Military History | How To Make War | Wars Around the World Rules of Use How to Behave on an Internet Forum
Artillery Discussion Board
Sign In   Return to Topic Page
Subject: Why no Regenerative Liquid Propellant Gun?
reefdiver    5/24/2009 12:25:57 PM
Regenerative Liquid Propellant Guns have apparently been studied for some time. Other than being mechanically complex - as either a mono or binary propellant must be pumped into the chamber at each firing - with admittedly minimal research I've not found why no such gun has been fielded. Their would seem to be many advantages: easy adjustment of amount of propellant to adjust range, less fouling of barrel (?), more compact storage. Safer storage when using binary systems etc. Charts I looked at even indicated better performance and perhaps pressures beyond those attainable by solids. Though studied mainly for cannon, I would think you could almost scale these things to personal weapons. So why no RLP Gun yet?
 
Quote    Reply

Email Me When A New Comment Is Made
Show Only Poster Name and Title     Newest to Oldest

Pages: 1 2
WarNerd       5/27/2009 5:25:37 AM

Are the chemicals which would be used in such a Liquid Propellant really that nasty?  As mentioned by Neutraliser UDLP initially envisioned the XM2001 Crusader as being a liquid propellant gun but after the third instance of "Energentic Venting" and "High Speed Dissassembly" on the ordnance test bed that approach was abandoned!!!!!
 
Liquid Propellants are supposed to have toxicity similar to ANFO for the mono-propellants.  The binary propellants would presumably be selected so as to be even less hazardous until mixed.  They are most definitely NOT hypergolic.
 
The big problem with any propellant is controlling the deflagration rate so as to not exceed the allowable pressure.  In solid propellants this is done by controlling the grain size and shape and using retardant coatings.  None of these are possible with a liquid propellant, so the only solution is to introduce it into liquid propellant into the firing chamber at a controlled rate while the gun is firing.  It's a bit like a diesel engine, except everything is much bigger, much faster, and at MUCH higher pressures.
 
Inject the propellant to fast, or fail to maintain a smooth rate, and you get "Energetic Venting" (cracked breach) and "High Speed Disassembly" (explosion). 
 
How difficult is that?  Well figure you are going to have to inject 60% to 80% of the total propellant mass into the combustion chamber at 80,000 psi in less than 0.002 seconds, while preventing the detonation wave from projecting up stream into wherever the uninjected portion of the propellant charge is located.
 
Quote    Reply

Herald12345    Hypergolics    5/27/2009 2:41:16 PM
eliminate the oxidizer problem. As for the toxicity of the other compounds, CANCER DEATH from the fumes breathed in is no joke.

Herald
 
 
Quote    Reply

HIPAR       5/27/2009 8:51:59 PM
The developmental liquid propellant gun I saw being developed for the Crusader was huge and had too many moving parts.  If I remember correctly, there was also a major corrosion problem with an internal piston. There were several microcomputers that choreographed its firings.  There was a 'rats nest' of electrical cabling.
 
The developmental gun misfired causing damage with attendant delays while it was being repaired.  It was unlikely that cannon would ever receive a safety release. 

---  CHAS
 

 
Quote    Reply

neutralizer       5/29/2009 6:28:55 AM
There's also a real peactime safety issue, 100% confidence that the propellant injection system always injects the correct amount of propellant.  It may be less important in war but if you plan to use it in somewhere like Germany, where the Kommandantur has personal legal responsibilities to ensure safe practice, then the best of luck.  As a gunnery instructor I experienced having to convince Kommandantur at Baumholder that an artillery laser rangefinder was safe, even though they had been used at other ranges in Germany (eg Munsterlager and Bergen Hohne) it may have coloured my perspective, but its a real issue.
 
Quote    Reply
1 2



StrategyWorld.com© 1998 - 2012StrategyWorld.com. All rights Reserved. StrategyWorld.com, StrategyPage.com, FYEO, For Your Eyes Only and Al Nofi's CIC are all trademarks of StrategyWorld.com Privacy Policy