Military History | How To Make War | Wars Around the World Rules of Use How to Behave on an Internet Forum
Armor Discussion Board
   Return to Topic Page
Subject: MTU 880 and 890 series versus AGT-1500,LV100-5 and LV50-2
Adamantine    6/21/2004 3:07:50 AM
Most sources indicate that MTU's MB 873 (leopard 1 A1 A2 A3) and MT 883 (europack) has a power of between 1500 hp and 1650 hp. But MTU website indicate that both diesel engine could generate 1800hp. What cause the discrepancy? Is it because of the transmission? Meaning the 1800hp figure is before coupling to the Renk Tramission? 0.98, LV50-2 is is the gas turbine that is develop for FCS. Its power density kw/weight ratio is 1.462kw/kg to 1.9 kw/kg, much higher than the AGT1500 0.98kw/kg. LV50-2 is derived from LV100-5 (develop for potential re-engine program for M1A2 and M1A1), BUT LV50-2 has a much higher power to weight ratio, LV100-5 power to weight ratio is ONLY 1.07kw/kg (abit higher than AGT1500 but far below LV50-2) If LV100-5 only has a power to weight ratio of 1.07kw/kg (1118.5kw/1045.5kg), then the US Army might as well use the High Power Density MT 890 series diesel from MTU. MT 890 series has an AWESOME power to weight ratio of between 1.064kw/kg to 1.235 kw/kg. For a diesel engine, that is very high. Such figure is more impressive than the LV100-5 1.07kw/kg performance. Moreover, diesel is generally more fuel efficient. It is likely that MT 893 12V engine is slightly more efficient and sligtly more compact and lighter than LV-100-5 gas turbine. All leopard2, Leclerc, Challenger and M1 could potentially be upgraded by using the 12v or 16v version of the MT 890 series engine (developing between 1500 to 2000hp). The 12v version is ONLY 50% the weight and size of the already compact Europack Mt 883. The Mt890 would either enable current tank to carry more fuel due to its super compact size (half the size of europack) or enable a tank to carry an engine with almost the same size as current engine but developing 2000 hp to 3000 hp (just use the 16v or a hypothetically scale up 20V to 24V engine). Thats AWESOME.
Quote    Reply

Show Only Poster Name and Title     Newest to Oldest
interrested 2    RE:MTU 880 and 890 series versus AGT-1500,LV100-5 and LV50-2   6/22/2004 9:48:14 AM
the europack diesel is already 1 meter shorter than the origional diesel. SO is you say that the 12 v is half that than...pfff You''d end up with 2 or more meters of addtional space so about 6m3 of internal space.'d be able to store more ammo and a ridiculous ammount of fuel....:) But sadly: The tanks get so little use (in europe anyways) that the upgrade would most probably won't be cost effective.... But just for fun. Imagine a Leo 2 about 2 meters shorter. Than imagine how much weight this would save. This weight los could be used for: 1. Addtional top armour to defeat the top attack missles. 2. Addtional side/rear armour to defeat Rpg's 3. A lighter tank which is easier to transport and would need a smaller enigine for the same performance...reducing engine size+ fuel tank size....reducing weight etc. So even with curtrent tech you'd end up with a much more capable tank. Now add some new new types or armor, reliable auto loaders, better targetting sensors, etc and you'd be a generation ahead again.
Quote    Reply

Adamantine    RE:MTU 880 and 890 series versus AGT-1500,LV100-5 and LV50-2   6/22/2004 1:45:46 PM
Sorry I think the MTU source is not being precise when it says MT890 V12 is half the size of MT883. I did some calculation using the brochure and other sources. M883 europack is 1.5kg/kw and 1050 kw/m3. Mt890 v12 is about 0.94kg/kw to 0.81/kg/kw and about 1250kw/m3 to 1360kw/m3. Its more like a saving of 22% to 24% in space and a saving of 37% to 46% in weight compare to MT883. But when compare to the original Leopard2 engine the MB873 engine, its more than 50% saving in size and almost 50% saving in weight GIVEN the same output :) Leopard 2 equip with a V16 version of MT890 engine will occupy less space than MB873 and yet deliver 2000hp !! In reality there is enough space for a hypothetical V24 version that has 3000hp !!
Quote    Reply

doggtag    RE:MTU 880 and 890 series versus AGT-1500,LV100-5 and LV50-2   6/22/2004 4:26:59 PM
...and there is the powerpack you would need to mount an effective EM gun at a future time. But judging by the reduction in engine size vs performance in the last decade alone, when the EM gun tech is ready for a tank turret, that same engine volume may be capable of cranking >4000hp. Most likely by then, hybrid systems of fuelcell/electric will be used, possibly coupled with a future efficient small gas turbine for "sprint" speeds. AFV powerpacks may soon then be getting acronyms like in naval vessels to describe the powerpack configuration: combined gas turbine/electric, deisel/electric, fuelcell/electric with deisel, fuelcell/electric with gas turbine, etc....
Quote    Reply

Adamantine    RE:MTU 880 and 890 series versus AGT-1500,LV100-5 and LV50-2   6/23/2004 1:13:10 AM
The power level is adequate to run a compact power electric generator. BUT EM gun requite very expensive capacitor and hig density electromagnet. Electrothermal gun (ETC)that is simpler in design and require smaller capacitor is more cost effective. ETC will debut first
Quote    Reply

bombard    RE:MTU 880 and 890 series versus AGT-1500,LV100-5 and LV50-2   8/23/2004 11:10:50 AM
My question, is given that the MTU 88* was developed for the MBT-70, why didn't the US use it in the Abrams? (about the only thing from that program that worked as intended.)
Quote    Reply

mike_golf    RE:MTU 880 and 890 series versus AGT-1500,LV100-5 and LV50-2   8/23/2004 12:14:59 PM
The turbine has better acceleration, a smaller footprint, is multi-fuel capable, is easier to maintain, etc. General Dynamics chose the turbine and GM chose the diesel. When the US Army selected the Chrysler/General Dynamics design, one of the factors in that selection was the turbine. An unexpected side benefit is that the turbine is much quieter than a diesel engine.
Quote    Reply