Soon no more driving around in these vehicles because of their CO2 footprint. Just like in Sunderland. ''The local authority has confirmed that it has no plans to run the aerial extravaganza in the future after councillors were told it will not take place in 2023 due to the city’s ambition to be carbon neutral.''
This is the kind of thing you can argue over for hours. Some things are best without actually being good. For instance the meteor was a great engine, but 600 horsepower ain't much. It was a good video and a fun topic, thank you for doing it.
My Dad worked on tank engines for much of his life, and used to come up interesting snippets of information. One that made him smile was other engineers explanation for why the Meteor engines con rod had a 1/8" hole drilled through it above the big end, most people believed it helped throw oil onto the cylinder walls. the real reason was to show it was a less than perfect casting and should not be used on the much higher powered Merlin engine. Nice video.
One thing that stuck out in my mind when visiting museums was the engines they'd sometimes have on display. I remember going to the imperial war museum in London and they had a Merlin engine in a glass case, fully chromed up, perfect and spotless reflecting all the lights. Then I went to the Solent Air Museum in Southampton and they had a Merlin engine on display, clearly heavily used, it was black and heat blasted, smelled of petrol, had pipes coming off it. For some reason that distinction always stayed with me, I much preferred the real deal in the Southampton museum.
Loved this episode, was a joy to watch. Hope you'll invite this chap again to give his opinion to some more engine designs used in the last century. Was a pleasure to see an engineers perspective on engine design for tanks!!!
Great video, loved the zeroth choice in the intro and was slightly surprised that a Brit wouldn't choose the Meteor as his number 1 but found myself agreeing anyway. Thanks for the lesson about diesel vs petrol too.
Very interesting,and refreshing to get an engineer's perspective on the heart of the tank. Liked his intro about the engine that operates the boiling vessel too ha ha.
My favorite historical fact about the Meteor was how it began as a way to salvage something from the growing pile of Merlin engines that failed to pass flight worthiness inspections (few things improve reliability as drastically as derating an 1100hp engine to only 600hp).
@@stephenarbon2227 Having that intense of care protocols makes a lot of sense on an aircraft engine. If a tank engine stops working in the middle of a mission, well you're not driving anywhere. You lose an engine on a fighter halfway through a sortie, and it's a whole different issue.
I have written to my State Representative and both Senators from North Carolina to ask them to investigate the possibility of getting the Tank Museum an Abrams. Even if it was just an M1 it would great.
It is the ultimate "gap" in the display line up in The Tank Museum. We all hope that this will be rectified soon. I absolutely agree with you that even an M1 would be great.
@@samholdsworth420 Theres been talks off an on for the last few years... the problem almost always circles back to penny pinching by Bovy. They once got offered a Makava. They just had to respond quickly and cover the cost of shipping etc. they dithered and that was the end of it.
V2 ended up developed into the powerplant for the T-72 when the advanced opposed piston engine of the T-64 proved uneconomical. It’s not only lightweight and diesel, but it’s very large displacement, allowing improved engines to keep up with modern modern but smaller competitors. They are still in service all over the world. Truly unprecedented service life.
@@oleksandrshulha7451 a totally new design, based on a new principle, with totally different demands on material and tolerances of precision in manufacturing, and multifuel to boot. It took a long time to refine it.
@@johanmetreus1268 multifuel has nothing to do with the issues of the 6TD-2. its an OPE, which means you need good electronics, good fuel injector engineering, and the ability to machine good turbochargers and good positive displacement superchargers. Ukraine hasnt updated to current standards of electrical control or supercharging which is the source of a significant ammount of the problems with that engine, especially since it is only used with a helix supercharger.
@@F14thunderhawk Multifuel certainly has something to do with the T-64 engine complexity, as different fuels have different knacking points, and thus need variable compression adjusted to the fuel used, and that on top of the factors you listed.
Rob would have to be my favourite teacher of mechanical engineering. Love his docos, particularly on bridges. This is his usual entertaining, educational video. Also interesting choices.
That first clip about the perkins engine and generator/BV and tea....so true. Was on Soltau training area....something went wrong with the power to the BV....My cmdr had the driver stop, then radio'd the REME....we didnt move until it was fixed.
@@owen368 Going without tea? Blasphemy! 😅 In reality, what other needed systems are powered by the APU when stopped? That's the main reason to get the APU fixed. No radio when parked? That's a big negative so get the APU fixed.
@@LadyAnuB This is true especially if your the command tank not much use if the radio goes out as batteries die or communder tank gets left behind due to using all the fuel up running main engine. It's why they put the little A series engine in the first place to give the tank more time on station.
Really cool video and loved to see it! Engine characteristics always feel like one of the overlooked metrics when people are comparing tank vs tank, and it was great to learn more about them. Looking forward to a bottom 5 tank engines in the future, hopefully!
Nicely played, Rob! LOL! I rewound that first minute of the video three times thinking I had misunderstood you when you said the tank had a 50 hp engine! Lol! I finally played it long enough to get to your punchline.
I was waiting desparately for a vid regarding tank engines (and transmissions). The technical, the mechanical, the engineering part of the tank topic is extremely important imho, thxx.
The 7 cylinder radials in the M2 Lights and M3 Stuart tanks provided plenty of power as well. The American radials could be found in many vehicles such the M2, M3, and M4 Medium, M2 and M3 Light, and the LVT series to name a few. There were actually Guiberson 7-cyl diesel radials as well.
The reduction of coolant and the need to have a supply chain to support it is a massive benefit of the air cooled radials. Also, they are less susceptible to block cracking in extreme cold.
bugger, there I was thinking this would be about tank engines, and it was about tank engines. it reminds me of the Ronnie Barker sketch where a customer asks for four candles, and the shop owner gives him 4 candles. He keeps insisting he wants four candles until he realises he'll have to elaborate. Finally he tells the guy he wants handles for forks. Fork handles in other words. Very good video though, thanks Mr Bell.
A lot of American planes had awful electrically powered constant speed mechanism propellers, a run down battery and old fashioned narrow revs range generators instead of later more flexible alternators meant that after low speed taxying and dropping voltages the propellers could disastrously go out of control just on take off. The put-put vitally preserved battery health.
They could still drop the ball with the transmission and/or final drives... and, that's just looking at the drivetrain. Nicholas Moran, aka The Chieftain, has a thing for track design, most especially the tensioning thereof. He also has made some rather pertinent observations regarding transmission replacement/exchange. None of this is quite as obvious a set of issues for the layman, who will glom on to the gun and armor balance first.
Excellent. Good information with a good presenter. It would have been great to hear more about the T-34 engine, maybe with some cutaway diagrams. An engineers perspective is almost always interesting.
This was pretty cool. I would be curious to see a top-five tank engines from the perspective of mechanics. Which tanks engine would they rate to be the most reliable
@@AnimeSunglasses The Leopard 1 with its PowerPack concept should be pretty up there, removing the engine is a 30min job and from there maintenance and repairs are an absolute breeze
I always thought the Ricardo was an amazing engine because it used petrol of such low quality 45 -50 octane it would barley vaporize - Ricardo fed it round the piston trunk guides to extract the heat and atomize it
Great breakdown and plenty of scope for Rob to do more of these. Approaching tanks through the requirements and specifications context (explained correctly) can be fascinating.
I've watched this twice now as well as his first top5 and I've finally figured out who he reminds me of; he's a alternate universe Richard Hammond where he got into tanks instead of cars.
Why this is the first of all of the top 5's that I have agreed with all the way. Good job Rob Bell, you are either right or we are both wrong, but I think you are right. Wish you had added in the history of the meteor the story that it was made from engines that were damaged and could not be used in a Spitfire anymore, would like to hear your opinion if that was real or just a folk tale
Excellent video, but for my list, I'd make a few changes. First, I'd drop the Ford V8 and replace it with the Maybach HL120, and move it below the Riccardo. The Germans deserve *some* love. I'd switch the positions of the R975 and the Meteor, for several reasons: * The Meteor *ended up* as a great engine, but it wasn't until after the war that the reliability was fully ironed out. Furthermore, it never really became the engine of choice for a wide variety of vehicles the way the R975 did. * The R975 was cheaper to make, needed less and simpler maintenance, and was easier to work on when it did need work. * The Meteor needed extensive development work to make the transition from aeromotive to automotive, but the R975 used in ground vehicles differed comparatively little from the aircraft versions. And that last point is the main reason why I'd put it above the Meteor. The R975 was part of a huge engine *ecosystem* which *massively* simplified logistics for the Allies at every point in the supply chain, and this ability to deliver greater numbers of fewer *things* was one of the most important weapons the Allies had.
@@JohnnyWishbone85 the hull had to be taller to fit the engine, so you couldn't hide behind a hedge and you presented a larger target to enemy gunners.
@@EmyrDerfel - The height of the Sherman was as much a function of a restriction on width as it was the configuration of the engine. American military vehicles had to be able to fit on rail cars that had a maximum width restriction due to the need to pass through particular rail tunnels. There are other reasons for this width restriction, but the fact is that there are several crucial pieces of equipment, including ammo storage under the turret basket that would have to be moved outwards if the turret basket were moved down. It would be very easy to do this by including a transfer case on the output of the engine to move the prop shaft down, but this wasn’t done, because the space necessitated by the prop shaft was needed for ancillary equipment anyway to keep the width of the vehicle within certain limits. And because there’s a limit to how long you can make the tank relative to its width before it becomes undriveable, the only dimension left to expand was height.
2 ปีที่แล้ว
Excellent Video. Learned quite a bit. The only problem is, that I am now quite envious of the presentation skills of Mr. Bell :)
A good series to do would to go over the basics of engine design as it applies to tanks and other armored vehicles. It would be good to see the progression of engine design through the years.
Wow, I had always thought that the Meteor powering one of the best tanks in history; the Centurion amongst others would be top, but I have to agree with your choice. Love this channel!
all good, lots of information about liquid cooled engines having liquid flowing through them and fins for air cooling increasing surface area for school kids interested in tank engines.
Yes Rob you are a great example for becoming an engineer even if not wearing a brown suit ha, ha. I went into Chemistry but your professional appraisals are intriguing.
For me, Rob sounds, & looks a bit like Richard Hammond! 😁 Whereas Hammond talks about cars, Bell talks about tanks --- so, a taller version of Hammond, talks about a bigger type of vehicles... 🤣😂
It'd be nice to have tank chat on the Chrysler multibank. You know, when Chrysler wanted to build a tank engine, but all they had were loads of 6 cylinder engines lying around and they were bored......
I like the concept, but it was very light on specifications. It should have included horsepower and torque (torque being one of the advantages of diesel), along with displacement and weight of the engines. Production numbers can be more of a political decision than of actual superiority. The Chrysler multi-bank comes to mind.
With all due respect ... the Chrysler A57 Multibank 30-cylinder 1,253 cu in (20.5 L) engine has much more interesting history to provide the american tanks with an engine with sufficient power at the start of WWII. And all that done in a very short span of time. Based on 6-cyl-in-line car engines there were several different of this multi cylinder "Monsters". Just to remind you ... at the begin of WWII, a 100 hp engine was a very strong engine for earthbound use.
I did not see this one coming, but a pretty interesting top 5 nonetheless! Mr. Bell really made these engines interesting with both a bit of background history, AND some technical aspects. Also respect to him for choosing a Soviet engine as his nr. 1, I did not realise the Kharkiv V-2 was still around in some form! Given the subject of this top 5, perhaps you could do a top 5 things (or even hats) with Mr. Smith next time? c:
A smaller version of the Meteor engine was developed and called the Meteorite. It was a V8 and was basically two thirds of the proven Meteor engine. Used in tank transporters. And other heavy duty vehicles.
V2 as Meteor was designed as aviation diesel variant for tank main purpose was planned as Soviet bomber Pe 8 ... (unsuccessful application). Don`t forget that up to 1945 these engine life was just around 50 motor hour until rebuild ... So reliable it will became after war ...
The Ford GAA was abused and developed between Nov 1942 and August 1943. To the extent that 12-17 were running flat out on dyno and in tanks for that time period 24/7. While at the same time it was in production.
When we were on extended tank maneuvers in the Alps in the worst weather imaginable in the 1970s the worst thing was getting low on fuel. For that reason alone I'll take a diesel engine.
the other big advantage that diesel engine technology has is that diesel engines can very easily be made to use JP-1 grade jet fuel. (and by easily, I mean there is a component in military engines that makes the necessary adjustment with no outside fettling) and so if your military uses all engines with this component, and all jets that are made for JP-1, you only need one kind of fuel at your remote bases, and yet, you can easily fuel all your ground vehicles at any petrol station that carries diesel, or even Kerosene if that is what is available. (furnace oil is also equivalent to diesel fuel)
@@MrKeys57 If you view a diagram of the M4 Sherman tank engine compartment with the radial engines, you will see the blower fan is simply bolted directly to the front of the crankshaft, (like an aircraft propeller) but with many short blades like a turbine, and slightly smaller in diameter than the engine's cylinders. If you look at the WW2 German FW 190 fighter aircraft from the front, you will see a nearly identical fan behind it's propeller, doing the same job!
Hello Tank Nuts, we hope you enjoyed this video, what do you think of the ranking?
Great. Very humble to rank the V2 higher than the Meteor.
Brilliantly explained, thank you very much! Production numbers speak for themselves.
An interesting choice for sure, good move.
Soon no more driving around in these vehicles because of their CO2 footprint. Just like in Sunderland.
''The local authority has confirmed that it has no plans to run the aerial extravaganza in the future after councillors were told it will not take place in 2023 due to the city’s ambition to be carbon neutral.''
This is the kind of thing you can argue over for hours. Some things are best without actually being good. For instance the meteor was a great engine, but 600 horsepower ain't much. It was a good video and a fun topic, thank you for doing it.
Top tank engine for me has to be Thomas.
th-cam.com/video/ETfiUYij5UE/w-d-xo.html toot toot!
Thomas
THE CHAOS ENGINE!!!
Don't ask what was in those train carts he hauled from 1939 - 1945. He was just following orders!!
@@lebien4554 Thomas didn’t like stopping at Dachau train station, it was a dreadfully gloomy place.
No tanks.
Rob's a great presenter - I always enjoy the technical elements he brings in so well
I totally agree, forgot that in my earlier comment, really like to see some more of him.
Fully agree, every video he's done so far was great to watch
+1 He's a natural on screen!
this guy is such a great orator, would love to see more of him!
He's done a lot of great TV shows. The one about bridge engineering was great.
My Dad worked on tank engines for much of his life, and used to come up interesting snippets of information. One that made him smile was other engineers explanation for why the Meteor engines con rod had a 1/8" hole drilled through it above the big end, most people believed it helped throw oil onto the cylinder walls. the real reason was to show it was a less than perfect casting and should not be used on the much higher powered Merlin engine. Nice video.
Great concept for a top 5. Would love to see top 5s for other systems such as guns, suspensions, etc.
Ian from Forgotten Weapons could do tank machine guns.
The British Six Pounder has to be on the great guns list.
One thing that stuck out in my mind when visiting museums was the engines they'd sometimes have on display. I remember going to the imperial war museum in London and they had a Merlin engine in a glass case, fully chromed up, perfect and spotless reflecting all the lights. Then I went to the Solent Air Museum in Southampton and they had a Merlin engine on display, clearly heavily used, it was black and heat blasted, smelled of petrol, had pipes coming off it. For some reason that distinction always stayed with me, I much preferred the real deal in the Southampton museum.
Loved this episode, was a joy to watch. Hope you'll invite this chap again to give his opinion to some more engine designs used in the last century. Was a pleasure to see an engineers perspective on engine design for tanks!!!
Great video, loved the zeroth choice in the intro and was slightly surprised that a Brit wouldn't choose the Meteor as his number 1 but found myself agreeing anyway. Thanks for the lesson about diesel vs petrol too.
Very interesting,and refreshing to get an engineer's perspective on the heart of the tank. Liked his intro about the engine that operates the boiling vessel too ha ha.
My favorite historical fact about the Meteor was how it began as a way to salvage something from the growing pile of Merlin engines that failed to pass flight worthiness inspections (few things improve reliability as drastically as derating an 1100hp engine to only 600hp).
My grandfather disliked working on them, said you couldn't scratch yourself without having to look up the toque setting.
@@stephenarbon2227 Having that intense of care protocols makes a lot of sense on an aircraft engine. If a tank engine stops working in the middle of a mission, well you're not driving anywhere. You lose an engine on a fighter halfway through a sortie, and it's a whole different issue.
I have written to my State Representative and both Senators from North Carolina to ask them to investigate the possibility of getting the Tank Museum an Abrams. Even if it was just an M1 it would great.
It is the ultimate "gap" in the display line up in The Tank Museum. We all hope that this will be rectified soon. I absolutely agree with you that even an M1 would be great.
It’s complicated both on the museum side and the requirements of the US.
Make it happen
@@samholdsworth420 Theres been talks off an on for the last few years... the problem almost always circles back to penny pinching by Bovy. They once got offered a Makava. They just had to respond quickly and cover the cost of shipping etc.
they dithered and that was the end of it.
Good work, please use all the levers of your democracy to free up an Abrams for the Tank Museum.
V2 ended up developed into the powerplant for the T-72 when the advanced opposed piston engine of the T-64 proved uneconomical. It’s not only lightweight and diesel, but it’s very large displacement, allowing improved engines to keep up with modern modern but smaller competitors. They are still in service all over the world. Truly unprecedented service life.
why t64 engine is uneconomical?
@@oleksandrshulha7451 a totally new design, based on a new principle, with totally different demands on material and tolerances of precision in manufacturing, and multifuel to boot.
It took a long time to refine it.
The same engine (in it's very upgraded form) is still in production today to power the T-90, Msta and Koalitsiya
@@johanmetreus1268 multifuel has nothing to do with the issues of the 6TD-2. its an OPE, which means you need good electronics, good fuel injector engineering, and the ability to machine good turbochargers and good positive displacement superchargers. Ukraine hasnt updated to current standards of electrical control or supercharging which is the source of a significant ammount of the problems with that engine, especially since it is only used with a helix supercharger.
@@F14thunderhawk Multifuel certainly has something to do with the T-64 engine complexity, as different fuels have different knacking points, and thus need variable compression adjusted to the fuel used, and that on top of the factors you listed.
As a mechanical engineer, this video is fantastic!
Same here.
Rob would have to be my favourite teacher of mechanical engineering. Love his docos, particularly on bridges.
This is his usual entertaining, educational video.
Also interesting choices.
Great video! As a former tank commander though, I’d have to say unequivocally my crew was the heartbeat of the tank.
this is one of the coolest tank museum videos. i like the technical detail over the generalized and highly situational field performance narrative.
That first clip about the perkins engine and generator/BV and tea....so true. Was on Soltau training area....something went wrong with the power to the BV....My cmdr had the driver stop, then radio'd the REME....we didnt move until it was fixed.
Well do you blame him. Can't have nuch of a tea break without tea.
@@owen368 Going without tea? Blasphemy! 😅
In reality, what other needed systems are powered by the APU when stopped? That's the main reason to get the APU fixed. No radio when parked? That's a big negative so get the APU fixed.
@@LadyAnuB This is true especially if your the command tank not much use if the radio goes out as batteries die or communder tank gets left behind due to using all the fuel up running main engine. It's why they put the little A series engine in the first place to give the tank more time on station.
why the punctuation?
A "Top 5" featuring tank engines is a clever extension of your Top 5 series. I was wondering how many M4 Medium tank engines would be in the Top 5.
The V2 was ahead of it's time; an all alloy diesel V12 with dohc, 4 valve heads and direct fuel injection. A worthy #1 in this video.
Really cool video and loved to see it! Engine characteristics always feel like one of the overlooked metrics when people are comparing tank vs tank, and it was great to learn more about them. Looking forward to a bottom 5 tank engines in the future, hopefully!
Nicely played, Rob! LOL! I rewound that first minute of the video three times thinking I had misunderstood you when you said the tank had a 50 hp engine! Lol! I finally played it long enough to get to your punchline.
I was waiting desparately for a vid regarding tank engines (and transmissions). The technical, the mechanical, the engineering part of the tank topic is extremely important imho, thxx.
The 7 cylinder radials in the M2 Lights and M3 Stuart tanks provided plenty of power as well. The American radials could be found in many vehicles such the M2, M3, and M4 Medium, M2 and M3 Light, and the LVT series to name a few. There were actually Guiberson 7-cyl diesel radials as well.
The reduction of coolant and the need to have a supply chain to support it is a massive benefit of the air cooled radials. Also, they are less susceptible to block cracking in extreme cold.
The fact that the kharkiv v2 had 4 valves per cylinder in the 1940s, still blows my mind.
@JZ's BFF maybe he was hung?
Anyways that engine was freaking impressive. The manifold castings are impressive
loved this one. I hope Rob can do more videos for you.
Incredible how distinctive camouflage can be, as soon as the Swedish Centurion came into frame the nationality was a given.
I'm amazed about how I correctly understood how diesel engines worked but how I simplified the process and had it slightly wrong all these years.
This guy is an exceptional presenter.... He should be on the staff.
bugger, there I was thinking this would be about tank engines, and it was about tank engines. it reminds me of the Ronnie Barker sketch where a customer asks for four candles, and the shop owner gives him 4 candles. He keeps insisting he wants four candles until he realises he'll have to elaborate. Finally he tells the guy he wants handles for forks. Fork handles in other words. Very good video though, thanks Mr Bell.
A two litre auxiliary power unit is interesting. The WW2 American bombers had a tiny 7 hp ‘Putt Putt’ APU.
A lot of American planes had awful electrically powered constant speed mechanism propellers, a run down battery and old fashioned narrow revs range generators instead of later more flexible alternators meant that after low speed taxying and dropping voltages the propellers could disastrously go out of control just on take off. The put-put vitally preserved battery health.
The engine, maybe more than any other single factor, could make or break a tank design, so it's great to see the topic highlighted like this.
They could still drop the ball with the transmission and/or final drives... and, that's just looking at the drivetrain.
Nicholas Moran, aka The Chieftain, has a thing for track design, most especially the tensioning thereof. He also has made some rather pertinent observations regarding transmission replacement/exchange.
None of this is quite as obvious a set of issues for the layman, who will glom on to the gun and armor balance first.
Great video. Give this guy a much longer slot. I could have listened a lot longer as he went through the engines👍
An excellent video! In my heart, however, nothing beats the greatest tank engine of all... Thomas.
Excellent. Good information with a good presenter. It would have been great to hear
more about the T-34 engine, maybe with some cutaway diagrams. An engineers
perspective is almost always interesting.
Really well thought out and presented!
This was pretty cool. I would be curious to see a top-five tank engines from the perspective of mechanics. Which tanks engine would they rate to be the most reliable
And easiest to maintain!
@@AnimeSunglasses The Leopard 1 with its PowerPack concept should be pretty up there, removing the engine is a 30min job and from there maintenance and repairs are an absolute breeze
I always thought the Ricardo was an amazing engine because it used petrol of such low quality 45 -50 octane it would barley vaporize - Ricardo fed it round the piston trunk guides to extract the heat and atomize it
Great breakdown and plenty of scope for Rob to do more of these. Approaching tanks through the requirements and specifications context (explained correctly) can be fascinating.
I've watched this twice now as well as his first top5 and I've finally figured out who he reminds me of; he's a alternate universe Richard Hammond where he got into tanks instead of cars.
Oh my lord you're absolutely right.
Before starting to watch this, i think we all already knew the "Leyland L60" engine was going to struggle, just a little, to get into the top 5.
I see you're a man of culture as well. :D
You can see the joy in this man's eyes when he looks at all these engines.
Great video. Would love to see more like it.
This was really well presented and informative. Thank you Rob!
I was half expecting they’d put the Leyland L60 in as a joke
Great video tho, I enjoy the technical aspect that the IME bring.
Awesome! Thank you!
Why this is the first of all of the top 5's that I have agreed with all the way. Good job Rob Bell, you are either right or we are both wrong, but I think you are right. Wish you had added in the history of the meteor the story that it was made from engines that were damaged and could not be used in a Spitfire anymore, would like to hear your opinion if that was real or just a folk tale
Those radials sound fantastic running around the arena.
I would love to see a bottom 5 too please
All WW2 german ones...
@@mbr5742don’t be daft 🤣
OMG i wanted to see this for a whole long time!!! THANK YOU I
Fantastic Host. He was very entertaining and informative.
I love this new take on top 5's
Thank you ,this was informative and enjoyable.
Excellent video, but for my list, I'd make a few changes. First, I'd drop the Ford V8 and replace it with the Maybach HL120, and move it below the Riccardo. The Germans deserve *some* love. I'd switch the positions of the R975 and the Meteor, for several reasons:
* The Meteor *ended up* as a great engine, but it wasn't until after the war that the reliability was fully ironed out. Furthermore, it never really became the engine of choice for a wide variety of vehicles the way the R975 did.
* The R975 was cheaper to make, needed less and simpler maintenance, and was easier to work on when it did need work.
* The Meteor needed extensive development work to make the transition from aeromotive to automotive, but the R975 used in ground vehicles differed comparatively little from the aircraft versions.
And that last point is the main reason why I'd put it above the Meteor. The R975 was part of a huge engine *ecosystem* which *massively* simplified logistics for the Allies at every point in the supply chain, and this ability to deliver greater numbers of fewer *things* was one of the most important weapons the Allies had.
But as he pointed out, the R975 compromised the tank design by being very tall.
@@jeremypnet -- Compromised in what way?
@@JohnnyWishbone85 the hull had to be taller to fit the engine, so you couldn't hide behind a hedge and you presented a larger target to enemy gunners.
@@EmyrDerfel - The height of the Sherman was as much a function of a restriction on width as it was the configuration of the engine. American military vehicles had to be able to fit on rail cars that had a maximum width restriction due to the need to pass through particular rail tunnels. There are other reasons for this width restriction, but the fact is that there are several crucial pieces of equipment, including ammo storage under the turret basket that would have to be moved outwards if the turret basket were moved down. It would be very easy to do this by including a transfer case on the output of the engine to move the prop shaft down, but this wasn’t done, because the space necessitated by the prop shaft was needed for ancillary equipment anyway to keep the width of the vehicle within certain limits. And because there’s a limit to how long you can make the tank relative to its width before it becomes undriveable, the only dimension left to expand was height.
Excellent Video. Learned quite a bit. The only problem is, that I am now quite envious of the presentation skills of Mr. Bell :)
A good series to do would to go over the basics of engine design as it applies to tanks and other armored vehicles. It would be good to see the progression of engine design through the years.
Great video Rob. So well explained. Thanks
Wow, I had always thought that the Meteor powering one of the best tanks in history; the Centurion amongst others would be top, but I have to agree with your choice. Love this channel!
all good, lots of information about liquid cooled engines having liquid flowing through them and fins for air cooling increasing surface area for school kids interested in tank engines.
Really enjoyed this video well done
you know, i really like tank and tall richard hammond man.
The meteor is quite the lovely sounding thing ❤️
V-2 is truly a great engine!
It deserves the first place.
I am a former US Army Engineer and I liked the video but would like something that expanded on the "tech" of each of the engines.
Yes Rob you are a great example for becoming an engineer even if not wearing a brown suit ha, ha. I went into Chemistry but your professional appraisals are intriguing.
Great video! Hope a follow on will come about more modern engines like turbo diesels and gasturbines for tanks will come in the future!
I had a feeling the Ford V8 was gonna be on the list, but VERY surprised about the R-975.
Disappointed the Chrysler multi-bank wasn't in there, although it must have been a nightmare to maintain.
For me, Rob sounds, & looks a bit like Richard Hammond! 😁 Whereas Hammond talks about cars, Bell talks about tanks --- so, a taller version of Hammond, talks about a bigger type of vehicles... 🤣😂
It'd be nice to have tank chat on the Chrysler multibank. You know, when Chrysler wanted to build a tank engine, but all they had were loads of 6 cylinder engines lying around and they were bored......
Brilliant. Thank you. I’m already a Mechanical Engineer so no need to convince me of that career path.
Another great Rob Bell top 5
I like the concept, but it was very light on specifications. It should have included horsepower and torque (torque being one of the advantages of diesel), along with displacement and weight of the engines. Production numbers can be more of a political decision than of actual superiority. The Chrysler multi-bank comes to mind.
great content now want to see his bottom 5 engines I'm looking at you Leyland l60 🤣🤣
Good video and great presentation. I'm slightly surprised there was no Maybach in there anywhere.
With all due respect ... the Chrysler A57 Multibank 30-cylinder 1,253 cu in (20.5 L) engine has much more interesting history to provide the american tanks with an engine with sufficient power at the start of WWII. And all that done in a very short span of time.
Based on 6-cyl-in-line car engines there were several different of this multi cylinder "Monsters". Just to remind you ... at the begin of WWII, a 100 hp engine was a very strong engine for earthbound use.
Excellent video. Thank you.
That was a very interesting view on tanks.
I did not see this one coming, but a pretty interesting top 5 nonetheless! Mr. Bell really made these engines interesting with both a bit of background history, AND some technical aspects. Also respect to him for choosing a Soviet engine as his nr. 1, I did not realise the Kharkiv V-2 was still around in some form!
Given the subject of this top 5, perhaps you could do a top 5 things (or even hats) with Mr. Smith next time? c:
A smaller version of the Meteor engine was developed and called the Meteorite. It was a V8 and was basically two thirds of the proven Meteor engine. Used in tank transporters. And other heavy duty vehicles.
cant believe you didn't mention german tank engines
Awesome twist and great video. Humbled me. I guessed 2, but not the Soviet V2.
I'm looking forward to the Bottom 5 engines =)
Fascinating!!!
An excellent video!
This will be needed for my powered billy cart
This was very interesting, I would love him to present something on hydrolics.
An excellent tutorial!
V2 as Meteor was designed as aviation diesel variant for tank main purpose was planned as Soviet bomber Pe 8 ... (unsuccessful application). Don`t forget that up to 1945 these engine life was just around 50 motor hour until rebuild ... So reliable it will became after war ...
The Ford GAA was abused and developed between Nov 1942 and August 1943. To the extent that 12-17 were running flat out on dyno and in tanks for that time period 24/7. While at the same time it was in production.
I was expecting an MTU engine at the top 😅
It should have been of course.
When we were on extended tank maneuvers in the Alps in the worst weather imaginable in the 1970s the worst thing was getting low on fuel. For that reason alone I'll take a diesel engine.
the other big advantage that diesel engine technology has is that diesel engines can very easily be made to use JP-1 grade jet fuel. (and by easily, I mean there is a component in military engines that makes the necessary adjustment with no outside fettling) and so if your military uses all engines with this component, and all jets that are made for JP-1, you only need one kind of fuel at your remote bases, and yet, you can easily fuel all your ground vehicles at any petrol station that carries diesel, or even Kerosene if that is what is available. (furnace oil is also equivalent to diesel fuel)
great listen
How was (No.3) the Continental radial engine cooled? i understand it was aircooled, but with what/how in the crammed tank space? thanks, Levi
It has a very big shrouded fan attached to it. Air is sucked in from the top of the engine deck and blown out the back.
@@rollatorwieltje thanks, i understand, i think..
@@rollatorwieltje one thing thou, that still bothers me, hm.. how is a horizontal fan connected to the engine shaft, or do i think "backwards" here?
@@MrKeys57 If you view a diagram of the M4 Sherman tank engine compartment with the radial engines, you will see the blower fan is simply bolted directly to the front of the crankshaft, (like an aircraft propeller) but with many short blades like a turbine, and slightly smaller in diameter than the engine's cylinders. If you look at the WW2 German FW 190 fighter aircraft from the front, you will see a nearly identical fan behind it's propeller, doing the same job!
@@KevinSmith-ys3mh thanks very much! NOW i understand! Levi
Had to double-check which channel this was posted on, after all, the same video title would have worked as easily on a railway-based youtube channel
Rob Bell - Richard Hammond's tank loving cousin.
Thanks Rob.
An excellent choice -
AV1790, 5TDF, that GIAT hyperbar hybrid -, interesting is good