deacon
Private 1st Class
Posts: 748
|
Post by deacon on Feb 24, 2009 17:16:45 GMT -5
well, you've all convinced me that changing the design any way, would serve useless in this predicament. so, i have decided i will try to accomplish this project as well. i will also try to simulate the 3 tank setup as best as possible.
|
|
Ersatzjack
Corporal
"That silly Franz... he thinks we are winning."
Posts: 1,093
|
Post by Ersatzjack on Feb 24, 2009 19:07:46 GMT -5
Okay, here I am sticking my head out again, but the way I figure it, once someone posts they are looking for feedback, right? Ed. What are you doing? I mean, you have the skills and the drive and there is no arguing that. But why make this thing? Oh, and I'm not forgetting you made my assault magazine for me. Heck, that was a great build. In airsoft, we try to make weapons and rules to create an imaginary but plausible comparison to real combat. We already have airsoft weapons that have greatly reduced range to the real thing so keeping that in mind, why build a flamethrower that uses a bb as a projectile? The flamethrower was used up close. But if your's spews bbs and possibly at high velocity especially if the valve gets spun unintentionally, then tactically it creates a situation that didn't exist, i.e., flamethrowers with better range than rifles. The way around this is a very weak bb (I don't think you want to try that). Then consider the mess this thing is going to make. Yechh. BBs everywhere. How many hits could that thing create before the hitee gets it into the triggerman's head that they are hit? 10-20-30? I mean really. Just because you can build it doesn't mean you should. Your mortars are cool because they are safe and add to the tactical possibilities. Your bazooka, well that thing is scary and cool too and with vehicles and/or buildings it too is still a useful airsoft weapon. I could support a water flamethrower with a short range and nice clean water jetting out to douse the opponent. Why not pressurize some H2O with your skills. You could use the same beautiful exterior. This BB idea is not something that I think is safe.
|
|
ersatzjack2
Private 1st Class
"We can still win this thing, once the secret weapons arrive."
Posts: 612
|
Post by ersatzjack2 on Feb 24, 2009 19:24:20 GMT -5
Concur. A mortar that lobs tennis balls replicates indirect fire and we pretend to die if it is close. A pak shoots a nerf at fairly good range and is useful against vehicles and buildings. It's neat and won't hurt you. Hand held panzerfausts do the same but with less range. Hand grenades are lobbed and we either die or displace. All of those alternate airsoft weapons integrate well into our hobby. A hosedown pb flamethrower? I think not. As an event organizer and land owner I wouldn't want to see that thing on my property. Aesthetically, it doesn't even replicate an area effect weapon but just shoots out streams of bb's. Use water. No one gets hurt, the range has to be less that of an airsoft gun and in the summer I'll volunteer to be your target.
|
|
Nimlas
Master sergeant
grumpy
Posts: 1,594
|
Post by Nimlas on Feb 24, 2009 21:06:35 GMT -5
I'd be pissed if I was wet for an entire weekend.
Armored cars are pretty damn dangerous too, getting run over sucks.
Honestly Ed is the last person I'd worry about doing something stupid and hurting someone in the manner you guys describe, or whatever it is you guys are getting at. Ed is a smart guy, and knows the limits. I swear if he made a German equivalent first you guys would be happy as happy can be. Not to be argumentative but this constant complaining about everything the allies have courtesy of Ed can be incredibly annoying and no doubt very discouraging to Ed himself. I don't want to speak for him but if it was me I'd sure feel that way.
Gosh.
|
|
|
Post by Gordak on Feb 24, 2009 22:41:07 GMT -5
I think enviromentally it could be an issue whatever it shoots, its going to be everywhere. But here is to doing what no one has done before! A flame thrower for airsoft!! keep it up Ed!
|
|
Ersatzjack
Corporal
"That silly Franz... he thinks we are winning."
Posts: 1,093
|
Post by Ersatzjack on Feb 24, 2009 23:16:14 GMT -5
I'd be pissed if I was wet for an entire weekend. Armored cars are pretty damn dangerous too, getting run over sucks. Honestly Ed is the last person I'd worry about doing something stupid and hurting someone in the manner you guys describe, or whatever it is you guys are getting at. Ed is a smart guy, and knows the limits. I swear if he made a German equivalent first you guys would be happy as happy can be. Not to be argumentative but this constant complaining about everything the allies have courtesy of Ed can be incredibly annoying and no doubt very discouraging to Ed himself. I don't want to speak for him but if it was me I'd sure feel that way. Gosh. Nimlas - I think you need to be less emotional and deal with the points raised in a mature and logical manner. You are a moderator after all. For instance, what do you mean by "constant complaining?" Also, asserting that we would not mind if the shoe were on the other foot is false and based in what precedent? We outlined why we wouldn't want to use the weapon as designed and we wouldn't. As far as Ed getting discouraged, I think Ed has thicker skin than that. Besides, I am not saying the design is bad or poor but just not needed. We all believe he'll build it and as Gordak says it will be the first but why not be the first M2A1 supersoaker? I'm not going to respond to all your comments but will write it off as you being defensive for one of your guys. Ed has supplied lots of added firepower for the Allies and the only critique I or my brother have ever made is intended to utilize these unique creations in a constructive and competitive manner that models real warfare. What is your feeling about a flamethrower with the range of a rifle? You overlooked that in your first response. What do you think about a weapon that has a ROF that guarantees multiple hits on a target before that target can respond? Not just one or two hits mind you but many more than that. Are you okay with dumping boatloads of cheap bbs on the properties that you play at? And finally, if we can't post anything on these boards but "ata boys" and rah-rahs, then just spell that out so we all know the rules. Oh, for personal reasons I really take offense at you picking on armored cars. They never hurt anyone - YET!
|
|
deacon
Private 1st Class
Posts: 748
|
Post by deacon on Feb 25, 2009 0:27:32 GMT -5
im with Nimlas on the water thing. id be pissed.
if you wanted something harmless, just have something that spews Co2 with a red/orange/yellow coloration to it. yeah that would waste a lot of Co2, but if you are afraid of getting hit by 20 bbs at a time then that would be an alternative.
i also dont ever see where it said Ed was going to use this masterpiece at an event.
|
|
biged
Master sergeant
Posts: 468
|
Post by biged on Feb 25, 2009 5:36:38 GMT -5
Ersatzjack's, I take everyone's input especially yours. I am building the flamethrower primarily because no-one has designed one like it. All the other airsoft flamethrowers I have seen look nothing like the original design. Even mine has a shorter barrel, but the concept and function is mine. Just like the bazooka, original. Deploying it will be another matter up to field owners/operators. It is mainly just really fun to shoot. I would gladly hand it over to the Germans as a "captured weapon" if the sides are uneven at an event.
I do completely agree with high rate of fire weapons AEGs at 25 bb's per second causes issues. The pain game factor of getting hit in the same spot 10+ times with a single pull of the trigger leads to arguments and fights (IMO: at x2 in the last two years). When I deployed my .50 at Liberty canyon, I gave the gunners a single 20oz CO2 tank. Which only lasts for 45 seconds to a minute of firing time. I can see a ROF limit on guns looming in the future.
///ed///
|
|
|
Post by ozzi on Feb 25, 2009 8:31:38 GMT -5
I love high ROF... I totoly agree that its dangerus. Its o.k if you shoot 20rps if you use a machine gun with bipod.
|
|
2nd Bat
Master sergeant
Posts: 11,813
|
Post by 2nd Bat on Feb 25, 2009 16:22:39 GMT -5
The beauty of this "weapons system" is that with a reulator it's range could be significantly toned down to 1/3rd or 1/2 that of an AEG. (Realistic?) not actually but certainly something to consider. Given the bulk and weight I for one don't think anyone would find it especially effective as an airsoft weapon except in extremely rare tactical circumstances. (That part is realistic) The effect on the environment where it is used has to be a consideration and no doubt will be. My guess is Big Ed is more intrigued with the possibilities than the tactical application or impact on a game.
One mitigator might be to establish if it used and the fuel tank takes a hit everyone within 20 feet is a casualty. Without folks close by supporting the gunner with covering fire the flamethrower guy is pretty much toast.
Cool concept. Doubtful it will ever be a factor at an event other than a awesome thing to see demonstrated!
|
|
Adler69
Master sergeant
Legio Patria Nostra
Posts: 2,859
|
Post by Adler69 on Feb 25, 2009 17:00:51 GMT -5
I wouldn't mind if the flamethrower was used , i think it's a good idea , after all the real one only had a Maximum range of 132 feet , and a Rate of fire of half a gallon a second which meant that it only had a total of 7 seconds of sustained fire , if you apply real world rules to Ed's weapon it would be a nice addition to the WWII arsenal.
|
|
|
Post by 2ndranger on Feb 25, 2009 17:10:13 GMT -5
Wow...you know guys he could just go build a real flame thrower? Oh but let me guess "You all wouldnt want fire on your uniforms... "...psh...Keep up the good work ed, its looking great. Franz
|
|
Ersatzjack
Corporal
"That silly Franz... he thinks we are winning."
Posts: 1,093
|
Post by Ersatzjack on Feb 25, 2009 18:58:17 GMT -5
I feel like I'm in the Twilight Zone. Let's recap - (forgive me if I don't summarize everyone's stand exactly as they would word it) Gordak thinks it could be an ecological nightmare but still thinks as a step towards inventing something unique it should be pursued. Biged admits that ROF concerns are real and wants to build it anyway because... well, he wants to build it. Alder69 and 2nd Bat want to see it finished too. I think 2nd Bat assumes it will have greatly reduced range (something I would like to see modeled, but which is not a design aim right now that I know of) and Alder wants it too but with a 132ft range or 40-yards or so. That's another way of saying with a reduced range and limited ammo (7-seconds) he'd support its use. But again, no one is saying that this is how biged plans to make it. What I read previously (go back to the design data) was a non-stop BB-spitting design with a 9-minute continuous fire (not seven second). It is expected to have a ROF topping 90RPS It is slated to operate at 290 PSI and Gunfighter already indicated that he was shooting .25 bbs at 450 FPS using 180-PSI. Seems to me all other things being equal that 290 PSI will shoot them out harder yet. Guys, we are talking about something that will injure people. I'm not making this up. Just re-read what has already been announced. Now if you want to build it as a conversation piece or a demonstration piece then by all means I could support that. Just don't use it against people. Kinda like that contest for a 1000 RPM - 1000 FPS design that was out there a year or so back. But the only way it should be used for airsoft games would be with reduced ammo (seven seconds sounds great) and reduced range (150-200 FPS) so that multiple hits doesn't hurt someone. I still think water is the solution. As far as getting wet, I don't see the big deal. I'll shut up now. (Thanks for the offer of using it as a captured weapon but it would have to shoot water, have a small ammo supply and short range for me to enjoy it. Then if the squad could get me in close to the bunker - hell ya, I'd love to spray Nimlas. ;D)
|
|
MAS
Private 1st Class
Posts: 590
|
Post by MAS on Feb 25, 2009 19:53:25 GMT -5
In order to keep the flamethower realistic it should have a hight ROF and a short range. maybe even try a two barraled version to keep ROF high.
|
|
|
Post by 5thrangerbat on Feb 25, 2009 20:00:47 GMT -5
There are biodegradable bbs. also i think it's a cool idea but as long as the fps is low (not too low) the ni would consider it fine.
|
|
|
Post by 2ndranger on Feb 25, 2009 23:04:39 GMT -5
How bout this.... continue building the thing and forget what everyone says. Lets not nit pick gang...this is the first of its kind. I want to see such a weapon be built and used in a skirmish. If your Allied, stop your complaining its on your side, Germans, lets man up here. I personally have never seen so many complaints for a airsoft weapon. We all b***ch and moan we need more WW2 airsoft guns from china, While Biged answers that call and ocassionally throws out a neat never before made accurate weapon. Enoughs enough guys, encouragement is what should be shown none of this childish criticism. Beggars cant be choosers! Franz
|
|
godo
Private
Are you careful what you say or write?
Posts: 70
|
Post by godo on Feb 26, 2009 0:11:47 GMT -5
Well, when I was brainstorming about an M2A1 back when I heard about airsoft flamethrowers, my idea was to have the bbs loaded into the main pipe area with the grips - downside it that you can only have a small bit of ammo. While I think that ed's design is definitely more efficient and makes more sense, perhaps limiting ammo and having to stop to "refuel" as it were would be a good rule of play.
IMO, I really don't think it's going to be the killer device we're making it out to be. I, personally, do not think getting sprayed by bbs is all that bad from a reasonable distance. Let's reserve judgment until the piece is finished.
|
|
|
Post by Rekkon on Feb 26, 2009 14:17:35 GMT -5
I am fine with the idea of a BB hose flamethrower so long as it fits accurately within our pseudo-realistic airsoft framework (short range, high RoF), but that applies to any weapon really. We would prefer not to have SMGs with the range of a good rifle or an MP-40 with the rate of fire of an MG42 or hand grenades we can throw as far as an AEG shoots, quiaff?
I am going to guess that I am one of the few people here that has actually been hit (from short range too) by something akin to what Biged is proposing. I do not know what the FPS was, but he was firing .12s (only allowed to use .12s) at a pretty high rate. Sure, it stung, but we do not play the game to avoid pain. It would have been bad to have the thing stay on you for sustained fire, but he used it in short, typically sweeping, bursts. In other words he used a potentially dangerous thing in a responsible manner, and it was fine. Does not the same consideration apply to a fair number of things we already use?
Ecological concerns can be dismissed I think, especially if the weapon is not going to be used constantly. The per person/weapon “plastic footprint” might be higher, but not by something ridiculous like three orders of magnitude. If we were really so worried (or if BBs were excessively bad), we would be using bio BBs exclusively.
|
|
Nimlas
Master sergeant
grumpy
Posts: 1,594
|
Post by Nimlas on Feb 26, 2009 15:11:13 GMT -5
Germans, lets man up here. I personally have never seen so many complaints for a airsoft weapon. We all b***ch and moan we need more WW2 airsoft guns from china, While Biged answers that call and ocassionally throws out a neat never before made accurate weapon. Enoughs enough guys, encouragement is what should be shown none of this childish criticism. Beggars cant be choosers! Hey I said that...evidently it was no good, let's see how that works out! ;D
|
|
TommyGunner
Staff Sgt.
Hackjob Mauro
1st Marine Division, 1942
Posts: 2,265
|
Post by TommyGunner on Feb 26, 2009 16:35:09 GMT -5
As a USMC Airsofter who would give his left nut to use one of those at an event for a USMC Flame thrower kit I fully support this airsoft weapon and hope to see you finish it!
TommyGunner
|
|
|
Post by gunfighters on Feb 27, 2009 10:43:36 GMT -5
calm down guys it got a reg, so it can be adjusted to what ever you conseder a "safe" fps. this is the tech area, its about "could", not necessarily "should". "I think enviromentally it could be an issue" hardly a drop in the bucket compared to a modern milsim event with the preeure cabuilty being so high maby ed cound convert it to popcorn seeds of dried peas "at high velocity especially if the valve gets spun unintentionally" same can be said about ANY gass powered gun.. if this was a high ROF blow back mg 34 that had a reg that went to 250psi none would be complaning as for range.. we don't ask that hand guns only shoot 50', the AS = of 100 yards, do we to be "real" a scaled AS flame thrower would have a range of 40'. not worth the buid. personaly i have allways hated the concept of a "bb" flame thrower AS flame thrower = Predator hand held minny gun in many cases but try to use water and you will here "ohhh nooes my gear" if a drop gets on most people (for water reastion AS players are like cats) so that leave only the bb option and lets be real hear.. the efect of this is quite close to being "real".. players havernt even seen it in action or gotten any hard crono data and they are all ready scared of it
|
|
|
Post by Gordak on Feb 27, 2009 23:47:11 GMT -5
well these boards are for discussion, so we discuss. Lets talk about the real issue here, Banning the new mp44! 600 round high caps, high fps full auto right out of the box for $200 bux??? no thanks!! not till the allies have a $100 b.a.r.!!! BAN THE 44!!
|
|
|
Post by spitfire740 on Feb 28, 2009 22:58:34 GMT -5
Maybe as a new idea for the Flamethrower would be instead of BB's projecting out, just stick like a fog machine in there and then wire it to shoot out bursts of smoke. I know its been mentioned before, but it seems like a plausable option. The range would be alot more limited though. Still I think an M2 would be a lollipops on the field!
|
|
2nd Bat
Master sergeant
Posts: 11,813
|
Post by 2nd Bat on Mar 11, 2009 13:51:57 GMT -5
This weapon will be a curiousity at best. I predict it will be fielded on extremely rare occassions and quite responsibly by Ed and with safe levels frankly not be an especially effective skirmish weapon due to the mobility wielding factor and close range. As a demonstartion item it will be uber cool and I suspect that is the manner in which it will be employed and primarily the way Ed intends to use it. Kudos to Big Ed (as usual) and a very worthwhile discussion thread.
Strong opinions are healthy and after all that's why we call it a Forum.
|
|
|
Post by troyluginbill on Mar 25, 2009 22:37:48 GMT -5
This may sound stupid, but what about a massive silly string shooter? Just throwing it out there. The stuff would have the range of a flamethrower (compared to airsoft), be biodegradable, won't get anyone wet, won't stain (as long as no dies are used), won't hurt anybody, and would be the closest you could have to the actual "stream of fire" that was put out.
Please be polite in your replies-I know it sounds stupid but I am just thinking out of the box.
Either way I hope to get some instructions from ed to build a static display model. Just that would sell big for regular reenacting events.
|
|
|
Post by thegreengrundel on Mar 26, 2009 21:30:10 GMT -5
Silly string is not a bad idea at all.
You could also just remove the hopup and tune the gun to the ~250fps level. You would get 1/4th the range of a rifle but would be able to dump out a ton of bb's. Perhaps use the biodegrable BB's for natures sake.
I would be pretty pissed if I got any sort of liquid on me or my gear. I played paintball for YEARS and one of the huge selling points of airsoft over it was the 'no mess' plastic bb's. Not to mention WW2 gear is NOT cheap, anything that risks messing it up is a 'no-no' in my opinion.
If you wanted to replicate the effect of having the flame tank explode from a hit. Perhaps installing 2-3 "kill zones" on the tank that when hit engage a kill-switch which disconnects the power to the flamethrower and counts as the user getting killed.
Just throwing some ideas out there. - Grundel
|
|
|
Post by troyluginbill on Mar 26, 2009 22:17:15 GMT -5
Again, just thinking out of the box, but what about something that throws out those biodegradable packing peanuts? Don't know if they would be heavy enough to throw far, but they are cheap, easy, not wet, and can really make the wind an issue for the flame thrower. (never throw lit jellied gasoline into the wind-sorta like spitting and pissing.)
|
|
deacon
Private 1st Class
Posts: 748
|
Post by deacon on Mar 26, 2009 23:27:12 GMT -5
I wonder if someone has actually pissed on themselves in the wind? *whistling*
|
|
|
Post by toboggan on Mar 27, 2009 7:46:25 GMT -5
haha. im sitting in the middle of class at school, and i just laughed at your post there daecon! lol thats great
|
|
|
Post by troyluginbill on Mar 28, 2009 19:14:39 GMT -5
I'll admit I did. Up on Mt. Ranier during a hike. Near the summit we all decided to write our names in the snow. Got so concentrated on spelling Luginbill I didn't notice where I was standing when it came time to try two parallel lines (easier back and forth right.) Strong enough wind you don't want to piss perpendicular to it let alone into it. Always with it to your back gentlemen, always at your back.
|
|