Login    Register
User Information
Username:
Password:
We are a free and open
community, all are welcome.
Click here to Register
Sponsored
Who is online

In total there are 57 users online :: 3 registered, 0 hidden and 54 guests


Most users ever online was 155 on Mon Aug 15, 2016 1:40 am

Registered users: Bing [Bot], Google [Bot], Yahoo [Bot] based on users active over the past 5 minutes

The Team
Administrators
Global Moderators
global_moderators.png CS

Punkin' Chunkin' 2010...

Post questions and info about pneumatic (compressed gas) powered cannons here. This includes discussion about valves, pipe types, compressors, alternate gas setups, and anything else relevant.
Sponsored 
  • Author
    Message

Unread postAuthor: jackssmirkingrevenge » Thu Aug 06, 2009 1:42 am

Ragnarok wrote:As far as practicality and efficiency, not so much. They killed an average of less than one person with each shell (admittedly, they also wounded an average of two).


True, but for "terror weapons" the actual body count is usually irrelevant compared to the incalculable psychological effect.

Actually, I'm glad you reminded me about this though, because I was looking into it recently. Although clear figures on the Paris gun are a little hard to find, most can be estimated pretty well - so I was fiddling about with modelling it in the range calculator, because it's a wonderful mix of complicated factors: Coriolis, Earth curvature, very high velocities, atmospheric thinning, rifling, exceptionally long hang times...


Do you live anywhere near Eastbourne, and should the good citizens of Paris be quaking in their chaussures? :D

The V1 was no poor weapon- but it had nothing on the V2. The V1 used a pulsejet for propulsion, and the reed valves would often fail before the bomb reached it's location. I can't recall the figures- but the amount that failed en route is staggering. The V2 was a much more effective weapon.


The V2 was impossible to counter once it left its launchpad, while the V1 was increasingly easy to shoot down but at least it was tying up resources in the UK that would have been better deployed elsewhere. Also, thanks to a bit of witty counter-intelligence by the Brits, the Germans were under the impression that the missiles were landing further inland than they actually were, so they overcompensated with the timing mechanism and caused many to fall short of their target - this means the mechanics were working properly ;)

Interesting to note that the British were developing their own version, the Miles Hoop-la, before being subjected to the V1 onslaught, but in terms of mechanical simplicity and performance it would have been even worse.
  • 0

User avatar
jackssmirkingrevenge
Donating Member
Donating Member
 
Posts: 24225
Joined: Thu Mar 15, 2007 11:28 pm
Country: Holy See (Vatican City State) (va)
Reputation: 66

Unread postAuthor: MrCrowley » Thu Aug 06, 2009 3:08 am

Ragnarok wrote:As far as practicality and efficiency, not so much. They killed an average of less than one person with each shell (admittedly, they also wounded an average of two).

It has only just now occured to me that the deaths were in Paris, from the bombs. For some odd reason, I thought it was an average of less than 1 GERMAN dying for each shell fired, i.e the weapon was killing those who operated it :lol:

Bit slow today haha :D
  • 0

Last edited by MrCrowley on Thu Aug 06, 2009 5:08 am, edited 1 time in total.
User avatar
MrCrowley
Moderator
Moderator
 
Posts: 10207
Joined: Fri Jun 23, 2006 10:42 pm
Location: Auckland, New Zealand
Country: New Zealand (nz)
Reputation: 4

Unread postAuthor: jackssmirkingrevenge » Thu Aug 06, 2009 4:24 am

MrCrowley wrote:For some odd reason, I thought it was an average of less than 1 GERMAN dying for each shell fired, i.e the weapon was killing those who operated it :lol:


hahahaha!

"How many rounds zid ve feur today, Hans?"

"21, Admiral"

"Und how many men zid ve lose?"

"13, Admiral"

"Gut gut, ve are getting better at zis"

"Vy are we speaking English?"


:D :D :D
  • 0

User avatar
jackssmirkingrevenge
Donating Member
Donating Member
 
Posts: 24225
Joined: Thu Mar 15, 2007 11:28 pm
Country: Holy See (Vatican City State) (va)
Reputation: 66

Unread postAuthor: Ragnarok » Thu Aug 06, 2009 7:07 am

jackssmirkingrevenge wrote:Do you live anywhere near Eastbourne, and should the good citizens of Paris be quaking in their chaussures?

Depends on what you consider near Eastbourne. By British definitions of near, not particularly. But by American definitions, probably.

In other words, inside of 80 miles. Hey, I can shell Eastbourne!

(Actually, no. The maximum range of anything I'm currently building is around 3 miles. If I ever were to build Project Leviathan, that would be a totally different matter though...)

Also, I literally LOLed at that nonsense above.
  • 0

Does that thing kinda look like a big cat to you?
User avatar
Ragnarok
Chief of Staff
Chief of Staff
 
Posts: 5339
Joined: Tue Dec 19, 2006 8:23 am
Location: The UK
Reputation: 8

Unread postAuthor: THUNDERLORD » Wed Aug 19, 2009 9:29 pm

I was just thinking of a pneumatic rocket sled design similar to the launch assists on aircraft carriers or buzzbomb ramps.

Then I saw this MythBuster's episode :shock: (There's longer clips there too).

Would it break the rules to use a rail and attach some (or bunch) of high pressure tanks and set the pumpkin on a tray it breaks away from??? 8)

EDIT:Better Angle short clip shows car, 1" steel plate and thick concrete block. The rocket tray hit like 949 fps IIRC.
  • 0

-----SPEED,STRENGTH, AND ACCURACY.-----
"Procrastination" is five syllables for "Sloth".
Theopia 8)
Born To Be Alive!

THUNDERLORD
Major General
Major General
 
Posts: 1264
Joined: Fri Mar 28, 2008 1:42 pm
Reputation: 0

Unread postAuthor: Mr.Sandman » Thu Aug 20, 2009 12:19 am

THUNDERLORD wrote:I was just thinking of a pneumatic rocket sled design similar to the launch assists on aircraft carriers or buzzbomb ramps.

Then I saw this MythBuster's episode :shock: (There's longer clips there too).

Would it break the rules to use a rail and attach some (or bunch) of high pressure tanks and set the pumpkin on a tray it breaks away from??? 8)

EDIT:Better Angle short clip shows car, 1" steel plate and thick concrete block. The rocket tray hit like 949 fps IIRC.
For the punkin chunkin contest? Definately. They dont allow much room for improvization. Hence why the more money you spend, generally the better chance of winning.
  • 0

Yeah, it's that important.
User avatar
Mr.Sandman
Donating Member
Donating Member
 
Posts: 762
Joined: Fri Mar 28, 2008 9:10 am
Country: Antarctica (aq)
Reputation: 0

Unread postAuthor: THUNDERLORD » Fri Aug 21, 2009 11:00 pm

...Hence why the more money you spend, generally the better chance of winning.


So, if one wins without as much money it would really show skill.

Reminds me of racing Buell motorcycles (lower HP, win=better rider).

For the rail air-rocket launch I was thinking if the track starts flat (horizontally) and then curves upward (vertically) at end, it should build more speed (less gravity acting)?

Maybe a curved barrel similar could work(?, or break the pumpkin easier?)

Well if an air-rocket sled would be allowed seems the best bet IMO.
It could have the most force acting on the pumpkin without breaking it.
It would be plenty wasteful but that's beside the point.
Imagine like 10(+) high pressure tanks blasting a pumpkin tray along a rail (attached with skateboard/rollerblade wheels).

The trick would be capturing the sled and tanks somehow(?) so only the pumkin exits.
Maybe airtool motors could be modded and run (friction) drive wheels along the rail should be able to get 450 fps or so? :roll: 8)

EDIT: A braking system could be attched to tray. Late night thought, the pumpkin could drop vertically reaching near terminal velocity before/ during launch somehow(?)
  • 0

-----SPEED,STRENGTH, AND ACCURACY.-----
"Procrastination" is five syllables for "Sloth".
Theopia 8)
Born To Be Alive!

THUNDERLORD
Major General
Major General
 
Posts: 1264
Joined: Fri Mar 28, 2008 1:42 pm
Reputation: 0

Sponsored

Sponsor
 


Previous

Return to Pneumatic Cannon Discussion

Who is online

Registered users: Bing [Bot], Google [Bot], Yahoo [Bot]

Reputation System ©'