Upscaler vs. Bandman444 Mile High Challenge

the model rocket show
Onebadhawk
Shop deals on ebay
Advertise with us
The Rocketry Forum

Help Support The Rocketry Forum:

This site may earn a commission from merchant affiliate links, including eBay, Amazon, and others.
daveyfire said:
Yep. And though I don't feel the burden of proof is on us to explain (since the accusations flying are based on third-hand evidence), here's how it would usually go down for me when I was a <18 HPR flyer:

I'd get a project idea, and undertake the design. Everything went into Rocksim and got planned out. When I had a good idea on what would be needed for the project, I'd go purchase materials and build the vehicle, doing the glassing, lining up the fins, designing and mounting the avionics package, sanding, filling, painting. So the construction process was all mine. It had to be, for me to use birds I'd built to do my certifications.

On launch day, my (L2 certified) dad would drive me to the launch site. (I don't know how he put up with me.) We'd take a team trip to the motor vendor's campsite, and I'd indicate what motor(s) I'd like to fly that day. He would purchase them from the vendor, carry them back to the car, and handle the energetic components during the assembly process. He'd also prepare black powder charges while I wired the rest of the avionics bay, packed the chutes, and installed shear pins. After the motor was installed, we'd carry it up to the RSO table, where we'd fill out a flight card together, and walk to the pad together. The LCO at the site would then launch the rocket.

The two times I wanted to (read: could afford to) fly an M motor, I found an L3 certified flier to help me through the same process. Thank you, Erik Gates, Kurt Gugisberg, and Wedge Oldham for letting me build my confidence with larger airframes so I could certify L3.

So the bottom line is: I don't see what's not above board about this process, or how any rules were violated. The energetic components were handled and under the control of the certified and of-age flyer the entire time. As a <18 flyer then, and a >18 flyer now, I'm not a fan of the rules, but I understand the need for them, and respect them now as I did then.

What I really don't understand (and take issue with) is the assertion that the above process creates "ever more flaccid meaning" for the flights of >18 y/o rocketeers, or how it "create the impression that [the underage flyer] is more accomplished than is actually the case."

And now that I'm >18, I don't see the activities of <18 flyers as a threat to my ability, or flying status, or masculinity, or anything, really. I'm actually glad to see that there are more rocketeers like me and Chris and Justin and James and Art and Eric and David and Steve and Todd and Ryan who are continuing in the hobby as far as they can. Our activities as underage rocketeers were anything but "misleading", and now that I'm "18 and... fully certified", I don't understand the need for "this distinction to be made clear". Flying is flying.

So please, can we move on now?
Click to expand...


David, that is the same trip my son and I are on right now. IT is a blast..

But, I let him assemble the motor.. (on the small hpr AT - snap rings are easier, but require dexterity he doesnt have yet-and i like him having eyeballs.) I do the BP or deploy charges (based on the same dexterity issue)
BUT DONT LOOK AT MY AVATAR--- OHHHH>> a kid installing and ignitor!!!! That J528 at min safe distance ROCKED...

(hes also accumulated an hour of dual instruction in a cessna 172)....

After I was done chasing, got married and had kids was when i got back into rockets... Its an amazing thing to do with your son....
 
Is'nt the guy who pushes the buttom really the one who flew it? (just joking) I think these "jr's" are great for the hobby. Keep flyin em boys!
 
bill2654 said:
Is'nt the guy who pushes the buttom really the one who flew it? (just joking) I think these "jr's" are great for the hobby. Keep flyin em boys!
Click to expand...

well then i wanna voulenteer as the LCO :D:clap::clap::clap:

hehe, i should get there early enough to watch the caliber ISP go up :)

what motor are u thinking of using bryce?
 
edwinshap1 said:
well then i wanna voulenteer as the LCO :D:clap::clap::clap:
Click to expand...

By that thinking you would have to be a TRA level 2 inorder to fly micromax. HAHA.. or my son (whose 5) by that case... has launched N motors...
 
ClayD said:
By that thinking you would have to be a TRA level 2 inorder to fly micromax. HAHA.. or my son (whose 5) by that case... has launched N motors...
Click to expand...

but i'd have a huge amount of motor usage already this year :D
 
There is no "Builder of the Model" rule in rocketry so anyone can build a rocket and have some one else with proper credentials present it to the RSO for the pre-flight check. Until there is a BOM rule, the name on the flight card is primarily for liability purposes.

Pressing the button? Do people really ask to do that anymore? I'm too busy finding a good spot from which to shoot video of my rocket in flight.

Does a kid picked out of the crowd to press the button on a big launch "fly the rocket"? That's a pretty common around at the launches I've attended.
 
o1d_dude said:
There is no "Builder of the Model" rule in rocketry so anyone can build a rocket and have some one else with proper credentials present it to the RSO for the pre-flight check. Until there is a BOM rule, the name on the flight card is primarily for liability purposes.
Click to expand...

Yep. As far as I know, the only "builder of the model" rules apply to certification flights.

As for button pressing? It's pretty much exclusively the LCO at our launches. At some of the smaller ones, the flyer will push the button (simply because there aren't enough people there to bother with a single, designated LCO).
 
bandman444 said:
Anybody have any idea what Braden is flying? Something on a research"K"
Click to expand...

hehe he's been secritive at least on the forum :)

also, what time are you thinking, ill be sure to get there by then and ill get a couple liftoff pics :)

gettin more and more excited for saturday!!!

gonna pick up everything i still need for my cert rocket, and gonna catch a flight that's gonna be talked about on the forum :D

btw, sleeping out on the lakebed friday night im guessin?
 
bandman444 said:
Well mine isn't set. (I hate to set my eyes on one motor and to have Jack not have on in stock)

But hopefully *Knocks on wood* he will have a J354 New White CTI motor

I'm a little nervous though...Rocksim says Mach .95....And that scares me.

Built with epoxy, but never thought about mach...

The other choices pass through mach 1.1 1.2

I also want to pass it for sure so I said over 6000ft in sim will do.

Motor deploy, main at apogee, Tracker, long walk...
Click to expand...

I was hoping someone would comment on this. I'm still an MPR guy and I have only topped out at about 0.5 Mach, but I have *read* about Mach+ flights.

The general rule seems to be that if you are going to break mach on a single stage flight, you want to break it as quickly as possible to reduce transonic stresses and gain the aerodynamic advantages of Mach+ flight. Better, though, is a two stage rocket where the first stage stays below Mach to get the second stage to an altitude where the air is much thinner. The second stage then breaks Mach speed much more easily.

The trans-sonic region seem to be one that should be avoided at all costs. Efficiency is going to drop off after 0.8 mach, and you are going to have a weight penalty building strong enough to deal with transsonic stresses.

Thus, if you are not planning from the outset to break Mach, it sounds best to stay below 0.8 Mach to avoid the transsonic region entirely. I wonder if you could find a longer-burning motor to reach a greater altitude under power, and topping out at lower velocity. If I understand correctly, going this route will actually increase altitude for any given total impulse since you won't be fighting the transsonic inefficiencies.

Any comments from those with actual experience on these things?
 
rockets4kids said:
I was hoping someone would comment on this. I'm still an MPR guy and I have only topped out at about 0.5 Mach, but I have *read* about Mach+ flights.

The general rule seems to be that if you are going to break mach on a single stage flight, you want to break it as quickly as possible to reduce transonic stresses and gain the aerodynamic advantages of Mach+ flight. Better, though, is a two stage rocket where the first stage stays below Mach to get the second stage to an altitude where the air is much thinner. The second stage then breaks Mach speed much more easily.

The trans-sonic region seem to be one that should be avoided at all costs. Efficiency is going to drop off after 0.8 mach, and you are going to have a weight penalty building strong enough to deal with transsonic stresses.

Thus, if you are not planning from the outset to break Mach, it sounds best to stay below 0.8 Mach to avoid the transsonic region entirely. I wonder if you could find a longer-burning motor to reach a greater altitude under power, and topping out at lower velocity. If I understand correctly, going this route will actually increase altitude for any given total impulse since you won't be fighting the transsonic inefficiencies.

Any comments from those with actual experience on these things?
Click to expand...

you start to see transonic regions at mach .7 - .8

altitude is the balance of thrust energy and resistance energy.. so yes you get higher altitude with the least resistance.. Problem is, you have a harder and harder time keeping an aerodynamicly stabilized rocket vertical the slower you fly it... so even 2 stage flights can have a more-so arching profile... limiting its altitude over what a faster more vertical flight could achieve...
achieving the most altitude from 1 or 2 stages takes a ton of tinkering... look at the extents people are going like Jim Jarvis, and Adrian A with thier projects - to get the most....

so, mach busting to hit certian altitude, may be necessary to keep the vehicle - vertical.
 
I know...

I am very nervous about passing through the transonic region aswell.

I couldn't find anything else (the J354 is the "slowest motor" I could find)

If I had enough money I would consider something a but more powerfull like a J825Redline, that would definitely past mach, but make some AWESOME pictures!

Side question : Anyone have any experience with cameras at mach? Forces applied?
 
rockets4kids said:
I was hoping someone would comment on this. I'm still an MPR guy and I have only topped out at about 0.5 Mach, but I have *read* about Mach+ flights.

The general rule seems to be that if you are going to break mach on a single stage flight, you want to break it as quickly as possible to reduce transonic stresses and gain the aerodynamic advantages of Mach+ flight. Better, though, is a two stage rocket where the first stage stays below Mach to get the second stage to an altitude where the air is much thinner. The second stage then breaks Mach speed much more easily.

The trans-sonic region seem to be one that should be avoided at all costs. Efficiency is going to drop off after 0.8 mach, and you are going to have a weight penalty building strong enough to deal with transsonic stresses.

Thus, if you are not planning from the outset to break Mach, it sounds best to stay below 0.8 Mach to avoid the transsonic region entirely. I wonder if you could find a longer-burning motor to reach a greater altitude under power, and topping out at lower velocity. If I understand correctly, going this route will actually increase altitude for any given total impulse since you won't be fighting the transsonic inefficiencies.

Any comments from those with actual experience on these things?
Click to expand...

I hear this advice all the time, and I'm still puzzled by it. Stresses on your rocket at supersonic speed are higher than at transonic, so you could definitely build a rocket that would be perfectly fine at mach 1.02, but would shred at mach 1.2 (a good example of this is actually modern airliners - most of them are tested up to somewhere between mach 0.95 and 0.995, but they would have some serious problems at mach 1.05 or 1.1, much less mach 1.2). Transonic stresses are substantially higher than subsonic, to be sure, but that won't be solved simply by pushing through it faster.

Now, as far as efficiency is concerned, the advice is solid. If your goal is maximum altitude, you are best either avoiding transonic, or punching solidly through. It's not as crucial as some people make it out to be, but it's still worth following if your goal is maximum altitude.
 
cjl said:
I hear this advice all the time, and I'm still puzzled by it. Stresses on your rocket at supersonic speed are higher than at transonic, so you could definitely build a rocket that would be perfectly fine at mach 1.02, but would shred at mach 1.2 (a good example of this is actually modern airliners - most of them are tested up to somewhere between mach 0.95 and 0.995, but they would have some serious problems at mach 1.05 or 1.1, much less mach 1.2). Transonic stresses are substantially higher than subsonic, to be sure, but that won't be solved simply by pushing through it faster.

Now, as far as efficiency is concerned, the advice is solid. If your goal is maximum altitude, you are best either avoiding transonic, or punching solidly through. It's not as crucial as some people make it out to be, but it's still worth following if your goal is maximum altitude.
Click to expand...
yup yup, localized stresses are lower, but the pressure waves hitting the leading edge of any surface as you go up miniscule amounts will i think square or cube (cjl said something about that in another thread :O)

bryce if you wanna just shatter mach i can always lend you my 38/480 hardware so u can drop an I1299N in it :D
 
cjl said:
I hear this advice all the time, and I'm still puzzled by it. Stresses on your rocket at supersonic speed are higher than at transonic, so you could definitely build a rocket that would be perfectly fine at mach 1.02, but would shred at mach 1.2 (a good example of this is actually modern airliners - most of them are tested up to somewhere between mach 0.95 and 0.995, but they would have some serious problems at mach 1.05 or 1.1, much less mach 1.2). Transonic stresses are substantially higher than subsonic, to be sure, but that won't be solved simply by pushing through it faster.

Now, as far as efficiency is concerned, the advice is solid. If your goal is maximum altitude, you are best either avoiding transonic, or punching solidly through. It's not as crucial as some people make it out to be, but it's still worth following if your goal is maximum altitude.
Click to expand...

I would go a step farther and say that for normal rocket designs, the drag will always be lower at lower velocity, even if the Cd is higher. If I can choose a full-impulse motor for an altitude shot, and I have a choice between a faster-burning motor that puts the rocket higher than Mach 1.1, and a slower-burning motor that tops out at .9 or 1.0 or 1.05, I'll take the slower-burning motor every time. Check out the drag plot in Rocksim, or better yet, the accel plot from flight data, and you'll never see the drag going up as the speed goes down. The slope changes quite a bit around Mach 1.0, but this "advantage to punching through Mach 1" concept is just not supported any data I have seen, because drag is 1/2 * density * Cd * Area * velocity^2, and in every rocket design I have seen, at Mach 1, the V^2 part is going up faster than the Cd is going down.
 
Last edited:
I will keep it short

Photo attached.

J354 White

Apogee ~6100ft

MAWD Max Altitude 20ft....20ft

Onboard video soon

Picture is soooo cool

One Mile J354.jpg
 
so you win the drag race by 20 feet. grats :D


i say u guys have a real one at NSL :D
 
How did you have the battery mounted? The Adepts had problems similar to this years ago where it would either reset or brown out during flight.
Did you use a new battery?




JD


bandman444 said:
I will keep it short

Photo attached.

J354 White

Apogee ~6100ft

MAWD Max Altitude 20ft....20ft

Onboard video soon

Picture is soooo cool
Click to expand...
 
Bummer about the MAWD data. I've never seen one reset before, is that what the data looks like? I've got three MAWDs I'm flying right now (flew all three yesterday). The only issue I've ever had was one dual deploy flight where the main charge never fired and that was due to a weak battery (I tried to get "one more" flight out of it :cyclops:). I'd like to hear what you think the problem was. That was a nice flight by the way, at least the part I saw. I lost sight of your bird shortly after burnout. Mine is the one on the pad next to yours in the launch pic. Sounds like you had a good day. A little too much wind for my taste but I had four good flights and didn't tear anything up.

So how far away did it land...:rolleyes:
 
Buckaroo said:
So how far away did it land...:rolleyes:
Click to expand...

2.1miles away :p

I know what the problem was...

Wind...

Over the port holes caused erratic pressure changes.

I don't know if you noticed but I turned it on while at the pad everything checked out good, then put in the igniter and noticed it started beeping (No charges=no beeps) 20ft...20...20...20

I assumed that was a warning sign from the altimeter (you know some warning code i have never heard) so I pull out the altimeter walk back to the car (Assumed dead battery, even though brand new) So i do the stupid put it on your tougue trick and, D#%M that battery was full!!!

So i put it back in and it starts up fine, stops beeping and ready for launch...(Weird)

So he is still launching first row (it took me only a few minutes to do that) so I run to the back put the altimeter in, start the camera replace flight card and go tell the LCO we have a rocket with a camera that needs to go soon, so he lights it up and away she goes.

Amazingly the Garmin Astro tracker stayed in lock all the way till landing, then lost it for 2 mins and regained it.


After watching the onboard footage you can here the altimeter detect "apogee" less than 10 seconds after I left... oh well (Gives me an excuse to burn another:dark:)

I cant post the onboard video yet, its over 1 gig and 17mins long. (Youtube only take up to 15mins) And windows media editer wont accept it.

Great flight, great recovery, less wind would have been nice, but whatever.

I really want to thank Braden (Upscaler) for challenging me to hit a mile, I did.
But i would not have even tried without you man!

Also thanks to Jared (Edwinshap) and Tom (Tominater2) for moral support, and Rick Dickenson (President of ROC) for answering all my phone calls and signing my card so I could have this great opportunity.


Can anyone say 2miles at NSL








JUST KIDDING

Well you never know...someone might have to race me:rolleyes:

Bryce
 
You know, if you got a Raven, that wouldn't be a problem :D

(On a more serious note, how many vent holes do you have?)
 

Similar threads

Buckeye
Altimeter vs. GPS altitude comparison
Replies
27
Views
5K
ihbarddx
I
Cory
POTROCS Launch Reports
Replies
17
Views
2K
Cory
Cory
Wayco
Reflections on Hellfire XX
Replies
7
Views
2K
Rocketjoe13
Rocketjoe13
AlnessW
BALLS 24 Launch Report
Replies
4
Views
2K
AlnessW
AlnessW
bandman444
The simple High Power Two Stage (Metallic Bliss)
2 3
Replies
78
Views
11K
gdjsky01
gdjsky01

Latest posts

Back
Top