Ah, my work here is done.BTW, I had to Google curmudgeon...
Ah, my work here is done.BTW, I had to Google curmudgeon...
Looked kind of underpowered for the main, but I don't have that mich knowledge.
I've heard that the main is just supposed to get the nosecone off since the nosecone will pull the parachute out of the payload bay. I'll probably increase it to 1.5g and see the results, but I think 1g would work great for flight.
I think that is a dangerous generalization. Is it possible for the nose to pull out the rest of the laundry, maybe, depends on how tight its packed and how much other volume you have in the chamber in question.
IMO, retest at 2 grams for the main.
It seems like the gas just went around the parachute and popped the nosecone off. I'll test with 1.5g next weekend and see if it has similar results, but I'm nearly 100% confident that it would have deployed reliably with only 1g. In addition, I have a backup charge to ensure the safe deployment of the main in case the flight does not go as tested.I know the general rule of thumb is that it's better to push a parachute out than to pull it. Maybe that rule or this situation carries subtleties that I'm not aware of.
My main is set at 900 with backup at 700 for the first flight. Depending on the results the main might be lowered to 700 and the backup at 500. This gives it time to fully open and settle. I'll test with 1.5g but will probably reduce the main charge to around 1.2-1.3g with the backup at 2g.I use 1.4g in my 4" MC SDX3 with 2 2-56 nylon pins. I looked at my L2 flight data and the main was set for 500' and drogue decent rate was 45f/s. Main fired right on time but the air frame fell another 100' in about 2 seconds to get everything in line and slowed down to a slow 11f/s. Yes its good the nose cone came off, there is a chance the main would rattle out but that takes time, then it needs to inflate and slow the air frame down.
~John
It was a beautiful day. Perfect day to launch as the weather was great and best of all, no wind! You were attending something a "bit" more important. Hope to see you next month if the weather is nice!Looks like it was a great day. I’m sorry I missed the launch. Hoping the weather is as nice in December.
Welcome back. What kept you?
Why the L motor flight? I can understand repeating the K flight if you feel like you're rusty and to check the rocket for "rattles". But then why launch on a full L then a baby M, and not just go right to the M?
That’s a very reasonable plan and will allow you to build confidence as well. If you need help finding an L3CC or TAP near you let me know and I can help you find someone.Long time no see! Planning to get back into rocketry and resume this project / quest towards L3. I think the logical steps would be to get back into launching with a smaller motor (like the K used in the test flight) then moving onto good sized L motors to get a flight profile similar to a baby M. Excited to get back into this hobby, will keep you guys updated!
Thanks for the reply Steve! Are you familiar with if a rocket that is already built but is documented still qualifies for a L3 attempt? I did not get it approved by a TAP / L3CC before making it as I originally only planned on using it for L2 experience. I would be more than willing to go back and do all the paperwork as if I haven't built it yet. I'll message you about finding an L3CC/TAP near me.That’s a very reasonable plan and will allow you to build confidence as well. If you need help finding an L3CC or TAP near you let me know and I can help you find someone.
I just went back and skimmed the thread. It looks as though you started the build (and completed it?) without ever discussing it with a TAP or L3CC. Both NAR and Tripoli require that you submit the design to a TAP or L3CC and get approval before beginning construction. Tripoli used to allow a person to simply use a rocket that had previously flown but no longer does. That change came about shortly before you started this build thread as I recall. The requirement is stated on the Tripoli certification page for L3.Transferring schools/states has kept me busy the last 2 years, starting to get really settled in now and getting back into the hobbies I was into. Repeating the K is certainly a good idea, it's just the L/M that is a bit conflicting for me. I know the L3 is very complicated compared to L1/L2 and will take me a while to get all the paperwork hopefully situated and get in contact with people in my area who can oversee my attempt. I know that L3 rockets normally have to be all laid out and approved before being made, not sure how this would work if I made this rocket to practice L2 more before my L3 so it's already produced. Thankfully I have the build very well documented so that might help me out there. NAR's Level 3 Certification Package looks like it includes a build section so I would assume an already built rocket with the documentation I have would be perfectly acceptable. Just need to get in contact with experienced individuals in my area and see what my best course of action would be to hopefully be able to use this rocket as my L3 attempt. Launching on a full L would closely replicate the flight of the baby M and make sure the rocket is up to the task, but as you say, why not just try it on the actual M?
Hopefully, I can get this all figured out. If there are any L3 TAP members or L3CC members reading this feel free to reply and help clarify some things, would greatly appreciate it.
Looks like I answered this while you were asking. I’ll watch for your PM.Thanks for the reply Steve! Are you familiar with if a rocket that is already built but is documented still qualifies for a L3 attempt? I did not get it approved by a TAP / L3CC before making it as I originally only planned on using it for L2 experience. I would be more than willing to go back and do all the paperwork as if I haven't built it yet. I'll message you about finding an L3CC/TAP near me.
Ummm...I'd suggest that putting your new L3 overseers in touch with your former ones, who observed the design and construction, couldn't hurt.
So, never mind my previous comment.I did not get it approved by a TAP / L3CC before making it...
Yeah I was working off of assumptions from previous rules which is dangerous. Good opportunity to build another rocket I suppose.Ummm...So, never mind my previous comment.
I was working off the assumption of current rules - and compliance thereto. I assumed you had the design approved before starting construction, as I hadn't registered that this is reuse of your L2 rocket. So the thinking was that if you had to change TAP tams mid stream you could get the first team to discuss the design/construction approval with the second team and be OK. But that obviously is not the case.
Well, back you go to the drawing board. Do you "have to" start over, or "get to"?
Enter your email address to join: