Altitude record attempt using the O3400 in minimum diameter style.

Hey guys I am at it agian, I am up to my old tricks. Remember my build thread that I started last year. Well it was a success at Airfest 20. Remember here is the link.

https://www.rocketryforum.com/showt...chased-5-inch-diameter-rocket-and-a-CTI-O3400

I am up for my next project!!! Minimum diameter using the same motor but with a 4 inch airframe rather then the 5 inch aiframe I used the first go around. I have the rocket parts and I have my design. Let see what happens.

What is the current record?

Binder Design said:

What is the current record?

Click to expand...

30K and change:

https://www.tripoli.org/Membership/CompetitionsandRecords/OSingleMotorRecord/tabid/341/Default.aspx

I'll watch this thread. The O-3400 is much like the N5800, but with more time. It should prove to be a challenge for you.

Looking forward to it.


Alexander Solis

TRA - Level 1
Mariah 54 - CTI RedLightning- I-100 - 6,345 Feet

I might even have to cross the pond for a taste of this!

Sorry Skippy, but that record is just begging to be broken! With the right rocket, I'd imagine you could break 70.

Edit: Where are you planning on flying this?

Alex

Aksrockets said:

Sorry Skippy, but that record is just begging to be broken! With the right rocket, I'd imagine you could break 70.

Edit: Where are you planning on flying this?

Alex

Click to expand...

Yeah I cant believe it's only 30K and change. Andrews flight at this years Airfest was only 1600 ft. short of that. It will probably be at next years Airfest.

Zebedee said:

30K and change:

https://www.tripoli.org/Membership/CompetitionsandRecords/OSingleMotorRecord/tabid/341/Default.aspx

Click to expand...

:lol:

Yea I want to build all composite. I am 140 miles from Argonia. Since they don't allow aluminum fin cans than I am going for composite. Yea O record is attainable because its only 30 and some change. My previous 5 inch rocket was 1600' short of the record. I was not even trying for it then. If successful I would obliterate the record. I have a design and I am trying to tie up some lose ends.

View attachment 186560

Interesting the record is so low. This one went 59K' at BALLS 2013.
[YOUTUBE]p0h1az9tRVw[/YOUTUBE]

IDK why. Have to use specific GPS so that TRA can get data. Plus, there is paperwork that has to be filed and sent in after the flight. Stuff like that may stop some from trying because they dont want to mess with it

interested to see where this goes! op:

I am building this rocket using Profusion Fiberglass from GARYT at Proline rocketry. My design is using a 66" booster, 12" coupler, 1" switch band, 24" payload, and 5 to 1 conical nosecone.

andrewlathrop87 said:

Since they don't allow aluminum fin cans than I am going for composite.

Click to expand...

Out of curiosity where does it say you cant use aluminum fincans?

bill2654 said:

Yeah I cant believe it's only 30K and change. Andrews flight at this years Airfest was only 1600 ft. short of that. It will probably be at next years Airfest.

Click to expand...

The current record might not be as high as it could be, but don't get the impression that setting these records is easy. For one thing, the flights tend to be extreme, and the rocket has to survive the flight just as though it was a certification attempt. For records that are more competitive, the flight has to be almost perfect. Second, you have to have valid gps data (for records over 30K MSL). That's getting easier now, but in past years, getting that valid data near apogee wasn't all that easy. Third, the locations where some records can be attempted are limited - it's pretty much Black Rock or Black Rock. I think this is a bit of a problem. It might be interesting to have a separate category for records set at locations where the elevation is less than 1,000 feet (for example). Finally, you have to leave the rail under more acceleration than the previous record holder (in this case, Skippy's O-25000 flight). OK, I admit I just made up that last one, but my point is that it is a bit more difficult than you might think.

Jim

Xrain said:

Out of curiosity where does it say you cant use aluminum fincans?

Click to expand...

The property owner at AirFest doesn't want metal airframe components.

These guys flew to 32k with what looks like the CTI O3400.
[video=youtube;IB-O6hauG_g]https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=IB-O6hauG_g[/video]

MarkH said:

These guys flew to 32k with what looks like the CTI O3400.
[video=youtube;IB-O6hauG_g]https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=IB-O6hauG_g[/video]

Click to expand...

I am pretty sure the O-3400's flame should be a lot longer than that one. It should have also gone a lot faster. Awesome rocket though and interesting motor to be able to push it to 32K. Must have been a longburn or hybrid.


Alexander Solis

TRA - Level 1
Mariah 54 - CTI RedLightning- I-100 - 6,345 Feet

Xrain said:

Out of curiosity where does it say you cant use aluminum fincans?

Click to expand...

You actually can use some metal components (fin can included), you must however paint/sharpie that part and that includes metal nose tips.

SinfulDarkLord said:

I am pretty sure the O-3400's flame should be a lot longer than that one. It should have also gone a lot faster. Awesome rocket though and interesting motor to be able to push it to 32K. Must have been a longburn or hybrid.

Click to expand...

Great video! This was an O3400.

Jeroen

Open Rocket and RasAero is siming my rocket on an O3400 to about 44,000-46,000. The sims are saying 2.8 mach or so. That is asuming if the rocket comes in at 12 poounds loaded without motor as I am projecting. In reality it probably will come in heavier.

SinfulDarkLord said:

I am pretty sure the O-3400's flame should be a lot longer than that one. It should have also gone a lot faster. Awesome rocket though and interesting motor to be able to push it to 32K. Must have been a longburn or hybrid.


Alexander Solis

TRA - Level 1
Mariah 54 - CTI RedLightning- I-100 - 6,345 Feet

Click to expand...

Alex,

That is a CTI O3400. This was a mostly aluminum rocket with quite a bit of drag.


EDIT: Sorry did not see Jeroen's post.

Not to hi jack the thread, but there are some cool pictures of the above rocket on the Carbon Origins Facebook page:

https://www.facebook.com/carbonorigins?ref=stream

Does that include the CTI tail cone aft closure?

andrewlathrop87 said:

Open Rocket and RasAero is siming my rocket on an O3400 to about 44,000-46,000. The sims are saying 2.8 mach or so. That is asuming if the rocket comes in at 12 poounds loaded without motor as I am projecting. In reality it probably will come in heavier.

Click to expand...

i am gonna look into the CTI 98mm tail cone

A5tr0 An0n said:

Alex,

That is a CTI O3400. This was a mostly aluminum rocket with quite a bit of drag.


EDIT: Sorry did not see Jeroen's post.

Click to expand...

My bad, it just didnt look like it, because the flame looked all puffy like. There was no mention on the video either so I assumed it might have been different.


Alexander Solis

TRA - Level 1
Mariah 54 - CTI RedLightning- I-100 - 6,345 Feet

Awesome motor and good luck on your attempt, I didn't know what fuel the O-3400 was until i looked it up but having burnt a few IMAX loads that was my guess because of the flame and yellowish dirty smoke. This is the O-3400's little brother a M2020

There are 2 options. Build the rocket as small as possible. Shortest booster as possible for allowing enough room for motor and shockcord allowing room for coupler ebay. As for the payload make it as short as possible allowing just enough room for coupler, recovery, and nose cone coupler. In doing so I maximize least amount of weight, flies the fastest as possible, gives a more chance of not "folding over" in flight. By doing it that away it may break Argoina's 50,000' waiver and that cannot happen. Option 2. Make the booster section longer so there is excess room for shock cord. Make the payload section longer so there is a generous amount of room for recovery. Reason for doing this is more weight and drag equals less speed and alititude so rocket definitely stays under the waiver and it will travel slower for survivability. But the drawback is it is longer and more of a risk of "folding over" and shredding.

I have a 66" Booster and a 24" payload. It gives me plenty of room to play with. I am looking for a balance. I am willing on cutting down the payload and booster if need be.

Why not make it short with just enough room to add a weight to adjust the altitude for the waver. That way if you ever do have access to a higher waver you can reconfigure it for a higher altitude attempt?

Lots of dead space in your design, are you trying to break the alt record or really break it? Cause I doubt anything under 50K will stick for long. Put the NC right on top of the motor and come fly with us at blackrock!
Also, those are some monster fins! 5.875 spans on a 4in MD.... :shock:

Alex