RPG Forums

Go Back   RPG Forums > Role Playing Game Section > Morrow Project/ Project Phoenix Forum

Reply
 
Thread Tools Search this Thread Display Modes
  #1  
Old 10-12-2013, 12:34 PM
kato13's Avatar
kato13 kato13 is offline
Administrator
 
Join Date: May 2007
Location: Chicago, Il USA
Posts: 3,460
Send a message via ICQ to kato13
Default Bobcat Construction Equipment (and FAMECE)

I know that Prime Base discusses the FAMECE equipment, but since I cannot find many details on them (beyond theoretical musings from military docs in the 70s) do you think that some of the heavier bobcat construction equipment might be a suitable replacement?

Bobcat seems like a nice acquisition for the Project.
Reply With Quote
  #2  
Old 10-12-2013, 02:49 PM
ArmySGT.'s Avatar
ArmySGT. ArmySGT. is offline
Internet Intellectual
 
Join Date: Jun 2011
Location: Colorado
Posts: 2,412
Default

Bobcat minis are really good for confined spaces and smallish projects. The bonus is that any 3/4 ton and up with a V8 motor pulls one on a trailer easily. There quick disconnect and variety of attachments is really, really handy.

The size though that makes them handy, makes them too small for some jobs.

The Project needs an airfield to launch that C-130. This is gonna take a D-7 (or larger) bulldozer, a large 634 (or larger) front loader, a 14G motor grader, a large sheepsfoot compactor, a large vibrating roller, and a water spraying truck.

That is just for horizontal work. Vertical work is going to add an excavator, backhoe, trackhoe, and hydraulic crane.

There is a backhoe stated in "Desert Search".

The Bobcats make a great team vehicle. With a trailer and attachments like bucket, 6 way blade, forklift tines, ditch witch alot of minor repairs can be done.

http://www.quickattach.com/shop-by-d...t/skid-steers/

http://www.skidsteersolutions.com/Sk...ons-s/9339.htm

http://www.everythingattachments.com...nts-s/2488.htm

Last edited by ArmySGT.; 10-12-2013 at 03:31 PM.
Reply With Quote
  #3  
Old 10-12-2013, 03:19 PM
kato13's Avatar
kato13 kato13 is offline
Administrator
 
Join Date: May 2007
Location: Chicago, Il USA
Posts: 3,460
Send a message via ICQ to kato13
Default

The larger units would not be required at too many locations.

Perhaps after the project acquires Bobcat, they build ~12 prototypes of machines similar to the ones you mentioned. They send them across country to try them out in different environments.

After some staged mechanical issues, the company's attempt to expand into larger equipment is deemed a failure and the prototypes are quietly retired.

They do that the negative of being untested compared to the military acquired hardware, but with no need for an additional cover story. Also being able to build them from scratch might allow optimization to fusion/electircal power and a smaller logistical profile.

The heaviest vehicles my project has are 4 M247 (Sgt York) prototypes, which were acquired in a similar fashion.
Reply With Quote
  #4  
Old 10-12-2013, 06:50 PM
nuke11 nuke11 is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Jul 2009
Posts: 302
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by kato13 View Post
I know that Prime Base discusses the FAMECE equipment, but since I cannot find many details on them (beyond theoretical musings from military docs in the 70s) do you think that some of the heavier bobcat construction equipment might be a suitable replacement?

Bobcat seems like a nice acquisition for the Project.
Information is very sparse for the FAMECE, but I did have a gentleman contact me back in 2008 about his time working with Clark (the company that built the FAMECE). He was going to get my copies of the manuals he had, but I never heard from him afterwards.

15 to 16 power modules where built and 2 each of the work sections except for the compactors which where 1 smooth drum roller and 1 sheep's foot compactor where built.

When the program was cancelled about half of the power modules and work modules went to an equipment broker in Wisconsin (very early 1980's, near Wisconsin Dell's, there was a small city / town interested in purchasing them), The other remaining units went to an unknown location (most likely scrapped).

I have a lot of pictures of the units being tested and before and after painting, but unfortunately I can not share them at this time.

It was an interesting idea that had merits. For TMP use it is excellent but as with other things in the game it is obscure equipment.

Gary.

Last edited by nuke11; 10-12-2013 at 07:10 PM.
Reply With Quote
  #5  
Old 10-12-2013, 07:17 PM
ArmySGT.'s Avatar
ArmySGT. ArmySGT. is offline
Internet Intellectual
 
Join Date: Jun 2011
Location: Colorado
Posts: 2,412
Default

I deleted it because of the sparse information.

So in its place are several pieces of equipment, and a couple of plants to be assembled if necessary (rock screening, rock crushing, asphalt, and concrete batch).

So there are pieces all converted to fusion using electric motors or one large electric motor turning a hydraulic pump.

5 ton Dump trucks, 4 yard front loaders , D7 and D9 bulldozers, etc, etc.
Reply With Quote
  #6  
Old 10-12-2013, 10:21 PM
kato13's Avatar
kato13 kato13 is offline
Administrator
 
Join Date: May 2007
Location: Chicago, Il USA
Posts: 3,460
Send a message via ICQ to kato13
Default

Until I found this I had no idea what FAMECE looked like.



edit. Just noticed that the drivers seat can flip directions. That makes sense.
Reply With Quote
  #7  
Old 10-13-2013, 12:36 PM
ArmySGT.'s Avatar
ArmySGT. ArmySGT. is offline
Internet Intellectual
 
Join Date: Jun 2011
Location: Colorado
Posts: 2,412
Default

Wow!

That is actually the first ever picture I have seen of what the FAMECE is supposed to look like.
Reply With Quote
  #8  
Old 10-19-2013, 11:50 PM
Gelrir Gelrir is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Nov 2010
Posts: 224
Default

For our campaign we went a different route (the Land Train), but we did a little research years ago on the FAMECE gear. Here's a useful little graphic:

http://asmrb.pbworks.com/w/file/7014...ic%20types.jpg


--
Michael B.

Last edited by Gelrir; 10-19-2013 at 11:55 PM.
Reply With Quote
  #9  
Old 10-19-2013, 11:54 PM
kato13's Avatar
kato13 kato13 is offline
Administrator
 
Join Date: May 2007
Location: Chicago, Il USA
Posts: 3,460
Send a message via ICQ to kato13
Default

http://asmrb.pbworks.com/w/file/7014...ic%20types.png

Even though it is named similar to an image it is actually an html page so the image tag did not work.


I have embedded the image for you



Neat find.

Last edited by kato13; 10-20-2013 at 12:01 AM.
Reply With Quote
  #10  
Old 10-19-2013, 11:59 PM
Gelrir Gelrir is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Nov 2010
Posts: 224
Default

Oooh, thanks! I have to keep track of so many different page markup systems ...

--
Michael B.
Reply With Quote
  #11  
Old 10-20-2013, 12:02 AM
kato13's Avatar
kato13 kato13 is offline
Administrator
 
Join Date: May 2007
Location: Chicago, Il USA
Posts: 3,460
Send a message via ICQ to kato13
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Gelrir View Post
Oooh, thanks! I have to keep track of so many different page markup systems ...

--
Michael B.
No problem. It is great information.
Reply With Quote
  #12  
Old 10-20-2013, 12:02 AM
Gelrir Gelrir is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Nov 2010
Posts: 224
Default

The FAMECE systems in the two illustrations (posted by Kato and I) represent different stages in that project: note the number of wheels on the power module.

--
Michael
Reply With Quote
  #13  
Old 10-21-2013, 05:18 PM
nuke11 nuke11 is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Jul 2009
Posts: 302
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Gelrir View Post
The FAMECE systems in the two illustrations (posted by Kato and I) represent different stages in that project: note the number of wheels on the power module.

--
Michael
Here is the only document I've ever found on the FAMECE "http://oai.dtic.mil/oai/oai?verb=getRecord&metadataPrefix=html&identifier= ADA092583" download the PDF. It is 83 pages long and sheds a lot of light on the project.


Gary.


Admin edit fixed extra space in url and made clickable
http://oai.dtic.mil/oai/oai?verb=get...fier=ADA092583

Last edited by kato13; 10-21-2013 at 05:28 PM.
Reply With Quote
  #14  
Old 10-21-2013, 05:32 PM
kato13's Avatar
kato13 kato13 is offline
Administrator
 
Join Date: May 2007
Location: Chicago, Il USA
Posts: 3,460
Send a message via ICQ to kato13
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by nuke11 View Post
Here is the only document I've ever found on the FAMECE "http://oai.dtic.mil/oai/oai?verb=getRecord&metadataPrefix=html&identifier= ADA092583" download the PDF. It is 83 pages long and sheds a lot of light on the project.


Gary.

Great find!!
Reply With Quote
  #15  
Old 10-21-2013, 07:08 PM
Gelrir Gelrir is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Nov 2010
Posts: 224
Default

Yes, excellent web-fu, nuke11

The document has stuff on fuel capacity, dimensions, etc. that would get you started on making game stats for the FAMECE equipment. Each module was to weigh no more than 15,000 pounds, so a complete vehicle would be about 30,000 pounds. Clark Equipment was to build the prototypes. "Pod-swapping" (changing modules) was expected to take 30 minutes.

(some of this info come from Army Research and Development News Magazine, which has articles about the FAMECE system going back to at least 1969)

--
Michael B.
Reply With Quote
  #16  
Old 10-22-2013, 04:43 PM
nuke11 nuke11 is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Jul 2009
Posts: 302
Default

Just found the confirmation I've been looking for.

The 2 companies that where in competition for the FAMECE where Clark and Lockheed.

The single axle power unit is a Clark design and the 2 axle power unit is a Lockheed design from 1974. As was pointed out the program has it's roots in 1969, with some design's based on 1955 concepts.

Lockheed built a small number, confirmed 1 power module and 1 grader module for the 1973 Army Trials. Really hard to find information and pictures of the Lockheed designs.

Gary.
Reply With Quote
  #17  
Old 10-24-2013, 01:54 AM
kato13's Avatar
kato13 kato13 is offline
Administrator
 
Join Date: May 2007
Location: Chicago, Il USA
Posts: 3,460
Send a message via ICQ to kato13
Default

While it is more likely that the project would acquire the Clark Equipment Company, I do like the 2 axle look better. Seems more stable and faster when not in attached mode.

Anyway since this thread is quickly becoming the highest ranked result for FAMECE searches on Google I thought I would add a pic I found of the Clark version with the dump truck module attached.
Attached Images
 

Last edited by kato13; 10-25-2013 at 02:54 PM.
Reply With Quote
  #18  
Old 10-25-2013, 01:40 PM
ArmySGT.'s Avatar
ArmySGT. ArmySGT. is offline
Internet Intellectual
 
Join Date: Jun 2011
Location: Colorado
Posts: 2,412
Default

If the power unit only has one axle, how do you dismount one from a work section and connect a different work section? I.e remove the dump truck and add the scraper?
Reply With Quote
  #19  
Old 10-25-2013, 02:40 PM
kato13's Avatar
kato13 kato13 is offline
Administrator
 
Join Date: May 2007
Location: Chicago, Il USA
Posts: 3,460
Send a message via ICQ to kato13
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by ArmySGT. View Post
If the power unit only has one axle, how do you dismount one from a work section and connect a different work section? I.e remove the dump truck and add the scraper?
In the image below I was thinking the circle might be some sort of retractable wheel. If so that would really slow the transfer process unless the transposed units are right next to each other.
Attached Images
 
Reply With Quote
  #20  
Old 10-25-2013, 02:48 PM
ArmySGT.'s Avatar
ArmySGT. ArmySGT. is offline
Internet Intellectual
 
Join Date: Jun 2011
Location: Colorado
Posts: 2,412
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by kato13 View Post
In the image below I was thinking the circle might be some sort of retractable wheel. If so that would really slow the transfer process unless the transposed units are right next to each other.
It is one thing if you can swap out power units for repair or maintenance and this takes a two hours. It is entirely different if it takes two hours to swap work sections to continue working on an assigned task.

The four wheel power module looks like the smarter approach and one that can be exchanged quickly on the job site.
Reply With Quote
  #21  
Old 10-25-2013, 02:55 PM
kato13's Avatar
kato13 kato13 is offline
Administrator
 
Join Date: May 2007
Location: Chicago, Il USA
Posts: 3,460
Send a message via ICQ to kato13
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by ArmySGT. View Post
It is one thing if you can swap out power units for repair or maintenance and this takes a two hours. It is entirely different if it takes two hours to swap work sections to continue working on an assigned task.

The four wheel power module looks like the smarter approach and one that can be exchanged quickly on the job site.
I fully agree. I realized I had said i liked the two wheel version when I meant to type the two axle version (The Lockheed design).
Reply With Quote
  #22  
Old 10-25-2013, 03:19 PM
Gelrir Gelrir is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Nov 2010
Posts: 224
Default

Congrats, Kato, you win today's internet for finding a FAMECE picture!

The original requirement by the Army was to swap modules in 30 minutes; I dunno how well Clark or Lockheed did in that regard.

The single-axle power module probably has an advantage in weight -- those big tires and wheels are very heavy. Meeting the 15,000 pound weight limit for each module was probably not easy. An eensie-wheensie "trailer wheel" for moving the power module around when swapping, or into aircraft, etc. makes sense for that.

One can presume, of course, that Lockheed Corp. was part of the Council of Tomorrow -- along with all of its bankruptcy and bribery problems. Given that they build the C-130, that might fit in with the "electric C-130" concept for Prime Base.

--
Michael B.
Reply With Quote
  #23  
Old 10-25-2013, 03:28 PM
Gelrir Gelrir is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Nov 2010
Posts: 224
Default

I found a sketch of the Clark FAMECE equipment in a discussion of the compactor; it clearly shows a small wheel, which seems to be lowered from the side of the power module. So, I guess it's not a tricycle!

--
Michael B.
Attached Images
 
Reply With Quote
  #24  
Old 10-25-2013, 03:29 PM
Gelrir Gelrir is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Nov 2010
Posts: 224
Default

Oh, and a bit more from an article in the News-Palladium for March of 1974:

"In order to accommodate the various attachments, the cockpit of Clark's power module prototype rotates 180 degrees, permitting it to be used as a push or pull vehicle. Constructed as a single axle power module, it uses hydraulically operated auxiliary wheels to operate independently when not attached to the grader or scraper module. ' Designed to be quickly assembled, the grader and scraper modules are structurally married or detached from the power module by four bolts."

--
Michael B.
Reply With Quote
  #25  
Old 10-25-2013, 03:35 PM
Gelrir Gelrir is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Nov 2010
Posts: 224
Default

Some nice drawings of the Clark equipment, and a few more numbers, in this PDF of a 1980 document:

http://www.google.com/url?sa=t&rct=j...mdXb9EQJQ3tHEg

--
Michael B.
Reply With Quote
  #26  
Old 10-25-2013, 03:48 PM
Gelrir Gelrir is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Nov 2010
Posts: 224
Default

Oh, here are some more good pictures of the Clark equipment:

http://www.scribd.com/doc/105529691/...igest-Jul-1978

The wee little wheels are shown, along with the power-take-off connection.

Clark makes a lot of vehicles with electric drives, for what that's worth -- mostly forklifts and other material-handling vehicles.

--
Michael B
Reply With Quote
  #27  
Old 10-25-2013, 03:51 PM
Gelrir Gelrir is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Nov 2010
Posts: 224
Default

And a picture of the Lockheed power module, with a scraper module:

http://fultonhistory.com/Newspaper4/...20-%200228.pdf

--
Michael B
Reply With Quote
  #28  
Old 10-25-2013, 03:52 PM
kato13's Avatar
kato13 kato13 is offline
Administrator
 
Join Date: May 2007
Location: Chicago, Il USA
Posts: 3,460
Send a message via ICQ to kato13
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Gelrir View Post
One can presume, of course, that Lockheed Corp. was part of the Council of Tomorrow -- along with all of its bankruptcy and bribery problems. Given that they build the C-130, that might fit in with the "electric C-130" concept for Prime Base.
In general i like to Project companies to be private if possible. I certainly see them partnering with Lockheed on projects or maybe licensing designs. Lockheed, given its size, would have attracted all sorts of attention (congress, DOD, SEC, IRS GAO). Clark seems like it could have been privately acquired and capable of avoiding some of that scrutiny.
Reply With Quote
  #29  
Old 10-25-2013, 03:57 PM
kato13's Avatar
kato13 kato13 is offline
Administrator
 
Join Date: May 2007
Location: Chicago, Il USA
Posts: 3,460
Send a message via ICQ to kato13
Default

Looked at the PDFs. Nice finds Gelrir.
Reply With Quote
  #30  
Old 11-10-2013, 12:11 AM
Gelrir Gelrir is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Nov 2010
Posts: 224
Default

I've got a copy of "Jane's Combat Support Equipment 1978-79", and on page 231-232 they've got a writeup of the FAMECE program. Nothing we haven't already seen in this thread, really, except some minor points:

Quote:
"Assembled, combinations will be able to travel over rough terrain up to 48 kh/h"
Quote:
"The fiscal year 1979 request was for 376 units of FAMECE at a cost of $24 million."
Along with a very "Popular Mechanics"-y illustration of half-a-dozen FAMECE units doing things. Probably depicts an early version of the Clark system: the power units have only two big wheels, but don't have the roll-over protection cabs.

--
Michael B.

P.S. -- if anyone needs stats on 'combat support' stuff for the classic MP setting, let me know and I can peek in this book. It's got the XR311, the V150 armored recovery vehicle, and thousands of other items detailed.
Reply With Quote
Reply


Currently Active Users Viewing This Thread: 1 (0 members and 1 guests)
 
Thread Tools Search this Thread
Search this Thread:

Advanced Search
Display Modes

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off

Forum Jump


All times are GMT -6. The time now is 06:11 AM.


Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.6
Copyright ©2000 - 2021, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.