Crab to be,
Thanks for your detailed explanation. Though I doubt that we ever can convince the person in question. While he seems to have gotten his military knowledge from “Call of Duty”, he probably gained his aviation knowledge through playing MS Flight Simulator.
Jan
Crab_to_be
Welcome to the site. Hope to see further useful posts from you.
Possibly the first time in my life I have acknowledged my gratitude to Crab Air.
Well done that man.
Please can we have no more of this silliness so we can spend more time arguing about why playing Call of Duty gives more insight into modern warfare than actually fighting in real wars.
Too bloody right!
Given that it was in the context of an (explained) redesign of the engine, your claim that an engine 10x the size will be roughly 10x heavier is only true if and only if Air is approximately the same density as Nickel alloy/Titanium (delete as appropriate depending on part of engine)!
Despite multiple attempts to politely explain this fallacy to you by both myself and Stoatman (both of us having spend a lot of time working on the subject and so having a good understanding of what is going on) you persist in this. Therefore I suggest we have a demonstration where we throw alternating lumps of air and nickel (both of the same size) at you to see if you can tell them apart by feel. Hopefully this will clarify matters.
Oh, and nice post Crab_to_be - wish I had the patience to type out something like that. Only comment to make is that you’ve neglected to mention that the early jets (such as we were discussing at the time in the original thread) used centrifugal compressors which had even less to do with fans…
ironman,the submachineguns can perforate tanks?
please guys,start doing easy question for him,im not sure he understands what you said.
To paraphrase Duck Dodgers, this thread has resoundingly proven that Ironpan is so full of sh1t that the whites of his eyes have turned brown! :twisted:
Thud Thud Thud, the sound of heads being banged aginst Ironigmans brick wall of mindset. I look forward to his post on the Military Experience thread.
And time and time again your utter ignorance allows you to believe that you can convince me that modern armies use AR’s at 600m for anything. You have fallen off a turnip truck my boy.
Sorry for my tardiness in picking this up.
The documentary A Company of Soldiers shown on BBC4 two weeks ago (and aired in the US) follows a US squad on duty in Iraq and has some interesting footage.
A soldier manning a VCP can be seen firing rapid shots (from a M16 or derivative) at a suspect vehicle approaching the VCP.
The suspect vehicle was at least 600m distant, and I doubt that the shots were aimed properly because of his rate of fire - 1 every second or thereabouts, fired from a standing position.
An example of automatic rifle use beyond 600m, or an example of sloppy practice?
<sarchasm>
I think Sid’s diagrams are very helpful here (see diagram here: http://putfile.com/pic.php?pic=6/15510064185.jpg&s=x4 ). At just under 300 yards the bullets are hitting the “IRONMAN barrier” a newly discovered quirk of physics. Therefore, the troops are clearly firing in the knowledge that it is perfectly safe and will merely serve to indicate to the Iraqis not to come any closer!
</sarchasm>
I recall using an SA-80 (the old one) and SUSAT loaned to me by Her Majesty the Queen on a few occasions. On at least one of those, we had to progress down a firing range and shoot from various positions. I seem to recall we started at 600m (maybe further back) and worked our way down to 300m in all positions and with respirator at one point.
I also recall that the range drum could be twirled beyond 600m.
Finally, I believe it is still the case that section fire is recognised in doctrine as effective beyond 600m. I can’t remember the upper range distance though!
An example of automatic rifle use beyond 600m, or an example of sloppy practice?
Oops! I should have put assault rifle, not automatic rifle! Perhaps the M1 carbine vs assault rifle has confused me!
That level of confusion is acceptable! certain others however are not!
I would like to congratulate you in the most patroninsg manner possible for having the courage to put your hands up and admit fault! many a brave man, a steadfast man an IRONMAN would not have had the courage to concede that they were at fault!
cheers Bluff
Ironman,please continue playing call of duty or do something more important than saying shit.
we aren`t going to believe that,i believe more to bush than you.
Ironman,please continue playing call of duty or do something more important than saying shit.
we aren`t going to believe that,i believe more to bush than you.
Well done Erwin!!! Tea and medals for you old boy once again!
if this continue like this is,i will think the luger was an assault rifle,and the piat was a knife.
:lol: :lol: True words Erwin!! :lol: :lol:
Now dont be facetious, IRONMAN has told you some things that are true!
outstanding soldiers of WW" top of page 5
It is just a shame he has denied saying it ever since.
Posted: Tue May 24, 2005 9:33 pm Post subject:
[quote]Erwin Schätzer(argentina) wrote:
carbine is a light rifle,that i learnt with my escase knowledge about this rifle,anybody shoot a carbine?,that`s the only form to knowThat is true Mr. Schätzer, it is a light rifle, and as such, it did not shoot pistol ammunition. Albiet a weak rifle, but effective at it’s maximum effective range, as are all weapons. It may not be effective at 600m, like a standard or sniper rifle, but it was a dandy little weapon.
[/quote]
Dear Lord, not more of your jet engine blather. Haven’t you been intimidated enough by the quotes from NASA and General Electric, both of which refer to the compressor section of both turbofan and turbojet engines as a series of “fans”? Do you want me to post the quotes from those experts again? Will that shut you up about it if I post it in this thread like I did the other one you created where you made that silly statement?
Why not.
“Modern turbojet engines are modular in concept and design. The central power-producing core, common to all jet engines, is called the gas generator (described above). To it are attached peripheral modules such as propeller reduction gearsets (turboprop/turboshaft), ypass fans, and afterburners. The kind of peripheral fitted is dependent on the aircraft design application.”
http://www.answers.com/topic/jet-engine
“The most common type of jet engine is the turbojet engine. Air from the atmosphere enters the fan section at the front of the engine where it is compressed in the compressor section.”
http://www.centennialofflight.gov/essay/Dictionary/Jet_Engines/DI88.htm
"Turbojet Thriust (NASA)
We have shown here a tube-shaped inlet, like one you would see on an airliner. But inlets come in many shapes and sizes depending on the aircraft’s mission. At the rear of the inlet, the air enters the compressor. The compressor acts like many rows of airfoils, with each row producing a small jump in pressure. A compressor is like an electric fan and we have to supply energy to turn the compressor."
http://www.grc.nasa.gov/WWW/K-12/airplane/turbth.html
“The earliest attempts at jet engines were hybrid designs in which an external power source supplied the compression. In this system (called a thermojet by Secondo Campini) the air is first compressed by a fan driven by a conventional piston engine,”
http://www.biography.ms/Jet_engine.html
"Turbojet
On its way out the nozzle, some of the gas pressure is used to drive a turbine. A turbine is a series of rotors or fans connected to a single shaft."
http://www.keveney.com/jets.html
"Turbojet Engine (NASA)
Student Sheet(s)
Background Information
Most modern passenger and military aircraft are powered by gas turbine engines, which are also called jet engines. The first and simplest type of gas turbine is the turbojet."
Images from NASA’s web site:
“Large amounts of surrounding air are continuously brought into the engine inlet or intake. At the rear of the inlet, the air enters the compressor. The compressor acts like many rows of airfoils, with each row producing a small jump in pressure. A compressor is like an electric fan.”
http://www.nasaexplores.com/show_912_student_sh.php?id=03010390159
“In 1936, a year before his turbojet ran successfully, Whittle applied for a patent for a turbofan, or bypass, engine,”
http://www.memagazine.org/supparch/flight03/jetsfans/jetsfans.html
"Modern turbojet engines are modular in concept and design. The central power-producing core, common to all jet engines, is called the gas generator (described above). To it are attached peripheral modules such as propeller reduction gearsets (turboprop/turboshaft), bypass fans, and afterburners. "
http://www.algebra.com/algebra/about/history/Jet-engine.wikipedia
"A variant of the pure ramjet is the ‘combined cycle’ engine, intended to overcome the limitations of the pure ramjet. An example of this is the Air Turbo Ramjet (ATR) which operates as a conventional turbojet at subsonic speeds and a fan assisted ramjet at speeds below Mach 6.
The ATREX engine developed in Japan is an experimental implementation of this concept. It uses liquid hydrogen fuel in a fairly exotic single-fan arrangement."
http://www.absoluteastronomy.com/encyclopedia/R/Ra/Ramjet.htm
"General Electric - Engine Vocabulary
The compressor is the first component in the core of the engine. It is made up of a series of fans with many blades and is attached to the shaft.
Core: The core engine module is aft of the fan module and forward of the turbine stator case and is made up of three components:"
http://www.geae.com/education/vocabulary.html
Good gracious kiddo. Nobody is saying they are actually fans. Is your comprehensuion that weak? I only pointed out that your statement:
“Jet engines do not contain any components that could be referred to as fans.”
…was incorrect, because the makers of jet engines themselves use the term “fan” to describe the compressor in layman’s terms. And they do, and I proved it with their own words, and could do it again if you like, so the statement is indeed incorrect.
Get over it already. :roll:
Sheesh. Another genius.
Given that it was in the context of an (explained) redesign of the engine, your claim that an engine 10x the size will be roughly 10x heavier is only true [/quote]
I never said anything about one weighing 10 times as much :lol: …and you know it. What I did do though, was shoot down the claim that a jet engine of one size weighs about the same as one 10 times it’s size. Trying to put claims in someone’s mouth who did not make them makes you a loser. Don’t be a loser!
Here’s proof the claim is untrue, since you drug it up:
Here are the specifications for several currently used General Electric commercial turbojet engines. If you look at these specifications, you will see the idioticy of such a claim as “a jet engine 10 times that of another weighs about the same”. Enjoy!
CF34-3A
Diameter: 49 inches
Weight: 1,625 lbs.
CF34-8C1
Diameter: 52 inches
Weight: 2,350 lbs.
That is an increase of only 3 inches diameter, and an increase in weight of 2,185 lbs, which is more than the smaller jet engine weighs!
Let’s look at a few more.
CF34-10D
Diameter: 57 inches
Weight: 3,800 lbs.
CF6-50C1/C2
Diameter: 105 inches
Weight: 8,966 lbs.!!!
CF6-50E2
Diameter: 105 inches
Weight: 9,047 lbs.!!!
From this we can clearly see, that one jet engine of 57 inches (2,350 lbs.) which is less than twice the diameter weighs far less than half as much as another at 105 (8,966 lbs.). That’s a difference of more 6,616 lbs, 3.82 times the weight, or a 382% increase in weight. The other 105 in. engine weighs 81 lbs. more than the first!
Naturally, these weights would vary by a small percentage from one manufacturer to another by diameter, but you can see how a jet engine of one size weights far, far more than “about the same as” another twice it’s size.The difference is tremendous, more like 3 times the weight by size.
CT7-2A
Diameter: 27 in.
Weight: 429 lbs.
CT7-8
Diameter: 26
Weight: 537 lbs.
That’s a difference of 1 inch and 108 lbs! Imagine if one were twice the diameter of the other! Whew!
Here’s a list of them:
http://www.geae.com/engines/commercial/comparison_turbofan.html
So, there you have it. A jet engine twice the size of another weighs far, far, far more than “about the same as”, regardless of what type of jet engine it is. Now one that is 10 times the size of another, like the original claim… well, you can see how ridiculous it is to think they could weigh about the same, eh?
It must be hard trying to peddle hogwash and having it thrown back at you.
