Squat-o-mania!!! LPR! MPR!! HPR!!!

Wildman Rocketry
the rocketry show
The Rocketry Forum

Help Support The Rocketry Forum:

This site may earn a commission from merchant affiliate links, including eBay, Amazon, and others.
THarrison said:
2.3 to 1 based on the average thrust. :y:

NAR Safety Code "Size. My rocket will not contain any combination of motors that total more than 40,960 N-sec (9208 pound-seconds) of total impulse. My rocket will not weigh more at liftoff than one-third of the certified average thrust of the high power rocket motor(s) intended to be ignited at launch."

:facepalm:
Click to expand...

Bueller? Bueller?

edwinshap1 said:
They were pushing him to launch on whatever they could find. It had a 3:1 liftoff T:W, and the rail was long enough, so everybody was very "helpful" in getting Bryce going.
Click to expand...

Surely there was a more appropriate motor to be found. Bay Area Rocketry is an AT and CTI dealer. Their site shows plenty of AT and CTI motors that will result in a 3:1 thrust ratio.

Who was the "they" that pushed someone into flying their L3 on a motor not suitable? Were simulations conducted?
 
You have to phone in orders of 75 and 98mm diameter motors, his truck is too small to store everything Jack did.

He did have a M1850W that was appetizing, but a free motor is free.

Lots of sims. I expected it to go a bit higher, 1,000-1,100ft, but the base drag model in rocksim I guess doesn't scale up.

The flight was safe (and it will be safe on that motor again). If it somehow were a "lucky-that-it-worked" flight then we can talk about that, but it wasn't.
 
bandman444 said:
You have to phone in orders of 75 and 98mm diameter motors, his truck is too small to store everything Jack did.

He did have a M1850W that was appetizing, but a free motor is free.

Lots of sims. I expected it to go a bit higher, 1,000-1,100ft, but the base drag model in rocksim I guess doesn't scale up.

The flight was safe (and it will be safe on that motor again). If it somehow were a "lucky-that-it-worked" flight then we can talk about that, but it wasn't.
Click to expand...

Don't want to rock the boat too much, but it still didn't comply with the Safety Code, free or not. It's possible that the Safety Code is wrong or too conservative, but it was a 2.323:1 thrust to weight ratio (348.45# average thrust to 150# rocket) and by the letter of the law it did not conform.
 
No worries. Someone has to point it out. If it isn't this it's too fast a decent speed, or too angled a launch pad, or too slow a departure velocity, or ...

Next time, more motor.
 
patelldp said:
Don't want to rock the boat too much, but it still didn't comply with the Safety Code, free or not. It's possible that the Safety Code is wrong or too conservative, but it was a 2.323:1 thrust to weight ratio (348.45# average thrust to 150# rocket) and by the letter of the law it did not conform.
Click to expand...

Deciding your motor on flight day is a bit of a stretch for NAR certification as well, unless you did all of this stuff at the field after you've decided.

c) A scale drawing of the certification rocket showing major dimensions, calculated
center of pressure, and the aft center of gravity limit in the Level 3 certification
flight configuration. d) A description of the expected flight profile using the
intended certification motor(s). This profile should include:
- Launch weight
- Estimated drag coefficient
- Velocity as the rocket leaves the launch system
- Maximum expected velocity
- Maximum expected altitude
- Maximum expected acceleration

The method (or program) used to establish the above performance
parameters should be identified.


I believe it is expected that all this be done in advance.
 
chadrog said:
Deciding your motor on flight day is a bit of a stretch for NAR certification as well, unless you did all of this stuff at the field after you've decided.

c) A scale drawing of the certification rocket showing major dimensions, calculated
center of pressure, and the aft center of gravity limit in the Level 3 certification
flight configuration. d) A description of the expected flight profile using the
intended certification motor(s). This profile should include:
- Launch weight
- Estimated drag coefficient
- Velocity as the rocket leaves the launch system
- Maximum expected velocity
- Maximum expected altitude
- Maximum expected acceleration

The method (or program) used to establish the above performance
parameters should be identified.


I believe it is expected that all this be done in advance.
Click to expand...

Jeez. I get more of a grilling here than on cert day!

From what you posted above the only thing that changes when you make a motor swap is D) the flight profile. I brought my L3CC into my RV and we sat down in rocksim and analyzed our motor and flight options. It was then chosen that the M1550R motor that I had access to would indeed be safe for flight. To be honest neither of is knew the "average thrust" had to be 3:1, we were looking for over 3:1 off the pad and a safe launch pad exit velocity. If we noticed that we would have looked for another motor or scrubbed the launch. We weren't out trying to break the rules. There were peer pressure from other flyers to fly the dang thing ('they' as referenced above), however I can guarantee you that it played no role in my choice to fly. Safety is my number one priority and was so with this flight. Part of being a HPR (regardless of cert level) is to be able to judge the safety of a flight and be able to ADAPT to changing conditions. We needed to ADAPT and did so to make this flight a success.

ImageUploadedByRocketry Forum1403117943.407746.jpg by Rick Maschek ImageUploadedByRocketry Forum1403117963.714582.jpg by Wayne Comfort
 
As I said, "unless you did all of this stuff at the field after you've decided". Just seems to me it would be a pain to fit that in, document, and submit on flight day.
 
Ok. So the issue is that my L3CC and I misread the 3:1 rule as liftoff initial thrust, and not average thrust. I will forward the info to my L3CC and insure it doesn't happen again.
 
bandman444 said:
... Jeez. I get more of a grilling here than on cert day!

... this flight a success.

View attachment 174914 by Rick Maschek View attachment 174915 by Wayne Comfort
Click to expand...

Two guys and a Grill and a Bandman - uhmm, hmmmm all ye need is thar french fried taters .

The grilled onions were delicious.

My coworker showed a pic of Wayco and Fyrwrxz in front of the MEGA Squat to his 4 year old son and he asked if he could ride it in next time.

Kenny
 
Last edited:
KenRico said:
Two guys and a Grill and a Bandman - uhmm, hmmmm all ye need is thar french fried taters .

The grilled onions were delicious.

My coworker showed a pic of Wayco and Fyrwrz in front of the MEGA Squat to his 4 year old son and he asked if he could ride it in next time.

Kenny
Click to expand...

Next year I'll just have a ladder and have everyone take a picture inside the thing! How's that sound?

ImageUploadedByRocketry Forum1403128947.472617.jpg
 
Last edited by a moderator:
Mike. Do you think you could also post the video you took without the cows, I mean slowmo.

I might have to get one of those cases, too cool!
 
jeffgeraci said:
NICE FLIGHT BRYCE!!!!!!!!!!! HERE'S A VIDEO I SHOT ... I had to run, so I was out of breath.
[video=youtube;kiQ7BGJXMwg]https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=kiQ7BGJXMwg&feature=youtu.be[/video]
Click to expand...

BTW Jeff if you think you are getting away with a comment like that you are sadly mistaking. Revenge will be sweet, like a rice crispy covered rocket.
 
10 years since this thread was started, anything happening with the Mega Squat recently?
 
Whatever happened to this? It's too cool to have only flown once, it really should see an O motor.
 
Neutron95 said:
Whatever happened to this? It's too cool to have only flown once, it really should see an O motor.
Click to expand...

I’ve since moved to Tucson, Arizona and the airframe and nosecone were too big to make the move with me. I’ve got the motor mount and fins from the original build, and have hoped to do a rebuild with my lessons learned from the first build.

Would anyone else be interested in seeing a rebuild of this project, 10 years after I started the first one? 20” diameter. 5x upscale Madcow Squat. But maybe this time, it will fly on an “O”. Maybe a timeline like LDRS 2022?

What changes does the community want to see in a rebuild?

Photo is the last one I have of the worldly famously ugly nosecone, and a nice airframe.
 

Attachments

  • 2907FC5F-9BBC-4D48-B705-71CD0E92EEB6.jpeg
    2907FC5F-9BBC-4D48-B705-71CD0E92EEB6.jpeg
    262.2 KB · Views: 37

Similar threads

bandman444
Project Sasquatch (24" diameter Madcow Squat)
2
Replies
34
Views
3K
Rschub
Rschub
Rocketholic
Pro Series II 2.5" Tubes - Supersonic?
Replies
11
Views
448
lr64
L
bandman444
NSL 2024: A 24" Diameter 1/6th SpaceX Dragon Pad Abort Test
2
Replies
37
Views
2K
Daddyisabar
Daddyisabar
kitchw8436
BP Gap Staging Test
Replies
9
Views
399
lr64
L
Scott231
Upscale Estes PSII Argent
Replies
0
Views
174
Scott231
Scott231

Latest posts

Back
Top