What to do with B14-0 motors?

[the freshman]

I received 4 B14-0 motors from another rocketeer recently. He had bought another rocketeer's antique motor stash, but gave me these because he doesn't fly multistagers. That's why I'm not considering selling them...

These were made 35 years ago...and I'm contemplating using them as the second stage in my Comanche-3. I know people have used 40 year old BP motors before. Should I risk it? I suppose I could test fire one and hope they were all from the same batch (they were all made on the same day).

What'dya think?

 

[powderburner]

Oh, oh, mmmmmmm, (heavy breathing),
I think you should stand them up neatly, on end, so the same part of the label is showing on each one, and just sort of look at them.
Take some pictures of them laying down, and in various positions.
Maybe hold them in your hand and fondle them gently?
Definitely should make a little home for them in your house, like a little box with some soft lining and a layer to cover them and keep them nice and snug.



Hey, you asked for it.



I don't think that test-firing one will tell you much about the condition of the others. Your best bet to determine their likely usability is to interrogate the guy that stored them.

--Did he store them indoors or in the garage? Were they exposed to high or low temperatures, or temp cycles?
--Were they kept fairly dry? Were they exposed to humidity? Were they packaged or sealed inside anything, or were they isolated from humidity changes?
--Have they been dropped (to the best he knows) or had anything heavy dropped *on* them?

If the exteriors of the motor casings still look good (no sign of water stains, no dents, no other damage), if the nozzles still look good (no chipping, no crumbling, no cracks), if you can scratch out a little BP (and I mean ****LITTLE**** ) from the front end (these are booster motors and the front face of the propellant grain should be fully exposed) and examine it, does it still look 'fresh' and crumbly/powdery or does it chip out or crumble in strange ways? Is the propellant that you can see still strong, hard, and black? Is there any sign of the propellant grain being loose inside the cardboard motor case? (Can you move it if you push from the ends, or is there any sign of a crack between the grain and the case?)

If these motors have been stored even half-way decently, they are *probably* still good. The only real way to be sure is to fly them.

You might select a rocket that you can get a replacement for.....just in case.

BTW, that's a great friend you have there-

 

[Ted Cochran]

B14 motors are not certified. However, they can be flown at NAR-insured sites as part of our program examining the safety of old motors.

Details on this program are here.

To date, only one B14-0 has been flown under this program. It was made in 1973, and it performed nominally.

--tc

 

[n3tjm]

It is such a shame to see awesome motors discontinued... I was not around to see the B14.... but I was around when we had B8's.

I remember exactly what I was doing and where I was when the A10-0T was discontinued...

 

[dwmzmm]

I flew a Centuri labeled B14-5 in December 2005 in my Estes Hi-Jax model and
it worked flawlessly. The seven pound thrust gave a very notable "kick" off
the pad.

 

[rstaff3]

I loved the B14s in the day. I experienced my first shred on a B14 If I had them...I'd fly them at MDRA!

 

[pyrovette20]

Those motors are no good . Send them to me right away. I'll get rid of them for you.

 

[Kaycee]

I don't think that test-firing one will tell you much about the condition of the others. Your best bet to determine their likely usability is to interrogate the guy that stored them.

--Did he store them indoors or in the garage? Were they exposed to high or low temperatures, or temp cycles?
--Were they kept fairly dry? Were they exposed to humidity? Were they packaged or sealed inside anything, or were they isolated from humidity changes?
--Have they been dropped (to the best he knows) or had anything heavy dropped *on* them?

If the exteriors of the motor casings still look good (no sign of water stains, no dents, no other damage), if the nozzles still look good (no chipping, no crumbling, no cracks), if you can scratch out a little BP (and I mean ****LITTLE**** ) from the front end (these are booster motors and the front face of the propellant grain should be fully exposed) and examine it, does it still look 'fresh' and crumbly/powdery or does it chip out or crumble in strange ways? Is the propellant that you can see still strong, hard, and black? Is there any sign of the propellant grain being loose inside the cardboard motor case? (Can you move it if you push from the ends, or is there any sign of a crack between the grain and the case?)

If these motors have been stored even half-way decently, they are *probably* still good. The only real way to be sure is to fly them.

Someone posted a quote in another venue a few years ago that seems to fit here--(can't remember who it was though)

"This should be in the FAQs"

 

[JStarStar]

I have what may be the world's biggest stash of B14's (mostly 0's, a few 5's and 7's) -- a local toy store was cleaning out some cartons of old rocket stuff a year or so ago, selling them off for a song, and my eyes lit up when I saw the case of B14's. So, I bought up as many of the old sealed Estes "diamond" cartons of them as I could carry -- 40-50 packs of 3 at $1.00 per pack. I've launched maybe a dozen of them, and they've all flown fine.

B14-0s are very good booster motors to get heavy staged birds off the pad and up to a decent airspeed quickly.

B14's were discontinued during my roughly-20-year hiatus from rocketry, so I don't know if there were CATO issues (a-la the D13 and E15) with the motors, or if they just fell out of demand. I don't think I ever remember having a B14 CATO.

It would be cool if Estes, or Quest, would bring them back, and maybe produce a C equivalent -- a C18, maybe??

 

[rocketking]

I too have recently flown a B14-5 which performed as it should.

The (fairly light-weight) rocket moved so fast, I never saw it again.

Dang, I miss these older motors!

 

[DJDeadParrot]

These were made 35 years ago...and I'm contemplating using them as the second stage in my Comanche-3.

I got my hands on a B14-0 once and did just what you're planning on doing: putting it in the middle stage of a Comanche 3. When the 2nd stage lit, it really kicked that thing out of sight. Somehow I got all pieces back. I sure would love to try some more of those motors in single stage rockets.

 

[jflis]

As I understand it, the B14 motors went out of production due to the post processing needed to make them. It was not possible to make the motor with the deep core that makes the B14 have the high peak thrust, so after they were pressed the core would have to be drilled out manually.

This was time consuming, expensive and *very* dangerous. All of these lead to the demise of the B14.

fwiw
jim

 

[jj94]

What I would do with them is to use one in a cheap rocket like a saucer or something. If that motor is fine, I'd guess the others should be too because they were all stored in the same place, manner, and conditions. If something goes wrong with it, I'd fly one more and if the same thing happens, just keep them as a collector's item.

 

[snuggles]

Just wondering....Why would you use the B14 as a second stage motor, why not first stage??? They have a lot of punch to get the model moving.
Mark T

 

[powderburner]

What I would do with them is to use one in a cheap rocket like a saucer or something.

Right idea, but probably the wrong configuration for a test rocket.

Saucers like low-thrust, long-duration motors.

Saucers (by design) have a lot of drag and don't want to go very fast. Motors like the B14 were made to get a rocket moving very fast, very quickly. Using a B14 in a saucer may well result in the motor pod ripping out while the saucer body remains on the launch pad.

 

[jj94]

Oh. I just mentioned the saucer because they're cheap and easy to make, and you can use them just to see if the motor CATO's or not.

 

[Sandy H.]

I guess I'm not in the camp of doing a test run, either in a disposable rocket or on the ground. The Comanche-3 is a rocket that is often lost, especially the 2nd stage and the sustainer, so every time you launch it, there is a chance it'll be gone forever. If your situation is different, then ignore my reasoning, but if there's a chance you'll lose it to a tree, out of sight etc, why not go ahead an use your stash in that bird, since its what you wanted to do anyway. If you finished the C-3 very meticulously or it has some real sentimental value, then its not a good idea, but if its just a cool rocket that you can repair/replace if anything goes wrong, why waste one of your four chances at a difficult to repeat flight? Just make sure you're within the OOP motor rules at a NAR launch. They'd like the data for sure.

Good luck. I doubt you'll be able to get pics to share, so make sure to pay real good attention and enjoy it yourself!

Sandy.

 

[the freshman]

Thanks for the input everyone.

I've submitted the request to the Safety Commission. I'll probably fly the Comanche in a 2-stage configuration first, with a B14-0 to a B6-6. Then I'll move on to adding the D12-0 booster. I do count on getting at least the sustainer back since I'll have a Beeline inside. Getting the boosters back will be the real challenge. We have some tall grass at our field: Once I lost the booster to a CCExpress while finding the sustainer!

The motors appear to be just fine. Nozzles, propellant, and casings all look like they could be out of a new pack.

I don't have a way to find out the storage history--the original owner is deceased. My friend bought the stash from his wife, which included a whole bunch of other motors from the same time period. I'll make sure to tell him about the OOP motor testing program too...

 

[aerospike]

They should be fine. I had some old motors in diamond packs and even older motors that came in a brown tube with white end-caps that flew fine after years of storage in an attic! I remeber the B14s and B8's well. A B8-7 would send my X-ray nearly out of sight.

 

[JStarStar]

As I understand it, the B14 motors went out of production due to the post processing needed to make them. It was not possible to make the motor with the deep core that makes the B14 have the high peak thrust, so after they were pressed the core would have to be drilled out manually.

This was time consuming, expensive and *very* dangerous. All of these lead to the demise of the B14.

fwiw
jim

Well, I am sure your sources are probably better than mine, and I am certainly not a professional pyrotechnician, but at least intuitively you would think the only thing they would have to do would be to install a mandrell or mold inside the motor nozzle when packing in the BP, to produce the core aperture inside the propellant.

As luck would have it, I happen to have a few old Estes catalogs sitting around, so I grabbed the 1970 edition, which lists propellant weight for the B14's to be 6.24 grams, same as the B6's, so a B14 could not be a B6 with a propellant hole drilled out.

At the same time, the B4 has a listed propellant weight of 8.33 grams, so maybe the B14 was simply a B4 with a hole drilled in it.

But that doesn't make sense either -- the B4's were listed with a total impulse of 5.00-newton-seconds -- the same as the B14's and the B6's. Presumably if you have the same propellant with the same specific impulse, the B4's, with more propellant, should have had slightly more total impulse than the B14's and the B6's. (Although I have also learned that some of the engine specs from the 60s and 70s were not quite as razor-accurate as we were led to believe at the time. :surprised: )

The B14's were 10% more expensive than the other B's, so I suspect as you mention, there was some additional process in their manufacture which did make them more expensive to produce. Still, it would be fun if either Estes or Quest could figure out a way to produce them again.

 

[jflis]

Well, some of that information is from Vern himself, so... I have no clue what they started out as before the drilling operation. From what I understand they couldn't mold the core into it because it was too deep and they wouldn't be able to get the motor off of the jig once pressed, but I can't confirm this.

Carl (SEMROC) would know, as would Matt Steele.

 

[falingtrea]

That is what I have been told also, Jim. It probably would have been too expensive to bring a Mable down in order to modify it to handle the longer mandrel. Also the longer the action length in a piece of machinery the higher the chance of failure. And the longer the mandrel, the greater the chances of it breaking. Based on the typical quantities of B14s that would have been made, it probably wasn't worth the expense and hassle.

 

[cjl]

True, though if they were still available, I would gladly pay a decent price premium to have their lifting power for heavy staged models.

 

[shreadvector]

Ramming/pressing a motor with a long core mandrel is not always possible since the ramming occurs several times as each layer or propellant is added. If the mandrel sticks up above the first layer of clay nozzle and propellant, then it cannot be pressed.

If they need to make a 5 N-s motor after drilling, then they would load it with 5-point-something worth of propellant and then after drilling they would have the desired final total impulse.

And they load the propellant MOIST. Loading and then drilling dry BP is extremely dangerous.

Well, I am sure your sources are probably better than mine, and I am certainly not a professional pyrotechnician, but at least intuitively you would think the only thing they would have to do would be to install a mandrell or mold inside the motor nozzle when packing in the BP, to produce the core aperture inside the propellant.

As luck would have it, I happen to have a few old Estes catalogs sitting around, so I grabbed the 1970 edition, which lists propellant weight for the B14's to be 6.24 grams, same as the B6's, so a B14 could not be a B6 with a propellant hole drilled out.

At the same time, the B4 has a listed propellant weight of 8.33 grams, so maybe the B14 was simply a B4 with a hole drilled in it.

But that doesn't make sense either -- the B4's were listed with a total impulse of 5.00-newton-seconds -- the same as the B14's and the B6's. Presumably if you have the same propellant with the same specific impulse, the B4's, with more propellant, should have had slightly more total impulse than the B14's and the B6's. (Although I have also learned that some of the engine specs from the 60s and 70s were not quite as razor-accurate as we were led to believe at the time. :surprised: )

The B14's were 10% more expensive than the other B's, so I suspect as you mention, there was some additional process in their manufacture which did make them more expensive to produce. Still, it would be fun if either Estes or Quest could figure out a way to produce them again.

 

[Nuke Rocketeer]

B14??? Did someone say B14????

I loved those engines!! I still have 15-20 of them, mostly boosters, and fire them off occasionally. When I'm in a really crazy altitude mood, I'll use three of them in the old Kuhn strap-ons put on my Comanche 3 full up with a D12 in the 1st, a C5-0 in the 2nd, and a C6-7 in the third. I have done that twice and gottne everything back both times. The roar of a D12 lighting off with 3 B14's is great, and the kids love it.

Joe W

 

[RoyGreen]

Well, some of that information is from Vern himself, so... I have no clue what they started out as before the drilling operation. From what I understand they couldn't mold the core into it because it was too deep and they wouldn't be able to get the motor off of the jig once pressed, but I can't confirm this.

Carl (SEMROC) would know, as would Matt Steele.

I've heard it from Vern and Carl and one or two others who should know.

In fact, Vern pointed out to me that the B14-7 I bought (indirectly) from him at the NARAM auction last month probably didn't have a drilled core, as he thought he pulled it from manufacturing before post-production. When I got back home, I used a micromaxx launch rod to check it and indeed, there is no drilled core in my B14! Almost like finding an Inverted Jenny stamp!

 

[ManofSteele]

Roy is correct - Estes did press B14's with a long spindle. If the spindle did not properly form the core, or if nozzle clay got in the core, the motors had to be drilled out. The process they had to press the B14s had too many rejects and hand reworks (which is extremely dangerous - no way would you want to do that today unless you could do it remotely with some form of automation), so the motor was discontinued.

Estes also made a series of C10, D20 and D44 test engines before I got to Estes, with a deep core. The C10 was a glorified C, with something like 6 n-sec total impulse. It flew neat and sounded great, but was pretty wimpy. If it came to market, it would've likely been labeled a B motor, so people would not expect 10 n-sec of performance.

One issue was that the standard solar igniter, which wouldn't reach the top of the core without modification. Igniting the engines at the bottom was not as reliable or consistant.

The test motors worked pretty well, but we couldn't get approval to bring them to market. Our loss!

Matt

 

[jflis]

Thank you Matt! I was hoping this thread would catch your attention. This is the kind of history stuff that we need captured and safed away

 

[Lee Reep]

I loved the B14s in the day. I experienced my first shred on a B14 If I had them...I'd fly them at MDRA!

Me too. And I still have some Centuri B14s. My first shred was a Flying Jenny (biplane glider) on a B14. I seem to recall asking my buddies (we were about 13 years old) "Should I use this?"

Answer from the group: "I would if I were you."

 

[rstaff3]

Hmmm, I think I might have killed a glider on one of them too.