Jump to content


Engine superchargers?


  • Please log in to reply
98 replies to this topic

EmberTheDragoness #41 Posted Jan 22 2015 - 15:36

    First lieutenant

  • Players
  • 6617 battles
  • 589
  • Member since:
    09-11-2011
I think most deisel engines are supercharged by design. Using esxust to increase compression instead of more air

SgtNuker #42 Posted Jan 22 2015 - 15:42

    Captain

  • Beta Testers
  • 14456 battles
  • 1,130
  • Member since:
    07-18-2010

Wrong, mate. 

 

Diesels are turbocharged. To get the most out of a diesel, it requires forced induction. 

 

Also, turbochargers are exhaust driven, while superchargers, regardless of being twin-screw or centrifugal, are belt driven. Both methods of forced induction increase compression. 



EmberTheDragoness #43 Posted Jan 22 2015 - 16:00

    First lieutenant

  • Players
  • 6617 battles
  • 589
  • Member since:
    09-11-2011

View PostSgtNuker, on Jan 22 2015 - 08:42, said:

Wrong, mate. 

 

Diesels are turbocharged. To get the most out of a diesel, it requires forced induction. 

 

Also, turbochargers are exhaust driven, while superchargers, regardless of being twin-screw or centrifugal, are belt driven. Both methods of forced induction increase compression. 

 

OH! Damn. Don't mind me. I remembered how both worked, But not which was which 

Meplat #44 Posted Jan 22 2015 - 18:14

    Major

  • Players
  • 6774 battles
  • 7,831
  • [C-BOO] C-BOO
  • Member since:
    11-27-2012

View Postshapeshifter, on Jan 22 2015 - 01:24, said:

It was a production model, they standardized it hence the M designation for the M6 and M6A1. the reason it was never in combat was AGF only wanted M4's they didn't want to ship such a heavy vehicle when they could ship almost two M4's for the same weight.

 

Both British and American officers wanted it badly, and had been asking for it since the start of the Africa phase of the war. all the way up to 1944 they were still wondering and asking when they would get them. Even the Germans thought they would see them at any time and had a standing order to bring any examples found in the field back for study.

 

But all of that is moving away from the original topic.

There were only 40~50 made, regardless. Not sure what you're after at this point.

 

View PostSgtNuker, on Jan 22 2015 - 06:24, said:

Doesn't mean they couldn't utilize forced induction. The Sherman may not have, but aircraft with radial engines did use forced induction to cope with the high altitudes. 

Read back. That blower was to ensure balanced fuel/air distribution. When you see a two speed or multistage blower, that's for altitude compensation.

 

View PostColeDragonKnight1, on Jan 22 2015 - 07:36, said:

I think most deisel engines are supercharged by design. Using esxust to increase compression instead of more air

No, you can have naturally aspirated (6.2 GM), Supercharged (Detroit two strokes) and turbo-supercharged with either a blower or naturally aspirated.

 

View PostSgtNuker, on Jan 22 2015 - 07:42, said:

Wrong, mate. 

 

Diesels are turbocharged. To get the most out of a diesel, it requires forced induction. 

 

Also, turbochargers are exhaust driven, while superchargers, regardless of being twin-screw or centrifugal, are belt driven. Both methods of forced induction increase compression. 

Diesels can be naturally aspirated as well. The ones that had to be blown were usually two strokes.



SgtNuker #45 Posted Jan 22 2015 - 18:39

    Captain

  • Beta Testers
  • 14456 battles
  • 1,130
  • Member since:
    07-18-2010
Diesels *can* be NA, but they run out of power around 1500 rpm, which if we were to translate a diesel's power band into a petrol engine's, that would be around 3000-3500 rpm. Usually the diesels that aren't force-fed are generators or ones that never think of turning more than 1000 rpm, like those that power container ships. 

Lieutenant_Dan_67 #46 Posted Jan 22 2015 - 18:51

    Corporal

  • Players
  • 10796 battles
  • 61
  • Member since:
    01-24-2012

All gm diesels of the era were 2 stroke. All 2 stroke diesel had to have a blower. This did not increase the horse power on these engines. A 2 stroke does not have intake valves. The blower pushes air in through holes in the cylinder wall and pushes the exhaust gasses out the exhaust valves. 

 

A turbo charger can be used with the blower on these engines for increased power. But during WW2 I dont think they did.

 

No other diesel uses a blower they all use a turbo or nothing. 

 

There is no set % that a turbo or blower will increase the Hp of any given engine. It depends on a number of variables such as....

 

base compression ratio.

cam shaft design

cylinder head efficiency

Quality of fuel

 



Meplat #47 Posted Jan 22 2015 - 18:53

    Major

  • Players
  • 6774 battles
  • 7,831
  • [C-BOO] C-BOO
  • Member since:
    11-27-2012

View PostSgtNuker, on Jan 22 2015 - 10:39, said:

Diesels *can* be NA, but they run out of power around 1500 rpm, which if we were to translate a diesel's power band into a petrol engine's, that would be around 3000-3500 rpm. Usually the diesels that aren't force-fed are generators or ones that never think of turning more than 1000 rpm, like those that power container ships. 

 

Or the whole slew of GM 6.2's, the MB OM636 (and many smaller, older Benz diesels).

I know the common 6.2 GM has it's injection pump set up to govern at ~4000RPM, but they will spin to 3K pretty well.

 

There were (and are still) loads of non-blown Diesels about that spin past 1K on a pretty regular basis.  Open the hood of an old UNIMOG, MB diesel car or CUCV truck.



Meplat #48 Posted Jan 22 2015 - 19:00

    Major

  • Players
  • 6774 battles
  • 7,831
  • [C-BOO] C-BOO
  • Member since:
    11-27-2012

View PostSir_Mister_Sir, on Jan 22 2015 - 10:51, said:

 

 

No other diesel uses a blower they all use a turbo or nothing. 

 

 

 

 

Rolls Royce made a bunch of Roots blown four stroke Diesels.  Look up the RR "C" range of inlines.

 



Lieutenant_Dan_67 #49 Posted Jan 22 2015 - 19:19

    Corporal

  • Players
  • 10796 battles
  • 61
  • Member since:
    01-24-2012
I stand corrected. Did not know about those...

Meplat #50 Posted Jan 22 2015 - 19:22

    Major

  • Players
  • 6774 battles
  • 7,831
  • [C-BOO] C-BOO
  • Member since:
    11-27-2012

View PostSir_Mister_Sir, on Jan 22 2015 - 11:19, said:

I stand corrected. Did not know about those...

 

They're mainly going to be inline Diesel four-strokes where you find blowers, that's setting aside the retrofit/mod kits for the GM 6.2/6.5 V8's or similar.

DV_Currie_VC #51 Posted Jan 22 2015 - 19:29

    Major

  • Beta Testers
  • 62440 battles
  • 2,284
  • [RS] RS
  • Member since:
    08-04-2010

View PostIOC_Cartmen, on Jan 20 2015 - 19:49, said:

Due to how a supercharger works, it's generally not a good choice for a diesel engine, and most tanks have diesel engines. Even still, I don't think many tanks have turbos either.

Huh? Most modern AFV diesel/multifuel engines have superchargers.......

 

Where are you getting this idea from??



Meplat #52 Posted Jan 22 2015 - 19:36

    Major

  • Players
  • 6774 battles
  • 7,831
  • [C-BOO] C-BOO
  • Member since:
    11-27-2012

View PostDV_Currie_VC, on Jan 22 2015 - 11:29, said:

Huh? Most modern AFV diesel/multifuel engines have superchargers.......

 

Where are you getting this idea from??

 

Or turbosuperchargers. Loads of multifuel whistlers out there.

DV_Currie_VC #53 Posted Jan 22 2015 - 19:42

    Major

  • Beta Testers
  • 62440 battles
  • 2,284
  • [RS] RS
  • Member since:
    08-04-2010

View PostSir_Mister_Sir, on Jan 22 2015 - 11:19, said:

I stand corrected. Did not know about those...

Also, if you're looking at the Detroit Diesel 6V53 (which I believe the AMX's use????) it has a roots/type helical screw induction blower (supercharger) and the 6V53T has an added turbocharger.  The 6V53 is good for 215 hp, and the 53T is good for 300 hp, but is usually de-rated to 275 hp.

 

Also, it's cam driven, not belt. Not all superchargers are belt driven.


Edited by DV_Currie_VC, Jan 22 2015 - 19:43.


HowitzerBlitzer #54 Posted Jan 22 2015 - 19:55

    Major

  • Players
  • 15428 battles
  • 7,834
  • Member since:
    06-16-2013
If a tank's engine has a turbocharger on it how does the fire go out by itself?  

Meplat #55 Posted Jan 22 2015 - 20:01

    Major

  • Players
  • 6774 battles
  • 7,831
  • [C-BOO] C-BOO
  • Member since:
    11-27-2012

View PostHowitzerBlitzer, on Jan 22 2015 - 11:55, said:

If a tank's engine has a turbocharger on it how does the fire go out by itself?  

 

Wat...

 



SgtNuker #56 Posted Jan 22 2015 - 20:43

    Captain

  • Beta Testers
  • 14456 battles
  • 1,130
  • Member since:
    07-18-2010

View PostHowitzerBlitzer, on Jan 22 2015 - 13:55, said:

If a tank's engine has a turbocharger on it how does the fire go out by itself?  

 

You do realize that tanks don't have the insanely large flow through mufflers that rice-burner tuner cars do, right? Flame out happens when the still burning fuel mixture exits the exhaust valve. I would think this is a timing issue rather than an engine running rich. You can achieve flame out with a supercharger as well. 



DV_Currie_VC #57 Posted Jan 22 2015 - 20:59

    Major

  • Beta Testers
  • 62440 battles
  • 2,284
  • [RS] RS
  • Member since:
    08-04-2010

View PostHowitzerBlitzer, on Jan 22 2015 - 11:55, said:

If a tank's engine has a turbocharger on it how does the fire go out by itself?  

 

View PostMeplat, on Jan 22 2015 - 12:01, said:

 

Wat...

 

I don't understand this question either? What fire? The burning fuel? It's consumed. No more fire. Actually, the Detroit Diesels we used also had an "unburnt fuel" return line to the fuel tank. Not all fuel was consumed, but there was no issue of "backfiring." Incidentally, this would put hotter fuel back into the tank, and the tank would get warm.



DV_Currie_VC #58 Posted Jan 22 2015 - 21:05

    Major

  • Beta Testers
  • 62440 battles
  • 2,284
  • [RS] RS
  • Member since:
    08-04-2010

View PostSgtNuker, on Jan 22 2015 - 12:43, said:

 

You do realize that tanks don't have the insanely large flow through mufflers that rice-burner tuner cars do, right? Flame out happens when the still burning fuel mixture exits the exhaust valve. I would think this is a timing issue rather than an engine running rich. You can achieve flame out with a supercharger as well. 

Sure they do. A 6V53T is essentially a 318 ci engine (53 ci per cylinder, x 6 cylinders.)  It can rev up to 2500 rpm.  It's a 2 stroke, so it will push out 318 ci, or 5.22 L of air/fuel mixture every 2 cycles, so 5.22 x 2500 / 2 = 6525 L of exhaust (roughly.)  A "rice burner" 4 banger of 1.8 L would do 1.8 x 7000'ish RPM /4, so 3150 L of exhaust. I'm doing this off the top of my head, so I hope that seems correct????



Walter_Sobchak #59 Posted Jan 22 2015 - 22:48

    Major

  • Beta Testers
  • 236 battles
  • 5,140
  • Member since:
    11-22-2010
US Diesel tank engines (AVDS-1790 series) have always been turbocharged.  The higher horsepower versions of the engine also have aftercoolers as well.  For a really interesting induction system, check out the "hyperbar" system in the LeClerc engine.  This is essentially a small gas turbine that can work as an APU when the engine is off.  When the engine is on, this turbine powers the turbochargers.  From what I understand, this system eliminates "turbo lag" and gives the vehicle acceleration comparable to that of a gas turbine powered tank.

Windows_Are_Tasty #60 Posted Jan 22 2015 - 23:14

    Major

  • Players
  • 59066 battles
  • 3,909
  • [-WLU-] -WLU-
  • Member since:
    04-15-2011

View PostDV_Currie_VC, on Jan 22 2015 - 12:29, said:

Huh? Most modern AFV diesel/multifuel engines have superchargers.......

 

Where are you getting this idea from??

 

Owning a diesel truck and doing some research on why they don't use superchargers.




1 user(s) are reading this topic

0 members, 0 guests, 0 anonymous users