Quantcast

Double Eagle CO2 from Tinder Rocketry

The Rocketry Forum

Help Support The Rocketry Forum:

SnapRoll

Well-Known Member
Joined
Dec 2, 2020
Messages
47
Reaction score
67
Howdy all,

Around Christmas this year I had an opportunity to pick up and work on one of Cameron Tinder's new CO2 ejection systems, "The Double Eagle." I thought that I'd take a minute to share a few pictures and thoughts on the system so far and encourage those of you that want to try something new to look into grabbing this setup. Obviously, you can tell by that sentence that I think pretty darn highly of what was sent to me. This is a relatively new system that hasn't had the chance to fly too many times yet, and a few guys here in Dallas are having fun running it though its paces. John Woody was the one of the prototype drivers and had a fantastic flight on his AGM in here Texas with it on a K700W.

Overall, the quality of Cam's work is simply beautiful. The components of this system are machined so nicely, and everything goes together very well. The quality of the hardware itself is top notch. I have no reservations that I'll be able to strap new bottles to the housings for flights for years to come. When you go to the Tinder Rocketry website and look at this system, see the price, I'm here to tell you, you are paying for quality. The way that the system operates is pretty simple too, it seems overwhelming when you open the box to the array of confusing goodies in front of you, but, the best thing to do is review the operations manual on the TR website and run a dry-fit of a flight setup. The lightbulbs will go off.

Here's the main thing I'll offer to think about if you plan to play in CO2 land. Real estate. Having everything integral to the avionics bay is sweet, but, the housings and the CO/2 bottles themselves can take up a bit of room. Nothing that any of y'all can't overcome, but, it takes some critical thinking to pack it all in, unless of course your name is Justin and working in tight spots is your specialty. :rolleyes: My test setup with this system is going into a 4" rocket, and I wanted to have enough room to stuff the 23gm CO/2 Cart's in the av-bay. I used a MC 4.0" x 12" Av-Bay on this rocket and had plenty of room. Per the math that Cameron provides on a BP vs. Size of CO/2 Cart conversion, the 23gm bottle is overkill for this rocket, but I want to have the real estate incase I need extra push. Ground testing will tell the tale, as well.. (I plan on flying the 23 bottles for my first flight.) If you were to use the 16gm bottles in a smaller rocket, like a 3", again, think ahead of time about the space required.

I'm really looking forward to trying something new.. that's what this hobby is about. Cameron has some great stuff, (and he's a rockstar to BS with....) and I'm looking forward to flying his system at the end of this month. One of my veteran 4" Fiberglass rockets is gonna take the CO-2 on a CTI L-1350 CStar to Mach 1.21 and 12,000 feet. I'll look forward to giving a flight report once it's done. Pictures below of how I set the bay up for this.. let's see how long it takes for JF and the Zip-Tie police to come after me...

DE1.jpg


DE2.jpg


DE3.jpg


DE4.jpg
 

WillMarchant

Well-Known Member
TRF Supporter
Joined
Jan 15, 2009
Messages
2,389
Reaction score
83
Thanks for the article! Did you end up buying multiple e-match holders so you could fly multiple times at a launch? Or does "5 minute epoxy" really dry fast enough to allow recycling a single holder?
 

SnapRoll

Well-Known Member
Joined
Dec 2, 2020
Messages
47
Reaction score
67
Thanks for the article! Did you end up buying multiple e-match holders so you could fly multiple times at a launch? Or does "5 minute epoxy" really dry fast enough to allow recycling a single holder?
Honestly I haven’t but that’s not a bad idea. Between my lack of experience with the system and the fact that I’m the kind of flyer that spends a week at home pre-flighting every last component; I usually only do 1 flight per day. Having multiple holders would be an easy solution to that problem though, you make a great point.
 

jmwoody

Retired Rocket Retread
TRF Supporter
Joined
Oct 29, 2018
Messages
101
Reaction score
56
Location
Texas
Great write-up Erick ... thank you for posting

Yes the 4" frame can be a challenge as I found out in November ... but very doable. I did use the smaller bottles after ground testing the 4" with 4 shearpins on each end ... 4 pins seems to let the charge build in the chamber and fully fill before popping pretty hard. Really glad to see how you put your eBay together ... very cool sir. BTW Eric ... zipties are your friends!!!

I'm working on a second rocket incorporating the Double Eagle's in a 5" frame for TNT's end of January launch. I'll run it on a more mundane L2200G to about 10.5'ish

These are from the November 4" build ....






All the best Eric, good luck and I'll see on the field in a few weeks

John
 

SnapRoll

Well-Known Member
Joined
Dec 2, 2020
Messages
47
Reaction score
67
Flight Report and Follow-up with the CO-2 System --

I flew the Double Eagle CO-2 System in Southern Belle on Jan 31 in Seymour TX at the Tripoli North Texas launch. The rocket had a nice flight to 12,500AGL and reached Mach 1 on a CTI L-1350 C-Star.

But...

I blew the main at Apogee... as I'll explain below.. 🤪

Overall, the system worked very well, the components are very easy to work with, specially if you have everything in the Housings prepped and loaded at home before you come, it's easy from there. Cameron Tinder has designed and made a really, really cool system. I blew the main parachute at Apogee, total rookie mistake, where a consideration of "clean," or "residue-less," versus "Pressurization" occurred, and I failed to seal up the tiny space around my ignitor leads heading though the bulkheads. Previously I've used Modeling Clay on BP rockets, and honestly didn't even think about it given the clean nature of the CO2. Big mistake. My RRC3 recorded the max velocity at Mach 1.9, due to the rapid pressurization of the av-bay at altitude making it believe it was headed back at the ground and Mach 1.9. (Ouch.) Don't be like me, seal up them wires or use a bulkhead setup like the ones from R-Junkies. Many compliments to John Woody, Tony Huet, and the TNT guys for all the investigative work looking at the data. John Woody is a total pro at this system, and I would recommend anyone else looking at getting one to message with him about it too.

Clean up of the system was very easy and accomplished the next day at home. Took about 15 minutes to get everything reset to the point where it could be setup for another flight. A large bowl of hot water and Dawn soap, let it all soak, pull it out and scrub it with a toothbrush, dry it all off. As previously mentioned in this thread, if you plan on using CO2 more than once in a day, you should consider buying 2 e-match housings that go inside of the main housing to make it easier.

Overall, I couldn't recommend this system higher. Is it more expensive than BP? On the surface, yes, and after looking at the prices of 24g CO-2 bottles yesterday, well... ouch! However, I got to thinking last night that where the system might be a bigger investment to operate, it reduces the amount of wear and tear on ALL of the rest of your components, like harnesses, parachutes, protectors, hardware, et. al, and that stuff will last much, much longer. Maybe a wash, then? Not to mention, it's something completely new and fun to try.

Picture below compliments of the great Harry Spears, and enjoy the on-board video.

VIDEO LINK—-

SBelle L1350 C-Star Seymour Jan 2021.jpg
Belle 2.0 .jpg
 
Last edited:

RalPh8

Well-Known Member
Joined
Jan 3, 2016
Messages
134
Reaction score
27
Erick, are you able to provide the in-flight footage from the downward facing camera? Enjoyed seeing your rocket at the launch!
 

SnapRoll

Well-Known Member
Joined
Dec 2, 2020
Messages
47
Reaction score
67
Erick, are you able to provide the in-flight footage from the downward facing camera? Enjoyed seeing your rocket at the launch!
Hey bud good morning! Take a look at the link in my post above, it has a link there that will take you to the movie. Cheers 🙂
 

jaz

Well-Known Member
TRF Supporter
Joined
Jan 29, 2009
Messages
153
Reaction score
5
Great post thank you for sharing. I agree the cost is not a great reason to go with this approach regardless it does make me consider trying it out for the fun factor.
 
Joined
Apr 9, 2013
Messages
12
Reaction score
7
seems like this is a better design since it puts the ematch outside the ebay
View attachment 449272
Thank you for your comment. Do note however that while the RAPTOR CO2 ejection system might be a very good choice, it would still need to have the e-match wires go through the bulkhead just as the Eagle does. The wires to the e-matches enter the Eagle through the larger center hole that is on top of the bulkhead, in essence "outside" the av-bay just like the RAPTOR. The main difference is that only the flange of the Eagle is in the chute bay (As pictured above) where as with the RAPTOR most/all of the pyro housing is inside the chute bay with only the CO2 ctg inside the av-bay. Hope this helps!
 

jmwoody

Retired Rocket Retread
TRF Supporter
Joined
Oct 29, 2018
Messages
101
Reaction score
56
Location
Texas
Just to add a different slant on Cameron Tinder's Double Eagle ElectBay layout and with SnapRoll's encouragement, I've included a couple of photos. These are from a new build out of Wildmans' MGM-52 Lance 5 rocket kit. I flew the rocket on an AT K780R to 5500' agl and a successful recovery 2200' away at touchdown on a very windy day.

The Eagles performed as designed and clean up is just a snap & roll detail. Are they more expensive than a BP setup? ... Yes. It's just another level of accomplishment in rocketry and the clean up is oh so easy.





 

Latest posts

Top