Fiberglass for Low Power

[lowga]

Is there anything in the NAR Safety Code that would prohibit someone from offering a fiberglass kit for low power? I could see some real advantages for LP flyers. For example, a muddy field, or semi-wet location need not cancel a day of flying with a fiberglass rocket. Unlike paper and cardboard, which would likely be ruined by a dunking in a good sized mudhole, a fiberglass rocket would just require wiping off to look great again.

Fiberglass is much harder than our typical rockets--so I wondered about the safety aspect.

Maybe someone has already had this idea. Any LP fiberglass rocket kits out there?

 

[rharshberger]

Problem is usually getting a FG rocket light enough to fly on LPR motors, the Blackhawk 24 is a CF rocket and IMO its borderline on Estes D12-3's ( on the two occasions I have seen one flown).

 

[cavecentral]

People use hand rolled light fiberglass tubes in various NAR competitions. Egg lofting, etc. So it is fine.

 

[dhbarr]

If someone were to use FAI techniques they could conceivably produce something stronger than paper but substantially lighter than FWFG.

I'd start with biax tube, add a layer of uni, then another of biax. That all by itself might be substantially tougher than regular body tube, but oops now it costs fifty bucks for a LPR.

 

[cavecentral]

From NAR site:

https://www.nar.org/contest-flying/...tion-techniques/lightweight-fiberglass-tubes/

 

[rstaff3]

Rich is generally right, but competition rocketeers fly fiberglass bodies...that they lay up themselves. https://www.nar.org/pdf/FAI Modeling Techniques Article (May 07).pdf

I rolled a fiberglass tube once and that rocket could have flown on low power. Unfortunately, I picked a G55 instead

edit: well, I guess I was too slow!

 

[DavidMcCann]

Any conditions that would kill a cardboard rocket on landing, we typically move the party to Smuggler's for a beer.

 

[swatkat]

There are a few out there... https://www.mach1rocketry.com/store/p84/Mach_Boost_BT50.html

 

[wighty44]

Not to be "the bad guy" here, but how does one not consider this definition of a Model Rocket from 14CFR101 when deciding that a FG rocket is not a Class 2 HPR?

14CFR101.22 (a) Class 1—Model Rocket means an amateur rocket that: (3) Is made of paper, wood, or breakable plastic.

 

[Steve Shannon]

Not to be "the bad guy" here, but how does one not consider this definition of a Model Rocket from 14CFR101 when deciding that a FG rocket is not a Class 2 HPR?

14CFR101.22 (a) Class 1—Model Rocket means an amateur rocket that: (3) Is made of paper, wood, or breakable plastic.

Fiberglass reinforced epoxy is plastic. That’s not our “position”. It’s a fact:
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fiberglass

I’ve seen many broken, therefore it’s breakable. If you come up with a way to make it unbreakable you could be rich.

What Class 1 criteria do you doubt?


Steve Shannon

 

[dhbarr]

Fiberglass reinforced epoxy is plastic. That’s not our “position”. It’s a fact:

Yup: https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fibre-reinforced_plastic covers all of the usual suspects

 

[Andrew_ASC]

Did you happen to pick a swamp for a launch site? I really can't see many users wanting to launch from a wet location you speak of. They would be sipping beers with David or in a garage bashing more LPR kits together rather than putting on a rain jacket and launching in a light rain squall my two cents. Yes fiberglass is durable, but it is very expensive compared to Estes LPR kits, and you might have a tough sell. Maybe the right customer would do a custom order, but it seems very niche. Most LPR kits try to maximize economy. Just struggling to see the value added for the costs involved on LPR.

 

[Andrew_ASC]

Theoretically you could specify a fiberglass tube with walls thinner than cardboard which would have equal or greater strength for a minimum mass gain. The issue in reality is a custom tube size may prove very impractical cost wise to manufacture. And the size of ID and OD diameters may be too close together to accurately manufacture if you went with some ultra thin wall tube no one else has tried. You could ask a fiberglass tube manufacturer what the limits on making a custom tube are. I think it would be a lot of effort for minimum gains.

 

[dhbarr]

Did you happen to pick a swamp for a launch site? I really can't see many users wanting to launch from a wet location you speak of. They would be sipping beers with David or in a garage bashing more LPR kits together rather than putting on a rain jacket and launching in a light rain squall my two cents. Yes fiberglass is durable, but it is very expensive compared to Estes LPR kits, and you might have a tough sell. Maybe the right customer would do a custom order, but it seems very niche. Most LPR kits try to maximize economy. Just struggling to see the value added for the costs involved on LPR.

TWA flies a lot of bongwater.

 

[lowga]

We get a lot of rain--and one my favorite parks for low power flying has frequent mud holes for days after the rain stops. It is also bordered by a small pond. When I have misjudged the wind, more than one of my rockets has gone for a "swim." My nephew lost his very first Estes rocket when flying there last summer. A fiberglass rocket would have come in handy. The kit available from Mach1 Rocketry looks exactly like what I'm after. Any idea when they'll be accepting orders?

Plus I've yet to build a fiberglass HPR kit, so it would be great to get my feet wet working with fiberglass on a low power kit first. Thanks Swatkat!

 

[tim cubbedge]

Did you happen to pick a swamp for a launch site? I really can't see many users wanting to launch from a wet location you speak of. They would be sipping beers with David or in a garage bashing more LPR kits together rather than putting on a rain jacket and launching in a light rain squall my two cents. Yes fiberglass is durable, but it is very expensive compared to Estes LPR kits, and you might have a tough sell. Maybe the right customer would do a custom order, but it seems very niche. Most LPR kits try to maximize economy. Just struggling to see the value added for the costs involved on LPR.

Clearly you have never flown a rocket in Florida.

 

[EXPjawa]

Did you happen to pick a swamp for a launch site? I really can't see many users wanting to launch from a wet location you speak of. They would be sipping beers with David

Our launch site (the one Dave is referring to) is a recovered swamp, now a large farm. It generally drains well, but can still be muddy if we have a rainstorm immediately before or during a launch. There are several irrigation ditches that offer their own challenges. But it also has an 18,000' waiver, which is not shabby in the northeast.

 

[Steve Shannon]

We get a lot of rain--and one my favorite parks for low power flying has frequent mud holes for days after the rain stops. It is also bordered by a small pond. When I have misjudged the wind, more than one of my rockets has gone for a "swim." My nephew lost his very first Estes rocket when flying there last summer. A fiberglass rocket would have come in handy. The kit available from Mach1 Rocketry looks exactly like what I'm after. Any idea when they'll be accepting orders?

Plus I've yet to build a fiberglass HPR kit, so it would be great to get my feet wet working with fiberglass on a low power kit first. Thanks Swatkat!

Also look at the Quantum tube rockets from Public Missiles. Plastic tubes with plywood centering rings and phenolic motor mount tubes (phenolic doesn’t absorb water) and G10 fins, they are very resilient in wet launch locations.
The construction techniques are identical to fiberglass and PML has some of the best instructions in the business.

Steve Shannon

 

[Normzilla]

Also look at the Quantum tube rockets from Public Missiles. Plastic tubes with plywood centering rings and phenolic motor mount tubes (phenolic doesn’t absorb water) and G10 fins, they are very resilient in wet launch locations.
The construction techniques are identical to fiberglass and PML has some of the best instructions in the business.

Steve Shannon

This it's true, my first level 1 was a PML.

Later flew and was lost in sod for a year.... came back to me (was meant to be) dirty but otherwise good to fly.

Sent from my SAMSUNG-SM-G930A using Rocketry Forum mobile app