"Long burn" defined?

The Rocketry Forum

Help Support The Rocketry Forum:

This site may earn a commission from merchant affiliate links, including eBay, Amazon, and others.

rbraibish

Member
Joined
Jul 8, 2009
Messages
10
Reaction score
0
I was wondering if there is an "official" definition of what a long burn motor is.
Does it reflect a specific burn time? If so, it would obviously need to be different for each motor class or, is it based on some value that is independent of motor classification)?
Do manufacturers define long burn or it is a colloquial label used by flyers?
Curious about input on this subject.
 
I'm not sure if there is an official definition (like 2x longer than average in that case size), but most long burns either have an offset core or are end burners. Long progressive-regressive thrust curves are another tell tale sign.
 
I would say that any motor that burns in excess of 4-5 seconds would be considered a long burn. Especially ones labeled as moonburners or C-slots, like the AT 54mm long burning motors like the J90W, J135W, K185W, etc.

These babies burn for about 8 seconds or so. Gotta love them!!!:D

The only downside to long burning motors is that they don't produce a whole lot of thrust and therefor, they need to be used in a pretty lightweight rocket on a rather calm day or otherwise you're just asking for trouble.
 
Last edited:
With the creation of reloadable motors the burn times of average motors dropped and now 5 seconds is considered long. 10 seconds used to be a long burn.

With proper formulas long burn Bates grain motors can be made. I have done 11 seconds in a 54 with a neutral burn an AP propellant.

M
 
I would say that any motor that burns in excess of 4-5 seconds would be considered a long burn....

+1

I think the majority of motors are done producing thrust in less than 3 seconds.

I wonder if that can be researched anywhere to see what the real numbers are???
 
The long burn motors are really at their best in a two stage rocket. The WAC Corporal, the WAC upper stage could not have reliabily lifted itself, I think the thrust to weight ratio was barely 2:1. The V2 was also at 2:1 at liftoff, it weighed 25,000 pounds with a 50,000 pound thrust engine fully loaded but it had active guidance and the WAC didn't. The Tiny Tim booster was used up before the rocket even left the tower. It ignited after the upper stage lit, in fact the upper stage "lit the fuse". Now days a scale WAC Corporal would approach original flight profile with like an I65 2nd stage over like an I1299 I think it is and there's a 38mm kit out there somewhere.

Sounds like fun to me :)
 
I would say that any motor that burns in excess of 4-5 seconds would be considered a long burn. Especially ones labeled as moonburners or C-slots, like the AT 54mm long burning motors like the J90W, J135W, K185W, etc.

These babies burn for about 8 seconds or so. Gotta love them!!!:D

The only downside to long burning motors is that they don't produce a whole lot of thrust and therefor, they need to be used in a pretty lightweight rocket on a rather calm day or otherwise you're just asking for trouble.

I think it depends on the motor class. While 4-5 seems normal for things, 7 is normal for a N or O motor and I don't think that is a long burn.


Christopher Short
Chris' Rocket Supplies
www.csrocketry.com
850-554-6531
 
I watched a video of a Delta IV heavy lifting a recon satellite. All three were was still burning 4 minutes in. I am guessing they were each V or X.
 
Aerotech has a chart of their reloads that identifies kinds of motors using the term "long burn" in several cases. That's probably as close as you can come to an official definition. The chart many still be on their website somewhere.
 
The long burn motors are really at their best in a two stage rocket. The WAC Corporal, the WAC upper stage could not have reliabily lifted itself, I think the thrust to weight ratio was barely 2:1. The V2 was also at 2:1 at liftoff, it weighed 25,000 pounds with a 50,000 pound thrust engine fully loaded but it had active guidance and the WAC didn't. The Tiny Tim booster was used up before the rocket even left the tower. It ignited after the upper stage lit, in fact the upper stage "lit the fuse". Now days a scale WAC Corporal would approach original flight profile with like an I65 2nd stage over like an I1299 I think it is and there's a 38mm kit out there somewhere.

Sounds like fun to me :)

It's here: https://www.asp-rocketry.com/store//moreinfo.cfm?Product_ID=574&Category=175 Built two of them. Only problem is motor retainer with that balsa boat tail. I bought some spring steel and had my brother shear it into 1/4" strips. Bent the ends and grooved the inside of the boat tail for a retaining clip. Works fine in the two rockets for a total of 8 flights. No lost motors. Flies great on two grain 38's either H-123's orEx motors. I fly mine with MAD units so they are heavier. Can also fly with 29mm adapter. Kurt
 
I consider burn time of ~3X motor diameter to be long burn. For example...

38mm - 4.5s
54mm - 6s
75mm - 9s
98mm - 12s
 
Last edited:
Maybe there is a specific thrust-to-impulse ratio? A long-burn will be low thrust compared to the impulse. I don't have the time to do the numbers.
 
I was wondering if there is an "official" definition of what a long burn motor is.
Does it reflect a specific burn time? If so, it would obviously need to be different for each motor class or, is it based on some value that is independent of motor classification)?
Do manufacturers define long burn or it is a colloquial label used by flyers?
Curious about input on this subject.

The perfect long-burn motor in a vertical flight would be one that gets your rocket up to its terminal velocity at thrust=2*Weight in an arbitrarily short period of time. It then maintains thrust = 2*weight, even as the propellant mass and air density decrease, until the end of burn. This arrangement gives you the most altitude, which is normally what a long-burn motor is used for.

If impulse is too low to get the rocket up to its terminal velocity at thrust=2*weight, then by this definition, a long-burn motor would be an arbitrarily short-burning motor.

Confused? Me too!
-LarryC.
 
Can you explain how/where you derived this expression?

The argument holds in reasonably dense atmosphere, which is the case for most of our launches. The full explanation is involved. The argument goes something like this:

1) In dense atmosphere, one reaches a diminishing return of coast to added velocity when speed exceeds terminal velocity at thrust=2* weight

2) Coincidentally, optimal cruising speed is the same speed.

The attached file is from an unpublished document of mine. It punts a little on the first point, using the Fehskens-Malewicki formula for coast distance.
The derivation of that formula follows (I hope it shows up reasonably well...


COAST PHASE:



Mass dV
--------------------------------------- = dTime
-BurnoutMass*g - ShapeConstant*V2

The Left hand side is integrated from BurnoutVelocity to 0; the RHS from 0 to
CoastTime. Result:


CoastTime = Sqrt{BurnoutMass/(g * ShapeConstant)} *
ArcTan[BurnOutVelocity * Sqrt{ShapeConstant/(BurnoutMass * g)}]


We get CoastDistance from f=ma

-(Weight + DragForce) = BurnoutMass * dV/dTime

-BurnoutMass*g - ShapeConstant * V2 = BurnoutMass * dV/dTime

Using a chain rule hat trick,

dV/dTime = (dV/dDistance) * (dDistance/dTime) = V dV/dDistance

-BurnoutMass*g - ShapeConstant * V2 = BurnoutMass * V dV/dDistance

Separating variables:

-Distance/BurnoutMass = V dV
-----------------------------------
BurnoutMass*g + ShapeConstant * V2

The LHS is integrated from o to CoastDistance; the RHS is integrated
from BurnoutVelocity to 0. Result:


CoastDistance = .5 * (BurnoutMass/ShapeConstant)

ShapeConstant * BurnoutVelocity2
* ln{ ---------------------------------- +1}
BurnoutMass * g


The CoastDistance and CoastTime formulas can be modifued to suit situations where weight exceeds thrust. This is like having a coast phase on a planet where the gravitational constant is a smaller figure, g’.

BurnoutMass * g’ = BurnoutMass * g – Thrust

Or

G’ = g – Thrust / BurnoutMass.

Substitute g’ for g in the coast phase equations, and the math is done. No extra integration needed.


POINT OF DIMINISHING ALTITUDE RETURNS TO ADDED VELOCITY
This is the point of greatest coast altitude, burnout velocity slope. In other words, it’s the point where the derivative of coast distance with respect to burnout velocity is highest. Barring a corner solution, this would correspond to a point where the second derivative is zero; that is, a flex point. The reader may verify the following:

DCoastDistance/dBurnoutVelocity =
BurnoutMass * BurnoutVelocity /
[ShapeConstant * BurnoutVelocity2 + BurnoutMass * g]

d2CoastDistance/dBurnoutVelocity2 =
BurnoutMass /TERM1 –
2 * ShapeConstant * BurnoutMass * BurnoutVelocity2 / TERM12

where TERM1 = ShapeConstant * BurnoutVelocity2 + BurnoutMass * g

A flex point exists where where the second derivative is zero. The reader may also verify that is where

FlexPointBurnoutVelocity = SQRT{BurnoutMass * g / ShapeCOnstant}

This happens to be the terminal velocity where thrust is twice weight.

One further differentiation and substitution of this value for BurnoutVelocity yields

ThirdDerivativeAtFlexPoint = -1/(2 * BurnoutMass * g)

Since the third derivative is negative, the flex point occurs at a maximum value for the first derivative, as advertised. This is the point of diminishing altitude returns to added velocity.

View attachment Partial Explanation.docx
 
Thanks Larry. I am always curious about where these accepted expressions come from. I appreciate the response.
 
I don't think there is a precise definition, although some of the formulae suggested here are interesting. For HPR, I generally think longer than 7s is a long burn. You can get some idea of the distribution using the ThrustCurve.org motor browser. For example all level 1 motors, out of 166, only 4 burn 7s or longer.
 
I consider burn time of ~3X motor diameter to be long burn. For example...

38mm - 4.5s
54mm - 6s
75mm - 9s
98mm - 12s

I like this, it is simple logical and intuitive.
Ok, now we need to declare an edict...
"Henceforth any motor that has a burn time in seconds that is equal to or longer than the numeric equivalent of three times its diameter in inches is to be call a long-burn motor"
 
So this would make the shuttle solid boosters a short burn motor. Less than one second per inch of diameter.

M
 
Yeah I don't think this scales well. And it depends on the propellent and other factors. A J145 skid is a long burn by virtue of the grain geometry which yields a significantly longer burn that the same propellent in the same size motor.


Sent from my iPhone using Rocketry Forum
 
I would say if it's more than the average burn time for its diameter, it's long burning.

24mm: 1.92s

29mm: 1.78s

38mm: too many to do right now...

54mm: see above

75mm: see above

98mm: 5.37s

If any one wants to find the averages of 38, 54, and 75mm motors then be my guest. But that's how I think 'long-burn' motors should be defined.
 
Here's the data. Rather than "longer than average", I'd suggest something like "longer than average plus 1 standard deviation" (last column). However, that makes 5s long-burn for a 54mm, so maybe 2σ (7s) is better.

diametercountminmaxavgS.D.+1σ
620.770.830.800.030.83
10.540.232.531.170.872.05
1370.252.090.950.581.52
18240.338.141.821.813.63
2023.984.614.300.324.61
24610.297.122.011.393.40
291460.417.131.891.223.11
3243.478.555.701.837.54
382380.327.992.051.293.34
542470.6010.203.271.785.06
6453.6712.306.933.1410.07
751550.8813.204.422.216.64
76312.358.004.161.525.68
8133.155.383.911.044.95
98861.0113.815.622.838.46
13211.311.311.310.001.31
15244.299.207.342.039.38
16155.108.196.401.267.66
 
Here's the data. Rather than "longer than average", I'd suggest something like "longer than average plus 1 standard deviation" (last column). However, that makes 5s long-burn for a 54mm, so maybe 2σ (7s) is better.

diametercountminmaxavgS.D.+1σ
620.770.830.800.030.83
10.540.232.531.170.872.05
1370.252.090.950.581.52
18240.338.141.821.813.63
2023.984.614.300.324.61
24610.297.122.011.393.40
291460.417.131.891.223.11
3243.478.555.701.837.54
382380.327.992.051.293.34
542470.6010.203.271.785.06
6453.6712.306.933.1410.07
751550.8813.204.422.216.64
76312.358.004.161.525.68
8133.155.383.911.044.95
98861.0113.815.622.838.46
13211.311.311.310.001.31
15244.299.207.342.039.38
16155.108.196.401.267.66

I like that. However there are no 'long burn' 152mm motors.

Edit: I realize now that you must have made an error with the 152mm motors. When I checked there was only three. But I also think it's mathematically impossible for one group to not have long burn motors.
 
Last edited:
Back
Top