How do you view Mid Power?

I find "Mid Power" is best viewed through a DLSR on a tripod with a high shutter speed setting. I also find it to be a very exciting and affordable range of motors to enjoy. The flights can be fast or slow, depending on your vehicle weight and choice of motor. Mid Power also accommodates flying in smaller areas than high power, and with out waivers and such. I seem to have the most fun with a toilet paper tube fin 24mm scratch rocket made from trash on D12's. I seem to fly it once at every launch. Its stress free and makes me smile.

It's small, high power. I love all sizes from mini to NASA size, but I have many reasons as to why midpower is my favorite. Most of them have already been listed.

Verna
www.vernarockets.com
https://www.amazon.com/dp/B00HHJHOK6/?tag=skimlinks_replacement-20
https://www.amazon.com/dp/B00O14ET8K/?tag=skimlinks_replacement-20
https://www.facebook.com/RocketBabeDustStorm

If it takes more than 20 minutes to get to a suitable-size flying field, then MPR is not a viable option here. I have built about a half-dozen MPRs but seldom fly them. The TLP Scuds have gotten the most flights: 2 D12-0/ 2 D12-7 motors or 2 E9-6 motors. A Cosmodrome Nike Apache on an F50 "Fast White Lightning and a Madcow Bomarc on an F50-4W. Attempted to fly the Bomarc at NSL 2014 on a G80-4T but couldn't achieve ignition. Likely would've landed in a ditch, given wind direction.

Power levels are a spectrum, not a well defined set of cut-offs.

grouch said:

...So where do you fall, is mid power a large low or a small high?...

Click to expand...

Our local field is limited to G motors so I try to build a few rockets that fly safely on mid-power impulse but can take HP motors when the opportunity arises. At the last club launch I flew my Formula 54 on an F50 and at the upcoming LDRS 34 it will get an H or an I. Flexibility in flyable impulse class is a goal I try to achieve in many of my builds.

I think by asking how people "see" something, you're opening up to all sorts of interpretations, even if you're just looking for one of a couple canned answers. To me, like others have said, mid-power is transitional. I've built mostly low-power until recently, and moved toward mid as a step up in power, build skills, etc. Some really are larger low power, some are scaled-down high power. Its both at the same time, though not necessarily with the same rocket. So to answer the narrow focus of the original question - I see it as both.

Personally, I think high power is neat to watch, but I don't have a lot of interest at this time in pursuing that. Cost, size, complexity, hazmat fees are all issues that just make it less appealing. But I like a rocket that is big enough to track visually, large enough to get see at altitude, but at the same time I don't care about hitting real high altitudes. Its often cloudy here, and we don't have the benefit of wide-open spaces for chasing a rocket that drifts a ways. So, something that's big enough to see, small enough to reasonably portable, has reasonable set up time and costs, and will hit a 1000' or so is what meets my wants. And that centers around mid power stuff. I still build low power, because they're fun, inexpensive, and good filler on the flight line (or my parent's yard). Conversely, if I pursue a L1 cert, it'll be more so that I have greater flexibility with engine choices for what I already have, or can cluster larger BP motors and not be constrained by 120g propellant. That leaves mid as the "three-bears" solution...

[QUOTE Personally, I think high power is neat to watch, but I don't have a lot of interest at this time in pursuing that. Cost, size, complexity, hazmat fees are all issues that just make it less appealing. But I like a rocket that is big enough to track visually, large enough to get see at altitude, but at the same time I don't care about hitting real high altitudes. Its often cloudy here, and we don't have the benefit of wide-open spaces for chasing a rocket that drifts a ways. So, something that's big enough to see, small enough to reasonably portable, has reasonable set up time and costs, and will hit a 1000' or so is what meets my wants. And that centers around mid power stuff. I still build low power, because they're fun, inexpensive, and good filler on the flight line (or my parent's yard). Conversely, if I pursue a L1 cert, it'll be more so that I have greater flexibility with engine choices for what I already have, or can cluster larger BP motors and not be constrained by 120g propellant. That leaves mid as the "three-bears" solution...[/QUOTE]


Yes, me too! Great post!

Verna
www.vernarockets.com
https://www.amazon.com/dp/B00HHJHOK6/?tag=skimlinks_replacement-20
https://www.amazon.com/dp/B00O14ET8K/?tag=skimlinks_replacement-20
https://www.facebook.com/RocketBabeDustStorm

How do I view mid-power?
Most often with my head tilted way back. Ta-Da-Boom!!

Personally I find launching mid-power rockets as exciting and enjoyable as launching my high power rockets.
In some instances, more so.

All of my high-power rockets are basically 3FN’s. Sure they go higher and make a louder KaWoosh!! But aside from that it all boils down to how stout you built them and whether your electronics doesn’t crap out on you.

Now I’ve built and flown some pretty interesting mid-power rockets that while it MIGHT be possible to build a high-power versions of same rockets, the cost would be $$$$$$$$ Yikes!!!
And it would require the use of materials I really, really don’t like dealing with.
Frankly I hate building with fiberglass and epoxies; nasty stuff that IMO is best left to those who have a shop/garage to do their building in.

fyrwrxz said:

I will confess I have all sizes and kinda bailed on the bigger stuff a few years ago. It's hard to drag around big rockets and it's harder to store them. I'll also admit it's been a while for an Estes type launch, and the little pride and joys seemed to get munched in the hangar pretty easy. Seems I've developed a habit of living around the "I" category for a while now. I'm comfortable and enjoy a variety of builds and I really don't see an "M" in my future at all. I'd rather push the button on a "G" motor and get 8k out of it than burn a summer's worth of motors and parts on a level 3 to see 1200'. Guess I'd rather drive a Ferrari than a bulldozer. ( Now you've started it you idiot..why can't you keep you stupid opinions to yourself?. Gee-some of your best friends are L3's now what are they gonna think..you better go hide under the bed until this one blows over. It's prolly too late anyway-you should take up stamp collecting. I bet they won't even renew your membership...) Ahem-we're sorry for the schizophrenic break my patient has suffered, but Dave will return shortly. -Dr. 'J'

Click to expand...

As always Dave you are HILARIOUS!!!!!

Actually I like mid-power up until last year just breaking into High power and currently on my L2. I think its nice to have mid power rockets laying around. They are a lot to fun to launch and affordable. The tubes are in most cases thicker than most LPR and can withstand more force. The way I look at it is any rocket is fun whether low or high power

I'll start with this. I have not read all 3 pages of posts yet. So if I repeat, I apologize.

My view is a bit different. If it's black powder, it's LPR. If it's RMS, it's high(er) power. For me that goes for 18mm up. Yes I feel an 18mm D composite reload is more advanced than a 29mm F black powder single use. Why? Advanced technique. Retainer rings, dual deploy, advanced building methods and building the reload motor.

Anyone can buy an Estes starter kit, throw it together and put it in the air. Most all of us started there. Building an RMS motor, TTW fins, retainer rings, kevlar shock cords, etc. are the advanced techniques. The knowledge required to build true HPR rockets. This doesn't mean you can't build an all LPR design and use composite, I just don't as a general rule. I apply the HPR style of building to anything I plan to load with an RMS whether it's required or not.

So if you want me to define MPR in my terms, it is any composite motor below L1. Because it's more advanced done my way.

Kruegon said:

I'll start with this. I have not read all 3 pages of posts yet. So if I repeat, I apologize.

My view is a bit different. If it's black powder, it's LPR. If it's RMS, it's high(er) power. For me that goes for 18mm up. Yes I feel an 18mm D composite reload is more advanced than a 29mm F black powder single use. Why? Advanced technique. Retainer rings, dual deploy, advanced building methods and building the reload motor.

Anyone can buy an Estes starter kit, throw it together and put it in the air. Most all of us started there. Building an RMS motor, TTW fins, retainer rings, kevlar shock cords, etc. are the advanced techniques. The knowledge required to build true HPR rockets. This doesn't mean you can't build an all LPR design and use composite, I just don't as a general rule. I apply the HPR style of building to anything I plan to load with an RMS whether it's required or not.

So if you want me to define MPR in my terms, it is any composite motor below L1. Because it's more advanced done my way.

Click to expand...

I don't disagree, personally, insomuch as that is probably in keeping with the spirit (though not the necessarily the letter) of the definition by the governing bodies that's based on impulse power. In theory, as one moves up in impulse, one moves up in complexity and skill. But availability of single-use composites kind of thwarts that. One could take a standard Big Bertha, throw it together and put it in the air, then stick a composite D or the like in it and fly it again. That does not make it a mid power rocket, just a low power rocket riding a mid power engine. Yes, they may have grown as modelers if they used an RMS system, but Bertha is still a low power design.

As a side note, I'm a member of two local(ish) clubs - MARS & URRG. Both have tiered membership, based on low & high power. In one, I have to be a high-power member (and have higher dues) to fly F & G motor sizes in mid-power birds. The other allows up to G for low power membership, so I can save a few dollars on membership since I have nothing high powered. So, mid-power is still the middle child that is stuck between (and often overlooked) the high & low ends of the spectrum, and even at the local levels its perception is inconsistent.

E, F & G , too me anyway, is still low power. H , I , J, that's mid power. That's the range I fly in because I like to take all the cool "low power" designs and upscale them and the mid power motors are the perfect fit.