Super Soaker Central

I was thinking about making a CPS gun. Having looked at the SuperCPS guide and others, can anyone tell me how they like their CPS gun? I wanted to know whether or not this would be a good investment (even though it's not really going to do me any good later) compared to an APH.

I haven't built one yet, but if you read through some of the forum threads, people seem to be satisfied with CPHs. They can be cheaper than APHs and can match the performance of most if you design them correctly.

Could you recommend some homemades to look at? I know about Killer7's and also Drenchanator's, but what about some others?

Well, APHs are usually more powerful, but require many more pumps. My APH gets around 55' with a 3/8" nozzle, and 40' without a nozzle, and has very high kickback, but it takes 50-70 pumps to pressurize.
My CPH, though not complete, gets around 35' with a really bad nozzle and only one layer of LRT, but I estimate that with a few layers of bike tubes on and a good nozzle, it should get at least 45'. I can make it get around 60' if I order another size of LRT, but I don't feel like it, however it's very possible (SuperCPS). Although range was poor, it only took 20-30 pumps to pressurize, it would take less if the PC is thicker.

Basically, APHs can have more power, but it comes at the price of practicality, while CPHs have enough power to destroy a stock gun 1v1, but not the tremendous power of an APH.

Well, my APH gets around 35' with my "safe pressure" (45 psi) for fear of another incident (see link in signature for more info). With a bike pump pressurizing it to around 60 psi, I definitely can get good ranges. The same thing happens if I connect the gun up to a hose (55 psi) although I haven't taken ranges in those two situations.

So an APH is good for power, but a CPS is good for "practicality (?)", right? My gun isn't battle ready (yet...) as it takes forever to pump up and all sorts of stuff, but I don't want to resort to a...(something else that I can't think of)

How good would you say an Arctic blast is? Maybe I could take parts from that to make a good soaker.

I also have this planned. The four containers are 2-liter soda bottles, light gray is PVC, # = female quick disconnect. Meant for use in a backpack.

How good would you say an Arctic blast is? Maybe I could take parts from that to make a good soaker.

The Arctic Blast is not very good by itself, and if you are planning to use its bladder in a homemade I'd recommend against it. It's tiny; this picture should say enough. It's PC capacity is just under 300 mL, so you won't really get much out of it. The rest of its parts aren't much better; the pump boasts a volume of 20 mL. The only part that might have true use is the firing valve because of its nice opening assembly.

I also have this planned. The four containers are 2-liter soda bottles, light gray is PVC, # = female quick disconnect. Meant for use in a backpack.

I'd recommend against the "siphons"; they just seem to complicate things. I can't imagine how I'd get that to seal correctly. Just go for a straight up and down chambers--they are much easier to work with.

Just the fact that the range and output are constant makes most every CPH more practical than an APH. Layered LRT also beats the APH in range, but not water output. The limitation of internal diameter reduces potential flow, but the internal diameter is larger than nozzles used so range isn't reduced noticeably. I'd highly suggest at least experimenting with rubber CPS.

As for your backpack setup, that should work, but I'd be wary of the feed tubes on the bottom bottles. In my experience with the original Supercannon feed tubes don't work very well.

Edit: Didn't see Drenchenator's post, but I don't have time to edit it.

Well, with the feed tubes in the Supercannon, the gun was tilted for use. In this setup, the tubes would be mostly vertical. To me, the angle makes all the difference.

How much are CPS guns usually?

The angle didn't seem to make any difference when we were working with Supercannon. Feed tubes do work to a certain extent, but they aren't as good as vertical pressure chambers or pistons because the water has to change direction. You're free to do what you want of course, but I thought I should warn you about my experiences with feed tubes.

Depending on the minimum order for LRT you could spend up to $100, less if you get the order right and design the water gun to use cheaper parts. Killer 7 approximated the cost of his most recent water gun but he bought the wrong tubing at first, so I'm just going by how much it should cost without the wrong tubing in the cost. I'd guess it could cost $70 to $80 to make one, less if you already have some parts, which is comparable to the APH.

In theory, this water gun would be used angled horizontally. In practice, we all tend to angle the soakers to get maximum range. Yours might have less of an angle than Supercannon I, but it would still be a problem. Also, provided there's enough flow (which there should be with one or even two pressure chambers), adding more in such a configuration would increase volume without increasing performance much.

If you want weirdly-angled chambers, use either CPS or a bag/plunger to separate the air and water in an air chamber.

And Drenchenator, the seal wouldn't pose a major problem. You could take a bushing that goes from 1/2" to 3" and file off the rim that stops the 1/2" tube from sliding all the way through.

If you want really high performance, don't use bottles. They're great as cheap pressure chambers, but if you want a water gun that is safe to take beyond 50 PSI, you'll do well to use PVC.

Going back on the Arctic Blast: What if I made the Arctic Blast's Chamber bigger? Can I do that? I know that would be a hassle, but I don't want to have to build a whole new homemade. (or, what other, available CPS guns are there?)

SilentGuy wrote:In theory, this water gun would be used angled horizontally. In practice, we all tend to angle the soakers to get maximum range. Yours might have less of an angle than Supercannon I, but it would still be a problem. Also, provided there's enough flow (which there should be with one or even two pressure chambers), adding more in such a configuration would increase volume without increasing performance much.

If you want weirdly-angled chambers, use either CPS or a bag/plunger to separate the air and water in an air chamber.

And Drenchenator, the seal wouldn't pose a major problem. You could take a bushing that goes from 1/2" to 3" and file off the rim that stops the 1/2" tube from sliding all the way through.

If you want really high performance, don't use bottles. They're great as cheap pressure chambers, but if you want a water gun that is safe to take beyond 50 PSI, you'll do well to use PVC.

First, the design would be put into a backpack so the bottle would be vertical, not horizontal. Second, the whole reason I made that set of plans was to increase the volume of my current homemade gun design(see signature).

Lastly, the problem with the bottles isn't their pressure rating; they've been tested to handle up to around 100 PSI. My problem is attaching them to PVC connectors (If I have the chance, I might go ahead and try something with hose clamps; more on that later) because my current design isn't strong enough.

Ben said I should at least experiment with CPS, so:



I have that planned. Everything from the inlet to the tee on the top is 1/2", while the rest is 3/4" for flow. Of course, everything will fit better together, but that's the basic layout; there's also supposed to be a handle on the top for carrying.

What do you think?

That should work, but I would reorient the pressure chamber to be in line with the nozzle. Right now the water has to flow around a bend and down a long pipe to the valve and then the nozzle. This is the "linear design" principle to reduce turbulence in flow. It won't make a big difference in performance to shift a few things around, but it definitely will make a difference. Other than that it looks great.

How about this?