I have looked at the Apogee Aspire for $20.00 and the Loc Aura for $27.00 but both have problems with fins coming off on landing, from what I have read. Is there any better choice for a similar rocket in the $30.00 or less price range ? Thanks
I have looked at the Apogee Aspire for $20.00 and the Loc Aura for $27.00 but both have problems with fins coming off on landing, from what I have read. Is there any better choice for a similar rocket in the $30.00 or less price range ? Thanks
I have looked at the Apogee Aspire for $20.00 and the Loc Aura for $27.00 but both have problems with fins coming off on landing, from what I have read. Is there any better choice for a similar rocket in the $30.00 or less price range ? Thanks
I have looked at the Apogee Aspire for $20.00 and the Loc Aura for $27.00 but both have problems with fins coming off on landing, from what I have read. Is there any better choice for a similar rocket in the $30.00 or less price range ? Thanks
Well that's why you use epoxy fillets
Well that's why you use epoxy fillets
The Estes Stormcaster is a perennial favorite. Use a C6 and get a nice low flight or load up an E30 and go for broke!
A thin (and yes, I mean thin) layer of tip to tip glass should solve that, if you don't want the additional drift caused by the slower descent rate under chute. Of course, that brings the assembly somewhat out of the "beginner" category.That helped, of course, but not near enough. This one comes down too fast on a streamer unless you are in a soft field.
Epoxy fillets just made more repairs necessary since the fin would pop taking the fillet and the underlying paper with it.
The rebuilt Aura still has epoxy fillets but no longer pops a fin every flight since getting the X chute.
A thin (and yes, I mean thin) layer of tip to tip glass should solve that, if you don't want the additional drift caused by the slower descent rate under chute. Of course, that brings the assembly somewhat out of the "beginner" category.
Tip-to-tip would be horrific overkill on an Aura.
If you wanted to reinforce the fins, a 1" wide strip of fiberglass at the fin roots would be more than sufficient to do the job.
-Kevin
I'll second the Stormcaster. I put mine into orbit on a F24W. It went up and never came down! Had to be in orbit, right?
Horrific? I was thinking a single layer of 1.5-2oz glass. I doubt if you'd add more than half an ounce of weight to the rocket if you don't horribly overuse the epoxy.
I'll third the Stormcaster. It's only $11 at Hobbylinc.com, has through the wall fins, and if you use an E motor hook instead of the included D hook, you can use D12 or E9 motors. It's a light rocket, and should fly pretty high on an E9. You could also use Aerotech E15 or E30 motors for really high flights.I'll second the Stormcaster. I put mine into orbit on a F24W. It went up and never came down! Had to be in orbit, right?
Or go into orbit on an F24W! :eyepop:
According to Estes, the dry weight on the Stormcaster is only 2.9oz. I'm pretty sure that F24 propelled your Stormcaster to well above escape velocity. It's probably half way to Saturn by now!
Yep, horrific.
Tip-to-tip fiberglassing has got to be one of the most over-used construction techniques.
I'm not sure exactly when the fetish for lots of composites started, but the hobby sure seems to have it, and have it bad.
Fin flutter is hardly an issue on an Aura, especially on mid-power motors, so there's no need for anything beyond a bit of reinforcement at the fin root, to help reduce problems due to landing damage. And those can be mitigated by using a parachute instead of a streamer.
-Kevin
Thin fiberglass should give you significantly more strength for a given amount of additional weight than cardstock, and I prefer working with fiberglass. You'd be amazed how much strength a single, lightweight "veil" layer of fiberglass will add when used tip to tip over balsa.I'm really not trying to join this particular debate, but I do have a couple of questions. First, at what point does a superlight veil of fiberglass cease to have any advantages over more humble materials like Tyvek or cardstock?
Yes. I would make the case that when it is thin, it matters more. When you use thick, heavy reinforcement layers, almost anything will be strong enough, simply because you're using so much of it. When you use a thin layer however, it means that the stress needs to be supported by a much thinner reinforcement, so you need a higher strength material. I'd be stunned if gauze (to take one of your examples) could come close to the reinforcing capability of .5-1oz fiberglass, and it would probably soak up more epoxy/glue during application as well (making the finished product heavier)IOW, when the FG used in the lamination is quite thin and light, does it really add significantly more strength than, say, Tyvek, cardstock, silkspan or even gauze? When you get down to that thin of a reinforcement layer, does it really matter which one of the commonly used reinforcing materials you go with?
Second, fusing items together so that they function as a single unit - isn't that the definition of bonding? As in, when you bond fins to the bottom of an airframe, you transform the fin set and the airframe into a single unit, don't you? Reinforcing the joints strengthens them, but even if they are bonded together without laminations for extra strength, the end result is a single unit anyway, right?
Mark K.
Thanks; that explains it well for me. Where can a person buy such lightweight FG fabric? And is that the lightest version that is available?
Mark K.
Enter your email address to join: