[roc-chat] Re: Tube type pros and cons?
- From: Park Warne <wpwarne@xxxxxxxxx>
- To: roc-chat@xxxxxxxxxxxxx
- Date: Mon, 24 Dec 2012 15:49:16 -0800
I thought the FAA limit for "experimental" was 200kN - or something like a
low R?
On Mon, Dec 24, 2012 at 3:29 PM, Jack Garibaldi <jackgaribaldi@xxxxxxx>wrote:
> 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 <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 <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:
