Leshiy 2 explodes

We've learned that there is 2 different tube designs. Now we just need to learn why. Will it shorten the lifespan and decrease the safety? Marcos testing showed it should be plenty strong for any normal usage.
Also learned the standard for testing in this manufacturer is 1.5x operating pressure not the 3+ used in the U.S.

John
 
Ed is making a point, lol:


I'm still hesitant, since once again... this resevoir has the conical bottom, not straight like the one I have. The sharp corners still don't sit entirely well with me. But perhaps the lab tests as well as Marko's contributions will put my mind at ease.

LIQUID Is non compressible, SO A CYLINDER FILLED AND UNDER HIGH PRESSURE has near zero yield from an outside force pushing inward.
It would be STUPID .. to do the same test filled with equal Air pressure that would would allow material yield inward & likely violent failure.

IMO .. :cautious:
 
  • Like
Reactions: Bullysyclone
I'm pretty sure mine has a flat bottom, here's how much material there is. I imagine all the first shipment of the Canadian ones are like this. I'm happy with this.

(Tip represents inside corner)

20230503_203623.jpg
 
  • Like
Reactions: Stubbers
Marko,

I see your ytube videos concerning this are still up. You did cast several stones in those videos based on information you have found to be incorrect. Will you be taking those videos down? Also, do you make money on those videos?

Thanks,
Dave
Not really incorrect. Stress riser is still there. Obvious design failure with serious risk with metal fatique, corrosion or exessive outside force. Only positive is that material didnt yield at normal hydrotest pressures. That dosent mean its safe pressure vessel in long run when material properties change.
May I ask what is your problem with Marko?
 
May I ask what is your problem with me? I asked some simple questions to him, not you.

Btw, metal fatigue, corrosion and external forces applies across the board to any pressure vessel.

Marko admitted to testing procedures that were flawed.

Fwiw, I’m not trying to hate on Marko with that question. The opposite in fact, if I were to put out something in error, I would want to correct it. Your assumption is I have a problem with him. Assumptions have filled the majority of this thread. I like Marko just fine, that has nothing to do with the discussion here.

Dave
 
Whats sad is it took someone like Marko to really push any progress...amazing how quickly Ed got him a new set of tubes, but its taken so long to retrieve the exploded tube and have it tested...lol, priorities I suppose.
Ed has the damaged tube already and it's been sent off for testing. He's done the right thing by me.
 
The difference is your head rests against it, so if it does go you aren't getting any second chances. Air rifles with carbon fiber tanks for the buttstock I trust a lot more than a thin aluminum tube. You might also be missing the point about "fatigue", especially if small imperfections happen in the manufacturing process or design changes that make something less safe. We don't know and that's the problem.
Each to their own. As a backcountry skier and motorcyclist, the PCPs are the least of my worries!
 
I consider it my fault if I choose to use a potentially dangerous device not designed with adequate safety margins. Aluminum, unlike steel has a finite fatigue life even when cycled well below its yield strength. So just because it doesn't yield doesn't mean it won't fail if cycled enough times. The whole idea for the large safety margins is so for all practical uses it will never fail in common use because the number of cycles isn't likely to cause fatigue failure.

Having 2 machined versions, one with less safety margin is far from ideal. If you only fill and empty the gun once a week neither version will probably fail in your lifetime. If you fill and empty them 10,000 times a day the one with a sharp internal edge will fail first. Of course no one will fill it 10,000 per day or even in a lifetime.
 
Last edited:
I consider it my fault if I choose to use a potentially dangerous device not designed with adequate safety margins. Aluminum, unlike steel has a finite fatigue life even when cycled well below its yield strength. So just because it doesn't yield doesn't mean it won't fail if cycled enough times. The whole idea for the large safety margins is so for all practical uses it will never fail in common use because the number of cycles isn't likely to cause fatigue failure.

Having 2 machined versions, one with less safety margin is far from ideal. If you only fill and empty the gun once a week neither version will probably fail in your lifetime. If you fill and empty them 10,000 times a day the one with a sharp internal edge will fail first. Of course no one will fill it 10,000 per day or even in a lifetime.

So all those faulty airbags, 100% user error/fault? What a wonderful scapegoat!