Bobcat Construction Equipment (and FAMECE)

[ArmySGT.]

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?

[kato13]

Originally Posted by ArmySGT.

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.

[ArmySGT.]

Originally Posted by kato13

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.

[kato13]

Originally Posted by ArmySGT.

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).

[Gelrir]

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.

[Gelrir]

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.

[Gelrir]

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.

[kato13]

Originally Posted by Gelrir

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.

[kato13]

Looked at the PDFs. Nice finds Gelrir.