mcarterbrown.com  

Dangerous Power Fusion

Reply
 
Thread Tools Search this Thread
Old 07-18-2017, 10:40 PM   #1 (permalink)
MCB Member
 
CA_Tectonics's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2014
Location: Northern California

Review of the Dangerous Power Turbine Core Bolt System --- A Novella by CA_Tectonics

.
.

Review of the Dangerous Power Turbine Core Bolt Engine
.
.

I was fortunate enough to be given the opportunity to do some evaluation and testing of the new Dangerous Power Turbine Core Bolt engine. The Turbine Core Bolt engine was designed as an alternative to the stock bolt systems of the G-Series markers that use “o-ringless” bolt systems. Therefore, the Turbine Core Bolt engine can be used for the G3 Spec-R, G4, G5, and G5 Spec-R.

My initial evaluation and testing was done with a prototype Turbine Core engine, however, I was very recently able to run tests and comparisons using a production version of the Turbine Core engine. Of course, the big question that most people will likely want to know is how the Turbine Core engine stacks up to the stock bolt systems of the Dangerous Power markers that use the “o-ringless” bolt systems. I will do my best to make those comparisons in this write-up. I also want to give a little disclaimer that all of the testing, tuning, and playing I have done with the Turbine Core engine was done with all stock parts as much as possible. Therefore, all tuning was done with a stock 0.689 barrel, which results in a large overbore for the paint sizes that were available to me.

I decided to run all my tuning and testing using my G3 Spec-R. I did this for a few reasons. I wanted to demonstrate that the Turbine Core Bolt engine not only works, but it IS backwards compatible – even with the older markers like my G3 Spec-R and the G4. Secondly, I have an APE OLED board installed in my G3 Spec-R so, for testing purposes, it is much easier and faster for me to be able to switch settings if necessary. I did deviate from stock by using a G5 bolt and back cap in my G3 Spec-R for all my testing and evaluations. I did this out of necessity because, at the time I began testing, I didn’t own a stock G3 Spec-R bolt or back cap. I have since picked up a G4 bolt/back cap set as you will see in the pictures below.

I have organized this write-up into parts so that it is easier to follow and easier for me to write and edit if anything should change in the future. If edits are justified, I’ll be keeping the original text here and line it out or use a different color text for changes. My goal is to provide an accurate and thorough evaluation of the Turbine Core Bolt engine. Of course I will be adding my own opinions on things since many subjects are subjective but I will note my opinions accordingly.

I did take….a few….pictures and have included some of them here. Also, a warning for those who dare to proceed, I’m pretty sure this will end up being one of my typical novels. I apologize in advance if you came here looking for a TL;DR blurb. And so it begins with the keyboard beginning to heat up….…….


What You Get:

As they have typically been doing in recent years, the Dangerous Power Turbine Core Bolt engine comes VERY well packaged. I received the Turbine Core engine in a standard padded shipping envelope which contained some additional bubble wrap to take up void space and extra protection in the envelope. The Turbine Core engine’s first layer of packaging is a nice clear plastic box. The plastic box is much easier to open than some plastic clam-shell package that has been sonic welded closed.

Along the bottom outside of the clear plastic box is a piece of card stock with the product graphics. The graphics label is held in place with lots of double-sided tape. The graphics take up about the bottom 1/3 of the package but there is plenty that is not covered up so you can see exactly what you are getting. I should point out that the packaging label list “Compatible Model G4 / G5 / G5SR” with G5SR meaning the G5 Spec-R. What isn’t listed but is ALSO compatible is the G3 Spec-R. Internally, the G3 Spec-R is nearly identical to the G4 internals, as far as the bolt system goes.





As you can see through the clear box, the next layer of packaging consists of a thick foam cube that has precise cutouts for the parts of the Turbine Core Bolt engine. This foam cube fits fairly tight in the clear box so the best way to get the foam cube out is to either cut the plastic box with a razor blade or, if you are like me and like to keep things intact, simply open the top and bottom of the clear plastic box and push the foam cube out from one side. The foam is approximately 1.75 inches thick – so there is plenty of room for the engine pieces to be set in very securely.

The cut-outs in the foam are the same size and shape as the parts they hold so there is no movement of parts. The Turbine Core Bolt engine consists of two main parts – the bolt head and the bolt guide/back cap. The engine comes almost ready to go. O-rings are already in place, all you need to do is lube them up and install. The Turbine Core Bolt engine kit also comes with a couple spare o-rings. There is a grey, 13 mm inside diameter X 2mm cross sectional diameter o-ring (feels like a 70 or maybe 75 duro) that fits the middle sealing part of the bolt guide on the back cap, and there is a black, 13.8 mm inside diameter X 1.9 mm cross sectional diameter o-ring (90 duro) that is used as the bumper on the bolt head. With everything in place, the Turbine Core Bolt engine kit is well protected and secure.

Little side trivia……the bumper o-ring is the same size as the bumper o-ring on a Threshy, G3, E1, and Rev-I bolts.



Moving on from the packaging are some pretty pictures of what you get:


The Turbine bolt guide/back cap on the left, the spare o-rings in the center, and the Turbine bolt head on the right.


The Bolt Guide / Back Cap:

Although the back cap appears to be tool-less just by looking at its design and shape, I found it a little tough on the fingers to try and tighten it all the way or to unscrew it after use with just using my fingers. It is possible, if you have strong fingers and don’t mind the edges of the back cap grip abutments (for lack of a better term). I just found it easier to use the ¼-inch hex wrench to tighten the back cap up and take it off. The finger grip part of the back cap is basically a thicker, exaggerated version of a G4 back cap. I did find it much easier and quicker to install and take out the back cap with the finger grip feature – just used the hex wrench to finish off or start the install/removal process. No need to use the hex wrench for nearly the entire time to remove or install the back cap like the back caps of the G3 Spec-R, G4, G5, and G5 Spec-R.


Side view to get a better idea of the finger grip design.


What really jumps out on the bolt guide/back cap is the Turbine twist portion. There are three channeled grooves that each twist approximately 60 degrees of rotation to the right. The width and depth of the grooves appear to remain constant throughout their length, with the exception of the very beginning of them near the o-ring seal area. The length of that twist portion is such that when the Turbine bolt head is on the bolt guide, the tip of the twist stem is nearly even with the face of the bolt head. This results in NO rollback. When everything is installed and a paintball is loaded into the breach, the surface of the paintball touches that tip of the twist section and is prohibited from rolling back and sitting in the open face of the bolt head. The benefit of having the anti-rollback mechanism as part of the back cap is that there is no need for any additional piece that can get worn out, shot out, lost, etc. Dry firing is no problem because there is no soft tip to loose in the process.

Lastly, the bolt bumper on the back cap appears to be the same as on previous back caps. There is plastic ring that sits within a groove cut into the face of the back cap that the very back tail face of the bolt head makes contact with. I should note – since it has come up in the past…..this bumper in the back cap is not an o-ring. There are two seals on either size of the threading of the back cap and these are o-rings and they are the same size as what is on a G5 and G5 Spec-R back cap. The larger one (furthest towards the rear), is a standard -021 (23.52 mm ID X 1.78 mm CS) and the smaller of the two seals next to the threads is a standard -020 (21.95 mm ID X 1.78 mm CS).



Right from the get-go, the finish looks a little more polished than previous bolt systems.



The Bolt Head:

The second thing you may notice is that there has been a change in design of the bolt head. The bumper on the bolt is now in the center of the bolt head, similar to the old bolts of the Threshy, G3, E1, and Rev-I, and consists of an o-ring instead of a special plastic piece. As you will see in the comparison pictures below, the holes along the tail circumference of the Turbine Core bolt head are elongated and larger than those of the G5/G5 Spec-R bolt head. The last obvious change is that the Venturi face of the older bolts has been replaced with an open face. No more having to pick out those paper towel fibers from Venturi holes after cleaning.

What may not be obvious is that Dangerous Power has made improvements over previous products/parts. The inside of the Turbine Core bolt head has been micro honed to try and get the best possible contact surface for movement of the bolt head on the bolt guide and over that bolt guide stem seal.

CA_Tectonics is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 07-18-2017, 10:40 PM   #2 (permalink)
MCB Member
 
CA_Tectonics's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2014
Location: Northern California

.
.

On To Comparisons:

The Turbine Core Bolt engine is a departure from previous G-Series o-ringless bolt designs. To get an idea of the evolution of the o-ringless bolt design, a few pictures to enjoy. Below, the stock G4 bolt engine is on the left, the stock G5/G5 Spec-R bolt engine is in the center, and the Turbine Core Bolt engine is on the right.




From left to right – Back caps of the G4, G5/G5 Spec-R, and the Turbine Core Bolt


And the bolt heads – in the same order from left to right -- G4, G5/G5 Spec-R, and Turbine Core Bolt



This last picture above ^^^ gives you a good side-by-side comparison of the differences between the earlier bolt designs and the Turbine Core Bolt. The change in placement of the bolt head bumper, the open face, and the elongated holes along the bottom of the Turbine Core bolt head.

The overall weight of the Turbine Core Bolt engine is more than the other two engines. This is due to the additional material of the Turbine twist and the finger grip material of the back cap. Both the G4 and G5/G5 Spec-R engines weighed in at 39 grams, whereas, the Turbine Core Bolt engine is 7 grams heavier at 46 grams:

G4 Bolt Engine Weight

G5 / G5 Spec-R Bolt Engine Weight

Turbine Core Bolt Engine Weight


Although the overall weight of the Turbine Core Bolt engine is up, the bolt head itself remains the same as the G5/G5 Spec-R bolt head – at 13 grams:


G4 Bolt Head Weight

G5 / G5 Spec-R Bolt Head Weight

Turbine Core Bolt Head Weight


To give you an idea as to how far the finger grip portion of the back cap sticks out, here are a couple of pictures of the Turbine Core Bolt engine installed in a G5:





Compatibility:

Despite what the packaging may state and as I mentioned near the beginning of this lengthy novel, the Turbine Core Bolt engine is compatible with the “o-ringless” G-Series of markers from Dangerous Power – the G3 Spec-R, the G4, the G5, and the G5 Spec-R.

By default then, the Turbine Core Bolt engine WILL NOT work in the Threshold, G3, G3-SE, Rev-i, and E1. These five models have the majority of the dynamic o-rings of the bolt system on the actual bolt head.

Now, with all the pictures out of the way and the descriptions and visual comparisons completed…..time for the numbers…….


Comparison Of FPS With Simple Drop-In Of Turbine Core Bolt:

This part requires a little set up and explanation before I dive in. I ran several different days of testing and collected multiple sets of data but rather than bore everyone with set, after set, after set, of fps numbers, I’ll simplify it to just a couple. I’ll just reference the separate test sets as “Test Day 1” and “Test Day 2”. Hopefully, any notes I have add in are self-explanatory.

The equipment I used to run these tests were nearly the same throughout. I used the same marker, stock barrel, and settings (once I had determined a proper solenoid dwell). I tried to use the same tank/tank regulator for all the tests I ran but I grabbed the wrong tank on one outing. Paint is also a factor that changed for one outing. I did testing at two different fields and, because of field paint only rules, I couldn’t keep paint as a constant. I’ll call out the setup for each test for those who want to track it.


TEST DAY 1

Equipment:
G3 Spec-R w/ G5 bolt/back cap and production version of Turbine Core engine
Monkey Poo lube on bolts and back caps
Stock 0.689 barrel
Draxxus Midnight paint - on the medium side.... ~ 0.684 to 0.685 (still rolled though the stock 0.689 barrel though.
Ninja Pro V2 regulator set to 400 psi output
68/4500 cylinder
Marker solenoid set point - 12ms to start after dwell tuning for stock G5 engine in a G3 Spec-R.


Data Set #1

G5 bolt/back cap chrono (fps):
283
288
281
278
285
286
279
286
279
282
286
281
Average = 283 fps +/- 5

Production Turbine Core
302
308
295
296
307
303
289
309
306
308
Average = 302 fps +/- 12
However, toss out the low (outlier) and the avg. is 304 fps +/- 9

For Data Set #1, the average fps jump is 19. I did happen to catch ANSGear's demo video of the production Turbine Core system and by a quick look, it seems that my numbers are in line with what they got in the video.


Data Set #2

Production Turbine Core
- Only change was bumping dwell to 13ms. OP remained the same as Data Set #1 above.
297
307
308
300
308
297
308
308
308
311
303
305
302
304
305
307
307
307
305
308
Average = 305 fps +/- 8

Slight gain in avg. fps but better consistency. The fps jump is now 22 (using stock avg. in Data Set #1).


Data Set #3

Production Turbine Core
- Only change was bumping dwell to 14ms. OP remained the same as Data Set #2 above.
312
309
302
309
303
308
308
306
309
308
306
309
305
307
311
Average = 307 fps +/- 5

Slight gain in avg. fps but even better consistency. The fps jump is now 24 (using stock avg. in Data Set #1).

On this test day, it was evident that there is a net fps gain in just dropping in the Turbine Core Bolt engine. Because of this, the operating pressure would be lower when using the Turbine Core engine. The down side is that it appears that the Turbine Core engine may require a slightly higher solenoid dwell. Data Sets #1 and #2 above provide an answer to “what are the gains with a drop-in change?”. For this test day, that answer is….about a 19 fps gain. However, the consistency seems to be off compared to the stock G5 engine. Data Sets #2, #3, and #4 can then be viewed as dwell tuning of the Turbine Core engine. Data Set #2 then represents a solenoid dwell of 12 ms, Data Set #3 is 13 ms, and Data Set #4 is 14 ms. I stopped at a solenoid dwell of 14 ms because, at the field at the time, the fps numbers looked to be close to the same for a dwell of 14 ms as they were for a dwell of 13 ms. I didn’t crunch numbers on the spot to see that I maybe should have gone up one more ms, just to verify if a solenoid dwell of 14 ms was ideal or not for the Turbine Core Bolt engine.

Assuming that a solenoid dwell of 14 ms is ideal for the Turbine Core Bolt engine, given the conditions I was testing in (weather….sunny and 80 to 90s, paint, elevation….within a couple hundred feet of sea level, etc.), the consistency is up with the stock G5 engine, at about +/- 5 fps, and the net fps gain is approximately 24 fps. However, the solenoid dwell was raised by 2 ms to regain that good consistency. I think further testing is needed to confirm if a higher solenoid dwell is necessary to keep good consistency.

My working theory on why it may require a higher solenoid dwell is due to the air flow difference between the stock G5 engine and the Turbine Core engine. My hypothesis is that since there is a long stem on the down-gradient side of the valve, air flow between the stem and inner wall of the bolt head may be traveling faster than the air flow velocity of a G5 engine. Similar to the idea of a boat tied up next to a solid wall of a dock. In the case of a boat, water that passes between the boat and wall speeds up as it passes through the smaller space, also creating an area of lower pressure. Similar principle to how planes create lift and how your car seems to rock when stationary but a big rig goes by in the opposite direction. Back to the Turbine Core engine. The air flow is sped up through this area so it may require a longer amount of time for the air to “settle”. A dwell of 12 may be too short for the sudden quick movement of air flow through that semi-confined area. That’s my theory anyway. I’ll admit, I’ve never stepped into a fluid dynamics class so I could be way off.
CA_Tectonics is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 07-18-2017, 10:41 PM   #3 (permalink)
MCB Member
 
CA_Tectonics's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2014
Location: Northern California

.
.

TEST DAY 2

Equipment:
G3 Spec-R w/ G5 bolt/back cap and production version of Turbine Core engine
Monkey Poo lube on bolts and back caps
Stock 0.689 barrel
Valken Infinity paint - on the small side.... ~ 0.680 to 0.681 – didn’t fit in my 0.679 TechT iFit but barely rolled through the 0.682 iFit insert.
Standard Ninja regulator set to 500 psi output
68/4500 cylinder
Marker solenoid set point – 14 ms.


Data Set #4
- All settings were kept constant for Data Set #4 - same solenoid dwell of 14 ms and same OP.

G5 bolt/back cap chrono (fps):
280
281
271
272
274
283
265
264
280
273
274
272
268
275
Average = 273.71 fps +/- 10

Full production Turbine Core Bolt Engine
312
298
295
298
292
300
303
301
301
301
295
306
304
299
302
Average = 300.47 fps +/- 12

Full prototype Turbine Core Bolt Engine
307
297
295
300
301
288
292
302
313
298
288
306
305
308
Average = 300.00 fps +/- 13

Based on averages, in Data Set #4, there is a fps gain of ~27 fps going from stock G5 to production version of Turbine Core engine. However, the consistency was down a tiny bit for the Turbine Core engine. Dropping from +/- 10 down to +/- 12. Since I still had the prototype Turbine Core engine, I included it with Test Day 2 for a baseline and so that I can use it for what I’ll call….”tinker testing”. Although there are some slight differences between the prototype Turbine Core engine and the production Turbine Core engine, the main thing to take away is that both Turbine Core Bolt engines seemed to perform very similarly.

I strongly believe that paint was the main factor for the consistency numbers for Test Day 2. The Infinity paint was a little smaller in the stock 0.689 barrel vs. the Draxxus paint of Test Day 1. The Infinity was also more out of round / misshaped with a more noticeable depressed seam vs. the Draxxus. Not to say that the Infinity was horrible, I just think that for trying to obtain consistency numbers, the Draxxus was better. If I was out for rec play, I would have just underbored the Infinity and would have been just fine with its performance. For any future tests, paint quality will most definitely be more heavily scrutinized. Unfortunately, Infinity was the field paint of choice for the FPO field I did testing at for Test Day 2.


Data For The People Who Like To Tinker:

This is more for those who may be interested, as I was, in determining the driving force for the fps gain with the Turbine Core Bolt engine. Here, I ran different combinations just to see what the numbers look like. I suspected that it was the open face of the bolt head that was the main factor for the fps gain. In a thread on PBNation, someone mentioned that the main factor for the fps gain could be the elongated holes along the back of the bolt head. Also a valid possibility. For these sets of tests, I added in the prototype Turbine Core engine into the mix…..again, just to see what happens.

This starts to lead to out of the realm of normal use so I must add this disclaimer – – – – –

**NOTE** - The Turbine Core Bolt system was designed and manufactured to work with ONLY the Turbine Core Bolt system parts. Introducing or using anything other than the Turbine Core Bolt system parts with any other aspect of the Turbine Core Bolt system is NOT recommended.


Data Set #5
- All settings were kept constant for Data Set #5 – In addition, the Data Set #5 settings were the same as Data Set #4 - same solenoid dwell of 14 ms and same OP. Therefore, Data Sets #4 and #5 can be directly compared.

Production Turbine bolt head w/ prototype Turbine back cap
300
304
293
303
304
285
301
302
300
297
308
298
288
298
294
291
308
Average = 298.47 fps +/- 13

Prototype Turbine bolt head w/ G5 back cap
*Note - I was getting eye faults. Turned eyes off to continue. Likely was rollback of paint.
297
304
292
296
298
294
288
296
307
301
302
303
302
306
299
302
Average = 299.19 fps +/- 8

Production Turbine bolt head w/ G5 back cap
*Note - I was getting eye faults. Turned eyes off to continue. Likely was rollback of paint.
291
303
294
293
296
295
288
303
296
287
291
305
293
297
296
298
299
Average = 295.59 fps +/- 9

The main idea that pops out to me with Data Set #5 (along with Data Set #4) is that using the full production version of the Turbine Core engine, the full prototype Turbine Core engine, a combination of production Turbine Core bolt head and G5 back cap, a combination of prototype Turbine Core bolt head and G5 back cap, and a combination of production Turbine Core bolt head and prototype Turbine Core back cap all resulted in pretty close numbers. All Turbine Core related combinations were ~295.xx to 300.xx fps and +/- 8 to 13 vs. the stock G5 engine numbers of ~273.71 fps +/-10.

Based on these tests, which I’ve ran multiple times with similar results, is the reason why I believe that it is the bolt head that is the main factor in the fps gain with the Turbine Core Bolt engine. Because of the Venturi face and the space it takes up on the stock G5 bolt, coupled with the fact that the twist part of the stem of the Turbine Core bolt guide is milled to be nearly flush with the front face of the Turbine Core’s open faced bolt head, it is not possible to directly test the Turbine Core bolt guide/back cap with a stock G5 bolt head. Either the tip end of the Turbine Core bolt guide would get damaged or, more likely, the Venturi face of the G5 bolt head would be destroyed from the inside outward.

So, what I can surmise from all the rounds of testing so far is that there is a net gain in fps with the Turbine Core Bolt engine. The amount of fps gain seems to be between ~15 and 27 fps. What this gain in fps equates to is that the marker can run at a lower operating pressure since one would need to turn down the marker’s regulator to achieve the same speed as a stock G5 / G5 Spec-R (and assuming G4) bolt engines. Unfortunately, I forgot to bring out my PMD to check what the approximate operating pressures are when adjusted to shoot the same fps for both stock and Turbine Core engines. The potential down side is that for the best consistency, the Turbine Core Bolt engine may need to run at a little higher solenoid dwell. Further testing with better quality paint is needed to confirm or deny this parameter.


Air Efficiency:

I have not had a chance to run an efficiency test with the production version of the Turbine Core Bolt engine. However, I did run one with the prototype version (I’ve had the prototype version a little longer). I ran this efficiency test early on in my testing so I was using a solenoid dwell of 13 ms at the time since that is typically what I run with the stock G5 engine.

Equipment:
G3 Spec-R w/ prototype Turbine Core Bolt engine
Monkey Poo lube on bolt and back cap
Stock 0.689 barrel
Valken Infinity paint - on the small side.... ~ 0.678 to 0.680
Standard Ninja regulator set to 500 psi output
68/4500 cylinder
Marker solenoid set point - 13ms.

I set the firing mode to Millennium – just to be lazy.

Started off with 3000 psi in the 68/4500 (needle almost dead on gauge mark)
Beginning chrono: 286 & 281 fps
Shot down to exactly 1000 psi on gauge
Ending chrono: 268, 274, 290 fps

Shot 4 pods + ~ 25 balls out of the 5th pod = 4(140)+25 = 585 balls per 2000 psi
Calculating for a full 68/4500 and assuming shooting down to ~ 200 psi would equate to 585+585+87 = 1257 balls, or ~ 8.9 pods (almost 9 pods).

For the ending chrono readings – I suspect that they were initially low because of the temperature drop created by shooting at 12 bps for nearly 600 shots. The marker’s regulator was cold to the touch as were the macro fittings.

Also noteworthy is that I did not have a single paintball break. No breaks in the breach, barrel, or even those crazy breaks that seem to happen about 5-10 feet out after leaving the barrel.
CA_Tectonics is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 07-18-2017, 10:41 PM   #4 (permalink)
MCB Member
 
CA_Tectonics's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2014
Location: Northern California

.
.

Shot Characteristics:

These ones are always tough for me to evaluate since they are mostly subjective – especially the perceived “kick” that many people want to know about. I’m a big guy at 6’5” and 280 lbs. If I’m not shooting Dirty Harry’s Smith & Wesson .44 Magnum, there is no kick. I’m not really built to pick up such subtle “kick” of paintball markers. Having said that, I always try to do the best I can. When I was taking notes on these parameters, it was before I was in possession of the production version of the Turbine Core engine. I think it is worthwhile to check sound signature and “kick” again while using the production version of the Turbine Core Bolt engine when I have some more time. There are some subtle differences between the prototype version and the production version – primarily in some different tapering transitions with the bolt guide and rounding of the very tip edges of the twist part of the stem.

From what I can tell, the stock G5/G5 Spec-R and the Turbine Core Bolt systems feel about the same. In theory, the lower operating pressure associated with use of the Turbine Core Bolt engine should have a little less “kick”. The mass is the same for both bolt heads so there is no difference in the reciprocating mass part of the engine. If anything, I would think that the end of the forward stroke would be better for the Turbine Core Bolt engine because of the placement and type of material for the bolt head bumper – mid bolt head and buna rubber compared to near the tail of the bolt head and plastic material. For the return stroke, both systems are the same.

Sound signature. Another semi-subjective parameter. After dropping the operating pressure so that the fps is equivalent to the fps when using the G5 engine, the sound of the Turbine Core Bolt engine is about the same. If anything it seems little higher pitched and the sound also seemed to be a little longer in duration.......strange, but that is what it seemed like to me. Maybe this is a function of those elongated holes along the bottom of the Turbine Core bolt head.


Overall Impression:

In my opinion, the big draw for the Turbine Core Bolt system is the net gain in fps and, therefore, being able to run your marker at a lower operating pressure. I had fps gains between ~15 and 27 fps with just a simple drop-in. The benefits of a lower operating pressure are better air efficiency, gentler on the more brittle paints, and possibly perceived “kick” is reduced.

I have not seen any significant benefit relating directly with the Turbine portion of the engine (the twist portion of the bolt guide) other that it serving an anti-rollback function.

A possible down side to the Turbine Core engine is that for consistency, it may require a higher solenoid dwell. I’ll need to verify the solenoid dwell tuning before stating definitively if a higher dwell is needed. Color options – currently, I am not aware of any options other than the gold color. I know black always seems to be a favorite and/or a go-to color. I don’t have any information on whether there will be any other color options in the future.

At some point, I hope to be able to finish my testing as I still have a few things to confirm: best solenoid dwell for the Turbine Core Bolt vs. stock G5 engine, air efficiency test using best solenoid dwell, Difference in operating pressures between Turbine Core engine and G5 engine, sound signature with production version, “kick” with production version. If I get really crazy, maybe I’ll cut out the Venturi face of a stock G5 bolt and run it with the Turbine Core back cap.

Overall, I think the Turbine Core Bolt system is pretty simple in design in that the bolt head bumper is now something that may be easier for people to replace, if necessary. There is performance improvement, which is always a good thing. Although I have not had issues in the past with stock bolts with Venturi faces, it is nice to see that anti-rollback was considered in the design of the Turbine Core engine. It seems that the end users / players were considered in the design with the extension of the finger grip portion of the back cap. In my opinion, the back cap is not quite tool-less but getting pretty close without sacrificing looks, weight, or a large protruding knob out the back of the marker. Lastly, you may have noticed that I make no mention of price until now. This is completely up to the individual. Is the performance gain worth the cost? Only the person who is pulling out that credit card or entering in that PayPal info can make that decision. I would have written “….who is writing a check” but that would just show my age. In the end, I think Dangerous Power has produced a decent product with the Turbine Core Bolt system that provides a benefit for its use in the G3 Spec-R, G4, G5, and G5 Spec-R line of markers.

I know that was a novel but I wanted to cover as much detail as possible. There are still gaps that need to be filled. When I get a chance, I will fill in whatever gaps may come along.

Feel free to post up any questions and I'll answer them as best as I can. Thanks for reading.
CA_Tectonics is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 07-18-2017, 10:42 PM   #5 (permalink)
MCB Member
 
CA_Tectonics's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2014
Location: Northern California

Saved for Possible Future Edits - pg 5
CA_Tectonics is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 07-18-2017, 10:42 PM   #6 (permalink)
MCB Member
 
CA_Tectonics's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2014
Location: Northern California

Saved for Possible Future Edits - pg 6
CA_Tectonics is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 07-18-2017, 10:43 PM   #7 (permalink)
MCB Member
 
CA_Tectonics's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2014
Location: Northern California

Saved for Possible Future Edits - pg 7
CA_Tectonics is offline   Reply With Quote
Reply

  mcarterbrown.com » Paintball » The Armory » Dangerous Power

Thread Tools Search this Thread
Search this Thread:

Advanced Search

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Trackbacks are On
Pingbacks are On
Refbacks are On

Forum Jump


All times are GMT -4. The time now is 10:36 AM.


Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.9
Copyright ©2000 - 2019, vBulletin Solutions, Inc.
Search Engine Optimization by vBSEO
© MCB Network LLC