Author Topic: no substitute for cubic inches  (Read 2199 times)

Offline SIK1

  • AH Training Corps
  • Gold Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 3761
Re: no substitute for cubic inches
« Reply #15 on: September 30, 2009, 05:41:32 PM »
It should make changing the spark plugs a bit easier  :aok  <BG>


Pipz

Being a diesel it wouldn't have any spark plugs.

I do like the turbo charger that's larger than my house.
444th Air Mafia since Air Warrior
Proudly flying with VF-17 The Jolly Rogers

"Masters of the Air" Scenario - JG54

Offline Captain Virgil Hilts

  • Platinum Member
  • ******
  • Posts: 6128
Re: no substitute for cubic inches
« Reply #16 on: September 30, 2009, 06:07:30 PM »
Quote
Each cylinder displaces 111,143 cubic inches (1820 liters) and produces 7780 horsepower.

Oddly enough, the supercharged V8 Hemi nitromethane/methanol burning Top Fuel dragster engine has a displacement of 500 cubic inches, and generates 8,000HP. In the entire 60 seconds or so it runs between rebuilds, it burns approximately 8-11 gallons of nitromethane/methanol mix (95% nitromethane). Nitromethane costs approximately $3500 per 55 gallon drum. Total value of the engine itself, when every component is brand new, is about $50K.
"I haven't seen Berlin yet, from the ground or the air, and I plan on doing both, BEFORE the war is over."

SaVaGe


Offline RightF00T

  • Silver Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 1943
Re: no substitute for cubic inches
« Reply #17 on: September 30, 2009, 06:33:17 PM »
And I thought changing the headgasket on my Nissan Sentra was a b*tch!!  :O

Offline dBeav

  • Copper Member
  • **
  • Posts: 178
      • http://yankeeairmuseum.org
Re: no substitute for cubic inches
« Reply #18 on: September 30, 2009, 06:38:34 PM »
Even at its most efficient power setting, the big 14 consumes 1,660 gallons of heavy fuel oil per hour.

That's a lot of bacon fat!

Offline OOZ662

  • Platinum Member
  • ******
  • Posts: 7019
Re: no substitute for cubic inches
« Reply #19 on: September 30, 2009, 07:16:17 PM »
Warhammer vs an Atlas, that's a toughie.

It's a screenshot from a trailer. Was actually a pretty good fight. :D
A Rook who first flew 09/26/03 at the age of 13, has been a GL in 10+ Scenarios, and was two-time Points and First Annual 68KO Cup winner of the AH Extreme Air Racing League.

Offline Wolfala

  • Platinum Member
  • ******
  • Posts: 4875
Re: no substitute for cubic inches
« Reply #20 on: September 30, 2009, 07:49:49 PM »
It's a screenshot from a trailer. Was actually a pretty good fight. :D

Enlighten me as to the origin of this screen cap? I miss my mechs.


the best cure for "wife ack" is to deploy chaff:    $...$$....$....$$$.....$ .....$$$.....$ ....$$

Offline OOZ662

  • Platinum Member
  • ******
  • Posts: 7019
Re: no substitute for cubic inches
« Reply #21 on: September 30, 2009, 07:51:27 PM »
Linky. There was one somewhere that had a developer breaking down all the features in the vid that are planned to be in the game, but I'm not sure where it is. It was posted on here before somewhere.
A Rook who first flew 09/26/03 at the age of 13, has been a GL in 10+ Scenarios, and was two-time Points and First Annual 68KO Cup winner of the AH Extreme Air Racing League.

Offline Wolfala

  • Platinum Member
  • ******
  • Posts: 4875
Re: no substitute for cubic inches
« Reply #22 on: September 30, 2009, 07:53:01 PM »
Oddly enough, the supercharged V8 Hemi nitromethane/methanol burning Top Fuel dragster engine has a displacement of 500 cubic inches, and generates 8,000HP. In the entire 60 seconds or so it runs between rebuilds, it burns approximately 8-11 gallons of nitromethane/methanol mix (95% nitromethane). Nitromethane costs approximately $3500 per 55 gallon drum. Total value of the engine itself, when every component is brand new, is about $50K.


On Nitromethane prices.

http://www.competitionplus.com/index.php?option=com_content&task=view&id=6087&Itemid=6

The price of a 55-gallon barrel of nitromethane was $650 and immediately was raised to $900 with the cost expected to climb to $1,400 before the season’s end. Homeland Security was cited as a reason for the increase although a call to the Homeland Security Department by CompetitionPlus.com refuted the claim.

As this scenario played out, Schumacher procured another Chinese source of nitro and had a tanker of the fuel en route to the United States when the NHRA implemented a rule stating only the brands under exclusivity to VP Race Fuels were approved sources.

The NHRA eventually capped the price at $800 in 2004.

The Pro Nitro brand was declared the official source of nitromethane on the IHRA tour and this product was sold for $650. Many racers began to question the difference in price for an equal in quality product which was used largely by NHRA teams in testing.

The second skirmish between the official supplier and Pro Nitro transpired in 2006 when many teams covertly ran the lesser expensive source of nitro until a handful of those teams were put on secret probation when the number of runs they made in competition didn’t jibe up with receipts from the official supplier.

VP Race Fuels defended the exclusivity as protecting the sport’s only domestic supplier of nitromethane – Dow-Angus. Dow-Angus announced in November of 2006 they were ceasing production of nitromethane for racing leaving the only known source as the Chinese brand.

Last year, VP Race Fuels raised the price of nitromethane to $950 during the NHRA U.S. Nationals race weekend.

With the advent of U.S. Department of Homeland Security regulations, a drum of nitromethane was reduced to 42-gallons or 400 pounds while the price remained the same $950 for a lesser amount of product.

Citing Homeland Security and the need for an armed guard as well as increased paperwork, the price was launched to $1,250 per barrel. The paperwork according to Schumacher requires 15 – 20 minutes and the armed guard was only used during the evening hours of the NHRA Gatornationals last month. There was no added security during the daylight hours.

The price reportedly has been dropped to $1,050 according to ESPN2 coverage of the event.

<<

Still expensive toejam


the best cure for "wife ack" is to deploy chaff:    $...$$....$....$$$.....$ .....$$$.....$ ....$$

Offline Captain Virgil Hilts

  • Platinum Member
  • ******
  • Posts: 6128
Re: no substitute for cubic inches
« Reply #23 on: September 30, 2009, 09:02:30 PM »
I work on a Top Fuel car (low budget privateer) part time. Last year, at times, we paid $3500 for a drum, because there wasn't even enough to go around. Yeah, it's back down, and it was only there for a while, but we also paid $1500 a drum for 2-3 months.
"I haven't seen Berlin yet, from the ground or the air, and I plan on doing both, BEFORE the war is over."

SaVaGe


Offline Saurdaukar

  • Plutonium Member
  • *******
  • Posts: 8610
      • Army of Muppets
Re: no substitute for cubic inches
« Reply #24 on: September 30, 2009, 09:46:23 PM »
...no substitute for cubic inches... ...RTA96-C turbocharged two-stroke diesel....

Engineers disagree with you.  ;)

Offline hubsonfire

  • Plutonium Member
  • *******
  • Posts: 8658
Re: no substitute for cubic inches
« Reply #25 on: October 01, 2009, 12:04:23 AM »
No substitute... except forced induction.  :D
mook
++Blue Knights++

Proper punctuation and capitalization go a long way towards people paying attention to your posts.  -Stoney
I was wondering why I get ignored so often.  -Hitech

Offline sntslilhlpr6601

  • Copper Member
  • **
  • Posts: 254
Re: no substitute for cubic inches
« Reply #26 on: October 01, 2009, 02:16:49 AM »
Oddly enough, the supercharged V8 Hemi nitromethane/methanol burning Top Fuel dragster engine has a displacement of 500 cubic inches, and generates 8,000HP.

The big difference between the two (and I'm sure you already know this) is the torque generated. Torque is really the only important number when you're moving a big container ship. And since hp is really just a product of torque and rpm, those big loping cylinders (never thought I'd ever say that for a two-stroke) won't turn around fast enough to get the same kind of mind blowing number as the torque they put out.

Good shtuff, thanks for posting. I still can't get over the size of that turbo, never mind the fact that its a two-stroke. I suppose the two-stroke design is simpler, which is helpful when you're making something that big. I just always think of screaming dirt bike engines when it comes to two-strokes.

Offline Die Hard

  • Gold Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 2205
Re: no substitute for cubic inches
« Reply #27 on: October 01, 2009, 02:56:07 AM »
Wärtsilä-Sulzer is Finnish not Japanese, though their marine engines are produced on license elsewhere. Interestingly it's a two-stroke.
It is better to be violent, if there is violence in our hearts, than to put on the cloak of nonviolence to cover impotence.

-Gandhi

Offline mechanic

  • Plutonium Member
  • *******
  • Posts: 11328
Re: no substitute for cubic inches
« Reply #28 on: October 01, 2009, 07:40:44 AM »
The last 2 stroke i sat on was a KH-125 and it blew up when i ran her at 80mph down a dual carriage way.  :mad:
And I don't know much, but I do know this. With a golden heart comes a rebel fist.

Offline Captfish

  • Nickel Member
  • ***
  • Posts: 665
      • VF-6 Fighter Sqdn
Re: no substitute for cubic inches
« Reply #29 on: October 01, 2009, 12:50:34 PM »
I Have a 52' commercial boat now and it has a pair of small cummins two stroke turbo diesels. Great engines and very simple. pre 1970s two stroke diesels were very common in boats. They changed over to four stroke because two strokes were very prone to "runaway" :rock
'CO' VF-6 Fighter Sqdn

Hitting trees since tour 78