Quantcast

Speed of cardboard?

The Rocketry Forum

Help Support The Rocketry Forum:

mc357

New Member
Joined
Sep 7, 2009
Messages
2
Reaction score
0
Does anyone know the highest altitude attained and/or the fastest speed attained using only cardboard tubing? (not composite wrapped)
 
Last edited:

Rocketjunkie

Addicted to APCP
Joined
Jan 19, 2009
Messages
4,157
Reaction score
376
This was before altimeters, etc but...
1 LOC MMT-2.14
1 LOC nose cone
6 feet 3/8" elastic
1 18" nylon chute
3 1/8 plywood fins, slots cut 1/2 way through tube
5 min epoxy
1 Vulcan K500-25 motor.

It survived but no one ever saw it again :) I launched it at LDRS 8 in 1989.
The picture is the L750 versions for LDRS 10. They were made from G10 tubing and fins. We used 30 second delays in these.
 
Last edited:

sylvie369

Well-Known Member
Joined
Jan 21, 2009
Messages
1,104
Reaction score
1
Ten of us flew those little LOC Mini-Missile kits on F32 motors at NSL in late May. I think a couple of people glassed 'em, but I flew mine as just cardboard and balsa fins put together with wood glue, and it held together fine (until it cracked a fin on a hard landing on gravel). I haven't simmed it, but 103 grams (including nose weight) of what is essentially a 1" diameter LOC IV should have gotten a couple of thousand feet on an F32.

Yeah, I know, that's not much to go on, but for me it was a pretty clear demonstration that you don't have to glass everything just because it's going to fly fast and high.
 

mparker59

Active Member
Joined
Mar 9, 2009
Messages
39
Reaction score
0
Our all cardboard rocket (even the fins were cardboard) went to 5100 feet and quite close to Mach 1 - see the thread:

http://www.rocketryforum.com/showthread.php?t=4146

I've built another rocket that is identical to it except that it has plywood Nike style fins. Unfortunately I just grabbed some extra fins I had laying about and the plywood fin rocket is 3.2 ounces heavier than the tube fin rocket. We're going to drag the two of them, both on I49 motors, at BALLS.

I can't decide if I need to tear the fins off and make thinner/smaller ones or not. It would be quite nice if the only difference between them was flat fins vs. tubular fins. But, I have a lot to do in the next couple of weeks and might just have to live with the weight difference.

Mike
 

mc357

New Member
Joined
Sep 7, 2009
Messages
2
Reaction score
0
Rocketjunkie, I'd be real interested to know for sure what kind of speed and altitude you did achieve with that. Too bad the rocket gods liked it so much they kept it… :D
sylvie369, You’re right, It’s not always necessary to glass. Why not push the limits of cardboard.:p
mparker59, that must have been quite a fun endeavor. I read the thread and I think those kind of days are very entertaining and can be some of the most memorable.:cheers:
I flew this rocket back in May of 08 at Plaster City, CA. This was 3” Loc tube (not the motor mount stuff) and I successfully flew it to 12,832 on a K270 Slow burn White Lightning. The simulator had it at just over mach1 at 1150 ft/sec. I have another project I am working on that should far surpass that. Most folks get into composites for this kind of stuff. I certainly don’t mind but I like to take the more challenging route of cardboard tubing. I am just trying to find some records of prior flights or thresholds of cardboard tubing’s structural integrity. I have searched and searched and come up with nothing. That’s why I posted here…

rocket_mark_050308.jpg
 

MarkII

Well-Known Member
Joined
Jan 18, 2009
Messages
8,212
Reaction score
9
The launch of sylvie369's Mini LOC IV on an F32 must have been way cool, but that sort of thing is not that unusual. MPR fliers do that sort of thing all the time. I don't know how many people have broken Mach with minimum diameter MPR models, but I'm sure that it has been done many times. Composite construction (or the use of phenolic) is very rare in MPR. Nearly everything is built from kraft paper tubing, plastic or balsa nose cones, and basswood or light plywood fins. We all knew all of this, though, right?

I have seen some paper model rocket tubing for LPR and MPR that is quite thick-walled, and probably able to take a real beating without collapsing. Remember that body tubes, as cylinders, are very strong longitudinally. From what I understand, the primary cause of high-speed shreds of rockets is fin flutter, not airframe failure. I don't know that the "speed of cardboard" (spiral-wound kraft paper tubing airframes) has ever really been established. Something else always seems to fail first.

MarkII
 

Binder Design

Well-Known Member
Joined
Jan 18, 2009
Messages
1,724
Reaction score
188
Binder Design Thug on a K1100. Our standard Kraft paper airframe. Flyer was TRA TAP member Dennis Winningstad.

Mike Fisher
 

brianc

Well-Known Member
Joined
Jan 18, 2009
Messages
3,220
Reaction score
1
Does anyone know the highest altitude attained and/or the fastest speed attained using only cardboard tubing? (not composite wrapped)
I believe Shuttle astronaut Jay Apt once took an Estes Alpha with
him on a mission... So I'll say 17,500 mph (+/-) and 250 miles (+/-).

:p
 

DMcCauley

Well-Known Member
Joined
Feb 8, 2009
Messages
177
Reaction score
0
I flew a Estes Big Daddy on a Warp-I1299 and broke Mach. All stock except i replaced the balsa fins with 1/8" plywood fins. Used a flimsy cardboard Estes tube.
 

sylvie369

Well-Known Member
Joined
Jan 21, 2009
Messages
1,104
Reaction score
1
The launch of sylvie369's Mini LOC IV on an F32 must have been way cool, but that sort of thing is not that unusual. MPR fliers do that sort of thing all the time. I don't know how many people have broken Mach with minimum diameter MPR models, but I'm sure that it has been done many times. Composite construction (or the use of phenolic) is very rare in MPR. Nearly everything is built from kraft paper tubing, plastic or balsa nose cones, and basswood or light plywood fins. We all knew all of this, though, right?
All true, but... let me point out that the Mini LOC IV is about the size of an Estes Alpha. After the nose weight, it was several times as heavy as one, but probably within a fraction of an inch of the same diameter and length. In addition, the fins were surface mounted (with wood glue) 1/8" balsa. Flying that on an F32 isn't really much like flying an Initiator on one. Of course you're right that it is at least somewhat like flying those min. diameter MPR models you mentioned, though I imagine that very few of them can also be flown safely on an A8-3.

That being said, yup, standard construction is far stronger than people seem to think it is. As I said, some of the Minimissiles in that event at NSL showed up with glassed fins and tubes and epoxy holding them together. Completely unnecessary - cardboard and balsa with wood glue worked just fine.

I also completely agree that something like fin flutter will bite you before the longitudinal strength of cardboard becomes an issue.
 

VARocketflyer

Well-Known Member
Joined
May 2, 2009
Messages
122
Reaction score
0
Does anyone know the highest altitude attained and/or the fastest speed attained using only cardboard tubing? (not composite wrapped)
The highest flight of an all cardboard rocket I'm aware of was the LaserLOC 2.1EA flown by Deb Schultz. This was one of their LOC Custom Engineering kits and used their regular 54mm airframe, G10 fins, and a basswood nosecone. The single-use K250 back then actually tested as a low L, which is the reason for the asterisk since it was later reclassified and not eligible for the K record. I don't know what the actual speed was, but if I get a chance later I'll work it up in RASAero.

K *Deb Schultz K250 21,659 feet LDRS-XI

This was found at http://www.faqs.org/faqs/model-rockets/competition/

Mark
 

BAR0051

Well-Known Member
Joined
Jan 20, 2009
Messages
281
Reaction score
0
I flew my scratch built rocket made of 3 inch dia. mailing tubes and 3/16 plywood on a J825 to 5837 ft. The data from the Perfectflite MAWD Alt. indicated a top speed of 1600 fps. I plan on trying a J570 in it next weekend.
:D
 

madmax

Well-Known Member
Joined
Apr 20, 2009
Messages
177
Reaction score
0
I've flown a stock airframe Binder Sentinel on a K1100T then turned around and flew it the next day on a research 54mm L1000. Held together through boost but it floated away when the main came out at a ~10,000 feet. Later that year flew a Binder cardboard airframe with glassed ply fins at Balls on another 54mm L. Started corkscrewing toward the end of the burn but held together and was recovered without damage. According to data ~M1.6.
 

Bill P

Well-Known Member
Joined
Mar 29, 2009
Messages
204
Reaction score
0
I believe Shuttle astronaut Jay Apt once took an Estes Alpha with
him on a mission... So I'll say 17,500 mph (+/-) and 250 miles (+/-).

:p
That's one high flying Alpha. :eyepop:
 

MaxQ

Tripoli 2747
Joined
Jan 18, 2009
Messages
4,411
Reaction score
58
Location
Central Viginia - USA
The highest flight of an all cardboard rocket I'm aware of was the LaserLOC 2.1EA flown by Deb Schultz. This was one of their LOC Custom Engineering kits and used their regular 54mm airframe, G10 fins, and a basswood nosecone. The single-use K250 back then actually tested as a low L, which is the reason for the asterisk since it was later reclassified and not eligible for the K record. I don't know what the actual speed was, but if I get a chance later I'll work it up in RASAero.

K *Deb Schultz K250 21,659 feet LDRS-XI

This was found at http://www.faqs.org/faqs/model-rockets/competition/

Mark
21,659 feet LDRS-XI
Ha Ha...take that, all you carbon fiber junkies!
 

Binder Design

Well-Known Member
Joined
Jan 18, 2009
Messages
1,724
Reaction score
188
I've flown a stock airframe Binder Sentinel on a K1100T then turned around and flew it the next day on a research 54mm L1000. Held together through boost but it floated away when the main came out at a ~10,000 feet. Later that year flew a Binder cardboard airframe with glassed ply fins at Balls on another 54mm L. Started corkscrewing toward the end of the burn but held together and was recovered without damage. According to data ~M1.6.
Totally awesome! Thanks for keeping the faith!

Mike Fisher
 

gosgirl

New Member
Joined
Sep 25, 2009
Messages
2
Reaction score
0
I flew this rocket back in May of 08 at Plaster City, CA. This was 3” Loc tube (not the motor mount stuff) and I successfully flew it to 12,832 on a K270 Slow burn White Lightning. The simulator had it at just over mach1 at 1150 ft/sec. I have another project I am working on that should far surpass that. Most folks get into composites for this kind of stuff. I certainly don’t mind but I like to take the more challenging route of cardboard tubing.
 

THarrison

Well-Known Member
Joined
Mar 16, 2009
Messages
507
Reaction score
9
I flew my scratch built rocket made of 3 inch dia. mailing tubes and 3/16 plywood on a J825 to 5837 ft. The data from the Perfectflite MAWD Alt. indicated a top speed of 1600 fps. I plan on trying a J570 in it next weekend.
:D
If the data really indicated 1600fps, you need to get your MAWD checked out because it is giving you bogus numbers for that combo.
 

JDcluster

Well-Known Member
Joined
Feb 23, 2009
Messages
5,322
Reaction score
86
Location
New Jersey
I thought I heard of a filtering program for the Baro based recording altimeters,
for this very purpose?




JD

If the data really indicated 1600fps, you need to get your MAWD checked out because it is giving you bogus numbers for that combo.
 

bobkrech

Well-Known Member
Joined
Jan 20, 2009
Messages
8,351
Reaction score
29
I thought I heard of a filtering program for the Baro based recording altimeters,
for this very purpose?
JD
Dave Schultz has written a number of papers on the application of Kalman filters to barometric altimeter data.

http://home.earthlink.net/~david.schultz/

http://home.earthlink.net/~david.schultz/rnd/index.html

I don't know how BAR0051 obtained the 1600 fps value, but in the analysis of flight data, a critical eye is required to review the graphical flight profile to see if it makes sense and not to simply use a calculated maximum value generated by a program. It would be useful if he could post a plot of the values generated by the baro data analysis program to see if THarrison is correct in his assumption that there is an altimeter problem, if there's simply an analysis issue, or if it's correct.

Bob
 

madmax

Well-Known Member
Joined
Apr 20, 2009
Messages
177
Reaction score
0
Why does that combo make those numbers bogus? The J825 is the redline for the 38/1080 case. The Mach number is ~1.45 by the way. I "saw" the flight I'm pretty sure and it absolutely ripped off the pad. Us West Coasters like to build our rockets light since the waivers here are great!
 

BAR0051

Well-Known Member
Joined
Jan 20, 2009
Messages
281
Reaction score
0
The 1600 fps is from unfiltered data calculated by an Exel spreadsheet, so it may not be accurate. But it was a rippin flight. I flew the same rocket on a J570 to 6353 ft, and my BinderDesign ExelPlus on a K550 to 7941 ft, a week ago last Sunday. I like cardboard. :D
 
Last edited:

dlb

Sky Pyrate...
Joined
Jan 24, 2009
Messages
1,214
Reaction score
60
BSD, stock Thor-X (dual walled), (well built) on a "M1297" to 13K, hit mach 1.2.
 

cjl

Well-Known Member
Joined
Jan 18, 2009
Messages
12,505
Reaction score
5
If the data really indicated 1600fps, you need to get your MAWD checked out because it is giving you bogus numbers for that combo.
For a lightweight 3 incher, mach 1.4 isn't entirely out of the question on a J825R. I would slightly question it since it is coming from baro only, but it should definitely be supersonic by a decent margin.
 

THarrison

Well-Known Member
Joined
Mar 16, 2009
Messages
507
Reaction score
9
For a lightweight 3 incher, mach 1.4 isn't entirely out of the question on a J825R. I would slightly question it since it is coming from baro only, but it should definitely be supersonic by a decent margin.
Unless you are a fan of high speed deployment, a rocket doing 1600fps on a J825 is going to go higher than 5800'.
 

cjl

Well-Known Member
Joined
Jan 18, 2009
Messages
12,505
Reaction score
5
That's very true. You'd need some very odd conditions (to put it mildly) for that to be accurate.
 

Art Upton

Well-Known Member
Joined
Jan 23, 2009
Messages
1,755
Reaction score
2
Does anyone know the highest altitude attained and/or the fastest speed attained using only cardboard tubing? (not composite wrapped)
I've done over Mach 1.5 in a stock LOC 38mm tube rocket with an Acme fin can flown on a AT J-570 at black rock.
 

Latest posts

Top