dejawolf Posted February 17, 2010 Share Posted February 17, 2010 Single crystal blades made cheaply (relatively) and reliably! <- HUGEComputer 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.right. but at least 2 of these advances will also help diesel engines in getting smaller/more efficient. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Enrage Posted February 18, 2010 Share Posted February 18, 2010 right. but at least 2 of these advances will also help diesel engines in getting smaller/more efficient.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. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
dejawolf Posted February 19, 2010 Share Posted February 19, 2010 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. thats really impressive, and certainly great when you're running your engine at full power all the time, like in aircrafts. but its fairly unrealistic to expect a tank engine to run at full burst all the time. and you should be comparing to something like this: http://www.mtu-online-shop.de/fileadmin/dam/download_media/import_print/D_23112E_0601.pdf the MTU MT-883 engine, which gets around 216g/KWH at mid engine RPM. and thats nothing compared to the MT-890. http://www.mtu-online-shop.de/fileadmin/dam/download_media/import_print/D_06100E_0601.pdf as fitted in the new german Puma IFV 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Damian90 Posted February 28, 2010 Share Posted February 28, 2010 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.http://defense-update.com/features/2009/october/combat_vehicles_141009.htmlHmmm in this link they say otherwise, eventually this are upgrades for later batches and later will be added to older batches. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
DrDevice Posted March 1, 2010 Share Posted March 1, 2010 http://defense-update.com/features/2009/october/combat_vehicles_141009.htmlHmmm in this link they say otherwise, eventually this are upgrades for later batches and later will be added to older batches.Actually, it doesn't say otherwise. It says "An M-1A2 SEP turret demonstrator on display at AUSA outlined a range of optional new systems integrated into the latest SEP-2 model."That's not even close to being in production vehicles. That's just "hey look what we can do with the SEP." Enrage pointed out that production vehicles that he had seen personally did not include said features. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Damian90 Posted March 1, 2010 Share Posted March 1, 2010 Yeah, You right, I just misunderstanded this text, mea culpa then. :-) 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Viper-3 Posted March 23, 2011 Share Posted March 23, 2011 I would imagine that the few remaining MBT's in the US Army will concentrate on defeating Anti tank weapons, defeating IED blasts, and improved digital communications. The Stryker programs have grabbed all the money for the next 5 years. I'ts fun working at the Pentagon 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Damian90 Posted March 23, 2011 Share Posted March 23, 2011 I would imagine that the few remaining MBT's in the US ArmyWhat few? US.Army/ARNG got at least ~2000 M1A2SEP's there, not to mention around ~5000-6000 M1A1's in different subvariants + at least ~2000 remaining M1's. of course different thing is how many are in operation readiness and how many are in active units. Most of them are in storage wating for repairs, modernisation and few will probably be upgraded in to special variants like HAB or ABV.The Stryker programs have grabbed all the money for the next 5 years. I hate to see that light vehicles got priority, where when it comes to the real thing everyone need heavy vehicles to provide support and many times to do the job where lighter vehicles can't do shi... :sonic: 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
mp96 Posted March 24, 2011 Share Posted March 24, 2011 A playable Puma will be? 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Tacbat Posted March 24, 2011 Share Posted March 24, 2011 Mmm, strong with the force this one is. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ottoramsaig Posted March 25, 2011 Share Posted March 25, 2011 http://i727.photobucket.com/albums/ww277/BLEDSOE_album/091.jpgOne of our brand new M1A2SEP v2's. Sitting outside the Master Gunners shack. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Hedgehog Posted March 25, 2011 Share Posted March 25, 2011 Mmm, strong with the force this one is. LOL ottoramsaig, Not sure you'd want the "turret in operation" inside a building, that sounds expensive. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ottoramsaig Posted March 28, 2011 Share Posted March 28, 2011 (edited) LOLottoramsaig, Not sure you'd want the "turret in operation" inside a building, that sounds expensive. This was actually for demo purposes. This will become the R&D M1. Not long from now it will have the major FCS components removed along with most LRU's. We currently have a strong stock of A1's ready for the tank depot and refurbish. http://i727.photobucket.com/albums/ww277/BLEDSOE_album/092.jpg Edited March 28, 2011 by ottoramsaig Pix added 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
cobrabase Posted December 27, 2011 Share Posted December 27, 2011 Greetings gents.Been away from SB for a while but am back. Doing well in gunnery in the M1A1 EXCEPT in one area and I could use some coaching. I've noticed if a target is higher or lower in terms of actual altitude above or below my gun (especially if the target is moving on a slope) I can't hit it anywhere near as accurately as I can if on similar footing. With all the slopes in the Fulda gap and other "tank country" any tips on moving targets on slopes? How can I compensate? CAN I COMPENSATE? 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
SeanPatrick Posted December 27, 2011 Share Posted December 27, 2011 CAN I COMPENSATE?Sure, but it takes practice. If the target is moving up the slope then add a little elevation, moving down subtract a little. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Members Ssnake Posted December 27, 2011 Members Share Posted December 27, 2011 Shooting BOTH uphill and downhill (with a serious height difference), ALWAYS aim LOW (e.g. the lower edge of the target silhouette). 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
SeanPatrick Posted December 27, 2011 Share Posted December 27, 2011 Ahh...okay. Is that because the target is elevated in relation to the flight path of the round? That would make sense, I guess. The round would encounter the target at a point much higher in it's arc for a given range and so you'd need to aim low. Is that right? 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Members Ssnake Posted December 27, 2011 Members Share Posted December 27, 2011 Yep. On the other hand, shooting downhill obviously needs less superelevation either, so again you must aim low. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
jazjar Posted December 28, 2011 Share Posted December 28, 2011 This may not be mine, but this is the absolute BEST interior photo of an M1A2's gunner cockpit on the web. High quality and extremely detailed. http://www.flickr.com/photos/us_army_rolling_along/5787674762/sizes/o/in/photostream/ ! Anyways, on the subject of targets moving downhill, yes, the computer will not track the target for you, you have to do a little Kentucky windage action. I have always found targets moving towards me at an angle, from a distance (2500m+) are a little tough to shoot at. There's a chance that a target might not be at your desired superelevation when the round impacts, especially with HEAT, so in those instances you will probably need aim down a bit, AND get a good, steady track on his horizontal movement. Your track needs to be very steady, because a frontal T-80 is a smaller target than that idiot flashin' his flank at you . Have fun. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
stormrider_sp Posted December 28, 2011 Share Posted December 28, 2011 This may not be mine, but this is the absolute BEST interior photo of an M1A2's gunner cockpit on the web. High quality and extremely detailed. http://www.flickr.com/photos/us_army_rolling_along/5787674762/sizes/o/in/photostream/ ! Anyways, on the subject of targets moving downhill, yes, the computer will not track the target for you, you have to do a little Kentucky windage action. I have always found targets moving towards me at an angle, from a distance (2500m+) are a little tough to shoot at. There's a chance that a target might not be at your desired superelevation when the round impacts, especially with HEAT, so in those instances you will probably need aim down a bit, AND get a good, steady track on his horizontal movement. Your track needs to be very steady, because a frontal T-80 is a smaller target than that idiot flashin' his flank at you . Have fun. Nice photos there mate! The full gallery can be seen here: http://www.flickr.com/photos/us_army_rolling_along/sets/72157626862504920/with/5787674762/ Seeing such a blue sky reminds me of only one place on earth: Lake Tahoe, CA/Stateline, NV the place I call home but can never go back! Nice pictures! Cheers 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
jazjar Posted December 28, 2011 Share Posted December 28, 2011 Yeah, I like how it provides such nice detail of the gunner's controls. Seeing the picture I posted made me realize for the first time some subtle and some not so subtle differences between the A2 and the A1. For example, there's the pushbutton ammunition selectors now, and the A2 SEPs have that thermal biocular view so the gunner doesn't have to mash his head in the sight. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
solus Posted January 7, 2012 Share Posted January 7, 2012 Don't know why, but it seems that when I lase target it gives me wrong range in 50% cases. It is obviously wrong, because the sabot goes only a half of the distance to the target. First, I thought it happened because I burnt out the laser, but the problem appears even after the first lasing attempt. Can't really figure out how to use it properly. Any suggestions? 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
fragged Posted January 7, 2012 Share Posted January 7, 2012 Don't know why, but it seems that when I lase target it gives me wrong range in 50% cases. It is obviously wrong, because the sabot goes only a half of the distance to the target. First, I thought it happened because I burnt out the laser, but the problem appears even after the first lasing attempt. Can't really figure out how to use it properly. Any suggestions?You most likely have wrong ammo selected vs. what is loaded in the tube. This causes HEAT to drop short and sabbot to fly to the orbit. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
solus Posted January 7, 2012 Share Posted January 7, 2012 But it is TC, who selects the ammo type and it's inputed automatically, does it not? 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
rump Posted January 7, 2012 Share Posted January 7, 2012 No, the TC orders the ammo to be fired, the gunner needs to index it.See: http://www.steelbeasts.com/sbwiki/index.php/M1A1_%28HA%29#Indexing_Ammo- Rump 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.