[roc-chat] Re: Tube type pros and cons?
- From: John Coker <john@xxxxxxxx>
- To: roc-chat@xxxxxxxxxxxxx
- Date: Mon, 24 Dec 2012 11:43:05 -0800
I second this suggestion. Phenolic is an excellent structural material
(light, strong, stiff and water-resistant , but can use a layer of
fiberglass for impact resistance and to cover the spiral grooves.
Paper is soft and deforms, which makes tubing ends and mating surfaces less
durable. It requires a fiberglass skin to have any durability and for
finishing, of course.
I haven't used vulcanized paper tube, "blue tube", yet, but it sounds like
an interesting product.
Fiberglass tubes are very heavy and sanding and cutting them generates
toxic dust. If weight and price are not a concern, they make good choices
since they have a smooth surface and are ready to prime as-is.
C.F. is also a good choice for tubes, as it's stiff and light-weight.
However, it's very expensive and most types still need to be covered with a
wrap of fiberglass for finishing.
John
On Mon, Dec 24, 2012 at 11:25 AM, Kurt Gugisberg <kurtgug@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>wrote:
> My favorite method that I think is the cheapest and best to work with is
> regular phenolic tubing with one or two wraps of fiberglass around it.
> The phenolic is very strong but brittle so the fiberglass gives it the
> strength to resist cracking. You can also fiberglass the cardboard but
> I like the phenolic much more.
>
> Kurt
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: Park Warne **
> Sent: Dec 24, 2012 11:09 AM
> To: roc-chat@xxxxxxxxxxxxx
> Subject: [roc-chat] Tube type pros and cons?
>
> Hi, and Merry Christmas to all!
>
> I have a question that has been rolling about in my head during the
> holiday season (since I have to work) as to what are the relative pros and
> cons of each type of body tube material fora higher power rocket (at least
> H, but definitely J and up). The only information I have been able to find
> is from retailer websites, which for some reason ALWAYS seem to recommend
> the highest priced items!
>
> So to the great gurus of rocketry, what say you as to WHEN you should or
> shouldn't use a particular type of body tube, WHY that would be, and WHAT
> are the relative advantages for each. The tube types I'm thinking of are:
>
> 1. heavy/thick walled paper (either with or without a glass outer covering)
> 2. vulcanized paper tube, aka "blue tube" (again, with or without a glass
> outer covering)
> 3. filament wound or cloth-based fiberglss tubes
> 4. carbon fiber or other exotic tube types
>
> Many, if not most, of these seem to be available either from Jack, PML,
> Giant Leap, or Hawk Mountain, but I just wanted to get the opinions of the
> oracles before plunking down the cash for scratch-built materials.
>
> As with most things, the use of the finished product is important. Mine
> would be to use the rocket as a sort of "test mule" for doing further
> investigations with electronic payloads, electronic deployments (both
> single and dual), and possible hybrid motor use (so would need a VERY long
> motor tube!). With those in mind, I would think durability would be one of
> the top concerns, closely followed in a tie by build economy and the
> ability to launch on relatively conservative motor values to keep
> per-launch costs lower.
>
> Thanks in advance for any sage advice!
>
> Park Warne
> NAR 94438 - L1
> **
>
> -- ROC-Chat mailing list roc-chat@xxxxxxxxxxxxx
> //www.freelists.org/list/roc-chat
Other related posts:
