I don’t see a forward centering ring or bulkhead on the motor mount/rear eject pop pod. Also, given the progressively increasing internal and external diameter of the model (as opposed to the usually constant diameter of a circular cross sectional diameter and even the NewWay Square rockets) not sure if one would provide complete protection in any case,
Is there a concern that “blow-back” from the ejection charge will singe your recovery device?
I’ve always wondered whether most of the PARTICULATES from ejection charges tend to restrict themselves to straight trajectories (I.e., they don’t like to go around corners and REALLY don’t like to do a 180. I assume this is PART of why baffles or rockets like the TRIDENT work, since the hot gas WILL go from high to low pressure regardless (conceding that baffles, etc, DO force them to take a longer route.)
Most of the burns I have seen on my chutes and some of my balsa Helis and AirBrakes (some of which are “tubeless”, with no internal motor mount at all) seem likely to be particulate in source. I.e., localized burn marks rather than a complete or segmental melted chute as would be seen with simple hot gas.
@Ronz Rocketz and
@kuririn , you two have a whole lot of flights over the past few years, Ron I think you’ve mentioned a few singed chutes, do you guys think it’s mainly particles, hot air, or both?
So a forward centering ring (or in your case, Diamond or other geometric shape) may be superfluous in any case.
I DID try a rear eject with a piston in the nose which went into the motor mount tube, to reduce the amount of volume needed to pressurize for ejection. Conceptually I think it was a good idea. In practice, there is such an effect of “too much of a good thing.” The D12-3 motor in that very confined space blew the motor (DESPITE THE MOTOR HOOK!) right out the back, leaving the pod in place. The result wasn’t pretty.
