Painting lighter

The Rocketry Forum

Help Support The Rocketry Forum:

This site may earn a commission from merchant affiliate links, including eBay, Amazon, and others.

SolarYellow

Basket of deployables.
TRF Supporter
Joined
Aug 6, 2022
Messages
3,089
Reaction score
2,770
Location
First country to put a man on the moon.
Started this in someone's build thread, but it's not really specific to that model, so posting in Techniques instead.

I'm sort of working on a program to try different painting procedures to minimize weight but still get the smoothness I want. Kind of waffle on how seriously to pursue it, though, because it's a ton of sanding, no matter what, and I hate sanding.

I think the next rocket I do, I'll follow @hcmbanjo's method the way I understand it. That is, before doing anything else, CWF or equivalent in the spirals, block it down flat, and then filler primer on the bare tube, blocked down until it's spotty into the glassine, roughly 50-50. Sand the filler primer off the bonding areas where you're going to glue and fillet fins. Similar on the fins: CWF and block flat, then filler primer and block back down flat before gluing. After gluing and fillets, sand the fillets, apply primer, and hopefully it's all smooth enough for paint.

Based on my experience so far, I pretty much expect to need another layer of filler primer at that point, at least in some areas to get them smooth, and then that means another layer of primer to make a consistent undercoat if using anything but dark colors. Which is where the weight builds up.

I did come up with today's Tips and Technique of the Day post: https://www.rocketryforum.com/threa...-of-the-day-thread.177679/page-5#post-2442953

So far, I'm using Acryli-Quik, which goes on nicely, but I don't know how much weight it's adding vs. other paints with similar covering ability.

I have used Rusto filler primer with AQ white primer under all my colors. I find the color over the grey filler primer is noticeably different, even with medium-hue colors, so every time there's RFP added, I have to add some white primer. Splotches are no good and require additional color coat to hide. So it's kind of a wash, except that it's easier logistically to buy a lot of the primer that's used on everything and less of each color.

One thing I have found is that the AQ primer is really good at locking any fibers that are raised by sanding the cardboard. 400 grit dry and you have a smooth surface to work with. So far, this has been my procedure:
  • CWF or equivalent on spirals and grain
  • white primer, dry sanding
  • Rusto filler primer, and sand (dry, or wet if possible)
This is where I've made progress, going from just sanding the RFP to be smooth, to basically knocking it down until the white is starting to show through all over the place. I did find on a nose cone that if I kept sanding until I had mostly the AQ white primer showing, the spots that were RFP had gotten lower than the surrounding AQ primer and I had to go another round with the RFP to level everything up. So just far enough to know that I've gotten through most of the RFP thickness, but still mostly RFP on the surface, seems to be optimum.​
  • white primer
After this is where I used the brush-on RFP technique, and was able to knock those spots down waaaay faster than if I'd sprayed RFP over larger areas.​
  • white primer in patches to cover over RFP spots
  • dry sand
  • color

I'm not sure how much hcmbanjo's procedure will save. Maybe one layer of primer if the first layer post-assembly ends up being smooth enough. But I can totally see needing another layer of FP after that.

I'm also going to try eRockets sanding sealer to see if it lets me get this done with less total sanding of the wood parts.

Would love it if Chris would come in and explain how many and what layers he finds are usually required.
 
I'm sort of working on a program to try different painting procedures to minimize weight but still get the smoothness I want. Kind of waffle on how seriously to pursue it, though, because it's a ton of sanding, no matter what, and I hate sanding.

You don't seem to be asking any questions, so I am not providing you with answers. Maybe I can provide some comments to help you solidify your thoughts and feelings about what you are trying to accomplish.

It seems to me that you need to settle on what your intentions are, and commit to that. Chris builds models and then sells them to people who want a good-looking model rocket built by an expert. His model rockets have to look good. If you want to duplicate his process, I don't think you are going to find any real short cuts to what he already does. Thorough surface prep involves time. If you hate sanding, and want to minimize sanding, you may have to drop your standards. Otherwise, learn to love sanding.

Consider from what distance you want to make your work look good. From 3-4 feet away? Sitting on the launch pad 15-feet away? Or do you want to cover every flaw visible from close inspection? Are you building a flier, or a display model?
 
If you hate sanding, and want to minimize sanding, you may have to drop your standards. Otherwise, learn to love sanding.
It is axiomatic that the better finish you want, the more sanding you have to do, and (usually) the more separate paint steps you need to do.

I am only willing to do a certain amount of either (sanding or paint steps) and so I live with imperfect finishes. They look nice enough but do not stand up well to up-close scrutiny. The occasions when I decided to put in the extra effort always yield measurably better results. It's a choice.

I suspect that the exact sequence to achieve the best balance of effort/results will vary for each builder. I follow a sequence that is pretty close to Chris's, and it works fine. But you'll note, if you read his blog, that he frequently mentions needing to do additional rounds of sanding, filler/primer, and/or top coats to deal with discovered imperfections. It's pretty difficult to get everything perfect in one sequence, every time, especially when dealing with LPR models with complex geometry. It's a little less fraught with larger and/or simpler rockets, where you don't need to fight with small nooks and crannies.
 
Besides liking rockets that look good, my goal is to optimize apogee performance. That means minimum drag, so the smoothest possible paint with few/no/smallest possible flaws. But at the LPR end of things (70mm long BP motors), it also means minimum weight. So I'm trading off one against the other. Looking for how to get the best finish with the least weight.

With more higher total impulse, higher-thrust motors and small, aerodynamic rockets, you tend to end up below optimum weight, sometimes quite a bit below, so adding more material for a smoother finish is a win-win.

As far as not asking questions, I guess I am just looking to get a conversation started. Would like to hear anyone's comments, especially about documented procedures including weighing with a gram scale to determine results, or techniques that have shown a reliable tendency in the direction of smoother finish, covering the lumpiness of cardboard tubes and the grain of wood with fewer/thinner layers of material. I've read the RocketN00b stuff and a bunch of threads on papering fins and the associated weight.

I do have strong tendencies in the direction of, "If I'm going to build it, it's going to be the nicest one of those things I've seen." ...or at least as close as I can get. I hate looking at something I've made and thinking, "If only I'd taken the time to get after that one detail..."
 
Well, from experience I can say the following: DARK COLORS can be sprayed on much more lightly than light or bright colors. You can also sand down flat black pretty easily, and then give it a light coating of gloss for a smoother finish if that's what you're after. If you're doing this for altitude junkie reasons, then don't worry that your paint job is perfect (how it looks), be more concerned about absoulte smoothness and fit with zero gaps, so the boundary layer has nothing to induce drag against.
 
One possibility to get a better finish with less effort is to use an airbrush. I've never used an airbrush on a model rocket (yet, but that'll soon change), but I have on a model submarine (3 or so inches in diameter and about 24 inches long) and it was super easy to get a perfect coat (compared to a rattle can).

Using an airbrush might not save weight (although it could), but it should save some time and effort.
 
Unless you are building a competition rocket, "Painting Lighter" isn't really a factor. The weight of the paint is insignificant when compared to all the other components. The added weight of CWF, Primer and Paint might scrub off a few feet of apogee... but who cares?

If you are building a competition rocket... it seems like clear coating the raw rocket would be the lightest option. You'd get a good smooth surface finish with minimal weight.

Thoughts?
 
And speaking of Altitude Junkies, I am working on something like that. I've built an Estes Star Orbiter, which is the smallest, lightest rocket anybody makes that can take a big motor (well, if you think that 29mm is big).... HOWEVER, the problem with the Star Orbiter is; bult stock, it will fold under a punchy F motor, never mind trying to fly on a G or Baby H.... So, I wrapped the body tube with 1.5oz fiberglass, papered the fins with cardstock, and have been working to smooth it down after all that. It doesn't weigh all that much but is definitely much stronger than it would have been stock, and I just know that shoving a G in that rocket means I'm never getting it back, even if it does survive the launch, but I'm thinking a small tracker might allow me recover and I'll under-'chute it (12" chute might as well just be a streamer), so, that's the route I am taking.
 
And speaking of Altitude Junkies, I am working on something like that. I've built an Estes Star Orbiter, which is the smallest, lightest rocket anybody makes that can take a big motor (well, if you think that 29mm is big).... HOWEVER, the problem with the Star Orbiter is; bult stock, it will fold under a punchy F motor, never mind trying to fly on a G or Baby H.... So, I wrapped the body tube with 1.5oz fiberglass, papered the fins with cardstock, and have been working to smooth it down after all that. It doesn't weigh all that much but is definitely much stronger than it would have been stock, and I just know that shoving a G in that rocket means I'm never getting it back, even if it does survive the launch, but I'm thinking a small tracker might allow me recover and I'll under-'chute it (12" chute might as well just be a streamer), so, that's the route I am taking.

Did you consider simply installing a full length internal coupler in the stock Star Orbiter? That results in a much more robust fuselage, it's easy, and I'm betting much lighter weight than your fiber glassed tube method...
 
Did you consider simply installing a full length internal coupler in the stock Star Orbiter? That results in a much more robust fuselage, it's easy, and I'm betting much lighter weight than your fiber glassed tube method...
I considered that.... But I have had bad luck with very long couplers locking up on me when they are only halfway in. I'm using white glue, not wood glue, and they still lock up so hard I end up damaging the tubes trying to get them in or out. I end up cutting, and then it just turns into a big mess. The fiberglass was less trouble, believe it or not.
 
I considered that.... But I have had bad luck with very long couplers locking up on me when they are only halfway in. I'm using white glue, not wood glue, and they still lock up so hard I end up damaging the tubes trying to get them in or out.
Try epoxy. Only a very small amount will be used, and it does not lock up. In fact, it tends to act as a lubricant.

I might still be disinclined to try to do a single very long piece of coupler in one shot. The inherent friction of a paper coupler inside a paper tube could get pretty significant with very long pieces, even with the epoxy. I'd probably want to cut it into more manageable pieces. At the joints, the epoxy that oozes out should fill the joint and (?) providing needed strength, which is to say there should not be significant weak points where the coupler joints are. Maybe still a little less strong than a single coupler piece, but I still think it would be strong if the couple pieces were butted securely together.
 
I considered that.... But I have had bad luck with very long couplers locking up on me when they are only halfway in. I'm using white glue, not wood glue, and they still lock up so hard I end up damaging the tubes trying to get them in or out. I end up cutting, and then it just turns into a big mess. The fiberglass was less trouble, believe it or not.
Try epoxy. Only a very small amount will be used, and it does not lock up. In fact, it tends to act as a lubricant.

I might still be disinclined to try to do a single very long piece of coupler in one shot. The inherent friction of a paper coupler inside a paper tube could get pretty significant with very long pieces, even with the epoxy. I'd probably want to cut it into more manageable pieces. At the joints, the epoxy that oozes out should fill the joint and (?) providing needed strength, which is to say there should not be significant weak points where the coupler joints are. Maybe still a little less strong than a single coupler piece, but I still think it would be strong if the couple pieces were butted securely together.

BMS sells 34 inch long Body Tubes and Couplers (and they are American Made)

What I do is:
  • slide the coupler into the tube so there is about 4 inches of the coupler sticking out of the tube.
  • apply white glue to that 4 inch section of coupler that is sticking out.
  • apply white glue inside the 4 inch section of body tube on the other end.
  • then in a quick motion shove the coupler into the body tube.
It is not necessary to glue the coupler it's full length inside the body tube.

Easy Peazy.
 
BT-60 with a coupler in it is essentially indistinguishable (within a few thousandths ID and OD) from 38mm MMT. No reason to mess with coupler-doubling or fiberglass when you can just buy the stuff from LOC, BMS, or eRockets and do something useful like clean toilets while you wait for it to show up. The only source I've found for 38mm MMT couplers is LOC, FWIW.

On the Star Orbiter, if starting with the kit, build it with just one tube. The shorter airframe has less friction drag and is inverse-exponentially less likely to buckle.

Or if you want to be sure, just buy the Vander Burn plywood upgrade kit, some 38mm and 29mm MMT, and a nose cone, then scratch build it. Because you're doing almost all of that anyway. Even better, if you have a printer or access to one, print up a Von Karman nose cone with fineness ratio anywhere from 3.5-5.5:1.

If you want to use the blow-molded cone so it looks like a Star Orbiter, you can get the Estes NC-60 kit, cut the shoulder off, and glue in a chunk of coupler. CA-soak the OD (odorless and outdoors FTW) and sand it to fit. You'll then also have the cones left for the Astron Sprint XL and ESAM-58.

Or just save yourself a bunch of time and probably some money and buy an LOC "Park flyer" kit from eRockets.

Back to the OP topic...status on my current build: a Hi-Flier with fins reduced for improved stability and performance. Left out the motor clip in favor of tape retention. OR sim is ~300 ft higher than stock on a C6-7. We'll see...

The airframe, launch lug and fins assembly was ~5.8 grams before painting started. It's currently sitting at ~8.3g (+2.5g) with a little more primer and all the color to go. Fully expect the total paint increase, including the nose cone, to hit ~4g.

This one has a launch lug, the fins were cut out of the kit balsa, and it will get the kit stickers on the side, so it's not a max-apogee effort, but I am interested in getting the maximum apogee I can figure out how to get out of 18mm motors (leading to bigger and better things, i.e., getting the maximum apogee I can figure out how to get out of a whole bunch of different motors), so it's kind of a prelude/process development program.
 
Last edited:
Started this in someone's build thread, but it's not really specific to that model, so posting in Techniques instead.

I'm sort of working on a program to try different painting procedures to minimize weight but still get the smoothness I want. Kind of waffle on how seriously to pursue it, though, because it's a ton of sanding, no matter what, and I hate sanding.

I think the next rocket I do, I'll follow @hcmbanjo's method the way I understand it. That is, before doing anything else, CWF or equivalent in the spirals, block it down flat, and then filler primer on the bare tube, blocked down until it's spotty into the glassine, roughly 50-50. Sand the filler primer off the bonding areas where you're going to glue and fillet fins. Similar on the fins: CWF and block flat, then filler primer and block back down flat before gluing. After gluing and fillets, sand the fillets, apply primer, and hopefully it's all smooth enough for paint.

Based on my experience so far, I pretty much expect to need another layer of filler primer at that point, at least in some areas to get them smooth, and then that means another layer of primer to make a consistent undercoat if using anything but dark colors. Which is where the weight builds up.

I did come up with today's Tips and Technique of the Day post: https://www.rocketryforum.com/threa...-of-the-day-thread.177679/page-5#post-2442953

So far, I'm using Acryli-Quik, which goes on nicely, but I don't know how much weight it's adding vs. other paints with similar covering ability.

I have used Rusto filler primer with AQ white primer under all my colors. I find the color over the grey filler primer is noticeably different, even with medium-hue colors, so every time there's RFP added, I have to add some white primer. Splotches are no good and require additional color coat to hide. So it's kind of a wash, except that it's easier logistically to buy a lot of the primer that's used on everything and less of each color.

One thing I have found is that the AQ primer is really good at locking any fibers that are raised by sanding the cardboard. 400 grit dry and you have a smooth surface to work with. So far, this has been my procedure:
  • CWF or equivalent on spirals and grain
  • white primer, dry sanding
  • Rusto filler primer, and sand (dry, or wet if possible)
This is where I've made progress, going from just sanding the RFP to be smooth, to basically knocking it down until the white is starting to show through all over the place. I did find on a nose cone that if I kept sanding until I had mostly the AQ white primer showing, the spots that were RFP had gotten lower than the surrounding AQ primer and I had to go another round with the RFP to level everything up. So just far enough to know that I've gotten through most of the RFP thickness, but still mostly RFP on the surface, seems to be optimum.​
  • white primer
After this is where I used the brush-on RFP technique, and was able to knock those spots down waaaay faster than if I'd sprayed RFP over larger areas.​
  • white primer in patches to cover over RFP spots
  • dry sand
  • color

I'm not sure how much hcmbanjo's procedure will save. Maybe one layer of primer if the first layer post-assembly ends up being smooth enough. But I can totally see needing another layer of FP after that.

I'm also going to try eRockets sanding sealer to see if it lets me get this done with less total sanding of the wood parts.

Would love it if Chris would come in and explain how many and what layers he finds are usually required.

I noticed you are using Rusto Filler/Primer.
I only use the Duplicolor Filler/Primer, #FP101. In the past I've used all the other brands of filler/primer,
but the Duplicolor is the best for me. You can usually find it in auto supply stores.

Balsa and tube seams filling from a recent build:
https://modelrocketbuilding.blogspot.com/2023/03/estes-eac-viper-0820-bt-55-upscale-part_98.htmlhttps://modelrocketbuilding.blogspot.com/2023/03/estes-eac-viper-0820-bt-55-upscale-part_23.html
Here's my regular finishing schedule:
https://modelrocketbuilding.blogspot.com/2013/04/my-finishing-schedule-tips-part-1.htmlhttps://modelrocketbuilding.blogspot.com/2013/04/my-finishing-schedule-tips-part-2.html
Everybody has their own way of finishing. I probably tend to use more paint than most.
I'm not as concerned about altitude, I'm a sport flyer.

Light spray coats at first. Hold the model under a bright light, lightly sand the rough spots and glue blobs.
Final color coat is heavier, but not as much paint to cause drips.
 
Thanks @hcmbanjo for the extensive post!

I do have a can of FP101 on the shelf, waiting for the Rusto to be used up.

I've read up on butyrate dope, but that stuff is hard to come by these days. Might try the mix-your-own approach, thinning Duco cement with acetone (have a little tube that didn't work out for what I bought it to try).

There's a company in the UK selling a PVA or aliphatic-based "dope" for tissuing free flight models. I've thought about buying some of that and their tissue as an uber-light way of papering fins, but haven't taken any action on that path.

When I was a kid, my dad had a then-ancient quart can of lacquer sanding sealer. It was a great day when I finally figured out what that was for. It's pretty darned expensive to buy that stuff now, kind of a lot to commit to if I don't know how well it will work. I do have a little jar of eRockets sanding sealer that I will try on my next wood-finned rocket.

Just kinda brainstorming here...
Might also seal edges of fins with thin CA to beef them up and fill the end grain. The grain-penetrating characteristic may add a little weight, but the hardening will make them more resistant to acquiring dings and grain tearing that will require more filling and sanding later, and should also make them more resistant to over-sanding and getting through the filled & hardened layer into bare balsa that requires starting over on that spot. Breakthroughs are especially bad when wet sanding the filler primer.
 
And speaking of Altitude Junkies, I am working on something like that. I've built an Estes Star Orbiter, which is the smallest, lightest rocket anybody makes that can take a big motor (well, if you think that 29mm is big)....
Sounds like you would appreciate the 29mm minimum diameter Apogee Aspire. It's considerably smaller, lighter, and lower drag than the Star Orbiter. Apogee claim it has mile+ altitude potential and mach+ velocity potential.
I just know that shoving a G in that rocket means I'm never getting it back, even if it does survive the launch, but I'm thinking a small tracker might allow me recover and I'll under-'chute it (12" chute might as well just be a streamer), so, that's the route I am taking.
I'd definitely fly a tracker. An Eggfinder Mini and a 300mAh battery mass about 42g. If you're flying a high-thrust G, that mass may help more than it hurts. If you're flying a very low-thrust G (e.g., G12ST-P), you might want to look into a lighter beacon tracker (but of course with the G12, you'd have to work in electronic ejection too).

An alternative to a tracker would be a very long reflective streamer launched down-sun on a very clear day. There's still a big risk of non-recovery, but significantly less than using a chute.

Re. a 12" chute, I'd look at the descent rate very carefully in a simulator. My preference for the size of rocket you're talking about would be a streamer, whether or not I was flying a tracker. I'd push the descent rate as close to the TRA limit of 11 m/s as possible.
BT-60 with a coupler in it is essentially indistinguishable (within a few thousandths ID and OD) from 38mm MMT. No reason to mess with coupler-doubling or fiberglass when you can just buy the stuff from LOC, BMS, or eRockets and do something useful like clean toilets while you wait for it to show up. The only source I've found for 38mm MMT couplers is LOC, FWIW.
At least one of my Star Orbiter fin and nosecone sets from last year's blowout sale will be built as a minimum diameter 38 using 38mm motor tube. Haven't yet decided how long to make it or how fast to push it, so haven't yet decided on cardboard vs. blue tube vs. fiberglass.

Blue Tube couplers are available in 38mm, but of course they'll be heavier than cardboard. Same with fiberglass.
On the Star Orbiter, if starting with the kit, build it with just one tube. The shorter airframe has less friction drag and is inverse-exponentially less likely to buckle.

Or if you want to be sure, just buy the Vander Burn plywood upgrade kit
Agree on the shorter airframe. My Star Orbiters will end up being "Star Orbiter-esque" rather than normal Star Orbiters.

Re. plywood, I've been favorably impressed with the strength of fiberglassed balsa and probably won't be buying more plywood upgrades for Estes kits. Where drag doesn't matter, just glassing both sides of the fin and calling it good works. Where drag does matter, sanding the fin to a thinner starting point - or tracing the fin onto thinner balsa - should keep thickness under control.
Even better, if you have a printer or access to one, print up a Von Karman nose cone with fineness ratio anywhere from 3.5-5.5:1.
Best cone shape depends on max speed, but I know you know that. :) A stock Star Orbiter doesn't sim as a mach-breaker on a G80, but it's in the low transonic, so VK may or may not be the ideal cone. As the overall design is increasingly optimized, the VK could indeed pull ahead.
If you want to use the blow-molded cone so it looks like a Star Orbiter, you can get the Estes NC-60 kit, cut the shoulder off, and glue in a chunk of coupler. CA-soak the OD (odorless and outdoors FTW) and sand it to fit.
Thanks for this suggestion. I have been thinking about the best way to get the Star Orbiter cone to fit the smaller ID of 38mm tube. For whatever reason, this simple solution hadn't occurred to me. I was leaning towards glassing the interior of the shoulder then sanding down the outside, but this makes a lot more sense. There's a reason I chose my latest tag to be "overcomplicator extraordinaire."
The airframe, launch lug and fins assembly was ~5.8 grams before painting started. It's currently sitting at ~8.3g (+2.5g) with a little more primer and all the color to go. Fully expect the total paint increase, including the nose cone, to hit ~4g.
I'll be interested in these results. I've been trying to keep track of finishing mass as I build, but I always forget to take scale readings between some step or other, and I've not been very consistent in primer depth, etc., anyway.
Just kinda brainstorming here...
Might also seal edges of fins with thin CA to beef them up and fill the end grain. The grain-penetrating characteristic may add a little weight, but the hardening will make them more resistant to acquiring dings and grain tearing that will require more filling and sanding later, and should also make them more resistant to over-sanding and getting through the filled & hardened layer into bare balsa that requires starting over on that spot. Breakthroughs are especially bad when wet sanding the filler primer.
Depending the CA you use, a lot of it can wick in very quickly, so for the sort of mass sensitivity you're dealing with, you might want to brush it on rather than dribble it from the bottle like savages like me do.
 
Sounds like you would appreciate the 29mm minimum diameter Apogee Aspire.
Hrmmmmm. And at $25, it's not that expensive either. Gotta check that out. Still want to find out how badly I can mess up my fiberglassed Star Orbiter (as it's already 99% built); but this is also a contender for the following month... Too many rockets, not enough launch day.
 
Depending the CA you use, a lot of it can wick in very quickly, so for the sort of mass sensitivity you're dealing with, you might want to brush it on rather than dribble it from the bottle like savages like me do.
For something like the edges of fins, squirt a small amount of thin CA directly onto a cotton swab and use that to apply it. You can hold the cotton swap in a place where spillage will not be damaging, so it is a very safe way to proceed. That is how I do most of my thin CA application, except when I really want to soak something like a balsa nose cone, when I squirt directly.

If it's a fresh bottle you have to work quickly. :)
 
Sounds like you would appreciate the 29mm minimum diameter Apogee Aspire. It's considerably smaller, lighter, and lower drag than the Star Orbiter. Apogee claim it has mile+ altitude potential and mach+ velocity potential.

You can also buy a pack of six of the tubes and a pair of the nose cones for about $20. Then built a bunch of different whatever you want. Tubing is the same as Quest as far as I can tell, so any Quest 30mm kit built MD without the motor mount will achieve similar results. Quest nose cones are a little different. Some may like them, or not. Quest America is ~$11.00 at ACSupply.
 
You can also buy a pack of six of the tubes and a pair of the nose cones for about $20. Then built a bunch of different whatever you want. Tubing is the same as Quest as far as I can tell, so any Quest 30mm kit built MD without the motor mount will achieve similar results. Quest nose cones are a little different. Some may like them, or not. Quest America is ~$11.00 at ACSupply.
Agreed, my suggestion was as a kit-vs.-kit comparison. I have the six pack and the nose cones from Apogee. Next time I order from Quest, I'll buy a 30mm tube for comparison. Rocketry Works had a thin-wall 29mm tube available in 34" lengths, but it's sadly been discontinued.
 
Besides liking rockets that look good, my goal is to optimize apogee performance. That means minimum drag, so the smoothest possible paint with few/no/smallest possible flaws. But at the LPR end of things (70mm long BP motors), it also means minimum weight. So I'm trading off one against the other. Looking for how to get the best finish with the least weight.
best finish for optimum altitude - i would use a high build primer to fill spirals and flaws. sand until smooth, then permanent marker.
plasmonic paint is the lightest paint in the world but i dont know if it is available to the general public yet.
 
Back
Top