AeroTech Open Thread

rocket sok
Shop deals on ebay
the model rocket show
Wildman 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 noticed that there’s been a little grousing on one of the rocket forums about the upcoming Classic Enerjet Nike-Ram kit not being “exact” scale (for example, the body tube is 0.040” larger in diameter). Our customers should understand that If we started from scratch we would end up with a kit that could cost $40 to $50 retail or more. By using our existing similar parts we are able to keep the price down to $30 retail. We don’t think making it an absolutely exact scale kit at a higher price will increase popularity or sales. The Classic Enerjet motors aren’t exact reproductions either, but are modern interpretations of the originals. And better in many ways! We look at it from the standpoint that we are introducing new generations to the magic of composite propellant hobby rocketry when it first started in 1971. The popularity of the F52C and now the reaction to the E24C & F67C supports our belief that we are accomplishing that mission.
Click to expand...

Isn't it kind of the whole point of that forum to be autistically pedantic and detail-focused about originality of rockets? Love those guys for what they're helpful for, but there's limited crossover between here and there. If they want to build one exactly like the originals, the information is out there to do it.

It took me a long time to grow up enough to decide that when a particular company that made products I particularly liked evolved their line to products I didn't like so much, it was OK for them to make products that weren't for me and it was OK for me to not care for their products anymore.
 
AeroTech said:
I noticed that there’s been a little grousing on one of the rocket forums about the upcoming Classic Enerjet Nike-Ram kit not being “exact” scale
Click to expand...

It’s okay. Exact scale wouldn’t still be the same, unless it was built with period-correct containers of Elmer’s glue and Aero-Gloss dope.
 
Last edited:
AeroTech/Quest was well represented at the Nuremberg Toy and Hobby Fair in Germany on February 1-5 by its new international distributor, International Hobbycraft Company (IHC), Inc. The Nuremberg show is the largest toy and hobby fair in the world. The show was successful and the responses received from potential customers of AeroTech/Quest products were very positive. AeroTech/Quest looks forward to developing and expanding its European market for model rocket products with IHC!
QUEST - Front display copy.jpg
 
AeroTech said:
AeroTech/Quest was well represented at the Nuremberg Toy and Hobby Fair in Germany on February 1-5 by its new international distributor, International Hobbycraft Company (IHC), Inc. The Nuremberg show is the largest toy and hobby fair in the world. The show was successful and the responses received from potential customers of AeroTech/Quest products were very positive. AeroTech/Quest looks forward to developing and expanding its European market for model rocket products with IHC!
View attachment 563584
Click to expand...
That’s great! Better recognition overseas can only be a good thing.
 
AeroTech said:
N4000W-PS reload and RMS-98/20480 casing information release.
View attachment 562425
Click to expand...

cautery said:
Gimme a little time and I will make a motor file WITH AeroTech's data and all the headers, options, etc. filled out.
I'll get it proofed, then submit it.
Click to expand...

Just finished the RASP .eng files for the N4000W-PS using AeroTech's RAW data file.
One file with all 3676 samples, and one with only 61 samples.... No real reason to use the small one. Just made it to prove the point.

Sending them to Gary FIRST!
If he OKs, I will post here and at ThrustCurve.

I will get a proper XML formatted .rse file completed as soon as I can.

NOTE: These files are NOT from cert data. To my knowledge, the cert process has not been completed.
 
Last edited:
AeroTech said:
I noticed that there’s been a little grousing on one of the rocket forums about the upcoming Classic Enerjet Nike-Ram kit not being “exact” scale (for example, the body tube is 0.040” larger in diameter). Our customers should understand that If we started from scratch we would end up with a kit that could cost $40 to $50 retail or more. By using our existing similar parts we are able to keep the price down to $30 retail. We don’t think making it an absolutely exact scale kit at a higher price will increase popularity or sales. The Classic Enerjet motors aren’t exact reproductions either, but are modern interpretations of the originals. And better in many ways! We look at it from the standpoint that we are introducing new generations to the magic of composite propellant hobby rocketry when it first started in 1971. The popularity of the F52C and now the reaction to the E24C & F67C supports our belief that we are accomplishing that mission.
Click to expand...
I've been a bit worried about the F67C, since it's named the same as the F67W - I've always found the dual-naming of motors to be easy grounds for confusion in communication, and with both of those F67's being potentially good TARC motors, I can easily see some school finance person unfamiliar with rocketry accidentally order the wrong thing. I've had issues with the two G75 motors to that effect in the past, and with those one is single-use and one a reload!
 
jjwb22101 said:
I've been a bit worried about the F67C, since it's named the same as the F67W - I've always found the dual-naming of motors to be easy grounds for confusion in communication, and with both of those F67's being potentially good TARC motors, I can easily see some school finance person unfamiliar with rocketry accidentally order the wrong thing. I've had issues with the two G75 motors to that effect in the past, and with those one is single-use and one a reload!
Click to expand...
If you get a case of the wrong F67s, give me a call and I’ll come take them off your hands. I know a guy who can dispose of them safely.
 
AeroTech said:
I noticed that there’s been a little grousing on one of the rocket forums about the upcoming Classic Enerjet Nike-Ram kit not being “exact” scale (for example, the body tube is 0.040” larger in diameter). Our customers should understand that If we started from scratch we would end up with a kit that could cost $40 to $50 retail or more. By using our existing similar parts we are able to keep the price down to $30 retail. We don’t think making it an absolutely exact scale kit at a higher price will increase popularity or sales. The Classic Enerjet motors aren’t exact reproductions either, but are modern interpretations of the originals. And better in many ways! We look at it from the standpoint that we are introducing new generations to the magic of composite propellant hobby rocketry when it first started in 1971. The popularity of the F52C and now the reaction to the E24C & F67C supports our belief that we are accomplishing that mission.
View attachment 563496




View attachment 563497
Click to expand...
Yeah, what he said! ;) :)
 
jjwb22101 said:
I've been a bit worried about the F67C, since it's named the same as the F67W - I've always found the dual-naming of motors to be easy grounds for confusion in communication, and with both of those F67's being potentially good TARC motors, I can easily see some school finance person unfamiliar with rocketry accidentally order the wrong thing. I've had issues with the two G75 motors to that effect in the past, and with those one is single-use and one a reload!
Click to expand...
There's also the F52T reload and the F52C single use.
 
AeroTech N4000W-PS RASP/.eng Motor File - 3676 samples, 73 kb

AeroTech N4000W-PS RASP/.eng Motor File - 61 samples, 2 kb

Both files work well and are close to what AeroTech posted above on this motor.
They are on my server right now, but will try to get the big one up on thrustcurve.org as soon as I can.

I constructed the motor files from actual AeroTech raw data from a single firing.

I will get an XML-based .rse file up as soon as I can figure out an easy/effective way to get all those data lines auto-written/merged from the EXCEL data or a middling database.
 
Last edited:
cautery said:
AeroTech N4000W-PS RASP/.eng Motor File - 3676 samples, 73 kb

AeroTech N4000W-PS RASP/.eng Motor File - 61 samples, 2 kb

Both files work well and are close to what AeroTech posted above on this motor.
They are on my server right now, but will try to get the big one up on thrustcurve.org as soon as I can.
Click to expand...
You can't upload anything to thrustcurve until the motor is added to the database, which I think can only be done by John Coker.

The first is way too many samples to be used by most simulation software. There's rarely any practical reason to have more than 32 points.
 
mikec said:
You can't upload anything to thrustcurve until the motor is added to the database, which I think can only be done by John Coker.

The first is way too many samples to be used by most simulation software. There's rarely any practical reason to have more than 32 points.
Click to expand...

Thanks for the info. I have emailed Mr. Coker already. :)

The larger file is only 72 kb and works perfectly in OpenRocket and RockSim.

I only created the 61 sample file to prove that they both work perfectly and that there is no reason to give up detail in a motor file any longer.

That old 32 point limit/recommendation is a dinosaur requirement that should have perished a long, long time ago.

If you want a 32 sample file, feel free to make your own. :) 👍
 
Last edited:
cautery said:
That old 32 point limit/recommendation is a dinosaur requirement that should have perished a long, long time ago.
Click to expand...
OK, but I stand by my claim that because of motor variation, capturing all of those points doesn't have any practical value. But it's a lot harder (speaking as one who has contributed many motor files to thrustcurve.)
 
mikec said:
OK, but I stand by my claim that because of motor variation, capturing all of those points doesn't have any practical value. But it's a lot harder (speaking as one who has contributed many motor files to thrustcurve.)
Click to expand...

I do not wish to argue this matter with you, and most decidedly not here. If you must continue pursuing this discussion, please feel free to shoot me a PM.🐎🔨

I made the file with ALL the samples for practice. I was only given ONE raw data file from a single firing.

When I am provided multiple raw data files from multiple firings/tests, I will analyze and average the motor file data across firings and by time to get a (generally) more representative (at least potentially smoother) curve and numbers that "agree" with the Certification Committee as much as practicable. 🤓

PRACTICAL VALUE is a subjective term depending on who you are and what your mission is.😎

Harder? It was a metric crappe tonne EASIER to create the file with ALL the samples than it was to create one with selected samples. Literally copy/paste to the .eng file, delete the first zero/zero sample. Delete all after the Thrust = 0.00 sample.... Write a proper header identifying the source, et al. Done.👍

Be well! :)
 
It won't be the first motor designation to be shared between motor manufacturers, and it probably won't be the last.


It would be nice if companies avoided overlapping where possible, but there are some spots where it's inevitable. For example the 80N average thrust limit for non high power motors means that every motor manufacturer makes a G80, and they often have a few other G motors with similar average thrust.
 
Neutronium95 said:
It won't be the first motor designation to be shared between motor manufacturers, and it probably won't be the last.


It would be nice if companies avoided overlapping where possible, but there are some spots where it's inevitable. For example the 80N average thrust limit for non high power motors means that every motor manufacturer makes a G80, and they often have a few other G motors with similar average thrust.
Click to expand...
Yeah it's much less of a problem when it's a designation across multiple manufacturers - I'm mostly concerned with designations being doubled up within the same manufacturer. Heck, if you want to keep the F67C as the F67 for historical reasons, make the F67W an F68, which is currently unused (especially since it looks like the F67 actually has more than 67N of average thrust). Same goes for the G75's - while G74, G76, and G77 are taken (the G77 by both a single use and a reload - though it's less of an issue there IMO since they look like they're basically just a SU and reload version of the same motor), G73 is free to use, and likewise with the F52 - while F51 is taken (by an Aerotech and TWO CTI motors - ugh...), F53 is also free. Given that there's a fair bit of leeway in motor naming allowed by NFPA 1125, I'm kinda surprised there's as many collisions within a single manufacturer's product stack as there are.
 
jjwb22101 said:
Yeah it's much less of a problem when it's a designation across multiple manufacturers - I'm mostly concerned with designations being doubled up within the same manufacturer. Heck, if you want to keep the F67C as the F67 for historical reasons, make the F67W an F68, which is currently unused (especially since it looks like the F67 actually has more than 67N of average thrust). Same goes for the G75's - while G74, G76, and G77 are taken (the G77 by both a single use and a reload - though it's less of an issue there IMO since they look like they're basically just a SU and reload version of the same motor), G73 is free to use, and likewise with the F52 - while F51 is taken (by an Aerotech and TWO CTI motors - ugh...), F53 is also free. Given that there's a fair bit of leeway in motor naming allowed by NFPA 1125, I'm kinda surprised there's as many collisions within a single manufacturer's product stack as there are.
Click to expand...
There is also three H123 and a G123 if you include the Hybrid. There are also 4 180 motors along with 4 350s.
 
jjwb22101 said:
I've been a bit worried about the F67C, since it's named the same as the F67W - I've always found the dual-naming of motors to be easy grounds for confusion in communication, and with both of those F67's being potentially good TARC motors, I can easily see some school finance person unfamiliar with rocketry accidentally order the wrong thing. I've had issues with the two G75 motors to that effect in the past, and with those one is single-use and one a reload!
Click to expand...
I've been wondering about the difference between the F67C and the F67W. So I looked at ThrustCurve, and unfortunately their graphs drop the suffix. At least they color code the graph traces so you can tell which is which from that. But still somewhat irritating.

Hans.
 
Handeman said:
There is also three H123 and a G123 if you include the Hybrid. There are also 4 180 motors along with 4 350s.
Click to expand...
yeah but you aren't going to confuse the H123 with the G123 - if I say I'm flying something on an Aerotech G75, you don't know if it's the sparky or the blackjack. Or, equivalently, if a TARC team sends a PO to their school's finance person for a dozen F67-6's, there's two very different motors they could end up getting. I've had exactly that issue with the G75's, ended up with a G75M we couldn't use for anything (though I'm not complaining about that now - I ended up using it for a fun flight), and I'm worried about some TARC team accidentally spending their whole motor budget on the wrong motors.
 
The only time a motor designation caused me a problem was when I bought a H550 for a friend. I thought that the vendor only had DMS, but realized it was RMS when I drove out to the launch. Fortunately I had my 38/600 case and RAS in the car and it could have been flown that day.

The situation with the H123 is probably the worst. There are 3 motors with that designation. Two are made by CTI, and they're both Skidmark motors. One is a 38mm motor, and the other is 29mm. I guess if we all started using the CTI system with the impulse before the traditional designation we'd reduce the confusion, but I doubt it'll ever catch on, since the current system works well enough for most use cases.
 
jjwb22101 said:
yeah but you aren't going to confuse the H123 with the G123 - if I say I'm flying something on an Aerotech G75, you don't know if it's the sparky or the blackjack. Or, equivalently, if a TARC team sends a PO to their school's finance person for a dozen F67-6's, there's two very different motors they could end up getting. I've had exactly that issue with the G75's, ended up with a G75M we couldn't use for anything (though I'm not complaining about that now - I ended up using it for a fun flight), and I'm worried about some TARC team accidentally spending their whole motor budget on the wrong motors.
Click to expand...
I imagine specifying propellant suffix will reduce the odds of this happening. Specifying Enerjet or Classic Enerjet may still help further.

It also appears that the F67C delivers more total impulse than the F67W but a little less thrust. So long as the rocket is built strong and light enough, an F67C outperforming an F67W might be solved with a little bit of weight and adjusting the recovery system. It might take a few flights to dial it in but I can’t imagine this would make a team entirely non-competitive.

As @Neutronium95 pointed out with the H123s, this is also a very specific use case that can be addressed by NAR in an advisory to teams.
 
I wish all the motor manufacturers would combine the designation styles to include both total impulse and propellant type in the official designation. I prefer the current AT style if I have to pick one (I've never  not wanted to know the propellant), but the total impulse is a valuable piece of info as well, especially when combined with the average.

So we'd have a 61F67W and a 78F55C (I don't prefer the less-accurate designation just to match the old motor designation).
 

Similar threads

Valkyrie Recovery Systems
Valkyrie will be going to NSL 2024!
Replies
2
Views
267
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