FW: FW: [MV] Difference between a M54 and a M814

From: Rayfield , Robert S Jr Mr DUSA-IA/Techmatics (RayfieldRS@hqda.army.mil)
Date: Thu Apr 20 2000 - 06:48:34 PDT


*This message was transferred with a trial version of CommuniGate(tm) Pro*

-----Original Message-----
From: DDickUSMC@aol.com [mailto:DDickUSMC@aol.com]
Sent: Wednesday, April 19, 2000 8:09 PM
To: RayfieldRS@hqda.army.mil
Subject: Re: FW: [MV] Difference between a M54 and a M814

pretty good as far as it goes----to pick nits: multi-fuel was turbo-charged,
not supercharged. Difference is that supercharger is mechanically driven by
the engine, and to some extent is a parasitic draw on horsepower, i.e., it
will increase BHP, but uses some of the increase to drive itself.
Turbochargers, on the other hand are essentially "free", as they use engergy
that is otherwise lost in exhaust to drive the compressor section, packing
more combustion air into the chambers. That whistling sound we all
associated with the M-35, M-54, etc. was the turbo spooling up or slowing.
Further, the duece and the 5-ton used different versions. For an engine
that overheated, we sure as hell ran an awful lot of convoys in Viet Nam,
which, as I recall, occurred somewhere between 1963 and the first of the 800
and later 900 series. The MTO at 3rd MAW for years had a good deal, as he
would budget for DF-2, but use pumped-down JP from the fast movers- it was
free for the taking, and b!
eing aviation fuel was purchased with "Blue Dollars"--- really screwed 'em
up the first year the trucks had the Cummins engine that had to be fed
diesel only. BTW, the M123 10-ton tractor had a Cummins 903 (V-8) diesel
and a 5 speed Mack tranny--- think the 903 is still the current engine in
the AAAV family. Later, Bro-- Dickerson



This archive was generated by hypermail 2b29 : Mon May 01 2000 - 05:30:06 PDT