Loki Research 2014

I wish I had a little more wiggle room in Elsberry. I did 10,300 on a K1275 (AT)... Wondering what the 54/4000 would do... I'd pull some pretty good g's I bet

CarVac said:

I'll have to give that one to you.

How long are the airframes you've tried, though? If you keep them shorter, then the bending moments are minimized. In this case, the one that just shredded had an incredibly long lever arm.

Click to expand...

My upper airframes ranged between 12"-16" beyond the motor. Just enough to get the electronics and recovery gear in for single deploy. I'm working on a new altimeter housing that screws to the motor bulkhead, effectively lengthening the support so that the unsupported length would only be about 6"-8".

Too bad the flight didn't go well, I really wanted to see how high it would go with the new fin can. Loki's new motors will pose some unique design challenges for composite airframes in minimum diameter applications. Nothing that can't be overcome, but my original intent was to just let people know what I've experienced with skinny rockets and high thrust levels.

I hope this encourages people to buy these kick ass motors. Finally a motor manufacturer has come out with an interesting motor that even I would fly. Support Loki Research!

Do the grains need bonding in the 54/4400 motors?

Binder Design said:

Loki's new motors will pose some unique design challenges for composite airframes in minimum diameter applications.

Click to expand...

I look forward to as many customers as possible challenging themselves to tackle these motors.

Binder Design said:

I hope this encourages people to buy these kick ass motors. Finally a motor manufacturer has come out with an interesting motor that even I would fly. Support Loki Research!

Click to expand...

Wow Mike, thank you for the compliments.

Do the grains need bonding in the 54/4400 motors?

Click to expand...

Absolutely
Although it's not that hard, there is a specific method which I will have listed to follow in the instructions.

mrwalsh85 said:

I wish I had a little more wiggle room in Elsberry.

Click to expand...

Mike, I'll still have the 54/2800 Blue, Red and Violet loads with about ~3,100 to ~3,300 Ns that I'm sure you will like if the 54/4000 is too much for your rocket in Elsberry.

Fe Dude said:

Just wanted to plug Loki for making some outstanding motors!

Both my flights at Red Glare were with Loki loads.

Here is my 4" Mad Cow AIM-54 Phoenix on an H144, Great flame for a 38/240 :gavel:

View attachment 169099

Click to expand...

Awesome photo BTW! Thanks for sharing it. I'm glad you had a great weekend with Loki Research.

A reminder for those that don't know, all commercial reloads G impulse through I impulse can be shipped through the USPS without HazMat charges. This excludes the I-430 and the I-110 which contain propellant grains weighing over 30 grams.

I for one would like to see a return of convolute wound FG cloth. I believe it holds up much better.

+1e9

FredA said:

I for one would like to see a return of convolute wound FG cloth. I believe it holds up much better.

+1e9

Click to expand...

Agreed...not to mention a zillion times easier to machine/work with

Scott - thanks! For some reason, I really want to try killing this 3" rocket I have... haha.

I'll look into maybe picking up the 4000 ns case just in case. This rocket has been through quite a bit and I'd like to push it a little further.. Although the jump from 2240 ns to 4000 ns will really kick it. Maybe I can get to a high-flying field this summer.

Just getting back on my feet after starting my new job, so I am trying to avoid blowing it all before I get there.

Mike

Had a great day out on the field today, got my NAR lvl 1 cert with a Binder Design Excel Plus on a Loki H160 blue. Sorry no flight pics, up and down went with out a hitch and landed only a hundred yards or so from the pad. :clap:

Most of all I want to talk about the nooozel, I went to get my camera out to shoot a cleaning video but before I could get it out of my pocket the slag fell off. So I wiped it off with a dry paper towel and this is how it looks. This is its 2nd or 3rd firing, the case was wiped out with a damp paper towel. (thank you convolute liner) The only thing that took a bit of cleaning was the the smoke well.

Its not as shiny as the day I bought it but almost.

The G80 has a great flame, as well. Here's my 3" dia, 24" long scratch build using parts from a prior lawn dart. This flight got lots of "WOW" comments.

Thanks for the G-80 flight photo AlfaBrewer. I'm glad you enjoyed the flight.

Todd, as always, thank you for the feedback.

Unfortunately transmissions don't grow on trees so the "Specials" page has been updated to help pay for it.
Please spread the word and help the cause and "like" Loki Research's Facebook page.

Now just cough up the new formulas!

:grin:

Here's another picture of how cool the Loki white motors are.

This is a 3" x 5' rocket (LOC Athena 3 w/38mm mmt) flying on an I405. I'm not really into the teleportation type flights, but this one was just plain awesome.

I was taking video, and missed everything between the end of the rail and about 500' (which was only about a second).

High humidity really makes that white smoke look even more awesome!

Chuck, that is a great photo! Thank you!

I opted to stay home today with the severe T-storms rolling through. The good news is we won't get the brunt of it, but there's semi's turned over on the highway up in Warrensburg about 2 hours north of here. I've spent the last hour or two watching the radar and cropping lots of photos, some of which you will see below.

Anyone who has been around long enough, or has made their own long motors enough has seen a motor fail from a head end burn through. Aerotech and CTI use seal disks on many of their motors to prevent this from happening on certain reloads. I had also experienced a head end burn through on the 54/4000 and 76/11,000 hardware after successful ground tests with each. If you are into research motors and have ever had a case get blistered at the head end just below the bulkhead, then you got lucky that it wasn't worse and didn't torch your rocket. A seal disk used with a strong convolute liner would likely have saved the day.

I am pleased to announce that Loki Research now has 54mm Extended bulkheads and 76mm Standard bulkheads which now address this issue. On these new bulkheads you will see an o-ring groove on the shoulder of the liner interface. These are designed for use strictly with convolute wound liners. Spiral wound liners will not seal properly because of the spiral gap which would make things even worse Even if they did seal, spiral wound liners are not strong enough and the pressure would split the liner right don the side. Bottom line, don't use these with spiral wound liners without omitting the o-ring on the bulkhead shoulder.

54mm Extended Bulkhead

76mm Standard Bulkhead


The tracking smoke grain has been modified to extend it's overall length to between 2.45-2.5" long. This will add about another 15-20 seconds of tracking smoke. When I added the retaining ring to the smoke well, I lost 1/8" of tracking smoke. This was my solution to adding it back, and then some. The 54/4000 motors flown 2 weeks ago were flown using what you see above and the bulkheads had a 1/4-20 eye-bolt threaded into the end for the recovery harness attachment. This will now be the standard tracking smoke grain for all 76mm reloads and it has been both ground and flight tested for any thermal issues with both the 76/3600, 6000 & 8000 hardware. The 54mm Extended bulkhead will be used on all new 54mm L reloads in the 2800 and 4000 cases.

There are also other new features built into both bulkheads. Most notably you will notice the addition of 2 sets of threads to the forward end of the bulkheads. The larger threads on both are 1.5"-18 UNEF. At the top, the 76mm has 3/4"-10 UNC threads and the 54mm has 5/8"-11 UNC threads. There are many possibilities for ways in which the threads could be used. The main reason I placed them there was for the addition of an avionics bay with electronics to initiate head end second stage ignition through the top of these bulkheads. Below is a mock up of what I have in mind. There will be a threaded ring, or doughnut which will thread onto the lower 1.5" threads.



Since these bulkheads are in essence "floating", this ring will securely hold the bulkhead centered in place by pulling it forward against the retaining ring. This will keep it rigid, in place and prevent it from rotating which would be necessary if used only with an internal forward motor retention system. The upper set of threads can be used to secure an avionics bay lower bulkhead. This lower bulkhead could be tapped for all-thread which would run to the top bulkhead where a hard point would be placed. I've been talking with Eric Foster about modifying his 54/76mm Av-bays for this, but we've both go a lot of other stuff on our plates and not much has happened yet. Bug him nicely please. Anyone is welcome to submit designs/drawings if you have something slick in mind which you think we should take a look at. One thing to keep in mind here is, the motors retaining ring was not designed to bear the load that an airframe would see. For minimum diameter designs, the forward airframe would need to come down at least 5 inches or so over the forward end of the motor case.

The last thing you will notice is that the 76mm bulkhead now has a bolt at the top. There is a hole through the top This works the exact same way as what the thumb screw does on the 54mm. If you own one then you know what I'm talking about. The difference here is, the smoke grain o-ring is on the smoke grain itself and not in the bulkhead. There wasn't enough meat left on the bulkhead to place it there, not to mention they aren't much fun to replace. So instead it is on the smoke grain. Also, this 1.25" diameter smoke grain which has been standard on the 76mm is now the same size used in the 54mm extended bulkhead. For those not familiar with the 54mm bulkhead, the o-ring is installed, the thumb screw is opened, the smoke grain is pushed in all the way, then the thumb screw is re-tightened. The thumb screw bleeds the air pressure behind the o-ring and then suction holds the smoke grain in at the end of the burn when the motor rapidly depressurizes. Now on these new bulkheads, (& last years 76mm BH) there is a snap ring to hold in the smoke grain. With the thumb screw or bolt, the snap ring isn't needed, But.........



When doing head end motor "initiation", you will remove the thumb screw/bolt for the "initiation" wire to pass through and the retaining ring will then secure the smoke grain. This is the one thing I have not had the chance to test in a live fire situation. I have only tested "initiating" the APCP propellant in the tip of the grain. It will be tested by lighting a red motor for effectiveness as well as time duration between "initiation" and full on motor pressurization. The grain contains tracking smoke behind the "initiation" portion so you won't loose that, although I'm not sure you'd ever see it anyway in a high altitude high speed flight. The grain could be modified for a different type of initiation which would possibly light the motor faster, or a the end could be dipped in a booster pyrogen. However, as you see it here, there are no regulated substances used in this "initiation" grain. There is still work to be done here in testing, user instructions and certification but this was the main push behind the major changes to these new bulkheads.

I have tried to explain everything as best as I can, but I'm sure some people will have questions. I will try to answer any questions as soon as I can, but I have taken time away from other things today in order to get this posted and I need to get back to them. So please be patient if I don't respond right away. There is a bowl full of propellant in the shop waiting to be cured/cast. Now I'm going into the shop for the rest of the night. The sky is clear.

Awesome stuff!

However, the news that the front snap ring won't allow for a "bare minimum" diameter rocket is a bit saddening... Are there any ways around it like threading the region outside the snap ring groove for a retaining ring like Pro75/Pro98? Or maybe drill it for a pinned retaining ring?

CarVac said:

Awesome stuff!

However, the news that the front snap ring won't allow for a "bare minimum" diameter rocket is a bit saddening... Are there any ways around it like threading the region outside the snap ring groove for a retaining ring like Pro75/Pro98? Or maybe drill it for a pinned retaining ring?

Click to expand...

It absolutely will. All you need is an adapter from the larger threaded portion to 2.125". Crank down on that and it will center the bulkhead and allow you to mount a forward aluminum or composite airframe tube. You could also work an altimeter bay into that adapter or on the smaller threaded portion.

That being said, these added threaded portions will appeal to very few rocketeers...maybe as many as can be counted on one or two hands. I would presume the threading is a major cost to Loki. Why add such complexity and cost to a part that 99% want to be simple?

Those 1%ers ruining it for everyone... ;-)

patelldp said:

It absolutely will. All you need is an adapter from the larger threaded portion to 2.125". Crank down on that and it will center the bulkhead and allow you to mount a forward aluminum or composite airframe tube. You could also work an altimeter bay into that adapter or on the smaller threaded portion.

That being said, these added threaded portions will appeal to very few rocketeers...maybe as many as can be counted on one or two hands. I would presume the threading is a major cost to Loki. Why add such complexity and cost to a part that 99% want to be simple?

Those 1%ers ruining it for everyone... ;-)

Click to expand...

Loki Research said:

One thing to keep in mind here is, the motors retaining ring was not designed to bear the load that an airframe would see. For minimum diameter designs, the forward airframe would need to come down at least 5 inches or so over the forward end of the motor case.

Click to expand...

It might still be doable: perhaps a design where you thread a wedge onto the forward bulkhead, forcing a collet to firmly grip the inside of the case would work. Then you just attach to the collet.

Or maybe there's a way to replace the snap ring itself with a collet that has a ridge forced into the snap ring groove?

Okay, how about this. ID of what I described threads onto the bulkhead. OD is the same OD of the motor case, except for the aft most portion which has a shoulder machined into it that is a slip fit inside of the motor mount, the depth of the case outside of the snap ring. The portion that is the same OD as the motor is maybe 1/2"-1" long, fore of which is turned down to be the ID of 54mm coupler tubing or aluminum tubing.

When threaded down onto the bulkhead, it SHOULD bear against the case and the snap ring, making it quite robust. Scott just has to make the bulkhead nice and snug to keep the bulkhead from spinning too much until you get it in contact with the case.

One thing to keep in mind here is, the motor cases snap ring groove was not designed to bear the load that an airframe would see. For minimum diameter designs, the forward airframe would need to come down at least 5 inches or so over the forward end of the motor case.

Click to expand...

I have corrected my original post to reflect the retaining ring groove. In addition to internal motor pressure you would also stress the grooved area where the snap ring goes with significant bending stress if that point in the design "also" serves as a potion of the airframe. Especially if the groove is near your CP. These retaining ring grooves are not designed to do that. I can not ground test to simulate that and I don't have the resources to provide myself with a detailed stress & groove failure analysis proving that it is strong enough. If someone wants to email me one showing otherwise, hurry up with it. ;-) Otherwise you would need to relieve that stress by adding a sleeve (airframe material or machined aluminum tube) over the retaining ring area. You are going to have another section (fin can) that is a larger diameter than the motor case as well. In Argonia, you can't fly bare motor cases either so I want the ability to comply with their specific range rules. The ability to ensure it works with COTS part is also a design requirement.

Rather than threading the case, I kept the snap ring because this idea needed to be completely adaptable to other Loki Cases. (2800)

That being said, these added threaded portions will appeal to very few rocketeers...maybe as many as can be counted on one or two hands. I would presume the threading is a major cost to Loki. Why add such complexity and cost to a part that 99% want to be simple?

Those 1%ers ruining it for everyone... ;-)

Click to expand...

Actually I was able to keep the cost down on these over last years, however I did need to loose the laser marking. What would add more expense for me was if I had to purchase and stock 2 bulkheads. I am already doing that on the 54mm now, but it was overdue anyway.

Appeal, need, yes those will be low, but the design still serves the same basic purpose. Older bulkheads can be modified easily for the additional snap ring grove in the smoke well and the additional o-ring groove on the liner shoulder. That service is being provided to customers at no charge provided they cover the shipping costs. Otherwise the smoke grain can be held in place with RTV silicone if allowed to fully cure. Newer 76/8000 reloads will be certified with the liner shoulder o-ring so it will be required for those reloads.

I am sure you've noticed Dan, that out of the total market, I'm not selling to 99% of it. There's more like 1% who has supported this company and I am deeply grateful to have them. They are keeping me alive. Thank you, all of you 1%.
99% of the market isn't my mine, otherwise I'd be the one on or near the top and someone else would be making and responding to these posts for the company. I'd be quite happy to reach a goal of 25%. I'm not greedy. ;-)

If I keep doing the same hardware wise, it will never appeal to more people for any different reason than it does now. I struggle enough as it is moving propellant at retail. It would seem only 1% do that any more either which doesn't help any of us.

I think I have to be different than the rest in some aspect of motor hardware other than having snap rings and reusable nozzles. These are part of that effort. Single use nozzle are another. Solid graphite and spiral phenolic liners won't work for the caliber of motors that Aerotech and CTI put out. You will soon see what a commercial snap ring design is capable of with the right materials and that will appeal to the market majority. Loki Research has always been focused on motor performance and value. I intend to live up to that with the new reloads and products I am releasing. There are also a fair amount of people in this market who like to push the envelope at Argonia and Black Rock and these should appeal to them. I also have a better chance of these products appealing to the University markets. If I can find a paying interest in half that crowd and the majority of newcomers looking to do the same, I will be quite happy & pleased. I also I feel that the ability to add dedicated staging electronics directly to the front of the staging motor greatly adds to the easy & safety of shunting/safing/maybe installing the electronics in a 2-stage flight. A shunting device could be easily added to the threaded doughnut. There are a lot of different possibilities, each of which could appeal to a different 1%. Heck you could easily make your staging &/or main flight electronics ballistic proof now if you wanted to. Just add a short section of 54mm hardware tubing and an aluminum bulkhead.

AlfaBrewer said:

Here's another picture of how cool the Loki white motors are.

This is a 3" x 5' rocket (LOC Athena 3 w/38mm mmt) flying on an I405. I'm not really into the teleportation type flights, but this one was just plain awesome.

I was taking video, and missed everything between the end of the rail and about 500' (which was only about a second).

Click to expand...

I am into teleportantion flights, and this flight was awesome!

If the shoulder of the adapter was a very tight interference fit with the casing ID, and it had a shoulder cut to support the snap ring and the bulkhead it would most likely work fine. Everything would have to be in full contact and everything fully supported when tightened.

The key is to totally eliminate any off axis lateral loading of the motor bulkhead because it has a free fit and can cock in the bore, and you certainly don't want to transfer any flight loads to the liner or load the snap ring off axis or it will come out of the groove.

A tricky engineering problem.

Loki Research said:

I also I feel that the ability to add dedicated staging electronics directly to the front of the staging motor greatly adds to the easy & safety of shunting/safing/maybe installing the electronics in a 2-stage flight.

Click to expand...

+1 to that. For my head end ignition projects, the altimeter canister is firmly attached to the motor bulkhead. The bulkhead and electronics get installed as one unit just before flight so it is not sitting around waiting for something to set off an e-match.

Well, the recent specials finally pushed me over the edge and I ordered the wife and myself some 38/120 cases. Starting small but I'm sure it won't end anytime soon. Anytime I can actually get the wife interested in rockets it's a good thing, and she seems to be taking to snap ring cases for whatever reason. I think it's because it's an excuse for her to buy another tool, but hey I'll take it. They just came in today and wow. These things are gorgeous. Scott said he was disappointed in the ends of the cases. The finish there is a bit rough, but really it's not going to affect anything and I'm all about a discount The rest of the case is amazingly built. Communication and shipping was excellent throughout the ordering process, and I was ordering the smallest case he makes...at a discount. As a first time customer....I'm very very pleased.

Anyways...I couldn't help but take a few shots of the cases. They're just too pretty not to.
And they fit PERFECTLY in my plano cases-

DizWolf said:

Well, the recent specials finally pushed me over the edge and I ordered the wife and myself some 38/120 cases. Starting small but I'm sure it won't end anytime soon. Anytime I can actually get the wife interested in rockets it's a good thing, and she seems to be taking to snap ring cases for whatever reason. I think it's because it's an excuse for her to buy another tool, but hey I'll take it. They just came in today and wow. These things are gorgeous. Scott said he was disappointed in the ends of the cases. The finish there is a bit rough, but really it's not going to affect anything and I'm all about a discount The rest of the case is amazingly built. Communication and shipping was excellent throughout the ordering process, and I was ordering the smallest case he makes...at a discount. As a first time customer....I'm very very pleased.

Anyways...I couldn't help but take a few shots of the cases. They're just too pretty not to.
And they fit PERFECTLY in my plano cases-

Click to expand...

Those are pretty.

Wow those look real nice. Scott is not making any profit on the hardware, that's for sure. Hardware like that costs a lot to have made. He is probably breaking even on it.

You all should behold them in person. I have to stop and admire this bad boy every time I pass it.



TA

thobin said:

You all should behold them in person. I have to stop and admire this bad boy every time I pass it.
View attachment 171488


TA

Click to expand...

That's better than porn.

I think....there really is such thing as too much motor for a given rocket.

Here, the motor case is an inch longer than the entire rocket, without the bulkhead.

CarVac said:

I think....there really is such thing as too much motor for a given rocket.

Click to expand...

Yes, but it's so fun trying!