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


Page 2 of 3 FirstFirst 1 2 3 LastLast
Results 31 to 60 of 65

Thread: Smallest rocket

  1. #31
    Join Date
    25th October 2016
    Location
    Texas, United States
    Posts
    1,731
    Agreed.
    The conversation will continue in my thread which I won't regret ruining (don't want to start a new thread...) once I find the time and energy to move our conversation over.

    By smallest rocket, what is smallest referring to? I could be height, width, minimum volume of a cylinder that'll fit the rocket, rocket volume, diameter, etc.

    Different ways of achieving different criteria.


  2. #32
    Join Date
    19th January 2009
    Location
    Washington D.C.
    Posts
    15,027
    Quote Originally Posted by Incongruent View Post
    Agreed.
    The conversation will continue in my thread which I won't regret ruining (don't want to start a new thread...) once I find the time and energy to move our conversation over.

    By smallest rocket, what is smallest referring to? I could be height, width, minimum volume of a cylinder that'll fit the rocket, rocket volume, diameter, etc.

    Different ways of achieving different criteria.
    Well:
    Since we are talking about Flying the Smallest Micro Maxx powered model rocket. the first criteria would be minimum diameter. In this case that would be T2+ tubing (.281"OD. .255" ID with .013" wall.) or Perhaps a double wrap of .005" Tracing vellum maintaining that .255" ID but with a slightly smaller .265" OD. Either would be about as "SMALL" diameter wise as we can get. I thought possible a single wrap of .5oz fiberglass but the end wall thickness came out to .280" so no joy there and it would be somewhat heavier to boot.

    Our Micro Maxx motors are 26mm long or 1.031". If we allow 1/8 or 3/16" of the motor to extend out of the rear of the rocket our minimum Length would be between .084" to .096" long. Supposing NO nose cone is added (or required) and the fins are made to be Clipped Delta or other finplan that stays even with the aft end of the rocket the overall smallest length would be somewhere between .084" and .096" Not counting the motor, or 1.031" overall length. That being said that does not allow much in the way of adjusting CP CG other then varying the fin Span.

    Personally I've always looked at all Model Rockets as things that should look like and perform like a rocket regardless of size. That being said I would then have any such "Small" micro model have at least some sort of nose cone and might even have rear swept fins to further allow more static margin for stability. Again designing for Stable Flight & Returnability along with additional flights if returned. To attain minimum Length and diameter the rocket would have to be either tumble or feather weight recovery. In either case the motor casing will likely be ejected from the model. In Sport Flying Model rockets it is perfectly legal to eject expended motor casing during flight with or without an attached streamer. Ejecting motor casing is NOT allowed in Competition flying but is perfectly fine for Sport flying models.

    Keep em Flyin Micronzied
    John
    Mrcluster/Micromeister
    Nar-15731
    Co-moderator MicroMaxRockets yahoo group.
    http://groups.yahoo.com/group/MicroMaxRockets/
    Narhams Section 139 - ROMCC

  3. #33
    Join Date
    25th October 2016
    Location
    Texas, United States
    Posts
    1,731
    Least diameter including would be a a plug in the front and nose cone on that with a stick out the rear. Featherweight or Tumble. Least diameter with a tube would be a single wrap of tracing vellum, Mylar tape the seam. Works for BT-20 competition models. (seen at club) Maybe a friction fitted device on the rear will work too, hipong the CG moves back enough while burning the motor that the rocket becomes unstable and tumbles. Or perhaps the tube could extend beyond the rear and gas-dynamic stabilization can be used. No fins. Probably tumbles, just like Estes Mosquito.

  4. #34
    Join Date
    19th January 2009
    Location
    Washington D.C.
    Posts
    15,027
    Quote Originally Posted by Incongruent View Post
    Least diameter including would be a a plug in the front and nose cone on that with a stick out the rear. Featherweight or Tumble. Least diameter with a tube would be a single wrap of tracing vellum, Mylar tape the seam. Works for BT-20 competition models. (seen at club) Maybe a friction fitted device on the rear will work too, hipong the CG moves back enough while burning the motor that the rocket becomes unstable and tumbles. Or perhaps the tube could extend beyond the rear and gas-dynamic stabilization can be used. No fins. Probably tumbles, just like Estes Mosquito.
    The Estes Mosquito does not tumble it is a feather weight recovery but they come in ballistic. Single wrap tracing vellum is subject to heat charring, in compeition models this can be minimized by the addition of a internal wrap of Chrome Monokote adheasive backed vinyl. This addition allows these ultra light "Paper Tigers" to survive the minumum 2-3 flights. For our purposes this addition would increase the OD to about the same .278 - .280".
    Personally to follow the reuseable model construction it would just be easier to go with a standard .281" minimum diameter body tubing.

    Do you actually build anything or just type about it? If the latter I'd say we've beat this horse as much as needed. I have some Micro Mod-Rocs to complete.
    Last edited by Micromeister; 2nd December 2016 at 03:06 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

  5. #35
    Join Date
    25th October 2016
    Location
    Texas, United States
    Posts
    1,731
    Quote Originally Posted by Micromeister View Post
    The Estes Mosquito does not tumble it is a feather weight recovery but they come in ballistic. Single wrap tracing vellum is subject to heat charring, in compeition models this can be minimized by the addition of a internal wrap of Chrome Monokote adheasive backed vinyl. This addition allows these ultra light "Paper Tigers" to survive the minumum 2-3 flights. For our purposes this addition would increase the OD to about the same .278 - .280".
    Personally to follow the reuseable model construction it would just be easier to go with a standard .281" minimum diameter body tubing.

    Do you actually build anything or just type about it? If the latter I'd say we've beat this horse as much as needed. I have some Micro Mod-Rocs to complete.
    That was my point about the Estes mosquito. It probably tumbles. As for single wrap vellum, as long as the rocket is built to the safety code, nothing says it has to last a certain number of flights. Single wrap vellum with something to protect from the heat above the engine lasts enough flights to qualify for competition, and for a small as possible diameter while still not violating the code, single wrap should work.

    I have built any tracing paper rockets, though I have seen, discussed, read about them and I used to to have a mosquito...
    Either way, I'd agree that the horse is sufficiently dead.
    ​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

  6. #36
    Join Date
    6th January 2009
    Location
    Northeast Ohio
    Posts
    3,752
    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?
    Compliance with the safety code can, occasionally, be a bit of a dance. What you think is acceptable may well be considered to be tampering by some RSOs. From your question, consider that fitting a nosecone into the top of a motor is probably okay, but if, as you suggest, the motor has to be "widened" then, yes, it may well be tampering. If you scratch the paper on your motor with the engine hook, no, that's not tampering. But, if your motor mount tube it exceptionally tight and you have trouble inserting a motor, one common, and useful, piece of advice is to carefully slit the paper on the motor and remove one or two outside layers of paper to allow the motor to more easily slide into the motor mount. However, some flyers and RSO's do indeed consider this to be tampering and will not allow your flight.

    Either way, our goal is to fly safely, each time, every time. We enjoy a hobby that can be eliminated at the stroke of a government pen. None of us encourage flights which are deliberately dangerous, even a little.

    But occasionally, we disagree on exactly what that means.
    Blessings,

    John
    NAR#87984
    L1 - Airfest - September 6, 2015

    It can't be my second childhood, I haven't finished my first one yet.

    "If I were giving a young man advice as to how he might succeed in life, I would say to him, Pick out a good father and mother, and begin life in Ohio." - Wilbur Wright, January 10, 1910

    _____________________________________

    My Blog
    Other stuff I write

  7. #37
    Join Date
    25th October 2016
    Location
    Texas, United States
    Posts
    1,731
    Quote Originally Posted by Peartree View Post
    Compliance with the safety code can, occasionally, be a bit of a dance. What you think is acceptable may well be considered to be tampering by some RSOs. From your question, consider that fitting a nosecone into the top of a motor is probably okay, but if, as you suggest, the motor has to be "widened" then, yes, it may well be tampering. If you scratch the paper on your motor with the engine hook, no, that's not tampering. But, if your motor mount tube it exceptionally tight and you have trouble inserting a motor, one common, and useful, piece of advice is to carefully slit the paper on the motor and remove one or two outside layers of paper to allow the motor to more easily slide into the motor mount. However, some flyers and RSO's do indeed consider this to be tampering and will not allow your flight.

    Either way, our goal is to fly safely, each time, every time. We enjoy a hobby that can be eliminated at the stroke of a government pen. None of us encourage flights which are deliberately dangerous, even a little.

    But occasionally, we disagree on exactly what that means.
    I think that perhaps the NAR code was written to be intentionally vague, so newcomers to the hobby, for example, won't try peeling off layers of their motors tubes and accidentally remove too much. The phrasing seems definitive at first, but as you progress, learn, and get experience, you find out the true limits and intelligently decide how close to the limits is the proper margin to fly safely and thus can do certain safe things that a beginner shouldn't try (for safety reasons). I'd assume that the benefits of the possibility increase outweighs the drawbacks from disagreement.

    Agree about our goal.

  8. #38
    Join Date
    19th January 2009
    Location
    Washington D.C.
    Posts
    15,027
    [QUOTE=Incongruent;1644173]That was my point about the Estes mosquito. It probably tumbles.

    I don't like being harsh, but there seems to be a little lack of Logic to several of you previous posts.
    What part of the Estes Mosquito does NOT Tumble do you not understand? Let me enlighten you on this Proven design. AS DESIGNED by estes the Mosquito ejects its motor casing but remains aerodynamicly stable through its entire flight. Because of its Light weight it is not a safety hazzard as it more or less comes in ballisticly, alway sticking nose first in the grass "This is called Feather Weight Recovery" as shown on the facecard. There is NO tumble either express or implied by the instructions or thousands of actual flights.
    To be honest the only turely tumble recovery rocket in Estes fleet was the Scout or Scout-II. There are plenty of first or second stage sections of many multi staged rockets the do tumble at ejection. Most 2-disc Spool rocket Back Tumble after burnout of the motor. So understand what your typing about before making statements like that above only show your inexperience. To be very pointed the Mosquito NEVER tumbles during recovery.

    You are also off the mark when you state the Model Rocket safety code says nothing about the number of flights a model is intended to get. The Code very specifically says "Our models will be constructed of light weight materials and include a recovery system so that the model can be flown over again" while that doesn't set a specific number of flights it should be very clear that our models are intended to NOT be single flight rockets.
    So you understand where I'm coming from, I've been in NAR competition off and on for over 40 years. I'm one of the folks that modified the original Paper Tiger into a winning 1/4A - D12 BP motor PD, SD, Egg-Loft & Alititude events. So went I say a unprotected single wrap tracing vellum will not stand up to more then a single flight and it is there for not a solution to the original posters question it is not open to discussion it has been field tested and proven results for decades.

    We fly only legal rockets falling within our National Model Rocket Safety Code; If one can not stay within those perimeters perhaps another hobby might be a better choice.
    Last edited by Micromeister; 4th December 2016 at 11:58 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

  9. #39
    Join Date
    13th March 2010
    Location
    Bentonville, AR
    Posts
    750
    Quote Originally Posted by Micromeister View Post
    Lets not confuse people with the somewhat Cowboy additudes of the HPR -Tripoli crowd.
    Okay then.
    Dwayne Shmel
    TRA 13137 / NAR 88172
    Tulsa Rocketry
    K.L.O.U.D. Busters
    L3

  10. #40
    Join Date
    13th March 2010
    Location
    Bentonville, AR
    Posts
    750
    Smallest Tripoli member:

    Click image for larger version. 

Name:	Capture.JPG 
Views:	66 
Size:	18.3 KB 
ID:	306679
    Last edited by dshmel; 5th December 2016 at 12:12 AM.
    Dwayne Shmel
    TRA 13137 / NAR 88172
    Tulsa Rocketry
    K.L.O.U.D. Busters
    L3

  11. #41
    Join Date
    23rd November 2013
    Posts
    2,220
    "it is not open to discussion"

    Sounds like progress to me...........

  12. #42
    Join Date
    25th October 2016
    Location
    Texas, United States
    Posts
    1,731
    Quote Originally Posted by Micromeister View Post

    I don't like being harsh, but there seems to be a little lack of Logic to several of you previous posts.
    What part of the Estes Mosquito does NOT Tumble do you not understand? Let me enlighten you on this Proven design. AS DESIGNED by estes the Mosquito ejects its motor casing but remains aerodynamicly stable through its entire flight. Because of its Light weight it is not a safety hazzard as it more or less comes in ballisticly, alway sticking nose first in the grass "This is called Feather Weight Recovery" as shown on the facecard. There is NO tumble either express or implied by the instructions or thousands of actual flights.
    Which is exactly why it has tumble recovery listed in the description on the Estes site.
    Oh, well. Sarcasm doesn't transfer well through the internet.

    It's just "flown again", not "flown over again" not that it matters much, but one could interpret that to mean that a model rocket has to fly over something, dangerous if your friend is something. The paper burning through comes from the black powder granules that fly out, (logically, but perhaps not in practice) so depending on their size, they may be reduced enough not to burn through if the motor rear ejects.
    Besides, a spent MMX casing in the rocket should still let it be considered featherweight, so if the charge is vented out the front...

    I do understand where you're coming from, though, and respect your viewpoints and accomplishments.
    Last edited by Incongruent; 5th December 2016 at 04:50 AM.

  13. #43
    Join Date
    25th October 2016
    Location
    Texas, United States
    Posts
    1,731
    Quote Originally Posted by dshmel View Post
    Smallest Tripoli member:

    Click image for larger version. 

Name:	Capture.JPG 
Views:	66 
Size:	18.3 KB 
ID:	306679
    Is this a challenge?

  14. #44
    Join Date
    23rd November 2013
    Posts
    2,220
    considered versus "consitered"

  15. #45
    Join Date
    25th October 2016
    Location
    Texas, United States
    Posts
    1,731
    Quote Originally Posted by Lowpuller View Post
    considered versus "consitered"
    Sorry. Fixed now.

    If your point was the possible confusion, I don't see how it could be confused with something else.
    In any case I wasn't misquoting a reliable source.
    Last edited by Incongruent; 5th December 2016 at 04:52 AM.

  16. #46
    Join Date
    23rd November 2013
    Posts
    2,220
    No point, just spelling....

  17. #47
    Join Date
    19th January 2009
    Location
    Washington D.C.
    Posts
    15,027
    [QUOTE=Incongruent;1645015]Which is exactly why it has tumble recovery listed in the description on the Estes site.
    Oh, well. Sarcasm doesn't transfer well through the internet.

    While the Current Estes website does indeed list the mosquito is "tumble recovery" I have to say that line is a misprint. Historically, from the little rockets Design inception in 1972 until it was taken out of production in 2000, every catalog and discription refers to the model being Feather Weight recovery with the exception of 1996 where no recovery is actually listed but referred to as Ultre Light weight rocket.
    As posted earlier the Mosquito by design does NOT TUMBLE period. I suspect Estes new management simply made a mistake in it's model review when putting the Mosquito back in production. At some point I'm sure it will be corrected since the model design has NOT changed. Since there has been no change in the rockets design or construction it is incapable of tumbling before or after ejection of the motor casing. The Mosquito is as it has always been, a Feather Weight Recovery rocket.

    And one more thing: The statement about "flown again" or "flown over again" taken out of context is just plain juvenile. Perhaps when you've fully developed you will not make such rediculous mistakes. Interpretation doesn't seem to be your strong suit, I'd strongly suggest refraining from expressing such for a few more years. That old proverb "Tis better to say nothing and be thought a fool, then opening ones mouth confirming same".

    I think I'm done with this "way off topic" thread. Let's see how long it continues to meander aimlessly LOL!
    Keep em Flyin Micronzied
    John
    Mrcluster/Micromeister
    Nar-15731
    Co-moderator MicroMaxRockets yahoo group.
    http://groups.yahoo.com/group/MicroMaxRockets/
    Narhams Section 139 - ROMCC

  18. #48
    Join Date
    1st February 2012
    Location
    Texas
    Posts
    2,219

  19. #49
    Join Date
    23rd November 2013
    Posts
    2,220

    Smallest rocket

    ridiculous versus rediculous

    Unless we want our sport/hobby to die with us, we need the young ones..................I suggest honey versus vinegar, but what do I know, I can't even spel.
    Last edited by Lowpuller; 5th December 2016 at 08:06 PM.

  20. #50
    Join Date
    25th October 2016
    Location
    Texas, United States
    Posts
    1,731
    Quote Originally Posted by Micromeister View Post
    Interpretation doesn't seem to be your strong suit,
    Funny how it goes both ways, eh?

  21. #51
    Join Date
    9th November 2013
    Location
    Mid-Hudson Valley
    Posts
    190
    Quote Originally Posted by Micromeister View Post
    While the Current Estes website does indeed list the mosquito is "tumble recovery" I have to say that line is a misprint.
    Actually it has it on there twice. And on the face card. Check out the web site. So, likelihood of being a misprint decreases with each use of the word. Not to discount your experience, which is greater than mine will ever be, but checking sources when claiming "There is NO tumble either express or implied by the instructions" is a good thing, as the company may have changed it's position on wording without notifying the public first.

    I understand where you're coming from. I almost blocked "Incongruent" shortly after he got on the forums, because he's annoying. Then I realized that's how I was when I was his age. Now I find him slightly entertaining, and he does bring up good points. I'm glad I didn't block him, as I find it highly entertaining reading this thread where one of the longest standing competitors in the hobby is getting obviously shaken up by some smartassed kid.

    Also, for what it's worth, the 220 Swift is also listed as tumble recovery on both web page and face card.
    NAR #98114

  22. #52
    Join Date
    25th October 2016
    Location
    Texas, United States
    Posts
    1,731
    Quote Originally Posted by Micromeister View Post
    That old proverb "Tis better to say nothing and be thought a fool, then opening ones mouth confirming same".
    And also those old proverbs:
    "The squeaky wheel gets the grease." (If you keep it hidden/, keep quiet, you won't get help)
    "You can't always get what you want."
    "Two wrongs don't make a right."
    "People who live in glass houses should not throw stones."

    And also:
    "Too many cooks spoil the broth"
    and
    "The more the merrier"

    Proverbs aren't definitive.
    Often contradictory, too, as seen above.

    Also, I'd like to remind you that I am ​a juvenile.

  23. #53
    Join Date
    5th April 2014
    Posts
    20
    Rmember - requrest rediculous compeition discription voilations!
    Aerodynamicly adheasive existance = Alititude!

    Oh, well. Sarcasm doesn't transfer well through the internet.
    LOL, LOL, LOL, . . .
    Last edited by maccordabc; 8th December 2016 at 07:11 PM.

  24. #54
    Join Date
    18th January 2009
    Location
    Maryland
    Posts
    11,705
    I have to admit, that one went over my head. But that is probably just me.
    Dick Stafford
    The member formerly known as the Pointy-Haired Moderator.
    The Original Rocket Dungeon
    Volunteer compiler of product news for ROCKETS Magazine

  25. #55
    Join Date
    1st February 2012
    Location
    Texas
    Posts
    2,219
    I want to build one that is so small that it can't be seen...even with a microscope!
    http://www.macklinmissileworks.com/

    Making Guillotines Great Again

  26. #56
    Join Date
    11th November 2014
    Posts
    709
    Quote Originally Posted by tmacklin View Post
    How about a minimum diameter rocket in a 0.281" (T2.5) tube?

    Attachment 305502
    Is that a prototype guillotine for use with micro-max T2.5 tubes in the background?

  27. #57
    Join Date
    1st February 2012
    Location
    Texas
    Posts
    2,219
    Quote Originally Posted by The_Lone_Beagle View Post
    Is that a prototype guillotine for use with micro-max T2.5 tubes in the background?
    Why yes, yes it is.
    http://www.macklinmissileworks.com/

    Making Guillotines Great Again

  28. #58
    Join Date
    25th October 2016
    Location
    Texas, United States
    Posts
    1,731
    Quote Originally Posted by tmacklin View Post
    I want to build one that is so small that it can't be seen...even with a microscope!
    Placing order for carbon nanotubes...

  29. #59
    Join Date
    23rd November 2013
    Posts
    2,220
    Tmacklin,

    I already have one, I'd be glad to show it to you, but you won't be able to see it.

    This also makes it very difficult to tell if the motor has been modified, but I don't guess that matters as it is not yet certified.

  30. #60
    Join Date
    25th October 2016
    Location
    Texas, United States
    Posts
    1,731
    Quote Originally Posted by Lowpuller View Post
    Tmacklin,

    I already have one, I'd be glad to show it to you, but you won't be able to see it.

    This also makes it very difficult to tell if the motor has been modified, but I don't guess that matters as it is not yet certified.
    Recovery is a heck of a challenge too!


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
  •