Quantcast

G64 vs. G104

The Rocketry Forum

Help Support The Rocketry Forum:

qquake2k

Captain Low-N-Slow
Joined
Jan 26, 2010
Messages
13,573
Reaction score
35

djs

Well-Known Member
Joined
Jul 27, 2014
Messages
3,367
Reaction score
250
Total impulse is much higher on the G64 (118 vs 82 Ns). This will win out in the end- there's more total thrust.
 

Bat-mite

Rocketeer in MD
Joined
Dec 5, 2013
Messages
10,986
Reaction score
1,739
Location
Maryland
Thrust = how many pounds can my rocket safely lift?

Impulse = (assuming thrust is adequate) how high will it go?
 

qquake2k

Captain Low-N-Slow
Joined
Jan 26, 2010
Messages
13,573
Reaction score
35
Total impulse is much higher on the G64 (118 vs 82 Ns). This will win out in the end- there's more total thrust.
I missed that. See? I was being stupid.
 

djs

Well-Known Member
Joined
Jul 27, 2014
Messages
3,367
Reaction score
250
This is why I like the CTI way of labelling their motors- because you get both pieces of information (how many total Ns, and how fast it burns).
 

qquake2k

Captain Low-N-Slow
Joined
Jan 26, 2010
Messages
13,573
Reaction score
35
This is why I like the CTI way of labelling their motors- because you get both pieces of information (how many total Ns, and how fast it burns).
Unfortunately, our onsite vendor has been unable to get CTI MPR reloads since the fire. So AT it is.
 

BDB

Absent Minded Professor
Joined
Aug 22, 2015
Messages
2,184
Reaction score
417
This is why I like the CTI way of labelling their motors- because you get both pieces of information (how many total Ns, and how fast it burns).
I agree. It seems to me that an even better system could have been devised that classified motors by listing their average thrust and burn time. So a D12-5 would be classified as a D10.2-1.7 (5) by the system that I just proposed. Not as easy to say but more informational.
 

lawndartman

Well-Known Member
Joined
Mar 12, 2011
Messages
598
Reaction score
17
Be what it may, the G64 is one fine motor. Been around a long time. For most midpower rockets, just the ticket. AT, CTI, Loki, all have loads that are their standouts. For AT the G64 may be their best overall load. IMHO
 

qquake2k

Captain Low-N-Slow
Joined
Jan 26, 2010
Messages
13,573
Reaction score
35
I'm happy to be back, believe me. Health issues and the drought got in my way. But now the rain has already cancelled a launch and the alternate. Can't win for losing.

I agree, I too love the G64. And the G53. Probably my two favorite motors.
 

Nytrunner

Pop lugs, not drugs
TRF Supporter
Joined
Oct 15, 2016
Messages
7,769
Reaction score
3,396
Location
Huntsville AL
I was going to talk about higher drag forces created by the higher thrust motor, but with that much of an impulse difference, there's no need lol.

Personally, I like a percentage indicator. The total newtons Infront of Cesaroni designations are pretty clumsy when things get bigger

Which looks better:
263H120R
Or, 64% H120R
 

rharshberger

Well-Known Member
Joined
Oct 13, 2014
Messages
9,793
Reaction score
1,764
Location
Pasco, WA
I was going to talk about higher drag forces created by the higher thrust motor, but with that much of an impulse difference, there's no need lol.

Personally, I like a percentage indicator. The total newtons Infront of Cesaroni designations are pretty clumsy when things get bigger

Which looks better:
263H120R
Or, 64% H120R
263H120R looks better, the percentage is harder to convert to burn time for the average person. Of course usually I am more interested in the thrust during the first .5 second.
 

Nytrunner

Pop lugs, not drugs
TRF Supporter
Joined
Oct 15, 2016
Messages
7,769
Reaction score
3,396
Location
Huntsville AL
263H120R looks better, the percentage is harder to convert to burn time for the average person. Of course usually I am more interested in the thrust during the first .5 second.
Not sure I've ever needed to pay attention to the burn time, but then again, I'm not a staging flier (yet).
Things like 16803N1560P just look like an ugly string of smoshed together characters to me.
 

Swissyhawk

Well-Known Member
Joined
Sep 11, 2013
Messages
260
Reaction score
1
For the motor designations, I wish they would have put thrust in pounds instead of newtons. I think that would have been more intuitive.
 

Trident

Retired, plenty of kits
Joined
Jan 18, 2009
Messages
861
Reaction score
9
For the motor designations, I wish they would have put thrust in pounds instead of newtons. I think that would have been more intuitive.
Well, not if you grew up in a country using the Metric System. :) But don't get me wrong. I still have a better feeling for a motor's power by seeing thrust in pounds. Being on old timer, the first Estes motors I used in the early 60s were designated using pounds / pound-seconds.
 

Nytrunner

Pop lugs, not drugs
TRF Supporter
Joined
Oct 15, 2016
Messages
7,769
Reaction score
3,396
Location
Huntsville AL
Honestly, If having the motors coded in Newtons will help familiarize people with metric and its benefit to physics, I'm totally ok with that.

Rockets can be a great boost of knowledge and experience, a learning activity.

Or it can be "I make tube fly with fire!"
 

Steve Shannon

Well-Known Member
TRF Supporter
Joined
Jul 23, 2011
Messages
6,610
Reaction score
3,433
Location
Butte, Montana
Honestly, If having the motors coded in Newtons will help familiarize people with metric and its benefit to physics, I'm totally ok with that.

Rockets can be a great boost of knowledge and experience, a learning activity.

Or it can be "I make tube fly with fire!"
I want that last on a tee shirt !

You're right about metric. It's not hard to learn; a person just needs to step trying to convert to English units all the time.
 

5x7

Well-Known Member
Joined
Jan 20, 2009
Messages
859
Reaction score
62
I think you just named someone's next build.
 

gdjsky01

Whoosh, pop: life is good
TRF Supporter
Joined
Jan 20, 2011
Messages
4,849
Reaction score
18
Hi Captain...

Total area under the thrust curve. Remember?
Average thrust has nothing to do with it. And impulse ranges (letters) become exceedingly wide above a F (F is 41-80ns).
G's are 81ns to 160ns. An IMO each letter on gets worse (IMO). People certify on what is little more than a full G.

That is why I always think in terms of percent of a full <LETTER>. I have flown K's that were, according to the specs, just a few newton seconds over a full J. In other words 2% of a full K. A baby K for sure, yet technically a K.

And a J (like the CTI 1266J760-19A) that is 15ns short of a 'K'. Or 98% of a full J.

So many times I have rolled my eyes :eyeroll:... Ooooooh a J350... BFD?
Which is, as certified, (697.4Ns) BARELY a J. 57ns over. A 9% J. A J for sure, but only because you have to put a line in the sand someplace, but BARELY a J. Think of it. My J760 was also a 'J' but virtually double a J350.

This is also why I have ALWAYS applauded CTI. They designate their motors with Total Impulse - Letter Designation - Average Thrust - Max Delay Range
Like 140G145-15A - 140ns - G impulse range - 15 second adjustable delay.
We need BOTH total impulse and average. The letter is almost meaningless.


Aerotech for whatever reason does not follow suit.
But IMO it's the way ALL motors should be listed.
JMO :)

 

rharshberger

Well-Known Member
Joined
Oct 13, 2014
Messages
9,793
Reaction score
1,764
Location
Pasco, WA
Hi Captain...

Total area under the thrust curve. Remember?
Average thrust has nothing to do with it. And impulse ranges (letters) become exceedingly wide above a F (F is 41-80ns).
G's are 81ns to 160ns. An IMO each letter on gets worse (IMO). People certify on what is little more than a full G.

That is why I always think in terms of percent of a full <LETTER>. I have flown K's that were, according to the specs, just a few newton seconds over a full J. In other words 2% of a full K. A baby K for sure, yet technically a K.

And a J (like the CTI 1266J760-19A) that is 15ns short of a 'K'. Or 98% of a full J.

So many times I have rolled my eyes :eyeroll:... Ooooooh a J350... BFD?
Which is, as certified, (697.4Ns) BARELY a J. 57ns over. A 9% J. A J for sure, but only because you have to put a line in the sand someplace, but BARELY a J. Think of it. My J760 was also a 'J' but virtually double a J350.

This is also why I have ALWAYS applauded CTI. They designate their motors with Total Impulse - Letter Designation - Average Thrust - Max Delay Range
Like 140G145-15A - 140ns - G impulse range - 15 second adjustable delay.
We need BOTH total impulse and average. The letter is almost meaningless.


Aerotech for whatever reason does not follow suit.
But IMO it's the way ALL motors should be listed.
JMO :)

Personally I have always disliked the % of X system, a K is a K even if its only 2 Ns more than a max Ns J. CTI's descriptors are definitely more informative, and Aerotechs system leaves a lot to be desired.
 

noffie79

Well-Known Member
Joined
Jul 25, 2015
Messages
1,340
Reaction score
13
I personally do like the CTI system better. There's more info at a quick glance. But, with the Thrustcurve app on my phone, the AT info is just a few taps away. And since I've been flying more AT lately due to my vendor only getting a few CTI here and there, I'm slowly becoming more familiar with the AT system. One thing I do like about AT much more than CTI is that I get to assemble the motor. I love putting them together. There's another feeling of accomplishment when your J540 burns loud and proud.
 

qquake2k

Captain Low-N-Slow
Joined
Jan 26, 2010
Messages
13,573
Reaction score
35
Oh yes, I forgot about the "Baby J/Full J" thing. If I remember correctly, Jeff, you were the one who finally talked me into getting my Level 2. So you can be my technical advisor. :tongue:
 

gdjsky01

Whoosh, pop: life is good
TRF Supporter
Joined
Jan 20, 2011
Messages
4,849
Reaction score
18
Oh yes, I forgot about the "Baby J/Full J" thing. If I remember correctly, Jeff, you were the one who finally talked me into getting my Level 2. So you can be my technical advisor. :tongue:
HI Captain!

IMO you have to look at the Total Impulse to make an informed decision.

Average impulse is a good measure for some rules of thumb in LPR - but 99% of the time I do not expect the rocket to fall out of the sky because the average impulse was to low. :) JMO. :no:

At LPR levels I need to see that 'initial spike' in the curve... to make sure it will clear the pad with enough FPS to be stable. But I do not see that with 'most' MPR and HPR motors (there are long burn exceptions that have low burn thrust from start to finish).

I just think having the total Ns in the designation makes for a more informed rocketeer. J350? Almost 700ns. J760? Almost 1266ns. BOTH ARE A J. Would it not be nice for that to be on the labels? I think so...
Like
697J350-14A
versus
1266J760-15A
Unless you are in marketing... then, "Hey it is a J!!!"
 

qquake2k

Captain Low-N-Slow
Joined
Jan 26, 2010
Messages
13,573
Reaction score
35
Try it with a G138T
Now that you mention it, I think I have a G138 reload somewhere. I've only ever flown one. They used to have a reputation for splitting the 29/40-120 cases, but I didn't have a problem. Blue Thunder isn't my favorite propellant, and it sims at 1600ft. That's higher than I want to go on the small field.
 
Top