|
More air flow, lower psi... |
Post Reply 
|
| Author | |
Monk 
Moderator Group 
Joined: 23 October 2003 Location: United States Status: Offline Points: 6557 |
 Post Options
 Thanks(0)
 Quote Reply
 Topic: More air flow, lower psi...Posted: 14 August 2005 at 5:27pm |
|
I was looking at my valve, and got to thinking. What if you milled away
more of the valve so you get more air flow out the front.
You could probly lessen the spring in the valve and inturn lessen the drive spring. Or maybe Im completely hosed and have no idea what Im talking about. |
|
 |
|
|
^Pirate^
Gold Member 
Joined: 12 June 2005 Status: Offline Points: 1891 |
Post Options
Thanks(0)
Quote Reply
Posted: 14 August 2005 at 5:37pm |
|
Valve on a.....? 98c? A-5?
|
|
It aint about black or white becuz we human I hope we see the light before it's ruined My ghetto gospel |
|
|
|
|
Monk
Moderator Group
Joined: 23 October 2003 Location: United States Status: Offline Points: 6557 |
Post Options
Thanks(0)
Quote Reply
Posted: 14 August 2005 at 6:36pm |
|
98.
|
|
|
|
|
evil-98
Gold Member
evil 98 pwnz joo! Joined: 05 November 2003 Location: United States Status: Offline Points: 2833 |
Post Options
Thanks(0)
Quote Reply
Posted: 14 August 2005 at 9:14pm |
|
thats the same as an LPK valve assembly
the valve allows more flow to the hammer so it can still have enough pressure to reset the hammer thus lowering the valves pressure and increasing flow. but thats flow to the hammer. Edited by evil-98 |
|
 |
|
|
|
|
Monk
Moderator Group
Joined: 23 October 2003 Location: United States Status: Offline Points: 6557 |
Post Options
Thanks(0)
Quote Reply
Posted: 14 August 2005 at 10:00pm |
So your saying I could cut a bigger hole for air flow to the hammer, cut some turns off the drive spring, and get a regulator. Thus making, essentially, a low pressure kit? If so, that would suck for the people that spent the money on the LPK. |
|
|
|
|
EDTHEWARD
Member 
Joined: 17 June 2002 Location: United States Status: Offline Points: 512 |
Post Options
Thanks(0)
Quote Reply
Posted: 14 August 2005 at 10:26pm |
|
the LPK also has an extra chamber for a larger volume of ready air don't forget.
|
|
|
|
|
Enos Shenk
Platinum Member 
~-o@ Joined: 10 June 2002 Location: A comfy chair Status: Offline Points: 14109 |
Post Options
Thanks(0)
Quote Reply
Posted: 15 August 2005 at 1:53am |
|
Yeah, makes you wonder why people believe low pressure gets you more shots per tank eh?
More flow obviously means it uses more air. But who thinks nowdays? |
|
|
|
|
|
|
bigred76
Member
Strike 1 - Language 9/3 Joined: 10 August 2005 Location: United States Status: Offline Points: 32 |
Post Options
Thanks(0)
Quote Reply
Posted: 15 August 2005 at 2:22am |
|
It's a good thing we have you to tell us Enos! I, for one, have thought about this as I'm planning on turning one of my Spyders LP. |
|
|
|
|
SnakeEyes
Gold Member
Joined: 15 December 2002 Status: Offline Points: 1097 |
Post Options
Thanks(0)
Quote Reply
Posted: 15 August 2005 at 8:24am |
Yes, more flow at identical pressure means more air, however more flow at a lower pressure can also mean less air. Depends on the situation. I actually did the same exact thing you are talking about here, making my own low pressure kit. Worked out damn well too, and I left out the low pressure chamber. I actually had the gun operating in the 150 - 200psi range, but never took an accurate reading on the FPS. I then redid somethings, boosted the pressure a bit and now have it running around 300 - 350psi getting 280 - 295FPS. |
|
|
|
|
merc
Platinum Member
American Scotchy Joined: 10 June 2002 Location: VA, USA Status: Offline Points: 7112 |
Post Options
Thanks(0)
Quote Reply
Posted: 16 August 2005 at 1:14pm |
|
the lower PSI you go the more volume you need. its like a bell curve. lowering the PSI will get you more efficancy to a point. thats why if u buy a gun with a reg you need to sweet spot it.
|
|
|
saving the world, one warship at a time.
|
|
|
|
|
cdacda13
Platinum Member
Yes, spelled secual. Joined: 12 September 2004 Location: United States Status: Offline Points: 7951 |
Post Options
Thanks(0)
Quote Reply
Posted: 16 August 2005 at 7:13pm |
|
Edited by cdacda13 |
|
|
|
|
Lightningbolt
Platinum Member
PHAT and PLAT Joined: 10 July 2002 Location: bumping up Status: Offline Points: 5055 |
Post Options
Thanks(0)
Quote Reply
Posted: 17 August 2005 at 6:31am |
|
It really depends on the gun when comparing efficiency from operating pressure. Typically high pressure with short dwell times should be the most efficient but there are cases when lowering pressure and dwell time on a stock gun can improve efficiency dramatically. Unfortunately some guns have more control over dwell times than others and it's just as important as operating pressure. Correct me if I'm wrong but the thing about the 98 low pressure kit that helps efficiency is the lightened bolt which shortens dwell time, not just the operating pressure itself. IMO a stock 98 could use a little modification to drop operating pressure. For one, stock 98's are terribly rough on paint in the chamber and secondly the 98, in stock form can easily starve for air even without using a regulator or Palmer. Starving for air is what I feel to be the main reason for de-cocking on the stock 98. I'll trade off some efficiency for lower input pressure any day and have found extremly low input pressures to be forgiving on old or cheap paint. Edited by Lightningbolt |
|
|
|
|
sporx
Platinum Member
Joined: 03 July 2005 Location: United States Status: Offline Points: 5619 |
Post Options
Thanks(0)
Quote Reply
Posted: 20 August 2005 at 11:12pm |
|
vroom what ever works i guess.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Post Reply
|
|
Tweet
|
| Forum Jump | Forum Permissions You cannot post new topics in this forum You cannot reply to topics in this forum You cannot delete your posts in this forum You cannot edit your posts in this forum You cannot create polls in this forum You cannot vote in polls in this forum |
Topic Options
evil-98 wrote: