That is one challenge where "big vs small" would have been interesting. I'm surprised both teams went for such large cannons... thought one team would make a large rifle, perhaps even with more than one barrel. The "Brothers at Arms" machine seemed plagued with all sorts of design failures and poor decision making.

cheers,

-- Max (Maxel@inwindsor.com), March 20, 2001

Answers

i know. the brothers in arms kinda sucked when it came to building a cannon. i personally liked the way the chemical brothers designed their cannon. it actually looked like a regular cannon.

-- luke winters (illusion_1736@yahoo.com), March 20, 2001.

Does anyony know where the Brothers-In-Arms last shot went? I bet they just overshot the target (aimed too high).

I take exception with the statement that they had design failures and made poor decisions. They followed sound engineering practice for that type of firearm (recoiless). The problem came from the fact that their barrel could not be straightened and precision bored as larger battleship guns are. Given that, they perhaps could have won the competition with their grape shot had they aimed slightly lower.

Anyhow, they came up with a good design, they constructed a decent cannon that incorporated better technology (that being recoiless), it did not self destruct like their oppenent's cannon did on the last shot, and they should be congratulated (although a year has past since that episode). How many of us could have done a better job under the same circumstances? Especially when your "expert" is telling you that you need a precision machined projectile.

-- Doug (deadbolt1@yahoo.com), March 20, 2001.

High tolerance fit projectiles in a long junked barrel is just lack of thinking it through (or poor parts seeding).

-- Dan Denney (Rustrenegades@hotmail.com), March 20, 2001.

I do belive the term big versus small would have been good for ratings but "brothers at arm" made the barrel to long and thought that the rope on the end made it look sexy. but they where wrong the string actually burned while in the barrel and caught on fire and made the entire barrel go with it( which wasn't far) I my self would of cut all the string off, get a sight ,and destroy the target but that's me. what is your thoughts?

-- tom jenkins (basset28752@yahoo.com), March 20, 2001.

Here is a question about the "brothers in Arms" vs. "Chemical Brothers" cannon competition: The Brothers in Arms lost this challenge yet they ultimately advance in this series to the finals. Why were they the team to advance instead of the victorious Chemical Brothers? This has bugged me since first watching this series last fall.

John

-- John Siok (john@scanrx.com), March 20, 2001.

The Brothers in Arms did not advance. This epidode was from the UK season 2. They came back in UK season 3 and did better.

-- Mark (mbasch@bellatlantic.net), March 20, 2001.

Well, I'd certainly have went much smaller. Large roller bearings contains lots of round and extremely hard projectiles (some quite large), barrel could have been much thinner wall and more readily available, use a short length of larger diameter pipe bored to fit snugly over the barrel to strengthen the breach end, valve springs could be used if you wanted a "floating" plug, plug material would have been much easier to find/fab and the carriage would have been the roof (braced ?) of any car which had air in all four tires, perhaps multiple barrels.

cheers,

cheers,

-- Max (Maxel@inwindsor.com), March 20, 2001.

Mark,

You are right about the Brothers in Arms vs Chemical Brothers in the cannon episode. My mistake...

John

-- John Siok (john@scanrx.com), March 20, 2001.

when i saw the BIA building a recoiless rifle I couldn't uderstand why they didn't put the charge near the middle of the barrel. If the projectile and a couter weight of shot had been placed in the middle of the barrel the projectile and the counter weight would have left the gun at equal speeds in the opposite direction. Beware of the backblast though. A pile of sandbags would have caught the backblast enough to make it safe.

-- Stephen A. Binion (Stephenbinion@hotmail.com), March 20, 2001.

Doug, all of the batch of nuts that they fired landed short of the target. Someone on one of the talk boards posted this a while back. Did anyone else notice how the "Brothers In Arms" barrell appeared to flex as it hit the concrete? I wonder if this actually was happening, or if it was an illusion because of the way a tv camera scans a pic?

-- Waddy Thompson (cthomp3851@aol.com), March 20, 2001.

The barrel the Brothers used was actually a piece of a prop!!! A car crusher that was put on the set as a prop, the use of that piece caused all sorts of grief for RDF. Had the Brothers found the material they were supposed to use everything would have been easier for everyone. No one realized what they had till it was too late, we were told about a couple of things we couldn't mess with, like that big shovel. One of the crew members told us about that before we got started.

JustJay

-- JustJay-captain-Three Rusty Juveniles (justjay@neo.rr.com), March 20, 2001.

As I understood it, BOA's problem was that the barrel was slightly bent and the rounds were almost exactly the inside diameter. The rounds kept getting stuck in the barrel. I think they violated the KISS rule - added more variables than they needed to. (long barrel, recoiless, cordite rather than powder, nylon rope stringers)

Brian

-- Brian Flynn (bflynn@nc.rr.com), March 21, 2001.

Being a bit of a history buff, I can't help but be amazed at all the things we have today who's origins can be traced to cannons. Not just all the machine tools that were developed to make cannons (and then hand-cannons, and then guns), but everything from the grinder they make replacement keys with to the assembly line idea (that Ford made famous) to computers can all be traced to cannons. I think this would make a good 'Connections' show. What else can be made out of junkyard stuff that has as rich a historical (granted killing and blowing up stuff is why they were developed, but look what all else has come from it) value as a cannon? Soon as I can think of one, I'll suggest it. Sigh, I guess I need a bit more brain lubricant and a perusal of some books.....ken

-- Ken Sklorenko (the3rdwits@yahoo.com), March 21, 2001.

Yes, keeping it simple is perhaps the golden rule on JYW. Personally, I enjoy the wacky and brave attempts... even if they lose but provided they work.

I also found it odd that neither team had projectiles as a top priority on their "to find list", but instead went for barrels.

cheers,

-- Max (Maxel@inwindsor.com), March 21, 2001.

That search order makes sense to me. Which is easier: Find the stuff you want to shoot then getting a barrel that can shoot it Find a good barrel then things that can be shot out of it

What troubled me with the BIA design was their shells. I think every aspect of them was wrong: too tight a fit (remember how they had to hit their sample shell to get it to fit, I think that was the real source of the jam, not the nylon), pure cylinders (why not cone the front), then the nylon tales bolted on.

I'm no expert but if somebody gave me a miniature one of those to shoot out of my gun I'd tell them to blow their own hands off.

-- Joe Palmer (jepalmer@flash.net), March 22, 2001.

I think you should have not made the dumb cannon in the first place.

-- Bob Hurley (jtl_2500@hotmail.com), March 23, 2001.