Enrage

The GE CT7-9, a modern helicopter engine that gets 1,750 shp has a specific fuel consumption 0.471 lb/lb/hr [1] at take-off rating. The conversion to g/kWh is 608.28. That means that with modern technology, a rough equivalent to the AGT-1500 can get ~243 g/kWH at max power. At max power (~1100kw @ 2530 RPM) the MB 873 gets 250 g/kWh. [2] A modern turbine has roughly equivalent fuel consumption as a diesel, with the exception being fuel consumption at idle. EDIT: These numbers are not including the effects of a modern recuperator, which is not included on aviation turbines for weight and space reasons, but is currently in use on the AGT-1500.

I like Arma 2, but the problem is that the code is just so inefficient. It shouldn't take that much power to run Arma 2. It's almost as bad as Crysis in that respect.

How about updates to incorporate changes from the new HBCT Gunnery manual, e.g. range now being a required part of the fire commands?

Single crystal blades made cheaply (relatively) and reliably! <- HUGE Computer simulations allow design of radically shaped blades not previously possible. Improved metallurgy which supports higher N1 temperatures, which increases efficiency. Reduction in size of centrifugal compressors, which offer higher performance than axial flow compressors. Just a few off the top of my head. I don't feel like going back through my old college textbooks again.

Because the engine is 40 years old, not because turbines themselves inherently flawed. A 40 year old diesel engine would be just as bad and I would be just as eager to have it replaced. Diesels have their own faults too. As I've said from the beginning, the choice between turbines and diesels is an engineering one. Let's stop pretending like the LV-100 is new technology. It has been under development from a contract awarded by AIPS program since 1984. Do I really need to point out the advancements made by turbines in the last 25 years? Is this the game you really want to play?

He got sent to QRF for 8 months.

Sometimes the switch is even broken off on the console itself, but that could just be a TRADOC thing. In a real unit, I'd want it there, since you can readjust some hoses and use it as the fuel pump if the primary fuel pump goes down.

The entire subject of turbines is detailed thoroughly in The Technology of Tanks. The AGT-1500 was supposed to provide a specific fuel consumption of 225 g/kWh, which was similar to contemporary diesels, but this later dropped to 274 g/kWh, and eventually 290 g/kWh. Fuel consumption per net sprocket power shows a similar difference between diesels and turbines. It also points out that turbines enjoy several other advantages such as, "easier starting at low temperatures, insensitivity to the cetane or octane rating of the fuel, much lower consumption of lubricating oil, virtually no smoke emissions and quieter operations." The book points out that the M1 needs more intake airflow (18 kg/kWh as compared to 6 kg/kWh) but also needs less cooling air flow (30 kg/kWh as compared to 45 kg/kWh). It also points out the the operational readiness of the M1-series was higher than M60, based on operational experience. As I've said, the M1 was engineered for a specific mission, and it was every bit as good as contemporary tanks. The problem now isn't that the M1 uses a turbine, the problem is that the M1 uses a forty year old engine.

I'd have to disagree. Processors are "binned", but not at the maximum safe speed, but based on the percentile they wish to sell at a certain price point. (EDIT: Or more correctly, the amount they think the public is willing to buy at a certain price point. Just because Intel can make 90% of their dies produced into $1000 "Extreme Edition" CPUs doesn't mean the public will be willing to buy them.) Cheap CPUs get sold far more often than really expensive ones, so the vast majority of dies on a wafer are going to get put into the low end bin, even if they are capable of being put in the high end bin. Most of them are more than capable (especially on the modern processes) of reaching the advertised speeds of their higher priced brethren, they just can't match the extreme overclocking potential. In fact, the reason Intel and AMD don't offer unlocked multipliers on their low-end products is specifically because they know that their "low-end" processors are more than capable of running at the higher speeds, thus prevented the public from getting a free lunch. I am running a Core i7 920, rated at 2.66 GHZ. I run it on air cooling at 3.8 GHZ at stock voltages. Intel has done a great job with their 45nm HKMG process, and did a great job on the 65nm too. I'd bet he could get a 30% increase in core speed without any loss of system stability, assuming he got a decent heatsink.

The SEP v2 comes with additional row of batteries on the left side to extend silent watch to 24+ hours. Those batteries were put there in place of the UAAPU. ? The cooling system is not particularly large. In fact, I would say that the precleaners and vee pack take up much more space than the oil and transmission coolers. The recuperator might even be a worse offender in terms of size. Hmmm.... Extreme low-end torque - Turbines generate max torque at minimum RPM. I wonder if that might be useful for a big, heavy vehicle. much easier to start in cold weather - Anyone who has tried to start a diesel with ether in the middle of winter knows what I'm talking about. much quieter - Diesels produce more of there noise in low frequencies, which travel farther. Less moving parts in the engine - Self explanatory. For the trade off of: Worse fuel efficiency - In the Army with the best logistical support, it's not exactly a huge deal. Also, almost every Army ground vehicle has a range of ~500 miles. It's not exactly a great idea to spend a ton of money to recapitalize the entire tank fleet with diesels when the rest of the force won't be able to match the gains. Higher thermal signature - If they can see a turbine exhaust, they can probably see the diesel's too. Simply put, it's not ludicrous or baffling. It's an engineering choice with it's pros and cons.

Last summer, Fort Knox got a shipment of brand new SEP v2 just off the assembly line (Manufacturing date was Feb 09), and they didn't have any of that. In fact the only difference I could tell between them and the SEP was the v2 has displays with green instead of tan text.

Where exactly are all those batteries going to fit? They had a hard enough time trying to put 6 additional batteries in the SEP to extend silent watch to 24 hours, eventually having to cancel the under-armor APU just to get the batteries in. Where is this entire assembly going to fit? The M1 was designed with a turbine because it is smaller than a diesel engine. I don't think there is anyway you could fit a hybrid drive in the engine compartment and then expect similar performance to the turbine. The answer for the M1 would be a new turbine that meets (or exceeds!) the requirements for specific fuel consumption as originally set out for the AGT-1500. It should be possible with the advancement in turbine technology since the 1970s.

We actually had a guy in my platoon fill one of these out.

I would try overclocking first. I'm not sure how much additional performance you're going to see, considering that Wolfdale wasn't much other than a 65nm-45nm die shrink of Conroe, so trying to get "something for nothing" when you're already thinking about buying a new processor probably wouldn't hurt. However, if your graphics card is the same generation as your processor, you may want to look there when upgrading first. You're more likely to see good gains there.

The problem is fitting an entire generator system and then motors under-armor, especially under armor designed for a very small engine like a gas turbine. Size isn't a problem when you are working with a huge dumptruck or train, but a tank doesn't have a lot of room to play with. Remember that one of the primary considerations of using a gas turbine in the M1 originally was the engine's small physical size (and weight).