nosecone
Well-Known Member
- Joined
- May 6, 2010
- Messages
- 282
- Reaction score
- 307
Yeah, new one looks like a pop pod engine mount with plastic hold down tabs. Old one ejected the engine and that released the tension on the wooden hold down tabs and activated the flaps. IIRC original Estes Gyroc didn't have decals, I painted it with an orange and white "barbershop pole" pattern. Looked cool spiraling down.
Yes, LARGER!.Old Gyroc did just kick out engine with no streamer. It was based on BT20 size tube, this one is larger
Or this one...Yes, LARGER!.
BUT, not as large as the one that Marc McReynolds built (BT-80).
I think if you directly copy it, it would be uncool. Using it as inspiration for a unique design (upscale, downscale included) on the otherhand is OK. If every manufacturer has to worry about people cloning their new designs the number or new designs might be adversely affected.Instruction are already up. Looks like the plastic parts would be easy to print. Would it still be "cloning" if you built one before it was released? Protoclone? Preclone? Think I'd use an elliptical cone, though.
I think if you directly copy it, it would be uncool. Using it as inspiration for a unique design (upscale, downscale included) on the otherhand is OK. If every manufacturer has to worry about people cloning their new designs the number or new designs might be adversely affected.
Why do people get bent out of shape by ejected motor casings? An unstable rocket that land sharks spewing propellant or ejecting flaming propellant after landing (wadding doesn't catch everything) is a much higher fire risk than an 18 mm (or 24 mm) casing tumbling from altitude.
That's a competition (pink book) rule, not a safety code rule per se. The Estes 220 Swift, for example, explicitly says in the instructions that the 13mm motor is supposed to be ejected.Anything that kicks the motor is a bozo NAR no-no. That always disqualifies a flight in a NAR contest etc.
Why do people get bent out of shape by ejected motor casings? An unstable rocket that land sharks spewing propellant or ejecting flaming propellant after landing (wadding doesn't catch everything) is a much higher fire risk than an 18 mm (or 24 mm) casing tumbling from altitude.
So the motor mount kicks out with a streamer I guess? That seems reasonable. Did the old Gyroc really just kick out the bare motor?
Or this one...
Almost all the featherweight and tumble recovery lightweight rockets had motor eject. Reason is simple: if the motor wasn't ejected, the nose cone would be blown off!
Not to get too picky here but...the tumble recovery models I am familiar with aren't supposed to kick the motor out, just back. They have vents in the body tube towards the top to allow the ejection charge to escape. I'm thinking Astron Scout, Sprite here. Sprites, in particular do sometimes kick the motor all the way out...which leads to streamlining in
I know there's at least one Design of the Month model or some such that had weights on the aft tips of the fins which may have used that to tumble after spitting the motor altogether.
True tumble recovery models use a CG shift to go from stable on boost to unstable on recovery. (That's why the Scout used to come with a copy of Estes TR-1 on stability.)
That said, the Mosquito and the Swift 220 say they are tumble recovery....but neither of them actually tumble. instead they streamline in. Same for the new Luna Bug....but that one comes down rather more slowly thanks, I expect, to the drag of the little "footpads". Mine tumbles a bit at ejection then comes relatively slowly straight down.
My thought about the Tazz was pretty much what kitbasher99 said - it is, conceptually, an upscale of the Semroc re-imagining of the Gyroc with it's 13mm, streamer-recovered motor mount.
The original Gyroc, spit motors and all, was one of my favorites from my first rocketry period in the late 1960s. Nothing could be simpler to prep for flight. Put the motor in, put the igniter in, go fly.
I always make sure to have at least one rocket with me at each launch that flies this way (my two Quinstars and Odd'l Cyclone fill the role). It is wonderful to "take a break" from all the typical prep and just shove in a motor and fly.The original Gyroc, spit motors and all, was one of my favorites from my first rocketry period in the late 1960s. Nothing could be simpler to prep for flight. Put the motor in, put the igniter in, go fly.
Yes, Fred. That's why I pulled only the bit about "tumble" out of the post I quoted....."Featherweight recovery" is the correct term for lightweight models that spit the motor. The motor tumbles (allegedly) and the model slowly floats down (not "streamlines in", which would be a heavy rocket "lawndart").
Enter your email address to join: