Re: [TANKS] 0.50" Marker
Loic, John's correct in that both of us found out that at certain ranges the .50 marker paintballs would bounce off other tanks. I also found that the smaller paintballs would not fly as straight. That could have been the paintballs themselves. Since I ended up redesigning the turret (created the current all-aluminum version), I found enough room to put a regular .68 marker. Another item that I consider when designing tanks: Use components or parts that others in the hobby might be familiar with or potentially carry with them to the battle. Several times I've gotten parts from Joe, Will, Frank, or John, in order to perform a field repair on my tank. This was one of the reasons why I went back to the .68 marker. Paul On Nov 5, 2013, at 10:14 AM, Loic atFOA wrote: > Hello Fellow Tankers! > > I just purchased a couple 0.50" Paintball markers. I want to install them on > my Pz.IV family of tanks (0.5" is a 76.2mm scale size, Pz.IVH had a 75 mm). > But I heard that the ball being so small has a better ballistic than the > 0.68"? However, the weight of the 0.68" is 3.2g compared to the 1.2g of the > 0.50". Effective range of both sizes are around 150 ft (45 m). Another > advantage/disadvantage of the 0.50" caliber might be the thickness of its > soft gel shell, which would be harder to break inside a barrel, but maybe too > hard to break on impact against a foe (less kinetic energy on impact?). > Impact are also harder to notice... but you can put a lot more balls in your > tray! (-; > > Searching on the Internet, I find a LOT of opinions on pros/cons of the 0.50" > size. But not any facts. I'd like to see realistic ballistics on comparable > gun platforms. Obviously, I'm going to try myself. I just have to swap the > guns on the Tiger. > > I have several questions: > > 1. Paul Pitelli tried one of those markers in the past. Are those results > posted? > 2. I asked Steve about the rules on 0.50" size, and it does not seem that > there are limitations on paintball sizes? > > BTW, I have updated FOA website with some sub-components of the FOA "Combat" > Tiger. Let me know what you think [hint: advertizement plug] > http://www.fieldofarmortanks.com/product_p/foa-mpss3.htm > http://www.fieldofarmortanks.com/product_p/foa-ttes2.htm > http://www.fieldofarmortanks.com/product_p/foa-ttms2.htm > > Cheers from snowy Utah, > Loic, the "White Knight Slacker" > http://www.fieldofarmortanks.com > > -- -- You are currently subscribed to the "R/C Tank Combat" group. To post a message, send email to rctankcombat@googlegroups.com To unsubscribe, send email to rctankcombat+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com Visit the group at http://groups.google.com/group/rctankcombat --- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "R/C Tank Combat" group. To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to rctankcombat+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com. For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/groups/opt_out.
[TANKS] Re: id like to ask counsel for a rule alteration/ re-wording
On Monday, November 4, 2013 9:22:07 AM UTC-5, TyngTech wrote: > > ~D, > > Review the archives and you'll see we've been having these scale > discussions since day one (search "horizontal thickness rule" or > "abomination" in particular). The intent is to be inclusive of all > vehicles that ever saw production so we cannot rely to heavily on real word > performance of the modeled vehicles. > As owner of the Abomination, I thank you for your kind words Steve. Our games does revolve around strategy and tactics. A key point to remember, the earlier years of WWII saw the German forces victorious, but not because of superior vehicles. The French tanks had the better armor and the better guns. But, they did not use them properly. Personally, I would have no problem allowing you the 1 hit kill as long as your tank had proper scale speed and proper time between firing your rounds. I'm sure it took quite a while to get that 152 mm mortar shell back into the breech. So as all of my other astute comrades mentioned, by all means build it, bring it and battle it. John " I bet you don't hit me on your 1st shot" Pittelli A question "D"- Where are you located? -- -- You are currently subscribed to the "R/C Tank Combat" group. To post a message, send email to rctankcombat@googlegroups.com To unsubscribe, send email to rctankcombat+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com Visit the group at http://groups.google.com/group/rctankcombat --- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "R/C Tank Combat" group. To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to rctankcombat+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com. For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/groups/opt_out.
[TANKS] Re: few pic's
On Saturday, November 2, 2013 9:37:36 PM UTC-5, morrdubay wrote: > > Nova Scotia, Canada > > Hm, I've always wanted an excuse to vacation in Nova Scotia. > -- -- You are currently subscribed to the "R/C Tank Combat" group. To post a message, send email to rctankcombat@googlegroups.com To unsubscribe, send email to rctankcombat+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com Visit the group at http://groups.google.com/group/rctankcombat --- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "R/C Tank Combat" group. To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to rctankcombat+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com. For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/groups/opt_out.
[TANKS] Re: 0.50" Marker
On Tuesday, November 5, 2013 10:14:28 AM UTC-5, Loic atFOA wrote: > > Hello Fellow Tankers! > > I just purchased a couple 0.50" Paintball markers. I want to install them > on my Pz.IV family of tanks (0.5" is a 76.2mm scale size, Pz.IVH had a 75 > mm). > Loic, Paul and I experimented with the 50m cal paintballs. I found that firing at the longer ranges the balls tended to glance off without breaking. As I previously lived and fired at the fringes, I decided that they would not work well for my battling style. Paul seemed to do well when in the normal ranges . And of course the smaller size made fitting the ammo hopper in our tiny turrets much easier. I'm not sure why Paul went back to the 68's. Regarding your Pz IV's. It will be nice to see one on the field again. Check out my early pictures of T-12 before the conversion to the Brummbar for how I set up the hopper. It worked very well and I could quickly relaod via the cupola hatch. John -- -- You are currently subscribed to the "R/C Tank Combat" group. To post a message, send email to rctankcombat@googlegroups.com To unsubscribe, send email to rctankcombat+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com Visit the group at http://groups.google.com/group/rctankcombat --- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "R/C Tank Combat" group. To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to rctankcombat+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com. For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/groups/opt_out.
Re: [TANKS] Re: 0.50" Marker
My comments marked with *** below. On Tuesday, November 5, 2013 11:49:21 AM UTC-5, lo...@fieldofarmortanks.com wrote: > > Ballistics would be affected by: > > 1. Diameter size: smaller diameters have less resistance to travel > against the air > > 2. Kinetic energy: should be x3 times higher with 0.68” since at > that same velocity, it has x3 times the weight > > *** See "ballistic coefficient" and "sectional density". *** Recall http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Galileo's_Leaning_Tower_of_Pisa_experiment A 100 lb sphere fell very very slightly faster than a 1 lb sphere of the same material. ... > > Mike, thank you for the data provided. It is a little confusing on the > graph, but it seems like the kinetic energy on the 0.50” balls is falling > out after 75ft. What does it mean at a distance of 0 ft, the height is 40 > inches? Did they fixed the markers at 3.3 ft height and observed how the > ball deflected downward, until it reached the ground? > > *** The site with the link to those graphs is http://www.mcarterbrown.com/50ballistics/50tech.html I believe they fired with the barrel horizontal and measured the vertical drop at each distance. It seems the middle of the 0.68 caliber barrel was 38" above the ground and the 0.50 caliber barrel a half-inch lower. At short ranges the drop is negligible but at long range has to be taken into account. > ... > -- -- You are currently subscribed to the "R/C Tank Combat" group. To post a message, send email to rctankcombat@googlegroups.com To unsubscribe, send email to rctankcombat+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com Visit the group at http://groups.google.com/group/rctankcombat --- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "R/C Tank Combat" group. To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to rctankcombat+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com. For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/groups/opt_out.
[TANKS] Re: 0.50" Marker
A quick calculation suggests the densities are about the same. I did very little research online but found some data that suggests the 0.43 caliber paintball have about the same density too (and the data I found agreed with your figures for weight). Assuming the paintballs are spherical and have the same density the ballistics should be comparable until some limiting factor kicks in. See http://www.mcarterbrown.com/50ballistics/dropindistance.html for some real-world tests. It seems that out to about 75 feet the 0.68s and the 0.50s are comparable. I did not search for any data on gel thickness. On Tuesday, November 5, 2013 10:14:28 AM UTC-5, Loic atFOA wrote: > > ... > But I heard that the ball being so small has a better ballistic than the > 0.68"? > ... > Searching on the Internet, I find a LOT of opinions on pros/cons of the > 0.50" size. But not any facts. I'd like to see realistic ballistics on > comparable gun platforms. > ... > -- -- You are currently subscribed to the "R/C Tank Combat" group. To post a message, send email to rctankcombat@googlegroups.com To unsubscribe, send email to rctankcombat+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com Visit the group at http://groups.google.com/group/rctankcombat --- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "R/C Tank Combat" group. To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to rctankcombat+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com. For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/groups/opt_out.
[TANKS] 0.50" Marker
Hello Fellow Tankers! I just purchased a couple 0.50" Paintball markers. I want to install them on my Pz.IV family of tanks (0.5" is a 76.2mm scale size, Pz.IVH had a 75 mm). But I heard that the ball being so small has a better ballistic than the 0.68"? However, the weight of the 0.68" is 3.2g compared to the 1.2g of the 0.50". Effective range of both sizes are around 150 ft (45 m). Another advantage/disadvantage of the 0.50" caliber might be the thickness of its soft gel shell, which would be harder to break inside a barrel, but maybe too hard to break on impact against a foe (less kinetic energy on impact?). Impact are also harder to notice... but you can put a lot more balls in your tray! (-; Searching on the Internet, I find a LOT of opinions on pros/cons of the 0.50" size. But not any facts. I'd like to see realistic ballistics on comparable gun platforms. Obviously, I'm going to try myself. I just have to swap the guns on the Tiger. I have several questions: 1. Paul Pitelli tried one of those markers in the past. Are those results posted? 2. I asked Steve about the rules on 0.50" size, and it does not seem that there are limitations on paintball sizes? BTW, I have updated FOA website with some sub-components of the FOA "Combat" Tiger. Let me know what you think [hint: advertizement plug] http://www.fieldofarmortanks.com/product_p/foa-mpss3.htm http://www.fieldofarmortanks.com/product_p/foa-ttes2.htm http://www.fieldofarmortanks.com/product_p/foa-ttms2.htm Cheers from snowy Utah, Loic, the "White Knight Slacker" http://www.fieldofarmortanks.com -- -- You are currently subscribed to the "R/C Tank Combat" group. To post a message, send email to rctankcombat@googlegroups.com To unsubscribe, send email to rctankcombat+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com Visit the group at http://groups.google.com/group/rctankcombat --- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "R/C Tank Combat" group. To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to rctankcombat+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com. For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/groups/opt_out.
