The Problem with High Efficiency WBL's

[Silence]

I suppose since none of your sabots worked, powerful valves really are detrimental in most cases. I would like to try on my own, but both logic and empirical data seem to point to low-powered valves. I do suggest longer barrels to combat the slow opening times of ball valves and pull valves, though.

[WaterWolf]

The Falcon launcher used a 2" barrel and the balloons launched from it would be filled less. Thus, their skin's aren't stretched quite as tight as balloons for a 3" barrel (which was what I was using in mine).

Drench's Pull Valve Launcher and this Sniper-Rifle both used a 50-mm PVC barrels and high-acceleration openings.

So, using 2" barrels seem to be one answer to the problem, but I'd like to play around with some ideas for getting it to work in larger barrels.

[Drenchenator]

The article for my Nerf gun/launcher is on the site too. But to use a larger diameter barrel, I would recommend using a larger diameter chamber, or just one in general; it was pretty underpowered for a water balloon launcher.

[sbell25]

The Falcon launcher used a 2" barrel and the balloons launched from it would be filled less. Thus, their skin's aren't stretched quite as tight as balloons for a 3" barrel (which was what I was using in mine).

Drench's Pull Valve Launcher and this Sniper-Rifle both used a 50-mm PVC barrels and high-acceleration openings.

Of course! I had forgotten about the smaller barrel size. The compact launcher I had planned was going to use a 2" barrel, so perhaps it is worth trying anyway. Also, both of those valves you mentioned still open slower than a modded sprinkler valve. You might be able to get away with a 3" barrel on them.

Something I'd like to know is this: are 3" balloons even necessary? Surely you wouldn't be using a WBL in a soakfest, and a 2" balloon would be plenty to register a 'kill'. I've never used one in a water war so I wouldn't know.

[WaterWolf]

2" balloons are in my opinion, sniper rounds.
They don't require as much air, but your shots need to hit their target dead on to score a kill.

3" balloons in contrast, are more like a Rocket-Propelled-Grenade.
The take more energy to fire, but hit a wide area with their larger payload.

[C-A_99]

Hmm... this is probably slightly off topic, but I'm wondering if it's possible to design a spring-powered WBL firing 2" rounds; such a design would be ideal for an assault rifle - grenade launcher integration due to the small size. However, in order for the launcher to be practical, it obviously has to have more range than when thrown by hand, but that would require a spring that's very hard to prime. (and would also make it difficult to create a catch that will take the stress) Obviously it would have some kind of plunger to compress the air when firing which, in turn, pushes the sabot out of the barrel; (unless direct firing would somehow work better) it's basically the same concept behind spring powered nerf blasters.

If this wouldn't work, would the 3-man launchers be the only practical elastic based launchers?

Either way, I should start experimenting with 2" rounds, but I only have a 3" launcher who's use only seems to be for artillery with 3" rounds right now. Eventually, we may have to ditch the artillery due to its horrible ROF and potentially bad accuracy with high-angle shots (and low angle shots create questionable safety with such a launcher), but by then, I will hopefully have a 2" launcher for "sniping". (with a small PC, decent valve, breech, and reasonable ROF) After this, it's a matter of experience and being familiar with the handling and projectile arcs.

[Silence]

Hydraulics (or in this case, pneumatics) are used to multiply the force you can exert on something. If a barrel has a cross-sectional area 20 times that of the pump, then you can push the balloon with 20 times more force than you could by hand. Plus, the sabot can move much faster than your arm and over a greater distance.

If you use a basic spring, then you take all that advantage away. Even if you used pulleys or something to lengthen the distance you pull and decrease the force, you couldn't easily get 20x force multiplication.

I would throw the balloons if I were you. Quicker, more accurate, practically no friction, more natural, etc.

[WaterWolf]

@C-A_99:
I too have been leaning towards the conclusion that the old Mortar design is not as effective as a good sniper-rifle.

My recent WBL moves away from artillery and instead takes on a role as heavy-assault and sniper-rifle.

For water-warfare artillery, I'm beginning to think that the sling-launchers might be more effective.
If each squad in your team carries a sling-launcher plus a few extra balloons, then they can fight with all the maneuverability regular fire-team would, but if necessary, can quickly deploy into an artillery unit.

The Maple-Mountain-Marines will be testing this tactic during our early spring training.

A list of pros and cons for Pneumatics vs Sling Launchers:

Sling Launchers:

Pros:
Highly maneuverable when not firing the artillery.
No pressurized air required.
High rate-of-fire.
Easy to acquire the necessary equipment for a low price (medium launcher is $16).
No assembly required.

Cons:
Requires three, fairly strong people to operate.
Takes more time to deploy than a pneumatic launcher.
When firing, the squad is more defenseless to a surprise attack.
Difficult to launch balloons in high arcs
Not as accurate as a pneumatic.
Shorter range than a good pneumatic.
Can only fire one balloon at a time.


Pneumatic Launchers:

Pros:
Long range.
More consistent accuracy.
The launcher can be very quickly deployed and fired.
Can fire several balloons in one shot (Making bombardments more likely to eliminate enemies, rather then just suppressing them).
Does not require too much strength to operate, although they are heavier.
One person alone can operate the launcher (Although adding a second will greatly improve maneuverability, rate-of-fire and defensive strength).

Cons:
More expensive (about $25 to buy the parts for a simple launcher)
Needs a method of pressurizing air to recharge the pressure chamber.
Needs carriages to fire balloons effectively, these carriages will drop away from the balloon at about 20 feet from the launch and need to be retrieved every so often.
More dangerous, although we've never had any injuries reported of WBLs.

[Silence]

That's a pretty complete list.

I would just throw the balloons if I didn't wantt to use a water gun. Launchers may be more precise but it would take a lot of practice to become accuracte. Wind and changing water balloon shapes negate the range advantage if you're actually looking to hit somebody at distance.