Off Grid Gecko
Well-Known Member
I couldn't think of a clever title that encapsulated what I really want to ask, but I've been thinking on this lately.
First, this thread is not to demean, undermine, or discourage using MPR as a stepping stone to larger rockets. I'm simply seeking some concrete clarification and different people's opinions on the matter. That said.
I see it quoted quite often that experience should be gained in a hierarchical order. Generally LPR first, then "stepping up" to mid power, then onto L1 and L2, each in their own category. I won't discuss L3 here.
I see the merit in someone new to rocketry starting with low-power kits. I think a lot of us started there as kids, or even as adults. There's a lot to rocketry, and the LPR stuff offers a low barrier to entry, both in terms of cost and difficulty. It's an "easy" way to get familiar with rocketry, you can fly just about anywhere, and unless you live near an airstrip there is no need to call the FAA or the closest tower.
High power is obviously a different animal. I can Elmer's glue a LPR rocket from paper in a matter of hours and it will fly just fine. Obviously we don't want that kind of construction mentality when dealing with 10-s to 100-s of pounds of thrust, or higher as the scale progresses.
Now, MPR is in the middle. I know I had a kit or two that flew on D's and E's as a kid, just fell out before I got to them "big" F motors that I would drool over. They do need to be constructed with some minimal amount of care, but for the most part, they mimic the smaller LPR build process with a touch more attention to detail. Let me stop there for a minute.
So, not looking for anyone to argue with anyone else, just your own opinions on this. Should MPR find it's way into everyone's fleet before considering a high-power build at all? Why? Why not?
Some of the why's that I can think of quickly:
-More familiar with stronger building techniques
-More time to learn about bond strength and think about how much stress is applied to a rocket in different places.
-Fly a little higher and cement the idea that you need more space with more power.
-Failures are lower risk than with HPR (though things can still fail even with a careful build)
And finally, I don't see MPR as a "requirement" so much. I see it as a stepping stone. People come to our hobby from engineering disciplines sometimes, sometimes they are already expert model builders. Some have flown RC helis or race RC cars and understand a lot of concepts the average guy off the street wouldn't. Etc. Some people read a lot more than others (how many people visit this forum frequently to learn what they need to know without ever signing up?)
To me this is more of a case-by-case thing. To my brother I recommended him to get a little launch rod and a small kit. He knows how glue works and has built models before. I also recommended going with a small motor and explained how easily these things can get lost. And he did this as a kid at one point as well. But getting back into the hobby, it's the easiest way. I might also recommend MPR to him if he wants to go further so that he can learn some of the engineering concepts specific to rocketry.
But I don't consider these recommendations a one-size-fits-all solution. Someone who understands engineering and has built and flown several small rockets on C and D engines probably has the basics down, and might select more appropriate glue, but otherwise could be turned loose on a bigger build, especially if they are simulating all of their designs on the computer already.
Just some thoughts, sorry so long winded. What are your thoughts? To restate the general question, do you consider MPR a pre-requisite for HPR?
First, this thread is not to demean, undermine, or discourage using MPR as a stepping stone to larger rockets. I'm simply seeking some concrete clarification and different people's opinions on the matter. That said.
I see it quoted quite often that experience should be gained in a hierarchical order. Generally LPR first, then "stepping up" to mid power, then onto L1 and L2, each in their own category. I won't discuss L3 here.
I see the merit in someone new to rocketry starting with low-power kits. I think a lot of us started there as kids, or even as adults. There's a lot to rocketry, and the LPR stuff offers a low barrier to entry, both in terms of cost and difficulty. It's an "easy" way to get familiar with rocketry, you can fly just about anywhere, and unless you live near an airstrip there is no need to call the FAA or the closest tower.
High power is obviously a different animal. I can Elmer's glue a LPR rocket from paper in a matter of hours and it will fly just fine. Obviously we don't want that kind of construction mentality when dealing with 10-s to 100-s of pounds of thrust, or higher as the scale progresses.
Now, MPR is in the middle. I know I had a kit or two that flew on D's and E's as a kid, just fell out before I got to them "big" F motors that I would drool over. They do need to be constructed with some minimal amount of care, but for the most part, they mimic the smaller LPR build process with a touch more attention to detail. Let me stop there for a minute.
So, not looking for anyone to argue with anyone else, just your own opinions on this. Should MPR find it's way into everyone's fleet before considering a high-power build at all? Why? Why not?
Some of the why's that I can think of quickly:
-More familiar with stronger building techniques
-More time to learn about bond strength and think about how much stress is applied to a rocket in different places.
-Fly a little higher and cement the idea that you need more space with more power.
-Failures are lower risk than with HPR (though things can still fail even with a careful build)
And finally, I don't see MPR as a "requirement" so much. I see it as a stepping stone. People come to our hobby from engineering disciplines sometimes, sometimes they are already expert model builders. Some have flown RC helis or race RC cars and understand a lot of concepts the average guy off the street wouldn't. Etc. Some people read a lot more than others (how many people visit this forum frequently to learn what they need to know without ever signing up?)
To me this is more of a case-by-case thing. To my brother I recommended him to get a little launch rod and a small kit. He knows how glue works and has built models before. I also recommended going with a small motor and explained how easily these things can get lost. And he did this as a kid at one point as well. But getting back into the hobby, it's the easiest way. I might also recommend MPR to him if he wants to go further so that he can learn some of the engineering concepts specific to rocketry.
But I don't consider these recommendations a one-size-fits-all solution. Someone who understands engineering and has built and flown several small rockets on C and D engines probably has the basics down, and might select more appropriate glue, but otherwise could be turned loose on a bigger build, especially if they are simulating all of their designs on the computer already.
Just some thoughts, sorry so long winded. What are your thoughts? To restate the general question, do you consider MPR a pre-requisite for HPR?