Suralmo-Hyperbar engines for use in tanks

[C. Cadaver]

Hello all,

I am currently doing some for-fun reading on tank engines, and I've been told that a hyperbar engine would be an excellent choice for a tank engine.

My question then is would a hyperbar engine provide a good power to weight ratio for a tank requiring a 1300kW engine? How would fuel economy be effected?

From what I can see, the only hyperbar diesel engine in production is the V8X in the AMX-56 Leclerc. Are there others that I've missed?

If anyone could provide me with a link for further reading, or, even better, answer my question, I'd greatly appreciate it.

 

[Pkruse]

Basically a small gas turbine with a high bypass ratio. They tend to be inefficient, but they do move a lot of air. But combined with a diesel can be a good choice. With recent great improvements in gas small turbines in this power range, however; I'd think it better to ditch the diesel in favor of a gas turbine when weight is a major concern.

 

[xxChrisxx]

Not too sure about the specific engine in the Leclerc, but I find this stuff really interesting.

Efficiency or weight doesn't really matter too much for tank engines though, it's a nice to have. Reliability and endurance are the primary design goals.

As diesel engine load is controlled by the fuel injection and it has no throttle plate, it acutally makes sense to have as much air going through the engine as physically possible. Using a gas tubine to do this is better than a turbo (no lag at very high boost pressures and boost available at startup).

It's why virtually all MBT just use big diesels.

It's only when you get a specific requirement, that you see deviation from this. In the case of the M1 Abrams, they wanted the engine to run on anything. So they went for a gas turbine.

 

[Pkruse]

I wonder how the Abrams deals with the lag problem?

 

[HowlerMonkey]

By running near 100% power at almost all times.

 

[Pkruse]

In a turbine idle rpm & full rpm is nearly the same. Only fuel consumption is much different. I wonder how the Abrams transmission handles that?

 

[C. Cadaver]

Thanks guys, I really appreciate the info.

@Pkruse: Regarding switching to a turbine as the Abrams did, that brings up a number of design issues, such as heat and fuel consumption. However, from what I gather a small, unloaded turbine would be very efficient.

On the plus side it also eliminate the APU, which is, at minimum a 200kg increase in weight, and at worst a 500kg battery pack.

@Chris: You are probably right, in regards to real-life tanks not caring about PWR, and PVR, but it's a fun thing to think about. Especially with the newest generation of AFVs going for lighter and more deployable