List of suppliers who state the airframe material on all rockets.

[tim cubbedge]

Think the OP bailed after first post.

 

[Alex-Heffer]

LOC makes/sells all kinds of cardboard BT rocket kits that’ll handle a K or higher impulse motor.

If your abbreviation "BT" means Blue Tube then I agree it's definitely strong enough for K motors and it's definitely not cardboard. LOC could be the first on the list if they specify the material and thickness of each of their airframes.

 

[Alex-Heffer]

Hi Alex,

“New people” to rocketry (that's plain rocketry, NOT high-power rocketry) generally don’t consider, let alone actually fly, K-class motors until they've learned a thing or two about this hobby over the years, starting from the low- and mid-power realm. I suggest your mentoring might wisely include helping your newbies plan a realistic pathway to high power rocketry rather than starting at Level 2 purchases. There are far more--and far more important--things to learn about safety, construction, flying, recovery, and etiquette before the question of air frame material even becomes a significant issue.

I start everyone on BT20 and Open Rocket if I can. I get them to design and print a fin template and then cut out balsa fins do swing tests etc. Then move to BT50 or BT55 with motor tube, centering rings and engine clip. I agree cardboard is perfect for low power. That is not the issue here. It's 2022. Do you think people should be guessing what material the airframe is made of ?

 

[tim cubbedge]

If your abbreviation "BT" means Blue Tube then I agree it's definitely strong enough for K motors and it's definitely not cardboard. LOC could be the first on the list if they specify the material and thickness of each of their airframes.

https://locprecision.com/

 

[David Schwantz]

I am sorry but LOC lists the thickness of EVERY one of their airframes.
Heavy Duty Rocket Frames Cardboard Tubing - LOC Precision – LOC Precision / Public Missiles Ltd.

 

[tsmith1315]

I agree cardboard is perfect for low power.

HPR was built on cardboard, it's perfectly legitimate and safe for L2 motors. Nearly every K-N flight I'd seen up until my return in 2020 were done on cardboard.

I'm not downing fiberglass- I built my first fiberglass rocket in '97 when FG airframes were hard to find and much of what was available wasn't standard size. It's a great material. But it's heavy, expensive, and just not necessary for the typical HPR flight. Teaching newcomers otherwise is a disservice to them, and could discourage them from proceeding because of cost.

Yes, dimensional details like tube thickness or nosecone length can be a headache. It's especially evident when searching for components for a scale build. Airframe thickness and available length are listed for nearly every brand and type, and as David pointed out, it's often in the airframe tubing listing rather than the kit spec's. Not much different than having to go to a data sheet to find spec's on an electrical part.

After doing my due diligence once for all manufacturers/sizes/materials of interest and typing it into a spreadsheet, I could see that most HPR airframes are very similar, if not the same, in ID and thickness. Some offer FG in thin and thick wall. It seems like Giant Leap's Magna Frame was the only one I couldn't find measurements on, and certainly an email or phone call would quickly return that info if I were interested.

That process- searching for manufacturers, looking at all the kits, products available, digging for details, going down all the rabbit holes, figuring out where certain things are available- that was invaluable to getting back up to speed in HPR. I'm better equipped to design rockets now, having studied this information.

As far as knowing which kits are made from which material when a manufacturer sells more than one type, well... if your pupil can't figure that out (often obvious in instructions, by price, etc) or ask the manufacturer, maybe they're not ready for L2 flights yet.

 

[user 35280]

If your abbreviation "BT" means Blue Tube then I agree it's definitely strong enough for K motors and it's definitely not cardboard. LOC could be the first on the list if they specify the material and thickness of each of their airframes.

BT= Body Tube and LOC cardboard BT’s are plenty strong enough for K or higher impulse motors.

 

[Five]

BT= Body Tube and LOC cardboard BT’s are plenty strong enough for K or higher impulse motors.

Im just curious is to what a “blue tube is”?

 

[user 35280]

Im just curious is to what a “blue tube is”?

blue tubes Achilles heel is its bad tendency to absorb water, which causes warpage.
do an Internet search for blue tube, I’d imagine there’s information about it.

 

[GlueckAuf]

Im just curious is to what a “blue tube is”?

Blue Tube 2.0 is Always Ready Rocketry's brand of rocket-building tubes. It's spiral-wound from 4 layers of vulcanized cellulose along with 2 layers of paper to largely hide the spirals. (The pic below is the look inside of a 75mm air frame and 54mm motor tube.)

 

[tsmith1315]

Im just curious is to what a “blue tube is”?

https://alwaysreadyrocketry.com/blue-tube-2-0/

edit: simultaneous post

 

[Five]

blue tubes Achilles heel is its bad tendency to absorb water, which causes warpage.
do an Internet search for blue tube, I’d imagine there’s information about it.

Though going to the internet would be a lot quicker and easier but I like asking questions on TRF and getting answers from people like me.

 

[user 35280]

If your abbreviation "BT" means Blue Tube then I agree it's definitely strong enough for K motors and it's definitely not cardboard. LOC could be the first on the list if they specify the material and thickness of each of their airframes.

Use this great product,
https://locprecision.com/collections/rocket-components/products/phenolic-airframe-tubing

 

[StreuB1]

delete

 

[samb]

Think the OP bailed after first post.

?
OP + #32 + #33. I think he just doesn’t like cardboard for high power airframes despite all these testimonials.

 

[dhbarr]

I read this differently: as a mentor, this person is frustrated that their mentees don't understand what they're buying. I happen to disagree with the assessment that the seller bears the responsibility to educate the buyer, and I also don't agree that makes it a "consumer rights issue" or "safety issue".

[EDIT] Incorrect assumptions removed

Just my 0.000024 USD

 

[Alex-Heffer]

I am sorry but LOC lists the thickness of EVERY one of their airframes.
Heavy Duty Rocket Frames Cardboard Tubing - LOC Precision – LOC Precision / Public Missiles Ltd.

Exactly so include either a description of the airframe on the kits pages or a link to the product on the tubing page.

 

[Alex-Heffer]

What I am suggesting here will actually be a win win for suppliers like LOC that offer upgrades on many kits as they will sell more upgrades once people know what they are getting in the 'base' model.

 

[CalebJ]

The base model that works perfectly?

 

[samb]

What I am suggesting here will actually be a win win for suppliers like LOC that offer upgrades on many kits as they will sell more upgrades once people know what they are getting in the 'base' model.

What is your definition of ‘base’ model ?

 

[Antares JS]

What I am suggesting here will actually be a win win for suppliers like LOC that offer upgrades on many kits as they will sell more upgrades once people know what they are getting in the 'base' model.

I've been buying HPR kits and parts from LOC, PML, Wildman, and more recently Madcow and ARR, since 2005 and have never been surprised by the material making up the kit. I have to agree with everyone else here and say the onus is more on you for not paying attention.

 

[Alex-Heffer]

Obviously nothing is stopping you flying a K motor in a cardboard airframe rocket but as a mentor I am not going to recommend flying a K700w in a cardboard airframe with a 0.05" wall thickness unless it has a fibreglass wrap and most consumers are not setup to do that at home. This is not about what you can and can't do it's about giving consumers the choice. I purchased a 4" scale rocket kit last year knowing it was a cardboard airframe and plywood fins but I am happy with the choice because I wanted it as part of my fleet and because I am only planning to fly it at our annual public events on a J motor.

 

[heada]

I'm trying to think of a LOC kit that can be flown on a K motor that can't survive a very high thrust K motor and I'm coming up blank. Even the Loki 38mm K motors would be fine in a 38mm thick-walled motor mount tube that is standard in 38mm kits. Same with 54mm and 75mm based kits. All the motor mounts can survive the rigors of high thrust motors in that size range assuming the kit is built well.

I can understand if someone ordered a 3" body tube and used it as a 75mm motor mount rather than the much thicker 75mm motor mount tube that LOC includes in kits. In that case, it would be on the buyer since they purchased something never intended to be used that way. Paper based tubes like what LOC sells are not as durable as FWFG that is popular now but paper based tubes are lighter and cheaper than the FWFG equivalent and sometimes that weight savings is important but doesn't justify the cost of CF tubes. I see no fault in the kit maker.

 

[CalebJ]

Obviously nothing is stopping you flying a K motor in a cardboard airframe rocket but as a mentor I am not going to recommend flying a K700w in a cardboard airframe with a 0.05" wall thickness unless it has a fibreglass wrap and most consumers are not setup to do that at home. This is not about what you can and can't do it's about giving consumers the choice. I purchased a 4" scale rocket kit last year knowing it was a cardboard airframe and plywood fins but I am happy with the choice because I wanted it as part of my fleet and because I am only planning to fly it at our annual public events on a J motor.

Is there some past history that gives you specific concerns? Because there have been a series of anecdotal reports of success in this thread, but none of failure.

 

[John Kemker]

Obviously nothing is stopping you flying a K motor in a cardboard airframe rocket but as a mentor I am not going to recommend flying a K700w in a cardboard airframe with a 0.05" wall thickness unless it has a fibreglass wrap and most consumers are not setup to do that at home. This is not about what you can and can't do it's about giving consumers the choice. I purchased a 4" scale rocket kit last year knowing it was a cardboard airframe and plywood fins but I am happy with the choice because I wanted it as part of my fleet and because I am only planning to fly it at our annual public events on a J motor.

Methinks you're overthinking and overengineering. You're creating a problem in your mind that does not exist in reality.

 

[David_Stack]

What I am suggesting here will actually be a win win for suppliers like LOC that offer upgrades on many kits as they will sell more upgrades once people know what they are getting in the 'base' model.

I'm curious what these LOC 'upgrades' are that you are alluding to...

When I look at the LOC Precision web site (admittedly, I only looked at their 4" diameter kits), the only 'options' that I see available are applicable to desired motor mount size, and in a few limited instances, the ability to select a Quantum tube airframe as opposed to the typical LOC cardboard tube (and that is likely only an option since LOC's recent acquisition of PML and their line of kits/materials).

 

[CoyoteNumber2]

Alex - if you feel so strongly about it, I recommend you write to the vendors that you feel cause confusion and plead your case.

I don't think a whole lot more will be accomplished with this thread.

 

[Bravo2zero]

I mentor new people into rocketry and am frustrated when they fall into the trap of purchasing a cardboard airframe rocket with a 54mm motor mount expecting it to handle a K motor. Surely in 2022 it's time for suppliers to be up front and specify the airframe material and thickness in their descriptions. Suppliers specify the airframe material when it's a stronger material but if it's cardboard or fibre the buyer is in the dark. This is a consumer rights issue because lighter materials will typically not last as long and a safety issue if you are planning to fly a high impulse motor in a rocket.

I don't have any Kit suppliers to add to the list. Do you ?

I like to know what I'm buying and it helps if the manufacturer / supplier takes the 'buyer beware' component out. Anything that helps to improve the hobby and mostly make it easier for newbies - good call!

 

[CalebJ]

I like to know what I'm buying and it helps if the manufacturer / supplier takes the 'buyer beware' component out. Anything that helps to improve the hobby and mostly make it easier for newbies - good call!

What manufacturer have you had trouble finding this information from? Every place I know to look makes this information accessible.

 

[Alex-Heffer]

What manufacturer have you had trouble finding this information from? Every place I know to look makes this information accessible.

I'm curious what these LOC 'upgrades' are that you are alluding to...

When I look at the LOC Precision web site (admittedly, I only looked at their 4" diameter kits), the only 'options' that I see available are applicable to desired motor mount size, and in a few limited instances, the ability to select a Quantum tube airframe as opposed to the typical LOC cardboard tube (and that is likely only an option since LOC's recent acquisition of PML and their line of kits/materials).

I am more familiar with LOC's PML site where many rockets have airframe upgrade options but yes the quantum tube frame upgrades on the LOC site are an example.