zappeling Posted November 30, 2008 Posted November 30, 2008 First test flight for my last draft PVC engine. The engine is an I400 that his first test yielded excellent results.Enclosed engine picture: http://img395.imageshack.us/img395/1240/image00110an5.th.jpg http://img395.imageshack.us/img395/8738/image00111gg9.th.jpg http://img509.imageshack.us/img509/872/image00113qo0.th.jpg And this is the video test: http://it.youtube.com/watch?v=kgxyIBH085Q
zappeling Posted January 1, 2009 Author Posted January 1, 2009 (edited) The second flight test of the i400 was made to test some structural changes to the first prototype. The main change was the reduction of pressure from 305 PSI to 238. The second amendment was made to retain nozzle and the rear cap retain end that were larger (16mm) Here's video test. http://it.youtube.com/watch?v=y71S51ILDE0&...re=channel_page Edited January 1, 2009 by zappeling
TheSidewinder Posted January 2, 2009 Posted January 2, 2009 Not bad at all! Looks like you have a great launch site, too.
zappeling Posted January 2, 2009 Author Posted January 2, 2009 The launch site is not very good. There are many high-tension wires and is very dangerous. But where I live we must adapt to what is found.
Swede Posted January 3, 2009 Posted January 3, 2009 I really respect your DIY attitude. 99% of rocketeers are content with preloaded engines, and the other 1% that use the reloadables think they are making their own motors. YOU actually are. Congrats!
zappeling Posted January 4, 2009 Author Posted January 4, 2009 I really respect your DIY attitude. 99% of rocketeers are content with preloaded engines, and the other 1% that use the reloadables think they are making their own motors. YOU actually are. Congrats! Thanks! I do not know whether to take your message as a compliment or a rebuke.
TheSidewinder Posted January 5, 2009 Posted January 5, 2009 That was a compliment, zappeling, trust me.
Swede Posted January 5, 2009 Posted January 5, 2009 I always complement, never rebuke, unless someone is going to get hurt. I think it's great when guys take the hard path, and learn something, rather than take the easy path but learn nothing. The only analogy I can think of is in my own much-loved hobby, home machining and metal work. Some guy spends literally 3 weeks making his own tooling that he could have bought for $40, and finds his time was worth 15 cents per hour. Much abuse follows from the "just buy it" crowd. But the toolmaker has the pride in knowing he did it himself!
zappeling Posted January 6, 2009 Author Posted January 6, 2009 I always complement, never rebuke, unless someone is going to get hurt. I think it's great when guys take the hard path, and learn something, rather than take the easy path but learn nothing. The only analogy I can think of is in my own much-loved hobby, home machining and metal work. Some guy spends literally 3 weeks making his own tooling that he could have bought for $40, and finds his time was worth 15 cents per hour. Much abuse follows from the "just buy it" crowd. But the toolmaker has the pride in knowing he did it himself! Thanks ! I totally agree with you. If we make life easy with preloaded engines do not learn anything. I spent so much money to succeed in building a reliable engine (in materials and equipment) and for me this is a matter of pride, knowing that it was all work and time well spent.
NightHawkInLight Posted January 8, 2009 Posted January 8, 2009 (edited) Nicely done. Keep it up, I'll watch for future tests.If you are into serious DIY rocketry you probably already know of Richard Nakka, but here is his website just in case: http://www.nakka-rocketry.net/ An incredible amount of time he has put into logging his work, you could read without sleep for a week. Edited January 8, 2009 by NightHawkInLight
zappeling Posted January 8, 2009 Author Posted January 8, 2009 Nicely done. Keep it up, I'll watch for future tests.If you are into serious DIY rocketry you probably already know of Richard Nakka, but here is his website just in case: http://www.nakka-rocketry.net/ An incredible amount of time he has put into logging his work, you could read without sleep for a week. I know this website. Richard Nakka is a point of reference for me.
zappeling Posted January 12, 2009 Author Posted January 12, 2009 What kind of propellant did you use? The propellant that I used is Rcandy.
psyco_1322 Posted January 12, 2009 Posted January 12, 2009 Does anyone have a formula for those black smoke, sparky motors? They are HP motors.
zappeling Posted January 12, 2009 Author Posted January 12, 2009 Does anyone have a formula for those black smoke, sparky motors? They are HP motors. To get a smoke darker composition rcandy you can use the composition RNX Richard Nakka http://www.nakka-rocketry.net/rnx_int.html. This composition produces a smoke decidedly darker.
firetech Posted January 13, 2009 Posted January 13, 2009 The silver/gold sparks are usually titanium which is ignited when it is released from the nozzle. Check out jamesyawn.com for insight on using Ti.
Mumbles Posted January 13, 2009 Posted January 13, 2009 He's talking about high powered rocketry, not sugar fuels.. I think they're called cloudbusters, but I couldn't find any details. I also have very little experience with HP rocketry. I would guess rubber fueled, and titanium.
ActionTekJackson Posted January 14, 2009 Posted January 14, 2009 Does anyone have a formula for those black smoke, sparky motors? They are HP motors. Shoot, I used to know this... You'll have to let me check when I get home (at work). I think I still have all those comps (aerotech similars) on my PC)
psyco_1322 Posted January 14, 2009 Posted January 14, 2009 (edited) Yes, they are high powered motors. Not sugar based either. Here is a video of one: I think they are CuO/Al based? But no idea of formula or bindings or anthing else. The sparks, I have been told, are ferrotitanium. Pure Ti would be a lot brighter white, these are almost orange like iron. Sad thing about some HP motors are they don't last very long. Some had some really nice effects, such as these thick black smoke tails, highlighted with a pray of gold sparks. Some have blue, green, or red flames, but only for a second or so. HP motors seem to use really inefficient fuels with large burn surfaces and restricted nozzles to gain high thrusts. Quite opposite of what we use. Edited January 14, 2009 by psyco_1322
Mumbles Posted January 15, 2009 Posted January 15, 2009 What would give you the idea that they use CuO/Al?
ActionTekJackson Posted January 15, 2009 Posted January 15, 2009 (edited) Yes, they are high powered motors. Not sugar based either. Here is a video of one: I think they are CuO/Al based? But no idea of formula or bindings or anthing else. The sparks, I have been told, are ferrotitanium. Pure Ti would be a lot brighter white, these are almost orange like iron. Sad thing about some HP motors are they don't last very long. Some had some really nice effects, such as these thick black smoke tails, highlighted with a pray of gold sparks. Some have blue, green, or red flames, but only for a second or so. HP motors seem to use really inefficient fuels with large burn surfaces and restricted nozzles to gain high thrusts. Quite opposite of what we use. You know CuO/Al can be an unconventional thermite right? Gives off a very brown gass. I'm pretty sure those dark smoke rockets use some sort of rubber mixed with asphalt and iron. strictly asphalt was used a long time ago, but is found to perform very poorly under higher tempetures. I can't find that documentation I had on that at the moment. Sorry. I'll keep looking though. Edited January 15, 2009 by ActionTekJackson
psyco_1322 Posted January 15, 2009 Posted January 15, 2009 I read somewhere on a rocket mailing list about CuO/Al fuels. I came in about half way, and me and mailing list dont get along. So I couldn't find the rest of the convo but the guy was asking about the same question but never got an answer out of them.
Recommended Posts