 |
 | Home | Contact Us | FAQ | Search & Site Map | Link to Us |
 | Sign In | Join | Other 45 Sites in Network |
| HomeDiscussion Groups General ModelsRailroadsRocketsRadio Controlled Air ModelsHelicoptersLand ModelsWater ModelsModelGeeks.com Contact UsLink To UsSearch & Site Map |
Model Forum / General / Rockets / October 2004rocket-boosted payload gliders?
Just wondering, has there ever been much rocketry R&D effort directed toward rocket-boosted payloading gliders? Perhaps for payloads over 1 ounce? I guess this kinda overlaps into the realm of R/C BG and R/C RG, for supporting a radio receiver and control mechanisms. What kind of mass does this stuff add to an unfurnished glider? Dwayne Surdu-Miller SAROS #1 > Just wondering, has there ever been much rocketry R&D effort directed > toward rocket-boosted payloading gliders? [quoted text clipped - 7 lines] > Dwayne Surdu-Miller > SAROS #1 For egg glide or WMD? So hard to tell these days. The government thinks there are terrorists everywhere. Jerry  SignatureJerry Irvine, Box 1242, Claremont, California 91711 USA Opinion, the whole thing. <mail to:01rocket@gte.net> Please bring common sense back to rocketry administration. Produce then publish. http://www.usrockets.com Ebay auction deals and specials. http://tinyurl.com/6wlp8 >>Just wondering, has there ever been much rocketry R&D effort directed >>toward rocket-boosted payloading gliders? [quoted text clipped - 12 lines] > > Jerry Haven't you hijacked enough threads already this morning? DG wrote: > Haven't you hijacked enough threads already this morning? Evidently not. Why else would you be so very eager to join in, when you're not even very good at it? -dave w little jerry wrote: > DG wrote: > [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] > so very eager to join in, when you're > not even very good at it? Yeah, you and big jerry are real pros. But, at least you agree with My observation. > little jerry wrote: > [quoted text clipped - 5 lines] > > so very eager to join in, when you're > > not even very good at it? Not a mere troll, a low skill troll :) > Yeah, you and big jerry are real pros. > > But, at least you agree with My observation. You are delusional. You MUST be Brian Teeling. SignatureJerry Irvine, Box 1242, Claremont, California 91711 USA Opinion, the whole thing. <mail to:01rocket@gte.net> Please bring common sense back to rocketry administration. Produce then publish. http://www.usrockets.com Ebay auction deals and specials. http://tinyurl.com/6wlp8 >>little jerry wrote: >> [quoted text clipped - 7 lines] > > Not a mere troll, a low skill troll :) Like I said, you and little jerry are the real pros. >>Yeah, you and big jerry are real pros. >> >>But, at least you agree with My observation. > > You are delusional. You MUST be Brian Teeling. When do you intend on paying Me? > DG wrote: > > Haven't you hijacked enough threads already this morning? [quoted text clipped - 4 lines] > > -dave w ROFL! SignatureJerry Irvine, Box 1242, Claremont, California 91711 USA Opinion, the whole thing. <mail to:01rocket@gte.net> Please bring common sense back to rocketry administration. Produce then publish. http://www.usrockets.com Ebay auction deals and specials. http://tinyurl.com/6wlp8 > >>Just wondering, has there ever been much rocketry R&D effort directed > >>toward rocket-boosted payloading gliders? [quoted text clipped - 14 lines] > > Haven't you hijacked enough threads already this morning? Haven't you posted content-free drivel to enough threads this YEAR!? SignatureJerry Irvine, Box 1242, Claremont, California 91711 USA Opinion, the whole thing. <mail to:01rocket@gte.net> Please bring common sense back to rocketry administration. Produce then publish. http://www.usrockets.com Ebay auction deals and specials. http://tinyurl.com/6wlp8 >>>>Just wondering, has there ever been much rocketry R&D effort directed >>>>toward rocket-boosted payloading gliders? [quoted text clipped - 16 lines] > > Haven't you posted content-free drivel to enough threads this YEAR!? No chance of that, you're the king, hands down. Hi Jerry, I've been thinking about and working out some ideas for lofting and recovering "eleven-and-a-half-inch fashion dolls" (ie. Barbie, G.I.Joe, and cheap clones). Simple payloading is pretty straightforward. That one's done. A Ferrero Rocher Egg makes a very nice payloading nose cone. Helicopter recovery will be the next one to tackle. Glider recovery would be, I think, an interesting technical challenge. Looking for a starting point, I thought I'd ask what's been done so far. The real Mattel products are probably way too heavy for this notion, weighing in at about 300g (= 0.66 lbs = 10.56 oz). However, their dollar store cousins are "only" about 100g. Dwayne Surdu-Miller SAROS #1 > Hi Jerry, > [quoted text clipped - 16 lines] > Dwayne Surdu-Miller > SAROS #1 I might suggest you look into swing wing gliders such as the Groundhog, and also look at some of the RCRG's but plan on mounting the payload near the CG of the aircraft. Basicly centered at the 1/3 chord point on the wing. SignatureJerry Irvine, Box 1242, Claremont, California 91711 USA Opinion, the whole thing. <mail to:01rocket@gte.net> Please bring common sense back to rocketry administration. Produce then publish. http://www.usrockets.com Ebay auction deals and specials. http://tinyurl.com/6wlp8 Thanks kindly for your advice, Jerry. Swing wing to allow plenty of wing area without shredding on boost? Dwayne Surdu-Miller SAROS #1 > Thanks kindly for your advice, Jerry. > > Swing wing to allow plenty of wing area without shredding on boost? > > Dwayne Surdu-Miller > SAROS #1 Correct. And HUGE deployed wing area. SignatureJerry Irvine, Box 1242, Claremont, California 91711 USA Opinion, the whole thing. <mail to:01rocket@gte.net> Please bring common sense back to rocketry administration. Produce then publish. http://www.usrockets.com Ebay auction deals and specials. http://tinyurl.com/6wlp8 > Just wondering, has there ever been much rocketry R&D effort directed > toward rocket-boosted payloading gliders? > > Perhaps for payloads over 1 ounce? Well, the Astron Space Plane had a payload compartment large enough for live insects and small animals. Good point. The Centuri X-21 even had a clear plastic payload section. How big would they have to be scaled to payload an ounce? ----------------------------- Steven P. McNicoll wrote: <snip> > Well, the Astron Space Plane had a payload compartment large enough for live > insects and small animals. ----------------------------- Dwayne Surdu-Miller SAROS #1 > Just wondering, has there ever been much rocketry R&D effort directed > toward rocket-boosted payloading gliders? [quoted text clipped - 7 lines] > Dwayne Surdu-Miller > SAROS #1 I think Kevin's R/C glider at NARAM had less than 20 gms of electronics on board. It uses truly "micro" R/C gear. I've seen him fly it at CRASH launches and the receiver and servos are very, very small, indeed. SignatureGary Bolles summum jus, summa injuria est To contact me; bollesg at comcast dot net http://home.comcast.net/~bollesg/rockets/rockets.html Help make r.m.r. a No Flame Zone > > Just wondering, has there ever been much rocketry R&D effort directed > > toward rocket-boosted payloading gliders? [quoted text clipped - 11 lines] > on board. It uses truly "micro" R/C gear. I've seen him fly it at CRASH > launches and the receiver and servos are very, very small, indeed. Even "ordinary" RC gear can make for a pretty light installation these days - it's probably easy to put together a system that's no more than a few ounces. (A lot depends on how long your glider is going to stay up and how hard you plan to be working the control surfaces during that period: in favorable circumstances, it might be feasible to use an unusually small battery.) -dave w Wow, that's really tiny! > Wow, that's really tiny! See article at bottom of newsletter: http://www.crashonline.org/crash-cgi-bin/nwsltr?newspg=1304 SignatureGary Bolles summum jus, summa injuria est To contact me; bollesg at comcast dot net http://home.comcast.net/~bollesg/rockets/rockets.html Help make r.m.r. a No Flame Zone > Wow, that's really tiny! Who can tell what you're refering to from a one line post? Remember, due to the algorithm used to propigate news, not everyone sees news items in the same order. When you reply, yours goes to the bottom of the list, not necessarilly immediately after what you're currently reading. And now, back to your standard rants... Bob Kaplow NAR # 18L TRA # "Impeach the TRA BoD" >>> To reply, remove the TRABoD! <<< Kaplow Klips & Baffle: http://nira-rocketry.org/LeadingEdge/Phantom4000.pdf www.encompasserve.org/~kaplow_r/ www.nira-rocketry.org www.nar.org 26-October, 2001: A day that will live in infamy Support Freedom: http://www.indefenseoffreedom.org/ Voting for "the lesser of two evils" is still voting for evil. Oops. My apologies. I've been spoiled by a thread-sorting news browser. I'll include context in future. Dwayne Surdu-Miller SAROS #1 -------------------------------------------- >>Wow, that's really tiny! > [quoted text clipped - 14 lines] > > Voting for "the lesser of two evils" is still voting for evil. There hasn't been much along the lines of payload carrying B/G's per-se due to the primary needs of the models either due to contest rules or what people want to sport fly. Usually the only sort of payloads carried aboard have been devices to aid the model, such as a dethermalizer or in a rare case a very light homing transmitter beacon (Walston Tx). But it's a bit of a stretch to call a dethermalizer or Walston Tx a payload. NARAM this past summer had a fun event called "payload glide", but did not have any specs for an actual payload. It was the glider's mass multiplied by the duration. R/C models took the top places, though notably the event was limited to C engine power so the models were not as big as other R/C RBG's and used small light radio gear. Some free-flight rocket gliders could be considered to sort of be carrying a payload, in the form of the engine casing. Some plans for the Stiletto Slide Wing Rocket Glider: http://members.aol.com/GCGassaway/othermodels.htm A page on other contest type Rocket Gliders: http://members.aol.com/GCGassaway/contest/rocket_glide.htm R/C Rocket Boosted Gliders: http://members.aol.com/GCGassaway/rcgliders.htm Big Bird-3 F Dual Eggloft carrying R/C glider: http://members.aol.com/georgeebay/Big_Bird_3.jpg The above Big Bird-3 R/C model (6' span) was designed specifically to carry payloads, in the form of two eggs (for the Dual Eggloft Duration event). In 1980, there was a contest that held F Dual Eggloft Duration as an unofficial event. For the heck of it I took a worn-out 36" span R/C B/G wing and made up a new "stick" type fuselage for it, replacing the original built-up balsa fuselage. Then a 2" diameter egg capsule was literally taped to the stick fuselage, at the CG location. That free flight glider flew with two eggs and landed safely, the eggs intact. For the heck of it, in 1996 Ryan Woebkenberg flew C Payload Altitude by carrying an NAR 1 ounce sand payload aboard a C powered R/C rocket glider. There was no competition benefit for him to do that (didn't place), but hey, it's getting mentioned here 8 years later isn't it? Also Chris Taylor's HPR "Grrr" glider carried an onboard video camera for the 3rd and 4th flight attempts. But those flights didn't ignite right (actually one of them stuck on the tower rail). Thinking a bit more about video as a payload, I have seen some onboard footage of an F or G powered R/C rocket glider (modified EPP foam R/C kit) that carried a video camera onboard. A flight that worked well and a flight that crashed when the EPP wings gave up the ghost on boost (was using a relatively high thrust engine, like a G40). Also Marc McReynolds has done some aerial photography using a R/C rocket glider and a still camera, I do not recall if he was using Astrocams or some other still camera. Was there something specific you had in mind trying? For some relatively small and light payloads, existing F/F glider kits or designs could probably be adapted. As for the mass that R/C adds to a glider, that can depend greatly on how small (and how low power) you want the glider to be, how much you want to spend, how well you can build something that may be finicky to set up, and how controllable do you want the glider to be (some ultra light gear has poor range, other ultralight gear uses magnetic actuators that trade for low mass at the cost of decreased strength and accuracy). On the flip side there's some micro servos of only 6 grams that cost only about $20 now, people would have been paying over $50 for those 10 years ago. The two servos and one receiver that I put in S8E size (D & E power) Stingray & Cuda models runs a little over $100, not including the battery pack. The servos have plenty of power and the Hitec 555 receiver has range well beyond how far I can see the model. I also have a B6 and C6 powered model, 32" span, 110 sq in, 105 gram glide weight (with burned out 18mm engine) that uses a GWS micro flight pack that only cost about $75 or so. The receiver of that pack only weighs 6 grams, but its range is only about 600 feet, which I've run afoul of 2 times so far when I let the glider get too far away during contest flying. - George Gassaway Thank you most kindly, George, for your fantastic response. The payloads I've been thinking of are 11.5" dolls, like Barbie and G.I.Joe. The real Mattel versions are pretty massive, around 300g or so. The dollar store versions, however, are "only" around 100g (3.5 oz). I'd read the Air & Space article about Homer Hickam's Barbie Launch at http://www.airspacemag.com/ASM/Mag/Index/2002/AM/rkbd.html a fair while ago. Of course, this was a ballistic Barbie without a recovery device. (Ever think what Barbie would look like if she went ballistic?) I've been working more and more with B/G's and R/G's, trying several different established designs (though I've only just begun with R/G's). My wife, my daughter, and I have finished up a conventional Barbie payload rocket design. So, now we're fusing glider interests with Barbie lofting notions. When thinking about payloads on gliders, R/C came to mind. It looks as if the weight of R/C is quite a bit lower than the considered payload. You've pointed the way to a rich collection of resources to look into. This'll be tons of fun. Thanks again, George. Dwayne Surdu-Miller SAROS #1 > Thank you most kindly, George, for your fantastic response. > [quoted text clipped - 6 lines] > ago. Of course, this was a ballistic Barbie without a recovery device. > (Ever think what Barbie would look like if she went ballistic?) > My wife, my daughter, and I have finished up a conventional Barbie > payload rocket design. So, now we're fusing glider interests with > Barbie lofting notions. Think about this: If Barbie is so all-fired popular, why do you have to buy all her friends?? :-) Seriously, I have a 6" tall (or thereabouts) figure of 'The Rocketeer' from the Disney movie a few years back that just *screams* to be lofted on a rocket; all the better a glider! dwayne: I know what barbie looks like when she goes ballistic and its not a pretty sight...i'm talking about my grrlfriend of course...... something like 0 to bitch in 2 seconds flat.... heheheheh shockie B) > Thank you most kindly, George, for your fantastic response. > [quoted text clipped - 24 lines] > Dwayne Surdu-Miller > SAROS #1 I know what you mean. It can be most impressive in a scary kind of way :-) > For the heck of it, in 1996 Ryan Woebkenberg flew C Payload Altitude by > carrying an NAR 1 ounce sand payload aboard a C powered R/C rocket glider. > There was no competition benefit for him to do that (didn't place), but hey, > it's getting mentioned here 8 years later isn't it? He got more than that. He got a Dead Last but Finished trophy and a US RECORD that still stands today. Take a look at http://nar.org/NARrecords.shtml and check C division C Payload. RC records are seperate, no no one else has flown the event with RD! > Thinking a bit more about video as a payload, I have seen some onboard footage Didn't you fly one of your old swing wings with a Cineroc on it? Bob Kaplow NAR # 18L TRA # "Impeach the TRA BoD" >>> To reply, remove the TRABoD! <<< Kaplow Klips & Baffle: http://nira-rocketry.org/LeadingEdge/Phantom4000.pdf www.encompasserve.org/~kaplow_r/ www.nira-rocketry.org www.nar.org 26-October, 2001: A day that will live in infamy Support Freedom: http://www.indefenseoffreedom.org/ Voting for "the lesser of two evils" is still voting for evil. These are three of the events I submitted to the Provisional Events Committee. I have not heard anything from them in three years. Load Glide was kind of a practice for CBG: XX Cargo Boost Glider Duration Competition XX.1 Scope Cargo Boost Glider Duration Competition comprises eight events open to any model rocket, one portion of which carries a payload, as defined below, in stable, gliding flight supported by aerodynamic lifting surfaces which sustain that portion aloft. The entry may separate into multiple pieces; only the load-carrying, gliding portion is timed. This event is open both to models with rigid lifting surfaces and those with flexible lifting surfaces. The object in this competition is to achieve the largest product of payload carried and flight duration. XX.2 Payload Specifications and Scoring The gliding portion of an entry must carry at least one standard NAR payload. The contest director shall select between two methods of scoring: a. One flight load: The score for each flight of an entry shall be the duration in seconds multiplied by the total number of standard payloads carried on that flight. Each flight by a competitor may be made with a different model and may carry a different amount of payload (except in the case of multiround, where only two models may be used for three flights). b. Two flight load: The score for each flight of an entry shall be the duration in seconds multiplied by the total number of standard payloads carried over two flights. The two flights must be made by the same model, but different amounts of payload may be carried on each flight. There is no multiround version of this scoring system. The standard NAR model rocket payload is a non-metallic cylinder containing fine sand, with a mass of no less than 28.0 grams. This cylinder shall be 19.1 millimeters ( +/-0.5 millimeter) in diameter, and 70 millimeters (+/- 10.0 millimeters) in length. The payload may be permanently sealed to prevent the loss of the sand. No holes may be drilled into it, no changes made in its shape, and no other material may be affixed to it. XX.3 Payload Carriage The standard NAR model rocket payload or payloads carried in a model shall not separate from the model in flight, and shall be removable from the model. XX.4 Disqualifications Any entry whose total weight at liftoff exceeds the manufacturer's recommended maximum lift weight for the motor or motor combination used shall be disqualified. An entry that descends with parachute and/or streamer recovery device(s) permanently attached to the gliding portion of the model shall be disqualified. However, other portions of an entry may deploy parachutes and/or streamers for recovery purposes. If the gliding portion accidentally rips a streamer being used to recover another portion of the entry and the streamer becomes attached to the gliding portion, the entry may be qualified depending on the RSO ruling that the entry still glided and was not disqualified for other reasons. XX.5 Classes This competition is divided into classes based on the permissible total impulse of the motor(s). The following classes of Cargo Boost Glider Duration Competition are established: Motor Class Weighting Factor Multi-Round Maximum 1/2A ?? 90 sec A ?? 120 sec B ?? 180 sec C ?? 240 sec D ?? 270 sec E ?? 300 sec F ?? 300 sec G ?? 300 sec YY Cargo Copter Duration Competition YY.1 Scope Cargo Copter Duration Competition comprises nine events open to any model rocket, one portion of which carries a payload, defined below, and uses the principle of autorotation as the sole means of recovery. The entry may separate into multiple pieces; only the load-carrying, autorotating portion is timed.The object of this competition is to achieve the largest product of payload carried and flight duration using an autorotating recovery system. YY.2 Payload Specifications and Scoring The autorotating portion of an entry must carry one or more standard NAR payloads. The score for each flight of an entry shall be the duration in seconds multiplied by the total number of standard payloads carried. The standard NAR model rocket payload is a non-metallic cylinder containing fine sand, with a mass of no less than 28.0 grams. This cylinder shall be 19.1 millimeters ( +/-0.5 millimeter) in diameter, and 70 millimeters (+/- 10.0 millimeters) in length. The payload may be permanently sealed to prevent the loss of the sand. No holes may be drilled into it, no changes made in its shape, and no other material may be affixed to it. YY.3 Payload Carriage The standard NAR model rocket payload or payloads carried in a model shall not separate from the model in flight, and shall be removable from the model. YY.4 Autorotation Requirement The load-carrying portion of each entry must be sustained aloft during descent solely by its autorotating recovery device. A model that descends nose first, or flips over once during descent is permitted. A model that flips over more than once shall be disqualified. YY.5 Recovery Restriction Entries using, for the load-carrying portion, a recovery system which is designed to act (or which actually acts) in a manner similar to a parachute, a rigid inverted bowl, or similar techniques are specifically excluded from this competition. YY.6 Disqualification Any entry whose total weight at liftoff exceeds the manufacturer's recommended maximum lift weight for the motor or motor combination used shall be disqualified YY.7 Classes This competition is divided into classes based on the permissible total impulse of the motor(s). The following classes of Load Copter Duration Competition are established: Motor Class Weighting Factor Multi-Round Maximum 1/4A ?? 30 sec 1/2A ?? 60 sec A ?? 120 sec B ?? 180 sec C ?? 240 sec D ?? 300 sec E ?? 300 sec F ?? 300 sec G ?? 300 sec ZZ Airlift Duration Competition ZZ.1 Scope Airlift Duration Competition comprises six events open to any model rocket, one or more portions of which carry a payload, as defined below, in stable, gliding flight supported by aerodynamic lifting surfaces which sustain those portions aloft. If the entry is staged, the gliding portions must be part of the uppermost stage, and must not be deployed until that stage has burned out. The entry may separate into multiple pieces; only the gliding portions are timed. This event is open both to models with rigid lifting surfaces and those with flexible lifting surfaces. The object of this competition is to achieve the largest product of number of gliding portions deployed and flight duration. ZZ.2 Payload Specifications and Scoring Each gliding portion of an entry must carry one standard NAR payload. The score for one flight of an entry shall be the flight duration in seconds of the first gliding portion to reach the ground multiplied by the total number of gliding portions of the entry. The standard NAR model rocket payload is a non-metallic cylinder containing fine sand, with a mass of no less than 28.0 grams. This cylinder shall be 19.1 millimeters ( +/-0.5 millimeter) in diameter, and 70 millimeters (+/- 10.0 millimeters) in length. The payload may be permanently sealed to prevent the loss of the sand. No holes may be drilled into it, no changes made in its shape, and no other material may be affixed to it. ZZ.3 Payload Carriage The standard NAR model rocket payload or payloads carried in a model shall not separate from the model in flight, and shall be removable from the model. ZZ.4 Disqualifications Any entry whose total weight at liftoff exceeds the manufacturer's recommended maximum lift weight for the motor or motor combination used shall be disqualified. An entry that descends with parachute and/or streamer recovery device(s) permanently attached to the gliding portion of the model shall be disqualified. However, other portions of an entry may deploy parachutes and/or streamers for recovery purposes. If the gliding portion accidentally rips a streamer being used to recover another portion of the entry and the streamer becomes attached to the gliding portion, the entry may be qualified depending on the RSO ruling that the entry still glided and was not disqualified for other reasons. ZZ.5 Classes This competition is divided into classes based on the permissible total impulse of the motor(s). The following classes of Airlift Duration Competition are established: Motor Class Weighting Factor Multi-Round Maximum B ?? 180 sec C ?? 240 sec D ?? 270 sec E ?? 300 sec F ?? 300 sec G ?? 300 sec RE Most interesting set of competitions, Rob. So, a rocket-boosted payload glider would have the elegant acronym CBG, perhaps with CRG, R/C CBG, and R/C CRG thrown in. Have you received much general feedback about these proposed contests so far? I hadn't previously know what a standard NAR payload was. It looks like it would translate to an Estes BT-20J sealed with enough sand that it weighs an ounce? Dwayne Surdu-Miller SAROS #1 ----------------------------------------- > These are three of the events I submitted to the Provisional Events Committee. > I have not heard anything from them in three years. Load Glide was kind of a > practice for CBG: > > XX Cargo Boost Glider Duration Competition <snip> > The standard NAR model rocket payload is a non-metallic cylinder containing > fine sand, with a mass of no less than 28.0 grams. This cylinder shall be 19.1 > millimeters ( +/-0.5 millimeter) in diameter, and 70 millimeters (+/- 10.0 > millimeters) in length. The payload may be permanently sealed to prevent the > loss of the sand. No holes may be drilled into it, no changes made in its > shape, and no other material may be affixed to it. <snip> > YY Cargo Copter Duration Competition <snip> > ZZ Airlift Duration Competition <snip> > RE Any entry whose total weight at liftoff exceeds the manufacturer's recommended maximum lift weight for the motor or motor combination used shall be disqualified. hey rob I have an issue with the above portion. !! why do you have this in the rules ? it makes no sense ? many times I "exceed" manufactures suggest max lift off mass with NO ill effects !! in fact there is zero logical reason for this rule. if the flight is "unsafe" the RSO will call it as such and it will be DQ'd anyway. I would suggest revising the rules to omit this. also I question the validity of time multiplied by number of payloads. I fear this will end up where superroc is. ie one optimal configuration is the only real competitive configuration. can a model with 2 payloads really compete with a model that uses 1 even with the double multiplier ? ie maybe adjust it based on engine class ? 1 for A 2 for B 3 for C etc.. and anything "over" this for each class is bonus ? this would create interesting models etc. without making the super sleek 1 payload model and simply going for max time. this is all off the top of my head but the first thing manufacturer weight limit should be eliminated. its not good :-) Chris Taylor http://www.nerys.com/ That's an interesting point, Chris. What determines the manufacturer's recommended maximum lift weight? Dwayne Surdu-Miller SAROS #1 ---------------------------------------------- > Any entry whose total weight at liftoff exceeds the manufacturer's > recommended > maximum lift weight for the motor or motor combination used shall be > disqualified. > > hey rob I have an issue with the above portion. !! <snip> > Any entry whose total weight at liftoff exceeds the manufacturer's > recommended > maximum lift weight for the motor or motor combination used shall be > disqualified. > > hey rob I have an issue with the above portion. !! Good point. You can't DQ an entry that never gets past safety check. Over the years there have been many manufacturer kits that exceed the MRLOW for a recommended motor. IIRC the Astrocam on a C6-7 is on this list. Bob Kaplow NAR # 18L TRA # "Impeach the TRA BoD" >>> To reply, remove the TRABoD! <<< Kaplow Klips & Baffle: http://nira-rocketry.org/LeadingEdge/Phantom4000.pdf www.encompasserve.org/~kaplow_r/ www.nira-rocketry.org www.nar.org 26-October, 2001: A day that will live in infamy Support Freedom: http://www.indefenseoffreedom.org/ Voting for "the lesser of two evils" is still voting for evil. > > Any entry whose total weight at liftoff exceeds the manufacturer's > > recommended [quoted text clipped - 6 lines] > the years there have been many manufacturer kits that exceed the MRLOW for a > recommended motor. IIRC the Astrocam on a C6-7 is on this list. I thought the Astrocam (and Camroc) intentionally recommended using a motor with an unusually long delay (relative to what would be normal for the rocket size and weight) - which would be equivalent to exceeding the normal "recommended max liftoff weight" for the long delay motor - to be sure the rocket was pointing downward to take a pivture of the surface at ejection. -dave w > > > Any entry whose total weight at liftoff exceeds the manufacturer's > > > recommended [quoted text clipped - 16 lines] > > -dave w The point is there is a technicality in NFPA of MLOW which is inviolable. It is silly, as are most NAR/TRA authored NFPA regulations. Jerry SignatureJerry Irvine, Box 1242, Claremont, California 91711 USA Opinion, the whole thing. <mail to:01rocket@gte.net> Please bring common sense back to rocketry administration. Produce then publish. http://www.usrockets.com Ebay auction deals and specials. http://tinyurl.com/6wlp8 > > I thought the Astrocam (and Camroc) intentionally recommended > > using a motor with an unusually long delay (relative to what [quoted text clipped - 7 lines] > The point is there is a technicality in NFPA of MLOW which is > inviolable. It is silly, as are most NAR/TRA authored NFPA regulations. Interesting... checking the safety codes as listed on the NAR website, it appears that there is no such stipulation in the "Model Rocket Safety Code", but there is in the "High Power Rocket Safety Code": -------------------------------------------------------------------------- 6. Weight and Power Limits. My rocket will weigh no more than the motor manufacturer's recommended maximum liftoff weight for the motors used, or I will use motors recommended by the manufacturer of the rocket kit. -------------------------------------------------------------------------- The irony here is that manufacturers of "high power" motors generally don't provided recommended weight limits like they do for the "model" size motors... so the net effect of this would be to give "force of safety code" to the specific motor types recommended by a kit manufacturer. (That gets tricky for stuff like LOC kits, where the instruction cards seem to mainly list obsolete motor types no longer avaialble...) -dave w > > > I thought the Astrocam (and Camroc) intentionally recommended > > > using a motor with an unusually long delay (relative to what [quoted text clipped - 20 lines] > size motors... so the net effect of this would be to give "force of > safety code" to the specific motor types recommended by a kit manufacturer. In other words if no kit manufacturers recommend your motors you are illegal in 38 states. Perhaps felony illegal. > (That gets tricky for stuff like LOC kits, where the instruction cards > seem to mainly list obsolete motor types no longer avaialble...) > > -dave w SignatureJerry Irvine, Box 1242, Claremont, California 91711 USA Opinion, the whole thing. <mail to:01rocket@gte.net> Please bring common sense back to rocketry administration. Produce then publish. http://www.usrockets.com Ebay auction deals and specials. http://tinyurl.com/6wlp8 Well if you custom make the rocket YOU are the manufacturer of the rocket kit and therfore stipulate the motors for use in that kit ???? What this says is that if the kit manufacturer says no smaller than a b don't but an A in it. Chris Taylor http://www.nerys.com/ > > > I thought the Astrocam (and Camroc) intentionally recommended > > > using a motor with an unusually long delay (relative to what [quoted text clipped - 24 lines] > > -dave w exactly yet with rob's rules that model would be summarily DQ's even if it could fly perfectly safe. Chris Taylor http://www.nerys.com/ > > > Any entry whose total weight at liftoff exceeds the manufacturer's > > > recommended [quoted text clipped - 15 lines] > > -dave w I wrote: >>>->>> Thinking a bit more about video as a payload, I have seen some onboard footage <<<-<<< Bob Kaplow replied: Didn't you fly one of your old swing wings with a Cineroc on it? <<<< Yeah. That was so long ago (around 1973 or so) and such a rotten attempt I didn't even think of it counting it. It was a 6.5" span swing-wing, using three clustered D12's. Only one D12 lit, which was enough to make it leave the launch rail and make it to about 5-10 feet off the ground then nosed over to the ground. The Cineroc filmed it all, of course, but that Cineroc never ran quite the same after that. You must have thought of it from seeing my old prang films. One of these days I need to take the videos of those (which were converted from 8mm film) and convert them to DVD. - George Gassaway > You must have thought of it from seeing my old prang films. One of these days I > need to take the videos of those (which were converted from 8mm film) and > convert them to DVD. Yes, that's what I was thinking of. Unless they did a really good job, you might be better off going back to the original film. If it's not in too bad a shape. Someone should take yours, Gaffs, the old PSC prang film, and more, put them all on one DVD, and make it a NARTS item. I'd bet that would sell very well. Bob Kaplow NAR # 18L TRA # "Impeach the TRA BoD" >>> To reply, remove the TRABoD! <<< Kaplow Klips & Baffle: http://nira-rocketry.org/LeadingEdge/Phantom4000.pdf www.encompasserve.org/~kaplow_r/ www.nira-rocketry.org www.nar.org 26-October, 2001: A day that will live in infamy Support Freedom: http://www.indefenseoffreedom.org/ Voting for "the lesser of two evils" is still voting for evil. I'd pay money for a George and Bob Compilation DVD SignatureTater(not, this is comming fro someone unemployed) President of MARS Club (NAR #660) www.mars-rocketry.com KC9ESF NAR #79654 L1 AMA #747769 EAA #703312 remove spam spelled backwards to reply > > You must have thought of it from seeing my old prang films. One of these days I > > need to take the videos of those (which were converted from 8mm film) and [quoted text clipped - 17 lines] > > Voting for "the lesser of two evils" is still voting for evil. > I'd pay money for a George and Bob Compilation DVD Alas, my video collection is zilch. George has some neat stuff. As does Ric Gaff. ALl dating back to the 8mm days. I've yet to see anything like the prang films of old in any video format. Bob Kaplow NAR # 18L TRA # "Impeach the TRA BoD" >>> To reply, remove the TRABoD! <<< Kaplow Klips & Baffle: http://nira-rocketry.org/LeadingEdge/Phantom4000.pdf www.encompasserve.org/~kaplow_r/ www.nira-rocketry.org www.nar.org 26-October, 2001: A day that will live in infamy Support Freedom: http://www.indefenseoffreedom.org/ Voting for "the lesser of two evils" is still voting for evil. >> I'd pay money for a George and Bob Compilation DVD > >Alas, my video collection is zilch. George has some neat stuff. As does Ric >Gaff. ALl dating back to the 8mm days. I've yet to see anything like the >prang films of old in any video format. And let's not forget the classic gag films, like "A Day at Northpark" Alan > Bob Kaplow NAR # 18L > And let's not forget the classic gag films, like "A Day at Northpark" I can't believe I forgot about that one! Bob Kaplow NAR # 18L TRA # "Impeach the TRA BoD" >>> To reply, remove the TRABoD! <<< Kaplow Klips & Baffle: http://nira-rocketry.org/LeadingEdge/Phantom4000.pdf www.encompasserve.org/~kaplow_r/ www.nira-rocketry.org www.nar.org 26-October, 2001: A day that will live in infamy Support Freedom: http://www.indefenseoffreedom.org/ Voting for "the lesser of two evils" is still voting for evil. I've yet to see anything like the prang films of old in any video format. <<<<< One of mine was converted to video for the Old Rocketeers Reunion for NARAM in Manassas in 1989. I think it was included among a number of other old films that were included on one video that was put on sale by someone involved in the effort. IIRC one of the old films included something from the US Air Force, and also IIRC some footage from some California rocket club that included some underwater launches out of a modified drum with a clear plastic window (maybe it was West Covina?). I have that video somewhere around here but I do not know where. Same goes for my original 8mm prang films, somewhere around here but I don't know where I've stuck them. At least there is a better chance I'll find those than finding some big (somewhat bigger than ark of the covenant-size) wooden crate that used to be in a huge government warehouse..... BTW - Im not so sure about my prang films being a NARTS item. If the not-fit-for-the-safety-code parts were edited out theyd be sorta dull. Yet I would be a bit leery myself of NARTS including the original films showing that sort of stuff. - George Gassaway > One of mine was converted to video for the Old Rocketeers Reunion for NARAM > in > Manassas in 1989. So if they were old then, what are they now? > also IIRC some footage from some California rocket club that included some > underwater launches out of a modified drum with a clear plastic window (maybe > it was West Covina?). I have that video somewhere around here but I do not > know where. Correct. Jerry SignatureJerry Irvine, Box 1242, Claremont, California 91711 USA Opinion, the whole thing. <mail to:01rocket@gte.net> Please bring common sense back to rocketry administration. Produce then publish. http://www.usrockets.com Ebay auction deals and specials. http://tinyurl.com/6wlp8 > > You must have thought of it from seeing my old prang films. One of these days I > > need to take the videos of those (which were converted from 8mm film) and [quoted text clipped - 7 lines] > Someone should take yours, Gaffs, the old PSC prang film, and more, put them > all on one DVD, and make it a NARTS item. I'd bet that would sell very well. If someone can get the raw 8mm and 16mm films to me (or the VHS copies), I can get them digitized and mastered for DVD. This sounds like something that would sell reasonably well through NARTS... James ___________________ James Duffy jduffy@mac.com www.rocket.aero > Just wondering, has there ever been much rocketry R&D effort directed > toward rocket-boosted payloading gliders? [quoted text clipped - 4 lines] > supporting a radio receiver and control mechanisms. What kind of mass > does this stuff add to an unfurnished glider? Rob Edmonds of Edmonds Aerospace sponsored a 'load glide' fun contest at NARAM this past summer. The results can be found on the NARAM web site here: http://www.naram.org/naram46points.html You'll have to ask Rob how the scoring worked; by the look of it, there was some kind of multiplicative algorithm. mj Thanks Mark, the numbers look impressive. I wonder how on earth the winning entry did what it did. The achieved weight*time seems to be way out there! Dwayne Surdu-Miller SAROS #1 hmmm, makes me think you should stroll on over to the rc aircraft areas and ask them. they would know about wing loading and other stuff we barely scratch the surface on. be you could get one that can handle 1 POUND of payload, but probably with a really reduced glide time SignatureTater President of MARS Club (NAR #660) www.mars-rocketry.com KC9ESF NAR #79654 L1 AMA #747769 EAA #703312 remove spam spelled backwards to reply > Just wondering, has there ever been much rocketry R&D effort directed > toward rocket-boosted payloading gliders? [quoted text clipped - 7 lines] > Dwayne Surdu-Miller > SAROS #1 << Just wondering, has there ever been much rocketry R&D effort directed toward rocket-boosted payloading gliders? >> Good question! I've often thought about putting a camera in rocket glider, but don't know enough about gliders yet to try it. I think one of the 'low power' BoosterVision video cameras would be a good payload choice, since they are small and light. |
Reply to this Message |
 Sign In
 Join
 My Latest Posts My Monitored Threads My Blog My Photo Gallery My Profile My Homepage Start New Thread Enable EMail Alerts Rate this Thread
|
©2012 Advenet LLC Privacy Policy - Terms of Use
This website includes both content owned or controlled by Advenet as well as content owned or controlled by third parties.