1. because turbines can run on whatever
2. what do you think jet fuel is

>>64661708
>2. what do you think jet fuel is
Special juice they give jets? Im not a fuel guy.

>>64661702
Diesels can be tuned to run on anything but run best on diesel, gas turbines run on anything without any tuning.

>>64661702
>our

>>64661714
Who do you think he is / is claiming to be? Pretty much everyone that isn't running the Abrams is running diesel with some token T-80s thrown in.

>>64661711
It's just highly refined kerosene.

>>64661702
"Jet Fuel" is just kerosene, which is just refined diesel.

>>64661702
In short, it was so the army can use the same fuel for their tanks and helicopters, and thus only need one supply chain for both.

>>64661702
Honeywell bribes + the only tank Diesel engines at the time were MTU trash since Continental lost the plot.

>>64661702
Diesel has better lubricity and in general it burns better (higher cetane number, in general it isn't specified for jet fuel). Many Humvee were damaged by the incompatibility of kerosene with the fuel pump during early Iraq.
When soviet tested their variant of jet fuel in the T-64 and T-72 it decreased power by +30% iirc, but that in part is caused by the obsolete design, true multi-fuel engines are better at burning kerosene or gasoline.

>>64661729
>"Jet Fuel" is just kerosene, which is just refined diesel.
no
Gasoline is C4-C12 hydrocarbons. Flash point >−45 °F
Kerosene is C9-C16 hydrocarbons. Flash point >100 °F
Diesel is C10 to C22 hydrocarbons. Flash point >126 °F

>>64661702
To US Army uses JP-8 to have same fuel as AF ans streamline logistics. But at disadvantages that JP-8 comparing to diesel has less density and needs more volume and much more fire hazard.

Like other's have said, sans lubricant it can burn anything and provides better power-to-weight. The drawback is that the miles-per-gallon cost is severe, which wasn't a problem if you're an Abrams crew in western Europe during WWIII and can just raid the plentiful supplies sitting around.

There used to be a fun cartoon called 'the little tank that could' about Australia's Leopards ending up proving their worth in the race to Baghdad in 2003 simply by having a much greater operating range.

File: sweden_leopard_2_trials_1.png (1.14 MB, 1314x987)

1.14 MB PNG

>>64661702
There is no US company which can make a high power density diesel engine. They have to use helicopter turbines because that's the only suitable engine they have.
They considered buying a german MTU diesel for the abrams, but they already had to buy the design of the gun and a license to produce it from Rheinmetall and the generals protested that if the engine AND gun are german, it's basically a kraut tank.
So now it has a turbine which needs 2x the fuel and 10x the air, which creates a massive logistics problem and makes it trivial to spot with infrared.

>>64661790
>MTU trash

MTU engines are fantastic, best diesel engines on the planet.

>>64661797
>>"Jet Fuel" is just kerosene, which is just refined diesel.
>no
>Gasoline is C4-C12 hydrocarbons. Flash point >−45 °F
>Kerosene is C9-C16 hydrocarbons. Flash point >100 °F
>Diesel is C10 to C22 hydrocarbons. Flash point >126 °F
You just said what he said with more words.

>>64661824
He was definately touched in his "special place," by an MTU.

>>64661819
Why did Ukraine push so hard for Abrams anyway?

>>64661832
Its just a good, solid tank

>>64661724
>no
yes

>>64661824
In the past? Maybe. Now? Not at all since continental finally got a grip. We know from Ukrainian tankers the MTU V12 used in the Leo 2 is unreliable despite being a Diesel engine needing constant maintenance.

>>64661832
Did they really push hard though? They need tanks in general and there are a lot of Abrams available in theory. Same reason Poland got them.

File: 1704194852901266.png (70 KB, 500x529)

70 KB PNG

>>64661892
>ukranian regime (elected)
>provoke russia (a country actively invading them)
typical zigger

File: No rupees for this bait.png (105 KB, 600x425)

105 KB PNG

>64661892

>>64661819
>helicopter turbines
Abrams turbine is pretty special and not simply derived from an existing heli engine, at least to my knowledge. It has among other things an integral heat exchanger to superheat compressed air with exhaust gases to improve efficiency (and cool the exhaust somehow) and variable incidence power turbine blades (or stator vanes? Not sure about this one) to basically serve as clutch/fluid coupling.
But yeah, it's thirsty compared to diesel.

*Russkie tank turbines might be derived from heli engines though, and Strv-103 turbine was an industrial one based on heli engine.

>>64661819
Because the AGT1500 has the same performance as one of those MTU V-12s for the same volume and 1500 lbs less weight. It's also designed to run on a barrel of moonshine with a gallon of mineral spirits mixed in.

>>64662010
Both features were taked into account for the first gas turbine, GT-101, because they are logical and needed:
Gas turbines have terrible fuel efficiency at low power (the pressure ratio is proportional to power) and it's particularly bad for low Pr turbines (worse for the GT-101 or the soviet GT, but the AGT-1500 just has a medium pressure ratio, adding a heat exchanger allows higher rotation speed (and pressure ratio) with less power output (and fuel consumption).
The variable angle turbine inlet vanes is the same, and unlike the heat exchanger it works well.

>>64661702
Because you don't need different types of fuels that way it simplifies logistics.

>>64661940
Cool story, bro.

>needing constant maintenance
You mean like ANY high-performance engine?

>>64661832
Why not push for everything you can get?

>>64661892
you are brown

>>64662122
Though gas turbines can run on almost everything. Including diesel.

>>64661835
>Its just a good, solid tank

Leo2 are much better, especially for ukraine.
More robust, less IR signature, less logistics footprint.

>>64661940
>In the past? Maybe. Now? Not at all since continental finally got a grip. We know from Ukrainian tankers the MTU V12 used in the Leo 2 is unreliable despite being a Diesel engine needing constant maintenance.

Continental does not make tank engines.
The MTU V12 in the Leopard is the most reliable tank engine on the planet.
The ones the ukrainians have are 50 years old, build in the 1970's, and they have neither trained mechanics nor maintenance depots with tools to fix them.

The Leopard 2 has been sold to 30+ countries and has been in service for 45 years, hauling ass over training grounds with rough terrain for billions of accumulated hours and kilometers.
The idea that suddenly some ukrainians would reveal flaws of the Leopard engine is ludicrous beyond belief.

>>64662010
>>helicopter turbines
>Abrams turbine is pretty special

So are you honey. But not in a good way.

>and not simply derived from an existing heli engine

uh huh?

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Avco-Lycoming_AGT1500#History

"In the early 1970s, the AGT1500 was developed into the PLT27, a flight-weight turboshaft for use in helicopters."

The overlap between heli-turbine and tank-turbine is really high. The core can be 100% identical. The reason the US went this route is because they had companies with experience in heli turbines, but nobody with diesel experience. Well, good diesels suitable for a tank.

>>64662044
The MTU V12 will happily run on anything that burns and needs half the fuel. The volume the turbine saves is eaten by extra fuel tanks.
The modern high power density diesels of MTU now match a turbine in space requirement and are even more efficient.

>>64662178
The MTU V12 in the Leo needs very little maintenance, and it is not a high performance engine. 1500hp from 46 liters.

>>64662212
The AVDS1790 is still made, by the company that used to be Teledyne-Continental.
Not sure if you just did not know, or what.
>The MTU V12 in the Leopard is the most reliable tank engine on the planet.
Agreed.
AFTER the AVDS1790.

>>64662917
>aircooled
>continental
>reliable

profound mental retardation

File: grok_video_.mp4 (501 KB, 640x480)

501 KB MP4

>>64661702

>>64663252
Cute retard

>>64663252
Russian? Serb?

>>64661702
petrol for small things
deezal for big things

>>64663286
Iceland.

>>64661708
>think jet fuel is
it gofast whooosh

>>64661708
jet fuel isn't diesel

>>64663526
Close enough that you can run diesels on jet fuel.

>>64663625
you can run diesels on used oil too
doesn't make it diesel

>>64663800
>numbers BEFORE the transmission

>>64663252
I can fix her. With my penis.

>>64661797
>Winter diesel is just diesel with more kerosene in it
Anon the overlap is insane for pragmatic reasons it is almost-diesel minus the really heavy hydrocarbons that sometimes are beneficial for engine lube design wise
>But this is why multifuel engines are multifuel engines

>>64662010
>But yeah, it's thirsty compared to diesel.
When idling. Turbines and diesels are pretty comparable when at driving power.

Ever stare at BSFCs anon?

>>64662212
>The MTU V12 will happily run on anything that burns and needs half the fuel.
I mean both the AGT1500 and MTU 873 will "run" on gasoline but you have a bit of power derate and/or service intervals drop because they're running at their edge of design given they're predominantly heavier hydrocarbon engines.

>The MTU V12 in the Leo needs very little maintenance, and it is not a high performance engine. 1500hp from 46 liters.
It depends. Germany has stick in ass maintenance requirements for their Leo2s vs Sweden who wanted more simplified logistics (at the cost of service intervals/life but very minor effects). Think unified lubricant versus specialist lubricant. Made the Ukrainians raise their eyebrow as they were looking at what was the same data/nameplate on the engine parts between donated Leo 2s.

Technically speaking the AGT1500 has even "simplier" maintenance because turbines have "less" moving parts (in that the blades are all one assembly) and moreso in that it lacks reciprocating/start-stop motion.

Not that modern MTUs are bad, they're wonderful engines as much as the AGT1500 is more like a 2,000hp monster that's limited because there's no reason to have a 100kph Abrams in practice.

>>64661702
I can fix her….

>>64664129
>Winter diesel is just diesel with more kerosene in it
That's the reason planes fly on jet fuel (kerosene) feel. Because it's freezing cold up higher and diesel would freeze.

>>64661819
>There is no US company which can make a high power density diesel engine
Complete bullshit, Caterpillar makes plenty of them for marine use. The US went with turbines for the Abrams because she was always going to be a heavy bitch and saving a tone on the engine helps.

>>64661797
>Kerosene is C9-C16 hydrocarbons. Flash point >100 °F
>Diesel is C10 to C22 hydrocarbons. Flash point >126 °F
so yes, kerosene is lighter (slighlty higher in the refinery stack) diesel

>>64661832
they pushed for tanks. the abrams is the most available NATO tank, believe it or not. nobody keeps thousands of leo2s in reserve.

>>64663032
Daww, you seem concerned at the 1790's superiority.
I find it adorable how much you squirm over the thought of it.

>>64664156
>It depends. Germany has stick in ass maintenance requirements for their Leo2s vs Sweden who wanted more simplified logistics (at the cost of service intervals/life but very minor effects). Think unified lubricant versus specialist lubricant. Made the Ukrainians raise their eyebrow as they were looking at what was the same data/nameplate on the engine parts between donated Leo 2s.
I remember that video, and i think there's something lost in translation there. Both the '122 and A6 come with the same set of POL-lists and range of service intervals

>>64664397
MTU's current series of tank engines does 100 horse power per liter of displacement.

Where is Caterpillar at, 50-60?
That's 1950-60's diesel technology, not high power density.

Only MTU makes high power density diesels for tanks, they define the state of the art, everyone else is multiple generations behind at this point.

The only engines which come close are commercial truck engines, which, despite desperate countries putting them in APCs and tanks, aren't really suitable for military vehicles.
The higher vehicle weight requires different torque curves these engines cannot produce, leading to poor performance or reliability issues.

>>64664605
Just use electric propulsion like the Elefant.

>>64664605
>Only MTU makes high power density diesels for tanks, they define the state of the art, everyone else is multiple generations behind at this point
I wouldnt say that, the tender for a new MBT engine for future tanks (assuming that they mean MGCS) went to Liebherr and not MTU a little while back. Ofc RRPS have their hands full with current deliveries so it makes sense to get more actors into the MBT engine game, but its still interesting to see BAAINBw even consider a different supplier.

>>64664621
Tank diesel engines have very specific requirements, and tanks these days are build in numbers of a couple 100, maybe a couple 1000 over many decades.
This has lead to most tank diesel engine manufacturers go bankrupt, the few which are left build outdated designs, or basically sell you a truck engine which is barely suitable, or are MTU, the only real modern tank engine manufacturer who has a total monopoly on high power high quality tank engines.

Liebherr has no suitable engine in their portfolio and no experience in the field.
If MGCS goes anywhere, it will eventually have an MTU engine.

>>64664621
>MGCS
Will fail just like FCAS has failed.
We have absolute top-notch tank component suppliers in germany, which produce the best parts in the world.

MTU - tank diesel engines
Renk - gearboxes
Diehl - tracks
Zeiss - optics
Hensold - thermals
Rheinmetall - guns
Deisenroth - armor packages

KMW - systems integration

We have everything needed for a top notch tank, thanks to the Leopard 2 dominating export sales.
Nobody wanted to buy the Leclerc because it's a piece of shit. Hence the french industry has withered and died.
The entire idea that we should cooperate with france for a tank is ludicrous. It is a massive downside for germany, and zero upside.

It is a braindead politician idea, because they want france for FCAS because of dassault's experience and the money.
Now that france blew up FCAS, there is no reason to make concessions for MGCS.

Liebheer is another politician brainfart, MTU spend a fortune developing the high power diesel engine technology which powers the Puma IFV, all which is required is to order the 12 cylinder variant instead of the 10 cylinder variant, and there you go.
Having Liebheer catch up to MTU's 40 year advantage in diesel technology and their military experience for a couple 100 engines is absurd.

Will never fucking happen.

Liebheer probably undercut MTU in price by offering a bogstandard truck engine with half the power density and 3x the size, but that's not suitable.

>>64664636
>>64664650
I had to re-check, its BAAAIn ordering KNDS to develop an alternative powerpack for the Leo 2, "Alternatives Triebwerk KPz LEOPARD 2 (Projekt OLYMP)".
Last FSS meeting only Liebherr was considered a possible candidate on the engine-side, with Renk being the prefered tranny (as always)

>>64664694
>Last FSS meeting only Liebherr was considered a possible candidate on the engine-side

Utter nonsense from someone who has no clue.

The original Leo 2 873 engine has 47 liters displacement and 1500 hp
The 883 power pack MTU developed 20 years ago has 27 liters displacement and 1630 hp
The new 10V199 derived from the newer line of light engines for trucks and APCs like the boxer etc has 20 liters displacement and 1490 hp
The 892 V10 in the Puma has 11,1 liters and 1088hp
If they bumped this up to Leo 2 power tier engine, it would be 15.5 liters and 1523 hp.

I doubt they'll pick the puma's engine, since that is crazy high power density, but it will be at least the 10V199 maybe a 12V199 with 1500hp+

Liebheer has nothing even remotely close to even the 873 from 1970's, yet alone the 1990's 883 or the the 10V199 or 892.

MTU has 3 different lines of motors it can offer, one already in a fully integrated europowerpack ready to drop into the Leo2 with a renk transmission etc all figured out, a new 10V199 solution which has parts commonality with the Patria, Boxer, and various trucks, or a 893 if they really want to squeeze it hard.

>>64664847
>Utter nonsense from someone who has no clue.
For some reason i'll take Frank Lobitz's word over yours, but OK.

>>64664863
And i'm not arguing against RRPS being able to deliver different engines, what i'm saying is that as of now, BAAINBw (or KNDS for that matter) seems to favor having Liebherr doing the alternate Leopard engine as of now

>>64661708
Metal melter

>>64664875
BAAINBw suffers from profound mental retardation (nothing new), and as soon as someone who knows what a tank looks like sees this shit will yell at them to fuck off because Liebheer can't make a fucking tank engine.

>>64665212
>BAAINBw suffers from profound mental retardation (nothing new)
Does KNDS as well?

>>64661824
The Cummincels are seething at this post

What are all these shitty off-topic threads on this board geared for diabetic zogbot-by-the-dozen responses?

>>64665535
Shills trying to drive threads they down like off the board

File: 1588421756526.gif (1.37 MB, 430x360)

1.37 MB GIF

Wut happenz if I put le jet fuel into my le car?

>>64661819
The AGT1500 is multifuel. You could run the thing on diesel, kerosene, gasoline, or even distilled alcohol if it's at least 100 proof.

>>64665570
Car stalls out and you'll need the entire fuel system purged. Similar to putting diesel in a gasoline engine.

Jets mostly use Kerosene which takes a bit more oomph to ignite. You're car will work fine using the gasoline still in the fuel line but that'll eventually get displaced by kerosene and shut the engine down.

>>64665333
KNDS wants money. They do what they have to to get it.
>>64665601
The MTU 873 is also multifuel.
>>64665535
Sorry for not sticking to the AR-15 thread #12581258282682862828 to talk about yet another AR-15.

>>64661724
>highly.
Moderately. Jet A/A-1 standard has quite a bit of margin.

>>64662212
>The MTU V12 will happily run on anything that burns and needs half the fuel.

Well said. The only difference is have heard from tankers is that they might need to top off the oil i little more often, if they feed it something other than diesel.