I meant your projectileCg and Cp must be pretty much in the same place...
spudgun range, are we falling short?
- POLAND_SPUD
- Captain
- Posts: 5402
- Joined: Sat Oct 13, 2007 4:43 pm
- Been thanked: 1 time
Yeah I know... when I said
Children are the future
unless we stop them now
unless we stop them now
- POLAND_SPUD
- Captain
- Posts: 5402
- Joined: Sat Oct 13, 2007 4:43 pm
- Been thanked: 1 time
if it works for shotgun slugs...
http://www.thefirearmblog.com/blog/2010 ... gs-part-7/
then it should work with spudguns
I couldn't find anything about drag stabilised rockets, but I think I know why...
the motors reduce base drag (which is why base bleed artillery shells exist )
http://www.thefirearmblog.com/blog/2010 ... gs-part-7/
then it should work with spudguns
I couldn't find anything about drag stabilised rockets, but I think I know why...
the motors reduce base drag (which is why base bleed artillery shells exist )
Children are the future
unless we stop them now
unless we stop them now
Here is a quick drawing for nominal CG .drex wrote:the cp needs to be at least one body width below the cg to be considered stable.
what program did you use for that drawing and cp/cg calculations?
humidifying the air? I don't have much trouble with static from UHMWPE where I work (south carolina).LeMaudit wrote: Any tip to share for removing the static? incantations? miracles?
the wife didn't see the mess yet... somebody??
-
- Private 4
- Posts: 85
- Joined: Sat Apr 23, 2011 10:21 pm
Why are we all using sabots? Wouldn't a dart like this with a o ring in the middle be best, reducing weight and friction, and giving a better seal?
the idea of saboting a smaller round into a larger barrel is to give a larger kinetic energy density on target- with a larger barrel you get more KE transferred to the projectile, and the smaller diameter of the projectile results in better penetration on target, assumin the projectile is hard enough.
"Some say his pet elephant is pink, and that he has no understanding of "PG rated forum". All we know is, he's called JSR. "
- MrCrowley
- Moderator
- Posts: 10078
- Joined: Fri Jun 23, 2006 10:42 pm
- Location: Auckland, New Zealand
- Been thanked: 3 times
Also, as seen by JSR's GGDT calculations, a 20mm projectile with the same mass and Cd value as a 40mm projectile will go as much as 3x further in distance due to sectional density.
- jackssmirkingrevenge
- Five Star General
- Posts: 26203
- Joined: Thu Mar 15, 2007 11:28 pm
- Has thanked: 569 times
- Been thanked: 343 times
drex wrote:I made this at work earlier this week I had a little bit of time to kill. the nose cone part is 1.250" and the tail part is .750" with a .5 inch id. it did tumble so it was not a success in that regard, however the sabot did separate quite nicely.
Shame about the projectile not working but great sabot, there's certainly potential for development.
As explained above, higher velocity and better aerodynamics.shardbearer wrote:Why are we all using sabots? Wouldn't a dart like this with a o ring in the middle be best, reducing weight and friction, and giving a better seal?
When the military want to lob a large quantity of explosives over a short distance, they use that kind of design:
When they want to throw something fast and far (POLAND_SPUD, I hate living up to your expectations ) they use something like this:
We have one ofthese at work, bit pricey though. You could also move to Europe where it's a bit more humidLeMaudit wrote:Any tip to share for removing the static? incantations? miracles?
the wife didn't see the mess yet... somebody??
Looks like it is snowing inside the workshop
hectmarr wrote:You have to make many weapons, because this field is long and short life
drex; I use an old 5 year AutoCad.
Here is the sabot with individual weights if I calculated them properly.
Here is the sabot with individual weights if I calculated them properly.
- jackssmirkingrevenge
- Five Star General
- Posts: 26203
- Joined: Thu Mar 15, 2007 11:28 pm
- Has thanked: 569 times
- Been thanked: 343 times
Impressive work Duane. You're right, as it is the weight is far too high. The material needs to be thinned out and drilled out
hectmarr wrote:You have to make many weapons, because this field is long and short life
that type WOULD work.. but any air irregularities the sabot would encounter would be transferred to the projectile, the advantage of a multipiece one is that they separate instantly on contact with air and separate away from the projectile in a circular way..
If that makes sense.
If that makes sense.
"Some say his pet elephant is pink, and that he has no understanding of "PG rated forum". All we know is, he's called JSR. "
- jackssmirkingrevenge
- Five Star General
- Posts: 26203
- Joined: Thu Mar 15, 2007 11:28 pm
- Has thanked: 569 times
- Been thanked: 343 times
I like it! My only objection is the length of the rod which lengthens separation time.drex wrote:Would a sabot like this work? it seems to me it would be easer to make and lighter.
I would make it like this, with full bore fins. That way, the sabot is lighter, the projectile is more dense and also more aerodynamic due to the pointy tail.
- Attachments
-
- fsds.PNG (7.04 KiB) Viewed 2775 times
hectmarr wrote:You have to make many weapons, because this field is long and short life
- mobile chernobyl
- Corporal 3
- Posts: 756
- Joined: Sun Dec 03, 2006 11:53 am
- Been thanked: 7 times
I've used this design before on a few distance darts I made. It does indeed work very well - so long as the front of the dart is not heavy enough to cause deflection in the fins to the point where it can lay lop sided in the barrel. Even then the drag stabilization of the fins kicks in pretty fast to straighten things out mid flight if their adequate.