Newbie ... question on launch rod for Aerotech G-Force

The Rocketry Forum

Help Support The Rocketry Forum:

This site may earn a commission from merchant affiliate links, including eBay, Amazon, and others.
The G53 and G60 RMS motors may not have been out when the package art was designed. I wouldn't worry about it.


[emoji1010] Steve Shannon [emoji1010]
Ok, I won't sweat it. I was negligent and did not look for thrust curves for this model beforehand. I just looked at the online ads from Red Arrow Hobbies, Hobbies Inc, Wildman, and Belleville Wholesale Hobby. Good to know there are these other sources of great motor information.

hobby inc.JPG
 
Yes, it "can" fly on the G53, but it will be unwise to do so if there is any wind or if you build the model heavy. The initial thrust is not as high as the other motors AND the thrust drops and drops and drops through the burn, so the rocket could "fall out of the sky" if it is too heavy and is arcing over in the wind.

With a G80 and little wind and a sturdy pad with a rail, "There's no need to fear"

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Suzanne_Muldowney


Ok, I won't sweat it. I was negligent and did not look for thrust curves for this model beforehand. I just looked at the online ads from Red Arrow Hobbies, Hobbies Inc, Wildman, and Belleville Wholesale Hobby. Good to know there are these other sources of great motor information.

View attachment 296228
 
It's not so much RMS vs. SU as it is how the thrust is delivered over time (the thrust curve :)) for a specific motor. IDK but my guess is that the G53 wasn't available when Aerotech came up with their list. Aerotech doesn't make a G60 that I know of. We have digital tools like ThrustCurve and Openrocket that are very useful aids in picking motors (after a short learning curve). I still find value in using the manufactures recommendations as a starting point for motor selection, keeping in mind the fact that your models weight compared to the catalog weight is a critical factor. I've also found an old school tool I picked up from the defunct Info-Central site to be a useful addition to the motor selection tool box.

https://www.thrustcurve.org/guidepage.jsp

https://openrocket.sourceforge.net/index.html


A nice video tutorial on choosing motors: https://www.jcrocket.com/choosing-motors.shtml

These are interesting links. Based on one table the Aerotech G-53 is an acceptable motor if I can keep the model weight below 38.1 ounces (excluding motor).
g-53.JPG
 
Last edited:
Correct.

Weight is important.


Also, beware improper use of a rail. If there is side wind and the rocket on the rail is aligned such that the wind is twisting the rocket sideways against the rail, it can result in too much friction AND when the rocket leaves the rail, it will suddenly shift direction as it is suddenly free to rotate like a weathervane as it leaves the rail moving fairly slowly.

The rocket on the rail should be "relaxed" when using a motor that has such a low initial thrust.

A motor with a huge initial thrust can overcome the binding force and also get the rocket moving much faster by the time it leaves the rail.

Low thrust is your enemy and can be dangerous if there is wind or the rocket is too heavy or the rod or rail is too short.

Safety is number one. And not crashing your expensive rocket is also a good thing.

These are interesting links. Based on one table the Aerotech G-53 is an acceptable motor if I can keep the model weight below 38.1 ounces (excluding motor).
View attachment 296232
 
As this thread started with a question on a launch rod (Feel like I've had a course in rocketry), I was concerned about the long 97" rail that I just ordered creating extra friction during launch. I did not hear much mention of that issue early on so I relegated that concern (rail friction) to the "insignificant" list (along with a few others). Now I am to wonder: Can a rail be too long?
The G-force did not seem expensive compared to so many other rockets out there. (not the best choice/certainly debatable). I would hate to loose it and certainly would not want to risk injury to person or property. Are the Aerotech RMS re-loadable hollow engine cartridges at risks of damage when parachutes fail to open or things otherwise go awry? I blindly hoped that the re-loadable Aerotech engine was a longer term investment that should last. I understand there is always some risk associated with launching a rocket (not a good match for my personality). Is the re-loadable engine vulnerable? As mentioned, the field next to the house measures 800 feet wide and 1600 feet long. Originally, I thought that a smaller engine would keep it in this small size field.
 
Last edited:
The RMS casing can be damaged if the rocket plummets to earth Bass-Ackwards and hits the motor casing on hard ground (concrete, rocks, asphalt, skull, etc.).

Worst case is loss of casing, but the Aerotech metal motor retainer hook is pretty strong and newer kits have the screw on retainer.

Too long a rail is not a problem as there should be little friction and it will simply slide upwards and go faster and faster with the proper motor. The only reason you would have friction on a rail is if it is oriented wrong in a side wind. you will FEEL that and it will be OBVIOUS. When properly oriented, the rocket will move up and down on the rail effortlessly (beyond the effort to lift the rocket). When improperly oriented, it will be rotated against the rail by the side wind and there will be resistance to movement which you will feel.

Rails are the best and sturdiest launch guide.

A rod will allow a rocket to rotate freely with the wind until it finds a position where it is "happy".

As this thread started with a question on a launch rod (Feel like I've had a crash course), I was concerned about the long 97" rail that I just ordered creating extra friction during launch. I did not hear much mention of that issue early on so I relegated that concern to the "insignificant" list (along with a few others). Now I am to wonder: Can a rail be too long?
The G-force did not seem expensive compared to so many other rockets out there. I would hate to loose it and certainly would not want to risk injury to person or property. Are the Aerotech RMS re-loadable hollow engine cartridges at risks of damage when parachutes fail to open or things otherwise go awry? I blindly hoped that the re-loadable Aerotech engine was a longer term investment that should last. I understand there is always some risk associated with launching a rocket (not a good match for my personality). Is the re-loadable engine vulnerable?
 
They should last a good long while. The G138T loads have a tendency to burn them up, but they require L1 so you shouldn't have to worry about using them. I've crashed rockets directly into the ground nose first at 400+ MPH and the case came out just fine. The rocket, not so much.
 
As this thread started with a question on a launch rod (Feel like I've had a crash course), I was concerned about the long 97" rail that I just ordered creating extra friction during launch. I did not hear much mention of that issue early on so I relegated that concern to the "insignificant" list (along with a few others). Now I am to wonder: Can a rail be too long?
The G-force did not seem expensive compared to so many other rockets out there. (not the best choice/certainly debatable). I would hate to loose it and certainly would not want to risk injury to person or property. Are the Aerotech RMS re-loadable hollow engine cartridges at risks of damage when parachutes fail to open or things otherwise go awry? I blindly hoped that the re-loadable Aerotech engine was a longer term investment that should last. I understand there is always some risk associated with launching a rocket (not a good match for my personality). Is the re-loadable engine vulnerable?

An 8' rail is usually long enough in most cases, and longer probably isn't necessary for MPR ( our club uses mostly 6' 1010 rails). As has been noted earlier faster accelerating rockets can get away with 4' rails.
 
As this thread started with a question on a launch rod (Feel like I've had a course in rocketry), ...

You learn pretty quickly that TRFers like to go hard and science the s__ outta everything. :) I mean shread, for one, has been flyin' model rockets since the Chinese invented fire arrows ! :wink:
 
I have a G-Force, and it is one of my favorite rockets. In terms of its size, it's probably about the biggest rocket you can fly on motors that do not require a high-power certification. I have loved flying mine at low-power club launches, because it is almost always the biggest and most dramatic thing on the field, and it keeps to a low altitude while flying on G motors. It flies great on single-use Aerotech motors that are close to 80N average thrust --- G80 Blue
Thunder, G79 White, G78 Green, G77 Red. I don't fly Aeortech reloadable motors, but there are probably many options for you in this range. However, if you are just getting started, you might want to consider the single-use motors, just to keep things simple.

I have flown the rocket on lower thrusting motors such as the G40, and I can't really recommend it --- unless you have a lot of room, a very long rail, and there is no wind. It's an interesting, but risky, flight. On the one hand, the flights are slow and majestic, which is really nice. On the other hand, if there is any wind at all, they tend to arc over and go "Cruise Missile", which is harrowing and potentially dangerous!

The real danger of flying on a small field is not so much having the rocket float away on the parachute and get lost. You don't want to lose a rocket that way, but it's not terribly dangerous either. The real danger is having the rocket fly out of the field under power and crash into something (a house, a car, a person's head) without the parachute ever coming out! You want the rocket to go straight up, but not very high.

If you are flying on a small field, the natural tendency is to look for "smaller" motors to keep the elevation down. But the key to making that work is understanding what "smaller" should mean in this case. What you want is a smaller total impulse, not a smaller thrust. A G40 has less thrust than a G80, but the total impulse is about the same (not exactly, but not far off). That means that the G40 is much less likely to fly straight up, because the thrust is low, and the rocket is not as likely to be up to speed at the end of the rod or rail. It's more likely to arc over and fly a long ways away from the pad under power. However, if it does happen to go straight up, it still has nearly as much total impulse as the G80, so it is likely to go almost as high and have about the same chance of drifting out of the field on it's parachute as a flight on the G80. Basically, you gain nothing with the lower thrust, and you add risk.

What you want for small fields is a motor with a high thrust, but a very short burn, and a low total impulse. It might not be the kind of flight you prefer in terms of a slow, majestic liftoff, but it's safer and more reliable. Aerotech sells a single-use G74 motor that is just barely a G, close to a large F, but has a good amount of thrust. My sims for my G-Force show it getting off the rod with more speed than all the other G motors I listed above, except for the G80. But it reaches the lowest altitude. That's probably a good motor for your purposes. The F50 also gets off the rod pretty fast and only goes to around 300 feet! I've never flown mine on an F, so I can't really say what that would be like. It's such a low flight, that even the 4 second delay might be a bit long, but it might work for you. I'm not personally a fan of F50 motors, because they don't make enough smoke and visible flame for my tastes, but some people love them.

(I've made a screenshot of these sims, but I need to update something on my computer before I can post it)

Regarding the rod/rail question, I have both rail guides and the stock launch lugs for a rod on my G-Force. I put them on different sides so I would have a choice. I've only ever flown it on a rail, because I've only flown it at club launches where rails were available, and the rail seemed like a better choice. Considering how large it is, I'd lean heavily toward the rail option. I have a Rockwell Jawstand, and it makes a great launch base. I've set up mine to use a rod, but a rail would be very easy to set up as well. The legs have holes in the feet so you can stake it down with tent pegs if you want a very sturdy base. You can raise and lower the height, so it is very easy to hook up igniters while standing. And the fact that you can angle the rod or rail down to load the rocket is super convenient. It's probably the best launch stand I've ever seen outside of a club launch, and i got mine for 30 bucks, so it's very affordable. It is also a great rocket-making too as well --- I use mine to hold my rockets horizontal for painting. Stick a broomstick in the jaws and slide the bird onto it --- perfect!

Good luck, and enjoy the rocket!
 
Does the Rock Sim simulator specify a minimum rod length for the Aerotech G-Force on a G53 motor?
https://www.rocketreviews.com/unknown-aerotech-g-force.html

I don't personally have RockSim, so I'm not sure if it has that feature. I use Open Rocket, which is a free simulation program. BTW, Open Rocket can load Rocksim files, so if you download Open Rocket, and you download that RockSim file, you should be able to open it, and then you can run all your own sims with different motors and different rod lengths. I believe my simulations assume a 96" rail, which is what my club uses. My G-Force rocket file has an override for weight, because I have a ton of paint and other bling on this rocket --- mine weighs 45 oz without the motor. I added a sim for a G53FJ motor, and it launches off the rail at 50 Feet per second, and reaches an apogee of 474 feet. These numbers look good to me, and I would probably be OK flying my own rocket on that motor on a 96" rail. The numbers would be different for a different length rail and a different mass rocket.
 
What Rocksim does is tell you the distance at which a minimum safe speed for stability is achieved. From that, you can directly infer minimum guide length. For the G53 - and a near stock weight - it says 56.2". But if the mass is increased to something like Eric's 45oz, then that stretches out to 76". Like I said yesterday, mass is important.
 
It was obviously a bad idea in hindsight, but back before the internet could show me how other folks were doing stuff, I flew my G-Force five times successfully from a 48" steel rod shoved into a plank of wood. It always leapt off the pad with no wobble or deviation from straight up, but I erred in judgement of the winds at altitude on it's final flight, and the trees got it for a second time, only too high and too far to go chainsawing it to the ground.
The three most successful flights, I was able to land it in a field about 100 yards away that had an area of about a 50 yard circle that I had to hit.
I had built the pad for a shorter scratch built 29mm, but that one caught winds on it's 5th flight too, leading me to inquire if any kits could be had in 29mm.
I only knew the hobby shop guy could get the motors, and since the instructions with the motor showed the thrust curve, a scratch build was no problem.

 
The composition of the photo tells the story beautifully.
 
Last edited:
(quote removed to save space)

Good luck, and enjoy the rocket!

Huge +1 to all Thirsty's advice here-he's flown a ton of flights on his G-force! I'll just chime in to mention I've flown my G-force (mostly stock build, just no baffle and no engine hook and an Estes motor retainer so it can fly H and I motors too) on an F50-4 once in no wind, and it flew pretty well. I didn't have an altimeter but it went around 200-300', flew off a ~5.5 foot rail and the 4 second delay was spot on.

Underdog, the stand you mentioned looks plenty strong to bolt a rail or rod to. If you decide to get a Jaw Stand, it works great with a rail-just clamp the bottom foot of a rail into the clamp on the stand, add a blast deflector, and good to go. This one has a wooden block on the rail to get an extra ~6" of usable length, but a 6'-8' rail clamped in place does just fine:
P1100336.jpg

Here's a shot of two G-forces (mine and Thirsty's) leaving the rail in a drag race on Aerotech motors-I think he had a SU (which stands for single use) G79 and I had a G64 (very similar, and fits that 29/40-120 motor case). The G-force may have some minor faults (as have already been mentioned) but it's still an excellent flyer and very majestic in the air!
CIMG3387.jpg
 
Do forum members use this NAR table when assessing field size? The field under consideration is 800 by 1600. (hot air balloons frequently launch here in summer) Anything further and I get into trees and eventually homes. The table does not appear to consider estimated altitude only motor size and total impulse. I was planning to schedule the launch early dawn on a windless summer morning and try to stay below 600 feet. If the larger field is needed (abandoned air field) I will have to wait until fall (when neighbor's crop is harvested) Windless days are pretty rare in the fall in New England.
If not the table how do you determine if a field size is large enough?
field size.JPG
 
Last edited:
I'd say you're good up to G with the right pad placement regarding wind/drift direction. Wind isn't a killer. We'll fly in up to 20 MPH. I prefer under ten. I'd rather have some wind to be honest, so I can predict where it's going to fly/land. Windless is kind of a toss up, and you hit more thermals on the way down (in my experience)

I think the best thing to do at this point is to try it and see what happens ;)
 
My G-Force weighs 38 oz. with tubular nylon shock cord [10ft]. I replaced the stretchy stuff when it got old.

When I built mine, I left off the motor hook & block. This was so I could fly longer motors, should I desire to do so. The motor block & hook would prevent this. Occasionally I do fly it on H motor. It goes around 1100ft with a H-165. Perfect should you ever desire to get a L-1 certification.

Anyhow my go to motor is the G-64-4 [4 second delay] It flies perfect on this motor & deploys right at he top every time. Plenty of thrust, noise & smoke. I can launch mine off rails or 6ft 1/4in rods. I just both lugs and rail buttons on mine

G-64's can be shipped non -hazmat. It flies to around 450-550 ft in mine. The oldest, most beat up, most repaired rocket I have......but still flying!

Here is non has ship motor list for you & some pics of mine on a G-64.

View attachment 296454 G_Force_2.jpg G_Force_3_2.jpg

G_Force.jpg
 
The table is the minimum and it is set up as a guide for those who are complete beginners and also for reference by officials involved with issuing permits for sites.

As i stated, it is a minimum assuming everything is PERFECT: zero wind and launch perfectly straight up.

If you have windy conditions, you will need to use your brain and fly lower power or lower altitude to avoid rockets arcing over/weathercocking and possibly ballistically impacting outside your launch site.

Do forum members use this NAR table when assessing field size? The field under consideration is 800 by 1600. (hot air balloons frequently launch here in summer) Anything further and I get into trees and eventually homes. The table does not appear to consider estimated altitude only motor size and total impulse. I was planning to schedule the launch early dawn on a windless summer morning and try to stay below 600 feet. If the larger field is needed (abandoned air field) I will have to wait until fall (when neighbor's crop is harvested) Windless days are pretty rare in the fall in New England.
If not the table how do you determine if a field size is large enough?
View attachment 296449
 
One thing I have heard of happening with the G-Force is that the ejection charge included with the motors can be a little insufficient for good deployment, leading to crash landings, so a bit of extra black powder needs to be added.

Can some of you guys with G-Forces confirm this?
 
In this launch with a G-38, does the Rocket appear to turn and start flying sideways before the ejection charge. Is this normal under windy conditions?
[video=youtube;pAlpgMOin6w]https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=pAlpgMOin6w[/video]
 
In this launch with a G-38, does the Rocket appear to turn and start flying sideways before the ejection charge. Is this normal under windy conditions?
[video=youtube;pAlpgMOin6w]https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=pAlpgMOin6w[/video]


In windy conditions and with lower velocities the rocket will turn into the wind, and the rocket may indeed be in horizontal flight or arced over and accelerating (and accelerating again) well before the ejection charge fires due to weathercocking. Experience flying the rocket will tell you when its A) Too Windy, B) to use a shorter delay C) Use a more powerful motor (wind and field permitting of course).
 
...
[video=youtube;pAlpgMOin6w]https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=pAlpgMOin6w[/video]

In windy conditions and with lower velocities the rocket will turn into the wind, and the rocket may indeed be in horizontal flight or arced over and accelerating (and accelerating again) well before the ejection charge fires due to weathercocking. Experience flying the rocket will tell you when its A) Too Windy, B) to use a shorter delay C) Use a more powerful motor (wind and field permitting of course).

But... it was hard for me to tell if any of that happened on that particular flight based on the video. I would have used a longer launch rod than they had though. :) It appears that ejection occurred a little past apogee but not abnormally so. Without knowing the wind speed that day and seeing some ground-based video I couldn't guess much more.
 
Last edited:
In this launch with a G-38, does the Rocket appear to turn and start flying sideways before the ejection charge. Is this normal under windy conditions?
[video=youtube;pAlpgMOin6w]https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=pAlpgMOin6w[/video]

That did not look like a particularly bad flight to me. If you watch during the boost phase (when there is a lot of black smoke) the rocket is going close the straight up. After burnout, the rocket coasts upward and starts to arc over. That's normal. The ejection does not seem to be that much after apogee, and the rocket is not going terribly fast at deployment.

What you really want to avoid is having the rocket flying at an angle or weathercocking into the wind during the boost. It can go a long way down range under power and pick up a lot of horizontal speed that is not going to slow down significantly after burnout, and the rocket is not going to go as high, so the normal delay for a straight-up flight will be too long. Those two things together mean the rocket will be low and moving very fast when the ejection occurs. It could crash before the chute comes out, or it could be damaged when the chute deploys at high speed.

The risk of that happening is greater with a low-thrust motor like the G38, but this flight looked ok to me.
 
I downloaded the "open rocket" software and found the G-force RockSim file at the Apogee web site. I loaded in the Aerotech G-53 in "open rocket" and I'm trying to figure out what the charts are telling me.
I'm reading this graph to mean:
1) The motor continues to fire until the rocket reaches 150 feet
2) the rocket continues to accelerate until it reaches 275 feet
3) the max altitude for the rocket is 375 feet
Is this correct?
g-force open rocket.JPG
 
Last edited:
it is saying that; burnout occurs at roughly 125', the rocket hits a max speed of 140 feet per second, and an alt of 375'. the 150' mark is max accel of 150 foot^2 while leaving the launch pad.
Rex
 
Back
Top