Heavy payload

Curios what the heaviest payloads you guys have launched using only low powered motors and how did you accomplish the launch?

Bowling ball.

cwbullet said:

Bowling ball.

Click to expand...

mbecks said:

and how did you accomplish the launch?

Click to expand...

EMWTK

Someone told me that the Aerotech I600 was made for the bowling ball launch competitions?

mpitfield said:

Someone told me that the Aerotech I600 was made for the bowling ball launch competitions?

Click to expand...

So was the H999.
The original poster asked about low power. Check out NAR dual eggloft competition. https://www.nar.org/contest-flying/competition-guide/altitude-events/eggloft/

Sorry, I missed the word low power. Then my answer is a egg.

Lol when you said bowling ball I was still imagining with low power and was about to praise you as rocket king. I'm doing an egg right now but next want to try a 1lb weight. I thing 3 D motors for take off and one song D for second stage. Think that will work?

mbecks said:

I'm doing an egg right now but next want to try a 1lb weight. I thing 3 D motors for take off and one song D for second stage. Think that will work?

Click to expand...

Are you using rocket design/flight simulation software like RocSim or OpenRocket?

You usually don't gain a lot of lifting power by clustering black powder motors. The added weight of the extra motors, motor mounts, tubes, etc. tends to impact the performance of the rocket more than just using a more powerful motor. For example, a D12 would probably do a better job than two C6 clustered motors. Plus, all of the extra weight will impact the CG of the rocket, although, in your case you are lifting a payload so that helps with the CG. You would really want to streamline a rocket with three D12s if you really want to try it. I would skip the second stage, at least for the first attempt.

astronwolf had a good suggestion, look at one of the simulation programs to test your idea before you build anything.

Thanks for the great info. I really like the idea of more challenging rockets. I'll deffinetly try bigger low powered rockets or even composite rockets. I probably won't run simulations because I enjoy learning through my failures and trying to puzzle together what I did wrong.

mbecks said:

Thanks for the great info. I really like the idea of more challenging rockets. I'll deffinetly try bigger low powered rockets or even composite rockets. I probably won't run simulations because I enjoy learning through my failures and trying to puzzle together what I did wrong.

Click to expand...

Simulations or just doing the math help eliminate the unintended consequences of trial and error flight testing. Be smart, lean what you can expect of your models before you fly them. Our hobby is always a single mishap or accident away from outlawed so the things YOU do effect everyone else in the hobby. Always think SAFETY first before you build and fly anything.

As stated in another thread a 16oz payload in any model rocket (up to 1500g -3.3lbs) is simply absurd, don't do it.

Micromeister said:

Simulations or just doing the math help eliminate the unintended consequences of trial and error flight testing. Be smart, lean what you can expect of your models before you fly them. Our hobby is always a single mishap or accident away from outlawed so the things YOU do effect everyone else in the hobby. Always think SAFETY first before you build and fly anything.

As stated in another thread a 16oz payload in any model rocket (up to 1500g -3.3lbs) is simply absurd, don't do it.

Click to expand...

Prime example... It was just announced last night that model rocketry was dealt its first fatal, on-field, accident when a Boy Scout leader was struck and killed by a falling rocket. At this time details are still sketchy, but there could be untold damages to a hobby that has, up til now, been free of such fatalities. Simulations can reduce the chances of these kinds of incidents. Millions of rockets have been safely launched since the hobby started, but this single incident could do more harm to the hobby in ways we can only imagine.

That is truly unfortunate.

K'Tesh said:

Prime example... It was just announced last night that model rocketry was dealt its first fatal, on-field, accident when a Boy Scout leader was struck and killed by a falling rocket. At this time details are still sketchy, but there could be untold damages to a hobby that has, up til now, been free of such fatalities. Simulations can reduce the chances of these kinds of incidents. Millions of rockets have been safely launched since the hobby started, but this single incident could do more harm to the hobby in ways we can only imagine.

Click to expand...

First of all, let me add my sincere condolences to the family that lost a loved one.

Without minimizing what has happened in any way, this very tragic accident will not be the end of the model rocket hobby.

My primary hobby is radio controlled model aircraft. Since about the 1970's, there have been about 7 known US fatalities from model aircraft. There have also been approximately another 7 fatalities around the world.

These equally tragic deaths have not caused the end of the radio control aircraft hobby. The insurance carriers did not desert the hobby. The radio control aircraft hobby did not suffer any noticeable harm.

This is not to say we should not do all possible to continue to improve safety in every aspect of model rocketry. We can and must do that.

It is much too soon to panic about the future of our rocketry hobby based on possible consequences from a sole tragic accident.

Perfectly put!

mpitfield said:

Someone told me that the Aerotech I600 was made for the bowling ball launch competitions?

Click to expand...

I could be wrong but kind of doubt it. The H999, though, definitely is.