I’m giving myself a headache.

[Buckeye]

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

Really? I would think a serious cloner could do so with just a picture of the rocket and the diameter. The internal construction is pretty much the same for every rocket. What secret ingredients would be in the RockSim file? Plus, everybody eventually realizes that buying the kit is usually cheaper than buying individual parts, unless you have an inventory of sheet stock and other building materials.

 

[DragonRocketry]

Really? I would think a serious cloner could do so with just a picture of the rocket and the diameter. The internal construction is pretty much the same for every rocket. What secret ingredients would be in the RockSim file? Plus, everybody eventually realizes that buying the kit is usually cheaper than buying individual parts, unless you have an inventory of sheet stock and other building materials.

You would be surprised how many people have asked for a sim file from me to clone my kits.

 

[Buckeye]

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

I have this kit, and I hate it. It is heavy fiberglass and flies poorly on moderate H and I motors - lots of wiggle off the pad and squirrely flight. I even cut off 4 inches of length to reduce MOI and what might be coning. Not much improvement. It is dual deploy with a tracker in the nose. Long and skinny heavy fiberglass rockets give me trouble. Maybe my construction is off, or I need a much longer rail, or high thrust motors. I have not tried to punch it with something like a K1127, however.

 

[cls]

have this kit, and I hate it. It is heavy fiberglass and flies poorly on moderate H and I motors - lots of wiggle off the pad and squirrely flight.

Exactly my feelings about fiberglass, usually too heavy.

The aspect ratio of this model, and many others, matches the LOC Weasel. So named because it flies very wiggly.

Nothing to be done for that. Except perhaps, shorter overall, larger fin span, 4 fins... But then it is not the same rocket.

 

[Hobie1dog]

There are many important aspects/advantages of fiberglass tubing and fins.

 

[cwbullet]

You would be surprised how many people have asked for a sim file from me to clone my kits.

I know. Ethically, I would never do that. I just do not understand.

 

[cwbullet]

There are many important aspects/advantages of fiberglass tubing and fins.

weight is not one of them.

 

[sharkbait]

We have a pond also, will show you guys Sunday, but if I do it will probably Jinx you

 

[rharshberger]

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.

Given the variables most builds really are not even that close, to the manufacturers stated "specifications".

 

[Buckeye]

Exactly my feelings about fiberglass, usually too heavy.

The aspect ratio of this model, and many others, matches the LOC Weasel. So named because it flies very wiggly.

Nothing to be done for that. Except perhaps, shorter overall, larger fin span, 4 fins... But then it is not the same rocket.

Agree. In kits like this, the fin area is often too small, imo. There are just 3 fins, and the span is equal to the body tube diameter, which is the low end rule of thumb. In contrast, look at Apogee designs. Their fin spans are all greater than the body tube diameter. I have the 4" Katana, and it is the best flyer in my fleet. The Apogee Level 2, which the OP was considering, has four large fins. It will fly nicely, I am sure.

 

[ghostfather]

As far as paper vs fiberglass, there is a middle way. I generally put a layer of fiberglass over paper and phenolic tubes if 3"or larger, which doesn't add a lot of weight, but adds strength and toughness. It might not be right for the OP's level 2 attempt, but it's a good skill to develop as you get more experienced.

At this point, I would recommend a good full fiberglass kit, which is strong enough for most level 2 attempts, and will last you many years. Concentrate on getting the dual deployment working right, that skill will be the most valuable to future flights as you go higher. The Apogee level 2 is fine.

I have an upscale Mustang rocksim that I use to advise folks wanting to do a level 2 flight. The original Aerotech Mustang was a very stable design, I just upscaled it to 4". I leave it to the person wanting level 2 how they want to build (fiberglass, phenolic, whatever), which teaches them to make decisions, and how to build on their own, instead of just following kit instructions.

 

[Hobie1dog]

John Coker tubing weight chart:


I've used many different body tube materials over the years, each of which have their plusses and minuses. In 2015, MAC Performance Rocketry opened its doors selling tubes made of canvas phenolic and the Fall I purchased and built their Sky Scraper kit.
Those who've spent time on these pages know that I'm a fan of phenolic tubing and turn to it first for most projects. It's easy to work, light weight and has good wear properties so I was excited to see a new phenolic material enter the market.
I decided to compare the five types of phenolic (now including MAC canvas phenolic) along with Loc/Precision paper and fiberglass tubes. This means all tubing is close to 1/16" (1.7mm), but varies widely in weight and strength.

Comparison Table​

3.9" ID tubing is probably the most common size in high-power rocketry, and I had many samples laying around, so that's what I compared.

Common Name	Manufacturer	Material	Weight¹	Thickness	Grooves
cardboard	Loc/Precision	paper	103	0.060"	light
phenolic	Public Missiles, Ltd.	paper phenolic	143	0.069"	medium
flexible phenolic	Giant Leap Rocketry	paper phenolic	149	0.067"	medium
Blue Tube 2.0	Always Ready Rocketry	vulcanized paper phenolic	174	0.060"	light
MagnaFrame	Giant Leap Rocketry	vulcanized paper phenolic	174	0.067"	heavy
canvas phenolic	MAC Performance	cotton phenolic	185	0.060"²	none
seamless phenolic	Black Cat	phenolic	182	0.063	none
fiberglass	Performance Rocketry	filament wound FG	248	0.063"	none
carbon fiber		filament wound	163	0.045"	none

 

[Handeman]

If you are really looking for a L1 rocket with DD and in fiberglass, don't be looking for 10,000 ft. flights.
Look for something about 2.2 to 2.6 inch diameter, 38mm MMT and about 3 - 4 lbs. finished, loaded weight. That will get you about 1000 ft. on baby H and push 5000 ft. on large I motors.

I would recommend something like the Madcow 2.6" Fiberglass Dual Deploy DX3

You can go to 3", but that will be heavier, probably too much for baby H motors like the 29mm AT H128W.

Also, don't go all crazy with the DD. A single simple DD altimeter with a 9V battery will work just fine and be very dependable.

Good luck and have fun playing with L1 motors, DD, and maybe trackers!

 

[Angel_of_the_Skies]

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.

Actually, I was wet sanding my second zephyr jr (I learned I don’t like to sand color coats) when I dropped it 2 feet onto my wooden floor and snapped a fin in half. I realized how relatively weak wood fins can be

Frankly I don’t know if maybe the fin material would make a difference in strength, but I also don’t reinforce the fins with copy paper like many do.

 

[John Taylor]

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.

Over the years I have seen more damage of rockets from handling, travelling, and storing than catastrophic failures in flight.

 

[thzero]

Actually, I was wet sanding my second zephyr jr (I learned I don’t like to sand color coats) when I dropped it 2 feet onto my wooden floor and snapped a fin in half. I realized how relatively weak wood fins can be

Frankly I don’t know if maybe the fin material would make a difference in strength, but I also don’t reinforce the fins with copy paper like many do.

No reason to paper reinforce 1/4" plywood fins - the copy paper, etc. is more for balsa, basswood, etc. or if you really want to use it to help with asthetics and painting. Maybe if you are really wanting to, fiberglass. would be the way to go, but it adds more weight.

 

[Neutronium95]

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.

I think that the Punisher 3 is the best bet. HEDD is pretty much exactly like traditional dual deploy. It's light enough to fly on L1 motors and stout enough to fly on L motors.

I'd caution against a 4" fiberglass rocket as a L1 flier. It'll be too heavy for all but the highest thrust I motors. IMHO, most 4" fiberglass tubes are so heavy that they should best be paired with a 75mm motor mount.

 

[kjhambrick]

@danielhv --

If I am not too late to the party, let me throw this atcha as a fellow Texican.

First an obvious fact: The research and the choice will ultimately be yours to make.

Having said that, I too am probably done with flying cardboard rockets in TX.

There are too many Asphalt Runways and Roads ( Hearne and San Angelo ) and Ponds and Crops and Trees and High-Tension Power Lines and the Prairie Winds at the launch sites that we fly down here.

Something I've learned since I REBAR'd in April is that there are some VERY experienced fliers down here in TX ...

We are really pretty lucky that way.

Have you spoken with the TAPS and Prefects and Level 2 and 3 members of your local club(s) ?

And you might know Motorman Harry -- he is pretty experienced with flying in TX.

And I agree with @Neutronium95, the 3-inch Punisher meets your specs.

Now that the obvious disclaimers are out of the way ... I also agree with @Andrew Brown about Mach 1 Rocketry.

They probably have my next Kit rocket.

I've not yet bought any kits from Mach 1 but I recently purchased the parts to rebuild a BT-55 Scale Model of a LOC Vulcanite that landed badly on an asphalt road in San Angelo.

Their thin-wall fiberglass tubing is first class and Estee was very nice to work with.

Mach 1 also has some nice, relatively lightweight pure-D fiberglass rocket kits which are based on their thin-wall filament-wound fiberglass tubing.

One Mach 1 Kit that I am eyeballing for WHEN ( not if ) my 25-year old LOC Vulcanite is finally destroyed by my errors and omissions and/or by bad luck and/or our Texas Launch Sites is the Mach 1 54 mm Thunderbird Dual Deployment Kit.

The base price is very reasonable and they also offer some reasonably priced essential add-ons if you want to go that way.

I am not a member but they also have a membership program if you go in for that sort of thing.

The Thunderbird sims very well for our Launch Sites around here: 1300 ft on a G64 up to 8300 ft and Mach 1.4 on a J570.

As for the fly in the ointment -- it is 'only' a 54mm Rocket with a 38mm motor mount tube but it is a rocket that I can afford to fly often and in a lot of adverse conditions.

So I've told you what I am going to do but my real advice is to talk to the smart guys you fly with and then decide for yourself

HTH

-- kjh

Disclaimer: I am not associated with Mach 1 Rocketry, just a recently satisfied customer.

Attached is the .ork file I converted from the Mach 1 Rocketry-provided .rkt file.

I added some motors and ran a few sims.

YMWV, depending on how much goo and glue and paint and stickers you apply.

Here is an OpenRocket Screen Shot with a few AT White Lightning RMS Motors (*) along with a G80T for good measure.



(*) I tend to fly AT reloads because have all the AT 29mm, 38mm and 54mm casings except the 38/1320 and the 54/2800 and like smoke so I can see how my rockets fly

 

[kramer714]

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?!?

MADCOW Avalanche, on sale today for $175
https://www.madcowrocketry.com/3-avalanche-xl/