|
|
|
The W.A.I. Guy -- ATHS Member
Group: Moderators
Last Login: Yesterday @ 10:24:16 PM
Posts: 2,453,
Visits: 2,865
|
|
| Fuel mileage ?? Ha-hahahahahaha !! Brian Kelly and everyone else have pegged this huge Sterling T26 tank transporter, but with 754 cubic inches of American-Lafrance 275 hp V12 they should have made it a fuel tanker instead. This 1945 8x8 monster had many unique features. The entire front bogie turned, just like the dolly on a full trailer, and both the front and rear bogies were chain drive ! Just the tractor alone weighed 50,000 lbs, with a maximum GVW a massive 180,000 lbs. Road speed was 35 mph. There was also a straight cargo version of this truck built. Check out the link below for more info. http://www.roadtransport.com/blogs/big-lorry-blog/2009/11/the-fabulous-sterling-t26-revi.html 
==========================
Jeff ATHS Online Division Charter Member
|
|
|
|
|
---->
Group: Forum Members
Last Login: Yesterday @ 6:24:59 PM
Posts: 16,
Visits: 95
|
|
| 2 mpg tops with a tailwind John Gott
|
|
|
|
|
ATHS Member
Group: Moderators
Last Login: Today @ 5:06:52 AM
Posts: 439,
Visits: 320
|
|
| Fuel mileage was probably still better than that gas powered tank sitting on the deck. The way things are currently, the HET M1070 with a 500 hp DDEC controlled 8V92 gets 3 to 3.5 MPG, mileage doesnt change much from loaded to empty.It weighs just shy of 100,000 lbs empty and is rated for 243,000 lbs fully loaded.Top speed is 48 mph, loaded or empty.With planetary axles and an Allison auto, the only time you really feel that its loaded is in first gear or braking hard, the rest of the time it rolls about the same loaded or empty.Theres no real fuel mileage benefit to running empty with that much friction between the flywheel and the asphalt, lol.If these facts are accurate, the M1A1 gets 1.73 Gallons Per Mile and has a top speed of 42 mph on asphalt, with the tracks wearing out Alot quicker than the tires on the HETs http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/M1_Abrams This site claims .6 mpg, or consumption of 60 gallons per hour, with a life rating of 700 hours on the original 1,500 hp turbine engines.The newer versions last 1,400 hours http://www.fprado.com/armorsite/abrams.htm Im guessing that back in WW2, Korea, and Vietnam, things were probably still proportional.The trucks got better fuel mileage, were faster, and their engines lasted longer.You wouldnt want to show up late for a battle with empty tanks and a tired engine in youre tank, better off hitching a ride on a truck.John
John Costley
ATHS Online Division Charter Member
Sabattus, Maine
|
|
|
|
|
-------->
Group: Forum Members
Last Login: Yesterday @ 11:17:16 PM
Posts: 529,
Visits: 1,275
|
|
I had an idea one time. What if instead of a big tank hauler like that, what if you had a buggy that the tank could cilmb on, like that trailer, and the buggy would have a steering axle[s], and a drive train, but no motor. The power would come from the tank itself thru a PTO setup of some sort, and the tank could power itself around faster and more efficiently than both driving or transporting. I guess the main drawback being that if the tank got hurt you'd still need some sort of retreiver to get it back. I've thought that this might be a way to make a Dozer more mobile also. It's probably one of those things though that I think I thought of first, but somebody else all ready tried it and it turned out to be a dumb idea and they gave it up!!
Carl "Dig it" Besola
|
|
|
|