The M1A2 Abrams Turbine engine
collimatrix
Feb 03 2013
Reading Ogorkiewicz and laughing. 14.5:1 was considered a very high overall pressure ratio when the AGT-1500 was designed. The F135 turbofan does 30:1 now.
Why are people writing off the entire concept of turbines in tanks just because a design from half a century ago doesn't have stellar specific fuel consumption?
Why are people writing off the entire concept of turbines in tanks just because a design from half a century ago doesn't have stellar specific fuel consumption?
mrvwbug
Feb 18 2013
blurr91, on Jul 16 2012 - 20:00, said:
That's interesting. Gas turbine locomotives never took off. Their efficiency could not compete with diesel-electrics.
Combat has a totally different requirement though. Fuel efficiency is 2nd to performance. A fuel efficient tank that doesn't perform well is passed over for a fuel hog that performs well.
All US Navy major surface combatants are gas turbine now, other than carriers. Gas turbine is easier to operate, has a faster response time, smaller, and lighter, than steam turbine.
Diesel and diesel electric are highly efficient, but I don't think they can reach the type of speed US Navy requires on a major warship without compromising size and weight.
I was thinking maybe we could have a turbo-electric hybrid car one day. It can burn cheap kerosine and is highly efficient at highway cruising. We don't have one yet so there's probably a drawback somewhere that I don't know about.
Combat has a totally different requirement though. Fuel efficiency is 2nd to performance. A fuel efficient tank that doesn't perform well is passed over for a fuel hog that performs well.
All US Navy major surface combatants are gas turbine now, other than carriers. Gas turbine is easier to operate, has a faster response time, smaller, and lighter, than steam turbine.
Diesel and diesel electric are highly efficient, but I don't think they can reach the type of speed US Navy requires on a major warship without compromising size and weight.
I was thinking maybe we could have a turbo-electric hybrid car one day. It can burn cheap kerosine and is highly efficient at highway cruising. We don't have one yet so there's probably a drawback somewhere that I don't know about.
The Gas Turbine locomotives worked well for mainline freight, 1 locomotive could do the work of several diesels. The issue was the fuel, they offset the high fuel consumption by running them on heavy fuel oil which in the late 50s-early 60s was MUCH cheaper than diesel because it was considered a waste product. In the mid-60s refiners developed methods to further refine heavy fuel oil into other fuels and petroleum products and the oil was no longer cheap enough to justify use of the GTELs over diesels. Also GTELs could not be used in urban areas because they were EXTREMELY loud when operating.
In marine use a lot of modern warships use both turbines and diesels. The turbines are used when they need higher performance and the diesels are used for normal cruising to save fuel. Not sure if the Perry, Arleigh-Burke, and Ticonderoga classes use this setup, but both LCS classes do, and many frigates and destroyers from other countries do as well.
Xlucine
Feb 22 2013
More specifically, the turbine is intended to drive it backwards so it can bug out fast when the russians spot it. It would have the fastest reverse speed in game.
