Jump to content

Recommended Posts

At full speed that engine would drive the ship 1,132 kms in 24 hours, using 250,000 kgs of fuel. That gives a fuel consumption of 261 litres per kilometre.

 

Fully loaded, the ship weighs 520,000 kg, meaning the engine can move 2000 kg per litre per kilometre

  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites

Must calculate the power to weight ratio of an aircraft powered by this little motor. It’s 109rpm might be a good match for a few used wind turbine blades; they’d come cheap, because they cannot be recycled, being made from fibreglass. 

I guess the undercarriage would have to be fairly long…

 

Over half a century ago I read that the optimum speed for cargo ships of that era was 14kt, allowing them to achieved incredible fuel economy figures compared to land transport.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Most of them are supercharged . when it fails they emit clouds of soot. "bunker fuel" costs little but is about 7% Sulphur. Engine life is about 10,000 hours. This may not be current information but I doubt much has changes in the last 20 or more years. Super longstroke  @ 76 RPM with high  boost figures. Pretty efficient. for what they  are. Nev

Link to post
Share on other sites

engine(s) are reversed to go backwards.  (possible in a two stroke).Note mention of prohibited RPMs.due torsional vibration due firing impulses.. ALL engines have this to some extent but it's more critical in large engines.. Nev

Link to post
Share on other sites
2 hours ago, facthunter said:

engine(s) are reversed to go backwards.  (possible in a two stroke)

I found that out the hard way in an old Transtar with a bird scarer in it. I didn't know at the time that the engine was running backwards. From the sound of it I just thought I'd broken the crankshaft, so shut it down. After the pulse rate went down to somewhere near normal, I restarted it and it ran perfectly. Luckily no damage. Before that incident, I didn't know that a GM could run backwards.

  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites

I'm surprised it did. It's not set up  to do it. The direct drive blower would be working backwards and there'd be no oil pressure and the individual  injectors would be nowhere near the right timing.. It might run but little power and not for long.   The big ends only wear the top half of the bearing in those engines. I've only worked on the in line ones. . Nev

Link to post
Share on other sites

A friend of mine imported Russian motorbikes in the seventies. When they assembled the first one and started it up he was surprised when he let out the clutch and went backwards. I think it was a Cossak, but may be wrong and they were not a great success.

Link to post
Share on other sites

probably the other brand . One was a ural the one I'm thinking of was a 350 2stroke twin. with single carburetter. a many of the engines of that period could kick back and be running backwards. It could even happen if you were idling a bit slow. It would just change engine note slightly. Nev

Link to post
Share on other sites
7 hours ago, facthunter said:

I'm surprised it did. It's not set up  to do it. The direct drive blower would be working backwards and there'd be no oil pressure and the individual  injectors would be nowhere near the right timing.. It might run but little power and not for long.   The big ends only wear the top half of the bearing in those engines. I've only worked on the in line ones. . Nev

Nev, it's a bit of a long story as to how the 671 GM ran backwards. It wasn't intentional. It came about by trying to stop a fully loaded road train with almost no brakes from going backwards over a 40' drop.

Link to post
Share on other sites

The Cossack sold in Australia for one dollar per cc. So the 600 twin was $600. They had to be rebuilt due to faults like mild steel conrods etc due to Russian production quotas, but the ones still around have been made reliable.

  • Informative 2
Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, pmccarthy said:

The Cossack sold in Australia for one dollar per cc. So the 600 twin was $600. They had to be rebuilt due to faults like mild steel conrods etc due to Russian production quotas, but the ones still around have been made reliable.

I remember them. A mechanic mate of mine had a series of hi-tech bikes that required lots of maintenance and then amazed me by turning up on a Russian 650; he found it the most reliable of all. I liked the lo-tech shaft drive, with a disk of rubber conveyor belt as universal joint.

  • Informative 2
Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, willedoo said:

The Urals + sidecar being sold in Australia now have the 2WD option in this year's current model. I still think the Urals are overpriced by a few thousand.

I had a good look at a new Russian outfit parked in Uralla. (I believe that where the importer is based.)

Impressive equipment and finish. 

Link to post
Share on other sites

I recall looking at the dealer's workshop (I thought they called them Voshcod? But those memory cells are a bit faded now). A 650 cc copy of a BMW, for $650. In one corner of the warehouse was a pile of bike bones, stacked to the ceiling - all that was left of the "warranty donor" parts supply. On the 650, the front brake drum was about big enough for a postie bike. A friend bought one, and after he ran it into the back of a taxi (did a lot of damage... to the taxi), he replaced the front forks with a second hand set from a Japanese bike. He said the bike was a lot nicer to ride with brakes AND shockies.

 

The two strokes were even worse.

I suspect that modern Russian stuff is a lot better.

  • Like 1
  • Informative 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
On 30/08/2021 at 7:52 PM, onetrack said:

Bunker oil is rapidly being phased out due to emissions, and diesel is taking its place.  Starter motors are not used on the bigger engines, they start on compressed air.

Think most modern ships run on electric drive pods, powered by diesel engines driving huge generators and that's removed the need for bunker oil. If we wanted to go further into clean energy with ships, they'd be powering those diesels with seed oils.

 

The biggest engine I've seen was on the Ark Royal, we got lost when we were using it to ship hop and found ourselves looking through a hatch into the engine room. It was so big, but not sure if as big as the one posted here, we didn't get the opportunity to investigate further, the pommie marines said it was a restricted area and escorted us to where we should have been.

Edited by Dax
  • Informative 1
Link to post
Share on other sites

Everything old is new again!

https://www.dezeen.com/2020/10/22/wallenius-marin-oceanbird-ship-wind-design/

 

When you consider the advances made in hull design since 1850, and in materials since the first copper plates were tacked onto wooden hulls, it is not drawing too long a bow to seeing the merchant marine utilising the replenishable energy of the wind. Also, with modern weather forecasting and oceanography it would be possible to lay out courses that took maximum advantage of Nature's freebies to motion.

 

The article says that the designed ship using wind power would only take an extra two days to cross the Atlantic. Compared to fuel costs, and continuing maintenance, those two days' costs would soon be met. Just think of the extra cargo that could be carried if a massive engine was not required. No doubt a smaller engine is required, just for electricity generation and low speed manoeuvring. 

 

  • Like 3
  • Informative 1
Link to post
Share on other sites

Added rotating sales already exist to assist container ships which generally are in dreadful condition being "flagged" at inappropriate places to avoid inspections and repairs..  The Italians were building a lot of those big marine engines at one time. Hyundai build a lot of container ships.. Nev

  • Agree 1
Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now
×
×
  • Create New...