Public Safety Announcement: DO NOT USE this PRODUCT from PCPTUNES!

Jump to latest Follow Reply
UpNorthAirGunner

UpNorthAirGunner

Member
Oct 19, 2017
422
182
MI, United States
AIRGUNNER PUBLIC SAFETY ANNOUNCEMENT: DO NOT USE THIS PRODUCT: PCP Tunes Airforce Texan Regulator with Dual Gauge!!! I just got off the phone with a trusted airgunner who informed me there has been a catastrophic failure of one of these devices. I just received the photos and it is scary.

1568771600_19306761615d818e104886b0.89422182_IMG_5002.JPG


1568771609_3757460365d818e19c033e4.05837193_IMG_5001 2.JPG


You may have seen me recently test this regulator on a video and on social media posts. This kind of failure is a zero tolerance issue in my book. If you have one of these - TAKE IT OFF. If you just ordered one - CANCEL YOUR ORDER. If you have one - DO NOT INSTALL IT!

Thank GOD no one was hurt. I am going to let the machinists and engineers in our airgunner community reading this explain theories of why this failure occurred, but I just wanted to make sure I let everyone know about this as soon as I got word of it.

Bigger picture statement... It is important for us as a community to inform each other of these kinds of failures to protect each other. IMMEDIATELY!

O-rings fail, guns leak, and stuff happens that we may not always share openly when things go bad with gear or brands we love, but when it comes to failures like this - YOU MUST SHARE.

Even if something was working great for you 9 times out of 10 - if something like this happens - SAY SOMETHING RIGHT AWAY. This goes not only for failures like this or bottle failures or failing safeties and trigger mechanisms, if something happens to you that is this level of a safety issue - TAKE ACTION.

Information is still coming in about this catastrophic failure and we will be providing more information as it comes to light.
 
Just off the top of my head from the limited pictures it could be a combination of things

Stress cracking at the corner because of inadequate radius where the cylindrical section joined the flat section

Material looks TOO THIN to sustain the high pressure and pressure cycles

Wrong material/alloy

Overpressure beyond design limits, just filled it to high and not enough engineered safety margin.

Shock waves induced from firing, ie: openning and closing the valve generated 'instant' pressure waves that hit the back wall of the regulator and overstressed it

I too was looking at this but an uncomfortable feeling said wait for a bunch of other people to test it for me because I have an aversion to being a test (dummy).
 
Upvote 0
Wow! That would make you poop a little. I have been a machinist for 29 years and I couldn’t imagine having that next to your head when it went off. I think KinetIc45 is spot on with his evaluation by just looking at the pictures. Shoddy manufacturing with inferior materials. The problem is with high pressure is everything seems ok until it is not. Then it’s too late. I bet the guy that had that gun was thanking GOD that he survived the ordeal.
 
Upvote 0
UPDATE - PCP Tunes Response!

Dear Customer, We would request you to not use the “Airforce Texan Regulator with Dual Gauge V1” till further notice. There has been an incident where one of the brand new Luxfer tanks gave off and the reg failed due to the same which was reported yesterday. (Actual cause is yet to be determined) Customer was not hurt in the incident and we have spoken to the client and are gathering info on how the failure occurred.

Causes could have been any of the following: The tank failed and so the reg ? How the filling was done ? Which valve was attached ? Improper Assembly etc. ? Setting the Reg above the 200 bar max pressure ? Filled with air or Nitrogen ? and many more possible reasons. We have very less info on the same at this point in time. We use the best quality of Aluminium Alloy which is 7075 T6 grade for machining the Texan Regulator. (Technically its rated to a max working pressure of 450 bar which way beyond the max fill pressure of 300bar) (However 300 bar is the max recommended fill pressure and 200 bar is the max recommended regulated pressure)

We request all our customers who have purchased the Airforce Texan Regulators to not use the product as we are working on the same to rectify the issue as soon as possible. We have called for the parts from our customer to be sent for lab analysis to determine the cause of the failure.

Luxfer is one of the best brands when it comes to Carbon Composite tanks and the failure ratio is almost Nil. This was a brand new tank which is EN 12245 certified and had a manufacturing date less than a year. Its failure cause is yet to be determined as we do not have the product in hand yet. We shall be running thorough tests to determine the problem and once we have the root cause have a right solution for the same. This should take a month or 2 to come up with the analysis and proposed solution. The existing grade of Aluminium we use has a tested pressure of 450 bar and why it gave off is yet unknown.

Same lab test and analysis will be performed to get to the root cause for the reg as well to know its failure, if it was due to the tank. We shall be working on the test results and if required machine the new batches in Titanium and have a working pressure of 600 bar. (8700 psi) We shall be running hydro tests beyond 500 bar and ultrasound test to find any hairline fractures which cannot be visible to the naked eye where the product could give off under stress. Request all to not use the product till we have come up with the problem analysis report and a solution for the issue reported. Safety is of paramount importance and our products are machined around that key aspect.

We maintain strict quality standards but failures due happen due to unforeseen factors beyond the quality control. Kindly acknowledge to our email so we know you have read the email and would not be using the product till we come up with a solution.

Regards, Sales Team


 
Upvote 0
"Setting the Reg above the 200 bar max pressure"

So the engineering of that part looks more than slightly suspect to me, however there really isn't enough information to know for certain what the cause of the failure was. That is a pretty stressed part, and so using it to hold pressure and absorb recoil/the bumps of life is more than a little suspect. You'd want that part to be substantially over-built. 

The above quote from their email though is a whopper. Regs fail, it is just part of the game, and they're telling their customers that should the reg fail it is THE EXPECTED PERFORMANCE that their plenum can't handle it? Now that is some scary stuff. 

"Technically its rated to a max working pressure of 450 bar which way beyond the max fill pressure of 300bar"

This is also not exactly wonderful. While every industry is different, typically safety factors are at least two if not ten. A safety factor of 1.5 in a part which is going to also experience not-insubstantial environmental insult is a failure just waiting to happen. 

So yeah, I'm with you here that I'd do a whole lot of not-buying-stuff from this company because this seems like it was built by someone who doesn't fully understand the engineering required. (as said by someone who also doesn't fully understand the engineering required) 


My 2c. 
 
Upvote 0
"So the engineering of that part looks more than slightly suspect to me, however there really isn't enough information to know for certain what the cause of the failure was. That is a pretty stressed part, and so using it to hold pressure and absorb recoil/the bumps of life is more than a little suspect. You'd want that part to be substantially over-built."

Agree totally with your post. Full disclosure-I have used a pcptunes CONDOR regulator for over a year and it has worked very well and has not failed. Could it fail today. Absolutely. Could an Altaros regulator fail similarly. Sure seems so. Am I more aware of this than before the TEXAN regulator failure. You betcha. But it certainly seems that more information is needed before a conclusion such as "shoddy manufacturing" or "inferior materials" or such could be reliably stated. Is it possible that a materials or design defect caused the failure? Certainly. Is it known that the failure was caused by such factors. No. Could an impact on the tank be the cause of such a failure? Sure seems so. Safety should always be a paramount concern, especially around HPA, but ANYTHING can fail. And as you very accurately note, the design of that rifle puts quite a lot of stress on a part in that location. Personally, I don't like the looks of the design with the large plenum body and apparently thin wall areas from the back of the plenum onto the body of the regulator. If I owned a Texan with that regulator in place I think I would remove it right now. But is it possible that something other than engineering or materials quality of the part itself have caused the failure?

I plan to continue use of the pcptunes CONDOR regulator that I have in place but I will certainly be watching for further results on this specific issue. All information is good to have.
 
Upvote 0
I'm not sure I agree with "passing the buck" to Luxfer as a possible issue. Unlike PCP Tunes, Luxfer uses a safety factor well in excess of 3 for all of its CF tanks. Think about it, a representative number of tanks are pulled off the batch of tanks made (per week, per 1000, per whatever, I'm not sure) and destructively test them to in excess of 15,000 psi. They are required to raise pressure to 15,000 psi, hold pressure for a minute, and then keep raising pressure until it fails. A safety factor of 1.5 is not impressive or even industry standard practice.
 
Upvote 0
I'm not sure I agree with "passing the buck" to Luxfer as a possible issue. Unlike PCP Tunes, Luxfer uses a safety factor well in excess of 3 for all of its CF tanks. Think about it, a representative number of tanks are pulled off the batch of tanks made (per week, per 1000, per whatever, I'm not sure) and destructively test them to in excess of 15,000 psi. They are required to raise pressure to 15,000 psi, hold pressure for a minute, and then keep raising pressure until it fails. A safety factor of 1.5 is not impressive or even industry standard practice.
Click to expand...

Certainly true. Luxfer seems to have an excellent product and safety factor and shouldn't have a buck passed to them for such a failure. I still would love to have a bottom line decision on what exactly did cause the failure. Maybe that will be available at some point. Much more likely to know such if people continue to press on the issue. I sent an email to pcptunes today asking about this issue in regards to the Condor regulator since I have one in use. A bit of a rambling response (language barrier?) but it stated that none of those units have failed. Could that be false? Certainly. No way for me personally to say it is or it isn't. Definitely an occurrence that I'll be watching.
 
Upvote 0
That tank looks fine! The obvious failure is well above the tank. Explosive decompression of a 4500 psi tank is akin to a small bomb going off. I'm wondering where the burst disc is? I don't notice one on the regulator...hmmmm

In this case, when the regulator failed, one wonders if the carbon fiber tank took off like a rocket!!! Newton's 3rd law of physics says for every action there is an opposite and equal reaction. It would have been interesting to find out what reaction took place when the metal failed on the regulator.

I also wonder what that black rubber substance is on the CF tank?



Uncle Hoot
 
Upvote 0
...

In this case, when the regulator failed, one wonders if the carbon fiber tank took off like a rocket!!! ...
Click to expand...

The threaded stub on the tank adapter is still in place. Typically (for safety), the air passage to the regulator/plenum is very small. That would prevent the tank from becoming a rocket. There may have been an explosion of the plenum which looks substantial, but the majority of the air in the tank probably hissed out of the relatively small passage opening. If the passage is small enough, the "thrust" would be fairly low.
 
Upvote 0
" Causes could have been any of the following: " " Filled with air or Nitrogen ? "

Most here would be at least vaguely familiar with the differences and dangers of "air v nitrogen" that and several other lines from the "sales Team: response smell like something not to step in.

Hope someone in the U.S. gets that part to examine/test.



John
 
Upvote 0
Maybe they should test the one for the Texan. 

The OD is 2.25" and the wall thickness is only .114". End cap is .160" with no radius. So it was clearly not made right or thick enough. They say its 7075.

I was forwarded the emails from PCP tunes t ok the person this happened to. It's sad because they basically are trying to say the tank blew and took out the reg.



This happened on the first fill. Filled to 300 ba . Turned off and went to bleed the hose and it blew. 
 
Upvote 0
The video shows how little they know. A AF burst disc is 5000 psi. So they are thinking it is 200 and trying to say that's there safety.

In the video it show nothing because they are pressurizing the reg side to 300 bar . That proves nothing about the reg chamber. They need to bypass the reg and fill the chamber until it pops to proove anything. All this effort to try and cover there but. 
 
Upvote 0
Have not been on forums as we have been extremely busy with new designs and customisation on newer products. First of all we would like to say that it was a very heart breaking to hear about the failure and we are thankful to god that no harm was caused to David. We acknowledge that this was a serious failure and it should never had happened or happen to anyone in the future. This post is not trying to start a debate or justification for what happened but writing so you must know the truth about the regulator.



We do understand high pressure and know our facts for machining and designing new products. We have always been requested for larger plenum space design for the Texan and we designed the regulator to have the largest plenum. The larger plenum size called for a design to have the product which with not too heavy, not to bulky and finally not too long. Saying that doesn’t mean we could compromise on quality on safety. The PCP Tunes Airforce Texan Regulator with Dual Gauge V1 was designed with safety to have a plenum working pressure of 200 bar max and never above that. In the video from above link as you see in the later of the video we have taken the input pressure and the plenum chamber to 250 bar. And then further to 300 bar at both the fill pressure and the regulated pressure. You can see both the micro gauges have reached the 300 bar mar. (WE DO NOT RECOMMEND ANY OF OUR CUSTOMERS TO SET THE REG PLENUM WORKING PRESSURE ABOVE 200 BAR AT ANY POINT IN TIME)



This was done just to show the machining tolerances of the part designed and manufactured. Our “Airforce Condor Regulator with Dual Gauge V2” have a max working pressure of 250 bar due to the smaller plenum, however we never advise crossing the 200 bar mark as you would not see any rise in power due to the restriction of the size of the smaller plenum.



We have it printed on the Texan regulator for a max regulated pressure of 200 bar and always send the installation doc to our clients never to exceed that and other safety instruction. We test our regulators during assembly and again before each order is dispatched. Also mention in the doc sent to each client is the respective length at the base knob (which controls the regulated pressure) as a cross reference to check the regulator pressure has not changed. Only way that can be changed is by turning the delrin base manually clockwise or anticlockwise to make fine adjustments and further tune the regulator. We usually set it to 150 bar but on requests from clients we set it to 200 bar and we document the details for every sale along with the serial no for the pressure set (Texan reg never above 200 bar) and its totally safe when set within the specified max regulated pressure. We do not have the parts to do a lab analysis for the exact cause of failure and are awaiting the same to know the exact cause of failure.

We are aware at this point in time our Texan plenum reg design cannot exceed 310 bar but this failure which should never have happened, did occur and so we have requested all our customers to stop using the product immediately. Chris Turek did a video for the product and all our previous clients who purchased and used the Texan regulator, many of which had it set to 200 bar had no issues. We had tested this for months before we brought them into production.

Our “Airforce Condor Regulator with Dual Gauge V2” are tested and rated to withstand 500bar and we have shared the video for the same.

We shall be doing the same for the Texan Regulator and shall share the video as soon as we have tested the new design at 500 bar and put them to production. (Even after making the changes in design to handle 500 bar at the plenum, we do not advise setting it above 200 bar and it would be printed on the reg and mentioned in the installation doc as well)

As soon as we have tested them to pass the 500 bar tests we shall be shipping the new version ones to all our clients at no additional cost, whom we have requested not to use the current model as soon as we heard from David.

Again a note on the burst disk, we have bought/sold and repaired many airforce airguns and the burst disk use to go off at about 3100 or 3200 psi on their 200 bar tanks. Most cases were reported when they we filled to 200 bar and kept for long time. And I have personally see them go off at that pressure. Which is the way it should be as their tanks are rated 200 bar. So the burst disk must match the max working pressure of the tank or valve whichever is lower. If Airforce has upgraded their burst disk to one with higher psi rating for their 200 bar tanks we are not aware of that.

Irrespective of that our regs plenum can handle the max working pressure of 200 bar and must never be set higher that than. (Tested and shown in the video link posted above) And for additional safety we would have our regs plenum changed to handle 500 bar of pressure.

Quality and safety is of paramount importance for use and we always address any such matters on the highest priority.




















 
Upvote 0
Well the burst discs in AF guns have always been 5000 psi. Maybe you need to do a little more home work.

A tanks that has a 3000 fill will have a 5000 psi burst disc. A 4500 psi tank has a 7500 psi burst disc. 

I modify the Texan valves to shoot 3600 psi and not one has ever had a burst disc fail . I have filled one to 4000 psi during testing. 

Yes you will get a bad one here and there that might give before its suppose to. But a burst disc is +0 -10% . That means it is not going to go over the rated pressure and can be up to 10% under

Don't know why I'm giving this info to a company that copies products.


 
Upvote 0
You must log in or register to reply here.
Top Bottom
Back
Home
Forums
Resources
Menu