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.
Sorry to bring up an old thread. But I couldn't find the answer elsewhere.

I'm wondering how Mac Performance canvas phenolic compares to Blue tube 2.0.

I read John Cokers tube comparison guild. It states canvas is stronger then standard phenolic. And it's weight is close to blue tube.

Looking for some 3" and blue tube is half the price. But canvas has no spirals to fill.

Any opinions would be appreciated.

Sent from my VS988 using Tapatalk
 
Sorry to bring up an old thread. But I couldn't find the answer elsewhere.

I'm wondering how Mac Performance canvas phenolic compares to Blue tube 2.0.

I read John Cokers tube comparison guild. It states canvas is stronger then standard phenolic. And it's weight is close to blue tube.

Looking for some 3" and blue tube is half the price. But canvas has no spirals to fill.

Any opinions would be appreciated.

Sent from my VS988 using Tapatalk


Both are great. I have 3 scratch built rockets made with Blue Tube 2.0 (one being my L3 rocket) and 6 MAC canvas rockets.

Both are not cardboard and not fiberglass. Somewhere in between. I'd rate them more or less equal. So, you should just go ahead and get yourself one of each :grin:.

(I can't comment on the spirals - I never fill them. My rockets will never be featured in a magazine but they look fine standing 10 feet away. :cool:)
 
Back
Top