Metal Tubing For A Body?

[Micromeister]

Originally posted by Lone Rocketeer
I agree 100%
I wasn't trying to be unsafe just build something a little more durable.


Yep! Those are the words that puzzles me. " more durable"? What part of your models seem to need more durability?

I have (pictured below) an original 1970's version Saturn-V completed and first flown 05-18-1970 which I retired after it's 139th flight at Goddard space flight Center on the 30th anniversary of Apollo-11's landing on the moon. Why did I retire it? 139 is my clubs Nar section number and it was very close to it's 29th birthday. It can still fly. Ture it's not nearly as pretty as it was 36 years ago but who of us and say we are
Nothing special was done during this construction. It was Actually built with Elemer's white glue and Ambroid cement.
After one C6 cato I no longer could use the changable motor mount which allow 3 C6 motors or one D13 but managed the rest of her flying days on D13's later D12's
I still have and fly a 1/70th Saturn-1B built around 1972 and the OLD mercury-Redstone as well as an original Goblin and StarBlazer.
I can't seem to hang enough of them in trees or fly away models, my current collection completely fills a 10 x 10 shead and just about every corner of the house. I've retiired or given away more models then I've lost or crashed. I think the words "more durable" really doesn't apply to flying models rockets. I firmly believe your models are more at risk sitting on the shelf or display with little fingers around then during flight and/or recovery. It is truely unnecessary to over-build even if your planning on flying mid power APCP motors.
If you remember the old double glue joint practice which produces a joint the is stronger than both the bodytube or balsa fin material, adding a good fillet and finishing the model well will produce a model that will stand the test of time and flight. Big stuff (BT-80 and UP may and I say MAY lend itself to Light coating epoxies or light fibergalss lay-ups fillets but some of the extreames I've seen posted making a bullet-proof "Model rocket" simply side step the whole (intended) concept of models that absorb kenetic energy making them far less of an impact danger then lances waiting to spear the unsuspecting spectator(s) that aren't really paying all that much attention to what's going on around them.

 

[powderburner]

I strongly agree with John on this point----we have lots of reinforcing going on where it probably isn't needed. And not just with metal parts.

It would be one thing if you built and launched a design and it turned out to have a problem, or even if you launched two of the same thing and the problem happened again. Even then, there are other intermediate steps that can be taken, such as adding an internal or external layer of BT for reinforcement. I think it is just wrong to add layers of fiberglass because you *think* that someday you might fly on a big motor and you *might* have a problem.

If we cannot manage to remember the safety aspect of our hobby, then it is only a matter of time that someone sends one of these super-strength monsters through a person instead of a rooftop or windshield. Then it will really hit the media and all our problems will go away....along with the entire hobby.

 

[Lone Rocketeer]

Originally posted by Micromeister
Yep! Those are the words that puzzles me. " more durable"? What part of your models seem to need more durability?

Something that doesn't catch fire, crumple, melt, or break after it's 2nd launch.

 

[Micromeister]

Humm... OK heres something over 300 that fit your bill
Every model shown has dozens of flights each, NONE has anything heavier the straight Elmers, ambroid, CA or unreinforced epoxy construction. Heaviest tube I've every used came with a NCR Brighthawk kit. all others are standard .013" or .021" Estes style Body tubes. everyone is at least 6 or 7 years old, the vast majority 15 years or better
G. Harry Stine told me several years back that he liked the challenge of building "feather Light" regardless of the model size. I completely agree, I have BT-101 models 3.938" x .021" wall LRM's that have no other internal support, Including the 3X staged Laser-X and 5 D12 clustered Hobby Goblin shown in the picture. Both are under 2 lbs. Ya just don't have to over build to keep your models flying and looking great.
Hope this helps.

 

[Lone Rocketeer]

Nice rockets, MM.

OK... your points are all taken.
It's not safe
It's not nescessary
I'll poke my eye out.

'Nuff Said. On to other things.

Has anyone ever stuffed GI Joe into a payloader?

 

[Micromeister]

Heres another example:
The Goblin in the photo below was built in 1972, this color photo was taken in 2002 when I started cataloging my current flying fleet.
If you look real close at the very bottom at the fin/body joints you may be able to see some touch ups with orange brush on paint from some of the scorching of the Mighty D's this model has flown on for over 50 flights. She looks almost identical to this photo today. Over the years I;ve replaced a number of shock cords and the 2" crepe streamer several times. but the model itself is all original Balsa Nose and fins and cardboard body and motor mount.
I was planing on flying it this coming Saturday, but looks like I'll be repairing club launch equipment instead of going to the sport launch

 

[Micromeister]

We did a Barbie Bailout Spotlanding Funny meet event a couple years ago, some used barbies, some GI Joes, One of the kids stuffed a HULK in a super big bertha, that was a good one
I flew a Buzz lightyear but he decided not to deploy is wings or leave my Super Big Bertha.. so he didn't Fall with style