Jump to content
Sturgeon's House

Recommended Posts

I propose a new topic to regroup information about French AFVs.

 

Days after days, information is overwhelmed under the inflow of photos about anything and everything.

It can be interesting to try to have dedicated topics to ease the quality of exchanges. 

 

So, if you have already posted interesting photos, documentations and view about French AFVs, you can quote them here. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Let's start to quick the AMX-56 bullshit out of the window.
 


The french documentary with the original interview of the program manager.


I will look for my Satory catalogs for some vintage data.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

This catalog shows the gap between companies proposals and the real Army purchase policy. For instance, we have been suffering from decades a deep lack of armored maintenance and repair vehicles in spite of there availability. 

 

Don’t know if it was already shown, the Leclerc T40 NEXTER proposal. 

VFa5oEZ.jpg

It was made as a first entry capable ISTAR platform. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 4/20/2018 at 2:31 PM, Alzoc said:

 

Might as well repost this from the AW forum.

(Thanks @Laviduce for taking the time to incorporate the label in English directly)

The translations I did back then were quite literal since I'm not really a mechanics guy, so it may sound awkward.

Scans comes mainly from 2 books I have.

 

  Reveal hidden contents

 

V8X Hyperbar and the ESM500 gearbox:

 

  Reveal hidden contents

 

Principle scheme of the engine:

 

1) Autoadaptation valve of the turbine
2) Discharge valve
3) Turbine
4) Compressor
5) Air intake regulation valve (secondary combustion chamber)
6) Secondary combustion chamber
7) Cooling unit of air intake

8 Ignition

 

  Reveal hidden contents

 

Kinematic chain:

Didn't tried to translate that one since I'm not too good are reading this kind of diagram.

Ask if you need me translate something in particular.

  Reveal hidden contents

 

 

On 4/20/2018 at 10:54 PM, Walter_Sobchak said:

 

My Dad got to see the French engine in action back in the 90's. He said it was pretty insane how quickly it got up to full power.  

 

 

So what exactly is the design rationale behind the hyperbar engine?  From the Swedish MBT tests it seemed that the Hyperbar wasn't very efficient.  If I recall correctly, the Leclerc had even worse mileage than the Abrams.  Is the advantage that it revs up quickly and gives the tank good start/stop performance?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
6 minutes ago, Collimatrix said:

 

 

 

So what exactly is the design rationale behind the hyperbar engine?  From the Swedish MBT tests it seemed that the Hyperbar wasn't very efficient.  If I recall correctly, the Leclerc had even worse mileage than the Abrams.  Is the advantage that it revs up quickly and gives the tank good start/stop performance?

 

Just last week I was talking to my dad about this engine.  His memory is crap these days but he still remembers work stuff pretty well.  Back in the 90's he was in France and got to see a demonstration of this engine.  He said it was awesome to see it go from 0 to 1500 HP in "2 seconds".  I don't know if that's the actual time it takes, but that's how he describes it.  For sake of reference, I asked him how long it takes an AVDS-1790 (M60 tank engine) to go from 0 to full power (750HP), he said 17 seconds.  Again, no idea if these figures are correct, but that's how he described it. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
32 minutes ago, Collimatrix said:

So what exactly is the design rationale behind the hyperbar engine?  From the Swedish MBT tests it seemed that the Hyperbar wasn't very efficient.  If I recall correctly, the Leclerc had even worse mileage than the Abrams.  Is the advantage that it revs up quickly and gives the tank good start/stop performance?

 

It's more or less an hybrid between a turbine engine and a classic diesel.

As far as I understand, the exhaust gas are reheated with a secondary combustion, goes through a turbine which drive a compressor increasing the admission pressure in the diesel. Basically it's a turbo that double as the APU.

 

The goal was to have most of the power available as soon as possible (0-32 km/h in 5s), just like a turbine but with a slightly lower fuel consumption than a turbine (actually I think that the Leclerc's consumption falls in between the M1 and the Leo 2).

 

The acceleration can be seen nicely in this video.

 

I'll re-read tonight to get back some figures, but as you said the engines had a lot of teething problems which showed during the Swedish trial.

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
18 minutes ago, Alzoc said:

 

I'll re-read tonight to get back some figures, but as you said the engines had a lot of teething problems which showed during the Swedish trial.

 

In the case of the Swedish trials there are quite some infomations to put together in order to understand what happenned there (or could happened).

First the tanks used there, are the two first productions tanks (batch 1). These tanks were made as the production lines were being qualified in order to mass produce. The "activation" of those tanks were made at Satory workshop in order to  have a decent QA.

Second, those tanks were in the UAE right before the Swedish trials, they performed endurance tests in desertic conditions without problems (~ 800km). Both Giat Industries and the "customer" fired the tanks day and night with satisfying results.


Third, S1 tanks (at least the first two batches) were known for their engine unreliabilities. Those were a combinaison of multiple sensors that either put the engine in damage control mod (an iron filling sensor in the engine block) or induced an inadequate air pressure in the engine leading to surging (an air temperature sensor). The iron filling sensor was purely removed on later batches due to its uselessness. The air temperature sensor reliability was enhanced.

Fourth, from what I heard, the swedish crew sent to train on the Leclerc arrived in winter 1992 where the others arrived during summer 1992. I believe this is linked to the fact that the trials in the UAE were in progress during the summer. But what about the level of proficiency of the crew?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, Alzoc said:

 

It's more or less an hybrid between a turbine engine and a classic diesel.

As far as I understand, the exhaust gas are reheated with a secondary combustion, goes through a turbine which drive a compressor increasing the admission pressure in the diesel. Basically it's a turbo that double as the APU.

 

The goal was to have most of the power available as soon as possible (0-32 km/h in 5s), just like a turbine but with a slightly lower fuel consumption than a turbine (actually I think that the Leclerc's consumption falls in between the M1 and the Leo 2).

 

The acceleration can be seen nicely in this video.

 

I'll re-read tonight to get back some figures, but as you said the engines had a lot of teething problems which showed during the Swedish trial.

 

148L/10Km for M1A2.

138L/10Km for Leclerc.
72L/10Km for Leopard 2.

 

 

Source:
http://www.ointres.se/projekt_stridsvagn_ny.htm

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

So various figures.

 

Autonomy:

 

150 km on road/dry dirt at 50 km/h : Fuel consumption of 200L (2 external fuel drums)

450 km on road/dry dirt at 50 km/h with the internal fuel (1300L)

Total refuelling time: 10 minutes

 

Engine power repartition:

 

Gross: 1500 hp

Forced air intake: 200 hp

APU (turret, FCS, NBC, air-conditioning): 27 hp

Lubrication pumps: 80 hp

Heat loss through mechanical friction: 50 hp

Which leave about 1100 hp available for the propulsion itself.

 

Engine:

 

Diesel: 4 times, 8 cylinders V shaped at 90°

Overfeed rate (turbo): 7,5

Volume: 16,47 L

Compression rate: 7,8/1

Gross power: 1500 hp at 2500 rpm

Maximal torque: 4500 Nm at 2000 rpm

weight: 2100 kg

Total volume: 1,87 m3

 

 

Turbine: TM 307B

Use: Turbo and driving a 9kW generator (there is another one of 20 kW normally driven by the diesel), and heating the engine when it's too cold.

 

Transmission:

 

ESM500 automatic

Direction: hydrostatic 1200 hp

Braking: hydrokinetic (?)

Gears: 5 fwd 2 rwd

 

General performances:

 

Max speed: 72 km/h

Max reverse speed: 38 km/h

0-32 km/h: 5,5 s (and not 5 as said previously apparently)

 

 

 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 4/24/2018 at 5:29 PM, Walter_Sobchak said:

 

Just last week I was talking to my dad about this engine.  His memory is crap these days but he still remembers work stuff pretty well.  Back in the 90's he was in France and got to see a demonstration of this engine.  He said it was awesome to see it go from 0 to 1500 HP in "2 seconds".  I don't know if that's the actual time it takes, but that's how he describes it.  For sake of reference, I asked him how long it takes an AVDS-1790 (M60 tank engine) to go from 0 to full power (750HP), he said 17 seconds.  Again, no idea if these figures are correct, but that's how he described it. 

Just out of curiosity, doesn't hybrids with electrically assisted turbochargers make the hyberbar engine obsolete? 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
56 minutes ago, Xoon said:

Just out of curiosity, doesn't hybrids with electrically assisted turbochargers make the hyberbar engine obsolete? 

 

Depends on what you mean by hybrids with electrically assisted turbochargers.

If it is what is described on the fig 1 of that paper then it's simply an hyperbar engine with an added battery (the turbine already serve as an APU in the Leclerc so there is no reason that would forbid turning the generator into a motor if needed).

 

Spoiler

3qk8mC.jpg

 

If we are talking about adding electrical engine to drive the tracks at low speed while the diesel gets up to speed, then yes the turbine turbocharger becomes useless since an electrical engine will gives an even better acceleration.

 

Edit: Maybe you were thinking about removing the turbine completely and drive the compressor of the turbo with an electrical engine only. It is also a possibility.

 

Where there is a question however is in how compact the whole powerpack will be. One of the big advantage of the hyperbar engine is it's insane power density.

Given the size of current battery I think that's it's unlikely that an hybrid engine (Diesel-electric) plus it's battery would be more compact than an hyperbar engine (especially when considering than in the V8X the turbine is the APU and thus doesn't necessitate to add one).

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now

  • Similar Content

    • By Xoon
      Colonization Of The Solar System

       
      This thread is for discussing the colonization of the solar system, mainly focusing on Mars and the Moon since they are the most relevant. 
      Main topics include transportation, industry, agriculture, economics, civil engineering,  energy production and distribution, habitation, ethics and politics. 
       
       
       
       
      First order of business, our glories tech messiah Elon Musk has set his eyes on Mars:
      Reason stated? Because being a interplanetary species beats being a single planetary species. 
       
      How does he plan to do this?
      By sending two cargo ships by 2022 to Mars for surveying and building  basic infrastructure, then two years later in 2024 sending 4 ships, two cargo ships and two crewed ships to start the colonization. First thing would be to build fuel refineries and expanding infrastructure to support more ships, then starting to mine and build industry. 
       
      This could mark a new era in human history, a second colonization era, this time without the genocides. The economic potentials are incredible, a single asteroid could easily support the entire earths gold, silver and platinum production for a decade. The moon holds a lot of valuable Helium 3, which right now is worth 12 000 dollars per kilogram! Helium is a excellent material for nuclear reactors. 
       
       
       

       
       
      Speaking about the moon, several companies have set their eyes on the moon, and for good reason.
      In my opinion,  the moon has the possibility of becoming a mayor trade hub for the solar system.  Why is this? Simply put, the earth has a few pesky things called gravity, atmosphere and environmentalists. This makes launching rockets off the moon much cheaper. The moon could even have a space elevator with current technology!  If we consider Elon Musk's plan to travel to Mars, then the Moon should be able to supply cheaper fuel and spaceship parts to space, to then be sent to Mars. The Moon is also rich in minerals that have not sunk to the core yet, and also has a huge amount of rare earth metals, which demands are rapidly increasing. Simply put, the Moon would end up as a large exporter to both the earth and potentially Mars. Importing from earth would almost always be more expensive compared to a industrialized Moon. 
       
      Now how would we go about colonizing the moon? Honestly, in concept it is quite simple.When considering locations, the South pole seems like the best candidate. This is because of it's constant sun spots, which could give 24 hour solar power to the colony and give constant sunlight to plants without huge power usage. The south pole also contain dark spots which contains large amount of frozen water, which would be used to sustain the agriculture and to make rocket fuel. It is true that the equator has the largest amounts of Helium 3 and the best location for rocket launches. However, with the lack of constant sunlight and frequent solar winds and meteor impacts, makes to unsuited for initial colonization. If the SpaceX's BFR successes, then it would be the main means of transporting materials to the moon until infrastructure is properly developed. Later a heavy lifter would replace it when transporting goods to and from the lunar surface, and specialized cargo ship for trans portion between the Moon, Earth and Mars. A space elevator would reduce prices further in the future.  Most likely, a trade station would be set up in CIS lunar space and Earth orbit which would house large fuel tanks and be able to hold the cargo from  cargo ships and heavy lifters. Sun ports would be designated depending on their amount of sunlight. Year around sunlight spots would be dedicated to solar panels and agriculture. Varying sun spots would be used for storage, landing pads and in general everything. Dark spots would be designated to mining to extract its valuable water. Power production would be inistially almost purely solar, with some back up and smoothing out generators. Later nuclear reactors would take over, but serve as a secondary backup energy source. 
       
       
      The plan:
      If we can assume the BFR is a success, then we have roughly 150 ton of payload to work with per spaceship. The first spaceship would contain a satellite to survey colonization spot. Everything would be robotic at first. Several robots capable of building a LZ for future ships,  mining of the lunar surface for making solar panels for energy production, then mining and refinement for fuel for future expeditions. The lunar colony would be based underground, room and pillar mining would be used to cheaply create room that is also shielded from radiation and surface hazards. Copying the mighty tech priest, a second ship would come with people and more equipment. With this more large scale mining and ore refinement would be started. Eventually beginning to manufacturing their own goods. Routinely BFRs would supply the colony with special equipment like electronics, special minerals and advanced equipment and food until the agricultural sector can support the colony.  The colony would start to export Helium 3 and rocket fuel, as well as spacecraft parts and scientific materials. Eventually becoming self sustaining, it would stop importing food and equipment, manufacturing it all themselves to save costs. 
       
      I am not the best in agriculture, so if some knowledge people could teach us here about closed loop farming, or some way of cultivating the lunar soil. Feel free to do so.
       
       
      Mining:
      I found a article here about the composition of the lunar soil and the use for it's main components:

      In short, the moon has large amounts of oxygen, silicon, aluminum, calcium, iron, magnesium and titanium in it's soil.
      How do we refine them? By doing this.
       
      Aluminum could be used for most kinds of wiring to requiring high conductivity to density ratio. Meaning power lines, building cables and such. Aluminum is not very suited for building structures on the surface because of the varying temperatures causing it to expand and contract. Iron or steel is better suited here. Aluminum could however be used in underground structures where temperatures are more stable.  Aluminum would also most likely end up as the main lunar rocket fuel. Yes, aluminum as rocket fuel. Just look at things like ALICE, or Aluminum-oxygen. Aluminum-oxygen would probably win out since ALICE uses water, which would be prioritized for the BFRs, since I am pretty sure they are not multi-fuel. 
       More on aluminum rocket fuel here:
      https://forum.kerbalspaceprogram.com/index.php?/topic/88130-aluminum-as-rocket-fuel/&
      http://www.projectrho.com/public_html/rocket/realdesigns2.php#umlunar
      https://blogs.nasa.gov/Rocketology/2016/04/15/weve-got-rocket-chemistry-part-1/
      https://blogs.nasa.gov/Rocketology/2016/04/21/weve-got-rocket-chemistry-part-2/
       
      Believe it or not, but calcium is actually a excellent conductor, about 12% better than copper. So why do we not use it on earth? Because it has a tendency to spontaneously combust in the atmosphere. In a vacuum however, this does not pose a problem. I does however need to be coated in a material so it does not deteriorate. This makes it suited for "outdoor" products and compact electrical systems like electric motors. Yes, a calcium electric motor.  
       
       
      Lastly, a few articles about colonizing the moon:
      https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Colonization_of_the_Moon
      https://www.sciencealert.com/nasa-scientists-say-we-could-colonise-the-moon-by-2022-for-just-10-billion
      https://www.nasa.gov/audience/foreducators/topnav/materials/listbytype/HEP_Lunar.html
       
      NASA article about production of solar panels on the moon:
      https://ntrs.nasa.gov/archive/nasa/casi.ntrs.nasa.gov/20050110155.pdf
       
      Map over the south pole:
      http://lroc.sese.asu.edu/images/gigapan
       
       
      Feel free to spam the thread with news regarding colonization. 
       
       
    • By LostCosmonaut
      For those of you who are not familiar with him, Robert Zubrin is an American aerospace engineer and author of some note. He is probably best known for his advocacy of the 'Mars Direct' proposal, although he's also done quite a bit of work in the nuclear spacecraft propulsion field (he's the guy that came up with the NSWR). His wiki page says he's also written on other vaguely political topics, but I'm not familiar with them.
       
       
      Personally, I find his work on spacecraft propulsion highly interesting, and it's good that we've got somebody putting forth cogent ideas for space exploration. However, I feel that some of his ideas are a bit too optimistic, especially in regards to his Mars Direct approach. I feel that it would be more optimal to gain more experience with long term off-planet living in a location such as the moon before proceeding to Mars, while also using that time to mature techniques such as nuclear rockets to actually get to Mars. On a related note, I showed his NSWR paper to a guy I know who has some not insignificant knowledge of nuclear physics, and he was a bit skeptical. Still, in my opinion, it's infinitely better to have somebody be a bit overoptimistic about how well their ideas will work, and keeps push them forward, then a bunch of limp wristed pessimists who are afraid to send anyone beyond LEO because it might cost a few million dollars.
×