|
Post by mrfatso on Feb 27, 2017 7:51:55 GMT
|
|
|
Post by silverdragon on Feb 27, 2017 7:58:17 GMT
Thats just a mini front-end towing a garden shed?.. Take the mini traveller, the twin back door one, cut that just behind the front doors, and weld a plate across that back end, and add a two bar. You now have the trailer I wanted for the one I had. Something like this idea being towed by this?.. And yes, mine said 1000 cc on the boot it was a bloody liar, I had a 1300 "cooper" engine under the hood. Putting out the same as an average 1500 BL engine.
|
|
|
Post by silverdragon on Feb 27, 2017 8:00:43 GMT
This is "Fun".... This is more like what I was referring to, but is a good idea anyway for a Mini Trailer.
|
|
|
Post by silverdragon on Feb 27, 2017 8:04:59 GMT
Yes you are seeing right, on the bottom picture, thats an outboard attached to the window.
|
|
|
Post by mrfatso on Feb 27, 2017 9:05:36 GMT
Thats just a mini front-end towing a garden shed?.. Take the mini traveller, the twin back door one, cut that just behind the front doors, and weld a plate across that back end, and add a two bar. You now have the trailer I wanted for the one I had. Something like this idea being towed by this?.. And yes, mine said 1000 cc on the boot it was a bloody liar, I had a 1300 "cooper" engine under the hood. Putting out the same as an average 1500 BL engine. Not quite, the back,part has a canvas folding area that is flat for driving or popped up for camping. mk1-performance-conversions.co.uk/wild_goose.pdf
|
|
|
Post by Cybermortis on Feb 27, 2017 10:51:26 GMT
In that case, what would make more sense: having the "payload" at the front of the vehicle, or the rear? Having it at the rear would mean that the driver can sit up front and so have a better field of vision, while having it at the front would mean that if it's hauling cargo it can be deployed as soon as the vehicle hits the beach, leaving the vehicle to back up and head out into the water without turning around on land. A combat vehicle with a 'cargo' compartment will have entry/exit at the rear, since the compartment will be used for troops and this provides them with cover when disembarking. There may well be exit hatches on the sides for troops as well. Drones would be launched through a hatch on top, which removes the need for the crew to expose themselves when deploying them. Military forces typically make mission specific vehicle's by using the base chassis of existing designs in production; This simplifies logistics and reduces costs. So if the base design has the compartment at the rear for troops, the compartment for any variants will be in the same place. Its just a question of what is put in there.
|
|
|
Post by the light works on Feb 27, 2017 14:41:15 GMT
Note, Bedford Rascal, I went camping in a friends once, I slept on the floor on a mat with my feet out the back door. There isnt much room, good job it didnt rain that night as well. during the first Bush recession, I spent a year working on the road. I had a bed built in the back of the van and an electric cooler backwards between the seats. it worked for a week at a time. I wouldn't recommend it as a residence. had to get groceries nearly every day, and of course, I had no cooker or bathroom.
|
|
|
Post by the light works on Feb 27, 2017 15:58:35 GMT
In that case, what would make more sense: having the "payload" at the front of the vehicle, or the rear? Having it at the rear would mean that the driver can sit up front and so have a better field of vision, while having it at the front would mean that if it's hauling cargo it can be deployed as soon as the vehicle hits the beach, leaving the vehicle to back up and head out into the water without turning around on land. A combat vehicle with a 'cargo' compartment will have entry/exit at the rear, since the compartment will be used for troops and this provides them with cover when disembarking. There may well be exit hatches on the sides for troops as well. Drones would be launched through a hatch on top, which removes the need for the crew to expose themselves when deploying them. Military forces typically make mission specific vehicle's by using the base chassis of existing designs in production; This simplifies logistics and reduces costs. So if the base design has the compartment at the rear for troops, the compartment for any variants will be in the same place. Its just a question of what is put in there. the exception being vehicles intended to deliver troops to a beach, which have large exits at the front of the vehicle, allowing it to nose up onto the beach, and deploy troops, without ever leaving the water.
|
|
|
Post by Cybermortis on Feb 27, 2017 18:25:33 GMT
I excluded landing craft as the question was about amphibious vehicles.
You could have amphibious landing craft, at least for troops, but these would likewise have the exit hatchs in the side and rear to allow the troops to be protected as they disembark by the vehicle itself. Conventional water-only landing craft have to have the exit at the front, which is not ideal if you are making an opposed landing. But alas unavoidable.
|
|
|
Post by the light works on Feb 28, 2017 1:25:37 GMT
I excluded landing craft as the question was about amphibious vehicles. You could have amphibious landing craft, at least for troops, but these would likewise have the exit hatchs in the side and rear to allow the troops to be protected as they disembark by the vehicle itself. Conventional water-only landing craft have to have the exit at the front, which is not ideal if you are making an opposed landing. But alas unavoidable. they kind of aim to have somebody soften up the opposition, first.
|
|
|
Post by silverdragon on Mar 1, 2017 8:03:20 GMT
In that case, what would make more sense: having the "payload" at the front of the vehicle, or the rear? Having it at the rear would mean that the driver can sit up front and so have a better field of vision, while having it at the front would mean that if it's hauling cargo it can be deployed as soon as the vehicle hits the beach, leaving the vehicle to back up and head out into the water without turning around on land. A combat vehicle with a 'cargo' compartment will have entry/exit at the rear, since the compartment will be used for troops and this provides them with cover when disembarking. There may well be exit hatches on the sides for troops as well. Drones would be launched through a hatch on top, which removes the need for the crew to expose themselves when deploying them. Military forces typically make mission specific vehicle's by using the base chassis of existing designs in production; This simplifies logistics and reduces costs. So if the base design has the compartment at the rear for troops, the compartment for any variants will be in the same place. Its just a question of what is put in there. Always always always have the payload at the rear. I have driven truck, I have driven ship, and driving ship with "All that" in front of you is daymn tricky, I can see the point of having it where you can see it when doing tight manoeuvring, and yes, it has its good parts, but, well, I manage all right with "Large loads" behind me, and when doing the tricky stuff, I have mirrors, its not as if large shipping cant get Video camera CCTV for "all that" these days?.. But as a safety thing, get the load behind you, sit over the bow, that way, you can see whats coming, and have a "solid" front end that can crash through the heaviest water. If its built to handle ice, thats also armour plating that can be useful in combat?. Combat?.. put the armour at the front, again, where its beneficial to Bullets and Seas. Back onto the beach, that way, if you need to bug out, your pointing in the right direction. Make it amphibious even, that way it can run up the beach forwards and spin around.
|
|
|
Post by the light works on Mar 1, 2017 15:27:49 GMT
A combat vehicle with a 'cargo' compartment will have entry/exit at the rear, since the compartment will be used for troops and this provides them with cover when disembarking. There may well be exit hatches on the sides for troops as well. Drones would be launched through a hatch on top, which removes the need for the crew to expose themselves when deploying them. Military forces typically make mission specific vehicle's by using the base chassis of existing designs in production; This simplifies logistics and reduces costs. So if the base design has the compartment at the rear for troops, the compartment for any variants will be in the same place. Its just a question of what is put in there. Always always always have the payload at the rear. I have driven truck, I have driven ship, and driving ship with "All that" in front of you is daymn tricky, I can see the point of having it where you can see it when doing tight manoeuvring, and yes, it has its good parts, but, well, I manage all right with "Large loads" behind me, and when doing the tricky stuff, I have mirrors, its not as if large shipping cant get Video camera CCTV for "all that" these days?.. But as a safety thing, get the load behind you, sit over the bow, that way, you can see whats coming, and have a "solid" front end that can crash through the heaviest water. If its built to handle ice, thats also armour plating that can be useful in combat?. Combat?.. put the armour at the front, again, where its beneficial to Bullets and Seas. Back onto the beach, that way, if you need to bug out, your pointing in the right direction. Make it amphibious even, that way it can run up the beach forwards and spin around. there are lots of cases where it is beneficial to put the driver behind the load. sometimes it is just the characteristics of the load: your ropes don't have to be anywhere near as strong to push a barge as they do to pull it. also you are a lot more maneuverable with rear steering than with front steering. also, in combat, the more carp you can put between the people and the enemy, the more survivable the situation. Israel builds their Challenger series tanks with the engine at the front, and the crew in the back, so if they take a hit from the front, they can simply open the back door and bail out. as far as backing onto the beach - now you need to armor both ends. but the question keeps nagging at me - is there a reason why this culture seems to favor two-in-one vehicles, or are you just looking for something new and different to feature?
|
|
|
Post by Cybermortis on Mar 1, 2017 16:18:24 GMT
You are confusing landing craft and combat vehicles, in context Armoured personal carriers.
Landing craft are boats or ships designed to deliver troops to the shoreline, turn around to pick up more and head back. The exit ramps for such craft have to be at the front as speed in deployment is more important than anything else; troops and vehicles will at best be slowed if dropped into even shallow water making them easy targets.
APCs, amphibious or otherwise, are land vehicles that don't have to worry about dropping troops into water. While speed of deplyment is still important additional protection can be provided by the Vehicles bulk and of course by deploying troops while behind cover; an option landing craft don't have.
With land vehicles the location of the engine doesn't matter so much. With landing craft however you need to have the engine at the rear. The reason is that once its cargo is offloaded onto a beach the bulk of the crafts weight is now at the stern, which makes it a LOT easier to pull the bow off the shore.
|
|
|
Post by silverdragon on Mar 2, 2017 8:24:40 GMT
We are talking development of "Future" vehicles. Put the engine at the rear doesnt hold weight when what you have is the possibility to put in water jets... If you suck water in from the front of the engine and displace it at the back, the engine just needs an underneath inlet and a outlet to the rear. Consider a craft where the basic skeleton frame designed of two pontoons containing the engines and a deck slung between them to carry the load, and a roof/side walls/front bow/ its a sort of solid catamaran design, you can put wheels in the pontoon with the engines halfway between them but having the exhaust of the jet passing the rear wheel, make those jets steerable by rear hinged joints. The bow can be a sloped flat front, much like a air-boat design, it has to attain a plane on top of the water, but stay stable, so having the deck slightly above the height of the pontoons gives a "tunnel" to force water through to get it up. Also have power take off from the jets engines to power BOTH wheels when they are deployed downwards for land use, you now have a twin engine 4wheel drive "Skid steer" and conventional steer craft that is as nimble as you like that just has to attain a "flat" profile at speed on the water when plaining to keep the inlets below water.
You now have to have a driver... as long as he has control of those jets, doesnt matter where he sits. The craft is armoured at the front and sides, the exit is at the back, to afford a safe deployment with the vehicle facing possible enemy fire. Seams a sure bet that the driver at the front being their spotter as well once the vehicle stops is a good idea.
Putting the vehicle flat on the sand/beach/whatever it is is a better way, because soldiers with wet feet dont fight as well as those with dry, and they can immediately find cover if they dont have to wade in from a deep water landing if the water isnt deep enough to get a landing craft close. The design of the craft I suggest should also be that the door/ramp at the back is above water level when fully loaded to afford an entry/exit point at a dock as well, thus making it multi-useful craft as well as land vehicle. This way, not having to clamber over engines, you have a wide easy exit.
|
|
|
Post by the light works on Mar 2, 2017 15:16:46 GMT
We are talking development of "Future" vehicles. Put the engine at the rear doesnt hold weight when what you have is the possibility to put in water jets... If you suck water in from the front of the engine and displace it at the back, the engine just needs an underneath inlet and a outlet to the rear. Consider a craft where the basic skeleton frame designed of two pontoons containing the engines and a deck slung between them to carry the load, and a roof/side walls/front bow/ its a sort of solid catamaran design, you can put wheels in the pontoon with the engines halfway between them but having the exhaust of the jet passing the rear wheel, make those jets steerable by rear hinged joints. The bow can be a sloped flat front, much like a air-boat design, it has to attain a plane on top of the water, but stay stable, so having the deck slightly above the height of the pontoons gives a "tunnel" to force water through to get it up. Also have power take off from the jets engines to power BOTH wheels when they are deployed downwards for land use, you now have a twin engine 4wheel drive "Skid steer" and conventional steer craft that is as nimble as you like that just has to attain a "flat" profile at speed on the water when plaining to keep the inlets below water. You now have to have a driver... as long as he has control of those jets, doesnt matter where he sits. The craft is armoured at the front and sides, the exit is at the back, to afford a safe deployment with the vehicle facing possible enemy fire. Seams a sure bet that the driver at the front being their spotter as well once the vehicle stops is a good idea. Putting the vehicle flat on the sand/beach/whatever it is is a better way, because soldiers with wet feet dont fight as well as those with dry, and they can immediately find cover if they dont have to wade in from a deep water landing if the water isnt deep enough to get a landing craft close. The design of the craft I suggest should also be that the door/ramp at the back is above water level when fully loaded to afford an entry/exit point at a dock as well, thus making it multi-useful craft as well as land vehicle. This way, not having to clamber over engines, you have a wide easy exit. our beach assault vehicles are launched from what is essentially a floating drydock, and the WWII LSTs are now only used in special cases. we're now way ahead of your thinking with the LCAC. the thing to keep in mind, though, is the more drivetrains you add to the machine, the more extra weight it carries. the more extra weight it carries, the more sluggish it is. as soon as you put wheels on the bottom of a boat, you are redoing the boston whaler still on the trailer myth.
|
|
|
Post by mrfatso on Mar 2, 2017 23:56:29 GMT
We too have landing dock ships, and operate some hovercraft as landing vehicles as well and more traditional landing craft.
But I would agree the more drive systems you put on the more things to wrong there are and the more weight. That the reason why for example th e Soviet attempt to create a VTOL like the Harrier failed.
|
|
|
Post by Cybermortis on Mar 3, 2017 3:30:29 GMT
Which is of no use what so ever when the intakes are in sand, grit or mud. It also won't go over well with the troops when your water jets knock them halfway across the beach as you try to back off the beach.
Having the weight of a landing craft at the rear means the front is easier to pull off a beach, and this is in fact an old trick to try and get a beached ship off an obstruction; Increase weight at the back, decrease weight up front.
|
|
|
Post by the light works on Mar 3, 2017 4:15:28 GMT
Which is of no use what so ever when the intakes are in sand, grit or mud. It also won't go over well with the troops when your water jets knock them halfway across the beach as you try to back off the beach. Having the weight of a landing craft at the rear means the front is easier to pull off a beach, and this is in fact an old trick to try and get a beached ship off an obstruction; Increase weight at the back, decrease weight up front. for that matter, a jet drive is just a prop with a nozzle. on a jetski, the jet is less than a foot from intake to nozzle; and it reverses less efficiently than a standard prop, because it uses a baffle to redirect the thrust.
|
|
|
Post by silverdragon on Mar 3, 2017 7:50:49 GMT
When you engage wheel thrust, you disengage the water jet.... that way you dont wash your troops off the beach. Yes that involves a transition from water to beach and back again, but not having to wade through water in full battle armour?.. you revert to water jet when the thing is afloat. Yes you can duct the jet better than a water-ski, you have more "space" under/inside the pontoons.
However, upon thinking, I have had a more modern thought process going on... Make ONE sizeable engine, and put Electric motors [waterproof ones?..]on all wheels, driven wheels and prop wheels, fed by the generator... Not as efficient, but, less weight in drive shafts, therefore, more efficiency in weight to thrust?.. and less to break down, as no gear boxes and/or Power take off shafts needed either. And also easier to throw in reverse.
I use the idea of jets as ducted props are more efficient and, if you get the intake guards right, less prone to clogging by debris than conventional props. Yes sand is a problem, but I am sure they can work on that by working a way to flush them out on low power before they give them the beans?..
|
|
|
Post by silverdragon on Mar 3, 2017 7:53:56 GMT
Having simple balance tanks in the pontoons and a pump to fill the rear tanks with water to tip the front up?.. Having all the weight at the rear tends to give a nose up attitude when in water, harder to get up on a plane at speed, I am trying to work on an idea that gives speed and agility to landing craft.
Keep the ideas flowing, we may get somewhere with this?.
|
|