Quantcast

E9-0

The Rocketry Forum

Help Support The Rocketry Forum:

djs

Well-Known Member
Joined
Jul 27, 2014
Messages
3,366
Reaction score
247
Does such a thing exist? I'm thinking not, but wanted to know.

I have a 2 stager that takes 24mm motors on the bottom. It's pretty light, so I'm thinking an E9-0 (if such a thing existed) would be pretty cool, assuming it doesn't CATO.

I could get an E12-0, but i'm looking for slower/more majestic, rather than "where did it go?".
 

kjohnson

mox nix
Joined
Jan 19, 2009
Messages
1,300
Reaction score
4
IF they existed, it was for a very short time. E9 just doesn't have the grunt to be a safe motor for booster stages, in respect to getting the full stack up to speed on your typical 3ft launch rod.

kj
 

djs

Well-Known Member
Joined
Jul 27, 2014
Messages
3,366
Reaction score
247
I've debated putting on a longer rod to give the rocket more time, but maybe I'll just stick with the D12-0, and maybe the E12-0.
 

ThirstyBarbarian

Well-Known Member
TRF Supporter
Joined
Feb 11, 2013
Messages
8,414
Reaction score
925
I don't do much staging myself, but the flights I've enjoyed watching the most are actually stacked the opposite way. Instead of having the slower, longer burning motor on the bottom, put a fast motor with a short burn on the bottom, and the long-burn on top. For example, a D12 in the booster, and an E9 in the sustainer, instead of an E9 to a D12. The high thrust of the D12 gets the rocket moving and keeps it straight, and the shorter burn of the D12 means the staging happens at lower altitude where you can see it better.
 

djs

Well-Known Member
Joined
Jul 27, 2014
Messages
3,366
Reaction score
247
Thirsty- obviously this is the safer way, and how I normally fly the rocket. I was just thinking the E9 would look cool on the bottom, for something different :)

For the record- the rocket I'm flying is a New Way - Vigilangle, which takes 18mm motors on the top.
 

ThirstyBarbarian

Well-Known Member
TRF Supporter
Joined
Feb 11, 2013
Messages
8,414
Reaction score
925
I've debated putting on a longer rod to give the rocket more time, but maybe I'll just stick with the D12-0, and maybe the E12-0.
You would probably never regret getting a longer rod. It's a big help in a breeze and with borderline under-powered birds.
 

tmacklin

Well-Known Member
Joined
Feb 1, 2012
Messages
2,227
Reaction score
7
One of the problems with light weight, two stage black powder motors is the excess liftoff weight on the aft end that often requires additional nose weight to achieve proper aerodynamic stability. I've had personal success on a minimum diameter scratch built two stager with an Estes D12-0 booster to and E9-8 sustainer. I painted it up like a Coral snake so if it was ever found, people would leave it alone!
 

ThirstyBarbarian

Well-Known Member
TRF Supporter
Joined
Feb 11, 2013
Messages
8,414
Reaction score
925
Thirsty- obviously this is the safer way, and how I normally fly the rocket. I was just thinking the E9 would look cool on the bottom, for something different :)

For the record- the rocket I'm flying is a New Way - Vigilangle, which takes 18mm motors on the top.
I know now where you are coming from on that. I love the slow E9 flights. I have a Maxi Alpha III that I prefer to fly on an E9 versus an E12, but it requires dead calm and a 6' rod, or it can weathercock. An E12 or D12 is more reliable.
 

djs

Well-Known Member
Joined
Jul 27, 2014
Messages
3,366
Reaction score
247
One of the problems with light weight, two stage black powder motors is the excess liftoff weight on the aft end that often requires additional nose weight to achieve proper aerodynamic stability. I've had personal success on a minimum diameter scratch built two stager with an Estes D12-0 booster to and E9-8 sustainer. I painted it up like a Coral snake so if it was ever found, people would leave it alone!
Good point- I've only flown it on D booster motors, not E, so maybe E in general would put weight on the back end and make it fly all screwy. I'll have to get one to test the weight and see where the CG ends up.
 

samb

Lifetime Member
Joined
Jan 22, 2009
Messages
3,837
Reaction score
243
Location
Plano, TX
How light is "light" ? The C11-0 has a 6 ounce max liftoff weight according to the Estes catalog with the D12 more than doubling that at 14 ounces. A longer launch rod is almost always a good thing for stagers.
 

samb

Lifetime Member
Joined
Jan 22, 2009
Messages
3,837
Reaction score
243
Location
Plano, TX
I don't have the rocket in front of me, but erockets is showing it as 3.7oz (without motors).
Well I'd be inclined to try a C11-0 in the booster then. BTW, based on the pictures on Apogee's website, the booster looks like it's designed to take 24mm X 70mm (2.75 inch) motors. That means C11-0 and D12-0. That's not to say you couldn't mod it to accept the 24mm X 95mm (3.75 inch) E12-0.

https://www.apogeerockets.com/Rocket_Kits/Skill_Level_3_Kits/Vigilangle
 

djs

Well-Known Member
Joined
Jul 27, 2014
Messages
3,366
Reaction score
247
Well I'd be inclined to try a C11-0 in the booster then. BTW, based on the pictures on Apogee's website, the booster looks like it's designed to take 24mm X 70mm (2.75 inch) motors. That means C11-0 and D12-0. That's not to say you couldn't mod it to accept the 24mm X 95mm (3.75 inch) E12-0.

https://www.apogeerockets.com/Rocket_Kits/Skill_Level_3_Kits/Vigilangle
I could try a C11, but i'm also looking for altitude. I'm picky, aren't I? :)

Just a side note- New Way has some really nice kits for people looking for something different. We have 3 of their rockets in the house, and 2 more on the build pile.
 

samb

Lifetime Member
Joined
Jan 22, 2009
Messages
3,837
Reaction score
243
Location
Plano, TX
... i'm looking for slower/more majestic, ...
I could try a C11, but i'm also looking for altitude. I'm picky, aren't I? :)

...
Not necessarily, you want what you want. Try all the combinations that fit. The tradeoff I've seen is that a slower/more majestic boost can be susceptible to tip-off and weather cocking with the 2nd stage lighting at various points past vertical. Longer launch rod and proper engine selection for the launch day conditions will ensure a straighter flight.
 

bobkrech

Well-Known Member
Joined
Jan 20, 2009
Messages
8,354
Reaction score
31
Does such a thing exist? I'm thinking not, but wanted to know.

I have a 2 stager that takes 24mm motors on the bottom. It's pretty light, so I'm thinking an E9-0 (if such a thing existed) would be pretty cool, assuming it doesn't CATO.

I could get an E12-0, but i'm looking for slower/more majestic, rather than "where did it go?".
If you could get one, the second stage would be a cruise missile........:facepalm:

The E9-0 was certified but never released. The thrust is not sufficient for a successful 2-stage flight.

E12-0, D12-0 and even C11-0 are much higher thrust and therefore far better booster motors that the E9-0 would have been.
 

bobkrech

Well-Known Member
Joined
Jan 20, 2009
Messages
8,354
Reaction score
31
Too bad- that would be a cool saucer motor. I guess the E9-4 would work just as well though.
Not Ideal since you don't want to eject the motors from the saucer.

When possible you should use the plugged motor versions of the C, D, and E Estes motors, but you might have to go directly to Estes for them.

Also the centrifugal force of the spinning saucer will erode the outside of the motor casing. It is not usually a problem with the C and D impulse motors, but it can be problematic with the Es where a burn-thru can damage the motor tubes.
 

KennB

I-95 Envoy
TRF Supporter
Joined
Mar 6, 2010
Messages
2,404
Reaction score
187
Location
Amesbury, MA
Not Ideal since you don't want to eject the motors from the saucer.

When possible you should use the plugged motor versions of the C, D, and E Estes motors, but you might have to go directly to Estes for them.

Also the centrifugal force of the spinning saucer will erode the outside of the motor casing. It is not usually a problem with the C and D impulse motors, but it can be problematic with the Es where a burn-thru can damage the motor tubes.
Bob, most saucers I've seen have a pass-through motor tube so an ejection charge would just show a nice flare in the sky.

As for spinning saucers, outside of Boris (delta22 on TRF), Frick-n-Fracks and Blenders, not many saucers spin. Monocopters have a good history of burning through the sides of motor casings.
 

bobkrech

Well-Known Member
Joined
Jan 20, 2009
Messages
8,354
Reaction score
31
We had a few 3d printed spinning saucers at URRF so that what I was thinking about.
 

Kruegon

Well-Known Member
Joined
May 21, 2014
Messages
1,885
Reaction score
3
I have two home brew saucers that don't spin. They don't go very high, but they are seriously beautiful flights.
 

EXPjawa

Well-Known Member
Joined
Jan 27, 2015
Messages
2,205
Reaction score
53
Location
Finger Lakes, NY
FWIW, the 3D printed spinning saucers had multiple motors on the outer diameter that were highly canted (thus the spin). The centrifugal load on them is probably not the same as if the motor was vertical on the centerline. Also, at least one of them disintegrated itself under the load on the second or third flight. There were bits of (very low density) 3D printed plastic all over the place...
 

cerving

Owner, Eggtimer Rocketry
TRF Sponsor
TRF Supporter
Joined
Feb 3, 2012
Messages
3,954
Reaction score
1,197
E12-0 to E9-6 or E9-8 would be viable, assuming your rocket is light enough. Both of these motors have a bad reputation for cato'ing, so at the very least it should be entertaining.
 

shreadvector

Well-Known Member
Joined
Jan 19, 2009
Messages
9,041
Reaction score
198
I have not seen any E12 motors fail in a LONG time.

Specific manufacturing dates with "apparent" 33% failure rates were reported in past years. Nothing recently.

I also burned up a huge number of E12 motors from those reported dates (including 2 stagers with E12-0 boosters and E12-8 and E12-6 upper stage) and I had zero failures of the boosters or upper stages. Naturally when you decide to burn up all your motors because they are from a "suspect" lot, none will fail. Prior to that, I had seen a 33% failure rate , but never any E12-0 failures.

Recently we had a lot of 3 motor cluster (E12-4) flights of a Delta IV Heavy and they were spectacular. No failures.

So, hopefully the newer manufacturing dates are better.


E12-0 to E9-6 or E9-8 would be viable, assuming your rocket is light enough. Both of these motors have a bad reputation for cato'ing, so at the very least it should be entertaining.
 

cerving

Owner, Eggtimer Rocketry
TRF Sponsor
TRF Supporter
Joined
Feb 3, 2012
Messages
3,954
Reaction score
1,197
Fred, I've seen plenty at ROC in the past year. Whether or not it's statistically significant depends on whether it's YOUR rocket or not. :)
 

shreadvector

Well-Known Member
Joined
Jan 19, 2009
Messages
9,041
Reaction score
198
What were the manufacturing date codes? There were a *lot* of the 'suspect' date code motors in the Hobby People warehouse and retail stores and rocket folks sometimes buy motors and do not fly them for a few years.

I've got lots of motors made year ago, but I flushed out my E9 and E12 supply to make sure I had only recent manufacturing date codes.

Fred, I've seen plenty at ROC in the past year. Whether or not it's statistically significant depends on whether it's YOUR rocket or not. :)
 

shreadvector

Well-Known Member
Joined
Jan 19, 2009
Messages
9,041
Reaction score
198
FYI: Date codes to watch for included:

8-18-11, 11-15-11
 
Top