Aerotech Arreaux for L1 Cert

thzero

Well-Known Member
TRF Supporter
Joined
Jun 4, 2018
Messages
769
Reaction score
436
Not completely sold on using it yet, but would like to avoid the ~$300 price tag it would cost me to fully go 38mm, buy a new kit, hardware, and motor.

Don't need to use a 38mm case, you could use a 29mm in a 38mm. You just need to create (or buy) an adapter.
 

boatgeek

Well-Known Member
Joined
Dec 27, 2014
Messages
5,634
Reaction score
5,108
I already have the Arreaux and was looking for tips and tricks to use it for my L1. Not completely sold on using it yet, but would like to avoid the ~$300 price tag it would cost me to fully go 38mm, buy a new kit, hardware, and motor.

EDIT: Also the non-waiver field is the club field :/
My suggestion is to buy and build what you can fly easily. Since your local field is Class 1, that means more rockets that fly well on Class 1 motors. I would stick to 29mm rather than going to 38mm. Any Class 1 DMS H will work for your cert flight, so that’s no different between the various options. To me, that means that your choices are:

Use the Arreaux. If you go without a tracker, you have maybe a 25% to 50% chance of losing the rocket and needing to buy a new kit for your cert. Alternatively, you spend $100+ on a tracker system if you can find one available.

Buy another kit. A 54mm or 2.6” cardboard kit should be easy enough to keep under Class 1 weight and should be easy enough to keep track of in flight.

Me, I’d buy another kit so that I had 2 rockets to fly later. YMMV of course!
 

JackC

Well-Known Member
TRF Supporter
Joined
May 2, 2020
Messages
504
Reaction score
356
I already have the Arreaux and was looking for tips and tricks to use it for my L1. Not completely sold on using it yet, but would like to avoid the ~$300 price tag it would cost me to fully go 38mm, buy a new kit, hardware, and motor.

EDIT: Also the non-waiver field is the club field :/
Okay, since you have the rocket, build it to handle 29 mm motors. I would recommend the Aeropack or Slimline motor retainer because a successful cert. flight requires that the motor is still in the rocket when it lands (don’t allow the ejection charge to spit the motor out in flight). Then I recommend replacing the kit’s chute with an “X” form chute. I used one of those chutes with a Mustang and it reduced drift and brought it down close. If you build it with epoxy, the extra strength will allow it to survive fast recovery. Doing these three things should be less than $60 or so.
 

AfterBurners

Well-Known Member
TRF Supporter
Joined
May 8, 2012
Messages
8,081
Reaction score
613
Location
Southern Calif
Phew! Hopefully you have a decent sized recovery area and access to at least a tracker and/or a Jolly Logic Chute Release - even a low end H is going to push an Arreaux over 4000 feet. If you can come up with something with more drag it’ll make your qualification attempt more likely to succeed.

If you want to stick with Aerotech kits stepping up to an Initiator will keep your attempt under 2000 feet - a LOC Lil’ Nuke or a Balsa Machining Service 29mm powered 3” School Rocket also could be viable choices for staying lightweight and not going way, way high 😎 Good luck with your attempt - post an update and let us know.
I used a Sumo and my friend the G-force way bacj when we got ours. In fact we dragged race
 

JackC

Well-Known Member
TRF Supporter
Joined
May 2, 2020
Messages
504
Reaction score
356
The current Aerotech kits already have aluminum screw-on retainers.
You’re right! I haven’t built one in years but my son has one of the newer Sumos. So OP, all you need is the X form chute and epoxy for the build and you are good to go. Any 15 minute epoxy should be up to the task for you.
 

jcampb81

Active Member
TRF Supporter
Joined
Jan 10, 2022
Messages
41
Reaction score
31
Location
Tennessee
Have you flown it on a full G motor?
G79W
You’re right! I haven’t built one in years but my son has one of the newer Sumos. So OP, all you need is the X form chute and epoxy for the build and you are good to go. Any 15 minute epoxy should be up to the task for you.
Could I achieve the same results with cutting a hole in the top of the supplied chute?
 

n3tjm

Papa Elf
Joined
Jan 21, 2009
Messages
8,000
Reaction score
985
Location
Penns Creek, PA
G79W

Could I achieve the same results with cutting a hole in the top of the supplied chute?

G79W is not a full G motor :D. RMS 29/180 loaded with a G75-10J is the closest reload aerotech has to a "Full G motor." (or if you can still find them the KBA 29/150 loads count too) CTI has a few other choices :D
 

AeroTech

Well-Known Member
TRF Supporter
Joined
Dec 17, 2009
Messages
1,115
Reaction score
2,859
It will work just fine with an H128W reload. I have also personally flown a mostly stock Arreaux (modified with aluminum rail guides and an Estes motor retainer) with H135W and H169WS DMS motors. In fact I won the Hamster Dance 7 contest with the Arreaux/H169WS combination (before it was certified of course ;)).
 
Last edited:

jmasterj

Low and slow
TRF Supporter
Joined
Aug 16, 2021
Messages
1,147
Reaction score
875
Location
Maryland
G79W is not a full G motor :D. RMS 29/180 loaded with a G75-10J is the closest reload aerotech has to a "Full G motor." (or if you can still find them the KBA 29/150 loads count too) CTI has a few other choices :D
SU G80 has the same impulse as the G75, and the G138 for the hobbyline case is almost a full G (not that that helps a level 0 flyer, though).
 

Buckeye

Well-Known Member
TRF Supporter
Joined
Sep 5, 2009
Messages
3,033
Reaction score
804
Also, how is the club going to complete an L1/High Power cert for you without a waiver/certificate of authorization in place for High Power?

The FAA only cares about the mass of propellant and total mass of the rocket on the pad, per 14 CFR 101. You can fly rockets with <125g propellant weight and 3.3lb pad weight by merely following the HPR safety code. No waiver/COA needed.
 

n3tjm

Papa Elf
Joined
Jan 21, 2009
Messages
8,000
Reaction score
985
Location
Penns Creek, PA
I forgot about the G138. Careful with that load, it's been known to blister cases, although it has been suggested wrapping a layer of masking tape along the top edge of the propellant grain solves that issue.

You made me check up the actual TI of the G75J. If thrustcurve.org is accurate, it is similar to the 137 n/s G80. Not the published 155 n/s. That's quite a difference.
 

ShadowSpire48

Well-Known Member
Joined
Feb 23, 2022
Messages
124
Reaction score
41
You’ll spend more trying to recover the Arreaux on an H than you would building a LOC 4” Goblin which you can turn around and fly on G motors all day long. Build it with Gorilla wood glue and it’ll be perfect. A Goblin won’t go higher than 1K on an H115. Don’t try and rip a hole in the stratosphere on a cert. Low and slow has the highest chance of a successful recovery.
 

dpower

Well-Known Member
Joined
Jan 18, 2009
Messages
1,697
Reaction score
392
It sounds like you understand the pros and cons of this, as well as the rules & restrictions. I've flown AT kits on the H165 reload, they hold up just fine, built with medium CA per instructions. If you the 29mm RMS-plus reloads, use masking tape in place of the big red plastic ejection cap, it'll plug the motor tube on ejection if you build with the baffle system. I found this out the hard way. 😬

Best to get to know whomever is going to certify you well before the flight, preferably before the build. Good luck!
 

dhbarr

Amateur Professional
TRF Supporter
Joined
Jan 30, 2016
Messages
8,623
Reaction score
3,022
We did a Mustang on an H135. A drag plate probably would have saved us a bunch of searching time.
 

Lorenzo_88

New Member
Joined
Sep 28, 2022
Messages
3
Reaction score
0
Location
Italy
Hi my fellows!
I'm building my Arreaux kit, since i don't plan to use any payload i would like to permanently join the two body sections and attach the nosecone to the shock cord and parachute using it for ejection.
Are there any cons. i'm not aware off?
I'll be using RMS 24/60 F35-8W form intermediate power and this rocket will serve mostly fun purpose.

Thanks!
 

mikec

Well-Known Member
Joined
May 9, 2009
Messages
2,803
Reaction score
596
I'm building my Arreaux kit, since i don't plan to use any payload i would like to permanently join the two body sections and attach the nosecone to the shock cord and parachute using it for ejection.
You'll have larger volume to pressurize and it may be too much for a typical ejection charge. And the shock cord will have that much less length outside the body tube.

Honestly I wouldn't do this even if you never intend to use the payload section for anything, it has no real advantage I can think of other than requiring slightly few parts.
 

b.wieting

Well-Known Member
TRF Supporter
Joined
Jan 14, 2020
Messages
103
Reaction score
64
Location
Ventura County
I can think of only the obvious: you give up ability to fly an altimeter or add night-lighting.
I had a lot of fun with both on many flights with my old Arreaux.

BTW, I mostly flew w G80W-10... reached ~ 2700 ft. Had to watch continuously to avoid losing it! (No Jolly Logics back then...)
 

tsmith1315

Well-Known Member
Joined
May 16, 2020
Messages
2,916
Reaction score
3,001
Location
Doerun, GA
would like to permanently join the two body sections and attach the nosecone to the shock cord and parachute using it for ejection.


Use screws to attach the coupler, so that it's not permanent. This way you can configure it as needed. New couplers are inexpensive, get spares so you can have more options.
 

Steve Shannon

Well-Known Member
TRF Supporter
Joined
Jul 23, 2011
Messages
8,495
Reaction score
6,923
Location
Butte, Montana
Hi my fellows!
I'm building my Arreaux kit, since i don't plan to use any payload i would like to permanently join the two body sections and attach the nosecone to the shock cord and parachute using it for ejection.
Are there any cons. i'm not aware off?
I'll be using RMS 24/60 F35-8W form intermediate power and this rocket will serve mostly fun purpose.

Thanks!
One thing is that by separating the rocket at the lower point it’s much more likely to be unstable afterwards, which is what you need to prevent ballistic recovery.
So, it’s easier to separate and it’s more effective at reducing descent speed.
 

rcktnut

Well-Known Member
Joined
Oct 26, 2009
Messages
1,934
Reaction score
525
Location
Sheboygan WI
I have an Arreaux ejection charges will work with what you want to do, but why not just glue the nose cone to the payload bay? That is what I did.
 

Lorenzo_88

New Member
Joined
Sep 28, 2022
Messages
3
Reaction score
0
Location
Italy
First of all thank you for the kind help,

main reason to convert the model are:
-1 structural integrity (ye i know it doesnt change much);
-2 it reminds me of the simple models i used to launch as a kid;

i did some math yesterday, it’s basically 70% more volume to fill for the ejection charge, but the nosecone weighonly 40%of the upper tube + nosecone assembl, so in a very simplicistic way there should not be that mich of a difference.

Also i sent an email to mr. Baumann from Aerotech Quest, his reply was "there should be no problem doing that way".
I guess imma do a static test prior to permanently joining the sections.
 

Lorenzo_88

New Member
Joined
Sep 28, 2022
Messages
3
Reaction score
0
Location
Italy
nowadays and altimeter and accelerometer is about a small usb pen dimensionwise.
it can safely be attached to the nosecone with a keyring ring, all will weight probably about 2/5 grams.
 
Top