|
Party Plane Jones posted:
The DO NOT INFLATE guy musta been pretty proud of himself. I certainly would have.
|
#
?
Sep 30, 2018 08:12
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 26, 2024 23:32 |
|
|
Party Plane Jones posted:
Someone felt it was necessary to stencil "DO NOT INFLATE" on the wooden wheel.
|
|
#
?
Sep 30, 2018 08:12
|
|
|
Cat Mattress posted:Someone felt it was necessary to stencil "DO NOT INFLATE" on the wooden wheel. Given my experience with how warning labels end up stenciled on things, somebody definitely tried to inflate one of those wheels.
|
|
#
?
Sep 30, 2018 09:45
|
|
|
Polikarpov posted:Given my experience with how warning labels end up stenciled on things, somebody definitely tried to inflate one of those wheels. That or the quality engineer had a hair up his rear end in a meeting and looked at some wheel spec and DEMANDED, with threat of witholding, sign off that unless they marked the wood DO NOT INFLATE he would stop the program. Party Plane Jones posted:
No joke your be shocked at plane tires for their cost, lead time and amount of engineering. Its totally possible they simply couldn't get them/enough of them in time. If WWIII breaks out the first thing getting bombed is not ball bearing factories like days of old, it is tire plants.
|
|
#
?
Sep 30, 2018 11:37
|
|
|
It's probably more like for moving around the factory floor at a walking pace this will do fine
|
|
#
?
Sep 30, 2018 11:39
|
|
|
Rubber shortages?
|
|
#
?
Sep 30, 2018 12:41
|
|
|
It also simplifies the assembly process in a way - putting on wheels/tires is now the final step, and those wooden wheels are effectively disposable. There's no risk of damaging or destroying a tire if they're simply stacked up in a pile to be installed just before the plane exits the factory for first test flight/delivery. Running over an errant bolt or rivet is a non-issue.
|
|
#
?
Sep 30, 2018 13:14
|
|
|
I heard that for tanks like the T-80 and the M1, that their gas turbines have two states: off and on, with a constant drain of fuel. What is the difference between them and jet engines which do have a varying fuel consumption rate?
|
|
#
?
Sep 30, 2018 15:27
|
|
|
Xerxes17 posted:I heard that for tanks like the T-80 and the M1, that their gas turbines have two states: off and on, with a constant drain of fuel. What is the difference between them and jet engines which do have a varying fuel consumption rate? For a jet engine it's okay if it takes 5-10 seconds to adjust its rotational speed when you adjust the throttle, and in practice you use a fairly narrow band of rotational speeds anyway - flight idle is typically something like 70-75% N2. Turbines are also very fuel inefficient outside a fairly narrow range of optimal speeds. For a tank engine you want quick throttle response and you can't really do that with a turbine. The S-tank had the turbine speed controlled by the accelerator and was well known for requiring quite a bit of finesse from the driver (they needed to anticipate power needs well in advance), and that was with a regular piston engine helping them as well. Turboprops suffer from some of these problems as well, so as far as I understand it in some conditions they prefer to adjust effective throttle by adjusting the propeller pitch rather than by adjusting turbine RPM. TheFluff fucked around with this message at 15:46 on Sep 30, 2018 |
|
#
?
Sep 30, 2018 15:44
|
|
|
The on/off might be somewhat in jest that the throttle state doesn't affect fuel consumption much. I actually would have assumed that the Abrams was hydrostatic driven in which case steady RPM would make sense, but apparently they have a standard torque converter input transmission. Even then they're only governed at 3150 RPM.
|
|
#
?
Sep 30, 2018 15:54
|
|
|
Adjusting throttle the normal way in a turbine takes time due to inertia of the spinning components, and on a ground vehicle the lag makes it difficult to drive. Plus if you took power directly off the main turbine you could easily drag the whole thing out of efficient RPM and have it lose most of it's power at an inopportune moment. Ground turbines (and others) get around this by basically running a complete turbine at full power and taking power by an independent power turbine with adjustable vanes in the exhaust stream to actually provide torque for the tank. Said turbine can be 'throttled' instantly by adjusting the vanes and directing more/less exhaust gasses into the power turbine, but when you throttle down you are basically just throwing away the rest of the exhaust and the power that goes with it. So yes, at least in combat/fully active mode, gas turbine tanks run the turbine at full power all the time. They have idle modes for when they are not moving but still need electrics/hydraulics, but it takes a few seconds to get back up to full power.
|
|
#
?
Sep 30, 2018 17:29
|
|
|
Kafouille posted:Adjusting throttle the normal way in a turbine takes time due to inertia of the spinning components, and on a ground vehicle the lag makes it difficult to drive. Plus if you took power directly off the main turbine you could easily drag the whole thing out of efficient RPM and have it lose most of it's power at an inopportune moment. Ground turbines (and others) get around this by basically running a complete turbine at full power and taking power by an independent power turbine with adjustable vanes in the exhaust stream to actually provide torque for the tank. Said turbine can be 'throttled' instantly by adjusting the vanes and directing more/less exhaust gasses into the power turbine, but when you throttle down you are basically just throwing away the rest of the exhaust and the power that goes with it. This car did ok? https://www.google.com/url?sa=t&sou...rN8ZFOD4xbU2nov
|
|
#
?
Sep 30, 2018 19:21
|
|
|
TheFluff posted:Turbines are also very fuel inefficient outside a fairly narrow range of optimal speeds. My favourite fact related to this is that Concorde used around 2% of its total fuel load taxiing for takeoff.
|
|
#
?
Sep 30, 2018 20:27
|
|
|
Applesnots posted:This car did ok? It worked the same way as a tank, helicopter, or ship -- the jet engine is merely a gas generator that spins an unconnected power turbine. It's the same as a nuclear plant, just using jet exhaust instead of steam. Edit: Explanation of power turbines by a guy who rebuilds jet engines and turbine-powered electrical generators. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dZHJa00NmmY&t=418s In tanks and helicopters, that last bit connects to the transmission instead of an electrical generator, of course. In the car (and maybe the tank) it was connected to an automatic transmission with no torque converter, because the power turbine is basically the same thing (a fluid -- jet exhaust rather than ATF -- being pushed by a fan into another fan, only coupled by the fluid). Edit again: Now I want to buy a cheap turbocharger for my car and see if I can modify it to turn the accessories drivebelt rather than a fan to stuff more air into the engine. Again, same principle, a power turbine that turns a shaft that does work on the other end, just with a different gas generator. Chillbro Baggins fucked around with this message at 21:25 on Sep 30, 2018 |
|
#
?
Sep 30, 2018 20:58
|
|
Bad Angus! Bad!
|
I can only find a copy of the video on Facebook but here's a pretty good C-130 flyover. https://www.facebook.com/ucfknights/videos/269799547206926/
|
|
#
?
Sep 30, 2018 21:05
|
|
|
Beaten to Iron Maiden, they covered all the British wars. My father (late-Vietnam Green Beret, he mostly stepped out of fast-moving Hueys rather than parachuting when he got Over There) respects Barry Sadler, but this is Dad's favorite Airborne-themed song: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vzrYgDnewSI And of course you can't have war songs without the Yankee version of Dixie: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=A5ra9cXx1-o I made a '69 Charger in Forza 7, blue with flames on the wheelwells, an American flag on the roof, and "General Sherman" above the doors. I go out of my way to take out anybody driving the orange/rebel version.  Edit: I live in Texas, can confirm the first stanza is still accurate, though most of the alligators are a bit to the southeast in Louisiana. Chillbro Baggins fucked around with this message at 22:59 on Sep 30, 2018 |
|
#
?
Sep 30, 2018 22:56
|
|
|
Chillbro Baggins posted:I made a '69 Charger in Forza 7, blue with flames on the wheelwells, an American flag on the roof, and "General Sherman" above the doors. I go out of my way to take out anybody driving the orange/rebel version. Pix or gtfo.
|
|
#
?
Oct 1, 2018 02:05
|
|
|
evil_bunnY posted:That’s prob a copyright issue TBH Here are three of mine https://imgur.com/a/iByRvt3, none of them are threeview, but still looks like a little partridge of an aircraft.
|
|
#
?
Oct 1, 2018 02:07
|
|
|
Chillbro Baggins posted:I made a '69 Charger in Forza 7, blue with flames on the wheelwells, an American flag on the roof, and "General Sherman" above the doors. I go out of my way to take out anybody driving the orange/rebel version. Needs a van-style airbrushed painting of a burning plantation house on the rear window. Otherwise, I approve. Also: Remulak posted:Pix or gtfo.
|
|
#
?
Oct 1, 2018 02:16
|
|
|
Chillbro Baggins posted:And of course you can't have war songs without the Yankee version of Dixie: How have I never heard this beautiful thing before
|
|
#
?
Oct 1, 2018 02:35
|
|
|
https://twitter.com/ap/status/1046606882113277952?s=21 more fun times in the Middle East!
|
|
#
?
Oct 1, 2018 04:59
|
|
|
Remulak posted:Pix or gtfo.   Can't tell from the screenshot, but I redirected him into a wall. Other cars are ablative braking/steering the way I play Forza. Rubbin' is racin'. 1864 was the year Sherman burned Atlanta, is the joke in the door number. Schadenboner posted:Needs a van-style airbrushed painting of a burning plantation house on the rear window. Otherwise, I approve. Next time I run the game I'll get video of it. Chillbro Baggins fucked around with this message at 08:44 on Oct 1, 2018 |
|
#
?
Oct 1, 2018 08:28
|
|
|
Another engine question. If i have two engines which both produce 500HP, but one does so at 2000rpm and the other does it 2200rpm, are there any practical differences?
|
|
#
?
Oct 1, 2018 12:45
|
|
|
Xerxes17 posted:Another engine question. If i have two engines which both produce 500HP, but one does so at 2000rpm and the other does it 2200rpm, are there any practical differences? You're not really providing enough information to give a useful answer. Is 500HP at 2000/2200rpm the peak? What is the redline for each? Is either engine using forced induction (this matters for altitude)? What type of fuel does each engine use (this matters for logistics)? What is the actual purpose of the engine? What is the torque curve for each engine? What are the engine designs (V8? I4? Radial? Rotary?)? Edit for clarity: At that RPM range, assuming everything else is the same, there isn't much difference. But we need to know more to give a complete answer. Shooting Blanks fucked around with this message at 13:00 on Oct 1, 2018 |
|
#
?
Oct 1, 2018 12:51
|
|
|
That seems like a really low peak RPM for a high-hp engine. I'd expect more like 5000+.
|
|
#
?
Oct 1, 2018 15:39
|
|
|
Godholio posted:That seems like a really low peak RPM for a high-hp engine. I'd expect more like 5000+. Sounds about right for a diesel though?
|
|
#
?
Oct 1, 2018 15:52
|
|
|
Xerxes17 posted:Another engine question. If i have two engines which both produce 500HP, but one does so at 2000rpm and the other does it 2200rpm, are there any practical differences? I mean the 2000 RPM engine has more torque. Picking a single set of numbers out of an engine's performance is usually limiting in your evaluations for the use case. Torque curves are the best way to evaluate the engine's performance to make the kind of assessment you are asking for. Basically if you give me two numbers at two different RPMs I can correlate anything. Hell if we're talking diesel here that might even be the same engine with a tapering off torque outside of the power band. And then turbines are a whole nother level of fucky and it has been a while since I have looked at those.
|
|
#
?
Oct 1, 2018 16:44
|
|
|
The mammoth aero engines from WWII usually had their peak outputs between 2500 and 3000 rpm. Them were some big engines.
|
|
#
?
Oct 1, 2018 17:00
|
|
|
hobbesmaster posted:Sounds about right for a diesel though? This. Look at the torque curve for a tractor trailer engine and you'll likely see a redline around 2000 rpm, HP from 500-600, but torque above 2000 ft/lbs. We have an incomplete set of numbers to evaluate performance
|
|
#
?
Oct 1, 2018 17:02
|
|
|
Largely because HP is a function of torque multiplied by RPM.
|
|
#
?
Oct 1, 2018 17:15
|
|
|
Chillbro Baggins posted:I made a '69 Charger in Forza 7, blue with flames on the wheelwells, an American flag on the roof, and "General Sherman" above the doors. I go out of my way to take out anybody driving the orange/rebel version. I've thought about doing something similar to this with "General Grant" but using Sherman is a bit more inflammatory.
|
|
#
?
Oct 1, 2018 18:24
|
|
|
Cat Hatter posted:but using Sherman is a bit more inflammatory. 
|
|
#
?
Oct 1, 2018 18:28
|
|
|
|
|
#
?
Oct 1, 2018 20:04
|
|
|
Cat Hatter posted:I've thought about doing something similar to this with "General Grant" but using Sherman is a bit more inflammatory. 
|
|
#
?
Oct 1, 2018 20:13
|
|
|
Cat Hatter posted:I've thought about doing something similar to this with "General Grant" but using Sherman is a bit more inflammatory. 
|
|
#
?
Oct 1, 2018 20:43
|
|
|
Cat Hatter posted:Sherman is a bit more inflammatory. 
|
|
#
?
Oct 1, 2018 20:52
|
|
|
My question is to do with tank engines, so yeah diesels.
|
|
#
?
Oct 1, 2018 23:04
|
|
|
Xerxes17 posted:My question is to do with tank engines, so yeah diesels. No they're the same is the most likely answer. An engineer would say they can't give a meaningful answer Someone from the internet would mention the rule on 500HP which is that it is to be pronounced "fahve hunnert hursepowwwer" and they're lying.
|
|
#
?
Oct 2, 2018 00:30
|
|
|
CarForumPoster posted:No they're the same is the most likely answer. Someone said that all of the vehicles in the US inventory can run on the same JP fuel and it was intentional for ease of distribution during a war or crisis where supply lines might be stressed. So a tank, chopper, jet, diesel truck, and even non-nuclear naval vessel can all run it. Confirm/Deny?
|
|
#
?
Oct 2, 2018 02:21
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 26, 2024 23:32 |
|
|
Maybe not all, but definitely many/most, at least in a blend.
|
|
#
?
Oct 2, 2018 02:33
|
|