speed poll

Lots of wishful thinking in this thread. Sims are BS.

--Lance.

do you think anyone cares?

llickteig1 said:

Lots of wishful thinking in this thread. Sims are BS.

--Lance.

Click to expand...

People are posting flight data, not sims.

dixontj93060 said:

People are posting flight data, not sims.

Click to expand...

Yes, many are and I will credit those. Others are not.

All I see are altimeter files no simulations

llickteig1 said:

Yes, many are and I will credit those. Others are not.

Click to expand...

I believe you're referencing the people who claim their non-electronics carrying rockets are hitting certain speeds. They aren't posting files, but they are stating what the rockets simmed to. That's okay in my book. Not everyone thirsts for data like we do.

To make you feel better, here's some more data from last weekend for you guys to enjoy...this time Mach 1.69 (1,289 mph / 1890 fps).

Photo credit to David McCann (DizWolf), as is the case for pretty much every single picture from URRF!!! Ground cam credit goes to my GoPro.

[YOUTUBE]oKqrkQpgRcw[/YOUTUBE]

View attachment 6_27_14_Mongoose_54_L1730_URRF.kml

I find it startling that the KLOUDbusters Prez can tell the difference between a sim file and an altimeter file. And can't use a sim to provide non-BS data.

watheyak said:

I find it startling that the KLOUDbusters Prez can tell the difference between a sim file and an altimeter file. And can't use a sim to provide non-BS data.

Click to expand...

My Extreme Wildman at URRF-1 on a 75-7600 motor to M1.64.

View attachment WMXURRF7600.FIPa

Butthurt isn't quite the right word, but close. Wadded my panties are. I guess I was upset that he was dismissing people's accomplishments on an incorrect assumption. I see now that there were a few that didn't provide proof. I think it's safe to say that the .35 Mach flight is probably valid. And so is Jim Jarvis' M3. But to say there is "lots of wishful thinking" on the thread sounds like someone tried to go Mach one, couldn't, and is bitter. But for all I know he goes Mach 4 all the time.

watheyak said:

But to say there is "lots of wishful thinking" on the thread sounds like someone tried to go Mach one, couldn't, and is bitter. But for all I know he goes Mach 4 all the time.

Click to expand...

Mach 4? No.

But trust me, he's had rockets (successfully) over Mach several times.

-Kevin

I have gone over mach one a few time ( SIM) but no data so it does not count yet

chris m said:

I have gone over mach one a few time ( SIM) but no data so it does not count yet

Click to expand...

like post 31 said......

This reminds me, are there high-range accelerometers that cost any less than a Raven? Heard plans for an Alimiter2/3 "Extreme" but never follow-up.

RRC3.

blackbrandt said:

RRC3.

Click to expand...

Baro only.

Mach 1.019 with an AeroTech D21W (It tested out as a D16 due to using White Lightning propellant instead of Blue Thunder).
It is difficult to photograph the flame from a small Blue Thunder motor even at night.

Compared to many, my best is wimpy....but..........
At URRF II I flew my rocket with my biggest motor to date - the Aerotech new DMS K535

Hit 3600' and 480 FEET per Sec, or only 330 MPH

View attachment URRF2 Xcelerator K535.FIPa

Looks like I needed my backup for the main. The decent rate stayed the same until the second charge (or else it took a sec for the chute to open)

watheyak said:

Butthurt isn't quite the right word, but close. Wadded my panties are. I guess I was upset that he was dismissing people's accomplishments on an incorrect assumption. I see now that there were a few that didn't provide proof. I think it's safe to say that the .35 Mach flight is probably valid. And so is Jim Jarvis' M3. But to say there is "lots of wishful thinking" on the thread sounds like someone tried to go Mach one, couldn't, and is bitter. But for all I know he goes Mach 4 all the time.

Click to expand...

Oh yes, I know full well the difference between a Sim file and an altimeter download. I will just point out that there are 6 posts in this thread with flight data. There are a few impossible claims that I (perhaps wrongly) assume were taken from Sims. OTOH, I know for a fact that Jim Jarvis' statements are legitimate.

I don't want to call out individuals for their outlandish claims. In time, they will learn their place. I also know how hard it is to build a rocket from scratch to hit Mach 1.5 or Mach 2.0 from a day when commercial composite components were not commonplace. Being caretaker over a launch site that can handle most every sort of supersonic attempt, I have a pretty good idea of what rocket on which motor will bust Mach 1 and that it is much easier to claim a Mach flight that actually accomplish one.

That is all - I will check out now. Nothing to see here.

--Lance.

llickteig1 said:

Oh yes, I know full well the difference between a Sim file and an altimeter download. I will just point out that there are 6 posts in this thread with flight data. There are a few impossible claims that I (perhaps wrongly) assume were taken from Sims. OTOH, I know for a fact that Jim Jarvis' statements are legitimate.

I don't want to call out individuals for their outlandish claims. In time, they will learn their place. I also know how hard it is to build a rocket from scratch to hit Mach 1.5 or Mach 2.0 from a day when commercial composite components were not commonplace. Being caretaker over a launch site that can handle most every sort of supersonic attempt, I have a pretty good idea of what rocket on which motor will bust Mach 1 and that it is much easier to claim a Mach flight that actually accomplish one.

That is all - I will check out now. Nothing to see here.

--Lance.

Click to expand...

Nobody here has outlandish claims at all. Looking back, every flier's post seems realistic. I think you might be talking about me even though I gave no details whatsoever about my rocket.

Alex

CarVac said:

Successfully?

Unsuccessfully?

There's no option for 3 or 4?

Click to expand...

This was my question as well. I had a rocket that went very wrong very quickly. Likely just about to go 600+ and it shredded. I'll have to check what my 2 KG Minie Magg did on the H565 though. That was amusing.

Lance, because Kevin says you flew faster than Mach is not proof. That you discredit folks without any proof is silly and disrespectful. Perhaps you are suffering from Mach envy ?

As to my claim of Mach 1.2 here are more details. The data was on a hard drive that crashed, but here goes. It is from barometric data from a MAWD- sorry, I do not have an accelerometer. The data was downloaded, and pulled into Excel. I used data smoothing to reduce the noise. The rocket did right about 7200 agl.

The rocket was a hand rolled, composite, 38mm minimum diameter. Fully loaded sans motor it was about 1.5 pounds and with motor just under 2.5 pounds. On an i300, which for the first half second or so is about 400 newtons thrust the initial acceleration is about 35g's off the pad. Average acceleration for entire burn is about 27 g's.

So, is that enough to satisfy the Mach police?




Mark Koelsch
Sent from my iPhone using Rocketry Forum

I went mach 1.04 on my extended Nike Smoke with a CTI L935 IMax, using a MissileWorks RRC2 mini. Don't have any hard copies of the data. It was a big deal for me and I am counting it. Went faster on my Space Cowboy, but it is MIA. Still some chance that it could get recovered and provide data.

My fastest is Mach 0.5. If anyone wants Raven Data feel free to ask I am proud of my half mach

I am building a rocket now that is simming at 17,000 feet at Mach 1.1.

It took two years but I finally put the largest 54mm motor in Grapeshot that I could, a CTI L935. I was really looking to top 10K ft, but the Stratologger beeped out 9,559 ft and 874 mph. Figuring Mach 1 at 1120 ft/sec or 769 mph, that was 1.14 Mach. The launch site is about 300 ft above sea level.

Flight data means exactly squat. Accelerometers screw up all the time.

I had a file from an ARLISS-M flight... that's a 48 pound, 6" airframe flying on an M1419... that said it did Mach 3.8 and 98000+ feet.

If you'll buy an M1419 doing that, I'll sell you some swamp land in Arizona.

My personal fastest success... 54mm MD on a Rx L1771R... M2.86.

I have the file, but I'm not going to post it. The question was posed, the answers posted. Believe it. Don't believe it. I don't care.

cherokeej said:

Flight data means exactly squat. Accelerometers screw up all the time.

Click to expand...

kind of a blanket statement don't ya think?

I think the point about posting or not posting data was to eliminate all the "imaginary" results. Like "rasaero said I flew mach3" or "rock sim said it flew mach4"

GRIFFIN said:

kind of a blanket statement don't ya think?

I think the point about posting or not posting data was to eliminate all the "imaginary" results. Like "rasaero said I flew mach3" or "rock sim said it flew mach4"

Click to expand...

I agree with you on this. If the altimeter said it, then post the data. It's not so much that we're looking to "disprove it," but it would be interesting to see what the data looks like.

Accelerometers CAN screw up, just not all the time.