|
|
#51
12-29-2012, 09:58 PM
|
||||
|
||||
Quote:
Understand. Since motors from that era pre-date my experience in rocketry, I simply have no personal experience with them to know one way or the other. But having heard and read stories about how ingredients for the motors could vary batch-to-batch, I've often wondered just how well they were able to keep motors within spec on any true basis, even though I know a certain percentage of each batch is tested at the plant. And then there is the NAR safety and contest certs on top of that......just seems like some tight constraints to meet ALL the time. Maybe Chas can chime in here and provide some first hand observations from his days on NAR S&T from back in the early 70s. Earl
__________________
Earl L. Cagle, Jr. NAR# 29523 TRA# 962 SAM# 73 Owner/Producer Point 39 Productions Rocket-Brained Since 1970 
|
|
#52
12-29-2012, 10:41 PM
|
|||
|
|||
|
Thanks for the motor info! I was going to ask about when the change came about, but based on the Centuri Model Rocket Engine Substitution Chart, (and the fact I remember A8-3, not A.8-3) I see that it occurred just before I became interested in the hobby when I was in grade school, as the colors on the engines (sorry, that is how I learned it....) signified booster, single stage, or upper-stage engines by then.
__________________
Rocketeer 1968-1975 BAR 2008- NAR# 91623, SAM# 0425
|
|
#53
12-30-2012, 06:56 PM
|
||||
|
||||
|
Quote:
Its a function charcoal content. Charcoal costs have been going up, so charcoal content has been going down. Charcoal is the fuel for the reaction, while Sulfur lowers the temperature needed for the reaction and Potassium Nitrate (KNO3) provides the Oxygen for the reaction. As the quality and content of the charcoal has been reduced, so has the specific impulse of the propellant. Look at me sounding like some sort of rocket scientist!  Jonathan P.s. the main reason the A.8-3 x4 motors were able to lift the Uprated Saturn 1b was the higher specific impulse of the motors; a function of propellent formulation and nozzle design.
|
|
#54
12-30-2012, 06:59 PM
|
||||
|
||||
|
Quote:
Earl, Before you sell, let me have a chance at the kit. I rubbed your back with the "OuR" Rocket footage!  Jonathan
|
|
#55
12-30-2012, 07:01 PM
|
||||
|
||||
|
Quote:
It was more powerful as were all of the 1960's motors; Charcoal was better quality back in those days... well Estes paid for a better quality charcoal back in those days Jonathan
|
|
#56
12-30-2012, 07:07 PM
|
|||
|
|||
|
Unfortunately the KSC gift shop is sold out of these
 but they do carry the Estes Flash launch set.
|
|
#57
12-30-2012, 07:18 PM
|
||||
|
||||
|
Quote:
Well, dang! That storm across the Midwest last week must've held up the truck from Penrose. Earl Seriously, my biggest curiosity about the kit is how long it may have been sold there at KSC and what the production numbers were. Must have been fairly limited since so far I've not been able to find a single other reference to the kit anywhere.
__________________
Earl L. Cagle, Jr. NAR# 29523 TRA# 962 SAM# 73 Owner/Producer Point 39 Productions Rocket-Brained Since 1970
|
|
#58
12-30-2012, 11:26 PM
|
||||
|
||||
|
Quote:
Your point is taken, as black powder varies enough that they have to underpower it a bit to stay under the limit with the tolerances they have to allow. But it still doesn't change the fact that the limits were different back then. Therefore an A.8-3 had just a bit more propellant (0.135 oz) than an A8-3 (0.11 oz). Note that I'm not saying those numbers are exact and accurate. I'm saying their proportion is more than likely accurate. I.E. the metric motor is about 20% less powerful than the english motor, whatever their total power is.
__________________
Roy nar12605
|
|
#59
12-31-2012, 06:23 AM
|
||||
|
||||
|
Quote:
Well isn't it obvious that the motors were indeed more powerful; after all, the motors were able to lift the model with a good safety factor. Manufactures like Estes would test their models with all kinds of delay types, impulses, and differing degrees of build skill/quality. I am 99.999% sure that Estes engineers made 1b's with miss aligned fins, miss aligned tubes, et al., and determined that the product would indeed operate despite an 8 year old tackling the model  Jonathan
|
|
#60
01-02-2013, 08:09 PM
|
||||
|
||||
|
Kit Contents Photos
And finally, some photos of the kit parts themselves.
It was interesting to note that each body tube was packed with the shreaded newspaper; a nice touch. I don't know if this was normal with the typical Estes Saturn V kits back then, but is different than any other kit I've seen before. I included a photo of the box 'end' label, since I don't think that was included in the first batch of photos posted. Also, there were THREE different of the standard Estes 'quality control' numbered paper slips in this kit (I'll post photos of those in the next batch). I think one was in the box 'at large', one inside the plastic parts bag, and one inside the main body tube. I'll post more later tonight or tomorrow. Earl
__________________
Earl L. Cagle, Jr. NAR# 29523 TRA# 962 SAM# 73 Owner/Producer Point 39 Productions Rocket-Brained Since 1970
|
 |
| Thread Tools | Search this Thread |
| Display Modes | |
|
|
Linear Mode
