SpudFiles

Would you imagine that? It's called the Avalauncher



[youtube][/youtube]

When I first started looking up spudguns online the LoCAT was one of the first pneumatic launchers I found

OMG JSR posted a dead link

Anyway, I had heard about cannons being used for that application before but I never really followed it through. Interesting .pdf file though, can't believe that launcher costs $190,000...but I guess if you break it down you can see where the cost goes.

MrCrowley wrote:OMG JSR posted a dead link

Hmmm, works for me.

Interestingly, the patent for this valveless launcher I had linked to also mentions avalanche control as a potential use, the idea being that with such an efficient "valve" the launcher could achieve suitable performance without the need for high chamber pressure or volume.

What kind of valve you suppose the Avalauncher uses? It look a lot like some of the things I've seen here.

If I remember correctly most use the parsenault valve, originally developed for baseball pitching machines.

I'm sure we've discussed before it's very similar to the QDV. Well within our reach.

Haha, well you think you could build one of the same quality for under $190,000. There is definitely a business opening there. What goes into a launcher to make it that expensive. Surely research doesn't cost that much...

MrCrowley wrote:nteresting .pdf file though, can't believe that launcher costs $190,000...but I guess if you break it down you can see where the cost goes.

I'm not finding your price numbers (which pdf??), but I don't find it hard to believe at all. Just the barrel is going to be a pretty pricey piece of equipment. These guys need long range accuracy. That means you can't just use pipe. Industrial pipe is unlikely to be straight, let alone have the bore diameter tolerances you need.

10' long?

Precision machined?

I wouldn't be shocked to hear that just the barrel costs on the order of $40,000.

Mind you, that's just a WAG.... Could be more. Could be less. But that's my first guess as to what a barrel for something like that would cost.


There's an old rule of thumb in design/manufacturing: You can get 80% of the performance for 20% of the price, but that last 20% of performance is gonna cost you an extra 80%.

I wouldn't be shocked to find that this is the case. If you just want a gun capable of the same muzzle velocities, you could do it on the cheap. If you want a gun that is *consistent* and *accurate* and *reliable* (think: lawsuits)? It's gonna cost ya.

Also consider that you've a company that's making a living doing this. Labor is NOT free. Consider the costs of modifying a sprinkler valve. What's it take.... An hour? In the corporate world where you've a big enough operation that you can't run out of your garage, have to pay employees, maintain liability insurance, etc.... that translates to $80, easy. Thus, even our "cheap" sprinkler valves would be expensive in a "real" corporate environment.

Agreed, except on this point:

D_Hall wrote:Industrial pipe is unlikely to be straight

a Beeman/Feinwerkbau Model 2 CO2 pistol with the barrel making a complete twist around the gas cylinder! The gun actually shoots quite well! Note that the all-important final inch(25 mm) or so is straight - that and the crown are the only really important parts of the barrel as far as accuracy is concerned. When some shooter would say " I think I see some little defect in the rifling way down inside my barrel, or the middle is a little off, or the barrel is not quite straight, and that is why I am not shooting well" , the airgunsmiths loved to bring out this gun and ask if his gun was more off line than this one! Beeman collection.

D_Hall wrote: I'm not finding your price numbers (which pdf??), but I don't find it hard to believe at all.

http://www.avalanchemitigationservices. ... lution.pdf
Linked in the first post.

Thanks for the nice long post, but like I said, if you break the cannon down, it is easier to see where the cost goes and is not so hard to believe.

D_Hall wrote: There's an old rule of thumb in design/manufacturing: You can get 80% of the performance for 20% of the price, but that last 20% of performance is gonna cost you an extra 80%.

a bit confusing, let me get this straight something that has 20% less performance is 80% cheaper, is there a particular amount of performance that 100% represents, is that just "the best possible with common technologies" or what exactlly


valveless eh, looks like a potential breech loading coaxial,

iknowmy3tables wrote:is there a particular amount of performance that 100% represents,

Generally 100% would be "state of the art."