Quest Q-Jet B6 motors

[Initiator001]

Just before the NSL Quest received TRA certification of their new B6 White Lightning motors.

These are standard 18mm x 70mm motors available with -4 and -6 second delays.

4.865N total impulse.

These motors will be available later this year.

For some of us attending the just completed NSL in Alamosa, Colorado, we had a chance to fly some of these motors.

I flew a B6-6W in a Quest Superbird rocket kit.
The boost was fast and the model quickly reached apogee.
Ejection looked good and the model was recovered without incident.
I look forward to when these motors will become widely available.

 

[AeroTech]

Great comments and photos, Bob!

 

[BEC]

I flew two of these at NSL in familiar models, both with altimeters. Even allowing for starting at nearly 8000 feet MSL, the performance of these motors (at least these two data points) was exceptional. At my home field the Alpha on an Estes B6-4 went to 630 feet. At NSL the same model went to 943 (!!) feet on a Q-Jet B6-6W (data here: https://flightsketch.com/flights/2461/). At my home field my current Nova Payloader goes to ~325 feet give or take 50 depending on conditions. At NSL, the same model went to 465 feet on a Q-Jet B6-4W (data here: https://flightsketch.com/flights/2474/)

I want more of these motors!!!

One note: because of the cardboard spacer between the propellant and the nozzle burning on boost, the exhaust looks more like an Estes motor than the C and D White Lightning Q-Jets.

 

[BABAR]

I flew two of these at NSL in familiar models, both with altimeters. Even allowing for starting at nearly 8000 feet MSL, the performance of these motors (at least these two data points) was exceptional. At my home field the Alpha on an Estes B6-4 went to 630 feet. At NSL the same model went to 943 (!!) feet on a Q-Jet B6-6W (data here: https://flightsketch.com/flights/2461/). At my home field my current Nova Payloader goes to ~325 feet give or take 50 depending on conditions. At NSL, the same model went to 465 feet on a Q-Jet B6-4W (data here: https://flightsketch.com/flights/2474/)

I want more of these motors!!!

One note: because of the cardboard spacer between the propellant and the nozzle burning on boost, the exhaust looks more like an Estes motor than the C and D White Lightning Q-Jets.

Good to hear! Did you mean B4-4 for the Q-Jet?

https://www.questaerospace.com/18mm_Black_Max_QJets/cat4193206_4804864.aspx

https://www.rocketreviews.com/compare-motors---estes-b6-to-quest-b4-q-jet.html

 

[BEC]

Good to hear! Did you mean B4-4 for the Q-Jet?

No! The B4s (Black Max) are fun to look at but from a performance perspective nothing particularly special. These are B6s and are White Lightning. (The Tripoli cert letter below was posted by Gary on YORF—it may be here somewhere, too, but I couldn’t find it quickly).

 

[BABAR]

I slouch corrected! Looking forward to seeing these in the vendor racks and online stores!

 

[aerostadt]

I am a little puzzled by some of the numbers that I see for the Estes B6-6 BP motor and the Quest B6-6 White Lightning. For example in some places the total impulse for the Estes B6-6 is listed as 5 N-s, which is high compared to other sources. I see on a 1998 NAR Standards & Testing that the Estes B6-6 is listed as 4.33 N-s. On post #5 AT lists the total impulse of Q-jet B6-6 as 4.865 N-s, which is definitely higher than the Estes B6-6. Likewise, I think numbers for the initial mass and the burn-out mass of these two motors will vary. I will go by the mass numbers in post #5 for the Q-jet as being initial 18.29 g and burn-out as 12.59 g. The respective numbers for the Estes B6-6 are initial 19.4 g and burn-out 9.7 g according to 1998 NAR Standards & Testing. Inspection of the mass information on both these B6-6 motors indicates that an appreciable amount of the mass loss is due to the delay charge. The mass of propellant for the Estes B6-6 is listed as 5.6 g and the mass of propellant for the Q-jet 2.8 g. Obviously, the total impulse is better for the Q-jet than the Estes B6-6. However, the comparison of the mass numbers to say which is better is not obvious to me.

The flight data in post #3 shows that the Q-jet to be better. I tried the Estes B6-6 and the Q-jet B6-6 in a RocSim (version 10.2) simulation for a light weight BT-20 model and the Q-jet gave an altitude that was about 80 feet higher (or 8% higher). I don't know what RocSim data was using for the Q-jet. The motor was listed as B6Q, however, the total impulse was listed as 4.647 N-s.

 

[BEC]

I think the NAR S&T values (or those from the Tripoli motor testing folks) are what to use. How those values and their thrust curves get from there to Thrustcurve.org and thence to RockSim or OpenRocket is kind of a black box to me.

I have been disappointed in the production Q-Jet B6Ws so far. The two betas I flew at NSL in 2021, as described in post 3 above, blew me away, but those I have gotten since then have not been significantly better performers than Estes B6s. I can't explain it, but that's what more flights with altimeters, including in the same two models as I wrote about in that post, have told me.

The best performing Bs I have ever flown (outside of those two beta B6Ws) are the Chinese-made Quest black powder B6s that are no longer available.

 

[mikec]

I think the NAR S&T values (or those from the Tripoli motor testing folks) are what to use. How those values and their thrust curves get from there to Thrustcurve.org and thence to RockSim or OpenRocket is kind of a black box to me.

For thrustcurve, typically the "typical thrust-time curve" from the NAR S&T report is digitized manually using a program called TCtracer, which outputs a RASP file. I've never been clear how S&T averages multiple runs into the typical curve. Sometimes the original report is linked on thrustcurve so you can compare for yourself (both the Estes B6 and AT B6 documents are.)

 

[Papa Elf]

Those chinese B6's are fun. and LOUD!

 

[ShadowSpire48]

Our club president has tried telling the NAR board multiple times that the QJet production needs to be halted and inspected due to so many QC issues in the lineup which can be a serious safety issue but they more or less told him to go kick rocks.

 

[mikec]

Our club president has tried telling the NAR board multiple times that the QJet production needs to be halted and inspected due to so many QC issues in the lineup which can be a serious safety issue but they more or less told him to go kick rocks.

Have all of these failures been reported on https://www.motorcato.org ? Looking at the search function, there were only 28 failures reported in 2021, 20 in 2022, and 7 so far this year.

I think AT has acknowledged that there were some issues with the nozzle material for the first few years that have now been addressed, though it seems these motors are more subject to degradation when stored at high humidity than we are used to seeing.

 

[Johnly]

Our club president has tried telling the NAR board multiple times that the QJet production needs to be halted and inspected due to so many QC issues in the lineup which can be a serious safety issue but they more or less told him to go kick rocks.

NAR has very little leverage on the B6 Q-Jet motors as they were certified by TMT.
The failure rate a isn't stellar. That said, unless the failure rate spikes up significantly higher than the current trend it wouldn't warrant decertification for safety.

John Lyngdal
NAR Standards & Testing

 

[Tractionengines]

Have all of these failures been reported on https://www.motorcato.org ? Looking at the search function, there were only 28 failures reported in 2021, 20 in 2022, and 7 so far this year.

I think AT has acknowledged that there were some issues with the nozzle material for the first few years that have now been addressed, though it seems these motors are more subject to degradation when stored at high humidity than we are used to seeing.

This... I jumped on the Q-jets when they first came out. Were great flights. THEN started having "issues" (inconsistent flights, nozzle failures, off axis thrust, etc.) Eventually got new production, and went back to great flights.

"Knock on wood" I have not had a Q-Jet fail in over a year.... but when I buy them they are immediately taken out of the clamshell packaging (it's not sealed, so the desiccant is only doing some good). They are placed in a sealed storage container, with lots of desiccant, and kept in a climate controlled area.

They did change the nozzle material from one type of clay to another, added the desiccant pack, and a note about storage... they now have phenolic nozzles listed on the RSC components page, so maybe we'll see the clay go away entirely, or at least in the higher thrust versions. [Other throat diameters are there too, this is just (1) 18mm and (1) 24mm as examples.]

18mm https://www.rocketmotorparts.com/product/18mm-nozzle-0-064"-throat

24mm
https://www.rocketmotorparts.com/product/18mm-nozzle-0-064"-throatv2v1

 

[Initiator001]

This... I jumped on the Q-jets when they first came out. Were great flights. THEN started having "issues" (inconsistent flights, nozzle failures, off axis thrust, etc.) Eventually got new production, and went back to great flights.

"Knock on wood" I have not had a Q-Jet fail in over a year.... but when I buy them they are immediately taken out of the clamshell packaging (it's not sealed, so the desiccant is only doing some good). They are placed in a sealed storage container, with lots of desiccant, and kept in a climate controlled area.

They did change the nozzle material from one type of clay to another, added the desiccant pack, and a note about storage... they now have phenolic nozzles listed on the RSC components page, so maybe we'll see the clay go away entirely, or at least in the higher thrust versions. [Other throat diameters are there too, this is just (1) 18mm and (1) 24mm as examples.]

18mm https://www.rocketmotorparts.com/product/18mm-nozzle-0-064"-throat

24mm
https://www.rocketmotorparts.com/product/18mm-nozzle-0-064"-throatv2v1

I was given some early pre-production F41 QJets to test fly.

The clay nozzles were an issue. The nozzles in the production F41 motors will be plastic/phenolic. I have flown F41s with the new nozzles and they have worked fine for me.

I, too, like the QJets. I haven't flown any brand 'E' motors in about three years.

 

[BEC]

Our club president has tried telling the NAR board multiple times that the QJet production needs to be halted and inspected due to so many QC issues in the lineup which can be a serious safety issue but they more or less told him to go kick rocks.

Also, as @mikec has already noted, the way that both NAR S&T and Tripoli's Motor Testing folks will see issues is if YOU FILE A MESS REPORT FOR EVERY SINGLE FAILURE YOU EXPERIENCE (motorcato.org). That's what it's there for. Otherwise all you have are "people say" or "I heard" or "I saw"....not much to actually go on.

 

[AeroTech]

Current production Q-Jets use a nozzle clay that is not sensitive to humidity, and we are not seeing any significant issues with them in lot acceptance testing or in the field. The F41W is being re-certified with a phenolic nozzle because beta testing of the clay nozzle version indicated an increased amount of throat erosion over the E35W that occasionally affected flight performance.

 

[ShadowSpire48]

Also, as @mikec has already noted, the way that both NAR S&T and Tripoli's Motor Testing folks will see issues is if YOU FILE A MESS REPORT FOR EVERY SINGLE FAILURE YOU EXPERIENCE (motorcato.org). That's what it's there for. Otherwise all you have are "people say" or "I heard" or "I saw"....not much to actually go on.

I actually have yet to see anything come out of that motorcato thing and I have witnessed multiple Qjets ranging from C to E either cato, nozzle failure, or no ejection. I mean, Estes still produces E motors yet the E12s have the same issue as the E9 boom sticks.

 

[mikec]

I actually have yet to see anything come out of that motorcato thing...

The system can't work if you don't report problems. MESS reports have led to vendor responses, like the CTI problems. And if nothing else, people can see the public stats and make their own judgements.

 

[BEC]

That was said much more diplomatically than I was thinking. Thanks, Mike.

 

[kuririn]

I actually have yet to see anything come out of that motorcato thing

Estes recently sent out an announcement that mini motors with a certain production code may have deficiencies.
https://www.rocketryforum.com/threads/demon-seed-estes-13mm-motors.180335/#post-2444059

 

[Alan15578]

And if nothing else, people can see the public stats and make their own judgements.

Please post a link. I have been unable to find public stats on the MESS data submitted.

 

[mikec]

Please post a link. I have been unable to find public stats on the MESS data submitted.

https://www.motorcato.org/ and then look under "latest" for a chronological list or "search" for a particular manufacturer, type, specific motor, etc.

 

[Initiator001]

I had some trouble getting Quest FirstFire igniters to work in some QJet B6-4W motors at a launch two weeks ago.

I used the Section's launch equipment. My first launch with an E35-8W QJet worked just fine.

About two hours later I tried to fly two different QJet B6-4W motors. I burned through three FirstFire igniters in one motor with no luck. A second B6-4W had the same issue. I decided to pack it in.

Now, the club launch system saw heavy usage with over 70 Cub Scouts, a variety of families and the usual suspects launching rockets. I asked the club officers about the battery (LiPo pack) used with the launch controller. They said it was fine. When I took out the FirstFire igniters from the B6-4W motors they appeared to have just fizzled, not really burned. The bridge wires were all still connected.

I decided that I needed to provide my own launch system for the next launch. I have a NCR Launch Master controller which has worked well in the past. I just bought some 3S LiPo batteries to use in my Estes Pro Series II Launch Controller. Last, I have a 1990s Impulse Aerospace launch controller which I tested with a portable car jump start battery system. In addition, I dipped a bunch of FirstFire igniters in a bottle of Testors Silver Paint. After the paint had dried, I connected a FirstFire igniter which had burned but still displayed continuity to the NCR Launch Max controller.

The igniter flashed and burned.

Okay then. I think I have what I need to get those FirstFire igniters to go. I will report back after the next launch in two weeks.

 

[BEC]

I have been disappointed in the production Q-Jet B6Ws so far. The two betas I flew at NSL in 2021, as described in post 3 above, blew me away, but those I have gotten since then have not been significantly better performers than Estes B6s. I can't explain it, but that's what more flights with altimeters, including in the same two models as I wrote about in that post, have told me.

The best performing Bs I have ever flown (outside of those two beta B6Ws) are the Chinese-made Quest black powder B6s that are no longer available.

I put 18 flights on one model yesterday in a little over four hours, on six different kinds of B motors. Finally a production motor knocks the old Chinese Quest B6 BP motors off their pedestal: Q-Jet B14Ts. The Q-Jet B4FJs and B6Ws I have continue to be pretty much the equivalent of their Estes counterparts and the B6Ws continue to be a challenge to get going reliably (see Bob Sanford's post just above).

I'm still trying to figure out both how to present the data and where....one afternoon's worth of flying isn't quite enough to base a NARCON R&D report on I don't think, but I'm thinking of a second round of flights with something more contest-oriented than a BMS School Rocket with payload section (that's what I used yesterday) might give me enough to do an R&D for the upcoming January vNARCON. We shall see.

But for now — once one figures out the proper initiator-installation technique for the B14Ts, the result is quite fun.

 

[grillsjosephbus]

I put 18 flights on one model yesterday in a little over four hours, on six different kinds of B motors. Finally a production motor knocks the old Chinese Quest B6 BP motors off their pedestal: Q-Jet B14Ts. The Q-Jet B4FJs and B6Ws I have continue to be pretty much the equivalent of their Estes counterparts and the B6Ws continue to be a challenge to get going reliably (see Bob Sanford's post just above).

I'm still trying to figure out both how to present the data and where....one afternoon's worth of flying isn't quite enough to base a NARCON R&D report on I don't think, but I'm thinking of a second round of flights with something more contest-oriented than a BMS School Rocket with payload section (that's what I used yesterday) might give me enough to do an R&D for the upcoming January vNARCON. We shall see.

But for now — once one figures out the proper initiator-installation technique for the B14Ts, the result is quite fun.

Bernard could you give us some empirical data on the performance of the B14-Ts in comparison to the other models you flew?

 

[Scott_650]

This isn’t real-world data - just a quick sim from Thrustcurve - but it does look like the Q-Jet B14 should be a great choice. The second motor in the chart is the OOP Quest B6 (I have a dozen or so of those still on hand), the one “failed” motor is the newer Q-Jet B4. I have a pack of the Q-Jet B14s but haven’t had a chance to use one - hopefully October will be a better month for rocketry here (for me - been laid up after some minor foot surgery) than September 😎

 

[JohnCoker]

I think the NAR S&T values (or those from the Tripoli motor testing folks) are what to use. How those values and their thrust curves get from there to Thrustcurve.org and thence to RockSim or OpenRocket is kind of a black box to me.

They are submitted by whoever finds or creates a file, which could be you!
https://www.thrustcurve.org/info/contribute.html

 

[BEC]

Bernard could you give us some empirical data on the performance of the B14-Ts in comparison to the other models you flew?

As I noted above, I'm trying to figure out how/where to best share the data. I may just post it here eventually (and/or over on YORF) but I'm still contemplating an R&D for vNARCON 2025 in January.

I'm planning to do some more comparative flying tomorrow with a model that's heavy enough and draggy enough to be a surrogate for a single-egg egg lofter, and I'll also, just for grins, expend a couple of old B8-5s in the model I used before to have yet another B motor data point.

They are submitted by whoever finds or creates a file, which could be you!
https://www.thrustcurve.org/info/contribute.html

I don't recall ever contributing any thrust curves, but yes, I realize that anyone can contribute. And of course then these data are incorporated into the motor database of Open Rocket....where I find that for the particular set of flights I mentioned up in post 25, the OR simulations for the Q-Jet B4 and B6 motors are much more optimistic than they are for the others I flew. In other words the Estes B4 and B6 and Q-Jet B14 results came closer to matching the flight data than those for the Q-Jet B4/B6. I have not yet gone down the trap line to see if there are multiple curves for each of these in the Thrustcurve database, and how the differ. That might also be part of the possible R&D report I'm thinking of.