Page 2 of 3 FirstFirst 1 2 3 LastLast
Results 31 to 60 of 72
  1. #31
    Join Date
    19th January 2009
    Posts
    3,352
    After seeing Burl's CHAD camera mount on his Test Mule #9 rocket at the July Orangeburg launch, I decided to make an addition to my Deuce.

    Kodak Zi6 solid state camcorder -

    Attached Thumbnails Attached Thumbnails Click image for larger version. 

Name:	Deuce Camera 2a.jpg 
Views:	58 
Size:	111.6 KB 
ID:	8831   Click image for larger version. 

Name:	Deuce Camera 3a.jpg 
Views:	59 
Size:	99.3 KB 
ID:	8832  

  2. #32
    Join Date
    19th January 2009
    Posts
    3,352
    I built a plywood box to hold the camera -

    Attached Thumbnails Attached Thumbnails Click image for larger version. 

Name:	Deuce Camera 4a.jpg 
Views:	68 
Size:	91.2 KB 
ID:	8833   Click image for larger version. 

Name:	Deuce Camera 5a.jpg 
Views:	77 
Size:	97.4 KB 
ID:	8834  

  3. #33
    Join Date
    19th January 2009
    Posts
    3,352
    The camera just drops into the box. Not shown is the 2 strips of closed cell foam that cushion the camera and prevent motion during flight.
    Attached Thumbnails Attached Thumbnails Click image for larger version. 

Name:	Deuce Camera 6a.jpg 
Views:	68 
Size:	106.1 KB 
ID:	8835  

  4. #34
    Join Date
    19th January 2009
    Posts
    3,352
    I will prime and paint the box yellow. At the pad, it's just a matter of starting the camera, then mounting it to the base of the rocket between the motor tubes. It will run about 30 minutes on a pair of AA batteries.
    Attached Thumbnails Attached Thumbnails Click image for larger version. 

Name:	Deuce Camera 7a.jpg 
Views:	83 
Size:	105.3 KB 
ID:	8836  

  5. #35
    Join Date
    18th January 2009
    Location
    Boulder
    Posts
    12,491
    That is a really cool idea. I may have to try that with mine
    NAR #84281 L3
    TRA #11233 L3

  6. #36
    Join Date
    18th January 2009
    Posts
    1,510
    Quote Originally Posted by cjl View Post
    That is a really cool idea. I may have to try that with mine
    I was thinking that same thing! Except build it to hold an Aiptek HD camera
    That would be SWEET

    Ben
    Ben Ullman

  7. #37
    Join Date
    19th January 2009
    Posts
    3,352
    The camera takes 720p video at 60 frames/sec. I flew it Saturday on CTI J210 motors to 2088 feet with the main set at 1500 feet. On impact, the batteries dislodged enough to clear the buffer so the last 15 seconds or so were lost. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4CDEEkoVHN4

  8. #38
    Join Date
    19th January 2009
    Location
    Tucson, Az
    Posts
    2,294
    Now that is a cool video!
    more rockets then cents

  9. #39
    Join Date
    19th January 2009
    Location
    Hole in the wall near Savannah, GA
    Posts
    7,378
    It is indeed! Was way cool seeing it go up in person too! I was prepping a rocket when the LCO(Johnnie) announced the flight, and that the main was to come out at 1500'..I thought, 'WHAT?!?! Tom NEVER has his main come out that high!'. Forgetting that he had the camera in there!..Too bad there wasn't another Gorilla case on site, cause Tom wanted to send it up next with a pair of sparkies! THAT would be cool to see! Maybe we will get that chance come Freedom Launch!
    Chute Happens!!
    NAR 86940 L2
    TRA 12270 L3 09-01-12
    KF4GUL
    TeleTubby Fan, Unofficial King of Namby-Pamby Land:tongue:

  10. #40
    Join Date
    18th January 2009
    Location
    Merrimack, NH
    Posts
    15,344
    That is a VERY intense video and i have often wondered what that view point would look like on the Deuce. That and the Tres are the only two designs (that I know of) where you can locate a camera dead center like that.

    Very kewl

  11. #41
    Join Date
    18th January 2009
    Location
    Southeastern PA
    Posts
    3,988
    Wow, that's such a great place to put a camera! I love the view you get with it. No interference at all, except for the flames, unlike you would have with a body mounted cam. I'd like to see a video with a cleaner burning motor for an unobstructed view.
    Josh

  12. #42
    Join Date
    19th January 2009
    Posts
    3,352
    Quote Originally Posted by jj94 View Post
    I'd like to see a video with a cleaner burning motor for an unobstructed view.
    The motors were CTI J210 Classic propellant. There aren't any other commercial motors with a cleaner burn

  13. #43
    Join Date
    26th January 2009
    Posts
    224
    Quote Originally Posted by Rocketjunkie View Post
    The motors were CTI J210 Classic propellant. There aren't any other commercial motors with a cleaner burn
    Yeah there are commercial motor with a cleaner burn, Aerotech Blue Thunder and Warp-9 reloads.

    There is the Aerotech J180T which is a c-slot Blue Thunder reload for the 54/852.
    Last edited by C.O.B.H.C.; 25th August 2009 at 09:07 PM.
    Aaron Stanley
    NAR & TRA L3
    Highest flight: 25,058 Feet 75mm minimum diameter M685W
    L1: PML Phoboos H165R
    L2: Public Enemy Extreme Performer J460T
    L3: Performance Rocketry Competitor 4 M1315W

  14. #44
    Join Date
    23rd January 2009
    Location
    New York
    Posts
    5,075
    Quote Originally Posted by C.O.B.H.C. View Post
    Yeah there are commercial motor with a cleaner burn, Aerotech Blue Thunder and Warp-9 reloads.

    There is the Aerotech J180T which is a c-slot Blue Thunder reload for the 54/852.
    Pretty much every thread about motors I expect an Aerotech related response from you.

    Why can't I be the Northwest Aerotech representative?

  15. #45
    Join Date
    26th January 2009
    Posts
    224
    Quote Originally Posted by patelldp View Post
    Pretty much every thread about motors I expect an Aerotech related response from you.

    Why can't I be the Northwest Aerotech representative?
    Well rocketjunkie said cti classic propellant is the only clean burning commercial propellant on the market and it isn't the only one. I was just pointing out Aerotech makes cleaning burning propellant too.
    Last edited by C.O.B.H.C.; 26th August 2009 at 12:00 AM.
    Aaron Stanley
    NAR & TRA L3
    Highest flight: 25,058 Feet 75mm minimum diameter M685W
    L1: PML Phoboos H165R
    L2: Public Enemy Extreme Performer J460T
    L3: Performance Rocketry Competitor 4 M1315W

  16. #46
    Join Date
    18th January 2009
    Location
    Southeastern PA
    Posts
    3,988
    Quote Originally Posted by Rocketjunkie View Post
    The motors were CTI J210 Classic propellant. There aren't any other commercial motors with a cleaner burn
    Oh, I didn't see the caption where it said it was with J210's. I couldn't even tell it was Classic though. Looked like some whites. White thunder/white lightning.
    Josh

  17. #47
    Join Date
    20th January 2009
    Posts
    363
    Quote Originally Posted by jj94 View Post
    Wow, that's such a great place to put a camera! I love the view you get with it. No interference at all, except for the flames, unlike you would have with a body mounted cam. I'd like to see a video with a cleaner burning motor for an unobstructed view.
    Assuming that was electronic based ejection, could the delay element have been greased to prevent the tracking smoke from appearing in the video?
    Last edited by bguffer; 26th August 2009 at 03:37 AM. Reason: clarification

  18. #48
    Join Date
    18th January 2009
    Location
    Boulder
    Posts
    12,491
    Quote Originally Posted by Rocketjunkie View Post
    After seeing Burl's CHAD camera mount on his Test Mule #9 rocket at the July Orangeburg launch, I decided to make an addition to my Deuce.

    Kodak Zi6 solid state camcorder -
    Here's a question - do you know if the Zi8 (1080p) is the same size? If so, I'll definitely get one to mount on my deuce - the video would be awesome.
    NAR #84281 L3
    TRA #11233 L3

  19. #49
    Join Date
    19th January 2009
    Posts
    3,352
    Quote Originally Posted by C.O.B.H.C. View Post
    Yeah there are commercial motor with a cleaner burn, Aerotech Blue Thunder and Warp-9 reloads.

    There is the Aerotech J180T which is a c-slot Blue Thunder reload for the 54/852.
    I fly more Aerotech than anything else. Blue Thunder has as much smoke as CTI Classic. Warp 9 might be cleaner but the burn time and thrust level isn't compatible with the Deuce. I did hear something about a J99 though, sounds very interesting and I would like to try a pair. I like the J180 and would love to see C-slot Blue Thunder reloads for the 54/1280 and 54/1706 cases. One of my favorite motors was the old SU J285.

  20. #50
    Join Date
    19th January 2009
    Posts
    3,352
    Quote Originally Posted by cjl View Post
    Here's a question - do you know if the Zi8 (1080p) is the same size? If so, I'll definitely get one to mount on my deuce - the video would be awesome.
    The Zi8 is the same size, 2.5 x 4.5 x 0.9 inches. It appears to be about $50 more and uses Li-Ion batteries instead of the NiMH batteries of the Zi6. I picked up the Zi6 at my local Wal-Mart.

  21. #51
    Join Date
    19th January 2009
    Posts
    3,352
    Quote Originally Posted by bguffer View Post
    Assuming that was electronic based ejection, could the delay element have been greased to prevent the tracking smoke from appearing in the video?
    With CTI motors, I wouldn't want to tamper with it. With Aerotech motors, no problem or just use an inert slug to fill the space.

  22. #52
    Join Date
    26th January 2009
    Posts
    224
    Quote Originally Posted by Rocketjunkie View Post
    I fly more Aerotech than anything else. Blue Thunder has as much smoke as CTI Classic. Warp 9 might be cleaner but the burn time and thrust level isn't compatible with the Deuce. I did hear something about a J99 though, sounds very interesting and I would like to try a pair. I like the J180 and would love to see C-slot Blue Thunder reloads for the 54/1280 and 54/1706 cases. One of my favorite motors was the old SU J285.
    Blue Thunder to me seems to have less smoke compaired to cti classic propellant.

    The J99N is a very nice motor with about a 10 second burn time. I flew one in my Firestrom 54 clone to 5K. I too would love to see C-Slot Blue Thunder reloads for the 54/1280, 54/1706, and 54/2560.

    BTW nice video.
    Aaron Stanley
    NAR & TRA L3
    Highest flight: 25,058 Feet 75mm minimum diameter M685W
    L1: PML Phoboos H165R
    L2: Public Enemy Extreme Performer J460T
    L3: Performance Rocketry Competitor 4 M1315W

  23. #53
    Join Date
    19th January 2009
    Location
    Tucson, Az
    Posts
    2,294
    I do not know, I kinda like seeing the flames! It would be interesting with redlines. The idea of disabling the tracking smoke is a good one for this application.
    more rockets then cents

  24. #54
    Join Date
    18th January 2009
    Location
    Boulder
    Posts
    12,491
    I'd love to try one with something like K700s with the tracking smoke greased over. Massive flame and smoke, followed by absolute clarity.
    NAR #84281 L3
    TRA #11233 L3

  25. #55
    Join Date
    21st January 2009
    Posts
    1,380
    could the delay element have been greased to prevent the tracking smoke from appearing in the video?
    No. If you grease the bottom face of the delay grain, it will still burn once the motor comes up to pressure. You would not be able to inhibit the delay from burning. If you want absolute clarity, you would have remove the delay element.



    Justin

  26. #56
    Join Date
    18th January 2009
    Location
    Boulder
    Posts
    12,491
    Quote Originally Posted by rfjustin View Post
    No. If you grease the bottom face of the delay grain, it will still burn once the motor comes up to pressure. You would not be able to inhibit the delay from burning. If you want absolute clarity, you would have remove the delay element.



    Justin
    Not true. I've done it intentionally, and it will prevent the delay from burning if you grease it rather liberally.
    NAR #84281 L3
    TRA #11233 L3

  27. #57
    Join Date
    21st January 2009
    Posts
    1,380
    Not true. I've done it intentionally, and it will prevent the delay from burning if you grease it rather liberally.
    My L2 rocket which I flew back in 2002 was flown with at K-700W for my L2. I LIBERALLY greased the entire plugged forward closure with SuperLube. I purposefully caked the face of the delay as well. Upon recovery of the rocket and requisite inspection of the motor, the entire delay was consumed.

    Based on your statement of "not true", I must be a liar then? WTF?

    Please note I did NOT say EVERY time you grease the face of the delay, it will still burn. I learned many moons ago that blanket statements are generally not the best practice.

    I just realized, I have an M-1315 loaded that is planned to fly next week Friday. I'm sure that 75mm delay WON'T burn right???



    Justin

  28. #58
    Join Date
    23rd January 2009
    Location
    New York
    Posts
    5,075
    Quote Originally Posted by rfjustin View Post
    My L2 rocket which I flew back in 2002 was flown with at K-700W for my L2. I LIBERALLY greased the entire plugged forward closure with SuperLube. I purposefully caked the face of the delay as well. Upon recovery of the rocket and requisite inspection of the motor, the entire delay was consumed.

    Based on your statement of "not true", I must be a liar then? WTF?

    Please note I did NOT say EVERY time you grease the face of the delay, it will still burn. I learned many moons ago that blanket statements are generally not the best practice.

    I just realized, I have an M-1315 loaded that is planned to fly next week Friday. I'm sure that 75mm delay WON'T burn right???



    Justin
    Put some money on it. I bet you win.

  29. #59
    Join Date
    21st January 2009
    Posts
    1,380
    Put some money on it. I bet you win.
    Now you're talking!

    If I were a betting man, I would imagine that Cjl was able to inhibit a 38mm delay, not a 54mm or 75mm... That's speculation on my part. I have empirical data from my experiences from roughly (12) K-700's and (8) M-1315's ALL with heavily caked delay faces. I'm 20 for 20.



    Justin

  30. #60
    Join Date
    23rd January 2009
    Location
    New York
    Posts
    5,075
    Quote Originally Posted by rfjustin View Post
    Now you're talking!

    If I were a betting man, I would imagine that Cjl was able to inhibit a 38mm delay, not a 54mm or 75mm... That's speculation on my part. I have empirical data from my experiences from roughly (12) K-700's and (8) M-1315's ALL with heavily caked delay faces. I'm 20 for 20.



    Justin
    With my 76mm EX's, I always inhibit the FORWARD end with epoxy. This is then potted in a crap-load of grease in the cavity. I wouldn't even trust grease on the forward end of the delay grain, even though it's not in the main combustion chamber. That's a lot of heat over a lot of area, I have a feeling that grease would just boil away at those conditions.


Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •