New Motors Certified, November 1, 2022

[Alan Whitmore]

On October 26, 2022, TMT met and certified two "new" 29mm single use motors, the Classic Enerjet by Aerotech E24C and F67C. They are newer versions of two older Enerjet motors that were produced many years ago but have been OOP for a while. The "C" propellant is no- (or very low-) metals and has a clear flame with essentially no smoke. On a very humid day, such as the conditions on our test day, you can see a lot of water vapor condensing on the HCl in the exhaust, but on a dry day these motors will be essentially smokeless.
Details will be found on www.thrustcurve.org soon.

Alan Whitmore
Chair, TMT

 

[mikec]

It's going to be a bit confusing having two 29mm SU F67s from Aerotech with different propellants, but that's the way it goes, I guess.

 

[waltr]

It's going to be a bit confusing having two 29mm SU F67s from Aerotech with different propellants, but that's the way it goes, I guess.

Yes, and being the F67C seems to have a AVERAGE Thrust of 60N maybe it should have been an F60C.

 

[jmasterj]

It's going to be a bit confusing having two 29mm SU F67s from Aerotech with different propellants, but that's the way it goes, I guess.

Just remember the propellant designation that AT handily includes in their motor designations (join the club, other major motor manufacturer) and F67W and F67C can be separated more easily.

 

[ThirstyBarbarian]

It's going to be a bit confusing having two 29mm SU F67s from Aerotech with different propellants, but that's the way it goes, I guess.

Ugh. I thought exactly the same thing. Aerotech is notorious for confusing branding screw-ups, and this is another example. I thought they were trying to clean up some of their previous screw-ups by consolidating all the sub-brands of EconoMax, Econojet, and the other types sold in the 2-packs under the Enerjet label. So now they are going to have two Enerjet F67s? That’s the dumbest thing I’ve ever heard. Does Aerotech even have a marketing department? It doesn’t seem like it.

Also, I personally have zero interest in a flameless, smokeless motor. I know that others might like it. But for me, smoke and flame are why I’m in the hobby. If I were into levitation, I’d take up magic.

 

[jmasterj]

The lack of smoke and flame make these less interesting to me as well. I have a couple F52Cs to fly to confirm my interest level in this propellant.

 

[Theory]

Flew my first F52 classic a few weeks ago.

Zero smoke and practically no flame. Just uploaded a video taken from the pad:

 

[cwbullet]

It's going to be a bit confusing having two 29mm SU F67s from Aerotech with different propellants, but that's the way it goes, I guess.

I am just glad to have options.

 

[Antares JS]

The lack of smoke and flame make these less interesting to me as well. I have a couple F52Cs to fly to confirm my interest level in this propellant.

It's actually a neat effect. There is a bright smokeless glow coming from the nozzle and it looks a bit like a hydrolox engine burning.

 

[Wayco]

I am just glad to have options.

I'm with Chuck on this. I've been flying the F35 in my D Region Tomahawk for years now. Back then there weren't many reloads for that case. Today I noticed that Theory posted up a picture of his rocket on an F63.

Now I'm checking my motor list and see that I have three of these that I have never flown, a mistake I will quickly remedy.
Not much impressed with the F52 though.

 

[Sooner Boomer]

There are engines I choose because of their performance in a certain rocket. There are engines I choose because of the exhaust effect, for example spools on a smokey motor. It's good to have choices.

 

[AeroTech]

Ugh. I thought exactly the same thing. Aerotech is notorious for confusing branding screw-ups, and this is another example. I thought they were trying to clean up some of their previous screw-ups by consolidating all the sub-brands of EconoMax, Econojet, and the other types sold in the 2-packs under the Enerjet label. So now they are going to have two Enerjet F67s? That’s the dumbest thing I’ve ever heard. Does Aerotech even have a marketing department? It doesn’t seem like it.

Also, I personally have zero interest in a flameless, smokeless motor. I know that others might like it. But for me, smoke and flame are why I’m in the hobby. If I were into levitation, I’d take up magic.

The branding is evolving. Stay tuned.

There is always a market for nostalgia. The F52C is actually selling pretty well, but we know they’re not for everyone. Like others have said, it’s nice to have choices.

 

[Theory]

Zero issues with the F52 flight. Different yes, but then different is good.

The new 29mm E24 fills a spot regardless of the exhaust produced...

 

[AeroTech]

It's actually a neat effect. There is a bright smokeless glow coming from the nozzle and it looks a bit like a hydrolox engine burning.

That’s exactly the effect we were after. It’s more difficult with HTPB binder because the polyglycol polyurethane binder of the original Enerjets had oxygen in the molecule and could produce the effect with a lower solids loading.

 

[DigBaddy]

@AeroTech Details on the F67C show 37g of propellant, but Thrustcurve shows them as hazmat exempt. Are they exempt? If so, very cool.

 

[AeroTech]

@AeroTech Details on the F67C show 37g of propellant, but Thrustcurve shows them as hazmat exempt. Are they exempt? If so, very cool.

Unfortunately not. We were trying to get close to a full 'F' impulse and that requires more than 30 grams of propellant.

 

[jmasterj]

@AeroTech Details on the F67C show 37g of propellant, but Thrustcurve shows them as hazmat exempt. Are they exempt? If so, very cool.

That's probably a result of the tagging system and the F67W being haz-free. I reported a similar issue with a pair of CTI Hs a few months back and John fixed it very quickly.

Unfortunately not. We were trying to get close to a full 'F' impulse and that requires more than 30 grams of propellant.

The haz shipping is why I don't fly many big Fs; smaller Fs and smaller Gs can be had haz-free, so I gravitate toward those.

 

[DigBaddy]

Good info. Still will be easy to grab these new F67Cs at a launch from Wildman. So no biggy, glad to get clarity on that

 

[Rocketjunkie]

Also, I personally have zero interest in a flameless, smokeless motor. I know that others might like it. But for me, smoke and flame are why I’m in the hobby. If I were into levitation, I’d take up magic.

The original Enerjets had zero smoke, just a bright spot at the rear of the rocket. The classic propellant is to replicate this. Originally, the E24 and F52 were ship-able by USPS (under 25g propellant) and the F67 had to go by bus (about $7). They were priced at $4, $5, and $6 when Estes motors were $1 per pack of 3. The F52 was only 50 N-s and I never flew them. All were 29 mm.

 

[AeroTech]

The original Enerjets had zero smoke, just a bright spot at the rear of the rocket. The classic propellant is to replicate this. Originally, the E24 and F52 were ship-able by USPS (under 25g propellant) and the F67 had to go by bus (about $7). They were priced at $4, $5, and $6 when Estes motors were $1 per pack of 3. The F52 was only 50 N-s and I never flew them. All were 29 mm.

I flew a good number of Enerjets. The F52s were punchy, but had a short burn time.

 

[Bill S]

I was looking at the F67C on Thrustcurve's website, and there only appears to be an .eng file for it, not an .rse (using Rocksim 10). Anyone know where to get an .rse file for it so I can sim it?

 

[Rocketjunkie]

I was looking at the F67C on Thrustcurve's website, and there only appears to be an .eng file for it, not an .rse (using Rocksim 10). Anyone know where to get an .rse file for it so I can sim it?

Rocksim's engine editor will convert an .eng file to .rse. Version 7 would accept .eng files.