Reckon a B model would pull this ?
Printed From: Unofficial Allis
Category: Allis Chalmers
Forum Name: Farm Equipment
Forum Description: everything about Allis-Chalmers farm equipment
URL: https://www.allischalmers.com/forum/forum_posts.asp?TID=34052
Printed Date: 06 Aug 2025 at 4:56am
Software Version: Web Wiz Forums 11.10 - http://www.webwizforums.com
Topic: Reckon a B model would pull this ?
Posted By: Boogerowen
Subject: Reckon a B model would pull this ?
Date Posted: 17 Jul 2011 at 3:37pm
Now I know this is not anywhere Orange, but I thought some of you fellas might enjoy seeing what some of us older fellas used to do for a living. This is a generator that I loaded in Monterrey Mexico, and delivered to up-state New York. This picture was taken near Breezewood Pa as I was about to cross the Pa Pike, and was taken by one of my many escorts. All in all, I had 19 axles on the ground with 132 tires, gross weight a little over 900,000 pounds. |
Replies:
Posted By: ToddSin NY
Date Posted: 17 Jul 2011 at 5:12pm
| WOW!! That is a load! Where in NY did you go with it. |
Posted By: Boogerowen
Date Posted: 17 Jul 2011 at 5:23pm
| A little place called Rouses Point, as best I remember...... |
Posted By: bikley
Date Posted: 17 Jul 2011 at 5:42pm
| Did the back wheels just follow along are did the have some type of steering to get around them curves ? |
Posted By: omahagreg
Date Posted: 17 Jul 2011 at 6:16pm
|
Second the rear steering question??? Dad saw a HUGE precast bridge girder leaving south Omaha one day. Said the rear had a tractor frame and numerous axles, that they could steer around the corners. ------------- Greg Kroeker 1950 WD with wide front and Freeman trip loader |
Posted By: Boogerowen
Date Posted: 17 Jul 2011 at 6:19pm
|
Here is the rest of it, sorry.....  |
Posted By: Boogerowen
Date Posted: 17 Jul 2011 at 6:25pm
| Hydraulic steering when turning corners, then it locks in place for regular travel, notice the fella on small platform steering the rear..... |
Posted By: wkpoor
Date Posted: 17 Jul 2011 at 6:29pm
| Thats weighs almost what a fully loaded 747 does. And it has way fewer axles and tires. And.......it goes alot faster hehehehe. |
Posted By: Boogerowen
Date Posted: 17 Jul 2011 at 6:34pm
| BUT, I could stop a lot quicker, and didn't have to go through those TSA checks... |
Posted By: ToddSin NY
Date Posted: 17 Jul 2011 at 6:52pm
| Boogerowen no TSA checks but I bet the DOT checks could sure raise the devil with you! LMBO!! |
Posted By: Boogerowen
Date Posted: 17 Jul 2011 at 7:03pm
| It would probably shock you if you knew what the permits cost to move loads such as this, and believe it or not, the DOT really do not give you much trouble, in fact, they kinda leave you alone, for the most part.... |
Posted By: jhid
Date Posted: 17 Jul 2011 at 7:34pm
|
if I ever became a truck driver i wouldn't be able to stand heavy hauls like this. It takes a special breed for this stuff ------------- red and green are nice for christmas, but orange is all year round http://www.canadianantiquetractor.com/tractorforum/ |
Posted By: CTuckerNWIL
Date Posted: 17 Jul 2011 at 7:56pm
|
I saw a rig kinda like that once. An outfit out of Mn I think moved a 25,000 ton forge press from the railroad at Sterling wire mill to Illinois Forge about 4 or 5 miles. It took way longer to load and unload than to drive the 5 miles. They also had to have the bridge over the Rock River inspected before hand and closed to traffic while the load was on it. I have no idea what the press weighed but I doubt it was anywhere near that generator in weight. ------------- http://www.ae-ta.com" rel="nofollow - http://www.ae-ta.com Lena 1935 WC12xxx, Willie 1951 CA6xx Dad bought new, 1954WD45 PS, 1960 D17 NF |
Posted By: Roddo
Date Posted: 17 Jul 2011 at 10:02pm
|
No ooops allowed there eh? Im sure backing up is not an option. |
Posted By: Boogerowen
Date Posted: 17 Jul 2011 at 10:33pm
|
As a matter of fact, it was possible to back the entire unit up in a straight line by locking the steering hydraulics, but it was still a tricky thing to do. This trailer cost over a million dollars and was paid for after the second load that I moved with it. Maintinence was terribly expensive and tires only lasted a short time, figure that up if you want a shock...........(bout like tractor tires)
|
Posted By: tadams(OH)
Date Posted: 18 Jul 2011 at 7:11am
|
What route was you routed on across PA? The reason I ask is back in the early 70's I took a crusher from Milwakee to N.Jersy and they routed me across route 30.
Tom
|
Posted By: wkpoor
Date Posted: 18 Jul 2011 at 9:13am
Bet you couldn't from the same speed. In fact from 60mph I guarantee you couldn't. I'll go one further and say the 747 could stop way faster from 120mph than you could from 60mph. And acceleration......well you can guess that one. |
Boogerowen wrote:Posted By: Boogerowen
Date Posted: 18 Jul 2011 at 10:33am
| Your guarantee would be no good WKPoor, at 60 mph I could actually stop faster than a 5 axle rig. Just think a minute about how much more braking power I had with 19 axles than a 5 axle rig, and a great number of those axles had multiple sets of brakes instead of only 2, as on a conventional 5 axle rig.... |
Posted By: Gerald J.
Date Posted: 18 Jul 2011 at 11:23am
|
But could the pavement stand locking up all 132 tires without buckling? Gerald J. |
Posted By: Boogerowen
Date Posted: 18 Jul 2011 at 1:18pm
| You ca not lock the brakes with these new-fangled braking systems..... |
Posted By: wkpoor
Date Posted: 18 Jul 2011 at 1:55pm
Your totally forgetting something besides all the pressure exerted on only a few tires compared to all the tires your rig has .......reverse thrust! |
Posted By: Boogerowen
Date Posted: 18 Jul 2011 at 2:23pm
|
You keep beating a dead horse to death, you probably need to stick to something you actually know something about, because you are bordering on calling me a liar, and I certainly do not appreciate it. A little respect for your elders wouldn't hurt anything, and I'll bet your parents didn't raise you that way !!!! GOD BLESS ......
|
Posted By: DaveKamp
Date Posted: 18 Jul 2011 at 2:33pm
|
If he has 17,000lbs of load on each axle, and a maximum tE of 15,000lbs, that means he can exert roughly 285,000lbs of braking thrust against a 900,000lb load... so a ratio of 3.15:1. The 747-8's GE engines develop 66,000lbs each in forward thrust against a 960,000lb max takeoff weight. Given that reverse thrust efficiency is somewhat less than forward, and the 747's landing distance is around 2100m... 6890 feet... from 125mph... I'm willing to bet that an empirical test would make Booger's load a definite challenger, particularly in repeating stops. I'd like to run that test! |
Posted By: Boogerowen
Date Posted: 18 Jul 2011 at 3:25pm
| Dave, what wkpoor was not thinking of was the fact that I had 50 sets of brakes, 42 on the trailer units, and 8 on my tractor, buddy, thats a-lot of brakes..... |
Posted By: Orange Blood
Date Posted: 18 Jul 2011 at 3:32pm
|
Let's stop fighting, and remember all the rules of work, and motion.
If drag, and weight were equal, it would take the exact same amount of force to stop both vehicles in the same distance assuming speed is the same!!!!
In the truck example you are only using the friction of the brakes, in the airplane example you are using friction of the brakes and reverse engine thrust.
Each manufacture does deceleration differently, but both are designed for maximum stopping power, so I dought the distances would be all that different if both loads were able to run at 125mph. ------------- Still in use: HD7 WC C CA WD 2-WD45 WD45LP WD45D D14 3-D17 D17LP 2-D19D D19LP 190XTD 190XTLP 720 D21 220 7020 7030 7040 7045 3-7060 Projects: 3-U UC 2-G 2-B 2-C CA 7-WC RC WDLP WF D14 D21 210 7045 N7 |
Posted By: Bill Long
Date Posted: 18 Jul 2011 at 3:40pm
|
You know, My favorite can do a lot of things. But pull that. Even I don't think so. Great Pictures. Good Luck! Bill Long |
Posted By: wkpoor
Date Posted: 18 Jul 2011 at 5:04pm
|
I think we might be getting just a weeeeee bit to serious now. I think it is fun to make impossible comparisons. You mentioned that the rig weighted 900,000lbs and I got to thinking about the fact that a 747 flys heavier than that. And then it moved on to breaking. I am an A&P and with my knowledge of aircraft brakes and braking systems tells me there is little chance a truck of similar weight could stop as quick and then there is reverse thrust which pretty much makes it a done deal, especially if they were both starting at 60mph, the plane could stop quicker. Number of axles and brakes has absolutely nothing to do with this comparison. And nobody is accusing anybody of anything.
One 747 brake might have the ability to absorb as much energy as 50 semi brakes and the 747 has more than 1.
|
Posted By: NCAllisnut
Date Posted: 18 Jul 2011 at 5:06pm
|
First off, thank you for posting the pictures. I love seeing this kind of real world engineering and problem solving.
Second, and I'm not trying to pick a fight or anything, but I'm confused by the number or axles and tires you said the rig had. Do some of the load axles have more than four tires per axle?
Thanks,
Adam
|
Posted By: WD45
Date Posted: 18 Jul 2011 at 5:13pm
|
Brand of truck, eng hp, drive ratio, transmission etc.pulling the float. ------------- Fred Dunlop, G,B,CA, WC,WF, 3 WD45`s,gas, diesel and LP,U,D10 series III, D12,D14,D15 SERIES II,D17 Series IV in Gas and Diesel ,D19 GAS and D21,170 185,210 ,220 an I-600 8070 fwd, 716H and 1920H |
Posted By: Boogerowen
Date Posted: 18 Jul 2011 at 7:36pm
|
O.K. WD45 here goes, briefly, Kenworth tractor powered by 600hp Caterpillar in front of a Fuller 18spd deep-reduction tranny, in front of a 3spd Brown-lipe aux tranny, with 2spd 48000 rears, giving this tractor a multitude of forward speeds, 40 some odd to be exact, depending on how you selected them. These tractors were built special and had double frames, making them very heavy and the light-weight (tare) without any chains, binders, tarps and so forth was about 38000lbs. NOW, LET US GO ON TO A NEW TOPIC AND, GOD BLESS !!!
|
Posted By: Boogerowen
Date Posted: 18 Jul 2011 at 7:42pm
| Yes, most of the axles on the trailer were actually trunions, with 8 tires instead of 4, sorry about that !!!! |
Posted By: junkman
Date Posted: 18 Jul 2011 at 8:09pm
| Boogerowen, For the most of us we don't care about the stopping power of the truck verses a plane. I just think as many others that was one awesome picture let alone job. I would rather be setting in a cab like that then in a cockpit. And wow what gear selection. Boy how I love gears but that configuration would be insane. Thanks for posting the pics, for even my 12 year old boy thought they were awesome. |
Posted By: dad2many
Date Posted: 18 Jul 2011 at 9:16pm
|
I think with that amount of gear reduction and configuration, my B could pull it ;)
The initial roll would be the problem that whole inertia thing.
Just kidding. Thanks so much for sharing.
|
Posted By: redline
Date Posted: 18 Jul 2011 at 11:45pm
|
The hand brakes on my B would pose a bit of a problem, though. ------------- If it weren't for the last minute, I wouldn't get anything done! |
Posted By: DaveKamp
Date Posted: 19 Jul 2011 at 5:29am
|
Comparing aircraft vs. road tractor brakes, is an apples-to-oranges comparison. Two of my biggest clients, as an instructor on high-speed passenger rail equipment, was Knorr-Bremse/NYAB and Westinghouse Air Brake. One of my buddies at KB was Marty, a very bright, and insightful systems engineer who did load proofs on all sorts of really neat braking/restraint systems. I got to 'hang out' with him frequently (actually, talking tractors, motorcycles, music, 'n barbeque). The rough numbers I put up, and the reaction I posted, were done totally within the framework of his proofs and demonstrations, but there's some important factors that one needs to know to doing such a comparison. I won't burn up the forum explaining them all, but I'll point out a few little things about braking that may be worth a chuckle. Friction braking systems convert mechanical energy into heat. Generating braking force is only the 'side effect'... once converted to heat, brake disks and drums need to 'get rid' of the heat in order to effect a repeat application. Aircraft don't make 'repeat applications'... but they do need to be aerodynamically considered, lest the landing gear present incredible drag and noise (they already do, but any drag reduction in LG greatly improves takeoff capacity, and improves approach stability). Aircraft brakes transmit heat into the WHEELS... and the restraint calculations are actually done with the intention that, in a situation where reverse thrust is not available, a full emergency stop can occur. Unfortunately, the performance envelope without RT, means that tire strain will result in failure. The aircraft tire's job is a pretty extreme thing, so they assume the tire will fail, and they actually calculate and engineer the tire's failure point, and make the mix of loads result in tires that fail, explode, and strip off about 300' before the aircraft stops. WHY? 'cause burning tires under an aircraft full of passengers ain't 'cool'. ;-) But the reason I responded as I did, above, is the basic fact that absorption of energy is a function of mass- the braking systems need to absorb thermal energy, and the mass of Booger's braking surfaces exceeds not only the 747's, it equates to about the same as the aircraft's landing gear. There's good reason: Aircraft don't descend mountains. ;-) Oh, and yes, when those big trucks apply brakes, it DOES result in reaction of the pavement... having it spread across a long surface helps reduce that load, but the shear action against pavement is high. There's a really good reason for 'bridge laws' and combined axle load limits, axle spacings, and heavy haul permits- these guys (both the highway guys, and the rig designers) do LOTS of homework... and of course, the gear-grinder up in the cab has to know his stuff. I bump elbows with heavy-haulers every day... You don't drive something like that without being top-notch. In the end, keep in mind that a brand new Dodge Challenger may have 400+hp under the hood, and awesome tires, limited slip... all fine and dandy. Hitch it up to my 57hp D17... and see who wins. ;-) Actually... that'd be a great thing to have as a series of Youtube videos... ALLIS B vs. Porsche Boxter... Allis WC vs. Ferrari 308... |
Posted By: Boogerowen
Date Posted: 19 Jul 2011 at 8:39am
|
Awww shucks, thanks for the kind words Dave, and I forgot to mention my "ace in the hole", JACOB ENGINE BRAKES....
|
Posted By: wkpoor
Date Posted: 19 Jul 2011 at 11:21am
|
747s may not descend mountains but semis aren't trying to stop over 900,000lb from over 120mph either so in a sense they are. And one Jac brake isn't going to make up for 4 large high bypass turbo fan engines in full reverse. And another factor that wasn't considered here is the carbon fiber brakes on the 747 that actually work better the hotter they get instead of the opposite on the semi. |
Posted By: DaveKamp
Date Posted: 19 Jul 2011 at 12:13pm
|
Red- at least you'd have enough weight on the drawbar, so that you wouldn't hafta switch between hand brakes and steering wheel!!! WK... I checked with a drag-racing gearhead buddy who works as a shop foreman at a major air transport shipping company in Memphis... the 747's high bypass rating is 30%, with the GE90's engine rated 60K, that puts 20K of reverse thrust down with a max burn time of 90 seconds (ample, considering they can't blast below 80kts). Everything from 120 to 80k can be done with Rblast, everything from 80kts down is via friction only. The 47's brakeset uses electrically-recooled carbon discs (as you noted) on aluminum spiders, connected to magnesium wheels equipped with fuse plugs (brass with lead inserts). There are no brakes on the nosegear, only the 4 maingear bogeys (16 wheels) have friction braking. Based on that, and performance comments from my two corporate jet pilots, it's pretty clear that the mathematics I ran were very conservative. One of our pilots is a Class A CDL driver, too (he frequently transports our antique trucks to shows all over the US and Canada), he says it's a no-contest situation. They all agree, however, that they wouldn't want to be within a mile of a 900,000lb road-rig travelling 120mph, nor would they want to be near a 747 travelling that speed on an interstate... and they're not so sure they'd even want to drive Booger's rig that fast on a 10,000ft runway. I certainly wouldn't. But it would be fun to drive the back end... mebbie it was the Mickey Mouse and Goofy episodes (driving the back of the firetruck)... |
Posted By: wkpoor
Date Posted: 19 Jul 2011 at 12:41pm
|
"Based on that, and performance comments from my two corporate jet
pilots, it's pretty clear that the mathematics I ran were very
conservative. One of our pilots is a Class A CDL driver, too (he
frequently transports our antique trucks to shows all over the US and
Canada), he says it's a no-contest situation." No contest in what direction? |
Posted By: Brian Jasper co. Ia
Date Posted: 19 Jul 2011 at 1:24pm
|
Ok, break! Let's all agree Booger's truck is an awesome piece of engineering/driving skill requirement. It's also cool when the aircraft captain opens the throttles up and it sets you back in the seat, and when he hauls it down on a landing. ------------- "Any man who thinks he can be happy and prosperous by letting the government take care of him better take a closer look at the American Indian." Henry Ford |
Posted By: Boogerowen
Date Posted: 19 Jul 2011 at 1:42pm
|
Well, since I am now retired and can't it would be impossible, but, I would really like to take wkpoor for just one little short trip, boy, would I ever open his eyes !!! This is going to be my last comment on this post, some folks just cannot admit it when they are argueing about something they know nothing about and you cannot educate a person who has a closed mind.....
|