I thought about designing it without an inner fiberglass airframe but was uncertain if it would be strong enough. And I think it was easier this way, although pretty heavy. I had originally planned to use 1/8" plywood but it was too flimsy so I went with the 1/4" which added more weight.Wow. What a unique and impressive build. Very neat and clean techniques there.
I wonder if maybe you could have gotten away with not having the fiberglass tubes inside the rocket? That would have saved a bunch of weight for sure.
Anyways, thanks for taking the time to share this.
Mine has the feet. I didn't need to refer to the photo on the mini kit instructions, I took lots of photos of Tom's big rocket at MDRA last year when I was designing this.Don't forget to add the "Feet" they are not present in the mini kit!!! for visual look at the photos of Tom's rocket that is on the kit instructions!
It's okay with me as long as it's okay with the RCO. I doubt that there has ever been a drag race between the A rack and the away cell.
Im pretty sure that I will win the drag race with Tom's rocket because it will take his big 98 mm motor a couple of seconds to get up to pressure. By the time he leaves the pad I'll probably already be 500 ft up. To make it fair the RCO should probably give him a head start.
Try the Aerotech M6000 Super Thunder. Performance very close to Vmax.FYI, Tom says that this is his last M6400 Vmax and CTI doesn't make Vmax reloads anymore. The MDRA motor wizards have an EX motor in the works for him that they expect will have a similar thrust curve.
Correct, the forward closure didn't fail. I've seen plenty of forward closure failures and they always result in flames shooting out the forward end of the rocket. That didn't happen and the chute wasn't burned at all. The motor just blew out the nozzle with a loud bang, shearing off the end of the casing and taking a big chunk of the Aeropack retainer with it.Ah crap!
Sorry to see this result. This was a motor issue out the rear, not a burn through near top of case?
I was trying to think of something like that which I could use to get a grip on the casing from the inside. What you are describing sounds similar to the rubber freeze plugs that are used to winterize plumbing in swimming pools. I'm not sure it would grip the inside of the casing firmly enough though.Sickens me to see images like that.
Before you consign it to rubbish...
Could you fabricate a compression plug using a piece of solid rubber 'dowel' on a length of all thread? Double nut (or aircraft locknut) then washer then the rubber plug with an outside diameter just a bit smaller than the ID of the motor casing, followed by another washer and a nut that you could tighten down to compress the rubber plug such that it swells and lodges inside the motor casing? Leave the all thread long enough that you could attach something else to it that would allow you to pull on that axis?
Similar to an auto body slide hammer, but instead of threading into sheet metal bodywork, the rubber plug would be wedged into the motor casing...
Fill out the warranty form and send it to AMW, we'll get you a new case and closure. My appologies for the failure.Correct, the forward closure didn't fail. I've seen plenty of forward closure failures and they always result in flames shooting out the forward end of the rocket. That didn't happen and the chute wasn't burned at all. The motor just blew out the nozzle with a loud bang, shearing off the end of the casing and taking a big chunk of the Aeropack retainer with it.
Does anybody know if CTI still has the policy of replacing a motor casing for free in the event of a CATO? I sent an email to AMW a few days ago about that but no reply. I'm going to need a new 6 grain 54mm case and rear closure.