Ye Olde Rocket Forum

Go Back   Ye Olde Rocket Forum > Weather-Cocked > Current Kit Talk
User Name
Password
Auctions Register FAQ Members List Calendar Today's Posts Search Mark Forums Read


View Poll Results: Which motor do we need most ?
B14-x (18mm) 36 32.73%
D30-x (24mm) 15 13.64%
D8-x (18mm like the old Cox D's, not some 20mm oddball diameter) 14 12.73%
A8-0 (18mm) 21 19.09%
1/2A3-0T (13mm) 11 10.00%
C5-x (18mm) 13 11.82%
Voters: 110. You may not vote on this poll

Reply
 
Thread Tools Search this Thread Display Modes
  #21  
Old 09-16-2010, 10:19 AM
Bazookadale's Avatar
Bazookadale Bazookadale is offline
I wish I was a spaceman!
 
Join Date: Jan 2006
Location: Elizabethtown,PA
Posts: 431
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by ghrocketman
Agree that the E60 was a total piece of crap.
I had an over 60% cato rate with those stinkers.
Only motor I had a higher cato rate with than the F100.
Made the F100 seem actually reliable; I had about a 40% cato rate with those things.
Apparently the motor manufacturing team of those had not heard much about QC.


How did you ignite them? If you lit the BASE of the core instead of the top like FSI told you , they came up to pressure a little slower and seldom catoed for me.
__________________
Did the chicken really cross the road, or did the
road move beneath the chicken? Albert Einstein

You Can't break the laws of physics but they can break you. Christine McKinley


Dale Greene

Mentor, Penn Manor Rocket Club

VISIT SPAAR
2010 Calder Cup
The Old West
2009 Calder Cup

" Speaking the Truth in times of universal deceit is a revolutionary act. " George Orwell
Reply With Quote
  #22  
Old 09-16-2010, 10:29 AM
ghrocketman's Avatar
ghrocketman ghrocketman is offline
President, MAYHEM AGITATORS, Inc.
 
Join Date: Jul 2005
Location: Nunya Bizznuss, Michigan
Posts: 13,443
Default

Tried at the top of the core as in the directions and in the middle of the core based on the advice of several others.
Middle-core ignition seemed to help the F100 but did nothing for the E60's.
Kaboomed so often I used up my remaining 4-5 of them in the early 90's by gluing dowels to them and launching them "bottle rocket style".
At least two of those blew up in "M-80" fashion as well.
Total rubbish waste of $$$.
__________________
When in doubt, WHACK the GAS and DITCH the brake !!!

Yes, there is such a thing as NORMAL
, if you have to ask what is "NORMAL" , you probably aren't !

Failure may not be an OPTION, but it is ALWAYS a POSSIBILITY.
ALL systems are GO for MAYHEM, CHAOS, and HAVOC !
Reply With Quote
  #23  
Old 09-16-2010, 02:36 PM
Bill's Avatar
Bill Bill is offline
I do not like Facebook
 
Join Date: Sep 2008
Location: North Tejas
Posts: 3,087
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Royatl
And the 1/2A6-4 is the perfect motor for the Astron Scout (I flew two at NARAM 50 -- I didn't realize, nor did anyone else, that they were no longer certified. Perfect flights, both of them).



Unfortunately too easy to do. I recall a Mirv Gryphon flying in an Imagination Celebration at a NARAM with what had to have been expired certification A10-0Ts.

<rant>
OK, my turn to yell a little bit from atop of that there soapbox.

One side says that OOP motors should not be safety certified forever. They state some liability reasoning.

The other side says that if I am allowed to fly a forty-year-old A8-3 which had been through who knows what kind of torture and waterboarding, then why should I not be allowed to fly a ten-year-old A10-0T which has been carefully stored and preserved? And if Estes comes through with their promise to resume production, then suddenly, my old motors are golden again?

What we have now is the NAR expired motor testing program which I fully believe is a head-fake. Those who want to fly their old motors are happy because they can do so with a small amount of paperwork. Those who collect old motors are happy because the supply of them is being used up, making the stashes ever more valuable.

The problem falls into the lap of those club officers who organize and run launches. Suppose that Roy's Scout had an errant flight, landing where it should not and causing damage or starting a bad fire. Insurance adjusters, upon discovering the uncertified motor, rules that the incident is not covered by the policy.

My position is and always have been that faulty motors should be decertified for safety reasons. All other motors should remain certified regardless of their manufacturing status.

Tripoli made a good move in allowing previously certified motors in their Research program. If only they can find a way for NAR-only members to participate...
</rant>


Bill
Reply With Quote
  #24  
Old 09-16-2010, 02:45 PM
Shreadvector's Avatar
Shreadvector Shreadvector is offline
Launching since 1970.
 
Join Date: Mar 2005
Location: Southern California
Posts: 2,188
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Bill
Unfortunately too easy to do. I recall a Mirv Gryphon flying in an Imagination Celebration at a NARAM with what had to have been expired certification A10-0Ts.

<rant>
OK, my turn to yell a little bit from atop of that there soapbox.

One side says that OOP motors should not be safety certified forever. They state some liability reasoning.

The other side says that if I am allowed to fly a forty-year-old A8-3 which had been through who knows what kind of torture and waterboarding, then why should I not be allowed to fly a ten-year-old A10-0T which has been carefully stored and preserved? And if Estes comes through with their promise to resume production, then suddenly, my old motors are golden again?

What we have now is the NAR expired motor testing program which I fully believe is a head-fake. Those who want to fly their old motors are happy because they can do so with a small amount of paperwork. Those who collect old motors are happy because the supply of them is being used up, making the stashes ever more valuable.

The problem falls into the lap of those club officers who organize and run launches. Suppose that Roy's Scout had an errant flight, landing where it should not and causing damage or starting a bad fire. Insurance adjusters, upon discovering the uncertified motor, rules that the incident is not covered by the policy.

My position is and always have been that faulty motors should be decertified for safety reasons. All other motors should remain certified regardless of their manufacturing status.

Tripoli made a good move in allowing previously certified motors in their Research program. If only they can find a way for NAR-only members to participate...
</rant>


Bill


If the motors are being flown under the Old Motor Testing Program, then the NAR insurance is in effect - there is no question about that.

If you fly uncertified motors without the approval letter from the OMTP, then there is no insurance coverage.

I'll be flying some C5-3 motors at our next two launches. I've got the printed letter of approval. So far, all of them from this batch have worked. Previous batches tested were not so good - especially the FSI motors.
__________________
-Fred Shecter NAR 20117 (L2)
Southern California Rocket Association, NAR Section 430
Reply With Quote
  #25  
Old 09-16-2010, 02:50 PM
Royatl's Avatar
Royatl Royatl is offline
SPEV/Orion wrangler
 
Join Date: Mar 2005
Location: Atlanta, GA
Posts: 2,645
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by ghrocketman
Tried at the top of the core as in the directions and in the middle of the core based on the advice of several others.
Middle-core ignition seemed to help the F100 but did nothing for the E60's.
Kaboomed so often I used up my remaining 4-5 of them in the early 90's by gluing dowels to them and launching them "bottle rocket style".
At least two of those blew up in "M-80" fashion as well.
Total rubbish waste of $$$.



Here's the lie of the "top of the core" in their instructions:

of course, they told you to put the thermalite all the way to the top, but that just holds it in. You put the clips on at the bottom, which is where the themalite lights, and it burns up into the core as a fuse. The first place it hits in the core is at the bottom.

When I started having problems with F100's is when I started using wire-wrapped thermalite igniters, which were 1" segments of themalite at the end of a long section of wire-wrap wire. These were popular at the time for igniting composite motors, so of course they were placed all the way to the top of the core. Most of my F100's kaboom-ed after that, until someone suggested just using a Solar igniter with the paper tape section holding it in the nozzle. Worked like a charm.

I just wish there was something I could do to get any of my F7's to not blow.
__________________
Roy
nar12605
Reply With Quote
  #26  
Old 09-16-2010, 02:56 PM
Royatl's Avatar
Royatl Royatl is offline
SPEV/Orion wrangler
 
Join Date: Mar 2005
Location: Atlanta, GA
Posts: 2,645
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Doug Sams
I'm surprised the delay wasn't too long. I woulda guessed a -2 was better. While the Scout is kinda simple, lacking a chute and wadding, it's still kinda heavy with the thick-walled tube and thick fins, and not very aeroslick.

That said, looking at the thrust curves of the ½A6 and ½A3, they're very close. I'd say close enough that I have a hard time justifying two motors so similar. Obviously, the cases are different. No one here at YORF would struggle with that. The marketing question is whether that would pose a major hassle for a soccer dad to deal with

Doug

.


Ejection was right at apogee on both flights, and the charge itself was softer so the motor didn't blow out of the thing. Both immediately started tumbling perfectly.

I do need to try it on an adapted 1/2A3-4t.
__________________
Roy
nar12605
Reply With Quote
  #27  
Old 09-16-2010, 03:00 PM
ghrocketman's Avatar
ghrocketman ghrocketman is offline
President, MAYHEM AGITATORS, Inc.
 
Join Date: Jul 2005
Location: Nunya Bizznuss, Michigan
Posts: 13,443
Default

Wow- you had problems with F7's ?
I don't think I ever had one of those cato, they just would not safely lift any rocket over about 5oz. Less useful than the Estes E9...any rocket that would fly safely on them would go nearly into orbit with about zero hope for recovery.
__________________
When in doubt, WHACK the GAS and DITCH the brake !!!

Yes, there is such a thing as NORMAL
, if you have to ask what is "NORMAL" , you probably aren't !

Failure may not be an OPTION, but it is ALWAYS a POSSIBILITY.
ALL systems are GO for MAYHEM, CHAOS, and HAVOC !

Last edited by ghrocketman : 09-16-2010 at 03:27 PM.
Reply With Quote
  #28  
Old 09-16-2010, 03:21 PM
Bill's Avatar
Bill Bill is offline
I do not like Facebook
 
Join Date: Sep 2008
Location: North Tejas
Posts: 3,087
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Shreadvector
If the motors are being flown under the Old Motor Testing Program, then the NAR insurance is in effect - there is no question about that.

If you fly uncertified motors without the approval letter from the OMTP, then there is no insurance coverage.

I'll be flying some C5-3 motors at our next two launches. I've got the printed letter of approval. So far, all of them from this batch have worked. Previous batches tested were not so good - especially the FSI motors.



It is obvious that Roy did not have OMTP paperwork because he was not aware the motors had expired certification. The range crew at NARAM also missed it. Insurance, except for any personal liability coverage that Roy may have had, did not cover his two flights. Fortunately for all concerned, the flights were flawless.

One of the requirements for the testing program is to report back to the NAR whether the motor functioned properly. How much data do you think they have accumulated so far? I would think by now that we have plenty of indication that A10-0T and C5-3 motors are still safe to fly, but FSI motors are suspect.


Bill
Reply With Quote
  #29  
Old 09-16-2010, 03:29 PM
shockwaveriderz shockwaveriderz is offline
rocket dinosaur
 
Join Date: Mar 2005
Location: My Old Kentucky Home
Posts: 1,184
Smile

The old Coaster motors were designed to be ignited at the bottom versus the top, as that's how they ignited their pyrotechnic skyrockets predecessors. The skyrockets were made with a 60-30-10 of BP, i.e "slow" BP while of course the later day Coasters, and FSI core burners were made with "faster" 75-15-10... This introduced a problem during ignition that evidently the Reese's failed to understand.

[disclaimer]
I have no historical info that the Coasters or FSI engines were made with 75-15-10 BP versus any other possible formula. Estes used this formula as it produced the most energy per weight of any other combination. So my comments above are pure speculation. It's sem reasonable to me to assume that if it was goos enough for estes, it would be good enough for the other manufacturers.


Trip Barber did some ignition test on B14's and FSI motors back in the early 1970's....he re-discovered the fact that the motor thrust profile could be changed depending on where the ignite r was placed in core burner type rocket engines, i.e the top versus the bottom.

If you ignited them at the bottom, peak chamber pressure ie thrust build up much slower and much lower than if you ignited the versus the same rocket engine at the top where you got much higher initial chamber pressures and peak thrusts. These chamber pressures that were generated by igniting the motors at the top versus the bottom often resulted in shot nozzles because the chamber pressure was greater than the mechanical pressure of the nozzle paper casing interface. These higher chamber pressures also causing fracturing of the grains causing catos, and also shot grains.....

I would also take an un-educated guess that Thermalite igniters are not idea for cored motors at the top at they have such ignition force that they could also cause the grain to fracture.


Terry Dean
__________________
"Old Rocketeer's don't die; they just go OOP".....unless you 3D print them.
Reply With Quote
  #30  
Old 09-16-2010, 03:35 PM
shockwaveriderz shockwaveriderz is offline
rocket dinosaur
 
Join Date: Mar 2005
Location: My Old Kentucky Home
Posts: 1,184
Smile

Quote:
Originally Posted by Jerry Irvine
BNow if they spiked the BP with 5% KP . . . . . .

Jerry




nevermind ahhh KP Burst composition Potassium Percholrate/Charcoal and Sulfur....

that probably would only result in an explosion...... it's called "burst" for a reason.

Terry Dean
__________________
"Old Rocketeer's don't die; they just go OOP".....unless you 3D print them.
Reply With Quote
Reply


Thread Tools Search this Thread
Search this Thread:

Advanced Search
Display Modes

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

vB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Forum Jump



All times are GMT -5. The time now is 08:07 PM.


Powered by: vBulletin Version 3.0.7
Copyright ©2000 - 2024, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
Ye Olde Rocket Shoppe © 1998-2024