Upscale Estes Mean Machine (5.5" 22ft Tall!) NSL

Hey TRF-ers,

I don't think I’ve ever been as excited about a build before!


Background:

This is going to the Ventura County Rocketry Association's (VCRA) first build together. VCRA is a very new club and as of right now consists of 8-10 members. Our paperwork for NAR recognition has already been mailed and we should be a "Legal" club before to long. As of now we are an only LPR and MPR and it will probably stay as such. We decided to build a group project to 1) Become more unified as a club 2) To kick off the club at NSL 3) To utilize some of the strengths of our members.



I will be the project coordinator and will be the one running the simulations. (And hopefully keeping this updated)

We picked this design out of the suggestions from the group because of its relative ease of construction, cost, recognition factor, child enthusiasm level, and of course its freakin awesomeness!!!

As always a concern with very tall skinny rockets was the choice of materials. (I don’t like noodle-y rockets, you?) Wouldn't the world be great if we could all afford 22foot tall 6" fiberglass rockets? But we can't. :eyeroll: With fiberglass not an option do to weight and more importantly cost, we needed to find another suitable Body Tube material.

After looking through a few of the cardboard replacements, we settled on Blue Tube. I sent Randy of Always Ready Rocketry an email regarding this project and what his thoughts were. He was very helpful in giving his opinion on a few things. He also offered to give us a deal on the order. Thanks Randy!

Right now the final weight of the rocket will be between 25-30lbs and will fly on Large “K” motor at NSL. (My vote is for the CTI K1440) Also it will have a 54mm MMT. You will here a lot of “right now’s” because nothing is set in stone yet. Right now the plan is to KIS by flying it on motor ejection. We will be sealing off the rest of the BT by using a simple bulkhead. The plan is to recover all in one piece with a Top Flight Recovery’s 120” chute.

That is about it for now guys. Be sure to subscribe.

I would love to hear what you think.


Bryce





As a little teaser...

My initial thought is the specialized launcher you will need to fly this thing. I'd fly it off one of the unistrut towers I have access to at METRA or MDRA as I would be concerned about wind blowing it around.

On another thought, I'd look real close at the speed this beast is gonna leave the rail. any wind would really play hob with it.

Other than that, it looks kinda cool.

H_Rocket said:

My initial thought is the specialized launcher you will need to fly this thing. I'd fly it off one of the unistrut towers I have access to at METRA or MDRA as I would be concerned about wind blowing it around.

On another thought, I'd look real close at the speed this beast is gonna leave the rail. any wind would really play hob with it.

Other than that, it looks kinda cool.

Click to expand...

6' mean machine on a D12 manages to work on an estes e pad, and ROC has a tall launch tower. i'm excited to see the build of this rocket progress

and really, a 120" chute? i wonder who has one of those

I contacted ROC (The club hosting NSL) and asked about what is the largest rail they had was, and they will have a 15 foot 1515 rail that we plan on using.

Rocksim says on the K1440 we have a launch pad departure at 112fps

Edwin: I wonder....

Now that is an upscale. Imagine an 8 inch.

I don't know yet but I think we are pushing the structurally sound limit.

What is the longest you can make a cardboard rocket?

What about blue tube?

[YOUTUBE]Uac2iIUetDs[/YOUTUBE]

2 minutes in and that should answer your question. And that is the reason for Blue Tube.

Stempy! That thing is/was great!


This is a cool project Bryce, wish we had people to do a big group project with.



Braden

Cool but scary.

It was called Stumpy (Get it?) but the LCO read it wrong. LOL

Braden: Because building minimum dia. "P" rockets is the norm up there!

Scary refers to the video, right? Hopefully this beast wont be as scary!

bandman444 said:

Hey TRF-ers,

As of now we are an only LPR and MPR and it will probably stay as such. We decided to build a group project to 1) Become more unified as a club 2) To kick off the club at NSL 3) To utilize some of the strengths of our members.

Click to expand...

Am I the only one that finds it funny the first project this LPR/MPR group does is a giant HPR rocket that will require level 2 motor and a custom tower?

Not complaining! Maybe you should have applied to Tripoli instead of NAR :>


Looking forward to the build thread & launch video

alexzogh said:

Am I the only one that finds it funny the first project this LPR/MPR group does is a giant HPR rocket that will require level 2 motor and a custom tower?

Not complaining! Maybe you should have applied to Tripoli instead of NAR :>


Looking forward to the build thread & launch video

Click to expand...

lol the tower is provided by ROC, but i agree, funny

The club can only fly LPR/MPR do to the range we fly at. Most of us are HP fliers though.

bandman444 said:

It was called Stumpy (Get it?) but the LCO read it wrong. LOL

Braden: Because building minimum dia. "P" rockets is the norm up there!

Scary refers to the video, right? Hopefully this beast wont be as scary!

Click to expand...

Not really actually. wasn't even thought about until the rich surgeon started hanging around!


Braden

alexzogh said:

Am I the only one that finds it funny the first project this LPR/MPR group does is a giant HPR rocket that will require level 2 motor and a custom tower?

Not complaining! Maybe you should have applied to Tripoli instead of NAR :>


Looking forward to the build thread & launch video

Click to expand...

As already posted, we will be using ROC's launcher.

One big advantage to a group is that where one persons weakness' are one can fill in.

One member of our team does only fly Mpr and Lpr but he paints some of the most BEA-utiful rockets you have ever seen! And one member is a pro with fiberglass, he will do the fiberglassing.

As individuals we fail, as a group we succeed. (Well, at least thats the thought)

UPscaler said:

Not really actually. wasn't even thought about until the rich surgeon started hanging around!


Braden

Click to expand...

You know I'm joking, and just giving you a hard time. :bangbang:

Well put, best of luck

bandman444 said:

One big advantage to a group is that where one persons weakness' are one can fill in.

One member of our team does only fly Mpr and Lpr but he paints some of the most BEA-utiful rockets you have ever seen!

Click to expand...

Glad to know someone in the group is good with Bondo. You guys will need alot of 'team filling' to make up for some of the skill gaps.

How are you going to reinforce the center of this thing so it doesnt fold? double wall with couplers? Wood internal structure? put 1/8" of FG on the whole thing?

Just curious because if we are starting bets, $10 this thing does a crazy turn or loop off the rail and folds.

Ben

i wouldn't say that ben. blue tube is pretty freaking strong lol. and you can buy full length couplers (48") from ARR, and so theoretically they could make the entire body double thick lol. also blue tube is really really strong for its size lol.


and the actual estes rocket doesn't have any of those problems, though i'm not sure how it'd do with a lot of force under it

I too have an upscale of the mean machine planned. I'm pushing it to 6" diameter. Planning on carbon fiber airframe!! It just screams " DO IT!"

Eric1 said:

I too have an upscale of the mean machine planned. I'm pushing it to 6" diameter. Planning on carbon fiber airframe!! It just screams " DO IT!"

Click to expand...

Wow! Sounds expensive. Keep me updated on that id love to see that!

Ben: Thanks, glad to see you are supportive...

The reason we chose 5.5" is that it has the largest thickness-to-diameter when compared to 4" or 3" tubing. Blue tube is a much more rigid body material than cardboard, and as such it will not tend to noodle at much or at all.

Now all of this is speculation because, I will admit, I have never built a 22ft tall 5.5" inch rocket out of blue tube before, but Ben if you have, please let me know.


$10 this goes straight up and recovers unharmed.


Also one other point I wanted to make was that if you've built a Mean Machine is that, even though it is large, building is very simple, as is the case with this rocket 90% of the rocket is gluing the couplers into the body tubes and stacking them. The "work" only really involves the first tube (the booster). And even that is simply gluing a motor mount in, attachment points, etc.


Bryce

I would think glassing in nut cert or nuts to insidee of couplers would be a good option to consider. That way it could be broken down into 5/6 pieces for transportation, assembly on the pad and ease of repair should there be a mishap.

most important thing to remember about blue tube, at least in my experience, is thatthe coupler>body joint is amazingly tight. i sanded both parts for i don't know how long, and like almost no progress. i finally gave up, shoved my entire body weight onto it, and managed to get the 8" coupler about 2 inches into one side, and 6 into the other. i figure nothing will move anyway since it's so tight. yup

edwinshap1 said:

most important thing to remember about blue tube, at least in my experience, is thatthe coupler>body joint is amazingly tight. i sanded both parts for i don't know how long, and like almost no progress. i finally gave up, shoved my entire body weight onto it, and managed to get the 8" coupler about 2 inches into one side, and 6 into the other. i figure nothing will move anyway since it's so tight. yup

Click to expand...

Wow. Sounds out of spec.

I would have to agree. Imhave several blue tube rockets. None have tight couplers.

Tighter fit would be better than loose for us!

Attached is the most recent Rocksim file of it.

Remember that this is without receiving any parts yet.

Basically the only variables are the recovery system, (Parachute, harness, attachments).

Thanks guys for throwing your two cents in.

Bryce

dixontj93060 said:

Wow. Sounds out of spec.

Click to expand...

cwbullet said:

I would have to agree. Imhave several blue tube rockets. None have tight couplers.

Click to expand...

idk, possibly. the blue tube electronics bay i bought had another 8" coupler, and that one worked fine. but the coupler i bought just out of the box from the vendor seemed really tight. don't get me wrong, tighter is better, especially when it's going upto mach 1.4 lol

A couple of notes about "Stumpy" (shown above)

I believe it was actually phenolic, and was still as noodly as can be seen above due to sheer length. Blue tube at 22 feet will probably do better (mostly due to being shorter), but don't count on it being completely stiff. Also, the LCO (Pat Gordzelik I believe) read the name right, and even made a couple of jokes after flight. It was the discovery channel that got it wrong.

Kevin (Troj) can probably elaborate a lot more.

bandman444 said:

Wow! Sounds expensive. Keep me updated on that id love to see that!

Ben: Thanks, glad to see you are supportive...

The reason we chose 5.5" is that it has the largest thickness-to-diameter when compared to 4" or 3" tubing. Blue tube is a much more rigid body material than cardboard, and as such it will not tend to noodle at much or at all.

Now all of this is speculation because, I will admit, I have never built a 22ft tall 5.5" inch rocket out of blue tube before, but Ben if you have, please let me know.


$10 this goes straight up and recovers unharmed.


Also one other point I wanted to make was that if you've built a Mean Machine is that, even though it is large, building is very simple, as is the case with this rocket 90% of the rocket is gluing the couplers into the body tubes and stacking them. The "work" only really involves the first tube (the booster). And even that is simply gluing a motor mount in, attachment points, etc.


Bryce

Click to expand...

It's not that im unsupportive, its that I want to raise these questions so it doesnt fail. You didnt say you were double walling the tubing with couplers. That sounds like a great plan and its what I would do. I would also bolt it together like mentioned above. I would make sure the bottom two pieces of tube have the most support at the joints. That is where your problems will be. I would double the coupler walls.

You forgot to attach the file