Catman Posted February 23, 2007 Author Report Share Posted February 23, 2007 LOL "Quick! Pump up the rocket launcher" Link to post Share on other sites
bobbobertson256 Posted February 26, 2007 Report Share Posted February 26, 2007 go for the pvc air powered potato cannon. power it with a bike pump. then you dont have to worry about and air source. and theres basically nothing to go wrong, so anyone could use it. i've made quite a few of these. you could go for a solenoid valve if you want it electric or a ball valve if you want a nice simple design Link to post Share on other sites
Azulsky Posted February 26, 2007 Report Share Posted February 26, 2007 Its really easier to make a pneumatic cannon I dont know that i would be wise to post plans to make one. A mobile version that is approx 3-4 ft long can be made for super cheap A stationary version with much longer range can be made for just as much Both consist of very few moving parts, namely the valve itself or a bike pump if you prefer that to CO2 cartridges. The latter costs more $$ to fire because of the CO2 unless you buy in bulk or go for a Co2 tank. Link to post Share on other sites
Catman Posted February 26, 2007 Author Report Share Posted February 26, 2007 Well going to go for a solenoid valve and just a "pump-up" system using steel tubes, wads of epoxy resin and a car tyre valve. Will need to get a pressure gauge, some pressure hose, a dump-valve - hopefully can find something that can be adjusted so the launcher can be fine tuned and not over pumped. Of course with a solenoid valve this now going to require an electrical system and the whole thing is going to be to way more complicated than originally hoped. If possible I'd like to set it up with an electrical pump but failing that there'd be a cycle-foot pump. It also needs to have a sealed x round magazine loading system - not expecting any muppets, our club is pretty good in that sense but there's always the newbie-muppet: don't want some idiot shoving a non-safe projectile into the launcher and firing it. It's hardly going to look "milsim" but it should at least prove entertaining It's going to be a while before I can start on this though - I've got some other projects I need to finish off first. Link to post Share on other sites
Azulsky Posted February 26, 2007 Report Share Posted February 26, 2007 When you start post and i can give you some ideas. I just dont know what the Forum Rules or the Laws of Common sense dictate about posting air cannon designs Link to post Share on other sites
Tecro Posted February 27, 2007 Report Share Posted February 27, 2007 I wouldn't go solenoid either, and definitely not ball-valve. Probably a bit early to go too in-depth though... Link to post Share on other sites
Phatvortex Posted February 27, 2007 Report Share Posted February 27, 2007 Erm why not solenoid or ball valve? These being the main two types of valve used in pneumatic spudguns...... Enlighten me Link to post Share on other sites
Tecro Posted February 27, 2007 Report Share Posted February 27, 2007 Ball valve - opens way too slowly, you'll get poor performance. Sprinkler valve - involves wiring, a problem since Catman is concerned about misuse and abuse. Plus there actually some faster valves than sprinkler valves. Link to post Share on other sites
Azulsky Posted February 28, 2007 Report Share Posted February 28, 2007 Have you ever built a spudgun. If you have consider this. If he uses something like Co2 catridges, then even with an expansion chamber, it will be at 700 psi inside the pipe. Solenoids cant take that. Balls are only marginally slower, and when dealing with volumes like this as long are u arent purposely releasing it slowly then it comes out plenty fast. A solenoid, unless modded, which reduces its reliability, requires batteries, and a electronic tirggering system. This makes it more susceptible to failure and when you are running around on the airsoft field durability and practicality take huge advantages over "hi tech" and gadgety. This isnt the cannon you drag out to a field to fire potatoes. It needs to be able to take abuse, especially considering the ramifications of its failure. If you havent built any pneumatic cannons, Please leave something like this to people who have experience with them, potential for danger is present, and input from inexperience increases said probability. While that may sound mean, i just want to make sure you understand the implications of suggestions pertaining to something like this which is dealing with higher forces and making it in a certain manner allows for the smallest margin of error, while allowing for easy usability and maitenance. Im not just raggin on you, pneumatic cannons should be taken very seriously, especially when it could potentially not only affect you, but the other players if it has a design flaw. This is precisely the reason i am worried about communication of designs over the forum, not because I dont trust the OP, i believe he is well quailified, but curiosity of those might cause them to try something they are incapable of. Link to post Share on other sites
Tecro Posted February 28, 2007 Report Share Posted February 28, 2007 Who was that reply directed at? No matter, it's definitely true that it's other people who'll be feeling the effects of potential design problems. I'm not sure whether or not CO2 or HPA is being used, but I would go against sprinklers either way. I don't think ball valves are the solution either. Depending on the user, their opening speed can vary, but most people are not going to be trying to open the valve fast. Maybe 250 milliseconds opening speed--the projectile will be long gone. A modified solenoid opens in around 5 milliseconds--way better. However, there's limited flow and a certain amount of complexity. A quick-exhaust valve or a pull valve is the way to go. So much for not going too in-depth... Link to post Share on other sites
Azulsky Posted February 28, 2007 Report Share Posted February 28, 2007 It was a rhetorical question, you specified that you agreed with me in your earlier post. Link to post Share on other sites
Meathead316 Posted March 9, 2007 Report Share Posted March 9, 2007 i think the elastic idea is the easiest to use, easiest to make, easiest to fix if it goes wrong, cheapest to make, most idiot proof, and cheaper in the long run (no need to keep buying gas or wat ever) it will basically be a sling shot in a pipe, the only part of it that will require any brain power at all will be the trigger mechanism, and thats not hard at all, just have a hole in the back of the rocket, that latches over the trigger, and wen u pull the trigger the rocket is releases and voila. u cud even substitut the rockets for some bbs loosely wrapped in a piece of kitchen roll if u like i wid imagine ud get a good spread and it wud be a good use for all them BBs we all have on the every floor of our houses! Link to post Share on other sites
Catman Posted March 9, 2007 Author Report Share Posted March 9, 2007 Well looks like we're going to go with the pneumatic pump-up system simply because it'll prevent people shooting off all the "rockets" in the first minute First we gotta build the .50 cal (starting on that tomorrow ) Link to post Share on other sites
Tecro Posted March 10, 2007 Report Share Posted March 10, 2007 Just wondering, how would you aim with an elastic system? Might as well use a spring, although elastic does avoid a change in force. Good luck with the pneumatic system, looks like you guys are moving fast! Guess you guys aren't using an electrical system. Link to post Share on other sites
DesertFoxRomel Posted March 12, 2007 Report Share Posted March 12, 2007 like tecro said, how bout eleastic? Prob cheaper and easier to cock than a huge spring. I'm thinking rubber surgical tubing should do it. Link to post Share on other sites
Tecro Posted March 13, 2007 Report Share Posted March 13, 2007 No, I suggested against elastic because aiming would be very difficult. Unless, of course, there was a piston connected to rubber tubing...in which case you might as well use a spring. Although rubber tubing is impressive, as it can stretch quite far. Link to post Share on other sites
DesertFoxRomel Posted March 20, 2007 Report Share Posted March 20, 2007 rubber tubing in a piston set up would be cheaper, don't need a huge, rare expensive spring, and easier to adjust power levels, by varying the length. it should perform as well or better than spring. Link to post Share on other sites
Kama Posted March 20, 2007 Report Share Posted March 20, 2007 Because this weapon would not have rifling you migth find that acurasy is better with ball shaped projektiles rather than arrow shaped. at least as long as springs or rubber band powered weapons is used, they tend to destabilize long projektiles unless perfectly trimmed. a air powered weapon is another history. those should create a even pressure. i believe that a spring powered easily cockable weapon could be made, just not shure it's the best way. Link to post Share on other sites
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.