Incoming9000
-
Posts
39 -
Joined
-
Last visited
Never
Posts posted by Incoming9000
-
-
Maybe the limitations should be made using the gun calibers as a reference rather than the vehicles.
If you don't want heavy veicles on the game just say "no vehicles with guns over 76mm". That removes Tigers, King Tigers, other heavy AFVs or even heavy AT guns, but Panthers still would do and so would late war Shermans.
[ July 14, 2003, 10:58 PM: Message edited by: Incoming9000 ]
-
Lisbon, Portugal here. (As if anyone knows where it is...
)[ April 14, 2003, 07:36 PM: Message edited by: Incoming9000 ]
-
I found this on the net about bird strikes, that might give some light to this issue:Originally posted by Mike:Clearly something caused it, but I'm sceptical about a single bird being the cause.
"Birds' bones and the quills of their feathers are hollow. Some birds weigh mere ounces. So how can they pose a lethal threat to aviation?
(...)
Now recall your introductory physics course: Kinetic energy equals one-half times mass times velocity squared. In other words, kinetic energy is directly proportional to the mass involved, and directly proportional to the square of the velocity. Double the mass of the object, you double the kinetic energy; double the velocity, you quadruple the kinetic energy.
Colliding at 130 knots, a 4-pound bird (for example, an adult great black-backed gull) hits an aircraft with more than 2 tons of force, concentrated in a small area. At 260 knots, the same bird delivers a 9-ton punch."
I don't know about you guys but a 9-ton punch sounds more than enought to make that kind of damage to me.
The full article can be found here.
-
"Eeeh... what's cooking doc?"Originally posted by sGTGoody:(...) They also smell a lot better than an M60. Crank up a company of 60s and it is hard to breath. M1s, on the other hand, smell like someone is cooking something (although I have never been able to decide exactly what) (...)
PS: Sorry couldn't help myself!
PSPS: Has anyone thought of smell detectors?
South of Iraq (0100 Hours)
Iraqui Soldier: (Snif, snif) Sir We have M1s 5 Km to the south.
Iraqui Officer: (Snif, snif) No, too much oil. They're M60s.
Iraqui Soldier: But sir I smelled Chicken!
Iraqui Officer: (Snif,Snif) No it's smells like Beef, but you're right! There's something cooking! Those sneaky American pigs tried to fool us by puting M60s in front of M1s!
[ March 06, 2003, 05:36 PM: Message edited by: Incoming9000 ]
-
The information I have about the picture is that it was taken from a 737 engine that sucked it a 3 Kg bird during takeoff. The Bird itself only made minor damage, but because of the full throttle needed for takeoff, making the engine work at maximum power, any damage, as slight it might be would cause slpinters from the blades, or anything else, to wreck havok inside the high pressure engine. It's the domino efect. The slightest damage can initiate a chain reacton that causes tremendous efects.
Here are some examples I found:
(There were more but I picked these as examples of how one bird can damage an engine. For the hole page go here.)
Date: 03 June 1995
Aircraft: Concorde
Airport: John F. Kennedy (NY)
Phase of Flight: Landing roll
Effect on Flight: Aircraft was towed to gate
Damage: Engines
Wildlife Species: Canada geese
Comments from Report: Aircraft ingested a Canada goose into the #3 engine which had an uncontained failure causing parts to go into the #4 engine. Both engines were destroyed. Flames and smoke were seen coming from both engines. Cost was over $9 million. Aircraft was out of service for 5 days. The NY Port Authority paid $5.3 million in compensation for losses.
Date: 2 June 1996
Aircraft: B-737
Airport: Chicago Midway (IL)
Phase of Flight: Climb (100’ AGL)
Effect on Flight: Precautionary landing
Damage: Engine
Wildlife Species: Gull
Comments from Report: Ingested a gull during climb out. Tower observed flames from #2 engine and advised pilot who declared an emergency and returned to land without incident. Emergency equipment was on the runway. Aircraft landed using single engine landing procedures. Core and all fan blades were damaged. Engine was rebuilt.
Date: 27 January 1997
Aircraft: DC-10
Airport: Los Angeles Intl. (CA)
Phase of Flight: Climb
Effect on Flight: Engine shut down
Damage: Engine
Wildlife Species: Gull
Comments from Report: Crew thinks they hit a gull shortly after take off. #3 engine had a vibration with oil quantity fluctuation. When oil quantity dropped to zero, ¾ of the way to Japan, the engine was shut down. Crew had planned to divert to Anchorage but decided against it due to poor weather. Feathers found in engine after landing. Cost $1.5 million.
Date: 15 November 1997
Aircraft: Airbus 320
Airport: John Wayne (CA)
Phase of Flight: Take off
Effect on Flight: Precautionary landing
Damage: Engine
Wildlife Species: Large bird
Comments from Report: A large bird was ingested into one of the two engines causing a fire. Passengers heard a loud boom, then the aircraft dropped momentarily before recovering altitude. The aircraft circled for 30 minutes before making an emergency landing. There were no injuries. Bird hit blades on starboard fan which broke or bent all blades causing damage to cowling and to system behind the fan. Engine changed. Time out of service 30+ hrs. Cost of repairs $300,000 and other cost $800,000.
Date: 23 August 2000
Aircraft: B-747
Airport: Philadelphia Intl. (PA)
Phase of Flight: Take off
Effect on Flight: Aborted take off
Damage: Engine, wing
Wildlife Species: Canada geese
Comments from Report: The aircraft flew through a flock of about 30 Canada geese and ingested 1 or 2 in the #1 engine. The high-speed aborted take off resulted in 9 flat tires. The aircraft was towed to the ramp. Time out of service was 72 hours. Engine was a total loss. Cost was $3 million.
Date: 21 January 2001
Aircraft: MD-11
Airport: Portland Intl. (OR)
Phase of Flight: Take off
Effect on Flight: Aborted take-off, engine shut down
Damage: Engine
Wildlife Species: Herring gull
Comments from Report: The #3 engine ingested a Herring gull. The engine stall blew of the nose cowl that was sucked back into the engine and shredded. The engine had an uncontained failure. The pilot aborted take-off and blew two tires. 217 passengers were safely deplaned and rerouted to other flights.
Date: 09 June 2001
Aircraft: Airbus 300
Airport: Dayton Intl. (OH)
Phase of Flight: Climb (200’ AGL)
Effect on Flight: Precautionary landing
Damage: Engine
Wildlife Species: Canada goose
Comments from Report: A Canada goose was ingested into the #2 engine shortly after lift off. The engine had an uncontained failure and a precautionary landing was made. The cost to repair ($3.5 million) was not economical so the engine was scrapped
Date: 06 December 2001
Aircraft: B-737
Airport: Detroit Metropolitan (MI)
Phase of Flight: Climb
Effect on Flight: Precautionary landing
Damage: Engine
Wildlife Species: Gulls
Comments from Report: Aircraft struck a flock of gulls, ingesting one after take off. Engine rolled back, and then started compressor stalls. Pilot pulled throttle back to idle and returned to airport. Emergency landing make due to engine flame out. The engine was replaced. Cost estimated at $2.3 million.
Date: 24 February 2002
Aircraft: Fk-100
Airport: Dallas-Fort Worth (TX)
Phase of Flight: Climb (6000’ AGL)
Effect on Flight: Precautionary landing
Damage: Engine, nose, wing
Wildlife Species: Greater white-fronted goose
Comments from Report: Aircraft struck a flock of geese and ingested one after takeoff. Engine vibration caused crew to reduce power to idle. Nose was damaged. Several blades were deformed. Engine was replaced. Bird ID by Smithsonian. Cost of repairs and lost revenue totaled $654,000. Aircraft was out of service for 8 days.
[ March 06, 2003, 07:06 AM: Message edited by: Incoming9000 ]
-
Concerning the robustness of Jet turbines I would like to say just this:
This is what happened to a Boeing 737 Turbine after sucking in a 3Kg bird.
-
I belive the problem in this issue resides in the definition of simple and complex.
What is simple? How to define it? In this case is it the number of parts? The the tecnical expertise necessary to manufacture the engines? The maintenance? Ease of use? All of them put together?
Let's get some points straight first.
I belive we both agree that Gas turbanies are:
Expensive to manufacture and maintain, thirsty (fuelwise) and have a better weight to power ratio.
They do have less independently moving parts than an Diesel engine but because of their low tolerance to failure than Diesel their need fir more care and maintenace and demanding air filters to suply the extreme need for air means that overal they are more dificult to maintain at optimal capacity needed for combat situations. This is what I define as complex.
Yes Diesel don't like sand either, but are far more forgiving and can run under very adverse contitions longer without any special care. This is what i define as simplicity.
About the filter problems: That's the result of the extreme need for air that turbines have. There's nothing wrong with the filters. In a sandy environment the filters simply endup needing cleaning much more often.
-
It would be difficult to be more wrong. Gas turbines are the simplest heat engines currently on the face of the planet.Originally posted by flamingknives:</font><blockquote>quote:</font><hr /> Modern Gas Turbines have replaced the old piston/gasoline system because they have tremendous power, but, are very complex a hard to maintain.
(...)
</font>
-
Neither designs ever saw service but one cannot help imagine what would have happened if they had met in the battlefield. Who would have won?
Let's look at the contenders:
A39 Tortoise Heavy Assault Tank (UK)
Crew:7
Armament : One 32 Pounder gun, three 7.92mm MGs
Armour: 225mm Max, 35mm min
Dimentions Lenght (hull) 7.24m, (over gun) 10.1m, with 3.91m, height 3.05m
Weight 79.252Kg
Engine: Rolls-Royce Meteor 12 Cyl Liquid cooled petrol engine developing 600hp
Speed:20km/h max
Maus Heavy Tank (Germany)
Crew:6
Armament: One 12.8cm KwK L/55 gun, on 7.5cm L/36.5 gun, one 2 cm gun
Armour: 350mm max, 40mm min
Dimentions: Length (with gun) 10.1m, width 3.67m, height 3.63m
weight 188.000kg
Engine: Daimler-Benz MB 509 V12 water-cooled inline petrol engine developing 1080hp
Speed:20km/h max
[ March 05, 2003, 11:20 AM: Message edited by: Incoming9000 ]
-
The Germans used gasoline fueled tanks because they had more horsepower and moved faster, something crucial for a blitzkrieg type of war, this ended up being a problem due to the high gas consuption specially in the latter stage of the war. For example the King Tiger had a 850 liter fuel tank that only gave him a maximum average range of 100Km with a 12 cylinder 24 liter 600hp engine.
The Diesel engines were more eficient but not as powerfull, making them good a choice for a more long lasting conflict.
Modern Gas Turbines have replaced the old piston/gasoline system because they have tremendous power, but, are very complex a hard to maintain. During Desert Storm M1s had to stop every 3 hours for maintenance and refuel while the Diesel powered M60s could go on for a hole day. There is a very inetense debate about the pros and cons of Gas turbines in AFVs and some say that with the new developments in Diesel Power, Gas engines are not worth it!
The majority of modern MTBs use Diesel engines exept the US M1 and the Russian T80.
Leopard 2-----Diesel-1500hp (ger)
Leclerc-------Diesel-1500hp (fr)
Ariete--------Diesel-1300hp (ita)
Challenger 2--Diesel-1200hp (uk)
T80UD---------Diesel-1250hp (rus)
T80U-----------Gas---1250hp (rus)
T90-----------Diesel-1000hp (rus)
M1-------------Gas---1500hp (us)
M60A3---------Diesel-750hp (us)
[ March 03, 2003, 06:50 PM: Message edited by: Incoming9000 ]
-
I lost 6 King Tigers in that engagement. Call that lucky!Originally posted by Esper:Ha you got luckier then I did it seems on that map most of my 1st shots, missed or bounced.
-
"Your shoelaces are untied!"
-
Tought so!
[ March 02, 2003, 12:57 PM: Message edited by: Incoming9000 ]
)
New game: Squad Assault - West Front - CM is about to have a run for it's money!
in Combat Mission: Barbarossa to Berlin
Posted
I looks like Combat Mission is about to have run for it's money for the first time. Matrix games is developing a new 3D tatical/startegical wargame that seems to follow the same gameplay style that CM features and it has a dynamic campaing system.
I don't know if anyone has heard of this one before but it's completely new to me.
I guess it was only a matter of time before someone picked up the ideat CM started tryed to at least copy it. Still the inclusion of a dynamic campaing system is more than welcome. I guess we have to wait and see what comes out of it.
For me the lack of a dynamic campaing system has always been CM "Aquiles heel". I wonder if the new CM game in North Africa will have one?
Squad Assault Official Homepage
Here are some screenshots:
A Panther
German Soldiers
A King Tiger and a destroyed Jagpanther
King Tiger on a Bridge with soldiers
Campaing Briefing
Mission Selection screen
[ July 15, 2003, 02:21 AM: Message edited by: Incoming9000 ]