CTI Classic — what’s it like?

The Rocketry Forum

Help Support The Rocketry Forum:

This site may earn a commission from merchant affiliate links, including eBay, Amazon, and others.
My original question was geared towards the appearance of White Thunder/White which I still can't differentiate beyond burn time.

Probably like asking what's the difference between BlackJack and FastJack
 
My original question was geared towards the appearance of White Thunder/White which I still can't differentiate beyond burn time.

Probably like asking what's the difference between BlackJack and FastJack

Ooooobviously, White Thunder is more thunderous. Kids these days. :) Seriously, I don't know that I could tell the difference unless I knew what the expected burn time is, but I haven't flown much White either.
 
My original question was geared towards the appearance of White Thunder/White which I still can't differentiate beyond burn time.

Probably like asking what's the difference between BlackJack and FastJack

I'd say you are right. There's not a huge qualitative difference, and it seems mostly related to burn time and thrust.

I will say that a J290 White gives my Warlock a nice, steady, authoritative ride with a satisfyingly long burn. While the lower-impulse, higher-thrust I540 White Thunder boots it off the pad like it was launched by a bomb and will rip the rail buttons right off!
 
So what is Warp 9? A shot of Everclear with some laxatives dissolved in it?

Pretty much!

I had 3 lb rocket built from mailing tubes, 2" ID 2.25 OD with 1/4" plywood fins and an epoxy coated foam nose cone. I adjusted the sim parameter to match the altimeter data from the first flight on an I1299N and it pulled 83G, hit 563 mph at 134 ft altitude at motor burnout. It went exactly 4000 ft per the altimeter.
I had called the rocket "The Disappearing Rocket" that day and used and old thermite/fuse igniter. When the LCO said zero, there was a flash of fire and some smoke near the clips and then nothing as the fuse burning inside the plastic tube to the pyrogen. Those that thought it was a mis-fire and relaxed during the second or so it took the fuse to lite the pyrogen missed the whole flight. If you weren't waiting for it, it literally disappeared on you.

The second time I flew an I1299N in that rocket, it ripped the rail guide off and it got 4,200 ft.

That rocket lawndarted on a much smaller motor, but I have an other I1299N just waiting for another rocket. Warp 9 is a great propellant!
 
Pretty much!

I had 3 lb rocket built from mailing tubes, 2" ID 2.25 OD with 1/4" plywood fins and an epoxy coated foam nose cone. I adjusted the sim parameter to match the altimeter data from the first flight on an I1299N and it pulled 83G, hit 563 mph at 134 ft altitude at motor burnout. It went exactly 4000 ft per the altimeter.
I had called the rocket "The Disappearing Rocket" that day and used and old thermite/fuse igniter. When the LCO said zero, there was a flash of fire and some smoke near the clips and then nothing as the fuse burning inside the plastic tube to the pyrogen. Those that thought it was a mis-fire and relaxed during the second or so it took the fuse to lite the pyrogen missed the whole flight. If you weren't waiting for it, it literally disappeared on you.

The second time I flew an I1299N in that rocket, it ripped the rail guide off and it got 4,200 ft.

That rocket lawndarted on a much smaller motor, but I have an other I1299N just waiting for another rocket. Warp 9 is a great propellant!
I want to do a two stage with warp 9 motors just to see how fast I can get a rocket under the 15k wavier at MDRA. My initial sims put it at 153Gs.... my first thought was "will carbon fiber even hold this?"
 
I want to do a two stage with warp 9 motors just to see how fast I can get a rocket under the 15k wavier at MDRA. My initial sims put it at 153Gs.... my first thought was "will carbon fiber even hold this?"

Of course it will. That doesn't necessarily mean a Single tube of carbon fiber could though.

Look up the crush strength of the tubing, and buckling stress. Design accordingly
 
Snip…
I think the point of the classic is to look like the Estes BP motors, but I could be wrong about that.

It’s been awhile, but as I recall, when CTI first introduced their Pro38 motor system they only had one basic propellant (they might have also had a smoky propellant). At the time other companies were not making all the “boutique” colors. It was just a very nice, consistent propellant with a thrust profile that could be used for a wide range of flights and decent specific impulse. It didn’t try to be like anything. I assumed it was similar to the propellant Cesaroni was already producing for commercial or military purposes, which would support its use in military scale rockets as you said.
That propellant is what we now call “Classic”.
 
My original question was geared towards the appearance of White Thunder/White which I still can't differentiate beyond burn time.
I checked, and unfortunately I don't have nice photography to allow an apples-to-apples comparison between the same size White and White Thunder; White Thunder is off the pad fast enough that I usually miss the shot. White tends to have a shorter, less-expanded plume relative to White Thunder. I think one could easily tell the difference in a still photograph. And we haven't even mentioned C-Star.

David Reese has a nice comparison: https://www.rocketryforum.com/showt...e-Thunder-quot-propellant&p=719999#post719999
 
Back
Top