PML EXPLORER ??

Discussion in 'Mid Power Rocketry (MPR)' started by Andy Greene, Jul 12, 2018.

Help Support The Rocketry Forum by donating:

  1. Jul 12, 2018 #1

    Andy Greene

    Andy Greene

    Andy Greene

    Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Jan 11, 2013
    Messages:
    913
    Likes Received:
    6
    Picked up a robbed ( someone stole some parts out of it- no biggie ) PML Explorer kit today and wondered if anyone has any experience with that kit ?
    Tips , tricks - performance ?? All Ears before I start the build,Im not going to use the piston eject- Read a few reviews and it seems to like Soft H- Motors
     
  2. Jul 12, 2018 #2

    aerostadt

    aerostadt

    aerostadt

    Lifetime Supporter TRF Lifetime Supporter

    Joined:
    Oct 27, 2009
    Messages:
    2,500
    Likes Received:
    17
    Gender:
    Male
    Location:
    Brigham City, UT
  3. Jul 12, 2018 #3

    aerostadt

    aerostadt

    aerostadt

    Lifetime Supporter TRF Lifetime Supporter

    Joined:
    Oct 27, 2009
    Messages:
    2,500
    Likes Received:
    17
    Gender:
    Male
    Location:
    Brigham City, UT
  4. Jul 12, 2018 #4

    Andy Greene

    Andy Greene

    Andy Greene

    Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Jan 11, 2013
    Messages:
    913
    Likes Received:
    6
  5. Jul 12, 2018 #5

    aerostadt

    aerostadt

    aerostadt

    Lifetime Supporter TRF Lifetime Supporter

    Joined:
    Oct 27, 2009
    Messages:
    2,500
    Likes Received:
    17
    Gender:
    Male
    Location:
    Brigham City, UT
  6. Jul 12, 2018 #6

    Steve Shannon

    Steve Shannon

    Steve Shannon

    Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Jul 23, 2011
    Messages:
    3,701
    Likes Received:
    404
    I’ve built and flown two of them. One I lost in Canada in 2002 at Roc Lake (that is how it was spelled then) which I flew on a J350. As I recall it should have flown to about 6400 feet. It was one of the last flights on the last day and we ran out of time to find it before driving back to Montana.
    I liked it so much that I built another and the second one I built around the PML CPR3k system. I flew it many times, including once on an H999, a flight that still brings me joy. I finally retired it when the fin flutter from some of the more extreme flights began causing the G10 fins to crack along the aft end of the root edge.
    Both were Quantum tube and both used pistons.
     
  7. Jul 12, 2018 #7

    Nytrunner

    Nytrunner

    Nytrunner

    Master of Rivets

    Joined:
    Oct 15, 2016
    Messages:
    2,984
    Likes Received:
    217
    Gender:
    Male
    Location:
    Huntsville AL
    How fast did it go on the 999?
     
  8. Jul 12, 2018 #8

    Steve Shannon

    Steve Shannon

    Steve Shannon

    Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Jul 23, 2011
    Messages:
    3,701
    Likes Received:
    404
    Fast enough to make a bunch of grown men giggle like kids. I only had a Missile Works RRC2 in it, so no logging.
     
    T-Rex likes this.
  9. Jul 12, 2018 #9

    Nytrunner

    Nytrunner

    Nytrunner

    Master of Rivets

    Joined:
    Oct 15, 2016
    Messages:
    2,984
    Likes Received:
    217
    Gender:
    Male
    Location:
    Huntsville AL
    One day I may want to try a Qtube rocket and empirical data is always helpful.

    I'm sure I could get a ballpark figure in openrocket
     
  10. Jul 12, 2018 #10

    Steve Shannon

    Steve Shannon

    Steve Shannon

    Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Jul 23, 2011
    Messages:
    3,701
    Likes Received:
    404
    I’ve flown them well over Mach in case that’s what you’re wondering.
     
  11. Jul 12, 2018 #11

    Nytrunner

    Nytrunner

    Nytrunner

    Master of Rivets

    Joined:
    Oct 15, 2016
    Messages:
    2,984
    Likes Received:
    217
    Gender:
    Male
    Location:
    Huntsville AL
    Fascinating, most things I read say Qtube has a speed limit around transonic.

    Any bracing or special accommodations? Or just careful construction and alignment?
     
  12. Jul 12, 2018 #12

    Steve Shannon

    Steve Shannon

    Steve Shannon

    Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Jul 23, 2011
    Messages:
    3,701
    Likes Received:
    404
    The problem I see with Quantum Tube is flexibility. At LDRS 27, I flew a Q-Tube Sudden Rush on a K-2045 one time. It broke after burnout when the phenolic coupler broke. The Quantum Tube was just fine. The chute blew out every panel. A better coupler or single tube rocket with a chute release might be great.
    I don’t think it would be great for long time periods at high velocity, but very few of our flights do that. Off center spinning or coning would be bad too. Here’s what happens to polycarbonate when subjected to out of balance spinning. One second it was spinning eccentrically and then it just folded up:
    IMG_0520.JPG
     
  13. Jul 12, 2018 #13

    Nytrunner

    Nytrunner

    Nytrunner

    Master of Rivets

    Joined:
    Oct 15, 2016
    Messages:
    2,984
    Likes Received:
    217
    Gender:
    Male
    Location:
    Huntsville AL
    Greater tube flex->greater joint stresses on brittle coupler (or any coupler really)? Good to know

    Safe as a payload tube perhaps? With a pml phenolic or fiberglass booster tube so the parts fit?
     
  14. Jul 13, 2018 #14

    seth_cooper

    seth_cooper

    seth_cooper

    Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Apr 5, 2015
    Messages:
    98
    Likes Received:
    11
    I have one from back in the launch lug days. I don't use the piston on PML kits.

    Perfect for H motors. I get 1600-2200' on H's.

    Last time I launched it was on an H410. Someone said "that was all coast".

    Buried it in the ground once after a failed ejection charge, a few inches up the airframe. Got a little crack in the airframe when I was removing it. Chopped it off below the crack and got a new nosecone and it's back in business.

    Great and durable rocket.
     
  15. Jul 22, 2018 #15

    Andy Greene

    Andy Greene

    Andy Greene

    Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Jan 11, 2013
    Messages:
    913
    Likes Received:
    6
    Thanks for all the replies- I started building it last weekend , I plan on no piston and a JLCR .
     
  16. Jul 22, 2018 #16

    Steve Shannon

    Steve Shannon

    Steve Shannon

    Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Jul 23, 2011
    Messages:
    3,701
    Likes Received:
    404
    As far as I know PML doesn’t make fiberglass tubing. The Wildman tubing is just slightly off size for compatibility. I haven’t found a good match, but I haven’t really pursued it lately. Glassing the inside of a PML phenolic coupler would work.
     
  17. Jul 23, 2018 #17

    Voyager1

    Voyager1

    Voyager1

    Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Oct 23, 2015
    Messages:
    173
    Likes Received:
    11
    I've built and re-built two Explorers. This model was my workhorse for a few years until a motor ejection failure caused it to lawn dart and subsequently trashed by a harvester!

    It is a great flyer, but it would be better if it was in fiberglass, not QT - as already suggested. I've used them with and without piston ejection, but I tended to prefer using the piston.

    I began using it in its standard single deploy configuration. I later added a second upper sustainer section coupled by an avbay for a main chute. It works very well in this configuration. I also added a nosecone bay for GPS telemetry. It was a good performer in both SD and DD configurations on anything from an H through to J.

    Just make sure you appropriately abrade and clean the QT surfaces being epoxied together, otherwise the epoxy joint WILL fail.
     
    Last edited: Jul 23, 2018
    Steve Shannon likes this.

Share This Page