Wadding/dog barf vs. Nomex parachute protectors

[lcorinth]

I'm about to start building some larger rockets (2-3 inch airframes - larger for me) and I suddenly found out about these Nomex parachute protectors, and a quick Internet search told me these come in smaller sizes for smaller rockets.

Question is: when do you move from using traditional wadding or dog barf up to a parachute protector? What are the advantages/disadvantages of each? It seems like a reusable wadding would be superior, but do they wear out for people to use them on all their rockets? I'm putting together a Quest Quad Runner (nearly 2 inch airframe), and while looking at the Apogee page on that rocket for more information I saw that "people who bought this rocket also bought..." reusables. And I'm building the Estes Leviathan soon-ish.

In this video, the guy uses Nomex, which is how I found out about it. I guess I'd heard of it, but I thought you had to chase "reusable wadding" around the field to recover it, rather than having it threaded onto the shock cord. Ha.

[video=youtube;_vNHmPpVFbk]https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_vNHmPpVFbk[/video]

Anyway, is the Nomex superior? Is it simply better for larger rockets? Is it worth putting in smaller rockets, or does the cheapness of cellulose make it a better choice than a Nomex protector which might wear out over time?

 

[rdbones]

Depending on the rocket and the room in the parachute bay I uses both.

The Nomex protects the parachute and the dog barf takes up the extra volume in the bay allowing the BP ejection charge to be more efficient.

 

[Bat-mite]

For me it comes down to the shock cord/recovery harness. If it is made from a flameproof material, then I use a Nomex protector. I don't have to worry about burning the shock cord. But if I am using an elastic Estes-type cord that will burn, I use dogbarf to protect the cord as well as the chute.