Estes core burners?

[JPVegh]

It seems to me that a B14 could be mass produced very safely using composite propellants.

 

[GDJ]

It seems to me that a B14 could be mass produced very safely using composite propellants.

I like this idea!

 

[MarkII]

Unless that happens, we can dream about how that "back in the day" you could go into a hobby shop and buy a B14, and then go to your local Dodge dealership and buy a Charger with a Hemi.



Oh wait ... you can get a Charger with a Hemi now.

Hmmmmmm....

Greg

Back in the day, you could get a Plymouth Road Runner with a 426 Hemi.

 

[MarkII]

It seems to me that a B14 could be mass produced very safely using composite propellants.

Not quite the same, but not bad either.

 

[Bazookadale]

It seems to me that a B14 could be mass produced very safely using composite propellants.

Possibly - but do you remember the 13 mm composite B7 motors? rather expensive, and hard to ignite. They had a tiny nozzle that you could barely get an igniter in. A B14 might be possible, would it be cheap enough to justify it's production?

 

[jim fustini]

I like the idea of a coreburning black powder motor ( I have never used one) Using APCP would just not be as interesting to me. I think CTI has a 18mm reloadable motor in the works. I have their 24mm......and 29,38,54,...75. Same with Aerotech.I have their 18mm and 24mm. This is what prompted me to start the thread. That there may be a chance Estes might make them ,If there was enough interest and could make money from them. I know this forum has influenced companies in the past. And from the replies I now understand that is not going to happen.

 

[RoyAtl]

So in what time period were these motors available? I've been into rocketry for about ten years now and I've never seen them.

They were made from the early 60's through much of the 70's. While they transitioned to the "pressed core" technology (which the B8 and "Super C5" were), "B14"s were sold which really were "B8"s on the inside, so the designation lasted a few years longer than the actual motor!

Also, in the very early days, Estes called them B16 motors (This was in the English designation days so they meant 16 pounds!) because their test stand (a non-damped, spring driven scale) got floored when they were fired! Eventually Vern made more accurate testing equipment and found they only had three pounds average thrust (about 14 newtons)!!

 

[luke strawwalker]

Good to see the young bucks chiming in! Just wait another 20 or so years and you have cash and want your old toys back, foolish things will happen as you seek that long gone E9 motor, remembering only the wonderful long burn and slow lift offs of the very expensive and hard to find D Region Tomahawk kit. And $100,000 dollars for the smell of fossil fuel burning EVO - a real bargain to you!

I ain't that young... I'm 40...

Hey if you got the money and want to burn it or throw it around, more power to ya...

Wouldn't be the first time I've been accused of being a tightwad... and I admit it!

I use whatever's handy that can do the job efficiently (IE CHEAP). Sentimentality is a poor substitute for intelligence... LOL

Later! OL JR

 

[H_Rocket]

Mabel was the pet name for the automated pneumatic press invented by Vern Estes to mass produce BP motors.

 

[shockie]

I doubt B14, and by B14 I mean theGen 1 original thick cased english pre 1967 B14(as well as the Gen 2 post 67 thin wall metric B14) could be produced on a a Mabel in a single step operation. But they could be produced like Estes originally created them: start them out as B4 and then have an automated after-Mabel drilling operation that would be safe. That was the secret to manufacturing the original B14's, the automated drill machine Vern Estes created to drill out the cores using a special drill bit at just the right drill speed as to not generate too much heat (although that did occur often enough) resulting in detonations....

If Vern was able to semi-solve the B14 production problem as early as August 1961 when he first demoed the B16 (later the B3 and then the B14) then I'm sure that a modern Estes could update his old technology and make B14 today. But it might test out as a B10or B12 actual due to the lower grade BP they use these days.

Pressed semi core burning B8/C5 could easily be replicated on a Mabel.


Terry Dean

 

[plano-doug]

...start [B14's] out as B4 and then have an automated after-Mabel drilling operation that would be safe. That was the secret to manufacturing the original B14's, the automated drill machine Vern Estes created to drill out the cores using a special drill bit at just the right drill speed as to not generate too much heat (although that did occur often enough) resulting in detonations....

If Vern was able to semi-solve the B14 production problem as early as August 1961 when he first demoed the B16 (later the B3 and then the B14) then I'm sure that a modern Estes could update his old technology and make B14 today.

Terry,

You got me thinking this is manageable. Estes position - Barry's positon - has been that this is too dangerous. I understand it and appreciate it. In today's society, nearly any safety risk is to be avoided.

On the other hand, why not move the drilling station away from the other Mabel shacks. Put in a small conveyor with some blast proof doors (gates) and have a stream of motors going from a Mabel shack to the drilling shack and then back again. That way, if a motor does go pop, you only lose the few motors near the "bad" one. But the drilling operation is well removed from storage and ramming - you don't lose any inventory, and most importantly, you don't risk any personnel.

Given today's inexpensive technology - robots, vision recognition, etc - there's no reason why an automated drilling station can't be made to operate safely and cost effectively.

For example, with infra-red heat detection technology, you can monitor the heat at the tip of the drill bit, and wait for it to cool to within a tolerance range, then perform the drilling operation. Such a setup is pretty simple with all the automation and sensing technology that's available today.

Doug

.

 

[shockie]

Terry,

You got me thinking this is manageable. Estes position - Barry's positon - has been that this is too dangerous. I understand it and appreciate it. In today's society, nearly any safety risk is to be avoided.

On the other hand, why not move the drilling station away from the other Mabel shacks. Put in a small conveyor with some blast proof doors (gates) and have a stream of motors going from a Mabel shack to the drilling shack and then back again. That way, if a motor does go pop, you only lose the few motors near the "bad" one. But the drilling operation is well removed from storage and ramming - you don't lose any inventory, and most importantly, you don't risk any personnel.

Given today's inexpensive technology - robots, vision recognition, etc - there's no reason why an automated drilling station can't be made to operate safely and cost effectively.

For example, with infra-red heat detection technology, you can monitor the heat at the tip of the drill bit, and wait for it to cool to within a tolerance range, then perform the drilling operation. Such a setup is pretty simple with all the automation and sensing technology that's available today.

Doug

.

Doug,
Exactly.


It might just be as simple and more cost efficient as to do a better or longer pressed core. A true B8-B10 would work for most of today's modelers.....and if they made a Bx version, just add an increment or two of BP and you have a cored C8-C10.....

Back in 1977 Estes had B6 motors tested for self ignition properties. They would self ignite and spontaneously burn at temperatures between approx 562F and 627F with an average in the neighborhood of 589F. what Vern figured out via trial and error back in 1961 was feedrate and penetration depth versus temperature rise. Infrared sensing technology could easily control feed rate and drill speed rate ....they even have drill bits now that have coolant inside them to keep them cooled down.







Terry Dean

 

[cavecentral]

Given today's inexpensive technology - robots, vision recognition, etc - there's no reason why an automated drilling station can't be made to operate safely and cost effectively.

For example, with infra-red heat detection technology, you can monitor the heat at the tip of the drill bit, and wait for it to cool to within a tolerance range, then perform the drilling operation. Such a setup is pretty simple with all the automation and sensing technology that's available today.
.

This sounds really expensive for the market draw it would get. Would they sell that many more motors, or just more types?

 

[plano-doug]

This sounds really expensive for the market draw it would get. Would they sell that many more motors, or just more types?

For you or I, who may not be experts at the assembly flow processes, it would be expensive to research and develop. But for Estes, who already handles zillions of motors, it should not be a big deal to set up the tracks to move motors to/from a remote drilling shack. They already know how to do 85% of this process. Only the automated drilling part is really new, and even there they have some experience to draw from.

That said, there is some cost, and you wouldn't want to invest unless you had some demand numbers to back it up.

But from a safety perspective, there's no doubt it can be handled.

Doug

.

 

[JStarStar]

Doug,
Exactly.


It might just be as simple and more cost efficient as to do a better or longer pressed core. A true B8-B10 would work for most of today's modelers.....and if they made a Bx version, just add an increment or two of BP and you have a cored C8-C10.....

Back in 1977 Estes had B6 motors tested for self ignition properties. They would self ignite and spontaneously burn at temperatures between approx 562F and 627F with an average in the neighborhood of 589F. what Vern figured out via trial and error back in 1961 was feedrate and penetration depth versus temperature rise. Infrared sensing technology could easily control feed rate and drill speed rate ....they even have drill bits now that have coolant inside them to keep them cooled down.





Terry Dean

There are a few other design issues that would have to be addressed too -- ideally the B14's would have to be packed with a couple more grams of propellant to compensate for the couple grams lost in the drilling-out process. Although that would not seem to be any huge problem -- just program the "Mabel" to produce a special B14 grain including one or two more grams of BP.

In a dream world it would be cool if they could produce a core-burning variation of all their motor classes (mainly for use in booster stages): for instance, A10, B14, C16, D20 and probably E30. Although I understand there are casing-rupture CATO problems with really high average thrusts, so the D's and E's are probably just pipe dreams unless they went to completely different casings (at which point you might as well go straight to composites).

As I noted farther up the thread, they already DO this with the 13mm motors, where they offer both the A3 and the A10. An A3 booster-stage motor would be almost useless - an A3 doesn't have enough thrust to get even the lightest-built multi-stage rocket off the pad.

So obviously it is physically possible to do -- the only question is whether it would be economically viable.

It would be interesting in a kind of academic sense to go back to Estes sales figures from the 60s/70s and find out what percentage of the B14s sold were B14-0's as opposed to 5's and 7s. My gut-feeling guess is the majority were 0's.

The sledgehammer-thrust curve of the B14 doesn't make much sense in a rocket you plan to coast for an extended time -- you would have high burnout speed and thus high drag. I remember launching a couple rockets single-stage with B14-7's and they at least appeared to lose speed VERY fast after burnout.

 

[Peter Olivola]

Oh, there's a reason. M-O-N-E-Y. It's all simple when someone else is paying the bills.

Terry,

You got me thinking this is manageable. Estes position - Barry's positon - has been that this is too dangerous. I understand it and appreciate it. In today's society, nearly any safety risk is to be avoided.

On the other hand, why not move the drilling station away from the other Mabel shacks. Put in a small conveyor with some blast proof doors (gates) and have a stream of motors going from a Mabel shack to the drilling shack and then back again. That way, if a motor does go pop, you only lose the few motors near the "bad" one. But the drilling operation is well removed from storage and ramming - you don't lose any inventory, and most importantly, you don't risk any personnel.

Given today's inexpensive technology - robots, vision recognition, etc - there's no reason why an automated drilling station can't be made to operate safely and cost effectively.

For example, with infra-red heat detection technology, you can monitor the heat at the tip of the drill bit, and wait for it to cool to within a tolerance range, then perform the drilling operation. Such a setup is pretty simple with all the automation and sensing technology that's available today.

Doug

.

 

[bjphoenix]

I think a core-burner would be neat. I don't know how they arrived at the configuration that they used back then but I think a larger diameter core, maybe with more taper, could be incorporated into the production process easily enough. I don't know if it would change their sales through mass market outlets, but I think us enthusiasts would buy a lot of them.

 

[mwtoelle]

As I noted farther up the thread, they already DO this with the 13mm motors, where they offer both the A3 and the A10. An A3 booster-stage motor would be almost useless - an A3 doesn't have enough thrust to get even the lightest-built multi-stage rocket off the pad.

Estes sold ½A3-0T and A3-0T motors from 1971 - 1981. I have actually used the ½A3-0T booster motors in my Beta (TK-45). I am sure that either motor would work just fine in any of the 13mm multistage kits that are/were available.

So obviously it is physically possible to do -- the only question is whether it would be economically viable.

It would be interesting in a kind of academic sense to go back to Estes sales figures from the 60s/70s and find out what percentage of the B14s sold were B14-0's as opposed to 5's and 7s. My gut-feeling guess is the majority were 0's.

My guess the majority of B14s sold were B14-5s. When the B8 motors were introduced in 1980, they were available in -0, -5, or -7 second delays. However, only the B8-5 remained in production past 1981. Another difference in bringing new motors to market would be all of the regulatory hoops that need to jumped through to sell them.

The sledgehammer-thrust curve of the B14 doesn't make much sense in a rocket you plan to coast for an extended time -- you would have high burnout speed and thus high drag. I remember launching a couple rockets single-stage with B14-7's and they at least appeared to lose speed VERY fast after burnout.

A B14 was more useful in heavier rockets (3.5 oz. and up) than in lighter rockets. You would also get straighter flight in windy conditions compared to the B4 or B6. For any core-burner BP motors the B8s would be the easiest to bring back, but i am not holding my breath.

 

[MarkII]

I ain't that young... I'm 40...

OMG, you're a kid!!!

 

[MarkII]

Also, in the very early days, Estes called them B16 motors (This was in the English designation days so they meant 16 pounds!) because their test stand (a non-damped, spring driven scale) got floored when they were fired! Eventually Vern made more accurate testing equipment and found they only had three pounds average thrust (about 14 newtons)!!

They are listed as "B3" (lb./ft. units) in the early Estes catalogs.

EDIT: Wait - you are right. Now I see what you are talking about.

 

[MarkII]

There are a few other design issues that would have to be addressed too -- ideally the B14's would have to be packed with a couple more grams of propellant to compensate for the couple grams lost in the drilling-out process. Although that would not seem to be any huge problem -- just program the "Mabel" to produce a special B14 grain including one or two more grams of BP.

The original B14s apparently had that covered. After drilling, they were still full (5 N-s) B motors.

But why stop with B impulse? How about a cored C motor? Or a D20?

 

[JStarStar]

The original B14s apparently had that covered. After drilling, they were still full (5 N-s) B motors.

But why stop with B impulse? How about a cored C motor? Or a D20?

Their larger "Maxi-Series" kits, especially the Saturn V and the deleted but quite popular V-2, really need higher-thrust propulsion to fly properly (most people of course just modify them to fly on composite motors).

An Estes Saturn V barely struggles off the pad on an E9, and barely gets 100 feet on a D12.

 

[BobH48]

An A3 booster-stage motor would be almost useless - an A3 doesn't have enough thrust to get even the lightest-built multi-stage rocket off the pad.

I beg to differ. I have A3-0T and 1/2A3-0T booster motors and they work just great in the right rocket. I have more 13mm multi-stage models that work better with A3's than A10's but I use more A10's because I tend to save the unobtainable A3's and 1/2A3's for just the right model.

It's the same argument everyone is using for B14-0 boosters VS B6-0 boosters. In a heavy multi-stage rocket, B14-0's will give you the extra kick you need but in lighter rockets, B6-0's work just fine.

 

[powderburner]

It's amazing how this topic came up on YORF a while back and how it has migrated over here.

You are right, but even worse, this motor has been discussed at least once per year (search those archives) here on TRF and on just about every other rocketry website.

In keeping with the season looming upon us, seems to me that we should be naming these threads:

-Return of the B14
-Revenge of the B14
-Night Of The Living B14
-Last B14 On The Left
-Friday the B14th
-B14s From Mars
-B14s Need Women
-I Was A Teenage B14

(OK, enough)

There is too much good historical data, motor technical descriptions and great background stories to let all these posts wander away again. I would suggest a sticky, at least, if not an entirely dedicated folder. There are getting to be only a few of us with any personal experience with B14s, or with any authoritative background knowledge, to let all this get lost again.

I never used any special ignition techniques, I just inserted the igniter and taped across the aft face of the motor with a small square of masking tape. My B14s always ignited just as easily as any other Estes motor. The only problem I had (which was my own fault) was learning that a Big Bertha MMT would not hold on to a B14.

I would like to toss out a critical comment/heresy about these fondly-remembered motors, and that is: The B14s were technically not very useful motors. True, they hammered out some monster thrust---but only for a blink. The B14s were not an efficient way to make a small/light modroc move because delivering all the impulse at once meant higher initial velocity but caused higher aero drag; a rocket gets better performance if the same impulse is spread over a little more time and the flight velocities can be held down. The B14s were not a good way to make a moderately-sized (or heavy) modroc move because the thrust did not last long enough to get a larger rocket to any significant altitude.

Don't get me wrong, I loved playing with B14s and I would buy a truckload of 'em if they were available....at those old prices. They were a TON of fun. The B14s were admittedly a 'cheap thrill' in some sort of Tim Allen "MORE POWER!" fashion, a sort of "OH YEAH!!!!" male gender thing. But today we have many more motor choices that deliver BOTH a whompin-big initial peak thrust and a whompin-big dose of sustaining thrust, and are much better suited to launching larger model rockets, and are arguably already cheaper than re-engineered B14s would be. But the B14s always were and will remain a sort of oddball motor without much (any?) contest purpose and with very limited useful sport-flying potential (IMHO).

I might guess that a big part of what we are saying we miss are the cheap prices, the simpler world we lived in then, and the good ol' days. B14s were great, and I miss them too, but I think we are far better off today with all the motor choices we enjoy.

 

[plano-doug]

I beg to differ. I have A3-0T and 1/2A0-T booster motors and they work just great in the right rocket. I have more 13mm multi-stage models that work better with A3's than A10's but I use more A10's because I tend to save the unobtainable A3's and 1/2A3's for just the right model.

I agree. I've flown a few of both the A3-0T and ½A3-0T. They both have quite a bit more lifting power than the seemingly wimpy 3 designation seems to indicate.

BTW, I'd love to get some more ½A3-0T's - I wish someone still made these. I'd like some ¼A3-0T's, too

Doug

.

 

[JStarStar]

You are right, but even worse, this motor has been discussed at least once per year (search those archives) here on TRF and on just about every other rocketry website.

In keeping with the season looming upon us, seems to me that we should be naming these threads:

-Return of the B14
-Revenge of the B14
-Night Of The Living B14
-Last B14 On The Left
-Friday the B14th
-B14s From Mars
-B14s Need Women
-I Was A Teenage B14

(OK, enough)

There is too much good historical data, motor technical descriptions and great background stories to let all these posts wander away again. I would suggest a sticky, at least, if not an entirely dedicated folder. There are getting to be only a few of us with any personal experience with B14s, or with any authoritative background knowledge, to let all this get lost again.

I never used any special ignition techniques, I just inserted the igniter and taped across the aft face of the motor with a small square of masking tape. My B14s always ignited just as easily as any other Estes motor. The only problem I had (which was my own fault) was learning that a Big Bertha MMT would not hold on to a B14.

I would like to toss out a critical comment/heresy about these fondly-remembered motors, and that is: The B14s were technically not very useful motors. True, they hammered out some monster thrust---but only for a blink. The B14s were not an efficient way to make a small/light modroc move because delivering all the impulse at once meant higher initial velocity but caused higher aero drag; a rocket gets better performance if the same impulse is spread over a little more time and the flight velocities can be held down. The B14s were not a good way to make a moderately-sized (or heavy) modroc move because the thrust did not last long enough to get a larger rocket to any significant altitude.

Don't get me wrong, I loved playing with B14s and I would buy a truckload of 'em if they were available....at those old prices. They were a TON of fun. The B14s were admittedly a 'cheap thrill' in some sort of Tim Allen "MORE POWER!" fashion, a sort of "OH YEAH!!!!" male gender thing. But today we have many more motor choices that deliver BOTH a whompin-big initial peak thrust and a whompin-big dose of sustaining thrust, and are much better suited to launching larger model rockets, and are arguably already cheaper than re-engineered B14s would be. But the B14s always were and will remain a sort of oddball motor without much (any?) contest purpose and with very limited useful sport-flying potential (IMHO).

I might guess that a big part of what we are saying we miss are the cheap prices, the simpler world we lived in then, and the good ol' days. B14s were great, and I miss them too, but I think we are far better off today with all the motor choices we enjoy.

The B14 was (is) primarily useful in practical terms for launching heavy multi-stage rockets which otherwise would have problems struggling off the pad and gaining adequate airspeed for stability. A B6 or C6 may not have enough thrust to get a heavier rocket up to airspeed, but a B14 will do it.

As you note I don't really see many single-stage applications in which a B14 would be preferable to a B4 or B6. IMO the B14-0 is really the only variation with much practical use.

There's nothing saying Estes or any manufacturer would have to quit making any other motor in order to make B14's again.

 

[bjphoenix]

The original B14s apparently had that covered. After drilling, they were still full (5 N-s) B motors.

But why stop with B impulse? How about a cored C motor? Or a D20?

When the B3/B14's came out, there were no C's. The B was the top dog of their engines.

If they were to build coreburners now they should skip the B- build C's and D's.



I've posted photos of the Ranger that I built back in the 1960's. I launched it with payloads using a cluster of B14's.

 

[MarkII]

I agree. I've flown a few of both the A3-0T and ½A3-0T. They both have quite a bit more lifting power than the seemingly wimpy 3 designation seems to indicate.

BTW, I'd love to get some more ½A3-0T's - I wish someone still made these. I'd like some ¼A3-0T's, too

Doug

.

A TK-40 Midget will fly fine (and high!) with an A3-0T in the booster stage.

 

[MarkII]

Roy was right about the B16s. See my amended post #80 above.

 

[plano-doug]

A TK-40 Midget will fly fine (and high!) with an A3-0T in the booster stage.

Perfect example

Doug

.