Attractions to move from LPR to HPR?

Right here in what i call the rocket shed and work shop (my wife calls it the living room and dining room) is everything from 1/4 A to M. My son likes C, and I like H and K's. My wife would kill me if she saw her dining table on the internet in this condition.

So, for example, do you guys think a 2x upscale of the Estes Alien Invader would be flyable on Ds and Es? Maybe a 2.5x with Fs?

BBowmaster said:

Cool. Thanks. I guess I’ve been missing the non 3FNC threads and videos. I especially like the idea of going mpr with upscale kits.

Click to expand...

MPR is a lot of fun for upscale, scratch building, non 3FNC, etc..... My personal favorite "sweet spot" is the Aerotech 24/40 case flying Es and Fs. Although I have a soft spot for the D12.

Depends.

Estes blackpowder D/Es or composites?
How heavy will it be? (makes the above decision for you)

With size comes mass and increaded landing energy/force. Those trailing probes might have to be remove-for-flight, or easily replaceable.

BBowmaster said:

I confess to being puzzled by all the 3FNC rockets in high power

Click to expand...

Ed Millers Hershey Hugg on a J800 Blue Thunder. No 3FNC.

BBowmaster said:

I confess to being puzzled by all the 3FNC rockets in high power. I love my lpr space planes, Mars Landers, starfighters and scale rockets.

HPR seems to care more about the engine than the rocket. I realize upscaling some of the exotic birds would be a problem.

Is it mostly just a matter of bigger, higher, faster; sacrificing cool design elements for another 5k feet?

Click to expand...

Assuming you've been to launches where larger high power stuff has flown? If not, I suggest you search out said. I have and probably will always enjoy the smaller stuff but when you can actually feel (instead of simply hearing/seeing) a rocket launch it's a completely different thing. Not always about altitude either, more about power. I know it may be a rather extreme example, but had you the chance, would you have gone to watch a Saturn V launch, or stayed closer to home and launched super cool stuff on some D motors? Apples and oranges..

Wallace said:

Assuming you've been to launches where larger high power stuff has flown? If not, I suggest you search out said. I have and probably will always enjoy the smaller stuff but when you can actually feel (instead of simply hearing/seeing) a rocket launch it's a completely different thing. Not always about altitude either, more about power. I know it may be a rather extreme example, but had you the chance, would you have gone to watch a Saturn V launch, or stayed closer to home and launched super cool stuff on some D motors? Apples and oranges..

Click to expand...

I guess I’m not that into power. I help run a 4H Rocket Club and the kids are forever trying to put the biggest engine in. I prefer to see the whole flight. The two HPR launches I attended were 3FNC birds, plus one 1/2 scale Sidewinder which I found awesome.

And definitely I would’ve LOVED to see the 1/10 Saturn V fly.

Maybe HPR is just not for me. I think mid-power should be enough to impress the kids without having to learn a new construction skill set.

BBowmaster said:

I guess I’m not that into power. I help run a 4H Rocket Club and the kids are forever trying to put the biggest engine in. I prefer to see the whole flight. The two HPR launches I attended were 3FNC birds, plus one 1/2 scale Sidewinder which I found awesome.

And definitely I would’ve LOVED to see the 1/10 Saturn V fly.

Maybe HPR is just not for me. I think mid-power should be enough to impress the kids without having to learn a new construction skill set.

Click to expand...

Both my L1 & L2 were done on cardbirds with woodglue, visual tracking only.

Check out the g76 green reload, loud & bright, makes the kids OoO and AhH. A 4in * 4ft ~1lb cardboard sci-fi upscale should be no trouble.

BBowmaster said:

I guess I’m not that into power. I help run a 4H Rocket Club and the kids are forever trying to put the biggest engine in. I prefer to see the whole flight. The two HPR launches I attended were 3FNC birds, plus one 1/2 scale Sidewinder which I found awesome.

And definitely I would’ve LOVED to see the 1/10 Saturn V fly.

Maybe HPR is just not for me. I think mid-power should be enough to impress the kids without having to learn a new construction skill set.

Click to expand...

To each His (Their?) Own. Variety is the spice of life. Sorry but that's all the cliche s I can muster this early..

BBowmaster said:

I guess I’m not that into power. I help run a 4H Rocket Club and the kids are forever trying to put the biggest engine in. I prefer to see the whole flight.

Click to expand...

High power does not preclude seeing the whole flight. On the contrary, the much bigger rockets can be much easier to see for the whole flight, if you don't fly them too high (and you don't need to). The ultimate example is of course @OverTheTop 's V2 flight.

What you're rejecting is more the high-altitude/high-performance rockets, which indeed tend to be simpler and fly out of sight. But high-power rockets can be complex and fly low, well within view. To be fair: despite the cool examples shown in this thread, most of the high-power rockets I've seen do tend towards simpler 3FNC/4FNC. But they don't have to be that way.

For me it's simple: I prefer building and launching (and storing!!!) smaller wood-and-paper rockets, but I probably prefer watching higher-powered launches. Sadly I have yet to personally witness anything larger than a K, will get to one of the big launches one of these days.

neil_w said:

High power does not preclude seeing the whole flight. On the contrary, the much bigger rockets can be much easier to see for the whole flight, if you don't fly them too high (and you don't need to). The ultimate example is of course @OverTheTop 's V2 flight.

What you're rejecting is more the high-altitude/high-performance rockets, which indeed tend to be simpler and fly out of sight. But high-power rockets can be complex and fly low, well within view. To be fair: despite the cool examples shown in this thread, most of the high-power rockets I've seen do tend towards simpler 3FNC/4FNC. But they don't have to be that way.

For me it's simple: I prefer building and launching (and storing!!!) smaller wood-and-paper rockets, but I probably prefer watching higher-powered launches. Sadly I have yet to personally witness anything larger than a K, will get to one of the big launches one of these days.

Click to expand...

You're close enough to come to Red Glare the first weekend in April. What's it, maybe, a three-hour drive?

Bat-mite said:

You're close enough to come to Red Glare the first weekend in April. What's it, maybe, a three-hour drive?

Click to expand...

Close enough, absolutely. Available to go, probably not.

neil_w said:

High power does not preclude seeing the whole flight. On the contrary, the much bigger rockets can be much easier to see for the whole flight, if you don't fly them too high (and you don't need to). The ultimate example is of course @OverTheTop 's V2 flight.

What you're rejecting is more the high-altitude/high-performance rockets, which indeed tend to be simpler and fly out of sight. But high-power rockets can be complex and fly low, well within view. To be fair: despite the cool examples shown in this thread, most of the high-power rockets I've seen do tend towards simpler 3FNC/4FNC. But they don't have to be that way.

For me it's simple: I prefer building and launching (and storing!!!) smaller wood-and-paper rockets, but I probably prefer watching higher-powered launches. Sadly I have yet to personally witness anything larger than a K, will get to one of the big launches one of these days.

Click to expand...

Absolutley correct! I build them big specifically so I can watch them the whole way, and I never fly them out of sight. I like big motors for roar and rumble, not altitude. In fact, I like to design the flight so that the motor burn isn’t “wasted” by happening too far away for me to experience it.



Here are the rockets I took to a 3-day launch.

The big one in the middle has a big payload section for lofting stuff and dumping out payloads. At this launch, it held 4 pounds of Halloween candy. The flight was in the range of about 1,000 feet, so easily visible the entire time. The highest I’ve ever flown this rocket was without the payload section to just over 2,000 feet on my level 2 certification flight.

To the left of that one is an example of a sci-fi style rocket with pods on the fins and a blue canopy. That’s my first high-power rocket. I got my level 1 cert with that one.

The yellow and black one is a unique rocket I made from scratch out of rigid foam insulation material. The whole concept behind this one is a large-size rocket with lots of drag, but extremely light weight. Usually long-burn motors are used to try for high-altitude flights. But with enough drag, you can keep the flights low. You just need to be sure the rocket is very light so that the motor can get it up to a safe speed by the time it leaves the rail, and then let drag fight the motor for the rest of the burn. This rocket went to only 1,600 feet on a 4.4 second I125 long burn motor. Very slow and fun to watch! I’m going to build more like this one when I get the chance, and the next ones will have a definite sci-fi vibe.

BBowmaster said:

So, for example, do you guys think a 2x upscale of the Estes Alien Invader would be flyable on Ds and Es? Maybe a 2.5x with Fs?
View attachment 408270

Click to expand...

There are people who would do that with a 7.5 inch body tube and a 98 mm central motor. I would use PEX for the trailing probes. It would be cool.

BBowmaster said:

I guess I’m not that into power. I help run a 4H Rocket Club and the kids are forever trying to put the biggest engine in. I prefer to see the whole flight. The two HPR launches I attended were 3FNC birds, plus one 1/2 scale Sidewinder which I found awesome.

And definitely I would’ve LOVED to see the 1/10 Saturn V fly.

Maybe HPR is just not for me. I think mid-power should be enough to impress the kids without having to learn a new construction skill set.

Click to expand...

Kids are just like adults. Every one loves something different. There’s absolutely nothing wrong with it if HPR isn’t your cup of tea, but if you ever decide you want to try it, anything you can make in low or mid Power is fair game in high power. The fun is in figuring out how you want to do it.

When I read the title I knew where this would go....LOL

Once upon a time I had my NAR L2. I did it on a rocket that looked quite Similar to the TOG. It was insane !!! I am sure most will agree that building big and crazy is much harder than small and crazy. It simply takes different materials and construction methods have to be top shelf. There is simply so much more force involved. How do I know this, I had 1/4" plywood fins literally de-laminate and fall to the ground as toothpicks on a J-350. I hadn't used a high end aircraft grade plywood. This kind of stuff is probably why we don't see more Odd rockets in HPR. I know they exist and I love them but they are normally 10% of the HPR's that will fly at a big launch.

This is not to say I dislike HPR's, I love the roar as they leave the pad. I love building and prepping them because I enjoy all the attention to the details that is required.

These days though I havae been building primarily MPR's. I am thoroughly enjoying the challenge of pushing the performance of E,F, and now G motors. I have a rocket in my fleet that if I fly it on a long burn F I will never see it again without DD and tracking. I am also working on a new 29mm that will just rip off the pad on a G76.

I know I will again get certified to fly HPR's but for now I am having a ball flying Aerotech MPR's.

Here is a pic of an old design I did flying on a G53 FJ. I am sure the kids at a small club would be thrileld with something even this size.

If we can get them to make a Dark Matter MPR motor we would be all set.

Steve Shannon said:

Kids are just like adults. Every one loves something different. There’s absolutely nothing wrong with it if HPR isn’t your cup of tea, but if you ever decide you want to try it, anything you can make in low or mid Power is fair game in high power. The fun is in figuring out how you want to do it.

Click to expand...

Exactly !! It's the figuring it all out that some folks really enjoy.

BBowmaster said:

So, for example, do you guys think a 2x upscale of the Estes Alien Invader would be flyable on Ds and Es? Maybe a 2.5x with Fs?
View attachment 408270

Click to expand...

Did you see the Klingon ship I built. The crew died a glorious death but it was still pretty cool to watch. This one would be a piece of cake compared to some of the stuff I have tried. Take a look at the Blackfish Neil designed. I am planning an upscale of that.

Upscale Goblin https://www.rocketryforum.com/threads/almost-a-goblin.8709/ allows me to fly 98 mm motors like my Research N800

Upscale Fliskits Deuces Wild! https://www.rocketryforum.com/threads/bigger-deuce.47449/ also for 98 mm motors. If you have a Tripoli card, this is the picture on the 2019 card.

who knows? Right now, I like to build kits. Lots of people seem to prefer scratch building. My leaning may go that way over time. So I think it's the same with low, mid and high-power. What draws folks to the hobby can be quite varied....physics, craftsmanship, history buffs, design, speed, height, size, aggression, pyromania?

...to each his own - enjoy the hobby! I do low- and mid-power because of time, money and (reasonable) available launch area. (Have not had the itch to go HPR, I might get hooked....)

I get what you are saying about 3FNC rockets. However, I feel just the opposite. I can appreciate the more exotic airframes, but wouldn't make one myself. All I see is parasitic drag, flow separation, gizmos to break, and generally un-optimal aerodynamics. For me, rockets are an exercise in simplicity (for robustness and altitude) and minimalism. The 3FNC rockets are the essence of that minimalism. The internals may be complex. But, the essence of a rocket is a very simple device.

Serac said:

I get what you are saying about 3FNC rockets. However, I feel just the opposite. I can appreciate the more exotic airframes, but wouldn't make one myself. All I see is parasitic drag, flow separation, gizmos to break, and generally un-optimal aerodynamics. For me, rockets are an exercise in simplicity (for robustness and altitude) and minimalism. The 3FNC rockets are the essence of that minimalism. The internals may be complex. But, the essence of a rocket is a very simple device.

Click to expand...

I can see that and now that I have the Bird of Prey out of my system this is where I am focused. My newest design is 4FNC but an elegant design. The 24MMT version I just built weighs 162g. I build primarily with composites so right now I am focusing on very light weight stiff airframes. This is just another example of how much diversity there is in this hobby.

I am also working on a DD system to go in it so even though the outside may look very basic there is plenty going on inside with a 24mm RMS and a DD system.

This is one of the great things about rocketry where it be model rocketry or HPR's, there is something for everyone to enjoy and get excited about.

neil_w said:

High power does not preclude seeing the whole flight. On the contrary, the much bigger rockets can be much easier to see for the whole flight, if you don't fly them too high (and you don't need to). The ultimate example is of course @OverTheTop 's V2 flight.

What you're rejecting is more the high-altitude/high-performance rockets, which indeed tend to be simpler and fly out of sight. But high-power rockets can be complex and fly low, well within view. To be fair: despite the cool examples shown in this thread, most of the high-power rockets I've seen do tend towards simpler 3FNC/4FNC. But they don't have to be that way.

For me it's simple: I prefer building and launching (and storing!!!) smaller wood-and-paper rockets, but I probably prefer watching higher-powered launches. Sadly I have yet to personally witness anything larger than a K, will get to one of the big launches one of these days.

Click to expand...

Seeing and feeling bigger motors can be shocking to your senses. Way fun

John Taylor said:

Seeing and feeling bigger motors can be shocking to your senses. Way fun

Click to expand...

I think this is similar to why I like the MPR's and smaller HPR's we can be closer because they are smaller. Being at the official safe distance when an I600 when it lights is impressive.

neil_w said:

High power gives you costs that you *need* to hide from your wife.

Click to expand...

It's not how much it costs. It's how much you tell her it costs.

Cmac said:

It's not how much it costs. It's how much you tell her it costs.

Click to expand...

Remember Al, your’s flies as well so she knows what this crap cost.

grouch said:

Remember Al, your’s flies as well so she knows what this crap cost.

Click to expand...

I did not say it would work for me...

You like wings and tube fins... You can still go HPR.

Here is my upscale of an Estes Nasa Pegasus (Kit Number 1376).



14" Air frame
15.5' Tall
6.5' Wing Span
The tube fins are 8" diameter

The rocket weighed over 300 pounds sitting on the pad. 87 pounds of that was the propellant from the O 4,400. Flew to a whopping 5,200' so you could see the entire flight.