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

[David Schwantz]

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

I hate to say it, but some people just don't get it. That is EXACTLY what I posted for you. Just scroll down to the bottom, EVERY LOC tubing is stated with OD and ID, just subtract the difference.

 

[Alex-Heffer]

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

Name one so that I can start the list of websites who "State the airframe material on all rocket kits".

 

[David Schwantz]

I give up.

 

[CalebJ]

What? You indicated that the information is unavailable. The onus on us isn't to give you a list of every place where it -is- available. That's absurd.

 

[Alex-Heffer]

I hate to say it, but some people just don't get it. That is EXACTLY what I posted for you. Just scroll down to the bottom, EVERY LOC tubing is stated with OD and ID, just subtract the difference.

The request is for suppliers to state the airframe material on all rocket kits. Show me one cardboard kit on the LOC website that states the airframe material. Your talking about their component page not their kits.

 

[heada]

The request is for suppliers to state the airframe material on all rocket kits. Show me one cardboard kit on the LOC website that states the airframe material. Your talking about their component page not their kits.

If you are a mentor who is giving mentor-ship to others who are planning on flying K motors and you don't know what LOC kits are made from, I question if you should be mentoring anyone. Yes, classic LOC kits don't list that they're made from paper tubes because LOC has been around for decades and has been using the same tubes for decades. Anyone in the hobby that is cert L2 should know of LOC and they're materials. This isn't a failing of LOC to list that their kits are based on paper tubes. Someone brand-new to the hobby may not know of LOC and their tube type but those new to the hobby also are not building rockets for cert L2 level motors.

Within the last year LOC purchased Public Missiles (PML) and now there are 3 options for LOC; classic paper tubes, Quantum Tube (ABS I think, but a type of plastic regardless) and phenolic. QT and phenolic came from PML. Priot to the purchase of PML, for the last 2 decades at least, LOC has used paper tubes. Those paper tubes have resulted in rockets that have used M motors and beyond so the materials are fit for use.

 

[David Schwantz]

Pretty sure I know what his safety issue is.

 

[tsmith1315]

Prior to the last 2 decades at least, LOC has used paper tubes. Those paper tubes have resulted in rockets that have used M motors and beyond so the materials are fit for use

LOC has been around since the 1980's and has offered only cardboard tubes. It's a logical assumption that a LOC kit uses cardboard unless it says otherwise.

If I were to wager on what brand of airframe has launched the most K-motors over the last 35 years, I would bet on LOC. Cardboard, by default.

Since very recently acquiring PML, that line has been added to the website. Kits are clearly marked PML or LOC, though the site doesn't separate the kits into different categories.

After a brief look, LOC kits don't appear to have changed. PML kits don't appear to have changed, either. They are QT, with phenolic option on some for those who want to glass the tube.

I didn't see anything right away to hint that the two lines were mixing or sharing components. Same as it ever was, just one catalog instead of two at this point.

 

[green dragon]

Don't we generally ASSUME that ALL rocket kits are cardboard, unless specified otherwise ?

Still not sure what the big issue is here.

 

[DAllen]

I did my L3 with a cardboard kit from LOC with a M1297 so there's that...

 

[Sandy H.]

I did my L3 with a cardboard kit from LOC with a M1297 so there's that...

But the key question is: Did the kit state both the OD and the ID of the tube and what it was made from? If not then I have no idea how you pulled it off.

Sandy.

PS: And what glue did you use?

 

[Cnorm]

Name one so that I can start the list of websites who "State the airframe material on all rocket kits".

Apogee

 

[Hobie1dog]

The OP really knew how to word his first comment to get everybody completely fired up.

 

[Alex-Heffer]

If you are a mentor who is giving mentor-ship to others who are planning on flying K motors and you don't know what LOC kits are made from, I question if you should be mentoring anyone. Yes, classic LOC kits don't list that they're made from paper tubes because LOC has been around for decades and has been using the same tubes for decades. Anyone in the hobby that is cert L2 should know of LOC and they're materials. This isn't a failing of LOC to list that their kits are based on paper tubes. Someone brand-new to the hobby may not know of LOC and their tube type but those new to the hobby also are not building rockets for cert L2 level motors.

Within the last year LOC purchased Public Missiles (PML) and now there are 3 options for LOC; classic paper tubes, Quantum Tube (ABS I think, but a type of plastic regardless) and phenolic. QT and phenolic came from PML. Priot to the purchase of PML, for the last 2 decades at least, LOC has used paper tubes. Those paper tubes have resulted in rockets that have used M motors and beyond so the materials are fit for use.

Of course I know which kits have cardboard airframes. I know the secret code. If there is no airframe material description for a rocketry kit then it's a cardboard or fibre airframe. But that still does not tell me about the strength of that airframe unless I know which of the airframes listed on the airframe page are used in that model.

The very statement "Anyone who has been around for decades should know" is exactly why rocketry is struggling to grow membership. Rocketry needs to meet the needs of a new generation who want to be able to research, buy build and regularly fly a high power rocket. I am sure that motor vendors would sell a lot more motors if fewer rocket broke on landing due to paper airframes. As the membership and website person for www.nzrocktry.org.nz I started a group where we developed techniques to make it easy to build a high power rocket in a kitchen without the need for 24 fillets, sanding and painting. As a result over 40 PML 1/4 Patriots have been built. https://www.facebook.com/groups/pml.quarter.patriot

One person's opinion is not going to result in the leading suppliers moving to including the airframe description in their kits which is why I raised the question here to see what support there was for the idea.

 

[Alex-Heffer]

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

Phenolic tubing is an excellent airframe material and a good upgrade option on any design that's already using phenolic couplers.

 

[Five]

I took this screenshot from locs website. Theres the wall thickness…Read em and weep.

 

[Alex-Heffer]

LOC has been around since the 1980's and has offered only cardboard tubes. It's a logical assumption that a LOC kit uses cardboard unless it says otherwise.

If I were to wager on what brand of airframe has launched the most K-motors over the last 35 years, I would bet on LOC. Cardboard, by default.

Since very recently acquiring PML, that line has been added to the website. Kits are clearly marked PML or LOC, though the site doesn't separate the kits into different categories.

After a brief look, LOC kits don't appear to have changed. PML kits don't appear to have changed, either. They are QT, with phenolic option on some for those who want to glass the tube.

I didn't see anything right away to hint that the two lines were mixing or sharing components. Same as it ever was, just one catalog instead of two at this point.

PML don't sell cardboard or paper airframes so nothing to change there.

Remember. I buy build and fly cardboard airframes. My issue is with suppliers of high power rockets who don't specify the airframe material in their kit descriptions so that potential buyers can assess if it's suitable for their purposes.

 

[Alex-Heffer]

I took this screenshot from locs website. Theres the wall thickness…Read em and weep.

My question was that the paper/cardboard airframe kits don't specify the airframe material. Your answer is suggesting that every 4" LOC kit where the airframe material is not specified is using the exact same airframe as every other LOC 4" kit from the T-LOC through to the Black Brant X. Can you confirm that please ?

 

[Alex-Heffer]

As another OG, glassing was not common at all and is a relatively new thing. Everyone flew cardboard unless you had money and could afford a Dynacom or Dangerous Dave fg kit. There was always PML with phenolic tubing as well but it was expensive compared to Loc; just below the midrange between Loc and the aforementioned fg kit suppliers. I never owned a PML kit, never had the money.

That being said, it was not uncommon though to do fg laminate reinforcing of centering ring to MMT/fin attachments as well as glassing the initial root pass of the fin to airframe intersection. Glassing the INTERIOR of couplers was also a thing as this was a more common failure mode for higher powered flights using cardboard. This is why Loc now sells the STIFFY tubes for couplers, which are fantastic and makes for the best AV bay that exists for cardboard airframes, in my opinion. Rockets could fold in half at the coupler under high G or mach flights, so we reinforced the interior of the coupler with fg and west.

To clarify, coupler failures were not "common" occurrences. Though when there was a failure on higher powered flights, it was usually due to failure of the fin/airframe intersection root or the coupler folding in half.

Good advice thanks.

 

[Alex-Heffer]

I don't know why this has become a discussion about LOC. The first time the issue of rocketry suppliers not stating the airframe material in their kit descriptions was on on another large rocketry suppliers site. It seems to be an industry standard.

 

[DAllen]

But the key question is: Did the kit state both the OD and the ID of the tube and what it was made from? If not then I have no idea how you pulled it off.

Sandy.

PS: And what glue did you use?

I don't know if they stated the OD/ID...I've bought so many LOC kits over the years I guess I didn't care. Yes I knew exactly what I was going to get. Glue? Depends on the situation. I glassed the fin can so I used Bondo Fiberglass resin for that only because it was warm enough that I could do all of that work outside. Then since it was glassed I used Rocketpoxy for the fillets. Glassing was done because I'm not very good about transporting my rockets - not for flight stresses.

Other than that, I used Titebond II as much as possible. All three of the MMAS adapters I bought with the kit (54mm, 75mm, 98mm) were constructed entirely with wood glue along with all of the internal centering rings.

 

[Titan II]

It seems to be an industry standard.

No it is not. It is generally an industry standard to indicate the dimensions. Who are you talking about?

If someone cannot figure this out, they ought to consider another hobby.

 

[Five]

I don't know if they stated the OD/ID...I've bought so many LOC kits over the years I guess I didn't care. Yes I knew exactly what I was going to get. Glue? Depends on the situation. I glassed the fin can so I used Bondo Fiberglass resin for that only because it was warm enough that I could do all of that work outside. Then since it was glassed I used Rocketpoxy for the fillets. Glassing was done because I'm not very good about transporting my rockets - not for flight stresses.

Other than that, I used Titebond II as much as possible. All three of the MMAS adapters I bought with the kit (54mm, 75mm, 98mm) were constructed entirely with wood glue along with all of the internal centering rings.

Titebond is my “go to glue” I use for rockets along with some Gorilla superglue to tack the fins in place and Jb wield for the motor mount retainer.

 

[neil_w]

Titebond is my “go to glue” I use for rockets along with some Gorilla superglue to tack the fins in place and Jb wield for the motor mount retainer.

This has been a very weird thread so far but if it can finally morph into a glue thread then it will prove that all is right in the world.

P.S. Sandy's post was a joke.

 

[DAllen]

This has been a very weird thread so far but if it can finally morph into a glue thread then it will prove that all is right in the world.

P.S. Sandy's post was a joke.

Yeah jokes don't always translate too well over the interwebs.

 

[Alex-Heffer]

No it is not. It is generally an industry standard to indicate the dimensions. Who are you talking about?

If someone cannot figure this out, they ought to consider another hobby.

Of course an experience constructor can fly a high impulse 54mm K motor in a cardboard airframe rocket by beefing up the construction or accepting that a fin is likely to break on landing. That does not change the issue that the airframe material should be stated in the kit description. If that's not supported by the rocketry community as indicated here then the solution to guiding the newbies into the right rocket is to state the range of motors recommended by the seller as Apogee do. Quantum plastic airframes have limitations too and the PML site makes it clear what range of motors are suitable for a standard build and one with a re-enforced fin can.

 

[Arpak]

This has been a very weird thread so far but if it can finally morph into a glue thread then it will prove that all is right in the world.

P.S. Sandy's post was a joke.

I built my L1/L2 rocket entirely with 5 minute epoxy and I'm not ashamed.

 

[dhbarr]

I built my L1/L2 rocket entirely with 5 minute epoxy and I'm not ashamed.

Woodglue for L2. And a mailing tube from the UPS store with a Big Daddy nosecone. Pretty sure LOC kits are all better than that.

 

[heada]

Paper tubes are fit for purpose well into the L3 range. Plywwod fins and centering rings are also fit for purpose well into L3 range. If you don't have the skills to build a kit that uses such materials, that is not a failing of the kit nor the company but in you.

If you have your L2 cert, which is required for using K motors, and you can't determine body tube materials by sight then I question if you have the knowledge and experience to hold that L2 certification.

If you can't advise someone if a particular kit is suitable for their needs then I question if you are the correct person to be mentoring them.

 

[RokitFlyr]

Dead Horse........