Boris Katan flights 2014 -> Clusters are Fun <-

The Rocketry Forum

Help Support The Rocketry Forum:

This site may earn a commission from merchant affiliate links, including eBay, Amazon, and others.
The Rocketflite website appears to state the same all-fire specs for HTMF and MF wires.
I only have experience with the MF and ML wires.

Yeah, that's why they are confusing to me...I don't see the difference. I'm sure they work just fine!

While some folks have successfully added a hotter pyrogen on top of an easier to fire pyrogen, there is the risk is that the inner pyrogen may blow off the outer pyrogen before igniting it.

I would suggest repeatedly (and carefully) ground testing any custom igniter setups to make sure of desired results.

That's the plan when I re-up on ignition supplies, and that's a big problem I knew I would face doing this...I need to dig up an old HPR article about clustering where they discuss that pyrogen issue and how to avoid it...but it was in relation to dipping e-matches. I'll see what I come up with.


MF wires need to be battery fired, not fired by capacitive discharge systems. Rocketflite notes this on their website.
I have fired many ejection charges using MF wires with Perfectflite HA45K and Featherweight Raven altimeters successfully.
An altimeter that does NOT work with the MF wires is the Perfectflite MAWD - has capacitive discharge.

The PET2 timer seems to have many nice features, but a quick scan of their website did not provide any info on firing current.

Yes, and that's the PET2+, mine's an original PET2. I need to dig out my instructions and specs to see what it says about current output, or contact Jim directly. I'm pretty sure it's not capacitive, but I think it just supplies a "burst" of current, not a sustained stream of current, if that makes sense.

Thanks for responding to my long-winded questions, Boris. I suppose it's one cluster nerd to another! And thanks for all the great cluster work you do...and the flights on this thread are GREAT. Cluster or not. The documentation is appreciated. So long as you're flying I'll always be keeping up with what you're doing. Can't wait to see what's next! Would love to see that Saturn V fly some more. It's probably my favorite of your birds...I remember your build thread and L2 flight on it way back.
 
Last edited:
CMASS launch in 3 days.

And there are still D11-P motors to be found in North America...

(specifically amwprox.com)

IMG_20140923_223535_221.jpg

IMG_20140923_225202_281.jpg

IMG_20140923_225938_285.jpg
 
Last edited:
Video of the two fun Drag Races arranged by FlisKits.
First launch - sorry about the video motion, lost a battle with my still camera.

[video=youtube_share;m8OZjQ8R2q4]https://youtu.be/m8OZjQ8R2q4[/video]

My son Paul's TARC Team recovering a rocket.
Fairhaven, MA High School - "The Gentlemen in Lab Coats"

They flew three rockets, one very experimental design, plus two other rockets with 3D printed fins!

IMG_6514.jpg

IMG_6516.jpg
 
Last edited:
The HellBoy flew again on 19x D11-P engines.
Always a fun column of fire and smoke with a quiet hiss...

Deployed chutes at apogee, 688ft.

IMG_6481.jpg

IMG_6483.jpg

IMG_6485.jpg

IMG_6493.jpg
 
Last edited:
[video=youtube_share;UFe-PUZQx0E]https://youtu.be/UFe-PUZQx0E[/video]
 
It was a good day for the RC ECee Thunder on an Estes F15.

Set up front and back on-board video (808 #16) plus a pad cam - Got good video of a fun flight

Edmunds ECee Thunder modified for RC.

[video=youtube_share;X_FB38FNlBk]https://youtu.be/X_FB38FNlBk[/video]
 
Did break a fin to body bond, as the rocket hit the ground on recovery.
Same spot as the only previous break at LDRS 31.

Will repair with thin, slow epoxy.
May use slightly larger parachute next time.

Raven data:
max altitude 688 ft
max velocity 118 mph
max acceleration 7.6 Gs

I like the second picture. All motors fired again.
In the 10 flights this rocket has done so far, 252 of 253 attempted motor ignitions were successful.

IMG_6521.jpg

IMG_6524.jpg

Untitled-1.jpg
 
Last edited:
The Frick-n-Frack drag race was much cooler in person.

Great flights and great videos Boris, your rockets always amaze me.
 

That was my son's "very experimental" TARC flight.
Had a 29mm F59 in the center and two C6 engines on either side of it canted to induce spin in the rocket.
The Rocket was launched from a launch tower and had no fins.
It will not be flown again, based on the results of the first flight :surprised:

After the launch Bill asked me: "Did you really tell him that would work?"
I said: "No, I told him is was going to be a very exciting flight, either in a good way or in a bad way. And that this was an extremely challenging project."

Gotta walk a fine line sometimes in this life....

The good news is that my son Paul's TARC team also flew two other rockets that did 10 flights as they adjusted weights and other setup.
Getting closer and closer to their targets.
 
Last edited:
The Frick-n-Frack drag race was much cooler in person.

Great flights and great videos Boris, your rockets always amaze me.

Thank you very much.

It was a great day for flying rockets on Saturday.
 
That was my son's "very experimental" TARC flight.
Had a 29mm F59 in the center and two C6 engines on either side of it canted to induce spin in the rocket.
The Rocket was launched from a launch tower and had no fins.
It will not be flown again, based on the results of the first flight :surprised:

To tell you the truth, it did better than I thought. It had the lack of wind in it's favor and physics going against it.

Did you video it? The core motor has a burn time of about 1 sec. and the canted C6's burn for about 1.5 sec. I'm curious as to how far it was into the burn before it lost its desire to fly straight.
 
To tell you the truth, it did better than I thought. It had the lack of wind in it's favor and physics going against it.

Did you video it? The core motor has a burn time of about 1 sec. and the canted C6's burn for about 1.5 sec. I'm curious as to how far it was into the burn before it lost its desire to fly straight.

I did not get good video, for some reason I had difficulty following the flight path....

From what I can gather from the video did get, it became unstable while all motors were still pushing.
Believe it was a matter of speed = pressure on the NC building up until it overcame the initial stabilization forces: inertia + some spin stabilization.

Or as you summed it up well: "The rocket flew great until it remembered it had no fins"
 
CMASS launch - 10/18/14 - Amesbury, MA

Saturday's weather prediction was moderate winds with 30-40% chance of rain.
Sunday, our rain date, was predicted to be sunny but more windy.

So we flew Saturday, and launched rockets when we weren't getting hit by quick intermittent rain showers.

I had the most popular (and only) easy-up on the field.

IMG_20141018_131202_248.jpg

IMG_20141018_131216_813.jpg
 
Preparing the Pink Flamingo of Armageddon.

the altimeter sled

Loading engines:
1x Pro-X H54
3x AT G64
3x Estes F15

IMG_20141014_221946_287.jpg

IMG_20141017_190519_121.jpg
 
Flew the Turbine Rocket Saucer on 6x D11-P engines.

The Pink Flamingo of the Armageddon lifted off nicely on a bright ball of flame and column of smoke.
Notice the individual engine flame jets in the second liftoff picture :wink:

Early part of the flight was straight, but as speed picked up, the flamingo and the rocket it was sitting on, did a moderate S curve before apogee at just over 1000ft.

IMG_6527.jpg

IMG_6528.jpg

IMG_6530.jpg

IMG_6533.jpg

IMG_6537.jpg
 
Last edited:
Recovery was good, but just barely on the field.
Used a 7ft main.

One of the G64 engines was not fired.
There was no scorching inside the unfired motor, suggesting that the Rocketflite ML igniter had not fired at all.
This is a very rare event. I have only seen this once before out of the last 500 Rocketflite igniters I have used.

Next time:

> smaller main
> smaller nomex for drogue (had a hard time packing drogue compartment)

> quicker burning motors
> less overall impulse

This should keep the flamingo from dancing at the end of the flight.

IMG_6540.jpg
 
Last edited:
[video=youtube_share;A8Dasr3-Fuw]https://youtu.be/A8Dasr3-Fuw[/video]
 
Started building a LOC 4 inch V2.
Had one a few years ago that I flew for my L1 that came to an early end.

Remember having problems with fins cracking on recovery, so this time covered fins and airframe with 2 layers of 1.5oz fiberglass.
Added a lot of stiffness to the fins while only adding 2.5oz weight.

Epoxied in an internally threaded 1 inch aluminum rod for motor retention.
Added a small U bolt to the top centering ring as recovery attachment point.

The kit came with fins that were curved. LOC was kind enough to send new fins that were nice and flat.

Picked up a PML 4 inch NC - the longer pointier one in the pictures.
My plan is to use the LOC NC unpainted, with internal lighting for night flights.
The PML NC will be painted and used for day flights.

IMG_6546.jpg

IMG_6548.jpg

IMG_6553.jpg

IMG_6577.jpg

IMG_20141028_222645_617.jpg
 
Back at NERRF 3, 4 and 5 I built and flew a LOC Weasel on a CTI I540.
My son, shown at the start of the video, wanted us to build and fly a Machbuster.

The first flight had a cardboard body tube, the second had cardboard wrapped in fiberglass. Both flights shredded at somewhere around 1000mph.

Around a campfire at Korn's Campground after a day of flying at NERRF 4, other flyers were throwing bad propellant grains on the fire. Caused some amazing colors in the fire. Another flyer heard my story of shredding the Weasel twice (not as painful as it sounds) and gave me a 38mm carbon fiber tube he had made. It had some minor defects so he didn't plan to use to for a build himself.

For NERRF 5 I used LOC Weasel NC and fins on the CF tube and had a successful flight. It was flown with motor deploy and no onboard electronics. My recovery plan was to fly the rocket the first day of the event and have my cell number on the fin. The next day someone found it about a mile away and returned it to me.

Now, five years later, finally getting around to adding electronics to the Carbon Weasel.
Then send it up for a second flight with a better recovery plan :)
This time with dual deploy, tracker and onboard video.

[video=youtube_share;Vbozx_jpac8]https://youtu.be/Vbozx_jpac8[/video]
 
The carbon tube was just long enough to fit a CTI 6XL motor + 2in for apogee harness (10ft x 1/8in Kevlar) + 2in Featherweight 38mm alt bay + 6in main chute bay + NC.
Initial flights will be 1 or 2 grain 38mm loads, but want to keep all options open....:dark:

Cut tube with hacksaw and rod blade.
Followed by careful sanding with flat block and 220 grit.
Then turned sections against each other 100+ turns to have a silky smooth fit.
Was pleased with the level of fit I was able to achieve with hand tools.

Epoxied an 8 32 threaded rod for positive retention.
Two build ups of West 206 epoxy with black pigment added.

IMG_6561.jpg

IMG_6565.jpg

IMG_6568.jpg

IMG_6591.jpg
 
From the video it looks like the fiberglass wrapped rocket got further into it's flight before it shredded - is that because it was heavier and took longer to get up to the same speed or survive a higher speed?

Looking at the shreads - was it the fin attachment that failed or the tubes? How did the attachment compare?
 
From the video it looks like the fiberglass wrapped rocket got further into it's flight before it shredded - is that because it was heavier and took longer to get up to the same speed or survive a higher speed?

Looking at the shreads - was it the fin attachment that failed or the tubes? How did the attachment compare?

Even though it shredded, I got most of the parts for the first Weasel back.
The fins and body tube around the motor tube stayed intact, which is what kept flying in a stable manner after the red puff of chalk released during the shred.

The second Weasel would only have been about an ounce heavier than the first. 11oz airframe + 20oz motor = still pushing mach 2
I believe it shredded later because it was stronger, but not quite strong enough.
Did not get anything back on this one, so can't be sure about failure mode.
 
Back
Top