[roc-chat] Re: Tube type pros and cons?
- From: Jack Garibaldi <jackgaribaldi@xxxxxxx>
- To: <roc-chat@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>
- Date: Mon, 24 Dec 2012 15:29:52 -0800
It never ends
Jack
From: roc-chat-bounce@xxxxxxxxxxxxx [mailto:roc-chat-bounce@xxxxxxxxxxxxx]
On Behalf Of Rick Maschek
Sent: Monday, December 24, 2012 2:41 PM
To: ROC-Chat
Subject: [roc-chat] Re: Tube type pros and cons?
Actually, where does HPR end? O-motor or Class 3 ?
Rick
_____
From: jackgaribaldi@xxxxxxx
To: roc-chat@xxxxxxxxxxxxx
Subject: [roc-chat] Re: Tube type pros and cons?
Date: Mon, 24 Dec 2012 14:34:26 -0800
I don't think Park is ready for aluminum tubing yet when he is ready for the
S motor then we will talk aluminum
Jack G
From: roc-chat-bounce@xxxxxxxxxxxxx [mailto:roc-chat-bounce@xxxxxxxxxxxxx]
On Behalf Of Rick Maschek
Sent: Monday, December 24, 2012 2:06 PM
To: ROC-Chat
Subject: [roc-chat] Re: Tube type pros and cons?
What, no aluminum/metal airframe tubing? My next rocket will be an
automobile driveshaft...who does welding?
Rick
_____
From: jackgaribaldi@xxxxxxx
To: roc-chat@xxxxxxxxxxxxx
Subject: [roc-chat] Re: Tube type pros and cons?
Date: Mon, 24 Dec 2012 12:02:51 -0800
Hey Park
Ok here is my breakdown opinion
1. Cardboard tube = the cheapest all by itself- Ok for flying all kinds
of motors depending on diameter and lengths but it is what it is cardboard,
and doesn't have the strength and longevity as other tubes.
2. Phenolic Tube = 2nd cheapest all by itself- Ok to use for flying all
kinds of motors but is brittle and on lakebeds not that forgiving. Very good
for fiber glassing this tube and will be the lightest results.
3. Quantum Tubing = 3rd cheapest all by itself- ok to use for flying
all kind of motors but is plastic, brittle and not great for mach flights,
contracts and expands big time in summer and winter so your Piston will need
adjustment constantly because PML uses this on a lot of their kits but ok to
cut the piston out and deal with it.
4. Blue Tube = 4th cheapest all by itself- ok to use for flying all
kind of motors but is heavier than phenolic more forgiving and stronger than
phenolic. Good for fiber glassing but why pay more for a tube and have it
heavier when phenolic will yield same or better results if you are glassing,
if you are not a fiber glass guy well then better and heavier than phenolic
and more expensive. Kind of a pain to putty or fill of all the spirals if
not glassing.
5. Filament wound or glass mandrel tubes= Great tubes, very strong
tubes, right out of the gate but a lot heavier and more expensive. Easy to
finish, hardly no work at all prime and paint. Holds up the best for
longevity and can handle almost anything you can throw at it of course
unless you are over the top and pushing psycho N5800 limits at it.
So you have to look at what your goal is on each rocket
1. Do I want the lightest and strongest because I am an altitude Junky
and it has to break every record.
2. Do I want the cheapest rocket I can find.
3. Do I want a tank and just don't want to go home every month and fix
something.
4. It is ok to have all of the above with a variety of rocket types
because you will have some for each purpose that you want.
Happy Holidays to all
Jack G
From: roc-chat-bounce@xxxxxxxxxxxxx [mailto:roc-chat-bounce@xxxxxxxxxxxxx]
On Behalf Of Park Warne
Sent: Monday, December 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
Other related posts:
