From: Joe Foley (redmenaced@yahoo.com)
Date: Wed Sep 17 2003 - 15:01:19 PDT
Yup, I'm thinking they went the absolute cheapest
route the could find here, I think they would have
gone with a variable pitch prop only for efficiency,
which they may have. But they didn't use steam! Why?
Too complicated? Not efficient, therefore expensive?
Having done that I'm thinking they tried to keep the
drive line as cheap and simple as possible.
The venue they will run this in, the Pacific Ocean, is
one consistent run of one month, I think, loaded and
one month return empty. That's also why they wouldn't
need a vari-pitch prop, just design for that ONE job.
Factor in how many trips until they have to completely
rebuild it,..... simple saves LOTS of money.
Joe
--- Doc Bryant <rbhonk1@cox.net> wrote:
> Reverse is more likely a variable pitch prop, or
> some other mechanical
> method. Some older ships engines that were direct
> drive were stopped and
> restarted in a way that caused them to run
> backwards.
>
> Doc Bryant
>
>
> ===Mil-Veh is a member-supported mailing list===
> To unsubscribe, send e-mail to:
> <mil-veh-off@mil-veh.org>
> To switch to the DIGEST mode, send e-mail to
> <mil-veh-digest@mil-veh.org>
> To reach a human, contact <ack@mil-veh.org>
__________________________________
Do you Yahoo!?
Yahoo! SiteBuilder - Free, easy-to-use web site design software
http://sitebuilder.yahoo.com
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.4 : Sat May 07 2005 - 20:24:26 PDT