AeroTech Open Thread

shop deals on amazon
Advertise with us
madcow rocketry
The Rocketry Forum

Help Support The Rocketry Forum:

This site may earn a commission from merchant affiliate links, including eBay, Amazon, and others.
AeroTech said:
I'm sure we could make something that would work, but historically the Warp-9 reloads have not been that popular. Too much thrust scares people?

On the other hand, the Super Thunder loads/motors have been very successful.
Click to expand...
The I1299 is one of my all time favorite loads. I would love to see more options of Warp-9 since the stupid amounts of thrust coupled with the short burn time really ups the 'giggle factor' of a flight. I also like the challenge of making the smallest possible rocket for something with really high thrust, making rockets disappear is fun.

 
AeroTech said:
I'm sure we could make something that would work, but historically the Warp-9 reloads have not been that popular. Too much thrust scares people?

On the other hand, the Super Thunder loads/motors have been very successful.
Click to expand...
Warp 9 is just a little too fast. Super Thunder is just slow enought to enjoy and has a killer blue flame. I have flown warp 9 motors, but I think they really excel in 1 and 2 grain configurations. I would like to see more boost sustain motors like the K375 however. Maybe a 75/6400 load?
 
I was at FAR yesterday. The O5280 is one hell of a motor.
unknown.png
 
tfish said:
Is that part of the rail with it?

Tony
Click to expand...
It was using a very long ~20 foot tall 1515 rail at FAR. The rocket was angling over, and the top of the rail is visible behind it.
tsmith1315 said:
Are those fly away rail guides?
Click to expand...
Yes
rharshberger said:
Looks like Flash the Sloth hanging on for dear life....
Click to expand...
That was a Wile E Coyote plush that was attached to the flyaway rail guide.

IMG_9495.jpg

He got a bit singed, but survived mostly intact.
 
AeroTech said:
What was the altitude?
Click to expand...
I believe that it was simulated to go around 118k feet. It arced over pretty significantly, so it definitely went under that. The GPS cut out early in the flight, and the altimeter wasn't recovered, so there isn't any hard data on altitude.

The damage to the few parts that were recovered indicated a deployment at supersonic speeds.
 
Neutron95 said:
I believe that it was simulated to go around 118k feet. It arced over pretty significantly, so it definitely went under that. The GPS cut out early in the flight, and the altimeter wasn't recovered, so there isn't any hard data on altitude.

The damage to the few parts that were recovered indicated a deployment at supersonic speeds.
Click to expand...
It looks like the fly away rail guide wasn't maintaining alignment while it was still on the rail. Who flew this?
 
Interesting project.

Zooming in, it looks like the fins are rather small:
1657033540307.png

This reminds me of the Bare Necessities project with a similar outcome
https://www.rocketryforum.com/threads/bare-necessities-n5800-c-star-flying-case.41463/
From the image, which might be misleading, it doesn't seem like the fin half span matches or exceeds the body tube diameter. In combination with the triangular shape, I'm wondering how much effective fin surface is out there in somewhat clean air.

How many fins are on the rocket? 3 or 4?

Reinhard
 
(Sorry, posted this about a week ago elsewhere (not this thread), but didn't get any response...)

A couple of weeks ago, I had both motors in a pack of Qjet E26-4 blow out the nozzle. Both nozzles had been significantly enlarged by the propellant in a nice symmetrical manner that basically looked like they had been purposely drilled out. About 1/4" diameter. Did some repairable damage to rocket. Date code: 080321. But most concerning, checking Motorcato.org, half of the reported cato's for this motor carry that same date.

Both of the nozzles seemed OK when I was installing the igniters (starters, whatever), although the rubber tube that is supposed to hold the igniter in place was very loose and didn't work. Had to use a piece of masking tape. The nozzles didn't seem to be soft.

Anyway, I purchased 2 packages of new motors from a different vendor hoping that I might receive newer stock. But, yup, you guessed it. Both packs carry the 080321 date.

I really don't want to subject the rocket unnecessarily to more damage. Not sure what to do. I could try to return them to the seller, but shipping would be roughly half what they are worth. Combine that with packaging, time spent, etc. and I'm not inclined to do that for the marginal benefit.

Not sure if there is any inspection that I can do beside the obvious quick look that could detect a problem.

As you can tell, I'm quite gun shy about trying these motors.

Suggestions?
 
Just got my latest order of mixed sizes of Q-Jets. Of the 12 packs, I noticed the new packaging and labels on some of them.

Some had a label to store in a sealed cool dry place. Then 2 packs have the Q-Pic with the starters, a desiccant pack, and label to store in a sealed cool dry place. (The clamshell packs are not sealed, just stapled closed like they always have been.)

20220701_141346.jpg20220701_141355.jpg20220701_141404.jpg20220701_141719.jpg

(Added....I think about 8 of them had the desiccant pack. So that addition goes back before the Q-Pic.)
 
Tractionengines said:
Just got my latest order of mixed sizes of Q-Jets. Of the 12 packs, I noticed the new packaging and labels on some of them.

Some had a label to store in a sealed cool dry place. Then 2 packs have the Q-Pic with the starters, a desiccant pack, and label to store in a sealed cool dry place. (The clamshell packs are not sealed, just stapled closed like they always have been.)

View attachment 526626View attachment 526625View attachment 526624View attachment 526623

(Added....I think about 8 of them had the desiccant pack. So that addition goes back before the Q-Pic.)
Click to expand...
A while back, I received a mixed order, which also had a "store in dry place" sticker on many. I thought maybe the store had put it there.

Hans.
 
4regt4 said:
(Sorry, posted this about a week ago elsewhere (not this thread), but didn't get any response...)

A couple of weeks ago, I had both motors in a pack of Qjet E26-4 blow out the nozzle. Both nozzles had been significantly enlarged by the propellant in a nice symmetrical manner that basically looked like they had been purposely drilled out. About 1/4" diameter. Did some repairable damage to rocket. Date code: 080321. But most concerning, checking Motorcato.org, half of the reported cato's for this motor carry that same date.

Both of the nozzles seemed OK when I was installing the igniters (starters, whatever), although the rubber tube that is supposed to hold the igniter in place was very loose and didn't work. Had to use a piece of masking tape. The nozzles didn't seem to be soft.

Anyway, I purchased 2 packages of new motors from a different vendor hoping that I might receive newer stock. But, yup, you guessed it. Both packs carry the 080321 date.

I really don't want to subject the rocket unnecessarily to more damage. Not sure what to do. I could try to return them to the seller, but shipping would be roughly half what they are worth. Combine that with packaging, time spent, etc. and I'm not inclined to do that for the marginal benefit.

Not sure if there is any inspection that I can do beside the obvious quick look that could detect a problem.

As you can tell, I'm quite gun shy about trying these motors.

Suggestions?
Click to expand...
Contact Karl at [email protected].
 
I am sure this has been answered in the past but I cannot find it. I was at a launch and my motor box baked in the sun for a few hours. Is heat on the order 100-120 F okay for Aerotech motors?
 
AlexBruccoleri said:
I am sure this has been answered in the past but I cannot find it. I was at a launch and my motor box baked in the sun for a few hours. Is heat on the order 100-120 F okay for Aerotech motors?
Click to expand...
I'm sure you want AT to weigh in on this, but I will say this, I've never had an issue with the reloads because of heat. If anything, they seem to be more energetic, light easier, and burn out happens a little quicker when they are warm vs. 20 - 30 F.
 
Handeman said:
I'm sure you want AT to weigh in on this, but I will say this, I've never had an issue with the reloads because of heat. If anything, they seem to be more energetic, light easier, and burn out happens a little quicker when they are warm vs. 20 - 30 F.
Click to expand...
I should clarify. I am not worried about reloads but assembled dms motors.
 
Handeman said:
I'm sure you want AT to weigh in on this, but I will say this, I've never had an issue with the reloads because of heat. If anything, they seem to be more energetic, light easier, and burn out happens a little quicker when they are warm vs. 20 - 30 F.
Click to expand...
This is true, exposure to that heat in storage won't bother them, but I would not necessarily fire them at very hot temperatures. Chamber pressures are higher, nozzle erosion is higher, safety margins are reduced. It will also affect delay times.
 

Similar threads

Valkyrie Recovery Systems
Valkyrie will be going to NSL 2024!
Replies
2
Views
241
Valkyrie Recovery Systems
Valkyrie Recovery Systems
overklock
Aerotech G-force Build Thread - WIP
Replies
12
Views
2K
gldknght
gldknght
Dane Ronnow
Build thread: Aerotech HV Arcas
2
Replies
43
Views
5K
Dane Ronnow
Dane Ronnow
Bruiser
RIP IQSY Tomahawk
Replies
3
Views
1K
waltr
W
fyrwrxz
  • Locked
The end of the Never Ending Story
2
Replies
46
Views
4K
OzHybrid
OzHybrid

Latest posts

Back
Top