room than a loader crewman.
[/quote]
I disagree. Autoloaders perform better than the human loaders if the rounds that are being used are above 125mm. The larger the round, the heavier it is and the faster the human loader will get tired. Normally they take up less space, but depending on what type you used, the disadvantage ranges between larger turret size due to all of the ammunition being stored in there or increased risk of the tank crew being annihilated due to ammunition cook-off.

Edited July 31, 2010 by HHAYD

[king of cochin]

[quote name='HHAYD' timestamp='1280580576' post='2395926']
I disagree. Autoloaders perform better than the human loaders if the rounds that are being used are above 125mm. The larger the round, the heavier it is and the faster the human loader will get tired. Normally they take up less space, but depending on what type you used, the disadvantage ranges between larger turret size due to all of the ammunition being stored in there or increased risk of the tank crew being annihilated due to ammunition cook-off.
[/quote]

For larger caliber artillery, automatic loaders are in fact found to be better than human loaders. However considering that the crew numbers designed for a tank is not just for its combat operations but also for its over all combat survivability, loss of an extra human crew member would mean lesser self sufficiency and damage repair potential for the tank.

For a Self Propelled Gun however an auto loading mechanism is vital for rapid firing and rapid egress capabilities.

[Uberstein]

http://i254.photobucket.com/albums/hh108/BaronUberstein/MIA1.png Would that work as an engineering vehicle?

[king of cochin]

[quote name='BaronUberstein' timestamp='1280643688' post='2396859']
http://i254.photobucket.com/albums/hh108/BaronUberstein/MIA1.png Would that work as an engineering vehicle?
[/quote]

You seem to have maintained the breech/turret portion of the SPG. That would be wasteful, the extra weight could provide additional lift capability for the engineering task. You only need what armor is needed to facilitate the task, after all this is not a combat vehicle! Also I would suggest bull dozer blades in front of the tank,

[Uberstein]

[quote name='king of cochin' timestamp='1280644047' post='2396865']
You seem to have maintained the breech/turret portion of the SPG. That would be wasteful, the extra weight could provide additional lift capability for the engineering task. You only need what armor is needed to facilitate the task, after all this is not a combat vehicle! Also I would suggest bull dozer blades in front of the tank,
[/quote]
Well it's a really big crane so I assumed I needed a place to put the motors for it. <__<

[HHAYD]

You could also make the vehicle highly customizable such as having a removable turret, allowing it to perform tasks of digging trenches, laying down temporary fold-away bridges over blown bridges (then taunt the enemies for their failed scorched-earth tactic), nailing czech hedgehogs into the ground, serve as a backup tank by attaching a cannon in case if everything goes insane and all of your MBTs are burning, and much more.