Biting the bullet and getting into sugar rockets.

[gunner1]

I've been interested in these dang things for a while now and I'm going to take the leap. I just want to make sure I have the important parts down right. ( I DID read several posts on the subject on this forum) Right off the bat I'd like to sat that I'm NOT going to use PVC. The thought of a CATO and the resulting shards of death are a no go for me so I'm going to order cut-to-length cardboard tubes that have a 3/4" i.d. and quarter inch thick walls.
I want to put headers on them so I've been in contact with Yazoo Mills to make me custom tubes that are 1.27" i.d. (to fit OVER the 1.25" o.d.of the 3/4" i.d. engine tubes) and they'll make me what I need for about $220/250 tubes delivered. I specified a 1/4" wall to get a louder report from the header. Is it overkill?
The betonite nozzle is not a problem, and I'll order some KNO3 from somewhere that's already at a -325 mesh and grind it even more after I get it.
I DO have a question about the header. It's simply going to be a report header. Now, I watched Ned Gorski use a "binary system" for loading the header and then shaking the rocket after putting the top disc on. Does it HAVE to be done this way or can one just properly mix up the ingredients for the header and load it? (a 70/30 mix)
Any tips or faults you can provide would be greatly appreciated.

[calebkessinger]

That seems like overkill to me.

My standard BP rocket kits make good sugar rockets. Add a tube support and use my NEPT tubes then my header tubes slide right over them. Bam done.

All in one place. Quick and easy.

 

You can mix the flash then load it just fine. Using thicker tubes won't make good flash noticeably louder. rolled paper flash headers work just fine.

[vendrite]

Gunner, I'm sure you can find header tubes from where ever to fit your motor tubes if you'll just look. A close friend in WI. has been building rocket motors for 40 something years and rolls 3 turns of gummed tape around a mandrel for his salute headers. These gummed tape headers would be far less weight and as Caleb states would be just as good. For sugar motors, you won't need a 1/4 wall thickness. Again, extra weight and lower quality. NEPT is the way to go, several vendors have them. Stronger and better quality. Binary mixing eliminates a larger amount of flash in the open and contains the live mix in a container away from sparks, friction and static. Just a few grams of flash going off in front of you will sure ruin your day. All great reasons to use binary mixing. Ned has done this a lot more than most of us, he wouldn't steer you wrong.

[dagabu]

PVC is very common for sugar rockets but you do have to be mindful of the consequences of doing so. That said, the NEPT tubes are your best bet (Kudos Caleb) for good walls to hold the pressure over time. There is no need for a PVC tube support when packing sugar rockets unless you make the fuel and then grate it so you can pack the tubes conventionally like a BP rocket. Dr. Elsey's Precious Cat Ultra Premium Clumping Cat Litter is the very best I have found for cheap nozzles, Caleb also adds Graphite Powder to the mix and that seems to make a nice combination.

 

Reports and salutes on sugar rockets:

My feelings on this subject may be different than others, I think that is a bad pairing. BP and salutes? Light them at a club shoot, your golden. Sugar rockets with a pinch of F so you can see the end of flight? Cool! Anything larger than a gram of F on a sugar rocket and I wouldn't let you fly it at a club shoot.

 

Why? Sugar rockets are notorious for failing to take fire, the fuel grain is deliquescent, not just hygroscopic. Case in point, I left a single grain outside in a covered area and when I came back a few days later (no rain in that time) the grain had dissolved into a puddle with a lump of fuel in the middle. The fuel MUST be kept dry, very dry! If you have a rocket you made at home, bring it to a club shoot a month later, stick it up and set it in the ready box and then take it out as dusk to shoot it, imagine how much water it is being exposed to?

 

I gave up on sugar rockets a decade ago in favor of BP and even whistle or a hybrid of both because of the hygroscopy issues.

 

Good luck, give it a try and post the video, we all would like to see a successful version of the sugar rocket that is reliable.

Doood! We all know that is Steve LaDuke!

 

Gunner, I'm sure you can find header tubes from where ever to fit your motor tubes if you'll just look. A close friend in WI. has been building rocket motors for 40 something years and rolls 3 turns of gummed tape around a mandrel for his salute headers. These gummed tape headers would be far less weight and as Caleb states would be just as good. For sugar motors, you won't need a 1/4 wall thickness. Again, extra weight and lower quality. NEPT is the way to go, several vendors have them. Stronger and better quality. Binary mixing eliminates a larger amount of flash in the open and contains the live mix in a container away from sparks, friction and static. Just a few grams of flash going off in front of you will sure ruin your day. All great reasons to use binary mixing. Ned has done this a lot more than most of us, he wouldn't steer you wrong.

[gunner1]

PVC is very common for sugar rockets but you do have to be mindful of the consequences of doing so. That said, the NEPT tubes are your best bet (Kudos Caleb) for good walls to hold the pressure over time. There is no need for a PVC tube support when packing sugar rockets unless you make the fuel and then grate it so you can pack the tubes conventionally like a BP rocket. Dr. Elsey's Precious Cat Ultra Premium Clumping Cat Litter is the very best I have found for cheap nozzles, Caleb also adds Graphite Powder to the mix and that seems to make a nice combination.

 

Reports and salutes on sugar rockets:

My feelings on this subject may be different than others, I think that is a bad pairing. BP and salutes? Light them at a club shoot, your golden. Sugar rockets with a pinch of F so you can see the end of flight? Cool! Anything larger than a gram of F on a sugar rocket and I wouldn't let you fly it at a club shoot.

 

Why? Sugar rockets are notorious for failing to take fire, the fuel grain is deliquescent, not just hygroscopic. Case in point, I left a single grain outside in a covered area and when I came back a few days later (no rain in that time) the grain had dissolved into a puddle with a lump of fuel in the middle. The fuel MUST be kept dry, very dry! If you have a rocket you made at home, bring it to a club shoot a month later, stick it up and set it in the ready box and then take it out as dusk to shoot it, imagine how much water it is being exposed to?

 

I gave up on sugar rockets a decade ago in favor of BP and even whistle or a hybrid of both because of the hygroscopy issues.

 

Good luck, give it a try and post the video, we all would like to see a successful version of the sugar rocket that is reliable.

Doood! We all know that is Steve LaDuke!

 

I'm planning on using the "dry ingredients" method at first. Does this change any of the info you've given me above?

[gunner1]

That seems like overkill to me.

My standard BP rocket kits make good sugar rockets. Add a tube support and use my NEPT tubes then my header tubes slide right over them. Bam done.

All in one place. Quick and easy.

 

You can mix the flash then load it just fine. Using thicker tubes won't make good flash noticeably louder. rolled paper flash headers work just fine.

I've read a few books and alot of stuff on the internet (take that for what it's worth, right? Lol.) and it all says that a stronger tube will make a louder report given the same amount of flash powder. Can you tell me where you've seen/heard it that this isn't true? I'm not at all doubting you or trying to be confrontational in any way (it's why I hate writing stuff vs. saying stuff to someone face to face - don't want to come across as a jerk) I'd just like to know. I DEFINITELY acknowledge that you're are far better and knowledgeable than I am in this field and pyro in general, I'm just curious.

[gunner1]

That seems like overkill to me.

My standard BP rocket kits make good sugar rockets. Add a tube support and use my NEPT tubes then my header tubes slide right over them. Bam done.

All in one place. Quick and easy.

 

You can mix the flash then load it just fine. Using thicker tubes won't make good flash noticeably louder. rolled paper flash headers work just fine.

So, you're saying that a 1/8" wall is strong enough for core burning sugar rockets that just use the ingredients mixed together and not cooked into R-candy? I thought (then again it was purely a guess) that to get the same strength as the walls on a piece of 3/4" pvc, the paper sidewall would have to be much thicker. Good forums like this one are worth their weight in gold!

[pyrojig]

It does help to a degree. Also depends on the flash powder . If it is slow flash then yes, you want strong tubes , if hot flash , it will pop w/ 1 turn of paper.

I guess that the argument would be complete combustion of the material . It would make a little more bang confined with a thinker tube.

 

As for the rocket tube , the goal is light weight material ; 3/4 PVC is very heavy and sugar fuel is weak(2 things going against you) . I would use the PVC as a tube support for ramming the paper tube with comp.

Edited February 11, 2018 by pyrojig

[dagabu]

I think we need to be aware of confrontation vs correction. We most definitely correct you, Lloyd may even lead the charge, and that is OK, it is not meant to be offensive or an attack, just correction, take it as you will. A question not asked may get you dead! Ask away!

 

Salutes and reports:

Confinement is what you need to make the most use of possible sound pressure. The brisance of the flash will cause a shattering of the casing and will overcome the confinement quickly. Adding more and more confinement will actually reduce the report as the pressure wave becomes absorbed by the materials that confine it. Will a tube within a tube do that? I very much doubt it, I think you will only waste money with the minimal confinement you can achieve with a paper tube.

 

Those with much more time on their hands and much smarter than I, have recorded the sound pressure from salutes using different confinements. I read a report just last night that the difference was 3dB between a solid casing (fiberglass) and just a few wraps of paper. This has not been confirmed but I have no reason to doubt the findings.

 

Bottom line, test it yourself but dont be surprised if you don't find a real difference in dB.

 

There are a few guys here that have made salutes for the gallows at PGI, I think they can better respond from an "ear on the ground" position than I.

 

I've read a few books and alot of stuff on the internet (take that for what it's worth, right? Lol.) and it all says that a stronger tube will make a louder report given the same amount of flash powder. Can you tell me where you've seen/heard it that this isn't true? I'm not at all doubting you or trying to be confrontational in any way (it's why I hate writing stuff vs. saying stuff to someone face to face - don't want to come across as a jerk) I'd just like to know. I DEFINITELY acknowledge that you're are far better and knowledgeable than I am in this field and pyro in general, I'm just curious.

[dagabu]

Sadly, the dry ingredients method will give you poor performance. If you are looking for a slower burn, this may be your Huckleberry but for the most of us, R-Candy is the best use of the chems.

 

Yes, I do believe that you will not have as great a risk of hygroscopy if you have not cooked the fuel.

 

I'm planning on using the "dry ingredients" method at first. Does this change any of the info you've given me above?

[gunner1]

I think we need to be aware of confrontation vs correction. We most definitely correct you, Lloyd may even lead the charge, and that is OK, it is not meant to be offensive or an attack, just correction, take it as you will. A question not asked may get you dead! Ask away!

 

 

 

I wholeheartedly agree! I definitely WANT people to correct me. I just know that sometimes my replies in forums sometimes come off as snarky and I'm certainly not here to step on anyone's toes.

[dagabu]

I found the best way to prevent that is just to admit you may not have the answer before you ask. Just like you did already, "So, you're saying that a 1/8" wall is strong enough for core burning sugar rockets that just use the ingredients mixed together and not cooked into R-candy? I thought (then again it was purely a guess) that to get the same strength as the walls on a piece of 3/4" pvc, the paper sidewall would have to be much thicker. Good forums like this one are worth their weight in gold!"

I wholeheartedly agree! I definitely WANT people to correct me. I just know that sometimes my replies in forums sometimes come off as snarky and I'm certainly not here to step on anyone's toes.

[dangerousamateur]

 

My standard BP rocket kits make good sugar rockets.

My feeling with sugar rockets is that they lack the thrust of BP.

Somehow a standard BP Kit seems to be too short.

How do you people think about that?

 

Also the spindle seems to stick to the candy like glue. I bet this will break the neck of any spindle remover tool very quickly.

 

 

I tried to use sorbitol motors for model rockets. I put them in tupper boxes with desiccant and took them out of the box right at the launch pad.

With fireworks stuff this will be more difficult though.

[dagabu]

I had a rag that was soaked with silicone grease from my gun cleaning kit and I tried that on sticky sugar rocket spindles and it seemed to help quite a bit.

 

Yes, I agree that Sugar Rockets don't have nearly the thrust that conventional black powder does but then again, I really don't think they're intended to be used the same way either.

[Sparx88]

Yep, same here. I messed with sugar rockets in the beginning and they just didn't perform for me. So, once I nailed my first BP rocket, I didn't look back. Not to say that sugar/kno3 sux outright, just that bp motors are more reliable and strong, but at a bit more risk. Though that risk can be minimized by good practices and sound materials and guidance. If you already know what your doing with bp motors and just want to try something different, just don't expect super great things with sugar based motors. If your ok with that and still want to try by all means go for it and don't hesitate to ask and use the hell out of the search feature.