Probably because the Foden used an epicyclic geartrain attached to that olde David Brown gearbox mate 
More forgiving when one`s attempting a wheelie from a standing start in an eight legger 
Carryfast:
Freight Dog:
Que?? No, it was very clear. I was discussing this with someone:-Torque= (HP X 5252) RPM
You stated torque is independent of RPM. Incorrect. I challenged you.
To make it easier, to emphasise the affect, I did indeed mention a fixed HP.
The only figure you’ve stated as being a ‘given’ ‘fixed’ was HP.IE we don’t know what the RPM is because you’ve only set a HP as a given.In which case we’ll ‘also’ need rpm as a ‘fixed’ given.As I said if HP is the only ‘fixed’ given then the torque and rpm side of the equation could be anything.While ‘if’ you’d have said HP ‘and’ RPM are ‘both’ a ‘fixed’ given then we wouldn’t be arguing at least on ‘that’ issue.
Although that still leaves the question of you seeming to be saying that power isn’t just torque x engine speed with the ‘sum’ of ‘that’ equation ‘then’ subject to the usual 5252 correction.
You absolutely have no clue do you. talking out of your backside. You’re attempting to squirrel your self assured, inept little way out of a ■■■■ up using your usual waffle. The thing is with you, is whatever rational of an explanation is put before you, you don’t understand it so you reply using your own totally incorrect interpretation and attempt to twist things to untruths so the next 40 posts are arguing about things that were incorrectly interpreted by you. Im not going to repeat myself answering your incorrect jackanory twaddle.
I’ve made my point. If you’re too lacking in maths to understand that, I suggest you stop pretending in your responses. But you can’t, as twisting and making up complete horsecrap is what you do so people don’t see the Emporors new clothes.
Because you’re so lacking in basic maths comprehension that I can’t even rationalize with you I am going to “leave it out”, you’re driving me insane and its getting no where.
I’m confident with what I know. I use a bit more heavy stuff than this day to day, for real and , am still alive and have manage to avoid any accidents. Despite your posturing, I can tell you, you’ve made such a boo boo and are now trying to squirrel your way out its a shame if you were to get away with it.
Now, mr Arnold aardvark from Acacia avenue, go and show someone else your stamp collection, and airfix toys. I’ve no dog left in this fight and quite frankly bigger things to worry about on my 2 knackered days at home before the next bloody odyssey.
It’s meant to be Chinese New Year season. Why have my days off been cancelled 
Yep another funny thread (well not for Bking 
) systematically trashed by Carryfast…
bazza123:
Yep another funny thread (well not for Bking
You do know old curryfart will try to take that as a compliment?
Freight Dog:
Carryfast:
Freight Dog:
Que?? No, it was very clear. I was discussing this with someone:-Torque= (HP X 5252) RPM
You stated torque is independent of RPM. Incorrect. I challenged you.
To make it easier, to emphasise the affect, I did indeed mention a fixed HP.
The only figure you’ve stated as being a ‘given’ ‘fixed’ was HP.IE we don’t know what the RPM is because you’ve only set a HP as a given.In which case we’ll ‘also’ need rpm as a ‘fixed’ given.As I said if HP is the only ‘fixed’ given then the torque and rpm side of the equation could be anything.While ‘if’ you’d have said HP ‘and’ RPM are ‘both’ a ‘fixed’ given then we wouldn’t be arguing at least on ‘that’ issue.
Although that still leaves the question of you seeming to be saying that power isn’t just torque x engine speed with the ‘sum’ of ‘that’ equation ‘then’ subject to the usual 5252 correction.
You absolutely have no clue do you. talking out of your backside. You’re attempting to squirrel your self assured, inept little way out of a ■■■■ up using your usual waffle. The thing is with you, is whatever rational of an explanation is put before you, you don’t understand it so you reply using your own totally incorrect interpretation and attempt to twist things to untruths so the next 40 posts are arguing about things that were incorrectly interpreted by you. Im not going to repeat myself answering your incorrect jackanory twaddle.
I’ve made my point. If you’re too lacking in maths to understand that, I suggest you stop pretending in your responses. But you can’t, as twisting and making up complete horsecrap is what you do so people don’t see the Emporors new clothes.
Because you’re so lacking in basic maths comprehension that I can’t even rationalize with you I am going to “leave it out”, you’re driving me insane and its getting no where.
I’m confident with what I know. I use a bit more heavy stuff than this day to day, for real and , am still alive and have manage to avoid any accidents. Despite your posturing, I can tell you, you’ve made such a boo boo and are now trying to squirrel your way out its a shame if you were to get away with it.
Now, mr Arnold aardvark from Acacia avenue, go and show someone else your stamp collection, and airfix toys. I’ve no dog left in this fight and quite frankly bigger things to worry about on my 2 knackered days at home before the next bloody odyssey.
It’s meant to be Chinese New Year season. Why have my days off been cancelled
You made a zb up by concentrating on the bs 5252 constant which anyone who knows what horsepower is takes as a given.Then you thought,or at least said, that you could establish a torque value from ‘just’ a ‘fixed’ HP figure without ‘also’ ‘fixing’ an engine speed figure.Then you’re trying to blame me for taking that at face value. 
So I’ll repeat what I said and clarify it.Power = torque x engine speed ( yes anyone who knows what HP is knows that we’ll need to apply the 5252 correction to the sum of that equation as a given ).
While ‘if’ you want to establish a torque value from a ‘fixed’ HP figure then you’ll ‘also’ need to provide a ‘fixed’ engine speed/RPM figure,which you clearly didn’t say in your post.In which case,as I said,torque and engine speed are obviously independent of each other regardless of the ‘fixed’ 'given Hp figure.As above 5252 being just a given correction factor to the fact that HP = torque x engine speed.
Carryfast:
Freight Dog:
Carryfast:
Freight Dog:
Que?? No, it was very clear. I was discussing this with someone:-Torque= (HP X 5252) RPM
You stated torque is independent of RPM. Incorrect. I challenged you.
To make it easier, to emphasise the affect, I did indeed mention a fixed HP.
The only figure you’ve stated as being a ‘given’ ‘fixed’ was HP.IE we don’t know what the RPM is because you’ve only set a HP as a given.In which case we’ll ‘also’ need rpm as a ‘fixed’ given.As I said if HP is the only ‘fixed’ given then the torque and rpm side of the equation could be anything.While ‘if’ you’d have said HP ‘and’ RPM are ‘both’ a ‘fixed’ given then we wouldn’t be arguing at least on ‘that’ issue.
Although that still leaves the question of you seeming to be saying that power isn’t just torque x engine speed with the ‘sum’ of ‘that’ equation ‘then’ subject to the usual 5252 correction.
You absolutely have no clue do you. talking out of your backside. You’re attempting to squirrel your self assured, inept little way out of a ■■■■ up using your usual waffle. The thing is with you, is whatever rational of an explanation is put before you, you don’t understand it so you reply using your own totally incorrect interpretation and attempt to twist things to untruths so the next 40 posts are arguing about things that were incorrectly interpreted by you. Im not going to repeat myself answering your incorrect jackanory twaddle.
I’ve made my point. If you’re too lacking in maths to understand that, I suggest you stop pretending in your responses. But you can’t, as twisting and making up complete horsecrap is what you do so people don’t see the Emporors new clothes.
Because you’re so lacking in basic maths comprehension that I can’t even rationalize with you I am going to “leave it out”, you’re driving me insane and its getting no where.
I’m confident with what I know. I use a bit more heavy stuff than this day to day, for real and , am still alive and have manage to avoid any accidents. Despite your posturing, I can tell you, you’ve made such a boo boo and are now trying to squirrel your way out its a shame if you were to get away with it.
Now, mr Arnold aardvark from Acacia avenue, go and show someone else your stamp collection, and airfix toys. I’ve no dog left in this fight and quite frankly bigger things to worry about on my 2 knackered days at home before the next bloody odyssey.
It’s meant to be Chinese New Year season. Why have my days off been cancelled
You made a zb up by concentrating on the bs 5252 constant which anyone who knows what horsepower is takes as a given.Then you thought,or at least said, that you could establish a torque value from ‘just’ a ‘fixed’ HP figure without ‘also’ ‘fixing’ an engine speed figure.Then you’re trying to blame me for taking that at face value.
So I’ll repeat what I said and clarify it.Power = torque x engine speed ( yes anyone who knows what HP is knows that we’ll need to apply the 5252 correction to the sum of that equation as a given
While ‘if’ you want to establish a torque value from a ‘fixed’ HP figure then you’ll ‘also’ need to provide a ‘fixed’ engine speed/RPM figure,which you clearly didn’t say in your post.In which case,as I said,torque and engine speed are obviously independent of each other regardless of the ‘fixed’ 'given Hp figure.As above 5252 being just a given correction factor to the fact that HP = torque x engine speed.
You’d give an aspirin a headache. Park it and stop shytin for once you boring old bugger
bazza123:
Yep another funny thread (well not for Bking
Assuming that Bking was just avin a larf about gear reduction creating more power than the engine put in then it will obviously be hysterical for Bking too.While I haven’t ‘trashed’ anything by thinking that he might just have been serious.
trux:
Probably because the Foden used an epicyclic geartrain attached to that olde David Brown gearbox mate
More forgiving when one`s attempting a wheelie from a standing start in an eight legger
Aye, to be fair they usually sheared the propshaft instead! We carried several spare ones.
Pete.
windrush:
trux:
Probably because the Foden used an epicyclic geartrain attached to that olde David Brown gearbox mate
More forgiving when one`s attempting a wheelie from a standing start in an eight leggerAye, to be fair they usually sheared the propshaft instead! We carried several spare ones.
Pete.
ECCQ C-o- t ? per chance ?
Carryfast:
bazza123:
Yep another funny thread (well not for BkingAssuming that Bking was just avin a larf about gear reduction creating more power than the engine put in
Still shytin. We all know you talk crap, so stop waffling and trying to preen your feathers you don’t have. BK was wrong but far more eleoquent, intelligent and to the point drivers put him straight before you old curryfart. Even then you ballsed it all up, as per.
well I don’t know the enginerring… and not clever enough to do the maths, but from real world experience I had a DAF 400 single drive with a tag axle that coped with 80 tonnes, I also drove a DAF 430 (only 30 BHP more) with double drive with Hub reduction and a torque converter that was 140 tonne on the pin and 240 tonne if ballasted on the bar, if the hub reduction makes no difference how come what are virtually the same trucks- one can pull 80 tonne the other 240?- to use an idiot so even I can understand it… hub reduction trades speed for grunt, you can throw as much “power” as you want from an engine, its the gearing that defines how its used- HUb reduction like any gearing multiplies the force applied … the poster above is right is most ways with the lever principle.
Carryfast:
Freight Dog:
Carryfast:
Freight Dog:
Que?? No, it was very clear. I was discussing this with someone:-Torque= (HP X 5252) RPM
You stated torque is independent of RPM. Incorrect. I challenged you.
To make it easier, to emphasise the affect, I did indeed mention a fixed HP.
The only figure you’ve stated as being a ‘given’ ‘fixed’ was HP.IE we don’t know what the RPM is because you’ve only set a HP as a given.In which case we’ll ‘also’ need rpm as a ‘fixed’ given.As I said if HP is the only ‘fixed’ given then the torque and rpm side of the equation could be anything.While ‘if’ you’d have said HP ‘and’ RPM are ‘both’ a ‘fixed’ given then we wouldn’t be arguing at least on ‘that’ issue.
Although that still leaves the question of you seeming to be saying that power isn’t just torque x engine speed with the ‘sum’ of ‘that’ equation ‘then’ subject to the usual 5252 correction.
You absolutely have no clue do you. talking out of your backside. You’re attempting to squirrel your self assured, inept little way out of a ■■■■ up using your usual waffle. The thing is with you, is whatever rational of an explanation is put before you, you don’t understand it so you reply using your own totally incorrect interpretation and attempt to twist things to untruths so the next 40 posts are arguing about things that were incorrectly interpreted by you. Im not going to repeat myself answering your incorrect jackanory twaddle.
I’ve made my point. If you’re too lacking in maths to understand that, I suggest you stop pretending in your responses. But you can’t, as twisting and making up complete horsecrap is what you do so people don’t see the Emporors new clothes.
Because you’re so lacking in basic maths comprehension that I can’t even rationalize with you I am going to “leave it out”, you’re driving me insane and its getting no where.
I’m confident with what I know. I use a bit more heavy stuff than this day to day, for real and , am still alive and have manage to avoid any accidents. Despite your posturing, I can tell you, you’ve made such a boo boo and are now trying to squirrel your way out its a shame if you were to get away with it.
Now, mr Arnold aardvark from Acacia avenue, go and show someone else your stamp collection, and airfix toys. I’ve no dog left in this fight and quite frankly bigger things to worry about on my 2 knackered days at home before the next bloody odyssey.
It’s meant to be Chinese New Year season. Why have my days off been cancelled
You made a zb up by concentrating on the bs 5252 constant which anyone who knows what horsepower is takes as a given.Then you thought,or at least said, that you could establish a torque value from ‘just’ a ‘fixed’ HP figure without ‘also’ ‘fixing’ an engine speed figure.Then you’re trying to blame me for taking that at face value.
So I’ll repeat what I said and clarify it.Power = torque x engine speed ( yes anyone who knows what HP is knows that we’ll need to apply the 5252 correction to the sum of that equation as a given
While ‘if’ you want to establish a torque value from a ‘fixed’ HP figure then you’ll ‘also’ need to provide a ‘fixed’ engine speed/RPM figure,which you clearly didn’t say in your post.In which case,as I said,torque and engine speed are obviously independent of each other regardless of the ‘fixed’ 'given Hp figure.As above 5252 being just a given correction factor to the fact that HP = torque x engine speed.
Drawn to this like staring at a rotting cadaver I can’t help myself with bewilderment. I’m actually beginning to get so fascinated by your flawed thinking, I think I will show this to a work colleague on my next trip when on layover over some beers. I’m flying with a bloke from the technical office. Pretty mathsy sort, I’m sure he’d find mirth in this after 35 pints.
Right, let’s make this point easy and remove his Emporor waffles’ new clothes. Tell me. If I said to you
3 X 3 = 180
Or
6 X 2.5 = 1400
Or perhaps
7 X 3 = -49
Would you find that odd? You’d say I’m lying right? Might you well, because these statements are complete, bollarx.
“No they are not!” Carryfast replies. "Sure there’s a constant that “anyone knows, they’re not important though”
So unless you reveal to the world the complete statement, it’s, er, bollarx!
By the way Carryfast, and you’re honestly telling me you knew all about this 5252 that “anyone knows”'?
Your second point all I’ll say is this.
That equation and and your childhood ■■■■ up:-
Torque= (HP X 5252) RPM
Your response:-
“Torque is independent of rpm”
And tell me in the equation
30={ 2 X 5 } 3
Quite how Carryfast is 30 independent of the value 3■■ Answers on a succinct postcard please. Tell me. If the value “3” went away for Sunday lunch and came back a fuller “6”. Would your value 30 remain?
Maybe in Carryfast world, maybe! Maybe the 30 would hang around and hope the “3” would not budge and affect the dilemma. Maybe the mathematical term “dependant” didn’t reach your cranium as a young boy when discussing products? Ironically (As I believe you like to call it) as without even the multiplier you so wish to discount, the stark ■■■■ uo becomes even more apparent. For example!
In Carryfast world:-
10= 2 X 5
But the 10 being 10 has nothing to do with the 5 being, well, a 5.
How is 10 not DEPENDANT on 5 being er, 5? And not wandering off into the netherworld and becoming 20?
Freight Dog:
In Carryfast world:-10= 2 x 5
But the 10 being 10 has nothing to do with the 5 being, well, a 5.
How is 10 not DEPENDANT on 5 being er, 5? And not wandering off into the netherworld and becoming 20?
How the zb can 10=2x5 be the same thing as you clearly stating that you can reach a torque value from a ‘fixed’ HP value without ‘also’ stating ‘fixed’ rpm.IE yes we know what the formula is but you clearly stated that we’re talking about a ‘fixed’ HP figure.At which point if you want to know what the torque value is you’re obviously going to ‘also’ need a ‘fixed’ rpm figure.Which for ‘some’ reason you chose to over look having seen the need to refer to a ‘fixed’ HP figure.The analogy in your statement being ? = 2 x 5 divided by ?.
IE if I asked you the question,we need the engine to produce a ‘fixed’ figure of 635 HP what will be the torque value we need for that ? you couldn’t answer it because I haven’t also ‘fixed’ an rpm value.That’s because as I said Torque is ‘independent’ of RPM and as a result you’ll need to know the relationship between the given HP figure v a given rpm figure based on the fact that power is torque x engine speed. Whereas ‘if’ I said we need the engine to produce a ‘fixed’ 635 HP at a ‘fixed’ 2,100 rpm bingo you’ll now have no problem in knowing how much torque we’ll need for the job. 
As for 5252 yes having grown up around cars and engines and tuning and motorsport and then employed from the age of 16 in a truck manufacturing factory I knew how to calculate horsepower and/or torque given the relevant opposing figures.As you’d see from numerous previous posts of mine elsewhere.The important bit being that without a ‘fixed’ engine speed in either case you’re blind and you can’t answer the question.
Bearing in mind that you’re the one who introduced the issue of ‘fixed’ figures into the equation which I then took at face value in commenting on the ‘independence’ of torque v engine speed regards that statement.While also bearing in mind that the difference could be the idea of putting a small car engine or a proper big turbo diesel truck engine into that 40 tonne fire truck that you’re relying on built by people like me.
While I’m sure if he’s as bright as you say he is then he’ll tell you that he also needs a ‘fixed’ rpm figure to go with the ‘fixed’ torque or ‘fixed’ HP figure.While the reason for that is because torque is ‘independent’ of engine speed.On that note maybe he can also answer the question as to why bother with a HP trace on a dyno sheet when the torque curve contains all the required information which I need/ever needed at least.
Rikki-UK:
well I don’t know the enginerring… and not clever enough to do the maths, but from real world experience I had a DAF 400 single drive with a tag axle that coped with 80 tonnes, I also drove a DAF 430 (only 30 BHP more) with double drive with Hub reduction and a torque converter that was 140 tonne on the pin and 240 tonne if ballasted on the bar, if the hub reduction makes no difference how come what are virtually the same trucks- one can pull 80 tonne the other 240?- to use an idiot so even I can understand it… hub reduction trades speed for grunt, you can throw as much “power” as you want from an engine, its the gearing that defines how its used- HUb reduction like any gearing multiplies the force applied … the poster above is right is most ways with the lever principle.
All gear reduction is a case of trading useless engine speed for useful torque at the wheels.Which is why no truck is going anywhere without significant torque multiplication provided by the drive line gear reduction.The difference with hub reduction is that it provides a good contribution to that and in a way which reduces torque loading on the drive component chain between the diff and wheels.
Carryfast:
Freight Dog:
In Carryfast world:-10= 2 x 5
But the 10 being 10 has nothing to do with the 5 being, well, a 5.
How is 10 not DEPENDANT on 5 being er, 5? And not wandering off into the netherworld and becoming 20?
How the zb can 10=2x5 be the same thing as you clearly stating that you can reach a torque value from a ‘fixed’ HP value without ‘also’ stating ‘fixed’ rpm.IE yes we know what the formula is but you clearly stated that we’re talking about a ‘fixed’ HP figure.At which point if you want to know what the torque value is you’re obviously going to ‘also’ need a ‘fixed’ rpm figure.Which for ‘some’ reason you chose to over look having seen the need to refer to a ‘fixed’ HP figure.The analogy in your statement being ? = 2 x 5 divided by ?.
IE if I asked you the question,we need the engine to produce a ‘fixed’ figure of 635 HP what will be the torque value we need for that ? you couldn’t answer it because I haven’t also ‘fixed’ an rpm value.That’s because as I said Torque is ‘independent’ of RPM and as a result you’ll need to know the relationship between the given HP figure v a given rpm figure based on the fact that power is torque x engine speed.
As for 5252 yes having grown up around cars and engines and tuning and motorsport and then employed from the age of 16 in a truck manufacturing factory I knew how to calculate horsepower and/or torque given the relevant opposing figures.As you’d see from numerous previous posts of mine elsewhere.The important bit being that without a ‘fixed’ engine speed in either case you’re blind and you can’t answer the question.
Bearing in mind that you’re the one who introduced the issue of ‘fixed’ figures into the equation which I then took at face value in commenting on the ‘independence’ of torque v engine speed regards that statement.While also bearing in mind that the difference could be the idea of putting a small car engine or a proper big turbo diesel truck engine into that 40 tonne fire truck that you’re relying on built by people like me.
While I’m sure if he’s as bright as you say he is then he’ll tell you that he also needs a ‘fixed’ rpm figure to go with the ‘fixed’ torque or ‘fixed’ HP figure.While the reason for that is because torque is ‘independent’ of engine speed.On that note maybe he can also answer the question as to why bother with a HP trace on a dyno sheet when the torque curve contains all the required information which I need/ever needed at least.
I couldn’t say I concern myself with who contributed to build the fire truck so long as it turned out like it’s done 5 times in my career. I’ve spoken to fire crew on 121.6 through the 02 mask with smoke. I’ll be honest, all I cared about was doing my job. Whilst people are on board, it’s up to you until evac. What the fireman did afterwards was a given. They’re trained to do their job too and we have to trust they’ll do it. Who built their truck? Well, I may start worrying about who bolts the things together in Seattle. They do their job, the people on it do theirs, and we do ours.
I haven’t read the rest of your post. I’m sorry mate as I’ve lost interest, I skimmed, saw fire truck and responded to that
quote … ‘I haven’t read the rest of your post. I’m sorry mate as I’ve lost interest, I skimmed, saw fire truck and responded to that’
sensible move otherwise you might loose the will to live
raymundo:
quote … ‘I haven’t read the rest of your post. I’m sorry mate as I’ve lost interest, I skimmed, saw fire truck and responded to that’sensible move otherwise you might loose the will to live
Can you read my mind ? Is there a sigh button Raymondo? Or a head against wall icon like on pprune.com? No, don’t think there is - so ill type it;
sighs
Freight Dog:
I couldn’t say I concern myself with who contributed to build the fire truck so long as it turned out like it’s done 5 times in my career. I’ve spoken to fire crew on 121.6 through the 02 mask with smoke. I’ll be honest, all I cared about was doing my job. Whilst people are on board, it’s up to you until evac. What the fireman did afterwards was a given. They’re trained to do their job too and we have to trust they’ll do it. Who built their truck? Well, I may start worrying about who bolts the things together in Seattle. They do their job, the people on it do theirs, and we do ours.I haven’t read the rest of your post. I’m sorry mate as I’ve lost interest, I skimmed, saw fire truck and responded to that
Trust me when it’s all about accelerating a heavy 6 or 8 wheeler special types loaded with thousands of gallons of water and another tankful of foam compound,up to speed where it will get there inside the 2 minute window,it’s all about the torque output that matters.Which is why it’s hopefully got something like a big turbocharged truck engine in it not an F1 race car motor.
As for your idea.As I’ve said I think you’ve confused it actually being the ‘relationship’ between the engine speed figure and a fixed ‘power output’ figure being what sets the torque figure,with the engine speed figure setting the torque figure.The fact that a fixed power figure will create the situation,of having to also fix an engine speed figure to then calculate against the ‘power’ output figure,to establish a torque figure,actually just confirming the fact that torque output is independent of engine speed.
Carryfast:
Freight Dog:
I couldn’t say I concern myself with who contributed to build the fire truck so long as it turned out like it’s done 5 times in my career. I’ve spoken to fire crew on 121.6 through the 02 mask with smoke. I’ll be honest, all I cared about was doing my job. Whilst people are on board, it’s up to you until evac. What the fireman did afterwards was a given. They’re trained to do their job too and we have to trust they’ll do it. Who built their truck? Well, I may start worrying about who bolts the things together in Seattle. They do their job, the people on it do theirs, and we do ours.I haven’t read the rest of your post. I’m sorry mate as I’ve lost interest, I skimmed, saw fire truck and responded to that
Trust me when it’s all about accelerating a heavy 6 or 8 wheeler special types loaded with thousands of gallons of water and another tankful of foam compound,up to speed where it will get there inside the 2 minute window,it’s all about the torque output that matters.Which is why it’s hopefully got something like a big turbocharged truck engine in it not an F1 race car motor.
As for your idea.As I’ve said I think you’ve confused it actually being the ‘relationship’ between the engine speed figure and a fixed ‘power output’ figure being what sets the torque figure,with the engine speed figure setting the torque figure.The fact that a fixed power figure will create the situation,of having to also fix an engine speed figure,to establish a torque figure,actually just confirming the fact that torque output is independent of engine speed.
I don’t doubt. We are glad to have them turn up. They do a very very valuable job, the same as the rest of the train set that chooses to be there and is expected to perform. Including ATC. They are a invaluable part of the crisis team and legally expected when it goes awry. Cabin crew looking only at historical cases have been more the front rescuers during burning evacs than fireman.
Thanks for the input. I shall make sure during tomorrow’s flight to America I do not confuse the ‘relationship’ between engine speed figure and fixed ‘power output’ during my calculations. If I do, I hope you don’t read about it.
Freight Dog:
Thanks for the input. I shall make sure during tomorrow’s flight to America I do not confuse the ‘relationship’ between engine speed figure and fixed ‘power output’ during my calculations. If I do, I hope you don’t read about it.
rosenbauer.com/uploads/tx_ne … oha_01.pdf
1,250 HP at 1,800 rpm. 