A hideous launch day

The Rocketry Forum

Help Support The Rocketry Forum:

This site may earn a commission from merchant affiliate links, including eBay, Amazon, and others.
Well I just gotta say that inspite of these mishaps I think you are really doing a great job with your builds and how you're working through adversity. Sometimes, despite our best efforts, stuff happens; we are playing with fire after all. Keep it up young man !

As far as the Bertha is concerned, there has been some anecdotal evidence that the current design, with the short motor tube, leaves too big an area inside the airframe for the ejection charge to pressurize. In the past that model had a longer motor tube (also known as a stuffer). Make sure the wadding creates a good gas seal by blowing into the tube after you insert it (really !) You will hear the "thunk" when the wadding hits the top centering ring. No "thunk" means air is getting past the wadding, that means hot gases will too. Also make sure the nose cone is seated correctly: when turned over, the cone should not fall out but it should come off with a gentle shake or two.
 
Well I just gotta say that inspite of these mishaps I think you are really doing a great job with your builds and how you're working through adversity. Sometimes, despite our best efforts, stuff happens; we are playing with fire after all. Keep it up young man !

As far as the Bertha is concerned, there has been some anecdotal evidence that the current design, with the short motor tube, leaves too big an area inside the airframe for the ejection charge to pressurize. In the past that model had a longer motor tube (also known as a stuffer). Make sure the wadding creates a good gas seal by blowing into the tube after you insert it (really !) You will hear the "thunk" when the wadding hits the top centering ring. No "thunk" means air is getting past the wadding, that means hot gases will too. Also make sure the nose cone is seated correctly: when turned over, the cone should not fall out but it should come off with a gentle shake or two.

I didnt know that about the Bertha! Thanks for that blowing into the tube tip as strange as it sounds.
Thanks for the encouragement :)
 
From the photos of the motors it appears that you have had a nozzle blowout, where pressure builds up inside the motor, blowing out the ceramic nozzle and releasing the majority of the thrust at once (which would explain the high altitude.) What was the ignition like- did it take an unusually long time from pressing the launch button to actually leaving the pad?

I would expect this just to be bad batch problem- as the others said contact Estes and let them know what happened. Would it be possible for you to post the batch number on here, as I have four C6-5 packets lying around (12 motors), and it would be nice to know that I don't have a motor from this batch.
 
From the photos of the motors it appears that you have had a nozzle blowout, where pressure builds up inside the motor, blowing out the ceramic nozzle and releasing the majority of the thrust at once (which would explain the high altitude.) What was the ignition like- did it take an unusually long time from pressing the launch button to actually leaving the pad?

I would expect this just to be bad batch problem- as the others said contact Estes and let them know what happened. Would it be possible for you to post the batch number on here, as I have four C6-5 packets lying around (12 motors), and it would be nice to know that I don't have a motor from this batch.

If you could tell me which number on the engine is the batch number Id be happy to :)
Also yeah I think there was a 2-3 second delay from when I pressed the button to when it launched
 
Last edited:
From the photos of the motors it appears that you have had a nozzle blowout, where pressure builds up inside the motor, blowing out the ceramic nozzle and releasing the majority of the thrust at once (which would explain the high altitude.) What was the ignition like- did it take an unusually long time from pressing the launch button to actually leaving the pad?

I would expect this just to be bad batch problem- as the others said contact Estes and let them know what happened. Would it be possible for you to post the batch number on here, as I have four C6-5 packets lying around (12 motors), and it would be nice to know that I don't have a motor from this batch.

Right I think the batch number is MR-0057 since thats the identical number of the remaining engine that hasnt been used in the package, and the package itself.
 
I've found that normally C6-5s really jump off the pad as soon as you press the button, so that would most likely be the build up of gas inside the motor before it blew off the nozzle.

I THINK the batch number is the ringed one next to the 'MOTEUR-FUSEE MINATURE' thing.
Mine are:
A041411
A081811
 
I've found that normally C6-5s really jump off the pad as soon as you press the button, so that would most likely be the build up of gas inside the motor before it blew off the nozzle.

I THINK the batch number is the ringed one next to the 'MOTEUR-FUSEE MINATURE' thing.
Mine are:
A041411
A081811

Oh in that case its A0904124. I think thats the serial number though since those arent all identical.
 
Yep, this was your real baptism into big-boy rocketry.

Everybody's gotta go through a couple of "Murphy's Law" days and spend a couple days figuring out what went wrong and playing rocket fixit man.

Believe it or not some of your patched-up rockets may become your favorites. They seem to have more character if they've got a few battle scars.

I think everybody who's been in the hobby more than a couple months has a couple 'old reliables' it seems like never get killed off -- they keep on coming back again.
 
+1 for this.

If the motor & mount pushed up into the rocket during boost, then lots of very bad things would have happened - including the aft-end of your rockets catching fire in a spectacular way.

IMO - superglue has virtually no place in structural applications for model rocketry; It does ok for toughening up balsa parts. Good quality wood glue (titebond etc.) does a much better job with cardboard to cardboard / paper attachments. With the right application, wood glue on card / card bonds is better than epoxy resin!

Good luck with the re-build :)

Krusty

EDIT : Woah! That engine doesn't look good (pics went up while I was responding). Externally, a used Estes engine shouldn't look any different from a new one - def. not black and deformed :(

+1...

I think your assessment of the motor mount failure is correct-- had it failed in flight and the motor slid forward, the Krushnik Effect would have sapped the thrust of the motor and thus one would not observe the "higher than normal" flight path that the rocket took. The CG would have shifted forward as well, which would tend to increase the stability of the rocket, but it would also have made it more likely to push the nosecone off and the parachute out prematurely in flight-- not led to a separation and non-deploy on the other rocket.

It's likely that the motor mount broke free and slid forward at impact, when the gee forces are extremely high. However, this SHOULDN'T have happened. I've had rockets streamline in and core sample from high altitude seperations and NEVER had one break the motor mount loose and slide it forward in the tube... I've had the tube accordion and even compress the air inside to the point that the tube ruptured with a loud "bang" like a shotgun blast, blowing the tube apart at the seam for most of its length, and the motor mount still remain perfectly intact (I now have a Maniac booster stage from just such a flight). My first guess is that you're using the wrong type of glue or insufficient glue (or both) to install your motor mount, and that it broke free of the interior wall of the tube and slid forward at impact.

The motor casing is damaged in such a way that shows the motor was not operating normally in flight... your assessment that they should look virtually the same as an unburned motor, at least externally, is essentially correct.

Later! OL JR :)
 
Welp guys, Ive repaired both rockets!
The falcon looks a bit different then it used to on the inside and on the bottom but it should fly fine.
Ive repaired the engine mount just by using another kits engine mount pieces (I got a really cheap baby bertha from hobby lobby for this. 6$)
I glued the chunks back to the broke engine mount casing using plastic cement, and since my baffle was screwed I made one of those trifolds for the shock cord attachment.
I cleaned all of the dirt off the top with disinfectant wipes and released Jimmy back into the wild, Ive also used some of your engine mount tips for this, so it shouldnt come free!
Ive gotten a new chute for the bertha (A trash bag chute from my SLS, since Im using a difference chute for the SLS) and both are looking alright!
There is very minor burning on the bottom of both rocket tubes but they are fine structurally wise. I pretty much didnt even attempt to fix the baffle of the Falcon since it wasnt a needed component, the trifold will do fine. We also luckily had all the clear fins, so I went ahead and snapped those on with a thin coat of glue on them, so that should help keep them from falling out.
Now I can get back to working on my Saturn V :blush:

Good work...

You can always make your own trash bag chutes, or if you want to get really creative, grab an old helium party balloon (or a new one if you want) and make your own chute from that... I have some pretty cool chutes I've made from party balloons and regular heavy thread from Walmart, along with some locking fishing snap swivels.

All you have to do is take the balloon, cut the "filler neck" off the bottom with a pair of scissors, and lay the balloon out as flat as you can get it on a table, mushing out any remaining helium from it as you smooth it out flat. Then take you scissors and simply cut off the edge of the balloon about 1/4 to 1/2 inch in from the edge, where the two halves of the balloon material is welded together when it's made. This will separate the front and back halves of the balloon skin, and then you can simply mark out evenly spaced spots for the shroud lines, measuring them out into a hexagon or octagon arrangement. I usually prefer 8. If you want a smaller chute, you can trace around a coffee can or cut a circle pattern out of posterboard or cardboard whatever size you want and trace around it with a magic marker, and then carefully cut the balloon material down to the size you want.

The main thing to remember when making a mylar balloon parachute is, mylar is a tough plastic, but it can rip easily at corners or at the points of ragged edges. SO, cut the balloon VERY CAREFULLY so that there are NO ragged edges around the periphery of the chute... and personally I cut them ROUND, and then use a hexagonal or octagonal pattern for the shroud lines-- cutting the actual chute canopy to a hex or octagon shape introduces "pressure points" at the corners which can tear the chute in a hard deployment and cause it to rip. A round chute distributes the forces more equally out into the canopy material. If you get a ragged edge when cutting, go back and simply cut off a little bit back around the jagged edge, so that it's smoothed out... it won't hurt it if it's not PERFECTLY round-- a little "out of round" is okay...

Once you have your chute shroud line locations marked evenly around the edge of the chute, I cut little 1/2 inch squares of duct tape and attach them to the chute where the shroud lines will go... this reinforces the material around the shroud lines so they don't rip out, much like the "tape dots" on Estes chutes, or the "binder rings" on Dr. Zooch chutes. If you don't want to mess with cutting duct tape into little squares, you can always pick up a pack of binder rings at Walmart or the office supply store next time you go-- they're cheap enough. Besides, you'll need the heavy carpet thread (heaviest thread you can get in the sewing section) and a package of small "coast-lock" snap swivels (usually a burnished dark gray/black in color, versus the "non-locking" brass and steel wire snap swivels, which I don't recommend-- they can pop open or be straightened out and separate in a hard deployment of the parachute). I use duct tape because 1) its cheap, and 2) it's STRONG-- with the reinforcing "strings" in the material, and the strong, "permanent" adhesive... I move in about 1/8 to 1/4 inch from the edge of the chute and attach a small square of duct tape where the shroud line will go. Do this all the way around.

Use a hole punch to knock a smooth-edged hole through the duct tape and balloon chute material where each shroud line will go... don't just use the point of your hobby knife to cut a slit for the shroud line-- a "cut slit" can easily rip in mylar if the chute pops open hard, and duct tape CAN tear-- a smooth edged hole punched in the material is much stronger because the force is distributed around the edge of the hole and into the material in a hard deployment.

The rest of the chute construction is just like that done in a Dr. Zooch kit when building the trash-bag chute in all his kits... the shroud lines should be 1.5 to 2 times the diameter of the chute canopy, and since each string will be two shroud lines joined at the center, that means each string should be cut 3-4 times the chute diameter. Tie them off at ADJOINING or PARALLEL holes as you build the chute-- this avoids "crossed shroudlines" later on. (start with the first string at two adjoining side-by-side shroud line holes, tie one end through each of the two holes. The NEXT string should have one end tied to the NEXT hole on ONE SIDE of the first string, and the other end tied to the NEXT HOLE on the OTHER SIDE of the first string... keep tying shroud line strings to the NEXT HOLES on EITHER SIDE of the previous ones, working your way around the chute, until the last string is tied between the LAST TWO HOLES that are RIGHT NEXT TO EACH OTHER... now all the shroud lines will lay SIDE BY SIDE when gathered up and looped through the snap swivel, without them crossing over each other.)

Once the chute is completed, even up the shroud lines and slip the snap swivel in through the looped shrouds, and pull them snug, and rub a drop of white glue into the loop to "lock them in place" and keep them from slipping.

Finally, I recommend dusting the chute with talcum powder and rubbing it around the tape spots, so that any stickiness is eliminated by the powder... that way the chute cannot "stick together" when it's packed into the rocket.

What's cool about these chutes are, that they can be pretty much any "pattern" you want... my daughter Keira has a "Disney Princess" parachute for her Fatboy that we made, and I have some "anodized green" and black parachutes made from balloons my wife brought home from graduation at the high school she teaches at, with a cool "Hightower Hurricanes" emblem on them... You can even flip them "inside out" and have CHROME parachutes, or aluminum looking ones, since the inside of a helium balloon is coated with aluminum vapor, which gives the back of most balloons a "chrome" appearance, unless they're printed on both sides... and the inside of the balloon is always a flat "aluminum foil" looking surface finish...

What's best of all-- they're FREE-- I grab spare party balloons when they go flat after the helium leaks out... I even have some cool red anodized ones from Valentine's day balloons that drifted down and caught on my fence after Valentine's day... I cut the "heart" shapes to round and made slightly smaller chutes. Works great!

Later! OL JR :)
 
I didnt know that about the Bertha! Thanks for that blowing into the tube tip as strange as it sounds.
Thanks for the encouragement :)

You want to do that BEFORE you put the motor in BTW... that allows the air in the tube to be blown out the motor mount hole before the motor is inserted...

If you fly a lot, you might want to switch to dog barf at some point-- cheaper than Estes wadding by a longshot!

Estes ejection charges are stronger than they used to be... I don't think you'll have any problems with it blowing the chute out of a Big Bertha... If the nozzle of the motor was truly blown out BEFORE the motor ejected, or even at ejection, then MOST of the ejection charge pressure would have VENTED out the bottom of the motor tube with the spit nozzle... so that would explain why it didn't work as it was supposed to when the motor mount blew out...

Later and good luck! OL JR :)
 
From the photos of the motors it appears that you have had a nozzle blowout, where pressure builds up inside the motor, blowing out the ceramic nozzle and releasing the majority of the thrust at once (which would explain the high altitude.) What was the ignition like- did it take an unusually long time from pressing the launch button to actually leaving the pad?

I would expect this just to be bad batch problem- as the others said contact Estes and let them know what happened. Would it be possible for you to post the batch number on here, as I have four C6-5 packets lying around (12 motors), and it would be nice to know that I don't have a motor from this batch.

A blown nozzle won't "release all the thrust at once"... rocket motors require a specific operating pressure to operate correctly-- this is just as true of our small model rocket motors as it is of SSME's. Small black powder rocket motors operate at about 70-100 psi, or thereabouts. Larger motors operate a somewhat higher pressures. (Shuttle SRB's operate at about 700 PSI, and SSME's operate at over 2,500 PSI IIRC from memory-- as with gasoline engines, the higher the pressure, the more efficient the motor operates, to a point).

If the nozzle blows out, the motor will lose all the backpressure between the nozzle and the burning propellant face. This causes the gas to be ejected out the huge "hole" at the back of the motor casing at very low pressure (and thus a lower temperature) than it would be ejected more forcefully out the MUCH smaller nozzle hole (throat) at much higher pressure (and thus temperature). The gas doesn't expand as much and therefore, little/no thrust is developed... it's not a matter of "all the thrust coming out at once".

I've seen E9's blow their nozzle at ignition... you press the button, start to hear the "whoosh" of the motor coming up to pressure, and a split second later a loud "PING!" as the ceramic nozzle blows out the back of the casing and bounces off the steel deflector plate... the rocket motor then proceeds to burn through its propellant, usually a slower rate than normal (since burn rate is dependent upon pressure, to some degree) and this usually results in a large flaming exhaust with no thrust-- the rocket simply sits there on the pad, burning furiously as flames and burning bits of BP roast its back end while it sits on the pad... Had a club buddy have his vintage FSI Maverick badly damaged in just such an incident... and I've seen it other times as well.

I think what may have happened is either the motor overpressurized, due to a "hot grain" caused by BP that burned a little TOO vigorously (energetically, burning too fast and/or hot and thus overpressurizing the case, which caused the motor to spit the nozzle near the end of the thrust phase... this would explain the "extra performance" reported from the motor, while still explaining the spit nozzle. The other possibility is that the ejection charge was too powerful or the casing or nozzle damaged, and thus the ejection charge blew out the nozzle at apogee and blew most of the ejection charge out the back of the rocket, rather than blowing it out the front to blow the parachute out...

Later! OL JR :)
 
If you could tell me which number on the engine is the batch number Id be happy to :)
Also yeah I think there was a 2-3 second delay from when I pressed the button to when it launched

That's not uncommon with dinky Estes controllers using dinky "AA" batteries, especially after they've launched a few rockets-- dry cell batteries are pretty lousy sources of power for ignitors, especially the older "high current" style typical Estes ignitors sold with their motors. If one wires up dry cells into a 12 volt arrangement instead of 6 volt, they're not "as bad" but personally I like a better power source, which will ignite anything I throw at it INSTANTLY and do it for as long as I care to fly-- all day long, and STILL have tons of power at the end of the day...

I used to run my controllers off the car battery, but now I use a car jumper battery pack... 12 volts of clean, uninterrupted, steady power... and no dinky "AA" batteries to replace or find dead or nearly dead, and NO "push the button and hold it 2-3 seconds waiting for the motor to light (if it lights)" type things...

Later! OL JR :)
 
That's not uncommon with dinky Estes controllers using dinky "AA" batteries, especially after they've launched a few rockets-- dry cell batteries are pretty lousy sources of power for ignitors, especially the older "high current" style typical Estes ignitors sold with their motors. If one wires up dry cells into a 12 volt arrangement instead of 6 volt, they're not "as bad" but personally I like a better power source, which will ignite anything I throw at it INSTANTLY and do it for as long as I care to fly-- all day long, and STILL have tons of power at the end of the day...

I used to run my controllers off the car battery, but now I use a car jumper battery pack... 12 volts of clean, uninterrupted, steady power... and no dinky "AA" batteries to replace or find dead or nearly dead, and NO "push the button and hold it 2-3 seconds waiting for the motor to light (if it lights)" type things...

Later! OL JR :)

Wow you replied a lot, just gone done reading it all xD
The trashbag chute was a neat idea, and I think your theory of why the motor exploded sounds more likely.
Also Im using the higher volt Estes Controller, the E Engine controller instead of the normal one.
Its blue and costed 10 dollars more then the orange one and says it works on ALL Estes Engines, so I guess its a high power one? I got it when my dinky orange one broke and was trying to get a more reliable one.
 
Wow you replied a lot, just gone done reading it all xD
The trashbag chute was a neat idea, and I think your theory of why the motor exploded sounds more likely.
Also Im using the higher volt Estes Controller, the E Engine controller instead of the normal one.
Its blue and costed 10 dollars more then the orange one and says it works on ALL Estes Engines, so I guess its a high power one? I got it when my dinky orange one broke and was trying to get a more reliable one.

Yep, I read the replies and then comment as I go... hence the numerous replies... (what does "xD" mean anyway?? LOL:))

What batteries does the "E" controller use?? The only REAL difference in them is that the launch leads are 30 feet instead of 15 like the "Electron Beam" controller IIRC... I seem to remember them both being powered by AA batteries, and if it has four of them, it's wired for six volt power... IOW, not much power...

If you're going to use dry cells in a controller, then IMHO the BMS controller using 8 "D" cells arranged for 12 volts is the way to go... 12 volts delivers plenty of power to the ignitor(s) and D cells are big enough to have some reserve capacity to deliver power a lot longer than a dinky "AA" battery will... Of course, the chemistry of dry cells and alkaline batteries causes them to have high internal resistance, so they're not particularly good at delivering large amounts of power anyway, especially through a dead short, which is essentially what an ignitor is... that's why cars use lead-acid batteries to crank the car engine up rather than a pack of AA's or even D cells... lead-acid batteries have MUCH lower internal resistance and can deliver HUGE quantities of electricity through heavy loads and dead shorts. Other batteries, like rechargeable Ni-cads or the more common nickel-metal hydrides (NiMH) rechargeables can deliver a lot more current at lower internal resistance as well (C-rating as it's called). Li-polys are also superior in this regard even to NiMH's, BUT, they require care when using to NOT discharge them below 4.5 volts or thereabouts-- discharging them below that will permanently RUIN the battery-- thus most things using Lipolys' for power have a circuit built in to protect the battery and shut off the power supply when it discharges to 4.5 volts or so. Lipoly's also require special charging equipment, which makes them more expensive than other battery types....

Just so ya know... :) Later! OL JR :)
 
There is a lot that is unusual here. A black powder motor like the C6-5 ignites almost immediately when you push the button. I've never seen one take more than a fraction of a second to ignite. I've also never seen a case blown up like the one in the picture. Both of those things point to an engine problem, not a construction problem. We can always improve our construction techniques, but even the best technique can't compensate for a CATO. Motors sometimes fail and destroy a lot of work. Don't let that bug you. If it does, stay away from high power.
 
I would say something is wrong with the motors. You've launched your Falcon 9 multiple times so your motor mount seems like it was secured but I guess it could have been getting loose after each launch.

Have you heard back from Estes?
 
Wow you replied a lot, just gone done reading it all xD
The trashbag chute was a neat idea, and I think your theory of why the motor exploded sounds more likely.
Also Im using the higher volt Estes Controller, the E Engine controller instead of the normal one.
Its blue and costed 10 dollars more then the orange one and says it works on ALL Estes Engines, so I guess its a high power one? I got it when my dinky orange one broke and was trying to get a more reliable one.


The Estes E controller uses 4 AA batteries just like the 'Electron Beam' so the voltage is the same (6V) either way. Estes E's are black-powder motors just like the smaller ones so it is no harder (voltage-wise) to ignite an E than it is a smaller motor.

Estes also advertises the Astron II controller which uses a single 9V battery. This is usually fine if you are using single igniters on BP motors, but as many mentioned, batteries can lose juice in a hurry especially with heavy use.

If and when you want to get into clusters, you will probably want to move up to a 12V system. With fresh batteries, a 12V system should deliver plenty of juice to fire any cluster you're likely to fly.

Estes controllers do have to be modified somewhat to use 12V power supplies (a new LED light bulb mainly). This can sometimes be a tricky process (the controllers are not especially built to be user-servicable).
 
And E9's ;)

Krusty

Uh, yeah. (But I keep going back to the well.)

007-1.jpg


008.jpg










 
Fishhead, awesome catos!

Odo, do not show your mom pictures of Fishhead's catos...

Odo, I think you are right and these are motor failures. Estes should probably at least replace your motors, and might even send you a kit if they are feeling generous.

Model rocketry is prone to mishaps, and I think you've taken it in stride and done well by rebuilding your rockets and moving on. Good work!

Regarding the motor mounts, I think they were probably blown out by the motor mishaps, and are probably not be due to faulty construction. My guess is you saw them blow out the rear of the rocket, not up through the front end --- the fireball probably shot out the front and scorched your recovery on the way, but the mount probably ejected out the back.

Regarding glues, almost all you ever need is wood and/or white glue. I would probably only use plastic cement or CA (like superglue) if specifically called for in the instructions, and that will generally only be if the model uses plastic parts. CA can be handy for quick repairs of balsa or paper parts in the field if you do not want to wait to go home and use wood and/or white glue. I really do not enjoy using epoxy --- I do not like the toxic fumes or the waste, and it is almost never necessary for low to mid-power rockets. The original Gorilla Glue formula is not generally appropriate for rockets. I know that Gorilla Glue now has other formulations and types of glues sold under the Gorilla Glue brand name, and maybe they can be useful, but I can't really speak to that.

Good luck with your future launches!
 
Holy cow!!
That motor is totally mutilated!!
under no circumstances should it be blackened at all on the outside, and it definitely shouldn't be deformed. the entire nozzle should be in place, not just a little bit, so it is definitely looking like an engine malfunction to me
 
Im probably stupid for asking this, but what does CATO stand for...
 
Oh boy! lol

You are going to get a lot of responses to this one...

In short... the motor goes "boom" instead of launching... nuff said.. but here we go anyways..


Jerome
 
Im probably stupid for asking this, but what does CATO stand for...

Remember in your first post? I suggested that you look up acronyms you didn't know before asking? ;) Anyway it's good to ask questions.

"Catastrophe At Take Off" or Catastrophe After Take Off"

Here's what the aftermath of one CATO looks like:



and its cause:



First it went BOOM!!! Then it went... sideways smiley-angry021.gif
 
Last edited:
Back
Top