Mach 1 and 10,000 ft on Estes Black Powder Motors?

[Chuck Rogers]

To All:


Inspired by lr64's 'is it possible to go supersonic on an Estes black powder motor' thread:

https://www.rocketryforum.com/threa...rsonic-on-an-estes-motor.186994/#post-2598528


And Flight Systems Incorporated (FSI) minimum diameter F100 and F7 rockets I built and flew when I was 16-18 years old;


I've asked the following question. Is it possible to go supersonic (exceed Mach 1) using Estes black powder motors? A corollary question is; is it possible to exceed 10,000 ft using Estes black powder motors?


When I was 16-18 years old, I'd fly minimum diameter multi-stage FSI F100 and F7 motors. A photo of one is below, including a young yours truly. The photo is from something like 1975-1977. The rocket is a minimum diameter F100-0 staged to a F100-0 staged to an F7, for maximum altitude. What could a similar rocket do, using Estes F15 black powder motors, and it turns out, Estes E16 black powder motors?





I wanted to start with a realistic design, not a motor with a nose cone on from of the motor, but an actual workable rocket design. From initial RASAero II flight simulation runs, it became quickly apparent that the rocket would have to be a multi-stage rocket. There are of course Estes F15-0 and E16-0 booster motors available.


For a realistic upper stage, I used Adrian Adamson's Aerotech F10 rocket, the flight of which was described in this thread:

https://www.rocketryforum.com/threads/taking-a-shot-at-the-g-record.176171/


Adrian's rocket for the F10 flight, inputted into the RASAero II software, is shown below.





The boattail is removed, and the motor is extended down 1.0 inches to slide into the top of the booster, and that is the upper stage.

Of course it seems odd to use such advanced construction techniques as Adrian used for the rocket, and then use Estes black powder motors to power it. But to exceed Mach 1 and/or exceed 10,000 ft altitude above the launch site, weight will be critical. Adrian's rocket is a built and flown rocket, very light-weight, with very thin fins. The upper stage would carry Adrian's Featherweight instrumentation package, just like the original F10 version of the rocket did.

Adrian's F10 rocket launch weight was 0.36 lbs, you subtract out the Aerotech F10 motor weight, and the rocket empty weight (no motor) is 0.177 lbs. Then you add the Estes black powder motor upper stage for the initial weight.

For the boosters, I assumed that the booster empty (no motor) weight was one quarter of the upper stage weight, one quarter of 0.177 lbs, or 0.044 lbs.

As recommended by others, I used an Estes E16 for the first stage, as it was recommended that the Estes F15 would be a little low on initial thrust for a multi-stage rocket. When you compare the thrust curves at thrustcurve.org, the Estes F15 doesn't have appreciably lower thrust during the initial part of the motor burn, it does have lower thrust during the "sustain" portion of the black powder "boost-sustain" thrust curve. But additionally, the Estes F15 does weigh 18 grams more than the Estes E16; this all adds up to the Estes E16 being best for Stage-1.


The rocket configuration is shown below, the RASAero II .CDX1 rocket file is also attached. It was assumed that the rocket would be tower launched, and Black Rock launch site conditions were used for the RASAero II flight simulation. Note that you'll have to add the Estes E16 and F15 thrust curves from the thrustcurve.org website to the RASAero II rasp.eng file, see Pages 93-97 in the RASAero II Users Manual for editing the rasp.eng file or reading data from additional rasp.eng files. The rocket is a three-stage rocket. The straight fins on Stage-1 and Stage-2 are for tumble recovery of the stages after separation from the next stage up. Only the fins on Stage-3 need to be swept, the Mach numbers are low enough on Stage-1 and Stage-2 that straight (unswept) fins can be used.





The results? For an E16-0 staged to an F15-0 staged to an F15-8, you can't quite get past Mach 1.0, the maximum Mach number is Mach 0.95. You also can't quite get over 10,000 ft. The altitude in the flight simulation at apogee is just over 10,000 ft, but the F15-8 ejection charge will go off 17.01 seconds after lift-off. At time = 17.01 sec the altitude is 9,129 ft, the velocity is 271 ft/sec, so perhaps a streamer could be used and the high risk that a "zipper" will occur could be accepted. But still, using Estes model rocket black powder motors, Mach 0.95 and 9,129 ft altitude is very impressive.








For an F15-0 staged to an F15-0 staged to an F15-8, the maximum Mach number is Mach 0.97, and when the F15-8 ejection charge goes off at time = 18.37 sec, the altitude is 9,807 ft. The .CDX1 file for this flight is attached below. There is a similar "zipper problem" as the velocity when the F15-8 ejection charge goes off is 277 ft/sec. As others have noted, this flight could require a long launch tower as an F15-0 is used for Stage-1.








As I'm busy doing analysis projects and writing projects, I won't be building this rocket. But I think this rocket or a similar rocket would be a really neat rocket to build and fly, an Estes black powder model rocket that would reach almost Mach 1 and almost 10,000 ft in altitude.



Charles E. (Chuck) Rogers

 

[bad_idea]

What about using a -0 motor in the upper stage and an Adrel MaxDeploy for ejection? Have a bulkhead ahead of the motor, stuff with wadding, then friction fit?

 

[neil_w]

Very interesting exercise, thanks for sharing! This would indeed be an incredibly interesting rocket for someone to actually build and fly.

 

[Chuck Rogers]

What about using a -0 motor in the upper stage and an Adrel MaxDeploy for ejection? Have a bulkhead ahead of the motor, stuff with wadding, then friction fit?

It would depend on whether you would want the rocket to be pretty much a "stock" Estes rocket, "stock" except for the advanced structural components.

You could even imagine building this rocket with "stock" Estes components, with thicker fins and a higher structural weight, and thus lower performance.

You could even imagine lengthening the upper stage, possibly increasing the diameter of the rocket; for Estes to make an E16-F15-F15 3-stage rocket kit.


Charles E. (Chuck) Rogers

 

[KenECoyote]

I saw something on FB Rocketry Yard Sale that made me wonder if they were trying for something like this...

 

[lr64]

Mach 1 isn't easy with Estes motors, but from noodling around on Openrocket it seems that some other commercially available motors with no more impulse could do the job.

If using a motor with insufficient delay, one could always vent the eject charge and use electronic ignition. A tissue covering could reduce drag until the charge went off. If electronics are to be avoided, it might be possible to use a small, relatively low-thrust motor as a delay.

If you didn't want to use a quasi infinite number of stages, perhaps one could use clustered motors, ignited in pairs, for the sustainer. But now we're probably back to electronics, or at least fuses.

 

[cwbullet]

Subscribed.

 

[lr64]

I had something in Openrocket that would break Mach 1 with a single stage, but then I found out the E30 isn't black powder.

 

[sr205347d]

as it was recommended that the Estes F15 would be a little low on initial thrust for a multi-stage rocket.

Cluster the first stage. This rocket used five D12s. You could scale this up to use F15s. Don't know how high this one went. (Not mine.)

 

[Spacedog49Krell]

If Estes replaced 5%-7% of the KN with KP in the formulation, their black powder motors would have the exhaust velocity to go supersonic.

 

[SolarYellow]

Cluster the first stage. This rocket used five D12s. You could scale this up to use F15s. Don't know how high this one went. (Not mine.)

View attachment 653316View attachment 653317

Someone posted those pics several weeks ago, logically you.

I'm trying to figure out how it works. I'm thinking both pods have to be ignited at liftoff. The green one has a short delay motor so it ejects shortly after first stage separation. The yellow one must have a longer delay, and just be along for the ride during the second stage burn, until it ejects to recover the stage. Perhaps the inner portion gets a little crispy?

That got me thinking at the time. Cluster pods can definitely address the issue of the "low & slow" initial thrust of the E16/F15 motors.

I like A10-PT for early-thrust supplementation. They have a lot of thrust really fast (for their size, at least) and the absence of delay and ejection charge minimizes weight.

 

[sr205347d]

Someone posted those pics several weeks ago, logically you.

It was I.

I'm trying to figure out how it works. I'm thinking both pods have to be ignited at liftoff. The green one has a short delay motor so it ejects shortly after first stage separation. The yellow one must have a longer delay, and just be along for the ride during the second stage burn, until it ejects to recover the stage. Perhaps the inner portion gets a little crispy?

That is my guess. At the time, I didn't ask him to explain it. I will tomorrow.

I like A10-PT for early-thrust supplementation. They have a lot of thrust really fast (for their size, at least) and the absence of delay and ejection charge minimizes weight.

I put two A10-3s in the back of my Great Goblin for that reason. I left out the rear centering ring, and the ejection charges just vent out the back.

https://www.rocketryforum.com/threads/not-enough-thrust-from-bp.184476/post-2541752

https://www.rocketryforum.com/threads/not-enough-thrust-from-bp.184476/post-2548294

 

[sr205347d]

For reliably igniting BP clusters, I recommend MJG BP Rocket Starters.

 

[ljwilley]

Good luck!

 

[Adrian A]

Four stages!

 

[Alan15578]

I'll play along. My first problem is that you posted in the MPR area. This is clearly not just HPR, but it exceeds FAA Class 1.

I thought the challenge or question was about the possibility of exceeding Mach 1 or 10,000 feet using BP Estes motors. I thought this was to be limited to MR, and not not necessarily achieved on the same flight, or even with the same rocket. You have made the challenge much more difficult.

OK, I get that this is a nostalgia thing for flying your F100-F100-F7 rocket back before HPR even existed. I hope that you at least flew with an FAA waiver. It does explain why you are considering three stage 29mm Estes motors. Even though this is mostly a simulation thought experiment, I'd like to push it back to the MR domain, and encourage the youth to participate.

I have not run any sims or serious analysis on this challenge. I suspect that your velocity could be marginally increased by swapping the E16 to the final stage. If your launch tower is too short for the F15 first stage, add a piston launcher, or add a pack or two of A10s to the booster stage and use a launch rod. Just don't put a lug on the top stage.

M1 is the hardest challenge. Your velocity curve suggests it is not drag limited, but I nave not seen your Cd Vs. Mach curve. You could try redesigning the upper stage to flatten the Cd spike and shift it to a higher speed. And of course you could cheat and fly at extreme conditions of altitude and temperature.

I think there is more scope for just maximizing altitude using Estes motors. For starters, replace the F15-0 with the F15-4. Consider also using 24mm motors like the E12 in minimum diameter airframes. If we ever get the 24mm Estes E58, it could be just the ticket to pushing an upper stage supersonic.

As for nostalgia, I had a role in pushing the MR 80NS record to M1.42. I designed and flew a three stage minimum diameter D12+2xC6/D12/D12-7 rocket, but the upper stage fins folded. This was in preparation for an F B/G record attempt at NARAM-14 before the return rule was changed. It would have been an easy fix but I came to my senses and redesigned to simply use an F100. I had the record but then elected not to file with the burdensome filing requirements of the day.

 

[J Blatz]

Nice to see you here Chuck.

Interesting overview of what should be possible.

 

[Chuck Rogers]

I'll play along. My first problem is that you posted in the MPR area. This is clearly not just HPR, but it exceeds FAA Class 1.

I looked up the sub-headings under the various thread heading areas, and for Mid Power Rocketry (MPR) it had "Rockets using motors from E through G impulse", which I took to mean that it would include E and F motors. But it looks like it really is "total impulse adding up to E through G total impulse". I wouldn't go change the sub-heading, this rocket was a special case, and the thread can certainly be moved to somewhere else more appropriate.

I was about to run a 3 Estes E16 first stage, to an F15 second stage, to an F15 third stage. And based on feedback here, recommend that the third stage ejection charge be removed and electronic controlled ejection be used. So technically that would be modifying the upper stage motor.

I guess I'd like The Rocketry Forum Administrator to move this thread to another area, High Power Rocketry?, Research?, if they feel there is a more appropriate area for this thread


Charles E. (Chuck) Rogers

 

[sr205347d]

And based on feedback here, recommend that the third stage ejection charge be removed and electronic controlled ejection be used. So technically that would be modifying the upper stage motor.

If you don't want to vent the third stage ejection charge, what about letting it separate and having the "fourth stage" continue on as an unpowered dart, with electronic deployment.

 

[lr64]

If Estes replaced 5%-7% of the KN with KP in the formulation, their black powder motors would have the exhaust velocity to go supersonic.

Of course, that wouldn't cause more CATOs. ;-p

As long as you're changing chemicals, there are their Pro series composite motors. I don't know if they are still made, but I see vendors that list them.

-------------

BTW, it seems like the motor requirements for high altitude are almost diametrically opposed to those for maximum speed. Except maybe in the case of a dart.

 

[lr64]

I looked up the sub-headings under the various thread heading areas, and for Mid Power Rocketry (MPR) it had "Rockets using motors from E through G impulse", which I took to mean that it would include E and F motors. But it looks like it really is "total impulse adding up to E through G total impulse". I wouldn't go change the sub-heading, this rocket was a special case, and the thread can certainly be moved to somewhere else more appropriate.

I was about to run a 3 Estes E16 first stage, to an F15 second stage, to an F15 third stage. And based on feedback here, recommend that the third stage ejection charge be removed and electronic controlled ejection be used. So technically that would be modifying the upper stage motor.

I guess I'd like The Rocketry Forum Administrator to move this thread to another area, High Power Rocketry?, Research?, if they feel there is a more appropriate area for this thread


Charles E. (Chuck) Rogers

Are we SURE we can't do it with a total impulse of less than 160 N-s?

If I'm not mistaken, low power*combinations with Estes black powder motors would include:
F15/F15
F15/E16/D12
E16/E16/E16

I've been messing around with Openrocket and failing to get above Mach 1 with these, but perhaps there are tricks Openrocket doesn't know.

*Going by no more than 160 N-s total, and 4.5 oz. propellant total

 

[Chuck Rogers]

Are we SURE we can't do it with a total impulse of less than 160 N-s?

With Estes black powder rocket motors, it looks like No.

With composite propellant rocket motors, Yes. A tower-launched high average thrust 29 mm G motor will go supersonic in a minimum diameter rocket. Semi-barely supersonic, but supersonic.

Apogee claims the Apogee Aspire will go supersonic with a high average thrust G motor. I haven't run the flight simulations, but I agree that this is a credible claim. In fact somone should fly an a tower-launched Aspire on a high thrust G motor with a Featherweight instrumentation package and confirm that it actually goes supersonic. (Apologies if someone has already done this and published the flight data). Links to the Apogee web site on the Aspire are below.

https://www.apogeerockets.com/Rocket-Kits/Skill-Level-2-Model-Rocket-Kits/Aspire

https://www.apogeerockets.com/Rocke.../Take_Your_Apogee_Aspire_to_Supersonic_Speeds


Charles E. (Chuck) Rogers

 

[Chuck Rogers]

Are we SURE we can't do it with a total impulse of less than 160 N-s?

As an example, the AeroTech single-use G125T has a total impulse of 128 NS, under 160 NS.


Charles E. (Chuck) Rogers

 

[Alan15578]

I looked up the sub-headings under the various thread heading areas, and for Mid Power Rocketry (MPR) it had "Rockets using motors from E through G impulse", which I took to mean that it would include E and F motors. But it looks like it really is "total impulse adding up to E through G total impulse". I wouldn't go change the sub-heading, this rocket was a special case, and the thread can certainly be moved to somewhere else more appropriate.

I was about to run a 3 Estes E16 first stage, to an F15 second stage, to an F15 third stage. And based on feedback here, recommend that the third stage ejection charge be removed and electronic controlled ejection be used. So technically that would be modifying the upper stage motor.

I guess I'd like The Rocketry Forum Administrator to move this thread to another area, High Power Rocketry?, Research?, if they feel there is a more appropriate area for this thread


Charles E. (Chuck) Rogers

That's fair. MR MPR, and HPR sub-headings are just a TRF made up thing. Still, I think anything that would require an HPR certification or FAA waiver should be in the HPR group. Because of the classification difficulty, it should probably be in the Watering Hole. Research would be over reaching and limit participation.

I'd like to see the challenge restricted to 125 grams of propellant (BP), but I did not start the challenge, so perhaps we could do both.

On a related matter, Estes limits their motors to 62.5 grams of propellant. But how much higher could they go with the 29mm casing and the same packing machine?

 

[SolarYellow]

Apogee claims the Apogee Aspire will go supersonic with a high average thrust G motor. I haven't run the flight simulations, but I agree that this is a credible claim. In fact somone should fly an a tower-launched Aspire on a high thrust G motor with a Featherweight instrumentation package and confirm that it actually goes supersonic. (Apologies if someone has already done this and published the flight data). Links to the Apogee web site on the Aspire are below.

https://www.apogeerockets.com/Rocket-Kits/Skill-Level-2-Model-Rocket-Kits/Aspire

https://www.apogeerockets.com/Rocke.../Take_Your_Apogee_Aspire_to_Supersonic_Speeds

Another rocket that, like the Star Orbiter, would be much better if built with only one of the included body tubes.

Or you could just go with this one:

https://www.acsupplyco.com/quest-1020

Revives a concept discussed briefly last year, the "G80 Challenge." Maximum apogee with a G80. If we could agree on acceptable instrumentation, there could be a velocity objective as well.

 

[Rocketjunkie]

Have you tried a drag optimized rack rocket? I build them for fun. They are not optimized just single use.
Cost about $5 for the rocket, $60 for the motors.
Flew one at the last launch
Pic from construction

 

[lr64]

If we can believe Openrocket, you can go Mach 1.08 with 34 N-s. That is, with a Quest E35W-11 in a minimal rocket. Nowhere near 10,000 feet, though, nor is it black powder.

 

[lr64]

Does the rack rocket eject each motor in turn, except for the last one? Do the motors each have recovery devices? Was that last burn as near horizontal as it looks in the video?

 

[Initiator001]

Chuck,

Did you attend the 'Velocity Trials' night launch outside of Las Vegas about thirty years ago?
It was run by Scott Pearce and myself.

I flew an unpainted but smooth finished FSI Mach-1 model.
First stage was a F100-0 (E60-0) to a D20 upper stage. Both motors were black powder.
The second stage did not ignite but Scott was able to reduce the data on the first stage burn and came up with a velocity of 460 MPH.

 

[Adrian A]

With composite propellant rocket motors, Yes. A tower-launched high average thrust 29 mm G motor will go supersonic in a minimum diameter rocket. Semi-barely supersonic, but supersonic.

<raises hand>

I can confirm a G80 will do it.