Barleyman Posted May 2, 2001 Share Posted May 2, 2001 <BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Skipper: About the use of engines in winter, it always amused me that in Russian Far North (where I used to live) everybody would get up in the morning, pull a car battery out of closet, put a flame under engine, maybe use a lighter to unfreeze the lock on the door, and go to work.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE> Full marks for local exotique and everything, but I reckon russkies are not short of liquid antifreeze for the locks. Vodka's no good, you need moonshine It's actually very difficult to physically heat up the lock, it's got tons of metal conducting the heat away etc. Block heater's pretty neat as long as your local power company is operating 24/7 .. I'm afraid the part about taking car battery inside with you is not exaggerating. When I was a student I had a crappy old car and I had to carry the battery inside for an hour or so before there was any hope of getting the old clunker to play ball. During the week or two it was beyond -15C in Finland anyways. [ 05-02-2001: Message edited by: Barleyman ] Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Username Posted May 2, 2001 Share Posted May 2, 2001 Diesals usually have a narrow torque range. Thats why truckers are constantly changing gears. They have to stay in a narrow band of RPMs. T34s were not known for having great trannys. Its tiring enough to drive a tank without this added strain. During combat, it would take great skill. But to get back to the point, I believe that the germans did not have the metallurgical resources the russians had and could not build such lightweight engine blocks. Their tanks were heavy enough and with a steel block diesal would have been even larger. The germans had problems starting their gas engines in the cold BTW because of the low octane vehicle fuel they had to use. In 'Death Traps' the author describes torches the german tankers would use to warm up the tanks crank cases. I also remember reading that germans would follow the drop tanks from fighter aircraft down and get some high octane gas to boost up their poor grade stuff. sometimes there would be gallons of teh stuff left over. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Skipper Posted May 2, 2001 Share Posted May 2, 2001 > but I reckon russkies are not short of > liquid antifreeze for the locks. Vodka's > no good, you need moonshine At the time described above it was extremely expensive. 10 r., with normal salaries in the range of 200-500 r. So, for the lock my dad used a lighter. > Block heater's pretty neat as long as your > local power company is operating 24/7 .. That's what they did then. Anyway, flame torch was somehow better for the job (not safer, though). > I'm afraid the part about taking car > battery inside with you is not > exaggerating. Not at all. Even though the electrolyte doesnt freeze, batteries are very weak at -30C. So, you either had to keep your car in a garage overnight, or get your battery home with you. That's Far North - even colder than the neighbouring (mere 2000 km) Alaska. My place was not the worst of them - it was on sea coast. Hence, we had some funny winds and snow, but not too cold - never colder than -35C, anyway. My dad once went to a work trip someplace in the continental part of the region, stored the car in the street for the night, hit some -70C and had to replace all his tires afterwards. The rubber cracked. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Skipper Posted May 2, 2001 Share Posted May 2, 2001 SOP in RKKA was to put a couple of burning logs under the bottom overnight. That's what they did on diesel tanks, not sure about petrol ones. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
jshandorf Posted May 2, 2001 Share Posted May 2, 2001 With the law of energy conservation doesn't diesel contain more potential energy then gasoline? That is why out of one barrel of crude oil you can make MORE gasoline then diesel? Thus that is why diesel gets better fuel mileage is because it contains, gallon to gallon, more stored energy than gas? Thus you can carry and equal amount of diesel, volume wise, and attain a further travel range. Jeff Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Username Posted May 2, 2001 Share Posted May 2, 2001 I believe the germans needed diesel for the sub fleet primarily. But they had diesel armored cars (air cooled I believe). In any case, when the temp dips down to -40 C (or F for that matter), the main problem is the motor oil turning into mollassas. Tanks can put logs that are glowing from a fire (that gives away the position) under the belly so that when the engine is off, the oil doesnt become hard sludge. It is wise to take snow and shovel drifts on three sides of the tank so that the heat is trapped. Dont let the drifts freeze though. This is very dangerous around gasoline vehicles BTW. Another trick is to have a vehicle with an over sized radiator (like a modified kubelwagon) running all the time. It can then pump its hot antifreeze into a tanks cooling system and get the block hot that way. If one tank is always left running, then it can get the other tanks up from the freeze. You can drag a tank that is in gear and get the oil moving around alittle. Not the best solution but you do what you have to under combat conditions. I once had a car that got a load of bad gas in the tank. I used every trick including the following to get it started in -20F weather: Heat the carb with a hair dryer(there was frozen water inside) pull all the plugs and turn over the engine to clear out the cylinders (dont smoke when doing this) put the plugs inside an oven and insert all 4 quickly into the block Hit the plugs with a torch also run an extension cord to a electric barbecue and put it under the oil pan After it got started with a jump, I let it run for two hours and bought the biggest battery I could afford. Took forever to clear out the bad gas. Lewis Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Skipper Posted May 3, 2001 Share Posted May 3, 2001 > With the law of energy conservation > doesn't diesel contain more potential > energy then gasoline? Ahem... no. Burning an equal weight of petrol produces somewhat more heat. However, with compression ratio of 16:1 as opposed to 7:1, diesel is a somewhat more efficient machine (ie, more fuel energy goes to the crankshaft turning, less to the exhaust). Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Gyrene Posted May 3, 2001 Share Posted May 3, 2001 <BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Another trick is to have a vehicle with an over sized radiator (like a modified kubelwagon) <HR></BLOCKQUOTE> I was under the distinct impression that kubels were air cooled... Gyrene Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Gyrene Posted May 3, 2001 Share Posted May 3, 2001 <BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Ahem... no. Burning an equal weight of petrol produces somewhat more heat. <HR></BLOCKQUOTE> Wrong again, Skipper, sorry... Diesel fuel has a higher energy density than gasoline. On average, a gallon of Diesel fuel contains approximately 155x10^6joules (147,000 BTUs), while a gallon of gasoline contains 132x10^6joules (125,000 BTUs). The higher compression and efficiency (More power at less rpm) explain the better fuel mileage. Gyrene [ 05-02-2001: Message edited by: Gyrene ] Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Stalins Organ Posted May 3, 2001 Share Posted May 3, 2001 Gyrene Skipper was talking about weight of fuel, not volume - now I'm pretty sure that Diesel is heavier than petrol, although I've no idea by how much. and as for big, round engines - the airline I worked for didn't run them, but the Airforce still had a few at that time and we serviced them (about 25 yrs ago). there's still somethign like 1000 DC-3's and a few hundred Commando's in service around the place. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Gyrene Posted May 3, 2001 Share Posted May 3, 2001 Automotive gas weighs about 6.17 pounds per gallon while diesel weighs 7.21 pounds per gallon, giving Diesel the potential of 20388.3 BTU's per pound (147,000BTU/Gal divided by 7.21 Pounds per gallon) and Gasoline 20259.3 BTU's per pound (125,000BTU's divided by 6.17 Pounds per gallon) Overall diesel produces more energy by pound and gallon. I like radials, except I can never remember the formula for figuring out the firing order in a big multi row radial. Gyrene [ 05-02-2001: Message edited by: Gyrene ] Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Wisbech_lad Posted May 3, 2001 Share Posted May 3, 2001 Interestingly, the British Army is now field testing a diesel motorbike! The rationale is that it will simplify logistics by removing any need to supply petrol. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Username Posted May 3, 2001 Share Posted May 3, 2001 <BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Gyrene: I was under the distinct impression that kubels were air cooled... Gyrene<HR></BLOCKQUOTE> -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Another trick is to have a vehicle with an over sized radiator (like a modified kubelwagon) That would make it a modification I guess. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Skipper Posted May 3, 2001 Share Posted May 3, 2001 > giving Diesel the potential of 20388.3 > BTU's per pound > 20259.3 BTU's per pound Big difference! Now, keeping in mind that we are apparently talking about different petrol / diesel standards Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
RMC Posted May 3, 2001 Share Posted May 3, 2001 <BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Gyrene: He served with a P39 Squadron in Guadalcanal, and later with a P38 Squadron in the Pacific. He's just retired from the school, lots of great stories from him, he was merciless with ex-servicemen, really held us to a higher standard.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE> Gyrene, Are you still in contact with this guy? My cousin, Barclay Dillon, flew P-39s at Guadalcanal and was later killed as a test pilot in a P-38. I don't know much else, but my dad has been doing some research. Maybe your instructor can help. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Gyrene Posted May 3, 2001 Share Posted May 3, 2001 <BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Are you still in contact with this guy? My cousin, Barclay Dillon, flew P-39s at Guadalcanal and was later killed as a test pilot in a P-38. I don't know much else, but my dad has been doing some research. Maybe your instructor can help. <HR></BLOCKQUOTE> Unfortunatly no , last time I went by the school (Northrop in Inglewood, CA. It's called something else now.) he had already retired. His last name is Stratemeyer (not sure of the spelling) his first name was "Mr." as far as we were concerned. I've been thinking of getting a hold of him lately, he's really a great old guy. I'll have to swing by the school (Kind of a drive for me) and ask any of the old instructors that might be still around. Gyrene Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
K_Tiger Posted May 3, 2001 Share Posted May 3, 2001 Im not really sure, but i read long time ago, diesel (from Tanks) needed min. 5 minutes to start the engine... Maybe this is also a reason for the germs to use petrol... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
jshandorf Posted May 3, 2001 Share Posted May 3, 2001 <BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Skipper: > giving Diesel the potential of 20388.3 > BTU's per pound > 20259.3 BTU's per pound Big difference! Now, keeping in mind that we are apparently talking about different petrol / diesel standards <HR></BLOCKQUOTE> Actually when you take per gallon differences, or volume differences, it does matter. While weight is a factor in the design of a fuel cell, I would argue that volume is a larger concern. Especially when combat vehicles are taken into consideration. Anyway, I thought desiel had more energy. BTW 22,000 BTUs is a significant amount of energy. Considering my furnace at home produces roughly 30,000 BTUs IIRC. Jeff Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Gyrene Posted May 3, 2001 Share Posted May 3, 2001 <BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Anyway, I thought desiel had more energy. <HR></BLOCKQUOTE> It does, unless you are making a statement, then ok. Gyrene [ 05-03-2001: Message edited by: Gyrene ] Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Subvet Posted August 29, 2001 Share Posted August 29, 2001 <BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Stalin's Organ: The Diesel engine fitted to the Ju-86 was unusual in that it had 2 pistons in each cylinder, and a separate crankshaft at each end of hte cylinder - the pistons compressed the charge by moving towards each other, and a gearbox merged the power from the 2 crankshafts. This did away with the need to have a strong, heavy cylinder head for each cylinder and was a major reason why hte engine could be made light enough for aircraft use.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE> The opposed piston diesel engine was developed in the '30's. One of the big advantages to this type engine is that you don't need valves. Instead of intake/exhaust valves you have ports in the cylinder walls. This greatly reduces the number of moving parts. Less moving parts gives you all kinds of advantages. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts