chadrog
Well-Known Member
- Joined
- Sep 27, 2010
- Messages
- 6,854
- Reaction score
- 21
I think this thread cato'ed. (Is it legit to add the -ed?)
Better ask Mr. Shecter about that...
I think this thread cato'ed. (Is it legit to add the -ed?)
I think this thread cato'ed. (Is it legit to add the -ed?)
It's not quack science, it's the vernacular of a select population of people. Science has nothing to with it other than the science of linguistics.
Your pdf is an opinion piece that places heavy emphasis on the idea that rockets do not take-off. What is the meaning of take-off? From the dictionary, 1. the act of rising in flight. Used of an aircraft or a rocket. From the thesaurus, take-off is a synonym for liftoff, blast-off, rocket ignition, departure, rising, accension etc.
Yes CATO is a contrived bacronym but many of the best acronyms are, especially in the field of amateur rocketry, we love our acronyms.
Like it or not CATO as an acronym has entered the American lexicon, it is fact, to rail against it is illogical. One thing is certain, from one KIA to another, continuing to get in peoples faces over the use of CATO will get you nominated for an AHOYA.
And there has been precedent in the aviation industry for the same kind of transitions of terms and acronyms.
A prime example...FOD.
The original term was used in military safety circles for Foreign Object Damage. It was a concise term...perfect for things like jet engines sucking up a bird.
However, it started to be used as slang to describe the actual material or object that caused the damage..."That bolt is a piece of FOD". The term started to be explained as Foreign Object Debris so that any sentence using FOD would make sense. Even though that wasn't its original incarnation.
However, the slang became so widespread, that even agencies like the FAA and ICAO have embraced the new definition as the standard. "FOD Damage" is now considered a correct term. Although for shorthand, most people just say the mechanism was 'fodded'.
So, even in an industry considered to be just as rigorous in terminology, there is room for flexibility of terms.
And just to talk about the E12s, I don't think you will see them at HL until corporate makes it so...I get the feeling that local HLs don't have a bunch of flexibility as to what they stock on the shelves.
FC
Really? Quite a few people and a number of references seem to think that it is.
https://www.acronymfinder.com/Catastrophe-At-Take_Off-(i.e.,-the-rocket-blew-up)-(CATO).html
https://acronyms.thefreedictionary.com/Catastrophe+At+Take-Off
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cato
I thought the F100 was AP...? I remember hearing that their main issue was the paper-composite casing blowing through, but it was a long long time ago so I may very well be wrong.
As it was argued in the BATF hearings, BP burns by deflagration and AP simply burns fast, once you heat them up and get them pressurized. That's why they can be a pain to ignites sometimes, I have never gotten a First-Fire igniter to work with the Aerotech E20 single-use engines. An F100 would be an HP engine nowadays, since it's over 80 Ns.
Actually, the USAF has been trying to get people to call the objects "FO" and we went through that quite a bit in the last couple of years when something is found and there is a big stand-down with re-education sessions.
It does make the term "FOD walk" turn into "FO walk".
Of course, George Carlin got the FAA to change the incredibly stupid term "near miss" into "near collision". He was still using it in his act when I saw him a year or two after the official FAA terminology change.
NASA seems to understand the difference between FO and FOD. But they do not need to create comic-book style training guides like some DoD branches do.
https://lms.larc.nasa.gov/admin/public_docs/LPR_5310-1.pdf
F100 was a BP motor. About the biggest motor you can probably reliably make using BP and have any level of reliability. BP motor designs don't scale well. The larger the motor, the more apt it is to go "boom" or have bad things happen.
Later! OL JR
Here's a pic of my Mega Mosquito on the new E12...
F100 was a BP motor. About the biggest motor you can probably reliably make using BP and have any level of reliability. BP motor designs don't scale well. The larger the motor, the more apt it is to go "boom" or have bad things happen.
Later! OL JR
Upon further reflection, I was thinking of the ENERJET F100, not the FSI F100. The Enerjet F100 WAS an AP motor with a paper/composite casing. I had a Centuri catalog introducing them around 1971 or so, sadly it got tossed with so much other stuff years ago.
One more attempt to get this thread back on E12's. I searched Thrustcurve and looked at the file that was posted here but couldn't find any reference to the max liftoff weight for the E12. My Rip-Roar is overweight after many repairs and a D12 will no longer lift it at a safe speed. Just hoping that the E12 would do the job. Need to find out before I rebuild the booster MMT to accommodate an E12-0.
Well, I just had my first engine cato in 40 years of on-and-off flying... the first E12-6 I tried. It was in a Vagabond modified to carry electronics, about 250g, that had flown at least 10 times. Lifted a little slow off the pad, and blew up at about 20', blowing out both ends of the engine and leaving the casing intact. Fortunately the payload was fine. Reported it to Estes and NAR...
I can see this engine getting a bad rep real fast based on some reports that I have heard about them blowing up at some of the large SoCal gatherings. As for me, I'm sticking to Aerotech RMS...
One more attempt to get this thread back on E12's. I searched Thrustcurve and looked at the file that was posted here but couldn't find any reference to the max liftoff weight for the E12. My Rip-Roar is overweight after many repairs and a D12 will no longer lift it at a safe speed. Just hoping that the E12 would do the job. Need to find out before I rebuild the booster MMT to accommodate an E12-0.
If not using the manufacturer's recommended maximum liftoff weight (in the Estes catalog which is printed as well as PDF online), then weigh the rocket with motors and run a simulation to determine if the rocket will leave the launch rod or rail that you intend to use at a safe speed (and will continue to stay in the air during the sustaining phase).
Sometimes you need a 6 foot long 1/4" diameter steel launch rod.
Sometimes even that is not enough....
The solution to that problem is to make the booster have 3 inline motors, which also mitigates the liftoff thrust issue.
4 x Estes E motors = over 125 grams propellant weight = High Power Rocket = Waiver needed from FAA.
2 motors in the booster can work with a gap as long as there is a vent hole. Motors do not need to be aligned between stages, but all the booster motors need to ignite.
Enter your email address to join: