Mower Man wrote:
> On 14/09/2012 7:56 PM, AC wrote:
>> So, could a 1.7 litre engine power a main battle tank?
> Of course. How much supercharge/turbocharge pressure would you like? How
> much nitro in the fuel supply?
All pressure and nitro you like.
So, you reckon a 1.7 could get me battle tank to war then?
> How long would you like said engine to last in battle is another
> question though.
Let's say it needs to drive to, say, Bristol from Surrey, and be good for a battle, or two. Do you reckon a 1.7 could do it? Heavy thing my battle tank.
> Mower Man wrote:
> > On 14/09/2012 7:56 PM, AC wrote:
> >> So, could a 1.7 litre engine power a main battle tank?
> > Of course. How much supercharge/turbocharge pressure would you like? How
> > much nitro in the fuel supply?
> All pressure and nitro you like.
> So, you reckon a 1.7 could get me battle tank to war then?
> > How long would you like said engine to last in battle is another
> > question though.
> Let's say it needs to drive to, say, Bristol from Surrey, and be good > for a battle, or two. Do you reckon a 1.7 could do it? Heavy thing my > battle tank.
Unlikely. The scorpion 'light' tank uses a Jaguar J60 4.2 litre in-line 6 cylinder petrol engine.
>> Mower Man wrote:
>>> On 14/09/2012 7:56 PM, AC wrote:
>>>> So, could a 1.7 litre engine power a main battle tank?
>>> Of course. How much supercharge/turbocharge pressure would you like? How
>>> much nitro in the fuel supply?
>> All pressure and nitro you like.
>> So, you reckon a 1.7 could get me battle tank to war then?
>>> How long would you like said engine to last in battle is another
>>> question though.
>> Let's say it needs to drive to, say, Bristol from Surrey, and be good
>> for a battle, or two. Do you reckon a 1.7 could do it? Heavy thing my
>> battle tank.
> Unlikely. The scorpion 'light' tank uses a Jaguar J60 4.2 litre in-line
> 6 cylinder petrol engine.
> Now, if you had 10, 1.7 litre engines...
Oh no, really? Not with superchargers, turbos, nitrous, and a bit of a shove? No chance at all? Damn.
> Mower Man wrote:
>> On 14/09/2012 7:56 PM, AC wrote:
>>> So, could a 1.7 litre engine power a main battle tank?
>> Of course. How much supercharge/turbocharge pressure would you like? How
>> much nitro in the fuel supply?
> All pressure and nitro you like.
> So, you reckon a 1.7 could get me battle tank to war then?
>> How long would you like said engine to last in battle is another
>> question though.
> Let's say it needs to drive to, say, Bristol from Surrey, and be good
> for a battle, or two. Do you reckon a 1.7 could do it? Heavy thing my
> battle tank.
You can't drive a battle tank that far on its tracks. (Well, you can but it shortens their life considerably.)
-- John Briggs
<john.brig...@ntlworld.com> wrote:
>On 14/09/2012 22:56, AC wrote:
>> Mower Man wrote:
>>> On 14/09/2012 7:56 PM, AC wrote:
>>>> So, could a 1.7 litre engine power a main battle tank?
>>> Of course. How much supercharge/turbocharge pressure would you like? How
>>> much nitro in the fuel supply?
>> All pressure and nitro you like.
>> So, you reckon a 1.7 could get me battle tank to war then?
>>> How long would you like said engine to last in battle is another
>>> question though.
>> Let's say it needs to drive to, say, Bristol from Surrey, and be good
>> for a battle, or two. Do you reckon a 1.7 could do it? Heavy thing my
>> battle tank.
>You can't drive a battle tank that far on its tracks. (Well, you can but >it shortens their life considerably.)
Wouldn't a battle or two be likely to shorten their lives?
John Briggs wrote:
> On 14/09/2012 22:56, AC wrote:
>> Mower Man wrote:
>>> On 14/09/2012 7:56 PM, AC wrote:
>>>> So, could a 1.7 litre engine power a main battle tank?
>>> Of course. How much supercharge/turbocharge pressure would you like? How
>>> much nitro in the fuel supply?
>> All pressure and nitro you like.
>> So, you reckon a 1.7 could get me battle tank to war then?
>>> How long would you like said engine to last in battle is another
>>> question though.
>> Let's say it needs to drive to, say, Bristol from Surrey, and be good
>> for a battle, or two. Do you reckon a 1.7 could do it? Heavy thing my
>> battle tank.
> You can't drive a battle tank that far on its tracks. (Well, you can but
> it shortens their life considerably.)
That's OK, I'll take spares. Its the 1.7 I'm bothered about.
> On Fri, 14 Sep 2012 23:55:01 +0100, John Briggs
> <john.brig...@ntlworld.com> wrote:
>> On 14/09/2012 22:56, AC wrote:
>>> Mower Man wrote:
>>>> On 14/09/2012 7:56 PM, AC wrote:
>>>>> So, could a 1.7 litre engine power a main battle tank?
>>>> Of course. How much supercharge/turbocharge pressure would you like? How
>>>> much nitro in the fuel supply?
>>> All pressure and nitro you like.
>>> So, you reckon a 1.7 could get me battle tank to war then?
>>>> How long would you like said engine to last in battle is another
>>>> question though.
>>> Let's say it needs to drive to, say, Bristol from Surrey, and be good
>>> for a battle, or two. Do you reckon a 1.7 could do it? Heavy thing my
>>> battle tank.
>> You can't drive a battle tank that far on its tracks. (Well, you can but
>> it shortens their life considerably.)
> Wouldn't a battle or two be likely to shorten their lives?
Yes, but that's what they are designed for. It's like F1 gearboxes having to last 5 races - you use an old one for Friday testing.
-- John Briggs
> Geoff May wrote:
>> On 14/09/2012 19:56, AC wrote:
>>> So, could a 1.7 litre engine power a main battle tank?
>> I think that if you can afford an MBT then the size and type of engine
>> is a very minor cost.
> True, but not the point.
:-)
What sort of weight are you talking about for your tank?
I'm thinking that a Challenger 2 is around 62,500kg and it has a 1200bhp engine. This is enough power to give it a top speed on the road of around 40mph and off road with 25mph.
Assuming you are looking at the same weight, 1200bhp out of a 1.7lt is quite possible. Others have already mentioned turbo- or super-charging and the fuel will be important too.
