• Welcome to the DeeperBlue.com Forums, the largest online community dedicated to Freediving, Scuba Diving and Spearfishing. To gain full access to the DeeperBlue.com Forums you must register for a free account. As a registered member you will be able to:

    • Join over 44,280+ fellow diving enthusiasts from around the world on this forum
    • Participate in and browse from over 516,210+ posts.
    • Communicate privately with other divers from around the world.
    • Post your own photos or view from 7,441+ user submitted images.
    • All this and much more...

    You can gain access to all this absolutely free when you register for an account, so sign up today!

Vlanikgun

Thread Status: Hello , There was no answer in this thread for more than 60 days.
It can take a long time to get an up-to-date response or contact with relevant users.
Vlanik, sorry but can you write your posts in English?
I know it's a pain when it isn't your first language.
But we need to monitor all the posts and that's not possible if everyone writes in a different language.
Hope you understand.
Thanks.
 
Warning that who read this article...
Îñîáåííîñòè ïðîåêòèðîâàíèÿ áåñïîðøíåâîãî ðóæüÿ
In her выложены fantasies of the person who never did the беспоршневого of the handgun...
And not smog to do after publication of its article even...
Therefore as his(its) discourses disagrees the law physicists.
Else nobody not to manage to use his(its) advices on deal.
=================================
Предупреждение тем кто читал эту статью...
http://www.fishgun-master.ho.com.ua/proekt_vlanik.htm
В ней выложены фантазии человека который никогда не делал беспоршневого ружья...
И не смог сделать даже после публикации своей статьи...
Потому как его рассуждения противоречат законам физики.
Ещё никому не удалось применить его советы на деле.
 
Last edited:
Reactions: devondave

Vlanik it would be better to put text in both Russian and English translate.

Vlanik было бы лучше поместить текст на русском и английском языках перевод.

Maybe something like this would be good for long guns?
 

Attachments

  • Vodilica.JPG
    19.1 KB · Views: 343
Last edited:
Это не удачный вариант...
Преимущество ружья без ствола, заключаются в том, что при выстреле гарпун не меняет своего направления даже если ружьё меняет своё положение...
Это обеспечивает более высокую точность...
=======================
This not ingenious variant...
The Advantage of the handgun without stem, are concluded in that that at shot harpoon does not change its directions even though handgun changes its position...
This provides more pinpoint accuracy...
 
I would also try something like this on the drawing. The shaft tail cup would be held on the shaft in the gun due to the air difference 50 bar to 1 bar "parasite" air. O-ring might be 6 x 4 x 1 mm. Of course, the shaft must be inserted above the water, to prevent water entering the cup.
 

Attachments

  • Kapica1.JPG
    19.6 KB · Views: 338
  • Cap_Shaft.JPG
    25 KB · Views: 325
Last edited:

I could bet Vladimir, what I suggested would work! Nice pictures on the link. It seems that first 2-3 pictures on the link are similar to what I suggested (by SOM). Peter what do you think about this? Might it work? I believe it would be perfect. Cone shape shaft tail, best centering, and the cap very firm on the shaft tail, while behind the sealing O-ring. I suppose the losing the air from gun would be minimal.
Regards, Tomislav
 
Last edited:
А ты щёлкни по его фотографии мышкой...
Откроется весь его альбом...
Там на фотографиях отражён весь его путь по созданию ружья...
Которое так и не работает...
=================================
But you щQлкни on his(its) photographies by mouse...
The whole his(its) album is Opened...
There whole his(its) way is reflected on photography on making the handgun...
Which as well as does not work...
 

I found all those solutions pretty complicated. I prefer simple solutions like yours, Vladimir.
 

Tromic, that tail cap design may work, but if the one used now functions OK then why make any changes? Using a pressure differential to hold the tail cap on the spear tail when the spear is inside the gun has a certain technical appeal, but having to load the gun in the air each time would be an annoying restriction. Best approach is to have no cavity remaining inside the tail cap and therefore no water at all, or as little as possible, so that the amount transferred into the gun's interior is negligible. A taper fit may hold the cap on tightly, but then you will have a gap behind the rear of the tapered shank. If trapped water cannot escape and remains "bottled up" inside the tail cap when the gun is cocked then that may be OK, but could you always rely on that happening, even with the presence of an "O" ring? Plus incompressibility of trapped water may prevent full grip by the taper in any case.

I assume that the "Vlanik" guns have been in operation for a long time now and have evolved to the most economic form to mass produce which works satisfactorily. Until Vladimir started this thread I did not know about any of the changes in recent years as I did not look for them, plus "Vlanik" speargun review material (Hanter, Fishgun-Master, etc.) had remained the same for years and now appears to be not completely up to date.

Most appealing aspect of the "Vlanik" speargun is the 94% efficiency and small body tube size. Now the gun floats it is an even better proposition for marine use where bottom sand lies in wait to embrace your dropped gun! As an occasional hydropneumatic speargun user I try to avoid this situation as much as possible!
 

The drawings are very nice, but who would make this gun and at what cost? Also real objects do not always respond as well as they do on paper, i.e. this item slides into that item, one part locks up another one before this happens, etc. Unfortunately such slick operation is seldom achieved in practice when mechanisms become very intricate and particle contaminated water is involved. I note that a ball sear is included, something like the Technisub "Drago". Ball type sear mechanisms work OK inside the protected environment of a pneumatic speargun, but do not do so well in the flooded outer parts of a gun. A fastidious owner will keep even the most complex gun going, but life is too short for many to lavish such attention on their guns. The KISS principle is a great guiding rule for spearguns and at times may reflect on the needs of the users. No insult intended to the world's spearfishermen, but many just want to cock the gun, pull the trigger and seize the impaled victim. For this to happen the gun must be always reliable and shoot straight, at least to the distance required with sufficient impact to capture the fish and give you enough time to get your hands on it. Post-dive maintenance may be minimal, just a quick dunk in some freshwater and then the gun is stored after drying.
 
Just to highlight the problem with the incompressibility of water trapped in the tail cap, look at this drawing taken from the projected ball sear gun design. To get around the incompressibility problem the designer has installed a neoprene disc which I have coloured in black and shown in its compressed state. With the shaft tang not inserted the neoprene disc will be somewhat wider than shown here, its function is to provide space as it compresses for the trapped water (shown in blue) to occupy as the "O" ring at the base of the shaft tang takes up on the tubular entrance to the shaft tail cap and then moves fully into the cap. Even if this worked there is no guarantee that the neoprene disc would stay in place, it may disappear with the first shot or eventually crush down so that it no longer provides a restriction on the volume of water trapped in the tail cap. Restricting the volume of trapped water is essential to enabling the full coupling of the shaft tang into the tail cap with this "sealed" design. A plausible design on paper, but in reality?
 

Attachments

  • shaft tail.jpg
    18.8 KB · Views: 315
Last edited:
If I would try to make a gun like the Vlanikgun, some day, I would like to try both changes as I suggested. The only problem would be need for inserting the shaft tail into the cup, above water. Loading could be finished in water. Because these guns are so short in length, that would not be a big problem. The force that would hold the cap on the shaft tail, inside the gun would be about 17 kg. So no chance for separate the cap from the shaft (if the o-ring seals good). That cup would be in the same time a guide for longer shaft, made in Delrin-steel combination. Vladimir can not use this guide with his design because the cap is held in place on the shaft tail only by friction. Some trapped air inside the cup would be beneficial because there would be more place for possible water drop and also more air on ambient pressure above the water. Advantage with this design would be no loosing of high pressure air from the gun and simple construction. All those designs I saw on forum are too complicated, except Vladimir's. I like Vladimir's but you know me, I like to make changes even to best design. :friday
 

Attachments

  • Vodilica.JPG
    19.1 KB · Views: 321
  • Cap_Shaft.JPG
    25 KB · Views: 318
Last edited:
This is principle of operation
 

Attachments

  • VLANIK_PRINCIP.GIF
    37.3 KB · Views: 351

If you can shake all water out of the muzzle while lifting the gun clear of the water to introduce the spear tail then the sealed tail cap type connection may work. However if it still has enough water sitting in the "cup" of the tail cap (surface tension, persistent droplets) to oppose the tail cap closing right up on the shaft due to hydraulic lock, then the resultant shaft surface gap, which you cannot see, will pass through the muzzle seal and release a burst of air from the gun. This unreliability will plague the operation of the gun. Only way for the gun to work with a degree of reliability is for the water to have an easy exit when the tang pushes into the tail cap and very little space to hold any water between the tang and the tail cap when they are fully engaged. That is what Vladimir did with his "Vlanik" gun. Reading the Russian posts I see a lot of pseudo-science and wishful thinking about modifications, but really only the simplest possible design works. As the gun's reservoir is small, periodic depressurization to dry out and inspect the interior of the gun is not a big deal. Small reservoir volumes are quick to pump up to operating pressure, relatively few pump strokes are required.

Somewhere I have old 2005 "turbine piston" dual power "Vlanik" gun proposal which I will post for interest, unfortunately it would not work, but "turbine" looks good!
 
It seems I should find same stainless steel tubing to make my own design of Vlanikgun - to prove my theory. Maybe that would be my new toy after Easy loader and Tomba. :friday I would rather make it for 7 mm shaft athough, I know it would be more difficult. Probably CO2 should be used because of higher pressure, 60 bar and more.
 
Last edited:
I've just got an idea how would be possible loading the gun under water and not to worry about some water eventually in the cap. In this case just the shaft should be empty from water and holding in vertical position to preserve the air inside the boring.
Some combination of my proposal and Vladimir's design is also possible so there would be some additional friction too.
 

Attachments

  • Cap_Shaft1.JPG
    26.9 KB · Views: 321
Last edited:
Why not try the foam neoprene compression idea to give some hydraulic compliance in the tail cap which is impossible if it is filled with water. The foam neoprene (wetsuit material) could be imprisoned by a partitioning wall inside the cap. Problem is actually manufacturing it (requires a sealed join in the cap to insert and trap the foam neoprene plug) and making the tail cap not overly bulky in the process. The "air" to be compressed is trapped inside the neoprene foam behind a partitioning wall with a small access hole to the hollow that the shaft tang fits into, so the shaft tang never actually touches the neoprene foam plug.

Reliability of "sealed" tail cap design depends on continuing integrity of small "O" ring at base of shaft tail tang, if this seal fails then any advantage is lost and the situation may be worse as the now unsealed tail cap may contain more water than the simple friction fit type. This water will be carried through into the pressurized section of the gun if the "O" ring seal fails and you would have no warning before this happened, although you would know about it if the tail cap fell off inside the gun! In fact reliability is more likely to be worse as this "O" ring is exposed to the environment when the spear inevitably encounters the bottom. Just something more to go wrong and for no real gain if the friction fit version does the job.
 

Attachments

  • foam plug tail cap.png
    4.7 KB · Views: 313
Last edited:
You must log in or register to reply here.
Menu
Log in
Register
Cookies are required to use this site. You must accept them to continue using the site. Learn more…