Dry grass. Scared to let boosters self-eject. Don’t want to be on 9 News at 10.Have the booster motors self eject... then just use a streamer for sustainer recovery.
Dry grass. Scared to let boosters self-eject. Don’t want to be on 9 News at 10.Have the booster motors self eject... then just use a streamer for sustainer recovery.
Well played.Dry grass. Scared to let boosters self-eject. Don’t want to be on 9 News at 10.
It needs ‘em. A C6-5 might get it off the pad without the boosters, but the weight is right at a C6-5’s maximum lift off weight. Three A8-3’s gets it moving quickly. It needs that big initial thrust to get off the pad. If a C11 came in an 18mm form factor, that might work.Well played.
Does it need the boosters or are they just for show?
That is correct. Before I painted the rocket, the booster tubes each had a small parachute in it. But that left scorch marks on the side of the sustainer tube. Didn’t like he scorching. When it was unpainted, it had three parachutes. One in each booster and one in sustainer.So all the chutes are in the main central body tube? Was kind of confused by the first post without a picture to help in visualizing the recovery configuration. The side strap on parallel/cluster “boosters” don’t have any chutes in their tubes, they only contain the zero delay motors and vent directly outside?
Each parachute is 11.5 inches in diameter (circle).So all the chutes are in the main central body tube? Was kind of confused by the first post without a picture to help in visualizing the recovery configuration. The side strap on parallel/cluster “boosters” don’t have any chutes in their tubes, they only contain the zero delay motors and vent directly outside?
Here is the previous configuration where each booster tube had its own parachute. See the scorch marks the ejection charges in the boosters left on the sustainer tube? That is what I didn’t like. So I decided to just glue on the booster tube nose cones and use only plugged or booster engines in the two booster tubes.Ok, now I understand, you were talking about a before and after configuration, two different set ups of the same rocket that was modified. Thanks for the clarification.
I think if you continue to pack the two chutes carefully you shouldn't have any problem. If you pull the nose cone out partially and turn it upside down, the weight of the nose should be able to pull the chutes out, if not then maybe they were packed too tightly in the tube. I would worry more about just getting them out of the tube first, then not worry so much about the unfurling.
The Estes C5 will work in some situations when the C6 won't work.It needs ‘em. A C6-5 might get it off the pad without the boosters, but the weight is right at a C6-5’s maximum lift off weight. Three A8-3’s gets it moving quickly. It needs that big initial thrust to get off the pad. If a C11 came in an 18mm form factor, that might work.
Yes. Scratch build weird roc.Bummer. I'm assuming it's a scratch build?
You have arrived at that point of time where form does not fit function. It's a painful lesson.
Post up a photo of the rocket. Maybe seeing it will help us to come up with an alternative.
how about a single slider, but its actually 2 sliders in one, where each chute has its own slider within the bigger slider?"SLIDERS" (more complexity) they go over the shroud lines and start up at the parachute end. They slow the opening of the chute as they slide down to the end of the shroud line. This helps both (or more) chutes all "blossom".
BUT
If the slider is too small, not smooth, or can shift "up" to far; it will hang up, holding the chute closed.
the current C5, as I have said before here and on YORF, is NOT the original C5 in performance. It's a very poor copy.The Estes C5 will work in some situations when the C6 won't work.
You mentioned the "parawad". I've only had that a few times, when I first started in rocketry. I had read everything I could find so when I packed a parachute I had it folded and rolled and wrapped tightly, exactly like the pictures showed. It looked exactly the same when it hit the ground. So my next flight I did the opposite- I did the least amount of folding/gathering I could do and get it in the tube, and no wrapping at all. It opened fine and I've done it that way since. Occasionally I'll have a parachute melt a little bit and that keeps it from opening completely but it still works to some extent. Everybody has their way to pack a parachute and I still hear very experienced people talk about folding/rolling/wrapping.
I don’t see a problem with multiple chutes when each has its own tube and motor for ejection, except possibly that if all work perfectly you may have the equivalent of a single OVERSIZED chute and a long walk or lost rocket.
I don't think that will work. It would keep the 2 chutes too close to each other. With multiple chutes, they need to get able to spread apart. Which is why they usually are on risers. The risers let them have more length between the connecton point to the harness and the shroud lines.how about a single slider, but its actually 2 sliders in one, where each chute has its own slider within the bigger slider?
Enter your email address to join: