Heavy Metal

[3175375]

lets get some F-14 tech up then... without spoiling the book always dug that plane.

Here is a TA-3B Skywarrior that my only employer, Hughes Aircraft Company, modified in 1970. They (many people that I worked with during my career from January 1985 - October 2017 were involved in the modifications
to this aircraft) attached an F-14 nose (after the aircraft had an F-111B nose - that program was cancelled as the F-111B was too heavy for carrier operations) and did development testing of the AWG-9 Weapons System,
that included the AIM-54 Phoenix missile.

This specific A-3 was used through the late 2000’s for other programs. The aircraft was operated by Hughes Aircraft / Raytheon (of whom I worked

for my entire career) and it was retired and sent on a barge to Hawaii. It now rests at the Pacific Aviation museum on Ford Island in Pearl Harbor, Hawaii.
(You can read more about it here:
Pearl Harbor Douglas A3D/A-3 Skywarrior Museum Honolulu Hawaii)

I don’t believe that it is on display (yet).

I worked on this specific aircraft for the APG-71 (radar for the F-14D) and for the B-2 ‘Spirit’ Stealth bomber (radar upgrade program - Hughes Aircraft made the radar for the stealth bomber). I will post some additional information on the aircraft and how it further ties into my Family history.

 

[amazinblue82]

is it me but is F111-B a "cousin" of F-14?

related i guess it failed carrier trials - those looked like "heavy" landings tho catapults looked strong.

 

[3175375]

is it me but is F111-B a "cousin" of F-14?

related i guess it failed carrier trials - those looked like "heavy" landings tho catapults looked strong.

F-111 is a totally different animal.

The F-14 was a Naval replacement for the cancelled F111B. The F-111B was too heavy and a product of McNamara’s requirement for the Air Force and Navy to use a common airframe for each services medium bomber / interceptor.
The Navy wrote a specification for a long range interceptor after the F-111B Program was cancelled. The specifications required the aircraft to accommodate the Hughes AWG-9 Weapons system.

 

[MoPar Maniac]

The F-111B actually did well in carrier trials. Unfortunately it was well after the program was cancelled.

 

[amazinblue82]

First, I am not debating anybody. I do not know military aircraft. I am just learning stuff .. i wanted to be a naval aviator in hte mid 1970's. one big problem - blind as a bat

Interesting debate raging about the "heavier" plane -- F-111B or F-14.

Sorta depends on how you measure that this article points out. Seems conclusion this author reached was the heavier plane was the 111-B, but may not have fully deserved the "Sea Pig" derisive moniker (the article summarizes the way they measured "weight" and it was fascinating for a math nerd like me).

source: U.S. Navy Aircraft History: The F-111B versus the F-14A, One More Time

"This is not to say that the Navy didn’t do the right thing in getting the F-111B program cancelled and replacing it with the more versatile F-14, particularly since the Hughes AMCS wasn’t ready for prime time (the Navy's Phoenix program was about two years behind schedule and production F-111Bs were about to be delivered).

However, with respect to its Fleet Air Defense design mission, it got an airplane that could not loiter as long or land with its full complement of missiles, had a higher stall speed, required more wind-over-deck for takeoffs and landings, and was more difficult to bring aboard with two engines running, not to mention with one inoperative.

So which is the real "Sea Pig" then?

My answer is neither of the above. The F-111B could do, pretty much, the Phoenix-based Fleet Air Defense (FAD) mission that it was intended to do while weighed down with Air Force low-level supersonic mission and other requirements. The F-14 could not do the FAD mission quite as well—but well enough if needs be—and it could also accomplish the carrier Navy’s other, equally important, fighter missions.​

 

[3175375]

First, I am not debating anybody. I do not know military aircraft. I am just learning stuff .. i wanted to be a naval aviator in hte mid 1970's. one big problem - blind as a bat

Interesting debate raging about the "heavier" plane -- F-111B or F-14. Sorta depends on how you measure that this article points out. Seems conclusion this author reached was the heavier plane was the 111-B, but may not have fully deserved the "Sea Pig" derisive moniker (the article summarizes the way they measured "weight" and it was fascinating for a math nerd like me).

U.S. Navy Aircraft History: The F-111B versus the F-14A, One More Time

"This is not to say that the Navy didn’t do the right thing in getting the F-111B program cancelled and replacing it with the more versatile F-14, particularly since the Hughes AMCS wasn’t ready for prime time (the Navy's Phoenix program was about two years behind schedule and production F-111Bs were about to be delivered).

However, with respect to its Fleet Air Defense design mission, it got an airplane that could not loiter as long or land with its full complement of missiles, had a higher stall speed, required more wind-over-deck for takeoffs and landings, and was more difficult to bring aboard with two engines running, not to mention with one inoperative.

So which is the real "Sea Pig" then?

My answer is neither of the above. The F-111B could do, pretty much, the Phoenix-based Fleet Air Defense (FAD) mission that it was intended to do while weighed down with Air Force low-level supersonic mission and other requirements. The F-14 could not do the FAD mission quite as well—but well enough if needs be—and it could also accomplish the carrier Navy’s other, equally important, fighter missions.​

View attachment 368995 View attachment 368996

I spoke to some of the old timers whom I worked with regarding the F-111B vs F-14. They also said that the ejection seats in the F-111 (same for A and B models) were problematic (it was a pod). I am not saying that it couldn’t be corrected. Additionally, Grumman had a reputation for building stout airframes and General Dynamics was not as prevalent in Naval Aircraft. The other item that I always thought that would have added to the operational & maintenance cost bill was that the outboard weapons pylons on the F-111 pivoted as they were on the swing part of the wing, adding to O&M costs.
The final thought on this is that the F-14 was just sexier.

 

[300rag]

This is the crankshaft for a Wärtsilä-Sulzer RTA96-C engine, the largest reciprocating engine in the world, used in large container ships.

Wartsila Sulzer RTA96-C / Engine. The cylinder bore is just under 38" and the stroke is just over 98". Each cylinder displaces 111,143 cubic inches (1820 liters) and produces 7780 horsepower. Total displacement comes out to 1,556,002 cubic inches (25,480 liters) for the fourteen cylinder version.
Total engine weight‎: ‎2300 tons
Length‎: ‎89 feet

Configuration Turbocharged two-stroke diesel straight engine, 6 to 14 cylinders
Bore 960 mm (38 in)
Stroke 2,500 mm (8.2 ft)
Displacement 1810 litres (110450 CI) per cylinder
Engine speed 22–120 RPM
Mean effective pressure 1.96 MPa @ full load, 1.37 MPa @ maximum efficiency (85% load)
Mean piston speed 8.5 meters per second
Best specific fuel consumption 160 g/(kW·h)[3][a]
Power Up to 5,720 kW per cylinder, 34,320–80,080 kW (46,020–107,390 bhp) total
Torque Up to 7,603,850 N⋅m (5,608,310 lbf⋅ft) @ 102 rpm
Power density 29.6–34.8 kW (39.7–46.7 bhp) per tonne, 2300 tonnes for the 14-cylinder version
Mass of fuel injected per cylinder per cycle ~160 g (5.6 oz) @ full load
(Whole engine uses up to 250 tons of fuel per day.)

Crankshaft weight 300 t (660,000 lb)[1]
Piston weight 5.5 t (12,000 lb)
Piston height 6 m (20 ft)

That's a lot of torque.

 

[amazinblue82]

might be here already .. just dont recall it. 198 Phantom Corsair

source: Phantom Corsair - Wikipedia

The Phantom Corsair is a prototype automobile built in 1938. It is a six-passenger 2-door sedan that was designed by Rust Heinz of the H. J. Heinz family and Maurice Schwartz of the Bohman & Schwartz coachbuilding company in Pasadena, California.

Although sometimes dismissed as a failure because it never entered production, the Corsair is regarded as ahead of its time because of its futuristic features, and styling cues such as faired-in fenders and a low profile.

The Phantom Corsair's steel-and-aluminum body measured just 57 in (140 cm) in height and incorporated fully skirted wheels and completely flush fenders while forgoing running boards. The car also lacked door handles, as the doors were instead opened electrically using push-buttons located on the exterior and the instrument panel.

The instrument panel also featured a compass and altimeter, while a separate console above the windshield indicated when a door was ajar or if the car's lights or radio were turned on. The Corsair's body was mated to the "most advanced chassis available in the United States" at that time, the Cord 810.

The Lycoming 80º V-8 engine-powered Cord chassis also featured front-wheel drive and an electrically operated four-speed pre-selector gearbox, as well as fully independent suspension and adjustable shock absorbers. Though these features from the Cord 810 chassis were all retained on the Phantom Corsair, the chassis was modified in order to accommodate the Corsair's large body.

The body measured an impressive 237 in (600 cm) long and 76.5 in (194 cm) wide, enough to accommodate four people in the front row, including one person to the left of the driver. The back seats could only hold two passengers, however, in large part because of space limitations posed by on-board beverage cabinets.

Though weighing a hefty 4,600 lb (2,100 kg), the Phantom Corsair could achieve speeds of up to 115 mph (185 km/h) because of its modified, naturally aspirated 125 bhp Lycoming engine as well as its aerodynamic shape.​

 

[barnfind]

Move over Burj Khalifa, Jeddah Tower and others are coming.
Jeddah Tower: 10 Things to Know About The World's Tallest Building in 2020 - Arch2O.com

 

[amazinblue82]

Dubai .. but similar geography for building when the bedrock foundation is 200 ft+ under the sand.

what do you do?

turn the sand into the equivalent of a concrete block using the weight of the building to do it

 

[Snotty]

I thought Jedda was blown up in Rogue One???

 

[barnfind]

Dubai .. but similar geography for building when the bedrock foundation is 200 ft+ under the sand.

what do you do?

Some unique engineering for different circumstances.

turn the sand into the equivalent of a concrete block using the weight of the building to do it

 

[amazinblue82]

Volvo FH 16 750 .. never seen one here, probably only made in RH drive? Alleged to be most powerful over the road truck on the road today. 750HP, 2,600 Ft-lbs Torque' from the factory

Real nice truck, apparently the state-of-the-art in big rig OTR trucks? .. well even in Europe such a truck cannot be common.

This thing is more like the space shuttle than a truck -- is this the "Heavy Metal" future, vs. banging through 18 gears?

Scania coming out/already? with an 800 HP rig.

material below: Volvo Fact Sheet

- longish at 24 mins. interesting features


- FH 16 at a 2018 Europe truck show. Nice rig.

 

[amazinblue82]

10 "best" (longevity, power, warranty, reliability, etc.) big rig truck engines .. one man's ("Dave")"Heavy Metal" opinion (you folks who know stuff too may have other views).

I thought it was interesting - feller seems like he knows stuff from having driven for decades



He names them up to 3:45 mark (no particular priority it seemed to me, unless introduction date is known by the models) , then he has anecdotes until vid ends at 7:22

1. 300HP Mack
2. 350 Cummins
3. 400 "Big Cam" Cummins
4. 1693 Caterpillar
5. 380 Cats
6. 3408 Cats
7. C15 Cats
8. C16 Cats
9. 60 Series Detroits
10. DD15 Detroits

 

[amazinblue82]

Now that I own more diesels than I ever have (dealing with buses), tried to get smarter on where all the torque comes from?

most of you are handy with wrenches/powertrain design so you know this. I let the folks at Banks 'splain it to me.

​

Why do diesels make so much torque?

Excerpt from link

For those used to gasoline engine torque numbers, diesel torque verges on the unbelievable.

Project Sidewinder Dakota - 5.9L Cummins set five land speed records at Bonneville

​

The Banks Project Sidewinder, a Dodge Dakota pickup fitted with a modified Cummins 5.9L (359-cubic-inch) in-line six-cylinder diesel, made 1300 lb.-ft. of torque during its record-setting Bonneville Salt Flat runs at 222 MPH. That’s not a misprint – we’ll repeat, 1300 lb.-ft. of torque! That’s over 220 lb.-ft. per liter.

Yes, this engine is turbocharged, but consider this: a good modified marine twin-turbo big-block (454-cubic-inch) Chevy only makes about 1000 lb.-ft. of torque, and a similarly modified 350-cubic-inch twin-turbo small-block will do well to make 775 lb.-ft. of torque. So, what’s going on here? Why does a diesel make so much torque compared to gas engines?

There are actually a number of reasons why diesels make so much torque, but the big reasons are stroke length, turbocharger boost, and average effective cylinder pressure.

Turbo-diesels typically operate at higher turbocharger boost levels than do comparable gasoline engines. Production pickup and motorhome diesels routinely make 15 to 30 PSI peak boost, and it is not uncommon for a modified turbo-diesel to hit 30 to 50 PSI peak boost, and that definitely makes torque by reducing pumping losses on the intake stroke and increasing cylinder pressure on the power stroke.

By comparison, 15 PSI boost in a gasoline engine is a lot of boost. Diesel fuel has about 11 percent more energy per gallon than gasoline too. And if all of that isn’t enough, a diesel is also more efficient than a gas engine. ​

Anecdote.

Back when GM still had Detroit Diesel Division and I had a Powertrain Division assignment, running playful jaw-boning between gas engine engineers vs. diesel engine engineers. Saw it in person between the Gen III small block gas guys and some ex-Series 60 Detroit guys at a guy's retirement dinner in mid 90's.

LSS (long story short), the diesel people were wicked smart (matter of fact they all were - gas, diesel, HydraMatic and Allison folks too) .. I could listen to those diesel guys all day long

 

[amazinblue82]

see For Sale - ‘61 Imperial Crown Coupe F/S - NOT MINE!!!, post #5-#8

 

[amazinblue82]

California Science Center, Feb 2020.

I knew this plane from a kid in the 60's. Think Gemini 8

 

[amazinblue82]

Its partner hanging high above the lobby of the CSciC . Last one left (my photos aint that good so I supplemented)

 

[barnfind]

I cut my teeth wrenching on T-37s, T-38s, and F-5s

 

[amazinblue82]

Coming up, the "star" CsciS. Wasnt supposed to, but I put my hands on it.

The preamble