Talk:Fairbanks Morse 38 8-1/8 diesel engine

Untitled
The article looks great, I see nothing that needs to be improved.Kyle285 (talk) 15:27, 11 April 2012 (UTC)

Looks great, easy to read, however you need to add 5 more links and you should add another section because the "also see" section is weak.Asoldavini (talk) 15:35, 11 April 2012 (UTC)

FYI, https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/USS_Silversides_(SS-236) - Is a surviving sub as well. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 173.175.244.233 (talk) 01:38, 2 March 2019 (UTC)

Peer Review
Completeness:

500 words per person:Not Quite Lead Paragraph:Yes 4 Sections of content:Sort of   Minimum ammount of citations:No Images:Yes

Evaluation of Resources:

Are the sources listed in the References of sufficient authority?Yes Are the sources listed in the References of accurate?Yes Conduct searches of the topic yourself. Do you feel like the authors found worth while articles or just easily available articles?Yes

Readability & Content:

Is the information being presented factual in nature?Yes Is the information being presented objective? (No Bias)Yes Does the article flow effectively?Yes Does the article feeling like it is missing content?Yes

This information is good and it seems like you have done a lot of your research. For assignment though find a way to stretch it too 500 words. The pictures are good as well and informative. internal links and ref list are coming along great as well. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Diesels9000 (talk • contribs) 15:15, 16 April 2012 (UTC) Diesels9000 (talk) 15:38, 11 April 2012 (UTC)

Peer Review
Everything is done pretty nicely. Plentiful, easy flowing information, correct formatting (500 words, 4 sections, contents, etc). The pictures leaves a nice engaging view for the reader. Needs more sources and citations though.Cowbell3000 (talk) 15:08, 16 April 2012 (UTC)

Peer review
this page looks really good, you do only have to sorces but I understand it might be hard to find sorces. if you can find one more sorces you will get an A.

Peer Review
This page is really good. The information is orderly and with out mistakes. Almost at five hundred words but one more article should be easy. You need way more citations and a reference list header. Overall a very good page, just get those resources done! Edited by User talk:Vcarveratcma (talk) 15:32, 16 April 2012 (UTC)

Reword, add surface ships, refs
US Fleet subs were able to use diesel/generator power to drive main motors on props or to charge batteries, batteries normally not used for power on surface. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Sammy D III (talk • contribs) 01:14, 3 March 2013 (UTC)
 * He means the submarines of World War II. All US submarines since 1960 instead have a nuclear power plant for primary power. However, those still require a emergency diesel generator - at first all those submarines used Fairbanks Morse engines. Only recently have they shifted to a different manufacturer. If you go look across the articles for classes of US submarines- pre World War 2 they were frequently shifting engines types used, as they had reliability issues. I think once they shifted started using Fairbanks Morse - they stayed with this. There was also a scaled down variety of this engine the 5-1/4 if I recall correctly. - with a bore of 5-1/4 inches. For surface ships that used the engines - for a while all US Submarine tender had the same engines for their main propulsion - simplify logistics. In opening paragraph - it states they are still manufactured. Are you sure? During 1980s while in Active Duty in Navy, I got impression they were not being truly manufactured new, but easy to get one rebuilt to new standards from existing parts supply and old existing stocks. Wfoj2 (talk) 11:02, 5 May 2013 (UTC)
 * Sounds good from here. WWII was intended, thought “Fleet sub” title was only used then.
 * F-M is still in business, check Fairbanks-Morse.com. Looks like largely license building, Navy’s still a customer.
 * Check Seagoing diesels at Fairbanks Morse.
 * These tugboat guys are good, they have other engines, too: www.tugboatenthusiastsociety.org/Pages/tugmach-diesel-modern-FM.htm.
 * In comparing F-M with GM sub engines, turns out that GM had “Cleveland Engine Division” for marine service, but rail “Electro-Motive Division” had a newer, and better, engine in the same range, after WWII Cleveland was rolled into EMD.
 * There is absolutely no real knowledge of the subject here, we came here from Wind class icebreakers. No knowledge there, either, probably never seen any naval vessel. Please do whatever you can.Sammy D III (talk) 17:57, 5 May 2013 (UTC)

Lower-crankshaft lead
I have two Fairbanks-Morse manuals. One agrees with the Wikipedia text, at 12 degrees; the other says 15 degrees.

"Diesel Engine Maintenance Section 308", page A1, November, 1951, says "Illus.A1 shows the lower crankshaft 12 [degrees] past outer dead center and the upper crankshaft on outer dead center. This difference in crankshaft setting is called the 'Lower Crank Lead.'"

"Fairbanks-Morse Diesel Electric Locomotives Engineman's Manual", Sec. 105A, page 5, April, 1956, says "The lower crankshaft leads the upper in timing by 15 degrees, which is known as the 'Lower Crank Lead' and which causes the lower shaft to furnish 80% of the power developed." — Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.113.85.76 (talk) 22:43, 29 June 2015 (UTC)


 * I'm pretty sure the locomotive engine was a different design. Kendall-K1 (talk) 00:33, 30 June 2015 (UTC)


 * It's also possible that the crankshafts are offset by 12 degrees, but the timing differs by 15 degrees. That might explain the comment "causes the lower shaft to furnish 80% of the power." I don't know enough about diesel engines to know if that makes sense. Kendall-K1 (talk) 13:49, 23 September 2016 (UTC)
 * The most likely explanation is that different versions of the engine were optimised for different purposes, and were assembled with either 12 or 15 degrees of lead. This would change the shape of the torque curve, where one engine was more tractable over a wider power band, the other was intended for long service running a generator at constant speed (which includes diesel-electric locos). The piston lead is easily set by adjusting their relative phase in the geartrain which connects them. A fine 3° shift like this probably wasn't a one tooth shift, it might have been 6° forward on one 60-tooth gear and then 9° backwards on another 40-tooth gear. The piston lead, and port height, then controls the valve timing.  The fuel injection timing is still free and adjustable, as that's set on the pump or (for unit injectors) the camshaft drive.
 * One of the larger leads between pistons was on the Napier Deltic. As exhaust and scavenge pistons for adjacent cylinder banks shared a crankpin, the lead here was fixed. Fortuitously, the Deltic geometry gave a workable lead of 20°. This is what made the whole Deltic idea practical, and made it a simpler proposition than the four-sided "box" engines which Junkers had been studying (as these had an even number of cylinder banks, they could place exhausts together and scavenges together, setting their relative phase through the phasing gears.
 * The notion of "80% power on one piston" isn't unusual either, as it will be the lagging exhaust or "power" piston which always carries most work, not the leading scavenge piston. In some ways a 50% split would be better, as it would give more cylinder power for the same peak piston BMEP (which will be higher, integrated over the cycle, on the exhaust piston). However most engines have only a single output shaft and so a 50% split would also need twice as much power to be transmitted through the phasing gears as for an 80% split. This is also why vertical opposed piston engines almost always place the inlet air ports above the exhaust ports, as the output shaft is the lower shaft, for stability and the stronger crankcase in that area. One exception was the Junkers series - as aero engines, they placed the output propeller shaft on the upper crankshaft, so had inlets below exhaust. Andy Dingley (talk) 15:36, 23 September 2016 (UTC)

Soviet engines
I am thinking of expanding the section on Soviet engines 2D100 and 10D100. As I understand it, these engines were "pirated" and are not Fairbanks Morse engines. I therefore think it would be appropriate to create a separate article. Please give your views, whether for or against. Biscuittin (talk) 19:30, 15 August 2015 (UTC)


 * As with any article, it would have to meet the notability guidelines. Why not add the material here first, and if there is enough material and source, we can split it off. Kendall-K1 (talk) 22:36, 15 August 2015 (UTC)


 * OK, thanks. Biscuittin (talk) 18:51, 16 August 2015 (UTC)

External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 1 one external link on Fairbanks Morse 38 8-1/8 diesel engine. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20130221080403/http://www.tugboatenthusiastsociety.org:80/pages/tugmach-diesel-modern-FM.htm to http://www.tugboatenthusiastsociety.org/Pages/tugmach-diesel-modern-FM.htm

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot  (Report bug) 05:56, 29 December 2016 (UTC)

Wikipedia Ambassador Program course assignment
This article is the subject of an educational assignment at California Maritime Academy supported by the Wikipedia Ambassador Program&#32;during the 2012 Spring term. Further details are available on the course page.

The above message was substituted from by PrimeBOT (talk) on 16:52, 2 January 2023 (UTC)