Topic Actions

Topic Search

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: Google [Bot] and 6 guests

King Haalahd VII's design

This fascinating series is a combination of historical seafaring, swashbuckling adventure, and high technological science-fiction. Join us in a discussion!
Re: King Haalahd VII's design
Post by Daryl   » Wed Mar 14, 2018 6:19 am

Daryl
Admiral

Posts: 2397
Joined: Sat Apr 24, 2010 1:57 am
Location: Queensland Australia

The Leopard tank introduced in 1979 had a diesel engine, admittedly a twin turbo V12, but worked very well.
Top
Re: King Haalahd VII's design
Post by Weird Harold   » Wed Mar 14, 2018 7:11 am

Weird Harold
Fleet Admiral

Posts: 4201
Joined: Thu Apr 24, 2014 10:25 pm
Location: "Lost Wages", NV

Daryl wrote:The Leopard tank introduced in 1979 had a diesel engine, admittedly a twin turbo V12, but worked very well.


IIRC, the US and possibly the French are the only countries that didn't use Diesel engines in their tanks in WWII.
.
.
.
Answers! I got lots of answers!

(Now if I could just find the right questions.)
Top
Re: King Haalahd VII's design
Post by doug941   » Wed Mar 14, 2018 8:42 pm

doug941
Lieutenant Commander

Posts: 132
Joined: Sat May 03, 2014 6:21 pm

Weird Harold wrote:
Daryl wrote:The Leopard tank introduced in 1979 had a diesel engine, admittedly a twin turbo V12, but worked very well.


IIRC, the US and possibly the French are the only countries that didn't use Diesel engines in their tanks in WWII.


The US didn't use diesels as their PRIMARY tank power plants, but they did use them and secondary source engines. The UK and Germany also used gas engines almost exclusively.

US tank and/or armored vehicles that used diesels were M3 lights, M3mediums, M4 mediums, M10 tank destroyers and M36 TDs,
Top
Re: King Haalahd VII's design
Post by lyonheart   » Thu Mar 15, 2018 4:47 am

lyonheart
Fleet Admiral

Posts: 4787
Joined: Tue Sep 08, 2009 11:27 pm

Hi Weird Harold,

Actually we built thousands of diesel engined tanks in WW2, over 8000 M4A2's that had a pair of GM Diesel engines mainly for the Russians and some for the Marines and a few for the army in the Pacific; as well as a half dozen different IC engine types (which is where the second number designator is used) but because Detroit didn't want the GI's possibly preferring steam engines, they nixed the Doble proposed steam powered tank that also attempted to meet the tank engine bottle neck.

The French had a larger motor vehicle industry than Germany before WW2, with decent engines and fuel network [which the Germans used very well in 1940] so they didn't feel the need for Diesels.

L

Weird Harold wrote:
Daryl wrote:The Leopard tank introduced in 1979 had a diesel engine, admittedly a twin turbo V12, but worked very well.


IIRC, the US and possibly the French are the only countries that didn't use Diesel engines in their tanks in WWII.
Any snippet or post from RFC is good if not great!
Top
Re: King Haalahd VII's design
Post by JustCurious   » Thu Mar 29, 2018 6:06 am

JustCurious
Commander

Posts: 163
Joined: Wed Apr 13, 2011 4:09 am

Charis will not be the first to introduce any naval weapon that on balance works to its disadvantage. Someone in Charis came up with the idea of a sea-mine and was sat on. Yes it was developed by the enemy later but Charis did not introduce it.
So do not assume that anyone will come up with the torpedo, something much more complicated, I do not see Charis introducing it though they would respond rapidly to.its introduction. And even if it is introduced I do not know whether they would introduce the engine improvements that increased its range before the First World War.
If the torpedo is not introduced then the destroyer will not be either. And there will be less reason to develop submarines. They would require electricity anyhow.
Also without electricity it would be difficult to develop the fire control systems that made long range actions possible. This would have consequences for the armour schemes.
Top
Re: King Haalahd VII's design
Post by PeterZ   » Sat Mar 31, 2018 3:27 pm

PeterZ
Fleet Admiral

Posts: 5643
Joined: Fri Apr 01, 2011 1:11 pm
Location: Colorado

I wonder if the Inner Circle will want to introduce torpedos and destroyers not for primarily military reasons, but for economic reasons. Sure inventing torpedos will help weaker navies. However, building a navy with BBs, cruisers and DDs will be more expensive than any economy without steam power can afford. Thus forcing Safehold nations to confront greater demands for public funds is the best strategic tool to incent the adoption of technical innovations by those nations.

So, the ICN will constantly improve existing ship types as well as introduce new ship types that will alter the combat environment. That change will force a greater demand for public revenues. Raising those funds will require a much more efficient economy to afford the expanded expenditures.
Top
Re: King Haalahd VII's design
Post by n7axw   » Sat Mar 31, 2018 8:13 pm

n7axw
Fleet Admiral

Posts: 5058
Joined: Wed Jan 22, 2014 8:54 pm
Location: Viborg, SD

PeterZ wrote:I wonder if the Inner Circle will want to introduce torpedos and destroyers not for primarily military reasons, but for economic reasons. Sure inventing torpedos will help weaker navies. However, building a navy with BBs, cruisers and DDs will be more expensive than any economy without steam power can afford. Thus forcing Safehold nations to confront greater demands for public funds is the best strategic tool to incent the adoption of technical innovations by those nations.

So, the ICN will constantly improve existing ship types as well as introduce new ship types that will alter the combat environment. That change will force a greater demand for public revenues. Raising those funds will require a much more efficient economy to afford the expanded expenditures.


I suspect that it might be easier than you think. Introducing the new tech to the civilian side of the economy will produce boom times to Charis like the dot.com bubble back in the nineties.

Don

-
When any group seeks political power in God's name, both religion and politics are instantly corrupted.
Top
Re: King Haalahd VII's design
Post by PeterZ   » Sat Mar 31, 2018 8:20 pm

PeterZ
Fleet Admiral

Posts: 5643
Joined: Fri Apr 01, 2011 1:11 pm
Location: Colorado

n7axw wrote:
PeterZ wrote:I wonder if the Inner Circle will want to introduce torpedos and destroyers not for primarily military reasons, but for economic reasons. Sure inventing torpedos will help weaker navies. However, building a navy with BBs, cruisers and DDs will be more expensive than any economy without steam power can afford. Thus forcing Safehold nations to confront greater demands for public funds is the best strategic tool to incent the adoption of technical innovations by those nations.

So, the ICN will constantly improve existing ship types as well as introduce new ship types that will alter the combat environment. That change will force a greater demand for public revenues. Raising those funds will require a much more efficient economy to afford the expanded expenditures.


I suspect that it might be easier than you think. Introducing the new tech to the civilian side of the economy will produce boom times to Charis like the dot.com bubble back in the nineties.

Don

-

Yeah, it will. However, the Inner Circle needs to pile on the incentives to adopt ALL of Charis' innovations. The wider te adoption the less likely the Return ends in rakurai strikes, since the tech will be so wide spread.
Top
Re: King Haalahd VII's design
Post by William Underhill   » Sun Apr 01, 2018 10:08 am

William Underhill
Midshipman

Posts: 4
Joined: Mon Dec 04, 2017 1:05 pm
Location: Quebec, Canada

Re: aircraft gas turbine engines, and ignition thereof, a couple of questions occur to me:

1) would an induction sparker violate the Proscriptions? Probably, I'm thinking, though it wouldn't be much of an electrical system - just a coil moving through a magnet, going to electrodes in the burner can(s). I'm wondering if magnets (or lodestones) are known on Safehold?

2) alternatively to an induction sparker, is it possible to have a fairly robust (i.e., high-temperature tolerant) flint-type striker mounted in the burner can(s)? Or some sort of mechanical arrangement to move one into the can for ignition, then out again afterwards?

3) as an alternative to a sparker, is it possible to build a high enough compression in a turbine for self-ignition? Maybe with the addition of plates that block gas flow out of the burner cans until ignition occurs? Basically, I'm wondering if an analogue to the diesel engine is possible in a turbine.

This all presumes, of course, that the basic notion of an internal combustion engine, whether reciprocating or rotating, gets introduced. Personally I'm inclined in favour of turbine engines; they're mechanically simpler than reciprocating and can run on a wider range of combustible fuels. I don't recall RFC dropping any hints as to whether petroleum deposits exist, but the existence of coal implies (to me, anyway) that they do.
---
“Take sides! Always take sides! You will sometimes be wrong - but the man who refuses to take sides must always be wrong. Heaven save us from poltroons who fear to make a choice.” R.A. Heinlein, Double Star
Top
Re: King Haalahd VII's design
Post by n7axw   » Sun Apr 01, 2018 9:06 pm

n7axw
Fleet Admiral

Posts: 5058
Joined: Wed Jan 22, 2014 8:54 pm
Location: Viborg, SD

William Underhill wrote:Re: aircraft gas turbine engines, and ignition thereof, a couple of questions occur to me:

1) would an induction sparker violate the Proscriptions? Probably, I'm thinking, though it wouldn't be much of an electrical system - just a coil moving through a magnet, going to electrodes in the burner can(s). I'm wondering if magnets (or lodestones) are known on Safehold?

2) alternatively to an induction sparker, is it possible to have a fairly robust (i.e., high-temperature tolerant) flint-type striker mounted in the burner can(s)? Or some sort of mechanical arrangement to move one into the can for ignition, then out again afterwards?

3) as an alternative to a sparker, is it possible to build a high enough compression in a turbine for self-ignition? Maybe with the addition of plates that block gas flow out of the burner cans until ignition occurs? Basically, I'm wondering if an analogue to the diesel engine is possible in a turbine.

This all presumes, of course, that the basic notion of an internal combustion engine, whether reciprocating or rotating, gets introduced. Personally I'm inclined in favour of turbine engines; they're mechanically simpler than reciprocating and can run on a wider range of combustible fuels. I don't recall RFC dropping any hints as to whether petroleum deposits exist, but the existence of coal implies (to me, anyway) that they do.


Yes. There are references to petroleum deposits. I don't have references at my fingertips and am too lazy to hunt them down right now. But they are there.

I don't see any valid reason why a turbine engine couldn't be diesel. But then again, I'm not an engineer!

Don

-
When any group seeks political power in God's name, both religion and politics are instantly corrupted.
Top

Return to Safehold