Tim51
Well-Known Member
So a few times I've seen / heard of rocketeers glassing the inside of the AV bay coupler using the balloon technique. Is this purely a matter of aesthetic preference? Does it actually improve the strength of the coupler? (My understanding is that an FG wrap does not increase structural strength per se, only protects against wear and tear, landing dings etc, in which case I'm inclined to forego it, althought the PML website advises 'glassing 4" tubes that may undergo Mach transition speeds. I'm hoping this AV bay will do exactly that at some point).
If it helps, here's the back story/reason for my question:
I'm in the process of constructing a new 4" AV bay, and I'm using a length of PML phenolic coupler rather than a LOC stiffy/coupler combination. I've used PML coupler on 3" and 2.1" av bays (and I'm aware its compression strength being phenolic should be considerably greater (..x 5 IIRC?)but, on its own, the 4" PML coupler looks pretty thin for 4" dia vehicle, and I'm considering doing an internal wrap with either FG or CF, but only if one or t'other would add strength to its function of holding the payload and the booster together and protecting the avionics under launch & flight stresses.
Any shared knowledge based on relevant experience welcome!
Thanks,
If it helps, here's the back story/reason for my question:
I'm in the process of constructing a new 4" AV bay, and I'm using a length of PML phenolic coupler rather than a LOC stiffy/coupler combination. I've used PML coupler on 3" and 2.1" av bays (and I'm aware its compression strength being phenolic should be considerably greater (..x 5 IIRC?)but, on its own, the 4" PML coupler looks pretty thin for 4" dia vehicle, and I'm considering doing an internal wrap with either FG or CF, but only if one or t'other would add strength to its function of holding the payload and the booster together and protecting the avionics under launch & flight stresses.
Any shared knowledge based on relevant experience welcome!
Thanks,