Fiberglass for Low Power

lowga · Jan 2, 2018

Is there anything in the NAR Safety Code that would prohibit someone from offering a fiberglass kit for low power? I could see some real advantages for LP flyers. For example, a muddy field, or semi-wet location need not cancel a day of flying with a fiberglass rocket. Unlike paper and cardboard, which would likely be ruined by a dunking in a good sized mudhole, a fiberglass rocket would just require wiping off to look great again.

Fiberglass is much harder than our typical rockets--so I wondered about the safety aspect.

Maybe someone has already had this idea. Any LP fiberglass rocket kits out there?

rharshberger · Jan 2, 2018

Problem is usually getting a FG rocket light enough to fly on LPR motors, the Blackhawk 24 is a CF rocket and IMO its borderline on Estes D12-3's ( on the two occasions I have seen one flown).

cavecentral · Jan 2, 2018

People use hand rolled light fiberglass tubes in various NAR competitions. Egg lofting, etc. So it is fine.

dhbarr · Jan 2, 2018

If someone were to use FAI techniques they could conceivably produce something stronger than paper but substantially lighter than FWFG.

I'd start with biax tube, add a layer of uni, then another of biax. That all by itself might be substantially tougher than regular body tube, but oops now it costs fifty bucks for a LPR.

cavecentral · Jan 2, 2018

From NAR site:

https://www.nar.org/contest-flying/...tion-techniques/lightweight-fiberglass-tubes/

rstaff3 · Jan 2, 2018

Rich is generally right, but competition rocketeers fly fiberglass bodies...that they lay up themselves. https://www.nar.org/pdf/FAI Modeling Techniques Article (May 07).pdf

I rolled a fiberglass tube once and that rocket could have flown on low power. Unfortunately, I picked a G55 instead

edit: well, I guess I was too slow!

DavidMcCann · Jan 2, 2018

Any conditions that would kill a cardboard rocket on landing, we typically move the party to Smuggler's for a beer.

swatkat · Jan 2, 2018

There are a few out there... https://www.mach1rocketry.com/store/p84/Mach_Boost_BT50.html

wighty44 · Jan 2, 2018

Not to be "the bad guy" here, but how does one not consider this definition of a Model Rocket from 14CFR101 when deciding that a FG rocket is not a Class 2 HPR?

14CFR101.22 (a) Class 1Model Rocket means an amateur rocket that: (3) Is made of paper, wood, or breakable plastic.

Steve Shannon · Jan 2, 2018

wighty44 said:
Not to be "the bad guy" here, but how does one not consider this definition of a Model Rocket from 14CFR101 when deciding that a FG rocket is not a Class 2 HPR?

14CFR101.22 (a) Class 1Model Rocket means an amateur rocket that: (3) Is made of paper, wood, or breakable plastic.

Fiberglass reinforced epoxy is plastic. Thats not our position. Its a fact:
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fiberglass

Ive seen many broken, therefore its breakable. If you come up with a way to make it unbreakable you could be rich.

What Class 1 criteria do you doubt?

Steve Shannon

dhbarr · Jan 2, 2018

Steve Shannon said:
Fiberglass reinforced epoxy is plastic. Thats not our position. Its a fact:

Yup: https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fibre-reinforced_plastic covers all of the usual suspects

Andrew_ASC · Jan 3, 2018

Did you happen to pick a swamp for a launch site? I really can't see many users wanting to launch from a wet location you speak of. They would be sipping beers with David or in a garage bashing more LPR kits together rather than putting on a rain jacket and launching in a light rain squall my two cents. Yes fiberglass is durable, but it is very expensive compared to Estes LPR kits, and you might have a tough sell. Maybe the right customer would do a custom order, but it seems very niche. Most LPR kits try to maximize economy. Just struggling to see the value added for the costs involved on LPR.

Andrew_ASC · Jan 3, 2018

Theoretically you could specify a fiberglass tube with walls thinner than cardboard which would have equal or greater strength for a minimum mass gain. The issue in reality is a custom tube size may prove very impractical cost wise to manufacture. And the size of ID and OD diameters may be too close together to accurately manufacture if you went with some ultra thin wall tube no one else has tried. You could ask a fiberglass tube manufacturer what the limits on making a custom tube are. I think it would be a lot of effort for minimum gains.

dhbarr · Jan 3, 2018

Andrew_ASC said:
Did you happen to pick a swamp for a launch site? I really can't see many users wanting to launch from a wet location you speak of. They would be sipping beers with David or in a garage bashing more LPR kits together rather than putting on a rain jacket and launching in a light rain squall my two cents. Yes fiberglass is durable, but it is very expensive compared to Estes LPR kits, and you might have a tough sell. Maybe the right customer would do a custom order, but it seems very niche. Most LPR kits try to maximize economy. Just struggling to see the value added for the costs involved on LPR.

TWA flies a lot of bongwater.

lowga · Jan 3, 2018

We get a lot of rain--and one my favorite parks for low power flying has frequent mud holes for days after the rain stops. It is also bordered by a small pond. When I have misjudged the wind, more than one of my rockets has gone for a "swim." My nephew lost his very first Estes rocket when flying there last summer. A fiberglass rocket would have come in handy. The kit available from Mach1 Rocketry looks exactly like what I'm after. Any idea when they'll be accepting orders?

Plus I've yet to build a fiberglass HPR kit, so it would be great to get my feet wet working with fiberglass on a low power kit first. Thanks Swatkat!

tim cubbedge · Jan 3, 2018

Andrew_ASC said:
Did you happen to pick a swamp for a launch site? I really can't see many users wanting to launch from a wet location you speak of. They would be sipping beers with David or in a garage bashing more LPR kits together rather than putting on a rain jacket and launching in a light rain squall my two cents. Yes fiberglass is durable, but it is very expensive compared to Estes LPR kits, and you might have a tough sell. Maybe the right customer would do a custom order, but it seems very niche. Most LPR kits try to maximize economy. Just struggling to see the value added for the costs involved on LPR.

Clearly you have never flown a rocket in Florida.

EXPjawa · Jan 3, 2018

Andrew_ASC said:
Did you happen to pick a swamp for a launch site? I really can't see many users wanting to launch from a wet location you speak of. They would be sipping beers with David

Our launch site (the one Dave is referring to) is a recovered swamp, now a large farm. It generally drains well, but can still be muddy if we have a rainstorm immediately before or during a launch. There are several irrigation ditches that offer their own challenges. But it also has an 18,000' waiver, which is not shabby in the northeast.

Steve Shannon · Jan 3, 2018

lowga said:
We get a lot of rain--and one my favorite parks for low power flying has frequent mud holes for days after the rain stops. It is also bordered by a small pond. When I have misjudged the wind, more than one of my rockets has gone for a "swim." My nephew lost his very first Estes rocket when flying there last summer. A fiberglass rocket would have come in handy. The kit available from Mach1 Rocketry looks exactly like what I'm after. Any idea when they'll be accepting orders?

Plus I've yet to build a fiberglass HPR kit, so it would be great to get my feet wet working with fiberglass on a low power kit first. Thanks Swatkat!

Also look at the Quantum tube rockets from Public Missiles. Plastic tubes with plywood centering rings and phenolic motor mount tubes (phenolic doesnt absorb water) and G10 fins, they are very resilient in wet launch locations.
The construction techniques are identical to fiberglass and PML has some of the best instructions in the business.

Steve Shannon

Normzilla · Jan 3, 2018

Steve Shannon said:
Also look at the Quantum tube rockets from Public Missiles. Plastic tubes with plywood centering rings and phenolic motor mount tubes (phenolic doesnt absorb water) and G10 fins, they are very resilient in wet launch locations.
The construction techniques are identical to fiberglass and PML has some of the best instructions in the business.

Steve Shannon

This it's true, my first level 1 was a PML.

Later flew and was lost in sod for a year.... came back to me (was meant to be) dirty but otherwise good to fly.

Sent from my SAMSUNG-SM-G930A using Rocketry Forum mobile app

Fiberglass for Low Power

Help Support The Rocketry Forum:

A.K.A. 'Mr. HoJo'

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

Amateur Professional

Well-Known Member

Oddroc-eteer

Well-Known Member

Down these mean skies, a kat must fly!

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

Amateur Professional

UTC SEDS 2017 3rd/ SEDS 2018 1st

UTC SEDS 2017 3rd/ SEDS 2018 1st

Amateur Professional

A.K.A. 'Mr. HoJo'

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

Similar threads

Join the conversation!

Join today and get all the highlights of this community direct to your inbox. It's FREE!