AFV Engines

[TokyoMorose]

That fuel efficiency stat worries me, the V903 is not a modern engine in any sate of the term, and they are only aiming for 20%-25%? Sure, they are majorly boosting power (although being a opposed piston two-stroke, that peak power figure is likely in a *very* narrow power band) - but the first V903 was laid down in 1967!

 

This has all the markings of the L60 & Kharkov diesels written over it, I at least hope they are reliable even if the efficiency and power bands end up garbage.

[Ramlaen]

12 hours ago, TokyoMorose said:

That fuel efficiency stat worries me, the V903 is not a modern engine in any sate of the term, and they are only aiming for 20%-25%? Sure, they are majorly boosting power (although being a opposed piston two-stroke, that peak power figure is likely in a *very* narrow power band) - but the first V903 was laid down in 1967!

 

This has all the markings of the L60 & Kharkov diesels written over it, I at least hope they are reliable even if the efficiency and power bands end up garbage.

 

What do you think is an appropriate level of fuel efficiency a current tech engine should have over a V903? (without accounting for the other improvements)

[TokyoMorose]

8 hours ago, Ramlaen said:

 

What do you think is an appropriate level of fuel efficiency a current tech engine should have over a V903? (without accounting for the other improvements)

 

Honestly, I'd say at least 50% - and that's just looking at other mass-produced diesels through the years. In the last 20 years, we've seen alone total >20% improvements in fuel economy, so given this is a half-century old design (it's a low-pressure fuel injection design!) there are tremendous savings to be had.

 

Based on some simple math, the V903 has a (at peak efficiency) brake specific fuel consumption of 222 grams per kilowatt-hour. Modern diesels are capable of a peak ~190, and that's just pure core thermodynamic efficiency changes more or less meeting their changes. Of course, a 1000hp engine will be more lightly loaded, and won't be pushed much beyond the peak compared to the old engine. It also won't be pushed as hard running all of the accessories. That said, I do believe the goal of this engine is power density, not pure efficiency. The better efficiency is merely a byproduct of it being a modern design.

[Ramlaen]

28 minutes ago, TokyoMorose said:

 

Honestly, I'd say at least 50% - and that's just looking at other mass-produced diesels through the years. In the last 20 years, we've seen alone total >20% improvements in fuel economy, so given this is a half-century old design (it's a low-pressure fuel injection design!) there are tremendous savings to be had.

 

Based on some simple math, the V903 has a (at peak efficiency) brake specific fuel consumption of 222 grams per kilowatt-hour. Modern diesels are capable of a peak ~190, and that's just pure core thermodynamic efficiency changes more or less meeting their changes. Of course, a 1000hp engine will be more lightly loaded, and won't be pushed much beyond the peak compared to the old engine. It also won't be pushed as hard running all of the accessories. That said, I do believe the goal of this engine is power density, not pure efficiency. The better efficiency is merely a byproduct of it being a modern design.

 

Perhaps I am misunderstanding your math but 222 to 190 is roughly 15%.

[TokyoMorose]

1 hour ago, Ramlaen said:

 

Perhaps I am misunderstanding your math but 222 to 190 is roughly 15%.

 

Which is within a few percent of their 20% claim (always account for PR puffery), and that's just with improving the combustion efficiency of the old design. Many other things contribute to overall "end-user" efficiency, and improvements in those should drive the numbers way up. As I've said, commercial diesels have gone further just in the last 20 years already overall.

[Ramlaen]

2 minutes ago, TokyoMorose said:

 

Which is within a few percent of their 20% claim (always account for PR puffery), and that's just with improving the combustion efficiency of the old design. Many other things contribute to overall "end-user" efficiency, and improvements in those should drive the numbers way up. As I've said, commercial diesels have gone further just in the last 20 years already overall.

 

So at 20%+ it is actually a greater improvement than a modern diesel design? (without accounting for the other improvements in the Achates/Cummins engine)

[TokyoMorose]

Just now, Ramlaen said:

 

So at 20%+ it is actually a greater improvement than a modern diesel design? (without accounting for the other improvements in the Achates/Cummins engine)

 

No, it's not really, considering it's not production ready yet and conventional diesels are already planning improvements that'll be ready by the time this is. The only big upside to this engine over say "Generic V8 Turbodiesel 2020 #23436448" is really the power density from the very compact layout.

[Ramlaen]

3 minutes ago, TokyoMorose said:

 

No, it's not really, considering it's not production ready yet and conventional diesels are already planning improvements that'll be ready by the time this is. The only big upside to this engine over say "Generic V8 Turbodiesel 2020 #23436448" is really the power density from the very compact layout.

 

Didn't you initially assert that it was less efficient than a generic modern turbodiesel, not that turbodiesel on the drawing board are just as good?

[Collimatrix]

On 1/18/2019 at 5:19 AM, Wiedzmin said:

 

This slide explains that opposed piston diesels have a small inherent efficiency advantage due to lower surface area/volume ratio.  

[TokyoMorose]

2 hours ago, Ramlaen said:

 

Didn't you initially assert that it was less efficient than a generic modern turbodiesel, not that turbodiesel on the drawing board are just as good?

 

But it is, the turbodiesel improvements aren't drawing-board level things. It's small improvements like coatings and the like. Which this engine doesn't currently have either because they aren't production ready. The current state of the engine is I'm 100% certain less efficient than a current standard engine, and the final production engine will be less efficient than a 2020 or whenever year engine. The improvements aren't really design related that are coming.

 

1 hour ago, Collimatrix said:

This slide explains that opposed piston diesels have a small inherent efficiency advantage due to lower surface area/volume ratio.  

 

They do have a heat rejection advantage, but they come with many other issues with incomplete combustion, lubricant in the combustion chamber, and lots of extra gears or levers to mate the piston cranks to a common output shaft that all hurt efficiency. There's a reason in an age of ever increasing efficiency, no major company has gone into the two-stroke piston business despite this technology being nothing new.

[Ramlaen]

2 minutes ago, TokyoMorose said:

 

The current state of the engine is I'm 100% certain less efficient than a current standard engine.

 

Even though your own math disagreed with you?

[TokyoMorose]

7 minutes ago, Ramlaen said:

 

Even though your own math disagreed with you?

 

But my own math didn't? The only math I did was comparing BFSC of the V908 with a representative figure for a current fielded-in-number diesel. And I just realized there was a major flaw in my math too (this is what I get for getting nosleep...), the V908 power figured I used was in Gross, not Net. Which is going to knock a good deal off of it. It's actually a pain to get the exact fuel consumption figures for that old thing. I did no math comparing the new engines simply because there's no way to.

 

I'd love to see the BFSC numbers of the new engine, but they don't exist - and their only claim for "improved efficiency" is end-user efficiency (i.e. Bradley will be 25% more efficient with the engine, which could likely be met with zero increase in thermodynamic efficiency, instead merely getting rid of parasitic drag and having a more engine reserve power so it isn't constantly floored amongst others...).

 

 

[Ramlaen]

34 minutes ago, TokyoMorose said:

 

But my own math didn't? The only math I did was comparing BFSC of the V908 with a representative figure for a current fielded-in-number diesel. And I just realized there was a major flaw in my math too (this is what I get for getting nosleep...), the V908 power figured I used was in Gross, not Net. Which is going to knock a good deal off of it. It's actually a pain to get the exact fuel consumption figures for that old thing. I did no math comparing the new engines simply because there's no way to.

 

I'd love to see the BFSC numbers of the new engine, but they don't exist - and their only claim for "improved efficiency" is end-user efficiency (i.e. Bradley will be 25% more efficient with the engine, which could likely be met with zero increase in thermodynamic efficiency, instead merely getting rid of parasitic drag and having a more engine reserve power so it isn't constantly floored amongst others...).

 

 

 

If your numbers for the improvement of modern turbodiesel engines over the V903 were no good then that is fine. Either way we have to wait and see the results of the ACE engine's testing in a few months.

[Xoon]

I have been pondering about a concept I have yet to hear about it.

Considering automobiles are moving towards fully electric or Hybrids, AFVs would most likely follow the same path. 

 

My take is a series diesel hybrid is the most likely. I think turbines might make a comeback, if I am not mistaken, the problem was the fuel consumption at idle, while at speed it was close to a piston engine. By using a generator, the turbine would only run at its optimal RPM, shutting off after charging the battery. The long start up time of the turbine would also be solved by running on the battery while it gets up to speed.

 

The reason for using a series hybrid is because it essentially means you have a 1118kw to 1342kw generator to power any equipment on board. The battery would also be able to charged externally. This means a tank crew could still be kept operational by plugging into the grid to charge their vehicle. They could use a type of "limping mode" when fuel was scarce, and run mostly on electricity.  

 

This got me thinking. What about powering AFVs with hydrogen? Hang on, hang on. Before you blow your head gaskets, think about this:

Most major wars are won by starving the enemy army of fuel. Look at WWII, the Germans had heavy fuels shortages. Hydrogen can be produced with electricity and provide better power density than batteries. This means that a army could operate without having fuel supplied. A truck with a electrolyser, a river and a connection to the grid would be all that would be needed to produce hydrogen for the AFVs. Considering, if a country has no power, it is basically screwed, regardless of how much fuel it has. As maintenance and production would be almost impossible. 

 

A war emergency power pack could be used for this, removing the ICE unit and installing a hydrogen fuel cell in its place.  It would severely impact the range of the vehicle, but it think it is a nice trade off to not having a running vehicle at all.

 

 

[Mighty_Zuk]

45 minutes ago, Xoon said:

I have been pondering about a concept I have yet to hear about it.

Considering automobiles are moving towards fully electric or Hybrids, AFVs would most likely follow the same path. 

 

My take is a series diesel hybrid is the most likely. I think turbines might make a comeback, if I am not mistaken, the problem was the fuel consumption at idle, while at speed it was close to a piston engine. By using a generator, the turbine would only run at its optimal RPM, shutting off after charging the battery. The long start up time of the turbine would also be solved by running on the battery while it gets up to speed.

 

The reason for using a series hybrid is because it essentially means you have a 1118kw to 1342kw generator to power any equipment on board. The battery would also be able to charged externally. This means a tank crew could still be kept operational by plugging into the grid to charge their vehicle. They could use a type of "limping mode" when fuel was scarce, and run mostly on electricity.  

 

This got me thinking. What about powering AFVs with hydrogen? Hang on, hang on. Before you blow your head gaskets, think about this:

Most major wars are won by starving the enemy army of fuel. Look at WWII, the Germans had heavy fuels shortages. Hydrogen can be produced with electricity and provide better power density than batteries. This means that a army could operate without having fuel supplied. A truck with a electrolyser, a river and a connection to the grid would be all that would be needed to produce hydrogen for the AFVs. Considering, if a country has no power, it is basically screwed, regardless of how much fuel it has. As maintenance and production would be almost impossible. 

 

A war emergency power pack could be used for this, removing the ICE unit and installing a hydrogen fuel cell in its place.  It would severely impact the range of the vehicle, but it think it is a nice trade off to not having a running vehicle at all.

 

 

 

How much water does it take to produce the desired amount of hydrogen per tank?

[Xoon]

18 hours ago, Mighty_Zuk said:

 

How much water does it take to produce the desired amount of hydrogen per tank?

A ballpark guess would be 250-500kg of hydrogen per MBT, meaning 2500-5000 liters of water per tank. 

 

Not sure about the efficiency in sea water. 

[Mighty_Zuk]

2 hours ago, Xoon said:

A ballpark guess would be 250-500kg of hydrogen per MBT, meaning 2500-5000 liters of water per tank. 

 

Not sure about the efficiency in sea water. 

And with a global scarcity in sweet, purified water, don't you think it might be a problem?

Maybe in Europe and north America there is an abundance of water, but on a global scale it's a real issue.

[Gripen287]

19 hours ago, Xoon said:

This got me thinking. What about powering AFVs with hydrogen? Hang on, hang on. Before you blow your head gaskets, think about this:

Most major wars are won by starving the enemy army of fuel. Look at WWII, the Germans had heavy fuels shortages. Hydrogen can be produced with electricity and provide better power density than batteries. This means that a army could operate without having fuel supplied. A truck with a electrolyser, a river and a connection to the grid would be all that would be needed to produce hydrogen for the AFVs. Considering, if a country has no power, it is basically screwed, regardless of how much fuel it has. As maintenance and production would be almost impossible.

Hydrogen's energy density (about 10 MJ/L for liquid hydrogen) may be on the order of 2-4x better than the best batteries, but it's still pretty much crap compared to other gaseous and liquid fuels (diesel is about 35.8 MJ/L). And hydrogen comes with a side of severe storage headaches regardless of whether it is stored as a liquid or high pressure gas. If you have access to a power grid, water, and stuff that'll burn, and aren't that concerned with overall process efficiency, there are plenty of well-established ways of producing methanol, ethanol, methane, and various other synthetic fuels from those feed stocks. And if you count among your citizens a billionaire or two with plans to harness in-situ resource utilization for manned missions to Mars, perhaps they can figure out how to fit a synthetic methane plant (22.2 MJ/L) into a handful of shipping containers. Methanol (15.6 MJ/L) does a little worse than methane in terms of energy density but is also relatively simple to produce and, conveniently, is a liquid at room temperature that can be blended with other liquid fuels to stretch their supply.

 

In something as volume-constrained as an AFV, as opposed to something that is more mass-constrained (like a rocket), hydrogen is a particularly poor choice. Hydrogen, however, is also a fantastic cryogenic coolant. Railgun augmenting coils and coilgun drive coils happen to like cryogenic coolants because they reduce resistive losses and/or raise the critical current and critical fields of any superconducting materials used therein. The general rule of thumb, even for HTS materials, is that useful operating temperatures max out at about 1/2 the critical temperature, except for very low field/current applications. Accordingly, liquid hydrogen at 20-ish K and supercritical hydrogen at 33-ish K are attractive coolants for HTS materials. A good setup might be to use a first stage liquid or supercritical helium cryocooler to cool the coils directly and to use cryogenic hydrogen as fuel and as a cryogenic heatsink for the first stage helium cryocooler. In any event, you're still probably talking about some sort of 120+ ton, 60 foot articulated MBT monstrosity or the worlds most expensive 120mm mortar carrier.

[Mighty_Zuk]

Well, an electric engine would still be a must for any future AFV, in the sense of next-gen AFV and not just an upgraded existing one, probably starting 2025. Simply because it does not emit heat or sound. 

I like the idea of Hydrogen being a just-in-case type of fuel, because electrolysis processes to create hydrogen will probably become more common as a solution to store energy in cases of excess, as many are moving towards more green and less predictable sources of energy, that are not as economically viable to just switch off as any fuel-based plants (can't switch off wind, sun, or waves). Is there any special difficulty in making a dual-fuel generator working on diesel or hydrogen? I know such conversions exist. 

[Xoon]

On 1/31/2019 at 8:35 PM, Mighty_Zuk said:

And with a global scarcity in sweet, purified water, don't you think it might be a problem?

Maybe in Europe and north America there is an abundance of water, but on a global scale it's a real issue.

It is true that it would not be practical for countries lack a good supply of fresh water. But for those that have large quantities of it, it is not problem.  A truck could literally lower a hose into a river and suck up water, while it is powered from the grid.

A country could run reverse osmosis, then electrolysis. Though, it is a lot more expensive.

 

On 1/31/2019 at 8:47 PM, Gripen287 said:

Hydrogen's energy density (about 10 MJ/L for liquid hydrogen) may be on the order of 2-4x better than the best batteries, but it's still pretty much crap compared to other gaseous and liquid fuels (diesel is about 35.8 MJ/L). And hydrogen comes with a side of severe storage headaches regardless of whether it is stored as a liquid or high pressure gas. If you have access to a power grid, water, and stuff that'll burn, and aren't that concerned with overall process efficiency, there are plenty of well-established ways of producing methanol, ethanol, methane, and various other synthetic fuels from those feed stocks. And if you count among your citizens a billionaire or two with plans to harness in-situ resource utilization for manned missions to Mars, perhaps they can figure out how to fit a synthetic methane plant (22.2 MJ/L) into a handful of shipping containers. Methanol (15.6 MJ/L) does a little worse than methane in terms of energy density but is also relatively simple to produce and, conveniently, is a liquid at room temperature that can be blended with other liquid fuels to stretch their supply.

The idea is to have a emergency power pack option that could be installed in AFVs when the country in question faces fuel shortages. The power pack would by no means be as good as a conventional power pack, but it would run. The inspiration came from Nazi Germany, which pretty much ran out of fuel, and was unable to properly wage war because of it.  Producing methanol or similar would require a more complex process, with a lot more moving parts. A convoy could have a number of hydrogen production units could stop by a transformer by a river, power the trucks pumps and electrolyser, and suck water from the river.  Effectively refueling the entire convoy on the spot.  This means a armored column could operate outside the supply chain, as long as it has enough ammunition and food.  A except the pump and valves, the entire system is solid state, meaning it wont break down. It runs until the end of its lifespan. 

 

On 1/31/2019 at 11:40 PM, Mighty_Zuk said:

Well, an electric engine would still be a must for any future AFV, in the sense of next-gen AFV and not just an upgraded existing one, probably starting 2025. Simply because it does not emit heat or sound. 

I like the idea of Hydrogen being a just-in-case type of fuel, because electrolysis processes to create hydrogen will probably become more common as a solution to store energy in cases of excess, as many are moving towards more green and less predictable sources of energy, that are not as economically viable to just switch off as any fuel-based plants (can't switch off wind, sun, or waves). Is there any special difficulty in making a dual-fuel generator working on diesel or hydrogen? I know such conversions exist. 

A gasoline engine can be modified to run on hydrogen.  So in theory, a diesel/gasoline multi fuel engine could run on hydrogen.  Though, running a ICE on hydrogen is very inefficient. Curiously enough, you can add hydrogen to the air in a diesel to improve mileage and power. The hydrogen is ignited initially by the diesel, but since it flame speed is 10x that of diesel, it ignites the rest of the diesel. 

 

A gasoline engine, when modified to run on hydrogen, with direct injection could in theory see a 15% power increase. Though, mostly it would be closer to equal, and with some systems as low as 85% of the original power. 

 

 

 

One a side note, has anyone tried to use a vortex tube at the air intake of a vehicle?  It would allow for super cool air (around -50 C), though it would probably double the drag and air needed into the intake. 

[Xlucine]

On 2/1/2019 at 8:01 PM, Xoon said:

The idea is to have a emergency power pack option that could be installed in AFVs when the country in question faces fuel shortages. The power pack would by no means be as good as a conventional power pack, but it would run. The inspiration came from Nazi Germany, which pretty much ran out of fuel, and was unable to properly wage war because of it.  Producing methanol or similar would require a more complex process, with a lot more moving parts. A convoy could have a number of hydrogen production units could stop by a transformer by a river, power the trucks pumps and electrolyser, and suck water from the river.  Effectively refueling the entire convoy on the spot.  This means a armored column could operate outside the supply chain, as long as it has enough ammunition and food.  A except the pump and valves, the entire system is solid state, meaning it wont break down. It runs until the end of its lifespan. 

 

Tank engines are around 1 MW ea., so assuming a 1:8 ratio of time spent moving to time spent recharging then you need to suck 8 MW from the transformer per tank in the convoy at 100% efficiency - and that's assuming the power grid still works reliably, it was one of the first things to go in the iraq war.

 

On 2/1/2019 at 8:01 PM, Xoon said:

A gasoline engine can be modified to run on hydrogen.  So in theory, a diesel/gasoline multi fuel engine could run on hydrogen.  Though, running a ICE on hydrogen is very inefficient. Curiously enough, you can add hydrogen to the air in a diesel to improve mileage and power. The hydrogen is ignited initially by the diesel, but since it flame speed is 10x that of diesel, it ignites the rest of the diesel. 

 

It is really a diesel engine at that point? It sounds more like a high compression otto engine, with the spark plug swapped out for an injector (and if hydrogen acts like a high octane fuel, improving on efficiency isn't that unexpected - although under part load it'd have to revert to act like a normal diesel). The defining feature of the diesel cycle is that there is no fuel mix, combustion only occurs at the boundary between the injected fuel-rich diesel droplets and the oxygen-rich rest of the air in the cylinder so there shouldn't be any diesel floating around the combustion chamber to be ignited by hydrogen.

 

On 2/1/2019 at 8:01 PM, Xoon said:

 

One a side note, has anyone tried to use a vortex tube at the air intake of a vehicle?  It would allow for super cool air (around -50 C), though it would probably double the drag and air needed into the intake. 

 

Sub-ambient intercooling could run into issues with condensation getting ingested into the engine

[Xoon]

37 minutes ago, Xlucine said:

Tank engines are around 1 MW ea., so assuming a 1:8 ratio of time spent moving to time spent recharging then you need to suck 8 MW from the transformer per tank in the convoy at 100% efficiency - and that's assuming the power grid still works reliably, it was one of the first things to go in the iraq war.

It would probably need to suck more. But it is meant as a back up. 

 

But honestly, if your country lacks power, how can it even function? If you knock out the power grid in the US, it would probably surrender it less than a month. Either that or the government would throw the citizen under the bus for a slow Berlin like grind until they lost. 

 

37 minutes ago, Xlucine said:

It is really a diesel engine at that point? It sounds more like a high compression otto engine, with the spark plug swapped out for an injector (and if hydrogen acts like a high octane fuel, improving on efficiency isn't that unexpected - although under part load it'd have to revert to act like a normal diesel). The defining feature of the diesel cycle is that there is no fuel mix, combustion only occurs at the boundary between the injected fuel-rich diesel droplets and the oxygen-rich rest of the air in the cylinder so there shouldn't be any diesel floating around the combustion chamber to be ignited by hydrogen.

I am not arguing for a multi fuel diesel capable of running on hydrogen, I was just explaining that it is possible, though not practical. 

 

Here's a explanation of the hydrogen injection system:

 

37 minutes ago, Xlucine said:

Sub-ambient intercooling could run into issues with condensation getting ingested into the engine

Use a air drier, or optimize it to not run at sub-ambient temperatures. 

Besides, water injection has already been widely used during WWII and recently has been implemented in BMW's new cars. 

 

 

[Xlucine]

10 minutes ago, Xoon said:

Here's a explanation of the hydrogen injection system:

 

 

"Hydrogen generators" for cars are a classic snake oil product. There are some papers discussing improvements to diesel combustion with additions of H2, but they're looking at far higher concentrations (e.g. here[1], looking at flow rates ~2 orders of magnitude above what's likely from an onboard generation system[2])

 

40 minutes ago, Xoon said:

It would probably need to suck more. But it is meant as a back up. 

 

But honestly, if your country lacks power, how can it even function? If you knock out the power grid in the US, it would probably surrender it less than a month. Either that or the government would throw the citizen under the bus for a slow Berlin like grind until they lost. 

 

It's not really a resilient system if you're reliant upon the civilian power grid being able to support sudden demands of 100's of MW at a randomly chosen transformer. It's possible to store enough diesel for a decent attempt at resisting invasion (probably a few days or weeks worth), whereas in an invasion the grid would be a prime and easy target (especially if the military was so reliant on it) - going by recent conflicts and the general plans in the cold war I'd be surprised if any military plans for a invasion to take more than a month

 

[1]: If the link doesn't work: Emission reductions of Air Pollutants from a Heavy-duty Diesel Engine Mixed with Various Amounts of H2/O2, Hsin-Kai Wang, Chia-Yu Cheng, Yuan-Chung Lin, Kang-Shin Chen, Aerosol and Air Quality Research, 12: 133–140, 2012

[2] The video claims the electrolyser uses "less power than the headlights", and according to this calculator 150 W gets you about 1 l H2&O2/min (at STP) - the paper I linked talks about 60 l/min for a 6 l engine. Getting the H2 production up to levels comparable to those tested means drawing ~9 kW in power to run the electrolyser, and for a ~25l tank engine you might expect the need to scale to about 40 kW. Storage of H2 is a different matter, although that raises other issues.

[LoooSeR]

http://otvaga2004.mybb.ru/viewtopic.php?id=1692&p=33#p1214825

Tankoff once again found interesting thing - 2TV373Ch engine for groung vehicles

 

According to GurKhan post here (and info from different sources) Armata's engine can put out  1800 hp.

   Here is a table showing stats for variants with 1200 hp (A-85-3A), 1350 (A-85-3B), 1650 (A-85-3O), another 1650 hp variant (A-85-3V) and 1800 (A-85-3G)

Spoiler

 

   First 2 engines are using 2 axial turbine turbochargers with 2 air coolers, "O" engine uses 2 turbochargers with centrifugal turbine + 2 air coolers, last 2 are using unspecified type of turbochargers (2) and 2 aircoolers with "battery type fuel system".

[TokyoMorose]

11 hours ago, LoooSeR said:

Tankoff once again found interesting thing - 2TV373Ch engine for groung vehicles

 

 First 2 engines are using 2 axial turbine turbochargers with 2 air coolers, "O" engine uses 2 turbochargers with centrifugal turbine + 2 air coolers, last 2 are using unspecified type of turbochargers (2) and 2 aircoolers with "battery type fuel system".

A) I wonder what vehicles that first engine could be planned for.

 

B) "Battery Type Fuel System" sounds like a fancy high-pressure common rail. Would allow improvements in fuel flow and control to achieve the better performance.