Indestructible Certification Rockets

Shop deals on ebay
shop deals on amazon
the model rocket show
The Rocketry Forum

Help Support The Rocketry Forum:

This site may earn a commission from merchant affiliate links, including eBay, Amazon, and others.
rharshberger said:
You guys are correct as NAR only specifically declares prefab fin cans as not allowed in L3 cert rockets.
Click to expand...

I think it's a no-no for TRA L3 certifications too unless the builder is the metal worker that fabricates the can. In that regard, one should inquire of the
TAPs what they would like to see to document proof that the flier made the can. Kurt
 
Hey, I think you can use Fincans for L1 and L2, and not L3.

Now Let's all copy paste that and move on.
 
DavidMcCann said:
Hey, I think you can use Fincans for L1 and L2, and not L3.

Now Let's all copy paste that and move on.
Click to expand...

I agree David, however IMO using a prefabbed fin-can is sort of avoiding the reason for the build portion of the cert to start with....some of the goals of the build portion is to verify that you can build a rocket capable of withstanding the higher power motors and learning basic aerodynamic properties. Buy a regular kit like a Loc/Madcow/Wildman/Binder/yadda yadda yadda and learn the proper build techniques to achieve the certs desired. Again its all my 2 cents (mainly that's all I have left over from my motor budget these days).
 
Take a cardboard 54mm kit, throw a wrap of 3.74oz FG around the thing and call it a love story. Binder Design Excel DD was a (fairly) recent purchase of mine which I have yet to build, but was quite reasonably priced with a large av-bay and will be quite stable in DD configuration. The packaging and instructions are very good and it's a simple build.

I typically recommend different rockets for L1 and L2, just because they're very different ranges once you get out of the baby J's, but hey, it's your cert; do it how you want to.


Later!

--Coop
 
Coop said:
Take a cardboard 54mm kit, throw a wrap of 3.74oz FG around the thing and call it a love story. Binder Design Excel DD was a (fairly) recent purchase of mine which I have yet to build, but was quite reasonably priced with a large av-bay and will be quite stable in DD configuration. The packaging and instructions are very good and it's a simple build.

I typically recommend different rockets for L1 and L2, just because they're very different ranges once you get out of the baby J's, but hey, it's your cert; do it how you want to.


Later!

--Coop
Click to expand...

The OP says "though it's clear that my building skills are "rusty" to say the least," lists "Easy to build# as his #1 requirement and prefers a fin can. I don't think he's looking to glass a tube.
 
Coop said:
I typically recommend different rockets for L1 and L2, just because they're very different ranges once you get out of the baby J's, but hey, it's your cert; do it how you want to.
Click to expand...

I don't entirely disagree, but a 2.6" with a 54 mount can easily fly on H-small L motors.... so, that's a pretty good range if someone wants.
 
DavidMcCann said:
I don't entirely disagree, but a 2.6" with a 54 mount can easily fly on H-small L motors.... so, that's a pretty good range if someone wants.
Click to expand...


Agreed. I'd venture a guess the rocket would need a little length to accommodate a baby L and indeed that would demonstrate the flier had pretty well developed build skills if used for L1 and L2 certifications. Kurt
 
Exactimator said:
The OP says "though it's clear that my building skills are "rusty" to say the least," lists "Easy to build# as his #1 requirement and prefers a fin can. I don't think he's looking to glass a tube.
Click to expand...

Perhaps not. I'd still call it a worthy consideration, given his objective.


Later!

--Coop
 
I'm really happy with my decision to go with a well-built mid-power design (modified Estes Scion) for my L1 as it was a straightforward step up from low power kits. However, if I were to pick one kit to cert 1 and 2, I'd pick a 4" fiberglass or cardboard kit. My Polecat BBIII, Madcow Sea Wolf, and Wildman Drago 4XL are all different in construction style and all of them will fly just as well on a big I as they will a small J.
 
Any modern all glass kit is going to be quite the task to damage. I would highly recommend something 4" like an Extreme Wildman. You can fly it without the upper section or coupler for an L1, and then you'll be ready for dual deploy with no problems, given that the rocket was designed for it. Plus, with a 75mm motor mount you have plenty of room for future expansions :)


Braden
 
The reason for certification is to attempt to gauge the builder's skill, knowledge, and judgment before allowing the person to purchase higher impulse motors.
It's not beneficial to the hobby as a whole to deliberately make that too easy. Also, many of the people who just want to quickly certify move on to other hobbies just as quickly. Building a few lower powered kits to knock off some of the rust might not be a bad idea.
The flip side of that is that we don't want to deliberately make it too difficult; we want to encourage people to try. We want people to learn from both failures and successes without becoming discouraged or broke. Ultimately we want people to become long-time flyers who have fun.



Steve Shannon
 
My friend flew a Madcow Twitch for his L1 cert. On his first attempt, the chute got stuck, so the whole thing fell from 1500' but landed unscathed. He walked over to our on-site vendor, bought another H-motor and had a successful cert flight.

Unfortunately, the Twitch is out of stock right now, but I think any 3" fiberglass kit would be as indestructible as you could get.
 
Last edited:
My L2 was a wildman JR. Could have done my L1. I've flown it motor with the fin can and the nose cone on a G.
 
Kallahan11 said:
Though I can't vouch for this guy personally, the rocket kit looks pretty cool. Comes with everything you need except a motor and glue. https://www.fusionrocket.biz/
Click to expand...

Sweet looking rocket, but it does take out some of the challenge and fun of building if all you have to do is properly read and follow instructions. I am fine with kits for cert flights but there should be room for flexibility to let the builder's personality show through. I do like the camera mount, but it won't achieve much in the way of altitude because you really cannot break mach 1 with it. Might be able to get it to 10,000' although a GoPro will weigh it down. I'd also want to see what the price is without the wrap because I wouldn't want my rocket to look like everyone else's. That's why I painted my Rocketry Warehouse kits.
 
lowga said:
I'm a rebar, returning to the hobby after an absence of over 15 years. Hoping to certify Level 1 and 2 quickly. Initially, I searched for a kit that would allow me to certify L1 and L2 using the same rocket. That lead me to building a Madcow Cowabunga 4" diameter rocket. I'm pleased with the kit, though it's clear that my building skills are "rusty" to say the least.

Along the way, I learned a lot--and in hindsight, I'd have probably chosen another rocket.

There would seem to be demand for rockets that met the following criteria:

1.) Easy to build.
2.) Highly stable.
3.) Indestructible or close to it.
4.) Dual Deploy capability.

The closest kit that I've found so far is the Hawk Mountain Industries Transonic rocket. It's made from fiberglass, uses the Acme Fiberglass fin can, and has a stability of about 9 calibers. However, it has some serious negatives too. The biggest issue being that it's a nearly minimum diameter rocket, so it's going to go fast and high. Staying under the waiver might be a concern, as well as recovery.

Is anyone aware of a large diameter, fiberglass rocket that uses a fin can? Low, slow, and indestructible would seem like a rocket kit that would be much in demand for people looking to certify at various levels.
Click to expand...
Apogee has some nice DD kits.

https://www.apogeerockets.com/Rocket-Kits/Dual-Deployment?zenid=3a4ijfisb3t8vkvcbak6bsn7c5
 
I should have been literal. I'm not looking for an "Indestructible rocket" but rather a "destruction resistant" rocket.

The first kit that I've built in the high power world is the Madcow Cowabunga 4" diameter rocket. Never worked with epoxy before, so I found it quite a challenge. The stuff is messy! Decided to "overbuild" this rocket with the primary objectives being to Certify Level 1 (and possibly Level 2)--and to fly various telemetry payloads. Modified the nosecone to add an altimeter bay, and a camera shroud to fly a keychain camera.

Objectives were for the rocket to fly "low and slow" and be tough enough to have a good chance at certification. Built using 30 minute epoxy for the airframe, and JB Weld for the fin fillets and retainer. You can see just how rusty I am by looking at the fin fillets--but I suppose the additional drag will help to ensure that the rocket doesn't fly too high. I elected to beef up some components by replacing the stock eyebolts with stainless steel, adding lock washers, SS swivel links, etc. The additional weight in the nosecone should also help to make the rocket more stable.

I was thinking of a fiberglass kit with a fin can for a 2nd kit, and level 2 rocket.

TropoLab Level 1 Wide.jpg
 
lowga said:
I should have been literal. I'm not looking for an "Indestructible rocket" but rather a "destruction resistant" rocket.

The first kit that I've built in the high power world is the Madcow Cowabunga 4" diameter rocket. Never worked with epoxy before, so I found it quite a challenge. The stuff is messy! Decided to "overbuild" this rocket with the primary objectives being to Certify Level 1 (and possibly Level 2)--and to fly various telemetry payloads. Modified the nosecone to add an altimeter bay, and a camera shroud to fly a keychain camera.

Objectives were for the rocket to fly "low and slow" and be tough enough to have a good chance at certification. Built using 30 minute epoxy for the airframe, and JB Weld for the fin fillets and retainer. You can see just how rusty I am by looking at the fin fillets--but I suppose the additional drag will help to ensure that the rocket doesn't fly too high. I elected to beef up some components by replacing the stock eyebolts with stainless steel, adding lock washers, SS swivel links, etc. The additional weight in the nosecone should also help to make the rocket more stable.

I was thinking of a fiberglass kit with a fin can for a 2nd kit, and level 2 rocket.

View attachment 315941
Click to expand...

Your rocket looks good to me. It will look fine sitting on the pad, too. Even better at 1000' overhead.

Based on your description of the mods, you did what most of us would have done...except for the JB Weld fillets. We mostly do epoxy fillets which is just one of those practice makes better things. Check out some of the various build threads for technique advice. It's no big deal once you've done it.

Fly that rocket until it won't fly any more. By that time you'll have another one already built and ready to go.
 
My Public Missile QuickSilver is one tough rocket, used for L1 with a H100, Stratologger and JR chute release, only 2600 feet. Could be used for L2 (I used WildMan of Borneo Eagle Claw 4) but it would go quite high I think.
 
I've always agreed with the thought that one should certify with the style of rockets he/she intends to continue flying, not just the easiest. If all you plan on is RTF/ARF fincan rockets to keep things simple, then cert on it. If you only want bleeding edge machbusting altitude record setting minimum diameter, then by all means go for it.

If you really want to go engineering on the project, you should certify with the lightest, cheapest, bare minimum construction to survive the flight and be able to do it again. Anything else is excess, says the engineer. IMHO, bulletproof rockets take a lot of the challenge out of it. I'm still working on getting my recoveries clean. High launch site elevation calls for much bigger chutes than what the manufacturer recommends, I've found, unfortunately, too many times!
-Ken
 
lowga said:
I should have been literal. I'm not looking for an "Indestructible rocket" but rather a "destruction resistant" rocket.

The first kit that I've built in the high power world is the Madcow Cowabunga 4" diameter rocket. Never worked with epoxy before, so I found it quite a challenge. The stuff is messy! Decided to "overbuild" this rocket with the primary objectives being to Certify Level 1 (and possibly Level 2)--and to fly various telemetry payloads. Modified the nosecone to add an altimeter bay, and a camera shroud to fly a keychain camera.

Objectives were for the rocket to fly "low and slow" and be tough enough to have a good chance at certification. Built using 30 minute epoxy for the airframe, and JB Weld for the fin fillets and retainer. You can see just how rusty I am by looking at the fin fillets--but I suppose the additional drag will help to ensure that the rocket doesn't fly too high. I elected to beef up some components by replacing the stock eyebolts with stainless steel, adding lock washers, SS swivel links, etc. The additional weight in the nosecone should also help to make the rocket more stable.

I was thinking of a fiberglass kit with a fin can for a 2nd kit, and level 2 rocket.

View attachment 315941
Click to expand...

Ah yes. My first large rocket fillets looked just like those.

A little practice, a few years experience, and this is my pride and joy. That’s Rocketpoxy. No sanding. Just smoothed while still soft with a ½” PVC tube dipped in denatured alcohol. It ain't perfect (you can still see a bit of the edge if you look close enough) but it's tons better than my first fillets. And did I mention the no sanding? No sanding.

20150208_153827.jpg
 
Just build something that you like, that will fly within your waiver.

My L2 will be a modified LOC Warlock. It is a cardboard tube, plywood fins and a plastic nosecone assembled with wood glue.
On its second flight, using an I211W, I drilled the delay wrong and 5 seconds turned into 2. It now has some epoxy and fiberglass tape where I repaired the resulting zipper. I also had to repair a cracked fillet, but he held together just fine.
My home field has a ceiling of 2000ft, (2500ft with dual deploy). Part of my design criteria / thought process was I want to certify L2 on my home field. Fat Daddy sims at 1600ft using a J425R DMS motor. Low, slow, and it is big enough that I will be able to see it during the entire flight.

My L1 flight was a Madcow cardboard, plywood and plastic Little John assembled with epoxy, using H238T to about 1500ft. That rocket later suffered a tangled chute and smacked into concrete from 900ft and broke off a fin at the epoxy joint....

Don't worry so much about material and "indestructible". Think about what rockets you want (OK, maybe indestructible is what you want). How you want to fly and build it. You don't have to use epoxy or fiberglass unless you want to.

BTW, the Fusion rocket mentioned above is designed, manufactured and sold by Scott Binder, the founder of BSD High Power Rocketry. My guess is it's a very worthy kit.
 
T-Rex said:
Just build something that you like, that will fly within your waiver.

My L2 will be a modified LOC Warlock. It is a cardboard tube, plywood fins and a plastic nosecone assembled with wood glue.
On its second flight, using an I211W, I drilled the delay wrong and 5 seconds turned into 2. It now has some epoxy and fiberglass tape where I repaired the resulting zipper. I also had to repair a cracked fillet, but he held together just fine.
My home field has a ceiling of 2000ft, (2500ft with dual deploy). Part of my design criteria / thought process was I want to certify L2 on my home field. Fat Daddy sims at 1600ft using a J425R DMS motor. Low, slow, and it is big enough that I will be able to see it during the entire flight.

My L1 flight was a Madcow cardboard, plywood and plastic Little John assembled with epoxy, using H238T to about 1500ft. That rocket later suffered a tangled chute and smacked into concrete from 900ft and broke off a fin at the epoxy joint....

Don't worry so much about material and "indestructible". Think about what rockets you want (OK, maybe indestructible is what you want). How you want to fly and build it. You don't have to use epoxy or fiberglass unless you want to.

BTW, the Fusion rocket mentioned above is designed, manufactured and sold by Scott Binder, the founder of BSD High Power Rocketry. My guess is it's a very worthy kit.
Click to expand...

The Fusion flies very well, Scott debuted the rocket at our 3 day launch in June of 2016, it looks nice, flies nice and the videos on his facebook page are from our field.
 
As for the "fin-cans for certs" question... I suppose it depends on the particular individual. But in a lot of cases...

Is the individual looking for a merit badge, or is this person seeking to learn to build and fly high power rockets?

Glue a fin-can to a tube, shove in a nosecone, fly a hot H whoosh-pop style... Congrats, L1. Turn around, put in a whoosh-pop 38mm J... L2. Big deal.

Now someone hands him a sheet of G10, a piece of tubing, and a can of epoxy, what is he going to do with it? Probably nothing. Cuz even tho he's L2, he has no idea how to build a rocket.
 
Last edited:
If they do nothing, that's not the issue. Certification is mostly meaningless. Every rocket still needs to be RSOd. All certification does is make it easier to rso rockets, by reducing the amount of failures. A good rocket is quick to inspect. A train wreck takes a long time and leads to an arguement every time. So it's not doing nothing or being less of s rocketeer. It's the person who gets his L2 on a fincan, then brings up train wrecks. It happens, it's no huge thing. But everything you can do during the cert process to teach people, reduces the amount of time and hassle during a launch, and makes them smoother to run.
 
Allow me as the original poster, to reduce some of the speculation. I direct television commercials for a living. That means we travel non-stop, often on short notice, and a lot of work is weather-dependent. Since returning to the hobby a few months ago, I built the Madcow Cowabunga, and a few tracking kits for the telemetry functions that I want to fly. I'm a lifelong ham radio operator (N1LF) and really want to do telemetry work. In the months that have followed, I've missed no less than six launch opportunities. The reason? Bad weather in the South this winter (rain) and work-related travel.

In the meantime, I've built and flown a few low-powered rockets to help shake the dust off--and had a great time reading/learning about how the hobby has changed.

My reason for wanting to build an "destruction-resistant" rocket is simple. When a launch opportunity finally pans out for me, I want the best chance of success. It could literally be months before I'd get the chance to attempt another CERT attempt. I certainly hope to obtain Level 2 certification (already passed the written exam) and maybe someday Level 3. But I suspect most of my flying will be done on much smaller motors. My main interest is in flying telemetry and camera payloads--not big rockets.

In reading a lot, I notice a lot of emphasis on building strength and impact resistance into even small high power rockets. Things like interior fillets, foaming the fin can, etc. The reason cited is often the desire to achieve success in certification flights. After reading a lot of this, I kept thinking: "Wouldn't a pre-made fin can be the way to go?"

One engineering principle I learned early on was "Keep it simple." I want to fly electronic payloads, and achieve other goals beyond just certification. The rocket is a payload vehicle for me. I want it to be simple, reliable, and cost-effective. Fiberglass and fin cans seem to fit the bill. Likewise reloadable motors and ejection deployment. Not knocking what others want to build or fly--just saying it's not my thing.

Hope that clears things up.

Les Rayburn, N1LF
Birmingham, AL
 
Opinions are like _____ you know what. Take the advice you think is good, ignore the rest. Do what seems best to you. And never let anyone pressure you into thinking you have to defend your decisions. It's only a hobby....
 
lowga said:
Allow me as the original poster, to reduce some of the speculation. I direct television commercials for a living. That means we travel non-stop, often on short notice, and a lot of work is weather-dependent. Since returning to the hobby a few months ago, I built the Madcow Cowabunga, and a few tracking kits for the telemetry functions that I want to fly. I'm a lifelong ham radio operator (N1LF) and really want to do telemetry work. In the months that have followed, I've missed no less than six launch opportunities. The reason? Bad weather in the South this winter (rain) and work-related travel.

In the meantime, I've built and flown a few low-powered rockets to help shake the dust off--and had a great time reading/learning about how the hobby has changed.

My reason for wanting to build an "destruction-resistant" rocket is simple. When a launch opportunity finally pans out for me, I want the best chance of success. It could literally be months before I'd get the chance to attempt another CERT attempt. I certainly hope to obtain Level 2 certification (already passed the written exam) and maybe someday Level 3. But I suspect most of my flying will be done on much smaller motors. My main interest is in flying telemetry and camera payloads--not big rockets.

In reading a lot, I notice a lot of emphasis on building strength and impact resistance into even small high power rockets. Things like interior fillets, foaming the fin can, etc. The reason cited is often the desire to achieve success in certification flights. After reading a lot of this, I kept thinking: "Wouldn't a pre-made fin can be the way to go?"

One engineering principle I learned early on was "Keep it simple." I want to fly electronic payloads, and achieve other goals beyond just certification. The rocket is a payload vehicle for me. I want it to be simple, reliable, and cost-effective. Fiberglass and fin cans seem to fit the bill. Likewise reloadable motors and ejection deployment. Not knocking what others want to build or fly--just saying it's not my thing.

Hope that clears things up.

Les Rayburn, N1LF
Birmingham, AL
Click to expand...

Les,

If the flight doesn't go as planned ie. chute hangs and you get tumble recovery, you're not likely going to be given the certification. What a resilient rocket does for you is the ability to fly it again quickly with minimal fuss.
If also helps with things like late deployment 'cause with a fiberglass rocket and stout harness, you're not likely going to have a zippered tube that again will negate the certification attempt. If the 'glass rocket deploys late and the chute
opens and the rocket can technically be flown again, you win.
Like others have pointed out, total indestructability is impossible. Resistance to less than "nominal" flights can be achieve though with continued ability to fly. Soft plowed ground can really help here too! Kurt
 

Similar threads

tg08
Fiberglassing Airframes
2
Replies
35
Views
2K
Trenton Baker
Trenton Baker
SkiesAreClear
Looking for Build Threads: Cardboard L3, No Fiberglass
Replies
27
Views
1K
Neutronium95
Neutronium95
B
Question on allowable reuse of parts for an L3 Cert Rocket
Replies
17
Views
913
Handeman
Handeman
SeaSiren33
Fiberglass Coupler Alternatives for Level 2 Certification Attempt
Replies
16
Views
1K
Rocketclar
Rocketclar
danielhv
Next Rocket - Level 2, different nosecone?
Replies
16
Views
846
Handeman
Handeman

Latest posts

Back
Top