Mailing Tubes

The Rocketry Forum

Help Support The Rocketry Forum:

This site may earn a commission from merchant affiliate links, including eBay, Amazon, and others.

DJRNY

well it has fins and took off like a rocket....
Joined
Dec 3, 2023
Messages
72
Reaction score
61
Location
Owego, NY
I've read a few posts on the forum about using mailing tubes as airframes. I'm new (again) to rocketry but over the years have gotten fishing rods and blade steel in mailing tubes, which I've saved (just because). I have several large tubes that are pretty heavy. As examples, some of them are (approximately)
- 3.0" ID - 3.4" OD X 55" long - 2.8 lbs
- 4.0" ID - 4.3" OD X 52" long - 2.5 lbs
- 3.0" ID - 3.4" OD X 63" long - 3.3 lbs
- 2.5" ID - 2.8" OD X 59" long - 1.6 lbs

And so on. Are these the type of mailing tubes that are suitable for airframes, or are they too heavy? They are much thicker walled and heavier that what I've ever used for airframes. tubes.jpg




I'm wondering if they'd make a good start to a scratch build.

Thanks,
Dave
 
Those are heavy because the cardboard is inferior, made of short strands of pulp. Tubes sold for rockets really are a lot nicer.

I've built a few with tubes like that. They will eventually crumple and or shred. Don't spend a lot if you use them: crummy 3 layer ply from the craft store, don't paint, use a recycled nose cone or an Easter egg or other craft store item, etc.
 
The money you save on tubes will be paid 10x over in larger engines (due to excessive weight of the tubes).

Use the tubes to make static models and practice your building techniques.
 
Last edited:
I've read a few posts on the forum about using mailing tubes as airframes. I'm new (again) to rocketry but over the years have gotten fishing rods and blade steel in mailing tubes, which I've saved (just because). I have several large tubes that are pretty heavy. As examples, some of them are (approximately)
- 3.0" ID - 3.4" OD X 55" long - 2.8 lbs
- 4.0" ID - 4.3" OD X 52" long - 2.5 lbs
- 3.0" ID - 3.4" OD X 63" long - 3.3 lbs
- 2.5" ID - 2.8" OD X 59" long - 1.6 lbs

And so on. Are these the type of mailing tubes that are suitable for airframes, or are they too heavy? They are much thicker walled and heavier that what I've ever used for airframes. View attachment 628912




I'm wondering if they'd make a good start to a scratch build.

Thanks,
Dave

- 3.0" ID - 3.4" OD X 55" long - 2.8 lbs. (0.200" wall)
- 4.0" ID - 4.3" OD X 52" long - 2.5 lbs. (.150" wall)
- 3.0" ID - 3.4" OD X 63" long - 3.3 lbs. (0.200" wall)
- 2.5" ID - 2.8" OD X 59" long - 1.6 lbs. (0.150" wall)
All those seem to be excessively heavy wall for a typical 3 or 4 fin "long and skinny - looks like an arrow" rocket.
But if you're building on odd-roc with a short tube, sure, I'd use them.
 
I've read a few posts on the forum about using mailing tubes as airframes. I'm new (again) to rocketry but over the years have gotten fishing rods and blade steel in mailing tubes, which I've saved (just because). I have several large tubes that are pretty heavy. As examples, some of them are (approximately)
- 3.0" ID - 3.4" OD X 55" long - 2.8 lbs
- 4.0" ID - 4.3" OD X 52" long - 2.5 lbs
- 3.0" ID - 3.4" OD X 63" long - 3.3 lbs
- 2.5" ID - 2.8" OD X 59" long - 1.6 lbs

I'm wondering if they'd make a good start to a scratch build.

Thanks,
Dave

Finding nose cones that will fit will be a problem. Unless you have a big 3D printer... (or some where to get custom nose cones made.)
 
Last edited:
Thanks everyone for your responses. I guess for now these tubes will go back in storage and I'll keep them in case they come in handy for something - other than an airframe!
 
Last edited:
Back
Top