Thin-walled 2.6" Paper Tubing?

[BsSmith]

I'm working on a rocket design that will use 2.6" tubing and a 38mm motor mount. I am trying to get every bit of performance out of it and I want to put carbon fiber on it for astetics. I am trying to find a source for thin walled paper tubing to do this. I need something like Estes tubing, but I don't think estes makes 2.6" tubing, only 2" and 3". I am trying to avoid rolling my own tubing or making a full composite tube. Does anybody know where I can get this?

If there isn't any, I'm fine with using Blue Tube.

 

[tbzep]

I'm working on a rocket design that will use 2.6" tubing and a 38mm motor mount. I am trying to get every bit of performance out of it and I want to put carbon fiber on it for astetics. I am trying to find a source for thin walled paper tubing to do this. I need something like Estes tubing, but I don't think estes makes 2.6" tubing, only 2" and 3". I am trying to avoid rolling my own tubing or making a full composite tube. Does anybody know where I can get this?

If there isn't any, I'm fine with using Blue Tube.

Estes BT-80 is 2.6" tube.

Oh, and BMS has it in 34" lengths.

 

[MarkII]

Estes BT-80 is 2.6" tube.

Oh, and BMS has it in 34" lengths.

And it is thin-walled (notoriously so ). Although it's somewhat infamous flexibility (when it is unsupported) is due to its diameter, not its wall thickness. When BT-80 is properly supported by centering rings in typical model rocket construction, it is actually pretty sturdy. In September, my Maxi Alpha clone suffered a wicked lawn dart. The laundry ejected just fine but the chute did not open due to a packing error that I had made. The open upper end of the airframe was what hit the ground first, core sample-style. The only damage was some crimping of the top 6" of the airframe; the remaining 18" were unscathed. I could straighten out the crimp with a coupler, but I'll probably just cut out and replace that section of the tube.

MarkII

 

[BsSmith]

Estes BT-80 is 2.6" tube.

Oh, and BMS has it in 34" lengths.

Really?

I've always thought BT-80 was 3" (isn't the Big Daddy made of BT-80, or is that BT-100).

Also, to avoid making another thread, are there any places that make a high length:width ogive nose cone? All of the 2.6" cones I can find seem kind of short.

 

[tbzep]

Really?

I've always thought BT-80 was 3" (isn't the Big Daddy made of BT-80, or is that BT-100).

Also, to avoid making another thread, are there any places that make a high length:width ogive nose cone? All of the 2.6" cones I can find seem kind of short.

The 3" tubing doesn't have an old style BT-xx number that I know of. IIRC, it's a little thicker than regular Estes BT-xx tubes also. BT-100 is about 3.7" dia. and BT-101 is about 3.9". These are both longer than the standard PNC-80K from the old Phoenix, Colossus, Maxi Alpha III kits.

I turn my own long 2.6" nosecones. You can have Sandman turn one to your liking with just about any variety of wood.

SEMROC offers an upscaled version of the BNC-55AO (BNC-80AO) which was on the Bandit, Vigilante, etc. It's about 10" long. They also have an upscale of the PNC-60AH (BNC-80AH)like the Citation Patriot, Red Max, etc. which is about 10.5" long.

 

[luke strawwalker]

At the risk of hijacking the thread, does anybody make a 'standard' thickness 3.00 inch tube??

I got a 3.00 inch LOC tube awhile back for a project (1/100 shuttle ET) but the wall thickness, and therefore the weight, is significantly higher than a 'standard' BT-80...

Thanks! OL JR

 

[MarkII]

Really?

I've always thought BT-80 was 3" (isn't the Big Daddy made of BT-80, or is that BT-100).

The Big Daddy uses NCR BT-30, which is 3" in diameter. It is the only Estes kit that has ever used a 3" diameter tube. The Estes X-Prize Rubicon uses BT-321, which is 3.21" in diameter. RT-99 (3.7" dia.) was used in the Mars Lander. Estes BT-100 is 3.744" in diameter, and it was used in the Estes Saturn V, the Mars Lander, and the Estes R2-D2. Estes also makes BT-101 (3.94" dia.), used on the Saturn 1B and Saturn V and the Maxi Pershing, among others.

BT-80 was used on the Estes Saturn V, the Maxi Honest John, the Maxi Alpha and Maxi Alpha III, the Estes Phoenix, the V-2, the Executioner, the Silver Comet, Der V-3, the Broadsword and Super Big Bertha, the Fat Boy, the X-Prize Canadian Arrow and the Rock-It, to name just a few.

Dynastar (Apogee Components) also has a few kits that are based on this tube.

Also, to avoid making another thread, are there any places that make a high length:width ogive nose cone? All of the 2.6" cones I can find seem kind of short.

See PNC-66A (part #20080):

https://www.apogeerockets.com/nose_cones.asp

Also these two:

https://www.semroc.com/Store/Scripts/prodView.asp?idproduct=1859
https://www.semroc.com/Store/Scripts/prodView.asp?idproduct=832

MarkII

 

[MarkII]

At the risk of hijacking the thread, does anybody make a 'standard' thickness 3.00 inch tube??

I got a 3.00 inch LOC tube awhile back for a project (1/100 shuttle ET) but the wall thickness, and therefore the weight, is significantly higher than a 'standard' BT-80...

Thanks! OL JR

Balsa Machining Service sells T300, which has a wall thickness of 0.035". Mercury Engineering sells BT-334, which is exactly the same tube for the same price as BMS.

MarkII

 

[texas-bill]

The 3" tubing doesn't have an old style BT-xx number that I know of.

Tim,

It's called HBT-3000, but that's not well known. As Mark indicated, BMS sells it as T-300. I've used it as a coupler for LOC 3" - it fits that well. One of these days, I'm gonna use a piece of it to rebuild my Big Daddy :blush:

 

[powderburner]

I don't think estes makes 2.6" tubing....

No offense, but it seems like you need to print out a couple dozen copies of
https://www.ninfinger.org/rockets/body_tubes.html
and paste them up on the wall, slip a copy into a few rocketry books, keep one next to the computer, tuck one in your back pocket, etc.

And after a while, you will find that you have memorized these dimensions and bumped some other critical piece of life information out the other side of your gray cells.

 

[MarkII]

Tim,

It's called HBT-3000, but that's not well known. As Mark indicated, BMS sells it as T-300. I've used it as a coupler for LOC 3" - it fits that well. One of these days, I'm gonna use a piece of it to rebuild my Big Daddy :blush:

Doug

.

HBT-3000 = NCR BT-30.

MarkII

 

[MarkII]

No offense, but it seems like you need to print out a couple dozen copies of
https://www.ninfinger.org/rockets/body_tubes.html
and paste them up on the wall, slip a copy into a few rocketry books, keep one next to the computer, tuck one in your back pocket, etc.

And after a while, you will find that you have memorized these dimensions and bumped some other critical piece of life information out the other side of your gray cells.

Except that the Estes Body Tube List at Ninfinger has a few errors, which are probably typos that were introduced when it was typed up from information that was read out of the 1974 Estes Custom Parts Catalog. Take a look at the dimensions for RT-99D, for example. And the reason that I can spot that is because I have the dimensions tatooed onto my hippocampus after studying dozens of vintage plans in anticipation of cloning many of those OOP rockets. Just like powderburner said.

MarkII

Yankees win World Series! Yoo-hoo! :clap:

 

[bobkrech]

I'm working on a rocket design that will use 2.6" tubing and a 38mm motor mount. I am trying to get every bit of performance out of it and I want to put carbon fiber on it for aesthetics. I am trying to find a source for thin walled paper tubing to do this. I need something like Estes tubing, but I don't think estes makes 2.6" tubing, only 2" and 3". I am trying to avoid rolling my own tubing or making a full composite tube. Does anybody know where I can get this?

If there isn't any, I'm fine with using Blue Tube.

Bs

Your post is a bit confusing. You're "trying to get every bit of performance out of it" but you want to put CF on it for looks.

Fiberboard tubing is approximately half the weight of CF tubing of the same thickness, so why skimp on tubing thickness if you're only going for looks.

If you want the ultimate in low weight, CF over a 2.6" coupler, and then throw it in water and peel off the fiberboard inside to get a 100% CF tube which is the strongest airframe with the minimum weight.

Bob

 

[luke strawwalker]

Balsa Machining Service sells T300, which has a wall thickness of 0.035". Mercury Engineering sells BT-334, which is exactly the same tube for the same price as BMS.

MarkII

Thanks... Good to know.

I was wondering... what tube was used on the Estes Mercury Atlas kit, and what tube is used on the Estes Mercury Redstone?? They're both non-standard tubes AFAIK.... OL JR

 

[luke strawwalker]

Bs

Your post is a bit confusing. You're "trying to get every bit of performance out of it" but you want to put CF on it for looks.

Fiberboard tubing is approximately half the weight of CF tubing of the same thickness, so why skimp on tubing thickness if you're only going for looks.

If you want the ultimate in low weight, CF over a 2.6" coupler, and then throw it in water and peel off the fiberboard inside to get a 100% CF tube which is the strongest airframe with the minimum weight.

Bob

I'd add that if you're just going for the LOOK of carbon fiber and don't actually need the strength, there ARE ways of doing the paint job so that it looks just like carbon fiber, using those perforated tool box liner no-slip pads...

There was a thread awhile back on one of the forums where somebody did a Semroc "Lil' Hustler" in a CF paintjob and it looked TERRIFIC... they discussed how they did the paint job in some detail. Maybe try a search to find the thread... OL JR

 

[tbzep]

Thanks... Good to know.

I was wondering... what tube was used on the Estes Mercury Atlas kit, and what tube is used on the Estes Mercury Redstone?? They're both non-standard tubes AFAIK.... OL JR

The original Estes MR was BT-60. The next Estes kit was a rebadged Centuri kit, so it was Series 20 (2.04"), but I don't know what part number Estes gave the Series 20 tube. I've got info on the Atlas tube at home, but I can't recall it right now.

 

[Pem Tech]

Really?

I've always thought BT-80 was 3" (isn't the Big Daddy made of BT-80, or is that BT-100).

Also, to avoid making another thread, are there any places that make a high length:width ogive nose cone? All of the 2.6" cones I can find seem kind of short.

Aerotech offers 2.6" nose cones that are 12.5 inches long.
We love them for Sci-fi kits.

 

[rocketsmith]

Giant Leap has their "Pinnacle" nosecones which they claim are the longest available. They also have a really long shoulder, which is nice and stable. They are designed for thick tubes so the offset is bigger. I use the bt-80 tubes in the thinner Estes size and wrap them in 2 layers of 1.4 oz. fiberglass with Aeropoxy. The thickness lines up nice with the "Pinnacle" nose cones. These tubes will handle a j425 easily, as long as the motormount is robust enough. Check out auto supply places on the web for carbon fiber look adhesive sheet. It looks like c.f. and is relatively cheap. I think they also make a c.f. look Monocote.

 

[luke strawwalker]

The original Estes MR was BT-60. The next Estes kit was a rebadged Centuri kit, so it was Series 20 (2.04"), but I don't know what part number Estes gave the Series 20 tube. I've got info on the Atlas tube at home, but I can't recall it right now.

What about the current one, the Liberty Bell 7... just curious as it seems to be 'off size'... OL JR

 

[sandman]

What about the current one, the Liberty Bell 7... just curious as it seems to be 'off size'... OL JR

That's the series 20 tubing.

 

[MarkII]

Aerotech offers 2.6" nose cones that are 12.5 inches long.
We love them for Sci-fi kits.

Yes, but how would they look on top of BT-80?

Giant Leap has their "Pinnacle" nosecones which they claim are the longest available. They also have a really long shoulder, which is nice and stable. They are designed for thick tubes so the offset is bigger. I use the bt-80 tubes in the thinner Estes size and wrap them in 2 layers of 1.4 oz. fiberglass with Aeropoxy. The thickness lines up nice with the "Pinnacle" nose cones. These tubes will handle a j425 easily, as long as the motormount is robust enough. Check out auto supply places on the web for carbon fiber look adhesive sheet. It looks like c.f. and is relatively cheap. I think they also make a c.f. look Monocote.

OK, well that's certainly one way.

MarkII

 

[Pem Tech]

Yes, but how would they look on top of BT-80?



MarkII

They would be a bit oversized for a BT-80, but the tube could be fiberglassed. Apogee sells the the PNC-66A, which fits perfectly in a BT-80 but they are only ~9 inches in length. (Exposed length)

 

[georgegassaway]

got a 3.00 inch LOC tube awhile back for a project (1/100 shuttle ET) but the wall thickness, and therefore the weight, is significantly higher than a 'standard' BT-80...

I know for a sport model, one does not need to try to be really close, but, at 1/100 scale an ET should be about 3.3” diameter. When I made a 1/110 shuttle model long long ago, that was part of the reason for the funky scale factor, as 1/110 was close for a 3” ET and for BT-55 SRB’s. Actually it was the SRB diameter that drove the scale factor, since no 3” tube existed back then, I had to custom make the 3” ET tube (I used a cardboard tube from a can of Ajax Cleanser, with some additional paper around it. I was using the Ajax can as a core, and the ET was not lightweight like I would have preferred.

FWIW - here is a drawing I made up that shows full size shuttle dimensions, and 1/72 scale dimensions. You can use the full size dimensions and just move the decimal place over 2 places for 1/100.

https://homepage.mac.com/georgegassaway/GRP/Scale/Drawings-shuttle-G/FAI_Shuttle_1-1.GIF

Also BTW, for a bit more on that 1/110 shuttle model, see the Ares 1X thread from today (page 6):
https://www.rocketryforum.com/showthread.php?t=6773&page=6

- George Gassaway

 

[tbzep]

What about the current one, the Liberty Bell 7... just curious as it seems to be 'off size'... OL JR

That's the redesigned version of the Centuri/Estes kit produced in the low skill/no skill/RTF era. Like Gordon said, it's the same series 20 size. The redesign basically took a good kit and fubard it with a bunch of plastic crap and peel-n-cuss decals to dumb it down to a low skill level. I've got a couple stored away just for the capsule, which looks like it is from the same mold as the older "normal" kit.

 

[luke strawwalker]

I know for a sport model, one does not need to try to be really close, but, at 1/100 scale an ET should be about 3.3” diameter. When I made a 1/110 shuttle model long long ago, that was part of the reason for the funky scale factor, as 1/110 was close for a 3” ET and for BT-55 SRB’s. Actually it was the SRB diameter that drove the scale factor, since no 3” tube existed back then, I had to custom make the 3” ET tube (I used a cardboard tube from a can of Ajax Cleanser, with some additional paper around it. I was using the Ajax can as a core, and the ET was not lightweight like I would have preferred.

FWIW - here is a drawing I made up that shows full size shuttle dimensions, and 1/72 scale dimensions. You can use the full size dimensions and just move the decimal place over 2 places for 1/100.

https://homepage.mac.com/georgegassaway/GRP/Scale/Drawings-shuttle-G/FAI_Shuttle_1-1.GIF

Also BTW, for a bit more on that 1/110 shuttle model, see the Ares 1X thread from today (page 6):
https://www.rocketryforum.com/showthread.php?t=6773&page=6

- George Gassaway

Thanks! That's a TERRIFIC resource!

My main interest lies in semiscale... I don't have the skills necessary for true scale, and I'm not into competition, so semiscale (well as close as possible without putting a year's work into it) is good enough...

Thanks again! OL JR

 

[luke strawwalker]

That's the redesigned version of the Centuri/Estes kit produced in the low skill/no skill/RTF era. Like Gordon said, it's the same series 20 size. The redesign basically took a good kit and fubard it with a bunch of plastic crap and peel-n-cuss decals to dumb it down to a low skill level. I've got a couple stored away just for the capsule, which looks like it is from the same mold as the older "normal" kit.

Yep, right on all counts as far as I can tell...

I picked up one of these kits pretty cheap at NSL 2007 in Muncie and really put a lot of work into building it to get the tower and capsule really nice, tube spirals filled and sanded really smooth, great paint job, and get the 'peel-n-cuss' stickers on it right (I don't like the stickers-- even with windex I couldn't get the on straight and they wouldn't back up without taking the paint off)

IF anybody builds this kit, and isn't familiar with the old Estes MR kits, DO NOT BELIEVE THE ENGINE RECOMMENDATIONS ON THE SIDE OF THE PACKAGE! It said B6-4, C6-3, or C6-5... I popped a C6-5 in mine for the maiden voyage and watched it limp off the pad, arc over, and lawn dart before the ejection popped (well, it popped about 3 feet off the ground, which meant the capsule shoulder didn't even get out of the tube before it hit and demolished the tower and split/accordioned the first 2 inches of tube or so.

Later I was told by 'old hands' that the Estes MR kit was ONLY to be flown on C6-3's, NEVER on a -5. I double checked the hangtag card insert in from the package, and sure as the world it said both B's and C's were ok, in -3 and -5 delays... Now I doubt this thing would have cleared the rod on a B motor-- all that plastic is HEAVY and yeah, I'm sure the filler and paint didn't help matters, but still, this was a total DOG perfomance-wise... Maybe the old "American" Estes MR kits DID say C6-3 ONLY but the Chineses MR's have the standard Estes "use anything" type language on the side of the package liner...

I was wondering because I'd like to get some more tube and do something with it... I cut it down and flew it like that but it doesn't look good...

Later! OL JR

 

[tbzep]

My son flew his on a B6-2 once. Ejection was about 10 ft, and full deployment was about eye level. He lucked out on it.

 

[MarkII]

I was wondering... what tube was used on the Estes Mercury Atlas kit, and what tube is used on the Estes Mercury Redstone?? They're both non-standard tubes AFAIK.... OL JR

Firing up my copy of John Brohm's Estes Body Tube/Kit List, rev. 3.1, it shows that the Mercury-Atlas used BT-344. I believe that means that it had an OD of 3.44".

MarkII

 

[rocketsmith]

Yes, but how would they look on top of BT-80?

OK, well that's certainly one way.

MarkII

Hey Mark II, something wrong with my post? I was just trying to help a guy out with an idea he might not be familiar with. Didn't think it was worthy of your all too familiar condescension.

 

[MarkII]

Hey Mark II, something wrong with my post? I was just trying to help a guy out with an idea he might not be familiar with. Didn't think it was worthy of your all too familiar condescension.

You misread my post. That's not what I meant at all.

MarkII