[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]
The se will be on the market shortly after christmas and from what the maker
says are easy to convert to RC.
>From: Grauwolf <grauwulf-at-yahoo.com>
>Subject: Re: Re-inventing the PBM
>Date: Sun, 21 Dec 2003 09:05:48 -0800 (PST)
>Greetings Frank and All,
>Why were folks here so excited about Wally World selling a 1/5 scale RC
>I would assume that it was because more folks (like those who do not
>happen have a full machine-shop sitting in their garage, or don't even
>have a garage to work in for that matter) might be drawn into this
>sport. How many of these folks do you think will be drawn into this
>sport if they find one of the basic requirements is having to own a
>machine-shop to be able to modify those Wally World PBMs that are
>designed to be large, bulky handguns just to play along?
> >I can assure you that building your own cannons takes alot of
>evolutionary iterations to get things right. Early gun designs had lots
>of problems and often worked great in the workshop, but failed during
> In warships, that wasn't a total disaster, because we had more than
>one gun on board, but with a tank, if your cannon fails the game is
>I think that most folks here are more than a little aware of the need
>for field and battle testing a design. It has already been done at
>nearly every engagement that has occurred. Hasn't nearly everything
>that folks have come up with here been an engineering experiment of one
>sort or another? I thought that was just part of the Fun.
> >About two years ago, I successfully built a paintball cannon based on
>the pressure-powered design of the BB cannons used in warship combat,
>only larger. (My approach was an evolution of some pioneering work
>by Lief Goodson in the early 90's when we first started talking about
>tank combat.) It was built from standard PVC and copper plumbing
>components, with a brass piston assembly that didn't require any
>expensive tools to make. It worked, fired round after round without a
>problem, and the total cost was probably less than $25 ... but the
>That's Great! So why not let some of the folks here who wish to give
>this a try see your notes?
> >?....pushing each other to make better and cheaper markers?<
>??? Better look again. The name of the game these days is Less for
>More. Like they say, "Buyer beware! You get what you pay for." Just as
>you fear the reliability of a homemade system, the cheap-o PBMs are
>little better and in many cases even worse than anything I'm sure that
>folks here might come up with.
> >When the tank hobby gets a little larger, I'm sure that one or more of
>the marker manufacturers will develop a version that is specifically
>designed for our purposes.<
>Do you really think that those PBM manufacturers will go through all of
>the cost of redesigning and retooling to downsized versions if there
>are only a handful of folks who might have any use for them and those
>folks are already buying and modifying their own larger bulkier
> >So, rather than spending lots of engineering time to save $25-50 on
>marker, I spent that time engineering solutions for other parts of the
>tank, that aren't adequately covered by existing products.<
>And more power to you. If you like what you've got, well and good. Go
>ahead and work on those other systems. But if there are those who might
>be able to see a way of improving apon something that you are not
>interested in, don't you think that they should be allowed to work on
>that as well? Who knows, somebody here just might be the one who builds
>that better mouse trap.
>Do you Yahoo!?
>New Yahoo! Photos - easier uploading and sharing.
MSN 8 helps eliminate e-mail viruses. Get 2 months FREE*.