Estes launch lug material?

I am searching for a very thin very light min body tube for MMX max altitude attempt, not really for competition, more for my personal enjoyment. My only perameters are go real high, AND get my rocket back...lol! , I am not concerned with looks or longevity but for fun let's say the airframe must withstand at least 2 launches.
I have toyed with rolling a body tube from Esaki Japanese tissue? Also looking for low drag fin design?
The Estes 3/16 launch lug on the left looks great at .008 wall thickness and very stiff but of course to small...the Estes 1/4" lug on the right is .030 wall and seems to be just decent quality cardboard. Any performance tips?

hunterdude said:

I am searching for a very thin very light min body tube for MMX max altitude attempt, not really for competition, more for my personal enjoyment. My only perameters are go real high, AND get my rocket back...lol! , I am not concerned with looks or longevity but for fun let's say the airframe must withstand at least 2 launches.
I have toyed with rolling a body tube from Esaki Japanese tissue? Also looking for low drag fin design?
The Estes 3/16 launch lug on the left looks great at .008 wall thickness and very stiff but of course to small...the Estes 1/4" lug on the right is .030 wall and seems to be just decent quality cardboard. Any performance tips?

Click to expand...

Best way to do this is to roll your own around a 1/4" hardwood dowel. Single wrap of Tracing vellum will give you a body tube lighter then anything save single wrap of .5oz glass.
Body can be either Elmer's glue tab sealed or just use Scotch magic tape along the seam. Attach fins as usual, I generally use a laret-loop Shock-cord Nosecone and motor attachment to ensure everything comes back together no matter what.
For competition Micro fins I use one of 3 thickness G-10 sheet film; .005", .010" or .015" depending on the fin geometry with particular interest in the span.

The Current National Altitude Record for both 1/8A Altitude and 1/8Ax2 Cluster Alt are 82m (269ft) using MMX-II motor(s). Back in 2000 I had two Tracked and closed 1/8A-PD models with Altitudes of 303ft and 316ft using the Older Plastic case MMX-1 motors which had a slightly longer delay.
Just so you understand: Current MMX-II motors (1/8A.5-1) are.284Ns with an Average .854sec delay (Quest Cat# 5663 or 5131)
The Older MMX-I motors (1/8A.2-1) are .163Ns with an Average .913 to 1.07sec delay.

I believe it is still possible to order the Old Plastic case MMX-I motors from Quest directly Cat# 5662.

If Memory serves there is a 1/4" thinwall Launch lug out there used to be from Totally Tubular, don't know if they are still available?

Hope this helps a little.

So it sounds like the longer delay let's the rocket get higher? Perhaps a no eject then tumble home get higher yet?

hunterdude said:

So it sounds like the longer delay let's the rocket get higher? Perhaps a no eject then tumble home get higher yet?

Click to expand...

In theory if one could get the throw weight right (Mass/Thrust Ratio) the model "Should" gain considerable altitude after burnout during the coast phase.

That said, such a model would have to be Stable the entire coast phase including very slow airspeeds near apogee eliminating the possiblility of Tumble or Feather weight recovery. The model would Streamline in and LawnDart without question.
To do this intentionally is a violation of the MR Safety code and just plain BAD practice.

As we do not currently have a true -0 booster motor, our MMX-II-NE "booster" does not have an ejection charge but the after delay burnthough event would have enough forward pressure to pop the nosecone on a minimum diamenter model unless glued in place which would make the flight fall FAR short of any kind of altitude mark. Glueing the NC on would cause the model to streamline in violating the MR Safety Code.

Another thing you may want to keep in mind: These tiny models disappear completely above 120feet. Without an ejection, Tracking powder or both not only will you not be able to "See" apogee you will not be able to see or hear the model coming in as well. Could be very Dangerous. Even a Tracing paper model coming in that fast can do damage to the head or shoulders if hit.
Pluging MMX-II or -NE motors with epoxy is also a violation unless your flying and recovering on ONLY your own property.
Without the ability to Track such models, none of the above make any sense and are just not worth the time since you'll have no way of measuring the flight and Will Loose the model(s).

That Old and tired adage: "Think Before you ACT", or in this case Fly become Particularly applicable, Always Fly Safety First no matter what the Thrust level

Yes, I am also trying to avoid lawn darts for the most part...it would be fun to dream up some type of "spoiler flap" similar to those used in nascar that deployed on the way down to prevent lawn darts. The trick is have them locked shut during boost and coast...perhaps use the eject charge to start a wound rubber band escapement that gives the extra coast time need...it is doable in my head but all this extra parts needs to weigh perhaps a single gram or less and that is a problem....you may very well have allready found the upper limits of MMX altitude.
On a side note, the Estes swift lawn darts if built stock, I have found ways to prevent this but a little surprising from the big Estes company.

hunterdude said:

Yes, I am also trying to avoid lawn darts for the most part...it would be fun to dream up some type of "spoiler flap" similar to those used in nascar that deployed on the way down to prevent lawn darts. The trick is have them locked shut during boost and coast...perhaps use the eject charge to start a wound rubber band escapement that gives the extra coast time need...it is doable in my head but all this extra parts needs to weigh perhaps a single gram or less and that is a problem....you may very well have allready found the upper limits of MMX altitude.
On a side note, the Estes swift lawn darts if built stock, I have found ways to prevent this but a little surprising from the big Estes company.

Click to expand...

Yeap:
So does the Quirk and Mosquito: but they are considered "Feather Weight" recovery Not Tumble so they are not considered a recovery problem. That is Unless you are the owner flying on Hard or rocky ground where sticking in the ground damages the finish I alway made/make my "Feather Weight" models return via a rear ejection Streamer/motor pod or at least teathered ejected motor casing to bring them down a little less dawn darting and much slower

Your right; there have been all kinds of alternate deployment schemes dreamed up over MMX history. Alas; all of these items require enlarged airframes, External projections or extra parts all of which cause increased drag and/or extra Mass. Both the Bain of any kind of altitude reaching design. These trade-offs however shouldn't be abandoned, simply need to alter our mission intent by Not worrying so much about the actual altitude instead look for reasonable flight performance with getting the maximum "COOL" factor of making these deployment schemes Work!

I've said from many years (way before Micro-Maxx was even thought of) that Maximum Altitude in model rocketry is almost NEVER the most important aspect by which we should judge a design. Looking for unique and interesting ways to make our models perform and different methods of recovering our models safe and undamaged is way to push the envelope.
I'd say keep looking at you speed break or some sort of internal kick-out tab to de-stabilze the model a ejection or some sort of timer. They will never hit Max Altitude but could still inspirt other flyers and wow some spectatiors
When we can get an "Oh Man now that's KEWL" out of teenagers on the field..that's an accomplishment

Drinking straws can work great too, you can get them regular, large, or jumbo.

RocketryBill said:

Drinking straws can work great too, you can get them regular, large, or jumbo.

Click to expand...

Bill:
Unfortunately most Drinking straws end up being heavier then thin walled launch lugs. If mass isn't a concern then they can work fine. but as our OP is attempting to build ultra-light altitude models they would only add to the altitude limiting problem.

Would it be possible to roll a tiny segment of paper up and cut it so the wall is only a sheet of paper thick?

RocketryBill said:

Would it be possible to roll a tiny segment of paper up and cut it so the wall is only a sheet of paper thick?

Click to expand...

Absoultely:
I fly single layer Tracing vellum PD and SD Micro Maxx competition models often. They are usually much larger diameter then .281" Minimum diameter Altitude models would be but it is more then possilbe to roll Tracing vellum or mylar around a 1/4" dowel to make a 1-3 flight use model.
below are a couple photos of these PD & SD tracing vellum models. some are single taper from BT-5 to Micro Maxx. other are BT-20 or BT-50 to Mciro Maxx double tapers. I've successfully flown just about all of them more then once deploying "reliably" 12 to 16" 1/4mil Mylar compeitition type 12 Shroud Chutes and 1/2mil mylar Steamers up to 3" x 48".

As a side note: in the group photos the little yellow .281 .013" wall standard body tube minimum diameter Chute model with an (8" mylar chute 1st flt & nearly lost, 6" chute 2nd flt) both Tracked and Closed under 2% over 300ft using the older MMX-I (1/8A.2-1) Plastic cased motors with the slightly longer average delay .913-1.07seconds. Today's MMX-II (1/8A.5-1) motors have a slightly shorter average delay @ .854 Seconds which greatly effect the achieved altitude of whatever model is being flown. The current NAR Altitude and 2x Cluster Altitude National C div. Records are pegged at 83m (269ft) solely because of this shorter delay. Which is why I am repeating what was previously posted.
Until we get another way to increase the Coast Phase of our Micro Models these altitude records will likely be very difficult to break.