"Death from above": Electo-Mortar

[Rokudon]

that could get interesting... but how about a helicopter? a littl emore stable.. and slower groundspeeds are acheivable (although you'l lose the stealth...)

[TheTramp]

that could get interesting... but how about a helicopter? a littl emore stable.. and slower groundspeeds are acheivable (although you'l lose the stealth...)

You'd also lose a lot of cash when someone shoots it down.

[crazedloon]

that could get interesting... but how about a helicopter? a littl emore stable.. and slower groundspeeds are acheivable (although you'l lose the stealth...)

wait a helicopter. well thats much more complex. itll be hard to have it guided by an onboard computer muc harder an on board electronic board. like was said before it would be an easy target as helecopters are not going to be fast when trying to line up a shot and people when compared to a person it would be much easyer to hit. also to even see your target you would be seen. a complex set of cameras could be set up but would not be to good for dageing paint which would destroy your helocopter.

my design in brief was to have a glider which would adjust its own tragectory to get the best singnal from a signaling device of some sort. so it wouldnt need to much guidence as long as it had enough force behind it to get to the target or even past it it would only need slight adjustments. so if said target was not directly in front of it it would adjust the elevators and move its nose to be in line with the target. very simple if you want to make an anti tank weapon. its when you start making the antipersonel version that it gets hard. then you become very nose heavy and its harder to get to stay leve due to the addition of the paintballs, barrels, valves, 12gram, and the extra moter. but should it be well made it could easyly be fired from quite a distance away with no veiw of the oponent and have confodence that it would deliver a pay load that would brake on contact and not harm anyone as the projectile itself would be slowed and than lowerd to the ground via a parachute

[frop]

I think your getting too far ahead of yourself. too complex for a first iteration. The weight would be so overwhelming that it's glide ratio would be crap. You'd need a precision gyro, an autostablizing system, servos, big batteries to run it all, an inertial navigation system, a board w/ some damn god logic to tie it all together, a pitot tube & slaved airspeed indicator, testing to determine the stall speed w/ differing payloads, just an overall crapload of work & $$$ to be wasted(it WILL be destroyed).

Why not take a decent r/c airplane as a base? Instead of artillery rockets, airstrikes? The basis is already there. All that'd be need would be a tiny vid camera, a transmitter, some sort of release machanism & a paint grenade

[SteelSoul]

Here check this site out this kid is pretty smart and I am thinking of getting the Semi-Auto cannon.

http://www.xinventions.com/main/spud/pac6.htm

[frop]

I have a feeling that the PAC 6 would be more stable and controllable if it were shouldered, not held 'Rambo style'.

[crazedloon]

thats way to big and unwieldy i have a better design that is already full auto and only need a person with the right tools to go into busines.

anyway why would you need all that extra junk in the body. simply make the wings have a good amount of lift and be balnced on there so that its even and since its based off a nerf ball it will have stabalizers on the back. than the only coarse corection would be lining it up with the target and that is simple and only has to do with the programig. also you would only need two 9v max and probaly less.

why do you think you need all that extra stuff the wings will keep it leval and it shouldnt be destroyed on impact if you make it tough enough

[frop]

A nerf football ( ithink it used to be called the Vortex or something) is MUCH more stable when spinning. Removing that spin introduces a modicum of instability that would have to be countered through proper aerodynamics.
Also, if it were to be launched by means of an air cannon of sufficient size, it would have to reach an altitude sufficient to reach the target, which introduces the problem of excessive airspeed and poor glide ratio.
Excessive airspeed by being in a constant dive, even a shallow one, could only be countered by a larger servo motor to hold down the elevator or increased drag, both of which separately contribute to a poor glide ratio.
The poor glide ratio raises the question of the 'missile' reaching the target. Poor ratios would require higher altitudes, which leads to airspeed problems, which the solutions of that contribute to poor glide ratios.
Have you considered the drag of the 'missile'? The airfoil to be used?
Only correcting for pitch assumes the complete absence of wind, which is unlikely. It is my opinion that roll and yaw correction are also necessary. The roll correction is primarily to keep it on target horizontally. The yaw correct for adverse yaw, which MUST be countered for successfull roll-initiated turns in any unpowered aircraft. Yaw correction would also contribute to increased accuracy due to a truer sight picture.
I'm not a programmer but it would seem simplest to use similar code to a 3-axis autopilot. The input from the "sensor" is substituted for the input from slaved instruments in an aircraft. However the input from that sensor would have to be translated first, it is highly unlikley that it is in a form that could be used by the software.
Increasing the toughness increases weight, which introduces problems I have already gone over.
I could go on, but I just had a MASSIVE brain fart

I'm not trying to shoot you down, I'm just trying to show you the extensive work necessary to make a reliable self-guided weapon. By all means go ahead & make one by your design ideas, but don't expect to work well, good, or even decent.

[crazedloon]

yah you are right in that all those are a factor should the launcher not be strong enough but should it be than it would easyly reach its target. and most of those could be easyly fixed in programming and perhapse should it be needed a gyro which isnt all that big. i may do this for fun we will see.

[frop]

Don't forget safety. I see somewhere you said something about a parachute. Consider how & when that will deploy too.

[crazedloon]

mist likelly a distance sensor will be added to be the determining factor for the antipersonael version. but anm antitank one would not as you want that to hit where as the other you wish the paintballs to hit

[RazorMonkey]

I made an air cannon as a project for an engineering class I was taking... I took range data, and it proved to be fairly consistant. I used PVC, a ball valve, and a bike pump and valve. The ball valve was a bit inconsistant because I had to open it manually and the opening speed varied. I believe that I would be able to increase the consistancy if I used an electronic butterfly valve. The pressure was always consistant because I had a guage on the pump. I've been thinking about putting a low pressure reg on there and using CO2... Using paper towels as wadding in a 12 inch .75"ID PVC barrel, I've been able to load about 15-20 paintballs in and get breakage at about 40 feet... It works quite well... As a mortar, I think it would work quite well...

lol that really lacked organization, but it addressed some of the points discussed in here...

[11_Mile_TMaster]

Really all your are describing is a normal air cannon with the fire controls mounted inside the tube. Hook a CO2 or HPA tank to a reg, knock it down to 100psi feed it into a air chamber conntected to an inground sprinkler valve connect the valve to a battery box and push button switch. Mount the switch inside the launch tube and bingo your done.

As for ammo, try making a simple casing. IE: Soda bottle with the top cut off and the sides slit into four or eight pedals. Or just making a similar item out of carboard works just fine.


I have built many bazooka style launchers with the fire controls on the outside, but not any with them on the inside, I don't see why it would be any trouble. Most of the ones I have built look something like this.

-000000 (air chamber)
{ (sprinkler valve)
-ooooooooooooooo (barrel)

Usually mounted between the air chamber and the barrel is a hobby box from radio shack that holds batteries, a simple push button, and a two position switch for a safety. Turn the switch on, press the button and you open the valve and dump the air from the chamber to the barrel.

That's actually the best way to go, in my humble opinion. Normally I have the hobby Box between the chamber and barrel... And rig the primary fire switch into the center 'support' to keep the two sides from bending (Note I said primary, you should always doube-switch these things for saftey purposes). You can get really involved, one of my firing boxes has an Arm light AS WELL AS a buzzer to indicate when the primary switch is activated.

The designs I have worked on normally use a Tire valve stem for filling... Which is nice because you can just pump it up... or get a Tire Stabalizer in the future for fast filling.

[wanna-b-ballin']

i know! i know!

have you noticed that when you turn a flatline barrel sideways, that it shoots sideways?

so in theory, you could turn it upside down, and angle it upward a little bit. and it should go over the mound and hit them at the speed a ball should be going to break on them.

[frop]

Won't work, still have LOS restrictions.