Second Rocket - Entry Into High Power

Hello all,

I just finished building a model rocket kit from Madcow Rocketry, the 2.6'' discovery. (https://www.madcowrocketry.com/2-6-discovery/)

I launched the discovery on an F42-4T and got it up to around 1000 feet. I and am now looking for a new rocket kit to build. I want to build another kit, but am struggling with the idea of going into to dual deployment or not. I want to launch a rocket to around 5,000 feet or so (It's been a goal of mine to reach that height for a while) which means dual deployment would probably be a good idea for that altitude. I've been looking at this kit here: (https://www.madcowrocketry.com/2-6-fiberglass-blue-iguana/)
the Madcow 2.6'', fiberglass blue iguana. It's roughly 2 pounds stock, so I'm not sure if I could get it to the altitudes I'm hoping for on an H or I motor. I would also switch out the 54mm motor mount to a 38mm so that I could launch smaller motors if I wanted.

I've also been looking at this kit: (https://www.madcowrocketry.com/2-2-fiberglass-adventurer/) another dual deployment kit from Madcow but 2.2'' in diameter instead of 2.6''. My only concern with this rocket is weight. Surprisingly, this rocket comes in a 4lbs, almost double the weight of the bigger blue iguana. Could the 4lb, 2.2'', fiberglass adventurer reach 5,000 feet on an H or I motor? Any other suggestions of kits are greatly appreciated! I had great service with Madcow rocketry on my first build which is why I'm looking into more of their kits.

Thanks so much!

Max

According to thrustcurve.org, a larger I, such as the Aerotech I-284W, will push a rocket with those specs a little over 5,000'.

Dual deploy is not as difficult as I think you imagine. I assume you are going for electronic deployment? Once you go electronic you will probably not go back to motor ejection.

A pseudo dual-deploy can be done using the Jolly Logic Chute Release device. That is another option for you.

Enjoy the build, whatever it is!

Check out mach1rocketry.com . great kits and service. And they have a sale coming up in a week.

My fiberglass BT-60 Black Hole kit just showed up today. Really thin wall fiberglass. Great price for a really complete kit.

I used the Madcow rocketry Twitch dual deploy, though I didn't use the DD in it. It is just longer than the standard twitch. It is 3" diameter and on the I297SK it hit 4328 feet high, so smaller diameter and lighter should be able to hit your goal of 5000'. The Twitch is 55 oz. which is a lot heavier than the Iguana you are looking at.

Flyfalcons said:

According to thrustcurve.org, a larger I, such as the Aerotech I-284W, will push a rocket with those specs a little over 5,000'.

Click to expand...

Great thanks so much! Do you think one of these two kits would be better than the other? Although it sounds like both would work fine for the goals I have in mind.

(I love your videos by the way, I’ve watched almost all of them haha!)

Any one of these would do it.

https://wildmanrocketry.com/collections/wildman-junior

Dual deploy when flying a mile plus, unless you have a really large field, is something you want to do.

Between the two you mentioned, I would recommend the Blue Iguana as the larger diameter will make avionics installation easier.

markkoelsch said:

Any one of these would do it.

https://wildmanrocketry.com/collections/wildman-junior

Dual deploy when flying a mile plus, unless you have a really large field, is something you want to do.

Click to expand...

Thank you!

I noticed most of the wildman kits are over 4lbs. Because I'm under 18, I believe I can't fly any motors bigger than an I. Even with the weight, would those rockets be able to reach the 5k mark?

Thanks,
Max

Interestingly enough, I recently purchased both kits you mention. Beware every manufacturer's claims of mass. They are notoriously unreliable. It is never clear if the stated mass is a typical built mass or just the weight of the stuff in the kit. The "old" kit or the "new" kit... The discrepancies are endless.

For reference, my Adventurer 2.2 final build came in at 1607 g. That is ready to fly sans motor, including dual deploy and tracker.

The 2.6 Blue Iguana is not yet built. The dry mass of the stuff in the box weighs ~1300 g.

Note that the Adventurer comes with more hardware for the ebay and attachments. The Blue Iguana is bare bones - all you get is the fiberglass. That's why the price looks good.

The extra weight of FG kits is very noticeable vs. cardboard kits. This drives the need for bigger hardware , heavier epoxy, and bigger, more expensive, parachutes.

I'll put in a plug for 2.2" cardboard kits (LOC Vulcanite). The cardboard is thick wall, unlike the wimpy 2.6 cardboard. You will easily hit a mile with H/I and do it much cheaper.

In all cases, get a tracker. 5K is hard to see with naked eye. Doesn't matter how big your field is if you lose sight of the rocket.

I highly recommend downloading Openrocket. It's free (as opposed to Rocksim), and it will help you get the simulated flight data that you are looking for. I can't find a Rocksim or Openrocket file online for the Blue Iguana, but there is one on the Madcow page for your Discovery, and there is one on Rocketry Reviews for the Adventurer.

There is a slight learning curve, but if you want to get into HPR, you should really start learning how to simulate your flights. Personally, this is one of the aspects of HPR that really excited me when I got back into the hobby three years ago.

BDB said:

I highly recommend downloading Openrocket. It's free (as opposed to Rocksim), and it will help you get the simulated flight data that you are looking for. I can't find a Rocksim or Openrocket file online for the Blue Iguana, but there is one on the Madcow page for your Discovery, and there is one on Rocketry Reviews for the Adventurer.

There is a slight learning curve, but if you want to get into HPR, you should really start learning how to simulate your flights. Personally, this is one of the aspects of HPR that really excited me when I got back into the hobby three years ago.

Click to expand...

I second this. At a minimum, you should be using Thrustcurve for quick motor sorting, altitude, safe velocity, and delay times.

BDB said:

I highly recommend downloading Openrocket. It's free (as opposed to Rocksim), and it will help you get the simulated flight data that you are looking for. I can't find a Rocksim or Openrocket file online for the Blue Iguana, but there is one on the Madcow page for your Discovery, and there is one on Rocketry Reviews for the Adventurer.

There is a slight learning curve, but if you want to get into HPR, you should really start learning how to simulate your flights. Personally, this is one of the aspects of HPR that really excited me when I got back into the hobby three years ago.

Click to expand...

Thanks for the recommendation! I actually used OpenRocket for my first launch. It's super helpful for trying out different motors and delay times! Also thanks for providing the adventurer file! After testing a few motor combinations, I'm leaning towards that rocket. I believe it should do exactly what I'm looking for!

Thanks,

Max

Buckeye said:

Interestingly enough, I recently purchased both kits you mention. Beware every manufacturer's claims of mass. They are notoriously unreliable. It is never clear if the stated mass is a typical built mass or just the weight of the stuff in the kit. The "old" kit or the "new" kit... The discrepancies are endless.

For reference, my Adventurer 2.2 final build came in at 1607 g. That is ready to fly sans motor, including dual deploy and tracker.

The 2.6 Blue Iguana is not yet built. The dry mass of the stuff in the box weighs ~1300 g.

Note that the Adventurer comes with more hardware for the ebay and attachments. The Blue Iguana is bare bones - all you get is the fiberglass. That's why the price looks good.

The extra weight of FG kits is very noticeable vs. cardboard kits. This drives the need for bigger hardware , heavier epoxy, and bigger, more expensive, parachutes.

I'll put in a plug for 2.2" cardboard kits (LOC Vulcanite). The cardboard is thick wall, unlike the wimpy 2.6 cardboard. You will easily hit a mile with H/I and do it much cheaper.

In all cases, get a tracker. 5K is hard to see with naked eye. Doesn't matter how big your field is if you lose sight of the rocket.

Click to expand...

Thanks so much for the advice! I think because this is my second rocket build ever, going with a kit which has more hardware would be better. I appreciate you pointing that out, other wise I might have gone with the Iguana. Maybe that rocket will come next!

Thanks,
Max

I have a 3.34 lb Wildman SAAB RB-05A Sport. It sims in open rocket 5,400 ft on an Aerotech I-300T-14A. Flew it once on that motor last year and couldn’t see it. It is a shorter 54mm ID airframe tube. A mile up on an I is a reasonable goal. I prefer H motors for certification flights, less of a walk, and the other people signing off get to observe the entire flight easier.

Sims are "free". Spending time upfront pays dividends...

You can keep the 54 motor tube and use an adapter. Keeps the kit easy to build, and will let you use the larger motors when you are ready.

I did my level 1 with the Estes Mega Max. It is stock with a 29 motor tube, I wish I had built it with a 38 or even 54. Now building a Super Mega Max out of 4 inch PML tube and a 54 motor tube. Going all out with dual deploy.

LOC has several kits with 38 motor tubes that will be great for the leap into higher launches. Just picked up one myself to replace a lost, er rocket god sacrafice, Aerotech Mustang.

The thing about a 38mm MMT is you can go right from L-1 to L-2 with a longer casing in a biggger roomy rocket kit. And a 54mm hole allows the full L motors of an L-2.

Keep in mind a 2.6" rocket, even with young eyes will probably disapear at 1 mile up. Bigger is better in that regard. Bigger requires more motor. You'll either want to go dd or cough up the $ for a Chute release. A chute release will give you absolutely 0 data on your flight, whereas a cheap logging dd altimeter will. A tracker of some sort is almost a must. See how it steamrolls into something you probably can't afford but probably will manage to? Good luck and enjoy whatever you decide on.

I agree with RodRocket, keep the 54mm MMT and use an adapter if you want to fly 38mm.

You said you are under 18. I assume you are doing the NAR Jr. L1 or the Tripoli Mentoring Program. In either case, talk with your adult mentor about what you have planned, especially if you want to build a dual deploy rocket. Handling the materials used for deployment charges have the same age restrictions as HPR motors and may not be allowed for junior members.

Handeman said:

I agree with RodRocket, keep the 54mm MMT and use an adapter if you want to fly 38mm.

Click to expand...

This is common smart thing to do. It saves money long term. It’s more expensive upfront for bigger recovery hardware. I didn’t go this route because 54mm motors were out of my budget. Plus waivers for large motors are a long trip away.

If you can’t afford L sized 54mm motors and kits then sticking with 38 is fine, but you’ll be limited at max to a K. And a 29mm gets you an I motor. Diameter and length of motor goes up costs of casings and reloads increases.

A Wildman Blackhawk 29 minimum diameter on a 29mm H or I motor will get in excess of 5,000 ft and Mach 1 cheaply if you are happy with staying at L-1. You don’t need to send a massive tube diameter past 5k ft on big motor if all you want is altitude. The recovery costs for small rockets is lower, motor costs lower, and they can be flown single deploy or dual deploy. However a tracker is highly encouraged. The problem with this path is you pay for it later when you want an L-2 it requires a new different rocket.

So you may want to ask yourself what budget do you have currently? There are many paths in rocketry.

This is a Blackhawk 29 that my prof got a cert on a Pro29-4G H118. Single deploy motor eject. It landed forty yards from the pad in a miracle without a tracker after it broke Mach and 4,300ft like it was nothing. He got it first try. It would likely do 6-7kft on an I224.

This was my L-1 cert bird, a scale Wildman RB-05A Sport missile on 38mm MMT. Also Single deploy motor eject. No tracker. Took me three tries on I300T, H219T, and finally H123W. Shock cord issues.

All you have to do on L-1 cert is build, fly, and recover a high power rocket H or higher impulse with a sign off. The hardest part is recovering it intact. Any build or technique errors will show when the chute unfolds in flight. You don’t have to over complicate an L-1 cert flight. You can save a lot of money on L-1 cert by not requiring yourself to go to 5,000 ft the first flight.

There are many ways to L-1. Pick whatever path you want. When you start requiring electronics, complexity and cost goes up.

Andrew is certainly correct, the larger the rocket, the bigger the motor, the more electronics, the more expensive.

With that said, I recommend you fly your cert flight the way you want to. KISS and get the cert first is not bad advice, but at the same time, it's a hobby so do it the way you will enjoy it. Budget certainly plays into it, but so does enjoying the hobby. I tell people that rocketry is like fishing, you can spend $20 on a pole and worms and sit by a creek all day, or spend $1,000,000 on a boat and troll the gulf stream, and everything in between. You just need to figure out where you want to fish and go for it.

Am I the only person that at least raised an eyebrow on reading that this will be @Max Peters 2nd ever rocket?

Depending on the person it may or may not be a good idea to have this as a second rocket. I am prepared to watch what happens. With decent information, mentoring and proper thought processes from the OP it can be successful. Success does depend on their learning skills and support. If that is the path to high-power rocketry they have chosen we just need to support them to help them along towards their success, minimizing chances of failure and keeping everyone safe.

Max, good luck with the project. Realise that you don't know what you don't know, so ask lots of questions. Realise that up is easy, down is more difficult. Concentrate on getting your recovery sorted out on the smaller bird. Realise that you have not built and flown many smaller rockets, so your chances of success are not as good as they could be but that is the path you have chosen, so be happy whatever happens . Please design for sub-optimal (off-nominal) deployment (backup systems please!) so your flights don't end up as flying fenceposts.

Just because it is not what everyone does, let's try to not pour too much water on this flyer. Let's keep him flying safe.

Just my $0.02 worth.