[L3] Composite N5800 Flying Case, ~67kft MSL, M3.5

Shop deals on ebay
rocket sok
SilicdyneTRF
The Rocketry Forum

Help Support The Rocketry Forum:

This site may earn a commission from merchant affiliate links, including eBay, Amazon, and others.
Nytrunner said:
Well, you've gotten this far, so as long as you're confident in your trackers and prepared for a long walk/drive, single deployment isn't specifically disallowed.

I assume your TAP/L3CCs have signed off?
Click to expand...

With 3 different GPS units on board, what could go wrong (Sarcasm)? In all seriousness, I have flown these boards multiple times with issues and without. The good news is, that statistically speaking all 3 of the boards failing is unlikely. Furthermore, in the past if there was an issue with the GPS unit, I was still capable using the RF signal it sent out to directionally track it.

Dual deploy is not a requirement for a L3 whatsoever. Honestly, I haven't done DD in a long time and have no plans to go back to it anytime soon. I am not worried about the splash down distance whatsoever. Won't be that far away.



markkoelsch said:
Wow, that should be quite the hike. Bring it down fast, but not so fast as to cause damage that would invalidate the cert. Also, if you land outside the waiver cylinder that is a no no.

As said previously- you best be very certain of your tracking system. Might I suggest an rdf beacon as well as the gps. I have seen several gps flights lose lock and not regain lock hence being less than useful.


Sent from my iPhone using Rocketry Forum
Click to expand...

Thank you for the concern. There won't be much hiking. I've brought my rockets down at 100ft/s with no damage; I build them somewhat strong. I would argue that the rocket has a lower chance of drifting outside the wavier than does a conventional dual deploy rocket. A conventional DD rocket is under drogue until the main opens. My single deploy rocket, is essentially falling under the same drogue, except the drag never increases. The dual deploy rocket, once under main, has the potential to drift farther away. Thus increasing the recovery mileage, complexity, and increasing it splashing down outside the wavier. Don't get me wrong, I totally agree that the potential for damage to the vehicle upon splashdown on a single deploy is greater. There are trade offs to both approaches; tricky business on a L3 lol.
 
Last edited:
Swissyhawk said:
Why not use a JLCR?
Click to expand...

Are you talking about the Jolly logic chute release? I've used cable cutters and the AARD in the past. Honestly, I have gone from single deploy (rather large chute) to dual deploy (due to the hobby), to various forms of main chute restriction (cable cutters/AARD), and eventually settled back on single deploy (with a smaller chute). I tend to like single deploy for the win, these days; my experience and the experience of my friends has been good.
 
Yes, I'm referring to the Jolly Logic Chute Release. They are very simple to use.
 
With the elimination of the 'additional airframe,' and the upper airframe, this effectively simplified the rocket into three major components.
Nosecone -> SRM -> Fincan
This made designing the rocket a breeze as I could literally go from one major section (and all the sub-sections) to the next, and then just fit everything together like a simple puzzle.



Nose Cone:

As I mentioned earlier I opted to reuse a 6:1 (24") Von Karmen FWFG cone, that I had previously made. The cone utilized a aluminum tip, to aid in the protection against aerodynamic heating and thus preventing possible delamination of the fibers. The base diameter measures 105mm (4.125") OD, has a wall thickness of 3.18mm (0.125"), and weighs in at 785g (1.73! lb). That's the 'double wall,' showing its colors :eyepop:.





I did deviate from the standard hobby tips, by creating one with a shoulder on it. I did this to prevent the tip from separating from the rest of the cone, as had happened on two previous 'large & high,' Mach flights. I secured a piece of 1 in Kevlar to the eyebolt that screwed into the drilled and tapped hole. On the other end of the Kevlar harness, I attached a decent sized swivel, to which the other harness points would meet. This entire assembly was then installed to the composite cone and epoxied permanently in place with Cotronics 4525.






Per the questions, we have already briefly talked about the recovery and some other components. I will get to all of that in a little more detail soon enough.
 
A5tr0 An0n said:
...The thought of being first was kind of cool and so was the idea of having this rocket be my level 3 project. To my knowledge the only other person to get their L3 with a high altitude and multiple Mach number breaking flight is Jim Jarvis. He flew to ~34kft and M2.5, if I remember correctly. So with some arbitrary goals set out, I had a very simple design philosophy and a plan.
The execution of this plan, proved to take a couple of years as building started and stopped multiple times due to life getting in the way. The following will be my story of building this project from then to now. The road is always a very scenic one.
Hope everyone can learn from my project whether it is what to do or what not to do. I make no claims that what I do is the best way or the right way lol.
Click to expand...

One goal you could try is to replace the aluminum motor case with carbon composite. This will approximately half your dry weight, so nearly double your mass ratio. This can result in significantly better performance than 34kft and M2.5.

Bob Clark
 
RGClark said:
One goal you could try is to replace the aluminum motor case with carbon composite. This will approximately half your dry weight, so nearly double your mass ratio. This can result in significantly better performance than 34kft and M2.5.

Bob Clark
Click to expand...
And, by using EX hardware, turn this into a not-L3 flight. Could you peddle elsewhere? Not every thread is about whatever idea you've just had.
 
RGClark said:
One goal you could try is to replace the aluminum motor case with carbon composite. This will approximately half your dry weight, so nearly double your mass ratio. This can result in significantly better performance than 34kft and M2.5.

Bob Clark
Click to expand...

Not for a cert flight- unmodified motors only.


Sent from my iPhone using Rocketry Forum
 
A5tr0 An0n said:
Nose Cone:

As I mentioned earlier I opted to reuse a 6:1 (24") Von Karmen FWFG cone, that I had previously made. The cone utilized a aluminum tip, to aid in the protection against aerodynamic heating and thus preventing possible delamination of the fibers. The base diameter measures 105mm (4.125") OD, has a wall thickness of 3.18mm (0.125"), and weighs in at 785g (1.73! lb). That's the 'double wall,' showing its colors :eyepop:.


Click to expand...

How does one make their own filament wound nose cone, do you have a filament winder? Im jealous, that looks pretty professional.
 
slaak said:
How does one make their own filament wound nose cone, do you have a filament winder? Im jealous, that looks pretty professional.
Click to expand...

I meant it as in "I had it made." Lol, sorry for the confusion. It was a custom job that I had done back in 2014 (I think).
 
RGClark said:
One goal you could try is to replace the aluminum motor case with carbon composite. This will approximately half your dry weight, so nearly double your mass ratio. This can result in significantly better performance than 34kft and M2.5.

Bob Clark
Click to expand...

I have done two composite cases in the past with one of my friends. Loved every minute of it, but as others have stated it would not count as a L3 attempt. The motor and the motor hardware cannot be modified as per TRA rules. I will also say, if I were going to make a composite case for the N5800... I wouldn't be using the N5800! I would make my own motor for it, but to each his own.
 
Steve Shannon said:
I suggest discussing your descent speed with your TAPs. I would not consider 100 ft/S a "safe speed". You wouldn't either if it hit you.
Click to expand...

In my opinion, based on experience, you should be more worried about high altitude separation failures causing the rocket to come in ballistic. Or any separation failure for that matter. That is extremely dangerous and very scary and far as the electronics and charges can be mitigated. I have had rockets come in hot, closer than any single deploy rocket. In the maybe 20 single deploy flights I've been part of, we have never had a rocket land close by. I can understand how someone might think of it, especially if they have never really done it, but I would bet that the chances for harm are much lower than most other 'standard,' things done in this hobby.
 
Has you TAP signed off on your descent rate? That rate is so high that I would actually be shocked if a TAP signed off on that.


Sent from my iPhone using Rocketry Forum
 
A5tr0 An0n said:
In my opinion, based on experience, you should be more worried about high altitude separation failures causing the rocket to come in ballistic. Or any separation failure for that matter. That is extremely dangerous and very scary and far as the electronics and charges can be mitigated. I have had rockets come in hot, closer than any single deploy rocket. In the maybe 20 single deploy flights I've been part of, we have never had a rocket land close by. I can understand how someone might think of it, especially if they have never really done it, but I would bet that the chances for harm are much lower than most other 'standard,' things done in this hobby.
Click to expand...

It's not a matter of what I should be concerned about. A certification flight must land under control of a parachute. Single deployment, as long as there are redundant electronics triggering deployment, is within the rules. But your flight must land safely, which in my opinion includes a safe descent rate.
 
Solid Rocket Motor

I suppose I already talked about my choice in motor a bit earlier. Essentially, I wanted to try and get my L3 on a flight that was not only high, fast, but also very challenging. When I first set out to get my L3, I really liked the idea that the N5800 stirred up all kinds of mess. People also swore that you could not successfully fly a composite fincan on it; and that still hasn't been proven false yet. I liked the challenge that this motor brought forth. CTI also released the CTI N5800 Challenge II; where they challenged you to fly to 70kft. All of these things greatly attributed to me choosing this motor. Ultimately I really wanted to own this motor and do so for my L3. I do not belong to the 'low & slow,' crowd and honestly have no interest in flights that are not pushing my limits or allowing me to progressively learn new things.


On the specifications of the motor.
CTI N5800 motor is made up of 20 lb of propellant, in a 6 XL grain configuration, all inside a high grade phenolic liner. This motor produces a maximum thrust of 1806 lb, average thrust of 1,298 lb, total impulse of 20146 Ns, and burns for 3.5s.



CTI N5800 Thrust Curve Graph.


CAD rendering.


The guts of the N5800.


Phenolic nozzle. Ended up having to get another one.


My L1 & L2 rocket; thought it was a cool comparison.
 
Last edited:
Steve Shannon said:
It's not a matter of what I should be concerned about. A certification flight must land under control of a parachute. Single deployment, as long as there are redundant electronics triggering deployment, is within the rules. But your flight must land safely, which in my opinion includes a safe descent rate.
Click to expand...

I was being polite. Honestly, it is subjective and until TRA specifies a descent rate range with what they want the certification flights to fall within, I will continuing doing what I KNOW works and has been proven to be safe based on past results, up until this point in time. I don't need you state the rules, as I already know them. Again, I appreciate your attempt at helping.
 
Last edited:
Nice attitude, not..... Do you know who Steve is?
And that L1/L2 bird screams low and slow to me....just sayin......
 
A5tr0 An0n said:
I was being polite. Honestly, it is subjective and until TRA specifies a descent rate range with what they want the certification flights to fall within, I will continuing doing what I KNOW works and has been proven to be safe based on past results, up until this point in time. I don't need you state the rules, as I already know them. Again, I appreciate your attempt at helping.
Click to expand...

You ignored my previous question- has a TAP signed off on this descent rate and design?

Secondly, Steve Shannon is trying to help. Also, you do realize he is the President of Tripoli, I believe a TAP and Prefect, and one of the nicest guys in the hobby?

Finally, several of us have been nicely trying to point out what we know to be an issue. One that I would be surprised a TAP would sign off on. Perhaps if a group of experienced fliers is pointing out a weakness you should strongly think about reconsidering your position. To put it another way- if I were the RSO and you came to me with this rocket and told me you had an 18" chute with a planned 100'/second descent rate I would not let you fly it. Not being nasty- being very concerned for the safety of all.


Sent from my iPhone using Rocketry Forum
 
markkoelsch said:
You ignored my previous question- has a TAP signed off on this descent rate and design?



Sent from my iPhone using Rocketry Forum
Click to expand...

I can imagine a TAP signing off on this if the flight and flight profile, including the descent rate, had been explicitly approved by the Tripoli Class 3 Committee.

Jim
 
Do you know who A5tr0 An0n is?

Yes and no.
Somebody with an attitude.....
Somebody who needs to hide behind a handle. (A beef with this forum)
Somebody who has yet to do their L3 .... and unless they listen to their TAPs (if they have any), will probably never get their L3.
 
Last edited:
Flying 200 pound full beer kegs? No problem.

A 14 pound rocket descending at 100ft/s? "ARE YOU TRYING TO KILL SOMEBODY!?!?!

Hmmm..


Sent from my iPhone using Rocketry Forum
 
FredA said:
Nice attitude, not..... Do you know who Steve is?
And that L1/L2 bird screams low and slow to me....just sayin......
Click to expand...

First and foremost there was no attitude, but I understand that it can be hard to tell context from plain text. So no worries. Secondly, talk about the pot calling the kettle black. You are the very definition of a bad attitude. You go around yelling, cursing, and degrading people at launches. If you're confused; I am referencing your behavior at BALLS this past weekend.

That's the point! lololol. That was many years ago; hence why I was referencing it as a point of differentiation and progress. AKA comparative.
 
FredA said:
Do you know who A5tr0 An0n is?

Yes and no.
Somebody with an attitude.....
Somebody who needs to hide behind a handle. (A beef with this forum)
Somebody who has yet to do their L3 .... and unless they listen to their TAPs (if they have any), will probably never get their L3.
Click to expand...

Hide? I think not. If you really want to know who I am it's not that hard. You want my name and address? You want to come visit? Hit me up in PM then bro.

If you feel the need to be an a** you can do it to personally at BALLS or any other launch we are both at. I have no problem escalating this with you. BUT I will not engage in tick for tack and pointless talking with you. Especially since I have never said a word to you and you are speaking from your a8**. I am not any of those kids you've yelled at man. Hit me up or shut up. If you want to have a productive conversation then so be it, your negativity is not needed here.
 
markkoelsch said:
You ignored my previous question- has a TAP signed off on this descent rate and design?

Secondly, Steve Shannon is trying to help. Also, you do realize he is the President of Tripoli, I believe a TAP and Prefect, and one of the nicest guys in the hobby?

Finally, several of us have been nicely trying to point out what we know to be an issue. One that I would be surprised a TAP would sign off on. Perhaps if a group of experienced fliers is pointing out a weakness you should strongly think about reconsidering your position. To put it another way- if I were the RSO and you came to me with this rocket and told me you had an 18" chute with a planned 100'/second descent rate I would not let you fly it. Not being nasty- being very concerned for the safety of all.


Sent from my iPhone using Rocketry Forum
Click to expand...

That is why I thanked him for trying to help. Sorry if disagreement comes off as being rude. I try to not disrespect anyone until they cross the line first, and disrespect was not my intention.
 
I think YOU are a little confused.
The only people I yelled at Balls were the group who:
- Burned propellant in a bucket on the ground.
- Who threw a stick of burning red propellant out on the playa.
- Burned a M or N class FW motor within 30 yards of our group's fire without warning and WITHOUT CLEANING the mess up.
- Were attempting to launch dozens of Chinese Lanterns.
I assume from your reaction, YOU were part of that group.

And yes, if you won't sign you name, you are hiding behind the handle.....hard to claim otherwise.

And as far as berating other flyers - again you are confused - I never left camp except to fly and use the blue-rooms.
The only flights I commented on negatively was my own and that O-O "disaster" as the LCO called it.
So not sure who you think I am, or what that person said, or how you heard anything I said, but I was not "down" on any flyer this past weekend.
 
Last edited:

Similar threads

Chokedflow
Hello, intro & L3 composite on N5800
Replies
5
Views
712
Chokedflow
Chokedflow
INFX_TryHard
Astrorizzicist - My attempt at a mostly 3D printed L2 capable rocket
Replies
29
Views
2K
thzero
T
B
There is no way that this rocket is successful, but darn it I am going to try! (Mach 5+ Composite Case 38mm rocket)
2 3
Replies
63
Views
4K
CarVac
CarVac
Neutronium95
54mm flying case testbed
2 3
Replies
83
Views
7K
Porkchap
Porkchap
M
75mm sub min balls project.
Replies
13
Views
1K
Model_rockets
M

Latest posts

Back
Top