I’m giving myself a headache.

[danielhv]

I know there is no absolute answer, but that, for some reason doesn’t stop me from constantly dwelling trying to figure out what is the perfect rocket for my situation. And there probably isn’t one. Which drives me to keep churning websites. At some point I just need to make a decision.

So, here is where I’m at, I have my L1, not exactly ready to pursue L2, looking to dip my toes into dual deploy. I’ve also decided that I’d like to go fiberglass, 54mm MMT with a 38mm adapter.

It was originally going to be my intent to get the apogee level 2 because it is a fairly complete kit with excellent instructions, which is very important to me. The price is pretty high, coming in at $435. It’s a 4 inch rocket, which means it’s going to need bigger motors, and that limits me. So I thought well maybe I need to look at 3 inch fiberglass kits. So I made a spreadsheet and put several rockets on there that I liked the looks of. Pretty much narrowed it down to the following:

Darkstar 3” DD Fiberglass: I like the name, like the looks, but my biggest hang up is I feel it’s too tall. Thought about cutting it down a bit? I’m looking for something 65” - 70ish” tall.

Punisher 3: love the look, not exactly a fan of HEDD for my first DD platform. Short rocket, but thought maybe I add a tube and coupler and convert it to a more traditional DD setup.

MAC Performance Zodiac: like the look, seems to be a good size, haven’t seen many built searching around here, but not fiberglass. XX Phenolic?

So yea. There I am, torn between all of them. Still partially considering circling back to the apogee level two because it feels like a safe choice lol. I think part of the problem here is, I am a bit of a perfectionist, and not knowing the level of instruction that is included with the kits (aside from apogee) makes me nervous, because if left to my own judgment, I’ll likely screw something up! But I’d also like to try something besides apogee…

I know questions about my local field will come in to play, but I feel this list of rockets would play well at any field. They all have motors that will keep them under 2000 feet, and they all have motors that will send them up to 10,000 feet. So when flying at my local field, I’ll just use the motors that keep it with those limits. And when air fest comes around, we will stretch our legs a little.

Can someone just make up my mind and put me at ease please?!?

 

[Hobie1dog]

Apogee Level-2 for the win. I'm proud of you getting away from the cheap cardboard and going with fiberglass. Their customer service was outstanding.

 

[cls]

Practice dual deploy with a G motor rocket.

For your HPR quiver, pick a half dozen different models and go for it!

A thing worth doing is worth overdoing.

 

[danielhv]

Apogee Level-2 for the win. I'm proud of you getting away from the cheap cardboard and going with fiberglass. Their customer service was outstanding.

Very nice looking rocket. What does she weigh in at?

 

[David Schwantz]

Damn Marty, nice tail cone and paint!!!

 

[David Schwantz]

1st, don't be afraid of glass, it is great to work with. It is about the same as cardboard, drill a few holes, glue some fins on, sand and paint. Even thin wall glass is heavier than cardboard, just plan ahead. Wash everything in warm soapy water before starting to remove release agent. I like to key everything so it all fits together the same, but I do that with cardboard also. You can fly a DD rocket as single deploy, just remove avbay, attach booster shock cord to NC, and use motor eject. It is now lots shorter since you removed the payload section. And then next flight you can reinstall everything and fly DD. Also check out the JLCR, Jolly Logic Chute Release.

 

[Rschub]

My first dual deploy rocket was going to be a project all its own, but after putting all the work into it, I got nervous.

Luckily it is the same diameter and material as my first rocket so I will be able to practice the dual deployment on a proven and umm, more expendable rocket, by putting the electronics bay in it.

A good strategy when progressing along in the hobby is to only change one thing at a time, and then build your knowledge and proficiency one step at a time. This can be time consuming.

The main thing to remember is that no matter the advice, this is your journey. Go with what feels right for you.

 

[Andrew Brown]

Personally, I would steer clear of "packages" that are an all-inclusive. You will realize that the harness is too small, the altimeter bay is not what want long term, most have zinc plated hardware vs stainless, etc. Going through the process of selecting components will also help you understand what you really want.

I taught the high school kids that I mentor dual deploy with Mach 1 54 mm fiberglass kits, but other vendor kits in that size also work well. What I really like about that size for learning dual deploy is that:
1. You can put them to 1.2k on a baby H, 2k on a large H, and have some fun to 3-4k on a good I. At a nice field, they can be used as an L2 on a J350 to 5k. This gives you a whole lot of flexibility. You can even test the airframe as single deploy on an H128.
2. Taking a step up to a 3" fiberglass airframe really should be flown on a large I or J. The cost starts jumping up quickly per flight. Ultimately, that's where you'll probably move to, but it's expensive to learn.
3. A 54 mm airframe gives you space for redundant flight computers and batteries. It's tight, but it doesn't require a work of art like the smaller 38 mm airframe. If you are learning, having redundancy will help you sleep better. Is it necessary, no.
4. The rocket is light enough that even if you have parachute tangles or main deploy failures, you probably won't damage the airframe unless the rocket fails to separate.
5. Fiberglass is much less sensitive to abuse. I've landed in swamps with no long-term damage. You will get a lot of milage out of the airframe. It also means no filling of spiral seams...
6. The cost differential of fiberglass is not really that much. For the high school kids, I broke the cost down between a 54 mm fiberglass kit and a 3" cardboard kit. Fiberglass came out to ~$30 more. Trivial in the scheme of things.
7. The flame-to-rocket ratio for this size seems optimal for sub 4k flights. I think this is the most important point.

 

[Rschub]

Taking a step up to a 3" fiberglass airframe really should be flown on a large I or J. The cost starts jumping up quickly per flight. Ultimately, that's where you'll probably move to, but it's expensive to learn.

This is one of the main reasons I am doing cardboard. Learn cheap.

 

[danielhv]

My cardboard experience hasn’t exactly been cheap. First flight landed a little hard (poor fin design and undersized chute on the Zephyr) which resulted in a buckle in the BT. Third launch it decided to land 3 feet into a pond and now the motor mount tube and ends of the BT are swollen and bulged out.

That’s what has me eyeballing fiberglass. Something that will take more of a beating that paper tubes.

 

[mrwalsh85]

https://www.madcowrocketry.com/2-2-fiberglass-adventurer/
Consider the Madcow Adventurer. It is 2.2" dia, about 56" long if my math is right, 38mm dia, dual deploy. Not all inclusive but probably better so you can spec the recovery components to your liking.

I have one, haven't built it yet - but looking forward to it. I think it'll be fun to abuse it with big motors. I can't wait to try a K1127... hehe

 

[tsmith1315]

Taking a step up to a 3" fiberglass airframe really should be flown on a large I or J. The cost starts jumping up quickly per flight. Ultimately, that's where you'll probably move to, but it's expensive to learn.

I’ll 3rd this.

Unless you need to fly low, you’ll quickly tire of a 3-4” fiberglass rocket on H-I motor flights. Planning to use it for L2 after you’re comfortable with it? Then go right ahead.



But with the constraints of the original post, I’d say buy the least expensive kit, and spend all of the extra money on motors to fly it over and over.

 

[Rob Campbell]

Now to throw a monkey wrench into the mix. How about a cardboard Madcow Super DX3 with a 54mm motor mount?

 

[danielhv]

Now to throw a monkey wrench into the mix. How about a cardboard Madcow Super DX3 with a 54mm motor mount?

I’m done with cardboard. I looked at the fiberglass 3” DX3, but no rocksim file is available for it so I took it off the list.

 

[Rob Campbell]

I’m done with cardboard. I looked at the fiberglass 3” DX3, but no rocksim file is available for it so I took it off the list.

You can't go wrong with a Wildman kit. I have the 4 inch glass goblin in my build pile. I'm very impressed with the quality of the components. I'll start on it once I get the Head End Dual Deployment figured out.

 

[David Schwantz]

Why can't you make your own Rocksim file??

 

[swfa]

If you plan to get your level 2 certification soon, I would recommend the 3" Wildman Punisher. I own one, and the only real difference with HED is a slightly smaller main parachute bay.
If you aren't planning to get your level 2 in the immediate future, and fiberglass is a requirement, then I wouldn't go bigger than a 54mm airframe.

 

[danielhv]

Why can't you make your own Rocksim file??

I’m sure I could if I had exact dimensions and weights, and measurements on the fins etc. but when I’m trying to decide on a rocket to buy and build it’s nice having a supplied rocksim file so that I can sim different motors and see what I could expect on that particular airframe.

 

[Rschub]

My cardboard experience hasn’t exactly been cheap. First flight landed a little hard (poor fin design and undersized chute on the Zephyr) which resulted in a buckle in the BT. Third launch it decided to land 3 feet into a pond and now the motor mount tube and ends of the BT are swollen and bulged out.

That’s what has me eyeballing fiberglass. Something that will take more of a beating that paper tubes.

All that falls under the category of S#%t happens.

Our launch area does not have a pond, so that is a specific issue for you, which is a valid concern. Electronics don't like water either.

For the money of the Aerotech, you can buy 3 Minnie-Maggs. I know it's not sexy, but that works for me.

I would do the 4 in Punisher given your fiberglass preference. The Head end deployment saves the weight of an upper body tube. The 3 in Punisher nosecone is apparently a little tight to fit the recovery gear into, so you have to make good choices on the components.

There are some Punisher build videos on youtube out there if you are looking for instructions, I find them much more helpful than printed ones.

 

[DragonRocketry]

Our launch area does not have a pond, so that is a specific issue for you, which is a valid concern. Electronics don't like water either.


No we have a river to deal with..LOL

 

[David Schwantz]

I’m sure I could if I had exact dimensions and weights, and measurements on the fins etc. but when I’m trying to decide on a rocket to buy and build it’s nice having a supplied rocksim file so that I can sim different motors and see what I could expect on that particular airframe.

Understood. You can always ask if members have a certain file you could load.

 

[danielhv]

Understood. You can always ask if members have a certain file you could load.

I could. I even searched on TRF but couldn’t find one. But also, right or wrong, there is a part of me that feels like the manufacturers of HPR’s should be able to provide one for their designs. If not, then I move on. I feel like providing a rocksim or open rocket file should be standard practice at this point since it’s standard practice to sim a rocket before launching it for the first time.

 

[DragonRocketry]

I could. I even searched on TRF but couldn’t find one. But also, right or wrong, there is a part of me that feels like the manufacturers of HPR’s should be able to provide one for their designs. If not, then I move on. I feel like providing a rocksim or open rocket file should be standard practice at this point since it’s standard practice to sim a rocket before launching it for the first time.

Manufactures do not given them out as people just clone the rocket instead of buying the kit.

 

[Rob Campbell]

I’m sure I could if I had exact dimensions and weights, and measurements on the fins etc. but when I’m trying to decide on a rocket to buy and build it’s nice having a supplied rocksim file so that I can sim different motors and see what I could expect on that particular airframe.

One thing you can do is run a sim for a similar rocket that you have a file for. The two most important pieces of data from the sim are expected apogee and optimum delay time. using a similar rocket as an analog will get you in the ball park.

 

[David Schwantz]

I can see where you are coming from. But, there are so many variables in building a rocket that a manufactures file would only be close. think of the builder that has to use a ton of glue, or uses 1/2" ply instead of 1/4". Chute size, shock cord length. I have a file for the mini DX3, it is glass. If you rocksim 10 you can upscale it. I am a PC dummy, but if someone helped me be able to send it to you, you would be welcome to use it. Good luck.

 

[kjhambrick]

One thing you can do is run a sim for a similar rocket that you have a file for. The two most important pieces of data from the sim are expected apogee and optimum delay time. using a similar rocket as an analog will get you in the ball park.

What @Rob Campbell said

In addition, the Match a Rocket Motor Guide at Thrust Curve.org is pretty handy ( I just learned about it last week ).

All really you need is your AF diameter and a ballpark dry mass to get started ...

-- kjh

 

[David Schwantz]

Here are some stuff made out of metal. Rail brackets on a HoJo, legs on the grain bin. Granted they could've been plastic, but would they have held up over time? If you's ever had seen the grain bin fly, you'd know that plastic, CF or glass would've shattered long ago. Just ask anyone on here that has seen me fly her.

 

[mrwalsh85]

My cardboard experience hasn’t exactly been cheap. First flight landed a little hard (poor fin design and undersized chute on the Zephyr) which resulted in a buckle in the BT. Third launch it decided to land 3 feet into a pond and now the motor mount tube and ends of the BT are swollen and bulged out.

That’s what has me eyeballing fiberglass. Something that will take more of a beating that paper tubes.

The motor section of my 7.5" Dia WAC Corporal landed in a creek. Airframe is fiberglassed, as is the fins. However tube coupler and motor mount are not. I will say though that the motor tube is phenolic. I got it out of the water ASAP, pulled the motor casing out ASAP and took it home. Upon arrival at home, drilled "drain" holes in the aft CR to promote draining of water. Let it sit in my shop for about a month before I did anything. Which really consisted of nothing for a few more months, lol. I spent quite a bit of time with an orbital sander sanding down the swollen layer of tube coupler.... But it slides together again.

My saving grace may be that I used a LOC Stiffy for the tube coupler.

Water is fun... lol

 

[Rschub]

"No we have a river to deal with..LOL"

I don't think there is a 38mm motor that could push the Minnie-Magg to the river, but I am working on a secret project that might get it there.

 

[Hobie1dog]

Very nice looking rocket. What does she weigh in at?

with no motor, 8lbs