This is seriously embarrassing to have to ask, but I'm at a loss, and I'm sure it's because I'm thick. I'm posting here because the example I'm going to use is MPR, but I am a successful L2, yet maybe a good education on this question will help other MPR folks who are not yet across that threshold. Enough pussyfooting: WHY IS IT SO HARD FOR ME TO UNDERSTAND AeroTech NAMING CONVENTIONS?
If this has been posted before, I apologize, I couldn't find a cohesive answer- just bits and pieces here and there...if there's a sticky, then I'll eat a reload, but maybe there should be?
Case in point- doing an inventory on my current reloads: I have a few F12s, a few F39, a couple G64 and a G76, so...a few 24/40, a few 29/40-120. I begin to sim out some of my rockets to see which motors I should order to fill gaps and have fun. I see that the AT F39 (24/40) and the AT F40 (29/40-120) are REALLY close on average impulse, yet produce wildly different results. I look at the datasheets and see that the F39 is 50N Total impulse, versus the F40's 80N total impulse (making it a full-F). This COMPLETELY makes sense to me, after looking at the datasheet.
Now a digression, albeit brief: I was a chem major in college for exactly 2 semesters, until Calc 3 kicked my butt, so math is NOT my strong suit. That said, I'm somehow intelligent enough to diagnose cancerous cells using their appearance under the microscope and protein and genomic tests...so I don't think I'm actually dumb, just...thick...but I went with Cessaroni for my high power exploits because it made sense to me
Using almost the same example from CTI: they have two 29mm reloads, both F36 if you look at it the way AT does. CTI, however, includes the total impulse in the name of the reload, so a flyer can simply calculate the burn time without datasheets or personal experience. This, in turn, can give a sense of maximum impulse, and to a degree for us noob fliers, flight profile.
I'm not saying that one is better than the other, or that datasheets are not needed- I am asking because I want to be sure I'm not missing any tricks with Aerotech, little hints or shortcuts that get me to the same level of comfort.
Aside from knowing Burn Time off the bat, I struggle with predetermining which case I would need to fly a particular AT reload. This is mitigated on the CTI front because I know I have a full set of 29mm, 38mm, and half a set of 54mm (up to 3g) by using their simple spacer system, which AT has adopted...but if I ask to borrow an AT case from a friend, I do not know how to reliably tell which case I need for my given load. By way of example, if I had an I154 reload, and looked only at the curve of the motor, it would show a total impulse of 360N, but apparently I'd need a 480 case. Dissimilarly, and still within the range of the L2 rocketeer, is the 54mm J415- it's total newtons is 1280, which must mean it needs the 1706 (really?) case! But no, it's fine in the 1280. So it's not a "greater than or equal to" scenario each time".
I'll freely admit, CTI is not without it's nomenclature faults, and that is why I'm not here to pick on AT, just want to learn how to enjoy AT as much as I do CTI. I find peace (and maybe this is because of my thickness) that I can look at a CTI datasheet and say, "hmmm...38mm 3G, I can fly that!" I want to do the same with Aerotech...earnestly.
If this has been posted before, I apologize, I couldn't find a cohesive answer- just bits and pieces here and there...if there's a sticky, then I'll eat a reload, but maybe there should be?
Case in point- doing an inventory on my current reloads: I have a few F12s, a few F39, a couple G64 and a G76, so...a few 24/40, a few 29/40-120. I begin to sim out some of my rockets to see which motors I should order to fill gaps and have fun. I see that the AT F39 (24/40) and the AT F40 (29/40-120) are REALLY close on average impulse, yet produce wildly different results. I look at the datasheets and see that the F39 is 50N Total impulse, versus the F40's 80N total impulse (making it a full-F). This COMPLETELY makes sense to me, after looking at the datasheet.
Now a digression, albeit brief: I was a chem major in college for exactly 2 semesters, until Calc 3 kicked my butt, so math is NOT my strong suit. That said, I'm somehow intelligent enough to diagnose cancerous cells using their appearance under the microscope and protein and genomic tests...so I don't think I'm actually dumb, just...thick...but I went with Cessaroni for my high power exploits because it made sense to me
Using almost the same example from CTI: they have two 29mm reloads, both F36 if you look at it the way AT does. CTI, however, includes the total impulse in the name of the reload, so a flyer can simply calculate the burn time without datasheets or personal experience. This, in turn, can give a sense of maximum impulse, and to a degree for us noob fliers, flight profile.
I'm not saying that one is better than the other, or that datasheets are not needed- I am asking because I want to be sure I'm not missing any tricks with Aerotech, little hints or shortcuts that get me to the same level of comfort.
Aside from knowing Burn Time off the bat, I struggle with predetermining which case I would need to fly a particular AT reload. This is mitigated on the CTI front because I know I have a full set of 29mm, 38mm, and half a set of 54mm (up to 3g) by using their simple spacer system, which AT has adopted...but if I ask to borrow an AT case from a friend, I do not know how to reliably tell which case I need for my given load. By way of example, if I had an I154 reload, and looked only at the curve of the motor, it would show a total impulse of 360N, but apparently I'd need a 480 case. Dissimilarly, and still within the range of the L2 rocketeer, is the 54mm J415- it's total newtons is 1280, which must mean it needs the 1706 (really?) case! But no, it's fine in the 1280. So it's not a "greater than or equal to" scenario each time".
I'll freely admit, CTI is not without it's nomenclature faults, and that is why I'm not here to pick on AT, just want to learn how to enjoy AT as much as I do CTI. I find peace (and maybe this is because of my thickness) that I can look at a CTI datasheet and say, "hmmm...38mm 3G, I can fly that!" I want to do the same with Aerotech...earnestly.