BlueTube 2.0 VS. Fiberglass

The Rocketry Forum

Help Support The Rocketry Forum:

This site may earn a commission from merchant affiliate links, including eBay, Amazon, and others.

Jwilder

Well-Known Member
Joined
Mar 23, 2011
Messages
141
Reaction score
0
I am in the process of designing my L3 bird and thought I would as to see if anyone has any experience with Bluetube 2.0

Do you know if its strong enough to withstand an M motor?

-Jeff
 
Bluetube, along with phenolic, and even LOC paper-based airframes are strong enough to handle an M motor. Just use the appropriate adhesives for your other components. If you're going near mach or above, then Bluetube, glass, or CF would be the better choices.

-Ken
 
Ken has it correct. i know of one person at MWP that did their L3 with an all stock LOC BIG NUKE
 
I`m using BlueTube more and more now ,and I love the stuff ,it also finished very nicely and very strong.

Then again ,I use LOC also up to 4" diam. for HP ,but I plan on BlueT exclusively after my LOC and Quantum supply is done.

One thing I do when finishing BlueTube is to fill the spirals with Bondo spot putty ,then sand with 220/320 and then give it a nice coat of clear gloss brushable lacquer (Deft).

After the lacquer has cured (an hour tops) I sand again with 320 and it`s ready for primer and paint.The lacquer soakes into the BlueT and gives a very nice base for primer/paint.

You could also use a sealer to do the same thing ,I used lacquer because for some crazy reason ,they don`t sell it here :confused:

I cut the tube on my table saw w/an 80 tooth carbide blade and use my router table and a sled to rout the slots (1/4" ,3/8" etc. solid carbide down spiral bit ) It machines very nicely.


Paul t


Paul T
 
What is the difference between Quantum and Blue Tube?
 
What is the difference between Quantum and Blue Tube?
Quantum is grey, hard plastic looking stuff.
Blue Tube is similar to the cardboard tubes, just a heck of a lot stronger.
IMG_2756.JPG
here is a pic. of quantum.
 
What is the difference between Quantum and Blue Tube?

Yah ,Quantum tubing is a polymer type of plastic (PML)

BlueTube is very similar to phenolic ,but not near as brittle and uses a different type of paper than does phenolic.When you handle it ,you can tell the difference between it and phenolic.It also cuts and machines differently and finishes better,IMHO of course.

I heard something about it being made of " fish paper" whatever that is :confused:

Paul t
 
According to the Apogee website, Bluetube looks a lot like vulcanized cellulose fiber (fish paper is another name for certain vulcanized fiber products).

Go here for more information:
https://www.apogeerockets.com/blue_tubes.asp

Indeed ,I should have posted that link myself ,as that`s where I saw and viewed the information.

Glad you posted that info for the others :cheers:

I wish I knew where I saw a video of the actual product being made ,very interesting.It may very well be ,that i saw it from the manufacturer itself ?


Paul t
 
Last edited:
I'm sorry, I should have been more specific, my bad. I am a aware that the blue tube is a vulcanized cellulose product and that quantum tube is a polymerized product. The differences I was asking about have to do with cutting, bonding, finishing and durability. For instance I've read that blue tube can warp over time and I've read that quantum can melt under heat. I've worked with paper tube and phenolic but never with blue tube or quantum.
 
+1 for bluetube.

Fiberglass is heavier and more expensive (unless you wrap your own very cheaply).

the big difference is weight because in rocketry applications, blue tube and fiberglass won't give too much of a strength difference on the macroscopic level. of course glass is stronger, but blue tube is very dense and can support a full grown tim van milligan or an australian blue tube dealer! :D

if you're going for max performance then i'd say glass since you'll most likely hit optimal mass with it without having to add as much nose weight, but barring that, whatever is more in your price range or building style.
 
ive used just about all of them now i think. here is my Personal opinions i have come up with on the dif mats. I know everyone has opinions and reasons they like x better than y. Best bet is to get your hands on rockets made of dif mats at your next launch and see which one suits you better, before you pull out your wallet.

Blue tube pros
strong, finishes well and fairly quickly, strong
cons
heavy, thick some nc's require work to get that seemless look, hard to slot nearly impossible without the right power tools to do so.

Quantum
quick finish, pretty durable, strong
cons
hard to slot w/out power tools, shrinks and expands a little with temp,

fg
strong, mates with nose cones very nice, easy finish, easy on adhesives, relatively light weight
cons
... you can get itchy from handling raw, sure there are others but not that i have really run into. expensive

Paper
easy to glass, light, cheap, widely avail
cons
easier to zipper, dents dings, quite a bit of finishing work depending on glassing or filling you go with

Phenolic
i choo choose blue tube over pheno any day, no real beef with it, i would rather glass a paper tube than a phenolic, if i dont want to glass id rather have bt for its resistance to shattering or cracking... idk just never got real hooked on it.

back to op
i like glass over bt for anything i want to go fast its just lighter ill break out the scales to prove that tomorrow. nose cones usually have a smoother fit into glass than they do bt because of bt's robustness. and glass finishes much quicker no filling. bt is good stuff tho and price wise its tough to beat. good luck on your build
 
The original Blue 1.0 may have had some issues with warping in extreme heat/humidity combination. I haven't seen it, but others have.

BT 2.0 has addressed the concerns with some proprietary changes. Either way, just seal it well and you'll never have a problem.

You can find more info from the horse's mouth: https://www.alwaysreadyrocketry.com/Products/bluetube.html

BTW, Randy at ARR is awesome! Great products, pricing, and support.

-Ken
 
BTW, Randy at ARR is awesome! Great products, pricing, and support.

-Ken

Randy sold the company back in May, the new owner is Dave Ebersole of Skagit Rocketry. Randy was awesome to deal with, you'll get the same treatment with Dave.
 
Randy sold the company back in May, the new owner is Dave Ebersole of Skagit Rocketry. Randy was awesome to deal with, you'll get the same treatment with Dave.

i second this i delt with randy when he had the company, and now with dave more than a few times... i think they are twins / clones :wink:
 
back to op
i like glass over bt for anything i want to go fast its just lighter ill break out the scales to prove that tomorrow. nose cones usually have a smoother fit into glass than they do bt because of bt's robustness. and glass finishes much quicker no filling. bt is good stuff tho and price wise its tough to beat. good luck on your build

I tend to disagree with you on that. I recently purchased a 48" length of Blue Tube to build a 54mm MD rocket (over in the HPR section, Crank), and I was pleasantly surprised with the tubing.

There is no way that FWFG or Convolute wound FG tubing is lighter than Blue tube. I'd venture a guess and say the booster tube from my Wildman Jr. is heavier than the entire length of Blue Tube.

I have found as well that Blue Tube is of the same dimensions as paper or phenolic, not any thicker. My Performance Rocketry 54mm ogive nosecone mates up perfectly with the Blue Tube.

Strength wise, we'll see if the 54mm Blue Tube is adequate to hold up to a Kosdon K700F in a minimum diameter rocket. If it does, then Blue Tube will be fine for any smaller rocket that I build from here on out.
 
All the materials being discussed are good materials, and will hold up well in typical rockets. The area where body tube material really becomes an issue is if you have a rocket that is going to go near or past mach. Materials like phenolic, quantum and paper tubes (LOC) are not as strong as others, and are much more likely to have some issues when passing through the trans-sonic zone. I have no personal experience with blue tube, but everything I've read says that bt has no issues with going trans-sonic (like FG, CF).

Phenolic can be brittle, and can crack (or even shatter) on hard landings. Same can be said for quantum when it gets cold.
 
My last 4" FG was perfect... Tried to cut some weight and cost and tried Blue Tube 2.0. Well you need to understand I like a nice finish on my fleet and BT you really got to work hard to get those spirals out. This being my first time with non-fiberglass I really didn't know what I was getting into, my bad, So worked it as directed by a lot of you out there, for way too much time (coat-sand-repeat) and then was on my final coat and I left it outside under cover and the cool damp air (phx, arizona) warped it and reveled all the spirals from both the interior and the exterior that I worked so hard to remove... majorly my bad, but having the interior larger spiral telescope though to the outside, just wrong... Still my bad. So I weight the black brant II vs. my basic blue 4" and yes it's 1.8 pounds lighter so it does have that, but in my opinion saving a few bucks is not worth the possibility of what I did and the outcome that happened. I'll stay with glass... still wish I didn't mess up though because it was perfect up to then.
 
So are you sure you had Blue Tube 2.0 and not Blue Tube 1.0? Most people say the warping was confined to the first version... I ask specifically because I just picked up this pack on discount at LOC-Precision and have some plans for a nice fun, small field, dual deploy flyer (a semi-4X upgrade of the OOP Rockethead Rockets Battle Axe).



My last 4" FG was perfect... Tried to cut some weight and cost and tried Blue Tube 2.0. Well you need to understand I like a nice finish on my fleet and BT you really got to work hard to get those spirals out. This being my first time with non-fiberglass I really didn't know what I was getting into, my bad, So worked it as directed by a lot of you out there, for way too much time (coat-sand-repeat) and then was on my final coat and I left it outside under cover and the cool damp air (phx, arizona) warped it and reveled all the spirals from both the interior and the exterior that I worked so hard to remove... majorly my bad, but having the interior larger spiral telescope though to the outside, just wrong... Still my bad. So I weight the black brant II vs. my basic blue 4" and yes it's 1.8 pounds lighter so it does have that, but in my opinion saving a few bucks is not worth the possibility of what I did and the outcome that happened. I'll stay with glass... still wish I didn't mess up though because it was perfect up to then.

BattleAxe.jpg

IMG_0096.jpg

IMG_0097.jpg
 
Last edited:
Hope you do a build thread on the Battle Axe. Like to see it finished. I was thinking of a similar but different fin design for a winter build.
 
So are you sure you had Blue Tube 2.0 and not Blue Tube 1.0? Most people say the warping was confined to the first version... I ask specifically because I just picked up this pack on discount at LOC-Precision and have some plans for a nice fun, small field, dual deploy flyer (a semi-4X upgrade of the OOP Rockethead Rockets Battle Axe).

yes it was 2.0... and still my fault... and still sore.
 
yes it was 2.0... and still my fault... and still sore.

one thing i wish i did was to coat the inside of the BT2 to help prevent warp and telescoping of the joints to the finished exterior....
 
one thing i wish i did was to coat the inside of the BT2 to help prevent warp and telescoping of the joints to the finished exterior....

Once BlueTube is finished properly ,there is no way you will see the spirals ,but indeed it does take a bit of work ,but not much more than say LOC or phenolic.I first sand the entire tube with 220 grit and then vacuum and wipe down with a tack cloth ,then fill the spirals with good old Bondo Spot Putty and let dry (one hour) and sand with 220 grit.

I then re-apply more Bondo (as it does shrink a bit) to the spirals and then sand w/ 320 grit.I then vacuum the dust off and go over it with a tack rag.I then apply a nice coat of gloss lacquer clear and let dry for an hour and sand again with 320 and done.The lacquer seals the tube and Bondo in the spirals to give a glass smooth body tube that`s ready for primer and paint.

It really sounds like more work than it is ,but in reality ,this whole procedure takes a couple of hours ,most of that time is waiting for stuff to dry.

But yah ,nothing faster than building with fiberglass or even Quantum tubing for that matter.I would like to use more fiberglass in my projects ,but cost and shipping to Canada is a ball buster ,and cutting slots is a chore, but i do love it ! I do however use fiberglass and Phenolic for my motor tubes.


Paul T
 
Once BlueTube is finished properly ,there is no way you will see the spirals ,but indeed it does take a bit of work ,but not much more than say LOC or phenolic.I first sand the entire tube with 220 grit and then vacuum and wipe down with a tack cloth ,then fill the spirals with good old Bondo Spot Putty and let dry (one hour) and sand with 220 grit.

I then re-apply more Bondo (as it does shrink a bit) to the spirals and then sand w/ 320 grit.I then vacuum the dust off and go over it with a tack rag.I then apply a nice coat of gloss lacquer clear and let dry for an hour and sand again with 320 and done.The lacquer seals the tube and Bondo in the spirals to give a glass smooth body tube that`s ready for primer and paint.

It really sounds like more work than it is ,but in reality ,this whole procedure takes a couple of hours ,most of that time is waiting for stuff to dry.

But yah ,nothing faster than building with fiberglass or even Quantum tubing for that matter.I would like to use more fiberglass in my projects ,but cost and shipping to Canada is a ball buster ,and cutting slots is a chore, but i do love it ! I do however use fiberglass and Phenolic for my motor tubes.


Paul T

I was there with BT 2.0 but i will say it was as smooth as glass until i left it out side in a cool night air... warped and interior spirals telescoped to the exterior... I still blame me but people need to be aware of moisture. I did the sanding sealer x3 then primers x3 then final cots x2... then cool night air exposed all joints; that's dimensional instability.
 
follow up is I'm still sore I f'ed up but did get to fly my rocket and had a hard landing that bluetube 2.0 took well and think cardboard would have not done as well... nice.
 
I would use glassed phenolic, or fiberglass tube. I have had nothing but problems with banana tube. Now I admit, it is very strong, but that's the only good thing I'll say about it. At the recent GRITS launch in Georgia, I flew my BT rocket and it landed in a tree. I used a power line workers telescoping pole to hook the top edge of the booster, then me and another fellow pulled untill we broke the 1-1/2" diameter oak limb that it was snagged on. It tore the blue tube about 3/4 of an inch. I cut the tube off below the tear and flew it again the next month.

No matter how well you finish it, one day the spirals will show through, and one day it will bow/warp. The next day it will probabbly be perfect again. A fellow club member told me of plans to build a rocket using BT and I begged him not to, I made him a set of fins for his build and threatened to take them back if he proceeded with the BT. He did it anyway and made a pretty rocket. At last months launch he nudged me and said look at my rocket on the launch pad. He had left it laying on a table for a little while and it was bowed quite a bit.
 
jcowles, quit beating yourself up about it. In my opinon it's not so much your fault. You would think that a tube that is suppose to be so tuff could take a little neglect. I dont have to worry about sunlight hitting my other rockets, but I have to keep the BT ones in the trailer in the shade until ready to launch and then I pray that they dont have to sit on the rail too long. I dont have to worry about a little moisture hurting my other rockets either. My phenolic ones can land in a mud puddle and fill with water. I pour the water out and fly it again. That happened this past weekend! Dont do that with BT. After several flight on one of my BT rockets, I grabbed the aeropac and twisted the whole BT MMT out. The heat (I guess) did something to it and the whole thing unwound like a slinky.
 
I'm a true fiberglass guy but had to try BT2... fact is if i could just build in FG i would, more money but wow so nice. next itch might be carbon fiber!
 
Back
Top