Chaosmark
August 19th, 2006, 11:16 PM
Nbk's gyrojet specific
August 7th, 2002, 08:30 AM
nbk2000
The anti-kakistocrat Join Date: Oct 1999
Location: Shrine of the Elder Gods E4M3
Posts: 5,679
Rep Power: 10
[Removed unrelated information]
I also have an idea for a 20mm+ man portable direct fire cannon that uses gyrojet type rockets with a rifled barrel and retaining pins similiar to the MLRS system. Rapid fire, recoilless, lightweight (under 25 pounds is light for a "heavy" infantry weapon), explosive effect, able to engage infantry in the open, behind cover, light armored vehicles, helicopters, and bunkers, all within line of sight out to more than a kilometer. Minimal firing signature, quick reloading from preloaded revolver-type drums, alloy and plastic construction (no complicated machining), etc.
Only thing stopping me is a million for R&D. Damn it! Where's the letter M when you need it?!
[ August 07, 2002, 11:52 AM: Message edited by: nbk2000 ]
__________________
To follow the path, look to the master. Follow the master, walk with the master. See through the master, become the master.
Read The Rules and live.
My PGP Key Fingerprint: 78A9 DF4F B5F4 649D 1BED 77D8 569F 0860 F82F D9A1
------------------------------------------------
May 8th, 2003, 03:29 AM
nbk2000
The anti-kakistocrat Join Date: Oct 1999
Location: Shrine of the Elder Gods E4M3
Posts: 5,677
Rep Power: 10
[Removed unrelated information]
I saw a patent for a hypervelocity rocket design that seems so fucking simple, you wonder why no one ever thought of it before. 5,000-12,000FPS using common smokeless powder, no moving parts, and made from common steels using simple machining processes.
(I've described this before, so I feel rather tiresome of repeating myself, but the idea is stuck in my brain so bear with me.)
Skip the bullshit of existing firearm designs and use "Leap Ahead" technology. The gyrojet was decades ahead of its time, but modern technology makes it even more lethal, and practical today then ever before.
Simplify the HVR (HyperVelocity Rocket) design to something you could turn out with a drill press and steel bar stock, create a wax model of a simple (multi-shot) launcher for the HVR, and sell a kit that includes plans/wax model/and some bar stock.
There's NO restrictions on selling either plans, nor inert steel stock, or even a wax model of a "hypothetical" design for a "flare launcher" no one has ever seen before (or remembers).
Great thing about laws are that they can't ban things that no one yet knows exists. It's only AFTER something bad happens with it that someone creates a law banning it.
If someone should happen to follow the plans, and make a casting from the wax model, then they'd have a large caliber/hand-held/recoilless HVR "flare" launcher that'd throw (after burnout) 220 grain (1/2oz) shells with a KE of 31,200 foot-pounds (assuming 8,000FPS).
I mean, Christ, a .50BMG has less than 10,000 foot-pounds, so how many .50s worth of impact would your completely legal and unregulated "flare" launcher have, when directed against cars/body armor/concrete walls/LAV's? All in something light enough, and small enough, to carry in your pocket.
Eventually, someone would bring it to Feinsteins attention, though hopefully not until tens of thousands of the "flare" launcher castings have been sold, as well as the plans and CAD files distributed over the 'net, and piggy torsos are getting exploded (literally) by nearly silent HVR's fired at them by 13 year old ghetto dwelling 'hoodies, the rockets zipping through cop body armor like a hypersonic knife through hot pig lard.
By the time they get around to banning it, you've already established a reputation for yourself as an innovator (or menace to society), created a new industry (legal or underground), given the politicians a case of the shits, and made the pigs realize their vests are useless as protection...and so are their cars...and reinforced concrete walls...and buildings...
Ahh...a sweet dream.
__________________
To follow the path, look to the master. Follow the master, walk with the master. See through the master, become the master.
Read The Rules and live.
My PGP Key Fingerprint: 78A9 DF4F B5F4 649D 1BED 77D8 569F 0860 F82F D9A1
------------------------------------------------
May 8th, 2003, 06:52 AM
A-BOMB
Sr. Researcher Join Date: Apr 2001
Location: wouldn't you like to know
Posts: 593
Rep Power: 0
NBK I like how you think! It gives me somelike of feeling of some sort like one where your laughing you head off in a movie theater as you see the burning pig stagger out of his burning car onfire And on the subjuect of gyrojets I just saw something at the hardware store that would make a outer casing for a gryojet round it a zinc or brass end fixture for some thing or another I'll pick some up next time I'm there, If these casing are strong anothe to hold the gasses from the cartridge they would make the prefect gyrojet round. The only part that would be a problem is the base you wouuld have to make a jig to hold the base at the right angle while you drilled the vent hole but that too would be semi-easy.
------------------------------------------------
May 8th, 2003, 06:17 PM
nbk2000
The anti-kakistocrat Join Date: Oct 1999
Location: Shrine of the Elder Gods E4M3
Posts: 5,677
Rep Power: 10
Brass or zinc would be too soft to be useable as a gyrojet shell. Internal pressures can be over 30,000PSI, which is why strong steels are needed.
Also, the problem with the old gyro's, was the canted ports. Unless they're EXACTLY symetrical, the variance of one port causes an oscillation in the rocket, which is the reason the originals weren't very (or even semi) accurate.
The MLRS method of studs 'n rails would be more suitable. No ports to drill, no loss in velocity from the diversion of propellant gases to induce rotation, and simplified launcher design.
Also, one of the reason for bothering with spin stabilization in the first place, was because the original g-rockets didn't burn all their propellant till they were well downrange. This allowed for wind cocking, which was magnified by the continued acceleration.
The HVR, on the other hand, burns it's entire propellant load in under 10 milliseconds. And this was with rockets using pounds of propellant! I'd imagine less than an ounce would only take 1 or 2 milliseconds to burn. As long as the propellant is completely burned by the time the HVR exits the barrel, then spin stabilization isn't needed. Which is good, because the design isn't intended as a precision sniping weapon, but as a simple weapon of major power.
And, because the things are so fast, leading of moving targets is very simple...you don't.
If a pocket HVR was assumed to have an 8,000 FPS velocity, and an effective range of 100 meters, than a car moving across your LOS at 100 meters at 100MPH would only move 5 feet in the time it'd take the HVR to cross the gap. Aim at the passenger compartment and you're going to hit it.
__________________
To follow the path, look to the master. Follow the master, walk with the master. See through the master, become the master.
Read The Rules and live.
My PGP Key Fingerprint: 78A9 DF4F B5F4 649D 1BED 77D8 569F 0860 F82F D9A1
------------------------------------------------
May 8th, 2003, 06:43 PM
Anthony
CGI Bin Laden Join Date: Sep 2000
Location: England
Posts: 4,443
Rep Power: 101
VERY interesting!
To achieve such an incredibly short burn time, is the propellent a loosely packed powder ratehr than a solid grain?
I'm thinking of something (easily improvisable to start with) using empty CO2 capsules. Formed steel nozzle, with the nose filled with lead. It wouldn't hold 30kpsi, but even a fraction of 8kfps would be a mean toy to start out with
__________________
"The only thing that helps me maintain my slender grip on reality is the friendship I share with my collection of singing potatoes"
------------------------------------------------
May 8th, 2003, 11:45 PM
nbk2000
The anti-kakistocrat Join Date: Oct 1999
Location: Shrine of the Elder Gods E4M3
Posts: 5,677
Rep Power: 10
The patent is 5,440,993
It uses loose SP. The flakes "float" on the gases created by its combustion, allowing for extremely rapid burning, but the rocket only works if it's moving. Reason is that the propellant grains inertia keeps it inside of the rocket, against the outflowing combustion gases, otherwise they're blown out unburned. So no static firing is possible.
Also, the large rockets mentioned in the patent (155mm anti-tank) burned their propellant charges in less than 2 feet of travel. This created:
Quote:
a large rearward flame was observed thus requiring that the rear of the launch tube be kept clear of personnel. In the case of firing from a gun tube, blast shields may be required for personnel protection.
A couple dozen pounds of SP burning in a few milliseconds? I bet THAT was a huge ass fucking fireball! Though the smaller HVR's would only have a fraction of an ounce, it'd still likely create a nasty fireball like that from a .50BMG, only larger. I'd think some way of venting the blast to the side would be a good idea, unless you build it as a bazooka type weapon that sits over the shoulder.
I don't think a CO2 powerlet would work, because the HVR design creates over 30,000 PSI of internal pressure, while CO2 tanks are burst rated to only 3,000PSI, below which they'll deform. I don't think a powerlet is even close to that.
Also, the design requires a nozzle that protrudes almost to the very front of the rockets internal chamber, to seperate the gas while retaining the propellant grains.
__________________
To follow the path, look to the master. Follow the master, walk with the master. See through the master, become the master.
Read The Rules and live.
My PGP Key Fingerprint: 78A9 DF4F B5F4 649D 1BED 77D8 569F 0860 F82F D9A1
------------------------------------------------
March 7th, 2004, 02:49 AM
nbk2000
The anti-kakistocrat Join Date: Oct 1999
Location: Shrine of the Elder Gods E4M3
Posts: 5,679
Rep Power: 10
During a recent google search on gyrojets, I found a site I've never seen before, www.deathwind.com .
Seems someone is trying to recreate the gyrojet.
'Course, they're going all about it all wrong. They're still trying to use gyroscopic stabilization through canted vents.
Tsk, tsk, tsk. Obviously inferior to my hybrid gun/gyrojet concept, the Gy2.
Interesting how they're using .50BMG full metal jackets as rocket casings. Might be usuable for improvisation.
__________________
To follow the path, look to the master. Follow the master, walk with the master. See through the master, become the master.
Read The Rules and live.
My PGP Key Fingerprint: 78A9 DF4F B5F4 649D 1BED 77D8 569F 0860 F82F D9A1
------------------------------------------------
Related rocketry infromation
November 26th, 2003, 04:35 PM
Arkangel
Sr. Researcher Join Date: Dec 2001
Location: Pangea
Posts: 753
Rep Power: 0
[Removed unrelated information]
You want a high speed fuel for horizontally fired, flat trajectory projectile right?
Then forget Estes, forget any model rocketry you see on the Nakka site and elsewhere, they are ALL too slow burning. As Tuatara said, making things go faster involves burning more fuel in a shorter space of time. I've fire 66mm LAW's and RPG7's, and in both cases, the fuel is all burnt before the rocket leaves the launcher. There's just a big WHUMP and it's gone. I used to have a LAW motor kicking about, and it's a very strong aluminium body, with venturi something like half the size of the overall bore. The fuel is in the form of a load of thin rods. You could do that sort of thing with home made rockets, but you're going to have to forget everything you read about models - pvc/cardboard/rolled metal tubing and the rest. Your rocket will have to be made from a piece of solid metal, and in any case, I wouldn't dare fire something like that home-made from over your shoulder - you'll die sooner rather than later.
------------------------------------------------
December 1st, 2003, 09:52 PM
AsylumSeaker
Registered User Join Date: Sep 2003
Location: Australia.
Posts: 32
Rep Power: 0
Arkangel- Basicly what I mean is a rocket which will be launched horizontally from a tube. Research I have been doing includes looking into ww2 rocket launchers, particularly the german panzershrek. I think I have the design of the rocket down how I want it, except what fuel to use. The question I was asking was what fuel would give me the highest acceleration which I could obtain or make without to much hassel, ie- without breaking into any sort of military facility. Thanks for your help. No need to ban me, I will leave now.
------------------------------------------------
December 2nd, 2003, 09:01 AM
Jacks Complete
Moderator Join Date: Oct 2003
Location: Disunited Kingdom
Posts: 819
Rep Power: 22
If I might make a suggestion.
Build a large crossbow. Fire your rocket from it, with a clever 1 second delay fuse on it.
I will leave you to figure out the rest. Then you can explain it to us.
__________________
...when it comes to mass murder the worst individual monster in the world is a gnat compared with even a relatively benign state.
I was Jack's Complete lack of surprise
------------------------------------------------
December 3rd, 2003, 03:42 PM
Arkangel
Sr. Researcher Join Date: Dec 2001
Location: Pangea
Posts: 753
Rep Power: 0
In that case Asylumseaker (and I'm not a mod, so I couldn't ban you anyway), it's pretty easy to work out some parameters:
As Wild Catmage explains, fired horizontally your rocket will start accelerating DOWN at 9.8m/s/s, just the same as a bullet does.
In this respect, you should be able to make a simple table of how fast the rocket will have to be going to get certain distances from your launcher.
For example, if you want the projectile to travel 100m and drop only an 10cm,
The formula you need is s=ut+1/2atsquared
where
s=0.1m
u = starting velocity(0m/s)
a = 9.8m/s/s
t = the time you have to get the projectile the 100m.
I can't be arsed to work it out for you, but you should be getting the idea.
So, once you've worked out how much time you have, then you can work out the average speed for that distance, or the acceleration you'll need to give the projectile. With a bullet it's a bit easier, as it's easier to get the average speed - muzzle velocity is maximum, and it will only decellerate after the barrel.
However, once you've roughly worked out the acceleration you need, you can work out the thrust needed from the rocket and all the rest of it.
But I can save you all the trouble.
Forget it unless you can burn all your propellant in a fraction of a second. Motor design is going to be critical and pretty much beyond anything model rocketeers can achieve. Fuel type is less relevant than giving it the largest surface area you can. Watch a LAW being fired, close up. Have a look at the design and you'll understand what I mean.
------------------------------------------------
Begin post
I encountered nbk's pocket-HVR concept a week or two ago, and it's been bugging me ever since as perhaps the most powerful portable weapon the common person could get. A handgun sized weapon firing off rockets? I love the concept and the visuals! Truly nbk is years ahead of his time in inventiveness.
So, having scoured the Forums for information relating to the Gy2 (as Nbk named it in one post), I think it's worthy of fleshing out. I also included some basic rocket information for fleshing out the rounds that would be used, since that's probably the biggest issue with the design.
Nbk, correct me if I'm wrong, but what we're looking for is:
1) A small, hand-held HVR launcher design/modification
2) A HVR design that would fit (hopefully) inside the launcher
3) A warhead for the HVR (perhaps more appropriately moved to the HE/OE section?)
#1 seems rather easy to think up and create, since all it has to do is ignite the propellant of the HVR and remain intact for multiple firings. I'm of the mindset that our biggest issue will be the "remain intact for multiple firings", since small amounts of propellant burning at microsecond speeds tend to act just like an explosive, which when inside a barrel is bad. Very bad.
Nbk already said that we need high quality steels to withstand the massive pressures that using smokeless powder as a propellant would cause, as copper and other metals just tend to be weaker than required. However, as I think about it, I believe that the micro-explosions shattering barrels isn't as much of an issue as long as we make sure that we're using the proper amount of propellant. A little bit of research into smokeless powder should reveal what numbers we need to keep in mind for our rounds.
Flare guns might be what we look into here, as that's the picture I'm getting for it.
#2 is something that's not as easy to define, at least not for me. I've been envisioning the rounds as smaller versions of the round mortar shells that you can buy as part of mortar firework sets.
http://img208.imageshack.us/img208/78/artilleryshelliu3.jpg
However, I'm not sure that such a design would be either workable nor the best that we could get. Nbk, what were you thinking the rockets would be shaped as? Normal rockets, round "ball" shells, or something else entirely? We can learn something, and establish a good max-min-optimum range for the weapon, as Arkangel posted. Testing different types of propellants/shell designs would be best, that way we have a wide variety of ammo to use if/when these things are made.
#3 is the one that I think would be the biggest hazard of the development process. What explosive were you envisioning that could be fired (mostly) safely from a handgun-sized weapon, Nbk? Definitely not AP, too unstable. And it couldn't be ANFO or something like that that needs a detonator. I'm at a loss for what explosive would cut it, especially with the intended effects (taking out piggies, vehicles, etc.). Perhaps just a crapload of BP or something similar?
U.S. Patent 5,000,094 might prove to be of some use in this area, since it is the patent for an exploding shotgun shell.
Nbk's comments would be especially useful in this matter, since it was his idea originally, but any input would help.
August 7th, 2002, 08:30 AM
nbk2000
The anti-kakistocrat Join Date: Oct 1999
Location: Shrine of the Elder Gods E4M3
Posts: 5,679
Rep Power: 10
[Removed unrelated information]
I also have an idea for a 20mm+ man portable direct fire cannon that uses gyrojet type rockets with a rifled barrel and retaining pins similiar to the MLRS system. Rapid fire, recoilless, lightweight (under 25 pounds is light for a "heavy" infantry weapon), explosive effect, able to engage infantry in the open, behind cover, light armored vehicles, helicopters, and bunkers, all within line of sight out to more than a kilometer. Minimal firing signature, quick reloading from preloaded revolver-type drums, alloy and plastic construction (no complicated machining), etc.
Only thing stopping me is a million for R&D. Damn it! Where's the letter M when you need it?!
[ August 07, 2002, 11:52 AM: Message edited by: nbk2000 ]
__________________
To follow the path, look to the master. Follow the master, walk with the master. See through the master, become the master.
Read The Rules and live.
My PGP Key Fingerprint: 78A9 DF4F B5F4 649D 1BED 77D8 569F 0860 F82F D9A1
------------------------------------------------
May 8th, 2003, 03:29 AM
nbk2000
The anti-kakistocrat Join Date: Oct 1999
Location: Shrine of the Elder Gods E4M3
Posts: 5,677
Rep Power: 10
[Removed unrelated information]
I saw a patent for a hypervelocity rocket design that seems so fucking simple, you wonder why no one ever thought of it before. 5,000-12,000FPS using common smokeless powder, no moving parts, and made from common steels using simple machining processes.
(I've described this before, so I feel rather tiresome of repeating myself, but the idea is stuck in my brain so bear with me.)
Skip the bullshit of existing firearm designs and use "Leap Ahead" technology. The gyrojet was decades ahead of its time, but modern technology makes it even more lethal, and practical today then ever before.
Simplify the HVR (HyperVelocity Rocket) design to something you could turn out with a drill press and steel bar stock, create a wax model of a simple (multi-shot) launcher for the HVR, and sell a kit that includes plans/wax model/and some bar stock.
There's NO restrictions on selling either plans, nor inert steel stock, or even a wax model of a "hypothetical" design for a "flare launcher" no one has ever seen before (or remembers).
Great thing about laws are that they can't ban things that no one yet knows exists. It's only AFTER something bad happens with it that someone creates a law banning it.
If someone should happen to follow the plans, and make a casting from the wax model, then they'd have a large caliber/hand-held/recoilless HVR "flare" launcher that'd throw (after burnout) 220 grain (1/2oz) shells with a KE of 31,200 foot-pounds (assuming 8,000FPS).
I mean, Christ, a .50BMG has less than 10,000 foot-pounds, so how many .50s worth of impact would your completely legal and unregulated "flare" launcher have, when directed against cars/body armor/concrete walls/LAV's? All in something light enough, and small enough, to carry in your pocket.
Eventually, someone would bring it to Feinsteins attention, though hopefully not until tens of thousands of the "flare" launcher castings have been sold, as well as the plans and CAD files distributed over the 'net, and piggy torsos are getting exploded (literally) by nearly silent HVR's fired at them by 13 year old ghetto dwelling 'hoodies, the rockets zipping through cop body armor like a hypersonic knife through hot pig lard.
By the time they get around to banning it, you've already established a reputation for yourself as an innovator (or menace to society), created a new industry (legal or underground), given the politicians a case of the shits, and made the pigs realize their vests are useless as protection...and so are their cars...and reinforced concrete walls...and buildings...
Ahh...a sweet dream.
__________________
To follow the path, look to the master. Follow the master, walk with the master. See through the master, become the master.
Read The Rules and live.
My PGP Key Fingerprint: 78A9 DF4F B5F4 649D 1BED 77D8 569F 0860 F82F D9A1
------------------------------------------------
May 8th, 2003, 06:52 AM
A-BOMB
Sr. Researcher Join Date: Apr 2001
Location: wouldn't you like to know
Posts: 593
Rep Power: 0
NBK I like how you think! It gives me somelike of feeling of some sort like one where your laughing you head off in a movie theater as you see the burning pig stagger out of his burning car onfire And on the subjuect of gyrojets I just saw something at the hardware store that would make a outer casing for a gryojet round it a zinc or brass end fixture for some thing or another I'll pick some up next time I'm there, If these casing are strong anothe to hold the gasses from the cartridge they would make the prefect gyrojet round. The only part that would be a problem is the base you wouuld have to make a jig to hold the base at the right angle while you drilled the vent hole but that too would be semi-easy.
------------------------------------------------
May 8th, 2003, 06:17 PM
nbk2000
The anti-kakistocrat Join Date: Oct 1999
Location: Shrine of the Elder Gods E4M3
Posts: 5,677
Rep Power: 10
Brass or zinc would be too soft to be useable as a gyrojet shell. Internal pressures can be over 30,000PSI, which is why strong steels are needed.
Also, the problem with the old gyro's, was the canted ports. Unless they're EXACTLY symetrical, the variance of one port causes an oscillation in the rocket, which is the reason the originals weren't very (or even semi) accurate.
The MLRS method of studs 'n rails would be more suitable. No ports to drill, no loss in velocity from the diversion of propellant gases to induce rotation, and simplified launcher design.
Also, one of the reason for bothering with spin stabilization in the first place, was because the original g-rockets didn't burn all their propellant till they were well downrange. This allowed for wind cocking, which was magnified by the continued acceleration.
The HVR, on the other hand, burns it's entire propellant load in under 10 milliseconds. And this was with rockets using pounds of propellant! I'd imagine less than an ounce would only take 1 or 2 milliseconds to burn. As long as the propellant is completely burned by the time the HVR exits the barrel, then spin stabilization isn't needed. Which is good, because the design isn't intended as a precision sniping weapon, but as a simple weapon of major power.
And, because the things are so fast, leading of moving targets is very simple...you don't.
If a pocket HVR was assumed to have an 8,000 FPS velocity, and an effective range of 100 meters, than a car moving across your LOS at 100 meters at 100MPH would only move 5 feet in the time it'd take the HVR to cross the gap. Aim at the passenger compartment and you're going to hit it.
__________________
To follow the path, look to the master. Follow the master, walk with the master. See through the master, become the master.
Read The Rules and live.
My PGP Key Fingerprint: 78A9 DF4F B5F4 649D 1BED 77D8 569F 0860 F82F D9A1
------------------------------------------------
May 8th, 2003, 06:43 PM
Anthony
CGI Bin Laden Join Date: Sep 2000
Location: England
Posts: 4,443
Rep Power: 101
VERY interesting!
To achieve such an incredibly short burn time, is the propellent a loosely packed powder ratehr than a solid grain?
I'm thinking of something (easily improvisable to start with) using empty CO2 capsules. Formed steel nozzle, with the nose filled with lead. It wouldn't hold 30kpsi, but even a fraction of 8kfps would be a mean toy to start out with
__________________
"The only thing that helps me maintain my slender grip on reality is the friendship I share with my collection of singing potatoes"
------------------------------------------------
May 8th, 2003, 11:45 PM
nbk2000
The anti-kakistocrat Join Date: Oct 1999
Location: Shrine of the Elder Gods E4M3
Posts: 5,677
Rep Power: 10
The patent is 5,440,993
It uses loose SP. The flakes "float" on the gases created by its combustion, allowing for extremely rapid burning, but the rocket only works if it's moving. Reason is that the propellant grains inertia keeps it inside of the rocket, against the outflowing combustion gases, otherwise they're blown out unburned. So no static firing is possible.
Also, the large rockets mentioned in the patent (155mm anti-tank) burned their propellant charges in less than 2 feet of travel. This created:
Quote:
a large rearward flame was observed thus requiring that the rear of the launch tube be kept clear of personnel. In the case of firing from a gun tube, blast shields may be required for personnel protection.
A couple dozen pounds of SP burning in a few milliseconds? I bet THAT was a huge ass fucking fireball! Though the smaller HVR's would only have a fraction of an ounce, it'd still likely create a nasty fireball like that from a .50BMG, only larger. I'd think some way of venting the blast to the side would be a good idea, unless you build it as a bazooka type weapon that sits over the shoulder.
I don't think a CO2 powerlet would work, because the HVR design creates over 30,000 PSI of internal pressure, while CO2 tanks are burst rated to only 3,000PSI, below which they'll deform. I don't think a powerlet is even close to that.
Also, the design requires a nozzle that protrudes almost to the very front of the rockets internal chamber, to seperate the gas while retaining the propellant grains.
__________________
To follow the path, look to the master. Follow the master, walk with the master. See through the master, become the master.
Read The Rules and live.
My PGP Key Fingerprint: 78A9 DF4F B5F4 649D 1BED 77D8 569F 0860 F82F D9A1
------------------------------------------------
March 7th, 2004, 02:49 AM
nbk2000
The anti-kakistocrat Join Date: Oct 1999
Location: Shrine of the Elder Gods E4M3
Posts: 5,679
Rep Power: 10
During a recent google search on gyrojets, I found a site I've never seen before, www.deathwind.com .
Seems someone is trying to recreate the gyrojet.
'Course, they're going all about it all wrong. They're still trying to use gyroscopic stabilization through canted vents.
Tsk, tsk, tsk. Obviously inferior to my hybrid gun/gyrojet concept, the Gy2.
Interesting how they're using .50BMG full metal jackets as rocket casings. Might be usuable for improvisation.
__________________
To follow the path, look to the master. Follow the master, walk with the master. See through the master, become the master.
Read The Rules and live.
My PGP Key Fingerprint: 78A9 DF4F B5F4 649D 1BED 77D8 569F 0860 F82F D9A1
------------------------------------------------
Related rocketry infromation
November 26th, 2003, 04:35 PM
Arkangel
Sr. Researcher Join Date: Dec 2001
Location: Pangea
Posts: 753
Rep Power: 0
[Removed unrelated information]
You want a high speed fuel for horizontally fired, flat trajectory projectile right?
Then forget Estes, forget any model rocketry you see on the Nakka site and elsewhere, they are ALL too slow burning. As Tuatara said, making things go faster involves burning more fuel in a shorter space of time. I've fire 66mm LAW's and RPG7's, and in both cases, the fuel is all burnt before the rocket leaves the launcher. There's just a big WHUMP and it's gone. I used to have a LAW motor kicking about, and it's a very strong aluminium body, with venturi something like half the size of the overall bore. The fuel is in the form of a load of thin rods. You could do that sort of thing with home made rockets, but you're going to have to forget everything you read about models - pvc/cardboard/rolled metal tubing and the rest. Your rocket will have to be made from a piece of solid metal, and in any case, I wouldn't dare fire something like that home-made from over your shoulder - you'll die sooner rather than later.
------------------------------------------------
December 1st, 2003, 09:52 PM
AsylumSeaker
Registered User Join Date: Sep 2003
Location: Australia.
Posts: 32
Rep Power: 0
Arkangel- Basicly what I mean is a rocket which will be launched horizontally from a tube. Research I have been doing includes looking into ww2 rocket launchers, particularly the german panzershrek. I think I have the design of the rocket down how I want it, except what fuel to use. The question I was asking was what fuel would give me the highest acceleration which I could obtain or make without to much hassel, ie- without breaking into any sort of military facility. Thanks for your help. No need to ban me, I will leave now.
------------------------------------------------
December 2nd, 2003, 09:01 AM
Jacks Complete
Moderator Join Date: Oct 2003
Location: Disunited Kingdom
Posts: 819
Rep Power: 22
If I might make a suggestion.
Build a large crossbow. Fire your rocket from it, with a clever 1 second delay fuse on it.
I will leave you to figure out the rest. Then you can explain it to us.
__________________
...when it comes to mass murder the worst individual monster in the world is a gnat compared with even a relatively benign state.
I was Jack's Complete lack of surprise
------------------------------------------------
December 3rd, 2003, 03:42 PM
Arkangel
Sr. Researcher Join Date: Dec 2001
Location: Pangea
Posts: 753
Rep Power: 0
In that case Asylumseaker (and I'm not a mod, so I couldn't ban you anyway), it's pretty easy to work out some parameters:
As Wild Catmage explains, fired horizontally your rocket will start accelerating DOWN at 9.8m/s/s, just the same as a bullet does.
In this respect, you should be able to make a simple table of how fast the rocket will have to be going to get certain distances from your launcher.
For example, if you want the projectile to travel 100m and drop only an 10cm,
The formula you need is s=ut+1/2atsquared
where
s=0.1m
u = starting velocity(0m/s)
a = 9.8m/s/s
t = the time you have to get the projectile the 100m.
I can't be arsed to work it out for you, but you should be getting the idea.
So, once you've worked out how much time you have, then you can work out the average speed for that distance, or the acceleration you'll need to give the projectile. With a bullet it's a bit easier, as it's easier to get the average speed - muzzle velocity is maximum, and it will only decellerate after the barrel.
However, once you've roughly worked out the acceleration you need, you can work out the thrust needed from the rocket and all the rest of it.
But I can save you all the trouble.
Forget it unless you can burn all your propellant in a fraction of a second. Motor design is going to be critical and pretty much beyond anything model rocketeers can achieve. Fuel type is less relevant than giving it the largest surface area you can. Watch a LAW being fired, close up. Have a look at the design and you'll understand what I mean.
------------------------------------------------
Begin post
I encountered nbk's pocket-HVR concept a week or two ago, and it's been bugging me ever since as perhaps the most powerful portable weapon the common person could get. A handgun sized weapon firing off rockets? I love the concept and the visuals! Truly nbk is years ahead of his time in inventiveness.
So, having scoured the Forums for information relating to the Gy2 (as Nbk named it in one post), I think it's worthy of fleshing out. I also included some basic rocket information for fleshing out the rounds that would be used, since that's probably the biggest issue with the design.
Nbk, correct me if I'm wrong, but what we're looking for is:
1) A small, hand-held HVR launcher design/modification
2) A HVR design that would fit (hopefully) inside the launcher
3) A warhead for the HVR (perhaps more appropriately moved to the HE/OE section?)
#1 seems rather easy to think up and create, since all it has to do is ignite the propellant of the HVR and remain intact for multiple firings. I'm of the mindset that our biggest issue will be the "remain intact for multiple firings", since small amounts of propellant burning at microsecond speeds tend to act just like an explosive, which when inside a barrel is bad. Very bad.
Nbk already said that we need high quality steels to withstand the massive pressures that using smokeless powder as a propellant would cause, as copper and other metals just tend to be weaker than required. However, as I think about it, I believe that the micro-explosions shattering barrels isn't as much of an issue as long as we make sure that we're using the proper amount of propellant. A little bit of research into smokeless powder should reveal what numbers we need to keep in mind for our rounds.
Flare guns might be what we look into here, as that's the picture I'm getting for it.
#2 is something that's not as easy to define, at least not for me. I've been envisioning the rounds as smaller versions of the round mortar shells that you can buy as part of mortar firework sets.
http://img208.imageshack.us/img208/78/artilleryshelliu3.jpg
However, I'm not sure that such a design would be either workable nor the best that we could get. Nbk, what were you thinking the rockets would be shaped as? Normal rockets, round "ball" shells, or something else entirely? We can learn something, and establish a good max-min-optimum range for the weapon, as Arkangel posted. Testing different types of propellants/shell designs would be best, that way we have a wide variety of ammo to use if/when these things are made.
#3 is the one that I think would be the biggest hazard of the development process. What explosive were you envisioning that could be fired (mostly) safely from a handgun-sized weapon, Nbk? Definitely not AP, too unstable. And it couldn't be ANFO or something like that that needs a detonator. I'm at a loss for what explosive would cut it, especially with the intended effects (taking out piggies, vehicles, etc.). Perhaps just a crapload of BP or something similar?
U.S. Patent 5,000,094 might prove to be of some use in this area, since it is the patent for an exploding shotgun shell.
Nbk's comments would be especially useful in this matter, since it was his idea originally, but any input would help.