1515 Pads

[AlexBruccoleri]

Hi All, Does anyone have a good recommendation for a 1515 pad? Ideally something that can handle rockets up to 50 pounds. Ie the level right before a truss would be recommended. Thanks, Alex

 

[rharshberger]

John Coker Pro Rail style pads ( aka Coker style pads,from his website), easy to build and stable. The rockets Scott Binders 108lb 12" Fusion, the pad is a modified Coker pad built of 3" steel tubing (.083" wall), heavy but very stable.

 

[justforfun]

I have the larger version on order, but here is the smaller version.
https://www.frankumperformance.com/product-page/tri-1-launch-pad

Royce is a great person to deal with.

 

[cwbullet]

I have the larger version on order, but here is the smaller version.
https://www.frankumperformance.com/product-page/tri-1-launch-padView attachment 502444

Royce is a great person to deal with.

Which did you order?

 

[justforfun]

Which did you order?

Tri-3 Launch Pad
https://www.frankumperformance.com/product-page/tri-3It's about ready to ship.
Roy

 

[user 35280]

https://www.frankumperformance.com/pads
https://www.knight-mfg.com/tripod_launch_pads
https://fadetoblackrocketworks.com/

 

[AlexBruccoleri]

These are all great suggestions! Thank you!!

 

[cwbullet]

Tri-3 Launch Pad
https://www.frankumperformance.com/product-page/tri-3It's about ready to ship.
Roy

I have been waiting for some one to buy the big one.

 

[user 35280]

I have been waiting for some one to buy the big one.

This looks like a beast too,

The QLP-72 “Heavy Metal” from Knight Mfg.

 

[JackC]

I have the larger version on order, but here is the smaller version.
https://www.frankumperformance.com/product-page/tri-1-launch-padView attachment 502444

Royce is a great person to deal with.

I agree, his pads are awesome! We (the Oregon Rocketry club) have 5 of them, one TRI-3, three TRI-2s and one TRI-1.

 

[cwbullet]

They look nice. Anyone own a
The Biggun'

 

[AlexBruccoleri]

I agree, his pads are awesome! We (the Oregon Rocketry club) have 5 of them, one TRI-3, three TRI-2s and one TRI-1.

How do you like the TRI-2? Can it handle 50 pound rockets easily?

 

[JackC]

How do you like the TRI-2? Can it handle 50 pound rockets easily?

Easily. It handles rockets up to 80 pounds.

 

[AlexBruccoleri]

Easily. It handles rockets up to 80 pounds.

Awesome. I was just checking since the spec and flier experience could be different. I think the TRI-3 might be excessive and harder to setup for the club.

 

[Art Upton]

https://www.frankumperformance.com/pads
https://www.knight-mfg.com/tripod_launch_pads
https://fadetoblackrocketworks.com/

Fast Freddie is my buddie, Fade to Black Rocket pads ! Used by TARC and NAR

 

[JackC]

Awesome. I was just checking since the spec and flier experience could be different. I think the TRI-3 might be excessive and harder to setup for the club.

Neither pad is difficult to set up. The three legs just slide into brackets on the base. Then you stake the feet down. Assembly done!

The TRI-3 also comes with a bubble leveler to help you set the pad up. You can easily take apart a TRI-3 and fit everything into the bed of a pickup truck (it has a 10 foot wingspan). The TRI-2 you can easily take apart and fit everything into a mid-size SUV with the back seats down (it has a 7 foot wingspan). If you're going to fly rockets more than 80 pounds in weight, go for the TRI-3. It is designed for unirail or 1515 rails. If you're going to fly rockets less than 80 pounds in weight (include your motor weight with the rocket's weight for your calculations), and you plan on using 1010 or 1515, go with the TRI-2 and ask Royce to add the bubble level to your TRI-2 pad. I think your club would probably use the TRI-2 more since it's basically a beefed up TRI-1 with a handy bracket to hold your rail level when you load the pad. So, I'd say K motors up to N motors are fine on the TRI-2. I have a full scale ARCAS that's 20 pounds empty. With the motor, add another 15 pounds or so (on an N motor). That would be fine on the TRI-2 with a 10 or 12 foot rail.

 

[justforfun]

Here is a video that shows how large these pads are.

They are much bigger than they look.

 

[manixFan]

Here is a video that shows how large these pads are.

They are much bigger than they look.

Full disclosure, I’ve known Royce for years and he’s a member of our club (Tripoli North Texas). Most of those pads in the video are for our club, and we have several more on order (we pay for them like everybody else.) They really are great pads - sturdy, simple to assemble, easy for flyers to figure out, and easy to maintain. They do have a good sized footprint, which makes them very stable, with a small trade-off in portability. (Obvious physics - the wider the base, the more stable the platform.) Royce has refined the design based on early feedback and really has it dialed in. I can say with great confidence anyone buying his pads will be very pleased.


Tony

 

[AlexBruccoleri]

Neither pad is difficult to set up. The three legs just slide into brackets on the base. Then you stake the feet down. Assembly done!

The TRI-3 also comes with a bubble leveler to help you set the pad up. You can easily take apart a TRI-3 and fit everything into the bed of a pickup truck (it has a 10 foot wingspan). The TRI-2 you can easily take apart and fit everything into a mid-size SUV with the back seats down (it has a 7 foot wingspan). If you're going to fly rockets more than 80 pounds in weight, go for the TRI-3. It is designed for unirail or 1515 rails. If you're going to fly rockets less than 80 pounds in weight (include your motor weight with the rocket's weight for your calculations), and you plan on using 1010 or 1515, go with the TRI-2 and ask Royce to add the bubble level to your TRI-2 pad. I think your club would probably use the TRI-2 more since it's basically a beefed up TRI-1 with a handy bracket to hold your rail level when you load the pad. So, I'd say K motors up to N motors are fine on the TRI-2. I have a full scale ARCAS that's 20 pounds empty. With the motor, add another 15 pounds or so (on an N motor). That would be fine on the TRI-2 with a 10 or 12 foot rail.

This is great info. My concern is wider rockets that apply more torque. I have a 7.5” Goblin for example. It ways around 40 pounds loaded but it sticks out a lot. I think the TRI 2 should be fine though.

 

[JackC]

This is great info. My concern is wider rockets that apply more torque. I have a 7.5” Goblin for example. It ways around 40 pounds loaded but it sticks out a lot. I think the TRI 2 should be fine though.

The TRI-2 can handle a 6 inch rocket pretty easily. Also, the feet are staked to the ground, so you shouldn't have a torque problem. If the rocket is 40 pounds loaded, you should be fine.

Our experience at Oregon Rocketry is that the really big pads might have 3 launches or so at a 3 day event. The vast majority of our high power flights are in the J motor range, followed by K motors. We might get 8 L motor flights, 5-6 M motor flights and 2 N motor flights. So, unless your club goes big a lot more than is our experience in Oregon, you would get more bang for your buck with the TRI-2. However, if you have at least 2 flights each launch of an 80 pound rocket or larger, a TRI-3 would be best. And, if you have a 120 pound rocket or larger each launch, you should probably spring for the "Big gun'".

I also second that Royce is a joy to deal with and is ready to modify the pads he constructs based on your needs.

 

[Halvey]

Little 4 and a TR-2. That should cover it.

 

[Bat-mite]

The only thing I don't like about these is that the blast deflector is not angled. The exhaust flame will go right back up at the rocket, potentially singeing the bottom, instead of angling away.

 

[JackC]

The only thing I don't like about these is that the blast deflector is not angled. The exhaust flame will go right back up at the rocket, potentially singeing the bottom, instead of angling away.

Just add an angle blast shield above the baseplate on the rail and you’re good to go.

 

[manixFan]

Just add an angle blast shield above the baseplate on the rail and you’re good to go.

This is a good idea on two fronts, it does angle the exhaust away, and you can more easily replace the shield. However, it needs to be bolted down very well or it can fly off, and, you need to make sure there is nothing in the path of the angled plate.

Those both may seem obvious, but based on experience, maybe not so much!

Tony

 

[JackC]

This is a good idea on two fronts, it does angle the exhaust away, and you can more easily replace the shield. However, it needs to be bolted down very well or it can fly off, and, you need to make sure there is nothing in the path of the angled plate.

Those both may seem obvious, but based on experience, maybe not so much!

Tony

Just create the angle deflector and mount two rail buttons on the face next to the rail and slide it to the bottom of the rail.

 

[JimJarvis50]

The only thing I don't like about these is that the blast deflector is not angled. The exhaust flame will go right back up at the rocket, potentially singeing the bottom, instead of angling away.

Just my opinion, but I don't think an angled blast deflector should ever be used for high power rockets, particularly if it is attached to the rail, unless the design specifically deals with the side-forces to be generated.

The Royce pads are great, particularly with the attachment that allows pipe-supported rails to be used. Our club has three of them. Royce repaired one of them (subjected to a sugar motor cato) for no charge.

Jim

 

[AlexBruccoleri]

Just my opinion, but I don't think an angled blast deflector should ever be used for high power rockets, particularly if it is attached to the rail, unless the design specifically deals with the side-forces to be generated.

The Royce pads are great, particularly with the attachment that allows pipe-supported rails to be used. Our club has three of them. Royce repaired one of them (subjected to a sugar motor cato) for no charge.

Jim

That is a good and interesting point! Also what is a pipe-supported rail?

 

[JimJarvis50]

That is a good and interesting point! Also what is a pipe-supported rail?

A pipe-supported rail is simply a rail backed by a piece of pipe. The bottom of the pipe extends below the rail, and this is the part that connects to the pad. The rail can go part way or nearly all of the way to the top of the rail. I find it helpful to do this on 1515 rails and essential on 1010 rails.

Back in 2014, I worked with Royce on the development of this pad design. He had the core of it at that point, and we made some modifications, including provisions to service the pipe-supported rails in our club. A few drawings I made are attached. Many clubs prefer to use angle-iron-backed rails, and Royce has worked out an adaptor that allows either method to be used.

We've been using the two original pads since the time that they were built in 2014.

Jim

 

[AlexBruccoleri]

A pipe-supported rail is simply a rail backed by a piece of pipe. The bottom of the pipe extends below the rail, and this is the part that connects to the pad. The rail can go part way or nearly all of the way to the top of the rail. I find it helpful to do this on 1515 rails and essential on 1010 rails.

Back in 2014, I worked with Royce on the development of this pad design. He had the core of it at that point, and we made some modifications, including provisions to service the pipe-supported rails in our club. A few drawings I made are attached. Many clubs prefer to use angle-iron-backed rails, and Royce has worked out an adaptor that allows either method to be used.

We've been using the two original pads since the time that they were built in 2014.

Jim

View attachment 503220View attachment 503221View attachment 503222

I may not be following the drawings closely, but what is the advantage of this? You have an extra connection set that can fail it seems. Why not just have a sturdy female square-mount for the rail itself on the pad.

 

[JimJarvis50]

I may not be following the drawings closely, but what is the advantage of this? You have an extra connection set that can fail it seems. Why not just have a sturdy female square-mount for the rail itself on the pad.

You need to able to lay the rail over to load rockets?

Jim