Quantcast

anyone know plans for a piston launcher?

The Rocketry Forum

Help Support The Rocketry Forum:

rocketsonly

Well-Known Member
Joined
Apr 7, 2004
Messages
877
Reaction score
0
Hey, does anyone have pictures or plans for a piston launcher? Do piston launchers also work for larger rockets (3in +)?
 

solrules

Well-Known Member
Joined
Dec 30, 2003
Messages
363
Reaction score
0
Originally posted by rocketsonly
Do piston launchers also work for larger rockets (3in +)?
Not very much. They work well for small rockets with a low mass. The ignition gas that you trap is not enough to do anything for large models. For record breaker and light models, however, you can get a sagnificant increase in acceleration.

Plans are in The Handbook of Model Rocketry by Gary Steine (sorry if I murdered the name) I believe.
 

wyldbill

Well-Known Member
Joined
Jan 31, 2003
Messages
337
Reaction score
0
Originally posted by rocketsonly
Do piston launchers also work for larger rockets (3in +)?
Originally posted by solrules
Not very much. They work well for small rockets with a low mass. The ignition gas that you trap is not enough to do anything for large models.
Oh I dunno, I've seen a bowling ball lofted off a piston launcher (recently...)

-bill
 

solrules

Well-Known Member
Joined
Dec 30, 2003
Messages
363
Reaction score
0
Originally posted by wyldbill
Oh I dunno, I've seen a bowling ball lofted off a piston launcher (recently...)

-bill
sure. But have they statisticly proven that it increases altitude? I would imaging the angle of attack for the rocket would make a much greater influence than the ignition gasses.
 

wyldbill

Well-Known Member
Joined
Jan 31, 2003
Messages
337
Reaction score
0
The question was:
Originally posted by rocketsonly
Do piston launchers also work for larger rockets (3in +)?
Just informing folks that the do indeed. As far as efficiency goes, there's no lugs, so less drag (and most BB lofters' configuration doesn't lend to tower lauching) so I'd say yeah, there's a good chance of better altitude. And the thing snapped off the pad. Quantifiable evidence? No, but qualitatively I'd say there's a very good chance the performance improved. (The flyer's flown the config several times in the effort to perfect it, and I find it hard to believe he's continuing the effort if he hasn't seen some positive results, but that's speculation on my part)
Is there quantitative proof that the performance degrades?
 

solrules

Well-Known Member
Joined
Dec 30, 2003
Messages
363
Reaction score
0
Originally posted by wyldbill
The question was: Just informing folks that the do indeed. As far as efficiency goes, there's no lugs, so less drag (and most BB lofters' configuration doesn't lend to tower lauching) so I'd say yeah, there's a good chance of better altitude. And the thing snapped off the pad. Quantifiable evidence? No, but qualitatively I'd say there's a very good chance the performance improved. (The flyer's flown the config several times in the effort to perfect it, and I find it hard to believe he's continuing the effort if he hasn't seen some positive results, but that's speculation on my part)
Is there quantitative proof that the performance degrades?
If anything, the performance would be better, in a perfect situation. It's just that with the time/money put into R&D of this launcher, you could put that much more time into the R&D of the lofter, use better materials, better epoxy, etc. AFAIK, many competition bowling bowl lofters use types of tower launcers. That much drag is pretty important (lugs/rail buttons also add to the asymetry of the rocket).
 

Micromeister

Micro Craftman/ClusterNut
TRF Lifetime Supporter
TRF Supporter
Joined
Jan 19, 2009
Messages
15,074
Reaction score
38
Location
Washington DC
Heres a pic of some metal head 13 and 18mm pistons.
 
Top