Who sells the best tubes and nosecones for competition?

[majordude]

Apogee? ASP? Someone else?

 

[rharshberger]

Apogee? ASP? Someone else?

ASP come to mind as the most reasonable pricing, Apogee has a bit of everything.

https://www.nar.org/contest-flying/...try-competition/competition-supplies-vendors/

 

[Gus]

with regard to tubes, if you are going to use standard Estes-like tubes, Apogee, ASP, Balsa machining, eRockets all have basically the same tubes.

For competition nosecones, Apogee is the only place left selling vacuform cones.

But depending on the events you plan to compete in, you may want to consider making your own paper tubes.

 

[dhbarr]

Galactic Manufacturing kits were well represented at NARAM.

 

[astronwolf]

Balsa cones and regular model rocket tubes are still in wide use. I'd go with Balsa Machining and/or Aerospace Speciality Products for those. IMHO there is nothing oh so super special about the old CMR tubes you are also looking for.

Apogee sells the vac-formed polystyrene cones that are like the old CMR cones. I don't know if Tim is using the old tooling that Doug Pratt used, that Pratt obtained from Howard Kuhn. They're actually less expensive than how much balsa cones these days, and are certainly easier to get very smooth.

As for fins and airframes, many are learning to hand-roll tubes out of vellum paper, or (gasp!) build them with fiberglass and epoxy layups on a mandrel. People are actually building rockets almost completely from scratch.

Ditto on the Galactic Manufacturing recommendation.

 

[dhbarr]

As for fins and airframes, many are learning to hand-roll tubes out of vellum paper, or (gasp!) build them with fiberglass and epoxy layups on a mandrel. People are actually building rockets almost completely from scratch.

I would love to get ahold of a couple proper mandrels, but have no machining equipment or experience.

 

[Egoldee]

I would love to get ahold of a couple proper mandrels, but have no machining equipment or experience.

If you want to get nice mandrels, you can get them from McMaster-carr. They have many common sizes including 13mm,18mm, 24mm, ect.

 

[astronwolf]

If you want to get nice mandrels, you can get them from McMaster-carr. They have many common sizes including 13mm,18mm, 24mm, ect.

Yes, that's the idea. Just the 13mm mandrel alone will get you started in making strong, feather weight, tubes. 18mm is handy, but 24mm not so much. Depends on what you are trying to do.

 

[Sandy H.]

I would love to get ahold of a couple proper mandrels, but have no machining equipment or experience.

If you were thinking of the FAI style mandrels that used to cost a fortune years ago, I wonder if some combination of 3D printing and hand finishing could be a valid path forward? If you mean straight round mandrels, I doubt that 3D printing would be worth the effort.

Sandy.

 

[James Duffy]

I wonder if some combination of 3D printing and hand finishing could be a valid path forward?

A printed mandrel might be worth investigating for paper or vellum tubes, but almost certainly would not work for epoxy/glass tubes.

 

[Sandy H.]

A printed mandrel might be worth investigating for paper or vellum tubes, but almost certainly would not work for epoxy/glass tubes.

Understood. I was wondering if you did a good polish on a 3D printed mandrel and coated with wax, then the mold release used when making nosecones in a 2 piece mold (can't remember the name. . .it was green in color and water soluble, sprayed well from an airbrush and was really thin. . .) if it would release or not. Even if it failed, the cost would be fairly low for the experiment.

People who have actually made the super lightweight epoxy/glass tubes would obviously know more than me. I've made a few mid-weight nosecones from 2 part molds with an air bladder, but for those the nuances of the layup were not very critical, as I just used more epoxy than needed to make up for errors in doing the layup. The bladder fixed many sins, but none I made ever looked great without filler for sure.

Sandy.

 

[dhbarr]

If you were thinking of the FAI style mandrels that used to cost a fortune years ago, I wonder if some combination of 3D printing and hand finishing could be a valid path forward?

Yup, those are the type I mean.

 

[prfesser]

I would love to get ahold of a couple proper mandrels, but have no machining equipment or experience.

If the local scrap yard sells metal stock, see if they have cold rolled steel in the size desired. It doesn't machine well but is dimensionally pretty accurate as-is. Tool steel stock isn't cheap but is ground very accurately round and straight. Oil hardening is generally less expensive than air or water hardening.

I've made mandrels from galvanized EMT for rolling paper tubes, machining not required. 1/2" EMT is just under 18mm o.d. 3/4" EMT is 0.922" o.d. for 24 mm mandrels (1" EMT is okay for 29 mm, 1-1/4" for 38 mm). A couple layers of gummed paper tape on 3/4" EMT will bring the diameter to 0.95". Bondo and sanding to fill in the seam if necessary, followed by a coat or two of polyurethane. PM me for other details.

Best,
Terry

 

[waltr]

Part 1 of 3 part article to make FAI fiberglass tubes.
https://www.apogeerockets.com/education/downloads/Newsletter430.pdf

 

[astronwolf]

If you were thinking of the FAI style mandrels that used to cost a fortune years ago, ...

Years ago the NAR was selling FAI mandrels for cheap - $100. Try getting someone to machine one now for that price. Go shopping for just 40mm round stock and see what I mean. The material alone may cost more than what the NAR was selling "for a fortune."

It may be practical to build FAI-style model rockets that have the 40mm max diameter in three sections. Make a 40mm tube, transition, and 13mm tube separately and then put them together using some sort of alignment jig. Though there is still the expense of a 40mm round rod to contend with, at least you wouldn't have to pay a machinist to make a one-piece mandrel.

 

[Gus]

Wolf,

I make the airframes for the Galactic Manufacturing SK369 kits and that is exactly how I do them, in 3 parts. 40mm tubular portion is done on an FAI mandrel. Transition is formed on a special wood mandrel I had made by Gordy Agnello (Sandman) that is just the shape of the transition but has a plate at the large end to make it a snap to correctly align the laser cut transitions. But if only doing a few you don't need the special mandrel.

Most people don't understand that the transition portion is very simple to tape together using a straight 13mm rod. You only really need the mandrel to rub the tape down so a straight rod works just fine. Pre curl your cut transition, apply the tape to one edge as I showed in the video, then wrap around the rod, align the edges, and press the tape down using the inside rod as the backing to press against. I then burnish the tape with the side of a sharpie or a popsicle stick. Until I started "mass-producing" them for the GM kits that's how Emma and I made them. It's actually simpler to use a straight rod than a regular FAI mandrel because aligning the large end of the transition on the mandrel is really difficult if it has tabs at the upper end.

Motor mounts are regular 13mm Estes-style tubing from BMS with an external centering ring made from BT-5+. Motor mount is then inserted with a jig to assure proper alignment. The jig I use is very similar to the excellent one that comes in Apogee's International Thermal Sailor kit.

So, the only thing I really use the FAI shaped mandrel for is the upper conical section.

Hope that helps.

Steve

 

[aerostadt]

If you are looking for competition kits in the 13 mm body tube range, ASP has some nice kits that have vacuum-form nose cones in the kits. They also sell a competition payload kit. Apogee sells vacuum-form nose cones and transition parts. J & H Aerospace sells gliders in the 13 mm BT range.

 

[Sandy H.]

Years ago the NAR was selling FAI mandrels for cheap - $100. Try getting someone to machine one now for that price. Go shopping for just 40mm round stock and see what I mean. The material alone may cost more than what the NAR was selling "for a fortune."

It may be practical to build FAI-style model rockets that have the 40mm max diameter in three sections. Make a 40mm tube, transition, and 13mm tube separately and then put them together using some sort of alignment jig. Though there is still the expense of a 40mm round rod to contend with, at least you wouldn't have to pay a machinist to make a one-piece mandrel.

I recall seeing some for a good bit more than that, but then again maybe I'm misremembering - wouldn't be the first time and won't be the last.

Having said that, my main postulation was that given the large number of 3D printers out there, it might be significantly less expensive to try using that process and hand finishing the mmandrel to get rid of the lines vs. trying to have one made from metal. I wouldn't be surprised if @cwbullet might give it a shot if somebody had one modeled in CAD. Not trying to speak for him, of course, but in the past he has done some cool stuff and this probably would fit in that category.

Sandy.

 

[cwbullet]

Pretty easy to print btu it might have to be in a couple pieces depending on the longest dimension.

 

[astronwolf]

Apogee? ASP? Someone else?

In short... you can buy "competition" type nose cones and tubes from a few places, but they're really just lightweight model rocket parts. Even the old CMR tubes you are looking for don't have any particular juju that makes them better. IMHO they were inferior tubes, but they were inexpensive and I appreciated that when I was a teenager. As artifacts from the misty past, I suppose that they've acquired a respectable patina of age rather than just being some cruddy leftover tubes in a box.

Hobbyists are into the maker thing these days, and build stuff that's better than the "best" you can buy.

 

[Alan15578]

In short... you can buy "competition" type nose cones and tubes from a few places, but they're really just lightweight model rocket parts. Even the old CMR tubes you are looking for don't have any particular juju that makes them better. IMHO they were inferior tubes, but they were inexpensive and I appreciated that when I was a teenager. As artifacts from the misty past, I suppose that they've acquired a respectable patina of age rather than just being some cruddy leftover tubes in a box.

Hobbyists are into the maker thing these days, and build stuff that's better than the "best" you can buy.

The CMR tubes were not "inferior". They were adequate and different. It was almost like they came with a free coat of primer that you had to sand down. What make the CMR tubes so good is they were available in a wide range of needed sizes, telescoping sizes and sizes for odd diameter motors, all with nosecones and centering rings to match.

 

[Cabo Chad]

Balsa cones and regular model rocket tubes are still in wide use. I'd go with Balsa Machining and/or Aerospace Speciality Products for those. IMHO there is nothing oh so super special about the old CMR tubes you are also looking for.

Apogee sells the vac-formed polystyrene cones that are like the old CMR cones. I don't know if Tim is using the old tooling that Doug Pratt used, that Pratt obtained from Howard Kuhn. They're actually less expensive than how much balsa cones these days, and are certainly easier to get very smooth.

As for fins and airframes, many are learning to hand-roll tubes out of vellum paper, or (gasp!) build them with fiberglass and epoxy layups on a mandrel. People are actually building rockets almost completely from scratch.

Ditto on the Galactic Manufacturing recommendation.

Tim has nothing from Kuhn for cones, they are all his own. AFAIK, Doug still has the equipment, machine/components are worn out, but could likely be fixed by 'person W', and 'person B' or 'person J' could be a good supplier for continued sales of the old CMR cones.

chad