Help Support RocketryForum by donating using the link above or becoming a Supporting Member.


Page 1 of 3 1 2 3 LastLast
Results 1 to 30 of 65

Thread: Smallest rocket

  1. #1
    Join Date
    30th October 2016
    Posts
    69

    Smallest rocket

    What's the smallest sized rocket you can launch with a MicroMaxx?


  2. #2
    Join Date
    25th October 2016
    Location
    Texas, United States
    Posts
    1,697
    Max casing with paper cone glued on tip, fins and lug glued on sides.


  3. #3
    Join Date
    18th January 2009
    Location
    Maryland
    Posts
    11,662
    Or leave off the cone...
    Dick Stafford
    The member formerly known as the Pointy-Haired Moderator.
    The Original Rocket Dungeon
    Volunteer compiler of product news for ROCKETS Magazine

  4. #4
    Join Date
    6th March 2010
    Location
    Amesbury, MA
    Posts
    1,997
    The Big Honkin' Rocket by Fliskits is probably the smallest commercially available rocket to use the MMX motors. They're sold with materials to make three rockets in each bag as you're likely to lose one of them "behind a blade of grass".
    KENN BLADE
    NAR #80160
    CMASS President
    MMMSC Ambassador-at-Large
    NAR S&T Member

  5. #5
    Join Date
    18th January 2009
    Location
    Maryland
    Posts
    11,662
    I managed to lose a BiC pen rocket and that's not all that small for MMX. Despite a half dozen sets of eyes nobody saw where it went. A translucent tube didn't help.
    Dick Stafford
    The member formerly known as the Pointy-Haired Moderator.
    The Original Rocket Dungeon
    Volunteer compiler of product news for ROCKETS Magazine

  6. #6
    Join Date
    25th October 2016
    Location
    Texas, United States
    Posts
    1,697
    Quote Originally Posted by rstaff3 View Post
    Or leave off the cone...
    Fins can be smaller with each the aerodynamic cone. Leave off the lug, launch from between a few skewers in the dirt.

  7. #7
    Join Date
    1st February 2012
    Location
    Texas
    Posts
    2,219
    How about a minimum diameter rocket in a 0.281" (T2.5) tube?

    Click image for larger version. 

Name:	IMG_1409.jpg 
Views:	250 
Size:	53.0 KB 
ID:	305502
    http://www.macklinmissileworks.com/

    Making Guillotines Great Again

  8. #8
    Join Date
    18th January 2009
    Location
    Maryland
    Posts
    11,662
    Quote Originally Posted by Incongruent View Post
    Fins can be smaller with each the aerodynamic cone. Leave off the lug, launch from between a few skewers in the dirt.
    Possibly. Someone please go an experiment.
    Dick Stafford
    The member formerly known as the Pointy-Haired Moderator.
    The Original Rocket Dungeon
    Volunteer compiler of product news for ROCKETS Magazine

  9. #9
    Join Date
    18th January 2009
    Location
    Maryland
    Posts
    11,662
    Quote Originally Posted by tmacklin View Post
    How about a minimum diameter rocket in a 0.281" (T2.5) tube?

    Click image for larger version. 

Name:	IMG_1409.jpg 
Views:	250 
Size:	53.0 KB 
ID:	305502
    Another single use rocket.
    Dick Stafford
    The member formerly known as the Pointy-Haired Moderator.
    The Original Rocket Dungeon
    Volunteer compiler of product news for ROCKETS Magazine

  10. #10
    Join Date
    9th August 2013
    Location
    Vermont
    Posts
    9,918
    I have a micro mosquito that is md+.
    Ph'nglui mglw'nafh Cthulhu R'lyeh wgah'nagl fhtagn

  11. #11
    Join Date
    19th January 2009
    Location
    Washington D.C.
    Posts
    14,992
    One of the Smallest Micro Maxx models in my fleet are called "the Nano-Dot which was inspired by Jim Flis model called the Micro-Dot that flys on a 13mm motor where the Nano-Dot #345- flying on a MMX-II.

    The "Rocket" consists of 2- 3/32" wide T2+ rings. a custom turned styrofoam nosecone and 3- folded 110lb Cardstock fins. Overall length is 1.609", .9375 Fin Span, empty weight .8g
    LOWt- 1.9g. I've flown 9 of the orignial 12 Nano-Dots I mass built in 2008. All nine flown at well attended Narhams Club launches with as many as 30 sets of eyes watching each launch. I have yet to recover a single one LOL! when the button is pressed this little bugger teleports completely out of sight. Not one person on the field even saw the smoke trail...a very faint pop at ejection but No-one saw a thing. It is a neat little model. If any of you want to build a Nano-Dot the 1-Page Plan is attached below.

    I also have a number of other Micro small rockets. #308 Teeny Weeny Crayon @ 2.3125" long. #311- MM No See-em a tiny 4 fin 2.0" long. #312 MM 3x downscale ThumbTack Odd-Roc which is actually the smallest .281" x .5625" long with a disc diameter of 1.1875". The there is #334- 1-1/2" long by 1-1/2" Diameter Micro Spool Daz. All the other small micro model have been flown on MMX-II motors many times and recovered. The Nano-dot is the only one the simply disapears.
    Hope one or some of these answer the original question
    Attached Thumbnails Attached Thumbnails Click image for larger version. 

Name:	MM 308a1-sm_TeenyWeeny Crayon 2.3125in_07-06-05.jpg 
Views:	0 
Size:	95.8 KB 
ID:	305521   Click image for larger version. 

Name:	MM 311p1-sm_MM No-See Em - 2in tall_08-13-05.jpg 
Views:	0 
Size:	80.2 KB 
ID:	305522   Click image for larger version. 

Name:	MM 312p1e-sm_MM 3X ThumbTack Odd-roc 4pic pg 96dpi_08-14-05.jpg 
Views:	82 
Size:	95.9 KB 
ID:	305523   Click image for larger version. 

Name:	MM 334a1-sm_MM 1.5in Spool DAZ! Lexan discOdd-Roc_08-31-07.jpg 
Views:	0 
Size:	95.5 KB 
ID:	305524   Click image for larger version. 

Name:	MM 334a2-sm_1.5in dia micro Spool Daz OddRoc_08-31-07.JPG 
Views:	76 
Size:	99.3 KB 
ID:	305525  

    Click image for larger version. 

Name:	MM 345-sm_Nano-Dot_06-29-08.jpg 
Views:	0 
Size:	97.4 KB 
ID:	305526   Click image for larger version. 

Name:	MM 345b-sm_Nano-Dot Plan_06-18-08.jpg 
Views:	106 
Size:	95.3 KB 
ID:	305527  
    Last edited by Micromeister; 18th November 2016 at 02:17 AM.
    Keep em Flyin Micronzied
    John
    Mrcluster/Micromeister
    Nar-15731
    Co-moderator MicroMaxRockets yahoo group.
    http://groups.yahoo.com/group/MicroMaxRockets/
    Narhams Section 139 - ROMCC

  12. #12
    Join Date
    19th January 2009
    Location
    Washington D.C.
    Posts
    14,992
    Quote Originally Posted by Incongruent View Post
    Max casing with paper cone glued on tip, fins and lug glued on sides.
    Incongruent: it is a violation of our model rocket safety code to Glue anything to any model rocket motor. it is considered altering the intended use of the manufacturer.
    there are any number of ways to work around actually glueing or otherwise attaching things to our motors.
    Safety First Always.
    Keep em Flyin Micronzied
    John
    Mrcluster/Micromeister
    Nar-15731
    Co-moderator MicroMaxRockets yahoo group.
    http://groups.yahoo.com/group/MicroMaxRockets/
    Narhams Section 139 - ROMCC

  13. #13
    Join Date
    13th June 2014
    Location
    Cocoa Beach, FL
    Posts
    3,550
    Quote Originally Posted by Micromeister View Post
    Incongruent: it is a violation of our model rocket safety code to Glue anything to any model rocket motor. it is considered altering the intended use of the manufacturer.
    there are any number of ways to work around actually glueing or otherwise attaching things to our motors.
    Safety First Always.
    Not sure about that. Think they call it EX. There's a post here somewhere where someone did exactly that. It was quite impressive.
    Tim
    L3 NAR 98225

  14. #14
    Join Date
    18th January 2009
    Location
    Maryland
    Posts
    11,662
    Quote Originally Posted by Micromeister View Post
    Incongruent: it is a violation of our model rocket safety code to Glue anything to any model rocket motor. it is considered altering the intended use of the manufacturer.
    there are any number of ways to work around actually glueing or otherwise attaching things to our motors.
    Safety First Always.
    I'm not sure that is true always. NAR ruled that thrust rings can be bonded on.
    Dick Stafford
    The member formerly known as the Pointy-Haired Moderator.
    The Original Rocket Dungeon
    Volunteer compiler of product news for ROCKETS Magazine

  15. #15
    Join Date
    18th January 2009
    Location
    Maryland
    Posts
    11,662
    Quote Originally Posted by timbucktoo View Post
    Not sure about that. Think they call it EX. There's a post here somewhere where someone did exactly that. It was quite impressive.
    It's not EX. Yes it has been done. NAR is pickier than TRA. People have also made rear closures that hold the fins. Now that is research, man.
    Dick Stafford
    The member formerly known as the Pointy-Haired Moderator.
    The Original Rocket Dungeon
    Volunteer compiler of product news for ROCKETS Magazine

  16. #16
    Join Date
    19th January 2009
    Location
    Washington D.C.
    Posts
    14,992
    Quote Originally Posted by rstaff3 View Post
    I'm not sure that is true always. NAR ruled that thrust rings can be bonded on.
    Dick: I realize you fly with MDRA which is a much looser flying group the the NAR.
    That Said: We're not talking about a thrust ring.. The young man was talking about glueing on the Nosecone and fins directly to the motor casing... That Sir is a NO NO direct violation of our Safety code. While it may be an NAR Safety Code we are talking about LPR actually Micro BP motor and as stated in the earlier post it is a violation of that safety code to attach or add ANYTHING to a Model Rocket motor casing.
    IT is not safe, it is not smart and it also makes the rocket a Throw-Away one time rocket which is another safety code violation. As our Rockets are intended to be flown, Recovered and flown again.
    Lets not confuse people with the somewhat Cowboy additudes of the HPR -Tripoli crowd.
    This has Nothing to do with EX which is yet another Fringe faction of our hobby which is Much more regluated than we are and I for one would like to keep it that way.
    Hopping off my broken soap box.
    Keep em Flyin Micronzied
    John
    Mrcluster/Micromeister
    Nar-15731
    Co-moderator MicroMaxRockets yahoo group.
    http://groups.yahoo.com/group/MicroMaxRockets/
    Narhams Section 139 - ROMCC

  17. #17
    Join Date
    18th January 2009
    Location
    Maryland
    Posts
    11,662
    Quote Originally Posted by Micromeister View Post
    Dick: I realize you fly with MDRA which is a much looser flying group the the NAR.
    That Said: We're not talking about a thrust ring.. The young man was talking about glueing on the Nosecone and fins directly to the motor casing... That Sir is a NO NO direct violation of our Safety code. While it may be an NAR Safety Code we are talking about LPR actually Micro BP motor and as stated in the earlier post it is a violation of that safety code to attach or add ANYTHING to a Model Rocket motor casing.
    IT is not safe, it is not smart and it also makes the rocket a Throw-Away one time rocket which is another safety code violation. As our Rockets are intended to be flown, Recovered and flown again.
    Lets not confuse people with the somewhat Cowboy additudes of the HPR -Tripoli crowd.
    This has Nothing to do with EX which is yet another Fringe faction of our hobby which is Much more regluated than we are and I for one would like to keep it that way.
    Hopping off my broken soap box.
    Well, I confused two things. You can glue on a thrust ring. What is really a no-no is the no recovery bit, which eluded me the first time. I won't pose any hypotheticals to disturb any soap box

    Oh yeah, fin units that replace a reloadable's rear closure is EX (actually 'research' now) by TRA rules, and that safety code would apply. But that's not here or there as since MMX is low power.
    Dick Stafford
    The member formerly known as the Pointy-Haired Moderator.
    The Original Rocket Dungeon
    Volunteer compiler of product news for ROCKETS Magazine

  18. #18
    Join Date
    25th October 2016
    Location
    Texas, United States
    Posts
    1,697
    Quote Originally Posted by Micromeister View Post
    Incongruent: it is a violation of our model rocket safety code to Glue anything to any model rocket motor. it is considered altering the intended use of the manufacturer.
    there are any number of ways to work around actually glueing or otherwise attaching things to our motors.
    Safety First Always.
    Unless it's an FSI Mach Buster.
    ​Tony

    It's so nice to have integrity, I'll tell you why:
    If you really integrity, it means your price is very high!

    ~ Tom Lehrer

  19. #19
    Join Date
    19th January 2009
    Location
    Washington D.C.
    Posts
    14,992
    Quote Originally Posted by Incongruent View Post
    Unless it's an FSI Mach Buster.
    Tony: There are NO exceptions to the model rocket safety code Period. Further there is absolutely no reason to do such an unsafe act.
    As mentioned earlier there are many ways to accomplish the same thing without violating the code. One simply has to think outside the box but stay within the rules of our Safety Code. This Code is why we are able to fly model rockets without a lot of government regulations and restrictions. It as been in existance since the very begining of the hobby and why we can still say we are the #1 safest outdoor sport or hobby on the planet. Lets keep it that way.

    Let me sight an example from the mid 1970's:
    Many of the then active BTC's in NAR competition wanted to get a wavier on the ruling about attaching or altering any model rocket motor. Many (Myself included) wanted to drill a 1/16" or smaller hole about 1/8" below the forward end of the empty cardboard motor casing to allow the inserting of a music wire motor retention wire extending through the model body & motor casing making a light weight positive motor retention method.
    This requrest was soundly denied by the NAR safety committee, sighting the NO attachment or Alteration of any model rocket motor beyond the manufacturers initial intended use. We argued that these two small holes in the empty casing section of the motor would in no way alter the performance or "Intended use" of the motor by the manufacture. This was also rejected as both motor manufactures at the time Estes and Centuri would not sign off the the suggestion.
    While those small holes seemed to everyone involved to NOT alter the motor in any real way, The powers that be stressed: If the motor manufacturer's wanted a hole drill or punched in any part of their motor casings they would have to be done in the manufacturing process not as an after thougth by the hobbiest.
    Our best thoughts & theories will never cover the unintended consequences as completely or accurately as the manufactueres risk assessments.
    Last edited by Micromeister; 18th November 2016 at 04:06 PM.
    Keep em Flyin Micronzied
    John
    Mrcluster/Micromeister
    Nar-15731
    Co-moderator MicroMaxRockets yahoo group.
    http://groups.yahoo.com/group/MicroMaxRockets/
    Narhams Section 139 - ROMCC

  20. #20
    Join Date
    5th April 2014
    Posts
    20
    They dont make them like they used to
    Click image for larger version. 

Name:	FSI Mach 1.jpg 
Views:	111 
Size:	186.6 KB 
ID:	305559

  21. #21
    Join Date
    25th October 2016
    Location
    Texas, United States
    Posts
    1,697
    Quote Originally Posted by Micromeister View Post
    Tony: There are NO exceptions to the model rocket safety code Period. Further there is absolutely no reason to do such an unsafe act.
    As mentioned earlier there are many ways to accomplish the same thing without violating the code. One simply has to think outside the box but stay within the rules of our Safety Code. This Code is why we are able to fly model rockets without a lot of government regulations and restrictions. It as been in existance since the very begining of the hobby and why we can still say we are the #1 safest outdoor sport or hobby on the planet. Lets keep it that way.

    Let me sight an example from the mid 1970's:
    Many of the then active BTC's in NAR competition wanted to get a wavier on the ruling about attaching or altering any model rocket motor. Many (Myself included) wanted to drill a 1/16" or smaller hole about 1/8" below the forward end of the empty cardboard motor casing to allow the inserting of a music wire motor retention wire extending through the model body & motor casing making a light weight positive motor retention method.
    This requrest was soundly denied by the NAR safety committee, sighting the NO attachment or Alteration of any model rocket motor beyond the manufacturers initial intended use. We argued that these two small holes in the empty casing section of the motor would in no way alter the performance or "Intended use" of the motor by the manufacture. This was also rejected as both motor manufactures at the time Estes and Centuri would not sign off the the suggestion.
    While those small holes seemed to everyone involved to NOT alter the motor in any real way, The powers that be stressed: If the motor manufacturer's wanted a hole drill or punched in any part of their motor casings they would have to be done in the manufacturing process not as an after thougth by the hobbiest.
    Our best thoughts & theories will never cover the unintended consequences as completely or accurately as the manufactueres risk assessments.
    My point was that FSI intended the motor to have fins attached to it.

    My beginning post was referring to the smallest possible rocket using the MMX engines, not the necessarily smallest legal one. The reduction in diameter contributed to it being the smallest. I was under the impression that the OP was asking a theoretical question rather than a practical one, but I could very likely be wrong.

  22. #22
    Join Date
    18th January 2009
    Location
    Maryland
    Posts
    11,662
    Quote Originally Posted by Micromeister View Post
    Tony: There are NO exceptions to the model rocket safety code Period. Further there is absolutely no reason to do such an unsafe act.
    As mentioned earlier there are many ways to accomplish the same thing without violating the code. One simply has to think outside the box but stay within the rules of our Safety Code. This Code is why we are able to fly model rockets without a lot of government regulations and restrictions. It as been in existance since the very begining of the hobby and why we can still say we are the #1 safest outdoor sport or hobby on the planet. Lets keep it that way.

    Let me sight an example from the mid 1970's:
    Many of the then active BTC's in NAR competition wanted to get a wavier on the ruling about attaching or altering any model rocket motor. Many (Myself included) wanted to drill a 1/16" or smaller hole about 1/8" below the forward end of the empty cardboard motor casing to allow the inserting of a music wire motor retention wire extending through the model body & motor casing making a light weight positive motor retention method.
    This requrest was soundly denied by the NAR safety committee, sighting the NO attachment or Alteration of any model rocket motor beyond the manufacturers initial intended use. We argued that these two small holes in the empty casing section of the motor would in no way alter the performance or "Intended use" of the motor by the manufacture. This was also rejected as both motor manufactures at the time Estes and Centuri would not sign off the the suggestion.
    While those small holes seemed to everyone involved to NOT alter the motor in any real way, The powers that be stressed: If the motor manufacturer's wanted a hole drill or punched in any part of their motor casings they would have to be done in the manufacturing process not as an after thougth by the hobbiest.
    Our best thoughts & theories will never cover the unintended consequences as completely or accurately as the manufactueres risk assessments.
    Has NAR rescinded their ruling on glued on thrust rings?
    Dick Stafford
    The member formerly known as the Pointy-Haired Moderator.
    The Original Rocket Dungeon
    Volunteer compiler of product news for ROCKETS Magazine

  23. #23
    Join Date
    18th January 2009
    Location
    Maryland
    Posts
    11,662
    Quote Originally Posted by Incongruent View Post
    My point was that FSI intended the motor to have fins attached to it.

    My beginning post was referring to the smallest possible rocket using the MMX engines, not the necessarily smallest legal one. The reduction in diameter contributed to it being the smallest. I was under the impression that the OP was asking a theoretical question rather than a practical one, but I could very likely be wrong.
    I was taking it as theoretical too.
    Dick Stafford
    The member formerly known as the Pointy-Haired Moderator.
    The Original Rocket Dungeon
    Volunteer compiler of product news for ROCKETS Magazine

  24. #24
    Join Date
    19th January 2009
    Location
    Washington D.C.
    Posts
    14,992
    Quote Originally Posted by rstaff3 View Post
    I was taking it as theoretical too.
    Dick:
    Since we have used "Friction Fitted" motors from the very beginning of the hobby. Which entails wrapping masking tape around the motor casting. The next logical step was creating an aft Thrust ring using built up wraps of masking tape to help retain the motor(s). With all that History, I'm sure the Safety committee looked at allowing the bonding of a extra section of body tube or whatever as an "Aft Thrust Ring" as being equal in not altering the intended use of the motor by the manufacturer to the tape Friction Fit and/or tape wrapped aft ring. Thus approved the use of thurst rings being glue or bonded to the aft end of our motors.
    This is the ONLY "alteration of any kind allowed to a model rocket motor I've ever heard of being approved by the NAR Safety committee.
    Keep em Flyin Micronzied
    John
    Mrcluster/Micromeister
    Nar-15731
    Co-moderator MicroMaxRockets yahoo group.
    http://groups.yahoo.com/group/MicroMaxRockets/
    Narhams Section 139 - ROMCC

  25. #25
    Join Date
    19th January 2009
    Location
    Washington D.C.
    Posts
    14,992
    Quote Originally Posted by Incongruent View Post
    My point was that FSI intended the motor to have fins attached to it.

    My beginning post was referring to the smallest possible rocket using the MMX engines, not the necessarily smallest legal one. The reduction in diameter contributed to it being the smallest. I was under the impression that the OP was asking a theoretical question rather than a practical one, but I could very likely be wrong.
    I believe the OP ask " what is the smallest rocket that could be launched on a Micro Maxx? NOTHING theoretical at all in that question.
    Further, since this is an open forum Anything mentioned even as theoretical (which we do not see in the question) has the same weight as answering the question with what can actually be built and flown. I do believe your impression was in fact in error.
    On any open forum we as responsible Rocketeer's must think before we type what some unknowing individual reads as "Oh, I guess it's OK to build cause they said so in the forum"
    Just like doing things in the heat of the moment, Typing useless theoretical stuff on an open forum is just asking for someone to get the wrong idea that could turn out very badly for both the individual and the Hobby. Always Safety First....Think before you Act or Type.
    Last edited by Micromeister; 18th November 2016 at 09:25 PM.
    Keep em Flyin Micronzied
    John
    Mrcluster/Micromeister
    Nar-15731
    Co-moderator MicroMaxRockets yahoo group.
    http://groups.yahoo.com/group/MicroMaxRockets/
    Narhams Section 139 - ROMCC

  26. #26
    Join Date
    18th January 2009
    Location
    Maryland
    Posts
    11,662
    Quote Originally Posted by Micromeister View Post
    Dick:
    Since we have used "Friction Fitted" motors from the very beginning of the hobby. Which entails wrapping masking tape around the motor casting. The next logical step was creating an aft Thrust ring using built up wraps of masking tape to help retain the motor(s). With all that History, I'm sure the Safety committee looked at allowing the bonding of a extra section of body tube or whatever as an "Aft Thrust Ring" as being equal in not altering the intended use of the motor by the manufacturer to the tape Friction Fit and/or tape wrapped aft ring. Thus approved the use of thurst rings being glue or bonded to the aft end of our motors.
    This is the ONLY "alteration of any kind allowed to a model rocket motor I've ever heard of being approved by the NAR Safety committee.
    OK, just checking. I did glue-on rings on G80-FWL motors until the TRFer who machined my microHybrid also made me a bunch of clamp-on rings. I now wouldn't bother as even skinny tape rings work so well.
    Dick Stafford
    The member formerly known as the Pointy-Haired Moderator.
    The Original Rocket Dungeon
    Volunteer compiler of product news for ROCKETS Magazine

  27. #27
    Join Date
    19th January 2009
    Location
    NE Illinois
    Posts
    909
    You have to remember it's dangerous to glue your nose cone onto a MM motor. But it is very possible to launch your HP rocket with a 16lb bowling ball for a nose cone and have it comply with the safety codes. Gosh, I hope the person who gets hit by the MM motor falling out of the air doesn't get smashed into the ground.

  28. #28
    Join Date
    19th January 2009
    Location
    Washington D.C.
    Posts
    14,992
    Quote Originally Posted by Pat_B View Post
    You have to remember it's dangerous to glue your nose cone onto a MM motor. But it is very possible to launch your HP rocket with a 16lb bowling ball for a nose cone and have it comply with the safety codes. Gosh, I hope the person who gets hit by the MM motor falling out of the air doesn't get smashed into the ground.
    Pat:
    As usual your comments have little to no merit or weight with regard to this thread. We are ONLY concerned with the rules within the Model Rocket Safety Code under which Micro & LPR BP models are flown.
    What Assinine things HPR folks do under their somewhat looser Tripoli rules are their concern.
    Let's at least stick to the Proper Sub-Forum values, thank you.
    Keep em Flyin Micronzied
    John
    Mrcluster/Micromeister
    Nar-15731
    Co-moderator MicroMaxRockets yahoo group.
    http://groups.yahoo.com/group/MicroMaxRockets/
    Narhams Section 139 - ROMCC

  29. #29
    Join Date
    25th October 2016
    Location
    Texas, United States
    Posts
    1,697
    The NAR safety code is vague in certain spots, for instance tampering with a motor or using them for any purpose except those recommended by the manufacturer, what exactly does tampering mean? If you use a nose cone to widen the top of a D12-0 booster motor to CHAD stage an 18mm motor, is that tampering? If you mark or scratch the paper when you insert it into a rocket with an engine hook, did you tamper with it? And using it for a purpose other than reccomended by the manufacturer, Estes "reccomends" that you use their motors in their kits and specifically theirs so that they can make more money. Same thing in with their kits, but when you used a quest motor in an Estes kit or an Estes motor in a quest kit, did you violate the NAR safety code?

  30. #30
    Join Date
    19th January 2009
    Location
    Washington D.C.
    Posts
    14,992
    Quote Originally Posted by Incongruent View Post
    The NAR safety code is vague in certain spots, for instance tampering with a motor or using them for any purpose except those recommended by the manufacturer, what exactly does tampering mean? If you use a nose cone to widen the top of a D12-0 booster motor to CHAD stage an 18mm motor, is that tampering? If you mark or scratch the paper when you insert it into a rocket with an engine hook, did you tamper with it? And using it for a purpose other than reccomended by the manufacturer, Estes "reccomends" that you use their motors in their kits and specifically theirs so that they can make more money. Same thing in with their kits, but when you used a quest motor in an Estes kit or an Estes motor in a quest kit, did you violate the NAR safety code?
    None of the things above are voilations for the Model Rocket Safety Code with the possible exception of using a Nose cone to Widen the top of a D12-0 motor.
    Just for your information 18mm BP motors fit exactly into the forward end of any 24mm motor. NO CONE NEEDED for chad staging. Same goes for 13mm motor s into 18mm motors.
    Once you get a little more experience under your belt you'll know somewhat better the things that can and can not be done with our pre-manufactured motors from any manufacturer. A scratch from a motor hook isn't a good thing but if the motor is otherwise undamaged it shouldn't alter the operation of the motor.
    Applying a 1/4sheet of FP Wadding to the forward end of booster or delayed motors in clustered applications held in place with a small piece of 1/2" masking tape is not specifically instructed by either Estes or Quest but is extremely important to prevent "Back Burning" if one of more motors fails to ignite. It is another example of the extension of Masking tape being allowed without violation.
    And so you more completely understand: NO code or rules can completely cover every instence. Some Experience and more Important Common sense must be used. The most important to thing to remember while on the Flying field. If in doubt Don't do it. Fly Safety First Always.

    How about we get off this distraction and back to the original question of this thread. Smallest MMX Rocket.
    Remember Think before you Type.

    Last edited by Micromeister; 30th November 2016 at 05:17 AM.
    Keep em Flyin Micronzied
    John
    Mrcluster/Micromeister
    Nar-15731
    Co-moderator MicroMaxRockets yahoo group.
    http://groups.yahoo.com/group/MicroMaxRockets/
    Narhams Section 139 - ROMCC

Similar Threads

  1. Smallest possible DD/AV bay?
    By K'Tesh in forum High Power Rocketry (HPR)
    Replies: 23
    Last Post: 7th June 2014, 09:14 PM
  2. What are the smallest...
    By JPVegh in forum Propulsion
    Replies: 2
    Last Post: 13th June 2012, 06:25 PM
  3. The smallest three-stage
    By RW James in forum Low Power Rocketry (LPR)
    Replies: 5
    Last Post: 6th April 2012, 10:52 PM
  4. Smallest / lightest rocket locator beeper (fit BT-50) ?
    By Marc_G in forum Rocketry Electronics and Software
    Replies: 9
    Last Post: 27th September 2010, 11:26 AM
  5. smallest rocket largest engine
    By Parrot in forum Low Power Rocketry (LPR)
    Replies: 8
    Last Post: 25th November 2006, 11:01 PM

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •