pml ariel on an k950 ?

The Rocketry Forum

Help Support The Rocketry Forum:

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


Active Member
May 27, 2017
Reaction score
What's up TRF I just got my hands on a pml ariel that I'm planning on launching in august on an I so id like to stay away from glassing and foaming(for now) after the launch, assuming all goes well id really like to test the capability's of me as a builder and the limits of the kit and put a large J or possibly even a k in it. what steps should I take in reinforcing and strengthening the airframe or modifications I should do to make the kit capable of handing that much go-go juice or is this just a pipe dream begging for a cato?
IMHO PML kits are not suited for this kind of abuse. The G10 fins are way too thin, and the stock kit uses a QT (plastic) BT. I like the PML kits for sport flying but I'd use another vendor for this kind of thing. (I once saw a stock PML Tethys shred completely on a J350 Level 2 attempt.)

PML would recommend at a minimum using their thicker fin stock (still too thin, but better) and glassing their phenolic tube.
well I suppose I should stop drooling over that girthy 54mm motor tube and set some realisting goals if j-k motors are more than likely going to result in the use of the recovery rake at what point/size motors do you think I should start to consider glassing?/Kevlar/carbon wrapping things
PML QT is rated to mach .85 (650ish MPH). I am not sure what the motor you're looking at sims to but PML lists the ATJ90W, J350W, J180 and J420R as the only J reloads rated for the Ariel. The rest of the J motors they added to their matrix require what they call "Top Notch" construction and the K950 requires what they call a reinforced airframe however when you look at their reinforcing FAQ for QT they say it is not compatible with traditional reinforcing methods, like FG, Kevlar or CF. I believe what they are saying is you need to order the kit with one of their other reinforced air frames.

I don't know about the fins but they appear to have a relatively large semi-span making them less than ideal for a high velocity flight.

If you're serious I would send them an email and ask them.
The PML Ariel has a fairly wide symmetric fin span that is susceptible to shear. I blew mine off with a I600. A K9XX-ish is likely toast.
I have a PML kit with a 54mm airframe and 38mm motor mount in my build pile that came with a phenolic airframe tube. I'm planning to wrap it in glass or something and push it to it's limits. Phenolic tubing is available as an option on most of their kits, and you could just buy a new airframe for it...

The Quantum Tube that comes standard is neat stuff, but gets brittle in the cold. I haven't run the stuff in anything smaller than 3" or with a larger than 38mm motor mount, but I haven't shredded any yet. I'm hoping to push my 3 inch bird hard soon, so I'll get back to you guys on how it goes, hopefully later this month, maybe next.

In the mean time, you should probably run some sims and look at peak velocity and peak acceleration (g's).
sounds to me like I should really just get my level 1 cert with it and save the k for the misha rocketry deep purple sitting in my closet waiting to be built. As much joy as it would bring me to send that thing into the wing of a 747. It's starting to look like its really more trouble than its worth to try and reinforce everything
The PML Ariel has a fairly wide symmetric fin span that is susceptible to shear. I blew mine off with a I600. A K9XX-ish is likely toast.

Before I600

After I600


Well to be honest it was abut the 6th or 7th I600 and this did not happen because of the motor, it was user error. I mistakenly thought the delay was the long delay but it was the medium delay which popped @ 10 seconds while it was still traveling @ roughly 150'/s.

But it does show illustrate how the QT fails when taken past it's limit. This zipper was from the top, right down to the CR.
I zippered that same kit! The dato cuts for the surface mount canards add another weak point. I'm modifying mine, and rebuilding without the canards and stretched out for dual deploy.
A guy at a TMO launch in Ohio just a month or so ago flew a STOCK DD LOC EZI-65 on a long burn CTI L motor. It came back with barely a scratch. Many fly LOC style rockets assembled with plain wood glue on M motors ( many I know) that do just fine. I am waiting for posts that say you need forged eyebolts and fiberglass on G motors ��
I flew an open threaded eye in the 15 lb nose of my L-3. No issues even on the flight with less than ideal recovery putting extra stress on the entire recovery system. Granted, it was a beefy eye, but it wasn't welded or forged.
The guy set it up for DD. The fins and everything else was stock. He did add a lot of nose weight. Basically regular 1/8th ply and glue.......Booya!
Old school....